What Makes a People?: Early Jewish Ideas of Peoplehood and Their Evolving Impact 9783111337807, 9783111334851

Citation preview

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2022/2023

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2022/2023

Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages, Jeremy Corley, Michael W. Duggan, Renate Egger-Wenzel

What Makes a People? Early Jewish Ideas of Peoplehood and Their Evolving Impact Edited by Dionisio Candido, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif

ISBN 978-3-11-133485-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-133780-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-133805-7 ISSN 1614-3361 Library of Congress Control Number: 2023942204 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface In July 2022, the international conference of the ISCDL took place at the University of Salzburg where it could coincide with the larger and longer meeting of the SBL. The participants enjoyed being in this beautiful city once again, were grateful for the hospitality kindly arranged by Renate Egger-Wenzel, Kristin De Troyer and Hanna Feingold (for the Jewish community), and many took the opportunity of listening not only to the ISDCL papers but also the broader topics covered by the SBL. The current volume represents the papers delivered at the ISDCL meeting that the editors (as signed below) and the editorial board (represented by Michael Duggan and Renate Egger-Wenzel) thought suitable for academic publication and worked over for that purpose. The articles here collected relate, in one way or another, to the concepts of nationhood and peoplehood in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period and its aftermath. Stefan Beyerle clarifies the historical background of many of the works discussed in this group of papers by analyzing the socio-religious environment in the “Judaisms” of Persian times and considering later Hellenistic reflections as derived from Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal writings. The concepts of ethnicity in the older and younger wisdom writings is Oda Wischmeyer’s topic and she traces the purely descriptive political perception of the constellation “Israel—surrounding peoples” to a more essentialist understanding of Israel as the people of God. In her examination of the Greek word laos in 1 Maccabees, Barbara Schmitz contextualizes the narrative results within the policy and governance of the Seleucid empire of the second century BCE, especially with regard to limited statehood. The social life of the people of Jerusalem in around 200 BCE, as mentioned by Ben Sira, occupies Jeremy Corley and in his paper he contrasts the more successful and affluent professions with the poorer occupations. In her study of Ben Sira 7, Núria Calduch-Benages demonstrates how Ben Sira never misses an opportunity to inculcate the practice of charity among his disciples and how he adapts older texts to his own agenda. Severino Bussino examines a large number of texts in Ben Sira that reflect on the wisdom required by rulers and on the overall themes of politics and authority. As one of the three cornerstones in the Book of Wisdom, the topic “opponents of the people” engages the attention of Friedrich Reiterer who offers crucial observations about what that book has to say about the attitude of the opponents and their behavior towards the people of the Lord. For Renate Egger-Wenzel, the Greek versions of Esther set out to justify the Jewish way of life and to explain how Jews are, contrary to the view of Haman who wishes to destroy them, responsible and admirable citizens. Basing himself on the final complex phase of the Book of Tobit, József Zsengellér deals with the geographical, political, and religious meanings that are conveyed https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-202

VI 

 Preface

by the name “Israel.” He concludes that the book establishes the identity of the postexilic Yahwistic returnees in Yehud as Israel and discredits the counter claim of the community in Gerizim. Although the Book of Tobit is didactic rather than historical, Marcin Chrostowski suggests that the book may nevertheless allude to Northern Israelite traditions and constitute a parable about the beginnings of the Jewish diaspora in Assyria. Francis Macatangay deals with Tobit 4 and briefly explores the possible meanings of the claim of biological descent from the prophets as it pertains to the idea of a people in the Book of Tobit. The lexical elements and theology of the criticism of idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah are studied by Armando Castro Acquaroli who concludes that the aim is to polemicize against the gods not only of Babylon but of the entire Hellenistic diaspora. Taking as her starting point a cognitive theory of ethnicity, Jutta Jokiranta investigates the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls and offers an integrative model that illuminates the dynamic nature of ethnic boundary-making. Marten Niehoff’s article unveils the presence of Rome in Philo’s and Josephus’s construction of Jewish identity as “barbarian” and demonstrates how they attempt to locate the Jewish people on the Roman side of the cultural divide between Rome and Greece. Matthew 28 is closely studied by Eve-Marie Becker. She concludes that the writer of that gospel interprets and shapes earlier ideas concerning the cosmocratic Jesus-figure and understands mission and people as relating not to an exclusively Jewish sphere but, more universally, to humanity. Dalia Marx’s essay deals with the struggle of Ezra and Nehemiah against marriages with foreign women, indicating that the footprints of this exclusivist tendency are scarce and few in Jewish law and lore, and suggesting that this may be due to the institution of the conversion process. The volume concludes with Stefan Reif’s contribution, which assesses the manner in which the senses of words relating to the notion of people had to adjust over the centuries and by no means reveal a consistent tendency towards exclusiveness. We are grateful to our friends and colleagues, the contributors, for offering the fruits of their scholarship to the collection and to our friendly and helpful colleagues at the publishers, Walter de Gruyter, for their dedicated efforts to ensure the usual high standards that we have come to expect of their publications in this series. Dionisio Candido, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif Salzburg, May 2023 DCLY 2022/23

Contents Preface 

 V

Stefan Beyerle Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 1

Oda Wischmeyer What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? ἔθνος and ἔθνη in Proverbs, Wisdom of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon   19 Barbara Schmitz Laos in the First Book of Maccabees: A Hasmonean Perspective in the Context of Limited Statehood   33 Jeremy Corley Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives   45 Núria Calduch-Benages Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36) 

 65

Severino Bussino “When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23): Political Intelligence in the Book of Ben Sira   81 Friedrich V. Reiterer Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit 

 103

Renate Egger-Wenzel Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther   117 József Zsengellér The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos?  Marcin Chrostowski The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 141

 161

VIII 

 Contents

Francis M. Macatangay “For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit   179 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  Jutta M. Jokiranta What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 193

 207

Maren R. Niehoff Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus   229 Eve-Marie Becker μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19): Jesus’s Cosmocracy and the Universalization of Discipleship—an “Inclusive” Reading   247 Dalia Marx The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13), and Its Resonance in Jewish Law and Lore   261 Stefan C. Reif The Notion of the Nation: How Hebrew Terminology Has Adjusted to Changing Circumstances—A Tale of Cultural Semantics   275 List of Contributors  Index of Subjects 

 291  293

Index of Modern Authors  Index of Sources 

 303

 297

Stefan Beyerle

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria Abstract: In the Hebrew Bible texts like Neh 5:1‒13 reflect on social conflicts in Yehud of Persian times. Inscriptions, papyri, and ostraca from Samaria and the Nile-island of Elephantine also inform us about Jewish everyday life and vital social tensions in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. In spite of the variety of parties and social identities in Samaria, Yehud and Elephantine, all these societies were based on a common religious tradition that referred to a god called YHWH or YHW. Furthermore, some conflicts and social relationships remained the same, as they also did in later, Hellenistic times—see, e.g., the role of women, and especially widows, in the Book of Judith (8:7, 10; 16:23‒24). In this paper, I wish to analyze the socioreligious environment in the “Judaisms” of Persian times by also taking into account later Hellenistic reflections derived from Deuterocanonical writings. Keywords: economy, social conflicts, Persian period, Elephantine, Samaria, Yehud, Nehemiah

1 Yehud as the very model of social disintegration The topic of the present paragraph would certainly have raised serious questions within the context of the academic debates of the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century; the late Herbert Donner characterized the period between Ezra-Nehemiah’s restoration and Alexander the Great as “the dark age.”1 But the situation has dramatically changed. On the one hand, the texts from Elephantine and Syene, which have enjoyed great popularity in recent scholarly discussion, serve as important sources for the reconstruction of the “Judaisms” of the late fifth century BCE. On the other hand, seal impressions (bullae), papyri, and further findings from Wādī ed-Dālīyeh are also especially relevant for Samaritan society and religion between 375 and 335 BCE, and seal impressions or papyri from the Persian province of Yehud are included in

1 Cf. Donner, Königszeit, 433‒39. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-001

2 

 Stefan Beyerle

these data.2 Besides the written sources, various archaeological data supplement knowledge of the socio-religious and cultural environment of the southern Levant. Despite all the differences and peculiarities of detail, Yehud, Samaria and the diasporas in Babylon and Egypt in the postexilic period had their common religious references to a divine figure whose names mostly sound like an abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton. As regards the economic and social situation in these Persian provinces, the introduction of monetary and fiscal policy, and especially the circulation of minted coins, contributed to a “global” connection, not only on religious, but also on economic grounds.3 The latter observation and further data as derived from archaeological investigations indicate that these mutual and multi-layered connections do not permit the assumed existence of a “pious,” humble Jewish congregation after the Exile in any Weberian sense.4 The real-life contexts in Persian period Yehud, if we take into account more recently published studies, reveal a rather meager increase in popularization, and a mostly agricultural oriented colonization.5 From an economic point of view, of special interest is the fact that the center of administration was located at Ramat Raḥel, halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and, very likely, the residency of the Persian governor.6 A large number, 372 to date, of jar-handle impressions were found at Ramat Raḥel, dating to the Persian period.7 Only later, in the second phase of Persian occupation and at the start of the Hellenistic era, did Jerusalem regain a prominent position, also in the field of economics.8 Archaeological data and their interpretation by Israel Finkelstein fit well with the above-noted transformations. Against the notion of a “re-filling” of the land in the Yehud of the Persian period (sixth to fourth centuries BCE), Finkelstein opts for a broader description that is based on data, place names and mentioned boroughs, derived from Neh 3:1‒32. That chapter lists those data in order to describe the building of the Jerusalem walls and the people involved. Finkelstein corrects the population of Yehud, based on such data, from 40,000 down to 12,000, and his “downgrading” is supported by new archaeological data and insights. An increas2 For a brief but comprehensive overview on the epigraphic evidence in Elephantine, Samaria, and Yehud, cf. Eph‘al, “Changes,” 107‒8. 3 For the economic perspective, cf. Altmann, Economics. 4 Cf. Weber, Ancient Judaism, 382. See the critical remarks on a “Weberian reading” in Kessler, Social History, 153‒56. 5 Cf. Lipschits, “Economy,” 245‒55. 6 Cf. Lipschits, “Economy,” 238‒40, 256‒58; Lipschits, Gador and Oeming, “History”; Lipschits, Babylonian-Persian Pit. 7 Cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions. 8 Cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 14‒17, 601, 756, 759‒62; Knoppers, “Jerusalem,” 168.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 3

ing population may be identified only in early Hellenistic times, as Finkelstein further argues.9 A late Hasmonean date for an increasing population in Yehud, and also in Jerusalem, has been challenged by several scholars.10 Be that as it may, Hugh Williamson and Bob Becking have argued that “the Book of Nehemiah would suggest a time span between the rebuilding of the walls [in Neh 3, SB] and the incident in Nehemia (sic) 5.”11 The incident, to which Becking makes reference, pictures a social conflict that is based on the social prerequisites of the Persian period:12 the disappearance of a pre-exilic society based on: family relations and kinship, including a renunciation of the ‫ נַ ֲח ָלה‬concept; the construction of “land” as an economic factor; and a period of drought that led to crop failure and poverty (cf. Hag 1:6, 10‒11). An archive of stamp impressions on jars, found at Ramat Raḥel, provides vivid evidence of these social relationships. In the late Hellenistic era, several stamp impressions—not only from Ramat Raḥel—record the name of the province “Yehud” (‫)יהד‬, followed by a letter that looks like a paleo-Hebrew ṭet.13 In connection with this type of seal impressions, a major decrease in seals from Ramat Raḥel and a contemporary increase of seals from the Jerusalem area are noticed. The circle that looks like a Hebrew ṭet is ambiguous and has led to various interpretations. Most recently, in their major edition of these seals, Oded Lipschits and David Vanderhooft plead for a symbol for wine, like the expression ‫“( ְּכיֵ ין ַהּטֹוב‬like the good wine”) in Song 7:10, or, alternatively, for a reference to the royal domain.14 In the late Persian period of the fourth century BCE, the stamps read “Y[e]h[u]d” or an abbreviated form “Y[e]h[ud].”15 As regards the function of these seal systems, Lipschits and Vanderhooft explain that the “Judean provincial authorities needed to have on hand a certain amount of resources not only for their own consumption

9 Cf. Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 40‒46. The rarity of archaeological finds in Judah in the Persian Period is a fact. “This means that during most of the Persian period the number of inhabitants was probably much lower, most likely in the range of 15‒30%, beginning with the lower figure in the early Persian period, and reaching the higher one toward the end of this era (. . .).” Quoted from Faust, “Forts,” 45‒46. 10 Cf. the discussion in Finkelstein, “Persian Jerusalem.” 11 Becking, “Consciousness,” 79; see also Williamson, Ezra, 234‒36. 12 Cf. Becking, “Consciousness,” 78. 13 Cf., e.g., Database Number 17‒75 and 17‒86 in Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 743, 754. 14 Cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 660‒62. 15 Cf., e.g., Database Number 13‒57 and 14‒110 in Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 325, 491.

4 

 Stefan Beyerle

and regional distribution but also to meet the needs of regional imperial administrators and especially military contingents (. . .).”16 Undoubtedly, such administrative measures are to be linked to the fueling of social conflict in Yehud in the Persian period. Neh 5 explicitly points to these conflicts in late Persian and, maybe also, early Hellenistic times.17 In vv. 1‒13 we read about the “cry of the people” to their “Judean brothers” (v. 1) for grain, so that they can eat and live (cf. v. 2). In v. 3 one reads (cf. BHQ): And there are those saying: “Our fields, our vineyards and our buildings, we have mortgaged, so that we get grain during the famine.”

18

‫וְ יֵ ׁש ֲא ֶׁשר א ְֹמ ִרים‬ ‫ּוב ֵּתינּו‬ ָ ‫ּוכ ָר ֵמינּו‬ ְ ‫ְׂשד ֵֹתינּו‬ ‫ֲאנַ ְחנּו ע ְֹר ִבים‬ ‫וְ נִ ְק ָחה ָדגָ ן ָּב ָר ָעב‬

Of special interest in the context of social disruption is the Hebrew noun ‫“( ערב‬mortgage,” “pledge” or “loan”). The economic idea of a “loan” appears again in v. 4. But in this passage those who were mourning about their fields and vineyards declare: “We borrowed money for the king’s tribute” (‫)לוִ ינּו ֶכ ֶסף ְל ִמ ַּדת ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, ָ with a use of the verb ‫לוה‬. In comparison with the king’s tribute (‫)מ ַּדת ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ִ in Neh 5:4, Nehemiah’s intervention addresses the “nobles” and the “prefects” in v. 7 (cf. BHQ): And my heart initiated self-counselling, ‫וַ ּיִ ָּמ ֵלְך ִל ִּבי ָע ַלי‬ and I brought charges against the nobles and prefects. ‫ת־ה ְּסגָ נִ ים‬ ַ ‫ת־הח ִֹרים וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫וָ ָא ִר ָיבה ֶא‬ And I said to them: ‫וָ א ְֹמ ָרה ָל ֶהם‬ “Everyone is practicing usury among his brothers, ‫יׁש־ּב ָא ִחיו ַא ֶּתם נ ְֹׁש ִאים‬ ְ ‫ַמ ָּׁשא ִא‬ thus I set a great assembly concerning them.” ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫יהם ְק ִה ָּלה ג‬ ֶ ‫וָ ֶא ֵּתן ֲע ֵל‬ Nehemiah’s intervention clearly refers to a conflict among the Judeans and addresses their nobles. The conflict cited by Nehemiah is to be regulated through an in-group appeal.19 As regards Nehemiah’s position in administration, the protagonist never 16 Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 763. 17 Neh 5:1‒13 consists of the setting (v. 1), complaints of the people (vv. 2‒5), the contention with the nobles (vv. 6‒12) and the subsequent oath and action (v. 13): so Altmann, Economics, 259. 18 The distributive depiction in ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ֲא ֶׁשר א ְֹמ ִרים‬does not necessarily indicate three different groups or parties in vv. 2aα, 3aα, 4aα. As in v. 1a, the headline, the “great outcry” addresses “the people and their wives” (‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫יהם ּג‬ ֶ ‫)צ ֲע ַקת ָה ָעם ּונְ ֵׁש‬, ַ with the subsequent passages trying to exemplify the different social miseries relating to the “crying ones” who were generally addressed in the introductory notion. Among them, different groups could have been suffering. Pace, e.g., Adams, Life, 137‒38. For a different, dynamic understanding of the involved groups in vv. 2‒4, see Kippenberg, Religion, 56‒57. 19 Cf. Altmann, “Comparisons,” 114‒16.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 5

refers to the Jerusalem temple, but he does recall his administrative function as governor (Neh 5:14: ‫)ּפ ָחה‬ ֶ in charge of the Persian center in Ramat Raḥel, as documented in archaeological remains and the stamp seals.20 The causes of social conflicts were famine, mortgage, as part of “feudal” system, and the royal tribute (the “king’s tribute,” Neh 5:4: ‫)כ ֶסף ְל ִמ ַּדת ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, ֶ already initiated by Darius I (522‒486 BCE), all of which belong to the “histoire longue durée” or the “histoire moyenne durée,” and not the “histoire événement.”21 By way of a final support for the idea of an enduring, and not an occasional, crisis (like a famine), the middāh✶ for the king in Neh 5:4 deserves further attention. The noun middāh✶, an Aramaism in Neh 5, and here, in Hebrew, a hapax legomenon, goes back to Aramaic middāh/minddāh and Akkadian ma(d)dattu/mandattu, in the sense of “tribute” or “tax.”22 In the Book of Ezra (4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24) the Aramaic term conveys the meaning of “payment” or “tribute” to the king. Among other texts from the Persian period, the Akkadian (and also Aramaic) sources from the Muraššû Archive, found at Nippur, stem from a family and firm called Muraššû in the times of Artaxerxes I, Darius II and Artaxerxes II, i.e., 464‒359 BCE.23 Included in this archive are personal names that consist of the theophoric element yh or yhw, very likely referring to former Judean families in Babylon of the Persian period.24 Even in the Babylonian heartland, the Muraššû Archive attests to a Persian administration that was based on a “feudal” system of agriculture by land tenure,25 with which Judeans were also involved. For instance, a rental agreement on a canal and several properties, dating to the year 429 BCE (Artaxerxes I), mentions several Judean customers (Banā’il, Yadiḫyāma, Yaḫūnatanu or Aḫīyāma), who had to pay an extra rent (BE 9.45, line 16‒17: mandattu).26 Based on the discussion of the Muraššû Archive and further contemporary sources, Lisbeth Fried comes to the conclusion that the maddat hammelek in Nehemiah 5 refers to a rent on fields and vineyards

20 Cf. Lipschits, Gador and Oeming, “History,” 11; Altmann, Economics, 261, 263. 21 Cf. Guillaume, “Nehemiah 5,” 21. For a more detailed discussion, cf. Altmann, Economics, 262‒69. 22 Cf. HAL:519, 1733; CAD M/I, 13‒16. 23 Cf. Stolper, Entrepreneurs, 11‒14, 18‒24; Alstola, Judeans, 164‒67. The bulk of the texts, however, falls in the time span of twenty-five years between the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II (440‒416 BCE): cf. Stolper, “Murašû.” 24 See also the list of names in Weippert, Textbuch, 460‒63, and further hints in Alstola, Judeans, 167‒69. 25 Cf. Stolper, Entrepreneurs, 24‒28, who also provides the reader with a critical examination of the terminology (“feudal”). On a careful use of the term “feudal,” see also Alstola, Judean, 221. 26 Cf., for a German translation, Weippert, Textbuch, 466‒67 (no. 277), and for further attestations of mandattu, see Stolper, Entrepreneurs, 140‒42. For the cuneiform text BE 9.45, see Hilprecht and Clay, Babylonian Expedition, plates 27‒28.

6 

 Stefan Beyerle

that belonged to the Persian king, in this case, Artaxerxes I, and that have been let to the Judeans. They are not borrowing against their own fields and vineyards to pay the king’s tax. They are borrowing money in order to pay rent to the king for the fields and vineyards that they are renting from him. We learn from this word, moreover, that they do not own their land, but it is the king’s, and they are simply renters.27 “Simply,” to use the wording in Lisbeth Fried’s examination, the administration of the Achaemenid kings, organized as a “feudal” system in an agricultural context,28 was a common cause of social disintegration in the Persian Period. In reflecting on different socio-geographical and economical environments, as, e.g., in Babylon and Yehud, the question of “identity” arises. Orientating “identity” by means of the morphology of a personal name is somehow an under-exploited method. All the more so, because the morphology takes into account theophoric elements, like yh or yhw, which are obviously religiously determined markers, in the comparison of social statuses and the like. However, it still remains a challenge to extrapolate unbiased criteria for identifying and comparing “identities.” Any unbiased criterion may provide an orientation along the lines of “script” and “language.” In a nutshell, language features are important, but are insufficient indicators for local ethnicities and how they should be differentiated. Indicators of special religious significance, like the ones that were discussed from the Muraššû Archive, should be taken into account. Here, and as a point of comparison, clues that especially point to religion and ritual, as in the case, e.g., of the Elephantine ostraca, will shortly be considered.29 In sum, criteria like ethnicity, nation, role, religion or imperialization, and decolonization, need to be taken into account if “identity,” or better: “identities,” come to the fore of our attention.30

2 Traces of social strata in Elephantine and Samaria Elephantine, an island in the river Nile, was a demarcation point for the southern Egyptian border. It was home to “Judeans” (Yehudi/Yehudai) and “Arameans” (Arami/Aramai).31 The bulk of papyri and ostraca from Elephantine was written 27 Fried, “Exploitation,” 160. 28 Most of the “Judeans” who are mentioned in the Muraššû Archive worked as farmers in the Nippur region, while only a very few were herdsmen or fishers (cf. Schottroff, “Arbeit,” 125‒26). 29 On ethnicity in the Elephantine ostraca, cf. Lemaire, “Judean Identity.” 30 Cf. Berquist, “Constructions.” 31 On the ethnonyms “Judean” and “Aramean,” cf. Grassi, “Arameans,” 6‒9, 11‒23, 27‒28.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 7

in Aramaic. The sources stem from the beginning of the fifth through the beginning of the fourth centuries BCE. As regards the fiscal system, Persian administration in Egypt reveals structural parallels to the organization in Babylon, especially if the Muraššû Archive is considered. For instance, a sub-collection of Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, the so-called Arsames Archive, attests to landowners of the Arsames family, the satrap of Egypt and head of an influential royal branch of the Achaemenids, who assigned their property to others in Nippur as in Elephantine. The “squatters” who took the land had to pay ‫ מנדה‬as the rent or tribute owed on land belonging to the royal family (TADAE A 6.13).32 The Arsames documents from the archives in Nippur and Elephantine point to a family of elite landowners, whose land tenure included sufficiently large properties to charge their loans with extra rents or tributes—from Babylon down to southern Egypt. For an in-depth view on the “Judeans” and their social conflicts in and around Elephantine it is necessary to recognize their general role within an Egyptian military organization. A round figure of five hundred to six hundred may be suggested as comprising the adult population of the Judean community. This results in a total number of approximately three thousand or more Judeans.33 The social stratification of the Judeans, therefore, was organized in hierarchies—e.g., a certain Jedaniah, son of Gemariah, and perhaps a priest, functioned as the head of the community in the late fifth century BCE (TADAE A 4.1; A 4.2; A 4.3; A 4.7; A 4.8; A 4.10).34 The Aramaic documents from the island of Elephantine do not indicate if and how the Judean hierarchy related to the Persian administration. However, the Persians maintained a strict system of taxation and landownership, that they inherited in part from the Egyptians. Again, the satrap Arsames and his habits constitute proof for implied socio-economic pressures. In a letter, dating from the late fifth century BCE, Arsames is involved in a reaffirmation, transfer, and registration of a lease of land. The text refers to a time of turmoil or unrest (Aramaic [including a Persian loanword]: ywz’ hwh bmṣrym) in Egypt (TADAE A 6.11:2, 4) and proceeds in the words of Arsames (TADAE A 6.11:5‒6):35 5 ’ḥr ’nh bgh zy pmwn zk 5 yhbt lpṭswry 5 ’ntm hḥwwhy yhḥsn

then I do give the domain of that Pamun to Peṭosiri. You, notify him. Let him hold-(it)-as-heir,

32 Cf. Fried, “Exploitation,” 159‒60; Altmann, Economics, 231‒32. Grassi, “Arameans,” 11‒18, concludes that “Arameans” is a label for “arameophones,” especially when the people addressed served in the army (see also Kratz, “Aramäer,” 181‒84, and below). 33 Cf. Granerød, Dimensions, 25. 34 Cf. Granerød, Dimensions, 33‒34, 79. 35 For text and translation see Porten and Yardeni, Textbook 1, 118‒19.

8 

 Stefan Beyerle

5 whlk’ 6 lqbl zy qdmn pmwn 6 ’bwhy hwh ḥšl yḥšl 6 ‘l byt’ zyly

and the land tax, pay, just as formerly Pamun, his father, had been paying to my estate.

Comparable with the tribute or rent of ‫מנדה‬, the heir has to pay a “land tax,” here cited as ilku (TADAE A 6.11:5), that is also attested in the sources from the Muraššû Archive.36 Arsames, in this case, not only clarifies as a concession the transaction of a plot, but also levies “land tax.” In sum, the role of Arsames as satrap demonstrates that “in the Achaemenid period the economic life of Egypt was under tight Persian control. The Persian ruler founded an economic system based on an exploitation of Egyptian resources.”37 This exploitation also pertained to resources in the heartland of Yehud. In another document from 419 BCE, the fifth regnal year of Darius II, the Persian king refers to the feast of Maṣṣot and exhorts Arsames to stay away from the Judean garrison (TADAE A 4.1:3).38 One of the latest texts from the Elephantine Archives, an elaborated tax register from 400/399 BCE, attests to a powerful tax pressure (TADAE C 3.15), including also obligations for the gods Yahô, Eschembethel and Anathbethel. One of the oldest sources, an extensive trade record from 475 BCE (TADAE C 3.7), explicitly lists the tribute(s)—Aramaic: mndh— for the “(store-)house of the king” (Aramaic: byt mlk’; cf., e.g., C 3.7 A recto col. 2:1).39 If special attention is given to Samaria in the Persian period, there emerge some commonalities, especially with a view to the social reality in Samaria as compared with the situation in Elephantine or Yehud. Firstly, both Yehud and Samaria were equally addressed after the temple of Yahô at Elephantine was destroyed in 410 BCE by the Persian governor (Persian-Aramaic: frataraka) Vidranga, who was in charge while the satrap Arsames was abroad in Babylon. The preserved letters (TADAE A 4.5–4.10) mention, in their appeal for the rebuilding of the Yahô temple, both Bagavayah, the governor of Yehud, and Delaiah and Shelemiah, sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria.40 Secondly, in Yehud as in Samaria, the economic

36 Cf. Fried, “Exploitation,” 156‒58. 37 Granerød, Dimensions, 67. 38 For a German translation, cf. Weippert, Textbuch, 479‒80 (no. 283). The text is fragmentary and reconstructed. In his translation, based on the reconstruction, Weippert follows an earlier suggestion: see his comments on p. 479. 39 For text and translation see Porten and Yardeni, Textbook 3, 82‒83. See also Altmann, Economics, 146‒47. 40 For a fresh approach and the discussion of the events concerning the rebuilding of the Yahô temple, cf. Becking, “Act,” 186, 188. Becking alludes to “detachments” in TADAE A 4.5, which address social-economically motivated rebellions of mercenaries against the Persian administration—in the aftermath of the pax Persia.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 9

and administrative centers, in Ramat Raḥel and Samaria, were separated from the religiously focal points in Jerusalem and on Mount Gerizim.41 A third coincidence is provided by the evidence of the Aramaic Samaria inscriptions from the Wādī ed-Dālīyeh, dating between 375 and 332 BCE. The tone and the political structures reflected in these fragments show parallels with the archives of the Elephantine papyri.42 As in the Elephantine papyri, the Wādī ed-Dālīyeh papyri refer to state officials within a private archive of contracts, which presupposes a detailed and rigorously applied hierarchy in the administration of Persian times—the “governor,” “prefect,” or “judge” are mentioned (WDSP 1ar:11; WDSP 2ar:10‒11; WDSP 3ar:10).43 Among the thirty-seven papyri found until now, at least seventeen texts relate to slavery.44 In one of the conveyances concerning slavery, the text highlights another specification that is also apparent from the Elephantine papyri. Here a certain Yakim sells to Yehopadaini and ’Ari a slave called Yeho‘anani (WDSP 3ar:4‒5, date: not preserved, probably before 350 BCE;45 cf. also WDSP 1ar:2‒4, date: 335 BCE, and WDSP 5ar:5, date: ca. 350 BCE), where the text states:46 4 ‘bd yhwh lh l[‘]lm’ 4 wr‘yw 5 [ḥd mn ḥd ’sr’ byny]hm

He will be a slave to him in [per]petuity. And they were [mutually] satisfied [with the bond between] them[.]

Obviously, the regulation was not aware of the “Holiness Code,” or specific legal prescriptions in Lev 17‒26, according to which it is forbidden for Israelites to purchase Israelite slaves (Lev 25:39‒46).47 Furthermore, manumission of slaves in the year of the Jubilee (Lev 25:50‒54)48 is unknown in the Samaria document (cf. WDSP 3ar:4).49 41 Cf. Lipschits, “Economy,” 256‒58; Knoppers, “Jerusalem,” 169‒75. Whether the temple on Mount Gerizim already existed in the Persian period is not exactly clear, even if a scholarly consensus currently pleads for a Persian period temple on Mount Gerizim: see Hensel, “JHWH-Heiligtum,” 75‒82, and the rather critical notes in Beyerle, “Intolerance,” 130‒31. 42 Cf. Kratz, Israel, 167‒68; Hensel, Juda, 105‒8. 43 Cf. the transliteration and photography in Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens, 117, 132, 152, 661‒63. See also the German translation of WDSP 1ar in Geiger, Handschriften, 229‒31. 44 Cf. Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens, 22‒23, 36‒38, 65‒66; see also Pastor, “Contribution,” 47. 45 Cf. Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens, 150, 461‒62. 46 For text, translation and photography of the fragment see Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh 2, 58‒59, Plate III; Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens, 151, 663. Cf. also the commentary on WDSP 2ar:3 in Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens, 139‒42. 47 For the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch on Lev 25:39‒46, cf. Schorch, Leviticus, 222‒25. The text is based on the Ms. Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, 751, dating from the year 1225 CE. 48 For the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch on Lev 25:50‒54, cf. Schorch, Leviticus, 226‒27. 49 Cf. Pastor, “Contribution,” 48; Geiger, Handschriften, 229.

10 

 Stefan Beyerle

Carmen Palmer discusses, in a paper presented at the 2022 Annual SBL Meeting in Denver, different strategies of argumentation to explain the practice of the perpetual enslavement of persons carrying “Yahwistic” names in the Wādī ed-Dālīyeh papyri.50 She takes into account the texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that—obviously—refer to slaves in the Hellenistic period becoming converts to Judaism but also experiencing perpetual enslavement (cf. CD 12:10‒11)51. As regards the Wādī ed-Dālīyeh papyri, Carmen Palmer argues convincingly that the communities at Qumran and Samaria in the Persian era must have been familiar with the regulations attested in Lev 25. Among the “biblical” texts, 4Q24 (Levb) frag. 27‒28 contain Lev 25:45‒52. Furthermore, 4Q366 RPd frag. 2 uses Lev 25:39‒43, 4Q418 Instructiond frag. 126 ii 13 quotes Lev 25:46, and 4Q159 (4Q Ordinancesa) frags. 2‒4, lines 1‒3 reworks parts of Lev 25:42, 47‒55 for the Samaritan community cf. 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb.52 As the Judeans did in Elephantine, the Samaritans practiced a strict administration that was orientated and subordinated to the Persian occupiers, and that neglected wholly—in Elephantine—or at least partly—in Samaria—the Torah and its prescriptions.53 As a consequence, and in terms of religious identities, Yehud, Elephantine, and Samaria already in the Persian period represent three different manifestations of “Judaism”54—not to speak of those “Judeans” who remained in Babylon after the fall of the neo-Babylonian empire.

50 Cf. Palmer, “Enslavement.” I thank my colleague Carmen Palmer for sending me her paper prior to publication and, also, for stimulating discussions on the topic at the 2022 conferences in Salzburg (Austria) and Denver, CO (USA). 51 Though Qumran Ostracon KhQ1 was also considered initially, per the reading of Cross and Eshel (“Ostraca,” 18) Yardeni's different reading (“Draft,” 236) is now preferred. 52 I owe all these references to Palmer, “Enslavement.” For a list of further pre-Samaritan texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, 175‒76. 53 This applies irrespective of whether the Jubilee legislation (Lev 25) “probably reflects more utopian vision than actual practice”, so Adams, Life, 108. 54 Tov, Textual Criticism, 171‒73, 175, 186‒87, correctly distinguishes between the Samaritan Pentateuch, historically connected with the separation of the Samaritans in 112‒111 BCE, when John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple, and the pre-Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Albeit that both sources should be seen as closely interrelated, the Samaritan Pentateuch is a non-Jewish document. However, in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods the people of Samaria were “northern Yahwists”, so Crawford, “Pentateuch,” 131.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 11

3 The transition of social structures from Persian into Hellenistic times Although the question of when and why the Judean colony from Elephantine disappeared from view cannot be answered due to a lack of reliable data, the early Hellenistic history in Egypt provides us with several sources that hint at a Judean colony in Edfu under early Ptolemaic rule. Thus, Aramaic documents in particular, as well as some other indications that stem from the wider context of the Elephantine papyri and ostraca (cf. TADAE C 3.28), disclose, with some probability, the sustained existence of a Judean colony at Edfu (until 207 BCE) before the outbreak of the great Thebaid revolt and, later, at Thebes. Sylvie Honigman, who recently collected these data, emphasizes that “as in Elephantine (and Idumea), the evidence suggests that the Judeans in Edfu had their own temple to Yahô/Yhwh,” and “the Judeans of Edfu and Thebes possessed shrines to Yahô and priests down to the first century BCE.” Furthermore, “[T]here can be little doubt that their employment at the service of the king, in Upper Egypt, set them apart, and hence contributed to their preserving their separate ethnic identity.”55 Only at Thebes, in the second century BCE, Judeans changed their role and climbed the social ladder, when they became, among other positions, tax-farmers in the royal Greek administration.56 Beyond a general assumption about the “heirs” and also subsequent generations of the Judeans at Elephantine, we are able to discern further transitional patterns when socio-hermeneutical details are highlighted. Yehud was a rather sparsely populated region in the Persian Period that registered a significant growth only in the Hellenistic era (see above). It is obvious that this development, constituting a tremendous change in population in an environment of well-organized, administratively elaborate rural society, distinguished by “districts” (Hebrew ‫ּפ ֶלְך‬: ֶ cf. Neh 3:9‒18),57 should have produced a growth in social pressure. Those social conflicts were additionally fueled by a general improvement in the economic situation at the start of the Hellenistic era that led to a growth of social disparities, between “the rich” and “the poor.” Starting in the third century BCE, a vast amount of silver coinage attests to an economic improvement and its consequences.58 Consequently, the topic of the unjust gain of wealth is a widespread motif in Hellenistic Jewish texts and occurs within the sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. 1QpHab 9:5; 1QS 5:14‒15; 9:8‒9; CD 6:14‒17) and, especially in the

55 Honigman, “Serving the Kings,” 119; cf. also, 90, 111, 113, 115. 56 Cf. Honigman, “Serving,” 106. 57 Cf. Lipschits, “Economy,” 240‒42. 58 Cf. Hensel, “Relationship,” 33.

12 

 Stefan Beyerle

exhortations of the Epistle in 1 Enoch (cf. 96:4‒8; 97:8; 100:6; 102:9; 103:5‒6, 9‒15).59 What should be kept in mind, however, is that the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particular, use the “rich–poor” paradigm to intermingle the social with the religious aspects of “poverty.”60 Towards the end of the second century BCE, wealth could also exhibit positive connotations. In the Book of Judith in chapter 8, the female protagonist of the story is introduced in this manner (Jdt 8:7): καὶ ἦν καλὴ τῷ εἴδει καὶ ὡραία τῇ ὄψει σφόδρα· καὶ ὑπελίπετο αὐτῇ Μανασσης ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον καὶ παῖδας καὶ παιδίσκας καὶ κτήνη καὶ ἀγρούς, καὶ ἔμενεν ἐπ̓ αὐτῶν.

And she was very beautiful in appearance, and of a very lovely countenance. And he has left her, Manasse, her husband, silver and gold and male and female slaves, livestock and fields. And she maintained this tenure.

Traditions from the Hebrew Bible and its Near Eastern contexts clarify that the social role of a widow requires special protection by a god or king.61 Consequently, in the literal sense of the word, the social status of a widow and wealth were inconsistent with each another. However, Judith’s husband had left a rich heritage (cf. also Num 27:1‒11, here: v. 7; Job 42:13‒15, here: v. 15).62 What the context reveals is that Judith’s “piety, asceticism, beauty, wealth, and good reputation are all mentioned together in these verses and these qualities are, unusually, linked.”63 Their function remains strictly on the surface of the narrative. They are part of the book’s strategy to picture Judith as an ideal, pious female “Jew,” who represents, as a type of “corporate identity,” an ideal of “Israel” in the aftermath of Judah’s and the Maccabeans

59 Cf. Adams, Life, 159, 198‒201, and Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 260. Stuckenbruck convincingly rejects the thesis that in the Epistle “the poor” and “the rich” were representatives of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, a frequent scholarly hypothesis. Also rather unconvincing is the idea of Gabriele Boccaccini, who detects an Enochic “group,” not oriented around the Mosaic Torah, in opposition to the Qumranites (see pp. 213‒14), albeit that, in this case, the Epistle would pertain to a religious profile that could be compared to Elephantine or Samaria, as regards their common distance from the Torah (see above). For a critical evaluation of the thesis that the Enochic “group” shunned the Mosaic Torah, cf. Beyerle, “Qumran”, 162‒64. 60 Cf. on the relationship of “economy” and “religion” that is alluded to in the designation “poor,” e.g., in 4QInstruction, Hamidović, “De la pauvreté.” (See also the rather superficial summary in Adams, Life, 184‒98, 207). 61 Cf. Schellenberg, “Hilfe.” 62 Cf. Adams, Life, 57‒58, 75‒77. 63 Gera, Judith, 261.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 13

wars.64 That said, the real-life background, and especially the motif of a rich widow, entitled to inherit, presupposes an enhanced status for women in the Hellenistic era—here, Judith’s right to function as the heir of her husband and “maintain the tenure,” literally “to remain over them” (Jdt 8:7b: καὶ ἔμενεν ἐπ̓ αὐτῶν).65 One of the earliest testimonies of an inheritance law that covers widows stems from an unprovenanced ostracon from the Moussaïeff collection probably dating to the seventh or sixth centuries BCE.66 The uniqueness of this inscription lies in the fact that the widow is laying claim to her husband’s inheritance.67 The most relevant and intriguing examples of, more generally speaking, a right of disposal on the part of a widow, again stem from the documentary texts from Elephantine, especially the marriage laws in the so-called Mipṭaḥyah Archive (cf. TADAE B 2.2; B 2.4; B 2.6: the relevant term here is šlyṭ[h]).68 The least that may be stated is that the enhanced status of women as reflected in these documentary texts provided the basis for a literary treatment in late second-century Jewish literature.69

4 Conclusions The discussion of social conflicts in the Persian Period started in Yehud in the fifth century BCE. The data highlight a tight and strictly organized Persian administration. The social problems that arose from this organization led to anti-Persian behavior that can also be detected in some of the Elephantine documentary papyri. Although the circumstances in Egypt, Yehud, and Samaria differed significantly, they do demonstrate some connections: e.g., events linked to the rebuilding of the Yahô temple in Elephantine or the influential and globally active Arsames family providing good cases in point. Despite a generally favorable economic development at the start of the Hellenistic era, social conflicts and changes, e.g., pertaining to the social role of women, became the background for a literary treatment in Jewish texts.

64 Cf. Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 63‒66. For an orientation of the characterization of Judith towards the protagonist of the Joseph story cf. p. 244. 65 On the halakhic discussion of widowhood in rabbinic tradition cf. Ilan, Women, 52‒59. 66 Cf. Bons, “Witwe.” For a transliteration of the ostracon and the comparison with Judith’s case cf. pp. 198, 202. 67 Cf. Bons, “Witwe,” 197, 203. 68 Cf. Bons, “Witwe,” 203‒5; Azzoni, “Women.” The documentary texts highlight that Mipṭaḥyah was a landowner and a possessor of goods. Consequently, she was in a position to bequest her property to her husband(s). 69 Cf. Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 246; Gera, Judith, 267‒69.

14 

 Stefan Beyerle

Bibliography Adams, Samuel L. Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Alstola, Tero. Judeans in Babylonia. A Study of Deportees in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE. CHANE 109. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Altmann, Peter. “Ancient Comparisons, Modern Models, and Ezra-Nehemiah: Triangulating the Sources for Insights on the Economy of Persian Period Yehud.” Pages 103‒20 in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context. Edited by Marvin Lloyd Miller et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Altmann, Peter. Economics in Persian-Period Biblical Texts. Their Interactions with Economic Developments in the Persian Period and Earlier Biblical Traditions. FAT 109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Azzoni, Annalisa. “Women of Elephantine and Women in the Land of Israel.” Pages 3‒12 in In the Shadow of Bezalel. Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by Alejandro F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Becking, Bob. “‘That Evil Act.’ A Thick Description of the Crisis around the Demolition of the Temple of Yahô in Elephantine.” Pages 183‒207 in Elephantine in Context. Studies on the History, Religion and Literature of the Judeans in Persian Period Egypt. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernd U. Schipper. FAT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. Becking, Bob. “Social Consciousness in the Persian Period: The Case of Nehemiah 5.” Pages 74‒84 in Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity. FAT 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Berquist, Jon L. “Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehud.” Pages 52‒66 in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Beyerle, Stefan. “Intolerance in Early Judaism. Emic and Etic Descriptions of Jewish Religions in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 115‒56 in Intolerance, Polemics, and Debate in Antiquity. PoliticoCultural, Philosophical, and Religious Forms of Critical Conversation. Edited by George van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten. TBN 25. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Beyerle, Stefan. “Qumran und die Apokalyptik.” Pages 159‒223 in Qumran aktuell. Texte und Themen der Schriften vom Toten Meer. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Jörg Frey. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 120. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011. Bons, Eberhard. “Konnte eine Witwe die naḥalāh ihres verstorbenen Mannes erben? Überlegungen zum Ostrakon 2 aus der Sammlung Moussaïeff.” ZABR 4 (1998): 197‒208. Crawford, Sidnie W. “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch.” Pages 123‒36 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg et al. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Cross, Frank M., and Esther Eshel. “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân.” IEJ 47 (1997): 17‒28. Donner, Herbert. Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba. Vol. 2 of Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. GAT 4/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Dušek, Jan. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450‒332 av. J.-C. CHANE 30. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Eph‘al, Israel. “Changes in Palestine during the Persian Period in the Light of Epigraphic Sources.” IEJ 48 (1998): 106‒19.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

 15

Faust, Avraham. “Forts or Agricultural Estates? Persian Period Settlement in the Territories of the Former Kingdom of Judah.” PEQ 150 (2018): 34‒59. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods.” RB 117 (2010): 39‒54. Finkelstein, Israel. “Persian Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder.” JHebS 9 (2009): 2‒13 (article 24: https:// jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/view/7236/5948). Fried, Lisbeth. “Exploitation of Depopulated Land in Achaemenid Judah.” Pages 151‒64 in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context. Edited by Marvin Lloyd Miller et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Geiger, Gregor. Die Handschriften aus der Judäischen Wüste. Die Texte außerhalb Qumrans: Einführung und deutsche Übersetzung. FSBP 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Gera, Deborah L. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Granerød, Gard. Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period. Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judean Community at Elephantine. BZAW 488. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Grassi, Giulia F. “‘Do We Know the Arameans?’ (SAA 17, 176). The Use of Ethnonyms in the Aramaic Documents from Egypt.” Pages 3‒34 in Elephantine in Context. Studies on the History, Religion and Literature of the Judeans in Persian Period Egypt. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernd U. Schipper. FAT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. Gropp, Douglas M., ed. Wadi Daliyeh 2: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Guillaume, Philippe. “Nehemiah 5: No Economic Crisis.” JHebS 10 (2010): 2‒21 (article 8: https:// jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/view/11269/8608). Hamidović, David. “De la pauvreté à l’ascèse: du rejet à l’idéal. L’économie divine du pauvre dans les textes de Qumrân.” Pages 233‒52 in Dans l’antichambre. Pour un dialogue entre la pensée juive et la connaissance renouvelée du judaïsme ancien. Panim el Panim. Paris: Hermann, 2021. Hensel, Benedikt. “Das JHWH-Heiligtum am Garizim: ein archäologischer Befund und seine literarund theologiegeschichtliche Einordnung.” VT 68 (2018): 73‒93. Hensel, Benedikt. Juda und Samaria. Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen. FAT 110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Hensel, Benedikt. “On the Relationship of Judah and Samaria in Post-exilic Times: A Farewell to the Conflict Paradigm.” JSOT 41 (2019): 19‒42. Hilprecht, Hermann V., and Albert T. Clay, eds. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Series A: Cuneiform Texts. Volume IX: Business Documents of Murashû Sons of Nippur, Dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I. (464‒424 B. C.). Philadelphia, PA: Department of Archaeology and Palaeontology of the University of Philadelphia, 1898. Honigman, Sylvie. “Serving the Kings, Building the Temples, and Paying the ‘Jewish Tax.’ AramaicSpeaking Judeans and Their Descendants in Upper Egypt from Persian to Early Imperial Time.” Pages 75‒128 in Elephantine in Context. Studies on the History, Religion and Literature of the Judeans in Persian Period Egypt. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernd U. Schipper. FAT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Kessler, Rainer. The Social History of Ancient Israel. An Introduction. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008. Kippenberg, Hans G. Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa. Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Verhältnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung. SUNT 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

16 

 Stefan Beyerle

Knoppers, Gary N. “Were the Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim Temples the Economic Epicenters of Their Provinces? Assessing the Textual, Archaeological, and Epigraphic Evidence.” Pages 153‒75 in Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times. Essays on Their Histories and Literatures. FAT 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004. (= HAL) Kratz, Reinhard G. “Aramäer und Judäer. Zur Ethnographie Elephantines in achämenidischer Zeit.” Pages 163‒84 in Persische Reichspolitik und lokale Heiligtümer. Beiträge einer Tagung des Exzellenzclusters “Religion und Politik in den Kulturen der Vormoderne und Moderne” vom 24.–26. Februar 2016 in Münster. BZABR 25. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2019. Kratz, Reinhard G. Historical and Biblical Israel. The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah. Translated by Paul M. Kurtz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Lemaire, André. “Judean Identity in Elephantine: Everyday Life According to the Ostraca.” Pages 365‒73 in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lipschits, Oded. “Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the District System.” Pages 237‒64 in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context. Edited by Marvin Lloyd Miller et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Lipschits, Oded, Yuval Gador, and Manfred Oeming. “A Short History of the Site and Its Excavations.” Pages 7‒14 in Ramat Raḥel VI. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv-Heidelberg Expedition (2005‒2010). The Babylonian-Persian Pit. Edited by Oded Lipschits et al. SMNIA 40. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, and Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology, 2021. Lipschits, Oded, and David S. Vanderhooft. The Yehud Stamp Impressions. A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Oppenheim, Leo A. et al. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vols. 1‒26. Chicago: the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956‒2010. (= CAD) Palmer, Carmen. “Perpetual Enslavement and the Dilemma of Non-Foreignness and Conversion.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. Denver, CO. November 20, 2022. Pastor, Jack. “The Contribution of the Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh to the Study of Economics in the Persian Period.” Pages 45‒50 in The Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies. Edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer. SJ 53 (Studia Samaritana 5). Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Newly Copied. Edited and trans. into Hebrew and English. Vols. 1‒4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986‒1999. (= TADEA). Schellenberg, Annette. “Hilfe für Witwen und Waisen. Ein gemein-orientalisches Motiv in wechselnden alttestamentlichen Diskussionszusammenhängen.” ZAW 124 (2012): 180‒200. Schmitz, Barbara, and Helmut Engel. Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Schorch, Stefan, ed. Leviticus. Vol. 3 of The Samaritan Pentateuch. A Critical Editio Maior. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Schottroff, Willy. “Arbeit und sozialer Konflikt im nachexilischen Juda.” Pages 104‒48 in Mitarbeiter der Schöpfung. Bibel und Arbeitswelt. Edited by Luise and Willy Schottfroff. München: Kaiser, 1983. Stolper, Matthew W. Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and the Persian Rule in Babylonia. PIHANS 54. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1985. Stolper, Matthew W. “Murašû, Archive of.” EBR 20:129‒31. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91‒108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Rev. and exp. 4th ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2022.

Social Conflicts in the Persian Period: Yehud, Elephantine and Samaria 

Weber, Max. Ancient Judaism. Trans. by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale. London: George Allen, 1952. Weippert, Manfred. Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. GAT 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Wellhausen, Julius. Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte. 8th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1921. Williamson, Hugh G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984. Yardeni, Ada. “A Draft of a Deed on an Ostracon from Khirbet Qumrân.” IEJ 47 (1997): 233‒37.

 17

Oda Wischmeyer

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? ἔθνος and ἔθνη in Proverbs, Wisdom of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon Abstract: This paper examines concepts of ethnicity in the older and younger wisdom writings of Israel. A line extends from a purely descriptive political perception of the constellation “Israel—surrounding peoples” in the older wisdom to a more essentialist understanding of Israel as the people of God in the Wisdom of Solomon. Keywords: Ancient Jewish sapiential literature, ethnos, ethnicity, concepts of ethnicity

1 Introduction The letter of Antiochos III to the Jews, in which the Seleucid king granted the Jewish ἔθνος, among other things, the retention of the patrioi nomoi (about 200 BCE), is the first evidence of the designation of the Jews as ἔθνος from the external perspective.1 The evidence from the internal perspective—Septuagint and related Greek-language Jewish writings—is abundant. I limit myself here to the three sapiential Septuagint writings of Proverbs, Wisdom of Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon, which demonstrate not only a semantic profile of their own, but also a clear conceptual development of the term ἔθνος. My brief investigation is concerned only with the reconstruction of the emic perspective. A further analysis from an ancient historical, i.e., etic, perspective would have to follow. My introductory reflections are no more than mere indications of the current complexity of the topic here under discussion. The topic of ἔθνος and ἔθνη2—to be translated into German as Volk/Nation, and into English as people/nation—as well as the scholarly term ethnicity/Volkszuhörigkeit currently represent one of the most topical and controversial issues in the general area of ancient studies. Particular the-

1 Josephus, A.J. 12.138‒144. 2 In the Wisdom texts γένος is not found (exception: Sir 13:16; Wis 19:6, 21 as way of life or living being). For λαός, see below. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-002

20 

 Oda Wischmeyer

matic hotspots, especially in USA classics, are the connection of ethnicity and race in Greek and Roman antiquity,3 contemporaneous ancient Judaism and its understanding of ἔθνος/ἔθνη and ἔθνος Ἰουδαίων between the terminologically and factually blurred fields of religion, culture, and people, as well as Paul’s ἔθνος concept.4 Erich Gruen, in the opening passage of his monograph on Ethnicity in the Ancient World, speaks of a “minefield.”5 The related issues of identity-formation on the one hand, and the relevance of the relation of violence and hierarchies in groups6 on the other, are similarly controversial. The following dilemma may be identified as the main problem in this context: since ethnicity is a modern word, the term is intended to answer modern, not ancient questions. Gruen writes: Ethnicity as a term did not exist in antiquity. Indeed, it did not even make it into the English language until the mid-20th century. That does not mean that the concept, by whatever name, was unknown in ancient societies. The idea of bonds that linked together persons, whether it be by common kinship, language, location, traditions, experience, practices, or aspirations is ubiquitous even when unexpressed, a feature, one might say, of human community itself.7

Currently, ancient studies work with different concepts of ethnicity borrowed from the fields of sociology, political science, and philosophy so that an inquiry into the topic of “What makes a people?” can hardly take place without a consideration of these concepts.8 This is illustrated in a review by Maggie Beeler of Erich Gruen’s Ethnicity. Beeler criticizes Gruen for distancing his study from current concepts of ethnicity. However, Erich Gruen himself is well aware of the complexity of the topic and chooses a clearly defined starting position in this “minefield”: Flux and instability stand out in this subject. Hence, insistence on a determined definition of “ethnicity” misses its protean character. This study uses the term loosely, unfettered by a

3 Eckhardt, Ethnos (review by Wilker); Gruen, Ethnicity (see the critical review by Beeler); to some degree less critical: Cohen’s review; Horrell, Ethnicity. Recently published: Van Maaren, Boundaries (introduction with history and state of the art of research on ethnicity and Jewish identity: 1‒42; comprehensive bibliography). Important literature contributions of the last years are listed in the review by J. Wilker, footnote 1: Mendels., Rise; Cohen, Beginnings; Goodblatt, Elements; Mason, “Jews,” 457‒512; Schwartz, “Judean,” 92‒109; Weitzman, “Relevance,” 165‒72; Schwartz, Jews; Goodblatt, “Varieties,” 11‒27. 4 See recently: Fredriksen, “Paul,” 359‒80. 5 Gruen, Ethnicity, 1: “The subject presents a minefield.” 6 Beeler, Review, points to the significance of the sociological race-concept in contrast to the biologistic concept of race: “Nor is the distinction between ethnicity and race arbitrary, as Gruen argues, because it reflects their different history. What distinguishes race from ethnicity is power and implied hierarchy because race was invented to justify racial slavery and has never been a neutral category to signifying ‘other’.” 7 Gruen, Ethnicity, 1. 8 Cf. Beeler, Review.

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 21

precise denotation. In general it operates at two levels. First, it can carry the broad and indistinct meaning of a communal self-perception. And second, it can refer to a sense of collective identity in which the predominant element is ancestry or kinship, essentially equivalent to the normal understanding of “race,” by contrast with the host of traits, customs, and traditions that we conventionally associate with “culture.”9

Three problems must therefore be taken into account in our topic: first, the language or terminology problem; second, the difference between ancient and contemporary basic notions of group—tribe—ethnicity—people—nation—state, as well as language, culture and religion, combined with a consideration of the development of research in recent decades; third, contemporary cultural and political sensitivities and positioning. The topic concerns identity construction10 past and present, and thus also inclusion and exclusion,11 the definition of “otherness”, and the question of who is, or can be, authorized to make such definitions. Exegetical studies of ancient Jewish and early Christian texts gain more plausibility through some understanding of this web of various definitions, attributions, and interests. First, with regard to the problem of translation and terminology, I can only reiterate a point made earlier. ἔθνος is to be translated into German with Volk,— so also in our German Bible translations (das Volk Israel and die Völker, formerly Heiden)—, into English with “nation, people, tribe.” Moreover, also the English “people” is rendered in German primarily as Volk. Volk, however, has had very different semantic connotations in German discussion since the nineteenth century and is more historically loaded than “people.” That said, something similar has been true for Nation in German since the nineteenth century. Ethnie, on the other hand, is a mere sociological-cultural-scientific distinctive term in German. Ethnie bezeichnet in den Sozialwissenschaften (insbesondere der Ethnologie) eine abgrenzbare soziale Gruppe, der aufgrund ihres intuitiven Selbstverständnisses und Gemeinschaftsgefühls als Eigengruppe eine Identität als Volksgruppe zuerkannt wird. Grundlage dieser Ethnizität können gemeinsame Eigenbezeichnung, Sprache, Abstammung, Wirtschaftsordnung, Geschichte, Kultur, Religion oder Verbindung zu einem bestimmten Gebiet sein.12

Second, the difference between ancient and contemporary conceptions of ἔθνος, people, Volk13 cannot be defined solely in philological-historical-descriptive terms, but must also take into account the changes in interpretive models. Erich Gruen 9 Gruen, Ethnicity, 5. 10 See Gruen, Construct. 11 Horrell, Ethnicity. 12 Wikipedia, article “Ethnie.” 13 See Gruen, Ethnicity, 4‒5. His position: “Parallels and comparisons can certainly be illuminating. But ancients must be allowed to speak for themselves without the clutter of classifications into which scholars of modernity seek to insert them. The central objective of this book is to approach ancient

22 

 Oda Wischmeyer

draws two main lines of ancient understanding of ethnicity, which repeat but also improve his earlier definition and at the same time in turn are permeable to modern scientific conceptions, and so may also be used in that context: First, many texts expressed a sense of community through descent, through a shared ancestor or ancestors, through the bloodline, through common origins, whether real or (much more frequently) fictitious.  .  . Second, an alternative frame of reference stressed cultural rather than genealogical commonality. Culture is here conceived in a capacious sense, encompassing aspects like language, customs, religion, behavior, beliefs, and ways of life.14

Third, especially for the question of the meaning of ἔθνος in ancient Greek-language Jewish texts, a differentiated hermeneutic of concepts is necessary. How should we now think about ἔθνος? In the scholarly discussion of people, state, and nation, arguments are currently no longer primordial but primarily constructivist. According to this view, ethnicities and peoples are subject to constant processes of definition and change, which have largely etic character, but are also emically determined. In other words: ethnicity is a matter of “collective identity, whether of self-perception or of external ascription.”15 A classic example of an etic perspective is the sentence in Acts 11:26: χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς. Here we have a foreign or etic designation for a grouping that became, much later, a proper or emic designation. The processuality that lies in the conceptualization of ethnicity, people, and nation becomes conspicuous in the sociological-ethnological technical term of “ethnogenesis” (Ethnogenese). In this interplay, hybrid, and ultimately fluid, identities are formed. On the other hand, language and religion can have long-term effects and contribute to a stable identity of ethnic groups and peoples over centuries and throughout cultural and political ruptures. In such a complex situation, Nenad Miscevic provides our topic with some helpful basic definitions and clarifications in his article on nationalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia, by at least partially reconciling essentialist and constructivist theory: Nationalist claims are focused upon the non-voluntary community of common origin, language, tradition, and culture: the classic ethno-nation is a community of origin and culture, including prominently a language and customs. The distinction is related (although not identical) to that drawn by older schools of social and political science between “civic” and “ethnic”

ethnicity through the lenses of the ancients themselves” (5). Gruen addresses the difference between the emic and the etic perspective. In modern research, both perspectives have their own justification. 14 Gruen, Ethnicity, 5‒6. 15 Gruen, Ethnicity, 215.

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 23

nationalism, the former being allegedly Western European and the latter more Central and Eastern European, originating in Germany16 . . . . Indeed, the older authors—from great thinkers like Herder and Otto Bauer to the propagandists who followed their footsteps—took great pains to ground normative claims upon firm ontological realism about nations: nations are real, bona fide entities. However, the contemporary moral debate has tried to diminish the importance of the imagined/real divide. Prominent contemporary philosophers have claimed that normative-evaluative nationalist claims are compatible with the “imagined” nature of a nation. They point out that common imaginings can tie people together, and that actual interaction resulting from togetherness can engender important moral obligations . . . . Nationalism in this wider sense is any complex of attitudes, claims, and directives for action ascribing a fundamental political, moral, and cultural value to nation and nationality and deriving obligations (for individual members of the nation, and for any involved third parties, individual or collective) from this ascribed value.17

In view of the problematic nature of the topic, I ask in conclusion: what do we want to know about ἔθνος in ancient Jewish texts, especially in Greek-language wisdom writings from the corpus of the Septuagint? My answer is: in addition to semantic questions and definitions of terms, we are concerned with the perspective of the writings being studied, their views on the structure of state and ethnic groupings in their environment, as well as their own identity within this structure. In other words: we need to know how the authors of Proverbs, Jesus Sirach and the book of Wisdom position and evaluate their own people in the context of the world of nations and how they perceive the world of nations from their own side.

2 “People/peoples” in the Septuagint The individual books of the Septuagint deal with the theme of “people/peoples” with varying degrees of intensity. Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and First Maccabees treat the theme in particular detail. Tobith, Judith, and Esther also demonstrate clear interest in ἔθνος and ἔθνη.18 I point here only to some basic texts from Genesis and Deuteronomy which were decisive for all later writers on Israel up to and including Philo and Josephus. The so-called table of nations in Gen 10 is an expression of Israel’s view of the world of nations: 10:32 Αὗται αἱ φυλαὶ υἱῶν Νωε κατὰ γενέσεις αὐτῶν κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τούτων διεσπάρησαν νῆσοι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 16 Miscevic, “Nationalism,” thinks of Herder, the Romantic movement in Germany, and Hegel. 17 Quotation of Miscevic, “Nationalism.” 18 See the passage on Judith in Gruen, Ethnicity, 139‒42.

24 

 Oda Wischmeyer

The differentiation of the ἔθνη occurs after the Flood. Genesis recognizes a certain dynamic of development: first tribes are formed, then “peoples.” While Philo in his allegorical commentary on Genesis leaves Gen 10 and 11:10‒28 unexpounded, and subjects the Tower of Babylon to a strictly allegorical interpretation,19 Josephus describes this diaspora of peoples in Book 1 of Antiquitates as a process of land occupation by the sons of Noah after the dispersion of Babylon, to which the diversity of languages is to be traced. The lands were named primarily after the “names attached to them by their founders.” Josephus thus uses the concept of the heros eponymos in connection with the origins of the world of nations. Returning to Genesis, Gen 12:1‒2 already begins the narrative of the origin of that ἔθνος which is to arise from the posterity of Abraham: 1 Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Αβραμ ῎Εξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς σου καὶ ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἄν σοι δείξω· 2 καὶ ποιήσω σε εἰς ἔθνος μέγα καὶ εὐλογήσω σε καὶ μεγαλυνῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου, καὶ ἔσῃ εὐλογητός· In Deut 7:1‒8 Moses assigns a basic theological role and status to the people of Israel in comparison with the other peoples who dwell in the land of Israel. A semantic distinction is made between λαός and ἔθνος: 6 ὅτι λαὸς ἅγιος εἶ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σου, καὶ σὲ προείλατο κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἶναί σε αὐτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ὅσα ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς. 7 οὐχ ὅτι πολυπληθεῖτε παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, προείλατο κύριος ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐξελέξατο ὑμᾶς – ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε ὀλιγοστοὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη –, 8 ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν κύριον ὑμᾶς καὶ διατηρῶν τὸν ὅρκον, ὃν ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν, ἐξήγαγεν κύριος ὑμᾶς. This passage formulates the theological concepts of the holiness and election of the people of Israel, who are here referred to as the λαός. In the blessing of Deut 28, Moses promises the people of Israel the following status in the context of the world of nations: 1 καὶ δώσει σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς. This politically superior status is confirmed in v. 12: καὶ ἄρξεις σὺ ἐθνῶν πολλῶν, σοῦ δὲ οὐκ ἄρξουσιν. The basis of this dominant position is stated in v. 9: ἀναστήσαι σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἑαυτῷ λαὸν ἅγιον, ὃν τρόπον ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν σου, ἐὰν εἰσακούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου καὶ πορευθῇς ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. Here again λαός is encountered as a lexeme that states the distinctiveness of the people of Israel. Israel is a separate people among the many peoples of the earth, at the same time it is distinguished as God’s beloved people and bound to the observance of God’s law.

19 Treu, Sprachverständnis (an interpretation of Philo’s treatise De confusione linguarum).

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 25

3 People/peoples in the Book of Proverbs The Book of Proverbs presents itself as a summary of the “proverbs of Solomon son of David, who was king in Israel” (1:1). The theme of ἔθνος is encountered several times in a general political or governmental context without being specifically related to Israel, as in 14:28: ἐν πολλῷ ἔθνει δόξα βασιλέως, ἐν δὲ ἐκλείψει λαοῦ συντριβὴ δυνάστου, or 14:34: δικαιοσύνη ὑψοῖ ἔθνος, ἐλασσονοῦσι δὲ φυλὰς ἁμαρτίαι. The existence of peoples is presupposed. The older sapiential thinking, whose experiential space is the ancient Oriental world of peoples, connects “people”, above all, with justice: peoples are legal bodies and bearers of law. The juridical element is also emphasized elsewhere: ὁ εἰπὼν τὸν ἀσεβῆ Δίκαιός ἐστιν, ἐπικατάρατος λαοῖς ἔσται καὶ μισητὸς εἰς ἔθνη (24:24). The expression of the “lawless nation” (παρανόμον ἔθνος) is encountered in 26:3 and 28:17 as well as 29:18. The Book of Proverbs presents the connection between people, polity or rulership, with law as enforcing justice as a given, and it considers the wise man as playing the role of a political advisor in a just polity (29:18). Real contemporary politics is just as little in the focus of the pedagogical-ethical interest of Proverbs as any specific conception of the people of Israel, or in particular of Israel’s Law, the Torah. There is no semantic difference between ἔθνος and λαός nor of Torah and law in general.

4 The Wisdom of Sirach Sirach is somehow different. It is clear that Sirach knows not only the history of Israel and the surrounding countries, but also the political world of his time. But he does not address these topics. Following in the tradition of the Book of Proverbs, he too avoids any form of current political instruction and education.20 His students learn nothing about the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers, about the Hellenistic world of states of their time21, about the status of their own city, about the peoples from Egypt to Mesopotamia, and about Hellas and Rome. In his presentation, the perfect sage—so in the aretalogy of Wisdom in 38:34‒39:11—not only explores the past and the literary legacy of famous men, not only holds a position in the courts and reflects on the foundations of ethics, but also knows foreign lands and peoples and has visited them: ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίων ἐθνῶν διελεύσεται (39:4). With this, however, Sirach nevertheless remains within the stereotypes of the older wisdom: “The 20 For the following, see Wischmeyer, Kultur, 70‒74. 21 Chaniotis, Age of Conquests.

26 

 Oda Wischmeyer

world of nations,” the real world in which his students live, does not come into view as a contemporary historical reality, but remains a foil for the significance of Israel. Thus, the Book of Sirach is at a clear distance not only from the Hellenistic world of its time, but also and especially from the close relations between Jerusalem’s educated elites and Alexandria, which was soon to become decisive for its reception history. Other statements about the peoples are conceptually colored by wisdom theology and formulated exclusively from the perspective of Israel, and especially Jerusalem. Life among foreign peoples is dangerous (29:18), but God has the foreign peoples in mind and will “take vengeance on them” (32/35:23). The wise man not only knows foreign peoples but will also judge them (4:15). He knows that dominion is transmitted from nation to nation (10:8) and that many nations have already passed away (10:15‒16). Nations are carried away “because of their sins” (16:9). But what is decisive is the relationship between the nations on the one hand and the people of Israel on the other. In 17:17 Sirach instructs his disciples about this relationship: ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον, καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν. That is, Israel is governed by God Himself. This regency is through wisdom, as Sirach sets forth in the auto-encomium of Wisdom in chapter 24: 6 ἐν κύμασιν θαλάσσης καὶ πάσῃ τῇ γῇ καὶ παντὶ λαῷ καὶ ἔθνει ἐκτησάμην. 7 μετὰ τούτων πάντων ἀνάπαυσιν ἐζήτησα καὶ ἐν κληρονομίᾳ τίνος αὐλισθήσομαι. 8 τότε ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ κτίστης ἁπάντων, καὶ ὁ κτίσας με κατέπαυσεν τὴν σκηνήν μου καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Εν Ιακωβ κατασκήνωσον καὶ ἐν Ισραηλ κατακληρονομήθητι. 9 πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με, καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπω. 10 ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐλειτούργησα καὶ οὕτως ἐν Σιων ἐστηρίχθην· 11 ἐν πόλει ἠγαπημένῃ ὁμοίως με κατέπαυσεν, καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἡ ἐξουσία μου· 12 καὶ ἐρρίζωσα ἐν λαῷ δεδοξασμένῳ, ἐν μερίδι κυρίου, κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ. This Jerusalem perspective, that is at the heart of Sirach’s wisdom theology, is particularly important for the self-understanding of Sirach’s students: Sirach teaches them that they do not live in a Ptolemaic province, but in the city “which God loves” and which is the final seat of his wisdom. The prayer in 33/36:1‒36:27/22 is directed against the nations: 1 ᾿Ελέησον ἡμᾶς, δέσποτα ὁ θεὸς πάντων, καὶ ἐπίβλεψον καὶ ἐπίβαλε τὸν φόβον σου ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη· 2 ἔπαρον τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπὶ ἔθνη ἀλλότρια, καὶ ἰδέτωσαν τὴν δυναστείαν σου. The prayerer asks for destruction of the enemies of God’s people (36/33:9, 11‒12) as well as pleading for mercy for the people of Israel: ἐλέησον λαόν, κύριε, κεκλημένον ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματί σου καὶ Ισραηλ, ὃν πρωτογόνῳ ὡμοίωσας (36:17/11). The “Praise of the Fathers” offers an encomiastic narrative of Israel’s history through its leading figures. In this, the people of Israel and the peoples surrounding it take a back seat to the person-centered presentation of history: Αἰνέσωμεν δὴ ἄνδρας ἐνδόξους καὶ τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν τῇ γενέσει (44:1). The most important

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 27

figure is Abraham: Abraham is μέγας πατὴρ πλήθους ἐθνῶν—a perspective that will later play an important role in Paul’s theology (see Rom 4 and Gal 3). The concluding sayings against three peoples: 50:25 ᾿Εν δυσὶν ἔθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ἡ ψυχή μου, καὶ τὸ τρίτον οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθνος· 26 οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν ὄρει Σαμαρείας καὶ Φυλιστιιμ καὶ ὁ λαὸς ὁ μωρὸς ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν Σικιμοις (“In two peoples my soul takes offense, and the third is not a people: Who sojourn in the mount of Samaria, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that dwell in Shechem”) are topical and seem like archaic foreign bodies in the context.22 The tendency of the Book of Sirach is clear: concentration on Israel and Jerusalem and theologizing of the ἔθνος term. The internationality that is part of the sage’s character in Sirach and that is evident in Sirach’s grandson does not play a decisive role in relation to these theological tendencies. The political and cultural dimensions of the Hellenistic world of peoples in the East, and the instability of the Hellenistic dynasties in Sirach’s time, actually led to a focus on the importance of one’s own people rather than to the perception and exploration of other peoples. An interest in other peoples as brought into Greek culture by Herodotus’s interest in ethnography (περιήγησις literature) is not found in Sirach’s book. Also missing, despite the historical retrospective, is the dimension of ancient Near Eastern history as documented in the historical and prophetic books of Israel’s Law. The Book of Sirach focuses on the ethical education of the individual in the context of the culture of Jerusalem.

5 Wisdom of Solomon Erich Gruen gives the following brief introduction to the concept of ethnicity in the Book of Wisdom of Solomon: The matter of idolatry as a feature of critical importance that separated Jews from Gentiles became a recurrent theme in Jewish literature of the Hellenistic era. The Wisdom of Solomon, for example, composed probably by an Egyptian Jew in the late Hellenistic or early Roman period, rails at idolatry with a ferocity well beyond that of the Letter of Aristeas.23

Let us have a closer look! The Book of Wisdom revolves mainly around Israel’s fate in the Exodus from Egypt. The Egyptian people and the people of Israel are in the focus of the narrative and in the author’s reflections from the very beginning. However, they are not encountered as real political-ethnic entities, but rather in the

22 Here λαός does not mean the people of Israel. 23 Gruen, Ethnicity, 147.

28 

 Oda Wischmeyer

alienating guise of historical narrative. ἔθνος and ἔθνη as well as λαός are therefore a frequent theme in the Wisdom of Solomon. Both lexemes occur together several times as variatio or intensification and without semantic difference (3:8; 8:14), but more often semantically differentiated as in 10:15: Αὕτη λαὸν ὅσιον καὶ σπέρμα ἄμεμπτον ἐρρύσατο ἐξ ἔθνους θλιβόντων. λαοί in the negative sense of foreign or lawless peoples is encountered in 4:14, but in neutral meaning in 6:21. Predominantly, however, λαός is used of the people of Israel: in addressing God or Wisdom in favor of “your people” (12:19; 15:14; 16:2; 18:7, 13; 19:5, 22). Wis 8:13 deserves special attention: the Egyptians ὡμολόγησαν θεοῦ υἱὸν λαὸν εἶναι.24 Here, a special theological title of honor is attached to the people of Israel. In 12:19, the people of Israel are associated with righteousness in a special way: ᾿Εδίδαξας δέ σου τὸν λαὸν διὰ τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν δίκαιον εἶναι φιλάνθρωπον. The conclusion of Solomon’s Wisdom reads: Κατὰ πάντα γάρ, κύριε, ἐμεγάλυνας τὸν λαόν σου καὶ ἐδόξασας, οὐχ ὑπερεῖδες ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ καὶ τόπῳ παριστάμενος (19:22). “Your people” are opposed by their enemies. Though ἔθνος can also stand for Israel: ὑπειληφότες γὰρ καταδυναστεύειν ἔθνος ἅγιον ἄνομοι (17:2), more often, ἔθνος in singular or plural has neutral or negative connotations for other peoples or the world of peoples in general: 6:2 in the context of political rule, 10:5 negatively: αὕτη καὶ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ πονηρίας ἐθνῶν συγχυθέντων ἔγνω τὸν δίκαιον. In Wis 12:12 the author addresses a theological thought, familiar from the prophets, in question form, to God: τίς δὲ ἐγκαλέσει σοι κατὰ ἐθνῶν ἀπολωλότων ἃ σὺ ἐποίησας? The peoples—here “the former inhabitants of thy holy land” (τοὺς πάλαι οἰκήτορας τῆς ἁγίας σου γῆς)—are understood as creatures of God, from which he can again withdraw the right to exist, as from all creatures. Only from chapter 13 onwards the Wisdom of Solomon deals specifically and critically with the phenomenon of εἴδωλα ἐθνῶν, as Gruen points out (14:11, 16; 15:15 πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐλογίσαντο θεούς). In summary: the author refers to Israel as the people of God, the holy nation, the son of God. That is, Israel’s identity or its ethnicity, according to the author’s understanding, is constituted from the outset—since the Exodus from Egypt (Israel as the holy people in Wis 10:15)—by God himself. Israel is thus constructed as a theological entity. Not only Israel’s correct belief in the one God and its living according to the Law makes the people of Israel, but God himself. The correct belief and worship of God, so emphasized by Gruen, is the outward sign of the people of Israel, but not their constituent. The view on the topic of “people” is dichotomous from the beginning: “Israel/us” and “the foreign peoples/Egypt.”

24 For the term see Wis 2:18, (related to the “just one”).

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 29

6 Conclusions Erich Gruen summarizes his explorations of Jewish concepts of ethnicity in two findings. First, he underlines the importance of religion as expression of Jewish identity: The works, whether historical or fictional in genre, whether representing Jews in their own voice or in the perception of others, regularly express Jewish identity in terms of worship, belief, practices, rituals, and adherence to tradition and law, what we customarily designate as “religion”. Only very exceptionally is any nod made to ancestry, genealogy, or descent . . . in the turbulent Hellenistic period, especially in the diaspora amidst gentile surroundings and culture, when Jews had special incentive to frame and declare a distinctive identity, the most conspicuous feature was religion rather than ethnicity.25

This may be true for many Jewish works, but at least for Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon the descent from Abraham and the affiliation with the story of the Exodus is of central importance in the context of Israel’s identity—a conception that, as already mentioned, was to acquire decisive importance in Paul’s life and preaching and became a basis for his mission to the gentiles.26 Second, he warns against understanding the concept of the chosen people in an ethnic sense: The self-perception of the Jews presents special challenges. Their conviction that they represent a “chosen people” has been too readily interpreted as ethnic distinctiveness and a native superiority rooted in inherent quality.27

Our investigation comes to a somewhat alternative conclusion. Differently from Proverbs, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon do move in the direction of an essentialist theological understanding of ethnicity in general and of the people of Israel in particular: Israel is defined by God and his law. Most important in my understanding is the dynamic in the theological development of the concept of the people of Israel from Proverbs to Wisdom of Solomon. The judgment of Paula Fredriksen on the understanding of ethnicity in the first century CE may also be applied to the younger wisdom literature of Israel: We will let Paul reside coherently in a world radically different from our own—the ethnically essentialist, behaviorally variegated, god-congested world of first-century Jewishness.28

25 Gruen, Ethnicity, 149. 26 Gal 3 and Rom 4, see Wischmeyer, “Abraham,” 435‒68. 27 Gruen, Ethnicity, 217. 28 Fredriksen, “Paul,” 359.

30 

 Oda Wischmeyer

The tendency towards a theological essentialism leads to the fact that the younger wisdom literature does not need to pay attention to the current historical-political situation and its changes, because it knows the God-given order of the world of nations, as well as the position of Israel in this structure. The younger wisdom is both ahistorical, in the sense of political history, and also ethnographically disinterested. What we read here, is an emic perspective formulated by a sapiential elite in Jerusalem and intended to have a counterfactual or counterpolitical effect.

Bibliography Beeler, Maggie. Review of Ethnicity in the Ancient World: Did It Matter?, by Erich S. Green. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.11.19/. Chaniotis, Angelos. Age of Conquests. The Greek World from Alexander to Hadrian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. HCS 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Review of Ethnicity in the Ancient World: Did It Matter?, by Erich S. Green. RBL 03 (2022). Eckhardt, Benedikt. Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen judäischer Identität von Antiochus III. bis Herodes I. SJ 72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. ________. “Ethnie.” https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnie. Fredriksen, Paula. “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?” JBL 141 (2022): 359‒80. Goodblatt, David M. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Goodblatt, David M. “Varieties of Identity in Late Second Temple Judah (200 B.C.E. – 135 C.E.).” Pages 11‒27 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. Groups, Normativity, and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. JSJ Supplements 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Gruen, Erich S. The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History. DCLS 29. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Gruen, Erich S. Ethnicity in the Ancient World: Did It Matter? Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Horrell, David G. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2020. Van Maaren, John. The Boundaries of Jewishness in the Southern Levant, 200 BCE-132 CE: Power, Strategies, and Ethnic Configurations. SJ 118. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457‒512. Mendels, Doron. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992. Miscevic, Nenad. “Nationalism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), https:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/nationalism/. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Vols. 1‒2. 9th ed. Stuttgart: Dt. Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? 

 31

Schwartz, Daniel R. “Judean or Jew? How should we translate Ioudaios in Josephus?” Pages 92‒109 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Jörg Frey et al. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton Univerisity Press, 2010. Treu, Nadine. Das Sprachverständnis des Paulus im Rahmen des antiken Sprachdiskurses. Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 26. Tübingen: 2018. Weitzman, Steven. “On the Political Relevance of Antiquity: A Response to David Goodblatt’s Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism.” Jewish Social Studies 14 (2008): 165‒72. Wilker, Julia. Review of Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen judäischer Identität von Antiochus III. bis Herodes I., by Benedikt Eckhardt. H/Soz/Kult. www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/ reb-19845. Wischmeyer, Oda. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. BZNW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Wie kommt Abraham in den Galaterbrief? Überlegungen zu Gal 3,6‒29.” Pages 435‒68 in Paulus. Beiträge zu einer intellektuellen Biographie. Edited by Oda Wischmeyer et al. WUNT 491. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

Barbara Schmitz

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees: A Hasmonean Perspective in the Context of Limited Statehood Abstract: In the First Book of Maccabees, the Greek word laos, “people”, is used with diverse meanings in different narrative settings. The paper analyzes the polysemic use of the word laos and explores its narrative function in 1 Maccabees. Furthermore, it contextualizes the narrative results in the conditions of the Seleucid Empire of the 2nd century BCE with its specific policy and governance under conditions of limited statehood. Keywords: people, laos, Israel, Judea, 1 Macc, Hasmonean perspective, limited statehood First Maccabees tells the story of the Maccabean rebellion as well as the rise of the Hasmonean family to power in the 2nd century BCE. It is the story of an emerging dynasty that is recounted from a second-generation, pro-Hasmonean perspective. The path of the Maccabean family into power is, however, the story not only of powerful men but also of the people of whom the Maccabees are in charge and who have facilitated or obstructed their way into power. First Maccabees uses a variety of notions to describe a group or a mass of people. In contrast to other notions describing a group, such as “Israel,”1 “Judea,”2 ethnos (ἔθνος),3 or demos (δῆμος),4 the word laos (λαός) is semantically different. In 1  Maccabees, it is used 63 times and runs through almost all the chapters of 1 The word “Israel” is used 61 times in the First Book of Maccabees and refers to the people as a whole, often in biblical terms. This word is mostly used at the beginning of the narrative with decreasing density towards the end. 2 The word “Ioudaioi” (Ἰουδαῖοι) is used 36 times in 1 Maccabees with an increasing density toward the end of the story. In most cases, it is used as a political term or in political contexts. 3 Ethnos (ἔθνος) is used 32 times in 1 Maccabees in the singular form, most often in 1  Maccabees 12‒16, which covers Simon’s leadership (see Eckhardt, Ethnos, 371). Ethnos (ἔθνος) refers to “a body of people associated together sharing cultural, religious, linguistic features” (Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 190; see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 195‒6). In 1 Maccabees, ethnos is often related with “Ioudaios” and refers to the Judeans as a political body (cf. 1 Macc 6:58; 10:5; 14:4, 6, 29, 30, 32), e.g. in official letters (cf. 1 Macc 8:23, 25, 27; 10:25; 11:30, 42; 12:3; 13:36; 15:1‒2) or for political leaders (cf. 1 Macc 10:20; 12:6; 14:28). 4 Demos (δῆμος) is used only eight time in 1 Maccabees, mainly at the end of the narrative, and refers to a politically organized body of humans (cf. Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 147), mainly https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-003

34 

 Barbara Schmitz

the book. Laos is an everyday word in Greek, meaning “people”, and it is widely used in Greek writings. It denotes “a crowd or mass of human beings” such as, e.g., soldiers or people as gathered in a crowd or assembly.5 As a “large body of people affiliated and defined along ethnic, racial, religious, or political lines,”6 laos has a broad meaning and is open to different semantic slot-fillings that can refer to special groups or subgroups, as well as being used as a collective term. Against this backdrop, one may ask about the specific use of laos in 1 Maccabees. Before analyzing the narrative presentation of laos in 1 Maccabees, however, the political and historical context should be taken into account. The major events of the 2nd century BCE in Judea happen within the framework of the Seleucid Empire. The different policies of Jerusalem’s elite with their diverse ideas about organizing the cult as well as pursuing a way of life, were made possible through the special manner in which the Seleucid Empire functioned. Therefore, I first deal with this point before examining the use of laos in 1 Maccabees.

1 The context: The Seleucid Empire and the question of limited statehood The Seleucid Empire as a multi-ethnic and topographically widespread kingdom did not define itself in terms of specific ethnic groups or geographical boundaries but was constituted by the king himself: the king was the center of the state. Joachim Gehrke7—adopting Max Weber’s approach—has shown that the king’s power results from his personal and charismatic rule. As such, the king continually has to legitimize himself by proving his personal skills and abilities not only by commanding his forces and winning wars but also by celebrating his successes publicly, donating to cities and institutions, and giving benefactions to his subjects. The way Hellenistic kingdoms like the Seleucid Empire functioned created the notion that the king was of exceptional importance. In the past decades, however, recent research has demonstrated that the Seleucid Empire was not ruled strictly from the top down but that the local level turned out to be crucial. The Seleucid Empire replaced and continued the Achaemenid

in the correspondence with Rome (cf. 1 Macc 8:29; 15:17) and Sparta (cf. 1 Macc 14:21‒23) or in Simon’s edict (cf. 1 Macc 14:25). 5 Cf. Montanari, Brill Dictionary, 1215. 6 Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 426. 7 Gehrke, “König,” 247‒77; cf. Wiemer, “Siegen,” 305‒39.

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees 

 35

Empire by recognizing and integrating local traditions in a similar way.8 The local level thus had huge significance for the Seleucid Empire. As John Ma, Paul Kosmin, Boris Chrubasik, and others have demonstrated in recent years,9 the Seleucid Empire was based on dynamic interaction and a process of negotiation between the Seleucid king and the local powerholders. The king and the local authorities negotiated tribute and loyalty as well as mutual benefaction and protection. This system is described as “empire as negotiation” or “empire as interaction.” It is mainly based on a personal relationship with the Seleucid administration and even more with the king himself, who established strong personal ties with his local powerholders. We know of these negotiation processes, for example, through the letters of Eumenes II to Tyriaion (188 BCE, SEG 47.1745) or the negotiations of Antiochus III with the elites in Jerusalem (A.J. 12.138‒144). We also find them in 1 and 2 Maccabees that contain—historical or not—negotiations between the Seleucid kings and the high priests Jason (2  Macc 4:7‒11), Menelaus (2  Macc 4:23‒29), Alcimus (2 Macc 14:3‒11; 1 Macc 7:5‒25), Jonathan (1 Macc 10:18‒20; cf. 10:22‒45; 11:30‒37, 57‒58), and Simon (1 Macc 13:35‒40; 14:25‒49). Jonathan, for example, was rewarded with the position of high priest in Jerusalem and appointed as “friend of the king” in the Seleucid court hierarchy (1 Macc 10:18‒20). In return, he had to provide loyalty, offer concrete support in military affairs and pay tributes and taxes as agreed in the negotiation process. Local powerholders could negotiate, for example, living by their ancestral laws, as was granted in the letters of Eumenes II to Tyriaion or as Antiochus III arranged for Jerusalem (A.J. 12.138‒144). This system established a reliable power framework for the king, who was mainly interested in military support, taxes, and tribute. At the same time, this specific arrangement with the king ensured a broad authority for the local powerholders. They were able to use their local power in all areas of governance. The Seleucid Empire, therefore, was on the one hand a powerful state, but on the other it was interested in local affairs only when they had an impact on the empire itself. Therefore, the local level had rather extensive latitude in organizing its own affairs. Social sciences nowadays call this way of organizing and functioning “weak statehood” or “limited statehood.”10 In contrast to “failed states” like Somalia today, a weak or limited state “is not on the verge of collapsing and is basically stable, but it is not capable of fulfilling all the functions it should according to the Western model. The state’s power to enforce its rules is limited regarding regions, policy

8 See Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, Hellenism. 9 Ma, Antiochos III, 179‒214 and 243‒53; idem, “Seleukids,” 71‒112; idem, “Peer Polity Interaction,” 9‒39; Kosmin, Land, 31‒76; Chrubasik, Kings; idem, “Pre-Makkabaean Judaea,” 83‒109. 10 For definitions see: Börzel, Risse and Draude, “Governance,” 3‒25; Risse, Governance.

36 

 Barbara Schmitz

fields, and social groups.”11 In the present, most of these states are in the Global South. There, and even more so in the past, weak statehood thus represents the norm with regard to the possible impact of a state’s regulatory power.12 Interestingly, it is precisely in the ancient Mediterranean region and in the ancient Near East that we find a series of vast, partly imperial polities that were of considerable duration: from the early realms in Egypt and Mesopotamia to the Roman Empire, which dominated the Mediterranean world for more than half a millennium and still outshines every other political formation in this region to this day. Such combinations of political stability and territorial size would have been impossible had there not been a considerable degree of local self-governance. After all, premodern structural conditions did not allow for a single political center to provide or even take responsibility for all the regulations that were necessary to provide basic public needs and a minimum of sociocultural integration. Top-down regulation had to be supplemented or improved by self-organization ‘from below’, i.e., by local communities taking charge. Such coexistence, cooperation, and even opposition between local self-governance and weak statehood can be found in the present as well as in antiquity.13

The Seleucid king was interested in loyalty, tax-paying and military support, but many areas in the way of life were the prerogative of the local level and its self-organization. For our question concerning the semantic and narrative function of laos in 1 Maccabees, this political context is highly important as it reveals (at least) two levels of governance: the empire as the embracing structure with the king at its top, and the local level with its powerholders. As the king is dependent on his supporters at the local level, the local powerholders are also dependent on their followers and adherents. The Seleucid Empire is, therefore, constituted within a social network based on personal relationships, as Rolf Strootman has pointed out.14 These personal relationships owe their stability to their supporters and adherents. As the local powerholders are personally bound to the king and negotiate with him, the local powerholders themselves are reliant on their social network and therefore must locally organize a solid and strong group of supporters. The situation in Judea in the 2nd century BCE, however, was intricate. In the local elite, there were different ideas about the ways of life in political, cultural and cultic contexts, each with its own leaders and supporting group. Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus negotiated with the king and were locally supported by their followers. When the Maccabees initiated the revolt against them, they too had to organize their supporters. As the different groups in Jerusalem competed against

11 Pfeilschifter, “Self-Governance,” 6. 12 Cf. Pfeilschifter, “Self-Governance,” 7. 13 Pfeilschifter, “Self-Governance,” 7. 14 Cf. Strootman, “Hellenistic Court Society,” 63‒89; idem, “Kings,” 141‒53.

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees 

 37

one another and sharply defined their ideas, the Maccabees were part of these processes. First Maccabees, however, retells the events from the later, second-generation and in-power perspective. From this point of view, the story of the Maccabees is construed. In order to legitimize Hasmonean rule, the narrator points to the rule of the laos as crucial for the Maccabean way into power. How does 1 Maccabees use the word laos and depict those who are called laos? Who is the laos and what does the laos comprise, according to 1 Maccabees?

2 The word laos (λαός) in the First Book of Maccabees Regarding the evidence of laos in 1 Maccabees, there seems to be a broad variety in the semantics of the term. Four different meanings of laos can be identified in 1  Maccabees. These aspects are not mutually exclusive, nor do they exhibit a sharply differentiated meaning; rather, they highlight different focuses with overlapping semantics. The first denotation is the rather rarely used reference of the word laos to other people, to the nations that are otherwise mostly called ἔθνη. This use is striking because, in almost all cases, laos refers to what we could call “Israel” as a whole or in part (1 Macc 1:41, 51; 2:66). In 1 Macc 1:41, the narrator states that the king, Antiochus IV, wishes his whole kingdom to be one laos (εἶναι πάντας εἰς λαὸν ἕνα).15 1 Macc 1:51 then relates that the king sent letters to his whole kingdom, appointing supervisors over the people (καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐπισκόπους ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν λαόν). This singular use of laos could refer back to his wish of having “one laos” (1 Macc 1:41), but it also could refer to the subsequent sentence that focuses on Judea. In 1 Macc 2:66, Mattathias emphasizes in his speech that Judas shall fight the war of the peoples (πολεμήσει πόλεμον λαῶν). Here, the plural laoi refers to the other nations, and it seems to refer to the next sentence in which Mattathias encourages all his sons to “execute vengeance for your people” (ἐκδικήσατε ἐκδίκησιν τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν in 1 Macc 2:67). Here, laos clearly refers to Israel/Judea (cf. 1 Macc 2:7). The use of laoi in 1 Macc 2:66 could be aimed to highlight semantically the idea of the reversal motif.

15 For the historicity see Bartlett, First and Second Book of Maccabees, 30.

38 

 Barbara Schmitz

The instances in which laos is not used for Israel but for other peoples in 1 Maccabees are few. They seem to have a rhetorical function because of the polysemy of the term as a bridging function in those contexts. The second denotation of laos in 1 Maccabees is in the context of enemies and opponents of the Maccabees within Israel. This group is first presented in 1 Macc 1:11 as transgressors (paranomoi) of the law from Israel (ἐξ Ισραηλ υἱοὶ παράνομοι). In the following instances, the opponents of the Maccabees have different names: “transgressors of the law” (παράνομος in 1 Macc 1:11, 34; 10:61; 11:21), “lawless” (ἄνομος in 1 Macc 2:44; 3:5, 6, 20; 7:5; 9:23, 58, 11:25; 14:14) or “impious” (ἀσεβής in 1 Macc 3:8, 15; 6:21; 7:5, 9; 9:25, 73). These designations may indicate the same or overlapping groups. In any case, they clearly appear as local Judean powerholders and part of the local elite who are in charge of the local administration. But they are presented in a very derogatory way, first by the designation (παράνομος, ἄνομος or ἀσεβής) and second by the relationship toward the laos. In 1 Macc 1:13, some of the paranomoi-group of the “lawless” (τινες ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ) go to the Seleucid king in order to negotiate with him. This use of laos may either refer to the paranomoi as “some people of the paranomoi” or refer to Israel as “some of Israel.” The second meaning fits the introduction to the scene where the paranomoi are presented as people from Israel. This is also the case in 1 Macc 1:43, where “many from Israel” (πολλοὶ ἀπὸ Ισραηλ in 1 Macc 1:43; cf. 1 Macc 1:30) take part in the new cult practices; in 1 Macc 1:52, where the supporters of the Seleucid king are called “many of the people” (ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ πολλοί); or in 1 Macc 10:61, where they are designated “corrupt men from Israel, lawless men” (ἄνδρες λοιμοὶ ἐξ Ισραηλ, ἄνδρες παράνομοι). This use shows that “Israel” and laos are interchangeable and fulfill the same function. Laos, thus, means “Israel.” Therefore, these groups are presented in 1  Maccabees in a very ambivalent way: on the one hand, it cannot be denied that they are Judeans, which makes them part of the laos/Israel. But the narrator presents them as “some of the laos/Israel” as if they were not really Israel, or part of the true laos. This distancing is a narrative strategy to exclude other supporters of the king from the (true) laos and make them enemies of the Maccabees. The third denotation of laos is to designate supporters and adherents of the Maccabees, especially their military forces. A rather unambiguous example is 1 Macc 3:55: in echoing different biblical stories,16 Judas is portrayed as a military leader who establishes leaders and officers over his laos. Here, laos clearly denotes Judas’s military troops. This is also the case in 1  Macc 4:17, where Judas speaks to his laos, who are described in the previous verse as his δύναμις, his “forces” (1  Macc 4:16). In chapter five, there is frequent use of laos as “military forces”

16 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 263.

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees 

 39

(1 Macc 5:16, 18, 19, 30, 42, 43, 53, 60, 61), but it also occurs throughout the whole narrative (1 Macc 6:19; 7:18, 19, 26, 48; 10:80, 81; 11:44; 13:17; 16:6, 7). The denotation of laos as military forces in 1 Maccabees is not only well represented but fits within the Greek-Hellenistic use of laos as “people of war.”17 The fourth denotation of laos refers to the laos as “the people” in a general sense. Often this denotation is used in exchange for, or in context of the word “Israel.” In 1 Macc 1:30, for example, the chief collector of tribute killed much of the laos from Israel (λαὸν πολὺν ἐξ Ισραηλ). In 1 Macc 7:37, the priests and the elders of the laos (1 Macc 7:33; cf. 12:35; 14:28) pray as Solomon once did (1 Kgs 8:29‒30, 43; 9:3) assuming that the temple is the house of prayer and supplication for God’s laos. In 1  Macc 9:73, Jonathan is presented as a judge like the former judges of Israel: “And the sword ceased from Israel, and Jonathan lived in Michmash and began to judge the laos and removed the impious from Israel.” Here again, laos is synonymous with Israel. In the 1 Maccabees, there are more examples of laos referring to “the whole people/Israel,” but the distinct and clear examples of laos as “the whole people” often use biblical wording or allude to biblical passages. These diverse denotations in 1  Maccabees represent a broad semantic field. Whereas all these examples of laos have a more or less specific denotation, most of the other instances in the 1 Maccabees have an unclear or overlapping meaning and reflect an ambivalent use of the word laos. In what follows, I focus mainly on the portions on Mattathias (1  Macc 1‒2) and Judas (1  Macc 3:1‒9:22) in order to show the polysemic use of the word laos. At the beginning of his lamentation song, Mattathias (perhaps a fictive character)18 asks why he was born to see “the destruction of my laos” (τὸ σύντριμμα τοῦ λαοῦ μου; 1 Macc 2:7). Analyzing the events as “destruction” is a typical Maccabean view. With this focalization, the word laos seems to refer to the whole people of Israel, but, in fact, it excludes those of the laos who are responsible for what is regarded as “destruction” from the viewpoint of Mattathias. This fits in with the strategy discussed above in which the narrator has already excluded the group of paranomoi, anomoi, and asebeis from the laos. Furthermore, the personal pronoun “my” indicates that the narrator depicts Mattathias not only as someone who cares for the laos, but also as someone who is in charge of “his people.” From the beginning, Mattathias and his family are portrayed as being responsible for the laos, and it indicates a relationship of dependency and ownership.

17 For examples, see Passow, Rost and Palm, Handwörterbuch, 20. 18 Cf. Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 92.

40 

 Barbara Schmitz

This perspective is taken up at the end of Mattathias’s speech before he dies. Mattathias concludes his speech by prompting his sons to “execute vengeance for your laos” (ἐκδικήσατε ἐκδίκησιν τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν; 1 Macc 2:67). The personal “my”-perspective is now broadened to a family perspective (“your”), and it depicts the Maccabean family and the future dynasty as being in charge as if the people of Israel were “their people.” Implicitly, it excludes those of Judea who follow another policy. In the Judas section of the book (1 Macc 3:1‒9:22), the Maccabean focalization established in 1 Macc 2:7, 67 is followed up. In the hymn on Judas at the beginning, he is praised for spreading glory “to his laos” and for fighting and burning up those who disturbed “his laos” (1 Macc 3:3, 5). In 1 Macc 3:43, Judas and his brothers react to the king’s threat to destroy the laos (1 Macc 3:42) by saying: “Let us raise up the ruins of our laos and make war for our laos and the holy places” (1 Macc 3:43). Once again in a speech, the narrator stresses the ownership of the laos by Judas and his brothers and links it with the idea of making war for “their laos.” Here, laos is used in a broad sense, but it is also the word that designates Judas’s military forces. This does not seem to be an accidental but an intentional choice. As Judas’s forces are often called laos, it becomes indistinguishable whether the narrator speaks of the whole people or Judas’s (war) people and his supporters. This also becomes obvious in 1  Macc 4:26‒35. In a situation of great danger caused by the powerful Seleucid army, Judas prays to God and reminds him of his past actions to save his people; Judas asks God to intervene again for “your laos Israel” (1  Macc 4:31). This use of laos is interesting because it is very clear from the narrative context that not the whole laos is in danger but only Judas’s forces (1 Macc 4:26‒29). By speaking of the danger facing the whole people, the narrator insinuates that the only and true people are the followers and supporters of Judas. Because of these narrative strategies, the narrator seems to make it difficult for the readers to distinguish who is meant when speaking of the laos. For example, in the part that recounts the rededication of Jerusalem’s temple, it is explicitly “the whole laos” (πᾶς ὁ λαός) who celebrate the events (1 Macc 4:55, 58; “Israel” in 4:59).19 Is it really the whole people of Israel who celebrate? Due to the narrative strategy of implicitly redefining laos, “the whole people” seems to refer to those who support the view and the policy of the Maccabees. This interpretation is supported by the last verse of this narrative section where Judas installs his forces in Jerusalem in order to defend “the laos” against Idumea (1 Macc 4:61).

19 See also πᾶς Ισραηλ “the whole of Israel” in 1 Macc 2:70; 9:20; 13:26.

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees 

 41

In 1  Macc 7:1‒25, the narrative on Alcimus and Bacchides, the same narrative strategy is used. The high priest Alcimus, who cooperates with the Seleucid court, makes an offer to the Judeans, which the Hasidim trust (and will pay with their lives), whereas “the whole laos” (πᾶς ὁ λαός) figures out that this is a trap (1 Macc 7:18). Again, the narrative context makes clear that “the whole laos” (πᾶς ὁ λαός) can only be the adherents of Judas and his brothers. But the specific use of “the whole laos” (πᾶς ὁ λαός) insinuates that not only Judas’s supporters but the whole people are meant. This insinuative openness of laos is supported by calling the opponents of Judas “troublers of their laos” (οἱ ταράσσοντες τὸν λαὸν αὐτῶν in 1 Macc 7:22). The semantic slot-filling of laos as the Maccabean supporters does not seem to be undisputed. In 1 Macc 5:55‒62, the story is told of Joseph and Azarias who are commanders of Judas’s forces but decide: “Let us make a name for ourselves also, and let us go to make war against the nations around us” (1 Macc 5:56). Their attempt at their own military campaign failed greatly, and two thousand of the laos of Israel fell (1 Macc 5:60). 1 Macc 5:61 repeats that there was a great defeat of the laos because they did not listen to Judas and his brothers, intending to act heroically (1 Macc 5:61). This leads the narrator to the following comment: “But they were not of the seed of those men to whom was given salvation to Israel by their hand” (1 Macc 5:62). With this story of Joseph and Azarias, the narrator clarifies that the laos is not only saved when Judas the Maccabee is the commander of the laos, but, furthermore, salvation is brought to Israel only by the seed of the Maccabeans. With this comment of the narrator, it becomes obvious that 1 Maccabees mainly intends to justify the dynasty and the rule of the Hasmoneans, and that their supporters are the “real” and only laos. It is not surprising, then, that the opponents of the Hasmoneans are called “troublers of their laos” (1 Macc 7:22).20 This analysis of laos (λαός) in 1 Maccabees has shown that laos is polysemic and that the narrator uses the polysemy of laos to justify the empowerment of the Maccabees by presenting the followers and supporters of the Maccabees as the laos. This interpretation differs slightly from Michael Tilly’s interpretation of laos as “Gottesvolk”21 and Benedikt Eckhardt’s definition of the laos as “Kultgemeinschaft.”22 However, an examination of the evidence for laos makes it clear that it does not always refer to the same group but that the narrator plays with the polysemy of the word laos that can be infused with different semantic meanings. In 20 See Goldstein, I Maccabees, 327, 337. 21 Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 57, 86, 109, 173, 198, 276 etc. 22 Eckhardt, Ethnos, 370: “Die Abtrünnigen, die sich den ἔθνη anschließen, verlassen den λαός, und es ist der λαός, der durch ‘Religionsverbot’ bedroht wird und für dessen Restitution die frühen Hasmonäer kämpfen.”

42 

 Barbara Schmitz

many cases, the word laos triggers the impression that it not only refers to a special group of Judas’s military forces or his followers but also to the whole people. By this strategy, all other groups within Israel are excluded from what 1 Maccabees calls laos, and, at the same time, the Maccabean followers are equated with the laos.

3 The Maccabees and the laos: a conclusion The semantic slot-filling of laos in 1 Maccabees is, as has been demonstrated above, a construction from the later, second-generation and pro-Hasmonean perspective. It is striking that the semantically open, ambivalent, and polysemic word laos is very often used in speeches, (lamentation) songs, or comments in 1  Maccabees. These parts of the narrative text are those in which the intention of the narrator becomes manifest. By using the polysemic word laos, the narrator creates the impression that the Maccabees are supported by the whole laos. Other groups of Israel/Judea, however, are excluded and are not presented as if they belong to the laos. In asking what makes a people according to 1 Maccabees, the answer is clear: the supporters and followers of the Maccabees are the laos. Hence, we are dealing with the narrator’s voice, which provides us with the perspective in which the narrative was written. As such, it may appear to be a narrative trick and purposefully construed self-propaganda. Without denying that this may indeed be the case, I prefer to contextualize the Hasmonean perspective in 1 Maccabees within the political conditions of the Seleucid Empire. The power formation of the Maccabean family, as 1 Maccabees presents it, takes place in the context of the limited statehood of the Seleucid Empire. Under the conditions of limited statehood, the central state wishes the local communities and their leaders to be in charge of local governance. In this system, the role of the laos was crucial as part the social networks and as the local basis for negotiation processes that ensured the power of the local leaders. The use of laos is therefore one of the strategies in 1  Maccabees in order to justify and legitimize the rise of the Maccabees into power: starting as a guerilla troop against the local powerholders in Jerusalem and the Seleucid king, they end up no more than 20 years later as strong local powerholders, incorporated within the institution of the high priesthood, in coalition and in cooperation with the Seleucid Empire. It is no surprise that 1 Maccabees tells the story as if the laos has always been on the side of the Hasmoneans and that all others are excluded from what the Maccabees perceive as the laos.

Laos in the First Book of Maccabees 

 43

Bibliography Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Book of Maccabees. Cambridge: University Press, 1973. Börzel, Tanja A., Thomas Risse, and Anke Draude. “Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood: Conceptual Clarifications and Major Contributions of the Handbook.” Pages 3‒25 in The Oxford Handbook of Governance and Limited Statehood. Edited by Tanja A. Börzel et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Chrubasik, Boris. “From Pre-Makkabaean Judaea to Hekatomnid Karia and Back Again: The Question of Hellenization.” Pages 83‒109 in Hellenism and the Local Communities of the Eastern Mediterranean. 400 BCE–250 CE. Edited by Boris Chrubasik and Daniel King. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Chrubasik, Boris. Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men who Would be King. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Eckhardt, Benedikt. Ethnos und Herrschaft: Politische Figurationen judäischer Identität von Antiochos III. bis zu Herodes I. Studia Judaica 72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. “Der siegreiche König: Überlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 64 (1982): 247‒77. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. AncB 41A. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Kosmin, Paul J. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. Kuhrt, Amélie, and Susan Sherwin-White. Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilization from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ma, John. “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age.” Present & Past 180 (2003): 9‒39. Ma, John. “Seleukids and Speech-Acts: Performative Utterances, Legitimacy and Negotiation in the World of the Maccabees.” Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (2000): 71‒112. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek: Greek – English. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Passow, Franz, Valentin C. F. Rost, and Friedrich Palm. Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache. 5th. ed. 4 vols. Leipzig 1841. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983. Pfeilschifter, Rene et al. “Local Self-Governance in the Context of Weak Statehood in Antiquity and the Modern Era. A Program for a Fresh Perspective.” LoSAM Working Paper 1, 2020. https://opus. bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/20737. Risse, Thomas, ed. Governance without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Strootman, Rolf. “Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court under Antiochos the Great, 223‒187 BCE.” Pages 63‒89 in Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Edited by Jeroen Duindam et al. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Strootman, Rolf. “Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 141‒53 in Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Edited by Onno van Nijf et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Tilly, Michael. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT 40. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. “Siegen oder Untergehen? Die hellenistische Monarchie in der neueren Forschung.” Pages 305‒39 in Monarchische Schriften im Altertum. Edited by Stefan Rebenich. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017.

Jeremy Corley

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives Abstract: Written from the usual male perspective of the time, Ben Sira’s book speaks of the social life of the people of Jerusalem around 200 BCE, mentioning potters and priests, metalsmiths and merchants, scribes and slaves, farmers and physicians. This exploratory study, based on Gerhard Lenski’s analysis of agrarian societies, notes generic parallels with Ptolemaic-era Egyptian society from the Zenon papyri. Regarding the governing class with associated retainers, this article considers the priests, the senate, temple singers, scribes, physicians, and the wealthy. Thereafter, the article discusses Ben Sira’s presentation of the peasant farmer, jeweler, metalsmith, and potter (Sir 38:25‒30), as well as the weaver, ointment maker, and merchant. Finally, attention is given to the poor, comprising hired laborers, beggars, and slaves. Keywords: Ben Sira, sociology, Jerusalem, Jewish workers, Zenon papyri

1 Introduction “What makes a people?” The broad answer to this complex question combines nature and nurture, biology and culture. Three core aspects shape Ben Sira’s Jewish identity: his ethnicity (including nation and geography), his culture (especially language and history), and his religion (involving belief and halakah).1 Ben Sira’s book clearly refers to Jewish nationhood (e.g., Sir 17:17; 37:25), as well as mentioning locations in the Jewish homeland (e.g., Sir 24:10‒14). His poetry, echoing many phrases from the Hebrew Bible, alludes to Jewish history (Sir 44:17‒49:16), and refers to Jewish religious belief and temple worship (e.g., Sir 7:29‒31; 50:1‒24). If we again ask: “What makes a people?” we can give a more practical answer: “Surely, the members of the society.” Besides ethnicity, culture, and religion, another fundamental aspect of a people is its sociological organization. Hence the present exploratory survey considers what the sage says about the sociology of his own people. Admittedly, Ben Sira’s focus is on a small slice of the Jewish people—essentially males living in the Jerusalem city area in the years around 200

1 Corley, “Elements,” 3‒19. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-004

46 

 Jeremy Corley

BCE.2 Among the occupations, he speaks of potters and priests, metalsmiths and merchants, scribes and slaves, farmers and physicians. Previous discussions of the sociology of Jerusalem in Ben Sira’s lifetime appear in the monographs by Theophil Middendorp and Oda Wischmeyer, as well as in Lester Grabbe’s history and Richard Horsley and Patrick Tiller’s essay on the topic.3 For the centuries around Ben Sira, the present study offers a papyrological perspective by referring to Greek papyri from Egypt (available at the website of papyri.info).4 For comparative purposes, the most useful corpus of papyri comes from the archive of Zenon (or Zeno) in the mid-3rd century BCE, around the time of the sage’s birth.5 From 260 BCE, Zenon was working under the Ptolemaic finance minister Apollonios, administering the treasury for Ptolemy II and overseeing many of his land holdings in Egypt and the Levant. Various scholars have deployed these papyri as a source of socio-historical background for Ben Sira’s era.6 Although the Zenon papyri predate Ben Sira’s flourishing by half a century and mostly relate to Ptolemaic Egypt rather than Judea, they are useful because they attest the lives of historical individuals, rather than offering a literary depiction of their lives. To be sure, besides the evident differences in time and space (as well as in religious belief), there is also a difference in genre, since Ben Sira’s book is a wisdom instruction, whereas these documentary papyri are often records of business contracts or correspondence. Besides the sage’s Hebrew text, this article will consider the Greek version, thereby enabling closer comparison with the papyri. Following Shaye Cohen as well as Horsley and Tiller, this article adapts a sociological grid proposed in Gerhard Lenski’s book Power and Privilege, which explores patterns of social stratification for several kinds of society—especially hunter-gatherer, horticultural, agrarian, and industrial.7 The population of the Jerusalem area around 200 BCE generally fits into the category of an agricultural society, where occupations such as metalworking and weaving served the interests of priests, rulers, and nobles. Lenski sees an agrarian society as composed of seven basic groups: the governing class, the associated retainers (including priests and scribes), 2 Segal, Sēper, 6 (introduction §8). 3 Middendorp, Stellung, 140‒62; Wischmeyer, Kultur, 37‒48; Grabbe, History, 193‒204; Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology,” 19‒55. 4 See: https://papyri.info/browse/ddbdp/p.cair.zen. The papyri are referred to by their standard abbreviations, usually including the Trismegistos (= TM) registration number: https://papyri.info/ docs/checklist . In this article, all translations of papyrus documents are mine. 5 Pestman, Guide. For online translations of some Zenon papyri, see the Attalus website: http:// www.attalus.org/docs/zenon_letters.html . 6 Tcherikover, Civilization, 60‒72; Hengel, Judaism, 1.20‒21, 36‒41; Grabbe, History, 173‒81; Barclay, Jews, 21‒24. 7 Lenski, Power; Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology,” 34‒39; Cohen, “History,” 47.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 47

the peasant farmers, the artisans, the merchants, the degraded, and the “expendables” (or destitute).8 The grid used here, adapting Lenski’s analysis for Judea in the Hellenistic era, is not claimed to be a totally accurate historical picture of society in Ben Sira’s day, but is offered as a heuristic tool to help focus discussion of some relevant texts. For each occupation, the article examines a few key verses from Ben Sira. Reference is sometimes made to Second Temple biblical or deuterocanonical books (such as Nehemiah and 1 Maccabees) and Qumran writings (such as 4QInstruction), as well as to Greek documentary papyri, such as the Zenon archive.

2 Governing class with associated retainers Several previous studies have investigated members of the ruling class in the sage’s era.9 According to Benjamin Wright, “Ben Sira displays quite an interest in political leadership, even though Israel had no king during his life.”10 James Aitken notes that Sir 9:17‒10:5 deploys a rich vocabulary for leaders, including “ruler” (‫)מוׁשל‬, “judge” (‫)ׁשפט‬, the “ministers” (λειτουργοί), the “city leader” (‫)רֹאׁש ִעיר‬, the “king” (‫)מלך‬, “prince” (‫)ׂשר‬, and the “legal secretary” (‫)מחוקק‬.11 Elsewhere in the book, other Hebrew terms include “authority” (‫)שלטון‬, “noble” (‫)נדיב‬, “officer” (‫)נׂשיא‬, and “leader” (‫)נגיד‬, while Greek terms include δυνάστης (“master”), δικαστής (“judge”), ἄρχων (“ruler”), μεγιστάν (“prince”), ἡγούμενος (“ruler”), and κριτής (“magistrate”).12 Four categories within the governing class appear in the decree of King Antiochus III (ca. 198 BCE), benefiting from Seleucid tax exemptions (Josephus, A.J. 12.3.3 §142): “The senate, the priests, the scribes of the temple, and the temple singers” (ἡ γερουσία καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ οἱ ἱεροψάλται).13

High Priest The high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) was at the head of Jerusalem society in the early 2nd century BCE, under the political authority of the Seleucid king and his military commander (στρατηγός). After Antiochus III defeated Ptolemy V in 200/198 BCE, 8 Lenski, Power, 284‒85. 9 Wright, “Ben Sira,” 80‒90; Middendorp, Stellung, 140‒62; Aitken, “Sirach,” 199‒204; Grabbe, History, 185‒92; Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology,” 27‒30. 10 Wright, “Ben Sira,” 80. 11 Aitken, “Sirach,” 202‒3. 12 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology,” 59‒60. 13 Marcus, Josephus, 73. Cf. Grabbe, History, 324‒26.

48 

 Jeremy Corley

he probably restored to the high priesthood the προστασία (community leadership), which Joseph the Tobiad had taken over from the high priest Onias II around 239 BCE.14 The high priest who then became community leader (προστάτης) was Simeon II, the only contemporary of Ben Sira named in his book: “The greatest of his brothers and splendor of his people was Simeon son of Johanan, the priest” (Sir 50:1 HB).15 Although Ben Sira does not call Simeon “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς), Sir 45:24 HB names Phinehas as recipient of the “high priesthood” (‫גדולה‬-‫)כהונה‬, which Greek renders “the greatness of the priesthood” (ἱερωσύνης μεγαλεῖον). Unlike the Hellenistic governors and some subsequent high priests, Simeon presumably spent most of his time in Jerusalem. The sage’s celebration of Simeon (Sir 50:1‒24), who may have served from around 219‒196 BCE, forms the culmination of the Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44:1‒50:24).16 Sirach 50:1‒4 celebrates Simeon’s building activities in Jerusalem, which demonstrate a role in civil as well as religious government. Within a larger territory of the Seleucid empire, around 197 BCE Ptolemy son of Thraseas was made both “military commander (στραταγός, i.e., στρατηγός) and chief priest (ἀρχιερεύς) of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia” (OGIS 1.230 = TM 47946).17 Officers of pagan temples in Greek-speaking Egypt included chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς), and a 2nd century BCE letter from the Fayum (P.Ryl. 4.572 = TM 44538) asks the recipient to send for “the chief priests ([ἀρχι]ερεῖς)” as well as other temple officials.

Senate In Ben Sira’s time Jerusalem had a senate or Gerousia (γερουσία), whose members enjoyed the tax exemption granted by Antiochus III around 198 BCE (Josephus, A.J. 12.3.3 §142).18 A century later, the books of Maccabees mention the Hasmonean Gerousia (1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 11:27).19 Although Greek Sirach does not deploy the noun γερουσία, several passages may be referring to it.20 The sage’s teaching on property and slaves is addressed to “the leaders (‫ = שרי‬μεγιστᾶνες) of the people 14 Hengel, Judaism, 1.27‒28; 1.269‒71. 15 In this article, all translations of biblical texts (including Ben Sira) are mine unless otherwise noted. Here G = Greek and GS = Codex Sinaiticus. The particular Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts are identified, such as HB (= Cairo Genizah MS B) or HM (= Masada scroll), and these texts are conveniently available online at the Ben Sira website: https://www.bensira.org . 16 On Sir 50:1‒24 see Mulder, Simon, 102‒304; Grabbe, History, 225‒29. 17 Grabbe, History, 174. 18 Grabbe, History, 189‒90. 19 Grabbe, History, 231. 20 Hengel, Judaism, 1.26.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 49

(‫ = עם‬λαοῦ)” and “the rulers (‫ = משלי‬ἡγούμενοι) of the assembly (‫ = קהל‬ἐκκλησίας)” (Sir 33:19 HE = G).21 Elsewhere Sir 38:33 notes that manual workers are not sought out for “the council of the people” (βουλὴν λαοῦ), nor do they jump to prominence “in the assembly” (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ), nor do they sit on the seat of the “judge” (δικαστοῦ). The Gerousia doubtless included experienced elders and advisers, as well as judges and magistrates. The sage may be referring to the Gerousia in Jerusalem when he offers advice about speaking in “the congregation (‫ )עדת‬of the officials (‫( ”)שרים‬Sir 7:14 HA) or “the multitude of elders” (πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων) (Sir 7:14 G). Elsewhere he warns of a judge’s overwhelming power in that society: “Do not seek judgment with a judge (‫)שופט‬, because he will judge according to his will” (Sir 8:14 HA). The social pressure from the governing class is evident when Sir 41:17‒18 mentions being ashamed of a lie “before a ruler or a lord” (ἀπὸ ἡγουμένου καὶ δυνάστου), of a crime “before a judge or magistrate” (ἀπὸ κριτοῦ καὶ ἄρχοντος), and of lawlessness “before the assembly and the people” (ἀπὸ συναγωγῆς καὶ λαοῦ).

Priests Under the high priest’s authority, the other priests (ἱερεῖς) fulfilled the temple liturgy, living off the tithes contributed by the population but also receiving prescribed parts of the sacrificial offerings when serving in the sanctuary. Since Ben Sira frequently speaks favorably of the prestigious role of priests, some scholars have concluded that he himself belonged to the priesthood.22 However, while recognizing that the sage was close to the Jerusalem temple, other scholars doubt that he himself actually functioned as a priest.23 Nevertheless, as a retainer in the temple state of Jerusalem, he upholds the rights of the priesthood: “Honor God and glorify the priest, and give their portion, as you have been commanded” (Sir 7:31 HA). Around 198 BCE the priests were included in the tax exemption granted by Antiochus III (Josephus, A.J. 12.3.3 §142). At that time the pagan priesthood played a major role in other Hellenistic societies, especially in Egypt. A mid-3rd century BCE letter (PSI 5.531 = TM 2153) was sent to Zenon from “the priests of Astarte of the Phoenician Egyptians in Memphis,” while another papyrus from 257 BCE (PSI 4.328 = TM 1881) preserves a message from “the priests of Aphrodite” to the finance minister Apollonios. An apostate Jew named Dositheus son of Drimylus (3 Macc 1:3;

21 Hengel, Judaism, 2.21. 22 Mack, Wisdom, 106; Olyan, “Relationship,” 285. 23 Reiterer, “Role,” 38; Collins, Wisdom, 37.

50 

 Jeremy Corley

CPJ 1.127) is named in a papyrus from Tebtynis in the Arsinoite nome around 222 BCE (P.Tebt. 3.1.815 = TM 7752) as a pagan priest (ἱερέως Δωσιθέου τοῦ Δριμύλου).24

Temple singers Singers and musicians served in the Jerusalem temple to beautify the liturgy (Neh 12:27‒29; 1 Macc 4:54). Greek Sirach twice utilizes a term for “psalm singer,” ψαλμῳδός in Sinaiticus but ψαλτῳδός in Alexandrinus (Sir 47:9; 50:18).25 Since King David “established psalm singers before the altar” (Sir 47:9 G, echoing 1 Chr 25:1‒7), the liturgy led by the high priest Simeon included their music: “The psalm singers gave praise with their voices” (Sir 50:18 G). In the postexilic era, Neh 7:73 highlights “the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, and the singers” among those returning to Jerusalem from Babylon. Incidentally, though Sir 45:6 HB notes that Aaron was from the “tribe of Levi,” Ben Sira does not specifically name the Levites.26 Nevertheless, he does teach the need not to abandon God’s “ministers” (‫ – משריו‬Sir 7:30 HA), who may have included Levites (Deut 18:7; Ezek 44:11; 2 Chr 8:14) as well as priests (Exod 29:30; Neh 10:40; Sir 50:14 HB). Like the priests, the temple singers (ἱεροψάλται) were included in the tax exemption granted by Antiochus III around 198 BCE (Josephus, A.J. 12.3.3 §142). Temple singers also played an important role in non-Jewish Egyptian society. A Roman-era papyrus from the 3rd century CE, containing a report delivered to the chief temple prophet of Oxyrhynchos (PSI 9.1039 = TM 17468), mentions a “temple singer” (ἱεροψάλτου) in the service of the deities Amun, Kronos, Hera, Heracles, and Sarapis.

Scribes Several studies have considered Ben Sira’s positive view of scribes, who fulfilled various social roles.27 In fact, Ben Sira himself was a scribal sage, probably working at the Jerusalem temple.28 He teaches that attending to the discourse of “sages” (‫ )חכמים‬will enable the student to “learn instruction and how to serve rulers” (Sir 8:8 HA). Because of literacy and education, scribes could become magistrates or 24 Barclay, Jews, 104. 25 Skelton, “Sages,” 167‒74. 26 Hengel, Judaism, 2.38‒39 (n. 385); Olyan, “Relationship,” 275. 27 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology,” 31‒33, 47‒50; Ueberschaer, Weisheit, 258‒61, 310‒15, 373‒77; Vinel, “Le métier,” 137‒39; Segal, Sēper, 6 (introduction §8). 28 Hengel, Judaism, 1.133.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 51

members of the senate, thereby gaining honorable status (Sir 37:23‒26; 39:9‒11; 44:13‒15). Sir 38:24b HB states that “one who has little business can become wise,” while Sir 38:24a G observes that “a scribe’s wisdom depends on the opportunity of leisure (σχολή).” In praising the scribe (‫ = סופר‬γραμματεύς) above skilled manual workers, Sir 38:24‒39:11 follows the general pattern of the ancient Egyptian Satire of the Trades.29 The Egyptian text presents the scribal profession as “the greatest of all callings,” while Ben Sira teaches that the scribe “serves in the midst of leaders and appears before rulers” (Sir 39:4 G). In a society where much of the population was almost illiterate, scribes fulfilled several roles in Ben Sira’s time. Administrative scribes copied official documents, while commercial clerks wrote down tallies of commodity items, such as wine jars or grain containers. Legal notaries recorded court decisions and perhaps even became magistrates, whereas government secretaries sent official letters and recorded decisions. Scribal sages were teachers and scholars, while temple scribes copied biblical texts as well as keeping records of tithe payments. As high-status retainers, “the scribes of the temple” (οἱ γραμματεῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ) were included in the tax exemption decreed by the Seleucid king Antiochus III around 198 BCE (Josephus, A.J. 12.3.3 §142). An Aramaic ostracon from the Egyptian city of Edfu in 252 BCE (CPJ 4.522 = TAD D8.13) mentions “Joseph (‫ )יוסף‬the scribe (‫ ”)ספרא‬who wrote a receipt for payment of the salt tax.30 In Hellenistic Egypt scribes played multiple official roles. For instance, a mid-3rd century BCE Egyptian papyrus refers to temple scribes in a list of contributions for religious festivals honoring deities such as Artemis, Hermes, Aphrodite and Poseidon (P.Hib. 2.214 = TM 8288): “Apollonios scribe of the savior god” and “Ktesippos scribe of the savior god.”

Physicians Ben Sira’s celebration of the physician (‫ )רופא‬in Sir 38:1‒15, unparalleled elsewhere in biblical literature, has been frequently studied.31 In contrast, an unfavorable attitude toward physicians is evident in the Chronicler’s comment on King Asa (2 Chr 16:12), and in the 2nd century CE Rabbi Judah bar Ilai, a student of Rabbi Akiva, declares that “the best among physicians is going to Gehenna” (m. Qidd. 4.14).32 However, doubtless under the influence of Greek medical practice, Ben Sira accepts use of medicines (Sir 38:4), when combined with prayer for recovery (Sir 38:9), 29 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 449; Goff, “Instruction,” 147‒72. 30 Hacham, Ilan, and Fikhman, Corpus, 30; Hacham, “Third Century,” 139. 31 Askin, Culture, 186‒231; McConvery, “Praise,” 64‒74; Vinel, “Le métier,” 136‒37. 32 Neusner, Mishnah, 498.

52 

 Jeremy Corley

because a physician’s skill derives from God (Sir 38:1).33 The physician is depicted as receiving gifts from the king for his services, as well as a place of honor at the royal court (Sir 38:2‒3), while deploying special plants for healing, prepared by the pharmacist (Sir 38:7). Some physicians became wealthy and powerful in Ptolemaic Egypt. An ostracon receipt for fine clothing from Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome (BGU 7.1525 = TM 4775), dating from around 200 BCE, also mentions Apollonios the “physician” (ἰατροῦ). In another document from the Arsinoite nome (P.Enteux 69 = TM 3344), dated 218 BCE, a Macedonian woman named Hediste complains that a physician named Demetrios has encroached on her land with the aim of building on it.

The wealthy During the twenty-two years (perhaps 239‒217 BCE) when Joseph son of Tobias held power (Josephus, A.J. 12.4.6 §186), Jerusalem probably became wealthier.34 According to Josephus’s source, Joseph son of Tobias “brought the Jewish people from poverty and a state of weakness to more splendid opportunities of life” (A.J. 12.4.10 §224).35 Ben Sira says: “The toils of a rich person are to gather [emendation: ‫ ]לקבץ‬wealth, and if he rests, it is to receive pleasure” (Sir 31:3 HB). The sage’s criticism of a blind pursuit of riches (Sir 31:5‒7) and a disregard of the poor (Sir 13:17‒23) on the part of the rich may hint at the Tobiads and their circle, though it could also point to commercially successful merchants.36

3 Peasant farmers, artisans, and merchants Next, we consider the middle level of society, including peasant farmers, artisans, and merchants. Ben Sira contrasts the manual worker, skilled in his craft, with the wise orator: “In those who are manually skilled, accuracy is preserved, but a ruler of his people is someone skilled (‫ )חכם‬in expression (‫( ”)ביטה‬Sir 9:17–18 HA). Just as Sir 9:17–18 HA speaks of those who are manually skilled, literally “wise (‫ )חכם‬of hands (‫)ידים‬,” so also, in a fragmentary context dealing with manual labor, 4QInstruction promises

33 McConvery, “Praise,” 74‒84. 34 Hengel, Judaism, 1.269‒71. 35 Marcus, Josephus, 113. 36 Tcherikover, Civilization, 148‒51; Hengel, Judaism, 1.151; cf. Schwartz, Society, 183; Gregory, Signet Ring, 68‒69; Segal, Sēper, 4 (introduction §5).

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 53

length of days to those who have “wisdom (‫ )חכמת‬of hands (‫( ”)ידים‬4Q418 137.4). Ben Sira recognizes the contribution to civic life made by skilled workers without being leaders in society: “All these rely on their hands, and each becomes skilled in his work; without them a city will not be inhabited” (Sir 38:31‒32 G). Similarly, Rabbi Judah bar Ilai asserts later that all trades are needed (b. Qidd. 82b). While the sage speaks rather briefly about farmers and a few kinds of skilled craft workers (Sir 38:25‒30), further information is available from the Egyptian documentary papyri that refer to Jews during the Ptolemaic era (CPJ 1 and CPJ 4).37 These papyri show that Jewish agrarian workers in Egypt included peasant farmers, vinedressers, field laborers, sheep breeders, and vineyard owners, while manual workers included potters and brick makers.38 Unlike the scribe who usually enjoyed leisure for study (Sir 38:24), skilled workers needed to be busy at their trades (Sir 38:24‒34). When Ben Sira describes the toils of the farmer, jeweler (or seal engraver), metalworker, and potter, he is probably abbreviating the general schema of the Egyptian Satire of the Trades.39 To be sure, there are also contrasts between both texts.40 Sir 38:25‒30 selects four sorts of manual worker (farmer, jeweler, metalworker, and potter), all of whom contributed to the life of the Jerusalem temple state. Let us look at these selected occupations.

Peasant farmers Ben Sira has an esteem for manual labor: “Do not be impatient with hard work— it is labor allotted from God” (Sir 7:15 HA). Here Sir 7:15 G specifies the labor as farm work (cf. 2 Macc 12:1): “Do not hate hard work, or farming (γεωργίαν), which was created by the Most High.” Moreover, Sir 40:19 HB values farming: “Livestock offspring and a plantation make a reputation flourish,” and elsewhere Ben Sira teaches that if his students have any cattle, they should look after them (Sir 7:22 HA). Among ten necessities for human life, Sir 39:26 lists wheat flour, milk, honey, wine, and olive oil. Peasant farmers produced such consumable items, the best of which would have been used in the temple service or enjoyed by the upper class In 38:25‒26 Ben Sira contrasts the leisured scribe with the busy plowman, who is so involved in caring for cattle that he has no time for study: “How will one who grasps the goad become wise? Or one who glories in the spear of a plow-handle 37 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, vol. 1; Hacham, Ilan, and Fikhman, Corpus, vol. 4. 38 Grabbe, History, 195; cf. Hacham, “Third Century,” 134‒35. 39 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 449‒53. 40 Goff, “Instruction,” 147‒72.

54 

 Jeremy Corley

[emendation: ‫ ?]מרדע‬41 He drives the bull out [to harrow] and brings back the ox. His concerns are with the offspring [of cattle], and his vigilance (‫ = שקידתו‬ἀγρυπνία) is to complete the fattening.42 He sets his heart to harrow furrows” (Sir 38:25‒26 HB). The same motif of vigilance or sleeplessness due to pressure of farm work appears in a papyrus of 232 BCE from the Arsinoite nome (P.Grenf. 2.14a = TM 43896), where Apollonios requests the assistance of a female donkey, declaring: “How much I am sleepless (ἀγρυπνῶ) because of the work.” In a wisdom poem (Sir 6:19) the sage invites the seeker of wisdom to resemble a “plowman” (HAC ‫ = חורש‬ἀροτριῶν), although Sir 38:25 G raises the question: “How can one handling the plow (ὁ κρατῶν ἀρότρου) be wise?” One papyrus around 250 BCE from Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome (P.Cair.Zen. 4.59729 = TM 1356) speaks of taking as workers the “pruners” (προκαθαίροντ[ας]) for the “plowmen” (ἀροτριῶσι). Ben Sira’s Hebrew wisdom poem (Sir 6:19 HAC) goes on to mention a “reaper” (‫)קוצר‬, but the Greek here speaks of a “sower” (σπείρων). In a mid-3rd century BCE papyrus letter from Philadelphia (P.Cair.Zen. 3.59438 = TM 1078), a farmer named Herakleides asks Zenon for two hundred bundles of palm fiber “for the plows” (εἰς τὰ ἄροτρα). While Isaiah deploys the vineyard metaphor in a parable (Isa 5:1‒7), the sage compares himself to a grape picker (τρυγητής or τρυγῶν). In Sir 33:16 HE Ben Sira says he was like a “gleaner” (‫)עולל‬, while in Sir 33:16 G the sage declares he was “like a harvester following the grape pickers” (ὡς καλαμώμενος ὀπίσω τρυγητῶν). An Egyptian papyrus from 99 BCE (SB 24.16228b = TM 41400) mentions payment for grape pickers (τρυγητῶν). Ben Sira adds: “Like a grape picker (‫ = בוצר‬τρυγῶν) I filled my winepress” (Sir 33:17 HE). A 3rd century BCE Egyptian papyrus mentions a Jewish vinedresser named Samuel at Philadelphia in Egypt (now Kharabet-el-Gerza). The letter, dated 241 BCE (CPJ 1.14 = TM 2077), says: “Declaration to Andromachos, the chief of police of Philadelphia, from Samoelis and Alexandros, vinedressers (ἀμπελουργῶν) among the tenants of the vineyard of Zenon and Sostratos.”

Jewelers Sir 38:27 portrays the jeweler, whose job included engraving seals and cutting gemstones. The broken Hebrew of Sir 38:27 preserves only the introductory words: “Also a worker (‫ = עשה‬participle), [craftworker (‫)חרש‬, and] designer (‫)חושב‬, who by night [as by day practices]” (Sir 38:27 HB/Segal). The Greek has the complete description: “Likewise every artisan (τέκτων) and master artisan (ἀρχιτέκτων), one

41 Emendation: Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 447. 42 Schmidt, Wisdom, 325.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 55

who continues by night as by day—those who engrave the engravings of seals (οἱ γλύφοντες γλύμματα σφραγίδων). And his perseverance is to vary the ornamentation; he will set his heart to make lifelike the representation, and his vigilance is to finish his work” (Sir 38:27 G). Seals were used for ratifying documents (Neh 10:1[9:38]) and as a sign of personal authority (1 Macc 6:15). Ben Sira’s reference here (as in Sir 45:11) echoes Exod 28:11, commanding the carving of two onyx stones with the names of Israel’s twelve sons as “an engraving of a seal” (γλύμμα σφραγίδος). The term “designer” (‫ )חושב‬can denote more than one kind of artistic worker, since Sir 38:27 HB uses it to introduce the seal engraver, while Sir 45:10 HB deploys the same word for the skilled weaver of colored garments. A temple context fits the use of the term γλύμμα (“engraving”) in Sir 45:11 G, where the Hebrew describes the gemstone cutter or jeweler as an “artisan (‫)חרש‬ of precious stone (‫)אבן‬.”43 Greek Sirach says that Moses clothed Aaron “with very expensive stones of an engraving of a seal (γλύμματος σφραγῖδος), in a setting of gold, the work of a gemstone cutter (λιθουργοῦ), for a memorial in inscribed writing according to the number of the tribes of Israel; a gold crown upon the turban, a carving of a seal of the sanctuary” (Sir 45:11‒12 G). Whereas the Torah forbade the making of images for worship (Deut 5:8; 27:15) and Isa 45:20LXX employs the noun γλύμμα (“sculpture”) for an idol, pagan craftwork is evident in a Roman-era Egyptian papyrus of 133 CE from Tebtynis in the administrative district of Arsinoites (P.Mich. 5580b = TM 14282), where the writer declares: “I sealed engraved figures of Isis” (ἐσφράγισα γλύμματα Ἴσι[δος]). Despite pagan use of carved figures, Ben Sira in his Jerusalem context raises no theological objection to making seal images, since they are not intended for worship, but for purposes of identification (cf. Jer 32:10‒11; Neh 10:1).

Metalsmiths Ben Sira also presents the metalsmith at work: “Likewise the smith (χαλκεύς), sitting beside the anvil, closely examining works of iron [GS: ἔργα σιδήρου]. The vapor of the fire will melt his flesh, and in the heat of the furnace he will struggle. The sound of the hammer will deafen [presupposing ‫ יחריש‬instead of ‫ ]יחדש‬his ears, and his eyes are facing the likeness of the vessel.44 He will set his heart on the completion of the works, and his vigilance is to decorate them at the time of completion” (Sir 38:28 G).

43 Reiterer, “Role,” 41‒42. 44 Emendation: Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 448.

56 

 Jeremy Corley

In Jerusalem around 200 BCE, the metalsmith was presumably not permitted to make weapons except for the Hellenistic overlords. Instead, he could have provided decorative items for the sanctuary, since “craftworkers (‫ )חרשי‬in iron (‫ )ברזל‬and bronze” were involved in temple repairs by King Joash (2 Chr 24:12). The Maccabees decorated the restored temple with “golden crowns and small shields” (1 Macc 4:57), and by the 1st century CE the temple came to have the bronze Nicanor Gate (m. Midd. 2.3). The Mishnah also speaks of 13 trumpet-shaped chests for temple donations (m. Shek. 6.5). Besides accomplishing artistic work for the temple, smiths could also have made farm implements such as plow blades, axes or sickles (1 Sam 13:20; Isa 2:4), useful to the peasant farmer (Sir 38:25‒26). A 3rd century BCE papyrus from Thebes in Ptolemaic Egypt (P.Bodl. 1.59b = TM 78123) offers a list of several kinds of craftworkers, including “ironworkers” (σιδηρου̣ρ̣[γοῖς]), lotus-bearers, shipwrights, carpenters, “coppersmiths” ([χαλκε]ῦσιν), and “goldsmiths” ([χρυσ]ο̣χοῖ ̣ ̣ς)̣ . The Mishnah declares that the late 2nd century BCE high priest John Hyrcanus outlawed the hammer (‫ )פטיש‬previously utilized in Jerusalem (m. M. Sh. 5.15), presumably to eliminate the disturbance caused by noise. Some later rabbis considered metalsmiths (‫ )צורפים‬as bad or untrustworthy characters (b. Qidd. 82a).

Potters Sir 38:29‒30 G depicts the activity of the potter (‫ = יוצר‬κεραμεύς): “Likewise the potter, sitting at his work and turning the wheel with his feet, who always remains in worry over his work, and all his output is accounted for. With his arm he will mold the clay, and in front of his feet he will bend his strength. He will set his heart to complete the glazing, and his vigilance is to keep the kiln clean” (Sir 38:29‒30 G). Shortly before the Babylonian exile, the prophet Jeremiah paid a visit to a pottery workshop in Jerusalem (Jer 18:2‒6), and 1 Chr 4:23 mentions potters connected with Gederah near Jerusalem, while the Mishnah approves of pottery made in Judea as far west as Modiith (m. Hag. 3.5). Many surviving clay vessels (second half of 3rd century BCE), stamped with ‫( יהד‬Yehud = Judea) or ‫( ירשלם‬Jerusalem), may have contained locally produced olive oil, wine or grain, used for Ptolemaic taxes or for tithes due to the Jerusalem sanctuary.45 Potters would also have made pots to hold water for temple ablutions and for drinking. In a mid-3rd century BCE letter to Zenon from Philadelphia in the Egyptian Fayum (P.Cair.Zen. 3.59481 = TM 1119), a zealous potter named Paesis complains about

45 Grabbe, History, 62‒64; Hengel, Judaism, 1.25.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 57

other wasteful coworkers: “Know the slander I have from the potters (κεραμεῦσιν).” In a 2nd or 1st century BCE Jewish papyrus from the administrative district of Arsinoites (CPJ 1.46 = TM 7332), Sabbataios and his son Dosatos write to the “potters” (κεραμεῦσι) “from the village of Syrians” (ἀπὸ Σύρων κώμης) who are “Judeans [or Jews]” (Ἰουδαῖοι).

Weavers In Ben Sira’s time, Jerusalem would have had textile designers and workers to make garments, including for the temple priests. The Praise of the Ancestors reports that Moses clothed Aaron with “holy garments of gold, blue, and purple, the work of a designer (‫ ;)חשב‬the breastpiece of judgment, ephod and belt; and the scarlet of crimson, the work of a weaver (‫( ”)אורג‬Sir 45:10‒11 HB).46 Greek Sirach declares that Moses clothed Aaron “with the holy robe of gold and violet and purple, the work of an embroiderer (ποικιλτοῦ); with the oracle of judgment, for manifestations of truth; with twisted scarlet, the work of an artisan (τεχνίτου)” (Sir 45:10‒11 G). Whereas Sir 38:27 HB has deployed “designer” (‫ )חושב‬to introduce the seal engraver, Sir 45:10 HB employs the same root for the skilled colored garment weaver, just as the cognate verb (‫ )חשב‬was applied to Bezalel (Exod 31:4; 35:32). One of the mid-3rd century BCE Zenon papyri (P.Lond. 7.2055 = TM 1617) begins with greetings from a skilled male garment worker: “Teos, embroiderer, one of those in Philadelphia” (Τεῶς ποικιλτὴς τῶν ἐμ Φιλαδελφείαι). Sirach 45:11 HB utilizes the ordinary word for “weaver” (‫)אורג‬, which the Greek here translates by a general word for “artisan” (τεχνίτου)—though Exod 28:28 G renders “weaver” (‫ )אורג‬more precisely with ὑφάντου. Although textile work was usually considered the task of women (2 Kgs 23:7; Prov 31:22‒24; Tob 2:11‒12; m. Ket. 5.5), some weaving was done by men (Exod 28:32; 39:22; 1  Chr 21:5; m. Eduy. 1.3), including skilled embroidery and dyeing (Exod 31:4; 35:32). While Ben Sira gives little attention to traditionally female activities such as spinning and weaving, these occupations may be implied in his disapproving statement: “There is wrath and shamelessness and great disgrace, if a wife provides for her husband” (Sir 25:22 G; cf. Tob 2:11). Male garment makers are mentioned in a mid-3rd century BCE letter from the weavers (οἱ ὑφάνται) to Zenon (PSI 6.599 = TM 2209), while a 2nd century BCE ostracon from Elephantine (O. Eleph. DAIK6 = CPJ 4.521) mentions a Jewish man, “weaver Eleazar” (ὑφά̣[ντη]ς [Ἐλε]άζαρ), along with “the fullers” (οἱ γνα[φε]ῖ ̣[ς]).

46 Reiterer, “Role,” 41.

58 

 Jeremy Corley

Ointment makers The ointment maker (‫ = רוקח‬μυρεψός) served both as a perfumer (Sir 49:1 HB) and as a pharmacist (Sir 38:7‒8 HB). In earlier texts the Hebrew word for ointment maker (‫ )רוקח‬can denote a perfumer (1 Sam 8:13; Qoh 10:1) or a preparer of spices (1 Chr 9:30), while Neh 3:8 names Hananiah as one of “the perfumers” (‫ )רקחים‬living in Jerusalem. Descriptions of the wilderness tabernacle (Exod 30:25; 37:29) already mention the “perfumer” (‫ = רוקח‬μυρεψός). For use in the postexilic temple service, 1 Chr 9:30 declares that “some of the priests’ sons were blenders of the ointment mixture for the spices,” and Ben Sira compares wisdom (dwelling in Jerusalem) to seven perfumes and spices used in temple liturgy (Sir 24:15). Echoing Exod 25:6, Sir 49:1 HB says: “The name of Josiah is like the incense of spices, blended, the work of the perfumer (‫)רוקח‬.” The same verse also compares Josiah to honey, and interestingly y. Yoma 4.5 speaks of spice makers who added honey to incense. In the 3rd century BCE, Gaza was a major port for shipping incense, myrrh, and spices from much of the Levant under a Ptolemaic royal monopoly.47 The Jordan valley had renowned balsam plantations near Jericho and Engedi (Josephus, A.J. 14.4.1 §54; 15.4.2 §96).48 Around 150 BCE a perfumer (μυρεψός) appears in a papyrus from Memphis recounting Nectanebo’s dream (P.Anastasi 67 = TM 65612). In Ben Sira, the same terms (‫ = רוקח‬μυρεψός) can also have the derived sense of “pharmacist,” denoting an ointment maker who also mixed medical preparations.49 Sir 38:7 HB declares that the pharmacist, like the physician, deploys special plants for healing (either for skin complaints or for internal use): “By them the physician relieves pain, and accordingly the pharmacist (‫ )רוקח‬makes an ointment mixture.”

Merchants and traders In a warning about traders, Sir 37:11 HBD employs a biblical term for “merchant” (‫ – סוחר‬cf. Ezek 27:36; 38:13), while Sir 42:5 HBM uses the term “trader” or “haggler” (‫)תגר‬, absent from earlier Hebrew books. Elsewhere the sage offers this stark verdict: “A merchant (ἔμπορος) will hardly escape from wrongdoing, nor will a trader (κάπηλος) be acquitted of sin” (Sir 26:29).50 Ben Sira adds this advice: “Do not consult with . . . a merchant (‫ = סוחר‬ἔμπόρου) about his trading, or with a buyer (‫קונה‬ = ἀγοράζοντος) about his merchandise” (Sir 37:11 HD). Later the sage teaches: “Do 47 Hengel, Judaism, 1.37. 48 Hengel, Judaism, 1.44‒45. 49 Askin, Culture, 200. 50 Schwartz, Society, 71‒73.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 59

not be ashamed . . . of bargaining for the merchandise of a trader (‫( ”)תגר‬Sir 42:5 HBM), which the Greek renders: “Do not be ashamed . . . of disagreement over the wares of merchants (ἔμπόρων)” (Sir 42:5 G). Important foodstuffs produced and traded locally included “fine flour” (Sir 39:26 G), “the blood of the grape [= wine] and olive oil” (Sir 39:26 HB), although from abroad (e.g., Rhodes and Cos) the merchants imported wine and olive oil for Jerusalem’s wealthy class.51 Some merchants also traded slaves from the Levant to Egypt.52 An early 2nd century BCE bank list survives from Herakleopolis (P.Tebt. 3.2.890 = TM 5442), naming Areios as a merchant (ἔμπορος). The term for “trader” (κάπηλος) often refers to a wine-dealer, as in a reference to “the trader buying the wine” (ὁ τὸν οἶνον ἐωνημένος κάπηλος) in a letter from Aristandros to Zenon around 248 BCE (PSI 4.383 = TM 2067). A papyrus receipt from the Zenon archive circa 259 BCE (CPJ 1.2b = TM 667) mentions “fine flour” (σεμίδαλις) and “ground grain from Jerusalem” ([Ἱεροσολ]ύμοις ἀλεύρων), apparently supplied by Tobias (Τουβίου).

4 The underclass As a contrast to merchants and traders, we now consider the poor in Ben Sira’s society, using the subheadings of hired laborers, the impoverished, and slaves. Since Ben Sira belonged to the retainer class, his descriptions of the wealthy exploiting the poor may refer to the aristocratic groupings in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid administrations, as well as the Tobiads who had gained economic power in Judea and Transjordan.53 Sir 13:17‒19 makes a threefold contrast between the victims of poverty (lamb, dog, wild ass) and the wealthy predators (wolf, hyena, lion).54

Hired laborers Ben Sira recognizes the plight of impoverished laborers: “The pauper toils for the deficiency of his household, and if he rests, he will be needy” (Sir 31:4 HB). In the postexilic era, hired laborers were often defrauded of their wages (Mal 3:5), a practice that Ben Sira sharply denounces: “Someone robbing a livelihood is murdering his neighbor; one who defrauds a hired laborer (μίσθιος) of his wage is shedding

51 Tcherikover, Civilization, 67‒70; Hengel, Judaism, 1.39‒44. 52 Hengel, Judaism, 1.41‒42; Grabbe, History, 217.  53 Segal, Sēper, 8‒11 (introduction §12‒13). 54 Gregory, Signet Ring, 68‒70.

60 

 Jeremy Corley

blood” (Sir 34:26‒27 G). Although Sir 7:20 HC declares: “Do not harm a slave truly serving, nor likewise a hired laborer (‫ )שכיר‬who devotes himself,” the sage is aware that not all hired laborers were dedicated to their work. Hence, after advising: “Do not consult with a useless worker (‫ )פועל‬about his work” (Sir 37:11 HB), he also warns against consulting “with a yearly hired laborer (‫ )שכיר‬about the growth of what was sown” (Sir 37:11 HD), which the Greek renders: “with an annual hired worker about completion [of his work]” (Sir 37:11 G).

The impoverished Those who were poor would often lack life’s necessities, which Sir 29:21 G names: “Water and bread, and clothing, and a house to cover shame.” Like the prophet Isaiah (Isa 1:17; 58:7), the sage urges a charitable attitude: “Do not dishearten a needy person, and do not hide from one who is crushed in spirit. Do not afflict the bowels of an oppressed person, and do not inflict pain on the inward parts of a pauper” (Sir 4:2‒3 HA). Ben Sira makes a sharp plea for justice for the victims of exploitation: “The bread of the needy is the life of the impoverished; whoever deprives them of it is guilty of bloodshed” (Sir 34:25 G). However, Ben Sira also warns his upper-class audience against begging like the destitute: “Child, do not lead a life of begging (ἐπαιτήσεως); it is better to die than to beg (ἐπαιτεῖν)” (Sir 40:28 G). Mistreatment of the Egyptian poor is evident from a papyrus letter of 163 BCE (UPZ 1.5 = TM 3396), addressed by a Macedonian named Ptolemaios to Dionysios the military commander (στρατηγός), about a pagan temple being plundered “to carry off the deposits of the poor” (τὰς τῶν πτωχῶν παραθήκας ἐξενέγκαι). Such a situation recalls Heliodorus’ attempt to plunder the deposits of widows from the Jerusalem temple treasury shortly before 175 BCE (2 Macc 3:10, 15). On the other hand, generosity is visible in a 3rd century BCE papyrus account from the Arsinoite nome (P.Petr. 3.140a = TM 7606), where, among payment for food items such as “for salt, a quarter of an obolus” (ἅλας τέταρτον ὀβολοῦ), there is mention of a gift “to a pauper, a quarter of an obolus” (πτωχῶι τέταρτον ὀβολοῦ).

Slaves Ben Sira presumes that many of his upper-class audience could afford to keep at least one household servant or slave (οἰκέτης), and possibly several (Sir 7:20‒21; 33:25‒33; 42:5). Whereas the scribal occupation depended on having leisure to study (Sir 38:24 G), Aristotle notes that “there is no leisure for slaves” (Pol. 1334a), and Sir 37:11 G advises against consulting “with a lazy household slave (οἰκέτῃ)

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 61

about much working.”55 Furthermore, Sir 33:25‒30 enjoins harsh treatment for the slacker: “Fodder and a whip and a burden are for a donkey, and the chastisement of work is for a slave” (Sir 33:25 HE). Ben Sira accepts the practice of flogging a recalcitrant slave (Sir 42:5), just as he advocates beating a stubborn son (Sir 30:12). In a teaching that is characteristic of the age in which he lived, Ben Sira declares that there is no shame in “much disciplining of children and drawing blood from the side of a wicked household slave” (Sir 42:5 G). Similarly, Sir 23:10 G states that “a household servant (οἰκέτης) who is continually being scrutinized will not lack bruises.” Sir 33:26 G teaches that a slave who is forced to work will merely look for his rest, but a slave left unoccupied will seek liberty: “Leave idle his hands, and he will seek freedom (ἐλευθερίαν).” Moreover, Sir 33:29‒30 permits loading an unruly slave with heavy metal fetters. The Zenon papyri provide evidence of the slave trade from the Levant to Egypt in the 3rd century BCE, including Tobiad involvement.56 For instance, a document of 259 BCE (CPJ 1.1 = TM 665) records that Tobias’ agent Nicanor sold to Zenon a seven-year-old girl named Sphragis for fifty drachmas. The sale took place in the Transjordanian territory of Ammon, and among the witnesses was “one of the cavalrymen of Tobias the cleruch” (τῶν Τουβίου ἱππέων κληροῦχος).57 In a subsequent letter dated 257 BCE, dispatched to Alexandria from a Transjordanian settlement (P.Cair.Zen. 1.59076 = TM 731), Tobias informs Apollonios that he has sent to him personally a eunuch along with four young male slaves of a superior class: “I have sent to you Aeneas bringing one [eunuch] and four boys, [house-slaves] and wellborn, of whom two are uncircumcised (ἀπερίτμητα).”58 Ben Sira also speaks of a trusted domestic servant (Sir 33:31‒33), possibly one who managed the household: “If you have a household slave (οἰκέτης), treat him like a brother, for you will need him as your life” (Sir 33:31 G). The sage teaches that any slave, induced by harsh treatment to run away, will be lost forever, because the Torah (unlike Greco-Roman law) prohibits returning a fugitive slave to the former master (Deut 23:16‒17). Elsewhere Ben Sira also urges kind treatment of a faithful slave: “Do not harm a slave truly serving. . . Love an intelligent slave as yourself, and do not withhold from him freedom (‫ = חופש‬ἐλευθερίας)” (Sir 7:20‒21 HC). Such an aspiration occasionally happened, as in a papyrus of 124 BCE from Tebtynis in the Arsinoite nome (P.Tebt. 3.1.700 = TM 5311), listing a particular legal decision of Ptolemy Euergetes II around the time the grandson was translating Ben Sira’s book: “The slave will be free” (ὁ δὲ δοῦλος ἐλεύθερος ἔσται). 55 Quotations of Aristotle’s Politics are from Rackham, Aristotle: Politics. 56 Tcherikover, Civilization, 66‒69; Hengel, Judaism, 1.268; 2.32‒33; Grabbe, History, 217. 57 Grabbe, History, 291‒92; Hengel, Judaism, 1.268. 58 Krautbauer, Llewelyn, and Wassell, “Gift,” 307.

62 

 Jeremy Corley

Ben Sira says less about female slaves but warns his male audience against sexual relations with them. When Sir 41:22 HM teaches the need for shame over “occupying yourself with your female servant and climbing up onto her couches,” Ben Sira probably diverges from many of his contemporaries.59 The Greek here differs over the owner of the female servant when it expresses the need for shame over “meddling with his [= another man’s] servant-girl, and do not approach her bed” (Sir 41:22 G). A memorandum among the Zenon papyri from around 259 BCE (PSI 4.406 = TM 2089) refers to a slave-girl who had been brought to Joppa, perhaps to serve as a sacred prostitute in the temple of Aphrodite: “Another [slave-girl] (ἄλλην [= παιδίσκην]) they brought out from the Ammonites. They sold her in Ptolemais, and as a priestess (ἱερεα) she has gone down to Joppa already for the fourth time.”60 The Zenon archive mentions other girls under the age of ten, captured or bought in the Levant, who were sold as slaves, probably to be occupied in weaving.61

5 Conclusion This exploratory survey of the sociology of Ben Sira’s society began by discussing members of the governing class: the priesthood (especially the high priest), the senate, temple singers, scribes, physicians, and the wealthy. Thereafter, it considered peasant farmers and skilled manual workers. Although the Egyptian Satire of the Trades may have served as the starting point for Ben Sira’s presentation of the peasant farmer, jeweler, metalsmith, and potter, the Hebrew sage has a greater appreciation for their work. Among other artisans, he refers to the weaver and the ointment maker (both as perfumer and as pharmacist), but his brief mentions of the merchant are unfavorable. Finally, a short treatment was given to the poor, comprising hired laborers, beggars, and slaves. Comparison with Ptolemaic-era Egyptian society shows sociological and occupational similarities, despite the evident religious difference. For some groups in his society, Ben Sira’s value judgments are clear: he has a low opinion of merchants and traders (Sir 26:29) but esteems the scribe (Sir 39:1‒11) and the physician (Sir 38:1‒8). Ben Sira also acknowledges the necessary contributions of artisans to a city’s life. Above all, he values the wisdom evident in each occupation: wise speaker (Sir 9:17); sage teacher (Sir 37:23, 26);

59 Ellis, Gender, 68‒69. 60 Tcherikover, Civilization, 69; Hengel, Judaism, 1.41. 61 Hengel, Judaism, 1.268; Tcherikover, Civilization, 68‒69.

Sociology of Ben Sira’s Patriarchal Society: Textual and Papyrological Perspectives 

 63

scribe (Sir 38:24; 39:10); physician (Sir 38:2); manual worker (Sir 9:17), and even the skilled slave (Sir 7:21; 10:25) or wise pauper (Sir 10:23; 11:1).62

Bibliography Aitken, James K. “Sirach and Imperial History: A Reassessment.” Pages 184‒212 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel L. Adams, Greg Schmidt Goering, and Matthew J. Goff. JSJ Supplements 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Askin, Lindsey A. Scribal Culture in Ben Sira. JSJ Supplements 184. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Political and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity.” Pages 33‒66 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “Elements of Jewish Identity in Ben Sira.” BN 164 (2015): 3‒19. Ellis, Teresa A. Gender in the Book of Ben Sira: Divine Wisdom, Erotic Poetry, and the Garden of Eden. BZAW 453. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Goff, Matthew J. “Hellenistic Instruction in Palestine and Egypt: Ben Sira and Papyrus Insinger,” JSJ 36 (2005): 147‒72. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, vol. 2. The Early Hellenistic Period (335‒175 BCE). LSTS 68. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Hacham, Noah. “The Third Century BCE: New Light on Egyptian Jewish History from the Papyri.” Pages 130‒42 in Sources and Interpretation in Ancient Judaism: Studies for Tal Ilan at Sixty. Edited by Meron M. Piotrkowski, Geoffrey Herman, and Saskia Dönitz. AJEC 104. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Hacham, Noah, Tal Ilan, and Itzhak Fikhman, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 4. The Ptolemaic Period (323 BCE–30 BCE). Berlin: de Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2020. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Horsley, Richard A., and Patrick A. Tiller. “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple.” Pages 19‒55 in After Apocalyptic and Wisdom: Rethinking Texts in Context. Edited by Richard A. Horsley and Patrick A. Tiller. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012. Krautbauer, Anna, Stephen Llewelyn, and Blake Wassell. “A Gift of One Eunuch and Four Slave Boys: P.Cair.Zen. I 59076 and Historical Construction.” JSJ 45 (2014): 305‒25. Lenski, Gerhard E. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Marcus, Ralph. Josephus, vol. 7. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1933.

62 I am grateful to Michael Duggan, Maurice Gilbert, and the editors of this volume for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

64 

 Jeremy Corley

McConvery, Brendan. “Ben Sira’s ‘Praise of the physician’ (Sir 38:1‒15) in the Light of Some Hippocratic Writings.” PIBA 21 (1998): 62‒86. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras Zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel. JSJ Supplements 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988. Olyan, Saul. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261‒86. Pestman, Pieter W., et al. A Guide to the Zenon Archive: A. Lists and Surveys. B. Indexes and Maps. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, vol. 21. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Rackham, Harris. Aristotle: Politics. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1944. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role according to Ben Sira.” Pages 27‒55 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Schmidt, Jordan A. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Segal, Moshe Z. Sēper ben-Sîrā’ haššālēm. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skelton, David A. “Sages as Singers in Sirach and the Second Temple Period.” Pages 167‒182 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel L. Adams, Greg Schmidt Goering, and Matthew J. Goff. JSJ Supplements 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Tcherikover, Victor A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959. Tcherikover, Victor A., and Alexander Fuks, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 1: Prolegomena and Documents of the Ptolemaic Period. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Vinel, Françoise. “Le métier de scribe – un métier différent: quelques réflexions à partir de la version grecque de Siracide 38‒39.” Pages 127‒39 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Wischmeyer, Oda. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. BZNW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” Pages 76‒91 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Edited by Tessa Rajak et al. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Núria Calduch-Benages

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36) Abstract: Reading Bradley C. Gregory’s Like an Everlasting Signet Ring (2010), and more specifically the section 7.3.2 entitled “Almsgiving without limits,” prompted me to choose Sir 7:32‒36 as the text subject of this paper. In my view, this passage (cf. also Sir 4:1‒10; 12:1‒6; 29:8‒13) is well suited to the topic of the ISDCL Conference 2022 (What Makes a People). Being charitable towards the needy has always been, and still is, a religious duty for the faithful Jew. Conscious of his responsibility as a teacher, Ben Sira never misses an opportunity to inculcate the practice of charity among his disciples. Our aim is to show how the sage reads older texts and adapts them to his own agenda. Keywords: Ben Sira, generosity, charity, piety, poor, dead, end In the introduction to Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, Bradley Gregory states: The Second Temple period was the formative era for many of the theological dimensions of generosity found in late antiquity among Jews and Christians. In this regard the book of Sirach is a marvelous work for appreciating the way some Second Temple Jews appropriated earlier traditions about generosity and developed the theological dimensions that became foundational for later Jewish and Christian thinkers.1

Our study examines Sir 7:32‒36 as one of several texts on generosity in the book of Ben Sira. In this passage, the sage invites the disciples to abide by traditional Jewish practices of philanthropy, i.e., to care for the most neglected members of society: the poor, the bereaved, the afflicted and the sick.

1 The Hebrew text of Sir 7:32‒36 Until 2010 the Hebrew text of Sir 7:32‒36 was available only in MS A. In that year, among the materials in the Additional Series of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection at Cambridge University Library, Sara Cohen, a researcher at the Ezra Fleischer

1 Gregory, Signet Ring, 1. Note: I borrowed this expression from Gregory’s Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, 272. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-005

66 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

Institute for the Research of Hebrew Poetry in the Genizah, identified a fragment of MS D as containing Sir 7:18‒8:18 (T-S AS 118.78).2 The discovery was confirmed by the director of the Institute, Shulamit Elizur, who together with Michael Rand, published in 2011 a critical edition of the text.3 Whereas, on the one hand, the text of MS A helps to reconstruct the new fragment, which is badly damaged, it also, on the other hand, qualifies the value of the discovery since it has not brought to light any new text from Ben Sira’s book.4

1.1 Text, translation and notes Except for 7:35a (see note 5), I follow Elizur and Rand’s critical edition where the lacunae of MS D are restored from MS A (in squared brackets). For practical reasons, I add a slight graphic variation to the text: doubtful readings will be indicated with hollow letters instead of a dot above them. T-S AS 118.78 recto ‫ למען תשלם ברכתך‬/ ‫ וגם לאביו הוש טה יד‬7:32 ‫ וגם ממת [א]ל תמנע חסד‬/ ‫ תן מתן לפני כל חי‬7:33 ‫ ועם אבילים התאבל‬/ ‫ אל תתאחר מבוכים‬7:34 ]‫ כי ממנו תאהב‬/‫ [אל תשא לב מאוהב‬7:35 ]‫ ולעו] ל [שחת‬/ ‫ [בכ]ל [מעשיך זכור אחרית‬7:36 7:32 And also to the poor extend (your) hand, in order that your blessing may be complete. 7:33 Be generous (lit.: give a gift) to anyone alive, and even from the dead do not withhold (your) kindness. 7:34 Do not delay (helping) those who weep, and mourn with those who mourn. 7:35 Do not neglect to care for the sick,5 for in this way (lit. because of that) you will be loved. 7:36 In all your deeds, remember the consequences (lit. end), and you will (never) be corrupt/corrupted (or act corruptly).

2 T-S AS 118.78 recto (containing Sir 7:18‒8:1ab) and T-S AS 118.78 verso (containing Sir 8:1a1b1‒18). 3 Elizur and Rand, “New Fragment,” 202‒5. For an Italian translation with notes, cf. Palmisano, “Il nuovo frammento,” 47‒58. 4 Cf. Elizur and Rand, “New Fragment,” 202. 5 Our reconstruction: ‫( אל תמאן לבקר כואב‬see critical note on verse 35 below).

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 67

1.2 Critical notes Verse 32 The correct reading of ‫ לאביו‬is ‫לאביון‬. Against Adler (‫)תושיט‬,6 the new fragment confirms the reconstruction of the text (following Syr. and Gk.) by Lévi, Smend, Segal and, more recently, Morla Asensio (‫)הושיט‬.7 On the one hand, Gk. keeps the initial “and,” while Syr. omits it; on the other, both (and also Lat.) reproduce the suffixless ‫ יד‬as “your hand.” According to Penar, since ‫ יד‬is the name of a part of the body, there is no need to add any suffix. “Yet”, —he states— “it cannot be excluded that yd is modified by the suffix of brktk, ‘your donation’.”8 His translation of ‫ברכתך‬ depends on Gen 33:11; Josh 15:19; Jdg 1:15; 1 Sam 25:27; 30:26; 2 Kgs 5:15 and Prov 11:25, where ‫ ברכה‬bears the nuance “gift, donation.” Lat. reads propitiatio et benedictio. The addition propitiatio—Lévi suggests—“paraît provenir d’un mauvais exemplaire hébreu portant ‫כפרתך‬,” while for Peters it relies on Sir 3:14‒15.9

Verse 33 For Smend, followed by Box and Oesterley,10 the imperative ‫ תן‬should be replaced by ‫ חן‬which reflects Gk. and Syr. The Greek version reads: χάρις δόματος ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος (the grace/kindness of a gift is before everyone alive), and Syr. “For graciousness is a gift in the eyes of all creatures,”11 which points to ‫ בעיני‬instead of ‫לפני‬, according to Morla Asensio.12 The emendation, however, “creates an awkward parallelism,”—Gregory observes—“with the following colon, as can be seen in the translation of Box and Oesterley: ‘A gift is acceptable in the sight of every man living

6 Adler, “Missing Chapters,” 468. 7 Lévi, “Notes,” 3; idem, L’Ecclésiastique, 46; Smend, Weisheit, 73; Segal, Sēper, 47; Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69: the author published his edition in 2012 but he did not include the new discovery. 8 Penar, Philology, 24. 9 Lévi, “Notes,” 3; idem, L’Ecclésiastique, 47; Peters, Jesus Sirach, 74. 10 Smend, Weisheit, 73: “‫ ]חן‬ist falsch, denn den Gottlosen soll man nichts geben (12,1 ff.)”; Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 342. 11 Except in this case, all the translations from Syr. are from Calduch-Benages et al., Wisdom. 12 Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69 n. 3.

68 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

and also from the dead withhold not kindness’.”13 Therefore, with most commentators14 we accept the Hebrew text of MSS A and D as original.

Verse 34 In the first colon Syr. reads: “And do not tarry to (enter) a house of weeping,” which is, for Smend, an arbitrary translation and, for Morla Asensio, the rendering of a damaged text.15 To non desis plorantibus Lat. adds in conrogatione (in rogatione, in consolazione).16 In Box and Oesterley’s view, in conrogatione refers to the funeral feast.17 In the second colon, Syr. adds “all” (with “all” those who mourn) and Lat. reads et cum lugentibus ambula, which could reflect the Hebrew ‫התהלך‬.18

Verse 35 The first colon is completely damaged in MS D and garbled in MS A. Most commentators either follow the versions (Gk. μὴ ὄκνει ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ἄρρωστον ἄνθρωπον, “Do not hesitate to visit a sick person,” and Syr. “And do not be reluctant to visit the sick”)19 or reconstruct the Hebrew text from them in the following way20: ‫אל תמאן‬ ‫לבקר כואב‬. Instead of ‫כואב‬, Morla Asensio prefers the participle ‫ חולה‬because the LXX usually renders the verb ‫ חלה‬I with ἄρρωστος (1 Kgs 14:5; Mal 1:8).21 Mopsik, on the contrary, considers that the Hebrew text makes sense as it is and does not need to be modified: ‫“( אל תשא לב מאוהב‬Ne détache pas ton cœur d’un ami”).22 Of the same opinion is Sauer who, reading ‫ נׁשה‬instead of ‫תׁשא‬, translates: “Laß dein

13 Gregory, Signet Ring, 306. 14 Lévi, “Notes,” 3; idem, L’Ecclésiastique, 46; Peters, Jesus Sirach, 74; Segal, Sēper, 50; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 204; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 93; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54, Gregory, Signet Ring, 306. 15 Smend, Weisheit, 73; Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69 n. 5. 16 Thiele, Sirach, 326. 17 Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 342. 18 Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69 n. 6; Peters considers ambula as a secondary reading (Jesus Sirach, 74). 19 Cf. Peters, Jesus Sirach, 74; Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 170; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 204; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54. 20 Lévi, “Notes,” 3; idem, L’Ecclésiastique, 46 (followed by Smend, Weisheit, 73; Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 342 and Gregory, Signet Ring, 304). 21 Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69 n. 7. 22 Mopsik, Sagesse, 114 n. 3.

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 69

Herz nicht den Freund vergessen.”23 It is nonetheless indisputable that the mention of “a friend” does not fit into a context dealing with religious duties towards the poor and needy. That is the reason why I also opt for the reconstruction indicated above. As for ‫ ממנו‬in the second colon, there is no need (following Gk. and Syr.) to replace it with ‫מהם‬, because it has a neutral value (that, these things).24

Verse 36 In the first colon, the Gk. reads ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς λόγοις σου, “in all your words (or discourses).”25 Only two minuscule MSS (307 and 548), besides some patristic and medieval testimonies (Max. Dam. Anton.),26 render the Hebrew ‫מעשיך‬: ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις σου, “in all your deeds” (= Syr. and Lat.). In the second colon, the versions seem to translate a hypothetical ‫“( לא תחטא‬you will not sin”): οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεις (Gk.); l’ tḥṭ’ (Syr.); non peccabis (Lat.), which, according to Morla Asensio, is an ideological correction.27 Penar parses ‫ תשחת‬as denominative pual from ‫“( שחת‬pit”) and ‫עולם‬ as the divine epithet “the Eternal One” preceded by the preposition expressing the agent: “and you shall not be pitied by the Eternal”28—a unique reading that had no impact on the follow-up research.

2 The context of Sir 7:32‒36  Sir 7:32‒36 belongs to chapter 7 of Sirach. Placed after the third poem on wisdom (6:18‒37), Sirach 7 constitutes a well-defined literary and thematic unit made up of a series of maxims on personal, family, and social life. These maxims are formulated in negative (prohibitions) and in positive (exhortations).29 As Carlos Granados

23 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 93 n. 117 (following Segal, Sēper, 50). 24 Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 69 n. 8. For the opposite view, see Gregory, Signet Ring, 307. 25 This reading is followed by Marböck in his commentary (Jesus Sirach, 129, 130). 26 Maximus Confessor (PG 91:952); John Damascene (PG 96:436); Antonius Melissa (PG 136:948); cf. Ziegler, Sapientia, 161. 27 Morla Asensio, Los manuscritos hebreos, 70 n. 2. 28 Penar, Philology, 24. 29 This criterion is the basis for the division of the text proposed by Alonso Schökel: 7:1‒21, negative series and 7:22‒36, positive series (Eclesiástico, 166‒70). According to Reiterer, Sir 7 (if vv. 1‒2 and 36 are set aside) is composed of two large units (7:3‒20 and 7:21‒35), whose stanzas are partially articulated in a chiastic manner (“Gott,” 140‒1). His proposal is unconvincing, especially since it separates v. 20 from v. 21, both of which are devoted to dealing with the servant.

70 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

has shown, this chapter is a diptych that is composed of two distinct but semantically connected tablets: 7:4‒17 (on the relationship with oneself and with God) and 7:18‒35 (on family relationships and religious duties).30 While the first tablet accentuates the theme of pride (vv. 6, 11, 17), the second highlights the theme of love (vv. 18, 21, 30, 35ab). Verses 1‒3 are a thematic introduction and v. 36 is the final conclusion, which has been anticipated in 7:17, a verse that functions as a hinge between the two tablets.31 Most authors defend the bipartite structure of the chapter (vv. 1‒17 and vv. 18‒36),32 although without separating vv. 1‒3 from the first part.33 The second tablet of the diptych, i.e. 7:18‒36, contains some advice concerning family life (vv. 18‒28), divine cult (vv. 29‒31) and service to one’s neighbor (vv. 32‒35), culminating in the lapidary plea of v. 36. Before concentrating on the study of 7:32‒36, I would like to underline the position that verses 32‒35 occupy within the passage. The fact that solidarity with the poor and unfortunate is mentioned after responsibilities to the family, God and the priests, and just before the concluding maxim of the entire chapter, is a clear indicator of the importance that the sage attributes to it in his teaching. Indeed, according to Gregory, “almsgiving was, for Ben Sira, an integral and central action for addressing social injustices”34 (cf. Sir 3:30‒4:10; 29:8‒13).

3 Analysis of Sir 7:32‒35 The small section formed by vv. 32‒35 begins with ‫“( וגם‬and also”), a connector that highlights their close relationship with the previous passage.35 The religious duties to God and the priests mentioned in the preceding pericope (vv. 29‒31) also include care for the most disadvantaged members of society (vv. 32‒35).36 In other words, the various responsibilities, although belonging to different spheres, share

30 The same structure was proposed by Stadelmann (Schriftgelehrter, 56‒8). 31 Cf. Granados García, “La humildad,” 158. 32 On the first part, cf. Beentjes, “Jesus Sirach 7:1‒17,” 251‒9. 33 Peters, Jesus Sirach, 65 and 69; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 133, n. 26; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 196 and 201; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 124. Different divisions are proposed by Sauer (Jesus Sirach, 86‒95): vv. 1‒17; 18‒28; 29‒31; 32‒36 (4 parts) and Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 48‒54): vv. 1‒17; 18‒28; 29‒36 (three parts). 34 Gregory, Signet Ring, 263. 35 Goering, Wisdom’s Root, 169; Gregory, Signet Ring, 270. 36 Alonso Schökel comments: “Por el contenido 29‒31 y 32‒35 representan las «dos tablas» [de la Ley]: servicio a Dios o culto y servicio al prójimo o caridad; dos mandamientos, y el segundo es semejante al primero” (Eclesiástico, 169).

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 71

the same religious dimension. As Gregory puts it, “they are viewed as theologically complementary.”37 From the formal point of view, our text presents a very careful structure containing three exhortations, three prohibitions, and two subordinate clauses. Interestingly, the first (v. 32) and the last verse (v. 35) are composed of an exhortation followed by a final subordinate clause (introduced by ‫ )למען‬and a prohibition followed by a causal subordinate clause (introduced by ‫ )כי‬respectively. The central verses (33‒34) are disposed chiastically:38 an exhortation (a) coordinated with a prohibition (b) and a prohibition (b′) coordinated with an exhortation (a′), as shown in the following table: v. 32 v. 33 v. 34 v. 35

Extend your hand (+) Give a gift (+) a Do not delay (-) b′ Do not neglect (-)

in order that. . . and do not withhold (-) b and mourn (+) a′ for. . .

From a thematic point of view, the second cola of v. 32 and v. 35 recall each other through the mention of ‫ברכתך‬, “your benediction” (32b) and ‫תאהב‬, “you will be loved” (35b). Both benediction and love are the reward for generous behavior towards the needy.

3.1 Kindness to the poor (v. 32) ‫וגם לאביון הוש טה יד‬ ‫למען תשלם ברכתך‬

32a 32b

And also to the poor extend (your) hand, in order that your blessing may be complete.

After recommending generosity to the priests, Ben Sira now recommends generosity to the poor. Both groups are considered by the sage as representatives of God: “To honor God one must place a gift in the hands of his proxies.”39 It is not the first, nor the last, time that Ben Sira faces the question of almsgiving in his book. He has already dealt with it in 3:30‒4:10 and will do so again in 12:1‒6; 18:15‒18 and 29:8‒13. However, the message conveyed by these texts is sometimes contradictory, since, although in most of them it is understood that anyone in need should be helped, in Sir 12:1‒6 some people are excluded because of their reprehensible 37 Gregory, Signet Ring, 293. 38 Di Lella notes the chiastic structure only of v. 33 (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 207). 39 Gregory, Signet Ring, 270.

72 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

behavior. Faced with this dilemma, it is logical for the reader to ask him/herself: which is Ben Sira’s teaching? Should we be generous to anyone in need or only to some types of poor people? In other words, does generosity have limits? According to Gregory, “this tension regarding the recipients of almsgiving is best explained by recognizing that Ben Sira understands the treatment of the poor through the ethical paradigm of imitatio Dei.”40 But let us look at our text. Ben Sira’s teaching in 7:32, in tune with 4:1‒10 and 29:8‒13, leaves no room for doubt. Here ‫( אביון‬the poor) stands for all the needy, without distinction or condition, whether wicked or arrogant (cf. by contrast 12:1‒6). Ben Sira seems to have been inspired by some texts of the Deuteronomic legislation, where the rights of the weakest categories of society are preserved: the orphan, the widow, the stranger (gēr), and the Levite. To them not only the triennial tithe is destined (Deut 14:28‒29; 26:12‒13), but they are also allowed to gather the sheaves forgotten in the field after the reaping of the harvest as well as to glean the olive trees and the vineyards (Deut 24:19‒22). In the second colon, Ben Sira mentions the impact of almsgiving on the giver (cf. Sir 4:10cd; 29:11‒13) who will be blessed by God. In order that the divine blessing be complete, besides being generous to the priests, the giver must also be generous to the poor “for God has a special love for them and protects them.”41 Kindness to the poor completes the blessing as it is promised in Deut 14:29: [. . .] “so that the Lord your God may bless you (‫ )יברכך‬in all the work of your hand that you do.” Lastly, what Ben Sira recommends in 7:32 is what the worthy woman of Prov 31:10‒31 is used to doing in her daily life: “She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy” (v. 20).42 Unlike the author of our text, she is not said to be blessed by God—although surely she is!—but is called blessed by her children and praised by her husband.

3.2 Unlimited generosity (v. 33) ‫תן מתן לפני כל חי‬ ‫וגם ממת [א]ל תמנע חסד‬

33a 33b

Be generous (lit.: give a gift) to anyone alive and even from the dead do not withhold (your) kindness.

Ben Sira goes further in his argument: generosity is not limited to the poor but should be extended to everyone (‫ )כל חי‬without any distinction or condition. It does 40 Gregory, Signet Ring, 254. 41 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 207. 42 Cf. Mopsik, Sagesse, 113, n. 3.

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 73

not matter whether the person is alive or dead, charity is due to all. Nobody is excluded, not even the dead. With this merism (the living and the dead), the sage reinforces the idea of charity without limits.43 Moreover, as Gregory rightly notes, “The mention of acting kindly towards the dead is notable since the dead would be unable to repay in any way. The only repayment that could be anticipated would be a blessing from God.”44 Whereas the general meaning of the verse is clear, in the second colon there remains a problem to be solved, i.e., how to understand ‫חסד‬, a key term in the Bible’s ethical-religious vocabulary, which is usually translated by kindness, charity, generosity, compassion, faithfulness or piety, among others. What, specifically, does it mean to have mercy on the dead? Ben Sira does not offer any indication in this regard and, therefore, we can only offer some hypotheses. First, ‫ חסד‬can refer to the “bread of consolation” that is shared in a funerary banquet (cf. Jer 16:7; Ezek 24:17, 22; Deut 26:13‒14)—an ancient custom that was still in use in Hellenistic times. Second, it can also refer to the offerings of food that were placed on the tombs as a mark of affection towards the deceased, as attested in the Greek (and Syriac) version of Sir 30:18: “Good things set before a mouth that is shut (are like) food offerings placed before a tomb.”45 Tob 4:17 and Ahiqar 2:13 also seem to allude to this practice. Third—and this is our choice—‫ חסד‬can simply be understood as providing a proper burial and mourning for the dead (cf. Deut 21:22‒23; Tob 1:16‒18; 2:4, 8; 4:3‒4; 12:12).46 In this respect, it is worth mentioning that in Sir 38:16‒23—an instruction on mourning for the dead—Ben Sira mentions neither funerary banquet nor food offerings, but the traditional mourning rites: weeping, wailing, and lamenting bitterly (v. 16). Another alternative is, according to Gregory, “that Ben Sira is thinking of burial rites for the poor, whose family may not have had the means or opportunity to give them a proper burial.”47 Kindness towards the dead might also include taking food to the relatives of the deceased or even helping them financially, as suggested by Sauer and Schreiner in their respec43 According to Di Lella, “The point is that one should help all the poor, those who are living and those who have died. By combining the living and the dead, Ben Sira creates a merism to include every poor person who is or who was” (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 207). See also, Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54. 44 Gregory, Signet Ring, 271. 45 MS B introduces the issue of idolatry in tune with the context (30:19): “so is an offering placed before the simulacrum of an idol” (v. 18b). Gk. and Syr. probably read ‫( ּג ֵֹלל‬rolling stone closing the entrance to a tomb) instead of ‫( ּגִ ּלּול‬idol). See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 379; Mopsik, Sagesse, 180, n. 2; Palmisano, Siracide, 281. 46 Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 54; Mopsik, Sagesse, 114, continuation of note 5. For burial and almsgiving in Tobit, see Macatangay, When I Die. 47 Gregory, Signet Ring, 271; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 208.

74 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

tive commentaries.48 Lastly, it is worth mentioning that in the Talmud the duties towards the dead are considered acts of loving kindness, i.e. ‫( ּגְ ִמילּות ֲח ָס ִדים‬b. Soṭah 14a; Gen. Rab. 96).49

3.3 Comforting the bereaved (v. 34) ‫אל תתאחר מבוכים‬ ‫ועם אבילים התאבל‬

34a 34b

Do not delay (helping) those who weep, and mourn with those who mourn.

The reality of death evoked in 33b is still present in v. 34 where Ben Sira offers instruction on how to act with the bereaved. Before the grief of those who have lost a loved one, one should not withdraw but show solidarity with them (cf. Job 30:25; and in the NT, Rom 12:15). The Syriac version is much more specific: solidarity consists in visiting the bereaved (lit. “a house of weeping”). Furthermore, the sage recommends sharing the grief of the mourners by mourning with them. This advice reappears, although in a different context, in 22:11‒12 (“Weep over the dead, for his light has gone out. . .”) and in 38:16ab (“My son, shed tears for one who is dead with wailing and bitter lament”).50 The same issue is developed in b. Šabb. 105b, a Talmudic passage in which the rabbis discuss whether rending your garment, in response to the news of the death of a loved one, is permissible on Shabbat.51

3.4 Care for the sick (v. 35) ‫אל תמאן לבקר כואב‬ ‫כי ממנו תאהב‬

35a 35b

Do not neglect to care for the sick, for in this way (lit. because of that) you will be loved.

After mentioning obligations towards the bereaved, Ben Sira urges his disciples to care for the sick, which has always been considered “as a paramount duty among the Jews.”52 Compared to the poor, for example, the sick occupy little space in the book of Ben Sira (cf. 18:21; 38:9). Nevertheless, their mention in this passage acquires special relevance because care for the sick concludes a list containing the 48 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 94; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54. 49 Lévi, “Notes,” 3; idem, L’Ecclésiastique, 46‒7. 50 The translations are taken from Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 306 and 439. 51 Mopsik, Sagesse, 114, n. 1. 52 Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 342.

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 75

major responsibilities towards one’s neighbor. According to the doctrine of retribution, the sick person is the victim of his/her own impiety and the object of divine wrath (cf. the discourses of Job’s friends). Therefore, comments V. Morla Asensio, “Ben Sira’s advice oozes humanism and goes beyond the simple work of mercy. The fear of ‘being contaminated’ must be overcome.”53. Ultimately, the person who visits the sick person puts into practice the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18) and, as a reward, is loved (by God) in return. As we mentioned earlier, “being loved” relates back to “your blessing” of Sir 7:32. Our text is thus framed by two rewards coming from God, namely, blessing and love. In this way, from the beginning until the end, the disciple is strongly motivated to follow the teaching of the sage. In post-biblical literature, the responsibility of visiting the sick is felt to be particularly urgent and fundamental. R. Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: “Anyone who visits an ill person takes from him one-sixtieth of his suffering” (b. Ned. 39b) and later R. Akiva declared: “With regard to anyone who does not visit the ill, it is as though he is spilling blood” (b. Ned. 40a).54

4 Analysis of Sir 7:36 ‫[בכ[ל [מעשיך זכור אחרית‬ [‫ולעו[ ל [שחת‬

36a 36b

In all your deeds, remember the consequences, and you will never be corrupted/act corruptly.

After the promise of reward, Ben Sira brings to a close his instruction with “a general exhortation of overwhelming persuasiveness”55 which forms an inclusion with Sir 7:1‒3 on the consequences of wrongdoing (cf. the presence of the root ‫עׂשה‬ in 7:1: ‫ תעש‬and in 7:36: ‫)מעשיך‬. Linking back to 7:1‒3, Ben Sira teaches in 7:36 that to refrain from evil and unrighteousness, one must always consider the consequences of one’s actions. The use of ‫ כל‬at the beginning of the first colon emphasizes the conclusive character of the verse. Sir 7:36 has always challenged scholars because of difficulties in interpretation and translation. The main problem of this verse is the meaning of ‫ אחרית‬in the first colon and that of ‫ ׁשחת‬in the second. How are these terms to be understood and 53 Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 54: “El consejo de Ben Sira rezuma humanismo y va más allá de la simple obra de misericordia. Hay que superar el miedo al ‘contagio’.”; cf. Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 169. 54 Cf. also b. B. Qam. 100a; in b. Sukkah 41b, visiting the sick and comforting the bereaved are juxtaposed (cf. Mopsik, Sagesse, 114, n. 3). In the NT see Matt 25:31‒46. 55 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 208.

76 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

translated? Let’s begin with ‫אחרית‬. In DCLY 2020/2021, Pancratius Beentjes studies the 12 occurrences of ‫ אחרית‬in Sirach56 reaching the conclusion that instead of rendering it as “end” or “future”, is preferable to use the expression “what comes after.” He adduces that this more neutral rendering leaves open the possibility of all nuances in meaning, which will have to be accurately established in each specific case depending on the context: “end” (3:26; 11:25; 11:28; 32:21 MSS E, F), “future” (48:24), “consequence” (7:36; 12:11), “what comes after” (38:20), “finally” (31:22), and “posterity/descendants” (16:3; 25:7; 32:2157 MS B1).58 As regards the meaning of ‫ אחרית‬in Sir 7:36 scholars have different opinions. Penar, for instance, interprets ‫ אחרית‬as the “afterlife.”59 This eschatological meaning (cf. Gk. τὰ ἔσχατα σου and Lat. novissima tua) most certainly does not accord with the ideas of the sage for whom there is no life for the body or soul after death, since everything ends in She’ol, the world of the dead (cf. 10:11; 14:11‒19; 38:16‒23; 40:1‒17; 41:1‒4). Whereas most commentators60 render ‫ אחרית‬as the “end” signifying the end of one’s life, Gregory61 (following Fang Che-Yong’s 1962 article)62 defends its ambiguity. According to him, ‫ אחרית‬can refer either to the future, especially the day of death, or to the outcome of one’s actions. As both meanings interpenetrate the text there is no need to choose or exclude one of them. A different opinion is expressed by Beentjes, who, in line with Lévi, translates ‫אחרית‬ with “consequences.”63 This is also our reading. In the light of the inclusion with Sir 7:1‒3, ‫( זכור אחרית‬μιμνῄσκου τὰ ἔσχατα)64 refers to the consequences or effects of each human action. Metaphorically speaking, it is a matter of harvesting what one has sown.65 The same idea is also found in Der. ‘Er. Zuṭ. 2.9: “If you want to keep

56 Sir 3:26 MS A; 7:36 MSS A, D; 11:25(27) MS A; 12:11 MS A; 16:3cg MSS A, B; 25:7 MS C; 31:22 MS B; 32:21 MSS B, E, F; 38:20 MS B; 48:24 MS B. 57 In 32:21 MS B has a twofold textual form: MS B2 (the original text) reads ‫( ובארחתיך‬on your paths) instead of ‫( ובאחריתך‬for your posterity), which is a reading error, cf. Mopsik, Sagesse, 195, n. 4; Beentjes, “Aspects,” 394, and by contrast Di Lella, “Sixth Manuscript,” 236. 58 Cf. Beentjes, “Aspects,” 398. 59 Penar, Philology, 24. 60 Peters, Jesus Sirach, 74; Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 342; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 208; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 94; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54; Mopsik, Sagesse, 115, n. 1; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 134. 61 Gregory, Signet Ring, 272. 62 Fang Che-Yong, “Sir 7,36✶,” 21‒22, 25. Cf. also his 1963 article where he interprets ‫ זכור אחרית‬as curam habe de futuro (Fang Che-Yong, “Ben Sira,” 21). 63 Beentjes, “Aspects,” 390‒1; Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 47. 64 Cf. Sir 38:20: ‫( זכור אחרית‬μνησθεὶς τὰ ἔσχατα) and 28:6: μνήσθητι τὰ ἔσχατα (Heb. non extant). 65 Cf. Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 170.

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 77

away from sin, go, reflect and consider its consequences well” (cf. also Der. ‘Er. Rab. 3.1 and m. Pirqe Pirqe ’Abot 2.1; 3.1).66 The meaning of ‫ ׁשחת‬also poses some interpretive problems. In the Hebrew Bible, this verb has a twofold meaning: “spoil, ruin, destroy” (Gen 13:10; Exod 21:26; Mal 3:11) in a physical sense and “be corrupted, perverted” in a moral sense (Gen 6:12; Ezek 20:44). It is also used in Sirach in this way: in 8:18; 12:11; 19:3 and 44:18 ‫ ׁשחת‬has a physical connotation, while in 5:15; 6:4; 9:8; 10:3 and 49:4 it denotes moral corruption. According to Gregory (in line with Fang Che-Yong), both meanings coexist in our text. This intentional ambiguity, as in the case of ‫אחרית‬, “would provide a fitting conclusion to 7:18‒35 in which practical and moral dimensions are not really distinguishable.”67 While admitting some sense of ambiguity in the verse, the intrinsic relationship between 7:1‒3 (the introduction of chapter 7) and 7:36 (its conclusion) leads us to interpret ‫ ׁשחת‬in a moral sense: be corrupt/corrupted or do/ act corruptly (cf. 30:11: ‫שחיתותי‬, corrupt acts, misdeeds, follies).68

5 Conclusion Sirach 7 ends with a “catalogue of generosity” which shows how important almsgiving was in Ben Sira’s ethical teaching and its close relationship with the support of priesthood. Honoring the priests and generosity to the poor are, in Gregory’s view, “Torah demands” that can be considered “as an ethic of imitatio sapientiae.”69 In other words, supporting the cult and the poor are two paths that lead the disciple to Wisdom. Ben Sira’s catalogue of generosity is not unique. Similar lists can be found in the Hebrew Bible,70 in the pseudepigraphal literature,71 in the New Testament,72 in some early Christian writings73 and in the rabbinic tradition.74 A common char-

66 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 48; Mopsik, Sagesse, 115, n. 2. 67 Fang Che-Yong, “Sir 7,36✶,” 24‒6; Gregory, Signet Ring, 272‒3. 68 Several authors, however, prefer to follow the Gk. (οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεις) and translate ‫ ׁשחת‬as “you will not sin”; cf. Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 170; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 204; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 54: he translates “so wirst du niemals sündigen,” but adds in a note “sündigen, wörtlich: ‘verderblich handeln’.” See also Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 129. 69 Gregory, Signet Ring, 294. 70 Cf., for instance, Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7, 16; Job 22:6‒9; 31:16‒20; Tob 1:17; 4:16. 71 Cf. T. Jac. 2:23; 4 Ezra 2:20; 2 En. 9:1; 63:1; Sib. Or. 2:89‒104. 72 Matt 25:31‒46. 73 Cf. 1 Clem. 59:4; Herm. Mand. 8:10; Justin, 1 Apol. 67:6. 74 Cf. b. Šabb. 127a; b. Soṭah 14a; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 34:6.

78 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

acteristic of these catalogues is that they do not pretend to be exhaustive. They mention only some examples of gratuitous love for the needy, living or dead. A few examples are sufficient to encourage generosity towards one’s neighbor. Coming back to our text, we have seen that Ben Sira, relying on the old biblical tradition, admonishes the disciple to give to the poor, to be generous with everybody (the alive and the dead), to comfort the afflicted and the bereaved (perhaps carrying out a proper burial for the deceased and performing the mourning rites), and to care for the sick. Like the other catalogues, the one in Sir 7:32‒35 is a literary device to express totality in a rhetorical manner. Paradoxically, through piling up different actions via a paratactical logic, the catalogue becomes a metaphor of wholeness. Consequently, the works of mercy, which Ben Sira mentions, not only respond to the needs of certain groups of vulnerable people but embrace all the possible expressions of solidarity among human beings. In short, the faithful Jew who wishes to attain wisdom cannot avoid responsibilities to the poor and unfortunate. Deeply rooted in biblical traditions, almsgiving is an essential component of Ben Sira’s teaching.

Bibliography Adler, Elkan N. “Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1900): 466‒80. Alonso Schökel, Luis. Proverbios y Eclesiástico. Los Libros Sagrados 8/1. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1968. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Jesus Sirach 7:1‒17. Kanttekeningen bij de structuur en de tekst van een verwaarloosde passage.” Bijdr 41 (1980): 251‒59. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬.” Pages 387‒401 in Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew J. Goff. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Box, George H. and William O.E. Oesterley. “The Book of Sirach.” Pages 268‒517 in APOT 1. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano con traducción española e inglesa. Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. 2nd rev. ed. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2015. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Bib 69 (1988): 226‒38. Elizur, Shulamit and Michael Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18 (2011): 202‒5. Fang Che-Yong, Marcus. “Ben Sira de novissimis hominis.” VD 41 (1963): 21‒38. Fang Che-Yong, Marcus. “Sir 7,36✶ (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem.” VD 40 (1962): 18‒26. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJ Supplements 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Ben Sira’s Catalogue of Generosity (Sir 7:32‒36)  

 79

Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring. Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Granados García, Carlos. “La humildad, camino del amor. Análisis estructural y semántico de Sir 7.” EstBib 62 (2004): 155‒69. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967. Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité traduit et commenté. Deuxième partie (III,6, à XVI,26; extraits de XVIII, XIX, XXV et XXVI; XXXI,11, à XXXIII,3; XXXV,19, à XXXVIII,27; XLIX,11, à fin.). BEHER 10/2. Paris: Leroux, 1901. Lévi, Israel. “Notes sur les Ch. VII. 29–XII.1 de Ben Sira édités par M. Elkan N. Adler.” JQR 13 (1900‒1901): 1‒17. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well. Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016. Marböck, Johannes. Jesus Sirach 1‒23. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. Mopsik, Charles. La Sagesse de ben Sira. Traduction de l’hébreu, introduction et annotation. Les dix paroles. Paris: Verdier, 2005. Morla Asensio, Víctor. Eclesiástico. Texto y comentario. El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992. Morla Asensio, Víctor. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira. Tradución y notas. Monografías. Asociación Bíblica Española 59. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2012. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Il nuovo frammento ebraico del libro di Ben Sira (ms. D) e l’elenco completo di tutti i manoscritti ebraici ritrovati e del loro contenuto.” Bogoslovni vestnik 73 (2013): 47‒58. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi 34. Cinisello Balsamo (Milano): San Paolo, 2016. Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira. BibOr 28. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1975. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Gott und Opfer.” Pages 136‒79 and 371‒4 in Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schreiner, Josef. Jesus Sirach 1‒24. NEchtB. Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 3. Würzburg: Echter, 2002. Segal, Moshe Z. Sēper ben-Sirā' haššālēm. 4th ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolph. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sōfēr unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum. WUNT 2/6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Thiele, Walter. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). VL 11/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1987‒2005. Ziegler, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. 2nd rev. ed. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Severino Bussino

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23): Political Intelligence in the Book of Ben Sira Abstract: In at least three passages, Sir 10:3; 16:4; 37:23, the sage, Ben Sira, explicitly offers a reflection on the wisdom required to rule over people. In this study, we analyze these passages and their role in the overall teaching of Ben Sira. We will also focus on the theme of politics and the concept of authority in these texts. Keywords: Ben Sira, Wisdom books, people, politics, society

1 Introduction What people esteem in a politician depends on their underlying anthropology, their vision of society, and the success of personal relationships. In addition, different ages define in their own way the specific qualities of a politician. This work aims to explore Ben Sira’s teaching on the connection between a ruler and his subjects and how political intelligence plays a role in making a people. The first part of this study is devoted to an analysis of three specific passages in the Book of Ben Sira,1 Sir 10:3; 16:4; 37:23, that directly address the topic of our research. The second part presents the effect of such an analysis within the teaching of Ben Sira. In the third part, we briefly compare the message of Ben Sira with similar reflections found in the Books of Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon. Finally, we will highlight the most relevant aspects of the way Ben Sira understands politics and its role in society.

1 As far as the Book of Ben Sira is concerned, the Hebrew text is cited using the publication of the original manuscripts by Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira. The Syriac text (Syr) and its translation are from the edition of Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La Sabiduría. The English translations of all the biblical texts are substantially based on the NRSV. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-006

82 

 Severino Bussino

2 Analysis of three main texts We study the three passages of Ben Sira, Sir 10:3; 16:4, and 37:23 by discussing the vocabulary and the structure of each text, its place and its role in the immediate context, and its message.

2.1 Through the understanding of the rulers: Sir 10:3 2.1.1 The text of Sir 10:3 Sir 10:3 is known in the redaction of MS A. This is the text and its translation: ‫מלך פרוע ישחית עיר‬ ‫נֹושבת בשכל שריה‬ ֶ ‫ועיר‬ An unrestrained king destroys a city but a city is made firm by the understanding of its princes.

As suggested by many scholars,2 the copyist confused ‫ עם‬with ‫ עיר‬at the end of the first stich, perhaps because of the occurrence of ‫ עיר‬at the beginning of the next stich. The Greek has τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, followed by the Latin, populum suum, and so the Syriac, ‫ܥܡܗ‬. Sir 10:3 is constructed with care and shows a very elegant chiasmus: a b c d d' c' b' a'

‫( מלך‬king) ‫( פרוע‬unrestrained) ‫( ישחית‬destroys) ‫עיר‬/‫( עם‬city/people) ‫( ועיר‬city) ‫נֹושבת‬ ֶ (is made firm) ‫( בשכל‬understanding) ‫( שריה‬princess)

In the structure of Sir 10:3ab, the more external pair of words has the same meaning, as does the more internal one, while the two middle pairs are antonymic. These stylistic arrangements enahnce the communicative strength of the text. The substantive ‫( מלך‬13x in Ben Sira) is used in Sir 7:4, 5 in parallel with God, to indicate that in front of both God and a king, everyone must be humble. In Sir

2 So Smend, Weisheit. . .erklärt, 89; idem, Weisheit, 10 (Hebrew) and 16 (German); Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 222‒23, but not Peters, Buch, 85, and Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 104.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 83

10:10 and 48:6 an image of the precariousness of life is drawn, because kings will also perish and die. The corresponding parallel term ‫ שר‬occurs 8x in Ben Sira: in Sir 33:19 and 44:4 it explicitly refers to the task of guiding the people. The substantive ‫ עם‬will be studied in more detail in paragraph 3.2. The noun ‫( עיר‬13x in Ben Sira) is found also in Sir 10:2; 16:4, and 40:19 with the same meaning as in our text. In Sir 51:12 God himself builds his city. The verb ‫( ׁשחת‬11x in Ben Sira) is also used in Sir 5:5; 6:4, and 19:3 to denote the disruptive consequence of bad behavior. In Sir 49:4 the people bear the negative consequences of having had bad kings. The word ‫ שכל‬occurs 14x in Ben Sira but is not used elsewhere with the preposition ‫ב‬. In the MT this construction occurs only in 1 Chr 26:14, but not with an instrumental value. The term ‫ פרוע‬is a participial passive form of the verb 1‫פרע‬, which occurs 7x in Ben Sira and 16x in the MT. The term indicates something out of control, without constraints, and may be applied to the duty of covering the head in case of leprosy, without leaving the hair free (Lev 13:45; 21:10), to the people let run wild by Aaron (cf. Exod 5:4; 32:25), or to the behavior without restraint of King Ahaz (cf. 2 Chr 28:19). In Ezek 24:14 it is God himself who is without restraint in his intention to judge the people. The specific form used in our text occurs in Exod 32:25, where it is applied to the people “running wild,” and in Lev 13:45. Here Ben Sira ascribes to the king an unpleasant characteristic that is commonly—but not exclusively—used for the people. In Proverbs the verb ‫ פרע‬refers to the personal behavior of a human being (cf. Prov 13:18; 15:32; 29:18). In our text the two perspectives are linked to each other: the libertine conduct of the individual will lead the people itself to be unrestrained. In Sir 46:7 this term is applied to the people. So, Ben Sira again connects the personal aspect of the king’s conduct with its more general consequences on the life of the people, as the use of the verb ‫ ׁשחת‬has already suggested. The last term to be analyzed is ‫נֹושבת‬, ֶ antonymic to ‫שחית‬, from the verb ‫ישב‬, which occurs 19x in Ben Sira. In the same form it occurs only in Sir 43:4 and, in the MT, in Exod 16:35 and 26:17. The same verb is found also in the previous dystich in Sir 10:2, and in 16:4. In Sir 11:1 it is Wisdom which “settles,” ‫תשיבנו‬, the poor man among the great.

2.1.2 The context: Sir 9:17‒11:6 The context in which this distich is included, Sir 9:17‒11:6, has been studied in detail by various scholars.3 Taking into account their suggestions, Sir 10:1‒3 is a

3 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht; Prato, Il Problema; Gilbert, “Wisdom;” Calduch-Benages, “Fear.”

84 

 Severino Bussino

smaller set of verses in which Sir 10:3 is included. Herewith the text and its translation: MS A

1

2

3

‫שופט עם יוסר עמו‬ ‫מבין סרֹי ֹדה‬ ִ ‫וממשלת‬ ‫יציו‬ ָ ‫שֹופט ָעם ֵכן ְמ ִל‬ ֵ ‫ְכ‬ ‫יֹוׁש ָביו‬ ְ ‫ּוכרֹאׁש ִעיר ֵכן‬ ְ ‫מלך פרוע ישחית עמו‬ ‫נֹושבת בשכל שריה‬ ֶ ‫ועיר‬

1 2 3

The magistrate of the people lends stability to his people, and the government of a prudent person is well ordered. As the people’s judge is, so are his ministers; as the head of a city, its inhabitants. An unrestrained king destroys his people but a city is made firm by the understanding of its princes.

The structure of Sir 10:1‒3, crafted with care, is refined and essential. Terms belonging to four different semantic fields, including also antithetic terms, are used to build the whole structure: i) ‫( שופט‬1a; 2a); ‫( וממשלת‬1b); ‫( כרֹאׁש‬2b); ‫( מלך‬3a); ‫( שריה‬3b) ii) ‫( עם‬1a[2x]; 2a; 3a); ‫( עיר‬1a; 2a); ‫יציו‬ ָ ‫( ְמ ִל‬2a); ‫יֹוׁש ָביו‬ ְ (2b) iii) ‫מבין‬ ִ (1b); ‫( בשכל‬3b); ‫( סרֹי ֹדה‬1a); antithetic ‫( פרוע‬3a) iv) ‫( יוסר‬1a); ‫נֹושבת‬ ֶ (3b); antithetic ‫( ישחית‬3a) The use of terms with the same meaning enforces the message while the use of synonyms expresses it in a more elegant way, avoiding repetitions and adding new nuances to the expression. The organization of the three distichs also displays a two-level chiastic structure:

Each of first two distichs, Sir 10:1 and 10:2, shows a parallel structure, because the word order is the same in the first and in the second stich. This correspondence is

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 85

not perfect in 1b, which is a little shorter and more immediate than the other three stichs, 1a, 2a and 2b. With regard to the meaning, the first distich, Sir 10:1, highlights the same positive message in each of the two stichs 1a and 1b, while the subsequent distich, Sir 10:2, is neutral and with a progression: the judge (2a), his ministers (2a), the head of a city (2b), the whole people (2b). The third distich, Sir 10:3, is antithetic in meaning, because Sir 10:3a is negative while 10:3b is positive and shows a distinct chiasm in its structure: ruler–verb–people—people–verb–ruler. Finally, the first and the last distichs recall each other, as to meaning and structure. The stichs 1a and 3b are both positive in meaning, so that the conclusion enforces the opening statement, while the order of the words constitutes a chiasm: ruler–verb–people—people–verb–ruler. The other two distichs, 1b and 3a, are antithetic in meaning while parallel in structure: ruler–quality–verb/ consequence— ruler–quality–verb/consequence. The word ‫( ממשלה‬5x in Ben Sira) occurs in Sir 10:1, 4, 5, acting as a mot-crochet between Sir 10:1‒3 and 10:4, 5. In Sir 10:1‒3 the subject is the ruler while in Sir 10:4‒5 the subject is God: this correspondence highlights the relationship between the kingship of God and the role of the king. Two other terms specific to this section are the various forms of the root ‫גאו‬ and the verb ‫כבד‬. They are subtly related to one another because they reflect the evaluation of the worthiness of a human, or of one wrongly presumed to be worthy. The various forms of the root ‫ גאו‬occur 6x4 in Sir 9:17‒11:6 (12x in Ben Sira). The verb ‫ כבד‬occurs 16x5 in this same section, almost all the occurrences in the whole book (27x). The root ‫ גאו‬occurs only in Sir 9:17‒10:18, where terms from the same semantic field of ‫ משל‬are also used, while the verb ‫ כבד‬is used only in Sir 10:19‒11:6, where, in contrast, the root ‫ משל‬is absent. God is the logical and active subject only in Sir 9:17‒10:18, while in the following section Sir 10:19‒11:6 the names of God occur only after a construct state, and refer, for example to the fear of God (Sir 10:20, 22, 24) or to his works (Sir 11:4).

2.1.3 The message of Sir 10:3 The first indication concerning the message of Sir 10:3 may be detected in the vocabulary of the unit Sir 10:1‒3, which is semantically constructed from variations of only four terms: king, people, to establish/destroy, wise/foolish. The text

4 1x ‫ּגָ ָאה‬: 10:9; 1x ‫ּגֵ ֶאה‬: 10:14; 3x ‫ּגַ ֲאוָ ה‬: 10:6 (A), 7 (A), 8 (A); 1x 10:12 :‫( ּגָ אֹון‬A). 5 Sir 10:19(A), 20 (A, B[2x]), 23 (A, B), 24 (A, B), 26 (A, B), 27 (A, B), 28 (A, B), 29 (A, B), 30 (2x)(A, B), 31 (3x)(A, B); 11:6 (A, B[2x]).

86 

 Severino Bussino

informs the reader that these four elements are the reference points of the topic under discussion. The use of parallelism enforces the statements that a wise ruler establishes his people, while the antithetic structure of 10:3a underlines the fact that the consequences of government by an unrestrained king can only be negative and will destroy the people instead of securing the city. The second element arises out of the use of the root ‫ גאו‬and the verb ‫כבד‬. The king’s human arrogance derives from a mistaken evaluation of his role as a ruler because he forgets that kingship comes from God, as underlined in Sir 10:4‒5, the only passages in this section where God plays an active role. If ‫ גאו‬represents a misguided understanding of the role of a human being as a ruler, a correct relationship with God and a fear of Him are sources of authentic honor. Therefore, when the ruler is unrestricted and fails to attain the correct perception of his role in relation to God, the people also suffer the consequences and are destroyed. In this play concerning a king and the inhabitants of a city, only a ruler who is conscious of God as a source of his power can provide his people with a firm foundation.

2.2 Intelligent to people’s advantage: Sir 16:4 2.2.1 The text of Sir 16:4 Herewith the texts of Sir 16:4 according to MSS A and B and their translations: MS A

‫מאחד ערירי ירא ייי תשב עיר‬ ‫וממשפחת בגדים תחרב‬

Through one childless person who fears Yahweh a city can be peopled through a clan of rebels it becomes desolate. MS B

‫]יר‬..[‫מאחד ערירי ירא ייי תש‬ ‫וממשפחות בוגדים תחרב‬ ]. . . .[‫]ש‬. . . .[ ‫מאחד‬ ‫וממשפחות בוגדים תחרב‬

Through one childless person who fears Yahweh [a city can be peopled] through clans of rebels it becomes desolate. Through one [intelligent a city can be peopled] through a clan of rebels it becomes desolate.6 6

6 A translation of Sir 16:4cd(B) is offered by Parker and Abegg, “Translation,” https://www.bensira. org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=4 .

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 87

MS B proposes a doublet, repeating Sir 16:4b as 16:4d and inserting a new stich, Sir 16:4c, in a seriously corrupted manuscript portion. The Syriac, the Greek (also the long version) and the Latin do not witness to this additional distich. This text has been studied in detail by Rossetti and by Eberharter.7 We have two versions of the first stich, the longer one Sir 16:4a, and the shorter one corresponding to Sir 16:4c in MS B. Sir 16:4c is partially damaged, but a ‫ נ‬can be read after the first word. Assistance is provided by Sir 33:3, where we see the expression ‫איש נבון‬, translated into Greek as ἄνθρωπος συνετός: hence the second word of Sir 16:4 could be ‫נבון‬, followed by the last two words of Sir 16:4a. In the second stich, the two redactions differ only in the place given to the word “clan.” Thus, the original redaction of Sir 16:4 may have taken the following form, without the extension of Sir 16:4a in MS A and the doublet of MS B:8 Sir 16:4

‫מאחד נבון תשב עיר‬ ‫וממשפחת בגדים תחרב‬

Through one intelligent person a city can be peopled through a clan of rebels it becomes desolate.

This redaction is also confirmed by the Latin version. In Sir 27:6 ‫ אחד‬has the same value that it assumes here, indicating an individual.9 The niphal participle of ‫ בין‬occurs 8x10 in Ben Sira and the form ‫ נבון‬is used 21x in the MT, never together with ‫אחד‬. In Gen 41:33, 39 Joseph is chosen to rule over the land of Egypt because “there is no one so discerning and wise as” he. In other passages from the Pentateuch or the Historical Books we find the same idea of a ruler who must be intelligent or wise for the tribes (Deut 1:13), as David (‫ּונְ בֹון‬ ‫ ָ)ּד ָבר‬in 1 Sam 16:18 or Solomon (‫)לב ָח ָכם וְ נָ בֹון‬ ֵ in 1 Kgs 3:12. In the nine occurrences in Proverbs, ‫ נבון‬refers to the quality of a human being that is useful mainly for himself. Finally, in the few occurrences in the prophets,11 the form is used in the context of the relationships between God and his people. The substantive ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה‬occurs only here in Ben Sira, and it is never used in the wisdom books. The subsequent word, ‫בגדים‬/‫בוגדים‬, is a participial form of the verb ‫בגד‬, which in Ben Sira occurs only here, in Sir 16:4b, and in Sir 33:26(E), which is problematic text, because the MS E is damaged. The same participial form of ‫בגד‬

7 Eberharter, “Bemerkungen”; Rossetti, “Le aggiunte.” See also: Beentjes, “Daughters,” 183‒85; Smend, Weisheit. . .erklärt, 145‒46; Rüger, Text, 85. Prato, Il problema, 224‒25. 8 Rossetti, “Le aggiunte”, 624; Di Lella, “Leaves,” 84. 9 Joüon, Grammaire, § 147a. 10 Sir 7:25(A, C); 9:15(A); 31:19(B), 20 (B), 22 (B), 26 (B); 33:3(B); 46:19(B). 11 5x: Isa 3:3; 5:21; 29:14; Jer 4:22; Hos 14:10.

88 

 Severino Bussino

occurs 9x12 in Proverbs, to denote treacherous human beings who, in Prov 11:3, destroy (‫ )ׁשדד‬themselves on account of their crookedness.13 In Isa 33:1 the verb is used twice, together with other terms belonging to the same semantic field, in order to enforce the idea of dangerous disruption. The last term is from the verb ‫חרב‬, only here in Ben Sira, while other forms of the same root are also used in other passages in the book.14 In Sir 14:27 it is Wisdom itself that protects against destruction. In Sir 49:13, Ben Sira recalls the actions of Nehemiah in favor of the people. The distich is built in a strict parallel and antithetical way. The order of the words is the same in the two stichs (the agent—his quality—the effect—the subject), but with the subject ‫ עיר‬which is not repeated in the second stich. The corresponding terms in the two stichs are then antithetic: ‫( משפחת בגדים – אחד נבון‬one wise person—a clan of rebels) and ‫( תחרב – תשב‬be peopled—becomes desolate). As in Sir 10:3, Ben Sira not only underlines the positive effects of a wise government, but also warns against the tragic dangers of having a group of rulers who are rebellious.

2.2.2 The context: Sir 15:11‒18:14 Sir 16:4 is included in a well-known section15 of the Book of Ben Sira, Sir 15:11‒18:14, that is devoted to the topic of the origin of evil and of personal responsibility. Following the study undertaken by Prato,16 this whole text may be subdivided into two sections, Sir 15:11‒16:14(16) and 16:17‒18:14. The first section, which includes Sir 16:4, addresses the two questions of Sir 15:11‒13. The smallest unit to be studied for a better understanding of the meaning of 16:4 is Sir 16:1‒5, known in the redactions of MSS A and B, and partially corrupted.17 For our purposes, it is enough to focus on the immediate context of Sir 16:4 starting from the translation proposed by Beentjes,18 based on the work of Rossetti.19 We also slightly simplify Sir 16:4, according to our previous analysis, and add the translation of Sir 16:5: 12 Prov 2:22; 11:3, 6; 13:2, 15; 21:18; 22:12; 23:28; 25:19. 13 See also Prov 11:6. 14 4x ‫“( חֹרב‬dryness, desolation”) in Sir 3:15(C); 14:27(A); 43:3(B, M), 21 (B, M); 1x ‫רּבה‬ ָ ‫“( ָח‬dry, ruined land”) in Sir 49:13(B). 15 See for example: Prato, Il problema, 209‒99; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 142‒55; Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 106‒87; Gilbert, “God.” 16 Prato, Il problema, 209‒99. 17 For the full text of Sir 16:1‒5(A, B) see for example the translations proposed by Parker and Abegg “Translation,” https://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=4 . 18 Beentjes, “Daughters,” 183. 19 Rossetti, “Le aggiunte,” 607‒25, 646‒48.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 89

Sir 16:1‒5 1 Do not long for the appearance of worthless children (‫)נערי שוא‬ and do not rejoice in wicked sons (‫)בני עולה‬. 2 Even when they are fruitful, do not enjoy them, if they do not have fear of YYY. 3 Do not trust in their life, nor rely upon their end, for there will be no good future for them. Indeed, better one who does the will (sc. of God) than a thousand and to die childless (‫ )ערירי‬rather than to have many wicked sons (‫)בנים רבים עולה‬ and arrogant posterity (‫)אחרית זדון‬. 4

5

Through one intelligent person a city can be peopled through a clan of rebels it becomes desolate.20 Many such things my eye has seen, and my ear has heard things like these.

The text may be outlined by reference to its verbal forms: in the first three distichs a sequence of imperatives is used, followed by three distichs constructed in an assertive form. A final distich, Sir 16:5, logically in the first person (‫“ עיני‬my eye”; ‫“ אזני‬my ear”), concludes this section with a reference to the experience of Ben Sira himself. These movement may be summarized as follows: vv. 1‒3b vv. 3c–4

v. 5

teaching motivation

conclusion

- imperative form negative - assertive form 3rd person 3c negative 3def

better proverb

4ab

positive + negative

- assertive form in “first” person

3 distichs 3 distichs

1 distich

Sir 16:5 appears in this way as an extension from the topic of offspring to that of the whole people, from the family to society. This approach is supported by the concrete experience of Ben Sira himself, about what he has seen and heard, in a double image that expresses his message in a vivid and impressive way. Moreover, the only positive statements in the whole unit Sir 10:1‒5 concern the action of the intelligent person.

20 Beentjes, “Daughters,” 183, proposes this distich in the long form: “From one who is childless (‫)ערירי‬, but is fearing YYY, a city can be inhabited, but through families of traitors it will lie empty (or: in ruins).”

90 

 Severino Bussino

2.2.3 The message of Sir 16:4 In Sir 10:4 the topic of good government was related to the discussion concerning the honor due to a human being. Now, in Sir 16:4, the same theme, expressed in very similar words, is linked to a lesson concerning sons and offspring. What is relevant is not the power or the number of sons, but the fact that one’s descendants fear the Lord. Only fear of the Lord and intelligence can build society and, by extension, a city where people will be able to live. In Sir 16:1‒5, as in chapter 10,21 there is a reference to the fear of the Lord, which in Sir 16:2b is the basis for rejoicing at the number of children. This also explains why in this text Ben Sira underlines again what was already the content of Sir 10:3. This assessment is also more relevant if we note that the central theme of Sir 15:11‒18:14 is anthropology and that 16:1‒5 is focused on the importance of having posterity. The answer of Ben Sira to the insidious questions of Sir 15:11‒13 and 16:16‒17 originates in the creative action of God and in the order of the cosmos, and in the lives of human beings. Once again, a society where people can live becomes possible thanks to the intelligence of the rulers and to the fear of the Lord, who thus guarantees not only the order of the cosmos but also that of society.

2.3 Wise to people’s advantage: Sir 37:23 2.3.1 The text of Sir 37:23 The last text we analyze is Sir 37:23. Herewith is the text and its translation: MSS Bmg and Dmg ‫ויש חכם לעמו יחכם‬ ‫פרי דעתו בגויתם‬ When one is wise to his people’s advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are lasting.22

The text occurs in the margin and the omission in the text may be easily explained by noting the strong similarity with the previous distich.23 Another problem arises with the second stich, which seems to be an erroneous copy of the end of the pre-

21 Cf. Sir 10:20, 22, 24. 22 For this translation, see the discussion in the text. 23 “Om. B; die Ursache ist Homoioarkton und Homoiotel” (Peters, Buch, 309).

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 91

vious verse. Following the suggestion of Smend and Peters,24 we assume ‫ נאמן‬at the end of Sir 37:23b. Smend suggests a comparison with Sir 44:11, where ‫ נאמן‬occurs. Also in the same section, in Sir 37:13, the Hebrew ‫ אמון‬is translated into Greek by πιστότερος, using the adjective πιστός which we find in the Greek version of Sir 37:23. In Neh 13:13 ‫ נֶ ֱא ָמנִ ים‬is translated by the LXX with πιστοί. The text is built in a very communicative form, by means of the particle ‫יש‬, which the Greek translates ἀνήρ, reading ‫איׁש‬. ִ The Syriac and the Latin follow the Hebrew. The construction ‫ ויש חכם‬occurs in Sir 37:19(D), 20 (B, D), 22 (B, D) but it is not used in the MT, where ‫ איש חכם‬is very common:25 this could explain the Greek translation. The substantive ‫ עם‬occurs another 2x together with the same preposition ‫ ל‬used in our text, in Sir 50:4(B), with reference to the High Priest Simon, and in Sir 51:12o(B), a praise for the Lord who “has raised a horn for his people;” in both cases, the actions in favor of the people are relevant. In 2 Sam 7:23 God redeems the people (‫)ל ָעם‬ ְ while in Jer 23:32 God speaks against the lying prophets who do not profit this people (‫ם־הּזֶ ה‬ ַ ‫)ל ָע‬. ָ The last word of Sir 37:23a is a repetition of the root ‫ חכם‬in qal form, which expresses the effectiveness and the consequence of being wise for the benefit of the people. The verb ‫ חכם‬is used 3x in this section, in Sir 37:19, 22, 23. In Sir 37:22, a sage is beneficial to the many—as in Sir 37:23—but in Sir 37:22 it is an advantage for the sage himself, as, for example, in Prov 9:12. The qal yiqtol in the third person does not occur elsewhere in Ben Sira and it is used 5x26 in the MT, with reference to the sage himself and without an immediate extension to the people or to society in general. The second stich opens with the image of the fruits, which in Ben Sira always reflects the consequence of personal behavior. Overwhelmed by passions (Sir 6:3), the human being will not be able to produce fruits. However, when he is guided by Wisdom (Sir 6:19; 11:1), he will bring good fruits, even if he is as humble as a bee, which, despite being small, produces sweet fruits (Sir 11:3). As in Sir 27:6, also in Sir 37:22, 23, the good characteristics of a human being may be evaluated in view of his or her good fruits. Also ‫פרי‬, as ‫ חכם‬in the previous stich, is used in the distich of both Sir 37:22 and 37:23, underlining the same instrument of evaluation that is available to judge human beings (Sir 37:22) and their roles in the society. Also, the subsequent substantive ‫ דעת‬occurs in both stichs Sir 37:22 and 37:23, with the same image of the fruits of knowledge. In Sir 38:3, it is “the knowledge which makes 24 “Gr und Zusammenhang fordern ‫”נַ ֱא ָמן‬: Peters, Buch, 309. “Syr schlecht: und die Früchte der Weisen sind für sie selbst (‫)לנפשהון‬. Dagegen Gr. καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ στόματος πιστοί (= ‫ נאמן‬vgl. 44,11). Gr ist im Recht.”: Smend, Weisheit. . .erklärt, 335. 25 In Ben Sira ‫ איש חכם‬occurs 3x: 32:17(B), 18 (B[2x]). 26 Job 32:9; Prov 9:9; 13:20; 20:1; 21:11.

92 

 Severino Bussino

the doctor distinguished”: similarly, in our text wisdom is relevant for a ruler. The expression ‫ פרי דעת‬is used only in Sir 37:22, 23, demonstrating once again the correlation between these two distichs, and does not occur elsewhere in the MT. The last word should be ‫נאמן‬, if we follow the suggestion of Peters and of Smend, or the substantive ‫גְ וִ ּיָ ה‬, which seems to be an error by the copyist. The niphal participle singular masculine of the verb ‫ אמן‬is used 17x27 in the MT and in most cases it refers to a relationship with transcendence: God is faithful (Deut 7:9; Isa 49:7; Jer 42:5), the people in relation to him (1 Sam 2:35; 25:28; 1 Kgs 11:38; Ps 89:38; Hos 12:1) or the fathers of the history of Israel (Moses in Num 12:7;28 Samuel in 1 Sam 2:35; 3:20; David in 1 Sam 22:14; Abraham in Neh 9:8; Eliakim in Isa 22:23). The form ‫נאמן‬ in Ben Sira denotes something everlasting (an illness in 30:17(B); a witness (‫)נאמנה‬ in 31:23, 24) or a faithful man (a friend in 31:2[B];29 Abraham in 44:20[B]).

2.3.2 The context: Sir 37:16‒31 In order to determine the extension of the section in which Sir 37:23 is found, one needs to consider that Sir 36:18‒37:15 is devoted to the art of choosing. Sir 37:16‒18 makes a transition to a new section, as it introduces the theme of the wise use of the word. Then Sir 38:1 starts with a teaching concerning the role of physicians and illness. In Sir 37:27 the vocabulary begins to change, with a reference to the theme of moderation, and with the vocative ‫בני‬, “my son.” So, the section we are interested in is Sir 37:19‒26, as attested in the MSS B, C, D. The transmission of the text seems to be exceptionally intricate, and a detailed analysis is beyond the limits of this study. The differences between the three manuscripts relate mostly to the testimony of all distichs, to the presence of doublets, and to the different order of the distichs 24, 25, 26. Moreover, the use of various manuscripts helps to bridge gaps in the texts. We propose here a possible translation of Sir 37:19‒26, avoiding the doublets and following the order of the distichs testified by MS D,30 as a basis for the study of the context of Sir 37:23. Moreover, we reconstruct the last word of Sir 37:23b as ‫נאמן‬, as discussed above.

27 The same form in the feminine occurs 5x. 28 On the use of the niph‘al of ‫ אמן‬in this text, see: Gilbert, “God,” 329‒31. 29 This distich appears displaced and could correspond to Sir 27:16 or 22:22: see the main commentaries. 30 See: Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 435; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 258; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, ‫ ;רלט‬Smend, Weisheit, 34 (Hebrew) and 64 (German). Peters, Buch, 307, drops 37:25, as discussed above.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 93

Sir 37:19‒26

19

20

22

23

25

24

26

‫יש חכם לרבים נחכם‬ ‫ולנפשו הוא גואל‬ ‫ויש חכם בדברו נמאס‬ ‫ומכל מאכל תענוג נבצר‬ ‫יש חכם לנפשו יחכם‬ ‫פרי דעתו על גויתו‬ ‫ויש חכם לעמו יחכם‬ ‫פרי דעתו נאמן‬

19

‫חיי איש מספר ימים‬ ‫וחיי ישרון ימי אין מספר‬ ‫חכם לנפשו ישבע תענוג‬ ‫וכל ראיו יאשרוהו‬ ‫חכם עם ינחל כבוד‬ ‫ושמו עומד בחיי עולם‬

25

20

22

24

26

There is a wise man who for many acts wise, but for himself he is despised. And there is a wise man who because of his word is hated; and from all delicate food he is deprived, There is a wise man who is wise to his own advantage, the fruits of his knowledge on his person. And there is a wise man who for his people is wise, and the fruits of his knowledge are everlasting. The life of a man, a limited number of days, but the life of the people of Israel, days without limit. A wise man for himself is full of delight, and all who see him call him happy. A wise man for the people inherits honor, and his name endures in eternal life.

The section Sir 37:19‒26 may be structured in two parts as indicated by the double occurrences of ‫ויש‬. . .‫ ויש‬in vv. 19, 20 and 22, 23, which identifies the first part as Sir 37:19‒23. This pattern is even clearer because ‫ יש‬is always associated with ‫חכם‬. Other elements of cohesion within this first part are ‫ לנפשו‬in the vv. 19b and 22a, related also to the following ‫לעמו‬, and the expression ‫ פרי דעתו‬at the beginning of 22b and 23b. In the subsequent part, Sir 37:25, 24, 26, some examples of mot crochet recall the previous four distichs: the repetition of ‫ חכם‬in v. 24 and 26, a term also present in every stich of Sir 37:19‒23; ‫ לנפשו‬in 24a; ‫ תענוג‬in the same stich 24a; the use of ‫ אין‬in 25b as an antithesis of the multiple occurrences of ‫ יש‬in 37:19‒23. Also, Sir 37:25, 24, 26 reveals an inner cohesion, not only because of the occurrence of ‫ חכם‬in 24a and 26b, but also given the repetition of ‫ חיי‬and ‫ימי‬/‫ ימים‬in 25a, 25b, 26b

94 

 Severino Bussino

and of ‫ מספר‬in 25a, 25b, with the subsequent expansion by way of contrast, in the final ‫ עולם‬in 26b. Assuming that Sir 37:23 ends with the word ‫נאמן‬, a connection may also be established between the final verses of each part, Sir 37:23b and Sir 37:26b. Skehan and Di Lella, following Segal, put in parentheses Sir 37:25, which is not attested in Syriac but present in Greek.31 What also seems relevant is that the word ‫ חכם‬occurs in each stich in Sir 37:19‒26 but not in Sir 37:25. Without Sir 37:25, the connection between Sir 37:22‒23 and 37:24, 26 becomes clearer, because both sets of distichs show a movement to a more favorable situation with the focus being shifted from the single human being to the people. However, the same connection between Sir 37:22‒23 and 37:24, 26, and their internal shifts, are still relevant even if the verse Sir 37:25 is assumed to be part of the original text. A study of the context in which Sir 37:23 is included suggests the relevance of the social dimension, which offers human beings the possibility of overcoming their natural limitations.

2.3.3 The message of Sir 37:23 Sir 37:23 inserts the theme of social relationships within the framework of instructions about being wise. An ability to act as a wise person in favor of the people establishes a human being as truly wise, and one whose wisdom is effective. As a consequence, his wise and favorable action is recognized by the other as everlasting, as stated in Sir 37:26 and perhaps also in Sir 37:23, if we accept the sense suggested by the Greek. Not only can an intelligent human being act in favor of the people, as Sir 16:4 has taught us and as is underlined again here but acting for the people extends and enforces his definition as wise. The study of the structure of Sir 37:19‒26 has demonstrated the connection between Sir 37:22‒23 and 37:24, 26, with its extension of the idea of being wise into the social perspective. What is added in Sir 37:24, 26 is the concept of ‫כבד‬, “honor,” which was the leading concept in Sir 9:17‒11:6, a section that we have previously analyzed, and which is here again presented in evidence.

31 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 435.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 95

3 The image of the ruler in the Book of Ben Sira In this paragraph we briefly analyze the image of the ruler in the teaching of Ben Sira, to better understand the three texts studied in the previous paragraphs, rather than attempting a complete description of the teaching of Ben Sira on this topic.

3.1 The wise in front of the powerful Ben Sira recommends prudent behavior in front of the authorities: the judges, the rulers, the rich people. Many excellent studies32 have been devoted to this topic, so that we need only summarize the main points. Ben Sira underlines the correct behavior of the wise in front of the powerful, for example in Sir 7:6; 8:1‒2, 14; 31:12. The three texts we have been studied, within their context, not only take into account this perspective, but also extend it to the ruler himself. An abject ruler not only puts the members of his people in a poor situation, because they must be wary of his power, by which he may damage the people as a whole and ruin its individual members. Ben Sira teaches “that nobody has to be evaluated otherwise than by those greater values of wisdom and fear of God (10:23)”.33 This statement must be applied to the powerful as well. The three texts Sir 10:3; 16:4, and 37:23, state that being wise is required for a ruler not only as an individual but also in connection with his activity in favor of the people. This approach prevents a wrong evaluation of human value that is based simply on power or wealth. The context of Sir 10:3 and 37:23 refers to the eternal glory and honor that come from God, who “will raise up the right leader for the time” (Sir 10:4), and from the human being, because “one who is wise among his people will inherit honor, and his name will live forever” (Sir 37:26).

3.2 Further annotations concerning the people The word ‫ עם‬occurs 34x in Ben Sira, while ‫ גוי‬is used 15x. We outline here only some general aspects useful for our discussion.

32 See Calduch-Benages, “Fear,” and references therein. 33 Gilbert, “Wisdom,” 118.

96 

 Severino Bussino

The term ‫ עם‬is used 11x34 with reference to the wise ruler of the people, 6x35 in connection with the action of God in favor of the people of Israel, and 5x36 in contexts where religious events in relation to the people are noted.37 What seems interesting in studying the context to which the term ‫ עם‬refers, is that the idea of the wise man taking positive actions for the benefit of the people occurs with a higher frequency, 12x, indicating that the message of the three passages Sir 10:3; 16:4, and 37:23, is not sporadic, but is indeed part of the teaching of Ben Sira. The action of God for the advantage of Israel, or against foreign nations is also usual, occurring 6x. These two elements, a wise ruler and the active involvement of God, are the most important aspects of Ben Sira’s references to the people. As in the case of personal behavior, a juxtaposition appears between the horizontal dimension of the wise approach to life and the presence of God in the life of a human being. This complementarity is then extended to the life and development of the people, because the two more frequent scenarios in which the term ‫ עם‬occurs are related to the wise ruler or to the action of God in favor of the people of Israel. Finally, we may note that some other elements, as for example war or military events, which are usually relevant in tracing the history of a people, are not often underlined by Ben Sira. Regarding the term ‫גוי‬, a similar analysis demonstrates that God’s action against the evil nations is the most frequent issue (6x), while the idea of a wise ruler as an advantage for the ‫ גוים‬occurs only 2x (Sir 44:4, 9). Also, the reference to a military or war context is marginal (1x in Sir 46:6). In Sir 50:26 the foreign nations, which are not an ‫עם‬, are denoted as ‫נבל‬, “foolish”. Here again Ben Sira connects the behavior of a nation with the dimension of being wise, as wisdom books often do when they relate the negative personal behavior of human beings to their foolishness: Ben Sira transfers to the collective level of the nation what he teaches with regard to the lives of his disciples.

34 Sir 9:17(A); 10:1(A[2x]), 2 (A); 33:19(E); 31:9(B); 37:23(B, D), 26 (B); 45:23(B); 46:13(B[2x]); 47:17(B). 35 Sir 35:25(B); 36:3(B), 12 (B), 17 (B); 51:12o(B[2x]). 36 Sir 45:9(B), 15 (B), 17 (B); 50:1(B), 19 (B). 37 The other 11 occurrences of ‫ עם‬are related to: the people as a collective personality (3x: Sir 37:25(B); 48:15(B); 50:25(B); the people as a place of judgment (3x: 41:18[B, M]; 42:11[B]; 51:2cd[B]); the people in general, as a whole (2x: 7:16[A]; 16:17[A]); war or military events in the history of the people (2x: 47:5[B]; 50:4[B]), with a reference to foreign nations (1x: 50:26[B]).

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 97

4 On the image of ruler in wisdom books In this paragraph we shall briefly review some passages of the wisdom books that recall the message of the three texts we have investigated. Our first text occurs in Prov 29:4: MT

‫ֶמ ֶלְך ְּב ִמ ְׁש ָּפט יַ ֲע ִמיד ָא ֶרץ וְ ִאיׁש ְּתרּומֹות יֶ ֶה ְר ֶסּנָ ה‬ By justice a king gives stability to the land, but one who makes heavy exactions ruins it.

The text suggests the same ideas as Sir 10:3 and 16:4. Considering the sequence of the argumentations and the specific vocabulary, we may state that the idea of justice that characterizes the text of Proverbs is not explicit in the passages from Ben Sira, who underlines the dimension of wisdom and knowledge. Also, the verbs used to denote the positive or negative consequences of a good or bad ruler are different. The similarities between the two texts concern the overall image and involve especially the text of Proverbs and the first two passages of Ben Sira, while Sir 37:23 shows a chain of positive consequences displayed on both stichs. Two passages from the Wisdom of Solomon may be related to the three texts we are studying. The first of them is Wis 6:3: ὅτι ἐδόθη παρὰ κυρίου ἡ κράτησις ὑμῖν καὶ ἡ δυναστεία παρὰ ὑψίστου, ὃς ἐξετάσει ὑμῶν τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὰς βουλὰς διερευνήσει· For your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out your works and inquire into your plans.

The connection of this text with the teaching of Ben Sira relies on the premise that authority comes from God. We find the same statement in the context of Sir 10:3, notably Sir 10:4. “The idea that the king receives his power from the divinity was common both in the biblical world (Saul and David come to mind here) and in Homer’s Greece (Iliad, 2.197‒198, 205; Hesiod, Theogonia, 96) and in ancient Babylon.”38 As in Ben Sira, also in the Wisdom of Solomong, we encounter an extension of this concept, taking into account the quality and the duties of the ruler.

38 Gilbert, “Sovereignty,” 130.

98 

 Severino Bussino

Another explicit extension in the direction of the message of our three texts of Ben Sira may be found in Wis 6:24: πλῆθος δὲ σοφῶν σωτηρία κόσμου, καὶ βασιλεὺς φρόνιμος εὐστάθεια δήμου. The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world, and a sensible king is the stability of any people.

This is the only occurrence of the adjective φρόνιμος in the Book of Wisdom, and it is applied to the King. “The second part of v. 24 (. . .) is returning to the traditional relationship between kingship and wisdom: cf. Prov 29:4; Qoh 10:16; Sir 10:1, 3; Let. Aris. 124‒125 and, with other emphases, already in Plato, Resp. 5.473d. What saves the world is not the institution of kingship so much as the wisdom of the ruler. It is not the king as such who gives stability (εὐστάθεια) to the people, but his prudence.”39 This idea may be related to Stoicism: “Here, there emerges an idea typical of Stoicism: only the sage is truly a king.”40

5 Intelligent politics in the teaching of Ben Sira We now attempt to summarize some results of our study of the three texts of Ben Sira, that have arisen also from their context and from some suggestions that emerge from a short analysis of the teaching of Ben Sira. Some specific items may be pointed out based on all the data presented above: i) Priority assigned to a ruler’s wisdom In the case of the relationship between the ruler and the people, the wisdom of the ruler, i.e., his intelligence, predominates. This emerges clearly not only from the three texts, which directly point out the most important content, but also from the context in which the term ‫ עם‬is used.41 According to Ben Sira, being wise is a thorough virtue which includes moral quality: a fool is often depicted as an evil man. In a similar way, Ben Sira refers to the wise and intelligent ruler.

39 Mazzinghi, Wisdom, 177. 40 Mazzinghi, Wisdom, 179. See also: Gilbert, “Sovereignty,” 134. 41 See also, in relation to the session devoted to the Fathers of Israel, the occurrences of the root ‫חכם‬/ σοφία in Sir 43:3; 44:4; 45:26 and the richness and concentration of wisdom vocabulary in Sir 44:3, 4.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 99

ii) Be wary of the powerful Ben Sira addresses the disciples with instructions concerning behavior in the presence of the powerful, expressing a negative image of rulers, judges, and men of high office. The three texts we have studied note other dangerous consequences of the behavior of the powerful: not only has each member of the people to be wary of his behavior, but the people as a collective personality is also damaged and destroyed when they are unregulated and foolish. In addition, the instruction is now extended to the ruler: not only should the people be wise in the presence of power, but also the ruler must be wise in respect to the people. iii) The origin of the ruler’s power and his responsibility Ben Sira often juxtaposes, sometimes in the same distych, a practical or experiential statement with a reference to transcendence. This takes place also when he speaks of the people and its ruler: the authority of the powerful comes from God (Sir 10:4), but also the ruler must be actively engaged in order to be wise. The fundamental topic of Sir 15:11‒18:14 is the anthropology, with worries concerning human responsibility: the answers of Ben Sira take into account the action of God, who is the creator and guide of his people. The ruler is established by God, and he must also be a wise guide for his people: in a context oriented to the value of responsibility, the ruler himself is instructed to be responsible for the people. This might indicate why a text on the ruler, Sir 16:4, is inserted in this context. iv) Pride and honor: glory for the rulers who set their people on a firm foundation The ruler who governs his people satisfactorily receives glory from God and honor from the human beings, as is clarified in the whole context of Sir 10:3 and 37:23. So, a wise ruler not only sets up the people, but also establishes his own glory. Looking at the context of Sir 10:3, we also find a reference to pride and humility. A human being is proud when he loses his own dimension; a powerful person is also proud when he loses the dimension of his reality and the meaning of his function as king, which comes from God and is for the people. “Pride” reflects a wrong relationship of the ruler with himself; “honor” is the consequence of a healthy consciousness of his reality in relation to God and to the people. So, when the ruler establishes the people, he also affects himself, and this will be acknowledged in his favor. v) Everlasting life for the people and everlasting name for the ruler The favorable action of the wise ruler who sets up the people is inserted by Ben Sira, especially in the close context of Sir 37:23, within the framework of the teaching about everlasting life of the people, which enjoys “days without limit” (Sir 37:25b). Moreover, not only will the wise ruler receive glory, as discussed above, but also

100 

 Severino Bussino

“his name lives on and on” (Sir 37:26), like the life of the people. This appears as a sort of antidote to the limits of human behavior. vi) For himself and for the people: a transposition of personal qualities into the social dimension According to the teaching of Ben Sira, human beings are not isolated, but live in a landscape of relationships: in this way the transposition of the task of being wise into the social dimension is here addressed. What Ben Sira experiences and applies to family and friendship now also acquires value for the art of being a leader. “From the linguistic point of view and through the thematic and theological content of his mediation, the wise man, compared with Proverbs, is now characterized in a social sense because he is described as a leader (9:17; 10:1; 37:23).”42

6 Conclusion In this study we have investigated the teaching of Ben Sira concerning politics and the consequences of political activity on the life of the people. Starting from a close analysis of three specific texts, Sir 10:3; 16:4, and 37:23, we considered their close context, with a glance also at the inclusion of these passages in the whole message of the book. Ben Sira returns many times to the relations between the wisdom of a ruler and the establishment of his people. This repetition of the same concept seems to highlight and point out the relevance of the theme of intelligent politics. Moreover, by inserting the same teaching within different contexts, the sage Ben Sira adds specific aspects to the main message: honor and pride, God as the source of the authority, the everlasting life of the people, the true and false bases for the existence of the people. According to the teaching of Ben Sira, what is relevant, and mandatory is not a matter of power or military strategy, but of being truly wise: only such an intelligent and responsible political approach can contribute to the making of a people. This message is relevant for women and men of every age and reminds us today that quality in politics is an essential value and a challenge that cannot be eschewed.

42 Bellia, “Reading,” 61.

“When one is wise to his people’s advantage” (Sir 37:23) 

 101

Bibliography Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Daughters and Their Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 183‒201 in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo Passaro. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2012/13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Bellia, Giuseppe. “An Historico-Anthropological Reading of the Work of Ben Sira.” Pages 49‒77 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Fear for the Powerful or Respect for Authority.” Pages 87‒102 in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano con traducción española e inglesa. Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45 (1964): 153‒67. Eberharter, Andreas. “Exegetische Bemerkungen zu Ekkli. 16,1‒5.” Der Katholik 1 (1908): 386‒9. Gilbert, Maurice. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11‒18:14.” Pages 118‒35 in Ben Sira’s God. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Gilbert, Maurice. “‘Your Sovereignty comes from the Lord’ (WIS 6:3a).” Pages 121‒40 in La Sagesse de Salomon/ The Wisdom of Solomon. Recueil d’études / Collected Essays. AnBib 189. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Gilbert, Maurice. “Wisdom of the Poor. Ben Sira 10,19‒11,6.” Pages 153‒69 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Joüon, Paul. Grammaire de l’Hébreu Biblique. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1923. Mazzinghi, Luca. Wisdom. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019. Parker, Benjamin H., and Martin G. Abegg. Transcription and Translation of the Hebrew Manuscripts of Ben Sira. https://www.bensira.org. (a) Abegg, Martin. “B II Verso, Transcription,” in The Book of Ben Sira, https://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=4; (b) Parker, Benjamin H. and Abegg, Martin G. “B II Verso, Translation,” in The Book of Ben Sira, https:// www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=4. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Prato, Gian L. Il Problema della Teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Rossetti, Marco. “Le aggiunte ebraiche e greche a Sir 16,1‒16.” Salesianum 64 (2002): 607‒48. Rüger, Hans P. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. Übersetzt und erklärt. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Segal, Moshe Z. ‫ספר בן סירא השלם‬. 4th ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1977.

102 

 Severino Bussino

Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch. Mit einem hebräischen Glossar. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smend, Rudolph. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.

Friedrich V. Reiterer

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit Abstract: Of the three cornerstones in the Book of Wisdom—“the people of the Lord, the opponents of the people and the activities of the Lord”—the topic “opponents of the people” has been chosen for this article. Crucial observations about the attitude of the opponents and their behavior towards the people of the Lord are cited and discussed. Keywords: Book of Wisdom, worship of foreign gods, Hellenism, education

1 Grundlegendes zum Buch der Weisheit Die Themenfelder „Volk des Herrn“1 und die „Völker“ sind in das Gesamt des Buches der Weisheit verwoben. Um die Intention des Autors besser zu verstehen, sind die Beobachtungen zur theologischen Position des Autors hilfreich, denn er steht wegen verschiedener Schwierigkeiten vor herausfordernden theologischen Aufgaben: (a) An sich hat der Herr umfassende Macht und könnte alle Bösen vernichten. Doch berücksichtig der Herr die menschliche Konstitution, weswegen er darauf Rücksicht nimmt, dass „ihr Same ja von Anfang an verflucht war“ (σπέρμα γὰρ ἦν κατηραμένον ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς; Weish 12,11a). Die Anspielung an Gen 8,21 (vgl. Gen 6,5), wonach die Menschen existentiell zum Bösen neigen, bringt den Herrn zur Nachsicht und er schont die Menschen, egal ob sie gute oder schlechte sind. So liest man in Weish 12,8: „Du hast diese – weil Menschen – geschont.“ (b) Der tiefere Grund für die Nachsichtigkeit des Herrn liegt in der Schöpfung begründet: „Dein unvergänglicher Geist (ἄφθαρτόν σου πνεῦμα; vgl. 9,17) ist nämlich in allen (ἐν πᾶσιν)2 (Weish 12,1).

1 Zu den Bereichen „Volk des Herrn“ bzw. „Der Herr und sein Volk“ siehe Reiterer, „Der Herr und sein Volk im Buch der Weisheit.“ BN 198 (2023): im Druck. 2 LXXD schreibt richtig „in allen“ und fasst ἐν πᾶσιν, wie Niebuhr, „Anmerkungen,“ 127 (Anm. 246), zu Recht feststellt, „persönlich“ auf; vgl. so schon Scarpat, Sapienza, 430‒31; NETS berücksichtigt den Plural (“in all things”), bleibt aber auf der sachlichen Ebene. Da im Abschnitt 12,2‒11 ausschließlich menschliche Akteure präsentiert werden, scheidet die Version “things” wohl aus; anders Passaro, “Creation,” 279, Anm. 43, der ausdrücklich betont “the πᾶσιν must be neuter after 11:24.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-007

104  (c)

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Der Autor lässt Vergangenes nahtlos mit der Gegenwart verschwimmen. Es ist des Öfteren unklar, ob er das Zukünftige noch im Rahmen der irdischen Lebenszeit erwartet oder ob er in eine eschatologische Zukunft blickt. Er meidet Eigennamen auch dort, wo seine Beispiele eindeutig auf Szenen aus früheren Zeiten des Volkes Israel anspielen. Diese Vorgangsweise zeigt, dass es dem Autor nicht um das Referieren alter Ereignisse geht. Er wählt aus der früheren Zeit passende Beispiele aus, um seine Gegenwart und kontemporäres Verhalten zu analysieren und daraus Schlussfolgerungen zu ziehen.3

2 Die Bedrohung Es gibt auch Abschnitte im Buch der Weisheit, die nicht von direkten oder indirekten Anfeindungen durchzogen sind; vgl. z.B. die positive Bewertung der Weisheit in 6,22‒25 bzw. deren tiefsinnige Beschreibung in 7,22‒30. Solche Passagen sind Raststationen im Gesamt des Buches der Weisheit, welches sich vor allem mit sozialen, religiösen und philosophischen Gegnern zu beschäftigen hat.

2.1 Die kontemporäre Unterdrückung In Weish 15,1‒13 steht die Polemik gegen Künstler, die aus verschiedenen Materialien (Lehm, Kupfer, Silber, Gold) Götterstatuen herstellen. Der Autor wechselt anschließend (ab 15,14) zu solchen Menschen, welche diese Machwerke dann tatsächlich als Götter verehren. Auf den ersten Blick eher unerwartet notiert der Autor, die Verehrer der Götterstatuen seien „die Feinde (οἱ ἐχθροί), die dein Volk (τοῦ λαοῦ σου) unterdrücken (καταδυναστεύσαντες)“ (15,14). Es ergibt sich: Die Feinde stehen dem Volk des Herrn gegenüber. Klar ist, dass es sich einerseits um das Volk des Herrn handelt. Nicht so klar ist vorerst, ob andererseits die Feinde auch als Volk aufzufassen sind, obgleich sich das schon von der Gegenüberstellung her nahelegt. Da jedoch gleich im nächsten Vers steht, dass die Feinde „die Götzenbilder der Unverständlich ist, warum Engel in der rev. EÜ, wie auch Nesselrath („ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 77), der früheren Version der EÜ (1980) ohne Berücksichtigung des Plural folgen: „in allem“; so auch rev. Luther. 3 Niebuhr begründet die kontemporäre Relevanz mit der Rolle der Weisheit im Buch, betont zu Recht die Bedeutung nicht nur für die Vergangenheit, sondern auch für die Zeitgenossen, für die sie „eine maßgebliche Orientierung“ in ihrer Lebensführung bietet. Sie ist neben anderen Aspekten „in der Gegenwart und in der Welt, in der die Adressaten der Schrift leben, als Lebenshilfe zu gebrauchen …, unabhängig von ihrer geographischen Nähe zum Jerusalemer Heiligtum oder der politischen Gestalt eines eigenständigen jüdischen Gemeinwesens“ („Einführung,“ 29).

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 105

Völker (τῶν ἐθνῶν) für Götter“ (15,15) halten und auch verehren, ist entschieden: Es handelt sich um das Volk des Herrn, dem die feindlichen Völker gegenüberstehen. Da in 15,14, ausgenommen das Partizipium καταδυναστεύσαντες, keine weiteren Angaben stehen, warum die Völker als Bedrohung erscheinen, untersuchen wir das Verb καταδυναστεύω. Das Kompositum beinhaltet das Verb δυναστεύω, das zuvorderst die Tätigkeit königlicher Herrschaft aber auch anderer Mächtiger ausdrückt. Im Verwendungsbereich der LXX besitzt das Verb im Kontext politischer Macht einen negativen Klang, der schon andeutet, dass mit der Machtausübung negative Implikationen verbunden sind; vgl. u.a. Jer 13,18; Spr 19,10; 1 Chr 16,21. In Weish 15,14 steht jedoch das Kompositum καταδυναστεύω, dessen Bedeutung folgend angegeben wird: „gewalttätig behandeln, unterdrücken.“4 Weil die ἄνομοι—die Gesetzlosen5—einst das „heilige Volk unterdrückten“ (καταδυναστεύειν ἔθνος ἅγιον), wurden diese selbst zu „Flüchtlingen der ewigen Vorsehung“ (φυγάδες τῆς αἰωνίου προνοίας; Weish 17,2).6 Man erfährt, dass der Herr—hier unter der Metapher „ewige7 Vorsehung“ für „ewiger Gott“8—seinem „heiligen Volk“ beigestanden hat. Mit den Stichworten „Schutz, Beistand“ nimmt der Autor ein im Hellenismus mit πρόνοια verbundenes Thema für den Herrn in Anspruch. Offen bleibt noch immer, worin eine einschlägige Unterdrückung bestanden hat. In dieser Frage führt Weish 2,10 weiter: Die zügellos feiernden und zugleich aggressiven Mächtigen wenden sich gegen die rechtschaffenen Juden, weil diese den Unholden „Vergehen gegen das Gesetz“ (2,12)9 vorwerfen.

4 Oswald, Gemoll, 438. 5 So Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 99; LXXD; vgl. anders rev. EÜ: „Gottlosen“; EÜ: „Frevler“; Luther: „Ungerechten.“ 6 Vgl. zu diesem Abschnitt Mazzinghi, Notte, 5‒64; Reiterer, „Emotionen,“ 301‒10, wo die kontemporären Beziehungen ausführlicher dargestellt werden. 7 Siehe Reiterer, „Kairos,“ 278‒79. 8 Die Metapher steht für „ewiger Gott.“ Warum mag der Autor αἰωνίου πρόνοια zur Umschreibung Gottes gewählt haben? Das Vorherwissen (πρό-νοια) kennt Sinn und Ziel dessen, was hier vor sich geht. Der Autor nimmt ein im Griechentum bedeutsames Motiv auf. Die in der LXX selten und spät belegte (vgl. 2 Makk 4,6; Weish 14,3; 17,2; Dan 6,19 [kein MT-Text]; 3 Makk 4,21; 5,30; 4 Makk 9,24; 13,19; 17,22) πρόνοια spielt nach Plato bei der Schöpfung als Gottes Vorsehung (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ … πρόνοιαν) eine besondere Rolle; Plato, Tim. 30c (auch Tim. 44c; vgl. Xenophon, Mem. 1.4.18). Bei Plato schwingt „Fürsorge“ mit. Das Vorherwissen inkludiert in Weish 17,2 offensichtlich das, was aus früherer Zeit berichtet wird. ER wusste schon damals, dass der Angriff auf das Volk dem Angreifer Unglück bringen werde. 9 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 90, erläutert nicht, wie er die groben kontextuellen Aktionen der Mächtigen—auch als Juden—gegenüber den Machtlosen—das waren ja die rechtschaffenen Juden—begründet. Kurz und bündig hält er fest, dass „der Gerechte, ein treuer Israelit, … den Gottlosen, die ebenfalls Juden sind, ihre Verfehlung gegen ‚unser‘ Gesetz, die Tora, und gegen die erhaltene weisheitliche Erziehung [vorwirft].“ Mazzinghi ist es ein Anliegen, die Auseinandersetzung als einen

106 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Diese Gesetzlosen wissen sich in der Vollkraft der Macht und wenden sich von den Gerechten ab, weil sich „das Schwache als unnütz erweist“ (2,11).10 Das legitimiert nach dem eigenen Urteil der Kraftstrotzenden, dass sie die Gerechten unterdrücken (καταδυναστεύσωμεν; 2,10), die Armen, Witwen und alten Menschen eingeschlossen: καταδυναστεύσωμεν bezeichnet die brutale und ungezügelte Verfolgung all jener, die in einer schwachen physischen und gesellschaftspolitischen Lage sind. Da inzwischen die „Unterdrückung“ inhaltlich gefüllt wurde, sei zum Gesamtverständnis noch die Notiz angebracht, dass in Weish 15,14 das Partizipium καταδυναστεύσαντες steht, wobei der Plural auf eine große Anzahl hinweist. Auch im Griechischen beschreibt ein Partizipium Zeitbereiche, die über die finiten Zeiten hinausgehen. Es handelt sich demnach bei der Unterdrückung nicht nur um eine Szenerie der Vergangenheit, sondern—wie auch in 2,10—um konkret reale Gewalttaten zur Zeit der Abfassung des Weisheitsbuches.

2.2 Gesellschaftliche Kontraste Die Gerechten—das ist die Bezeichnung des Volkes des Herrn—kommen aus einfachen Verhältnissen und sind, wie eben gezeigt, in den Augen der Gegner arm (πένητα δίκαιον; Weish 2,10), unnütz und schwach (τὸ … ἀσθενές ἄχρηστον; 2,11b). Das Adjektiv πένης meint nicht geistige, sondern real materielle Armut. Da man im Buch der Weisheit keine weiteren Belege für πένης findet, ziehen wir die ca. 100 Jahre ältere griechische Version der Weisheitsschrift Ben Siras als Verständnishilfe heran. Es gibt die überkommene Beobachtung, dass sich Reiche und Arme ganz und gar nicht vertragen und in beständigem Gegensatz leben. Man kann es mit der Empirie aus der Tierwelt veranschaulichen: „Welchen Frieden hat eine Hyäne mit einem Hund?“ Die viel stärkere und aufgebrachte Hyäne wird den Hund töten und zerreißen. Es gibt eben gemeinhin keinen Frieden (εἰρήνη) zwischen einem Reichen und einem Armen (πλουσίῳ πρὸς πένητα; Sir 13,18).11 Sirach warnt daher: Niemand staune mit stiller Bewunderung über einen reichen Sünder. Vielmehr möge man auf den Herrn hoffen, „denn leicht ist es in den Augen des Herrn, den Armen schnell und unvermutet reich zu machen“ (πλουτίσαι πένητα; Sir 11,21).

innerjüdischen Vorgang nachzuzeichnen (vgl. „Sap 2,“ passim). Richtig wird aber wohl sein, dass sich auch Juden den politisch Mächtigen anzuschließen versucht haben. 10 „Der Verfasser legt den Satz zwar den Gottlosen in den Mund und missbilligt ihn damit, dennoch spricht dieser Satz den common sense der hellenistisch-römischen Gesellschaft zum Thema Schwäche aus“; Wischmeyer, „2  Kor 12,7‒8,“ 470; vgl. umfassender zur Thematik: Wischmeyer, „Macht,“ 39‒53. 11 Ausführlicher Reiterer, “Afflictions,” 25‒26.

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 107

Diese wiederholt gemachte Erfahrung der Armen trifft nun auch mit Wucht im Buch der Weisheit zu. Man ahnt schon, wie der Gegensatz enden wird. Die Gegner schauen auf die Armen herab, machen sich über sie lustig, wobei sie sich selbst unerhörten Luxus leisten können; vgl. „Erlesener Wein und Salböl sollen uns reichlich fließen“ (Weish 2,7). Sie gehören zur führenden und reichen Schicht, denen, wie Plutarch (ca. 45‒125 n.Chr.) anhand des Beispiels von Alexander dem Großen belegt (Alex. 52.3), entsprechend göttlichem Gesetz die Aufgabe zufällt, das verbindliche Recht festzulegen. Daher sagen die ἀσεβεῖς (Weish 1,16), also Überhebliche, denen das Gespür für Achtung und Ehrerbietung fehlt,12 von ihrem Standpunkt aus zu Recht: „Unsere Stärke (ἡ ἰσχύς) soll bestimmen, was Gerechtigkeit ist“ (νόμος τῆς δικαιοσύνης; 2,11). Die von den Frevlern Angefeindeten, nämlich das Volk des Herrn, kennen offensichtlich auch die Kriterien von Bildung zu jener Zeit und werfen den Frevlern vor, diese würden sich gegen deren eigene Bildung (ἁμαρτήματα παιδείας ἡμῶν; 2,12) vergehen. Der Vorwurf bringt die Feinde/Frevler in Rage.13 Das Reizpotential in der Anschuldigung ἁμαρτήματα παιδείας, wonach die eigene Bildung desavouiert und mit Füßen getreten werde, erkennt man daran, dass παιδεία im geistesgeschichtlichen, kulturgeschichtlichen, politischen, gesellschaftlichen wie auch wirtschaftlichen Kontext in der Welt der Griechen schon lange eine zentrale Rolle14 spielt: „Die klassische Erziehung ist ihrem Wesen nach eine Einführung in das griechische Leben, welche das Kind und den Jüngling im Sinne der nationalen Gewohnheiten bildet und sie jenen bezeichnenden Lebensstil annehmen lässt, der den Menschen vom Tier, den Hellenen vom Barbaren unterscheidet.“15 Nun erreicht die Entwicklung der παιδεία in der hellenistischen Zeit ihren Höhepunkt,16 wobei es vor allem Jugendliche aus reichen Schichten17 waren, die sich

12 Die Bezeichnung der Personen ist ἀ-σεβεῖς, d.h. Menschen ohne Ehrerbietung bzw. Hochachtung; siehe σέβω: „ehren, hoch achten“ (Oswald, Gemoll, 718); eine gute und treffende Übersetzung ist nach gegenwärtigem allgemeinem Sprachgebrauch nicht leicht; vgl. Frevler (Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 43; rev. Luther); impious (NETS, 699); ungodly (NRSV); Gottlose (rev. EÜ). Die Pointe „ehren, hochachten“ ist in den Übersetzungen nicht erhalten. 13 Vgl. Reiterer, „Sapientia,“ 181. 14 Es ist interessant, dass die sehr umfangreiche Darstellung von Jaeger zu παιδεία anschließend an Plato mit Demostenes endet (Paideia, 1221‒50); zu παιδεία im Buch der Weisheit siehe Manfredi, “Trial,” 169‒71; zu der Behandlung von Weish 2,12 in der Peschitta siehe Rizzi, “Phenomena,” 235‒36. 15 Marrou, Geschichte, 193. 16 „Erst von jener Generation ab, die auf Aristoteles und Alexander den Großen folgte, ist die antike Erziehung wirklich sie selbst, hat sie ihre klassische, ihre endgültige Form gefunden“ (Marrou, Geschichte, 185). 17 Vgl. Christes, Bildung, 38.

108 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

die Ausbildung auch leisten konnten. Zudem tritt der Gemeinschaftsbezug zurück und das Individuum rückt in das Zentrum.18 Daher trifft der Vorwurf von Seiten der Juden die Machtträger und deren Nachkommen ins gesellschaftliche Mark und bringt die Grundlage des persönlichen Selbstverständnisses ins Wanken.

2.3 Die Bedeutung der Gotteskindschaft Die Frevler werfen dem Gottesvolk vor, dass sie Sonderlinge seien, indem sie ein Leben führen, das dem der anderen nicht gleicht (ἀνόμοιος τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ; Weish 2,15). Die Frevler lehnen die Gerechten vollständig ab und machen aus ihrer Abneigung auch kein Geheimnis: „Mühselig ist es, dass wir ihn anblicken müssen“ (βαρύς ἐστιν ἡμῖν καὶ βλεπόμενος; 2,14). Obwohl das Volk des Herrn arm und schwach ist, unterstellt es sich nicht dem geistigen Diktat der Mächtigen. Ganz das Gegenteil, stellen die Gegner fest. Trotz Folter und Demütigung (2,19a) fürchten die Gerechten nicht einmal den Tod, sondern „preisen das Ende der Gerechten“ (μακαρίζει ἔσχατα δικαίων; 2,16). Man fragt sich, welches Fundament die Gerechten trägt, dass sie sich derart unverdrossen dem Druck der Überlegenen entgegenstellen können. Die Antwort geben die ἀσεβεῖς selbst! Sie zählen auf, was sie ärgert: Die Gerechten behaupten eine (besondere) Gotteserkenntnis zu besitzen (γνῶσιν ἔχειν θεοῦ; 2,13). Diese hat ihren Grund in einer besonderen Nähe zu Gott, sodass sie sich selbst „Kind(er) des Herrn“ (παῖδα κυρίου; 2,13;19 vgl. 12,7: θεοῦ παίδων) bezeichnen können.20 Sie rühmen sich—die Frevler deuten das als „prahlen“ (ἀλαζονεύεται; 2,16)—, dass Gott ihr Vater21 ist (πατέρα θεόν; 2,16) und sie „Sohn Gottes“ (υἱὸς

18 „Lag … (dem Paideia-Ideal) zuvor die Anschauung zugrunde, dass die Verwirklichung des individuellen Lebensglückes nur durch das verantwortliche Mitwirken in einer Polis zu erreichen sei, so wird παιδεία nun in einem Prozess der Bedeutungserweiterung zum Inbegriff dessen, was den Griechen, gleichgültig, wo er lebt, sich als Griechen fühlen lässt. … Die παιδεία findet also eine personalistische Ausrichtung; sie ist dem Menschen eigen, der alle seine personalen Möglichkeiten entfaltet hat“ (Christes, Bildung, 19). 19 Nicht nur die Intention, sondern auch die Terminologie (δοῦλος statt παῖς) und die theologischen Bezüge sprechen gegen die Annahme von Winston, Wisdom, 119‒20, dass “child of God” seinen Ursprung im vierten Gottesknechtslied hat. 20 Die Qualifizierung des Gerechten hat einen Aspekt darin, dass „die Teilhabe an göttlichen Geheimnissen (SapSal 2,22; 6,22) und die Gotteserkenntnis (SapSal 2,13; 7,17; 14,22; 15,3) als Kennzeichen des Gerechten und als vollendete Gerechtigkeit gelten“ (Witte, „Jakob,“ 202). 21 „Bei diesem Text,“ so Spieckermann, wird ersichtlich, „wie sehr die Verbindung des Leidens der gerechten Söhne in dieser Welt mit der Hoffnung ihrer Geborgenheit in Gottes väterlicher Hand dereinst theologische Konstellationen präformiert, die unter der Christuserfahrung zwar eigene

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 109

θεοῦ; 2,18) sind. Sie werden daher zu den Söhnen Gottes gerechnet (κατελογίσθη ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ; 5,5). Ein Blick auf schreckliche, frühere Ereignisse, aus denen die betroffenen Kontrahenten nur allmählich gelernt hatten, bestärkt die Bedeutung der Gotteskindschaft. Beispielhaft wird auf die Szene vor dem Auszug zurückverwiesen. Die Feinde (ἐχθροί; Weish 18,7.10) bzw. die Gesetzlosen (ἄνομοι; 17,2), allesamt zuvor „unbelehrbare Seelen (ἀπαίδευτοι ψυχαί = Menschen)“ (17,1),22 hatten sich vorgenommen, „die Kinder der Heiligen zu töten“ (τὰ τῶν ὁσίων ἀποκτεῖναι νήπια; 18,5). Nun sehen sie den Tod einer großen Menge der eigenen Kinder (τὸ αὐτῶν … πλῆθος τέκνων; 18,5), welche der Herr ihnen als Strafe genommen hatte. Von dieser bedrückenden und quälenden Katastrophe geschockt und der dadurch veranlassten Erkenntnis, dass der Herr sein Volk unwiderstehlich schützt, sind sie für die Erkenntnis des Verhältnisses des Herrn zu seinem Volk offen. Jetzt fühlen sie sich zum Bekenntnis gedrängt, dass das zuvor verfolgte „Volk, Sohn Gottes sei“ (θεοῦ υἱὸν λαὸν εἶναι; 18,13).23 Die Gegner beantworten damit ihre früher spöttisch und provozierend in den Raum gestellte These: „Ist der Gerechte (ὁ δίκαιος) wirklich Sohn Gottes (υἱὸς θεοῦ), dann nimmt sich (Gott) dessen an (ἀντιλήμψεται) und entreißt (ῥύσεται) ihn der Hand seiner Gegner (ἐκ χειρὸς ἀνθεστηκότων)“ (2,18). Es stellt sich die Frage, warum gerade die Kindschaft (παῖς bzw. υἱός) Gottes (θεοῦ bzw. seltener κυρίου) eine derartige Bedeutsamkeit besitzt. Gotteskindschaften sind in der alttestamentlichen Tradition24 wie in der hellenistischen Welt nicht ungewöhnlich. Die Spannung ergibt sich daraus, dass die mächtigen Gebildeten sich als einzige Kinder und als besondere Kinder Gottes sehen und für sich eine Sonderrolle beanspruchen. Im Buch der Weisheit werden einzelne Elemente genannt, welche die Gegner charakterisieren: das sind z.B. (a) der autoritative und autonome Umgang mit dem

Gestalt gewinnen, ohne die Denkvorgaben des Alten Testaments jedoch spracharm, vielleicht sogar sprachlos geblieben wären“ (Lebenskunst, 317). 22 Vgl. dazu Abart, „Gott,“ 198 bzw. zum Kontext ebd. 195‒206; zu der schwer zu definierenden Gerichtsvorstellung vgl. Blischke, Eschatologie, 188. 23 Sehr gut hebt Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 471, für diese Stelle die Zusammenschau von Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und eschatologischer Zukunft hervor: „Hier wird die Identität Israels beschrieben … Die Vergangenheit Israels dient als Begründung der eschatologischen Hoffnung; anzuerkennen, dass das Volk Sohn Gottes ist, bedeutet so, Vertrauen zu haben auf die Bestimmung zum ewigen Heil, das jeden dieser Söhne und Töchter Gottes erwartet.“ 24 Vgl. Hos 11,1: „Denn jung war Israel, da gewann auch ich es lieb, und aus Ägypten rief ich seine Kinder zurück“ (διότι νήπιος Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐγὼ ἠγάπησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ); hebräische Version: „Als Israel jung war, gewann ich ihn lieb, ich rief meinen Sohn aus Ägypten.“ Niebuhr, „Anmerkungen,“ 133, Anm. 371, verweist auf weitere Belege aus dem frühjüdischen Umfeld.

110 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Recht (νόμος τῆς δικαιοσύνης; 2,11), (b) die schlechte Behandlung des Volkes— Folter (βασάνῳ; 2,19) und Mord eingeschlossen (θανάτῳ ἀσχήμονι; 2,20a) und (c) der Besitz der klassisch griechischen Bildung (παιδεία; 2,12). Wo kommen die Grundlagen für eine derartige Haltung her? Eine der normativen Schriften bei der griechischen Ausbildung war die Ilias und dort stehen verbindliche Grundsätze wie: „Immer der Beste zu sein und anderen gegenüber herausragend zu verbleiben“ (αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων; Homer, Il. 6.208 und 11.784). Diese Regel bringt Alexander der Große stark nachwirkend in das Bewusstsein seiner Nachfolger, und auch die Römer übernehmen sie als antiqum ius25. Alexander, der selbst wohl nicht nur vorgetäuscht ein religiöser, ja frommer Mensch26 war, sieht sich wie früher für die allgemeine Sendung durch die Pythia27 ab der Begrüßung durch den Priester in der Oase Siwa nun als Sohn Gott (παῖδα Διὸς αὐτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ προσειπόντος Plutarch, Alex. 27.5). Da jene, die sich in der geistigen Nachfolge Alexanders sehen, solche Grundsätze übernehmen und sich danach verhalten28— das gilt vor allem für leitende Funktionen auf unteren wie oberen gesellschaftlichen Ebenen—, musste es zum Zusammenstoß mit Gruppen kommen, die diese Werte nicht pflegen.

2.4 Übeltaten der Völker In Weish 12,4‒6 steht eine Auflistung von negativem Verhalten der „Völker“, stilisiert als Kritik an den vorisraelitischen Siedlern. Sie werden als ἀσεβεῖς, also Ruch25 Vgl. Eckhardt, Ethnos, 69, Anm. 152: „Siehe v.a. die Stellen Liv. 34,58,4‒6 zu Thrakien, 35,16,6 zu den ionischen und aiolischen Städten (bello superatus a maioribus, stipendarias ac vectigales fastas in antiqum ius repetit).“ 26 Als Alexander seine Unternehmungen vorbereitete, wandte er sich an die Gottheit. Was war zu seiner Zeit der Ort, wo der Mensch versucht, „Wichtiges über die Zukunft herauszufinden“ (Nesselrath, „Einleitung,“ 1)? Das Apolloheiligtum zu Delphi. 27 Es gab für die Orakelbefragung sowohl eine vorgegebene Zeitphase (Hirsch-Luipold, „Priester,“ 406, Anm. 445) wie auch ein Prozedere (vgl. Trampedach, „Legitimität,“ 189‒91). „Als Alexander vor dem Perserfeldzug ein Orakel in Delphi einholen will, lässt ihm die Pythia ausrichten, es sei nicht die festgesetzte Zeit für die Befragung des Orakels; darauf schleift er sie eigenhändig an den Haaren in den Tempel. Aber als sie dann ausruft: ‚du bist doch … unbesiegbar (ἀνίκητος [Hirsch-Luipold: „unüberwindbar“]), junger Mann‘, lässt Alexander von ihr ab – das Orakel, das er sich gewünscht hatte, hatte er mit diesen Worten der Pythia bereits erhalten (Alex. 14,4)“ („Priester,“ 407). 28 „Alle Diadochen waren von Alexander fasziniert und haben mehr oder weniger, in dieser oder jener Form von seinem Ansehen gezehrt, sich auf ihn berufen, ihm nachgeeifert oder ihn nachgeahmt“ (von Thiel, Leben, XXXII).

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 111

lose, Gewissenlose und Gottlose bezeichnet (12,9), weil sie Schlechtes (κακία; 12,2) und allerlei Widerlichstes (ἔχθιστα) praktizieren. Erbarmungslos ermorden sie Kinder (τέκνων τε φονέας ἀνελεήμονας; 12,5). Selbst die Eltern morden mit eigener Hand hilflose Lebewesen (αὐθέντας γονεῖς … ψυχῶν ἀβοηθήτων; 12,6). Man kann die Abscheulichkeiten noch steigern: Sie verzehren Menschenfleisch und Menschenblut (ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν … καὶ αἵματος; 12,5). Sie treten auf im „(wilden) Festschwarm der Bakchanten“ (θίασος; 12,5), vollführen Zauberkunststücke und unheilige Einweihungen in Mysterien(kulte) (12,4).29 Keine dieser aufgezählten Verhaltensformen lassen sich mit der Religion Israels und dem Glauben30 an den Herrn verbinden.

2.5 Schuldhafte Uneinsichtigkeit An sich ist den Menschen aufgrund der „natürlichen Beschaffenheit“, φύσει31, die Fähigkeit nicht gegeben, dass sie tiefere Zusammenhänge verstehen. Den Menschen liegen zwar die nötigen Anhaltspunkte sichtbar vor Augen, um das Kernelement des Kosmos bzw. der Schöpfung zu verstehen, dass es einen Schöpfer32 gibt. Doch muss man sich damit beschäftigen und auch anstrengen, um das zu erkennen. Wer sich nicht um die vertiefte Einsicht bemüht, der wird schuldig! „Toren waren alle Menschen (πάντες ἄνθρωποι) von Natur aus (φύσει), denen die Gotteserkenntnis (θεοῦ ἀγνωσία) fehlte. Aus den sichtbaren Gütern (ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν) vermochten sie nicht den Seienden zu erkennen. Beim Anblick der Werke erkannten sie deren Meister nicht“ (Weish 13,1). Wegen der fehlenden Einsicht kommt es zu groben Fehlschlüssen. Worin bestehen die Fehlschlüsse und Irrtümer? Das Buch der Weisheit sieht sie in der Beurteilung natürlicher Gegebenheiten als Götter: „Sie hielten das Feuer, den Wind, die flüchtige Luft, den Kreis der Gestirne, die gewaltige Flut oder die Welt

29 Engel, „Gebet,“ 203‒4, weist darauf hin, „dass dem Verfasser die Mysterienreligion seiner Zeit als ernstzunehmende Gefährdung seiner Adressaten erschienen. … Dabei befindet er sich ganz offensichtlich nicht in verständnisvollem Gespräch mit Teilnehmern an solchen Mysterien, sondern spricht ‚von außen‘ über sie zu Mitjuden.“ 30 Obgleich die Opfer—diese waren im Alexandria des Autors allerdings nicht möglich—in Israel traditionell eine große Rolle spielten, lag der Schwerpunkt des Verhältnisses zum Herrn wesentlich auf der Einstellung. Diese ist geprägt von Achtung und Ehrerbietung dem Herrn gegenüber; vgl. dazu Egger-Wenzel, “Faith,” passim. 31 Vgl. Oswald, Gemoll, 851: φύσις „I. Natur. 1. Natürliche Beschaffenheit, Eigenschaft … b. geistig: angeborene Fähigkeit …“ 32 Vgl. zur Thematik, Kepper, “Ideas,” 303‒9.

112 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

beherrschenden Himmelsleuchten für Götter“ (13,2). Die ἄνθρωποι sind an sich bei entsprechender Bemühung in der Lage, den Bereich des Göttlichen zu erkennen. Nun steht der Autor vor dem Problem, dass die Kontrahenten ihre selbst erfundenen Deutungen vorlegen, die den eigentlichen Schöpfer nicht berücksichtigen. Das Ergebnis ist, dass sie in falscher Weise, die großartigen Erscheinungen der Natur und des Kosmos ohne Rücksicht auf den Schöpfer für Götter halten. Wenn sie schon diese überwältigende Schönheit physisch und geistig erkennen konnten, „dann hätten sie auch erkennen sollen (γνώτωσαν), wie viel besser ihr Gebieter ist, denn der Urheber der Schönheit hat sie erschaffen“ (13,3).33

3 Zusammenfassung Im Buch der Weisheit ist λαοί im Nominativ34 nur einmal belegt (4,14). Die für die Untersuchung ausgewählten Beispiele zeichnen die „Völker“ als hoch gebildet, aggressiv, mächtig sowie reich, gotteslästerlich und sündhaft. Der Autor kategorisiert die umgebenden Völker nicht nach der Volkszugehörigkeit, sondern qualifiziert sie so, wie er sie von seinem— vor allem auch religiösen— Standpunkt aus antrifft und benennt sie nicht nach Namen, sondern nach deren Verhalten bzw. Einstellung. Sie wissen sich elitär, in einer besonderen Beziehung zu „ihren“ Göttern, die sie in Naturerscheinungen erfahrbar sehen und denen sie mit Standbildern und Feiern huldigen. Die Existenz und die Lebensweise des Volkes des Herrn lehnen jene grundsätzlich ab.

Bibliographie Abart, Christine. „Was tut Gott in der Nacht?“ Pages 193‒210 in Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew J. Goff. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. ________ . Die Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Edited by Bischöfe Deutschlands et al. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt, 1980. (= EÜ) ________ . Die Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Die neue Einheitsübersetzung. Edited by Deutsche Bischofskonferenz et al. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2017. (= rev. EÜ)

33 Ego, “Abraham’s Faith,” 344, betont, dass “the Wisdom of Solomon calls all those fools,” welche die Naturerscheinungen als Götter ansehen, die vermeintlich die Welt regieren. Die Autorin findet die gleiche Diskussion bei Philo (344‒45). 34 Zu ἔθνη: nie im Nominativ; zweimal im Akkusativ: κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν; (Weish 3,8); διοικήσω λαούς, καὶ ἔθνη ὑποταγήσεταί μοι (8,14 [Salomo]).

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 113

________ . Die Bibel. Nach Martin Luthers Übersetzung: Lutherbibel mit Apokryphen, revidiert 2017. Edited by Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017. (= rev. Luther) ________ . The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Reprint n.d. (= NRSV) Blischke, Mareike V. Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis. FAT II.26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Christes, Johannes. Bildung und Gesellschaft. Die Einschätzung der Bildung und ihrer Vermittler in der griechisch-römischen Antike. EdF 37. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975. Eckhardt, Benedikt. Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen judäischer Identität von Antiochos III. bis Herodes I. SJ 72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Faith in God’ rather than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding.” Pages 211‒26 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honour of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2004. Ego, Beate. “Abraham’s Faith in the One God.” Pages 337‒54 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Herman Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Engel, Helmut. „Gebet im Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 293‒312 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer. „Priester, Philosoph und Propagandist – Plutarch und Delphi.“ Pages 397‒412 in Delphi. Apollons Orakel in der Welt der Antike. Edited by Balbina Bäbler and Heinz-Günther Nesselrath. Civitatum Orbis MEditerranei Studia 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Jaeger, Werner. Paideia. Die Formung des griechischen Menschen. Ungekürzter photomechanischer Nachdruck in einem Band. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. (LXXD) Kepper, Martina. “Philosophical Ideas about Cosmos and Creation in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 297‒317 in Cosmos and Creation. Second Temple Perspectives. Edited by Michael W. Duggan, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2019. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Manfredi, Silvana. “The Trial of the Righteous in Wis 5:1‒14(1‒7) and the Prophetic Traditions.” Pages 159‒78 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redactions, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Marrou, Henri I. Geschichte der Erziehung im klassischen Altertum. dtv Wissenschaftliche Reihe 4275. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1977. Mazzinghi, Luca. „Gli ‚empi‘ di Sap 2 e la polemica intragiudaica ad Alessandria.“ Pages 101‒25 in Extra ironiam nulla salus. Studi di onore di Roberto Vignolo nel suo LXX compleanno. Edited by Matteo Crimella, Giovanni Cesare Pagazzi, and Stefano Romanello. Milano: Glossa, 2016. Mazzinghi, Luca. Notte di Paura e di Luce. Esegesi de Sap 17,1‒18,4. AnBib 134. Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1995. Mazzinghi, Luca. Weisheit. Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2018. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther. „Einleitung.“ Pages 1‒7 in Delphi. Apollons Orakel in der Welt der Antike. Etided by Balbina Bäbler and Heinz-Günther Nesselrath. Civitatum Orbis MEditerranei Studia 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021.

114 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther. „ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΑΛΩΜΩΝΟΣ/Die Weisheit Salomos.“ Pages 40‒110 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. „Anmerkungen.“ Pages 112‒34 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. „Einführung in die Schrift.“ Pages 3‒35 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, ed. Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Oswald, Renate, ed. Gemoll: Griechisch-deutsches Schul- und Handwörterbuch. 10th ed. Wien: HölderPichler-Tempsky, 2019. Passaro, Angelo. “Creation and History in the Structure of the Book of Wisdom. ἡ κτίσις … ὑπηρετοῦσα (Wis 16:24).” Pages 271‒95 in Cosmos and Creation. Second Temple Perspectives. Edited by Michael W. Duggan, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2019. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. (= NETS) Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Afflictions and Trauma in the Book of Ben Sira. Investigations into the Suffering of the Poor and Injury by Speaking.” Pages 19‒49 in Turmoil, Trauma and Tenacity in Early Jewish Literature. Edited by Nicholas P. L. Allen and Jacob J. T. Doedens. DCLS 50. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Emotionen, Gefühle und Affekte im Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 281‒315 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2011. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Der Herr und sein Volk im Buch der Weisheit.“ BN 198 (2023): forthcoming. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 235‒83 in Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew J. Goff. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Die Sapientia Solomonis im Kontext der frühjüdischen Weisheitsliteratur.“ Pages 175‒89 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Rizzi, Giovanni. “Hermeneutic Phenomena in the Translation of the Peshitta Wisdom.” Pages 277‒308 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redactions, and Theology. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Scarpat, Giuseppe. Il libro della Sapienza. Vol. 2. Brescia: Paideia, 1996. Spieckermann, Hermann. Lebenskunst und Gotteslob in Israel. Anregungen aus Psalter und Weisheit für die Theologie. FAT 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. von Thiel, Helmut. Leben und Taten Alexanders von Makedonien. Der griechische Alexanderroman nach der Handschrift L. Texte der Forschung 13. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983. Trampedach, Kai. „Die Legitimität des delphischen Orakels.“ Pages 185‒208 in Delphi. Apollons Orakel in der Welt der Antike. Edited by Balbina Bäbler und Heinz-Günther Nesselrath. Civitatum Orbis MEditerranei Studia 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979.

Konfrontationen. Die Kontrahenten des Volkes im Buch der Weisheit  

 115

Wischmeyer, Oda. „2 Korinther 12,1‒10.“ Pages 277‒88 in Oda Wischmeyer. Von Ben Sira zu Paulus: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Texten, Theologie und Hermeneutik des Frühjudentums und des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker. WUNT 173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wischmeyer, Oda. „Macht, Herrschaft und Gewalt in den frühjüdischen Schriften.“ Pages 39‒53 in Oda Wischmeyer. Von Ben Sira zu Paulus: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Texten, Theologie und Hermeneutik des Frühjudentums und des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker. WUNT 173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Witte, Markus. „Jakob der Gerechte (SapSal 10,10‒12). Das Jakobsbild der Sapientia Salomonis.“ Pages 191‒209 in Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira und zur frühjüdischen Weisheit. Edited by Markus Witte. FAT 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Renate Egger-Wenzel

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther Abstract: The narrator of the Book of Esther speaks positively about a Jewish “way of life” (τὴν ἀγωγήν, 2:20) only in the long version of the Greek text. According to 2:7, Mordechai educates his foster child Esther in these principles and at the end of the book he does the same for “all his people” (10:3). Mordechai apparently by then had become the alleged successor of king Artaxerxes. Is the narrator suggesting that he is educating the Jews and those fellow citizens who had converted out of fear and perhaps even the entire Persian Empire? Add. B, which cites the edict of king Artaxerxes instigated by Haman, also mentions a “Jewish way of life” that is allegedly disastrous for the Persian Empire (τὸ ἔθνος μονώτατον ἐν ἀντιπαραγωγῇ παντὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀνθρώπῳ κείμενον διαγωγὴν νόμων ξενίζουσαν παραλλάσσον, B:5) and concludes that Jewry must be utterly destroyed. Here a member of a supposed in-group, that is, Haman, wishes to eliminate an out-group, which is a whole people, that is the Jews. Contrary to his plan, however his in-group proves to be an out-group and the people that he regarded as an out-group emerge as loyal and admirable Persian citizens. Keywords: way of life, halakha, obedience, blood, laws, intrigue

1 Vorbemerkungen Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit der „jüdischen Lebensweise“, wie sie nur in der griechischen Langfassung (LXX/Old Greek [OG] wohl im 1. Jh. v.Chr. in Ägypten oder Jerusalem verfasst)1 am Anfang des Estherbuches in 2,20 und am Ende in Est 10,3 unter Verwendung des Wortes ἀγωγή vom Erzähler positiv thematisiert wird. Von Esther wird gesagt, dass sie von dieser nicht abweicht, und von „Mardochaios’ (wörtl. seinem) Volk“ wird festgehalten, dass es von ihm als Nachfolger des Artaxerxes diese Lebensweise erläutert bekommt. Es gilt in einem ersten Schritt die drei Textversionen des Buches Est(h)er (MT, griechische Langfassung und Alpha-Text)

1 Zur Textgeschichte siehe De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther,“ 593–94 und De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther (LXX und A-Text),“ 1253–67 (siehe Zählproblematik Wacker, “Faces,” 66–67); Ego, Ester, 4–10; Macchi, Ester, 16–23; ausführlich Hanhart, Esther, 7–99. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-008

118 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

zu vergleichen, die verwendete Terminologie zu untersuchen und die so zitierte Lebensweise mit Inhalt zu füllen. Im Zusatz B des Alpha-Textes (A-T), welcher das von Haman initiierte Edikt des Großkönigs Artaxerxes enthält, wird ebenfalls Bezug genommen auf diese als so „fremdartig“, also negativ beschriebene Lebensweise, dass sie die Juden im persischen Großreich zur unerwünschten und zu einer zu eliminierenden Out-Group stempelt. Wie fließend und gefährlich diese Kategorisierungen sein können, zeigt das Estherbuch in multipler Weise.

2 Jüdische Lebensweise 2.1 Die Terminologie Das Nomen ἀγωγή hat im altgriechischen Buch Esther, wie oben erwähnt, nur zwei Belege, aber keinen im Alpha-Text. Die Grundbedeutung dieses Wortes ist „Führung“, genauer und auf unseren Kontext bezogen nach Menge: „2. Leitung; Hinleitung … Erziehung, Unterricht; … Lebensführung“2. Der pädagogische Aspekt wird durch die Verwendung von ἐπαίδευσεν in 2,7 unterstrichen. Die übrigen Vorkommen von ἀγωγή finden sich weiters nur in der deuterokanonischen bzw. apokryphen Literatur und hier in 2 Makk 4,16 (καὶ ὧν ἐζήλουν τὰς ἀγωγὰς καὶ καθ̓ ἅπαν ἤθελον ἐξομοιοῦσθαι); 6,8 (ἀγωγὴν κατὰ τῶν Ιουδαίων ἄγειν καὶ σπλαγχνίζειν); 11,24 (ἀγωγὴν κατὰ τῶν Ιουδαίων ἄγειν καὶ σπλαγχνίζειν) sowie 3 Makk 4,10 (ἀγωγὴν ἐπιβούλων ἐν παντὶ τῷ κατάπλῳ λαμβάνωσιν). Darüber hinaus gibt es neun Belege bei Philo (15/10 v.–40 n.Chr.)3, fünf einschlägige in Josephus’ Werken (37/38-100 n.Chr.)4 sowie bei Aristoteles, Eth. nic. 1179.2; Pol. 1292.2; Herodot, Hist. 2.175; 6.85; Plato, Leg. 2.659d u.ö.; Strabo, Geogr. 1.22; 2.2, 4, 8; etc. Bedenkt man die zugrunde liegende Bedeutung des Verbs ἄγω („führen, bringen, gehen“) hinter ἀγωγή und die Absicht der griechischen Langfassung des Textes, v.a. von dessen Zusätzen, einen stärkeren religiösen Bezug herzustellen wie z.B. durch das Einfügen von Gottesnamen (κύριος OG25x, A-T18x; θεός OG26x, A-T19x), die Erwähnung des unbeschnittenen persischen Königs durch Esther (C,26), von eingehaltenen

2 Menge, Grosswörterbuch, 24; vgl. LSJ: “II leading, guidance, … 3 direction, training, … 4 way of life, conduct, … 5 keeping, observance, …” mit weiteren Quellenangaben; Mounce Greek Dictionary, notiert prägnant: “guidance, mode of instruction, discipline, course of life.” 3 Det. 16, 118; Post. 181; Deus 61, 119; Plant. 177; Ebr. 195; Cong. 158; Mut. 114. 4 A.J. 12.10; 14.195, 247 (18.169); B.J. 1.462; 3.109.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 119

Speisevorschriften und verweigertem Genuss von Opferwein (C,28), dann gewinnt man den Eindruck, dass insbesondere die Zusätze das Jüdisch-Sein der Protagonisten und deren theologische Orientierung herausstreichen wollen. Die Anspielungen der Gebete von Mardochaios und Esther auf die Geschichte Israels, die Torah im weitesten Sinn5, liefern den Kontext des Buches für deren Auslegung in einer Diasporasituation. Ausgehend von einer Datierung der zusammengeführten Texte im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert könnte man diese auch als Halacha (‫ )הלכה‬bezeichnen, die beginnende rechtsverbindliche Auslegung jüdischer Überlieferung mit ihren Mizwot, die später auf die Zahl 613 festgelegt wurden. Bezeichnenderweise basieren beide termini technici, ‫ הלכה‬und ἀγωγή auf derselben semantischen Grundbedeutung „gehen“.

2.2 Die Textpassagen in der LXX In der jetzigen Anordnung des Buches Esther6 hat Mardochaios, wie viele der großen biblischen Gestalten (Jakob, Josef, Moses, Samuel, Salomo) vor ihm ein Traumgesicht (A,1–11) und vermag es schließlich auch zu deuten (F,1–10) wie Josef oder Daniel. Dies ist nach Num 12,6 (vgl. aber Jer 23,25.28) eine Gabe an Propheten und stellt Mardochaios in eine Reihe mit jüdischen Heldenfiguren. Damit ergeben die Zusätze

5 Gottesvorstellungen, religiöse Riten, Mizwot usw.: 4,2 Sack und Asche; 4,4 Mordechaios zu bekleiden, 4,16 drei Tage Fasten (nichts essen und trinken); C,3–4 Schöpfer von Himmel und Erde; C,5 Gott allwissend; C,7 keine Proskynese vor einem Menschen; C,8–9 Gott Abrahams, Israel als Losanteil aus Ägypten losgekauft; C,12–13 Selbsterniedrigung Esthers (Kot!); C,14 Gott alleiniger Helfer; C,16 ihr Stamm, Israel als Losanteil Gottes, Auserwählung; C,17–18 Sünde des Abfalls von Gott zu Göttern; C,18 Sklaverei Israels als Losanteil Gottes auslöschen; C,20 Gottes Haus und Brandopferaltar verglimmen lassen als Anspielung auf die Tempelzerstörung(en): 586 v.Chr. und 70 n.Chr.; C,21– 23 Verehrung der Nichtse; sterblicher König für immer bewundert (möglicherweise Anspielung auf die Vergöttlichung seleukidischer Herrscher wie Antiochus IV. Epiphanes); C,26 Abscheu vor Mischehe mit Unbeschnittenem; C,27 Prunk Esthers wie Menstruationsblut impliziert kultische Unreinheit; C,28 nicht am Tisch Hamans gegessen (E,10 der Makedone Haman, Sohn des Hamadathos [E,17] … dem persischen Blut ein Fremder; nur in OG); C,29 Gott Abrahams; D,1 gottesdienstlichen Gewänder Esthers; De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther (LXX und A-Text),“ 1265: „Diese Version der Est-Geschichte greift…intensiv auf die Traditionen der jüdischen Heiligen Schrift zurück…“; vgl. Wacker, „Toratreue,“ 10, spricht von „Gottesbekenntnis und Toratreue im täglichen Leben,“ wobei Mordechai diese im Konflikt mit Haman öffentlich auslebt, aber Esther „zur Ehre Gottes in innere Distanz geht.“ Die Autorin bezeichnet Esther gar als „Theologin“ und betont: „Sie ist es, der ein Bekenntnis zu dem einen und einzigen Gott Israels in den Mund gelegt ist …“ (9). 6 A,1–17; 1,1–3,13; B,1–7; 3,14–4,17; C,1–30; D,1–16; 5,2–8,12; E,1–24; 8,13–10,3; F,1–11.

120 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

A und F eine aufeinander abgestimmte Rahmung7. Nur OG schließt das Estherbuch mit einem Kolophon in F,118 ab, welches eine Datierung des zusammengestellten Werkes, Grundtext mit Zusätzen A-F9, im ersten Drittel des 1. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert ermöglicht. Nach Johnson kann man den Text u.a. in die Kategorie “Jewish fiction”10 einordnen, was z.B. durch die Erwähnung von Mardochaios’ Gefangennahme und Wegführung aus Juda gemeinsam mit dem Davididen Jechonias (Jojachin) durch den babylonischen König Nebukadnezzar (im Jahre 597 v.Chr.) deutlich wird (A,3). Mardochaios müsste also mindestens an die 150 Jahre alt sein, denn der Erste der Könige mit Namen Artaxerxes11 regierte 465–424 v.Chr. Eine jüdische Königin Persiens und 127 Satrapien sind andere Elemente. Sieht man von Zusatz A ab, finden sich sinniger Weise die beiden Belege für ἀγωγή in jenen Kapiteln, in denen die beiden jüdischen Protagonisten der Esther Story, Mardochaios in 2,5 und Esther in 2,7 eingeführt werden, und wo sie am Ende mit vereinten Kräften das Überleben ihres Volkes bewerkstelligen, das Purimfest einsetzen (8,14–10,2), und Mardochaios zum „Nachfolger von König Artaxerxes“ (ὁ δὲ Μαρδοχαῖος διεδέχετο τὸν βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην) wird (10,3). καὶ ἦν τούτῳ παῖς θρεπτή, θυγάτηρ Αμιναδαβ ἀδελφοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῇ Εσθηρ· ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταλλάξαι αὐτῆς τοὺς γονεῖς ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα· καὶ ἦν τὸ κοράσιον καλὸν τῷ εἴδει.

OG 2,7

ἡ δὲ Εσθηρ οὐχ ὑπέδειξεν τὴν πατρίδα αὐτῆς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐνετείλατο αὐτῇ Μαρδοχαῖος, φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ· καὶ Εσθηρ οὐ μετήλλαξεν τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτῆς.

OG 2,20

ὁ δὲ Μαρδοχαῖος διεδέχετο τὸν βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην καὶ μέγας ἦν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ δεδοξασμένος ὑπὸ τῶν Ιουδαίων, καὶ φιλούμενος διηγεῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν παντὶ τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ.

OG 10,3

7 Vgl. De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther (LXX und A-Text),“ 1263. 8 Vgl. Bickerman, “Colophon”; Moore, Additions, 112–14; idem, “Esther,” 630; Macchi, Ester, 355–56. 9 Bedenkt man Datierungsversuche, von De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther (LXX und A-Text),“ 1264–65, kann man aufgrund des Kolophons vom „Königspaar Ptolemaios XII. Auletes und seine[r] Schwester und Gemahlin Kleopatra V.“ ausgehen und „die Jahre 78/77 v.Chr. als Entstehungszeit der septuagintagriech. Übersetzung ansehen“. Für den A-T schlagen die Autorinnen die Jahre 40/41 n.Chr. vor, der von einem Juden in Rom „im Kontext der röm.-jüdischen Literatur dieser Zeit (Josephus, Philo, 3/4 Makk u.a.)“ entstanden sei. 10 Johnson, “Novelistic Elements,” 575, 582. 11 MT und A-T verwenden Ahaschwerosch (i.e. Xerxes) bzw. Assveros, OG jedoch Artaxerxes.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 121

2.3 „Lebensführung“ Esthers basierend auf Mardochaios’ Befehl Zunächst muss innerhalb der LXX geklärt werden, welche Inhalte mit „Lebensführung“ gemeint sind und wie sie sich gegebenenfalls von MT und dem A-T unterscheiden. Sichtet man den Text mit samt den Zusätzen, so bekommt man einen jüdischen Mann, wörtl. Menschen (ἄνθρωπος Ἰουδαῖος A,2OG // A-T -; 2,5OG ἄνθρωπος ἦν Ἰουδαῖος // A-T ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖος // MT ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫)איׁש י‬ ִ namens Mardochaios aus dem Stamm Benjamin vorgestellt, der am persischen Hof des Artaxerxes in Susa in königlichem Dienst steht (A,1–2; 2,19 ἐθεράπευεν ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ) und damit ein respektiertes Glied der persischen Gesellschaft ist (ἄνθρωπος μέγας θεραπεύων ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τοῦ βασιλέως; vgl. 10,3). Er erweist sich als loyaler persischer Beamter, als er ein Mordkomplott zweier Eunuchen gegen den König anzeigt (A,12–16). Sowohl der König als auch sein Retter zeichnen das Geschehene auf, womit ein Hinweis auf die Erinnerungskultur (A,15) von Gesellschaften gegeben ist. “These texts were aimed above all at constructing a sense of self-understanding within the inner group through the partial development of a shared social memory.”12 Sodann erfolgt der „ausdrückliche“ Befehl (A,16 ἐπιτάσσω) des Königs an Mardochaios, dass dieser am Hof Dienst tun soll. Auch erhält er Geschenke (vgl. aber 6,3). All dies bringt ihm den Hass Hamans ein, der fortan gegen Mardochaios und dessen Volk Böses plant (A,17 ἐζήτησεν κακοποιῆσαι τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον καὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ), denn sein Mordkomplott ist aufgedeckt worden. In seiner Ehre verletzt13, versucht Haman sodann die Juden zur Out-group zu stempeln, wobei er selbst einer feindlichen Out-group angehört, was durch die termini technici ἀλλότριος und αἷμα, also die fehlende Blutsverwandtschaft14 mit den Persern ausgedrückt wird. So nachgetragen im Gegenedikt Esthers, wo Haman als Makedone „in Wahrheit dem persischen Blut ein Fremder“ (E,10 Μακεδὼν ταῖς

12 So Ben Zwi, “Othering,” 581, Anm. 4. 13 Bickerman, “Notes,” 124, bezeichnet das als “to ‘save face’ because a Jewish courtier has provoked him”; LXXD A,17 stellt Haman als „(Sohn des) Hamadathos [der Mächtige: eine Gottesbezeichnung], der Prahlhans“ (Αμαν Αμαδάθου Βουγαῖος ἔνδοξος ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως) vor (vgl. 3,3). A-T dagegen führt Haman schon bei der ersten Erwähnung als feindlich gesinnten Makedonier ein (Αμαν Αμαδάθου Μακεδόνα κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ βασιλέως). Zusätzlich wird sein Hochmut betont (OG C,5 ὑπερήφανος; E,12 ὑπερηφανία // A-T E,12). 14 Eberhart, „Blut/Blutriten.“ „»Blut« steht für Gentilzugehörigkeit, hat also noch nichts mit den biologistisch-rassistischen Vorstellungen des 19. Jh. …zu tun…“ (De Troyer und Wacker, „Ester,“ 1284).

122 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

ἀληθείαις ἀλλότριος τοῦ τῶν Περσῶν αἵματος) ist, der gegen die Juden Krieg führte (9,24 ὁ Μακεδὼν ἐπολέμει αὐτούς)15, um sie zu vernichten.16 Die einzige andere Stelle, wo „Blut“ vorkommt, finden wir ebenso in Zusatz E,5, als Esthers Gegenedikt erklärt, dass die „Freunde des Königs“, also sein engster Beraterstab (πολλοὺς τῶν ἐπ’ ἐξουσίαις τεταγμένων τῶν πιστευθέντων χειρίζειν φίλων τὰ πράγματα), aus unterschiedlichen Gründen durch ihren negativen Einfluss zu königlichen Fehlentscheidungen verleiten. Daher wird „das Blut Unschuldiger“ vergossen, was auf den Täter Haman zurückfällt.17 Da hier die Juden gemeint sind, kann man folgern, dass mit αἱμάτων ἀθῴων18 diese entweder eine schützenswerte Randgruppe darstellen oder den Persern gleichgestellt und damit (von Esther und Mardochaios) als Angehörige der In-group gelten sollen. A-T variiert etwas: Allein der König Assveros hält die Ereignisse fest, wobei er Mardochaios namentlich in der königlichen Chronik anführt. Auch in der Kurzfassung ergeht der Befehl (ἐντέλλω) des Herrschers nach der Aufdeckung des Komplotts, am Hofe Dienst zu tun, allerdings als oberster Security Offizier aller Palast-Tore (A,16 πᾶσαν θύραν ἐπιφανῶς τηρεῖν // 2,21 ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫)ּומ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬. ָ Die Geschenke an Mardochaios bleiben aus. A-T enthüllt schon hier Hamans makedonische Herkunft und steigert zusätzlich seine Revenge, wenn es heißt, dass er Mardochaios und dessen „ganzem“ Volk Böses anzutun beabsichtigt. Die Begründung ist etwas ausführlicher und Mardochaios’ aktive Rolle wird hervorgehoben. Er hatte es gewagt wegen der beiden Mordpläne schmiedenden Eunuchen, den König zu behelligen. Die Reaktion erfolgt prompt: Diese wurden ohne viel Aufhebens beseitigt (A,18). An dieser Stelle ist entsprechend dem Erzähl-Ductus zu hinterfragen, ob Haman zu jenem Zeitpunkt bekannt ist, welche Identität Mardochaios hat. Sieht etwa Haman seinen Rivalen als getreuen persischen Beamten? Er selbst aber ist laut

15 Vgl. OG: Krieg gegen die Juden (A,6 Mardochaios Traum; C,24 Gebet Esthers; 9,16 kriegerische Aktionen kommen zum Stillstand; 9,24); Krieg der Juden als Selbstverteidigung (8,13); A-T: Krieg gegen die Juden (A,7 Mardochaios Traum; C,24 Esthers Gebet bezüglich Hamans Kriegstreiberei), Hamans Unterstellung, Juden seien Kriegstreiber (3,8). 16 Vgl. Ben Zwi, “Othering,” 590: “Perhaps one of the most interesting and sophisticated cases of mirror Othering is present in the book of Esther. There are numerous kinds of Othering in the book, but a particularly salient case of Otherness that demands attention involves Israel/Esther/Mordecai vs. Haman/Amalek. …construed as mutually genocidal” (vgl. hierzu MT 1 Sam 15). 17 Vgl. Eberle-Küster, „Blutschuld.“ 18  „Unschuldiges Blut“ ist ein geprägter Begriff mit Konnotationen, wie Fluch-Segen-Texte (Dtn 27,25 // Lev 26), Rettung aus politischen Intrigen (1 Sam 19,5; 1 Kön 2,5; Jer 33,15), Hybris (1 Sam 25,26.31); finanzieller Vorteil (Ps 93[94],21), soziale Randgruppen (Jer 7,6; 22,3); Götzendienst, Kinderopfer (2 Kön 21,16; 24,4; 2 Chr 36,5; Jer 19,4; Ps 105[106],38) und der Entweihung des Tempels bzw. Chanukka (1 Makk 1,37; 2 Makk 1,8).

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 123

E,10 (9,24 // in A-T bereits in A,17) Makedone, der „die Herrschaft der Perser auf die Makedonen übertragen“19 will (E,14). A-T formuliert anders: Haman wollte mittels Intrigen „die Fremdübernahme der Herrschaft der Perser hin zu den Makedonen“ herbeiführen. In dieses Bild passt, dass Mardochaios nach MT und OG seiner Pflegetochter Esther, wohl eine Gefährdung vermutend, befohlen hatte, ihre Abstammung am Hofe geheim zu halten (2,10 τὸ γένος αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὴν πατρίδα).20 Zudem enthüllt Mardochaios erst nach Hamans Aufstieg in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Hofbeamten bezüglich der für Haman angeordneten Proskynese, dass er Jude ist: ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Μαρδοχαῖος ὅτι Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν (// A-T ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν; ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫י־הּגִ יד ָל ֶהם ֲא ֶׁשר־הּוא י‬ ִ ‫;ּכ‬ ִ 3,4). Wen also meint Haman in A,17 (A,18A-T), wenn er dem „Volk“ des Mardochaios, einem angesehenen Beamten am Perserhof, Übel will? Womöglich sieht Haman seinen Rivalen als Perser. Diese Frage klärt sich erst in 3,6OG: „er beschloss, alle Juden unter der Königsherrschaft des Artaxerxes auszulöschen“ (ἀφανίσαι πάντας τοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν Ἀρταξέρξου βασιλείαν Ἰουδαίους // ‫הּודים … ַעם ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי‬ ִ ְ‫ל־הּי‬ ַ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ת־עם ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי … ֶא‬ ַ ‫)א‬. ֶ Wiederum, emotional übersteigert, formuliert A-T: „Als aber Haman (dieses) hörte, geriet er in Grimm über Mardochaios, und Zorn entbrannte in ihm, und er suchte Mardochaios und sein ganzes Volk an einem (einzigen) Tag umzubringen. Und als Haman zornig gereizt und in seinem Grimm äußerst bewegt war, wurde er rot; er wandte ihn weg aus seinen Augen, und mit bösem Herzen sprach er zum König Schlechtes über Israel.“

3,6

OG ἀφανίσαι πάντας τοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν Ἀρταξέρξου βασιλείαν Ἰουδαίους

A-T 3,5 ἐθυμώθη τῷ Μαρδοχαίῳ, καὶ ὀργὴ ἐξεκαύθη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐζήτει ἀνελεῖν τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ.

19 Vom Plot her eine Anspielung auf ein Ereignis in der Zukunft, tatsächlich, aber anachronistisch: Der Makedone Alexander der Große hat schließlich den Perserkönig Darius III. 331 v.Chr. in Gaugamela besiegt. 20 Eine Reminiszenz an das judenfeindliche Religionsedikt Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, einen Nachfolger des Makedonen Alexander den Großen, das den Makkabäer-Aufstand 167 v.Chr. ausgelöst hatte; vgl. Mittag, Antiochos IV. Epiphanes, 256–68, bes. 257.

124  3,7

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

3,6 καὶ παραζηλώσας ὁ Αμαν καὶ καὶ ἐποίησεν ψήφισμα ἐν κινηθεὶς ἐν παντὶ τῷ θυμῷ ἔτει δωδεκάτῳ τῆς βασιλείας ἐρυθρὸς ἐγένετο ἐκτρέπων αὐτὸν Ἀρταξέρξου καὶ ἔβαλεν κλήρους ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ καρδίᾳ ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας καὶ μῆνα ἐκ μηνὸς φαύλῃ ἐλάλει τῷ βασιλεῖ κακὰ ὥστε ἀπολέσαι ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τὸ περὶ Ισραηλ γένος Μαρδοχαίου, καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος εἰς τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην τοῦ μηνός, ὅς ἐστιν Αδαρ.

Damit überträgt Haman seine persönliche Kränkung durch eine Einzelperson auf Mordechaios’ jüdische Abstammung. LXX bleibt mit ihrer Terminologie Ἰουδαίους und γένος eher auf Ebene der Sippe, wobei sich der Alpha-Text mit λαός und Ισραηλ, zusätzlich erweitert mit πάντα, auf der Ebene des ganzen Volkes bewegt. Neben der Anerkennung des hohen Ranges in der persischen Gesellschaft, v.a. der Anstellung bei Hofe—der Alpha-Text spezifiziert den Dienst zusätzlich aufgrund der Aufdeckung des Komplotts zum obersten Security Offizier aller PalastTore (A,16 πᾶσαν θύραν ἐπιφανῶς τηρεῖν // 2,21 ‫—)ּוָמ ְרֳּדַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּבַׁשַער־ַהֶּמֶלְך‬wird die jüdische Abstammung Mardochiaos’ sowohl in Zusatz A,1 als auch in 2,5 mit einer dreiteiligen patrilinearen Genealogie eingeführt. Diese kreiert seine soziale Identität. Sein Stammvater ist somit Benjamin21, der jüngste der zwölf Söhne Jakobs, dessen Gebiet das kleinste war, aber durch die Hauptstadt Jerusalem auf seinem Territorium die beiden Reiche Israel und Juda verband. Die drei angeführten Generationen scheinen die Zeit von der Wegführung Mordechaios in die Babylonischen Gefangenschaft bis zur Herrschaft des Artaxerxes zu symbolisieren. Diese Genealogie wird sodann stillschweigend auf die Heldin der Geschichte, auf Esther übertragen, wenn sie in 2,7 (v. 15) als Mordechaios’ Pflegekind (OG παῖς θρεπτή) // A-T ἦν ἐκτρέφων πιστῶς // ‫ )א ֵֹמן‬vorgestellt wird. Sie ist die „Tochter des Aminadab, des Bruders seines Vaters“, also seine schöne Cousine, die er nach dem Tod ihrer Eltern aufgenommen „und sie für sich zur Frau erzogen“ hat (ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα // ‫ ְ;ל ָק ָחּה ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי לֹו ְל ַבת‬vgl. 4,8 μνησθεῖσα ἡμερῶν ταπεινώσεώς σου ὡς ἐτράφης ἐν χειρί μου). Sowohl T. Esth 2:7 als auch Josephus, A.J. 11.203‒204 unterstützen die hebräische Vorlage, aus der sich nicht ohne weiteres eine Heirats-

21 Benjamins Mutter stirbt bei seiner Geburt, sodass er zur Halbwaise wird, ein Schicksal, das Esther mit dem Stammvater verknüpft, die dann ebenfalls nur von einem Mann aufgezogen wird und auf eine Mutterfigur verzichten muss. Hinzu kommt, dass Benjamin aufgrund der Umstände zwei Namen trägt; als „Kind meines Elends“ wird er zum „Glückskind“ umbenannt, und Esther (ev. babylonischer Name „Stern“, vielleicht zurückzuführen auf die Göttin Ischtar) heißt mit zweitem Namen Hadassa (süßlich duftende Myrte), insinuierend eine Doppelidentität, eine für die persische Öffentlichkeit und eine für ihr jüdisches Familienleben.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 125

absicht ablesen lässt. Dies wird später von b. Meg. 13a(.14) anders interpretiert: „Im Namen R. Meírs wird gelehrt: Lies nicht bath [Tochter] sondern bajith [Haus],“ was eine bildliche Bezeichnung für Frau bzw. Hausfrau darstellen soll.—Allein A-T erwähnt nicht explizit, dass Esthers Eltern gestorben sind. Damit zeigt sich, dass Mardochaios als wohlsituierter Mann in der Diaspora gegenüber der eigenen Familie, im weiteren Sinn gegenüber seinem Stamm verantwortungsbewusst handelt, sich gemäß der Torah um eine Waise kümmert22 und Esther nach OG auch nicht als Erwachsene ohne männlichen Rechtsbeistand sich selbst überlassen will. Er erfüllt somit eine religiöse Pflicht. Man bedenke hier ebenso die spätere jüdische Auslegung wie z.B. das Zitat in b. Meg. 13a(.5), das Bezug nimmt auf die Tochter Pharaos, die Mose aufzieht (Ex 2,10): ‘Gebar’, sie hat ihm ja nur erzogen!? Dies besagt, daß, wenn jemand einen Waisenknaben oder ein Waisenmädchen in seinem Hause großzieht, die Schrift es ihm anrechnet, als hätte er sie geboren (vgl. b. Sanh. 19b[.13]). Mardochaios’ Heiratspläne zerschlagen sich, als nach der Verstoßung der Königin Astin auf Anordnung von Artaxerxes „viele Mädchen (κοράσια πολλὰ) in der Stadt Susa … zu Gai, dem Wächter der Frauen“ gebracht werden müssen (2,8), darunter auch Esther. Scheinbar ist für die Auswahl Esthers Schönheit das Kriterium (2,7.9.15.17), sodass ihr im Frauenhaus eine gute Behandlung zuteil wird und sie bis zur Königin eines fremden Landes aufsteigt. Mardochaios aber hatte ihr befohlen, „weder ihr Geschlecht noch (ihr) Vaterland“ (οὐχ ὑπέδειξεν Εσθηρ τὸ γένος αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὴν πατρίδα, 2,10 // ‫א־הּגִ ָידה ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫ת־מֹול ְד ָּתּה‬ ַ ‫ת־ע ָּמּה וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫;א‬ ֶ vgl. 2,20 ἡ δὲ Εσθηρ οὐχ ὑπέδειξεν τὴν πατρίδα αὐτῆς // ‫ֵאין ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬ ‫ת־ע ָּמּה‬ ַ ‫מֹול ְד ָּתּה וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫)מּגֶ ֶדת‬ ַ preiszugeben, wohl um sich bezüglich des Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses zu ihrem Cousin bedeckt zu halten und um sie vor irgendwelchen Anfeindungen zu schützen (vgl. A,17). Er versucht, diese Beschützerrolle während der einjähriger Schönheitspflege Esthers beizubehalten, indem er sich täglich in der Nähe des Frauenhofs (κατὰ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν γυναικείαν) aufhält. Esther beugt sich der Autorität ihres Verwandten (ἐνετείλατο αὐτῇ // ‫ִּכי ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי‬ ‫א־תּגִ יד‬ ַ ֹ ‫יה ֲא ֶׁשר ל‬ ָ ‫)צּוָ ה ָע ֶל‬, ִ ähnlich wie sie es gegenüber dem „Wächter der Frauen“ tut (2,15 οὐδὲν ἠθέτησεν ὧν ἐνετείλατο // ‫אמר ֵהגַ י ְס ִריס־‬ ַ ֹ ‫ת־א ֶׁשר י‬ ֲ ‫לֹא ִב ְק ָׁשה ָּד ָבר ִּכי ִאם ֶא‬

22 Molnar-Hidvegi, „Witwe“: „In einer patriarchalisch bestimmten Gesellschaft gehörten eine Frau, die den Ehemann, und ein Kind, das den Vater verloren hatte, zu den in mehrfacher Hinsicht sozial und wirtschaftlich, rechtlich und religiös Benachteiligten und oft Bedrückten. … Das Alte Testament hat das Schicksal dieser marginalisierten Personen wahrgenommen und sie gelten in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, vor allem im deuteronomischen Recht, als besonders schutzbedürftig. Die Fürsorge … für die sozial Schwachen, erscheint als religiöse Pflicht (Ex 22,21; Dtn 24,17.19).“ Siehe auch Wahl, „Ester,“ 78‒99, zum Thema Adoption.

126 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

‫)ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ׁש ֵֹמר ַהּנָ ִׁשים‬. ַ Letzterer wird nach MT nicht mit derselben Befehlsgewalt für Ester beschrieben, wie sie ihr Cousin hat. Aber Mardochaios hat Esther nicht nur Gehorsam gegenüber weltlichen Autoritäten gelehrt, sondern allein nach OG auch gegenüber Gott. Er hatte „ihr befohlen, Gott zu fürchten und seinen Anordnungen zur folgen, wie (zur Zeit,) als sie bei ihm war“ (φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ // ‫יה ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי‬ ָ ‫)ּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ִצּוָ ה ָע ֶל‬.23 ַ

2,10

A-T -

2,15

-

2,20

OG ὁ γὰρ Μαρδοχαῖος ἐνετείλατο αὐτῇ μὴ ἀπαγγεῖλαι οὐδὲν ἠθέτησεν ὧν ἐνετείλατο ὁ εὐνοῦχος ὁ φύλαξ τῶν γυναικῶν· ἡ δὲ Εσθηρ οὐχ ὑπέδειξεν τὴν πατρίδα αὐτῆς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐνετείλατο αὐτῇ Μαρδοχαῖος, φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ·

MT ‫א־תּגִ יד‬ ַ ֹ ‫יה ֲא ֶׁשר ל‬ ָ ‫ִּכי ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ִצּוָ ה ָע ֶל‬ ‫אמר ֵהגַ י ְס ִריס־‬ ַ ֹ ‫ת־א ֶׁשר י‬ ֲ ‫ִּכי ִאם ֶא‬ ‫ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ׁש ֵֹמר ַהּנָ ִׁשים‬ ‫ת־ע ָּמּה‬ ַ ‫מֹול ְד ָּתּה וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ֵאין ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַמּגֶ ֶדת‬ ‫יה ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי‬ ָ ‫ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ִצּוָ ה ָע ֶל‬

Der Erzähler hält schließlich fest: „und Esther veränderte nicht ihre Lebensführung“ (καὶ Εσθηρ οὐ μετήλλαξεν τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτῆς; 2,20). MT formuliert positiv, dass sich Ester an die Worte Mordechais hält, wie zu der Zeit als sie noch seine Pflegetochter war (‫יְתה ְב ָא ְמנָ ה ִאּתֹו‬ ָ ‫ת־מ ֲא ַמר ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ֶא ְס ֵּתר ע ָֹׂשה ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ָה‬ ַ ‫)וְ ֶא‬. Zusammenfassend ist festzuhalten, dass Esther, ihrer Abstammung nach, eine jüdische Frau, von dem mit ihr verwandten Pflegevater, einem in der persischen Gesellschaft anerkannten Mann, lernt, den Befehlen männlicher Autoritätspersonen Folge zu leisten und sich neuen Situationen anzupassen wie z.B. nach ihrer Verwaisung (2,7) oder ihrer Aufnahme in den Harem (2,8). Dabei hilft ihr ihr schönes Aussehen, welches zuerst Mardochaios auffällt, dann dem Wächter der Frauen, schließlich von allen wahrgenommen wird und letztlich Artaxerxes so bezaubert, sodass er unwissentlich diese jüdische Frau aus einer Flüchtlingsfamilie zur persischen Königin macht. Hier wird die Wandlung von einer Tochter, einem gehorchenden Pflegekind (2,7 παῖς θρεπτή, θυγάτηρ Αμιναδαβ) zu einer schönen Frau (2,7 γυναῖκα), einer 23 Halvorson-Taylor, “Secrets,” 483, betont: “In an ambiguous if not cleverly retooled sentence, the verse flows directly from the assertion that Esther kept her origins secret to the assertion that she kept the commandments. … While her identity was hidden from outsiders, she kept the commandments and her manner of life.” Vgl. Nagel, “LXX Esther,” 133‒38.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 127

doch sehr passiven Jungfrau (2,17 παρθένος) zur verheirateten, gekrönten Königin (ἐπέθηκεν αὐτῇ τὸ διάδημα τὸ γυναικεῖον; 2,18 ὕψωσεν τοὺς γάμους Εσθηρ) beschrieben. Aus einer kindlichen Privatperson wird eine öffentliche Person, und wie sich zeigen wird, eine mit einer enormen Verantwortung, mit einer Retter-Funktion für das Überleben des Volkes ihrer Herkunft. Mardochaios’ Erziehung zu Gehorsam gegenüber Autoritätspersonen, gegenüber einem Pflegevater, dem zukünftigen Ehemann, aber vor allem gegenüber Gott und zur Verschwiegenheit bezüglich ihrer Identität zeichnet Esther aus. Negativ formulierend wird festgehalten, dass sie nichts an ihrer Lebensführung veränderte (2,20). Diese Geheimhaltung scheint nötig, da Haman Mardochaios und dessen Volk Böses antun will (A,17), was auch Esther gefährden würde. Hamans Plan zum Genozid der Juden, ausgehend von einer persönlichen Kränkung,24 kulminiert in der Anklage, dass diese den Anordnungen des Königs bzw. den persisch-medischen Gesetzen zuwiderhandeln und ihrer eigenen fremdartigen Gesetzgebung folgen.

2.4 Anordnungen versus Gesetze 2.4.1 Anordnungen Die griechische Langfassung enthält in 2,20 gegenüber MT und A-T den zusätzlichen Befehl Mardochaios an Esther, „Gott zu fürchten und seinen Anordnungen zu folgen“ (φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ). Ähnliche Inhalte finden sich in Dtn 6,24 πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα; 17,19 πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς ταύτας καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα ταῦτα; 31,12 πάντας τοὺς λόγους τοῦ νόμου τούτου; Tob 14,2 ἐλεημοσύνας; Sir 15,1 σοφία - ὁ ἐγκρατὴς τοῦ νόμου, wo es um die Ehrfurcht vor Gott oder vor dem Herrn geht und darum, seinen Anordnungen, den Worten seines Gesetzes zu folgen. Jedoch πρόσταγμα im Plural wird in dieser Wortkombination nur in Est 2,20 verwendet. Im Esterbuch findet man sechs Belege, die sich bis auf die eben erwähnte Stelle auf königliche Anordnungen beziehen: In 2,8 werden auf königliche Anordnung hin viele Mädchen in den Palast zu Gai, dem Wächter der Frauen gebracht. In D,10 versichert der König Esther, als sie unaufgefordert vor ihm erscheint und aus Angst vor einem Todesurteil einen Schwächeanfall erleidet, dass seine Anordnung nur im Allgemeinen gilt, nicht aber für sie. In 8,14 beeilen sich die Reiterboten,

24  Ähnlich Gruen, Constructs, 174, der im Kontext von 3 Makk 1,8–15; 2,25–3,30 auf Ptolemaios IV. verweist: “It depicts the mad monarch…determined to eradicate the Jews of Egypt because their compatriots had denied him access to the Holy of Holies in the temple of Jerusalem.”

128 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

das vom König Verlautbarte in Esthers Gegenedikt im ganzen Reich bekannt zu machen, auch in Susa wird die königliche Anordnung ausgehängt. Wo immer in Stadt und Land diese Anordnung publik gemacht wurde (8,17), herrschte bei den Juden Freude. Beim Eintreffen der königlichen Anordnung im ganzen Königreich (9,4) erweisen die „Obersten der Satrapen und die Fürsten und die königlichen Schreiber“ den Juden Ehre, „[d]enn die Furcht vor Mardochaios lag auf ihnen (ὁ γὰρ φόβος Μαρδοχαίου ἐνέκειτο αὐτοῖς; 9,3).“ Letztlich handelt es sich auf königlicher Seite um drei Anordnungen: die Mädchen Susas nach der Absetzung Astins in den Palast zu bringen, das Todesurteil für sich dem König unbefugt Nähernde und die Rehabilitation der Juden mit der Erlaubnis nach ihren eigenen Gesetzen zu handeln (ἐᾶν τοὺς Ἰουδαίους χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἑαυτῶν νομίμοις; vgl. E,15 δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις // AT δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις), die Aufforderung, ihnen am 13. Adar bei ihrer Gegenwehr zu helfen (E,19–20) zusammen mit dem Gebot, einen neuen Gedenktag mit Festmahl einzuführen (E,22–23). Damit erwähnt Zusatz E zwei weitere Begriffe, die in diesem Kontext relevant und zu berücksichtigen sind: νόμος („Gesetz“) bzw. von derselben Wurzel νόμιμος („gesetzmäßig; Brauch, Sitte, Gesetz“) und πολιτεύω („Bürger sein, als Bürger leben, in einem Staate leben“), die „den Jüdinnen und Juden die rechtlichen Grundlagen für ein Leben als Staatsbürgerinnen und Staatsbürger gewährt[en] … und mit ihrer eher auf Diplomatie als auf Waffengewalt setzenden Lösung des tödlichen Konfliktes.“25

2.4.2 Gesetze Trinkgelage Das Wort νόμος hat zwölf Belege und steht zumeist im Zusammenhang mit dem Handeln des Königs. So hält der Erzähler in 1,8 fest, dass das Trinkgelage nicht im Gesetz verankert ist, sondern findet auf Wunsch des Königs und der Menschen statt (τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). Als Astin sich dem Willen des Artaxerxes widersetzt und nicht zu ihrer Krönung vor der königlichen Gesellschaft erscheint, fordert er in 1,13 seine Freunde, sprich Ratgeber, auf, dem Gesetz nachzukommen und ein Urteil (ποιήσατε οὖν περὶ τούτου νόμον καὶ κρίσιν) zu sprechen. Die „Obersten der Perser und Meder, die dem König nahe (waren)“ teilten ihm mit, was dem Gesetz nach, zu tun sei (1,15 κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ὡς δεῖ ποιῆσαι). Um die

25 De Troyer und Wacker, „Esther (LXX und A-Text),“ 1265.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 129

Ehre Artaxerxes’ wiederherzustellen, soll eine königliche Anordnung gemäß den Gesetzen der Meder und Perser (προσταξάτω βασιλικόν, καὶ γραφήτω κατὰ τοὺς νόμους Μήδων καὶ Περσῶν) die Königinnenwürde einer besseren Frau verliehen werden (1,19). Dieses vom König erlassene Gesetz (1,20 ἀκουσθήτω ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως) soll im ganzen Königreich von allen Gesellschaftsschichten gehört werden. Diese ersten fünf Belege von νόμος beziehen sich auf das Trinkgelage des Königs, der, in seiner Ehre verletzt, andere (Menschen, Freunde, Oberste der Perser und Meder, Muchaios) als gesetzliche Autoritäten heranzieht, um diese wiederherzustellen.

Hamans Argumentationsketten gegen die Juden Nachdem Mardochaios nach OG ein zweites Mordkomplott aufgedeckt hatte (2,21– 23) und er mit einem Preislied, das Artaxerxes in der königlichen Bibliothek aufzeichnen lässt, geehrt wird, erklimmt Haman die Spitzenposition unter den Freunden des Königs. Auf königliche Anordnung sollen sich alle vor Haman niederwerfen (3,2 καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ προσεκύνουν αὐτῷ· οὕτως γὰρ προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ποιῆσαι). Nur Mardochaios widersetzt sich und wird bei Hofe mehrfach darauf angesprochen (3,3 τί παρακούεις τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως λεγόμενα). Dieser Umstand wird Haman zur Kenntnis gebracht (3,4 Μαρδοχαῖον τοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως λόγοις ἀντιτασσόμενον), worauf Mardochaios sich als Jude zu erkennen gibt. Hamans Zorn ist ihm sicher. Er will „alle Juden unter der Königsherrschaft des Artaxerxes aus[zu]löschen“ (3,6), was er sogleich in die Tat umsetzt. Er verleumdet die Juden beim König: „Es gibt eine Nation, verstreut unter den Nationen in deinem ganzen Königreich; ihre Gesetze sind abstechend gegenüber allen Nationen, über die Gesetze des Königs hören sie hinweg“ (3,8 Υπάρχει ἔθνος διεσπαρμένον ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου, οἱ δὲ νόμοι αὐτῶν ἔξαλλοι παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, τῶν δὲ νόμων τοῦ βασιλέως παρακούουσιν). Hamans Argumentation von 3,8 beginnt mit „eine Nation, verstreut unter den Nationen in deinem ganzen Königreich“ und spricht korrekt die Diasporasituation an (// ‫כּותָך‬ ֶ ‫ּומפ ָֹרד ֵּבין ָה ַע ִּמים ְּבכֹל ְמ ִדינֹות ַמ ְל‬ ְ ‫ם־א ָחד ְמ ֻפּזָ ר‬ ֶ ‫;ע‬ ַ vgl. A,3; 2,5) der Juden an. Damit nimmt OG den Text von MT auf, wobei statt „alle Provinzen deines Königreichs“ verkürzt wird zu „in deinem ganzen Königreich“. D.h. eine geographische Differenzierung fällt weg. A-T dagegen verändert massiv und bringt schon an dieser Stelle eine negative Qualifizierung: Der Erzähler steigert auch die offensichtliche emotionale Erregung

130 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

Hamans (3,6), um ihn als barbarisch26 zu diskreditieren, und erweitert den geographischen Radius: „Es gibt ein Volk, verstreut in allen Königreichen, ein kriegerisches und ungehorsames Volk“ (3,8 λαὸς διεσπαρμένος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις, λαὸς πολέμου καὶ ἀπειθής). Israel/Juda (3,6) geriet, wenn man im Plot bleiben will, unter König Nebukadnezzar in babylonische Kriegsgefangenschaft und wurde nicht unter alle Königreiche verstreut. Diese Universalisierung passt eher in griechische oder römische Vorherrschaft. Statt ἔθνος („Volk, Völkerschaft, Nation, Stamm, Sippe, Geschlecht“) wird λαός („Volk, Volksmenge, Menschenmenge, Leute“) verwendet, was den Juden den Status als Nation abzusprechen scheint. Zudem stören sie jeden Staatsapparat als „kriegerisches und ungehorsames Volk“. Das zweite Argument ist ebenfalls korrekt, versucht aber durch das qualifizierende „ihre Gesetzte sind abstechend gegenüber allen Nationen“ (3,8 οἱ δὲ νόμοι αὐτῶν ἔξαλλοι παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) eine negative Wertung zu initiieren, was in MT noch neutraler formuliert ist: ‫ל־עם‬ ָ ‫יהם ׁש ֹנֹות ִמ ָּכ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָד ֵת‬. Sehr kurz hält A-T fest: „abstechende Bräuche haben sie“ (ἔξαλλα νόμιμα ἔχων) und verlässt damit den explizit kodifizierten Bereich, ohne die übrige Völkerwelt miteinzubeziehen. Für alle drei Texte gilt Ben Zwis Feststellung: “Haman construed his Other according to Israel’s social norms…”27. Schließlich kommt eine Halbwahrheit ins Spiel, die auf der Demütigung Hamans beruht, von Mardochaios nicht mit einem Kniefall verehrt worden zu sein. Der König hatte dazu in 3,2 eine Anordnung gegeben (προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεύς; vgl. 3,3 τί παρακούεις τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως λεγόμενα; 3,4 Μαρδοχαῖον τοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως λόγοις ἀντιτασσόμενον), die er als Jude nicht befolgen konnte, da er keinen Menschen höherstellt als Gott (vgl. C,5–7). D.h. Mardochaios folgt des Königs Worten nicht (3,2.3.4). Aber es handelt sich nicht ausdrücklich um Gesetze, wie Haman den König generalisierend glauben machen möchte, die die Juden angeblich missachten. Zudem handelt es hier sich um ein pars pro toto Argument: von einer Einzelperson wird auf eine Volksgruppe geschlossen. Auch MT spricht von „Gesetzten des Königs, die nicht befolgt werden“ (3,8 ‫ת־ּד ֵתי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֵאינָ ם ע ִֹׂשים‬ ָ ‫)וְ ֶא‬. ‫ ָּדת‬als persisches Lehnwort kann mit „Anordnung, Befehl“, aber auch „Gesetz“ übersetzt werden und hat 20 Belege im Esterbuch28,

26 Vgl. von Gemünden, Affekt, 27, Anm. 64: „Für (männliche Mitglieder der Oberschicht war das Sich-Beherrschen ausgesprochen wichtig, während tiefer gestellten Personen und noch mehr Mitgliedern der out-group (Barbaren) eine geringere Affektkontrolle nachgesagt wurde.“ Haman disqualifiziert sich durch sein Unbeherrscht-Sein selbst, ein ironischer Seitenhieb, bedenkt man die griechische Kultur. 27 Ben Zwi, “Othering,” 591. 28 Est 1,8.13.15.19; 2,8.12; 3,8 (2x).14.15; 4,3.8.11.16; 8,13.14.17; 9,1.13.14.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 131

neben Esra und Daniel. Der Begriff “overlaps the use of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ , ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬, and ‫ חֹק‬in Hebrew. The relationship between ‘decree’ and ‘law’ was very close...”29 Gerade bezüglich der Absetzung Waschtis sieht man, wie schnell Anweisungen des Königs durch Gesetzes- und Rechtskundige (1,13 ‫)ּכל־י ְֹד ֵעי ָּדת וָ ִדין‬ ָ in Gesetze gegossen werden können (1,16) und „in den Gesetzen der Perser und Meder aufgezeichnet“ werden (‫ס־ּומ ַדי‬ ָ ‫ר־מ ְלכּות ִמ ְּל ָפנָ יו וְ יִ ָּכ ֵתב ְּב ָד ֵתי ָפ ַר‬ ַ ‫ ;יֵ ֵצא ְד ַב‬1,19 (// OG προσταξάτω βασιλικόν, καὶ γραφήτω κατὰ τοὺς νόμους Μήδων καὶ Περσῶν).—A-T weist hier keinen Gesetzesbezug auf.—Somit scheinen die Übergänge in beiden Versionen fließend: Eine Anordnung des Königs wird mittels Experten zum Gesetz, was allerdings im Fall der Proskynese vor Haman nicht der Fall ist. Die Schlussfolgerung des Übeltäters lautet folgendermaßen: „es ist dem König nicht nützlich, sie [die Juden; 3,6] gewähren zu lassen“ (3,8 οὐ συμφέρει τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐᾶσαι αὐτούς). Dieser Satz spiegelt MT wider, wo es heißt „für den König genügt es nicht/ ist es nicht nützlich, sie in Ruhe zu lassen“ (‫יחם‬ ָ ִ‫)וְ ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך ֵאין־ׁש ֹוֶ ה ְל ַהּנ‬. Damit ist indirekt die Handlungsaufforderung zur Vernichtung der Juden an Artaxerxes verbunden, die der rachsüchtige Haman mit 10 000 Talenten Silber für die königliche Schatzkammer forcieren will (3,9 εἰ δοκεῖ τῷ βασιλεῖ, δογματισάτω ἀπολέσαι αὐτούς, κἀγὼ διαγράψω εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον τοῦ βασιλέως ἀργυρίου τάλαντα μύρια). OG geht mit MT parallel. Wie sehr die Vernichtung der Juden Haman ein persönliches Anliegen ist, zeigt sich daran, dass er ein königliches Dekret erwartet (3,9 δογματισάτω ἀπολέσαι αὐτούς // ‫ יִ ָּכ ֵתב ְל ַא ְּב ָדם‬// A-T δοκεῖ οὖν τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ ἀγαθὴ ἡ κρίσις ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ) und aus eigener Tasche die 10 000 Talente Silber zahlen will. Im A-T erfährt die emotionale Involviertheit Hamans noch eine Steigerung: Er will sein Urteil über die Juden vom König bestätigt bekommen und dieses Volk soll „ihm“ zur Vernichtung überlassen werden (δοθήτω μοι τὸ ἔθνος εἰς ἀπώλειαν, καὶ διαγράψω εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον ἀργυρίου τάλαντα μύρια). In allen drei Textvarianten weist der König Hamans Zuwendung an die Schatzkammer zurück.

Die Argumentation Hamans im Edikt (OG) Im Vernichtungsedikt (B,1–7; 3,14–15) wird eine Ehrverletzung zwischen zwei Personen auf eine internationale Ebene verschoben. Hamans Argumentation erfährt bezüglich der jüdischen Gesetze (B,4–5) noch eine Steigerung. Die einfüh-

29 Wolf, “‫ּדת‬,” ָ 200–201.

132 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

renden Worte der Verlautbarung heben Artaxerxes als Großkönig30 hervor und die Adressaten, „die Obersten der 127 Länder, von Indien bis Äthiopien.“ Er als „Herrscher über viele Nationen und Gebieter über die ganze Welt“ (B,2 Πολλῶν ἐπάρξας ἐθνῶν καὶ πάσης ἐπικρατήσας οἰκουμένης)31 will „für seine Untertanen dauerhaft ein ruhiges Leben und das Königreich als zivilisiert passierbar gewährleiste[n], den von allen Menschen ersehnten Frieden erneuern“ (τοὺς τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων ἀκυμάτους διὰ παντὸς καταστῆσαι βίους, τήν τε βασιλείαν ἥμερον καὶ πορευτὴν μέχρι περάτων παρεξόμενος ἀνανεώσασθαί τε τὴν ποθουμένην τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις εἰρήνην; B,2). Haman, der den zweithöchsten Rang im Reich innehat, habe den König darauf hingewiesen, dass dieser Frieden just durch „ein bestimmtes übel gesinntes Volk“ (B,4 OG δυσμενῆ λαόν τινα // A-T δυσμενῆ τινὰ λαόν), das sich unter alle Stämme der Welt (κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην φυλαῖς) gemischt habe, gefährdet sei. Mit diesen Worten qualifiziert Haman bereits vorneweg, dass es eine Volksgruppe gibt, die in feindlicher Absicht das zivilisierte und geordnete Zusammenleben aller Menschen verunmöglicht. B,4 OG ἐπέδειξεν ἡμῖν ἐν πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην φυλαῖς ἀναμεμῖχθαι δυσμενῆ λαόν τινα τοῖς νόμοις ἀντίθετον πρὸς πᾶν ἔθνος τά τε τῶν βασιλέων παραπέμποντας διηνεκῶς διατάγματα πρὸς τὸ μὴ κατατίθεσθαι τὴν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν κατευθυνομένην ἀμέμπτως συναρχίαν.

B,4 A-T ὑπέδειξεν ἡμῖν πάροικον ἐν πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην φυλαῖς ἀναμεμίχθαι δυσμενῆ τινὰ λαόν, τοῖς μὲν νόμοις ἀντιδικοῦντα πρὸς πᾶν ἔθνος, τά δε τῶν βασιλέων παραπέμποντα διηνεκῶς προστάγματα πρὸς τὸ μηδέποτε τὴν βασιλείαν εὐσταθείας τυγχάνειν.

Sodann wird aus 3,8 das ursprünglich erste Argument aus dem Gespräch mit dem König aufgenommen, das sich auf die Tatsache der Zerstreuung der Juden im Perserreich bezog. Im Edikt wird daraus ein willentlicher Akt: Dieses übel gesinnte Volk hat sich absichtlich „unter alle Stämme der Welt gemischt“ (B,4 κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην φυλαῖς ἀναμεμῖχθαι)—eine Generalisierung—, um Schaden anzurich30 Diese Titulatur, Βασιλεὺς μέγας, findet sich nur in Add B,1 und E,1, was zur politisch instabilen Entstehungszeit (1. Jh. v.Chr.) der Texte ein Rückgriff auf die achämenidische Epoche als „Versuch einer staatsrechtlichen Stabilisierung“ der „parthischen, pontischen und armenischen Könige“ gewertet werden kann; vgl. Engels, „Überlegungen,“ 354. 31 Vgl. Jdt 2,5 bezüglich Nebukadnezzar ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ μέγας, ὁ κύριος πάσης τῆς γῆς; 11,7 βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοδονοσορ πάσης τῆς γῆς.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 133

ten. Hier handelt es sich um eine Verdrehung der Geschichte (siehe Geschichtsklitterung)32 und eine Unterstellung. Das vormals zweite Argument, die Gesetze dieses Volkes seien abstechend oder unterschiedlich gegenüber anderen Nationen, wird nun gesteigert, indem Haman den König durch das Edikt sagen lässt, dass diese Gesetze „zu jeder Nation in Gegensatz“ stünden (B,4 τοῖς νόμοις ἀντίθετον πρὸς πᾶν ἔθνος); A-T verwendet ἀντιδικοῦντα, was auf aktives Widerstreiten (vor Gericht) verweist. Für diese Behauptung bleibt Haman den Beweis schuldig. Das dritte Argument bezüglich der durch Mardochaios nicht befolgten Anordnungen des Königs, die auf das „übel gesinnte Volk“ übertragen werden, erweitert und übersteigert das Edikt. Die Juden würden „an den Befehlen/Anordnungen der Könige unentwegt vorbeihand[eln]33, sodass die Verwaltung nicht durchzusetzen ist“ (B,4 OG τε τῶν βασιλέων παραπέμποντας διηνεκῶς διατάγματα πρὸς τὸ μὴ κατατίθεσθαι; A-T προστάγματα). D.h. nicht nur Artaxerxes und sein Reich sind von der Gehorsamsverweigerung oder Anpassungsunwilligkeit betroffen, sondern jedes Königreich. Damit kommt es zur Universalisierung dieses politischen Arguments. In OG rühmt sich der Schreiber zusätzlich einer tadellosen Administration. Zusammenfassend und partiell wiederholend wird in B,5 gesagt, dass diese Nation sich als einzige in feindlicher Opposition aller gegen alle Menschen befindet, es eine fremdartige (ξενίζουσαν)34, sich (ständig) verändernden Lebensweise (διαγωγή „Führung, Lebensweise“; vgl. 2:20; 10,3) auf Grund seiner Gesetze darlegt und aus feindlicher Gesinnung (δυσνοοῦν) heraus gegen landesübliche Handlungsweisen die übelsten Dinge ausführt, sodass im Königreich keine Stabilität eintreten kann. Hamans Argumentation bewegt sich also auf soziologischer und politischer Ebene.

32 Wir kennen diese Strategie aus der neueren Geschichte (u.a. die UNO Resolution vom 1.12.2021, die jede jüdische Verbindung zum Tempelberg verneint). 33 Vgl. die Thematik des „Vorbeihörens“ ausgedrückt mit der Präposition παρα, auf die Wacker, „Toratreue,“ 6–7, hinweist. Einen analogen Loyalitätskonflikt gegenüber dem Staat bietet auch 3 Makk 6,24–28; 7,1–16. 34 Die Wortwurzel ξένος streicht das Abweichende von der eigenen Kultur zu Propagandazwecken hervor, verbunden mit “a strong psychological reaction through introduction of someth. new or strange” (BGAG). Moore, “Esther,” 631, stellt insgesamt für Zusatz B fest: “…its Greek used the occasion for describing some of the causes and effects of anti-Semitism. Haman’s edict represents a clever piece of propaganda which, feeding as it does on the fears and greed of men (B 4–6), also well illustrates the scapegoat mechanism.” Ego, “Esther’s Prayer,” 66, spricht von “allegedly subversive lifestyle of the Jewish people and their laws in general.” Vgl. den Vorwurf der Misanthropie schon bei Hecataeus in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historia XL.3.

134 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

In Abwesenheit von MT kann zum Vergleich nur der Alpha-Text herangezogen werden: B,5 OG τὸ ἔθνος μονώτατον ἐν ἀντιπαραγωγῇ παντὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀνθρώπῳ κείμενον διαγωγὴν νόμων ξενίζουσαν παραλλάσσον καὶ δυσνοοῦν τοῖς ἡμετέροις πράγμασιν τὰ χείριστα συντελοῦν κακὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ τὴν βασιλείαν εὐσταθείας τυγχάνειν

B,5 A-T μονώτατον τὸ ἔθνος ἐναντίᾳ παραγωγῇ παντὸς κείμενον τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῶν νόμων ξενίζουσαν παραγωγὴν καὶ δυσνοοῦν τοῖς ἡμετέροις προστάγμασιν ἀεὶ τὰ χείριστα συντελεῖν κακὰ πρὸς τὸ μηδέποτε κατατίθεσθαι τῇ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν κατευθυνομένῃ μοναρχίᾳ,

Auch hier wird in negativer Absicht mit etwas unterschiedlicher Wortwahl die Einzigartigkeit dieser Nation durch das Voranstellen von μονώτατον zusätzlich hervorgehoben. Diese eine unter den Nationen steht in Opposition zu allen Menschen wegen ihrer fremdartigen und abweichenden Gesetze. Als Verhältnisbestimmung werden wohl die landesüblichen Gesetze gemeint sein. Zweimal wird hier παραγωγή verwendet, um den abweichlerischen Charakter des Volkes und dessen Gesetzgebung hervorzuheben. Auch Täuschungsabsicht schwingt in der Wortbedeutung mit. Danach wird unterschiedlich argumentierend die feindliche Einstellung gegenüber den königlichen Anordnungen (vgl. 3,8 A-T τὰ προστάγματά σου), nicht gegenüber den Handlungsweisen, als Argument angeführt. Die kategorischen Behauptungen, dass diese Nation „immer die übelsten Dinge ausführt“ und es sich daher „niemals“ in die von Assveros geführten Alleinherrschaft einfügen wird, sind generalisierende Aussagen, die den Herrschaftsanspruch, also die Autorität des Königs selbst untergraben. Im Vergleich dazu spricht OG von einem Unruheherd, der die Stabilität des Reiches in Frage stellt.

2.4.3 Esther und die Gesetze Der nächste Beleg von νόμος findet sich in 4,16, wo Esther von Mardochaios überzeugt wird, sich entgegen dem persischen Gesetz (παρὰ τὸν νόμον // ‫א־כ ָּדת‬ ַ ֹ ‫)א ֶׁשר ל‬ ֲ unter Lebensgefahr zum König zu begeben, um für ihr Volk tätig zu werden. Esthers Gegenedikt wird von einem Schreiber niedergelegt, wobei es in völliger Opposition zu Hamans Position steht. Es ordnet im Namen des Königs den Juden an,

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 135

sich „ihrer eigenen Gesetze zu bedienen“ (8,11 χρῆσθαι τοῖς νόμοις αὐτῶν) und sich in allen Städten gegenseitig zu helfen, um ihrer Feinde Herr zu werden. Der Zusatz E mit der Verschriftung dieses Edikts geht noch einen Schritt weiter und spricht die Juden von dem Vorwurf frei, Übeltäter zu sein, und bescheinigt ihnen, dass sie „als Bürger nach gerechtesten Gesetzen leben“ (E,15 OG οὐ κακούργους ὄντας, δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις // A-T μὴ ὄντας κακούργους, δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις). Durch die Verwendung des Superlativs wird die jüdische Gesetzgebung der persischen als überlegen dargestellt. Juden sind also definitiv Bürger des persischen Großreichs und keine benachteiligte Out-group. Die Argumentation wird sodann um eine theologische Ebene erweitert35, wenn im folgenden Vers gesagt wird, dass die Juden „Söhne des höchsten, größten und lebendigen Gottes sind“ (E,16 τοῦ ὑψίστου μεγίστου ζῶντος θεοῦ), der für die gegenwärtige Generation, aber ebenso schon für die Vorfahren der Perser das Königreich in bester Ordnung erhält. A-T variiert mit „der einzige und wahre Gott“ (τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ ἀληθινοῦ). Hier stehen sich Monolatrie und Monotheismus gegenüber.

2.5 Juden als persische Bürger nach Zusatz E Das von Esther und Mardochaios verfasste und publik gemachte Gegenedikt ist bemüht, die Juden, die durch Hamans Betreiben zu einer geächteten und zu vernichtenden Out-group erklärt worden sind, zu rehabilitieren (E,16 οὐ κακούργους ὄντας; vgl. E,5 αἱμάτων ἀθῴων) und zu einem den Persern mindestens ebenbürtigen, wenn nicht sogar überlegenen, aber sicherlich zu einer respektierten In-group Existenz innerhalb des Perserreichs zu verhelfen. Dieser Status garantiert ihnen eine Lebensweise nach ihren eigenen äußerst gerechten Gesetzen. Schon zu Beginn dieses Edikts wird indirekt auf die Juden Bezug genommen, wenn in E,3 der arrogante und undankbare Ratgeberkreis (sog. Freunde) des Königs genannt wird, der plant, „unseren Untertanen (τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους) Böses zu tun … sogar, ihre Hand auszustrecken gegen ihre eigenen Wohltäter.“ Das Verb ὑποτάσσω in seiner Grundbedeutung meint „unterwerfen, unterordnen“ und stellt daher Juden mit anderen Volksgruppen des persischen Reiches gleich.

35 Siehe dazu Cohen, Beginnings, 109–39, das Kapitel “From Ethnos to Ethno-religion.”

136 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

Aber die zentrale, ausschlaggebende Feststellung in E,15OG lautet: Ιουδαίους εὑρίσκομεν οὐ κακούργους ὄντας36, δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις; „Die Juden sind keine Übeltäter, sondern leben als Bürger nach sehr gerechten Gesetzen.“

Die Wurzel πολιτεύω in der Grundbedeutung wird übersetzt mit „Bürger sein, als Bürger leben, in einem Staate leben, eine (wirkliche oder ordentliche) Staatsverfassung haben.“ Im vorliegenden Text liegt ein Präsens Partizip Medium vor, sodass man von der Bedeutung: „als Staatsmann od. im öffentlichen Leben etwas tun od. veranlassen (leisten etw. verwalten)“37 ausgehen kann. Beides trifft auf Esther und Mardochaios zu, insbesondere, da er nach Est 10,3 zum Nachfolger des König Artaxerxes aufsteigt: ὁ δὲ Μαρδοχαῖος διεδέχετο τὸν βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην. Könnte das, je nach Datierung, eine Reminiszenz auf die Absetzung Herodes’ und die Ernennung von Antigonus II., einem Neffen des Hasmonäers Hyrkanus II., zum König im Jahr 40/39 v.Chr. durch die Parther sein (A.J. 14.379)?38

2.6 Mardochaios und „seine Nation“ (Est 10,3) In MT übernimmt Mordechai lediglich die Position Hamans: „der Jude Mordechai war der zweite Mann nach König Artaxerxes“ (‫הּודי ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ רֹוׁש‬ ִ ְ‫)מ ְר ֳּד ַכי ַהּי‬, ָ wobei ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫ ַהּי‬betont wird. Nach der griechischen Überlieferung jedoch wird Mardochaios zum Nachfolger (διαδέχομαι) des Artaxerxes/Assveros. Interessanterweise wird Mordechaios in terminologischer Anlehnung an die Titulatur Βασιλεὺς μέγας (B,1 und E,1) bei seiner Einführung in A,2 (ἄνθρωπος μέγας θεραπεύων ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τοῦ βασιλέως) und hier in 10,3 als „groß im Königreich“ (μέγας ἦν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ; vgl. Ex 11,3) zum Nachfolger des „Großkönigs Artaxerxes“. Er füllt diese Position so gut aus, dass er von den Juden verehrt und geliebt wird (OG δεδοξασμένος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων· καὶ φιλούμενος // A-T φιλούμενος ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν Ἰουδαίων). A-T variiert, sodass „alle Juden ihn lieben“. Anschließend wird gesagt, dass er sie führte und seine ganze Nation mit Glanz umgab (ἡγεῖτο αὐτῶν καὶ δόξαν παντὶ τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ περιετίθει). Nach OG hingegen „erläuterte er seiner ganzen Nation die Lebensweise“ (διηγεῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν παντὶ τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ). Im Kontext von OG ist zweierlei zu hinterfragen: 1.) Wer ist mit „seiner ganzen Nation“ gemeint? Sind es „nur“ die Juden oder ist das ganze persische Reich mit all

36 Der A-T liest: μὴ ὄντας κακούργους. 37 Menge, Grosswörterbuch, 566. 38 Letzterer hatte den Parthern neben viel Geld auch fünfhundert Frauen aus den führenden Familien Judäas versprochen.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 137

seinen Völkerschaften gemeint? Schließlich ist Mardochaios zum Nachfolger des persischen Großkönigs aufgestiegen und damit für das ganze Reich verantwortlich. 2.) Von welcher Lebensführung ist die Rede, von der jüdischen in der Diaspora oder/und der eines guten persischen Bürgers, der nach den bestmöglichen Gesetzen lebt und gottesfürchtig ist?

2.7 Die angefochtene Lebensweise—eine Synthese nach OG Mardochaios, ein jüdischer Mann und angesehener, loyaler persischer Beamter im Hofdienst, war darauf aus, sein Pflegekind Esther zu einer Frau mit einer ganz bestimmten Haltung im familiären Kontext von in der Diaspora lebenden Juden zu erziehen. Dazu gehört Gehorsam gegenüber weltlichen Autoritäten mit einer entsprechenden pragmatischen Anpassungsfähigkeit, Verschwiegenheit, Ehrfurcht vor Gott sowie Gehorsam gegenüber dessen Geboten. Diese Lebensweise behält Esther auch am Königshof bei (2,20 Εσθηρ οὐ μετήλλαξεν τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτῆς). Nach Zusatz C gibt sie sich bescheiden, den königlichen Prunk abwertend, traditionsbewusst, den Geschlechtsverkehr mit einem Unbeschnittenen verachtend, die jüdischen Speisevorschriften beachtend und der Idolatrie abgeneigt (C,26–28). Solidarität mit der eigenen Volksgruppe und Mut in Lebensgefahr treten später hinzu. Dieser Habitus wird vom hochmütigen Widersacher Haman, der als Makedone den persischen König stürzen will, herausgefordert. Er unterstellt aufgrund persönlicher Ehrverletzung den Juden als ganzer Volksgruppe eine feindliche Opposition gegen die gesamte Menschheit, eine fremdartige Lebensweise anhand ihrer Gesetze, eine Abneigung gegen die vorgegebene Regierungsform und andere üble Dinge, die die Stabilität im Reich gefährden (B,5 ἐν ἀντιπαραγωγῇ παντὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀνθρώπῳ κείμενον διαγωγὴν νόμων ξενίζουσαν παραλλάσσον). Daher sollen die Juden als Nation unter den Nationen ausgelöscht werden, eine vermeintlich politische Argumentation. Dies kann mit vereinten Kräften von Esther und Mardochaios abgewendet werden, sodass schließlich Mardochaios als Nachfolder des Artaxerxes seiner ganzen Nation, Juden oder/und Persern, diese Lebensweise, zu der er Esther erzogen hatte und die er selbst als loyaler persischer Beamter, ein die Torah ernst nehmender Jude und sogar ein religiöses Fest stiftend, erläutern kann (10,3 διηγεῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν παντὶ τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ). Der Spannungsbogen schließt sich, nachdem Zusatz F,10 über die Zusammenkunft der Juden für die Feier des Purimfestes mit „Fröhlichkeit und Freude vor Gott in (allen) Geschlechtern auf ewig in seinem Volk Israel“ (μηνὸς μετὰ συναγωγῆς καὶ χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ γενεὰς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ) berichtet.

138 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

3 Zusammenfassung Wie sieht das Leben nach der griechischen Langfassung für Jüdinnen und Juden in der Diaspora aus? – Die Blutsverwandtschaft scheint nach Zusatz E (Gegenedikt) kein Kriterium für die Zugehörigkeit zum Perserreich zu sein. „Unschuldiges Blut“—so die indirekte Anspielung auf die jüdische Bevölkerung—, die von Haman sowie undankbaren, arroganten, einen politischen Umsturz planenden hochrangigen Freunden des Königs bedroht wird, ist schützenswert oder wird den Persern zumindest gleichgestellt. – Loyalität zum persischen König und zur Integrität des Reiches sind Kriterien (der makedonische Usurpator Haman versus Mardochaios im Hofdienst und Nachfolger des Artaxerxes), aber nach Zusatz E werden die jüdischen Gesetze und der jüdische Gott den persischen sogar übergeordnet. Letzterer hat seit jeher eine exzellente Ordnungsfunktion für das Perserreich (E,16 ὑψίστου μεγίστου ζῶντος θεοῦ, τοῦ κατευθύνοντος ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖς προγόνοις ἡμῶν τὴν βασιλείαν ἐν τῇ καλλίστῃ διαθέσει). – Das Einhalten persischer (und medischer) Gesetze (νόμοι) ist für die ganze Bevölkerung Pflicht. Anordnungen oder Befehle des Königs sind, wenn sie aus religiöser Überzeugung übertreten werden, mit Nachsicht zu behandeln. Das Verb ἄγω mit seinen Derivaten weist uns im wahrsten Sinn des Wortes den Weg durch das Estherbuch: Jüdische Lebensweise in der persischen Diaspora, von dem Makedonen Haman aus persönlichen Gründen angefochten und auszulöschen beabsichtigt, wird zum Vorbild für das persische Großreich, sodass nach erfolgter Rettung die Juden zusammenkommen, um Gottes Eingreifen mit einem Freudenfest zu feiern. Bleibt nur noch die Frage zu stellen, welche Nationen bzw. Völker sich hinter den Persern und Makedonen verbergen, die angesichts der Zeit der Endredaktion dieser Textversion im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert die “Player” waren. Ist es möglich, dass der jüdische Redaktor die Perser mit den Parthern und die Makedonier, im Bild des unbeherrscht reagierenden Haman,39 mit den Römern identifizieren will? Einiges deutet auf die Konflikte der Parther mit den Römern in Judäa hin. Aber diese Thematik würde den Rahmen des Beitrags sprengen.

39 Siehe Gruen, Constructs, 175.

Die jüdische Lebensweise in den griechischen Versionen des Buches Esther 

 139

Bibliographie Ben Zwi, Ehud. “Othering, Selfing, ‘Boundarying’ and ‘Cross-Bounderying’ as Interwoven with Socially Shared Memories: Some Observations.” Pages 580–98 in Social Memory among the Literati of Yehud. BZAW 509. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther.” JBL 63.4 (1944): 339–62. Bickerman, Elias J. “Notes on the Greek Book of Esther.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 20 (1951): 101–33. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. HCS 31. Berkely: University of California Press, 1999. Danker, Fredrick W., ed. A Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Rev. 3rd edition. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago, 2000. (= Accordance edition hypertexted and formatted by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 2.8) (= BDAG) De Troyer, Kristin, and Marie-Theres Wacker. „Esther. Das Buch Ester.“ Pages 593–94 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. De Troyer, Kristin, and Marie-Theres Wacker. „Esther. Das Buch Ester (LXX und A-Text).“ Pages 1253–96 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Vol. 1: Genesis bis Makkabäer. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Eberhart, Christian. „Blut/Blutriten.“ https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de (Version 05.09.2019) Eberle-Küster, Dorothea. „Blutschuld.“ https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de (Version 20.09.2018) Ego, Beate. Ester. BKAT 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Ego, Beate. “Esther’s Prayer (Addition C) as a Theological Reinterpretation of the Hebrew Esther Story.” Pages 63–74 in Selected Studies on Deuterocanonical Prayers. Edited by Angela K. Harkins and Barbara Schmitz. CBET 103. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Engels, David. „‘Je veux être calife à la place du calife’? Überlegungen zur Funktion der Titel ‚Großkönig‘ und ‚König der Könige‘ vom 3. zum 1. Jh. v.Chr.“ Pages 333–62 in Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Edited by Victor Cojacaru et al. Pontica et Mediterranea 3. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House, 2014. von Gemünden, Petra. Affekt und Glaube. Studien zur Historischen Psychologie des Frühjudentums und Urchristentums. NTOA 73. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Goldschmidt, Lazarus. Der Babylonischer Talmud 1–12. Berlin: Jüd. Verlag, 1897–1935. Gruen, Erich S. Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History. DCLS 29. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Halvorson-Taylor, Martien A. “Secrets and Lies: Secrecy Notices (Esther 2:10, 20) and Diasporic Identity in the Book of Esther.” JBL 131.3 (2012): 467–85. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Esther. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 8.3. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Johnson, Sara R. “Novelistic Elements in Esther: Persian or Hellenistic, Jewish or Greek?” CBQ 67.4 (2005): 571–89. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. (LXXD) Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. 9th ed. Oxford: University Press, 1940. (= LSJ)

140 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

Macchi, Jean-Daniel. Ester. Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2021. Menge, Herrmann. Langenscheidts Grosswörterbuch Altgriechisch-Deutsch. 28th ed. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1994. Mittag, Peter F. Antiochos IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie. KLIO NF 11. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006. Molnar-Hidvegi, Nora. „Witwe und Waise (AT).“ https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34925/

Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. AB 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Moore, Carey A. “Esther, Additions to.“ Pages 626–33 in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1992. ________. Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. 2011 (= Accordance edition hypertexted and formatted by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 4.5). Nagel, Peter. “LXX Esther: ‘More’ God ‘Less’ Theology.” Journal for Semitics 17.1 (2008): 129–55. Wacker, Marie-Theres. „‘Three Faces of a Story’ – Septuagintagriechisches und pseudo-lukianisches Estherbuch als Refigurationen der Esther-Erzählung.“ Pages 64–89 in La Septuaginta Deutsch und Bible d’Alexandrie. OBO 238. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Wacker, Marie-Theres. „Mit Toratreue und Todesmut dem einen Gott anhangen. Zum Estherbild der Septuaginta.“ Pages 312–32 in Dem Tod nicht glauben. Sozialgeschichte der Bibel. FS Luise Schottroff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Frank Crüsemann et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2004. Wahl, Harald M. „Ester, das adoptierte Waisenkind. Zur Adoption im Alten Testament.“ Bib 80.1 (1999): 78–99. Wolf, Herbert. “‫( ָּדת‬dāt) decree, law, edict, regulation.” TWOT 1: 200–201.

József Zsengellér

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? Abstract: The Book of Tobit has various interpretational levels. Our study focuses on the final, complex phase of the book. Keywords in the book have different meanings in different narrative situations at different levels of interpretation. “Israel” designates the geographical space of life of Tobit and his relatives before the exile. At the same time, it is the political unit of the northern Yahwists in the eretz. As the third meaning, “Israel” signifies the religious community across geographical borders. Analyses of these levels of meaning, indicate that (like the Book of Ezekiel) the Book of Tobit creates a unity called Israel out of the two geographically and politically defined Yahwistic peoples, Judah, and Israel. This process took place during the exile. In the Book of Tobit, the two groups are represented by Tobit (the northern Israelites) and Sarah (the southern Judahites). Both groups have problems and diseases, but God (by his angel) brought them together, healed them and united them in marriage. The alternative geographical locations of the protagonists also suggest two distinct groups in captivity, whose redemption or common destiny takes shape in Media. A united Israel will return to Jerusalem and will center around its Temple. In my opinion, the Book of Tobit establishes the identity of the post-exilic Yahwistic returnees in Yehud (Jerusalem), which is called Israel. At the same time, it discredits the claim of the northern Yahwists, the Gerizim community, that they are Israel. Keywords: Tobit, Israel, Judah, northern Yahwists, Gerizim community, Torah

1 Introduction As an identity marker, “Israel” has been disputed since the first occurrence of the term. The Merenptah Stele of the thirteenth century BCE reads Israel, but there is no scholarly consensus as to the specific group that bears this name.1 Is it a social

1 This text seemed to be the earliest reference (ca. 1205 BCE) to a certain Israel until 2001 when Manfred Görg rediscovered the text of a name ring with the reading “Israel” on base of a broken statue in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. Cf. Van der Veen, Theis and Görg, “Israel.” This text dates from 1400 BCE, but its interpretation is disputed. For a discussion of this new discovery see Shanks, “Ancient Israel.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-009

142 

 József Zsengellér

entity such as nomadic shepherds, as the Egyptian determiner suggests,2 or an ethnic group distinct from other similar groups in Late Bronze Age of the Southern Levant? Does it have anything to do with the group that left Egypt and later settled in the land of Canaan which later biblical historiography records as the people of YHWH? Our present discussion concerns the identity of Israel in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods, almost a thousand years later than the Merenptah Stele. But there are still difficulties in providing a definitive answer as to whom the Israelites were thought to be in these eras or how they were seen by contemporary people, historians, and theologians. What did the designation “Israel” mean during these periods? Specifically, what is the identity of the person Tobiah, who is referred to as “one of our nation (ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους ἡμῶν) murdered and cast into the market place” in Tobit 2:3?3 This is the question that we attempt to resolve in relation to the Book of Tobit. The story of Tobit is set in the Assyrian period during the reigns of Shalmaneser V and Sennacherib (726‒681 BCE), within the diaspora setting of exiles from the northern kingdom, Israel. The book was written later. The earliest manuscript fragments of the Book of Tobit survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic versions giving a second or first century BCE terminus ante quem for the writing of the book.4 The question arises as to how these oldest texts compare with the various Greek, Latin and Syriac texts found in manuscripts of later centuries which contain the whole text of the book. Surprisingly the Semitic texts are closer to the long Greek version (GII) than to the others. That said, the text of Tobit may have been composed much earlier. The setting of the book places it in the Assyrian Period, but references to the Torah (book/Law of Moses Tob 6:13; 7:13) and prophetic books (e.g., Amos: Tob 14:4) as highly authoritative religious works, support a late Persian, early Hellenistic origin.5 There are no traces of definitive Hellenistic influences in the book, a fact which places it before the Seleucid Hellenization. Thus, following Fitzmyer, its date of composition may be estimated at between 225‒175 BCE.6

2 Redmount, “Bitter Lives,” 72. 3 The problem of the meaning of the term “Israel” becomes even more complicated when we consider that GI here has a different reading: ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν. 4 The Aramaic manuscripts are 4Q196‒4Q199, the Hebrew manuscript is 4Q200. See Fitzmyer, “Tobit.” Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 8‒10. The manuscripts range in type from the Hasmoneans until the Herodians (ca. 100 BCE–25 CE). 5 For more on this see Schöpflin, “Authority,” 85‒107. Moore, Tobit, 40‒42. 6 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 50‒51.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 143

The use of the word “Israel” and the many expressions of ethnic and social relations make the situation more complex.7 Therefore, we analyze this term in its textual and literary context. The literary intricacies of the Book of Tobit account for the complexity of its interpretation. The book has different levels of interpretation, three of which are those most analyzed by scholars: narrative, motivation, and theology. The theme of Israel’s identity may be disclosed at all these three levels, although the issue is more complicated than that.

2 Israel as a keyword In the introduction to their influential work Ethnicity, Hutchinson and Smith identify the name as the primary of the six basic characteristics needed to define an ethnic group: “A common proper name, to identify and express the ‘essence’ of the community.”8 So we begin our examination with the definition of the name “Israel” in the Book of Tobit. The meaning of the term “Israel” is best studied by analyzing the way it is used in the book. The word “Israel” occurs seventeen times in the GII text: 1:4 (3x), 5, 6, 8, 18; 5:5, 9; 13:3, 18; 14:4 (3x), 5 (2x), 7; but in GI only four times:9 1:4 (2x), 6; 13:3. The Qumran fragments confirm the occurrences in 5:9 (4Q196) and 14:4 (4Q198). In terms of the structure of the book, the word “Israel” appears almost exclusively in the framing passages (chs. 1, 13, and 14), and only twice in chapter 5, in the same context. This position itself indicates that the notion “Israel” is not highly important to the plot of Tobit’s story or of Tobiah’s story. It does, however, play an important role in the context and message of the book. As a keyword in the book, “Israel” has different meanings in different contexts. Three meanings may be distinguished: geographical, political, and religious.

2.1 Israel as a geographical term Israel designates the geographical space where Tobit and his relatives lived before the exile. In 1:4, Tobit describes his place of origin: καὶ ὅτε ἤμην ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ μου ἐν γῇ Ισραηλ When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel. . .

7 Nowell, “Tobit,” 201‒20, points out that the author of Tobit often uses keywords. 8 Hutchinson and Smith, “Introduction,” 6. 9 Table 4 in Staples, Idea of Israel, unfortunately changes the numbering of the two versions.

144 

 József Zsengellér

In this sentence ἡ χώρα (GI) and its parallel ἡ γῆ (GII) means “country, land” and refers to a geographical unit. This clause, which is identical in both Greek versions, is not commented upon by Fitzmyer in his commentary, although its significance is inescapable. Geographically, Tobit describes his country as the “land of Israel.” This second clause of the sentence refers to the separation of Israel and Judah as independent countries. Because of this historical context, the geographical designation, Israel, could refer to the Samarian hill country, the coastal plain of Sharon, the northern hill country of Galilee, and the northern region of Transjordan. This is the name for this region on the Mesha Stela and the Tell Dan inscription as early as the ninth century BCE. However, the nouns χώρα and γῆ could also be applied to a larger geographical entity, as γῆ Ισραηλ—‫ארץ ישראל‬, or as it is described by ‫ד־ּב ֵאר ָׁש ַבע‬ ְ ‫“( ִמ ָּדן וְ ַע‬from Dan to Beersheba”).10 Accordingly, in 14:4 (GII) it is written: καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τοῦ Ισραηλ ἔρημος καὶ Σαμάρεια καὶ Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἔρημος The whole land of Israel will become desolate; Samaria and Jerusalem will be deserted,

Here πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τοῦ Ισραηλ (‫ )כל ארץ ישראל‬is paralleled by the two capitals, Samaria and Jerusalem. These parallels seem to indicate that for the author of the introductory part of the book and of chapters 13‒14, Israel as a geographical entity is the “great Israel” of the golden age of David and Solomon. In contrast, another major geographical definition, the description of the setting of Tishbe, the residence of Tobit and his family before their deportation, locates the city in the northern part of Galilee, in Israel (1:2).11 The whole sentence implies that this “Israel” is intended as the northern part of the Southern Levant. Consequently, the opening words of the book (1:2) and the description of the introductory part (1:4) present two different “Israels.” These two distinct interpretations of Israel as a geographical entity represent the basic crux of interpretation in the whole Book of Tobit. Is this story only about the Israelite exiles, or about the exiled Yahwists in general, who will return to Eretz Yisrael? Modern interpretations hover between the two alternatives. It is therefore hard to say whether the geographical term “Israel” constitutes a people in the Book of Tobit.

10 Noteworthy is the mention of Dan alone in (GII). Here, as a geographical pair, Bethel is expected. Cf. e.g., 1 Kgs 5:5; 2 Chr 30:5. 11 This type of detailed geographical description is rare in the Bible. There is only one such accurate description, in Judg 21:19. See Zsengellér, “Topography,” 184‒85.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 145

2.2 Israel as a political unit For the author of the Book of Tobit, “Israel” denotes a political unit. The automatic use of the expression “Jeroboam, the king of Israel” in 1:5 (GII) reflects the common usage of the term “Israel” as a political entity. In 14:4, Samaria is used to express the political unit of the north, as opposed to the southern unit called Jerusalem. In the latter text, the close connection between the geographical and political designation is fairly evident, although it seems necessary for the narrative to distinguish between the two aspects. An understanding of Israel as the northern political entity in the Southern Levant is important for the writer(s) or editor(s) of the book as this country was occupied by the Assyrians and many of its inhabitants were deported into the region that is the setting of the story of the book. It is essential for the writer(s) to have the reader believe that numerous Israelites retained their Israelite identity in the exile. Tobit’s Naphtalite pedigree and his consistent adherence to this tradition anchor him and the whole narrative background in the political entity of Israel/ Samaria. Like the tight connection between geographical and political meanings, the interpretation of the tribal affiliation (within Israel) may be classified as a political or religious issue. If the political order of the kingdom of Israel is conceived of as a tribal confederation, then Naphtali as a smaller political unit belongs to Israel. However, if Naphtali is understood as one of the twelve tribes of God’s people, then it must be seen as a smaller religious unit of the whole religious community. The two roles are confused in the Book of Tobit. In 1:2 and 1:4, the tribe of Naphtali is a geopolitical unit within Israel, although in 1:1 and 7:3 Naphtali is more an ethno-religious unit.

2.3 Israel as a religious community The third meaning of the term “Israel” is a religious community that transcends geographical and political borders. The second part of 1:4 introduces the subject with a sentence in Deuteronomistic-style: . . .Jerusalem, the city of all the tribes of Israel (πασῶν φυλῶν Ισραηλ), where they might all offer sacrifice. In it God’s dwelling-place, the Temple, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come.12

12 For the English texts of Tobit the translations of Fitzmyer, Tobit, are used.

146 

 József Zsengellér

This part of the verse has more religious content. First, Jerusalem is the center of Israel as a tribal confederation. Second, this center contains the (only) abode of God. Third, all tribes, i.e., all Israel, are to fulfill their religious duty in this temple. Fourth, the situation is not temporary but eternal. This second part of 1:4 reflects the first part, which describes Jeroboam’s “revolt” and the establishment of the independent northern kingdom according to the 2 Kgs 12 and 2 Chr 11. Consequently “Israel” refers to the religious community of all the (twelve) tribes associated with the Jerusalem Temple. The second reference to the religious connotation of Israel is in Tob 1:8 (GII). Here, Tobit recounts his earlier practice of the “second tithing” given “to the orphans, the widows, and the proselytes who joined the children of Israel (τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ).” These “children of Israel” were present in Jerusalem, according to 1:7, which implies that not only the inhabitants of Israel, the northern country, but also the inhabitants of the southern country, Judah, are children of Israel, i.e., Israelites. The third and fourth religious references to Israel are in Tobit’s prayer or song in chapter 13. The third reference in verses 3‒4 is about the confession of the sons of Israel (οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ): “He is our (your) Lord, He is our God, He is our father, and He is God for ever and ever.” This confession includes the assertion that YHWH—although in various manuscripts he is referred to by substitutions (κύριος/‫מרא‬/‫)אדני‬13—is God, the God of the forefathers of Israel. The declaration and acknowledgement of the faith of the ancestors takes Israel back to its roots, to “Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” as is written in 4:12 (GI). At the same time, however, the confession looks to the future and affirms Israel’s eternal bond with God. The fourth reference concretizes this connection, declaring “Hallelujah, praised be the God of Israel (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ; 13:18)!” The verse states that God of Israel is YHWH: [‫( להל]לויה‬4Q196 18.10), and that Israel belongs to this God. This sentence is part of a song that focuses on God and Jerusalem, and God in Jerusalem. Therefore, if Israel consists of all twelve tribes, and these sons of Israel (υἱοὶ Ισραηλ) worship God together in Jerusalem, then the term “Israel” designates a common religious community of all the Yahwistic people living in its land. If we examine together these different interpretations of the term “Israel” in the Book of Tobit, we can say that it belongs to multiple semantic fields. In contrast, if we read the term in a diachronic, rather than synchronic, manner, we may observe a historical tendency. In the past, Israel was a tribal confederation, later a country separated from Judah, in the present a group of exiles from the northern Southern Levant, but in the future, it will be a religious community united with

13 Cf. the manuscripts GII; 4Q196 f17 i 14; 4Q200 f6.9‒10. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 308‒9. On the substitution of the tetragrammaton in Tobit see Machiella, “Lord,” 463‒72.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 147

Judah. The story is set in the present, when Israel is in exile, but the writer’s aim is to (re)unite Israel with one God, YHWH, and one religious center, Jerusalem (14:7).

3 Israel as genealogy: neither Jews nor Judeans—or are they? The Book of Tobit is about the northern Israelite exiles.14 Richard Bauckham has described the story of Tobit as “a parable of Israel’s story from exile to restoration.”15 It is important to emphasize this fact because most scholars speak of Tobit and the other characters in the book as Jews, and relate the message of the book to the Jewish diaspora as such.16 Although it has been shown above that in some cases the term “Israel” may be understood to refer to all the inhabitants of the Palestinian area, and the whole of its territory, the story is about something else. For Bauckham, Tobit’s eschatological prospect is not simply the restoration of the exiles of Judah, but, more importantly for the message of the book, the return of the exiles of the northern tribes to the land of Israel and their reconciliation to Jerusalem as the national and cultic centre.17

In strict terms, Judea (Ιουδαία) occurs only once in the whole book, in 1:18 (though only as a battlefield where Sennacherib was defeated), and we read of the “house of David” (1:4 GII) and Jerusalem (16 times GII)18, but there is no mention of Jews or Judeans at all. In 11:17, where in GI there is ἀδελφός, in GII there is ’Ιουδαῖοι, which seems to be an error.19 The Book of Tobit lacks any explicit mention of Jews and Judaism; it is all about Israel and the Israelites.20 Nevertheless, as we have already pointed out, the name “Israel” is sometimes used to refer to Judah and the Judeans in the Book of Tobit; similarly the word “Jerusalem” is sometimes used to refer to the southern country and its inhabitants in chapters 13‒14. 14 Cf. Zsengellér, “Topography,” 188. 15 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 140. Previously Milik, “La patrie,” suggested that Tobit was a Samaritan. 16 E.g., Fitzmyer, Tobit, but especially those studies that analyze the different laws and regulations related to the Torah in the text of Tobit. 17 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 141. 18 Almost exclusively in chapters 1, 13 and 14. The only exception is Tob 5:14, which refers back to the situation of 1:6. 19 Staples, Idea of Israel, 326: “On the contrary, the narrative depends on the fact that the protagonists are not Jews at all – they are Naphtalites in danger of losing their distinctive tribal association due to the diaspora.” 20 Collins, “Judaism,” 39‒40, concludes that the “Judaism of Tobit was certainly distinct from the kind of priestly interests that dominate so much of Jewish literature from this period. . .”

148 

 József Zsengellér

Furthermore, the story of Tobit is about family, ancestry, pedigree and endogamy, all of which are connected to ethnicity,21 or as Amy-Jill Levine formulates it, “Israel is defined by ‘genealogy’ not by ‘geography’.”22 The main terms used for these topics are ἔθνος, γένος, φυλή, ἀδελφός, πατριά, ἐγγύς/συγγενής.23 It is striking from their use in the book that most of these have different meanings in different contexts. The following table shows all the occurrences of these words: people/nation part of the people / relatives foreign nation

family

“brother”

ἔθνοσ

1:3; 1:17

γένοσ

2:3; 6:12

5:9

(5:9), 12

φυλή

1:5

1:1, 4; 5:12

4:12, 5:14

ἀδελφός

1:3, 10, 16; 2:2–3, 10; 7:2–3; 14:4

1:5; 5:14

1:10(?), 14; 4:13; 5:10–17; 6:19; 7:4, 11; 10:13

1:14; 3:15; 6:7–18 4:12, 13; 5:18; 9:1 7:12; 8:4, 7, 21; 10:6

5:11, 14

1:9

πατριά

ἐγγύς/συγγενής

3:15; 6:11

5:11

6:12

3.1 ἔθνος In our case the most important word seems to be ἔθνος. The general translation of the word is “nation, people.” In the introductory part of Tob 1:3 the clause “my nation who went with me in captivity to Nineveh in the land of the Assyrians” clearly refers to the people of the kingdom of Israel, namely, Israelites. In the description of Tobit’s pious deeds at the time of Sennacherib, in 1:17, we read that “if I saw the dead body of anyone of my nation. . . I would bury it.” These bodies were found behind the walls of Nineveh and refer to Israelites living in the city or the surrounding area. An active instance of such an event is narrated in 2:3, but here ἔθνος occurs only in GII while GI has γένος. All the other occurrences of ἔθνος are in the plural and bear the sense of “nations”: 1:10 and 4:19 “nations” in general,24 3:4 “foreign nations,” 13:3, 13 “many

21 Soll, “Family,” 166‒75; Pitkänen, “Family Life,” 106; see also Skemp, “ἀδελφός,” 92‒103. 22 Levine, “Tobit,” 48. 23 On the different termini technici of kinship in the Book of Tobit, see also Egger-Wenzel, “Acceptance,” 87‒113, though she has a broader approach. 24 Most of the translations interpret the word ἔθνος here as gentiles. Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 99, 113.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 149

nations,” 13:5; 14:6(7) “all the nations.” In 13:6 there is a lacuna in GII, but in GI and 4Q196 f17 ii 2‒3 the texts here use the words ἔθνει ἁμαρτωλῶν and ‫“( ]עם חט[אין‬sinful nation”). There is no scholarly consensus as to whether this “sinful nation” is the Israelites or the Assyrians among whom they were exiled, in the context of the verse,25 but the other usages of ἔθνος in chapter 13 suggest that it must be the Assyrians. The introductory part of the Book of Tobit uses ἔθνος to refer to the Israelites of the northern kingdom, with one exception (1:10). Subsequent usages prefer a more general interpretation of the word, using it for nations other than Israel. By this usage, the Book of Tobit does not express in its final form the uniqueness of Israel as ἔθνος/‫ עם‬among other nations. While it is noteworthy that only the northern kingdom, Israel, is referred to as an ἔθνος/‫ עם‬in the pre-exilic and exilic situation, no Judeans nor Jews are signified by this term.

3.2 γένος The next word to study is γένος. ἔθνος and γένος overlap in two verses. In 1:17 and 2:3, GI uses γένος, while GII uses ἔθνος for the equivalent term. Thus, in parallel with the use of ἔθνος in GII analyzed above, GI utilizes γένος in these verses to designate Israelites. Another overlap is between ἀδελφοί and γένος. In 1:10 and 1:16, almost the same clause is used: οἱ ἀδελφοί μου καὶ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου/ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου: “of my relatives and my people.” The context of both verses relates to the captives who were brought from the kingdom of Israel. Consequently, both words denote Israelites in these cases. In 5:9 the author does a sociological stratification of those to whom Tobit belongs. First, they are the “sons of Israel,” who are “fellows” or “brothers.” Then, they are descendants of a particular family in a particular tribe. In this case it seems that γένος is a much narrower category than the tribe, let alone the nation/ people. In this same context, Tobit, in 5:12, asks Rafael about Raphael’s identity. The two versions are different. In GII the question is: τίνος εἶ ἄδελφε καὶ τί τὸ ὄνομά σου—“who are you, brother, and what is your name?”26 GI reads it differently: τὸ γένος σου καὶ τὸ ὄνομα. Fitzmyer translates: “your people and your name,” but notes that the literal meaning is “your race/family.”27 Since this sentence of Tobit is a reply to Raphael’s question concerning Tobit’s inquiry about the tribal affiliation of Raphael, I assume that the word is meant here as “family,” as in 5:9. This interpretation is reinforced 25 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 310. 26 Most translations interpret the question as: “Brother, whose son you are and what is your name.” Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 182. 27 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 192.

150 

 József Zsengellér

by verse 6:12 where Tobiah is told that he is Sarah’s only relative: σὺ μόνος εἶ ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς “you are the only one related to her” (GI). The same passage makes this conclusion uncertain, since in 6:12 Raphael repeats Tobit’s instruction to Tobiah, to marry only ἐκ τοῦ γένους σου—“from your own people (GI), or ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου (GII)—“from the house of your father.” The sociological term “father’s house” (‫ )בית אב‬occurs only once outside this verse, in 1:4, where it refers to the “house of David” on a national level. Here, therefore, γένος means “people.”

3.3 φυλή The word φυλή, “tribe,” indicates a larger unit in Israel (1:4 [x3]; 5:9, 11, 12, 14 [GI]), and Israel is made up of several of these types of units. In the Book of Tobit, only one tribe is mentioned by name: Naphtali (1:1, 3, 5 [GI]). This generalization does not mean that the context can express different meanings. At the moment of the break between Judah and Israel, in 1:5, Naphtali represents all Israel, as one of its tribes.28 In 4:12 (GI), φυλή is connected to endogamy and means someone related. Endogamy is one of the central themes of Tobiah’s story, yet this tribal affiliation is later relegated to the background while the eternal plan of God, and his power of salvation, come to the fore.29

3.4 ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή In the Book of Tobit, the word most often used to express personal relations is ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή. In GII, it appears 58 times in 48 verses30 and, like the other terms, its use is not uniform.31 Following the structure of the book I would divide the use of the term into three parts. In the introductory chapters (1‒2) there is an important overlap between ἀδελφος and ἔθνος (2:3), and between ἀδελφός and γένος (1:3, 10), each of which has the same meaning: “my kindred,” “my people.” This interpretation places ἀδελφός at the level of nationality rather than kinship. As a stand-alone term ἀδελφός seems to mean belonging to a particular people, separate from the nation among whom one lives (1:16; 2:10). Even in the introductory section, ἀδελφός is paralleled with 28 Only GI uses the word φυλή here, GII utilizes ἀδελφός. 29 Hieke, “Endogamy,” 112. See also the detailed analysis of Egger-Wenzel, “Acceptance,” 97‒99. 30 For a complete lists of the occurrences of the two separate forms, see Egger-Wenzel, “Acceptance,” 93. n. 36‒37. 31 Skemp, “ἀδελφός,” 94‒100. See also Brum Teixeira, Poetics, 158.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 151

the members of Naphtali’s tribe (φυλή, 1:5) which is a narrowing of the social sphere definition.32 The second part of the book contains most occurrences of the word. Sarah’s mournful prayer opens the series of references to kinship. Tob 3:15 places it among numerous other words of this kind. Tobit instruct his son, Tobiah, to practise endogamy (4:12, 13). The most frequent use of ἀδελφός, however, is in chapters 5 and 6, where all possible interpretations appear. Raphael identifies himself as Tobiah’s ἀδελφός and as belonging to Israel (5:5), and he calls Gabael their common ἀδελφός (5:6). Tobit’s query about Raphael’s tribe and family nevertheless takes the word ἀδελφός into the context of nationality.33 After being introduced as a member of Naphtali’s tribe, Raphael is called ἀδελφός by Tobit which is to be understood here as a member of the same tribe (5:14), but also implies an interpretation as a not too distant relative. In all the other dialogues, everyone calls each other by the neutral ἀδελφός or ἀδελφή,34 but in the context of the marriage of Tobiah and Sarah, chapters 5‒6 seem to use the word to refer to relatives or family members (kinsmen/ kinswomen), and even to wife (7:12; 8:21). In the closing chapters (13‒14), Tobit uses ἀδελφός only once, in 14:4, referring to those in the land of Israel who will be taken captive. Since Israel is here described as Samaria and Jerusalem together, this is the only case where ἀδελφός includes the Judeans (Jews?).

3.5‒6 πατριά and ἐγγύς/συγγενής The two other terms, πατριά (1:9; 5:11, 14) and ἐγγύς/συγγενής (3:15; 6:11, 12; 7:10) are used in the context of parental and close family ties. Their meaning in the texts is limited to the looser social level, the sphere of relatives. The complex matrix of different terms relating to family, kinship and ethnicity in the Book of Tobit confirms Levine’s comment that in the Book of Tobit Israel is defined foremost “genealogically.”35 However, this genealogy does not end with

32 It is striking that the use of the term in this part of the book is linked to the topic of social justice indicated by Skemp, “ἀδελφός,” 95‒96. But his reference to it as “fellow Jews” is misleading, since only the expression “fellow Israelite” would be appropriate. 33 Tobit knows neither his family, nor his tribe, which means that the social level from which he can start his relationship with Raphael is the people of Israel; cf. Tob 5:5. Brum Teixeira, Poetics, 159, n. 388. 34 See the analysis of Skemp, “ἀδελφός,” 97‒98, in 6:7, 11, 13 (2x), 14, 16, 18; 9:1, 10. This is how Tobiah and Azariah address each other. Brum Teixeira, Poetics, 158. 35 Levine, “Tobit,” 48.

152 

 József Zsengellér

Judah, but only with its code name, Jerusalem. Why are Jews and Judah hidden in the book? Why does the author/editor use code names to refer to them? In my opinion this is the author/editor’s tendentious narrative technique to show the way of making a people.

4 North and south make a people: Israel The complex structure of the Book of Tobit provides for a complex narrative.36 The core of the book is a tale-like story of Tobiah’s journey to get his father’s money from distant relatives. The Israelite captivity presents the context for the story, which adds complexity to all elements of the storytelling. Another twist to the plot is that the journey is combined with a healing story. What is more, healing has become the key motif of the narrative, spiced up by the theological problems of theodicy and endogamy. Additional historical and theological motives are suggested by the framework of the book, the first chapter and chapters 13‒14, which give complexity to the context of captivity. What crystallizes from a comparison of this complexity with the use of the term Israel, and the use of the notion of nation or people in the different parts of the narrative examined above, is a tendentious conception of the making of a people. I set healing as the starting point for my arguments. The book relates two healings on the two edges of the Assyrian Empire, one in Nineveh and the other in Ecbatana. Two individuals who are presented differ in their existential, somatic, and psychological problems, but have in common the fact that they have come to a death wish. Tobit had previously been presented in exaggerated detail, but for Sarah, who is mentioned here the first time, only the name of her father and her place of residence were given. Only prayers to the same God and the acceptance of those prayers seem to link the two protagonists. By the name of Sarah and her father, Raguel, the reader of the book might have gathered that she and Tobit worship the same God, YHWH. We will return to this point later, but for now let’s look at the narrative here. The acceptance or answering of prayer is manifested by the action of God in sending one of his angels, Raphael, to heal them both (Tob 3:17).37 In this verse the process of future healing is described in a nutshell, but the author’s genius comes to the fore at the end of the verse, where he/ she describes how the two

36 Cf. the analysis of Deselaers, “Buch Tobit,” and especially of Ego, Tobit, 19‒43. 37 The name of the angel, Raphael ‫ רפאל‬means that “God/El heals.” See Miller, Marriage, 132‒59; on p. 209 he summarizes that “the Book of Tobit contains the most explicit and detailed Old Testament description of God’s involvement in a particular marriage.”

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 153

protagonists’ everyday lives continue in parallel by way of different actions from now on. Tobiah’s journey serves to bring about God’s healing through Raphael’s actions. He is the one who instructs Tobiah to catch the fish which is the material tool for both healings, and he suggests they stop at Ecbatana, Sarah’s family home. Raphael tells not only Tobiah but also the readers that Tobiah and Sarah are relatives. By instructing Raphael, his representative, God is giving instructions for what is to happen. He is the one who brought Tobiah together with Sarah, as is foretold in 3:17: “For it was destined that Tobiah should have her beyond all others who wanted to marry her.” How can this be interpreted in term of the wider message of the book? The marriage of Tobiah and Sarah has been studied extensively in the context of the Mosaic law of endogamy, particularly in the context of the law concerning the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 27; 36; Josh 17:3‒6).38 As several scholars have pointed out, there is no provision in the Torah for this type of endogamy described in the Book of Tobit,39 and limited to this book. Concerning endogamy, Thomas Hieke draws attention to “how important it was for the authors and their first readers to maintain the identity of one’s own group, be it the family, the tribe, or the people of Israel in the time of the Second Temple.”40 If we compare this effort to foreground identity with the diversity of the author’s use of terms referring to identity, discussed above, we can conclude that Israel’s identity in the book is still unclear in this regard. Who are the people with whom Tobit is in solidarity? Who are Sarah’s family and what is their relationship to Tobit? The central claim of Raphael is that Sarah is a συγγενής of Tobit (6:11). Other statements in chapter 6 and 7 deepen this relationship, placing it under the aegis of the tribe of Naphtali and the people of Israel.41 But this does not correspond to the situations described by Tobit, who makes no reference to relatives in Media, and by Sarah in 3:15, who claims that her family no longer has any relatives. Neither Tobit nor Raguel is aware of the existence of the other.42 Tobiah, when Raphael tells him 38 Soll, Family, 173‒74; Hieke, “Endogamy,” 103‒20; Miller, Marriage; Pitkänen, “Family Life,” 106‒8. 39 See e.g., Miller, Marriage, 208: “The Book of Tobit is unique in its definition of endogamy, limiting the scope of potential marriage partners to one’s tribe and encouraging marriage to a close relative within the tribe. . . . There is no such law in the Pentateuch, the prescription seems to be based on the law concerning the daughters of Zelophedad (Num 27 and 36) . . .” 40 Hieke, “Endogamy,” 120. He also remarks that endogamy was not as relevant for the Christians; hence, Jerome replaced it by a different concept in the Vulg. text. Ibid. note 49. 41 Pitkänen, “Family Life,” 109, concludes: “For the author of Tobit, in a larger sense family essentially consists of fellow Naphtalites.” 42 Soll, “Misfortune,” 225, explains such ignorance and lack of awareness as a result of the dispersion of the Israelites in exile.

154 

 József Zsengellér

about Sarah, suddenly, out of the blue, realizes that Sarah has the problem of losing her husbands on her wedding night (6:15). Similarly, when Tobiah arrives, Raguel instantly realizes that he may have relatives in Nineveh (7:2‒4), and he even knows that Tobit has gone blind (7:6). Despite these inconsistencies in the narrative, the relationship between the two families is at least based on ethnic ties, since this is the criterion that Tobit demanded of his son Tobiah (4:13). Richard Bauckham had already proposed that the Book of Tobit is a parable. He suggested that Tobit was modelling the story of Israel, the northern kingdom, and that “Sarah models the story of the city of Jerusalem [Judah], often portrayed as a woman or, more specifically, a bride.”43 His argument is based on Lam 1:1‒2, which can be paralleled with Sarah’s situation and actions in Tob 3:10‒15. We can extend his parallel and classify each element the following manner. First, the general description of the situation is similar in the two texts: – “She was deeply distressed that day and went in tears to an upstairs room in her father’s house.”44 (Tob 3:10) // “How lonely sits the city that once was full of people!” (Lam 1:1 NRS) – “Seven husbands of mine have already perished.” (Tob 3:15) // “How like a widow she has become.” (Lam 1:1). Secondly, there are similarities in the wording of the two texts, especially when comparing GII and the Greek text of Lamentations: – “She . . . . went in tears” (ἔκλαυσεν Tob 3:10) // “She weeps sore in the night” (ἔκλαυσεν Lam 1:2) – “She at once stretched out her hands” (Tob 3:11 διαπετάσασα τὰς χεῖρας) // “Zion stretches out her hands” (Lam 1:17: διεπέτασεν Σιων χεῖρας αὐτῆς). Finally, in Hebrew there is an identity between the name of Sarah and the title of Jerusalem: – “Sarah, daughter of Raguel” (Σαρρα/‫ ׂשרה‬Tob 3:17): “She that was a princess” (ἄρχουσα/‫ ׂשרתי‬Lam 1:1). The parallels make it clear that the author of Tobit interprets Lamentations allegorically and relates it to the figure and situation of Sarah. In the allegory, Jerusalem, representing Judah, is not only widowed and childless, not only weeping, and single, not only preparing for prayer, but becomes a metaphor, and, as a prin-

43 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 149. 44 The text of 4Q196 6:2 is in italics.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 155

cess, Jerusalem is Sarah herself. In what follows I use Bauckham’s argument, while taking the train of thought in a different direction. God’s help (Azariah) leads the two recovering protagonists, Sarah, and Tobit, to meet each other, and similarly brings Sarah and Tobiah together. The different geographical locations of the protagonists also suggest two different groups of captives whose redemption or common destiny is prepared in Media and is foreshadowed to take place in that vicinity. The symbolic message of these actions is that, with God’s help, the two ailing Yahwistic communities are going to meet, unite, and be healed. Like the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek 37), the Book of Tobit creates the unity of two geographically and politically evolving, religiously Yahwistic people, Judah and Israel, under the name of “Israel.”45 This process takes place in, or around, the exile.46 The turning point of the story is chapter 6 when Raphael/Azariah mentions Sarah to Tobiah. This happens in a new spatial scene of the plot, i.e., in Media. By this narrative turn, the author puts Media in the spotlight as a place for the resolution of the problems of the two protagonists and their captive communities. As I wrote in an earlier article, the instruction of Tobit is that the couple should go to Media from Assyria and Babylon, inspired by his vision that in Media there will be σωτηρία “salvation, deliverance” (14:4).47 Tob 14:5 declares that the united Israel will return to the “land of Israel,” and to Jerusalem, and will be centered at its temple, which is a clear reference to the return of the captives during the time of the Median rule.48 This “pan-Israelite”49 idea is also expressed in 14:7: All the Israelites (πάντες οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Ισραηλ), who are saved (οἱ σῳζόμενοι) in those days and are truly mindful of God, will be gathered; they will go to Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham.

The ultimate message of the Book of Tobit concerns the unification of the two golah communities into one Jerusalemite Yahwistic Israel. It is not about the Jewish diaspora in general. Indeed, if the author had wanted to inform readers about the difficulties of Jewish life in the diaspora, or about the life of the Jewish diaspora as such, 45 This is one of the most important messages of the Book of Ezekiel. Cf. Delorme, “‫בית ישראל‬,” 121. The reunion of the two countries is also expected by Jeremiah, Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, Zechariah, and Deutero-Zechariah. Cf. also Bauckham, “Tobit,” 156‒57. Thus, the writer of Tobit appears to be more or less familiar with some later canonical writings, the Torah, and the northern and southern prophets. On the sources of Tobit, see Nickelsburg, “Search,” 340‒45, and Otzen, Tobit, 21‒23. 46 For more on this topic see Kratz, “Israel”; Lemche, “End Is the Beginning”; Na’aman, “Israelite-Judahite Struggle”; Schutte, “Juda”; Delorme, “‫בית ישראל‬,” 137‒39. 47 Zsengellér, “Topography,” 187‒88. I called it “heilsgeschichtliche Kerygma.” 48 Nickelsburg, “Stories,” 43, 45. Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 270‒77. 49 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 153.

156 

 József Zsengellér

he need not have used the fading captivity of the people of the kingdom of Israel as an example. He could simply have used a Babylonian Jewish context for the same story. Nothing would have had to be changed in the plot except for the references to the North. Then we could have analyzed whether the Book of Tobit was written in or about Jewish diaspora. The context discussed above, however, makes it clear that the final message of the book is not focused on the diaspora but on the post-diaspora situation. It is about a future ideal in which people living in Jerusalem and Judah are descendants of both Israelites and Jews. The two formerly independent Yahwistic countries are (re)united. They were married as relatives and united under the aegis of Jerusalem, the chosen place of Yahwistic worship. The book is addressed primarily to the northern population of the homeland; since the exiles in the narrative are mostly Israelites, the people living in the North.50 They must confess their sins, repent, and turn to God in the way he is worshipped in Jerusalem; thereby they will be redeemed, and restored to their home. So, they must become Jerusalemites, or better said Judeans or Jews, in order to “come home.” Only then will all those who live in Jerusalem and in the whole land be called Israelites. Consequently, the Israelites must become Jews in order to call all the Yahwists Israelites.51 The historical background or context of such a message could be the same, as that of the book of Ezekiel in the sixth-fifth centuries, in the first part of the Median-Persian rule, concerning the return of captives. Ezekiel, especially with his coined term bene Yisrael as a unification of the northern and southern Yahwistic countries (Ezek 37), envisioned a united people with the Temple of Jerusalem at its center.52 Nevertheless, knowledge of the Torah and other prophetic books, as well as the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its Temple, means that the Book of Tobit should be dated to a later period, towards the end of the period when the Torah served as a compromise document between the northern Yahwists, centered on Gerizim, and the southern Yahwists, centered on Jerusalem.53 The obviously Jerusa50 The tendentious designation of Tobit as a Naphtalite seems to avoid the use of Ephraim, which is the usual name for the North in the prophetic books. 51 The personal names of the protagonists are given in a special order. The grandfather is called Tobiel: ‫ ;טוביאל‬the father is called Tobit: ‫טובי‬, and the grandson is called Tobiah: ‫טוביה‬. From the theophoric element “El” at the beginning of the narrative, the usage has come to the theophoric element: “Yah” at the end. “El” and “Yah” were used simultaneously mostly in Israel, and in Judah, before the fall of Samaria, and “Yah” was almost exclusively used in Judah before the end of the pre-exilic period. This change of nomenclature also marks the transition from North to South. 52 The expectation of a reunification of the northern and southern tribes is present in many of the post-exilic prophetic books, mentioned earlier. See Bauckham, “Tobit,” 156‒57. 53 See Pummer, “Samaritans,” 252‒64, and Nihan, “Torah,” and especially the recent papers in Hensel et al., Yahwistic Diversity.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 157

lemite perspective of the final form of the book54 implies a strong theological stance against the North, but its non-hostile attitude and wording do not presuppose the obviously antagonistic language of Ben Sira 50:25‒26 (ca. 135 BCE), or the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus (110 BCE).55 From this point of view, if the reading ’Ιουδαῖοι is not an error in the text of GII in Tob 11:17, its mention may be understood in the context of the rejoicing of the Jews at the healing of both Tobit and Sarah. The consummation of these healings in the marriage of Tobiah and Sarah symbolizes the message of the book.

5 Conclusion The Book of Tobit focuses on Israelites who were taken captive by the Assyrians from the northern country. Though the interpretation of the name Israel is ambiguous in the book, the story is based on a network of relatives and family relationships connected to the tribe of Naphtali, one of the northern tribes. In contrast to Bauckham, who claims that the whole Book of Tobit is a document of Israel’s northern exiles,56 I argue that its final form was written or edited to discredit the northern Yahwistic community that remained in Israel during the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations or returned from captivity during the Medes’ rule. Given this layer of the book, it seems to be a propaganda text to make the Israelites and Judeans into a unified Yahwistic community in Jerusalem. This goal is achieved by telling an exile-story that ends with the Israelite and Judean captives being united in the golah-community that would praise God only in Jerusalem after the return to Zion. In my opinion, the Book of Tobit creates or reinforces the identity of the post-exilic Yahwistic returnees in Yehud (Jerusalem) as Israel. Its final form was used to encourage the inclusion of the Samarian Yahwists of the Gerizim community into the Jerusalemite Yahwistic community to worship their common, one God in the Jerusalem Temple as one people, Israel.

54 I suspect that the basic narrative of the Book of Tobit was written in the Israelite exile by Israelite captives and later reworked by Jews in Jerusalem. In the Qumran texts, the Jewish version has already survived. 55 Josephus’s description of the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus (A.J. 13.254‒256) suggests that Hyrcanus originally intended to integrate the northern Yahwists into the Yahwistic community in Jerusalem. See Bourgel, “Destruction,” 499‒517, and Zsengellér, “Samaritan Persecution,” 235‒50. 56 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 159: “Thus the book of Tobit itself may have played a part – we cannot tell how significant – in the conversion of the northern Israelite exiles to its own Jerusalem-centred Judaism, and may have been composed precisely for this purpose.”

158 

 József Zsengellér

Bibliography Bauckham, Richard. “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel.” Pages 140‒64 in Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. LSTS 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Bourgel, Jonathan. “The Destruction of the Samaritan Temple by John Hyrcanus: A Reconsideration.” JBL 135 (2016): 499‒517. Brum Teixeira, José L. Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6. DCLS 41. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Collins, John J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit.” Pages 23‒40 in The Book of Tobit. Text Tradition, Theology. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Delorme, Jean-Philippe. “‫ בית ישראל‬in Ezekiel: Identity Construction and the Exilic Period.” JBL 138 (2019): 121‒41. Deselaers, Paul. Das Buch Tobit. Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie. OBO 43. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Acceptance into the Jewish Community in the Book of Tobit: Conversion and Circumcision.” BN 164 (2015): 87‒113. Ego, Beate. Tobit. Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2021. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Tobit.” Pages 1‒76 + pls. I–X in Qumran Cave 4: XIV Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by James C. VanderKam. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Hensel, Benedikt, et al. eds. Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and Diaspora in Biblical Traditions. FAT 120. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Hieke, Thomas. “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra–Nehemiah.” Pages 103‒20 in The Book of Tobit. Text Tradition, Theology. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith. “Introduction,” Pages 3‒14 in Ethnicity. Edited by John Huchtinson and Anthony D. Smith. Oxford Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Israel als Staat und als Volk.” ZTK 97 (2000): 1‒17. Lemche, Niels P. “When the End Is the Beginning: Creating a National History.” SJOT 29 (2015): 22‒32. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Tobit: Teaching Jews How to Live in the Diaspora.” Bible Review 7 (1991): 42‒51. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Machiella, Daniel A. “Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton.” CBQ 75 (2013): 463‒72. Milik, Jozef T. “La patrie de Tobie.” RB 73 (1966): 522‒33. Miller, Geoffrey D. Marriage in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Na’aman, Nadav. “The Israelite–Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel.” Bib 91 (2010): 1‒23. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Search for Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry: A Historical and Hermeneutical Odyssey.” RevQ 17 (1996): 339‒49. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times.” Pages 33‒87 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Vol. 2. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Nihan, Christoph. “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” Pages 187‒223 in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models of Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

The Identity of “Israel” in the Book of Tobit: How to Create an ethnos? 

 159

Nowell, Irene. “The Book of Tobit: Narrative Technique and Theology.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1985. Otzen, Benedikt. Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Pitkänen, Pekka. “Family Life and Ethnicity in Early Israel and in Tobit.” Pages 104‒17 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. LSTS 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Pummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” Pages 237‒69 in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models of Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Redmount, Carol A. “Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt.” Pages 58‒89 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. Oxford: University Press, 1998. Schöpflin, Karin. “Scriptural Authority and the Ancestor as its Teacher and Example in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 85‒107 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi et al. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Schutte, Wolfgang. “Wie wurde Juda israelitisiert?” ZAW 124 (2012): 52‒72. Shanks, Hershel. “When Did Ancient Israel Begin?” BAR 38 (2012): 59‒64. Skemp, Vincent. “‘ἀδελφός’ and the Theme of Kinship in Tobit.” ETL 75 (1999): 92‒103. Soll, William. “The Family as a Scriptural and Social Construct in Tobit.” Pages 166‒75 in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Soll, William. “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology.” CBQ 51 (1989): 209‒31. Staples, Jason A. The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism. A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Van der Veen, Peter, Christoffer Theis, and Manfred Görg. “Israel in Canaan (Long) before Pharaoh Mereptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 21687.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2 (2010): 15‒25. Zsengellér, József. “Topography as Theology: Theological Premises of the Geographical References in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 177‒88 in The Book of Tobit. Text Tradition, Theology. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Zsengellér, József. “Samaritan Persecution in the Hellenistic Period according to Josephus Flavius.” Pages 235‒50 in Passion, Persecution, and Epiphany in Early Jewish Literature. Edited by Nicholas P. L. Allen et al. New York: Routledge, 2020.

Marcin Chrostowski

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora Abstract: The Book of Tobit is regarded as a didactic work in which historical references are fictitious. However, the Assyrian invasions and mass deportations of Israelites to Mesopotamia described there (Tob 1:2) refer to historical events from the 8th century BCE. An analysis of the main hero’s genealogy (Tob 1:1) suggests a reference to the north Israelite traditions. The investigation of the court titles of another hero, Ahiqar (Tob 1:22), in the light of the Assyrian court hierarchy, suggests a Mesopotamian coloring in the book. Written from a considerably lengthy time perspective in relation to described events, Tobit could serve as a parable about of the beginnings of the Israelite diaspora in Assyria, seen from the perspective of its heroes. Keywords: Book of Tobit, Ahiqar, diaspora, exile, Assyria

1 Introduction As they commence their interpretation of the Book of Tobit,1 scholars first encounter its historical, geographical, and spatial unreality. Examples of inaccuracies in what is written in Tobit compared to what we know today are many and have often been listed.2 What is more, despite its “unrealities,” there are plenty of unusual events and folkloristic elements, which have led exegetes to claim that even the core of Tobit is fictitious. Therefore, in research on the Israelite/Jewish diaspora, undertaken from the historical point of view, Tobit is not taken into account. Such a presupposition often precludes any serious approach to the historical data contained there, thus placing Tobit among the books of mostly didactic value. However, recently one can observe a growing interest in issues such as

1 This article is based on some of the issues discussed in the author’s doctoral dissertation: Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza (2018). Some motifs, which have been changed or extended, are reworked and updated. 2 One of the most recognized researchers of Tobit, Carey A. Moore, asserts that: “The book’s errors of ‘fact’ have been a major reason for scholars denying its historicity”; after enumerating the most significant “errors” of Tobit, Moore concludes that, “[for] most scholars. . .even the core or essence of the story was not historical” (Tobit, 10‒11). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-010

162 

 Marcin Chrostowski

the intertextuality of Tobit,3 notions of time,4 confrontation with hegemony5 and identity in the diaspora,6 where the narrative is treated as something more than a mere fiction. One of the most crucial topics in Tobit is the question of the diaspora. In fact, most of its narration takes place outside the land of Israel. The subject of the Israelite or Jewish diaspora is generally associated with the Babylonian invasion of the kingdom of Judah in the 6th century BCE resulting in the captivity and diaspora. That phenomenon constituted the dispersion of members of the “chosen people” in a foreign territory, where despite their distance from their homeland or lack thereof, they maintained their identity. However, there is evidence that the roots of the Israelite diaspora in Mesopotamia are much deeper. Its fundamental origins might be perceived in the Assyrian invasions of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BCE, followed by the first deportations of Israel to areas of the empire, led by the Assyrian kings: Tiglath-Pileser III, Shlamanesser V, Sargon II, as well as (on a smaller scale) by subsequent rulers. Tiglath-Pileser III, in his account of the campaign dated 733/732 BCE, boasted about the kidnapping of 13,520 slaves, with their belongings, from Bīt-ḫumria (Israel) to Assyria,7 while Sargon II relates the deportation of 27,290 inhabitants of Samaria,8 which is dated to 722/720 BCE. It may therefore be concluded that a total of about 40,000 Israelites, or roughly one fifth of the total population of the country, was expelled in the middle of the 8th century BCE. Assyrian invasions of the Kingdom of Israel also resulted in the flight of about 20,000 people into the territories of the Southern Kingdom; a special district was built for them in Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah. In total, the territory of the Northern Kingdom was thus left with about 60,000 inhabitants. Although the Assyrians exploited the conquered peoples intensively, albeit with some exceptions, they did not completely destroy them.9 The Israelites were then resettled in the territories governed by the Assyrian Empire, i.e., Assyria and Media. The resettlement is described, among other texts, in 2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11; 1 Chr 5:26, as well as in Tobit, which is, however, read and studied in this regard only rarely.10 The literal reading of the accounts in the Deuteronomistic History (above all 1‒2 Kgs; cf. especially 2 Kgs 15:29; 17:5‒41;

3 Kiel, “Tobit,” 293‒316; Kowalski, “Aramejskie rękopisy,” 323‒45. 4 Teixeira, “Ideas,” 285‒94; Macatangay, “Shape,” 295‒310. 5 Bautch, “Judith,” 157‒74. 6 Daley, “Inheritance,” 321‒34; Piplica, “Triumph,”129‒44; Oeming, “Identity,” 545‒61. 7 RINAP 1: 21, 1´–11´. 8 “Annalistic Reports,” trans. Luckenbill (ANET, 284‒85). 9 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 18‒19. 10 Chrostowski, “Dissertation Abstract,” 239‒40.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 163

18:9‒12) and Chronicles (1 Chr 5:26) has created such a widely accepted image of the Israelites’ fate after the deportations, that other biblical books are not taken into account.11

2 Traditional approaches to the issues of Assyrian diaspora among scholars Traditional views on what followed this defeat are very schematic yet firmly established. It is generally believed that the Israelites who had been abducted to Assyria disappeared from the historical scene so that all traces of them were lost. It is assumed as a certainty that the deported people of the northern tribes assimilated so thoroughly into the populations of the eastern territories to which they were relocated that in a short timespan they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic group. The fate of the ten northern tribes, henceforth considered “lost,” would serve as a lasting warning to the Judeans who had been bypassed in the initial invasions, destruction, and abduction by the Assyrians. They survived precisely so that they could draw the correct conclusions from the disaster that befell northern Israel (2 Kgs 17:5‒23).12 The assertion about the complete assimilation of the Israelites into the peoples of Assyria is firmly rooted within the common consciousness of the researchers describing this stage of Israel’s history. When describing members of the northern tribes whom the Assyrian deported in 733/732 and 722/720 BCE, words such as “disappearance” and “dissolution” acquire the tenor of scientific terms within dictionary definitions.13 Such an approach is sometimes paradigmatic

11 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 21. 12 W. Chrostowski, “Nic nie zostało,” 40. 13 An example of such an understanding of the history of northern Israel can be found in some of the entries of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora. Under the heading “The Lost Tribes of Israel,” one reads the following definition: “Historically, the lost tribes of Israel refer to the expelled and disappeared inhabitants of the biblical Kingdom of Israel that was conquered and destroyed by Assyria in 722 BCE, but mythologically they are a constant component in Judaism’s yearnings of national restoration and visions of redemption in the days to come”. Next, the author focuses on demonstrating what he means by the term “disappearance” of the kingdom of Israel: “The 10 lost tribes constitute a collective reference to the Israelites who did not survive the First Temple’s destruction in 587 BCE, as opposed to the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, who then forged what became the Jewish people, as evidenced in the book of Esther’s reference to Mordechai as ‘the Jew’ (Esther 2:5), the first such reference in any known literature. This post-Israelite identity became known universally as ‘Jewish’ after the disappearance of the tribes that inhabited the Israelite kingdom.” Asa-El, “Lost Tribes,” 78; Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 21.

164 

 Marcin Chrostowski

in dealing with the history of the northern kingdom of Israel, hence the interpretation of Tobit resounds precisely in this key. Traditional approaches to such an important issue as the Assyrian diaspora raise significant questions. First: how come the concise group of 40,000 Israelites attached to their customs, rooted in the tradition of their fathers, religious and strongly aware of their identity, could simply “melt” into the melting pot of a multinational Assyrian society, also diverse and composed of members of conquered nations? Second: why has the author of Tobit rightly chosen the Assyrian (and not the Babylonian or another) exile as the basic setting for his book? Third: What is the purpose of using the Assyrian milieu as the place where the main characters live, if it is generally assumed that the members of the Assyrian deportations did not survive there? Finally, for what reason did the author of Tobit decide to choose the representatives of the Naphtali tribe (which is assumed to have disappeared after deportation to Assyria) as heroes of his story, and not, for example individuals of Judah or Benjamin?14

3 Previous investigations regarding the role of the diaspora in the Book of Tobit Difficulties with Tobit’s historicity have led some scholars to suppose that the diaspora, which is the main scene of the book’s action, plays a metaphorical role in it.15 A common feature of such interpretations is to emphasize that Tobit is a kind of “catalog of virtues” and guidelines for the exemplary behavior of a Jew in captivity. Francis M. Macatangay argues that, in Tobit, the diaspora, taken as a metaphor, shapes the book’s theology,16 and paints the overall picture of the lives of the “chosen people” in a state of constant dispersion. The phenomenon of exile/diaspora functions in Tobit as a metaphor/symbol of such realities as: “God’s punishment,” “oppression by foreign powers,” “disorder/chaos,” “temporary state,” and “chance.” Therefore, the exile serves as a narrative code and metaphor for later

14 An interesting example of similar doubts is the important question raised by József Zsengellér, who, after analyzing the geography of Tobit and finding its connections with the northern diaspora of the Israelites, at the end of his article asks: “Why has this book, written ca. in the 3‒2 century BCE, chosen the theme of the exile of Northern Israel, and not that of Judah? Was there in that time an Israelite identity in the diaspora?” (“Topography as Theology,” 188). 15 For a list of the most important views: Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 65‒70. 16 Many studies of this author could be mentioned in this regard, such as: Macatangay, “Function,” 221‒58; idem, “Exile,” 177‒92; idem, “Metaphors,” 75‒86.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 165

Jewish life in the diaspora.17 Macatangay claims that the life of the main character of Tobit in the diaspora required alternative acts or specific substitutes for the official public cult, as, for example, prayers and deeds of mercy.18 József Zsengellér supports a metaphorical reading of the geographical references.19 According to him, the actions of Tobit, —like the times it describes—are unreal and imaginary and must be read with the key of symbolism. As a result, the story could, with equal probability, have happened elsewhere. Helen Schüngel-Straumann treats Tobit as an edifying story with a focus on keeping the commandments concerning marriage and family in the diaspora.20 Amy-Jill Levine, who interprets Tobit as a “textbook of life in the diaspora,”21 claims that the diaspora acts as a metaphor22 and lists “fictitious” situations in Tobit that could not have happened “in reality” because they serve only as symbols of general chaos and disorder in the diaspora. According to Beate Ego,23 the main goal of Tobit is to offer its readers a “model” of life in the diaspora and to depict life outside Israel in a positive light. Such practical guidelines for life and commandments were intentionally stripped of any reference to Israel or Jerusalem, as their purpose was to strengthen the identity of the people in exile.24 Moreover, these passages underline Tobit’s great devotion and special relationship to God and the people of Israel, who should preserve their identity not only in Jerusalem and the homeland, but perhaps even more so in the diaspora.25 She points out that the diaspora in Tobit is only a “transition state” between the former life on earth and the eschatological reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple.26 The aforementioned studies about the metaphorical reading of Tobit’s milieu are highly regarded, hence the diaspora (understood holistically) in Tobit is seen essentially as a place for shaping various virtues and developing a religious ethos. It seems, however, that the testimonies about the Assyrian attacks and the subsequent deportations, as well as the settlement of (at least some) of the Israelites in the diaspora described in the book, are not completely outside reality, so that proposing a slightly different perspective in this regard might be justified. Richard Bauck17 Macatangay, When I Die, 8‒28. 18 Macatangay, “Charity,” 277‒88; idem, “Acts,” 69‒84. 19 Zsengellér, “Topography,” 186. 20 Schüngel-Straumann, “Tobit,” 504‒14. 21 Levine, “Tobit,” 42‒51, 64. 22 Levine, “Diaspora,” 105‒117; idem, “Boundaries,” 3‒22. 23 Ego, “Book of Tobit,” 41‒54; idem, “Licht Gottes,” 59‒74. 24 Cf. Egger-Wenzel, “Abgrenzung,” 1‒27. 25 Ego, “Heimat,” 270‒83. 26 It is worth adding that the concluding verses of Tob (14:4, 13) contain a narrative of the heroes’ residence in Media, which indicates that the diaspora could not only be understood as a “short time” with an immediate perspective of liberation, but above all, in terms of a theological message.

166 

 Marcin Chrostowski

ham27 claims that Tobit was written by an author living in the eastern diaspora for the Israelites living in Media. Of course, this does not imply the composition of the book in the time it describes; it was written about 3rd–2nd centuries BCE, or between 300 and the Herodian era.28 Much more important was the purpose of Tobit, which was to edify the members of the “chosen people”, living in the diaspora already in Hellenistic times. However, an example of perseverance was to be found in the members of northern tribes of Israel. Bauckham’s proposal merits attention in this regard. In a similar way, Tobit has also been interpreted as a testimony to the Assyrian diaspora of the Israelites who kept their identity and passed it on to future generations.29 Devorah Dimant30 suggests that the concentration of Tobit’s action in Mesopotamia does not necessarily indicate the book’s composition in this place, because its Sitz im Leben may also be the land of Israel. She interprets Tobit as a “fictional story”, taking place in an “authentic historical context.” Referring to the first Assyrian displacement (733/732 BCE), the author creates a model story as a reference point for all generations of Israel, also deported in later times.

4 Anthroponyms of Tobit suggest their northern provenance There is some evidence that the Book of Tobit refers to real history. Certainly, there is no implication that the whole story is “historical” (in today’s understanding of history), nor that every detail could have parallels in real events, but it is worth looking at some of the information contained in the book and asking what the author might have wished to communicate to his readers. Important observations can be drawn from an analysis of the anthroponyms.31 Tob 1:1 in Gk. II32 starts with the genealogy of the main hero: “The book of the words of Tobith son of Tobiel (Τωβιηλ) son of Hananiel (Ανανιηλ) son of Adouel (Αδουηλ) son of Gabael (Γαβαηλ) son of Raphael (Ραφαηλ) son of Ragouel (Ραγουηλ) 27 Bauckham, “Tobit,” 163. 28 Otzen, Tobit, 57. 29 W. Chrostowski, “Księga Tobiasza,” 9‒30; Wojciechowski, “Assyrian Diaspora,” 5‒19. 30 Dimant, “Tobit,” 347‒59. 31 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 180‒82. 32 Tobit in its Greek version in the LXX has two main recensions: the longer one, mainly in the Codex Sinaiticus (S), and marked as Gk. II, and the shorter, mainly in the Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A) codices, and denoted as Gk. I. The S Codex (Gk. II), despite some gaps and difficulties in some of the lessons, is considered to be the closest to the so called “original text” of Tobit. Simpson, “Book of Tobit,” 175.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 167

of the descendants of Asiel (Ασιηλ), of the tribe of Nephthaleim” (NETS). All of Tobit’s ancestors (Τωβιηλ, Ανανιηλ, Αδουηλ, Γαβαηλ, Ραφαηλ, Ραγουηλ, Ασιηλ) bear the names ending in an Elohistic way (-ηλ / ‫אל‬-). George Buchanan Gray33 claims that such names occur mostly in the earliest periods of biblical history, namely the pre-monarchic and Davidic. He argues that the large number of names associated with ‫( אל‬as a suffix) is one of the characteristics of the “P” source now dated by some to the pre-exilic period.34 The names associated with it are therefore peculiar to early literature. They occur less frequently in the royal period and thereafter. The author of Tobit, using names ending in ‫אל‬- in the prologue, seems to refer to the earliest period of Israelite religion. What is more, names with such an element were most evident in the northern kingdom (9th–8th centuries BCE), while in Judah and in later times, names were based on the divine name ‫( יְ הֹוָ ה‬shortened to the endings ‫ יָ הּו‬or ‫ יָ ה‬or ‫)יֵ ה‬.35 It is also worth looking at extra-biblical sources.36 One of them is the ostracon from Nimrud (ancient Kalḫu), which was the capital of the Assyrian Empire from the reign of Assurnasirpal II (883‒859 BCE) to that of Sennacherib (704‒681 BCE), who moved the capital to Nineveh. The ostracon is designated as ND 623137 (also known as the “Nimrud Ostracon”)38 and dated around 700 BCE.39 There are three text columns with a total of eleven lines, listing fifteen men with their West Semitic40 names and affiliations, some of them of Israelite provenance.41 Joseph Naveh identified such names there:

33 Gray, Studies, 163. 34 Milgrom, “Source,” 454‒61. 35 Wojciechowski, Księga Tobiasza, 52‒53. 36 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 167‒69. 37 Sometimes it is designed as CAI: 47; Aufrecht, Corpus. 38 The potsherd (5.5 x 10 cm) was excavated in Kalḫu in 1957 in the latest occupation level of Fort Shalmaneser, the “review palace” or arsenal of Kalḫu, and therefore dates to the late seventh century BCE. The Aramaic alphabetic text is written in black ink on both sides of the sherd; Radner, “Diglossia,” 173‒74. 39 It was found 20 cm above a level which represents the latest occupation of the Assyrian building which was destroyed in 612 BCE. Segal, “Ostracon,” 139; date: Lemaire, “Epigraphy,” 562‒68. 40 The Hebrew/Phoenician ‫ ֵּבן‬is used rather than Aramaic ‫ּבר‬.ַ It was assumed to be an Ammonite text, but this is no longer accepted. Nevertheless, the script on the Ammonite ostraca is certainly Aramaic, as proved by Richelle, “Ostraca,” 50; Radner, “Diglossia,” 174. The non-Ammonite origin of the ostracon is also noted by Tyson, “Israel’s Kin,” 126. 41 There are grounds for maintaining that the persons whose names are recorded on this ostracon—unlike its writers—originated in Phoenicia or Israel. Segal, “Ostracon,” 144‒46. Becking opposes this classification and argues that the inscription contains a list of people from several West Semitic peoples. If, as it may be assumed, these are the deportees, then it may be supposed

168 

 Marcin Chrostowski

obv. i: “(1) [. . .] son of Anael, (2) Hananel son of Anael, (3) Manahem son of Beyadel, (4) Shabel son of Uzzel, (5) Hananel son of Hazael, (6) GN’ son of Menahem. ii: (1) Elnur son of Me(na)hem, (2) Elnur son of Padiel, (3) Zakarel son of Zinnor, (4) Nadabel son of Hannun.” rev.: “(1) Menahem son of Elyasha, (2) Elnur son of Mikael, (3) Ayanadab son of Haggay, (4) Eltamak (the launderer), (5) Akbar s[on of E]lnatan.”42 William F. Albright, who dates the ostracon about 725‒675 BCE,43 believes that it was created in the first years of the Israelite presence in Assyria after the deportations in 733 and 721 BCE.44 Therefore the names therein may belong to the first or second generation of the Assyrian Israelite diaspora.45 The absence of Yahwistic names may indicate that they were rare among the northern Israelites in the late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE. Names with the suffix ‫אל‬- on ND 6231 most likely belong to the Israelites of the northern tribes.46 Other inscriptions certify at least the presence of Israelites in the territories occupied by Assyria following the deportations.47 Analyses of interesting studies concerning this subject48 are beyond the scope of this article.

that the Assyrian deportation policy there achieved one of its goals, namely the mixing of peoples of diverse ethnic origins. Becking, “Ostrakon,” 66. 42 Naveh, “Ostracon,” 163‒71. 43 Albright, “Ostracon,” 33‒36. 44 From a list of twenty-one different names, ten can be found in biblical Hebrew, and eight appear in various Hebrew inscriptions, or resemble common Hebrew words, or have structural parallels among known Hebrew names; Albright, “Ostracon,” 34. 45 The purpose of listing the series of surnames can be roughly deduced from the location where the ostracon was found. It is not unreasonable to assume that Ostracon ND 6231 represents the census of a unit in the Assyrian army comprised of lower-ranking foreigners. The room where the ostracon was found served as a pantry. This allows for the assumption that the persons mentioned on the ostracon served, for example, in the Assyrian army, and if they were deported, they would exemplify a distinctive intention of the Assyrian deportation policy, namely to strengthen of the Assyrian army, with soldiers from territories conquered by Assyria; Becking, “Ostrakon,” 66‒67. 46 The origin of the people of the ostracon could be Israelite; the Aramaic script indicates the date of the composition in the eighth-seventh century BCE in Assyria. Albright, “Ostracon,” 36. 47 Of particular importance is the following article of Zadok: “Israelites and Judaeans,” 159‒89, and his other studies: Diaspora; idem, “Israelites, Judeans,” 98‒127; idem, “Israelites and Judeans in Assyria,” 9‒12; idem, “Sources,” 223‒26; idem, “Notes,” 391‒93. 48 Inter alia: Galil, “Israelite Exiles,” 71‒79; Becking, Fall, 61‒73; Oded, “Settlements,” 91‒103; idem, “Observations,” 205‒12.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 169

5 Ahiqar: Israelite in Assyrian court Ahiqar is an important hero in Tobit: though not the central character,49 he is an agent who preserves Tobit’s wellbeing. According to Gk. II Tob 1:22, he is not only Tobit’s nephew (ἐξάδελφός) and relative (συγγενείας), but also the chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet ring, administrator and treasurer of the Assyrian kings. In Greek, these titles are rare or hapax legomena. They become clearer from an analysis of the Aramaic fragments of Tob (4Q196, fr. 2:5‒7), where these titles have been preserved (at least partially), and through the knowledge of the hierarchy of officials in the Assyrian court.50 The story about a great Assyrian vizier Ahiqar, who was supposed to have lived during the reign of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, the kings of the empire of the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, was already known in antiquity. His profile circulated in tales and legends that portrayed him as a sage formulating proverbs and wisdom sentences. The story of this hero and his maxims are contained in The Words of Ahiqar, which were passed down in various versions and translations in antiquity.51 It is preserved in the Aramaic Elephantine papyrus dated to fifth century BCE52 and published, inter alia, by Arthur Cowley.53 The script represents the official/standard form of the language.54 Some suggest that it is the oldest extra-biblical source preserved and read by Jews.55

49 He appears in the narrative only four times: Gk. I and Gk. II Tob 1:21‒22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10. 50 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 245. 51 Conybeare et al. eds., The Story of Aḥiḳar, which, however, turned out to be older than previously assumed. The Aramaic name of the main character, ‫ אחיקר‬has the same spelling as in 4Q196, and could be translated as “my brother is beloved/worthy.” VanderKam, “Ahikar/Ahiqar,” 113. 52 This date indicates the time of the final composition of the story, while the original version was probably written about a century earlier. “The Words of Ahiqar,” trans. Ginsberg (ANET, 427‒30). 53 “The Words of Aḥiḳar,” trans. Cowley (CAP, 212‒48). 54 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 63. 55 VanderKam, “Ahiqar,” 119‒20.

170 

 Marcin Chrostowski

6 The titles of Ahiqar suggesting a Mesopotamian background of Tobit Of special interest in this regard could be the analysis of the titles of Ahiqar,56 as described in the Aramaic fragments of Tobit from Qumran (4Q196, fr. 2:5‒7). In Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s reconstruction and translation the text reads as follows:57 5. “[and he] put Aḥiqar, son of ʿAna ʾ el, my kinsman, in charge of all the c[redit accoun]ts (‫]יזפנו[ת‬ ֯ ‫)ש‬ ֯ 6. [of his kingdom; and he had c]ontrol over [al]l the treasury accounts (‫)על] כ[ל ֯ה ׄמרכלות‬ ֯ of the king. 7. [Now Aḥi]qar, my kinsman, had been the chief cupbearer (‫שקה‬ ׄ ‫)ר ׄב‬, ׄ the keeper of the signet rings ( ׄ‫)רב עזׄ ׄקן‬, treasury-accountant (‫)ה ֯מ ֯ר ֯כל‬, ׄ 8. [and c]redit accountant (‫)שיזפן‬ ֯ under Sennacherib, the king of Assyria. Esarhaddon put him in charge as second to himself. Now 9. he was the son of my brother, of my father’s house, and of my family.”

The first responsibility of Ahiqar was to be in charge “of all the credit accounts.” The word ‫שיזפן‬, used twice in this description (4Q196, fr. 2.5, 8), comes from the root ‫“( זיף‬to loan”) and does not appear in the Aramaic sections of the Bible. However, it appears in various forms in extra-biblical texts. The noun ‫זפת‬, derived from the qal conjugation of the verb ‫זיף‬, was a common business term in the Elephantine documents for a loan.58 It occurs very often in The Words of Ahiqar.59 Gk. II includes the term ἐκλογιστίαν (“accountant”; Tob 1:21b, 22). Both the Aramaic and Greek terms evoked here are neologisms. The Aramaic word could be translated as “an enumerator overseeing the state of loans.”60 Ahiqar also has “control of over all the treasury accounts” (‫)המרכלות‬. The Aramaic word ‫המרכל‬, used in 4Q196, fr. 2.6, 7, is not present in the Aramaic sections of the Bible. Instead, it appears in documents from Elephantine in the 5th century BCE61 and has old Persian roots.62 In this language, the term hamarākara means “accountant”; such a person was responsible for the income and expenditure of the

56 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 268‒304. 57 DSSR, 12‒13. 58 Geraty, “Khirbet el-Kôm,” 58, where the author considers various variants of a word with a root ‫זיף‬. 59 The greatest number of terms with the root ‫ זיף‬appears in CAP ix 129‒131. 60 Linke, Literacka ojczyzna, 213. 61 CAP 26 obv. 4, 5; rev. 23. 62 Although the exact position of the officials in the local society is a matter of discussion, one may say that despite their joint action and service with the satrap, they were independent in action, possessed power, and enjoyed great authority as well as privileges and prerogatives. When their

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 171

royal funds and had to monitor the state of the ruler’s property. The title belongs to the nomenclature relating to finance and accounting. Such people were among the most influential representatives of the Persian Empire.63 Although the title hamarākara is old Persian, the function and importance of it may be traced back to Elam, from where such officials were brought during the formation of Persepolis.64 This fact may shed new light on the understanding of Ahiqar’s relationship with Elam (Greek Ἐλυμαΐδα) from Tob 2:10, which is also discussed (fragmentarily) in 4Q196, fr. 4.1.65 The author of 4Q196, fr. 2.6, 7, using the word ‫המרכל‬, was referring to accounting terminology common in the Elephantine papyri, rooted in Persian nomenclature, and with its semantic origin in Elamite. Ahiqar was also the “chief cup-bearer” (‫)רב שקה‬, which Gk. II Tob 1:22 renders as ἀρχιοινοχόος, and Gk. I as οἰνοχόος. The term ‫ רב שקה‬from 4Q196, fr. 2.7 has an Akkadian origin, but also occurs sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible (‫ב־ׁש ֵקה‬ ָ ‫)ר‬, ַ basically in two places: eight times in 2 Kgs 18‒19 and eight times in Isa 36‒37.66 They are parallel descriptions of the message that the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, sent from Lachish to Jerusalem, where King Hezekiah resided. The campaign, which took place in 701 BCE, aimed to effect the surrender of Jerusalem to the Assyrian king. The title is evidently Assyrian, because it often appears in precisely such sources, where it is transliterated as rab šāqî or rab šāqê.67 Such an office occurs in eponymic lists from the 9th century BCE. Among Akkadian languages, the term appears in Old Assyrian, Neo-Assyrian (most often) and New Babylonian.68 The original meaning of the title referred to one of the most important magnates of the Assyrian administration.69

title was used in conjunction with “treasury,” it referred to government officials assigned to the treasury at Elephantine. Porten, Archives, 58‒59. 63 Such officials were responsible for tax accounting and collection. Their job was to supervise and control the property status and distribution of the ruler’s goods, on whose trust they could count. They were entrusted with the care of the royal treasure, and thus belonged to the elite of the most influential representatives of the Persian Empire. Cf. Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 283. 64 Their origin is evidenced mainly by the Elamite language, used by enumerators in Persian documents from Persepolis. The term was also used in cuneiform scripts and is known in other languages in its proper variations. 65 Fitzmyer (Tobit, 138) suggests that this mention focuses the story of Tobit on Mesopotamia. 66 Cf. 2 Kgs 18:17, 19, 26‒28, 37; 19:4, 8 (6 times in 2 Kgs 18 and 2 times in 2 Kgs 19); Isa 36:2, 4, 11‒13, 22; 37:4, 8 (six times in Isa 36 and 2 times in Isa 37). Thus, the places of occurrence of this term reflect a specific order. 67 “šāqû A,” CAD XVII/2, 30‒33. 68 In the times of the Neo–Assyrian Empire (911‒627 BC), the title rab šāqê appears on eponymous lists as early as ca., 880 BCE. Grayson, “Officials,” 40, 48‒49. 69 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 296.

172 

 Marcin Chrostowski

The last office entrusted to Ahiqar was “the keeper of the signet rings” (‫)רב עזקן‬. The wording in 4Q196, fr. 2.7 is typical Aramaic and also in Dan 6:18 denotes a seal. Both Greek versions (Gk. I and II) render the title as δακτύλιος (“signet/seal”). The Aramaic term ‫ עזקן‬comes from the noun ‫עזקה‬, which also occurs six times in The Words of Ahiqar70 from 5th century BCE, where it also means “signet/seal”. Ahiqar plays a similar role there as in 4Q196, namely, he bears the royal signet/seal of Sennacherib, so the king must have trusted him. The introduction of such a seal into the Assyrian administration happened as early as the ninth century BCE and was an innovation, since it involved a profound transformation of Assyria from kingdom to empire. One of the most outstanding positions there was occupied by the person responsible for the royal seal. The one who had the honor of holding the seal acted as the representative of the delegate, and the use of the seal identified the holder of the seal with the one who entrusted it to him. Thus, when a delegate was impressing the royal seal, he was acting not only in the name of the king but as the king himself. This was the most essential quality of an official who bore the royal seal.71 The author of the Book of Tobit intended to root the story in Mesopotamian realities. This is especially true in the Aramaic passages of Tobit: its terminology becomes clearer in the light of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian texts and realities. Perhaps Ahiqar was an archetype of the same Israelites who attained high dignities in the Assyrian court;72 after all, in Tob 1:22 he was described as a nephew of Tobit, hence, as Israelite. 70 Including emendations, the term ‫ עזקה‬appears in CAP i 3, 7; ii 19, 20, 26; iv 60. 71 Radner, “Delegation,” 486‒87, 508‒11. 72 A careful study of the onomastics of Assyrian sources leads to the supposition that many of the people who held high office in the Neo-Assyrian Empire had names indicating Israelite provenance. The use of the suffix ‫ יָ הּו‬in personal names, which is a theophoric, or more precisely a Yahwistic element, is of great importance here. For example, one of the Dur-Sarrukin inscriptions mentions a certain Iadī-Yau, an Israelite public works overseer; it can be seen, therefore, that some Israelites were supervisors of construction work in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The document originated in the reign of Assurbanipal (668‒627 BCE) and is dated to 640 BCE, so it was drawn up several decades after the Assyrian deportations of the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel and Samaria. It was therefore the third or fourth generation of deportees, whose description shows that the transition from exile to the diaspora had already been completed. (W. Chrostowski, “Izraelici,” 67). The Assyrian administration, in which the Israelites also held high positions, should be viewed in a similar way. It is very likely that some of the propaganda documents written shortly before the fall of Assyria came from the hands of the deported Israelites, the most cunning of whom infiltrated the court and won the favors of the ruler and his entourage. (W. Chrostowski, “Izraelici,” 79). Important observations in relation to the Assyrian captivity were made by Abraham Malamat, who noted that the documents relating to the Israelites deported to Assyria show that they usually did not have the status of slaves or an oppressed population. The displaced persons were initially

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 173

7 Conclusions A study of the role of some heroes of the Book of Tobit, that is, the ancestors of the main character, and of Ahiqar leads to the hypothesis that the author of Tobit wished to recall the memories of the first deportations of Israelites of the northern kingdom to Mesopotamia in the 8th century BCE. The diaspora, which was created as a result of these, contrary to the prevailing opinion, retained its identity, which is described in Tobit. The Book of Tobit, relating the presence of the Israelites in Media, Nineveh, or Ecbatana, refers to authentic events, although it is certainly not an historiographic record. It was written from a significant time perspective in relation to the events described in it, rather constituting their interpretation. The purpose was to educate the nation about the necessity of righteousness, faithfulness to the Law of Moses, and maintaining the identity, despite the lack of the land ownership. However, the paradigm and the point of reference were not the Jews from Babylonian or any other captivity, but the northern tribes of the Assyrian diaspora, the memory of which was also preserved in subsequent generations.73 All the historical allusions should nevertheless be read in a broader perspective and above all in a theological context.

Bibliography Albright, William F. “An Ostracon from Calah and the North-Israelite Diaspora.” BASOR 149 (1958): 33‒36. Asa-El, Amotz,. “The Lost Tribes of Israel.” Pages 78‒86 in Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora. Origins, Experiences, and Culture. Edited by Mark A. Ehrlich. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2009. ________. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by Adolf L. Oppenheim et al. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956‒2006. (= CAD) Aufrecht, Walter E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989. (= CAI)

settled in Mesopotamia as tenants of the king’s land (cf. the words of ‫ב־ׁש ֵקה‬ ָ ‫ ַר‬in 2 Kgs 18:32), and the artisans recruited from among them were employed in state enterprises. Some Israelites also achieved high economic status in the diaspora and held prominent positions in the Assyrian administration. They were given the right to own land (and dispose of it) and to obey their customs, which implies that at least some of them kept the Law and the commandments. Therefore, they enjoyed partial independence and internal autonomy. Some Israelites undoubtedly retained their national character and maintained contacts with their homeland (2 Kgs 17:28); later they probably joined with the displaced people of the tribe of Judah. Malamat, “Exile,” 607‒8; Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 314‒15. 73 Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza, 517.

174 

 Marcin Chrostowski

Bauckham, Richard. “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel.” Pages 140‒64 in Studies of the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. JSPSup 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Bautch, Richard J. “Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony.” Pages 157‒174 in Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey David Miller. DCLS 31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Becking, Bob. The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and Archaeological Study. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 2. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Becking, Bob. “Kann das Ostrakon ND 6231 von Nimrūd für ammonitisch gehalten werden?” ZDPV 104 (1988): 59‒67. Chrostowski, Marcin. “Dissertation Abstract: Księga Tobiasza – przypowieść o początkach diaspory Izraelitów w Mezopotamii.” The Polish Journal of Biblical Research 18/1‒2 (35‒36) (2019): 239‒40. Chrostowski, Marcin. Księga Tobiasza – przypowieść o początkach diaspory Izraelitów w Mezopotamii. Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 49. Warszawa: Vocatio, 2018. Chrostowski, Waldemar. “Księga Tobiasza w kanonie Starego Testamentu.” CT 79/4 (2009): 9‒30. Chrostowski, Waldemar. “‘Nic nie zostało jak tylko samo pokolenie Judy’ (2 Krl 17,18b) – czy naprawdę? Zagłada Samarii i Królestwa Izraela oraz jej skutki.” Pages 35‒54 in Asyryjska diaspora Izraelitów i inne studia. Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 10. Warszawa: Vocatio, 2003. Chrostowski, Waldemar. “Izraelici w asyryjskich strukturach administracyjnych i wojskowych – przyczynek do badań nad sytuacją diaspory Izraelitów w Asyrii.” Pages 58‒83 in Trzecia Świątynia w Jerozolimie i inne studia. Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 44. Warszawa: Vocatio, 2012. Cowley, Arthur E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. (= CAP) Daley, Daniel. “Inheritance, Inclusion, and Identity in Tobit and the Jewish Diaspora.” Bib 102/3 (2021): 321‒34. ________. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004‒2005. (= DSSR) Dimant, Devorah. “Tobit in Galilee.” Pages 347‒59 in Homeland and Exile. Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil et al. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Abgrenzung, Widerstand und Identität im Buch Tobit.” Pages 1‒27 in Gesellschaft und Religion in der spätbiblischen und deuterokanonischen Literatur. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer et al. DCLS 20. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Ego, Beate. “The Book of Tobit and the Diaspora.” Pages 41‒54 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary 20‒21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ Supplement Series 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ego, Beate. “‘Heimat in der Fremde’: zur Konstituierung einer jüdischen Identität im Buch Tobit.” Pages 270‒83 in Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Gerbern S. Oegema. Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002. Ego, Beate. “‘Das Licht Gottes’ – Metaphern in der Tobiterzählung.” Pages 59‒74 in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2014/2015; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Galil, Gershon. “Israelite Exiles in Media: A New Look at ND 2443+.” VT 59 (2009): 71‒79. Geraty, Lawrence T. “The Khirbet el-Kôm Bilingual Ostracon.” BASOR 220 (1975): 55‒61. Gray, George B. Studies in Hebrew Proper Names. London: Black, 1896.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 175

Grayson, Albert K. “Assyrian Officials and Power in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries.” SAAB 7/1 (1993): 19‒52. Kiel, Micah D. “Interpreting Tobit Two Ways: Inner-biblical Exegesis and Intertextuality.” Pages 293‒316 in Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey David Miller. DCLS 31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Kowalski, Kamil J. “Aramejskie rękopisy Księgi Tobita z Qumran (4Q196-200) – historia i egzegeza.” The Biblical Annals 7/3 (2017): 323‒45. Lemaire, André. “Epigraphy, Transjordanian.” ABD 2:561‒68. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Redrawing the Boundaries: A New Look at ‘Diaspora as metaphor–bodies and boundaries in the Book of Tobit’.” Pages 3‒22 in A Feminist Companion to Tobit and Judith. Edited by Athalya Brenner–Idan and Helen Efthimiadis–Keith. FCB 537. Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2015. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Diaspora as Metaphor: Bodies and Boundaries in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 105‒17 in Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with A. Thomas Kraabel. Edited by Andrew J. Overman and Robert MacLennan. SFSHJ 41. Atlanta, GA: University of South Florida, 1992. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Tobit: Teaching Jews how to Live in the Diaspora.” BRev 8/4 (1992): 42‒51, 64. Linke, Waldemar. Literacka ojczyzna Tobiasza. Tło kulturowe Tb jako klucz teologicznej lektury księgi. Lingua Sacra. Monografie 2. Warszawa: Verbinum, 2013. Macatangay, Francis M. “Acts of Charity as Acts of Remembrance in the Book of Tobit.” JSP 23/1 (2013): 69‒84. Macatangay, Francis M. “Charity and Cult in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 277‒88 in Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits et al. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2016/2017. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well. Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016. Macatangay, Francis M. “Exile as Metaphor in the Book of Tobit.” RivB 62/2 (2014): 177‒92. Macatangay, Francis M. “The Function of the Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit.” PhD diss., Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2010. Macatangay, Francis M. “Metaphors and the Character Construction of Tobias in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 75‒86 in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2014/2015. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Macatangay, Francis M. “The ‘Shape of Time’ in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 295‒310 in Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew J. Goff. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Malamat, Abraham. “Exile, Assyrian.” EJ 6:607‒608. Milgrom, Jacob. “Priestly (“P”) Source.” ABD 5:454‒61. Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40A. New Haven, CT – London: Yale University Press, 1996. Naveh, Joseph. “The Ostracon from Nimrud: An Ammonite Name-List.” Maarav 2 (1980): 163‒71. ________. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Oded, Bustanay. “Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles in Mesopotamia during the Eighth-Sixth Centuries BCE.” Pages 205‒12 in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. OLA 65. Leuven: Peeters, 1995.

176 

 Marcin Chrostowski

Oded, Bustanay. “The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th-6th Centuries BCE.” Pages 91‒103 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Oeming, Manfred. “Jewish Identity in the Eastern Diaspora in Light of the Book of Tobit.” Pages 545‒61 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Otzen, Benedikt. Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Piplica, Mirjam. “Triumph over Trauma in Tobit (GII): Family Identity as a Model for the Jewish Family in the Diaspora.” Pages 129‒44 in Turmoil, Trauma and Tenacity in Early Jewish Literature. Edited by Nicholas P. L. Allen and Jacob J. T. Doedens. DCLS 50. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022. Porten, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine. The Life of Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. (= ANET) Radner, Karen. “The Delegation of Power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals.” Pages 481‒515 in L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis: État des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France, 3‒4 novembre 2006. Edited by Pierre Briant et al. Persika 12. Paris: de Boccard, 2008. Radner, Karen. “Diglossia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire’s Akkadian and Aramaic Text Production.” Pages 147‒81 in Multilingualism in Ancient Contexts: Perspectives from Ancient Near Eastern and Early Christian Contexts. Edited by Louis C. Jonker et al. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media, 2021. Richelle, Matthieu. “Revisiting the Ammonite Ostraca.” Maarav 22/1‒2 (2018): 45‒77. ________. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744‒727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726‒722 BC), Kings of Assyria. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada. Vol. 1: The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. (= RINAP) Schüngel-Straumann, Helen. “Tobit: A Lesson on Marriage and Family in the Diaspora.” Pages 504‒14 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Segal, Judah B. “An Aramaic Ostracon from Nimrud.” Iraq 19/2 (1957): 139‒45. Simpson, David C. “The Book of Tobit.” Pages 174‒241 in APOT 1. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon 1913. ________. The Story of Aḥiḳar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic versions. Edited by Frederick C. Conybeare et al. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Teixeira, Lucas B. “Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1‒2) as Case Study.” Pages 285‒94 in Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew J. Goff. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Tyson, Craig W. “Israel’s Kin Across the Jordan: A Social History of the Ammonites in the Iron Age II (1000‒500 BCE).” PhD diss., Michigan: University of Michigan, 2011. VanderKam, James C. “Ahikar/Ahiqar.” ABD 1:113‒14. VanderKam, James C. “Ahiqar, Book of.” ABD 1:119‒20. Wojciechowski, Michał. “Assyrian Diaspora as Background of the Book of Tobit.” CT 77 (2007): 5‒19.

The Heroes of the Book of Tobit as Figures of the Assyrian Diaspora 

 177

Wojciechowski, Michał. Księga Tobiasza czyli Tobita. Opowieść o miłości rodzinnej. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz. Nowy Komentarz Biblijny. Stary Testament 12. Częstochowa: Edycja Świętego Pawła, 2005. Zadok, Ran. The Earliest Diaspora: Israelites and Judeans in Pre- Hellenistic Mesopotamia. Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute 151. Tel Aviv: Diaspora Research Institute, 2002. Zadok, Ran. “Israelites and Judaeans in the Neo-Assyrian Documentation (732‒602 b.c.e.): An Overview of the Sources and a Socio-Historical Assessment.” BASOR 374 (2015): 159‒89. Zadok, Ran. “Israelites and Judeans in Assyria, the Jezireh and Babylonia.” Studies in the History and Culture of the Jews of Iraq 6 (1991): 9‒12. [Hebrew[ Zadok, Ran. “Israelites, Judeans and Iranians in Mesopotamia and Adjacent Regions.” Pages 98‒127 in Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries. Edited by Jay H. Ellens et al. Vol. 2: God’s Word for Our World. JSPSup 389. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Zadok, Ran. “Notes on the Early History of the Israelites and Judeans in Mesopotamia.” Or 51 (1982): 391‒93. Zadok, Ran. “Selected Sources on the History of the Israelite Exiles in Assyria.” Shnaton 5/6 (1983): 223‒26. [Hebrew[ Zsengellér, József. “Topography as Theology: Theological Premises of the Geographical References in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 177‒88 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary 20‒21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ Supplement Series 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Francis M. Macatangay

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit Abstract: In the fourth chapter of the Book of Tobit, Tobit gives his son Tobias a piece of paternal advice on how to choose a wife. Tobit tells Tobias to “take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman who is not of your father’s tribe” (Tob 4:12). The fundamental rationale that Tobit offers his son for this instruction is that “we are children (lit. ‘sons’) of the prophets.” This paper briefly explores the possible meanings of the claim of biological descent from the prophets as it pertains to the idea of a people in the Book of Tobit.  Keywords: Tobit, “children of prophets,” instruction, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, endogamy, prophecy

1 Introduction In the fourth chapter of the Book of Tobit, Tobit gives his young son Tobias a piece of paternal advice on how to choose a wife. As a devout and responsible father, Tobit must have discerned that it was time to exercise his duty to educate his son Tobias before sending him away on a mission to retrieve a huge monetary sum deposited with a cousin in Media. Tobit instructs Tobias to “take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman who is not of your father’s tribe” (Tob 4:12).1 The fundamental rationale that Tobit proudly offers his son for this instruction is that “we are the sons of the prophets,” which is rather an uncommon expression.2 Tobit underlines their prophetic ancestry as justification for choosing a wife. Tobit then specifically names Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

1 The instruction raises the question of whether Tobit is urging Israelites to marry from within their own tribe. According to Grabbe, “Tobit,” 741, “this may be in the mind of the writer, but it is unlikely. Nowhere else is it ever suggested that Israelites had to marry only within their own tribe, suggesting that ‘tribe’ here is being used generally to mean the broader Israelite community.” 2 The expression is also found in Acts 3:25, which is part of Peter’s address to the people gathered in Solomon’s portico after the healing of a lame man. In b. Pesaḥ. 66a, the Jewish sage Hillel was asked about the specifics of an obscure law that deals with the knife and the slaughter of the paschal lamb on the eve of Sabbath. The sage admits that he has heard of it but has forgotten the law and says, “But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-011

180 

 Francis M. Macatangay

as the forefathers of descendants from whom Tobias is to take a wife. Tobit exhorts Tobias to emulate their example since, as Tobit notes, they all took their respective wives from among their kin. Since the expression is embedded in Tobit’s instruction on marriage, the discussion has understandably focused more on Tobit’s notion of endogamy or marriage within one’s own kin than on what his claim of biological descent with prophetic heritage might mean. The topics of marriage and children are so naturally related that they can often be spoken of in the same breath. In fact, Tobit mentions that the patriarchs who married a wife from their clan were blessed in their offspring and that their children will inherit the land. Still, scholars seem to have found Tobit’s idea of marriage instead of his curious claim of genealogical lineage from the prophets a more fertile ground for investigation. In this article, I would like to explore the possible meanings of Tobit’s expression, “for we are children of the prophets.” First, I will focus on the text by looking at how the word υἱοί or “sons” is used and by considering some traditions that portray the patriarchs as prophets. Next, I will look at how the story employs prophets and their words. Third, I will try to discern the implied connection between Tobit’s instruction on endogamous marriage and his supporting statement that “we are children of the prophets.” His substantiating claim for his instruction on choosing the right spouse provides a hint at what the Book of Tobit understands as an essential and defining element of who he believes his people are—a people from a long line of prophets. Finally, I will comment briefly on why Tobit seems to emphasize prophetic character and ancestry as constitutive of a people.

2 The text The Short Version (Vaticanus, GI type):3 4:12 πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ παιδίον ἀπὸ πάσης πορνείας καὶ γυναῖκα πρῶτον λαβὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν πατέρων σου μὴ λάβῃς γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν ἣ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ πατρός σου διότι υἱοὶ προφητῶν ἐσμεν Νωε Αβρααμ Ισαακ Ιακωβ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος μνήσθητι παιδίον ὅτι οὗτοι πάντες ἔλαβον γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ εὐλογήθησαν ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν κληρονομήσει γῆν. “Beware, my child, of all immorality. First of all, take a wife from among the descendants of your ancestors, and do not take a foreign woman, who is not of the tribe of your father, for we are the sons of the prophets Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, our fathers from the begin3 The translation of the text follows the RSV with slight modifications.

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 181

ning. Remember, my child, that these all took wives from among their kindred. And they were blessed in their children and their posterity will inherit land.”

The Long Greek version (MS 319, GII type): 4:12 πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ παιδίον ἀπὸ πάσης πορνείας καὶ γυναῖκα πρῶτον λαβὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν πατέρων σου μὴ λάβῃς γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν ἣ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ πατρός σου διότι υἱοὶ προφητῶν ἐσμεν καὶ κατ᾽ἀλήθειαν υἱοὶ προφητῶν Νωε ὁ δὲ προφήτης ἦ πρῶτος καὶ Αβρααμ Ισαακ Ιακωβ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος μνήσθητι παιδίον ὅτι οὗτοι πάντες ἔλαβον γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ εὐλογήθησαν ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν κληρονομήσει γῆν. “Beware, my son, of all immorality. First of all, take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers, and do not take a foreign woman, who is not of the tribe of your father, for we are the sons of the prophets and truly the sons of the prophets (καὶ κατ᾽ἀλήθειαν υἱοὶ προφητῶν). And Noah was the first prophet, and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, our fathers from the beginning. Remember, my son, that all these took wives from their kindred. And they were blessed in their children and their posterity will inherit the land.”

The short and long Greek versions are almost the same except for the fact that the latter places additional emphasis on the phrase “sons of the prophets” by repeating it and by including the prepositional phrase κατ᾽ἀλήθειαν.4 Since this repeated phrase in the short Greek version is absent, it immediately applies the word “prophet” to the patriarchs to read, “we are sons of the prophets Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The presence of the repeated phrase in the long Greek version may have been the reason for the need to identify Noah as the first prophet.

3 The sense of “sons” The Greek υἱοί is translated as “sons” but in some translations, it is rendered as “children.” However, if Tobit intended to mean “children,” the story could have easily employed teknon (later in 4:12) or paidia (cf. 6:18, “you will have children by her”). Of course, the translation “children” is an attempt at inclusivity. Kinship language such as adelphos and adelphe proliferates in the narrative.5 Each character calls the other brother or sister, and this raises the question whether the word υἱός as Tobit uses it may also have an expansive sense. In fact, Friedrich Reiterer notes that the sense of “sons” in the phrase is ambiguous, as it can denote

4 See Wagner, Tobit-Synopse, 42; Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, Tobit, 144‒45. 5 On kinship language, see Skemp, “Theme,” 92‒103.

182 

 Francis M. Macatangay

either a spiritual or a biological lineage.6 However, I would argue that the instances of the word υἱός in Tob 1:7 and 7:3 indicate that its sense heavily favors biological descent. The biological or bloodline descent as the meaning of υἱός is likely for three reasons: 1) when Edna meets Azariah and Tobiah for the first time, she asks them where they are from and both respond that they belong to the sons/descendants of Naphtali exiled in Nineveh; 2) the context of marriage would suggest taking the word as having a physical meaning; and 3) the book opens with a genealogy between fathers and sons, tracing a direct bloodline between them. In this light, it is reasonable to infer that the sense of the word υἱός here is likely genealogical or bloodline descendance.

4 Patriarchs as prophets Tobit’s instruction on proper marriage effectively portrays Noah and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as prophets. In this case, “prophets” and “patriarchs” have become synonymous.7 The long Greek version of the verse makes this clearer. In his discussion of Tobit’s expression, “for we are children/ sons of the prophets,” Joseph Fitzmyer remarks that Tobit calls the patriarchs prophets not in the older sense that they belong to a prophetic guild but that they are “God’s mouthpiece” or divine spokespersons.8 Some Second Temple traditions ascribe prophecy to Noah and the patriarchs. A post-exilic text like Tobit is thus not outside of the ordinary in regarding these figures as prophets in the sense that God communicated his word to them. Still, the understanding of prophets and prophecy in these later traditions carries various nuances.

4.1 Noah In Gen 6:9, Noah is described as “a righteous man, blameless in his generation” who “walked with God.” And yet, despite Tobit’s claim that Noah was “the first prophet,” at least according to the long Greek version of the verse, we would be hard pressed

6 See Reiterer, “Prophet,” 157. 7 Miller, Marriage, 79; see also Moore, Tobit, 169. 8 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 173. On a possible meaning of the phrase “sons of prophets,” see Williams, “Father,” 344‒48.

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 183

to find in Genesis any references to Noah’s prophetic activities. Only subsequent traditions would call Noah a prophet. For instance, the Book of Jubilees, written sometime in the second century BCE, describes the allotment of the earth into parts for each of Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and notes that Noah rejoiced over the portion given by lot to Shem and his sons to possess as an inheritance, remembering “all that he had spoken with his mouth in prophecy,” blessing the God of gods “who had put the word of the Lord into his mouth” (Jub. 8:18, 19). Tobit’s instruction shares in this constellation of concepts found in Jubilees: “inheritance,” “land,” and “prophecy.” Tobit further follows Jubilees in claiming that Noah practiced endogamy by marrying Emzara, his cousin (cf. Jub. 4:33).9 Another interpretive tradition views Noah as a preacher of repentance. The reasoning goes that as a righteous and blameless man of his generation, it would have been natural for Noah to share with his contemporaries the divine warning given to him to have them change their ways. In the Sibylline Oracles, God is said to instruct Noah to “proclaim repentance to all peoples so that all may be saved” which Noah obeyed (Sib.  Or. 1:127‒131, 149‒151). In 2  Pet 2:5, Noah is called a preacher or “herald of righteousness.”10 These traditions that portray Noah as a preacher of repentance cast him as a prophet in the mold shown in 2  Kgs 17 in which the Lord’s prophets warned Israel and Judah to turn from their evil ways and keep God’s commandments.

4.2 Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac In Genesis, God uniquely calls the patriarch Abraham a prophet. In the episode where Abraham introduced Sarah as his sister to Abimelech for fear of being killed if he were to present her as his wife, God corrected the situation by telling Abimelech in a dream to return Sarah to Abraham, “for he is a prophet, that he may pray for you so that you may live” (Gen 20:7). The sense of prophet as it applies to Abraham may be gleaned from what he is to do for Abimelech, which is to pray for him so that he may live. Abraham here plays the role of a prophetic intercessor just as he did for Sodom before God in Gen 18:23‒32.11 As a man called by God, or as a

9 Gen. Rab. 23.3 names Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-cain and the last person mentioned in the genealogy in Gen 4:17‒22 as the wife of Noah. 10 See Kugel, Bible, 114‒15. 11 Wenham, Genesis 16‒50, 69, 71; Hamilton, Genesis 18‒50, 64.

184 

 Francis M. Macatangay

man to whom God has directed or spoken his word, Abraham can make intercession before God on behalf of others.12 Tobit’s description of Abraham as prophet extends to the two other patriarchs, Isaac and Jacob. Tobit’s claim seems to reflect the tradition in Psalm 105:15, where the patriarchs are referred to as “anointed” and “prophets.” The psalm, a recital of God’s wonders for Israel, suggests that the patriarchs are prophets because they received “the word” that God has commanded for a thousand generations. The psalm specifies this “word” as God’s covenant with Abraham, “his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant” (Ps 105:8‒10). In this way, the prophetic status of the patriarchs is tied to their reception of God’s word, which in turn forms a covenant which they then transmit to others. To an extent, the sense of “prophets” may be compared with that of Isa 8:16, where the disciples of Isaiah function as repositories of the revelation received by him and communicated to them. The patriarchs may be viewed as prophetic in the sense that they store in their memory the covenant-forming word of God, guarding it against falsification and preserving it for future generations. While prophecy may have various shades of meanings in these traditions, one feature that is common to them is the understanding of the prophet as one who receives God’s word and conveys it to others. As it is used in Psalm 105, the word that God has spoken to the patriarchs may be understood as God’s gracious offer of covenant. God communicated with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all received God’s word-forming covenant and promises. In short, to be “sons of the prophets” is to be children of the covenant (cf. Acts 3:25). Tobit’s view is therefore consonant with the traditions that portray the patriarchs as prophets. His claim that he and his son Tobias are “sons of the prophets” implies a genealogical descent from the patriarchs, the first ones who received God’s covenant-creating word and conveyed it to their children. It is almost as if the patriarch’s experience of being addressed by God and receiving the divine word has become so physiologically embedded in their bloodlines13 that such a prophetic function becomes like a gene that is passed on to later generations; it is an identity

12 Westermann, Genesis 12‒36, 324, notes that the word prophet is used “. . .in a general sense; he is a ‘man of God,’ an intercessor, familiar to a later era; to speak or conceive of Abraham in such a way is very far removed from the patriarchal period. Abraham has thereby become a distinguished godly man of that era.” Von Rad, Genesis, 228‒29, observes that Abraham’s description as a prophet in terms of “authorized intercession” is an “. . .anachronistic transposition of a cultic designation to the early period of Israel. Later periods naturally thought of Abraham by analogy with their own contemporary charismatic officials.” 13 As the editors have kindly pointed out there seems to be a genetic line within the Jewish priesthood: see the “Priestly Gene.”

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 185

marker, so to speak. From Noah, Abraham, and Jacob, there is a long tradition and succession of a prophetic function that extends to Tobit and Tobias. As children of prophets, Tobit and Tobias hold the responsibility of ensuring that such a prophetic line endures and remains unbroken. In this way, the designation “sons of the prophets” understood in terms of consanguinity carries covenantal overtones.

4.3 Tobit as Prophet In saying that “we are sons of the prophets,” Tobit counts himself a direct and biological descendant of prophets. As a son of a prophet, Tobit himself performs some prophetic functions. Like Moses, the great prophet of Israel, Tobit issues ethical instructions and admonitions.14 Tobit later exercises his prophetic office in his hymn in Tobit 13 and in his farewell discourse in Tobit 14 where he rehearses various prophecies regarding the future of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, the nation of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem (Tob 14:4‒8). Tobit may also be stressing his prophetic lineage in saying that Deborah was the grandmother who raised him after he became an orphan and instructed him in the law (1:8). His grandmother’s name calls to mind the biblical prophetess Deborah who led the northern tribes, including Tobit’s own Naphtali, in their battle against the Canaanite king for conquest of the land (cf. Judg 4‒5). And so, her instructions relating to the “everlasting decree” (Tob 1:6) to Tobit are in line with the prophetic tradition.

5 Prophets and prophecy in the Book of Tobit The narrative seems to understand prophecy in an additional sense. For Tobit, the reality of prophecy in which God speaks to certain people belongs to the past. And yet, this does not mean that past prophetic activity has no influence on the present or significance for the future of Israel. Tobit recognizes the continuing validity and relevance of the prophetic word especially as it applies to his present situation and end-time expectations. In other words, the prophets have been reduced to their word. God spoke to the prophets, but that word is now recorded and passed on in a text. The prophets continue to live on and to have import for Israel because their words have been preserved and textually transmitted. Tobit’s quotation of the 14 On the prophetic character of Tobit, see Macatangay, Instructions, 130‒34; see also Barton, Oracles, 172‒76.

186 

 Francis M. Macatangay

words of Israel’s prophets, and his claim that their words will not fail, all contribute to this impression. The words of the prophets, uttered in the past but now accessible in and through a text, may either describe the present or disclose the plans of God that will unfold in the “appointed” time. The first example in the narrative is a direct quote of a saying from the oracle of the prophet Amos on the coming day of judgment against Israel for their exploitation of the poor. Eating his food in sorrow over what should have been a joyful celebration of Pentecost, Tobit remembers the words of the prophet and finds them grossly appropriate for the occasion. This recollection does not necessarily mean that Amos had correctly predicted this specific experience in Tobit’s exilic life and that Tobit’s situation is the fulfillment of this prediction. Rather, the prophet’s description of festivals turning into mourning and songs into lamentation in Amos 8:10 has relevance because it helps capture Tobit’s grief and sense of doom after leaving his Pentecost meal to bury the body of a dead kinsman; the words of Amos provide an eloquent articulation of Tobit’s situation.15 Tobit employs the word of the prophet to convey the intensity of his grief and to name the feeling of unbearable bitterness over the reversal of reality that happens in exilic life. But there is perhaps more to the quote than simply a fitting description of Tobit’s experience. In citing the words of Amos, the story seems to suggest that Tobit’s particular exilic experience points to God’s judgment upon his people. Tobit likely considers Amos to be authoritative, even canonical, but this fact does not prevent the author from slightly modifying the Amos quote from active into passive voice (“I will change your festivals into mourning. . .” in Amos to “Your festivals shall be turned into mourning. . .”) in order to avoid attributing the reversal to God directly.16 This familiarity may also mean that Tobit’s recall of the words of Amos is not simply due to their appropriateness to Tobit’s situation. Along with the recall comes also the realization that the horrors of exile point to God’s judgment; Tobit’s time is a period of God’s judgment and its effects have now come upon his people for the gravity of their failure to protect the poor.17 Against such a strong prophetic pronouncement, Tobit’s almsgiving and concern for the needy takes on a different significance—they are an attempt to appease, if not reverse, the divine judgment. In another instance, near the end of the narrative, Tobit invokes the prophecy of Nahum against Assyria and Nineveh. Another manuscript tradition attributes 15 See Barton, Oracles, 238‒39. 16 See Zimmermann, Tobit, 56, n. 6; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 135. 17 Nowell, “Tobit,” 1002, notes the irony in quoting Amos, claiming that “Amos’ oracle decries wealthy Israelites who are exploiting the poor. Tobit, on the other hand, seems to have had his feast turned to mourning precisely because he is helping the poor.”

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 187

the predicted downfall of the Assyrian city to the prophet Jonah.18 In any event, Tobit appeals to this prophecy to get his son Tobias to hurry off to Media for safety, claiming that “everything that was spoken by the prophets of Israel, whom God sent, will occur and none of all their words will fail” (Tob 14:4). Here, Tobit identifies prophets as figures who are sent by God to speak the divine word and disclose God’s plan which will come true at a determined time. John Barton claims that Tobit 14 is “a good example of a passage which treats ancient prophecy as presenting a programmatic picture of what the future holds, but without any apparent sense that most of the events will occur within the speaker’s own lifetime.”19 Tobit no doubt believes that God, who is fully in command and from whose hand nothing escapes (13:2), has a providential plan that gradually takes place in stages. Tobit is convinced that all the prophesied eschatological events will come to fulfillment in the designated time. Tobit would not have urged his son Tobias to go to Media for safety had he not been convinced that one of these events, the destruction of Nineveh, would happen very soon. In fact, the closing verse of the book, which states that Tobias heard of the destruction of Nineveh and rejoiced over it before his death (Tob 14:15), justifies Tobit’s belief in the prophetic utterance against Nineveh; the prophetic word has not failed. In this regard, the story seems to view the fulfillment of the word against Nineveh, witnessed by Tobias, as a confirmation that God’s plan is coming to pass in much the same way that Tobit regards his experience of God’s mercy as signs that point to the active unfolding of the initial stages of the divine plan in his lifetime. Some future expectations are being fulfilled in Tobit’s present.20 And so, these function as “signs of the time” and as a kind of guarantee that all the events foretold by the prophets, loom on the horizon. In other words, the prophetic word, now embedded in a text, reliably imparts knowledge of God’s providential plan and offers a glimpse into the stages of its implementation. Tobit views his experiences as indicators of the continuing relevance and validity of the textually conveyed prophetic

18 See Grabbe, “Tobit,” 746: “[T]he Sinaiticus reference to the prophecy of Nahum is undoubtedly correct (compared with ‘Jonah’ of Vaticanus since it is the OT book which describes an actual fall of Nineveh. Although Jonah predicted a divine destruction of Nineveh, it did not come to pass because the people repented.” Nowell, “Tobit,” 1069, notes that “Tobit’s whole message is changed if one reads ‘Jonah’ instead of ‘Nahum.’ Tobiah would have no need to leave Nineveh. All its citizens would turn to God and God would turn to them in blessing instead of destruction.” See also Zimmermann, Tobit, 118‒19; Moore, Tobit, 290; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 325‒26. For a different view, see Anderson, “Tobit,” 67‒75, who argues that the Jonah reading of GI is likely original in light of the canonical ordering of the twelve prophets. 19 Barton, Oracles, 215. 20 See Hicks-Keeton, “Already/Not Yet,” 97‒117.

188 

 Francis M. Macatangay

pronouncements. As those who believe in the revelation of God’s plan through the prophets, they too can be counted as “sons of prophets.”

6 Endogamy and prophecy The clause “because we are sons of prophets” provides a motivating reason for Tobit’s instruction on endogamy, which is formulated positively (“take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers”) and negatively (“do not take a foreign woman who is not of the tribe of your father”). The clause “we are the sons of prophets” is introduced by the conjunction διότι which is typically translated as “for” or “because.” Tobit uses this conjunction four times in the set of instructions in order to substantiate a claim or provide a reason for following his instruction. In 4:5, Tobit tells Tobias, “do righteous acts all the days of your life and do not tread the paths of unrighteousness, because those who practice truth will prosper in their works.” In Tob 4:10, Tobit says, “give alms . . . and you are storing up a good treasure for yourself on the day of necessity, because almsgiving protects from death and does not allow you to go into darkness.” In Tob 4:19, Tobit urges Tobias, “praise the Lord God and ask from him that your roads be straight and all your paths prosper because every nation does not have a good counsel.” In these cases, the implicit relation between the statements is not primarily one of cause but of justification, which reinforces and validates the doing of the specific instruction. The function of the conjunction here is to offer a substantiating statement for Tobit’s preference for endogamy. In brief, the clause introduced by διότι provides a solid basis or a motivating force for following through with the choice of an appropriate wife. The patriarchs are prophets because God directly spoke his gracious word to them, electing them to form God’s people so that they could enjoy an intimate relationship with God like a father with his child. It is a relationship that promises an inheritance of land (Tob 4:12).21 In Tobit’s thinking at least, the patriarchs received God’s covenant-forming word and communicated it faithfully because they all took wives from their own kin. Marriage with gentile neighbors would have likely posed a threat not only to their inheritance of land but also to their power to convey God’s covenant word to later generations.22 Tobit thus prefers that marriage must first conform to bloodlines, not bonds of love, though such bonds may also play a part in

21 On this point, see Daley, God’s Will, 136‒39. 22 On endogamy and land inheritance, see Macatangay, When I Die, 72‒74. See also Soll, “Family,” 170–75.

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 189

marriage, as is true in the case of Tobias and Sarah.23 Indeed, Israel’s later history with some of its leaders and kings, such as the serially intermarrying Solomon, has shown that marriage to a foreign woman can endanger this religious heritage.24 By separating themselves from all that is foreign, the patriarchs were able to hand on God’s covenant-making word and promises to their descendants. By their example, the patriarchs taught how to preserve Jewish identity as God’s chosen, which is also a prophetic concern.25 That is why Tobias is to follow the patriarch’s example of marriage, as it is one secure way of preserving the family’s prophetic heritage and lineage.

7 Why prophecy? In the first chapter, Tobit claims that he celebrated the festivals in Jerusalem as required by an everlasting decree to offer tithes to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and to the sons of Levi who ministered in Jerusalem (Tob 1:6‒8). Of course, Tobit did this while he was in his homeland. But now, Tobit is without a land or temple, living his days in exile, and thus stripped of the priestly and kingly offices that helped define his people’s identity. Attached to neither temple nor land, only the prophetic line seems capable of surviving the onslaught of exile. The situation of an ongoing and drawn-out exile may have motivated Tobit to emphasize the prophetic line as a way to delineate the identity of his people. Tobit idealizes the patriarchs as prophets in congruent with other Second Temple traditions, thereby making prophetic ancestry and function vital for self-construction.

8 Conclusion The idealization of the patriarchs as prophets in certain post-exilic traditions such as evidenced in the Book of Tobit may have been possible due to the absence of vital prophetic figures or due to the belief that prophecy had ceased in the time

23 See Miller, Marriage, 48‒53, 200‒204. 24 The concern of the instruction is not racial purity but Israel’s election as God’s people, see Di Pede, et al., Reveler les oeuvres, 47. 25 Barton, Oracles, 175, claims that “[T]he concern for separation is so normal a part of Second Temple Judaism that it is not at all surprising that people should have believed that ancient teachers like the patriarchs and prophets had insisted on it.”

190 

 Francis M. Macatangay

of Tobit’s writing.26 The term “sons of prophets” can imply a time when prophecy has ceased to be active. And so, along with other traditions that present the patriarchs as prophets, Tobit equally finds no qualms in portraying Israel’s forefathers as prophets. God, after all, communicated his covenant-forming word to the patriarchs who in turn handed on that word, the story seems to suggest, to later generations, such as those of Tobit and Tobias. It is in this general sense that the patriarchs are prophets since Tobit does not ascribe particular prophecies to these past figures. Tobit does cite oracles and words of prophets as they are found in books attributed to them, implying that the prophetic word takes precedence over the prophetic figure. The prophets may no longer be active during the time of Tobit’s writing but their words, uttered in the past, are available now in textual form and they continue to exude relevance since they still reveal the divine plan. As Tobit acknowledges, the prophetic word and what God has spoken through the prophets will not fail (cf. Tob 14:4‒7). Tobit sees himself and his son Tobias as chains in a long line of descendants who mediate and pass on the word the patriarchs once received from God and the word spoken through the prophets, especially the word and law that the great prophet Moses transmitted to Israel. There may no longer be prophets among them with whom God directly speaks, but there are still children of prophets. They are a people who possess prophetic ancestry not only in the sense that they descended genealogically from the patriarchs who received God’s covenant-forming word but also in the sense that they continue to cherish the textually transmitted prophetic word as revelatory of God’s providential plans for Israel, which includes the promise of land inheritance. As children of prophets, they now carry the responsibility of conveying the unfailing validity and relevance of God’s word, a covenant-constituting word, and the plan-disclosing word that God has spoken previously to his prophetic messengers but is now preserved and conveyed in literary forms. To avoid the danger of mutation and the dissolution of the prophetic heritage, the children of prophets are to follow the example of the patriarchs in their choice of a wife. In so doing, Tobit’s word that the children of prophets and their posterity will inherit the land in Tob 4:12 will come true even as he predicts its fulfillment in his hymn in Tobit 13 and in his farewell discourse in Tobit 14.27 26 On the cessation of prophecy, see Sommer, “Prophecy,” 31‒47. 27 I would like to thank Beate Ego, Otto Mulder, Werner Urbanz, and Jeremy Corley for their questions and helpful comments, and all those in attendance, when a version of this paper was given at the ISDCL/SBL International Meeting in Salzburg, Austria in 2022. This essay is dedicated to Mr. Chuck Mormino in profound gratitude for his kindness and generosity.

“For we are the sons of the prophets”: The Idea of a People in the Book of Tobit 

 191

Bibliography Anderson, Gary A. “The Book of Tobit and the Canonical Ordering of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 67‒75 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after Exile. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Daley, Daniel. God’s Will and Testament: Inheritance in the Gospel of Matthew and Jewish Tradition. Baylor: Baylor University Press, 2021. Di Pede, Elena, Claude Lichtert, Didier Luciani, Catherine Vialle, and André Wénin. Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu: Lecture narrative du livre du Tobie. Le livre et le rouleau 48. Bruxelles: Lessius, 2014. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Book of Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003 Grabbe, Lester. “Tobit.” Pages 736‒47 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn, et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18‒50. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Hicks-Keaton, Jill. “Already/Not Yet: Eschatological Tension in the Book of Tobit.” JBL 132 (2013): 97‒117. Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well. Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene: Pickwick, 2016. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Miller, Geoffrey D. Marriage in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40A. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Nowell, Irene. “The Book of Tobit: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 973‒1071 in NIB 3. Edited by Leander Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. ________. “Priestly Gene Shared by Widely Dispersed Jews.” ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Prophet und Prophetie in Tobit und Ben Sira: Berührungspunkte und Differenzen.” Pages 155‒75 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology. JSJSup 98. Edited by Geza G. Xeravits and Joszef Zsengeller. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Skemp, Vincent. “ΑΔΕΛΦΟΣ and the Theme of Kinship in Tobit.” ETL 75 (1999): 92‒103. Soll, Will. “The Family as Scriptural and Social Construct in Tobit.” Pages 166–75 in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. JSNTSup 154. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation.” JBL 115 (1996): 31‒47. Wagner, Christian J. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: griechish – lateinisch – syrisch – hebräisch – aramäisch. Mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologische-Historische Klasse 258. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac. Fontes et subsidiam ad Bibliam pertinentes 3. Berlin: de Grutyer, 2004. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16‒50. WBC 2. Dallas: Word Books, 1994. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12‒36. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. Williams, James G. “The Prophetic ‘Father’: A Brief Explanation of the Term ‘Sons of the Prophets’.” JBL 85 (1966): 344‒48. Zimmermann, Frank. The Book of Tobit. JAL. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.

Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6) Abstract: The Epistle of Jeremiah (Ep Jer) is one of the most neglected texts of the Septuagint. Because it is a late text, which deals with the well-known theme of idolatry, it is often barely studied. This article includes some portions of my doctoral thesis1 such as the study of some lexical elements relevant to current research that offer new perspectives. In addition, the biblical text studied here mentions the name of only one deity, Bel, known in Babylon. The thesis here defended is that this religious environment created by Ep Jer is a narrative fiction intended to criticize the gods of the entire Hellenistic diaspora, not only of Babylon. Keywords: Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, idolatry

1 Introduction The Epistle of Jeremiah (Ep Jer) is one of the most neglected deuterocanonical texts. Its position in the canon indicates that this is a sui generis work. Sometimes it is placed after the book of Lamentations, for example in the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus codices. Elsewhere it follows the book of Baruch, as the sixth chapter (in Greek, Syriac and Latin manuscripts), as in Catholic Bibles. Many scholars consider the Ep  Jer to be a poorly elaborated, modest, and popular piece of writing, without a literary plan, with superficial organization, full of repetitions and dealing with a theme of which Scripture is full: idolatry.2 It may seem that the statements contained in the text confirm the words of Qoh 1:9: “there is nothing new under the sun.” On this assumption, details that highlight new elements, or at least elements not so emphasized in other scriptural texts, are often overlooked. This work is guided by the question, “To which gods does the Ep  Jer refer?” Since each text must be read within its context, the answer emerges through a historical-critical study of the Hellenistic environment. From the narrative perspec-

1 Part of the thesis was published in Rome as Quali idoli? La critica all’idolatria nell’Epistola di Geremia (Bar 6) (2020). The entire thesis will be translated and published in English as soon as possible. 2 See, e.g., Ball, “Epistle,” 597; Moore, Daniel, 324; Wace, “Epistle,” 287; Himbaza, “La lettre,” 681; Marshall, “Jeremy,” 578; Helyer, Jewish Literature, 52; Gruen, “A sabedoria,” 35. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-012

194 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

tive, Ep  Jer purports to be a letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent to his people, around the 7th century BCE. He announces the imminent exile of the people, who will be taken prisoner to Babylon because of their infidelity. Here there is a substantial difference from the book of Baruch, a text supposedly written during the exile. What in some manuscripts is Bar 6 should at least be placed before Bar 1 in order to create a chronological narrative.3 The Ep Jer warns the future exiles that in Babylon they are going to find different deities: gods before whom people prostrate themselves, but that cannot keep themselves upright; gods who have a tongue, but do not speak; gods who use instruments of war, but do not defend themselves, or other people, from evil; gods who are deaf and mute. In short, these are false gods. Therefore, the Ep Jer continually admonishes the people with the refrain: “Do not fear these gods!” Most scholars4 view the text not as the work of the prophet Jeremia but as a pseudepigraphy dated between the fourth and second centuries BCE. The people are no longer in the Babylonian exile, but live dispersed in in the Hellenistic era. If this temporal period is at least plausible, I suggest that the text is not criticizing the gods of Babylon, which were a feature of the past, but is criticizing other gods belonging to its own era. Among other texts of the Hebrew Bible that exhibit a similar concern, the book of Daniel is most noteworthy.

2 Status quaestionis Weigand Naumann’s sound historical-religious research is the basis for understanding the rhetoric of Ep Jer. In his work Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief (1913), Naumann finds many religious elements of the Ep Jer in ceremonies in honor of Marduk—also called Bel—especially in processions, the use of torches, purification and healing rites, and in the rites of “sacred prostitution.” Other elements of the Babylonian cult are also connected with the god Šamaš. In the same

3 According to Di Pede, this order allows the narrative to function as a flashback (“Quelques effets,” 599‒605), but even if this is so, one must still recognize two different periods of time within the book’s narrative. 4 About the date of composition for Ep Jer, Artom suggests between 350 and 335 BCE (“L’origine,” 70‒74). Kratz, suggests 300 BCE (“Brief,” 81‒84); and Sean Adams, between the third and second centuries BCE (Baruch, 148‒49). Others suggest the second century BCE (cf. Schürer, Storia, 981; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint,” 35; Pfeiffer, Il giudaismo, 58; Wright, “Jeremiah,” 949; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Baruch, 298; Roth, “Life,” 39; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, I Profeti, 1543; Saldrini, “Letter,” 989; Touzard, “L’âme juive,” 339). Marshall alone claims a composition date in the first century BCE (“Jeremy,” 579).

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 195

year 1913, Charles J. Ball wrote his Epistle of Jeremy, in which he expressed identical conclusions, albeit with a stronger emphasis on the Hebrew Vorlage of the text. Based on the works of these two important scholars, most commentators argue that there is a deep link between the cultic elements of Ep Jer and the Babylonian religious environment. Michael Wojciechowski5 is one of the few scholars who seeks a link between the criticism of Ep Jer’s idols and Hellenism. From his perspective, the Ep Jer exhibits literary structures similar to classical atheistic criticism, such as those of Aesop and Babrius. Based on Wojciechowski’s analysis, I aim to deepen the particular relationship between the disparaged idols and religion in the hellenistic environment.

3 Some lexical issues Among the lexical issues, I highlight some alternative interpretations. Ep  Jer 9 states that pagan priests spend money, stolen from the gods, on prostitutes at a location “on the rooftop” (ταῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ τέγους πόρναις). The meaning of ὁ τέγος here is debated, but according to Naumann,6 it means “brothel.” This is the predominant scholarly interpretation.7 In my opinion, one should not exclude the possibility that the expression “on the roof” suggests “in public view.” In fact, in Luke 12:3, the announcement that is made “publicly” is described by a similar term, τό δῶμα, which is synonymous with ὁ τέγος (cf. A.J. 7.130 and 2 Sam 11:2 LXX). In Ep Jer 13‒14 the gods are described as carrying three tools: the scepter, the spear in the right hand, and the axe. While it is clear why the god uses the scepter, a symbol of his kingship, the fact that he also uses the ἐγχειρίδιον (“spear”) is surprising. Adams conjectures that the object perhaps had a symbolic value that is unknown to us today.8 Naumann had suggested that the god Rammân-Adad carried a bundle of lightning (Blitzbündel) on the right and an axe on the left.9 In my opinion, his connecting the ἐγχειρίδιον with the bundle of lightning may indicate a reference to Zeus, not to Rammân-Adad. Zeus, in fact, has the thunderbolt in his fist (ἔχε δ᾽ ἀστεροπὴν μετὰ χερσίν; Homer, Il. 11.184). What is more, it is not stated

5 Wojciechowski, “Criticism,” 66‒72. 6 Naumann, Untersuchungen, 43. 7 Cf. Naumann, Untersuchungen, 43; Kellermann, “Apokryphes Obst,” 27‒28; Montanari, Vocabolario, 2348: “τέγος”; Saldarini, “Letter,” 995. 8 Adams, Baruch, 180. 9 Naumann, Untersuchungen, 4‒5.

196 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

that the axe must be on the left of the same deity.10 Hence the reference may be to two different gods: one using the axe and another using the spear or the lightning. In any case, the three instruments of war perhaps allude to the episode of David and Goliath, which illustrates the contrast between the deceptive power of weapons of warfare and the power of the Lord. To the arrogant and fully armed Philistine giant, David responds: “You come to me with sword, spear, and staff11 (ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν δόρατι καὶ ἐν ἀσπίδι). I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam 17:45 LXX). Another lexical issue is in Ep Jer 25 where the text parallels the gods showing their shame (ἀτιμία) with the shame experienced by the servants of these gods. In my opinion, here too there is an allusion to the cult of Dionysus and phallic processions.12 In fact, the gods are described as without feet (ἄνευ ποδῶν), which is possibly a euphemism for the penis.13 According to the legend, Dionysus, since he was not welcomed in Attica, spread a disease that affected the male genital organ. The inhabitants, therefore, had to carry the statue of the god through the city with all honors on the days of the Great Dionysian feast.14 In Acharnians, Aristophanes describes this type of ceremony. Diceopolis returns to his farm after years of work in the city and wants to celebrate the Bacchanalia. During the procession, his daughter, acting as a camphor, carries the sacred ornaments on her head. Then follows the servant Red with the phallus and the protagonist completes the procession, while his wife contemplates them from the terrace (cf. Aristophanes, Ach. 245‒260)15. The god described by the Ep  Jer thus has no sexual organ, but his devotees make images of it; some of these are incapable of erection. From a Jewish point of

10 A Syriac version, however, adds “in his left” (cf. Moore, Daniel, 337). In this case, the god should be wearing both instruments. On the other hand, this is a clear interpretation of the text. 11 In Hebrew, the “staff” (rod) is ‫ּכידֹון‬,ִ the equivalent of ἐγχειρίδιον in Jer 50/27:42. 12 The bond with the phallus was not an exclusive prerogative of Dionysus; other gods or demigods, such as Priapus, were associated with it (cf. Sissa and Detienne, Daily Life, 232). 13 See for example Exod 4:25; Judg 3:24; Ruth 3:7; Jer 13:26; Nah 3:5; Hab 2:16. 14 Cf. Bettinetti, La statua, 193‒94. 15  “The phallus was carried aloft in procession in broad daylight and in a highly official manner on the occasion of the Great Dionysia, in March-April, that is to say, after the ‘Dionysia in the fields’ of December, followed by the Lenaea in January-February, and the Anthesteria in February-March. Now it was the turn of a winter Dionysius on the brink of spring, with summer just hovering into sight. The Great Dionysia constituted an urban festival, which attracted huge crowds of people, for it included the dithyrambic competitions, and the performances of tragedies went on for four whole days. In Athens and in Delos too, the phallophoria occasioned extensive preparations. Allies of the Athenians, colonies such as Brea, in Thrace, were required to send a phallus for Dionysus, to mark the occasion of the Great Dionysia” (Sissa and Detienne, Daily Life, 232).

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 197

view, this scene, as generally all those in which nudity is involved,16 is considered an ἀτιμία (shame). Besides, the text also has a wordplay by stating that the gods were bought at any price (τιμής [Ep Jer 24]).

4 Some allusions to the gods in the Ep Jer In other biblical texts it is common to find explicit reference to the names of the deities criticized, such as Baal (Judg 2:11; 1 Kgs 16:32), Dagon (1 Sam 5:2) and Astarte (Judg 3:7; 1 Sam 12:10). The Ep Jer, however, mentions by name only the god, Bel (v. 40). The other references to particular gods are conjectures based on historical and religious indications, as in the case of Dionysus noted above.

4.1 Bel The term “Bel” (Ep  Jer 40) means “lord”;17 most scholars identified him with Marduk,18 either because he had the ability to heal,19 or because the rite described in the Ep Jer resembles an exorcism.20 The identification of Bel with Marduk is strengthened by the evidence of a number of biblical texts (Isa 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44).21 However, I propose that, when the author of Ep Jer speaks of Bel, he is actually referring to Zeus.22 This is evident in Herodotus, where the Διός Βηλου is Zeus (Herodotus, Hist. 1.181). A Jewish reader, moreover, would not have missed the paronomasia Βηλ/Βααλ, names that are semantically synonymous. Ep  Jer 52 possibly alludes to Zeus in connection with the ability to “make it rain.” In fact, some of Zeus’s epithets reflect meteorological aspects: “the one who gathers the clouds” (νεφεληγερέτα; Homer, Il. 16.665); “the lightning” (κεραυνός; Apollodorus 510). Another title of Zeus is Διὸς νεκρῶν σωτῆρος (Aeschylus, Ag.

16 According to Ball: “Indecent figures of gods were perhaps commoner in Egypt than in Babylonia, where they usually appear draped” (“Epistle,” 604). 17 Cf. Gäbel and Kraus, “Epistole Jeremiu,” 2847. 18 Cf. Knabenbauer, Commentarius, 512; Dancy, Books, 207; Haag, Daniele, 117; Lüdy, Daniel, 171; Saldarini, “Letter,” 1002; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine, Baruch, 324; Goff, “Letter,” 185; Wacker, Baruch, 123; Schreiner, “Baruch,” 82. 19 Cf. Adams, Baruch, 191. Thackeray on the other hand, identifies Bel’s ability to heal with Tammuz (Aspects, 59). 20 Cf. Naumann, Untersuchungen, 17‒19; Kratz, “Brief,” 102. 21 Particularly in Jer 50:2 Bel and Marduk refer to the same deity (cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, 817). 22 See also Knabenbauer, Commentarius, 512.

198 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

1387), or simply σωτῆρος (Diodorus Siculus, 4.3.4)23. The Ep  Jer frequently criticizes the one who should save the people because of his inability to save himself or others (cf. vv. 10, 54, 56).

4.2 Apollo A notable disability of the gods is their lack of a speaking tongue (Ep Jer 7). In classical antiquity, communication between gods and men was through oracles.24 A false tongue25 conveys only lies. There is here perhaps an allusion to the cult of Apollo, known as dispenser of oracles.26 Criticism of gods who cannot speak for themselves is recurrent in Scripture.27

4.3 Adonis More than once in Ep Jer the gods are compared with dead people both literally (cf. v. 26) and metaphorically (cf. vv. 15‒20). In particular, a ritual is described in which the priests participate in a banquet for the dead with their robes torn and their heads and cheeks shaved (vv. 30‒31). These features are very similar to what took place in the ceremonies in honor of Adonis. Adonis is the god whose beauty caused both Aphrodite and Persephone to fall in love with him. The dispute between the two goddesses ended when Zeus decided that Adonis could stay half the year with one and the other half with the other.28 Ares, overcome with jealousy, disguised himself as a boar and killed Adonis. From

23 According to Cook there are few other names of Zeus related to celestial aspects (Ἀμάριος, Πανάμαρος, Аἰθήρ) (Zeus, 14‒33). 24 Delphi was a sanctuary of renown in the Hellenistic period. According to Herodotus, Dodona had the oldest oracle dedicated to Zeus (Herodotus, Hist. 2.52). But even here Zeus did not “speak”; the communication was made through the interpretation of celestial signs and the bowels of the ancestors (compare Ackerman, “Athens,” 5‒10). 25 An alternative interpretation suggests that language represents the power of the ideology that dominates the faithful (cf. Rodrigues da Silva, Como ler o livro, 78). 26 About the oracle, cf. Pierre, La mantique, 25‒65; Graf, “Apollo,” 299‒310. 27 See for example: 1 Kgs 18:25‒29; Pss 115:5[113:13]; 135[134]:16. 28 Ribichini presents a slightly different version of the myth. Adonis’s time is divided into three parts: one to be spent with Persephone, another with Aphrodite and the third according to his preference (cf. Adonis, 21‒22).

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 199

that moment on, Aphrodite mourned her beloved who died, to live forever in the underworld.29 In the feast of Adonis in East Asia and Greece, the death of the god was celebrated annually with a funeral lament in memory of the marriage and the death of the son of Smyrna.30 The Athenian Adonies, for example, took place in private homes, partly on the roofs of houses, and were organized by women from all walks of life.31 According to Aristophanes, they probably lasted more than one day (cf. Aristophanes, Lys. 387‒396).32 On the first day, the ceremony of shaving the head takes place, followed by the presentation of votive offerings (nuts, figs, flowers and birds) and the banquet. On the second day, mourning and abstinence recall the death and funeral of Adonis. On the third day, the resurrection of the god is celebrated with the sprinkling of blessed oil and the offerings of στεφάνια τῷ Ἀδώνει [garlands for Adnois]. Particularly interesting is that during the Adonies the death of the god was remembered. Part of the ritual was therefore not only the weeping of women but also other gestures of mourning,33 as stated by Sappho: “Strike your breasts, young girls, tear your tunics” (καττύπτεσθε, κόραι, καὶ κατερείκεσθε χίτωνας; Sappho, Fragm. 152). In the eyes of the Jew who wrote the Ep Jer, this kind of ceremony is called, with characteristic irony, “a funeral banquet” (Ep Jer 31; περίδειπνον νεκροῦ). A similar criticism was made by the prophet Ezekiel with reference to the god Tammuz (Ezek 8:14), whose hellenistic equivalent is Adonis.

29 Cf. Frazer, Adonis, 11. 30 According to Frazer, “images of him [Adonis], dressed to resemble corpses, were carried out as to burial and then thrown into the sea or into springs; and in some places his revival was celebrated on the following day. But at different places the ceremonies varied somewhat in the manner of, and apparently also in the reason for, their celebration. At Alexandria images of Aphrodite and Adonis were displayed on two couches; beside them were set ripe fruits of all kinds, cakes, plants growing in flowerpots, and green bowers twined with anise. The marriage of the lovers was celebrated one day, and on the morrow women attired as mourners, with streaming hair and bared breasts, bore the image of the dead Adonis to the sea-shore and committed it to the waves. Yet their sorrow was not without hope, for they sang that the lost one would come back again. The date at which this Alexandrian ceremony was observed is not expressly stated; but from this mention of the ripe fruits, it has been inferred that it took place in late summer” (Adonis, 224‒25). 31 Cf. Ribichini, Adonis, 28. 32 Glotz, studying the papyrus of Fayyum, dating to the time of Ptolemy I (323‒285 BCE), maintains that the Adonis lasted three days (“Les fêtes d’Adonis,” 169‒222). Wahib Atallah, on the other hand, suggests that the papyrus is “trop vague et trop fragmentaire pour donner de la vraisemblance à l’existence au Fayoum, au IIIe siècle avant J.-C., de ce phénomène cultuel” (Adonis, 140). Ribichini suggests that at Alexandria, at least from the third century BCE there were only two days of celebration, one of great pomp and joy and the other of mourning and lamentation (Adonis¸ 30‒31). 33 Cf. Nilsson, La religion, 163‒64.

200 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

4.4 Artemis In verse 42 the author of Ep Jer reports a strange custom of women sitting in the streets girded with cords and burning bran (τὰ πίτυρα). The latter term is a plural form, indicating a great quantity of the substance.34 The women’s action, therefore, is not limited, but prolonged in time. Beginning with Fritzsche,35 commentators36 often parallel this custom with the ritual of sexual intercourse, that Babylonian women performed once in a lifetime, to honor of the goddess Ishtar-Mylitta, (Herodotus, Hist. 1.199). Wacker views this as a rite of initiation in order to fulfill what is proper to women, namely, carrying children in the womb.37 Diether Kellermann, on the other hand, offers a more cautious judgment about it.38 In our opinion, one should ignore the reference to a similar practice of adulterous women, as attested by Aristophanes.39 These women, says the Ep Jer, “burn the bran,” an element that is not present in the parallel of Herodotus,40 but it is found in Theocritus41 in relation to a ritual

34 Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, § 21b. 35 Cf. Fritzsche, Das dritte Buch Esra, 216. 36 Cf. Reusch, Erklärung, 256‒57; Knabenbauer, Commentarius, 512; Naumann, Untersuchungen, 19‒20; Ball, “Epistle,” 606; Moore, Daniel, 348; Gäbel and Kraus, “Epistole Jeremiu,” 2848; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, I profeti, 1548; Goff, “Letter,” 185; Saldarini, “Letter,” 1001‒2; Kratz, “Brief,” 102; Fitzgerald, “Baruc,” 740; Schreiner, “Baruch,” 82; Henshaw, Female and Male, 227. 37 Cf. Wacker, Baruch, 125. 38 According to Kellermann: “Das allgemeine αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες läßt eher an schon verheiratete Frauen als an Jungfrauen und an Initiationsriten denken, obwohl das Zerreißen der σχοινία Sinnbild für die Defloration sein könnte” (“Apocryphes Obst,” 30). 39 In Aristophanes’s play, after Trigeus has prayed to the goddess Peace, the chorus warns him: “. . .nor ever take thee desire to do as the adulterous women (αἱ μοιχυόμεναι δρῶσι γυναῖκες), who sit on the threshold, peering into the street (παρακλίνασαι τῆς αὐλείας παρακύπτουσιν), and if one looks at them, they retreat: if he then follows his path, they peep again” (Aristophanes, Pax 979‒985 [T.N.]). 40 Because of the lack of reference to bran, Ball calls the Herodotus parallel “similar, but not identical” (“Epistle,” 606). The verdict of Hooks, quoted by Budin, is harsher since for him the accounts of Herodotus and Ep Jer have very little in common: one speaks of temples, the other does not; one refers to all women, the other to only some women; one speaks of patrons with whom women lie down, the other of passers-by; one speaks of ropes, the other of breaking them, and the women are seated. Therefore, these may be added to the fact that both speak of women related to sexual practices (cf. Budin, Myth, 104). 41 Kellermann finds three instances in which the Kleie-Rauchopfer pair appears. The first is from Demosthenes, but according to him, that “hilft daher nicht sehr viel.” The second, on the other hand, is a papyrus from the fourth century CE, therefore very late. Finally, the author quotes Theocritus, emphasizing, however, that this custom could simply be the result of the imagination of the Greek writer (“Apocryphes Obst,” 32‒35).

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 201

to attract the desired man.42 The bran,43 therefore, is an aphrodisiac44 that inflames passion.45 Ep Jer 23 contains another possible allusion to Artemis in the author’s criticism of the ceremonies of statue cleaning. In sanctuaries dedicated to the goddess there are often fountains, as in Corinth, Dereion, and Marios,46 which indicate the importance of purification ceremonies in Artemis’s cult. This type of rite—following the example reconstructed by Charles Picard in Ephesus—began with the transportation of a statue of Artemis in procession to the seashore, where the lavatio took place. Following a series of activities carried out by young girls, one sat at a table (κατάκλισις) to eat a banquet.47 Although not exclusive to Artemis, it is with her that the practice of ritual washing acquires great importance.48

5 Conclusion In every passage I have studied, I have identified textual elements that correspond with the worship practices of the Hellenistic period. Even if this interpretation may be questioned and it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions, the effort is a valid one and demonstrates how much interpretation of the biblical text remains current.49 I have highlighted the characteristics described in the Ep Jer that might belong to the cult of Zeus (such as the ability to give rain), Dionysus (the phallic processions), Adonis (the ceremonies of the dead) and Artemis (rite of burning bran). It is also possible to quote many other deities of the Greek pantheon that fit the description in Ep Jer: Ares (god of war), Hermes (using an axe), Pluto (god of wealth), Aphrodite (sexual intercourse), and others. 42 Simeta, wishing to have a lover, performs a magic rite: first she burns the laurel, then the wax and the bronze wheel and finally she says “now I will burn the bran. Artemis, and you the adamantine, or what other thing in Hades is more solid, now shake. [. . .] To my house, torquilla, you urge that man to come” (English trans. by the author; Theocritus of Idyllis II.33). 43 Cornelius A Lapide suggests that πίτυρα is “ossa olivarum” (Commentaria, 462‒63), although this reading does not change the term’s meaning in context. 44 Cf. Saldarini, “Letter,” 1003. 45 Cf. Dancy, Books, 208. 46 Cf. Nilsson, Geschichte, 492‒95. 47 Cf. Picard, Éphèse et Claros, 314‒15. 48 The maintenance of the statue of Zeus, for example, involved washing and polishing (cf. Bettinetti, La statua, 143‒46). 49 According to Banon, “[L]e texte biblique est un tissu vivant, il n’est jamais devenu une momie” (La lecture infinie, 31).

202 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

Much remains to be said and some will be clarified by future scholars. Others, however, following a rabbinical tradition, will have to wait for the arrival of the prophet Elijah to resolve them.50

Bibliography Ackerman, Susan. “Between Athens and Jerusalem, on the Wings of a Dove?” Pages 4‒21 in vol. 1 of Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden et al. JSJ Supplements 175. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Adams, Sean. Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah. A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Alonso Schökel, Luis, and José L. Sicre Díaz. Profetas. Isaías ‒ Jeremías ‒ Ezequiel ‒ Doce Profetas menores ‒ Daniel ‒ Baruc ‒ Carta de Jeremías. Nueva biblia española. Comentario 1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1980; Italian trans. I Profeti. Commenti biblici. Roma: Borla, 1984. Apollodoro. I Miti Greci. Edited by Paolo Scarpi. Scrittori Greci e Latini. Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1996. Aristophane. Les Acharniens ‒ Les Cavaliers ‒ Les nuées. Edited by Viktor Coulon. Translated by Hilaire van Daele. Vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1923. Artom, Elia S. “L’origine, la data e gli scopi dell’Epistola di Geremia.” Annuario di Studi Biblici 1 (1934): 49‒74. Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle, and Jacqueline Moatti-Fine. Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 25.2. Paris: Cerf, 2005. Atallah, Wahib. Adonis. Dans la littérature et l’art grecs. Études et commentaires 62. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966. Ball, Charles J. “Epistle of Jeremy.” Pages 596‒611 in vol. 1 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Banon, David. La lecture infinie. Les voies de l’interprétation midrachique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1987. Bettinetti, Simona. La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca. Le Rane Studi 30. Bari: Levante, 2001. Budin, Stephanie L. The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Carroll, Robert P. The Book of Jeremiah. A Commentary. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1986. Repr., Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2006. Cook, Arthur B. Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion. Vol. 1: Zeus God of the Bright Sky. Cambridge: University Press, 1914.

50  “Circa 1800 anni fa si aveva l’abitudine di chiudere ‒ lasciandole in realtà aperte ‒ le discussioni dottrinali degli scribi che non giungevano a un accordo con l’abbreviazione teku della speranza messianica. Si pensava, infatti, che Elia, il profeta di Tisbi (in Galaad), atteso come il precursore della venuta del Messia (1Re 17,1 e Ml 3,23), avrebbe portato le soluzioni e le risposte” (Lapide, La Bibbia tradita, 127).

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 203

Dancy, John C. The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca Storica. Vol. 2. Libri IV-VIII. Edited by Giuseppe Cordiano and Marta Zorat. Classici Greci e Latini. 2nd ed. Milano: Bur Rizzoli, 2015. Di Pede, Elena. “Quelques effets narratifs de la pseudépigraphie jérémienne.” ETR 91 (2016): 599‒605. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “The Other Septuagint. From the Letter of Aristeas to the Letter of Jeremiah.” JNSL 28.2 (2002): 27‒41. Fitzgerald, Aloysius. “Baruc.” Pages 734‒40 in Nuevo Grande Comentario Biblico. Edited by Carlo M. Martini. Brescia: Queriniana, 2014. Frazer, James G. Adonis Attis Osiris. Studies in the History of Oriental Religion. Vol. 1. London: Macmillan, 1906. Rev. and en. 3rd ed., 1922. Fritzsche, Otto F. Das dritte Buch Esra, die Zusätze zum Buch Esther und Daniel, das Gebet des Manasse, das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes 1. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1851. Gäbel, Georg, and Wolfgang Kraus. “Epistole Jeremiu. Epistula Ieremiae. Der Brief des Jeremia.” Pages 2842‒48 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Vol. 2. Psalmen bis Daniel. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kratz. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Glotz, Gustave. “Les fêtes d’Adonis sous Ptolémée II.” REG 33 (1920): 169‒222. Goff, Matthew J. “The Letter of Jeremiah.” Pages 183‒87 in The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha. New Revised Standard Version Bible Apocrypha. An Ecumenical Study Edition. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. 5th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Graf, Fritz. “Apollo, Possession, and Prophecy.” Pages 299‒310 in Christian Body, Christian Self. Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Gruen, Wolfgang. “A sabedoria de um excluído. Atualidade da Epístola de Jeremias.” Estudos bíblicos 45 (1996): 34‒42. Haag, Ernst. Daniel. NEchtB.AT 30. Würzburg: Echter 1993; Italian trans. by Giulio Colombi. Daniele. L’Antico Testamento commentato. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2000. Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period. A Guide for New Testament Students. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2002. Henshaw, Richard A. Female and Male: the Cultic Personnel: the Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 31. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 1994. Himbaza, Innocent. “La lettre de Jérémie.” Pages 680‒86 in Introduction à L’Ancien Testament. Edited by Thomas Römer et al. MdB 49. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2004. Kellermann, Diether. “Apocryphes Obst. Bemerkungen zur Epistula Jeremiae (Baruch Kap. 6), insbesondere zu Vers 42.” ZDMG 129 (1979): 23‒42. Knabenbauer, Joseph. Commentarius in Danielem Prophetam, Lamentationes et Baruch. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. Paris: Lethielleux, 1891. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Der Brief des Jeremia.” Pages 71‒110 in Das Buch Baruch. Der Brief des Jeremia. Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel. Edited by Odil H. Steck et al. ATD Apokryphen 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Die Rezeption von Jeremia 10 und 29 im Pseudepigrafen Brief des Jeremia.” JSJ 26 (1995): 2‒31. A Lapide, Cornelius. In Ieremiam, Threnos, Baruch et Ezechielem. Vol. 12 of Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, accurate recognovit ac notis illustravit by Joseph M. Péronne. Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1860.

204 

 Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli

Lapide, Pinchas. Ist die Bibel richtig übersetzt? Gütersloher Taschenbücher Siebenstern 1415. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1986; Italian transl. by Jean L. Ska, and Roberto Alessandrini. La Bibbia tradita: sviste, malintesi ed errori di traduzione. Conifere 5. Bologna: EDB, 2014. Lüdy, José H. Daniel, Baruc, Carta de Jeremías. Texto y comentario. El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 15. Madrid: Atenas, 1995. Marshall, John T. “Jeremy, Epistle of.” A Dictionary of the Bible 2:578‒79. Montanari, Franco. Vocabolario della lingua greca. Torino: Loescher, 1995; 3rd ed. 2013. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. AB 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Naumann, Weigand. Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief. BZAW 25. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1913. Nilsson, Martin P. Greek Popular Religion. Lectures on the History of Religions NS 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947; French trans., La religion populaire dans la Grèce Antique. Civilisations d’hier et aujourd’hui. Paris: Plon, 1954. Nilsson, Martin P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Vol. 1. Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5. 2nd ed. München: Beck, 1955. Pfeiffer, Robert H. Il giudaismo nell’epoca neotestamentaria. Pubblicazioni della Scuola di Studi StoricoReligiosi 1. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1951. Picard, Charles. Éphèse et Claros. Recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de l’Ionie du nord. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 123. Paris: de Boccard, 1922. Pierre, Amandry. La mantique apollinienne à Delphes: essai sur le fonctionnement de l’Oracle. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 170. Paris: de Boccard, 1950. Reusch, Heinrich. Erklärung des Buchs Baruch. Freiburg: Herder, 1853. Ribichini, Sergio. Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. StSem 55; Pubblicazioni del Centro di Studio per la Civiltà Fenicia e Punica 22. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981. Rodrigues da Silva, Rafael. Como ler o livro de Baruc. Releituras do exílio. Criatividade na crise. São Paulo: Como ler a Bíblia, 2003. Roth, Wolfgang. “For Life, He Appeals to Death (Wis 13:18). A Study of Old Testament Idol Parodies.” CBQ 37 (1975): 21‒47. Saldarini, Anthony J. “The Letter of Jeremiah. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 985‒1010 in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Jeremiah, the Book of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Ezekiel. Edited by Leander E. Keck. The New Interpretator’s Bible 6. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001. Schreiner, Josef. “Baruch.” Pages 45‒84 in Klagelieder. Baruch. Edited by Heinrich Gross, and Josef Schreiner. NEchtB.AT 14. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus-Christ (175 B.C. ‒ A.D. 135). Vol. III.2. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986; Italian trans., Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesù Cristo. Vol. III.2. Biblioteca di storia e storiografia dei tempi biblici 13. Brescia: Paideia, 1998. Sissa, Giulia, and Marcel Detienne. La vie quotidienne des dieux grecs. Paris: Hachette, 1989; English trans., The Daily Life of the Greek Gods. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000. Teocrito, Idilli. Edited by E. Romagnoli. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1925. Thackeray, Henry S. J. Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament. London: Allen & Unwin, 1927. Touzard, Jules. “L’âme juive au temps des perses.” RB 25 (1916): 299‒341. Wace, Henry. “The Epistle of Jeremy.” Pages 287‒303 in The Holy Bible. According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611). Vol. 2. Apocrypha: Ecclesiasticus ‒ Maccabees. Edited by Henry Wace. London: John Murray, 1888.

Which Idols? The Criticism of Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar 6)  

 205

Wacker, Marie-Theres. Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. Wisdom Commentary 31. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016. Wojciechowski, Michael. “Ancient Criticism of Religion in Dan 14 (Bel and Drago), Bar 6 (Epistle of Jeremiah), and Wisdom 14.” Pages 66‒72 in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Selected Studies. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, and Jószef Zsengellér. DCLS 5. Berlin: de Gruyter 2010. Wright, Benjamin G. “Jeremiah, Epistle of.” ABD 3:948‒49.

Jutta M. Jokiranta

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Abstract: Peoplehood is here understood as a group formation involving ethnic identity. But to view ethnicity as a group with commonly shared features risks raising ethnic distinctions where there are none or overlooking some features we do not generally associate with ethnicity. Drawing from some recent theories on ethnicity, we identify suitable tools to investigate the ancient evidence we have on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Our starting point is a cognitive theory of ethnicity in which ethnic groups are seen as perspectives on the world rather than as entities in the world; in other words, such groups are epistemological rather than ontological realities. An integrative model is offered as a framework and select examples from the Scrolls illuminate the dynamic nature of ethnic boundary-making. Keywords: ethnic identity, culture, cognition, society, Dead Sea Scrolls, “Israel,” “Judean”

1 Introduction The question “What makes a people in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” can be understood in at least two ways. First, it may be a question about what triggers individuals to see themselves as a people, as an ethnic category, or as a larger group in distinction to other groups of the time, and how outside (etic) ascriptions are imposed on people. In the late Second Temple period, changes in imperial dynamics raised the need to redefine geo-political loyalties and reconsider the demographic map. This also triggered new questions about peoplehood and group boundaries. Thus, external changes may move boundaries and “make” a people—or make people respond to imperial politics in their own way. Secondly, the question may be understood as focusing on the general dynamics of ethnic or other group formations and on which factors play a role in each context—in people’s self-understanding—from an internal perspective. Thus, a sense of ethnic belonging can be based on several things, and boundaries can be Note: I wish to thank the FIDSIT group (Finnish Interdisciplinary Study of Social Identity Transmission) and Team 2 members of the Ancient Near Eastern Empires Centre of Excellence in Helsinki for their valuable comments on a draft of this paper. The topic is wide, and this article covers only one aspect; any deficiencies are naturally mine alone. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-013

208 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

drawn in multiple ways, depending on the context the group finds itself in, on the group’s history, and on its expected future. The Dead Sea Scrolls offer us a unique emic language (insider perspective) by which to explore Jewish identity construction, and this second question is therefore a natural starting point here. Instead of a comprehensive analysis of these ways, I am seeking an appropriate form and level of analysis with which to approach the task and my sources, and I shall thus draw on recent theories of ethnicity and ethnic identity. When attempting to identify what makes ethnic identity different from other social identities, scholars often propose various aspects or features of ethnic identity. I will first discuss one such approach to ethnicity that has been used for Second Temple Judaism, and then seek for a more comprehensive model.

2 Ethnic features as an analytical tool? Ethnicity is often understood as a varied combination of “ancestry and merit.” Ancestry may, for example, refer to birth, family origins, tribal affiliation, and links to the homeland. Merit refers to behaviors, practices, and beliefs that are considered relevant to the sense of belonging. Along these lines, the following list drawn up by John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith has been used to argue that Jewishness in antiquity was an ethnic category:1 An ethnic group has 1. A common proper name by which its members refer to the group. 2. An imagined (mythical) common ancestry. 3. Shared memories or foundation myths of heroes, historical events, etc. 4. Aspects of a common culture, for instance, religion, language, or norms. 5. A connection with a homeland, which may constitute actually living in that territory or a shared understanding of the ancestral land. 6. A sense of group solidarity, felt by at least a part of the ethnos. On the other hand, even this list may well not be comprehensive. Andreas Wimmer uses the metaphor of a fishing net: the net needs to be thrown wide to catch the great variety of ethnic phenomena around the world and not just our own conceptions.2 Building on the work of Wimmer, John Van Maaren has recently presented a new

1 Hutchinson and Smith, Ethnicity, 6‒7. See recently, e.g., Mason and Esler, “Identities,” 496. 2 Wimmer, Boundary Making, 6. Brubaker, Grounds, also acknowledges that different grounds for difference appear at different times.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 209

“ethnic boundary making model” for the study of Jewishness.3 Yet Van Maaren too takes Hutchinson and Smith’s features as diagnostic and suggests that different configurations of these claims made the Jewish ethnos appear at different times to be a nationality, a race, or an ethno-religion.4 Van Maaren’s work is a large and ambitious project (of which more below), and he does not fall into the trap of taking Hutchinson and Smith’s features as those of bounded groups. However, when viewing ancient sources from the perspective of ethnicity we may easily find ethnic bounded entities. Let me illustrate this challenge with two examples.

Proper name “Israel” is a common designator in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but when does its presence function as an ethnic boundary-marking mechanism or discourse and when as something else? Recently, Jason Staples has argued against the theory that Israel was an insider term and that the term “Judaeans” was adopted only after it was used by outsiders.5 Josephus, for example, uses “Israel” for the northern kingdom/12 tribes before exile, but he switches to Ioudaioi when talking about the three tribes—Judah, Benjamin, and Levi—who returned to the area of Judea. Thus, “Jews” or “Judeans” are only a subset of “Israelites.” He sees this idea also in the Scrolls, where Israel is not yet “true Israel,” since Israel’s full restoration is still ahead. “Sectarian scrolls attest to a group that did not believe Israel’s restoration had taken place even for those living in the land. Indeed, the Yahad presents itself as having rejoined the wider Israel in exile to await the final and authentic restoration of all Israel.”6 According to Staples, the Yahad participated in a restoration that was not yet fully realized.

3 Van Maaren, Boundaries. Other recent work on ethnicity in antiquity and Judaism include Derks and Roymans, Ethnic Constructs; Palmer, Converts; Wright, “Problem.” 4 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 9. See Esler, “Religion,” for a critical response to David Horrell’s (Ethnicity) attempt to reintroduce “race” into the ancient world. 5 Staples, Idea of Israel. 6 Staples, Idea of Israel, 260. For example, Staples quotes 1QS 8:4b–7a; 8:9‒10: “When men such as these come to be in Israel, then the counsel of the Yahad will truly be established, an ‘eternal planting’ [Jub 16:26], a temple for Israel, and – mystery! – a Holy of Holies for Aaron, true witnesses to justice, chosen by God’s will to atone for the land and to repay the wicked their due [Dan 9:24]. . . They will be a blameless and true house in Israel, upholding the covenant of eternal statutes. They will be an acceptable sacrifice, atoning for the land and ringing in the verdict against evil, so that perversity ceases to exist.”

210 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

The most specific labels of foreign nations occur in the War Scroll—but there too Israel is not fighting as the twelve tribes of one nation, for only Levi, Judah, and Benjamin are mentioned. The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial: the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and [ ] Philistia and the troops of the Kittim of Asshur. Supporting them are those who have violated the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them. (1QM [1Q33] 1:1‒2)7

Also, as Bergsma noted, “Judah,” unlike as is often claimed, is not a clear self-identification since the Levites are presented as the primary tribe.8 In fact, the Scrolls movement does not have one single self-designation. “Yahad” could be understood as either an exclusive marker—“togetherness” demands commitment—or as an expected (future) “union” of all Israel.9 Van Maaren analyzes the Damascus Document and the Community Rule for their ethnic configurations.10 He argues that, in the Damascus Document, Israel is both an exclusive category—only the chosen remnant qualifies—and an expansive category—ancestry is given up in order to include the ger, strangers. In contrast, unlike Staples, Van Maaren argues that the Community Rule draws the boundary within Israel (between those who belong to the yahad and those who do not) and is not interested in the future of the (non-yahad) false Israel. Another question is whether the use of “Israel” in the Community Rule signals a statement against the changes taking place in Hasmonean times, as Van Maaren and others argue. The Hasmonean rulers were imposing a new Judean identity as one among many ethne, including in this identity groups that were not previously seen as part of it.11 By contrast, the Community Rule’s “strategy of emphasizing a different level of ethnic identification (Israel rather than Jew) symbolically places members of the Yahad in a privileged place over all others and makes Jewishness insignificant in comparison to ‘Israel,’ as defined by the Yahad.”12 However, two issues need to be raised in light of such conclusions. First, if the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa [1Q28a]) and the Rule of Blessing (1QSb [1Q28b]) are

7 Translations from Tov, ed., Dead Sea Scrolls. 8 Bergsma, “Qumran Self-Identity,” 172‒89. 9 Kugler, “Ethnicity,” 81, considers “yahad” to refer to a passage like Mic 2:12, which refers to the restoration of Israel. 10 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 148‒56. 11 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 19‒21. See also Eckhardt, Ethnos. 12 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 20.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 211

read together as belonging to this particular rule in manuscript 1QS-1QSa-1QSb,13 then there is certainly a possibility of reading it as an interest in the restoration of Israel. The Rule of the Congregation has a program for the entire congregation of Israel, to gather everyone together, including women and children, in order to be educated and to take their respective positions in decision-making. The incompetent and the disabled would also play their part. The Rule of Blessings preserves blessings for various sub-groups in Israel. In accordance with sectarian ideology, priests are given a higher place than other leaders. Faithful priests also prayed for the assured renewal of their priesthood (1QSb 3:26). This may well have implied hope for their future role in Israel. Secondly, we should pay attention to the different genres and functions of the Scrolls. “Israel” in the Damascus Document is part of the overall historical overview and remnant theology. In the Community Rule, “covenant” is more prominent than “Israel,” and the Discourse on the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13‒4:26) has in mind humanity as a whole. “Israel” is not identical to the yahad since yahad draws its members from Israel and even from elsewhere, building a greater community for Israel: (They shall) build a foundation of truth for Israel, as a community (yahad) of the eternal covenant. They shall atone for all those who are fervently committed to holiness in Aaron and for the house of truth in Israel as well as those who join them as a community (1QS 5:5‒6).14

In light of the Two Spirits Discourse, we may ask if the origin of humanity and of each individual in God-given portions of the spirits from the Creation assumes a more abstract level of division than an ethnic one. This may fit naturally with the idea that ancestry in Israel does not matter, but it may also mean that ethnic boundaries are not formed here. This is a treatise concerning humanity, but it does not contain any explanation of the origins of different peoples, nor does it erase ethnic distinctions, nor raise Israel above others. The identity that it constructs is that of human selfhood.15 That sort of conceptualization can then be used for various purposes. Scholars debate if the Discourse was originally an independent tradition or compiled for this manuscript.16 Either way, in this context it serves some functions better than others: for example, by appreciating division in the cosmos, the individual is motivated to choose sides and to commit to the project offered in the yahad. Belonging to the yahad may sometimes involve ethnic distinctions, but not always. There is further room for thought about the issue of naming: Israel is certainly many things in the Scrolls and not every mention of Israel relates to a sec13 For a recent shift in scholarship in this regard, see Johnson, “One Work”; Jokiranta, “Competitors.” 14 Translation Hempel, Community Rules, 126. 15 Newsom, Self, 77‒90. 16 Recently, e.g., see Porzig, “Place.”

212 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

tarian self-understanding, ethnic boundary making, or a conscious opposition to a “Judean” categorization.

Mythical ancestry All reiterations and retellings of ancestral history could potentially position the authors in a social location of their own time. Praising some ancestors and demoting others has ramifications for how the authors perceived their contemporary ethnic groups, as Van Maaren explains concerning Jubilees.17 However, these processes always require a process of interpretation: (descendants of) “Esau” have to be interpreted as (2nd century BCE) Idumeans. Whereas some of such categorizations may remain stable, scholars often do not pay enough attention to the fact that these linkages too may impose such identifications, rather than representing accepted ascriptions or commonly shared identities.18 Furthermore, the list of diagnostic features may not perhaps recognize that in antiquity groups viewed their origins as an ethnic group, not only based on ancient forefathers and foremothers, but on their god or gods, and the cult was created to ensure the support of their ancestral god.19 Paula Fredriksen notes that gods and humans form ethnic groups, and Judeans viewed their God as Judean. Even in monotheistic culture, other peoples had their own gods—which the Judeans deemed as idols. In the end it was hoped that nations would realize that there is only one supreme God.20 Israel bears the divine name El in its self-designation. The name and the people are connected: Remember the wonders that You performed while the nations looked on—surely we have been called by Your name. (4Q504 [4QDibHama] 1+2ii 12‒13)

The Hodayot hymnist praises God: You are a father to all the children of Your truth, and You rejoice over them as a loving mother over her nursing child. As a guardian with his embrace, You provide for all Your creatur[es]. (1QHa 17:35‒36)

17 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 143‒48. 18 Young, “Text,” attacks prioritizing the emic descriptions at the cost of etic analysis. 19 Kugler, “Ethnicity,” 80. 20 Fredriksen, “God,” argues that in the Pauline view, gentiles will have a legal right of sonship, but their father is not Abraham but God.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 213

From this perspective, it is noteworthy that the sectarian scrolls overwhelmingly use the name El as a divine epithet, rather than YHWH.21 They have a cosmic, universally relevant vision for the world for which this designation is well fitted. Thus, the avoidance of YHWH may not be (only) a matter of caution in using the name in oaths or pronouncing the name.22 Rather, the name El may have been selected for a particular purpose. The use of the name has the potential for cherishing visions of the future when God will rule over all the world and things will be put right. On the other hand, non-sectarian compositions have no difficulty in using the divine name YHWH, such as in 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition, where Joseph prays to God, his father, and YHWH: And in all this Joseph [was given] into the hands of foreigners. . . And he cried out [and aloud] he called to mighty God to save him from their hand and he said, ‘My father and my God, do not abandon me into the hand of the nations; do justice for me, lest the afflicted and poor perish. You have no need for any nation or people for any help. (4Q372 [4QNarr and Poetic Compb] 1 14‒18) YHWH opened my mouth and from him are the [w]ords of my tongue. And his word is in me to tell my [ ] his mercies. And he will not give to another nation his statutes, and will not crown any stranger with them. (4Q372 [4QNarr and Poetic Compb] 3 7‒8)

So, God as an ethnic God does not represent a single unified narrative in the Scrolls that marks one ethnic group with one divine name. On some occasions members of the movement cherished language that could have implications for the views of God as father of only one people but on some other occasions God is the God of all humanity and creation. These examples demonstrate only that using any list of “diagnostic” features is not a simple task. These features may or may not be present when groupness emerges. The focus on the proper name of the group creates an impression of a bounded stable entity or may persuade us to identify one even when the texts use the name in various ways. The focus on ancestry demands a large number of interpretative processes being made explicit when we think that ancient narrations speak of the author’s present day, as well as an acknowledgement of various levels of categorization when an ethnic God is in the picture. Nor should the features be used for a search of cultural features that distinguish a group of people from other groups—it might be that we create ethnic boundary making where there is none. For this reason, I will turn to some additional theories of ethnicity in our search for an integrative model and in the awareness of our task in relation to studying ancient textual evidence. 21 Meyer, Naming God. 22 See Jokiranta, “Names.”

214 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

3 Ethnicity as cognition Scholarship on ethnicity is characterized by a general shift from objectivist/primordial accounts of the subject to subjectivist/constructivist accounts of it.23 In the words of Rogers Brubaker, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stamatov: Instead of asking “What is an ethnic group?,” “What is a nation?,” a cognitive approach encourages us to ask how, when, and why people interpret social experience in racial, ethnic, or national terms.24 Their work builds on the manner in which Fredrik Barth with his edited work Ethnic Groups and Boundaries in 1969 pointed the topic in a more constructionist direction.25 Ethnicity was not about common shared features but about strategic boundary making between groups. He and his colleagues focused on processes of group making and arrived at these claims:26 1. Ethnicity is not defined by culture but by social organization. In other words, identifying a particular and distinct culture does not imply the identification of an ethnic group. This claim was against the common assumption of Barth’s day, which identified ethnic groups with what were assumed to be their objective and static cultural traits. Instead, social organizations select cultural features to mark their boundaries, and these selections change over time and vary across situations. 2. Ethnic identifications are based on ascription by others and on self-identification. In attempting to ratify one’s position or change one’s loyalty, one may face the fact that others’ views have not changed (stigmatized identity). On the other hand, ethnic identities can be changed—via relocation, altered allegiances, or family arrangements. Ethnic identity involves a continuous negotiation between one’s own identification and ascription by others.27 3. Ethnic groups do not exist in isolation but in relation to others. The roots of social organization are found in dichotomization: the ethnic boundary as a

23 For recent overviews on changes in scholarship, see Van Maaren, Boundaries, 9‒16; Moore, Identity, 7‒44. 24 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 53. Ethnicity is something that emerges in relationships and is not the property of a group. Brubaker, Ethnicity, 4, 28‒63, argues that “identity” is often too vague and analyses could instead be made with the use of other concepts, such as “categorization” and “identification.” 25 Barth, ed., Ethnic Groups. 26 Barth’s main claims are summarized here with the help of Hummell, “Standing,” 49‒51, and Verkuyten, Psychology, 52‒56. 27 This factor is also central in the UN understanding of the identity of indigenous people: “Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member,” https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf. See also https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/vulnerable-groups/indigenous-peoples.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 215

social boundary is formed through interaction with others. Barth’s work was important in predicting, against the ideas of his time, that ethnic groups would not dissolve or diminish in importance because of nationalism or the distribution of shared cultural traits due to globalization. Barth paved the way to a more fruitful study of various ways in which groups assert themselves. Yet he also missed some central aspects of ethnicity. First, the popular significance of ancestry or human biology were left in the background. Second, multiple ethnic identities were not recognized by Barth who thought that only one ethnic identity was primary and positively valued. Thirdly, Barth did not pay sufficient attention to the role of power in controlling expression and discourse. Fourthly, in detaching culture and ethnicity, Barth may also be seen to have downplayed the role of cultural traits and symbols in certain contexts.28 In Brubaker’s cognitive approach, ethnic perspectives on the world rely on human categorization. Categories “provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort”—they help us navigate in the world, function efficiently, disregard irrelevant information and focus our attention, predict the future, and transfer information from one setting to a new one.29 However, ethnic perspective does not rely on categories of people, but rather categories are abstract entities concerning events, actions, relationships, emotions, and so on.30 Brubaker and his colleagues argue that despite the more prevailing constructivist account, popular discourse as well as much scholarship still relies on treating groups as categories rather than seeing their underlying processes of categorization.31

4 Guts (primordialism) vs. mind (instrumentalism) A persistent dichotomy has been drawn between essentialist/ primordialist and relativist/ instrumental (circumstantial) accounts of ethnicity. The debate is, however, not about which one is true of ethnicity, but which one is more representative of 28 Hummell, “Standing,” 53‒55; Verkuyten, Psychology, 56. On further reception of Barth now, see Eriksen, and Jakoubek, eds., Groups. 29 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 38; Verkuyten, Psychology, 52. Social identity theory revealed that mere categorization produces a robust ingroup bias, liking ingroup members more than outgroup members, and an accentuation effect, namely the exaggeration of similarities between ingroup members and differences with outgroup members. 30 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 43. 31 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 43. Ethnicities “exist only in and through our perceptions, interpretations, representations, classifications, categorizations, and identifications” (45).

216 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

people’s experiences, beliefs, and perceptions. In the primordialist account, people are seen to draw from an idea of permanent essence and deeply embedded attachments (often by descent, but also on account of cultural features) in their ethnic identification; for them, ethnicity exists independently of their beliefs or perceptions. Cultural factors, religion, language, and so on, are taken to argue for and justify a belief in common ancestry. In the instrumental account, ethnic identity is secondary to certain (political and economic) interests of the actors, who then draw from ethnic markers to achieve their goals; for them, ethnicity is dependent on recognition. Political and economic circumstances feed into ethnic formation—but this may change when circumstances change.32 In the words of social psychologist Maykel Verkeyten, “Instrumentalists tend to refer to the head or mind and primordialists to the heart or the gut.”33 Both Verkuyten and Brubaker argue that primordialism and instrumentalism are not mutually exclusive opposites. Primordialism cannot explain the flexibility in the contents of ethnic identities, nor the significance of circumstances in highlighting ethnic distinctions. Instrumentalism cannot explain the situation in which identities are persistent, even when they are disadvantageous, nor the role of early socialization, or the human need to see self-continuity and provide answers to existential questions. Rather, primordialism and instrumentalism “pose different questions and deliver different answers.”34 Primordialism explains the tendency to naturalize and essentialize human differences. Instrumentalism explains why ethnicity becomes relevant in particular contexts and what triggers it as a category.35 Thus, when studying the ancient world, the primordialist position cannot be dismissed simply by saying that ethnic categories are always constructed: ancient and modern members of society may treat ethnicity as naturally given and immutable—they are primordialists. Even if scholars regard ethnic categories as being upheld via various practices and repetitions, they must recognize the strong cognitive tendency to see social groups as natural entities with shared essences.36 What drives the specific ethnicity account to come to the fore is often unconscious, not (only) based on (instrumentalist) calculation of the pros and cons of drawing on the ethnicity category and particular aspects of it. Turning to the Scrolls evidence, we may see that there is general interest in the boundary making between Israel and the nations—often this is not specified and thus it may make boundaries that are more symbolic than concrete. The election of 32 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 49; Brubaker, Grounds, 48; Verkuyten, Psychology, 62‒66. 33 Verkuyten, Psychology, 67. 34 Verkuyten, Psychology, 67. 35 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 51. 36 Cornell and Hartmann, Ethnicity, 93, speak of “constructed primordialists.”

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 217

Israel provides Israel with its continuous and privileged position, even after they have lost their privileges and live among the nations. In this sense, the view is primordial: it is based on the myth of YHWH adopting Israel as His firstborn son in Egypt, and God being like a father to them. This identity is held even if the Israelites are in a disempowered position, exiled among other peoples, as presented in the prayer text Words of the Luminaries, partly quoted above: Remember the wonders that You performed while the nations looked on—surely we have been called by Your name. (4Q504 [4QDibHama] 1+2ii 12‒13) You have adopted us in the sight of all the nations; indeed, You have called [I]srael ‘My son, My firstborn’ (Exod 4:22), and You have chastened us as a man chastens his child. (4Q504 [4QDibHama] 1+2iii 5‒8) You have not abandoned us among the nations; rather, You have shown covenant mercies to Your people Israel in all [the] lands to which You have exiled them. (4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1+2v 11‒13)

Israel stands apart from and against the nations and this distinction is based on divine election. On the other hand, boundary making may concern self-interest: ethnic identity functions in the appeal to the divinity to preserve their property and inheritance. In this sense, ethnic identity is instrumental: it concerns the future, not the primordial past, and it is called upon to function as a right to certain resources, such as land, kingship, safety, or to act as the ground for norms, as in the Apocryphal Lamentations, the Beatitudes, and in the king’s law in the Temple Scroll: . . .do not give our inheritance to strangers, nor our produce to the sons of a foreigner. Remember that [we are the enslaved] of Your people, and the forsaken of Your inheritance. Remember the sons of Your covenant. . . (4Q501 [4QApocr Lam B] 1‒2) do not] a]bandon to str[angers] your [inheritan]ce or your lot to foreigners (4Q525 [4QBeatitudes] 5 7‒8) They shall guard him (i.e., the king) from every sinful thing and from a foreign people, lest he be taken by them. . . vacat And he shall not take a wife from all the daughters of the nations, but from his father’s house he shall take unto himself a wife, from the family of his father. (11Q19 [11QTemplea] 57:10‒17) If a man informs against his people, and delivers his people up to a foreign nation, and does harm to his people, you shall hang him on the tree, and he shall die (11Q19 [11QTemplea] 64:6‒8)

These authors play the ethnic distinction card for reasons of self-interest and to gain future security. Primordialism could also, however, most probably be these authors’ perceptions, on some occasions; it is not exclusive to instrumentalism.

218 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

If seen in terms of oppositions, ethnic identity becomes “an issue either of cognition or action, of stability or variability, of continuity or change, of unity or fragmentation, of voluntarism or determinism, of the individual or of society.”37 Therefore, a more integrative approach is needed.

5 Ethnic identity in terms of cognition and culture Typically, social psychologists have different views about where identity is located: does ethnic identity take place within the human mind, cognition, or in interaction, through discursive practices? Verkuyten argues that both cognitive and discursive approaches are valid but function at different levels of analysis. He uses the analogy of cartography, where different sorts of maps provide different information.38 Discursive social psychologists “treat data as forms of social action rather than as reflecting inner or outer realities.”39 These differing approaches also illustrate differing approaches to ancient textual evidence. Scholars sometimes take the evidence to reflect the authors’ deep inner dispositions, and at other times, their serious social action. Roughly speaking, the cognitive view understands texts to express (more) stable beliefs and ideologies, whereas the discursive view sees texts as targeted at a particular situation and context and as being significant for the specific verbalization at hand. Either way, we must be sensitive and self-reflective when engaged in the study of ethnic identity. Cognitive research cannot reveal the cultural contents of ethnic categorization. Verkuyten notes that ethnic identity is not only about what happens in cognition; it also needs to be explained by “political ideologies, cultural discourses, and local discursive practices.”40 Brubaker and his colleagues’ cognitive approach to ethnicity is not ignorant of cultural and social forces when they use the concept of schema: schemas are mental structures of knowledge and a bridge between the cognitive and the cultural, the mental and the social, and the private and the public.

37 Verkuyten, Psychology, 32. 38 Verkuyten, Psychology, 19‒37. We must note that the term “cognition” itself can be used in different ways. In more recent research, it may be understood as a wide concept: the only way humans can acquire knowledge and communicate with their extended, embedded, embodied, or enacted environment. 39 Verkuyten, Psychology, 40. 40 Verkuyten, Psychology, 22.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 219

Much knowledge relevant to ethnicity is embedded in schemas, for example, event schemas. It is also suggested that the ethnic category is easier to comprehend than a larger category like class.41 The social world is made of “collective cultural representations, as widely shared ways of seeing, thinking, parsing social experience, and interpreting the social world.”42 Groupness is not only about specific contents and boundedness, it is also concerned with the distribution (accessibility, salience, ease, interlocking with other cultural representations) of such representations across the population—in other words, categories become collective only if they are distributed among people. To take into account these different levels of analysis and perspective, Verkuyten offers this integrative model:43 Table 1: Social identity formation and maintenance processes according to Verkuyten, The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity, 27.

SOCIETAL Institutional and discursive structures for identity options

Social construction of identities

INTERACTION Self-presentations and identity enactments

Self-perception and selfunderstanding

INDIVIDUAL The individual level can here be understood as “what goes on in one’s head.” The interactive level is about “what goes on between people.” And the societal level is about “regular and institutionalized ways of doing things.”44 Social institutions and existing discourses structure and mold available emotions, thoughts, and actions. People find themselves to be part of certain categories and classifications: “People are viewed as bearers of their culture.”45 However, the individual never embodies all the available meanings and responds to them in individual ways. Social changes at societal level take place

41 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 41‒44. 42 Brubaker et al., “Ethnicity,” 45. 43 Verkuyten, Psychology, 27. 44 Verkuyten, Psychology, 26. 45 Verkuyten, Psychology, 24.

220 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

because individual actions and interactions bring changes in the meanings, functions, and salience of categorizations: “Ethnic identity is, then, considered to be the result of individual choices, personal meanings and assertions.”46 Neither level of analysis should be reduced to the other: “It is in interactions that societal relations, beliefs, norms and values are reproduced and actualized, challenged and changed. And it is in interactions that a sense of identity is negotiated and formed.”47 Society and individuals influence each other indirectly. What is our task with this model? Rather than framing all our questions as questions of ethnicity, it is more useful to see them as questions of self, relations, and structures. As pointed out, we cannot enter into cognition, namely, how people mentally represented themselves and what they felt and thought about themselves. Rather, we enter at the level of interaction: how scribes and authors presented and performed themselves, which cultural categories they adopted, used, and modified, which meanings they resisted and which they promoted, which interactions they allowed and which they restricted. In taking all the ancient evidence into account, we might offer some reconstructions of the societal level, and at times we may even see glimpses of the individual self.48 In all this, we can see language as reflecting inner dispositions or actions existing in the world of relations. Such a model may lead us, for example, to think about which representations in the texts we interpret as novel and which we regard as having reproduced existing categories of the society. Which types of ethnic categorization and narratives were already available and most accessible to the scribes of the Scrolls and via which media?49 For example, in many scrolls that are ascribed to the Qumran movement, a strong tendency exists to see only part of present Israel as the heir to the promises. This is not difficult as the Hebrew Bible contains multiple examples of remnant theology and strong judgments against the fallen Israel. Further, we know of the Scrolls’ accentuated concern for ritual purity and archaeological findings demonstrate that stepped pools only started to emerge from the Hasmonean time onwards. Ritual purity practices were based on the Hebrew Scriptures but now these practices gained new importance and were attached to new rules and meanings.50 Behavior marked by material culture and ritual practices had the potential to become both a symbolic marker of ethnicity but also led to factionalism

46 Verkuyten, Psychology, 24. 47 Verkuyten, Psychology, 26. 48 For an attempt to study individuals, see Harland, “Climbing.” 49 Van Maaren, Boundaries, 35, speaks of “field characteristics” that define which modes and means of boundary making are available and useful for individuals. 50 Regev, “Purity,” argues that the concept of gentile impurity arose in the Hasmonean period to support the emerging Judaean identity in the Hasmonean state.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 221

through the observance of distinct ritual rules among different groups.51 Circumcision, however, while symbolically significant and associated with ethnic boundary marking,52 did not require new rules. Furthermore, social boundary making is different from ideological boundary making. In general, the interest in the sectarian Scrolls is not so much about boundary making against foreign others, but about identifying false others. Hence, the concern is about constructing Israel and the covenant anew, negotiating about who gets to represent Israel, and about what conditions Israel will need in order to survive. We have numerous examples. In the Damascus Document, God sent the sword against rebellious Israel (CD 1:17) and the election of rebellious Israel is denied (CD 2:5‒9); the strong and the mighty have gone astray (CD 2:16‒17); only some are called by name (CD 2:11) and have received divine revelation for the present era (CD 3:12‒15).53 How is all this boundary-making discourse visible in social relations and to what extent may it be viewed as ethnic? Only by means of practical restrictions in social relations can we imagine that the remnant ideology materialized in the lives of the members of the covenant. For example, the Damascus Document rules that the Sabbath rest should not be spent near a gentile place (CD 11:14‒15) but no similar rule concerns spending it near the non-covenant members of Israel—probably indicating that the covenant members lived among non-covenant members and that segregation did not mean separate towns or living quarters. On the other hand, the Damascus Document has restrictions about selling items both to gentiles (CD 12:8‒11) and to “corrupt people” (CD 13:12‒16). Here the boundary making also affects everyday life and interaction within Israel. Some rules and norms affect relations more than others. For example, banning intermarriage can be a concrete act of ethnic boundary making which requires a definition of non-Israelites, or marriage in general offers room for boundary-marking that is not only ethnically motivated.54

51 Wimmer, Boundary Making, introduces various means of boundary making, of which symbolic markers that “allow for unequivocal identification of group members” (11) are one. To what extent different rules allowed for differentiation between group members in this regard is an important question. 52 E.g., Van Maaren, Boundaries, 143, argues that Jubilees makes eighth-day circumcision the defining criterion of Jewishness. 53 Their primary symbolic hero seemed to be the Torah of Moses, rather than Moses himself— Mosaic teaching reached the remnant Israel as revealed and privileged knowledge to the elect. The historical turning point of exile was still experienced. The Teacher of Righteousness was not a founder figure but rather an enigmatic figure to prove that God had not forgotten them but provided them aid and teachers worthy of being followed; Jokiranta, Identity, 175‒209. 54 Banning intermarriage would be one form of denying the extension of solidarity to non-Israelites. Jubilees, Temple Scroll, and 4QMMT (4Q394‒399) are all strict in this respect, Van Maaren,

222 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

Similar ideological boundary making is visible in many other texts, but we seldom know how the ideology translated into practice. For example, Pesher Habakkuk skillfully aligns the wicked priests of Israel with the fierce and violent foreign invaders (Kittim-Romans) and condemns both.55 But expecting the future judgment of the leading wicked priests did not necessarily mean that the authors drew altogether different ethnic boundaries. On the basis of the Pesharim, we know little about social interaction.56 Overall, the “true Israel” ideology of the sectarian texts should be viewed critically. Unless the texts show evidence of ethnic boundary making where the Scrolls movement sets itself directly among the ethne and international diplomacy of its time (which could be argued for the Hasmonean self-presentation in the books of the Maccabees), the Scrolls’ “true Israel” does not appear to me to be a serious new ethnic category but rather an ongoing appropriation and negotiation of the nature of Israel. Different answers produced factions within Israel, with sometimes visible and concrete differences between groups, and former familial (tribal?) subgroups were rearranged as different types of “voluntary” subgroups. But this does not mean that the claim by these subgroups to represent the true Israel was in any way widely accepted or was seen as a new ethnic category.57 The Scrolls movement’s cosmic-level distinctions and end-time war visions may have in their view set them as superior to the Greek and Roman imperial rulers, but this did not translate into a firm political organization, even if we see some traces that could have led in that direction.58 Recent work by John Van Maaren is a welcome undertaking in that it acknowledges various configurations of ethnicity and shares an interest in distinguishing between macro- and micro-levels in its analysis, making room for identifying major shifts arising from political and demographic changes as well as individual responses to them.59 Instead of focusing on ethnic groups as (varying) entities, a focus on the act of boundary making may function as a tool in analyzing the dynamics of our evidence. This will help us see where boundaries are shifted and how, Boundaries, 82, 98, 142‒43. In the Damascus Document, members relied on the counsel of the overseer in marriage and divorce (CD 13:16‒17; 4Q266 [4QDa]) 9iii 4–5). 55 Jokiranta, Identity, 148‒75. 56 Only in rare cases do we get a view of how their ideology meets with some concrete practice, such as in Pesher Hosea, which condemns Israel for having aligned its festival times with those of the nations (4Q166 [4QpHosa] 2:14‒16)—an issue which concerned the identification of the correct calendar. 57 Kugler, “Ethnicity,” 81‒83, argues that the emphasis on pure priesthood set the movement “apart from and against the rest of the ethnos” (82). Levitical continuation involved both ancestral and ideological claims. 58 Jokiranta, “Competitors.” 59 Van Maaren, Boundaries.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 223

and to appreciate where the meaning of the boundaries are modified and how. Following Wimmer, Van Maaren further distinguishes these “modes” of boundary making from the “means” of boundary making, that is, from the resources with which people try to shift or modify boundaries, such as discourse and symbols, discrimination, violence and coercion, and political mobilization.60 This and other distinctions produce a complex set of concepts that not every investigation necessarily needs to adopt completely, but it does pave the way for a more nuanced approach to ethnicity.

6 Multiple identities and inconsistency The final important matter to be discussed is the fact that people may hold multiple identities. Barth has been accused of having lacked an understanding of multiple ethnic identities; for him, people switched between different modes, but one was primary. According to Hummell, Barth did not recognize the partial belonging and ethnic identification that crosses and intersects with other social identities or double consciousness, being both in and out.61 This question is important since it is directly related to how we interpret our evidence and its possible inconsistencies. Verkuyten’s work with modern Dutch people provides an informative example. These two statements by a youth named Selçuk present an inconsistency that requires interpretation:62 I sure feel Turkish. Like Ahmed says, we really feel Turkish and that’s very important to us. Our culture should be maintained, and we are proud of it. Of course, I am Turkish, but I do not mind much. I mean, I can hardly speak Turkish, and I do not go to the mosque. I have lived here almost all my life and will stay here, so I have become more Dutch than Turkish.

How should we interpret this inconsistency? Verkuyten presents three options: 1) There is only one true self: in one or the other statement Selçuk is faking or hiding his true self. 2) Selçuk is speaking of different things: perhaps the first is about him feeling Turkish, his own people, and the second is about his narrative of growing up Turkish in the Netherlands. 60 These concepts in shifting boundaries and modifying their meanings comes close to social identity theorizing, i.e., the strategies people have in striving for positive distinctiveness and crossing boundaries (mobility) and recategorizing them. 61 Hummell, “Standing,” 53‒54. See also Verkuyten, Psychology, 111‒13. 62 Verkuyten, Psychology, 232‒66 (232).

224 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

3) Identity is context-dependent: comparative and ideological context matters and Selçuk may refer to different aspects of his self-identity in each context. Verkuyten then goes on to discuss these options, without excluding any of them. Indeed, as (3) suggests, the contexts were different. The first quotation was from a formal classroom setting, discussing cultural diversity. The second quotation was from a situation in a canteen, where the boy discussed his future in the Netherlands with his Turkish friends. The first is an intergroup setting (we‒them), the second an intragroup setting (I‒you); thus, there are two different discourses (feeling, becoming). This example shows that context matters, but it is also important to be clear what is meant by context. The context may mean “the broader sociopolitical and ideological context, public and private settings, situational characteristics such as the ethnic composition of school and neighborhood, and conversational setting.”63 Secondly, early social identity theorists pointed out different aspects of identity: cognitive, evaluative, and affective (2). Thus, identity is like climate: day-today weather varies but the overall climate is quite stable. Individuals have a stable baseline (positive or negative) feeling about their ethnic membership, but other aspects may vary.64 Thus Selçuk may value his Turkishness positively, but his ethnicity does not translate directly into what may be considered as ethnic practices and behavior. Finally, social psychologists who stress context-dependency may not be interested in the formative aspects of identity. This, however, has been much studied by developmental psychologists (option 1 above), who distinguish between different identity statuses: identity diffusion, with no identity exploration and no commitment; foreclosure, with commitment without exploration; moratorium, with exploration and no commitment; achieved identity, with commitment after exploration. Age matters, and perhaps Selçuk is still searching for his ethnic identity and, typically for adolescents, is exploring his alternatives. None of these interpretations is necessarily false. This example should remind those who study texts to take each verbalization and inconsistency as an opportunity to explore similar options: the author(s) may be insecure or uncertain about identity, identity expressions may refer to different things, or the context influences the presentation.65 Layered identities in the Scrolls are perhaps most readily seen in the distinctions between priests, Levites, the people, and strangers; these form hierarchical

63 Verkuyten, Psychology, 265. 64 Verkuyten, Psychology, 249. 65 Kugler, “Ethnicity,” 83, acknowledges diversity in self-understandings.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 225

groupings in the Scrolls movement according to the Damascus Document: “All shall be mustered by their names: the priests first, the Levites second, the children of Israel third, the ger fourth” (CD 14:3‒4). A similar listing in 1QS lacks a reference to the ger. Thus, the question of the status of the ger, the stranger, has puzzled scholars, as it is in some places omitted or excluded. I have argued that this may have to do with the context or genre.66 Many more questions could be raised in the identification of where multiple identities existed, often at the various levels of hierarchy or saliency in different contexts.

7 Conclusions Ethnicity is one form of social category, and thus may be studied using social categorization and social identity theories. Ethnic identity naturally overlaps with other social identities, and the strength of a person’s identification and salience of ethnic category varies in different situations and life stages, depending on the comparative context and accessibility of existing categories in a given culture and location. While textual evidence never conveys all this situational and comparative data, we can use social-psychological theorizing to remind us of this dynamism. What then makes a people in the Dead Sea Scrolls? One emic answer could be membership in the (new) covenant and observance of the Torah according to the revelation and counsel received in the covenant. But this answer functions at a discursive level where the Scrolls’ authors debate and verbalize their identities among themselves and negotiate this identity in a Hasmonean setting, and it neither tells us how individual members perceived themselves nor how outsiders perceived them. The integrative model suggested here pays attention to the interaction of what is learned and reproduced and what is individually negotiated and reacted upon. Only a very small part of these interactions is visible in the textual form of the Scrolls. Although the Scrolls provide us with some emic terminology (of ethnic categories), they do not offer non-mediated access to individuals’ self-perceptions of these categories, nor do they reveal outsiders’ acceptance or rejection of these categories and their contents. If we think of ethnic categories as perspectives on the world, rather than bounded groups, we must be open to various configurations of Israel and accept

66 Jokiranta, “Conceptualizing.” In the Damascus Document, the stranger belongs to the groups to be cared for (CD 6:21‒7:1; 4Q266 [4QDa] 10i 7–9). But when the context is the future of the Temple and whether foreigners and strangers gain the upper hand over it, the answer is different. On the Temple Scroll’s omission of the ger, see Van Maaren, Boundaries, 80‒82.

226 

 Jutta M. Jokiranta

that boundary-making processes took several forms in various events. Labeling, using symbolic language, and ideological distinctions, are all aspects of boundary making, but restrictions in social interaction and exclusive ritual practices also need to be considered. The Scrolls movement claims itself to be true Israel, but this does not mean it acts as if it were an ethnic category, a collective among other peoples in the world. Social psychological research, on the other hand, helps us to situate our evidence among the interaction.

Bibliography Barth, Fredrik, ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget; London: Allen & Unwin, 1969. Bergsma, John S. “Qumran Self-Identity: ‘Israel’ or ‘Judah’?” DSD 15 (2008): 172‒89. Brubaker, Rogers. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Brubaker, Rogers. Grounds for Difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. Brubaker, Rogers, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stamatov. “Ethnicity as Cognition.” Theory and Society 33 (2004): 31‒64. Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. London: Pine, 1998. Derks, Ton, and Nico Roymans, eds. Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008. Eckhardt, Benedikt. Ethnos und Herrschaft: Politische Figurationen Judäischer Identität von Antiochos III bis Herodes I. SJ 72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Eriksen, Thomas H., and Marek Jakoubek, eds. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries Today: A Legacy of Fifty Years. London: Routledge, 2018. Esler, Philip F. “Religion, Race, Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities.” ExpTim 133.7 (2022): 284‒89. Fredriksen, Paula. “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology.” JBL 137.1 (2018): 193‒212. Harland, Philip A. “Climbing the Ethnic Ladder: Ethnic Hierarchies and Judean Responses.” JBL 138.3 (2019): 665‒86. Hempel, Charlotte. The Community Rules from Qumran. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Horrell, David G. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020. Hummell, Eloise. “Standing the Test of Time – Barth and Ethnicity.” Coolabah 13 (2014): 46‒60. Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith. Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Johnson, Michael B. “One Work or Three? A Proposal for Reading 1QS-1QSa-1QSb as a Composite Work.” DSD 25.2 (2018): 141‒77. Jokiranta, Jutta M. “Competitors to Middle Maccabees: Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 363‒78 in The Middle Maccabees: Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and Paul J. Kosmin. Archaeology and Biblical Studies Series 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2021.

What Makes a People in the Dead Sea Scrolls? 

 227

Jokiranta, Jutta M. “Conceptualizing the Ger in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 659‒77 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, et al. CBET 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Jokiranta, Jutta M. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. STDJ 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Jokiranta, Jutta M. “Divine Ritual Names in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In What’s in a Divine Name? Religious Systems and Human Agency in the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Corinne Bonnet et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming. Kugler, Robert. “Ethnicity: A Fresh Religious Context of the Scrolls.” Pages 77‒85 in T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Mason, Steve, and Philip F. Esler. “Judaean and Christ-Follower Identities: Grounds for a Distinction.” New Testament Studies 63.4 (2017): 493‒515. Meyer, Anthony R. Naming God in Early Judaism: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Studies in Cultural Contexts of the Bible 2. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Moore, Stewart A. Jewish Ethnic Identity and Relations in Hellenistic Egypt: With Walls of Iron? Leiden: Brill, 2015. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Palmer, Carmen. Converts in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Gēr and Mutable Ethnicity. STDJ 126. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Porzig, Peter. “The Place of the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’ (1QS 3:13‒4:26) within the Literary Development of the Community Rule.” Pages 127‒52 in Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Leuven 2016. Edited by Jutta M. Jokiranta and Molly Zahn. STDJ 128. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Regev, Eyal. “Purity, Pottery, and Judaean Ethnicity in the Hasmonean Period.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 12.3 (2022): 391‒432. Staples, Jason A. The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Tov, Emanuel, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library: Texts and Images. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Van Maaren, John. The Boundaries of Jewishness in the Southern Levant 200 BCE–132 CE: Power, Strategies, and Ethnic Configurations. SJ 118. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022. Verkuyten, Maykel. The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2018. Wimmer, Andreas. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Problem of the Hyphen and Jewish/Judean Ethnic Identity: The Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint, and Cultural Interactions.” Pages 115‒36 in Strength to Strength: Essays in Honor of Shaye J. D. Cohen. Edited by Michael L. Satlow. BJS 363. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018. Young, Stephen L. “‘Let’s Take the Text Seriously’: The Protectionist Doxa of Mainstream New Testament Studies.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 32 (2020): 328‒63.

Maren R. Niehoff

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus Abstract: This article unveils the presence of Rome in Philo’s and Josephus’s construction of Jewish identity as “barbarian” and shows how they locate the Jewish people on the Roman side of a cultural divide between Rome and Greece. Special attention is paid to the comparisons drawn by the two Jewish authors between the Jews and the Indians, two nations devoted, in their view, to practical ethics, endurance and free speech. Keywords: Rome, Philo, Josephus, barbarian identity, Indians, Greek culture Since the pioneering works of Frederik Barth and Benedict Anderson, scholars have been keenly aware of the constructed nature of ethnicity, which usually revolves around the choice of another nation as a complete Other.1 In the case of Judaism, Shaye Cohen has moreover pointed to the dynamics of even constructing descent and moving, under Roman influence, from patrilineality to matrilineality.2 This article contributes to the discussion by investigating the remarkable cases of two Jewish authors writing in Greek in the capital of the Roman Empire and proudly configuring the Jewish people as belonging to the realm of barbarian culture. Rather than rejecting such a label as degrading, Philo and Josephus embrace it in order to position themselves in contemporary Roman discourses and to situate the Jews in the deep cultural divide between Rome and Greece. Initially, however, a few words of introduction. Following the pogrom in his hometown in the summer of 38 CE, Philo of Alexandria became active in Rome as an advocate of the Jewish people and as a prolific author. While serving for several years as the head of the Jewish embassy to Gaius Caligula, and then to his successor Claudius, he conceived and composed his major series of writings in Rome, namely, 1 Barth, “Introduction”; Anderson, Communities. 2 Cohen, Beginnings. Note: Thanks to D. Candido, R. Egger-Wenzel, and S. C. Reif for organizing a stimulating conference and the audience for a productive discussion. Thanks also to the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no. 1346/21) for its generous support of the research on which this article is based and also to SCHOLION, the interdisciplinary research institute at the Hebrew University for providing excellent conditions for our research group. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-014

230 

 Maren R. Niehoff

the philosophical treatises, the exposition of the law, and the historical works.3 These no longer addressed the Jewish community in Alexandria via minute biblical commentaries, but aimed, in more general literary genres, at broader Roman audiences with little background in Judaism. In his Roman writings, Philo addressed Roman readers on their own turf, appealing to ideas with which they would be familiar and that they would find agreeable. A generation later, Josephus, who was raised as a priest in Jerusalem, settled, after the failure of the Jewish Revolt, in Rome, where he wrote his voluminous works in Greek.4 As a close friend of the emperor Vespasian, whose rise to power he had prophesied, Josephus enjoyed a special standing in Rome and received some of his historical materials through his personal networks. Both he and Philo seem to have participated in the debates of literary circles, or “salons,” in Rome, and refer to figures who were interested in their work and may have encouraged its discussion in wider circles.5 I propose to study Philo’s and Josephus’s construction of a barbarian Jewish identity in this context of Roman culture. While the physical infrastructures of the Roman Empire, such as bridges, roads and Latin inscriptions, have been amply documented as evidence of Rome’s ubiquitous presence in antiquity,6 its greatest impact actually lies in areas veiled to the point of obscurity, which have therefore escaped the focused attention of modern scholars. This limited transparency of Rome is particularly glaring in the realms of Greek and Hebrew/ Aramaic culture, which proudly looked back on rich indigenous traditions and, in both cases, actively disavowed the effectiveness of Roman influence. The Greek language is famous for its resistance to foreign loanwords and admitted only few Latinisms.7 Greek speakers in the Roman Empire provided hardly any linguistic clues to the fact that they were writing under Roman rule and have led generations of scholars to believe that they maintained a separate and politically uncontaminated realm of Greek culture.8

3 For details, see Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria. 4 For details, see Mason, Life of Josephus. 5 Philo dedicates the Probus to Theodotus, about whom he unfortunately says nothing (Prob. 1; discussed by Niehoff, “Engaging”). Josephus dedicates his Antiquities and Contra Apion to Epaphroditus, who urged him to write, and praises his erudition and character (A.J. 1.8; Vita 430; C. Ap. 1.1; 2.1). Mason, “Josephus” and “Flavius Josephus” has argued for Roman “salons,” which Josephus frequented to develop his writing. Whether such circles were associated with the public libraries in Rome, the first of which was founded by Asinius Pollio, a known friend of Herod and pro-Jewish intellectuals (Bosworth, “Asinius Pollio”; Feldman, “Asinius Pollio”; Zecchini, “Asinio Pollione”; Morgan, “Autopsy”; Dalzell, “Asinius Pollio”), remains to be investigated, given the rather limited access that seems often to have prevailed (Dix, “Ovid”; idem, “Public Libraries”; Johnson, “Libraries”). 6 Adkins and Adkins, Handbook. 7 Dickey, “Latin Influence”; eadem, “Latin Loanwords.” 8 Swain, Hellenism.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 231

Even late antique Hebrew, which is saturated with Greek loanwords, features few Latin expressions, encouraging scholars to assume that the rabbis were ignorant of the Latin language and Roman culture.9 Such impressions are supported by the known imbalance in cultural norms of self-positioning. While Latin authors pervasively quoted Greek texts and consciously shaped their own culture in the image of the Classical Greek heritage, Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic speakers hardly ever quoted Latin texts. Plutarch’s explicit citations of Cicero and Horace are exceptions that prove the rule.10 We thus face a paradoxical and indeed anomalous situation: the conquering power constituted itself culturally as a student of one of its subdued provinces and even adopted its language, while the intellectual elites of the conquered nations posed as if unaffected by empire. There are, however, significant indications that the image of an unbridgeable dichotomy between Rome and the provinces is a scholarly construct, and one that is maintained with considerable effort and at a serious intellectual price. Most conspicuously, one may detect a tendency to overlook or even erase references to Roman rule in Greek and Hebrew/ Aramaic literature. For example, Paul’s praise of the contemporary ruler, namely the Roman emperor Nero, as a divine instrument of justice has been emended as an embarrassment to Christian theology, seeing that it seemingly provides “support for tyrants” and facilitates apartheid.11 Even those who accept the transmitted text of the Letter to the Romans tend to reject the literal meaning of the controversial passage.12 Paul’s praise of Nero has thus become veiled into obscurity for most modern readers. The same scholarly tendency becomes apparent in Plutarch’s dedication of his Sayings of Kings and Commanders to Trajan, the contemporary Roman emperor, who was also his personal patron. As Beck has shown, all arguments for its deletion derive from ideological rather than philological considerations.13 Ties to Rome are also occluded in the scholarship on Hebrew/ Aramaic literature. While the opposition to the Roman conquest in Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran has received ample attention, from the critical edition by Bilha Nitzan to Noam Mizrahi’s recent commentary, the rabbis’ positive references to Diocletian have been treated only by Arthur Marmorstein in an article from 1934 and recently by Aitor Blanco-Pérez in a brief mention.14

9 Shoval-Dudai, “Loanwords”; eadem, “Integration”; Price, “Jews.” 10 Feeney, Beyond Greek; Bishop, Cicero; Goldhill, “Literature”; Stadter, 130‒48. 11 Rom 13:1‒7; O’Neill, Paul’s Letter, 209; Munro, “Romans 13.1‒7”; different views in Jewett, Romans, 783‒84; Wolter, Brief, 2.309‒11. 12 Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 98. 13 Beck, “Plutarch.” 14 Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk; Mizrahi, Pesher Habakuk; Marmorstein, “Dioclétien”; Blanco-Pérez, “Appealing.”

232 

 Maren R. Niehoff

This article takes Philo’s and Josephus’s writings, which were written in Rome, as test-cases to investigate the veiled presence of Rome in the philosophical and literary discourses of Hellenistic Judaism. What is at stake is not simply the historical truth of intense cultural activity and contacts, but also, more pressingly, the strategies of cultural interaction between imperialist forces and a minority group—a rich picture of how intellectual discourses are constructed through a series of contested, hidden, and disavowed interactions with the dominant force of empire. Put differently, Philo’s and Josephus’s interpretation of the Jewish people as a barbarian nation cannot be understood without seriously accounting for their underlying Roman notions and, indeed, Roman constructions of barbarian culture. Inversely, the latter are illuminated by Philo’s and Josephus’s entanglement with them.

1 Philo’s construction of a barbarian Jewish identity in Rome To be sure, Philo was also familiar with the negative connotation of the adjective “barbarian,” which was from classical antiquity onwards often attached to it.15 The Alexandrian scholar and geographer Eratosthenes (ca. 275‒194 BCE) reacted to such stereotypes by insisting on an exclusive division of humanity into ethically good and bad people (Strabo, Geogr. 1.4.9). Philo himself sometimes used the negative image of “barbarikos,” especially in his later Roman writings, to characterize unworthy nations and negative patterns of behavior, such as child sacrifice or prostration before the emperor.16 In the Roman Empire, however, the category of the barbarian saw an unprecedented reevaluation and assumed new connotations deriving from the anomalous

15 See esp. Her. 1.58; Aeschylus, Pers. 255; see also Hartog, Mirror; Hall, Inventing; Isaac, Invention; Papadodima, Ancient Greek Literature; Vlassopoulos, Greeks, 27, who speaks about the “extremely diverse and complex barbarian repertoire” of the Greeks. The meaning of “barbarian” ranges from a neutral referent to a non-Greek language to ethnic Other with strong moral implications (e.g., Καρῶν βαρβαροφώνων in Homer, Il. 2.867; Aeschylus, Ag. 1051; Plato, Prot. 341c; Sophocles, Aj. 1263). Aristotle, for example, is said to have expressed the cultural meaning of the term by describing a Jew he met as “Greek (Ἑλληνικός) not only in his language, but also in his soul” (Josephus, C. Ap. 1.179). 16 Spec. 3.17; Abr. 181; Legat. 8, 116, 147, 215; in the Allegorical Commentary from his earlier Alexandrian period, on the other hand, Philo uses the adjective “barbaros” mostly in the neutral sense, often referring to languages other than Greek, see e.g., Cher. 91; Plant. 67; Conf. 6, 190; Ebr. 193; Leg. 3.188. A similar development is visible in Paul’s Letters. In 1 Cor 14:9‒11 the adjective refers to nonGreek speech, while it is an ethnic marker in Rom 1:13‒15, placing the barbarians in opposition to the Greeks and parallel to the “other nations,” which are distinct from the Romans themselves.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 233

circumstance that Rome itself had originated, at least from a Greek perspective, in the barbarian realm.17 It is thus perhaps not surprising that the national Roman poet Virgil and the Roman emperor Augustus reevaluated the barbarian side of the Trojan War, which in the Greek imaginaire had created rather firm boundaries between Us and the Other. While the Greeks were downplayed in Rome, the Trojans increasingly advanced to the rank of ancestors and were honored as the actual victors by the construction of massive buildings on the site of the archaic battle.18 Similarly, Valerius Maximus, who wrote his highly influential Memorable Deeds and Sayings under Tiberius, listed exemplary cases of virtue performed in dangerous situations among Romans, Greeks and barbarians.19 He argued for shared virtues, but at the same time implied an inversed hierarchy, with the Romans in the leading role. Valerius appreciated the barbarian nations more than the Greeks, since they had in his view a natural impulse for virtue, while the former pioneers of culture and civilization had become decadent due to their exaggerated theoretical orientation.20 Valerius also stressed the training of leading Greek philosophers in the East. Pythagoras and Plato, in particular, studied in Egypt and Persia (Mem. 8.7. ext. 2‒3), so that the Greeks’ claim to their fame was at best a one-sided gesture. In this context of distinctly Roman discourses, Philo began to imagine the Jews on the barbarian rather than on the Greek side. He not only underscored that their philosophers avoid the kind of loquaciousness associated in Rome with the Greeks, but also conceived of them as a typically Eastern or barbarian culture bent on virtuous deeds rather than on theory.21 In the Probus, a philosophical treatise devoted to the proper notion of freedom, and probably written as his first extant work in Rome, Philo offers a rather thorough treatment of this theme.22 He significantly considers it in terms of a triangle constituted by Jews, Greeks and barbarian cultures. Unmentioned are the Romans, who provided the very parameters of this triangle. The background to these debates is a lively contest about the identity and value of the Jewish nation. Philo mentions detractors, “who have barely consorted with the Muses [and] . . . are in the habit of asking: have then some people of the kind you invent lived before or do they exist now?” (Prob. 62). These adversaries doubt 17 See also Dauge, Barbare, 119‒31. 18 For details, see Finkelberg, “Reception.” 19 For details, see Murray and Wardle, Reading. 20 See also Dauge, Barbare, 183‒86. 21 According to Philo, the concise speech of the Jews is especially visible in the Bible interpretation of the Essenes and the Therapeutae (Prob. 88; Contempl. 31; cf. Plutarch, Cato Maj. 12.5; Seneca, Ep. 52.14; see also Niehoff, “Symposium”). 22 While the full details will be given in my commentary on the Probus, commissioned by the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series at Brill, see in the meantime preliminary results in Niehoff, “Engaging.”

234 

 Maren R. Niehoff

that truly righteous persons really exist and, even more so, that they may exist in larger groups, such as that of the Jews. They reject his examples of extraordinary men, relegating them to the realm of myth. Philo, however, insists that such men have existed in the past and do so now in the present. His Lives of the Biblical patriarchs are meant, among other things, to show how they followed natural law even before the law was revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. In the sequel of the treatise, he introduces the Essenes as a group of exemplary Jewish philosophers, who implement the highest values by a quiet life devoted to worship and peaceful activities. The above-mentioned question of Philo’s opponents echoes Stoic skepticism regarding the possibility of perfect virtue in men. The Roman philosopher Seneca, Philo’s younger contemporary, distinguishes his own school, namely Stoicism, on the grounds that it identifies individual wise men. “For we Stoics,” Seneca explains, “have declared that these were wise men (“sapientes”), because they were unconquered by struggles, despised pleasures and were victorious over all terrors” (Const. 2.1). Seneca further stresses that the truly wise man considers only virtue, which is up to him, as his possession. Everything else belongs to fickle fortune but does not impact morality. Virtue is praised as “free, inviolable, unmoved and unshaken,” providing the wise with perfect firmness (Const. 5.4). Since moral perfection depends entirely on the individual’s rational choice and personal endurance, it is exceedingly rare, but can be found in Marcus Cato, for example. The Stoic emphasis on the exceptional nature of virtue, attained by individual choice, practically rules out the possibility of whole groups becoming virtuous. The Stoics indeed claimed that all virtues are intrinsically connected so that nobody is righteous “unless he possesses all the virtues.” Vice versa, those who make only some progress still belong to the category of the totally wicked.23 Such philosophical debates in Rome had additional significance in the context of the political rivalry between the Jewish and the Egyptian embassies to Gaius Caligula. Chaeremon, most likely one of the Egyptian ambassadors, was known as a Stoic philosopher and an outspoken critic of the Jews.24 A passage of his History of Egypt disparages the Jews as denigrated Egyptians, banished from the temples because of diseases (C. Ap. 2.280‒292). Could he also have raised the kind of question treated in the Probus, arguing that the Jews lack wise men, just as Apion, the

23 See also Plutarch, Mor. 1046e-f, 1063a-b, who criticizes the Stoic position as leading to gross generalizations. He insists that the wise can sometimes fall short, while inferior men may sometimes be virtuous. Diogenes Laertius similarly remarks that the Stoic doctrine does not acknowledge anything between perfect virtue and complete vice (Lives 7.127). Alexander of Aphrodisias, a Peripatetic philosopher of the third century CE, still complains that the Stoics regard the vast majority of people as utterly bad, identifying “just one or two good men, as their fables maintain” (Fat. 199.14‒22 in Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers, 1.381); see also Forschner, Philosophie, 197‒224. 24 For an interpretation of all the fragments, see van der Horst, Chaeremon.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 235

head of the Egyptian embassy, claimed that they had not produced any “inventors in arts and crafts or eminent sages”? (C. Ap. 2.135). Philo answers such criticism, among others, by a detailed description of the Essenes in Prob. 75‒91, where again some detractors are mentioned, who “do not consider the virtues, which are exhibited among multitudes, as perfect, but rather as something coming to a halt before full development and growth” (Prob. 92). The late Philo, writing in Rome as an ambassador after the pogrom in Alexandria, advocates on behalf of the Jews and responds to criticism from outside. Endeavoring to convince a Roman audience, he addresses potential reservations. In addition, Philo offers a positive interpretation of the Jews in the context of barbarian cultures. The kind of connection he draws between Greeks, barbarians and Jews emerges in the following passage: (§72) Therefore land and sea are full of rich and famous and indulgent people, while the number of prudent and righteous and good people is small. But this small number, even if rare, is not devoid of reality. (§73) Witness to this are Greece and the barbarian realm (μάρτυς δὲ ἡ Ἑλλὰς καὶ ἡ βάρβαρος). For in the former flourished the rightly so-called Seven Wise, while others likely became prominent before and after them. The memory of even more ancient personalities, however, vanished in the course of time, while that of more recent ones is obscured by the widespread disdain of their contemporaries. (§74) In the barbarian realm, where there are advocates of doctrines and deeds, we find the most numerous associations of good and excellent men.25 In Persia there is the association of the Magi, who silently scrutinize the works of Nature to gain knowledge of the truth. They are initiated into divine virtues by especially clear images, and also teach them. In India there is the association of the gymnosophists, who cultivate ethical philosophy in addition to natural philosophy and turn their whole life into a demonstration of virtue. (§75) Nor is Palestinian Syria, which is inhabited to no small degree by the most populous nation of the Jews, unproductive of moral excellence.26 Among them are said to be some, who are called Essenes, more than four thousand in total. In my view, even though not by the precise letter of the Greek language, their name is derived from the word “holiness,” as they are especially devout servants of God. They do not sacrifice animals but prefer to sanctify their own minds. (Prob. 72‒75, ed. Cohn-Wendland, my own translation)

This remarkable passage starts with a reference to the quintessential dichotomy between Greeks and barbarians, as if Philo is purely oriented towards Classical Athens and participated in inner Greek debates. However, a close reading of the whole passage reveals a deeply entangled identity and a significant presence of Roman perspectives. The first sign of something more hybrid and complex than a purely Greek tradition is visible in Philo’s review of Greek achievements. It is

25 ἐν ᾗ πρεσβευταὶ λόγων καὶ ἔργων, πολυανθρωπότατα στίφη καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν ἀνδρῶν. 26 Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ Παλαιστίνη Συρία καλοκἀγαθίας οὐκ ἄγονος, ἣν πολυανθρωποτάτου ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὐκ ὀλίγη μοῖρα νέμεται.

236 

 Maren R. Niehoff

striking that none of the famous philosophers is mentioned, who would have filled any Classical author with exuberant pride. Instead of Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno, we hear only of the mythological Seven Wise, to whom Plutarch subsequently devoted a treatise and who feature in Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers as early representatives of Greek philosophy.27 Philo’s choice deserves special attention, as the Seven Wise are not mentioned in the Allegorical Commentary from his earlier Alexandrian period. What is more, they are given only limited credit here, as there were others, who “likely became prominent before and after them.” In any case, the Greeks quickly forgot about them and thus relegated their own culture to a passing role in human history. Philo’s choice of the Seven Wise in the Probus becomes understandable within a Roman context. Cicero mentions the Seven Wise as famous figures, without specifying their names, and credits them with the beginning of philosophy in Greece, thus anticipating Diogenes Laertius, who mentions them immediately after Pythagoras.28 Valerius Maximus also sees the Seven Wise as the first Greek philosophers, even before Pythagoras, and praises their moderation.29 Thales, Bias and Pittacus handed over a treasure, which had come their way, rather than using it for themselves. Solon receives special attention in the Memorable Sayings as the wise legislator of the Athenians, who was not sufficiently appreciated by his contemporaries.30 We see here a fascinating case of Philo as a Greek-speaking author reappropriating a Greek tradition in a distinctly Roman mode and for Roman purposes. His reference to the Seven Wise is no pure Greek tradition, as it were, but an entangled one, which is deeply embedded in Roman discourses and geared to appeal to Roman readers. The brevity of the philosophical style of the Seven Wise, since Plato associated with Sparta and “short sayings,”31 also suited Roman tastes. The criticism that the Greeks did not properly honor them and failed to preserve their memory directly resonates with Roman stereotypes about the innovative and superficial nature of the Greeks, who remember little and pay no serious attention to essen-

27 Plutarch, Mor. 138a–146a; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.22‒93. The names of the Seven Wise are not specified here and are debated in the first century CE (Plutarch, Sol. 4). While Plato provides the first list, only Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of Mytilene, Bias of Priene and Solon become canonical (Prot. 343a). Cleobulus, Chilon and Myson become either marginal, or altogether drop out. Philo mentions the Athenian lawgiver Solon in Prob. 47 and elsewhere in his Roman writings, while Bias of Priene is briefly referred to (Prob. 153). 28 Cicero, Tusc. 5.7; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.13. 29 Mem. 8.7. ext. 2; 4.1. ext. 8. 30 Mem. 4.1. ext. 7; 5.3. ext. 3b. 31 ῥήματα βραχέα, Plato, Prot. 343a.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 237

tials.32 Philo’s choice to start situating the Jews in relation to the passing role played by the Greeks could thus not be more Roman. A similar complexity of entanglements emerges in Philo’s portrait of the barbarian philosophers. Initially, we note that he does not speak of “schools of philosophy” or haireseis, but of “numerous associations of good and excellent men.”33 The Greek term for association, στῖφος, even refers to a squadron. No theory developed by individual thinkers is foregrounded, but large groups associated through a shared commitment to good action. According to Philo, the barbarians boast of “advocates of words and deeds” (πρεσβευταὶ λόγων καὶ ἔργων). Persians study Nature silently, thus avoiding Greek ideals of eloquence, and apply their insights to society by teaching others.34 The Indians devote themselves to ethics, like the Essenes shunning the more theoretical departments (Prob. 80), and turn their whole life “into a demonstration of virtue.” In Prob. 92‒95, after inserting a report about the Essenes, Philo completes his picture of the Indian gymnosophists by telling the story of Calanus confronting Alexander. He praises the Indian as a truly free person, “most enduring of all his contemporaries and . . . admired not only by his fellow-countrymen but also by foreigners.” He, too combined honest words with excellent deeds. When Alexander the Great wished to take him to Greece to parade the “wisdom available in the barbarian realm, as an image and copy of the archetypal picture,” Calanus refused and answered him “boldly and nobly.” In a letter he sent to Alexander, he also mentions the Indian custom of self-immolation as an indication that he knows no fear of death and is determined even to give up his life to avoid mental enslavement. The barbarian philosopher emerges as a paradigm of virtue and courageous action, while Greek culture is represented by an ostentatious, shallow ruler. While partially rooted in long philosophical traditions, these images of the barbarians resonate remarkably well with contemporary Roman discourses. The Persian magi were already mentioned in Aristotle’s lost dialogue On Philosophy as more ancient than the Egyptians and as holding two principles, namely the good spirit, called Zeus or Oromasdes, and the evil spirit, called Hades or Arimanius (Lives  1.8). Diogenes lists three authors who confirmed Aristotle’s report (ibid.). Aeschylus moreover imagined the magi as the ultimate Other, while Herodotus

32 For details, see Petrocheilos, Roman Attitudes; Isaac, Invention, 257‒303. 33 πολυανθρωπότατα στίφη καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν. 34 Elsewhere Philo associates the Magi with Biblical sorcerers (Mos. 1.92; 1.276, Spec. 3.93; see also LXX Dan 2:2) or speaks of Persia as an enemy of Greece or as a perversion of civilized standards (§132, Somn. 2.117; Spec. 3.13‒17; see also van Nuffelen, Rethinking, 205‒12). In Spec. 3.100 he distinguishes common magic, practiced by base people, from true magic interpreted as “a scientific vision by which the facts of nature are presented in a clearer light.” Given the prevalence of the counterfeit version, however, Philo supports the Biblical prohibition against sorcery.

238 

 Maren R. Niehoff

and Strabo focused on their sacrificial tasks.35 Philo departs from these precedents and lacks interest in any such detail. He instead parallels Valerius Maximus’s more general, but favorable, description of the magi as teachers of “the notions of the stars, the courses of the planets” (Mem. 8.7. ext. 2). Plutarch—another Greek author writing in Rome, as Philip Stadter has stressed—praises Zoroaster as a “magos” and distinguishes his elevated ideas from myth.36 Philo’s reference to the Persians is thus not straightforward but shows signs of being inclined towards a Roman fashion, likely to meet the interest of his Roman readers. The Indian gymnosophists play a similarly complex role. Appearing only in Philo’s later Roman writings, even if Alexandria was the “port for India” and entertained intensive business relations there, his Indians conform to the reports which became popular in Rome through Strabo’s Geography.37 Most influential proved Onesicritus’s Cynic interpretation of the Indian gymnosophists, with its emphasis on non-conventional behavior and extreme endurance, which was admired in Rome.38 Strabo draws attention to it by placing a reference to Calanus’s heroic self-immolation at the beginning of his Indian account (Geogr. 15.1.4‒6). While Arrian, a second century CE historian from Bithynia, hardly mentions Onesicritus and instead prefers his later critic Nearchus,39 three Roman authors rely on him: Pliny the Elder, who quotes Juba’s lost summary as his source (Nat. 6.96), Rufus Quintus Curtius, Historiae Alexandri Magni 10.10‒11, and Claudius Aelian, an often-overlooked Roman historian, who writes in Greek around the turn from the second to the third century CE.40 Moreover, Cicero and Valerius Maximus follow Onesicritus in their praise of the Indian gymnosophists’ custom of burning themselves alive and recommend their endurance to Roman readers.41 Cicero’s words deserve our attention: What barbarian country is ruder and wilder than India?42 Yet among its people, those, to begin with, who are considered sages pass their lives naked and endure without pain the snows of the Hindu Kush and the rigor of winter, and when they throw themselves voluntarily into the flames, they let themselves be burnt without a moan . . . but, as for us, we have

35 For details, see Hall, Inventing, 56‒100; Isaac, Invention, 274‒6; De Jong, Traditions, 1997. 36 Plutarch, Mor. 369e–370c; see also Stadter, Plutarch. 37 Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.64‒65; on Alexandria as a port for India, see Josephus, B.J. 2.385; for details on the historians of Alexander, on whom Strabo relies, see Stoneman, “Legacy”; idem, Alexander the Great; Bosworth, “Indian Campaigns.” 38 On Onesicritus’s Cynic background, see Muckensturm, “Les gymnosophistes.” 39 Arrian, Anab. 6.2.3; 7.20.9. 40 Aelian, Var. hist. 16.39; 17.6. 41 Cicero, Tusc. 5.77‒78; Div. 1.47; Valerius, Mem. 3.3. ext. 3; 2.6.14. 42 “Quae barbaria India vastior aut agrestior.”

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 239

corrupted our souls with bowered seclusion, luxury, ease, indolence and sloth, we have enervated and weakened them by false beliefs and evil habits.43

We see that in the case of the Indians, too, Philo could expect a lively interest on the part of his Roman readers. Potentially familiar with Cicero’s and Valerius’s admiration for the gymnosophists, they would have recognized his switch from the superficial Greeks to the profoundly philosophical Persians and Indians. Missing in Philo, however, is a dismissive remark about the generally primitive culture of the Indians, which renders their endurance even more astonishing. This motif is missing for good reasons, since Philo takes the additional step of integrating the Jews into the Roman map of cultures. Immediately after introducing the Persians and the Indians, and before describing Calanus’s encounter with Alexander, he provides a lengthy report of the Essenes. He opens his description of the Jewish philosophers in a conspicuously ethnographic mode: “Nor is Palestinian Syria, which is inhabited by no small part of the most populous nation of the Jews, unproductive of moral excellence” (καλοκἀγαθίας οὐκ ἄγονος).” Even the nomenclature “Palestinian Syria” is Roman and reflects the official name of the province in the empire. Further aspects of Philo’s entangled identity are visible in the distinctly “barbarian” features of his Essenes: they are “athletes of virtue,” distinguish themselves by “laudable actions” and avoid the “fastidiousness of Greek words” (Prob. 88). Like the Persian and Indian philosophers, they “left the logical part of philosophy to word hunters, as it is not necessary for the acquisition of virtue, and the physical part to cloud dwellers, as it is beyond human nature; they engage only in that part of philosophy which concerns the existence of God and the creation of the cosmos. They elaborate especially on the ethical aspect, using as their trainers the ancestral laws, which human nature could not have devised without divine inspiration” (Prob. 80). Like the Indians, they are ascetic and voluntarily live in greatest simplicity (Prob. 76‒77, 85‒87). Like Calanus, they cherish a truly free mind, reject slavery, and regard all human beings as equal (Prob. 79). Philo’s exuberant picture of the Essenes as representatives of the Jewish people can thus be unveiled and appreciated as a complex story of cultural and political entanglement. The alignment of Persians, Indians, and Jews over against the forgetful Greeks has nothing innocent or natural about it. It is a sophisticated construct that speaks to the needs of Philo’s mission in Rome. It creates a discursive space for the Jews in the capital of the empire, suggesting that they should be admired as much as the Indians were by Cicero, even if their original culture may appear to some similarly primitive and wild.

43 Cicero, Tusc. 5.77‒78.

240 

 Maren R. Niehoff

2 Jews as descendants of the Indians in Josephus A generation later, Josephus engages similar Roman discourses and even strengthens the connection between Jews and Indians, firmly inscribing the former on the barbarian side of a broader cultural divide.44 In a striking passage towards the end of the first book of Contra Apion, Josephus quotes from the first, albeit lost book On Sleep written by Clearchus, a student of Aristotle, which he expects his readers to be able to consult. This treatise was apparently available in the Roman libraries, which had massively collected Greek literature since Asinius Pollio set up the first public library under Julius Caesar.45 Josephus moreover says that in Rome he enjoyed schole or leisure to study and engage in contemplation. One of the books he apparently read in Rome contained an argument about a genetic link between Indians and Jews, which allegedly went back to Aristotle himself. Josephus is our only witness for the following story: And that man was a Jew by descent, from Coele-Syria. These people stem from the philosophers in India (οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν ἀπόγονοι τῶν ἐν Ἰνδοῖς φιλοσόφων), who are, as they say, called Calani among the Indians (οἱ φιλόσοφοι παρὰ μὲν Ἰνδοῖς Καλανοί), while among the Syrians the Jews take the name from the region. For the region they inhabit is known as Judaea. (C. Ap. 1.179)

Embracing a similarly ethnographic approach as that of Philo, Josephus explains the region of Jewish settlement and mentions Clearchus’s or allegedly Aristotle’s notion of the Jews’ descent from the Indians.46 His source traces them to the gymnosophists, called Calani, a name undoubtedly connected to the famous Indian gymnosophist, whom Philo already mentioned, as we noted above. Josephus explains why he adduces this passage in his intensely apologetic Contra Apion: it shows not only the great antiquity of the Jewish tradition but also its appreciation by outstanding philosophers, whose views he hoped would be adopted by his less sympathetic contemporaries, such as Apion and Chaeremon. Moreover, Josephus stresses that Aristotle in Clearchus’s report went on to praise the “great and astonishing endurance and temperance” displayed by the Jew in his manner of life. Based on Aristotle’s authority, Josephus draws on strikingly similar elements of national identity to those of Philo. He, too, aligns the Jews with the Indians and associates them on this

44 While the aspect of barbarian culture has not yet been analyzed from a Roman perspective, other Roman features of Josephus’s interpretation of Judaism have already been noted by Haaland, “Jewish Laws”; Barclay, Flavius Josephus, 362‒69. 45 For details, see above n. 5. 46 For an analysis of this fragment, see Bar-Kochva, Image, 40‒89.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 241

account with endurance and self-discipline, two “barbarian” qualities that Roman readers were likely to admire. The Indians already play a significant hermeneutic role in Josephus’s earlier explanation of Jewish martyrdom on Masada. Himself opposed to the Jewish rebellion against Rome, Josephus invokes the Indians as a model for Eleazar ben Yair’s speech to his fellow rebels. Seeing the Roman siege, Eleazar tried to convince his comrades to commit suicide, but failed in his first speech. In his second attempt, which would prove successful, he points to the Indian custom of self-immolation: Being trained at home, we should be an example to others regarding the readiness to die; if we need a proof from alien nations, however (τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων δεόμεθα πίστεως), let us look at the Indians, who profess to practice philosophy. Being good men, they reluctantly endure the period of life, as some necessary service due to nature, but hasten to release their souls from their bodies. And though no calamity impels or expels them, from sheer longing for the immortal state (πόθῳ τῆς ἀθανάτου διαίτης), they announce to their comrades that they are about to depart. Nor is there anybody hindering them, but, on the contrary, all felicitate them, and each gives them letters to their family members; so certain and absolutely sincere is their belief in the communication souls hold with one another. Then, after listening to these behests, they give their bodies over to the fire, so that the soul may part from the body in perfect purity. . . Are we not then ashamed of being more mean-spirited than Indians, and of shamefully breaching by our lack of courage our ancestral laws (τοὺς πατρίους νόμους), which arouse envy among all mankind? (B.J. 7.351‒357).

This passage from Josephus’s first work in Rome does not yet reflect the pseudo-Aristotelian notion of the Jews’ Indian descent, which he probably discovered only at a later stage of his long life in the capital. On the contrary, the “ancestral laws” are distinguished here from those of “alien nations” and Josephus’s Eleazar even adopts an attitude of cultural superiority, chastising his comrades for not even meeting Indian standards. Cicero had similarly used the Indians to stir up his Roman readers to a more austere way of life. At the same time, however, Josephus, who has of course put this speech into Eleazar’s mouth, as has long been recognized, suggests a congeniality of values.47 The rebels should embrace Indian values, precisely because they are, or anyhow should already be, profoundly their own. A chain of paradigms—this is literally the word used by Josephus—is fastened together. The Indian example awakens the rebels to their true self, as much as they then serve as a source of inspiration for the Jewish people at large. Josephus thus explains Eleazar’s ultimate success among the rebels as an expression of a deep cultural similarity between the Jews and the barbarian nation famous for its endurance even until death. 47 On Josephus as author of Eleazar’s speech, see the recent discussion by Rocca, Mai più Masada, 146‒50, and references there.

242 

 Maren R. Niehoff

In comparison with Philo, it is conspicuous that Josephus does not mention Calanus’s confrontation with Alexander, which was too famous to be unknown by him, especially given his familiarity with Strabo.48 Josephus instead accentuates the philosophical dimension, which resonates with Plato’s theory of the soul, as Menahem Luz has shown, and stresses that the expectation of the soul’s separation from the body would motivate the rebels.49 This argumentation is likely to have been appealing to Roman audiences, intrigued by the question why the rebels ultimately followed Eleazar into suicide. The example of the Indians suggests that they were not driven by brute nationalism and hopes of national freedom, but rather by elevated philosophical ideas, which they share with the Indian philosophers. Associating the rebels with the Indians was the best Josephus could do for them in Rome. Given Josephus’s deep entanglements in Roman discourses about barbarian cultures, especially the Indian gymnosophists, it is no longer surprising that he stylized himself as a historian from the barbarian realm, who rejects Greek methods as superficial chatter. At the opening of Contra Apion he programmatically states: While then for eloquence and rhetoric (λόγων μὲν οὖν ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς ἐν τούτοις δεινότητος) we must yield to the Greek historians, we should not turn to them for true historiography of ancient matters and even less for the history of particular indigenous nations. (C. Ap. 1.27)

This judgement, which is followed by an appeal to Biblical and other Near Eastern historiography, has often been interpreted as a quintessentially Jewish reaction against Greek culture and been used to construct an inevitable dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism. Such readings, however, remain oblivious to the veiled presence of Rome. A close contextual reading reveals the distinctly Roman dimension of Josephus’s speech. His criticism of Greek eloquence is not rooted in the Bible but rather in contemporary Roman discourses, which we have already seen in Philo’s texts. Criticizing Greek historiography was thus not geared to isolating the Jewish tradition or highlighting the Jews’ otherness, but on the contrary to showing their congeniality with Roman paradigms and their fulfillment of Roman expectations regarding barbarian nations. Finally, when Josephus turns to defy his adversaries, mostly Greek-speaking Egyptians, he proudly affirms the reliability of barbarian records:

48 See Josephus’s references to Strabo in A.J. 13.286‒287; 15.9‒10; C. Ap. 2.84; for Josephus’s alternative story of Alexander in Jerusalem, see Cohen, “Alexander the Great”; and Niehoff, Judentum. 49 Luz, “Eleazar’s Second Speech.”

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 243

Enough I have done, it seems to me, to show that the traditional documentation of ancient matters is found more among the barbarians than among the Greeks (τοῖς βαρβάροις μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς Ἕλλησι), and now I wish to reply briefly to those who endeavor to prove the recent date of our constitution from the fact that nothing has been said about us, as they claim, by Greek historians. Then I will adduce witnesses of our antiquity from writings by other nations (ἐκ τῶν παρ’ ἄλλοις γραμμάτων παρέξω) and prove that those who have maliciously criticized our nation have used very impious language in their writings. (C. Ap. 1.58‒59)

The barbarian realm has a remarkably positive connotation here and stands for historical reliability and honest, cultural pursuits. The shortcomings of Greek culture, on the other hand, are by implication represented by contemporary adversaries, such as Apion, who was also a Homer scholar.50 Contesting their claims, Josephus carves out both for himself and the Jewish people a discursive space in Rome, which is located on the barbarian side, from where the Romans themselves had emerged and which they regarded with ambivalent admiration.

3 Conclusions The writings of Philo and Josephus demonstrate that the construction of Jewish identity and the cultural positioning of the Jewish people within larger societies was in constant flux in antiquity. No static entities existed, but each writer reconfigured the main themes under given circumstances. Writing in Greek for Roman audiences, Philo and Josephus show a keen awareness of multiple complexities in the capital of the empire and allow us to unveil a presence of Rome that is only barely transparent. At first sight surprisingly, both adopt a barbarian identity, Josephus even transmitting the notion of the Jews’ Indian descent. Positioning the Jews on the barbarian side of a deep divide between Rome and Greece, Philo and Josephus engage imperial discourses and align the Jews with the Romans, who emerged from the same realm to rival the Greek tradition. The very participation of Philo and Josephus in these distinctly Roman discourses about barbarian cultures also sheds new light on the latter and shows their appeal in the first century CE among Greek-speaking immigrants.

50 For details, Holder, Bildung, 250‒76.

244 

 Maren R. Niehoff

Bibliography Adkins, Lesley, and Roy Adkins. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Barclay, John M. G. Flavius Josephus. Against Apion. Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature. The Hellenistic Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Barth, Fredrik. “Introduction.” Pages 9‒38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Edited by Frederik Barth. Bergen and London: Universitetsvorlaget, Allen & Unwin, 1969. Beck, Mark. “Plutarch to Trajan. The Dedicatory Letter and the Apophthegmata Collection.” Pages 163‒73 in Sage and Emperor: Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98‒117 A.D.). Edited by Philip Stadter and Luc van der Stockt. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002. Bishop, Caroline. Cicero, Greek Learning, and the Making of a Roman Classic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Blanco-Pérez, Aitor. “Appealing for the Emperor’s Justice.” Pages 159‒74 in Legal Engagements. Edited by Katell Berthelot et al. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 2021. Bosworth, Brian A. “Asinius Pollio and Augustus.” Historia 21 (1972): 451‒52. Bosworth, Brian A. “The Indian Campaigns, 327‒325 BC.” Pages 159‒68 in Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great. Edited by Joseph Roisman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest.” The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies Review 7 (1982): 41‒68. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Dalzell, Alexander C. “Asinius Pollio and the Early History of Public Recitation at Rome.” Hermathena 86 (1955): 20‒28. Dauge, Yves A. Le Barbare: recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilisation. Revue des Etudes Latines 176. Brussels: Latomus, 1981. De Jong, Albert. Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Dickey, Eleanor. “Latin Influence on the Greek of Documentary Papyri: An Analysis of Its Chronological Distribution.” ZPE 145 (2003): 249‒57. Dickey, Eleanor. “Latin Loanwords in Greek: A Preliminary Analysis.” Pages 57‒70 in Variation and Change in Greek and Latin. Edited by Martti Leiwo et al. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 17. Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 2012. Dix, Keith T. “Ovid Strikes Out: Tristia 3.1. and the First Public Libraries at Rome.” The Augustan Age 7 (1988): 27‒35. Dix, Keith T. “Public Libraries in Ancient Rome: Ideology and Reality.” Libraries and Culture 29 (1994): 282‒96. Feeney, Denis. Beyond Greek: The Beginning of Latin Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Feldman, Louis H. “Asinius Pollio and His Jewish Interests.” TAPA 83 (1953): 73‒80. Finkelberg, Margalit. “Roman Reception of the Trojan War.” Pages 87‒99 in Rome: An Empire of Many Nations. New Perspectives on Ethnic Diversity and Cultural Identity. Edited by Jonathan J. Price et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Forschner, Maximilian. Die Philosophie der Stoa. Logik, Physik und Ethik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2018.

Entangled Jewish Identities in Rome. The Case of “Barbarians” in Philo and Josephus  

 245

Goldhill, Simon. “Latin Literature and Greek.” The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature. Edited by Robert Gibson and Christopher Whitton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Haaland, Gunnar. “Jewish Laws for a Roman Audience: Toward an Understanding of Contra Apionem.” Pages 282‒304 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Brussel. Edited by Jürgen U. Kalms and Folker Siegert. Münster: Lit, 1999. Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Hartog, François. The Mirror of Herodotus. The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History. Translated by Janet Lloyd. The New Historicism, Studies in Cultural Poetics 5. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Holder, Stefanie. Bildung im kaiserzeitlichen Alexandria. 1.–3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Historia 253. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2020. Isaac, Benjamin. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Jewett, Robert. Romans. A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. Johnson, William A. “Libraries and Reading Culture in the High Empire.” Pages 347‒63 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by Jason König et al. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2013. Long, Anthony A., and David N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Luz, Menahem. “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 126 (1983): 25‒43. Marmorstein, Arthur. “Dioclétien à la Lumière de la Littérature Rabbinique”. REJ 98 (1934): 19‒34. Mason, Steve. “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading on and between the Lines.” Pages 559‒89 in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Edited by Anthony J. Boyle and William J. Dominik. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mason, Steve. “Josephus as a Roman Historian.” Pages 13‒35 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Mason, Steve. Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary. Vol. 9. Leiden, 2003. Mizrahi, Noam. Pesher Habakuk. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 2022. [Hebrew[ Morgan, Llewlyn. “The Autopsy of C. Asinius Pollio.” JRS 90 (2000): 51‒69. Muckensturm, Claire. “Les gymnosophistes étaient-ils des Cyniques modèles?” Pages 225‒39 in Le Cynisme Ancien et ses Prolongements. Edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé and Richard Goulet. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1993. Munro, Winsome. “Romans 13.1‒7: Apartheid’s Last Biblical Refuge.” BTB 20 (1990): 161‒68. Murray, Jeffrey, and David Wardle. Reading by Example: Valerius Maximus and the Historiography of Exempla. Historiography of Rome and Its Empire 11. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Niehoff, Maren R. “Engaging Philosophical Discourses in First Century CE Rome. The Introduction to Philo’s Treatise Every Good Man Is Free (Probus 1‒15).” In Philo of Alexandria and Philosophical Discourses. Edited by Michael Cover and Lutz Doering. Forthcoming. Niehoff, Maren R. Judentum und Hellenismus. Judaism and Hellenism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo of Alexandria. An Intellectual Biography. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Niehoff, Maren R. “The Symposium of Philo’s Therapeutae: Displaying Jewish Identity in an Increasingly Roman World.” GRBS 50 (2010): 95‒117. Nitzan, Bilha. Pesher Habakkuk. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1986. [Hebrew[

246 

 Maren R. Niehoff

O’Neill, John C. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. The Pelikan New Testament Commentaries. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975. Papadodima, Efi, ed. Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign. Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 130. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022. Petrocheilos, Nikolaos K. Roman Attitudes to the Greeks. Athens: National and Capodistrian University, 1974. Price, Jonathan. “The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire.” Pages 165‒80 in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple Period, the Mishnah and the Talmud. Edited by Menahem Mohr et al. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2003. Rocca, Samuele. Mai Più Masada Cardà. Storia e Mito della Fortezza di Erode. Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2021. Shoval-Dudai, Nurit. “Greek and Latin Loanwords in the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.” Leš 66 (2014): 27‒41. [Hebrew[ Shoval-Dudai, Nurit. “The Integration of Greek and Latin Loanwords in Post-Biblical Hebrew.” Scripta Classica Israelica 34 (2015): 215‒25. Stadter, Philip A. Plutarch and His Roman Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Stoneman, Richard. “The Legacy of Alexander in Ancient Philosophy.” Pages 323‒45 in Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great. Edited by Joseph Roisman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Swain, Simon. Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50‒250. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism. A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. van der Horst, Pieter W. Chaeremon. Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 101. Leiden: Brill, 1987. van Nuffelen, Peter. Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Vlassopoulos, Kostas. Greeks and Barbarians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. 2. EKKNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2019. Zecchini, Giuseppe. “Asinio Pollione: dall’attività politica alla riflessione storiografica.” ANRW 2.30.2 (1982): 1265‒96.

Eve-Marie Becker

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19): Jesus’s Cosmocracy and the Universalization of Discipleship–an “Inclusive” Reading Abstract: This paper examines the occurrence and meaning of the (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνηphrase in Matthew’s gospel: in the key hermeneutical text, the cosmocratic Jesus figure sends his disciples out on mission among the τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:16‒20). This paper examines: from which sources/traditions Matthew derives his ideas of τὰ ἔθνη in and beyond Matt 28:19 (4:16; 6:32a; 10:5, 18; 12:18, 21; 20:19, 25; 24:9, 14; 25:32); how Matthew interprets and shapes them in his gospel within the early Christian discourse framework of the first century CE; and whether and to what extent they can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Our interpretation will demonstrate how Matthew applies the τὰ ἔθνη-discourse as it was predetermined for him in his sources and traditions in such a way that, in the light of the final judgment (25:32) and post-Easter cosmocracy (28:19) scenes, he uses πάντα τὰ ἔθνη to designate the whole of humanity in a universal sense. Accordingly, his understanding of mission and discipleship develops from an exclusive sphere, related solely to Israel (10:5‒6), not to an “exclusive non-Jewish, i.e. gentile,” but to a universal one (28:19) that is “inclusive.” In sum, Matthew distinctively shapes his τὰ ἔθνη-concept. Keywords: Matthew, commissioning, cosmocracy/cosmocratic Jesus figure, early Christian ethnicity discourse, “Within Judaism”

1 “Matthew within Judaism”: revisiting the discourse In current New Testament studies, the “Within Judaism”-discourse plays an important role. The contemporary discourse reaches far beyond Pauline studies.1 It entered Matthean studies some time ago.2 Currently, there is a broad tendency to read Matthew’s gospel “as a Jewish writing that emerged within the context of

1 See lately Fredriksen, “What Does It Mean?” For critical comments on the general approach and interest of the “Within Judaism” discourse see Becker, “Wem ‘gehört’ Jesus von Nazareth?” 2 See Runesson and Gurtner, Matthew. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-015

248 

 Eve-Marie Becker

Second Temple Judaism.”3 Basic questions addressed in this discourse frame relate to the ending of the gospel of Matthew (esp. Matt 28:16, 18b–20)4—as long as it is considered a genuine part of the gospel narrative,5 which still remains the most plausible assumption in light of the textual history.6 According to T. L. Donaldson, the research questions raised in the “within Judaism” discourse in the field of Matthean studies are of special importance for an adequate understanding of the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-phrase in Matt 28:19.7 The following questions are those under discussion: (a) Should the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη be understood “exclusively” (which means in this context: all and only the gentile nations) or “inclusively” (all the nations without exception)?8 (b) Does the phrase—understood in an exclusive sense—address non-Jewish nations or also non-Jewish individuals? (c) How does the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-phrase relate to Matt 10:5‒6 where Jesus had charged his disciples only to go to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (πορεύεσθε δὲ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ)?9 By evaluating the meaning of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in the LXX10 and in early Christian literature, Donaldson comes to conclusion that is essentially based on probability and is slightly in favor of the exclusive (“non-Jewish nations”) interpretation.11 My interpretation below eventually leads to an “inclusive reading” of 28:19, but one that reverses the concepts of “exclusive” and “inclusive.”12 3 Holladay, “Gospel.” 4 See Culpepper, “Place,” esp. 164‒66. 5 See, e.g., manuscript 0234 which contains 28:11‒15 but the textual fragment breaks off here. On that discussion: Broadhead, Gospel, 286. 6 There is no evidence that can speak against the claim of originality: the text-critical apparatus of Nestle and Aland (28th) edition does not indicate that the textual history (unlike, for example, the case of Mark 16:9‒20) points to the conclusion that Matt 28:16‒20 in toto should be disputed in its originality. The fact is that we have no manuscript tradition containing Matt 28:16‒20 that dates prior to ca. 350 CE, i.e., in the major codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus). See Broadhead, Gospel, 286. That said, a variety of (gospel) traditions are close to Matt 28:16‒20 by, e.g., containing the motif of “baptizing” (see Mark 16:15‒18; Acts 2:38 etc.). See Broadhead, Gospel, 288, but also: Luke 24:47!). On the reception of Matt 28:16‒20 in the Sophia of Jesus Christ see Falkenberg, “Matthew 28:16‒20.” 7 Donaldson, “Nations,” 169‒94. 8 Donaldson, “Nations,” 169. 9 See Culpepper, “Place,” 164‒65. 10 TLG shows 92 instances of the exact phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in the LXX. In addition, we encounter, for example, the phrases (ἀπὸ) πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν (e.g., Exod 23:22; Lev 20:24, 26), ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει (e.g., Exod 34:10), πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (e.g., Deut 4:19; 30:1) etc. 11 “It is probable that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη refers to the non-Jewish ethné. It is equally probable that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη denotes a plurality of individuals rather than of ethnic people groups. . . I take it as probable that Matthew’s Gospel ends with the command to ‘make disciples of all members of the non-Jewish nations.’ I take this conclusion to be probable rather than certain; I do not think that the inclusive sense is beyond a realm of possibility. . .” (Donaldson, “Nations,” 188). 12 See similarly in his interpretation of Matt 28:16‒20: Konradt, Evangelium, 462‒63.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 249

Generally speaking, the question of how to interpret πάντα τὰ ἔθνη remains open. It is possible, for example, that this phrase is only styled (by the evangelist?) as an analogy to the phrase πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς in v. 18, and to the phrases πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν and πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας in v. 20.13 In current scholarship, however, the question of how to interpret πάντα τὰ ἔθνη relates to the debate about the so-called “intra muros interpretation of Matthew.”14 According to this research paradigm, Matthew’s community “is understood as still located within the walls of the Jewish community, existing as a kind of sect or subgroup within the larger world of Judaism.”15 Then the question is: does Matthew, in light of Jesus’s post-resurrection status and instruction, still expect a continuation of the mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:5‒6)—a continuity of Jewish mission that “is now supplemented by a distinct mission to ‘all the gentiles’”?16 If, as Donaldson argues, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19 denotes only non-Jews, what would “a coherent reading of the gospel as a whole” finally look like?17 Such reading would have to interconnect Matt 10:5‒6 and 28:19 in the overall line of Matthew’s narrative. In my contribution, my first step (section 2) will be to look briefly at the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in the compositional setting of Matt 28:16‒20 (2.1), and explore, in a second step, the background of sources from which Matthew possibly drew his materials in the commissioning scene (2.2), in order to formulate some preliminary conclusions (3) about the significance of the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-phrase in Matthew and early Christian literature. As a result, it seems to me that Matt 28:19 is to be seen—directly or indirectly—in relation to the apostolic claim Paul makes in Rom 1:5 when he speaks of the ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη/ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. In my opinion, Matthew expands his view of discipleship from an “exclusive,” Israel-centered one to an “inclusive,” universalist one that encompasses all nations in Matt 28.

2 τὰ ἔθνη in Matthew: references and sources 2.1 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in the setting of Matt 28:16/18b–20 Let us first look at the Matthean text. I highlight Greek expressions that are worthy of further interpretation. In Matt 28:16‒20, several motifs and composition pat13 See more extensively: below. 14 See, in general: Sim, “Matthew,” esp. 36‒40. 15 Donaldson, “Nations,” 172. 16 Donaldson, “Nations,” 172. 17 Donaldson, “Nations,” 193‒94.

250 

 Eve-Marie Becker

terns emerge which are of crucial significance. In vv. 16‒20 the lexemes and motifs relating to discipleship (μαθηταὶ. . ., ἐτάξατο. . ., μαθητεύσατε. . ., διδάσκοντες. . ., ἐνετειλάμην), going (among the nations: ἐπορεύθησαν. . ., πορευθέντες), baptizing (βαπτίζοντες. . .), and teaching (ἐτάξατο. . ., διδάσκοντες. . ., τηρεῖν. . ., ἐνετειλάμην) have been the subject matter of detailed interpretative studies.18 16 Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, 17 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. 18a καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων·18b ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. 19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, 20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

The following observations have proved to be important for the interpretation of the text. (a) The narrative structure of 28:16‒20 is fundamental: in vv. 16‒18a the narrative setting of the commission scene is defined, whereas the post-resurrection Christ gives his commission in vv. 18b–20. (b) Matt 28:16‒20 is typically seen as a hermeneutical key to the gospel of Matthew,19 since the passage contains a variety of motifs and topics that refer back to earlier parts of the gospel narrative (e.g., Matt 4:15; 5‒7). In turn, various sections of the Matthean gospel can (only) be further interpreted in light of Matt 28:16‒20.20 (c) In the act of commissioning, (i) Jesus declares himself to be a cosmocratic ruler (πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς)21 just after he had been the subject of adoration on the part of his disciples (προσεκύνησαν, v. 17); (ii) as a cosmocratic ruler Jesus announces that he will be with them at all times (v. 20b); (iii) the cosmocratic ruler sends out his followers/disciples;22 (iv) the cosmocratic ruler instructs his disciples to make disciples among πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,23 to baptize and to teach in line with his previous teachings (see esp. Matt 5‒7). (d) In some respects, the commission scene is designed as a counter scene to the third temptation in Matt 4:8‒10.24 While Jesus there still rejected any claim to cosmic dominion (Matt 4:8: . . . πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν δόξαν

18 See most recently: Keener, “Epitome.” 19 See also Broadhead, Gospel, 286. 20 Is the key function of Matt 28:16‒20 in the Gospel of Matthew in any sense synonymous with the function of Wis 19:22 in the interpretation of Sapientia Salomonis? See the contribution by Reiterer, “Konfrontationen,” in this volume. 21 On the meaning of ἐξουσία in Matthew, see Matt 7:29; 8:9; 9:6, 8; 10:1, 19; 21:23; 24:27. On Jesus as “Weltenherrn” (Konradt, Evangelium, 461) in light of an adaption of Dan 7:13f.LXX (see also Mt 24:30; 26:64), see Luz, Evangelium, 3. Teilband, 434. 22 On πορευθέντες, see: Matt 8:9; 10:7. 23 On μαθητεύειν, see Matt 13:32; 27:57. 24 See also Luz, Evangelium, 1. Teilband, 228.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 251

αὐτῶν. . .) and instead referred to the sole worship of God with reference to Deut 6:13 LXX and 10:20 LXX (Matt 4:10: . . . κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις),25 he does not resist worship by his disciples in Matt 28:17 (. . . καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν; cf. already 28:9: . . . καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ. . .) and, shortly afterwards, he even articulates his claim to a comprehensive cosmic power. The Risen One has now assumed no less than the Kyrios-dignity of God. The scene is an “Unikat” in early Christian literature.26 (e) The πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-sentence in v. 18b is determined by its micro-context, and more particularly by a fourfold πᾶσα/πᾶν/πάντα-structure: the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-sentence correlates with (i) Jesus’s claim for omnipotence (πᾶσα ἐξουσία), (ii) that extends in an unlimited spatial sphere (ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς), (iii) and in an unlimited temporal horizon (πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος— see also: 24:14!), (iv) demanding complete subordination to his previous teachings (τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν). The fourfold πᾶσα/πάντα in vv. 18b–20 thus puts emphasis on the infinity and universality of Jesus’s post-resurrection status as a cosmocratic ruler who is de facto Kyrios.

2.2 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: Matthean texts and sources In more recent Matthean scholarship relating to the “within Judaism” discourse, questions of sources and/or traditions behind Matt 28 (and the other passages in Matthew) have taken a back seat.27 Here, my contribution finds its place. The picture that emerges from analyzing the occurrences of the (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη phrase is enlightening. What becomes immediately evident is that (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη occurs in all extant sources used by Matthew (Q[Matt], Mark, M,28 LXX). Since Matt 28:16‒20 is unique material within the synoptic gospels, the question arises whether Matt 28:18b–20 is part of the M tradition or a redactional element, i.e., a creation of the evangelist himself. 28:18b–20 (M and/or Red.?): ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

25 The LXX tradition according to Codex Alexandrinus, which includes προσκυνήσεις, is already found in this form in Q 4:8 (see: Robinson, Critical Edition, 38). A later influence of Luke 4:8/Matt 4:10 on the textual history of the LXX seems possible here: den Hertog, Labahn, and Pola, “Deuteronomium,” 551. 26 Luz, Evangelium, 4. Teilband, 433. 27 But see Culpepper, “Place.” 28 “M” is used as an abbreviation for the unique material collection (“Sondergut”) that was available to Matthew.

252 

 Eve-Marie Becker

Before returning to Matt 28, let us look at the various occurrences of ἔθνος in Matthew’s gospel by way of comparison—from chapter 4 to chapter 25. What kind of picture (of the pre-history) of the Matthean gospel and its materials, as well as the composition of the commissioning scene in particular, emerges? The term ἔθνος occurs fifteen times in Matthew—it is highly significant in semantic terms.29 The majority of instances in Matthew (twelve times) relate to the plural τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 4:15; 6:32b; 10:5b, 18; 12:18, 21; 20:19, 25; 24:9, 14; 25:32; 28:19: see below), only in three cases (Matt 21:43, and 24:7 [twice]) do we find the singular form ἔθνος. Compared to Mark and Luke (and John), the use of ἔθνος and (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη in Matthew is slightly (or even massively, if compared to John) increased.30 So, what picture appears if we analyze the twelve passages in Matthew—containing the plural form—in more detail: (i) regarding sources and/or traditions that are in the background, and (ii) regarding a possible focus that might have been set by Matthew himself when using τὰ ἔθνη (compared to Luke’s central focus when mentioning the τὰ ἔθνη in 21:24‒25)?31 In the twelve places where the plural form τὰ ἔθνη (or related forms) is encountered in Matthew, inferences about the source and/or tradition areas behind the phrase may be drawn as follows (I deal with the witnesses in the narrative sequence of the Matthean gospel one by one). (1) When referring to the τῶν ἐθνῶν in Matt 4:15, the evangelist relies on LXX-prophecy (Isa 8) as if it was a source for him.32 Matt 4:15 (LXX): . . . γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν.  .  . [Isa 8:23LXX: χώρα Ζαβουλων, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλιμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν κατοικοῦντες καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας]. The expression Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν does not mean that Galilee will be populated by gentiles, but that it has “a fictional character.” Matthew points ahead to Jesus’s mission to mediate salvation to the gentiles, which will take its point of departure from Galilee in Matt 28:16‒20.33

29 Matthew carefully uses the appropriate lexicon to designate groups/peoples: λαός, which occurs fourteen times in Matthew, is encountered only as a designation of God’s people (1:21; 2:6) or, much more frequently, with reference to Israel (2:4 and elsewhere) and not as a synonym for the ἔθνη; φυλή is used twice by Matthew in reference to the twelve tribes of Israel (19:28) or all the tribes of the earth (24:30). 30 Mark employs ἔθνος six times: twice in the singular (Mark 13:8; 2x) and four times in the plural (10:33, 42; 11:7; 13:10). No special focus can be detected in Mark. Luke has thirteen occurrences of ἔθνος: four times in the singular (Luke 7:5; 21:10 2x; 23:2) and nine times in the plural (Luke 2:32; 12:30; 18:32; 21:24 3x; 21:25; 22:25; 24:47). In Luke, there is a certain concentration in 21:24‒25. In John, only the singular form ἔθνος appears (11:48, 50, 51, 52; 18:35). 31 On Luke 21:24 see below. 32 See Luz, Evangelium, 1. Teilband, 53. Matthew’s style is strongly influenced by the LXX. 33 Luz, Evangelium, 1. Teilband, 235.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 253

(2) Matt 6:32a goes back to the Q source. Matt 6:32a (= Q 12:30): πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν·. . . [Luke 12:30: ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου ἐπιζητοῦσιν]. Matt 6:32a presupposes a dichotomic structure: the “you” of the audience (Matt 6:32b) is opposed to the τὰ ἔθνη. Matthew has preserved, as it seems, exactly the wording and the sequence of words of Q,34 while Luke has added τοῦ κόσμου. It is not impossible to trace Matt 6:32a (= Q 12:30)—together with 6:32b—to the historical Jesus.35 (3) In the case of Matt 10:5b, it is difficult to decide whether Matthew is drawing on special material (M) or on his particular version of the Q source (QMatt).36 10:5b (M/QMatt): Τούτους τοὺς δώδεκα ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παραγγείλας αὐτοῖς λέγων· εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαμαριτῶν μὴ εἰσέλθητε. The dichotomic structure is also clear in the transition from 10:5 to 10:6 (10:6: πορεύεσθε δὲ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ). (4) In Matt 10:18, the evangelist is likely drawing on the Vorlage of Mark and expanding it (καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) significantly. 10:18 (MarkRed.): καὶ ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας δὲ καὶ βασιλεῖς ἀχθήσεσθε ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν [Mark 13:9: .  .  . καὶ ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς]. According to Matt 10:18, those to whom the followers of Jesus will be handed over, explicitly include the τὰ ἔθνη. (5) and (6) In Matt 12:18, 21 the evangelist relies on the LXX – and more particularly in both cases on prophetic words (Isa) – once again. 12:18, 21 (LXX): ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα, ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου· θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ. . . καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν [Isa 42:1, 4LXX: Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου· ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει. . . καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν]. Based on Isa 42, Jesus is configured as the Servant of God who addresses the τὰ ἔθνη in a particular way. (7) and (8) Matt 20:19, 25 is again to be evaluated in relation to the Vorlage of Mark. A closer comparison with Mark 10 is essential in order to see how the expressions τοῖς ἔθνεσιν/τῶν ἐθνῶν in the Matthean text are predetermined by Mark.

34 See Robinson, Critical Edition, 350‒51. 35 It is not impossible to trace Matt 6:32a to the historical Jesus, see lately and in general: Howes, Formative Stratum, 326‒27. However, Luz remains cautious in his analysis of 6:25‒34 (Evangelium, 1. Teilband, 475‒76). 36 See Luz, Evangelium, 1. Teilband, 48.

254 

 Eve-Marie Becker

Matt 20:19, 25

Mark 10:33‒34, 42

καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται. . .

. . . καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐμπαίξουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ μαστιγώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν, καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς εἶπεν· οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν

καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς· οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν.

In the third passion prediction, which is followed by another saying, Jesus draws the attention of his listeners to the political power relations to which the Son of Man will also be subject. Matthew, on the whole, adheres closely to the Vorlage of Mark, even if he reworks it.37 (9) and (10) Matt 24:9 and 14 are again to be evaluated in relation to Mark. In this case, too, a closer comparison with Jesus’s eschatological speech in Mark 13 is essential. Matt 24:9, 14

Mark 13:9/13, 10

Τότε παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς θλῖψιν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου. . .

. . . παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς συνέδρια. . . καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου. ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται

καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος

καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

The comparison indicates that in v. 14, Matthew closely adheres to the Marcan motif of the necessary universal proclamation of the gospel before the end of the world arrives. Similarly to Matt 10:18, Matthew has redactionally expanded the Marcan text by adding τῶν ἐθνῶν in 24:9. According to Matthew, Jesus’s prophecy concerning the end-time predicts hatred and persecution by the τῶν ἐθνῶν towards his disciples. In Matt 24:9, 14 τὰ ἔθνη denotes the “non-Christian peoples,”38 that is, the groups of peoples who had not come into contact with the gospel until then. Matt 10:18 and 24:9 indicate by the additions (τῶν ἐθνῶν) that Matthew has a clear interest in the τὰ ἔθνη subject matter.

37 On Matthew’s use of the Markan text: Luz, Evangelium, 3. Teilband, 159‒60. 38 Luz, Evangelium, 3. Teilband, 531.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 255

(11) In 25:32, Matthew cannot draw upon common synoptic source material, but is confined to his own material (M). Matt 25:32 (M[+Red.]): καὶ συναχθήσονται ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ ἀφορίσει αὐτοὺς ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιμὴν ἀφορίζει τὰ πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων. . . In 25:31‒46, Matthew opens his picture of the last judgment, in which the exalted Son of Man presides over the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: he separates sheep from goats – the former are blessed because they have practiced justice; the latter are cursed and suffer eternal punishment. Continuing in the wake of Matt 24:29‒31, the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη phrase here refers “most likely [to] ‘all peoples’ including the community.”39 As soon as Matthew invokes the motif area of the exalted or cosmocratic Jesus, the τὰ ἔθνη are no longer spoken of in contrast to Israel; rather, the τὰ ἔθνη represent all of humanity. To put it more pointedly: in the light of exaltation or cosmocracy (section 12), dichotomous thinking about τὰ ἔθνη is overcome. (12) In the case of Matt 28, the question ultimately remains open regarding the extent to which Matthew here draws on material that has been handed down to him (M). Or is Matthew composing the scene independently?40 Matt 28:18b–20 (M[+Red.] or Red.?): ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Matt 28:19 and 25:32 again build on each other—as already 25:32 and chapter 24 do—and even look similar in compositional terms. The syntagmatic relationship of the two verses (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) may suggest that Matthew added πάντα redactionally to each in order to strengthen the universalistic claim. Against the background of this source- and tradition-critical analysis, some preliminary results about the origin and meaning of the (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη phrase in the Jesus tradition emerge. First, Matthew uses the plural form τὰ ἔθνη twelve times in his gospel;41 in five instances42 he uses, more particularly, the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (6:32a [Q]; 24:9, 14 [both Mark{+Red.}]; 25:32 [MRed.]; 28:19 [MRed. or Red.?]). Matthew draws the phrase (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη from all extant sources/areas of the traditions he uses: LXX, Q, M and Mark; especially in Matt 25:32 and 28:19, however, the transition from tradition (M) and the redaction made by Matthew are difficult to discern. In Matt 25:32 and 28:19 did Matthew possibly add πάντα in πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in order

39 Luz, Evangelium, 3. Teilband, 531. 40 See Konradt, Evangelium, 459. 41 See the references in the table below. 42 The references are marked in the table below by underlining.

256 

 Eve-Marie Becker

to align these verses to others (esp. 6:32a; 24:14)? To what extent is his understanding of (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη prefigured by the LXX, or Q, or Mark, or M? Second, we can gain greater clarity on one point: while πάντα τὰ ἔθνη occurs five times in Matthew, there are at least two instances where the evangelist must have drawn the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη phrase in toto from his sources Q and Mark (Matt 6:32a [Q] and Matt 24:14 [Mark]); in the case of the other three instances (Matt 24:9; 25:32; 28:19), it is not entirely clear whether Matthew might have redacted at least the πάντα in the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-phrase. LXX

Q(Matt)

M

4:15

6:32a 10:5 (?)

10:5 (?)

12:18, 21

25:32 28:19 (?)

Mark

Red.?

10:18Red.

10:18Red.

20:19, 25 24:9Red., 14

24:9Red. 28:19 (?)

Third, since τὰ ἔθνη, or even the full phrase, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, occurs in Q, Mark, and M, the thoughts and statements about the τὰ ἔθνη as such may be traced back to the historical Jesus (criterion of multiple attestation).43 In line with the Scriptures of Israel,44 Jesus’s mission had also to deal with the fate of the τὰ ἔθνη. Fourth, the (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη later became a motif/topic in the Jesus-movement (see Q) and the early Christ-believing communities (at least, in the context of Jewish-Christianity: see references in Paul [see below], gospel of Mark and later on in Matthew, Luke and Acts). Fifth, Matthew’s understanding of the identity of the τὰ ἔθνη develops from 4:15 up to 25:32 and 28:19. While in earlier parts of the gospel narrative τὰ ἔθνη denotes gentile territories or groups in contrast to Israel, the last two passages show how Matthew—now in light of the last judgment and Jesus’s post-resurrection cosmocracy—understands the τὰ ἔθνη as a comprehensive description of humankind. Matthew thus expands, at the end of his gospel, the exclusive view of Jesus’s mission, initially related entirely to Israel (10:5‒6), to include a universal view of discipleship and mission (28:19).45 43 Although some instances might point to a later addendum to the sources that transmit Jesus traditions (see Mark 10:33‒34; 13:10). 44 See, e.g., Ps 2:1 (. . . ἔθνη/‫ גֹויִ ם‬καὶ λαοί/‫;)ּול ֻא ִּמים‬ ְ Isa 2:2 (. . . πάντα τὰ ἔθνη/‫ל־הּגֹויִ ם‬ ַ ‫)ּכ‬. ָ 45 It does not seem clear to me that Matthew is already following Mark in this change of perspective as Wojtkowiak, Tradition, 399‒400 argues.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 257

3 Results: Matthew’s (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη within the ethnicity-discourse From here, some results for studying the Matthean gospel emerge. The (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη phrase seems to be already inherent in Matthew’s traditional material, pointing back to the LXX and Jesus traditions. Thus, the (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη phrase is not invented by Matthew, but prefigured even before he takes it up. Further questions arise from here. Does Matthew simply stick to the ethnicity perspective as defined by his source materials and the use of (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη therein? Or does he himself develop a certain concept of (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη throughout his gospel narrative? Where does Matthew place his interpretive focus when mentioning (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη. Does he even have a particular focus point that could be comparable to the threefold τὰ ἔθνη πάντα/ἐθνῶν-structure in Luke 21:24‒25?46 Our interpretation has shown, first, that Matthew has a special interest in the τὰ ἔθνη-discourse. We have seen how Matthew traces and develops the τὰ ἔθνη-discourse—as predetermined for him in his sources and traditions—within his gospel in such a way that, in the light of the final judgment and post-Easter cosmocracy scenes, he uses the τὰ ἔθνη to designate the whole of humanity in a universal sense. Accordingly, his understanding of discipleship and mission develops from an exclusive one, related exclusively to Israel (10:5‒6), to a universal one (28:19).47 Thus, Matthew clearly shapes the τὰ ἔθνη discourse in 28:19 by bringing it to a climax and, as it were, to a conclusion in his perspective (. . . ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). Second, my interpretation of Matt 28:19 has aimed at making the meaning of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη fruitful for the overall interpretation of the gospel of Matthew. Matt 28:16/18b–20 plays a major role in the way that Matthew deals with (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη. The fourfold πάντα/πᾶσα in 28:18b–20 also determines τὰ ἔθνη and lays special emphasis on Jesus’s commissioning words. The whole scene in 28:16‒20 is a carefully crafted text, epitomizing in many ways elementary themes and motifs of the Matthean gospel narrative.48 Matt 28:18b–20 in particular might thus be a “focus text” for the ethnicity discourse comparable to what Luke 21:24‒25 is for Luke. At the same time, the passage in Matt 28 has to be read together with, and 46 καὶ πεσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρης καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πάντα, καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν, ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν: on Luke 21:24 as a key passage for Luke’s understanding of (salvation) history, see Bovon, Evangelium, 185; on Luke 21:24 in light of LXX-traditions (Joel 4:8; Ezek 32:9; Zech 12:3) see Wolter, Gospel, 427‒28. 47 See also Konradt, Evangelium, 463: “Die Frage, ob Israel noch eingeschlossen ist, steht für Matthäus überhaupt nicht zur Debatte, sein Anliegen ist umgekehrt, dass nunmehr alle (übrigen) Völker eingeschlossen sind.” 48 See Keener, “Epitome.”

258 

 Eve-Marie Becker

in contrast to, Matt 10:5‒6. It then opens up the perspective of a post-resurrection Jesus-mission that differs from how the “earthly Jesus” instructed his followers. The underlying narrative in Matt 28:18b–20 is cosmocratic. Does Matthew want to trace for his readers this very development in Jesus’s mission—the earthly Jesus sending his disciples exclusively to Israel (Matt 10:5‒6), the resurrected one to all people/ nations (Matt 28:18b–20)? Third, the Matthean concept of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is to be located in the ethnicity discourse of the first century CE.49 Matt 28:16/18b–20 is situated in a broad and dynamic field of early Jewish-Christian missionary activity which can relate back to the historical Jesus and which is, as it seems, until the end of the first century CE, manifold in its understanding of what exactly (πάντα) τὰ ἔθνη comprises: all nations/people in an “inclusive” or “exclusive” sense? In that discourse frame, Paul’s usage of the phrase might be decisive: in his letter to the Romans, Paul differs significantly in specifying what range of τὰ ἔθνη he has in mind.50 Paul uses the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη independently only in Romans51 in order to express his self-understanding as an apostle.52 Besides, Paul tends to speak of his mission ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (e.g., Gal 1:16) or εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (e.g., Gal 2:8) which is accompanied by a strong sense of his personal responsibility for such mission.53 As early as in 1 Thess, Paul presupposes an understanding of who τὰ ἔθνη are: they are τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν (4:5). Fourth, in comparison to Paul’s decisive role for the early Christian ethnicity-discourse, Matthew’s idea of μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη may be most adequately understood by (i) relating it to its compositional setting (vv. 16/18b–20), and by (ii) reading it against the impact of LXX language (see Matthew’s use of the LXX; see also Rom 15:11); (iii) πάντα τὰ ἔθνη must also be read against traditional imprints of synoptic sources (Q, M, Mark) that even point back to Jesus and the (early) transmission history of Jesus traditions, by (iv) contextualizing it in the early

49 See the contribution by Oda Wischmeyer in this volume. 50 See, e.g., τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν (Rom 11:12); τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rom 11:25); πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rom 16:4). 51 Gal 3:8 (. . . πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) is quoting Gen 18:18LXX (. . . πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς/‫)ּכֹל ּגֹויֵ י ָה ָא ֶרץ‬, but see Gen 12:3LXX: . . . ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς/‫)ּכֹל ִמ ְׁש ְּפחֹת ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬. 52 Rom 1:4‒5: τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ; 15:11 (see Ps 116:1LXX): αἰνεῖτε, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, τὸν κύριον καὶ ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί. 53 Rom 11:13: Ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ἐφ’ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω. – I thank colleagues for their stimulating reflections on my talk when I presented it at the ISBL/ISDCL meeting in July 2022 in Salzburg and at the Aarhus-Oslo-Münster meeting in December 2022 in Oslo.

μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) 

 259

Christ-believing missionary activity as documented in Paul (esp. Rom; Gal), (v) and possibly by even reading it especially in the light of Paul’s reflection on disseminating the gospel message as presented in his letter to the Romans. To bring the Matthew-Paul-perspective into sharp focus at this point: is Matt 28:19 a narrative explication (in the sense of clarification, contrast and/or correction) of Rom 1:4‒5 that expands or predates the individual Pauline commitment to gospel proclamation “among the nations/people” now to a collective, i.e. the group of Jesus-disciples? Accordingly, Matthew would transform the Pauline claim of performing an ἀποστολὴ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ into an etiological narrative which entails the command given by the risen one himself to his disciples (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη). By transforming the Pauline concept of ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη/ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν into μαθηταὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη/ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Matthew anchors his τὰ ἔθνη-concept in the Jesus Christ-story. In conclusion: the imperative sentence in Matt 28:19 μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη refers to the overall concept of mission and discipleship in Matthew’s gospel. According to Matthew πάντα τὰ ἔθνη could thus mean: in light of the post-resurrection cosmocratic Christ-claim that is universal in its scope, discipleship no longer exclusively addresses Israel, but also includes the reaching out to all gentiles (as groups of nations/people and individuals) in order to affiliate them to the Jesus-movement. In light of Jesus’s cosmocracy, Matthew no longer directs his readers’ attention exclusively to the people of Israel (Matt 10:5‒6) and does not turn exclusively to the gentiles either, but overcomes the dichotomy between Israel and the τὰ ἔθνη in such a way that he focuses on the whole world of all peoples, which the cosmocratic Christ-figure claims to govern from now on until the Last Judgment (Matt 25:32). Thus, the gospel of Matthew ultimately traces for its readers—alongside Jesus’s mission—the development of an exclusive, Israel-centered concept of discipleship into an inclusive, universal one that includes all peoples.

Bibliography Becker, Eve-Marie. “Wem ‘gehört’ Jesus von Nazareth? Historische und hermeneutische Fragen zur Gegenwart und Zukunft der Jesus-Forschung.” ThLZ 148 (2023): 3‒18. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 4. Teilband Lk 19,28‒24,53. EKKNT 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Broadhead, Edwin K. The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity. WUNT 378. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Culpepper, Alan R. “The Place of Matthew in Early Christianity.” Pages 149‒83 in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Historical and Theological Context. Edited by Mikhail Seleznev et al. WUNT 459. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021.

260 

 Eve-Marie Becker

den Hertog, Cornelis, Michel Labahn, and Thomas Pola. “Deuteronomion.” Pages 523‒601 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Vol. 1. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Donaldson, Terence L. “‘Nations,’ ‘Non-Jewish Nations,’ or ‘Non-Jewish Individuals’: Matthew 28:19 Revisited.” Pages 169‒94 in Matthew within Judaism. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel. Edited by Anders Runesson and Daniel M. Gurtner. ECL 27. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2020. Falkenberg, René. “Matthew 28:16‒20 and the Nag Hammadi Library. Reception of the Great Commission in the Sophia of Jesus Christ.” Pages 93‒104 in Mark and Matthew II. Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. WUNT 304. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Fredriksen, Paula. “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?” JBL 141 (2022): 359‒80. Holladay, Carl R. “The Gospel of Matthew Within the Context of Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 101‒26 in The Gospel of Matthew in its Historical and Theological Context. Edited by Mikhail Seleznev et al. WUNT 459. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Howes, Llewellyn. The Formative Stratum of the Sayings Gospel Q. Reconsidering Its Extant, Message, and Unity. WUNT 2.545. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Keener, Craig S. “An Epitome of Matthean Themes: Matthew 28:18‒20.” Pages 233‒50 in The Gospel of Matthew in its Historical and Theological Context. Edited by Mikhail Seleznev et al. WUNT 459. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Konradt, Matthias. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 1. Teilband Mt 1‒7. EKKNT 1. 5th ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 3. Teilband Mt 18‒25. EKKNT 1. 3rd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016. Luz Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 4. Teilband Mt 26-28. EKKNT 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Nestle, Eberhard, Kurt and Barbara Aland, eds. Novum testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Konfrontationen. Das Volk des Herrn und seine Kontrahenten im Buch der Weisheit.” Pages 103–15 in What Makes a People? Edited by Dionisio Candido, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. Deterocanonical and Cognate Studies Yearbook 2022/2023. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2023. Robinson, James M. et al. eds. The Critical Edition of Q. Hermeneia. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Runesson, Anders, and Daniel M. Gurtner, eds. Matthew within Judaism. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel. ECL 27. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2020. Sim, David C. “Matthew. The Current State of Research.” Pages 32‒51 in Mark and Matthew: Comparative Readings. Vol. 1: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in Their First-century Settings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Wischmeyer, Oda. “What Makes a People According to Israel’s Wisdom Literature? ἔθνος and ἔθνη in Proverbs, Wisdom of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 19–31 in What Makes a People? Edited by Dionisio Candido, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Studies Yearbook 2022/2023. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2023. Wojtkowiak, Heiko. Tradition und Redaktion im Matthäusevangelium. Formale und inhaltliche Charakteristika matthäischer Redaktionspraxis. BZNW 245. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Wolter, Michael. The Gospel According to Luke. Vol. 2: Lk 9:51‒24. Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Dalia Marx

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13), and Its Resonance in Jewish Law and Lore Abstract: The essay deals with Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s struggle against marriage with foreign women (Ezra 9‒10; Neh 13:23‒26). It begins with a short introduction to this unprecedented initiative, and then provides a possible explanation of the campaign and its central place at the end of the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, which contrasts with the lack of any description of its actual outcome The focus of the essay is on the footprints of this separatist and exclusive tendency in Jewish law, thought and ritual. They are indeed scarce and few, probably due to the institution of the conversion process, which made Ezra-Nehemiah superfluous. Keywords: conversion, exclusivity, particularism, universalism, mixed marriage, Ezra-Nehemiah

1 Ezra and Nehemiah against mixed marriages Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s struggles against marriages with foreign women appear as isolated incident, perhaps anecdotal episode, that took place in the early Second Temple period, with neither details of the event nor their repercussions being recorded. Despite this, the episode span three chapters, no less than seventy-five verses. Chronologically this is the last event recorded not only in the Ezra story and in the Book of Nehemiah respectively, but in the Hebrew Bible altogether.1 The combined campaign reflects a unique approach toward Jewish ethnicity unprecedented before or after. Following a short introduction about the unique features of the story,2 my main interest will be in its footprints in Jewish law, thought and ritual.

1 Although Chronicles follow Ezra-Nehemiah in the Masoretic Text, they relate to event that precede them. 2 For comprehensive bibliography on the topic, see Heltzer, “Approach,” 86; and Dor, “Women,” 15‒98. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-016

262 

 Dalia Marx

The campaign to banish the foreign wives appears six times in the final chapters of Ezra and Nehemiah, respectively:3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Ezra 9 Ezra 10:1‒17 Ezra 10:18‒44 Neh 9:1‒3 Neh 13:3 Neh 13:23‒30

A memoir related by Ezra in the first person; The people’s appeal to Ezra and his response; A list of the priests who married foreign wives; A rite of separation accompanied by penitence; A rite of separation; Complaint about mixed marriages.

The depiction of the events is multi-vocal, saturated with repetitions and discrepancies. Nevertheless, the events remain unclear: What accounts for Ezra’s emotional and decisive campaign? What was the nature of his motivation in ascribing exclusivity to the “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2) or to “Israel’s seed” (Neh 9:2)? Who were the foreign wives? In addition, of course, how does it come about that, apart from prescriptive declarations, there is no description of the actual outcome of the campaign. In other words, were these women and children actually expelled? If that was indeed the case, how did it affect the lives of the men who remained without their families, and the life of the community, and why do we hear nothing of it? How did the tremendous energy that Ezra invested in this campaign dissolve into thin air?

2 The motivation of the biblical narrator Beyond the story itself, one should ask what was the motivation of the biblical narrator in including it in such a prominent manner—was it a token of extreme ethno-national separatist endeavor, or a socio-political effort to create a local national identity for the returnees from Babylonia? How does it relate to other Second Temple texts that express an inclusive approach toward foreigners in the community, such as the Book of Ruth? And how can we explain the tension between its centrality in the Ezra-Nehemiah composition, and the importance of Ezra as perceived in the Jewish tradition, with its general lack of similar projects throughout history. The campaign against mixed marriages and the puritan emphasis on keeping the “holy seed” apart is an unprecedented and innovative endeavor. One does find in the Torah warnings against conjugal relationship with gentiles of certain ethnicities, such as those referred to as “the seven peoples” (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3‒5), but the reason given is that they would lead the Israelites to worship “foreign gods.” 3 Dor, “Rite,” 178.

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 263

Contact with the Ammonites and Moabites, nations that mistreated the Israelites (Deut 23:4‒5), is banned, while the Egyptians and Edomites receive more lenient treatment (vv. 8‒9). Yet, many central male biblical figures were married to women of foreign ethnicity: at least some of Jacob’s children, including Judah and Joseph, as well as Moses, David, and Solomon. The latter is reproached because he “loved many foreign women” (1 Kgs 11:1), but the reason is that “his wives turned away Solomon’s heart after other gods” (v. 4).4 Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible do we find an overarching prohibition against marrying foreign women. And if the general concern expressed in the Torah is assimilation, in our case the intermarriages constitute assimilation into the Jewish community. It is not here a fear that the spouse might draw the Jewish partner to foreign worship, but the mere involvement with foreigners that is now prohibited. The Jewish people, according to Ezra, is to become genealogically unadulterated. To add to the confusion, it is not clear who these foreign women were in the context of Ezra-Nehemiah. Were they indeed women of other ethnic and religious groups (including perhaps Samaritan), or were they among the Judahite families that were not exiled to Babylon? In this case, Ezra’s puritan campaign is not ethnic but social and cultural, namely, to consolidate the community of those who returned from Babylon and to distance them from the locals.5 Ezra phrases the comprehensive prohibition against intermarriage as if it was a well-known and established matter that had recently been breached, with the intention of rectifying this latter-day innovative infraction. He bases his call upon verses from various biblical passages, which he weaves together to imbue his message with divine authority. In doing so, he creates a completely new norm that at its core endeavors to sanctify genetic purity, the “holy seed”. Ezra’s intertextual endeavor led Yehezkel Kaufmann to refer to it as “the first legal midrash.”6 As it is often the case with reformers, Ezra establishes his ruling on past precedent in a creative and deliberate manner, consciously including anachronistic references to nations that do not exist in his time.7 He thus makes a revolutionary

4 The reverse situation—an Israelite woman who has conjugal relations with a gentile—is not tolerated and is doomed to precipitate a large-scale disaster (Gen 34). 5 Eskenazi, “Missions,” 514‒24; Eskenazi Cohn and Judd, “Marriage,” 272‒76; Weinfeld, “Universalism,” 237‒38. 6 Kaufmann, Faith, vol. 8, 291‒93. 7 Ezra’s campaign involves several sources: Lev 18:26‒27, condemning sex-related sins and demanding a distancing from the abominations of the people of the land; Deut 7:3 prohibiting marrying the local people, and Deut 23:7 prohibiting involvement with the Ammonites.

264 

 Dalia Marx

demand, banning intermarriage on a biological and ethnic principle, as if it were the norm.8 Ezra’s campaign is not only unprecedented, but also a unique and short-lived one, as the process of institutionalized and ritualized conversion to Judaism was soon introduced. Although evidence is scarce, joining the Jewish people through conversion was already known in the Hasmonaean period.9 Early rabbinic literature refers to conversion as a familiar practice,10 which has continued to this day.11

3 Rites of passage How then do we account for the extent and the repetitious nature of the story and its placement at the end of the Hebrew Bible narrative? I find Yonina Dor’s suggested explanation helpful. She takes close account of the ritualized nature of the crisis, as it is presented, and the dramatic gestures accompanying it: Ezra’s fast and confession (Ezra 9; 10:6), the leaders and the congregation admitting their sins and openly repenting (10:2–5), the public call for repentance and the people’s response (10:10‒12), and the public shaming of the wrongdoers (Neh 13:25‒27). She proposes understanding it in the light of ethnographer Arnold van Gennep’s theory, as expressed in the book “Les rites de passage.”12 Rites of passage are a category of rituals performed during a person’s transition from one stage, state, or status to another. They mark this transformation and, no less importantly, effect it. Van Gennep identified three components to be found in every rite of passage: a situation of disconnection or separation from the former status; an interim state that Turner later referred to as “the liminal phase,” in which the actual transition occurs; and a third state, the incorporation of, and entry 8 As mentioned above, during the Second Temple period there were, of course, other approaches toward non-Jewish (or non-Israelite) women. Rahab (Josh 2; 6:22‒25) and Yael (Judg 4‒5) are depicted as positive figures. Also, despite the prohibition of conjugal connections with the Moabites, the main character in the Book of Ruth is a Moabite woman, who not only entered the people of Israel but is the ancestor of King David, from whom, according to the Jewish as well as the Christian traditions, would come the Messiah (e.g., Matt 1:6‒16; b. Sanh. 98a). See: Heltzer, “Approach,” 86; Vigert, Studies, 143‒44; Weinfeld, “Universalism.” 9 E.g., Josephus documents the forced conversion of the Edomites (A.J. 13.257‒258; 15.254). 10 Attitudes toward conversion and converts range from reluctance to praise (e.g., b. Šabb. 31a; b. Yebam. 47a). See Marx, “Aspects,” 166‒69. 11 Ophir and Rosen-Zvi argue that this is the first occurrence of a clear binary distinction between Jews (or to be more accurate the Jewish community returning from Babylonia), and gentiles (Goy, 84‒113). This distinction remains to our own day, though currently it is challenged (see below). 12 Van Gennep, Rites. His theory was later developed by Victor Turner (e.g., “Rites”).

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 265

into, the new status. The person undergoing the liminal stage of a rite of passage is, in effect, simultaneously present in two contradictory states, and yet belongs to neither of them. Dor tentatively applied his theory to what is related in Ezra-Nehemiah: This story follows the “rites of passage,” defined by A. van Gennep, comprising three stages. The first is separation, which is described in detail in Ezra-Nehemiah [. . .] The second stage, also described in Ezra–Nehemiah, is liminality, consisting of weeping, fasting, tearing the clothes and plucking at the beard, retreating into solitude and silence, praying, and expressing remorse. This is the hardest stage, in which one is neither an outsider nor part of the new group. The third stage is formally rejoining the community. This stage is not described in Ezra-Nehemiah, but it is clearly mentioned that “one who had been separated” belongs to the groups of Israel, celebrating Passover with them or signing a covenant pledge. The symbolic rite of separation made these persons acceptable to the community. Therefore, we can regard this ritual as an ancient form of conversion to normative Judaism because conversion is expressed by a symbolic ceremony. The text intends to strengthen the separatist ethos. But by forming an institutional status of “all those who separated themselves,” its great innovation is not the idea of expulsion from the community but the opposite of this, namely, the idea of accepting into the community.13

Obviously, there is no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis. But if Dor is even partially correct, unpleasant as it may be, the campaign against the foreign wives was merely a ritualized and dramatized action, not an actual deportation and tearing asunder of families. It also accounts for the repetitious nature of the description and for the lack of any consideration of the outcomes of the campaign. The possibly ritualistic, rather than historical, nature, of the Ezra-Nehemiah campaign against foreign wives, could have a future application to contemporary needs. How, then, were the biblical passages relating to the mixed marriages crisis received in Jewish law and lore? The remainder of the paper will address this question.

4 Later references to the issue of mixed marriages The Hebrew Bible for the Jews is not only Sefer ha-Sefarim, the book of books, revealing and transmitting the word of the divine, and the source of Jewish creativity and thought. It also serves as an enduring reservoir of contemplation and reference for their contemporary toils and experiences, a prism for making sense of

13 Dor, “Rite,” 185. Tal-Shir criticizes both Dor’s methodology and her findings (Tal-Shir, “Holy Seed”). See also: Smith-Christopher, “Marriage.”

266 

 Dalia Marx

their lives.14 Separatist as well as inclusive attitudes are present in Jewish thought and practice throughout history, and they often exist side-by-side. Reflecting on the campaign against the foreign wives in Ezra-Nehemiah, it may be surprising that, despite the centrality of the story and its position at the end of the Hebrew Bible narrative, it did not inspire many later references in Jewish literature. There are generally positive assessments of Ezra’s separatist approach, e.g., “Rabbi Eleazar says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made them like fine flour” (b. Qidd. 69b). Another rabbinic tradition, which identifies Ezra with the prophet Malachi,15 relates to Ezra’s care for the Jewish women: Rabbi Ḥaggai said: When Israel was ,‫ּגֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ְּב ָׁש ָעה ֶׁש ָעלּו יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִמן ַה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ַחּגַ י‬ exiled, the women’s faces were tar‫אֹותן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִהּנִ יחּו‬,‫נִ ְת ַּפ ֲחמּו ְּפנֵ י ַהּנָ ִׁשים ִמן ַה ֶּׁש ֶמׁש‬ nished from the sun, and they were left, ‫ וְ ָהיּו ַמ ִּקיפֹות ֶאת‬,‫וְ ָה ְלכּו ָל ֶהם וְ נָ ְׂשאּו נָ ִׁשים ֲעמֹונִ ּיֹות‬ and the men went and married Ammo- ‫"וְ זֹאת ֵׁשנִ ית‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ הּוא ֶׁש ַּמ ְל ָא ִכי‬.‫ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ּובֹוכֹות‬ nite women. They went and circled the .‫ ְׁשנִ ּיָ ה ְל ִׁש ִּטים‬,(‫ יג‬,‫ַּת ֲעׂשּו" )מלאכי ב‬ altar, crying, as Malachi says: “And will ,(‫"ּכּסֹות ִּד ְמ ָעה ֶאת ִמזְ ַּבח ה' ְּב ִכי וַ ֲאנָ ָקה" )שם‬ ַ you do this a second time” (Mal 2:13), a ‫ ְּב ִכי‬,‫ ַמאן ַק ֵּבל ֵמ ֶהם‬:‫ָא ַמר ַה ָּקדֹוׁש ָּברּוְך הּוא‬ second time in relation to [the sins of ‫יָפיָ ּה ִמ ֶּמּנָ ּה ַא ָּתה‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ֶּׁשּגָ זַ ְל ָּת וְ ָח ַמ ְס ָּת וְ נָ ַט ְל ָּת‬,‫וַ ֲאנָ ָקה‬ the Israelites with the Moabite women !‫ ֶא ְת ְמ ָהא‬,‫ְמ ַׁש ְּל ָחּה‬ (Num 25:1) in] Shittim [the forsaken women]. “Cover with tears the altar of the Eternal with wailing and sighing” (ibid.). The Holy One Blessed be He said: who will accept these tears and wailing, since you stole and oppressed and took her beauty from her, will you now send her away? (Gen. Rab. 18.3).16

14 See, for example, the second of James Kugel’s four assumptions that the ancient interpreters of the Scriptures seem to share proposes that it “constitutes one great Book of Instruction, and as such is a fundamentally relevant text [. . .] Everything was held to apply to present-day readers and to contain within it an imperative for adoption and application to the readers’ own lives” (Kugel, Bible, 19‒20). 15 Regarding the identifications of Ezra the “scribe” and Malachi the “prophet,” see: Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, 265, n. 33. 16 Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, 442, n. 38.

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 267

In this midrash God is rebuking these unfaithful husbands, who not only damaged the looks of their wives by the hot sun but also forsook them by marrying foreign women. Apart from that, one finds little practical engagement with the campaign described in Ezra-Nehemiah. I will now discuss some of the very few explicit references to Ezra’s project. All these references are from modern and contemporary sources in the context of national and legal writing, as well as dealing with ritual, relating to life in Israel, and occurring in the context of Zionism.17 This may indicate possible linkage between separatist tendencies and statehood. When Hayim Nahman Bialik (1873‒1934), the prominent Zionist poet and thinker, advocated for the national revival of the Jews in the Land of Israel, spoke at the national conference of the Department of Hebrew and Culture in 1920 in Kiev, where he declared: We must take upon ourselves commandments. In the days of Ezra, who repaired the breached fence, our ancestors loaded themselves with commandments, decreed against foreign wives and against all that had a modicum of assimilation. We too must pronounce first on ourselves and then on others: to banish the teacher who teaches in a foreign language, the foreign language speaking, the foreign literature from controlling our home, and instead, to valorize Hebrew education, and ensure that the national awakening becomes a private and personal matter.18

‫ גודר‬,‫ בימי עזרא‬.‫עלינו להטיל על עצמנו מצוות‬ ‫ גזרו‬,‫ העמיסו על עצמם אבותינו מצוות‬,‫הפרץ‬ ‫על הנשים הנכריות ועל כל מה שיש בו ריח של‬ ‫ אף אנו צריכים לגזור תחלה על עצמנו‬.‫טמיעה‬ ,‫ לגרש את המורה הלועזי‬:‫ואח"כ על האחרים‬ ‫ את הספרות הזרה מהיות‬,‫את האומנת הנכרית‬ ‫ ולהמשיל תחתם את החנוך‬,‫שולטים בביתנו‬ ‫ לעשות את התנועה הלאומית‬,‫העברי‬ .‫לצורך פרטי ואישי‬

Bialik uses Ezra’s campaign as a model for his time, “everything that had a whiff of assimilation”—people, literature, etc., must be cast away, to allow the re-birth of the nation. Interestingly, he uses the biblical story to promote a national and cultural, but not ethnic agenda. Similarly, but emphasizing the prominence of the language in the national revival, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda Perlman (1858‒1922), who is popularly referred to as

17 I do not relate to general statements against mixed marriages or “foreign women,” but only to direct references to the Ezra-Nehamiah campaign. 18 Bialik, Devarim, vol. 1, 9‒14.

268 

 Dalia Marx

the “reviver of the Hebrew language,”19 reviews the history of the use of the spoken Hebrew language. He follows Nehemiah’s outrage against the foreign mothers who did not teach their children to speak proper Hebrew (13:23‒25), writing: The main action of Ezra and his associ‫עיקר ּפעולתו של עזרא וחבריו היתה להבדיל‬ ates was to separate the holy seed from ‫[ ועשו את‬. . .] ‫זרע הקודש מעמי הארצות‬ the [other] peoples of the lands [. . .] they ‫המעשה הגדול של גרוש כל הנשים הנכריות‬ accomplished the great feat of expel‫[ עם הנשים הנכריות נכנסה הצרה אל תוך‬. . .] ling all the foreign women [.  .  .] With ‫ שהיא על ּפי‬,‫ אל תוך המשּפחה‬,‫הבית ּפנימה‬ 20 the foreign women, trouble entered ‫ והאם הנכריה‬,‫רוב המשגב האחרון להלשון‬ ‫ בפרט מבחינת‬,‫התחילה מגדלת זרים להאומה‬ into the house, into the family, which is usually the last stronghold of the [native] ‫ בנים שאינם שומעים את הלשון הלאומית‬,‫הלשון‬ language, and the foreign mother began ‫ ומבחינה זו בפרט‬.‫ומזלזלים בה ואינם רוצים בה‬ ‫היתה הגזרה שגזרו עזרא וכנסת הגדולה בדבר‬ rearing [children who are] alienated ‫ מעשה לאומי גדול‬,‫גרוש הנשים הנכריות‬ from the nation, especially in terms of .‫שהשעה היתה צריכה לזו‬ language, children who do not understand the national language, despise it and do not desire it. And in this respect in particular, the decree issued by Ezra and the Great Assembly regarding the expulsion of the foreign women was a great national act that was deemed necessary at that time.21 Although his intention was linguistic and national development, not social segregation based on biological origin, Ben-Yehuda’s insinuation cannot be mistaken. He is renowned as a fierce opponent of the use of any language other than Hebrew, not only in public but also at home. He is known to have insisted that his own children remain unexposed to other languages, fearing that such exposure might harm their acquisition of Hebrew.22 For Ben-Yehuda, it is the use of a foreign language that makes their speakers foreign. A few decades later, in the 1930s, Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel (1880‒1953), the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine and later of the State of Israel, uses Ezra’s campaign for a different cause, his concern being halakhic (legal) rather than

19 Fellman, Revival. 20 Ṣarah means also a “rival wife” in a polygamous family (Lev 18:18). 21 Ben-Iehuda, Thesaurus, 108‒9. 22 Lang, Life, vol. 1, 117, 170.

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 269

cultural. Uziel relates to cases of official registration of Jewish immigrants married to Christian women as married couples. His response reflects a realistic approach: And regarding those [Christian women married to Jews] who have already immigrated to Israel. The [strict] law demands to do as Ezra did in his time (Ezra 10), but I am very concerned that we do not hold sufficient authority, and those transgressors among Israel who have married foreign wives will not cooperate. Therefore, as you propose, we must approve their [the wives’] conversion.23

‫ולאלה ]נשים נוצריות הנשואות ליהודים[ שעלו‬ ‫ הדין נותן לעשות כעזרא‬.‫כבר ארצה ישראל‬ ‫ אולם חוששני מאד שאין ידינו‬,('‫בשעתו )עזרא י‬ ‫תקיפה ואין פושעי ישראל אלה שנשאו נשים‬ ‫ לכן‬.‫ כדבריך כן נעשה‬:‫נכריות מוכנים לענות‬ .‫מוכרחים אנו לצדד בהיתר של גירותן‬

Rabbi Uziel regrets the lack of rabbinic authority in his day, compared to that of Ezra, and uses it as a pretext for enabling non-Jewish women who are married to Jews to convert. He does it even though giyyur le-shem ishut (conversion for the sake of marriage conjugality) is considered legally dubious and is often prohibited.24 Rabbi Uziel uses the biblical reference in a rhetorical manner to justify his leniency toward conversions in his days. Another reference to this situation was made a few years later, after the establishment of the State of Israel, by Rabbi Ya‘akov Moshe Toledano, the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv. In 1953, five years after the establishment of the State, he warns: Aliyah [immigration to Israel] in its early years brought intermarried couples [.  .  .] Since the days of Ezra the purity of our people has not been in such jeopardy as it is now [.  .  .] in hundreds of families, in which one of the spouses is a gentile and they educate the children according to their faith, the children are nevertheless registered as Jews.25

‫העלייה בשנותיה הראשונות הביאה נישואי‬ ‫[ מימות עזרא לא היתה טהרת‬. . .] ‫תערובת‬ ‫[ מאות‬. . .] ‫עמנו כה בסכנה כבימים אלה‬ ‫ שאחד מבני הזוג נוכרי והוא‬,‫משפחות‬ ‫ ובכל זאת‬,‫מחנך את הבנים ברוח אמונתו‬ .‫הם רשומים בפנקסי הזהות כיהודים‬

23 M. Yebam. 2.8; b. Yebam. 24b; see: Finkelstein, Conversion, 226‒32. 24 Uziel, Responsa, Yoreh De‘ah, 65a. 25 Rabbi Ya‘akov Moshe Toledano, the second conference of the rabbinical judges, October 1953; cited from Fisher, “Jewish State,” 230.

270 

 Dalia Marx

Toledano implies that statehood and the vast immigration to Israel caused this “danger” to “the purity of our people.”26 However, he too does not relate to the biological aspect but rather to fear that the children would not receive Jewish education. In sum, very few legalists and religious leaders make use of the Ezra campaign as a desired yet unattainable precedent.27 This use occurs precisely before, or during, the early years of Jewish statehood. There is a sense of sovereignty, but as in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is still fragile and lacks stability. References, albeit very few and scarce, were dormant, as it were, until the dawn of modern Jewish nationality. The results are even scarcer when checking the use of the Ezra’s campaign in ritual and lore. In truth, I found only one, rather marginal, example of such references in contemporary ritual. ‘Id el Banat (the Festivals of the Girls), a North African, especially Tunisian, celebration of girls and women, which took place on the first day of the month of Tevet (the tenth month in the biblical calendar). Dealing with the possible roots of ‘Id el Banat, the educator and Jewish folklore scholar, Yom Tov Levinsky (1899‒1973), suggested that its original context was the decision to deport the foreign women, which took place on “the first day of the tenth month” (Ezra 10:16).28 According to this hypothesis, the Jewish women celebrated their up-coming exclusivity.29 Yet, I could find no ethnographic evidence, written or oral, for this reasoning. In recent years, with the renaissance of ethnic festivals in Israel, this explanation is occasionally provided, once again, without any references.30 As response to this explanation, one hears other voices expressing regret that though the festival is meant to stress women’s solidarity, it is recruited for a nationalist cause. To the best of my knowledge, there are no actual ritualistic references in ‘Id el Banat to Ezra’s story.31

26 A similar opinion was expressed by the Jerusalem Sephardic Rabbi Ya‘akov Hai Zion Ades (1898‒1963), Responsa, 13. 27 Another example of such a use is that of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (1910‒2012), the religious leader of the Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox section. In the early 1980s he expressed a demand for strict examination of the motivation of converts, excluding for purposes of marriage those who do not accept upon themselves the yoke of the Jewish law. His argument: “lest the nations of the land mingle with the holy seed” (Responsa, Yoreh De‘ah, 100, 148). The language clearly refers to the Ezra campaign. See discussion, Netanel Fisher, “Jewish State,” 231‒36. 28 Levinsky, Appointed Times, vol. 5, 59, 287. 29 Levinsky, Appointed Times, vol. 5, 59, 287. 30 For example, Levine, “Festival,” 3‒6. 31 Recently, Rabbi Eliyahu Weber suggested a ritual marking of “the first day of the tenth month.” Ascending the Temple Mount on that day, he stated that the new moon of Tevet, should be commemorated as “a day of separation between the people of Israel and the nations” (“Separation”). As far as I know, the initiative to celebrate Yom Ha-Hafradah (The Day of Separation) was not adopted nor is it mentioned by other religious leaders and speakers.

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 271

5 Conclusions A clear discrepancy exists between the centrality of the biblical narrative in the campaign against the foreign wives and the apparent lack of interest in it on the part of Jewish legalists and religious leaders. The reason may well be what seems to be its apparent failure in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah; after repeatedly describing the crisis in detail, nothing is reported about its outcome. On the contrary, the repetitious nature of the narrative may testify to a local separatist attitude in Persian Judah. However, a weightier reason is its superfluous nature—despite the rather exclusive nature of traditional Judaism, it is not a racially or ethnically based religion and culture, since one may join it through giyyur (conversion).32 The institution of the conversion procedure rendered redundant, or even undesirable, a categorical differentiation based on biological origin.33 Apart from the legal aspects, the story about the foreign women crisis in Ezra and Nehemiah may occasionally be cited in the sermon of a right-wing speaker, but it has no prominent presence in ritual or thought. The examples have been cited here precisely to determine that the biologically-purist nature of Ezra’s campaign and the crisis of the foreign wives did not leave a significant mark on Jewish law and lore. When the categories of a “Jew” and a “Gentile” are clear,34 and when there is an established and accessible procedure for entering the Jewish people, the anxiety and rage reflected in Ezra and Nehemiah become superfluous. That said, in times of national transition and unrest, such as the pre-State and early-statehood times, or in times of cultural agitation, such as in these contemporary times, at least among Israeli Jews, such themes may reappear, even if in minor and marginal ways.35

32 The procedures of conversion are not without struggles and tension. See, for example, Fisher, “Joining”; idem, “Jewish State”. In contemporary Judaism, especially in North America, more and more people who are not ethnically Jews affiliate as Jews and participate in Jewish life without formal conversion. See, for example, Ariel, “Conversions” in Israel, one may relate to “social conversion” of people, especially from the former Soviet Union, who are not Jews according to the Orthodox legal system but are raised and live as Jews. 33 The term “Seed of Israel” is now used to refer to a person who is of Jewish descent but is not halachically Jewish, namely, does not have a Jewish mother or been converted to Judaism (Amsalem, Seed). 34 Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, Goy, 179‒214. One must add, as noted above, that the categories of who is a Jew seem to be less acute in many segments of contemporary Judaism, while in others, such as the conversion policy of ultra-Orthodox rabbis, the policy is more stringent than ever before. See, for example, Fisher, “Joining”, 232‒36. 35 Eskenazi Cohn and Judd, “Marriage,” 276‒85.

272 

 Dalia Marx

Bibliography Ades, Ya‘akov Hai Zion. Ḥedvat Ya‘aqov: Responsa. Jerusalem: Kol Yaakov, 1990. [Hebrew[ Amsalem, Haim. The Seed of Israel. Jerusalem: Mekabetz Nidhey Yisrael, 1990. [Hebrew[ Ariel, Ya‘akov. “Unofficial Conversions: Non-Jewish Participants in contemporary American Synagogues.” Pages 334‒52 in Becoming Jewish: New Jews and Emerging Jewish Communities in a Globalized World. Edited by Tudor Parfitt and Netanel Fisher. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. Ben-Iehuda, Elieser. Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis et Veteris et Recentioris: Prolegomena. Vol. 1. New York: Yoseloff, 1908. Bialik, Hayim Nahman. Devarim Shebe‘al Peh. Vols. 1‒2. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1935. [Hebrew[ Dor, Yonina. Have the “Foreign Women” Really Been Expelled: Separation and Inclusion in the Restoration Period. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006. [Hebrew[ Dor, Yonina. “Rite of Separation of the Foreign Wives in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 173‒88 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiation Identity in the International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN, 2011. Eliashiv, Yosef Shalom. Collection of Responsa. Jerusalem: n.p., 2000. [Hebrew[. Eskenazi Cohn, Tamara. “The Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 509‒29 in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Fellman, Jack. The Revival of a Classical Tongue: Eliezer Ben Yehuda and the Modern Hebrew Language. Contribution to the Sociology of Language 6. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Eskenazi Cohn, Tamara, and Elenore P. Judd. “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9‒10.” Pages 266‒85 in Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1994. Finkelstein, Menachem. Conversion: Halakhah and Practice. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006. Fisher, Netanel. “A Jewish State? Controversial Conversions and the Dispute over Israel’s Jewish Character.” Contemporary Judaism 33:3 (2013): 217‒40. Fisher, Netanel. “Joining the Jewish State: Israel’s Conversion Policies.” Pages 224‒42 in Becoming Jewish: New Jews and Emerging Jewish Communities in A Globalized World. Edited by Tudor Parfitt and Netanel Fisher. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. English trans. by Monika B. Vizedom, and Gabrielle L. Caffee. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Vols. 1‒7. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909‒1938. Heltzer, Michael. “A New Approach to the Question of the ‘Alien Wives’ in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies (1986‒89): 83‒92. [Hebrew[ Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Israelite Faith. Vol. 8. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1956. [Hebrew[. Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Lang, Yosef. The Life of Eliezer Ben Yehuda. Vols.1‒2, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2008. [Hebrew[ Levine, Yael. “The Festival of the Girls.” Kolech 75 (2004): 3‒6. [Hebrew[ Levinsky, Yom Tov. The Book of Appointed Times. Vols. 1‒8. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1946‒1954. [Hebrew[ Marx, Dalia. “Liturgical Aspects of Conversion to Judaism.” Pages 166‒81 in Rabbi Moshe Zemer: Studies and Chapters of Life. Edited by David Barak-Gorodetsky. Tel Aviv: Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, 2022. [Hebrew[

The Mixed Marriage Crisis (Ezra 9‒10, Nehemiah 13) 

 273

Ophir, Adi, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile. Oxford Studies in the Abrahamic Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Tal-Shir, Zipora. “Holy Seed: Review.” Catharsis 10 (2009): 86‒110. [Hebrew[ Turner, Victor. “Rites of Passage: A Few Definitions.” ER 12:386‒87. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9‒10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post Exilic Judean Community.” Pages 243‒65 in Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1994. Uziel, Ben-Zion Meir Hai. Mishpatei Uziel (Responsa), Yoreh De‘ah. Tel Aviv: Levitzki, 1935. Vigert, Mazal. ‘Ayin la-Miqra: Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Self-publication, 1974. [Hebrew[ Weber, Elihu. “The Day of Separation Between Israel and the Nations.” Har Habait, 5 December 2021. https://har-habait.org/articleBody/35054 Weinfeld, Moshe. “Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration.” Tarbiz 33:3 (1964): 228‒42. [Hebrew[

Stefan C. Reif

The Notion of the Nation: How Hebrew Terminology Has Adjusted to Changing Circumstances—A Tale of Cultural Semantics Abstract: Since language and thought are inevitably interconnected within any cultural tradition, it is not surprising to find terminology recreating itself in the light of conceptual considerations. Hebrew expressions, no less than those of any other language and perhaps even more than most, have had a dynamic that has allowed them to adjust as circumstances have required. To understand that dynamic in one historical context it is helpful to relate it to linguistic developments over a broader period. The object of this paper will be to assess the manner in which the senses of words relating to the notion of people (especially goy, ger and nokhri) had to adjust over the centuries and to delineate the roles of thinkers, codifiers and exegetes in that historical process. Has such a process consistently involved tendencies towards exclusiveness, or have there also been periods in which inclusiveness reigned supreme? Keywords: language, culture, nation, goy, ger, nokhri

1 Introduction Over a period of two and a half millennia, and perhaps even as much as three, Hebrew expressions have had a dynamic that has allowed them to adjust their sense and their message, as circumstances have required. Such adjustment is of course not unique to the Hebrew language but, because of the lengthy history of its literary forms, Hebrew provides rich sources of linguistic data that testify to the nature of that dynamic process. The object of this paper is to trace the manner in which some words relating to peoplehood have been understood and explained in numerous ways by many generations of Jews, and to examine how such linguistic developments may have arisen within a variety of social, cultural and religious spheres. It will be necessary to delineate—albeit briefly—the roles of thinkers, codifiers and exegetes in that historical process. To that end, I shall begin by touching on the matter of how language and thought are interrelated and by drawing attention to some interesting nineteenth-century views and exchanges of Jews and about Jews. Having then started at the end, as it were, I shall move swiftly backwards in https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-017

276 

 Stefan C. Reif

time to the biblical period that provides the earliest evidence and discuss a number of relevant texts. Having left the Hebrew and Hellenistic literature of the Second Temple period in the capable hands of other contributors to this collection of essays,1 the next linguistic area to be tackled will be that of the talmudic and midrashic literature. That literature, as is well known, is of extensive range, diverse content and complex ideology, but an attempt will nevertheless be made to locate and identify a few shining needles in a heaped haystack. Some examples from the Hebrew liturgy will indicate how ideology is transferred to the language of prayers or is to be detected there. Medieval Jewish exegesis of the Hebrew Bible represents the efforts of one era to make sense of the language and ideas of another, usually denying (but often not convincingly) that there can be cognitive dissonance between the writers in the ancient Holy Land and the Hebrew scholars of the Middle Ages. The interpretive circle will then be closed by a return to the nineteenth-century starting point before some tentative conclusions are offered for consideration. Will the analysis of words relating to identity point to a process that consistently involved tendencies towards exclusiveness, or will it emerge that there have also been periods in which inclusiveness reigned supreme?

2 Theorizing One of the controversial topics among the Zionist Jews of the nineteenth century was the relationship between the Jewish national movement on the one hand and politics and culture on the other. How was Jewish nationhood to be conceived and advanced? Should not political progress, settlement in the land of Israel, and the creation of national institutions take precedence since these would ultimately lead to the successful development of a vibrant culture. Alternatively, should the priority lie with cultural advancement throughout the Jewish world, in the expectation that achievements in this area would ensure that the political dimension would follow in due course.2 This latter view was strongly espoused by Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856‒1927), an outstanding essayist and journalist, born in what is now Ukraine, who used his literary talents and his powerful intellect to disseminate various aspects of this ideology. Having lived in the Jewish cultural center of Odessa from 1886 until 1908, he then moved to another important location for

1 See, for example, the articles of Wischmeyer, Schmitz, Corley, and Niehoff in this volume. 2 On the relevant ideological history, see Laqueur, Zionism, 3‒39, 107‒8, 162‒66.

The Notion of the Nation 

 277

Jewish ideology, London, where he managed the British office of the (then international) Wissotzky Tea Company, until he settled in Tel Aviv in 1922. Widely in his day, and subsequently almost always, known by his nom-de-plume of Aḥad Ha‘am (see Gen 26:10), Ginsberg had strong views as to how Jewish thought should relate to the development of contemporary Hebrew.3 In an essay about Hebrew language and literature written in 1892 and published in 1894, Aḥad Ha‘am argued that Hebrew, as all languages, developed out of natural circumstances as well as out of literature of quality. If one wished to enliven Hebrew, one should make major efforts to revive the language with fresh ideas, while remaining true to Hebrew’s linguistic details (“do not tamper with the minutest element of the language”). He suggested that higher levels of thought would create the advancement of the language. At the same time, he made the point that artificial expansions could never succeed.4 Regarding the last-mentioned point, the efforts of language academies in various countries raise doubts about his pessimism. In addition, the latest research on the relationship between language and thought leaves considerable doubt about any assumption that one dictates the other. Nick Lund has questioned attempts to declare that there is a dominant influence in one direction or the other, preferring the view that, among adults at any rate, thought and language become interlinked and interdependent.”5 On the matter of language developing out of circumstances and out of literature, then, Ahad Ha‘am was undoubtedly on the right track. Changing circumstances of various sorts inevitably produce adjusted linguistic expression.

3 German academics Moving now to Berlin in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, one encounters an intellectual movement that champions historical approaches to cultural developments and critical analysis of literary sources. This trend was well represented in the Universities of Halle and in Berlin by one of its major figures, Friedrich August Wolf (1759‒1824), a distinguished linguist and thinker. Wolf regarded history, language and culture as inseparably connected and he defined the study of

3 See the biography by Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet. 4 Aḥad Ha‘am, “Question.” As a sound scholar of Judaica, he supported his idea with his own midrashic interpretation of Prov 4:8a: ‫סלסלו את המחשבה והיא תרומם את הלשון‬, “Raise the level of the thought and that will improve the standard of the language.” See also Guvrin, “Aḥad Ha-‘am.” 5 Lund, Language, 26.

278 

 Stefan C. Reif

those areas of human endeavor, especially in the classical world, as “Philologie.”6 Discussions about the nature of nationhood were part of the contemporary intellectual exercise. The gradual emancipation of the Jews led them, and the non-Jews, to consider the status of the Jews in this connection.7 Wolf and his student August Wilhelm Böckh (1785‒1867) were not against Jewish emancipation but they saw it as necessarily, and ideally, leading towards assimilation into German Protestant life and thought. In order to achieve this, it was incumbent upon the Jews to improve their cultural standing.8 On this topic, Wolf distinguished “nationhood”, which he saw as what would perhaps today be described as ethnicity, from “peoplehood” which for him had a more advanced cultural sense. As far as the Jews were concerned, the “Hebrew nation” had “not raised itself to a level of culture that would permit it to be considered a scholarly people.”9 As a student at the University of Berlin, young Leopold (Yomtov Lipman) Zunz (1794‒1886) was deeply impressed by those teachers as well as by their ideas about the centrality of language and the importance of philological method. As Zunz himself expressed it (in Schorsch’s translation), “For language is the first friend, who willingly leads us along the footpaths to scholarship and the last to whom we return longingly. She alone can tear away the past’s veil. She alone can prepare kindred spirits for the future and that is why the scholar must endure her caprice. What centuries have created can only be enhanced by centuries.”10 Zunz could accommodate, at least partially, to Wolf’s notions of the classical tradition and the nature of culture but, as a committed Jew, how was he to respond to Wolf’s low estimate of Jewish cultural achievement? His response was to adopt the scholarly methodology of Wolf and Böckh, to examine what rabbinic Judaism owed to the classical world, and to demonstrate in his many publications that Jewish culture in general, and Hebrew liturgy and poetry in particular, were worthy recipients of the desirable sobriquet of “cultured.”11 Inevitably, then, Zunz, unlike most of the early Zionists, saw Jewish nationhood and peoplehood as primarily a cultural phenomenon. In the insightful estimate of Irene Zwiep, for Zunz, his immediate colleagues and many of his followers, Cultur (quite a novel concept at the time) was the combination of the literature and the actual (every day and historical) life of a particular

6 Markner and Veltri, Wolf. 7 Myers, Re-Inventing, 5‒6. 8 Zunz, trans. Reif, Prayer Rites, introductory essay. 9 In the original: “Die hebräische Nation hat sich nicht auf den Grad der Cultur emporgearbeitet, dass man sie als ein gelehrtes Volk betrachten könnte.” See Grafton, “Juden.” 10 Zunz, “Literatur,” 17; for the translation, see Schorsch, Zunz, 20. 11 Schorsch, Zunz, 21‒22.

The Notion of the Nation 

 279

nation.12 As Ismar Schorsch has explained it, Zunz armed the synagogue with an escutcheon of nobility, defined it as an expression of Jewish nationhood (Nationalität), and argued that Jewry had displayed characteristics of a national entity capable of producing a well-rounded body of national literature (Volksliteratur).13

4 Hebrew Bible In the modern period just discussed there were lively discussions about nationhood and peoplehood and a developing trend to see such identities as complex phenomena, relating in one way or another to life, language and literature. Our next task will be to examine at least some of the relevant terminology in the biblical Hebrew texts and to ascertain what may safely be said about the range of meanings conveyed by each of the terms and how that reflects on the ideas and ideology of the language users of the time, or, perhaps more precisely, the authors and editors of the period. Especially important will be the manner in which these terms expressed the identity of the writers. It will be helpful to begin with a definition offered by Ronald Clements of the word goy (‫)גוי‬. He writes:14 Since the OT does not contain any ordered or consistent doctrine of nationhood, we find that there is no precise definition of what constitutes a goy. Instead, we find that the three major aspects of race, government, and territory all contribute features of their own toward a comprehensive picture. The element of common racial origin, with its basis in consanguinity, plays an important part in the structure of a goy.

A close examination of a number of the standard lexicographical sources reveals some noteworthy definitions that are perhaps a little less ambivalent than what has just been quoted in connection with goy: a. ‫( גוי‬goy) is any nation but ‫( גוים‬goyim) usually means other nations. b. ‫( גר‬ger) is a person living away from their own country, a newcomer, a temporary resident. c. ‫( נכרי‬nokhri) is the foreigner, the stranger, the “other” who is not an integral part of the family or the tribe.15

12 Zwiep, “Scholarship.” 13 Schorsch, Zunz, 81, 140. 14 Clements, “‫גוי‬,” 429. See also Lang, “‫נכר‬,” 425‒26. 15 BDB 156, 158, 648‒49; Ben-Yehuda, Dictionary, 718‒19, 829‒30, 3671‒72; KBL 175‒76, 193, 661‒62; Clines, Dictionary, 2.329‒34, 372‒73; 5.692‒95.

280 

 Stefan C. Reif

Although there will be no opportunity of dealing with the terms ‫ קהל‬and ‫ עדה‬in the present context, it should be noted, for completeness and for the record, that they probably represent later descriptions of the Israelite community. Four examples of biblical texts relating to the nuances of the word goy are important for this discussion. The other words will receive attention at later points in the paper: a. Gen 25:23 (the divine message to Rebecca): ‫שני גוים בבטנך ושני לאומים ממעיך יפרדו‬, translated in the JPSA of 1962 as “Two nations are in your womb, two separate peoples shall issue from your body.” Goy here means an identifiable nation and is paralleled by ‫( לאום‬le’um). b. Gen 35:11 (God to Jacob): ‫פרה ורבה גוי וקהל גוים יהיה ממך ומלכים מחלציך יצאו‬, translated by the JPSA as “Be fertile and increase; a nation, yea an assembly of nations, shall descend from you.” Goyim here means a group of nations. c. Exod 33:13 (Moses to God): ‫וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה‬, translated by the JPSA as “Consider, too, that this nation is your people.” A distinction is here being made between goy, meaning one of a number of nations, and ‫‘( עם‬am) “people,” here identified as God’s people. Although there are many instances in which they are almost synonymous, is there here perhaps a remnant of an alternative (more tribal?) sense for the word ‘am? d. Deut 4:6 (Moses to Israel): ‫ רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה‬translated by the JPSA as “Surely, that great nation is a wise and discerning people.”16

5 Talmudic-midrashic goy Having established, however briefly, some biblical nuances of goy, the discussion should now proceed to the talmudic-midrashic literature. Here, the question will be whether in the centuries that divide these two corpora of Jewish religious expression any adjustment in the meaning may be detected. Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of texts that might have been cited, many of them at odds with each other, and one can do no more here than nod allusively in their direction. As Louis Ginzberg once observed, “there is hardly any view of life for and against which one could not quote the Talmud.”17 Before any such early rabbinic texts are cited, however, it needs to be pointed out that the word goy, because it sometimes referred to Christians, attracted major attention on the part of the late medieval and early modern censors. They, or Jewish scribes who feared the censor, therefore substituted for 16 See The Torah, 43, 64, 160‒61, 331. 17 Ginzberg, “Jewish Thought,” 116.

The Notion of the Nation 

 281

that allegedly offensive word various terms that could rule out any Christian application.18 The terms were nokhri (heathen), kuti (Cuthean = Samaritan), and aku”m (= ‘oved kokhavim u-mazalot, a worshipper of stars and planets). In the citations, the original goy has been retained: a. y. Qiddushin 4.11 (66c): A statement reported in the name of the second-century rabbinic teacher, Simeon b. Yoḥai, declares ‫“ טוב שבגוים הרוג‬the finest goy deserves to be killed.” Various attempts have been made by embarrassed Jewish scholars to explain away this rather intolerant, even cruel, piece of advice.19 If however, we take it as it stands, it probably reflects the intense anger of one who was severely maltreated by the Romans. For Simeon b. Yoḥai the goy was the Roman enemy and persecutor. b. Sifra 13 (86a): A singularly different teaching about a goy is cited in the name of Jeremiah, a Babylonian rabbi who settled, studied and flourished in the land of Israel in the fourth century. Granted that he was something of a maverick figure, his comment must reflect some sort of historical reality. He declared (no less!) that a goy who observes the Torah is like a High Priest. He may have had in mind non-Jews who were attracted by aspects of Jewish religious practice and who accepted the seven Noahite commandments.20 He accorded them the highest form of religious praise he could envisage. c. b. Sanhedrin 58b: In the Roman Judea of the third century, which known to have had mixed populations with a variety of ideologies, the rabbinic teacher Simeon b. Laqish, usually known as Resh Laqish, expressed the view that a goy who observes the Sabbath is guilty of a capital offence. At the time, there was still a substantial degree of social intercourse between Jews and Jewish Christians. The latter still adhered to various biblical precepts and Sabbath was probably one of them. As J. D. Eisenstein suggested over a century ago, the goy here may have been the Jewish Christian who was for Resh Laqish a theological competitor whose customs had to be ruled out; hence his powerful condemnation.21 What is clear from these passages is that goy had become a more specific term, that it was not the normal term with which Jews described themselves, and that its sense could vary depending on how the rabbinic teacher viewed the gentiles to whom he was referring. A later midrashic text deserves more close examination since it seems to reveal a remarkably favorable assessment of non-Jews. Midrash Tehillim (a rabbinic commentary on Psalms) underwent what Günter Stemberger 18 Popper, Censorship, 10. 19 Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9.134‒38; Lawee, “Best.” 20 Urbach, Sages, 533. 21 Eisenstein, “Gentile,” 623.

282 

 Stefan C. Reif

has called “an extended period of development” so that it has material dating back to talmudic times but emerged in its current form only in the Middle Ages.22 That said, the text that will now be cited does contain teachings that are associated—at least in the mind of the redactor—with leading rabbis of the late second century. I cite from Braude’s English edition:23 Another interpretation of O praise the Lord, all ye nations; laud him, all ye peoples (Ps 117:1). R. Simeon, the son of our holy Rabbi, asked his father: “What nations are meant by all ye nations and what peoples by all ye peoples?” Rabbi replied: “The nations are all the nations which oppressed the children of Israel, and the peoples are all the peoples which did not oppress them.” All these people said: If they who oppressed the children of Israel sing praise to the Holy One, blessed be He, we who did not oppress then should sing all the more. Hence it is said O praise the Lord, all ye nations; laud him, all ye peoples. The children of Israel also said: Even more should we sing his praise! And then they went on to say For His mercy is great towards us (Ps 117:2). And the earth said: True is the Lord forever (ibid.). True to what? True to the covenant made with the fathers, as is said Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob (Lev. 26:42).

What is being stated here is no less than a need for Jews to follow the example of non-Jewish monotheists. The nations and peoples (goyim and umim) of Ps 117 are all interpreted as gentiles and their praise of God is an example to the Jews of how they too should sing God’s praises. The goy is not simply the social, political or theological “other” but the model for righteous behavior.

6 Talmudic-midrashic ger It will be recalled that ger in the Hebrew Bible was essentially a person living away from their own country. A number of talmudic-midrashic texts appear to reflect a rather different view: a. b. Pesaḥim 87b: God’s main purpose in scattering the Jews among all the peoples was so that people would be converted (‫)גרים‬. b. b. ‘Avod Zar 64b: Ger is one who accepts Judaism in its totality while ger toshav commits to abandon idolatry, or to observe the seven Noachide commandments, or continues to eat forbidden foods.

22 Stemberger, Introduction, 351. 23 Braude, Psalms 2.230.

The Notion of the Nation 

c. d.

 283

The blessing in the ‘amidah for righteous Jews makes special mention of ‫גרי צדק‬ “righteous converts.”24 b. Yebamot 47b records a negative view: of R. Ḥelbo, late third century, from Babylonia to the land of Israel: For him gerim are like a troublesome scab on the body of Israel.

The contemporary religious experience of the rabbis of the first few Christian centuries included proselytes, who represented a phenomenon that was so relevant to their lives that it could not be ignored. They could represent various levels of Jewish religious commitment, and, for the majority of the rabbis, they warranted special prayers on their behalf. This did not, however, rule out the view that they could sometimes bring troubles to the Jewish people.

7 Rabbinic liturgy If Jewish identity finds expression in the talmudic-midrashic literature, there is no doubt that it is also well represented in the statutory rabbinic prayers as prescribed in both Babylonia and the land of Israel in the post-talmudic period. Just as the Good Friday liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church could—until 1962—refer to the “perfidious Jews,” so there were some standard Jewish prayers that made the distinction between “us” and “them” and in which goy was the common designation used for the latter: a. Among the first benedictions recited by the Jew when he arises in the morning is a praise of God “for not having made me a goy.”25 b. The central set of daily benedictions that constitute the ‘amidah includes, in one version, the prayer that there “should be no hope for apostates, heretics and Christians.” The enemies of rabbinic Judaism are here more specifically enumerated rather than broadly cited as goyim.26 c. The ‘alenu prayer that is almost certainly talmudic but came to be widely used to mark the conclusion of the divine service in the Middle Ages takes pride in the fact that God has not made the Jews “like the goyim of the lands or the families of the earth.”27

24 Sa‘adya, Siddur, 18; Ehrlich, Amidah, 185‒88. 25 Tabory, “Benedictions.” 26 Sa‘adya, Siddur, 18; Ehrlich, Amidah, 174‒78. 27 Sa‘adya, Siddur, 221; Elbogen, Liturgy, 71‒72.

284 

 Stefan C. Reif

The matter of the religious identity, both of Jews and, in their view, of non-Jews, engaged the attention of Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (1155‒1215). Born in Avignon, he spent his life in Provence, France and Spain and unsurprisingly was acquainted with various forms of religious expression, including the Jewish customs of German and England. He was also a close observer of what was around him and wrote an extensive summary of the liturgical practices he had encountered. He also annotated some of the prayers and he has a noteworthy comment on “the other” in his exegesis of part of the Sabbath morning service (the text is here in italic and the comments in bold):28 You did not give the Sabbath to the nations of the lands [that is, to those who do not worship images, namely, the Muslims], nor did you bequeath it to those who worship images [such as the Christians]; nor should the uncircumcised [that is, those who are neither Muslims nor Christians but righteous gerim who have accepted the seven Noachide commands or gerim toshavim who have agreed, like Naaman, not to be idolatrous] enjoy the Sabbath rest that God has granted, only Israel your people. . .

8 Medieval exegesis The Jewish exegetes of the Hebrew Bible were faced with a considerable dilemma in the Middle Ages. They not only had to struggle with the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures but also had to match their interpretation of those ancient texts with their current modes of thought. Nowhere is this more true than when they were dealing with some of the terms describing Jewish nationhood and peoplehood. The topic is a vast one and can be touched upon here only in the most minor degree. Their comments on four verses deserve some attention:29 a. Gen 17:5‒6: ‫ ונתתיך לגוים ומלכים ממך יצאו‬. . .‫כי אב המון גוים נתתיך‬, translated by the JPSA as “I make you the father of a multitude of nations. . .and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you.” Solomon b. Isaac (“Rashi” 1040‒1105 in Troyes, France) sees the first verse as an allusion to all the nations of the world but goes on in the second verse to offer what seems to be an original comment. There he identifies goyim as Israel and Edom/Esau [/Rome/Christianity?].30 This apparently favorable view of Christianity as a twin inheritor of the Abrahamic faith was rejected by Moses ben Naḥman (“Ramban”, 1194‒1270, Gerona in Aragon; Acre in Latin Jerusalem). Ramban

28 Abraham b. Nathan, Sefer Hamanhig, 1.154. 29 See The Torah, 26, 32, 230‒31, 352. 30 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Rashi 1.66.

The Notion of the Nation 

b.

c.

 285

was involved in a disputation in 1263 with Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a convert from Judaism, and was very conscious of the polemical need to deny Christianity such an identity. Two of his arguments are that Edom was not instructed about circumcision (as in b. Sanhedrin 59b), and that only Israel is called goy and ‘am (as in Deut 33:3, 19, Jdg 5:14, Gen 35:11).31 Once again, then, the issue is one of the definitions of nationhood/peoplehood. Gen 20:4: ‫ואבימלך לא קרב אליה ויאמר הגוי גם צדיק תהרג‬, translated by the JPSA as “Now Abimelech had not approached her. He said, ‘O Lord, will You slay people although innocent’?”. The exegetical challenge once again lies in the meaning of the word goy. Sa‘adya Gaon (882‒942) in Babylonia understands it to mean a person, that is, Abimelech is asking God whether he will slay a righteous person.32 Rashi takes on board the talmudic meaning of the non-Jew and, following a comment in Genesis Rabbah, has Abimelech challenging God about his justice and referring to the equally unfair fate of the generations of the Flood and of the Tower of Babel.33 Abraham ibn Ezra (12c, western Europe), as he expands on it in his commentary on Exod 21:8, rejects a personal sense for goy and prefers to see it as a collective noun, similar to ‘am, qahal and ‘edah.34 Lev 25:35‒36, 40, 47: ‫וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך‬, translated by the JPSA as “If your brother, being in straits, comes under your authority, and you hold him as though a resident alien, let him live by your side.” There are a number of exegetical questions here. Who is the ‫( גר ותושב‬ger toshav) of the first phrase and how does the second phrase ‫( וחי עמך‬ve-ḥay ‘imakh) relate to the previous one? Is the intent of the latter phrase “who lives with you” or “in order that he should live with you”? Rashi takes the first phrase to refer to someone who is not idolatrous but does not adhere to the laws of kashrut. You should support him in his need, and, also, so that he is able to survive with you.35 Rashi’s grandson, Samuel b. Meir (“Rashbam,” ca. 1085‒1158, France) on v. 47 defines the first phrase as someone who has been removed from his own kingdom that is far away. He is not one of those closer to you, not a resident, nor a ger, nor a goy, nor a citizen. He does not define what he means by ger and goy and whether he is using them in the talmudic sense of “proselyte” and “non-Jew.”36 Charles Chavel translates Ramban’s commentary on v. 35: “the meaning is that he, the stranger or settler, shall be enabled to live with you,

31 Chavel, Ramban, Genesis, 218‒19. 32 Zucker, Saadya’s Commentary, 392; Kafih, Perushey Rabbenu Sa‘adya, 29 33 Bereschit Rabba 52.4, ed. Albeck, 547. 34 Strickman and Silver, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary 2.458‒59. 35 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Rashi’s Commentary 3:118. 36 Lockshin, Rashbam’s Commentary, 136.

286 

d.

 Stefan C. Reif

it being a positive commandment to support him, and it is from here that we deduce that we are commanded by means of a positive commandment to save life.” This would certainly imply a sympathetic view of “the other.”37 Deut 14:21: ‫לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה או מכר לנכרי כי עם‬ ‫קדוש אתה‬, translated by the JPSA as “You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to the Lord your God.” Sa‘adya equates the word ger here with the word ‫( זר‬zar), that is, “not one of us.”38 Rashi reverts to the halakhic definition of a ger toshav and defines ger here again as one who does not eat kosher food but is not idolatrous.39 Ibn Ezra defines ger as a co-resident who has not become a Jew, and nokhri as a non-resident foreigner without status.40 On the basis of his comment on Exod 21:28 he appears to define the one who may eat this meat as a ‫גר שער‬, only a resident, with no other status. He is therefore adopting a literal and not a talmudic sense for the term.41

9 Zunz and Baer If we may return again to the nineteenth century, Zunz has some interesting comments to make about words in the Hebrew liturgy that were either offensive to the Christian censor or that led Jewish editors to opt for less theologically controversial terms and interpretations. As is usual with Zunz, his criticism is stringent, if not always transparent, and his humor is one of bitter cynicism. It remains clear, however that he is intolerant of anything that is not, to his mind, philologically sound. His comments on a nineteenth-century edition of the prayer-book (in my English translation) read as follows:42 The Sefardi prayer-book printed in Vilna in 1840 follows the same track; wherever the words “yoke” or “enemy” occur, the meaning is evil; the word ‫ גוי‬is altered into ‫ כותי‬and the explanation refers to the ancient star-worshippers. When the Psalmist says that “the gods of the peoples are idols” the commentator defensively refers this to ancient images (p. 29, 88); ‫גרי‬ ‫ הצדק‬means foreigners; ‫( צר‬in ‫ )המבדיל‬has the sense of ‫צרה‬. In that case the ‫ עובדי כוכבים‬are

37 Chavel, Ramban 3.450. 38 Kafih, Perushey Rabbenu Sa ‘adya, 122. 39 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Rashi’s Commentary 5.77 40 Strickman and Silver, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary 5.94; Shachter, Abraham Ibn Ezra, 65‒66. 41 Strickman and Silver, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary 2.458‒59. 42 See Zunz, Prayer Rites, trans. Reif, 225.

The Notion of the Nation 

 287

widely prominent [as ‫ ]גוים‬in biblical sources; ‫( תתיר צרורה‬pp. 23, 101) refers to sin, that is to say, this edition sins against beauty, learning, history, justice and truth.

This desire to avoid any doctrinal clash with other faiths was not limited to the more mundane and often ill-informed editors and publishers. The benediction earlier mentioned that expresses gratitude that one has not been created a goy is undoubtedly the original formulation. The amendment of this to the more irenic term nokhri (“heathen”), well documented by the sixteenth century,43 was a response to possible Christian animosity to the formulation. Nevertheless, such a precise and learned scholar and text critic as Seligmann Baer (1825‒1897) could not bring himself to retain that formulation when preparing his text of the Ashkenazi Hebrew prayerbook in the middle of the nineteenth century in Germany. His comment begins with an acknowledgement about the sound pedigree of the word goy in this benediction but then goes on to express preference for nokhri in the following terms (in my translation): “One should, however, not use the term goy when referring to an individual since its biblical sense is collective, that is, ‘a people’, as pointed out by David Qimḥi and Abraham ibn Ezra.” He thus opts for the biblical and not the rabbinic sense of goy, which is a questionable policy given that he is dealing with the rabbinic prayer-book. He concludes that “the correct word is nokhri since the reference is to ‘another,’ that is, to ‘one who is not of the Jewish faith,’ and we are obliged to formulate our prayers in a lucid fashion.”44 A nice try, but undoubtedly apologetically motivated.

10 Conclusions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Language and thought are mutually influential Terminology reflects changing conditions and ideas The identities of self and of the other are detectable in vocabulary Scripture has to be newly explained to successive generations Liturgy also provides a key to evolving ideologies Biblical exegesis records tensions between pure and applied The words goy, ‘am and ger may convey a variety of senses Religious polemics, apologetics and tensions play their part The overall impression is of a tendency towards the exclusive but there are also examples of a more inclusive theological approach to the other.

43 See Tabory, “Benedictions,” 110. 44 Baer, ‘Avodat Yisrael, 40‒41.

288 

 Stefan C. Reif

Bibliography Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel. Sefer Hamanhig: Rulings and Customs. Edited by Yitzhaq Raphael. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 1978. [Hebrew[ Aḥad Ha‘am (Asher Ginsberg). “On the Question of the [Hebrew[ Language: 1. The Language and Its Literature.” 4 Sivan 5652/ June 1892 published in 5654/1894 [Hebrew[. Reprint: Pages 93‒97 in Kol Kitvey Aḥad Ha‘Am. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956. Baer, Seligmann. Seder ‘Avodat Yisrael. Rödelheim: Lehrberger, 1868. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew. Jerusalem, New York: Yoseloff, 1908‒1959, 1960. [Hebrew[ ________. Bereschit Rabba. Edited by Julius Theodor, and Chanoch Albeck. Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann 1965. (= BR) Braude, William G. The Midrash on Psalms. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Brown, Francis, Driver, Samuel R. , and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. (= BDB) Chavel, Charles B. Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah. 5 vols. New York: Shiloh, 1974‒1976. Clements, Ronald. “‫גוי‬.” TDOT 2:426‒433. Clines, David, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, Phoenix Press, 1993‒2016. Ehrlich, Uri. The Weekday Amidah in Geniza Prayer Books: Origins and Transmission, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2013. [Hebrew[ Eisenstein, Judah D. “Gentile.” in JE 5:619‒24. Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy. A Comprehensive History. Translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. Ginzberg, Louis. “Jewish Thought as Reflected in the Halakah.” Pages 109‒24 in Students, Scholars and Saints. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928. Grafton, Anthony. “Juden und Griechen bei Friedrich August Wolf.” Pages 9‒31 in Friedrich August Wolf: Studien, Dokumente, Bibliographie. Edited by Reinhard Markner and Guiseppe Veltri. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1999. Guvrin, Nurit. “Aḥad Ha-‘am and His Circle against the ‘Expansion of Hebrew’ Policy.” Kesher 37 (2008): 60‒63. [Hebrew[ Kafih, Joseph, ed. Perushey Rabbenu Sa‘adyah Gaon ‘al Ha-Torah. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1963. Kasher, Menaḥem M. Ḥumash Torah Shelemah. New York and Jerusalem: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1927–. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967‒1995. (= KBL) Lang, Bernhard. “‫נכר‬.” TDOT 9:423‒31. Laqueur, Walter. The History of Zionism. London: Tauris, 2003. Lawee, Eric. “‘The Best of Snakes’: A Polemical Midrash in the Rashi Supercommentary Tradition.” Pages 317‒45 in Polemical and Exegetical Polarities in Medieval Jewish Cultures. Studies in Honour of Daniel J. Lasker. Edited by Ehud Krinis, et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Lockshin, Martin I. Rashbam’s Commentary on Leviticus and Numbers. An Annotated Translation. BJS 330. Providence, RI: Brown University, 2001. Lund, Nick. Language and Thought. Routledge Modular Psychology. London: Routledge, 2003.

The Notion of the Nation 

 289

Markner, Reinhard, and Guiseppe Veltri, eds. Friedrich August Wolf: Studien, Dokumente, Bibliographie. Palingenesia 67. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1999. Myers, David N. Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History. Studies in Jewish History. New York, NY et al.: Oxford University Press, 1995. Popper, William. The Censorship of Hebrew Books. New York, NY: Knickebocker Press, 1899. Reprint of The Censorship of Hebrew Books with an introduction by Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger by New York, NY: Ktav, 1969. Rosenbaum, Morris, and Avraham M. Silbermann. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary Translated into English and Annotated. 5 vols. London: Shapiro Vallentine, 1929‒1934. Sa‘adya Gaon. Siddur R. Saadya Gaon. Kitāb Gāmi’ Aṣ-Ṣalawāt Wat-Tasābīḥ. Edited by Davidson, Israel, et al. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamin, 1963. Schorsch, Ismar. Leopold Zunz: Creativity in Adversity. Jewish Culture and Contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. Shachter, Jay F. The Commentary of Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 2003. Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Strickman, Norman H., and Arthur M. Silver. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. Exodus. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Menorah, 1996; Deuteronomy. Vol. 5. New York, NY: Menorah, 2001. Tabory, Joseph. “The Benedictions of Self-Identity and the Changing Status of Women and of Orthodoxy.” Pages 107‒38 in Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World. Vol. 1. Edited by Joseph Tabory. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001. The Torah. The Five Books of Moses. A New Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962. (= JPSA) Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. Zipperstein, Steven J. Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Zucker, Moshe, ed. Saadya’s Commentary on Genesis. Introduction, Translation and Notes. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984. [Hebrew[ Zunz, Leopold. Etwas über die rabbinische Literatur. Nebst Nachrichten über ein altes bis jetzt ungedrucktes hebräisches Werk. Berlin: Maurerschen Buchhandlung, 1818 Zunz, Leopold. The Prayer Rites of Synagogal Worship and Their Historical Development. An English Translation and Introduction by Stefan C. Reif. Rethinking Diaspora 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2023. Zwiep, Irene E. “Scholarship of Literature and Life. Leopold Zunz and the Invention of Jewish Culture.” Pages 165‒73 in How the West Was Won. Essays on Literary Imagination, the Canon, and the Christian Middle Ages for Burcht Pranger. Edited by Willemien Otten et al., Leiden: Brill, 2010.

List of Contributors Eve-Marie Becker is Professor of the New Testament at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. Her research interests are in the area of Pauline studies and synoptic gospel studies. Stefan Beyerle is Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Greifswald. His major interests are prophecy, especially the Book of Amos, and Second Temple literature, especially apocalypticism. Severino Bussino is a religious brother of the Order of St. Augustine. He studied Sacred Scripture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome where, in 2011, he gained his doctorate with a study on the Book of Ben Sira. Núria Calduch-Benages is Professor of Old Testament at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome (Italy). She is a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Armando Rafael Castro Acquaroli obtained his ThD at the Pontifical Gregorian University (2021). He is Extraordinary Professor of Bible’s Introduction, Israel’s History and Pentateuch at the Faculdade Católica de Santa Catarina (Florianópolis SC, Brazil). Marcin Chrostowski is secretary of the Society of Polish Biblical Scholars, and author of Book of Tobit (Polish; Warsaw, 2018). He studied at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Tel Aviv University, and Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem. Jeremy Corley is Lecturer in Sacred Scripture at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth (Ireland), and a VicePresident of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Renate Egger-Wenzel is Professor of the Old Testament at the Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Austria, and has been President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) since 2011. Her recent publication was A Polyglot Edition of the Book of Ben Sira with a Synopsis of the Hebrew Manuscripts (2022). Jutta M. Jokiranta is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Cognate Studies at the University of Helsinki and President of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. She has studied social identity and sectarianism in the Scrolls movement and uses a wide variety of social-scientific theorizing. Francis M. Macatangay is an Adjunct Professor of Scripture at the Graduate School of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, Houston. His research focuses mainly on the Book of Tobit and Second Temple Judaism. Dalia Marx is the Aaron D. Panken Professor of Liturgy and Midrash at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem and was a Beaufort Fellow at St John’s College, Cambridge, in 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-018

292 

 List of Contributors

Maren R. Niehoff is Max Cooper Chair of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a member of the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Her recent book Philo of Alexandria. An Intellectual Biography (Yale 2018) won the Polonsky Prize. Stefan C. Reif OBE is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Hebrew and Fellow of St John’s College in the University of Cambridge, and honorary research professor at Haifa and Tel Aviv Universities. His latest book is his English edition of Zunz’s Die Ritus (2023). Friedrich V. Reiterer is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament in the Department of Bible and Ecclesiastical History at the Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Austria. He is honorary president of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Barbara Schmitz is Professor of Old Testament in the Catholic Faculty of the University of Würzburg (Germany). Oda Wischmeyer is retired Professor of New Testament Studies and Ancient Jewish Literature at the Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. József Zsengellér is Professor in the Department of Biblical and Talmudic Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary–University of Jewish Studies, Budapest, and member of the Scientific Committee of the Société d’Études Samaritaines and of Studia Samaritana.

Index of Subjects Ancient Near East 27, 36 angels, spirits 141, 152, 237 anthropology 81, 90, 99 Aramaic 5–9, 11, 51, 142, 167–70, 172, 230–31 archaeology 2–3, 5, 220 arrogance 72, 86, 135, 138, 196 Assyria 142, 145, 148–49, 152, 155, 157, 161–73, 185–87 Babylonia 2, 5–8, 10, 24, 50, 56, 97, 120, 124, 130, 155, 157, 162, 164, 171–73, 193–95, 197, 200, 262–64, 266, 281, 283, 285 barbarians 107, 130, 229–43 benedictions/blessings 24, 66, 71–73, 75, 83, 87, 180–81, 210–11, 255, 283, 287 celestial 198 Christian(ity) 21, 65, 77, 108, 153, 231, 247–50, 254, 256, 258–59, 264, 269, 280–81, 283–87 creation, cosmos, cosmocracy 90, 211, 213, 239, 247–59 darkness 188, 210 David 25, 50, 87, 92, 97, 147, 150, 196, 263–64 Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran 10–12, 142, 207–25 death, dead 65–66, 68, 72–74, 76, 78, 148, 186, 188, 198–99, 201, 237 diaspora 2, 24, 29, 119, 125, 129, 137, 138, 142, 147, 155–56, 161–73, 193 dreams 58, 183 education, culture 25–27, 50, 103–12, 117, 173, 179, 211, 267, 269–70, 275–87 election of Israel 24, 189, 217, 221 Elephantine 1–13, 57, 169–71 endogamy 148, 150–53, 179–80, 183, 188–89 eschatology, end-time 76, 104, 109, 147, 165, 185, 187, 222, 254 ethics 25, 27, 65–78, 185, 229, 232, 235, 237, 239 ethnos, ethnicity 19–30, 33–34, 120–30, 132–34, 136, 141–57, 163–68, 207–26, 232, 247–48, 257–58, 263–64, 267, 270–71

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-019

evil – see good (righteous) and evil (wicked) exile 56, 141–49, 153, 155–57, 161, 164–65, 172, 182, 186, 189, 194, 209–10, 217, 221, 263, 266 exodus 27–29 feasts – see Sabbath and feasts forefathers – see patriarchs Genizah 48, 65–66 gentiles – see non-Jews, gentiles ger, proselytism, conversion 72, 146, 210, 225, 261–71, 275–87 God – anger, rebuke, warning 183, 267 – blessing 72–73, 75 – covenant 179–90, 207–25, 265, 282 – creation 28, 53, 90, 99, 111–12, 211–13, 239 – faithfulness 92 – fear 85–86, 95 – glory 95, 99 – judgement, punishment, reward 26, 186, 231 – kingship/sovereignty 81–100 – love 26, 72, 75, – name 93, 95, 167, 196, 212–13, 217 – people 19–30, 87, 96, 99, 146, 213, 217 – punishment 221 – revelation 221 – salvation 150 – vengeance 26 – wisdom 19–30, 95 – word 179–90, 265, 280 – worship, praise 40, 146, 152, 156–57, 212–13, 251, 282–83 good (righteous) and evil (wicked) 56, 61, 72, 75, 83, 88–91, 96–98, 182–83, 188, 202, 209, 222, 232–35, 237, 239, 282–85 Greek culture and Hellenism 1–4, 10–11, 13, 20, 25–28, 34, 39, 46–49, 51, 56, 73, 103–12, 142, 166, 193–95, 198, 200–201, 222, 229–43

294 

 Index of Subjects

halakhah 13, 45, 117, 119, 268, 271 Hebrew Bible 220, 261, 263–65, 276, 279–80, 282, 284 Hebrew 1, 12, 45, 77, 171, 194, 220, 261, 263–65, 275–87 historiography 142, 173, 242 humanity 211, 213, 221, 232, 240, 247, 255, 256–57 humility 2, 82, 91, 99 hymn(s) 40, 185, 190, 212 idolatry, polytheism, pantheism 27, 55, 73, 103–12, 137, 193–202, 212 Islam 284 Jerusalem 2–3, 5, 9, 26–27, 30, 34–36, 40, 42, 45–60, 104, 117, 124, 127, 141, 144–47, 151–52, 154–57, 162, 165, 171, 185, 189, 230, 242, 270, 284 Jesus of Nazareth 247–59 kings – see royalty, kings Land of Israel/Holy Land/Judea/Palestine/ Yehud 1–13, 24, 28, 34, 36–37, 46–47, 56, 59, 130, 141, 143–44, 147, 151, 155, 157, 162, 166, 209, 267–68, 276, 281, 283 language 275–87 laos 33–42, 112, 130, 132 Latin 230–31 laws – see Torah liturgy and worship – see prayer, liturgy and worship martyrdom 241 medicine, physicians 51–52, 58 Middle Ages, medieval 69, 276, 280, 284–86 midrash 276–77, 280–83 military – see war, military monotheism 135, 212, 282 mourning 66, 68, 71, 74 myth 163, 198, 200, 217, 234, 236, 238

non-Jews, gentiles, goyim 29, 188, 220–21, 247–49, 252, 256, 263–64, 269, 271, 275–87 nokhri 275–87 offerings, sacrifices 49, 73, 145, 235, 199 pagans 48–50, 55, 60, 195 Palestine, Holy Land – see Land of Israel/Holy Land/Judea/Palestine/ Yehud papyrology 45–63 Passover 265 patriarchs 146, 180–82, 184, 188–90, 212, 234 Persia 1–13, 117–38, 142, 171–72, 233, 235, 237–39, 271 Pharisees 12 philosophy 20, 23, 233–37, 239–42 prayer, liturgy and worship 26, 28–29, 45, 49, 50–51, 55, 58, 70, 77, 133, 146, 151–52, 154, 156–57, 165, 201, 217, 234, 251, 262–63, 278, 281, 283–84, 286–87 pride 70, 99–106 priest(hood) and Levites 7, 11, 35, 39, 41–42, 45–50, 56–58, 62, 70–72, 77, 91, 184, 189, 195, 198, 210–11, 222, 224–25, 230, 262, 281 prophet, prophecy 50, 56, 60, 181–87, 190, 194, 199, 202, 266 proselyte, see ger Qumran – see Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran rabbis, rabbinic 13, 51, 53, 56, 74, 77, 202, 230–31, 264, 266, 268–71, 276, 278, 280–83, 285–86 redemption 91, 141, 155–56, 163 repentance 156, 183, 187, 264 restoration 1, 56, 147, 156, 163, 209–11 riches – see wealth, riches royalty, kings 3, 5–8, 11–12, 34–38, 42, 47, 52, 58, 82–86, 97–99, 136–37, 171–72 Sabbath and feasts 8, 179, 186, 221–22, 281 Samaria 1–13, 27, 144–45, 151, 156, 162, 172 Samaritan 1, 9–10, 147, 156–57, 263, 281 sin 58, 69, 77, 287

Index of Subjects 

sociology 1–13, 45–63, 207–26 spirits – see angels, spirits suffering 4, 75 sun, moon and stars 238, 266–67, 281 Talmud, Mishnah – see rabbis, rabbinic temple of Jerusalem, temples 5, 8–11, 13, 39–40, 45, 47–51, 53, 55–58, 60, 62, 127, 141, 145–46, 155–57, 165, 189, 209, 225, 270 theodicy 152 theology 24, 26–30, 55, 65, 100, 103, 108, 119, 135, 143, 152, 157, 164–65, 173, 211, 220, 231, 281–82, 287 Torah (Law) 10, 12, 25, 29, 55, 61, 77, 119, 125, 128–35, 141–42, 147, 153, 155–56, 221, 225, 262, 281

 295

universalism 130, 133, 213, 247–59, 261–71 war, military 34, 37, 39–41, 96, 122, 168, 185, 194, 196, 202, 210, 222, 233 way of life 117–38 wealth, riches 11–13, 45, 52, 59, 95, 186, 202, 235 wisdom 19–30, 51–52, 54, 62–63, 81–100, 103–12, 234–36, 280 women, female, wife 1, 12–13, 52, 57, 62, 72, 100, 151, 154, 179–81, 183, 188–90, 196,199–200, 211, 217, 261–71 xenos 133, 137 Zionism 267, 276, 278

Index of Modern Authors Abart, Christine 109 Abegg, Martin G. 86, 88 Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel 284 Ackerman, Susan 198 Adams, Samuel L. 4, 10, 12 Adams, Sean 194–95, 197 Ades, Ya’akov Hai Zion 270 Adkins, Lesley 230 Adkins, Roy 230 Adler, Elkan N. 67 Aitken, James K. 47 A Lapide, Cornelius 201 Aland, Barbara 248 Albright, William F. 168 Alonso Schökel, Luis 68–70, 75–77, 194, 200 Alstola, Tero 5 Altmann, Peter 2, 4–5, 7–8 Amsalem, Haim 271 Anderson, Benedict 229 Anderson, Gary A. 187 Ariel, Ya‘akov 271 Artom, Elia S. 194 Asa-El, Amotz 163 Askin, Lindsey A. 51, 58 Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle 194, 197 Atallah, Wahib 199 Aufrecht, Walter E. 167 Azzoni, Annalisa 13 Baer, Seligmann 286–87 Ball, Charles J. 193, 195, 197, 200 Banon, David 201 Barclay, John M. G. 46, 50, 240 Bar-Kochva, Bezalel 240 Barth, Fredrik 214–15, 223, 229 Bartlett, John R. 37 Barton, John 185–87, 189 Bauckham, Richard 147, 154–57, 166 Bautch, Richard J. 162 Beck, Mark 231 Becker, Eve-Marie 247 Becking, Bob 3, 8, 167–68 Beeler, Maggie 20 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 70, 76, 81, 87–89 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-020

Bellia, Giuseppe 100 Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer (Perlmann) 267–68, 279 Ben Zwi, Ehud 121–22, 130 Bergsma, John S. 210 Berquist, Jon L. 6 Bettinetti, Simona 196, 201 Beyerle, Stefan 1, 9, 12 Bialik, Hayim Nahman 267 Bickerman, Elias J. 120–21 Bishop, Caroline 231 Blanco-Pérez, Aitor 231 Blischke, Mareike V. 109 Böckh, August Wilhelm 278 Bons, Eberhard 13 Börzel, Tanja A. 35 Bosworth, Brian A. 230, 238 Bourgel, Jonathan 157 Bovon, François 257 Box, George H. 67–68, 74, 76 Braude, William G. 282 Broadhead, Edwin K. 248, 250 Brubaker, Rogers 208, 214–16, 218–19 Brum Teixeira, José L. 150–51 Budin, Stephanie L. 200 Bussino, Severino 81 Calduch-Benages, Núria 65, 67, 81, 83, 95 Carroll, Robert P. 197 Chaniotis, Angelos 25 Chavel, Charles B. 285–86 Christes, Johannes 107–8 Chrostowski, Marcin 161–64, 166–67, 169–71, 173 Chrostowski, Waldemar 163, 166, 172 Chrubasik, Boris 35 Clay, Albert T.  5 Clements, Ronald 279 Clines, David 279 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 20, 46, 135, 229, 242 Collins, John J. 49, 147 Cook, Arthur B. 198 Corley, Jeremy 45, 190, 276 Cornell, Stephen 216 Cowley, Arthur E. 169

298 

 Index of Modern Authors

Crawford, Sidnie W. 10 Cross, Frank M. 10 Culpepper, Alan R. 248, 251 Daley, Daniel 162, 188 Dalzell, Alexander C. 230 Dancy, John C. 197, 201 Dauge, Yves A. 233 De Jong, Albert 238 De Troyer, Kristin 117, 119–21, 128 Delorme, Jean-Philippe 155 den Hertog, Cornelis 251 Derks, Ton 209 Deselaers, Paul 152 Detienne, Marcel 196 Di Lella, Alexander A. 51, 53–55, 68, 70–77, 82, 87, 92, 94 Di Pede, Elena 189, 194 Dickey, Eleanor 230 Dimant, Devorah 166 Dix, Keith T. 230 Donaldson, Terence L. 248–49 Donner, Herbert 1 Dor, Yonina 261–62, 264–65 Draude, Anke 35 Dušek, Jan 9 Eberhart, Christian 121 Eberharter, Andreas 87 Eberle-Küster, Dorothea 122 Eckhardt, Benedikt 20, 33, 41, 110, 210 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 111, 117, 148, 150, 165 Ego, Beate 112, 117, 133, 152, 165 Ehrlich, Uri 283 Eisenstein, Judah D. 281 Eliashiv, Yosef Shalom 270 Elizur, Shulamit 66 Elbogen, Ismar 283 Ellis, Teresa A. 62 Engel, Helmut 13, 104, 111 Engels, David 132 Eph’al, Israel 2 Eriksen, Thomas H. 215 Eshel, Esther 10 Eskenazi Cohn, Tamara 263, 271 Esler, Philip F. 208–9

Falkenberg, René 248 Fang Che-Yong, Marcus 76–77 Faust, Avraham 3 Feeney, Denis 231 Feldman, Louis H. 230 Fellman, Jack 268 Fernández Marcos, Natalio 194 Ferrer, Joan 81 Finkelberg, Margalit 233 Finkelstein, Israel 2–3 Finkelstein, Menachem 269 Fisher, Netanel 269–71 Fitzgerald, Aloysius 200 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 142, 144–49, 170–71, 182, 186–87 Forschner, Maximilian 234 Frazer, James G. 199 Fredriksen, Paula 20, 29, 212, 247 Fried, Lisbeth 5–8 Fritzsche, Otto F. 200 Fuks, Alexander 53 Gäbel, Georg 197, 200 Gador, Yuval 2, 5 Galil, Gershon 168 Gathercole, Simon 181 Gehrke, Hans-Joachim 34 Geiger, Gregor 9 Gera, Deborah L. 12–13 Geraty, Lawrence T. 170 Gilbert, Maurice 83, 88, 92, 95, 97–98 Ginsberg, Asher Zvi Hirsch 276–77 Ginzberg, Louis 266, 280 Glotz, Gustave 199 Goering, Greg Schmidt 70 Goff, Matthew J. 51, 53, 197–98, 200, 203 Goldhill, Simon 231 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 33, 38, 41 Goodblatt, David M. 20 Görg, Manfred 141 Grabbe, Lester 46–48, 53, 56, 59, 61, 179, 187 Graf, Fritz 198 Grafton, Anthony 278 Granados García, Carlos 69–70 Granerød, Gard 7–8 Grassi, Giulia F. 6–7 Gray, George B. 167

Index of Modern Authors 

Grayson, Albert K. 171 Gregory, Bradley C. 52, 59, 65, 67–73, 76–77 Gropp, Douglas M. 9 Gruen, Erich S. 20–23, 27–29, 127, 138 Gruen, Wolfgang 193 Guillaume, Philippe 5 Gurtner, Daniel M. 247 Guvrin, Nurit 277 Haag, Ernst 197 Haaland, Gunnar 240 Hacham, Noah 51, 53 Hall, Edith 232, 238 Halvorson-Taylor, Martien A. 126 Hamidovię, David 12 Hamilton, Victor P. 183 Hanhart, Robert 117 Harland, Philip A. 220 Hartmann, Douglas 216 Hartog, François 232 Haspecker, Josef 70, 83, 88 Heltzer, Michael 261, 264 Helyer, Larry R. 193 Hempel, Charlotte 211 Hengel, Martin 46, 48–50, 52, 56, 58–59, 61–62 Hensel, Benedikt 9, 11, 156 Henshaw, Richard A. 200 Hicks-Keaton, Jill 187 Hieke, Thomas 150, 153 Hilprecht, Hermann V. 5 Himbaza, Innocent 193 Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer 110 Holder, Stefanie 243 Holladay, Carl R. 248 Honigman, Sylvie 11 Horrell, David G. 20–21, 209 Horsley, Richard A. 46–47, 50 Howes, Llewellyn 253 Hummell, Eloise 214–15, 223 Hutchinson, John 143, 208–9 Ilan, Tal 13, 51, 53 Isaac, Benjamin 232, 237–38 Jaeger, Werner 107 Jakoubek, Marek 215 Jewett, Robert 231

 299

Johnson, Michael B. 211 Johnson, Sara R. 120 Johnson, William A. 230 Jokiranta, Jutta M. 207, 211, 213, 221–22, 225 Joüon, Paul 87 Judd, Elenore P. 263, 271 Kafih, Joseph 285–86 Kasher, Menaḥem M. 281 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 263 Keener, Craig S. 250, 257 Kellermann, Diether 195, 200 Kepper, Martina 111 Kessler, Rainer 2 Kiel, Micah D. 162 Kippenberg, Hans G. 4 Knabenbauer, Joseph 197, 200 Knoppers, Gary N. 2, 9 Konradt, Matthias 248, 250, 255, 257 Kosmin, Paul J. 35 Kowalski, Kamil J. 162 Kratz, Reinhard G. 7, 9, 155, 194, 197, 200 Kraus, Wolfgang 197, 200 Krautbauer, Anna 61 Kugel, James L. 183, 266 Kugler, Robert 210, 212, 222, 224 Kuhrt, Amélie 35 Labahn, Michel 251 Lang, Bernhard 279 Lang, Yosef 268 Lapide, Pinchas 202 Laqueur, Walter 276 Lawee, Eric 281 Lemaire, André 6, 167 Lemche, Niels P. 155 Lenski, Gerhard E. 45–47 Lévi, Israel 67–68, 74, 76–77 Levine, Amy-Jill 148, 151, 165 Levine, Yael 270 Levinsky, Yom Tov 270 Liesen, Jan 81 Linke, Waldemar 170 Lipschits, Oded 2–5, 9, 11 Llewelyn, Stephen 61 Lockshin, Martin I. 285 Long, Anthony A. 234

300 

 Index of Modern Authors

Lüdy, José H. 197 Lund, Nick 277 Luz, Menahem 242 Luz, Ulrich 250–55 Ma, John 35 Macatangay, Francis M. 73, 155, 162, 164–65, 179, 185, 188 Macchi, Jean-Daniel 117, 120 Machiella, Daniel A. 146 Mack, Burton L. 49 Malamat, Abraham 172–73 Manfredi, Silvana 107 Marböck, Johannes 69–70, 76–77 Marcus, Ralph 47, 52 Markner, Reinhard 278 Marmorstein, Arthur 231 Marrou, Henri I. 107 Marshall, John T. 193–94 Marx, Dalia 261, 264 Mason, Steve 20, 208, 230 Mazzinghi, Luca 98, 105, 109 McConvery, Brendan 51–52 Mendels, Doron 20 Menge, Herrmann 118, 136 Meyer, Anthony R. 213 Middendorp, Theophil 46–47 Milgrom, Jacob 167 Milik, Jozef T. 147 Miller, Geoffrey D. 152–53, 182, 189 Miscevic, Nenad 22–23 Mittag, Peter F. 123 Mizrahi, Noam 231 Moatti-Fine, Jacqueline 194, 197 Molnar-Hidvegi, Nora 125 Montanari, Franco 34, 195 Moore, Carey A. 120, 133, 142, 161, 182, 187, 193, 196, 200 Moore, Stewart A. 214 Mopsik, Charles 68, 72–77 Morgan, Llewlyn 230 Morla Asensio, Víctor 67–69, 73, 75 Muckensturm, Claire 238 Mulder, Otto 48 Munro, Winsome 231 Muraoka, Takamitsu 33–34, 200

Murray, Jeffrey 233 Myers, David N. 278 Na’aman, Nadav 155 Nagel, Peter 126 Naumann, Weigand 194–95, 197, 200 Naveh, Joseph 167–68 Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther 104–5, 107, 110 Nestle, Eberhard 248 Neusner, Jacob 51 Newsom, Carol A. 211 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 155 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 103–4, 109 Niehoff, Maren R. 229–30, 233, 242, 276 Nihan, Christoph 156 Nilsson, Martin P. 199, 201 Nitzan, Bilha 231 Nowell, Irene 143, 186–87 Oded, Bustanay 168 Oeming, Manfred 2, 5, 162 Oesterley, William O. E. 67–68, 74, 76 Olyan, Saul 49–50 O’Neill, John C. 231 Ophir, Adi 264, 271 Oswald, Renate 105, 107, 111 Otzen, Benedikt 155, 166 Palm, Friedrich 39 Palmer, Carmen 10, 209 Palmisano, Maria Carmela 66, 73 Papadodima, Efi 232 Parker, Benjamin H. 86, 88 Passaro, Angelo 103 Passow, Franz 39 Pastor, Jack 9 Penar, Tadeusz 67, 69, 76 Pestman, Pieter W. 46 Peters, Norbert 67–68, 70, 76, 82, 90–92 Petrocheilos, Nikolaos K. 237 Pfeiffer, Robert H. 194 Pfeilschifter, Rene 36 Picard, Charles 201 Pierre, Amandry 198 Piplica, Mirjam 162 Pitkänen, Pekka 148, 153

Index of Modern Authors 

Pola, Thomas 251 Popper, William 281 Porten, Bezalel 7–8, 171 Porzig, Peter 211 Prato, Gian L. 83, 87–88 Price, Jonathan 231 Pummer, Reinhard 156 Rackham, Harris 61 Radner, Karen 167, 172 Rand, Michael 66 Redmount, Carol A. 142 Regev, Eyal 220 Reif, Stefan C. 275, 278, 286 Reiterer, Friedrich V. 49, 55, 57, 69, 103, 105–7, 181–82, 250 Reusch, Heinrich 200 Ribichini, Sergio 198–99 Richelle, Matthieu 167 Risse, Thomas 35 Rizzi, Giovanni 107 Robinson, James M. 251, 253 Rocca, Samuele 241 Rodrigues da Silva, Rafael 198 Rosenbaum, Morris 284–86 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay 264, 271 Rossetti, Marco 87–88 Rost, Valentin C. F. 39 Roth, Wolfgang 194 Roymans, Nico 209 Rüger, Hans P. 87 Runesson, Anders 247 Sa’adya Gaon 283, 285–86 Saldarini, Anthony J. 194–95, 197, 200–201 Sauer, Georg 68–70, 73–74, 76, 82, 92 Scarpat, Giuseppe 103 Schellenberg, Annette 12 Schmidt, Jordan A. 54 Schmitz, Barbara 13, 33, 276 Schöpflin, Karin 142 Schorch, Stefan 9 Schorsch, Ismar 278–79 Schottroff, Willy 6 Schreiner, Josef 68, 70, 73–74, 76–77, 197, 200 Schüngel-Straumann, Helen 165

 301

Schürer, Emil 194 Schutte, Wolfgang 155 Schwartz, Daniel R. 20 Schwartz, Seth 20, 52, 58 Sedley, David N. 234 Segal, Judah B. 167 Segal, Moshe Z. 46, 50, 52, 54, 59, 67–69, 92, 94 Shachter, Jay F. 286 Shanks, Hershel 141, 159 Sherwin-White, Susan 35 Shoval-Dudai, Nurit 231 Sicre Díaz, José L. 194, 200 Silbermann, Avraham M. 284–86 Silver, Arthur M. 285–86 Sim, David C. 249 Simpson, David C. 166 Sissa, Giulia 196 Skehan, Patrick W. 51, 53–55, 68, 70–77, 82, 92, 94 Skelton, David A. 50 Skemp, Vincent 148, 150–51, 181 Smend, Rudolph 67–68, 82, 87, 91–92 Smith, Anthony D. 143, 208–9 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. 265 Soll, William 148, 153 Sommer, Benjamin D. 190 Spieckermann, Hermann 108 Stadelmann, Helge 70 Stadter, Philip A. 231, 238 Staples, Jason A. 143, 147, 209–10 Stemberger, Günter 281–82 Stolper, Matthew W. 5 Stoneman, Richard 238 Strickman, Norman H. 285–86 Strootman, Rolf 36 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 12, 181 Swain, Simon 230 Tabory, Joseph 283, 287 Tal-Shir, Zipora 265 Tcherikover, Victor A. 46, 52–53, 59, 61–62 Teixeira, Lucas B. 162 Thackeray, Henry S. J. 197 Theis, Christoffer 141 von Thiel, Helmut 110 Thiele, Walter 68 Thorsteinsson, Runar M. 231

302 

 Index of Modern Authors

Tiller, Patrick A. 46–47, 50 Tilly, Michael 39, 41 Touzard, Jules 194 Tov, Emanuel 10, 210 Trampedach, Kai 110 Treu, Nadine 24 Turner, Victor 264 Tyson, Craig W. 167 Ueberschaer, Frank 50 Urbach, Ephraim E. 281 Uziel, Ben-Zion Meir Hai 268–69 van der Horst, Pieter W. 234 Van der Veen, Peter 141 van Gennep, Arnold 264–65 Van Maaren, John 20, 208–10, 212, 214, 220–23, 225 van Nuffelen, Peter 237 Vanderhooft, David S. 2–4 VanderKam, James C. 169 Veltri, Guiseppe  278 Verkuyten, Maykel 214–16, 218–20, 223–24 Vigert, Mazal 264 Vinel, Françoise 50–51 Vlassopoulos, Kostas 232 von Gemünden, Petra 130 von Rad, Gerhard 184 Wace, Henry 193 Wacker, Marie-Theres 117, 119–21, 128, 133, 197, 200 Wagner, Christian J. 181 Wahl, Harald M. 125 Wardle, David 233 Wassell, Blake 61 Weber, Elihu 270

Weber, Max 2, 34 Weeks, Stuart 181 Weinfeld, Moshe 263–64 Weippert, Manfred 5, 8 Weitzman, Steven 20 Wenham, Gordon J. 183 Westermann, Claus 184 Wicke-Reuter, Ursel 88 Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich 34 Wilker, Julia 20 Williams, James G. 182 Williamson, Hugh G. M. 3 Wimmer, Andreas 208, 221, 223 Winston, David 108 Wischmeyer, Oda 19, 25, 29, 46, 106, 258, 276 Witte, Markus 108 Wojciechowski, Michael 195 Wojciechowski, Michał 166–67 Wojtkowiak, Heiko 256 Wolf, Friedrich August 277–78 Wolf, Herbert 131 Wolter, Michael 231, 257 Wright, Benjamin G. 47, 194, 209 Yardeni, Ada 7–8, 10 Young, Stephen L. 212 Zadok, Ran 168 Zecchini, Giuseppe 230 Ziegler, Joseph 69 Zimmermann, Frank 186–87 Zipperstein, Steven J. 277 Zsengellér, József 141, 144, 147, 155, 157, 164–65 Zucker, Moshe 285 Zunz, Leopold 278–79, 286 Zwiep, Irene E. 278–79

Index of Sources Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis Gen 4:17–22 183 Gen 6:5 103 Gen 6:9 182 Gen 6:12 77 Gen 8:21 103 Gen 10 23, 24 Gen 10:32 23 Gen 11:10–28 24 Gen 12:1–2 24 Gen 12:3LXX 258 Gen 13:10 77 Gen 17:5–6 284 Gen 18:18LXX 258 Gen 18:23–32 183 Gen 20:4 285 Gen 20:7 183 Gen 25:23 280 Gen 26:10 277 Gen 33:11 67 Gen 34 263 Gen 35:11 280, 285 Gen 41:33 87 Gen 41:39 87 Exodus Exod 2:10 125 Exod 4:22 217 Exod 4:25 196 Exod 5:4 83 Exod 11:3 136 Exod 16:35 83 Exod 21:8 285 Exod 21:26 77 Exod 21:28 286 Exod 23:22 248 Exod 25:6 58 Exod 26:17 83 Exod 28:11 55 Exod 28:28LXX 57 Exod 28:32 57 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111337807-021

Exod 29:30 50 Exod 30:25 58 Exod 31:4 57 Exod 32:25 83 Exod 33:13 280 Exod 34:10 248 Exod 34:16 262 Exod 35:32 57 Exod 37:29 58 Exod 39:22 57 Leviticus Lev 13:45 83 Lev 17–26 9 Lev 18:26–27 263 Lev 19:18 75 Lev 20:24 248 Lev 20:26 248 Lev 21:10 83 Lev 25 10 Lev 25:35 285 Lev 25:35–36 285 Lev 25:39–43 10 Lev 25:39–46 9 Lev 25:40 285 Lev 25:42 10 Lev 25:45–52 10 Lev 25:46 10 Lev 25:47 285 Lev 25:47–55 10 Lev 25:50–54 9 Lev 26 122 Lev 26:42 282 Numbers Num 12:6 119 Num 12:7 92 Num 25:1 266 Num 27 153 Num 27:1–11 12

304 

 Index of Sources

Num 27:7 12 Num 36 153 Deuteronomy Deut 1:13 87 Deut 4:6 280 Deut 4:19 248 Deut 5:8 55 Deut 6:13LXX 251 Deut 6:24 127 Deut 7:1–8 24 Deut 7:3 263 Deut 7:3–5 262 Deut 7:9 92 Deut 10:20LXX 251 Deut 14:21 286 Deut 14:28–29 72 Deut 14:29 72 Deut 17:19 127 Deut 18:7 50 Deut 21:22–23 73 Deut 23:4–5 263 Deut 23:7 263 Deut 23:8–9 263 Deut 23:16–17 61 Deut 24:19–22 72 Deut 26:12–13 72 Deut 26:13–14 73 Deut 28 24 Deut 28:1 24 Deut 28:9 24 Deut 28:12 24 Deut 27:15 55 Deut 27:25 122 Deut 30:1 248 Deut 31:12 127 Deut 33:3 285 Deut 33:19 285

Jdg 2:11 197 Jdg 3:7 197 Jdg 3:24 196 Jdg 4–5 185, 264 Jdg 5:14 285 Jdg 21:19 144 Ruth Ruth 3:7 196 1 Samuel 1 Sam 2:35 92 1 Sam 3:20 92 1 Sam 5:2 197 1 Sam 8:13 58 1 Sam 12:10 197 1 Sam 15 122 1 Sam 16:18 87 1 Sam 17:45 196 1 Sam 19:5 122 1 Sam 22:14 92 1 Sam 25:26 122 1 Sam 25:27 67 1 Sam 25:28 92 1 Sam 25:31 122 1 Sam 30:26 67 2 Samuel 2 Sam 7:23 91 2 Sam 11:2 195

Joshua Josh 2 264 Josh 6:22–25 264 Josh 15:19 67 Josh 17:3–6 153

1 Kings 1 Kgs 2:5 122 1 Kgs 3:12 87 1 Kgs 5:5 144 1 Kgs 8:29–30 39 1 Kgs 8:43 39 1 Kgs 9:3 39 1 Kgs 11:1 263 1 Kgs 11:4 263 1 Kgs 11:38 92 1 Kgs 14:5 68 1 Kgs 16:32 197 1 Kgs 18:25–29 198

Judges Jdg 1:15 67

2 Kings 2 Kgs 5:15 67

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 

2 Kgs 12 146 2 Kgs 15:29 162 2 Kgs 17 183 2 Kgs 17:5–23 163 2 Kgs 17:5–41 162 2 Kgs 17:6 162 2 Kgs 17:28 173 2 Kgs 18 171 2 Kgs 18–19 171 2 Kgs 18:9–12 163 2 Kgs 18:11 162 2 Kgs 18:17 171 2 Kgs 18:19 171 2 Kgs 18:26–28 171 2 Kgs 18:32 173 2 Kgs 18:37 171 2 Kgs 19 171 2 Kgs 19:4 171 2 Kgs 19:8 171 2 Kgs 21:16 122 2 Kgs 23:7 57 2 Kgs 24:4 122 1 Chronicles 1 Chr 4:23 56 1 Chr 5:26 162–63 1 Chr 9:30 58 1 Chr 16:21 105 1 Chr 21:5 57 1 Chr 25:1–7 50 1 Chr 26:14 83 2 Chronicles 2 Chr 8:14 50 2 Chr 11 146 2 Chr 16:12 51 2 Chr 24:12 56 2 Chr 28:19 83 2 Chr 30:5 144 2 Chr 36:5 122 Ezra Ezra 4:13 5 Ezra 4:20 5 Ezra 6:8 5 Ezra 7:24 5 Ezra 9 262, 264

Ezra 9–10 261 Ezra 9:2 262 Ezra 10 269 Ezra 10:1–17 262 Ezra 10:6 264 Ezra 10:10–12 264 Ezra 10:16 270 Ezra 10:18–44 262 Ezra 10:25 264 Nehemiah Neh 3 3 Neh 3:1–32 2 Neh 3:8 58 Neh 3:9–18 11 Neh 5 4–5 Neh 5:1 4 Neh 5:1–13 1, 4 Neh 5:2 4 Neh 5:2aα 4 Neh 5:2–4 4 Neh 5:2–5 4 Neh 5:3 4 Neh 5:3aα 4 Neh 5:4 4–5 Neh 5:4aα 4 Neh 5:6–12 4 Neh 5:7 4 Neh 5:13 4 Neh 5:14 5 Neh 7:73 50 Neh 9:1–3 262 Neh 9:2 262 Neh 9:8 92 Neh 10:1 55 Neh 10:1[9:38[ 55 Neh 10:40 50 Neh 12:27–29 50 Neh 13 261 Neh 13:3 262 Neh 13:13 91 Neh 13:23–25 268 Neh 13:23–26 261 Neh 13:23–30 262 Neh 13:25–27 264

 305

306 

 Index of Sources

Esther Esth 1:1–3:13 119 Esth 1:8 130 Esth 1:13 128, 130–31 Esth 1:15 128, 130 Esth 1:16 131 Esth 1:19 129–31 Esth 1:20 129 Esth 2:5 120–21, 124, 129, 163 Esth 2:7 117–18, 120, 124–26 Esth 2:8 125–27, 130 Esth 2:9 125 Esth 2:10 123, 125–26 Esth 2:12 130 Esth 2:15 124–26 Esth 2:17 125, 127 Esth 2:18 127 Esth 2:19 121 Esth 2:20 117, 120, 125–27, 133, 137 Esth 2:21 122, 124 Esth 2:21–23 129 Esth 3:2 129–30 Esth 3:3 121, 129–30 Esth 3:4 123, 129–30 Esth 3:5 123 Esth 3:6 123–24, 129–31 Esth 3:7 124 Esth 3:8 122, 129–32, 134 Esth 3:9 131 Esth 3:14 130 Esth 3:14–15 131 Esth 3:14–4:17 119 Esth 3:15 130 Esth 4:2 119 Esth 4:3 130 Esth 4:4 119 Esth 4:8 124, 130 Esth 4:11 130 Esth 4:16 130, 134 Esth 5:2–8:12 119 Esth 6:3 121 Esth 8:11 135 Esth 8:13 122, 130 Esth 8:13–10:3 119 Esth 8:14 127, 130 Esth 8:14–10:2 120 Esth 8:17 128, 130

Esth 9:1 130 Esth 9:3 128 Esth 9:4 128 Esth 9:13 130 Esth 9:14 130 Esth 9:16 122 Esth 9:24 122–23 Esth 10:3 117, 120–21, 133, 136–37 Job Job 22:6–9 77 Job 30:25 74 Job 31:16–20 77 Job 32:9 91 Job 42:13–15 12 Job 42:15 12 Psalms Ps 2:1 256 Ps 89:38 92 Ps 93[94[:21 122 Ps 105:8–10 184 Ps 105:15 184 Ps 105[106[:38 122 Ps 115:5[113:13[ 198 Ps 116:1LXX 258 Ps 117:1 282 Ps 117:2 282 Ps 117 282 Ps 135[134[:16 198 Proverbs Prov 1:1 25 Prov 2:22 88 Prov 4:8a 277 Prov 9:9 91 Prov 9:12 91 Prov 11:3 88 Prov 11:6 88 Prov 11:25 67 Prov 13:2 88 Prov 13:15 88 Prov 13:18 83 Prov 13:20 91 Prov 14:28 25 Prov 14:34 25 Prov 15:32 83

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 

Prov 19:10 105 Prov 20:1 91 Prov 21:11 91 Prov 21:18 88 Prov 22:12 88 Prov 23:28 88 Prov 24:24 25 Prov 25:19 88 Prov 26:3 25 Prov 28:17 25 Prov 29:4 97–98 Prov 29:18 25, 83 Prov 31:10–31 72 Prov 31:20 72 Prov 31:22–24 57 Qoheleth Qoh 1:9 193 Qoh 10:1 58 Qoh 10:16 98 Song of Songs Song 7:10 3 Isaiah Isa 1:17 60 Isa 2:4 56 Isa 2:2 256 Isa 3:3 87 Isa 5:1–7 54 Isa 5:21 87 Isa 8 252 Isa 8:16 184 Isa 8:23LXX 252 Isa 22:23 92 Isa 29:14 87 Isa 33:1 88 Isa 36 171 Isa 36:2 171 Isa 36:4 171 Isa 36:11–13 171 Isa 36:22 171 Isa 36–37 171 Isa 37 171 Isa 37:4 171 Isa 37:8 171 Isa 42 253

Isa 42:1LXX 253 Isa 42:4LXX 253 Isa 45:20LXX 55 Isa 46:1 197 Isa 49:7 92 Isa 58:7 60, 77 Jeremiah Jer 4:22 87 Jer 7:6 122 Jer 13:18 105 Jer 13:26 196 Jer 16:7 73 Jer 18:2–6 56 Jer 19:4 122 Jer 22:3 122 Jer 23:25 119 Jer 23:28 119 Jer 23:32 91 Jer 32:10–11 55 Jer 33:15 122 Jer 42:5 92 Jer 50:2 197 Jer 50/27:42 196 Jer 51:44 197 Lamentations Lam 1:1 154 Lam 1:1–2 154 Lam 1:2 154 Lam 1:17 154 Ezekiel Ezek 8:14 199 Ezek 18:7 77 Ezek 18:16 77 Ezek 20:44 77 Ezek 24:14 83 Ezek 24:17 73 Ezek 27:36 58 Ezek 32:9 257 Ezek 38:13 58 Ezek 44:11 50 Daniel Dan 2:2 237 Dan 6:18 172

 307

308 

 Index of Sources

Dan 6:19 105 Dan 9:24 209 Hosea Hos 11:1 109 Hos 12:1 92 Hos 14:10 87 Joel Joel 4:8 257 Amos Amos 8:10 186 Micah Mic 2:12 210 Nahum Nah 3:5 196 Habakkuk Hab 2:16 196 Haggai Hag 1:6 3 Hag 1:10–11 3 Zecharia Zech 12:3 257 Malachi Mal 1:8 68 Mal 2:13 266 Mal 3:5 59 Mal 3:11 77

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tobit Tob 1 143 Tob 1:1 145, 150, 161, 166 Tob 1:2 144–45, 161 Tob 1:3 148, 150

Tob 1:4 143–47, 150 Tob 1:5 143, 145, 150–51 Tob 1:6 143, 185 Tob 1:6–8 189 Tob 1:7 146, 182 Tob 1:8 143, 146, 185 Tob 1:9 151 Tob 1:10 148–50 Tob 1:16 149–50 Tob 1:16–18 73 Tob 1:17 77, 148–49 Tob 1:18 143, 147 Tob 1:21b 170 Tob 1:21–22 169 Tob 1:22 161, 169–72 Tob 1–2 150 Tob 2:3 142, 148–50 Tob 2:4 73 Tob 2:8 73 Tob 2:10 150, 169, 171 Tob 2:11 57 Tob 2:11–12 57 Tob 3:4 148 Tob 3:10 154 Tob 3:10–15 154 Tob 3:15 151, 153–54 Tob 3:17 152–54 Tob 4:3–4 73 Tob 4:5 188 Tob 4:10 188 Tob 4:12 146, 150–51, 179–81, 188, 190 Tob 4:13 151, 154 Tob 4:16 77 Tob 4:17 73 Tob 4:19 148, 188 Tob 5:5 143, 151 Tob 5:6 151 Tob 5:9 143, 149–50 Tob 5:11 150–51 Tob 5:12 150 Tob 5:14 150–51 Tob 5–6 151 Tob 6:7 151 Tob 6:11 151, 153 Tob 6:12 149–51 Tob 6:13 142, 151 Tob 6:14 151

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint 

Tob 6:15 154 Tob 6:16 151 Tob 6:18 151, 181 Tob 7:2–4 154 Tob 7:3 145, 182 Tob 7:6 154 Tob 7:10 151 Tob 7:12 151 Tob 7:13 142 Tob 8:21 151 Tob 9:1 151 Tob 9:10 151 Tob 11:17 147, 157 Tob 11:18 169 Tob 12:12 73 Tob 13 143, 149, 185, 190 Tob 13:2 187 Tob 13:3 143, 148 Tob 13:5 148 Tob 13:6 148 Tob 13:7–4 146 Tob 13:13 148 Tob 13:18 143, 146 Tob 13–14 144, 147, 151–52 Tob 14 143, 185, 187, 190 Tob 14:2 127 Tob 14:4 142–45, 151, 155, 165, 187 Tob 14:4–7 190 Tob 14:4–8 185 Tob 14:5 143, 155 Tob 14:6(7) 148 Tob 14:7 143, 147, 155 Tob 14:10 169 Tob 14:13 165 Tob 14:15 187 Judith Jdt 2:5 132 Jdt 8:7 1, 12 Jdt 8:7b 13 Jdt 8:10 1 Jdt 11:7 132 Jdt 16:23–24 1 Additions to Esther A:1–2 121 A:1–11 119

A:1–17 119 A:3 120, 129 A:6 122 A:7 122 A:12–16 121 A:15 121 A:16 121–22, 124 A.17 121, 123, 125, 127 A:18 122–23 B:1 132, 136 B:1–7 119, 131 B:2 132 B:4 132–33 B:4–5 131 B:5 117, 133–34, 137 C:1–30 119 C:5 119, 121 C:5–7 130 C:7 119 C:8–9 119 C:12–13 119 C:14 119 C:16 119 C:20 119 C:21–23 119 C:24 122 C:26 118–19 C:26–28 137 C:27 119 C:28 119 C:29 119 D:1 119 D:1–16 119 D:10 127 E:1 132, 136 E:1–24 119 E:3 135 E:5 122, 135 E:10 119, 121, 123 E:12 121 E:14 123 E:15 128, 135–36 E:16 135, 138 E:17 119 E:19–20 128 E:22–23 128 F:1–10 119

 309

310 

 Index of Sources

F:1–11 119 F:10 137 F:11 120 Wisdom of Solomon Wis 1:16 107 Wis 2:7 107 Wis 2:10 105–6 Wis 2:11 106–7, 110 Wis 2:11b 106 Wis 2:12 105, 107, 110 Wis 2:13 108 Wis 2:14 108 Wis 2:15 108 Wis 2:16 108 Wis 2:18 28, 109 Wis 2:19 110 Wis 2:19a 108 Wis 2:20a 110 Wis 3:8 28, 112 Wis 4:14 28, 112 Wis 5:5 109 Wis 6:2 28 Wis 6:3 97 Wis 6:21 28 Wis 6:22–25 104 Wis 6:24 98 Wis 7:22–30 104 Wis 8:13 28 Wis 8:14 28, 112 Wis 9:17 103 Wis 10:5 28 Wis 10:15 28 Wis 12:1 103 Wis 12:2 110 Wis 12:4 111 Wis 12:4–6 110 Wis 12:5 111 Wis 12:6 111 Wis 12:7 108 Wis 12:8 103 Wis 12:9 110 Wis 12:11a 103 Wis 12:12 28 Wis 12:13 28 Wis 12:19 28 Wis 13:1 111

Wis 13:2 111 Wis 13:3 112 Wis 14:3 105 Wis 14:11 28 Wis 14:16 28 Wis 15:1–13 104 Wis 15:14 28, 104–6 Wis 15:15 28, 105 Wis 16:2 28 Wis 17:1 109 Wis 17:2 28, 105, 109 Wis 18:5 109 Wis 18:7 28, 109 Wis 18:10 109 Wis 18:13 28, 109 Wis 19:5 28 Wis 19:6 19 Wis 19:22 28, 250 Sirach Sir 3:14–15 67 Sir 3:15 88 Sir 3:26 HA 76 Sir 3:30–4:10 70–71 Sir 4:1–10 65, 72 Sir 4:2–3 HA 60 Sir 4:10cd 72 Sir 4:15 26 Sir 5:5 83 Sir 5:15 77 Sir 6:3 91 Sir 6:4 77, 83 Sir 6:18–37 69 Sir 6:19 91 Sir 6:19 HAC 54 Sir 7 69, 77 Sir 7:1 75 Sir 7:1–2 69 Sir 7:1–3 70, 75–77 Sir 7:1–7 70 Sir 7:1–17 70 Sir 7:1–21 69 Sir 7:3–20 69 Sir 7:4 82 Sir 7:4–17 70 Sir 7:5 82 Sir 7:6 70, 95

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint 

Sir 7:11 70 Sir 7:14 G 49 Sir 7:14 HA 49 Sir 7:15 G 53 Sir 7:15 HA 53 Sir 7:16 96 Sir 7:17 70 Sir 7:18 70 Sir 7:18–28 70 Sir 7:18–35 70, 77 Sir 7:18–36 70 Sir 7:18–8:1ab 66 Sir 7:18–8:18 66 Sir 7:20 69 Sir 7:21 69–70 Sir 7:21–35 69 Sir 7:22–36 69 Sir 7:29–31 70 Sir 7:29–36 70 Sir 7:30 70 Sir 7:32 66–67, 71–72, 75 Sir 7:32a 71 Sir 7:32b 71 Sir 7:32–35 70, 78 Sir 7:32–36 65, 70 Sir 7:33 66–67, 71–72 Sir 7:33a 72 Sir 7:33b 72, 74 Sir 7:33–34 71 Sir 7:34 66, 68, 71, 74 Sir 7:34a 74 Sir 7:34b 74 Sir 7:35 66, 68, 71, 74 Sir 7:35a 66 Sir 7:35ab 70 Sir 7:35b 71, 74 Sir 7:36 66, 69–70, 75–77 Sir 7:36a 75 Sir 7:36b 75 Sir 7 77 Sir 7:20 HC 60 Sir 7:20–21 60 Sir 7:20–21 HC 61 Sir 7:21 63 Sir 7:22 HA 53 Sir 7:25 87 Sir 7:29–31 45

Sir 7:30 HA 50 Sir 7:31 HA 49 Sir 7:35a 74 Sir 8:1a–18 66 Sir 8:1–2 95 Sir 8:8 HA 50 Sir 8:14 95 Sir 8:14 HA 49 Sir 8:18 77 Sir 9:8 77 Sir 9:15 87 Sir 9:17 62, 63, 96, 100 Sir 9:17–18 HA 52 Sir 9:17–10:5 47 Sir 9:17–10:18 85 Sir 9:17–11:6 83, 85, 94 Sir 10 90 Sir 10:1 84–85, 96, 98, 100 Sir 10:1–3 83–85 Sir 10:1–5 89 Sir 10:2 83–85, 96 Sir 10:2a 85 Sir 10:2b 85 Sir 10:3 77, 81–82, 84–85, 88, 90, 95–100 Sir 10:3a 85 Sir 10:3ab 82 Sir 10:3b 85 Sir 10:4 85, 90, 95, 97, 99 Sir 10:4–5 85–86 Sir 10:5 85 Sir 10:6 85 Sir 10:7 85 Sir 10:8 26, 85 Sir 10:9 85 Sir 10:10 83 Sir 10:11 76 Sir 10:12 85 Sir 10:14 85 Sir 10:15–16 26 Sir 10:19 85 Sir 10:19–11:6 85 Sir 10:20 85, 90 Sir 10:22 85, 90 Sir 10:23 63, 85, 95 Sir 10:24 85, 90 Sir 10:25 63 Sir 10:26 85

 311

312 

 Index of Sources

Sir 10:27 85 Sir 10:28 85 Sir 10:29 85 Sir 10:30 85 Sir 10:31 85 Sir 11:1 63, 83, 91 Sir 11:3 91 Sir 11:4 85 Sir 11:6 85 Sir 11:21 106 Sir 11:25 76 Sir 11:25(27) HA 76 Sir 11:28 76 Sir 12:1–6 65, 71–72 Sir 12:11 HA 76–77 Sir 13:16 19 Sir 13:17–19 59 Sir 13:17–23 52 Sir 13:18 106 Sir 14:11–19 76 Sir 14:27 88 Sir 15:1 127 Sir 15:11–13 88, 90 Sir 15:11–16:14 88 Sir 15:11–18:14 88, 90, 99 Sir 16:1–5 88, 89–90 Sir 16:2b 90 Sir 16:3 76 Sir 16:3cg HAB 76 Sir 16:4 81–83, 86–88, 90, 94–97, 99–100 Sir 16:4a 87 Sir 16:4b 87 Sir 16:4c 87 Sir 16:4cd 86 Sir 16:4d 87 Sir 16:5 88–89 Sir 16:9 26 Sir 16:16–17 90 Sir 16:17 96 Sir 16:17–18:14 88 Sir 17:17 26, 45 Sir 18:15–18 71 Sir 18:21 74 Sir 19:3 77, 83 Sir 22:11–12 74 Sir 22:22 92 Sir 23:10 G 61

Sir 24 26 Sir 24:6 26 Sir 24:10–14 45 Sir 24:15 58 Sir 25:7 HC 76 Sir 25:22 G 57 Sir 26:29 58, 62 Sir 27:6 87, 91 Sir 27:16 92 Sir 28:6 76 Sir 29:8–13 65, 70–72 Sir 29:11–13 72 Sir 29:18 26 Sir 29:21 G 60 Sir 30:11 77 Sir 30:12 61, 95 Sir 30:17 92 Sir 30:18 73 Sir 30:18b 73 Sir 30:19 73 Sir 31:2 92 Sir 31:3 HB 52 Sir 31:4 HB 59 Sir 31:5–7 52 Sir 31:9 96 Sir 31:19 87 Sir 31:20 87 Sir 31:22 76, 87 Sir 31:23 92 Sir 31:24 92 Sir 31:26 87 Sir 32:17 91 Sir 32:18 91 Sir 32:21 HBEF 76 Sir 32/35:23 26 Sir 33/36:1–36:27/22 26 Sir 33:3 87 Sir 33:16 G 54 Sir 33:16 HE 54 Sir 33:17 HE 54 Sir 33:19 83, 96 Sir 33:19 HE 49 Sir 33:25 HE 61 Sir 33:25–30 61 Sir 33:25–33 60 Sir 33:26 87 Sir 33:26 G 61

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint 

Sir 33:29–30 61 Sir 33:31 G 61 Sir 33:31–33 61 Sir 34:25 G 60 Sir 34:26–27 G 60 Sir 35:25 96 Sir 36:3 96 Sir 36/33:9 26 Sir 36/33:11–12 26 Sir 36:12 96 Sir 36:17 96 Sir 36:17/11 26 Sir 36:18–37:15 92 Sir 37:11 G 60 Sir 37:11 HB 60 Sir 37:11 HBD 58 Sir 37:11 HD 58, 60 Sir 37:13 91 Sir 37:16–18 92 Sir 37:19 91, 93 Sir 37:19b 93 Sir 37:19–23 93 Sir 37:19–26 92–94 Sir 37:20 91, 93 Sir 37:22 91–93 Sir 37:22a 93 Sir 37:22b 93 Sir 37:22–23 94 Sir 37:23 62, 81–82, 90–97, 99–100 Sir 37:23a 91 Sir 37:23b 91–94 Sir 37:23–26 51 Sir 37:24 92–94 Sir 37:24a 93 Sir 37:25 45, 92–94, 96 Sir 37:25a 93–94 Sir 37:25b 93–94, 99 Sir 37:26 62, 92–96, 100 Sir 37:26b 93–94 Sir 37:27 92 Sir 38:1 52, 92 Sir 38:1–8 62 Sir 38:1–15 51 Sir 38:2 63 Sir 38:2–3 52 Sir 38:3 91 Sir 38:4 25, 51

Sir 38:7 52 Sir 38:7 HB 58 Sir 38:7–8 HB 58 Sir 38:9 74 Sir 38:16 73 Sir 38:16ab 74 Sir 38:16–23 73, 76 Sir 38:20 HB 76 Sir 38:24 53, 63 Sir 38:24 G 60 Sir 38:24b HB 51 Sir 38:24–34 53 Sir 38:34–39 25 Sir 38:24–39:11 51 Sir 38:25 G 54 Sir 38:25–26 53, 56 Sir 38:25–26 HB 54 Sir 38:25–30 45, 53 Sir 38:27 54 Sir 38:27 G 55 Sir 38:27 HB 54–55, 57 Sir 38:28 G 55 Sir 38:29–30 G 56 Sir 38:31–32 G 53 Sir 38:33 49 Sir 39:1–11 62 Sir 39:4 G 51 Sir 39:9–11 51 Sir 39:10 63 Sir 39:26 53 Sir 39:26 G 59 Sir 39:26 HB 59 Sir 40:1–17 76 Sir 40:19 83 Sir 40:19 HB 53 Sir 40:28 G 60 Sir 41:1–4 76 Sir 41:17–18 49 Sir 41:18 96 Sir 41:22 G 62 Sir 41:22 HM 62 Sir 42:5 58, 60 Sir 42:5 G 59, 61 Sir 42:5 HBM 59 Sir 42:11 96 Sir 43:3 88, 98 Sir 43:4 83

 313

314 

 Index of Sources

Sir 43:21 88 Sir 44:1 26 Sir 44:1–50:24 48 Sir 44:3 98 Sir 44:4 83, 96, 98 Sir 44:9 96 Sir 44:13–15 51 Sir 44:17–49:16 45 Sir 44:18 77 Sir 44:20 92 Sir 45:6 HB 50 Sir 45:9 96 Sir 45:10 HB 55, 57 Sir 45:10–11 G 57 Sir 45:10–11 HB 57 Sir 45:11 55 Sir 45:11 G 55 Sir 45:11 HB 57 Sir 45:11–12 G 55 Sir 45:15 96 Sir 45:17 96 Sir 45:23 96 Sir 45:24 HB 48 Sir 45:26 98 Sir 46:6 96 Sir 46:7 83 Sir 46:13 96 Sir 46:19 87 Sir 47:5 96 Sir 47:9 50 Sir 47:9 G 50 Sir 47:17 96 Sir 48:6 83 Sir 48:15 96 Sir 48:24 HB 76 Sir 49:1 HB 58 Sir 49:4 77, 83 Sir 49:13 88 Sir 50:1 96 Sir 50:1 HB 48 Sir 50:1–4 48 Sir 50:1–24 45, 48 Sir 50:4 91, 96 Sir 50:14 HB 50 Sir 50:18 50 Sir 50:18 G 50 Sir 50:19 96

Sir 50:25 27, 96 Sir 50:25–26 157 Sir 50:26 27, 96 Sir 51:2cd 96 Sir 51:12 83 Sir 51:12o 91, 96 Baruch Bar 6 193–94 Epistle of Jeremiah Ep Jer 7 198 Ep Jer 9 195 Ep Jer 10 198 Ep Jer 13–14 195 Ep Jer 15–20 198 Ep Jer 25 196 Ep Jer 26 198 Ep Jer 30–31 198 Ep Jer 40 197 Ep Jer 42 200 Ep Jer 54 198 Ep Jer 56 198 1–2 Maccabees 1 Macc 1:11 38 1 Macc 1:13 38 1 Macc 1:30 38–39 1 Macc 1:34 38 1 Macc 1:37 122 1 Macc 1:41 37 1 Macc 1:43 38 1 Macc 1:51 37 1 Macc 1:52 38 1 Macc 1–2 39 1 Macc 2:7 37, 39–40 1 Macc 2:44 38 1 Macc 2:66 37 1 Macc 2:67 37, 40 1 Macc 2:70 40 1 Macc 3:1–9:22 39–40 1 Macc 3:3 40 1 Macc 3:5 38, 40 1 Macc 3:6 38 1 Macc 3:8 38 1 Macc 3:15 38 1 Macc 3:20 38

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint 

1 Macc 3:42 40 1 Macc 3:43 40 1 Macc 3:55 38 1 Macc 4:16 38 1 Macc 4:17 38 1 Macc 4:26–29 40 1 Macc 4:26–35 40 1 Macc 4:31 40 1 Macc 4:54 50 1 Macc 4:55 40 1 Macc 4:57 56 1 Macc 4:58 40 1 Macc 4:59 40 1 Macc 4:61 40 1 Macc 5:16 39 1 Macc 5:18 39 1 Macc 5:19 39 1 Macc 5:30 39 1 Macc 5:42 39 1 Macc 5:43 39 1 Macc 5:53 39 1 Macc 5:55–62 41 1 Macc 5:56 41 1 Macc 5:60 39, 41 1 Macc 5:61 39, 41 1 Macc 5:62 41 1 Macc 6:15 55 1 Macc 6:19 39 1 Macc 6:21 38 1 Macc 6:58 33 1 Macc 7:1–25 41 1 Macc 7:5 38 1 Macc 7:5–25 35 1 Macc 7:9 38 1 Macc 7:18 39, 41 1 Macc 7:19 39 1 Macc 7:22 41 1 Macc 7:26 39 1 Macc 7:33 39 1 Macc 7:37 39 1 Macc 7:48 39 1 Macc 8:23 33 1 Macc 8:25 33 1 Macc 8:27 33 1 Macc 8:29 34 1 Macc 9:20 40 1 Macc 9:23 38

1 Macc 9:25 38 1 Macc 9:58 38 1 Macc 9:73 38–39 1 Macc 10:5 33 1 Macc 10:18–20 35 1 Macc 10:20 33 1 Macc 10:22–45 35 1 Macc 10:25 33 1 Macc 10:61 38 1 Macc 10:80 39 1 Macc 10:81 39 1 Macc 11:21 38 1 Macc 11:25 38 1 Macc 11:30 33 1 Macc 11:30–37 35 1 Macc 11:42 33 1 Macc 11:44 39 1 Macc 11:57–58 35 1 Macc 12:3 33 1 Macc 12:6 33, 48 1 Macc 12:35 39 1 Macc 12–16 33 1 Macc 13:17 39 1 Macc 13:26 40 1 Macc 13:35–40 35 1 Macc 13:36 33 1 Macc 14:4 33 1 Macc 14:6 33 1 Macc 14:14 38 1 Macc 14:21–23 34 1 Macc 14:25 34 1 Macc 14:25–49 35 1 Macc 14:28 33, 39 1 Macc 14:29 33 1 Macc 14:30 33 1 Macc 14:32 33 1 Macc 15:1–2 33 1 Macc 15:17 34 1 Macc 16:6 39 1 Macc 16:7 39 2 Macc 1:8 122 2 Macc 1:10 48 2 Macc 3:10 60 2 Macc 3:15 60 2 Macc 4:6 105 2 Macc 4:7–11 35

 315

316 

 Index of Sources

2 Macc 4:16 118 2 Macc 4:23–29 35 2 Macc 6:8 118 2 Macc 11:24 118 2 Macc 11:27 48 2 Macc 12:1 53 2 Macc 14:3–11 35

New Testament Matthew Matt 1:6–16 264 Matt 1:21 252 Matt 2:4 252 Matt 2:6 252 Matt 4:8 250 Matt 4:8–10 250 Matt 4:10 250–51 Matt 4:15 250, 252, 256 Matt 4:16 247 Matt 5–7 250 Matt 6:25–34 253 Matt 6:32a 247, 253, 255–56 Matt 6:32b 252–53 Matt 7:29 250 Matt 8:9 250 Matt 9:6 250 Matt 9:8 250 Matt 10:1 250 Matt 10:5 247, 253 Matt 10:5b 252–53 Matt 10:5–6 247, 249, 256, 258–59 Matt 10:6 253 Matt 10:7 250 Matt 10:18 247, 252–54 Matt 10:19 250 Matt 12:18 247, 252–53 Matt 12:21 247, 252–53 Matt 13:32 250 Matt 19:28 252 Matt 20:19 247, 252–54 Matt 20:25 247, 252–54 Matt 21:23 250

Matt 21:43 252 Matt 24:7 252 Matt 24:9 247, 252, 254–56 Matt 24:14 247, 251–52, 254–56 Matt 24:27 250 Matt 24:29–31 255 Matt 24:30 252 Matt 25:31–46 75, 77, 255 Matt 25:32 247, 252, 255–56, 259 Matt 27:57 250 Matt 28 249, 252, 255, 257 Matt 28:9 251 Matt 28:11–15 248 Matt 28:16 248–49, 257–58 Matt 28:16–18a 250 Matt 28:16–20 247–52, 257 Matt 28:17 250–51 Matt 28:18 249 Matt 28:18b–20 248–51, 255, 257–58 Matt 28:19 247–49, 252, 255–57, 259 Matt 28:20 249 Matt 28:20b 250 Mark Mark 10 253 Mark 10:33 252 Mark 10:33–34 254, 256 Mark 10:42 252, 254 Mark 11:7 252 Mark 13:8 252 Mark 13:9 253 Mark 13:9/13 254 Mark 13:10 252, 254, 256 Mark 16:9–20 248 Mark 16:15–18 248 Luke Luke 2:32 252 Luke 4:8 251 Luke 7:5 252 Luke 12:3 195 Luke 12:30 252–53 Luke 18:32 252 Luke 21:10 252 Luke 21:24 252, 257

Pseudepigrapha 

Luke 21:24–25 252, 257 Luke 21:25 252 Luke 22:25 252 Luke 23:2 252 Luke 24:47 248, 252 John John 11:48 252 John 11:50 252 John 11:51 252 John 11:52 252 John 18:35 252 Acts Acts 2:38 248 Acts 3:25 179, 184 Acts 11:26 22 Romans Rom 1:4–5 258–59 Rom 1:5 249 Rom 1:13–15 232 Rom 4 29 Rom 11:12 258 Rom 11:13 258 Rom 11:25 258 Rom 12:15 74 Rom 13:1–7 231 Rom 15:11 258 Rom 16:4 258 1 Corinthians 1 Cor 14:9–11 232 Galatiens Gal 1:16 258 Gal 2:8 258 Gal 3 29 Gal 3:8 258 1 Thessalonians 1 Thess 4:5 258 2 Peter 2 Pet 2:5 183

Pseudepigrapha Ahiqar Ahiqar 2:13 73 Letter of Aristeas Let. Aris. 124–125 98 1 Enoch 1 En. 96:4–8 12 1 En. 97:8 12 1 En. 100:6 12 1 En. 102:9 12 1 En. 103:5–6 12 1 En. 103:9–15 12 2 Enoch 2 En. 9:1 77 3 Maccabees 1:3 49 1:8–15 127 2:25–3:30 127 4:10 118 4:21 105 5:30 105 6:24–28 133 7:1–16 133 4 Maccabees 9:24 105 13:19 105 17:22 105 4 Ezra 2:20 77 Jubilees Jub. 4:33 183 Jub. 8:18 183 Jub. 8:19 183 Jub. 16:26 209 Sibylline Oracles Sib. Or. 1:127–131 183

 317

318 

 Index of Sources

Sib. Or. 1:149–151 183 Sib. Or. 2:89–104 77 Testament of Jacob T. Jac. 2:23 77

Targumim Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 34:6 77 Tg. Esth 2:7 124

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1:17 221 CD 2:5–9 221 CD 2:11 221 CD 2:16–17 221 CD 3:12–15 221 CD 6:14–17 CD 6:21–7:1 225 CD 11:14–15 221 CD 12:8–11 221 CD 12:10–11 10 CD 13:12–16 221 CD 13:16–17 222 CD 14:3–4 225 1QHa 17:35–36 212 1QM (1Q33) 1:1–2 210 1QpHab 9:5 11 1QS 3:13–4:26 211 1QS 5:5–6 211 1QS 5:14–15 11 1QS 8:4b–7a 209 1QS 8:9–10 209 1QS 9:8–9 11 1QS 225 1QSa (1Q28a) 210 1QSb (1Q28b) 210 1QSb 3:26 211 4Q22 (4QpaleoExodm) 10 4Q24 (Levb) fr. 27–28 10 4Q27 (4QNumb) 10 4Q159 (4Q Ordinancesa) fr. 2–4, l. 1–3 10

4Q166 (4QpHosa) 2:14–16 222 4Q196–4Q199 142 4Q196 143, 169, 172 4Q196 fr. 2:5 170 4Q196 fr. 2:5–7 169–70 4Q196 fr. 2:6 170–71 4Q196 fr. 2:7 170–172 4Q196 fr. 2:8 170 4Q196 fr. 4:1 171 4Q196 6:2 154 4Q196 f17 i 14 146 4Q196 f17 ii 2–3 148 4Q198 143 4Q200 142 4Q200 f6.9–10 146 4Q266 (4QDa) 9iii 45 222 4Q266 (4QDa) 10i 79 225 4Q366 RPd frag. 2 10 4Q372 (4QNarr and Poetic Compb) 1 14–18 213 4Q372 (4QNarr and Poetic Compb) 3 7–8 213 4QMMT (4Q394–399) 221 4Q418 137.4 53 4Q418 Instructiond frag. 126 ii 13 10 4Q501 (4QApocr Lam B) 1–2 217 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1+2ii 12–13 212, 217 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1+2iii 5–8 217 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1+2v 11–13 217 4Q525 (4QBeatitudes) 5 7–8 217 11Q19 (11QTemplea) 57:10–17 217 11Q19 (11QTemplea) 64:6‒8 217

Philo Abr. 181 232 Cher. 91 232 Conf. 6 232 Conf. 190 232 Cong. 158 118 Contempl. 31 233 Det. 16 118 Det. 118 118 Deus 61 118 Deus 119 118 Ebr. 193 232

Talmud, Midrash 

Ebr. 195 118 Her. 1.58 232 Leg. 3.188 232 Legat. 8 232 Legat. 116 232 Legat. 147 232 Legat. 215 232 Mos. 1.92 237 Mos. 1.276 237 Mut. 114 118 Plant. 67 232 Plant. 177 118 Post. 181 118 Prob. 1 230 Prob. 62 233 Prob. 72–75 235 Prob. 75–91 235 Prob. 76–77 239 Prob. 79 239 Prob. 80 239 Prob. 85–87 239 Prob. 88 233, 239 Prob. 92 235 Somn. 2.117 237 Spec. 3.13–17 237 Spec. 3.17 232 Spec. 3.93 237 Spec. 3.100 237

A.J. 12.4.10 52 A.J. 12.10 118 A.J. 12.138–144 19, 35 A.J. 13.257–258 264 A.J. 13.286–287 242 A.J. 14.4.1 58 A.J. 14.195 118 A.J. 14.247 118 A.J. 14.379 136 A.J. 15.9–10 242 A.J. 15.254 264 A.J. 18.169 118 B.J. 1.462 118 B.J. 2.385 238 B.J. 3.109 118 B.J. 7.351–357 241

Josephus

Pirqe ’Abot 2.1 77 Pirqe ’Abot 3.1 77

Vita 430 230 C. Ap. 1.1 230 C. Ap. 1.27 242 C. Ap. 1.58–59 243 C. Ap. 1.179 232, 240 C. Ap. 2.1 230 C. Ap. 2.84 242 C. Ap. 2.135 235 C. Ap. 2.280–292 234 A.J. 1.8 230 A.J. 7.130 195 A.J. 11.203–204 124 A.J. 12.3.3 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 A.J. 12.4.6 52

b. ‘Avod Zar 64b 282 b. B. Qam. 100a 75 b. Meg. 13a(.5) 125 b. Meg. 13a(.14) 125 b. Ned. 39b 75 b. Ned. 40a 75 b. Pesaḥ. 66a 179 b. Pesaḥ. 87b 282 b. Qidd. 69b 266 b. Qidd. 82a 56 b. Qidd. 82b 53 b. Šabb. 31a 264 b. Šabb. 105b 74

Talmud, Midrash m. Eduy. 1.3 57 m. Hag. 3.5 56 m. Ket. 5.5 57 m. M. Sh. 5.15 56 m. Midd. 2.3 56 m. Qidd. 4.14 51 m. Shek. 6.5 56 m. Yebam. 2.8 269

 319

320 

 Index of Sources

b. Šabb. 127a 77 b. Sanh. 19b(.13) 125 b. Sanh. 58b 281 b. Sanh. 59b 285 b. Sanh. 98a 264 b. Soṭah 14a 74, 77 b. Sukkah 41b 75 b. Yebam. 24b 269 b. Yebam. 47a 264 b. Yebam. 47b 283

OGIS 1.230 48

y. Qidd. 4.11 (66c) 281 y. Yoma 4.5 58

Aristophanes Ach. 245–260 196 Lys. 387–396 199 Pax 979–985 200

Gen. Rab. 18.3 266 Gen. Rab. 23.3 183 Gen. Rab. 96 74 Sifra 13 (86a) 281 Der. ‘Er. Rab. 3.1 77 Der. ‘Er. Zuṭ. 2.9 76

Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 59:4 77 Herm. Mand. 8:10 77

Ancient Near Eastern Texts CAP i 3 172 CAP i 7 172 CAP ii 19 172 CAP ii 20 172 CAP ii 26 172 CAP iv 60 172 Muraššû Archive BE 9.45 5 Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae

SEG 47.1745 35

Greek and Latin Works Alexander of Aphrodisias Fat. 199.14–22 234

Aristotle Eth. nic. 1179.2 118 Pol. 1292.2 118 Pol. 1334a 60 Arrian Anab. 6.2.3 238 Anab. 7.20.9 238 Aelian Var. hist. 16.39 238 Var. hist. 17.6 238 Aeschylus Ag. 1051 232 Ag. 1387 198 Pers. 255 232 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historia XL.3 133 Diogenes Laertius Lives 1.8 237 Lives 1.13 236 Lives 1.22–93 236 Lives 7.127 234 Cicero Div. 1.47 238 Tusc. 5.7 236

Papyri and Ostraca 

Tusc. 5.77–78 238–39 Herodot Hist. 1.181 197 Hist. 1.199 200 Hist. 2.52 198 Hist. 2.175 118 Hist. 6.85 118 Hesiod Theog. 96 97 Homer Il. 2.197–198 97 Il. 2.205 97 Il. 6.208 110 Il. 11.184 195 Il. 11.784 110 Il. 16.665 197 Justin 1 Apol. 67:6 77 Plato Leg. 2.659d 118 Prob. 47 236 Prob. 80 237 Prob. 92–95 237 Prob. 153 236 Prot. 341c 232 Prot. 343a 236 Resp. 5.473d 98 Tim. 30c 105 Tim. 44c 105 Pliny the Elder Nat. 6.96 238 Plutarch Alex. 27.5 110 Alex. 52.3 107 Cato Maj. 12.5 233 Mor. 138a–146a 236 Mor. 369e–370c 238 Mor. 1046e-f 234

Mor. 1063a-b 234 Sol. 4 236 Rufus Quintus Curtius Historiae Alexandri Magni 10.10–11 238 Sappho Fragm. 152 199 Seneca (the Younger) Const. 2.1 234 Const. 5.4 234 Ep. 52.14 233 Sophocles Aj. 1263 232 Strabo Geogr. 1.4.9 232 Geogr. 1.22 118 Geogr. 2.2 118 Geogr. 2.4 118 Geogr. 2.8 118 Geogr. 15.1.4–6 238 Geogr. 15.1.64–65 238 Theocritus Id. II.33 201 Valerius Mem. 2.6.14 238 Mem. 3.3. ext. 3 238 Mem. 4.1. ext. 7 236 Mem. 4.1. ext. 8 236 Mem. 5.3. ext. 3b 236 Mem. 8.7. ext. 2 236, 238 Mem. 8.7. ext. 2–3 233 Xenophon Mem. 1.4.18 105

Papyri and Ostraca P.Anastasi 67 58 P.Bodl. 1.59b 56

 321

322 

 Index of Sources

P.Cair.Zen. 1.59076 61 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59438 54 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59481 56 P.Cair.Zen. 4.59729 54 P.Enteux 69 52 P.Grenf. 2.14a 54 P.Hib. 2.214 51 P.Lond. 7.2055 57 P.Mich. 5580b 55 P.Petr. 3.140a 60 P.Ryl. 4.572 48 P.Tebt. 3.1.700 61 P.Tebt. 3.1.815 50 P.Tebt. 3.2.890 59 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum CPJ 1 53 CPJ 1.1 61 CPJ 1.2b 59 CPJ 1.14 54 CPJ 1.46 57 CPJ 1.127 50 CPJ 4 53 CPJ 4.522 51 Papiri della Società Italiana PSI 4.328 49 PSI 4.383 59 PSI 4.406 62 PSI 5.531 49 PSI 6.599 57 PSI 9.1039 50 Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten SB 24.16228b 54 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt  TADAE 4.5–4.10 8 TADAE A 4.1 7 TADAE A 4.1:3 8 TADAE A 4.2 7 TADAE A 4.3 7 TADAE A 4.5 8 TADAE A 4.5–4.10 8 TADAE A 4.7 7

TADAE A 4.8 7 TADAE A 4.10 7 TADAE A 6.11:2 7 TADAE A 6.11:5 7–8 TADAE A 6.11:5–6 7 TADAE A 6.13 7 TADAE B 2.2 13 TADAE B 2.4 13 TADAE B 2.6 13 TADAE C 3.7 8 TADAE C 3.7 A 8 TADAE C 3.15 8 TADAE C 3.28 11 Wadi Daliyeh Samaria Papyri WDSP 1ar:2–4 9 WDSP 1ar:11 9 WDSP 2ar:3 9 WDSP 2ar:10–11 9 WDSP 3ar:4 9 WDSP 3ar:4–5 9 WDSP 3ar:10 9 WDSP 5ar:5 9 Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit UPZ 1.5 60 Ostraca BGU 7.1525 52 Kh.Q 1996/1 10 O. Eleph. DAIK 6 57

Secondary Sources Patriologica Graeca PG 91:952 69 PG 96:436 69 PG 136:948 69

Manuscripts Cambridge University Library T-S AS 118.78 66