On Human Nature in Early Judaism: Creation, Composition, and Condition (Journal of Ancient Judaism - Supplements) 9783506704863, 9783657704866, 3506704869

Citation preview

On Human Nature in Early Judaism

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

Volume 34

Jeffrey Paul García

On Human Nature in Early Judaism Creation, Composition, and Condition

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. © 2021 Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn, an Imprint of the Brill Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland) www.schoeningh.de Cover design: Anna Braungart, Tübingen Production: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn ISSN 2198-1361 ISBN 978-3-506-70486-3 (hardback) ISBN 978-3-657-70486-6 (e-book)

To my best friend, wife, and go-to editor, Maureen Honey you are the sea Upon which I float And I came here to talk I think you should know That green eyes You’re the one that I wanted to find And anyone who tried to deny you Must be out of their mind (“Green Eyes,” Coldplay)

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Chapter 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature in Early Judaism . . 1 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Rationale and Method of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 The Plan of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 Theoretical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Chapter 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi to Depict Human Nature in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2 Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4 Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.5 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of the Use of Creation Topoi and the Amplification of Human Lowliness  . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.2 Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.3 Testament of Naphtali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.4 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.5 Hodayot  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.6 Excursus: “Mother and her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7 . . . . . . . 104 3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Chapter 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit: Examining Humanity’s Composition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.2 Describing the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

viii

Table of Contents

4.3 Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.4 Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 4.5 Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4.6 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4.7 The Testament of Abraham B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 4.8 Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy and the Composition of Humankind in the Second Temple Period  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Chapter 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism through the Lens of Psychic Strife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.2 Hodayot  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Chapter 6 Mapping the Human Condition: Free Will and the Inclination(s) to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 6.2 Free Will in Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, the Damascus Document (CD), and Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Chapter 7 A Predetermined Condition: Humanity’s Double Duality, Nothingness, and “Fleshly” State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 7.2 The “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22) . . . . . . . 245 7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “Fleshly” Condition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Chapter 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 8.2 Collective Humanity as a Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 8.3 A Composition in Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Table of Contents

8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10

ix

Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition  . . . . . . . 274 A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature in Ancient Judaism . . . 276 The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Obedience and Sin  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 God and Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Further Studies in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Ancient Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Acknowledgements This study, a revised version of my dissertation, was completed by one person but the journey to this point involved many. What follows is but a modicum of gratitude to them. First, my Doktorvater, Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman who was a constant source of encouragement and support during my graduate studies. Before entering graduate school, I was advised by a good friend that it was critical to not only study with a brilliant scholar, but someone who was also a good person and diligently sought for the success of his/her students. Both are true of Professor Schiffman; he is a scholar among scholars and wonderful person. This study has benefitted at every stage from his keen editorial eye and critiques. It is much richer because of him and I am better researcher for it. Without that first phone call to schedule the meeting where he would invite me to apply to NYU’s Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies’ (HJS) PhD program, this accomplishment would have likely been out of reach for a Puerto Rican from East Harlem, New York City. I would also like to thank the members of my committee who took the time to read and comment on this study. Professor Daniel Fleming, who was not only a member of my committee, but, as the director of graduate studies at HJS, was also a continual source of encouragement, especially with his ability to perceive my anxieties whenever we met. His care and concern for his students are second to none. Professor Adam Becker, whose critiques have helped to improve the revision of this study. Professor Jeffrey Rubenstein, for making sure that methodological issues within in this work were fully thought out and expressed in its pages. Professor Alex Jassen who, despite joining the department well into my writing process, was willing to become one of my readers. Additionally, I would like to thank Nyack College, President Michael Scales, Provost David Turk, Executive Vice President David Jennings, and Dean Ron Walborn for allowing me to join the New York City faculty during this process. A special thanks to Dean Walborn, who lessened my faculty load in order to give me time to write. I am thankful for the revisions suggested by Prof. Armin Lange; they have added positively to this work. Thanks, are also in order to the editors of the Journal for Ancient Judaism Supplement Series, Armin Lange, Bernard Levinson, and Vered Noam, for accepting this project into their prestigious series. I would also like to thank Christina Seipelt and Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh for their care and patience with my manuscript. I am grateful to Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Mackey, who saw something in me as an undergraduate that I could not yet see. Professor Steven Notley’s friendship, mentoring, and chance meeting in 2001 was the initial spark that finds

xii

Acknowledgements

materialization with the completion of this project. Without his wisdom and guidance, much of this would have remained a dream—and by that I am including, graduate work, my doctorate, and sitting in the upper deck of Yankee stadium to watch the home team win the 2009 World Series (Game 6). I can never repay him for what he has so kindly and freely given. I am thankful to Sunya Notley for her ever-present smile, encouragement, and prayers. Thank you to my brother and best friend, Jeff. His support and patience were, and are, incredible. “You got this,” were the words he spoke to me—so simple, yet so profound. To my tio Arnold, I am grateful for all of our talks that involved almost every conceivable topic, especially those about the Bible. He has been an ever-constant guide during times that seemed so difficult. To my father, whose sense of humor and kindness reverberate in who I am—may his memory be for a blessing. Gracias a mi queridos abuelos, Santos Arroyo and Salustiana “Caridad” Arroyo, who came from the sugar cane fields and campos of Puerto Rico in the 40’s and were continuously supportive of my education with the hopes that I and the rest of their grandchildren would receive opportunities to which they never had access. For this I am indebted and eternally grateful— may their memories be for a blessing. A note of eternal gratitude to my mother, who was a single mom with two small children in perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in New York City and fought to make sure that my sister and I were given access to a world of diverse cultural experiences and education that were otherwise foreign and strange to most in Spanish Harlem; I am utterly indebted to her. While others fell to the lure of the streets, she made sure that such temptations paled in comparison to our Buddy System. If there is a single reason why I did not become a negative statistic (or as my friend, Ilan, once said, “in jail or dead”), it was, and is, her—a woman among women. It would be her struggle to make sure that the streets were never an option for neither me nor my sister. Words cannot express how thankful I am to her; I am because she is. To my sister, one of my closest friends, she is my favorite partner in crime and a constant source of encouragement in times when her sarcastic and straight-shooting words were exactly what I needed. I am forever thankful to her. Our owls represent something precious and forever secure. To my daughters, Ariana, Deirdre and Niamh (pronounced Neev), who have taught me more about being a father than I could ever hope to return: Ari who is the best amalgamation of cynicism, wit, and sarcasm; Didi, consistently pushing to make me think out of box about every subject from the Bible to horror movies; Niamhy (pron. neevie), whose love, sweetness, and compassion are a curing balm in a world of wounds. I am thankful to them for always requiring me to be a better person. To Abigail, my niece, and Cora, my granddaughter,

Acknowledgements

xiii

who were born during this process, they are the brightest stars in a world that is often all too dark. Finally, last but surely not least, my wife, Maureen, whose unending patience, comfort, and compassion made me believe that this was even possible (as she constantly reminded me). While teaching and tending to her own graduate studies, she made sure that I had the free time to write and was, and will always be, my editor of choice. The dedication of this work to her is but the smallest of deserving acknowledgements. I could not have hoped for a better person, woman, and partner with which to experience life. If there was ever a day that is forever cherished, it is that day at Belvedere Castle in Central Park by Turtle Pond where I asked her to marry me, my ‫! ֵא ֶשׁת ַחיִ ל‬

Abbreviations AB ABD AGJU AnBib AJEC ANEM ANETS APOT ATDan BASOR BCAW BDAG

BETL BEL BIB BibOr BKAT BJS BLS BM BRLJ BSIH BThS BZAW CBET CBQ CBQMS CCP CJEL CQS CRINT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Ancient Near East Monographs/Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913.
 Acta Theologica Danica Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World Bauer, Walter, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Encyclopedia Library Biblica Biblica et Orientalia Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Brown Judaic Studies Bible and Literature Series Biblioteca Midrásica Brill Reference Library of Judaism Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History Biblisch-Theologische Studien Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Monograph Series Cambridge Companion to Philosophy Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

xvi CSCO

Abbreviations

Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B. Chabot et al. Paris, 1903-
. DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DCLY Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1995. DJD( J) Discoveries of the Judeaen Desert (of Jordan) DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DSSSE Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. DSSSMM Burrows, Millar, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. 2 vols. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951. EB Études bibliques EDSS Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ekstasis Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middles Ages EJL Early Judaism and Its Literature ER The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade. 16 vols. New York, 1987. ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FJTC Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GAP Guides tot he Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha HALOT Koehler, Ludwig, Walter, Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994-1999. Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAJSup Journal fort he Study of Ancient Judaism Supplement Series JAOS Journal fort he American Oriental Society Jastrow Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2d ed. New York, 1903
. JCP Jewish and Christian Perspective Series JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

Abbreviations JR JSPSup JSJ JSJSup JSOTSup JSS LCL LHBOTS LLDDSSL LSJ

xvii

Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Supplement Series Journal for the Study oft he Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Loeb Classical Library The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Leon Levy Digital Dead Sea Scroll Library Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996. LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies MG Materia Giudaica MK Magyar Könyvszemle NICOT New International Commentary of the Old Testament NT Novum Testamentum NTL The New Testament Library NTS New Testament Studies OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983. PA Philosophia Antiqua PACS Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series PTS Patristische Texte und Studien PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Reitz. 1985PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
 QD Quaestiones Disputatae RCT Revista catalana de teología
 RHR Revue de l’Histoire des Religions RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses RTL Revue théologique de Louvain SA Scriptores Aetiopici SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLPS Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Text and Translations SBP Studia Post-Biblica SCS Septuagint Commentary Series

xviii SJLA Schürer

Abbreviations

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes, Matthew Black, Fergus Millar. 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1979. ScrHeir Scripta Hierosolymitana Semeia Semeia SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SHR Studies in the History of Religions (supplements to Numen) SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SQC Trever, J. C. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I (= Three Scrolls from Qumran). Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeology and the Shrine of the Book, 1972.
 SPA Studies in Philo of Alexandria SPNP Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature STDJ Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica SWR Studies in Women and Religion TAP Themen der antiken Philosophie Tarbiz Tarbiz TBDAG The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974TEG Traditio Exegetica Graeca TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study THE Theologische Existenz heute ThWQ Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997. TS Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge University Library TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung VCSup Vigiliae Christianae Supplements TTCJC T and T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series VGTB Van Gorcum Theologische Bibliotheek VT Vetus Testamentum

Abbreviations VTG VTSup WGRW WLAW WMANT WUNT ZNW ZFRG

Vetus Testamentum Graecum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Writings from the Greco-Roman World Wisdom Literature from the Ancient World Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
 Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte

xix

Sigla Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira In the Hebrew Text

‫ ׄא‬damaged probable letter ‫ א‬ ֯ damaged possible letter ◦◦◦ traces of letters that cannot be read [‫ ]א‬reconstructed letter [ ] lacunae { } letter(s) erased by the scribe … text not cited vacat writing space; usually intentional ‫ עם עם‬supralinear insertion

In the English Translation letters in italics individual letters in Hebrew […] lacunae of any length [   ] translation of reconstruction

Chapter 1

Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature in Early Judaism 1.1

Introduction

Human1 nature, more specifically, the complex of characteristics that are understood to be universally innate, and/or God-given, to humanity, is of central interest to early Jewish authors. This interest which is represented across several languages and genres within ancient Judaism’s extensive intellectual and literary diversity, is not exclusively particularistic, although the immediate concern was often communal-specific. That is to say, while authors often described human nature with common Jewish concepts, the portrayal was not limited to the Jewish world but was an attempt to grasp a general, or universal, human nature. Texts from the Second Temple period are saturated with these ideas. Central to much of them are questions about humanity’s existence in relation to God and the ramifications of that relationship. As such, the focus of this work is narrowed to three categories that encapsulate some of the most prevalent themes about human nature in ancient Judaism, namely, creation, composition, and condition, which also form the three major sections of this work. The three themes seek to address critical questions, whose answers effectively portray how ancient authors conceive of human nature These questions are as follows: 1) in what manner does the language of humanity’s creation in Genesis in 1 and 2 influence how human nature is understood in this period; 2) how do the texts from this period understand humanity’s constituent parts, specifically, body, soul, and/or spirit; 3) in what manner does humanity’s relationship to God affect its innate condition, especially in regard to free will, predestination, obedience, and transgression? Therefore, this study is broadly set, examining a large corpora of texts that date to the Greco-Roman period (4th c. BCE-1st c. CE) with a critical methodology that is described below (1.3). Due to the number of critical studies, however, that touch on particular aspects of our 1  While “human” and “humanity” are thoroughly modern concepts (ca. 14th century), it is utilized in this study to describe living creatures that are distinct from animal life, considered God’s creations, and are in some sort of relationship with God, whether it be benevolent or hostile. Essentially, it is intended to describe a collective group that share universal innate and/or God-given qualities, especially those that evoke their own unique connection to God.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_002

2

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

examination—despite their being no comprehensive study on human nature in ancient Judaism—this chapter begins with the state of research and reviews of the most germane of the aforementioned studies. 1.2

State of Research

The lion’s share of the studies regarding human nature in antiquity is limited to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.2 This has been complemented, more recently, in New Testament studies by examinations that have critically (and necessarily) engaged its early Jewish background.3 Unfortunately, many of them are tasked with analyzing the Apostle Paul’s theological anthropology, and the Jewish context is often ancillary.4 Notably, however, rather than 2  See e.g., Walther Zimmerli, Das Menschenbild des Alten Testaments, TEH 14 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1949); Ernst Würthwein, Geschichte und Verantwortung: Vom Menschenbild des Alten Testaments; Wort und Exisetnz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970); Phyllis Bird, “Theological Anthropology in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible, ed. Leo G. Perdue (Londres: Blackwell, 2001), 258-75; Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65, ed. Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, Peter Reide; Geburtstag, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008); Hubert Irsigler, “Zur Interdependenz von Gottes und Menschenbildern in Kontext alttestamentlicher Anthropologien,” in “Denk an deinen Scöpfer”: Studien zum Verständnis von Gott, Mensch, und Volk im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2015), 195-230; W. D. Davies, “Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (London: SCM, 1958) 157-82; Udo Schnelle, Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus, Paulus, Johannes, BThS 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991); Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); Christian Frevel, ed. Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Altem Testament, QD 237 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Verlag Herder, 2010). 3  There were some studies in the early days of Qumran research that recognized the importance of understanding the image of humanity in Hodayot and, in general, the sectarian scrolls for examining Paul’s own view: W. D. Davies, “Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, 157-82; David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, ScrHier 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 215-66; repr. in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1988), 23-74; Egon Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968). 4  See Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in de paulinischen Briefen, FRLANT 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960); Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, AGJU 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1971); Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, SNTSMS 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Udo Schnelle, “Der erste Thessalonicherbrief und die Entstehung der paulinischen Anthropologie,” NT 32 (1986):

1.2 State of Research

3

c­ircumventing ancient Jewish texts that were authored prior to the New Testament, interest in the formative days of Judaism has gained a small, but sure, foothold in Pauline scholarship and is the primary impetus for the ideas that founded the so-called “New Perspective on Paul.” Still, there remains a dearth of studies that treat human nature more broadly in ancient Judaism by focusing on the corpus of Second Temple texts. There is, however, a good deal of research that bears weight on our analysis of collective human nature. Since these studies witness a dramatic shift with the full release of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the public in 1991, the following survey appears in two sections: 1) Research from the Early 20th century—1990, and 2) Research from 1991. 1.2.1 Research from the Early 20th century—1990 Frank C. Porter’s 1901 article, “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,”5 is the earliest study of an aspect of human nature. In it he examines the rabbinic concept of the “good” and “evil” inclination as originating in 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 2 Enoch, and Ben Sira. The latter, Ben Sira (2nd c. BCE), however, is not a contemporary of the others which date to after the destruction of the 207-24; Joseph Onsei-Bonsu, “Anthropological Dualism in the New Testament,” SJT 40 (1987): 571-90; Hans Dieter Benz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ό εσω άνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46/1 (2000): 315-41; David M. Hay, “Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae and a Possible Connection with Corinth,” in Philo und das Neue Testament: wechseleitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 1.-4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Neibuhr, WUNT 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 127-42; George H. Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu, Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscaba/Budapest, CBET 54 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010); Matthias Konradt and Esther Schläpfer, eds., Anthropologie und Ethik in Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen—Internationales Symposium in Verbindung mit dem Projeckt Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (CJHNT) 17.-20. Mai 2012, Heidelberg, WUNT 322 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Friedrich Avemarie “Image of God and Image of Christ: Developments in Pauline and Ancient Jewish Anthropology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014); repr. from Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Jörg Frey and Angela Standhartinger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Nicholas Meyer, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology, NTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2016); Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Jakobus und Paulus über das Innere des Menschen unde den Ursprung seiner ethischen Entscheidungen,” ΝΤS 62/1 (2016): 1-30. 5  In Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University, Yale Bicentennial Publications (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901), 136-58.

4

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

Temple in 70 CE. Porter argues that the lack of attention he gives to texts that are contemporaneous with Ben Sira is due the terminological absence of “inclination” (‫)יצר‬, while it appears far more frequently in the aforementioned texts. The study’s primary purpose is to critique the argument that the dualistic foundation of the two inclinations is Greek in origin—an idea that he states can be “confidently denied.”6 His conclusions that the rabbinic “inclination” is simply humanity’s evil tendency, which one must try and subdue (though he notes a partial personification), and that Ben Sira bears evidence of this rabbinic conception, have now been examined in light of new discoveries, and are outdated. Of course, Porter’s study was limited due to the lack of access to the scrolls which at the time of publication were more than four decades from being discovered, sans the two medieval copies of the Damascus Document discovered in Cairo, Egypt in the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Porter’s study is the first critical examination of a component of human nature. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and initial publication of the cave 1 scrolls in 1954 by Eliezer Sukenik7 (posthumously)—especially, the Hodayot (1QH) and Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS)—brought fresh scrutiny to ideas of human nature in ancient Judaism. Yet, in the early days of scrolls’ research, the Hodayot attracted the majority of attention. In 1956, just two years after the editio princeps, J. P. Hyatt published an article entitled “The View of Man in the Qumran Hodayot,” and concluded that the hymns depict a pessimism toward humanity that lacks parallel in the Hebrew Bible.8 Such striking human lowliness was noted by other scholars in the early days of Qumran research. In the same year, Jacob Licht in his The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judah drew a connection between the baseness of humanity depicted in the Hodayot with the “deep pessimism” (‫ )הפסימיות העמוקה‬one finds in the Eden narrative of Gen 2, the words of the prophets, and the self-reflective lowliness of the authors’ in the Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Yet, he notes that the common refrain “creature of clay” exacerbates that pessimism, heaping shame upon shame on the head the human beings, by highlighting its earthly origin. He notes further that a “deep disgust” emanates from the speaker of the hymn with the use of terms like “impurity” (‫ )נדה‬and “shame” (‫)ערוה‬.9 Like Hyatt, 6  Porter’s “Yeçer Hara,” 136. 7  Eliezer L. Sukenik, Otzar ha-megillot ha-genuzot shevayade ha-universitah ha-ivrit, prepared by Nahman Avigad for press (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1954); Eng. trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955), 48-58. 8  N TS (1956): 283. Hyatt is not of the opinion that the “view of man” in the Hodayot is an “anthropology” or a “doctrine of man” since the hymns are not a theological work per se. 9  Jacob Licht, Megillot ha-hodayot: mi-megillot midbar yehudah (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1956), 33-34 (Heb.); idem, “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll,” IEJ 6 (1956): 10-11.

1.2 State of Research

5

Licht argued that while some of the pessimism towards humanity is connected to biblical imagery, there is a significant debasing of it in the Hodayot. The remarkable lowliness of humanity that permeates the nearly thirty columns of the Hodayot is also discussed by Sven Holm-Neilsen, Menachem Mansoor, and Mathias Delcor in their respective studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hodayot, although their works reframe, to some degree, what Licht had already argued.10 Additionally, Licht briefly notes in his 1965 study, “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD,”11 that the distinct emphasis on predestination in the Treatise envisions humanity divided into two opposing factions, but stops short of a full examination of its depiction in that portion of Serekh ha-Yaḥad. Naturally related to this conversation on human nature is the employment of the terms “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in these cave 1 scrolls. In 1958 David Flusser published “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.”12 In it he examines the flesh/spirit dualism attested in the Hodayot and Serekh ha-Yaḥad suggesting that it is similar to what appears in the Pauline corpus. In particular, it is the “spirit” that purifies one from the misdeeds of the flesh and questions whether “flesh” is metaphorically the sinful condition that humanity overcomes. In 1965, Flusser also published a seminal study on Paul, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” which appeared in the same volume as Licht’s aforementioned examination of the Treatise.13 Many of the findings from Flusser’s earlier study are revised and ­expanded. He analyzes several theologoumena in the New Testament that parallel the earliest scrolls discovered, especially, the texts that are thought have originated with the self-identified yaḥad. The purpose is not to interpret the 10  For humanity specifically, Svend Holm-Nielsen, “The Concept of Man,” in Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, ATDan 2 (Arhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 274-7; Menahem Mansoor, “View of Man and Sin,” The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 59-62; Mathias Delcor, “L’anthropologie,” in Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 47-52. See also, Jean Carmignac, “Homme,” in Les textes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961-1963), 137-8. This is not to suggest that any of these authors knew or were dependent on Licht’s analysis but simply to state that their examinations do not progress the conversation beyond his analysis. 11  In Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, ScrHier 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 88-100. 12  “Ha-dualizim ‘basar-ruach’ be-megillot midbar uve-‘berit ha-hadashah,” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 158-165 (Heb.); repr. in Yahdut bayit sheni: qumran ve-apokaliptika, ed. Serge Ruzer (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2002), 244-51 (Heb.); trans. in Judaism and the Second Temple Period, vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Prespective, 2007), 283-92. 13  In Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 215-66; repr. in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.

6

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

New Testament in light of them, nor to use them solely as a background to Pauline thought, but rather to examine a particular type of Jewish thought that Paul would inherit. First, he notes the variation of the use of “spirit” between the apostle and the scrolls. He deals particularly with the gift of a holy spirit and the “spirit of knowledge,” which is apparently limited to God’s elect community. In relation to the spirit/flesh duality, Flusser scrutinizes the differences between spirit/flesh in the scrolls and that of Greek thought, arguing that the poor view of the body in the latter is related to its general view of the world, whereas in the former the material world is “morally neutral.” Due to the control of Belial, however, the world is polluted as is each person. Flusser argues further that the flesh/spirit duality allowed for humanity’s nature to be “ennobled” by the divine gift of spirit. His study predates the prevalent interest in drawing connections between the “spirit/flesh” dichotomy and its functioning in Pauline literature. The study also points to the Jewish origins of theological motifs that permeate the New Testament. As noted below, since 1991 scholars have noted the “spirit/flesh” dichotomy in other texts of the yaḥad. The examination of “spirit,” as part of humanity’s composition, also appears in Arthur Anderson’s 1962 study, “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in 1QS, 1QH, and 1QM [i.e., the War Scroll].” He suggests that the use of “spirit” falls under several general headings. One such use is that of the “spirit of man” either as a “constituent part” of the person, the “self,” or representative of the various human moods and characteristics.14 Anderson notes that the human spirit is a creation of God, and not eternal, although he does not discuss the lack of eternality. His survey, while dealing with the various negatively portrayed human spirit(s) does not deal with the varied use of “spirit” to depict God’s spirit or “the spirit of his holiness,” which at least in the Hodayot expresses the yaḥad’s hope of insight into the statutes of God. A notable exception to the dearth of general studies dealing with humanity in extra biblical texts was Jacob Jervell’s Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in de paulinischen Briefen, which was published in 1960.15 In attempting to describe the use of the Gen 1:26 in Paul’s epistles, however, he limits his background work to Philo of Alexandria and Gnostic texts. These texts which are sometimes separated by 300 years, prove to be an all too limited sample to properly examine the use of Gen 1:26 in early Judaism. While the Genesis passage is undoubtedly critical to ancient writers’ description of humanity, Philo of Alexandria is but one of a tapestry of texts that bear witness to

14  J SS 7/2 (1962): 293-303. 15  (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960).

1.2 State of Research

7

how, in particular, the “image of God” is employed. As a result, many of Jervell’s findings have become outdated and must be reassessed. Jean Hadot’s Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique)16 appeared in 1970. His work, as the title suggests, is an examination of the “evil inclination” and free will in Ben Sira. He plots this examination in a non-traditional manner, beginning with the texts that are chronologically later than Ben Sira, rather than those that are earlier or contemporaneous. Hadot acknowledges this and argues that since the purpose of the study is to deal with the “evil inclination” in Ben Sira, it is important to first analyze the more fully developed concept in rabbinic literature, moving backwards chronologically—analyzing 4 Ezra, the Pauline corpus, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—and thus closer to Ben Sira.17 Hadot notes that the “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as an internal human disposition is already present in Ben Sira’s translation with the use of “reasoning” (ἐνθύμημα), and suggests that the more prevalent sense is that of the “intellect,” which originates in the Bible and is the core conception of pre-Christian and Hellenistic Judaism. He also stresses the “voluntary” aspect of “inclination” (‫)יצר‬, in light of a similar use in the scrolls, and of “deliberation” (διαβούλιον)—Ben Sira’s Greek translation of “inclination” in 15:14—in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. As shown in this study, however, the use of the ‫ יצר‬in the Qumran scrolls is decidedly different than that of Ben Sira. In regard to the “evil inclination,” while Hadot admits that the occurrence of “inclination” is far from the teaching of the rabbis, he suggests that Ben Sira attests to the ingredients for that development. It is, however, not Ben Sira that attests the raw material but rather it is the diversified use of “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as preserved in the scrolls that bears witness to these ingredients. Gerhard Maier’s 1971 study Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus18 deals with the portrayal of various types of free will that are attested between Ben Sira and Paul. In his examination, Maier curiously associates certain texts with the specific Jewish philosophies—as outlined by Josephus—namely, the Psalms of Solomon with the Pharisaic outlook and the yaḥad texts with the Essenes. While he notes that not a single example of Sadducean literature exists, he suggests that some of the underlying thought in Ben Sira—especially with attestation of the “sons of Zadok”—represents priestly thinking and thus, to some extent, Sadducean thought. In light of that Maier finds that there are portions of Ben Sira that 16  (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970). 17  Penchant mauvais, 19. 18  W UNT I 12 (Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 1971).

8

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

follow Josephus’ descriptions of the Sadducean view of free will and retribution. The Essenes, on the other hand, who according to Maier, are now known from the Qumran material—an debated identification that requires nuance— emphasize predestination and that this may be the reason the Sadducean faction, who shared a priestly connection with them, affirmation of free will. As noted, the Pharisaic position is thought to be reflected in the Psalms of Solomon where, like Josephus’ description of their philosophy, fate and free will play a role in human affairs. Maier’s overall argument is to show that the issue of free will was an important theme in Jewish theological discourse, especially in relation to obedience to the Torah and God’s sovereign control over human history.19 Unfortunately, Maier’s desire to fit the depiction of free will into Josephus’ outlined philosophies causes certain analytical blind spots. For example, forcing Josephus’ depiction of the Sadducees into parts of Ben Sira and the Essenes into the Qumran texts ignores some of the complexities of identifying the communities responsible for these texts, as well as the possible depiction of free will in other yaḥad texts, like the Damascus Document (CD). The first full length study dealing with humanity in the texts of the yaḥad is Hermann Lichtenberger’s 1980 study, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde. As the title suggests, Lichtenberger’s examination was limited to those texts that were thought to originate within the Qumran [i.e., yaḥad] community, more specifically, 1QS, and 1QSa+b, 1QHa, 1QM, 1QpHab, and 4QpPs 37 (4Q171, i.e., 4QPsa), noting, however, that the wider body of scrolls texts must be employed for clarification despite having originated outside of the yaḥad.20 His analysis isolates portions of texts from their larger context, which VanderKam critiques as both obvious at some points but questionable in others.21 Among Lichtenberger’s more critical points was that basing the sect’s anthropology on the Treatise is mistaken. His most important contribution largely lies in his analysis of the extent to which the lowliness of humankind is depicted in relation to God’s righteousness (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien22 [i.e., lowliness doxologies]), as well as humanity’s utter sinfulness (Elendsbetrachtungen [i.e., meditations on misery]). Within this Niedrigkeitsdoxologien, humankind 19  Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 116-48, 343-50. 20  Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde, SUNT 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980), 45. 21  James VanderKam, review of Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde, CBQ 43/3 (1981): 447-9. 22  This was suggested first in a study by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966).

1.2 State of Research

9

is only capable of sinning and the autonomous person with free will is said to not exist in Qumran texts.23 In limiting his study to the yaḥad, Lichtenberger provides an important analysis and basis for conversation with contemporaneous texts outside of the yaḥad-specific corpus. More recently, Lichtenberger echoes a similar sentiment in regard to Qumran anthropology.24 In 1984 George H. Cohen-Stuart’s The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: An Inquiry into the Originof the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara’ 25 was published. The work is divided into two major themes. The first deals with “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬in sources dating from the 2nd c. BCE but also with rabbinic sayings from the Tannaitic (1st-2nd c. CE) and Amoraic (3rd-6th c. CE) periods. The second deals with various conceptions of sin that occur outside of the use of ‫יצר‬. Both themes are dealt with together until the concluding chapter. Cohen-Stuart’s analysis is, for lack of a better expression, chronologically liberal in that the study is not limited to the Second Temple period but incorporates evidence from later texts including the Targumim and Vulgate. He concludes with three major overarching representations of humanity’s struggle between “good” and “evil.” The first, which he notes is present in Philo and Ben Sira—is especially pertinent to this study—where there is no “power of evil … and the struggle is fought within man.” Uniquely, according to him, these texts depict humanity as having the ability to withstand evil. Second, the writings of the Apostle Paul, 4 Ezra, and that of the rabbis all depict a struggle within the person, and that the human being cannot overcome the “evil inclination” naturally. Third, in the texts of the yaḥad the person is said to have the ability to be obedient to God although humanity’s struggle is largely a cosmic one.26 John R. Levison’s Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch27 was published in 1988. In Levison’s study, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not play a major role in his examination and may reflect the situation of Jewish studies in the 1980’s—that is access to the Dead Sea Scrolls in toto was limited to a small number of scholars. Furthermore, whereas studies are generally structured topically, Levison’s work treats each text individually, beginning with Sirach (Ben Sira) and working chronologically, it seems, ending with 2 Baruch. He argues that many of the studies on the figure of Adam in early Judaism are largely 23  Studien zum Menschenbild, 232-5. 24  Hermann Lichtenberger, “‘Dem Tode verfallen war ich wegen meiner Sünden’ (11QPsa XIX, 1-18),” in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Egyptian Literature, ed. Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittmann, DCLS 18 (Berlin: Boston; Walter de Gruyter, 2015), 179-96. 25  (Kampen: J. H. Kok 1984). 26   Cohen-Stuart, The Struggle, 213. 27  (SJPSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988).

10

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

inadequate and the volume is an implicit critique of the use of Pauline categories to interpret ancient Jewish texts, as well as the unnecessary tendency to constrict the discussion of Adam to the so-called “Adam-cycle,” that is, the tendency by scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to narrow Adamic lore to an underlying Adamic literature. While Levison’s work sheds insight into the portrait of Adam in early Judaism, it differs from a study on human nature in three critical ways: 1) “Adam” is not always a metaphor for collective humanity and serves a purpose other than depicting a particular aspect of human existence (e.g., Jubilees), 2) an allusion to Gen 1:26-27 is not uniformly an allusion to the creation of Adam, and 3) the author does not put enough stock in the use of Gen 1:26-27—the “image of God”—and Gen 2:7—created “from the earth”—to describe inherent characteristics of collective humanity. Arthur Sekki’s The Meaning of Ruaḥ’ at Qumran was published in 1989. Chapter 2 of his study deals with the employment of “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as humanity’s spirit. Sekki’s textual sample is somewhat broader than Anderson’s earlier study; he incorporates additional texts that likely originate at Qumran (e.g., 4QDa), although the Hodayot rightly receives the most attention. Many of his conclusions are not unlike Anderson’s (see above) in that “spirit” follows biblical categories albeit with a decidedly negative emphasis. Sekki differs from Anderson, however, when he rightly notes that the positively described “spirit” of the Qumran community is often referring to God’s spirit. Unfortunately, Sekki gives no clear indication whether “spirit” means a “disembodied specter” or is part of the human’s personality that survives death28—a conversation that is critical to the Qumran texts. 1.2.2 Research from 1991 After the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991 to the academic community and the general public, there is a noticeable growth in the studies examining ancient Jewish views of human nature. With few exceptions, the majority of these deal with newly published scroll texts, although the Hodayot and the Treatise remain of primary interest. Notably, Ben Sira is still afforded a good deal of scrutiny, while other Second Temple texts, for example 1 Enoch begin to have a proper place in larger discussion on human nature. What follows is a survey of research from 1991. In 1991, George W. E. Nickelsburg’s study, “The Qumranic Transformation of a Cosmological and Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” argued that the Hodayot, in particular 4:29-40 (col. 12 in DJD XL), anthropologize cosmological traditions that are preserved in 1 En 1-5. The reworking of these Enochic 28  S BLDS 110 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 95.

1.2 State of Research

11

traditions by the hymnist has made them “part of a description of his own bodily and emotional reaction to the presence of the God who confronted (and confronts) him—sinful flesh and clay—as the holy righteous judge.”29 The cosmic reaction to divine judgment that is present in 1 Enoch functions as an antecedent to the sectarian hymns. In part, Nickelsburg’s study is key because it is evidence of the “humanization” of parallel, non-anthropological, traditions and indicates the importance of comparing the Hodayot with other texts that did not originate at Qumran. In a series of articles, Carol Newsom explores the construction of “self” at Qumran, especially within the Hodayot. In 1992, “Case of the Blinking ‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH,” she suggests that in the sectarian hymns the “self” represents the intersection of powerful and abject subjective knowledge.30 In that same year, in “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge as Qumran,” she notes that representations of the “self” reflect the fundamental tensions present within the culture of the yaḥad.31 Finally, in 2001, in the “Apocalyptic Subjects: Social Construction of the Self in the Qumran Hodayot,” she argues that dueling images (e.g., terror and trust) form an inward divided subjectivity, casting it on the other, and constructing a “self” that is a convergence between “human nothingness and divine intentionality.”32 These studies are crucial because of her use of psychological studies on the “self” and the application of their findings to understanding ancient texts like the Hodayot. These studies form a foundation for Newsom’s 2004 study The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran.33 This study examines, primarily, the Hodayot and the Treatise as important examples of internal communal discourse. Attempting to weave a path through competing constructions of identity in the Second Temple period, Newsom draws 29  In The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:657; repr. from “The Qumranic Radicalizing and Anthropologizing of an Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65 Geburstag, ed. Dwight D. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer and Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1991), 423-35. 30  “Case of the Blinking ‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH,” in Discursive Formations, Ascetic Piety and the Interpretation of Early Christian Literature, Semeia 57 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 13-23. 31  “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge as Qumran,” in Ideological Criticism of Biblical Texts, ed. David Jobling and Tina Pippin, Semeia 59 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 139-53. 32  J SP 12/1 (2001): 3-35. 33  S TDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

12

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

attention to the function of the Treatise as a critical source of “knowledge of self” within the Qumran community. The Treatise, as she notes, reflects the self as the very embodiment of “cosmic processes of the plan of God.”34 Its incorporation into the Serekh ha-Yaḥad indicates its importance to the Qumranites. So, also, the Hodayot forge a self-understanding based on the authoritative self who speaks in the hymns. Their language serves as a “teaching example” of the desired characteristics that the community should emulate. Both texts form a structure of “self” that is intended to both estrange and align the speaker with community. Newsom’s work is particularly critical because of the manner in which the self-reflective hymnist(s) of the Hodayot assists in shaping the already diverse conceptions of humanity in ancient Judaism. Newsom’s work continued to examine the construction of identity in “Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others’ through Non-Polemical Discourse” (2008). She argues for the importance of examining non-polemic discourse in the Hodayot and its function in developing group affinity and estrangement.35 More recently, in 2012 Newsom, as she has done previously, incorporates the social sciences, this time utilizing cognitive studies on indigenous psychologies to examine the God-given “spirit” which is said to override the hymnist’s “subjective autonomy.” She concludes partly that the hymns attempt to create a normative type of psychology that is founded upon this “spirit.”36 Newsom’s work offers important insights for the present study, in particular, how human nature outside of the yaḥad is understood. In 1998—six years after Newsom’s first article—Jörg Frey published a study entitled “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdisch Weisheitstradition.”37 In it Frey argues that certain wisdom texts from Qumran indicate a dualization that represents a background and alternative for deriving the Pauline conversation regarding “sinful flesh” and its antithesis, the “spirit.” Apart from his examination of sectarian texts, especially 1QM, 1QS, and 1QHa, Frey analyzes Musar le-Mevin for evidence of 34  Self as Symbolic Space, 350-51. 35  In Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović, STDJ 70 (Leiden, New York: Brill, 2008), 13-22. 36  “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday, ed. by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 339-54. This and other studies have now been incorporated into a new collection of Newsom’s essays, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics: Approaches to Text, Tradition and Social Construction in Biblical and Second Temple Literature, FAT 130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). 37  Z NW 90 (1999): 45-77.

1.2 State of Research

13

this “flesh/spirit” dichotomy. While he notes that there is no clear terminological antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit” in Musar texts, he suggests that the appearance of “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and “spiritual people” (‫ )עם רוח‬in 4QMusar le-Mevinc (4Q417) is the earliest parallel to the “flesh/spirit” dualism that one then finds in Pauline literature.38 Any actual contrast between the “spirit” and “flesh” is only conceptually, and not terminologically, present in 4Q417. Regarding the Qumran texts, Frey does not see the same antithesis with the use “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in the Hodayot or in Serekh ha-Yaḥad, as its use portrays the human weakness to sin and is more reflective of biblical usage (apart from a handful of examples). The same conclusions appear generally in his 2002 study, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.”39 Just two years prior, Frey returned to the discussion of “flesh” in his study, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.”40 He examines Qumran communal texts for parallels to the negative use of “flesh” by the Apostle. He argues additionally that the occurrence of negatively portrayed “flesh” in Musar texts moves beyond the biblical examples, are connected with human frailty, but not with disobedience or sin. While Frey’s argument that the Musar texts are a “pre-Essene sapiential tradition” is worthy of further examination, it is clear that the 4Q417 fragment highlighted by him is key to understanding not only Pauline texts but the conception of humanity’s “fleshly” condition and the growing antithesis between “flesh” and God’s bestowing of a (his) spirit in the Second Temple period. Crispin Fletcher-Louis’ 2002 work, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthro­ pology in Dead Sea Scrolls, is worth noting at this point. His work focusses on a particular conception of humanity that he argues is unique to the scrolls. This examination is founded on two interlocking points, “(1) the theology of ancient Judaism took for granted the belief that in its original, true, redeemed state humanity is divine (and/ or angelic), and that (2) this belief pattern was conceptually and experientially inextricable from temple worship in which ordinary space and time and, therefore, human ontology are transcended because the true temple is a model of the universe which offers its entrants a transfer from 38  Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 65-67. 39  in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven, Paris; Sterling, VA: Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404. 40  In Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

14

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

earth to heaven, from humanity to divinity and from mortality to immortality.”41 Fletcher-Louis argues that this type of theological anthropology was at the very heart of the Qumran community. This results from Fletcher-Louis’ 1) particular anthropological interpretation of liturgical texts, and 2) the assumption that liturgical texts were of central importance to community. This view is then imposed on the anthropology of the Essenes in light of their asceticism and celibacy as described in Classical sources.42 There are numerous assumptions regarding the Qumran community that make some of Louis-Fletcher’s conclusions tendentious. While it is clear in certain texts that members of the yaḥad were thought to have an ability to commune with angelic beings and that disenfranchisement from the temple system evoked a particular eschatological hope, it is far less certain that the community members viewed their innate nature as divine or angelic. Furthermore, the argument that this anthropology was central to the community does not seem to agree with the preponderance of evidence. A number of important works that touch on the present study deal specifically with Ben Sira. The sage’s focus on creation, free will, and election warrant a close analysis. For over a decade, Otto Kaiser has taken up part of this task. In 2003, his study, “Göttliche Weisheit und menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira,”43 deals with Ben Sira’s so-called apologetic “bipolarity” (Zweipoligkeit) between divine and human agency. Kaiser spends a great deal of time examining the possible philosophical backgrounds to Ben Sira’s thought. The most pertinent point for the present study is that within the tension between God’s revelation of universal wisdom through Torah and envisioning the world in distinct polarities, humanity has the ability to be obedient to God’s laws, since God does not demand anything that humanity is not capable of as a creation. According to Kaiser, however, this is coupled with the implication that the person, in particular, the person that is part of Ben Sira’s community, has limited knowledge of God’s immense power.44 In 2010, Kaiser’s collection of articles, Gott, Mensch und Geschichte: Studien zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in der klassischen, biblischen und nachbiblischen Literatur, includes two studies that deal with the 41  (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), xii. 42   Louis-Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam, 476-80. 43  In Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung, ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller, BZAW 331 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 291-306. This same study appears again in Kaiser’s 2008 work, Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik, where he expands upon his analysis of Ben Sira’s parallels with Stoicism. 44  Kaiser, “Göttliche Weisheit,” 291-2, 297, 304-5.

1.2 State of Research

15

anthropologies of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, “‘Was ist der Mensch und was ist sein Wert?’ Beobachtungen zur Anthropologie des Jesus Sirach nach Sir 16,24-18,14” and “Anthropologie und Eschatologie in der Weisheit Salomos.”45 As in his previous study, “Göttliche Weisheit,” Kaiser notes the importance of Ben Sira’s apologetic (see above) to his Jewish audience. His analysis of Ben Sira 16:24-18:14 finds that the sage sets the stage here to define human nature. Ben Sira’s teachings are not unlike the three replies to the question in the Hebrew Bible, “what is the person?” (Ps 8:4-5, 144:3-4, Job 15:14-16), namely, by understanding human nature to be composed of three primary characteristics: humanity has a spirit, the ability to make a choice, and lives a rather short life especially in contrast to eternity. Furthermore, according to him, the human being is the rational image of God, whose thinking ability allows it to fear God but due to a finite existence it leans towards evil and is in need of repenting and keeping God’s statutes.46 In his following study—appearing in this volume for the first time—Kaiser finds five major parts of Wisdom’s anthropology: 1) Wisdom is not a systematic presentation but rather a number of interconnected themes that utilize psycho-physical terminology in an inconsistent manner, 2) there is a distinct body-soul dualism where the soul is the animating component of the person, and not permanently tied to the body, 3) immortality is not an anthropological guarantee and hinges on obedience to the revelation of wisdom through the Torah which results in acting justly, 4) the impermanent person is created originally for immortality, and the pious who retain that immortality live rightly, and 5) the person is inextricably linked to God as he is the giver of wisdom and the benefactor of immortality.47 Within the years of Kaiser’s work, and unlike the early days of Qumran research, one begins to note a distinct increase in studies dealing with the “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as part of the human condition—many of which examine the origins of the rabbinic “inclinations” (‫—)יצרים‬some as a background study into the Pauline corpus. Johann Cook’s 2007 study, “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫יצר הרע‬,’”48 traces this rabbinic idea to back to the Septuagint’s [LXX] translation of Proverbs. He argues that the origin of the rabbinic “inclinations” could also have its roots in Ben Sira. Cook’s study, however, is primarily a survey of the results of previous studies. His one new argument is that the “inclinations” are already reflected in the LXX’s translation 45  Kaiser, Gott, Mensch und Geschichte, BZAW 413 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 290-304, 341-64. “‘Was ist der Mensch und was ist sein Wert?’” repr. in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst?, 215-26. 46  Kaiser, “‘Was ist der Mensch?,” 292-7, 303-4. 47  Kaiser, “Anthropologie und Eschatologie,” 363. 48  J SJ 38 (2007): 80-91.

16

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

of Prov 2:11 and 17 (“good counsel” [βουλὴ καλὴ], “bad counsel” [κακὴ βουλὴ]). While the suggestion is intriguing, it seems tenuous since the Jewish texts that postdate the LXX reflect the raw materials for the later rabbinic development, and further corroboration of the “inclinations’” in texts contemporaneous to the LXX is wanting. In regard to Ben Sira, Frank Ueberschaer’s 2007 study, Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira,49 examines the portrayal of an educational system for teaching wisdom in Ben Sira in light of its development in the Ancient Near East, as well as in the Hellenistic schools from the preclassical through the Hellenistic periods. Ueberschaer also deals with various educational institutions, the place of the student in that system, and the education goal of Ben Sira’s work. In a small part of that study, Ueberschaer notes a number of anthropological themes that are present in Ben Sira, in particular that a person is made in the “image of God” and with it comes the power, domination, and awe of God’s other creation. Additionally, every human being is capable of knowing God. While the human being is limited in regard to education, physically and mentally, he/she is created with the faculties that allow him/her to receive education.50 Eibert Tigchelaar’s study in 2008, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I (4QSectarian Text?),”51 examines the innovations relating to the “evil inclination” and the presentation of a new reading of 4Q486i, a fragment of a prayer which refers to the “evil inclination in our heart.” He surveys several scroll texts noting partly that the linguistic difference between the Bible’s “inclination of the thoughts” (‫ )יצר מחשבת‬and the scrolls’ “thoughts of the inclination” (‫ )מחשבות יצר‬is evidence of their general interchangeability, a point that is questioned in the present study. Furthermore, he notes that it is unclear in texts like 4Q417 whether the “evil inclination” is considered a general or more specific part of human nature. He concludes that the binary dual inclination of the rabbis is relatively rare in the Second Temple period “and it is questionable whether the rabbis embrace one specific concept of the ‘evil inclination.’”52 Regarding his re-edition of 4Q486i, Tigchelaar’s argues that the small fragment presents, unlike a common sectarian text, the

49  B ZAW 379 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). 50  Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 137-58. 51  In Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-Van de Weg, AJEC 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-57. 52  Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 354.

1.2 State of Research

17

“first case” where an evil inclination is relegated to all of humanity rather than those outside of the speaker’s community.53 George Henrik van Kooten’s 2008 Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity54 surveys the concept of the “image of God” in ancient Judaism. The results of his study are supplemented by an examination of the “image of God” and “being made like God” in Graeco-Roman paganism and an emphasis on Philo’s work as a background to Pauline thought. It is the first part of the study that is the most pertinent to our examination. This is primarily the content of Chapter 1. Notably, despite examining Pauline anthropology, his treatment of the “image of God” is not influenced by Pauline categories—as per Levison’s critiques of earlier works. This may be due to the fact that the concept of the “image of God” which originates in Judaism is not strongly attested in Pauline texts. Van Kooten’s examination also incorporates works that have disputed dating (e.g., Sibylline Oracles and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) or show evidence of later Christian redaction, although he is careful to note these later interpolations. Van Kooten’s study is critical in both his treatment of Philo and his suggestion, which is examined further in this study, that by the first century CE the common position in ancient Judaism was that humanity was composed of three parts, mind/spirit, body, and soul. Loren Stuckenbruck deals with anthropological internalization of dualism within the Treatise of the Two Spirits in his 2010 study, “The Interiorization of Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context.”55 His examination is a notable exception to the studies introduced to this point since it is not limited to the Treatise, but explores the dualistic opposition in compositions that originated in the 2nd century BCE, Ben Sira, 1 Enoch 91-105 and Musar le-Mevin. Regarding, the Treatise’s theological anthropology, Stuckenbruck argues that it envisions the human as the battleground between cosmic forces. He notes further that this depiction of human nature is an embodiment of socio-religious conflict that could no longer be “circumscribed by physical boundaries.”56 In yet another study in 2011, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the Problem of Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being,” Stuckenbruck examines the image of the “double heart” in several texts (Hodayot, 4Q452, 53  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 354-7. 54  W UNT I 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 55  In Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Con­ temporary World, ed. Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric M. Meyers, Armin Lange, and Randall Styers, JAJSup 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010), 145-68. 56  Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 165-8.

18

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, the Treatise) with the intention of uncovering the modes of discourse regarding the “heart” in their respective theological anthropologies. He notes that one of the more important differences between Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, and the Hodayot is that they are not interested in the internal life of the person, whereas the Treatise images the “heart” as the “battle zone” of each person. He concludes that “double-heartedness” and the “human heart” represent the internalization of the community’s religious tensions and “how they attempted to negotiate them in relation to their communities’ ideals.”57 Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s 2011 study, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (2011), in part, offers some important insights into whether the use of “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬in Qumran writings is the place of origin for the rabbinic concept. His larger work deals primarily with the reification of the “evil inclination” in rabbinic sources. Chapter three, in particular, considers the question whether ‫יצר‬, or ‫יצרים‬, in the scrolls envisages what appears among the rabbis. He notes that within Qumran texts ‫ יצר‬primarily notes the yaḥad’s internal disposition to sin, and while significantly reworked by the rabbis, the Qumran examples help to establish the demonic nature of the “evil inclination.” Miryam Brand’s 2013 study, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature,58 is worth noting here. Her study is particularly germane because it is broadly set, like the present work, examining ideas that permeate several texts. She examines the complexity of the portrayal of sin as it appears in prayer, covenantal, wisdom, and philosophical texts, dividing the depiction of sin into two major themes, an internal human disposition to sin, and an external force that leads one to sin. Brand’s study is critical to understanding the complexity of the portrayal of both the human inclination and effect of malevolent spirits as causes of sin. Frey’s earlier study already notes the importance of Musar le Mevin texts to understanding the negatively portrayed concept of “flesh” and its apparent antithesis, the “spirit.” In particular, Frey points to the fragment of Musar le-Mevinc (4Q417) as representative of the earliest conceptual evidence to a phenomenon which is distinctly present in Pauline literature. From the late 90s, there are considerable advances in the study of anthropological aspects of Musar le-Mevin. The impetus for this interest is two-fold, the attestation of the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬and the apparent opposition between a “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and a “spiritual people” (‫)עם רוח‬. Regarding the “evil inclination,” Matthew Goff argues in 4QInstruction (2013) that there is little evidence in 57  Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 1:452-3. 58  JAJSup 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2013).

1.2 State of Research

19

4Q417 1 that this “inclination ‘seduces’” or is a personified entity but acknowledges room for debate.59 In a study that examines the “evil inclination” (‫יצר‬ ‫ )רע‬in Barkhi Nafshi and the Plea for Deliverance alongside Musar le-Mevin, Benjamin Wold’s “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction,” comes to a similar conclusion. He surveys and examines the various occurrences of ‫ יצר‬and argues that the function of ‫ יצר רע‬vis-à-vis humanity in 4Q417 1 ii 12 leaves little evidence that it represents an external or independent force. He concludes, however, that Musar le-Mevin “may well be participating in demonizing sin similar to the Plea for Deliverance and Barkhi Nafshi.”60 Column I of the same fragment has also drawn a great deal of discussion due to the apparent opposition between the “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and “spiritual people” (‫ )עם רוח‬in the same context as the so-called “vision of hagu,” or “vision of meditation” ( ֯‫הגוי‬ ׄ ‫)חזון ֯ה‬. In particular, whether the vision—the divine revelation of wisdom—is given to a part of humanity or all of humanity has more recently become a matter of debate. Scholars initially agreed that the fragment envisioned a bifurcation of humanity into two camps, where the “fleshly spirit” and “spiritual people” are opposed to one another. The “fleshly spirit” is denied access to the “vision of meditation” to which the “spiritual people” are given access. Moreover, the occurrence of ‫—אנוש‬which has been translated and understood by various scholars as “humanity,” “Enosh” and “Adam”—further complicate matters. Armin Lange’s 1995 work, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran,61 agrees with the aforementioned division of humanity into two camps. He suggests further that as the antithesis to the “fleshly spirit,” the “spiritual people” may designate people associated with Enosh, the biblical patriarch, or angelic beings. Lange differs from others in that he suggests ‫ אנוש‬should be understood as the biblical patriarch Enosh. John J. Collins’ 1999 study, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,”62 upholds the bifurcation of humanity into two camps in light of the heavy allusions to Genesis’ creation accounts—especially the statement that the “spiritual people” are said to be created “according to the likeness of the holy ones”—although he parts ways with Lange since he suggests 59  Matthew Goff, 4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 180-81. 60  In Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Chris Keith, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). 61  S TDJ 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). 62  In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 609-18.

20

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

that ‫ אנוש‬carries the sense of Adam, the first biblical patriarch. In a series of studies from 2003-2013,63 Matthew Goff follows Collins’ argument regarding the ontological division of humanity into two camps, arguing for the presence of strong Genesis allusions and the lack of logic involved with understanding humanity’s access to the “vision” in any other way. Part of Goff’s studies are in response to others that question this ontological division. Wold’s 2005 study, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions,64 argues that Musar le-Mevin’s (i.e., 4QInstruction) anthropology envisions humanity as originating from a single creation. Because a portion of humanity did not task itself to God’s divine revelation, this portion, namely, the “fleshly spirit,” is denied continual access to this revelation. Wold disagrees that the division among humanity is ontological as previous scholars have argued. In that vein, Jean-Sébastian Rey’s 2009 study, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology, notes that the Musar texts are innovative in that they provide a universal sapiential revelation for all of humanity and not simply a particular community or group.65 Wold again argues for his previous position in a 2013 study, “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction.” He deals partly with the translation of ‫ אנוש‬and ‫ ועוד לא‬in 4QInstruction, arguing of the latter that translating ‫ ועוד לא‬as “no longer” requires finding an ontological division between the “fleshly spirit” and the “spiritual people” elsewhere and outside of the context of creation. As he suggests, all humanity struggles with the “flesh” and the difference between the “fleshly spirit” and “people with a spirit” (Wold’s translation) is that the former are “no longer” given access to “vision of meditation.”66 Indeed, ascertaining the depiction of humanity in Musar texts, especially whether humanity’s envisioned

63  Matthew Goff, “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction,” DSD 10/2 (2003): 165-70; idem, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); idem, “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Volume 2: Exegetical Studies, ed. Craig Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T and T Clark, 2009), 114-25; idem, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravitz and Joszef Zsengellér, JSJSup 142 (Leiden, Brill, 2010), 1-22; idem, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson, WUNT 284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 41-59; idem, 4QInstruction. 64  W UNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 65  S TDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 66  RQ 102/1 (2013): 211-26.

1.3 Rationale and Method of the Present Study

21

separation is ontological or not, is critical to understanding the portrayal of the human nature in ancient Judaism and is discussed here in chapter 7. 1.3

Rationale and Method of the Present Study

The majority of studies introduced above are limited to an individual text or a single concept (e.g., human “inclination”) that occurs in a specific set texts. While these studies are useful, a fuller examination of human nature in Second Temple Judaism is warranted. More recent works (e.g., Brand’s Evil Within and Without) have shown that theological/topical studies with a more ample set of Jewish texts can be fruitful. Therefore, this work seeks to fill the lack by executing an examination of varying elements of human nature as portrayed in Greco-Roman Judaism. Before continuing with an analytical methodology, some preliminary presuppositions are worth outlining. First, human nature, as noted above, is defined as characteristics, innate and God-given, that are thought by the author to be true for general, collective humanity. Second, the texts examined here date to the Greco-Roman period of Jewish history, which for this work spans from Alexander the Great’s entry into the east in the 4th c. BCE to the close of the 1st c. CE. The majority of these texts also fall within the Second Temple period—ending with the destruction of the Jerusalem’s Temple in 70 CE— with a few exceptions, specifically, Josephus, Testament of Naphtali [T. Naph.], 4 Ezra, and the Testament of Abraham [T. Ab.]. Josephus is a special case because the works that are relevant to this study—Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities—were written so soon after the Jerusalem’s destruction that the content is relevant to understanding Second Temple Judaism. The latter two texts are exceptional due the presence of terminological and conceptual parallels to texts that undoubtedly date to before the destruction. Three categories have been identified in the aforementioned collection of texts that embody discussions of human nature, namely, creation, composition, and condition. What follows is the analytical methodology employed for each category of this study. 1. “Creation” examines the use, impact, and reapplication of the unique language of humanity’s creation in Genesis one and two—male and female and adam, respectively—to characterize collective humanity. It tracks two creation topoi—the “image of God” and “from (out of) earth”—that are continually employed as connotative of human nature. Although preserved in Jewish literature, a thorough consideration of

22

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

these creation-inspired topoi illustrates that they are not intended to be limited to Judaism, or the Jewish world, but reflect ideas regarding corporate humanity by utilizing distinct Jewish ideas of both creation and creator. 2. “Composition” explores the diverse language utilized for both the physical and metaphysical components of human existence. More specifically, it analyzes the use of various terms for the body, soul, and spirit as they relate specifically to humanity and the manner in which they express characteristics with regard to humanity’s constituent parts. Additionally, this work considers the use of the aforementioned terminology in prayer and liturgical texts that portray an inner, psychic turmoil and the manner that this depiction presumes a particular compositional reality. 3. “Condition” examines the conceptualization of free will and other nuances of agency that are ingrained in the human “inclination” and the “flesh/spirit” dichotomy. Furthermore, this examination elucidates the stark impact on the characterization of humanity’s innate condition in texts that ascribe to ideas of predestination (or strong determinism), especially regarding humankind’s presumed ability, or utter impotence, to obey God’s commandments. In light of this tripartite methodology, several texts come to the fore. Among them Ben Sira, the Hodayot, and the “Treatise of Two Spirits” receive a good deal of attention. Portions of the first two texts play a role in each category. Other texts that exhibit evidence germane to this study include Qohelet, Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, Philo of Alexandria, 2 Maccabees, 1 Enoch, the Damascus Document, “The Prayer of Levi” (4QLevbar), the Prayers of Noah and Abraham in Jubilees, the “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), Songs of the Sagea,b (4Q510-4Q511), Psalms of Solomon, 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393), 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q436), Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), and Musar le-Mevin (1Q/4QInstruction). Other texts that were authored after the destruction of the Temple but nonetheless preserve content that is clearly from an earlier period and, therefore, key to this work are Josephus’ Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, Testament of Naphtali., 4Ezra, and Testament of Abraham. 1.4

The Plan of the Present Study

This study is comprised of three primary parts, Creation, Composition, and Condition. Each section is comprised of two chapters.

1.4 The Plan of the Present Study

23

Chapter 2: Of Image, Earth, and Dust—The Emergence of Creation Topoi to Depict Humanity in Early Judaism This chapter is the first of the “Creation” section. It examines the emergence of creation topoi,67 that are, literary threads which develop from the peculiar language of the creation of humanity in Gen 1 and 2—the “image of God” and “of the dust from the earth” (and its subsequent variations—“out of [from] earth”). Qohelet is the earliest evidence that this unique language is employed to portray characteristics of collective humanity. Its continual use in postbiblical literature suggests that the phraseology of Genesis have become topoi, more specifically, creation topoi. Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon are particularly invested with these creation topoi. So too is a lesser-known wisdom text named after a 6th c. BCE gnomic poet, Phocylides. Each of these post biblical wisdom texts utilize both creation topoi to depict humanity and are therefore an important barometer for the innovation of employing creation to depict human nature. Qohelet chapters three and twelve are drawn to the pessimism of the topos that develops from Gen 2, while Ben Sira chapters seventeen and thirty-three—seeming to present opposing points of view on humanity—attests both creation topoi. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 2 utilizes one creation topos in relation to the immortality of the righteous, and again in chapter fifteen in a diatribe against the idol maker. In a discussion of the proper place of mourning, Pseudo-Phocylides utilizes the creation topoi in order to describe what occurs to collective humanity upon death. An examination of these texts not only identifies a new innovation with the implementation of creation topoi but, importantly, provides an early picture of human nature that develops within wisdom literature. Chapter 3: From Image and Earth to Dust—The Growth of the Use of Creation Topoi and the Amplification of Human Lowliness

67  This study defines creation topoi—a method used in Classical Greek rhetoric to structure arguments—as literary threads that develop from the unique language of biblical narratives and are employed when the author is structuring an argument. In that sense, creation topoi that develop from the unique language of the creation of humankind in Gen 1-2 and are used by Second Temple Jewish authors to comment on characteristics that are universal to collective humanity. See esp. Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask, Bollingen Series 36 (Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2013), 79-105.

24

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

This chapter analyzes the continuing prevalence and varied utilization of creation topoi in Second Temple texts. Moving beyond Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom, and Pseudo Phocylides, chapter three examines their use in Philo of Alexandria, T. Naph., 4 Ezra, and 2 Macc. One finds in these texts that ancient writers are drawn to one of the two topoi in order to highlights specific human attributes. The chapter also provides a critical analysis of one of the closing hymns in the Hodayot (20:7-22:42) and is brought into conversation with the results of chapter two and three of the current study. In particular, it discusses the reworking of our second topos—“of the dust from the earth” (and its subsequent variations—“out of [from] earth”)—into the pervasive phraseology “creature of clay” and “creature of dust,” while intentionally ignoring the first topos—the “image of God.” Such an approach allows a unique depiction of human lowliness to be amplified when compared with the larger world of ancient Jewish thought. Additionally, because it draws on creation motifs that are similar to our literary threads, a brief critical note on the “Mother and Her Seven Sons” narrative in 2 Macc is examined. Chapter 4: Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit—Examining Humanity’s Composition This chapter is the first chapter of the “Composition” section and examines the use of terminology that specifically describes the body and soul (‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά). Again, Ben Sira is critical in this analysis since is utilizes ψυχὴ more than any other Jewish text written in Greek. This is of particular importance since according to the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira most of the occurrences of ψυχὴ appear to be a translation of ‫נפש‬. Thus, the Hebrew and Greek Ben Sira offer a great deal of textual evidence for the use of these terms in describing human existence and the presumed composition of humanity in ancient Judaism. Furthermore, it offers some insight into whether the “soul” is considered to be a separate metaphysical human component. Moreover, the apparent immortality of the “soul” is a crucial part of this chapter’s analysis, especially as it appears in the Wisdom of Solomon, Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities on the Jewish schools, the so-called “Mountain of the Dead” narrative in 1 Enoch, and the “soul” of Abraham in B of the T. Ab. The results of this examination invite some comment on George Henrik van Kooten’s argument that a view of humanity as trichotomous (body, soul, and spirit) was the working assumption in the late Second Temple period. Chapter 5: Internal and External Disturbance—Body/Soul Dualism Through the Lens of Psychic Strife

1.4 The Plan of the Present Study

25

This chapter takes a novel approach to the examination of humanity’s constituent parts. It examines presumed human composition through the lens of “psychic strife,” that is an analysis of body/soul dualism in the portrayal human vulnerabilities to external and internal forces and its voiced expression through physical and metaphysical language. The Hodayot and Jewish apotropaic prayers are particularly vital here. In part, this is comprised of the Hodayot’s utilization of “soul” (‫)נפש‬, “heart” (‫)לב‬, and “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as barometers of the hymnist’s and the community’s inner turmoil. Additionally, Jewish apotropaic prayers, specifically, “The Prayer of Levi” (4QLevbar), the Prayers of Noah and Abraham in Jubilees, the “Pleas for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), Songs of the Sagea,b (4Q510-4Q511)—expressing a distinct concern for human vulnerability to external malevolent spirits—are analyzed here to assess what these perceived vulnerabilities presume about humanity’s constituent parts. Chapter 6: Mapping Human Condition—Free Will and the Inclination(s) to Sin This chapter begins the section of this study that explores humanity’s innate condition. It examines, in part, the conceptualization of free will, namely, the conception of humanity as an agent of unfettered choice. Three texts are critical for this part of the analysis, Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, and the Damascus Document. The second part of this chapter looks at the appearance of the “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬in various forms. The texts discussed in this part of the chapter are the Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, 4QCommunal Confession, and a Dead Sea copy of Jubilees. Special attention is given to the occurrence of the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬in Second Temple texts and in particular to a Barkhi Nafshi text that amounts to perhaps the only occurrence where “evil inclination” refers to an actual component of human desire. Chapter 7: A Predetermined Condition—Humanity’s Double Duality, Nothing­ ness, and Fleshly Condition The closing chapter of the “Condition” section deals with texts that presume shifting degrees of God’s sovereign, determinative control over human affairs. It is divine predestination that divides humanity into two camps (the wicked and the righteous), one of which is destined to be eternally part of God’s community and the other to some sort of unfavorable end. This type of worldview seems to lead to three general views of the human condition: 1) it must exist under specter of double duality, predestined to one camp and, at the same time, the embodiment of a battle between dueling cosmic forces, 2) is utterly nothing,

26

1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

inescapably base, and 3) is beset by a “fleshly” unknowing condition. The texts that best represent these general views are two originally-independent portions of Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), the Treatise of the Two Spirits (3:13-4:26) and the Hymn of Praise, (10:9-11:22), and Musar le-Mevin (1Q/4QInstruction). Chapter 8: Conclusion: Describing Humanity in the Second Temple Period This final chapter summarizes the findings of this study, drawing out some of the more prominent themes and conversations taking place the Second Temple period regarding human nature (e.g., flesh vs. spirit, obedience vs. transgression). It will also suggest the importance of this study for future Second Temple studies, as well as to the fields of New Testament and Rabbinic literature. 1.5

Theoretical Issues

This study is concerned with collective humanity, namely, characteristics that are universal to every person regardless of gender (male/female), communal affiliation or identity. Of course, an examination of texts from a community like Qumran, which are starkly self-defined in relation to a group of outsiders, communal affiliation and identity must naturally be part of the conversation. Further, this study utilizes inclusive terminology when dealing with gender in ancient texts unless a specific gender is referenced. Thus, one will note “humanity,” “humankind,” or “human being” rather than “man” and “mankind,” since the descriptions examined here most often presume all people regardless of gender. Moreover, “one,” “person,” or “individual” are utilized rather than “his,” “her,” or “sons,” again, unless issues of gender are specified or ascertained contextually (e.g., in sectarian texts).68 This study makes every attempt to not ignore those issues when they arise. On some occasions, the term “sectarian” is utilized to describe material that originated with the Qumran community, and “non-sectarian” for other texts found in the caves of the Judaean desert. Although “the community” or yaḥad are preferred, “sectarian” is employed, not to indicate a separate religious orthodoxy, but rather as a social signifier—a group identifier of sorts—that demarcates the Qumran community and texts thought to originate with them.

68  See for example, Maxine Grossman, “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,” DSD 11/2 (2004): 212-39.

Chapter 2

Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi to Depict Human Nature in Early Judaism Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay To mould me Man, did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me?” John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667

2.1

Introduction

Genesis describes collective humanity, male and female, as created “in the image of God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ; ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬1:27). While the initial statement of human creation, “Let us make humankind in our image (‫) ְב ַצ ְל ֵמנּו‬, after our likeness (‫ִכ ְדמּו־‬ ‫ ; ֵתנּו‬v. 26)…,” refers to both God’s image and likeness, early Jewish authors were drawn to the “image” of the later passage. The draw to verse 26 is perhaps due to the perplexing first-person plural endings on “our image” (‫ ) ַצ ְל ֵמנּו‬and “our likeness” (‫מּותנּו‬ ֵ ‫) ְד‬.1 This does not, however, offer a reason why later authors prefer to utilize image rather than likeness. The likeness of God is referenced again in Gen 5:1, “this book is of the generations of Adam, when God created mankind he made it in the likeness of God (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫) ִּב ְדמּות ֱא‬,” and 9:6, which prohibits murder on the rationale that humanity bears the divine image: “Whoever sheds the blood of a person, by a person his blood should be spilled, for in the image of God (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ) ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬he made humankind.” Outside of Genesis, however, biblical literature does not refer to God’s image or likeness. The creation of “man” (‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫ ) ָה‬and “woman” (‫ ) ָה ִא ָשּׁה‬in Gen 2:4b-25 is decidedly different from its

1  Lyle Eslinger, “The Enigmatic Plurals like ‘One of Us’ (Genesis I 26, III 22, and XI 7) in Hyperchronic Perspective,” VT 56/2 (2006): 171. See also Florentino García Martínez, “The Genesis of Alexandria, the Rabbi, and Qumran,” in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 219-40, esp. 249-53; also Ryan Scott Dulkin, The Rabbis Rereading Eden: A Traditions-Historic Study of Exegetical Motifs in the Classical and Selected Post-Classical Rabbinic Sources on Genesis 1-3 (Ph.D. Diss., Jewish Theological Seminary 2011), 55-108. Dulkin examines with selected passages in Rabbinic literature which deal with the theological problems caused by Gen 1:26.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_003

28

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

biblical counterpart. The most important difference for this study is that the “man,”2 not humanity—although ‫אָדם‬ ָ is utilized in Gen 1 to refer to humankind—is formed “from the dust of the ground” (‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬. By the Hellenistic period (3rd c. BCE), two literary threads emerge from Genesis’ unique language for creation. The imago dei of 1:27 and “of the dust from the ground” of 2:7,3 which is reshaped into “from (out of) the earth/ ground,” or “from dust/clay,” are more than allusions; they are employed to describe innate attributes of collective humanity. In this study, these literary threads or topoi4 (i.e., topics), referred to hereon as creation topoi, are adapted from the particular language of the creation of humankind in Gen 1-2. Their employment by early Jewish authors is intended to comment and even introduce characteristics that are common to all of humanity.5 The earliest 2  The “woman” (‫ ) ִא ָׁשה‬is created from the man’s “side-chamber” (‫) ֵצ ָלע‬. 3  Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems that Genesis’ creation, especially Gen 2, receive special treatment. See Esther Eshel, “Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 1-12, and, more specifically, Esther Glickler Chazon, “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 13-24, in The Book of Genesis on Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay, TEG 5 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997). The employment of the “image of God” in Second Temple, early Rabbinic, and Christian texts has garnered some attention, although., Rabbinic and Christian texts have received the lion’s share. More recently, Yair Lorberbaum, Tselem elohim: halakha ve-aggadah (Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House, 2004) (Heb.); idem, In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87/2 (Apr., 1994): 171-95; Morton Smith, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 31526; Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei; Alexander Altmann, “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology,” JR 48/3 (Jul., 1968): 235-59; Samuel Vollenweider, “Der Menschgewordene als Ebenbild Gottes: zum frühchristlichen Verständnis der Imago Dei,” in Ebenbild Gottes— Herrscher über die Welt: Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen, ed. Hans-Peter Mathys, BTS 33 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 123-46; also George H. Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT I 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, WUNT 2.317, (Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). These last two studies are particularly interested in Second Temple Judaism as a window to understanding Pauline theological anthropology. 4  See section 1.3. 5  For example, Curtius notes regarding topoi in Classical Greek rhetoric: “In the antique system of rhetoric topics is the stockroom. There one found ideas of the most general sort such as could be employed in every kind of oratory and writing. Every writer, for example, must try to put the reader in a favorable frame of mind. To this end, until the literary revolution of the eighteenth century, a modest first appearance was recommended. The author had next to lead the reader to the subject. Hence for the introduction (exordium) there was a special topics [sic]; and likewise, for the conclusion. Formulas of modesty, introductory formulas,

2.2 Qohelet

29

evidence of creation topoi in Second Temple Jewish literature are primarily in Wisdom texts, a genre that generally shows interest in creation.6 Creation topoi are preserved in four texts, Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and Pseudo Phocylides, which are authored in the Hellenistic period and are dated between the 3rd-2nd c. BCE. This chapter will focus on the occurrences of these creation topoi and the manner which they reflect key characteristics of human nature that were prevalent in ancient Judaism. 2.2

Qohelet

Despite being attributed to Solomon,7 “the son of David” (‫ן־דּוִ ד‬ ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬, 1:1), scholars are largely in agreement that Qohelet is a post-exilic text, written at some point in the Hellenistic period.8 As Mark Sneed states, “The consensus for the concluding formulas, then, are required everywhere. Other topoi can be used only for some particular species of oratory for the judicial oration or the epideictic oration,” European Literature and the Middle Ages, 79. 6  Leo Purdue notes the importance of anthropology to both biblical and post-biblical wisdom literature though he references Gerhard Von Rad’s speculation that these themes did not come to fruition until the 6th c. BCE, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 41-46. See also Roland Murphy, “Wisdom and Creation,” JBL 104/1 (Mar., 1985): 3-11. 7  Solomon is never referenced explicitly. See Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 33-45. 8  For second century BCE, Charles F. Whitley places Qohelet in the mid-second century BCE, Koheleth: His Language and Thought, BZAW 148 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 10. Although, Daniel C. Fredericks, notes that Whitley’s dating of Qohelet to 152 BCE is extreme, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date, ANETS 3 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988), 1. See Avi Hurvitz’s review of Koheleth where he notes that Frederick’s conclusion that Qohelet’s language should be classified as classical or pre-exilic cannot be “satisfactorily substantiated” on the basis of Frederick’s philological examination, review of Qoheleth’s Language, HS 31 [1990]: 154. For the 3rd century BCE, see Aarre Lauha, Kohelet, BKAT 19 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 3; Norbert Lohfink, Kohelet (Würtzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980), 7-15; Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes, JSOT 316 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 15-16; Christoph Uehlinger, “Qohelet im Horizont mesopotamischer, levantinischer und ägyptischer Weisheitliteratur der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit,” 155-248, and Reinhold Bolen, “Kohelet im Kontext hellenistischer Kultur,” 249-274, in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie, ed. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, BZAW 254 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997). Some argue that Ben Sira (ca. 175 BCE) may have been familiar with Qohelet and provides a terminus ad quem; see Jeremy Corley, “Qohelet and Ben Sira: A Comparison,” in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Nuria Caluduch-Benages, BZAW 445 (Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), 145-54; also Johannes Marböck, “Kohelet und Sirach,” in Das Buch Kohelet,

30

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

date of Qohelet is still the Ptolemaic [i.e., Hellenistic] period,” due to language, Greek influence, and the “author’s psychological disposition.”9 Although, there is some argument for a Persian dating of the work (5th c. BCE),10 this study follows the later dating. Thus, a Hellenistic dating and the content of Qohelet make it pertinent to this study. In particular, 3:16-22 and 12:1-7 present a picture of humanity’s death that is not unlike what one fines elsewhere in early Judaism. 2.2.1 Qoh 3:19-22 and 12:1-7 In 3:19-22, Qohelet begins to deal with the “fate of humanity” (‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫י־ה‬ ָ ֵ‫ ִמ ְק ֶרה ְבנ‬, v. 19). Germane to this study is the creation topoi which describes humanity as coming “from dust” and “returning to dust” (v. 20). It occurs in a section of chapter 3 where Longman notes a shift in the author’s attention to the issue of justice.11 Verses 16-22, which form the second part of the chapter, bemoan the presence of the “wicked” (‫ ) ָה ָר ַשׁע‬even in the place of “the just” (‫) ַה ֶצּ ֶדק‬. Following a theme from part one of the chapter (vv. 1-15), Qohelet returns to there being a time for everything, in particular, the judgment of both the wicked and the just.

275-302, esp. 296. Lange argues that the Dead Sea Qohelet manuscript 4QQoha (4Q109) is pre-Maccabean (prior to 175 BCE), “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible,” DSD 13/3 (2006): 277-305. See also, Eugene Ulrich, “Qoheleth,” in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Joseph A. Fitzmyer et al., DJD XVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 221-7. Longman has an extended discussion and favors a late dating for Ecclesiastes. He points out, however, that language is not a good barometer for dating, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 50. 9  Mark R. Sneed, The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to Israelite and Jewish Wisdom Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 348. 10  C. L. Seow disagrees with a Hellenistic dating. “In terms of a typology of language, then Qohelet, belongs in the Persian period, specifically between the second half of the 5th century and the 1st half of the fourth,” Lingusitic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet,” JBL 115/4 (Winter, 1996): 666. See also James L. Kugel, “Qohelet and Money,” CBQ 51/1 (Jan., 1989): 32-49; Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Jobs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes—A Translation with Commentary (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010), 644. 11  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 285.

2.2 Qohelet 3:19. For the fate of humanity and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same spirit, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth? 22. So I saw that there is nothing better than that a person should enjoy his work, for that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him?‫‏‬

31 ‫וּמ ְק ֶרה‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְק ֶרה ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה‬ ִ ‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫י־ה‬ ָ ֵ‫ ִכּי ִמ ְק ֶרה ְבנ‬.19 ‫רוּח ֶא ָחד ַלכֹּל‬ ַ ְ‫ֶא ָחד ָל ֶהם ְכּמֹות זֶ ה ֵכּן מֹות זֶ ה ו‬ ‫ן־ה ְבּ ֵה ָמה אָיִ ן ִכּי ַהכֹּל ָה ֶבל׃‬ ַ ‫אָדם ִמ‬ ָ ‫וּמֹותר ָה‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ָע ָפר‬ ֶ ‫ל־מקֹום ֶא ָחד ַהכֹּל ָהיָ ה ִמ‬ ָ ‫הֹולְך ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ ַהכֹּל‬.20 ‫ל־ה ָע ָפר׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַהכֹּל ָשׁב ֶא‬ ‫אָדם ָהע ָֹלה ִהיא ְל ָמ ְע ָלה‬ ָ ‫רוּח ְבּנֵ י ָה‬ ַ ‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ִמי‬.21 ‫אָרץ׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ רוּ ַ ה ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה ַהיּ ֶֹר ֶדת ִהיא ְל ַמ ָטּה ָל‬ ‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫יתי ִכּי ֵאין טֹוב ֵמ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְשׂ ַמח ָה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָר ִא‬.22 ‫יאנּוּ ִל ְראֹות‬ ֶ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲע ָשׂיו ִכּי־הוּא ֶח ְלקֹו ִכּי ִמי ִיְב‬ ‫אַח ָריו׃‬ ֲ ‫ְבּ ֶמה ֶשׁיִּ ְהיֶ ה‬

Animals and humans face the same death; humanity has no advantage over animals. Death is the great equalizer.12 Both have the same “spirit” (‫רוּח‬ ַ /LXX: πνεῦμα) and, it appears at first, that they also share the same final destination.13 Fischer argues, from death comes the realization that a good reputation, possessions, and descendants are transient (cf. also Qoh 4:2-3).14 It is in death that humans and animals are said to return from whence they came, “from dust” (‫ן־ה ָע ָפר‬ ֶ ‫) ִמ‬15 “to dust” (‫ל־ה ָע ָפר‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא‬, also Qoh 12:7; cf. Sir 17:1). The expressions “from dust” and “to dust” are an unmistakable allusion to Gen 2:7, “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground” (‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬, and Gen 3:19, “for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return (‫ל־ע ָפר ָתּשׁוּב‬ ָ ‫אַתּה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫י־ע ָפר‬ ָ ‫‏כּ‬ ִ ; see also, Job 10:9, 34:15; Psalm 90:3, 104:29).16 The creation topoi speaks of the inevitable meaninglessness of humanity’s death, “for all is meaningless” (‫) ִכּי ַהכֹּל ָה ֶבל‬.17 To be placed on equal footing with the 12  See Jennifer L. Koosed, (Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book, LHBOTS 429 (New York and London: T and T Clark, 2006), 90; Richard Alan Fuhr Jr., An Analysis of the Inter-Dependency, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York, Peter Lang, 2013), 126. Sneed notes that death is a large component of Qohelet’s overall pessimism, The Politics of Pessimism, 8. 13  Longman is correct when he suggests that this also an indication of sharing the same origin, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 293-4. 14  Fischer speaks to this in a larger conversation of “profit” in Qoh 1:3, Skepsis, 192. 15  In particular, “from dust” has greater linguistic affinities to Gen 2, although as we will show, depictions of humanity on Gen 3:19 also appear in the Hodayot. 16  See Charles C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” JSS 5 (1960): 256-63; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 295. 17  On the meaning of ‫ חבל‬see Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 87-104. Sneed notes that “futility” fits the contents of the book of Ecclesiastes best, The Social World, 350-2. See also idem, The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 155-75; Whitley, Koheleth, 6-7; Michael V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet,” JBL 105/3 (Sep., 1986):

32

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

animals indicates, at least heuristically,18 a lowering of humanity’s value, if any was assumed by the author and is a departure from the portrayal that humanity have some sort of rulership over the animals (e.g., Gen 1:28, 2; Ps 8:6; also, Sir 17:4).19 Moreover, “dust” is a symbol of human futility. As the conclusion of Qoh 3 states, the return to dust implies that the tasks upon which God has saddled humanity, especially its work (10-15), is ultimately without value. The consequence of this image is as Sneed notes, “Essentially, the book of Qohelet attempts to create a great divide between the human and the divine that cannot be breached or overcome.”20 This is part of a general pattern in Qohelet where human life is envisioned as temporary, fragile, and without ultimate meaning.21 Qohelet 3:21 questions whether upon death humanity’s spirit goes “up” (‫) ָהע ָֹלה‬, while that of the animals goes “down” (‫) ַהיּ ֶֹר ֶדת‬. Longman is right when he states that the Masoretic pointing of the he (with a patach) in both terms as definite articles is out of the context with the force of the interrogative “who” (‫) ִמי‬, and frames Qohelet’s outlook as someone who knows the final place of either’s spirit.22 Yet, for Qohelet, the place of the spirit after death remains in question. The Septuagint more properly renders the inquiry regarding humanity’s spirit with the conditional conjunction “if” (εἰ), “whether it goes upward (εἰ ἀναβαίνει αὐτὸ εἰς ἄνω)… whether it goes downward to the earth” (εἰ καταβαίνει αὐτὸ κάτω εἰς γῆν). Moreover, that the human spirit goes elsewhere as the body returns to the dust is an idea that is echoed elsewhere in early 409-27; idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions, BLS 18 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 2952; Douglas B. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫לבה‬,” JBL 117/3 (1998): 437-54; Richard Alan Fuhr Jr., An Analysis of the Interdependency of the Prominent Motifs of the Book of Qohelet, StBibLit 151 (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 29-64; Tilman Zimmer, Zwischen Tod und Lebensglück, BZAW 286 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 25-32. 18  There is little to suggest that the author is familiar with the creation of Gen 1. See David E. Clemens, “The Law of Sin and Death, Ecclesiastes in Gen 1-3,” Them 19 (1994): 5-8. Clemens makes a number of connections between Qohelet and Gen 3, but little is said of Gen 1, especially to the “image of God” of 1:26-27. 19  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 295. 20  Sneed, The Politics of Pessimism, 165-7. 21  In his examination of ‫חבל‬, Miller contends, “Qohelet searched out an image that, for his rhetorical purposes, could symbolize the human experience in its entirety. Instead of symbols used elsewhere, he chose ‫חבל‬, a vapor or wisp of wind. He presents ‫ חבל‬omnivalently in his thesis statement (1:2), then immediately begins to demonstrate how, in various ways, life is vapor. While his primary concern in the first half of the book is the insubstantiality dimension of ‫ חבל‬in relation to human effort (including wisdom and pleasure), he also introduces Foulness early and continues to develop it …” “Qohelet’s Use,” 18. 22  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 297.

2.2 Qohelet

33

Jewish texts (e.g., Ps. Phoc. and Wisdom below), but it is unclear whether this is indicative of an afterlife for either spirit. Indeed, “up” and “down” conjure up images of the afterlife that develop more clearly in the Hellenistic period (cf. Tob 13:2, Wis 6:13, 4 Ezra 4:8). Tilman Zimmer suggests that the question of the afterlife may be considered initially in Qoh 3:17-19, that is, that the author has seriously considered an afterlife, but further existence of the spirit, at this point, can only remain a question.23 Even more to the point, Longman states in his commentary on v. 19 and following, “at the very least, then, Qohelet is frustrated with the unknowability of the afterlife, if not its existence.”24 In this particular case, “spirit”25 (‫רוּח‬ ַ ) indicates humanity’s—and animals’— breath, that which animates life and upon death comes to an end. Indeed, even if Qohelet affirms the existence of an afterlife, whether the spirits of either go “up” (‫ )עלה‬or “down” (‫)ירד‬, that existence of the spirit/breath after death does not necessitate a lengthy existence. Pseudo-Phocylides shares similar conception of the human spirit/soul, “For we possess a body out of earth; and then, when into earth again; we are resolved, we are dust; but the air has received our spirit” (107-108). Utilizing similar Genesis imagery, the human body is dust and from the earth (cp. Ps 7:5, 44:25, 103:14), but the spirit is separate and upon death is received by the air. The continued existence of the spirit seems postmortem, but is extremely limited (see below for a fuller treatment of Ps. Phoc.), perhaps not even what one might consider an existence.26 The same might be said of the above passage in Qohelet, spirit has a very limited existence after death in that it raised or lowers. Regardless of the spirit’s postmortem existence, however, the author reminds us that it is a moot point, since what the person has, namely work, is in fact “his lot” (‫ ֶח ְלקֹו‬, 22).27 As Sneed states, “Qohelet counsels honest acceptance of death and its uncertainties, which help reprioritize life’s values: the present moment is most precious.”28 23  Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 50-51. 24  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 296. 25  For an examination of ‫רוּח‬ ַ , see Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 13-15. 26  Fox notes that this verse does not affirm an afterlife but rather affirms death, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 197-9, 308. 27  See Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 58-71. 28  The Social World, 358, also 370. See also, Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 51, 112; Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 73; Rudman, Determinism, 55-60. Also Michel Diethelm who states that the discussion of the spirit is to further dispel any difference between humanity and cattle, Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet, BZAW 183 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 248-9. Eunny P. Lee sees the description here in Qohelet as a motivator for humanity to embrace life even more, The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric, BZAW 353 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 5. A similar view is held by Fuhr Jr., An Analysis of the Inter-Dependency, 157.

34

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

Fragile and uncertain, human existence is depicted with similar imagery in Qoh 12:7,29 “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (‫ֹלהים ֲא ֶשׁר נְ ָתנָ הּ‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫רוּח ָתּשׁוּב ֶא‬ ַ ‫אָרץ ְכּ ֶשׁ ָהיָ ה וְ ָה‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫ וְ יָ שׁ ֹב ֶה ָע ָפר ַע‬30). As with Qoh 3:20, there is a clear allusion to Gen 2:7 and 3:19.31 Beginning with the command to remember God in one’s youth, Qohelet 12:1-8 reminds that humanity returns to dust. Unlike chapter 3 there is no question as to whether the human spirit rises; it returns to God. The portrayal here bears closer resemblance to the Ps. Phoc. text referenced above, where the spirit is received by the air. As Michael Fox notes, there is a contradiction here with 3:21 because of the emphasis placed on the spirit. He argues further, “12:7 does not imply afterlife, it is actually more pessimistic than 3:21. In the earlier verse, Qohelet at least allows that the life spirit’s ascent to God would redeem humanity from absurdity, whereas in the later verse he affirms such an ascent and yet sees no escape from death’s obliterating power or life’s universal absurdity.” Indeed, for Fox the futility of life coupled with a return to God “redeems humanity from absurdity.”32 While he may be right, the escape from absurdity is minimal. Both texts affirm that death is inevitable and will result in a return to dust; no alternative exists. For the human spirit of chapter 12, which somehow has a distinctive journey from the body, the journey is particularly limited, and does not intimate an afterlife.33 Chapter 3’s question regarding humanity and animals should be read rhetorically; the answer is assumed that the flight of a person’s spirit, whether up or down, does not ultimately matter—all come to death. Humanity and beast share the same spirit and the same destiny. Chapter 12 is a bit more direct; its return to God indicates “death and nothing more.” The separation of the spirit upon death may reflect the process of death. First, 12:5 refers to each person’s “eternal home” (‫)בית עלם‬. Matthew Suriano understands this as a reference to the tomb. Part of the Suriano’s larger discussion is regarding the transition of death and the sense of liminality that Sheol conveys in the Hebrew Bible—specifically with Psalms.34 Second, both 29  He also states that Qoh 12:1-7 is a subunit that begins in 11:7 and has its own integrity, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 462. 30  Qoh 3:20 and 12:7 preserve the only occasions of ‫ ָע ָפר‬, but its use parallels that of Job 10:9; 17:16, 21:26; 30:19, 34:15; also Is 26:19; Ps 7:5, 22:29, 30:9, 44:25, 103:14; Dan 12:2. 31  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 477. 32  Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 309. 33  Reference to an afterlife in Qohelet is unclear, although most scholars agree that the author does not intended imply an afterlife in the discussion of the spirit. In fact, Fox contends that Qoh 3:21 is countering the early Jewish idea of the soul ascent to eternal life and, more specifically, that 12:7 does not imply an afterlife, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 309; and Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 477; Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 13-15. 34  A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 217-22.

35

2.2 Qohelet

Qoh 3:20a and 12:5c utilize the same language, employing the masculine participle of ‫ חלך‬to speak of humanity’s going to dust. The only reference to Sheol in Qohelet 9:10c, again uses the same precise form of the verb.35 3:20a All go to one place

…‫ל־מקֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫הֹולְך ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ ַהכֹּל‬3:20

9:10c knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going

‫אַתּה ה ֵֹלְך ָשׁ ָמּה‬ ָ ‫ …וְ ָח ְכ ָמה ִבּ ְשׁאֹול ֲא ֶשׁר‬9:10c

12:5c because man goes to his eternal home

…‫עֹולמֹו‬ ָ ‫ל־בּית‬ ֵ ‫אָדם ֶא‬ ָ ‫…כּי־ה ֵֹלְך ָה‬ ִ 12:5c

Therefore, the very minimal, terse existence of the of the spirit, may represent this liminal space as life transitions to death and eventually the tomb and/or Sheol. Considering these matters, questions about the afterlife here in Qohelet should be left to side. Qohelet’s author utilizes a topoi on two occasions that is generated from the creation of adam Gen 2:7, as well as Gen 3:19, in order to express humanity’s ultimately futile nature. That is to say, although the author argues for cherishing one’s life, work, etc., it is done in the pessimistic shadow of humanity’s ultimate end, death. From dust the fragility of life is wrought and to dust life comes to its meaningless end without hope or concern for anything after that return. The human animating breath/spirit is separate from the body (see also chap. 4), but there is no actual existence after the corporeal return to the dust and the spirit’s return. The point here is to express a transition from the place of the living where there exists some liminality—paralleling psalmic imagery,36 not an afterlife. Therefore, by use of a topoi that develops from Genesis’ creation, the earthly origins of one single person, adam (as in Ben Sira, see below), is extended to all of humanity in order to create the portrayal of life’s absurdity and transience.37

35  The same verb is employed 11 times, 6 of which imply death (1:4; 2:14, 3:20, 6:6, 9:10, 12:5) 36  A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 223-47. 37  The separate existence of the spirit upon death, however limited, does not attest to the constituent parts of a person that is examined in chapter 4 of this study. The spirit (‫ )רוח‬of humanity in Qohelet is perhaps closer to the breath of a person then a separable component that carries the character, mind, and emotions of that person. However, these things are expressed with the use of “heart” (‫לב‬, e.g., 1:13, 2:20).

36

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

2.3

Ben Sira

According to the prologue, Ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus) was authored originally in Hebrew. A Greek translation was done by Ben Sira’s grandson in the decades after the completion of the original.38 Yet, Ben Sira’s textual history is complex; its complexities affect our examination. Two primary Greek forms account for the extant uncial and miniscule mss.39 Both of these Greek forms are largely based on different Hebrew recensions. The Syriac versions are also based on a Hebrew Vorlage that suggests the unification of Hebrew versions.40 In the late 19th century portions of four medieval Hebrew manuscripts were discovered in the Cairo Genizah (MSS A, B, C, D).41 In 1931, a portion of a fifth manuscript (E) was deciphered in the Adler Genizah collection housed in the Jewish Theological Seminary and published by Joseph Marcus in 1931.42 J. Schirmann discovered four new leaves, one in 1958 (from B) and three in 1960 (one from B, and two from C).43 The discovery of Judaean Desert fragments from Qumran and Masada44 indicated that the medieval copies from the Genizah were “essentially authentic” though the discrepancies attest to different recensions of Ben Sira.45 Leaves continue to be deciphered among the 38  Cf. Ben Sira’s prologue in 0:15-25. Ben Sira’s Greek manuscript tradition bears witness to a translation of a Hebrew original. See, Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 55-56. 39  G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach” APOT 1:281. Skehan refers to these Greek forms as GI and GII, noting by way of Zeigler that GII is not represented in any single Greek manuscript, Ben Sira, 53. 40  Skehan, Ben Sira, 57. See also, Naria Calduch-Benages, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, La Sabiduría del Escriba: Edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española en inglesa, BM 26 (Estella (Navarra), Espana: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003), 11-34. 41  Skehan, Ben Sira, 51-52. 42  Joseph Marcus, “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931): 223-40; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 51-52. 43  J. Schirmann, A New Leaf from the Hebrew ‘Ecclesiasticus’ (BenSira)/Daf chadash matoch sefer ben sira ha‘vri” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 440-3 and “Some Additional Leaves from Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew/Dafim nosfim matoch sefer ben sira,” Tarbiz 19 (1960): 125-34 (Heb.). See also, Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew,” Bib 45/2 (1964): 153-67. 44  Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân, DJD III, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 75-78; James Sanders, The Psalms Scrolls from Cave 11 (11QPsa), DJD IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 79-84. Yigael Yadin, “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” in Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Report (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999). 45  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 54. They contend that there is some retroversion of the Syriac and Greek evident in Genizah manuscripts (58-59).

2.3 Ben Sira

37

Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection (Additional Series) housed at Cambridge University Library.46 2.3.1 Sir 17:1-4 Perhaps the earliest interplay of the “image of God” and “from (out of) earth,” the two aforementioned creation topoi, occurs in Ben Sira 17:1-4,47 for which no known Hebrew parallel is extant. 1. Κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτὸν εἰς αὐτήν. 2. ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς. 3. καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸυς48 ἐνέδυσεν αὐτοὺς ἰσχὺν καὶ κατ᾿ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς 4. ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης σαρκὸς καὶ κατακυριεύειν θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν49

1. The Lord created man out of earth, and turned him back to it again. 2. He gave to men few days, a limited time, but granted them authority over the things upon the earth. 3. He endowed them with strength that befits them;50 and made them in his own image. 4. He placed the fear of them in all living beings, and granted them dominion over beasts and birds.51

46  A. Sheiber, “A New Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza,” in MK 98 (1982): 175-85; also, “An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew” in Jubilee Volume in Honor of Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, ed. Sha’ul Yisra’eli, Norman Lamm, and Yitshak Refa’el (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984), 2:1179-85 (Heb.). Shulamit Elizur and Michael Rand, “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira, T-S AS 118.78,” https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/taylorschechter-genizah-research-unit/fragment-month/fragment-month-14-0 and Shulamit Elizur, “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira,” DSD 17 (2010): 13-20. See also Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). According to Gary Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein, about two-thirds of the Hebrew original of Ben Sira have been accounted for. These manuscripts have now been collected on one website, “The Book of Ben Sira,” http://www.bensira.org/introduction.html. 47  Unless otherwise noted the English translation of Ben Sira is from the Revised Standard Version Apocrypha (1977). 48  Di Lella prefers ἑαυτὸυς rather than Zeigler’s ἑαυτὸν, Ben Sira, 282-3. 49  Joseph Ziegler, Sapentia Iesu Fili Sirach, VTG 12.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1965), 201. 50  The translation “that befits them” here follows Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 276. 51  The text here forms part of an extended poetic section regarding the creation of humankind. Various scholars, however, treat the context of this passage differently. For example, Di Lella outline 17:1-24 as a unified text entitled “Divine Wisdom and Mercy as seen in the Creation of Mankind,” Ben Sira, 276-86. Following Haspecker and Levinson, Gilbert argues that Di Lella’s shorter unit should include 15:11-16:23, Maurice Gilbert, “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis I-II,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., CBQMS 38, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp

38

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The poetic pericope, which references the creation of humanity “out of earth” and “in God’s image,” is undoubtedly a harmonization of both Genesis creation accounts. As already noted, the creation of “man,” not woman, or humanity, is “of the dust of the ground.” Yet Ben Sira has employed an unmistakable allusion to Gen 2 (ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον [Sir]; τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ52 τῆς γῆς [Gen 2:7 LXX]) in order to depict, not simply a single being, but the creation of humanity. Thus, the sage utilizes the singular accusative “person” (ἄνθρωπον) to refer to every person, i.e., all of humankind.53 This is especially noticeable as Ben Sira’s allusion shifts from Gen 2 to Gen 1 with a reference to God’s image in vv. 3b-4. The employment of both literary threads (vv. 1, 3) depict two distinct aspects of human existence. On the one hand, being created “out of earth” reflects humanity’s impermanence, that is to say, its lifespan is limited (vv. 1-2). The other topos, that humankind was created in “his [i.e., God’s] image” (εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ), is somehow connected to a “strength” (ἰσχὺς) that befits humanity (17:3). The term ἰσχὺς does not simply reflect physical prowess, however; it can also refer to one’s “capability.”54 Segal suggests that this capability is defined as having dominion over the earth (v. 4),55 an authority he contextually links to God’s image (vv. 5-8).56 If so, the value of “God’s image” for understanding Ben Sira’s conception of humanity does not end with verses 1-4. Yet, Levison contends that “Ben Sira’s portrayal of humanity in 17.1-4 is ambiguous;” humanity is only given a

(Washington: CBA, 2005), 91. Perdue treats a slightly smaller section as a unity, 16:2418:14, Wisdom and Creation, 259-62. See also, John R. Levinson, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch, JSPSup 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 3448. That said, 17:1-4 forms a particular view of creation that echoes throughout the surrounding context, 16:24-18:14. 52  Ben Sira does not utilize the same preposition as the LXX, using ἐκ rather than ἀπὸ. It seems, however, that the sage’s choice of preposition has the same semantic range as its biblical counterpart, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 281; also, Levinson, Portraits of Adam, 39. Gilbert notes that when employing texts from Gen 1-11 Ben Sira never quotes the biblical passage exactly, “Ben Sira,” 90. 53  Skehan and Di Lella, “Ben Sira,” 281; also, Levinson, Portraits of Adam, 39. 54  ἰσχύς, LSJ, 363. 55  Interestingly, Jubilees also references the authority over earth given to humanity but does so in its rewriting of Gen 1 (cf. 2:14). Unlike Ben Sira, however, Jubilees quite noticeably omits any reference to the “image of God:” “And after all this He created man, a man and a woman created He them, and gave him dominion over all that is upon the earth, and in the seas, and over everything that flies, and over beasts and over cattle, and over everything that moves on the earth, and over the whole earth, and over all this He gave him dominion,” Jub 2:14. 56  Moshe H. Segal, Sefer ben sira ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958), 105 (Heb.).

2.3 Ben Sira

39

modicum of authority, since its authority is related to its mortality.57 He suggests further that Ben Sira’s teaching on humanity is not filled with “the vitality of seeing the human race crowned with glory and honor or just a little lower than God/the angels” evoked in Ps 8.58 And while Ben Sira’s portrayal of humanity in 17:1-4 may not echo the granted glory of Ps 8:3-8, humanity’s supremacy over all creation—literarily linked to bearing God’s image—is unambiguously positive. In fact, God’s image remains in focus throughout vv. 4-8. First, God places fear (of humanity) upon all flesh (ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης σαρκὸς) and gives them power over all beasts and birds (v. 4)—a clear allusion to Gen 1:28. By virtue of bearing God’s image humanity has a higher standing than God’s other creations (cf. also Philo, Heir 7).59 It receives the Lord’s five faculties,60 sight, touch, smell, hearing, and tasting.61 These are partly enumerated in Sir 17:6-7, in particular the description of the each person’s ability to interpret and glorify God’s creation62 with the discretion63 of one’s tongue, eyes, and ears, as well as an understanding heart (17:5-6). To this God also “fills” (ἐνέπλησεν) humanity with “knowledge” and “sagacity” (ἐπιστήμην, συνέσεως), showing them “good and evil” (ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ, v. 7). Therefore, reference to God’s image in 17:3 is 57  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 37. Levison outlines three aspects of this ambiguity: 1) humans are ephemeral and sinful in contrast to celestial beings; 2) humans only reign as mortals over mortal animals; 3) the animals submit to human authority, not because of a fear of humanity, but because of a fear of God, Portraits of Adam, 37. His comments take into account the larger portion of Ben Sira, 15:9-18:14. 58  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 37. 59  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 276; Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 93. 60  This is perhaps the earliest appearance of a concept that finds fruition in Rabbinic literature, namely, that the “image of God” is somehow reflected in humanity’s physical being. See Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87/2 (Apr., 1994): 171-95; Morton Smith, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 315-26. Levison suggests that the five faculties are to experience the majesty of God’s creation and to praise him for it, Portraits of Adam, 37-38. See also, 2 En 65; and Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, OTP 2:678-80, 690-4, and Sibylline Oracles, OTP 1:22-24. 61  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 282. 62  What is labelled here as v. 5 comes from what Skehan and Di Lella have labelled GII, which are a number of expansions from different Greek manuscripts, Ben Sira, 55. 63  Skehan and Di Lella have additionally noted that the Greek for “discretion” (διαβούλιον) is the same term utilized to translate the Hebrew ‫“( יצר‬to shape or form”) in 15:4, which is the precise verb that is employed with the creation of man (Gen 2:7), a verb that distinguishes Gen 2 from 1. There is no Hebrew text extant for Ben Sira 17:5, but if in fact ‫יצר‬ is the verb which best represents the Vorlage then Ben Sira continues to harmonize the creation accounts.

40

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

not an isolated aphorism. That is to say that Ben Sira’s use of the imago dei is not simply related to some undefined “capability” (ἰσχύς, v. 3b) that humanity is given. Rather, the wisdom, senses, gifts, and capability endowed to humanity with the “image of God” allow it or a portion thereof, to be part of the “everlasting covenant” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος) and observe “the commandments” (τὰ κρίματα, v. 12). Thus, Uebeschaer is correct that 17:1-14, not 1-4, is a basic (grundlegende) passage for understanding Ben Sira’s teaching on humanity.64 Yet, the question remains whether Ben Sira intended 17:1-14, or even the larger literary unit (15:11-18:14), to be directed towards collective humanity or more specifically to the Jewish people since vv. 11-14, 17-18 recall Israel’s sacred history. Jervell suggests that these sections indicate a narrowing of Ben Sira’s focus to Israel.65 Levison counters that Ben Sira’s tendency is to argue from the universal to the specific, suggesting that the wisdom revealed to humanity is evident in 16:24-17:25 and is particularized at Sinai and embodied in the Torah—a point to which Ben Sira returns in chap. 24.66 Segal finds common ground between both positions, claiming that the purpose of creation in 16:2417:25 is that (all) creation observe the commandments.67 Indeed, referencing the Torah, an everlasting covenant, and the commandments appears to narrow Ben Sira’s perspective. Yet, those passages which recall Israel’s history are few in this section (vv. 11-14, 17-1868). In fact, these texts contrast somewhat with the focus of the larger literary unit, which provides several indications that Ben Sira has collective humanity in his sights:

64  Frank Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira, BZAW 379 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 137. 65  Jervell, Imago Dei, 31-33. 66  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38. 67  Segal, Ben Sira, 103. 68  v. 18 only appears in what Skehan calls GII, Ben Sira, 277. As noted, GII is not represented in on manuscript but is representative of G1 (uncials A, B, C, S and their dependent cursives), which was at some point expanded, Ben Sira, 55.

2.3 Ben Sira

41

15:14. αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ.

15:14. It was he, from the first when he created humankind,70 who made them subject to their own free choice.

19. καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιγνώσεται πᾶν ἔργον ἀνθρώπου.

19. The eyes of God behold his handiwork; he perceives every person’s every deed.

16:12. κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, οὕτως καὶ πολὺς ὁ ἔλεγχος αὐτοῦ· ἄνδρα κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ κρινεῖ.

16:12. Great as his mercy is his punishment; he judges people; each according to his deeds.

17:22. ἐλεημοσύνη ἀνδρὸς ὡς σφραγὶς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ χάριν ἀνθρώπου ὡς κόρην συντηρήσει.

17:22. A person’s goodness God cherishes like a signet ring, a person’s virtue, like the apple of his eye.

30.-32. οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.69 τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (see ‫ בשר ודם‬below). δύναμιν ὕψους οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός.

30.-32. The like [i.e., God’s forgiveness] cannot be found amongst humans, for not immortal is any human being. God holds accountable the hosts of highest heaven. Is anything brighter than the sun? Yet it can be eclipsed. How obscure then the thoughts of flesh and blood? while all humans [are] dust and ashes.

18:8a. Τί ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τί ἡ χρῆσις αὐτοῦ…

18:8a. What is a human being, of what worth is he …

13a. ἔλεος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ἔλεος δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα·

13a. A person may be merciful to his neighbor, but the Lord’s mercy reached all flesh (emphasis mine).

Clearly, Ben Sira’s teaching is not limited to those of Israel; his sayings cast a wider net and consider God’s relationship to humankind. Thus, Ben Sira preserves a conception of collective humanity to which he constructively adds traditions which were “at his disposal,” specifically those of Israel.71 Furthermore, accounting for Levison’s “general to particular” observation,72 the double foci 69  Likely a translation of “son of man” (‫ )בן אדם‬which is often utilized to speak of an individual, Israelite or non-Israelite, in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Num 23:19), while the plural “sons of man” (‫ )בני אדם‬is used to speak generally about humanity, e.g., Ps 12:1. 70  The following translation is taken from Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 268-86. 71  John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 41. 72  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38. Ben Sira utilized various wisdom teachings—both Jewish and other—to pave a path of obedience to the Jewish law. As noted in his grandson’s prologue, “…[Jesus was] led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in

42

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

of Israel-specific traditions and general humanity indicates that both are key to the sage’s teachings. Ben Sira is speaking generally about humanity, which is partially defined and contoured, particularly, by Israel’s sacred tradition especially that which evokes creation73 and Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai.74 Thus, as Segal suggests, the hope is that all of humanity (i.e., God’s creation) will, at a maximum, be successful at living according to God’s law, and, at a minimum, have the ability to do so because it is created in the “image” of the law giving creator. With that in mind, some additional observations can be made regarding the interplay of the creation topoi in 17:1-4. First, the influence of our second literary thread, “from (out of) earth,” is present in two allusions to Gen 3:19; humanity’s creation “out of earth” foreshadows their eventual return to it (cf. 16:30; 17:1; see Qoh above). Second, the impermanence (or mortality) of an “earthly” humanity is spoken of in light of God’s mercy:

order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law (0:1).” Therefore, the purpose of writing down these instructions on wisdom is ultimately to be successful in living according to the Jewish Law. Ben Sira did not shy away from Hellenistic culture and borrowed from it when it reconciled with the teachings and traditions of Israel. Collins adds, “the main innovation of Sirach in the tradition of the Jewish wisdom school was in the prominence he gave to the Torah of Moses,” Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 41. Collins notes elsewhere that Greek and Hebrew wisdom traditions ground their view of humanity in their understanding of creation, “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on Jewish Encounters with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 173. Of the larger text, Corley suggests that it shares a structural and contextual similarity with Proverbs, Job, as well as Egyptian and Greek wisdom texts, Jeremy Corley, “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira: An investigation of Beginnings and Endings,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLS 1 (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 21-48, esp. 23-28. See also, James T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, SBLMS 28 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); Alexander O. Di Lella, “Wisdom of Ben Sira,” ABD 6:934; Skehan, Ben Sira, 16. 73  Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 93. He misses, however, that while Ben Sira universalizes the creation of humanity, he does not depict the creation of humanity as “man” and “woman” separately—a unique quality to Gen 2. Rather, while utilizing both creation topoi, Ben Sira portrays the creation of humanity as a whole. 74  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38

2.3 Ben Sira 17:29-32 ὡς μεγάλη ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐξιλασμὸς τοῖς ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. δύναμιν ὕψους οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός.

43 17:29-32 How great is the mercy of the Lord, and his forgiveness for those who turn to him! For all things cannot be in humanity, since a son of man is not immortal. What is brighter than the sun? Yet its light fails. So, flesh and blood devise evil. He marshals the host of the height of heaven; but all men are earth and ashes (author’s emphasis).

Because humanity lacks immortality, temporal like “earth and ash,” God extends his mercy and forgiveness to those who repent (cf. Pss. Sol. 9). Levison adds, “the result of mortality, according to Ben Sira, is not hiddenness from God (16.17-22) but becoming the object of God’s mercy.”75 Third, Di Lella notes that 16:24-18:14 deals “… with God as Creator and with the human beings as creatures whose dignity derives from being fashioned in the image of God.”76 Yet, before it can be ascertained that God’s image is central to humanity’s socalled “dignity” in 16:24-18:14, some larger literary themes must be drawn out. According to Gilbert there are two primary parts to this text: 1) it deals with human responsibility for sin in light of an admonishment,77 “say not, ‘It was God’s doing that I fell away’” (15:11),78 and 2) with divine wisdom and mercy bestowed on humanity.79 In both, humanity’s creation and creatureliness (e.g., “flesh and blood,” 17:31; cf. also 14:18) are emphasized. As a result of that creation, humanity is said to be left with its inclination (διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ=‫יצרו‬ [A 6r:25]) and the freedom to choose, if he/she should desire (θέλῃς=‫תחפץ‬ [A 6r:26]; ‫תחפץ‬ ׄ [B 2r:16]), to follow God’s commandments.80 Although, while 75  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 40. 76  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 280. 77  Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 91. 78  μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην / ‫( אל תאמר מאל פשעי‬A 6r:22; B 2r:11), Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira, 44, 52). 79  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271, 280. 80  Ben Sira alludes to the second creation of humankind by employing the verb ‫“( יצר‬form,” 17:3), in the same literary context as the creation of humanity and where one finds the nominal form ‫“( יֵ ֶצר‬inclination”). Hengel has noted that the term yetzer “gains its central anthropological significance in the sense of ‘character’, ‘disposition’ for the first time in Ben Sira,” Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 140. See chapter 6 of this study). Later, the rabbis understand the odd double yod of the verb ‫יצר‬ ֶ ִ‫“( וַ ּי‬and he formed”) in Gen 2:7 to imply the creation of the ‫“( יצר הרע‬the evil inclination”) and the ‫“( יצר הטוב‬the good inclination;” Gen Rab 14:4; b. Ber 61a). See also, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 57-58.

44

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

humanity is made subject to its inclination, Ben Sira strongly implies that the choice to follow the commandments is the best, if not the only, option, continually reminding its audience that no deed is done beyond God’s sight (e.g., 15:19, 16:17-23, 17:15-20, more on this later). Indeed, the instruction to follow God’s commandments is echoed throughout Ben Sira.81 81  One text that does not appear in every Greek version is a variant of 16:4: “Whoever does good (lit. righteousness; ‫[ צדקה‬A 6v:16-17]) has his wage, and each person will receive according to his deeds.” The terminology utilized by Ben Sira regarding these deeds echoes ideas that are employed by other Second Temple authors to contour and shape what it meant for humanity to be created in “image of God.” In the Greco-Roman period, it is well known that the semantic range for ‫ צדקה‬grew to encompass the concept of charity and was utilized terminologically for charity, e.g., 1QS 5:4. See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006) 1263-64 [henceforth: Jastrow]; Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995), 19. The lexical developments that led to this stem from the concept of “justice and righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible, which Weinfeld has noted is not simply related to juridical matters but reveals a growing concern for those in need, Weinfeld, Social Justice, 44. The expectation is that the judge on earth will reflect, in his actions, the “righteousness and justice” of God, Weinfeld, Social Justice, 44. This concept of charity as imitatio dei is attested elsewhere in Ben Sira: “Make yourself beloved in the congregation; bow your head low to a great man. Incline your ear to the poor and answer him peaceably and gently. Deliver him who is wronged from the hand of the wrongdoer; and do not be fainthearted in judging a case. Be like a father to orphans, and instead of a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most High, and he will love you more than does your mother” (4:7-10).    Gregory claims that Ben Sira is the first to use ‫ צדקה‬unambiguously as almsgiving though Aramaic cognates exist in Tobit and Daniel as well, Bradley C. Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach, DCL 2 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 178. Again, in Sir 17:22-23, there are aphorisms with a similar idea regarding almsgiving: “A person’s almsgiving is like a signet with him … Afterward he will arise and repay them” (ἐλεημοσύνη ἀνδρὸς ὡς σφραγὶς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ…μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξαναστήσεται καὶ ἀνταποδώσει αὐτοῖς). In fact, charity appears to be a central characteristic of the person who seeks to fulfill God’s commandments: it “atones for sins” (ἐξιλάσεται ἁμαρτίας/‫חטאת תכפר‬, 3:30), is a memorial “like a signet ring” (ὡς σφραγὶς, 17:22); “delivers from all affliction” (ἐξελεῖταί σε ἐκ πάσης κακώσεως, 29:12), “endures forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διαμενεῖ/‫תכון לעד‬, 40:17), and rescues from trouble (ῥύσεται/‫מצלת‬, 40:24). Moreover, the section that recalls Israel’s sacred history, 17:11-14, emphasizes two important paraphrases of Torah law, to “avoid all injustice” (Προσέχετε ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδίκου) and each person’s responsibility to care about their neighbor (περὶ τοῦ πλησίον, 17:14). Di Lella contends that this is an allusion to the two great commandments assuming that the reference to “avoid all injustice” is a summary of all the negative commandments and thus a deft allusion to the first part of the Decalogue, while the commandments about neighbors reflect the second half, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 2823. The problem with such a reading is that the so-called dual love commandments are not positive (“you shall …”). That notwithstanding, reference to commandments about neighbors (πλησίος) in Ben Sira is, at least, a partial allusion to Lev 19:18, “And you shall

2.3 Ben Sira

45

But are these somehow connected with our creation topoi, specifically the “image of God”? Those texts in 16:24-18:14 that refer to the impermanence of humanity or its mortality are undoubtedly connected to its creation “out of the earth.” It then stands to reason that our other topos, the “image of God,” applies to the other human characteristics portrayed there. Di Lella contends that the appearance of the “image of God” is “the character statement of human dignity and equality of all men, women, and children in the sight of God.”82 While it is tempting to utilize the “image of God” retroactively, that is, to appropriate and apply its value and meaning in later Second Temple, early Christian, and Rabbinic texts, it should be avoided if the evidence is lacking. As this study already notes, the immediate context of the “image of God” states that God gives humanity certain capabilities (ἰσχύς). The implication of this capability, according to the literary structure of Ben Sira, is that humanity is imbued with specific characteristics and faculties to fulfil the commandments—e.g., avoiding evil and acting charitably to their neighbor (17:5-14)—and not necessarily the “character statement of human dignity and equality” that Di Lella contends. Consequently, the acute value given to the imago dei in later Jewish love you neighbor as yourself”, which in the Greco-Roman period is exegetically fused to Deut 6:5 (both texts are only two of four passages where the verb ‫ וְ ָא ַה ְב ָּת‬appears [also, Lev. 19:34, Deut 11:1]). Ben Sira alludes again to Lev 19:18 in 27:6-7, “Remember the end of your life, and cease from enmity, remember destruction and death, and be true to the commandments. Remember the commandments, and do not be angry with your neighbor …” (cf. also 28:2). The New Testament also attests to this passage as the second of two commandments, known in the Gospels as the Great Commandments (Matt 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27. See also Gal 5:14 and James 2:8). Indeed, Lev 19:18 is singled out by the Second Temple sages as the essence of Torah. In the Talmud, Hillel, a rabbinic sage who flourished in the 1st c. CE, singles to a potential convert that Lev 19:18 is the essence of the Torah. In several rabbinic texts, Rabbi Akiva refers to the Leviticus passage as a ‫כלל‬ ‫“( גדול‬essential precept,” Sifra, Qed., 8:4.; also y. Ned. 9, 41c; Gen. Rab. 24). Although these traditions are preserved in the later Rabbinic works (3rd-6th CE) there is evidence from Second Temple texts that Lev 19:18 gains cultural and religious significance and was often integrated with the second line of the Sh’ma (Deut 6:5). Already in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Jubilees, the dual love commandment is attested. See Marinus de Jonge, “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” NT 44/4 (Oct., 2002): 371-92, and Surge Ruzer, “The Double Love Precept in the New Testament and the Rule of the Community” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels—Vol. 1, JCP 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81-106. Therefore, Ben Sira attests to what Flusser calls a “new sensitivity,” namely, a growing Jewish humanism that was demonstrated by an emphasis on loving God by loving your neighbor through acts of charity (or righteousness) and deeds of loving kindness, David Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988], 469-89; repr. from HTR 61/2 (Apr., 1968): 107-27. 82  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 282.

46

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

and Christian texts is lacking here; human dignity and equality among men, women, and children, as Di Lella argues, is at best an anachronistic reading of Ben Sira, although there is modicum of elevated human character. As Perdue notes, “Humans … made in the divine image and given dominion over the other creatures, are endowed by the creator with wisdom and the ‘fear of God,’ which form the basis and potentiality for obedience.”83 Uerberschaer concludes that the “image of God” indicates three things: 1) the strength given to humanity in order to fear God, 2) authority over all of creation, and 3) functioning as a sort of partner with God on earth.84 Humanity’s so-called partnership and special relationship with God expresses its distinct quality, although it does not indicate the equality of the masses. To summarize, the interplay of the two creation topoi examined in Ben Sira emphasizes two primary aspects of human existence: 1) humanity’s creation from the dust of the ground denotes its mortality, and 2) the capability, endowed by God’s image, to participate in his everlasting covenant by following his commandments. 2.3.2 Sir 33:7-15 According to Di Lella, this short poem, 33:7-15, “is important for an understanding of Ben Sira’s thought on the antinomies or polarities or opposites that are found in creation.”85 Since it attests to one of our creation topoi, “from (out of) earth,” some comment is warranted. The second of our two topoi occur in 33:10: LXX καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους, καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ·86

E 1r:18

All of humanity is from the ground And Adam was created from earth

[…].ly clay And from dust Adam (’dm) was formed.

:‫[…] לי חמר‬ ‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם׃‬

The poem begins with a question regarding one day’s importance over another, “Why is any day distinguished from another, when all the daylight from the

83  Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 264. 84  Uerberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 151. 85  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 399. 86  The Greek translator has rendered the noun ‫ אדם‬as a singular proper noun Αδαμ. The reason, suggested by Levison is “in this translation ‘Adam’ is the paradigm of all people: ‘Adam was created from the earth, so also are all people from clay,’” Levison, Portraits, 41. Both the Hebrew and Greek attests that Ben Sira follows Gen 2 closely in that he speaks of Adam being created from dust. As a paradigm of creation, then, all of humanity is affected by this earthly creation.

2.3 Ben Sira

47

year is from the sun” (v. 7)? Verses 8-9 depict the separation of days, seasons, and feasts: “By the Lord’s decision they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and feasts; some of them he exalted and hallowed (ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἡγίασεν/ ֯‫[ ֯ברך והקדשו‬E 1r:17]), and some of them he made ordinary days.” The language is reminiscent of the end of the first creation, “And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it” (καὶ ηὐλόγησεν [‫ ]וַ ָיְב ֶרְך‬ὁ θεὸς τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἑβδόμην καὶ ἡγίασεν [‫ ]וַ יְ ַק ֵדׁש‬αὐτήν, Gen 2:3).87 The language of the first creation is then complemented in v. 10 by Genesis’ second creation: “all of humanity is from the ground, and Adam was created from earth.” There is a dual allusion employed by Ben Sira to reflect humanity’s mortality. Adam, the paradigm of all people, is created “out of earth/clay” (ἐκ γῆς/‫ )חמר‬and all of humanity is said to be “from the ground/from dust” (ἀπὸ ἐδάφους88/‫)מן עפר‬. Both elements in the verse, which in some way echo Gen 2:7, synonymously parallel one another (i.e., ἐκ γῆς = ἀπὸ ἐδάφους/‫)מן עפר = חמר‬. In other words, both Adam and humanity share the same earthly origins.89 In fact, the function of “from the ground” is unsurprisingly similar to “out of earth” in Ben Sira 17:1-4. Yet, the context is decidedly different.

87  Cf. also Exod 20:8-11 88  The use of ἔδαφος for ‫ עפר‬is also is attested in the LXX translation of Isaiah (e.g., 25:12, 26:5, 29:4). 89  Therefore, our variant topoi, created from “clay” (Heb.) or “from the ground” (Gk.) are intended to elicit the creation imagery. Two things are key here: 1) E has attested to the variant of our topos, “out of earth,” where “earth” (γῆς) is apparently a translation of “clay” (‫)חמר‬. Marcus reconstructs ‫ ]כל איש מכ]לי חמר‬based, it seems, on Job 33:6, 10:9, and the Syriac version. Job 10:9 shares a close resemblance to our distich, “Remember that you made me out of clay, and to dust you will return me” (‫ל־ע ָפר‬ ָ ‫יתנִ י וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫י־כח ֶֹמר ֲע ִׂש‬ ַ ‫זְ ָכר־נָ א ִּכ‬ ‫) ְּת ִׁש ֵיבנִ י‬, cf. also Ben Sira 17:1; Joseph Marcus, “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira,” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931): 232. There is no exact parallel that exists in the Hebrew Bible or the Syriac that reflects Marcus’ reconstruction, however. Segal reconstructs ‫ ]וְ גַ ם ִאיׁש ְּכ] ִלי ח ֶֹמר‬but contends that ‫( ְּכ ִלי‬vessel) should be read ‫“( ֻּכלֹו‬all of it,” Ben Sira, 211). Both reconstructions are partially based on the Syriac version, “and all of the sons of man [are] from mud.” See Paul de Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace (Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus; Londinii: Williams and Norgate, 1861). However, one might construct 33:10 in E, humanity is depicted as originating from “clay” (‫)חמר‬. Yet, if we accept the reconstructions, the closest linguistic parallel “vessel of clay” (‫ )כלי חמר‬appears in the Hodayot where both “vessel of clay” (‫יצר חמר‬, e.g., 1QHa 20:29) and, the synonymous, “vessel of dust” (‫ ;יצר העפר‬e.g., 1QHa 21:25) are preserved. Indeed, neither reconstruction agrees with the LXX or Syriac. The LXX reads, “and all men [are] from the ground” (καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους). The verbless clause indicates that the LXX has closely followed the Semitic Vorlage but neither of the reconstructions nor the extant Syriac are a 1:1 parallel with the Greek. The problem cannot be solved by Septuagintal variants either, cf. Zeigler, Ben Sira, 278.

48

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The opening question in v. 7 regarding differing days, feasts, and appointed seasons is significantly narrowed to focus on the origins of humanity in v. 10. All of humankind share the same beginning and the same end; the dust from which they came will be the dust to which they return (cf. Sir 17:1; cf. Job 10:9). As Levison contends, “Ben Sira unifies all days by the common feature that they all share the sun’s light (v. 7), so the unifying feature of humanity is its earthiness, not its dominion or moral faculties.”90 Our topos is not simply a reference to mortality, however. Verse 11 adds, “In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them and differentiated their ways.” As God judges and differentiates between days, so does he “distinguish” (διεχώρισεν) and “alter” (ἠλλοίωσεν) their ways.91 Though humanity shares the same origins God differentiates between them in what appears to be corresponding pairs—“some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; but some of them he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place” (vv. 11-12). It is the poem’s parallelism that helps us to grasp Ben Sira’s emphasis. The first three verses (7-9) parallel the last three (1012) in an A1-B1, A2-B2, A3-B3 structure.92

90  Levison, Portraits of Adam, 41. See also, Gilbert, Ben Sira, 95; Winston, Wisdom, 400. 91  The Hebrew of E indicates a deft allusion to a specific creation account. In E 1r:19 God is said to distinguish humanity with the verb ‫ ;תבדילם( בדל‬33:11), specifically the hiphil form ‫“( להבדיל‬to separate, distinguish”). Mark Smith has referred to the hiphil form ‫ להבדיל‬as a “hallmark priestly term,” The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 71, which of the limited times it occurs in the Bible, is attested in the priestly creation of Gen 1 five times (vv. 4, 6, 7, 14, 18). It is not, however, utilized in the second creation account, cf. Smith, The Priestly Vision, 71. By this, Ben Sira reveals his interpretive ingenuity by fusing together an overt allusion to Gen 2, utilizing a variant of our topos “from earth,” along with the passive form of the verb ‫)נוצר( יצר‬, and a verbal allusion to Gen 1 with the Hiphil of ‫בדל‬. 92  The parallelism in the poem can be broken down further. Ben Sira’s literary artistry is quite complex; each verse, except v. 12, contains a couplet that can be structured in an A-B format. Each verse couplet moves from the general to the specific—a common feature in biblical Hebrew poetry, cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 19. Di Lella suggests, “In 33:10, there is an a:b::b’:a’ chiastic arrangement in the order of the nouns: people:clay::earth:human(kind). The point of the verse is that all human beings have a common origin, viz., from the clay of the earth,” Ben Sira, 400.

49

2.3 Ben Sira LXX93 (A1) 7. Διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει, καὶ πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾿ ἡλίου;

(B1) 10. καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους, καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ·

(A2) 8. ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν, καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς·

(B2) 11. ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν·

(A3) 9. ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἡγίασεν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔθηκεν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἡμερῶν.

(B3) 12. ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐλόγησεν καὶ ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἡγίασεν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἤγγισεν· ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν κατηράσατο καὶ ἐταπείνωσενκαὶ ἀνέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ στάσεως αὐτῶν.

RSVA (A1) 7. Why is any day better than another, and all the daylight in the year is from the sun?

(B1) 10. All men are from the ground, and Adam was created of the dust.

(A2) 8. By the Lord’s decision they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and feasts;

(B2) 11. In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them and appointed their different ways;

(A3) 9. some of them he exalted and hallowed, and some of them he made ordinary days.

(B3) 12. some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; but some of them he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place.

The parallelism is evident in that the B-bicola are either an intensification or specification of the A-bicola. In fact, the A-bicola direct the reader’s attention to its corresponding pair in the B-bicola. A1 > B1

day(s) > mankind

A2 > B2

Lord’s appointed seasons/feasts > Lord’s appointed humanity’s ways

A3 > B3

exalted/hallowed ordinary days > blessed/exalted humanity

This emphasis is punctuated in v. 13 by depicting God’s direct engagement with his creation of humanity:

93  Zeigler, Ben Sira, 278.

50

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

13. ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτοὺς, ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν αὐτοῦ.

13. As clay in the hand of the potter—all his ways are as he pleases—so men are in the hand of him who made them, to give them according to his judgment.

While interest in this passage has focussed primarily on God and creation,94 this small poem supplements Ben Sira’s conception of humanity. As already mentioned, v. 11 recalls the shared origin of each human by utilizing the variant of our topos, “from the ground” (or, “clay” in E). Besides humanity’s shared origin, v. 13 provides an accentuation (perhaps even an interpretation) of our topos that is not present earlier in Ben Sira. Because humankind is made from dust/clay and God is the potter—a clear allusion to prophetic traditions in Isaiah and Jeremiah—humanity’s ways are decided according to his (i.e., God’s) pleasure and judgment. Ben Sira’s language leads the reader specifically the potter’s house in Jeremiah 18.95 Unlike Jeremiah, however, where the clay on the potter’s wheel is intended to be representative of Israel, the language in Ben Sira’s poem is not nation-specific, but depicts a conception of collective humanity. Influenced by prophetic tradition, Ben Sira intends to portray God’s sovereignty over all of humankind. This sovereignty has been interpreted by Collins as comparable to the determinism present in the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26),96 although Paul Winter warned against making such 94  Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer, “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 209-32, esp. 217-8. Cf. also Di Lella, Ben Sira, 400-401. 95  There are four texts in the Hebrew Bible that refer to the potter (‫יֹוצר‬ ֵ ,‫ )ּי ֵֹצר‬and clay (‫)ח ֶֹמר‬: Isa 29:16, 41:25; Jer 18:4, 6. In particular, Jer 18:1-6, shares strong linguistic parallels to Ben Sira 33:13, especially the depiction of the clay in the potter’s hand. Yet another biblical passage which may provide an alternative background for Ben Sira is Is 45:9-13, especially verse 13, “I will make straight all his ways (‫ל־ּד ָר ָכיו ֲאיַ ֵּׁשר‬ ְ ‫ ;וְ ָכ‬LXX: πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ εὐθεῖαι). This language appears again in Enoch 8:2 as depicting Azael’s corruption of humanity. Moreover, Di Lella suggests that there are parallels to Ben Sira in Wis 15:6 and Rom 9:20-23, Ben Sira, 401. In particular, Paul incorporates the creation language of Gen 2, “But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me thus?’ ‘Has the potter no right over the clay (ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ), to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?’” (9:20-21). There appears to be a dual allusion in Rom 9 to both Jer 18 and Is 29:15-16. Paul utilizes potter/vessel language to indicate God’s sovereignty over humanity, namely, that he is merciful and hardens the hearts of whomever he wills (9:18). 96  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85. Collins refers to the determinism in the poem as being “remarkably” similar to that of the teaching of the sectarians, especially 1QS 3:15-16. Although, he contends that this determinism stands at odds with Ben Sira’s defense of human responsibility in earlier chapters. Mattila argues that in this poem God is depicted

2.3 Ben Sira

51

assertions.97 Indeed, one thing is clear, the determinism of the Treatise is far more complex than what we have here in Ben Sira (see 7.2).98 That said, Ben Sira’s view of God’s sovereignty may move us closer to the Treatise. Ben Sira, who espouses God’s ultimate sovereignty, while elsewhere affirming human responsibility and free will (cf. 15:11-20), may reflect the conceptual tension that is then utilized, highlighted, and transformed by the author of a document like the Treatise in order to emphasize its strong (pre)determinism. Ben Sira undoubtedly conceives of God as having absolute authority, especially in the Hymn of Creation (42:15-43:33).99 It does not seem, however, that this authority involves the predestination of humanity’s actions. Although admittedly, this speculation regarding determinism may be heightened by the duality of the final two verses (vv. 14-15): moral qualities, existence, and moral individuals are depicted as binary opposites. 14. ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή, οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός·

14. Good is the opposite of evil, and life the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the godly.

15. καὶ οὕτως ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ὑψίστου, δύο δύο,100 ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός.

15. Look upon all the works of the Most High; they likewise are in pairs, one the opposite of the other.

as a divine potter who forms clay into good or evil vessels. The vessels have no control over the type they will be, Sharon Lea Mattila, “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence,” JBL 119:3 (Aut., 2000): 479. The poem, however, makes no reference to clay being molded into “good” or “evil” vessels. Therefore, this reading appears to be the tendency to read the strict determinism of the Treatise back into the poem. 97  Paul Winter, “Ben Sira and the Teaching of the ‘Two Ways,’” VT 5/3 (Jul., 1955): 315-8. Winter’s primary contention is that the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” is primarily apocalyptic, where Ben Sira is not. 98  See Jean Duhaime, “Determinism,” EDSS 1:194-8. Duhaime notes that his examination of the Qumran material leaves very little doubt that history could escape God’s predetermined plan. Humanity on the other hand, has some degree of free will (195-6). 99  Di Lella, Ben Sira, 491-2. 100  Note the appearance of the Greek δύο δύο (Hb. ‫[ שנים שנים‬E 1v:2]) in Ben Sira 33:15 to describe all of God’s creations. In the LXX, δύο δύο occurs only in Genesis’ flood narrative (6:19, 20; 7:2, 3, 9, 15). The Greek does not appear elsewhere in literature from the period. In the Hebrew Bible ‫ שנים שנים‬occurs three times, two of which are in the Flood Narrative. Without fail, both the Greek and the Hebrew are utilized to reference the male and female of every living creature or as Gen 7:15 states, “two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life” (‫רּוח ַחּיִ ים‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ָּב ָׂשר ֲא ֶׁשר־ּבֹו‬ ַ ‫) ְׁשנַ יִ ם ְׁשנַ יִם ִמ ָּכ‬. Due to the limited number of occurrences of either the Greek or the Hebrew in the Bible, or more contemporaneous literature, it is likely that “all of works of the Most High” is, in fact, an allusion to creation. The one occurrence of ‫ שנים שנים‬at Qumran comes in the Damascus

52

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

This duality is not eschatological in nature. Consequently, it appears that the dualism presented in Ben Sira should be more broadly defined. McCarter’s definition of dualism is key here: The polarities that animate and define the world, as perceived by these societies, are utterly opposed or at least opposite, and they are irreducible (that is, they cannot be resolved into a single entity). But they are not always relentlessly hostile, and the goal of history does not envision the ultimate elimination of one or the other, even though they can never be fully reconciled. This broader type of dualism is sometimes characterized as complementary or dialectical, to distinguish it from the eschatological dualism just described. In systems embracing this complementary view, the very separateness of the opposed principles produces a cosmic equilibrium that is the chief characteristic of the experienced world, so that living in such a universe requires recognizing and participating in the harmonious balance inherent in the relationship between the defining polarities (author’s emphasis)101

Therefore, Ben Sira espouses a worldview where the world is comprised of complementary polarities; these polarities uphold creation’s cosmic balance. In other words, there is day as there is night; there is good as there is evil—all things are in corresponding pairs. Collins contends that this duality is the result of Stoic influence, specifically the philosopher Chrysippus. Within Document (5:1) where Gen 7:9 is quoted to substantiate the argument that a man is to have one wife for his entire life. 101  P.  Kyle McCarter, Jr, “Dualism in Antiquity,” in Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, ed. Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric Meyers, Armin Lange, Randall Styers, JAJSup 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010), 19-20. On the other hand, Bianchi warns against seeing every duality as a cosmic dualism: “Not every duality or polarity is dualistic—only those that involve the duality or polarity of causal principles … They are dualistic only when they are understood as principles or causes of the world and its constitutive elements,” “Dualism,” ER 4:2505. See also, Jean Duhaime, “Dualism,” EDSS 1:215-20; Loren Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context,” 159-84, and McCarter, “Dualism in Antiquity,” 19-35, in Light Against Darkness. Gilbert, commenting on the whole of Ben Sira, states succinctly, “There is no trace of dualism in the elements of the world, but they end up differently.” He contends that our poem, though it shows evidence of Ben Sira’s recourse to cosmology, is intended to “throw light on the questions which man puts to himself about himself and about God,” Maurice Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Van Gorcum: Assen, 1984), 296. Gilbert may work under the assumption that a singular literary/philosophical thought works its way through Ben Sira, with little deviation. When compared to other contemporaneous texts it appears, however, that Ben Sira touches on the broadly defined dualistic thought that already existed in various forms in the ancient Mediterranean.

2.3 Ben Sira

53

Stoicism, duality was simply an innate quality of things, part of the created order. Collins suggests further that such a systematic division in creation has no precedent in the Hebrew Bible, even though he admits to certain binary opposites in Gen 1.102 Brand is right to note that these connections are, at best, tenuous.103 Ben Sira’s dualities may find their inspiration closer to home, in particular, as tacitly noted by Collins, the complementary pairs of the priestly portions of the first creation. The scribe’s priestly affinities, which have been well-examined104 and documented, provide some explanation of the duality in the small poem’s final verses. Taking this into account, the creation of humanity in Ben Sira 33 is precisely where one should expect to find the world divided into complementary pairs. A depiction of this type of dualism, especially the language of the last verse “one the opposite of the other” (ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός), appears as well in the

102  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85. Ben Sira was not written in a cultural vacuum and Stoic philosophy is but one possible influence. As already noted, within the Hellenistic world, Ben Sira would have had access to Greek, Egyptian, and perhaps even (early) Zoroastrian influence—all of which have been shown to preserve dualistic thought, cf. Bianchi, ER 4:2505. See also, Light Against Darkness, lest one forget Israel’s own literary tradition. In fact, Mattila contends that the number of similarities between Ben Sira’s conception of pairs and what appears in Jewish eschatological texts argues that this connection is much closer than that of Ben Sira and the Stoics, “Ben Sira,” 484. 103  Brand, Evil Within, 111-2. 104  Scholars have already noted that Ben Sira’s support of priesthood is “wholehearted” and occurs socially when others either critiqued or depicted themselves as disenfranchised from Jerusalem’s guild, Benjamin Wright III, “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint; JSJSup 131 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 96-126, esp. 123-4; repr. from The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes, BZAW 255 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 189-222.; idem, “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” SBLSP 35 (1996): 133-49. See also, Samuel P. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80/3 (Jul., 1987), 261-86; Joseph L. Angel, “The Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran,” in Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, ed. Lawrence Schiffman and Shani Tzoref (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 27-54, esp. 33-40. Angel notes that Ben Sira envisioned the priesthood as the ideal form of government, “The Traditional Roots,” 44; also Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 87-88. Ben Sira’s support is most notable in the so-called “Praise of Israel’s Ancestors” (44-49) where Aaron receives far more attention than Moses and David, “The Traditional Roots,” 34; Wright III, “‘Fear the Lord,’” 101. This extended laudation is punctuated by the extended panegyric to Simon, son of Yohanan (Gr. Onias), one of Jerusalem’s high priests in the pre-Hasmonean period. Olyan notes, “consistently, Ben Sira’s ideology of priesthood stands closest to that found in the priestly writing of the Pentateuch,” Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship,” 285.

54

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

Testament of Asher, part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work which was, in some form, originally contemporary to Ben Sira.105 1:3. δύο ὁδοὺς ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ δύο διαβούλια καὶ δύο πράξεις καὶ δύο τρόπους καὶ δύο τέλη. 4 διὰ τοῦτο πάντα δύο εἰσίν, ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός. 5 ὁδοὶ δύο, καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ· ἐν οἷς εἰσι τὰ δύο διαβούλια ἐν στέρνοις ἡμῶν διακρίνοντα αὐτάς.

1:3. Two ways has God given to the sons of men, and two inclinations, and two kinds of action, and two modes (of action), and two issues. 4 Therefore all things are by twos, one over against the other. 5 For there are two ways of good and evil, and with these are the two inclinations in our breasts discriminating them.

It is sufficient to say that deterministic language is missing from this text, though the outlook remains dualistic, at least when defined broadly.106 The same language appears again in T. Ash. 5:1, “You see, my children, how there are two in all things, one against the other (ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός), and the one is hidden by the other: in wealth covetousness, in conviviality drunkenness, in laughter grief, in wedlock profligacy.” As with the first occurrence, the text reflects the more complementary duality attested in Ben Sira. The patriarch presents opposing pairs as viable options for his sons. Such polarity provides him with the opportunity for his sons to walk with singularity before God, searching out his commandments (v. 4). The exhortation indicates that his sons have a choice, even an ability, to follow these commandments. Obedience and disobedience is not a forgone conclusion. Returning to the final verses of Ben Sira 33, one should be careful drawing too close a parallel with the stark and complex dualism of the texts from the Qumran community, especially the Treatise. Furthermore, Ben Sira’s dualism is not the eschatological dualism attested in other texts since it is neither concerned with the ultimate fate of the world and/or humanity, nor does the dualism indicate the inescapability of humanity’s fate. Due to the fact that the creation of humankind in v. 13 and the duality of vv. 14, 15 may be more closely related to prophetic and priestly traditions (respectively), some observations can be made regarding Ben Sira’s conception of humanity in 33:7-15. The whole of humanity is a creation of earth (v. 10; ἀπὸ ἐδάφους; lit. “from the ground”). The Greek of Ben Sira emphasizes humanity’s creation by narrowing 105  Elias J. Bickerman, “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees, ed. Amram Tropper, AGJU 68 (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:272-94. 106  H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” OTP 1:779. The term ἔδωκεν (“to give”) does not seem to have the deterministic force of the terminology we find elsewhere (e.g., ‫ הכין‬in 1QS 3:15; 1QHa 21:8).

2.3 Ben Sira

55

the poem’s focus to Adam (καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ), an exemplar of humanity. A creation of dust, or earth, which is used earlier in Ben Sira to portray human impermanence, is utilized here to depict human subjugation to God. Ben Sira alters its (i.e., humanity’s) ways and distinguishes between it in the same way that he does the days. The first six lines of the poem are structured (vv. 7-12), it seems, to punctuate the final three lines. That is, line 7-12, which highlight God’s sovereignty is resolutely reaffirmed with use of the biblical prophetic tradition that hearkens back to the potter and his clay (God and humanity; vv. 13-15) in Jer 18. Additionally, while some have compared verse 13 to the determinism of the Treatise, God’s sovereignty over his creation evinces a degree of human subordination, and it does not appear to be the complex, if not also absolute, degree attested in the Treatise or elsewhere in the Qumran corpus. Moreover, the language of Ben Sira’s final two verses (14-15) and T. Ash. (5:1-3; 5:3-5), which share a linguistic parallel to one another, have little to do with eschatological dualism and more to do with the admonition that there is indeed a right (and wrong) way to walk before God.107 The poem clearly affirms God’s sovereignty and the use of our topos is not accidental. The emphasis on God’s sovereignty over humanity in Ben Sira illustrates a two sided portrayal of humankind. God, the potter, is sovereign and humankind is distinctly connected to him by virtue of originating as clay on the potter’s wheel. God’s sovereignty is not absolute, however, and humanity does not exist under a fatalistic shadow from which it cannot escape.108 Indeed, the same has been argued of Treatise.109 Rather, as Ben Sira indicates by placing 107  This conception of God’s creation appearing in pairs, which communicates the wholeness of the world—namely, it is complete as God has created it, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 491-3— occurs in just one line in the Hymn to Creation, “All things are twofold, one opposite the other, and he has made nothing incomplete. One confirms the good things of the other, and who can have enough of beholding his glory” (42:24-25). 108  Pace Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 274. Perdue argues that by virtue of being molded from clay humankind’s destinies are set. Yet, while the biblical potter accounts contain a strong sense of God’s sovereignty, there is little to no evidence, in Jeremiah or Isaiah, that God’s sovereignty is absolute or that humankind (or Israel) must inescapably persist in a predetermined path. Indeed, within biblical tradition, human free will is not left at the curb. So also, with his allusion to the biblical metaphor, Ben Sira is not negating free will but firmly emphasizing God’s sovereignty. Of course, within this balance between both lies the perennial philosophical problem: where does God’s sovereign control end and human free will begin. Indeed, Ben Sira does not seek to answer this question but simply remind his readers that even a modicum of choice plays a role in relation to God’s unique sovereignty over his creation. 109  See, Duhaime, “Determinism,” 195-8. See also, Chad Martin Stauber, “Determinism in the Rule of the Community (1QS): A New Perspective,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 345-58; Jonathan

56

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

this poem in ch. 33, “No evil will befall the person who fears the Lord, but in trial he will deliver him again and again (Τῷ φοβουμένῳ κύριον οὐκ ἀπαντήσει κακόν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν πειρασμῷ καὶ πάλιν ἐξελεῖται). A wise person will not hate the law, but he who is hypocritical about it is like a boat in a storm” (vv. 1-2), clearly indicates that choice plays a role even in light of divine sovereignty. Therefore, Ben Sira’s small poem offers a form of compatibilism, namely, that free will and determinism co-exist and are not logically inconsistent. 2.4

Wisdom of Solomon

There is no consensus regarding the dating of the Wisdom of Solomon. Winston suggests somewhere from the late 3rd c. BCE to the middle of the 1st c. CE110 Holmes, on the other hand, prefers a date closer to the end of the 1st c. BCE.111 Collins narrows this dating to between 30 BCE and 70 CE112 In either case, Wisdom clearly fits within the scope of our examination. While the use of our creation topoi is not terminologically precise in Wisdom, the allusions formed by utilizing synonymous language to both creation accounts requires that they be examined here. 2.4.1 Wisdom 2:23-24 Humanity’s creation in God’s “image” is attested for the first time in Wis 2:23-24: 23. ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος ἐποίησεν αὐτόν·

23. But God created humanity (lit. man) for incorruption; he made him in the image if his own eternality [or: his own proper being114].

24. φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, πειράζουσιν δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος ὄντες.113

24. but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

Klawans, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. Maxine L. Grossman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 264-83. 110  David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 20-25. 111  Samuel Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” APOT, 1:521. 112  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 178-9. 113  Unless otherwise noted, all Greek texts from Wisdom are from Sapientia Salomonis, Joseph Ziegler, ed., VTG 12.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980). 114  Winston, Wisdom, 112.

2.4 Wisdom of Solomon

57

The creation of humankind in the image of God’s “eternality” (ἀϊδιότητος) is part of a dichotomization familiar in wisdom literature (1:1-2:24), those who are godly versus those who, in this case, seek death (i.e., the wicked and the righteous). This section is considered by Collins to be part of a larger literary unit he calls “the book of eschatology.”115 Chapter 1 begins with a plea that those who have dominion on earth, specifically, 1:1 Ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν, φρονήσατε περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἐν ἀγαθότητι καὶ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας ζητήσατε αὐτόν

1:1 Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart; because he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him.

This verse sets out a thematic structure that views humanity in two streams, those who seek God and those who procure death.116 Verses 1-11, however, are primarily interested in the things that separate wisdom and knowledge from humankind, namely, deceit, sin, and injustice (cf. vv. 4-11), which are evident in one’s words (βλάσφημον ἀπὸ χειλέων αὐτο, lit. “blasphemy from his lips”) and deeds (ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας ζητήσατε αὐτόν). Discussion of humanity’s procurement of death begins in v. 12, “Do not strive after death through your deviant way of life (μὴ ζηλοῦτε θάνατον ἐν πλάνῃ ζωῆς ὑμῶν), nor draw down destruction by the works of your own hands.”117 From there the poetic structure sets the stage between the death and eternality of a person. God created all to exist on earth, perhaps eternally, and those who seek death seek an end to that existence (vv. 13-15). The manner in which these two parties are separate is illustrated in 15-16a, “For righteousness is immortal and the ungodly by their hands and words summoned it [i.e., death]” (δικαιοσύνη γὰρ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν Ασεβεῖς δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν καὶ τοῖς λόγοις προσεκαλέσαντο αὐτόν). Righteousness, likely represents interpersonal justice118—and even later “charity”—and indicates how those individuals who attain immortality “seek the Lord with goodness and … with a generous heart” by their actions to others.119 115  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 179-82. 116  Death primarily dominates the discussion in vv. 12-24. 117  Author’s translation. 118  See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Foundations of Tzedek and Tzedakah: Righteousness and Charity in the Jewish Tradition,” unpublished article. 119  The connection between humanity’s creation, dominion over the world’s creatures, and judging righteously and uprightly is noted in a prayer in Wis 9:1-3: “O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who has made all things with your word, and ordained man through your wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which you have made, and order the world according to equity and righteousness, and execute judgment with an

58

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The larger context of Wis 2:1-20 is primarily the speech of the wicked. In it, death is seen as final; there is no afterlife. The “grossly distorted” Epicurean120 instinct to follow the pleasures of the here and now becomes most important. As Winston states, “Life is a mere chance event; it is short and troublesome and will soon be forgotten. The unavoidable conclusion is self-evident: Let us enjoy while we can, for this is clearly our allotted portion.”121 2:24, which alludes to both creation accounts with the employment of God’s image and the incorporation of death’s entry into the world through the devil,122 closes the literary unit. Here, humanity is said to be created “for incorruption.” The term “incorruption” (ἀφθαρσία) appears three times in Wisdom (2:23; 6:18, 19)123 and generally indicates immortality. Thus, the sense one is given in v. 23 is that humankind was intended to be immortal but lost it through Adam’s transgression. Reflected in the larger context, which is focussed on the ungodly, is that the godly person loves righteousness, seeking God with words and deeds. This righteous individual apparently retains some form of humanity’s original immortality. Collins connects this with the immortality of the soul as espoused by Plato.124 Yet, “Wisdom … certainly does not espouse the full Platonic doctrine, but it does betray acquaintance with the idea of the preexistence.”125 The immortality of the righteous seems distinctly connected to God’s own peculiar “eternality” (ἀϊδιότητος). In fact, the bicola in v. 23 are intended to poetically parallel one another,126 upright heart” (καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ σου κατασκευάσας ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα δεσπόζῃ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ γενομένων κτισμάτων καὶ διέπῃ τὸν κόσμον ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν εὐθύτητι ψυχῆς κρίσιν κρίνῃ). 120  Winston, Wisdom, 114. 121  Winston, Wisdom, 114. He argues that the speech is not simple Epicureanism and attempts to draw lines between the speech and the popular elements underlying it, 114-20. 122  While the second of our two threads, “out of earth,” does not appear in this text, Wis 2:2324 undoubtedly has the second creation account in sight with its reference to the “devil” (διάβολος). The “devil,” as such, is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis although early interpreters connected the garden’s serpent with the devil or Satan. See James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1998), 98-100. 123  Collins notes that ἀθανασία (“immortality”), a synonym to ἀφθαρσία (“incorruption”), appears five times in Wisdom (3:4, 4:1; 8:13, 17; 15:13). Winston suggests that both terms are specifically Epicurean but does not elaborate beyond their use by Epicurean philosophers, Wisdom, 121. ’Αθανασία is also used in 1 Cor 15:53 in an eschatological component of the Pauline letter where at the end of the age humanity “will put on immortality” (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν). 124  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185. Indeed, the term “soul” (ψυχὴ) is not referenced here, though we find the soul mentioned elsewhere in Wisdom (9:15; 8:19, 20). 125  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185. 126  Winston notes that some codices read ἀϊδιότητος rather than ἀφθαρσία (Wisdom, 121).

2.4 Wisdom of Solomon 23. ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος ἐποίησεν αὐτόν·

59 23. But God created humanity (lit. man) for immortality and he made him in the image if his own eternality127

In other words, humankind’s original incorruption, the intention for which it was created, is due to bearing the “image” of God’s eternality. Moreover, this incorruption (or immortality) remains only if the person seeks righteousness. 2.4.2 Wisdom 15:7-13 Part of an extended discussion regarding the futility of idolatry (15:7-13), what Winston considers to be an intentional excursus on idol worship,128 employs the topos “out of earth,” 18. καὶ κακόμοχθος θεὸν μάταιον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πλάσσει πηλοῦ, ὃς πρὸ μικροῦ ἐκ γῆς γενηθεὶς, μετ᾿ ὀλίγον πορεύεται ἐξ ἧς ἐλήμφθη, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαιτηθεὶς χρέος.

18. With misspent toil he molds a nothinggod out of the same clay, he who but shortly before came into being out of the earth and shortly after returns whence he was taken, when the life that was lent him is demanded back.129

The larger polemic begins in 13:1-9 with the worship of nature. The “harangue,” as Grabbe describes it, against idolatry is not limited to nature, but also includes idol worship in the forms of both wood and clay (13:10-15:17), as well as Egyptian animal worship (15:14-19).130 Collins suggests that 13:10-19—dealing primarily with wooden idols—resembles some of the stronger denunciations of idolatry in the Hebrew Bible, namely, those attested in second Isaiah (e.g., 44:9-20).131 The subject shifts slightly as the diatribe regarding wooden idols moves on to those made of “clay” (πηλός). Verses 7-13 directly address the “potter,” drawing natural parallels with biblical texts, especially Is 29, 45 and Jer 18 (as noted above). Grabbe notes that the condemnation in this section is “harsher and more bitter.”132 127  Author’s translation. 128  Winston, Wisdom, 248. See also, Lester L. Grabbe, “Idol Worship and Polytheism,” in Wisdom of Solomon, Guides to Apocryha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffied Academic Press, 1997), 57-60. 129  Winston’s translation, Wisdom, 286. 130  Grabbe, Wisdom, 57. 131  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 209-10. Collins provides other related biblical passages (e.g., Jer 10, Hab 2:18-19, Pss 115:4-8, 135:15-18). He also suggests that the closest parallels to this section of Wisdom are to be found in Philo and elsewhere in post-biblical Jewish literature that deals with the denunciation of idolatry, Jewish Wisdom, 209. 132  Grabbe, Wisdom, 57.

60

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The use of the literary thread is to emphasize that both the idol and the idol maker are made of the same substance, clay. The “potter” has some authority over what he creates from it, viz., some vessels are made for clean and others for non-clean purposes. The potter is the one who determines the purpose of each. The language here resembles partly Sir 33:13 (see discussion above), although in Ben Sira the concerns are regarding the ways of humankind (cf. v. 7). Similar language of the potter who establishes the utilization of the created vessels is also found in the book of Romans (9:20-21). Not unlike Ben Sira, the potter is God and the vessels are humanity. On the other hand, Wisdom depicts a creative biblical reversal in these passages, the potter is a person (not God) and is said to make a “vain idol” (θεὸν μάταιον) out of the same clay from which the potter himself was taken (15:8). It is “out of earth” (ἐκ γῆς) from which the potter himself was created and to which he will return (see discussion of the Hodayot in the following chapter). The potter and the idol are created from the same substance, empty, idol, and vain clay (=earth).133 The potter’s arrogance lies in that he has not recognized that the essence of his origins consequently results in a temporal and brief life. Rather, the potter competes with the other idol-makers.134 Grabbe, however, makes a curious statement in relation to this metaphor, “… the vessels for common, even lowly use, are made from the same substance of the divine image.”135 This statement is problematic since it posits that Wisdom’s position regarding the earthly origins of the potter naturally includes an implicit reference to the divine image. Yet, chapter 15’s polemic does not consider the divine image as part of its rhetoric. Rather than employing the divine image, the human potter, although afflicted with the same substance as the idol, is distinguished from it by possessing a “a soul” (ψυχῇ)—a “debt” (χρέος) that must be settled upon the potter’s death (see Ps. Phoc. below).136 Thus, the divine image is intentionally absent, since the per133  “clay” (πηλός) and “earth” (γῆ) are clearly utilized as synonyms in 15:7, as well as Ben Sira 33:7-15. 134  Winston notes that terms utilized for “silversmiths” (ἀργυροχόοις) and “molders of bronze” (χαλκοπλάστας) are utilized here for the first time in Wisdom and then in Patristic literature, Wisdom, 287. 135  Grabbe, Wisdom, 58. 136  A composition of this sort has natural parallels with Platonic view of the immortal soul, especially in that the soul is a loan of sorts that is separated from the body upon death. It states in Plato’s Phaedo, “‘Let us then,’ said he, ‘speak with one another, paying no further attention to them. Do we think there is such a thing as death?’ ‘Certainly,’ replied Simmias. ‘We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself? Is death anything other than this?’ ‘No, it is this,’ said he, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito,

2.4 Wisdom of Solomon

61

son is composed as a “man” (‫ )אדם‬is in Gen 2:7, clay (or earth) and a soul— neither of which appears to involve, or necessitate, the imago dei. In the latter half of the poem, the potter’s temporal existence is further devalued. Even with a soul, the person (i.e., the potter) ultimately has a heart of ash, whose hope is cheaper than earth, and who is less than the clay from which he is created (σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, καὶ γῆς εὐτελεστέρα ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτοῦ, πηλοῦ τε ἀτιμότερος ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ, Wis 2:10). Clarke notes that the author’s contempt for the potter is “because he put himself on par with God, who shaped man from clay” (Gen 2:7).137 Yet, the contempt is not because the potter has attempted to play God but rather, as Wisdom states, “he failed to know the one who formed him and inspired him with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit:” (ὅτι ἠγνόησεν τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτὸν, καὶ τὸν ἐμπνεύσαντα αὐτῷ ψυχὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν, καὶ ἐμφυσήσαντα πνεῦμα ζωτικόν, 11)—a clear reworking of Gen 2:7. Thus, it appears that the earthly creation of humanity, as derived from Gen 2, provides the filter by which Wisdom portrays the humanity of the potter and those who lack recognition of their creator. For the potter, human existence is largely a game of profits (cf. vv. 11-12); he is cognizant of his sin (οἶδεν ὅτι ἁμαρτάνει, v. 12), but not of his impermanence. The exposition against clay/earth idols in Wisdom utilizes the “of (out of) earth” topos to reflect, not only the temporal existence of, in this case, the idolcreating potter, but also his vanity and lack of value. This is the result of having failed to recognize the Great Potter, if you will. The use of this topos is decidedly different from what we find earlier in Wisdom (2:22-23), where humanity is said to be created for incorruption. Here the earthly origins of the second creation serve rhetorically to emphasize the potter’s baseness and, by extension, the baseness of all those who, as creations of earth, have failed to recognize the one who formed them.

Phaedo, Phaedrus vol. I, trans. H. N. Fowler LCL 36 (London: William Heinemann; New York: The Macmillan co., 1914), 223-5. Schmitt has noted that the concept that life and property are loans is a common topos in Greek literature, citing the following references, Plato, Tim 42e; Euripides, Hik 532-6; Cicero, Tusc. I 93; Seneca, Dial. XI (ad Polybium) X 4-5. See also, Armin Schmitt, Das Buch der Weisheit: Ein Kommentar (Würzburg : Echter, 1986), 120; Winston, Wisdom, 277-8. 137  Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 101.

62

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

2.5

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides

One text that has received little attention is the wisdom text, Pseudo-Phocylides, a Greek poem of 230 lines which is pseudonymously attributed to Phocylides, an Ionic poet of the 6th c. BCE138 The work dates to between the 3rd c. BCE and the 3rd c. CE139 While some of the traditions preserved in Ps. Phoc. fall outside of our Second Temple purview, the lines which utilize our literary threads appear to closely parallel other Second Temple works (e.g., Wisdom, T. Naph.). Additionally, as Horst has noted, while the text is written in Greek (Ionic) hexametric poetry, “a close study of the text reveals its undeniably Jewish character.”140 2.5.1 Ps. Phoc. 105-108 The lines which concern us here are 97-115, “Death and Afterlife.” Like much of the rest of Ps. Phoc. our text deals with an ethical teaching, specifically, proper attitudes and actions towards death and burial. Wilson notes, in particular, that Ps. Phoc. is concerned with three things regarding death: 1) burial, 2) moderation in mourning, and 3) excessive grief.141 After prohibiting the violation of tombs because of the hope in resurrection142—a decidedly Jewish hope—Ps. Phoc. delves into the immortality of the soul (105-108). 105. ψυχαὶ γὰρ μίμνουσιν ἀκήριοι ἐν φθιμένοισιν. 106. πνεῦμα γάρ ἐστι θεοῦ χρῆσις θνητοῖσι καὶ εἰκών· 107. σῶμα γὰρ ἐκ γαίης ἔχομεν κἄπειτα πρὸς αὖγῆν 108. λυόμενοι κόνις ἐσμέν· ἀὴρ δ᾿ ἀνὰ πνεῦμα δέδεκται.

105. For souls remain unscathed in the deceased. 106. For the spirit is a loan from God to mortals, and is [God’s] image. 107. For we possess a body out of earth; and then, when into earth again 108. we are resolved, we are dust; but the air has received our spirit.143

138  Pieter W. van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” OTP 2:565. See also Walter T. Wilson, “The Sentences as Pseudonymous Jewish-Greek Poetry,” in The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, CEJL (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 3-8; idem, The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, TSAJ 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 139  Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 2:567; Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo Phocylides (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 6. 140  Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” OTP 2:565. 141  Wilson, The Sentences, 142. Wilson draws comparisons with Sir 38:16-23. 142  Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness, 109. 143  Translation of Greek is from Wilson, Sentences, 141.

2.5 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides

63

Ps. Phoc. utilizes creation topoi, “out of earth” (ἐκ γαίης) and “image” (εἰκών), to punctuate postmortem aspects of humanity that are key to his overall teaching. First, souls are said to remain unharmed in the deceased.144 Here “soul” (ψυχὴ) and “spirit” (πνεῦμα) are being used synonymously,145 that is to say, that the “soul” that remains unharmed is synonymous with the “spirit” that is lent to humanity; these elements bear God’s image. Each person’s body is formed “out of earth” and upon death return to it (cf. Gen 3:19; see, Sir 16:30, 17:1). The body is temporal, vulnerable, and earthly; it is “dust”146 (κόνις; Ps. Phoc. 108).147 The body returns to that earth, and the air “receives” (δέδεκται) humanity’s spirit, that which is lent to humanity by God (cf. also Wis 15:8) and encapsulates the 144  Collins disagrees with van der Horst’s translation of ἐν φθιμένοισιν as “in the deceased.” Rather, Collins suggests translating the Greek as “among the dead” to disambiguate van der Horst’s suggestion that the souls remain in the dead corpses, “Life After Death in Pseudo-Phocylides,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 128-42; repr. from idem, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, JSJSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 75-86. See also, Horst’s response in “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife: A Rejoinder to John J. Collins,” JSJ 35 (2004): 70-75; repr. from Jewish and Christians in their Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays in Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 96; repr. from, and Collins’ “Postscript” in “Life After Death,” 139-42. 145  Van der Horst, “Pseudo Phocylides,” 2:578; idem, The Sentences, 185-95; Wilson, The Sentences, 146; idem, Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 109. We have chosen to follow Wilson’s and van der Horst’s understanding that the “spirit” and “soul” as synonymous. John J. Collins disagrees with this reading, arguing that lines 105-107 distinguish between the soul and the spirit, “Life After Death in Pseudo-Phocylides,” 136-7. Van der Horst’s response to Collins maintains his position, specifically that it is more defensible to read soul and spirit synonymously since it avoids the problem of God ruling souls in Hades (cf. 110) while the spirit as God’s image is with God in heaven (“Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife,” 96-97). Collins’s disagreement brings to light that there are multiple ways to interpret Ps. Phoc.’s aphorisms. Yet, van der Horst’s argument is key: “It is said explicitly that the spirit (πνεῦμα) is a loan from God to mortals and also his image … In several other Graeco-Jewish texts, this is what is said about the soul (ψυχὴ). That does not necessarily imply that the same is meant here as well, but another point should be kept in mind as well. The spirit is taken up into the air and returns to God because he had given it to humans only as a loan. It is to be assumed that from the moment of death onwards God rules over these spirits; after all they were his loan. The text, however, says that God rules over the souls not the spirits,” “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife,” 96-97. 146  This term is used elsewhere in Jewish and Greek texts to refer to the ash of mourning, cf. 3 Macc 1:18, 4:6; Eur. Hec. 496. 147  This same idea is echoed in Tobit 3:6: “And now deal with me according to thy pleasure; command my spirit (πνεῦμά) to be taken up, that I may depart and become earth (γῆ).”

64

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

inner person.148 Wilson notes that Ps. Phoc.’s statement is decidedly close to a Roman funerary inscription: “He has returned to the air and his body to the earth.”149 The synonymous parallelism in lines 106-108 emphasizes this human duality. In other words, upon death the air receives the human spirit/ soul (106/108); and that which is dust, the body, returns to the earth (107/108). Again, an allusion to Gen 2:7 speaks to humanity’s temporal vulnerability, while the Gen 1:26 thread reflects the abstract, metaphysical component of the person, viz., the soul/spirit. The poem is a confluence of Greek and Jewish elements. The hope for resurrection is particularly Jewish but—as Wilson notes—the soul’s/spirit’s return to the air is characteristically Greek.150 This overlap should not be viewed as contradictory151 but rather as a style that characterizes and highlights the view of the afterlife present in Jewish-Hellenistic texts. Therefore, the soul/spirit (in line with van der Horst’s interpretation)—that which bears the image of God—is thought to essentially return to God/the air.152 Yet, the “image of God” present in the soul/spirit is described as eternal and ageless (cf. Ps. Phoc. 115). Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that Ps. Phoc.’s teaching builds upon itself—each statement is supported and strengthened by the following lines. More specifically, “it should be emphasized that the basic observations set forth in verses 101b-108 not only reinforce the concrete injunctions of verses 99-101a but pertain to the main thought articulated in the thesis statement, verse 97-98.153 In other words, Ps. Phoc.’s argument in 99-101, “Let the unburied dead receive their share of the earth. Do not dig up the grave of the deceased, nor something unseen you expose to the sun …,” is reinforced by the rest of the teaching, in particular, 105-108. Therefore, Ps. Phoc.’s discussion about the afterlife stresses the importance of burying the dead, so that the image and the earth return to their proper place—God and the ground, respectively— although these elements will eventually be reconstituted (103).154

148  By “inner person” we mean something akin to “psychological,” which refers to the mental and/or emotional state of a person. 149  Wilson, The Sentences, 148. Wilson notes that Josephus’ Hellenized view of the Essenes depicts them as having the belief that while the body was corruptible the immortal soul emanated into the air (148; see chapter 3 below). 150  Wilson, The Sentences, 148. 151  Wilson, Mysteries of Righteousness, 109. 152  Collins, “Life after Death in Pseudo-Phocylides,” 136. 153  Wilson, Mysteries of Righteousness, 110. 154  The importance of burying the dead is also discussed in Tob 1:16-2:8.

2.6 Conclusion

2.6

65

Conclusion

The examination of two creation topoi—having been adapted out Genesis 1 and 2—the “image of God” and “from (out of) earth,” in Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and Pseudo Phocylides, in part, bears witness to their growing use in the Hellenistic period and their consistent (even logical) employment as markers for varying conceptions of general humanity that were extant in the Second Temple period. The unique language of Genesis’s creation offers creation language that is unique and memorable enough to be reworked in the ancient author’s burgeoning attempts to say something about general human existence. Wisdom traditions provide the fertile soil for such querying since they often ground their views on humanity in creation.155 As we have examined, Qohelet is perhaps the earliest Hellenistic evidence for the use of these creation topoi, despite that a consensus for a date remains lacking.156 It has been noted that Qohelet’s view of human existence is pessimistic. On two occasions, the author states that a person comes from dust and returns to the dust (3:20; 12:8). The former questions this existence in relation to that of the animals, while the latter, lacking any regard to the aforementioned animals, notes a similar end. The topoi are not exact, but closely mimic the language of creation, namely, “of the dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7). Thus, allusions to both Gen 2:7 and 3:19 are without question. But Gen 2:7 is more clearly emphasized in the two verses’ reflection on the place of the spirit (‫)רוח‬ after death, which 3:19 does not mention. Such concerns are not indicative of Qohelet’s position on an afterlife but is simply a questioning of where the animating breath, i.e., spirit, goes upon death. While it is not clear that the author of Qohelet knew Genesis 1’s creation, he finds the right degree of temporal meaninglessness by employing the topos of humanity’s terrestrial nature. Heuristically, it is a significant lowering of human value when considering the divine image. However, one cannot be sure if this is in line with Qohelet’s motives, apart from that the earthly make-up of the general person and its striking temporality—perhaps coupled with a lack of, or poorly diminished, afterlife— struck the note that the author was trying to convey. Ben Sira 17:1-4 employs both creation topoi. “From (out of) earth” is utilized to speak to humanity’s impermanence; life is limited, and humankind’s earthly origin is to blame. On the other hand, the “image of God” is immediately associated with a “capability” (ἰσχύς) given to his creation to follow 155  Collins, “The Mysteries of God,” 173. 156  In this study, it is agreed that Qohelet is a Hellenistic work, especially in light of its use of creation topoi that are employed on other Hellenistic works examined in this chapter.

66

2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

God’s commandments. In its immediate context, this speaks to humanity’s authority over creation. The weight of this “capability,” however, carries beyond vv. 1-4, and is key to understanding several points of contact from within the larger literary unit, 15:11-18:14, which appears to address humanity in light of Israel-specific traditions. When all is considered, humanity’s creation in the “image of God” indicates that it has been imbued with specific characteristics and faculties to fulfil the commandments—e.g., avoiding evil and acting charitably to one’s neighbor (cf. 17:5-14). This use of the imago dei is not equal to the value it is given in later Jewish and Christian texts but nonetheless signals something significant about humankind. In a poem from the later chapters of Ben Sira (33:7-15), “from earth” which speaks to humanity’s impermanence temporarily shifts and God’s sovereignty over his creation comes to the fore. It does not result in the complex determinism attested in texts like the Treatise although it perhaps reflects the raw philosophical ingredients from which such a viewpoint developed. In Ben Sira, God’s authority, which has some sway over humanity’s ways, is inextricably linked to its creation from the dust. The duality in the small poem, when compared to other texts, suggests that there are two ways for humans to walk and that a singular walk before God is possible.157 As affirmed by the beginning of chapter 33, the choice to fear God remains a choice and rhetorically, the reader, understanding that he/she is mere clay from the ground, strives to “not hate the law” (33:2). Early on, Wisdom of Solomon utilizes a variation of the “image of God,” namely, the “image of his eternality.” The author employs a variation of our topos to indicate that humanity was originally created for “incorruption” (ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ), which is related to immortality (2:23). Humanity can only maintain this state if the person seeks “righteousness”—a term that involves interpersonal justice. In Wisdom, as in Ben Sira, the “image of God” indicates humankind’s ability, and even requirement, to do so. Later in Wisdom, the second of our two topoi are used in an extended diatribe against idolatry. The portion germane to this study deals with the maker of clay idols, especially 15:7-13. The thread is not used simply to indicate the vulnerability and mortality of the potter but also his/her vain, worthless existence. While the text focusses in on the potter, the importance for our study is that the use of the topos is again a

157  There is some similarity between what we find here and the doctrine of the “two ways” that one finds in texts like the Didache (Doctrina Apostolorum)—a 1st c. CE Christian document that is based on Jewish sources. See Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, ed., The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Royal Gorcum, 2002).

2.6 Conclusion

67

rhetorical device to depict the baseness of all creation and, by extension, the danger posed to those who fail to recognize their maker, the Great Potter. Pseudo-Phocylides utilizes both creation topoi in a teaching on the importance of burial. Both are used to express two components of human existence, the body—as a result of being created out of earth—and spirit/soul—which result from bearing God’s image. In light of the teaching on burial, the body is viewed as temporal and the spirit/soul is portrayed as returning to God who initially provided it as a loan. It appears that both components are somehow returned to humanity during the resurrection. The components of human existence are not a central focus of the text but indicate one view of humanity extant in the Jewish world. While we have examined several occurrences of creation topoi in wisdom texts that date to the Hellenistic period, these uses do not stray far from each other in meaning. Generally, the “from (out of) earth” topos is employed to illustrate humanity’s physical body, mortality, and impermanence, while the “image of God” most often describes humanity’s ability to follow God’s commandments, as well as God’s own knowledge of humankind. In light of wisdom literature’s interest in creation, and humanity in general, God’s image indicates yet another side humanity’s, albeit distinct, relationship with him. Moreover, our “earthly” topos, while used for humanity’s mortality, is also employed to depict God’s sovereignty over his creation. Not only does it demonstrate the extent of God’s omniscience over the nature of his creation, it also speaks to a modicum of God’s deterministic influence. As the potter, the formation of clay (=earth) is utterly known by his/her creator. As before, a creation betrays human impermanence and is the justification for admonition to obedience. Human composition, namely, the physical body (“from earth”) and the spirit/ soul (i.e., the divine breath) also plays a part in the utilization of this particular topos (more on this in chapters four and five). This relationship is unique among all his creation as, apart from Qohelet, there is no suggestion that animals can share in it. The next chapter, explores the manner in which these creation topoi continue to permeate, in varying degrees, later Hellenistic and Roman Jewish texts.

Chapter 3

From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of the Use of Creation Topoi and the Amplification of Human Lowliness God in pity made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid from its very resemblance Mary Wollstone Shelley, Frankenstein, 1818

3.1

Introduction

From the first appearance of creation topoi in wisdom literature, there is a continual growth in their employment in Jewish texts of the Second Temple period.1 This use, which spans a number of genres (e.g., allegory, apocalypse), is just one indication of their developing importance. Another is the deliberate variation in these texts, utilizing them in tandem, alone, or reshaping them with the intention of portraying humanity’s absolute value, utter futility, and the degrees between these two poles. This chapter begins with an examination of Philo of Alexandria, the Testament of Naphtali, 4 Ezra, the Hodayot, and 2 Maccabees. In particular, one of the closing hymns of the Hodayot plays a critical role in our discussion since it sheds light on an important reshaping of the second creation topos, i.e., “from (out of) dust/clay.” The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) have long been known to depict a lowly view of human existence which is partly the hymnist’s own self-recognition, as well as that of the yaḥad, and, by extension, collective humanity. In conversation with the variegated use of creation topoi in contemporaneous early Jewish literature, it is clear that the hymns are intentionally further debasing already existing conceptions of human nature.

1  This remains in Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity where authors gravitate primarily to the image of God as a foundational principle regarding the importance of each person, see e.g., m. Avot 3:14, 1 Clem 33:4.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_004

3.2 Philo of Alexandria

3.2

69

Philo of Alexandria

Philo, the Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher of the 1st c. BCE, utilizes creation topoi in a myriad of contexts, although their use to describe humanity is limited to several main points. George H. van Kooten has surveyed Philo’s interpretations of the “image of God” in ancient Jewish texts.2 His work partially focusses on four uses of the “image of God,” 1) the implications of the plurality of Philo’s reading of Gen 1:26-27, 2) the exact meaning of the Greek phrase “according to the image of God” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ), 3) humanity’s creation not in, but after the “image of God,” and 4) Philo’s comments on “according to [our] likeness” (καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν) as a qualification of (“according to our image” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν).3 Yet, our study study differs in a couple of ways: 1) it is more narrowly focussed on exploring two creation topoi, whether employed alone or together, and what they indicate about Philo’s view of human nature, and 2) our deconstruction of Philo’s view of human nature vis-à-vis these creation topoi differs significantly from Van Kooten’s methodology. The conclusions bear some similarities to his work but the structure and focus of this chapter result in important deviations from it. For example, regarding the first difference, we will not examine where Philo utilizes the “image of God” to speak of the cosmos, or specifically, biblical figures like Adam, unless it is intended to express something about collective humanity. As to the second of our distinctions, Philo’s view of humanity will be broken into three categories: 1) The “‘Image of God’ and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of Humanity,” 2) “After God’s Image,” and 3) “Two-Types of Humankind?” The “Image of God” and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of Humanity One interpretation of the “image of God” or more precisely, “the image and likeness of God”—a phrase attributed to Moses (Creation 69)—is that humanity is similar to God more than any other creation. 3.2.1

2  George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 48-68. Van Kooten’s overall purpose is to contextualize Paul’s view of humanity and not simply to elucidate Philo’s. See also Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, WUNT 2.317 (Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 138-84. 3  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 48.

70

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

μετὰ δὴ τἄλλα πάντα, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη, τὸν ἄνθρωπόν φησι γεγενῆσθαι κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ καὶ καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν· πάνυ καλῶς, ἐμφερέστερον γὰρ οὐδὲν γηγενὲς ἀνθρώπου θεῷ. τὴν δ᾿ ἐμφέρειαν μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρι· οὔτε γὰρ ἀνθρωπόμορφος ὁ θεὸς οὔτε θεοειδὲς τὸ ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα. ἡ δὲ εἰκὼν λέλεκται κατὰ τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόνα νοῦν· πρὸς γὰρ ἕνα τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐκεῖνον ὡς ἂν ἀρχέτυπον ὁ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀπεικονίσθη (69).

After all the rest, as I have said, Moses tells us that man was created after the image of God and after His likeness … Right well does he say this, for nothing earth-born is more like God than man. Let no one represent the likeness as one to a bodily form, nor is the human body God-like. No, it is in respect of the Mind, the sovereign element of the soul, that the word “image” is used; for after the pattern of a single Mind, even the Mind of the Universe as an archetype, the mind in each of those who successively came into being was moulded (69).4

Philo attempts to imitate the language of Gen 2:7 with the use of “earthborn” (γηγενὲς), but warns against presuming that the “image of God” is the physical body.5 It is not the body that bears the “image” or “likeness” but rather the most important part of the soul, the “mind” (νοῦς; variant: νόος), that is, the place of “perception,” “sense,” and, according to David Runia, is an expression of human intellect.6 While “invisible” (ἀόρατος) and “undiscernible” (ἄδηλος), it can see everything itself and discern the “essence” (οὐσία) of all things. Philo then describes the mind’s search for knowledge and wisdom. Runia notes that in the longer passage, Creation 69-71, Philo sets out 5 stages for the quest of human knowledge: searching 1) the earth, land and sea, 2) the air and meteorological phenomenon, 3) the heavens, heavenly bodies, and celestial motions, 4) contemplation of the world of ideas, and 5) finally, attempting to get to God’s heavenly retinue—only to be rebuffed by a radiating light.7 A similar exposition of the “image of God” as the intangible element of humanity—part of the soul—the part by which humanity is able to reason, is attested elsewhere in Philo’s oeuvre, in particular, Worse 84-90. Some of the elements in this section parallel Runia’s aforementioned five stages, especially Worse 87-89 where the “mind” (νοῦς) is spoken of as traversing the world and

4  Greek and English from Philo, vol. I: On Creation, Allegorical Interpretation on Gen 2 and 3, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL 226 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1981), 55. Only the pertinent portion of the Greek text is provided. 5  See, David T. Runia, One the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, PACS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 224; also, Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul, 143. 6  Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 222. 7  Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 222-3.

3.2 Philo of Alexandria

71

reaching the heavens. Philo again refers to the human intellect as that which dominates the soul. It is distinguished and separated from the physical body, which is “earthborn” (cf. Creation 69; Worse 87;8 Flight 68).9 In describing intellect, Philo utilizes the “image of God” to describe this impression (ἐνσφραγίζω; Worse 86) given to the soul. Or, as it is described in Laws 1:171, “… for our dominant part, the rational spirit-force within us which was shaped according to the archetypal form of the divine image.”10 Van Kooten adds, “according to Philo the creation of the highest part of man, the non-mortal portion of the soul, ‘that in us which is rational,’ ‘the sovereign faculty in the soul,’ is undertaken by God himself (author’s emphasis).”11 In fact, Flight 68-69 depicts God in conversation with his own powers (ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν)12—a plurality that Philo derives from his interpretation of the plural “let us make” (‫ )נַ ֲע ֶשה‬in Gen 1:26—and speaks to God’s direct responsibility with impressing his “image” on humanity’s soul. Furthermore, humanity’s soul—bearing God’s image—is precisely how it differs from the rest of creation and is, in part, the reason why humanity is given supremacy over it (cf. Moses 2:65). Later, in Creation 134-135, Philo moves away from the “image of God” and shifts to an allusion to Gen 2:7 to describe an aspect of human nature.

8  Cf. Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and History of Interpretation, CBQMS 14 (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1985), 88-89. 9  Some have noted in Philo’s illustration of the mind a decidedly anti-anthropomorphic view of God, e.g., Tobin, The Creation of Man, 44-46. See also Annewies van den Hoek, “Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s Thoughts on Adam and Eve,” in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretation of Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, TBNJC 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 66-67; Runia, One the Creation of the Cosmos, 224. He also references Platonic themes and motifs as seen in the Phaedrus. 10  Greek and English from Philo, vol. VII: On the Decalogue, The Special Laws, trans. F. H. Colson (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1998), 197. 11  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 49. 12  Philo is careful when describing a plurality in the heavens to state that when God is in conversation with his own powers, they remain subordinate to him, and are, in fact, not equal. Therefore, in Flight 68-69 that part of humanity that is subject to mortality, or kept in subjugation is created by those things that are subject to him. On the other hand, God himself is involved with shaping that in humanity, which acquires knowledge of the world, that which bears his image, the mind.

72

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι “ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς” …ἐναργέστατα καὶ διὰ τούτου παρίστησιν ὅτι διαφορὰ παμμεγέθης ἐστὶ τοῦ τε νῦν πλασθέντος ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ διαπλασθεὶς αἰσθητὸς ἤδη μετέχων ποιότητος, ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς, ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, φύσει θνητός· ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς, νοητός, ἀσώματος, οὔτ᾿ ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ, ἄφθαρτος φύσει (134).

After this he says that “God formed man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life”… By this also he shows very clearly that there is a vast difference between the man thus formed and the man that came into existence earlier after the image of God: for the man so formed is an object of senseperception, partaking already of such or such quality, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal; while he that was after the (Divine) image was an idea or type or seal, an object of thought (only), incorporeal, neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible (134).13

Philo portrays the difference between the person generated now—an illustration of collective humanity—“who was formed” (πλασθέντος; v. πλάσσω) from a lump of clay and to whom the breath of life was given, and the first man, created earlier, who was generated from “God’s image” (τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ, 134). The two creation topoi examined here are interpreted by Philo to speak of two-types of person (see more on this below). The one created earlier, that upon whom is the divine image, is understood allegorically as an idea that is perceptible only to the intellect and incorporeal, neither male nor female, nor incorruptible by nature (134). Still, the creation “from earth” reflects at least one of the philosopher’s conceptions of nature, viz., that it is composed of two components—derived from Gen 2:7—“the body” and “soul,” i.e., the earthly substance and the divine breath. According to Philo both aforementioned elements indicate humankind’s “natural mortality” (see, φύσει θνητός, 135) and “immortal” (ἀθάνᾰτος) qualities. As Worthington notes, this immortal element is presented more positively than the mortal ones14 since it proceeds from a “blessed and fortunate” (μακαρίας καὶ εὐδαίμονος) nature. This unique composition is referred to on Creation 135.

13  Philo, vol. I, 106-7. 14  Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo, 166-70.

3.2 Philo of Alexandria τοῦ δ᾿ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ μέρους ἀνθρώπου τὴν κατασκευὴν σύνθετον εἶναί φησιν ἔκ τε γεώδους οὐσίας καὶ πνεύματος θείου· γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ τὸ μὲν σῶμα, χοῦν τοῦ τεχνίτου λαβόντος καὶ μορφὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαπλάσαντος, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀπ᾿ οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἡγεμόνος τῶν πάντων (135)·

73 It says, however, that the formation of the individual person, the object of sense, is a composite one made up of earthly substance and of Divine breath: for it says that the body was made through the Artificer taking clay and moulding out of it a human form, but that the soul was originated from nothing created whatever, but from the Father and Ruler of all … (135, cf. also 139).15

The physical form of humanity originates “from the earth” (ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, 134), a variant of our second creation topos, while the divine breath is depicted as emanating from nothing created (ἀπ᾿ οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, 135) but from God himself. Both components are employed as needful (ἀναγκαῖόν, 135). In fact, Philo, towards the end of 135, states quite clearly that the mortal component of humanity is evident in “the body” (τὸ σῶμα), while the immortal portion of humankind is represented by “the mind” (τὴν διάνοιαν, 135). The divine image as part of this depiction is absent here. 3.2.2 “According to” God’s Image With regard to the “image of God,” Philo often refers to humankind’s creation according to the image, rather than in the image. He appears to be uncomfortable with the idea that humanity in some way bears an exact copy of the divine image. This discomfort is dealt with by exploiting the Septuagint’s [LXX] use of “according to” (κατὰ), which is an imprecise—but for Philo, useful— translation of the preposition “in” (‫ )ב‬in Gen 1:26, 27. One of the primary witnesses to Philo’s “according to the image of God” appears in Heir 231: καλεῖ δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸν μὲν ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς εἰκόνα θεοῦ, τὸν δὲ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τῆς εἰκόνος ἐκμαγεῖον. “ἐποίησε” γάρ φησιν “ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον” οὐχὶ εἰκόνα θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ “κατ᾿ εἰκόνα” ὥστε τὸν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἡμῶν νοῦν, ὃς δὴ κυρίως καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, τρίτον εἶναι τύπον ἀπὸ τοῦ πεποιηκότος, τὸν δὲ μέσον παράδειγμα μὲν τούτου, ἀπεικόνισμα δὲ ἐκείνου.

And Moses calls the one which is above us the image of God, and the one which abides among us as the impression of that image. For, he says, “God made man,” not an image of God, but “according to [that] image.” So that the mind which is in each of us, which is in reality and truth the man, is a third pattern proceeding from the Maker. But the middle one is a model of the one and a copy of the other.16

15  Philo, vol. I, 106-7 (slightly emended). 16  Greek and English from Philo, vol. IV: On the Confusion of Tongues, On the Migration of Abraham, Who is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies, trans.

74

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

The text explains that a component of human existence is patterned “according to the image” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα), which is a copy, and not God himself.17 The imago dei is intended to represent a model upon which the person is based—a middleman (no pun intended), if you will: God > the image of God > humanity (see Heir 232).18 This image, represented by the human mind,19 is one and the same as the immortal element discussed above in Creation. Humanity’s creation “according to” the divine image is referenced again in Alleg. Interp. 3:96 with an allegorical reading of the name “Bezalel.” ἑρμηνεύεται οὖν Βεσελεὴλ ἐν σκιᾷ θεοῦ· σκιὰ θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίει. αὕτη δὲ ἡ σκιὰ καὶ τὸ ὡσανεὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἑτέρων ἐστὶν ἀρχέτυπον· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς παράδειγμα τῆς εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰν νυνὶ κέκληκεν, οὕτως ἡ εἰκὼν ἄλλων γίνεται παράδειγμα, ὡς καὶ ἐναρχόμενος τῆς νομοθεσίας ἐδήλωσεν εἰπών· “καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ” … ὡς τῆς μὲν εἰκόνος κατὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀπεικονισθείσης, τοῦ δὲ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα λαβοῦσαν δύναμιν παραδείγματος (3:96).

What, then, the image impressed on it is we shall know if we first ascertain accurately the meaning of the name. Bezalel means, then, “in the shadow of God;” but God’s shadow is His Word, which he made use of like an instrument, and so made the world. But this shadow, and what we may describe as the representation, is the archetype for further creations. For just as God is the Pattern of the Image, to which the title of Shadow has just been given, even so the Image becomes the pattern of other beings, as the prophet made clear at the very outset of the Law-giving by saying, “And God made the man according to the Image of God” … implying that the Image had been made such as representing God, but that the man was made after the Image when it had acquired the force of a pattern (3:96).20

Philo allegorizes the “shadow” in Bezalel’s name (Hb. ‫אל‬+‫צל‬+‫“=ּב‬in the shadow of God”) to be representative of God’s word (θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν) by which the world was created and by which the “shadow” (σκιᾷ), a representation of God, is the reason for further creations. The “shadow” is then understood to parallel the “image of God,” a representation of the divine—but not God himself. The “shadow,” which is also his Word (i.e., God’s λόγος), is depicted

F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL 261 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1939), 398-9. 17  See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 57-76. 18  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 51. 19  See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 89. See also, Creation 24-25; Laws 1:80-81, 3:83. 20  Philo, vol. I, 364-6 (slightly emended).

3.2 Philo of Alexandria

75

as the paradigm upon which humankind is patterned.21 Thus, the “word” and “shadow” appear to have the same value as “the image”—all which likely exists in some sort of hypostasis with God—functioning as the mold upon which humanity is formed. As we have noted previously, the imago dei referenced in Gen 1 is viewed as having a middle standing in creation between God and humankind and representative of the human intellect. Thus, human existence is a copy, of a copy, of the divine. This middle-standing aforementioned copy in the creation of humanity occurs again in Philo’s Creation, where humanity is portrayed not as a copy of a copy but rather as an imperfect copy of the first man, Adam. Indeed, this first creation is superior since he is the model upon which the rest of humanity is based. He is said to be created with exactness and “from the choicest of material” (ἐκ καθαρᾶς ὕλης, Creation 137). Indeed, it is understood that the copy is inferior to the original model. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἡμετέρα γένεσις ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, τὸν δὲ θεὸς ἐδημιούργησεν· ἐφ᾿ ὅσον δὲ κρείττων ὁ ποιῶν, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον καὶ τὸ γινόμενον ἄμεινον … ὅπερ ἐπί τε πλαστικῆς καὶ ζῳγραφίας γινόμενον εἶδον· ἀποδεῖ γὰρ τὰ μιμήματα τῶν ἀρχετύπων, τὰ δ᾿ἀπὸ τῶν μιμημάτων γραφόμενα καὶ πλαττόμενα πολὺ μᾶλλον, ἅτε μακρὰν ἀφεστῶτα τῆς ἀρχῆς (Creation 140-141).

For our beginning is from human beings whereas God created him, and the more eminent the maker is, so much the better is the work … I have observed the same thing happening in the case of sculpture and painting: the copies are inferior to the originals, and what is painted or moulded from the copies still more so, owing to their long distance from the original (Creation 140-141).22

Therefore, humanity is an inferior copy of the precise and perfect model, the “visible image” (ὁρατὴν εἰκόνα, 146) of the invisible God (again, cf. Moses 2:65),23 but lacking the superiority and precision of the original. As a sidebar, the use of λόγος to refer to the human mind is attested again in Plant. 18-20. Philo argues that the reasonable part of the soul is like a coin stamped with the “seal of God” (σφραγῖδι θεοῦ). The philosopher then interprets the “breath of the life” in Gen 2 as evidence that each person is a representation of his creator (Plant 19). He interjects the “image of God” at this point to justify the argument that human reason is a copy of said image. The 21  Tobin, The Creation of Man, 58. Furthermore, Tobin draws a connection between Philo and Platonic ideas, especially those espoused in Plato’s Timaeus. According to Tobin, the primary difference between Plato and Philo has to do with cosmology and not anthropology (Tobin, The Creation of Man, 59-60). See also David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 467-75. 22  Philo, vol. I, 111-4 (emended). 23  See Van Kooten’s comments in Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 50.

76

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

difference in this text is that the better part of the soul—the mind—which represents that image, is fashioned after an “archetypal word” (ἀρχέτυπον λόγον, Plant. 20). Like Alleg. Interp., the mind is modeled after the logos, a representation of the “image” specifically, and not of God himself (cf. Heir 231). Moreover, it is notable that the physical body is not forgotten in this text. In fact, this section of Planter follows the earlier text in Creation 137 with the implication that the physical body is of creational value. The discussion regarding the “divine breath” and the “divine image” is coupled with the idea that the body was chosen from “the purest of all portions of the universe” (τὴν καθαρωτάτην τοῦ παντὸς μοῖραν οὐρανόν, Plant. 20; cf. also Creation 137). With regard to the image, however, Philo utilizes it for two critical points, 1) the “image” is a reflection of God, that is, a lesser valued copy of the divine, so that humanity, consequently, is an inferior formation based on that copy, and, in a similar sense, 2) the human mind, i.e., the reasonable and better part of the soul, is also created after this image. 3.2.3 Two Types of Humanity? Philo again employs creation topoi to illustrate what appear to be two types of humankind. One of the more important witnesses to this is Alleg. Interp. 1:31. Philo allegorizes Gen 2:7 and relates it to “two races of humankind” (διττὰ ἀνθρώπων γένη). “Καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν”…διττὰ ἀνθρώπων γένη· ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ γήϊνος. ὁ μὲν οὖν οὐράνιος ἅτε κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονὼς φθαρτῆς καὶ συνόλως γεώδους οὐσίας ἀμέτοχος, ὁ δὲ γήϊνος ἐκ σποράδος ὕλης, ἣν χοῦν κέκληκεν, ἐπάγη· διὸ τὸν μὲν οὐράνιόν φησιν οὐ πεπλάσθαι, κατ᾿ εἰκόνα δὲ τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ, τὸν δὲ γήϊνον πλάσμα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γέννημα, εἶναι τοῦ τεχνίτου (1:31).

24  Philo, vol. I, 166-7, slightly emended.

“And God formed the man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living soul”… There are two types of men; the one a heavenly person, the other an earthly. The heavenly person, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls “clay.” For this reason he says that the heavenly person was not moulded, but was stamped with the image of God; while the earthly is a moulded work of the Artificer, but not His offspring (1:31).24

3.2 Philo of Alexandria

77

Of these two types, one is heavenly and the other is earthly.25 The heavenly person is said to bear the “image of God” and does not participate in anything “corruptible” (φθαρτῆς) or “earthlike” (γεώδης). The incorruptibility of bearing the image is also referenced in Wis 2:23 (see 2.4). Yet, Wisdom is addressing actual humanity, while Philo has seemingly abstracted the image. As before, Philo is not speaking of the “image” (or even a copy of that image!) that is stamped upon collective humanity, but a form of person altogether different. It seems that he refers to a metaphysical and “heavenly” (οὐράνιος) person/being. Tobin suggests, however, that while the sense is abstract, the “heavenly man” is a real figure who yearns after the logos and is interpreted elsewhere in Philo as a real figure.26 Yet, the passages referenced by Tobin continually indicate that the heavenly man is an “idea” (ἰδέα) who “lacks a body” (ἀσώματος). The twofold race of humanity is described again in Heir 57-58, but the abstraction of the one created “after the image of God” is depicted as an actual person: ὥστε διττὸν εἶδος ἀνθρώπων, τὸ μὲν θείῳ πνεύματι λογισμῷ βιούντων, τὸ δὲ αἵματι καὶ σαρκὸς ἡδονῇ ζώντων. τοῦτο τὸ εἶδός ἐστι πλάσμα γῆς, ἐκεῖνο δὲ θείας εἰκόνος ἐμφερὲς ἐκμαγεῖον. χρεῖος δ᾿ ἐστὶν οὐ μετρίως ὁ πεπλασμένος ἡμῶν χοῦς καὶ ἀναδεδευμένος αἵματι βοηθείας τῆς ἐκ θεοῦ· διὸ λέγεται “οὗτος Δαμασκὸς Ἐλιέζερ”—ἑρμηνευθεὶς δέ ἐστιν Ἐλιέζερ θεός μου βοηθός,—ἐπειδὴ ὁ ἔναιμος ὄγκος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὢν καὶ νεκρὸς συνέστηκε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ θεοῦ τοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ὑπερέχοντος καὶ ὑπερασπίζοντος, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἱδρυθῆναι παγίως δυνηθέντος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν (57-58).

So we have two kinds of men, one that of those who live by reason, the divine inbreathing, the other of those who live by blood and the pleasure of the flesh. This last is a moulded clod of earth, the other is the faithful impress of the divine image. Yet this our piece of moulded clay, tempered with blood for water, has imperative need of God’s help, and thus we read “this Damascus Eliezer.” Now Eliezer interpreted is “God is my helper,” for this mass of clay and blood, which in itself is dissoluble and dead, holds together and is quickened as into flame by the providence of God, who is its protecting arm and shield, since our race cannot of itself stand firmly established for a single day (57-58).27

The exposition entails an allegorical reading of the name Eleazar (of Damascus) who appears in Gen 15:2. The two types of persons differ from what has been examined previously: one type lives by “reason” (λογισμῷ) and the other lives according to the “blood and pleasure of the flesh” (αἵματι καὶ σαρκὸς ἡδονῇ). Thus, as Tobin notes, the “heavenly” person that is stamped with the image of God envisions a real person who expressly lives by reason. Moreover, the portrayal 25  Tobin suggests that the “heavenly man” is the result of an interpretation of Genesis and not from “Iranian traditions about a Primal Man,” The Creation of Man, 132. 26  Tobin, The Creation of Man, 118-9. 27  Philo, vol. IV, 310-3.

78

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

of the second type closely parallels the language of Gen 2, especially with the phraseology “one formed of earth” (πλάσμα γῆς). Those that are “fashioned of clay” (πεπλασμένος χοῦς) and “imbued with blood” (ἀναδεδευμένος αἵματι) are in need of God’s assistance (i.e., ‫עזר‬+ ‫אלי‬, “my God is a helper;” Heir 58). Due to this condition, the earthly person is vulnerable, perishable and, therefore, in need of divine help. Germane to this study is the philosopher’s employment of both creation topoi to describe two types of person. The “earthly” person, created from clay and imbued with blood, is “aflame with seething passions and burning lusts,”28 devoid of reason, and abandoned to its senses (57-64).29 Indeed, this person cannot be the heir of divine things (63). The second, stamped with the “image of God,” lives according to reason. Thus, the person who desires to learn becomes an inheritor of both divine and incorporeal matters (63-64). Consequently, the divine image differs here significantly from what occurs in Alleg. Interp.. Juxtaposing, for a moment, the passages from Alleg. Interp. and Heir referenced above, the latter offers interpretive parameters to understand the “image of God” in the former. The depiction of the imago dei as a person who lives by reason in Heir has simplified the abstraction in Alleg. Interp. and confirms Tobin’s speculation that Philo’s “heavenly” person is speaking of a conceivable reality, for some (cf. 54). The “earthly person” in Alleg. Interp., on the other hand, differs from the “heavenly person” because of his/her, well, “earthliness.” While the heavenly person avoids corruptibility because he is “not formed” (οὐ πεπλάσθαι), the one of clay, formed from the ground, has no such assurances. Philo artfully utilizes the language of Gen 2 to highlight the corruptibility of the physical frame (πλάσμα; ἔπλασεν, Gen 2:7). Thus, being formed “out of earth” represents an earthly, inferior mind, which mingles with the body and results in corruptibility (Alleg. Interp. 1:32). This “earthly” person moves beyond its “molded” state by the en-souling divine breath, a discrepancy between Gen 1 and 2 that Philo deals with in 1:35-40. The mind of the “earthly” person, to whom the divine breath is given is weaker than that which is made out the divine image. ὁ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα γεγονὼς καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν νοῦς πνεύματος ἂν λέγοιτο κεκοινωνηκέναι—ῥώμην γὰρ ἔχει ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτοῦ—ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὕλης τῆς κούφης καὶ ἐλαφροτέρας αὔρας … (1:42)

28  Philo, vol. IV, 312-3. 29  See, Tobin, The Creation of Man, 119-25.

The mind that was made after the image and original might be said to partake of spirit, for its reasoning faculty possesses robustness; but the mind that was made out of matter must be said to partake of the light and less substantial air … (1:42)

3.3 Testament of Naphtali

79

Both the “earthly” and “heavenly” conceptions are utilized by Philo to conceive of a contrast among humankind—one that is delineated through the exercising of intellect and reason. The “heavenly” person, stamped with the imago dei, is virtuous and his mind has been gifted by God with “facility in apprehending, persistence in doing, and tenacity in keeping” (Alleg. Interp. 1:55). Philo clarifies that these gifts involve noble deeds and retaining the memory of holy precepts (55). The implication is that the “earthly person” lacks these gifts; he/ she does not have the ability to be virtuous or retain the memory of holy precepts: this person’s mind “neither keeps in mind nor carries out in action the things that are noble, but has the facility to apprehend them and no more than this.”30 In his allegory of the Garden of Eden, Philo describes the virtues that are to be carried out as “prudence, self-mastery, courage, [and] justice” (Alleg. Interp. 1:63-78). Though the earth-born person is given good sense, he/she cannot carry out the aforementioned virtues, while the heavenly person is given the facility to do so (78-79). 3.3

Testament of Naphtali

As part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Naphtali, originates in the Second Temple period.31 Like the other testaments, T. Naph. records Naphtali’s final exhortation to his sons (cf. 1:1-5) and preserves another occasion where both creation topoi are utilized in tandem.

30  Philo, vol I, 180-3. 31  Elias J. Bickerman, “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees, ed. Amram Tropper, AGJU 68, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:272-94. Though there is a lengthy discussion as to whether the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs should be considered a Christian work, when compared with other Jewish texts, points of the earlier pre-Christian work can be detected. For the larger debate, see Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin, VGTB 25 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953); idem, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation, ed. Marinus de Jonge, SVTP 3, (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193-246; R. A. Kugler, “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the,” EDSS 2:952.

80

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

1:2. καθὼς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς οἶδε τὸ σκεῦος, πόσον χωρεῖ, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸ φέρει πηλόν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κύριος πρὸς ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ πνεύματος ποιεῖ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ σώματος τὸ πνεῦμα ἐντίθησι, 3. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι λεῖπον ἓν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς τρίτον τριχός· σταθμῷ γὰρ καὶ μέτρῳ καὶ κανόνι πᾶσα κτίσις ὑψίστου. 4. καὶ καθάπερ οἶδεν ὁ κεραμεὺς ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς ἱκανή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ κύριος οἶδε τὸ σῶμα, ἕως τίνος διαρκέσει ἐν ἀγαθῷ, καὶ πότε ἄρχεται ἐν κακῷ. 5. ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι πᾶν πλάσμα καὶ πᾶσα ἔννοια ἣν οὐκ ἔγνω κύριος· πάντα γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ἔκτισε κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἑαυτοῦ.32

1:2. For as the potter knows the vessel, how much it is to contain and applies clay to that purpose, so also the Lord make the body after the likeness of the spirit, and according to the capacity of the body does he implant the spirit. 3. And the one does not fall short of the other by a third part of a hair for by weight and measure and rule every creation of the Most High is (made). 4. And as the potter knows the use of each (vessel) and what it is suitable for, so also the Lord knows the body, how far it will persist in goodness, and when it begins in evil. 5. For there is nothing that is molded and no thought which the Lord does not know, for he created every human being33 according to his own image.34

Our text begins after a brief biographical note (2:1; cf. Gen 49:21), which prefaces the exhortatory portion of the work.35 Once again the potter/clay imagery 32  Greek text is from Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, PVTG 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 114-5. While fragments of a Hebrew T. Naph. were discovered in cave four of Qumran, the text currently under discussion is not attested. 33  The translation of πάντα γὰρ ἄνθρωπον deviates from Hollander and Jonge’s “for every man” since it appears that ἄνθρωπος is not, this case, gender specific but refers to both men and women. 34  English translation is from H. W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, SVTP 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 300. 35  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295 and 302. As they note, T. Naph., unlike the other testaments, does not focus on any one sin or virtue but rather on good works. See also Vered Hillel, “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” JSP 16/3 (2007): 171-201, and natural (i.e., nature) goodness. This is indicated by the subheading in manuscripts b ,l ,d, m, e, and f, περί φυσικῆς ἀγαθότητος (“concerning natural goodness”). To this Hillel adds regarding the brief biographical information in 1:1-2:5, “the only biographical information given in T. Naph. about Naphtali apart from his birth and physical appearance (1.4-11) is his appointment as a messenger (2.1). Unlike most of the other testaments, which intersperse and link biographical and ethical passages by using events from the patriarch’s life as an example of the vice or virtue upon which the testament focuses, T. Naph. mentions only this one event from Naphtali’s life. Although T. Naph. does not focus on one particular vice or virtue but rather on ‘order unto good [works]’, or ‘natural goodness’, the author does not veer from the established pattern of using the patriarch as an example in the testament. Naphtali’s appointment as a messenger ‘for all missions and messages’ (2.1) serves this purpose;” in Hillel, “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph,” 174. See also, Robert Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, GAP (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 71.

3.3 Testament of Naphtali

81

is utilized, although the metaphor differs from what we have examined earlier in Wis 15 (cf. 2.4). Here the potter is not an idol-maker; instead, the potter— in good biblical fashion—is a metaphor for God. The second of our literary threads is implied in that God, like the potter, brings “clay” (πηλόν) to form the person (T. Naph. 1:2). As we have already suggested in this study, “clay” (or “dust”) can be used synonymously with “earth.” Thus, the language of humanity’s creation from natural material originates from creation in Gen 2. This is strengthened by the depiction of God bringing clay to “form the body” (ποιεῖ τὸ σῶμα). Yet, the rewrite of Gen 2 is more expansive here since the body and the spirit are said to correspond to one another (v. 2). This correspondence is a reminder, though not explicitly, of the second creation account where man appears to have two parts, a body, which is formed from “the dust of the of the ground” (‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬, and a soul/spirt, which is given with the “breath of life” (‫נִ ְש ַמת ַחיִ ים‬, e.g., Ant. 1:34; cf. also our discussion on Philo above). According to Harm Wouter Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, this correspondence reflects T. Naph.’s emphasis on the order in creation. Their speculation is corroborated in v. 3, “… and from one to the other there is no discrepancy, not so much as a third of a hair, for all the creation of the Most High (καὶ κανόνι πᾶσα κτίσις ὑψίστου) was according to height, measure, and standard.”36 Mladen Popović posits that the correspondence between both is similar to the basic premise governing Greco-Roman physiognomics, namely, the belief that something can be said about a person’s character based on his/her physical appearance.37 Like the poetic harangue against idolatry in Wis 15,38 T. Naph. depicts the potter as having some degree of sovereign knowledge over the created vessels. 36  Hollander and Jonge, The Testament, 295. 37  Popović quotes from Pseudo-Aristotle’s Physiognomonica: “soul and body react on each other; when the character of the soul changes, it changes also the form of the body, and conversely, when the form of the body changes, it changes the character of the soul.” As he notes, the different between Greco-Roman physiognomics and T. Naph. is that in the testament God is believed to be “responsible for the sympathy between body and soul;” Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Early-Period Jerusalem, STDJ 67 (Leiden, Brill, 2007), 289. 38  See also the note above on Rom 9:20-21. It may be tempting to suggest that the closeness by which this reflects Pauline thought is largely because of the later Christian influence on the Testaments. Some scholars have suggested, like Jonge, that “The Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs may no longer be reckoned to the pseudepigraphic literature of the Old Testament. They must be classified among the literary products of the early Christian Church …” Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 117. See also, Kugler, The Testaments, 35-38; idem, “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of,” 2:952; James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, JSJSup 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 5, 232. Incorporating the portions of the Testaments here is not an attempt to

82

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Unlike Wisdom, the potter is God and his knowledge is of the humanity’s deeds (1:5). This knowledge of humankind is also similar to the potter in Ben Sira who knows all of humanity’s “ways” (αἱ ὁδοὶ, Sir 33:13). In T. Naph. 1:5, however, God’s knowledge is distinctly connected to the “image of God” and not to its earthly origins as suggested in Ben Sira 33. That is to say, the consequence to humanity of bearing the divine image is that God is completely knowledgeable of creation’s deeds, whether good or evil (cf. Sir 15:11-18:14).39 While there is no creation (lit. anything molded or imitated; πλάσμα40) or intent that is beyond God’s knowledge, unlike Ben Sira, there is little indication in this early text that God functions deterministically (see discussion on Sir 15:11-20 in chap. 5). Hollander and Jonge note that this text forms part of a larger exhortation in T. Naph. (2:1-3:5).41 It depicts both sides of humanity, that is, the abstract aspect of the mind, perhaps intended to reference the soul, and the concrete, namely, that which is taken from earth or, in this case, that which the potter created from clay. Since it is stated that both sides correspond to one another, Hollander and Jonge posit that v. 6 “shows how the (inward) disposition of a man corresponds with his activities; again these are either good or bad, either in the law of the Lord or the law of Beliar”42 That is, that the two sides of each person are inextricably linked.43 Humanity’s deeds, whether good or evil—of which God is fully cognizant—cannot be separated from the state of the soul or vice versa. Therefore, T. Naph. utilizes both creation topoi to describe both the metaphysical and physical aspects of humanity, the body and soul/spirit. Here the “image of God” is not so much a statement about each person but an indication of God’s knowledge. Rhetorically, however, it allows the author to exhort, even admonish, his audience to obedience since all of his creation is connected to him by virtue of that image. The point is clear, God is omniscient over human affairs because it bears his image, and one should take care to follow his statutes. The two connected aspects of humanity poetically diverge into a larger dualism (vv. 7-9). A clear line is drawn between light and darkness, the law of the uncover its Jewish origins but to examine and discuss those texts that distinctly parallel other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts. 39  Hollander and Jonge, The Testament, 295. 40  The use of πλάσμα is clearly speaking of humankind and not all of creation (e.g., animal life). In particular, humanity is initially distinguished by having an “intent” or a “thought” (ἔννοια). Humanity is further qualified as the focal point of this text with the use of for humanity (γὰρ ἄνθρωπον). 41  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295; Kugler, Testaments, 71. 42  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295, 302. So, also Hollander and Jonge note, “Man’s inner disposition determined his actions … there is a basic choice involved between good and evil (see also, T. Abr. 1:6-8),” The Testament, 303; also, Hillel, “Naphtali,” 172. 43  See n. 141.

3.3 Testament of Naphtali

83

Lord and law of Beliar44—an antithesis often found in the T. 12 Patr.45 If the human’s soul is identified with either, its actions will correspond. Therefore, as 1:7 suggests, not all humans are the same: “And as there is a division between light and darkness, between seeing and hearing, so also is there a division between man and man, and between woman and woman; and it is not to be said that the one is like the other either in face or in mind.” This dualism that again indicates an order in God’s creation46 is evident in the descriptions of humankind’s physical qualities, which are described in v. 8: πάντα γὰρ ἐν τάξει ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς καλὰ· τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ τὸν τράχηλον συνάπτει τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ τρίχας πρὸς δόξαν, εἶτα καρδίαν εἰς φρόνησιν, κοιλίαν εἰς διάκρισιν στομάχου, κάλαμον πρὸς ὑγίειαν, ἧπαρ πρὸς θυμόν, χολὴν πρὸς πικρίαν, εἰς γέλωτα σπλῆνα, νεφροὺς εἰς πανουργίαν, ψύας εἰς δύναμιν, πλευρὰς εἰς θήκην, ὀσφὺν εἰς ἰσχὺν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς.

For God made all things good in their order, the five senses in the head, and He joined on the neck to the head, adding to it the hair also for glory, then the heart for understanding, the belly for secretion of the stomach, calamus for health, the liver for wrath, the gall for bitterness, the spleen for laughter, the reins for craftiness, the muscles of the loins for power, the sides for lying down, the loan for strength, and so on …47

The concluding exhortation (v. 9) exemplifies God’s order, “So then, my children, be in order (τάξει) unto good, in the fear of God, and do nothing disorderly in scorn or out if its due season.” This “order” (τάξις) is central to the exhortation here. With creation there is an order; clay and spirit are brought together to create beings that would be

44  The “law of Beliar” (νόμῳ Βελιάρ) is decidedly unique language that does not appear elsewhere in Second Temple Jewish literature. Beliar (Gk variant of Heb: “Belial”) is a term that often appears in the sectarian documents at Qumran. See Michael Mach, “Demons,” EDSS 1:189-92. Paul is the only NT writer to use the name Beliar: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial (τίς δὲ συμφώνησις Χριστοῦ πρὸς Βελιάρ)?” (2 Cor 6:14-16). 45  Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study, 59. As Hollander and Jonge note, the dualities in this portion reflect a cosmic balancing that is key to complementary dualism, The Testament, 304. 46  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295, 302. 47  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 301. Jonge states that this verse presents great textual difficulties. Some elements are paralleled in Rabbinic works (e.g., b. Ber. 61a-b) while others are not. See his comments in Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study, 57-58; Hollander and De Jonge, The Testaments, 304. Hillel notes, “The lengthy excursus on the various parts of the body and their purpose that follows elucidates the correlation between the vessel (human) and its function: God, like the potter, knows what every vessel (human) contains and therefore, its purpose,” “Naphtali,” 301.

84

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

obedient to God.48 To follow his commandments is equivalent to participating in the intended order. Humanity is created to have the “ability” to recognize and follow the law of God and avoid the law of Beliar.49 To do otherwise, would be to work against that intended order. Opting for such “disorderliness” (ἀταξίᾳ) is equivalent to the gentiles, the Watchers,50 and the residents of Sodom, whom all changed their order (3:1-5) and did not recognize God’s creation. The use of creation topoi, the first of which utilizes Gen 2—creation “from the dust of the ground” and the being given the “breath of life” (i.e., the soul)— is intended to describe a natural human duality, and, second, the “image of God,” shows that it is part of the creative order and is given the ability to recognize God and be obedient. In fact, T. Naph.’s audience is exhorted to obedience; to choose disorderliness places God’s creation in the maligned camp of the Israel’s mythic enemies. Comparatively, some nuance to the use of the divine image occurs here that is missing in texts examined earlier. Even though God has absolute knowledge over humanity, precisely because of the “image,” the imago has a reciprocal effect allowing the person, in turn, to recognize God’s law.51 Thus, there is a dual function for the divine image, providing God with knowledge over humanity and conversely facilitating a recognition of God among humanity. 3.4

4 Ezra

While 4 Ezra is just beyond our Second Temple purview, this work, which was composed between the end of the 1st c. CE and the beginning of the 2nd c. CE, preserves traditions that date to an earlier period.52 4 Ezra was 48  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 305; Hillel, “Naphtali,” 301. These dual elements appear to offer some conceptual parameters for understanding T. Naph.’s use of the “image of God”—though God’s image here says more about his absolute knowledge than it does about humanity. Rhetorically, however, the reader understands that something is being said about his own humanity and relation to God. 49  Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 304. 50  Hollander and Jonge note that the Watchers are often found in collocation with Sodom (e.g., Sir 16:7, 3 Macc 2:4, Jub 20:5, Lk 17:26, 2Pet 2:4, and Jud 6), Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 308). 51  A similar message is introduced in the Sib. Or. 3:9-11: “You men that bear the form that God did mold in his image, why do you wander at random and walk not in the straight path, being ever mindful of the eternal Creator” (ἄνθρωποι θεόπλαστον ἔχοντες ἐν εἰκόνι μορφήν τίπτε μάτην πλάζεσθε καὶ οὐκ εὐθεῖαν ἀταρπόν βαίνετε, ἀθανάτου κτίστου μεμνημένοι αἰεί)? 52  On the dating of 4 Ezra, see Michael Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 9-10. Stone is specific in his

3.4 4 Ezra

85

originally authored in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek, which are survived through paraphrases and quotation in early Christian literature. The Greek version, which is largely lost, survives only in later translations, Latin (e.g., the Latin Vulgate), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, and Coptic.53 Portions of chapter 8, which occur within the third of seven visions (6:35-9:25) that form the overall structure of the book,54 are relevant to this study. According to Stone, this third vision55 is broken into three “subvisions” (6:38-7:44, 7:45-8:3, 8:4-62).56 The first subvision (6:38-7:44) of the third vision begins with an extended rewriting of Gen 1’s creation. Indeed, God’s purpose and responsibility to creation and humankind permeates the rest of the work.57 Upon the creation of humanity, Adam is given rule over all and spoken of as the one from whom all nations descend (i.e., “the people whom you have chosen,” 6:53-54; the “other nations,” 6:56).58 The conversation continues the same pattern of the first two visions; Ezra, the scribe and seer, is conversing with the angel Uriel. In 7:45-74, Ezra petitions Uriel on humanity’s behalf as he looks forward to the bliss of the world to come and is disturbed that many will be tormented.59

dating of 4 Ezra suggesting a date during the reign of Emperor Domitian between 81-96 CE. Also, idem, “4 Ezra,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT 2.2 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984), 412-14; Bruce Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:520; John J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing; Livinia: Michigan, 1998), 195-6. On its relation to Second Temple literature, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 36-42, and Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” 522-3. 53  G. H. Box, “4 Ezra,” in APOT, 2:543-49. See esp. Andy Chi Kit Wong, “4 Ezra,” The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/intro/4Ezra; Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” 1:518-20. 54  The seven-vision structure is similar to 2 Baruch, Stone, Fourth Ezra, 51. 55  The first three visions are dialogues between Ezra and Uriel, which Stone suggests is an unusual form of revelation, “Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion,” JSJ 12/2 (1981): 202. 56  Stone, Fourth Ezra, 50. 57  Stone, “4 Ezra,” 413. See also, Jonathan A. Moo, Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra, FRLANT 236 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011). 58  The conception that from Adam (and Eve) all people descend also occurs in Tob 8:6, “you made Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung (ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα).” See also Acts 17:26, “… and he made from one [man] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth …(ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς).” 59  Collins quotes 7:47, “the world to come will bring joy to the few, but torment to the many,” in regard to Ezra’s most pressing concern, Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 204. In this subvision Ezra is warned that he must not place himself among the sinners (7:77; 8:1-3).

86

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

In the beginning of chap. 8, Ezra’s concern for humanity is echoed in relation to creation (cf. 8:5-10). The seer’s concern shifts, however, in v. 8 from collective humanity to God’s people (v. 14). The attention seems to shift back again to general humanity with a biblically styled question, “‘But what is man that you are angry with him; or what is a corruptible race, that you are so bitter against it’” (8:34)? The question departs from biblical tradition (cf. Job 7:17, 15:4; Pss 8:4, 144:3) and takes on a decidedly negative tone.60 The portrayal of humanity here is decidedly low, if not, pessimistic (4 Ezra 8:36).61 Uriel’s response, as Stone notes, is that “God rejoices over the reward of the righteous” and is not concerned with the death, destruction, and judgment of sinners (v. 37).62 The angelic host rhetorically argues on God’s behalf by the use of a farming metaphor, “For just as the husbandman sows much seed upon the ground and plants a multitude of plants, and yet not all which were sown shall be saved in due season, nor shall all that were planted take root; so also they that are sown in the world shall not all be saved.” Ezra cunningly reverses the metaphor to petition for all of humanity (8:42-45): I answered and said, “If I have found favor before you, let me speak. For if the farmer’s seed does not come up, because it has not received your rain in due season, or if it has been ruined by too much rain, it perishes. But humanity, who has been formed by your hands and is called your own image because he is made like you, and for whose sake you have formed all things—have you also made him like the farmer’s seed? No, O Lord who are over us! But spare your people and have mercy on your inheritance, for you have mercy on your own creation.63

Interestingly, the first line of his petition places the onus on God for the unsuccessful crop, since he is ultimately responsible for the amount of rain that falls.64 In what appears to be a style of argumentation resembling a minori ad 60  Stone also notes parallels to 2 Bar. 48:14, 17, Fourth Ezra, 275. 61  See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 125-126. Thompson comments on Ezra’s personal pessimism that Ezra’s penchant is to number himself among the sinners, at least until 9:36, although he notes that those sections where Ezra is concerned with the tragic end of humanity occur in early episodes, especially prior to chapter 9, Responsibility for Evil, 131. 62  A similar response is given to Ezra after pleading from the argument on sinners behalf (4:4-19), “I will not concern myself about the fashioning of those who have sinned … but I will rejoice over the creation of the righteous,” Stone, Fourth Ezra, 281. See also, Karina Martin Hogan’s comments on Wolfgang Harnisch’s work, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4 Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse, FRLANT 97 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969), in Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 17. 63  Except for a few English language updates translations are from Stone, Fourth Ezra, 276-7 (slightly emended). 64  Thompson, Responsibility for Evil, 128.

3.4 4 Ezra

87

maius—arguing an inference from a minor to a major premise—the seer shifts from the seed of the husbandmen, the minor premise (minori), to God’s creation, humanity, the major premise (maius). This style of argumentation65 suggests that the major premise is established upon the validity of the minor one. The dependence of the seed’s growth on God, who sends the rain, and humanity’s dependence, which bears the divine image, marks the minor and major premise, respectively. If it is true that God is responsible for a failed crop, then does his responsibility not also extend to humanity which bears his image? More to the point, if the success of the seed’s growth is dependent on God, who sends the rain, then how much more important is it to humankind,66 who is formed in his image, and made like him. Ezra’s argument is punctuated at the end of v. 44, “… for whose [i.e., all of humanity] sake you have formed all things. Have you made him like the farmer’s seed?” In the end, the petition only serves to raise Ezra’s status because he placed himself among the unrighteous, but it fails to convince God; the unrighteous, though perhaps bearing the “image of God,” have “scorned his law and forsaken his ways” (8:55). In conclusion, what have we learned about 4 Ezra’s depiction of human nature from its use of the imago dei? First, it is clear that all of humanity bear, in some way, the image of their creator (and are also the very workmanship of

65  This style of argumentation is also attested in the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. In Rabbinic parlance this style of argumentation is known as qal va-ḥomer (lit., light and heavy) and is attributed to Hillel in the Tosefta (t. Sanh. 7:11), a document which is first codified in the 3rd c. CE. See Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, 18, but clearly preserves elements of Jewish thought and interpretation from earlier centuries. For a discussion of these ancient Jewish methods of interpretation as they appear in several pericopae in the gospels (e.g., Luke 4:18-19, 10:25-37, Matt 11:10), see R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. García “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels Volume 2, ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, JCP 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 348-74. 66  The argument indicates a departure from the notion one encounters earlier in 4 Ezra, namely, that the world was created for Israel’s sake, Stone, Fourth Ezra, 284. Cf. also 4 Ezra 6:55-59. The rest of the nations which descend from Adam are insignificant and there exists a particular hope that God will respond on Israel’s behalf. To the contrary, the seer’s petition here is for the whole of humanity rather than simply for a single nation (cf. 2 Bar 4:18). On a side note, one might be tempted to follow Stone’s suggestion that 8:42-45 is the only place where Adam is referred to as being created in the “image of God,” Stone, Fourth Ezra, 284. Adam, however, is not referred to explicitly in this section. Yet, if the rest of the nations descend from Adam, and the nations refer to all humanity, then one may infer that Adam bears the imago dei.

88

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

his hands67). Because some have rejected God’s ways, his image does not save creation from judgment but instead invites it. Second, the link is so critical that it initially seems reasonable to argue that God should be compassionate even to those who will lack a share in the world to come.68 After all, would God allow the destruction of a portion of creation which is made like him—in his image—and for whose sake all things were formed? If God is responsible for the failed crop, is God not also somehow responsible for human failures? To this the answer is simple: although humanity—the workmanship of his hands—is created in his image, God’s mercy and protection from final judgment is not necessitated. Regardless of the imago dei, humanity still incurs the judgment for its rejection of God and God’s statutes. 3.5

Hodayot

After the decipherment of the Hodayot, scholars quickly noticed the particularly low view of humanity contained in the poetic compositions. Already in 1956, just two years after the publication of the editio princeps,69 and less than a decade after their discovery in Cave 1, J. P. Hyatt published “The View of Man 67  The language of being “formed” by God’s hands in 8:42 may allude to Gen 2. Levison, however, contends that it is simply a reflection of the potter metaphor found in biblical literature. He states further, “… the implicit view of God as a potter who created humanity from the ground is a positive portrait of creation from the earth,” Portraits of Adam, 125. We have suggested earlier that the language generally contained in the metaphor of the potter and his clay originates with Gen 2. The juxtaposition of the “image of God” with the one “who has been formed” indicates that the author of 4 Ezra had both creation accounts in mind. 68  To the request for God’s mercy on behalf of humanity, see also the likely related text in the Apocalypse of Sedrach, a Christian text dating between the 2nd c. and 5th c. CE, OTP 1:606: “‘Have mercy, Lord, on your image (τὴν εἰκόνα σου) and have compassion, for the three years are many.’ God says to him: ‘If a man live an hundred years and remember his death and confess before men and I find him, after a time I will forgive all his sins.’ Sedrach says again: ‘I will again beseech your compassion for your creature (τὸ πλάσμα σου; lit. “your formed thing”). The time is long otherwise death overtake him and snatch him suddenly.’” In his plea Sedrach refers to humankind as “his image” and “his creature.” While the language is not precisely parallel to our creation topoi, the ideas are clearly parallel. God is expected to have mercy on his creation to which he is so intimately related by having stamped them with his image, as well as being responsible for forming them (πλάσμα is the nominative form of πλάσσω, cf. LXX, Gen 2:7. 69  Sukenik, idem, Otzar ha-megillot, Eng. trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955), 48-58. See more recently Hartmut Stegemann, Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 4QHodayota-f and 1QHodayotb, DJD XL (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009); also, Eileen M. Schuller and

3.5 Hodayot

89

in the Qumran Hodayot,” concluding that the hymns depict a pessimism toward humanity that lacks parallel in the Hebrew Bible.70 In that same year, Licht noted that the Thanksgiving Hymns utilized, among other things, the common expression “creature of clay” to express humanity’s baseness.71 So too Lichtenberger, in an important work that examines the image of humanity (menschenbild) in the scrolls, highlights the extent to which the lowliness of humankind is depicted in relation to God’s righteousness (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien72), as well as humanity’s utter sinfulness (Elendsbetrachtungen), in the hymns.73 More recently, Daise notes that one of the concepts that permeate the collection is how humanity as a creation is formed from “dust,” “clay,” or “ash”.74 Yet, while the hymns have not lacked attention, studies specifically dealing Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition, EJL 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 10-11. 70  N TS 2/4 (May, 1956), 283. 71  Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 33-34; idem, “The Doctrine,” 10-11. 72  This was suggested first in a study by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966). 73  Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980), 73-75. See also Stephen Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 415. 74  Michael Daise, “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman et. al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 293-305. Others have noted the importance of creation to Qumran literature, see John J. Collins, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 609-18; idem, “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García-Martínez, BETL 168 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 287-305; idem, “Interpretations of the Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, SDSSRL (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2005), 29-43; Bilhah Nitzan, “The Idea of Creation and Its Implications in Qumran Literature,” in Creation in Christian in Jewish Tradition, ed. Henning G. Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, JSOTSup 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic: 2002), 240-64; Florentino García-Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics, TBN (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 49-70; Matthew E. Gordley, “Creation Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers,” JJS 59/2 (2008): 252-72; Moshe Bernstein, “Contours of Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and Nomenclature,” in Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran, STDJ 107, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1:63-91.

90

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

with the baseness of humanity have waned somewhat.75 One area, however, that has remained at the forefront of research is the Hodayot’s re-use of the Hebrew Bible,76 much of which is not preserved in explicit quotations77 but, instead, in deft allusions.78 These allusions, however, are not simply a pastiche 75  See Eileen Schuller and Lorenzo Di Tommaso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayot, 1948-1996,” DSD 4/1 (Mar.,1997): 55-101; and Schuller, “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot, 19932010,” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011): 119-162. For humanity specifically, see Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Hodayot”; Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 27-52; idem, “The Doctrine,” IEJ 6 (1956): 1-13, 89-101, esp. 10-11; Svend Holm-Nielsen, “The Concept of Man,” in Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, ATDan 2 (Arhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 274-7; Menahem Mansoor, “View of Man and Sin,” 59-62; Jean Carmignac, “Homme,” in Les textes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961-1963), 137-8; Mathias Delcor, “L’anthropologie,” in Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris : Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 47-52; Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 74-75. See also Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam; Stephen Hultgren, “Covenant, Law, and the Righteousness of God: A Study in the Hodayot of Qumran,” in From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community (STDJ 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 409-60, esp. 444-7; Nicholas A. Meyer, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology, NTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, August 2016). 76  See Schuller, “Recent Scholarship,” 146-8. 77  Although Wernberg-Møller argues that dependency on the Hebrew Bible is witnessed particularly when the Hodayot utilizes specific phraseology, P. Wernberg-Møller, “The Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism,” in Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project, ed. Shemaryahu Talmon, vol. 4, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 134-5. 78  The only full length study on allusions in the Hodayot is Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, STDJ 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). See also Mathias Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 26-30; Emile Puéch, “Hodayot,” EDSS 1:365-8, esp. 367; John F. Elwolde, “The Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 1),” in Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn, August 2006, ed. Bob Becking and Eric Peels (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 65-88; idem, “The ‘Hodayot”s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 3: pss 73-89),” DSD 17/2 (2010): 159-79; idem, “The ‘Hodayot”s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 2: PSS 42-72),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context I: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange et al., in association with Bennie H. Reynolds III, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:79-99; idem, “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 4: Pss 90-106),” in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, ed. George J. Brooke et al.; Leiden (Brill, 2012), 65-87; Armin Lange, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, JAJSup 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011), 281-90; William A. Tooman, “Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and Composition in ‘Hodayot’ (1QHa) 11:6-19,” DSD 18/1 (2011): 54-73; Sarah J. Tanzer, “Biblical interpretation in the ‘Hodayot,’” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Mathias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 255-75; Armin Lange, “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran ‘Hodayot,’” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen

3.5 Hodayot

91

of earlier, or contemporary biblical literature but reflect the rich, theological— even ideological—understanding, whether intended or not, of the yaḥad.79 Especially key in this regard is the methodology by which the author shapes his allusions, echoing the content of one biblical narrative, and, as we will argue, purposely steering away from a closely related text. Germane to this study are the occasions in which the Thanksgiving Hymns allude to the unique creation language of Gen 2, specifically, the idea that humanity is a “creation of clay” or “dust,” while avoiding, it seems, the “image of God.”80 3.5.1 Creation Topoi and the “Creatures of Dust” and “Clay” The Hodayot are permeated with depictions of humanity’s utter frailty. The hymnist(s) sought to depict this vividly with the refrain “creature of dust” (‫יצר עפר‬, e.g., 1QHa 21:17), or the more common expression, as initially noted by Licht, “creature of clay” (‫יצר חמר‬, e.g., 1QHa 12:30). As Mathias Delcor astutely posits, “many times in the hymns the idea appears that man is a creation of clay … which is keeping with the account about the first man from Genesis.”81 Indeed, the language utilized for “creature of dust,” ‫ יצר‬and ‫עפר‬, and the latter “creature of clay,” ‫ יצר‬and ‫חמר‬, are terminologically linked to the creation of man in Gen 2.82 So too, Newsom states, “The background to this general conception is easy enough to identify—the creation story in Genesis 2, where human beings are “shaped” (‫ )יצר‬by God from the “dust” (‫ )עפר‬of the earth …”83 This link becomes clearer when one considers that “clay” (‫ )חמר‬appears to be

Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday, ed. Jeremy Penner et al., STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 251-84. As Elwolde notes regarding the lack of biblical citations in the hymns, “Moreover, the lack of citation formulae (or other indicators) in the Hodayot means that usages derived from the Bible are always embedded or woven into the text as a whole and their identification is always a matter of speculation,” in “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter,” 80. 79  It has already been noted that the redacted nature of the Hodayot betrays evidence of more than one author’s editorial hand and the scroll has been divided between the Teacher Hymns and Community Hymns (DJD XL, 10-11). Although further differentiation among the Community Hymns has been suggested by Angela Kim Harkins, “The Community Hymns Classification: A Proposal for Further Differentiation,” DSD 15 (2008): 121-154, she notes, “Among the distinctive features of the latter group are the themes of creation (and in turn predestination); salvation through God’s covenant; rhetorical questions; soteriological confessions; the need for the salvation of the lowly speaker; and emphasis on revealed knowledge” (109). 80  See Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam, 107. 81  Delcor, Les Hymnes De Qumran, 47. 82  See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 77-79. 83  Carol A. Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” 345.

92

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

synonymous with “dust” (‫ )עפר‬in the Bible.84 Furthermore, as we have already noted above, “clay” (‫ חמר‬/πηλός) appears to be an acceptable replacement for ‫ עפר‬when rewriting the creation account of Gen 2 in Second Temple texts. Both phrases, “creature of dust” and “creature of clay,” which employ a substantive form of the verb ‫יצר‬, and ‫( ]ה[עפר‬and its synonym ‫)]ה[חמר‬, function as idiomatic expressions, which develop from the language of the Bible but are, strictly speaking, not biblical phrases. Moreover, since biblical terminology allows ‫ ָע ָפר‬and ‫( ח ֶֹמר‬and even ‫ ) ֵא ֶפר‬to function synonymously, “creature of clay” (‫ )יצר ]ה[חמר‬and “creature of dust” (‫ )יצר [ה]עפר‬are not unlike one another; they both share the same basic meaning. Lichtenberger contends that the “the creature of dust” has two points of biblical inspiration, Gen 2:7 and Ps 103:14. While the phrase does not explicitly occur in the Bible, the two biblical passages offer a place that comes very close, with Gen 2:7 being the “base point” (Grundstelle).85 Both are the only places in the Hebrew Bible that use some form of ‫—יצר‬the verb, Gen 2, and its derivative noun, Psalm 103—in collocation with ‫עפר‬. Gen 2, however, is a more commendable point of origin. It depicts “man”—and viewed in later texts as a paradigm for collective humanity—as being formed of “dust from the ground” and, therefore, as “a creature of dust/clay.”86 Our suggestion presumes that both idioms (i.e., topoi) also function as allusions. Hughe’s, however, attempts to delineate between allusions and idioms. She, in particular, highlights the phrase “creature of clay and kneaded with water” (‫יצר החמר ומגבל המים‬, cf. 1QHa 9:23) and its variations.87 She rightly notes that the term “to knead” (‫ )גבל‬is decidedly non-biblical and an example of early Mishnaic Hebrew.88 She remains doubtful that every occurrence of 84  A couple of examples suffice to show that ‫ עפר‬and ‫ חמר‬are synonyms of one another: “Please remember that you made me like clay and to dust you will return me“ (‫זְ ָכר־נָ א ִכי־‬ ‫ל־ע ָפר ְת ִש ֵיבנִ י‬ ָ ‫יתנִ י וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ ַכח ֶֹמר ֲע ִש‬, Job 10:9); “Whether they should heap up silver like dust, and to arrange clothing like clay” (‫ ִאם־יִ ְצבֹר ֶכ ָע ָפר ָכ ֶסף וְ ַכח ֶֹמר יָ ִכין ַמ ְלּבּוׁש‬, Job 27:16). See also 4:19, 30:19. 85  Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 80. 86  Lichtenberger is correct when he notes that ‫ יצר [ה]עפר‬has a wider array of connections with the Hebrew Bible than with ‫יצר [ה]חמר‬, citing, Gen 2:7, 3:19, Ps 103:14, 104:29, Job 4:19, 8:19, 10:9, Qoh 3:20, 12:7, Studien zum Menschenbild, 79-80. 87  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46; Kittel notes, “The whole expression is one characteristic of the author’s theology …” The Hymns of Qumran, 61. 88  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46; Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 81-82. See Jonas C. Greenfield, “The Root ‘GBL’ in Mishnaic Hebrew and in the Hymnic Literature from Qumran,” in Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, ed. Jonas C. Greenfield, Shalom Paul, Michael Stone, and Avital Pinnick (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 690-8; repr. from RevQ 2 (1959-1960): 155-62.

3.5 Hodayot

93

‫ יצר‬amounts to an allusion, suggesting that the “creature of clay” should be

considered an idiom, not an allusion, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.89 Three points are especially pertinent here. First, as already noted, since “clay” (‫ )חמר‬can function as a synonym for “dust” (‫ )עפר‬then “creature of clay” (‫ )יצר חמר‬is linguistically similar to “creature of dust” (‫)יצר עפר‬. Second, an idiom may also serve as allusion.90 While the unique phrasing “creature of clay” is non-biblical, the unique elements of the idiom echo a particular narrative and are therefore an allusion.91 Third, the allusive tendency of this phraseology is strengthened by the substantive use of ‫ יצר‬to indicate “someone formed.” In biblical literature, the substantive of ‫ יצר‬is most often utilized to speak of an individual’s “inclination” (e.g., Is 26:3).92 The only occasion where this form of ‫ יצר‬is used in biblical literature to refer to someone who has been formed is Is 29:16. Unsurprisingly, it appears in one of Isaiah’s potter/clay contexts. Moreover, our only legitimate biblical parallel to “creature of dust/clay” is Gen 2:7. While “creature of clay” has brought us additionally to Is 29:16, the intention to portray the baseness of humanity that results from one’s earthly origins, again, naturally transports the reader back to Genesis. This is not to suggest that either phrase has a single reference point (cf. Jer 2), but instead those phrases develop through a host of biblical images that provide the raw material for the Hodayot’s poetic license. In fact, while our focus here is on allusions to Gen 2, it should be noted that these distinct phrases are intended to recall—along with creation—an intertextual biblical complex which deals with the earthly and base origins of humanity.93 3.5.2 The Creature Speaks in 1QHa 20:7-22:4394 One of the closing hymns in the Hodayot—although fragmentary at points— preserves the most attestations of both “creature of dust” (20:29; 21:17, 25, 34) and “creature of clay” (20:29, 35; 21:38; 22:12).95

89  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46. 90  Pace Kittel who argues that allusions have a single reference point, The Hymns of Qumran, 51. 91  See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 78. 92  Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 77. 93  See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 87. 94  See “Division of Psalms,” in DJD XL, 271. 95  Some of these are reconstructed on partial readings (21:11-12, 34). There appears to be at least a partial attestation with “creature” in 21:19.

94

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Col. 2096 29. … And there is a return to dust for the creature of clay at the time of [your] anger […] dust returns 30 to that from which it was taken. What can dust and ashes reply [concerning your judgment? And ho]w can it understand … 35. … As for me, I remain silent. What could I say concerning this? According to my knowledge I have spoken, a creature mixed from clay. What 36 can I say unless you open my mouth? How can I understand unless you give me insight? Col. 21 11. … And as for me, a creature 12 [of clay (‫ )יצר החמר‬and a thing mixed with water, a structure of d]ust and a heart of stone with whom shall I be reckoned until this?…

]‫ …ותשובת עפר ליצר חמר בקצ ֯א ֯פ[כה … י‬.29 ‫ אל אשר לקח משם ומה ישיב עפר‬30 ‫עפר‬ ֯ ‫֯שו֯ ב‬ …‫וא ֯פ ֯ר[ על משפטכה ומ] ֯ה יבין‬ ֯

‫ …ואני נאלמתי ומה ֯אדבר על זות כדעתי‬.35 ‫ אדבר כיא אם‬36 ‫דברתי מצורוק יצר חמר ומה‬ ‫פתחתה פי ואיכה אבין כיא אם השכלתני‬

‫ [חמר ומגבל מים מבנה ע] ֯פר ולב‬12 ‫ ואני יצר‬.11 …‫האבן למי נחשבתי עד זות‬

17. […] and as for me, a creature of dust […] 18 [… and to ble]ss your name I will open [my] mouth[…’] 19 […]creature [… d …’l …]

‫ [ … ולבר] ֯ך‬‎18‫[… ] ‏‬°°° ‫ ‏[ … ]ואני יצר העפר‬.17 ]°°‫ ד אל‬-- [‫צר‬ ֯ ֯‫ [… ]י‬‎19‫֯ש ֯מ ֯כה אפתח ֯פ]י …א] ‏‬

24. … How] 25 can I, as a creature of dust (‫)יצר עפר‬, be preserved from being divided and from dissolving (like) wax when it m[elts before the fire …] 26 and a heap of ashes …

‫ אשמר ביצר עפר מהתפרר‬‎25‫ …איכה] ‏‬.24 ‫ ו֯ מקוי‬‎26‫ומת{ו}ך דונג ֯ב ֯ה[מס לפני אש … ] ‏‬ ‫אפר‬ ֯

31. […] ‘ vacat And as for me, a creature, h (of dust or clay) […]

] …97‫ עפר‬or ‫[ חמר‬°‫]] ואני יצר ה‬ [[ ‫ע‬°] … [ .31

34. [And as for me, a cr]eature of dust (‫)י] ֯צ ֯ר העפר‬, I know by the spirit that you have placed me in that[…]

‫ [ואני י] ֯צ ֯ר העפר ידעתי ברוח אשר נתתה‬.34 ] … [‫בי ֯כי֯ ֯א‬

37. […] ḥ š to you rage and aven[ging] jealousy […] 38 […] creature of clay […]

‫ לכה חמה וקנאה‬°°°°‫ ש‬°°°°°‫ ֯ח‬°°] … [ .37 ] … [° ‫הח ֯מ ֯ר‬ ֯ ‫ [ … ] י֯ צר‬38 ]‫נו֯ ֯ק[מת‬

96  For the sake of brevity, rather than reproducing the entire hymn, we have provided the passages where either of are two phrases appear. Unless otherwise noted Hodayot texts and translation are from Stegemann, Schuller, and Newsom, 1QHodayota. See, more recently, Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot. The numbering of the hymn follows DJD XL, which have been converted from Sukenik’s earlier edition. 97  See DJD XL, 267, for reconstruction.

95

3.5 Hodayot Col. 22 12. … And I, a creature of clay, depend 13. upon [your strong] ar[m and …] my feet … 19. […] And I, a creature of clay or dust …]…

‫ ואני יצר החמר נשענתי‬.12 ‫זר[ועכה החזקה ו…] ֯ר ֯גלי‬ ֯ ‫ ֯ע ֯ל‬.13

] …98 ‫ העפר‬or ‫יצר[החמר‬ ֯ ‫ [ … ] ואני‬.19

20:7-14 presents a liturgy which lists the daily times of prayer in the Qumran community—a list that is similar to 1QS 9:26-10:4.99 Lines 14-27 presents the maskil’s affirmation that he is knowledgeable of God because of the spirit placed in him (‫ )ידעתיכה אלי ברוח אשר נתתה בי‬by God, a sentiment which is echoed elsewhere (cf. 1QHa 5:36; 8:29; 21:34). Indeed, it is God’s holy spirit (‫ רוח קודשכה‬100) that has given the maskil access the mysteries of God’s wisdom. The rest of this particular section, though fragmentary, attempts to draw a rhetorical chasm between the speaker—all those who belong to God’s appointed community— and all those outside of the community. Such is garnered from the lines in the hymn that describe, on the one hand, the “appointed times of destruction” (‫מועדי שממה‬, 20:20) for the wicked, and, on the other, those “who know you in the time of your glory they will rejoice,” (‫יודעיכה ובקצ כבודכה יגילו‬, 25). The first section of the hodayah that evokes humanity’s creatureliness by way of Gen’s creation incorporates the first occurrence of “creature of clay.” Lines 27-30 of col. 20 are an expanded rewrite of Gen 3:19. Gen 3:19

‫ִמ ֶמנָ ה ֻל ָק ְח ָת‬

1QHa 20:27-30

‫ואני מעפר לקח[תני‬ ‫ומחמר ק]ורצתי למקור נדה וערות קלון‬

‫י־ע ָפר ַא ָתה‬ ָ ‫ִכ‬

‫מקוי עפר‬ ‫ומגבל[ במים סוד רמ]ה ומדור חושך‬

‫ל־ע ָפר ָתׁשּוב‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬

‫ותשובת עפר‬ ‫ליצר חמר בקצ אפ[כה‬

‫ִמ ֶמנָ ה ֻל ָק ְח ָת‬

‫י]שוב עפר אל אשר לקח משם‬

98  See DJD XL, 273, for reconstruction. 99  See Richard S. Sarason “Communal Prayer at Qumran and Among the Rabbis,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther Chazon et al., STDJ 40 (Leiden Brill, 2003), 157. 100  Lit. “the spirit of your holiness.” This is an important distinction. The “spirit of your holiness” mimics the language of the Hebrew Bible and the single occasion of ‫רּוח ָק ְד ְשָך‬ ַ (Ps 51:11). This form appears five times in the 1QHa (4:38; 6:24; 8:20, 25, 30) and once in 1QFestival Prayers 3 ii 7. As one moves into the New Testament the possessive pronoun is lost (e.g., Luke 1:67; 2:25).

96

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Gen 3:19 … for out of it you were taken …

1QHa 20:27-30 As for me from dust [you] took [me, and from clay] I was [sh]aped as a source of pollution and shameful dishonour,

… you are dust …

a heap of dust and a thing kneaded [with water, a council of magg]ots, a dwelling of darkness.

… and to dust you shall return …

And there is a return to dust for the creature of clay at the time of [your] anger […]

… and to dust you shall return …

dust returns to that from which it was taken.

Part of the additions that expand and rewrite Genesis depict a heavily pessimistic view of the speaker’s humanity (cf. also, 5:32, 9:24). Yet, while he refers to himself in exceedingly demeaning terms, this view is not solely the realm of the speaker. A parallel in another hodayah indicates that the language here is intended to reflect the yaḥad and, by extension, collective humanity. 5:30-33

‫ [כי מה ה]יא רוח בשר להבין‬ .30 ‫[ גדול ומה ילוד אשה בכול [ג]ד[ו]ל[י]ך הנוראים והוא‬  ]◦‫ בכול אלה ולהשכיל בס‬.31 ‫ מבנה עפר ומגבל מים ֯א[שמה וחט]אה סודו ערות קלון ומ[קור הנ]דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬.32 ‫ בו‬.33

30. …[But how i]s a spirit of flesh to understand 31. all these things and to discern bs◦[…] great […]? What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at fearful acts? He 32. is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ful gui]lt is his foundation, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit rules 33. him.

The most pertinent portion here is the response to the question, “What is one born of woman amid all your great fearful acts” (‫ומה ילוד אשה בכול גדוליך‬ ‫ ?)הנוראים‬The response is quite similar to the speaker’s self-description in our hodayah, especially the portrayal of humanity as a “source of impurity” (‫מקור‬ ‫ )הנדה‬and an “obscene shame” (‫)ערות קלון‬. What is clearly the self-recognition of the speaker in our hodayah is expanded to depict collective humanity (i.e., all those born of woman). Certainly, the depiction in lines 27-30 is much lower than what is attested in the Bible. Newsom astutely notes, “A real difference exists between this characterization of the human subject and the language of self-abasement found in the Psalms. For the most part the language of the

3.5 Hodayot

97

Psalms is the language of misery, not self-loathing.”101 This self-loathing—to utilize Newsom’s terminology—is intensified by the use of “creature of clay” (20:29). A creature of filth, whom the speaker embodies, is made of the same substance to which he will return; from dust he is created, a source of impurity and shameful dishonor. “The language of self-loathing,” as Newsom contends, “is unleashed as the self repudiates itself in disgust. Described in terms that are the inverse of the divine autonomous will, wisdom, and righteousness, it is a creature of inert clay and water, without understanding, both unclean and guilty.”102 The speaker who is made of “dust and ashes” is inherently corrupt and without value. So base is his existence that the creature is unable to respond to God’s judgment or acquire understanding apart from God’s direct engagement (cf. 20:30-38). A series of rhetorical questions reveal the creature’s utter inability to act without God: “What can I say unless you open my mouth? How can I understand unless you give me insight? What can I speak unless you reveal it to my mind? How should I walk the straightway unless you establish my step? How shall my step stand without (your) making it firm in strength” (20:36-38)?103 The rhetoric carves out the depths that separate the speaker from God. Moreover, while the text here appears to be a rewriting of Gen 3:19, done so as to depict the utter impotence of being a “creature of clay”—and there are other biblical texts that seem to influence this rewrite104—there is also an element where lines 27-30 the echo creation account of Gen 2. Accounting for the synonymy of “clay” and “dust” in biblical literature—and in the Hodayot—having been taken from “clay” or “dust” (‫ )מעפר לקח[תני‬indicates something regarding the existence of the speaker—and humanity—that originates with the creature’s forming. As Newsom notes, “Described in terms of dust … it lacks the animating breath of God that distinguishes a living being from inert stuff.”105

101  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 219-20; Hyatt, “The View of Man,” 283. 102  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 226. 103  Angela Kim Harkins has noted that one of the features of the second collection of Community Hymns is the use of rhetorical questions, as well as themes of creation, salvation through God’s covenant, soteriological confessions, the need for the salvation of the lowly speaker, and an emphasis on revealed knowledge, “A New Proposal for Thinking about 1QHa Sixty Years after its Discovery,” in Cave 1, 109. 104  Indeed, the language of the first addition, “and from clay] I was [sh]aped” (]‫ומחמר ק‬...[ ‫צתי‬ ֯ ‫)ו֯ ֯ר‬, which if reconstructed correctly—even with the plene spelling of ‫—קרץ‬appears to be a quotation of Job 33:6: “I too was formed from a piece of clay” (‫ֵמח ֶֹמר ק ַֹר ְצ ִתי גַ ם־‬ ‫) ָאנִ י‬. See DJD XL, 257. 105  Newson, The Self at Symbolic Space, 219; idem, “Flesh, Spirit, and Indigenous Psychology,” 345.

98

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

The content of 21:2-11, though somewhat fragmentary, is paralleled elsewhere in the hymns. The earliest lines speak of “one born of woman” (‫)ילוד אשה‬ but quickly shift back into the first-person voice of the hymnist. The rhetorical questions which seem to conclude col. 20 are picked up again in lines 4-6 of col. 21. Yet, the discussions which bookend this small text again refer back to the “one born of woman” (cf. 21:2, 10). Borrowed from the language of Job, especially 15:4,106 the individual born of woman fits the image of lowliness witnessed throughout this hodayah. Moreover, the question that is key to this study and appears only in the Hodayot, is the question, “what is flesh” (‫ומה בשר‬, 21:7)?107 Elsewhere, 26:3336, the question is a rhetorical flourish that mirrors the separation between humanity and God,108 ]‫ אל הצדק והשכלנו בא[מתכה מלך הכבוד כיא ראינו קנאתכה‬.33 ]‫ בכוח גבורה והכר[נו משפטיכה בהמון רחמים והפלא סליחות‬.34 ]‫ מה בשר לאלה ומ[ה יחשב עפר ואפר לספר אלה מקץ לקץ‬.35 ‫ ולהתיצב במעמד[ לפניכה ולבוא ביחד עם בני שמים‬.36 33. God of righteousness, and we understand [(your) truth, O king of glory. For we see your zeal] 34. with (your) powerful strength. And[ we] recognize [your judgments in the overflowing of mercy and wonderful forgiveness.] 35. What is flesh in relation to these things? And h[ow is dust and ashes to be reckoned that it should recount these things continually] 36. or take (its) station[ before you or come into community with the children of heaven

Like col. 26, in this hodayah God maintains himself on one end of the rhetorical chasm, but engages the community by bringing (‫הביאותה‬, 21:10) certain individuals into a covenant. God establishes everything for his glory (‫להכין‬ ‫כול לכבודכה‬, 8) and with the hosts of knowledge109 recounts to humanity his 106  See also Job 25:4, “What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?” (‫ּומה־יִ זְ ֶכה יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬ ַ ‫ם־אל‬ ֵ ‫ּומה־יִ ְצ ַדק ֱאנֹוׁש ִע‬ ַ ). ‫ יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬also appears in Job 14:1, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble (‫ה־אנֹוׁש ִכי־‬ ֱ ‫ָמ‬ ‫)יִ זְ ֶכה וְ ִכי־יִ ְצ ַדק יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬.” 107  Lichtenberger has noted that ‫ בשר‬as utilized in the scrolls can have a meaning of weakness, Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 81-82. Therefore, it is not surprising to find the phrase ‫“( יצר בשר‬creature of flesh”) in 1QHa 18:25, 24:6 (perhaps also, 4QInstructionb 1 16). 108  Much of this is reconstructed from 4Q427 7 ii 14-18. See, DJD XL, 298-9. 109  In this hymn, human communion with angelic beings, which is a common feature in the Teacher Hymns (10-17), as well as the latter half of the Community Hymns (18-28), appears, at first glance, to be missing. The appearance of the ‫ צבא‬in 21:9 may signal this

3.5 Hodayot

99

mighty acts and statutes (‫לספר לבשר גבורות וחוקי נכונות‬, 9). To those chosen to be brought into the covenant there their innate standing as “dust” and “flesh” is revealed in order that they might find a way of guarding against the perils of those that seek to ensnare them. 21:11-42 contains the rest of the column. This section of the hymn preserves the most occurrences of “creature of dust” and “creature of clay.”110 Lines 11-19 depict the creature’s concern with the understanding that his existence is largely futile without God’s direct intervention. Without it the creature faces the perils of the snares of wickedness and the dangers of the net which have been spread over the pit, Abaddon (‫אבדון‬, cf. 21:21-24)—the place of destruction. This net (‫ )רשת‬is spread to take the creature’s life: “And as for them, the net they spread against me seized their feet, and the snares they hid for my life, they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground” (10:31; see also 12:11-13). The hymnist’s life is tenuously wrought: “can I, as a creature of dust, be preserved from being divided and from dissolving (like) wax when it m[elts before the fire …] (21:25).”111 Nickelsburg has argued that this intense language is the anthropologizing of parallel traditions, “some of 1 Enoch’s vivid communion, however. The similarities between col. 21 and 26 may indicate that in the fragmentary portions of the former was originally some mention of this communion. Col. 26’s reflection upon humanity’s inability to stand before God’s righteousness is questioned in line 36, “or take (its) station [before you or come into community with the children of heaven (‫)בני שמים‬.” Although reconstructed, the term ‫—בני שמים‬a common reference to angelic hosts—is restored from a parallel in 4QHa (7 i 6-23). While we cannot reconstruct col. 21 based on this, it seems appropriate to suggest, in light of a shared rhetorical query regarding flesh, that with the appearance of ‫( צבא‬or near to it) was some reference to communion between the community and the angelic hosts. Kim Harkins notes that this communion plays a role in the depiction of human lowliness in contrast to God’s glory (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien). She notes, “The Niedrigkeitsdoxologien that appear in these sections of 1QHa result from the speaker’s experience of being in the presence of heavenly beings and express the speaker’s self-consciousness in the midst of angels. Thus, the praise of God and images of heavenly beings naturally conjure up an awareness of the unworthiness of humanity and the thought of joining the angelic praise underscores these feelings. Realization that the speaker is in the presence of the holy immediately brings about a profound sense of unworthiness,” “A New Proposal,” 111. 110  The reconstruction of either ‫ העפר‬or ‫ החמר‬in line 31 remains tentative. ‫ יצר החמר‬in line 38 is preserved without context. The resh in ‫ יצר‬in line 19 is not certain according to Schuller et al., DJD XL, 266. Without any discernible context we cannot make any strong arguments as to whether ‫ יצר‬should be read in line 19—though this was Licht’s reading. It is probable, although not certain, that if the line reads ‫ יצר‬it would also read ‫ עפר‬or ‫חמר‬ and should not be translated “inclination.” 111  Hughes notes, “The juxtaposition of like wax before the fire and like water poured down a slope is a marker to the theophany of judgment in Mic 1:4. The connotation is that the speaker is physically overwhelmed by fear of God’s awesome judgment for his sins,” 117.

100

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

language about the cosmic reactions to God’s judgment has been anthropologized by the author of the hymn and made part of a description of his own bodily and emotional reaction to the presence of the God who confronted (and confronts) him—sinful flesh and clay—as the holy, righteous judge.”112 Angela Kim Harkins, who focusses on the Hodayot in the light of ancient visionary traditions and the religious experience which results from the first person perspective, has gone a step beyond Nickelsburg’s suggestion that the “I” of some of these passages rhetorically heightens the terror and fear of the reader.113 Not only is the creature faced with the immortal impermanence of his filth-ridden origins, but he also encounters, becomes aware, and experiences the heightened dangers that exist with God’s willful engagement (which is fostered by being a member of the covenantal community). As such, the final lines of the column (27-38), which indicate that with divine succor the creature is able to elevate (or be elevated) above his earthly origins—whereas his enemies, those who prepare the snares, will meet their end—highlight the precarious balance struck by the very existence of said creature. The use of the aforementioned phraseology—creature of dust/clay—again, reflects the utter inability and futile existence of the speaker. By God’s wondrous acts and revelation of his statutes, the speaker, and by extension the yaḥad, can be elevated beyond this base reality. Yet, the rest of humanity—the speaker’s enemies who will meet their end—exist without God’s revelation of his statutes and therefore, remain, in its innate creatureliness. The speaker, the yaḥad, and his enemies share the same natural lowly, filth-ridden existence. They are all “creatures of dust/clay.” Created from earth, they lack any selfworked ability to raise up beyond it. The speaker’s saving grace, if you will,

112  George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Qumranic Transformation of a Cosmological and Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrerra and Luis Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992), 2:657. Nickelsburg, who follows Sukenik’s numbering of the hymns, is dealing with 1QHa 4 (new system = col. 12), yet, his points on anthropologizing are pertinent here. 113  Although Kim Harkins is examining another hodayah, her comments are germane to our hymn as well. Furthermore, she suggests that this anthropologizing technique, which is use to arouse fear and terror, led to the formation of some of the later Hodayot, specifically, 1QHa 11, 13:22-15:8, Angela Kim Harkins, Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot Through the Lens of Visionary Traditions, Ekstasis 3 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012), 156-71.

101

3.5 Hodayot

is the extension of God’s merciful hand to raise this creature to new heights, communing with angels, and in some manner, able to fulfill God’s statutes.114 22:6-42, which preserves the end of our hymn, has a great deal in common with the earlier columns. The clear occurrence of “creature of clay,” again, indicates the speaker’s dependence on God: “And I, a creature of clay, depend upon [your strong] ar[m” (‫זר[ועכה החזקה‬ ֯ ‫ואני יצר החמר נשענתי ֯ע ֯ל‬, 12-13). Even if the reconstruction were to prove mistaken, the creature remains dependent (‫על נשענתי‬, 12-13). The more legible portions of the column are divided between lines 6-16 and 22-38. 6-16 speak of those, likely outside of the yaḥad, whom can neither understand nor recount God’s wonders. The “creature of clay” is himself self-loathing regarding his existence and dependent upon God to rise from any affliction and guard himself (‫להתקומם לפני נגע ולהשמר‬, 10). Lines 22-38 address those who live and stand successfully in God’s covenantal community. Shifting back to the first-person voice, the speaker compares himself to others: 115]‫לפ]ניכה ומי יזכה במשפטכה ומה אפה[וא‬ ]‫[◦אנו במשפט ושב אל עפרו מה יבי[ן‬ ]‫כיא אתה א]לי פתחתה לבבי לבינתכה ותגל אוז[ני‬ [ ]◦◦◦‫[ולהשען על טובכה ויהם לבי כ‬

[ .29  ] .30 ‫  ]ב‬.31  ] .32

29. [… befo]re you. And who can be cleared of guilt in your judgment? And what, then, is h[e] 30. […] ’nw in judgment, and who returns to his dust. What can he understa[nd] 31. [… for you,] O my [Go]d have opened my heart to your understanding, and you have uncovered [my] ea[r] 32. […]and to rely upon your goodness

Yet, the column concludes with the speaker’s acknowledgement that while God elevates and establishes the spirit within him, he remains aware of his limitations: “my heart is like wax that melts because of transgression and sin” (‫אה‬ ֯ ‫וחט‬ ֯ ‫)ולבבי כדונג ימס על פשע‬. God’s response to the utter futility of human existence does not negate his, or the yaḥad’s, base limitations. While the speaker and his community await God’s direct engagement because of their lowly nature, the rest of humanity suffers from the same innate reality—all humans are creatures of dust/clayand will return to the putrid dust from whence they were formed.

114  See Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 60. 115  See 1QHa 18:14 for this form.

102

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

3.5.3 The Amplification of Human Lowliness in the Hodayot Derived from biblical language and imagery, the creaturely phrases examined here are partly inspired by the creation of man “of the dust from the ground” in Gen 2:7. As such, the discussion of both idiomatic expressions, “creature of clay” and “creature of dust,” belongs to the larger examination of creation topoi. Though they are often employed by the speaker in the first person, the lowliness of the hymnist is a shared state with humanity. Furthermore, one can easily sense that whether this hymnic composition(s) was used devotionally, introspectively, or didactically,116 the repetitive use of these unique terms not only identify the speaker as a “creature of dust/clay” but also describes an innate human condition. This view of humanity was intended to deeply affect all readers of the Hodayot. Newsom states, “the Hodayot assist the sectarian in learning dispositions of humility and a willingness to submit to the reordering of his self according to the will of God as expressed in the sect and its 116  Scholars have debated how the Hodayot were utilized within the yaḥad. More recently, Esther G. Chazon has noted several elements that indicate the liturgical function of the Cave 1 Hodayot. Among them is the layout of the so-called Teacher and Community Hymns, as well as liturgical themes that are “piled” towards the end of the collection “notably in the hymn in 1QHa 19:18-20:6 that culminates with three benedictions, and in the final extant hymn, 25:34-27:3, that closes with several sections of plural invitations to praise God,” “Liturgical Function in the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk, Sariano Metso, Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, STDJ 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-52. Gordley has argued that some of the Hodayot were used didactically, “… the prayers and hymns that contain ‘intensified’ or otherwise more theologically developed instances of creation language are for the most part those which are didactic in nature and function, rather than liturgical, Matthew E. Gordley, “Creation Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers,” JJS 59/2 (2008): 271. Schuller suggests that some of the 4QH manuscripts have evidence of liturgical use, Qumran Cave 4 XX: Poetic and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon, 199), 74-75. See also, idem, “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts Among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Esther G. Chazon et al., STDJ 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 173-90. See also Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 348. Schiffman notes regarding the devotional use of the Hodayot, “It is tempting to regard the Thanksgiving Scroll as a series of hymns for public worship. But we have no evidence that this material was in fact liturgical. These poems are individual plaints, perhaps composed by a leader of the sect—some scholars claim by the Teacher of Righteousness himself—concentrating on serious matters of theology and belief. The Thanksgiving Hymns were certainly not part of a regular order of prayers. Rather, they belong to a genre of devotional, introspective poetry,” Reclaiming the Dead Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, and the Lost Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 145.

3.5 Hodayot

103

leadership.”117 “Humility” and the “reordering of self” is partly attained by joining the yaḥad and following its regulations. Elsewhere in Second Temple literature the “image of God” is utilized to convey the uniqueness of humanity, especially that it is endowed with certain intrinsic qualities that irrevocably link its existence to God. While the qualities vary from text to text, the divine image signals some sort of human ability, whether it be intellect (e.g., Philo) or an ability to follow the commandments of God (e.g., Ben Sira). The “from (out of) earth” topos generally addresses humanity’s impermanence, or mortality, but can also refer to God’s sovereign knowledge over his creation (e.g., Wisdom). Philo goes a step further suggesting that God took time to pick a prime, valuable portion of clay in order to create humanity and raises the value of the second topos. The Hodayot have done something unique in describing humanity’s baseness. First, in their reference to creation, the hymns—at least what has survived—omit any reference to the “image of God,” although they attest to some knowledge of the cosmic creation of Gen 1, “… [you determined] all your works before you created them (‫)בראתם‬, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of [your holy ones,] your holy expanse (‫[ )רקיע‬and all] its hosts, together with the earth and all that springs from it, in the seas and the deeps (‫( … )ובתהומות‬1QHa 5:25, 26).”118 Second, the Hodayot have creatively shaped distinct phraseology that embodies humanity’s frailty, an infirmity that permeates every aspect of the creature’s existence. This embodiment is amplified with creaturely imagery derived from Gen 2 and the intentional omission of the “image of God,” as well as any reference to God’s divine, animating breath (2:7b).119 It is true that any reference to humanity’s endowment with the “image of God120 would narrow the separa117  Newsom, The Self as a Symbolic Space, 349 118  This forms part of what Sarah Tanzer has called a “composition on creation,” and of our two creation accounts the language of this passage most closely imitates Gen 1 if not also Psalm 33. See Sarah Tanzer, Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the “Hodayot” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1986), eadem, “Biblical Interpretations in the Hodayot,” in A Companion to the Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), 255-75. 119  See Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 219. 120  Indeed, the “image of God” (‫ )צלם אלהים‬is missing altogether from the yaḥad’s scrolls. Of course, it is highly probable that it would have been there in the Genesis biblical manuscripts if those lines had survived. However, in a rewriting of the creation of Genesis 1, the creation of humanity is described as “in the likeness of your [i.e.,God’s] glory” (‫בדמות‬ ‫כבוד[כה‬ ֯ , 4Q504 8 recto 4). The fragmentary remains of 4Q504 8 incorporate aspects of Genesis 2, since it refers to the breath of life (‫נשמת חיים נ] ֯פ ֯חתה באפו‬, 5), Eden (‫עדן‬, 6), and describes Adam as flesh and dust (‫] ֯בשר הואה ולעפר‬, 9). See Maurice Baillet, “Prières

104

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

tion between it and God, and also soften the rhetorical force regarding humanity’s futile existence. Gen 2 easily assists one side of the hymns’ general rhetorical construct: if God is, on one end, the highest, most sublime being upon which humanity is dependent for knowledge and ability, then humanity, at the other end, is a “creation of clay/dust,” frail, base, and easily corruptible in all its ways. The chasm, of course, is not simply built off of the second creation account, as noted by Lichtenberger; there is a complex of biblical passages that provide the groundwork to create the image of human baseness. Yet, the Hodayot delve into human inability in a manner that lacks parallel in the Bible and, indeed, in early Jewish literature not associated with the yaḥad. The “creature of dust/ clay” addresses the hymnists’ own lowly existence and thereby embodies an natural characteristic of collective humanity. 3.6

Excursus: “Mother and her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7

Though the account of the “Mother and her Seven Sons” does not fit neatly into the literary threads of Gen 2, the connection between resurrection and creation warrants a comment here. Ὑπεραγόντως δὲ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμαστὴ καὶ μνήμης ἀγαθῆς ἀξία, ἥτις ἀπολλυμένους υἱοὺς ἑπτὰ συνορῶσα μιᾶς ὑπὸ καιρὸν ἡμέρας εὐψύχως ἔφερεν διὰ τὰς ἐπὶ κύριον ἐλπίδας. ἕκαστον δὲ αὐτῶν παρεκάλει τῇ πατρίῳ φωνῇ γενναίῳ πεπληρωμένη φρονήματι καὶ τὸν θῆλυν λογισμὸν ἄρσενι θυμῷ διεγείρασα λέγουσα πρὸς αὐτούς 22 Οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐφάνητε κοιλίαν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῖν ἐχαρισάμην, καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου στοιχείωσιν οὐκ ἐγὼ διερρύθμισα· τοιγαροῦν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου κτίστης ὁ πλάσας ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν καὶ πάντων ἐξευρὼν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῖν πάλιν ἀποδίδωσιν μετ᾿ ἐλέους, ὡς νῦν ὑπερορᾶτε ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ νόμους (7:20-23).

The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well – she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on one and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon the Lord. In the ancestral language she encouraged each of them, filled with noble purpose. Awakening her womanly reasoning power with masculine fervor she said to them: “I do not know how you appeared in my womb, nor was it I who bestowed upon you spirit and life; it was not I who arranged the various elements of each of you. Therefore the Creator of the cosmos, He who designed the genesis of mankind and invented the genesis of everything, will in mercy return to you both spirit and life, just as you now look beyond yourselves due to His laws” (7:20-23)

pour les fêtes (ii),” in Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD VII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 162-3.

3.6 Excursus: “ Mother and her Seven Sons ” in 2 Maccabees 7

105

Perhaps the most famous chapter of 2 Maccabees121—a book thought by Schwartz to have been written before 1 Maccabees122—is the portrayal of a mother and her seven sons facing certain death if they do not eat the pork that the king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is forcing upon them.123 One by one the sons begin to refuse the option to transgress God’s commandments. While their final words differ, there is an assumption attributed to some of the sons that God will respond to their death by giving them life.124 The second son to die states, “‘you, O Avenger, free us from the present life, but the King of the cosmos will raise us up, since we have died for His laws, to eternal resurrection unto life’” (εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἡμᾶς ἀναστήσει; 7:9).125 With his final words, the third son incorporates creation motifs already examined here, “also courageously extending his hands (τὰς χεῖρας εὐθαρσῶς), and nobly said: ‘I acquired these from heaven (Εξ οὐρανοῦ ταῦτα κέκτημαι; i.e., he received his

121  The story of the “Mother and Her Seven Sons,” sometimes known as the Maccabean Martyrs, became an important account in later Jewish and Christian traditions, e.g., Lam Rab 1:16, Pes. Rab. 43, b. Gitt 57b), Chrysostom, Homily on the Holy Maccabees, 1, Gregory of Nanziane, Homily, 15. See Schwartz, 2 Macc, 298; Gershon N. Cohen, “Hannah and her Seven Sons,” in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (New York: JPS; 1991), 39-6; Rouwhorst Gerard, “The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother in Christian Tradition,” in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Marcel Poorthius and Joshua J. Schwartz, JCPS 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 183-204; Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, “The Mother and the Seven Sons in Late Antique and Medieval Ashkenazi Judaism: Narrative Transformations and Communal Identity” in Dying for the Faith, Killing for the Faith: Old Testament Faith-Warriors (1 and 2 Maccabees) in Historical Perspective, ed. Gabriela Signori; BSIH 206 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 127-146; idem; Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009); Raphaëlle Ziadé, Les martyrs Maccabées: de l’histoire juive au culte chrétien, VCS 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Robert Doran, “The Martyr: A Synoptic of the Mother and Her Seven Sons,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, SCS 12 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 189-221; Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 122  Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 11-15. 123  There is a parallel second account of “The Mother and Her Seven Sons” in 4 Macc 5-18. The retelling of the story intended to inspire the readers to utilize pious reasoning; however, it does not include the mother’s exhortation given to her sons and misses the literary thread that we are seeking to examine. Therefore, 4 Macc will not be discussed here. 124  For a discussion of the elements of resurrection in this story, see, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, exp. and ed., HTS 56 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 119-37. 125  English translations from Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 296-8.

106

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

hands from God126) and on account of his laws I now look beyond them, hoping to receive them again from Him’ ” (ταῦτα πάλιν ἐλπίζω κομίσασθαι; vv. 10-11). It is the third son that first employs the physical nature of resurrection and states that God will, as Nickelsburg notes, “heal what Antiochus has hurt; he will bring to life those things that Antiochus has killed.”127 “Those things,” according to Nickelsburg are the various constitutive elements that God is responsible for creating, that which he himself formed. The fourth son again refers to resurrection, “‘It is better to pass away from among men in the expectation of the God-given hopes of again being resurrected by Him; you, in contrast, will have no resurrection unto life’ (vv. 13-14).” After the fifth and sixth sons speak, choosing not to transgress the Law of Moses, the mother who is said to be “exceedingly amazing and worth to be remembered well” (περαγόντως δὲ… θαυμαστὴ καὶ μνήμης ἀγαθῆς ἀξία; v. 20), attempts to encourage each of them.128 While the language is not precise, we suggest reading the giving of “spirit and life” (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν) as an allusion, whether intended or not, to Gen 2. The language of 2 Macc, however, could very well fit with elements that appear in either creation narrative. To that end, we cautiously suggest that the language here provides a fusion of both accounts: 1) God is portrayed here as the creator of the cosmos (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου κτίστης, cf. Gen 2:1), and 2) he is spoken of as having moulded the beginning of humankind with the Greek “πλάσας”—the aorist ἔπλασεν is used in the creation of man in LXX of Gen 2. Both the cosmic and earthly creation are presented in the mother’s exhortation. The particle “therefore” (τοιγαροῦν) indicates that the mother’s certainty regarding resurrection hinges on God’s creative force. The consequence of being a creation of God is that those who are faithful to the Torah will be given life again and avenged.129 Death is not a stopping point to whom God has given a soul/spirit. 126  “… here this term (οὐρανοῦ) alludes to God Himself (and not just to the place of His habitation …),” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 305. 127  Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 121. Goldstein and Schwartz note a strong affinity between this chapter and the language of Deut 32, Goldstein, II Maccabees, 294-295. Also Shwartz, 2 Maccabees, 22, 300-319. Nickelsburg’s comments on the parallel story in Testament of Moses 9:1-7 and Deut 32, Resurrection, 125. 128  Schwartz notes that the mother’s entrance into the narrative, when the reader expects the seventh son to speak, announces that the last scene will be more extensive—although the reader becomes aware that all seven sons will die, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 308. 129  There is yet another parallel story in the As. Mos. 9:1-7. A man named Taxo exhorts his sons not to transgress the Lord’s commandments: “Then, even as he was speaking, there will be a man from the tribe of Levi whose name is Taxo. He, having seven sons, will speak earnestly to them, (my) sons, behold a second punishment has befallen the people; cruel, impure, going beyond all bounds of mercy—even exceeding the former one. For which nation or which province or which people, who have (all) done many crimes against the

3.6 Excursus: “ Mother and her Seven Sons ” in 2 Maccabees 7

107

“What God has created, he will recreate—in spite of the king’s attempt to destroy it.”130 This giving of life is not limited to the metaphysical but to the whole of the human being, soul/spirit, and body.131 The purpose of the brothers’ resurrection is not simply salvation from permanent death but a vindication of their obedience.132 Moreover, it is not simply obedience that determines resurrection but also God’s obligation to humanity’s constitutive elements. As God’s creation, being formed by him and, perhaps even, the bearer of his image, God’s creation is rewarded to with renewed life. Furthermore, it is stated by the seventh son that their death will induce God’s mercy on behalf of the nation (2 Macc 7:37).133 Bearing some quality of creation, that differentiates humanity from other creations (e.g., soul/spirit; image of God), they who die obediently in the face of ungodly Lord, have suffered such evils as have covered us? Now, therefore, sons, heed me. If you investigate, you will surely know that never did (our) fathers nor their ancestors tempt God by transgressing his commandments. Yea, you will surely know that this is our strength. Here is what we shall do. We shall fast for a three-day period and on the fourth day we shall go into a cave which is in the open country. There let us die rather than transgress the commandments of the Lord of Lords, the God of our fathers. For if we do this, and do die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord,” trans. from J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” OTP 1:931. The same connection is lacking in another parallel to our story in 1 Macc 2:1528, 29-38, 49-68. See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 127-30, for the literary development of these traditions. Nickelsburg argues that the Assumption of Moses is the earliest witness to the aforementioned parallels, Resurrection, 127, though Edna Israeli is of a different opinion regarding their origins, Edna Israeli, “‘Taxo’ and the Origin of the ‘Assumption of Moses,’” JBL 128/4 (Wint., 2009): 735-57. 130  Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 121. Nickelsburg notes further that this idea, pleading to God so that the physical death would not be the end is also echoed in 2 Macc 14:37-46 with the story of one the elders of Jerusalem named Razis. Razis, who faced certain death at the hands of the Greek general Nicanor, unsuccessfully attempted to kill himself so that he would not fall into the hands of sinners. Towards the end of his life he called upon “the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again,” Resurrection, 121. Schwartz notes that there is a distinction in language between chapter 7 and 14. Chapter 7 speaks of the “body” and “soul” while chapter 14 utilizes “life” and “spirit.” He is right to state, “It does not appear, however, that this difference should be pushed very far, since no attempt is made to use such terms with any precision,” 2 Maccabees, 23. 131  Moreover, one might suggest that the fusion of both creation narratives implicitly points to the physicality of the sons being related to the image of God—though no explicit language of this sort is stated. What we may have here are the early roots of what finds fruition in the literature of the rabbis, namely, that bearing the “image of God” involves humanity’s corporeality. Even when the idea of the soul is engaged in Rabbinic anthropology there is largely no metaphysical difference. Gottstein has argued that that this is the reason why “The future life takes the form of resurrection of the dead, rather than the eternal life of the soul,” “The Body as the Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” 177. 132  Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 120-121. 133  Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 122-123.

108

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

persecution can be a catalyst for national mercy. Extrapolating these ideas to collective humanity, and not simply to a particular nation, humanity is so intimately linked to God by virtue of creation that obedience and disobedience warrant a response. This idea is exemplified in the seventh son’s final words, “for our brothers, on the one hand, after undergoing brief suffering have come into God’s covenant of eternal life; you, on the other hand, shall in the divine judgment incur the just punishments for your arrogance (v. 36). 3.7

Conclusion

Philo offers perhaps the most complex use of the creation topoi examined in this chapter. We have deconstructed his use into three primary categories: 1) The “Image of God” and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of Humanity, 2) “According to” God’s Image, and 3) Two Types of Humankind. Of the first, the imago dei is employed by Philo to describe the dominant part of the soul, namely, the mind, or human reason (Creation 69). Humanity’s reasoning capability is responsible for seeking knowledge and wisdom (Worse 87-89). It separates humanity from other forms of creation and divides the soul into two parts, the dominant of which, the mind, is said to be stamped with the “image of God.” The second use of this topos is intended to argue that humanity is not an exact copy of God, but instead created “according to the image of God” (Heir 232) and not in his image. The “image” is separate and distinct from God, so it forms the middle ground of sorts to the creation. In fact, the image is a copy of God, and humankind is a copy of that image, not a copy of actual divinity. Furthermore, the philosopher speaks of humanity as being created by the logos (Plant. 18-20). The logos functions similarly to the “image” in that it maintains a middle position between God and humankind. Additionally, in other Philonic texts, this separation is depicted as being a copy of the first man, Adam, who was designed from the choicest of material. In that sense, humanity is a degraded replica of the original, perfect model (Creation 140-141). That said, the ramifications of being degraded copies is not readily clear. With the third use, Philo interplays both creation topoi to discuss two types of humanity. He utilizes both to construct a contrast between the person made in the “image of God” and one who is “from earth” or “clay.” These are further described as the “heavenly” and “earthly person.” Philo initially depicts a being bearing the imago dei—the “heavenly” person—as altogether other, an individual who is largely metaphysical and abstracted. Other Philonic texts help to shed light on this abstraction. That is, the “heavenly person” is described as the virtuous individual (Heir 57-58). The “heavenly person,” created in the “image of God,” does

3.7 Conclusion

109

not participate in anything “corruptible” or “earthlike.” The “earthly person” is corruptible and in need of God’s assistance. The individual who bears God’s image, living by reason, has the ability to be virtuous, while the other person, made of earth, lacks these gifts. For Philo, these creation topoi demonstrate a duality among all of humanity between the virtuous, described as those that practice “prudence, self-mastery, courage, justice” (Alleg. Interp. 1:63-78), and all others, those who are given good sense and can apprehend virtue but lack the ability to carry it out. In T. Naph. humanity is depicted as bearing the “image of God,” although the author employs Gen 2 and the potter metaphor—appropriated from biblical tradition—to depict the physical body and spirit, which are said to correspond to one another (1:2-3). Moreover, the potter, identified as God, has sovereign knowledge over his vessels. God’s knowledge is similar to what is preserved in Ben Sira regarding humanity’s ways and is here associated to God’s image (vv. 4-5). Furthermore, the context of T. Naph. here forms part of a larger exhortation where the “order” of creation is critical. Both topoi are employed to demonstrate humanity’s role in that order and its ability for it to recognize and follow God’s commandments. To do otherwise is to participate in disorderliness. The following text examined in this chapter is 4 Ezra 8:42-45. The seer, Ezra, argues to Uriel that God should be merciful to all of humanity and not just to the righteous. Ezra’s plea is founded on the idea that God is inextricably linked to humanity because it bears his image. Utilizing Uriel’s metaphor of the husbandman/farmer, Ezra argues by a minori ad maius that if God is responsible for the farmer’s seed because God is the bringer of rain, how much more so is there a responsibility to extend mercy to those created in the divine image. The argument fails, however. With the seer’s argument, it is apparent that God’s mercy is an even more pressing matter when those who face bear that image face final judgment. The “image of God,” again, intimately connects human nature to God, a unique and valuable relationship amidst all creation. This chapter provides a special treatment of one of the closing hymns of the Hodayot in 1QHa 20:7-22:43, which accounts for the most occurrences of two unique idioms, “creature of clay” and “creature of dust.” These idiomatic expressions originally derive from the unique language of creation in Gen 2:7 and are, therefore, an important part of our larger discussion. Both phrases, as they appear in this hymn and, indeed, throughout the Thanksgiving Hymns, are employed to rhetorically illustrate the chasm that exists between the contemptible hymnist and a sublime God. This abominableness is not limited to the speaker, however, but reflects humanity’s existential reality. The hymnist has creatively shaped the language of Gen 2 in order to describe humanity’s utter

110

3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

frailty, an infirmity that permeates every aspect of the creature’s existence. The only hope, for the hymnist and the yaḥad, is that God will intervene providing the creature both knowledge and the ability to observe his statutes through an endowment of his spirit. In that sense, the rest of humanity is essentially forsaken to its baseness. This portrayal is uniquely amplified by the topos that is missing. Although the Hodayot imply some knowledge of the cosmic creation of Gen 1, the “image of God” is nowhere to be found. Our examination of other Second Temple texts has shown the significance of this lacuna. Elsewhere the divine image is employed to speak both of God’s sovereign knowledge over humankind and its ability, even responsibility, to participate in God’s covenant. The rhetorical chasm between humanity and God is deepened by the omission of the imago dei. Indeed, rather than having been bestowed with some aspect of divinity, the “creature of clay/dust” is engraved with inability and insignificance, serving to intensify the lowliness of humanity when brought into conversation with contemporaneous Jewish thought. The author(s) is not simply working in a vacuum but is clearly aware of a literary tendency, attested elsewhere, that depicts human nature through the lense of creation topoi; “creature of clay/dust” is an implicit contrast to any suggestion that humanity retains any inherent, creational significance. In a brief excursus, the unique relationship between God and his creation is exemplified in the story of the “Mother and Her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7. In particular, important are the final words of the third son and the mother. They demonstrate that in being a creation, the obedience and disobedience of the person warrants a response from its creator. God’s function as the one who forms and gives the person existence obliges God to respond to its deliberate destruction. This response is not limited to the individual but is even thought to warrant mercy for the nation of Israel who, of course, is depicted at war against Antiochus and the Seleucids. While the creation topoi do not precisely appear in this narrative, the idea that resurrection, life after death, and the conveyance of mercy are distinctly connected to God’s creation implies something significant about human nature. More specifically here that as an inherent creation, obedience and transgression warrant a divine response.

Chapter 4

Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit: Examining Humanity’s Composition 4.1

Introduction

This chapter is a terminological analysis of humanity’s physical (e.g., “flesh,” “body”) and metaphysical components (e.g., “soul”), and the relationship between the two, namely, whether collective humanity is presumed to be comprised of a single, indivisible element, a body-soul duality, or a trichotomy, i.e., body, soul and spirit. While it is clear that the equivalents for “flesh” and “spirit” are utilized in dualistic worldviews to depict humanity’s moral qualities, this chapter seeks to examine how the ancients understood flesh and spirit, body and soul in regard to a humanity’s constituent parts, not how these ideas were employed metaphorically (for this see chapters 6 and 7 in this study). Thus, this chapter is organized to first examine the terminology that is utilized to describe the body and soul and the manner in which it betrays assumptions about human composition, which is followed by an exploration of the conceptions of humanity’s metaphysical nature: 4.2) Describing the Body, 4.3) Ben Sira, 4.4) Wisdom of Solomon, 4.5) Josephus’ Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, 4.6) 1 Enoch, 4.7) The Testament of Abraham, 4.8) Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy and the Composition of Humankind in the Second Temple Period, and 4.9) Conclusions. Prior to our examination, it is briefly worth noting that the composition of collective humanity in biblical literature, prior to the Hellenistic period, is not uniform. For many scholars, the term ‫נפש‬, whose semantic range in the mid Second Temple period encompasses, in part, a separable human component (i.e., a soul), in the Hebrew Bible does not depict the existence of a human component that is separate from the body. Human nature is viewed as a psychosomatic unity. Furthermore, life appears to end with little implication that humanity is conceived as constituting more than a single element.1 More 1  James F. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah,” JNES 70/1 (2011): 42, n. 48. Osborne supports his argument by directing the readers to Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2006), 29-30. Levenson states, “That death represents an absolute terminus, as it does to the modern mind, is not a foregone conclusion in biblical thought,” 30. It is possible for biblical figures like the patriarchs

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_005

112

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

recently, however, Richard Steiner has argued that strict lack of body-soul dualism can no longer be maintained. Although the evidence is minimal, according to him, there appears to be a degree of body-soul dualism in the Hebrew Bible that results from the influence of particular Ancient Near Eastern circles.2 Indeed, often the simplest indicator that human existence is composed of separable constituent parts—one physical and the other metaphysical—rather than a whole, is the description of an afterlife where specific terminology describes a metaphysical component as explicitly having a separate existence from the body. Yet, even the small number of biblical texts that explicitly attest to an afterlife (e.g., Dan 12:2) do not necessarily imply a body-soul dualism. Thus, apart from the appearance of specific terminology (e.g., soul, spirit) along with the depiction of an afterlife, it is difficult to ascertain whether humanity is thought to be more than a single, yet, complex entity, rather than a composition of parts. In general, Second Temple texts preserve depictions that run the aforementioned gamut, namely, the depiction of humanity as a psychosomatic unity, a body-soul dualism where both components are separate from one another, and, what appears to be a later (mid to late 1st century CE) development within Hellenistic Judaism, a composition that divides humanity into three components.3 to continue after death without resurrection (bodily) and, “not, it should be underscored, as disembodied spirits but as the people whose fathers they will always be,” author’s emphasis, 30. See also, Robert Laurin, “The Concept of Man as a Soul,” ExpTim 72 (1960-1961):132; Seth L. Sanders, “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects of the Katumuwa Stele,” BASOR 369 (2013): 35-55; Matthew Suriano, “Breaking Bread with the Dead: Katumuwa’s Stele, Hosea 9:4, and the Early History of the Soul” JAOS 134/3 (July-Sept., 2014): 385-405. 2  He notes, “It has long been accepted by most scholars that ‘the Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied ‫נפש‬. However, if that is true, he must have been oblivious to beliefs and practices found all over the ancient Near East,” Disembodied Souls: the Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription, ANEM 11 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 124, also 1-9. Further, in the early 20th century “… it was still possible to assert that ‘nefesh is used as the name of the disembodied spirit’; that ‘the Hebrews apparently retained down to historical times the conception of the soul as a separable thing, which can be removed from a man’s body in his lifetime, either by the wicked art of witches, or by the owner’s voluntary act in order to deposit it for a longer or shorter time in a place of safety’; that ‘like many other peoples of antiquity, the ancient Israelites believed that the soul could slip in and out of the body at will,’” 1. 3  It seems that both a body-soul dualism, and later trichotomy, are the results of various Hellenistic influences that arrived with the Alexander the Great’s entry eastward in 332/3 BCE. For example, the writings of Plato, which predate the texts presented here and would have been influential in the Levant, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See, Jacques Brunschwig and David Sedley, “Hellenistic Philosophy,” 151-83, and “Roman Philosophy,” 184-210, in The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy, ed. David Sedley,

4.2 Describing the Body

4.2

113

Describing the Body

4.2.1 ‫ ְ ּגוִ ָיּה‬, ‫ ּ ָב ָ ׂשר‬, ‫ ְׁשאֵ ר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά 4.2.1.1 The Physical Body: ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and ‫ְש ֵאר‬ There are several terms that are utilized to describe humanity’s physical nature. The most important are, ‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά. Post-biblical Hebrew appears to employ the three former terms with little additional nuance from their biblical usage. Both ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and ‫ ְש ֵאר‬appear in a limited number of contexts when referring to the human body. The Hebrew mss. of Ben Sira utilize both terms; is 4‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬limited to the later chapters of the book, as well as ‫ ְש ֵאר‬,5 with one appearance in Sir 7 [A 2v:26-27]. When contextually dealing with the fate of the wicked and the value of a “gracious name” (‫)שם חסד‬, Ben Sira states, “the human body is a fleeting thing, but a virtuous name will never be annihilated” (41:11 [B 11r:3]).6 The impermanence of the wicked is compared to humanity’s CCP (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Middle Platonism is thought to be especially influential to Philo. See, John Dillon, “Philo and Hellenistic Platonism,” in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. Francesca Alesse, SPA 5 (Leiden: Brill 2008), 223-32; idem, “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology,” in The Afterlife of the Platonic Soul: Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions, ed. Maha Elkaisy-Friemuth and John M. Dillon; SPNP 9 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), 17-24; idem, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, rev ed. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996), explicitly distinguish between the body and the soul. See Plato’s Phaedo 102-7; also T. M. Robinson, “The Defining Features of Mind-Body Dualism the writings of Plato,” in Pysche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment, ed. John P. Wright and Paul Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 37-55; Ellen Wagner, ed., Essays on Plato’s Psychology (Lanham; Boulder; New York; Oxford: Lexington Books, 2001); Richard Kraut, “Introduction to the Study of Plato,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plato, ed. Richard Kraut, CCP (Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1992), 6-8. 4  H ALOT 1:181. Unless otherwise noted the Greek and Hebrew of Ben Sira are from Ziegler, Sapentia Iesu Filii Sirach, and Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, respectively. 5  H ALOT 4:378-9. 6  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 465. We have opted for their translation since it seems to render the sense of the Hebrew and not Greek versions, see, Ziegler, Sirach, 318. Skehan and Di Lella do not include a rationale for their translation, but their utilization of the Hebrew versions elsewhere suggests that they have done the same here, see, Ben Sira, 468. A more literal translation of B is, “the vanity of person [i.e., humanity] is in his body, but the gracious name will not be cutoff” (‫הבל אדם בגויתו אך שם חסד לא יכרת‬, 11r:3). See also the parallel in Mas 1h 3:13. The Greek versions have a decidedly different reading “the mourning of humanity is about their bodies, but the not good name of sinners will be wiped out” (Πένθος ἀνθρώπων ἐν σώμασιν αὐτῶν, ὄνομα δὲ ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ ἀγαθὸν ἐξαλειφθήσεται). A marginal note in the Ben Sira B adds ‫ בני‬prior to ‫ אדם‬and is perhaps the reason why the Greek translation reads with the plural ἀνθρώπων, Ziegler, Sirach, 318. See also the marginal note to 37:25, “The life of a man is numbered by days, but the days of Israel are without number,” where a Hebrew marginal note in D inserts ‫ גויתהן‬for ‫איש‬.

114

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

most vulnerable; component, its body. This appears to hold true in the Greek translation; “body” (σῶμα) represents humankind’s temporal physical frame. Conversely, the body is positively affected by one’s wisdom, “should one be wise to himself, the benefits of his knowledge [are evidenced] on his body” (‫פרי‬ ‫דעתו על גויתו‬, 37:22 [B 7v:15; D 1v:11-12]). The Greek here deviates from the expected use of σῶμα. “Understanding” is said to benefit one’s mouth rather than the entire body, “another is wise to himself; and the fruits of understanding are commendable in his mouth” (καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ στόματος πιστοί). Later in Ben Sira, humanity’s perishable body again naturally benefits from one’s wisdom,7 although the “body” (‫ )גויה‬of humankind is always vulnerable to death (cf. Sir 38:16 [B 8v:4-5]; 41:11 [MAS 1h 3:13; B 11r:3]; 44:14 [MAS 1h 7:21; B 13v:17]; 49:15 [B 19r:5]) or some sort of affliction.8 Therefore, ‫ גויה‬and σῶμα generally refer to the utter mortality of humanity—one that is effected by the application of wisdom.9 Indeed, for any wisdom text, its application generally has a real world effect that moves beyond the abstract (e.g., long life). Moreover, the body, at least as ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and σῶμα are utilized, is understood as humanity’s mortal component, vulnerable to both death and illness. For Ben Sira, while wisdom can positively affect one’s body, it does not abrogate the body’s

7  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 437. 8  A similar wisdom instruction is directed to the “poor” in 4QInstruction. For instance, “Remember that you are poor […] and your poverty you will not find, and when you violate a promise [… If someone] leaves something valuable with you, do not touch it, lest you be burned and your body consumed by its fire” (‫תכוה [ו] ׄבאשו תבער‬ ‫אל תשלח ידכה בו פן‬ ׄ ‫ ;גויתכה‬4Q416 2 3:2-4). The fragment deals with the proper conduct of the poor to a loan or deposit left with the addressee. See Matthew Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 142-43; idem, “The Poverty and Social Location of the Mebin,” in 4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 23-27. While the punishment, “your body consumed by fire” is metaphorical, the imagery is not unlike that of Ben Sira, namely, that the body is directly affected by one’s actions. 9  Sometimes ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬is modified with ‫“( ָב ָשר‬flesh,” cf. ‫בגוית בשרו‬, 1QpHab 9:1-2) to illustrate mortal vulnerability, as well as a lifeless body (i.e., “a corpse,” ‫בגוית בשרם‬, 4QpNah 3 4 2 4-6). The context of the former speaks of the turmoil facing the Wicked Priest, see Moshe Bernstein, “Pesher Habakkuk,” EDSS 2:647-51, or priests. Also, Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls (London, New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 72, states that it speaks to a distinct vulnerability experienced by more than the priest. Moreover, Fabry has suggested that the the Greek equivalent for ‫ בגוית בשר‬appears in Sir 23:16: ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς, “‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬,” TDOT 2:437. He also notes that similar language is used in the epistle to the Colossians (ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς, 1:22; τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, 2:11). As in Ben Sira the language is utilized metaphorically referring to human morality. ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬in the Damascus Document is also utilized to speak of the bodies of the mythic offspring of the rebellious angels from Enochic lore (CD 2:19; par. 4QDa f2 2:19). See Fabry, “‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬,” 2:437.

4.2 Describing the Body

115

mortality (see Wisdom below).10 Moreover, it is not apparent, in these cases, that the sage is interested in differentiating the human life between a physical and metaphysical components and that there is a distinct unity between understanding, the abstract application of wisdom, and the body that represents the sum of human existence. The Hebrew ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is also used to speak of the body but can also refer to physical “flesh” and one’s relative.11 In regard to the body, Ben Sira displays a specific concern for the “body” of one’s daughter, “Do you have daughters? Watch their bodies and do not shine a countenance upon them” (‫בנות לך נצור שארם ואל‬ ‫תאיר אלהם פנים‬, A 2v:26-27;12 θυγατέρες σοί εἰσιν; πρόσεχε τῷ σώματι αὐτῶν, καὶ μὴ ἱλαρώσῃς πρὸς αὐτὰς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου, 7:24).13 The focus of Ben Sira’s teaching is a concern for the father’s responsibility to watch over his daughter’s body, or more specifically, what may be done to her body (so, Skehan and Di Lella’s “chaste”14). Ibolya Balla states, These instructions depict a loveless relationship between father and daughter even to the point that in Sir 7:24b a father is urged not to shine his face upon her, or as the Greek translates, not to show a “cheerful” face to her. This idea may mean that if the father is too indulgent with the daughter, she may make use of it. For instance, she may use her freedom or the lack of the father’s supervision to engage in sexual intercourse.15

That Ben Sira depicts a “loveless relationship between father and daughter” seems to break through the interpretive boundaries of the text. While Ben Sira has been noted for having a poor view of women,16 this warning does not 10  Tobit states, “For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin” (ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, καὶ αὐτὴ ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν). Surely, this is not some claim of human immortality but more so a hope for a longer life (cf. v. 10’s “fullness of life,” πλησθήσονται ζωῆς). 11  H ALOT 4:138-79. 12  See also, Sir C 3v:9-10, var. ‫ ;תאר‬Sir D 2r:6-7. 13  It appears that the Greek attempts to smooth out the Hebrew by adding the 2nd personal pronoun σου, which is likely implied but missing in all the extant Hebrew mss. Additionally, C includes a variant indicating that Ben Sira is directing his teaching to sons ]…[‫בנים לך נצור שאר‬, Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 97, not daughters. Additionally, Skehan and Di Lella suggest that there are biblical parallels here with Ps 73:26 and Prov 5:11, Ben Sira, 206. 14  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 203. Ibolya Balla, “Chastity,” in Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality, DCLS 8 (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 37-38. See also, Segal, Ben Sira, 49. 15  Balla, Ben Sira, 39. 16  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 90-92. The authors suggest that while some of Ben Sira’s teaching on women seem to be deplorable, and must be noted as such, within the context of a patriarchal society, it would have drawn little criticism (91). Also, Henry McKeating,

116

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

connote a “loveless” relationship—thought the relationship may not reflect a modern, Western view of “love.” Moreover, it may reflect a misplaced, poorly defined/practiced “love,” where control replaces concern. Such seems represented in Balla’s subsequent comments, namely, that somehow the daughter’s body is something for the father to be concerned with. Or perhaps, more to the point, the father is taught to exercise a modicum of control over her body, thus assuring her chastity and that she will be fit to be married, thereby bringing an end to the father’s anxieties (cf. 7:25). Therefore, Balla’s negative reading is not far off. In that sense, the use of ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is utilized to depict the various elements of the human body that function in relation to another, especially bodily and sexual vulnerabilities. For Ben Sira, then, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is not intended to encompass the entire physical frame but rather is narrowed to focus on the sexual components and vulnerability faced by one’s daughter—especially, in regard to her chastity.17 The use of σῶμα to translate ‫ ְש ֵאר‬offers some additional semantic nuance to what has been noted above. While in the aforementioned context, σῶμα is employed to address human mortality and that part of humanity that is affected by wisdom, death, and illness, here, the use of σῶμα is intended to reflect the daughter’s sexuality. 4.2.1.2

Body/Flesh (σὰρξ, ‫ )בשר‬as Human Mortality and the Lives of Mortals Human mortality is generally described in Hellenistic-Jewish literature with the term “flesh” (σὰρξ). Wis 7:1 reads, “I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant “Jesus ben Sira’s Attitude to Women,” ET 85 (1973): 85-87; Roger Tomes, “A Father’s Anxieties (Sirach 42:9-11)” in Women in Biblical Tradition, ed. George J. Brooke, SWR 31 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), 71-91; Claudia V. Camp, “Understanding Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira” in “Women Like This” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, EJIL 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 1-40; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Daughters and their Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira,” in DCLY (2012-2013): 183-201; Balla, Ben Sira, 54-56; Maurice Gilbert, “Ben Sira et la femme,” RTL 7 (1976): 426-42; Warren C. Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis, BJS 38 (Chico: Scholars Press 1982); Nuria Calduch-Benages, “‘Cut Her Away from Your Flesh:’ Divorce in Ben Sira,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Center, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 127 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), 81-96. 17  It is then not surprising to find the use of ‫ שאר‬elsewhere to describe familial relationships. For example, in the Damascus Document, “Unto the sister of your mother you shall not draw near; she is the flesh of your mother (‫ ;שאר אמך היא‬Lev 18:13). But the law of consanguinity is written for males and females alike, so if the brother’s daughter uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, she is the flesh (‫והיא שאר‬, CD 5:8-11).” See also CD 7:11, 8:6, 19:19, 4QDa 3 iv 4, 4QDd 4 ii 4, 6 2a, 4Q365 36 1, 4Q386 1 ii 4, 4Q387 A2, 4Q416 2 iv 5, 4Q418 10 ab 7, 4Q477 2 ii 8, 6Q15 4 4.

4.2 Describing the Body

117

of the first-formed child of earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh” (καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ18).19 These words, placed on the lips of King Solomon, express the shared mortality of collective humanity, so that both king and subject have a common entrance and exit to the world: “… there is for all mankind one entrance into life, and an equal departure” (μία δὲ πάντων εἴσοδος εἰς τὸν βίον ἔξοδός τε ἴση, 7:6). Ben Sira utilizes σὰρξ in a similar manner, “All living beings become old like a garment (πᾶσα σὰρξ20 [‫כל הבשר‬, A 6r:6] ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιοῦται), for the decree from of old is, ‘You must surely die!’” (14:17). The implications are obvious in that those composed of σὰρξ/‫בשר‬ have a finite existence. Flesh is truly an impermanent thing, with an “exit” that is inescapable.21 Moreover, Ben Sira also makes use of an idiom to describe general humanity that is routinely utilized in Rabbinic literature and the New Testament to refer to human mortality, especially in relation to God, ὡς φύλλον θάλλον ἐπὶ δένδρου δασέος, τὰ μὲν καταβάλλει, ἄλλα δὲ φύει, οὕτως γενεὰ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος,22 ἡ μὲν τελευτᾷ, ἑτέρα δὲ γεννᾶται. πᾶν ἔργον σηπόμενον ἐκλείπει, καὶ ὁ ἐργαζόμενος αὐτὸ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀπελεύσεται (4:18-19)

Like flourishing leaves on a spreading tree which sheds some and puts forth others, so are the generations of flesh and blood (‫ ;כן דורות בשר ודם‬A 6r:8): one dies and another is born; every work decays and ceases to exist, and the person who made it will pass away with it (4:18-19).

The use of “flesh and blood” (σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος; 23‫ )בשר ודם‬is contextually linked to mortality in that death does not delay. As with every work and every deed, they cease to exist, so will the one who does them. Furthermore, all of humanity should remember God, do good (deeds), and indulge oneself on a 18  Unless otherwise note the Greek text from Wisdom is from Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). 19  See Winston, Wisdom, 162-7. He notes that it is common for the human side of royalty to be emphasized in Hellenistic texts, 162. Also, Grabbe, Wisdom, 64. Winston notes further that elements of Wis 7:1-6 bear some parallel with Greek science, in particular, the statement “compacted with blood” (παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι, 164). 20  The terminology “all flesh” (πᾶσα σὰρξ; ‫ )כל בשר‬is also a common reference for all of humanity (see below). 21  Indeed, one can read in the Hebrew of this passage, ‫כל הבשר כבגד יבלה וחוק עולם גוע‬ ‫( יגועו‬A 6r:6-7), that death is an inescapable statute for all (‫)חוק עולם‬. See also Sir 17:2. 22  The Greek here is a verbless clause, thus rendering the Hebrew literally. 23  In particular, this refrain is found in Rabbinic parables, e.g., t. Ber 6:18, t. Suk 2:6, t. Sot 11:3, t. Bab Qam 7:4, t. San 8:9, Mek. R. Ish, Besḥ 6:8, Shir 1:104, 2:127, 8:60, Amalek 2:22, Mek R. Sh Yoḥ 14:15, 14:19, 14:22, 15:1, 2, 10, 25, 16:4, Sifra, Shem 2:8, Sifrei Bemid, 84:5, 86:1, 87:1, 103:1, 104:1, 105:1, 117:2, 119:1, 134:4. See Ze’ev Safrai and R. Steven Notley, The Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011). The New Testament also attests to this post-biblical idiom, see, Matt 16:17, 1 Cor 15:50, Gal 1:16, Heb 2:4.

118

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

good day while time lasts (vv. 11-14).24 The message is clear, “flesh and blood,” like all temporal things, will pass and the “fruits of one’s labor” will be left to another since there are no earthly luxuries that will accompany him/her to Hades (vv. 15-18). In other words, enjoy the present by wisely being good to another and being obedient to God. Ben Sira’s use of this idiom elsewhere, however, seems to be painted with a more negative hue, οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. δύναμιν ὕψους οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός. (17:30-32).25

For all things cannot be in men, since a son of man is not immortal. What is brighter than the sun? Yet its light fails. So flesh and blood devise evil. He marshals the host of the height of heaven; but all men are dust and ashes (17:30-32).

While humanity’s lack of immortality is emphasized (e.g., “son of man is not immortal,” “all men are dust and ashes”), “flesh and blood” is said to plot evil. The deviser of “evil” (πονηρός) is exhorted to return to the Most High and turn away from iniquity (ἐπάναγε ἐπὶ ὕψιστον καὶ ἀπόστρεφε ἀπὸ ἀδικίας, 26; cf. also 25-32). While a bit darker than the sage’s previous teaching, the message is similar, namely, “flesh and blood” (i.e., human) in the plotting of evil forgets that it is temporal, impermanent, and that there is only one who is eternal (18:1). Additionally, it is implied that the evil planned by “flesh and blood” will fail in the same way that the light of sun eventually does.26 24  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 260. Also, for a similar idea see 2.2.1 in this study. 25  There is no Hebrew parallel for this text. 26  The idiomatic expression “flesh and blood” employed to illustrate the mortality of humanity appears also in 1Enoch. As Enoch enters the heavenly retinue, God sends a message to the fallen angels. He questions why, once holy and eternal, have they chosen to defile themselves with earthly woman and father offspring with them (15:4; cf. also 102:5). The angels are accused of doing what they do—“flesh and blood,” (i.e., humanity). Cf. also T. Gad 7:2, “remembering that all flesh will die …” (μνημονεύοντες ὅτι πᾶσα σὰρξ ἀποθανεῖται). We follow Nickelsburg’s reading of 15:4b “And with the blood of men you have lusted, and you have done as they do—flesh and blood, who die and perish.” He notes, “Since humans are flesh and blood (i.e., mortal), they need progeny to perpetuate their name and line. God created woman and sex as a means to this end. By contrast with flesh and blood, the watchers, being spiritual, are immortal and therefore have no need to procreate,” George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary in the Book of 1Enoch Chapters 1-36; 81-108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 271-2. See also, Charles, APOT 2:198; Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 100. “Flesh and blood” is also utilized in the Testament of Abraham B (13:7) where Abraham expresses his inability to stand before the ethereal spirit of death. Its use in this fashion does not escape the authors of the New Testament (cf. Matt 16:17, 1Cor 15:50, Gal 1:16, Eph 6:12, and Heb 2:14).

4.2 Describing the Body

119

Apart from depicting human mortality, σὰρξ can also be employed to describe the union between two people. When Ben Sira speaks of divorce he refers to the husband cutting the wife away from his flesh, “If she walks not by your side, cut her away from your flesh” (or “yourself” [cf. RSVA]; ἀπὸ τῶν σαρκῶν σου ἀπότεμε αὐτήν).27 This text appears in an extended teaching on wicked women/ wives (25:13-26). It presumes that if a wife cannot be controlled the husband should divorce her. The language of marriage and divorce is spoken of as a binding and cutting of the flesh (a clear allusion to Gen 2:23).28 Furthermore, it is an indication that “flesh” (σὰρξ) can refer to the part of a person that engages with another in either marriage or divorce. Moreover, this metaphorical use is also intended as a reminder to the reader that he/she and the rest of humanity are subjugated to the same impermanent “fleshly” condition. Therefore, one should not maintain anger against his neighbor’s wrong doings, “If he himself, being flesh, maintains anger (αὐτὸς σὰρξ ὢν διατηρεῖ μῆνιν), who will make expiation for his sins?” (28:5). This vulnerable depiction comes within a rhetorical flourish that seeks to argue a significant point of reciprocity, “Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray” (28:2). The person is admonished to remember that his “fleshly” physical condition is something shared by all other people. As a result, one should be forgiving and compassionate. The consequence of this interpersonal teaching is that the merciful, forgiving one will be visited with mercy and forgiveness. “Flesh,” therefore, is reminder of each person’s utter mortality, the reminder that it is fickle—willing to devise evil—and admonished to do good. The use of “flesh” especially in its ability to plot evil rings of a psychosomatic unity. That which emotes, reasons, and plots is one with a fleshly nature. 4.2.1.3 “All Flesh” (πας σὰρξ, ‫ )כ[ו]ל בשר‬as Collective Humanity Another designation for collective humanity is the phrase “all flesh” (πας σὰρξ, ‫)כ[ו]ל בשר‬.29 This phrase is not overly common in Greek texts and occurs most often in Ben Sira. This terminology, however, can refer to all living beings without a distinction between human and animal life. For example, “He placed the fear of them in all living beings (lit. “all flesh;” πάσης σαρκὸς) and granted them 27  The addition “with a bill of divorce” appears in the Greek versions but not the Syriac. See, Zeigler, Sirach, 246; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 346. See also, Balla, Ben Sira, 95; Calduch-Benages, “‘Cut Her Away From Your Flesh,” 91. 28  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 346; Calduch-Benages, “Cut Her Away,” 90-91. This statement is not unlike Paul’s statement in Eph 5:28. The Apostle’s marital instructions (5:2233) metaphorically depict the importance of the husband loving the wife in the same manner that he would love his own body. Thus, the value of the wife is akin to the value of her husband’s body. 29  Both phrases appear in the Hebrew Bible and the NT.

120

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

dominion over beasts and birds” (17:4; cf. also 13:6). Here “all flesh” refers to beings both “beast and birds” (θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν). Elsewhere, the sage again clearly uses “all flesh” to refer to all living beings, “… both human and beast …” (ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους, 40:8). The occurrences that pertain to this study are those occasions that utilize this terminology to refer solely to humanity. It is stated in Ben Sira that wisdom is “with all flesh” (μετὰ πάσης σαρκὸς, 1:10),30 according to each person’s gift, but is specifically “given abundantly” (ἐχορήγησεν) to those who love him. Skehan and Di Lella understand the participle “those who love him” (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν, 1:10) as referring to faithful Jews “who observe the Law.”31 This, however, requires some nuance. As we have discussed in chapter 2, while Ben Sira has integrated a Jewish-specific focus to his wisdom teachings, they incorporate such a general wisdom—amassed from various influences—that a larger audience appears to be in view, one which encompasses all of humanity. Thus, we read the participle “those who love” as most immediately referring the faithful Jews but extended to those non-Jews who might join themselves to the God of Israel and follow his commandments (e.g., see 0:14). Indeed, as suggested by Segal, there is some expectation in Ben Sira that all of creation, all of humankind, would follow the commandments.32 On two other occasions in Ben Sira, “all flesh” is utilized to express God’s relationship to humanity. First, he is merciful and forgiving to “all flesh” because he knows that their end is without value (τὴν καταστροφὴν αὐτῶν ὅτι πονηρά, 18:12).33 The sage concludes regarding God’s all-encompassing mercy, “The mercy of a person (lit. man) is for his neighbor, but the mercy of the Lord is for all flesh,”34 (ἔλεος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ἔλεος δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα, 18:13). Second, this phraseology is employed to depict God’s sovereign knowledge, “The works of all flesh are present to him; nothing is hidden from his eyes”35 (ἔργα πάσης σαρκὸς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κρυβῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ, 39:19). As God’s creation—being made of flesh—humanity’s deeds cannot escape God’s sovereign knowledge. As such, if we might recall for a moment some of the aforementioned teachings in Ben Sira, the admonition here is that humanity, that is, “all flesh” should be careful of their actions

30  Segal notes that ‫( כל בשר‬πάσης σαρκὸς) refers to either God’s creation, including all living beings (e.g., beasts), or simply humanity, Ben Sira, 5. 31  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 139. 32  Segal, Ben Sira, 103. Jubilees makes is quite clear that angelic beings are circumcised and observe the Sabbath (2:17-18, 15:27). See James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 120-33. 33  See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 286. 34  Author’s translation. 35  Skehan and Di Lella translate πάσης σαρκὸς (B 9r:5 ‫ )כל בשר‬as “humankind.”

4.2 Describing the Body

121

because this “fleshly” condition leaves them utterly knowable by God and in danger of judgment.36 The Hebrew equivalent ‫ כ[ו]ל בשר‬is also utilized to describe collective humanity, as well as those who fall outside of the redeemed yaḥad of Qumran. In the “Plea for Deliverance” (11QPsa 19:1-18), “humanity” (‫ )כל בשר‬is said to have received the breath of life from God (‫חי נשמת כול בשר אתה נתתה‬, 4). It does not appear contextually that ‫ כל בשר‬is referring to all living creatures, both animal and human.37 First, lines 3 and 4 appear to be Second Temple reworking of Gen 2:7 (cf. Wis 15:11)—the creation of Gen 2 is the creation of the male, not of the woman or animal life. Yet, as in others contemporaneous texts, Gen 2:7 is not viewed as solely the creation of a single male, but rather humanity. Second, the context of Is 38:19—partially quoted in line 2 (‫חי חי יודה‬ ֶ ‫] ַחי ַחי הּוא‬MT])—deals with the praise given by a living person. Third, ‫יֹודָך ;לכה‬ the context of the non-canonical psalm deals with saving the speaker from sin and Satan (11QPsa 10-18; see also col. 5). Again, the reference appears to be a general phrase for all of humanity. Eibert Tigchelaar more recently notes that ‫כל בשר‬elsewhere appears in the context of court-like language that echoes Jer 25:31.38 Pertinent to our study is the beginning of the Damascus Document, “When He [i.e., God] has a dispute with any mortal (lit. all flesh,‫)כל בשר‬, he passes judgment on those who spurn him” (CD 1:2). Indeed, in the historic portion of the scroll (1:1-4:12), “all flesh” (i.e., humanity)—even Israel (cf. 1:3)— faces the judgment of God should they desert God (‫)מנאציו‬. The playing field for collective humanity has been leveled, and all stand, presently,39 before him to be judged. Additionally, the lot of humanity in the War Scroll (1QM) that falls outside of God’s redeemed, the chosen of Israel, is described as ‫כול בשר‬ (1QM 4:3, 15:13, 17:8). This group does not reflect the entirety of humanity, or a shared trait, since there appears to be a dual conception for the living, namely, those who are redeemed by God’s hand (i.e., the yaḥad) and those who will be destroyed (i.e., specifically, their enemies; more broadly, the rest of humanity). The redeemed of Israel, the yaḥad, are not considered within the ‫כול בשר‬ lot. This likely develops from a view of ‫ בשר‬that metaphorically represents an unredeemable human quality (more on this later). In the context of human 36  In the Testament of Abraham, “all flesh” portrays every person descended from Adam that will rise on the final Day of Judgment (version a, 7:16). In a late text of the Sibylline Oracles, “all flesh” is employed in a Jewish/Christian depiction of judgment (cf. 8:219, 8:227). 37  For this use of ‫כול בשר‬, see also e.g., 4QDa 2 i 7, 4QDc 1 10, 4Q423-424 2 ii 22, 4Q418 8 1, 4Q419 8 ii 7, 4Q511 35 1, 4Q525 10 5. 38  Tigchelaar, “‫בשר‬,” 543. 39  See Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary, STDJ 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 142-3.

122

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

history’s final battle, it is not surprising that what is witnessed in other texts, namely, that “all flesh”—whether in Greek or Hebrew—represents collective humanity, has shifted here and the so-called “sons of light” stand separately from this particular “lot” that will ultimately be destroyed. Yet, even this distinction in the War Scroll, other Qumran texts seem to indicate that the totality of human existence—especially for those outside of the yaḥad—is subject to the “flesh.” Both the metaphysical and physical aspects of human existence are terminologically circumscribed by it. The only distinction for this is made within the ideology of the Qumran community, although their uniqueness never seems to truly remove the general baseness of this reality.40 4.3

Ben Sira

4.3.1 Meaning of ψυχὴ Ben-Sira utilizes ψυχὴ more than any other Second Temple text, the majority of which apparently translate ‫נפש‬.41 Both Hans Walter Wolff and Horst Seebass have noted a similar semantic range for the biblical usage of ‫נפש‬: 1) Throat, Gullet, 2) Desire, 3) Life (Living Creature), Individuated Life,42 Person, and 4) Vital Self, Pronouns.43 Apart from “throat, gullet,” the semantic nuances delineated by Wolff and Seebass are also reflected in Ben Sira. That is to say, that the sage’s employment of ‫ נפש‬closely follows its use in the Hebrew Bible; the Greek translation ψυχὴ then shares a similar semantic range. This is not wholly surprising since Ben Sira is heavily influenced by the biblical wisdom traditions. The most common meanings employed by Ben Sira for ψυχὴ, “desire,” “life,” and regarding “the self”—a reflexive reference to the individual that generally requires introspection on the part of the reader (e.g., “prepare yourself [ψυχήν 40  This idea will be dealt with more fully in chap. 7. 41  On a small number of occurrences ψυχὴ is paralleled by ‫( לב‬e.g., Sir 6:32 [A 2v:2], 7:29 [A 2v:28]) 42  Seebass presents “life” and “individuated life” as two separate categories, ‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬,” TDOT 10:512-16. Yet, in Ben Sira we do not find a variation that warrants two separate categories. 43  Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 10-25; Seebass, “‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬, 497-518. Seebass disagrees with Wolff’s contention that ‫ נפש‬can refer to the (outward) neck, 505. He notes, “… in all cases the imagery suggests strangulation …” 505. Both discuss the translation of “soul.” Wolff states that “soul” is a proper translation for “the seat and action of other spiritual experiences and emotions as well,” 17. Seebass, on the other hand, concludes that the few times that “soul” can be proffered as a translation is often of a reference to the vitality and energy of life, 509-10. Neither suggest that the “soul” has a separate existence from the human body.

4.3 Ben Sira

123

σου] for temptation,” 2:1). Where ψυχὴ appears and the various depictions and actions associated with it—appearing in parenthesis—are listed in the following chart. Ben Sira’s Use of ψυχὴ

Desire

Life (Living Creature) The Self Individuated Life Person 5:2*44 (do not fol- 4:2 (is hungry); 14:8†- 1:30† (dishonor to), 2:1† (prepare for low), 6:4 (evil), 9* (disregards/is with- temptation), 17† (be humbled), 4:6 14:4 (deprived), ered), 16:30† (all living (bitter within), 4:17*45 (trusted in), 20 18:31† (taking beings), 19:3 (is reck- (bring shame to), 22 (shows partialplea­sure), 23:6† less), 16† (may slip), ity), 6:2 (do not exalt), 26 (came to her (shameless), 26: 21:2† (be destroyed), [i.e., wisdom] with), 32† (applicable), 14-15† (disci- 37:28 (enjoys every- 7:11*46 (bitter within), 17*47 (be humplined/chaste), thing), 51:3 (is sought), ble), 20 (is devoted), 21 (can love), 29*48 31:20 (is with 6 (is near Hades), 19-20 (fear the Lord), 9:2 (do not give to a him), 34:17† (lift- (grappled with wisdom/ woman), 6 (do not give to a harlot), ed), 37:27 (test it), directed to wisdom), 26 9*49 (stay away from another’s wife), (receives instruction) 10:28-29 (glorify in humility/dishonor), 51:24 (thirsty) 12:11*50 (be watched), 14:2 (is not condemned), 16:17 (what is it), 19:4† (do wrong to), 20:22 (may be lost), 21:27-28† (is cursed, defiled), 23:18† (speaking to), 24:1† (wisdom praises its own), 25:2† (it hates), 27:16† (a friend to), 29:15† (life is giving to), 30:21 (do not give to sorrow), 30:23 (be delighted), 31:28-29*51 (gladness/embittered), 32:23 (be guarded), 33:31† (need a servant as), 34:15† (blessed who fears the Lord), 37:6*52 (do not forget a friend), 8 (take a thought), 12*53 (like minded with another), 19 (unprofitable to), 37:27-28 (test it/person enjoys everything), 39:1† (be devoted), 40:29 (is polluted with another’s food), 45:23*54 (has goodness), 50:25 (is vexed) a parallel Hebrew term that differs from the Greek and does not utilize ‫נפש‬. no Hebrew parallel exists.

*indicates †

44  ψυχὴ parallels ‫“( לב‬heart,” A 1v:21). 45  The Greek form here is longer and where ψυχὴ appears no parallel is extant (see A1v:5). 46  “in the bitterness of his soul” (ἐν πικρίᾳ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ) is paralleled by “with a bitter spirit” (‫במר רוח‬, A 1v:15). 47  ψυχὴ translates “pride” (‫גאוה‬, A 2v:19; C3v:3). 48  “with your whole soul” (ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ σου) is paralleled “with your whole heart” (‫בכל לבך‬, A 2v:28). 49  The Greek form is longer than the Hebrew parallels. 50  ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬A 5r:9). 51  ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬F 1r:6). 52  “do not forget a friend in your heart” (μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ φίλου ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου) is paralleled with “do not forget a friend in battle” (‫אל תשכח חביר בקרב‬, B 7r:13; D 1r:10). 53  ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬B 7v:5). 54  ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬B 15v:1).

124

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

These categories warrant commentary and a few key examples will suffice to illustrate Ben Sira’s overall usage. Regarding desire, Ben Sira instructs for one to be careful with it, “If you allow your desire (ψυχῇ) to take pleasure in lustful longing, it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies” (18:30).55 Yet, “desire” is not an overly common meaning used in Ben Sira (see chart above). On only one occasion, ψυχὴ is utilized to illustrate God’s creativity in bringing forth all manner of life, both animal and human: “After this the Lord looked upon the earth, and filled it with his good things; with all kinds of living beings (ψυχῇ παντὸς ζῴου) he covered its surface, and to it they return” (16:29-30). Some of the more common semantic distinctions noted above, “individuated life,” “person,” and “life (living creature)”—as noted by Seebass—seem limited to negative characteristics. So, the “evil man with a begrudging eye” (πονηρὸς ὁ βασκαίνων ὀφθαλμῷ), which is the miser,56 disregards people (lit. souls; ψυχάς) and the “greedy man’s” (πλεονέκτου) life withers (14:8-9). Sin is described as utterly destructive to human lives, “the teeth thereof are as the teeth of a lion, slaying the lives of men” (ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων, 21:2). In several of the examples above, the use of ψυχὴ seems to indicate a psychosomatic unity, body and soul, without a separate component. 4.3.2 ψυχὴ in the Sage’s Prayer Ben Sira 51, especially the sage’s prayer (1-12), is critical to understanding its use of ψυχὴ. Skehan and Di Lella break this chapter into 3 sections: 1) Ben Sira’s prayer (1-12); 2) the Hymn of Praise (12:i-xvi); and 3) the Autobiographical Poem on Wisdom (13-30).57 What follows is an analysis of key parts of the prayer and autobiographical poem. Stanza II (2d-3c)58 You have delivered me from the slanderous tongue, and from the lips of lying miscreants: You have been with me in the face of my attackers, have helped me in your abundant mercy

55  See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 292. 56  See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 259. 57  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 560-80. 58  The translation and poetic structure here follows Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 560-1. Their translation is based on both the Hebrew (B) and various Greek manuscripts. There are no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that follow their translation precisely. That said, however, the areas that are most pertinent for our discussion appear in both Greek and Hebrew and are noted in parenthesis.

125

4.3 Ben Sira

Out of the snare of those looking for my downfall, the clutches of those seeking my life (τὴν ψυχήν μου; ‫[ נפשי‬B 20r:15]). Stanza IV (6b-8) Close as I was to death— my life (ἡ ψυχή μου; ‫[ נפשי‬B 20v:1]), to the depths of Hades— Wherever I turned, there was no one to help me; though I looked for support, there was none. Then I remembered the LORD’S mercies, his solicitude from times long past; How he delivers those who take refuge in him and defends them against evil of every kind. Prior to Stanza II, Ben Sira praises God for protecting his body from destruction, “I give thanks to thy name, for you have been my protector and helper and has delivered my body from destruction” (ἐξομολογοῦμαι τῷ ὀνόματί σου, ὅτι σκεπαστὴς καὶ βοηθὸς ἐγένου μοι, καὶ ἐλυτρώσω τὸ σῶμά μου ἐξ ἀπωλείας, 51:1-2). The Hebrew of B has a creative interplay which provides an interpretive grid for understanding the employment ψυχή/‫ נפש‬in the rest of the poem.

51:1 (B 20r:11)

1 (11) I will recount your name as strength of my life: for your redeemed my life from death.

‫כי פדית ממות‬: ‫) אספרה שמך מעוז חיי‬11( .1 ‫נפשי‬

‫“( נפש‬life”) is synonymously parallel with ‫“( חיי‬life”) in 51:1. This is surely an indication that the ‫ נפש‬is not a separate component of human life but is utilized to describe the psychosomatic reality and totality of the speaker’s nature. In stanza II, Ben Sira’s life is saved from his enemies and in stanza IV, Hades/ Sheol (ᾅδης; ‫[ שאול‬B 20v:1]). The reference to Hades, however, is not necessarily an indication of a place to where a disembodied component of human existence goes after the death of the body. That is to say, since Ben Sira has not given any clear indication that the “soul” per se has a separate existence from the body, the reference to Hades/Sheol is not the abode of humanity’s metaphysical component. Collins contends that Ben Sira does not express a belief in the significant survival of the individual after death, since “such an anemic existence [in Sheol] is not considered ‘life’ in any meaningful sense of the word.”59 Indeed, Ben Sira’s use of ᾅδης does not seem to stray from Hades’ 59  Collins, “The Root of Immortality,” 181, 188. This of course does not mean that some sense of immortality is lacking in the Bible (see, e.g., Qoh 12:8, Dan 12:2).

126

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

varied, Septuagintal usage.60 However, one should pause and consider that the imagination of an author who envisions his life descending into Hades would have at least contemplated the existence of life after death—however that might look. In fact, it seems that the depiction of Hades elsewhere intimates some sort of existence—whether “anemic” or not—after death, “Give, and take, and beguile yourself, because in Hades one cannot look for luxury” (ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ᾅδου ζητῆσαι τρυφήν, 14:7 [RSVA], cf. also, 17:27). What is given over to Hades is life without any reference to a distinguishable disembodied part residing there. Di Lella notes, “in Ben Sira’s view, there are ‘no joys to seek’ in Sheol, the netherworld (v 16b), because rewards for a life of virtue (and punishment for a life of sin) take place not in the afterlife but only in the present life.”61 He refers back to Ben Sira 7:17, “More and more, humble your pride; what awaits humans is worms”62 (‫כי תקות אנוש רמה‬, A 2v:20), as an indication for the total lack of an afterlife. Yet, the Greek manuscripts of this text have a slightly different reading and seem to provide a stronger implication of an afterlife, “for the punishment of the ungodly is fire and worms”63 (ὅτι ἐκδίκησις ἀσεβοῦς πῦρ καὶ σκώληξ). Di Lella suggests that between the original composition of Ben Sira (c. 180 BCE) and its translation (c. 117 BCE) there was a development in the belief in the afterlife, which earlier was “not yet part of Israel’s faith.”64 At least one post-biblical text which may predate or is, at least, contemporary with Ben Sira65 envisions going down and rising up out of Sheol: “For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades, and brings up again, and there is no one who can escape his hand” (ὅτι αὐτὸς μαστιγοῖ καὶ ἐλεᾷ, κατάγει εἰς ᾅδην καὶ ἀνάγει, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐκφεύξεται τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, Tob 13:2). That said, it is not readily clear that Ben Sira conceived of an actual afterlife apart from communicating the importance of caring for the here-and-now. It is not beyond the pale to read “punishment” (ἐκδίκησις) in the aforementioned text as referring death and decomposition as that very penalty. By far the lion’s share of ψυχὴ is used to depict the “self.” By “self” we mean that which is characteristic of a psychosomatic unity, the part of the person which both perceives, knows, and emotes, as well as the person’s bodily existence. That is to say that teachings that involve the “self” are not simply 60  ‫ ְשאֹול‬, HALOT 4:1365. See also, Theodore J. Lewis, “Dead, The Abode of,” ABD 2:101-6. 61  Skehan and DiLella, Ben Sira, 260. 62  This is Skehan and DiLella’s translation. The language here is reminiscent of 1QS 11:21, “… his body is but the bread of worms …” (‫)מגבלו ולחם רמה‬. 63  Zeigler, Sirach, 158. 64  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 201-2 65  See Robert J. Littman, Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus, SCS (Leiden: Brill, 2008), xxviii.

4.3 Ben Sira

127

directed to the person’s internal psychological struggle but rather presume a union between humanity’s physical and metaphysical self. For the sage, this revolves around that characteristic that leads the individual to obey wisdom’s instruction.66 A few examples outside of chapter 51, before returning to Ben Sira’s prayer, are warranted. While the collection of verses, where “self” best renders ‫נפש‬, need not be referenced here (see chart above), several passages are still worth noting. Particularly pertinent is the admonition not to give one’s self to a woman or a harlot: 9:2 μὴ δῷς γυναικὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου ἐπιβῆναι αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν ἰσχύν σου.67 μὴ δῷς πόρναις τὴν ψυχήν σου, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσῃς τὴν κληρονομίαν σου.

Do not give yourself to a woman so that she gains mastery over your strength (no Hebrew). Do not give yourself to harlots (‫אל תתן לזונה‬ ‫[ נפשך‬A 3v:4]) lest you lose your inheritance.

Again, the ψυχή/‫ נפש‬that is threatened in these passages points to the both corporeal and non-corporeal realities of the person. Although one must be aware of their emotions, the mishandling of them has physical consequences, namely, the mastery over one’s strength and the loss of inheritance. While Ben Sira may be speaking metaphorically of “strength” and “inheritance,” wisdom’s instruction is not simply limited to the spatial plane of perceptions and emotions, 66  See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 40-46; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 62. See also Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Function of the Law,” in Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry in the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 46-54. Skehan and Di Lella note “From his reading and study of Israel’s holy books, particularly Proverbs, he compiled his own notes, comments, and reflections, which eventually he edited and published as a separate book … Ben Sira’s dependence on Proverbs can be detected in almost every portion of his book,” Ben Sira, 43. As Corley notes, Ben Sira’s dependence on biblical tradition, especially Proverbs, is creatively adapted biblical tradition, reshaping some of it with the larger wisdom literary context, which includes Greek and Egyptian influence, Jeremy Corley, “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), 155-82. 67  The Hebrew parallel references that love should not be “jealous:” ‫אל תקנא לאשה נפשך‬ (A 3r:28). The Greek versions, while not offering an understanding the subjunctive μὴ δῷς (“should not give”), do not refer to jealousy within relationships, see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 218-19. Balla suggests that the situation reflected here “may be compared to Sir 47:19-21, where Solomon came under the control of his wives via sex and let them rule over him. The woman in question in Sir 9:2 could be a person with whom one should not have relations, for example a prostitute,” Ben Sira on Family, 101, also, 98-101.

128

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

but rather presume real world ramifications. Therefore, the threat to a person’s ψυχή is a reference to the whole person, both physical and metaphysical. Additionally, portions of chap. 37 refer to “self” in relation to others,68 μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ φίλου ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου; καὶ μὴ ἀμνημονήσῃς αὐτοῦ ἐν χρήμασίν σου… (37:6)

Do not forget a friend in yourself, and be not unmindful of him in your wealth … (37:6)

ἀλλ᾿ ἢ μετὰ ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβοῦς ἐνδελέχιζε, ὃν ἂν ἐπιγνῷς συντηροῦντα ἐντολάς, ὃς ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν σου, καὶ ἐὰν πταίσῃς, συναλγήσει σοι… (12)69

But stay constantly with a godly man whom you know to be a keeper of the commandments, whose self/person is in accord with yourself, and who will sorrow with you if you fail … (12)

The text seems to indicate a best practice when relating to others. It is essential that one builds relationships with those who are of the same mind and deed. Di Lella notes regarding v. 12, “like a true friend he is your other self” (see also, 37:8).70 Ben Sira’s lesson indicates that one should be careful to make relationships with individuals that are in accord with one’s own life, that is, a person who is set on the same path in both thought and deeds. In other words, as the sage points out in 37:1-5, the difference between a good and a bad friend is that a good friend is one who is like another in regard to words and action.71 Returning to chapter 51, the final portion of the “Autobiographical Poem” (vv. 19-20, 24, 26, 29) is perhaps most representative of the larger work.72 In 51:1920, Ben Sira speaks primarily of his desire regarding his struggle with wisdom,

68   See Jeremy Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, BJS 317 (Providence: Brown University, 2001), 80. 69  See textual notes in Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 429-30. The Hebrew texts here do not have the same sense. One might expect ‫ בנפשך‬for the ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου but rather B (7r:13) and D (1r:10) preserve the noun “midst” (‫)קרב‬. 70  Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 433. 71  Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching in Friendship, 81. Corley notes that while Ben Sira’s teaching is reminiscent of an attitude that is found in Greek and Egyptian literature it is also steeped in biblical allusions, especially to the story of David in 1 and 2 Samuel, 82. See also, Georg Sauer, Studien zu Ben Sira, BZW 440 (Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 51-53. 72  This concluding poem was discovered in 11QPsa (col 21, 2:11-17-21, 1:1), which dates to the first half of the 1st c. CE. See James Sanders, The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) DJD IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 79-84; idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca: New York, 1967), 79. The Greek of the poem is an expanded form of what was originally a Hebrew alphabetic acrostic poem. See also, Leo G. Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” in Intertextual Studies, 121-3.

129

4.3 Ben Sira διαμεμάχισται ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ ἐν ποιήσει νόμου διηκριβασάμην. τὰς χεῖράς μου ἐξεπέτασα πρὸς ὕψος, καὶ τὰ ἀγνοήματα αὐτῆς ἐπένθησα. τὴν ψυχήν μου κατεύθυνα εἰς αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐν καθαρισμῷ εὗρον αὐτήν. καρδίαν ἐκτησάμην μετ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς· διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλειφθῶ (51:19-20).

My desire grappled with her [i.e., wisdom], and in my conduct I was strict. I spread out my hands to the heavens and lamented my ignorance of her. I directed my desire to her, and through purification I found her. I gained understanding with her from the first, therefore I will not be forsaken (51:19-20).

The content of the Hebrew manuscripts, which form an alphabetic acrostic poem, are somewhat different73 but the use of ‫ נפש‬remains the same.74 Additionally, Ben Sira’s contention with wisdom and his lament over his ignorance of her (τὰς χεῖράς μου ἐξεπέτασα πρὸς ὕψος, καὶ τὰ ἀγνοήματα αὐτῆς ἐπένθησα) is missing in the Hebrew version where the sage’s relationship to wisdom is more secure.75 Later in this chapter ψυχὴ/‫ נפש‬refer to human lives, specifically an exhortation for those lives to receive wisdom’s teaching: τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν, καὶ ἐπιδεξάσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν παιδείαν. ἐγγύς ἐστιν εὑρεῖν αὐτήν (51:26).

Put your neck under the yoke, and let your lives receive instruction it is to be found close by (51:26).

B 21v:6-7 And put your necks under her yoke, and let your soul take up her burden She is near to those who seek her, and the one who gives himself finds her.

‫וצואריכם בעלה הביאו ומשאה תשא נפשכם׃‬ ‫קרובה היא למבקשיה ונותן נפשו מוצא אתה׃‬

73  The Qumran text is arranged differently than the Greek versions—19-20 in the Greek form appears as 19a, 20a, 19bc in the Hebrew—yet, “desire” seems to correctly render the meaning of both versions. 74  Sanders, DJD IV, 79-85; idem., The Dead Psalms Scroll, 114-15. The Greek of Ben Sira here parallels with 11Q5 21:15-16: ‫חריתי נפשי בה‬. Διαμαχίζομαι (“to strive for”) is not a precise equivalent with ‫“( חרה‬to burn, become hot, become angry”). B of Ben Sira [Taylor Schechter (TS) 16.315] may offer a better parallel: ‫“( חשקה נפשי בה‬my self desired her” [i.e., wisdom]). Sanders notes that later textual witnesses attempted to “purge” any of the sensuousness overtones suggested by ‫ חריתי נפשי בה‬with the Syriac ‫ חשקה‬and the Greek διαμαχίζομαι, DJD IV 82. For Muraoka’s examination of Sanders’ interpretation. See, Takitsu Muraoka, “Sirach 51:13-30,” JSJ 10/2 (1979): 166-178. Deutsche notes that about halfway through the poem Ben Sira abandons erotic language because it is no longer appropriate, C. Deutsch, “The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation,” ZAW 94 (1982): 407. It should be noted that in its Greek form much, if any, of the presumed eroticism present in the Hebrew is lacking. 75  See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 574-6.

130

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

The understanding of ψυχὴ, again, presumes that wisdom affects the entire person. There is nothing that indicates that Ben Sira presumes a body-soul duality. Even the additional stich in the Hebrew of B, which speaks of finding wisdom through giving one’s self (‫)ונותן נפשו מוצא אתה‬, utilizes ‫ נפש‬as a reference to this psychosomatic unity. The rest of the poem involves inviting others to learn wisdom from him and comments on a personal lack of wisdom. ἐγγίσατε πρός με, ἀπαίδευτοι, καὶ αὐλίσθητε ἐν οἴκῳ παιδείας. τί ὅτι ὑστερεῖσθαι λέγετε ἐν τούτοις, καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ ὑμῶν διψῶσι σφόδρα,76 ἤνοιξα τὸ στόμα μου καὶ ἐλάλησα, Κτήσασθε ἑαυτοῖς ἄνευ ἀργυρίου. τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν, καὶ ἐπιδεξάσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν παιδείαν. ἐγγύς ἐστιν εὑρεῖν αὐτήν.77 ἴδετε ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν ὅτι ὀλίγον ἐκοπίασα, καὶ εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ πολλὴν ἀνάπαυσιν. μετάσχετε παιδείας ἐν πολλῷ ἀριθμῷ ἀργυρίου, καὶ πολὺν χρυσὸν κτήσασθε ἐν αὐτῇ. εὐφρανθείη ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ ἐλέει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθείητε ἐν αἰνέσει αὐτοῦ.78 ἐργάζεσθε τὸ ἔργον ὑμῶν πρὸ καιροῦ, καὶ δώσει τὸν μισθὸν ὑμῶν ἐν καιρῷ αὐτοῦ (51:23-30).

Draw near to me, you who are untaught, and lodge in my school. Why do you say you are lacking in these things, and why are your desires very thirsty? I opened my mouth and said, get these things for yourselves without money. Put your neck under the yoke, and let your lives receive instruction; it is to be found close by. See with your eyes that I have labored little and found myself much rest. Get instruction with a large sum of silver, and you will gain by it much gold. May lives rejoice in his mercy, and may you not be put to shame when you praise him Do your work before the appointed time, and in God’s time he will give you your reward (51:23-30).

Physical desire is used metaphorically to illustrate thirst (διψῶσι) for wisdom.79 Because wisdom is free, the individual should accept the “yoke” (ζυγός) of instruction (cf. also 6:23-30). Moreover, an encounter with wisdom causes one to “rejoice” and “not be shamed.” As Balla notes, “Not only does the wise person have reason to rejoice and praise God … for his gift, wisdom … but it is also his purpose and duty.”80 Ben Sira’s metaphorical use of other body parts, “the neck” (τὸν τράχηλον) and “eyes” (ὀφθαλμοῖς), indicates that the aforementioned desires are not physical in nature. The other two occasions of the singular form of ψυχὴ in this text represent one’s life. 76  B 21v:4 [TS 16.315]: ‫ עד מתי תחסרון מן אילו ואילו‬/ ‫ונפשכם צמאה מאד תהיה‬ 77  B 21v:6-7 [TS 16.315]: ‫ ומשאה תשא נפשכם‬/ ‫ וצואריכם בעלה הביאו‬/ ‫קרובה היא למבקשיה‬. 78  B 21v:10 [TS 16.315]: ‫ ולא תבושו בשירתי׃‬/ ‫תשמח נפשי בישיבתי‬. The Greek MSS switch to the third person, referring to God, while the Hebrew—with the first person—seems to refer to Ben Sira’s “council” and “song.” 79  See especially B 21v:5 [TS 16.315]: ‫(…חכמה בלא כסף‬wisdom without silver) 80  Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 216.

4.4 Wisdom of Solomon

131

The use of ψυχὴ—as evident in this final chapter and throughout Ben Sira— recalls the various semantic nuances that are already attested in the Hebrew Bible’s use of ‫נפש‬, namely, “desire,” “life,” and the psychosomatic “self.” It is important to note that Ben Sira speaks of human nature as a single living unit, not as a composition of parts, i.e., a physical body or a soul that has a separate existence from it. This view is tempered, however, with two points, 1) the sage likely envisions some degree of an afterlife, albeit minimally, with his integration of Hades into his wisdom instruction, although it does not indicate a divisible existence for collective humanity, and—as has already been noted— 2) when Ben Sira employs “body” (σῶμα [‫ ]בשר‬7:24, 23:17, 30:14-16, 38:16, 41:11, 44:14, 47:19, 48:13, 51:2) it is regularly limited to humanity’s temporal existence. Interestingly, this use of σῶμα in this fashion does not appear in the same contexts as ψυχὴ. Terminologically then there appears to be little implied, if anything, about two distinct components that comprise human nature. 4.4

Wisdom of Solomon

4.4.1 The Immortality of the Soul Wisdom of Solomon reflects an understanding that the person is composed of at least two components; that is to say, it is clear that both body and soul are considered distinct from one another. Early in Wisdom, “body” (σῶμα) and “soul” (ψυχὴ) are juxtaposed to one another and the introductory command, “Love justice, you who rule the earth,” (αγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν, 1:1),81 expresses the notion that wisdom is opposed to a person that is corrupted: “For wisdom will not enter a fraudulent soul, nor make her home in a body mortgaged to sin” (ὅτι εἰς κακότεχνον ψυχὴν οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται σοφία οὐδὲ κατοικήσει ἐν σώματι κατάχρεῳ ἁμαρτίας, 4).” A couple of things are germane here. First, the use of ψυχὴ indicates some sort of decision-making faculty. The context of vv. 1-15 suggests that the individuals commanded to “love justice” involve a determination to stay clear of “lawless acts” (ἀνομημάτων; v. 9). For this reason, Winston’s translation of ψυχὴ as “mind” is appropriate.82 Second, due to the poetic nature of this portion of Wisdom it appears that σῶμα and ψυχὴ parallel one another. The parallelism is intended not to indicate that both components are essentially the same but rather that human nature is composed 81  Winston, Wisdom, 100-101. He notes here that the imperatives are ingressive, expressing the coming about of conduct which contrasts with prior conduct. 82  Winston, Wisdom, 99.

132

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

of two components, both of which are affected by wisdom. This is confirmed later in Wis 2:3, “When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air” (οὗ σβεσθέντος τέφρα ἀποβήσεται τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα διαχυθήσεται ὡς χαῦνος ἀήρ).83 Although the author has employed “spirit” (πνεῦμα), rather than “soul,” it speaks to a tendency to view human existence as composed in parts. Again, the body and spirit are paralleled to one another—the body becomes ashes and the soul/spirit dissolves. The parallel, especially that the soul has a varied end from the body, indicates some degree of differentiation. Such a viewpoint need not contradict the immortality of the soul as expressed by Wisdom later.84 The “spirit” (πνεῦμα) dissolving upon the death of the body may simply demonstrate the fate of the wicked, perhaps the “punishment” (ἐπιτῑμία) referred to in the next chapter (cf. 3:10). The clearest dichotomization of human existence is attested later in Wisdom 8:19-20. 19. παῖς δὲ ἤμην εὐφυὴς ψυχῆς τε ἔλαχον ἀγαθῆς,

19. As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot;

20. μᾶλλον δὲ ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα ἀμίαντον.

20. or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.

The “soul” (ψυχῆς) is distinct from the body into which it enters (ἦλθον, see again, 1:4); the soul exists prior to the body and is described as a loan that must be returned upon death (e.g., 15:8; cf. also Ps. Phoc. 106; sec. 2.5).85 Winston notes, “This verse is as clear a statement of the concept of preexistent souls as one could wish, and there is no need to explain it away as many commentators have done.”86 The soul is also depicted as distinct from the body in 9:15: “for a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthy tent burdens the thoughtful mind” (φθαρτὸν γὰρ σῶμα βαρύνει ψυχήν, καὶ βρίθει τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος νοῦν πολυφρόντιδα; cf. Tob 3:6). In a decidedly negative portrayal of the human body, the physical and “corruptible” (φθαρτὸν) aspect of humanity weighs 83  For a similar conception, see section 2.5. 84  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 186. See also, 2 Macc 6:30, 7:37 85  Both Winston, Wisdom, 198, and Grabbe, Wisdom, 53, suggest that this text may bear evidence of metempsychosis or the transmigration of the souls. “It would assume that Solomon’s soul was good because of effort in a previous life,” Grabbe, Wisdom, 53. 86  Winston, Wisdom, 198; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185. Winston also draws parallels between verse 20 and the T. Naph. 2:2. See chapter 2 in the present volume. Collins notes the similarity of Wisdom with the myth of Er in Plato’s Republic. Furthermore, he notes that the second formulation in v. 20 is a nod to the Platonic tradition regarding the pre existence of the soul. See also Chrysostome Larcher, Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, EB (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 270-79.

4.4 Wisdom of Solomon

133

down the soul; it is a burden to the inner (perhaps, “real”) person.87 The same view of body and soul is attested in Josephus where the body is corruptible and mortal, while the soul is immortal, “For it is a fixed belief of theirs [i.e., the Essenes] that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable” (Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, J.W. 2:154; 4.5 below).88 Both Wisdom and the first century historian utilize the same term to describe humanity’s corruptible body (φθαρτός)—a term which emphasizes humankind’s perishable and mortal existence.89 Such a view closely parallels the body-soul dualism attested in Platonic texts: “… so long as we have the body, and the soul is contaminated by such an evil, we shall never attain completely what we desire, that is, the truth … we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone” (Phaedo 66b-d).90 While Ben Sira’s portrayal of the body is temporal, prone to affliction and death, Wisdom has gone a step further by depicting the body as a container of sorts that will release a human’s metaphysical self upon death. Plato’s view of the human body, however, seems more wretched than the image in Wisdom and Ben Sira. The sense one gets in Wisdom is that the human body is more than vulnerable or temporal; it is a jail for the immortal element which desires to be freed,91 although the body does not seem to be a contaminating influence on the soul. As to the immortality of the soul, in Wisdom it seems limited to the righteous: “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment 87  Both Winston, Wisdom, 207; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 86. A similar sentiment is preserved in the Apocalypse of Sedrach 1:10. See also, Testament of Abraham A 15:17. Furthermore, Wisdom’s retelling of the Enoch narrative from Genesis, where the ante-diluvian patriarch is taken from earth (5:24), is utilized to express the dangers faced by the ψυχὴ that lives among sinners and the particular pleasing ψυχὴ (i.e., life) of righteous 1 Enoch 4:10-14. 88  Josephus, Jewish War Book I-II, trans. H. J. St Thackeray, LCL 203 (Cambridge, London: Harvard University, Press, 1997), 380-3. 89  B DAG 268. 90  Plato: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. Harold North Fowler, LCL 36 (Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1990), 228-31. 91  The Apostle Paul seems to hope for the same end to the righteous: “Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable (ἀφθαρσίαν), and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”” (see also, 2 Cor 5:8). He utilizes the same terminology that Wisdom does to describe the incorruptibility of being created in his image (Wis 2:23-24; see 2.4).

134

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

will ever touch them” (Δικαίων δὲ ψυχαὶ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἅψηται αὐτῶν βάσανος, 3:1).92 It is clear that ψυχαὶ indicates a separate and distinct aspect of human existence since 3:2-4 reference the death of the righteous.93 The afterlife of the soul, in particular, of the righteous, is consistent with idea of death elsewhere in post-biblical Jewish literature (cf. 3 Bar 10:5; Rechab 14:4), namely, “the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord” (Δίκαιοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῶσιν, καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτῶν, 5:15). Grabbe notes that the immortality of the soul seems to be a gift to the righteous, while it is less clear that the soul is naturally immortal.94 Collins states, “… immortality is an attribute of the spiritual: righteousness and the souls of the righteous are immortal.”95 The righteous are kept from torment, but the wicked will be punished having disregarded the righteous and rebelled against God (3:10). Furthermore, the context in chapter 3 seems to indicate that the punishment referenced in v. 10 is in the here and now and not after death (cf. 3:11-14). Indeed, Collins suggests that this is simply a description of final death but immortality is the realm of the righteous.96 This differs from other depictions, for example, in 1 En 22, where the souls of both the righteous and the wicked are present, but separated, as they await judgment (see 4.6.1 below). Josephus, following the fashion of the Greeks, although he credits them after the fact, also portrays the separation of immortal souls into abodes of the righteous and the wicked (J.W. 2:154-158, more on this below).97

92  See Winston, Wisdom, 125-6. 93  “In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died (αν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀφρόνων τεθνάναι), and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality” (RSVA). 94  Grabbe, Wisdom, 55. 95  John J. Collins, “The Roots of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” HTR 71 3/4 (Jul.-Oct. 1978): 188. 96  Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 186 (cf. Collins note on 5:14); Pace Matthew Goff, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza Xeravitz and József Zsengellér (JSJSup 142; Leiden, Brill, 2010), 8. Although the suggestion that no “torment” (βάσανος) will come to the righteous in the context of death may lean on the side of their being an afterlife for the wicked as well. 97  Josephus (J.W. 2:158) associates this belief with the Essenes. There is a great deal of discussion as to whether the Essenes are one with the community at Qumran. Although beyond the scope of this study, suffice it to say that there remains a number of unanswered questions as to the differences between the portrayal of the Essenes in Josephus and the texts that have been thought to be composed by the yaḥad.

4.5 Josephus

135

The concept that the person is comprised of distinct components, body and soul,98is clear in Wisdom despite the few occasions where ψυχὴ may be employed to represent a single life (e.g., 1:11, 2:22). The text’s use of ψυχὴ indicates both an individuated life and, even more so, a component of humanity that exists separately from the body. As previously noted, the latter may be the result of Platonic/Hellenistic influences.99 Furthermore, this component, which is separate from the body, is depicted as immortal. Winston states that the immortality of the soul “represents a new emphasis in the history of Jewish tradition, although it must be seen as part of a continuous development in Jewish Hellenistic thought.”100 Unlike Ben Sira, where the use of ψυχὴ/‫ נפש‬recalls much of the semantic range already attested in the Hebrew Bible, especially the view of humanity as a psychosomatic unity, Wisdom transitions to a more Hellenistically-driven depiction where the “soul” has a separate and eternal existence—at least for the righteous. 4.5

Josephus

Although Josephus’ earliest work, Jewish War, is written after the Second Temple period (75-79 CE)101 it is an indispensable source for ideas regarding

98  Obviously, the life of the soul after it is thought to depart from the body, which is evidence of its immortality, is not a quality shared by body. Once the soul departs, it seems consistent throughout Second Temple literature that the body remains lifeless and, in some, lifeless until the resurrection. 99  Especially that of Middle Platonism; see Dillon, Middle Platonism, 96-101; Winston, Wisdom, 26-32; Goff, “Gen 1-3,” 8. 100  Winston, Wisdom, 32. 101  Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume 1: Books 1-2, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U Press, 1927) xii; Steve Mason notes, “the last datable event mentioned in Judean War is Vespasian’s dedication of the stunning Forum and temple of Peace, which housed many of the spoils from Jerusalem’s temple, near Augustus’s Forum in the city center (War 7.158-162; cf. Pliny, NH 36.102). The site was opened in 75, so Agrippa and Berenice may have timed their arrival for the big event (Cassius Dio 65/66.15.1). Josephus thus finished his account at some point after the summer of 75 and before Vespasian’s death on June 23, 79. We should allow margins on either side, for Josephus to finish Book 7 after mentioning the temple of Peace and to circulate drafts before having copies disseminated,” “Josephu’s Judean War,” in A Companion to Josephus, ed. Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, BCAW (Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2016), 14-15, esp. 15. See also Shaye J. D. Cohen who argues that for Book 1-6 there was a “relatively coherent uniform work finished as a whole before 81,” Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 84-90.

136

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

the composition of humanity in early Judaism prior to the destruction of the Temple (70 CE). Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities on the Body and Soul in Jewish Schools102 The most relevant sections begin with the historian’s extended discussion in Book 2 of the three Jewish philosophies, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (119-166). While the Essenes receive the most attention, Josephus describes respective positions of the three schools regarding human composition. Before introducing the Essene doctrine of the body and soul, Josephus describes in length their willingness to face death at the hands of the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE). Fearing that they would be required to somehow transgress the law, they gave their lives with cheerfulness expecting that they would receive their souls again (ἠφίεσαν ὡς πάλιν κομιούμενοι; J.W. 2:151-153).103 Later, the Essene belief of the body and the soul closely corresponds with this depiction: 4.5.1

Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, καὶ συμπλέκεσθαι μὲν ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος ὥσπερ εἱρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασιν ἴυγγί τινι φυσικῇ κατασπωμένας, ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷα δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους φέρεσθαι (J.W. 2:154-155).

For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and deathless.104 Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft (J.W. 2:154-155).105

102  See Steve Mason’s discussion on what is intended by the use αἱρέις, Flavius Josephus in the Pharisee: A Composition-Critical Study, SPB (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 127-8. 103  Steve Mason notes that the language here of given one’s life is used in the martyrdom scenes of 2 Macc, in particular, the account of the Mother and Seven Sons in 2 Macc 7 (see excursus in chap. 3). In fact, Mason states that the language of receiving their bodies again “echo the martyrdom scenes of 2 Macc 7:11, 14, 23, 29; esp. 14:46,” Judean War 2—Translation and Commentary, FJTC 1B (Leiden: Brill, 200], 123, n. 943). Unlike 2 Maccabees, the portrayal of a returned life for the Essenes does not induce God’s mercy on behalf of the nation. 104  I have chosen to translate ἀθανάτους as “deathless” following Mason as it rightly intimates Josephus’ intention to describe the Essene belief in the immortal soul, The Jewish War, 123. 105  Unless otherwise noted the Greek and English of J.W. is from Josephus, The Jewish War, 203.

4.5 Josephus

137

Paralleling a paradigm for humanity’s constituent parts that is attested elsewhere in Jewish literature (sec. 4.4.1), Josephus states that the Essenes’ belief that each person is composed of two parts, a body and soul. The body is “perishable” (φθαρτός) and the soul is “deathless/immortal” (ἀθάνατος). As Joseph Sievers notes, this is common terminology for Josephus when discussing the soul’s immortality.106 Rather than using the negative form of φθαρτός,107 “imperishable” (ἄφθαρτος), Josephus is explicit and unequivocal, the soul is beyond imperishable or subject to decay, death has no sway over it. The Essenes are also said to believe in the preexistence of the soul (154). They emanate from the finest “ether” (αἰθήρ), which according to Mason is similar to Homeric cosmology,108 but they do not exist specifically, it seems, expressly for humanity as their metaphysical existence is not immediately connected with a person. Rather, the soul, is entangled by a “spell” (ἴυγξ) of sorts, as if the physical part of the person is active in trapping the soul, imprisoning it until the death of that body; death offers release to the soul. The soul’s separation of the body follows Platonic body-soul dualism.109 As in Platonic thought, the imprisoned soul “rejoices” (χαίρειν) from its “servitude” (δουλεία) having ended, thus the soul’s natural place existence is disembodied. Moreover, the soul’s departure into the metaphysical realm is not a return to the ether110 from whence it came, although Josephus’ description of the soul’s ascent upon

106  Joseph Sievers, “Josephus and the Afterlife,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steven Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 21. Deathless/ immortal is the same language utilized by Ben Sira to describe humanity’s temporality, which is seen in relation to a person’s ability to devise evil (cf. 17:30-32). 107  This is precisely what Paul does in Romans, “and exchanged the glory of the immortal God (τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ) for images resembling mortal man (φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου) or birds or animals or reptiles” (1:23). While Paul does not refer to the body here, he does utilize φθαρτός in order to describe human mortality. 108  Mason, The Judean War 2, 124, n. 945. 109  See notes on Wisdom of Solomon in 4.4; and Plato: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. Harold North Fowler, LCL 36 (Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1990), 228-31; also, Todd S. Beal, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes as Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, SNTSM 58 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 105. In Greek thought, the soul is thought to return to the aether. 110  Discussing the afterlife in Orphic Myth and Pythagorean philosophy, Alan Segal refers to an inscription that speaks of the death of Athenians at Potidea—a Corinthian colony— states, “After one dies, the soul abides in the upper atmosphere, as we learn from an inscription concerning the Athenians who perished at Potidea in 432 BCE: ‘The aether [i.e., ether] has received their souls, but their bo[dies the earth],’” Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Religions of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 443.

138

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

death is not far afield from other Greek ideas. In fact, scholars have long noted the influence of Hellenism on Josephus.111 As Todd Beall notes, Josephus’ desire to depict the Jews in a favorable manner to his Gentile readers sometimes results in an adaptation of his material to Greek ways of thinking. And in this discussion of immortality, he even explicitly mentions twice that the Essene doctrine is similar to the Greeks’. Thus, he is especially concerned with maximizing the similarities and minimizing the differences between the Essene and Greek views.112

Josephus departs so far from his initial description of Essenic belief, it is worth asking whether he has not simply minimized the differences between both worlds—Essene and Greek views—but has fully transformed the trek of the soul to the place of refreshing or retribution (155-156)—as one sees in 1 Enoch—into a pastiche of various Greek conceptions of the afterlife, making specific reference to the blessed place of heroes, and demi-gods, as well as the punishments of such well known figures as Sisyphus, Tantalos, and Tityus, the giant (156). This is the only place where Josephus arrays Essene belief with such embellishment. If the historian has chosen to portray belief in a non-Essene, perhaps even, non-Jewish manner,113 it resolves why he does not return to the Essenes’ belief that prefaced this section, namely the return of life to the dead, i.e., the resurrection, or, more specifically the soul’s return (cf. 153).114 That is to say, his description that the soul, as its reenters the ethereal world and escapes a bodily prison, does not address its eventual return to or the implication of resurrection for the Essenes.115 Moreover, this contrasts with 111  Most notably, Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus,” in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, JSJSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 313-762. 112  Beall, Essenes, 105. 113  By “non-Jewish,” I do not mean as opposed to Hellenism, or Greek thought, in a strict sense. I am referring more to Josephus’ departure from his portrayal of Essene belief into a rehashing of Greek myth. 114  See Mason, Judean War, 123, n. 942, who points out that the verbiage of this section recalls accounts of resurrection in other early Jewish sources. However, it should be noted, that Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes in J.W. 2:154-157 is probably a true authorial embellishment rather than a precise assessment of Essenic belief or rather a received Essene tradition. This fits better with the otherwise succinct presentations of the three schools in J.W. and Ant. 115  While there are no parallel accounts of the Essenes, specifically, outside of Josephus, and there is not description of the immortality of the soul in early Jewish literature that is not infused with Greek myth, we have shown above and in previous chapters that the idea of the immortality of the soul existed in Jewish literature—in particular, Wisdom (2.3), Ps-Phoc (2.4), and 1 Enoch (4.4.2). Furthermore, we are treating the Essenes as a separate

4.5 Josephus

139

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE) who states that the idea of the resurrection is “strong” (ἔρρωται) among the Essene community.116 Jonathan Klawans does not see the same inconsistency in Josephus, however. Based on his translation of ὡς as “as” in 2:153, “as expecting to receive them [i.e., their souls] again,” indicates that the Essenes who were willing to give their lives were “motivated not by a firm belief that they would get their souls back, but that their souls would live elsewhere” (author’s emphasis).117 Indeed, if the adverb is intended in this way, then it resolves the rational for Josephus’ extended embellishment—one that is not matched with his description of the Pharisees here in J.W., or of any of the schools in Ant. But it does not explain the Essene expectation, however one translates ὡς, that the Essenes would receive their soul “again” (πάλιν). To receive the soul again implies a return the body, the very thing that is missing in Josephus’ diversion. Later, in Antiquities, Josephus returns to the Essene belief in the immortality of soul, stating succinctly, “They regard the soul as immortal (ἀθανατίζουσιν δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς περιμάχητον)…” (Ant. 18:18). While he continues to unpack the virtues of the members of the Essenes, he does not return to the Greek myth of J.W. He also makes no mention of the Essene hope for the return of the soul. Moreover, the school is described last of the three,118 where in J.W., the Essenes are depicted with the lengthiest and most impressive view of the soul. Perhaps the historian’s brevity in Ant. is due to his previous portrayal of the schools in J.W. (cf. Ant. 18:11). Still, Josephus omits critical points of Essene opinion regarding the soul, namely, its eventual return and its journey through an ethereal plain. The Pharisee’s and the Sadducee’s view of the body and soul in J.W. is comparatively more concise than that of the Essenes.

group despite decades of debate as to whether the Essenes are in fact the Jewish group that existed at Qumran. See Beall’s discussion in Josephus’ Description, 105-108. 116  Refutation of All Heresies, 9:27; Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium, ed. Miroslav Marcovich, PTS 25 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986) 374. See also, Refutation of All Heresies, trans. and notes M David Litwa, WGRW (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 684-5. 117  Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 269, n. 72. 118  Morton Smith, “The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena,” HUCA 29 (1958): 292-3; also, Gunaar Haaland, “What Difference Does Philosophy Make? The Three Schools as a Rhetorical Device in Josephus,” in Making History: Josephus and the Historical Methhod, ed. Zuleika Rodgers, JSJSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 275-6.

140 Pharisees (2:163b) ψυχήν τε πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον, μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην, τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀιδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the vile suffer eternal punishment.119

The language employed to describe the Pharisee’s and Essene’s view of the soul differs somewhat. The Pharisees believe in an “imperishable” soul, and the Essenes, one that is “deathless/immortal” (ἀθάνατος, see above). Yet, the Pharisaic view of the soul does not receive the same treatment as its Essene counterpart. Both groups basically agree on the immortality of the soul, despite the latter receiving a grandiose display of the soul’s afterlife. For the Pharisees, the soul of the “good” (ἀγαθῶν) enters “another body” (ἕτερον σῶμα).120 The Essenes, on the other hand, are said to believe that the body is a prison for the soul. Once the soul is released it does not return to the body; the body in general is dispensable. Yet, as Mason notes, “It would appear, then, that Josephus understands the Pharisaic and Essene views of immortality to be quite similar. The only noticeable difference is on the question whether the soul after death goes to an idyllic heavenly location or enters a new body …”121 The new body is limited to the “good,” while the “vile” (or “bad;” φαύλων) are not given a new body but will suffer eternally. The Pharisaic view, however, makes no mention of the individual’s current body. Klawans argues further that the Pharisaic position regarding the soul is resurrection couched in Hellenistic ideas of reincarnation (broadly-speaking). In particular, those that are adapted partly from Pythagoras and Plato. However, the use of “other body” (ἕτερον σῶμα) is a significant departure from the portrayal of resurrection elsewhere in early Judaism. While Klawans agrees regarding resurrection, he rightly notes that the reason for Josephus’ cryptic description is the “conundrum” caused by the precise nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism.122 In Ant. 18:14-15, the Pharisees’ position parallels J.W. closely.

119  Mason’s translation of the clause, “whereas those of the vile are punished by eternal retribution” (τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀιδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι), renders the meaning better than Thackeray’s, “while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.” 120  Reference to another body is missing from Hippolytus’ Refutation, 9:28. 121  Mason, the Pharisees, 158. 122  Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 110-11. See also Klawans interaction as to whether these ideas have to do with metempsychosis or transmigration, 106-11. Both Mason and Klawans point to the writings of the Apostle Paul to argue for parallel descriptions of the Josephan resurrection, specifically, 1 Cor 15.

4.5 Josephus ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς οἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονεν, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀίδιον προτίθεσθαι, ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν

141 They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice: eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the receive an easy passage to a new life.

Linguistically, Josephus departs from his previous work, but the sentiment is the same. Rather than being imperishable, souls, quite literally, are said to have the strength to be immortal (ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς…εἶναι). Rewards and punishments are described for those who lived virtuously (“of virtue;” ἀρετῆς) or of vice (“of vice,” κακίας), respectively; for the latter, they will be placed in “eternal imprisonment,” while the former will find an easy path “to return to life” (ἀναβιοῦν). Josephus makes no mention of “another body” but there is an expectation that the reader will know or return to his previous work (see above). Although the historian clarifies that “new life” is post-mortem, it implies that the dual components—body and soul—of the person that existed prior to death will return again. In Jewish War, the soul is transferred to another—likely physical—body, and in Ant. to new life, both of which are understood to be resurrection is the bringing together of the body—perhaps a new one—and the soul. The reward of the good soul is a return to an earlier state where human nature is composed of two separate components. The vile are partly punished by not experiencing the same return, while suffering punishment and an eternal prison. The third school in J.W. to be discussed by Josephus is the Sadducees, a group that is often associated with the Jewish priestly class.123 Sadducees (165c) ψυχῆς τε τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ τὰς καθ᾿ ᾅδου τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσιν. 

As for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.

There is very little that can be ascertained in regard to the Sadducean position regarding the composition of the person from this text apart that the idea that the soul “persists” (διαμονή) after death. Consequently, reward and punishment

123  See Hillel Newman’s arguments regarding two parts of the Sadducees. The “Jerusalem Sadducees,” which are the aristocratic priests of Jerusalem and the “halakhic Sadducees,” which broke from the Jerusalem priests, like Qumran, and shared a similar halakhic system, Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups in the Ancient Period, ed. Ruth Ludlam, BRLJ 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81-82.

142

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

are irrelevant.124 In Antiquities 18, Josephus’ descriptions of the Sadducean position is even more terse, “The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along ́ with the body” (18:16, cp. λύσιν γὰρ ἐ�σεσθαι καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, Hippolytus, Refutation 9:29). The soul and the body dying together leaves no indication whether these components are separate. As we have noted above, a description of the afterlife, in whatever form, is the easiest indicator that the body and the soul are separate components. The Sadducean position, as portrayed here, leaves little room regarding the question of constituent parts but it is unlikely that Josephus intends to describe the body as a psychosomatic unity, which by the writing of his work was an idea that no longer curried favor. In Josephus’ speech to his soldiers during Roman siege of the Upper Galilean city of Yodfat (also, Jotapata),125 he identifies with ideas regarding the body and soul that are indicative of their separate nature. In an attempt to convince the soldiers that self-inflicted death was not the best method of escaping the Roman onslaught (and opposed to God’s laws), Josephus argues, “Why set asunder such fond companions as soul and body” (ἢ τί τὰ φίλτατα διαστασιάζομεν, σῶμα καὶ ψυχήν, J.W. 3:362)? The verb διαστασιάζω, translated by Whiston as “variance” and Thackeray as “set asunder,” can also be interpreted to “separate into factions,” indicating that Josephus is speaking of the dichotomy between a person’s constituent parts. In other words, the soldiers committing suicide would cause a separation between those parts. Later in his speech, Josephus expands his point,

124  See the Rabbinic discussion attributed to Antigonus of Sokho in Avot de Rabbi Natan where his two disciples, Zadok and Boethos—both of whom are traditionally connected with the Sadducees—interpreted Antigonus’ statement regarding the serving their master with no expectation of reward (Avot 1:3) and was an indication that the former generations believed there was no reward (or punishment) in world-to-come, Avot de Rabi Natan (Schechter, 26) ver. A, chap. 5. See also, the interpretive expansion of the Cain and Abel story (Gen 4:1-18) in the Targumim. Martin McNamara notes that this “midrash” regarding judgment in the afterlife has been received by several targumic MSS: Tg. Neof., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. CGen, MSS B, I, FF and X, The Aramaic Bible: Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis I—Translated, with Apparatus and Notes, The Aramaic Bible, The Targums: A Michael Glazier Book; (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 66, n. 12; R. Le Déaut, “Traditions targumiques dans le corpus paulinien?” Biblica 42/1 (1961): 28-48; José Ramón Díaz, “Dos Notas Sobre el Targum Palestinense,” Sef 19/1 (1959): 133-6; Schürer 2:406; Isenberg, “An Anti-Sadducees Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HTR 63/3 (1970): 43344; Géza Vermes, “The Targumic Versions of Gen 4:3-16,” in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 92-126; Flusser, “A New Sensitivity,” 469-89. 125  See Klawan’s discussion in the similarities of this speech and Josephus’ recasting of Eleazar ben Yair’s speech at Masada (J.W. 7:358-370), Josephus and the Theologies, 117-9.

4.5 Josephus τὰ μέν γε σώματα θνητὰ πᾶσιν καὶ ἐκ φθαρτῆς ὕλης δεδημιούργηται ψυχὴ δὲ ἀθάνατος ἀεὶ καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σώμασιν ἐνοικίζεται εἶτ᾿ ἐὰν μὲν ἀφανίσῃ τις ἀνθρώπου παρακαταθήκην ἢ διαθῆται κακῶς πονηρὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄπιστος εἰ δέ τις τοῦ σφετέρου σώματος ἐκβάλλει τὴν παρακαταθήκην τοῦ θεοῦ λεληθέναι δοκεῖ τὸν ἀδικούμενον. καὶ κολάζειν μὲν τοὺς ἀποδράντας οἰκέτας δίκαιον νενόμισται κἂν πονηροὺς καταλείπωσι δεσπότας αὐτοὶ δὲ κάλλιστον δεσπότην ἀποδιδράσκοντες τὸν θεὸν οὐ δοκοῦμεν ἀσεβεῖν. ἆρ᾿ οὐκ ἴστε ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἐξιόντων τοῦ βίου κατὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον καὶ τὸ ληφθὲν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ χρέος ἐκτινύντων ὅταν ὁ δοὺς κομίσασθαι θέλῃ κλέος μὲν αἰώνιον οἶκοι δὲ καὶ γενεαὶ βέβαιοι καθαραὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπήκοοι μένουσιν αἱ ψυχαί χῶρον οὐράνιον λαχοῦσαι τὸν ἁγιώτατον ἔνθεν ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων ἁγνοῖς πάλιν ἀντενοικίζονται σώμασιν. ὅσοις δὲ καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ἐμάνησαν αἱ χεῖρες τούτων ᾅδης μὲν δέχεται τὰς ψυχὰς σκοτεινότερος ὁ δὲ τούτων πατὴρ θεὸς εἰς ἐγγόνους τιμωρεῖται τοὺς τῶν πατέρων ὑβριστάς ( J.W. 3:372-376).

143 All of us, it is true, have mortal bodies, composed of perishable matter, but the soul lives forever, immortal: it is a portion of the Deity housed in our bodies. If, then, one who makes away with or misapplies a deposit entrusted to him by a fellow-man is reckoned a perjured villain, how can he who casts out from his own body the deposit which God has placed there, hope to elude Him whom he has thus wronged? It is considered right to punish a fugitive slave, even though the master he leaves be a scoundrel; and shall we fly from the best of masters, from God Himself, and not be deemed impious? Know you not that they who depart this life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the loan which they received from God, when He who lent is pleased to reclaim it, win eternal renown; that their houses and families are secure; that their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven, whence, in the revolution of the ages, they return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation? But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of the nether world receive their souls, and God, their father, visits upon their posterity the outrageous acts of the parents ( J.W. 3:372-376).

Utilizing similar language to the portrayal of the Essenes in his previous chapter, the body is described as “perishable” (φθαρτῆς), while the soul is “immortal” (ἀθάνατος, 372). Klawans notes further that Josephus’ concern with “both the rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked after death” is in agreement with the Essenes.126 The historian, however, seems to align more with Pharisees. First, the soul is spoken of as a divine deposit (καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σώμασιν ἐνοικίζεται, 373)127 so he/she mistreats that deposit is considered a perjured villain. Thus, to commit suicide would be a misuse of the soul and, therefore, put the soldiers in danger of judgment. But those who die “naturally” 126  Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 119. 127   Mason notes, “It is worth noting, however, that Josephus himself comes close to this Stoic teaching when, in his speech against suicide at Jotapata, he speaks of the soul as a ‘portion of God’” or divine deposit (J.W. 3:372), On the Pharisees, 140, n. 75.

144

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

(φύσεως), repaying the loan of the soul, gain “eternal fame” (κλέος μὲν αἰώνιον, 374). Second, like the Pharisaic view, the souls of the spotless and obedient are given another “body” (σώμασιν; cp. εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα, J.W. 2:163b)128 after the eschaton—i.e., a revolution of the ages (ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων, 374, see, ἐκ περιτροπῆς, Ag. Ap. 2:218)—while those, laying mad hands (ἐμάνησαν αἱ χεῖρες), taking their lives into their owns hands, end up in Hades (ᾅδης, J.W. 3:375).129 4.6

1 Enoch

The “Mountain of the Dead” [MOD]130 narrative (1 En 22:1-14) appears in the Book of Watchers (1-36), the first book of 1 Enoch. Dating to the 3rd century BCE, it is one of the oldest books of the five that comprise 1 Enoch.131 The original language of this narrative was likely Aramaic, as was the rest of 1 Enoch, though there are later Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic (Ge’ez) versions.132 The MOD text is part of Enoch’s cosmic journey eastward (chaps. 20-36), which Nickelsburg notes, provides “locative reinforcement for the predictions made elsewhere in the book.”133 It is complemented in the following chapters (chaps. 24-26) by journeys to the paradise of the righteous positioned among seven mountains, the Tree of Life, and the “center of the earth,” i.e., Jerusalem. 4.6.1 The “Mountain of the Dead” The MOD narrative (1 En 22:1-24) is particularly germane to this study because it provides for one of the earliest depictions of both the immortality of the soul and human composition. Enoch’s journey takes him to a great mountain of

128  Klawans suggests this alignment specifically with the hope for “re-embodiment,” Josephus and the Theologies, 119. 129  Josephus similarity to the Pharisees is not wholly surprising since he speaks of joining the school at the age of nineteen, Life 12. 130  We have adapted George W. E. Nickelsburg title for this narrative (see 1 Enoch 1, 300-309). 131  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 7. The oldest portion of 1 Enoch is thought to be the third major portion, the Astronomical Book or the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries 72-82. 132  See The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Józef T. Milik, with Matthew Black (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 70-89; Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Books of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments vol. 1: Text and Apparatus; vol. 2: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 9-20. 133  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 7.

4.6 1 Enoch

145

“hard rock” (πέτρας στερεᾶς) with hollow places in it.134 Three of these hollow places are dark and the fourth is illuminated with a fountain in the middle.135 After commenting on the smoothness of the hollows, Raphael, Enoch’s angel companion, responds to the scribe: Then Raphael answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, “These hollow places (are intended) that the spirits of the souls of the dead might be gathered into them. For this very (purpose) they were created, (that) here the souls of all human beings should be gathered. And look, these are the pits for the place of their confinement. Thus they were made until the day (on) which they will be judged, and until the time of the day of the end of the great judgment that will be exacted from them (3-4).136

The angel guide notes that the hollows are the “spirits of the souls of the dead.” Unfortunately, the Aramaic only preserves a portion of the line, “the souls of all the sons of humankind” (‫[נפש]ת כל בני אנשא‬, 4QEnear 1 22 1). Comparatively, at least one Greek version preserves nearly the same portion of this statement, “all the souls of humanity” (πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), while the Grkpan (the Akhmim MS) preserves the fuller statement.137 Hebrew and Greek forms utilize ‫ [נפש]ת‬and ψυχὰς to indicate the metaphysical, separable component of collective humanity. In the fuller reference quoted above, it is clear that the “spirits” and the “souls” are not separate components but are synonymously parallel. In other words, the statement particularizes “spirits” by describing the release of the “souls” from the body at death, or as one Ethiopic MS reads, “The beautiful places (are intended for this) that the spirits, [that is] the souls of the dead, might be gathered into them …”138 Therefore, Enoch is referring one component of human existence, rather than two. In the mountain, the souls/spirits are enumerated between the righteous and the sinners. The souls of humanity seem to retain their consciousness, that is, some degree of awareness of their existence, thoughts, and feelings. Both of these are exemplified in the spirit of one dead man who “making suit” so 134  See Knibb’s note on favoring the Greek reading rather than the Ethiopic, The Ethiopic Books of Enoch, vol 2, 108. Nickelsburg suggests that ‫( פחתיא‬4QEnear/4Q206 1 22 1) lies behind all of the Greek variants of “hollow places” (1 Enoch, 304). See also Matthew Black, in consultation with James C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch of 1 Enoch: A New English Translation with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 166, n. 2. 135  As whether there are three or four “hollow places,” see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 301-303. 136  Unless otherwise noted, English translation from 1 Enoch is from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). 137  Knibb, The Ethiopic Books of Enoch, vol 1, 79. 138  See Black and VanderKam, The Book of Enoch, 166.

146

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

that “his lamentation went up to heaven and cried and made suit” (5). Raphael identifies it as the spirit which came from Abel when he was murdered by Cain. Variously described as the “spirit of a dead man” (6; ‫רוח אנש מת‬, 4QEnear 1 22 3-4) and “spirit that went forth,” Raphael also refers to him simply as “Abel” (7b) who makes an ongoing complaint against the posterity of his murderer, Cain, until it is obliterated.139 The soul/spirit of Abel retains his identity and life experiences. In an earlier chapter (9:1-11), it is the “souls of men,” who have died make suit to their angelic intercessors. Nickelsburg notes that this portrayal is a departure from the rewriting of Genesis 6 in the Book of Watchers as it specifies the human race as victims rather than perpetrators of evil.140 Of these victims, however, it is only those that were murdered “in the days of sinners” (22:12)—epitomized in Abel—that make suit, raising their lamentations about their destruction. The sinners and others who await some form of judgment or annihilation do not; they are apparently silent or having nothing to make suit about. After Enoch queries why the hollows are separate from one another, Raphael responds, “‘These three were made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And this has been separated for the spirits of the righteous, where the bright fountain of water is’” (9). The four places for the spirits of the dead are an ethereal intermediate state for the righteous and various sinners prior to the divvying out of reward and punishment.141 Couched in the angelic response is the bifurcation of humanity’s composition upon death, “And this has been created for sinners, when they die and are buried in the earth, and judgment has not been executed on them in their life.” After death, the person’s soul is released to this transitional place. Unlike Ps. Phoc. and Wisdom (sans the righteous) the spirit/soul does not simply dissolve into the air (sec. 2.4, 2.5) but, as we have noted above, the metaphysical component retains the identity of the individual. Despite the spirits having been taken from their earthly physical selves, there remains some continuity with that previous life, namely, the souls are rewarded “according to the circumstances of that existence….” As Nickelsburg notes, “certain functions appropriate to the human 139  Nickelsburg notes that it is “widely assumed” that the reference to Cain’s posterity, as well as the complaint made by all those who were murdered indicates early traditions regarding Abel’s transformation into the exemplar for those who were violently put to death. Yet, he states, “Nonetheless, pre-Christian texts, including 1 Enoch, do not specifically attest such an interpretation,” 1 Enoch, 306. 140  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 202-14. See 1 Enoch 9:3, 10: “And now to , the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make suit saying (3); And now look the spirits of the souls of men who have died make suit (10),” Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 26-27. 141  1 Enoch 24-25 detail the reward of the righteous.

4.7 The Testament of Abraham B

147

body are attributed to the spirits.”142 The awaited reckoning for either camp suggests that the spirits/souls of humankind are immortal but, more importantly for this study, that they are distinct. Indeed, unlike Wisdom, immortality is not only the realm of the righteous, but of all humanity. The MOD narrative is one of the earliest Jewish texts to explicitly attest a body-soul dualism, as well as the immortality of the soul. This is a result of the influence of prevalent Hellenistic, and perhaps biblical,143 traditions. Regarding Hellenistic traditions, Nickelsburg draws a connection between Abel’s suit and the restless spirit of Clytemnestra in Aeschylus’ Greek tragedy The Eumenides (5th BCE).144 The search for various influences notwithstanding, MOD’s anthropology is key. As noted, human nature is composed of two elements.145 Upon death, the body is buried, and the soul is released. Retaining its self-identity, all of the souls of the dead are intermediately located in the hollows of a great mountain. The idea that they are awaiting either punishment or reward, and eventual resurrection, indicates yet another layer to the existence of the soul . 4.7

The Testament of Abraham B

What we find in Wisdom regarding the immortality of the soul, and in 1 Enoch regarding a body-soul dualism, is not wholly unlike what is found in the Testament of Abraham. The testament, which is known in two recensions (T. Ab. A [the long recension], T. Ab. B [the short recension]), is notoriously difficult to date due to its complex manuscript and redaction history. Ed Sanders states positively, “despite being repeatedly copied by Christian scribes, 142  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 306. 143  More recently, Ekaterina Matusova has suggested that much of what we find in MOD does not need to be solely traced to the realm of Greek/Hellenisitic traditions but rather that there is evidence that this narrative is reworked from traditions that are preserved already in biblical tradition, “The Post-Mortem Divisions of the Dead in 1 Enoch 22:1-13: Against the Background of the Greek Influence Hypothesis,” in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman and Egyptian Literature, ed. Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittman (Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2015), 149-77. 144  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 305. 145  See also, the 1 Enoch 102:4-5: “Fear not, souls of the righteous: take courage, you pious who have died. And do not grieve because your souls have descended into Sheol with grief, and your body of flesh did not fare in your life according to your piety, because the days that you lived were the days of sinners and curses on the earth,” Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 158. While an afterlife is missing, the components of human life are obvious as the body perishes while the soul continues its existence.

148

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

the Testament of Abraham in both recensions remains unmistakably Jewish.”146 Allison counters, “The situation here as throughout T. Ab. is reminiscent of the Testimonium Flavianum or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: one senses both a Jewish original and a Christian revision, but it is often impossible to know exactly what belongs to which.”147 While it is certain that these matters render T. Ab. outside of the immediate methodology, parallel traditions with Wisdom and 1 Enoch regarding body-soul dualism indicate that these ideas originate in the Second Temple period and warrant a brief examination.148 Of course, we proceed with Allison’s warning in mind: “… and any use of them [i.e., T. Ab. B texts] to add to our knowledge about ancient Judaism must proceed with caution.”149 4.7.1 The Cognizant Soul T. Ab. B begins with Michael’s announcement to Abraham about his death (1:1-7 [A]; 1:1-3 [B]). Prior to Michael’s announcement, the longer recension A provides an extensive description of Abraham’s pious qualities: “Yet above all people he has been righteous, good, hospitable, and strongly affectionate to the end.”150 Michael assures Abraham that he is about to depart a “futile world” (τοῦ ματαίου κόσμου) which Allison believes to be a later Christian addition.151 The part of the archangel’s statement which is pertinent for us is, “you are about to be absent from the body,” (ἐκδημεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, T. Ab. A 1:7).152 Upon Abraham’s death he will be immediately absent from the body and “among the good ones” (ἀγαθοῖς). It is likely that Abraham’s piety, his righteousness, qualifies him to be among “good people” or “good things.”153 Indeed, this is not 146  See Sander’s discussion which argues for an original date no later than the 2nd c. CE “plus or minus twenty-five years,” “Testament of Abraham,” OTP 1:874-75. More recently, Allison suggests, based on T. Ab.’s knowledge of the Septuagint, a terminus a quo of the 2nd c. BCE for recension B, Dale C. Allison, Jr., Testament of Abraham, CEJL (Berlin, New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2003), 34-40. 147  Allison, The Testament of Abraham, 31. 148  Our comments are limited to a grouping of texts where Abraham is told by Michael that he will depart his body and his refusal/request to view all the inhabitable earth prior to his death. 149  Allison, The Testament of Abraham, 31. 150  Unless otherwise noted English translations are from Allison, Testament of Abraham. 151  Allison, Testament of Abraham, 80. 152  Author’s translation. 153  While Allison is unsure whether the plural dative ἀγαθοῖς should be translated as a “good things” or “good people,” he notes, “But it is clear that Abraham, being himself good … belongs there” (i.e., where the soul can be with the Master), Testament of Abraham, 80. Both

4.7 The Testament of Abraham B

149

unlike Wisdom’s conception that the souls of the righteous, which are in the hands of God and avoid torment (cf. Wis 3:1). Additionally, it is implied that Abraham’s soul retains his own consciousness—as in 1 Enoch154—since it is Abraham, not simply a character-less soul, that will depart the body (cf. also T. Ab. A 15:7, B 4:9). Surely, this is presumed in Wisdom, since it is not simply the soul which returns to God, but the souls of the righteous. In a brief parallel between T. Ab. A and B, Abraham prays that he may complete one task prior to his death. T. Ab. A 9:6 καὶ νῦν, δέσποτα κύριε, εἰσάκουσόν μου τῆς δεήσεως, ὅτι ἔτι ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σώματι ὢν θέλω ἰδεῖν πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην καὶ τὰ ποιήματα ἃ διὰ λόγου ἑνὸς συνέστησας, δέσποτα, καὶ ὅτε ἴδω ταῦτα, τότε ἐὰν μεταβῶ τοῦ βίου ἄλυπος ἔσομαι. T. Ab. B 7:18 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἁβραὰμ εἶπεν πρὸς Μιχαήλ· Παρακαλῶ σε, κύριε, ἐὰν ἐξέρχωμαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματός μου, σωματικῶς ἤθελον ἀναληφθῆναι, ἵνα θεάσομαι τὰ κτίσματα ἃ ἐκτίσατο κύριος ὁ θεός μου ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶγῆς.

And now, Master Lord, hear my prayer. While I am yet in my body I wish to see all the inhabited earth and all things made, which you established through one word, Master; and after I have seen these things, the I shall not grieve when I depart from this life. And Abraham answered and said to Michael, “I beg you, Lord, if I am to go out of my body, I would like to be lifted up so that, before I am carried away, I might see all the creation which the Lord created in heaven and on earth.”

Abraham’s prayer to see all of the inhabited world is answered (T. Ab. A 9:8; B 8:2) and he is raised upon a chariot of cherubim to see it (T. Ab. A 10; B 12). Again, there is an explicit acknowledgement that upon death both body and soul are separated from one another, implying that the soul—upon death and apart from resurrection—no longer has access to the body or the earthly realm.

Allison, Testament of Abraham, 64; Sanders, OTP 1:882; Michael Stone, The Testament of Abraham, SBLTT 2, SBLPS 2 (Montana: SBL, 1972), 5, render ἀγαθοῖς as “good.” 154  And perhaps Tob 3:6, “Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode; do not turn thy face away from me” (ὅτι ὀνειδισμοὺς ψευδεῖς ἤκουσα, καὶ λύπη ἐστὶν πολλὴ ἐν ἐμοί).

150 4.8

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy and the Composition of Humankind in the Second Temple Period

George H. van Kooten’s study, “Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus: The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body”155 suggests, What is virtually unknown, however, is that by the first century AD this tripartite anthropology, which distinguishes between mind, soul and body, was being received and reworked by Jewish and Jewish-Christian authors such as Philo, Paul, and Flavius Josephus. Especially for Philo and Paul, this type of anthropology, reshaped by their Jewish interpretation, strongly coloured their understanding of man.156

His work is pertinent here because of the suggestion that Philo (and Paul) adopts a tripartite anthropology that distinguishes between body (σῶμα), soul (ψυχὴ), and spirit (πνεῦμα). While Van Kooten’s work is ultimately interested in Pauline anthropology—a topic that is beyond the scope of this present study—his interest in Philo warrants some comment. Van Kooten notes first that Philo’s anthropology reworks the highest component of the soul in Greek philosophy, the mind (nous), placing it in the realm of the spirit (pneuma). Thus, the metaphysical component of the person is divided between the place of reason and the seat of emotion. With that he cautions, “Properly speaking the nous is not identical with the pneuma … Rather the pneuma is greater than or equal to the nous, in Philo’s view, it is within the nous that the pneuma is received; the nous is the receptacle. The nous, in turn, mediates this pneuma to the rest of the soul so that this spirit dominates both nous and (the rest of the) psyche.”157 His examination of Alleg. Interp. 1:39-40 suggests further that for Philo the nous (“mind”), infilled by the divine pneuma (“spirit”), becomes synonymous with humanity’s innate pneuma, thereby, attesting that Philo “not only knows” the mind, soul, body trichotomy of Greek philosophy—which is also present Paul’s writings—but is also influenced by the exegesis of Gen 2:7. This interpretation is apparently paralleled in Josephus where the historian reworks Gen 2:7 to read that God breathed both “soul” and 155  After appearing in Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike, 263-309, this study was incorporated into Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 269-312. For the sake of this study, we will quote from the more recent version of his essay in Paul’s Anthropology in Context. 156  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 269. Surely, if Philo adopts a tripartite view of humankind than this idea has some footing in the 1st c. BCE. 157  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 279.

4.8 Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy

151

“spirit” into Adam.158 The appearance of Gen 2:7 in Philo, Paul, and Josephus leads Van Kooten to conclude that the body, soul, spirit reflects a “common” Jewish, or Jewish-Hellenistic understanding of the Greek tripartite division of man and is not a Gnostic invention as argued by some. According to Van Kooten, this three-part division in Philo’s anthropology is not limited to the first man, Adam, but is also the constitution of Adam’s descendants. Philo’s interpretation of Lev 17:11 is essential in this regard. Evidence of the Alexandrian philosopher’s philosophical anthropology is also demonstrated in his dealing with the “degeneration and the fall of man” and his ideas on the “restoration of the human mind and spirit.”159 Part of Van Kooten’s analysis involves Philo’s treatment of Abraham’s sojourn from Haran, as allegorically reworked in On the Migration of Abraham. He concludes that the depiction of Abraham’s body confirms Philo’s tripartite view of humanity, especially that the “… pneuma influences the soul, and the soul, in turn, the body …” Van Kooten’s contention is that Philo is consistent in his view of a tripartite human composition.160 He is correct to note the appearance of a trichotomous conception of humanity in Jewish texts like Philo (as well as Josephus and Paul). Of course, he begins with the assumption that there is a body-soul dualism already present in Jewish texts, which as we have shown is not necessarily as prevalent as previously thought. Yet, as we have noted in our examination of creation topoi in Philonic texts (3.2), the Alexandrian philosopher clearly divides the soul into two parts, the spirit and the most important part of the soul, the mind. Van Kooten’s suggestion appears to be a growing minority in the latter quarter of the Second Temple period, especially texts that closely date to the close of the 1st c. BCE. and the first 70 years of the first century CE. Additionally, Philo, and Paul, (post 70 CE), which bear strong Hellenistic influences, also uniquely betray the understanding that human existence is comprised of separate parts. In particular, the use of νοῦς (“mind”) to distinguish yet another ex­ istential component seems grow as one nears the end of the first century CE.161 158  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 271, 273-80. 159  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 292-97. 160  Van Kooten does note, however, that Philo also discusses the basic dichotomy between the body and the soul, while in other passages Philo offers a “more detailed description of man and distinguished between the soul and its leading part, the mind,” Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 286. 161  The growth is witnessed when one traces its use from those texts that date closer to the LXX (3rd c. BCE): Of the twelve times that it is utilized in the LXX, the Greek is used to render ‫( לב‬e.g., Exod 7:23, Josh 14:7, Job 7:17). Other uses of νοῦς are additions to the Hebrew text (Prov 29:7, Job 7:20), translate “your ways” [Prov 31:3], “ears” [Job 33:16], and “will keep you” (Job 36:19). Postbiblical texts: Wis (2x: 4:12, 9:15), 1 Esdras (2x: 2:9, 9:41), Judith (1x: 8:14), and 2 Macc (1x: 15:8); 3 Macc (1x: 1:25); 4 Macc (9x: 1:15, 35, 2:16, 18, 22, 3:17,

152

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

The evidence here shows, however, that the predominant view in the Second Temple period mimics and transitions from the prevalent “biblical tradition” to a body-soul dualism. The majority of texts written prior to beginning of the Common Era attest a different view of human composition, namely, either a psychosomatic unity or a composition of two parts (body/soul; body/spirit), in which the metaphysical portion is immortal and retains some degree of consciousness after bodily death. Texts like Ben Sira seem to stay close to biblical tradition utilizing ψυχὴ and ‫ נפש‬to describe the aforementioned psychosomatic nature of each person. Wisdom preserves the Jewish-Hellenistic view of an immortal soul where the righteous continue to exist after death. The same view of human existence is attested in the Hodayot of Qumran, as well as certain Jewish apotropaic prayers (more on this in 5.3). The trichotomous view of humanity seems to grow as one shifts to more Hellenized texts that date from about the mid-1st c. CE. Philo is perhaps the first to reflect such a distinction and does so just prior to the beginning of the Common Era, which as Van Kooten has noted is then picked up and reworked by authors like the Apostle Paul (50-60 CE) and Josephus (1st-2nd century CE). However, for the moment, Josephus should be held in tension as the texts that we have examined in this chapter indicate that three Jewish schools and Josephus himself—redescribing the onslaught of Rome upon Yodfat—depicts collective humanity as being composed of two parts—body and soul. Yet, for the most part, an examination of texts that find their final form after the close of the first century CE., and are beyond the scope of the present study (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Sibylline Oracles), seem to reflect the final stage of development where speaking of humanity’s tripartite composition becomes more common (e.g., body, soul, and spirit or mind). 4.9

Conclusion

This chapter analyzes collective humanity’s composition as portrayed in early Judaism. More specifically, it examines humanity’s physical frame and the metaphysical aspect of human existence that is responsible for emotion and reason. An analysis of “flesh/body” (‫ )בשר‬and “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as reference to a person’s presumed moral proclivities or particular condition is dealt with later

5:11, 14:11, 16:13); Sibl. Or. (24x: 1:35, 99, 134, 304, 2:75, 120, 3:165, 196, 300, 421, 574, 771, 821, 5:79, 265, 286, 364, 7:144, 8:284, 359, 366, 437, 464, 23:41); For T. 12 Patr. (14x: see, n. above). See, also, Ps.-Orph. 1:12, 39, 40; Theod. 3:13, 7:0; Ps. Phoc. 48.

4.9 Conclusion

153

in this study (see 7.4).162 In regard to the body, there are various terms ‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά. These terms are often utilized to express both the impermanent and fragile physical nature of humanity. ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and σῶμά are perishable and vulnerable to death or some sort of damage. While ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬does not seem to have the dual semantic sense of “flesh” and the whole “body” as with σὰρξ and ‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬always refers to the entire body. ‫ ְש ֵאר‬appears in wisdom traditions in reference to the dangers wealth poses to the body (Sir 7:24 [A 2v:26-27]), as well as in warning fathers to be concerned for their daughters in order to prevent their bodily defilement. This terminology is also employed, in biblical literature, to describe familial relations (e.g., CD 5:8-11). The use of σῶμα to translate ‫ ְש ֵאר‬indicates that σῶμά plays an additional role referring to the body’s vulnerabilities, mortality, and aspects regarding human relationships. It indicates that the “body” is not simply a physical component of existence— although physicality is an overt emphasis—but, contextually, the totality of the person, inclusive of that part which reasons, emotes, etc. Σὰρξ and ‫ בשר‬also find their way into contexts that speak of human mortality (Wis 7:1, 14:17). Σὰρξ is employed to speak to a shared connectivity among all people. As a result, Ben Sira teaches that one should be merciful to his neighbor because all of humanity share in the same “fleshly” condition. Additionally, the sage is one of the earliest texts to attest to the Hebrew idiom for humanness, “flesh and blood” (σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, ‫)בשר ודם‬. Furthermore, “all flesh” (πας σὰρξ, ‫ )כ[ו]ל בשר‬is used to speak to collective humanity but can also refer to all living beings, both human and animal. On some occasions this language is utilized to express God’s unique relationship with humanity. These passages suggest that as a result of everyone’s “fleshly” weakness, humanity stands to receive God’s mercy, or perhaps, more specifically, are in need of it. This state is uniquely connected to God’s sovereignty, since the “fleshly” creation cannot hide from God and maybe the raw ingredients for the more metaphorical use of “flesh” that we find on other texts. The use of ψυχὴ in Ben Sira closely parallels its use in the LXX. In the former, it generally speaks of a “life,” the “self,” and human nature as a psychosomatic unity. There is little in Ben Sira that suggests a qualified distinction between the body and the soul. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the Hebrew equivalent exists, ψυχὴ is paralleled with ‫נפש‬. In particular, towards the end of Ben Sira’s work this terminology often represents the sage’s psychosomatic experience which not only marks the place of emotion, desire, reason, but is also implies the realm of the body. 162  See Lawrence H. Schiffman and Alexandria Frisch, “The Body in Qumran Literature: Flesh and Spirit, Purity and Impurity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 23 (2016): 155-82.

154

4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

In the Wisdom of Solomon, the clear division between the body and soul becomes evident (e.g., 8:19-20). The human soul is depicted as having a separate existence from the body and is immortal (9:15). This immortality of the soul (cf. 3:1, 5:15), which upon death is with God and protected from torment, depicts an afterlife for the righteous. As such, the soul represents the rational and emotional component of humankind (4:12, 9:15). The body, on the other hand, is generally viewed as a detriment to the soul and is separated from the soul with death. This division of humanity’s constituent parts is also present in Josephus’ accounts of the three Jewish schools (J.W. 2, Ant. 18), specifically the Pharisee and the Essenes. The Sadducees, it appears, did not consider this division of the body and the soul since both died are said to together eschewing any discussion of an afterlife. For the Essenes, the body is perishable, while the soul is “deathless.” Josephus additionally launches into an extended voyage of the Essene soul into the “ether” and beyond, paralleling a host of Greek myths. There is a single statement regarding the Essene belief that the soul would eventually return to them—hinting at resurrection—but discussion of this ends with the historians’ divergence into Greek post-mortem beliefs. This departure, however, does not seem to be associated with a received Essen tradition as much as it is the author’s own embellishment. The Pharisaic position on the body and the soul is not unlike that of the Essenes with one considerable difference, the soul returns to another body. This return to life, however, is only for the good and just and the soul of the wicked suffer eternal punishments or an eternal imprisonment. While Josephus employs different language in J.W. and Ant., the positions of the schools are essentially the same. Again, the Pharisaic view occurs again in the historian’s speech to his soldiers during the Roman siege of Yodfat (J.W. 3). When considering self-immolation rather than give themselves over to the Romans, Josephus argues partly that the taking of one’s life separates the body and soul. To do so unnaturally misuses the God-given deposit of the soul. As in Wisdom, the three schools and Josephus follow the dichotomy of the body and the soul, where the body is impermanent, but the soul is immortal. The body/soul dichotomy is attested in 1 Enoch’s MOD narrative (23:1-14), where the souls of humanity are separated from the body upon death and remain in one of several mountain hollows to await a final reckoning. Present in the abode of the dead are both the righteous and at least two types of sinners. Therefore, 1 Enoch also speaks to the immortality of all human souls, contra Wisdom where immortality is the realm of the righteous. Although in Enoch, the righteous are those that make suit to God—epitomized by Abel’s death— having been the victims of various forms of untimely deaths.

4.9 Conclusion

155

The separation of the soul from the body in T. Ab. B returns it to the territory of the righteous, announcing to Abraham that due to his piety he will leave his body and be with the Lord upon his death. Wisdom, 1 Enoch, and T. Ab. B share some similarity in that the physical body appears to be somewhat detrimental to the soul, or that the physical nature of the person exists in a vain and futile world. As in Jewish-Hellenistic tradition, the body is a temporary physical state (even prison; e.g., Wis 16:14) of sorts for the soul which is released upon death. This is especially the case in Wisdom and T. Ab. B. 1 Enoch elevates humanity’s physical nature a bit by presuming the resurrection and a return of the spirts of the dead to their respective bodies (22:13). Additionally, the spirit/soul of humanity retains the identity of the individual and parallels some of its physical characteristics prior to death. More to the point, and as noted elsewhere, the prevalent view of human composition in T. Ab. B. is that of two distinct components, body and soul. Finally, in a brief excursus, this chapter examines Van Kooten’s contention that the prevalent view in the 1st c. CE was that humanity existed in a tripartite division, body, soul, and spirit. Much of what we have in the Second Temple period is steeped in earlier biblical traditions where anthropological composition is depicted as either a psychosomatic unity or a body-soul duality. This dichotomy between the body and soul is solidified under the influence of Hellenistic thought. Prior to the Common Era, Philo begins to clearly distinguish between the soul and the most important part of this soul, the mind. While some evidence exists for the beginning of a distinguishing of humanity’s inner person into two separate parts—the place of reason and the seat of emotion—this concept does not seem to gain much attention until midway through the 1st c. CE in the works of Paul and Josephus (save particular parts of J.W. and Ant. examined here). Thus, the texts examined here note a trajectory of sorts where the conception of human composition shifts from speaking of human existence in terms of single unitary life—a monism of sorts—a dichotomy, and a trichotomy, albeit a tradition that only develops more fully towards the close of the Second Temple era.

Chapter 5

Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism through the Lens of Psychic Strife 5.1

Introduction

The Hodayot and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers betray human composition through vivid portrayals of the respective speaker’s psychic strife. That is, the description of an internal, self-aware, mental/emotional turmoil reflects an implicit understanding of humanity’s constituent elements. Moreover, assumed psychic and physical vulnerabilities—even those which are exploited by demonic entities—raise the question as to whether the reader is intended to understand a duality between body and soul or simply the tumultuous life of a psychosomatic being. For the hymns of Qumran, this is terminologically connected to the use of nefesh (‫)נפש‬, “heart” (‫)לב‬, and “spirit” (‫)רוח‬. Not only do they speak to the existence of the speaker, but they partly connote the reality of the yaḥad, as well as those who are outside of the community. Furthermore, the request for protection against malevolent spirits in apotropaic prayers implies a general vulnerability that is directly aimed at particular component of human nature. Therefore, this chapter examines the aforementioned terminology in several hodayot and both non-sectarian and sectarian apotropaic prayers for evidence of human composition through the varied depictions of internal tumult and external influence(s). 5.2

Hodayot

The Use of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫ רוח‬and Humanity’s Inner Turmoil in the Hodayot Several hodayot are first-person reflections upon the hymnist(s)’s lowly existence. This depiction, however, is not limited to the speaker as it is also intended in part to represent the reality of those who utilized these texts communally. As Newsom has rightly noted regarding the Hodayot (and Serekh ha-Yaḥad), they “are self-consciously devoted to the formation of languages of self and community.”1 Yet, the construction of the self is not limited to the 5.2.1

1  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 196.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_006

157

5.2 Hodayot

author or the yaḥad, but also implicitly ruminates on the contemptibility of collective humanity. While we have already examined the self-denigration of the hymnist(s) casted through the lens of Gen 2:7, the Hodayot also betray an assumed human composition through the portrayal of the hymnist’s inner turmoil. The Hodayot’s use of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫רוח‬, which appear more in the hymns than in any other text,2 are central in portraying this conflict. The Occurrences of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot ‫לב‬ 3‫נפש‬ (MS A) 6:28, 7:23, 29, 31, (MS A) 3:25, 4:34, 38, 6:19, 8:28, 9:34, 10:9, 22-23, 25-26, 7:23, 8:25, 35, 9:39, 10:11, 30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 11:7, 20, 30, 12:14-16, 18-19, 22, 25, 26, 12:22, 13:14-17, 19-20, 36, 13:28, 33, 14:5, 10, 24, 15:8, 41, 14:26, 15:26, 16:30, 33, 39, 16, 19, 30, 41, 16:2, 27, 33, 17:7-8, 28-29, 33, 18:31, 33, 38, 18:3, 25, 32-33, 35, 19:5, 19:10, 33, 20:4; 20:37, 21:6, 10, 12-13, 22:32, 24:29, 25:13;

4QHa 2:5;

4QHa 2 1, 10 2-3;

4QHb 3:3-4, 16:1;

4QHb 9:3, 10:5-6, 8, 18:2,

4QHc 1 ii 4-5, 3:7, 4 ii 3

4QHc 2:7, 3:3-4, 4 i 10, 4QHd 1:1, 3, 6-7

‫רוח‬

(MS A) 3:26, 4:14, 16-19, 29, 35, 37-38, 5:14-15, 25, 30, 32, 36, 39, 6:14, 22, 24, 36, 41, 7:26, 35, 8:16, 18, 20-21, 2425, 27-30, 32, 9:11-14, 17, 24, 30-31, 34, 10:8, 17, 11:19, 2223, 12:32, 37, 13:30, 38, 14:17, 26, 15:8-9, 14, 26, 32, 16:1, 13, 30, 37, 17:12, 16, 32, 18:10, 24, 34, 19:15-16, 20:14-15, 21:26, 34, 23:16, 29, 33, 24:11, 26-27, 25:6, 8, 23; 4QHa 2:1, 7 ii 8; 8 ii 9, 17-18; 11:4, 4QHb 10:7, 14:5, 15:3, 17:1, 19:2; 4QHc 2:12, 3:9, 4 ii 2

2  This is stated with the understanding that the Hodayot as they have been reconstructed constitute one of the longest scrolls among the Qumran texts. According to Stegemann, Schuller, and Newsom the scroll was at least seven sheets long, including an opening and closing handle sheet measuring approximately 4.5 meters (about 15 ft., DJD XL, 46). In terms of actual text, they have noted that after the reconstruction of 1QHa, with mss. from cave 4, that columns 4-26 are “more than seventy-five percent complete, and about half of these columns are preserved almost in their entirety” (49). 3  The closest texts to the Hodayot in terms of number are, ‫( נפש‬1QHa 50x): Temple Scroll (11Q19)—30x; ‫( לב‬1QHa 50x): The Community Rule (1QS)—16x, The Damascus Document (CD)—14x; ‫( רוח‬1QHa)—89x; The Community Rule (1QS)—39x. Based on the amount of text preserved in Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS) and the Hodayot (1QHa), the occurrences of ‫ רוח‬are relatively similar. Every occasion of ‫ רוח‬in the scrolls, however, is not pertinent to this study, since ‫רוח‬, more so that ‫ לב‬and ‫נפש‬, is utilized to describe something other than an innate human characteristic.

158

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

Important to our study are the places where this terminology is employed specifically to express the inner life of the speaker, the community, and humanity. Therefore, this examination is interested in two areas: 1) the use of the aforementioned terminology to describe humanity’s internal experience and its compositional nature4—if there is evidence for such, and 2) the speaker’s description of his own poorly imagined existence as a paradigm for the yaḥad’s and humanity’s own creatureliness,5 especially the individual’s state prior to the internalization of a new knowledge-giving spirit. 5.2.2 ‫—נפש‬Composition, Life, and Inner Person6 Seebass and Ryan Bonfiglio provide several meanings for ‫ נפש‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls.7 While the Hodayot attests much of this semantic range, our interests are specifically pointed to its utilization as an indication of the perceived compositional nature of the hymnist, the yaḥad, and collective humanity. Our methodology for examining the hymns is terminologically driven. Thus, this study draws upon individual compositions8 which most frequently employ the term ‫ נפש‬indicating that it plays an integral role in the presentation of human

4  See Richard C. Steiner, Disembodied Souls; also Carol Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 345; Santiago Fernández-Ardanaz, “El Problema del Hombre en los Textos de Qumrán: Semántica de los Principales Términos Antropológicos,” RCT 15/1 (1990): 1-65. 5  See also the discussion in 3.2.1 on the Hodayot’s unique phraseology, “creature of clay” and “creature of dust.” 6  Moreover, by “inner person” we mean something akin to “psychological,” which refers to the mental and/or emotional state of a person. 7  Seebass notes that the use of ‫ נפש‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls remains relatively close to what is found in the Hebrew Bible “even if there have been changes and extensions of meaning at some points” (‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, TDOT 10:517-18). He suggests: 1) “throat” (1x in 11QPsa 19:8), 2) “desire, wish, craving, greed, etc.,” 3) “vitality, self, reflexive pronoun,” 4) “individuated life,” 5) “the ‫ נפש‬of God,” and 6) “‫“—”על נפש‬upon oneself,” 517-18. Seebass notes that ‫ על נפש‬is distinctly formulaic to the scrolls and not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Yet, he does not seem to distinguish it from the several extant biblical examples (e.g., Num 30, Ps 94:21, Lam 2:19). Ryan Bonfiglio suggests a similar semantic range with some additional nuances: 1) “throat,” 2) “desire, hunger, etc.,” 3) “seat of emotion, will power,” “expression with one’s whole” ‫נפש‬, 4) “breath, spirit, inner being,” 5) “life, vitality,” 6) “Individual, Person,” “non-human living creature,” 7) “personal pronouns, reflexive pronouns, possessive pronouns,” 8) a “to be” oath, 9) “the dead, corpse,” and 10) “grave, grave chamber,” ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, ThWQ 2:1007-18. 8   Unless otherwise noted, texts and hymns divisions are from Hartmut Stegemann, Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 4QHodayota-f and 1QHodayotb, DJD XL (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009). See also Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition, EJL 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

5.2 Hodayot

159

nature in that particular hodayah. Four hymns are pertinent in this regard: 7:21-8:37, 10:22-32, 13:7-21, and 16:5-17:36.9 5.2.2.1 Hodayah 7:21-8:37 and 8:28-30 The hymn in 7:21-8:3710 is not complete but preserves several occurrences of ‫נפש‬. 7:23-31

֯‫[ ואהבכה בנדבה ובכול לב ובכול נפש בררתי ֯מ ֯עו֯ ו֯ ן֯ [ ועל נפ] ֯שי‬ .23 ‫הקי֯ [מותי לבלת]י֯ סור מכול אשר צויתה ואחזיקה על רבים מו֯ ֯ע ֯די֯ ֯ם ֯ל[יום הרגה לבלת]י‬ ֯ .24 ‫ ואני ידעתי בבינתך כיאלא ביד בשר [יוכל להתם ]אדם‬vacat ‫ עז֯ וב מכו֯ ֯ל ֯חוקיך‬.25 ‫ דרכו ולא יוכל אנוש להכין צעדו ואדעה כי בידך י֯ ֯צר כול רוח [וכול פעול] ֯תו‬.26 ‫אתה ֯ב[רא]תה‬ ֯ ‫ הכינותה בטרם בראתו ואיכה יוכל כול להשנות את דבריכה רק‬.27 ‫ולהגי֯ ֯ש עליו‬ ֯ ‫ צדיק ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון להשמר בבריתך ולתהלך בכול‬.28 ‫ בהמון רחמיך ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו לישועת עולם ושלום עד ואין מחסור ותרם‬.29 ‫ מבשר כבודו ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬.30 ‫בברי֯ ֯ת ֯כ[ה וחוקי]ך תעבה נפשם‬ ֯ ‫ כי הלכו בדרך לא טוב וימאסו‬.31

7:23. and I love you freely. With all (my) heart and with all (my) soul I have purified (myself) from iniquity. [ And upon] my [li]fe 24. [I] have sw[orn no]t to turn aside from all that you have commanded. I will stand firm against the many appointed for the [day of slaughter, no]t 25. abandoning any of your statutes vacat And as for me, I know, by the understanding that comes from you, that it is not through the power of flesh [that] an individual [may perfect] 26. his way, nor is a person able to direct his steps. And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty 27. you determined before you created it. How could anyone change your words? You alone [crea]ted 9  Scholars generally divide the Hodayot into two separate collections, the “Teacher Hymns” and “Community Hymns.” Schuller and Newsom note that the “Teacher Hymns” hymns were differentiated due their distinct linguistic features and vocabulary, while the “Community Hymns” are more of a “nebulous” category, The Hodayot, 2-3. With the reconstruction of A of the Hodayot, the “Teacher Hymns” now comprise the middle columns from 10-17, while the “Community Hymns” (1-9, 18-28) bookend them. More recently, Angela Kim Harkins, following Puech, notes the importance of the occurrence of ‫למשכיל‬ hymn headings, which appear throughout both collections, to understanding the editorial shaping of the “Community Hymns” and as an indicator of earlier smaller collections of hymns, Observations of the Editorial Shaping of the So-Called Community Hymns in 1QHa and 4QHa (4Q427)” DSD 12/3 (2005): 233-56. Our examination appears to indicate that the hymns’ general anthropology did not fall neatly into particular collections and was consistently pessimistic throughout, despite there being an emphasis on the “creature of clay and dust” in one of the closing hymns (see 3.2.1). 10  Regarding the division of the psalms see DJD XL, 99-100, 110-11. Schuller and Newsom end the hymn here at 8:42, which is the end of the column, The Hodayot, 9-10. But the last line of legible writing is 8:37.

160

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

28. the righteous, and from the womb you prepared him for the time of favor, to be attentive to your covenant and to walk in all (your way,) and to advance (him) upon it 29. in your abundant compassion, and to relieve all the distress of his soul for eternal salvation and everlasting peace, without lack. And so you raise 30. his honor higher than flesh. But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your wrath, and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter. 31. For they walk in the way that is not good, and they despise yo[ur] covenant, [and] their soul abhors your [statutes]. 8:28-30

‫תע ֯בה כול‬ ֯ ‫רשמתה רוח צדיק ואני בחרתי להבר כפי כרצו[נ] ֯ך ונפש ֯ע ֯בדך‬ ֯ ‫ ובדעתי כי אתה‬.28 ‫תה ֯בי֯ להשלים‬ ֯ ‫נת‬ ֯ ‫מבלעדיך ואחלה פניך ברוח אשר‬ ֯ ‫ מעשה עולה ואדעה כי֯ לא יצדק איש‬.29 ‫עבד ֯ך ֯ל[עו] ֯ל ֯ם לטהרני֯ ברוח קודשך ולהגישני ברצונך‬ ֯ ‫ ֯ח ֯ס ֯דיך עם‬.30

28. Because I know that you have recorded the spirit of the righteous, I myself have chosen to cleanse my hands according to your wil[l.] The soul of your servant abhors every 29. malicious deed. I know that no one can be righteous apart from you, and so I entreat you with the spirit that you have placed in me that you make 30. your kindness to your servant complete [for]ever, cleansing me by your holy spirit and drawing me nearer by your good favor …

The first occurrence of ‫ נפש‬describes the hymnist’s own purification from iniquity ( ֯‫ובכול נפש בררתי ֯מ ֯עו֯ ו֯ ן‬, 23)—a purification from the spiritual, or interiorly experienced non-physical uncleanness of sin.11 This purification leads to an active obedience to the commandments (24).12 The allusion to the Sh’ma13— “and with all (his) heart and soul” (‫ובכול לב ובכול נפש‬, 23)—indicates that the speaker intends to be obedient with his whole person. In fact, Bonfiglio posits that the appearance of “heart” and “soul” are some form of merism referring to the whole person, “its nature, identity, and will power.”14 If the reconstruction 11  See Jonathan Klawans, “Sin as Defilement,” in Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 75-79. 12   Fernández-Ardanaz notes that this obedience is not merely the experience of the exterior person but even more so representative of the “configuration” of the interior person, “El Problema del Hombre,” 22. 13  An allusion, intentional or otherwise, to the Sh’ma (Deut 6:4-9, esp. 5) which appears most often in literature associated with the yaḥad (cf. CD 15:12, 4Q266 8 i 3, 4Q270 6 ii 6, 4Q271 4 i 12, 1QS 1:2, 5:9, 4Q225 1:2, 4Q256 9:7, 4Q258 1:6, 1QHa 7:23). See also 4QpapTobitaar 17 ii 1, 4QpapJubh 2 iv 13, 4Q375 1 i 3, 4Q504 1 2 recto ii 13. 14  Bonfiglio, ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, 1011. While the Hodayot is a sectarian composition, this search for purification is not sectarian-specific. Newsom notes regarding the Serekh ha-Yaḥad, “What is remarkable about this statement is how unremarkable it is. There is nothing distinctly sectarian about it. It would be difficult to find any Jew of the Second Temple period who would disagree with the centrality of these matters or with the way in which they were expressed.” The same is true here; the commitment of the hymnist to be obedient with his

161

5.2 Hodayot

of the end of line 23, ֯‫ ועל נפ] ֯שי‬is correct, than once again the speaker has utilized ‫ נפש‬to speak of himself and his affirmation not to turn away from God’s statutes. While ideas regarding the composition of humanity are difficult to infer, it appears that the hymnist envisions his pursuit of God with his whole person, both the inner and outer person. Furthermore, the two stanzas in col. 7 (27c-30a/30b-32b) juxtapose the “righteous” and the “wicked” and when paired together shed a more nuanced light on the use of ‫ נפש‬in this hymn. The Righteous (27c-30a) ‫ צדיק‬.28 ‫אתה ֯ב[רא]תה‬ ֯ ‫ …רק‬.27

The Wicked (30b-32b)

‫ …ורשעים בראתה‬.30

‫ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון‬ ‫להשמר בבריתך‬ ‫ולתהלך בכול‬ ‫ולהגי֯ ֯ש עליו‬ ֯

‫ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬ ‫ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬ ‫ כי הלכו בדרך לא טוב‬.31 ‫בברי֯ ֯ת ֯כ[ה‬ ֯ ‫וימאסו‬ ‫וחוקי]ך תעבה נפשם‬ ‫ צויתה‬.32 ‫ולא רצו בכול אשר‬ ‫ויבחרו באשר שנאתה‬

‫ בהמון רחמיך‬.29 ‫ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו‬ ‫לישועת עולם‬ ‫ושלום עד‬ ‫ואין מחסור‬

֯ ‫כיא ֯ל ֯ק[צי חרו]נ֯ ך הכינותם‬ ‫לעשות בם שפטים גדולים‬ ‫ לעיני כול מעשיך‬.33 ‫לאות‬ ֯ ‫ולהיות‬ ‫ו֯ ֯מ ֯ופ[ת דורות ] ֯עולם‬

…‫ מבשר כבודו‬.30 ‫ותרם‬

…‫ הגדול‬.34 ‫לדעת ֯כו֯ ֯ל ֯את כבודך ואת כוחך‬

27. … You alone [crea]ted 28. the righteous, and from the womb you prepared him for the time of favor, to be attentive to your covenant and to walk in all (your way,) and to advance (him) upon it

30. … But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your wrath, and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter. 31. For they walk in the way that is not good, and they despise yo[ur] covenant, [and] their soul abhors your [statutes]. They do not take pleasure in anything that 32. you have commanded, but they choose what you hate.

whole person is largely unremarkable. The sectarian hymnist, however, purposely limits this obedience to those who have been destined to be part of the yaḥad (cf. 7:27-26).

162

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

29. in your abundant compassion, and to relieve all the distress of his soul for eternal salvation and everlasting peace, and without lack.

For you determined them for the a[ges of] your [wra]th in order to execute great judgments upon them 33. in the sight of all your creatures, and to be a sign and a por[tent for] everlasting [generations],

And so you raise 30. his honor higher than flesh …

so that all may know your glory and your great 34. strength.

Both camps are portrayed as having a ‫נפש‬. The “righteous” (‫ )צדיק‬individual’s “soul-distress” (‫ )צרת נפש‬is said to be relieved by God who offers eternal salvation and everlasting peace (28). While the language may be considered poetically hyperbolic, aimed at communicating that God is without restraint in satiating the distress of those who belong to his lot, the language here appears to offer (“for eternal salvation, and everlasting peace,” ‫)לישועת עולם ושלום עד‬, in some regard, a life that is without end—at least for the righteous (cp. 4.4). Τhe wicked, who are created for wrath (‫)ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬, are portrayed as having, or being, a ‫ נפש‬that “abhors” (‫ )תעב‬God’s commandments and turns to what God hates (‫ויבחרו באשר שנאתה‬, 32), while the hymnist’s existence— spoken of later in the hymn—stands in opposition to the wicked, “The soul of your servant abhors every malicious deed” (‫תע ֯בה כול מעשה עולה‬ ֯ ‫ונפש ֯ע ֯בדך‬, 8:28-29). The ‫ נפש‬of the wicked is active, namely, it abhors, does not take pleasure, and chooses what God hates. The ‫ נפש‬of the righteous is passive; at least in this portion of the hymn; it is in distress and in need of salvation and peace. Even when active later in the hymn, the ‫נפש‬, again, is said to abhor (‫תע ֯בה כול‬ ֯ ‫מעשה עולה‬, 8:28-29). Despite its essentially positive portrayal God’s servant, the action connotes a negative, “to hate” (rather than, e.g., “to love”). The ‫ נפש‬here is then a generally unfavorable aspect of human nature. Even when the ‫ נפש‬is active in the servant of God, it takes on a broadly negative action. It is not clear whether the ‫ נפש‬is viewed as a separate metaphysical component, although a couple of things are worth nothing. First, the active ‫נפש‬ is depicted with a verb of emotion (i.e., ‫)תעב‬, and the body15 is not depicted 15  ‫ר‬  ‫ בש‬is utilized three times in this hymn (7:25, 30, 34), none of which appear to refer to the physical body. See Jörg Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404, esp. 378-83; idem, “Die paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist und die palästinischjüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90/1 (1999): 45-77.

5.2 Hodayot

163

in a way where a body-soul dualism is explicit. Second, while there is ongoing discussion about the concept of an afterlife in the Hodayot,16 for the moment the language, “eternal salvation” (‫ )ישועת עולם‬and “eternal peace” (‫)שלום עד‬, seems to imply at least a modicum of life after death. Significant in this regard is the description of the wicked in 7:30, “But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your wrath (‫)ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬, and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter (‫”)יום הרגה‬17 The juxtapositioning of the righteous and the wicked is a common motif in biblical and post-biblical wisdom literature. In particular, the Wisdom of Solomon utilizes this motif to describe the eternal existence awarded to the righteous; death from which there is no return is the fate of the ungodly (cf. Wis 1:1-2:24). It is also clear in Wisdom that the soul of the righteous has a separate existence from the body and is immortal. John Collins has noted that the early portion of Wisdom (1-5) has “notable parallels with the Scrolls.”18 While it would be mistaken to suggest that this hymn is a clear indicator of an afterlife in the Hodayot, considering that it attests a similar juxtaposition between the righteous and the wicked that occurs in Wisdom, and that an “eternal salvation,” an “everlasting peace,” and “the day of slaughter” are directed to their respective ‫נפשות‬, there is, at least, the implication that the ‫ נפש‬exists separately from the body. For the righteous, this involves some sort of eternality, and for the wicked, it marks a decisive end. This, of course, hinges on how one might understand the judgments doled out to either camp. The hodayah may simply be expressing the hope for life after God’s enemies are slaughtered—a day from which their ‫( נפשות‬i.e., lives) are saved and from which peace is attained. Considering the parallels to Wisdom, however, if the ‫נפש‬, that is the separate “soul,” of the righteous maintains some sort of life after the day of slaughter it may assume, as well—albeit incipiently—a body-soul dualism. In general, however, ‫ נפש‬refers, as in the allusion to the sh’ma, to the totality of a person, or people. That is to say, there is a lack of explicit evidence that the ‫ נפש‬is viewed 16  Robert Laurin, “The Question of Immortality in the ‘Hodayot’” JSS 3/4 (1958): 344-55. See also Johannes van der Ploeg, “The Belief in Immortality in the Writings of Qumran,” BibOr 28/3-4 (1961): 118-24. John Collins states succinctly, “Nonetheless there are no unambiguous references to resurrection in the Hodayot, and even possible references are very rare. We have noted a similar lack of resurrection language in the sectarian rule books,” “Conceptions of the Afterlife in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum, ed. Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 116; see also Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, STDJ 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 84-87. 17  ‫ יום הרגה‬appears in the Hebrew Bible once, Jer 12:3. 18  Collins, “Conceptions of the Afterlife,” 115. His specific concern is with the elevation of the spirit elsewhere in the Hodayot.

164

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

as distinct and separate from the body. The early occurrences in line 23 surely indicate a psychosomatic unity.19 As we move into the portion of the hymn between the vacats, lines 25-34, ‫ נפש‬is nuanced, perhaps implying a body-soul dualism, but, more importantly, it is paired with an aversive verb. Even the ‫ נפש‬of God’s servant is said to “abhor,” although his abhorrence is of “malicious deeds.” These uses do not explicitly note a division between body and soul; they indicate an internal human experience (e.g., “take pleasure,” “hate”) that has outward ramifications of obedience, prolonged life, and death, as elsewhere in wisdom traditions. 5.2.2.2 Hodayot 10:22-32 and 13:7-21 The following shorter hymns, 10:22-32 and 13:7-21,20 both begin by extolling God for his protective and merciful acts on behalf of the speaker. The first 11-line psalm utilizes ‫ נפש‬six times; in each, the speaker is referring to himself. 10:22-32

‫אודכ ֯ה ֯א ֯דו֯ ני כי שמתה נפשי בצרור החיים‬ ֯ vacat .22 ‫ ותשוך בעדי מכול מוקשי שחת ֯כ[י] ֯א עריצים בקשו נפשי בתומכי‬.23 ‫ בבריתךה והמה סוד שוא ועדת ֯ב ֯ליעל לא ידעו כיא מאתכה מעמדי‬.24 ‫והמה מאתכה גרו‬ ֯ ‫ ובחסדיכה תושיע נפשי כיא מאתכה מצעדי‬.25 ‫ על נפשי בעבור הכבדכה במשפט רשעים והגבירכה בי נגד בני‬.26 ‫ אדם כיא בחסדכה עמדי ואני אמרתי חנו עלי גבורים סבבום בכל‬.27 ‫ כלי מלחמותם ויפרו חצים לאין מרפא ולהוב חנית כאש אוכלת עצים‬.28 ‫ וכהמון מים רבים שאון קולם נפץ ו֯ זרם להשחית רבים למזורות יבקעו‬.29 ‫ אפעה ושוא בהתרומם גליהם ואני במוס לבי כמים ותחזק נפשי בבריתך‬.30 ‫ והם רשת פרשו לי תלכוד רגלם ופחים טמנו לנפשי נפלו בם ורגלי עמדה במישור‬.31 vacat ‫ מקהלם אברכה שמכה‬.32

22. vacat I thank you, O Lord, that you have placed my soul in the bundle of the living 23. and that you have protected me from all the snares of the pit; f[o]r ruthless people have sought my life when I held fast 24. to your covenant. They are a council of deception and a congregation of Belial. They do not know that my station comes from you 25. and that by your kindness you save my life, for from you come my steps. And because of you they have threatened 26. my life, so that you may be glorified in the judgment of the wicked and manifest your strength through me before 27. human beings,21 for by your kindness do I stand. And I myself said, “Warriors have encamped against me; they have surrounded (me) with all

19  See Carol Newsom’s comments regarding another hymn which hold true for this hymn, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” 345. 20  See the “Division of Psalms,” DJD XL, 134 and 169, respectively. 21  Author’s translation. See Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 33-35.

5.2 Hodayot

165

28. their weapons of war. Arrows for which there is no cure destroy, and the blade of the spear is like fire that devours trees. 29. Like the roar of mighty waters is the tumult of their shout, a cloudburst and tempest to destroy a multitude. 30. When their waves mount up, deception and vanity burst forth toward the constellations.” But as for me, even when my heart melted like water, my soul held fast to your covenant. 31. And as for them, the net they spread against me seized their feet, and the snares they hid for my life, they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground. 32. Far away from their assembly I will bless your name. vacat

The speaker is thankful that his ‫ נפש‬places him among the living and that God’s closely protects it (24-26). Divine protection is complemented with the various dangers faced by the hymnist (e.g., his enemies are encamped against him and they spread a net to seize him, 27, 31). These dangers range from the physical to the psychological, although the experience of the speaker—who is likely not currently in actual warfare—emphasizes the speaker’s internal strife. The use of ‫ נפש‬in this hymn creates a space for personal subjectivity with which the author and the yaḥad identify.22 In reference to the use of ‫ נפש‬and ‫“( לב‬heart”) Newsom notes, “These two terms, like their rough English equivalents, do not, of course, refer to two different parts of the self, but they do mark the inner conflict for the subject who experiences himself as the scene of this cosmic confrontation. They are the inner emotional correlates of the external forces.” Yet, the “resolution of the crisis” is exhibited in the speaker’s external frame.23 This is noted by the hope that God’s strength be manifest through the speaker (26-27). Thus, ‫ נפש‬does not simply reflect an inner correlate to external forces but implies consequences to the speaker’s physical frame, and thereby represents his whole life, both corporeal and metaphysical. Its use marks a particular view of his/their condition specifically and not of general humanity, however. The hymn creates a “we” vs. “them” duality, and the “them,” or “other,” represents the larger world of human affairs, that of the ‫“( בני אדם‬human beings,” 26-27), the group who more than likely play a partial role in setting the trap against the speaker and his community (31). Human existence has come to a fork in the road, where those in the speaker’s community are protected by God against the onslaught of his enemies, while the rest of humanity is in continual danger—not from their own enemies—but of God’s judgment. 22  Newsom notes, “In those cases, as with the Hodayot, the first-person accounts serve to create a standardized experience for all members of the community,” Symbolic Space, 240. In particular, see Newsom’s definition of subjectivity, The Self as Symbolic Space, 13-15; eadem, “Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others,’” 1-5. 23  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 238.

166

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

The second hodayah in col 13 is not unlike that of col 10, especially the final eight lines (14-21), where ‫“( נפשי‬my soul/life”) is encountered. Line 14 reads, “For in my soul’s distress you did not abandon me, but you heard my cry in the bitterness of my soul” (‫)כי בצרת נפשי לא עזבתני ושועתי שמעתה במרורי נפשי‬.24 Again, the endangered hymnist expresses gratitude for not being abandoned or forgotten. Prior to the vacat at the end of line 19, the wicked are said to endanger the hymnist’s ‫נפש‬, “The wicked among the peoples rushed against me with their torments, and all day they crush my soul” (‫)וכול היום ידכאו נפשי‬. These references, especially to “bitterness” (‫ )מרור‬and “crushing” (‫)דכא‬, seem to be pointed at the psychosomatic reality of the self, where the dangers faced by the ‫ נפש‬are both internal and external. Yet, again, however, the use of ‫נפש‬ communicates more about the experience of the speaker and the community than of collective humanity. At most, the ‫ נפש‬of the community is the realm of God’s concern. He engages intently when the lives of the “poor ones”—likely a reference to the speaker and the yaḥad25—are in danger. Described in col. 10,26 in part, so that the rest of humanity will see God’s strength. Consequently, the life of the “other,” those outside of the community are considered abandoned “lives” (‫)נפשות‬. 5.2.2.3 Hodayah 16:5-17:36 The lengthiest of the hymns under consideration here, 16:5-17:36,27 employs ‫ נפש‬on five (or six, depending on the reconstruction of line 3928) occasions. In these portions the hymnist is again endangered, but his inner person (i.e., (‫נפש‬ is said to meditate on God who is his refuge even when facing peril (cf. 17:6-9, 27-29); in the end he is delivered (cf. 17:36). The most pertinent section for our study appears in col. 16 where the hymnist is depicted in a consistent personal agony. The agony ravages all parts of the speaker’s existence, both corporeal and non-corporeal. On two occasions he refers to his ‫נפש‬. The first appears in lines 29-31: “… Among the dead my spirit29 searches, for [my] li[fe] goes down 24  While the “distress of the soul” parallels the language of the biblical psalter (see Ps 31:7, 143:11), the “bitterness of the soul” does not, although it appears elsewhere in 1QpHab (9:11). 25  See Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the in the Qumran Community, STDJ 40 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 26  10:26-27: “you might display your might through me before human beings” (‫אדם והגבי־‬ ‫ ;)רכה בי נגד בני‬13:18: “you might display your might through me against human beings” (‫)בני אדם הגבירכה בי לנגד‬. 27  See “Division of Psalms” in DJD XL, 218, 228. 28  D JD XL, 218; Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 52. 29  The use of the “my spirit” (‫ )רוחי‬appears one other time in his this hodayah (17:12. See also, 12:37). It does not seem that ‫ רוח‬is being used to refer to another component of humanity,

5.2 Hodayot

167

to the pit […] my soul is faint day and night without rest” (‫יומם ולילה‬ ֯ ‫֯תתעטף נפשי‬ ‫)לאין מנוח‬. The first occasion is clearly a reference to the inner self. The ‫נפש‬, which faints day and night, parallels the psychological, interior experience of the speaker, as seen elsewhere in the hymn (cf. 16:27-41). Clearly, the distress of the ‫ נפש‬represents the interiorized turmoil of the hymnist, although much of it is depicted with physical terminology (e.g., ֯‫בע ֯צ ֯מי‬ ֯ , “my bones,” 31—see discussion on apotropaic prayers below).30 Despite the physical imagery, the use of ‫ נפש‬seems to be a reference to the inner life of the speaker, although this component of life does not appear to be separate from the physical body. The second occasion is of particular importance in that the poetic structure seems to offer an interpretive grid to understand what is meant by the use of ‫נפש‬. “… and my soul is completely worn down (‫)ונפשי עלי תשתוחח לכלה‬. For my strength is departed from my body (‫)כי נשבת מעוזי֯ מגויתי‬, my heart is poured out as water …” (16:33). What follows is a description of bodily trauma, “… my flesh (‫ )בשרי‬is melted as wax. The strength of my loins (‫ )מותני‬has become a calamity, my arm (‫ )זרועי‬is broken from the shoulder (‫) ֯מ ֯קניה‬, [and I am no]t [able] to swing my hand (‫)יד‬. And my [ foo]t (‫ )ו֯ ֯ר ֯גלי‬is caught in fetters, my knees (‫)ברכי‬ become as water, and I am not able to take a step …” (34-35). The particle ‫כי‬ (“for,” “because,” 16:33) offers a simple commentary on the clauses which precede it. The consequence of the hymnist’s soul being worn down is that his full “body” and “heart” are negatively affected. Rather than referring to the inner person with ‫נפש‬, it appears that the poetic structure of the poem has shifted ever so slightly to represent both the physical (‫ )גויה‬and non-physical (‫ )לב‬aspects of human nature. It is utilized here to express the complex state of a at least one separate from the ‫נפש‬. It appears that ‫ רוח‬is simply synonymous to both ‫ נפש‬and ‫ )לבב( לב‬as a referent to the inner person but it is not intended to distinguish various compositional elements of general humanity. In fact, this seems to be the case in the texts of the scrolls whenever the speaker refers to his own “spirit” (see 4Q437 2 i 8, 13, 11Q10 4:3). This of course is not intended to suggest that ‫ רוח‬throughout the texts of the scrolls is intended to refer to the inner person. Clearly, as we will explore later in this chapter, the use of ‫ רוח‬is more complex than solely as an illustration of humanity’s interior life. This is especially true when ‫( רוח‬and ‫ )בשר‬are utilized metaphorically. See Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual people,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation:’ Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, , STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 103-18; Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, SBLDS 110 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); David Flusser, “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Vol. I: Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2007), 283-92; trans. from “Yahdut bet-sheni qumran ve-apoqaliptiqah,” Tarbiz 27 (1958), 244-51. 30  The use of ‫ רוח‬in line 30 warrants additional commentary. See below for the examination of this term in the Hodayot.

168

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

living being, expressing both physical and non-physical consequences. While the overall emphasis appears to be on non-corporeal components (e.g., “the cry of the soul”), the presumed physical consequences are equally stark. Still there is little, if anything, which indicates that the hymnist’s life is divisible into separate components. 5.2.3 ‫—לב‬The Location of the Inner Person The Hodayot also offer a unique window into the use of “heart” (‫ )לב‬as the metaphorical location of humanity’s inner person.31 Loren Stuckenbruck notes that to some degree the use of ‫ לב‬can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible, but also that, “there are a number of expressions and phrases among the Scrolls texts which, in their precise form, mark a departure from language preserved in the Hebrew Bible.”32 Many of Stuckenbruck’s examples are attested in the Hodayot. His study, however, is limited to the “Activity of the Double Heart” and “‘The Heart of Man’ in the Treatise of the Two Spirits.”33 While we make no attempt to rehash the aforementioned analysis, and an exhaustive treatment of ‫ לב‬in the scrolls is beyond the scope of this study, an examination of ‫ לב‬in the Hodayot, which offers some additional nuances to the psychological experience of collective humanity, is warranted. Pertinent to our study are two hymns, 12:6-13:6 and 13:22-15:8. Furthermore, central to this discussion is the complex way in which ‫ לב‬is utilized to describe facets of humanity that are otherwise differentiated in Greek texts with the terms “heart” (καρδία) and “mind” (νοῦς).34 31  The methodology of sampling the hymns is, again, terminologically driven in the same way as the hymns in the previous section were culled. Heinz-Josef Fabry, in a comprehensive treatment of the use of ‫ לב‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls, has suggested five overarching themes: 1) body part and function, 2) seat of emotions, 3) seat of reason, 4) religious and ethical references, and 5) the “heart” of God, “‫ ” ֵלב‬TWzQ 2:466-67. 32  Stuckenbruck has suggested 10 variations from the Hebrew Bible, 1) “foolish ones of heart,” 2) “to bring/give/open up understanding to/teach the heart,” 3) “a good heart,” 4) “open the heart,” 5) “heart of knowledge/knowledge of the heart,” 6) “illumination of the heart/enlighten the heart,” 7) “Belial, I will not keep in my heart,” 8) “‘spirit of holiness’ placed by God in the heart,” 9) “walk in the way of your [i.e., God’s] heart,” and 10) “make upright in heart,” “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the Problem of Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, 2 vols., VTSup 140 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011), 1:437-40—6, 7, 8, and 10 have no corollary in the Hodayot. 33  Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,”441-53 34  For the limited use of νοῦς, see Wis 4:2, T. Reu. 3:8, 4:6, 2:7, T. Sim. 2:7, 4:9, T. Jud. 14:1, 14:8, 20:2, T. Iss. 4:4, T. Dan. 4:4, T. Naph. 2:6, T. Gad 6:2, T. Ben. 8:3, T. Job 36:6, Let. Aris. 276, 4 Macc 1:15, 1:35; 2:16, 18, 22, 3:17, 5:11, 14:11, 16:3, Jub. 11:6, Ps.-Orph. 1:12, 1:39, Theod. 3:13,

5.2 Hodayot

169

5.2.3.1 Hodayah 12:6-13:6 The portions of the first hymn (12:6-13:635) that pertain to this study are preserved in 12:13-26. The intriguing quality of this hymn is that the human ‫ לב‬is mirrored by a description of God’s anthropomorphic ‫( לב‬cf. 12:14, 18, 19, 22, 25). Lines 13-17 ascribe a ‫ לב‬to both God and the enemies of the yaḥad, 12:13-17

‫כי אתה אל תנאץ כל מחשבת‬... .13 ‫ בליעל ועצתכה היא תקום ומחשבת לבכה תכון לנצח והמה נעלמים זמות בליעל‬.14 ‫ יחשובו וידרשוכה בלב ולב ולא נכונו באמתכה שורש פורה רוש ולענה במחשבותם‬.15 ‫ ועם שרירות לבם יתורו וידרשוכה בגלולים ומכשול עוונם שמו לנגד פניהם ויבאו‬.16 ‫ לדורשכה מפי נביאי כזב מפותי תעות‬.17

13. …But you, O God, despise every plan of 14. Belial36 and it is your counsel that will stand and the plan of your mind that will be established forever. But they, the hypocrites, concoct plans of Belial 15. and seek you with a divided heart. And so they are not steadfast in your truth. A root that grows poison and wormwood is in their thoughts, 16. and in the stubbornness of their heart they explore, and they seek you among idols. The stumbling block of their iniquity they have placed before themselves, and they come 17. to inquire of you by means of the mouth of lying prophets, who are themselves seduced by error.

In line 13, the plan of God’s heart is contrasted with Belial, assuming that God’s plan will stand forever but Belial’s will not.37 Contrasting the plan of God’s 7:0, Phoc. 48. See the use of νοῦς as a distinguishing component of humanity in Philo in George H. van Kooten, “The Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus: The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body,” in Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike, ed. Ludger Jansen, Christoph Jedan, and Christo Rapp, TAP 5 (Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, New Brunswick: Ontos-Verlag, 2010), 264-309. See also this essay reworked in Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 268-312. 35  Schuller and Newsom have suggested that there may a “psalm incipit” in 12:41 or the very fragmentary beginning of col. 13, although the editors’ note that there is nothing to suggest a small psalm between the end of one column and the beginning of the other, DJD XL, 159. 36  The use of “Belial” is a slight emendation of Schuller and Newsom’s translation. Schuller and Newsom translate ‫ בליעל‬as an adjective “devilish,” DJD XL, 165 and The Hodayot, 39. Why no reasoning is given for their translation, this study opts for “Belial” since God is juxtaposed with Belial early in the hymn. 37  Fabry notes that the portrayal of God’s “heart” generally appears in a context that also deals with Belial and idols (“‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:478). The use of ‫ לב‬to depict from where God’s plan originates seems closely related to the faculty of thought and reasoning, especially in light of the use of ‫“( מחשבה‬thought,” “plan,” HALOT 2:570). So, Schuller’s and Newsom’s translation “mind” is apropos here. This use however is not sectarian-specific as it also occurs

170

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

heart with those of Belial’s lot suggests that the people within either camp will naturally seek to complete those respective plans. Those who follow the plans of either God or Belial must also have a similar ‫ לב‬as those beings. This is the case, at least, for those who are said to fall to Belial’s lot in line 15, “seek you with a divided heart” (‫)ידרשוכה בלב ולב‬, and line 16, “and with the stubbornness of their heart they explore” (‫שרירות לבם יתורו‬38 ‫)ועם‬. Indeed, the most nefarious lot concoct, literally, “plans of Belial” (‫זמות בליעל‬, 14). Furthermore, “stubbornness of heart” (‫—)שרירות לב‬a common phrase in the scrolls39—provides additional nuance to the perceived human experience. Adapted from the familiar biblical phrase,40 it is utilized in line 16 to describe those who seek God in “idols” (‫גלולים‬, 12:16). Elsewhere, the “stubbornness of heart” is a general depiction of those who reject God’s commandments (e.g., CD 8:19), but, more specifically, those who walk away from the community having been an initiate, … cursed be anyone initiated with unrepentant heart, who enters this Covenant, then sets up the stumbling block of his sin, so turning apostate … that he shall bless himself in his heart, saying ‘Peace be with me, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart (‫ …)בשרירות לבי‬He shall be cut off from all the Sons of Light because of his apostasy from God, brought about by unrepentance and the stumbling block of sin (1QS 2:11-17).41

It is also utilized for those who have walked away, perhaps momentarily from God’s law, and are punished for such disobedience (cf. 7:19-24, 9:10). The “men in Tobit and Ben Sira. A few examples will suffice: Tob 4:19, “So, my son, remember my commands, and do not let them be blotted out of your mind (ἐκ τῆς καρδίας σου),” Sir 22:16; “A mind established on intelligent thought (καρδία ἡδρασμένη ἐπὶ διανοίας συνέσεως), is like the stucco decoration on the wall of a colonnade,” 27:6; “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had, so too does a person’s speech show the bent of his mind” (οὕτως λόγος ἐνθυμήματος καρδίας ἀνθρώπου, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 353, 356). See also Sir 1:28, 3:26, 29, 4:3, 6:37, 8:19, 12:16, 14:21, 16: 20, 24, 17:6, 21:26, 22:17-18, 23:2, 27:6, 34:5, 36:19-20, 40:2, 6, 43:18, 45:26, 51:20. The use of ‫ לב‬to indicate the part of the person that perceives is also found elsewhere in the Qumran corpus (e.g., 1QS 4:2, 5:9, 10:24, 1QHa 10:11, 1Q20 2:11, 4Q158 6:5, 4Q175 1:3, Fabry, “‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:470-1). Other Greek texts utilize “mind” (νοῦς), to describe the place of reasoning, and thereby distinguish it from the seat of emotions. The location of emotion is then limited to the term “heart” (καρδία). 38  See Fabry, “‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:474. 39  CD 3:5, 8:8, 19, 19:20, 19:33, 1QS 1:6, 2:14, 26, 3:3, 5:4, 7:19, 24, 9:10, 4Q256 9:4, 4Q258 1:4, 4Q259 2:7, 4Q266 2 ii 17, 3 iv 6, 5 ii 11, 4Q270 7 i 8, 4Q390 1:12, 4Q393 3:3, 3:5, 4Q487 1 ii 3, 11Q29 1:2. 40  This phrase is especially common in Jeremiah 3:17, 7:24, 9:14, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12, 18:12, 23:17. See also Deut 29:19, Ps 81:12. 41  P TSDSSP 1:11.

5.2 Hodayot

171

of the yaḥad” (‫)אנשי היחד‬, on the other hand, are spoken of as holding fast to the covenant and not continuing with a stubborn heart (‫לוא ילך איש בשרירות‬ ‫לבו‬, 5:4). By joining the community, the initiate chooses not to acquiesce to the power of his stubborn heart. Here Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the hymn have provided a baseline for the human experience. This place of internal personal conflict, namely, the “stubborn of heart,” is experienced by all of humanity but rejected by those who choose to obey God’s covenant by entering the community, although it continues to afflict the Qumranite. Stuckenbruck suggests that line 15’s “double-hearted” (‫ )לב ולב‬is related to Ps 12:3: “with flattering lips and a double heart they speak” (‫ְש ַפת ֲח ָלקֹות ְב ֵלב וָ ֵלב‬ ‫)יְ ַד ֵברּו‬. He contends, however, that the double-hearted has nothing to do the interior state of humanity, as much as it marks the dualistic tendency to distinguish Belial’s lot from God’s. According to him, the hodayah contrasts with the Treatise (see 7.2) where the heart is more clearly defined as a battleground for control over humanity.42 Within this dualistic framework, the double-heart of the wicked would then contrasts with the “complete heart” (‫לב שלם‬, e.g., 1QHa 8:25, 35, CD 1:10) of the righteous. Those with a “complete heart” cling to “the truth of your [i.e., God’s] covenant” (‫ )אמת בריתך‬and are “the observers of your [i.e., God’s] prece[pts” (‫שומרי מצוו֯ ֯ת[יך‬, 1QHa 8:35), while those with a “double heart” are not “steadfast in your truth” (‫ )נכונו באמתכה‬and inquire of “lying prophets” (‫)נביאי כזב‬. Enoch’s exhortation to Methuselah and his brothers warns of them to not “draw near to uprightness with a double heart, nor associate with those who have a double heart” (1 Enoch 91:4, cp. 81:5; 92:1-5). Stuckenbruck rightly notes, “the “double heart” is unique within the early Enoch tradition, though frequently attested in contemporary Jewish writings.”43 His understanding of the “double-heart” in Enoch follows the above hodayah in that it does not reflect a statement about an “inner moral conflict” but rather, “double-heartedness,” which is “disposition that cannot even begin to pursue righteousness, which in the following verse … is presented as its opposite.”44 Newsom, however, reads the same hymn somewhat differently. She understands the double-hearted as a double consciousness. For her, the hymn pairs the character of the liar with the person of truth. She shows particular interest in the phenomenon of lying, which assumes that the individual, or the “they” in this psalm, would have to know the truth to distort it. In fact, she notes, 42  Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 443-46, 452. 43  Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108 (CEJL, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 164. It is argued that the uniqueness of the “double-heart” is one of three reasons that this exhortation is an independent tradition that was added in order to bridge between the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Epistle of Enoch, 156. 44  Stuckenbruck, 166-8.

172

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

“At Qumran the opposite of knowledge is not ignorance but falsity or perversion, a very different pairing.” Thus, the one who is double-hearted, the liar, is able “to sustain doubleness within him,” a divisiveness that causes him to seek God and truth in the wrong places. Contrary to Stuckenbruck’s reading, Newson understands the double-heart to be illustrative of an inner-state of being where the so-called “double consciousness” is possessed by both the liar and the person of truth, “In a certain sense a formal resemblance exists between the character of the liar and the character of the person of truth in that both are formed as divided selves, possessing a doubled consciousness. But the structure and function of that sense of inner division is quite different.”45 The difference between both is that the liar, having known the truth, “asserts his autonomy” over against it,46 while the person of truth utilizes divine knowledge in order to view himself and his guilt.47 The character of the liar, as Newsom describes, denies the “vision of knowledge” (‫)חזון דעת‬. Terminologically, there is little to no parallel in the Hodayot or other scrolls with the “vision of knowledge” in 1QHa 12:19, but there may be some relation to the “Vision of Hagu” referenced in 4QInstruction.48 If so, it may suggest then that humanity can know or have some divinely illuminated knowledge49 and deny it. Regarding both Stuckenbruck’s and Newsom’s approaches, it is not beyond the mark to suggest that both are valuable and can co-exist. Depicting humanity’s doubleconsciousness (Newsom) is not mutually exclusive from a dualistic presentation of Belial’s lot (as per Stuckenbruck). While functioning within the overall dualistic system, to be “double-hearted” (‫ )לב ולב‬can reflect, as it does in the Treatise, the battle that is waged in the inner person. Returning to the depiction of God’s ‫( לב‬15), 1QHa 12:22 and 26 describe it, as having no “deception” (‫ )הולל‬or “deceit” (‫מזמה‬, 12:21-22). It is also in opposition to all those who speak to his people with a “strange (other) tongue” (‫לשון‬ ‫ )אחרת‬and do not “pay attention” (‫ )האזינו לדברכה‬to his word (12:17-18). Those who are in accordance with the covenant and have heeded the words of hymn walk in the way of the divine ‫לב‬. Moreover, God’s ‫ לב‬is portrayed as opposed to the ‫ לב‬of those who follow Belial (i.e., humanity outside of the yaḥad or, more immediately, their perceived opponents), not Belial himself. The implications are thus clear for those outside the hymn’s perceived community; the human “heart” is naturally deceitful and deceptive, choosing to heed neither the 45  Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 324-6 46  To this assertion of autonomy, it seems appropriate to include the occurrences of the “stubborn heart.” 47  Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 324 48  See Erik W. Larson, “Visions,” EDSS 2:957-958. 49  Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 440.

5.2 Hodayot

173

speaker’s words or God’s covenant (cf. Jer 17:8-10). The collective, extra communal, human ‫ לב‬that appears in lines 13-16, can be “divided” or “double” (‫לב‬ ‫)ולב‬, “stubborn” (‫)שרירות‬,50 know—i.e., the place of thought and reasoning— and not stay steadfast (‫ )נכונו‬to God’s truth, seeking him, albeit incorrectly (e.g., “among idols,” ‫)בגלולים‬. Despite the inferences gathered by examining God’s ‫לב‬, as well as, in part, the “heart” of his opponents, the general view of humanity in this hymn is not positive (sec. 3.5), as lines 31-32 imply, “I know that righteousness does not belong to humankind nor perfection of way to a mortal” (‫ואני ידעתי כי לוא לאנוש צדקה ולוא לבן אדם תום דרך‬, 12:31-32).51 Below, this study takes on the idea that even when pictured as followers of God, the base nature for the members of the yaḥad, and to which God intervenes, exists with this aforementioned lack of perfection attributed to humanity. In other words, the members of the community share the same condition but differ because of what God has done. 5.2.3.2 Hodayah 13:22-15:8 What we find in the next hymn, 13:22-15:8,52 is not unlike what has already been examined. God is juxtaposed against Belial and his lot. They are described as plotting “the destruction they have in their heart” (‫הוות לבם‬, 13:28). The author’s opponents devise plans to against him so that his ‫ לב‬is in a tumult within him (‫ויהם עלי לבי‬, 13:33). The “broad place” (‫ )מרחב‬that God had opened is said to be “made tight with distress” (‫ויוספוה לצוקה‬, 13:35). The pains caused by these plans result in a crisis within the author’s ‫לב‬. This crisis does not appear to be a quality of general humanity, as much as it is a depiction of what the hymnist must endure now enlightened having heeded God’s covenant. Those outside of the community have a ‫ לב‬in opposition to the speaker, one that continuously plots evil (see “flesh and blood,” sec. 2.3). Later in the hymn there occur references to the ‫ לב‬of God, the author, and their opponents (14:10, 24, 25). For those who walk in the way of God’s ‫לב‬, their own way is “without iniquity” (‫)אין עול‬. Their opponents, on the other hand, are depicted as “staggering” away from God’s heart because, “Belial like a counselor

50  Cf. Jer 11:8; Ps 81:12. 51  Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 41. 52  D JD XL, 169, 184, and 200. Schuller et al. argue that the psalm which begins in line 22 continues to at least the end of the column, 169. They note that the division of this hymn has been noted by other commentators arguing that lines 4-6 in column 14 continue the language and themes from col 12, 184. The hymn is thought to end in 15:8, partly, because a new hymn begins in 15:9 and the editors are not of the opinion that such a short psalm existed in lines 4-8 (200).

174

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

is in their heart” (‫לבבם‬ ֯ ‫)וכמוא יועץ בליעל עם‬.53 Therefore, the use of ‫ לב‬in both cases represents, perhaps more explicitly than ‫נפש‬, the inner life of humanity; the place of internal strife where God and Belial wage war.54 The ‫ לב‬in this hymn is depicted as the place of division, a “double consciousness,” if you will. For the member of the yaḥad, it is a where internal conflict causes external distress and, for outsiders, where deceit inhabits. In summary, the ‫ לב‬is a place of internal conflict. For those who walk away from the “way of God’s heart” they internally deny God’s covenant. This inner person is where injustice resides; it is where Belial’s influence inhabits. On the other hand, the ‫ לב‬of the hymnist, and his community, is the interior location where the dangers of the plans devised by his opponents are experienced with terror and trauma. In that sense the ‫ לב‬also refers to the mind, the seat of reason; it is the seat of crisis where reason is “made desolate” (‫השם‬, 1QHa 15:6) by the community’s enemies. It is precisely where one decides to follow God or Belial. 5.2.4 ‫—רוח‬Humanity’s Innate Spirit Another crucial aspect of our examination of the Hodayot is the use of ‫רוח‬ (“spirit”) to depict a component of the human person. Arthur Sekki notes, “the basic semantic range for ruaḥ as man’s spirit in the non-biblical, Hebrew Scrolls seem for the most part to reflect biblical categories but with a more negative emphasis and with a tendency to describe man as not only having a spirit but also as being one.”55 Our primary focus here is on ‫ רוח‬as it reflects the reality of collective humanity, an innate component of human life that all share in. This is essential since within Qumranite (and even nascent Christian56) ideology

53  See Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 47. ‫ כמוא יועץ‬is phraseology that is unique to the scrolls. 54  The final use of ‫ לב‬in the final line of the hymn should be noted but needs little comment. It refers to the physical heart, and the physical response to the plans of Belial and his lot. “All the foundations of my frame groan, and my bones are dislocated. My bowels are to me like a ship in a raging storm, and my heart beats wildly to the point of destruction” (‫ויהם‬ ‫לבי לכלה‬, 15:8). The “heart” in this hymn, while not wholly different from what we have examined before, adds some additional nuance. 55  Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ, 95. See also Arnold A. Anderson, “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM,” JSS 7/2 (1962): 293; Jörg Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in Jewish Sapiential Tradition and the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven, Paris, Sterling, VA: Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404, esp. 380. 56  See Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in Jewish Sapiential Tradition,” 402-4.

5.2 Hodayot

175

there is a use of ‫רוח‬that is initially external and eventually internalized.57 The concept of an external/internal spirit(s, cf. 4:29) is a necessary quality for the speaker and the members of the yaḥad to declare the works of God and fulfill his commandments.58 While this ‫רוח‬reflects a possible internal experience of the speaker and his community, it does not explain the experience of collective humanity. Rather, it reflects the yaḥad’s eventual encounter with God’s spirit—sometimes synonymous with the holy spirit.59 As Newsom notes, “this holy spirit is not something that he possesses by right of birth but is external to his original status (emphasis mine).”60 Therefore, although it is internalized, it is not innate to the person, and more correctly reflects a conception of sectarian being, not collective humanity. Those outside of the community have no chance of being gifted by a spirit like the spirit of understanding ( ֯‫]ה[רוח ֯בי֯ נ‬, 8:24, also, ‫“[רוח דעה‬spirit of knowledge”]). Indeed, the human spirit—and the human condition—in the Hodayot is viewed quite negatively (e.g., 8:32). Often when the hymnist(s) refers to his own spirit positively, he is speaking of this later spirit, given to him by God which is eventually internalized (e.g., 4:29 [‫]רוחות‬, 5:36, 8:29, 20:15, 21:34).61 There are two notable exceptions which describe the hymnist(s)’s/human’s spirit as something other than this subsequent God-given spirit. The 57  Carol A. Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry, 344. 58  See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349-50. 59  Newsom notes that whether the speaker addresses his own encounter with the “spirit” or the “holy spirit,” though there is a varied verb pattern (‫נתתה בי‬, ‫הניפותה בי‬, respectively), there appears to be no substantive difference between the two. “The two expressions apparently refer to the same internal experience of insight,” Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349. 60  Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349. 61  By this spirit(s) the speaker declares “your righteous acts” (‫צדקותיך‬ ֯ ), knows “all your works are just and your word will not depart” (‫ודב ֯ר ֯ך ֯ל ֯א ישוב אחו֯ ֯ר‬ ֯ ‫וצדק כול מעשיך‬, 5:36), “you make your kindness to your servant complete [for]ever …” (‫להשלים ֯ח ֯ס ֯דיך עם‬ ‫עבד ֯ך ֯ל[עו] ֯ל ֯ם‬ ֯ , 8:29), and “listened faithfully to your wondrous counsel by your holy spirit” (‫נאמנה שמעתי לסוד פלאכה ברוח קודשכה‬, 20:15). See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349. The hymn in 12:6-13:6 also fits this particular concept of the person’s spirit. The “way of man” (‫ )דרך אנוש‬is depicted as not lasting without the spirit that God created for him (12:32). This spirit is specifically ‫להתם דרך לבני אדם למען ידעו כול מעשיו בכוח גבורתו ורוב רחמיו‬ ‫“( על כול בני רצונו‬to perfect a way for mortal beings, so that they may know all his works through his mighty strength hand his abundant compassion toward all the children of his good will,” 12:33-34). It is later described by the speaker in light of his own spirit, “and my spirit (‫ )רוחי‬grew strong to stand against affliction” (12:38). As the hymn transitions from God’s creation of the spirit—so that one might know his great compassion—to the speaker addressing his own spirit—strengthened to stand in the time of affliction—it underscores the internalization of the spirit which gives insight and ability to declare God’s righteousness.

176

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

first appears in part of a hymn that we examined above, “…[And dis]may [has come] upon me like those who go down to Sheol, and among the dead my spirit searches (‫)מתים יחפש ֯רוחי‬, for [my] life has reached the pit […] my soul (‫)נפשי‬ faints day and night without rest” (16:29-31). The use of ‫ נפש‬in this text and the implication to both the physical and non-physical aspects of humanity have already been examined, yet the occurrence of ‫ רוח‬in this context warrants a brief comment. The hymn contains a vision of paradise, which is followed by a description of a lament that racks the speaker with excruciating pain (16:17-23). Poetically, “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “soul” (‫ )נפש‬are synonymously paralleled to one another.62 So, it is unlikely that the hymnist intends to describe the components of human existence. Rather, they are intended to describe actual physical pain63 and the utter totality of what the speaker must endure. Rather than depicting separate components, they describe the inner person, the place where the person experiences an internal conflict due to external pressures.64 John Levinson notes our other exception (9:29-31), which he refers to as “uncommon glimpse of optimism”—a description of human spirit given to it at birth.65 9:29-31

‫ אתה בראתה‬vacat .29 ‫ רוח בלשון ותדע דבריה ותכן פרי שפתים בטרם היותם ותשם דברים על קו‬.30 ‫ ומבע רוח שפתים במדה‬.31

29. …You yourself created 30. breath (lit. spirit) for the tongue. You know its words, and you determine the fruit of the lips before they exist. You set the words according to the measuring line, 31. and the utterance of the breath (lit. spirit) of the lips by measure.

62  (29) … upon me like those who go down to Sheol,   and among (30) the dead my spirit searches,   for [my] life has reached the pit […]   my soul faints day and night (31) without rest 63   Kim-Harkins, Reading with an ‘I,’” 238-9. 64  Because of it he has numbered himself among those who go down to Sheol (‫כיורדי שאול‬ ‫)תהי מה]ו֯ מה עלי‬, the abode of the dead, that is, the place of the pit. The terminological shift from the physical to the ethereal, from pain to the place of the dead, is significant. While ‫ רוח‬and ‫ נפש‬signal the totality of human life, there still remains a sense of something other here—albeit not explicitly so—that suggests an existence after death (see above). 65  John R. Levinson, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2009), 186. Levinson mistakenly notes the line numbers, which are lines 29-31, not 26-27.

5.2 Hodayot

177

He posits, “God has given spirit-breath and tongue and rhythm, and these are the dimensions of a human being …” As part of a larger hymn (9:1-10:4),66 however, it is worth examining context of these lines. 9:7-22 depicts the celestial order of creation which occurs according to a divinely-willed plan.67 Some of the language in this passage is reminiscent of the created order present in other Qumran texts.68 In this introductory portion of the hymn, every “spirit” is said to be “formed” by God (‫ )אתה יצרתה כול רוח‬and their works are determined, as is their judgment. The created spirits here encompass more than humanity, as noted in lines 12-13: “powerful spirits according to their laws, before they came to be ho[ly] angels [and …]ms eternal spirits in their dominions” (‫ה] ֯כי֯ נ֯ ו֯ תה לרצונכה ורוחות עוז לחוקיהם בטרם היותם למלאכי ֯ק[ודש ו…] ֯ם לרוחות‬ ‫)עולם‬. What is critical is the occurrence of “human spirit” or the “spirit of man” (‫ )רוח אדם‬in 9:17: “for the human spirit that you fashioned in the world for all the days of eternity and everlasting generations …” (‫֯לרוח אדם אשר יצרת בתבל‬ ‫]…[ לכול ימי עולם ודורות נצח‬, 17-18). ‫ רוח אדם‬and its counterpart in this hymn ‫(רוח אנוש‬34) are unique to this hymn. The ‫ רוח אדם‬appears to be a generic manner of describing the full breadth of living humanity and its place in God’s divine plan. This is strengthened in light of line 17, which closely resembles the language utilized for humanity’s creation in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Zech 12:1, also Gen 2:7).69 The sense given to ‫ רוח אדם‬is not unlike the use of ‫ רוח‬in col 7, And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty you determined before you created it (26-27).

‫ואדעה כי בידך י֯ ֯צר כול רוח [וכול פעול] ֯תו‬ (26-27) ‫הכינותה בטרם בראתו‬

You yourself have formed the spirit and determined its activity [from of old]. And from you (comes) the way of every living being (35).

]‫הכינות[ה מעולם‬ ֯ ‫אתה יצרתה רוח ופעולתה‬ (35) ‫ומאתך דרך כול חי‬

66  Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 9-10. Newsom notes that the beginning of the composition, although it is now lost, was at the end of col. 8, The Self as Symbolic Space, 222, esp. n. 48. 67  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 224. Newson numbers these lines 7-20 which ends in a vacat. Although in DJD XL, the vacat occurs at the end of line 22, DJD XL, 118, Hodayot, 40. The numbering issue is perhaps because Newsom begins her text, which she numbers line 7, in what is officially published as line 9, thus making her text 2 lines off. This does not wholly affect her analysis of this text, however, since what is legible in lines 7-8 is restated conceptually at the beginning of the hymn. 68  Newsom references 1QS 3:15-17, The Self as Symbolic Space, 224. See also 4QShirShabbc 4:1-15. 69  Newsom notes that there is biblical evidence where ‫ רוח‬stands in for the ‫ נשמה‬of Gen 2 as in Ps 104:29, “Flesh, Spirit,” 345.

178

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

The language of both hymns, again, evokes the creation of humanity. In fact, the rhetorical question in 7:34, “But what is flesh (i.e., a human being) that it should have insight into [these things? And] how is [a creat]ure of dust able to direct its steps?” indicates that the “spirit” which is formed in line 35 is in fact a reference to humanity, rather than simply a component of it. Again, the spirit(s) spoken of here seem to indicate living persons whose actions, afflictions, and judgments are part of a divinely orchestrated plan. ‫ רוח אדם‬is synonymous with ‫רוח אנוש‬. While the former appears is representative of collective humanity, the latter, which also depicts the living person, is attributed to the enlightened hymnist(s), “And you, in your compassion and your great kindness, you have strengthened the human spirit in the face of affliction (‫ )חזקתה רוח אנוש לפני נגע‬and [the poor] soul (‫ )נפש‬you have cleansed from great iniquity so that it might recount your wonders before all your creatures” (9:33-34). The ‫רוח אנוש‬, strengthened by God’s compassion, is synonymously paralleled with the ‫נפש‬, which is cleansed “from abundant iniquity” (‫מרוב עוון‬, 34). The hymnist stands in a unique place among humanity, reformed and enlightened. Saddled with the horrors of lacking insight and unable to recount the wonders of God, the rest of humanity remains unreformed. There is nothing, however, to suggest that what happens to the ‫ רוח אנוש‬will happen for collective humanity apart from coming under the tutelage of the yaḥad. Still, ‫רוח‬ ‫ אנוש‬and ‫ רוח אדם‬function to describe the totality of the person, in particular, a being that needs to be transformed. In that sense the ‫רוח אדם‬, and to some extent ‫רוח אנוש‬, is not a component of human existence, but rather a reference to a “living person” who stands in need of God’s purification and insight.70 The realization extolled by the hymnist that he has been reformed by the gift of understanding; a gift that that all others are lacking. The hymnist can recognize both the great mysteries of God and understand his own baseness. The description of this lowly existence is perhaps the clearest representative of how the Hodayot conceive of the rest of humanity, “Yet I am a vessel of clay and a thing kneaded with water, a foundation of shame and a well of impurity, a furnace of iniquity, and a structure of sin, a “erring spirit” (‫) ֯רוח התו֯ עה‬, and a perverted being, without understanding, and terrified by righteous judgments” (9:23-24). For the member of the yaḥad this “erring spirit” can be purified (e.g., 1QHa 11:22, 1QS 4:20). The rest of humanity, on the other hand, burdened by 70  ‫ם‬  ‫־א ָד‬ ָ ‫רּוח‬ ַ appears also in Zech 12:1. Yet, the phraseology here seems to be a harmonization of both creation accounts: “The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him” (RSV; ‫־א ָדם ְב ִק ְרּבֹו‬ ָ ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫)נ ֶֹטה ָש ַמיִ ם וְ י ֵֹסד ָא ֶרץ וְ י ֵֹצר‬. The text reflects imagery and language from both Gen creation accounts.

5.2 Hodayot

179

it, must unknowingly bear it. While the hymnist is aware of his own baseness, and the duality between knowledge and the perversion of it, humankind— structures of sin—remain without this knowledge of this despicable state (cf. 1QHa 6:22-23, 12:32-33). The spirit(s) that plague humanity is an important feature of the Hodayot’s conception of collective humanity.71 It seems consistent to presume that if the hymnist views himself, partly and presently (‫ואני‬, 9:23), as “a structure of sin” and a “spirit of error,” that such self-loathing duels with the, albeit insecure, state of insight and understanding. This prior state of error and sin seems to be the speaker’s original state and also the innate state, perhaps, of all those who lack understanding. Sekki notes that the most common reference to the human spirit is with one or more genitives.72 Several examples of ‫ רוח‬are germane here: “perverse spirit” (‫רוח נעוה‬, 5:32, 8:18, 11:22, 16:1, 19:15), “stiff-necked spirit” (‫רוח עורף קשה‬, 8:16), “erring spirit” (‫רוח התועה‬, 9:24), and “spirit of staggering” (‫רוח עועיים‬, 15:8).73 These are largely synonymous to one another in that they describe the dismal state of a group that lacks understanding. Yet, do these various spirits indicate an innate quality of collective humanity? In other words, while the former state of the person (that is, prior to entry into the yaḥad) is, in part, that they lack divine illumination and are troubled by an onerous spirit, are these various spirits original to humankind? The “spirit of perversion,” which appears in col. 5, may give us the parameters to answer this question, “What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at fearful acts? He is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ ful gui]lt is his foundation, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit rules him” (‫ ֯א[שמה וחט]אה סודו ערות קלו֯ ן֯ ו֯ ֯מ[קור הנ]דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬, 5:31-33). Spoken of in terms of one born of a woman (‫)ומה ילוד אשה‬, the “perverted spirit” seems to represent a predetermined state upon birth, an innate condition (see chap. 7). Circling back to Levinson’s position regarding the so-called “glimpse of optimism” regarding humanity’s spirit in 9:29-32, or, more specifically, the statement, “you determine the fruit of the lips before they exist” (30). While the larger hymn presents a catchall phrase for living, breathing humanity—‫רוח‬ ‫—אדם‬the term also reflects the stark duality present with the hymnist. Existing 71  See our discussion in the following chapter on the Damascus Document’s depiction of the patriarch’s “free will.” 72  Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ, 101-102. 73  For a more thorough list that examines other Qumran texts, see, Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ, 102. Sekki’s list does not simply deal with the negative terminology since his focus is simply the “spirit of man,” whether it be an innate quality or whether it be a spirit given at another point in time. Therefore, he goes beyond the scope of the present study.

180

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

with a “spirit of error,” as well as the “spirit of enlightenment,” he can grasp and extoll the mysteries of God and also understand his own inherent baseness. Therefore, Levinson’s description of three lines from the hymn as a positive “glimpse” appear overly giving, since under the weight of the hymn’s context, human existence is portrayed as innately contemptible. God is, however, conveniently separated from this portrayal by describing humankind’s spirit in the context of birth rather than creation. The lines highlighted by Levinson are simply pointing out God’s sovereignty over humanity. There is nothing particularly positive or negative in them. What then can be said about the spirit’s relationship to the body? Newsom convincingly argues that the hymnist’s physical self is often described like a container, though she notes that it is difficult to determine whether viewing the body as a container and the placing of the (new, later-given) spirit in the individual conceptually developed in unison.74 In particular, she points to those phrases that imply humanity’s creation, especially references to the speaker as a “vessel of clay/dust,”75 “a source of impurity” (‫)מקור נדה‬, and “a crucible of sin” (‫ )כור העוון‬as indications of the Hodayot’s conception of the body as a container.76 Within this container, which eventually internalizes the initially external, divinely-wrought spirit, there is little indication that the aforementioned and various described spirits—reflecting humanity’s original state— depart from the person, but rather simply cease to “rule” the person (cf. 5:3277). This seems to hold even when the imagery suggests that this unfavorable spirit has been removed physically from the individual (cf. 15:38-39, 16:1-2).78 Indeed, 74  She suggests that if both developed in unison one might expect the spirit to be described as a liquid, which is already referenced in the Bible (Prov 1:23). According to Newsom, the pouring of the spirit does not appear in the Hodayot except for one notable exception in 8:24. She concludes, “even if that is the case in this instance, this possible image of the spirit poured into the body was not developed as a prominent trope in the Hodayot. More likely, general shifts in the conception of the interiority of personhood simply found their way unconsciously into parallel but uncoordinated imagery for the placing of the spirit in the person and the representation of the physical body as a container,” Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 351-3. 75  Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 353. 76  Regarding the first phrase Newsom posits, “Just as the female body contains fluids that can pollute, so the speaker envisions himself as a container of impurity,” while the “crucible of iniquity” refers to the containers used in antiquity to process various liquid metals, “Flesh, Spirit,” 352. 77  This is indicated by the perfect ‫“( משלה‬ruled”) in 5:32. 78  “… a perverted spirit without] [knowledge you expelled from my bowels” (]‫ורוח נעוה‬ ‫)[בלוא דעת הכאתה מתכמי‬. A portion of line 2, ‫[“( דעת הכאתה מתכמי‬i.e., a spirit without] knowledge you expelled from my innards”), is reconstructed from 4QHb 10, Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 50, DJD XL, 216. The reconstruction of “a spirit of perversion

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

181

as we will see later in this study, some Qumran texts suggest that “the spirit of understanding” does not prevent the righteous from stumbling.79 Despite the internalization of a new spirit, the old spirit does not seem to leave and is rendered impotent. In the Hodayot, the spirit given to humanity at birth is one with the body in life and is the active force by which a person is inherently corrupt. While the innate “spirit” of humanity is poor and wretched and the body is depicted as a container of sorts, it does not appear to be a separate component of human nature even for those who receive the divinely-wrought spirit that brings understanding. The innate spirit is known by the hymnist, but it is largely pacified by God’s knowledge-endowing spirit. 5.3

Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

Jewish apotropaic prayers, both sectarian and non-sectarian, are supplications that request divine protection from various evils (e.g., satan, impure spirits, etc.).80 The prayers reflect contemporary beliefs on how demonic spirits might affect the mind/soul and body, thereby betray idea regarding human composition. The non-sectarian prayers, which are examined here are the Prayer of Levi in 4QLevbar (4Q213a), the “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), and the Prayer of Noah (Jub 6:1-7) and the Prayer of Abraham (12:19-20) in Jubilees. These prayers do not appear to have been composed by the Qumran community. As David Flusser and Esther Eshel have noted, they lack any sectarian-specific linguistic affinities81 and thus bear witness to the larger Jewish world. Apotropaic without” (‫)בלוא ורוח נעוה‬, which is not attested to in any other Hodayot MSS, is largely due to the traces of the he and the kaph in the verb, the first legible word in line 4QHb 10:8, ‫דעת‬, and the general sense of B that “God removed something negative from my limbs,” DJD XL, 218. Based on similar phraseology (e.g., ‫ ֯רוח התו֯ עה ונעוה בלא בינה‬, 9:24-25), it is ‫ דעת‬that must be negated, though the editors state that reconstructions other than the adopted are possible, DJD XL, 218. 79  See discussion below. 80  See David Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers” in Jewish Writings, 560-61. Also idem, “Qumrân and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1998), 214-28, repr. from IEJ 16/3 (1966): 194-205, also, Esther Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Esther Chazon, STDJ 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 69-89. 81  Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 218-9; Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 68. Archie Wright notes that the free use of the Tetragrammaton suggests a non-Qumran origin, though he

182

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

prayers that have been identified as coming from within the Qumran community, however, are not conceptually distant enough in their concerns and are of some value to our examination. Therefore, some concluding remarks regarding them is warranted. 5.3.1 Prayer of Levi (4QLevbar; 4Q213a) The Prayer of Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document is written in late Herodian script and dated to the mid-1st c. BCE.82 It is thought to be the oldest postbiblical apotropaic prayer.83 Although the Aramaic text is fragmentary, Greenfield and Stone reconstruct the entire prayer utilizing a Greek manuscript from the 11th century CE.84 The most pertinent portions of the prayer are the eight lines (Gr 5-10), to which portions of the Aramaic85 correspond (Ar 10-17). Both the Aramaic and fuller Greek are examined here.86 10. … 5“O Lord, you know all hearts” 11. and you alone understand all the thoughts of minds 6and now my children are with me, 12. and grant me all the paths of truth. 7make far from me, O Lord, the unrighteous spirit, 13. and evil thought and fornication, and turn pride away from me. 8let there be shown to me, O Lord, the holy spirit, 14. and counsel, and wisdom and knowledge and grant me strength, 9in order to do that which is pleasing to you warns against making such a claim definitive, The Origins of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2/198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 172. 82  D JD XXII, 3. 83  Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 75. As Eshel notes, these prayers have a biblical precedent in the “Priestly Blessing” (Num 6:24-26). 84  Michael E. Stone and Jonas C. Greenfield, “4Q213a: 4QLevb,” in Qumran Cave Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts: Part 3, DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 25-36. The Greek parallel is Cod. 39 in MS Athos, Koutloumous. See also, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary, ed. Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, SVTP 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 60-64. The superscript numbers indicate the numbering of the Greek manuscript. 85  ‫ב]אישא‬...[ .13, ‫[ ֯ארחת קשט ארחק‬...] .12, ‫ א]נתה בלחודיך ידע‬...[ .11, ‫]אמרת מרי אנתה‬...[ .10 ‫] ֯דשפיר ודטב‬...[ .16, ‫לא]שכחה רחמיך קדמיך‬...[ .15, ‫ח]כמה ומנדע וגבורה‬...[ .14, ‫וזנותא דחא‬  ‫ו] ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן‬...[ .17, ‫קדמיך‬, DJD XXII, 28-29. 86  The following English translation is from DJD XXII, 31-32.

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

183

15. and find favor before you, and to praise your words with me, O Lord. 16. … and that which is pleasant and good before you. 17. 10and let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path.87

As we have seen elsewhere God is described as omniscient over all of humankind; he knows “all hearts” (πάσας τὰς καρδίας) and understands “all the thoughts of minds” (πάντας τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς ἐννοιῶν, 5).88 The request for protection indicates the speaker’s presumed vulnerabilities; they are: “evil thoughts” (διαλογισμὸν τὸν πονηρὸν/ ‫ב]אישא‬, 1389), “fornication”(πορνείαν/ ‫)זנותא‬,90 and “pride/insolence” (ὕβριν, 7). The solution to such is a request that “the holy spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον), “counsel” (βουλὴν), σοφίαν/‫“( ח]כמה‬wisdom”), “knowledge” (γνῶσιν/‫ )מנדע‬and “strength” (ισχύν/‫ )גבורה‬be shown to the speaker (δειχθήτω μοι, [13-14] 8). This portion concludes, “And let not any satan have power over me” ( ׄ‫ו] ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן […ע] ׄלי‬/καὶ μὴ κατισχυσάτω με πᾶς σατανᾶς, [17] 10). The battle of the speaker seems to be an internal one, yet it does not clarify whether the body is equally vulnerable to some illness or if the affliction is under the control of a satanic spirit. A line that is preserved only in the Greek MS may offer some clarification, “Purify my heart, Master, from every impurity …” (καθάρισον τὴν καρδίαν μου, δέσποτα, ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας, 14).91 Levi’s request for the purification of his heart indicates that the realm of the evil spirit is the inner person, more specifically, his will. Although it is clear that such disturbance bears physical consequences (e.g., fornication), the struggle for control is within. Therefore, the prayer provides two aspects of human nature that will reverberate throughout the prayers, 1) a natural vulnerability to demonic influence, and 2) the realm of influence is predominantly the metaphysical component (i.e., emotions, reason, etc.).

87  Eshel notes “This ancient prayer includes several apotropaic elements: a request for the knowledge of God, a plea for protection from sin and evil spirits, a request to be distanced from unrighteousness, and a plea for salvation,” “Apotropaic Prayers,” 75. 88  For the Aramaic reconstruction, see The Aramaic Levi Document, 60. 89  The numbering in the brackets corresponds to the Aramaic, 4Q213aar. 90  Greenfield and Stone have noted ‫ זנותא‬and ‫ ב]אישא‬as poetic pairs, DJD XXII, 31. 91  Greenfield and Stone have noted that lines 12-15 in the Greek manuscript represent the lost top part of fragment two, DJD XXII, 32.

184

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

5.3.2 “Plea for Deliverance” (11QPsa col. 19) The non-canonical psalm known as the “Plea for Deliverance,” in 11Q5 col. 19, dates from the early to late Herodian period, and shares certain commonalities with the Prayer of Levi.92 The apotropaic elements appear in lines 13-16: ‫ סלחה יהוה לחטאת וטהרני מעווני‬.13-14 ‫ רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל אתקלה בעווה‬.14-15 ‫ אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה‬.15 ‫ מכאוב ויצר רע אל ירשו בעצמי‬.15-16

13-14. Forgive my sin, O Lord, and purify me from my iniquity. 14-15. Vouchsafe me a spirit of faith and knowledge, and let me not be dishonored in ruin. 15. Let not satan rule over me, nor an unclean spirit; 15-16. Neither let pain nor the evil inclination take possession of my bones.93

The apotropaic portions in The Plea and the Prayer of Levi are strikingly similar. Both prayers seek purification from sin, calling on a spirit (here: of faith and knowledge, ‫)אמונה ודעת‬, and requesting that satan (apparently a singular entity) to have no rule over the speaker.94 Unlike Levi’s prayer, the Plea for Deliverance offers some additional details, which betray a conception of human vulnerability to evil spirits. In this psalm, satan, an “unclean spirit” (‫רוח‬ ‫)טמאה‬, has the ability to “rule” (‫ )תשלט‬over the individual. Yet, the preposition ‫“( ב‬over/in”) in line 15 does not indicate the type of control. Elsewhere ‫“( בי‬in me”) appears to reflect an individual’s internal reality (cf. 1QHa 5:36) and, according to Newsom, is used in the Hodayot to describe the speaker as a container (see above). Lines 15 and 16 are a bit more explicit as to disturbance faced by the speaker. The final request that “pain and the evil inclination” (‫כאוב‬ ‫ )ויצר רע‬not possess the bones of the speaker indicate the effect of demonic influence over the body or the ability to cause pain to that body. Eshel states that ‫ ירשו בעצמי‬means, “have control over my bones.”95 She notes further, “this 92  Fragments of this poem also appear in 11Q6 4 5 14-16, Sanders, DJDJ IV, 76-79. 93  Trans. from Sanders, DJD IV, 77-78; idem, Psalms Scroll, 70-71. Tigchelaar also notes that this is the only place in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the “evil inclination” is mentioned together with evil spirits, “Evil Spirits in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Brief Survey and Some Perspectives,” in Dualismus, Dämonologie und diabolische Figuren, ed. Jörg Frey and Enno Edzard Pokes, WUNT2 484 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 131. 94  See Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 218. Additionally, Flusser notes that the second striking similarity between the two prayers is the interpretation of Ps. 119:133b, “Let all iniquity not rule over me” where “iniquity” is replaced with “satan.” Furthermore, there is little need to presume that the “Plea” utilizes “satan” differently from Levi’s prayer. 95  This meaning, according to Eshel, is utilized in some Aramaic deeds dated to the Bar Kokhba period (132-135 CE), “Apotropaic Prayers,” 76. The Testament of Job, which dates

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

185

meaning perfectly fits that of the control spirits presumably have over human beings.”96 The speaker, however, is not simply concerned with bodily pain. The first-person prepositional phrase seems to also assume that God can prevent evil’s control over the mind by giving him a “faithful and knowing spirit” (‫רוח‬ ‫ ;אמונה ודעת‬14). Eshel has drawn attention to the demonic control over mind and body attested in other Second Temple works, including an incantation text (4Q560).97 She notes that the reference to “iniquity and transgression” suggests between the 1st c. BCE and 1st c. CE, R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” OTP 1:833-4, attests varied types of demonic control. When relating what was allowed to be done to him by Satan, Job specifically states that his body was given over to his control (20:1-3): (“Then the Lord gave me over into his hands to be used as he wished with respect to the body; but he did not give him authority over my soul” (χρήσασθαι τῷ σώματι μου ὡς ἠβούλετο, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μου οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν). As such, Job’s body is riddled with afflictions and plagues from head to toe (cf. 6-9). Additionally, there are parallels here to some of the Gospel accounts which involve demon possession. The pericope of the “Healing of the Demoniac in the Synagogue” (Matt 1:23-28; Luke 4:33-37) presents the possessed individual as suffering from convulsions (σπαράξαν, lit. “throw to and fro”) in Matt and the throwing of the person down (ῥῖψαν) in Luke. In the pericope of the “Dumb Demoniac” (Matt 9:32-34; Mark 12:22-24), the Gospels report that a demon-possessed man who was deaf and mute was brought to him. The demon seems to be limited to physical maladies but not those that deal pain. The demon does not seem to control the demoniac’s mind in as much as the mind was credited in antiquity with controlling the ability to speak or hear. The pericope of the “Gerasene Demoniac” (Matt 8:28-34 [Gadarene demoniac], Mark 5:120; Luke 8:26-39) depicts a demon possessed man (two men in Matt) whose strength is demonically controlled, breaking through shackles and other forms of binding (Mark and Luke). The demon possessed (men) in Matt are said to be so violent that a path is blocked. When the demons are exorcised in Mark and Luke, the Evangelists describe the individual as having a “right mind” (σωφρονοῦντα). The unique quality of this final pericope is that there are multiple “demons” (δαιμόνια). Luke has the unique description that many demons “entered” (εἰσῆλθεν) the individual, which may imply the disturbance of both the soul and mind. A parallel to these demonic encounters in the Gospels appears in the Testament of Solomon, “And I asked him: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘I am a three-pronged spirit, which overpowers in three deeds: In the wombs of women I blind children and I close up ears and I make them mute and deaf. Also, I strike humans against the body (καὶ τύπτω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κατὰ τοῦ σώματος) and I make them fall and foam and grind their teeth’” (12:1-2), OTP 1:973. What is clear the final Gospel pericope, as well as the Testament of Solomon, is that the demons are free to disturb the physical body and inhabit the soul/ mind. The function of these demons seems to intimate a distinction between the body and the inner person, since they can disturb both in unison and agitate either. 96  Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 76. 97  Douglas L. Penney and Michael O. Wise notes that the reading of 4Q560 of “flesh” (‫)בשרא‬ differs from the usual term for “body” (‫ )פגרא‬in incantation texts (1 i 3), “The expression ‫ בבשרא עלל‬may simply anticipate or reflect the nature of the affliction often attributed to the demon called ‫חלחיא‬. It may be that ‫ בבשרא‬is the expected preposition and object combination following the root ‫ חלחל‬i.e., ‘poisoning,’ affects the ‘flesh’ in particular, not so much the ‘body’ in general,” “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation

186

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

that demons cause both physical and spiritual problems.98 The same holds true for the “Plea;” the reference to sins (‫לחטאתי‬, 13) and bone pain, indicate both the physical and spiritual disturbance caused by demons. The explicit reference to vulnerabilities, both physical and spiritual, implies that the human body is composed of at least two separable components that malevolent spirits may have access but does not explicitly indicate either can be separate from the other. 5.3.3 Prayers of Noah and Abraham in Jubilees (10:1-7, 12:19-20) Related to this conversation are two prayers that appear in the Book of Jubilees—a book dated to about the mid-2nd c. BCE99 and for which no Hebrew parallel exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls.100 The first is placed on the lips of Noah (Jub 10:3-6):101 3. He prayed before the Lord his God and said: “God of the spirits which are in all animate beings—you who have shown kindness to me, saved me and my sons from the flood waters, and did not make me perish as you did to the people (meant for) destruction—because your mercy for me has been large and your kindness to me has been great: may your mercy be lifted over the children of your children; and may the wicked spirits not rule them in order to destroy them from the earth. 4. Now you bless me and my children so that we may increase, become numerous, and fill the earth. 5. You know how your Watchers, the fathers Formula from Qumran (4Q560),” JBL 113/4 (1994): 627-50. Émile Puech is not as nuanced as Penney and Wise, stating that the poison (i.e.,‫ )חלחל‬effects both the flesh and body, Émile Puech, “Livret Magique: 4QLivret magique ar” in Qumran Grotte 4 XXVII: Textes Araméens Deuxième Partie, DJD XXXVII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 297. Despite the uncommon use of “flesh” in incantation and magical texts, separating the flesh from the body, when flesh is not utilized to describe the sinful aspect of the person, is largely unnecessary. 98  Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 84. Eshel also references Amulet 12 in Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1987), 94-97. 99  The Book of Jubilees, trans. James VanderKam, CSCO 511, SA 87 (Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters, 1989), V-VI, also Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees: Chapters 1-21, Hermeneia, ed. Sidnie White Crawford (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 28-38. 100  VanderKam also notes that in the transmission of history of Jubilees 10:1-14, it only appears on the Ethiopic version. Further, there is “important parallel evidence on the Book of Noah (that is the introduction to the Book of Asaph), a Hebrew work that begins with a passage reading much like Jub 10:1-14,” VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 398. 101  Marth Himmelfarb notes the parallels between this prayer and the beginning of the medieval work, the Book of Asaph, “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (Atlanta: SBL, 1994), 128-36, also VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 398, n. 4.

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

187

of these spirits, have acted during my lifetime. As for these spirits who have remained alive, imprison them and hold them captive in the place of judgment. May they not cause destruction among your servant’s sons, my God, for they are savage and were created for the purpose of destroying. 6. May they not rule the spirits of the living for you alone know their punishment; and may they not have power over the sons of the righteous from now and forevermore.102

Prior to the prayer there is a brief narrative where “impure demons” have deceived (ἐπλάνησαν103) Noah’s grandchildren, making them act foolishly, blinding, and killing them (10:1-3).104 Unlike the “Plea for Deliverance” (see above), it does not seem that the demons cause any physical pain, although the manner in which they “deceive” Noah’s grandchildren have physical ramifications (e.g., death, blindness). Rather, it appears that some control over their mind/ soul is intimated. In fact, the use of “to deceive” (πλανάω) may be of some assistance in this regard. This term implies a deception of the mind which leads to irregular action.105Noah’s prayer begins in v. 3 with the pronouncement of God as the deity over all “animate beings.” This prayer begins as the others do, with an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty.106 His supplication is founded on the mercy exhibited to his family during the flood. The most important verses of the prayer for this study are those that describe demonic influence, especially, “and may the wicked spirits not rule them in order to destroy them from the earth” (3), “may they not cause destruction among your servant’s sons” (5), and “may they not have power over the sons of the righteous from now and forevermore” (6). Noah prays that the wicked spirits, these demons connected to Watchers of Enochic lore,107 not rule over his children and grandchildren in a manner that will lead to their death. The demons inten to kill them (in some manner; see 10:2) in order to prevent Noah and his family increasing and filling the earth (4). While Noah’s prayer is narrowed to his grandchildren, the persistence of demonic control threatens 102  All English translations from Vanderkam, Jubilees. 103  The Greek text is from Syncellus, Chrongraphia (49.6-15) in Jubilees, 266. The Greek fragments can also be accessed online on “The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha,” http://ocp. tyndale.ca/. The online version is adapted from VanderKam’s volume. 104  VanderKam, Jubilees, 58. 105  “πλανάω,” LSJ 1411; also BDAG 821-22. 106  Flusser provides a comparative chart of the elements that commonly appear in Jewish Apotropaic prayers, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 223. 107  See Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 78; also Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redactions, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17-77; VanderKam, Jubilee 1, 402-3.

188

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

the entire world to become as it was prior to the flood. Germane to this discussion is what sort of control over humanity does Noah’s prayer assume? In contrast to the “Plea for Deliverance,” physiological pain is not an explicit problem for Noah and his family. The patriarch’s concern is the death of his grandchildren which results from the misleading or control over the “spirits of the living.” Therefore, Noah’s concern is primarily about the demonic control over the souls of his children and the “sons of the righteous” that they might “not have power over [them]… from now and forevermore.” VanderKam notes, “Noah does not want them to be able to influence people—more particularly the righteous. His request is that they be prevented from ever again exercising such power.”108 It is unclear, however whether the use of “spirits”109 reflects a duality between spirit and flesh. Earlier in Jubilees idols are portrayed as being without a spirit, “What help and advantage do we get from these idols before which you worship and prostrate yourself? For there is no spirit in them because they are dumb” (12:3).110 The text implies that humanity differs from idols in that they have a spirit with a fleshly, physical form. Malevolent spirits then have an ability to lead the righteous astray, by not controlling the body but by governing the component the makes being animate. Therefore, Noah’s prayer is working with the existence of duality between body and spirit. Abraham’s prayer (12:19-20) makes a clearer declaration of demonic control. 19. My God, my God, God most High, you alone are my God. You have created everything; everything that was and has been is the product of your hands. You and your lordship I have chosen. 20. Save me from the power of the evil spirits who rule the thoughts of people’s minds. May they not mislead me from following you, my God. Do establish me and my posterity forever. May we not go astray from now until eternity.111

Abraham is particularly concerned about his own protection from “evil spirits who rule the thoughts of people’s mind.”112 The concern is not unlike Noah who is concerned that his grandchildren will be misled, thereby putting his posterity into question. Abraham’s prayer, however, clearly distinguishes the realm of demonic control, namely, the “thoughts of people’s minds” (20, see also Prayer of Levi above). Eshel notes that the language of both prayers implies “that the 108  Jubilees 1, 404. 109  VanderKam notes that “spirits” in regard to evil entities depict an immortal aspect of the giants that they inherited from the Watchers, despite the fact that their fleshly existence can die; therefore, the duality is apparent, Jubilees 1, 403-4. 110  Translation, VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 441. 111  VanderKam, Jubilees, 72. 112  See VanderKam, Jubilees, 72, n. on 12:19.

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

189

evil spirits can cloud knowledge of God and mislead humans from following God’s will.”113 VanderKam notes, “He [i.e., Abraham] knows that the spirits control people’s mind … so his prayer is that God save him from their influence.” Again, unlike the “Plea for Deliverance,” a physiological effect is not attested here, so the realm of evil influence is solely the metaphysical component of the person. In fact, VanderKam argues that that Ethiopic term for “thoughts” (ḥellina) very likely reflects each person’s “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬where it refers to a neutral feature within a person that is open to outside pressure …”114 Both prayers in Jubilees indicate that the realm of demonic influence is the metaphysical part of each person, namely, the soul and mind. Any physical consequences are a byproduct, but not a direct result of that disturbance. Furthermore, the terminological use of “spirit(s)” intimates a clearer form of body-soul dualism that is not found in other apotropaic prayers. While the human spirit is not spoken of as having a separate existence from the body, the realm of external demonic control is the mind/soul/spirit, that part of the person that distinct from its physical nature. 5.3.4 Sectarian Apotropaic Prayers While these texts are thought to come from the Qumran community, their perspective regarding demonic activity is not isolated from other Second Temple texts. Surely, the vulnerabilities thought to be faced by those within the yaḥad were also thought to be the malady of those outside of it, and thus a danger faced by collective humanity. In other words, dangers posed to the mind/soul/ heart as well as the physical body were thought to be both a problem and were an intracommunal and extracommunal issue. Therefore, even the sectarian texts offer relevant information regarding humanity’s vulnerabilities to demonic influence. 5.3.4.1 4QSongs of the Sagea (4Q510) At least one sectarian apotropaic prayer indicates what part of the individual is susceptible to demonic influence. The so-called Songs of the Sage (4Q5104Q511)115 appear to be two copies of the same document, although nothing that has been preserved in either is an identical copy of the other.116 Nitzan describes these texts, which are a collection of conventional songs of praise 113  Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 78. 114  VanderKam, Jubilee 1, 454. 115  Maurice Baillet, “510. Cantiques du Sage (i),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD VII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 215-19, with one emendation. 116  Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. Jonathan Chipman, STDJ 12 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994), 236; trans from Tefilat qumran ve-shiratah be-zikatan la-mikra, BEL XIV, (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1996).

190

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

that were perhaps part of communal ritual,117 as exhibiting apocalyptic and eschatological elements.118 The first portion that is germane to our discussion consists of five nearly-intact lines uttered by the maskil in 4Q510 1 4-8. ]‫ולב[הל‬ ‎.4‫‏‬ ׄ ‫ ואני משכיל משמיע הוד תפארתו לפחד‬vacat ]…‫ כול רוחי מלאכי חבל ורוחות ממזרים שדאים לילית אחים ו[ציים‬.‎5‫‏‬ ]‫ בקץ ממשל[ת‬119‫ והפוגעים פתע פתאום לתעות רוח בינה ולהשם לבבם ונ֯ תתם‬.‎6‫‏‬ ‫ רשעה ותעודות תעניות בני או[ר] באשמת קצי נגוע[י] עוונות ולוא לכלת עולם‬.‎7‫‏‬ 120‫ [כי א]ם לקץ תעניות פשע‬.‎8‫‏‬ 4. And I, a Maskil, declare the splendour of his radiance in order to frighten and terr[ify] 5. all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, owls and [jackals …] 6. and those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of understanding, to make their hearts desolate. And you have been placed in the era of the rul[e of] 7. wickedness and in the periods of humiliation of the sons of lig[ht], in the guilty periods of /[those] defiled by/ iniquities; not for an everlasting destruction 8. [but ra]ther for the era of the humiliation of sin.121

The presumed danger faced by the Maskil is that the “spirit of understanding” (122 ‫ )רוח בינה‬be led astray, thereby making his heart desolate. Flusser has noted that “understanding,” or the desire for it, is a common element in apotropaic

117  Cf. Joseph Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510-511),” DSD 19 (2012): 2. 118  Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 236; Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 80. 119  Baillet does not offer a reconstruction for the trace marks left behind by the two medial letters in ‫תם‬°°‫ ֯ת‬but suggests that the initial tav may be read as ‫תם‬°° ֯‫ונ‬. Furthermore, after the nun there may be an ayin although what should be restored here remains elusive, DJD VII, 216, especially since the middle part of the word appears immediately near a tear in the fragment. Nitzan reconstructed this to read ‫ ונ֯ פשתם‬based on a parallel with ‫לבבם‬ in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, Bilhah Nitzan, “Shirey shevach me-qumran ‘le-fached velehavel’ ruchot rasha’” Tarbiz 51/1 (1985): 21 (Heb.). Yet, on the parchment there are traces of what appears to be the top of Baillet’s nun and the top half of what may be a second and, even perhaps, a third letter. At the point where fragment 1 breaks off, and the text continues, there appears a bottom ligature prior to the bottom half of the tav and a clear final mem. While the traces between the apparent nun and the break are difficult to make out, what is preserved in the second smaller fragment does not appear to have the bottom shape of the shin when compared to shins written by this scribe elsewhere in the fragment. García Martínez and Tigchelaar’s restoration ‫ נתתם‬seems to fit the traces best and is the restoration opted here, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:1027. 120  Text from Baillet, DJD VII, 217. 121  English translation of both 4Q510-511 from DSSSE 2:1026-36. 122  ‫ רוח בינה‬is not a common expression and appears primarily in sectarian material, 1QS 11:1, 1QHa 8:24, 4Q230 12 3, 4Q301 4 2, 4Q418 58 2, 73 1.

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

191

prayers.123 In this way “understanding” functions conversely to keep demons away.124 Or, as Joseph Angel states, “the Songs invoke the power of divine knowledge in the active quest to deter the demons.”125 Similar to some of the prayers that have been surveyed above, the sphere of demonic influence is the mind/soul but it does not seem to bring harm to the body apart from causing the individual to act against God’s commandments. Unlike the “Plea of Deliverance”, where the body is racked with pain, the sectarian text depicts the disturbance of the mind and, as Brand notes, these demons “are capable of leading a person who is usually righteous astray, even if she is endowed with a ‘spirit of understanding.’”126 The prayer indicates that the “spirit of understanding” is not a stand-alone measure against demonic disturbance. 5.3.4.2 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) A small fragment in 4Q511 refers to the physical body: “… His knowledge he put [in my] hear[t …] the praises of His righteousness, and […] and by His mouth he frightens [all the spirits] of the bastards to subdue […] uncleanness. For in the filth of my flesh is the foundation of [… and in] my body are conflicts” (‫ ;וב]גויתי מלחמו֯ ֯ת‬48 49 + 51 1-4). The frightening of the ‫“( ממזרים‬bastards”) shares a parallel with fragment 1 of 4Q510 but here demonic influence causes inward conflicts and results in some form of impurity (‫ ֯ט ֯מאה‬, 3).127 While the text is not as clear as the physical pain referenced in the “Plea,” it indicates some level of effect that moves beyond psychological influence. An incantation text, which shares some thematic content with the above fragment, may offer a more useful understanding of the potential demonic effect to the physical body: “As for me, I am the dread of God. He opened my mouth with the knowledge of his truth, and […] empowered by his holy spirit. […] truth for all [thes]e, and they became contentious spirits in my bodily frame (‫[ ;)במבניתי‬God’s] statute[s …] [… in] the the innards of flesh” (‫ב] ֯תכמי‬

123  Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 223; Joseph Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience,” 6-7. 124  And indeed God is praised for the bestowal of understanding. In a fragment from 4Q511, “You [pl]aced knowledge in my frame of dust in order that I might p[raise you]” (28 29 3). Angel notes the close parallels here with the Hodayot, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience,” 8. 125  Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience,” 11. 126  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 203. Brand has also noted that these demons are given some limitation in that the are only allowed to function in the “period of the dominion of wickedness.” See also her discussion on 4Q511 35 6-8, Evil Within and Without, 203-204. 127  See, Brand, Evil Within and Without, 201-2.

192

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

‫בשר‬, 4Q444 1 4 i + 5).128 Brand provides an extensive discussion on the translation of innards (‫ )תכמי‬and her conclusion is particularly pertinent, “… the word *tĕkāmîm appears to be a more general expression referring to the innards in the body, particularly when the body is ‘infested’ with sinfulness or affliction.”129 While the rest of the text is fragmentary, it shares enough affinities with the Songs of the Sage—with the parallel of “innards” (‫תכמים‬, which only appears in sectarian material130)—to suggest that the “bodily struggles” (‫ )מלחמות‬referenced in 4Q511 are in fact some form of actual physical disturbance.131 Like the prayers in Jubilees, 11Q5, and the Prayer of Levi, the sectarian material indicates a similar concern regarding demons, particularly the potential for them (or “it”, if a singular demon is intended) to both lead the person away from knowledge and, thus, away from God’s commandments, as well as to rack the physical body with pains and afflictions.132 The sectarian material 128  Hebrew text from Esther Chazon, “444. 4QIncantation,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. Esther Chazon and Torleif Elgvin et al., DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 367-77 129  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 204-5, n. 35. 130  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 204, n. 35. 131  Texts from the Hodayot and the so-called Aramaic Magical Book (4Q560) provide more attestations to the physical disturbance caused by malevolent entities. 1QHa 4, which is reconstructed as the end of col. 22, “[… from plagues of a] man and from pa[ins (‫ מנגי]עי גבר וממכא[וב‬...[) …] […] they watch, and upon their courses [they shall stand …] you rebuke every adversary who ruins and […] and you have uncovered my ear. For […] the men of the covenant were deceived by them” (4-8); also, DSSSE 1:194. Eshel notes that the text uses “telling phrases” that connect it with other apotropaic prayers, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 83. In light of other prayers, it is not surprising that this fragment speaks to the potential plagues and pains, if reconstructed correctly, that one faces as a result of demonic activity. The Aramaic Magical Book = 4QExorcismar (DSSSE 2:1117) fragment 1, 1:3-4, reads, “… male and female poison(ous substance) enters into (invades) the flesh … iniquity and sin; fever and chills, and the fire (or fever) of the heart” (‫אשא ועריא ואשת‬ ‫)לבב‬, trans. Joseph Naveh, “Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran,” IEJ 48 3/4 (1998): 257. Douglas L. Penney and Michael O. Wise state that the last words of line 4, namely, “fever and chills” and “fever of the heart” (or “chest pain”), designate diseases, “By the Power of Beelzebub,” 627-50. “Two are well attested in other texts, and the third has a number of precedents” (642). Naveh notes that the most frequently mentioned illness in the 5th century Palestinian amulets was thought to be malaria but was expressed with the Aramaic definite forms ‫“( אשתה והעריה‬fever and chills”), “Fragments,” 257. Therefore, 4Q560 attests further to human nature’s complex vulnerability to malevolent disturbances. 132  Somewhat pertinent to this discussion is a text from the Testament of Solomon, written sometime between the 1st and 3rd c. CE, D. C. Duling, “Testament of Solomon” OTP 1:940943, collects in part traditions and folklore of Solomon’s building of the Temple. At the very beginning of the testament a demon, Ornias, comes to disturb the master workman— who was just a young man, “Testatment,” 1:961, n. f, and to deprive him of half his wages

5.4 Conclusion

193

parallels the other prayers in that human person is conceived as existing in two components, body and soul, each of which is individually vulnerable to being troubled by evil spirits, although the mind seems to be the primary point of emphasis. 5.4

Conclusion

The Hodayot’s pervasive focus on the personal turmoil of the hymnist and the yaḥad warrant an examination of the terms that form a ground zero of sorts for those experiences, namely, “life” (‫)נפש‬, “heart,” (‫ )לב‬and “spirt” (‫)רוח‬. A close reading of specific Hodayot betrays how the hymnist(s) conceives of collective humanity’s composition, as well as the various intra-communal and extracommunal distinctions. Our study of ‫ נפש‬shows that the hymns remain close to what is attested in biblical tradition, namely, it envisions human nature as a psychosomatic unity. It represents the totality of the speaker’s existence, although its employment to describe the speaker’s internal terror, without explicit reference to the body, implies some degree of distinction between both. More explicitly than ‫נפש‬, however, ‫ לב‬points to the hymnist’s inner, psychological component of each person. It describes the part of humankind that can follow God’s or Belial’s heart. The “divided heart” (‫ )לב ולב‬depicts an innate state and his provisions (1:1-2). As a result, the young boy grows thinner. After Solomon, who was thought to be an exorcist in the Second Temple period, see Ant. 8:5, interrogates the craftsman due to his gaunt appearance, the craftsman responds that after he is released from work on the Temple he is bothered by demon and “lo, my soul is oppressed, and so my body becomes thinner every day” (ἰδοὺ θλιβομένης μου τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ σῶμα μου λεπτύνεται καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 1-4)? The testament here attests to the effect on the human body when the soul of the person is demonically disturbed. Additionally, the demonic influence on the body and soul is also attested in the Testament of Simeon. In this portion of the testament warns his children to beware of jealousy and envy, commanding them to walk in singleness of the soul and heart, two terms, in parallel, that synonymously refer to the whole person (cf. 4:5). Instructing his sons to put away “the spirit of envy,” the very spirit that caused him to hate Joseph, he explains how the spirit ravages both the body and soul: “For this makes the soul wild and destroys the body, it gives anger and war to the mind and stirs (it) up to the deeds of the blood … moreover, it takes away sleep and gives tumult to the soul and trembling to the body … And with evil spirits is disturbs his soul, and it causes the body to be startled, and the mind to awake from sleep in confusion, and as having an evil and poisonous spirit …” (καὶ ἐν πνεύμασι πονηροῖς διαταράσσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκθροεῖσθε τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖ, καὶ ἐν ταραχῇ διυπνίζεσθαι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ ὡς πνεῦμα πονηρὸν καὶ ἰοβόλον ἔχων…4:8-9). It is again clear that evil spirits are thought to disturb both the body and soul, with the apparent implication that the human person is composed of two components, both of which are actively vulnerable to demonic disturbance.

194

5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

of being which the member of the yaḥad must combat, seeking the “complete heart” for whom faithfully observes God’s covenant. It does not simply refer to the seat of human emotion but also describes the space of reasoning, the mind. It has been shown that Ben Sira and Wisdom utilize “heart” (καρδία = ‫)לב‬ with the same dual purpose, while other texts—although very limited—(e.g., T. 12 Patr.,133 Jud [1x]), Wis [2x], and 2 Macc [1x]) utilize νοῦς to differentiate the “mind” from the “heart.” In the hymns, and in post-biblical Hebrew, for that matter, ‫ לב‬consistently represents the totality of the inner person where emotion, as well as reason, are seated. The employment of ‫ רוח‬straddles the line between describing a living human being (e.g., ‫רוח אדם‬, ‫ )רוח אנוש‬and a description of the onerous, innate spirit that humanity, both within the community—largely pacified by God’s spirit—and outside of it, must struggle to live with. This spirit, as well, reflects the inner person, that is the place of internal strife where the battle is fought to be part of either God’s or Belial’s lot. The person can also be corporately be referred to as a ‫—רוח‬although, it emphasizes the speaker’s internal, not physically experienced fears. Certain hymns, however, do not simply relegate this experience to the metaphysical inner person, the experienced trauma has ramifications for the physical body. Moreover, ‫ רוח‬is not a distinct, separable component of human existence. The separation between the body and soul is, indeed, so implicit—if it is intended at all—that it is mistaken to presume that the hymnist(s) has a definitive distinction in mind. Thus, the person in the Hodayot that is reflected by the hymnist’s self-awareness is not envisioned as composed of divisible parts as existence apart from one another is not evident in the hymns. Thus, human nature in the hymns is described as a compositional duality, although the parts do not exist apart from one another. The ambiguous dichotomization of humanity into physical and metaphysical is more clearly attested in apotropaic prayers. Human vulnerability to external demonic activity preserve evidence of human composition by describing which aspects are in fact susceptible. The Prayer of Levi, in both its Greek and Aramaic forms, seeks protection for the author’s inner person from malevolent spirits. This hope for protection, however, indicates that should demons rule the individual they would lead the individual to the willful transgression of God’s commandments. The primary target of externally wrought disturbance is with the mind of the person and not the person’s physical nature, although there are physical effects. The “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19:13-16), on the other hand, indicates that demons have a modicum of control over the human body, causing pain to the bones. The prayers of both Noah (10:1-7) and 133  See 4.4.3, n. 121.

5.4 Conclusion

195

Abraham (12:19-20) in Jubilees indicate some demonic control over the mind, a control that leads individuals to disobey God’s covenant. Here, there appears to be no direct effect on the body apart from a secondary effect. The same influence is preserved in the sectarian prayers the Songs of a Sage (4Q510-511). The danger of demonic disturbance is primarily one of the mind, which is caused by a straying away of the “spirit of understanding” (4Q510 1 6). Moreover, 4Q511 preserves evidence of some indefinite bodily disturbance caused by evil spirits (48 49 51 1-4; see also 4Q444 1 4 i 5). Thus, the apotropaic prayers of the yaḥad parallel the conception of demonic disturbance prevalent in non-sectarian prayers, namely, that the body and soul/mind have a degree of separation and thus experiences with demonic disturbance can vary, even if those parts are not conceived as having separate existences.

Chapter 6

Mapping the Human Condition: Free Will and the Inclination(s) to Sin “f It be your will, if there is a choice Leonard Cohen, If It Be Your Will, 1984

6.1

Introduction

Part of the human condition, namely, the presumed fundamental characteristics of a person regarding action, resides largely on a spectrum between two opposing poles, God’s absolute sovereignty and human free will, sometimes depicted by modern scholars as the tension between divine and human agency.1 When accounting for the various schools of thought in ancient Judaism, Josephus himself identifies them along the lines of their beliefs regarding fate (divine agency) and free will (human agency, Ant. 13:171-173). As the first century historian exemplifies, the point on the spectrum is constantly moving. 1  Many of the recent studies on human agency are drawn to a comparison between Second Temple Jewish thought and Pauline literature in order to better understand the teaching of the Apostle. See more recently, Jason Matson, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism: A Comparative Study, WUNT 2 297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 22-124; Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Enviroment, ed. John Barclay and Simon Bathercole (London: T and T Clark, 2006), esp. 9-26; Robert Kugler, “A Note on Lev 26:41, 43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1-2 recto 5-6; and 1QS 8:3 (par. 4Q259 2:12): On Human Agency in the Divine Economy at Qumran,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 245-50; also an older but still important study, Gerhard Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 60-116). Additionally, there is a distinct interest in these concepts as they play out in Ben Ben Sira; see Otto Kaiser, “Göttliche Weisheit und Freiheit menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira,” in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung, ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller, BZAW 331 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 291-305; Ursel Wicke Reuter, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa, BZAW 298 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), OdaWischmeyer, “Theologie und Anthropologie im Sirachbuch,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Urshaw College 2001, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel, BZAW 321 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 18-32; Jean Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique) (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970).

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_007

6.2 Free Will

197

Indeed, this conversation is an attempt by ancient authors to map the human condition, namely, to delineate the co-existence between God’s determining authority and humanity’s freedom to act upon its own discretion. It is a conversation that attempts to answer key questions: 1) who is responsible for humanity’s deeds, and 2) in what manner is humankind “inclined” to sin and obedience? This chapter examines Ben Sira, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Damascus Document, in order to engage the first question, and the evolution of the ‫“( יצר‬inclination”) in depictions of the innate human desire towards sin in order to address the second. 6.2

Free Will in Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, the Damascus Document (CD), and Josephus

Ben Sira 15:11-20, Psalms of Solomon 9, and the Damascus Document 3:2-12a all deal to some degree with human agency. That is to say, they assume an ability on the part of the person to act of their own accord, in particular, the ability to be obedient or transgressive. In general, Ben Sira and the Psalms hone ideas on human responsibility for sin, largely relegating choice to one’s “desire,” “inclination,” and the ability to deliberate between good and evil. The Damascus Document, on the other hand, raises an important and unique view of free will. The depiction of Abraham having the ability to act against the “will/favor” (‫ )רצון‬of his “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬appears in the same context that describes God’s predestinating all things. It begs the question, is Abraham’s choice intended to portray a characteristic of for collective human nature? 6.2.1 Ben Sira 15:11-20 In dealing with theodicy—the justification of God’s “goodness” in light of the problem of evil—Ben Sira argues that the responsibility for sin lies at the feet of humanity.2 The sage presents quite clearly that humankind has a degree of free will, that is, the power of acting based on personal discretion without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine sovereignty. The most relevant passages in this regard are 15:11-20 where, again, the onus for sin is placed upon each 2  See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 34; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271; Beentjes notes, “The Book of Ben Sira, however, does not offer one consistent doctrine as far as theodicy is concerned, but provides its readers with several approaches to this existential problem which differ in such a way that they sometimes appear to be irreconcilable with one another,” P. C. Beentjes, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antii Laato and Johannes de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 509-24.

198

6 Mapping the Human Condition

individual.3 As already argued above, despite containing Israel-specific traditions, the context of 15:11-18:14 indicates that the sage’s wisdom instruction is intended to present various aspects of human nature.4 15:11-20 are preserved in the LXX, as well as in Hebrew in A. 15:11-13 LXX5 11. μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην· ἃ γὰρ ἐμίσησεν, οὐ ποιήσει. 12. μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν· οὐ γὰρ χρείαν ἔχει ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ. 13. πᾶν βδέλυγμα ἐμίσησεν ὁ κύριος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαπητὸν τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν. 15:11-13 11. Do not say, “Because of the Lord I departed;” for he will not make what he hates. 12. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray;” for he had no need of a sinful man. 13. The Lord hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear him.

A 6r:22-246

‫ אל תאמר מאל פשעי כי את אשר שנא‬.(22) 11 ‫לא עשה‬ ‫ פן תאמר הוא התקילני כי אין צורך‬.(23) 12 ‫באנשי חמס‬ ‫ ותעבה שנא ייי ולא יאננה ליראיו‬/ ‫ רעה‬.(24) 13

A 6r:22-24 11 (22). Do not say, “My transgression is from God.” For he does not make that which he hates. 12 (23). Lest you say, “It is he who caused me to stumble.” For he has no need for men of violence. 13 (24). Evil and abomination the Lord hates and he will not cause it to befall those who fear him.

Manuscript A is clear: human sin cannot be attributed to God; God is categorically opposed to it (v. 11). The LXX does not specifically reference transgressions but speaks of having “departed” (ἀπέστην7) with the sense of distancing oneself from God. The sage warns readers that they should be careful not to ascribe to God their own failings as if he is responsible, or they stand in danger of being deemed “men of violence” (‫אנשי חמס‬, 12 [23])—biblical language for the wicked enemies of God (e.g., 2 Sam 22:9, Ps 140:4 [MT 5], 11 [12], Prov 26:29).8 The Greek differs in two ways: 1) the plural “men” (‫ )אנשי‬is the 3  Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 60-116; Hadot, Penchant, 75-105. 4  See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 34; Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 102-103. 5  Greek text from Zeigler, Sapentia Iesu, 194-95. 6  Martin G. Abegg, transcription; “View the Manuscript,” The Book of Ben Sira, http://www. bensira.org/. See also, Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 44, 52. The author is responsible for the translation of both the Greek and Hebrew. Although this story appears as well in B (2r:11-15) but the text is largely the same, especially in what pertains to this study. 7  ἀφίστημι, BDAG, 158; Takitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 108-9. This verb is used at least three times in the LXX: 2 Chron 21:8, 10 (2); HRCS 1:183-84. 8  See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271.

199

6.2 Free Will

singular nominative “a man” (ἀνδρὸς) in the LXX, and 2) “people of violence” ‫ )אנשי חמס‬in A is “person of sin” (ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ). While the Hebrew alludes to biblical literature, the Greek preserves a term that appears elsewhere in Ben Sira (cf. 10:23, 12:14, 15:7, 27:30, 28:9)9 and seems to refer to one who refuses wisdom.10 In both cases, however, it is implied that “sin” and “evil” are utterly separate from God. Although Ben Sira contends in v. 11 that sin does not originate with God, because God cannot make what he hates (15:11), the LXX and A diverge from one another again on v. 13. Manuscript A indicates that there is some degree of divine protection, namely, that evil and abomination will not befall those “who fear him” (‫ליראיו‬, A 24). Ursel Wicke-Reuter argues that the Hebrew ‫ליש‬ ‫ ראיו‬takes Ben Sira’s argument one step further. Ben Sira renounces that God is responsible for sin and that he also protects “the upright even from sin.”11 While “sin” is not specifically mentioned in v. 13 [A 24], Wicke-Reuter’s point may be understood if “evil” (‫ )רע‬and “abomination” (‫ )תעבה‬of the later A are the consequences of sins. The LXX, on the other hand, omits this protection and portrays “those who fear” (φοβουμένοις) as in agreement with God’s hatred of sin. Therefore, in A the “righteous” are given divine protection from the repercussions of sin, while in the Greek Ben Sira no such protection is offered. With or without these differences, the point of both texts is undoubted; God is utterly separate from sin and those who fear (Heb. version) him receive protection from its affects. Verses 14-17 distance God further from sin by highlighting humanity’s freedom to choose.12 15:14-17 LXX 14. αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ. 15. ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολὰς καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι εὐδοκίας. 16. παρέθηκέν σοι πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ· οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου. 17. ἔναντι ἀνθρώπων ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ὁ θάνατος, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν εὐδοκήσῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ.

9  For other parallels see 1 Macc 1:34; 2:62. 10  Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 92. 11   Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 114. 12  See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271.

A 6r:24-28

‫ אלהים מבראשית ֗א ברא אדם וי�ש‬.(24-25) 144 ‫תיהו ביד חותפו ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬ ‫ אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה ותבונה‬.(26-27) 15 ‫לעשות רצונו אם תאמין בו גם אתה תחיה‬ ‫ מוצק לפניך אש ומים באשר תחפץ‬.(27-28) 16 ‫שלח ידיך‬ ‫לפני אדם חיים ומוות אשר יחפץ ינתן לו‬ ֯ .(28) 17

200 15:14-17 14. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left it in the hand of his own inclination. 15. If you want, you can preserve the commandments. And to do faithfully is a matter of good will 16. He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whatever you want. 17. Before humanity is life and death; and what he favors will be given to him.

6 Mapping the Human Condition A 6r:24-28 14 (24-25). God made humanity from the beginning and put him into the hand of his snatcher13 and gave it into the hand of his inclination. 15 (26-27). If you desire you will observe the commandment, for the doing of his will is understanding. If you trust in him you will also live 16 (27-28). Fire and water are poured out before you, Whichever one you desire you can stretch forth your hands. 17 (28). Before humanity is life and death, that which he should desire will be given to him.

According to Ben Sira, since creation humanity has been left to their own inclination, thus, it is free to choose according to its desire. The noun “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬is utilized in its biblical sense (Gen 6:5, 8:21) and does not indicate a disposition to either good or evil, but is rather neutral.14 Segal notes that this 13  Brand has argued that “and he put him into the hand of his snatcher” (‫)וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬ is an addition to the original text, one that does not appear in the Greek and is a medieval retroversion from the Syriac version. She notes that the additional stich distorts the meaning of the entire passage and is a “third leg” to a text that is generally written in bicola. The “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬here, according to Brand, is compatible with an “almost demonic evil inclination,” which is attested in Rabbinic literature, Evil Within and Without, 99-100. Ishay Rosen-Zvi states, regarding the Rabbinic ‫יצר‬, “… they consider the yetzer as separate from humans, enticing them to sin against their inner will … But, as seen above, yetser is something of a demon itself: an independent evil being dwelling in the hearts of humans, pulling them deliberately and consciously away from God,” Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: UPenn Press, 2011), 52. 14  Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” APOT 1:371; Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 93-103; Maurice Gilbert, “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw 2001, BZAW 321 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 120; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 1:471-83. Levison notes, “Because he wishes to demonstrate that all people are responsible for their evil, he removes the reference to ‫ יצר‬from the flood narrative (a context which permits the interpretation that originally not all people had this ‫)יצר‬ and places it into the context of creation. God implants a ‫ יצר‬into each person since the beginning,” Portraits of Adam, 35. Levison argues for a shift in meaning so that moving the ‫ יצר‬from the flood narrative frees Ben Sira to neutralize it and remove the original connotation of evil. Whether “evil” was intended to be the “original” meaning is still questionable since, as Brand has noted, while the Genesis accounts paint the “inclination” with a negative hue, it is not inherently negative since it must be qualified with the adjective ‫“( ַרע‬evil”), Evil Within and Without, 100-101. See also Cohen Stuart who notes that

6.2 Free Will

201

concept is unspecified (‫)סתמי‬, that is to say, that it is not an “inclination to sin” as much as it is simply a penchant to do either good or evil.15 Brand makes a similar observation, “the result is that the yēṣer in 15:14 is a neutral capacity that enables the human being to make a moral choice …[it] denotes human character” (Brand’s emphasis). She notes further that its place at creation indicates that the ‫יצר‬/διαβούλιον is an inherent part of humanity that has always been.16 This same sense of ‫ יצר‬is utilized in Sir 27:6: “According to the working of a tree shall its fruit be, so one’s thoughts are according to one’s inclination” (‫כן חשבון‬ ‫על יצר אחד‬, A 2r:25). Di Lella notes regarding the agricultural metaphor, “a tree has been cultivated and tended, so speech shows the thoughts of a person’s mind … i.e., whether or not he has a disciplined, trained, and upright mind.”17 Yet, the LXX’s translation of ‫ יצר‬in 27:6—if this approximates the original— ἐνθύμημα (“piece of reasoning”), differs from 15:14’s διαβούλιον.18 Brand argues that ἐνθύμημα in 15:14 (and 17:6) is a “conscious choice by the [i.e., Greek] translator” to indicate that the ability to deliberate between good and evil was given to humanity at creation.19 Cohen Stuart argues, on the other hand, that the use humankind was given the ‫ יצר‬to withstand evil, G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara’ (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1984), 89-90. 15  Segal, Ben Sira, 96, also, Beentjes, “Theodicy,” 513. 16  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 101. She notes further that this is likely a response to a deterministic outlook where “humans will have an inevitable inclination to sin, God has determined evildoing itself,” 99-100. Di Lella draws attention to two NT passages, Matt 7:16 and 12:33-37, the first of which utilizes the metaphor of a tree bearing good and evil fruit for humanity, and the second, which deals with the idea that a person brings good and bad from “the abundance of his heart” (τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας). It is from this abundance that he/she speaks (λαλεῖ) and by which he/she will be judged or condemned. To this we would add Matt 15:10-20 (Mk 17:17-23). While the agricultural metaphor is missing, the passage deals with what comes out of a person’s mouth as being truly defiling since it “proceeds from the heart” (ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχεται). However, this was likely not the original intention. The Markan parallel, which likely preserves a later Christian teaching, offers an interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that “declares all foods clean” (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα), 19. See James Crossley, “Mark 7.1-23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean,’” in Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, ed. Peter Oakes and Michael Tait (New York; London: T and T Clark, 2009), 8-20. 17  Skehan and DiLella, Ben Sira, 356. 18  Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 103. On 15:14, Hadot notes that διαβούλιον connotes the actual exercise of choice. 19  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 104-105. There are at least two occurrences in the T. 12 Patr. where διαβούλιον, that is the ability to deliberate between good and evil appears with a modifying adjective (τοῖς πονηροῖς, T. Iss. 6:2, T. Benj. 6:4, also T. Ash. 1:8). Yet, on other occasions T. Benj. speaks of the inclination of “the good man” (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς), while T. Ash. refers to “two inclinations” (δύο διαβούλια), which is perhaps a later interpolation

202

6 Mapping the Human Condition

of this Greek term indicates that the translator was intentionally neutralizing the ‫ יצר‬to demonstrate humankind’s true deliberative ability.20 Cohen’s argument presumes that ‫ יצר‬is not truly neutral. Yet, the context of A makes this difficult to maintain. In verses 15-17, the sage provides several aphorisms where the choices referenced therein are attainable by the person if he/she is willing, or desirous (‫חפץ‬/θέλω).21 In fact, the choices presented in the aphorisms are mutually exclusive, “one cannot have them at the same time” (cf. esp. 16-17).22 The sage’s point is to locate God as far as possible away from human sin, and place its burden within humanity’s free choice. As Gilbert notes, humankind “chooses what eventually will be given to him, either life or death. In a word, man is responsible for his choices: if he prefers to observe the divine precept, he will receive life, and if he prefers not to observe it, death will be given to him” (cf. Deut 30:15-16).23 Ben Sira, not only distances God from human sin, the sage also avoids shifting blame to external demonic forces. Bocaccini states, “he [Ben Sira] excludes the idea that evil should be attributed to an agent external to human beings, either to an angelic rebellion in heaven or even to God. Sirach is an unshakable champion of human free will and responsibility …”24 Despite being an “unshakable champion,” however the sage closes this text with a reminder that God is “mighty in power” (ἰσχυρὸς ἐν δυναστείᾳ) and since two inclinations do not appear in texts whose terminus ad quem is prior to the Second Temple period. The closest parallel to late Second Temple ideas is T. Jud. 13:8’s “according to the inclination of my heart” (κατὰ τὸ διαβούλιον τῆς καρδίας μου) which is a rewriting of the Judah and Tamar account in Gen 38, which partially, at least conceptually, parallels Gen 6:5, “and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart (‫יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹת‏‬ ‫ ) ִלּבֹו‬was only evil continually,” cf. also T. Jud. 13:2). Elsehwere in T. 12 Patr. presume that humanity bears a neutral sense of desire, e.g., “the inclination of the soul,” (τὸ διαβούλιον τῆς ψυχῆς, T. Reu. 4:9, also, T. Jud. 18:3, T. Jos. 2:6) and “the inclination of youth” (τὸ διαβούλιον τῆς νεότητος, T. Jud. 11:1). On another occasion it appears that the διαβούλιον is perturbed by the spirit of envy (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ φθόνου, T. Sim. 4:8-9, cf. also T. Iss. 4:5), lying and wrath trouble it (T. Dan. 4:2, 7), leads one to salvation after true repentance (T. Gad 5:7), and is at rest due to obedience (7:3). As it stands, however, the T. 12 Patr. now postdates the Second Temple period and without direct parallels to earlier texts one cannot say with certainty that the references to an inclinations(s) come from the Second Temple period with certainty. 20  Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 91. 21  This follows our interpretation that the “capability” (ἰσχύς) given to humanity in 17:3 involves an ability to successfully observe God’s statutes. 22  Beentjes, “Theodicy,” 514. 23  Maurice Gilbert, “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in Ben Sira’s God, 120. 24  Gabriele Boccacini, “Where Does Ben Sira Belong? The Canon, Literary Genre, Intellectual Movement, and Social Group of a Zadokite Document,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, 36.

6.2 Free Will

203

sovereignly knowledgeable over every human deed (vv. 18-20). Human agency is not absolute and is tempered by God’s sovereignty—of which the most critical representation of this is in Ben Sira 33:7-15 (see 2.3). When viewed together the tension between free will and divine sovereignty comes to the fore. Suffice it to say that contextually, then, Ben Sira presents a compatabilistic view where human free will and God’s sovereignty somehow share the same stage. Humanity is free to choose, but God maintains his sovereignty in specific areas of human existence (e.g., “he exalts,” “he blesses,” “he curses and brings low,” 7:13). This is perhaps exhibited best in that humanity, who is responsible for its choice, is ultimately responsible to God by virtue of its creation (7:10). The tension sensed here is not the result of Ben Sira’s logical inconsistency but more so the attempt to strike a balance between paradoxical concepts. Nonetheless, it seems that for Ben Sira human agency dominates this relationship.25 Klawans clarifies this by noting that Ben Sira’s focus in 33:7-15 is “divine election,” that is, “the idea that a certain group or nation has been singled out from among others for both revelation and responsibility,” and not the pre-determinism present in texts like the “Treatise of the Two Spirits.”26 According to the sage, humanity’s nature is founded on an ability, an “inclination,” of choice. Ben Sira’s argument is intended to defend God from any opposing claim that he is responsible for evil. As a result, human ability to choose takes center stage. While God remains sovereignly knowledgeable over all human deeds, the burden of sin and evil is placed squarely on humanity’s shoulders. Each person is given a faculty to deliberate between transgression and obedience without God’s influence or control, or any other external force(s). Furthermore, the conceptual strain between the portrayals in chap. 15 and 33 indicates that free will does not exist apart from God’s sovereignty, and

25  Matson, Divine and Human Agency, 65. 26   Jonathan Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 6; also idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. Maxine L. Grossman; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 264-83. Klawans attempts to show that Josephus presents two ways of understanding the Pharisaic balance between free will and fate, namely, compatibilism. Presuming that the Pharisaic outlook is the compatibilist view, he argues that Ben Sira is theologically “libertarian” since the sage holds to divine election which precludes the foreordination of human action. Rather than splitting hairs too finely we have opted to utilize the term “compatibilist/m” since Ben Sira seems to maintain a coexistence between free will and sovereignty without any explicit indication as to which plays a stronger role. A similar position is attributed to Rabbi Akiva, “everything is seen, but choice is given” (‫ וְ ָה ְרשׁוּת נְ תוּנָ ה‬,‫ ַהכֹּל ָצפוּי‬, m. Avot 3:15).

204

6 Mapping the Human Condition

that God maintains some dominion over human creation—although the degree of the control does not seem to be necessarily deterministic. 6.2.2 Psalms of Solomon 9 A similar view of humanity is preserved in the Psalms of Solomon. The psalms are thought to have been written in Hebrew sometime in the 1st c. BCE translated to Greek early in the 1st c. CE, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and then into Syriac.27 While many of the psalms appear to reflect the shifting political realities of 1st c. BCE Jerusalem,28 there is a brief occasion in the ninth psalm where free will is depicted as a human characteristic. This is true despite preserving a distinct intra-Jewish, even communal-specific, outlook.29 Pss. Sol. 9 is pseudepigraphically attributed to Solomon, and entitled “Regarding Rebuke” (εἰς ἔλεγχον30). The psalm begins with a self-rebuke of sorts, recalling the exile which was caused by Israel’s lawlessness (ἀνομίαις, 1-2). In the midst of this tragedy, God is proven as the “just judge over all the people of the earth” (κριτὴς δίκαιος ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς τῆς γῆς). It is this statement that marks a transition from Israel to humanity. Verse 3 reminds the reader that there is nothing, neither injustice nor righteous action, that is beyond God’s 27  Wright suggests that the psalms reached their final form prior to the destruction of Temple in 70 CE, in particular, because the destruction is not mentioned in the Psalms, Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:640-42; idem, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition to the Greek Text, TTCJCT 1 (New York; London: T and T Clark, 2007), 7-13. Trafton notes that the Syriac, as well as the Greek were both translated from the Hebrew, Joseph L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6:116-17. 28  See, e.g., Otto Kaiser, “Geschichte und Eschatologie in den Psalmen Salomos,” in Gott, Mensch und Geschichte: Studien zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in der klassischen, biblischen und nachbiblischen Literatur, BZAW 413 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 81-82; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 264-80; Joseph L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” 116-7; Rodney W. Werline, “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSS 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 69-88; Johannes Tromp, “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17,” NT 35/4 (1993), 344-61; Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118/3 (1999): 435-60. 29  Studies have associated these psalms with the Pharisees and even the Essenes, or Hasidim, but Kenneth Atkinson argues that it makes little sense to attribute the psalms to any one known Jewish group but rather they reflect a heretofore unknown Jewish group, as well as the “theological diversity” of the period in which they were composed, “Towards a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implication for understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect,” JSP 17 (1998), 112, esp n. 3-6. See also, Wright, “Psalms,” 641; Trafton, “Solomon,” 116. 30  Greek text is from Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 126-33.

6.2 Free Will .

205

knowledge: “For none that do evil shall be hidden from your knowledge, and the righteous acts of your devout are before you, Lord.”31 God’s omniscience is pointed to with the question: “Indeed, where can a person hide from your knowledge, God?”32 The rhetoric completes the widening focus of God’s relationship to humankind and in so doing reflects a view of humanity that is similar to Ben Sira 15. 4. Our works (are) in the choosing and power of our souls, to do right and wrong (is)33 in the works of our hands, and in your righteousness you oversee human beings (lit. sons of men). 5. The one who does righteousness treasures up life34 for himself with the Lord, And the one who does what is wrong causes his own life to be destroyed; For the Lord’s righteous judgments are according to the individual and the household.

4. Τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν· καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐπισκέπτῃ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων. 5. ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἀδικίαν αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ· τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κατ᾿ ἄνδρα καὶ οἶκον.

Verse 4 notes that all human deeds are under the choice and power of humankind (τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν; lit. “our souls”).35 The use of ψυχή here seems to indicate an individuated life, rather than a metaphysical component which is paired with the body (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5-6, 18). In other words, the ability to do right and wrong is under the control of each person; humankind has agency.36 Bons notes that human responsibility is “underlined” by the last line of v. 4 since 31  English translation it from Wright, “Psalms,” OTP 2:660-61. 32  Author’s translation. 33  “(is)” is not in Wright’s translation, yet it is the clear that the first two verbless clauses— an indication of a Semitic Vorlage—require an English translation with the verb “to be.” Wright facilitates this translation in 4a with “(are),” but not in 4b. So, we have emended it accordingly. 34  Author’s translation of δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν. 35  See Eberhard Bons, “Philosophical Vocabulary in the Psalms of Solomon: The Case 9:4,” in The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology, ed. Eberhard Bons and Patrick Pouchelle, EJL 40 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 49-58. Bons notes in his study that the phrase ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ belongs to philosophical terminology and that the “typical biblical background” is missing in the first two lines of 9:4. See also Joachim Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 50-52; Kenneth Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting, JSJSup 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 189-90. 36  See David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers,” in Jewish Writings, 573-4.

206

6 Mapping the Human Condition

God will at some point “closely examine” (ἐπισκέπτομαι) it.37 The dichotomy between free will and God’s sovereignty parallels—at least conceptually38— that which appears in Ben Sira, although God’s “examination,” implies a clearer picture of eventual judgment. Not unlike a person’s ability to choose between life and death in Ben Sira (15:17), life is either “destroyed” or “with God” if the person chooses to do righteousness39 or wrong. God’s righteous judgments, in response to those actions, are according to each person and household (5c). These verses are part of a system where humanity—not simply Israel—is responsible and free in relation to God. Ultimately, God will judge its c­ hoices.40 His ability to forgive those that recognize their sin and repent of their sin (Pss. Sol. 9:6-8) indicates that agency is not without consequence. Forgiveness, however, seems to be more closely directed towards Israel, than collective humanity. This emphasis on Israel appears to be due to God’s election of a people through Abraham’s seed (ὅτι σὺ ᾑρετίσω τὸ σπέρμα Αβρααμ, 9a). That said, in the end, the psalm does not preclude collective humanity from acting justly. The middle of the hymn presents a conception of humanity that parallels what has been examined already in Ben Sira, sans any reference to creation. Humanity is portrayed with free will and the ability to choose between right and wrong. The parameters of a right and wrong choice are based on the ability to act justly or wickedly in relation to God’s law. While Ps. Sol. 9 does not 37  Bons, “Philosophical Vocabulary,” 52. 38  Bons notes a number of differences between Ben Sira and Ps. Sol., namely, “the idea of leading astray (v. 11), fear of the Lord (v. 13), creation (v. 14), the commandments (v. 15),” “Philosophical Vocabulary,” 56. 39  See Pss. Sol. 9:5: “To do righteousness saves up life for himself with the Lord” (ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ) is not unlike the language of charity that appears in Tob 4:8-9, “If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure (θέμα γὰρ ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ) for yourself against the day of necessity” (RSVA). The concept that laying up some sort of treasure is equivalent to performing “righteousness” is a common motif in Second Temple Jewish texts. See Gary Anderson, “You Will Have Treasure in Heaven,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9-11 January, 2007, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013), 107-32. While the language is similar, however, it seems that δικαιοσύνη is intended to indicate “acting justly” (i.e., choosing not to sin), rather than charity. Laying up “treasure in heaven” is also preserved in the NT as a reference to charity (Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). See also the statement attributed to Monobases in t. Peah 4:18: “and I stored [i.e., treasure] above” (‫)ואני גנזתי למעלה‬. 40  Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 313-6.

6.2 Free Will

207

preclude God’s forgiveness from sin, it seems to be strongly implied for Israel only and not for the rest of humankind. 6.2.3 CD 3:2-12a—Free Will in the Damascus Document? Two medieval copies (10th-12th c.) of the Damascus Document were first discovered in the late 19th c. in the genizah of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo, Egypt.41 Along with very small fragments from Qumran’s cave 5 (5Q12) and 6 (6Q15), older and more complete manuscripts were discovered in cave 4, the earliest of which, 4Q266 (4QDa), dates to the first half of the 1st c. BCE42 The opening portion of CD forms what is called the “Admonition” (1:1-4:12a)—a historical detail of the biblical past, those who were faithful to God, and the establishment of a remnant community. Philip R. Davies notes that the admonition breaks down into three separate discourses.43 The most relevant portion of the Admonition to this study occurs in the section that Hempel entitles, “Exhortation Spelling out the Consequences of Following Guilty Thoughts and Lustful eyes.” She states, “The bulk of this section recalls how past generations brought divine punishment upon themselves by following guilty thoughts and lustful eyes, from the generation of the watchers (cf. Gen. 6.1-4) to the exile. Only three faithful individuals (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are singled out as obedient and worthy of the description ‘friends of God.’44 The presentation of the patriarchs offers some insight into CD’s view of human agency. CD 3:2-6 (par. 4Q266 2 ii 21-23)45 ‫ אברהם לא הלך בה ויעל אוהב בשמרו מצות אל ולא בחר‬.2‫‏‬ ‫ ברצון רוחו וימסור לישחק וליעקב וישמרו ויכתבו אוהבים‬‎.3‫‏‬ vacat ‫ לאל ובעלי ברית לעולם‬‎.4‫‏‬ 41  The editio princeps was published by Solomon Schechter in 1910, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). For the history of the manuscripts and edition of CD see, Lara Guglielmo, “Manuscripts, Editions and Translations of the Damascus Document from 1896 to 2007: Towards a (Re-) Edition 4Q266,” MG 13/1-2 (2008): 251-78. 42  Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273), DJD XXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 23. See also Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction, STDJ 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1-2. 43  He notes that each discourse begins with a similar formulaic introduction, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1983), 56. The manuscripts from cave 4 preserve, according to Hempel, opening lines (4QDa 1 a-b 1-5a) and an admonition (4QDa 1 a b 5b 25, 1 c f?, 2 i 1 6a, 4QDb 1:28, 4QDc 1:1-8) prior to the “Admonition” of the Cairo text, The Damascus Texts, CQS 1 (Sheffield, England; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 26-27. 44  Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 28. 45  Text and translation from DSSSE 1:554-5.

208

6 Mapping the Human Condition

2. Abraham did not walk in it (i.e., his own will; see ‫ רצון‬in preceding lines), and was counted as a friend for keeping God’s precepts and not following 3. the desire of his spirit. And he passed (them) on to Isaac and to Jacob, and they kept (them) and were written up as friends 4. of God and as members of the covenant forever

The text begins with calling attention to the reader and listener, which Davies notes is the opening formula to the third discourse (‫ועתה בנים שמעו‬, 2:14). Initial attention is given to God’s deeds and the generations who were drawn away by “the thoughts of the guilty/sinful inclination and lecherous eyes” (‫במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות‬, 16). Consequently, God utterly rejects the preflood generation including the Watchers, referred to here as “the watchers of heaven” (‫עירי ֯ה[שמים‬, 4Q266 2 ii 18), and their children (15-19). The mortals of this generation were wiped out because they followed “their own will” (‫)רצונם‬ and as a result “they did not observe the commandments of their maker” (‫ולא‬ ‫שמרו את מצות עשיהם‬, 2:21). So too, Noah’s children and their families are killed (‫נכרתים‬, 3:1).46 While we treat ‫ יצר‬more fully in the following section, it does not appear here to be inherently negative. Otherwise, the adjective guilt (‫)אשמה‬ would be unnecessary. That notwithstanding, these two negative aspects to human nature (i.e., the lecherous eyes and sinful/guilty inclination) are thought to be a present reality: “and warriors of great strength from earlier times stumbled in them and still do” (‫וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה‬, 2:17). Abraham is first in the truncated telling of primeval history to walk not according to his own “will” (‫—)רצון‬i.e., what is pleasing to him47—thus succeeding at what all previous generations (and the angels) had failed. Due to their enumerated weaknesses, those who came before Abraham went in the direction of their own ‫רצון‬. The patriarch is decidedly different because he chooses (‫בחר‬, 3:2) not to follow “in what was pleasing to his spirit” (‫ברצון רוחו‬, 3:3, 4Q266 2 ii 22). Brand summarizes, “Abraham chose to ignore his own will, which would naturally lead him to sin, and instead followed God’s commandments.”48 The language of patriarch’s defiance to his will, in particular, the pairing ‫רצון‬ and ‫ רוח‬is unique to CD among the scrolls and does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. Yet, this fits with the conception of collective humanity portrayed in 46  While Noah is numbered among the generations that were destroyed, he is not explicitly referenced among them. This may imply an uncomfortability on the part of the author to portray Noah’s death with the generation of those who followed their mistaken will, since the patriarch plays such an important role in Qumranic thought. See Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antquity, EJL 26 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 151-72. 47  H ALOT 3:1282. 48  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 79.

6.2 Free Will

209

other communal texts. As we have argued in the previous chapter, humanity’s innate spirit inclines away from God and his commandments in the Hodayot and 1QS. Without God’s knowledge-giving spirit (sometimes a holy spirit) the individual will live, without fail, in accord with that leaning. The patriarch’s choice not only marks a detour from the failing of all previous generations, but a freedom where he can somehow go against this condition and the draw of that innate spirit. The problem for him—or that of the generations who preceded him—is not his “will ,specifically,” but, rather, that the innate human “will” that is tainted by the “the thoughts of the sinful/guilty urge and the lecherous eyes.” More specifically for Abraham, is the direction of “his spirit.” Isaac and Jacob are also portrayed as obedient because of Abraham’s passing down (‫ימסור‬, 3:3) of the commandments. While not stated explicitly, it appears that they choose to act in opposition to their faulty, innate leaning and, like their father, choose to observe the commandments. Two points are key for this study. First, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not representative of collective humanity, but of the individuals who are foundational to the formation of the yaḥad in CD. Every generation, who ultimately perished, from the patriarchs to the revelation of his hidden things to his chosen (‫לגלות להם נסתרות‬, CD 3:13-14), transgressed and followed their natural character. For example, “and they chose according to their own will and followed after their stubborn heart for each person to do according to his own will” (‫אחרי ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו שרירות לעשות איש את רצונו לבם לעשות איש את‬ ‫רצונו‬, 3:11-12). Thus, the ability to choose God’s statute in opposition to one’s own will is not representative of an ability that collective humanity possesses, but is the special rule of the three patriarchs and faithful house of Israel, to whom hidden knowledge has been given. This line of reasoning reflects the divine agency that is exhibited in Davies’ second discourse (2:2-14a). It ends with, “and those which he hated, he caused to stray” (‫ואת אשר שנא התעה‬, 13), which denotes both the complex tension between divine and human agency but is a reminder, as Davies notes, that those who are invited to join the community have been predestined to do so.49 Complemented by the early lines of the third discourse, “choosing that which he wills and rejecting that which he hates” (‫ולמאוס כאשר שנא ולבחור את אשר רצה‬, 15), the patriarch’s choice is somehow determined by God, as is the obedience of those to whom the hidden laws have been manifested. For all intents and purposes, this solely belongs to the faithful “remnant for Israel” (‫שאירית לישראל‬, CD 1:4-5). The apparent choice is not “free,” but rather obedience is the realm of those God chooses so that divine agency subjugates human free will. Second, the human condition is generally 49  Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 75-76.

210

6 Mapping the Human Condition

portrayed negatively. The “stubborn heart,” “sinful/guilty inclination,” “lecherous eyes,” and the “will of the spirit” are opposed to God’s law. In order to be faithful, the patriarchs must “choose” to act against these aspects of their existence. Obedience is wrought against the natural will. Thus, the patriarch’s actions are not representative of collective humanity. Human nature has an innate inclination to sin that is antagonistic to God’s law. 6.2.4 Antiquities 13, 18—Fate and Free Will in Josephus’s Three Jewish Schools Chapter four of this study examines Josephus’ portrayals of the three Jewish schools’—Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees—views of the body and soul in J.W. 2:154-163 and Ant. 18:11-18 (see 4.5). Josephus adjoins to this, the Pharisaic and Sadducean view of fate and free will in J.W. The Pharisaic and Essenic views appear in two passages in Antiquities as well. The Essenic view is not represented in J.W. while the Sadducean view is omitted in the first Ant.’s text but is present in the second. J.W. 2:162-165 1. Pharisees Δύο δὲ τῶν προτέρων Φαρισαῖοι… τε καὶ θεῷ προσάπτουσι πάντα καὶ τὸ μὲν πράττειν τὰ δίκαια καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην (162-163)

Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees … attribute everything to fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with people, but that in each action fate co-operates (162-163).

2. Sadducees Σαδδουκαῖοι δέ τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσιν καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν τίθενται. φασὶν δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τό τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν προκεῖσθαι καὶ κατὰ γνώμην ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκατέρῳ προσιέναι (164-165)

The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with fate altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of evil. They maintain that man has the free choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man’s will whether he follows the one or the other. (164-165). Reference to the Essene’s belief in fate and free will is not mentioned here.50

50  Considering Josephus’ extensive elaboration of the Essenes and his willingness to diverge into Greek myth reading their view of the soul and its afterlife journey into the “ether,” it is surprising that the historian says nothing in J.W. regarding their views on fate and free will. He references it later, but with relatively little fanfare (see below).

6.2 Free Will

211

Ant. 13:172-173 1. Pharisees οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοι τινὰ καὶ οὐ πάντα τῆς εἱμαρμένης ἔργον εἶναι λέγουσιν τινὰ δ᾿ ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν συμβαίνειν τε καὶ μὴ γίνεσθαι

As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of fate, but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not.

2. Essenes τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν (172).

The sect of Essenes, however, declares that fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree (172).

3. Sadducees Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν οὐδὲν εἶναι ταύτην ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ κατ᾿ αὐτὴν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα τέλος λαμβάνειν ἅπαντα δὲ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κεῖσθαι ὡς καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίους ἡμᾶς γινομένους καὶ τὰ χείρω παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀβουλίαν λαμβάνοντας ἀλλὰ (173)

But the Sadducees do away with fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our wellbeing, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness (173).

Ant. 18:13, 18 1. Pharisees πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρίσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ ἐθελήσαντι προσχωρεῖν μετ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας (13).

Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate, still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in man’s power, since it was God’s good pleasure that there should be a fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be admitted to the council-chamber of fate (13).

2. Essenes Εσσηνοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν θεῷ καταλείπειν φιλεῖ τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος (18).

The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to leave everything in the hands of God (18). Reference to the Sadducees’ belief in fate and free will is not mentioned here. 

212

6 Mapping the Human Condition

The Pharisees’ view of fate and free will appears in all three accounts that the Jewish schools are described. In Jewish War 2, they are portrayed as ascribing “all” (πάντα) to fate51 and God. Acting rightly, for “the most part” (τὸ πλεῖστον), is left to each person, although fate somehow “assists” (βοηθεῖν).52 Antiquities 13:171-173, which depicts all three schools, specifically addresses “human actions” (ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων). For the Pharisees, certain events are the work of fate, “but not all” (καὶ οὐ πάντα). Other matters are dependent on each person. In Antiquities 18, “all things” (τὰ πάντα) are brought about by fate, but because of God’s judgment, a “person’s will” (τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον) is left so that he/she can approach vice and virtue. There is not a great degree of difference regarding the Pharisees among the three accounts. Josephus seems confident of this since he sends readers in both Ant. accounts (Ant. 13:173, 18:11) to his earliest work. Jewish War 2 then appears to be the exemplar for readers of Ant. 13 since he refers to his former account as “accurate” (ἀκριβεστέραν). According to Josephus, the Pharisees strike some balance between divine fate and the freedom for the person to act of their own accord (i.e., free will), although it is unclear where the point rests between the two. In J.W., while the Pharisees may ascribe everything to God, there remains a capacity for humanity to act rightly or wrongly; fate is simply supportive in this endeavor. If J.W. is indeed the exemplar to which Josephus refers readers, it is tempting to understand the next occasion in Ant. 13 as a further explanation of what 51  Josephus employs the same term for “fate,” εἱμαρμένην (μείρομαι), in all three accounts. “Fate” here suggests that a person received what is already allotted or decreed to them, BDAG, 1302; Mason, Judean War 2, 133. Mason argues that the use of this terminology is similar to its use within Stoicism, which was still alive and well in the Greco-Roman world of the first century CE. He equates this also with the juxtaposition of fate and God. George Foot Moore posited that the Greek term was opposed to Jewish thought and that “to God” (καὶ θεῷ) was added at Josephus’ behest “to give God something to do with it.” Indeed, Moore suggests that in this section of J.W. the historian is indebted to his source, Nicolaus of Damascus, George Foot Moore, “Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus,” HTR 22/4 (1929): 383. Ludwig Wächer argues that the Greek terminology for “fate” along with “God” is intended to provide a picture of God that a Jewish mind could agree with, since fate in Hellenistic terms would strike mistaken to that ear, “Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus,” ZFRG 21/2 (1969): 107-8. Both of these points emerge from a time where Judaism was viewed in contrast to Hellenism, rather than seeing their confluence as existing on a spectrum, where clear lines between both cannot necessarily be drawn. Indeed, Mason counters that these strategies are “superfluous” when one notes the amount of times that Josephus employs both terms in his work. He notes further that Josephus’ willingness to substitute God and fate in his description of the Essenes in Ant. 18 precludes “extravagant source hypotheses,” Josephus on the Pharisees, 136-7. 52  Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees, 134-9; idem, Judean War 2, 132, n. 1007.

6.2 Free Will

213

has already been stated. That is to say, that the statement regarding fate and freedom in Ant. 13 implies that God determines which matters are under his authority and those that are within humanity’s capability. This nuance, as it were, adds some contrast to J.W. 2. It unravels what is otherwise an illogical knot, namely, that “all (πάντα) things are fated” and “some things” are not. It is clear, that with Ant. 13 a balance of sorts is struck, all is under divine authority, some of which is fated (determined), but humanity maintains a modicum of choice, even if the line between the two remains elusive. In Antiquities 18, one returns, it seems, to the J.W. 2 where “everything” (πάντα) is accomplished by fate. Humanity, therefore, has a decree of moral choice which is its own purview of responsibility (ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς). All three portrayals are a form of compatibilism that vary only in content but not in meaning. While Klawans agrees that the Pharisaic view is a form of compatibilism, he disagrees that Josephus intended one form. Klawans argues that there are two distinct forms of compatibilism attested in Josephus. Type 1, the fusion between fate and free will is preserved in J.W. 2 and Ant. 18. He points to three things that exemplify this fusion, 1) the presence of strong determinism, 2) human will does not “independently rule” over anything, 3) the minimization of free will is left to moral decisions.53 Type 2 the a “partial determinism” that is reflected in Ant. 13, which shares a number of analogues with rabbinic literature. Part of Klawans’ argument is intended for those who suggest that Josephus is working without philosophical precision. Rather the historian has two separate visions of the Pharisaic view that are paralleled in both early Jewish and rabbinic texts. However, it seems unnecessary to bifurcate Josephus’ Pharisaic view in such a way. The historian’s reference back to his previous works, in Ant. 13 which exemplifies Klawan’s Type 2 form of Josephan compatibilism, betrays that Josephus views little difference between them. That is to say, whatever apparent difference there is between strong and soft determinism, as well as human choice is largely insignificant; somehow, God/fate functions in the world and humanity is responsible for its choices. Where the elusive point falls on that spectrum is uncertain, but it surely does not excuse human action. Therefore, Flusser is right that Josephus, influenced by Stoicism, presents a fairly coherent picture, i.e., namely, “… the Pharisees attribute everything but just and unjust actions [to God], and even in this providence plays a part as the decision is ultimately the result of both divine guidance and human inclination.”54 53  Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 68-71; also, idem, “Josephus on Fate,” 66-75. 54  David Flusser, “Josephus and the Pharisee on the Stoa,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature, Vol.2, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 226.

214

6 Mapping the Human Condition

The Sadducees have perhaps the simplest view among the three schools. Unfortunately, their position is missing from Ant. 18. In the former works, the school is described as not holding to the idea that fate functions in the world. Σαδδουκαῖοι δέ τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσιν (2:164)

The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with fate altogether (2:164)

Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν (13:173)

But the Sadducees do away with fate (13:173)

There is little to no difference between Josephus’ two descriptions of the Sadducees. With fate removed, God is removed from, at least, the world of human action. Unfettered free will indicates that the responsibility of choice (ἐκλογῇ, 2:165) lies solely with humanity—God does not factor into the equation. For Josephus, the Sadducean opinion is an extremity, human “judgment” (γνώμην) is solely responsible good or evil. Newman argues, however, that that they believed in providence, … is proven by all the descriptions of the Sadducees, and by the very fact that Josephus includes them in the same category of philosophical-religious groups in the Jewish world of the time. Also by the fact that the Sadducees accept certain books and certain Halakhot (Ant. 18:16-17), and had arguments over ideologies. Moreover, Josephus claims that the Sadducees did not attribute “evil” to God (J.W. 165), which implies that they did attribute the “good” of the world, and other things, to God.55

Günther Baumbach disagrees suggesting that a disavowal of fate presents the Sadducees as atheists. He argues that God is wholly removed from human affairs as well as there being an apparent connection between the Sadducean removal of fate and the Epicurean denouncement of providence (πρόνοιαν) in Ant. 10:278.56 While Baumbach nuances the meaning of atheist, it appears that this is an attempt to keep the Sadducees within the confines of Judaism, namely, that they accept God’s existence but remove any divine participation with 55  Newman, Proximity to Power, 74-75, n. 97. 56  “The Sadducees in Josephus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 174-5. Baumbach’s argument for the connection between the Sadducees and the Epicureans is based on Josephus’ use of εἱμαρμένην and πρόνοιαν which are said to be equivalent. Baumbach nuances his atheist speculation noting that the Sadducees are not the kind of atheists that are portrayed in Psalm 14:1, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Consequently, Josephus still views them as part of Jewry, 175. Wächter disagrees with the equivalency between both terms, noting that they are distinct, and that εἱμαρμένην is not yet a definite concept for the historian, “Die unterschiedliche Haltung,” 100-101.

6.2 Free Will

215

humanity. Of course, what he describes is not traditional atheism, but rather, deism, where God exists, is even responsible for the creation of the world, but does not interact with the created world. Baumbach’s suggestion, however, that the Sadducean position intended to move God from aligning in any way with evil, fits comfortably with Ben Sira chap. 15 (see above), which offers perhaps the clearest definition for human free will. However, unlike Josephus’s presentation, contextually Ben Sira’s portrayal of free will is complemented by God’s eventual judgment of humanity because of those freely-wrought choices. In Josephus, the Sadducees remove God completely from human action; they are not concerned with good or evil and judgment is not a factor (see 4.5). Therefore, Josephus’ presentation of the Sadducean view is the most radical view of free will that we have in early Judaism. The Essenes prove to be a more interesting proposition, namely, due to the debated connection between them and the yaḥad.57 The Essenic position regarding fate and choice, or lack of choice, does not appear in J.W. despite Josephus’ extensive elaboration of their bravery in face of the Roman onslaught, as well as their view of the soul after death. Issues of fate are depicted in Ant. 13 and 18. τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν (13:172)

The sect of Essenes, however, declares that fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree (13:172).

Εσσηνοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν θεῷ καταλείπειν φιλεῖ τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος (18:18)

The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to leave everything in the hands of God (18:18).

Again, there is little difference between both Josephan descriptions and there is little to no other elaboration of the Essenic position. The terminology, 57  While this is not the forum to closely examine the similarities and differences between Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes and Qumran’s self-betraying portrait in the texts that are thought to be communal texts, e.g., Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), the Hodayot (1QH, 4QH), etc., Beal points out twenty six general similarities—some of which, admittedly, could apply to several groups (e.g., reverence for God)—and twenty one “probable” parallels between the two, Beal, Josephus’ Description, 123-7. Beal, however, notes ten Josephan statements that have no Qumranic parallel and six discrepancies between Josephus and Qumran (128-9). See also idem, “Essenes,” EDSS, 262-9; John Collins, The Dead Scrolls: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 52-56. The most germane parallel, that of the control of fate/God’s determining authority in the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26) is dealt with separately as a distinct view of God’s determinism that is more complicated than what one finds ascribed to the Essenes in Josephus (see 7.2).

216

6 Mapping the Human Condition

however, of either differs somewhat. For instance, Josephus’ distinct use of “fate” (εἱμαρμένην) in J.W. 2 and Ant. 13 is missing in Ant. 18; God (θεῷ) replaces fate.58 In the first text above, fate is said to have authority over all things, whereas, in the second, “everything” (τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος) is left to God. Indeed, the Essenic removal of human choice, bears the other extremity of Josephus’s views of the three schools. While there are some similarities with the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26), the presentation of God’s deterministic hand is far more complex than what Josephus depicts here (more on this later). Josephus is uneven in his presentation of the three schools’ views of fate and human action. Antiquities 13 is the only text where the views of the three occur, while the Pharisaic opinion is the only one to appear in each of the three primary texts.59 Taken together, it is worth nothing that Josephus creates a spectrum where the Jewish schools represent three possible points. Two extremes are represented with the Sadducean unfettered free will and lack hinderance to human action and responsibility, as well the Essenic view, all is determined by fate or God. The variable, somewhere between to the two aforementioned poles, is the position of the Pharisees. As such, Klawans argues that the Pharisaic view represents two types of philosophical compatibilism. He argues further, that these types are evident in rabbinic sources (see above). The spectrum between the two poles, however, is unknowably varied and the so-called types are the attempt to strike an understandable balance between fate and free will, not to outline precise types of compatibilism. The Pharisaic view, which is embodied in Josephus’ earliest work, is largely the same apart from verbal difference that are intended to indicate the variability of that particular position. Josephus presents the ideal image of the three Jewish schools’ views of fate and free will. It may accurately reflect part of their historical views, but as chapters 6 and 7 of this study have shown, there is a great diversity of opinion regarding human action and God’s sovereignty. The difference of opinion is sometimes an intra-communal discussion, which suggests that Josephus’ fairly precise portrayal is decidedly romantic. What one might expect within an ancient group dynamic is nuance and variation. Yet, Josephus has successfully ironed out the wrinkles of nuance among Jewish society of his day, compressing it to three primary views that essentiall cover all the bases.

58  Indeed, God and fate appear together in the historian’s earliest description, J.W. 2:162-163. 59  Josephus’ treatment of the Pharisees is probably related to his role as a member of that group. There is no such justification, however, for his expansive treatment of the Essenes in J.W. 2.

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

6.3

217

Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

The concept of an internal “inclination(s)” in the Second Temple period has garnered a great deal of attention from scholars. In particular, this interest has been recently limited to the origins of what becomes a thoroughly rabbinic idea, namely, humankind’s two inclinations, “the good inclination” (‫)יצר הטוב‬ and “the evil inclination” (‫)יצר הרע‬.60 The inspiration for the use of the noun ‫יצר‬ (“inclination”) is undoubtedly biblical, esp. Gen 2:7, 6:5, and 8:21.61 Linguistically, ‫ יצר‬in the Bible occurs in a construct state. For example, Gen 6:5 reads, “… and that every inclination of the thoughts of his [i.e., humanity] heart” (‫וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר‬ ‫) ַמ ְח ְשבֹת ִלּבֹו‬.62 The same is true of Gen 8:21, as well as 1 Chron 28:9 and 29:18. In each case the ‫ יצר‬functions as a description of another aspect of humanity nature. The Genesis passages describe the “inclination of the thoughts of his heart” (‫ )וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹת ִלּבֹו‬and, simply, “inclination of heart of a person” (‫יֵ ֶצר‬ ‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫) ֵלב ָה‬, respectively; the Chronicles passages follow in the same vein.63 Yet, Genesis and Chronicles indicate that the ‫ יצר‬has yet to become a distinguishing marker of humanity’s internal life even by the early Second Temple period. One cannot appropriately speak in the Hebrew Bible of a human ‫ יצר‬apart from it describing a person’s “heart,” “thoughts,” or “thoughts of the heart.” 60   Cohen-Stuart, The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil, 94-100; Johann Cook, “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬,” JSJ 38 (2007): 80-91; also Eibert Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi, 347-57; Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Evil Inclination ‫יצר הרע‬,” DDD 317-19; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity, Divinations: Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 44-53; Benjamin Wold, “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction,” in Evil in Second Temple, 93-103; and Brand’s comments on Adam’s sin in 4 Ezra, Evil Within and Without, 138-41. Some of the studies are interested in the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, especially in the Pauline Corpus: Jeremy Cohen, “Original Sin as the Evil Inclination: A Polemicist’s Appreciation of Human Nature,” HTR 73 3/4 (Jul.-Oct., 1980), 495-520; F. C. Porter, “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,” in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University (Yale Bicentennial Publications; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901), 136-58. 61  See the Rabbinic interpretation regarding the double yod in ‫יצר‬ ֶ ִ‫ וַ יּ‬in Gen 2:7 that appears in b. Ber. 61a, Sifre Deut. 45; also Horst, “The Evil Inclination,” 318. 62  author’s translation. 63  1 Chron 28:9, “and every inclination of thoughts” (‫ ;)וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ֲח ָשבֹות‬1 Chron 29:18, “the inclination of the thoughts of the heart” (‫)יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹות ְל ַבב‬. Tigchelaar suggests that the ‫ יצר מחשבת‬is qualified as evil in Genesis but appears neutral in the Chronicles passages, “Evil Inclination,” 349. Indeed, he is correct, but it should be further qualified that in the Genesis passages the focus is on the machinations of the human heart which are referred to as the inclination of its thought.

218

6 Mapping the Human Condition

Examples of this biblical style are also evident in 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood (4Q370), “… and according to the thoughts of the inclination of their [evil] hearts” ([…‫… ׄו ׄכמחשבות ֯יצ ֯ר לבם ֯ה[רע‬, 1 i 3), and in 4QMysteriesa, “inclination of our heart” (]‫לבנ֯ [ו‬ ֯ ‫יצר‬, 8 6).64 To these one might add Tigchelaar’s reconstruction of 4QSectarian Text? (4Q468i),65 “the evil [incli]nation of our hearts …” (‫י]צר לבני הרע‬, 3). There is little departure here from the earlier biblical use of ‫יצר‬, that is as a description of humanity’s inner person, and not a standalone characteristic. Yet, the use of the noun ‫ יצר‬elsewhere in post-biblical texts indicates a small, yet significant development. In particular, there is evidence of the evolving nature of the ‫ יצר‬into a standalone characteristic of human nature rather than as an adjective for some other component. As has been noted, there are seventy occasions—not accounting for textual overlaps—where the noun ‫יצר‬ appears in non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.66 More than half of these appear in the 1QHa. Our interests narrow the examination of this collection in two ways, 1) to note the development of the ‫ יצר‬into a separate aspect of human nature and 2) to explore the implications of these developments for understanding the human condition. Surely, influence from earlier, biblical literature is present in the development of ‫יצר‬, but particular scrolls attest one critical difference. Serekh ha-Yaḥad flips Genesis’ grammar and refers, for example, to “… the thoughts of his inclination” (‫מחשבת יצרו‏‬, 5:5), rather than the biblical “inclination of thoughts” (‫יֵ ֶצר‬ ‫ ַמ ְח ְשבֹת‬, Gen 6:5). This change is minor, but within the construct chain ‫ יצר‬is now functioning genitivally. It is spoken of as something innate to the members of the of yaḥad, rather than intentionally modifying another component (e.g., “thoughts”) Moreover, it is implied that this ‫ יצר‬also belongs to collective humanity as the penitent to the yaḥad must “circumcise” the foreskin of this 64  Carol Newsom, “4Q370. 4QAdmonition on the Flood,” in Magen Broshi et al., in consultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, DJD XIX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “4Q299: 4QMysteriesa” in Torleif Elgvin et al., in consultation with Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1, DJD XX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 50. The same is attested in only two scrolls: 4Q381 76 77 2, 75 3, 4Q525 7 4. 65  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 354-7. See also the editio princeps of the text, Armin Lange, “4Q468i: 4QSectarian Text” in Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts; P. S. Alexander et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Miscellanea, Part 1, DJD XXXVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 416-7. 66  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 348. There are actually 75 occasions but Tigchelaar notes, “This number includes six overlaps, parallel textual occurrences in different manuscripts, resulting in seventy cases.” Of these occurrences, those in which this term refers to a “vessel” or “thing formed” (e.g., ‫ )יצר חמר‬are intentionally avoided.

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

219

‫למול ביחד עורלת יצר( יצר‬: “they shall circumcise the foreskin of the inclination,”

5). The context of the passage betrays its biblical influence not only by employing both ‫ מחשבה‬and ‫ יצר‬but also by referring to the community members who will no longer continue to follow their “willful heart” (‫ ;שרירות לב‬cf. Jer 11:8, Ps 81:12).67 Additionally, 68‫ מחשבת יצר‬followed by ‫“( אשמה‬sinful/guilty;” e.g., CD 2:16, see above)69 and ‫ לב‬betrays further biblical influence, as does the phrase “the thoughts of the inclination of their hearts” (‫ )מחשבות ֯יצ ֯ר לבם‬in 4QapocrJoshb.70 Tigechelaar, however, notes that the varied collocations (‫יצר‬ ‫ מחשבת‬to ‫ )מחשבת יצר‏‬are not free biblical quotations but rather reflect their general interchangeability. He suggests further that the evidence in the LXX indicates that we should not put too much emphasis on the use of the noun ‫יצר‬.71 Yet, while the shift in terminology here and in other texts seems minimal, the difference marks an important change in understanding a person’s internal life. This is especially striking that despite biblical influence, precise biblical quotations elude us. Matters have changed from the biblical precedent regarding the “inclination of the thoughts of a person’s heart” or the “inclination of the heart of a person.” The “thoughts” (‫ )מחשבת‬are now of the “inclination” (‫)יצר‬, rather than the other way around (cp., again, Gen 8:21, 6:5 and 1Chron 28:19, 29:18); the change is slight, but not insignificant. The ‫ יצר‬now plays a more prominent role in describing an aspect of human character. It is the ‫ יצר‬of the individual that has “thoughts” (‫ )מחשבת‬and in that sense, unlike our biblical examples, functions similarly to the “heart” or “mind.” Furthermore, ‫ יצר‬is sometimes qualified with “guilt” (‫ )אשמה‬and identified with Belial (1QHa 15:6-7). Rosen-Zvi connects ‫יצר אשמה‬, at least in the hymns, with the speaker’s persecutors—the “sons of guilt” (‫—)בני אשמה‬and as an indication, in this particular case, of the inherent evil of the ‫יצר‬.72 This qualification of the ‫ יצר‬exemplifies that it has 67  ‫ יצר‬is also synonymous to ‫ לב‬in 1QHa 13:33. 68  Appears sometimes with the plene spelling ‫( מחשבות‬e.g., 4Q266) 69  This appears as well in two additional copies of CD in 4QDa 2 ii 15, and 4QDe 1 i 1. There are several occasions where ‫ מחשבות יצר אשמה‬is reconstructed ‫מחשבות יצר אשמתכה‬ (“thoughts of the inclination of your guilt”) and while plausible they are not reconstructed based on any textual parallels. Moreover, this phrase is not attested in the scrolls. See DJD XXIX, 6, DJD XI, 7-60. 70  See Roland E. Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39/3 (1958): 344. 71  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349. 72   Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 49. He points to two other appearances of ‫ יצר‬that reflect the same negativity (1QHa 21:29-30). Due to the fragmentary nature it is difficult to gather how it is being utilized in the hymn. ‫ יצר רמיה‬may refer to a “deceitful creature” and not a person’s desire, since it speaks to the eventual destruction of those who attempt to snare the speaker (cf. 21:28). The same could be argued of the second occasion, ‫יצר עולה‬, when one considers the use of ‫ יצר‬throughout this hymn. The speaker in lines 25-30 self

220

6 Mapping the Human Condition

become more substantial than its biblical counterpart. It has become more concrete and is no longer a description of another human component but, quite distinctly, a part of the human condition in its own regard. 6.3.1 Hodayah 13:7-21 and the Negative ‫יצר‬ In at least one hodayah (13:7-21), the speaker extolls the greatness of God for neither abandoning him nor the community while they lived “among the foreign people” (‫בעם נ֯ ֯כ ֯ר‬, 13:7). In its utter thankfulness, the hymn states, “You did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination” (‫ולא עזבתני בזמות יצרי‬, 13:8).73 In the Hodayot, the plural construct “devices” (‫ )זמות‬is associated generally with Belial (1QHa 12:14; 4QHd 1) or a person (“the fool,” 4Q165 6 5, also 4Q177 5 6 6).74 Therefore, its use intentionally implies a negative. More importantly, it is thought to naturally plot wickedness. The concern of the speaker suggests that if abandoned, the ‫ יצר‬would incline against his best interest. In this way, though not reified as in rabbinic literature, the ‫ יצר‬attains a meaning that is not present in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Rosen-Zvi asserts, “the use of ‘plot’ (‫ )מזמה‬testifies that the ‫ יצר‬is an independent component, with sinister intent.”75 Moreover, one also finds the “inclinations of man” (‫ )יצרי גבר‬spoken of negatively, “As for me, a fount of bitter mourning was opened to me […]and trouble was not hidden from my eyes when I knew the inclinations of humans (‫ו֯ לא‬ ‫)נסתר עמל מעיני בדעתי יצרי גבר‬, and I un[derstood] to what mortals return, [and I recognized the mour]nfulness of sin, and the anguish of guilt.” (1QHa 19:2224). For the yaḥad, there is little to no confidence in the human inclination. For all of humanity, the inclination bellows negativity from which the person cannot escape, except for—as we see in the hymns—the divine protection offered to the hymnist and his fellow sectarians, as well as the gifting of a new, knowledge-giving obedient spirit. Yet, even with this protection, or escaping from the plots of the inclination, the speaker of the hymns is at least aware that he remains a “creature of dust” and recalls the sinfulness to which his inclination inherently leans. identifies as a “creature of dust” who is divinely protected from destruction where other deceitful and unjust “creatures” are given no such assurance. Rosen-Zvi’s understanding of 21:29 would not reflect the general character of the Hodayot, especially since the hymns never suggest the eventual “destruction” (‫ )תמם‬of the human “inclination.” Even the speaker, who describes himself as a “creature of clay/dust,” thanks God for divine protection but does not specifically envision a destruction of his ‫יצר‬. 73  D JD XL, 167-8. 74  See also ‫ מזמת‬which can refer to the plans of a person (e.g., CD 5:19, 11:16), a heart (e.g., 1QHa 18:3, 25:12), of God (4Q402 3 ii 13). See Menahem Kister, “‘Yetzer lev ha-adam’ haguf vehatihur min hara‘,” Meghillot 8-9 (2010): 243-84 (Heb.). 75   Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 50.

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

221

The “Steadfast Inclination” (‫ )יצר סמוך‬of Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the Hodayot The concretization of ‫ יצר‬into a human characteristic is noted elsewhere, especially when it is qualified by a passive participle “steadfast” (or “firm,” ‫)סמוך‬. A “steadfast inclination” (‫ )סמוך יצר‬occurs in both the Serekh ha- Yaḥad and the Hodayot. It also appears in the Treatise where the spirit engenders a “firm inclination” to obey God and his covenant (1QS 4:5). Although this section of the Rule was originally independent, ‫ יצר סמוך‬appears again in 1QS 8:3, “They are to preserve faith in the land with a ‘steadfast inclination’ (‫ )יצר סמוך‬and a broken spirit.” Both cases do not express the reality of collective humanity, however. In the Treatise, it represents the reality of a member who has received God’s reforming spirit, in particular, the twelve men and three priests (8:1) that will lead and establish the community. In fact, the “steadfast inclination” may represent the circumcised ‫יצר‬, referenced elsewhere in 1QS (5:5), especially when one considers the similar conception of the yaḥad in both portions of the Rule.76 In that sense, those who have a circumcised “inclination” (col. 5) are also those who have “steadfast inclination” (col. 8). The phrase appears again in the Hodayot but the meaning seems to be the same, especially in that the speaker hopes that “those who are eager,”77 that is, those who meditate on wisdom, will have a steady inclination, which is certainly not a reflection of humanity at large but rather of those for whom the hymns play a communal role. The hope for a ‫ יצר סמוך‬is because the speaker’s natural ‫יצר‬, as ordained, is problematic. In general, the human inclination is not “steadfast” but chooses to move away from God’s statutes, despite God himself being responsible for directing one’s step (1QHa 7:25-27). It is the ‫ יצר סמוך‬that keeps one from “deception” (‫הולל‬, cf. 10:38). 6.3.2

76  1QS 5:5-6: “to establish and foundation of truth for Israel [which is] an eternal covenant for the yaḥad” (‫ ;)ליסד מוסד אמת לישראל ליחד ברית עולם‬1QS 8:5: “the congregation of the yaḥad will be established in truth, that is an eternal planting” (‫נכונה {ה}עצת היחד‬ ‫)באמת {ל} למטעת עולם‬. 77  Stegemann et al., suggest that the immediate context of the hymns, although previously interpreted the negative, indicates that ‫ ו֯ נ֯ ֯מהרים‬should be read as a positive, namely, “those willing/those who do not hesitate,” DJD XL, 128. Similar language is found in 23:14 where ‫ יצר‬refers to the sustaining of the individual, “… and (you) open the f[oun]tain of your truth to the (human) vessel whom you have sustained by your strength” (‫ולפתח‬ ‫) ֯מ[קו] ֯ר אמתכה ליצר אשר סמכתה בעוזכה‬. See trans. in DJD XL, 281.

222

6 Mapping the Human Condition

The “Faithful Inclination” (‫ )יצר אמונות‬of 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393) The only other positive ‫ יצר‬is mentioned in 4Q393, an eight-fragment text which was written in the first two-thirds of the first century CE78 Falk has noted that the character of the text that has survived is that of a penitential prayer and “belongs to a group of post-exilic prayers of communal confession.” Falk notes that there are four main elements to these prayers, 1) confession of the sins of the fathers,79 2) acknowledgement of God’s just sentence, 3) historical recollection of mercies, and 4) petition for mercy.80 The speaker’s use of the first person plural shapes the document into the confession of a community’s sins and differs from the first person singular confession style of some of the Hodayot.81 Conceptually, however, the confessor of this fragmented hymn, at least in the manner in which it and the community are envisioned, is similar to the hymnist(s) of the Hodayot.82 The most pertinent portion for our study appears in frags. 1 ii 2, “A new spirit create in us, and establish in us a faithful inclination” ( ֯‫ורוח ׄחדשה ברא בנו וכונ֯ ן‬ ‫רבנ֯ ו֯ יצר אמונות‬ ֯ ‫בק‬ ׄ , 5-683). This apparently positive inclination, however, is not 6.3.3

78   Daniel Falk,“4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JSJ 65/2 (1994): 186; idem, “4Q393. 4QCommunal Confession,” in Esther Chazon et al., in consultation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady, Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 46-47. 79  In his re-edition of 4Q468i Tigchelaar suggests a number of new readings and argues that the text reflects evidence of confessional and/or penitential prayer. He notes further that line 3 of fragment 1 should read “the evil inclination of our heart” or the “incli[nation of our evil heart” (‫)י]צר לבנו הרע‬, rather than the original editor’s initial reading “]enemy? To the sons of evil” (‫)…]צר לבני הרע‬, “The Evil Inclination,” 355. While Tigchelaar may be right that the small fragments resembles a confessional text, and that there is no reason to ascribe this text to the sectarians, his reading of ‫ יצר‬in the passage is nearly impossible to ascertain since the left side of the fragment ends at the end of the tsade—not even a trace of the rest of the tsade or the letter prior to it are preserved, see 4Q468i: https:// www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-496213; also, Armin Lange, “468i: 4QSectarian” in Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4 XXVI: Cryptic Texts, DJD XXXVI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 417. 80  Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” 199; idem, “4QCommunal Confession,” 47. 81  See Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” 184. 82  Falk notes that there is no concrete evidence that this text originates with the sectarian community although he notes there are hints of two spirit dualism and determinism, “4QCommunal Confession,” 48. 83  In Falk’s earlier study, ““4Q393: A Communal Confession,” he transcribes ‫ יצר‬as ‫]…ת[עצר‬ (“[… wi]thhold,” 187). He questions whether this reading is connected to Ps 51:13. It is in the later DJD publication that Falk changes his transcription to ‫ יצר‬noting that, “with the exception of the final nun, all of these letters are almost certain on PAM 44.196.” For images of these fragments, see “4QCommunal Confession,” 49, and “4Q393, Plate 124,

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

223

an innate part of the person. Rather, as one finds elsewhere in Qumran texts, especially in the Hodayot (e.g., 4:38, 7:35, 8:25, 17:32), the expectation of those who participate in the confession hope that God will create a “new spirit” in them. This hope of a new spirit is paralleled by the request for a faithful inclination. Those who receive such are not part of collective humanity but rather form a remnant of those who love and keep the commandments (cf. 4Q393 3). Instead, a sinful inclination seems to be humanity’s natural standing.84 Such is evident in the confession that the community was formed in sin, “Behold, in our sins w[e] were set … (85]‫נסכנ֯ [ו‬ ֯ ‫) ֯ה ׄנה בעונותינו‬, 2), admitting that ultimately they are responsible for their sin and indeed God is “just” (‫ )צדק‬in his judgments. Consequently, the confessing sinner of the community is dependent upon God for his forgiveness (1 ii 2 8). 6.3.4 ‫ יצר‬in 4QpapJubh Perhaps the clearest occasion of the human “inclination” to sin is in the Hebrew text of Jubilees that is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in 1QHa 13:8 (discussed above).86 The Hebrew portions of the Jubilees, of which the papyrus text dates to the Hasmonean period (75-50 BCE), is partly reconstructed from the Ethiopic version.87 Milik and VanderKam reconstruct the Hebrew of Jubilees 35:9 to read, “For you know that the Esau’s inclination has been evil

Frag 1, B-294940” in LLDDSSL, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/ image/B-298164. There is a tear in the right side of the fragment that seems to cut off part of the word. What is left behind appears to be a tav with the right ligature missing or a tzade. Under close examination, however, one notes that it is undoubtedly a tzade since a break in the ink on the top right hand of the letter is present and the down stroke of the right ligature for the tav is missing. Such is especially noticeable on PAM M42.560, which is now in “4Q393, Plate 124, B-283848” in LLDDSSL, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ explore-the-archive/image/B-283848. One will especially note in this image the presence of the upper portion of yod that appears in the tear, which bears a strong similarity to the style of yod elsewhere in the fragment, see 2 ii 7; also “Plate 124, Frag 2, B-295485,” http:// www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295485. 84  This is not to suggest that that 4Q393 espouses the idea of “Original Sin,” that is the later Christian doctrine mistakenly derived from Rom 5. 85  The root ‫ נסך‬means “to pour, to make a cast a statue,” HALOT 2:701. The niphal, as in our text, seems to indicate being poured out as if being casted into a statue. The speakers in 4Q393 envision themselves as being casted into sin, as one castes metal to make a statue. 86  For a fuller treatment of the ‫ יצר‬in Jubilees and the Ethiopic term ḥellinna; see Hermann Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von im ‫ יצר‬Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14:1 (1983): 1-10, esp. 3-5. 87  Author’s translation, which follows Milik’s “17-18. Livre des Jubilés,” in D. Barthélemy, O. P. and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I, DJD I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 83.

224

6 Mapping the Human Condition

from his youth” (‫יצר עשו אשר הו[א] [רע מנעוריו‬ ׄ ‫כי ׄי[וד] ׄע אתה את‬, 1Q18 1 2 1).88 It is unlikely that the use of ‫ יצר‬here is a reference to the reified, external “evil inclination.”89 Rather, and more likely, it is a descriptor of Esau’s internal inclination. The incorporation of Gen 8:21 (‫אָדם ַרע‬ ָ ‫—)יֵ ֶצר ֵלב ָה‬originally occurring in the Noah account—into the Jubilean rewrite of the Esau narrative indicates that the “inclination” is a neutral innate human characteristic without a leaning to either good or evil. This is noted by the necessity to point out that Esau’s “inclination” as evil, as well as Rebecca’s statement that it is “devoid of virtue.”90 Moreover, it is representative of the transition from the use of the ‫ יצר‬in the Hebrew Bible, that is, its association with another human component (e.g., the heart), to a standalone human characteristic; what was “the inclination of the heart of a person” is now simply the “inclination of [a person].”91 Brand argues that the use of Esau here in Jubilees and the Canaanites in Wis 12 suggests that “certain Gentiles do not operate under the same paradigm of sin as Jews or the rest of humanity.”92 That is to say that certain Gentiles exist with an inescapable, innate sinfulness that according to Wisdom is “permanently in place” (ἔμφυτος) and “whose reasoning never changed” (οὐ μὴ ἀλλαγῇ ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 12:10). She notes further that this is not intended to be a pan-Gentile view but allows readers to apply it to perceived persecutors.93 Indeed, by the Second Temple period, Esau was a biblical persona non grata, whose name eventually developed into a sobriquet for the oppressive 88   This texts is utilized to reconstruct part of the 4Q223-224 2 i 49 (4QpapJubh): [‫ ;…כי יודע אתה את יצר עישאו אשר ר[ע מן נעוריו‬See, James VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “223-224. 4QpapJubileesh,” in Harold Attridge et al., in consultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 105. 89   Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349; Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen,” 6; also VanderKam, Jubilees 2: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 22-50, ed. Sidnie White Crawford, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 944. 90  Following VanderKam’s translation, Jubilees 2, 936. 91  Pace Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349. 92  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 146. 93  Katell Berthelot cautions understanding the Canannites as an exemplar of non-Jews. She notes that in the Hellenistic and Roman period Jews viewed the Canaanites as enemies of the biblical past. “There is only one case of non-Jews living on the fringe of Judaea in the Hellenistic and Roman period who are designated as ‘Canaanites,’ namely the reference to the father of the bride in 1 Macc 9:37, but this isolated use of the term in no way constitutes a paradigm of the way the Hasmoneans looked at the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land,” “Where May Canaanites Be Found: Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Others in Jewish Texts from the Hellenistic and Roman period,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (Oxford; New York; Oxford University Press, 2014), 273.

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

225

Roman empire.94 If, in fact, there is a “hostile” group of Gentiles envisioned here, then Jubilees’ description of Esau is not intended to portray collective humanity. Still, other matters need to be considered here. The manner in which ‫ יצר‬is utilized in Jubilees parallels other texts that are examined above, namely, that it becomes a standalone characteristic of human nature, thereby speaking to a tendency to lean towards and perhaps precipitate movement away from God. While Wisdom and Jubilees have surely redirected this expression to speak of those hostile to the respective audience of these works, the use of ‫יצר‬ parallels what we find elsewhere. In particular, it has shifted from its biblical origins to a component manipulated to characterize either the good or wicked leaning of each person. While Brand may not be wrong, and the audience of the text is allowed to ascribe this hostility to any group of “persecutors,” the use of ‫ יצר‬addresses a universal inclination without something about collective humanity that is the explicit ascription of a moral quality. “Evil Inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬and the Human Condition in 4QBarkhi Nafshic 6.3.5.1 ‫ יצר רע‬as an External Force Much has been written about the “evil inclination” in the Second Temple period as a precursor to the various rabbinic developments, including its reification into an external demonic entity.95 “Evil inclination” is not, however, a common expression in Second Temple texts. It is found primarily in the Dead Sea Scrolls,96 and only in a limited number of occasions, the Plea for Deliverance (11Q5 19:15-16), Musar le-Mevinc (4Q417 1 ii 12), 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i a + b 10), and, perhaps, 4QSectarian Text (4Q468 i 3). Tigchelaar notes, “Those few explicit references to an ‘evil inclination’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate on the one hand the influence of Gen 6:5, which relates the ‘evil inclination’ to ‘thoughts’ and the ‘heart’, and on the other hand a new development where the ‘evil inclination’ is personified, perhaps in the form of a spirit.”97 Ben Wold argues that the appearance of the “evil inclination” in the Plea indicates something at least partly external to the person, “I am convinced that the yetzer ra in 6.3.5

94  See Kugel, The Bible, 358. 95  See n. 2. 96  There is the occurrence of the “evil inclination” and a description of the inclination leaning towards evil in T. Iss. 6:2 and T. Ash. 1:8, respectively. The language of T. Ash. (see n. 14) is similar to 4QpapJubh in that the “evil inclination” does not appear as a phrase. In the former the inclination is described as “leaning” (κλίνῃ) toward evil and the latter is a depiction of Esau whose inclination is described as evil from his youth. 97  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 352. Indeed, Rosen-Zvi notes that as the ‫ יצר‬shifts from biblical usage it marks the beginning of is reification, Demonic Desires, 49.

226

6 Mapping the Human Condition

these lines is not an inward part of a person, or at least exclusively, but parallel to ‘satan’ and ‘unclean spirit’ and therefore also an outward force.”98 So also Armin Lange notes that the parallelism in the Plea is not unlike what one finds in the Aramaic Levi Document and signals a demonic being which “manifest[s] their rule over the praying person …”99 At least for Wold, the same is true of the appearance of the ‫ יצר רע‬in 4QInstructionc (4Q417 1 ii 2-16): “The activity ascribed to the evil inclination in line 12 helps locate its actions as an external or independent force.”100 Regarding the Plea, Rosen-Zvi is less convinced, Several scholars have correctly suggested that Satan and the spirit of defilement should be differentiated from pain and yetzer ra, due to the verbs associated with them; the latters seem to be the result of the ‘rule’ of the formers over humans. Thus, yetzer here appears as a trait rather than a thing, just like ‘pain’ with which it is grouped.

For him, the same is true of ‫ יצר רע‬in 4QBarkhi Nafshic, “It seems, however, that the context points indeed to yetzer’s identification with an evil tendency rather than a demonic being.”101 Brand similarly concludes that the use of the verb “rebuke” (‫ )גער‬in Barkhi Nafshi, which Tigchelaar notes is utilized commonly to “rebuke” Satan or evil spirits,102 speaks of the individual’s “heart” (4Q436 1 a + b i 10) and that the “evil inclination” is paralleled with both the “heart” and “lecherous eyes” (4Q436 1 i a + b 1, cf. also, CD 2:16). The “evil inclination” is then an internal evil and not an external spirit.103 In that same vein, Goff suggests, unlike Wold, that the ‫ יצר רע‬of 4QInstruction is merely a part of humanity, which 98  Wold, “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity; idem, “Apotropaic Prayer and the Matthean Lord’s Prayer,” in Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen—The Devil, Demons, and Dualism, ed. Benjamin Wold, Jan Dochhorn and Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, WUNT II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming); Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 353; also, Loren Stuckenbruck, “Pleas for Deliverance from the Demonic in Early Jewish Texts,” in Studies in Jewish Prayer, JJSSup 17 (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press/University of Manchester, 2005), 58. 99  Armin Lange, “Consideration Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt—Demons: The Demonology of Israelite Jewish and Early Christian Literature in the Context of their Environment, ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 262. 100  Wold, Demonizing Sin. 101   Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 47. 102  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 351. 103  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 47. She notes further, “The distinction between the biblical use of g‘r and its appearance in this passage is strengthened by the fact that the biblical idiom is g‘r b-, indicating the character being rebuked, and not g‘r m- as seen here, referring to the ‘host’ of the rebuked entity,” 47.

227

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

leads it to act sinfully. Furthermore, “there is no evidence,” for Goff, “however, in 4QInstruction that an evil inclination ‘seduces’ or is a personified entity that somehow deceives or entices the mebin.”104 Wold and Lange have a worthwhile argument regarding the Plea. Wold’s note regarding the “outward force” seems to fit the parallelism in the poem, that is, “satan” and an “impure spirit” are responsible for “pain” and the “evil inclination” that perturbs the individual (cf. 5.3). Our examination argues, however, that the Plea marks an evolution from the Bible that bears witness to the raw ingredients for its eventual reification, although not specifically a fully outward force. As Tigchelaar cautiously notes regarding it, “It is not entirely certain how the ‘evil inclination’ in the Plea is to be understood, whether as an outward or as an inward force, but in any case it seems to have gained a substance of its own, independent of a human’s heart;”105 the same, we argue, is true of 4QInstructionc. The context does not allow for a more definitive estimation, a shift to independence—no longer dependent on another human component—is clear. The “evil inclination” marks a distinct characteristic of each person, but likely not one that had been envisioned as wholly outward. 6.3.5.2 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i a + b 1) Barkhi Nafshi may then be the standalone occasion that identifies the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬with an inherent human component. The text written in semi-formal Herodian script is made up of four fragments (1 i a, 1 i b, 1 ii, and 2). 4Q436 differs from other Barkhi Nafshi texts, in that rather than being a thanksgiving hymn it depicts “the power of God to give understanding and knowledge to those whom he has delivered.”106 4Q436 1 i a + b 1 9-11, 1 ii 1-4

‫]ה ובידכה ׄהחזקתה בימיני ותשלחני בי֯ ֯ש[ר‬  [ .9 ‫גער[תה מן כליותי‬ ֯ ‫ [לב האבן ג] ׄערתה ממני ותשם לב טהור תחתיו יצר רע‬‎.10‫‏‬

[

vacat

]

 [ ‎.11‫‏‬

]‫  [ורוח קוד]ש שמתה בלבבי זנות עינים הסירותה ממני ותבט ֯א[ת כול‬‎.1‫‏‬ ]‫ענוה זעף אף הסירותה [ממני ותשם‬ ׄ ‫ [דרכיכה ע]ו֯ רף קשה שלחתה ממני ותשמו‬‎.2‫‏‬ ]‫ממני [רוח שקר‬ ֯ ‫ [לי רוח אר]וך אפים גבה לב‬‎.3‫‏‬ ׄ ‫תה‬°°‫ורו֯ ם עינים התנ‬ ‫ולב[ נד] ֯כה נתתה לי י֯ ֯צ[ר‬ ֯ ‫ [אבדת    ] ׄה‬‎.4‫‏‬ 104  Goff, 4QInstruction, 178-81. 105  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 351. 106  Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “4Q436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. Esther Chazon, Torleif Elgvin, Esther Eshel et al., in consultation with James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, DJD XXIX, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 295-6.

228

6 Mapping the Human Condition

9. [ ] and with your hand you have caught hold of my right hand, and you have sent me forth in the straight[t ] 10. [the heart of stone] you have [dri]ven with rebukes far from me, and have set a pure heart in its place. The evil inclination [you] have driven with rebukes [from my inmost parts] 11.[ ] vacat 1. and the spirit of ho]lines you have in my heart. Adulterousness of the eyes you have removed from me, and it gazed upon [all] 2. [your ways. The s]tiffness of neck you have sent away from me, and you have made it into humility. Wrathful anger you have removed [from me, and have set] 3. [in me a spirit of lo]ng-suffering. Haughtiness of heart and arrogance of eyes you have for[got]ten to reckon to me. [a spirit of deceit] 4. [you have destroyed] and a [bro]ken heart you have given to me. The inclina[tion107

First, the ‫ יצר‬is found in parallel with an ongoing discussion about the individual’s “heart” (‫לב‬, 4Q436 1 i a + b 1, 5, 10, ii 1). Second, while ‫ גער‬in demonic contexts implies a “rebuke” there is little, if anything, to suggest that the individual in prayer is concerned with outward influencing entities. In other words, to presume that ‫ יצר‬is external due to the appearance of ‫גער‬, one might have to argue that the other elements of the speaker, which are variously described as being sent away—“adulterous eyes,” “stiffness of neck” and “wrathful anger” (‫זנות עינים‬, ‫עורף קשה‬, and ‫—)זעף אף‬are also external. This is certainly not the case. Reading ‫ יצר רע‬as reference to a demonic entity forces one beyond the literary boundaries of the larger context. Rather, the struggle of the speaker is always faced inward, especially in those matters that deal with being obedient to the commandments: [On my heart] you [have enjoined] your law, on my inmost parts you have engraved it (‫[על לבי פקד]תה תורתכה וכליותי פתחתה‬ ‫ ;)ותחזק עלי‬and you have prevailed upon me, so that I pursue after you[r] ways, [and perform all] your [good plea]sure” (4Q436 1 i a + b 6).108 The language regarding the removal of these negative traits from the speaker’s innards is not their expulsion or exorcism but more so their pacification in light of the “holy spirit” (‫)רוח קודש‬. The holy spirit’s placement into the heart of—or prevailing over (‫—)ותחזק על לב‬the speaker provides a deep knowledge that empowers him/her to follow God’s statutes. This is not a thanksgiving for the gift of perfect obedience, but the ability to be obedient despite the aforementioned struggles. Thus, Barkhi Nafshi is perhaps the only Second Temple text to attest to the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬as an innate part of human nature that causes divergence from obedience. 107  English translation from Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “4QBarkhi Nafshic,” 295-306. 108  Weinfeld and Seely, “4Q436,” 295-305.

6.4 Conclusion

229

Discussed as part of the internal struggle of the individual to obey God, the “evil inclination,” much like the “heart” elsewhere, reflects a normalized interior human tendency. The struggle seems to be a “normalized” part of collective humanity, since the speaker extols God for his role in having set a pure heart in the place (‫ותשם לב טהור תחתיו‬, 10) of a stone heart. As we have noted elsewhere, in the Qumran conception of humanity there is an expectation that God will bypass those elements of human nature that prevent it from obedience, especially a lack of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (1-2), a “stone heart” (10), and, in Barkhi Nafshi specifically, an “evil inclination.” An external entity (or -ies) is not what plagues the speaker. It is the innate nature of humanity which bars it from knowing and understanding God’s precepts and gaining an ability to be compliant. 6.4

Conclusion

Ben Sira and the Psalms of Solomon are the only texts examined here that depict humanity with significant amount of free will. These two texts represent as close to an unqualified ability to choose according to personal discretion without the constraint of God’s sovereignty or determination. After creation, humanity is said by Ben Sira to be left to their “inclination,” a neutral aspect of human nature that is neither negative, nor positive, but represents an actual ability to deliberate between obedience and sin. Despite the exhortation of God’s people to be obedient and do righteousness, the power to choose “right and wrong” (Ps. Sol. 9:4) is within the power of the individual. Although, humanity is not completely free from the shadow of God’s control, especially in Ben Sira where God’s sovereignty in creation, the election of Israel, and final judgment are prevalent themes (18, 27, 33:7-15). CD attests a somewhat ambiguous presentation of the patriarchs’ ability to act in contrast to the natural desire of their will. This ability, however, is limited to those who are foundational to Israel vis-à-vis God’s covenantal relationship to the remnant community that has received an understanding of his “hidden” things. Every generation in between—including the rebellious angels— follows the desires of their will with no deviation. As a result, they all perished, which is likely intended to contrast the “eternal life” given to the obedient remnant (CD 3:20). Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not explicitly described as perishing in the fashion of the other generations. Placed within the larger context of CD’s “Admonition,” it appears that God’s determining control plays a stronger role with the patriarchs’ choice to go against their natural leaning. Consequently, the image of the condition of collective humanity is negative.

230

6 Mapping the Human Condition

The person’s “will,” “spirit,” and “heart” are naturally inclined to disobedience. The rest of humanity does not have the same opportunity as the patriarchs and the yaḥad. Obedience belongs the solely to the remnant of Israel; the rest humanity will naturally transgress God’s statutes. Josephus paints an ideal portrait of the three Jewish schools’ views on fate and free will. While it may represent, to some degree, the actual views of portion of these groups, the diversity of opinions represented in this chapter points to the historian’s romanticism. Two extremes are represented with the Sadducean unfettered freedom and the Essenic seemingly strict determinism, namely all is determined by fate, or God. The variable, somewhere between to the two aforementioned poles, is the position of the Pharisees. The spectrum between the two extremes, however, is unknowably varied and is an attempt to balance between fate and free will, which appears to be a form of compatibilism. The concept of the human “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬is preserved in several early Jewish texts. Its use marks a transition from biblical literature, where it is associated with other aspects of human nature to a standalone characteristic of the human condition. In the Hodayot and Serekh ha-Yaḥad the human ‫יצר‬ indicates a negative disposition against God’s statutes. This is exemplified with the occurrence of positive “inclinations” (‫)יצרים‬, the “steadfast inclination” (‫ )יצר סמוך‬and the “faithful inclination” (‫)יצר אמונות‬. Their qualification as “steadfast” and “faithful” reflects the assumed negativity of humanity’s natural “inclination” and the hoped-for ideas of the yaḥad. Collective humanity—in the aforementioned texts—does not have access to these positive “inclinations,” nor can it hope for such a beneficial disposition apart from belonging to the Qumran community. While there remain some questions as to the 4QCommunal Confession’s (4Q393) affiliation to the yaḥad, the hope for a “new spirit” which results in a “faithful inclination” appears to have the same narrowing affect that we find in the Hodayot and Serekh. The same is true of the rewrite of the Esau narrative in Jubilees. While it may reflect a specific portion of humanity, the natural, “inclination” parallels what we find elsewhere, namely, as a component of the human condition that is primarily negative. Furthermore, there little to no evidence in these texts that someone can act in opposition to their natural “will” apart from God’s intervention, whether that involves predestination or the giving of a holy spirit. Certainly, the choice of obedience and disobedience are not on an equal playing field; the person will naturally act in contrast to God’s statutes. 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i a + b 1) provides the clearest occasion where the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬is depicted as a component of human nature. It is unlikely—in spite of the use of the exorcism verb ‫—גער‬that the

6.4 Conclusion

231

inclination reflects the external force that it may represent elsewhere (e.g., Plea of Deliverance, 4QInstructionc), since it is one of several negative characteristics that are removed from the person. If understood as an external entity one would have to presume that “heart” and “lecherous” eyes—spoken of as being “removed” or “sent away”—prove to be a similar type of external danger. Alas, they do not. The “evil inclination” functions in Barkhi Nafshi as one among a number of negative traits. This innate human tendency is precisely what plagues the speaker and the reason for extolling the holy spirit—if the reconstruction is correct109—for their pacification. As we have noted, in the Hodayot this removal is indicative of the individual’s purification from being immersed in sin, and not the removal of an external entity. Thus, the “evil inclination,” as the “inclination,” is representative of a lack of choice, and the necessity for divine succor in order to be obedient. The various texts examined in this chapter reflect the moving target of free will. Each falls somewhere on the spectrum between a discretionary choice that is (almost completely) unfettered by divine agency and a will that naturally inclines towards disobedience. The former distances God from any responsibility for sin and places it squarely in the realm of human choice, whereas the latter does not entertain the question of responsibility but, rather, the ability of some to be obedient because God has chosen them to be so. The human inclination is generally negative—sans Ben Sira’s neutral ‫—יצר‬and any choice hangs under the guise of a negative-leaning will (or spirit), so that, without divine assistance, the choice to sin is inevitable and expected.

109  Reconstructed in light of Ps 51:13b, ‫אַל־תּ ַקּח ִמ ֶמּנִּ י‬ ִ ‫רוּח ָק ְד ְשָׁך‬ ַ ְ‫(ו‬DJD XXIX, 303). The editors have not followed Ps 51 precisely, reconstructing ]‫ ורוח קוד]ש‬rather than ‫רוּח ָק ְד ְשָׁך‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬. The rationale is not explained, except to say that ‫ רוח קודש‬is very common at Qumran.

Chapter 7

A Predetermined Condition: Humanity’s Double Duality, Nothingness, and “Fleshly” State 7.1

Introduction

This chapter examines the depiction of the human condition in texts that presume God’s sovereign control over human affairs. Two later additions to the cave 1 manuscript of Serekh ha-Yaḥad, the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13-4:26) and the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22), and an important wisdom text, Musar le-Mevin, collectively reflect a general pessimism regarding the human condition. Of course, it is notable that the authors of the aforementioned texts are ensconced within the camp of the righteous and, indeed, as it seems to be without deviation, those that belong with the “chosen” are also are responsible for shaping the contours of the general despair that collective— that is the rest of—humanity must endure. Within the Treatise, this pessimism is strengthened by divine agency, having chosen an elect group, “the children of truth,” who despite the possibility of stumbling and the danger of afflictions, is ruled by the Angel of Light, while the rest of humanity is set to exist under the resulting vices of being ruled by the Angel of Darkness. Moreover, apart from perhaps the War Scroll (1QM), where the Sons of Light are depicted in an epic hollywood-esque eschatological battle against the Sons of Darkness, the Treatise is perhaps the clearest, most explicit division of humanity into two camps that is found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The stark duality depicted here is tempered briefly by another duality, an internal one which reflects the ongoing struggle in a person’s heart. The Hymn of Praise closes the Serekh ha-Yaḥad; the presentation of humanity in this small hymn is largely morose. The speaker self-reflects on his own role as part of wicked humanity and sinful flesh, admitting that he is utterly dependent upon God—implying the innate, continued sinfulness of both the speaker, his community, and the rest of humanity. In light of that, the human conditions’ desperation is often depicted as the consequence of a “fleshly” state, namely, he/she is unable to know the hidden things of God and respond in kind. Finally, Musar le-Mevin has generated a great deal of debate, especially in regard to the appearance of “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and the “Vision of Meditation” in 4Q417 1. Much of this debate has centered on whether the Musar text depicts an ontological division within

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_008

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

233

collective humanity and the consequent ramifications to its understanding of the human condition. 7.2

The “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

The Treatise is one of the few Second Temple texts that explicitly sets out to teach about human nature, “To the maskil, to enlighten and teach all the sons of light regarding the nature1 off all humanity,” (‫למשכיל להבין וללמד את‬ ‫כול בני אור בתולדות כול בני איש‬, 3:13-14).2 The Treatise in toto comprises nearly of two columns of the Serekh scroll. Yet, as we noted above, it likely originated independently and was redacted into 1QS at a later point, either as a literary unit or through a complex literary development.3 This section deals primarily

1  Jacob Licht notes that the meaning “nature” fits “reasonably well” in the treatise, “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the DSD,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, ScrHeir 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 89-90, n. 5. See also DSSSE 1:75, PTSDSSP 1:15. For other translations, see Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 123-4; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 137, 148-9; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 143, also 141. 2  Metso argues the that superscription (3:13-15a) was added later in order to incorporate the Treatise within the larger Serekh text, Textual Development, 137-40. So, it reflects the manner in which the later editor understood the text and the role it played within the Community. Also, Peter von der Osten-Sacken, argues that the ending portion of the Treatise (4:15-23a, 23b-26) represents later phases of its literary development, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Unersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969), 17-89. 3  See e.g., André Dupont-Sommer, “L’instruction sur les deux Eprits dans le “Manuel de Discipline”,” RHR 142/1 (1952): 5; Jacob Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two,” 88100; Devorah Dimant, following Licht, notes, “Again it presents a unified chiastic structure, though consisting of distinct units,” Jewish Writings, 500; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 46-56; Osten-Sacken. Gott und Belial, 165-89; Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 (1976): 541; Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 24-25; Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 126-28; Jean Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, 10331; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “‘These are the names of the Spirit of …’: A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a),” RQ 21/4 (2004): 538-42; Clause Coulot, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III, 13-IV, 26),” RSR 82/2 (2008): 147-60; Charlotte Hempel, “The Treatise of the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Dualism in Qumran, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, LSTS 76 (London: T and T Clark, 2010), 119-20.

234

7 A Predetermined Condition

with the most complete text of the Treatise in the cave 1 manuscript,4 which is dated paleographically between 100-75 BCE,5 but notes where other earlier witnesses assist in understanding its development. Early commentators, prior to publication of all the Qumran texts, regarded the Treatise as the central summation of sectarian theology. Licht notes, “It gives us, in the first place, the fullest and clearest information about the beliefs of the Dead Sea Sectarians …,” which are “… authoritatively stated …”6 While scholars, more recently, have tempered their views of the Treatise vis-à-vis its centrality to the yaḥad, especially in regard to its depiction of dualism,7 there is little doubt of its relevance to understanding the complex beliefs of the Community.8 The importance to our study, as numerous commentators have long noted, is that it deals with a particular view of the human condition.9 The early lines of the Treatise are intentionally introductory10 and intended to provide the necessary theological framework for what follows. After the superscription in 3:13-14, the Treatise establishes that all human deeds are predestined until the time of God’s eschatological “visitation” (‫)לפקודת‬. In fact, 4  There are at least two other fragments that clearly preserve remnants of the Treatise (4Q255, 4Q257). Tigchelaar suggests that the “manuscript evidence can be enlarged” by the re-attribution of several fragments to other manuscripts,” namely, 4Q502 16, 4Q487 37, and 1Q29 13-17, which he suggests renaming 1Q29a, otherwise known as, 1QTwo Spirits Treatise?, “A Preliminary Edition,” 538-45. 5  P TSDSSP 1:2-3. 6  Licht, “An Analysis,” 88; cf. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 123-4. 7  In regard to the dualistic framework in the Treatise, however, it has been noted by Hempel and Frey note that in light of the publication of the Qumran material the type of dualism present in the Treatise is not as pervasive as some may have formerly thought, Hempel, “The Treatise of the Two Spirits,” 102-3; see also Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275-80. 8  See n. 2 above. Lange notes evidence of the pervasive influence (großen Einfluß) of the Treatise with the theology of the yaḥad in the Hodayot, the Damascus Document, 4Q181, 4Q511, and 4Q280, Weisheit und Prädestination, 132-5. 9  Jerome Murphy O’Connor has remarked that one of the two main camps of research into the Treatise is anthropology, “La genèse littéraire,” 541. See Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being,” in Light Against Darkness, 168. As Stuckenbruck convincingly argues, “It is appropriate, therefore, to interpret the Treatise on the Two Spirits as a document in its own right rather than as simply an extension of its literary context in the Community Rule,” “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 161. 10  Duhaime outlines that 3:13-15a “sert d’introduction l’ensemble du texte,” “Cohérence structurelle,” 106.

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

235

“all that is and will be” (‫)הווה ונהייה‬11 stems from the God of knowledge (15-16). His sovereign control cannot be changed (‫ואין להשנות‬, 16); “in his authority” (‫בידו‬, lit. “in his hand”) are the judgments of all, and he provides for all their desires” (16b-17). It is in the following lines, 17-18a, that a partial portrait of human nature is painted: “and he [i.e., God] created humankind to dominion of the world” (‫)והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת תבל‬. This “dominion” (‫)ממשלה‬, however, seems contrary to God’s determinative jurisdiction over “all that is and that will be,” and is in contrast to what follows with the institution of the two spirits. Lichtenberger suggests that this statement is not an anthropological statement (Topos der Anthropologie) but rather a statement regarding the omnipotence of God.12 Brand argues that “dominion” indicates humanity’s “power over their environment.”13 Without further elaboration within the Treatise, it seems that God’s sovereignty is not overly mechanistic in that humanity bears some, even slight, responsibility over its own actions and does not exist under a fatalistic shadow where God plays the role of puppet master to his creations. The seeming tension between God’s utter sovereignty and humanity’s “dominion” may anticipate the stumbling of the righteous referenced later in the Treatise.14 The allotted ‫ ממשלה‬should, however, not be confused with free will; the system of the Treatise—as we have it in 1QS—is so starkly predestined that even the lapses of the righteous are determined by God’s sovereignty. This, in fact, is the intention of the redacted introduction of the Treatise (3:13-17). It purposely frontloads the text with an unquestioned sovereignty, pointedly reminding the reader of this reality despite bearing witness in the rest of the text to a slightly more complex image of human nature.

11  The language of God determining authority is not unlike what is noted in John 1:2-3, “by him all things came to be, and nothing came to be without him” (πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν). The biggest difference of course is that the Johannine text is referring to Jesus as the λόγος in verse 1. Interestingly, the remaining verse of this metaphor includes reference to “light” and “darkness:” “In Him was life, and the life was the light of humankind (ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων). And the light shines in the darkness (καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει), and the darkness did not comprehend it” (vv. 4-5). 12  Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 126. 13  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 258. 14  Even Calvinism, the 16th c. Christian theological system where humanity is double predestined for either salvation or damnation must address the issue where those determined for salvation are responsible for sin. This is partly because the abstract philosophical underpinnings of the system do not completely mesh with the real world. Where humanity is neatly distributed between the saved/righteous and the damned/wicked, this decisive duality does not seem to hold true with the actual deeds of either camp.

236

7 A Predetermined Condition

7.2.1 1QS 3:18b-25a—Two Spirits for Humankind15 ‫…וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלך בם עד מועד פקודתו הנה רוחות‬ .18 ‫ האמת והעול במעין אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬.‎19‫‏‬ ‫ ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו וביד מלאך‬.‎20‫‏‬ ‫ חושך כול ממשלת בני עול ובדרכי חושך יתהלכו ובמלאך חושך תעות‬.‎21‫‏‬ ‫ כול בני צדק וכול חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו‬.‎22‫‏‬ ‫וכול נגיעיהם ומועדי צרותם בממשלת משטמתו‬. ‫ לפי רזי אל עד קצו‬.‎23‫‏‬ ‫ וכול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור ואל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר לכול‬.‎24‫‏‬ …‫ בני אור‬.‫‏‬‎25

18. … And he placed two spirits for him (i.e., ‫=אנוש‬humanity, 3:17) in which to walk until the time of its visitation. These are the spirits 19. of truth and deceit. From within a spring of light is the nature of truth and from a source of darkness is the nature of deceit. 20. In the hand of Prince of Lights is the dominion of the children of righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. And in the hand of the Angel of 21. Darkness is all the dominion of the children of iniquity and in the ways of darkness they walk. And with the Angel of Darkness is the error 22. of all the children of righteousness and all of their sins, iniquities, guilt, and defiant deeds is in his dominion 23. according to the mysteries of God until his time. And all their afflictions and times of their distress are in the dominion of his enmity 24. and all the spirits of his lot cause the sons of light to stumble. But the God of Israel and the angel of his truth help all 25. the children of light …16

One of the most pertinent anthropological portions of the Treatise, 3:18b-25,17 is purposely set within the context of creation: “And he created humanity to have dominion over the earth” (‫והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת תבל‬, 17b-18a). These lines are a clear rewriting of Gen 1:28, where male and female (i.e., humanity) are told to have dominion over all of creation: “and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’” (‫ל־חיָּ ה ָהר ֶֹמ ֶשׂת ַעל־‬ ַ ‫וּב ָכ‬ ְ ‫וּבעֹוף ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם‬ ְ ‫ְוּרדוּ ִבּ ְדגַ ת ַהיָּ ם‬ ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫) ָה‬. Connected with God’s creative event, “two spirits” (‫ )שתי רוחות‬are said to be placed for all of humanity to walk in until the time of God’s “eschatological visit” (‫)פקודה‬, namely, the “the spirits of truth and deceit” (‫רוחות האמת‬ ‫והעול‬, 18-19) whose “natures” (‫ )תולדות‬arise, respectively, “from a spring of light” (‫ )אור במעין‬and “from a source of darkness” (‫)ממקור חושך‬. The dominions of the children of righteousness, who walk in ways of the light, and that of the 15  Unless otherwise noted the Hebrew text and translation is from PTSDSSP 1:17-19. 16  Author’s Translation. Hebrew text is from PTSDSSP 1:15-19. 17  Some extend this portion to 4:1. See Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 166; Puech, “Cohérence,” 105-6; Licht, “An Analysis,” 93; for 4:14, Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, 143-4.

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

237

children of darkness, who walk in darkness, are under the authority of Prince of Light and Angel of Darkness, respectively. From lines 17b-21a humanity and ethereal forces—whether they are external or internal18—are neatly divided into two camps. Flusser was one of the earliest scholars to remark, “in the Sectarian teaching this basic dualistic outlook leads to a fundamental division of all mankind into two camps. The sect deems itself to be identical with the righteous part of humanity and calls itself ‘Sons of Light.’”19 Yet, humanity’s 18  It is somewhat unclear whether these spirits are external or internal. More recently, Mladen Popovic notes that it remains ambiguous as to whether the Treatise is referring to internal or external spirits, “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13-4:26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in ‘And God Breathed into Man the Breath of Life’—Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Development of Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity, and Their Umwelts, ed. J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and Gerhard H. van Kooten, TBN 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2016). 19  David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Aspects, 218. This division of humanity into specific camps is not foreign to other sectarian and sectarian-related texts. The most well-known division comes from texts that were central to the yaḥad. The “Sons of Light” (‫ )בני אור‬occurs on several occasions in the Serekh text and the War Scroll (1QS 1:9, 2:16, 3:13, 24, 1QM 1:1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 13:16. See also 4QCantenaa 12 13 i 7, 11, 4QDa 1 a b 1, 4Q Songs of the Sagea 1:7, and reconstruction in 4QSongs of the Sageb 10:4, 11QMelch 2:8, and reconstruction in line 22). Despite reflecting a varied dualism—cosmic, ethical, or social—the depiction of humanity largely functions as an insider/outsider group designation. “This passage portrays a dualistic worldview,” Brand notes, “in which cosmic dualism … is responsible for social dualism, namely the division between the ‘children of righteousness’ and the ‘children of deceit,’” Brand, Evil Within and Without, 259. To the “insider” designation one might add “children of the righteous” (‫בני הצדוק‬, 1QS 9:14), or “righteousness” (‫צדק‬, 1QS 3:20, 1QM 9:10, 4Q468b 1 4, 4QWar Scrolle 2:2), and “children of his truth” (‫)בני אמתו‬. See also 1QM 17:8, 1QHa 14:32, and reconstruction in 26:32, 4QHa 7 ii 4, 4QDa 1 1:7, 4QDe 7 i 20, 4QSc 5:2, 4, Musar le-mevinb 1 10, 4QWar Scrolla 1 ii 15, also “children of truth” (‫בני אמת‬, 1QS 4:5-6) and “children or your truth” (‫;בני אמתכה‬ 1QHa 17:35). Those who are outsiders are designated with various monikers, most commonly, “children of darkness” (‫בני חושך‬, 1QS 1:10, 1QM 1:1, 7, 10, 16, 3:6, 9, 13:16, 14:17, 16:11, 4QWar Scrolla 8 10 i 14; 1 1 ii 9, 4QWar Scrollf 3 7), “children of Belial” (‫בני בליעל‬, 4QFlorilegium 1 2 ii 8; 4QBlessingsa 7 ii 6, and reconstruction in 4QBlessingsb 6:5; 11Q11 6:3; 11Q19 55:3), or “children of deceit” ([‫בני עול]ה‬, 1QS 3:21, 1QHa 13:10, 14:21, 4QHc 1 i 3, 4 i 5, 4QFlorilegium 1 2 i 1, Musar le-mevind 69 ii 8, 4QSongs of the Sageb 1:8.). Jubilees also divides humankind into opposing camps. In what occurs towards the end of a harmonization and reworking—primarily an expansion—of both creation accounts from Gen 1 and 2 (see 2:1-16, VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 12-13) humanity is bifurcated as a consequence of the observance of the Sabbath. Within the context of creation and an extended exposition regarding the importance of the Sabbath (2:17-33), humanity is divided between Israel, the Sabbath observers (to which the beings of the heavenly retinue are numbered as having observed the Sabbath prior to it being revealed to flesh [see, vv. 18, 30]), and the nations, who were not given the holy day. Segal notes, “… if Israel is indeed the Lord’s ‘[special people]’ from the time of creation, then their requirement to observe

238

7 A Predetermined Condition

orderly division into two camps is somewhat muddied by the stated dominion of the Angel of Darkness. That is to say that its dominion (or influence) is not solely limited to the “children of darkness.” Rather, the “children of righteousness” knowingly have the Angel to thank for their own misdeeds and afflictions, specifically, “all of their sins, iniquities, guilt, and defiant deeds” (‫וכול‬ ‫חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם‬, 22, emphasis added), as well as “their afflictions and time of distress” (‫וכול נגיעיהם ומועדי צרותם‬, 23). The spirits of the Angel’s lot are the reason that the “sons of light” will, and do, stumble—an answer to the, perhaps, real world quandary regarding how those who belong to the yaḥad can continue to face various afflictions, as well as transgress God statutes and the rules of the community.20 These infractions, however, are not counted against them; the “children of righteousness” have assistance from “God and the angel of his truth” (‫ואל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר‬, 24) and will experience the necessary purification during his visitation (4:15-16). Yet, it must be, if only entertained at this early point in the Treatise, that humanity in general is not explicitly responsible for their righteous or wicked deeds since these seem, at least, initially, to be the dominion of the two angels/spirits and the spirits of their lot. Responsibility for obedience and sin exists in the cosmic realm as it has been determined by God. This seems to be the case despite their being a clear recognition later that humanity’s division is based on vice and virtue, the responsibility they bear, and the judgment that each of the two camps will experience. At this point, however, the human condition is inescapable; those who sin and those who will eventually be obedient are destined to be so.

the commandments was also in force from that time as well. The giving and observance of the commandments in the patriarchal period are thus the direct result of the special relationship between God and Israel during this early period,” Segal, The Book of Jubilees, 7. Jubilees does not initially refer to the institution of the Sabbath at creation, since it is the “seed of Jacob” which is chosen from all of humanity to be sanctified (20). The heads of humanity prior to Jacob and his seed were already declared blessed (24). Later in the same chapter, however, it seems that keeping the Sabbath holy—the boundary marker between both human camps—is established at creation and commanded to all the sons of Israel (25-33). Its placement at creation, regardless of the special status of the “twentytwo” heads of humankind between Adam and Jacob, suggests that the defining separating characteristic is the instituting of the Sabbath. 20  There is evidence that the Qumran Community fully expected their members to “stumble” in their walk and transgress God’s commandments, as well as the communal rules. The most important text in this regard are the Serekh columns following the Treatise, the Damascus Document (e.g., 4:18b-22), and 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer (4Q477).

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

239

7.2.2 1QS 3:25b-4:23—Humanity’s Inescapable Condition ‫ …והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושך ועליהון יסד כול מעשה‬3:25 ‫ [וע] ׄל[ סוד]י֯ הן כול עבודה ועל דרכיהן [כו]ל [פ] ֯קו֯ דה‬‎.26‫‏‬ vacat ‫ ‏[מו]עדי עולמים ובכול עלילותיה ירצה לעד אחת תעב סודה וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח‬4:1 ‫ ואלה דרכיהן בתבל להאיר בלבב איש ולישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק אמת ולפחד לבבו‬vacat ‎.2‫‏‬ ‫במשפטי‬ ‫ אל ורוח ענוה ואורך אפים ורוב רחמים וטוב עולמים ושכל ובינה וחכמת גבורה מאמנת בכול‬‎.3‫‏‬ ‫ מעשי אל ונשענת ברוב חסדו ורוח דעת בכול מחשבת מעשה וקנאת משפטי צדק ומחשבת‬‎.4‫‏‬ ‫ קודש ביצר סמוך ורוב חסדים על כול בני אמת וטהרת כבוד מתעב כול גלולי נדה והצנע לכת‬‎.5‫‏‬ ‫ אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת תבל ופקודת כול הולכי בה‬vacat ‫ בערמת כול וחבא לאמת רזי דעת‬‎.6‫‏‬ ‫למרפא‬ ‫ ורוב שלום באורך ימים ופרות זרע עם כול ברכות עד ושמחת עולמים בחיי נצח וכליל כבוד‬‎.7‫‏‬ vacat ‫ עם מדת הדר באור עולמים‬‎.8‫‏‬ ‫ ולרוח עולה רחוב נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר גוה ורום לבב כחש ורמיה‬vacat ‎.9‫‏‬ ‫אכזרי‬ ‫ ורוב חנף קצור אפים ורוב אולת וקנאת זדון מעשי תועבה ברוח זנות ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה‬‎.10‫‏‬ ‫ ולשון גדופים עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן קושי עורף וכיבוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושך וערמת רוע‬‎.11‫‏‬ ‫ופקודת‬ ‫ כול הולכי בה לרוב נגיעים ביד כול מלאכי חבל לשחת עולמים באף עברת אל נקמת לזעות נצח‬‎.12‫‏‬ ‫וחרפת‬ ‫ עד עם כלמת כלה באש מחשכים וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון ורעת מרורים בהווות חושך עד‬‎.13‫‏‬ vacat ‫ כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬‎.14‫‏‬

3:25 … He created the spirits of light and darkness and upon them he founded every work, 26. l[…]hn every action, and upon their ways (are) [al]l […]dh. The one God loves for all 4:1 [app]ointed times of eternity, taking pleasure in all its doings forever; (concerning) the other he loathes its assembly, and all its ways he hates forever. 2. And these are their ways in the world: to illuminate the heart of man and to level before him all the ways of true righteousness; and to make his heart fear the judgments of 3. God; and a spirit of humility and patience, of great compassion and constant goodness, and of prudence, insight, and wonderful wisdom, which is firmly established in all 4. the works of God, leaning in his great mercy; and a spirit of knowledge in all work upon which he is intent, zeal for righteous precepts, a holy intention 5. with a steadfast purpose; and great affection towards all the children21 of truth; and a glorious purity, loathing all unclean idols, and walking with reservation 6. by discernment about everything, concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge. The (preceding) are the principles of the spirit for the children of truth in the world. The visitation of all those who walk in it (will be) healing 7. and great peace in a long life, multiplication of progeny together with all everlasting blessings, endless joy in everlasting life, and a crown of glory 8. together with a resplendent attire in eternal light vacat

21  We have opted to translate ‫ בני‬as “children” rather than “sons.”

240

7 A Predetermined Condition

9. vacat But concerning the Spirit of Deceit (these are the principles): greed and slackness in righteous activity, wickedness and falsehood, pride and haughtiness, atrocious disguise and falsehood, 10. great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable works in a spirit of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship, 11. a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart, walking in all the ways of darkness, and evil craftiness. The visitation of 12. all those who walk in it (will be) many afflictions by all the angels of punishment, eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath, everlasting terror 13. and endless shame, together with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of the dark region. And all their times for their generations (will be expended) in dreadful suffering and bitter misery in dark abysses until 14. they are destroyed. (There will be) no remnant nor rescue for them vacat22

Lichtenberger suggests that 3:25b-4:1 has a dual function: 1) it directs the reader back to the God’s creative activities and 2) it sets the stage for the lists of virtues and vices that follows.23 The call back to creation brings the reader to the very beginning of the Gen 1 narrative where immediately, after reference to God’s spirit, he speaks light into existence: “And God said, “let there be light,” and there was light” (‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי אֹור וַ יְ ִהי־אֹור‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬, Gen 1:3). Light, recognized as “good” (‫)טֹוב‬, is separated from “darkness” (‫חושך‬, 4). The implication is that the spirits responsible for the two ways in the world, as well as the bifurcation of human existence, are closely aligned with the stark divisions of Gen 1’s creation. Therefore, the determination of all human deeds (‫יסד כול מעשה‬, 3:25b)24—established upon the dominions of these two spirits—is a matter that is either founded at creation, or like creation, a reflection of the innate economy of the world. Yet, despite this systematic foreordination, God is said to love one and forever hate the other (‫וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח‬, 4:1).25 The remaining portion of the text (4:2-14) details the various internal consequences that result from walking in the way of either of these two spirits: 2-8 details the knowledge and zeal given to the children of truth; 9-14 provides the varying negative characteristics of the opposing camp, those who are under 22  English translation from PTSDSSP 1:17. 23  Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 131. 24  While the rest of line 26 is fragmentary, the following depiction in 4:2-14 clarifies that the works being founded are indeed those of humankind. 25  Lichtenberger notes that there remains an open question regarding God’s responsibility for the creation of evil, Studien zum Menschenbild, 133. However, if one follows the Treatise, as it appears in 1QS, the creation of evil is not part of the discussion. Although, in the scrolls, evil and sin are generally presented in opposition to God’s plans and in direct contrast to God’s creation and his determining sovereignty.

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

241

the dominion of the Spirit of Deceit.26 As Lange notes, the entirety of the section emphasizes the role of the two spirits in spheres of vice and virtue.27 It describes the internal characteristics that guide each person in the way that has been predestined for them. Again, however, this is not wholly consistent with the depiction of the work of the two spirits in 3:18b-25a since the “sons of light” must bear the afflictions caused by the extended governance of the Angel of Darkness and its lot. A further inconsistency is noted with the offer of healing (‫ )למרפא‬to “children of truth.” Healing assumes that they will, or have, endured varying afflictions (3:23-24). In that sense, the human condition is allotted some complexity in that the “children of truth” must at least confront certain issues of sin and other various distresses. Although it has been argued that these parts of the Treatise have a separate literary development28 and were later redacted into a whole, whatever incongruity or contradiction that the redactor noted—if any was noted at all—did not call into question the portrayal of human nature. Stuckenbruck rightly notes, “But the writer is deeply aware that experience does not correspond to the straightforward divisions of the world into two realms of influence, realms that are socially expressed in the bounded existence of a righteous community.”29 4:15-23 notes the eventual destruction of deceit and the triumph of truth. Initially, however, it shows that humanity’s condition, in an eschatological sense, is set and inescapable, ‫ באלה תולדות כול בני איש ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כול צבאותם לדורותם ובדרכיהן יתהלכו וכול‬.15 ‫פעולת‬ ‫ מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי עולמים‬.16‎

26  See Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 167. Also, Lichtenberger notes that while God predetermined the function of every spirit to each person, as well as those who will be saved and damned, there remains an open question regarding the pious person who sins, Studien zum Menschenbild, 133. Moreover, there is a parallel between the ethical dualism depicted here and division between the works of the flesh and spirit attributed to the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law” (5:19-23, RSV). 27  Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 167. 28  Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120-1. 29  Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 166.

242

7 A Predetermined Condition

15. In these (two spirits are) the natures of all the sons of man (i.e., humanity), and in their (two) divisions all their hosts of their generations gave a share; in their ways they walk, and the entire task of 16. their walks (falls) with their divisions according to a person’s share, much or little, in all the times of eternity.

Deceit and truth continue to co-exist until the end, where at the appointed time deceit will be destroyed and those that are chosen will be purified by a holy spirit (18-22). Those who were chosen, and to whom the Angel of Darkness (and the angels of his lot) have been given limited governance, will be purged “from the innards of his flesh” (‫מתכמי בשרו‬, 20). The language of cleansing one’s “innards” (‫ )תכמים‬is not unlike 4QIncantation, “As for me, I am the dread of God. He opened my mouth with the knowledge of His truth, and […] empowered by His holy spirit. […] truth for all [thes]e, and they became contentious spirits in my bodily frame (‫[ ;)במבניתי‬God’s] statute[s …] [… in] the the innards of flesh” (‫ב] ֯תכמי בשר‬, 4Q444 1 4 i 5), as a reference to the innards of the body when they are infested with sinfulness and afflictions.30 Indeed, this purification is a preemptive step so that the so-called “upright ones” (‫)ישרים‬ “may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven” and those that are “perfect in the way” (‫ )תמימי דרך‬might receive understanding (22). To these chosen ones will be given the “glory of humanity” (‫)כבוד אדם‬,31 which enigmatically may refer to the “prospect of eternal life,” according to Goff, or as Crispin Louis Fletcher suggests, “the position in creation that God originally gave Adam before his fall.”32 The duality present in the Treatise permeates its presentation of the human condition. Although the stated purification during the eschaton and the Angel of Darkness’ extended dominion over the children of truth entertain a more 30  See 5.3.4, 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) in the present study. 31  The two other occasions of this unique terminology is CD 4:20, “… those who hold firm to it shall receive everlasting life, and all human honor is rightly theirs …” (‫המחזיקים בו לחיי‬ ‫)נצח וכל כבוד אדם להם הוא‬, and 1QHa 4:27, “[forgiving every] transgression and casting away all their [iniquities,] giving them all the glory of man [or Adam] as an inheritance [along with] long life” (‫ותם ולהנחילם בכול כבוד אדם ֯לרוב‬ ֯ ֯‫ ] ֯פשע ולהשליך כול עו֯ ו֯ נ‬-- [ ‫)ימים‬, help us to gather some understanding of ‫כבוד אדם‬. Both CD and the hodayah parallel ‫ כבוד אדם‬with forgiveness of transgressions and a long, or eternal‫ ת‬life. The Treatise agrees on both points as it explicitly refers to “eternal life” (‫חיי נצח‬, 4:7) for those who walk in the Spirit of Truth and have their deeds purified (‫ואז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי‬ ‫גבר‬, “And then in his truth God will purify all human deeds,” 4:20). 32  Matthew Goff, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef Zsengeller, JSJSup 142 (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 10; Crispin Louis-Fletcher, All the Flory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 107.

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

243

complex condition, the rest of humanity’s more certain condition—natural sinners—is determined by God and his sovereignty. The establishment of two spirits, and every human deed, bookend this portrait of the human condition. Yet, 4:23 adds another layer of complexity to human nature, “Until now the spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of humans” (‫עד הנה יריבו רוחי‬ ‫אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬, 23). Apparently, each person seems to embody some phenomenological meeting point where the seemingly opposed realms of truth and deceit converge, while at the same time, somehow, each person abstractly inhabits a permanent place in God’s predestined schema that was initiated at creation and will be confirmed at his visitation. 7.2.3 1QS 4:23c-26—A Double Duality, an Epilogue on the Human Condition The final lines of the Treatise 4:23c-26, which were also a later addition,33 seem to form a epilogue where the double duality of the human condition plays out. ‫ …עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬.23 ‫ יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת וכפי נחלת איש באמת וצדק וכן ישנהא עולה וכירשתו בגורל עול ירשע‬‎.24‫‏‬ ‫בו וכן‬ ‫והואה ידע פעולת מעשיהן לכול‬. ‫ יתעב אמת כיא בד בבד שמן אל עד קץ נחרצה ועשות חדשה‬‎.25‫‏‬ ‫קצי‬ ] ‫[… מועד‬°‫ [עולמי]ם וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב [ורע…]ל[ה]פיל גורלות לכול חי לפי רוחו ב‬‎.26‫‏‬ ‫הפקודה‬

23. … Until now the spirits of truth and injustice feud in a person’s heart. 24. they walk in wisdom and folly. In agreement with a person’s inheritance in the truth, he shall be righteous and so abhor injustice; and the its share in the lot of injustice, he shall act wickedly in it, and so 25. abhor the truth. For God has sorted them into equal parts until the appointed end and the new creation. He knows the result of their deeds for all times 26. [everlas]ting and has given them as a legacy to the son of man so that they know good [and evil … and] to cast the lots of every living being according to his spirit [… until the time of] the visitation.

Stuckenbruck notes that the Treatise’s theological anthropology envisions, partly, “the human being as the battleground between cosmic forces.”34 The early portions of the Treatise are not explicitly clear regarding the location of the spirits of truth and injustice. Line 23 clarifies that this struggle is partly internal, waging in the hearts of humanity, “Until now the spirits of truth and 33  Duhaime, “L’Instruction ser les deux espirits,” 589-94; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 201-3. 34  Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 168.

244

7 A Predetermined Condition

deceit struggle in the heart of humankind” (‫בלבב גבר‬, 23). Yet, this “struggle” (‫ )ריב‬is not present in the final three lines (24-26). Instead God’s predetermining sovereignty takes center stage. These lines demonstrate human nature’s double duality. The individual has both some “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬in truth and “possession” (‫ )ירושה‬in deceit, that is, a person is the embodiment of an internal convergence of the struggle between these opposing forces which, dependent on one’s portion in those particular realms, will direct him/her to obedience or transgression (4:24). Even with this embodiment, the person remains externally set in either predestined camp until God’s visitation when things “are made new” (‫עשות חדשה‬, 25).35 This complexity of the human condition, where the righteous stumble, and perhaps even the wicked, have a modicum of right action (or an ability to do so), does not necessarily call into question the ultimate standing of the children of truth or deceit—these matters are immovable. This epilogue on the human condition hedges the Treatise with the same view of God’s sovereignty that it opened with (3:18-25). Consequently, humanity’s position among the children of truth or deceit, which is ultimately inescapable, bookends the Treatise as well. What occurs between these points is largely a continual emphasis on the cosmic and ethical duality, interspersed with the depiction of an ability (or lack thereof)—for the children of righteousness— to know truth and act accordingly, as well as God’s role in establishing that. To this, the Treatise cannot escape representing the complexity of human nature, as the convergence of these ethical realms, which ultimately necessitates the purification of children of truth upon God’s visitation (‫ )הפקודה‬from their afflictions and distress. Although, while the Treatise entertains this complexity (e.g., the battle that is waged within each person), however, the closing lines note that it has no effect on what God has predestined; the mystery of God’s determining control—and humanity’s place in it—remains intact.36 The Treatise’s depiction of the human condition is that of a double duality. Anthropologically, each person belongs to one of two opposing camps, the righteous or the wicked, the children of truth or the children of deceit. This 35  Leaney correctly notes that the concept of all things being made “new” appears elsewhere in post-biblical Jewish literature, as well as the New Testament, The Rule of Qumran, 161. 36  Again, in the Reformed Tradition of the 16th c. French theologian John Calvin, actual human action does not question God’s predetermined plan but rather casts a negative light on a person’s place with the larger camps of the righteous/saved and wicked/ damned, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (London: Bonham Norton, 1599), Book III. The reason for such is, as in the Treatise, that God foreordination of humanity’s deeds does not negate the real-world struggle between obedience and sin.

7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22)

245

reality is governed by two spirits, and the spirits of their lot. This predestined condition is maintained for the better part of the Treatise despite the Angel of Darkness’ extended governance over the “children of truth.” The other aspect of this duality is that each person embodies an internal struggle between truth and deceit and will act according to whatever inheritance or possession was determined for him/her. This indicates that the Treatise, in its final form, preserves two paradoxical points that shape the contours of human nature: 1) humanity is locked into one of two camps which are wholly opposed and will ultimately bear eternal life or condemnation upon God’s “visitation,” and 2) the complexity of actual human action—the struggle in humanity’s heart—which cannot be confined so neatly to this aforementioned division. Therefore, the human nature consists of an external and internal duality. 7.3

Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22)

The Hymn of Praise [HP] is an originally independent text37 which closes the Serekh ha-Yaḥad text. Licht notes that the entirety of the hymn deals with one subject, “the praise of God and the speaker’s trust in God.”38 HP can be divided into four major sections: 1) “First-person Praise of God” (10:8-16b), 2) “Judgment of Humanity” (16c-19b), 3) “Judgment and the Speaker’s Righteousness” (19c11:5b) and 4) “Human Sinfulness and the Yaḥad” (5c-22). The hymn begins with a first person perspective of the speaker, or, as Newsom describes it, 10:8-11:2a preserves a long-section where “first-person verbs cluster thickly.”39 Both Newsom and Brand note that this text reflects, in part, aspects of humanity’s condition,40 especially its sinfulness. In the first three sections, there are a couple of references to the speaker’s own sin, as well as that of humanity. Of course, the speaker’s transgression is wiped away by God’s own righteousness 37  Sarianna Metso notes the material reconstruction from 4QSe, which “concluded with a different calendrical text 4QOtot,” The Serekh Texts, LSTS 62, CQS 9 (London; New York: T and T Clark, 2007), 14. Portions of the hymn also appear in the 4QSb,d,f,j. See also, eadem, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 108; Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 69-130; Michael Knibb, “Rule of the Community” EDSS 2:795; Markus Bokhmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community,” RQ 18/72 (1998): 541-60. 38  Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-serakhim mimegillot midbar yehudah serekh ha-yaḥad, serekh ha‘edah serekh ha-berakhot (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965), 203. 39  Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 109. 40  The Self as Symbolic Space, 169; Brand, Evil Within and Without, 68. In particular, Brand notes that hymn provides us with a perspective in the nature of sin.

246

7 A Predetermined Condition

(‫בצדקותו ימח פשעי‬, 11:3),41 while human rebellion is thought to have an end in judgment (‫ פשעם‬42‫ומעל אנשים עד תום‬, 10:23-24). The shift to a more distinct comparison between humanity’s sin and the yaḥad begins in the fourth section of the hymn. This section can be broken down further: 1) “A Vision of Sound Wisdom” (11:5c-6), 2) “Wisdom is Hidden from Humanity” (6b-7a), 3) “Divine Choosing of the Yaḥad” (7b-9a); 4) “The Speaker’s Self-Awareness” (9b-10a), 5) “Justification from Humanity’s Sin” (10b-20a) and 6) “Rhetoric of Human Nothingness”43 (20b-22). This section is distinguished by an introduction where the speaker has his eyes gaze upon what “always is” (‫הווא עולם‬44). The understanding of “wisdom” (‫ )תושיה‬is given to the speaker but concealed from humanity on three occasions (11:6-7). Three different terms are utilized synonymously to describe humankind, ‫אנוש‬, ‫בני אדם‬, and ‫סוד בשר‬.45 The repeated refrain rhetorically separates the enlightened speaker, and even the readers/community, from the rest of the hoi polloi. It further serves to heighten the uniqueness of God’s chosen community (‫ )בחר אל‬and strengthens the opposing duality between humanity and the yaḥad (11:7b-9a). The chosen community is spoken of as being joined with “angelic beings” (‫ קדושים‬and ‫)בני שמים‬, and as an assembly “built for holiness” (‫)מבנית קודש‬, and “an eternal planting for all ages to come” (‫מטעת עולם עם‬ ‫)כול קץ נהיה‬. It is after this that the hymn begins to identify more clearly with humanity’s sinful condition and the speaker’s own participation. 7.3.1

“The Speaker’s Self-Awareness” (11:9b-10a)

46‫ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד בשר עול עוונותי פשעי חטאתי {…} עם נעוית לבבי‬...

11:9b

‫ לסוד רמה והולכי חושך‬.10a

41  In a sense the judgment of all humanity as part of the human condition is also paralleled in 4QInstruction (e.g., 4Q416 1 4-6, 4Q417 2 i 15-16, 4Q418 77 3). See Matthew Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 204. This text is addressed later in this study. 42  “until completion” or “until an end” (‫)עד תום‬, seems to indicate that the end to humanity’s transgression is not temporary but permanent. See HALOT 4:1752; also 1QM 16:1, CD 20:14. 43  Adapted from Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 169. 44  Unless otherwise noted Hebrew text from the Community Rule is from DSSSE, 68-98. 45  The phrase ‫ סוד בשר‬is rarely utilized in the scrolls occurring only twice in the “Hymn of Praise” (11:7, 9). Its appearance in another fragmentary text, 4Q511 26 1-5, appears in Baillet’s reconstruction, although he utilizes the Community Rule, DJD VII, 234. See P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction, STDJ 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1957), 152. 46  Unless otherwise noted English translations of the Community Rule are the authors.

7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22)

247

11:9b. And I belong to wicked humanity, and to the council of sinful flesh. My iniquities, my transgressions, my sins {…} with the perverseness of my heart, 10a. belong to the council of maggots and those who walk in darkness.

Brand notes that the speaker’s divinely-given wisdom and expected justification from sin is contrasted here by “his ongoing sinful nature.”47 In light of the speaker’s dualistic opposition between himself, God’s chosen, and everyone else, his own self-debasement betrays a view of collective humanity. First “wicked humanity” (‫ )אדם רשעה‬and “council of sinful flesh” (‫ )סוד בשר עול‬do not seem to indicate a portion of humankind but rather the whole lot, that is, those both inside and outside of the community. While both phrases are peculiar to the hymn, “sinful flesh” (‫ )בשר עול‬appears again the War Scroll, “‘From God is the power of war against all sinful flesh’” (‫מאת אל יד מלחמה בכול‬ ‫בשר עול‬, 1QM 4:2-3). Indeed, “sinful flesh,” against whom God and his armies fight, represent the nations of the world (see 1QM 2-9).48 Is the speaker in HP then self-identifying with the enemy nations of the world? The occurrences of ‫ בשר עול‬in HP and the War Scroll are not precisely equivalent. It is unlikely that the speaker in HP envisions himself as belonging to the nations of the world in the War Scroll, especially since the writer’s participation in “wicked humanity” is rectified by God’s righteousness.49 The War Scroll’s parallel, nonetheless, attests the pervasiveness of the use of “flesh” to describe a natural human opposition to those whom God has revealed true knowledge and has elected. Elsewhere it seems that “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬is ultimately in opposition to “spirit” (‫)רוח‬, especially the God-given spirit issued to the elect to know, understand, and obey his commandments. The speaker of the hymn acknowledges this duality, having a true understanding of how he is immersed in wickedness and transgression, and thoroughly dependent of divine agency to move beyond it. Second, the speaker’s view of human nature seems partly tied to mortality; he and the rest of humankind belong “to the council of maggots” (‫לסוד רמה‬, 10a).50 Human nature is largely unenlightened and described as “those who walk in darkness” (‫)הולכי חושך‬, metaphorically utilized for those who lack understanding. Therefore, the speaker’s self-reflection on his/her own sinfulness echoes an innate part of the human condition with which the speaker—elected by

47  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 68. 48  See Philip R. Davies, “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness,” EDSS 2:965-8. 49  ‫ צדקה‬appears 7X to describe the manner in which God justifies the speaker from his iniquities and feelings. 50  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 69.

248

7 A Predetermined Condition

God and enlightened—must still deal.51 The reality of the speaker is not unlike a first-person retelling of the Treatise. 7.3.2

“Justification from Humanity’s Sin” (11:10b-20a)

‫ דרכו ואנוש לוא יכין צעדו כיא לאל המשפט ומידו‬52‫כיא ל(וא ל)אדם‬ … .10b ‫ ואני אם‬vacat ‫ תום הדרך ובדעתו נהיה כול וכ{ע}ול הויה במחשבתו יכינו ומבלעדיו לוא יעשה‬.11 ‫ אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי לעד ואם אכשול בעוון בשר משפטי בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬.12 ‫ יפתח צרתי ומשחת יחלץ נפשי ויכן לדרך פעמי ברחמיו הגישני ובחסדיו יבוא‬.13 53‫ משפטי בצדקת אמתו שפטני וברוב טובו יכפר בעד כול עוונותי ובצדקתו יטהרני מנדת‬.14 ‫ אנוש וחטאת בני אדם להודות לאל צדקו ולעליון תפארתו ברוך אתה אלי הפותח לדעה‬.15 ‫ ׄלב עבדכה הכן בצדק כול מעשיו והקם לבן אמתכה כאשר רציתה לבחירי אדם להתיצב‬.16 ‫ לפניכה לעד כיא מבלעדיכה לוא תתם דרך ובלי רצונכה לוא יעשה כול אתה הוריתה‬.17 ‫ כול דעה וכול הנהיה ברצונכה היה ואין אחר זולתכה להשיב על עצתכה ולהשכיל‬.18 ‫ בכול מחשבת קודשכה ולהביט בעומק רזיכה ולהתבונן בכול נפלאותיכה עם כוח‬.19 ‫ גבורתכה‬.20a

10b. … For humanity’s way is not his own, because humankind cannot establish his own step; since judgment is God’s and from his hand 11. is the perfection of the way. And by his knowledge everything shall come to be, and everything that exists he establishes it by his plan, and without him nothing is done. And I, if 12. I stagger, the mercies of God shall be my salvation forever. And if I stumble in the sin of the flesh, my judgment shall be in the righteousness of God which shall stand forever. 13. If my distress shall be loosed, he shall deliver me (lit. my soul) from the pit and shall steady my steps for the way. In his mercies, he shall bring me near, and by his lovingkindnesses he shall bring forth 14. my judgment. He shall judge me in the righteousness of his truth, and in his plentiful goodness always atone for all of my sins, and in his righteousness, he shall cleanse me from the impurity of 15. humanity and from all the sin of the humankind (lit. sons of man), so that I can give God thanks for his righteousness and the heights of his beauty. Blessed are you, my God, who opens 51  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 69. She notes that this differs from the presentation in the Hodayot where those “who are predestined to be righteous are not only free from sin but are elevated to a status close to that of the angels,” 68. 52  This is text from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE 1:98. No reason is given for the emendation of the text, ‫ל(וא ל)אדם‬. This is paralleled by Johann Maier, “‘Denn nicht beim Menschen steht sein Weg’” (author’s emphasis), Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom Toten Meer: Band I, Uni-Taschenbücher (München: E. Reinhardt, 1995), 199. The closest parallel of ‫ ל(וא ל)אדם‬occures in 1QHa 12:39. See W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes, BASORSup 10-12 (New Haven: ASOR, 1951), 45; Wernberg-Møller, The Manual, 43, 153, and Licht, Megillat ha-serakhim, 231, for the parallels between this text and biblical phraseology esp. in Jer 10:23, Prov 16:9. 53  See also 4QSj (4Q264) 1, DJD XXVI, 201-6.

7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22)

249

16. the heart of your servant to knowledge. Establish all his works in righteousness, and raise up the son of your handmaid to stand 17. to stand before you forever. Because apart from you the way is not perfected (complete) and apart from your will nothing is done. You teach 18. all knowledge and all that shall be shall come to be because of your will. Beyond you there is no one to oppose your counsel, to understand 19. any of your holy thoughts, to gaze into the abyss of your mysteries, to fathom all your marvels or the strength of 20a. your might.

The opening in 10b-11 acknowledges that humanity is utterly dependent on God since all is determined by him; a person cannot set his own steps. That is to say, that humankind lacks any self-wrought ability to free itself from its innate sinful condition. Though God has engaged the speaker, enlightening him so that he is aware of his own failings, God is expected to continually rescue him should he stagger or stumble in “sin of the flesh” (‫עוון בשר‬, 11:11c-13). This phrase appears again in a short hymn of the Hodayot (15:37-16:4), though in this hodayah whatever causes “impurity” (‫ )נדה‬and the “sin of the flesh” is removed: “you expelled from my innards” (‫)הכאתה מתכמי‬.54 So also in HP, the speaker’s dependence on God is so outright that he expects God to atone for all the his sins (‫יכפר בעד כול עוונותי‬, 1QS 11:14). To that end, God will also purify the speaker “from the impurity of humanity” (‫מנדת אנוש‬, 14-15). The speaker’s awareness of his own condition reflects the condition of general humanity.55 His anticipated and continual justification from sin is a partial release from an innate condition that for those outside the speaker’s community is wholly inescapable. In the closing portion, which begins with “Blessed are you, my God” (‫)ברוך אתה אלי‬, the speaker shifts to the third-person requesting God’s divine knowledge, acknowledging equal dependence on God (15b-20a) because “apart from your will nothing is done” (‫ובלי רצונכה לוא יעשה‬, 17). 7.3.3

“Rhetoric of Human Nothingness” (11:20b-22) ‫    … ומי יכול להכיל את כבודכה ומה אף הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬.20b ‫מצירוק‬ ׄ ‫ וילוד אשה מה ישב לפניכה והואה מעפר מגבלו ולחם רמה ׄמדורו והואה‬.21 56‫ חמר קורץ ולעפר תשוקתו מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד ולעצת מה יבין‬.22

54  Brand notes this difference between HP and the “Hodayot,” Evil Within and Without, 59-68. 55  See “3.5 The Amplification in Human Lowliness in 1QHa 20:7-22:4” in the present study. 56  See also “‫ ”[ולעפר תשוקתו מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד ולעצת ]מה יבין‬in 4Q256 23:1, and DSSSMM 2, SQC 126-47.

250

7 A Predetermined Condition

20b. … Who is able to endure your glory? Indeed, what is the human being (lit. son of man) among all of your wondrous deeds? 21. And one born of a woman, how shall he dwell before you? He who is kneaded from dust, and whose corpse57 is food for maggots. He is spit saliva,58 22. pinched-off clay whose desire is for the dust. And what can clay and one formed by hand reply? And what counsel does he understand?

A declaration of human nothingness closes HP. The rhetorical flourish is contextually unique from the rest of the hymn: 1) the speaker disappears into the background, 2) the servant of lines 15-18 has also retreated, and 3) praise of God for his salvific acts has gone missing. Additionally, the juxtaposition between the speaker’s sinful condition and God’s continual engagement on the speaker’s behalf or that of his servant has been replaced by what appears to be an independent reflection on humanity’s lowly condition. Its chiastic structure suggests that the emphasis is on human nothingness, specifically that a person is mere dust and food for maggots (cf. 10a). The following text is intended to show this chiastic structure that intentionally highlights humanity’s baseness. A. Who is able to endure your glory?

‫ ומי יכול להכיל את כבודכה‬.A

B. And what is humanity (lit. the son of man) among your wondrous deeds?

‫ ומה אף הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬.B

C. And one born of a woman, how shall he dwell before you?

‫ וילוד אשה מה ישב לפניכה‬.C

D. He who is kneaded from dust D. And whose corpse is food for maggots

‫ והואה מעפר מגבלו‬.D ‫ ולחם רמה ׄמדורו‬.D

C. And he is spit saliva and pinched-off clay, whose desire is for the dust

‫מצירוק חמר קורץ ולעפר תשוקתו‬ ׄ ‫ והואה‬.C

B. What can clay, and one formed by hand reply?

‫ מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד‬.B

A. And what counsel shall he understand?

‫ ולעצת מה יבין‬.A

This emphasis is also present in the Hodayot. Indeed, some of the language in this closing text appears again in certain hymns. The futility of trying to 57  For this translation of ‫ ׄמדור‬see, PTSDSSP 1:51, esp. n. 303. 58  Charlesworth and Qimron translate ‫מצירוק‬ ׄ as “discharge” taken partly from Mishnaic Hebrew where “spit” (‫ )רוק‬is a euphemism for “semen” (e.g., b. Nidd 16b) and ‫מצי‬ ׄ , which “is a contraction of the Hiphil participle of the root yṣ’, written defectiva …, and meaning ‘coming forth,’” PTSDSSP 1:51, n. 305.

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

251

understand God’s work reverberates through the Hodayot with similar rhetoric: “And so, what is a person of nothingness and a possessor of vanity that he should contemplate your wondrous deeds” (‫מעשי פלאך‬, 1QHa 15:35-36/‫מעשי‬ ‫פלאך‬, cp. 1QS 11:20b). Elsewhere in the Hodayot one reads regarding the innate uselessness of one born of a woman (‫ )ילוד אשה‬in contrast God’s own deeds: “What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at awe-inducing works?” (‫ומה‬ ֯ ‫ילוד אשה‬, 5:31; see also 1QHa 23:12-14, 4QHb 14 1-3). The ‫בכול [ג] ֯ד[ו] ֯ל[י] ֯ך הנוראים‬ speaker “born of a woman” is nothing but a “edifice of dust” (‫)מבנה עפר‬, “his foundation is an obscene shame” ( ֯‫ )סודו ערות קלו֯ ן‬and “he is ruled by a perverted spirit” (‫)רוח נעוה משלה‬. HP and the Hodayot again parallel each other by referring to the “kneaded edifice of dust” (‫מבנה עפר ומגבל‬, 5:32/‫הואה מעפר‬ ‫מגבלו‬, 1QS 11:21). Furthermore, towards the closing of the hymns there is a reference to humanity’s dust-like condition59 which is described as a formation of spit (1QHa 20:35, 23:28-29, 36, also 4QSongs of the Sageb 28 29 3). In both the Hodayot and HP humanity’s innate condition is a by-product of having not been enlightened by God’s spirit. Apparently, this is the permanent condition suffered by those who exist outside of the yaḥad where the Rule texts and the Hodayot originate. In both HP and the Hodayot there is some respite from this condition through God’s righteousness and the giving of his spirit. Within the context of 1QS, there is a clear end of this condition for those who belong to the Community. Yet, like the Hodayot, the writer of HP acknowledges his own participation in this vile lot, despite having been granted divine enlightenment. His existence, sans the giving of wisdom, is utterly abject, a reflection of the condition of all “wicked humanity” and “sinful flesh.” 7.4

Musar le-Mevin and the “Fleshly” Condition

7.4.1 The Plight of “Flesh” One of the consequences of being corporeal is the utilization of the noun “flesh” (‫בשר‬, σὰρξ) to imply human sinfulness, vulnerability, or mortality. This idea may stem from the various transgressions associated with humanity’s physical nature.60 Ben Sira utilizes the unique term, “body of flesh” (σώματι σαρκὸς), in order to portray the dangers posed by fornication to the physical self: two sorts of men multiply sins, and a third incurs wrath; the soul heated like a burning fire will not be quenched until it is consumed; a man who commits

59  See comments on “vessel of clay/dust” in this study’s section 3.5. 60  See Tigchelaar’s discussion on the various meanings of “‫ ” ָבּ ָשׂר‬in TWzQ 1:537-547.

252

7 A Predetermined Condition

fornication with his body of flesh61 will never cease until the fire burns him up; to a fornicator all bread tastes sweet; he will never cease until he dies (23:16-17)62 The stanza here denounces lewd desires and adultery involving the flesh of the body. As such it seems that being composed of “flesh” implies a considerable moral weakness. In regard to the dangers of loving money, T. Jud. attributes a considerable amount of weakness, sin, and repentance, to the “flesh.”

61  Skehan and Di Lella render ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ as “with his own kindred,” Ben Sira, 319, implying that the stich here is referring to incest. Unfortunately, there is no reasoning provided. Although no Hebrew version exists for these chapters, Skehan and Di Lella may have based their translation on the possible Hebrew equivalent ‫( ְש ֵאר ְב ָשרֹו‬lit. “flesh of his flesh;” see Lev 18:6, 25:49, CD 7:1, 8:6, 19:19, 4QDa 4 iv 4, 4QDd 6:2, 4QApocJer Cb, A 2, 4Q477 2 ii 8), which is understood as next of kin or familial relation (such is intimated in Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 324; also, Segal, Ben Sira, 141). Lev 18:6, in particular, deals with incest but the translation of the Hebrew terminology, at least, in the LXX does not parallel the phraseology of Ben Sira. Finding the appropriate meaning leads us to the Greek of 1Enoch. Various studies have shown the value of comparing Ben Sira with 1 Enoch. For example, Karina Martin Hogan, “The Mortal Body and the Earth in Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers,” in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson, WUNT 284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 21-39; Benjamin G. Wright, “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction, 147-163; repr. from idem, Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, ed. Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements, JSJSup 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 105-21. 1Enoch may offer parameters for translating σώματι σαρκὸς. The Greek fragments of the Epistle of Enoch utilizes the similar phrase τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν (“the body of your [pl.] flesh;” 102:5), Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 515. The text of 1Enoch is an exhortation to the righteous souls that they now have no need to worry even though their bodies (i.e., their body of flesh) did not fare well in life because they lived in a world of sinners; see Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 515. The focus on the physical nature of the body seems to elucidate also how the NT uses this precise phraseology (Col 1-2). For this reason, we have opted to utilize the more literal translation. It suggests that the text is speaking against those lewd acts committed with one’s physical body and not incest. See Eibert Tigchelaar’s note on ‫ גוית בשרם‬in “‫”בשר‬, TWzQ 1:541. 62  Ben Sira employs numerical proverbs which abound in biblical literature, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 324). See also, Guiseppe Bellia, “An Historico-Anthropological Reading of the Work of Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 53. Additionally, Büchler has noted, “It is almost exclusively the relations of man to man that govern Sirach’s conception of sin; and such offences are, at the same time, sins against God, while man’s transgressions against God alone are mentioned only very rarely,” A. Büchler, “Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement” JQR 14/1 (Jul. 1923): 83. The Apostle Paul uses similar language to refer to the work of Christ on behalf of the people in Collosae. Essentially, Jesus is said to have become a “body of flesh” (τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς) to free humanity, specifically the community he writes to, from the sinful condition of that flesh (Col 1-2).

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

253

On account of money I utterly lost my children, and had it not been for the penitence of my flesh (καὶ εἰ μὴ ἡ μετάνοια σαρκός μου63), the humility of my soul, and the prayers of my father, Jacob, I would have met death childless … The prince of error blinded me, and I was ignorant—as a human being, as flesh, in my corrupt sins (ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὡς σὰρξ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις φθαρείς)—until I learned of my own weakness after supposing myself to be invincible (19:2-4).

From there one notes a further abstraction of “flesh,” which moves beyond referencing the transgressions caused by the human body to a metaphorical catchall for sinfulness, in particular, transgressions that are caused through a lack of knowledge.64 Two phrases that express reality, “sin of flesh” (‫)עוון בשר‬ and “unjust flesh” (‫)בשר עול‬, also appear in the Serekh’s HP (1QS 10:9-11:22). In regard to HP, which is examined above, sin is attributed to both human physicality65 and a lack of having understanding. The speaker who bears these shared characteristics also belongs to “wicked humanity” (‫ )אדם רשעה‬and his penchant to sin is also in line with the rest of humanity—a proclivity that is innate. Despite being a member of the chosen community, and having 63  Greek text, Jonge, The Testaments, 73. 64  In the regard, Pauline texts have gained a great deal of attention in this regard: e.g., Egon Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968); Frey, “Flesh and Spirit,” 371-4; idem, “Die paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist,” ZNW 90/1 (1999): 45-48; idem, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 197-226; also Robert Jewett’s survey of the history of scholarship on Paul’s use of “flesh” (σὰρξ) in Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 49-94. 65  Brand, Evil Within and Without, 70. Brand duly notes the difference between the portrayal of sin envisioned by the Community Rule here and in the Hodayot. In the Rule the speaker does not have communion with the angels, he belongs to the counsel of worms, and must face the chance of sinning in the future. It is fitting at this point to make a brief note about the term ‫( גויה‬body) in the scrolls. On several occasions the term indicates a corpse (4QMusar le-Mevind 127 3, 167 a + b 6, 4Q169 34 ii 4, 6, 4Q225 3 ii 2). On other occasions it is employed to speak to a person’s physical nature, specifically that part which is vulnerable to illness and disease (1QpHab 9:1-2; 4QMusar le-Mevinb 2 ii 18). Thus, it appears that this terminology refers simply to the vulnerable physical nature of an individual but does not carry the spiritual/physical dynamic that ‫ בשר‬does in the Qumran-specific material. Additionally, Ben Sira attests the same semantic range with σῶμά. Although wherever a Hebrew parallel exists, the Greek appears to be translating ‫( שאר‬and on two occasions, ‫)בשר‬. Yet, when Ben Sira utilizes this terminology, he focuses in solely on the physical nature of an individual: as a corpse (38:16, 41:11, 44:14, 48:13), bodily health (30:14-17); physical body (“daughters,” 7:24; “fornication,” 23:16; 47:19), and salvation from destruction (51:2).

254

7 A Predetermined Condition

wisdom revealed to him that is otherwise hidden from “fleshly counsel” (‫סוד‬ ‫בשר‬, cf. also 4Q511 26 1), it seems that the speaker in the Serekh text continues

to sin.66 What saves him is a dependence on God to stop the cycle. So also, “unjust flesh” (‫ )עוון בשר‬is the lot of the speaker, whose only hope is that God has established his footing and set his path (1QHa 15:40; par. 4Q428 10:4). The stark difference with the rest of humanity is that, while they share the same debased, “fleshly” condition, the rest lack God’s sublimely determined revelation, forgiveness, and mercy.67 This type of sinfulness—stemming from a lack of understanding—is especially present in the ‫רוח‬/‫ בשר‬interplay preserved in certain Musar le-Mevin texts and the Hodayot. It does not express corporeal human life necessarily but rather the component which is susceptible to various forms of transgression. 7.4.2 The “Fleshly” Condition in Musar le-Mevin Dated to the 2nd c. BCE, the majority of the Musar le-Mevin manuscripts from Qumran were discovered in Cave 4 (4Q415-418, 4Q418a, 4Q423), with one

66  At least there is possibility that he will: “And If through sin of flesh I stumble” (‫בשר ואם‬ ‫)אכשול בעוון‬. 67  In fact, the great eschatological battle as depicted in the War Scroll is said to be against this lot of humanity, “God is the power of war against all unjust flesh” (‫אל יד מלחמה בכול‬ ‫ בשר עול‬1QM 4:3). Undoubtedly, those chosen, and part of the covenantal community will in the end not belong to this lot, so the collective term here reflects everyone else (see below). Moreover, ‫ עוון בשר‬appears again in the 1QHa 15:40 (par. 4Q428 10 4). It should also be noted that in the messianic banquet described in the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) requires such an absolute physical purity that normal human maladies will exclude these afflicted individuals from it, cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation, SBLMS 38 (Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 37-53. See e.g., 1QS 2:4-6, “… No man with a physical handicap— crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh, or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation may en[ter] to take a place in the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation” (‫או ידים פסח או עור או‬ ‫בבשרו לראות עינים או איש זקן וכול מנוגע בבשרו נכאה ֯ר ֯ג ׄלי֯ ם‬ ‫חרש או אלם או מום מנוגע‬ ׄ ‫)כושל לבלתי התחזק בתוך העדה אל יב[ואו ]אלה להתיצב [ב] ׄתו֯ ך עדת ׄא[נ]ושי השם‬. The same idea is paralleled in the makeup of those who will participate in the final eschatological battle. 1QM 7:3-5: “… No youth nor woman shall enter their encampments from the time they leave from Jerusalem to go to battle until their return. No one crippled, blind or lame, nor a man who has a permanent blemish on his skin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go with them to battle. All of them shall be volunteers for battle, pure of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the day of vengeance” (‫וכול נער זעטוט ואשה לוא יבואו למחנותם בצאתם מירושלים ללכת למלחמה עד שובם וכול‬ ‫פסח או עור או חגר או איש אשר מום עולם בבשרו או איש מנוגע בטמאת בשרו כול אלה‬ ‫לוא ילכו אתם למלחמה כולם יהיו אנשי נדבת מלחמה ותמימי רוח ובשר ועתודים ליום נקם‬, DSSSE 1:124).

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

255

manuscript discovered in Cave 1 (1Q26).68 Formerly known as Sapiental Work A,69 Musar le-Mevin, also known as 4QInstruction and 1QInstruction, is the longest sapiential work among the Dead Sea Scrolls.70 Much of what can be read from the seven identified manuscripts is “explicitly pedagogical,” though it also incorporates cosmological and eschatological ideas.71 This instruction is primarily directed towards the ‫( מבין‬mevin), the “understanding one.” The portion of the text that is most germane to our study is the portrayal of the human condition as “spirit of flesh” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and its relationship ‘m ‘m rwḥ (‫עם עם‬ ‫ )רוח‬in getting, or being given, access to the “Vision of Meditation,” otherwise known as the “Vision of Hagu ( ֯‫הגוי‬ ׄ ‫)חזון ֯ה‬.”72 The two texts which legibly preserve ‫ רוח בשר‬are 4Q417 1 i 13-18 (par. 4Q418 43) and 4Q418 81 + 81a 2. 7.4.2.1 4Q417 1 i 13-18 ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫רוח בשר‬ The context prior to 4Q417 1 i 1-13a portrays what Goff describes as two separate sections, “Lines 1-5, the worst preserved section, describe the vast knowledge that can be acquired through the mystery that is to be—the past, the present, and the future, using a tripartite division of time. Lines 6-13 also provide an

68  Eibert Tigchelaar notes that these identified manuscripts are made up of 425 fragments, “The Addressees of 4QInstruction,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, 62-63. See also Matthew J. Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 10-11. 69  See John Strugnell’s and Daniel Harrington’s discussion in “Instruction,” in John Strugnell, Daniel J. Harrington and Torleif Elgvin, ed., in consultation with J. A. Fitzmyer, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction (Musar le-Mevin): 4Q415 ff. With a reedition of 1Q26, DJD XXXIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 3. See also the history of research on this text as surveyed by Jean-Sébastian Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatologie, STDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009),1-2, 9-11; Eibert Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction, STDJ 44 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 3-27. 70  Daniel J. Harrington, “Recent Study of 4QInstruction,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, Eibert Tigchelaar, STDJ 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 105; Matthew Goff, 4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 1. 71  Matthew Goff, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body, Christian Self, 42; rev. from “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, 114-25. See also DJD XXXIV, 3; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 9-12; idem, 4QInstruction, 12-16. 72  D JD XXXIV, 151-2. See par. 4Q418 43 45 i 12. There have been various transcriptions of ‫ההגוי‬. More recently, Goff, following Tigchelaar, Puech, and Rey, has opted for ‫ההגות‬, 4QInstruction, 141. Since the transcription is not largely relevant to our discussion we have opted for the transcription of the official publication.

256

7 A Predetermined Condition

impression of what one can learn by means of the ‫רז נהיה‬.”73 While scholars have debated as to the translation of rz nhyh (‫)רז נהיה‬, it is clearly a divine revelation of God’s deterministic plan of history—past, present, and future—to the ‫מבין‬.74 Its purpose is that the mevin might know “truth and evil, wisdom, [and falsehood …]” (‫ ;אמת ועול חכמה [ואול] ׄת‬1 i 6-7, cp. 4Q418 43 45 i 4) and he/ she may live (‫להתהלך‬, 10) by this understanding. Thus, the revelation locates the mevin’s condition in contrast to those outside of his/her circle. It is the third section of this fragment that depicts aspects regarding creation and an understanding of human nature. Yet, this is also precisely where scholars are divided. 4Q417 1 i 13-18 (with 4Q418 43)75

‫את ֯ה‬ ׄ ׄ‫ ו‬.13 ‫דה‬ ֯ ‫הפקו‬ ‫כול‬ ׄ ‫מבין‬‎ .14‫‏‬ ׄ ׄ ‫  ]בא ֯ח ֯ר ׄו ׄת החוק}כה{ ו֯ חקוק‬76[°‫רוש פעלתכה בזכרון ׄה‬ ‫] בני שית וספר זכרון כתוב לפניו‬  [°°‫כי חרות מחוקק לאל על כול ע‬‎ .15‫‏‬ ‫הגוי֯ ֯לספר זכרון וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו֯ לאנוש עם עם רוח ֯כ[י] ֯א‬ ׄ ‫והואה חזון ֯ה‬ ׄ ‫לשמרי דברו‬‎ .16‫‏‬ ‫הגו ׄי לרוח בשר כי לא ידע בין‬ ׄ ‫כתבנית קדושים יצרו ועוד לוא נתן‬‎ .17‫‏‬ …[‫וחו‬ ׄ ]‫[טו] ׄב לרע כמשפט [ר‬‎ .18‫‏‬

13. and you 14. understanding one inherit your reward in remembrance of the ha[ ] it comes. Engraved is the statute and ordained is all the punishment 15. because engraved is that which is ordained by God against all the in[iq]uit[ie]s of sons of Sheth.77 And the book of remembrance is written before him 73  Goff, 4QInstruction, 142. 74  See Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 56-59; Torleif Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 131-9; Goff, “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction,” DSD 10/2 (2003): 165-70; idem, 4QInstruction, 144-6. Cana Werman, What is the Book of Hagu?,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20-22 May, 2001, ed. John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, Ruth A. Clements, STDJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 140. 75  D JD XXXIV, 151-2. 76  Strugnell and Harrington restore this break [ ‫ ׄה ֯ש[לום כי‬, noting that the concept fits nicely but would otherwise be a tight fit in the available space, DJD XXXIV, 161. Since the reconstruction of this lacuna varies, Goff, 4QInstruction, 140, we have opted to omit the reconstruction. See also Wold, “The Universality of Creation,” 219. 77  Goff notes that that the spelling “Sheth,” rather than “Seth”—a figure that gains a good deal of positive prominence in the Second Temple period—is due to the adaption of language from Num 24:17 and the judgment that the sons of Sheth face. He notes further, “The tribe mentioned in that verse is obscure, but the proclamation of their destruction is explicit. In early Jewish literature the verse is utilized as a proof text for the assertion that God will destroy the wicked,” 4QInstruction, 158, see esp. n. 58. See also, DJD XXXIV, 163.

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

257

16. for the ones who keep his word—that is, the vision of meditation of the book or remembrance. He bequeathed it to ‘nsh ‘m ‘m rwḥ be[cau]se 17. according to the likeness of the holy ones he formed it (or him). Furthermore, he did not give what is meditated upon to the rwḥ bsr, for it did not know between 18. [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit.

The text above largely follows Goff’s translation but we have left three important phrases untranslated: ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫רוח בשר‬.78 Understanding these terms represents an open disagreement among scholars in regard to this text’s general anthropology. In particular, these terms indicate whether or not0 4Q417 1 intends to depict an ontological division among humankind—a “spiritual” and “fleshly” humanity. The former is given access to the “Vision of Meditation” and the latter is denied it. As Wold notes, it “is crucial to understanding whether all of humanity or only a specific group is revealed wisdom.”79 Consequently, defining the human condition in this text also shifts if only an elect group is given access to this wisdom. 7.4.2.1.1 Tracing the Difficulties The original editors, Harrington and Strugnell, already understood some of the challenges with the aforementioned terms, especially ‫אנוש‬.80 Lange later argues that ‫ אנוש‬should be read as the patriarch, Enosh (cp. Gen 4:25, 5), while Collins is of the opinion that it carries the sense of Adam.81 Goff argues that 78  Goff, 4QInstruction, 139; idem, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 80-116. 79  Benjamin Wold, “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction,” RQ, 102/1 (2013): 214; idem, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions, WUNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 138-41. For a bibliography of the studies on this periscope, Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’: Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 103-4. 80  D JD XXXIV, 163-5. 81  Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 87-88; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 121-5; idem, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 610-2. See also Jörg Frey who suggests that enosh is representative of the biblical figure and the humanity, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Herman Licthenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven University Press; Leuven, 2002), 393; idem, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for

258

7 A Predetermined Condition

it cannot refer to humanity since it would disrupt the presumed logic of lines 16-17, that is, in line 16, humanity receives the “vision of meditation,” and in line 17 the “the fleshly spirit” is denied it.82 Goff’s reading, of course, assumes an ontological division among humanity. These differing interpretations of ‫אנוש‬ are in some ways related to how ‫ בני שות‬in line 15 should be read. If referencing the “sons of Seth,” the biblical patriarch of Gen 4-5, then ‫אנוש‬, as “Enosh,” seems reasonable. Yet, Goff rightly notes that rather than associating the negative portrayal here with the sons of the biblical Seth, it should be related to the ‫י־שׁת‬ ֵ ֵ‫“( ְבּנ‬sons of Sheth”), a Moabite tribe mentioned in Num 24:17.83 Regarding the anthropology of the Musar text, both Lange and Collins agree that two types of humanity are depicted here. This duality is substantiated with a presumed creational division between the ‫עם רוח‬, the so-called “spiritual people,” and ‫רוח בשר‬, the “fleshly spirit.” Collins posits that what is reflected here is akin to creation narratives of Gen 1 and 2. ‫ אנוש‬and the ‫ עם רוח‬are created in the likeness of the “holy ones” (‫ )קדושים‬in order to distinguish them from the creation of the “spirit of flesh” or the “fleshly spirit.”84 Goff argues, “The spiritual people signify the elect, who are like the angels and possess access to revelation. The fleshly spirit represents the non-elect; they are denied revelation.”85 In terms of humanity, Lange notes that—‫ עם רוח‬understood in antithesis to—‫ רוח בשר‬is a spiritually positive human group that is somehow associated with Enosh or angelic beings (Volk himmlischer Geister).86 On the other hand, Jean-Sébastien Rey notes that the meditation of history brings to humanity (l’homme) an understanding of good and evil.87 Rey is perhaps the the Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35 (Leiden, Brill 2000), 218-9; also, “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90/1-2 (Jan. 1999): 63. 82  Goff, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body and Christian, 46; idem, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 34-36; 4Qinstruction, 162-3. 83  D JD XXXIV, 163; idem, 4QInstruction, 157; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 30-31; Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 5. 84  Collins, “In the Likeness,” 615-6. 85  Goff, 4QInstruction, 168. 86  Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 88. See also Frey, “Flesh and Spirit,” 393; idem, “The Notion of ‘Flesh,’” 218-9. 87   Jean-Sébastien Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology, STDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 304. See also Émile Puech, “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques et Sapientiels de Qumrân à l’Eschatologie du Judaïsme Ancien,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García Martínez, BETL 168 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 138.

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

259

first to note that the “vision of mediation” is given “to humanity” (l’homme) in general rather than to a particular portion thereof. More recently, Goff notes, “4QInstruction posits two opposed types of humankind, one associated with spirit and the other with flesh, and grounds this dichotomy in the language of Gen 1-3,” an approach similar to that already suggested by John Collins et al. He suggests that the “vision” is given to both Enosh, “an enigmatic term that probably signifies Adam,” and denied to the those of the “fleshly spirit,” who as a result of this denial do not possess the knowledge of good and evil.88 Wold parts ways with others like Goff and Collins, suggesting—contra in particular Goff—that an ontological binary division between humanity is not present in the text.89 He posits that understanding ‫ אנוש‬as “humanity,” rather than “Adam” (à la Collins and Goff), indicates that Musar depicts a single creation. Furthermore, unlike, Collins, Goff, and Lange, Wold notes that the distinction between ‫ עם רוח‬and ‫“ רוח בשר‬is a delineation between a dualism at the present time that was not part of primordial creation.”90 Two points are particularly critical for Wold’s argument: 1) his reading—as per Cana Werman’s understanding91—of the scribal emendation in line 16’s ‫ עם עם רוח‬as “with” thereby rendering this phrase, “a people, with a spirit,” rather than “together with a spiritual people,” and 2) understanding the phrase ‫ ועוד לוא‬as “and no longer” which implies that at some point all of humanity had access to the “Vision of Meditation.” Since some did not tend to wisdom, they are considered foolish and “a fleshly spirit,” having given into their weak condition.92 As to Wold’s reading of ‫ועוד לוא‬, Tigchelaar has recently suggested that his reading of ‫ ועוד לוא‬has no grammatical basis, “A translation ‘no more’ might be based on the poetic Job 24:20 ‫‘ עוד לא־יזכר‬he is no more remembered,’ but we

88  Goff, 4QInstruction, 18; idem, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 94-100. 89  Wold, “The Universality of Creation,” 225-6; idem, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions, WUNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 135-7; idem, 4Qinstruction: Divisions and Hierarchies, STDJ 123 (Leiden: Brill 2018), 142-3. 90  Wold, Women, Men, and Angels, 139-40. 91  Werman, “What is the Book of Hagu?,” 125-40. It may be that Werman’s understanding would stand even without the supralineal emendation ‫( עם‬i.e., ‫“ = לאנוש עם רוח‬to Enosh [humanity] with a spirit”), which is by no means a certain reading. Indeed, this scribal emendation, which is read by the original editors as ‫עם‬, is not certain, especially since the upper right ligature of the ‘ayin looks more like an ’aleph than it does an ‘ayin. Perhaps, however, the scribal addition may be in the hand of someone other than the original scribe. That said, there seems to be no better alternative reading. 92  See Puech’s discussion in “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques,” 137-9.

260

7 A Predetermined Condition

have no single example of ‫ ועוד לוא‬with either perfect or participle.”93 Before unraveling these knots, it is worth examining some parallels in another Musar text. 7.4.2.1.2 A Parallel in Musar le-Mevind (4Q418 81 + 81a 1-20) One other Musar text, 4Q418 81+81a 1-20, is relevant to understanding 4Q417 1. As Goff notes, “The overall goal of 4Q418 81 is to help the mevin understand that he is different from the rest of humankind because God has given him elect status. This theme is the main focus of the first fourteen lines of the column.”94 A couple of things are important here. First, the mevin is told to bless the “holy ones” (‫)קדושים‬, a term—referring to angelic beings—that appears twice here and in 4Q417 (as well as its parallel 4Q418 43 45 i 3). Second, is the critical statement that the mevin has been “separated” (‫ )הבדיל‬from the “fleshly spirit” (‫)רוח בשר‬, “He has caused you to be separate from every fleshly spirit, so that you would be separate from everything that he hates” (‫הבדילכה‬ ‫בכול רוח בשר ואתה הבדל מכול אשר שנא‬, 1-2). In what remains of 4Q418 81 + 81a, it does not explicitly refer to how God “separates” the mevin from the “fleshly spirit,” or whether that separation is ontological. The more reasonable suggestion, as will be shown, is that the mevin is separated by the endowment of a God-given spirit or being part of the “a people with a spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬. What is important to note at this juncture is that the “fleshly spirit” represents, in part, “every abomination of the soul” (‫נפ ֯ש‬ ֯ ‫כול תעבות‬, 2), “all that God hates” (‫)כול אשר שנא‬, and an utter lack of knowledge. The elect mevin is then commanded to stay away from these things, watching over his gifted inheritance and the knowledge that has been opened (‫ )פתח‬to him (cf. 3-12). 7.4.2.1.3 Unraveling Some of the 4Q417 1 i Knots Returning to Wold’s argument, he is correct that ‫ ועוד לוא‬is important to understanding the meaning of our small fragment, I disagree with his reading— and not because, as Tigchelaar has noted, it has no grammatical basis.95 Tigchelaar’s reference to ‫ עוד לא‬in Job is not precisely parallel to ‫ועוד לוא‬. In fact, the evidence for ‫ ועוד לוא‬in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple texts is non-existent;96 in neither corpora is there a single example of ‫ ועוד לוא‬outside 93  Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation:’ Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 113, n. 41. 94  Goff, 4QInstruction, 243. 95  Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’” 113, n. 41. 96  Wold notes that there are seven occasion in the Hebrew Bible where the phrase ‫לוא‬ and ‫ ועוד‬appear in the same passage (Gen 17:5; Deut 18:16; 2 Sam 7:10; Is 47:8; Jer 23:4;

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

261

of 4Q417 (and, perhaps, its reconstructed parallel in 4Q418 43 45 i 13). There are a limited number of examples of ‫]ו[לא עוד‬, which might better offer the translation “no longer” (e.g., 1Q20 0:15, 4Q538 1 2 5)97 or, as the original editors translated ‫ועוד לוא‬, “no more.” If “no longer” then, as Wold argues, ‫ רוח בשר‬was given access to the “Vision of Meditation” at some undefined point and then denied it.98 These renderings are problematic, however, since they do not take enough stock of the fact that ‫ עוד‬appears prior to ‫לוא‬, or that ‫ ו‬signals the beginning of a new informative clause. Moreover, the ‫ ו‬distinguishes it from Tigchelaaar’s one biblical example and, as noted, makes it unique among Second Temple texts. While occurrences of ‫ ועוד לוא‬are utterly lacking in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple texts, there are a large number of examples of ‫ ועוד לוא‬in Rabbinic literature, which render ‫“ ועוד‬furthermore” or “moreover,” while ‫לוא‬ generally negates the following verb (e.g., Mek. R. Ish., Shir 4).99 So, ‫ועוד לוא‬ should be read separately (‫לוא נתן‬, ‫ )ועוד‬and not as a standalone phrase. Thus, we suggest translating ‫ועוד לוא נתן‬: “and furthermore, it was not given,” implying that 4Q417 is providing additional, more specified information that there was a group of people that were not given access to this special revelation. It appears then that the structure of lines 16-18 envisions two opposing camps of humanity, though for the moment, let us leave to the side whether that opposition is ontological. First, the overwhelming evidence seems to suggest that ‫ אנוש‬is a reference to humanity, or as a metaphor for it, and neither Job 24:20; 1 Chron 17:9). These examples are not precise, however. ‫ ועוד‬and ‫ לא‬do not appear in collocation in the Hebrew Bible. 97  See also Jastrow for the some of the examples of ‫ ולא עוד‬for “no longer,” 1048. 98  See Wold, 4QInstruction, 107-8. 99  Examples of ‫ ועוד לוא‬begin to occur more frequently in aggadic midrashim and in the Yerushalmi, specifically. While the examples are significantly late in the history of the development of Hebrew, they offer additional evidence to translate ‫ ועוד לוא‬in Musar leMevin as “furthermore, not” or “moreover, not.” For example, one occurrence of ‫ועוד לוא‬ appears in Shemot Rabbah in an interpretation of Exod 4:21, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘When you return to Egypt, see [that you do] all of the miracles which I have placed in your hand, and do them before Pharaoh, and I will strengthen his heart, so that he will not let the people go’—to which of the wonders did he refer? Should you should say to the serpent, and the leprosy, and the blood, well, did God not tell him to do these wonders only before Israel? Furthermore, we do not find that Moses performed these before Pharaoh (‫והלא‬ ‫אותן נסים לא אמר לו הקב”ה לעשות אלא לישראל ועוד לא מצינו שעשה משה אותן לפני‬ ‫)פרעה‬. While there is another example in the midrash that conveys the sense, “no longer” (cp. Shem Rabb. 10:6), the alternate sense, “furthermore” or “moreover” is significant (see also, b. Yoma 23b, b. Zev 55a). There seems to also be a minimal amount of examples where ‫ ועוד לוא‬means “and again, not + verb,” for example, the Yerushalmi reads, “Two Amoras: One said, “He threw them upward, and they did not come down again” (‫ועוד לא ירדו‬, y. Sheq. 6b) Bar Ilan University: Online Responsa Project, http://www.responsa.co.il/ default.aspx.

262

7 A Predetermined Condition

a single person nor the biblical patriarch Enosh is intimated. Indeed, there is almost no references to “Enosh,” the biblical character, in texts that are not specifically rewriting Genesis (cf. 11Q12 2:1, see Jub 4:13).100 We also disagree that ‫ אנוש‬is somehow a reference to biblical Adam, apart from, perhaps, as a metaphor for collective humanity.101 As Wold notes, humanity is the “most reasonable” translation for ‫אנוש‬.102 Second, I am inclined to accept Werman’s translation of ‫ עם עם רוח‬as “a people with a spirit,” rather than “together with a spiritual people.”103 This reading clarifies any apparent contradiction noted by Goff.104 Furthermore, any apparent contradiction is better dealt with if ‫אנוש‬ is intended, not to depict humanity in toto, but rather a specific elect portion of it. That is to say that 4Q417 1 is clarifying those that receive access to the “vision.” Most commentators have noted that the ‫ מבין‬has a special “elect” status that the wicked, non-elect lack. In other words, the line ‫וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו֯ לאנוש עם עם‬ ‫ רוח‬is intended to be read “and he bequeathed to elect humanity, [that is], a people with a spirit [i.e., God’s spirit].” One finds the use of a common noun that refers indefinitely to a human being in order to distinguish God’s elect in the Hodayot, “… you have allotted to a person an eternal lot with the spirits of knowledge, to praise your name with shouts of joy, and to recount your wonders before all your creatures” (‫ותפל לאיש גורל עולם עם רוחות דעת להלל שמכה‬ ‫ביחד רנ֯ ֯ה ולספר נפלאותיכה לנגד כול מעשיכה‬, 1QHa 11:23-24). ‫ איש‬is clearly not representative of collective humanity but rather those, who like the hymnist, are raised to eternal heights (‫העליתני לרום עולם‬, 21) and allowed to commune somehow with angelic beings (‫בני שמים‬, “sons of heaven,” 23). Therefore, ‫לאנוש‬ ‫ עם עם רוח‬is intended to be read as delineating the elect. 7.4.2.1.4

“Fleshly Spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬in the Hodayot and the “People with a Spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬ The occurrence of “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬in the Hodayot indicates that the sectarian hymns may offer further insight into the Musar texts examined here. 100  Steven Fraade notes that rabbinic exegesis was far more interested in the “Generations of Enosh” than Enosh, “Enosh and His Generations Revisited,” in Biblical Figures Outside of the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (Harrisburg; Trinity International Press, 1989), 80-83; idem, Enoch and His Generations: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Post-Biblical, SBLMS (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984). 101  Pace Collins, “In the Likeness,” 610-2; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 33-34; idem, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef Zsengeller, JSJSup 142 (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 14-15; Goff, 4QInstruction, 162-4. 102  Wold, Women, Men, and Angels, 139. 103  Werman, “What is ‘the Book of Hagu?’ 137. 104  Goff, “Anthropological Reflection,” 45-46; Discerning Wisdom, 34-35; 4QInstruction, 162-3.

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

263

Indeed, in the sectarian hymns ‫ רוח בשר‬is a negative starting point for all of humanity:105 “[…] the spirit of flesh (‫ )רוח בשר‬that it might understand all these things and to understand bs […] great. And what is one born of a women (‫ילוד‬ ‫אישה‬, i.e., general humanity) among your great and fearful deeds. But he is an edifice of dust and kneaded by water …” (1QHa 5:15-16).106 The ‫ רוח בשר‬is pictured in opposition to the gaining of knowledge. This reality is true of the hymnist as well, “[… th]eir dominion (i.e., wicked spirits) is within my innards, for your servant has a fleshly spirit” ( ‫בש ֯ר ֯עבדך‬ ֯ ‫‏כי רוח‬, 4:37). Yet, it is precisely in the Hodayot, specifically col. 4, that the hymnist refers to that which separates the author from humanity’s lowly existence, “[blessed are you, God most high, for] you have spread your holy spirit on your servant” (‫קודשך על‬ ֯ ‫ניפותה רוח‬ ֯ ‫֯ה‬ ; 4:40). This “fleshly spirit” is viewed in contrast to the knowledge-giving, ‫עבדך‬ ֯ holy spirit which purifies and enlightens the hodayah’s hymnist. This spirit is given at some point, but is not given at creation, since ‫ רוח בשר‬is juxtaposed with the rhetorical ‫ילוד אישה‬. In that sense, both phrases speak to humanity’s innate contemptibility. Although the hymn breaks off and an explanation of a “holy spirit” (‫ )רוח קודש‬is lacking, elsewhere the ‫ רוח קודש‬is thought to bring “understanding” to the hymnist, And as for me, I know the understanding that comes from you for through your goodwill toward a p[e]rson you mult[iply his portion] on your holy spirit. Thus you draw him closer to your understanding (‫לבינת ֯ך‬ ֯ ‫) ֯ב ֯רו֯ ח קודשך וכן תגישנו‬. And according to his closeness, so is his zeal against all evildoers and people of deceit. For all who are near to you do not rebel against your command, and all who know you do not pervert your words (6:23-26, see also 1QS 4:21).

It is God’s ‫ רוח קודש‬which gives the hymnist a knowledge that allows the person to steer clear of the wicked and be faithfully obedient. While it is not explicitly referenced in this hodayah, it seems to reflect the hymnist’s reality as well; God’s ‫ רוח קודש‬brings understanding and, consequently, obedience (cp. also 8:25-30, 17:32, 20:15, 23:33). Moreover, and critical to 4Q417 1 i, the ‫רוח קודש‬ is sometimes referred to simply as ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot. There is no better example than the hodayah in col. 20, “And I, the Instructor, I know you, my God, by the spirit that you have placed in me (‫)ידעתיכה אלי ברוח ֯אשר נתתה בי‬. Faithfully have I heeded your wondrous secret counsel. By your holy spirit you have [o]pened up knowledge within me (‫לתוכי דעת‬ ֯ ‫ )ברוח קודשכה [פ]תחתה‬through the mystery of your wisdom …” (20:14-16, see also 5:36). The ‫ רוח‬here is not 105  See Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 55. 106  Unless otherwise noted the English translation of the Hodayot here are the author’s. Hebrew text is from DJD XL.

264

7 A Predetermined Condition

natural to the person, since throughout the hymns humanity’s innate spirit is largely base and without value (see 5.2.4). Throughout the Hodayot it is clear that God is in control of humanity’s spirits (e.g., 6:11-12), but the spirit which gives the hymnist understanding is a later-given spirit107—it does not originate with the person—and is eventually internalized (e.g., 4:29 [‫]רוחות‬, 5:36, 8:29, 20:15, 21:34). This spirit, in some cases, a ‫רוח קודש‬, is a necessary quality for the hymnist and the members of the yaḥad to declare the works of God and fulfill his commandments.108 Without this spirit there is no gift of knowledge and, if parallel with 4Q417, there is no access to the “Vision of Meditation.” Our examination of the ‫רוח‬/‫ רוח קודש‬in the Hodayot offers a framework by which to understand ‫ רוח‬in ‫“( עם עם רוח‬a people with a spirit”),109 namely, that it refers to a group of people who have received a later, God-given spirit, which brings understanding and obedience to the mevin and others like him. Elsewhere, 4Q416 2 ii 6 warns the mevin against selling his ‫ רוח קודש‬for money. In the same fragment it advocates for the mevin to “be a servant in spirit” (‫ברוח‬ ׄ ‫היותכה עבד‬, 4Q416 2 ii 17-18). While the sample size is somewhat limited, it seems that the Musar texts indicate that ‫ רוח‬and ‫ רוח קודש‬bring the mevin wisdom. It is this group of humanity, ‫“ עם עם רוח‬a people with a [later, God-given, or holy] spirit,” which have been given knowledge and understanding of good and evil, which causes the mevin to meditate and know the mysteries of God. Our point here is not to draw too close a connection between a conceptual world of Musar texts and Hodayot, but to note that the hymns reflect an understanding of the revelation of knowledge, spoken within the context of a (holy) spirit, and that these parallels to Musar le-Mevin cannot be ignored.110 In this particular case, the hymns offer how one might understand 107  Lichtenberger notes that “knowledge,” which is limited through one’s “flesh,” is canceled by the gift of the divine spirit, Studien, 91. 108  See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349-50. 109  While, it is largely agreed that Musar le-Mevin is not a sectarian text “since it contains none of the distinctively sectarian elements and organizational features….,” overlaps in language with sectarian texts might offer insight into an otherwise fragmentary text. In light of its apparent view of humanity, as Wold has more carefully noted, “While Musar le-Mevin divides humanity into two basic categories and uses language at times found in wide cross-sections of early Jewish literature including documents from Qumran, such factors do not warrant the claim that the document has an Essene provenance or was later interpolated by an Essene group,” Women, Men, and Angels, 20. 110  This is not the place to note the differences between these two texts, but Wold notes, “4QInstruction may be exerting influence on the hymns, but the hymns do not share the same view of humankind, election, or determinism. If the hymns are familiar with 4QInstruction then changes occur in regard to accessing wisdom; there is a shift from all Israel to a narrow, elect group. In the hymns not only is revelation disclosed, but also the psalmist is in an extraordinary position of authority. The theological shifts in the hymns

265

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition

the so-called “spiritual people” of 4Q417, as well as the use of ‫רוח בשר‬. Simply, the ‫ רוח בשר‬indicates a lack of access to enlightenment, while the “people with a spirit” embody this God-given spirit that offers access to wisdom.111 7.4.2.1.5 Structural Parallel in 4Q417 1 The structural use of the particle ‫( כי‬also, ‫ ) ֯כ[י] ֯א‬in 4Q417 1 offers some additional insight for interpreting the anthropology of this Musar text. It suggests that one portion of humanity is given access to the vision as an inheritance “because according to the form of the holy ones is its fashioning” or “inclination” (‫) ֯כ[י] ֯א כתבנית קדושים יצרו‬, and an other “because it did not know between good and evil according the judgment of its spirit” (‫כי לא ידע בין [טו] ׄב‬ ‫)לרע כמשפט [ר]וחו‬. As to the former, Collins has already rightly noted, as Lange did previously,112 that ‫ קדושים‬is an unambiguous reference to angelical figures, as well as bearing a distinct connection to the later rabbinic interpretations of Genesis’ creation narratives.113 To the latter, this portion of humanity seems to stumble by its own misjudging spirit (18). Thus, the fleshly spirit is denied access to the vision because its innate spirit is unable to provide a discerning knowledge between good and evil. The larger structure of lines 16-18 are an intentional juxtapositioning between both camps. Structural Parallel of 4Q417 1 i 16-18 Rationale for Giving

‫֯כ[י] ֯א כתבנית קדושים יצרו‬

To Whom it is Given ‫לאנוש עם עם רוח‬

The Giving/Not Giving ֯‫ וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו‬.A ‫ ועוד‬.B

‫כי לא ידע בין [טו] ׄב לרע‬ ‫וחו‬ ׄ ]‫כמשפט [ר‬

‫לרוח בשר‬

‫הגו ׄי‬ ׄ ‫ לוא נתן‬.A1

match well with an evolution of a worldview that, because of discontent and marginalization, seeks to limit and control access to revelation,” “‘Fleshly Spirit’ (‫ )רוח בשר‬and ‘Vessel of Flesh’ (‫ )יצר בשר‬in 4QInstruction and the Thanksgiving Hymns,” in The Origins of the Origins of Evil, ed. James Aitken, Hector Patmore, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi (forthcoming). 111  Goff, 4QInstruction, 156-8; idem, Discerning Wisdom, 32-36; idem, “Being Fleshly or Spir­itual,” 45-48. See also Stefan Beyerle, “Dualismen und der Schöpfergott im antiken Judentum,” in Dualismus Dämonologie, 122. 112  Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 86. 113  Collins, “In the Likeness,” 614-5.

266

7 A Predetermined Condition

The Giving/Not Giving

To Whom it is Given

Rationale for Giving

A. And he bequeathed

to humanity [that is] a people with a [later-given or holy] spirit

because according to the form of the holy ones is it fashioning

to the fleshly spirit

because it did not know between good and evil according to the judgment of its spirit

B. Furthermore, A1. he did not give Hagu

First, the use of ‫ אנוש‬in the phrase ‫ לאנוש עם עם רוח‬intentionally informs the reader who the “elect” ‫ אנוש‬are, namely, “And he bequeathed [i.e., the vision of meditation] to elect humanity [that is], a people with a spirit.” Furthermore, one should not read ‫ ועוד לוא‬as a distinct phrase but rather ‫ועוד‬, as “moreover,” “furthermore,” or, even “additionally” and ‫ לוא‬in relation to the following verb. The scribe then explicitly states that ‫ רוח בשר‬was not given “Hagu.” The “fleshly spirit,” unlike the “people with a spirit”—who are formed according to the likeness of the Holy Ones—have a spirit that does not “know” (‫)ידע‬, or better said, cannot know between good and evil. The ‫ רוח בשר‬must labor under the burden of a perverse, unknowing spirit. 7.4.2.1.6 Is Humanity Divided Ontologically? This study has yet to answer whether this human division is ontological. There is no doubt that Collins is correct regarding the overt creation motifs present in the text. Yet, the allusion to both Genesis creations is not necessarily an indication of an ontological division. The language which adapts Gen 1’s creation in the divine image (i.e., 114 ‫ )תבנית קדושים‬and linguistically alludes to Gen 2 with the verb ‫“( יצר‬to form”) appears in the portrayal of “the people with a spirit.” The language suggested to allude to Gen 2, specifically “because, they did not know between good and evil” (‫כי לא ידע בין‏ [טו] ׄב לרע‬, cf. Gen 2:9, 17),115 represents the “fleshly” spirit. Yet, one might expect the elements of Gen 1 and 2 to be more neatly assigned to each realm of humanity if an ontological division is intimated. That is to say, that creation in accord with the “holy ones” is representative of the “people with a spirit,” while any reference to Gen 2 would be the lot of the “fleshly.” Rather, the clear creation motifs may simply signal God’s 114  Collins argues that ‫ תבנית קדושים‬is a paraphrase of the ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬, Collins, “In the Image,” 615-8. ‫ תבנית קדושים‬is more likely a subtle, yet critical, step away. See discussion on Philo’s ideas on creation “according” to the “image” but not “in” the image of God, and the lack of any such to the image of God in the Hodayot (3.2.1). 115  Goff, “Gen 1-3,” 46.

7.5 Conclusion

267

revelatory act towards a specific lot of humanity, on the one hand, and, on the other, a denial without any implication to an ontology. The denial is not unlike the Hodayot where God’s given (holy) spirit brings the hymnist closer to wisdom. Furthermore, the Hodayot may assist in properly explaining the appearance of “holy ones” (‫ )קדושים‬in Musar. After being purified from his lowly standing, having his soul redeemed from the pit (‫פדיתה‬ ‫נפשי משחת‬, 11:20), the hymnist is raised to somehow take a stand with ‫קדושים‬ (i.e., angelic beings, 1QHa 11:22-24). To be “formed” according to the ‫ קדושים‬is then the reality of the elect mevin and his elect community, not a reference to when a division took place. Thus, the use of creation can be read as a duality, albeit not ontologically. Additionally, creation becomes the context that best describes the elect’s standing, which despite implying a predestined division of humankind, is not realized by the mevin until it is revealed. Once a part of the elect community, the mevin belongs to the “people with a [God-given] spirit,” and can somehow escape this base condition, thereby understanding the mysteries of God and being raised to a standing among the angelic hosts (a la Hodayot). Those of the “fleshly spirit” never gain access to this revelation and are never offered such. Nonetheless, the “fleshly spirit” is also representative of collective humanity. That is to say, until the “vision of meditation” is revealed to the elect person, he too remains as one who lacks knowledge. Thus, “fleshly spirit” reflects a general image of humanity—a beginning point for all—in Musar le-Mevin. Until the mevin is enlightened, he too is an unknowing “fleshly spirit.” That is, the mevin too lacks the understanding of God’s mysteries until they are revealed to him. In the Hodayot, humanity’s innate spirit is never taken away completely, the continuous tending to wisdom, knowledge, and poverty by the mevin pacifies and frustrates his alternate base being (e.g., do not stray due to a “fleshly” understanding: ‫ ;נבונות בשר אל תשגכ[ה‬4Q417 1 ii 14). 7.5

Conclusion

The depiction of the human condition in texts examined in this chapter is generally negative and exists opposed to a God-given understanding of his statutes, which engenders obedience, among the elect, to an otherwise innate desire to sin. This condition, which is largely inescapable for most, can only be surpassed by being enlightened and pacifying the natural tendency to oppose God’s laws. Access to this enlightenment is determined by God and unlocked socially by belonging to a particular group that form his elect. Outside of this group, however, the human condition is set and unchangeable.

268

7 A Predetermined Condition

The Treatise offers varying strands of dualistic thought in its unique portrayal of human nature. Its view of the human condition is a double duality. All of humankind is predestined to one of two camps, the children of truth and the children of deceit. These two groups are ruled by the Angel of Truth and the Angel of Darkness, which result in the either positive or negative characteristics—to know or transgress—respectively. This is a definitive condition and will bear consequences during the eschaton. The other side of this double duality is that the person somehow embodies the battle between these cosmic forces where truth and deceit wage war for one’s heart. In other words, the righteous person is capable of stumbling, bearing certain afflictions and distresses, and, as it is implied, but never stated explicitly, the wicked can act rightly. Ultimately, however, the determination of God vis-à-vis the Angel of Light and Angel of Darkness and those that they have dominion over is an absolute, immovable dichotomization. The wicked, children of deceit, are eternally condemned and the righteous, children of truth, are given life. The Hymn of Praise, despite addressing God’s assistance on behalf of the author, describes the human condition as contemptible. Again, we are confronted with a negative and lowly presentation of human nature. The speaker recognizes his ability to sin, but it is God’s righteousness in which he depends. He is unable to will his way out of his/her present struggles. The rest of humanity is denied such sustenance. The self-reflective speaker also refers to his own stumbling with the use of “flesh” (‫)בשר‬, specifically “sinful flesh” (cp. ‫בשר עול‬, ‫)בשר עוון‬, which describes the contours of humanity’s innate penchant to sin. Again, the speaker can request divine assistance and that God’s judgment be established in his divine righteousness, but the speaker is fully aware of his own human limitations. While he may receive assistance, the rest of humanity is fatally locked in. Towards the end of the Hymn of Praise, pessimism towards humanity is portrayed in a Hodayot-like rhetorical flourish: it is base, without value, and utterly contemptible, which apart from God’s direct intervention is largely a hopeless affair. The use of “flesh” (‫בשר‬/σάρξ) in order to depict human frailty to sin is a common motif in early Jewish texts. Sometimes these terms are depicted in opposition to the “spirit” (‫)רוח‬, where “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬prevents access to the true knowledge of God and the ability to be obedient to his statutes, while the ‫רוח‬ gives access. One of the more important wisdom texts to be discovered at Qumran, Musar le-Mevin, specifically, 4Q417 1 i 13-18, preserves an important phrase, i.e.,‫“( רוח בשר‬fleshly spirit”). It describes a select group of humanity that is denied access to the so-called “vision of meditation.” Scholars are divided as to whether Musar portrays an ontological division of mankind into two camps. The occurrence of ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫ רוח בשר‬are especially key in this regard. In summary of our examination, ‫ אנוש‬is neither a reference to

7.5 Conclusion

269

biblical Enosh nor, the biblical patriarch, Adam. Rather, ‫ אנוש‬seems to indicate a specific part of humanity—a special elect group—namely, “people with a spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬, that is, the spirit that God imparts to them in order to give them access to knowledge through the “vision of meditation.” Access to this vision has been considered by Wold to be universal, and those who did not tend to wisdom were labeled ‫ רוח בשר‬and, at some point, denied access. He suggests further that translating ‫ ועוד לוא‬as “no longer” provides partial evidence of this reading. Despite accepting the importance of ‫ועוד לוא‬, this study challenges this reading. ‫ ועוד לוא‬should be understood separately (i.e., …‫לוא‬, ‫)ועוד‬, thus, translating ‫ ועוד‬as “furthermore,” while ‫ לוא‬as related the following verb ‫נתן‬. Our translation of 4Q417 1 i 17 reads: “Furthermore (or additionally), he did not give …” While the difference is subtle, it indicates that unlike the “people with the spirit,” the “fleshly spirit” is in general denied access to the vision. Additionally, the dual use of the particle ‫ כי‬indicates a literary structure where two camps that make up all of humanity are literarily opposed to one another. This opposition is festooned with allusions to Genesis creation accounts. We would caution, however, that the allusion to creation necessitates only an ontological division. The divine creation of Gen 1 appears to reflect the reality of the speaker having been given access to a spirit of understanding, the “vision of meditation,” and, in some way, refers to an existence that is not unlike the Hodayot’s reference to a communion with angelic beings. The language elsewhere in Musar le-Mevin indicates that the mevin was separated from the ‫ רוח בשר‬and must tend to wisdom in order to maintain his standing. This implies however that until the moment of divine revelation the speaker, like everyone else, is a “fleshly spirit”—the speaker himself also retains some of this identifying marker. The three texts examined here show a general pessimism regarding the human condition. Determined by God, despite an acknowledgement of the person’s internal battle, it represents human nature’s innate penchant to work against God statutes. The choice for the person is not free in that his/her natural discretion instinctively leans towards sin, and any liberation beyond this status is according to divine authority. Therefore, whether ultimately righteous or wicked, sinner or saint, humanity’s fate is set and inescapable.116 The human condition is innately sinful and continuously so without God’s direct engagement.

116  Indeed, this is the position attributed by Josephus to the Essenes: “But the sect of the Essenes affirm that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination” (δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν, Ant. 13:171).

Chapter 8

Human Nature in Early Judaism 8.1

Introduction

This study set out to examine human nature in early Judaism according to three prevalent themes attested in Greco-Roman Jewish texts (4th c. BCE1st c. CE), creation, composition, and condition. All three form the categories by which ancient authors describe various innate characteristics that are shared by collective humanity. They also form the major sections of this study. Creation argues that the language for the creation of humanity in Gen 1 and 2 became creation topoi, which offered Jewish authors linguistic markers which encapsulated portrayals, assumptions, and rhetoric regarding human existence. The creation narratives, specifically, the phraseology “image of God” and “from the dust (of the earth)” (and certain variations therein), evoke an human ontology that was later interpreted by ancient authors. Composition is an examination of how humanity’s physical and metaphysical nature was envisioned. Having already been influenced by early-dated literature that would become biblical, ideas of human composition, it is argued, shift under the weight of Hellenistic influence. Particularly critical in this regard, are texts that evoke an internal physic (of the mind, or heart) turmoil that results from internal or external forces. Condition deals with the assumed rational for collective humanity’s penchant towards sin and obedience. It argues that ancient opinion on this issue was largely splintered along the lines of an innate human nature and whether it has the jurisdiction to act under its own discretion, is directed by a so called “inclination,” or is inherently debased leaving obedience within the realm of God’s determining authority. The present chapter is intended to review the aforementioned results of this analysis—not simply to reiterate the conclusions of each chapter—in order to demonstrate that manner in which early Judaism distinguished its own portrayal(s) of human nature. 8.2

Collective Humanity as a Creation

One of the unique qualities of early Judaism depictions of human nature is the utilization of Genesis’ creation accounts. The language of the creation of humanity in Gen 1 and 2 (i.e., Adam and Eve) offers ancient authors a lens

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_009

8.2 Collective Humanity as a Creation

271

through which human nature is viewed. Specifically, the “image of God” and “from the dust (or from earth)” become creation topoi that signal an encapsulation or presentation of innate human characteristics. This is witnessed in several places, Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, the Hodayot, Philo, Testament of Naphtali, and 4 Ezra. Although the earliest examples of these creation topoi occur in wisdom literature. Qohelet is perhaps the earliest dated wisdom text in our examination and may attest the raw ingredients that inspired creation topoi. Here, humanity’s creation from dust is emblematic of its futile existence (2.2). In other wisdom texts, humanity’s creatureliness is exhibited by the use of both the “image of God” (Gen 1) and “of the dust from the ground” (Gen 2; or, “out of earth”) to describe the duality of human existence. Each person is the embodiment of a mortal being, impermanent and vulnerable to various afflictions, but impressed with the divine image and, therefore, capable of following and obeying God’s commandments (2.3). In Wisdom, creation in the divine image is indicative of humanity’s original immortality, although the clay of the idol maker is rhetorically fit to describe humanity’s physical temporal nature (2.4). The divine image is also employed to describe humanity’s physical and metaphysical nature with the use of the divine image. Pseudo-Phocylides, in describing this duality in death, speaks of the “image” of the divine as the component which returns to the air, while the body returns to the dust from whence it came. Existence comes to an end and any afterlife is utterly lacking (2.5). Philo notes this “image” as representing the human mind, although the “image” that humanity bears is not equivalent to God himself but is rather a copy of divinity. The Alexandrian philosopher also utilizes both Genesis depictions to describe two types of humanity. Although created from the choicest of clay, collective humanity is inherently corruptible and the person who truly bears the imago dei lives justly, is prudent, and well-tempered (3.2). So, also, the Testament of Naphtali utilizes both creation topoi to speak to this duality—having a body and soul that correspond to one another—which reflects the order of the ­cosmos (3.3). The use of creations’ language to describe collective humanity is not limited, however, to the aforementioned texts. In 4 Ezra, even the wicked are worthy of God’s mercy because of that “image” (3.4). Elsewhere, creation is the catalyst for the utter debasement of human existence. Gen 2’s description of the earthly origins of Adam, which is attributed to collective humanity in the Greco-Roman period, becomes the cauldron in which humanity’s lowliest and most shameful portrayal is mixed. In the hymns of the Hodayot, the “creature of dust” and “creature of clay” are illustrative of humanity’s lowest point, a place of shame and impurity that is intended to be contrasted with God’s

272

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

unmitigated glory. When placed in the light of the aforementioned postbiblical portrayals, the Hodayot succeeds in amplifying the image of human lowliness, especially with its intentional omission of any reference to the “image of God,” despite implying some knowledge of cosmic creation (3.5). Moreover, as this study argues regarding the mother of the seven sons in 2 Macc, it is the imago dei or, in the least, that God involves himself uniquely with creating the individual parts of each person, which indicates that for those who are faithful unto death persecution will not be their end. God does not stand idly by as his faithful die; he responds with resurrection (3.6). 8.3

A Composition in Parts

Under the weight of Greek influence, which entered the east under the leadership of Alexander the Great (4th c. BCE), there is an evolution within early Jewish texts that display variations in the conceptions of the composition of collective humanity. Its physical and metaphysical existence, and the relation between the two, shifts somewhat from the picture that is attested in earlier dated material that would eventually become biblical. Generally, in these works human existence is portrayed as a psychosomatic unity, that is an existence, whose outer, physical and inner, emotional and/or psychic reality is couched in the inseparability between either. This is sometimes referred to as monism, indicating that there is no fundamental distinction within human nature. Indeed, it has been rightly asserted by scholars that human existence in biblical texts is more complex and a psychosomatic unity is not the only idea represented there, although it appears to be predominant. In early Judaism, ideas regarding composition differ, in particular, with the explicit individuation of the metaphysical, soul or spirit, which is referenced in texts that portray an afterlife. Regarding the physical body, the diverse terminology utilized reflect mortality, vulnerability to a host of afflictions, harmful vices, and the component that suffers the effects of sin (4.2). Yet, our discussion of humanity’s constituent parts begins the semantic range of ψυχή/ ‫( נפש‬soul, life). These terms are utilized in Ben Sira with the sense of a psychosomatic unity. This is not very striking since ψυχή is nearly always a translation of what was originally ‫נפש‬, which aligns itself closely to the predominant semantic range in earlier biblical texts (4.3). Another understanding that becomes prevalent is that humanity is composed of two individual parts, body and soul, and, in some texts, the soul has continued existence beyond the death of the body. In Wisdom, the “soul” (ψυχή) of the righteous—its metaphysical component—is promised eternity.

8.3 A Composition in Parts

273

“Righteousness” is closely tied to obedience and living justly according to God’s commandments (4.4). Josephus’ presentation of the three Jewish schools attests an optimal view of body and soul. For the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes the soul is separable from the body, which is perishable. Each school is said to believe in the immortality of the soul; the soul for Pharisees is said to enter a new body, while the Sadducees are said to believe in the “persistence” of the soul despite there being no rewards or punishments in the afterlife. The latter seems altogether rhetorical or, perhaps, in jest, as if the irrelevance of soul’s existence after death should be read with absurdity and whimsy. The Essenes contrastingly receive a more detailed treatment regarding their view of the soul as it is depicted making a Hellenistically-inspired journey into the afterlife. (4.5). In 1 Enoch, the soul’s separate existence is a circumstance for all of humanity and not simply the righteous. At the abode of the dead, at least one person, Abel, makes a continual complaint against Cain. Although, initially Enoch describes the spirits of the dead (i.e., the children of men) raising their voices and making suit to heaven suggesting that the consciousness of the dead remain. It seems that even the consciousness of the wicked remains since their judgment presumes such (4.6). In the Testament of Abraham— the text with perhaps the most debatable dating—depicts a similar idea as Abraham remaining cognizant of himself when his soul is separated from his body (4.7). The concept that humanity is innately composed of three parts, body, soul, and spirit does not take hold until well in the first century CE. Much of this appears to closely parallel discussions in Greek literature that speak to the composition of collective humanity, in particular, the work of Plato. Apart from a small sample of Philonic texts (as well as, Paul and Josephus), however, this point of view is not well represented in early Judaism (4.8). The portrayal of an acute personal, inner strife in both the Hodayot and Apotropaic prayers offer another lens to view human composition. Part of this internal struggle is described with the terms “heart,” “soul,” and “spirit.” Descriptions of the internalized strife of the hymnist(s) in the Hodayot is a struggle that results from being enlightened. His lowly pestilent existence is the lowliness of being human, a debasement that is only succored by God’s sublime mercy—a mercy that is only accorded to the yaḥad. Despite not being given to collective humanity, the negative lowly portrayal of the hymnist seems to imply a specific human composition. The body/soul dualism that is undoubtedly present in other texts is only incipiently demonstrated in the hymns, if at all. First, the range of ‫ נפש‬in the Hodayot seems to indicate a psychosomatic unity, indicating a life, rather than the separate metaphysical part of each person. Although it is worth questioning whether ‫נפש‬, when described as facing a significant internal conflict, and when juxtaposed with a portrayal of physical

274

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

harm, represents at least a modicum of distinction. Indeed, the expectation that the “structure of dust” will “return from where it came” leaves an answer to this question somewhat ambiguous. So also, the “divided heart,” which signals another degree of humanity’s internal strife with itself, indicates the disturbance faced by understanding how putrid an existence humanity must suffer while simultaneously acknowledging the God-given gift of understanding. But it does little to represent a body/soul dualism. In fact, the shaping of the physical heart into the metaphorical place of turmoil again suggests psychosomatic unity in that there are both physical and non-physical consequences. Moreover, the portrayal of humanity’s onerous innate spirit, yet again, reflects an inner battle. While this innate human spirit is pacified by God’s spirit—a gift limited to the yaḥad—the hymnist’s self-reflection testifies that there remains part of his/her debased nature. After the internalization of God’s spirit there may then be a body/soul dualism, albeit metaphorically—a struggle of sorts between sinful flesh and the obedient, willing spirit—but this is not a conception of collective humanity and is communal-specific (5.2). A more distinct separation is evident in early Jewish apotropaic prayers. The speaker in the prayers vividly describes an internal disturbance from what are originally, external demonic entities, particularly in those areas that affect obedience and sin. In some cases, this disturbance leads to death, or specific bodily pains. The effect to the body, however, seems to be a secondary consequence to the control of the will and mind of a person. The overall concern for the soul/mind in apotropaic prayers indicates a modicum of separation between the person’s metaphysical and physical nature. While it is not clear that the inner person/soul/mind has an existence beyond the body, there is a conceptual separation between these components as human vulnerability to these malevolent spirit is located within the inner person (5.3). 8.4

Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition

Discussion of humanity’s innate condition in regard to sin and obedience is often splintered between free will and God’s determining authority. Perhaps the clearest conception of free will appears in Ben Sira. For the sage, humanity is able to make decisions under the power of its own discretion. Consequently, God is removed from any blame for sin. However, elsewhere, Ben Sira argues that collective humanity remains under the sway of God’s sovereignty. The work as a whole strikes a balance between the two, forming a paradox, where human free will and divine sovereignty co-exist, playing a vital role in human action (6.2.1). A similar picture is attested in the Psalms of Solomon. Within an

8.4 Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition

275

exhortation of the speaker to do righteousness and be obedient, it is stated that the power to obey is according to each person (6.2.2). An alternative view of free will in the Damascus Document is accorded solely to Israel’s patriarchs. Abraham’s ability to act against his will is not truly a portrayal of free will. It is contextually clear that God determines both the present and future. Therefore, those who stray from God do so because he has rejected them. The “free will” of the patriarch in the Damascus Document is an illusion. One that was expected to be held by the Qumranites, namely, that their own obedience was a gift from God and truly not within their own authority. Thus, collective humanity’s innate will is naturally directed against divine authority, despite this very authority nullifying that will for his chosen community (6.2.3). Regarding the views of the three Jewish schools, Josephus creates a spectrum for the relationship between fate and free will. The Essenes and the Sadducees represent the extreme poles of that spectrum. The former is said to believe that all is fated, while the latter places all on free will. The Pharisees are somewhere between the two where fate and free will both play a role in human affairs (6.2.4). The human condition is also exhibited in humanity’s “inclination,” which is generally a negative internal disposition. In order for it to be “steadfast” and “faithful,” as described in the Hodayot and 4QCommunalConfession (4Q393), it must be gifted by God; otherwise, the inclination naturally veers away from obedience. In one manuscript of 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q436), the speaker must contend with an innate “evil inclination.” The “evil inclination” is depicted as having to be expelled, although the removal seems to be a metaphorical expulsion specifically, one that purifies from a sinful state. Without divine intervention the human condition remains bowed against God’s statutes, although, in 4QBarkhi Nafshi and 4QCommunal Confession there is a distinct hope on behalf of those community members who might request it (6.3). The human condition within a system where human affairs and history have been predestined is far direr. In the Treatise of the Two Spirits, human nature reflects a double duality where the battle for obedience is waged in the hearts of each person. While an outward fate has been predetermined for both the wicked and the righteous. Those who act justly according to God’s statutes, have an internalized struggle that causes the righteous to stumble, but are equally part of God’s lot having been destined so. This double duality in the redacted Treatise is represented as two interrelated elements, an internal and external reality of the members yaḥad. The rest of humanity naturally persists under the weight—perhaps unknowingly—of a forgone conclusion (7.2). The human condition is far more devaluated in the texts that originated at Qumran, than in other early Jewish texts. The futility of human existence is

276

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

on display in HP at the end of the Serekh ha Yaḥad. This is highlighted when contrasted with God’s glorious self, a contrast that is intentional. Simply, the human condition—even for those who join the yaḥad—remains naturally wretched, an inescapable condition for all except those who have been divinely destined to be part God’s elect (7.3). Texts like the Hodayot or Musar le-Mevin equate the “fleshly” state with this inescapable condition. Regarding the former, this is defined as a lack of insight into God’s wondrous deeds and, for the latter, a division that denies a portion of humanity access to “vision of meditation”—a divinely revealed teaching for the “understanding one” to know and follow God’s correctly demarcated path. (7.4). 8.5

A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature in Ancient Judaism

Any synthesis of the diversity of opinion regarding human nature in Second Temple Judaism threatens a disservice. Since defining the communities of each particular text, apart from the Qumran community, is elusive, the best synthesis is perhaps one that accounts for the periodization of each text and provides a sense to the evolution of specific ideas. Some of the following portrait(s) is painted in light of known social realities but is not intended to indicate a singular construct. In fact, this is an attempt to piece together an image(s) of human nature—from a diverse mosaic—that provides the source but also pays close attention to chronological development, despite ongoing debates regarding the dating of some. Arguably, the earliest depiction of human nature in the Greco-Roman period is with the duality of human composition. Specifically, the souls of collective humanity—both wicked and righteous—are portrayed as having a continual existence after death indicating that each person is composed to two separable components (1 Enoch). Elsewhere, this separation is non-existent, human nature is that of psychosomatic unity, created with free will but subject to God’s divine agency. Free will is the benefit of being created in the “image of God”—a freedom that is distinctly connected to obedience, especially those commandments that involve interpersonal engagement (Ben Sira). Of course, humanity must also contend with the fact the he/she was also created from the ground, or out of earth. Consequently, humanity is mortal and effected by various afflictions and the consequences of sin, while still being subject to the aforementioned divine sovereignty (Ben Sira, Wisdom). This mortality— created from dust—is the most striking evidence that life is futile, and time is conceptually limited in this life. Despite the admonishment to cherish life, it is life that exist under the shadow of inherent pessimism (Qohelet). Moreover,

8.5 A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature

277

that humanity is a creature bearing the “image of God” it indicates that for the faithful who face persecutions (i.e., Antiochene) death would not be the final end. While the body is perishable, God is thought to respond to obedience by, at some point, returning life to the dead. Yet, the return of life implies humanity is created of constituent parts (2 Macc). Following in the heels of the earliest depiction of human composition, which was in turn influenced the permeation of Hellenistic ideas into Jewish culture, human existence is composed of two parts, a body and soul (Wisdom, Ps. Phoc., Josephus: Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees). These two parts are thought to perfectly correspond to one another and reflect the order of the cosmos (T. Naph.). The metaphysical part of the human beings either returns to the air or exists beyond the body, retaining the person’s consciousness, namely, its feelings, thoughts and memories (Testament of Abraham). The growing distinction between the body and soul is evident in the acute focus on the inner person and the manner that it represents an internal battle that sometimes remain wholly internal (Hodayot). The soul, sometimes described as the mind, is vulnerable to a host of malevolent, demonic entities that cause it to act contrary to God’s design and statutes (Philo, Apotropaic Prayers, Hodayot). It is only a request for divine succor that assists with this particular susceptibility and keeps the demonic entities away (Apotropaic Prayers). Physical imagery, like “heart,” as well as the terms “soul” and “spirit,” are utilized to depict an internal strife that each person must contend. From here, the human being takes on a more negative hue. It exists with a “divided heart” and an innately onerous, impure spirit. Only a portion of humanity, those that belong to the yaḥad, are afforded a God-given spirit that then pacifies their natural lowliness and enlightens the community member to understand God’s wondrous deeds (Hodayot). In fact, every person’s “inclination”—that is an internal disposition—is naturally bent away from God, and an innate temptation to sin is in every person. So also, in some circles it is thought that each person must struggle with an internal “evil inclination,” which can only be expelled by God’s purification. This intrinsic inclination is the reality for all people and associated with the person’s perverse “heart.” Again, these matters can only be changed by God’s direct intervention (4QBarkhi Nafshi). While the “faithful” and “steadfast” inclination is possible, it is, again, dependent on God. For at least the Qumran community, the “steadfast” inclination is again communal specific (Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, and, perhaps, 4QCommunal Confession). Human nature also becomes negatively polarized. God has predestined all including two commanding spirits—i.e., the Angels of Darkness and Light— which effectively dividing humanity into two camps. Although the human

278

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

being must face an internal battle, his/her place among the wicked and the righteous is set. The defining parameters of these two camps are essentially ethical. The wicked are disposed to sin, while the righteous are disposed to obedience. The righteous, however, stumble under the realm allotted to the Angel of Darkness and its spirits. This indicates that the righteous sin, and at least implies that the wicked can be partly obedient, but not in a manner that would change their predestined state. In the end, the wicked and the righteous are locked into an inescapable state (the Treatise). The state of the wicked is indicated by the fact that they have been denied access to God’s divine revelation of his statutes to which tending would engender obedience (Musar le-Mevin). Any hope of actual free will, or that the human being can act against its own natural will, which is set against God, is something that has already been determined (Damascus Document). This debasement of the human being is further achieved by reminding it that it originated from earth, and as a “creature of clay” and “dust” it is a source shame and impurity. This hopeless existence is the reality for all, although knowledge of its innate, base reality is limited to only a single group (Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad). In fact, the one “born of woman” (i.e., every person), who is effectively nothing, is responsible for the sin committed through his/her own perverse heart; belonging to the “council of maggots” every person walks in darkness unless God enlightens them. Humanity is utterly dependent on divine assistance because it is helpless (Hymn of Praise). Unfortunately, the hope of God’s intervention is limited to those who belong to his elect. Yet, within this very small scope of time, free will is not abandoned. The human being is commended to be righteous—likely a reference to interpersonal justice. The power to do so is within the discretion of each person (Psalms of Solomon, Josephus: Pharisees). So also, the lowliness of humanity is abated, philosophically, with the concept that humanity is created from the choicest of clay. The “image of God” is reflected in one’s mind but no one is created in the “image” but rather after it. Each person is based on a model of God, that is an “image” of divinity but not on God himself. On the one hand, despite being created from the choicest of clay, the human is “earthlike” and “corruptible.” On the other hand, being created in either the “image of God” or “out of earth” envisages two types of people, the latter, as a result of the divine image, is prudent and just (Philo). On the other hand, it is argued that the “image of God” is so important to human existence that even the wicked are worthy of God’s eschatological mercy. As a result of bearing the imago dei every person’s value is singled out (4 Ezra). Still, for some God is not present and each person exists with a natural, unfettered free will (Josephus: Sadducees). With this view, there is little reason to worry about the divine image or sovereignty.

8.6 The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit ?

8.6

279

The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit?

One of the most distinct portrayals of human nature comes through the use of “flesh” as representative of a physical reality, but also, more importantly, as a metaphor for human morality. In Ben Sira, “flesh” can refer to the person’s physical mortality, but can also reflect a personal relationship, especially marriage—drawing on imagery from Gen 3—divorce, and for the teaching of sexual mores. The sage also employs the unique phraseology “flesh and blood” connecting it to both mortality and to negatively depict the plotting of evil. On a number of occasions, Ben Sira, the Plea for Deliverance and the Damascus Document, employ the phraseology “all flesh” to describe collective humanity, and, in the War Scroll (1QM), to describe the lot of humanity against whom God’s elect and angelic forces fight. It is likely that within the context of the War Scroll “all flesh” implies a unique negativity. This metaphorical use of “flesh” is present in the Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, and in Musar le-Mevin. In the Hodayot and Serekh ha- Yaḥad “flesh” generally indicates the unenlightened masses who are not given the knowledge that comes with God’s spirit, or holy spirit. In the Hodayot there is attestation to “flesh” as part of each person’s sinfulness. Additionally, it is argued here that Musar le-Mevin is similar to what appears in the hymns and the Serekh but also encapsulates those who were denied access to the very thing that would engender obedience. Although much has been made of the dichotomy between the “flesh” and the “spirit” because of the dualism present in the Pauline corpus, a brief note about the Pauline categories that is often disregarded as it is related to understanding collective humanity is warranted. As in Qumran texts, the assumed antagonism between the “flesh” and the “spirit” has little to do with humanity’s sinful “flesh” and its innate “spirit.” Rather, the dualism occurs between the natural inclination to sin, and, for Paul, the God-given “spirit”—not natural to humanity—that is promised, given to, and internalized by the followers of Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:4; Eph 1:13). Thus, the “flesh” and “spirit” dualism is communal-specific, namely, a community to whom its members have been given God’s spirit for the sake of understanding and salvation. So also, the Hodayot, among other Qumran texts, clearly demarcate that a later-given spirit is eventually internalized and indicates the very reason the hymnist(s), and his community, have insight into their own lowliness, having an ability to commune with angels and the promise of a long life, described in at least one of the hymns as “eternal” (1QHa 7:29). Therefore, the “spirit/flesh” dichotomy is not a conversation about collective humanity, but rather a conception that occurs within the parameters of communal-specific dynamics of enlightenment and ignorance to God’s statutes. The Pauline perspective likely

280

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

originates from a similar community to that of the Qumran community, if not in the community itself. Although Paul’s contact with the priests (e.g., Acts 9:1), while brief, and the Qumranites priestly origins, may argue that their particular views of “flesh” and “spirit” originate in priestly school(s) of thought. What may have initially been the philosophy of the priests has likely been subsumed and reworked within the yaḥad and Paul’s letters. 8.7

Obedience and Sin

Early Jewish texts reveal the impetus for ancient authors’ attention to human nature, obedience and sin. Whether texts address free will, predestination, access to wisdom teachings, the “image of God,” being created “out of earth,” an internal psychic strife, and vulnerability to demonic forces, all of it revolves around obedience and transgression. What causes obedience and transgression of God’s law? Is it innate, does it originate at creation, or is it the result of external forces to which all humanity is susceptible? As expected, the answer is never uniform. And these questions are the primary catalysts that lead to such a diverse picture of human nature. Indeed, in most texts, even within the variegated portrayal of sin, the overall concern is to explain how (true) obedience is possible and, sometimes, impossible for collective humanity. Even when the person is depicted as having an innate “inclination,” it is only the elect that are portrayed as being given an obedient inclination. The rest of the humanity is subject to an “inclination” that intrinsically leans towards disobedience. The “inclination” is at times described negatively, but more often, humanity’s natural inclination—without God’s direct assistance—will lead to transgression. Even still, this portrayal is not a rule. For certain ancient authors, like Ben Sira, obedience is within the authority of each person and not God’s responsibility. 8.8

God and Humanity

The relationship between humanity and God seems to betray another impetus. Each text that examined in this study forms a shifting gradient, where at one end a relationship with God is open to every person—to whom obedience is possible under its very own will—while at the other end, only a small group can foster obedience because of the benefits of being elect. Even at the elect

8.9 Further Studies in Early Judaism

281

end of the spectrum, however, it speaks to a relationship between God and the rest of humanity. This relationship is largely negative, which brings with it an unfavorable fate. The individuals who are not elect must—very much unknowingly and impotently—contend with a relationship that is severely handicapped. Moreover, at every point on the spectrum, humanity is dependent on God to varying degrees. Humanity’s utter dependence is thereby a force majeure within a system where all is predestined, and an advocated choice where obedience falls within the power of one’s will. To some extent this gradient is narrowed with the imago dei. Through the divine image, collective humanity is brought closer to God than all other creations. This is likely the reason why references to the “elect” also purposely avoid the concept of the divine image (e.g., Hodayot, Serekh, Musar le-Mevin, Paul’s letters). While the use of “image of God” seems to allow a wider berth for choice, it also gives humankind an inherent value that remains regardless of communal affiliation. 8.9

Further Studies in Early Judaism

This study has been methodologically narrowed to focus on early Jewish insights to human nature through three lenses, creation, composition, and condition, which has been heretofore largely neglected. However, there are a number of areas for further study that are beyond the scope of the present one. For instance, this study was fairly conservative in regard to the GrecoRoman period, dealing with texts that can be confidently dated to that period, and including texts with debatable dating only when close parallels occur. Nonetheless, the questions asked here can be extrapolated to other texts like the Testament of Twelve Patriarchs, Sibylline Oracles, the Life of Adam and Eve and 4 Ezra, whose final forms are reached well after the Second Temple period. Further nuance and definition can also be achieved by highlighting one of the lenses employed here. This study was intentionally more broadly set to examine three prevalent themes that encapsulate explorations of the ancients on human nature. Apart from the examination of specific texts, closer scrutiny can be given to where ideas of human nature fall among social groups of the day and how gender studies can further elucidate and challenge some of findings here. Clearly, this is not an indication that early Judaism should be without further study on this issue as this is merely part of the first steps taken into such a foray.

282 8.10

8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism

Without discounting various discontinuities between early and Rabbinic Judaism, David Flusser once remarked that early Judaism was essentially the parent to both nascent Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which are siblings. Thus, any study that deals with early Judaism must question, even briefly, the implications for these adjacent fields. While the Pauline corpus has garnered the majority of attention in terms of the Apostle’s anthropological point of view, the corpus attributed to him accounts for just over thirty percent of the New Testament. Nearly sixty percent of the New Testament, however, is preserved in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Yet, regardless of the diverse and key conceptions of human nature attested in these works, studies regarding these issues in the Synoptic Gospels, John, and Acts are sorely lacking. In regard to the Gospels, a study that deals with early Jewish ideas of human nature taking into consideration the differing linguistic and conceptual idiosyncrasies of each Evangelists is warranted. Markan priority has so unnecessarily colored the lenses of New Testament scholars that the prominence of early Jewish ideas that disagree with the Markan presentation are sometimes considered creative enhancements rather than actual representations of Second Temple Jewish thought. Ideas about human nature in the early Judaism can further shed light in teachings attributed to Jesus, for instance, the predominant concept of caring for the poor that appears in the four gospels. In particular are ideas associated with the “image of God” that Ben Sira literarily connects with observing the commandments. While the Gospels never refer to the “image of God,” the importance of caring for those in need, which appears in, for example, in the “Parable of Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37),” is likely founded on the concept that all of humanity is created in the imago dei. Additionally, the diversity of ancient Jewish practice necessarily opens up questions regarding the view of human nature in the rest of the New Testament. That is to say, is Pauline anthropology representative of a singular anthropological approach that is present in all New Testament texts, or does an examination of the New Testament’s assortment of genres, historical periods, and authorial characteristics bear witness to a conceptual bouquet of views that were present in nascent Christianity? Many of the same ideas can also be carried over to rabbinic literature. While the “image of God” in rabbinic literature has already garnered some attention, and early Judaism is often examined by scholars for the points of origin regarding certain rabbinic concepts, some of the more unique parallels and evolution of Jewish ideas still require examination. For example, how are the Genesis

8.10 Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament

283

creation accounts utilized to describe human nature in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and midrashim? Furthermore, the philosophical balance between human agency, divine determination, and providence remains in the purview of the early rabbis. Statements attributed to, for example, Rabbi Akiva (m. Avot 3:15) and Hanina Ben Dosa (b. Ber. 33b, b. Nidd. 16b, b. Hul 7b) depict slightly varied opinions on the matter and show a continued discussion which develops into the later Judaism of the Talmud. Having better footing in early Jewish conceptions of human nature may assist capturing a better nuance of perhaps where rabbinic Judaism is a tradent in earlier Jewish ideas.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Aland, Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Albeck, Henoch, ed. Shisha Sidrei Mishnah. 4 vols. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik and Dvir, 1958. “Bar Ilan University: Online Responsa Project.” http://www.responsa.co.il/default.aspx. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Elliger, Karl, William Rudolph et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Flavius Josephus. De bello Judaico libri vii. Edited by B. Niese. http://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0147 Flavius Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae. Edited by B. Niese. http://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0145 Jonge, Marinus de. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. PVTG 1. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965. Lagarde, Paul de. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace. Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus; Londinii: Williams and Norgate, 1861. Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium. PTS 25. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Milik, J. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. With Matthew Black. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-1962. Plato Volume I: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedrus. Translated by H. N. Fowler. LCL 36. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1914. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Safrai, Ze’ev, and R. Steven Notley, The Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi. Jerusalem: Carta, 2011. Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.

Bibliography

285

——. Avot de Rabbi Natan. Vienna. 1877. Reprint. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,1997. Schuller, Eileen. and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition. EJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. “Sefaria: A Living Library of Jewish Texts.” https://www.sefaria.org Segal, Moshe H. Sefer ben sira ha-shalem. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1958. Tov, Emanuel Discoveries of the Judean Desert. Vol. IX-XL. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992-2011. “The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha.” http://ocp.tyndale.ca/. ——. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. SA 87. Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters, 1989. Vaux, Roland de, Pierre Benoit, and John Strugnell, eds. Discoveries of the Judaean Desert of Jordan. Vols. I-VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955-1990. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapentia Iesu Fili Sirach. VTG 12.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980. ——. ed. Sapientia Salomonis. VTG 12.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980.



Secondary Literature

Agaësse, Paul, SJ. L’anthropologie chrétienne selon saint Augustin: image, liberté, péché et grâce. Paris: Médiasèvres, 2004. Aitken, J. K. “Divine Will and Providence.” Pages 282-301 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books: Jobs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes—A Translation with Commentary. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010. Altmann, Alexander. “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology.” JR 48/3 (Jul., 1968): 235-59. Anderson, Arnold A. “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM.” JSS 7/2 (1962): 293-303. Anderson, Gary. “You Will Have Treasure in Heaven.” Pages 107-32 in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9-11 January, 2007. Edited by Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013. Angel, Joseph L. “The Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran.” Pages 27-54 in Dead Sea Scrolls 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

286

Bibliography

——. “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510511).” DSD 19 (2012): 1-27. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Towards a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implication for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.” JSP 17 (1998) 95-112. ——. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118/3 (1999): 435-60. ——. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. JSJSup 84. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Avemarie, Friedrich. “Image of God and Image of Christ: Developments in Pauline and Ancient Jewish Anthropology.” Pages 209-36 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014; repr. from Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by Jörg Frey and Angela Standhartinger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Baillet, Maurice. “510. Cantiques du Sage (i).” Pages 215-19 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). Edited by Maurice Baillet. DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. ——. “Prières pour les fêtes (ii).” Pages 177-83 in Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. ——. Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. DJD III. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Balla, Ibolya. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2011. Bauckham, Richard. “Life, Death, and Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 24556 in The Jewish World Around the New Testament: Collected Essays I. WUNT 233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Repr. The Jewish World Around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Bauks, Michaela, Katherin Leiss, and Peter Reide, eds. Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. Baumbach, Günther, “The Sadducees in Josephus.” Pages 173-95 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Baumgarten, Joseph M. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273). DJD XXVIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 509-24 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antii Laato and Johannes de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Bibliography

287

——. “Daughters and their Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 183-202 in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo Passaro. DCLY. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012-2013. Bellia, Guiseppe. “An Historico-Anthropological Reading of the Work of Ben Sira.” Pages 49-77 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Guiseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Benz, Hans Dieter. “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul.” NTS 46/1 (2000): 315-41. Bernstein, Moshe. “Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 647-51 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. “Contours of Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and Nomenclature.” Pages 57-85 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by James Kugel. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2001. Repr. pages 63-91 in vol. 1 of Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran. STDJ 107. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Berthelot, Katell. “Where May Canaanites Be Found: Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Others in Jewish Texts from the Hellenistic and roman Period.” Pages 253-274 in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought. Edited by Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman. Oxford: New York; Oxford University Press, 2014. Beyerle, Stefan. “Dualismen und der Schöpfergott im antiken Judentum.” Pages 63124 in Dualismus Dämonologie, und diabolische Figuren. Edited by Jörg Frey and E. Edzard Popkes. WUNT 2 484. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Bianchi, Ugo. “Dualism.” Pages 2504-17 in vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 15 vols. 2nd ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomas Gale, 2005. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 272-94 in vol. 1 of Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by Amram Tropper. AGJU 68. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bird, Phyllis. “Theological Anthropology in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 258-75 in The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Leo G. Perdue. Londres: Blackwell, 2001. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Intra-Jewish Debate on the Tension between Divine and Human Agency.” Pages 9-26 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. London: T and T Clark, 2006. ——. “Where Does Ben Sira Belong? The Canon, Literary Genre, Intellectual Movement, and Social Group of a Zadokite Document.” Pages 21-42. In Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,

288

Bibliography

Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza Xeravitz and József Zsengellér. STDJ 127. Leiden. Brill, 2008. Bokhmuehl, Markus. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community.” RevQ 18/72 (1998): 541-60. Bolen, Reinhold. “Kohelet im Kontext hellenistischer Kultur,” Pages 249-74 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Bonfiglio, Ryan, “‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” Pages 1007-16 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2013. Bons, Eberhard. “Philosophical Vocabulary in the Psalms of Solomon: The Case of Ps. Sol. 9:4.” Pages 49-58 in The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Patrick Pouchelle. EJIL 40. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Botterweck, G. Johannes. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” Pages 268-517 in vol. 1 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vol. Oxford, 1913. Brand, Miryam. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature. JAJSup 9. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Göttingen, 2013. Brandenburger, E. Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit. WMANT 29. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968. Brownlee, W. H. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes. BASORSup 10-12. New Haven, 1951. Brunschwig, Jacques and David Sedley. “Hellenistic Philosophy.” Pages 151-83, and “Roman Philosophy.” Pages 184-210 in The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy. Edited by D. Sedley. Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Büchler, Adolf. “Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement.” JQR 14/ (Jul. 1923): 461-502. Burns, J. Patout, trans. and ed. Theological Anthropology. Sources of Early Christian Thought; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba: Edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española en inglesa. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella (Navarra), Espana: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. “‘Cut Her Away from Your Flesh:’ Divorce in Ben Sira.” Pages 81-96 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Center, Pápa, Hungary,

Bibliography

289

18-20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008. Camp, Claudia V. “Understanding Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira.” Pages 1-40 in “Women Like This” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. EJL 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Carmignac, Jean. Les textes de Qumran. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961-1963. Charles, Robert H. The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902. Chazon, Esther. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 13-24 in The Book of Genesis on Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. Edited Judith Frishman and Lucas van Rompay. TEG 5. Louvain: Peeters, 1997. ——. “444. 4QIncantation,” Pages 367-77 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited Esther Chazon and Torleif Elgvin et. al. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ——. “Liturgical Function in the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection.” Pages 135-152 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ——. David Satran and Ruth Clements, eds. Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Clarke, Ernest G. The Wisdom of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Clemens, David E. “The Law of Sin and Death, Ecclesiastes in Gen 1-3.” Them. 19 (1994): 5-8. Cohen Stuart, G. H. The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara‘. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1984. Cohen, Gershon N. “Hannah and her Seven Sons.” Pages 39-60 in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures. New York: JPS, 1991. Cohen, Jeremy. “Original Sin as the Evil Inclination: A Polemicist’s Appreciation of Human Nature.” HTR 73 3/4 (Jul.-Oct., 1980): 495-520. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Collins, John J. “The Roots of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom.” HTR 71 3/4 (Jul.-Oct. 1978): 177-92. ——. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. ——. Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing; Livonia, Michigan: Dove Booksellers, 1998.

290

Bibliography

——. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran.” Pages 609-18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran.” Pages 609-18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations. Edited Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill. 1998. ——. “Interpretations of the Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 29-43 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ——. “Life After Death in Pseudo-Phocylides.” Pages 75-86 in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. JSJSup 82. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Repr. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and The Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 287-306 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven Paris: Leuven University Press; Dudley, MA : Peeters, 2003. Repr. pages 159180 in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on Jewish Encounters with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “Conceptions of the Afterlife in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 103-25 Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. ——. The Dead Scrolls: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. ——. “Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 25-47 in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Cook, Johann. “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫יצר הרע‬.’” JSJ 38 (2007): 80-91. Corley, Jeremy. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS 317. Providence: Brown University, 2001. ——. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155-82 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005. ——. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira: An Investigation of Beginnings and Endings.” Pages 21-48 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction,

Bibliography

291

and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. ——. “Qohelet and Ben Sira: A Comparison.” Pages 145-54 in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Nuria Caluduch-Benages. BZAW 445. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. Coulot, Clause. “L’instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III, 13-IV, 26).” RSR 82/2 (2008): 147-60. Crossley, James. “Mark 7.1-23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean.” Pages 8-20 in Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar of June 2008. Edited by Peter Oakes and Michael Tait. New York; London: T and T Clark, 2009. Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Bollingen Series 36. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2013 Daise, Michael. “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 293-305 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Davies, Philip R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” JSOT 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1983. ——. “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965-8 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Davies, W. D. “Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit.” Pages 157-82 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. London: SCM, 1958. Davila, James R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Delcor, Mathias. Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot). Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962. Di Lella, Alexander. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45/2 (1964): 153-67. Diethelm, Michel. Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet. BZAW 183. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. rev ed. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. ——. “Philo and Hellenistic Platonism.” Pages 223-32 in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Edited by Francesca Alesse. Studies in Philo of Alexandria 5. Leiden: Brill 2008. ——. “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology.” Pages 17-24 in The Afterlife of the Platonic Soul: Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions. Edited

292

Bibliography

by Maha El-Kaisy and John M. Dillon. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition 9. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. Dochorn, Jan, Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, and Benjamin Wold, eds. Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen—Evil, the Devil, and Demons. WUNT 2 412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Douglas, Michael C. “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux.” DSD 6/3 (1999): 239-66. Duhaime, Jean. “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits.” Pages 103-32 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Duling, D. C. “Testament of Solomon.” Pages 935-88 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1985. Dulkin, Ryan Scott. The Rabbis Rereading Eden: A Traditions-Historic Study of Exegetical Motifs in the Classical and Selected Post-Classical Rabbinic Sources on Genesis 1-3. Ph.D. Diss., Jewish Theological Seminary 2011. Dupont-Sommer, André, “L’instruction sur les deux Eprits dans le «Manuel de Discipline».” RHR 142/1 (1952): 5-35. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation.” Pages 11350 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13-20. ——. and Michael Rand, “A new fragment of the book of Ben Sira, T-S AS 118.78,” http:// www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/fotm/january-2011/index.html. Elwolde, John F. “The Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 1).” Pages 65-88 in Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn, August 2006. Edited by Bob Becking and Eric Peels. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ——. “The ‘Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 3: pss 7389).” DSD 17/2 (2010): 159-79. ——. “The ‘Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 2: PSS 4272).” Pages 79-99 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context I: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, in association with Bennie H. Reynolds III. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ——. “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 4: Pss 90106).” Pages 65-87 in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh

Bibliography

293

Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki. Edited by George J. Brooke, Daniel K. Falk, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Eshel, Esther. “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 69-89 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by Esther Chazon. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 69-89. Eslinger, Lyle. “The Enigmatic Plurals like ‘One of Us’ (Genesis I 26, III 22, and XI 7) in Hyperchronic Perspective.” VT 56/2 (2006): 171-84. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬.” Page 437 in vol. 2 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterwek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. ——. “‫ ֵלב‬.” Pages 466-76 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten. Edited by Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2013——. and Ulrich Dahmen et al. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2011-. Falk, Daniel.“4Q393: A Communal Confession.” JSJ 65/2 (1994): 184-207. ——. “4Q393. 4QCommunal Confession.” Pages 45-62 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Esther Chazon et al., in consultation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible. California: University of California Press, 1998. Fernández-Ardanaz, Santiago. “El Problema del Hombre en los Textos de Qumrán: Semántica de los Principales Términos Antropológicos.” RCT 15/1 (1990): 1-65. Flavius Josephus: Judean War 2. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Translated and edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Flusser, David. “Ha-dualism ‘basar-ruach’ be-megillot midbar ve-beberit ha-chadashah.’” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 158-65. Repr. pages 244-51 in Yahdut beit shani, Qumran veapokaliptikah. Edited by Serge Ruzer. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2002. Trans. and repr. pages 283-92 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Vol. I: Qumran and Apocalypticism. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2007. ——. “Qumrân and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers.” IEJ 16/3 (1966): 194-205. Repr. pages 214-28 in Judaism and Origins of Christianity. Edited by Brad Young. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1998. ——. “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity.” Pages 215-66 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. ScrHeir 4. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965. Repr. in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.

294

Bibliography

——. “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message.” HTR 61/2 (Apr., 1968): 107-27. Repr. pages 469-89 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Edited by Brad Young. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988. ——. “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers.” Pages 551-78 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands Van Gorcum, 1984. ——. “Josephus and the Pharisee on the Stoa.” Pages 221-31 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature, Vol.2. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Forman, Charles C. “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis.” JSS 5 (1960): 256-63. Fraade, Steven D. “Enosh and His Generations Revisited.” Pages 4-17 in Biblical Figures Outside of the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren. Harrisburg; Trinity International Press, 1989. Fraade, Steven D. Enoch and His Generations: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Post-Biblical. SBLMS. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Fredericks, Daniel C. Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date. ANETS 3. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988. Frevel, Christian, ed. Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Altem Testament. QD 237. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Verlag Herder, 2010. Frey, Jörg. “Die paulinische Antithese von »Fleisch« und »Geist« und die palästinischjüdisch Weisheitstradition.” ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77. ——. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History.” Pages 275-335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 197-226 in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 364-404 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002.

Bibliography

295

——. “The Notion of Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Texts of the Early Jesus Movement.” Pages 83-102 in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Frick, Peter. “Monotheism and Philosophy: Notes on the concept of God in Philo and Paul (Romans 1:18-21).” Pages 237-58 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 10. ECHC 2. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013. Frisch, Alexandria and Lawrence H. Schiffman. “The Body in Qumran Literature: Flesh and Spirit, Purity and Impurity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 23 (2016): 155-82. Foot Moore, George. “Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus.” HTR 22/4 (1929): 371-89. Fox, Michael V. “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet.” JBL 105/3 (Sep., 1986): 409-27. ——. Qohelet and His Contradictions. BLS 18. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. García-Martínez, Florentino. “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49-70 in The Creation of Heaven and Earth Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics. TBNJCT: 8. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “The Genesis of Alexandria, the Rabbis, and Qumran.” Pages 241-60 in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999. García, Jeffrey P. “‘Vessels of Dust:’ The Use and Disuse of Genesis’ Creation Accounts to Depict Humanity in the Hodayot.” Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting, Baltimore, November 2013. Gerard, Rouwhorst. “The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother in Christian Tradition.” Pages 183-204 in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Marcel Poorthius and Joshua Shwartz. JCPS 7. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira et la femme.” RTL 7 (1976): 426-42. ——. “Wisdom Literature.” Pages 284-324 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. ——. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14.” Pages 118-35 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw 2001. BZAW 321. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. ——. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis I-II.” Pages 89-99 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. CBQMS 38. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. Washington: CBA, 2005.

296

Bibliography

Goff, Matthew. “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction.” DSD 10/2 (2003): 165-70. ——. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ——. “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul.” Pages 114-25 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Volume 2: Exegetical Studies. Edited by C. Evans and H. D. Zacharias. London: T and T Clark, 2009. ——. “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction.” Pages 1-22 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravitz and Jószef Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden, Brill, 2010. ——. “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians.” Pages 41-59 in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ——. 4QInstruction. WLAW 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Goldstein, Jonathan. 2 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41a. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Gordley, Matthew E. “Creation Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers.” JJS 59/2 (2008): 252-72. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature.” HTR 87/2 (Apr., 1994): 171-95. Grabbe, Lester L. Wisdom of Solomon. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffied Academic Press, 1997. Grossman, Maxine. “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document.” DSD 11/2 (2004): 212-39 Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Root ‘GBL’ in Mishnaic Hebrew and in the Hymnic Literature from Qumran.” RevQ 2 (1959-1960): 155-62. Repr. pages in 690-98 in Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by Jonas C. Greenfield, S. Paul, Michael Stone, Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——. Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 91. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Gregory, Bradley C. Like and Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCL 2. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011. Guglielmo, Lara “Manuscripts, Editions and Translations of the Damascus Document from 1896 to 2007: Towards a (Re-)Edition 4Q266.” MG 13/1-2 (2008): 251-78. Gundry, Robert H. Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology. SNTSMS 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Haaland, Gunaar. “What Difference Does Philosophy Make? The Three Schools as a Rhetorical Device in Josephus.” Pages 262-88 in Making History: Josephus and the Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. JSJSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography

297

Hadot, Jean. Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique). Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit und Geschichtsverständnis im 4 Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse. FRLANT 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969. Harrington, Daniel J. “Recent Study of 4QInstruction.” Pages 105-23 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hay, David M. “Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae and a Possible Connection with Corinth.” Pages 127-42 in Philo und das Neue Testament: wechseleitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus JudaeoHellenisticum, 1.-4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena. Edited by Roland Deines and KarlWilhelm Neibuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ——. “The Treatise of the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community.” Page 102-20 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T and T Clark, 2010. ——. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction. STDJ  29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Henten, Wille van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Hezser, Catherine. “Paul’s ‘Fool’s Speech’ (2 Cor 11:16-32) in the Context of Ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman Culture.” Pages 221-44 in 2 Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism. Edited Reimund Bieringer, Emmauel Nathan, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson. CRINT 14. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hillel, Vered. “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” JSP 16/3 (2007): 171-201. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature.” Pages 115-41 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Edited by John C. Reeves. Atlanta: SBL, 1994. Hollander, H. W. and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATD 2. Arhus: Universitets­ forlaget, 1960. Holmes, Samuel. “The Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 518-68 in vol. 1 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913.

298

Bibliography

Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hultgren, Stephen. From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hippolytus in Rome. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by M. David Litwa. WGRW. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Hurvitz, Avi. “review of Qoheleth’s Language.” HS 31 (1990): 144-54. Irsigler, Hubert. “Zur Interdependenz von Gottes und Menschenbildern in Kontext alttestamentlicher Anthropologien.” Pages 195-230 in “Denk an deinen Scöpfer”: Studien zum Verständnis von Gott, Mensch, und Volk im Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2015. Isenberg, Sheldon. “An Anti-Sadducees Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition.” HTR 63/3 (1970): 433-44. Jervell, Jacob. Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in de paulinischen Briefen. FRLANT 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jonge, Marinus de. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin. VGTB 25. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. ——. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193-246 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited Marius de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ——. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. PVTG 1. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ——. “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” NT 44/4 (Oct., 2002): 371-92. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. “The Mother and the Seven Sons in Late Antique and Medieval Ashkenazi Judaism: Narrative Transformations and Communal Identity.” Pages 127-46 in Dying for the Faith, Killing for the Faith: Old Testament Faith-Warriors (1 and 2 Maccabees) in Historical Perspective. Edited by G. Signori. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 206. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Kaiser, Otto. “Göttliche Weisheit und menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira.” Pages 291306 in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, Johannes Schiller. BZAW 331. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. ——. Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik. BZAW 392. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Bibliography

299

——. “‘Was ist der Mensch und was ist sein Wert?’ Beobachtungen zur Anthropologie des Jesus Sirach nach Sir 16,24-18,14,” Pages 290-304, and “Anthropologie and Eschatologie in der Weisheit Salomos,” Pages 215-26 in Gott, Mensch und Geschichte: Studien zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in der klassischen, biblischen und nachbiblischen Literatur. BZAW 413. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. ——. Die Weiheit Solomos: Üersetzt, eingeleitet und durch biblische und außerbiblische Parallelen erläutert. Stuttgart: Radius-Verlag, 2010. Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775-828 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1985. Kim Harkins, Angela. Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot Through the Lens of Visionary Traditions. Ekstasis: 3. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012. ——. “The Community Hymns Classification: A Proposal for Further Differentiation,” DSD 15 (2008): 121-154. ——. “Observations of the Editorial Shaping of the So-Called Community Hymns in 1QHa and 4QHa (4Q427).” DSD 12/3 (2005): 233-56. Kittel, Bonnie. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. SBLDS 50. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice.” Pages 264-83 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ——. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56 (2009): 60. ——. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Knibb. Michael A. The Ethiopic Books of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments vol. 1: Text and Apparatus; vol. 2: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. ——. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793-97 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and Johan Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999. Konradt, Matthias and Esther Schläpfer, eds. Anthropologie und Ethik in Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen—Internationales Symposium in Verbindung mit dem Projeckt Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi

300

Bibliography

Testamenti (CJHNT) 17.-20. Mai 2012, Heidelberg. WUNT 322. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Kraut, Richard. “Introduction to the Study of Plato.” Pages 1-50 in The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Edited by R. Kraut. CCP. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Kugel, James L. “Qohelet and Money.” CBQ 51/1 (Jan., 1989): 32-49. ——. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kugler, Robert. “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the.” Pages 952-3 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ——. “A Note on Lev 26:41, 43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1-2 recto 5-6; and 1QS 8:3 (par. 4Q259 2:12): On Human Agency in the Divine Economy at Qumran.” Pages 245-50 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966. Labahn, Michael and Outi Lehtipuu, eds. Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscaba/Budapest. CBET 54. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Lange, Armin. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ——. “4Q468i: 4QSectarian Text.” Pages 416-417 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts, Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann, Philip S. Alexander et al., in consultation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady. DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. ——. “Consideration Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2.” Pages 254-68 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt—Demons: The Demonology of Israelite Jewish and Early Christian Literature in the Context of their Environment. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ——. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible.” DSD 13/3 (2006): 277-305. ——. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011.

Bibliography

301

——. “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’“ Pages 251-84 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Larcher, Chrysostome. Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Lauha, Aarre. Kohelet. BKAT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Laurin, Robert. “The Question of Immortality in the ‘Hodayot.’” JSS 3/4 (1958): 344-55. ——. “The Concept of Man as a Soul.” ExpTim 72 (1960-1961): 131-34. Le Déaut, R. “Traditions targumiques dans le corpus paulinien?” Bib 42/1 (1961): 28-48. Lea Mattila, Sharon. “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence,” JBL 119:3 (Aut., 2000): 473-501. Leaney, A. R. C. The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966. Lee, Eunny P. The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric. BZAW 353. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Lagarde, Paul de. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace. Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus; Londinii: Williams and Norgate, 1861. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. London: Yale University Press, 2006. Levinson, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2009. Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch. SJPSup 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Lewis, Theodore J. “Dead, The Abode of.” Pages 101-6 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Licht, Jacob. “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll.” IEJ 6/2 (1956): 89-101. ——. Megillat ha-serakhim me-megillot midbar yehudah: serekh ha-yaḥad serekh ha-‘edah serekh ha-erakhot. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965. ——. “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the DSD.” Pages 88-100 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. ScrHeir 4. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965. Lichtenberger, Herman. Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde. SUNT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980. ——. “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von im Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14:1 (1983): 1-10. ——. “‘Dem Tode verfallen war ich wegen meiner Sünden’ (11QPsa XIX, 1-18).” Pages 179-96 in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Egyptian Literature. Edited by Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittmann. DCLS 18. Berlin: Boston; Walter de Gruyter, 2015. Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. CQS. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

302

Bibliography

Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lohfink, Norbert. Kohelet. Würtzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980. Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Lorberbaum, Yair. Tzelem elohim halachah ve-aggadah. Tel Aviv: Shocken Publishing House, 2004. ——. In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2015. Louis Fletcher, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Maier, Gerhard, Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwi­schen Ben Sira und Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Maier, Johann. Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom Toten Meer: Band I. UniTaschenbücher. München: E. Reinhardt, 1995. Mansoor, Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Marböck, Johannes. “Kohelet und Sirach.” Pages in 275-302 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludgwe Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Marcus, Joseph. “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira.” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931): 223-40. Martin Hogan, Karina. “The Mortal Body and the Earth in Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers.” Pages 21-39 in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium. PTS 25. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Matson, Jason. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism: A Comparative Study. WUNT 2 297. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus in the Pharisee: A Composition-Critical Study. Studia Post-Biblica. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ——. “Josephus’ Judean War.” Pages 13-35 in A Companion to Josephus. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2016. Matusova, Ekaterina. “The Post-Mortem Divisions of the Dead in 1 Enoch 22:1-13: Against the Background of the Greek Influence Hypothesis.” Pages 149-77 in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman and Egyptian Literature. Edited by Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittman. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. McCarter, Jr, P. Kyle. “Dualism in Antiquity.” Pages 19-35 in Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited

Bibliography

303

by Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric Meyers, Armin Lange, Randall Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, s2010. McKeating, Henry. “Jesus ben Sira’s Attitude to Women.” ExpTim 85 (1973): 85-87. McNamara, Martin. The Aramaic Bible: Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis I—Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible: The Targums. Collegeville: A Michael Glazier Book; Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Metzger, Bruce. “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” Pages 517-61 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1985. Meyer, Nicholas A. Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul. NTSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Milik, J. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. With Matthew Black. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Miller, Douglas B. “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫לבה‬.” JBL 117/3 (1998): 437-54. Mirguet, Françoise. “Attachment to the Body in the Greek Testament of Abraham: A Reappraisal of the Short Recension,” JSP 19/4 (2010): 251-275. Moo, Jonathan A. Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra. FRLANT 236. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011. Muraoka, Takitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Murphy O’Connor, Jerome. “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76 (1976): 528-49. Murphy, Catherine M. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the in the Qumran Community. STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Murphy, Roland E. “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature.” Bib 39/3 (1958): 334-4. Naveh, Joseph. “Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran.” IEJ 48 3/4 (1998): 256-61. Newman, Hillel. Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups in the Ancient Period. Edited by R. Ludlam. BRLJ 25. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Newsom, Carol. “Case of the Blinking ‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH.” Pages 13-23 in Discursive Formations, Ascetic Piety and the Interpretation of Early Christianity Literature. Semeia 57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ——. “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge as Qumran.” Pages 13953 in Ideological Criticism of Biblical Texts. Edited by David Jobling and Tina Pippin. Semeia 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ——. “4Q370. 4QAdmonition on the Flood.” Pages 85-98 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al., in consultation with James VanderKam. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.

304

Bibliography

——. “Apocalyptic Subjects: Social Construction of the Self in the Qumran Hodayot.” JSP 12/1 (2001): 3-35. ——. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ——. “Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others’ through Non-Polemical Discourse.” Pages 13-22 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden, New York: Brill, 2008. ——. “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot.” Pages 339-54 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ——. “Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot.” Pages 193-211 in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018. ——. Rhetoric and Hermeneutics: Approaches to Text, Tradition and Social Construction in Biblical and Second Temple Literature. FAT 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Qumranic Transformation of a Cosmological and Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40)” Pages 649-59 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21, 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrerra and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. repr. from “The Qumranic Radicalizing and Anthropologizing of an Eschatological Tradition (1QH4:29-40).” Pages 423-35 in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65 Geburstag. Edited by Dwight D. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer, and Martin Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1991. ——. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, 81-108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. ——. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. Nitzan, Bilhah. Tefillat qumran ve-shiratah. BEL 14. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1996. English translation Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by J. Chipman. STDJ 12. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994. ——. “The Idea of Creation and Its Implications in Qumran Literature.” Pages 24064 in Creation in Christian in Jewish Tradition. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow and Yair Hoffman. JSOTSup 319. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic: 2002.

Bibliography

305

Notley, R. Steven and Jeffrey P. García “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 349-74 in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels Volume 2. Edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley. JCP 26. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Olyan, Samuel P. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80/3 (Jul., 1987), 261-86. Onsei-Bonsu, Joseph. “Anthropological Dualism in the New Testament.” SJT 40 (1987): 571-90. Osborne, James F. “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah.” JNES 70/1 (2011): 35-53. Osten-Sacken. Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Unersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969. Penney, Douglas L., and Michael O. Wise. “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560).” JBL 113/4 (Winter 1994): 627-650. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. Peters, Dorothy M. Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antquity. EJL 26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Phillip Hyatt, J. “The View of Man in the Hodayot.” NTS 2/4 (May, 1956): 283. Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Early-Period Jerusalem. STDJ 67. Leiden, Brill, 2007. ——. “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13-4:26) and Other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 59-98 in ‘And God Breathed into Man the Breath of Life’—Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Development of Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity, and Their Umwelts. Edited by J. T. A. G. M van Ruiten and Gerhard H. van Kooten. TBN. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Porter, F. C. “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin.” Pages 136-58 in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University. Yale Bicentennial Publications. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901. Puéch, Emile. “Hodayot.” Pages 365-68 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques et Sapientiels de Qumrân à l’Eschatologie du Judaïsme Ancien.” Pages 137-60 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

306

Bibliography

Puech, Émile, “Livret Magique: 4QLivret magique ar.” Pages 291-302 in Qumran Grotte 4 XXVII: Textes Araméens Deuxième Parti. DJD XXXVII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Rahlfs, Alfred., ed. Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). Rajak, Tessa. “The Individual and the Word in Hellenistic Judaism: Cases in Philo and Josephus.” Pages 298-314 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Ramón Díaz, José. “Dos Notas Sobre el Targum Palestinense.” Sef 19/1 (1959): 133-6 Rey, Jean-Sébastian, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology. STDJ 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Robert Doran, “The Martyr: A Synoptic of the Mother and Her Seven Sons” Pages 189-221 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Robinson, T. M. “The Defining Features of Mind-Body Dualism the Writings of Plato.” Pages 37-55 in Pysche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment. Edited by John P. Wright and Paul Potter. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Rosen Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: UPenn Press, 2011. Rudman, Dominic. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. JSOT 316. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986. ——. One the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Ruzer, Serge. “The Double Love Precept in the New Testament and the Rule of the Community.” Pages 81-106 in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels—Vol. 1. JCP 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Safrai, Ze’ev, and R. Steven Notley, The Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi. Jerusalem: Carta, 2011. Sanders, James. The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJDJ IV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. ——. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca: New York, 1967. Sanders, Seth L. “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects of the Katumuwa Stele.” BASOR 369 (2013): 35-55. Sarason, Richard S. “Communal Prayer at Qumran and Among the Rabbis” Pages 15172 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. STDJ 40. Leiden Brill, 2003.

Bibliography

307

Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, and the Lost Library of Qumran. New York: Doubleday, 1995. ——. “Foundations of Tzedek and Tzedakah: Righteousness and Charity in the Jewish Tradition.” (unpublished article). ——. “4Q299: 4QMysteriesa.” Pages 33-98 in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1. Edited by Torleif Elgvin et al., in consultation with Joseph A. Fitzmyer. DJD XX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Schmitt, Armin. Das Buch der Weisheit: Ein Kommentar. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Schnabel, Eckhard J. “The Function of the Law.” Pages 46-54 in Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry in the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schnelle, Udo. “Der erste Thessalonicherbrief und die Entstehung der paulinischen Anthropologie.” NT 32 (1986): 207-24. Schnelle, Udo. Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus, Paulus, Johannes. BThS 18. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Community Rule. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schuller, Eileen M. and Lorenzo Di Tommaso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayot, 19481996.” DSD 4/1 (Mar., 1997): 55-101. ——. “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts Among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173-90 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by Esther G. Chazon et. al. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot, 1993-2010.” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011): 119-162. ——. and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition. EJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Salomos: ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Seebass, H. ‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” Pages 497-518 in vol. 10 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by Gerhard Johannes Botterwek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redactions, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

308

Bibliography

Segal, Moshe H. Sefer ben sira ha-shalem. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958. Sekki, Arthur Everett. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Seow, Choon-Leong. “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” JBL 115/4 (Win., 1996): 643-66. Sheiber, A. “A New Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 175-85. ——. “An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew” Pages 1179-85 in vol. 2 of Jubilee Volume in Honor of Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik. Edited by S. Yisra’eli, N. Lamm, and Y. Refa’el. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smith, Morton. “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles.” Pages 315-26 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Nuesner. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Sneed, Mark R. The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to Israelite and Jewish Wisdom Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. ——. The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Stauber, Chad Martin. “Determinism in the Rule of the Community (1QS): A New Perspective.” Pages 345-58 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Stegemann, Hartmut, Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 4QHodayota-f and 1QHodayotb. DJD XL. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Steiner, Richard. Disembodied Souls: the Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription. ANEM 11. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Stone, Michael E. “Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion.” JSJ 12/2 (1981): 195-204 ——. “Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 383-442 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. ——. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. ——. and Jonas C. Greenfield. “4Q213a: 4QLevb.” Pages 25-36 in Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts: Part 3. DJD XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Strack, Hermann L. and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edited and Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Bibliography

309

Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington and Torleif Elgvin, in consultation with J. A. Fitzmyer. Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction (Musar leMevin): 4Q415 ff. With a reedition of 1Q26. DJD XXXIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Stuckenbruck, Loren. “Pleas for Deliverance from the Demonic in Early Jewish Texts.” Pages 55-78 in Studies in Jewish Prayer. JJSSup 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press/ University of Manchester, 2005. ——. “The Interiorization of Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context.” Pages 145-68 in Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric Meyers, Armin Lange, and Randall Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010. ——. “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the Problem of Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being.” Pages 437-53 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold. 2 vols. VTSup 140. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011. Suriano, Matthew. A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Suriano, Matthew. “Breaking Bread with the Dead: Katumuwa’s Stele, Hosea 9:4, and the Early History of the Soul.” JAOS 134/3 (July-Sept., 2014): 385-405. Tanzer, Sarah J. Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the “Hodayot.” Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1986. ——. “Biblical interpretation in the ‘Hodayot.’“ Pages 255-75 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “The Addressees of 4QInstruction.” Pages 62-78 in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——. “‘These are the names of the Spirit of …’: A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a).” RQ 21/4 (2004): 538-42. ——. “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’: Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians.” Pages 103-18 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

310

Bibliography

——. “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I (4QSectarian Text?).” Pages 347-57 in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-van de Weg. AJEC 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ——. “‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬.” Pages 537-547 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1985. Tomes, Roger. “A Father’s Anxieties (Sirach 42:9-11).” Pages 71-91 in Women in Biblical Tradition. Edited by George J. Brooke. Studies in Women and Religion 31. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992. Tooman, William A. “Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and Composition in ‘Hodayot’ (1QHa) 11:6-19.” DSD 18/1 (2011): 54-73; Trafton, Joseph L. “Solomon, Psalms of,” Pages 116-7 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis. BJS 38. Chico: Scholars Press 1982. Tromp, Johannes. “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17.” NT 35/4 (1993): 344-61. Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Qohelet im Horizont mesopotamischer, levantinischer und ägyptischer Weisheitliteratur der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit.” Pages 155248 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997 Ulrich, Eugene. “Qoheleth.” Pages 221-7 in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Joseph A. Fitzmyer et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Urbach, Ephraim. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979. Van den Hoek, Annewies. “Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s Thoughts on Adam and Eve.” Pages 63-75 in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretation of Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. TBNJC 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Van der Horst, P. W. The Sentences of Pseudo Phocylides. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Bibliography

311

——. “Pseudo-Phocylides.” Pages 565-82 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1985. ——. “The Evil Inclination ‫יצר הרע‬.” Pages 317-9 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1995 ——. “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife: A Rejoinder to John J. Collins.” JSJ 35 (2004): 70-75. Repr. pages 93-97 in Jewish and Christians in their Graeco Roman Context: Selected Essays in Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. WUNT 196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Van der Ploeg, J. “The Belief in Immortality in the Writings of Qumran.” BibOr 28/3-4 (1961): 118-24. Van Kooten, George H. Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity. WUNT I 232. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ——. “The Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body.” Pages 264-309. In Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike. Edited Ludger Jansen, Christoph Jedan, and Christof Rapp. TAP 5. Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, New Brunswick: Ontos-Verlag, 2010. Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. “The Creation of Man and Woman in Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 34-62 in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; TBN 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James. “Review of Hermann Lichtenberger Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde.” CBQ 43/3 (1981): 447-9. ——. The Book of Enoch of 1 Enoch: A New English Translation with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. ——. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. SA 87. Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters, 1989. ——. Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Chapters 1-21. Edited by Sidnie White Crawford. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018. ——. Jubilees 2: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Chapters 22-50, Edited by Sidnie White Crawford. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018. Vermes, Geza. “The Targumic Versions of Gen 4:3-16.” Pages 92-126 in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. SJLA. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Vincenz Reiterer, Friedrich “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira.” Pages 209-31. In The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Guiseppe Bellia. DCL 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

312

Bibliography

Vollenweider, Samuel. “Der Menschgewordene als Ebenbild Gottes: zum frühchristlichen Verständnis der Imago Die.” Pages 123-46 in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt: Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by H. P. Mathys. BthS 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998. Wächer, Luwig. “Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus.” ZFRG 21/2 (1969): 97-114. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. STDJ 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wagner, Ellen, ed. Essays on Plato’s Psychology. Lanham; Boulder; Oxford: Lexington Books, 2001. Walter Wolff, Hans. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Weinfeld, Moshe. Social Justice in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995. Werline, Rodney W. “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule.” Pages 69-88 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Bennie G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills. SBLSS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Werman, Cana. “What is the Book of Hagu?” Pages 125-40 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20-22 May, 2001. Edited by John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wernberg-Møller, P. The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. STDJ 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Westermann, Claus. “‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‬nepeš ‘soul.’” Pages 743-49 in vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Williams, Jarvis J. “Martyr Theology in Hellenistic Judaism and Paul’s Conception of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3:21-26.” Pages 493-522 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 10. Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 2. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013. Wilson, Walter T. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. CEJL. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965. ——. The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. TSAJ 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. New York: Doubleday, 1979.

Bibliography

313

Winter, Paul. “Ben Sira and the Teaching of the ‘Two Ways.’” VT 5/3 (Jul., 1955): 315-18. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Theologie und Anthropologie im Sirachbuch.” Pages 18-32 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Urshaw College 2001. Edited Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Wold, Benjamin, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar leMevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions. WUNT 2 201. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ——. “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction.” RQ 102/1 (2013): 211-26. ——. “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction.” Pages 34-48 in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Chris Keith. WUNT 2. Reihe 417. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. ——. “Apotropaic Prayer and the Matthean Lord’s Prayer.” Pages 101-112 in Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen—Evil, the Devil, and Demons. Edited by Benjamin Wold, Jan Dochhorn, and Susanne Rudnig-Zelt. WUNT II. Reihe 412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ——. 4Qinstruction: Divisions and Hierarchies. STDJ 123. Leiden: Brill 2018. Worthington, Jonathan D. Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before. WUNT 2.317. Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Wright III, Benjamin. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” SBLSP 35 (1996): 133-49. ——. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 96-126 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Repr. from 189-222 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. ——. “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch.” Pages 147-63 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, Archie. The Origins of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Repr. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Wright, Robert B. “Psalms of Solomon,” Pages 640-2 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1985. Wright, Robert B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition to the Greek Text. Jewish and Christian Texts Series 1. New York; London: T and T Clark, 2007. Würthwein, Ernst. Geschichte und Verantwortung: Vom Menschenbild des Alten Testaments. Wort und Existenz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970.

314

Bibliography

Yadin, Yigael. “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.” Pages 151-231 in Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Report. Revised by Elisha Qimron. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999. Yoshiko Reed, Annette. “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the ‘Testament of Abraham.’” JSP 40/2 (2009), 185-212. Young, Norman H. “Reconciliation on Philo, Josephus, and Paul.” Pages 233-44 in The Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeolo gical Museum, Andrews University, 1997. Ziadé, Raphaëlle. Les martyrs Maccabées: de l’histoire juive au culte chrétien—Les homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome. VCSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Zimmer, Tilman. Zwischen Tod und Lebensglück. BZAW 286. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Zimmerli, Walther. Das Menschenbild des Alten Testaments. TEH 14. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1949.

Subject Index Abaddon 99 Abel 142-143, 146, 154, 273 abode of the dead 126, 164, 176, 273 Adam 10, 19, 20, 27, 35, 46, 47, 49, 55, 58, 69, 75, 85, 87, 103, 108, 121, 151, 217, 238, 242, 257, 259, 269, 270, 271 Adam-cycle 10 Adamic 10 afterlife 33-35, 46, 62-65, 112, 113, 126, 131, 134, 137, 138, 140, 142, 147, 154, 163, 210, 271-273 all men 43, 45, 47, 49, 116, 118 allegory 68, 79 almsgiving 44, 115 animal life 1, 82, 119, 121 animating breath 35, 65, 97, 103 anthropological 12-18, 20, 43, 111, 150, 151, 155, 169, 235, 236, 253, 255, 258, 262, 282 anthropologizing 11, 99, 100 anthropology 2-4, 8, 15, 17, 21, 28, 29, 27, 71, 74, 75, 122, 147, 150, 151, 159, 169, 234, 237, 242-243, 254, 258, 265, 282 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 105, 106, 110 apotropaic prayer(s) 25, 152, 156, 167, 181-183, 184-187, 189, 190-192, 194, 195, 226, 273, 274, 277 ash(es) 41, 43, 61, 63, 89, 94, 97, 98, 118, 132 Beelzebub 207, 214 Belial 6, 83, 137, 164, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 191-194, 196, 215, 216, 219, 222, 233 Beliar 82-84 blasphemy 57, 240 body-soul 15, 62, 111, 112, 130, 133, 137, 148, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162-164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193 burial 62, 67 Cain 142, 145, 146, 173 Capability (human) 38, 40, 45, 46, 65, 66, 108, 202, 213 celestial 61, 92, 199 celibacy 14

charity 44, 43, 57, 206 choicest of clay 271, 278 of material 75, 108 clay 4, 11, 27, 28, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 66-68, 72, 73, 76-78, 80-83, 88, 89, 91-97, 99, 100-104, 108-110, 158, 159, 178, 180, 196, 220, 250, 251, 271, 278 vessel of 47, 178, 180, 251 collective humanity 10, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 40, 41, 50, 68, 69, 72, 77, 86, 92, 96, 104, 111, 117, 119, 121, 122, 131, 145, 152, 153, 157, 158, 166, 168, 174, 175, 178, 189, 206, 208, 209, 218, 221, 223, 225, 229, 230, 233, 247, 262, 267, 270-275, 279-281 communal-specific 1, 204, 276, 279 compatibilism 56, 203, 213, 216, 230, 299 constituent parts 1, 22, 25, 35, 111, 112, 137, 142, 154, 277 corporeal 35, 127, 165, 166, 168, 251, 254 corpse 114, 159, 250, 253 corruptible 64, 76, 77, 86, 104, 109, 132, 133, 136, 271, 278 cosmic 9, 11, 12, 17, 25, 52, 83, 100, 103, 106, 110, 144, 165, 237, 239, 243, 244, 269, 272 cosmology 52, 75, 137 creation topoi 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 151, 270, 271 topos 23, 68, 73 creational 98, 132, 280 creations 23, 61, 73, 83, 96, 129, 257, 288, 293, 303 creature of clay 4, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 109, 110, 158, 159, 220, 271, 278 of dust 24, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 102, 104, 109, 158, 220 creatureliness 43, 95, 100, 271 creator 22, 42, 43, 46, 61, 67, 75, 84, 87, 104, 106, 110

316 death 9, 23, 30-34, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62-65, 86, 98, 105-107, 110-112, 114-118, 125, 126, 132-139, 140-149, 152, 154, 155, 163, 164, 176, 187, 200, 201, 206, 215, 253, 271-274, 276, 277 deathless 136, 137, 140, 154 debased 254, 270, 274 debasement 271, 273, 278 deceased 62-64 demon(s) 185-187, 190-194, 200 demonic control 187-189, 195 disturbance 193, 195 entities 156, 274, 277 influence 187, 189, 191 spirits 181 determinism 22, 29, 33, 50, 51, 55, 56, 66, 203, 213, 222, 230, 264, 299, 306, 308 deterministic 54, 67, 204, 216, 256 dichotomization 57, 132, 194, 168 disembodied 10, 112, 125, 126, 137, 158, 308 divine breath 67, 73, 73, 76, 78 image 27, 46, 60, 61, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 87, 103, 109, 110, 266, 271, 278, 281 judgment 11, 108 revelation 269, 278 sovereignty 56, 197, 203, 274, 276 divinely-wrought 180, 181 double duality 25, 232, 243, 244, 268, 275 double-heart/ed/ness 18, 171, 172 dualism 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24, 25, 52-55, 83, 112, 113, 133, 147, 148, 151, 152, 156, 158, 160, 162-164, 166-168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 222, 226, 233, 234, 237, 241, 243, 259, 273, 274, 279 dust 3, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31-36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90-110, 118, 158, 159, 178-180, 191, 220, 237, 250, 251, 263, 271, 274, 276, 278 dust-like 251 earth 14, 23, 24, 31, 33, 38, 43, 55, 57, 59, 77, 81, 85, 109, 117, 124, 131, 133, 137, 141, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 178, 186, 187, 204, 236, 252, 270, 278

Subject Index from (out of) the 10, 21, 23, 24, 33, 37, 38, 42, 46, 72, 73, 76, 88, 186, 187, 271, 276, 278, 280 -born 70, 79 earthly origin(s) 4, 35, 60, 61, 65, 82, 93, 100, 271 elect 6, 247, 257, 258, 262, 266, 267, 278, 279 elect group 232, 257, 264, 269 elect mevin 260, 267 embodies 97, 103, 104, 245, 268 embodiment 12, 17, 25, 103, 144, 244, 271 en-souling 100 Essenes 7, 8, 14, 56, 64, 121, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138-140, 143, 154, 203, 204, 210, 211, 215, 216, 269, 273, 275 eternal life 34, 105, 107, 108, 229, 242, 245, 262 eternality 6, 56-59, 66, 163 ether 136, 137, 154, 210 ethereal 118, 138, 146, 176, 237 everlasting covenant 40, 46 destruction 190 life 239, 242 peace 160, 162, 163 terror 240 evil inclination(s) 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 43, 184, 200, 217, 218, 219, 222, 224-229, 230, 231, 275 exorcism 228, 230 external force(s) 18, 165, 203, 225, 230, 270, 280 influence 156 fate 8, 31, 54, 113, 132, 163, 196, 197, 203, 210, 211-216, 224, 230, 269, 275, 281 fated 213, 275 flesh 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 26, 39, 41, 43, 51, 77, 91, 96-100, 103, 111, 114-122, 136, 147, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 167, 173-175, 177, 178, 180, 185, 186, 188, 191, 192, 232, 237, 241, 242, 247-249, 251-255, 257-259, 263, 265, 268, 274, 279, 280 foreordination 203, 240 free choice 41, 202, 210 free will 7-9, 14, 22, 25, 51, 55, 179, 196-199, 202-204, 206, 209, 210, 211-216, 229, 230, 231, 235, 274-276, 280 futility 31, 32, 34, 59, 68, 250, 275

Subject Index Gentile(s) 28, 39, 84, 138, 224, 225, 308 general humanity 42, 65, 86, 117, 165, 167, 263 God-given 1, 12, 21, 106, 154, 175, 247, 260, 264, 265, 267, 274, 277, 279 good inclination 43, 217 ground, from the 28, 31, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 65, 66, 78, 88, 92, 102, 271, 276 guilty 97, 109, 190, 207, 210, 219 Hagu, Vision of 19, 172, 255, 256, 259, 262, 266 heavenly person 76-79, 108 man 77 retinue 70, 118, 237 human characteristic 45, 157, 204, 221, 224, 271 condition 15, 25, 102, 175, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 232, 233, 238, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 257, 267, 268, 269, 274-276 deed(s) 203, 205, 234, 240, 242, 243 impermanence 55, 67 inclination 18, 21, 22, 213, 220, 221, 231 existence 10, 22, 24, 34, 38, 46, 61, 65, 67, 68, 74, 75, 112, 115, 122, 125, 132, 134, 145, 151, 152, 155, 176, 178, 180, 194, 203, 240, 270, 271, 272, 275, 277, 278 life 32, 115, 125, 147, 174, 176, 254 nature 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13-18, 20-24, 26, 27, 29, 68, 69, 71, 109-111, 131, 141, 147, 153, 156, 162, 167, 181, 183, 192-194, 197, 208, 210, 217, 218, 225, 228-230, 233, 235, 241, 243-245, 247, 256, 268-272, 275-283 holy spirit 6, 95, 160, 175, 182, 183, 209, 228, 230, 231, 242, 263, 279 idolatry 59, 66, 81, 241 idol maker 23, 60, 271 idols 59, 61, 66, 169, 170, 173, 188, 239 image of God 3, 7, 10, 15-17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43-46, 57, 64, 65-67, 68-78, 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 103, 107, 108-110, 266, 270-272, 276-278, 280-282

317 imago dei 6, 28, 40, 45, 61, 74, 75, 79, 87, 88, 108, 110, 271, 272, 281, 282 imitatio dei 44 immortal 41, 57, 58, 60, 64, 69, 72-74, 100, 108, 118, 133-137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 147, 152, 154, 163, 188 immortality 14, 15, 23, 24, 43, 57-59, 62, 66, 105, 115, 118, 125, 131-135, 138-140, 144, 147, 154, 163, 271, 273 impure spirit(s) 227, 277 inclination(s) 4, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 44, 54, 93, 99, 159, 189, 200, 201, 202, 208, 217, 218-220, 224, 230, 270, 277, 279, 280 to sin 201, 210, 279 incorruption 56-59, 61, 66 inherent value 281 innate condition 1, 22, 25, 249, 251, 274 spirit 174, 181, 194, 209, 264, 265, 267, 274 inner life 158, 167, 174 person 64, 155, 158, 166-168, 172, 174, 176, 183, 185, 194, 218, 274, 277 strife 273 turmoil 25, 256 internal conflict 174, 176, 273 disturbance 274 experience 158, 175 life 18, 217, 219 Israel-specific 42, 66, 198 judgment 11, 30, 50, 57, 86, 88, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109, 121, 134, 142, 143, 145, 146, 164, 165, 177, 187, 206, 212, 214, 215, 229, 238, 248, 256, 257, 265, 266, 268, 273 justice 44, 66, 79, 109, 131, 278, 312 kneaded 92, 96, 178, 179, 250, 251, 263 knowledge 11, 12, 14, 39, 57, 67, 70, 71, 81, 82, 84, 91, 94, 97, 103, 104, 108-110, 114, 148, 168, 182, 184, 189, 191, 192, 205, 227-229, 235, 240, 242, 247-249, 255, 259, 260, 263, 264, 265, 267-269, 272, 278, 279, spirit(s) of 6, 175, 239, 262 (spirit of faith and knowledge) 184 knowledge-endowing spirit 181 knowledge-giving (spirit) 158, 209, 220, 263

318 later-given (spirit) 180, 264, 266, 279 law 41, 42, 44, 56, 66, 87, 106, 116, 120, 127, 136, 143, 170, 206, 210, 228, 241, 280 of Beliar 82, 83 of God 84 lawgiving 42, 74 lecherous eyes 208 light, sons of 122, 170, 232, 233, 236-238, 241, 257, 291 living creature(s) 1, 51, 121-124, 158 lot 31, 33, 76, 121, 122, 132, 141, 162, 170-174, 194, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247, 251, 254, 262, 266, 267, 275, 279 lowliness 4, 5, 8, 11, 23, 24, 68, 89, 99, 102, 249, 273, 277, 279 malevolent spirits 18, 25, 156, 188 mankind 26, 27, 37, 49, 55, 58, 85, 104, 110, 117, 183, 237, 268 marriage 119 meaningless 31, 35 meaninglessness 31, 65 meditation, vision of 19, 20, 167, 232, 255, 257-259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267-269, 276 merciful 41, 50, 101, 109, 119, 120 153, 164 metaphysical 22, 24, 25, 64, 77, 82, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 122, 125, 127, 128, 133, 137, 145, 146, 150, 152, 162, 165, 183, 189, 194, 205, 270, 272, 273, 274, 277 metempsychosis 132, 140 molded 70, 75-77, 106 morality 114, 279 mortal(s) 39, 43, 62, 63, 71, 72, 73, 114, 116, 118, 121, 133, 137, 143, 153, 173, 175, 208, 220, 252, 271, 276 mortality 14, 42, 43, 45, 46-48, 58, 66, 67, 71, 72, 103, 114-119, 135, 137, 153, 247, 251, 276, 279 nature, human 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13-18, 20-24, 26, 27, 29, 68, 69, 71, 109-111, 131, 141, 147, 153, 156, 162, 167, 181, 183, 192-194, 197, 208, 210, 217, 218, 225, 228-230, 233, 235, 241, 243-245, 247, 256, 268-272, 275-283 negative characteristic 124, 231, 240, 268 Niedrigkeitsdoxologien 8, 9, 89, 99 non-sectarian 26, 156, 181, 195 nothingness 11, 232, 250, 251

Subject Index obedience 1, 8, 15, 26, 41, 46, 54, 67, 82, 107, 108, 110, 160, 161, 164, 197, 202, 203, 209, 210, 228-230, 238, 244, 263, 264, 267, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276-280, 281 obedient 84, 143, 144, 160, 197, 207, 209, 220, 228, 229, 231, 238, 263, 268 to God 9, 14, 118 omniscience 67, 205 ontological 20, 21, 232, 257-261, 266, 268, 269 pacification 228, 231 peace 44, 134, 135, 160, 162, 163, 170, 239, 241 personified (entity) 19, 225, 227 pessimism 4, 5, 23, 31, 32, 89, 232, 268, 269, 276 Pharisee(s) 136, 139, 140, 143, 144, 154, 204, 210, 213, 216, 230, 273, 275, 277, 278 physical 15, 17, 25, 38, 39, 67, 71, 73, 76, 78, 81-83, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112-116, 119, 122, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, 141, 146, 152, 153, 155, 156, 160, 162, 165, 167, 168, 174, 176, 180, 183, 185, 186-189, 191, 192, 194, 251, 252-254, 270-274, 277, 279 physicality 107, 153 Platonic 58, 60, 71, 75, 113, 132, 133, 135, 137 potter 50, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 80-83, 88, 93, 109 predestination 1, 8, 22, 25, 51, 91, 230, 280 predestined 25, 209, 235, 241, 243, 244, 245, 248, 267, 268, 275, 277, 278 predetermined 25, 55, 179, 241, 244, 275 preexistence 58, 132, 137 providence 128, 213, 214 psychosomatic 119, 124-126, 130, 131, 135, 142, 152, 153, 155, 166, 193, 271, 272, 273, 276 purification 129, 160, 178, 183, 184, 231, 238, 244, 277 Qumran community 10, 12, 14, 26, 54, 122, 166, 181, 189, 230, 233, 238, 245, 276, 277, 280, 303 Qumran-specific 275 redeemed 13, 121, 135, 267 reification 18, 225, 227 reified 220, 224 repentance 202, 252

Subject Index responsibility 43, 44, 50, 51, 71, 85-87, 109, 110, 115, 197, 202, 203, 205, 213, 214, 216, 231, 235, 238, 280 resurrection 67, 104, 106, 107, 110-112, 135, 138-141, 147, 149, 154, 155, 163, 255, 272 revelation 14, 15, 20, 85, 100, 203, 209, 256, 258, 261, 264, 265, 267, 269, 278 righteous, the 23, 25, 57, 58, 86, 109, 133, 134, 135, 143-147, 149, 152, 154, 155, 160-163, 171, 181, 187, 188, 191, 205, 206, 232, 235, 237, 244, 252, 268, 272, 273, 275, 278 righteousness 8, 44, 45, 57-59, 62-64, 66, 83, 89, 90, 97-99, 102, 134, 148, 171, 175, 191, 205, 206, 237, 238, 239, 245, 248, 249, 251, 268, 273, 275 steadfast inclination 221, 230 source of impurity 96, 97, 180 Sadducees 8, 136, 141, 142, 154, 210, 211, 214, 215, 273, 275, 277, 278 salvation 91, 97, 107, 160, 162, 163, 183, 202, 235, 248, 253 sectarian-specific 160, 169, 181 self 6, 11, 20, 102, 123, 126-130, 131, 133, 158, 165-167, 172, 177, 180, 219, 251, 252, 255, 268, 276 self-abasement 96 self-aware 156 self-awareness 194, 246 self-betraying 215 self-consciousness 99 self-debasement 247 self-denigration 157 self-immolation 154 self-loathing 97, 101, 179 self-mastery 79, 109 self-understanding 12 separable component(s) 145, 194 shame 4, 96, 123, 130, 178, 179, 240, 251, 271, 278 shameful 96, 97, 271 sinful flesh 11, 12, 100, 232, 247, 251, 268, 274 sinfulness 8, 89, 192, 220, 224, 232, 242, 245, 247, 251, 253, 254, 279 sinner(s) 51, 85, 86, 107, 113, 133, 145-147, 154, 204, 223, 243, 252, 269 sons of darkness 232 sons of light 122, 170, 232, 233, 236-238, 241, 247

319 soul(s) 1, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 33, 34, 58, 60-64, 67, 70-73, 75, 76, 81-84, 106-108, 111-113, 122-125, 129-144, 146-156, 158-170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180-182, 184-195, 202, 210, 215, 248, 251, 253, 267, 271-274, 277 sovereign knowledge 81, 103, 109, 112, 120 sovereign 8, 25, 55, 70, 71, 81, 103, 109, 110, 232, 235 spirit 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 24-26, 31-35, 61-65, 67, 71, 78, 80-83, 91, 94-97, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109-112, 118, 123, 132, 145-148, 150-156, 158-160, 162-164, 166-169, 174-185, 188-191, 193-194, 195, 197, 202, 208-210, 220-223, 225-228, 230-233, 239-243, 247, 251, 253-255, 257-260, 262-269, 272-274, 277, 279 of death 118 of error 179, 180 of holiness 168 of knowledge 5, 175, 239 of flesh 96, 255, 258, 263 of man 6, 31, 177, 179 of staggering 179 of understanding 175, 181, 190, 191, 195 spirit-breath 177 spirit-force 71 temporal 43, 61, 63, 64, 67, 114, 118, 131, 133, 271 temporality 65, 137 temptation 123, 277 terrestrial nature 65 theological anthropology/ies 2, 14, 17, 18, 28, 243 topoi, creation 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 151, 270, 271 topos, creation 23, 68, 73 transgress 107, 110, 136, 230, 238, 268 transgression(s) 1, 101, 110, 185, 194, 198, 242, 244-247, 251-254, 280 trichotomy (human composition) 111, 112, 150, 151, 155, 169 two ways 51, 54, 66, 218, 240

320 unclean 97, 160, 184, 191, 226, 239, 240, 254 uncleanness 160, 191, 254 unjust flesh 253, 254 unknowing (condition) 26, (spirit) 256, 267 unrepentant 192 unrighteous 87, 182 vessel(s) 47, 50, 51, 60, 80, 83, 109, 178, 180, 218, 221, 251, 265 of clay 47, 178, 180, 251 of dust 47 of flesh 265 virtues 79, 240 vulnerabilities (human) 25, (sexual) 116, (physical) 156, 183, 186, 189 Watchers 84, 118, 144, 146, 186-188, 207, 208, 252 weakness (human) 13, (fleshly) 153, 253 wealth 54, 128, 153 well-examined 53

Subject Index well-known 237 well-tempered 271 wicked 25, 30, 57, 58, 95, 99, 112-114, 119, 132, 134, 140, 143, 154, 160-164, 166, 171, 186, 187, 225, 232, 235, 238, 244, 247, 251, 253, 256, 262, 263, 268, 269, 271, 273, 275, 276, 278 wickedness 99, 190, 191, 220, 240, 247 wise 78, 136, 136, 152, 207, 208, 214 woman 27, 28, 38, 42, 71, 72, 83, 96, 98, 118, 121, 123, 127, 179, 250, 251, 264, 278 women 45, 46, 80, 115, 116, 119, 185, 257, 259, 262-264 womb(s) 104, 117, 160, 161, 163, 185 workmanship 87, 88 worms 126, 253 wrath 83, 160-163, 202, 240, 251 yetzer 43, 200 zeal 98, 239, 240, 263

Ancient Source Index Early Jewish Texts Apocrypha 1 Maccabees 1:34 199 2:15-28 107 2:29-38 107 2:49-68 107 2:62 199 9:37 224 2 Maccabees 14 107 15:8 151 2:46 136 6:30 132 7 104, 110, 136 7:6 117 7:9 105 7:11 136 7:14 136 7:20 106 7:20-23 104 7:23 136 7:29 136 7:36 108 7:37 107, 132 3 Maccabees 1:18 63 1:25 151 2:4 84 4:6 63 1 Esdras 2:9 151 9:41 151 Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus) 0:1 42 0:14 120 0:15-25 36 1:28 170 1:30 123 2:1 123 3:26 170

3:29 170 3:30 44 4:11-14 118 4:15-18 118 4:17 123 4:18-19 117 4:2 123 4:3 170 4:6 123 4:7-10 44 5:2 123 6:17 123 6:2 123 6:4 123 6:9 123 6:23-30 130 6:26 123 6:32 122 6:37 170 7 113 7:10 203 7:11 123 7:13 203 7:17 123 7:24 131, 152, 253 7:25 116 7:29 122 8:19 170 9:2 123,127 10:23 199 10:28-29 123 12:1 124 12:11 123 12:13-30 124 12:14 199 12:16 170 12:2d-3c 124 12:6b-8 125 13:6 120 14:2 123 14:4 123 14:7 126 14:8 123 14:8-9 124 14:15 203, 215 14:15 215

322 Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus) (cont.) 14:17 117 14:18 43 14:21 170 15:11 43, 198, 199 15:11-20 197 15:11-18:14 82 15:11-18:14 40 15:11-18:14 66 15:11-18:14 198 15:12 198 15:13 199 15:14 7, 41, 20 15:14-17 199 15:14-17 200 15:17 206 15:19 41, 44 15:19 44 15:4 39, 118, 205 15:4a 205 15:4b 205 15:4-5 205 15:5c 206 15:7 199 15:7-13 59 15:9-18:14 39 16:4 44 16:7 84 16:17 123 16.17-22 43 16:17-23 44 16:20 170 16:24 170 16:24- 17:25 40 16:24-18:14 15, 43, 45 16:29-30 124 16:30 42, 63, 123 17:1 31, 38, 42, 47, 48, 63 17:3 38 17:3 39 17:3 202 17:1-4 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 65, 66 17:1-14 40 17:3b 40 17:4 38 17:4 120 17:4 32 17:5 39

Ancient Source Index 17:5-14 45 17:5-14 66 17:5-6 39 17:5-8 38 17:6 170 17:6 201 17:10-12 48 17:11-14 40, 44 17:14 44 17:15-20 44 17:16b 126 17:17-18 40 17:18-20 203 17:2 117 17:22 41 17:22-23 44 17:25-32 118 17:26 118 17:27 126 17:29-32 43 17:30-32 41, 43, 118, 137 17:18 229 18:1 118 18:3 123 18:12 120 18:13 120 18:30 124 18:8a 41 19:22 123 19:3 123 19:4 123 20:22 123 21:2 123 21:26 170 21:27-28 123 21:32 123 22:16 114, 123, 170 23:16-17 252 23:16-17 253 23:17 131 22:17-18 170 23:2 170 23:6 123 23:18 123 24 40 24:1 123 25:13-26 119 25:2 123 26:14-15 123

323

Ancient Source Index 27 229 27:6 170, 201 27:16 123 27:30 199 28:2 119 28:5 119 28:9 199 29:12 44 29:15 123 30:14-16 131 30:14-17 253 30:19 34 30:21 123 30:23 123 31:6 123 31:19-20 123 31:20 123 31:28-29 123 32:23 123 33 54, 56, 203 33:1-2 56 33:2 66 33:10 47, 48 33:11 48, 50 33:13 49, 50, 54, 60, 82 33:13-15 55 33:14 54 33:14-15 55 33:15 54 33:31 123 33:7 47, 48, 60 33:7-1 54 33:7-12 55 33:7-15 46, 60, 66, 229 33:7-9 49 33:8-9 47 34:5 170 34:15 34, 123 34:15 123 34:6 123 36:19-20 170 37 128 37:6 128 37:8 123 37:9 123 37:12 123, 128 37:19 123 37:22 114 37:25 113

37:26 123 37:27 123 37:27-28 123 37:28 123 38:16 114, 131 39:1 123 39:19 120 40:2 170 40:6 170 40:8 120 40:17 44 40:24 44 40:29 123 41:1 253 41:11 113, 114, 131 41:11 114 42:15-43:33 51 42:24-25 55 43:18 170 44:14 114, 131, 253 45:23 123 45:26 170 47:19 131, 253 48:13 131, 253 49:15 114 50:25 123 51 51, 124, 128 51:1 125 51:2 131, 253 51:2 253 51: 20 123 51:19-20 128, 129 51:20 170 51:21 123 51:23-30 130 51:24 123, 128 51:26 123, 128, 129 51:29 123, 128 (Ben Sira, Hebrew MSS) A 1v:15 A 2v:2 A 2v:19 A 2v:20 A 2v:26-27 A 2v:28 A 3r:28 A 3v:4 A 5r:9

123 122 123 126 113, 115, 153 122, 123 127 127 123

324 (Ben Sira, Hebrew MSS) (cont.) A 6r:8 117 A 6v:16-17 44 A 6r:22 43 A 6r:22-24 198 A 6r:24-28 199, 200 A 6r:25 43 B 11r:3 113, 114 B 13v:17 114 B 15v:1 123 B 19r:5 114 B 20r:11 125 B 20v:1 125 B 21v:10 130 B 21v:4 130 B 21v:5 130 B 21v:6-7 129, 130 B 2r:11 43 B 2r:11- 5 198 B 7r:13 123 B 7v:5 123 B 7v:15 114 B 8v:4-5 114 B 9r:5 120 C 3v:3 123 C 3v:9-10 115 D 1r:10 123, 128 D 1v:11-12 114 D 2r:6-7 115 E 1r:17 47 E 1r:18 46 E 1r:19 48 F 1r:6 123 B 20v:1 125 (Ben Sira, Taylor-Schechter Collection) TS 16.315 130 Judith 8:14 151 Tobit

1:16-2:8 64 3:6 63, 132, 149 4:19 170 4:8-9 206 8:6 85 9:2 127

Ancient Source Index 3:6 63 13:2 33, 63, 126

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 131 1:1-11 57 1:1-15 131 1:1-2:24 57 1:1-2:24 163 1:4 131, 132 1:4-11 57 1:9 131 1:11 135 1:12 57 1:13-15 57 1:15-16a 57 13:10-15:17 59 13:10-19 59 14:17 153 15 81 15:2 81 15:6 50 15:7 60 15:11 121 15:13 58 16:14 155 15:14-19 59 15:15 60 15:7-13 59, 66 15:8 60, 63, 132 2:1-20 58 2:3 132 2:11 61 2:11-12 61 2:12 61 22:13 155 2:22 135 2:22-23 61 2:23 58, 66, 77 2:23-24 56, 58, 133 3:1 149, 154 3:2-4 134 3:4 58 3:10 134 3:11 237 4:1 58 4:2 168 4:12 151, 154

325

Ancient Source Index 5:15 134, 154 6:13 33 6:18 58 6:19 58 6:23 58 7:1 153 7:1-6 117 8:13 58 8:17 58 8:19 58, 132 8:19-20 132, 154 8:20 58, 132 8:23 59 9:1-3 57 9:15 58, 151, 154

4Q468 i 3 1 4

225 237

4Q477 2 ii 8

116

4Q487 (4QpapSap B?) 1 ii 3 170 37 234 4Q502 16

234

4Q525 10 5

121

4Q538 10 5

121

4Q560 4Q560 1 i 3

185

Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q29 1Q29 13-17 1Q29 15-16 1Q29 16 1Q29 16b-17

234 235 235 235

1Q11 1Q11 6:3

237

1QFestival Prayers 3 ii 7 3 ii 23

95, 242 243

4QCantenaa (4Q477) 4QCantenaa 12 13 i 11 237 4Q177 5 6:6 220

1QPsa 19:8

158

4Q375 1 i 3

4Q225 1:2 160 3 ii 2 253 4Q230 12 3

190

4Q386 1 ii 4

116

4Q387 A2

116

4Q390 1:12

170

4Q444 1 4 i + 5 1 4 i + 5

192 195

4QAdmonition Based on the Flood 4Q370 1 i 3 218 4QBlessings a 7 ii 6 b 6:5

237 237

160

4QCommunal Confession (4Q393) 4Q393 1 ii 2 222 1 ii 2 8 223 2 223 2 ii 7 223 3 223 3 3 170 3 5 170 4QEnoch (4QEnear | 4Q206) 1 22 1 144, 145 1 22 3-4 146 1 22 4-5 145 1 22 5 145 1 22 7b 146

326

Ancient Source Index

4QExorcismar 1 192 1:3-4 192

1 ii 12 1 ii 14 2 i 15-16

19, 225 267 246

4QPesher Nahum (4Q169) 3 4 2 4-6 114 34 ii 4 253 34 ii 6 253

4QMusar le-Mevind (4Q418) 4QMusar 253 le-Mevind a + b 6 69 ii 8 237 127 3 253 4Q418 1 i 6-7 256 81 121 10 ab 7 116 43 255, 256 43 45 i 3 260 43 45 i 4 256 43 45 i 12 255 43 45 i 13 261 77 3 246 81 + 81a 1-20 260 81 + 81a 2 255 81+ 81a 3-12 260

4QPesher Psalms 37 8

4QInstruction-like Composition A (4Q419) 4Q419 8 ii 7 121

4QMusar le-Mevinb (4QInstructionb | 4Q416)

4QMysteriesa 8 6

218

4QMysteriesb 4Q301 4 2

190

4QShirShabbc 4:1-15

177

4QFlorilegium 1 2 i 1 1 2 ii 8

237 237

4QReworked Pentateuchc 4Q365 36 1 116 4QTestimonia (4Q175) 1:3 170 4QPesher Isaiahe (4Q165) 4Q165 6 5 220

4QMusar le-Mevinb 1 10 1 16 2 ii 18 4Q416 1 4-6 2 3:2-4 ii 17-18 2 iv 5

237 98 253 246 114 264 116

4QMusar le-Mevinc (4Q417) 4Q417 1 i 260 1 i 1-13a 255 1 i 10 256 1 i 13-18 255, 256, 268 1 i 16 258 1 i 15 258 1 i 16-17 258 1 i 16-18 265, 261 1 i 17 258, 269 1 ii 2-16 226

11QMelchizedek (11Q13) 11Q Melch 2:8 237 12:22 237 11QPsalms (11Q Psa | 11Q5) 11QPsa 19:5 19:1-18 19:10-18 19:15

121 121 121 184

4QSongs of the Sagea (4Q510) 4Q Songs of the Sagea 1 7 237 4Q510 1 190 1 4-8 190 1 58 2 190 1 73 1 190

327

Ancient Source Index 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) 4QSongs of the Sageb 18 237 28 29 3 251 4Q511 10 4 237 26 1 254 35 1 121 35:6-8 191 48 49 51 1 4 195 48 49 + 51 1-4 191 48 49 + 51 3 191 4QSongs of the Sagec (4Q402) 4Q402 3 ii 13 220 4QWar Scroll (4Qa | 4Q491) 4Qa 1 1 ii 9 237 1 ii 15 237 8 10 i 14 237 4QWar Scroll (4Qe | 4Q496) 4Qe 2 2 237 4QWar Scroll (4Qf | 4Q495) 4Qf 3 7 237 4QWords of the Luminariesa (DibHama | 4504) 1 2 recto ii 13 160 8 recto 4 103 8 recto 5 103 8 recto 6 103 8 recto 9 103 4QBarkhi Nafshic. (4Q436) 4Q436 1 ii 1-4 227 1a+bi1 226, 227 1 a + b i 10 226 1 i a + b 1 9-11 227 1 i a + b 10 225 4QBarkhi Nafshid (4Q437) 4Q437 2 i 13 167 2i8 167 4QReworked Pentateucha (4Q158) 4Q158 6:5 170

11QTargum of Job (11Q10) 11Q10 4:3 167 11QFragment Related to Serekh ha-Yahad 11Q29 1:2 170 11QJubilees 11Q12 2:1

262

11QPsalmsa (11Q5) 11Q5 19 19:13-16 19:13-16 19:15-16

181, 184 184, 194 194 225

11QPsalmsb (11Q6) 11Q6 4 5 14-16

184

Community Rule (Serekh ha-Yaḥad, 1QS ) QS 1:2 160 1:6 170 1:9 237 1:10 237 2:4-6 254 2:14 170 2:16 237 2:26 170 3:3 170 3:9 237 3:11-14 134 5:15 171 5:4 44 5:4 170 5:4 171 5:5 218, 221 5:5-6 221 5:8 221 5:9 160, 170 7:19 170 7:24 170 8:1 221 8:3 221 8:5 221 9:10 170 9:14 237 9:26-10:4 95

328 Community Rule — “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13 – 4:26) 1QS 3:13-17 235 3:13-4:26 26, 50, 216, 232, 233 237 3:13 237 3:13-14 234 3:13-14 233 3:13-15a 233 3:15 54 3:15-16 50 3:15-17 177 3:20 237 3:21 237 3:16 237 3:17b-18a 236 3:18-19 236 3:18-25 244 3:18b-25 236 3:22 238 3:23 238 3:23-24 241 3:24 237 3:24 238 3:25b 240 3:25b-4:23 239 4:1 240 4:2-14 240 4:2 170 4:5 221 4:5-6 237 4:20 178 4:21 263 4:15-16 238 4:15-23 241 4:18-22 242 4:18b-22 238 4:20 242 4:22 242 4:23 243 4:23c-26 243 4:23c-26 243 4:24 244 4:24-26 244 4:25 244 Community Rule — “Hymn of Praise” (1QS 10:9-11:22) 1QS 10:5c-22 245

Ancient Source Index 10:8-16b 245 10:9-11:22 26, 232, 245 10:16c-19b 245 10:19c-11:5b 245 10:23-24 246 11:1 190 11:3 246 11:5c-6 246 11:6-7 246 11:6b-7a 246 11:7b-9a 246 11:9b-10a 246 11:10a 250 11:10b-20a 246, 248 11:11c-13 249 11:15-18 250 11:15b-20a 249 11:17 249 11:20b 251 11:20b-22 246, 249 11:21 251 Community Rule — (4QSb | 4Q256) 4Q256 23:1 249 9:4 170 9:7 160 Community Rule — (4QSc | 4Q257) 4QSc 5:2 237 5:4 237 Community Rule — (4QSd | 4Q258) 4Q258 1:4 170 1:6 160 Community Rule — (4QSe | 4Q259) 4Q259 2:7 170 Damascus Document (CD) CD 1:1-4:12 121, 207 1:2 121 1:3 121 1:4-5 209 1:10 171 2:2-14a 209 2:13 209 2:14 208 2:15 209 2:16 208, 219, 226 2:17 208

329

Ancient Source Index 2:19 114 3:1 208 3:2 208 3:2-6 207 3:2-12a 197, 207 3:3 208, 209 3:5 170 3:13-14 209 3:2-12a 207 3:20 229 4:20 242 5:8-11 116, 153 5:8-11 153 7:1 252 7:11 116 7:19-24 170 8:19 170 8:6 116, 252 8:8 170 9:10 170 11:7 246 11:16 220 15:12 160 17:19 252 19:19 116 19:20 170 19:33 170 20:14 246 Damascus Document (4QDa | 4Q266) 1 1:7 237 1a b 1 237 1 a b 1 5a 207 1 a b 5b 25 207 1 c f? 207 2 2 19 114 2 i 1 6a 207 2i7 121 2 ii 15 219 3 iv 4 116 4 iv 4 252 4Q266 2 ii 15-19 2 ii 17 2 ii 18 2 ii 21 2 2 ii 22 3 iv 6 5 ii 11 8i3

208 170 208 207 208 170 170 160

Damascus Document (4QDb | 4Q268) 4QDb 1:2-8 207 Damascus Document (4QDc | 4Q268) 4QDc 1:1-8 207 1 10 121 Damascus Document (4QDd | 4Q269) 4QDd 4 ii 4 116 6 2a 116 6:2 252 Damascus Document (4QDe | 4Q270) 1i1 219 6 ii 6 160 7 i 20 237 7i8 170 Damascus Document (4QDf | 4Q271) 4Q271 4 i 12 160 Damascus Document (6QD 6Q15) 6Q15 4 4 116 Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen | 1Q20) 1Q20 0:15 261 2:11 170 Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 1QHa) 3:25 157 3:26 157 4 192 4:7 242 4:8 157 4:14 157 4:16-19 157 4:22 192 4:27 242 4:29 157, 175, 264 4:29-40 10 4:34 157 4:37 263 4:38 95, 157, 223 4:40 263 5:5 157 5:14-15 157 5:15-16 263 5:25 103 5:26 103 5:30 157

330 Hodayot (cont.) 5:30-31 157 5:30-33 96 5:31 251 5:31-33 179 5:32 96, 157, 179, 180, 251 5:33-34 157 5:36 95, 175, 184, 263, 264 5:36-37 157 6:11-12 264 6:14 157 6:19 157 6:22 157 6:22-23 179 6:23-26 263 6:24 95, 157 6:26 157 6:28 157 6:36 157 6:41 157 7 161 7:21-8:37 159 7:23 157, 160 7:23-31 159 7:25 162 7:25-27 221 7:26 157 7:27-26 161 7:27c-30a 161 7:28 162 7:29 279 7:30 162, 163 7:30b-32b 161 7:32 162 7:34 162 7:35 157 7:25-34 164 7:29 157 7:31 157 7:35 223 8:23 160 8:24 160 8:16 157, 179 8:18 157, 179 8:20 95 8:20-21 157 8:24 190

Ancient Source Index 8:24- 25 157 8:25 95, 157, 171 223 8:25-30 263 8:28-29 162 8:28-30 159, 160 8:29 95, 175, 264 8:30 95 8:32 175 8:35 157, 171 8:37 159 8:41 157 8:42 159 9:11-14 157 9:12-13 177 9:17 157, 177 9:17-18 177 9:23 179 9:24 96, 157 179 9:29-31 176 9:29-31 176 9:29-32 179 9:30 179 9:34 157, 177 9:39 157 10 166 10:8 157 10:9 157 10:11 157, 170 10:13 166 10:14-21 166 10:17 157 10:22-31 164 10:22-23 157, 159 10:22-32 164 10:24-26 165 10:25-26 157 10:26-27 165, 166 10:27, 31 165 10:31 165 10:35 157 10:37-38 157 11 100 11:7 157 11:19 157 11:20 157 11:20 267 11:21 262 11:22 179

331

Ancient Source Index 11:22 178 11:22- 23 157 11:22-24 267 11:23 262 11:23-24 262 11:30 157 12 173 12:1-11 99 12:6-13:6 168, 169 12:13-17 169 12:13-26 169 12:14 169, 220 12:14-16 157 12:15 170 12:16 170 12:17-18 172 12:18 169 12:18-19 157 12:19 169, 172 12:21-22 172 12:22 157, 169, 172 12:25 157, 169 12:26 172 12:30 91 12:31-32 173 12:32 157 12:32-33 179 12:33-34 175 12:36 157 12:37 157, 166 12:38 175 12:39 157 12:41 169 13:7 220 13:7-21 159, 164, 170 13:8 220, 223 13:10 237 13:14-17 157 13:18 166 13:22-15:8 100, 168, 173 13:28 157, 173 13:30 157 13:33 157, 173, 219 13:35 173 13:36 157 13:38 157, 221 14:5 157 14:10 157, 173

14:17 157 14:21 237 14:24 157, 173 14:25 173 14:26 157 14:32 237 15:14 157 15:6 174 15:6-7 219 15:8 157 15:8-9 157, 174, 179 15:26 157 15:32 157 15:35-36 251 15:38-39 180 15:40 254 16:1 157, 179 16:1-2 180 16:2 157 16:5-17:36 159, 166 16:13 157 16:16 157 16:19 157 16:27 157 16:27-30 157 16:27-41 167 16:29-30 166, 176 16:30 157 16:30 157 16:30 157 16:32 157 16:33 157, 167 16:33 167 16:34-35 167 16:37 157 16:39 157 16:39 166 16:41 157 17:6-9 166 17:7-8 157 17:12 157, 166 17:16 157 17:27-29 166 17:28-29 157 17:32 157, 223, 263 17:33 157 17:35 237 17:36 166

332 Hodayot (cont.) 18:3 157, 220 18:10 157 18:14 101 18:24 157 18:25 98, 157 18:31 157 18:32-33 157 18:33 157 18:34 157 18:35 157 18:38 157 19:5 157 19:10 157 19:15 179 19:15-16 157 19:18-20:6 102 19:22- 24 220 19:30-31 157 19:33 157 19:34 157 20 94, 95, 263 20:4 157 20:7-14 95, 109, 249 20:7-22:42 24, 93 20:14-15 157 20:14-16 263 20:15 175, 264 20:20-29 93, 95 20:27-30 95, 96 20:27-30 97 20:29 47, 93, 97 20:30-38 97 20:35 93, 251 20:36-38 97 20:37 157 21 94, 98 21:2 98 21: 4-6 98 21:6 157 21:7 98 21:8 54, 98 21:10 98, 157 21:11 94 21:11-12 93 21:11-19 99 21:11-42 99 21:12-13 157

Ancient Source Index 21:17 91, 93, 94 21:2-11 98 21:21-24 99 21:24 94 21:25 47, 93, 94, 99, 98 21:25-30 219 21:26 94, 157 21:27-38 100 21:28 219 21:29 93, 94 21:29-30 219 21:31 94 21:34 93, 94, 157, 175, 364 21:35 94 21:37 94 21:38 93, 94 22 95 22:12 93 22:12 95 22:13 95 22:19 95 22:22-38 101 22:25 95 22:27-30 95 22:32 157 22:6-42 101 23:12-14 251 23:14 221 23:16 157 23:28-29 251 23:29 157 23:33 157, 263 23:36 251 24:6 98 24:11 157 24:26-27 157 24:29 157 25:6 157 25:8 157 25:12 220 25:13 157 25:23 157 25:26 157 25:34-27:3 102 26 98, 99 26:32 237 26:33- 36 98 26:36 99

333

Ancient Source Index Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHa | 4Q427) 11:4 157 21 157 2:1 157 2:5 157 7 i 6-23 99 7 ii 4 237 7 ii 8 157 8 ii 17-18 157 8 ii 9 157 10 2-3 157 4Q427 7 ii 14-18 7 ii 9

98 99

Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHb | 4Q428) 16:1 157 10 180 10:5-6 157 10:7 157 10:8 157 10:8 181 14 1-3 251 14:5 157 15:3 157 17:1 157 18:2 157 19:2 157 3:3-4 157 9:3 157 4Q428 10 4 254 Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHc) 1i3 237 1 ii 4-5 157 2:12 157 2:7 157 3:3-4 157 3:7 157 3:9 157 4 i 10 157 4i5 237 4 ii 2 157 4 ii 3 157

Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHd) 1 220 1:1 157 1:3 157 1:6-7 157 Jubilees (Masada MS) 1h 3:13 1h 7:21

113, 114 114

Jubileesb (1Q) 1Q18 1 2 1

224

Jubilees (4Q) 4QpapJubh 2 iv 13 4Q423-424 2 ii 22

160 121

Jubilees (11Q) 11Q12 2 1

262

Pesher Habbakuk (1QpHab) 9:1-2 114, 253 9:11 166 Prayer of Levi (4QLevbar | 4Q213a) 5 (Greek) 183 5-10 (Gr) 182 8 (Gr) 183 10 (Gr) 183 10 (Gr) 183 12-15 (Gr) 183 10-17 (Aramaic) 182 12 (Ar) 182 13 (Ar) 183 13-14 (Ar) 183 15 (Ar) 183 16 (Ar) 182 17 (Ar) 182, 183 Temple Scroll (11Q19) 11Q12 2:1

262

Tobit (4Q) 4QpapTobitaar 17 ii 1 160 War Scroll (1QM) 1QM 1:1

237

334

Ancient Source Index

War Scroll (1QM) (cont.) 1:7 237 1:10 237 1:16 237 3:6 237 3:9 237 4:2-3 247 4:3 121, 254 7:3-5 254 9:10 237 13:16 237 14:17 237 15:13 121 16:1 246 16:11 237 17:8 121, 237 17:2-9 247 Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch) 48:14 86, 87 4 Baruch 10:5

134

1 Enoch 1-5 11 1-36 144 4:10-14 133 9:1-11 146 9:3 146 9:10 146 15:4b 118 20-36 144 22:1-13 147 22:1-14 144 22:1-24 144 22:12 146 22:9 146 23:1-14 154 24-26 144 81:5 171 91-105 17 91:4 171 92:1-5 171 102:4-5 147 102:5 118

4 Ezra 4:8 6:35-9:25 6:38-7:44 6:53-54 6:55-59 6:56 7:45-74 7:77 8:1-3 8:14 8:34 8:36 8:5-10 8:4-62 8:42-45 8:55 8:42-45

33 85 85 85 87 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 85 86, 109 87 87

4 Maccabees 1:15 151, 168 1:35 168 2:16 168 2:18 151, 168 2:22 168 2:26 151 3:17 151, 168 3:35 151 5-18 105 5:1 168 5:11 151 13-14 106 14:11 168 16:3 168 Jubilees 2:1-16 2:14 2:17-18 2:17-33 2:18 2:30 4:13 6:1-7 10:1-3 10:1-7 10:3 10:3-6

237 39 120 237 237 237 262 181 187 186, 194 187 186

335

Ancient Source Index 10:4 10:5 10:6 11:6 12:19-20 15:27 20:5 35:9 Letter of Aristeas 276

187 187 187 168 181, 186, 188, 195 120 84 223 168

Pseudo Phocylides 48 152 97-115 62 97-98 64 99-101 64 99-101a 64 103 64 105-108 62, 64 106 132 106-108 64 106/108 64 107-108 33 107/108 64 108 63 115 64 Psalms of Solomon 9 9:1-2 9:18 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:5-6 9:6-8 9:9a

43, 197, 204, 206 204 205 204 229 206 205 206 206

Pseudo-Orpheus 1:12 152, 168 1:39 168 History of the Rechabites Rech. 14:4 134 Testament of Abraham A & B A 1:7 148

A 15:7 A 9:8 A 9:6 B 1:1-3 B 4:9 B 7:18 B 8:2 B 13:7

149 149 149 148 149 149 149 118

Testament of Job 36:6 168 Testament of Solomon 1:1-2 193 1:1-4 193 4:5 193 4:8-9 193 12:1-2 185 Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs T. Reu. 2:7 168 3:8 168 4:6 168 4:9 202 T. Jud. 11:1 202 13:2 202 13:8 202 14:1 168 14:8 168 18:3 202 19:2-4 253 20:2 168 T. Issa. 4:4 168 4:5 202 6:2 201, 225 T. Dan. 4:2 202 4:4 168 4:7 202 T. Naph. 1:1-2:5 80 1:5 82 1:1-5 79 1:2-3 109 1:5 82 2:2 132 2:6 168 3:1-5 84 T. Gad 5:7 202 6:2 168

336

Ancient Source Index

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (cont.) 7:2 118 7:3 202 T. Ash. 1:3 54 1:8 201 1:8 225 1:15-17 202 1:16-17 202 5:1 54 5:1-3 55 5:3-5 55 5:4 54 T. Jos. 2:6 202 T. Benj. 8:3 168 6:4 201 Theodotus, On the Jews Theod. 3:13 7:0

152, 168 169

Sibylline Oracles 1:35 152 1:99 152 1:134 152 1:304 152 2:120 152 3:9-11 84 3:165 152 3:196 152 3:300 152 3:421 152 3:574 152 3:771 152 3:821 152 5:265 152 5:286 152 5:364 152 5:79 152 7:45-8:3 85 7:144 152 8:284 152 8:359 152 8:366 152 8:437 152 8:464 152 23:39 152 23:4 152 23:40 152

Josephus Jewish War (J.W.) 2 2:151-153 2:153 2:154 2:154-155 2:154-158 2:154-163 2:155-156 2:156 2:158 2:162-163 2:162-165 2:163b 2:164 2:164-165 2:165 2:165c 3 3:362 3:372 3:372 3:372-376 3:373 3:375 7:358-370

154, 213, 216 136 138, 139 133, 137 136 134 210 138 138 134 210, 216 210 140 214 210 214 141 154 142 143 143 143 143 144 142

Antiquities (Ant.) 1:34 81 8:5 193 10:278 214 13 212, 213, 215, 216 13:171 269 13:171-173 19, 2126 13:172 211 13:172-173 211 13:173 211, 212, 214 18 142, 154, 212, 215, 216 18:11 139 18:11-18 210, 212 18:11-18 212 18:13 211 18:14-15 140 18:16-17 214 18:18 139, 211

337

Ancient Source Index Against Apion (Ag. Ap.) 2:218 144 Philo That the Worse Attacks the Better Worse 84-90 70 86 71 87 71, 108 Allegorical Interpretation Alleg. Int. 1:31 1:32 1:35-40 1:39-40 1:42 1:55 1:63-78 3:96

76 78 78 150 78 79 79, 109 74

On the Creation of the World Creation 134 73 134-135 71 137 75, 76 139 73 140-141 75, 108 69 69, 71, 108 69-71 70 134 72 On Flight and Finding Flight 68 68-69 135

71 71 72

Who is the Heir? Heir 54 57-58 58 57-64 63 63-64 7 231 232

78 77, 108 78 78 78 78 39 76 74, 108

On the Life of Moses Moses 2:65

71, 75

On Planting Plant. 18-20 19 20

75, 108 75 76

Classical Greek Literature Cicero, Tusc. I 93 61 Euripides Hecuba 496 Hiketides 532-6

61 61

Plato Phaedo 64e Phaedo 66b-d Tim 42e

60 133 61

Phocylides 48

169

Seneca Seneca, Dial. XI (ad Polybium) X 4-5

61

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1 23, 32, 48, 38, 53, 65, 237, 258, 266, 270 1-11 38 1-2 23, 28, 48 1:14 48 1:18 48 1:26 6, 27, 64, 71, 73 1:26-27 10, 32, 69 1:27 27, 28, 73 1:28 32, 39 1:3 240 1:4 35, 240, 48 1:6 48 1:7 48 2 23, 32, 38, 39, 42, 48, 50, 65, 75, 68, 81, 84, 88, 103, 104, 106, 109, 237, 258, 260 266, 270, 2:1 39, 106

338

Ancient Source Index

Genesis (cont.) 3 47 4b-25 27 2:7 10, 28, 39, 31, 34, 35, 38, 43, 47, 61, 64, 65, 71, 72, 76, 78, 88, 92, 93, 102, 121, 150, 151, 157, 177, 217 2:7b 103 2:9 266 2:10 61 2:14 35, 38 2:17 266 2:23 119 2:26-27 177 2:35 177 3 32, 279 3:19 31, 34, 35, 42, 63, 65, 92, 95, 96 3:20 35 4-5 258 5:1 27 6:5 200, 202, 217, 219, 225 6:6 35 6:19 51 6:20 51 7:2 51 7:3 51 7:9 51 7:15 51 8:21 200, 217, 219, 224 9:10 35 9:16 27 12:5 35 15:2 77 17:5 260 17:26 27 17:38 202 49:21 80 Exodus 4:21 7:23 20:1-8

261 151 47

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 160 6:5 160

6:5 11:1 18:16 29:19 30:15-16

45 45 260 170 202

Leviticus 18:6 252 18:13 116 19:18 44 19:18 45 19:34 45 25:49 252 27:6-7 45 28:2 45 Numbers 6:24-26 23:19 24:17 24:30

182 41 256, 258 158

Joshua 14:7

151

Job

4:19 92 7:17 86, 151 7:20 151 8:19 92 10:9 31, 34, 47, 48, 92 14:1 98 15:4 86 15:14-16 15 17:16 34 21:26 34 24:20 259, 261 27:16 92 30:19 92 33:16 151 33:6 47, 97 34:15 31 36:19 151

Psalms 7:5 33, 34 8:3-8 39 8:4 39 8:4 86

339

Ancient Source Index 8:4-5 15 8:4-8 39 8:6 32 9:23-24 178 9:33-34 178 9:34 178 12:1 41 12:3 171 22:29 34 30:9 34 33 103 31:7 166 44:25 33, 34 51 231 51:11 95 51:13b 231 73:26 115 81:12 170, 219 90:3 31 94:21 158 103:14 33,34, 92 104:14 33 104:29 31, 92, 177 115:4-8 59 119:133b 184 135:15-18 59 140:11 [MT 12] 198 140:4 [MT 5] 198 143:11 166 144:3 86 144:3-4 15 Proverbs 1:23 180 16:9 248 5:11 115 5:32 180 26:29 198 29:7 151 31:3 151 Qohelet 1:1 29 1:13 35 2:20 35, 92 3 32, 34 3:21 34 3:10-15 32 3:16-22 30

3:17-19 33 3:19 30 3:19 33 3:19-22 30, 31 3:20 34, 65 3:20a 35 3:21 32, 34 4:2-3 31 9:10c 35 11:7 34 12 34 12:1-7 30, 34 12:1-8 34 12:5 34 12:5c 35 12:7 31, 34, 92 12:8 65, 125 Isaiah 25:12 47 26:19 34 26:3 93 26:5 47 29 59 29:15-16 50 29:16 50, 93 29:16 93 29:4 47 38:19 121 41:25 50 44:9-20 59 45 59 45:13 50 45:9-13 50 47:8 260 Jeremiah 2 93 3:17 170 7:24 170 9:14 170 10 59 10:23 248 11:8 170 11:8 219 12:3 163 13:10 170 16:12 170 17:8-10 173

340

Ancient Source Index

Jeremiah (cont.) 18 50, 55, 59 18:1-6 50 18:4 50 18:6 50 18:12 170 23:4 260 23:17 170 25:31 121 Lamentations Lam 2:19

158

1 Chronicles 1 Chron 17:9 1 Chron 28:9 1 Chron 29:18

261 217 217, 219

2 Chronicles 2 Chron 21:8, 10

198

Micah Mic 1:4

99

Zechariah Zech 12:1

178

Daniel 12:2 12:2 12:2

34 112 125

New Testament Matthew 1:23-28 185 11:10 87 12:33-37 201 15:10-20 201 16:17 117, 118 19:21 206 7:16 201 8:28-34 185 9:32-34 185 22:39 45 Mark 5:1-20

185

10:21 12:22-2 12:31 Mk 17:17-23

206 185 45 201

Luke 1:67 95 2:25 95 4:18-19 87 4:33-37 185 8:26-39 185 10:25-37 87, 282 10:27 45 18:22 206 John 1:2-3 235 1:4-5 235 Acts 2:4 9:1

279 280

Romans 9 9:20-21 9:20-23

50 50, 60 50

1 Corinthians 15 15:50 15:53

140 117 58

2 Corinthians 5:8 6:14-16

133 83

Galatians 1:16 5:14

117, 118 45

Ephesians 1:13 6:12

279 118

Hebrews Heb 2:4 Heb 2:14

117 118

341

Ancient Source Index James 2:8

45

2 Peter 2 Pet 2:4

84

Jude 6

84

Early Christian Literature Hippolytus Refutatio Omniun Haeresium 9:27 139 9:28 140 9:29 139 Rabbinic Literature Mishna Avot 1:3 3:14 3:15

142 68 203, 283

Tosefta Bab. Qam. 7:4 Ber. 6:18 Peah 4:18 Sanh. 8:9 7:11 Sot. 11:3 Suk. 2:6

117 117 206 117 87 117 117

Midrashim Genesis Rabbah 14:4

43

Lamentations Rabbah 1:16

105

Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Amalek 2:22 117 Besḥ 6:8 117 Shir 1:104 117 2:127 117 8:60 117 8:4 261

Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 14:15 117 14:19 117 14:22 117 15:1 117 15:10 117 15:2 117 15:25 117 16:4 117 Pesikta Rabbati 43

105

Sifra Shem. 2:8 Qed. 8.4

117 45

Sifrei Bamidbar 84:5 117 86:1 117 87:1 117 103:1 117 104:1 117 105:1 117 117:2 117 119:1 117 134:4 117 Shemot Rabbah 10:6

261

Jerusalem Talmud Ned. 9 Ned. 41c Sheq. 6b

45 45 261

Babylonian Talmud Ber. 33b 283 61a 43, 217 61a-b 83 Gitt. 57b 105 Hul. 7b 2 83 Nidd. 16b 283 Yoma 23b 261 Zev. 55a 261