Studies on Jewish and Christian Historical Summaries from the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods 9042939672, 9789042939677

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

95

Atar Livneh

Studies on Jewish and Christian Historical Summaries from the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods

PEETERS

STUDIES ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES FROM THE HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ROMAN PERIODS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Atar LIVNEH

STUDIES ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES FROM THE HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ROMAN PERIODS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2019

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2019 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3967-7 eISBN 978-90-429-3968-4 D/2019/0602/90 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ToGal

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION .

1

CHAPTER 1 DEBORAH’S NEW SONG—A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

1.1 The Historical Summaries in LAB—An Overview . . . . . . 1.2 A Case Study: LAB 32:1–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Deborah’s Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 The Structure of LAB 32:1–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 LAB 32:1–11 in Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 LAB 32:1-11 and Contemporaneous Historical Reviews 1.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 26 26 31 44 49 51

CHAPTER 2 RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI—A STUDY OF A.J. 3.83–88 FROM A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Historical Summaries in Jewish Antiquities—An Overview 2.2 A Case Study: A.J. 3.83–88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Biblical and Classical Influences on Moses’s Speech in A.J. 3.83–88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Historical Examples Adduced by Moses . . . . . . . . 2.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 65 68 73 81

CHAPTER 3 ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF THE HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ROMAN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . .

85

3.1 The Frequency of References to Abraham and Sarah in ExtraBiblical Historical Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Location of Abraham within the Sequence as a Whole . .

85 91

VIII

CONTENTS

3.3 Incidents Recounted in the Extra-Biblical Summaries . 3.3.1 Abraham’s Early Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Covenant between the Pieces . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Birth of Isaac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The Akedah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. 93 . 95 . 98 . 103 . 105 . 107

CHAPTER 4 OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Genealogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Organization of Historical Episodes . . . . . . . . . . . . Further Rhetorical Devices Occurring in Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Apocalyptic Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 116 119 122 127 129

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.1 Summaries Outside and Inside the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Retention of Biblical Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Employing Specific Biblical Summaries as a Model . . 5.1.3 Similarities between Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries 5.1.4 Shedding Light on Biblical Summaries . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Long Story of Israel’s Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Jewish Lists of Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Apocalyptic Historiography and Chronology. . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Tracing the Development of a Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 132 135 136 137 138 139 142 143

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Appendix A: List of the Extra-biblical Historical Summaries . . . 147 Appendix B: The Opening and Conclusion of Moses’s Speech in A.J. 3.83–88 and Deut 5:1–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

CONTENTS

IX

Appendix C: A List of the Extra-biblical Historical Summaries which refer to Abraham and/or episodes from the Abraham Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Appendix D: Episodes of Abraham’s Life Included in the ExtraBiblical Historical Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a graduate student fortunate to participate in the “Interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls” project conducted by Prof. Devorah Dimant (University of Haifa) and Prof. Reinhard Kratz (University of Göttingen), I was allotted three scrolls entitled “PseudoJubilees.” My investigation into this ancient work led me to the conclusion that Pseudo-Jubilees shares formal and substantive traits with Psalm 105 and Nehemiah 9. Like these texts, it presents a selection of concisely-reported events from Israel’s past, the sequence as a whole being united by the recurring theme of the covenant. I thus concluded that – like Psalm 105 and Nehemiah 9 – Pseudo-Jubilees constitutes a historical review. A few years later, addressing the work again, I couldn’t help but wonder how it corresponded to or differed from other Hellenistic- and early Roman-period historical summaries. Was its selection of biblical episodes typical of the author’s day? Did other contemporaneous brief accounts of Israelite history also ignore women in the Bible or ascribe the responsibility for past – and thus also present – crises to wicked angels? Assuming former research to have answered all these questions, I stormed into the library, convinced that somewhere I would find a monograph or an article reviewing all the Second Temple historical résumés and neatly comparing their features. To my amazement, I couldn’t discover a single one. Pondering the enigma, I realized that perhaps I shouldn’t have been so surprised. Second Temple historical reviews that did not find their way into the Hebrew Bible are scattered throughout various corpuses. While some of them – those in the Apocrypha and the New Testament, for example – constitute Scripture for many people in the West and are thus well known and studied, others were only discovered in this part of the world during the nineteenth century, remaining largely neglected until the burgeoning field of the Second Temple studies prompted by the Dead Sea Scrolls findings. The fact that the latter have only been published in full very recently itself has made comprehensive comparative study of Second Temple literature difficult. I, however, had the privilege of asking broad questions, at a time when critical editions and commentaries to the manuscripts from Qumran

XII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

as well as to other contemporaneous compositions had already been published. So, equipped with the latter, and with much curiosity and optimism, I went on hunting for summaries of Israelite history composed in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. It did not take me long to discover that not only there were many of them, but they were elusive creatures, too. Hardly lending themselves to taxonomy, challenging the idea of definition, yet undeniably having some common traits, they reflect the existence of conventions underlying brief retellings of Israel’s past. Due to its breadth and complexity, this group of texts has become the embodiment of the delights and torments of academic work. Borderline cases kept knocking on my door and infiltrating into the footnotes, questions have continuously emerged. I soon had to admit (with a loud sigh) that a single monograph would never encompass them all, and that a long journey awaits to those of us who would aim at fully decipher the historical summaries from the late centuries of the second temple period. It was then that I recalled a favorite saying of my teacher, Devorah Dimant, that every time one reaches a peak, she discovers that there is a higher mountain waiting for her to climb. It is to Devorah, a brilliant scholar and a devoted teacher, that I am especially indebted. I have learnt so much from her throughout the years: methodology and knowledge, as well as awareness of the paradoxical amalgamations underlying scholarly work, wherein the passion, which incites research, is tamed by clear rules and free mind has to go hand in hand with punctuality. Like Devorah Dimant, Reinhard Kratz has supported and encouraged me since my days as a graduate student. Words fail to express how grateful I am for this, as well as for his stimulating discussions, wise advices and warm hospitality in Göttingen on various occasions. I feel privileged to have benefitted from formal (and informal) mentorship from further distinguished scholars, once I completed my dissertation and entered the “young scholar” phase of my academic career. James VanderKam, the embodiment of humanitas, both in the sense of his manner toward others and his outstanding knowledge, taught me lessons which extended far beyond the nature of the Book of Jubilees. My gratitude to Jim is not only for the generosity he has continuously shown toward me along the way, but also for being an inspiring example for a combination of excellence and modesty. I am grateful also to Menahem Kister, who nurtures young scholars with such integrity, kindness and patience. I was lucky to benefit from his wisdom and his sensitivity regarding literature and people alike. Kristin De Troyer, a wonderful academic, mentor, and person, to whom I will be always be indebted for

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

XIII

taking me under her wings, for understanding the challenges facing young women in academia and for encouraging me to bravely face them. This book was born thanks to her support, and I am grateful for her guidance and patience through its writing. Many other academics have helped me along the way, by listening, exchanging views, saying a kind word or being supportive in other ways. Of those belonging to the (modern) Qumran community, I would like therefore to extend my thanks especially to George Brooke, John Collins, Eibert Tigchelaar, Hindy Najman, Larry Schiffman, Moshe Bernstein, Dan Machiela, Loren Stuckenbruck, Michael Segal, Jonathan Ben-Dov, Liora Goldman, Ariel Feldman, Noam Mizrahi, Hanna Tervanotko, Harald Samuel, Esther Eshel, Esther Chazon, Ruth Clements, Nadav Sharon, Shlomi Efrati, Matthew Morgenstern, Lutz Doering, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Anja Klein. Heartfelt thanks also go to faculty and staff in my academic home – the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, an outstanding working environment, wherein professionalism, familiarity, and thought-provoking discussions coexist. I am indebted especially to Ofer Marder, Eran Viezel, Hagit Targan, Oded Tammuz, Isaac Gilead, Mayer Gruber and Yuval Goren from the Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, to Yulia Ustinova and Merav Haklai from the Department of General History, and to Michal Bar-Asher Siegal from the Goren-Goldstein Department of Jewish Thought. The preparation of this volume would not have being possible without the assistance of many people and institutions. I am indebted to the editors of the Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, Kristin de Troyer and Geert Van Oyen, for accepting my manuscript for publication and seeing the whole process from beginning to its end; to Ingemar Spelmans from Peeters for handling the typesetting with uttermost care, and a remarkable cordial approach. Chapter 1 is a revised version of my article “Deborah’s New Song: The Historical Resume in LAB 32:1–11.” JournalfortheStudyofJudaisminthePersian,Hellenistic,andRoman Periods48 (2017): 203–245. I thank Brill for granting me the permission to republish it in this volume, as well as their permission to quote from the text and translation of Biblical Antiquities (in chapter 1) and Jewish Antiquities (in chapter 2) following the editions of Howard Jacobson (1996) and Louis H. Feldman (2000), both cited in full in the bibliography. Chapter 3 and sections 4.1, 4.2 form a revised version of my article “Abraham in Second Temple Historical Summaries.”

XIV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Meghillot 13 (2017): 119–58. I am grateful to the Israeli Historical Society for granting me the “Am ve-Olam” Prize for an outstanding article and groundbreaking research in history in the Hebrew language for 2017 for this article; a prize which was not only a great honor, but was of substantial contribution to the material aspects of the publication of this volume. I am indebted to the Bialik Institute, to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and to the University of Haifa, for granting me the permission to republish the article; and to Lenn Schramm for the translation of the article to English. Yedidyah Naveh skillfully edited the volume as a whole, and I salute him for catching and correcting my Hebraisms, yet allowing my voice to be heard throughout the pages of this book. Last, but definitely not least, I would like to express my love and gratitude to my family. My parents and my in-laws have supported my career in words and actions, never failing to come to my aid with the kids, listen to my wailings in bad days and celebrate my achievements in good ones. Shaked, Nitzan and Carmel, my adorable-adorable daughters, please know that you are a source of joy and pride to your Ima every single minute (even in those moments when I firmly close the door of the study behind me, and disappear for hours). The book is dedicated with much love to Gal, who is the wind that blows in my sails, and my safe haven in the midst of a storm. Beer-Sheva, July 2019

Atar LIVNEH

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES (THIRD CENTURY BCE – FIRST CENTURY CE) INTRODUCTION In the biblical context, the terms “historical review” and “historical summary” refer to short passages that present, in chronological order, a series of chosen events in Israelite history (e.g., Deut 26:5–9, Ps 105, Neh 9).1 More than thirty such units have been identified and studied intensively. Attempts to discern the genre’s historical roots and underlying conventions go back to the publication of Von Rad’s classic study “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,”2 and their importance for understanding the ways in which ancient Israelite and Jewish authors perceived their past – as well as their own time and their place within it – has also been widely recognized.3 1

2

3

For stylistic purposes, the terms “historical summary,” and “historical review” will be employed interchangeably. Both titles are modern scholarly innovations that do not appear in the Hebrew Bible or in other ancient Jewish or Christian compositions. See, e.g.: Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The ProblemoftheHexateuchandOtherEssays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 1–78 [1–13]; Dennis J. McCarthy, “What was Israel’s Historical Creed?” LTQ 4 (1969): 46–53; J. Phillip Hyatt, “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo and an Independent Sinai Tradition?” in TranslatingandUnderstandingtheOld Testament,ed. Harry T. Frank and William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 152– 70; Thomas Römer, “Résumer l’historie en l’inventant: forms et fonctiones des “sommaires historiques” de l’Ancien Testament,” in RevuedeThéologieetdePhilosophie 125 (1993): 21–39; idem. “Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch? The Case of the ‘Historical Summaries,’ especially in the Psalms,” in The Pentateuch:InternationalPerspectivesonCurrentResearch, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konard Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 471–88. See also the list of biblical historical summaries as well as a comparison of the events mentioned in them in Moshe Anbar, Josuéetl’alliancedeSichem(Josué24:1–8), BBET 25(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992), 102–103. See, e.g.: Carol Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason: The Historical Resumé in Israelite and Early Jewish Thought,” in CongressVolume:Leiden2004, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 215–33; idem, “Selective Recall and Ghost Memories: Two Aspects of Cultural Memory in the Hebrew Bible,” in MemoryandIdentityinAncient JudaismandEarlyChristianity:ConversationwihBarrySchwartz, ed. Tom Thatcher, SemeiaSt 78 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 41–56; Markus Witte, “From Exodus to David – History and Historiography in Psalm 78,” in HistoryandIdentity:HowIsrael’sAuthors VieweditsEarlierHistory,ed. Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 21–42;

2

ATAR LIVNEH

Despite the intensive scrutiny devoted to biblical historical reviews, the status of research into Second Temple-period historical summaries not included in the Hebrew canon (henceforth “extra-biblical historical summaries”) is uneven in its volume.4 While a few summaries in the Apocrypha and New Testament have been the objects of close scrutiny since the early days of modern biblical scholarship,5 others have undergone only limited investigation. These include the historical reviews embedded in JewishAntiquities and Biblical Antiquities, as well as some of the brief accounts of Israelite history found at Qumran. No complete list of these Jewish and Christian texts from the Hellenistic and early Roman period was compiled until 2017.6 Consequently, there has, as of this writing, been no comprehensive comparative research on extrabiblical historical summaries, nor have their formal characteristics and content been elucidated. We have grounds, therefore, to dedicate a study to this neglected group in particular. Existing detailed comparisons between two or more extra-biblical historical summaries are rare, most relating either to Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers – which has been discussed in the context of contemporary brief accounts of Israelite history – or to Heb 11, which has been compared to Jewish, Christian and Greco-Roman catalogues of historical events.7 Although the main purpose of these studies has been to shed

4

5

6

7

Adele Berlin, “Interpreting Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” in JewishBiblicalInterpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context, ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 20–36. “Biblical” and “extra-biblical” are employed for the sake of convenience, despite the obvious anachronism for texts written before the canonization of the Jewish Scriptures. Lists of references to preliminary sources throughout the book are arranged in the following order: Qumran scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus’ writings, New Tesatament and Apostolic Fathers. Especially Wis 10; Sir 44–50; Acts 7 and Heb 11. See, e.g. the bibliography cited in nn. 7, 11, 22, below. See Atar Livneh, “Abraham in Second Temple Historical Reviews,” Meghillot 13 (2017):119–58 (in Hebrew). Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBL Dissertation Series 75 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and FunctionofHebrews11:InLightofExampleListsinAntiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989); Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History:Hebrews11inLiteraryContext,SBLDS 156(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). For further studies of Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers and Hebrews 11 from a comparative perspective, see also Georg Sauer, “Das Lob der Väter (Ben Sira 44–50) und die Volke von Zeugen (Hebr 11)” in Studien zu Ben Sira, ed. idem, BZAW 440 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 104–16; Maurice Gilbert, “The Review of History in Ben Sira 44–50 and Wisdom 10–19,” in Ben Sira Recueil d’Etudes: Collected Essays, BETL 264 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 331–45.

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION

3

light on specific texts, they have yielded valuable observations regarding late Second Temple period reviews of Israelite history in general. Thomas Lee, in his monograph StudiesintheFormofSirach44–50, demonstrates that texts belonging to this group vary considerably in content and form.8 He divides them into two categories, the first of which comprises texts that follow a classical rhetorical model known as exempla (also known in Greek as παραδείγματα – paradeigmata),would set out to establish a rule by means of multiple historical examples.9 From a formal perspective, such structures comprise two main components: a “principle,” and a series of allusions to historical events or personae that demonstrates or establishes that principle. The lists of historical examples in Greek and Latin sources exhibit variety with regard to the location of the principle within the sequence, the number of examples adduced, the criterion by which these are organized (e.g., chronological, geographical etc.) and the space devoted to each example. With regard to their content, ancient rhetorical theory argues that examples from history are preferable to those from mythology, specifying that it is best to draw examples from one’s own past.10 Jewish texts from the Hellenistic and early-Roman period that have been identified by Lee as belonging to this category are: Wis 10; 3 Macc. 2:1–8, 6:4–8; 4 Macc. 16:18–23, 18:9–19; Heb 11; 8

9

10

Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 7),21–42. Form (in the sense of stylistic and structural features) and content cannot always be sharply distinguished. See David Duff, Modern GenreTheory (Harlow: Longman, 2000), xii. The dichotomy of form and content will nonetheless be employed throughout this book, either to denote the variety of literary characteristics under discussion or in cases wherein a trait can be clearly identified as belonging to one of these categories (e.g., the employment of anaphora as a formal feature typical of Jewish lists of examples). Exempla may also serve as a model or have an ornamental function: see e.g. Kristoffel Demoen, “A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms: The Rhetorical Exemplum in Ancient and Imperial Greek Theory,” Rhetorica15 (1997): 125–58 [129–32]. Noting that some scholars differentiate between “lists” and “catalogs” based on the amount of detail they supply, below we will employ both terms as referring to the same basic literary form: a collection of separate items, which may be connected to each other in various ways (loosely or closely, vertically or horizontally etc.) and have a variety of functions. For a theoretical discussion of the literary forms of lists and catalogs see Robert E. Belknap, The List: The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), EBSCOhost edition, ch. 1. See e.g., Howard V. Canter, “The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry,” TheAmericanJournalofPhilology 54 (1933): 201–24; Adolf Lumpe, “Exemplum,” in ReallexikonfürAntikeundChristentum6 (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersmann, 1966), cols. 1229–57; Demoen, “Paradigm” (above, n. 9); Frederick E. Brenk, “Setting a Good Exemplum: Case Studies in the Moralia, the Lives as Case Studies,” in The Unity of Plutrach’s, Work: ‘Moralia’ Themes in the ‘Lives’, Features of the ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’, ed. Anastasios G. Nikolaidis, Millennium Studies of the first millennium C.E. 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 237–53.

4

ATAR LIVNEH

1 Clem. 4.1–6.4, 9.1–12.8 (all composed in Greek); as well as CD 2:14– 3:14; Sir 44–50; 1 Macc 2:51–60; 4 Ezra 7:106–111; (which were originally authored in Hebrew in the land of Israel).11 Lee differentiated between these lists and other, contemporaneous historical summaries, which he defined as adhering to the conventions of biblical summaries (e.g. Jdt 5, Acts 7), rather than exempla. He argued that while the former present a series of separate cases, the latter tie the individual episodes into a “coherent theology of history.”12 The findings of later studies, however, reveals the difficulties of such a binary classification. Comparing the Jewish lists of examples to Greco-Roman exempla, Pamela Eisenbaum observed that unlike the Greco-Roman exempla, Jewish and Christian lists of examples often exhibit a diachronic rather than a synchronic structure. The episodes are always organized chronologically in these texts, and a story unfolds beginning “with the first example and ending with the last.”13 She concludes that especially long lists, such as CD 2:14–3:14, The Praise of the Fathers, Wis 10, and Heb 11, both “display an overt interest in retelling the history of Israel” and possess thematic affinities with biblical summaries.14 The implication is that, similarly to Jdt 5 and Acts 7, the Jewish exempla present the individual events as part of a narrative, a feature typical of biblical summaries.15 Moreover, Cosby has noted that since the source of their national history was the scriptures, Jewish authors adduced historical episodes and figures mainly from the distant past, rather than from recent history as 11

12 13 14

15

While most of the texts adduced above are universally accepted as “lists of examples,” there is no scholarly consensus regarding the inclusion of Sir 44–50 in this group. Cf. Lee, Form of Sirach (above, n. 7); Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading andInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinAncientJudaismandEarlyChristianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder (Assen: Baker Academic, 1988), 379–419 [392n54]; Alexander A. Di Lella, “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–49): The History of Israel as Parenetic Apologetics,” in HistoryandIdentity(above, n. 3), 151–70 [151–52]. As will be shown in chapter 2, other Jewish texts beyond those mentioned by Lee exhibit the formal features of exemplaas well. Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 7), 32. Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes(above, n. 7), 75–76. Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes (above, n. 7), 56. Cf. the similar observation of Mack with regard to the Praise of the Fathers. Burton L. Mack, WisdomandtheHebrewEpic:Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 37–56. If there is a difference between Jdt 5, Acts 7 and Jewish and Christian exempla in this respect, it is the extent to which they present the events as a continuous narrative. There is also a considerable variety in this regard among the lists of examples themselves (cf. e.g., CD 2:14–3:14 with 4 Macc. 16:18–23).

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION

5

recommended by classical treaties discussing the employment of exempla.16 Eisenbaum’s findings point to further correlations between the selection of episodes and figures in biblical summaries and those in Jewish lists of examples. Her comparison of Abraham and Joseph in seven Jewish lists of examples, as well as in Ps 105, Neh 9 and Acts 7, shows that themes appearing in Ps 105 and Neh 9 recur in Hellenistic and Roman-period Jewish and Christian lists of examples.17 Texts that scholars have dubbed “Jewish lists of examples” are in fact hybrid compositions that mix traits of form and content from both the classical and biblical models. Notably, Eisenbaum’s treatment of Acts 7 reveals that notwithstanding the structural differences between this passage and Jewish and Christian exempla, it too refers to the same biblical themes: Abraham’s migration (Acts 7:2–4, Heb 11:8; cf. Neh 9:7) and Joseph’s rule over Egypt (Acts 7:10, 1 Macc 2:52, Wis 10:14; cf. Ps 105:21), for example. Significantly, rigid distinction between the Jewish lists of examples and other extra-biblical historical summaries is not rendered difficult merely by the affinities between the two in their selection of historical events or the common tendency to present them as a history. Some extra-biblical historical summaries not classified as exempla also exhibit features alien to biblical summaries and typical of Jewish lists of heroes. For instance, the historical review in 5Q13 1+2+3+7 constitutes a catalog of the elected from Enoch to Aaron, in which each of the figures is presented with the formula: “X [a human], you [God] chose from Y [other humans].”18 But to the extent that the fragmentary state of the scroll allows us to determine, the historical figures adduced do not demonstrate a principle or prove a rule as is typical of classical series of examples.19 Rather, the priestly-oriented catalog forms an introduction 16

17

18

19

Cosby, Rhetorical Composition (above, n. 7), 107–109; Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes (above, n. 7), 74. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes (above, n. 7), 55–56. While the raw data is adduced in figures 3 and 4 in her study (ibid.), Eisenbaum’s discussion is limited to the content of the Jewish and Christian exempla. For the formula see 1 Chr 28:4–5; Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD8 (2001): 136–48. Although further research of the employment of examples in Second Temple-period Jewish Literature is in order, it seems that the primary functions of series of examples in these texts are to convince and exhort. See Dimant’s comment that exempla occurring in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha form part of a discourse in which the majority is set within an exhortation and a minority in prayers that aim to convince God to save the petitioners. Dimant, “Use and Interpretation” (above, n. 11), 392–93. This observation is also valid for the exempla in CD 2:14–3:14, in Josephus’s works (e.g., A.J. 3.17– 19; 3.83–88, 4.40–50; B.J. 5.375–419), in Heb 11, 2 Pet 2:4–10, and 1 Clement (e.g., 4.1–6.4, 9.1–12.8).

6

ATAR LIVNEH

to the covenantal renewal ceremony of the Qumran sect, conducted by the priests. Still, the review in 5Q13 consists of both a list of individuals and a fixed clausal structure, a combination absent from biblical summaries but present in Jewish lists of examples (e.g., 1 Macc 2:51–60; 4 Ezra 7:106–111).20 The group of extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole thus blurs boundaries considerably. While these texts are all eclectic, each of them exhibits a slightly different combination of features. Even the subgroup of summaries structured as lists of examples is itself not monolithic. 4 Macc. 16:18–23, for example, conforms to stylistic conventions of classical lists of examples, yet follows late biblical summaries in introducing Abraham at the beginning of the catalog (cf. Josh 24, Ps 105). Reflecting a different blend of the classical and scriptural, CD 2:14– 3:14 presents itself in the opening as a list of heroes (2:15), yet its second subunit (3:4–11) refers principally to the people of Israel as a collective, alluding to verses from Pss 78 and 106.21 Notably, some of the Jewish exempla draw from more than two literary models. So, for example, Wis 10, which is structured as a classical list of examples, exhibits some formal features of aretalogy, and adduces some topoi popular in biblical summaries (the exodus and the wanderings).22 The circumstances depicted above point to the inherent tension in any attempt to discuss the subgroup of Jewish lists of examples – and even more so all the extra-biblical historical summaries – as a self-contained category. Still, extra-biblical historical summaries (both those structured as lists and others) exhibit formal and substantive commonalities. Apart from their brevity, they all include events from the ancient history of Israel arranged chronologically, thus laying out a story of Israel’s past. Moreover, as Eisenbaum has shown, a special interest in certain figures (e.g., Abraham) is common to many of them.

20

21

22

Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 7), 57–73; cf. also Vetus Latina Add Esther C.16, m. Taꜥan. 2:4 and Apos. Con. 7.37. While such a clausal structure occurs in some biblical summaries (cf. esp. Ps 136), these are never constructed around characters, but rather around events; see section 4.1. Cf. CD 3:7–8 with Ps 106:25, and CD 3:11 with Ps 78:62. Chaim Rabin, TheZadokite Document,2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 10–11. Aretalogy is the praise of a God, Goddess or human being by enumerating his or her virtues and mighty deeds. For various definitions of aretalogy and its relation to Wis 10 see recently Andrew T. Glicksman, WisdomofSolomon10:AJewishHellenistic ReinterpretationofEarlyIsraeliteHistoryThroughSapientialLenses,DCLS 9 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 89–95.

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION

7

Both the selection of episodes included in each extra-biblical historical summary and the consistent choice to order events chronologically attest to these texts’ dependence on earlier scriptural summaries. Their complexity is not restricted to the various commonalities and differences among contemporaneous texts, but also on their multifaceted relationship to earlier reviews now included in the Hebrew Bible. Adhering to some conventions of those earlier short histories of Israel, catalogs of historical events and figures penned in the Hellenistic and early Roman period form a continuation of this literary model. By this I do not mean static imitation or resistance against innovation. A text can follow a certain literary form while still introducing new traits.23 Jewish lists of heroes develop the earlier scriptural form by merging it with structural and stylistic features of the classical exempla. They can also be seen as modifying the model of exemplaby mixing in their own scriptural topoi, by shifting the orientation from a synchronic approach to a diachronic one, and by reconstituting the genre in a Semitic language. Whichever of these perspectives one takes, it is evident that the blending of different traditions underlies the dynamics of change and development in these literary forms.24 As will be demonstrated through this book, this holds true with regard to extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole. All of these texts retain certain characteristics of biblical historical summaries while combining them with formal features and content found in other genres, both biblical and those adopted by Jewish circles during the Hellenistic period. The fact that these historical summaries are not freestanding compositions but integral sections of longer literary works encourages such combinations, since their design and content is subordinate to the literary genre of the text as a whole.25 Late Second Temple-period reviews of Israelite history might thus form part of a speech, a prayer, or a dream-vision, and can be embedded within a larger-scale historiographical text, a pesher or an epistle. This variety of context has led Mark Boda and Carol Newsom to conclude that historical summaries should not be viewed as 23

24

25

See Alastair Fowler, KindsofLiterature:AnIntroductiontotheTheoryofGenresand Modes(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 170–90. For this mechanism see Rick Altman, Film/Genre, (London: British Film Institute, 1999), 3, 69–70; Fowler, KindsofLiterature(above, n. 23), 181–88. Cf. Mark J. Boda, PrayingtheTradition:TheOriginandUseofTraditioninNehemiah 9, BZAW 277 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 22–24; Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason” (above, n. 3), 215–16; Dimant, “Use and Interpretation” (above, n. 11), 392–93; Lee, Form of Sirach (above, n. 7), 48; and Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes (above, n. 7), 32, about the nature of lists of historical examples.

8

ATAR LIVNEH

an independent genre at all.26 Scrutiny of the biblical examples, however, leads to the conclusion that they should, as several conventions of form and content appear consistently and independently of their literary context or the date of their composition.27 We can therefore define historical summary as a sequence of selected episodes from the history of the Israelite nation, described briefly and in chronological order.28 The sequence must refer to at least two historical eras (such as the exodus and the sojourn in the wilderness) and begin with an event that took place when the Israelites were in Egypt or even earlier. In addition, one or more themes should run through the sequence and unify it. Since, as noted above, extra-biblical historical summaries continue the biblical tradition, the above definition of historical summary forms the basis for our working definition of an extra-biblical historical summary. An extra-biblical historical summary is an historical summary (as defined above) that is not part of the Jewish biblical canon but appears in some other Jewish or Christian text written between the third century BCE and the late first century CE.29 Two methodological limitations are inherent to this set of definitions, one relating to the diachronic axis, and the second to the synchronic. First, since the extra-biblical historical summaries carry over many features of the summaries included in the Hebrew Bible, any distinction between the two will be artificial. The possibility (some would say plausibility) that one or more biblical examples are in fact contemporaneous with 26

27

28

29

See Boda, Praying the Tradition (above, n. 25), 22–24; Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason” (above, n. 3), 215–16. On use of the term “genre” in this sense, see Duff’s succinct definition: “a recurring type or category of text, as defined by structural, thematic and/or functional criteria.” Duff, ModernGenreTheory(above, n. 8), xiii. Moreover, the fact that a certain literary type (e.g., a hymn) is incorporated within another (e.g., a tragedy), does not preclude the possibility that the former constitutes a genre. See Fowler, Kinds of Literature (above, n. 23), 179–81; John Frow, Genre, The New Critical Idiom (New York: Routledge, 2005), 29–50. The words “in chronological order,” designate the tendency of historical summaries to order events in accord with the chronological organization underlying the “master narrative” of Israel’s past exemplified in the texts that have become the Hebrew Bible. For the definition of master narrative, see Allan Megill, Historical Knowledge, HistoricalError:AContemporaryGuidetoPractice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 67; cf. Newsom, “Selective Recall” (above, n. 3), 42–43. In basing my definition on the features of the biblical summaries I adhere to the principle underlying classification by prototype, namely the understanding of less familiar texts (here extra-biblical summaries) by analogy to what has already been identified as a summary. Despite its advantages to the study of literature in general, and Jewish literature of the Second Temple period in particular, I do not employ the prototype theory of genre here; see below.

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION

9

Hellenistic-period summaries that did not find their way into the Hebrew canon furthers the impression that biblical and extra-biblical summaries form a continuum rather than two separate classes. The dating of biblical and extra-biblical summaries deserves further comment. There is much controversy regarding the date of summaries included in the Hebrew Bible; suggestions range in some cases from as early as the eighth century BCE to the Hellenistic period. However, the vast majority of these texts are customarily dated to the Persian period or earlier. Hence, although the dates of the latest biblical summaries perhaps overlap with those of the earliest extra-biblical summaries, the two groups roughly represent different phases of the genre’s life.30 The second methodological limitation of this working definition lies in its rigid taxonomical approach. An inherent tension exists between this, and the tendency of extra-biblical historical summaries to blend between different genres, exhibiting a variety of combinations and blurred boundaries. When we acknowledge that literary genres, including ancient forms of historiography, are dynamic, and that the boundaries between them are imprecise,31 we understand the need to move toward an altogether different approach to the study of genre. Addressing this issue, Carol Newsom and John Collins have recently emphasized the advantages of the cognitive theory of genre – especially the “prototype theory” – for the study of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.32 According to this 30

31

32

Since the precise date of late biblical summaries such as that in Neh 9, is disputed, and since the formal and substantial properties of summaries clearly dated to the Hellenistic period has not yet been elucidated, I will avoid a circular methodology of inclusion of the former within the present comparative study of Hellenistic and early Roman period summaries. Rather, future findings of an analysis of the extra-biblical historical summaries, could serve as a paradigm against which to measure late biblical summaries (whose date is disputed). Notably, even if Neh 9 is indeed a Hellenistic-period text, it pre-dates the earliest example of an extra-biblical summary, which can be dated with some certainty – Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers. See the allusion to Neh 9:8 in Sir 44:20. See, e.g.: John Marincola, “Genre, Convention and Innovation in Greco-Roman Historiography,” in The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts, ed. Christina Shuttleworth Kraus, Mnemosyne Supplement 191 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 281–323; John R. Morgan, “Fiction and History: Historiography and the Novel,” in ACompaniontoGreekandRomanHistoriography,ed. John Marincola (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 2:553–64. See Carol A. Newsom, “Spying Out the Land: A Reoprt from Genology,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2005), 437–50; John J. Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse Reconsidered,” in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 20 (2016): 21–40 [32–33, 36–40].

10

ATAR LIVNEH

theory, one original example is recognized as a prototype for a given category, while other later cases are retroactively compared to it. The closer a case is in its properties to the prototype, the more central it is to the category. Like older, formal approaches to genre, this approach posits (albeit implicitly) a “list of properties” common to a given genre. However, this list of properties does not determine the boundaries of the category; it rather delineates what is central to it and what is peripheral.33 In this mode of investigation, a genre can be likened to a ripple, with a center and margins but no clear boundaries. There is a discrepancy between the open structure framework suggested by the prototype theory, and the closed structure inherent to academic research. The latter is typically limited to a definite number of objects, leaving others outside, and this study is no exception. I have therefore chosen to circumscribe the extra-biblical historical summary by defining it, even though no clear and authentic boundaries actually exist. A total of forty-five texts, written in various languages and at different dates, in different locales and religious environments, satisfy our definition of extra-biblical historical summary (see Appendix A).34 The majority of them were written in the land of Israel, including twenty-three in Hebrew and four in Aramaic. Another eighteen were written elsewhere in Greek, six of which are Christian works.35 Because most of them 33

34

35

See e.g., Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn B. Mervis, “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,” Cognitive Psychology 7 (1975): 573–605; Eleanor Rosch, “Principles of Categorization,” in Cognition and Categorization, ed. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978), 27–48. For a helpful summary of the theory and its limitations, see Newsom, “Spying Out the Land,” (above, n. 32), 442–45; Bruce Ian, An Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis(London: Continuum, 2008), 40–45. Borderline cases are listed in the notes to appendix A. Note that according to this definition, some lists of examples found in ancient Jewish and Christian works do not constitute historical summaries, e.g.: Jdt 8:25–27; 1 Clem. 17.1–18.7. Jewish exempla and extra-biblical historical summaries are therefore two categories, which only partially overlap. The relatively large number of extra-biblical historical summaries in our possession written in the land of Israel seems to be linked to the discoveries in the Judean Desert, due to which we are familiar with more works from there than elsewhere that can be dated to the late Second Temple period. Hence the relatively large number of summaries composed in the land of Israel does not necessarily indicate that this format was more popular there than elsewhere. The Christian historical summaries account for about thirteen percent of the corpus examined – six summaries in four different works, with clear literary dependence between Hebrews and 1 Clement. Because this very small sample does not permit any conclusions about any special characteristics, these works will be examined along with the rest of the historical summaries written in Greek.

ISRAELITE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES – INTRODUCTION

11

cannot be dated precisely, no chronological distribution is possible. It is clear, nonetheless, that they date back to all four centuries between 300 BCE and 100 CE, indicating that this genre was in vogue throughout the period in question.36 It should go without saying that although the mere act of composing catalogs of selected events from the history of Israel was common to various ancient Jewish and Christian authors, each of the extra-biblical historical catalogs has its own emphases in accordance with the authors’ purposes and ideology. The aim of the historical review put in Mattathias’s mouth by the author of 1 Maccabees is obviously very different from that of a summary of Israelite history composed by a member of the Qumran sect (e.g., CD 2:14–3:14), or from those of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Consequently, each summary consists of a different selection of historical episodes or personae, linked to each other in a different manner. The first two chapters of this book will explore the crucial role of literary context in determining the features of a historical summary, focusing on two case studies. The first of them is devoted to a historical summary ascribed to Deborah in Biblical Antiquities (LAB 32:1–11), the second to Moses’s recitation of history in Jewish Antiquities (A.J. 3.83–88). Like the historical summaries in Deuteronomy and subsequent historiographic works, these two reviews are embedded within a broad history of the people and encapsulate ideas central to their respective works. As Biblical Antiquities and Jewish Antiquities differ not only in their thematic emphases, but also in their style, the two summaries diverge both in their selection of historical examples and in the manner in which the individual episodes are arranged and linked. While the account in A.J., for example, interweaves scriptural and Greco-Roman historiographic models, including exempla, the review in LAB follows only the former. Notwithstanding the idiosyncratic nature of each of these texts, comparison to other historical summaries reveals that in many respects neither is unique. The literary choices made by both of their authors 36

It is interesting that about half of the extra-biblical historical summaries occur in compositions that are generally dated to the second half of the first century or first half of the second century CE: the works of Josephus, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, LAB,Acts, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 1 Clement. This is because of the large number of such summaries in JewishAntiquities and Biblical Antiquities (six in each). This large number of historical summaries within a single work stands out in comparison with other extra-biblical texts and evidently derives from the fact that both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo were influenced by the historiographical model of Deuteronomy through Samuel, books that incorporate reviews of the history of Israel into the longer historical account; see chapters 1 and 2.

12

ATAR LIVNEH

show awareness of contemporaneous conventions underlying brief retellings of Israel’s past. The power of convention is also central to the third chapter of the book, which maps the motif of Abraham within the category of extrabiblical historical summaries as a whole. Constituting the first scholarly attempt to comprehensively compare all brief accounts of Israelite history from the Hellenistic and early Roman period, it demonstrates that with regard to most criteria, there are no significant differences between Hebrew and Aramaic texts penned in the land of Israel and Greek texts composed elsewhere. Although Abraham is mentioned in only three late biblical summaries, he became a standard figure in brief accounts of Israelite history authored from the third century BCE to the first century CE. Pericopes included in late biblical summaries – Abraham’s beginnings, the covenant between the pieces, Isaac’s birth – are among the most popular incidents from Abraham’s life to be mentioned in late Second Temple historical summaries, a fact which points to continuity within the literary type. Yet the growing authority of the lengthy work recounting Israel’s past later canonized as Genesis–2 Kings influenced tremendously the form and content of concise recapitulations of that history. The fourth chapter delineates the ways that this stylistic blending of literary models has influenced the substance and form of extra-biblical historical summaries in toto. In doing so, it focuses on five aspects of this corpus: (1) the increasing prevalence over time of blends between historical summaries and genealogies; (2) the occurrence of chronological notation in extra-biblical historical summaries and its possible sources; (3) the organization of the historical incidents and figures according to principles prevalent in classical literature and rhetoric (positive vs. negative examples; ancient vs. recent history; succession); (4) further ways in which Greco-Roman rhetorical devices reshaped brief accounts of Israelite history; and (5) the ways in which apocalyptic historiography did the same.

CHAPTER 1

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT 1.1 The Historical Summaries in LAB – An Overview Composed in the land of Israel in the first or the beginning of the second century CE, Biblical Antiquities (henceforth LAB) retells the history of Israel found in the books of the Torah, Joshua, Judges, and 1 Samuel.1 Designated “a peculiar version of biblical history,” by Cohn, who rediscovered the work at the end of the 19th century,2 it for many years remained on the margins of research on Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. However, the discovery of the Qumran scrolls have called renewed attention to the work. In 1961, Vermes noted the similarity of compositions found in the caves of Qumran, such as the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees, to LAB, as all three reproduce biblical accounts with supplementation, abbreviation and paraphrases of the scriptural sources. Vermes thus grouped all three as examples of a single category, the “Rewritten Bible.”3

1

2

3

Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum withLatinTextandEnglishTranslation, 2 vols., AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:199– 211. LAB quotations follow the same (vol. 1). Citations from the Hebrew Bible, Apocrypha and the New Testament follow NRSV unless otherwise noted. Leopold Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” JQR 10 (1898): 277–332 [279; cf. also 322]. While Vermes firstly explained this phrase in terms of an “exegetical process,” he later designated it “a genre.” See Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2nd ed., SPB 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 67–126; idem, “Biblical Midrash,” in TheHistoryoftheJewishPeopleintheAgeofJesusChrist(175B.C.– A.D.135), by Emil Schürer ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 3.1:308–41. The precise definition of the term has been the subject of a vast number of publications, but no scholarly consensus has been reached. Still the pendulum has recently been seen to shift back to Vermes’s original view; see the excellent survey of the history of research and a discussion of the related methodological issues in Jonathan G. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in RewrittenBibleafterFiftyYears:Texts,Termsor Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. Józef Zsengellér, JSJSup 166 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 49–81.

14

ATAR LIVNEH

This classification of LAB has been widely accepted,4 although the label “Rewritten Bible” in fact describes the nature of the work only partially. While it stresses LAB’s dependence on and reshaping of scriptural sources, it fails to represent a major trait of the work: its presentation of the history of Israel. LAB is not merely a rewriting of the biblical text, but a separate historiography. Yet scholars rarely refer to LAB as historiography, and study of the structural or stylistic features of the historiography in LAB have been neglected.5 Consequently, an important comment of Feldman’s has gone almost unnoticed. Both LAB and Josephus’s Antiquities, he notes, incorporate historical summaries of the people’s past at specific points within their larger, more detailed histories of Israel.6 While Feldman did not pursue this theme further, the empirical evidence presented in Appendix A shows that LAB and Jewish Antiquities (henceforth A.J.) are exceptional in comparison to contemporaneous Jewish and Christian writings in the number of summaries they include. While virtually all the other works that include historical summaries feature only one or two texts belonging to the literary type, LAB and A.J. each present six reviews of Israelite history. The best parallel to LAB and A.J. in this respect is an earlier source: the history comprising the books of Deuteronomy to Samuel. Both Josephus and the author of LAB can therefore be seen to be appropriating the style of biblical historiography. However, while adopting this scriptural model, neither A.J.nor LAB imitate all its details. Virtually all the historical summaries in these two works are new literary creations with no parallel in the Hebrew Bible, inserted into the narrative history in places where no historical reviews exist in the scriptural sources.7 A.J., for example, adds a review of Israelite history into its retelling of the theophany at Sinai, and LAB into its reworking of Deborah’s song.8 Moreover, most of the historical reviews that occur in the Hebrew Bible 4

5

6

7 8

See, e.g., the classification of the work by Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 1: 211–12 and the term “textecontinué” suggested in Daniel Harrington, et al. Pseudo-Philon:LesAntiquitésBibliques,2 vols.,Sources Chrétiennes 230 (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 2:22–28. While Feldman states “LAB … is a popular history intended for Jews,” he likewise remarks that it “defies a precise categorization”: Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,” Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, AGJU 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 57–82 [60, 78]. Louis H. Feldman, JudeanAntiquities1–4, vol 3 of FlaviusJosephus:Translationand Commentary, ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 252n185. Cf. Feldman, JudeanAntiquities1–4(above, n. 6), 252n185. A.J. 3.83–88; LAB 32:1–11. Cf. Exod 19–20; Judg 5.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

15

are omitted from A.J. and LAB’s histories. It therefore stands to reason that both Josephus and the author of LAB felt free to adapt the biblical model in ways that served their own distinct purposes. Although both A.J. and LAB work with the same historiographic model and take comparable liberties in reshaping it, their historical summaries nonetheless display differences in form, content and function. This chapter will first provide an overview of the historical reviews occurring in LAB, and then turn to a detailed analysis of one case study: the historical summary that appears in LAB’s version of Deborah’s song (32:1–11). A discussion of the historical summaries in A.J. will follow in chapter 2. Six historical summaries appear in LAB:9 Angered by the spies’ report, God reviews Israel’s past to Moses (LAB 15:5–6), and later does the same with Samuel (53:8–9). During the prayer he offers before his death, Moses recalls the events of his own days (19:9), while Joshua likewise reviews the people’s history at Shiloh (23:1–11; cf. Josh 24 LXX). Deborah summarizes Israelite history before commencing the battle against Sisera (LAB 30:5–6), as well as immediately afterwards (32:1– 11).10 With the exception of the reworking of Joshua’s speech in LAB 23, none of these reviews is based on a biblical historical summary attributed to the same figure in a similar context.11 Yet, the general framework 9

10

11

The historical summaries in LAB have most frequently been discussed as indicating the author’s special interest in Israelite history. See, for example, Howard Jacobson, “Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum,” in ACompaniontoBiblicalInterpretationinEarlyJudaism,ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 180–99 [193]. Few detailed analyses exist outside the commentaries, however, the prominent exceptions being Gerhard Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai,” JSJ 10 (1971): 1–18, and Judith H. Newman, “The Staff of Moses and the Mercy of God: Moses’ Final Intercession with God in Pseudo-Philo 19,” in Israel in the Wilderness:InterpretationsoftheBiblicalNarrativesinJewishandChristianTraditions, TBN 10, ed. Kenneth Pomykala (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 137–56 [146–52]. A seventh passage – God’s review of history to Balaam in LAB 18:5–6 – seems a borderline case when measured against the definition of historical summary proposed in the introduction. Rather than following chronological order presented in the scriptures, LAB 18:5–6 inserts an allusion to Gen 18:17 at the end of its account of the Akedah. Moreover, in contrast from most contemporaneous brief accounts of Israelite history, it is limited to the incidents from the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In this respect it resembles Jewish exempla, which expand upon the biblical list of the three patriarchs by citing specific episodes from their lives (see e.g., Jdt 8:25–27; A.J. 1.281). In three of these texts – the spies’ story in LAB 15:5–6, Deborah’s song in LAB 32:1–11, and God’s speech to Samuel in LAB 53:8–9 – details within the primary biblical source may have served as a catalyst for the insertion of an account of God’s acts throughout history. The account in Judg 5 alludes to historical circumstances, while the text of Num 14:11, 22 briefly relates to the signs [‫ ]אתות‬God performed in

16

ATAR LIVNEH

is similar to Deuteronomy–Samuel.12 As in the scriptures, the brief accounts of Israelite history in LAB are embedded specifically within stories relating to the wanderings in the desert, Joshua’s lifetime, the period of the judges, and the Samuel pericope.13 Deuteronomy– Samuel and LAB also share a certain tension between the main storyline and the brief accounts of Israelite history embedded within it, in that the summaries ignore events that receive considerable attention in the extended history, such as Sinai in the biblical accounts and the first generations of humanity in LAB.14 In LAB, these omissions appears to stem from the author’s simultaneous dependence on two separate biblical historiographic models. Its main storyline begins with the creation just as does that of the authoritative scriptural source in Genesis, while its historical summaries in turn follow the conventions of the biblical historical summaries, which customarily begin with Israel in Egypt or, less frequently, the patriarchal

12

13

14

Egypt and the wilderness. Finally, when God first reveals himself to Samuel (cf. 1 Sam 3:1–15), he briefly refers to a prophecy imparted previously to Eli (cf. 1 Sam 3:12). Apart from a prediction of the future, this revelation also includes of an account of past events (see 1 Sam 2:29–36 and cf. the reworking of these verses in LAB 53:8–9; Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum[above, n. 1] 2:1123–24). Cf. also LAB’s tendency to place didactic final testaments in the mouths of Israelite leaders (e.g., LAB 24, 28, 33) similar to the Deuteronomistic historiography argued for in Martin Noth, TheDeuteronomisticHistory, trans. Jane Doull and John Barton, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981), 4–11; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 10–58, esp. 10–12. For the historical summaries in Deuteronomy through Samuel, which constitute more than one third of the biblical reviews, see Deut 4:37–38, 6:21–23, 11:3–7, 26:5–9; Josh 2:10, 9:9–10, 24:1–15, 17–18; Judg 2:1–5, 6:7–10, 13, 10:11; 1 Sam 10:18–19, 12:8–11; 2 Sam 7:23. Discussion of the possible reasons for the absence of the Sinai pericope from most of the biblical summaries lies beyond the scope of this volume. See the bibliography in Introduction, n. 2 above. While few of the summaries in LAB refer to the period of the judges, the book as a whole devotes considerable space to this period. Here, too, the lengthy central history corresponds more closely to the extended biblical history, which matches LAB’s in its interest in the theme of sin and punishment, “in particular on a collective, national scale” (Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum [above, n. 1], 1:247). Its brief accounts of Israelite history, on the other hand, tend to pass over the period of the judges, which does not constitute a dominant theme in either biblical or extra-biblical summaries. For historical reviews referring to the judges, cf. Table 1 and Ariel Feldman, “The Book of Judges in Early Jewish Literature,” in On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings: Former and Latter Prophets through the Eyes of Their Interpreters, ed. George J. Brooke and Ariel Feldman, BZAW 470 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 77–94 [86–90].

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

17

period.15 The full-length storyline of LAB as well, though it covers the first generations of humanity, devotes much more space to Israelite heroes and ancestors.16 We must conclude that despite the discrepancies between the long and brief histories, both place their central focus on national history, highlighting the themes of Israel’s election, the centrality of the covenant, and the fulfilment of divine promises throughout history.17 The historical summary in LAB thus epitomizes the worldview expressed throughout the book as a whole, presenting it in concentrated form, just as do those summaries in Deuteronomy and subsequent Deuteronomistic historical texts.18 A mapping of the historical incidents referred to in the historical summaries in LAB shows that they record not merely events reported by biblical summaries, but also allude to episodes from the extended history presented in biblical historiographical works. This data is presented in Table 1 below:

15

16

17

18

I am using the term “patriarchal period” in accordance with the biblical notion that the days of the patriarchs constituted a distinctive phase of Israelite history. For summaries in LAB that commence with Abraham, see 15:5–6, 23:1–11; 32:1–11. For those that open with Israel in Egypt, see 19:9, 30:5–6, 53:8–9. For biblical and extra-biblical summaries which commences with Abraham see chapter 3. See Fredrick J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo:RewritingtheBible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 229–33. “In all the speeches the same idea recurs again and again: God has chosen the people of Israel and has made his covenant with them for ever; if the children of Israel depart from God’s ways and forget his covenant, he delivers them for a time into the hands of their enemies; but God is ever mindful of his covenant with the patriarchs; he always delivers the Israelites through leaders of his choice, and he will never entirely abandon them” Cohn, “Apocryphal Work” (above, n. 2), 322. On the historical summary placed in the mouth of Deborah (LAB 32:1–11), which ignores the cycle of sin and punishment that is central to the book’s main account of Israelite history, see section 1.2.2 below. The theme of Israel’s sins appears in three historical summaries in the book (15:5–6, 30:5–6, 53:8–9). For the centrality of the principles of national sin and punishment in the work, see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 229–33; Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:247, 253.

19

LAB 19:9

Moses’s last words

LAB 15:5–6

Spies

Joshua’s speech

LAB 23:1–11 Deborah’s speech

LAB 30:5–6 Deborah’s song

LAB 32:1–11 Samuel

LAB 53:8–9

Josh 24:2–3 Neh 9:7–8

Biblical historical summaries that refer to the same episode

4Q225 2 i 2 4Q252 II 8–10 4Q464 1 Jdt 5:6–9 Wis 10:5 Apocalypse of Weeks (esp. 1 En. 93:5) 4 Ezra 3:13 Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]) A.J. 2.213, 3.87 Acts 7:2–5 Heb 11:8 1 Clem. 10.1–319

Extra-biblical historical summaries outside LAB that refer to the same episode

Although the tower of Babel is adduced in the historical review in Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243 10 2–3, 4Q244 9 2, 13 1), the fragmentary state of this text precludes determination of its connection with Abraham.

Abraham’s exodus from Ur

Birth of Sarah

Birth of Abraham

Episode

Table 1 – Incidents adduced in the summaries in LAB

Josh 24:3

Birth of Isaac

21

20

4Q225 2 i 9–ii 10 4Q252 III 6–9 4Q464 6 2–4 Wis 10:5 Sir 44:20 1 Macc 2:51 4 Macc. 16:20 Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 1[Praep.ev. 9.19.4]) Heb 11:17 1 Clem. 10.721

4Q225 2 i 8–9 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:11) 2 Bar. 57:1 4 Ezra 3:15 A.J. 3.87 Acts 7:8 Heb 11:11 1 Clem. 10.720

4Q180 2–4 i 2–3 4Q225 1 4, 2 i 3–8 4Q243 12 1–2 4Q252 II 11–12 4Q464 3 ii 3–4 4 Ezra 3:14 B.J. 5.382 Acts 7:6–7 1 Clem. 10.6

Like LAB 32:1, LAB 23:9, Heb 11:11–12, and 1 Clem. 10:7 refer to the miraculous nature of Isaac’s birth; see section 3.3.3. The Akedah is possibly also mentioned in 4Q180 5–6 3–4: see Devorah Dimant, “The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in idem, History,Ideology andBibleInterpretationintheDeadSeaScrolls.FAT 90. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 385–404 [387–88].

Akedah

Ps 105:8–9 Neh 9:7–8

Covenant with Abraham

Deborah’s speech

Deborah’s song

LAB 32:1–11 Samuel

LAB 53:8–9

Descent to Egypt

Num 20:15 Deut 26:5 Josh 24:4 1 Sam 12:5 Ps 105:23

Josh 24:4

Biblical historical summaries that refer to the same episode

*For reference to Jacob’s birth but not Esau’s, see 4Q225 2 ii 10, Sir 44:22, 2 Bar. 57:1, Acts 7:8

Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12) 4 Ezra 3:15

Extra-biblical historical summaries outside LAB that refer to the same episode

Jdt 5:10 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:14) Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2.18 [Praep.ev. 9.21.18]) B.J. 5.382 Acts 7:14–15

*For a reference to Levi’s birth, see 4Q225 2 ii 11

Sir 44:23 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12) Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2.3-5 [Praep.ev. 9.21.3–5]) A.J. 3.87 Acts 7:8

Joshua’s speech

LAB 30:5–6

Birth of Jacob’s sons

Moses’s last words

Spies

LAB 23:1–11

Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.1]) Heb 11:20

LAB 19:9

LAB 15:5–6

Isaac’s blessing of Jacob

Birth of Jacob and Esau

Episode

22

?

*The Exodus is referred to in virtually all biblical historical summaries

Num 20:15 Deut 6:21 Deut 26:6 Judg 6:8 1 Sam 12:8 LXX Mic 6:4 Pss 81:7, 105:25 Neh 9:9

4Q225 1, 2 ii 13–14 4Q243 12 2 4Q422 II (frgs. 2–7) 4Q464a (=4Q464 12) 4Q504 VI (?), XV 12–13 Jdt 5:12 Wis 10:15–16 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:21–27) 4 Ezra 3:17 A.J. 3.17, 3.86, 4.43–44, 6.89 B.J. 5.383 Acts 7:36, 13:1722

4Q226 1 4Q422 III 4 (?) A.J. 4.43 Acts 7:30–35

4Q243 12 1 Jdt 5:11 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:15–20) 2 Bar. 58:1 A.J. 6.89 B.J. 5.382 Acts 7:17–21

Although the Exodus does not occur as a separate incident in 4QApocJer C, it is mentioned in a retrospective text (4Q389 2 2).

The exodus

The burning bush

Enslavement

23

LAB 19:9

Moses’s last words

LAB 15:5–6

Spies

Joshua’s speech

LAB 23:1–11

?

Deborah’s speech

LAB 30:5–6 Deborah’s song

LAB 32:1–11

?

Samuel

LAB 53:8–9

Ezek 20:11–12 Pss 78:5, 81:8–11 Neh 9:13–14

Exod 15 Deut 11:4 Josh 2:10 Pss 77:16–20, 78:13, 106:9–11; 136:13-16 Neh 9:11

Biblical historical summaries that refer to the same episode

4Q381 III (frag. 69) 5 4Q504 XI Sir 45:5 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:30–31) Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:6) 2 Bar. 59 4 Ezra 3:17–19 A.J. 4.45 Acts 7:3823

4Q225 1 10 (?) Jdt 5:13 Wis 10:18-20 Sir 16:9–10 3 Macc. 2:7 3 Macc. 6:5 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:23–27) 2 Bar. 58:2 (?) A.J. 3.18, 3.86, 4.44 Acts 7:36 Heb 11:29

Extra-biblical historical summaries outside LAB that refer to the same episode

The Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q388a 1) also possibly refers to the Sinai revelation; see D. Dimant, QumranCave4XXI:ParabiblicalTexts.Part4:PseudoPropheticTexts, DJD 30 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 202–203. The reference to Sinai in 4Q225 1 6–7 may form part of the framing speech rather than one of the events recorded in the review.

Theophany at Sinai

The Red Sea

Episode

Judges

(IsraeliteSiseran relations)

Neh 9:27–28

Exod 15:13–17 Deut 4:37, 6:23 26:9 Josh 24:11–13 Judg 6:9 1 Sam 12:9–11 Jer 2:7, 32:22–23 Amos 2:10 Pss 78:54–55, 80:9–11, 105:44 Neh 9:23-25

(Joshua’s war against the Amorites)

Conquest of Canaan/Joshua

(Joshua’s war against the Amorites)

Exod 15:13 Num 20:16 Deut 11:5–6 Josh 24:7 Isa 63:13 Jer 2:6 Ezek 20:6–10 Amos 2:10 Pss 78:17–31, 105:40, 106:14–15, 136:16 Neh 9:15

(Moses’s death)

Wanderings in the wilderness

CD 3:9–12 4Q226 5 (?) Jdt 5:17–18 Sir 46:11–12 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:41) 2 Bar. 60:1–2 A.J. 6.90 Acts 13:20 Heb 11:32.

Cf. 4Q381 III 6

4Q226 6 4Q243 12 3 Jdt 5:15–16 Sir 46:1–10 1 Macc 2:54–55 Animal Apocalypse (1 En 89:39–40) 2 Bar. 59:1 4 Ezra 7:107 Acts 7:45, 13:19 Heb 11:30–31 1 Clem. 12.1–8

*For other references to the period of the wandering of the desert, cf. 4Q226 3, 4, 4QApocJer C (4Q388a 2; 4Q389 2), 4Q504 III 6–11, XV 8–11; Jdt 5:14; Sir 45:6–24, Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 4 [Praep.ev. 9.29.15]); A.J. 3.86, 4.45; Acts 13:18; 1 Clem 4.12

Moses’ death is refered to in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:37–38)

24

ATAR LIVNEH

As table 1 demonstrates, the historical summaries in LAB vary with respect to their length and scope. While the majority of the summaries are brief (LAB 15:5–6, 19:9, 30:5–6, 53:8–9), Joshua’s speech and Deborah’s song (LAB 23:4–11, 32:1–11) are relatively long.24 While reviews belonging to the first group follow the concise model of summaries common in Deuteronomy to Samuel (e.g. Deut 26:5–9; Judg 6:8–10), these two lengthy ones are modeled on Joshua’s parting oration in Josh 24.25 These two summaries, as well as the summary embedded in the account of the spies in LAB 15:5–6 (cf. also 18:5–6), trace the origins of Israel back to Abraham, as do many historical summaries in other works composed during the last centuries of the Second Temple period (see chapter 3). LAB 19:9, 30:5–6, and 53:8–9, on the other hand, rather than following this contemporary convention of the literary type, are instead loyal to the form dominating the historical summaries in Deuteronomy–Samuel, which begin with the exodus.26 The three historical summaries in LAB that begin their accounts with the patriarchs share a few substantive features. They dedicate more space to Abraham than to Isaac or Jacob, referring specifically to the covenant between the pieces (LAB 15:5–6, 23:1–11; cf. 18:5–6) or the Akedah (LAB 32:1–11, esp. 2–4; cf. 18:5–6). These emphases are conventional features of contemporaneous brief accounts of Israelite history (see chapter 3). Notably, with the exception of Abraham’s and Sarah’s birth in LAB 23:1–11, all other biblical events mentioned in the historical summaries in LAB are alluded to in biblical and other extrabiblical reviews as well (see Table 1 above).27 This indicates that in selecting pericopes to be included in its brief accounts of the nation’s history, LAB usually adhered either to earlier texts of the same literary type or to the conventions of its own day. This being the case, it comes as no surprise that the exodus – a sine qua non in biblical historical summaries – occurs in all six summaries in LAB. More intriguing is the regular appearance of the receiving of 24

25 26

27

The difference in length concurs with the number of historical incidents referred to in the summaries – while the brief summaries mention up to five historical events, Joshua’ speech and Deborah’s song each enumerates twelve or thirteen episodes. See section 1.2.3.2. Three historical summaries embedded in Josephus’s Antiquities likewise commence with the exodus: see A.J. 3.17–19, 3.83–88, 4.40–50 and the discussion in chapter 2. LAB 18:5–6, which constitutes a borderline case vis-à-vis the definition of historical summary presented in the introduction above, also refers to Jacob’s struggle with the angel, an episode which likewise occurs in Wis 10:12.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

25

the law at Sinai in LAB’s summaries. As Von Rad noted long ago, this episode rarely occurs in biblical summaries.28 Although by the late Second Temple period it constituted part of the authoritative long story of Israel’s past (Genesis–2 Kings), Sinai never became as prevalent as accounts of Abraham or the exodus in historical summaries composed during this era.29 More than one third of the extra-biblical summaries that allude to Sinai appear in LAB (six summaries); two more occur in the closely related works of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.30 Departing from literary conventions governing the type, LAB’s summaries present an abundance of references to the receiving of the law, evincing a thematic emphasis on the covenant between God and Israel.31 Finally, while the summaries in LAB always open with Abraham or the exodus, they show greater variety with respect to their concluding episodes.32 This unity of beginnings and diversity of conclusions is characteristic of extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole.33 While stable conventions existed with regard to the beginning of Israelite history, its end was determined by each author in accord with his ideological and rhetorical purposes. In LAB, where the summaries are knitted into a larger history, their final episodes are often determined by the immediate literary context: the last event mentioned coincides with the “present 28

29

30

31

32

33

Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in TheProblemof theHexateuchandOtherEssays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 1–78 [1–13]. On the motif of Abraham in extra-biblical historical summaries see chapter 3. For extrabiblical summaries alluding to Sinai, see Table 1 above. The affinities between LAB, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were recognized early on: see, e.g. Montague R. James, TheBiblicalAntiquitiesofPhilo(New York: Ktav, 1971),46–58 and the recent survey of research in Michael E. Stone, FourthEzra:ACommentaryon theBookofFourthEzra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 39–40. This emphasis is further demonstrated by the considerable space dedicated to the same pericope in the extended history (LAB 11). On the revelation at Sinai in the historical summaries in LAB see also section 1.2.3. Conclusions include the wanderings in the desert (LAB 15:5–6, 53:8–9), the receiving of the law at Sinai (19:9), the conquest of the land (23:1–11) and the period of the judges (30:5–6, 32:1–11). The final episodes in eight of the extra-biblical historical summaries cannot be identified due to the fragmentary state of their preservation. The remaining thirty-seven extrabiblical historical summaries are divided as follows: twenty-one end with an historical incident recorded in the Hebrew Bible between Genesis and 2 Kings. The variety within this subgroup is enormous; some texts conclude with the events at the sea of reeds, others the wanderings in the desert, others the revelation at Sinai, the period of the judges, or the exile. Three more extra-biblical summaries end with Daniel, whereas the remaining thirteen go beyond the scope of the historical periods covered by the Hebrew Bible, either concluding with the author’s own time (seven summaries) or the end of days (six summaries).

26

ATAR LIVNEH

time” of the speaker or audience within the narrative.34 Stylistic considerations likewise influence the choice of conclusion, as in Moses’s recitation of history before his death (LAB 19:9), where the final episode alluded to (the receiving of the law at Sinai) creates an inclusio when combined with the first event in the summary (the burning bush), as both divine revelations are set at the same geographical location.35 Thus, a general survey of the selection and placement of material within LAB’s historical summaries shows the work to strike a delicate balance between convention and innovation. A detailed study of the summary in LAB’s version of Deborah’s song (32:1–11), to which we shall now turn, demonstrates that the same holds for the juxtaposition and association of episodes within individual sequences. 1.2 A CASE STUDY: LAB 32:1–11 1.2.1 Deborah’s Song The historical summary in LAB 32:1–11 is presented as part of Deborah’s song following the victory over Sisera (cf. Judg 5). The biblical song records the historical circumstances of Deborah’s own days, and while the reference to Sinai in Judg 5:4–5 has led some ancient Jewish authors to perceive it as alluding to historical events,36 the absence of any chronological order to these references has ruled out its classification as a historical summary.37 LAB is the only text from this period to do so, placing in Deborah’s mouth a speech reminiscent of Joshua’s final testament to Israel in Josh 24.38 34

35

36

37

38

This is true also with regard to Josephus’s Antiquities, the exceptions being A.J.2.172–175, 213–216.Both of these historical summaries are revealed to the hero in a dream, and this framework allows the summaries to include even events in the protagonist’s future. While opening and concluding with Sinai fits into LAB’s general thematic emphasis, a similar inclusio can be seen in the historical summary in A.J. 4.40–50. Most modern commentators do not regard Judg 5 as a historical summary. See however Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 207–208. For the affinities between LAB 32 and Tg. Neb. on Judg 5, see Louis H. Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” in James, Biblical Antiquities (above, n. 30), ix–clxix [cxvii]; Harrington et al., LesAntiquitésBibliques(above n. 4), 2:169. Numerous midrashim similarly understand specific verses in Judg 5 as referring to events prior to Deborah’s time. So, for example, Judg 5:4–5 is associated with the giving of the law at Sinai: see Mek. Bachodesh 5; Mek. de R. Shimon 19:16; Sifre Deut 343. While the sense of Deborah’s leadership is enhanced here via motifs related to Joshua, elsewhere LAB compares her to Moses; see Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Deborah,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. André

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

27

Retaining the opening and conclusion of the biblical source in Judg 5, the unit commences: “Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam and all the people together sang to the Lord on that day” (LAB 32:1; cf. Judg 5:1–3), and concludes with a reference to the forty years’ peace that prevailed following Sisera’s defeat (LAB 32:18; cf. Judg 5:31).39 Sandwiched between these statements are words of praise to God that can be divided into two principal units: vv. 1–11 and 12–17.40 While the latter unit is written in poetic style, with numerous explicit formulae of praise, the former reviews selected events from Israel’s past from Abraham’s election up to the story’s present day.41 The text of the passage is as follows:42 1 Tunc Debbora et Barach filius Abino et omnis populus unanimiter hymnum dixerunt Domino in illa die dicentes: Ecce de alto ostendit nobis Dominus gloriam suam, sicut fecit superioribus locis, emittens vocemsuamutconfunderetlinguashominum.Etelegitgentemnostram,

39

40

41

42

Caqout, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 115–28 [128]; Cheryl A. Brown, NoLongerBeSilent:FirstCenturyJewishPortraitsofBiblicalWomen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 56–57; Pieter W. van der Horst, “Deborah and Seila in Ps-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Messiah and Christos: StudiesintheJewishOriginsofChristianityPresentedtoDavidFlusserontheOccasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday; ed. Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Guy G. Stroumsa; TSAJ 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 111–17. For the technique of accentuating Deborah’s leadership through rhetoric attributed to her, see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum,” in IdealFiguresinAncientJudaism:ProfilesandParadigms; ed. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg; SCS 12 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 49–65 [56]; Mary T. DesCamp, MetaphorandIdeology:LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarumandLiterary MethodsThroughaCognitiveLens, BibInt 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 247–48. For the affinity between LAB 32:1, 18 and Judg 5:1, 31, see James, BiblicalAntiquities (above, n. 30), 174; Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:858–59, 899. Rather than forming part of Deborah’s words, v. 18 concludes the pericope relating to Israel’s oppression by Sisera and the defeat of his forces (LAB 30:1–32:18). The parameters of the literary units are determined by stylistic considerations; while LAB 32:1–11 consists of a sequence of short narratives, vv. 12–17 are primarily liturgical. Like the opening of the song in v. 1, the beginning of the second unit is marked by a reference to the singing of a hymn: “Therefore we do not cease singing praise (Propterea noncessamushymnizare)” (v. 12). Verse 17, which concludes the second unit (and the song as a whole) continues in the same theme: “Then I will cease my song … (Ettunc pausabodehymnomeo).” Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:859 also identifies LAB 32:1–11 as a separate unit. Delling regards v. 10 as the conclusion of the historical summary, while Brown identifies the conclusion as v. 12. Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9); Brown, NoLongerBeSilent(above, n. 38), 56–58. “The ‘Song of Deborah’ – which in the biblical text is a catalogue of tribal responses to war – becomes a parade of salvation history in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” DesCamp, MetaphorandIdeology(above, n. 38), 248. For the Latin text and translation see Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 1: 50–52; 148–50.

28

ATAR LIVNEH

eteiecitdeigneAbrahampatremnostrum,etelegiteumpreomnibus fratribussuis,etcustodiviteumdeigneetliberaviteumdelateribus turrificationis.Etdediteifiliuminnovissimosenectutiseius,eteiecit eumdemetrasterili.Etzelatisunteumomnesangeli,etinvisisuntei cultoresmilitiarum. 2 Etfactumestcumzelarenteum,dixitadeumDeus:Occidefructum ventristuiprome,etofferpromesacrificiumquoddonatumesttibi ame. Et Abraham non contradixit, sed profectus est statim. Et cum proficisceretur,dixitadfiliumsuum:Eccenuncfiliofferoteholocaustomata,etinmanustetradoquidonavittemihi. 3 Filiusautemdixitadpatrem:Audimepater.Siagnusexpecoribus acceptaturinoblationesDominiinodoremsuavitatis,etproiniquitatibushominumpecoraconstitutasuntinoccisionem,homoautempositus est in hereditatem seculi, et quomodo nunc dicis mihi: Veni et hereditaresecuramvitametinmensurabiletempus?Quidsinonessem natusinseculo,utofferersacrificiumeiquimefecit?Eritautemmea beatitudo super omnes homines quia non erit aliud, et in me annunciabunturgenerationesetpermeintelligentpopuli,quoniamdignificavitDominusanimamhominisinsacrificium. 4 Et cum obtulisset pater filium in aram, et ligasset ei pedes, ut eum occideret,festinavitFortissimusetmisitdealtovocemsuamdicens:Non interficiasfiliumtuum,nequedisperdasfructumventristui.Nuncenim manifestavi ut appareres ignorantibus te, et clausi ora maledicentium semperadversuste.Eritautemmemoriatuainconspectumeoinsempiternum,eteritnomentuumethuiusingenerationemetgenerationem. 5 Et dedit Isaac duos filios, etiam ipsos de metra conclusa. Et tunc matereorumeratintertioannonuptiarumsuarum,etnoneritsicomni mulieri nec gloriabitur sic quecumque femina, in tertio autem anno appropinquans, nati sunt ei duo filii Iacob et Esau. Et dilexit Deus Iacob,Esauautemodiohabuitpropteroperaeius. 6 Et factum est in senectute patris eorum benedixit Isaac Iacob et misiteuminMesopotamiam,etgeneravitibiduodecimfilios.EtdescenderuntinEgiptumethabitaveruntibi. 7 Et cum malignati fuissent adversus eos inimici eorum, exclamavit populusadDominumetexauditaestoratioillorum,eteduxiteosinde etduxitinmontemSynaetprotuliteisfundamentumintellectusquod preparavit ex nativitate seculi. Et tunc commoto fundamento, militie festinaverunt fulgura in cursus suos, et venti sonum reddiderunt de promptuariissuis,etterramotaestdefirmamentosuo,ettremuerunt montes et rupes in compaginibus suis, et nubes elevaverunt fluctus suoscontraflammamignis,utnonexurerentseculum. 8 Tuncexpergefactusestabyssusdevenissuis,etomnesfluctusmaris conveneruntinunum.Tuncparadisusredditainspirationefructussui, etcedriLibanimotisuntderadicibussuis,etbestiecampicommote sunt in habitationibus silvarum, et omnia opera eius convenerunt simul,utviderenttestamentumdisponentemDominumadfiliosIsrael. EtomniaquedixitFortissimusheccustodivit,habenstestemMoysen dilectumsuum.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

29

9 Etcummoreretur,disposuiteifirmamentum,etostenditeituncquos nunchabemustestesdicens:Sittestisintermeetteetpopulummeum celuminquoingressuses,etterrainquaambulastiusquenunc.Ministri enimerantvobissoletlunaetastra. 10 EtcumexsurgeretIhesusregerepopulum,factumestutdieinqua expugnabatinimicosappropinquaretvespera,pugnaadhucsuperante. DixitIhesussolietlune:VosministriquifactiestisinterFortissimum et filios eius, ecce nunc pugna adhuc superest, et vos derelinquitis officia vestra? State ergo hodie et lucete filiis eius et intenebrificate inimicoseius.Etfeceruntita. 11 EtnuncindiebushisinsurrexeratSisaraservificarenos.EtexclamavimusadDominumnostrum,etprecepitastris,etdixit:Discedite dedispositionibusvestrisetincenditeinimicosmeos,utsciantvirtutem meam.Etdescenderuntastraetexpugnaveruntcastraeorum,etsine laborecustodieruntnos. 1 Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam and all the people together sang to the Lord on that day, saying, “Behold the Lord has shown us his glory from on high, as he did from the high place when he sent forth his voice to confound the languages of men. He chose our nation and took Abraham our father out of the fire and chose him over all his brothers and protected him from the fire and freed him from the bricks of the building of the tower. He gave him a son in his late old age and took him out of a sterile womb. All the angels were jealous of him, and the serving hosts envied him. 2 Since they were jealous of him, God said to him, ‘Kill the fruit of your belly for me, and offer me as a sacrifice what has been given to you by me.’ Abraham did not dispute, but set out immediately. When he set out, he said to his son, ‘Behold now, my son, I am offering you as a burnt-offering and am delivering you into the hands of the one who gave you to me.’ 3 The son said to the father: ‘Hear me, father. If a lamb of the flock is accepted as an offering to the Lord as an odor of sweetness and if for the sins of men animals are appointed to be killed, but man is designated to inherit the world, how is it that you do not say to me, “Come and inherit a secure life and time without measure”? What if I had not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice to him who made me? Now my blessedness will be above that of all men, because there will be no other. Through me nations would be blessed and through me the peoples will understand that the Lord has deemed the soul of man worthy to be a sacrifice.’ 4 When he had offered his son upon the altar and had bound his feet so as to kill him, the Lord hastened and sent forth his voice from on high saying, ‘Do not slay your son, do not destroy the fruit of your belly. For now I have made you known to those who do not know you and have shut the mouths of those who always malign you. Your memory will be before me always, and your name and his from generation to generation.

30

ATAR LIVNEH

5 He gave Isaac two sons, those also from a womb that was closed up. Their mother was then in the third year of her marriage; and it will not happen in this way to any woman, nor will any female so boast who has intercourse with her husband in the third year. Two sons were born, Jacob and Esau. God loved Jacob, but he hated Esau because of his deeds. 6 In their father’s old age Isaac blessed Jacob and sent him to Mesopotamia, and there he begot twelve sons. They went down into Egypt and dwelled there. 7 When their enemies had dealt harshly with them, the people cried out to the Lord, and their prayer was heard, and he brought them out of there and brought them to Mount Sinai and brought forth for them the foundation of understanding that he had prepared from the foundation of the world. Then when the terrestrial foundation was moved, the hosts speeded the lightnings on their courses, and the winds sounded from their storehouses, and the earth was shaken from its base, and the mountains and cliffs trembled in their fastenings, and the clouds raised their waters against the flame of fire so that it would not consume the world. 8 Then the deep gathered together from its springs, and all the waves of the sea came together. Then paradise, giving off the scent of its fruit, and the cedars of Lebanon were shaken from their roots, and the beasts of the field were agitated in their dwelling places in the forest, and all his works came together to see the Lord establishing a covenant with the children of Israel. Everything that the Lord said, he kept, having Moses his beloved as a witness. 9 When he was dying, God arranged the firmament for him and pointed out for him then what we now have as witnesses, saying ‘Let there be as a witness between me and you and my people the heaven that you have entered and the earth on which you have walked until now.’ For the sun and the moon and the stars were servants to us. 10 When Joshua arose to lead the people, on the day when he was fighting the enemies, the evening approached while the battle was still going on. Joshua said to the sun and moon, ‘You who have been made ministers between the Lord and his children, behold now, when the battle is still going on, are you abandoning your duties? Therefore stand still today and Joshua said to the sun and moon, ‘You who have been made ministers between the Lord and his children, behold now, when the battle is still going on, are you abandoning your duties? Therefore stand still today and give light to his children and darkness to his enemies.’ And they did so as they had been commanded. 11 Now in these days Sisera arose to enslave us. We cried out to our Lord, and he commanded the stars and said, ‘Depart from your positions and burn up my enemies so that they may know my power.’ The stars came down and overcame their camp and protected us without any effort.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

31

1.2.2 The Structure of LAB 32:1–11 The historical summary in LAB 32:1–11 consists of two units. The first (vv. 1–6) covers the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The second (vv. 7–11) retells a selection of events from period spanning from the bondage in Egypt to the days of Deborah. We shall first examine the opening and conclusion of the summary and then analyze its major units. 1.2.2.1 TheSummary’sBeginningandConclusion Like the summaries in Josh 24 and Ps 105, Deborah’s review in LAB 32 begins with Abraham. Although the summary follows the biblical model in this respect, it introduces a link between the patriarch and the story of tower of Babel absent from the scriptural source: “He chose our nation and took Abraham our father out of the fire and chose him over all his brothers and protected him from the fire and freed him from the bricks of the building of the tower” (32:1). As is typical, this description is very brief, as the author of LAB apparently assumed his audience to be acquainted with the story.43 In fact, LAB already associates Abraham with the tower of Babel in chapters 6–7, recounting there that, unlike the population living in the “plain in the land of Babylon” (6:1), Abraham refused to take part in the hubristic endeavor.44 When the people sought to harm him on this account, he refused to flee and was captured and thrown into the fiery furnace. God saves him and declares: “I will choose my servant Abraham, and I will bring him out from their land …” (7:4). This alludes to Neh 9:7: “You are the LORD, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans.” In LAB 32:1, however,

43

44

Cf. Carol Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason: The Historical Resumé in Israelite and Early Jewish Thought,” in CongressVolume:Leiden2004, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 215–33 [219]. LAB 6–7 consists of two separate traditions linked together to create a single narrative; see Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:234, 373–74. Another brief description of this event occurs in the historical summary in LAB 23:5 (Joshua’s speech). For a detailed discussion of the retelling of the tower of Babel narrative in LAB 6, see Beate Ego, “Remembering Abraham in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatum Biblicarum,” in TheReceptionandRemembranceofAbraham, ed. Pernille Carstens and Niels P. Lemche, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 13 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 61–75; Phillip M. Sherman, Babel’s Tower Translated: Genesis11andAncientJewishInterpretation, BibInt 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 121–52 and the bibliography cited therein. For the tradition linking the tower of Babel with Abraham, see James L. Kugel, TraditionsoftheBible:AGuidetotheBibleasItWas attheStartoftheCommonEra (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 244–48.

32

ATAR LIVNEH

Abraham is elected by God prior to being rescued from the furnace.45 The connection between Abraham’s departure from Ur and the inhabitants’ wickedness suggests that Joshua’s parting oration in Josh 24:2–3 also lies in the background here.46 As we shall see below, that oration and that of the Levites in Neh 9 inform other passages in LAB 32 as well.47 The episode of the war against Sisera that concludes the review, in contrast, derives primarily from its major biblical source in Judg 4–5: “Now in these days Sisera arose to enslave us. We cried out to our Lord, and he commanded the stars and said, ‘Depart from your positions and burn up my enemies so that they may know my power.’ The stars came down and overcame their camp and protected us without any effort” (LAB 32:11).48 Here, LAB speaks of Sisera as “arising” like Pharaoh (cf. Exod 1:8; LAB 9:1) to enslave the Israelites (cf. esp. Exod 1:13; Deut 26:6).49 Although the Israelites’ cry is mentioned in Judg 4:3, the words “we cried out to our Lord” in this context are drawn from Pentateuchal accounts of the oppression in Egypt (see Num 20:16; Deut 26:7).50 The author of LAB thus links the period of Deborah to the bondage in Egypt.51 He uses similar language to describe their enslavement in Egypt 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

The formulation “(He…chose him) over all his brothers” appears to derive from the language in Gen 37:4 and 1 Chr 28:5. Cf. the attribution of the formula in Gen 37:4 (regarding Joseph) to other patriarchs in Jub. 10:14, 17:16, and 19:21, and the attribution of the formula in 1 Chr 28:5 to Noah in 5Q13 1+2+3+7 6: see Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ̔Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001): 136–48 [138–39]. “In olden times, your forefathers – Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods. But I took your father Abraham from beyond the Euphrates …” (Josh 24:2–3). “The tower narrative appears almost as a pre-text which has been transformed into the story of the birth of the people of Israel.” Sherman, Babel’sTower(above, n. 44), 126. The battle against Sisera is alluded to in the historical review in 1 Sam 12:9, also appearing in a catalogue of God’s victories over Israel’s enemies in Ps 83:10. Cf. also LAB32:11: “EtnuncindiebushisinsurrexeratSisara…” with Vulg. Exod 1:8: “surrexitinterearexnovussuperAegyptum…” Cf. also Josh 24:7 LXX; Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:883. The section depicting the people of Israel within the summary (LAB 32:7–11) is enveloped by the people’s cry and God’s response, highlighting the way in which Israel’s prayer influenced the course of history; see section 1.2.2.4 below. Cf. also the allusion to Exod 14–15 in LAB 31:1 (the account of the war against Sisera): see Feldman, “Prolegomenon” (above, n. 37) cxvii; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:843. Note also the intertwining of the opening of Deborah’s song (Judg 5:1) with that of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1) in LAB 32:1, which implicitly associates the victory over Sisera with that over the Egyptians. Since this link is made explicit in the conclusion of Deborah’s song (vv. 16–17), the analogy between the two events frames the song as a whole: see Brown, NoLongerBeSilent(above,

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

33

in the summary: “When their enemies had dealt harshly with them, the people cried out to the Lord, and their prayer was heard, and he brought them out of there” (LAB 32:7).52 The allusions in both of these passages to the historical summary embedded in the missive to Edom (Num 20:15–16) thus form an inclusio framing the second section of the survey (vv. 7–11). While the specific manner in which LAB correlates Israel’s suffering under Pharaoh with that under Sisera, as well as God’s miraculous acts on behalf of Israel in each of these events, is unique to LAB, the historical review in 1 Sam 12:8–11 also draws an analogy between the two (cf. also Judg 10:11–12).53 The remark in the second half of the conclusion of the summary that the stars descended from heaven to fight on the Israelites’ side (LAB 32:11) is based on Judg 5:20: “The stars fought from heaven, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”54 The opening of the summary also echoes this motif: “The Lord has shown us his glory from on high, as he did from the high place when he sent forth his voice to confound the languages of men” (LAB 32:1). As Jacobson observes, LAB here links the victory over Sisera with the tower of Babel via the theme of “divine action rendered through heavenly bodies or at least rendered from the

52

53

54

n. 38), 56–7. The reworking of Josh 10:12–13 in the second section of Deborah’s review (LAB 32:10) also incorporates a motif related to the Exodus and the events at the Red Sea, namely, the light in which the Israelites were bathed while their enemies were in darkness (cf. Exod 10:22–23). This may derive from an exegetical tradition regarding the function of the pillar of cloud in Exod 14:20. See Targumim ad loc; Jacobson,LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:882. The Rabbis also identified (or created) an affinity between the events at the Red Sea and the battle against Sisera; see Mek. Shirata 2; b.Git. 56b. Jacobson (LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum[above, n. 1], 2:874) suggests that the primary source behind LAB 32:7 is Deut 26:6–8. However, the concise style of LAB 32:6–7 better reflects Num 20:15–16. For the designation of the Egyptians as “their enemies,” cf. Ps 106:10–11. Linking distinct historical events/figures via analogy or typology is a broad phenomenon, designated by scholars in the field of collective memory as “mnemonic typification”: see e.g. Eviatar Zrerubavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social ShapeofthePast (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 23–25. For a detailed discussion of typology in the Hebrew Bible see Michael Fishbane, BiblicalInterpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 350–79. For its utilization in late second temple period Jewish works see recently Michael Segal, “Interpreting History in Qumran texts,” in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the StudyoftheDeadSeaScrollsandAssociatedLiterature,28–30May,2013, ed. Ruth A. Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal, STDJ 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 212–44 and the bibliography cited there. This motif also recurs in the account of the war against Sisera (LAB 31:1–4): see Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:841–50, 883.

34

ATAR LIVNEH

celestial locale.”55 This theme resurfaces at the end of the summary, enveloping the text as a whole: Verse 1: Opening of section I – the tower of Babel, God’s action from heaven Verse 7: Opening of section II – Israel in Egypt, allusion to Num 20:15-16 Verse 11: Conclusion – Israel/Sisera Part a: Allusion to Num 20:15-16 Part b: God’s action from heaven

We also see a causal connection between the summary’s beginning and conclusion. Sisera is defeated (v. 11) because God elected Abraham and his descendants: “He chose our nation and took Abraham our father out of the fire and chose him over all his brothers” (v. 1). While this correlation is not explicit in the song itself, it is stated outright in Jael’s prayer in the preceding narrative section: “‘Behold now, remember, Lord, when you distributed all peoples and nations of the earth, did you not choose Israel alone? … Look therefore that Sisera has made a plan and said, “I will go and destroy the flock of the Lord.” … I will kill him’” (31:5). LAB thus maintains that the victory over Israel’s enemies is due to God’s choice of Abraham and his offspring.56 1.2.2.2 Section I: From Abraham’s Election to the Descent into Egypt (LAB32:1–6) The first section of the summary (vv. 1–6) consists of seven episodes relating to the patriarchs and matriarchs. The first is the construction of the tower of Babel and Abraham’s origins. This is followed by Isaac’s birth and sacrifice, Esau’s and Jacob’s births, Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and the birth of Jacob’s sons and their descent to Egypt. Both the first and last verses of this section refer to an aging patriarch and his posterity,

55

56

Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:859. The depiction of God acting from heaven in the story of the tower of Babel too is influenced by the biblical source (Gen 11:4, 7). For its presence in the account of the Akedah in LAB 32:4 (cf. Gen 22:11), see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo(above, n. 16), 144, 146.On heavens and heavenly bodies in the second section of the summary, see section 1.2.2.3 below. Cf. Deut 4:37–38. For instances where the election of Israel and/or their ancestors is adduced at the beginning of historical summaries, see Deut 4:37; Pss 105:6, 135:4; Acts 13:17. The themes of God’s election of the patriarchs, his promises to them, and the fulfillment of these commitments throughout history are central to LAB as a whole, occurring in other historical summaries in the book: see 15:5–6, 23:5–6, 11, and cf. 18:5–6; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo(above, n. 16), 223–46.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

35

constituting an inclusio.57 While “old age” is not mentioned in the middle of the section, the theme of birth and progeny is central to the unit as whole, which is structured as an elaborate genealogy: “He [God] gave him [Abraham] a son .… He gave Isaac two sons …. there [in Mesopotamia] Jacob begot twelve sons” (LAB 32:1, 5, 6). LAB’s author’s interest in the genealogy of Genesis is evident throughout LAB, as evinced by his other reworkings of Genesis (cf. LAB 1–8, 23:1–9).58 In shaping the patriarchal narratives as a genealogy within the specific context of a historical review, however, he follows the particular method of Josh 24, prominently employing its formula “I gave him Isaac; and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau” (cf. Josh 24:3–4).59 In addition to the genealogical framework, which serves to link together episodes pertaining to the patriarchs, this section is also unified by the theme of progeny. LAB expands the typically brief biblical birth formulae by providing additional information regarding the parents’ advanced age and infertility: “He gave him [Abraham] a son in his late old age and took him out of a sterile womb …. He gave Isaac two sons, those also from a womb that was closed up” (LAB 32:1, 5).60 The miraculous nature of the births highlights the divine grace bestowed upon the patriarchs.61 57

58

59

60

61

Cf. “in his late old age (innovissimosenectutiseius)” (v. 1) with “in their father’s old age (in senectute patris eorum)” (v. 6). While the former verse refers to Abraham’s senescence at the time of Isaac’s birth, the latter relates to Isaac‘s old age when he blesses Jacob. The birth formulae that occur in LAB 32:1, 6 and relate to Isaac’s and Jacob’s sons’ births respectively differ in their wording: “[Deus]dediteifilium” vs. “generavitibiduodecimfilios.” The birth formula regarding Jacob’s sons is based on Gen 35:22, 26: see Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:873–74. For the reworking of Genesis in LAB, see Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, “The Reception of Genesis in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum,” in TheBookofGenesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, eds. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen,VTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 447–68. For the affinities between the birth formulae in LAB 32:1,5 and Josh 24:3–4, see Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:861, 871. The representation of the patriarchal material in genealogical form is common in extra-biblical historical summaries; see section 4.1. Cf. the brief descriptions of Isaac’s and his sons’ births using the formula “she conceived and bore” in LAB 8:3–4 (cf. Gen 21:2). Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 146. While the summary does not mention the divine promises of offspring, the poetic section of Deborah’s song depicts God’s favoring of Israel as the fulfillment of his pledge (LAB 32:12–13). The emphasis on the miraculous nature of Isaac’s birth recurs in a few contemporaneous summaries; see section 3.3.3. LAB also creates an analogy between Isaac’s birth and that of Esau and Jacob through use of similar terminology. These two events are thus not only connected in linear-genealogical fashion but also parallel one another.

36

ATAR LIVNEH

Several further elements accentuate the theme of progeny. The information that Rebecca gives birth in the third year of her marriage (LAB 32:5; but cf. Gen 25:20, 26) is delayed until after the report of the birth itself.62 Isaac’s birth is mentioned in the account of the Akedah (“What if I had not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice…?” [LAB 32:3]), and he is said to be the “fruit of Abraham’s belly” in the same context (vv. 3–4 [x2]).63 This phrase, coupled with the placement of this episode immediately following Isaac’s birth, emphasizes the significance of the Akedah as representing a threat to Abraham’s lineage. When Isaac’s sons are afterward introduced, this threat is shown to have been overcome (LAB 32:5).64 The following sequence within the historical summary, which tells of Jacob and Esau, serves a different purpose. Here, the report of Jacob’s and Esau’s births is followed by a reworking of the statement of God’s preference for Jacob in Mal 1:2–3.65 Unlike the biblical text, however, LAB explicitly asserts that God hated Esau because of his deeds. Juxtaposing this statement to Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, LAB presents the latter as in line with God’s purpose rather than a simple consequence of Jacob’s deceit (as it appears in Gen 27).66 The reference to Jacob’s journey to Mesopotamia forms part of a geographical axis that runs through the end of the first section of the summary and the beginning of second, tying them together. Jacob’s sons go down to Egypt in verse 6; God will take the people out of Egypt and bring them to Sinai at the beginning of the next section of the summary, in verse 7.67 The conclusion of the first section – ”They went down into 62 63

64

65 66

67

See Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:871–72. For the Akedah in LAB32, see Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9) 4–9; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo(above, n. 16), 144–46; Bruce N. Fisk, “Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext,” CBQ 62 (2000): 481–507; idem, DoYouNotRemember?Scripture,StoryandExegesisintheRewrittenBibleof Pseudo-Philo, JSPSup 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 250–63. For the juxtaposition of Isaac’s birth with the Akedah in other extra-biblical historical summaries, see section 1.2.4. See Harrington et al., LesAntiquitésBibliques(above, n. 4), 1:246–47. Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:873. For Esau’s evil conduct vs. being loved, cf. Jub.19:16–21, 35:13. See Atar Livneh, “The ‘Beloved Sons’ of Jubilees,” JAJ 6 (2015): 85–96. In its utilization of the motif of wandering as a device to connect episodes of the patriarchal narratives to later events, LAB 32 closely resembles Josh 24. For the “journey plot” in the latter and in Ps 105, see Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason” (above, n. 43), 221; eadem, “Selective Recall and Ghost Memories: Two Aspects of Cultural Memory in the Hebrew Bible,ˮ in MemoryandIdentityinAncientJudaismandEarly Christianity: Conversation wih Barry Schwartz, ed. Tom Thatcher, SemeiaSt 78 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 41–56 [44–45].

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

37

Egypt and dwelled there” (LAB 32:6; cf. Num 20:15) – is further linked to the beginning of the second by shared biblical source for both (Num 20:15–16).68 1.2.2.3 SectionII:FromEgypttoSisera(LAB32:7–11) The second section of the summary covers the bondage in Egypt, the exodus, the revelation at Sinai, Moses’s death, Joshua’s war against the Amorite kings, Sisera’s oppression of Israel, and his defeat. LAB refers to the bondage and exodus only briefly here: “When their enemies had dealt harshly with them, the people cried out to the Lord, and their prayer was heard, and he brought them out of there” (LAB 32:7). As we have seen, in Deborah’s song in LAB (32:11), the account of Sisera’s oppression of Israel employs similar terminology to that of the exodus, and both stories rework the same biblical source. The phrase “and He brought them out of there” (v. 7) also evokes the earlier language: “He … took Abraham out of the fire” (v. 1).69 Since there, the word “fire” (‫ )אור‬is a double entendre that can also refer to the city of Ur, LAB should be understood as recasting the biblical analogy between Abraham’s departure from Ur and the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt implicit in Gen 15:7 and Neh 9:7.70 LAB thus reinforces the typology connecting the rise of the patriarch to the national genesis of his descendants. Immediately after its mention of the exodus, LAB turns to Sinai.71 The reference to Sinai is drawn from Deborah’s song: “LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the region of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens poured, the clouds indeed poured water. The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel” (Judg 5:4–5).72 While LAB elaborates on the theme of the extraordinary phenomena that occurred during that event (see 68

69

70

71

72

Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:874. Cf. the story of the Exodus in LAB 8:11–9:2, the sequence of which likewise closely parallels Num 20:15–16/ Deut 26:5–7: the descent to Egypt, multiplication of Jacob’s descendants, Pharaoh’s mistreatment of the Israelites, and their outcry. Still, two different verbs are used in these two statements: “eduxiteosinde”(v. 7) and “eiecitdeigneAbraham”(v. 1). The affinities between the formulae in Gen 15:7 and Exod 20:2/Deut 5:6 have long been noted: cf. Pesiq. Zutrata, Lek Leka 15. While early exegetical compositions create an analogy between Abraham and the Israelites, they do not refer to Gen 15:7; see Gen.Rab. 40:6. For this juxtaposition in other extra-biblical historical summaries see section 1.2.4 below. See Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 11.

38

ATAR LIVNEH

below), it also refers to the giving of the law: “He … brought them to Mount Sinai and brought forth for them the foundation of understanding that he had prepared from the creation of the world” (32:7).73 In this respect, the review in LAB 32 follows the model of the summary at the convocation in Neh 9:13–14, the only biblical historical review to refer explicitly to both the giving of the Torah and the place at which it occurred.74 In emphasizing the theme of the disturbances of nature at Sinai, LAB manufactures a parallel to the battle with Sisera in this episode as well. LAB speaks not only of the earth’s trembling, the dripping clouds, and the quaking of the mountains (cf. Judg 5:4–5) but also states that “the hosts speeded the lightnings on their courses, and the winds sounded from their storehouses” (LAB 32:7).75 While the conjunction of “lightnings” of the theophany at Sinai (cf. Exod 19:16; LAB 11:5) with the “winds from their storehouses” is drawn from Jer 10:13, 51:16 and Ps 135:7,76 within its new context in LAB it has affinities with the account of the battle against Sisera – especially the version given in the narrative section: Deborah … said to Barak: “I see the stars moving in their courses and preparing for battle on our side. I see too the lightnings77 that cannot 73

74

75

76

77

Cf. also LAB 32:8: “All his works came together to see the Lord establishing a covenant with the children of Israel.” On the tradition of the eternity of the Torah see Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:874. Other biblical historical summaries allude to the giving of the law without mentioning Sinai: Ezek 20:11–12; Pss 78:5, 81:9–10. See Thomas Römer, “Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence,” in ThePentateuch:InternationalPerspectivesonCurrentResearch, ed. Thomas B. Dozemen, Konard Schmidt, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 471–88 [482]. For the sparsity of references to the Sinai tradition in biblical historical summaries, see Introduction, n. 2 above. For a similar association between wind and lightning, see LAB 13:7. The depiction of the lightnings and celestial bodies being carried by the heavenly hosts also occurs in 1 En. 18:4, 72:5, 73:2. See Eshbal Ratson, “The Conception of the Universe in the Book of Enoch” (PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, 2012), 208–11 (Hebrew) and n. 83 below. Notably, the portrayal of the theophany at Sinai in Deborah’s historical summary also includes descriptions of flora and fauna. See LAB 32:8; Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 11–15; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:874–80. For another instance of lightning as part of a theophany, see Ps 18:15–16. See Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 12. The motif of the lightning recurs also in the second, poetic section of Deborah’s song (LAB 32:13). Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:147, 2:842–43, renders the Latin “coruscationes” as “shining stars.” I follow most translators in rendering it as “lightnings;” see James, Biblical Antiquities (above, n. 30), 171 and cf. Harrington et al., Les Antiquités Bibliques (above, n. 4), 1:239; Daniel Harrington, “PseudoPhilo,” in TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 2:297–377 [344].

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

39

be moved from their courses going forth to impede all the chariots of those who glory in the might of Sisera” … When Deborah and the people and Barak went down to meet the enemies, immediately the Lord disturbed the movement of his stars. He said to them: “Hurry and go” … the stars went forth as they had been commanded and burned up their enemies. (LAB 31:1–2; cf. Judg 5:20)78

LAB thus associates the revelation at Sinai with the battle against Sisera via the motif of the “burning” heavenly bodies whose regular movement has been altered. This theme of subordination of the cosmic forces to God extends through the second section of the historical summary in LAB 3279 to the description of Moses’ death, which immediately follows the revelation at Sinai and includes the declaration that “the sun and the moon and the stars were servants to us [the Israelites]” (LAB 32:9).80 It continues in the following verse, where Joshua, battling against the Amorites, addresses the sun and moon: “You have been ministers between the LORD and his children, behold now, when the battle is still going on are you abandoning your duties? Therefore stand still today and give light to his children and darkness to his enemies” (LAB32:10; cf. Josh 10:12).81 The heavenly bodies are mentioned once more at the conclusion of the summary in the context of the war against Sisera, wherein the stars respond to God’s command and depart from their positions to burn his enemies (LAB 32:11). Although this repeated stress upon the subordination of 78

79

80

81

Like other ancient sources, LAB appears to closely relate the lightning and stars; cf. LAB 15:2, 31:4; Epicurus, Ep.Pyth. 101 (apud Diogenes Laertius, LivesofEminent Philosophers 10); 1 En. 43:1–2, 44:1, 59:1–3. See Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:539; Ratson, “Conception of the Universe” (above n. 75), 127–28, 140–41. As Feldman observes, like LAB 31:1–2, 4, 6, and 32:11, Lev. Rab. 7:6 suggests that Sisera was punished by fire, citing Judg 5:20 as a prooftext. For more references to the alteration of the stars’ courses as symbols of a change in the natural order, see LAB 19:13, 23:10. Feldman, “Prolegomenon” (above, n. 37), cxvi–cxvii. Cf. Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:859; Fisk, DoYouNot Remember?(above, n. 63), 250–51. The theme of heavenly bodies assisting Israel is also prominent in the second, poetic section of Deborah’s song: cf. esp. LAB 32:14–17. Note also Deborah’s allusion to the role of the stars in the battle against Sisera in her final testament (LAB 33:5). Further elements related to the motif of heaven and heavenly bodies in this episode are the statement that “God arranged the firmament for him [Moses]” (LAB 32:9) and God’s declaration: “Let there be between me and you and my people the heaven that you have entered and the earth on which you have walked until now’” (ibid). The reference to Moses’ death in LAB 32 correlates with the emphasis in LAB 19. The account in Josh 10:11–15 is also reworked in LAB 30:5, another historical summary attributed to Deborah; see section 1.2.3.1 below. However, this episode is absent from the retelling of Joshua’s history in LAB20–24.

40

ATAR LIVNEH

the heavenly bodies to God throughout a sequence is unique to LAB 32, the basic idea can already be found in Judg 5, the scriptural source for Deborah’s song. The theme of God’s victory over numerous enemies – from Pharaoh to the kings of Canaan – is inspired by three biblical historical summaries: the Song of the Sea (Exod 15) and Pss 135 and 136.82 The theme of God’s rule over the cosmos and forces of nature, which we have seen to be prominent in this section of LAB 32, is also present in all three of these sources.83 Finally, the statement “and all the people together sang to the Lord” in the opening of the summary (LAB 32:1) is drawn from the Song of the Sea as well (Exod 15:1).84 Through the course of the various events summarized in LAB 32, each incident is linked to the preceding one through some literary device. LAB describes the exodus as the consequence of Israel’s cry under bondage (32:7).85 The revelation at Sinai is linked to the exodus via a geographical axis, where the mountain is depicted as the place to which God brings the Israelites immediately after delivering them from Egypt (ibid.).86 Moses’s death is associated with the revelation by a concatenation of verses with the same referent: “Everything that the Lord said, he kept, having Moses [as] his beloved as witness. When he was dying, God arranged the firmament for him” (vv. 8–9). The two events are further connected by the recurring term “witness” (testis): Moses is God’s witness at Sinai (v. 8), while the heavens and earth act as witnesses at Moses’s death (v. 9).87 The following passage (v. 10), which deals with 82

83

84

85 86

87

For biblical accounts of God’s defeat of the inhabitants of Canaan, see Exod 15:13–17; Pss 135:10–11, 136:17–22; cf. also 1 Sam 10:18. See Exod 15:8; Ps 135:7, 136:5–9. While Ps 136 focuses on the creation of the heavenly bodies, LAB 32 stresses the change in their regular movement. Jacobson (Liber AntiquitatumBiblicarum[above, n. 1], 2:876–77) rightly compares the “springs of the deep” in LAB 32:7 with Gen 7:11, 8:2, also pointing to the similarity between the words “all the waves of the sea came together” (LAB 32:7) and Gen 1:9. In fact, the depiction of the gathering water in the historical summary in LAB 32:7 appears to be a blend of motifs deriving from three biblical episodes – the creation, the flood, and the crossing of the Red Sea (cf. LAB’s account of the latter event in 15:5–6). For another instance where the motifs of creation and the Red Sea are blended, see Isa 51:9–11. The crossing of the Red Sea is also adduced in the poetic section of Deborah’s song (LAB 32:17). Brown, No Longer Be Silent (above, n. 38), 56; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:858. Cf. Exod 2:23–25; Num 20:15–16; Deut 26:6–8. For a similar association between the Exodus and the theophany at Sinai, cf. the historical summary in 4 Ezra 3:17; see section 1.2.4 below. Cf. LAB 19:4 and Deut 30:19, 31:28; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 2:880–81; Brown, NoLongerBeSilent(above, n. 38), 57.For the sky

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

41

Joshua’s war against the Amorites, begins with the words: “When Joshua arose to lead the people …” linking Moses’ death conceptually with the subsequent war and creating a bridge between Moses’ days and those of his successor.88 Finally, the battle against Sisera (v. 11) exhibits a thematic affinity with the reworking of Josh 10 that precedes it insofar as it depicts a war in which the heavenly bodies come to the Israelites’ aid and ensure their victory.89 1.2.2.4 Summary As noted above, Deborah’s historical oration in LAB 32 is composed of two principal units, the first referring to the patriarchs and the second retelling selected events from Israel’s history as a nation. The former section is heavily influenced by the model of the historical summary in Josh 24, commencing with Abraham’s origins, alluding to the wickedness of the inhabitants of Ur, arranging the material relating to the patriarchs in genealogical form, and employing the same formula (“He gave X a son”) to note Isaac, Jacob, and Esau’s births. It also reworks verses from three other biblical historical reviews – the convocation in Neh 9, which juxtaposes Abraham’s election with his being brought out of Ur (cf. LAB 32:1 with Neh 9:7), and the missive to Edom in Num 20:15–16 and the prayer of the first fruits in Deut 26:5–9, which relate to the descent to Egypt, the bondage there, and the exodus. The conclusion of the first section of the summary (v. 6) and the opening and conclusion of the second section (vv. 7, 11) all draw on the summary in Num 20:15–16. The second section also combines the theme of God’s rule over nature with that of victory over Israel’s enemies from Pharaoh to the Canaanite kings in the spirit of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15) and Pss 135 and 136. The historical summary in 1 Sam 12:8–11,

88

89

and earth as witnesses in another context, see LAB 62:10. In the second unit of Deborah’s song in LAB, the sea, stars, and trumpets are said to be witnesses (LAB 32:14, 17–18). For the theme of testimony in the context of the giving of the Torah, cf. LAB 11:2; Deut 31:26; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 1:451. Cf. Deut 31:1–8, 14–23; Josh 1:1–9; LAB 20:2; Charles H. Tablert, “Succession in Luke–Acts and in Lukan Milieu,” in ReadingLuke-ActsinitsMediterraneanMilieu, ed., idem(Brill: Leiden, 2003), 19–55 [34–37]. LAB may have been influenced by an exegetical tradition identifying “Ephraim” in Judg 5:14 as Joshua (cf. Tg. Neb. to Judg 5:14; Gen. Rab. 59:6), although these texts refer to Joshua’s battle against Amalek rather than the Amorites. Habakkuk 3, a hymn interpreted by the Targum as a catalog of historical events (see esp. v. 11), also possibly alludes to Josh 10:11–14.

42

ATAR LIVNEH

which similarly associates the exodus with the victory over Sisera (cf. LAB 32:7, 11), also lies in the background of this section. Despite this influence by various biblical historical reviews, the second section of the summary is dominated by its primary biblical source (Judg 4–5). The heavenly bodies that obey God and come to the Israelites’ aid (cf. Judg 5:20) are depicted in the accounts of Moses’ death, Joshua’s war against the Amorites, and the battle against Sisera. The unity of the sequence is further strengthened by the literary, linguistic, and thematic connections between the sequential episodes. While LAB carefully links the events in the second section of the summary, those in the first section are more loosely grouped, framed only by a genealogical structure and the theme of progeny. Although the two principal units in the historical summary are thus structured differently, each possessing a thematic thread of its own (progeny vs. heavenly bodies), they, too, are linked by various means. Firstly, the motif that runs through the second section – God’s acting from heaven or through heavenly bodies – also appears at the beginning of the first section (v. 1; cf. also v. 4), thus encompassing the historical summary as a whole. An analogy is also drawn between God taking Abraham out of the fire (v. 1) and the exodus (v. 7). The end of the first section and beginning of the second also rework the same biblical passage (cf. LAB 32:6–7 with Num 20:15–16), in addition to being tied together by the theme of wandering. This motif surfaces both in the reference to Jacob’s move to Mesopotamia and his sons’ descent to Egypt, and then again in connection with the exodus and the journey to Mount Sinai. Significantly, the two units of the summary (vv. 1–6, 7–11) are also connected by the theme of the grace God bestows upon Israel and its ancestors. The unit addressing the patriarchs’ lives stresses that Abraham was saved from the fire and elected by God (v. 1) and that God loved Jacob (v. 5). God also grants both Abraham and Isaac progeny despite their wives’ barrenness. The second unit depicts the giving of the Torah as a form of divine grace, and its primary purpose is to illustrate God’s aid to the Israelites against their human enemies: the Egyptians, the Amorite Kings, and Sisera. As a whole, the summary thus demonstrates God’s constant favor towards Israel throughout history, a common theme in biblical historical summaries.90

90

In this regard, LAB 32:1–11 closely corresponds to the summaries in Pss 105, 135, and 136, all of which cite God’s salvific acts without noting the people’s transgressions.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

43

While this detailed analysis demonstrates LAB’s dependence on the historiographic and literary models of earlier biblical historical summaries, it also highlights the pains the author took to create affinities between the individual historical episodes, presenting them as related to one another in a linear, causal, or analogical fashion. The plethora of literary devices he employed reveals his perception of history as continuous and structured according to patterns that clarify the meaning of the individual events.91 The victory over Sisera, for example, is not an isolated incident but a link in a long chain of repeated divine salvation commencing in Abraham’s lifetime and presumably continuing through that of LAB’s author.92 Since God plays a direct role in most of the historical incidents described, and is often the grammatical subject of the verse, he is shown to manifestly rule history. 93 While the Israelites do not determine the course of events, they can influence them indirectly via supplication – their cry during the bondage in Egypt and the war against Sisera being prime examples (cf. LAB 32:7, 11).94 As the hymnic literary genre of the summary as a whole (cf. LAB 32:1, 12, 17) clearly indicates, God should be praised when he answers them and directs events in such a way as to restore them to peace and prosperity. Though ultimately governed by the divine hand, history is thus deeply influenced by prayer.

91

92

93

94

The majority of LAB’s historical premises detailed below are rooted in biblical texts. The view that history is organized on the basis of principles and recurring patterns informs the biblical historical summaries as well as Deuteronomy and related histories – all of which serve LAB as models (see section 1.1 above). Still, the nature of these organizing principles and the types and number of devices whereby history is depicted as “continuous” (or sometimes “non-continuous”) differs widely in biblical and extrabiblical historical summaries. This suits the message of LAB as a whole: “LAB persistently suggests to his audience, there is no cause to despair. The ultimate salvation of the Jews is still guaranteed.…” Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:244. Cf. also Cohn, “Apocryphal Work” (above, n. 2), 322. This accords with the presentation of God in the book overall; see Murphy, PseudoPhilo(above, n. 16), 223–29; Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 1:242–44. Noting the biblical roots of this view, Murphy also draws attention to the fact that at various points along its storyline LAB goes beyond its biblical source in stressing God’s central role in history. Cf. Neh 9:9, 27–28. For other instances of the power of prayer in LAB, see 12:10, 39:11; Eileen M. Schuller, “Prose Prayers in Biblical Antiquities,” in BiblicalEssays in Honor of Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, and Richard J. Clifford, SJ: Opportunity for NoLittle Instruction, ed. Christopher G. Frechette, Christopher R. Matthews, and Thomas D. Stegman (New York: Paulist Press, 2014), 135–49 [136].

44

ATAR LIVNEH

1.2.3 LAB 32:1–11 in Context LAB 30:5–6 and 32:1–11 are the only historical summaries in ancient Jewish and Christian literature ascribed to Deborah. This warrants analysis and a comparison of the two, which we shall undertake in section 1.2.3.1. The length and content of the historical summary in LAB 32 also closely resembles Joshua’s parting oration in LAB 23, this affinity will be the subject of discussion in section 1.2.3.2. 1.2.3.1 Deborah’sHistoricalSummaries(LAB30:5–6andLAB32:1–11) The historical reviews attributed to Deborah are among the very few summaries of Israelite history in LAB or Second Temple literature as a whole recounted by a feminine figure.95 They are inserted at significant points in the Deborah/Jael storyline (LAB 30:1–33:6), the first constituting part of her speech prior to battle and the second part of her victory song.96 According to LAB, God “sent” Deborah to the people after they had fasted, “sitting in sackcloth,” for seven days under Sisera’s oppression (LAB 30:5).97 Deborah recalls the people’s transgressions, declaring that despite their sins God will keep the oath he swore to their forefathers (LAB 30:5–7). The historical review embedded in the speech (vv. 5–6) thus emphasizes God’s continuous grace towards Israel, contrasted to the latter’s disobedience, a common theme in biblical historical summaries.98 Deborah’s summary prior to the battle thus differs from the historical summary in LAB32, which constitutes part of a victory song and focuses exclusively on God’s salvation, while making no mention of the people’s violation of the commandments.99 The two historical summaries differ in length and content; LAB 30:5–6 is much shorter and refers to fewer episodes: 95

96 97

98 99

The only other example is the list of examples attributed to Hannah in 4 Macc. 16:18– 23; cf. also the list of examples attributed to Esther in Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16, the date of which is difficult to determine. The conflict narrative in LAB 31 is thus enveloped by Deborah’s two speeches. The confession scene in LAB 30:4 is based on the historical summary in 1 Sam 12:8–11 (Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum[above, n. 1], 2:832–33), which also inspired some of the details in the following verses(5–6); see below. The setting of a historical review in the context of fasting and wearing sackcloth is drawn from Neh 9. Cf. Pss 78, 106; Neh 9. Cf. Exod 15; Judg 5; Jdt 16. For the affinities between LAB 32 and Jdt 16 as victory songs put in a heroine’s mouth and the influence thereupon by Exod 15 and Judg 5, see Markus McDowell, PrayersofJewishWomen,WUNT 211 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 96–97.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

45

“And now you became a flock before our Lord, and he led you to the height of the clouds and set the angels beneath your feet and established for you the Law and commanded you through the prophets and chastised you through the leaders and showed you not a few wonders; and for your sake he commanded the luminaries, and they stood still in their own places; and when your enemies came against you, he rained down hailstones on them and destroyed them. Moses and Joshua and Cenaz and Zebul commanded you, and you did not obey them. While these were alive you showed yourself as obedient to your God; but when these died, your heart also died.”

The first passage of this summary – ”and now you became a flock … showed you not a few wonders” [30:5] – is replete with colorful imagery, most of which does not refer to a specific event or point in time. Based on the biblical verses it reworks, this unit appears to summarize the exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, and the giving of the Torah, stressing God’s salvation.100 While Deborah’s song also refers to the exodus, the wanderings in the wilderness, and the giving of the Torah, it differs in style by clearly referring to concrete historical episodes. It also commences with Abraham, rather than the exodus. While both summaries explicitly cite the giving of the Torah, they each do so in a different thematic context. The review in LAB 32 is one of several in the work that associate the lawgiving with the disturbances of nature during the theophany, following a literary tradition rooted in biblical passages such as Exod 19–24 and Deut 4–5.101 Deborah’s first speech to the people notably eschews this association, linking the giving of the Torah instead with the statement that God “commanded you through the prophets and chastised you through the leaders” (LAB 30:5). The first part of this 100

101

For the biblical background of this passage, see Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 1), 2:835–38. He notes that the opening: “And now you became a flock before our Lord,” is a reworking of Moses’s words in the wilderness of Moab (Deut 27:9) combined with the common biblical portrayal of Israel as God’s flock. The juxtaposition of this image with the phrase “and he led you …” (LAB 30:5) recalls Pss 77:21, 78:52. The phrase “he led you to the height of the clouds” (LAB 30:5) alludes to Deut 32:11–13. All these verses relate to the wandering in the desert. If, as Jacobson (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 1:546) suggests, the word “angels” is a corruption of “kings” (substituting ‫ מלאכים‬for ‫)מלכים‬, it may allude to Israel’s victory over their enemies during the wanderings in the desert (cf. Exod 17:8–13). The following unit deals with the giving of the law, which in turn is juxtaposed with the prophet’s role in delivering the commandments to the people (cf. Deut 18:18; 2 Kgs 17:13; Zech 7:12). The passage concludes with the general statement: “and [the Lord] showed you not a few wonders” (LAB 30:5), which language is reminiscent of Mic 7:15 and Ps 78:11, both of which refer to the exodus and the wandering in the desert. Cf. LAB 15:6, 23:10. See section 1.2.3.2.

46

ATAR LIVNEH

sentence echoes biblical passages such as Deut 18:18, 2 Kgs 17:13, and Zech 7:12.102 Its expansion via a parallel hemistich relating to the “leaders” (duces) stresses the role human leaders play in Israelite history, and it is on this note that Deborah’s review prior to the battle concludes (see LAB 30:6; cf. Judg 2:18–19; 1 Sam 12:8–11).103 The prominence of the theme of leadership fits the literary context of the opening of the Deborah pericope in LAB 30, which asserts that the Israelites’ immorality and fall into Sisera’s hand were due to their lack of fit judges (LAB 30:1).104 While Deborah’s initial speech differs from her song in its moral emphasis, both refer to Joshua’s warfare against the Amorites (cf. Josh 10:11–14) after telling of the exodus and wanderings in the wilderness (LAB 30:5, 32:10). While the presence of this episode in Deborah’s reviews appears to be a function of its thematic affinities to the battle against Sisera, it may also be inspired by earlier texts with which the author of LAB would have been familiar.105 Finally, as befits their literary context, the two summaries delivered by Deborah mention the period of the judges in the spirit of the historical summary in 1 Samuel 12, with each summary referring to a different aspect of this era. In her song, Deborah refers specifically to Israel’s subjection to Sisera and his defeat, linking these with the bondage in Egypt (LAB32:11; cf. 1 Sam 12:9, 11). In the summary prior to this battle, she enumerates the Israelite leaders who preceded her, including Cenaz and Zebul (LAB 30:6; cf. 1 Sam 12:8, 11).106 1.2.3.2 D  eborah’sReview(LAB32:1–11)andJoshua’sPartingOration (LAB23:1–11) As Deborah’s historical summary in LAB 32 and Joshua’s parting oration in LAB 23 are both modeled to a certain degree on the oration in Joshua 24, they exhibit striking similarities.107 Like their shared biblical 102

For juxtaposition of the lawgiving at Sinai with the role of the prophet(s) in extrabiblical summaries see 4Q381 III 4–5; 4Q504 XI. For other emphases on the role of the prophet in historical summaries, see Neh 9:26, 30; Acts 7:37–38. 103 The role human leaders play in history is likewise central to the long storyline of LAB: See Nickelsburg, “Good and Bad Leaders” (above, n. 38); Feldman, “Josephus’s JewishAntiquities” (above, n. 5), 78, 81. 104 For the biblical roots of this idea, see Judg 2:18–19, 4:1; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 232. 105 For a retelling of Josh 10:11–14 in an earlier historical summary, see Sir 46:5–6. 106 Cf. Heb 11:32, which also lists judges in the context of a historical summary. Cf. also LAB 25–29, which mentions Cenaz and Zebul as the two judges active prior to Deborah. 107 Although both are influenced by the content and structure of Josh 24, only the first retains the source’s context of a covenantal ceremony (LAB 23:1–2, 12–14).

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

47

source, both refer to a relatively large number of historical episodes, the first being Abraham’s beginnings in Ur.108 Joshua 24 reviews the births of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau, the descent to and bondage in Egypt, the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan, and all these episodes are present in both summaries in LAB.109 Their common presentation of the material relating to the patriarchs in the form of a genealogy is similarly drawn from Josh 24:2–4.110 Both summaries elaborate on the themes of birth and progeny in discussing the patriarchs. While these are the only two Second Templeperiod historical summaries in which this focus unifies the patriarchal sequence, they differ in its application. Deborah’s historical summary expands the birth formulae, elaborates on Rebecca’s infertility, and adduces the theme of progeny in the context of the Akedah (LAB 32:2–5). Joshua’s speech, in contrast, adds to the genealogy given in Josh 24:2–4 by referring explicitly to Abraham’s and Sarah’s births (LAB 23:4) and reworking the story of the covenant between the pieces (cf. Gen 15) at length with emphasis on the themes of progeny and fertility (LAB 23:5–7).111 It draws a connection between the animals sacrificed in this 108

109

110

111

While both open with the theme of Abraham’s origins, they do not begin with the same episode. Joshua’s speech commences with Abraham’s birth (LAB 23:4), while Deborah’s song begins with the tower of Babel/Abraham’s being brought out of Ur (LAB 32:1). The unit relating to the patriarchs in Joshua’s speech in LAB 23 is closer to Josh 24:2–4, however, as it mentions Nahor (LAB 23:4; cf. Josh 24:2), Abraham’s origins “across the river” (LAB 23:4; cf. Josh 24:2), God leading Abraham across the breadth of Canaan (LAB 23:5; cf. Josh 24:3), and Esau’s inheritance of Mount Seir (LAB 23:9; cf. Josh 24:4). All these details are absent from Deborah’s summary in LAB 32. For features of Joshua’s speech in LAB 23 that differ from the biblical source, see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 108–13. The reference to the inheritance of Canaan in LAB 23:11 is general (cf. Josh 24:13); Deborah in contrast adduces a specific incident within its borders (LAB 32:10). LAB 23 and 32 also share the theme of testimony (LAB 23:7 [x2], 32:8–9 [x3]). Rather than reflecting the influence of Josh 24:22–27 on both, this appears to be a function of the frequent use of the terms testis and testimonium in LAB in general (see the concordance entries for these terms: Albert-Marie Denis, ThesaurusPatrumLatinorumSupplementum:ConcordanceLatinedesPseudepigraphesd’AncienTestament [Turnhout: Brepols, 1993], 497–98); cf. also Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 244. The summaries’ shared allusion to the tower of Babel as well is absent from Joshua 24, and would so appear to reflect a non-biblical model also attested in Wisdom (10:5): “Wisdom also, when the nations in wicked agreement had been put to confusion, recognized the righteous man [Abraham] and preserved him blameless before God.” For other occurrences of the tower of Babel in a catalog of historical events, see Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243 10 2–3; 4Q244 9 2, 13 1); Tg. Neb. to Hab 3:6. The depiction of Abraham’s and Sarah’s births in LAB 23:4 is a retelling of Josh 24:2, Gen 11:6–30, and Isa 51:1–2: see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo (above, n. 16), 109–110; Fisk, DoYouNotRemember?(above, n. 63), 294–98.

48

ATAR LIVNEH

last episode and the divine blessing of posterity – the calf, for example, symbolizes “the multitude of peoples, who will be made many through you” (v. 7). It also includes a detailed description of Isaac’s birth after only seven months in the womb (v. 8).112 This highlighting of the themes of birth and fertility suit LAB’s general tendency towards developing themes relating to women and femininity.113 In contrast with most of contemporaneous historical reviews, both summaries in LAB refer to matriarchs: Sarah in LAB 23:4–5, and Rebecca in LAB 32:5.114 A further similarity between Deborah’s historical summary in LAB 32 and Joshua’s speech in LAB 23 can be found in the Sinai pericope. As noted above, Deborah’s song refers to two aspects of the event: the giving of the Torah and the unnatural phenomena that accompanied the theophany. The combination of these two themes recurs in Joshua’s parting oration (23:10). Although this combination also surfaces in God’s speech concerning the spies (15:6), and although that speech shares imagery with Joshua’s oration that does not occur in Deborah’s song, the descriptions of the events at Sinai in LAB 23 and 32 are closer to one another in their detailed style and length.115 They also both contain the motif of the extinguished “flame of fire.”116 In both summaries, the Sinai episode is devoted considerable space, surpassed in length only by the account of the covenant between the pieces in LAB 23 (5–7), and in

112

113

114

115

116

See Pieter W. van der Horst, “Seven Months’ Children in Jewish and Christian Literature from Antiquity,” ETL54 (1978): 346–60. For feminine figures in LAB, see Pieter W. van der Horst, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” JSP 5 (1989): 29–46; Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, SBLEJL 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 83–106; Brown, NoLongerBeSilent(above, n. 38). For the marginal place of the matriarchs in brief Second Temple accounts of Israelite history, see section 3.1. LAB 15:6 and 23:10 (cf. also 11:5) both refer to God’s bending of the heavens (cf. Ps 18:10) – imagery that also appears in the context of the Sinai theophany in the historical summary in 4 Ezra 3:18: see Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 11; Feldman, “Prolegomenon” (above, n. 37), xcix; Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatum Biblicarum (above, n. 1), 1:548; Fisk, Do You Not Remember? (above n. 63), 219–21. LAB 15:6 and 23:10 (cf. also 19:9, 53:9) place the Sinai pericope at a different location within the sequence: while Deborah’s song refers to it immediately after the Israelites’ “going out of Egypt,” Joshua’s oration situates it immediately after its retelling of the battle at the Red Sea in Exod 13:20–15:21 (cf. the sequence in Neh 9:11–14). “I congealed the flame of fire” (LAB 23:10); “… the clouds raised their waters against the flame of fire so that it would not consume the world” (32:7).

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

49

LAB 32 only by the Akedah (vv. 2–5).117 This indicates the special significance LAB’s author attributed to both Abraham and the covenant at Sinai. 1.2.4 LAB 32:1-11 and Contemporaneous Historical Reviews Having discussed Deborah’s song (LAB 32:1–11) in its context, we will now compare its content and sequence to that of contemporaneous historical summaries. Above, it was noted that LAB’s selection of events reflects contemporary literary conventions; none of the biblical episodes mentioned in Deborah’s song in LAB 32 are unique to that historical summary (see Table 1). In placing events from Abraham’s lifetime at the beginning of its account, LAB 32 likewise follows the model employed in Jdt 5:5–21; 1 Macc 2:51–60, A.J. 2.213–216, and Acts 7.118 Although no precise parallel to the sequence in LAB 32:1–11 as a whole exists, some of the juxtapositions therein are paralleled in other extra-biblical historical summaries, sometimes due to the influence of a shared biblical model. Thus, for example, LAB 32:6–7, Jdt 5:10–11, and the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:14–15) are all influenced by summaries in the Torah (Num 20:15–16; Deut 26:5–7) in referring, in the same order, to the descent to Egypt, Israel becoming a great nation, the people’s enslavement, their cry, God’s response, and the exodus.119 The juxtaposition of Isaac’s birth with the Akedah, on the other hand, is unique to extra-biblical historical summaries, occurring only in LAB 32:1–4, 4Q225 2 i 8–ii 10, and 1 Clem. 10.7.120 Both LAB 32 and 4Q225 2 ii also refer to the birth of Isaac’s descendants following the story of his sacrifice, thereby stressing the continuation of Abraham’s lineage. While these affinities may be due to a common model, the 117

118

119

120

See Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 1; Fisk, DoYouNotRemember? (above, n. 63), 251n188. For a comprehensive discussion of Abraham in the extra-biblical historical summaries, see chapter 3. The multiplication of Israel into a great nation appears in Deut 26:5–7 but not in Num 20:15–16. In this respect, Jdt 5 and the Animal Apocalypse appear to follow the elaborate sequence laid out in the former. Deborah’s song in LAB, in contrast, corresponds more closely to Num 20:15–16 by omitting this motif. While the sequence in 1 En. 89:14–15 follows the summary in Deuteronomy, its content is obviously drawn from Exodus 1–2: see Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, SBLEJL 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 276–81; George W. Nickelsburg, 1Enoch1, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 378–79. 1 Clem. 10.7 corresponds particularly closely to LAB 32:1–4, also mentioning in the episode the fact that Abraham gave birth to Isaac in his old age.

50

ATAR LIVNEH

sequential correlation between LAB 32 and 4 Ezra 3 is more likely due to a direct literary relationship.121 In LAB 32:7, for example, Deborah states: “and he brought them out of there and brought them to Mount Sinai.” 4 Ezra 3:17 similarly asserts: “and when thou didst lead his descendants out of Egypt, thou didst bring them to Mount Sinai.”122 4 Ezra 3:15–16 and LAB 32:5 are also unique amongst Second Temple period reviews in incorporating some version of God’s preference for Jacob over Isaac as expressed in Mal 1:2–3.123 In 4 Ezra, this is noted immediately following the twins’ birth; in LAB 32 it follows the retelling of the episode of the blessings found in Gen 27. As noted above, the author of LAB employs genealogy as a device for arranging and unifying the unit on the patriarchs in both Joshua’s speech and Deborah’s song (LAB 23:4–9, 32:1–6), much as does the author of Josh 24:2–4. The summary in 4 Ezra 3, which alludes to the same biblical passage, also presents the material pertaining to the patriarchs in genealogical form: “… and thou gavest to him Isaac, and to Isaac thou gavest Jacob and Esau …” (v. 15).124 Although other extra-biblical historical summaries do not allude to or quote Josh 24:2–4, the adoption of a genealogical framework as the vehicle for retelling the patriarchal narratives is common (see e.g., 4Q225 2 ii 10–11, Sir 44:22–23, Acts 7:8).125 Finally, a comment about the style of narration in LAB 32:1–11 is in order. The individual historical episodes in Deborah’s song are recounted in two forms: brief third-person reports (e.g., the descent to Egypt in 121

122

123

124

125

Many of the similarities between individual episodes in 4 Ezra 3 and the summaries in LAB have been observed: see Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai,” (above, n. 9), 11; James,BiblicalAntiquities, (above, n. 30), 54–55; Stone, FourthEzra, (above, n. 30), 70–73. However, these affinities actually extend to entire sequences. The sequence of 4 Ezra 3 more closely resembles that of LAB 23, although certain features are uniquely shared with LAB 32. Despite the difference in scope between LAB 23 and 4 Ezra 3, both texts cover a strikingly similar range of events from Abraham’s election to Sinai that is unique to these authors. In LAB 32:7: “Et eduxit eos inde et duxit in montem Syna”; in 4 Ezra 3:17: “Et factumestcumeduceressemeneiusexAegypto,etadduxistieossupermontemSina.” For the linguistic affinities between 4 Ezra 3:17 and LAB 32:7, see James, Biblical Antiquities (above, n. 30), 54–55. The English translation of 4 Ezra follows Stone, FourthEzra(above, n. 30). This is assuming that Rom 9:7–13 is not understood as a historical summary: see W. Gordon Robinson, “Historical Summaries of Biblical History,” EvangelicalQuarterly47 (1975): 195–207 [201]. For the similarities between 4 Ezra 3:15 and LAB 32:5, see Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai” (above, n. 9), 10n4. For Josh 24:3–4 as the source behind 4Ezra 3:15, see Hermann Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” in DieApokryphenundPseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, ed. Emil Kautzsch, 2 vols. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung [Paul Siebeck], 1962), 2:331–402 [353]. See section 4.1.

DEBORAH’S NEW SONG – A STUDY OF LAB 32:1–11 IN CONTEXT

51

LAB 32:6), and scenes that include monologues or dialogues (e.g., the Akedah in LAB32:2–4). As the first style is typical of biblical historical summaries, its presence in an extra-biblical historical summary is unsurprising. However, LAB frequently shows a preference for the latter form, which is characteristic of the biblical narrative.126 While some other writers from the Second Temple period exhibit the same tendency, it is limited to a small number of summaries from Qumran and to the historical reviews occurring in 1 Clement.127 Thus, comparison of Deborah’s song in LAB 32 with contemporary historical summaries demonstrates LAB’s reliance on existing models and literary conventions on one hand and the license it takes in adapting them on the other. Despite the clear affinities between LAB 32:1–11 and earlier and contemporaneous historical summaries, this review presents a unique sequence of events and stands out in its highlighting of women and fertility. 1.3 CONCLUSIONS The frequent occurrences of historical summaries within the extended account of Israel’s past retold in LAB reflects the author’s dependence on the structure and style of Deuteronomy–Samuel. The function of the historical summaries in LAB is likewise similar to that of their antecedents within that history in that they epitomize the thematic and ideological emphases of the work as a whole. The influence of the long story of Israel’s past is also evident in LAB’s incorporation of dialogue into its episodes in the style of the extended biblical narrative, rather than the brief third-person reports typical of biblical historical summaries. It is further apparent in LAB’s summaries’ inclusion of episodes that do not appear in any of the biblical summaries (e.g., Isaac’s blessing of Jacob). As both of these features occur in other extra-biblical historical summaries, their appearance in

126

127

The stylistic influence of the biblical narratives in Genesis on LAB 32 is further apparent in its reference to a chronological datum (LAB 32:5; cf. Gen 25:20, 26). Biblical historical summaries almost never adduce chronological data, the sole exception being Amos 2:10: see section 4.2. Cf. 4Q225 2 i 3–7, 2 i 9–ii 10; 4Q252 III 8; 4Q464 6 3; 1 Clem. 4.4–6, 4.10, 10.3–6, 12.4–6. LAB 32 makes extensive use of this style (vv. 2–4; 9–11), and can therefore be understood as more closely related to the historical summaries in 1 Clement; see section 3.3.4.

52

ATAR LIVNEH

LAB reflects the general features of that corpus rather than LAB’s particular innovation. Although Deborah’s rewritten song in LAB 32:1–11 demonstrates the development of the historical summary during the Hellenistic and early Roman period in some respects, in others it reflects the continued use of the conventions of biblical examples of that type. Following its biblical predecessors, the song commences its review with Abraham, formulating the unit relating to the patriarchs in genealogical style. It draws on other devices from biblical summaries to link the various episodes – the “geographical axis” and analogy between the bondage in Egypt and the subjugation to Sisera, for example. Beyond simply incorporating allusions to biblical reviews such as Song of the Sea in Exod 15, the missive to Edom in Num 20:15–16, and the convocation in Neh 9 into its reworking of Deborah’s song, LAB evinces dependence upon these biblical models by replicating various motifs found within them, e.g., the association of God’s rule over nature with his defeat of Israel’s enemies, from Pharaoh to the kings of Canaan (cf. Exod 15; Pss 135, 136). Although influenced to a certain extent by the conventions of both biblical and contemporaneous historical summaries, the full sequence of LAB 32:1–11 has no parallel in ancient Jewish or Christian summaries, thereby revealing the book’s own particular tendenz. In line with LAB as a whole, Deborah’s song highlights the election of Israel and the patriarchs and the covenant between God and Israel, presenting these not merely as concrete events but also as a historical organizing principle: God fulfils the covenant by coming to the aid of his chosen people throughout history.

CHAPTER 2

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI – A STUDY OF A.J. 3.83–88 FROM A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE 2.1 THE HISTORICAL SUMMARIES IN JEWISHANTIQUITIES—AN OVERVIEW1 Following Deuteronomy and the subsequent historiographic books, and similar to the near-contemporaneous LAB, JewishAntiquities incorporates several brief accounts of Israelite history throughout its longerscale narrative. With the exception of A.J. 6.88–91, which reworks Samuel’s historical speech (esp. 1 Sam 12:5–12), the historical summaries in JewishAntiquities all constitute additions penned by Josephus. Occurring in books 1–4, they are knitted into the stories about the patriarchs, the exodus, and the wanderings in the wilderness. Hence, the revelation to Jacob prior to his descent to Egypt in A.J. 2.172–175 includes a catalog of historical events, and Amram’s dream similarly consists of a recitation of Israelite history (2.213–216). The remaining summaries are all speeches and prayers ascribed to Moses, intertwined into the narratives about the lack of drinking water in Elim (A.J. 3.17– 19), the receiving of the law at Sinai (A.J. 3.83–88) and the rebellion of Korah, Datan and Abiram (A.J. 4.40–50). 2 Like their antecedents in biblical historiography, the historical summaries in A.J. 1–4 encapsulate the thematic emphases of the work as a whole. The idea of divine providence and its manifestation throughout 1

2

I am grateful to Nadav Sharon, who generously shared his observations regarding the historical summaries in JewishAntiquities in both face-to-face discussions and written correspondences. Menahem Kister, Reingard Kratz and Paul Mandel each imparted valuable insights on different aspects of A.J. 3.83–88, and their comments greatly enhanced my understanding of the summary’s structure and background. An earlier draft of this paper was presented in May 2018 at the conference: “The Dead Sea Scrolls at Seventy,” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Orion Center. I am indebted as well to Esther Chazon and Ruth Clements for their encouragement, and to all the participants of that conference for their valuable observations. See Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 94–99.

54

ATAR LIVNEH

history is central to the long-scale history in the Antiquities, and it takes center stage in the brief historical accounts in the book as well.3 However, while the long history in A.J. illustrates divine providence as a universal principle, the historical summaries concern the people of Israel in particular.4 Similarly, while the Antiquities as a whole presents the divine providence as having two sides – rewards for those who are worthy vs. punishments for those who err – the historical summaries focus primarily on the former. They thus follow the model exemplified in biblical reviews such as Pss 105, 136, enumerating God’s miraculous interventions on behalf of his people while ignoring the people’s sins throughout history (contra, e.g., Pss 78, 106; Neh 9). Although the summaries in themselves, as well as the logic of their inclusion within longer histories, follow biblical models, these were not Josephus’s only source of inspiration. Josephus was obviously familiar with catalogs of historical events used in Greek and Latin Literature as a device for establishing a rule. These lists of examples occur in a variety of genres, including historiography – Livy, for example, makes an extensive use of them in his history of Rome.5 There, lists of historical events frequently constitute part of speeches aimed at influencing the actions of the audience. For example, in trying to convince the senate in Carthage that a war against Rome is futile, Hanno the elder lists Carthage’s defeats in the first Punic war (Livy, Aburbecond. 21.10). Scipio Africanus, in contrast, adduces examples of past military conflicts to encourage his soldiers to fight, although they have suffered great losses in previous battles against Hannibal’s army (26.41). Josephus himself employs the same rhetorical device in the Jewish War. Addressing the rebels in Jerusalem, he refers to a series of historical examples demonstrating the

3 4

5

Ibid. The exception to this rule is Moses’s review of history in A.J. 3.83–88; see below. For a discussion of divine providence with regard to Israel as an example of providence in the world generally, see Attridge, The Interpetation of Biblical History (above, n. 2), 82–92, followed by Betsy Halpern-Amaru, RewritingtheBible:LandandCovenantin PostbiblicalJewishLiterature(Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994), 103; Paul Spilsbury, “God and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Prespectives, ed. Steve Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 172–91 [176]. See also n. 60 below. For the rhetorical device of exempla see the introduction to the book. For Livy’s use of examples, see Jane D. Chaplain, Livy’sExemplaryHistory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

55

consistent failure of the Jewish people to triumph by arms in order to convince them to cease fighting the Romans (B.J.5.375–419).6 While a detailed analysis of the latter text is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is significant to note that like other Jewish lists of examples, this passage of the JewishWar exhibits formal traits typical of classical exempla as well as features characteristic of biblical historical summaries (e.g., a diachronic interest).7 I suggest that the same holds true for three historical summaries in the Antiquities, although the balance between biblical and classical traits is different. The three summaries in the Antiquities are all attributed to Moses and embedded in speeches addressed to the people or to God during the wanderings in the wilderness (A.J. 3.17–19, 83–88; 4.40–50).8 Attridge justly notes that these texts are “cast in a common biblical mode.”9 Their reliance on scriptural texts is reflected in various ways (see below), including the mere choice of setting as Moses’s retrospectives of history in the wilderness (cf. e.g., Num 20:15–16; Deut 11:1–7). However, Moses’s orations in the Antiquities also betray the influence of exempla in their utilization of anaphora – a stylistic device attested in classical catalogs but missing from biblical summaries.10 As we shall demonstrate below, the arrangement of the historical incidents in A.J. 3.83–88 is likewise typical of Greco-Roman exempla. The episodes contained in the historical summaries in the Antiquities is presented in Table 1 below.

6

7

8

9 10

For a detailed discussion of this passage see Otto Kaiser, “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed by Arms…’: The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Addresses of Flavius Josephus to the Besieged Jerusalemites in Bell. Jud. V. 356–426,” in History andIdentity:HowIsrael’sLaterAuthorsViewedItsEarlierHistory, ed. Nuria CalduchBenages and Jan Liesen, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 239–64. The merging of formal characteristics of Greco-Roman exempla with conventions of biblical historical summaries is typical of Jewish lists of examples; see Introduction. Drawing on 1 Sam 12 (as well as Num 16:15), Moses’s words in A.J. 4.40–50 are constructed as a juridical complaint addressed to God but witnessed by the people. Since both God and the Israelites form the audience for Moses’s words, they constitute both a prayer and a speech. For a detailed discussion of this passage see Tessel M. Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 108–20. Attridge, InterpretationofBiblicalHistory(above, n. 2), 97n3. On anaphora in A.J. 3.83–88 and 4.40–50 see section 2.2.1.2 below, as well as n. 41. In A.J. 3.17–19 the subunits (rather than the individual incidents) are introduced with the word πῶς (“how”). For similar use of anaphora at the beginning of the subunits of a Jewish list of examples cf. Wis 10.

11

Adam was likewise possibly mentioned in the historical summary in 5Q13: see Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001): 136–48 [144–48].

4Q252 I 1–II 8 4Q381 II 2–10 4Q422 II 1–13 Sir 44:17–18 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:1–9), Apocalypse of weeks (1 En. 93:4) 2 Bar 56:15 4 Ezra 3:9–11 Heb 11:7 1 Clem. 9.4

Noah

Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries

4Q381 I 4Q422 I 4Q504 I (cf. 4Q506 131–32) Wis 10:1–2 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85:1–9) 2 Bar. 56:5–8 4 Ezra 3:5–8 (cf. also v. 21)11

(Samuel’s speech)

(Moses’ prayer, during Korah’s rebellion)

(Moses’ speech at Mount Sinai)

(Moses’ speech in Elim)

(Amram’s dreamvision)

(Jacob’s dreamvision)

Biblical Historical Summaries

Adam

A.J. 6.88–91

A.J. 4.40 –50

A.J. 3.83–88

A.J. 3.17–19

A.J. 2.213–216

A.J. 2.172–175

Table 2

12

4Q225 2 i 8–9 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:11) 2 Bar. 57:1 4 Ezra 3:15 LAB 23:8 Acts 7:8 Heb 11:11 1 Clem. 10.7

Although the tower of Babel is adduced in the historical review in Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243 10 2–3, 4Q244 9 2, 13 1), the fragmentary state of this text precludes determination of whether it is linked with Abraham.

Josh 24:3

Isaac’s Birth

4Q225 2 i 2 4Q252 II 8–10 4Q464 1 Jdt 5:6–9 Wis 10:5 Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En.93:5) 4 Ezra 3:13 LAB 23:4–5, 32:1 Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]) Acts 7:2–5 Heb 11:8 1 Clem. 10:1–312 *While B.J. 5.380 alludes to Gen 14:14, the allusion is interwoven here in a retelling of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt.

Josh 24:2–3 Neh 9:7–8

Abraham’s war against the kings

bringing Abraham out of Ur/ Abraham’s beginnings

4Q243 11 ii 1–3 1 Macc 2:52 Wis 10:13–14 1 En. 89:12–14

Ps 105:17–22

Joseph

*Jdt 5:9 refers to the wealth of the patriarchs as a collective

Wis 10:10–11

Ps 105:12–15(?) 4Q464 7 Wis 10:10 LAB 32:6 Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.1–2, 19]) 1 Clem. 4.8

Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries

Demetrius the Chronographer (Praep.ev. 9.21.3–5) Sir 44:23 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12) 4 Ezra 3:16–17 LAB 23:9, 32:6 Acts 7:8

(Samuel’s speech)

(Moses’ prayer, during Korah’s rebellion)

(Moses’ speech at Mount Sinai)

(Moses’ speech in Elim)

(Amram’s dreamvision)

(Jacob’s dreamvision)

Biblical Historical Summaries

Jacob’s sons

Jacob’s wealth

Jacob’s journey to Padan-Aram

A.J. 6.88–91

A.J. 4.40 –50

A.J. 3.83–88

A.J. 3.17–19

A.J. 2.213–216

A.J. 2.172–175

Num 20:15 Deut 6:21 Deut 26:6 Judg 6:8 1 Sam 12:8 LXX Mic 6:4 Ps 81:7 Ps 105:25 Neh 9:9

Enslavement

13

4Q226 1 4Q422 III 4 (?) LAB 19:9, 53:8 (?) Acts 7:30–35

4Q243 12 1 Jdt 5:11 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:15–20) 2 Bar. 58:1 LAB 15:5, 23:9, 32:7 B.J.5.382 Acts 7:17–21

4Q243 12 1 Jdt 5:11 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:15–20) 2 Bar. 58:1 LAB 15:5, 23:9, 32:6 B.J.5.382 Acts 7:17–21

Joseph is further mentioned in 4 Macc. 18:11, a list which does not constitute a historical summary according to our definition; see introduction.

The burning bush

Num 20:156 Deut 26:5 Josh 24:3 1 Sam 12:8 Ps 105:23

Descent to Egypt

Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.5–18]) Acts 7:8–15 Heb 11:21–22 1 Clem. 4.9 Sir 49:1513

4Q225 1 10 (?) Jdt 5:13 Wis 10:18–20 Sir 16:9–10 3 Macc. 2:7, 6:5 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:23–27) 2 Bar. 58:2 LAB 15:5 (?)

4Q225 1, 2 ii 13–14 4Q243 12 2 4Q422 II (=frgs. 2–7) 4Q464a (=4Q464 12) 4Q504 XIV 10 Jdt 5:12 Wis 10:15–16 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:21–27) 4 Ezra 3:17 LAB 15:5, 23:10, 30:6, 32:7, 53:8 B.J.5.383 Acts 7:36, 13:1714

Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries

Although the exodus does not occur as a separate incident in 4QApocJer C, it is mentioned in a retrospective text (4Q389 2 2).

Exod 15:1–19 Deut 11:4 Josh 2:10 Pss 77:16–20, 78:13, 106:9–11, 136:13–16 Neh 9:11

Red Sea

14

*The Exodus is referred to in virtually all biblical historical summaries

(Samuel’s speech)

(Moses’ prayer, during Korah’s rebellion)

(Moses’ speech at Mount Sinai)

(Moses’ speech in Elim)

(Amram’s dreamvision)

(Jacob’s dreamvision)

Biblical Historical Summaries

The exodus from Egypt

A.J. 6.88–91

A.J. 4.40 –50

A.J. 3.83–88

A.J. 3.17–19

A.J. 2.213–216

A.J. 2.172–175

15

(allotting the priesthood to Aaron)

For further possible allusions to Sinai in extra-biblical historical summaries see chapter 1, n.23.

Sinai/Torah

Wanderings in the wilderness

Ezek 20:11–12 Ps 78:5 Ps 81:8–11 Neh 9:13–14

Exod 15:13 Num 20:16 Deut 11:5–6 Josh 24:7 Isa 63:13 Jer 2:6 Ezek 20:6–10 Amos 2:10 Pss 78:17–31; 105:40; 106:14–15; 136:16 Neh 9:15

4Q381 III 5 4Q504 XI Sir 45:5 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:30–31) Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:6) 2 Bar. 59 4 Ezra 3:17–19 LAB 15:5, 23:10, 30:6, 32:7, 53:8 Acts 7:3815

4Q226 3, 4 4QApocJer C(4Q388a 2; 4Q389 2) 4Q504 III 6–11, XV 8–11 Jdt 5:14 Sir 45:6-24 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:28–39) 4 Ezra 7:106 LAB 15:5, 30:6, 32:7, 53:8(?) Demetrius the Chronographer (frag.3 [Praep.ev. 9.29.15]) Acts 13:18 1 Clem. 4.12

Acts 7:36 Cf. Ps 105:41 (?) Heb 11:29

Exod 15:13–17 Deut 4:37, 6:23, 26:9 Josh 24:11–13 Judg 6:9 1 Sam 12:9–11 Jer 2:7, 32:22–23 Amos 2:10 Pss 78:54–55, 80:9–11, 105:44 Neh 9:23–25 1 Sam 12:9–11 Neh 9:27–28

Judges

(Samuel’s speech)

(Moses’ prayer, during Korah’s rebellion)

(Moses’ speech at Mount Sinai)

(Moses’ speech in Elim)

(Amram’s dreamvision)

(Jacob’s dreamvision)

Biblical Historical Summaries

Inheritance of Canaan

A.J. 6.88–91

A.J. 4.40 –50

A.J. 3.83–88

A.J. 3.17–19

A.J. 2.213–216

A.J. 2.172–175

CD 3:9–12 4Q226 5 (?) Jdt 5:17–18 Sir 46:11–12 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:41) 2 Bar. 60:1–2 LAB 30:6, 32:11 Acts 13:20 Heb 11:32

4Q226 6 4Q243 12 3 Jdt 5:15–16 Sir 46:1–10 1 Macc 2:54–55 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:40) 4 Ezra 7:107 LAB 23:11, 30:6, 32:7, 53:8 Acts 7:45, 13:19 Heb 11:30–31 1Clem. 12.1–8

Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

63

As the table demonstrates, only a few of the historical incidents included in the summaries in JewishAntiquities have no parallel in other biblical or extra-biblical historical summaries.16 They are thus largely comprised of the conventional ingredients of brief accounts of Israelite history. While some of them – the exodus, for example – can be traced back to early biblical summaries, historical episodes or personae such as Noah and the flood are first attested only in extra-biblical summaries prior to Josephus (e.g., Sir 44:17–18, Wis 10:4). The exodus is alluded to in all the historical summaries in the Antiquities; the events at the Red Sea and the wanderings at the desert likewise constitute relatively common motifs, appearing in four summaries. All three incidents are traditional components of reviews of Israelite history. Still, their recurrence in the summaries in the Antiquities is not merely a matter of following antecedent models, but also a function of the literary context in which the summaries are embedded. Since three of the summaries are attributed to Moses, who is (in Josephus’s telling) an excellent orator, it is not surprising that he primarily adduces events witnessed by his audience.17 In this, Moses adheres to classical rhetoric, which favors examples from recent history over those from ancient times.18 The historical sequences in those three summaries ascribed to Moses (as well as remaining summaries in books 1–4 of the Antiquities) are not identical, and each is determined by its specific literary context.19 For example, Moses’s speech during the rebellion of Korah, Abiram, and Datan (A.J. 4.40–50) is the only historical review in the Antiquities that refers to the receiving of the Torah at Sinai. As the culmination of the historical summary, this allusion to the law fits perfectly into Moses’s prayer, which is constructed as a complaint (‫ )ריב‬and is abundant with

16

17

18 19

Those building blocks that are unique reveal the author’s creativity and reflect his own thematic emphases. The reference to Abraham’s success in the battlefield, for example, echoes Josephus’s stress on the military prowess of this patriarch in his extended historical account (A.J. 1.171–182). On Josephus’s emphasis of the courage of Israelite biblical heroes in general, and of Abraham in particular see Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, HCS 27 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 106–13, 234–37. For the representation of the figure of Moses in Jewish Antiquities see Feldman, Josephus’Interpretation(above, n. 16), 374–442; Paul Spilsbury, “Exodus in Josephus,” in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr, VTS 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 465–84 [467–70]. See Introduction. As was noted above, the exception is A.J. 6.88–91 which is modeled on 1 Sam 12:5–12.

64

ATAR LIVNEH

juridical terminology.20 Similarly, amongst the summaries in the Antiquities, the reference to Jacob’s journey to Padan Aram is unique to the recitation of history revealed to Jacob in a dream-vision (A.J. 2.172–175). Here, the incident exemplifies the divine providence that accompanied the patriarchal journeys, and thus fits the context of the summary, which is Jacob’s pending decent to Egypt. Significantly, Josephus is far from the first Jewish author to allude to the patriarchs’ journeys or to the receiving of the law at Sinai within a brief account of Israelite history (cf. Ps 105:12–15; Neh 9:13–14). These historical incidents, like the exodus and the wanderings in the desert, were among the traditional topoi Josephus had at his disposal. Like an artist creating a mosaic, he carefully chose which of these would be included in each of his summaries and where they would be placed within the sequence. The result is five historical brief accounts which, while having some elements in common, exhibit a considerable variety.21 This becomes evident when examining the opening pericope in each sequence. In most extra-biblical summaries, the summaries begin predictably with either Abraham or the first generations of humanity, periods and personae which designate the beginning of Israelite history in their authors’ views.22 While LAB, discussed in chapter 1, deviates from this rule, all its historical summaries begin either with Abraham or with the exodus. Josephus’s Antiquities manifests a greater variety: God’s speech to Jacob on the eve of his descent into Egypt (2.172–175) opens with an allusion to Isaac’s blessing to Jacob; God’s words of reassurance to Amram (2.213–216) open with reference to Abraham; whereas Moses’s review to the people in the wilderness (3.17–19) commences with the exodus (cf. also 4.40–50). While his speech at Sinai (3.83–88) likewise begins with the exodus, the review itself in fact traces Israel’s origins back to the first human being. Finally, following its primary biblical source, Samuel’s oration at the inauguration of Saul as king (6.88–91) commences with the descent to Egypt (cf. 1 Sam 12:8). Virtually all the historical events noted above occur at the beginning of biblical summaries (the exception being Isaac’s blessing to Jacob).23 This implies that although Josephus allowed himself more liberty than most of his contemporaries

20 21 22 23

See, e.g. A.J. 4.40, 41, 46; Jonquière, PrayerinJosephus(above, n. 8), 113–14. This number comprises the historical summaries in books 1–4 of the Antiquities. See section 3.2. For summaries beginning with Abraham, the descent to Egypt, and the exodus, see e.g., Ps 105, Deut 26:5–9, and Deut 11:1–7 respectively.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

65

with regard to the summaries’ openings, he nonetheless depended on the conventions of the biblical reviews. The detailed analysis of a single case study, to which we shall now turn, demonstrates that while Josephus adhered to the conventions of biblical and extra-biblical historical summaries, he was not confined by them. He represented certain historical events creatively and linked them to others in ways that fit his own rhetorical purposes. 2.2 A CASE STUDY: A.J. 3.83–88 Due to the centrality of the theme of the “constitution” of the Jews in JewishAntiquities (see e.g., 1.5–6, 14–24), the giving of the law at Mount Sinai constitutes one of the most significant events in the storyline. It is within this retelling of Exod 19–20, therefore, that Josephus formulates a speech for Moses that encapsulates the content of the work as a whole (A.J. 3.83–88). Just as JewishAntiquities retells Israelite history, so too does Moses’s speech at Mount Sinai survey the Israelites’ past. Parallel lessons are to be learnt from the two histories: the long historical account presented throughout the length of the Antiquities teaches its readers “that those who comply with the will of God and do not transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief, and that happiness (εὐδαιμονία) lies before them as a reward from God…” (1.14).24 Likewise, the historical review created by Josephus for Moses in book 3 concludes with the words: “for you will lead a blessed life (εὐδαίμονα … βίον) if you follow them [the commandments] and, enjoying a fruitful earth and a sea that is not stormy and the birth of children begotten in accordance with nature, you will also be terrifying to your enemies” (3.88; cf. 84).25 24

25

The translation and numbering of passages from JewishAntiquities herein is taken from Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Greek citations follow Benedict Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. (Berlin: Weidman, 1955 [1885–95]), vol. 1. For the employment and significance of the “happy life” (εὐδαιμονία) in JewishAntiquities, see Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, StPB 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 184–86; Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (above, n. 8), 73–74. On the affinity between A.J. 1.14 and 3.84 (cf. also 4.180), see Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4 (above, n. 24), XXIV–XXIX, 251n181; Spilsbury, “Exodus in Josephus” (above, n. 17), 480n46. For a detailed discussion of the ways in which the storyline as narrated in Jewish Antiquities exemplifies the principle of happiness granted to those who keep

66

ATAR LIVNEH

The location of the speech within the sequence, the speech’s thematic emphases, and some of its specifications all reflect the influence of Deuteronomy. Yet the speech is also informed by Greco-Roman rhetorical and literary models, employing terminology typical of Hellenistic loyalty oaths as well as formal and substantial features of lists of historical examples (exempla). Evidence to this effect will be presented in section 2.2.1 below. After establishing the literary models that underlie the speech as a whole, we will examine in detail the recitation of historical events and personae that lies at the core of the oration (section 2.2.2), analyzing it in its immediate context as well as comparing it to earlier and contemporaneous Jewish and Christian catalogs of historical events. The text of the oration is as follows: 83 Οὕτως δ᾿ αὐτῶν διακειμένων ἐπιφαίνεται Μωυσῆς γαῦρός τε καὶ μέγα φρονῶν, ὀφθείς τε οὖν αὐτὸς ἀπαλλάσσει τοῦ δέους αὐτοὺς καὶ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων κρείττονας ὑπετίθετο τὰς ἐλπίδας, αἴθριός τε καὶ καθαρὸς ὁ ἀὴρ τῶν πρὸ ὀλίγου παθῶν ἦν Μωυσέος παραγεγονότος. 84 ἐπὶ τούτοις οὖν συγκαλεῖ τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἐκκλησίαν ἀκουσόμενον ὧν ὁ θεὸς εἴποι πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ συναθροισθέντων στὰς ἐπὶ ὑψηλοῦ τινος, ὅθεν ἔμελλον πάντες ἀκούσεσθαι, “ὁ μὲν θεός”, εἶπεν, “ὦ Ἑβραῖοι καθάπερ καὶ πρότερον εὐμενὴς προσεδέξατό με καὶ βίον τε ὑμῖν εὐδαίμονα καὶ πολιτείας κόσμον ὑπαγορεύσας πάρεστι καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον. 85 πρὸς γοῦν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἔργων, ἃ δι᾿ ἐκεῖνον ἡμῖν ἤδη πέπρακται, μὴ καταφρονήσητε τῶν λεγομένων εἰς ἐμὲ τὸν λέγοντα ἀφορῶντες μηδ᾿ ὅτι γλῶττα ἀνθρωπίνη πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγει· τὴν δ᾿ ἀρετὴν αὐτῶν κατανοήσαντες ἐπιγνώσεσθε καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ νενοηκότος καὶ ἐπὶ συμφέροντι τῷ ὑμετέρῳ πρὸς ἐμὲ μὴ φθονήσαντος εἰπεῖν· 86 οὐ γὰρ Μωυσῆς ὁ Ἀμαράμου καὶ Ἰωχαβάδης υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ τὸν Νεῖλον ἀναγκάσας ᾑματωμένον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ῥυῆναι καὶ ποικίλοις δαμάσας κακοῖς τὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων φρόνημα, ὁ διὰ θαλάσσης ὁδὸν ὑμῖν παρασχών, ὁ καὶ τροφὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ μηχανησάμενος ἐλθεῖν ἀπορουμένοις, ὁ ποτὸν ἐκ πέτρας ἀναβλύσας σπανίζουσι, 87 δι᾿ ὃν Ἄδαμος τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς τε καρπῶν καὶ θαλάσσης μεταλαμβάνει δι᾿ ὃν Νῶχος ἐκ τῆς ἐπομβρίας διέφυγε, δι᾿ ὃν Ἅβραμος ὁ ἡμέτερος πρόγονος ἐξ ἀλήτου τὴν Χαναναίαν κατέσχε γῆν, δι᾿ ὃν Ἴσακος γηραιοῖς ἐτέχθη γονεῦσι, δι᾿ ὃν Ἰάκωβος δώδεκα παίδων ἀρεταῖς ἐκοσμήθη, δι᾿ ὃν Ἰώσηπος ἐδεσπότευσε τῆς Αἰγυπτίων δυνάμεως, οὗτος ὑμῖν τούτους χαρίζεται τοὺς λόγους δι᾿ ἑρμηνέως ἐμοῦ. 88 σεβάσμιοι δ᾿ ὑμῖν γενέσθωσαν καὶ παίδων περιμαχητότεροι καὶ γυναικῶν· εὐδαίμονα γὰρ διάξετε βίον τούτοις the commandments and punishment of those who transgress God’s instructions, see Attridge, InterpretationofBiblicalHistory(above, n. 2), 71–107.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

67

ἑπόμενοι καὶ γῆς ἀπολαύοντες καρπίμου καὶ θαλάσσης ἀχειμάστου καὶ τέκνων γονῆς κατὰ φύσιν τικτομένων καὶ πολεμίοις ἔσεσθε φοβεροί· τῷ θεῷ γὰρ εἰς ὄψιν ἐλθὼν ἀκροατὴς ἀφθάρτου φωνῆς ἐγενόμην· γοὕτως ἐκείνῳ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς τούτου μέλει διαμονῆς.” 83 While they were disposed thus, Moses appeared, elated and highspirited. Now when he was seen he rid them of their anxiety and inspired better hopes for the future. With the arrival of Moses the air also became clear and pure of the disturbances that had prevailed a little while before. 84 Thereupon he summoned the multitude to an assembly to hear what God had said to him; and when they had been gathered together, he, standing upon a certain lofty spot, from which all were about to hear him, said, “God, O Hebrews, just as He also did previously, graciously received me and having prescribed a blessed life for you and a wellordered constitution, is also coming Himself into the camp. 85 In His name, therefore, and in the name of the deeds that already have been done for us because of Him, do not despise the words that are said by looking at me, the speaker, or because a human tongue is speaking to you. But recognizing their excellence you will apprehend the greatness of Him who devised them and for your benefit did not begrudge to speak them to me. 86 For it is not Moses, the son of Amran and Iochabed but He who forced the Nile for your sake to flow blood-red and overpowered with various plagues the haughtiness of the Egyptians, He who supplied a path for you through the sea, and He who devised food to come from heaven for you when you were in need, He who caused drink to gush forth from a rock when you lacked it, 87 on account of Whom Adam partook of the fruits of [Feldman: from] the earth and the sea, on account of Whom Noah escaped from the Flood, on account of Whom Abraham, our forefather, from being a nomad obtained possession of the land of Canaan, on account of Whom Isaac was born to aged parents, on account of Whom Jacob was adorned with the virtues of twelve sons, on account of Whom Joseph became master of the power of the Egyptians – this is the One who graciously bestows these words upon you through me as an interpreter. 88 Let them be held in reverence by you and let them be more worth fighting for than children and wives. For you will lead a blessed life if you follow them and, enjoying a fruitful earth and a sea that is not stormy and the birth of children begotten in accordance with nature, you will also be terrifying to your enemies. For having come into the sight of God I have become a hearer of an immortal voice. So much of a care does He have for our race and its continuity.”

68

ATAR LIVNEH

2.2.1 Biblical and Classical Influences on Moses’s Speech in A.J. 3.83–88 2.2.1.1 ARetellingofExodus19–20inlightofDeuteronomy Josephus’s retelling of the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai (A.J. 3.75–94) is based primarily on Exodus 19–20.26 Yet one speech he attributes to Moses immediately prior to receiving the Decalogue is absent from the book of Exodus, appearing rather in Deuteronomy’s retelling of the same event (Deut 5:1–5). The account in Deuteronomy inspired not only the inclusion of this speech but also the thematic emphases occurring in its opening and conclusion (A.J. 3.83–88). These emphases include God’s presence amongst the people of Israel (A.J. 3.84; cf. Deut 5:4), as well as Moses’s role as a mediator (A.J. 3.84, 87g; cf. Deut 5:5) and an exhortation to the Israelites to observe the laws that are about to be revealed (A.J. 3.88; cf. Deut 5:1).27 While the opening and conclusion of Moses’s speech in A.J. 3.83–88 rely to a great extent on Deut 5:1–5, the body of the speech – a review of Israelite history (§§86a–87f) – is rather reminiscent of the historical introductions to the covenant in the book of Deuteronomy. Placed just before the establishment of the covenant at Sinai, Moses’s speech in the Antiquities parallels the historical introduction to the account of the covenant at Horeb in Deut 1–3. The style and content of Moses’s recitation of history in the Antiquities, however, more closely correspond with the introduction to the covenant in Moab in Deut 29:1–8.28 Like that oration, the passage in the Antiquities opens with the plagues, gives a concise précis of historical events, and cites God’s marvelous acts on behalf of his people.29 It also emulates the speech at Moab in immediately following this review with an exhortation to the Israelites to observe the law so that they may succeed (cf. A.J. 3.88 with Deut 29:8). Josephus’s retelling of the receiving of law on Mount Sinai in A.J. 3.75–92 can therefore be considered a retelling of Exod 19–20 in light of the Book of Deuteronomy.30 26

27

28 29

30

See Abraham Schalit, Antiquities,3 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1944), 1:82–84 (in Hebrew); Feldman, JudeanAntiquities1–4(above, n. 24), 249–54. While the thematic emphases in A.J. 3.84, 87 are drawn from Deut 5:1–5, the language is often borrowed from other sources; see Appendix B. In numbering of the verses of Deuteronomy 29, we follow BHS. Like Deut 29:1–8, and in contrast to Deut 1–3, A.J. 3.86–87 makes no reference to the people’s sinfulness. In retelling the frame narrative of the Decalogue from Exodus in light of Deuteronomy, Josephus follows an exegetical tradition used in other ancient sources, such as 4Q158

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

69

2.2.1.2 InfluenceofGreco-RomanLiteraryandRhetoricalModels While clearly reflecting the influence of Deuteronomy, Moses’s words in A.J. 3.83–88 also employ Hellenistic literary themes, both in the realm of covenantal terminology and through features typical of Greco-Roman lists of examples (exempla). Covenantal terminology drawn from Hellenistic and Roman oaths and treaties is found primarily in the summation of the speech (A.J. 3.88).31 Moses exhorts the audience to “let [the commandments] be more worth fighting for than children and wives (σεβάσμιοι δ᾿ ὑμῖν γενέσθωσαν καὶ παίδων περιμαχητότεροι καὶ γυναικῶν).” Neither the militaristic context nor the notion of preferring something (or someone) to one’s own children is typical to biblical exhortations; these are rather drawn from Hellenistic and Roman loyalty oaths, such as the one vowed to Caligula: …if danger to him [Gaius Caesar] or to his welfare is brought or will be brought by anyone, with armed might and war extermination, on land and sea I will never cease to pursue him until he pays the penalty to [Gaius Caesar]. Neither myself nor my children will I consider dearer than his welfare (neq(ue)meliberosmeoseiussalutecariores habebo). (CIL II 172 [Aritium, 37 CE])32

The reference to the birth of normal offspring amongst the rewards that would be bestowed on those who observe the laws in A.J. 3.88 constitutes another example of utilization of Hellenistic covenantal terminology. Moses assures the Israelites: “You will lead a blessed life if you follow [the commandments] and, enjoying … the birth of children begotten in accordance with nature (ἀπολαύοντες…τέκνων γονῆς κατὰ φύσιν

31

32

6 and SP Exod 17–21. However, these two sources rework those passages that follow the Decalogue, rather than inserting a speech prior to it as Josephus does. Hellenistic covenantal terminology appears not only at the conclusion of the oration, but also in the depiction of Adam (3.87); see section 2.2.2.2 below. Translation of CIL II 172 follows Robert K. Sherk, TheRomanEmpire:Augustusto Hadrian,Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988), 77–78 §41. Cf. also the oath of loyalty to Marcus Livius Drusus (91 BCE) reported by Diodorus Siculus 37.11: “I will spare neither property nor the lives of my children or parents except as it be to the advantage of Drusus and those who have taken this oath (καὶ μήτε βίου μήτε τέκνων καὶ γονέων μηδεμιᾶς φείσεσθαι ψυχῆς, ἐὰν μὴ συμφέρῃ Δρούσῳ τε καὶ τοῖς τὸν αὐτὸν ὅρκον ὀμόσασιν).” This translation is offered by Francis R. Walton, Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes, vol. 12: Fragments of Books XIII–XL, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 214–15.Weinfeld notes the similarity between such devotion formulae in Roman oaths of loyalty and in Ancient Near Eastern oaths; see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” Ugarit-Forschungen8 (1976): 379–414 [384–85].

70

ATAR LIVNEH

τικτομένων)” (§88).33 While Moses in Deut 7:13, 28:4, 11, for example, similarly promises the Israelites fruits of the womb, Josephus formulates the blessing of fertility in clearly different terms. His words closely resemble a third-century BCE Greek oath found at Dreros: If I do not observe these undertakings, may all the gods and goddesses by whom I swore be wroth against me,/and may I die a most miserable death, myself and all my belongings,/and may the earth not bear crops (lit. fruit) for me [nor] women [give birt]h according to na[ture nor] flocks (give birth) (μήτε μοι γᾶν καρπὸν φέπειν, [μήτε μοι γ]υναῖκας [τίκτει]ν κατὰ φύ[σιω μήτ]ε πάματα). But if I [honour my oath,] may [the] gods by whom [I swore] be favourable [and grant many] blessings. (SEG 46–1210 ll. 75 –94 [Syll.3 527/I.Cret.I–IX 1])34

Notably, elements of Hellenistic oaths and treaties are found in the late first century BCE and CE oaths of loyalty to Roman emperors.35 Josephus himself reports that many Jews vowed an oath of loyalty to Augustus (A.J. 17.42).36 This lends plausibility to the conscious use of the device by Josephus.

33

34

35

36

In his retelling of the plagues (A.J. 2.292), Josephus presents the converse: The punishment of those who invoke God’s wrath is inability to give birth according to nature. The translation follows Austin §91: see Michel M. Austin, TheHellenisticWorldfrom Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 161. Cf. also Aeschines, Ctes. 111: “The curse goes on: That their land bear no fruit; that their wives bear children not like those who begat them, but monsters (μήτε γῆν καρποὺς φέρειν, μήτε γυναῖκας τέκνα τίκτειν γονεῦσιν ἐοικότα, ἀλλὰ τέρατα); that their flocks yield not their natural increase….”; and the similar formula regarding the birth of monsters in SEG XXI 519 ll.43–44 (“The Oath of the Athenians against the Barbarians” [Akharnai, mid-fourth century BCE]). The text and translation of Aeschines follow Charles D. Adams, The SpeechesofAeschines, LCL (London: William Heinemann, 1919), 394–95. For a detailed discussion of the eastern Hellenistic background of oaths of loyalty to Roman emperors, as well as an examination of the Latin tradition that underlies them, see Peter Herrmann, DerrömischeKaisereid:UntersuchungenzuseinerHerkunftund Entwicklung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1968). For a discussion of A.J.17.42 in the context of other oaths of loyalty to Augustus, see Julián González, ”The First Oath Pro Salute Augusti Found in Baetica,” ZPE72 (1988): 113–27 [122]. For a recasting of a biblical blessing in Greek terminology, see Josephus’s reworking of the blessing of Abraham (A.J. 1.234–235; cf. Gen 22:17–18) and Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (A.J. 1.272–273; cf. Gen 27:27–29); Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation (above, n. 16), 308; idem., Judean Antiquities 1–4 (above, n. 24), 93–94nn724–726, 107n816. Notably, common to both Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and the concluding section of Moses’s speech (A.J. 3.88) are the terms “happy/blessed life (εὐδαίμων βίος),” (1.273; cf. also the blessing in 1.234) and being “a terror to the enemies” (φοβερός… ἐχθροῖς [1.273], πολεμίοις…φοβεροί [3.88]).

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

71

Another Hellenistic literary model that informs Moses’s speech is historical exempla.37 The catalog of historical events that Moses recites at Mount Sinai (A.J. 3.86–87) is a list that demonstrates the principle of God’s beneficence toward on those who are worthy. The principle is noted following the series of historical examples (§88) – a feature which (as noted above) seems to be rooted in the sequence of the introduction to the covenant in Moab in Deut 29:1–8.38 In the Antiquities, however, the wording of the principle presented in the conclusion – ”For you will lead a blessed life if you follow them [the commandments]…” – is also echoed in a statement that precedes the historical review: “God…prescribed a blessed life for you and a well-ordered constitution” (§84).39 Josephus thus sandwiches the list of historical events between two normative statements. In this, he may have followed a pattern found in biblical historical summaries (e.g., Ps 105) or Greco-Roman lists of examples (e.g., Euripides, Hipp. 541–64).40 While it cannot be determined whether a biblical source, a GrecoRoman model, or both underlie the inclusio exhibited here, two other features of Josephus’s catalog are exclusively typical of contemporaneous 37

38

39

40

On the rhetorical device of exempla see bibliography in the introduction, nn. 9, 10, as well as n. 5 above, and nn. 40, 84 below. Canter’s empirical analysis shows that in concurrence with Aristotle, Rhet. 2.20.9 (1394a10–18), it is much more common (i.e., in 80% of the cases) for the principle to be stated prior to the examples in Greek and Latin poetry. There is some variation, however; some paradigms are positioned prior to the principle, while others are sandwiched between two statements that embody the rule to be established; see Howard V. Canter, “The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry,” AJP 54 (1933): 201–24 [223–24]. The “constitution” and the “blessed life” juxtaposed here are closely related; the laws were described in a preceding passage as a divine “gift by which they [the people of Israel] would live well” (A.J. 3.78). As a device by which “happy life” is obtained, the laws are in themselves an instance of God’s benefaction: see A.J. 3.223, 4.114, 213; Spilsbury, “God and Israel” (above, n. 4), 184–85. On the “constitution” (πολιτεία) in Jewish Antiquities, see Yehoshua Amir, “Josephus on the Mosaic ‘Constitution,’” in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, ed. Henning G. Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer, JSOTSup 171 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 13–27; Lucio Troiani, “The ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ of Israel in the Greaco-Roman Age,” in JosephusandtheHistoryoftheGreco-RomanPeriod:EssaysinMemoryof MortonSmith,StPB 41, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11–22. For other lists of historical examples composed by Josephus and sandwiched between two statements that refer to the principle demonstrated, see A.J. 2.213–216; 3.13–19; B.J. 5. 375–419. Cf. also the similar structure in Jdt 8:25–27. On the Greek and Latin lists of examples cited above and other texts in which the principle to be established occurs both at the beginning and in the conclusion of the list, see Canter, “Mythological Paradigm” (above, n. 38) 223–24; Malcolm M. Willock, “Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad,” CQ14 (1964): 141–54.

72

ATAR LIVNEH

lists of examples; namely, the employment of anaphora and the division of the examples into events from ancient times versus recent history. The former – the use of the same word to open various examples – occurs in both Greco-Roman and Jewish and Christian lists of examples (e.g., Homer, Il. 5.381–404; Marcus Aurelius, 6.47; Wis 10; Heb 11).41 The use of anaphora unites the various examples stylistically while also emphasizing a particular point and creating the impression that the examples listed “are merely representative of great many more that could also be employed.”42 In Moses’s speech in A.J. 8.83–88, all the examples begin with a reference to God, thus stressing that God alone is the source of humanity’s prosperity and blessing. However, not all the examples commence with the exact same phrase. The first four examples open with ὁ (“He who …”), while the following six have δι᾿ ὅν (“on account of whom …”).43 This stylistic device neatly divides the list into two subunits, the first relating to events that occurred during Moses’s lifetime – the plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the provision of food and water in the desert (§86) – and the second addressing the first generations of humanity and the Israelites’ forefathers (§87a–f). Dividing between recent history and the distant past is a common organizing principle in Roman exempla (e.g., Livy, Ab urbe cond. 26.41; Tacitus, Hist., 3.24) and is manifested in 1 Clem. 4.1–6.4 as well.44 In Moses’s speech, however, Josephus reverses the customary order, beginning with episodes from his own time. In this regard, he follows the model of the historical summaries in the book of Deuteronomy, which commence with events 41

42 43

44

Schmitt and Cosby note these and other examples; see Armin Schmitt, “Struktur, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10,” BibZeit21 (1977):1–22 [15]; Michael R. Cosby, TheRhetoricalCompositionandFunctionofHebrews11:InLight ofExampleListsinAntiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988), 48–55. Cf. also the recurrence of ‫בם‬/‫בה‬/‫ בו‬in CD 2:14–3:14 as noted by Thomas R. Lee, StudiesintheForm ofSirach44–50, SBLDS 75 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 44–48, and section 4.4. Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 41), 52. Cf. also the anaphora in the historical survey embedded in Moses’s prayer in A.J. 4.40–50, in which the events are introduced with ὁ (“[You] who”). The employment of an articledesignating God as the anaphoric motif in Josephus’s summaries in A.J. 3.83–88 and 4.40–50 possibly also reflects the influence of Hellenistic hymns of praise; see section 4.4. For a further list of examples by Josephus that consists of two subunits see B.J. 5.375–398. Note though that there, the main principle dividing the list is positive vs. negative examples. See also, e.g., Propertius, 3.11.9–55; Livy, Ab urbe cond. 28.41–42, 43–44; Tacitus, Hist., 4.58. Cf. also Seneca, Ep. 24.11; Musonius Rufus, 9; Horacio E. Lona, Der Erste Clemensbrief, Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatren (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998), 156. Unlike 1 Clement and the examples cited above from Roman works that explicitly refer to the distinction between ancient and recent history, this division in A.J. 3.86–87 is implicit.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

73

relating to Egypt and the wanderings of the Jews through the wilderness (e.g., 6:22, 11:3, 29:1). 2.2.2 Historical Examples Adduced by Moses 2.2.2.1 Examplesfromrecenthistory(A.J.3.86) The first section of Moses’s historical summary consists of four examples – the plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the provision of food and of water in the wilderness. Similar to the detailed account of the plagues in book 2, the review in A.J. 3.86 presents them as a just punishment for the arrogance of the Egyptians: “He who forced the Nile for your sake to flow blood-red and overpowered with various plagues the haughtiness (φρόνημα) of the Egyptians.”45 While the lists of examples in 3 Maccabees also portray the plagues as a penalty for Egyptian audacity, Josephus’s emphasis on the plague of blood is unique amongst biblical and late Second Temple period summaries of Israelite history.46 In most of these texts, the plagues are adduced collectively,47 only occasionally singing out the last and most severe plague of the first-born.48 45

46

47

48

Cf. esp. A.J. 2.201–204, 268; Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portraits of the Pharaohs,” SyllectaClassica 4 (1993): 49–63 [60– 62]. On the portrayal of the Egyptians’ hubris in A.J. 2.201–204, 268 see idem. and Daniel E. Levine, “Hubris in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1–4,” HUCA64 (1993): 51–87 [68–69, 83]. Levine also notes the occurrence of the same tradition in Philo, Mos. 1.72. While Moses’s historical summary as a whole (A.J. 3.86–87) focuses on God’s providence and rewards for the worthy, the example of the exodus also reflects the theme of just retribution; cf. the portrayal of the plagues in A.J. 2.293. As Attridge notes, providence and just retribution often occur jointly in JewishAntiquities. Attridge, InterpretationofBiblicalHistory(above, n. 2), 71–107. Cf. 3 Macc. 2:6, 6:4. The author of 3 Maccabees refers to the Egyptian ruler as a precedent for Ptolemy IV Philopator; see N. Clayton Croy, 3Maccabees, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 97–102. A.J. 3.86, however, ascribes the arrogance to the Egyptians in general, a detail concurring with his tendency elsewhere in the Antiquities to refrain from condemning a foreign ruler; see Feldman, “Josephus’ Portraits” (above, n. 45), 60–62. E.g., Deut 26:8; Neh 9:10; Jdt 5:12; Wis 10:16; 3 Macc. 2:6; 1 En. 89:20; LAB 53:8; Acts 7:36. E.g., Pss 135:8–9, 136:10; 4Q225 1 3; Heb 11:28. With the exception of Pss 78 and 105 and later historical reviews modeled on them, such as 4Q422 III 5–12, biblical and extra-biblical historical summaries tend to treat the plagues very briefly. For the reliance of 4Q422 III 5–12 on Pss 78 and 105; see Torleif Elgvin and Emanuel Tov, “4Q422. 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus,” in QumranCave4,vol.VIII:ParabiblicalTexts,PartI, ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 417–41 [429 –34]; cf. also Ariel Feldman, “4Q422 (Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus),” in Devorah Dimant, Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, ScriptureandInterpretation:

74

ATAR LIVNEH

Josephus’s reference to the plague of blood serves a rhetorical purpose, as the theme of God’s control over a body of water provides a segue into the following historical episode of the crossing of the Red Sea.49 While no other historical summary links the plagues to the crossing of the sea via in this way, the juxtaposition of the two episodes does occur elsewhere: for example, in Ps 136:10–15 and Neh 9:10–11.50 Josephus’s statement regarding “he who supplied a path for you through the sea” (§86), however, is based primarily on Isa 43:16: “Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters.”51 The theme of Israelites crossing the Red Sea is echoed in the depiction of God’s deliverance of Noah in the second sub-unit of the historical recitation (§87), since both escape death by water.52 These two events are then tied to the blessing of a calm shore in the conclusion (§88).53 The next two examples relate to the divine provision of manna and water in the desert: “He who devised food to come from heaven for you when you were in need, He who caused drink to gush forth from a rock when you lacked it.” Josephus’s account here is especially reminiscent of Neh 9:15: “For their hunger you gave them bread from heaven, and for their thirst you brought water for them out of the rock” (cf. also Ps

49

50 51

52

53

Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible, ed. BZAW 449 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 83–129 [101–11, 126–29]. For another instance of emphasis on the first plague, see also the historical summary attributed to Moses in A.J. 3.17–19. There, however, the emphasis is on the water turning into blood for the Egyptians, while remaining sweet for the Hebrews. This thematic emphasis concurs with the context into which the review is set – the lack of proper drinking water in the desert (cf. Exod 15:22–27). Cf. also LAB 23:9–10. The addition that the path was made for the Israelites (“for you” [ὑμῖν]) emphasizes that Moses’s audience experienced God’s blessings first-hand (cf. e.g. Deut 29:1–2). This remark fits Josephus’s comment elsewhere that the path in the Red Sea was made for the exclusive use of the Israelites (A.J. 2.342). For another reworking of Isa 43:16–19 in the context of the crossing of the sea in a historical summary, see A.J. 3.18. In the retelling of Noah’s narrative in the long storyline of the antiquities, God is portrayed explicitly as responsible for storms; see A.J. 1.101. On the depiction of Noah in Moses’s speech, see below. The list of examples in 3 Maccabees similarly ties the events at the Red Sea to other historical episodes (the faith of the giants [2:4], and Jonah [6:8]) via the common theme of drowning; see Jeremy Corley, “The Review of History in Eleazar’s Prayer in 3 Macc. 6:1–15,” in HistoryandIdentity(above, n. 6), 201–29 [212–25]. While there seems to be no parallel to the blessing of “safe shore” within a covenantal text, a safe harbor is enumerated amongst God’s salvific acts in Ps 107:23–32. The Targum understands that text as a reference to a specific event – Jonah’s journey to Nineveh (Jonah 1). For a stormy sea as a sign of the gods’ wrath in Greek and Latin historiography, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom., 20.9.1–3; Livy, Ab urbe cond. 29.18.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

75

105:40–41).54 While several historical summaries from the late Second Temple period allude to the wandering in the wilderness, only rarely are the food and water supplied on those journeys mentioned.55 This motif is well suited to Josephus’s thematic bent, since a bounty of food and sufficient amount of water are regularly listed amongst the rewards God grants to those who follow his ways. Exod 23:25, for example, states: “You shall worship the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water.”56 The reference to the divine provision of food and water in the desert thus evokes the principle that God is the source of all blessings. At the conclusion of the speech, Moses explicitly notes that the earth will be fruitful (γῆς … καρπίμου) (§88) if the people obey God and walk in his ways. 2.2.2.2 Examplesfromthedistantpast(§87a-f) The second subunit focuses on six historical figures: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Like its principal biblical source, the book of Genesis, this subunit is dominated by a genealogical framework.57 Although Josephus’s focus on this line is reminiscent of Ps 105, he diverges from that sources in tracing this line back to the first generations of humanity rather than to Abraham.58 Other contemporaneous historical summaries, such as Sirach’s praise of the Fathers (Sir 44:22–33) and 5Q13, do the same.59 Uniquely, however, Josephus places the reference 54

55

56

57

58

59

Rather, the presentation of the provision of food and water in the wilderness in Josephus’s extended history (A.J. 3.1–39) is based primarily on Exod 15–17, although the biblical source is elaborated and at times rationalized; see Feldman, JudeanAntiquities 1–4 (above, n. 24), 233–241; Spilsbury, “Exodus in Josephus” (above, n. 17), 478–80. The exceptions are: another historical summary by Josephus (A.J. 4.45); 1 En. 89:28; Demetrius the Chronographer, frag. 4 (Praep.ev. 9.29.15); Acts 13:18. Cf. e.g. Lev 26:4; Deut 8:7–8. Abundance of crops is also a common feature within the blessings and curses in Hellenistic treaties and oaths of loyalty; see SEG 46–1210 (cited in section 2.2.1. above), OGIS 532 (cited below), and IOSPE i2 401. Further Jewish brief accounts of Israelite history from the Hellenistic and early Roman period follow the same pattern; see section 4.1. For the popularity of Ps 105 as a model within Hellenistic and early-Roman period authors see George J. Brooke, “Praying History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Memory, Identity, Fulfilment,” in FunctionsofPsalmsandPrayersintheLateSecondTemple Period, ed. Mika S. Pajunen and Jeremy Penner, BZAW 486 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 305–19 [308]. In addition to the examples he adduced, see also 4Q225 1 4 and CD 2:14–3:14 discussed below. While Enoch is the first name preserved in the genealogical list in 5Q13 1+2+3+7, in its original form, this list possibly began with Adam: see Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah” (above, n. 11), 144–48. For historical summaries consisting of genealogies of the

76

ATAR LIVNEH

to the first human being after the wandering in the wilderness, linking two different generations via the theme of divine sustenance: the first subunit concludes with food falling from heaven and water bursting out of a rock in the desert, while the second begins with Adam, for whom God provided the “fruits of [Feldman: from] the earth and the sea” (§87). The special significance of this link lies in the fact that although the first subunit relates to the Israelites and the second to humankind as a whole, the same divine blessing is given in both. This repetition reinforces Josephus’s view, expressed elsewhere in the Antiquities, that God’s providential care for the people of Israel is an example of his providence for humanity.60 In emphasizing the sustenance of humanity in his catalog of historical events, Josephus also follows the model of Ps 136:25 (“[give thanks to the Lord…] who gives food to all flesh”). The phrase “fruits of the earth” used in Moses’s speech echoes both the creation story (especially Gen 1:11, 29) and the covenantal formula in Deut 28:4: “Blessed shall be … the fruit of your ground (‫”)פרי אדמתך‬ as well.61 In emphasizing God’s sustenance of all human beings in his retelling of the creation story, Josephus follows an exegetical tradition that is reflected in other brief contemporaneous accounts of Israelite history.62 4Q422 (I 9), for example, asserts: “He set him [Adam] in charge, to eat frui[t].” 4Q381 (I 7-9) similarly states: “And by his breath he made them [Adam and Eve] stand, to have dominion over all those on the earth and over everything [in the sea] … to eat its fruit that [the land] makes flourish [ ] m and [ ]h and birds, and all that is to them to eat.”63 While the

60

61 62

63

chosen lineage, which starts with Abraham, see, e.g., 4Q225 2 ii 10–11; 2 Bar. 57:1; Acts 7:8. Other historical summaries include genealogy that commences with the first generations of humanity but is not limited to the elects; see, e.g., 1 En. 89:10–14. In Josephus’s view, human beings enjoy divine blessings only if they obey God; see A.J. 1.41: “…a serpent, living together with Adamos and his wife, felt jealous at the happiness that he thought would be theirs if they obeyed the instructions of God” (cf. also 1.46–47). The “blessed/happy life” that Moses offered the Israelites at Mount Sinai on the condition that they observe the commandments (3.88) is thus one instance of a general rule pertaining to all humanity. Cf. also Deut 7:13, 28:11. For other instances of the emphasis on God’s granting an abundance of food to humanity in the context of the creation and the first generations, see 4Q370 i 1; 11Q5 XXVI 3; cf. 4Q286 6. The translation of 4Q422 follows Feldman, “4Q422” (above, n. 48), 88, while the translation of 4Q381 follows Mika S. Pajunen, TheLandtotheElectandJusticefor All:ReadingPsalmsintheDeadSeaScrollsinlightof4Q381(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013),149 with minor modifications.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

77

poor state of preservation of 4Q422 I makes it difficult to determine whether the author of this scroll mentioned only that God allocated to Adam the fruit of the earth, 4Q381 obviously refers to various types of sustenance. In its original form, it may even have referred to the fish.64 Like 4Q381, and following the creation story in Genesis, Josephus speaks of more than one form of food, identifying each with a different space: “the fruits of the earth and the sea.” The combination of “fruits” and “earth” occurs in both biblical and Greek texts, but the description of fish as “fruit bestowed by the sea” appears only in the latter. 65 In Hellenistic and Roman-period oaths of loyalty, part of the curse invoked for violating their vow is that “the land and the sea…shall not bear them fruit (μήτε γῆ μ[ήτε θάλασ]σα … καρποὺς ἐνέγ[κοι αὐτοῖς])” (OGIS 532, ll. 34–35; cf. IOSPE i2 401, ll. 55–56).66 These parallels indicate that while the thematic emphasis of Josephus’s allusion to Adam is rooted in Jewish tradition, it intersects with Hellenistic covenantal formulae as well.67 Josephus next introduces the figure of Noah: “On account of whom Noah escaped from the flood” (§87). As mentioned above, Josephus first creates an implicit affinity between God’s deliverance of Noah and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (§86); then, in the conclusion, both events are evoked through reference to the blessing of a calm shore (§88). While these associations are unique to Josephus, Noah is an oft-cited figure in Second Temple-period catalogs of historical events and figures.68 64 65

66

67

68

See Pajunen, LandtotheElect(above, n. 63), 152–53. For other references to fruits of/bestowed by the earth, see, e.g., Lev 25:19; Deut 7:13, 26:2; Aeschines,Ctes. 111; Demosthenes, Aristog. 82.9; Apollonius of Tyana, Ep. 56. OGIS 532 (Paphlagonia, 3 BCE) is an oath of loyalty to Augusts by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia. Its translation (with minor modifications) follows Søren L. Sørensen, “A Re-examination of the Imperial Oath from Vezirköprü,” Philia 1 (2015): 14–32. IOSPE i2 401 (Chersonesus, early 3rd century BCE), is an oath of loyalty by the people of Chersonesus to their city. The similarity between these two inscriptions with regard to their employment of the formula “the fruit of the earth and the sea” in the section of curses has been noted by Weinfeld and Conolly. Moshe Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath” (above, n. 32), 405; Serena Conolly, “Ὀμνύω αὐτὸν τὸν Σεβαστόν: The Greek Oath in the Roman World,” in Horkos:TheOathinGreekSociety, ed. Alan H. Sommerstein and Judith Fletcher (Exeter: Phoenix Press, 2007), 203–16, 267–69 [210–11, 269n21]. The depiction of Adam in Book 1 of the Antiquities likewise frames his prosperity in covenantal terms, depicting the former as a conditional state that depends on observing God’s commands (see 1.46–47). For Noah in extra-biblical historical summaries see table 2 above. In light of the relatively high number of summaries alluding to Noah and tracing Israel’s origins to the first generations of humanity listed in nn. 58, 59 above, the reference to Adam and Noah in Josephus’s review is conventional, rather than “remarkable,” as Nodet and Feldman suggest; see Étienne Nodet, FlaviusJosèpheI:LesAntiquitésJuivesLivresI

78

ATAR LIVNEH

The closest parallel to Josephus here is Wis 10:4: “When the earth was flooded because of him, wisdom again saved it, steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood.”69 Like Noah, the next figure referred to in the summary, Abraham, is a common figure in Hellenistic and early-Roman Jewish historical summaries and lists of examples.70 Moses highlights God’s termination of Abraham’s wanderings by granting him possession of Canaan: “on account of whom Abraham, our forefather, from being a nomad obtained possession of the land of Canaan” (A.J. 3.87).71 The thematic emphasis on Abraham’s peregrinations is drawn from Ps 105, as is the implicit analogy created between the patriarch and the audience of the historical review.72 Just as the author of the biblical hymn implicitly compares the exiles to their ancestor, implying that they will return to the land promised to him, so Josephus links the Israelites in the wilderness to “Abraham the nomad.”73 Other ancient authors employ the same device. The author of the historical summary in CD 2:14–3:14, for example,

69

70 71

72

73

à III (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 160n1; Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4 (above, n. 24), 252n184. The depiction of wisdom as saving humans from the deluge in Wis 10:4 is possibly influenced by hymns lauding Isis, the patroness of seafarers; see recently Andrew T. Glicksman, WisdomofSolomon10, DCLS 9 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 114–15 and the bibliography cited therein. For a similar depiction of Noah, see the list of examples preserved in the Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16. See chapter 3. As Halpern-Amaru has demonstrated, the theme of the promise of the land to the patriarchs is downplayed in Josephus’s Antiquities. Josephus replaces the covenantal context of the promise of the land with predictions regarding its future possession by Abraham’s decedents or shifts the focus onto the theme of progeny; see A.J. 1.185, 1.235, 2.175; Halpern-Amaru, RewritingtheBible(above, n. 4), 95–115 [95–105]. One expression of Josephus’s emphasis on the theme of posterity is the conclusion of Moses’s speech at Mount Sinai: “So much of a care does He have for our race and its continuity” (A.J. 3.88). Cf. the thematic emphasis on Abraham’s wanderings in a list of examples demonstrating God’s graces towards the patriarchs in Josephus’s reworking of the revelation to Jacob at Bethel: “For I [God] led Habramos hither from Mesopotamia when he was driven out by his kinsmen, and made your father [Isaac] prosperous. I shall allot to you [Jacob] a destiny not less than theirs…” (A.J. 1.281; cf. Gen 28:13–15). In this context, however, the reference to Abraham’s emigration due to discord with his “kinsmen” parallels Jacob’s flight from his brother. The historical example of Abraham thus demonstrates the aid granted by God to the patriarchs throughout their journeys (cf. also A.J. 1.157). The motif of Abraham the nomad who received God’s providential care occurs also in a historical summary revealed to Amram (A.J. 2.213). On the analogy between the patriarchs and the audience in Ps 105, see Adele Berlin, “Interpreting Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context, ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 20–36.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

79

draws a direct line from his audience – the Qumran sect – back to the patriarchs. In this case, however, he does so in a quest to emphasize their righteousness rather than the inheritance of the land.74 Josephus moves on from the theme of possession of the land to an allusion to patriarchal posterity: “Isaac was born to aged parents.” Isaac’s birth is a common theme in late Second Temple period historical summaries, and can be found in approximately a quarter of the texts belonging to this literary model, including the historical summary revealed to Amram in A.J. 2.210–16.75 The mention of Abraham and Sarah’s advanced ages (cf. Gen 18:11, 21:5–7), which demonstrates the miraculous nature of Isaac’s birth, has parallels in the historical summaries in LAB 32:1 and Heb 11:11.76 The blessing of fertility demonstrated by Isaac’s birth is further exemplified by Jacob, who “was adorned with the virtues of twelve sons” (§87). In referring to Jacob’s twelve sons within the context of the genealogy of the patriarchs, this historical summary resembles the reviews in Ben Sira’s praise of the Fathers (Sir 44:23), the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12–14), LAB 32:6, and Acts 7:8.77 However, the idea that Jacob’s sons were virtuous, bestowing honor upon him through both 74

75

76

77

See Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Perception of the Past in the Damascus Document,” in TheDamascusDocument:ACentennialofDiscovery, ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick, STDJ 34, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–15 [8–11]; Hermann Lichtenberger, “Historiography in the Damascus Document,” in History and Identity (above, n. 6), 231–37. Josephus himself, in his chronological calculations, refers to Adam, the flood, Abraham, and the exodus – all of which occur in this catalog in A.J.3.86–87 – as significant points of reference; see A.J. 8.61–62, 10.147– 148. The theme of fertility is expressed through the genealogical structure of the second unit of Moses’s historical summary, as well as through the reference to Isaac’s miraculous birth and Jacob’s multitude of sons. It concurs with the thematic emphasis on great population growth within the patriarchal narratives in JewishAntiquities; see HalpernAmaru, RewritingtheBible(above, n. 4),95–103 and n. 51 above. LAB 32:1: “He [God] gave him a son in his late old age and took him out of a sterile womb;” Heb 11:11: “By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old – and Sarah herself was barren – because he considered him faithful who had promised.” The latter two sources allude to the bareness of Sarah in addition to Abraham’s old age. The former detail appears also in the historical reviews in A.J. 2.213 and LAB 23:5, 7; see section 3.3.3. Sir 44:23: “He divided his portions, and distributed them among twelve tribes”; 1 En. 89:12: “and that ram begat twelve sheep”; LAB 32:6: “…he [Jacob] begot twelve sons”; Acts 7:8: “And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.” Translation of 1 Enoch follows George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1Enoch1:ACommentary on the Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1–36, 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).

80

ATAR LIVNEH

their number and their behavior, is not expressed anywhere else in contemporaneous Jewish or Christian historical summaries.78 Nonetheless, it accords with Josephus’s description of Jacob in his extended history: “As for Jacob, it happened that he came to the height of happiness (εἰς εὐδαιμονίας μέγεθος) such as no other easily attained. For in wealth he surpassed the inhabitants of the region, and because of the virtues of his children he was envied and admired…” (A.J. 2.7). Here, Josephus explicitly associates Jacob’s “virtuous sons” with a happy life.79 The historical resume in A.J. 3.83–88 hints at the same notion, linking the example of Jacob’s sons with the references to a blessed life at the opening and conclusion of the speech. The summary finally focuses on Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt. This theme appears both in Ps 105:21 and in historical summaries of the late Second Temple period such as 1 Macc 2:52, Wis 10:13–14, and Acts 7:9–10.80 Josephus refers to this theme in an account of the history of Israel revealed to Jacob in a dream elsewhere in Jewish Antiquities: “Iosepos I led to the enjoyment of great blessings (μειζόνων ἀγαθῶν) and made lord of Egypt, so as to differ only slightly from the king” (A.J. 2.174, cf. also §175).81 The understanding of Joseph’s elevated status in terms of a “blessing” is explicit in this text. In Moses’s speech at Mount Sinai, this historical theme functions as an implicit example of the blessings God bestows on human beings. Furthermore, Joseph is 78 79

80

81

The combination does occur in rabbinic literature, however; see Sifre Deut 31. “Good sons” are considered to be a source of happiness for their parents both in the bible and in Greek sources (e.g., Prov 10:11; Homer, Il. 6.476–481; Euripides, Orest. 542–543). For a link between the term εὐδαιμονία and “good sons,” see A.J. 1.234 (God’s blessing to Abraham and Isaac following the Akedah); Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1.8 (1099a31–b8); Feldman, JudeanAntiquities1–4(above, n. 24), 93n724. 1 Macc 2:52: “Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt”; Wis 10:13–14: “When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him, but delivered him from sin… she brought him the scepter of a kingdom and authority over his masters…”; Acts 7:9–10: “God was with him…and enabled him to win favor and to show wisdom when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who appointed him ruler over Egypt and over all his household.” See also PseudoDaniel (4Q243 11 ii 1–3) and Demetrius the Chronographer, frag. 2 (Praep.ev. 9.21.12–15). According to Aristotle, political power is one of the “external goods” related to a “happy life” (Eth. nic. 1.8 [1099a31–b8]). Philo (Praem 107) interprets Deut 28:3 (“Blessed shall you be in the city”) as a reference to gaining high office and honors. Cf. also Philo, Ios. 119–23, 131–36. For Joseph’s rule over Egypt in Josephus’s extended historical account, see A.J. 2.87–91. For a discussion of the Joseph narratives in Jewish Antiquities, see Maren Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical JewishLiterature, AGSU 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 84–110; Feldman, Josephus’Interpretation(above, n. 16),335–73.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

81

described as: “master of the power of the Egyptians (ἐδεσπότευσε τῆς Αἰγυπτίων δυνάμεως),” a phrase reminiscent of the description of Pharaoh’s army in Exod 14:28, 15:4.82 As this phrase concludes the historical summary, it connects the final episode recorded therein with the first – the exodus.83 2.3 CONCLUSIONS In his Antiquities, Josephus repeatedly delivers the message that God is the “one cause for the possession of good things… For he is the only one who is able to give these things to those who are worthy and to take them away from those who sin against him” (4.180). The speech he composes for Moses at Mount Sinai (A.J. 3.83–88) focuses primarily on one side of the equation: the blessings bestowed by God on those who follow his laws. Allusions to this principle are made in both the opening and the conclusion of the oration. The conclusion also details various types of blessings: abundance of crops, safe harbor, birth of healthy children, and success in war (§88). The body of Moses’s speech contains ten examples that demonstrate the fulfillment of these blessings and others, such as virtuous sons or elevated status. All these examples, beginning as they do with a reference to God, establish the principle that he is the “one cause for the possession of good things.” Like other catalogs of historical events, Josephus’s account of Moses’s oration at Sinai is highly selective, addressing a limited number of figures and episodes. Josephus’s selection largely follows models of biblical historical summaries. As in the historical summary opening Deut 29, Moses’s account of Israelite history in A.J. 3.86–87 opens with the plagues. The crossing of the Red Sea and the provision of food and water in the wilderness, which also appear in the speech in Antiquities, also comprise common motifs in historical reviews in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The genealogical unit in Antiquities that refers to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph similarly follows Ps 105. Moreover, while no references are made to Adam and Noah in biblical 82

83

Exod 14:28: ‫( חיל פרעה‬LXX: δύναμιν Φαραω); Exod 15:4: ‫( חילו‬LXX: τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ); cf. also 1 Macc 4:9. The sense of inclusio is further achieved through the occurrence of the word “Egyptians” at both the conclusion of the first event depicted – the exodus – and the last, Joseph’s rise to power (τῶν Αἰγυπτίων φρόνημα [§86]; τῆς Αἰγυπτίων δυνάμεως [§87]).

82

ATAR LIVNEH

historical summaries, these figures had become common components in brief accounts of Israelite history by the first century CE. Therefore, Josephus’s selection of events included in the first sub-unit of Moses’s historical survey and the heroes listed in the second subunit are conventional. Josephus takes much more freedom, however, in his representations of individual episodes or figures.84 Most of the references to historical events and personae in Moses’s speech in A.J. 3.86–87 are reworked with the aim of achieving two goals: (a) to link the biblical hero or event to the central theme of the speech – namely, divine reward for those who are worthy; and (b) to tie individual historical episodes to one another, thereby creating a sense of unity in the sequence of historical events. Examples of the former purpose are the representations of Adam and Jacob. The depiction of Adam includes a linguistic formula (“the fruit of earth and sea”) that evokes the language of in Greek oaths. The wording employed thus frames the creation of humankind in covenantal terms. Similarly, the portrayal of Jacob’s sons as “virtuous” – Josephus’ own addition – transforms the patriarch into an example of the principle that Josephus seeks to prove regarding divine reward in the form of enviable progeny. The latter goal – linking the episodes to one another – is exemplified in the line drawn between the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea using the theme of God’s control over large bodies of water: the metamorphosis of the Nile into blood in the former, and the creation of a path through the Red Sea in the latter. Similarly, the reference to Pharaoh’s power or army in the context of the story of Joseph associates that episode with the exodus, which is alluded to at the beginning of the historical account. A sense of unity is further achieved by skillful utilization of traditional material. For example, while contemporaneous Jewish summaries emphasize God’s provision of food to Adam, Josephus is unique in juxtaposing this theme with the divine gifts of manna and water in the desert, thus creating an analogy between the two. By these means, as well as through the linear-genealogical thread that connects the various figures mentioned in the second sub-unit, Josephus creates 84

A similar phenomenon has been noted by Perlman with regard to ancient Greek exempla and by Langlands with regard to ancient Roman exempla. While various authors adduce the same topos as an example, each presents it in a different manner and in accord with his own purposes: see Shalom J. Perlman, “The Historical Example, Its Use and Importance as a Political Propaganda in the Attic Orators,” in Studiesin History, ed. Alexander Fuks and Israel Halpern,ScrHier7 (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1961), 150–66; Rebecca Langlands, Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 141–65.

RECITING HISTORY AT SINAI

83

a sense of continuous narrative. In this effort to present the catalog of historical events as a plot, rather than a list of individual cases, Josephus follows the model of the biblical summaries rather than classical lists of historical examples. Traces of the classical model are nonetheless evident in the style of Moses’s recitation of history, especially in its use of anaphora. The use of this rhetorical device – whereby the four first examples begin with “he who…” and the next six with “by whom…” – signifies a division of the catalog into two principal subunits. The first such subunit consists of events from the speaker’s own time, and the second is comprised of events from the far past. Jointly, these subdivisions demonstrate a thematic division that accords with a common principle for organizing classical lists of examples. Moses’s recitation of history at Sinai thus combines two literary models; namely, biblical historical summaries and classical lists of examples. While both were regularly inserted into long-scale historiographies, the interweaving of a brief account of Israelite history into a longer story about the people’s past is modeled on Deuteronomy and the subsequent historiographical books. Josephus’s insertion of Moses’s speech immediately prior to the Decalogue likewise follows the sequence of Deuteronomy, which introduces the covenant by means of a historical review. Moses’s message in A.J. 3.83–88 regarding the blessings awaiting those who follow God’s commandments also conforms to the ideas conveyed in Deuteronomy. While various formal and substantial features of Moses’s speech are thus determined by the Jewish covenantal text, the blessings are presented through the terminology of Greek and Latin oaths and treaties. The speech Josephus constructs for Moses thus constitutes a striking example of the skillful interweaving of biblical and classical literary models, jointly creating a historical narrative with what Josephus himself would characterize as “charm of exposition, such as is imparted by the choice of words and their proper arrangement, and by whatever else contributes elegance to the narrative, in order that readers may receive such information with a certain degree of gratification and pleasure” (A.J. 14.2–3).85

85

This translation follows Ralph Marcus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XII–XIV. vol. 7 of JosephusinNineVolumes, LCL (Cambridge: William Heinmann, 1943), 448–49.

CHAPTER 3

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF THE HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ROMAN PERIOD 3.1. THE FREQUENCY OF REFERENCES TO ABRAHAM AND SARAH IN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES Analysis of the two individual historical summaries in chapters 1 and 2 has revealed telling differences between near-contemporaneous texts belonging to the same category. Each is subordinated to the distinct thematic emphases of the longer work in which it is embedded, and each exhibits its own distinctive style: The historical summary in A.J. 3.83–88 displays features characteristic of Hellenistic models that do not occur in LAB 32:1–11. While they both include original and creative elements, each of these summaries is also clearly rooted in a literary tradition. This is especially evident in the selection of historical anecdotes, which either follows biblical reviews or aligns with contemporaneous summaries. To a lesser degree, the summaries in Jewish Antiquities and LAB possess commonalities with biblical and late Second Temple-period reviews with regard to the placement of certain episodes within the historical sequence. Although the representation of individual historical events in these summaries is determined to a large extent by literary context, on occasion both Jewish Antiquities and LAB employ specifications that follow earlier models belonging to the type. In-depth examination of LAB 32:1–11 and A.J. 3.83–88 thus uncovers both their idiosyncratic nature and their reliance on established literary conventions. Thus far, however, the precise nature of those conventions that underlie historical summaries composed during the Hellenistic and early Roman period is still obscure. This is due to the lack of comparative research on the body of extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole. Scholarship has not closely examined the form and content of these texts or their relationship to biblical historical summaries. The present chapter will take a first step in this direction, mapping the material in this corpus that relates to the figure of Abraham in particular.

86

ATAR LIVNEH

To this end, all of the extra-biblical historical summaries that refer to Abraham have been collected and brought together here (see Appendix C), with the object of identifying general trends and highlighting diversity in the adaptations of these accounts of his life and character. The discussion herein will be structured around issues of content, focusing on the frequency of Abraham’s mention in the corpus, its location within the sequence, and which incidents of his life are recounted. This cross section shows that while the representation of Abraham in extra-biblical summaries continues in some respects the trends of postexilic biblical reviews, it is also influenced by other types of historiography. The examination of the passages about Abraham thus illuminates a larger topic, namely, the contours of the historical summary genre in the Second Temple period. As will be demonstrated, despite the diversity among the texts in this category, certain conventions regarding content characterize the corpus as a whole, irrespective of each work’s origin, language, or date.1 Of the forty-five extra-biblical historical summaries that have reached us, thirty-five refer to the patriarchs or incidents in their lives.2 Of these, thirty-three refer specifically to Abraham or events in his life (see Appendix C).3 This figure stands in sharp contrast to the historical summaries 1

2

3

This is the case for most of the aspects studied in the present chapter. Female characters are more common in the extra-biblical historical summaries written in Greek outside the land of Israel, but because the total number of extra-biblical historical summaries that mention women is so small, we must be cautious in interpreting this data; see below. There is no reference to the patriarchs in 4Q422; DibHam (4Q504, 4Q505, 4Q506); 3 Macc. 6:4–8; LAB 19:9, 30:5–6, 53:8–9; or A.J.3.17–19, 4.50–50. The summaries in LAB and A.J. mentioned above, as well as the list in 3 Macc 6, start the review with events that took place during the bondage in Egypt, based on a common biblical model (e.g., Judg 6:7–10; Jer 32:30–23; Ps 78); see chapters 1 and 2. Following its primary source (1 Sam 12:5–12) A.J. 6.88–91 refers only to Jacob. 1 Clem. 4:8–9 mentions Jacob and Joseph, but not Abraham, evidently because the stories about him are less suited to demonstrating the principle underlying the list, namely the harsh effects of jealousy. Isaac and Jacob are mentioned in 4Q559, but Abraham is not, though the text is fragmentary and he may have appeared in the original composition. Cf. the reconstruction by Wise of fragments 1 + 2, and of fragments 2 + 3 by Puech: Michael O. Wise, “To Know the Times and the Seasons: A Study of the Aramaic Chronograph 4Q559,” JSP 15 (1997): 3–51 [11]; Émile Puech, “559. 4QpapChronologie biblique ar,” in QumrânGrotte4XXVII. Textesaraméens,deuxième partie, ed. idem,DJD 37 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 263–89. The count of thirtythree summaries that refer to Abraham or incidents in his life includes Acts 13:16–25, Sir 16:5–14, 3 Macc. 2:1–8, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q388a 7 1–2, 4Q389 8 ii 8–9, and perhaps also 4Q385a 9 2), A.J. 2.172–175 and 2 Pet 2:4–10. All of these deviate from the practice of the other extra-biblical historical summaries that refer to Abraham explicitly. Of these, A.J. 2.172–175 and Acts 13 refers to the patriarchs as a group, with no specific reference to Abraham or his life. Sir 16 and 3 Macc. 2:1–8 do

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

87

in the Hebrew Bible. Only seven of the approximately thirty historical summaries there mention the patriarchs, four of them briefly (Num 20:15–16; Deut 4:37–38; 26:5–6; and 1 Sam 12:8), and three at greater length (Josh 24; Ps 105, Neh 9:6–32).4 Many scholars view these latter three summaries as of later date.5 Even if one does not accept this, it is clear that historical summaries composed from the third century BCE on continue the line begun by the summaries in Josh 24, Ps 105, and Neh 9, which see Abraham’s life story as an essential link in the history of the Israelite nation. The early appearances of this idea, and its spread during the Second Temple period, are intimately connected to the consolidation of the authoritative status of the long history (Genesis–2 Kings).6

4

5

6

not mention Abraham himself, but allude to relevant material from his life story (Sodom; cf. 2 Pet 2:4–10). In the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, the covenant with the patriarchs is mentioned in retrospect, but nowhere in the surviving fragments is there a passage that deals specifically with the patriarchs themselves. Note that episodes from Abraham’s life are also mentioned in lists that are not part of a historical summary as defined here: Jdt 8:25–27, 4 Macc. 18:11–13; A.J. 1.281 and 1 Clem. 31.1–4. Num 20:15–16, Deut 4:37–38, and 1 Sam 12:8–11 refer to the Patriarchs as a group (the last likewise refers to Jacob’s descent to Egypt). The summary in Deut 26:5–9 begins “my father was a fugitive Aramean,” which could refer to Jacob or to all the patriarchs (see Jeffrey T. Tigay, Deuteronomy, the JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 240). Opinions are divided as to the date of the summary in Josh 24; proposals range from the eighth century BCE to the return to Zion. See the comprehensive treatment in Moshe Anbar, Josuéetl’alliancedeSichem:Josué24:1–28, BBET 25 (New York: P. Lang, 1992), 7–22. Anbar himself believes the section is late (ibid., 101–15), which is also the view of Thomas Römer and Marc Z. Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” JBL 119 (2000): 401–19, [408–16]. This author believes that the arguments for a late date are persuasive. The divergence of some of the formal features and content of the summary in Josh 24 from those of the early biblical summaries and their parallels to later ones and extra-biblical historical summaries reinforces this. As for Ps 105, most scholars agree that it is post-exilic. See the literature review in Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, revised, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 53–57. The scholarly consensus is that the summary in Neh 9 was composed at some point between the fall of Jerusalem and the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. See the summary in Mark J. Boda, PrayingtheTradition:TheOriginand Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW 277 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 11–16, 189–95, although some would bring it forward to the Hellenistic Age; see Reinhard Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 87–93. Cf. Kratz’s comment that the exegesis of the Abraham tradition within Genesis “runs more and more to Abraham … as the one with whom Israel begins, and this continues in the reception both within and outside the Hebrew Bible.” Reinhard Kratz, “Friend of God, Brother of Sarah, and Father of Isaac,” in TheDynamicofLanguageandExegesis atQumran,ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard Kratz, FAT 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 79–105 [98]. The heightened attention to Abraham in the extra-biblical historical summaries should also be understood against the backdrop of the change in the nature

88

ATAR LIVNEH

Here it should be noted that the extra-biblical historical summaries do not deal with the three patriarchs equally. Abraham has pride of place in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts composed in the land of Israel, as well as in the Greek works produced by Jewish and Christian circles elsewhere.7 In this respect, they follow the pattern of other Jewish compositions of the same period.8 Many ancient authors see Abraham as the first link in the history of the Israelite nation,9 ensuring his prominent location in the sequence.10 Therefore, quite a few summaries begin with Abraham (e.g., 1 Macc 20:51–60, LAB 15:5–6; A.J. 2.213–216; see further below). His prominence among the patriarchs is further reflected in the Apocalypse of Weeks (esp. 1 En. 93:5), Jdt 5:6–10, and Josephus’s speech on the walls of Jerusalem in B.J.5.376–419, all of which refer to Abraham but ignore Isaac and Jacob.11 Another group of summaries does mention all three patriarchs, but devotes much more space to Abraham than to the other two; see for example, the Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44:19–23), Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225 2), LAB 23:1–11, 32:11, Acts 7, and Heb 11 (cf. also LAB 18:5–6). In two cases, Abraham is the only patriarch mentioned by name (LAB 15:5–6; 2 Bar. 57). Abraham’s central place in the extra-biblical historical summaries of the historical summary genre. While most such summaries in the Hebrew Bible are focused on events, extra-biblical historical summaries pay comparatively more attention to the adventures of individuals; see section 4.1. 7 Cf. the conclusion by Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The JewishHeroesofChristianHistory: Hebrews11inLiteraryContext,SBLDS 156(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 52–55, as to Abraham’s prominence in Jewish lists of examples written during the Second Temple period. The present study shows that this is not limited to historical summaries organized as lists of examples but extends to the category of extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole. 8 On the greater attention given to Abraham than to Isaac and Jacob in the texts from Qumran, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Where are the Patriarchs in the Literature of Qumran?” in RewritingandInterpretingtheHebrewBible:TheBiblicalPatriarchsin the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz, BZAW 439 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 51–76; Ariel Feldman, “Patriarchs and Aramaic Traditions,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 469–81. On the extensive attention to Abraham in Second Temple literature in general, see the recent, thorough survey by Anke Mühling, “BlicktaufAbraham,eurenVater”:Abrahamals Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels. FRLANT 236 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). 9 Others follow the lead of Genesis and begin their concise historical accounts of Israelite history with the creation or antediluvian generations; see below. 10 Beginnings have a special status in historical narrative. See Eviatar Zerubavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 101–10. 11 This may also be true of the fragmentary Pseudo-Daniel(4Q243, 4Q244).

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

89

continues a literary tradition found in the biblical models: In Neh 9, Abraham is the only patriarch mentioned; in Ps 105, his importance is emphasized by mentioning him at both the start and the end of the review.12 Still, this focus on Abraham is found only in two summaries in the Hebrew biblical canon; it is much more common in extra-biblical historical summaries. Although treatments of episodes in Abraham’s life are very common in extra-biblical historical summaries, the prominent figure of Sarah is mentioned in only four relatively late texts of this corpus (LAB23:4–8, B.J. 5.379–381, A.J. 2.213–216, and Heb 11). Yet, due to the greater importance of Abraham than of Isaac and Jacob, Sarah appears more often than Rebecca, Leah or Rachel. Virtually all the references to Sarah and the other matriarchs in the extra-biblical historical summaries have to do with the birth of their sons, a theme prominent in Genesis and consequently in late Second Temple-period brief accounts of Israelite history. 13 The sparseness of references to the matriarchs is in keeping with the tendency to downplay the role of women in the history of Israel within extra-biblical historical summaries as a whole.14

12

13

14

This was noted, for example, by Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: Psalms 101–150, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 62. Cf. the prophetic texts in which only Abraham is mentioned as a father of the nation: Isa 51:2, 63:16; Ezek 33:22; see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel21–37,AB (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 689–90. On the theme of the patriarchs’ births see also section 3.3.3. For references to Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel in this corpus see Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.3–5]) and LAB 32:5. While most of the references to Sarah in extrabiblical historical summaries note the birth of her son, Sarah’s own birth is recounted in LAB 23:4 as part of the genealogy that serves as the literary frame for the first part of the summary, drawing on Gen 11:29–30 and Isa 51:1–2. See chapter 1, n. 111. In B.J.5.379–381, Sarah is mentioned as part of the “story of the sister-wife” – an incident alluded to also in Ps 105:13–15, albeit with no mention of the matriarchs themselves. The marginal role of female characters in historical summaries of the Second Temple period has been noted by Nuria Calduch-Benages, “The Absence of Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes, ed. Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol, DCLS 7 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 301–17, [301–304, 311–13]. Many historical summaries are placed in the mouths of male characters (e.g., Jdt 5:5–21; 3 Macc. 2:1–8; 4 Ezra 3:4–7) or revealed to men in a vision (e.g., 2 Bar. 53–74; A.J.213–216); only rarely are they assigned to women: see LAB30:5–6 and 32:1–11, where they are appear in speeches by Deborah, and 4 Macc. 16:18–23, attributed to Hannah. Cf. also 4 Macc 18:9–19 (attributed to Hannah) and Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16 (ascribed to Esther), lists of historical figures, which do not form extra-biblical historical summaries according to the definition in the Introduction.

90

ATAR LIVNEH

This tendency follows a similar trend in the biblical historical summaries.15 Notwithstanding, empirical findings point to a certain shift: While only one biblical review refers to a heroine, individual feminine figures occur in eight extra-biblical summaries.16 The divergence is not merely of quantity, but also of content, as summaries of the late Second Temple period allude to biblical heroines never mentioned in biblical summaries (Eve, the matriarchs, Lot’s wife, and Rahab). The treatment of women in extra-biblical historical summaries thus points to a utilization of material from the long, authoritative history of Israel’s past (Genesis–2 Kings) in composing these brief historical accounts. These authors incorporated the conventions of this source material, allowing for a higher number of heroines, including Sarah, to become part of brief accounts of the nation’s past. Given what we know about the origins and dating of the extra-biblical summaries that refer to women, it is possible that their reliance on the books of Genesis through Kings is not the only explanation for their inclusion of feminine figures. With the exception of the reference to Eve in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85:5–8) and to the matriarchs in LAB, biblical heroines are mentioned only in extra-biblical historical summaries written in Greek (six summaries), most of which were composed in the Roman period. One might hesitatingly propose that the preponderance of Greek-language and Roman-period texts in this group is the result of Hellenistic influence, which was stronger on Greek speakers in Alexandria and after the passage of centuries of exposure to Hellenistic culture. However, the very small number of texts necessitates extreme caution in interpreting the data.17 15

16

17

The only female character mentioned in a biblical historical summary is Miriam (Mic 6:4–5). The all-but-total exclusion of women from the biblical summaries is not associated exclusively with gender issues, but also with the preference of those compositions to focus on events rather than individual characters, see section 4.1. Aside from the matriarchs, the following women are mentioned in extra-biblical historical summaries: Eve (1 En. 85:5–8). Lot’s wife (Wis 10:7 and 1 Clem. 11.2); and Rahab (Heb 11:31 and 1 Clem. 12.1–8). As of now a comprehensive study of the representation of biblical feminine figures in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period has not being conducted. Studies of specific compositions and figures from this perspective point to differences between the characterization of feminine figures in scripture and in later Jewish works. For example, analyses of Esther LXX, Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, LAB and Joseph and Aseneth demonstrate that each of these works expands the role of biblical heroines. The growth of the number of feminine figures in historical summaries composed in the Hellenistic and early Roman period is possibly a further example of the same literary tendency.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

3.2 THE LOCATION OF ABRAHAM WITHIN

THE

91

SEQUENCE AS A WHOLE

Although most of the historical summaries composed during the Second Temple period reflect the convention of including of Abraham, there is some diversity regarding where they place him in the sequence. Following the lead of the Pentateuch, and emulating the method employed in biblical summaries, most of the extra-biblical reviews place the bondage in Egypt immediately following their account of the patriarchs.18 The main difference, in both biblical and extra-biblical historical summaries, has to do with the inclusion of episodes prior to the life of Abraham. In those biblical summaries that mention the patriarchs, there are two main models. One sees the ancestors of Israel as the first link in Israelite national history (e.g., Deut 4:37–38, 26:5–9; Josh 24; Ps 105); the other pushes the start of that history back to even before Abraham’s birth. This latter style follows the lead of Genesis and is found only in late summaries such as that in Neh 9.19 These two patterns are also found in extra-biblical historical summaries. Twelve of them begin with Abraham: Jdt 5:5–21; 1 Macc 2:51–60; 4 Macc. 16:18–23; 4 Ezra 7:106–111; LAB15:5–6, 23:1–11, 32:1–11; Acts 7; A.J.2.172–175, 213–216; B.J.5.375–419; and Acts 13:16–25, which refers to the patriarchs as a group.20 However, twenty-one other 18

19

20

See CD 3:2–6; 4Q225 2 i–ii; Jdt 5:6–13; Sir 44:19–45:5; Wis 10:5–16; 3 Macc. 2:5–7; 1 En. 85:10–27, 93:5–6; 2 Bar. 57–58; 4 Ezra 3:12–17; LAB 15:5–6, 23:4–10, 32:1–7; Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16–19]); A.J.2.213– 216; B.J.5.379–383; Acts 7:1–36, 13:13; Heb 11:8–29. Cf. 4 Ezra 7:106–111, which refers to Moses immediately after Abraham, and see also 1 Clem. 4.7–10, which refers to Moses’s flight immediately after mentioning Jacob and Joseph. The sequence that appears in A.J.3.83–88 is exceptional in this regard, because it begins with the exodus and the wandering in the wilderness, but then backtracks to the divine grace shown to various individuals from Adam through Joseph (see chapter 2). Pseudo-Daniel, which refers to the Israelites’ time in Egypt (4Q243 11 ii 2–3; 12 1–2), is too fragmentary to allow any definitive statement about the sequence of events mentioned; there is nothing about the exodus in the surviving fragments of 4Q180, 4Q252, and 4Q464, although it is hard to say what was originally in those works. A few extra-biblical historical summaries never refer to Moses or the exodus. Most of those are summaries in list form, and the events associated with the exodus do not suit their dominant principles well. In 5Q13 1+2+3+7 Aaron appears as part of the priestly lineage, but Moses and the exodus have no place. So too, for 1 Macc 2:51–60, 4 Macc. 16:18–23, 2 Pet 2:4–10, and 1 Clem. 9.1–12.8 – all of them lists of examples – the exodus does not serve as good evidence for the idea the author wishes to demonstrate. The creation is also the first item in the historical summary in Ps 136, but the patriarchs are not mentioned there. For the starting point of LAB 19:9, 30:5–6, 53:8–9, see section 1.1. For that of A.J.3.17–19, 4.40–50, 6.88–91, see section 2.1.

92

ATAR LIVNEH

extra-biblical summaries begin the history of Israel with events before Abraham’s birth.21 In this regard, there is little significant difference between the works composed in the land of Israel and those written by Jewish or Christian communities living elsewhere.22 So it seems that the Jewish authors, wherever they lived, were influenced by factors not limited to a specific geographical location or the outlook of a particular Jewish or Christian group. One of these influences is the long authoritative account of Israelite history eventually canonized as Genesis–2 Kings. This influence can already be seen in post-exilic biblical summaries, growing stronger during the last centuries of the Second Temple period. It is also evident in the tendency of extra-biblical historical summaries to place Abraham immediately after Noah and his descendants.23 While this sequence reflects the narrative in Genesis, it has no parallel in the biblical summaries, which ignore the early generations of humankind.24 The trend toward beginning reviews of the history of Israel with ancient figures – the eponymous ancestors or members of the earliest generations – may reflect a Hellenistic influence. Bickerman has shown how in reaction to the model of Greek historiography, which made mythical figures part of the historical record and stressed the Greek race’s antiquity (and thus its uniqueness), Hellenistic-age authors in the East sought to highlight the ancient roots of their own ethnic group.25 The portrayal of the 21

22

23

24

25

This quantitative argument refers only to summaries that mention the patriarchs. It takes no account of the fragmentary 4Q225, 4Q226 and 4Q464. Six of the summaries that begin with Abraham were composed in the land of Israel (including three found in LAB); six were written elsewhere (two of them Christian). Of the summaries that begin with the earlier generations, fourteen were composed in the land of Israel and six (including four Christian texts) elsewhere. On the numerical predominance of those written in the land of Israel, see Introduction, n. 35. Abraham is mentioned immediately after Noah in the following extra-biblical historical summaries: 5Q13 1+2+3+7 6–7; The Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44:17–21); 2 Bar. 56:15–57:3; A.J. 3.87; Heb 11:7–20; 1 Clem. 9.4–10.7; and cf. 2 Pet 2:4–10. By contrast, in CD 3:1–2; 4Q252 II 7–8; Wis 10:4–5; the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:10) and 4 Ezra 3:11–13 he is mentioned after Noah’s descendants. A few extrabiblical historical summaries introduce Abraham or events in his life after other episodes. In the list of sinners in 3 Macc. 2:4–5, Sir 16:7–8, and 2 Pet 2:4–10, Sodom is mentioned immediately after the giants.In some fragmentary works – 4Q180, 4Q243, 4Q244, 4Q464, and Demetrius the Chronographer – it is difficult to know where the stories of Abraham came in the sequence. The tendency to mention the early generations in extra-biblical historical summaries was noted by Collins; see John J. Collins, “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited,” RQ 17 (1996):111– 35 [116]. Cf. Josephus, C.Ap.2.152; Elias J. Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrios,” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part Three: Judaism Before 70, ed. Jacob Neusner. SJLA 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 72–84 [72–76].

93

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

Israelite nation as a link in a genealogical chain beginning with the first humans and the patriarchs certainly serves a similar end. Whether the authors were merely faithful to the account in Genesis, participating in the historiographical discourse of their age, or both, the decision to begin the history of Israel with Abraham or the dawn of human history affected the nature of the extra-biblical historical summaries in another way as well. Because most of their summaries include the heroes of Genesis, they tend to name more individuals than their biblical precursors. Whereas those cast God and the Israelite nation collectively as the main and sometimes only players in the historical drama, the extra-biblical historical summaries feature a greater variety of characters in major roles.26 3.3 INCIDENTS RECOUNTED IN THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL SUMMARIES Although some reference to Abraham seems almost obligatory in summaries composed in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the incidents recounted involving him are diverse (see Appendix C). The graph below identifies the episodes included in the extra-biblical historical summaries and their frequency relative to the corpora of biblical summaries. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

26

to his so ns

Ak ed ah

of Isa ac Bir th

16

17 Ge ne sis 18 –1 9

Ge ne sis

Ge ne sis

Extra-Biblical Summaries

Be qu es t

Biblical Summaries

Ge ne sis 15

Ge ne sis 14

Ge ne sis 13

Ab rah am 's b irth Ab rah am 's e arl y li fe Ab He raha bre m a w L nd an the gu ag Ab e ram in Eg yp t

0

For other factors that explain the emphasis on characters as opposed to events in the extra-biblical historical summaries, see sections 4.1 and 4.3.

94

ATAR LIVNEH

In general, the material about Abraham found in the extra-biblical historical summaries is based on scriptural sources. Almost all the incidents shown in the graph are taken from the story cycle in Genesis,27 and some are also mentioned in biblical summaries. These include Abraham’s early life in Ur (see Josh 24:2–3, Neh 9:7), his sojourn in Egypt (see Ps 105:13–14), the covenant between the pieces (Ps 105:8, Neh 9:8), and the birth of Isaac (Josh 24:4). The Akedah is not found in any of the biblical summaries, but an exegetical tradition of the Second Temple period understood the phrase in Neh 9:8, “you found his heart faithful before you,” as alluding to it.28 The incidents of Abraham’s life that are mentioned (or inferred from) the biblical summaries are also the most common in the extra-biblical historical reviews,29 and this holds for Hebrew and Aramaic texts composed in the land of Israel as well as the Greek texts written elsewhere.30 This attests to the influence of the 27

28

29

30

An exception is the mention of “the holy tongue” with regard to Abraham in the fragmentary 4Q464 3 i. This may have originated as part of a freestanding episode and was not necessarily incorporated into an adaptation of a biblical account. On the legendary tradition suggested by the words “holy tongue” here, and parallels in ancient Jewish exegesis, see recently Ariel Feldman, “4Q464 (Exposition on the Patriarchs), 4Q464a, and 4Q464b,” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible, ed. Devorah Dimant, BZAW 449 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 130–58 [135–38]. Legendary traditions about Abraham can be found in nine of the thirty-three extra-biblical historical summaries that refer to him or to incidents in his life (see 4Q225 2 i 10 –ii 10; Jdt 5:6–8; Wis 10:5; 4 Ezra 3:14; 4 Macc. 16:20; LAB 23:4–8, 32:1–4; B.J. 5.379–381; 1 Clem. 10.2). The legends incorporated into extra-biblical historical summaries are almost never independent, previously unknown episodes (as is, for example, the story of Abraham’s invention of the plow in Jub. 12:23–24), but are woven into stories known from the biblical account of his life, and especially well-known incidents like the Akedah (see e.g., 4Q225 2 i 10–ii 10 and LAB 32:1–4). In most cases these accounts are short, as suits the concise style of historical summaries, and based on the assumption that the intended audience has previous knowledge that causes these unembellished allusions to evoke the full biblical or legendary story. This is the implication of the reworking of Neh 9:8 as referring to the Akedah in three extra-biblical historical summaries: Sir 44:20; 1 Macc 2:52; and 4Q225 2 ii 8–9. An exception is the reference to the patriarchs’ sojourns in Egypt or Gerar, found only in Josephus’s speech (B.J. 5.379–381), and perhaps also in Sir 44:19. For the view that the catalog in Sir 44–50 refers to this incident, see, e.g., Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, TheWisdomofBenSira,AB (New York: Doubleday, 1987),504– 505; but see also Beentjes’s criticism of the exclusive identification of Sir 44:19 with the sister-wife stories: Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology,” in StudiesintheBookofBenSira,ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Józef Zsengeller, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 209–28 [218]. Abraham’s early life is mentioned in nine summaries composed in the land of Israel and seven written elsewhere; the covenant between the pieces appears in seven written in the land of Israel and in four written outside it in Greek; Isaac’s birth is found in seven written in the land of Israel and five written in the diaspora; the Akedah appears in six and five, respectively. On the numerical predominance of the historical summaries written in the land of Israel, see Introduction, n. 35.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

95

biblical model of the historical summary and the literary tradition reflected therein on the selection of episodes in later brief accounts.31 We now turn to a more detailed consideration of the use of the four episodes in Abraham’s life that are recounted most frequently in the extra-biblical historical summaries: Abraham’s early life (sixteen summaries), the covenant between the pieces (eleven), the birth of Isaac (twelve), and the Akedah (eleven).32 3.3.1. Abraham’s Early Life Many of the extra-biblical historical summaries that refer to the patriarchs mention Abraham’s origins and election,33 continuing the tradition of the summaries in Josh 24 and Neh 9. Some of the extra-biblical historical summaries are influenced by these two sources, not only in that 31

32

33

We should qualify this and say that the frequency of certain episodes in the extrabiblical historical summaries is not the exclusive result of fidelity to the biblical model of the genre or to its thematic conventions. Some episodes, such as the Akedah, appear in quite a few works produced in those centuries, so their frequent inclusion in extrabiblical historical summaries is part of a broader phenomenon. Additional reasons for the special attention in extra-biblical historical summaries to Abraham’s early life, the covenant between the pieces, and the Akedah are presented below. It is difficult to sketch precisely the development of the literary convention as to which incidents of Abraham’s life are appropriate for inclusion in a historical survey because we have so few early examples (Josh 24; Ps 105; Neh 9) and there is no consensus as to the date of their composition. It is interesting that even within this small group there are motifs that appear in more than one, such as the mention of the covenant between the pieces in both Ps 105 and Neh 9. It is hard to know whether these motifs were already part of the literary convention for the genre at the start of the Second Temple period, or whether the biblical summaries that have come down to us are the harbingers of a tradition that took root only later. In any case, it is clear that the selection of episodes from Abraham’s life in the later extra-biblical historical summaries is not simply an imitation or adaptation of some biblical summary, but also depends on the conventions of the genre in the Second Temple era and sometimes on the influence of certain other extra-biblical historical summaries as well. On this last point, see the similarities between the review in 4 Ezra 3:4–27 and that in LAB 23:1, or between 1 Clem. 9.1– 12.8 and Heb 11, which are attributed to the literary link between the works in each pair. See: Michael E. Stone, FourthEzra:ACommentaryontheBookofFourthEzra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990),39–40, 71–72; Donald A. Hanger, TheUse oftheOldandtheNewTestamentsinClementofRome(Leiden: Brill, 1973), 184–87. For complete data, see Appendix D. Note too that adaptations of passages in Genesis 18–19 are fairly common. Six summaries, most of them lists of examples, refer to the people of Sodom as an illustration of sinners: 4Q180 2–4 ii (which also alludes to Abraham’s hospitality to the three angels); 4Q252 III 1–6; Sir 16:8; Wis 10:6–7; 3 Macc. 2:5; and 2 Pet 2:4–10. 1 Clem. 10.7 refers to Abraham’s hospitality (see Gen 18:1–8), while 4 Ezra 7:106 alludes to Gen 18:22–33. Thus 4Q225 2 i 1–2; 4Q252 II 8–10; 4Q464 1; 5Q13 1+2+3+7 6–7; 1 En. 93:5; Jdt 5:7–8; Wis 10:5; 4 Ezra 3:13–14; LAB 23:5, 32:1; A.J. 2.213, 3.87; Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2.16 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]); Acts 7:2–4; Heb 11:8, and 1 Clem. 10.1–3.

96

ATAR LIVNEH

they incorporate material about Abraham’s early life, but also in how they describe these scenes. Both Josh 24 and Neh 9 refer to how God “took” Abraham from “beyond the river” or “brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans.”34 In this context, the oration in Josh 24:2–3 notes his birth to a family of idolaters, while Neh 9 is unique in noting Abraham’s election prior to its account of his departure from Ur. The summary in Josh 24 influenced the account in Jdt 5:7–8, where Abraham’s departure from Ur is associated with his abandonment of his ancestral idols. LAB (23:5, 32:1) too incorporates material from both Josh 24 and Neh 9. Here, both the motif of Abraham’s abandonment of idolatry (Josh 24:2–3) and that of his election by God (Neh 9:7) are expressed through an allusion to the story of the tower of Babel, when, according to an haggadic tradition, Abraham demonstrated his loyalty to God.35 This legend is also alluded to in the historical summary in Wis 10.36 Other summaries, by contrast, do not draw on Josh 24 but do incorporate the election motif from Nehemiah: 5Q13 1+2+3+7 6–7, the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:5), 4 Ezra3:13–14, and Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]).37 Some of the extra-biblical historical summaries combine motifs about Abraham’s early life found in the biblical summaries with material drawn from the account in Gen 11:27–12:5. For example, Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2.16 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]), refers to Abraham’s election in the style of the review in Nehemiah, but writes that Abraham departed for Canaan as recounted in Gen 12:5.38 The summary in Acts

34

35 36

37

38

Josh 24:3: “But I took your father Abraham from beyond the river”; Neh 9:7: “You are the LORD, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans”. See also Gen 15:7. See section 1.2.2.1. The tower of Babel is mentioned also in Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243 10 2–3; 4Q244 9 2), but the text’s poor state of preservation makes it difficult to determine whether the author linked the incident to Abraham. In 5Q13, Abraham is only one of several elect individuals in the lineage (cf. also the Apocalypse of Weeks). In 4 Ezra 3:13–14, the account of Abraham’s election is associated with the reference to God’s love for him. As has been noted by Stone, the reference to the Lord’s love for Abraham is based on Isa 41:8 LXX and 2 Chr 20:7 LXX. Stone, Fourth Ezra (above, n. 31), 70–71. However, the association of the verbs “elect” and “love” (‫בחר‬, ‫ )אהב‬in 4 Ezra 3:13–14 actually derives from Deuteronomy and especially Deut 10:15, which employs both verbs with reference to the “fathers”. This is in contrast to Josh 24 and Neh 9, where it is God who removes or takes Abraham from Ur.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

97

7:2–4 follows a similar dynamic, emphasizing God’s active role in Abraham’s migration as does Neh 9, but also a quoting from Gen 12:1.39 Finally, other extra-biblical historical summaries incorporate the theme of Abraham’s early life only as described in Genesis. In these summaries, Abraham is an active agent in the journey from Ur to Canaan, and not a passive instrument of God’s will (see A.J. 2.213, Heb 11:8, and 1 Clem. 10.1–3). The texts from Qumran, too (4Q225 2 i 1–2; 4Q252 II 8–10; 4Q464 1), base their account of Abraham’s migration on the Genesis narrative. At least two of them do so by including chronological markers in the story of Abraham’s journey to Canaan, going even further and adding chronological markers not found in Genesis, such as how many years Abraham lived in Haran.40 Thus, the account of Abraham’s early life in the extra-biblical historical summaries relies on scriptural sources, weaving in haggadic threads such as Abraham’s revolt against the builders of the tower and chronological markers like the duration of his stay in Haran. With regard to the biblical background for Abraham’s election and journey to Canaan, there are two main sources: texts taken from the biblical historical summaries, and the account in Genesis. Because of the stylistic difference between the two, the extra-biblical historical summaries are frequently hybrids of genres. A good example is provided by some of the summaries from Qumran (4Q225–4Q226; 4Q252; 4Q464), which preserve the structure of a sequence of selected incidents treated briefly, as is typical in the biblical historical summaries, but which simultaneously incorporate chronological information in a manner similar to the method of Genesis.41 39

40

41

Even though Acts 7:2–4 does not specifically refer to election, it places God’s revelation and command to Abraham before his departure from Ur (as in Neh 9:7). See: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, TheActsoftheApostles,AB (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 369; Richard I. Pervo, Acts, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 180. There is a reference to Abraham’s sojourn in Haran, with no specification of its duration, in 4Q464 1 1–2. It is possible, however, that the original version of 4Q464 did provide this information. This seems likely, given the large number of chronological markers in that scroll (see 4Q464 4 3; 7 1, 7; 8 2; cf. also 4Q464 3 ii 4), as well as the inclusion of information about the stay in Haran in much the same language in 4Q225 2 i 2 and 4Q252 II 8–10. 4Q252 II 8–10 mentions, in addition to the number of years Abraham lived in Haran, Terah’s and Abram’s ages when they left Ur (based on Gen 11:16 and 12:4), and perhaps also how long Terah lived in Haran after Abraham continued his journey to Canaan. The historical summaries in the Bible are almost devoid of chronological markers (the reference to the 40 years in the wilderness in Amos 5:9–10 is an outlier). See section 4.2.

98

ATAR LIVNEH

3.3.2 The Covenant between the Pieces Eleven extra-biblical historical summaries allude to the covenant between the pieces in Gen 15. With the exception of LAB 23, which draws on many verses from that chapter, all of them refer to only a short section thereof.42 Some of them (4Q225 2 i 3–8; 4Q180 2–4 i 2–3; 1 Clem.10.6; and cf. LAB23:5–7) refer to the blessing of Abraham’s offspring,43 but allusion to the vision of the future bondage of Abraham’s descendants in Gen 15:13–14 is more common. The summaries embed the vision of the Egyptian bondage in different contexts; some incorporate it into the passage about Abraham’s life, while others insert it into the story of the exodus.44 The differences in the adaptations of this motif are not limited to where they are placed in the historical sequence, but also involve how closely they follow the language of the biblical source. Some have unmistakable echoes of the biblical source in Gen 15:13–14 (see 4Q243 12 1–2; 4Q464 3 ii 3–4; LAB15:5; B.J.5.382; Acts 7:6–7). Pseudo-Jubilees, by contrast, has: “[according to] his [covenant] made with Abraham” (4Q225 1 4; cf. Gen 15:18 and Ps 105:8–9),45 and the understanding that this refers to 42

43

44

45

The adaptation of Gen 15 found in LAB 23:5–6 begins with an allusion to God’s promise in verse 1, moves on to the blessing of the inheritance of the land (v. 18), continues with Abraham’s complaint that he has no heir (vv. 2–3), and concludes by drawing on vv. 7–21, while emphasizing the covenant ceremony, in which – according to LAB – the sacrificial animals represent Abraham’s future descendants. See the detailed discussion in Howard Jacobson, ACommentaryonPseudo-Philo’sLiberAntiquitatumBiblicarumwithLatinTextandEnglishTranslation, 2 vols., AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2:715–17. Several extra-biblical historical summaries cite the blessing of offspring in the context of the Akedah, thereby stressing the tension between the divine promise and the threat to its fulfillment. See 4Q225 and 1 Clem. 10.7; see also LAB 18:5–6, which is a concise account of the Israelite history that does not match the criteria of a historical review as defined here. A similar sequence – the blessing of offspring (based in this case on Gen 22:17) followed by the Akedah – may also underlie Heb 11:12–17. There, however, the sequence is interrupted by an exegetical observation on a different matter (vv. 13–16); see Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews11:InLightofExampleListsinAntiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989), 44–45. In 4Q464 3 ii 3–4 and in Acts 7:6–7, the vision of the Egyptian bondage is included in the account of Abraham’s life; by contrast, those same verses are worked into the story of the exodus in 4Q225 1 4, LAB 15:6, B.J. 5.382, and perhaps also 4Q243 12 1–2. As noted, 4Q225 also contains an adaptation of the promise of offspring in Gen 15:2–6 in a sequence of incidents related to Abraham (4Q225 2 i 2–8). The translation of Pseudo-Jubilees is that by Vanderkam and Milik: James C. VanderKam, and Józef. T. Milik, “4QpsJuba–c?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Second Edition,RevisedandExpanded, ed. Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov in association with Geraldine I. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1:608–17. The clause “[according to]

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

99

the vision of the Egyptian bondage emerges only from context. Widely divergent accounts of the vision can be found in 4 Ezra 3:14 and LAB23:6–7, espousing an haggadic tradition that Abraham was vouchsafed information about the distant future – the eschatological age according to 4 Ezra, and the building of Jerusalem and the prophets among his descendants, according to LAB – at the covenant between the pieces.46 The plethora of references to the prophecy of Gen 15:13–14 in the extra-biblical historical summaries stands in sharp contrast to its total omission from the biblical reviews.47 The popularization of this theme in the late Second Temple period should evidently be attributed to two factors. The first is the general interest that Jewish authors of the age demonstrated in chronology, and specifically the duration of the actual bondage in Egypt (see, e.g., T. Levi 12; A.J. 2.318; LAB 9:3).48 Evidence that the authors of the extra-biblical historical summaries shared this interest also appears in the juxtaposition of Abraham’s sojourn in Haran to the covenant between the pieces in several summaries from Qumran. This connection derives from the necessity of both episodes for calculating the period of 400 (or 430) years that the Israelites spent in Egypt.49 It also bears mention that chronological data about

46

47

48

49

his [covenant] made with Abraham” (‫ )]כבריתו אש[ר נכרתה עם אברהם‬in 4Q225 1 4 is very close to Ps 105:8–9 in the version of the Psalms Scroll (11Q5 E iii 14–15). On the similarity between the two summaries on this point, see Stone, Fourth Ezra (above, n. 31),70–71, and the references there to occurrences of this exegetical tradition in other ancient Jewish texts. To Stone’s list we can add the catalogue of historical events in LAB 18:5–6, and the list of examples in Apos. Con. 7.33.4: see n. 55 below. The biblical summaries that draw on Gen 15 emphasize the divine covenant and promises (see Ps 105:8–9 and Neh 9:7–8). On chronology, see section 4.2. The ancient Jewish texts that specify how long the Israelites were in Egypt have been studied in detail. See: Pierre Grelot, “Quatre cent trente ans (Ex. 12, 34): Du Pentateuque au Testament Araméen de Lévi,” in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, ed. André Caquot and Marc Philolenko (Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1971), 383–94; Joseph Heinemann, “210 Years of Egyptian Exile: A Study in Midrashic Chronology,” JJS 22 (1971): 19–30; Osvalda Andrei, “The 430 Years of Ex. 12:40: From Demetrius to Julius Africanus: A Study in Jewish and Christian Chronography,” Henoch 18 (1996): 9–67. On how the Qumran texts deal with this exegetical crux, see: Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” in ReadingandRe-ReadingScriptureatQumran.Volume1: Genesis and its Interpretation, STDJ 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 92–125 [106–109]; Ariel Feldman, “A Note on 4Q464a” (in Hebrew), Meghillot 7 (2009): 299–304; Atar Livneh, “How Many Years Did Abraham Remain in Haran? Traditions on the Patriarch in Compositions from Qumran” (in Hebrew), Meghillot8–9 (2010): 193–209. Note that these two topics – Abraham’s departure from Ur of the Chaldeans and the covenant between the pieces – appear sequentially in Gen 15:7–21. This juxtaposition may be behind the similar sequence in 4Q225 2 i 2–8 and 4Q252 II 8–13.

100

ATAR LIVNEH

this event appear in another text that satisfies our definition of a historical summary, namely the work of Demetrius the Chronographer.50 Although chronology is a common interest of works composed in the land of Israel and elsewhere, only two of these texts, both written in the first century CE, frame the contents of the revelation of the future bondage in Gen 15:13–14 within their original context, as a nocturnal revelation that took place in the distant past.51 The thematic resemblance of this scene and the dream-vision literary framework that was popular in Second Temple-period Jewish literature in general, and in apocalyptic works in particular, underlies the treatment of the covenant between the pieces in 4 Ezra 3:14.52 Its description of Abraham as the recipient of a vision of the eschatological future fits well with the apocalyptic character of that work, which attributes visions of similar matters to Ezra, another ancient figure.LAB,which also expands the account of Abraham’s dream-vision at the covenant of pieces to include a premonition of the distant future, is not an apocalyptic text.53 Nevertheless, like the historical summaries 50

51

52

53

See esp. frag. 2 (Praep.ev. 9.21.16–18), although the figure given there follows LXX Ex 12:40 and not Gen 15:13. It is possible also that the chronological information in 4Q559 about Isaac, Jacob, Amram, and Aaron is part of a broader calculation intended to resolve the contradiction between the different durations of the bondage stated in the Pentateuch. See: Wise, “Times and Seasons” (above, n. 3), 10–33; Puech, “559” (above, n. 3), 264–83. See: 4 Ezra 3:14; LAB 23:6–7. On the literary link between 4 Ezra and LAB, see chapter 1, n. 30 above. The dream-vision is particularly common in Aramaic texts from Qumran and in a number of apocalypses. On the format, its occurrences in Second Temple literature, its characteristics, and the content presented through it, see Andrew B. Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, JAJSup 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 190–226, on revelations that deal with history; and Frances Flannery, “Dreams and Visions in Early Jewish and Early Christian Apocalypses and Apocalyptism,” in TheOxfordHandbookofApocalypticLiterature,ed. John J. Collins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 104–120. See also the following studies of apocalyptic historiography: Lorenzo DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in CelebratingtheDeadSeaScrolls:ACanadianCollection, ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek, SBLEJL 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 497– 522; Michael E. Stone, AncientJudaism:NewVisionsandViews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmands, 2011), 59–120; John J. Collins, “Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD19 (2012): 159–76 [161–65]. Note that the use of the vision as a literary framework for a historical sequence is not limited to texts in Aramaic or apocalypses. See e.g., LAB 23:3 and A.J. 213–216, which recounts a historical review revealed to Amram in a dream. According to LAB 23:5–6, the information conveyed to Abraham in the covenant between the pieces did not refer to the eschatological age, as in 4 Ezra 3:14, but to historical events in the generations after the Egyptian bondage, such as the building of Jerusalem.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

101

belonging to the genre of apocalyptic historiography (such as the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Vision of the Bright and Dark Waters), the historical summary in LAB23 is attributed to a biblical character in a vision: “While the people were waiting that night, the Lord appeared to Joshua in a vision (inoromate) and said to him, ‘Such and such words speak to this people…’” (LAB23:3).54 The account of Abraham’s nocturnal vision in the covenant between the pieces included in this summary is thus parallel to the vision in which Joshua receives the history he is to relate to the people. It follows that the treatment of the covenant between the pieces in both 4 Ezra 3 and LAB 23 reflects the influence of a contemporary literary vogue – and of the worldview behind it – regarding visions, history, and the link between them.55 As a result of the above considerations, the verses from Gen 15 most frequently incorporated into the extra-biblical historical summaries dealt with the Egyptian bondage (vv. 13–14), and to a lesser extent with Abraham’s descendants (vv. 1–6). We can add that the language of the blessing of the future inheritance of the land delivered in that chapter is reused by only one of the extra-biblical historical summaries (LAB23:5).56 Despite the paucity in this corpus of clear references to those blessings of offspring and the land found so prominently in Genesis 15, the general topic of covenant and blessings is common, whether through allusions to other verses in Genesis or general references to God’s covenant with Abraham. Thus, some of the extra-biblical historical summaries combine or present in sequence verses from the divine promises in chapters 13 and 15 of Genesis (see 4Q225 2 i 5–7; 1 Clem. 10.3–6), or in chapters 15 54

55

56

Quotations from LAB follow Jacobson, LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum(above, n. 42), vol. 1. See also LAB 23:13. In Josh 24:2, Joshua represents his speech as the word of the Lord God of Israel, but there is no description of the revelation itself or of a dream incubation (but see LAB 23:1–3; Flannery, “Dreams and Visions” [above, n. 52], 114). See also LAB 18:5–6, and the list of examples included in the ancient (originally Jewish) prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions (Apos. Con. 7.33.4), both of which open with a version of Abraham’s vision in Gen 15, which they expand by telling what was revealed to him then. These works stress the scientific and cosmic knowledge granted to Abraham then, unlike the summaries in LAB 23 and 4 Ezra 3, which focus on the revealed knowledge of future events. Both motifs are typical of apocalyptic works of that era. The blessing of the land (Gen 15:18–21) does not appear in the fragments of 4Q252; but the reference to the covenant between the pieces is presented there in the context of the divine promise of the land (4Q252 II 11–12; cf. Gen 15:9–17). See: George J. Brooke, “The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” JQR85 (1994): 33–59 [41–48, 54–57]; Daniel K. Falk, TheParabiblicalTexts:StrategiesforExtendingtheScripturesamong theDeadSeaScrolls, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8, LSTS 63 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 132–34.

102

ATAR LIVNEH

and 17, sometimes consecutively (4Q225 2 i 1–5; 4 Ezra 3:13–15; Acts 7:5–8; cf. Ps 105:8–9 and Neh 9:7–8).57 Other extra-biblical historical summaries refer to the covenant and blessings without linkage to Gen 15 (e.g., Sir 44:19–21; Wis 10:5; Heb 11:18).58 By contrast, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q388a 7 1–2; 4Q389 8 ii 8–9; cf. CD 3:2–4) refers in general to the covenant with Abraham without specifying whether the author has in mind the covenant of Gen 15 or of Gen 17, or perhaps both.59 The centrality of the covenant in the extra-biblical historical summaries is also evident from the choice of several of their authors to relate to it not as a unique event but as the connecting link between various episodes in the history of the Israelite nation, much as it is treated in Ps 105 and Neh 9. The theme is taken up again both in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers and in CD 2:14–3:14, forging a link between different historical figures and eras in each of these texts.60 Similarly, the blessing of offspring in Gen 15 and its realization unite the sequence of historical events in Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225 2), and the blessing of the land and its fulfilment perform the same function for the series of episodes in the Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252 II).61 In LAB 23 and Acts 7, too, the 57

58

59

60

61

The order in which the covenants are presented is not fixed. The summaries in 4 Ezra 3 and Acts 7 follow the sequence of Genesis (and Ps 105:8–10) and place the covenant between the pieces before that of circumcision. On the other hand, circumcision is presented first in Pseudo-Jubilees (cf. Neh 9). See the detailed discussion in Ruth Fidler, “Circumcision in 4Q225? Notes on Sequential and Conceptual Shifts” (in Hebrew), Meghillot5–6 (2007): 197–218. The reference to the covenant in Sir 44:20–21 draws on the language of Gen 17 and 22, along with allusions to other biblical passages (e.g., Ps 72:8 and Zech 9:10). See the detailed discussion of the biblical background for this section in Beentjes, “Ben Sira” (above, n. 29); Mühling, “Blickt auf Abraham,” 162–64. There is an allusion to Gen 17:1 in Wis 10:5, while Heb 11:18 is based on Gen 21:12. See David Winston, TheWisdomofSolomon,AB (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 214; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews,AB (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 490. According to CD 3:2–4, the patriarchs were “recorded as friends of God and party to the covenant forever.” This reference to the covenant is thus different from those in other historical summaries that generally refer to the divine promises to the patriarchs. By contrast, the emphasis in the Damascus Document is on the patriarchs’ loyalty to God and its documentation on the heavenly tablets. See, e.g., Patrick W. Skehan, and Alexander A. Di Lella, TheWisdomofBenSira, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 500; Burton L. Mack, WisdomandtheHebrewEpic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 39, 47–48. Brooke, “Thematic Content” (above, n. 56), followed by Falk, TheParabiblicalTexts (above, n. 56),136–39. For other proposals about the common theme of the incidents collected in this work, see Shani Tzoref, “4Q252: Listenwissenschaft and Covenantal Patriarchal Blessings,” in “GoOutandStudytheLand”(Judges18:2):Archaeological,

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

103

covenant with Abraham is cited to explain later events in the history of Israel, sometimes explicitly: “I brought you into this land … I fulfilled my covenant that I spoke to your fathers” (LAB23:11; cf. Neh 9:23); “But as the time drew near for the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham, our people in Egypt increased and multiplied” (Acts 7:17).62 3.3.3 The Birth of Isaac Twelve of the extra-biblical historical summaries include the birth of Isaac.63 These references are modeled on Josh 24: “Long ago your ancestors – Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him through all the land of Canaan and made his offspring many. I gave him Isaac; and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. I gave Esau the hill country of Seir to possess, but Jacob and his children went down to Egypt” (Josh 24:2–4). This biblical passage served as the paradigm not only for the incidents included in these summaries, but also for the genealogical framework. Drawing on these verses, and influenced by the general style of Genesis, which is the main biblical source for the lives of the patriarchs, several extra-biblical historical summaries organize the material about them in the same genealogical style.64 These include 4 Ezra (3:15): “And thou gavest to him Isaac, and to Isaac thou gavest Jacob and Esau”;65 2 Bar. (57:1):“This is the fount of Abraham

62 63

64

65

Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 335–57. Bernstein, by contrast, believes that there is no thematic link between the different sections, but that it is an anthology of commentaries on selected exegetical issues. Bernstein, “4Q252” (above, n. 48). Ariel, Yuditsky, and Qimron tend to agree, although they are more reserved than Bernstein; see Chanan Ariel, Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky, and Elisha Qimron, “The Pesher on the Periods A–B (4Q180–4Q181): Editing, Language, and Interpretation” (in Hebrew), Meghillot 11–12 (2014/15): 3–39 [30–32]. See also LAB 15:5–6. 4Q180 1 5; 4Q225 2 i 8–9; the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:11); 2 Bar. 57:1; 4 Ezra 3:15; LAB 23:8, 32:1; A.J. 2.213, 3.87; Acts 7:8; Heb 11:11–12, and 1 Clem. 10.7. About half of these summaries were written in the land of Israel and half of them elsewhere. On the genealogical model in historical summaries, see section 4.1. This principle holds even in the account of the patriarchs in Ps 105:9–22, where the sequence proceeds from father to son, although the standard linguistic formulae of genealogical lists are missing. The translation is that of Stone, FourthEzra(above, n. 31),59. This is a clear allusion to the language of Josh 24:3–4. See Hermann Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” in Die ApokryphenundPseudepigraphendesAltenTestaments, ed. Emil Kautzsch (Hildesheim:

104

ATAR LIVNEH

and his generations and coming of his son and of the son of his son”;66 and Acts (7:8): “ And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.” It thus seems that the many references to Isaac’s birth derive not only from reliance on Josh 24, but also from the dominant literary style for presenting the history of the patriarchs. In other words, because the genealogical outline was a common literary format for recounting the age of the patriarchs in the extra-biblical historical summaries, it is only to be expected that they frequently include the birth of Isaac, as well as of that of Abraham and Jacob.67 Another reason why the birth of Isaac is frequently included in the extra-biblical historical summaries is the genre’s convention of depicting the history of Israel as “Salvation History” (Heilgeschichte). When national history is framed by the theme of covenant, it is presented as the continuing fulfillment of a divine promise (cf. Ps 105 and Neh 9). Because Isaac’s birth is recounted in Genesis as the result of divine favor for an elderly barren woman and man, as well as the fulfillment of an oath made to the father of the nation, it fits very well into any summary that outlines the history of the Israelite nation through the lens of Heilgeschichte. The presentation of Isaac’s birth as a historical example of God’s favor is based on two exegetical techniques. The first is the ordering of the episodes; several extra-biblical historical summaries make Isaac’s birth follow directly the divine promise to Abraham of offspring, emphasizing that this blessing was realized by this event (see 4Q225 2 i 3–9; LAB23:5–8; 1 Clem.10.6–7). The second is careful choice of the details included in the story. Despite the concise style of the historical summaries, several take the trouble of mentioning the atypical circum-

66

67

Georg Olms [Paul Siebeck], 1962), 2:353. The genealogies in the historical summary of LAB 23:8–9 and birth formulae regarding Isaac and his sons in LAB 32:1, 5 cite these verses in Joshua, but most references to the birth of Isaac in the extra-biblical historical summaries do not, see section 1.2.4. The translation follows Daniel M. Gurtner, SecondBaruch:ACriticalEditionofthe SyriacText,Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 101. The births of both Abraham and Sarah are noted in LAB 23:4. That of Jacob and Esau appears in 4Q225 2 ii 10–11 (=4Q226 7 3), Sir 44:22 (MS B), 2 Bar. 57:1, 4 Ezra 3:15, the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12); LAB 23:9, 32:5; and Acts 7:8. The births of all or several of Jacob’s sons are mentioned in 4Q225 2 ii 11–12 (=4Q226 7 3–5), the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12), Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2. [Praep.ev. 9.21.3–5]), and LAB 32:6. On the births of Levi’s descendants, see chapter 4, n. 7.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

105

stances of Isaac’s birth, thereby highlighting its miraculous character. Sarah’s barrenness is mentioned in both A.J.2.213 and LAB23:5, 7;68 Abraham’s advanced age appears in A.J. 3.87. Both motifs appear in LAB32:1 and Heb 11:11–12.69 Incidentally, Isaac’s birth is the one of few contexts in which that figure appears in the extra-biblical historical summaries. In some of them, his birth is the only information about him provided (e.g., the Animal Apocalypse [1 En. 89:11], Acts 7:8). Others skip over his birth, leaving his place within the Abrahamic lineage, as the heir of the covenant with his father, as the main detail relating to him (e.g., CD 3:3–5; Sir 44:22–23).70 In these texts, Isaac’s significance is primarily as Abraham’s son and as the grandfather of the twelve tribes – a necessary link in the transmission of the divine covenant. Aside from this, he appears in the extra-biblical historical summaries only in one other incident – the Akedah, to which we now turn.71 3.3.4 The Akedah There are many references to the Akedah in Second Temple literature.72 Some of them are quite detailed (Jub. 17:15–18:19; Abr. 167–207; A.J.1.222–236), but most are incorporated into historical summaries and 68

69

70

71

72

On the presentation of Isaac’s birth in A.J.2.213–216 as proof of God’s continuing grace for his people throughout history, Gnuse remarks, “It [Ant 2.212–17] recapitulates the patriarchal narratives like a miniature salvation history.” Robert K. Gnuse, Dreamsand DreamReportsintheWritingsofJosephus,AGJU 36 [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 209. Heb 11:11 further highlights the motif of Sarah’s barrenness via paronomasia. See Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 43), 81. The verse is a difficult one and the MSS provide variant texts. Hence there is no consensus as to whether the advanced age mentioned there refers to Sarah or to Abraham. There is also disagreement as to whether the faith cited there is hers or his. On the textual witnesses for the verse and the problem of determining its meaning, see recently, with a summary of previous scholarship, Nicholas T. Bott, “‘And by Faith, Because Abraham Considered Him Faithful Who Had Promised, Sarah Herself Received Power to Conceive’: A Reconsideration of Heb 11:11,” TrinityJournal32 (2011): 205–19. So too 5Q13 1+2+3+7 7, except that in this catalog all the characters, and not just Isaac, are described by a similar brief formula. It is expanded slightly only for Aaron, who stands at the end (and climax) of the list. See Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD8 (2001): 136–48 [138–45]. The only historical summary in which Isaac appears in an additional context is A.J. 2.213–216, which describes the division of Abraham’s inheritance among his sons (cf. Gen 25:5–6). For a detailed bibliography of the research on the Binding of Isaac in Second Temple literature, see Ruth A. Clements, “The Parallel Lives of Early Jewish and Christian Texts and Arts: The Case of Isaac the Martyr,” in New Approaches to the Study of BiblicalInterpretationinJudaismoftheSecondTemplePeriodandinEarlyChristianity,

106

ATAR LIVNEH

are accordingly brief.73 Those that fall into the category of lists of examples allude to the incident in a single sentence (e.g., Sir 44:20;74 Wis 10:5; 1 Macc 2:51; 4 Macc. 16:20; Heb 11:17; 1 Clem.10.7).75 Relatively longer accounts are provided by Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 1 [Praep.ev. 9.19.4]), historical summaries from Qumran (4Q225 2 i 10–ii 10; 4Q252 III 6–9; 4Q464 6), and LAB (32:2–4).76 Three of the eleven summaries that refer to this event allude clearly to the description in Neh 9:8: “you found his heart faithful before you”. Ben Sira (44:20) has: “when he was tested he was found faithful”; 1 Macc 2:52 and Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225 2 ii 7–8) contain very similar language. This echo reveals the dependence of the extra-biblical historical summaries on an earlier example of the genre, but other aspects of their reworking of the story actually diverge from the conventions typical of their biblical antecedents. By this I mean that the Akedah, more than any other story, is presented in the extra-biblical historical summaries in the form of a dramatic narrative replete with dialogue. For example, in Pseudo-Jubilees, the divine command is presented in direct speech, as is the conversation between Abraham and Isaac: “Abraham said to [Isaac, his son, ‘God will provide a lamb] for himself.’ Isaac said to his father, ‘k[ ’]” (4Q225 2 ii 3–4).77 Other Qumran texts in which fragments of the story are preserved also provide evidence of the use of direct speech, a typical sign of dramatic presentation (e.g., 4Q464 6 3; 4Q252 III 8–9; cf. Gen 22:12). Finally, the detailed version of the Akedah in

73

74

75

76

77

ed. Gary Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran, STDJ 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 207–40 (209–10n7). See 4Q225 2 i 10–ii 10; 4Q252 III 6–9; 4Q464 6; Sir 44:20; 1 Macc 2:51; 4 Macc. 16:20; LAB 32:2–4; Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 1 [Praep.ev. 9.19.4]); Heb 11:17; 1 Clem. 10.7. The great frequency of the Akedah in Jewish lists of examples has been noted by Eisenbaum. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes (above, n. 7), 52–57. For the scholarly debate as to whether Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers should be considered a list of examples, see Introduction, n. 11. The description of historical events or characters in a single sentence is characteristic of the style of many lists and not unique to the Akedah. For instances of that story in Jewish lists not included in the present study, see Jdt 8:26, 4 Macc. 18:11, 1 Clem. 31.3 and m. Taꜥan.2:4. See also the employment of the Akedah as an exemplum in 4 Macc. 13:12; LAB 40:2. See also LAB 18:5–6, which does not belong to the category of extra-biblical summaries according to our definition. Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225 2 i 10–ii 10) and LAB 32:2–4 are outliers among extra-biblical historical summaries with regard to the length of the passage devoted to the Akedah and the number of nonbiblical additions included in it. For another scene that takes place above the altar during the Akedah, see 4Q225 2 ii 5–7.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

107

LAB 32:2–3 includes dialogue as well: “When he set out, he said to his son, ‘Behold now, my son, I am offering you as a burnt-offering.’ … The son said to his father, ‘Hear me father…’” This narrative mode echoes the original story in Gen 22 but stands out from the usual detached presentation of extra-biblical historical summaries.78 Although the stylistic influence of the biblical source in Gen 22 is evident in only a few of the extra-biblical historical summaries, most of them follow its lead by placing Abraham and his piety (or faith in God) at the center of their accounts. Only a few of them expand Isaac’s role beyond what is found in Genesis and present him as willingly offering himself as a sacrifice.79 Both Pseudo-Jubilees and LAB32 add dialogue in which Isaac addresses his father before he is bound on the altar (4Q225 2 ii 4; LAB32:3); 4 Macc. 16:20 reports that “when Isaac saw his father’s hand wielding a sword and descending upon him, he did not cower.”80 This form of exegesis does not gainsay or replace Abraham’s deed, but it does present Isaac as an additional hero of the story.81 3.4 CONCLUSIONS Our discussion of references to Abraham in historical summaries written between the third century BCE and the first century CE highlights several conventions of this corpus. Roughly three quarters of these reviews refer to Abraham or incidents in his life, continuing a literary tradition exemplified in a number of biblical summaries (Josh 24, Ps 105, 78

79

80 81

In historical summaries where the speaker is God, the account is in the first person (e.g., LAB 18:5–6; 23:1–11). The summaries in LAB 32:1–11 and 1 Clem. 4.1–3, which employ dramatic narrative, are unusual in this regard. In the handful of other historical summaries that make use of this style, it is limited to the Akedah and the occasional adaptation of the covenant in Gen 15 (cf. 4Q225 2 i 3–7; LAB 23:5–7). On the exegetical motif of Isaac as a sacrificial victim, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 304–305. Cf. also Jdt 8:25–27, and the catalogue of historical events in LAB 18:5-6. In Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225, 4Q226) and LAB 32, this motif is incorporated into the story as Isaac’s direct speech. By contrast, in lists in 4 Macc. 16:18–23 and Jdt 8:25– 27, the actions of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah are each presented as separate historical examples. In 4 Macc. 16:18–23, the list is intended to prove that one should bear any suffering for the sake of God and features two examples from Abraham’s time (Abraham and Isaac), corresponding to the same number of examples from the time of Daniel (Daniel and the three youths). By contrast, the list in Jdt 8 aims at establishing an analogy between the audience and the patriarchs, describing both the former and the latter as tested by God.

108

ATAR LIVNEH

and Neh 9). While relatively marginal within the category of biblical historical summaries, this tradition became dominant among those composed later. If the three biblical summaries mentioned above are indeed of relatively late composition,82 we can trace the development of the genre as follows: Abraham, as an individual, was mentioned for the first time in biblical historical summaries that postdated the Babylonian exile. His inclusion in the brief retellings of Israelite history gained traction during the Second Temple period, until it eventually became a standard element in extra-biblical reviews. The shift in the relation of the summaries to Abraham is not limited to the mere increased mention of him. The category of extra-biblical summaries alludes to considerably higher variety of episodes relating to his life. Incidents mentioned in Josh 24, Ps 105, and Neh 9 remained popular components in later, extra-biblical summaries, nearly half of which mention Abraham’s early life and many of which recount the covenant between the pieces and the birth of Isaac. However, late Second Temple summaries allude to various other events from his life as well, which, while occurring in Genesis, are entirely absent from the biblical reviews (e.g., Abraham’s wealth or his hospitality). The fact that most of these events appear in only one or two of the extra-biblical summaries83 demonstrates that the ancient authors felt free to vary and shape the content of their reviews according to their specific needs.84 They limited themselves, however, to incidents drawn from scriptural sources. While on occasion they expanded these by adding haggadic material, the new content never constituted an independent unit as it does in the story of Abraham’s invention of the plow in Jubilees.85 The substantial building blocks of these summaries were thus borrowed from biblical summaries, the book of Genesis, or both. The intensive focus on Abraham and the variety of episodes related to his life on display in the extra-biblical summaries are developments linked to the growing authority of the long story of Israel’s past that would become Genesis–2 Kings. This process also influenced the conception of the nation’s origins evinced in these summaries. While situating Abraham as the first link in Israelite history (as he appears in Josh 24) remained a common model, two-thirds of the extra-biblical summaries that refer to 82 83 84

85

See above, n. 5. See the figure in this chapter and Appendix D. How much freedom they permitted themselves with regard to the conventions of the genre varies from one author to the next. The sole possible exception to this rule is 4Q464: see n. 27 above.

ABRAHAM IN HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

109

him trace Israel’s origins back to the first generations of humanity, following the book of Genesis. Above, we have mentioned that the tendency to push back the beginnings of Israelite history to Abraham or the dawn of humanity is possibly related to Hellenistic historiographical discourse, which, following the Greeks, conceived the antiquity of people as establishing their national greatness. The inclusion of the first generations of humanity in these summaries, after their absence from the biblical summaries, also resulted in an increase in the total number of individual human figures they referred to. The history they illustrate is thus structured to a greater extent around the lives and deeds of individuals, whereas the biblical summaries had presented God and the collective of Israel as the main actors on the stage of history. As I will demonstrate in chapter 4, while the growing focus on individual historical figures seems to be one of the many literary expressions of the increasing biographic interests evinced in the Hellenistic world, it is also related to the influence of specific biblical and classical literary forms. Notably, as the case of Sarah demonstrates, the shift towards the inclusion of individuals attested within the category of extra-biblical historical summaries is gendered. Although the number of female figures occurring in this literature is higher than that in the biblical summaries, the change is considerably subtler in comparison to the male characters. Continuing the tradition of the biblical summaries, the majority of extrabiblical summaries do not ascribe women any role in Israelite history. While women thus remained on the margins of summaries composed throughout the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, they nonetheless began to garner slightly more attention. Most of these new references occur in summaries composed in Greek outside the land of Israel. This suggests that perhaps here the influence of the abovementioned long history, with its significant attention to female characters, is not the single explanatory factor. Hellenistic influence, or, more accurately, the adaptation of the model of biblical summaries to accord with contemporary Hellenistic ways of reciting history, possibly provides a further explanation for the growing number of women in these later summaries. This suggestion, however, should be qualified in light of methodological considerations. Firstly, the total number of references to women in this corpus is small, rendering any conclusive interpretation of the empirical data elusive. Moreover, even if the insertion of more women into extra-biblical summaries is in some way related to Hellenistic influence, it is not possible – at least at this preliminary stage of research –

110

ATAR LIVNEH

to identify a specific Greco-Roman genre or work which served as its model. In this respect, the state of research into the historical summaries is similar to that of the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees and LAB. Like the corpus of extra-biblical historical summaries, they devote more attention to women than do their biblical antecedents. They share this literary tendency with other contemporaneous Jewish works, such as LXX Esther, Judith, and Joseph and Aseneth. However, while the trend in these latter works has been explained in light of a specific classical type (the novel),86 the existence of the same phenomenon in the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees and LAB has not being linked to a specific classical genre. While the question of the representation of women in the extra-biblical historical summaries must therefore remain open, our overall analysis of the units mentioning Abraham allows us to conclude this chapter with some general observations about the category of extra-biblical historical summaries. The texts belonging to this category form part of a long literary tradition of brief histories of the people of Israel. This is evident from the abundance of affinities between extra-biblical historical summaries and earlier summaries included in what has become the Hebrew canon. The comparison between the biblical and extra-biblical summaries, whose similarities reflect a common tradition, reveals the development of conventions underlying the genre over time. While some of the traits typical of early biblical summaries remained relatively stable up until the end the Second Temple period (e.g., the marginal place of heroines), others changed. Inter alia, the case of inclusion of the Abraham – which while becoming a standard element in extra-biblical summaries, is nonetheless missing from a quarter of them – clearly demonstrates that while the conventions might have marked the standard, popular, or maybe even the desirable mode of composition, they by no means functioned as rigid rules.

86

See e.g., Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1995); Patricia Ahearne-Kroll, “Joseph and Aseneth and Jewish Identity in Greco-Roman Egypt,” (PhD diss., The University of Chicago, 2005), 88–142.

CHAPTER 4

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES 4.1 GENEALOGY The analysis of the historical reviews of LAB and JewishAntiquities in the preceding chapters, as well as the mapping of the passages about Abraham in the extra-biblical historical summaries, all show that the authors of these texts depended extensively on biblical summaries and the conventions underlying them. At the same time, the majority of extrabiblical historical summaries differ from earlier biblical reviews in some aspects of form and substance. These differences are the result of the merger between the biblical type and features of other literary models. We have pointed repeatedly to the influence of the long account of Israel’s past (Genesis–2 Kings) on the selection of historical events in extra-biblical historical summaries. Hellenistic and early Roman-period summaries of Israelite history include some episodes that occur in this long history but are lacking from the biblical summaries. Likewise, some extra-biblical historical summaries follow that long history (and conventions of historiographic discourse in the Hellenistic east) in tracing Israel’s origins to the first generations of humanity. In passing it was noted that the extensive retelling of Genesis in these brief texts had three implications: Firstly, following Genesis with its focus on the stories of individuals, extra-biblical summaries refer to greater variety of characters than do biblical summaries. Secondly, some extra-biblical summaries include chronological data about Abraham in the same mode as Genesis. Thirdly, several such summaries imitate the style of Genesis in arranging the unit about the patriarchs as genealogy.1 Below, I will touch upon all three aspects in detail, showing first that the growing number of characters occurring in extra-biblical historical summaries is related to the blending of this type with the genealogical style, and that the employment of this style as well as that of chronology 1

See chapter 3.

112

ATAR LIVNEH

is rooted in the model of Genesis and in classical literary types or rhetoric. The influence of the latter on the organization of the episodes and figures in the sequence and on the form of extra-biblical historical summaries will be discussed in the following two sections.2 Finally, I will depict the ways in which apocalyptic historiography introduced new notions into brief retellings of Israelite history. We have already seen in chapter 3 that the section on the patriarchs in the historical summary in Josh 24 resembles a genealogical list: “I gave him Isaac; and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau” (Josh 24:3–4). Although Ps 105 does not present the standard genealogical formulae (such as, “the sons of X …” or “he begat …”), the section on the patriarchs is organized along genealogical lines; it begins with Abraham, continues with Isaac and Jacob, and then traces the life of Joseph. This use of the genealogical paradigm developed and expanded during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Several extra-biblical historical summaries incorporate a concise genealogy into the section on the patriarchs. Pseudo-Jubilees from Qumran, for example, states: “And the Lord God blessed Is[aac all the days of his life, and he begot] Jacob, and Jacob begot Levi (in the) [third] genera[tion …]” (4Q225 2 ii 10–11). Similar passages can be found in 2 Bar. 57:1, 4 Ezra 3:15, and Acts 7:8.3 In other summaries, the genealogy is the organizing framework, while the author intersperses brief stories about the characters between the reports of births (see 1 En. 89:10–14, Sir 44:22–23 [MS B]; cf. LAB 23:1–11, 32:1–11).4 2

3

4

On the adoption of the basic structure typical of exempla (principle + cases) by Jewish and Christian authors see the introduction. Other ways in which this model influenced the form and substance of brief accounts of Israelite history penned in the Hellenistic and early Roman period will be discussed below. Cf. 4Q180 1 4–5: “This is the order of the so[ns of man from Adam to Abraham un]til he begot Isaac, the twenty [generations].” Translation follows Devorah Dimant, “The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in idem, History,IdeologyandBibleInterpretationintheDeadSeaScrolls.FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 385–404 [387–88]. Demetrius the Chronographer, for example, supplements the genealogy of Exod 6:14–27 with a notice of Jacob’s age when he went down to Egypt (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.19]). DiTommaso has commented: “For Demetrius, chronology and genealogy were complementary.” Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” in OutsidetheBible: AncientJewishWritingsRelatedtoScriptures,ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Philadelphia: JPS, 2013), 1:669–74 [671]. On Demetrius’s use of genealogy, see Elias J. Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrios,” in Christianity,JudaismandOtherGreco-RomanCults:StudiesforMortonSmithatSixty.Part Three: Judaism Before 70, ed. Jacob Neusner, SJLA 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 72–84 [77–78].

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

113

Some extra-biblical historical summaries do not include any birth formulas, but their coverage of the patriarchs is organized on the linear genealogical principle, and the narrative thread moves from father to son to grandson. For example, CD 3:2–5 states: “Abraham did not walk in [thoughts of a guilty inclination and licentious eyes], and he was acce[pted as a lo]ver, for he kept God’s ordinances and did not choose (that which) his (own) spirit desired. And he transmitted (his way) to Isaac and Jacob; and they observed (them) and were registered as lovers of God.… The sons of Jacob strayed through them and were punished.… And their sons in Egypt walked in the wantonness of their hearts…”5

The catalog in 5Q13 lists those chosen by God in chronological order: first Enoch, then Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, and Aaron.6 All these individuals are linked in direct order of descent, and taken as a whole, the list is abridged version of the genealogies ascribed to P.7 There are several reasons for the frequency of the inclusion of genealogies in historical summaries. Both the model of Josh 24 and the book of Genesis, the main biblical source for the stories of the patriarchs, exerted their share of influence. Genesis in particular has many genealogical lists and is organized, grosso modo, on the genealogical principle, guiding readers from the experiences of one generation to those of the next. The increased use of the genealogical format was also influenced at least in some cases by classical rhetoric. This discipline viewed the 5

6

7

Translation of passages from CD follows Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek TextswithEnglishTranslations,vol. 2:DamascusDocument,WarScrollandRelated Document,ed. James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 4–57 [14–17]. The list was first reconstructed by Kister. He proposed that all of the persons mentioned in it had – according to the ancient author – a priestly role, and stressed the closeness between the contracting circles of election (all humankind, the Israelite people, the priests) and the description of the covenants ascribed to P. See Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001): 136–48 [144–145]. Below I will shed some light on this text’s affinity with the genealogical lists in P. The genealogy attributed to P begins with Adam (Gen 5) and continues down to Aaron and his sons (Exod 6:14–27, Num 3:1–3). The list from Qumran differs from these in that it omits certain generations, describes the individuals as “elect,” and situates the list in the context of the covenantrenewal ceremony. For priestly genealogies in extrabiblical historical summaries, see the adaptation of the list from Exod 6 in Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.19]), 4Q559, 4Q225 2 ii 10–11 (=4Q226 7 2–5), as well as the short passage of Pseudo-Daniel that preserves the names of Kehat, Phineas, and Abishua (4Q243 28 1–2).

114

ATAR LIVNEH

presentation of ancestors (or the lineage or family) as an essential element for describing an individual, a people, or a city, whether to praise it or to denounce it. This principle is evident in historical accounts, too, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s Roman Antiquities, the style of which,according to Balch, influenced the historical summary in Acts 7.8 Similarly, Lee proposed that Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers draws on the format of the encomium (ἐγκώμιον) and accordingly obeys the conventions of that genre by including a genealogical unit (γένος).9 Whatever the influences were that led to the integration of genealogical lists into the historical summaries, this process was made possible by the similarities between the two models. Both historical reviews and genealogies present a narrative comprised of concise, separate units, arranged in chronological order.10 Both elucidate, explicitly or implicitly, the links between the individual sections, producing a continuity of history.11 8

9

10

11

Addressing Acts 7 as evidence of the influence of classical rhetoric, Balch notes that the patriarchs are introduced by name and their journeys reported. David L. Balch, “Comments on the Genre and a Political Theme of Luke-Acts: A Preliminary Comparison of Two Hellenistic Historians,” in SBLSP 1989, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 343–61 [346–48]. Following him, Penner stressed the influence of classical rhetoric on genealogy as an organizing principle of the summary in Acts 7. Todd C. Penner, InPraiseofChristianOrigins:StephenandtheHellenistsinLukan Apologetic Historiography, Emory Studies in Early Christianity (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 304–306. Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBLDS 75 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 229–34. For Lee, the genealogical section in the text is Sir 44:16–49:16. However, his reading has been criticized. Mack, and later Gilbert, asserted that the Praise of the Fathers is not structured as an encomium, and that its details reflect the influence of a number of Hellenistic genres (including biography and historiography). Di Lella, by contrast, emphasized the dependence of the Praise of the Fathers on biblical models. See: Burton L. Mack, WisdomandtheHebrewEpic:BenSira’sHymnin PraiseoftheFathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985),111–37; Alexander A. Di Lella, “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–49): The History of Israel as Parenetic Apologetics,” in History and Identity: How Israel Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History, ed. Nuria Calduch–Benage and Jan Liesen, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 151–70 [151– 52]; Maurice Gilbert, “The Review of History in Ben Sira 44–50 and Wisdom 10–19,” in BenSira:Recueild’Etudes/CollectedEssays,ed. idem, BETL 264 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 331–45 [334–35]. See Mack’s observation about the resemblance between a genealogy and a list of historical examples. Mack, Wisdom(above, n. 9), 135. This is true both of the biblical historical summaries and of some of the extra-biblical historical summaries. However, the situation is more complex with regard to apocalyptic extra-biblical historical summaries that divide history into discrete periods. This presentation of history as a story broken down into chapters actually creates a lack of continuity in history. On the construction of continuity and discontinuity in historical narrative, see Eviatar Zerubavel, TimeMaps:CollectiveMemoryandtheSocialShape ofthePast (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 37–100. Strictly speaking,

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

115

Notwithstanding the affinities between them, one significant point distinguishes between biblical historical summaries and genealogies: The former are structured around events; the latter around human figures. The blending of the summaries and genealogies depicted above therefore constitutes part of a shift in the content of the historical summaries toward the inclusion of considerably more characters in extra-biblical summaries than had figured in their biblical antecedents. Most of the summaries penned between the third century BCE and the first century CE freely combined episodes concerning individuals with incidents relating to the nation as a whole. However, some extra-biblical reviews are completely structured around individual human figures. While in the case of 5Q13 (which presents a list of the elected from the priestly line) such an emphasis on characters might be ascribed primarily to the influence of biblical genealogy, this cannot properly explain the similar approach of 1 Macc 2:51–60 or 3 Macc. 6:4–8, for example. These texts followed the style of classical exempla, lists frequently structured around mythological and historical figures, which reflected the broader biographic interests prevailing in the Greco-Roman world.12 A famous example is the catalogue in Virgil’s Aeneas which portrays Roman history via its leaders, from the Alban kings to Augustus (6.752–853).13 This character-centered approach was adopted by some Jewish and Christian authors, who likewise structured their reviews as “lists of heroes” (e.g.: Sir 44–50; Wis 10; 1 Macc 2:51–60; 3 Macc. 2:1–8, 6:4–8; 4 Macc. 16:18–23; 4 Ezra 7:106–111; Heb 11; 1 Clem. 4.1–6.4, 9.1–12.8).14

12

13

14

genealogy involves only human beings who have a direct biological connection. In the historical summaries this model occurs in its pure form only in the passages about the patriarchs. Still, several extra-biblical historical summaries satisfy a broader definition of genealogy insofar they present chronological sequences of individuals considered to be the ancestors of the author and his audience, even if they do not all fall into a direct line of descent. See e.g.: 1 Macc 2:51–60; Pamela Eisenbaum, The Jewish HeroesofChristianHistory:Hebrews11inLiteraryContext,SBLDS 156(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 57–59. For lists of heroes, see e.g.: Lysias, Bon.Aristoph., 45–49; Isocrates, Antid., 231–235 (noted by Armin Schmitt, “Struktur, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10,” BibZeit 21 (1977):1–22 [13–14]); Dio Chrysostom, Cont. 2–7; and the examples adduced in n. 32 below. Although the genre of biography is traced back to the fifth century BCE, scholars note that the emphasis on central personalities became much more common from the fourth century BCE on, and especially since the Hellenistic period. See e.g., Arnaldo Momiliagano, TheDevelopmentofGreekBiography, exp. ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 43–64; Joseph Geiger, CorneliusNeposandAncientPoliticalBiography, Historia Einzelschriften 48 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1985), 19–20. On the prominence of individual human figures in Jewish and Christian lists of examples see Schmitt, “Struktur” (above, n. 12), 8–9, 12; cf. also Andrew T. Glicksman,

116

ATAR LIVNEH

4.2 CHRONOLOGY Chronological markers are infrequent in biblical historical summaries. In practice, we only find two indications of the duration of certain events. According to Num 20:15, the Israelites dwelled in Egypt “a long time” (‫)ימים רבים‬, and Amos 2:10 specifies that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Historical summaries in the Hebrew scriptures dealt chiefly with the question of what happened, not when or for how long. By contrast, several of the extra-biblical historical summaries evince special interest in the historical axis of time. Bickerman has attributed the systematicdating of historical events to the influence of Greek historiography – at least in the case of Demetrius.15 However, later scholarship has emphasized that the special interest in chronology, both in Demetrius and in later Jewish texts of the Second Temple period, has several sources, only one of which is the conventions of Hellenistic historical writing. Other factors included the messianic expectations common in the Hellenistic and Roman periods and the attention to periods of history that emerged as a result, as well as the exegetical interest in the gaps and contradictions between biblical accounts, including those related to chronological data.16 In the specific case of the extra-biblical historical summaries, these are supplemented by another factor, namely the historiographical conventions of the long history of Israel later canonized as Genesis–2 Kings. Its accounts of the Israelite nation include frequent (if not consistent) references to characters’ ages, dates, and the duration of episodes. The chronological information about Abraham in extra-biblical historical summaries is relatively sparse. Pseudo-Jubilees, the Commentary on Genesis A, and probably also the Exposition on the Patriarchs present chronological information about Abraham’s journey from Ur of the Chaldeans to Canaan.17 The chronological datum incorporated into the episode of the covenant between the pieces – four hundred years of bondage – is picked up by several extra-biblical historical summaries (4Q243

15

16

17

Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite HistoryThroughSapientialLenses,DCLS 9 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 89–95. See Bickerman, “Jewish Historian” (above, n. 4). Cf. the similar idea in Ben Zion Wacholder, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles,” in Essayson JewishChronologyandChronography (New York: Ktav, 1976), 106–36 [106–13]. See Lester L. Grabbe, “Chronography in Hellenistic Jewish Historiography,” SBL Seminar Papers 2 (1979): 43–68; Haim J. Milikowsky, “Seder ‘Olam and Jewish Chronography in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” PAAJR52 (1985): 115–39. 4Q225 2 i 2; 4Q252 II 8–10; 4Q464 1.

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

117

12 1–2; B.J. 5.382; Acts 7:6–7).18 A closer look at these references reveals that many of the extra-biblical historical summaries that provide chronological data about Abraham come from the Qumran library.19 It is interesting to note that the chronological information they provide is close to that provided by Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 2 [Praep.ev. 9.21.16]), B.J.5.382, and Acts 7:6.20 All of them offer information relevant to the well-known exegetical difficulty with the duration of the Egyptian bondage.21 Thus numerical indications related to the issue of 400 or 430 years (Gen 15:13 vs. Exod 12:40) become a recurring element in historical summaries written in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Of course, the inclusion of chronological information in the extrabiblical historical summaries is not limited to the sections about Abraham; it can be found in passages discussing other figures and events as well. Thus 4Q464 4 3, 7 1; 4Q559 1, 3; Demetrius the Chronographer (frags. 2, 3 [Praep.ev. 9.21.1–19, 9.29.2]); and LAB32:5 all supply chronological data regarding Isaac, Jacob or Jacob’s sons. Chronological notations occur also in the context of Moses’s beginnings (4Q226 1 5; Acts 7:30),22 and the forty years of wandering in the desert are likewise indicated by a few extra-biblical historical summaries.23 Finally, three texts provide chronological information in other contexts: 4Q559 4 with regard to the judges, Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 6 [Strom. 1.141.1f]) vis-à-vis the fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and 4Q243 19 3, 21 1 with respect to the Hellenistic period.

18 19

20

21

22

23

Cf. also 4Q464 3 ii 3–4. As will be shown below, when it comes to including chronological information, the historical summaries from Qumran are represented disproportionately among the extrabiblical historical summaries. Demetrius the Chronographer supplies a wealth of chronological data regarding the patriarchs (frags. 1, 2, 3 [Praep.ev. 9.19.4, 9.21.1–19, 9.29.2]); cf. also 4Q559 1, 3. However, these texts constitute outliers within the category of extra-biblical historical summaries insofar as they take chronology as their organizing principle; see below. Demetrius the Chronographer (frag. 3 [Praep.ev. 9.29.2]) also provides Abraham’s age at the time of his marriage to Keturah. With the exception of this datum, all the chronological notes related to Abraham or the Abraham cycle and occurring in extra-biblical summaries are related to the length of Israel’s bondage in Egypt. Cf. Heb 11:23, which refers to three months that Moses was hidden as a baby. Calendrical data occurs in a few summaries from Qumran in the context of the flood: see 4Q252 I; 4Q422 II 7–8. For references to a three days’ journey, see 4Q180 5–6 3 (in the context of the Akedah) and Demetrius the Chronographer (frags. 4, 5 [Praep.ev. 9.29.15, 9.29.16end], in the context of the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness). See the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C(4Q388a 2 3); Acts 7:36, 13:18.

118

ATAR LIVNEH

This survey reveals that out of the forty-five extra-biblical historical summaries, only ten weave chronological notes into their retelling of Israel’s history. It seems then that in this regard many authors adhered to the conventions that underlay the biblical historical summaries that preceded them. Others avoided chronology also (or only) because such information was not suited to the close-knit structure of the model of exempla which they followed and was not usually required to prove the underlying argument or principle.24 The survey of chronological information in the extra-biblical summaries further reveals that 80% of the sub-group that refers to chronology includes remarks about the duration of Israel’s bondage in Egypt specifically. Thus, the use of certain chronological data in extra-biblical historical summaries may derive not only from general exegetical interests, but also from a desire to comply with the literary conventions of earlier compositions affiliated with that genre. Notably, in most of the extra-biblical historical summaries that include chronological notes, not all the historical events mentioned are dated. Dates are scattered here and there without comprising a continuous and coherent chronology. From this perspective, the use that most of the extra-biblical historical summaries make of chronology recalls the method of the Pentateuch. Put otherwise, even though we might assert that the manifest interest shown by the extra-biblical historical summaries in chronology is to some extent a product of the influence of Hellenistic historiography, this was a general influence rather than the deliberate adoption of a particular method in all its details. Only two texts from the corpus are exceptional in this regard: Demetrius’s work, and perhaps also the fragmentary scroll known as the Biblical Chronology (4Q559). Both of them resemble Greek chronography in their combination of genealogy and chronology, with systematic dating of the events and persons they mention. It is interesting to note that whereas the historical summaries from Qumran account for only about one-fifth of the corpus of extra-biblical historical summaries, they include more than half of those texts that include chronological data. With regard to the use of chronology, then, the summaries from Qumran are disproportionately represented.25 This 24

25

For example, the list in 3 Macc. 2 refers to the Israelites’ enslavement by Pharaoh (v. 6), but the duration of their bondage is not specified because that information is not essential for grounding the main idea of the list, which is the divine punishment of sinners. This is true also with regard to the inclusion of calendrical data in extra-biblical summaries; see n. 22 above. However, the total number of extra-biblical historical

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

119

fits well with what we know of the sect’s writings about its members’ special interest in the historical progression of time. It also accords with the presence of other historiographical works that include chronological information in the Qumran library. Beside the historical summaries from Qumran, the fourteen copies of Jubilees found in the caves are the most salient evidence of the community’s preoccupation with dating historical events, but the phenomenon is also reflected to a lesser extent in other works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon and the Apocryphon of Joshua.26 4.3 THE ORGANIZATION OF HISTORICAL EPISODES While not interested in specific dates of events, biblical summaries consistently order them chronologically.27 While adhering to this rule,28 the category of extra-biblical historical summaries evince further criteria for organizing a historical sequence. Above we noted the common use of genealogy as a tool for arranging the unit on the patriarchs. Demetrius the Chronographer, and perhaps also 4Q559, combines this method with systematic chronological indications framing the whole work. This amalgamation seems to reflect the conventions of Hellenistic chronography; the growing utilization of genealogy alone is to some extent rooted in Hellenistic rhetoric.29 Greco-Roman literary types seem to be the source of three further modes of organization in extra-biblical summaries: (a) the “positive/ negative” pattern, (b) ancient vs. recent events, and (c) framing the sequence via the principle of succession.30 The first and most common of the three is the pattern of negative vs. positive examples. Such comparative juxtaposition is common in classical lists of examples. For instance, aiming to prove that concord between the Greeks is necessary, Aelius Aristides first adduces examples of the victories gained when Sparta and Athens were allies and then turn to the

26 27 28 29

30

summaries which refer to this kind of information is very small, and hence any interpretation of the empirical data demands extreme caution. See 1Q20 XII 10, 13, XIX 23, XXII 27–29; 4Q379 12 3–6. The exception to this rule is the historical summary in Ps 78. The sole exception being A.J. 3.83–88; see chapter 2. As noted above, the use of genealogy in extra-biblical historical summaries is also rooted in the style of Genesis; see section 4.1. Although succession as an organizational principle occurs also in the long biblical account of Israel’s past, and is thus not drawn only from classical rhetoric: see below.

120

ATAR LIVNEH

sufferings they both endured as result of the hostility between them (23.41–52). Similarly, trying to convince his Jewish audience that they should not fight the Romans, Josephus begins by listing examples of events in which Israel and her ancestors succeeded when not initiating any military conflict, augmenting it in the second section of his speech with instance of failure when they took up arms (B.J. 5.375–419).31 A subtype of the “positive/negative” pattern relates to wicked vs. good personae.32 In the context of Jewish and Christian texts the model is designated “lists of righteous and sinners.”33 These were typically arranged in two separate subunits, the first relating to the wicked and their punishments, the second to the righteous and their rewards (e.g., 3 Macc. 6:4–8).34 Alternatively, the righteous and sinners were organized alternatingly in an a-b-a-b pattern (e.g., Wis 10; cf. 2 Pet 2:4–10).35 The “negative/positive” pattern appears primarily in those extra-biblical historical summaries which exhibit several formal traits typical of

31

32

33

34

35

See Otto Kaiser, “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed by Arms…’: The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Addresses of Flavius Josephus to the Besieged Jerusalemites in Bell. Jud. V. 356–426,” in HistoryandIdentity:HowIsrael’sLaterAuthorsViewed ItsEarlierHistory, ed. Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 239–64 [250–58]. Cf. e.g., Homer, Od. 24.197–202; Ovid, Ars3.7–42; Plutarch, Frat.amor.5; Seneca, Ira 1.11.1–8, 2.23.1–4; Seneca, Marc. 2.1–3.4. The rhetorical device of comparing a person with others (synkrisis) is not limited, of course, to brief series of exempla; see Xenophon,Ages. 9.1–5; Isocrates,Evag. 37–39; Plutarch, Lives; Philo, Abr. 107. Cf. Hartwig Thyen, DerStilderjüdisch-hellenistischenHomilie(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), 112–16. The terminology of “righteous” and “wicked” is drawn from ancient Jewish lists of examples that employ such adjectives to depict the heroes referred to (e.g., Sir 16:5–14; Wis 10; 3 Macc. 2:1–8). This pattern is reminiscent of a subtype of “collected biographies” developed by the Peripatetics. This genre has a moralizing function, illustrating – usually with incidents from the lives of individuals – that virtuous behavior is rewarded while those who indulge in vice will be punished. For a definition and examples of this type, see Sean A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography, SNTSMS 156 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 92–94. Notably, an affinity between Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers and “collected biographies” was noted in Thierry Maertens, L’Eloge despères (Ecclésiastique XLIV–L), Collection lumière et vie 5 (Bruges: Editions de l’Abbaye de Saint-André, 1956), 11. While Maertens’s proposal was accepted by scholars up until the 1970’s, more recent studies have challenged this view or at least qualified it. See the survey of research and discussion in Mack, Wisdom(above, n. 9), 124–28; Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 9), 54–79. Cf. also 3 Macc. 2:7. Unlike biblical summaries such as Neh 9, which alternate Israel’s breaches of the covenant with God’s keeping of the covenant, Jewish lists of examples that employ positive vs. negative examples compare instances belonging to the same category (e.g., righteous humans vs. wicked humans).

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

121

exempla.36 However, this structure can appear in catalogs that are not exemplaas well.The fragmentary Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) possibly adduces sinners and the righteous alternatingly, 4Q252 refers to curses and blessings using the same pattern, and the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Vision of the Bright and Dark Waters present the process of history as comprising positive periods regularly interspersed with negative ones.37 The second principle of organization, dividing history into ancient and recent eras, is a typically Greco-Roman feature (see e.g., Livy, Ab urbecond. 28.41–42). While the organization of history according to the “negative/positive” principal was adopted by various Jewish authors in the land of Israel and the diaspora at least from the first century BCE onward, this second mode of division is attested explicitly only in a single late first-century extra-biblical historical summary, 1 Clem. 4.1–6.4. While the contemporaneous Jewish Antiquities contains one historical summary organized in accordance with this principle (A.J. 3.83–88), the division therein is reflected via stylistic devices rather than declared outright. 38 Finally, succession is a central organizational principle in Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers (e.g., 45:15, 46:1, 13, 47:1, 12). Mack has attributed the utilization of this feature to the influence of “collected biographies,” which arrange the material according to this criterion, tracing the history of philosophical schools through teacher-student relations.39 While this literature possibly had some influence on the design of Sirach’s catalog, it should be noted that the device of linking rulers, priests and prophets via the theme of succession occurs also in the long 36

37

38 39

In addition to the lists mentioned above, cf. also CD 2:14–3:14; Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation,Reading,andInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinAncientJudaismand Early Christianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder (Assen: Baker Academic, 1988), 379–419 [393n60]. On 4Q180 See Dimant (ibid.). For the alternation of blessings and curses (or righteous people and sinners) in 4Q252, see Menahem Kister, “Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran,” JJS44 (1993): 280–90 [288]; George J. Brooke, “The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” JQR85 (1994): 33–59 [54–56]; Ida Fröhlich, “Themes, Structure and Genre of Pesher Genesis. A Response to George J. Brooke,” JQR85 (1994): 81–90. Dimant (ibid.) maintains that while Wis 10 follows classical rhetoric in alternating between the righteous and sinners, the occurrence of the same pattern in other Jewish lists “may point to a different origin of the idea.” For the division of exempla into ancient vs. recent events, see section 2.2.1.2. Mack, Wisdom(above, n. 9), 44–47, 124–28. Succession as an organizational principle also dominates Roman collected political biographies, such as those of Suetonius. See Adams, GenreofActs(above, n. 34), 101–108.

122

ATAR LIVNEH

account of Israel’s history (especially in Deuteronomy – 2 Kings). Moreover, certain pairs of figures linked in this manner in the Praise of the Fathers (e.g., Moses and Joshua, David and Solomon), are similarly associated in the scriptural source.40 4.4 FURTHER RHETORICAL DEVICES OCCURRING IN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES So far we have focused on conventions of Greco-Roman literature or devices from classical rhetoric, which (together with the model of Genesis–2 Kings) influenced the substance or organizational principles in brief accounts of Israelite history dated to the Hellenistic and earlyRoman period. Other devices typical of classical rhetoric occur in these texts as well, as demonstrated by Cosby’s detailed analysis of the rhetoric of Heb 11.41 While a comprehensive discussion of these devices is beyond the scope of the present book, a few of the recurring rhetorical techniques will be considered below with respect to extra-biblical historical summaries in general.42 The examination of the material from this perspective leads to the unsurprising conclusion that classical rhetorical devices are more common in Jewish and Christian exempla than in other contemporaneous brief accounts of Israelite history. Notably, classical rhetorical techniques are represented in lists of heroes composed in Hebrew in the land of Israel to a greater extent than noted by Cosby.43 Furthermore, 40

41

42

43

See e.g., Deut 31; 34:9; Josh 1:1–9; 1 Kings 1:1–2:12, 8:12–21. Surveying the notion of succession in ancient Jewish and Christian texts, as well as in Greco-Roman literature, Tablert concludes that succession is a cross-cultural phenomenon, not limited to a specific social context or genre. Charles H. Tablert, “Succession in Luke-Acts and in Lukan Milieu,” in Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu, ed. idem (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 19–55 [41–43]. On intellectual or professional pedigree as a device for constructing a continuous history see Zerubavel, TimeMaps (above, n. 11), 56–63. Michael R. Cosby, TheRhetoricalCompositionandFunctionofHebrews11:InLight ofExampleListsinAntiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press), 1989. His discussion consists of detailed definitions of the rhetorical techniques occurring in Heb 11 and parallels in further exempla, as well as numerous examples of their occurrences in classical and Jewish and Christian lists of heroes. By this we refer to literary phenomena present in three or more extra-biblical summaries. We will ignore, for example, the influence of Hellenistic oaths on A.J. 3.83-88 (see section 2.2.1.2). Focusing on Heb 11, Cosby scrutinizes only those rhetorical features of 1 Macc 2:51– 60 and 4 Ezra 7:106–111 which feature parallels to that text. Furthermore, other lists of examples authored in the land of Israel seem to receive considerably less attention (e.g., CD 2:14–3:14) or are simply missing from his discussion (e.g., Sir 16:5–14, Jdt 8:25–27).

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

123

while Cosby sheds light on the rhetoric of Jewish exempla by comparing them to Greco-Roman lists of examples, I argue that the picture is more complex. Although obviously adopting characteristics of that model, some Jewish lists of examples owe some of their stylistic features to the influence of hymns.44 I will give evidence for these arguments by referring firstly to the employment of anaphora (i.e. repetition of a phrase at the beginning of successive sentences) in Jewish lists of examples, a trait noted by Schmitt, Lee, and Cosby.45 These scholars point to its utilization in late Second Temple-period brief accounts of Israelite history such as Wis 10, Heb 11, and 1 Clem 4.1–6.4, all of which are constructed as lists of historical examples.46 The use of this device within Jewish lists of examples is in fact more common than has been noted, occurring also in Jdt 8:25–27, Sir 16:5–14, 3 Macc. 2:1–8, and Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16.47 Schmitt, Lee, and Cosby all compare this phenomenon in Jewish and Christian historical summaries to its occurrence in classical lists of examples (e.g. Il. 381–404), in which it both emphasizes a particular point and lends a sense of unity to the list.48 However, anaphora is also common in Hellenistic hymns of praise. Some of these specifically employ a pronoun or an article as the anaphoric element to designate the

44 45

46

47

48

This includes both biblical and Hellenistic hymns; see below. While the stylistic device of anaphora occurs in the Hebrew Bible, no biblical historical summary repeats the same element at the beginning of all its subunits. For the use of anaphora in limited sections within biblical summaries, see e.g., Pss 135:8–9, 136:4–5. For a discussion of anaphora in the Hebrew Bible see Frank Polak, BiblicalNarrative: Aspects of Art and Design, 2nd ed., Biblical Encyclopedia Library XI (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1999), 33–34 (in Hebrew). On anaphora in Jewish and Christian lists of examples see Schmitt, “Struktur” (above, n. 12), 1–22 [12]; Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 41), 48–55; Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 9), 44–48. Cosby also adduces Philo, Her. 260–262. Cosby, Rhetorical Composition (above, n. 41), 52. In CD 2:14–3:14, the anaphora does not extend throughout the whole catalog, but is rather limited to specific sections (3:1, 4–5). See Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 9),44–48. Cf. also the anaphora encompassing the examples of Lot and Rahab in 1 Clem. 11.1– 12.8, and the list as a whole in m. Taꜥan 2:4. Of these texts, only Sir 16:5–14 and 3 Macc. 2:1–8 constitute extra-biblical historical summaries according to the definition given in the introduction. The anaphoric motif in Sir 16:7–9 is a negative statement (“He did not…” [Ms A: …‫ ;אשר לא נשא ל…ולא חמל על…ולא חמל על‬Greek: οὐκ + verb 3 sg. aor. ind.]). Phrased as recurring negative language used to affirm a positive good (i.e., God’s judgment of the wicked throughout history), the anaphora here constitutes a litotes. For another instances of that rhetorical device, see also 2 Pet 2:4–10. Schmitt, “Struktur” (above, n. 12), 12; Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 41), 48–55; Lee, FormofSirach(above, n. 9), 44–48.

124

ATAR LIVNEH

god, goddesses, or human that is being lauded,49 a convention adopted by the author of Wis 10, who began each subunit with the emphatic pronoun αὕτη (she).50 Summaries in 3 Macc. 2:1–8 and A.J. 3.83–88, 4.40–50 likewise utilize a pronoun or an aricle as an anaphora (σύ [you] in the first and ὁ [he/you who] in the other two). Prayers in 3 Macc. 2:1–8 and A.J. 4.40–50, and a speech at Mount Sinai in A.J. 3.83–88 all recall God’s marvelous acts throughout history,51 and the repeated pronouns or articles therein refer to God in all three cases. In reciting God’s wonders in a liturgical context, Josephus and the author of 3 Maccabees follow a tradition attested in the Bible (e.g. Deut 26:5–9). Yet they reshape it using stylistic devices typical of Hellenistic hymns.52 As Cosby has noted, in some Jewish and Christian exempla it is not (or not only) the first element within each subunit that is repeated; rather a wholly fixed grammatical structure recurs (e.g., 1 Macc 2:51–60; 4 Ezra 7:106–111; Heb 11:33–34).53 The feature likewise appears in CD 3:9–10: “And their sons perished through it, and their kings were cut off through it, and through it their heroes perished, and their land became desolate due to it” (‫ובניהם בו אבדו ומלכיהם בו נכרתו וגיבוריהם בו‬ ‫)אבדו וארצם בו שממה‬. Chains of Jewish heroes presented in this way appear also in ancient texts such as m. Taꜥan. 2:4 – a list which formed part of the prayer in circumstances of drought (and later part of the penitential liturgy [selihot]), and in Esther’s prayer in Vetus Latina to 49

50

51

52

53

See Eduard Norden, AgnostosTheos:UntersuchungenzurFormengeschichtereligiöser Rede (Leipzig: B.G.Teubner, 1913), 149–66; William D. Furley and Jan M. Bremer, Greek Hymns, 2 vols., Studien und Texts zu Antike und Christentum 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 1:56–60. See e.g., David Winston, TheWisdomofSolomon, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 211–13; Glicksman, WisdomofSolomon10 (above, n. 14), 89–95, with further bibliography. For σύ (“you”) as an anaphoric element, see the hymn to Eros in Sophocles, Antigone, 791–94. For the recurrence of ὁ (“he who”) as an anaphora see the praise to Augustus in Philo, Legat.147, noted by Winston, WisdomofSolomon(above, n. 50), 213; and the Hymn lauding God in Apos. Con. 7.33.2–7. Cf. also the list of examples in m. Taꜥan. 2:4, which aims to prove that God listened to his people’s prayers everywhere and always. Each of the examples begins with a reference to God, employing the words …‫“( מי ש‬He who…”), a Hebrew phrase which is equivalent in meaning to the Greek ὁ as it appears in the historical summary in A.J. 3.83–88. While the recurrence of a pronoun at the beginning of subunits can thus be considered typical of brief accounts of Israelite history, which feature numerous formal features typical of exempla, it also dominates one subunit within an extra-biblical historical summary that is not a list of examples: Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (esp. vv. 36–38, which begin with οὗτος [“this, that”]): See Winston, Wisdom of Solomon (above, n. 50), 213. Cosby, Rhetorical Composition (above, n. 41), 69–70. Cosby also adduces 4 Macc. 18:12–14.

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

125

Add Esth C.16.54 While this feature is manifested primarily in Jewish exempla, 5Q13 – which enumerates personae belonging to the priestly lineage – similarly employs a recurring formula to describe them (“You [God] chose [a person] from [other people]”; cf. 1 Chr 28:4–5).”55 Cosby, who had searched for parallels in classical lists of examples, noted that the these rarely employ a fixed structural pattern.56 This finding further supports our observation – presented in the context of the discussion of anaphora above – that Jewish lists of heroes do not owe all their stylistic features to Greco-Roman exempla. In this case, however, it is more difficult to point with certainty to a specific source of inspiration. Since 5Q13, Vetus Latina to Add Esther C.16, and m. Taꜥan. 2:4 are all set in liturgical contexts, it is possible to view their use of stereotypical clausal structures as part of a broader literary phenomenon (later known as “litany”) displayed in ancient Jewish prayers such as Ps 136 or 4Q509 12 i + 13.57 In comparison to the latter, unique to 5Q13, Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16 and m. Taꜥan. 2:4 is the employment of this stylistic device for constructing a list of historical figures. This distinctiveness, as well as the fact that most of the extra-biblical historical summaries utilizing a fixed structure are not set within a liturgical context, suggests that in this regard liturgical texts/style did not constitute the latter’s sole source of inspiration. A further research is needed, however, in order to determine which further specific literary models stand in the background to the formulaic style employed in Jewish lists of examples. The repeating elements (whether words or grammatical structure) in the Jewish lists of examples not only create a sense of unity in the sequence, but also give the readers an impression that the total number 54 55 56 57

Cf. also Apos. Con. 7.37, an expanded version of the model we see in m. Taꜥan. 2:4. Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah” (above n. 6), 138–39. Cosby, RhetoricalComposition (above, n. 41), 20, 69–71. 4Q509 12 i+ 13 1–5: ‫מבלי̊ ] סומך‬ ̇ ‫ופלים‬ ̇ ̇‫ומן̊ ̊הנ‬ ̇ ‫מ[בלי ̊א‬ ̇ ‫̊המנו̇ ̇דחים ה̇תועים ̇מ ̇ב ̇לי̇ ] משיב הכושלים‬ [‫המתמוטטים[ מ̇בלי מ̇כ̊ו̇נ̇ן̇ הנ̇שברים מבל]י חובש הנמקים ב[עוונ̇ ]ות ו[אין רופא ]  האבלים ואין‬ ‫מנחם‬ ̇ (“those who are banished, wandering with no [one to lead them back, those who stagger] with no one to attend to them, the fallen with no [one to support them, up, those who shake] with no one to make them firm, the broken with no [one to mend them, those who are rotten away] in [their] iniquity with no healer [ those who mourn and there is no one to] comfort” [translation mine]). The text of 4Q509 follows Elisha Qimron, TheDeadSeaScrolls:TheHebrewWritings, 3 vols., (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014), 2:389 (Hebrew). For a discussion of the listing “aesthetics” characterized by “intensive repetitiveness,” within ancient Jewish prayer see Laura Lieber, “Confessing from A to Z: Penitential Forms in Early Synagogue Poetry,” in The Impact of Penitential Prayer Beyond Second Temple Judaism, eds. Mark Boda; Daniel K. Falk and Rodney A. Werline, vol. 3 of SeekingtheFavorofGod, ed. idem (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 99–125 [105–10].

126

ATAR LIVNEH

of the examples is in fact greater than those actually presented by the speaker.58 The latter goal is achieved by various other devices as well, one of which is auxesis (magnifying), and more specifically the use of the adjective “many” in formulating the general principle or rule that opens of the list. This technique is employed, for example, in the exempla in the Iliad (5.381–404). Here, Dione’s consolation for the wounded Aphrodite commences as follows: “Be of good heart, my child, and endure for all your suffering; for many (πολλοί) of us who have dwellings on Olympus have suffered at the hands of men…” (381–384).59 Although this principle is followed by merely three examples, the word “many” at the beginning suggests that there are in fact more incidents, establishing the rule.60 Similarly, the author of CD opens his list of heroes arguing that throughout history there were “many” sinners: “For many (‫)רבים‬ have failed due to them [thoughts of a guilty inclination and licentious eyes]; mighty warriors have stumbled due to them” (2:16–17). Unlike CD 2:14–3:14, the list in 4 Ezra 7:106–111 first presents the examples and then culminates with the general rule (that the righteous have always prayed on behalf of sinners). The phrasing of the principle implies that the author has at his disposal additional examples: “And many [others prayed] for many” (etmultipromultis; v. 110).61 Although not employing exactly the same vocabulary, Josephus likewise magnifies the divine assistance granted to the patriarchs and their decedents by claiming in the opening of the summary that “God has always (ἀεί) been a supporter and helper to your ancestors and after them to you [Jacob]” (2.172).62

58 59

60

61

62

Cosby, RhetoricalComposition (above, n. 41), 52. The translation follows Augustus T. Murray, and William F. Wyatt, Homer, Iliad, Volume I: Books 1–12, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 235. Cf. Isocrates’s reference to “many” (πολλοί) incidents within a list of examples (Phil. 65), and the employment of τοσοῦτοι (“so many”) as an anaphoric element in an exempla by Marcus Aurelius (6.47); both texts are adduced in Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 41), 48–52. For the employment of similar vocabulary in an opening of a subunit within early Christian exempla see 1 Clem. 6.1. The device is also attested in Jewish lists of examples that are not extra-biblical historical summaries. See e.g., Philo, Abr.245, 247; cf. A.J. 1.281. The English translation of 4 Ezra follows Michael E. Stone, FourthEzra:ACommentaryontheBookofFourthEzra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 247. For the employment of the adverb ἀεί (“always”) in the same function in a Jewish list of examples, see Philo, Abr. 246. Cosby refers to three further rhetorical techniques that create an impression that the speaker has multitude of examples: paralysis (i.e., emphasizing a point by pretending to neglect it; see Heb 11:32); asyndeton (i.e., the omission of conjunctions; see Heb 11:33–34; 1 Clem. 5.6–7); and polysyndeton (i.e., repeating conjunctions; see Heb 11:38). Cosby, RhetoricalComposition(above, n. 41), 57–69.

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

127

4.5 APOCALYPTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY In addition to employing classical rhetorical techniques, extra-biblical historical summaries also reflect the influence of apocalyptic historiography. In chapter 3 we noted the influence of the apocalyptic view of history and the formal and literary expressions of this outlook on the framing of historical summaries as dream-visions and on the treatment of individual incidents within the historical sequence. It was pointed out that in 4 Ezra 3:4–27, the account of the covenant between the pieces was expanded to include a vision regarding the eschatological era, thus creating a parallel between Abraham and Ezra, the hero of the book, who is depicted as having received a similar kind of knowledge. A similar strategy is employed in the Vision of the Bright and Dark Waters (2 Bar. 53–74). Here, however, a vision regarding the end of days is not attributed to Abraham, but rather to Moses on Mount Sinai (59:3–11).63 Set as it is within Baruch’s review of history, Moses’s expanded vision links the two figures by way of analogy. While traces of apocalyptic thought are evident in the representation of individual episodes, its most dramatic influence is exhibited in the way some extra-biblical historical summaries present history altogether. In contrast to the biblical summaries, which conceive of history as limited to past events, Pseudo-Daniel, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Vision of the Bright and Dark Waters present it as a process that already anticipates the future. Apocalyptic historiography likewise altered the scope of the history reviewed in historical summaries by starting it with what the author perceived as a historical “turning point” rather than the moment he took as the beginning of history.64 Within the group of extra-biblical historical summaries and the texts on its boundaries, only CD 1:1–11 exhibits this feature, commencing with the exile. These apocalyptically oriented summaries further conceive of history as comprising round numbers of distinct periods. Pseudo-Daniel and the Animal Apocalypse refer to the number seventy (see 4Q243 16 1; 63

64

See the detailed discussion of this passage in Michael E. Stone, “List of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei The Mighty Acts of God: EssaysontheBibleandArchaeologyinMemoryofG.ErnestWright,ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 414–52 [414–19]. For this phenomenon in apocalyptic texts see e.g., Dan 2; 9:21–27; Michael E. Stone, AncientJudaism:NewVisionsandViews(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 80–81.

128

ATAR LIVNEH

1 En. 89:59–90:25); The Apocryphon of Jeremiah C to ten jubilees (4Q387 3–4). According to the Apocalypse of Weeks, history consists of ten periods (“weeks”) in total (see 1 En. 93:1–10, 91:11–17), whereas the Vision of the Bright and Dark Waters divides history into twelve periods (see 2 Bar. 53–74).65 In addition, Pseudo-Jubilees and the Pesher on the Periods, two summaries whose surviving fragments do not refer to the future, likewise present history as comprised of discrete periods (see 4Q180 1 1–3; 4Q226 1 5–6, 2 3).66 While most of the summaries that employ periodization apply it to history as a whole, the Animal Apocalypse, and probably also Pseudo-Daniel, utilize it to a describe only a specific era of history. In punctuating the nation’s past through periodization, these extra-biblical summaries differ considerably from the biblical ones, which tend to present the history of Israel as a continuum.67 Notably, Pseudo-Daniel, Pseudo-Jubilees, and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C all go even further in illustrating the hybrid nature of the extra-biblical historical summaries. While employing periodization as typical of apocalyptic historiography, they simultaneously use chronological indications relating to the duration of specific events, similar to those found in the Pentateuch.68 Significantly, among the forty-five extrabiblical historical summaries that have come down to us, only eight – all composed in the land of Israel – exhibit traits typical of apocalyptic historiography. Except for 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, which were composed after the destruction of the Temple (and of the settlement in Qumran), copies of all the texts belonging to this sub-group were found in the caves at Qumran. Thus, with regard to apocalyptic historiography – as in the case of chronology – the summaries from Qumran are disproportionately represented.69 65

66

67

68 69

See also the reference to periods in the fragmentary Pesher on the Periods (4Q180 1 1–3). For a division of history into a round number of periods, as typical of apocalyptic historiography, see e.g., Stone, AncientJudaism(above, n. 64), 60–75. 4Q180 refers to ‫“( קצים‬periods”), whereas 4Q226 mentions the units of weeks and jubilees. On periodization and the characterization of history as “discontinuity,” see Zerubavel, TimeMaps(above, n. 11), 82–100. On chronological markers in these texts see section 4.2. This finding accords with the more general fact that “the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls have significantly increased the number of apocalypses or distinctively apocalyptic texts available to us before their discovery.” See Daniel A. Machiela, “The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Development of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in The SeleucidandHasmoneanPeriodsandtheApocalypticWorldview, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason M. Zurawski, LSTS 88 (Oxford: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 147–58 [148].

OTHER TRENDS WITHIN EXTRA-BIBLICAL HISTORICAL SUMMARIES

129

4.6 CONCLUSIONS In composing brief histories of Israel in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, Jewish and Christian authors relied on the model of the biblical historical summary, yet they adapted it to accord with the literary models and techniques that flourished in their own time. We have demonstrated that in addition to shaping reviews of Israelite history to match the content and form of the long biblical history, they also acted to reflect Hellenistic interests, rhetoric, and literary models. Two general shifts can be discerned when extra-biblical summaries are compared to the biblical reviews. The former are more interested in the temporal aspects of history, and they devote more attention to individual characters. Special attention to the axis of time – whether reflected by chronological markers, periodization, or both – is limited to one-third of the category of the extra-biblical historical summaries, with a high percentage of this subgroup being texts from Qumran. This finding suggests a correlation between the apocalyptic worldview of a community and the tendency to compose (or collect) texts that anchor Israel’s history to an overarching narrative of time by various devices. At the same time, the frequency of reference to the duration of Israel’s bondage in Egypt in summaries from Qumran as well as in summaries composed in Greek outside the land of Israel show that the interest in chronology was also rooted in exegetical concerns. Significantly, with the exception of Demetrius’s chronography (and perhaps 4Q559), no brief account of Israelite history from the Hellenistic and early Roman period imitates the utilization of chronology in a quintessentially Hellenistic manner. While the growth of interest in temporal subjects is evinced by only a limited number of extra-biblical historical summaries, the shift in the place of the individual on the stage of history can be seen across all of these writings. One factor influencing this change was the dependence of the ancient Jewish and Christian authors on the long biblical history (Genesis–2 Kings), which ascribes a central role to Israel’s ancestors and leaders. At the same time, the biographic emphasis of the extra-biblical historical summaries harmonizes with the expanding role of personalities in Hellenistic literature seen, for example, in encomia, historiography, and ultimately biography.70 While this trend may have had a general 70

Scholars have often acknowledged the blurred boundaries between biography, encomium and historiography. See e.g., Momiliagano, Development of Greek Biography (above, n. 13), 8–22; Tomas Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1–9.

130

ATAR LIVNEH

influence on early Jewish and Christian authors, the structuring of some summaries or subunits within them around figures rather than events can be further linked to the rise of two specific models: genealogy and exempla. As both of these models are complex, their influence on extra-biblical historical summaries affected both the content and the form of those reviews. The incorporation of genealogy, with its basis in chronological organization, gave rise to a dominance in this manner of ordering, which can already be seen in biblical historical summaries. In contrast, the assimilation of exempla brought in new modes of organizing the events or figures – positive vs. negative or ancient vs. recent, for example. Moreover, Jewish and Christian texts that fill the function of exempla and follow its basic structure also tend to display other novel rhetorical features absent from the biblical historical summaries. While some of these traits are drawn from classical lists of examples, others reflect the influence of hymns or liturgy. Thus, in blending the previous conventions of the genre seen in the Hebrew Bible with multiple other literary models, extra-biblical historical summaries can be said to have many “ancestors.”

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS 5.1 SUMMARIES OUTSIDE AND INSIDE

THE

BIBLE

As a genre, short sequences of historical events and figures from Israel’s past flourished during the late centuries of the Second Temple period (300 BCE–100 CE). Our study has focused on those specimens that did not find their way into the Hebrew canon. In addition to their concise style and general focus on Israelite history, these share the following formal and substantive properties: the inclusion of incidents and figures representing at least two historical periods, the conception of Israel’s beginning as having occurred before the entrance to Canaan, the arrangement of the sequence in a chronological order, and the existence of a theme or themes that unite the sequence. Forty-five texts satisfy this definition, and others skirt its boundaries. As the first study to address such a large sample of brief histories of Israel from the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, the current research has introduced new insights into the nature of these texts, their relationships to one another, and the links between them and earlier biblical summaries. Below, I will recapitulate the main findings of this study, also pointing out those aspects that invite further investigation. “Extra-biblical historical summaries” display affinities of content and form with those earlier reviews that were included in the Hebrew canon. This has been demonstrated in earlier research with regard to individual extra-biblical historical summaries and one subgroup of that category (ancient Jewish and Christian exempla). The current study shows that these similarities can be found in a considerably larger group of brief accounts of Israelite history penned in the Hellenistic and early Roman period. These follow earlier, “biblical” summaries in two particulars: (a) they retain some of the conventions underlying the biblical examples, and (b) they often exhibit dependency on specific biblical summaries.

132

ATAR LIVNEH

5.1.1. Retention of Biblical Conventions Conventions typical of biblical summaries are reflected in three features of the extra-biblical reviews: their chronological organization, the tendency of many of them to arrange the sequence as a plot, and the thematic affinities with biblical summaries. The first of these, chronological arrangement, can be found in all summaries included in the Hebrew Bible.1 With the exception of 3 Macc. 6:4–8 and A.J.3.83–88, all extrabiblical historical summaries adhere to this rule, and so do the majority of the texts we have designated as borderline cases (e.g., CD 1:1–11) as well as Jewish lists of examples not included in this study (e.g., Jdt 8:25–27; A.J. 1.281; 1 Clem. 31.1–4).2 The dominance of this principle within the Jewish lists of examples is especially striking since classical series of examples exhibit considerable variety in the arrangement of historical figures and incidents, chronology being only one option among several.3 We noted in chapter 4 the adoption by Jewish and Christian summaries of two organizational criteria typical of classical exempla: positive vs. negative examples and ancient vs. recent events. However, the division into ancient vs. recent events is limited to just two extra-biblical historical summaries (A.J. 3.83– 88 and 1 Clem. 4.1–6.4); and although more popular, the “positive/ negative” principle too never became as common as chronological organization.4 Moreover, neither the division into ancient vs. recent events nor that of positive vs. negative examples was used independently in the Jewish summaries. Rather, it was employed together with chronological organization and subordinate to it (but cf. A.J. 3.83–88). The extra-biblical historical summaries thus followed the biblical reviews in framing a progression from the distant past toward the days of the speaker and audience. The growing utilization of genealogy as a structural feature within extra-biblical reviews further consolidated the dominance of the chronological principle. 1 2

3

4

Psalm 78 is the exception to this rule. Brief historical surveys and lists focusing on Israelite history and not completely subordinated to a chronological arrangement are Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16, LAB 18:5–6, 1 Clem. 17.1–18.7 and m. Taꜥan. 2:4. As noted by Eisenbaum, however, chronological organization is not uncommon among Greco-Roman lists of examples. See Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context, SBLDS 156 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 75–76. This organizing principle occurs in nine extra-biblical historical summaries; see section 4.3.

CONCLUSIONS

133

The second convention characterizing biblical historical summaries that is retained by many of their extra-biblical successors is the presentation of the historical sequence as a plot.5 Texts such as LAB 32:1–11 and A.J. 3.83–88, the case studies analyzed in chapters 1 and 2, constitute excellent examples in this respect. They employ a plethora of stylistic devices linking the individual events, thereby lending continuity and coherence to the account. Configuration of the catalogs of historical of events as a narrative also occurs in the other summaries in LAB and JewishAntiquities (cf. also B.J. 5.375–419). Lee has pointed out a similar phenomenon in Jdt 5 and Acts 7, whereas Eisenbaum has noted it within Jewish and Christian lists of heroes such as CD 2:14–3:14, Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers, Wis 10 and Heb 11.6 4Q225, the Animal Apocalypse, 4 Ezra 3:4–27; and Acts 13:16–25 can also be added to this group. It should be noted, however, that several other extra-biblical historical summaries (e.g., 5Q13, 4 Ezra 7:106–111) are comprised of succinct subunits with a formulaic grammatical structure, typical of lists, that weakens the narrative momentum and flow. The review in 4 Macc. 16:18–23 also creates a strong impression of discreteness between its parts, not only by its brevity but also its content. The list includes only three historical events, the Akedah and the trials of Daniel and of Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, thus alluding exclusively to two historical periods (the patriarchal and the Persian) so far separated in the master narrative of Israelite history that no direct linear connection can be drawn between them.7 Although the narrative coherence of extra-biblical historical summaries is clearly variable, a precise mapping of the category from this perspective is hampered by the fragmentary state of the majority of the summaries from Qumran. Unless new manuscripts are found, the total number and types of literary devices by which 4Q252 or 4Q464, for example, link the historical events they mention will remain undetermined. While we may 5

6

7

On the configuration of historical events as plot in the biblical summaries see Carol Newsom, “Rhyme and Reason: The Historical Resumé in Israelite and Early Jewish Thought,” in CongressVolume:Leiden2004, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 215–33. Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBLDS 75 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 31–32; Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes(above, n. 3), 56–57. Significantly, the extra-biblical historical summaries comprise events/figures which belong to a single master narrative, that of the Israelite nation. Therefore, even Jewish exempla that do not present the members in the list as a coherent narrative, are underlined by the assumption that they all form part of the same history. See Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes(above, n. 3), 75–76.

134

ATAR LIVNEH

never have an exact knowledge of the extent of late Second Templeperiod summaries’ storytelling qualities and the strategies they utilized to achieve them, further research on these texts has the potential to provide us with a better picture. Apart from their chronological organization and narrative coherence, extra-biblical historical summaries exhibit other significant thematic affinities with biblical ones. In her discussion of the Jewish lists of heroes, Eisenbaum notes that “the lists in Sirach, Wisdom and the Covenant of Damascus, like the summaries of biblical history before them, all display an interest in the inheritance of the divine promise.”8 While it is true that a number of extra-biblical historical summaries follow biblical examples in this regard specifically (see also 4Q225, 4Q252, LAB 23:11, and Acts 7:17), our findings show the loyalty of extrabiblical historical summaries to the conventions of their biblical predecessors to be much broader.9 Firstly, various topoi characteristic of biblical summaries (e.g. the exodus, the wandering in the desert) recur in the extra-biblical historical summaries. While further comparative research is needed to depict the phenomenon in a precise and complete form, the findings of the present study lead us to the following preliminary conclusions: Firstly, although extra-biblical historical summaries are by no means limited to topics attested in the biblical summaries, they virtually always include one or more of them. This spans the whole category, across summaries with different formal features (lists of examples or otherwise), composed in various localities, and authored by different religious communities from the third century BCE to the first century CE. A further convention of content featured by the biblical reviews and retained by most of the extra-biblical summaries is the exclusion of women from the historical account. Extra-biblical historical summaries display an especially strong affinity with post-exilic biblical summaries, both in their extensive treatment of Abraham and with regard to the specific pericopes in the Abraham cycle to which they refer. Like late biblical summaries, extra-biblical summaries 8

9

Eisenbaum refers here to CD 2:14–3:14, Sir 44–50 and Wis 10. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes(above, n. 3), 58–59. While Eisenbaum’s comparative tables suggest that Ps 105, Acts 7 and a few Jewish exempla (e.g., Wis 10) all refer to Abraham and Joseph, she does not pursue the implications of this with regard to the links between late Second Temple-period catalogs of Jewish heroes and the biblical summaries. See Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes(above, n. 3), 52–57.

CONCLUSIONS

135

begin their recitation of history either with Abraham or at some earlier point. The exceptions to this rule are a few summaries in LAB and Jewish Antiquities which, following a different model of biblical summaries, commence with the exodus.10 The review in CD 1:1–11 – a borderline case according to our definition of historical summaries – also deviates from this rule, as it follows prophetic and apocalyptic texts in commencing its narrative at the exile. 5.1.2 Employing Specific Biblical Summaries as a Model While some similarities between extra-biblical historical summaries and scriptural examples of the genre are general, certain texts belonging to the former category were modeled in definite respects on specific biblical summaries. In this regard too, the state of research on extra-biblical historical summaries does not allow us to determine the true scope of the phenomenon or to ascertain whether some scriptural summaries constituted more popular models than others. Our mapping of the representation of Abraham in extra-biblical historical summaries, as well as the case studies in LAB and JewishAntiquities, show that some Hellenistic and early Roman-period summaries reproduce the genealogy given in Ps 105, as well as its language and the analogy it creates between the patriarchs and the audience of the historical review.11 The summary in Neh 9 (which in itself alludes to Ps 105) seems to be another favorite model for late Second Temple-period authors.12 Extra-biblical historical summaries drew on other scriptural summaries as well, and in various ways. The details borrowed fall into three principle categories: sequence (i.e., the juxtaposition of specific pericopes), analogies between specific historical incidents, and allusions to the language of biblical summaries. This can be seen, for example, in the case of LAB 32:1–11 discussed in detail in chapter 1. This summary (esp. vv. 6–7) presents the same sequence of events as that of Num 20:15–16. In addition to reproducing this arrangement of historical incidents, LAB 32:1–11 also adopts an analogy implied in 1 Sam 12:8–11 between the enslavement in Egypt and the circumstances of the Israelites under Sisera’s reign. Finally, the wording of LAB 32:1, 5 alludes to the language of Josh 24:2–4. 10 11 12

A.J. 3.17–19, 3.83–88, 4.40–50; LAB 19:9, 30:5–6, 53:8–9. E.g., 4Q225 1 4; CD 2:14–3:14; A.J. 3.83–88. See also chapter 2, n. 58. E.g., 4Q225 2 ii 8; 1 Macc 2:52; Sir 44:20; A.J. 3.86; LAB 23:5, 32:1.

136

ATAR LIVNEH

5.1.3 Similarities between Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries In his discussion of genre, Fowler observed that works included in a given genre are connected by “a sequence of influence and imitation and inherited codes.”13 His observation holds true for at least some of the similarities existing between members belonging to the category of the extra-biblical historical summaries. The sequence common to the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:14–15), Jdt 5:10–12, and LAB 32:6–7 is the result of a shared dependency on earlier examples of the genre, namely reviews in Num 20:15–16 and Deut 26:5–9. Similarly, the existence of similar language in 4Q225 2 ii 8, Sir 44:20, and 1 Macc 2:52 is due to the fact that these extra-biblical summaries all allude to a single scriptural summary (Neh 9:8). The close parallel between the depiction of the journey to Mount Sinai in LAB 32:7 And 4 Ezra 3:17 can be traced to a literary dependence of one of these summaries on the other. Likewise, the dependence of 1 Clement on Hebrews can explains some of the stylistic and substantial affinities existing between the summaries in 1 Clem. 4.1–6.4, 9.1–12.8 and in Heb 11. Notably, it is not always possible to identify the precise sequence of influence within a genre. For example, the juxtaposition of the covenant between the pieces with Isaac’s birth occurs in a small number of extrabiblical summaries originating in different milieus: 4Q225 2 i 5–9; LAB 32:1–4; and 1 Clem. 10.1–7. Due to the lack of any internal or external evidence of literary dependence of the later texts on the summary from Qumran, the chain of transmission in this literary tradition remains obscure. Such cases have therefore been depicted in this work using general language, referring to a “common literary model occurring in the late centuries of the Second Temple period.” Even more vague are cases wherein a summary presents a motif that predates it in a large number of texts belonging to the genre. For example, it is obvious that in beginning its catalog of events with Abraham, the review in 4 Macc. 16:18–23 employed an “inherited code,” in Fowler’s words. However, it is difficult to determine whether the author of 4 Maccabees encountered this element in a specific earlier summary (biblical or extra-biblical) or simply followed what he considered to be the standard. This and other common elements – such as the mere reference to Abraham – were therefore ascribed in this work to the existence of conventions governing 13

Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 42.

CONCLUSIONS

137

the overall genre of historical summaries during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. While the present study pointed to various types of interrelations between extra-biblical historical summaries, it did not presume to outline all the affinities between members of the group. Nor did it examine whether some of these affinities are not diachronic, but rather specific to summaries composed in a specific period (e.g., the late first century CE). This task awaits future study. 5.1.4 Shedding Light on Biblical Summaries While we have elucidated the nature of extra-biblical historical summaries, further research into this group of texts and their traits could provide us with additional valuable insights in light of which the efforts to date biblical summaries might be examined. The dating of biblical summaries is usually based on their language (e.g., inclusion or omission of words and grammar typical of late biblical Hebrew), their dependence on other biblical texts (Nehemiah 9, for example, alludes to Ps 105, and therefore must be later), literary criticism of the wider context in which they occur and their place within it, and finally possible links between the theme or message of a summary and specific historical circumstances. The implementation of these various methods by different scholars has not always led to agreement; with regard to some summaries, suggestions still range from the eighth century BCE to the Hellenistic period. In contrast to this, there is a scholarly consensus that all the texts designated in this study as “extra-biblical historical summaries” were penned in the Hellenistic or the early Roman periods. Once a more detailed mapping of this category is conducted, the extra-biblical historical summaries will thus serve as a control group in light of which biblical summaries, whose date is debated, might be scrutinized. For example, using our findings regarding the representation of Abraham in late Second Temple-period summaries, we can conclude that unlike the majority of the biblical summaries – but similar to many extra-biblical historical reviews – the catalog in Josh 24 begins with Abraham, and the subunit on the patriarchs is structured as a genealogy.14 This supports

14

The only other biblical summary that exhibits these two traits is Ps 105, whose late date is widely accepted; see chapter 3, n. 5.

138

ATAR LIVNEH

the view that Josh 24 is a late biblical summary, a hypothesis biblical scholars have already proposed based on other considerations.15 Here a word of caution is in order. Genres do not develop in a linear fashion, and new models often thrive side by side with older ones rather than replacing them. So, for example, although Second Temple-period summaries show a growing tendency to trace the people’s origins to Abraham or earlier, brief histories of Israel that begin their account with the exodus continued to exist (JewishAntiquities and LAB, for example, each contain both types). Therefore, a comparison between biblical and extra-biblical summaries can never stand alone as the single method by which the date of a biblical summary is determined. However, it can join with other literary, linguistic and historical criteria to achieve this purpose.16 5.2 THE LONG STORY OF ISRAEL’S PAST Previous research of late biblical summaries has analyzed their dependence on the long history of Israel’s past eventually canonized as Genesis–2 Kings, or on parts of it. Our analysis of the extra-biblical historical summaries shows that this influence expanded with the passage of time and the consolidation of the authoritative status of that history.17 Virtually all the extra-biblical historical summaries include allusions to events or figures that appear in these scriptures only outside the biblical summaries. While there is considerable variety as to the specific narratives and characters mentioned in extra-biblical historical summaries, it is evident that some of these – Noah, for example – were more popular than others. Notably, episodes and figures from Genesis occur in virtually all the extra-biblical historical summaries, indicating the extent to which narratives and genealogies therein were accepted as the beginning of Israelite history. Any attempt to paint a more precise picture of the relationship of extrabiblical historical summaries to the long scriptural narrative is made 15 16

17

See chapter 3, n. 5. Cf. Kratz’s late dating of Neh 9 which, while primarily being based on wider considerations regarding the literary development of Ezra and Nehemiah, is further supported by similarities between that chapter and the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504, 4Q505, 4Q506). Reinhard Kratz, TheCompositionoftheNarrativeBooksoftheOldTestament, trans. John Bowden (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 92. Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers reflects a longer historiographic sequence extending all the way from the first generations of humanity to Nehemiah.

CONCLUSIONS

139

difficult by the state of research on the former group. Still, the current study has revealed that extra-biblical historical summaries do not merely draw on the content of the long history but are also influenced by its formal traits. Here again, Genesis seems to be a significant model, with quite a few historical summaries arranging their accounts of the patriarchal period according to its genealogical principle (e.g., the Animal Apocalypse [1 En. 89:9–12]; Acts 7:8). Another feature occurring in the Pentateuch that appears in a smaller number of Hellenistic and early Roman-period summaries is chronological notation (e.g., in 4Q252 II 8–10; B.J. 5.382).18 A few extra-biblical summaries also replace the third person report typical of historical summaries with a dramatic presentation typical of the biblical stories, especially in retelling the Akedah (see e.g., 4Q464 6 3; LAB 32:2–4). The growing authoritative status of the long history of Israel was thus a significant influence on the development of the historical summary genre during the last centuries of the Second Temple period, as these later reviews blended the traits particular to this history with conventions characterizing the earlier, biblical summaries. 5.3 JEWISH LISTS

OF

EXAMPLES

The adoption by ancient Jewish and Christian authors of the classical rhetorical device of exempla was noted early on, and initial studies focused on series of historical figures known as “lists of heroes.”19 Building on the observations of previous comparative research of these catalogs, the comprehensive nature of the present study allowed us to examine them in a wider context, leading us to the following conclusions: First, there are no rigid boundaries between Jewish lists of examples and other contemporaneous summaries of Israelite history. These two sub-groups share conventions of content and some formal features. The mechanism of blending the traits of different literary models, mentioned above with regard to historical summaries and the genealogies of Genesis, for example, is likewise at work linking historical summaries and lists of examples. This being the case, it seems that future studies would benefit more from identifying the strands of various literary models intertwined 18

19

For further extra-biblical historical summaries that employ genealogy or chronology, see sections 4.1 and 4.2. See the references in the Introduction, nn. 7, 8, 14, chapter 3, n. 41 and chapter 4, n. 33.

140

ATAR LIVNEH

in brief accounts of Israelite history than from insisting that they be either a list of examples or a historical summary.20 As our detailed analysis of the review in A.J. 3.83–88 shows, some of the catalogs of events from Israel’s past are even more complex, merging conventions typical of exempla with traits characteristic of biblical summaries and other literary models (in that case other scriptural passages and Hellenistic oaths). The discussion in chapter 2 of A.J. 3.83–88 also highlighted a Jewish list of examples constructed (at least partially) around events rather than characters, a subtype not discussed in former comparative studies of Jewish exempla. Here, two findings should be noted: Firstly, only a very few Jewish exempla are, wholly or partially, dominated by an events-centered approach, most of them occurring in Josephus’s works (A.J. 3.17–19, 83–88, 4.40–50; B.J. 5.375–419; cf. also the second unit of CD 2:14–3:14).21 One explanation for this choice is the heavy reliance of the catalogs from JewishAntiquities (as well as CD 2:14–3:14) on biblical summaries. Another factor is these summaries’ immediate literary context. With their orations planted within a long-scale historiographies, the characters of Moses (in A.J. 3.17–19, 83–88) and Josephus (in B.J. 5.375–419) adduce past events as part of their exhortation to the people – a strategy attributed to political and military leaders in Livy’s history of Rome (see e.g., Ab urbe cond. 21.10, 24.8, 26.13, 41).22 Unlike these event-oriented texts, most of the Jewish lists of examples are centered around characters, reflecting a parallel trend in the Hellenistic world. This group is in fact larger than has been noted in previous comparative studies, since it must include those texts constructed around the common biblical list of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Jdt 8:25–27, A.J. 1.281, and 1 Clem. 31.1–4).23 Since these texts, as well as brief lists such as Sir 16:5–14 and 2 Pet 2:4–10, are excluded from Eisenbaum’s analysis of Jewish lists of heroes, her conclusion regarding the tendency 20

21

22

23

Cf. Altman’s criticism of the assumption that each text (or film) can belong only to a single genre. Rick Altman, Film/Genre, (London: British Film Institute, 1999), 18–19. Philo’s OntheLifeofAbraham demonstrates the patriarch’s virtues (e.g. piety, benevolence and military prowess) via a series of examples, all of which constitute events from his lifetime. Abr. 245–254 similarly illustrates Sarah’s wifely love by examples of her deeds. Both Livy and Josephus also include heroes as examples (see e.g., Livy, Aburbecond. 26.41, 28.43; A.J. 1.281). Cf. also LAB 18:5–6 and Appendix A, n. 40. This group of lists has not been analyzed in this study since its members do not satisfy our definition of extra-biblical historical summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

141

of the latter to list relatively numerous examples should be re-examined.24 Any future study aiming at elucidating this topic should also, however, address the use of examples by ancient Jewish and Christian authors in general. It should take into account the whole spectrum of this model, treating also references to only one or two examples.25 Given the findings of empirical research into exempla in Greco-Roman poetry, which show that the Latin series of examples tend to be longer than their earlier Greek counterparts,26 and that the literary context of an instance of exempla may influence its nature, the ways in which Jewish and Christian texts employ this model should be examined in light of comparable examples from contemporaneous classical works.27 While the exact number of historical events and figures listed in each example of Jewish and Christian exempla remains for now undetermined, the current study reaffirms Cosby’s conclusion that Jewish and Christian exempla employed several rhetorical devices that prevailed in GrecoRoman catalogues. It qualifies the picture painted by Cosby in pointing out, firstly, that the occurrence of a specific rhetorical device within Jewish exempla does not necessarily reflect a continuation of earlier models of classical exempla, but might be borrowed from another classical literary model. This seems to be the case with regard to the use of a pronoun or an article as an anaphoric element (in e.g., Wis 10; 24

25

26

27

The group of Jewish exempla discussed by Eisenbaum (JewishHeroes [above, n. 3], 35–87), consists of CD 2:14–3:14; Wis 10; Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers; 1 Macc 2:51–60; 3 Macc. 2:1–8, 6:4–8; 4 Ezra 7:106–111; and Heb 11. Her observation is indicated in the context of a comparison to classical lists of heroes; see n. 27 below. While the additional lists we mentioned above (e.g., Jdt 8:25–27, A.J. 1.281 and 1 Clem. 31.1–4) do not support Eisenbaum’s claims regarding the length of Jewish lists of heroes, it affirms her conclusion that they usually “maintain a consistent rhythm in enumerating examples.” Eisenbaum, JewishHeroes (above, n. 3), 75. See e.g., passages that adduce a single example in 1 Macc 4:9, 4 Macc. 15:28, and LAB 40:2, or two examples in Rom 9:9–11 and 1 Clem. 55.3–6. Howard V. Canter, “The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry,” The AmericanJournalofPhilology 54 (1933): 201–24 [222]. Lee discusses Greek and Latin lists of examples as background to his analysis of The Praise of the Fathers, whereas Cosby and Eisenbaum compare them to Jewish lists of examples. All of these scholars focus on series of examples penned by the GrecoRoman orators, either as part of rhetorical treatises or elsewhere. See: Lee, Form of Sirach 44–50 (above n. 6), 99–103; Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989); Eisenbaum JewishHeroes (above, n. 3), 63–87. They use these texts to illustrate the typical features of classical “lists of heroes,” which then save as a basis for comparison with Jewish lists of examples. However, the stylistic variety of classical lists of heroes is considerably larger than suggested by the examples they accumulated, and their literary features are dependent on contemporaneous conventions, the genre into which they are interwoven, and the identity of their authors.

142

ATAR LIVNEH

3 Macc. 6:4–8; A.J. 4.40–50), a motif attested in Hellenistic hymns of praise. This finding exposes, from yet another angle, the complex and hybrid nature of the Jewish lists of examples. Significantly, while devices typical of classical rhetoric are more common in Jewish summaries that include formal features of exempla than in other contemporaneous reviews, the pattern of adducing negative and positive examples alternatingly is visible both in exempla and other catalogs of Israelite history (e.g., 4Q252; the Apocalypse of Weeks). A further observation of this study regards the extent of use of classical rhetorical devices in light of the language and provenance of Jewish and Christian exempla. Here it should be emphasized that lists of heroes composed in Hebrew in the land of Israel employed classical rhetorical devices to a greater extent than suggested in Cosby’s monograph.28 Due to the differences between Hebrew and Greek or Latin with regard to flexibility of word-order, for example, not every classical rhetorical device can be poured into a Semitic mold.29 Still, the preponderance of devices such as an anaphora, magnifying (auxesis), and juxtaposition of contrasts in lists composed in Hebrew show that their authors aimed to reproducing the classical model of exempla in all its stylistic glory. First adopted by Jews during the Hellenistic period, lists of heroes remained popular in Jewish circles long afterward – as is evident from their recurrence in the so-called Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (Apos. Con. 7) – and flourished in rabbinic literature as well as in the piyyutim. Unfortunately, very few studies trace the lists of heroes diachronically from the Second Temple period onward.30 The complete story of Jewish lists of heroes, therefore, still remains to be told. 5.4 APOCALYPTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY Extra-biblical historical summaries most commonly blended conventions of biblical historical summaries with those of the authoritative long history of Israel and with various other types of catalogs or lists (such 28 29

30

See section 4.4. For example, in Hebrew it is difficult to employ hyberbaton, a reverse of word order in a clause, which results in the separation between closely linked words (e.g., a noun and the adjective describing it). But cf. Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance,” DSD8 (2001): 136–48.

CONCLUSIONS

143

as genealogy or exempla). Yet one group of extra-biblical historical summaries, all penned in Hebrew or Aramaic in the land of Israel, is also deeply influenced by apocalyptic historiography. This explains their use of revelation as a literary frame, of historical periodization and references to the eschatological era (see e.g., the Animal Apocalypse and the Vision of the Bright and the Dark Waters). The view of history espoused by these texts as encompassing past, present and future distinguishes them from the other extra-biblical historical summaries, which, like biblical reviews, are virtually always limited to past events.31 Summaries that constitute apocalyptic historiography also stand out just by virtue of their interest in the temporal axis of history. Such interest is also evinced in a relatively small group of extra-biblical historical summaries that make use of chronological markers to delineate the time or duration of historical events.32 While chronological indications are not limited to extra-biblical summaries penned in the land of Israel, both chronology and apocalyptic historiography are overrepresented in the extra-biblical summaries found at Qumran. Two further comments are in order regarding the use of chronological markers in extra-biblical summaries. First, chronological markers are a trait alien to lists of heroes, only rarely appearing in extra-biblical historical summaries with formal traits typical of that model.33 What’s more, their occurrence in other Hellenistic and early Roman-period reviews usually resembles their appearances in the Israel’s authoritative long history (especially the Pentateuch) insofar as they almost never join into a consistent and complete chronological system. The only exceptions to this rule are the work of Demetrius the chronographer and perhaps 4Q559, both of which follow stylistic features of Hellenistic chronography. 5.5 TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GENRE Like the historical reviews that found their way into the Hebrew Bible, extra-biblical historical summaries present events and figures from Israelite history in brief chronological form. While both biblical and 31

32

33

The exceptions are A.J. 2.172–175 and 2.213–216, which are set within the literary frame of a dream-vision and refer to both past and future events. These two groups partially overlap. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, for example, constitutes both apocalyptic historiography and chronology. But cf. Heb 11:23.

144

ATAR LIVNEH

extra-biblical examples belong to the genre of historical summaries, they roughly represent two different phases within the genre’s life. Throughout this study, we have noted that while extra-biblical summaries are heavily dependent on their scriptural predecessors, they exhibit several traits of form and content absent from the former. These new features did not emerge from thin air, but were rather drawn from other literary forms and rhetorical models that were flourishing in Jewish and Christian communities during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. The genre of the historical summary thus developed during the last centuries of the Second Temple period by way of cross-fertilization. Since the conventions of the historical summary genre as reflected in the biblical examples were blended with those of various other models (exempla, apocalyptic historiography etc.), and because each of the extra-biblical summaries has a distinctive literary context and rhetorical purpose, the category of extrabiblical historical summaries as a whole displays a considerable variety. Therefore, while we will now delineate five principal trends within the category, none of them is reflected in each and every extra-biblical historical summary. 1. In comparison to biblical summaries, extra-biblical historical reviews display a greater variety with respect to the historical events and figures they include.34 This feature reflects the adaptation of the genre to accord with the long authoritative history of Israel (Genesis– 2 Kings) and is evident already in post-exilic biblical summaries. Late Second Temple-period historical summaries, however, attest to the expansion of this phenomenon, as they include figures and episodes not found even in the latest biblical summaries. While most of these new figures and events already appear in what has become the Hebrew Bible (outside its historical summaries), some extrabiblical historical reviews also allude to heroes or events from their own time (e.g., CD 2:14–3:14, Pseudo-Daniel, and Heb 11). 2. Extra-biblical historical summaries usually conceive of Abraham or the first generations of humanity as the beginning of Israelite history. Here, again, they continue a trend beginning in a few post-exilic biblical summaries which, influenced by Genesis, begin with the creation of the world or with Abraham. However, what is represented by only a few biblical examples becomes the rule for late Second Temple-period summaries. Moreover, extra-biblical histori34

Cf. Fowler’s claim that “genres change when new topics are added into their repertoires.” Fowler, KindsofLiterature(above, n. 13), 170–71.

CONCLUSIONS

3.

4.

5.

145

cal summaries frequently commence with the first generations of humanity, figures never referred to in biblical summaries. While the growing tendency to begin with Abraham or the first humans points to the consolidation of the authoritative status of the book of Genesis, it is also related to two factors within the Hellenistic world. The first is the competition for antiquity and the consequent inclination to push back the origins of peoples within the historiographic discourse as far as possible, whereas the second is the growing interest in central personalities (see below). Extra-biblical historical summaries refer to more individual characters than do biblical summaries, the latter usually focusing on God and on the people of Israel as a collective. This development is the result of a combination of factors: the reliance on content from the long authoritative scriptural history of Israel, the blending of genealogies with the summaries, and the adaptation of the GrecoRoman model of lists of examples. Generally speaking, the move of historical summaries toward a more hero-centered approach matches the biographic interest evinced in Greco-Roman literature of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. About one third of the extra-biblical historical summaries emphasize the temporal axis of history, a feature rarely occurring in biblical historical summaries. This sub-group of extra-biblical historical reviews refers to historical periods, to the date or duration of events, or to both, principally influenced by literary manifestations of the apocalyptic worldview and the model of the long history of Israel. Extra-biblical historical summaries employ devices that, while typical of classical rhetoric, are absent from the biblical summaries. These rhetorical tools are especially common in those summaries constructed as exempla, a subgroup which forms about one-third of the category of the extra-biblical historical reviews. While GrecoRoman lists of examples therefore must have been a significant influence on the adoption of these rhetorical devices, it nonetheless was not the sole route by which classical rhetorical or stylistic devices penetrated into Hellenistic and early Roman-period summaries of Israel’s past. Hellenistic hymns of praise were another literary model from which authors of Jewish and Christian exempla drew stylistic features. However, since many rhetorical devices are not linked exclusively to a specific literary type, we can also assume a more general influence of the dominant culture and its rhetoric on Jewish and Christian authors in the Hellenistic world.

146

ATAR LIVNEH

Although the trends indicated above do not necessarily exhaust the ways in which the genre of historical summaries developed throughout the Hellenistic and early Roman period, they do demonstrate its dynamism. When composing brief accounts of Israelite history, ancient Jewish and Christian authors were not confined to the conventions underlying the genre in their days, although they were obviously aware of them. The dozens of extra-biblical historical summaries we have received and the variety of contexts in which they are situated also suggest that this literary form had various functions. In this last respect (as in a few others, noted above) the historical summaries penned from the third century BCE to the first century CE are still a terra incognita awaiting further exploration.

APPENDICES Appendix A: List of the Extra-biblical Historical Summaries DeadSeaScrolls • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Damascus Document (CD 2:14–3:14)1 The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180 [see also 4Q181?]) Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225, 4Q226) Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243, 4Q244) Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) Non-canonical Psalms B (4Q381 I 1–V 12)2 Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389 [see also 4Q390?]) Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus (4Q422) Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) The Words of the Luminaries (4Q504, 4Q505, 4Q506) Biblical Chronology (4Q559) Rules (5Q13)

Apocrypha3 • Judith 5:5–21 • Sirach 16:5–14; 44–50 1

2

3

CD 1:1–11 is a borderline case. It satisfies most of the conditions for being considered an extra-biblical historical review, but it is unusual in its starting point: the exile. This idiosyncrasy is the result of the influence of prophetic (e.g., Ezek 4:5) and apocalyptic texts; see section 4.5. The columns and lines are numbered according to the reconstruction in Mika S. Pajunen, TheLandtotheElectandJusticeforAll:ReadingPsalmsintheDeadSeaScrollsin Lightof4Q381,JAJSup 14 (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). Here the first three psalms together constitute a historical summary beginning with the creation and ending with Israel’s elect and their anticipated future. If Pajunen’s reconstruction and literary analysis are correct, this summary is different from all others in the category inasmuch as it consists of three freestanding units. The Words of the Luminaries is similar in this respect, but there all the psalms seem to be linked as a single historical sequence; in 4Q381, by contrast, the three psalms that together constitute a historical sequence are part of a broader and diverse collection. The Vetus Latina of Esther incorporates into Esther’s prayer a historical summary constructed as a list of examples (Vetus Latina to Add Esth C.16). Not found in the extant Greek versions of Addition C, its date of composition remains uncertain. This is also why it has not been included in the present study. For the textual evidence and a discussion, see Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Hester, VL 7/3 (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 2003), 82, 91–92; idem, “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special

148

ATAR LIVNEH

• Wisdom 10 • 1 Maccabees 2:51–60 Pseudepigrapha • • • • • • • •

3 Maccabees 2:1–8, 6:4–8 4 Maccabees 16:18–23 The Animal Apocalypse (1Enoch 85–90) The Apocalypse of Weeks (1Enoch 93:1–10, 91:11–17) 2 Baruch 53–74 4 Ezra 3:4–27; 7:106–111 Biblical Antiquities15:5–6; 19:9; 23:1–11; 30:5–6; 32:1–11; 53:8–94 Demetrius the Chronographer

JosephusFlavius • JewishAntiquities 2.172–175, 213–216; 3.17–19, 83–88; 4.40–50; 6.88–91 • JewishWar 5.375–419 NewTestament • Acts 7; 13:16–25 • Hebrews 11 • 2 Peter 2:4–10 ApostolicFathers • 1 Clement 4.1–6.4; 9.1–12.85

4

5

Emphasis on the Book of Esther,” TheJournalofTheologicalStudies 57 (2006): 439– 73 [454–55, 470]. LAB 18:5–6 is a borderline case. Although it satisfies some of the criteria presented above for a historical summary, it is not arranged in a chronological order, likewise focusing on a single era: the age of the Patriarchs. As such it is closer to those lists of examples that refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alone, such as Jdt 8:25–27 and A.J. 1.281. 1 Clem 17.1–18.7, a list of historical figures not organized chronologically, constitutes a borderline case.

149

APPENDICES

Appendix B: The Opening and Conclusion of Moses’s Speech in A.J. 3.83–88 and Deut 5:1–5

6

A.J. 3.83–88

Deut 5:1–5

Comments

Exhortation to keep the commandments

Let them be held in reverence by you and let them be more worth fighting for than children and wives (§88; cf. 84)

Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances that I am addressing to you today; you shall learn them and observe them diligently (v.1)

While the thematic emphasis echoes Deut 5:1-5, the terminology is typical of Hellenistic oaths of loyalty (see section 2.2.1.2)

God’s presence

God, O Hebrews … is also coming Himself into the camp (§84)

The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the fire (v.4)

Josephus expresses a similar idea, but his language evokes that of Deut 23:15 (cf. also Ex 19:17)

Moses as a mediator

This is the one who graciously bestows these words upon you through me as an interpreter (§87g; cf. 84)

At that time I was standing between the LORD and you to declare to you the words of the LORD (v.5)

For other instances of Moses in the role of interpreter (ἑρμηνεύς), cf. Philo, Moses, 1.1.16

Spilsbury, “Exodus in Josephus” (chapter 2, n. 17), 468–70.

150

ATAR LIVNEH

Appendix C: A List of the Extra-biblical Historical Summaries which refer to Abraham and/or episodes from the Abraham Cycle DeadSeaScrolls • • • • • •

CD 2:14–3:14 Pesher on the Periods (4Q180 [see also 4Q181?]) Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225, 4Q226) Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243, 4Q244) Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389 [see also 4Q390?]) • Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) • Rules (5Q13) Apocrypha • • • •

Judith 5:5–21 Sirach 16:5–14; 44–50 Wisdom 10 1 Maccabees 2:51–60

Pseudepigrapha • • • • • • • •

3 Maccabees 2:1–8 4 Maccabees 16:18–23 The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10, 91:11–17) 2 Baruch 53–74 4 Ezra 4:4–17; 7:106–11 Biblical Antiquities15:5–6, 23:1–11, 32:1–117 Demetrius the Chronographer

JosephusFlavius • JewishAntiquities2.172–175, 213–216, 3.83–88 • TheJewishWar 5.375–419 NewTestament • Acts 7, 13:16–258 • Hebrews 11 • 2 Peter 2:4–10 ApostolicFathers • 1 Clement 9.1–12.89

7 8 9

LAB 18:5–6 constitutes a borderline case. See above, n. 4. This summary opens with the patriarchs as a collective. 1 Clem. 17.1–18.7 forms a borderline case. See above, n. 5.

151

APPENDICES

Appendix D: Episodes of Abraham’s Life Included in the Extra-Biblical Historical Summaries The table below shows which episodes in Abraham’s life appear in each of the extra-biblical historical summaries. For reasons of space, the table shows abbreviated titles for each work; the full references can be found in Appendix C. The episodes are indicated according to the following key: A – Abraham’s birth B – Abraham’s early life/election/journey from Ur of the Chaldeans to Canaan C – Abraham speaks the Holy Tongue D – Abraham and Sarah in Egypt E – Abraham’s wealth F – The war of the kings G – The Covenant between the Pieces H – The Covenant of Circumcision I – Sodom J – The Birth of Isaac K – The Akedah L – Abraham Bequeaths His Property to His Sons M – Other (reference to Abraham or the Patriarchs with no indication of a specific incident in their lives) A B C D E F G H I

J

K L M

1 Damascus Document 2–3

+

2 4Q180

+ + ?

3 4Q225, 4Q226

+

+ +

4 4Q243, 4Q244

+ +

+

5 4Q252

+

+

6 4Q464

+

+

+

+ +

7 Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

+

8 5Q13

+

9 Demetrius the Chronographer

+

10 Judith 5

+

+

+

11 Sirach 16

+

12 Sirach 44–50

?

13 Wisdom 10

+

+

+

+ +

+

14 1 Maccabees 2

+

15 3 Maccabees 2

+

16 4 Maccabees 16 17 The Animal Apocalypse 18 The Apocalypse of Weeks 19 2 Baruch 53–74

+ +

+ + +

152

ATAR LIVNEH

A B C D E F G H I 20 4 Ezra 3

+

+ +

21 4 Ezra 7

J

K L M

+ +

22 LAB 15

+

23 LAB 23

+ +

24 LAB 32

+

+

+ + +

25 A.J. 2.172–175

+

26 A.J. 2.213–216

+

27 A.J. 3.83–88

+

28 B.J. 5 29 Acts 7

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+ +

30 Acts 13 31 Hebrews 11

+

32 2 Peter 2 33 1 Clement 9–12

+

+ +

+

+

+ + +

BIBLIOGRAPHY ADAMS, Charles D. TheSpeechesofAeschines. LCL. London: William Heinemann, 1919. ADAMS, Sean A., The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography. SNTSMS 156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. ALLEN, Leslie C. Psalms101–150.Rev. ed. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. ALTMAN, Rick. Film/Genre. London: British Film Institute, 1999. AMIR, Yehosua. “Josephus on the Mosaic ‘Constitution.’” Pages 13–27 in PoliticsandTheopoliticsintheBibleandPostbiblicalLiterature.JSOTSup 171. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. ANBAR, Moshe. Josuéetl’alliancedeSichem(Josué24:1–28).BBET 25. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992. ANDREI, Osvalda. “The 430 Years of Ex. 12:40: From Demetrius to Julius Africanus – A Study in Jewish and Christian Chronography.” Henoch18 (1996): 9–67. AHEARNE-KROLL, Patricia. “Joseph and Aseneth and Jewish Identity in GrecoRoman Egypt.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2005. ARIEL, Chanan, Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky, and Elisha Qimron. “The Pesher on the Periods A–B (4Q180–4Q181): Editing, Language, and Interpretation.” Meghillot 11–12 (2014/15): 3–39 (Hebrew). ATTRIDGE, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates JudaicaeofFlaviusJosephus. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. AUSTIN, Michel M. TheHellenisticWorldfromAlexandertotheRomanConquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. BALCH, David L. “Comments on the Genre and a Political Theme of Luke-Acts: A Preliminary Comparison of Two Hellenistic Historians.” Pages 343–61 in SBLSP1989.Edited by David J. Lull. Atlanta: SBL, 1989. BAUMGARTEN, Albert I. “The Perception of the Past in the Damascus Document.” Pages 1–15 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. STDJ 34. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 2000. BAUMGARTEN, Joseph M. and SCHWARTZ, Daniel R. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in TheDeadSeaScrollHebrew,AramaicandGreekTextswith EnglishTranslations,vol. 2:DamascusDocument,WarScrollandRelated Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995. BEENTJES, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology.” Pages 209–28 in StudiesintheBookofBenSira. JSJSup 127. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and Józef Zsengeller. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

154

ATAR LIVNEH

BELKNAP, Robert E. The List: The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. BERLIN, Adele. “Interpreting Torah Traditions in Psalm 105.” Pages 20–36 in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context. Edited by Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. BERNSTEIN, Moshe J. “Where are the Patriarchs in the Literature of Qumran?” Pages 51–76 in RewritingandInterpretingtheHebrewBible:TheBiblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. BZAW 439. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz.Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. —. ReadingandRe-ReadingScriptureatQumran.2 vols. STDJ 107. Leiden: Brill, 2013. BICKERMAN, Elias J. “The Jewish Historian Demetrios.” Pages 72–84 in Christianity,JudaismandOtherGreco-RomanCults:StudiesforMortonSmith atSixty.PartThree:JudaismBefore70. SJLA 12. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975. BODA, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah9. BZAW 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. BOTT, Nicholas T. “‘And by Faith, Because Abraham Considered Him Faithful who had Promised, Sarah Herself Received Power to Conceive’: A Reconsideration of Heb 11:11.” TrinityJournal32 (2011): 205–19. BRENK, Frederick A. “Setting a Good Exemplum. Case Studies in the Moralia, The Lives as Case Studies.” Pages 237–53 in The Unity of Plutrach’s Work: ‘Moralia’ Themes in the ‘Lives’, Features of the ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’. Millennium Studies 19. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. BROOKE, George J. “The Thematic Content of 4Q252.” JQR85 (1994): 33–59. —. “Types of Historiography in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 175–92 in ReadingtheDeadSeaScrolls:EssaysinMethod. SBLEJL 39. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. —. “Praying History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Memory, Identity, Fulfilment.” Pages 305–19 in FunctionsofPsalmsandPrayersintheLateSecondTemple Period.BZAW486. Edited by Mika S. Pajunen and Jeremy Penner. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. BROWN, Cheryl A. No Longer be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of BiblicalWomen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. BRUCE, Ian. Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. London: Continuum, 2008. BURNETTE-BLETSCH, Rhonda J. “The Reception of Genesis in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 447–68 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. VTSup 152. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Nuria. “The Absence of Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 301–17 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. DCLS 7. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol.Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. CAMPBELL, Jonathan G. “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment.” Pages 49–81 in RewrittenBibleafterFiftyYears:Texts,TermsorTechniques? ALastDialoguewithGezaVermes. JSJSup 166. Edited by Józef Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

155

CANTER, Howard V. “The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry.” AmericanJournalofPhilology 54 (1933): 201–24. CHAPLAIN, Jane D. Livy’sExemplaryHistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. CLEMENTS, Ruth A. “The Parallel Lives of Early Jewish and Christian Texts and Arts: The Case of Isaac the Martyr.” Pages 207–40 in NewApproachesto theStudyofBiblicalInterpretationinJudaismoftheSecondTemplePeriod and in Early Christianity. STDJ 106. Edited by Gary Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran. Leiden: Brill, 2013. COHN, Leopold. “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria.” JQR10 (1898): 277–332. COLLINS, John J. “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited.” RQ 17 (1996): 111–35. —. “Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD19 (2012): 159–76. —. “The Genre Apocalypse Reconsidered,” ZAC 20 (2016): 21–40. CONOLLY, Serena. ”Ὀμνύω αὐτὸν τὸν Σεβαστόν: The Greek Oath in the Roman World.” Pages 203–16, 267–69 in Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society. Edited by Alan H. Sommerstein and Judith Fletcher. Exeter: Phoenix, 2007. CORLEY, Jeremy. “The Review of History in Eleazar’s Prayer in 3 Macc 6:1– 15.” Pages 201–29 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors VieweditsEarlierHistory. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benage and Jan Liesn. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. COSBY, Michael R. TheRhetoricalCompositionandFunctionofHebrews11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989. CROY, N. Clayton. 3Maccabees, Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2006. DAHOOD, Mitchell. Psalms III: Psalms 101–150. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1970. DELLING, Gerhard. “Von Morija zum Sinai.” JSJ10 (1971): 1–18. DEMOEN, Kristoffel. “A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms: The Rhetorical Exemplum in Ancient and Imperial Greek Theory.” Rhetorica 15 (1997): 125–58. DENIS, Albert-Marie. Thesaurus Patrum Latinorum Supplementum: ConcordanceLatinedesPseudepigraphesd’AncienTestament. Turnhout: Brepols, 1993. DESCAMP, Mary T. MetaphorandIdeology:LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarumand Literary Methods Through a Cognitive Lens. BibInt 87. Leiden: Brill, 2007. DI LELLA, Alexander A. “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–49): The History of Israel as Parenetic Apologetics.” Pages 151–70 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benage and Jan Liesn. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. DIMANT, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading andInterpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin J. Mulder. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988.

156

ATAR LIVNEH

—. QumranCave4XXI:ParabiblicalTexts.Part4:Pseudo-PropheticTexts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. —. History,IdeologyandBibleInterpretationintheDeadSeaScrolls.FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. DITOMMASO, Lorenzo. “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 497–522 in Celebrating the Dead SeaScrolls:ACanadianCollection. SBLEJL 30. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. —. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” Pages 669–74 in vol. 1 of Outside the Bible:AncientJewishWritingsRelatedtoScriptures. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Philadelphia: JPS, 2013. DUFF, David. ModernGenreTheory. Harlow: Longman, 2000. EGO, Beate. “Remembering Abraham in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 61–75 in TheReceptionandRemembranceofAbraham. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 13. Edited by Pernille Carstens and Niels P. Lemche. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. EISENBAUM, Pamela M. TheJewishHeroesofChristianHistory:Hebrews11in Literary Context. SBL Dissertation Series 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. ELGVIN, Torleif, and Emanuel Tov. “4Q422: 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 417–41 in Qumran Cave 4: Parabiblical Texts, Part I. DJD 13. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. FALK, Daniel K. TheParabiblicalTexts:StrategiesforExtendingtheScriptures amongtheDeadSeaScrolls. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8. LSTS 63. London: T&T Clark, 2007. FELDMAN, Ariel. “4Q422 (Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus).” Pages 83–129 in Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible. BZAW 449. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Liora Goldman, and Devorah Dimant. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. —. “4Q464 (Exposition on the Patriarchs), 4Q464a, and 4Q464b.” Pages 130–58 in Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible. BZAW 449. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Liora Goldman, and Devorah Dimant. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. —. “Patriarchs and Aramaic Traditions.” Pages 469–81 in T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel. London: Bloomsburt T&T Clark, 2018. FELDMAN, Louis H. “Prolegomenon.” Pagesix–clxix in TheBiblicalAntiquities ofPhilo.Translated by Montague R. James. New York: Ktav, 1971. —. “Josephus’ Portrait of Deborah.” Pages 115–28 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by André Caqout, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. —. “Josephus’ Portraits of the Pharaohs.” SyllectaClassica 4 (1993): 49–63. —. StudiesinHellenisticJudaism.AGJU 30. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible. HCS 27. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. —. Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus:TranslationandCommentary. Edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

FIDLER, Ruth. “Circumcision in 4Q225? Notes on Sequential and Conceptual Shifts.” Meghillot5–6 (2007): 197–218 (Hebrew). FISK, Bruce N. “Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext.” CBQ 62 (2000): 481–507. —. DoYouNotRemember?Scripture,StoryandExegesisintheRewrittenBible ofPseudo-Philo. JSPSup 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. FLANNERY, Frances. “Dreams and Visions in Early Jewish and Early Christian Apocalypses and Apocalyptism.” Pages 104–20 in TheOxfordHandbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by John J. Collins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. FISHBANE, Michael. BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. FITZMYER, Joseph A. TheActsoftheApostles.AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998. FOWLER, Alastair. KindsofLiterature:AnIntroductiontotheTheoryofGenres andModes.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. FRÖHLICH, Ida. “Themes, Structure and Genre of Pesher Genesis: A Response to George J. Brooke.” JQR85 (1994): 81–90. FROW, John. Genre. The New Critical Idiom. New York: Routledge, 2005. FURLEY, William D., and Jan M. BREMER. Greek Hymns. 2 vols. Studien und Texts zu Antike und Christentum9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. GEIGER, Joseph. Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography. Historia Einzelschriften XLVII. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1985. GLICKSMAN, Andrew T. Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History Through Sapiential Lenses. DCLS 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. GILBERT, Maurice. “The Review of History in Ben Sira 44–50 and Wisdom 10–19.” Pages 331–45 in Ben Sira: Recueil d’Etudes/Collected Essays. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. GNUSE, Robert K. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus. AGJU 36. Leiden: Brill, 1996. GONZÁLEZ, Julián. ”The First Oath Pro Salute Augusti Found in Baetica.” ZPE72 (1988): 113–27. GRABBE, Lester L. “Chronography in Hellenistic Jewish Historiography.” SBL SeminarPapers 2 (1979): 43–68. GREENBERG, Moshe. Ezekiel21–37.AB. New York: Doubleday, 1964. GRELOT, Pierre. “Quatre cent trente ans (Ex. 12, 34): Du Pentateuque au Testament Araméen de Lévi.” Pages 383–94 in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer. Edited by André Caquot and Marc Philolenko.Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971. GUNKEL, Hermann. “Das vierte Buch Esra.” Pages 331–402 in vol. 2 of Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Hildesheim: Georg Olms [Paul Siebeck], 1962. GURTNER, Daniel M. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. HÄGG, Tomas. TheArtofBiographyinAntiquity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. HALPERN-AMARU, Betsy. “Portraits of Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.” Pages 83–106 in “WomenLikeThis”:NewPerspectivesonJewish

158

ATAR LIVNEH

WomenintheGreco-RomanWorld.Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. SBLEJL 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. —. RewritingtheBible:LandandCovenantinPostbiblicalJewishLiterature. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. HANGER, Donald A. TheUseoftheOldandtheNewTestamentsinClementof Rome.Leiden: Brill, 1973. HAELEWYCK, Jean-Claude. Hester.Vetus Latina 7/3. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. —. “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther.” JTS57 (2006): 439–73. HARRINGTON, Daniel et al., Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1976. HARRINGTON, Daniel. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 297–377 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983. HEINEMANN, Joseph. “210 Years of Egyptian Exile: A Study in Midrashic Chronology.” JJS22 (1971): 19–30. HERRMANN, Peter. DerrömischeKaisereid:UntersuchungenzuseinerHerkunft undEntwicklung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. HORST, Pieter W. van der. “Deborah and Seila in Ps.-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 111–17 in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. TSAJ 32. Edited by Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Guy G. Stroumsa. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. HYATT, J. Phillip. “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo and an Independent Sinai Tradition?” Pages 152–70 in Translating and Understanding the OldTestament:EssaysinHonorofHerbertGordonMay. Edited by Harry T. Frank and William L. Reed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. JACOBSON, Howard. ACommentaryonPseudo-Philo’sLiber Antiquitatum BiblicarumwithLatinTextandEnglishTranslation. 2 vols. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. “Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum.” Pages 180–99 in ACompaniontoBiblicalInterpretationinEarlyJudaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. JAMES, Montague R. TheBiblicalAntiquitiesofPhilo.New York: Ktav, 1971. JONQUIÈRE, Tessel M. PrayerinJosephus. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 70. Leiden: Brill, 2007. KAISER, Otto. “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed by Arms …’: The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Addresses of Flavius Josephus to the Besieged Jerusalemites in Bell.Jud. V. 356–426.” Pages 239–64 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. KISTER, Menahem. “Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran.” JJS44 (1993): 280–90. —. “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance.” DSD8 (2001): 136–48. KOESTER, Craig R. Hebrews.AB. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

KRATZ, Reinhard. TheCompositionoftheNarrativeBooksoftheOldTestament. Translated by John Bowden. London: T&T Clark, 2005. —. “Friend of God, Brother of Sarah, and Father of Isaac.” Pages 79–105 in The Dynamic of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. FAT 35. Edited by Reinhard Kratz and Devorah Dimant. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. KUGEL, James L. TraditionsoftheBible:AGuidetotheBibleasitwasatthe StartoftheCommonEra. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. LANGLANDS, Rebecca. Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. LEE, Thomas R. StudiesintheFormofSirach44–50.SBL Dissertation Series 75. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. LEVINE, Daniel E. “Hubris in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1–4.” HUCA 64 (1993): 51–87. LICHTENBERGER, Hermann. “Historiography in the Damascus Document.” Pages 231–37 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its EarlierHistory. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. LIEBER, Laura. “Confessing from A to Z: Penitential Forms in Early Synagogue Poetry.” Pages 99–125 in SeekingtheFavorofGod. Volume 3. The Impact of Penitential Prayer beyond Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. LIVNEH, Atar. “How Long was Abraham’s Sojourn in Haran? Traditions Regarding the Patriarch in Compositions from Qumran.” Meghillot 8 (2010): 193–210 (Hebrew). —. “The ‘Beloved Sons’ of Jubilees,” JAJ 6 (2015): 85–96. —. “Abraham in Second Temple Historical Summaries.” Meghillot13 (2017): 119–58 (Hebrew) LONA, Horacio E. Der Erste Clemensbrief. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatren. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. LUMPE, Adolf. “Exemplum.” Cols. 1229–57 in vol. 6of ReallexikonfürAntike undChristentum. Edited by Theodor Klauser. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersmann, 1966. MACHIELA, Daniel A. “The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Development of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 147–58 in TheSeleucid andHasmoneanPeriodsandtheApocalypticWorldview. Library of Second Temple Studies 88. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason M. Zurawski. Oxford: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. MACK, Burton L. WisdomandtheHebrewEpic:BenSira’sHymninPraiseof theFathers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. MAERTENS, Thierry. L’Eloge des pères (Ecclésiastique XLIV–L). Collection lumière et vie 5. Bruges: Editions de l’Abbaye de Saint-André, 1956. MARCUS, Ralph. JewishAntiquities,BooksXII–XIV.LCL. Cambridge: William Heinmann, 1943. MARINCOLA, John. “Genre, Convention and Innovation in Greco-Roman Historiography.” Pages 281–323 in The Limits of Historiography: Genre and NarrativeinAncientHistoricalTexts. Mnemosyne Supplement 191. Edited by Christina Shuttleworth Kraus.Leiden: Brill, 1999.

160

ATAR LIVNEH

MASON, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. StPB 39. Leiden: Brill, 1991. MCCARTHY, Dennis J. “What was Israel’s Historical Creed?” LexingtonTheologicalQuarterly4 (1969): 46–53. MCDOWELL, Markus. PrayersofJewishWomen.WUNT 211. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. MEGILL, Allan. HistoricalKnowledge,HistoricalError:AContemporaryGuide toPractice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. MILIKOWSKY, Haim J. “Seder‘Olam and Jewish Chronography in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” PAAJR52 (1985): 115–39. MOMILIAGANO, Arnaldo. TheDevelopmentofGreekBiography. Expanded Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. MORGAN, John R. “Fiction and History: Historiography and the Novel.” Pages 553–64 in vol. 2 of A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. MÜHLING, Anke. “BlicktaufAbraham,eurenVater”:AbrahamalsIdentifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels. FRLANT 236. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. MURPHY, Fredrick J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. MURRAY, Augustus T. and William F. WYATT. Homer, Iliad, Volume I: Books 1–12. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. NEWMAN, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in SecondTempleJudaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. —. “The Staff of Moses and the Mercy of God: Moses’ Final Intercession with God in Pseudo-Philo 19.” Pages 137–56 in IsraelintheWilderness:Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. TBN 10. Edited by Kenneth Pomykala. Leiden: Brill, 2008. NEWSOM, Carol A. “Spying Out the Land: A Report from Genology.” Pages 437–50 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. —. “Rhyme and Reason: The Historical Résumé in Israelite and Early Jewish Thought.” Pages 215–33 in CongressVolume:Leiden2004. VTSup 109. Edited by André Lemaire. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —. “Selective Recall and Ghost Memories: Two Aspects of Cultural Memory in the Hebrew Bible.ˮ Pages 41–56 in Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: Conversation wih Barry Schwartz. SemeiaSt 78. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. NICKELSBURG, George W.E. “Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 49–65 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism:ProfilesandParadigms. SCS 12. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. —. 1Enoch1:ACommentaryontheBookof1Enoch:Chapters1–36,81–108, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. NIEHOFF, Maren. The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. AGSU 16. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

NIESE, Benedict. FlaviiJosephiOpera.7 vols. Berlin: Weidman, 1955 [1885–95]. NODET, Étienne. FlaviusJosèpheI:LesAntiquitésJuivesLivresIàIII.Paris: Cerf, 1992. NORDEN, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöserRede. Leipzig: B.G.Teubner, 1913. NOTH, Martin. TheDeuteronomisticHistory. trans. Jane Doull and John Barton. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. PAJUNEN, Mika S. TheLandtotheElectandJusticeforAll:ReadingPsalmsin the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381. JAJSup 14. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. PENNER, Todd C. InPraiseofChristianOrigins:StephenandtheHellenistsin Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. PERLMAN, Shalom J. “The Historical Example, Its Use and Importance as a Political Propaganda in the Attic Orators.” Pages 150–66 in Studies in H  istory.ScrHier7. Edited by Alexander Fuks and Israel Halpern. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1961. PERRIN, Andrew B. TheDynamicsofDream-VisionRevelationintheAramaic DeadSeaScrolls. JAJSup 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. PERVO, Richard I. Acts.Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. POLAK, Frank. BiblicalNarrative:AspectsofArtandDesign. 2nd ed. Biblical Encyclopedia Library 11. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1999 (Hebrew). PUECH, Émile. “559: 4QpapChronologie biblique ar.” Pages 263–89 in Qumrân Grotte 4 XXVII. Textes araméens, deuxième partie. DJD 37. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. QIMRON, Elisha. TheDeadSeaScrolls:TheHebrewWritings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014) (Hebrew). RABIN, Chaim. TheZadokiteDocument.2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. RAD, Gerhard von. TheProblemoftheHexateuchandOtherEssays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966. RATSON, Eshbal. “The Conception of the Universe in the Book of Enoch.” PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, 2012 (Hebrew). ROBINSON, W. Gordon. “Historical Summaries of Biblical History.” EvQ 47 (1975): 195–207. RÖMER, Thomas. “Résumer l’historie en l’inventant: Forms et fonctiones des “sommaires historiques” de l’Ancien Testament.” Revue de Théologie et dePhilosophie 125 (1993): 21–39. —. “Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of the Pentateuch? The Case of the ‘Historical Summaries,’ Especially in the Psalms.” Pages 471–88 in ThePentateuch.FAT 78. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. RÖMER, Thomas, and Marc Z. BRETTLER. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch.” JBL 119 (2000): 401–19. ROSCH, Eleanor. “Principles of Categorization.” Pages 27–48 in Cognitionand Categorization. Edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978. ROSCH, Eleanor and Carolyn B. MERVIS. “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.” CognitivePsychology7 (1975): 573–605.

162

ATAR LIVNEH

SAUER, Georg. StudienzuBenSira. BZAW 440. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. SCHALIT, Abraham. Antiquities.3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1944 (Hebrew). SCHMITT, Armin. “Struktur, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10.” BibZeit21 (1977): 1–22. SCHULLER, Eileen M. “Prose Prayers in Biblical Antiquities.” Pages 135–49 in Biblical Essays in Honor of Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, and Richard J. Clifford, SJ: Opportunity for No Little Instruction. Edited by Christopher G. Frechette, Christopher R. Matthews, and Thomas D. Stegman. New York: Paulist Press, 2014. SEGAL, Michael. “Interpreting History in Qumran texts.” Pages 212–44 in TheReligiousWorldviewsReflectedintheDeadSeaScrolls:Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the StudyoftheDeadSeaScrollsandAssociatedLiterature,28–30May,2013. STDJ 127. Edited by Ruth A. Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. Leiden: Brill, 2018. SHERMAN, Phillip M. Babel’s Tower Translated: Genesis 11 and Ancient JewishInterpretation. BibInt 117. Leiden: Brill, 2012. SHERK, Robert K. TheRomanEmpire:AugustustoHadrian.Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. SKEHAN, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. TheWisdomofBenSira. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1987. SØRENSEN, Søren L. “A Re-examination of the Imperial Oath from Vezirköprü.” Philia1 (2015): 14–32. SPILSBURY, Paul. “Exodus in Josephus.” Pages 465–84 in TheBookofExodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. VTS 164. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr. Leiden: Brill, 2014. —. “God and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship.” Pages 172–91 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. JSPSup 32. Edited by Steve Mason.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. STONE, Michael E. “List of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 414–52 in Magnalia Dei The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. New York: Doubleday, 1976. —. FourthEzra:ACommentaryontheBookofFourthEzra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. —. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. TALBERT, Charles H. Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu. Novum Testamentum Supplements 107. Brill: Leiden, 2003. THYEN, Hartwig. DerStilderJüdisch-HellenistischenHomilie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. TIGAY, Jeffrey T. Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: JPS, 1996. TILLER, Patrick A. ACommentaryontheAnimalApocalypseof1 Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. TROIANI, Lucio. “The ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ of Israel in the Graeco-Roman Age.” Pages 11–22 in JosephusandtheHistoryoftheGreco-RomanPeriod:Essaysin

BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

Memory of Morton Smith. StPB 41. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994. TZOREF, Shani. “4Q252: Listenwissenschaft and Covenantal Patriarchal Blessings.” Pages 335–57 in “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeological,HistoricalandTextualStudiesinHonorofHananEshel. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 148. Edited by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2011. VANDERKAM, James C., and Józef T. Milik. “4QpsJuba–c?.” Pages 608–17 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov in association with Geraldine I. Clements. Leiden: Brill, 2014. VERMES, Geza. ScriptureandTraditioninJudaism:HaggadicStudies. 2nd ed. SPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973. VERMES, Geza. “Biblical Midrash.” Pages 308–41 in vol. 3, part 1ofTheHistory oftheJewishPeopleintheAgeofJesusChrist(175B.C.–A.D.135), by Emil Schürer. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. WACHOLDER, Ben Zion. Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography. New York: Ktav, 1976. WALTON, Francis R. DiodorusofSicilyinTwelveVolumes. Vol.12:Fragments ofBooksXIII–XL. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. WEBB, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. WEINFELD, Moshe. “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East.” UgaritForschungen8 (1976): 379–414. —. DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. WILLOCK, Malcolm M. “Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.” CQ14 (1964): 141–54. WILLS, Lawrence M. TheJewishNovelintheAncientWorld. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. WINSTON, David. TheWisdomofSolomon.AB. New York: Doubleday, 1979. WISE, Michael O. “To Know the Times and the Seasons: A Study of the Aramaic Chronograph 4Q559.” JSP15 (1997): 3–51. WITTE, Markus. “From Exodus to David—History and Historiography in Psalm 78.” Pages 21–42 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Authors VieweditsEarlierHistory.Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ZERUBAVEL, Eviatar. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of thePast. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Adams, Charles D. 70 Adams, Sean A. 120, 121 Ahearne-Kroll, Patricia 110 Allen, Leslie C. 87 Altman, Rick 7, 140 Amir, Yehosua 71 Anbar, Moshe 87 Andrei, Osvalda 99 Ariel, Chanan 103 Attridge, Harold W. 53, 54, 66, 73 Austin, Michel M. 70

Dahood, Mitchell 89 Delling, Gerhard 15, 27, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 50 Demoen, Kristoffel 3 Denis, Albery-Marie 47 DesCamp, Mary T. 27 Di Lella, Alexander A. 4, 94, 102, 114 Dimant, Devorah 4, 5, 7, 19, 22, 112, 121 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 100, 112 Duff, David 3, 8

Balch, David L. 114 Baumgarten, Albert I. 79 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 113 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 94, 102 Belknap, Robert E. 3 Berlin, Adele 2, 78 Bernstein, Moshe J. 88, 99, 103 Bickerman, Elias J. 25, 112, 116 Boda, Mark J. 7, 8, 87 Bott, Nicholas T. 105 Bremer, Jan M. 124 Brenk, Fredrick A. 3 Brettler, Marc Z. 87 Brooke, George J. 75, 101, 121 Brown, Cheryl A. 27, 32, 33, 40 Bruce, Ian 10 Burnette-Bletsch, Rhonda J. 35

Ego, Beate 31 Eisenbaum, Pamela M. 2, 4, 5, 7, 88, 106, 115, 132, 133, 134, 141 Elgvin, Torleif 73

Calduch-Benages, Nuria 89 Campbell, Jonathan G. 13 Canter, Howard V. 3, 71, 141 Chaplain, Jane D. 54 Clements, Ruth A. 105, 106 Cohn, Leopold 13, 17, 43 Collins, John J. 9, 24, 100 Conolly, Serena 77 Corley, Jeremy 74 Cosby, Michael R. 2, 4, 5, 6, 72, 98, 105, 122, 123, 124, 126, 141 Croy, N. Clayton 73

Falk, Daniel K. 101, 102 Feldman, Ariel 16, 73-74, 76, 88, 94, 99 Feldman, Louis H. 14, 26-27, 32, 39, 46, 48, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80 Fidler, Ruth 102 Fisk, Bruce N. 36, 47, 48, 49 Fishbane, Michael 33 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 97 Flannery, Frances 100, 101 Fowler, Alastair 7, 136, 144 Fröhlich, Ida 121 Frow, John 8 Furley, William D. 124 Geiger, Joseph 115 Glicksman, Andrew T. 6, 78, 115, 116, 124 Gilbert, Maurice 2, 114 Gnuse, Robert K. 105 González, Julián 70 Grabbe, Lester L. 116 Greenberg, Moshe 89 Grelot, Pierre 99 Gunkel, Hermann 50, 103, 104 Gurtner, Daniel M. 104

166

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Hägg, Tomas 129 Haelewyck, Jean-Claude 148 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy 48, 54, 78, 79 Hanger, Donald A. 95 Harrington, Daniel 14, 26, 36, 38 Heinemann, Joseph 99 Herrmann, Peter 70 Horst, Pieter W. van der 27, 48 Hyatt, J. Phillip 1 Jacobson, Howard 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 98 James, Montague R. 25, 38, 50 Jonquière, Tessel M. 55, 64 Kaiser, Otto 55, 120 Kister, Menahem 5, 32, 56, 75, 105, 113, 121, 125, 142 Koester, Craig R. 102 Kratz, Reinhard 87, 88, 138 Kugel, James L. 31, 107 Langlands, Rebecca 82 Lee, Thomas R. 2, 3, 4, 7, 72, 114, 120, 123, 133, 141 Levine, Daniel E. 73 Lichtenberger, Hermann 79 Lieber, Laura 125 Livneh, Atar 2, 36, 99 Lona, Horacio E. 72 Lumpe, Adolf 3 Machiela, Daniel A. 128 Mack, Burton L. 4, 102, 114, 120, 121 Maertens, Thierry 120 Marcus, Ralph 83 Marincola, John 9 Mason, Steve 65 McCarthy, Dennis J. 1 McDowell, Markus 44 Megill, Allan 8 Mervis, Carolyn B. 10 Milik, Józef T. 98 Milikowsky, Haim J. 116 Momiliagano, Arnaldo 115, 129 Morgan, John R. 9 Mühling, Anke 88

Murphy, Fredrick J. 17, 34, 35, 43, 46, 47 Murray, Augustus T. 126 Newman, Judith H. 15 Newsom, Carol A. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 31, 36, 133 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 27, 46, 49, 79 Niehoff, Maren 80 Niese, Benedict 65 Nodet, Étienne 77, 78 Norden, Eduard 124 Noth, Martin 16 Pajunen, Mika S. 76, 77, 147 Penner, Todd C. 114 Perlman, Shalom J. 82 Perrin, Andrew B. 100 Pervo, Richard I. 97 Polak, Frank 123 Puech, Émile 86, 100 Qimron, Elisha 103, 125 Rabin, Chaim 6 Rad, Gerhard von 1, 25 Ratson, Eshbal 38, 39 Robinson, W. Gordon 50 Römer, Thomas 1, 38, 87 Rosch, Eleanor 10 Sauer, Georg 2 Schalit, Abraham 68 Schmitt, Armin 72, 115, 123 Schuller, Eileen M. 43 Schwartz Daniel R. 113 Segal, Michael 33 Sherman, Phillip M. 31, 32 Sherk, Robert K. 69 Skehan, Patrick W. 94, 102 Sørensen, Søren L. 77 Spilsbury, Paul 54, 63, 65, 71, 75, 149 Stone, Michael E. 25, 95, 99, 100, 103, 126, 127, 128 Talbert, Charles H. 41, 122 Thyen, Hartwig 120 Tigay, Jeffrey T. 87

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Tiller, Patrick A. 49 Tov, Emanuel 73 Troiani, Lucio 71 Tzoref, Shani 102, 103 VanderKam, James C. 98 Vermes, Geza 13 Wacholder, Ben Zion 116 Walton, Francis R. 69 Webb, Barry G. 26

167

Weinfeld, Moshe 16, 69, 77 Willock, Malcolm M. 71 Wills, Lawrence M. 110 Winston, David 102, 124 Wise, Michael O. 86, 100 Witte, Markus 1 Wyatt, William F. 126 Yuditsky, Alexey (Eliyahu) 103 Zerubavel, Eviatar 33, 88, 114, 122, 128

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:9 1:11 1:29 5 7:11 8:2 11:4 11:6-30 11:7 11:16 11:27-12:5 11:29-30 12:1 12:4 12:5 13 14 14:14 15 15:1 15:1-6 15:2-6 15:7 15:7-21 15:8-9 15:9-17 5:13 15:13-14 15:18 15:18-21 16 17 17:1 18-19 18:1-8 18:11 18:17 18:22-23 21:2

40 n. 83 76 76 113 n. 7 40 n. 83 40 n. 83 34 n. 55 47 n. 111 34 n. 55 97 n. 40 96 89 n. 13 97 97 n. 40 96 93, 101 93 57 47, 93, 98, 98 n. 42, 101, 101 n. 55, 102, 107 n. 78 98 n. 42 101 98 n. 44 37, 37 n. 70, 96 n. 34 98 n. 42, 99 n. 49 99 nn. 44, 47 101 n. 56 100 n. 50, 117 98, 99, 100, 101 98, 98 n. 42 100 n. 56 93 93, 102, 102 n. 58 102 n. 58 93 95 n. 32 79 15 n. 10 95 n. 32 35 n. 60

21:5-7 21:12 22 22:11 22:12 22:17 22:17-18 25:5-6 25:20 25:26 27 27:27-29 28:13-15 35:22 35:26 37:4 Exodus 1:8 1:13 2:23-25 6:14-27 10:22-23 12:40 13:20-15:21 14-15 14:20 14:28 15 15:1 15:1-19 15:4 15:8 15:13 15:13-17 15:22-27 15-17 17:8-13 17-21 19-24 19-20 19:16

79 102 n. 58 102 n. 58, 107 34 n. 55 106 98 n. 43 70 n. 36 105 n. 71 36 36 36, 50 70 n. 36 78 n. 72 35 n. 57 35 n. 57 32 n. 45

32, 32 n. 49 32 40 n. 85 112 n. 4, 113 n. 7 33 n. 51 100 n. 50, 117 48 n. 115 32 n. 51 22 n. 51 81, 81 n. 82 22, 40, 41, 44 n. 99, 52 32 n. 51, 40 60 81, 81 n. 82 40 n. 83 23, 61 23, 40 n. 82, 62 74 n. 49 75 n. 54 45 n. 100 69 n. 30 45 14 n. 8, 65, 68 38

170 20:2 23:25 Leviticus 25:19 26:4 Numbers 3:1-3 14:11 14:22 16:15 20:15 20:15-16

20:16 Deuteronomy 1-3 4:37-38 4:37 4-5 5:1 5:1-5 5:4 5:5 5:6 6:21 6:21-23 6:22 6:23 7:13 8:7-8 10:15 11:1-7 11:3 11:3-7 11:4 11:5-6 18:18 25:20 25:26 26:5 26:5-6

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

37 n. 70 75

26:5-7 26:5-9

77 n. 65 75 n. 56

26:6 26:6-8 26:7 26:8 26:9 27:9 28:4 28:11 29 29:1 29:1-2 29:1-8 29:8 30:19 31 31:1-8 31:14-23 31:26 31:28 32:11-13

113 n. 7 15 n. 11 15 n. 11 55 n. 8 20, 21, 37, 59, 116 33, 33 n. 52, 34, 37, 37 n. 68, 40 n. 85, 41, 42, 49, 49 n. 119, 52, 55, 59, 87, 87 n. 4, 135, 136 23, 61

68, 68 n. 29 16 n. 13, 34 n. 56, 87, 87 n. 4, 91 23, 34 n. 56, 62 45 68, 149 68, 68 n. 29, 149 68, 149 68, 149 37 n. 70 21 16 n. 13 73 23, 59, 62 70, 76 n. 61, 77 n. 65 75 n. 56 96 n. 37 55, 64 n. 23 73 16 n. 13 22, 60 23, 61 45 n. 100, 46 51 n. 126 51 n. 126 20, 59 87

Joshua 1:1-9 2:10 9:9-10 10 10:11-14 10:11-15 10:12 10:12-13 24

24:1-15 24:2 24:2-3 24:2-4 24:3

37 n. 68, 49, 49 n. 119 1, 16 n. 13, 24, 41, 59, 64 n. 23, 87 n. 4, 91, 124, 136 21, 32, 59 33 n. 52, 40 n. 85 32 73 n. 47 23, 62 45 n. 100 70, 76 70, 76 n. 61 81 73 74 n. 51 68, 68 n. 29, 71 68 40 n. 87 122 n. 40 41 n. 88 41 n. 88 41 n. 87 40 n. 87 45 n. 100

41 n. 87, 122 n. 40 16 n. 13, 22, 60 16 n. 13 41 46 , 46 n. 105 39 n. 81 39 33 n. 51 6, 15, 24, 26, 31, 35, 36 n. 67, 41, 46, 46 n. 107, 47, 47 n. 110, 87, 87 n. 5, 91, 95, 95 n. 31, 96, 96 n. 38, 103, 104, 107, 108, 112, 113, 137, 138 16 n. 13 47 nn. 109, 111, 101 n. 54 18, 32, 32 n. 46, 57, 94, 96 47, 50, 103, 135 19, 47 n. 109, 57, 59, 96 n. 34

171

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

24:3-4 24:4 24:7 24:11-13 24:17-18 24:22-27 judges 2:1-5 2:18-19 4:1 4-5 5 5:1 5:1-3 5:4-5 5:14 5:20 5:31 6:7-10 6:8 6:8-10 6:9 6:13 10:11 10:11-12 1 Samuel 2:29-36 3:1-15 3:12 10:18 10:18-19 12 12:5 12:5-12 12:8 12:8-11 12:9 12:9-11 12:11 2 Samuel 7:23

35, 35 n. 59, 50 n. 124, 103 n. 65, 112 20, 47 n. 109, 94 23, 32 n. 50, 61 23 16 n. 13 47 n. 110 16 n. 13 46, 46 n. 104 46 n. 104 42 14 n. 8, 26, 26 n. 37, 40, 44 n. 99 27 n. 39, 32 n. 51 27 26, 26 nn. 36, 37, 32, 37, 38 41 n. 89 33, 39, 39n. 78, 42 27, 27 n. 39 16 n. 13, 86 n. 2 21, 59 24 23 16 n. 13 16 n. 13 33 16 n. 11 16 n. 11 16 n. 11 40 n. 82 16 n. 13 46, 55 n. 8 20 53, 63 n. 19, 86 n. 3 21, 46, 59, 64, 87 16 n. 13, 33, 42, 44 n. 96, 46, 87 n. 4, 135 32 n. 47, 46 23, 62 46 16 n. 13

1 Kings 1:1-2:12 8:12-21

122 n. 40 122 n. 40

2 kings 17:13

45 n. 100, 46

Isa 41:8 43:16 43:16-19 51:1-2 51:2 51:9-11 63:13

96 n. 37 74 74 n. 51 47 n. 111, 89 n. 13 89 n. 12 40 n. 83 23, 61, 89 n. 12

Jerermiah 2:7 10:13 32:22-23 51:16

23, 61, 62 38 23, 62, 86 n. 2 38

Ezekiel 4:5 20:6-10 20:11-12 33:22

147 n. 1 23, 61 22, 38 n. 73, 61 89 n. 12

Amos 2:10

23, 51 n. 126, 61, 62, 116

Jonah 1

74 n. 53

Micah 6:4 6:4-5 7:15

21, 59 90 n. 15 45 n. 100

Habakkuk 3

41 n. 89

Zechariah 7:12 9:10

45 n. 100, 46 102 n. 58

Malachi 1:2-3

36, 50

172 Psalms 18:10 18:15-18 72:8 77:16-20 77:21 78

78:5 78:11 78:13 78:17-31 78:52 78:54-55 78:62 80:9-11 81:7 81:8-11 81:9-10 83:10 105

105:6 105:8-9 105:9-22 105:12-13 105:12-15 105:13-14 105:13-15 105:17-22 105:21 105:23 105:25 105:40 105:40-41 105:41 105:44 106 106:9-11 106:10-11 106:14-15 106:25

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

48 n. 115 38 n. 76 102 n. 58 22, 60 45 n. 100 6, 44 n. 98, 54, 73 n. 48, 86 n. 2, 119 n. 27, 132 n. 1 22, 38 n. 70, 61 45 n. 100 22, 60 23, 61 45 n. 100 23, 62 6 n. 21 23, 62 21, 59 22, 61 38 n. 73 32 n. 47 1, 5, 6, 31, 36 n. 67, 42 n. 90, 54, 64 n. 23, 71, 73 n. 48, 75, 75 n. 58, 81, 89, 87, 87 n. 5, 91, 95 n. 31, 102 n. 57, 104, 108, 112, 134 n. 9, 135, 137 34 n. 56 19, 98, 99 nn. 45, 47 103 n. 64 64 58 94 89 n. 13 58 5, 80 20, 59 21, 59 23, 61 74, 75 61 23, 62 6, 44 n. 98, 54 22, 60 33 n. 52 23, 61 6 n. 21

107:23-32 135 135:4 135:7 135:8-9 135:10-11 136 136:4-5 136:5-9 136:10 136:10-15 136:13-16 136:16 136:17-22 136:25

74 n. 53 40, 42, 42 n. 90, 52 33 n. 56 38, 40 n. 83 73 n. 48, 123 n. 45 40 n. 82 40, 40 n. 83, 42, 42 n. 90, 52, 54, 91 n. 19, 125 123 n. 45 40 n. 83 73 n. 48 74 22, 60 23, 61 40 n. 82 76

Proverbs 10:11

80 n. 79

Daniel 2 9:21-27

127 n. 64 127 n. 64

Nehemiah 9

9:7 9:7-8 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:10-11 9:11 9:11-14 9:13-14 9:15 9:23 9:23-25 9:26 9:27-28 9:30

1, 5, 32, 41, 44 nn. 97, 98, 52, 54, 87, 87 n. 5, 89, 91, 95, 95 n. 31, 96, 96 n. 38, 97, 104, 108, 135, 137 5, 31, 37, 41, 94, 96, 96 n. 34, 97 n. 39 18, 19, 57, 99 n. 47 9 n. 30, 94, 94 n. 28, 106, 136 21, 43 n. 94, 59 73 n. 47 74 22, 60 48 n. 115 22, 38, 61, 64 23, 61, 74 103 23, 62 46 n. 102 23, 43 n. 94, 62 46 n. 102

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

1 Chronicles 28:4-5

5 n. 18, 32 n. 45, 125

2 Chronicles 2 Chr 20:7

96 n. 37

Deuterocanonical Books Judith 5 4, 49 n. 119, 133, 151 5:5-21 49, 89 n. 14, 91, 147, 150 5:6-8 94 n. 27 5:6-9 18, 57 5:6-10 88 5:6-13 91 n. 18 5:7-8 95 n. 33, 96 5:9 58 5:10 20 5:10-11 49 5:10-12 136 5:11 21, 59 5:12 21, 60, 73 n. 47 5:13 22, 60 5:14 60 5:15-16 23, 62 5:17-18 23, 62 8:25-27 9 n. 10, 71 n. 40, 87 n. 3, 107 nn. 80, 81, 122 n. 43, 123, 132, 140, 148 n. 4 8:26 106 n. 75 16 44 n. 99

Additions to Esther C 16 6 n. 20, 78 n. 69, 89 n. 14, 123, 124, 125, 132 n. 2, 147 n. 3 Wisdom 10

10:1-2 10:4

2, 3, 6, 6 n. 22, 55 n. 10, 96, 115, 120, 120 n. 33, 123, 124, 133, 134 nn. 8,9, 141, 141 n. 24, 148, 150, 151 56 63, 78, 78 n. 69

10:4-5 10:5 10:5 10:5-16 10:6-7 10:7 10:10 10:10-11 10:12 10:13-14 10:14 10:15-16 10:16 10:18-20 Sirach 16 16:5-14

16:7-8 16:7-9 16:8 16:9-10 44:16-49:16 44:17 44:17-21 44:19 44:19-21 44:19-23 44:19-45:5 44:20 44:20-21 44:22 44:22-23 44:23 44-50

45:5 45:6-24 46:1 46:1-10 46:5-6 46:11-12 46:13

173 92 n. 23 57, 95 n. 33 18, 19, 94 n. 27, 102, 102 n. 58, 106 91 n. 18 95 n. 32 90 n. 16 58 58 24 58, 80, 80 n. 80 5, 78 21, 60 73 n. 47 22, 60

151 86 n. 3, 120 n. 33, 122 n. 43, 123, 123 n. 47, 140, 147, 150 92 n. 23 123 n. 47 95 n. 32 60 114 n. 9 63 92 n. 23 94 n. 29 102 88 91 n. 18 19, 94 n. 28, 106, 106 n. 73, 135 n. 12, 136 102 n. 58 20, 104 n. 67 50, 75, 105, 112 20, 58, 79, 79 n. 77 2, 4, 9 n. 30, 94 n. 29, 115, 133, 134 n. 8, 141 n. 24, 147, 150, 151 22, 61 23, 61 121 23, 62 46 n. 102 23, 62 121

174 47:1 47:12 49:15 1 Maccabees 2:51 2:51-60

2:52 2:54-55 4:9

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

121 121 59, 121

19, 106, 106 n. 73 4, 6, 88, 91, 91 n. 18, 115, 115 n. 11, 122 n. 43, 124, 141 n. 24, 148, 150, 151 5, 58, 80, 80 n. 80, 94 n. 28, 106, 135 n. 12, 136 23, 62 81 n. 83, 141 n. 25

Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 53-74 89 n. 14, 127, 128, 148, 150, 151 56:1 112 56:5-8 56 56:15 56 56:15-57:3 92 n. 23 57 88 57:1 19, 20, 57, 76 n. 59, 103 n. 63, 104 n. 67 57-58 91 n. 18 58:1 59 58:2 22, 60 59 22, 61 59:1 23 59:3-11 127 60:1-2 23, 62 Demetrius the Chronographer Frg. 1 19, 106 n. 73, 117 n. 20 Frg. 2 18, 20, 57, 58, 59, 80 n. 80, 89 n. 13, 91 n. 18, 95 n. 33, 96, 100 n. 50, 104 n. 67, 112 n. 4, 113 n. 7, 117, 117 n. 20 Frg. 3 61, 117 Frg. 4 23, 75 n. 55, 117 n. 22 Frg. 5 117 n. 22 Frg. 6 117 1 Enoch 18:4

38 n. 75

43:1-2 44:1 59:1-3 72:5 73:2 85:1-9 85:5-8 85:10-27 85-90 89:9-12 89:10 89:10-14 89:11 89:12 89:12-14 89:14 89:14-15 89:15-20 89:20 89:21-27 89:23-27 89:28 89:28-39 89:30-31 89:37-38 89:39-40 89:40 89:41 91:11-17 93:1-10 93:4 93:5 93:5-6 93:6 93:15 4 Ezra 3 3:4-27 3:5-8 3:9-11 3:11-13 3:12-17 3:13 3:13-14 3:13-15

39 n. 78 39 n. 78 39 n. 78 38 n. 75 38 n. 75 56 90, 90 n. 16 91 n. 18 148, 150, 151 139 92 n. 23 76 n. 59, 112 19, 57, 103 n. 63, 105 20, 58, 79 n. 77, 104 n. 67 58, 79 20 49 , 49 n. 119, 136 21 73 n. 47 21, 60 22, 60 75 n. 55 61 22, 61 23 23 62 23, 62 128, 142, 148, 150, 151 128, 142, 148, 150, 151 56 57, 88, 95 n. 33, 96 91 n. 18 61 18

50, 50 n. 121, 101, 101 n. 55, 102 n. 57 89 n. 14, 95 n. 31, 127, 133, 148, 150, 152 56 56 92 n. 23 91 n. 18 18, 50, 57 95 n. 33, 96, 96 n. 37 102

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

3:14 3:15

3:15-16 3:16-17 3:17 3:17-19 3:18 7:106 7:106-110 7:106-111

7:107 7:110 Jubilees 10:14 12:23-24 17:15-18:19 17:16 19:16-21 19:21 35:13 LAB 6:1 7:4 8:3-4 8:11-9:2 9:1 9:3 11 11:2 11:5 12:10 13:7 15:2 15:5 15:5-6

15:6

19, 94 n. 27, 99, 100, 100 nn. 51, 53 19, 20, 50 n. 124, 57, 103, 103 n. 63, 104 n. 67, 112 50 58 21, 40 n. 86, 50, 50 n. 122, 60, 61, 136 22 48 n. 115 61, 95 n. 32 124 4, 6, 91, 91 n. 18, 115, 122 n. 43, 126, 133, 141 n. 24, 148, 150, 152 23, 62 126

32 n. 45 94 n. 27 105 32 n. 45 36 n. 66 32 n. 45 36 n. 66

31 31 35 n. 60 37 n. 68 32 99 25 n. 31 41 n. 87 38, 48 n. 115 43 n. 94 38 n. 75 39 n. 78 59, 60, 61, 98 15, 15 n. 11, 17 nn. 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34 n. 56, 40 n. 83, 88, 91 n. 18, 103 n. 62, 148, 150, 152 45 n. 100, 48, 48 n. 115, 98 n. 44

18:5-6

19 19:4 19:9

19:13 20:2 20-24 23 23:1 23:1-2 23:1-3 23:1-11

23:3 23:4 23:4-5 23:4-8 23:4-9 23:4-10 23:5

23:5-6 23:5-7 23:5-8 23:6-7 23:7 23:8 23:8-9 23:9 32:9-10 23:10 23:11

175 15 n. 10, 24, 25 n. 32, 34 n. 56, 88, 98 n. 43, 99 n. 46, 101 n. 54, 106 n. 76, 107 nn. 78, 80, 132 n. 2, 140 n. 23, 148 n. 4, 150 n. 7 39 n. 80 40 n. 87 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24n. 27, 25 n. 32, 48 n. 115, 59, 86 n. 2, 91 n. 20, 135 n. 10, 148 39 n. 78 41 n. 88 39 n. 81 26, 44, 98, 101, 102 95 n. 31 46 n. 107 101 n. 54 15, 17 n. 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 n. 32, 46-51, 88, 91, 112, 148, 150, 152 100 n. 52, 101 47, 47 nn. 109, 111, 89 n. 13, 104 n. 67 48, 57 89, 94 n. 27 50 91 n. 18 31 n. 44, 47 n. 109, 79 n. 76, 95 n. 33, 96, 101, 105, 135 n. 12 34 n. 56, 98 n. 42, 100 n. 53 47, 48, 98, 107 n. 78 104 99 , 100 n. 50 47 n. 110, 48, 79 n. 76, 105 48, 57, 103 n. 63 104 n. 65 19 n. 20, 47 n. 109, 58, 59, 104 n. 67 74 n. 50 39 n. 78, 45 n. 100, 48, 48 nn. 115, 116, 60, 61 34 n. 56, 47 n. 109, 62, 134, 103

176 23:12-14 23:13 24 25-26 28 30:1 30:1-32:18 30:4 30:5 30:5-6

30:6 31 31:1 31:1-2 31:1-4 31:4 31:5 31:6 32:1

32:1-2 32:1-4 32:1-6 32:1-7 32:1-11

32:2-3 32:2-4 32:2-5 32:3 32:3-4 32:4 32:5

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

46 n. 107 101 n. 54 16 n. 12 46 n. 106 16 n. 12 46 27 n. 40 44 n. 97 39 n. 81, 45, 45 n. 100, 46 17 nn. 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 n. 32, 44-46, 86 n. 2, 89 n. 14, 91 n. 20, 135 n. 10, 148 46, 61, 62 44 n. 96 32 n. 51 39 n. 78 33 n. 54, 49 39 n. 78, 39 n. 78 34 39 n. 78 19 n. 20, 27, 27 n. 39, 31, 32 n. 51, 34, 35, 35 nn. 57, 59, 37, 37 n. 69, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47 n. 109, 57, 79, 79 n. 76, 88, 95 n. 33, 96, 103 n. 63, 104 n. 65, 105, 135, 135 n. 11 39 49 n. 120, 94 n. 27, 136 31, 34-37, 42 91 n. 18 11, 14 n. 8, 15-52, 85, 89 n. 14, 91, 107 n. 81, 112, 133, 135, 148, 150, 151 107 51, 51 n. 127, 106, 106 nn. 73, 76, 139 47, 49 36, 107 36 34 n. 55, 42 35, 35 n. 59, 36, 42, 48, 50, 50 n. 124, 51 n. 126, 89 n. 13, 104 nn. 65, 67, 117, 135

32:6

32:6-7 32:7

32:7-11 32:8 32:8-9 32:9 32:9-11 32:10 32:11

32:12 32:12-13 32:12-17 32:14 32:14-17 32:16-17 32:17 32:17-18 32:18 33 33:5 39:11 40:2 53:8 53:8-9

53:9 62:10 3 Maccabees 2:1-8

2:4

35, 35n. 57, 36, 37, 41, 51, 58, 59, 79, 79 n. 77, 104 n. 67 33 n. 52, 42, 49, 135, 136 33, 33 n. 52, , 36, 37, 37 n. 69, 38, 40, 40 n. 83, 41, 42, 43, 48 n. 116, 50, 50 n. 122, 59, 60, 61, 62, 136 31, 32 n. 50, 33, 37-42 40, 38 nn. 73, 74 40, 47 n. 110 39, 39 n. 80, 40 40, 51 n. 127 33 n. 51, 39, 46, 47 n. 109 32, 32 n. 49, 33, 34, 37, 39, 39 n. 78, 41, 42, 43, 46, 62 27 n. 40, 43 35 n. 61 27, 27 n. 40 41 n. 87 39 n. 79 32 n. 51 40 n. 83, 43 41 n. 87 27, 27 nn. 39, 40 16 n. 12 39 n. 79 43 n. 94 106 n. 75, 141 n. 25 59, 60, 61, 73 n. 47 15, 15 n. 11, 16 n. 11, 17 nn. 15, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 n. 32, 86 n. 2, 91 n. 20, 135 n. 10, 148 48 n. 115 41 n. 87

3, 86 n. 3, 89 n. 14, 115, 120 n. 33, 123, 123 n. 47, 124, 141 n. 24, 148, 150, 151 74 n. 52

177

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

2:4-5 2:5 2:5-7 2:6 2:7 6:4-8 6:4 6:5 6:8 4 Maccabees 13:12 15:28 16:18-23

16:20 18:9-19 18:11 18:12-14

92 n. 23 95 n. 32 91 n. 18 73 nn. 46, 47, 118 n. 24 22, 60, 120 n. 35 3, 86 n. 2, 115, 120, 132, 141 n. 24, 142, 148 73 n. 46 23, 60 74 n. 52

106 n. 75 141 n. 25 3, 4 n. 15, 6, 44 n. 95, 89 n. 14, 91, 91 n. 18, 107 n. 81, 115, 133, 136, 148, 150, 151 19, 94 n. 27, 106, 106 n. 73, 107 3, 87 n. 3, 89 n. 14 106 n. 75 124 n. 53

3:9-12 3:11

23, 62 6 n. 21

1Q20 XII XIX XXII

119 n. 26 119 n. 26 119 n. 26

4Q158 6

68 n. 30

4Q180

2-4 5-6

91 n. 18, 92 n. 23, 121, 121 n. 37, 147, 150, 151 103 n. 63, 112 n. 3, 128, 128 n. 65 19, 95 n. 32, 98 19 n. 21, 117 n. 22

4Q181

147, 150

4Q225

92 n. 21, 98 n. 43, 107 n. 81, 133, 134, 147, 150, 151 19, 21, 22, 60, 73 n. 48, 75 n. 58, 98, 98 n. 44, 135 n. 11 18, 19, 20, 21, 49, 50, 51 n. 127, 57, 60, 76 n. 59, 88, 91 n. 18, 94 nn. 27, 28, 95 n. 33, 97, 97 n. 40, 98, 98 n. 44, 99 n. 49, 101, 102, 103 n. 63, 104, 104 n. 67, 106, 106 nn. 73, 76, 77, 107, 107 n. 78, 112, 113 n. 7, 116 n. 17, 135 n. 12, 136

1

1 2

Testament of Levi 12 99

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1:1-11 127, 132, 135, 147 n. 1 2:14-3:14 4, 5 n. 19, 6, 11, 72 n. 41, 79, 102, 121 n. 36, 122 n. 43, 123 n. 46, 126, 133, 134 n. 8, 135 n. 11, 140, 141 n. 24, 144, 147, 150 2:15 6 2:16-17 126 3:1-2 92 n. 23 3:2-4 102, 102 n. 59 3:2-5 113 3:2-6 91 n. 18 3:3-5 105 3:4-11 6 3:7-8 6 n. 21 3:9-10 124

4Q226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4Q243 10

92 n. 21, 107 n. 81, 128 n. 65, 147, 150, 151 21, 59, 117, 128 128 23, 61 61 23, 62 23, 62 104 n. 67 88 n. 11, 92 n. 23, 147, 150, 151 18 n. 19, 47 n. 110, 57 n. 12, 96 n. 36

178 11 12

13 16 19 21 28 4Q244 9 13 4Q252 I II

III

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

58, 80 n. 80, 91 n. 18 19, 21, 23, 59, 60, 62, 91 n. 18, 98, 98 n. 44, 116-117 57 n. 12 127 117 117 113 n. 7 88 n. 11, 147, 150, 151 18 n. 19, 47 n. 11o, 57 n. 12, 96 n. 36 18 n. 19 81 n. 18, 121, 133, 134, 142, 147, 150, 151 117 n. 22 18, 19, 57, 92 n. 23, 97, 97 n. 40, 99 n. 49, 101 n. 56, 102, 116 n. 17, 139 19, 51 n. 127, 95 nn. 32, 33, 106, 106 n. 73

8

86 n. 3, 102

4Q390

147, 150

4Q422 I II III

86 n. 2, 147 56, 76, 77 21, 56, 60, 117 n. 22 21, 59, 73 n. 48

4Q464

7 8

91 n. 18, 92 nn. 21, 23, 108 n. 85, 133, 147, 150, 151 18, 57, 95 n. 33, 97, 97 n. 40, 116 n. 17 19, 94 n. 27, 97 n. 40, 98, 98 n. 44, 117 n. 18 97 n. 40, 117 19, 51 n. 127, 106, 106 n. 73, 139 58, 97 n. 40, 117 97 n. 40

4Q464a

21, 60

4Q504 I III VI XI XIV XV

86 n. 2, 138 n. 16, 147 56 23, 61 21 22, 46 n. 102, 61 60 23, 61

4Q505

86 n. 2, 138 n. 16, 147

4Q506 131-132

86 n. 2, 138 n. 16, 147 56 125, 125 n. 57

1 3 4 6

4Q286

76 n. 62

4Q370 i

76 n. 62

4Q379 12

119 n. 26

4Q381 I II III

77, 147, 147 n. 2 56, 76 56 22, 23, 46 n. 102, 61

4Q385a 9

147, 150 86 n. 3

4Q509 12i+13

4Q387 3-4

147, 150 128

4Q559

4Q387a

147, 150

4Q388a 1 2 7

147, 150 22 n. 23 23, 61, 117 n. 23 86 n. 3, 102

1 2, 3 4

4Q389 2

147, 150 21 n. 22, 23, 60 n. 14, 61

5Q13

1+ 2+ 3+ 7

100 n. 50, 113 n. 7, 118, 119, 129, 143, 147 117, 117 n. 20 86 n. 3 117 56 n. 11, 75, 75 n. 59, 113, 115, 125, 133, 147, 150, 151 5, 6, 32 n. 45, 91 n. 18, 92 n. 23, 95 n. 33, 96, 96 n. 37, 105 n. 70

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

11Q5 E iii 14-15

99 n. 45

XXVI

76 n. 62

Philo DeAbrahamo 107 167-207 245-254 245 246 247

120 n. 32 105 140 n. 21 126 n. 60 126 n. 62 126 n. 60

DeIosepho 119-123 131-136

80 n. 81 80 n. 81

DevitaMosis 1.72

73 n. 45

DePraemiisetpoenis 107 80 n. 81

2.7 2.87-91 2.172-175

2.172 2.174 2.175 2.201-204 2.210-216 2.213-216

2.213

2.293 2.318 2.342 3.1-39 3.13-19 3.17-19

Quisrerumdivinarumheressit 260-262 123 n. 46 Josephus Antiquitatesjudaicae 1.5-6 65 1.14 65, 65 n. 25 1.14-24 65 1.41 76 n. 60 1.46-47 76 n. 60, 77 n. 67 1.101 74 n. 52 1.157 78 n. 72 1.171-182 63 n. 16 1.185 78 n. 71 1.222-236 105 1.234 80 n. 79 1.234-235 70 n. 36 1.235 78 n. 71 1.272-273 70 n. 36 1.273 70 n. 36 1.281 15 n. 9, 78 n. 72, 87 n. 3, 126 n. 60, 132, 140, 141 n. 24, 148 n. 4

3.17 3.18 3.75-94 3.78 3.83-88

3.84 3.86 3.86-87 3.87

179 80 80 n. 81 26 n. 34, 53, 56-62, 64, 86 n. 3, 91, 143 n. 31, 148, 151, 152 126 80 78 n. 71, 80 73 n. 45 79 49, 53, 56-62, 64, 71 n. 40, 88, 89, 89 n. 14, 91, 91 n. 18, 100 n. 52, 105 nn. 68, 71, 143 n. 31, 148, 150, 152 18, 78 n. 72, 79 n. 76, 95 n. 32, 97, 103 n. 63, 105 73 n. 45 99 74 n. 51 75 n. 54 71 n. 40 5 n. 19, 24 n. 26, 53, 55, 55 n. 10, 56-62, 64, 74 n. 49, 86 n. 2, 91 n. 20, 135 n. 10, 140, 148 21 22, 74 n. 51 68 71 n. 39 5 n. 19, 11, 14 n. 8, 24 n. 26, 53, 54 n. 4, 55, 55 n. 10, 56-62, 64, 65-83, 85, 91 n. 18, 119 n. 28, 120, 122 n. 42, 124, 124 n. 51, 132, 133, 135 nn. 10, 11, 140, 148, 149, 150 65, 65 n. 25, 68, 68 n. 27, 71, 149 21, 22, 23, 72, 73-75, 77, 81 n. 83, 135 n. 12 68 n. 29, 73-81, 82 18, 19, 20, 68, 68 n. 27, 69 n. 31, 72, 74, 75-81, 92 n. 23, 95 n. 33, 103 n. 63, 105, 149

180

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

65, 68, 69, 70 n. 36, 71, 74, 75, 76 n. 60, 77, 78 n. 71, 81, 149 71 n. 39 64 n. 20 5 n. 19, 24 n. 26, 26 n. 36, 53, 55, 55 nn. 8, 10, 56-62, 63, 64, 72 n. 43, 86 n. 2, 91 n. 20, 124, 135 n. 10, 140, 142, 148 64 n. 20 21 21 22 22, 23, 75 n. 55 64 n. 20 71 n. 39 65 n. 25, 81 71 n. 39 53, 56-62, 63 n. 19, 64, 86 n. 3, 91 n. 20, 148 21 23 79 n. 74 79 n. 74 83 70

7:1-36 7:2-4

Bellumjudaicum 5.375-419 5 n. 19, 55, 71 n. 40, 88, 89, 91, 120, 133, 140, 148, 150, 152 5.375-398 72 n. 43, 91 n. 18 5.379-381 89 n. 13, 94 nn. 27, 29 5.380 57 5.382 19, 20, 59, 98, 98 n. 44, 117, 139 5.383 21, 60

Romans 9:7-13 9:9-11

3.88

3.223 4.40 4.40-50

4.41 4.43 4.43-44 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.111 4.180 4.213 6.88-91 6.89 6.90 8.61-62 10.147-148 14.2-3 17.42

ContraApionem 2.152 92 n. 25

New Testament Acts 7 2, 4, 5, 49, 88, 91, 102 n. 57, 103, 114, 114 n. 8, 133, 134 n. 9, 148, 150, 152

7:2-5 7:6 7:6-7 7:8

7:9-10 7:10 7:14-15 7:17 7:17-21 7:30-35 7:36 7:37-38 7:38 7:45 13:13 13:16-25 13:17 13:18 13:19 13:20

Hebrews 11

11:7 11:7-20 11:8 11:8-29 11:11 11:11-12 11:12-17 11:17 11:18 11:20 11:23

91 n. 18 5, 95 n. 33, 96-97, 97 n. 39 18, 57 117 19, 98, 98 n. 44, 117 19, 20, 50, 57, 58, 76 n. 59, 79 , 79 n. 77, 103 n. 63, 104, 104 n. 67, 105, 112, 139 80, 80 n. 80 5 20 103, 134 21, 59 21, 59 21, 22, 60, 61, 117 n. 23 46 n. 102 22, 61 23, 62 91 n. 18 86 n. 3, 91, 148, 150, 152 21, 60 23, 61, 75 n. 55, 117 n. 23 23, 62 23, 62

50 n. 123 141 n. 25

2, 3, 4, 5 n. 19, 89, 95 n. 31, 115, 122 n. 40, 123, 133, 136, 144, 148, 150, 152 56 92 n. 23 5, 18, 57, 95 n. 33, 97 91 n. 18 19, 57, 79, 79 n. 76, 105 n. 69 19, 103 n. 63, 105 98 n. 43 19, 106, 106 n. 73 102, 102 n. 58 20 117 n. 22, 143 n. 33

181

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

11:29 11:30-31 11:31 11:32 11:33-34 11:38 2 Peter 2:4-10

22, 61 23, 62 90 n. 16 23, 46 n. 106, 62, 126 n. 62 124, 126 n. 62 126 n. 62

5 n. 19, 86-87 n. 3, 91 n. 18, 92 n. 23, 95 n. 32, 120, 123 n. 48, 140, 148, 150, 152

Rabbinic Works Mishnah Ta‘anit 2:4 6 n. 20, 123 n. 47, 124, 124 n. 51, 125, 125 n. 54, 132 n. 2 Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael Bachodesh 5 26 n. 37 Shirata 2 33 n. 51 Mekilta de Rabbi Shimon 19:16 26 n. 37 Sifre Deuteronomy 31 80 n.78 343 26 n. 37 Babylonian Talmud Gittin 56b 33 n. 51 Genesis Rabba 40:6 59:6

37 n. 70 41 n.89

Leviticus Rabba 7:6 39 n. 78 Pesiqta Zutrata Lek Leka 15

37 n. 70

Targum of the Prophets Judg 5 26 n.37 Judg 5:14 41 n. 89

Jonah 1 Hab 3 Hab 3:6

41 n. 89 41 n. 89 47 n. 110

Early Christian Writings 1 Clement 4.1-3 107 n. 78 4.1-6.4 4, 5 n. 19, 115, 121, 123, 132, 136, 148 4.4-6 51 n. 127 4.7-10 91 n. 18 4.8 58 4.9 59 4.10 51 n. 127 4.12 23, 61 5.6-7 126 n. 62 6.1 126 n. 60 9.1-12.8 4, 5 n. 19, 91 n. 18, 95 n. 31, 115, 136, 148, 150, 152 9.4 56 9.4-10.7 92 n. 23 10.1-3 18, 57, 95 n. 33, 97 10.1-7 136 10.2 94 n. 27 10.3-6 51 n. 127, 101 10.6 19, 98 10.6-7 104 10.7 19, 49, 57, 95 n. 32, 98 n. 43, 103 n. 63, 106, 106 n. 73 11.1-12.8 123 n. 47 11.2 90 n. 16 12.1-8 23, 62, 90 n. 16 12.4-6 51 n. 127 17.1-18.7 10 n. 34, 132 n. 2, 148 n. 5, 150 n. 9 31.1-4 87 n. 3, 132, 140, 141 n. 24 31.3 106 n. 75 55.3-6 141 n. 25 Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 7 142 7.33 99 n. 46, 101 n. 55, 124 n. 51 7.37 6 n. 20, 125 n. 54

182

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Greco-Roman Literature Aeschines InCtesiphonem 111 70 n. 34, 77 n. 65 Apollonius of Tyana Epistulae 56 77 n. 65 Aristotle Ethicanicomachea 1.8 (1099a31–1099b8) Rhetorica 2.20.9 (1394a10-18)

80 nn. 79, 81 71 n. 38

Demosthenes InAristogitonem 82.9 77 n. 65 Dio Chrysostom Contio (Or. 47) 2–7 115 n. 12 Diodorus Siculus BibliothecaHistorica 37.11 69 n. 32 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitatesromanae 20.9.1–3 74 n. 53 Epicurus Epistulaad.Pythoclem 101 39 n. 78 Epigraphic texts CIL II 172 IOSPE i2 OGIS 532 SEG 46–1210 SEG XXI 519 Euripides Hippolytus 541–64 Orestes 542-543

Homer Ilias 5.381-384 5.381-404 6.476-481 Odyssea 24.197–202

120 n. 32

Isocrates Antidosis (Or. 15) 231–235 115 n. 12 Evagoras (Or. 9) 37–39 120 n. 32 Philippus (Or. 5) 65 126 n. 60 Livy Aburbecondita 21.10 24.8 26.13 26.41 28.41-42 28.41-44 28.43 29.18

54, 140 140 140 54, 72, 140, 140 n. 22 121 72 n. 44 140 n. 22 74 n. 53

Lysias DebonisAristophanisadaerarium (Or. 19) 45–49 115 n. 12 Marcus Aurelius Meditationes 6.47 72, 126 n. 60 Musonius Rufus 9 72 n.44

69, 69 n. 32 75 n. 56, 77, 77 n. 66 75 n. 56, 77, 77 n. 66 70, 75 n. 56 70 n. 34

Ovid Arsamatoria 3.7–42

71

Propertius Elegiae 3.11.9–55

80 n. 79

126 72, 123, 126 80 n. 79

120 n. 32

Plutarch Defraternoamore 5 120 n. 32

72 n. 44

183

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Seneca Epistulaemorales 24.11 72 n.44 Ira 1.11.1–8, 2.23.1–4 120 n. 32 AdMarciamdeconsolatione 2.1–3.4 120 n. 32

Tacitus Historiae 3.24 4.58

72 72 n. 44

Xenophon Agesilaus 9.1–5

120 n. 32

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, earlyJewishandearlyChristianTraditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a MillenniumofJewishFuneraryEpigraphy(300BCB-700CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings8,14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, SacredHistoryandSacredTextsinearlyJudaism.ASymposiumin HonourofA.S.vanderWoude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a MantologicalWisdomAnthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, NewTestamentTextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, EssaysontheDiatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline SpeechesoftheActaApostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, TheTriumphofElohim,FromYahwismstoJudaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, TheDesignationoftheIndividual.ExpressiveUsageinBiblicalNarrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, OldTestamentQuotationsintheFourthGospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, JohanninePerspectivesontheDeathofJesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, TheHiddenHeritageofDiasporaJudaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), TheImageandtheBook, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’sServantPoemsAccordingtotheSeptuagint.AnExegetical andTheologicalStudy, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., GlossaryofGreekRhetoricalTerms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, EchoesofEden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, JeremiahinPropheticTradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’sDiscourseinFirstCorinthians8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, ListeningtoTrypho.JustinMartyr’sDialogueReconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’CorporateUnitywithChristinEarlyChristianSoteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), TheSayings GospelQinGreekandEnglishwithParallelsfromtheGospelsofMarkandThomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, TheLanguageofBelonging.ARhetoricalAnalysisofKinshipLanguage inFirstCorinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, JaphethintheTentsofShem.StudiesonJewishHellenisminAntiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasionand DissuasioninEarlyChristianity,AncientJudaism,andHellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, PaultheMissionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bibleandmidrash.TheStoryof‘TheWooingofRebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, TextualCriticismandtheSynopticProbleminHistoricalJesusResearch. TheSearchforValidCriteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and- AnswerLiteratureinContext, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, FreedomintheGospel.Paul’sExemplumin1Cor9inConversation withtheDiscoursesofEpictetusandPhilo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudien zudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological InvestigationoftheCosmicChristologyinCol1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, DreamsandScriptureinLuke-Acts.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “HappytheOneWhoMeditatesonWisdom”(SIR.14,20).Collected EssaysontheBookofBenSira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), TheInterpretationofExodus.StudiesinHonourofCornelisHoutman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), TheTrialandDeathofJesus.EssaysonthePassion NarrativeinMark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, InSpiritandTruth.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:19-26andaTheological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, TransformationsintheSeptuagint.TowardsanInteractionof SeptuagintStudiesandTranslationStudies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis38)vonderAntikebiszurReformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), VocesBiblicae.SeptuagintGreekanditsSignificance fortheNewTestament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, OntheTrailoftheSeptuagintTranslators.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism andtheEarlyChurch, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), ProphecyaftertheProphets?TheContributionoftheDeadSeaScrollstotheUnderstandingofBiblicalandExtra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), FeastsandFestivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), AnthropologyintheNewTestamentanditsAncient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, TranslatedHallelujehs.ALinguisticandExegeticalCommentaryonSelect SeptuagintPsalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), QumranandtheBible.StudyingtheJewishandChristian ScripturesinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus,theEschatologicalTemple.AnExegeticalStudyofJn2,13-22in theLightofthePre70C.E.EschatologicalTempleHopesandtheSynopticTemple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, ReadingZechariahwithZechariah1:1–6astheIntroductiontotheEntire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), ImageryintheBookyofRevelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), TheQumranLegalTextsbetweenthe HebrewBibleandItsInterpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersionPeriod, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, PropheticMinistryinJeremiahandEzekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), GreekScriptureandtheRabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), WhatisBible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law,Prophets,andWisdom.OntheProvenanceofTranslatorsandtheirBooksintheSeptuagintVersion, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis22andIsaiah53inAncientJewishandEarlyChristianWritings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, TheEarliestNon-MysticalJewishUseofΙαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studies intheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus.AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudyofHilasmos andAgapein1John2:1-2and4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, ThreeVersionsofEsther.TheirRelationshiptoAnti-SemiticandFeminist CritiqueoftheStory, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, SeeMe!HearMe!Divine/HumanRelationalDialogueinGenesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, FromProphettoPriest.TheCharacterizationofAaroninthePentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, StudiesinJohn’sGospelandEpistles.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe.ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, ADivineRoundTrip.TheLiteraryandChristologicalFunctionofthe Descent/AscentLeitmotifintheGospelofJohn, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, BetweenIsraeliteReligionandOldTestamentTheology.EssaysonArchaeology,History,andHermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, StudiaHierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah1and10inLightofTextandReceptionHistory, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “OhGodofBattles!StealMySoldiers’Hearts!”AStudyoftheHebrew andGreekTextFormsofJeremiah10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of AuthoritativeTexts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), TheEpistletotheHebrews.Writingatthe Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, TheRationaleforAniconismintheOldTestament.AStudyofSelect Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “WithAllYourSoulFeartheLord”(Sir.7:27).CollectedEssayson theBookofBenSiraII, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-HerodianPeriods, Leuven, 2018 90. D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in he Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, Leuven, 2018 91. V.P. Chiraparamban, TheManifestationofGod’sMercifulJustice.ATheocentricReading ofRomans3-21-26, Leuven, 2018 92. P. Paul, BeyondtheBreach.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:1-42asaTextofJewishSamaritanReconciliation, forthcoming 93. I. Fröhlich, DavidinCulturalMemory, Leuven, 2019 94. M. Langlois, TheSamaritanPentateuchandtheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2019

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706