Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash 9789004511590, 9004511598

Citation preview

Written for Us

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editors René Bloch (Institut für Judaistik, Universität Bern) Karina Martin Hogan (Department of Theology, Fordham University) Associate Editors Hindy Najman (Theology & Religion Faculty, University of Oxford) Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven) Benjamin G. Wright, III (Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University) Advisory Board A.M. Berlin – K. Berthelot – J.J. Collins – B. Eckhardt – Y. Furstenberg S. Kattan Gribetz – G. Anthony Keddie – L. Lehmhaus – O. Malka A. Manekin – S. Mason – F. Mirguet – J.H. Newman – A.K. Petersen M. Popović – P. Pouchelle – I. Rosen-Zvi – J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten – M. Segal J. Sievers – L.T. Stuckenbruck – L. Teugels – J.C. de Vos – S. Weisser

volume 202

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jsjs

Written for Us Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash

By

Yael Fisch

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Fisch, Yael, author. Title: Written for us : Paul’s interpretation of scripture and the history  of midrash / by Yael Fisch. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2023. | Series: Supplements to the  journal for the study of Judaism, 1384-2161 ; volume 202 | Includes  bibliographical references. | Summary: “This volume re-introduces Paul  into the study of midrash. Though Paul writes and interprets scripture  in Greek and the Tannaim in Hebrew, and despite grave methodological  difficulties in claiming direct and substantial cultural contact between  these literary traditions, this book argues that Paul is a crucial  source for the study of rabbinic midrash and vice versa. Fisch offers  fresh perspectives on reading practices that Paul and the Tannaim  uniquely share; on Paul’s concept of nomos, and its implications on the  reconstructed history of the Tannaitic twofold-Torah, Oral and Written;  on the relationship between allegory and midrash as hermeneutical  systems; and on competing conceptualizations of ideal readers”—  Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022002022 (print) | LCCN 2022002023 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004505629 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004511590 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. |  Midrash—History and criticism. Classification: LCC BS2650.52 .F57 2023 (print) | LCC BS2650.52 (ebook) |  DDC 227/.06—dc23/eng/20220317 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022002022 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022002023

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978-90-04-50562-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-51159-0 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Yael Fisch. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For my parents with love and gratitude

∵

Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 1 Review of Existing Scholarship: Paul and Midrash 2 2 Paul the Pharisee? A Critique of the Paul/Pharisees/ Tannaim Continuum 4 3 Genealogy as Goal and Its Hermeneutical Limits 8 4 Why Should We Compare? 10 5 What Is to Be Gained from a Comparative Study of Paul, Midrash, and Qumran? 13 6 How to Move beyond Genealogy 23 7 Plan for This Study 29 1 Scripture Reconceived Romans 10:5–13, The Hermeneutics of Midrash-Pesher and a New Genealogy of ‘Oral Torah’ 31 1 The Scriptural Sources in Romans 10:5–13 and the Language of the Citations 33 2 Exegetical Rhetoric in Romans 10: Midrash-Pesher and Its Uses 35 3 Scriptural Hermeneutics in Romans 10: Towards New Genealogy of Oral Torah 53 2 Hagar and Sarah Midrash and Allegory 78 1 Galatians 4:21–5:1 79 2 Rhetorical Structure: Lemma & Paraphrase 79 3 Ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα: What Is Allegory? 81 4 But Is There an Allegory at All? 89 5 What Do Sarah and Hagar Stand for? 92 6 The Intertext, Isaiah 54:1 and Its Allegorical Function 97 7 Pauline Allegory and Rabbinic Midrash: The Central Scholarly Positions 102 8 Dorshei Rashumot and the History of Allegory 104 9 Precedents for Hebrew Allegory: Allegory in Qumran 115 10 Philo’s Allegorization of Hagar and Sarah 121 11 Pauline, Qumranic, Philonic and Midrashic Allegories: Relationship and History 125 12 Torah to the Gentiles 129

viii

Contents

3 Veiling and Unveiling 2 Corinthians 3 and Tannaitic Hermeneutics 131 1 2 Corinthians 3: A Close Reading 131 2 Exodus 34: Structure and Meaning 134 3 Interpretations of Exodus 34:29–35 in Philo, LAB, Qumran, Targum and Rabbinic Literature 137 4 How Is Exodus 34:29–35 Retold in 2 Corinthians 3? 144 5 ‫  המגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה‬149 6 Modesty and Interpretation in Rabbinic Literature 156 Conclusion 161 1 Pauline Hermeneutics in Light of Qumran and Midrash 162 2 Midrash in Light of Paul and Qumran 173 Appendix: Locations of Midrash-Pesher Homilies in Tannaitic Literature 185 References 188 Index of Ancient Texts 209 Index of Subjects 217

Acknowledgments The poet and classicist Anne Carson speaks of reading and writing as a painful separation from the world, a shutting down. A person who reads and writes learns to close or inhibit the input of his senses, to inhibit or control the responses of his body, so as to train energy and thought upon the written words. He resists the environment outside him by distinguishing and controlling the one inside him. This constitutes at first a laborious and painful effort for the individual, psychologists and sociologists tell us. In making the effort he becomes aware of the interior self as an entity separable from the environment and its input, controllable by his own mental action. Anne Carson, Eros the Bittersweet: An Essay (Princeton University Press, 1986), 63

But I have been luckier. I have never felt alone in my writing, nor do I feel that I resist the world around me. And as I write these words now, I am deeply aware of those in my life that have made reading, thinking and writing possible for me. My intellectual home and alma mater is Tel Aviv University. I have seen Jewish Studies in Tel Aviv University grow from strength to strength and become a truly unique place of Torah. In a profound sense, I have learned to read at Tel Aviv University. My work has been encouraged and supported by several TAU grants over the years of my PhD, and mainly, a generous scholarship from the School of Jewish Studies that allowed me to dedicate myself to my research. My deepest gratitude goes to my mentors. Prof. Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s commitment to my success, growth and learning has proven to be endless. Ishay taught me how to ask our ancient texts questions and what to listen for when they answer. In a way, I always think and write in conversation with Ishay. His intellectual energy and optimism saw me through all the rough patches I met on this road, and I am privileged to have him as a mentor and friend. Prof. Paula Fredriksen taught me to read critically and write deliberately. She has opened my world to the possibilities and impossibilities of Paul scholarship, and I cannot imagine reading Paul and writing about him without her. Comparative studies are often overstated, exaggerated into linear models of dependency, and Paula has taught me caution and encouraged me to find new methodological pathways.

x

Acknowledgments

My years at Tel Aviv University have also allowed me the privilege to work closely with Prof. Vered Noam, who brought me into work on the Josephus and the Rabbis book (Yad Ben Zvi, 2017). I am grateful to Vered for her wisdom, kind spirit and support. In the Josephus and the Rabbis project, I grew from being a student to a full contributor of the book, and writing my chapters in that project has played a central part in my scholarly formation. My deepest thanks go to my dear teachers at TAU, who have also given me work and financial support, Prof. Menachem Lorberbaum and Prof. Barbara Mayer. I thank them for our many conversations. They still echo with me. My deepest gratitude goes to Prof. Hindy Najman, my mentor at my postdoctoral fellowship at the Centre for the Study of the Bible (CBH) at Oriel College, the University of Oxford. It is in Oxford that my dissertation was reconceived as a book, and it could not have happened without our numerous conversations, seminars and workshops. I am deeply thankful to Hindy for her endless support of my work, her rigor and commitment to excellence, her literary insight, and her work to build academic communities. This book could not have happened without her. I am also deeply thankful to the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. The communities and Oriel, CBH, and OCHJS have been wonderful homes for my work, and I thank my friends and colleagues there for their friendship and intellectual support. The final stages of the work on this book were done with the support of the Martin Buber Society of Fellows, my new home at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I have thought out loud with many friends, colleagues and teachers about my Paul and Midrash, and I thank them all for their wisdom. Many of them have read different iterations of this text, and I am thankful to them for their intellectual generosity: Prof. Daniel Boyarin, Prof. Jesper Svartvik, Dr. Yair Furstenberg, Dr. Yakir Paz, Dr. Yannai Israeli, Prof. Matthew Novenson, Prof. Martha Himmelfarb, Prof. Lutz Doering, Prof. Menahem Kister, Dr. Nadav Avruch, Dr. Yedidah Koren, Dr. Amit Gevaryahu, Dr. Avigail Manekin-Bamberger, Prof. Karma ben Yohanan, Prof. Nehama Verbin, Prof. Adam Afterman, Dr. Omer Michaelis, Dr. Ido Harrari, Dr. Yakov Z. Mayer, Dr. Smadar Brack and Dr. Yoni Brack. My special gratitude goes to my dearest friends Dr. Assaf Tamari and Dr. Ori Levin. The ‘Human Rights and Judaism’ program at the Israel Democracy Institute has not only provided for me financially but has generated an outstanding community of young and engaged scholars. I thank my friends, colleagues and teachers there, who have read some chapters of this book and commented on them profusely. I especially thank Prof. Hanoch Dagan for his encouragement and support. Last but not least, I thank the anonymous readers of this manuscript for their engagement, insight and many valuable comments, big and small.

Acknowledgments

xi

I thank my parents, Hanna and Menachem Fisch, for their boundless love and support. This journey could not have been possible without their presence, conversation and help, in more ways than I am able to express. My partner in everything, Yonatan, this work is ours. You attune me to what is meaningful, and I have been blessed to have the possibility to always think with you. And last, I want to thank our son Meiri, the guiding light of my life. Since Meiri came into our life and filled it with happiness, I know that writing, for me, is never a separation from the world.

Introduction This study of scriptural hermeneutics in Jewish antiquity seeks to compare Paul’s interpretation of scripture with that of Tannaitic midrash. Many earlier studies have been dedicated to the relationship between Paul and midrash, almost all of them based on the idea that Paul received a substantial Pharisaic education in Jerusalem as a student of Rabban Gamliel, which relies upon the account in Acts (22:1–21; 26:4–23). Building on Acts, many of these studies contended that rabbinic midrash—which, like Paul’s writing, is often understood as stemming from Second Temple Pharisaism—may provide the historical backdrop for Paul’s own work with scripture. The methodological perils of this naïve and anachronistic historical construction are numerous, and they have amounted to an aporia in the study of Paul and midrash. Scholarship seems to have presented us with a choice between two equally problematic possibilities: either to work on the assumption that Paul and the rabbis, via the Pharisees, share a genetic relationship or to abandon the comparative endeavor, and study Pauline hermeneutics and midrash separately and on their own terms. Richard B. Hays, perhaps the most important speaker for the latter approach, also saw himself as choosing between these two alternatives: To argue that one of these phenomena represents a source or influence for another is likely to be misleading unless some documentable lines of historical dependence can be demonstrated…. Thus, we are undertaking a valid and necessary (even if preliminary) task when we inquire independently into the way in which any one of them [Pauline hermeneutics and rabbinic midrash] uses scriptural texts.1 But are we forced to choose between an anachronistic genealogy or an isolated Paul? I wish to plot a third path: to study Pauline and midrashic hermeneutics together, while resisting the assumption of a shared genealogy. In what follows, I will argue why and how the genealogical approach has flat-lined the study of Pauline and midrashic hermeneutics, and why it is nevertheless highly beneficial to study both hermeneutics together. Only then can the methodological framework that enables this be effectively sketched and applied.

1 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 11.

© Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_002

2 1

Introduction

Review of Existing Scholarship: Paul and Midrash

Scholars of Paul and midrash who assume a genealogical connection between the two literatures, surprisingly often also note that genealogical ties are methodologically problematic to substantiate, even as they proceed to make the claim. Already in 1900, H. St. John Thackeray noted that scholars had abstained from thinking about Paul in the context of contemporary Jewish thought “due to a want of contemporary Jewish documents,” and in light of the fact that “rabbinical works were not committed to writing until after the time of St. Paul.”2 Nonetheless, he insisted that rabbinic sources represented more ancient traditions, claiming: “There is perhaps no aspect of the Pauline theology in which the influence of the Apostle’s rabbinic training is so clearly marked as the use which is made of the Old Testament.”3 The Jesuit theologian and Bible scholar J. Bonsirven, who conducted the first modern systematic inquiry into Paul’s interpretation of scripture and its possible relationship to rabbinic midrash,4 did not acknowledge the methodological problem. Instead, like Thackeray (and with the same dependence on Acts), he viewed Paul’s hermeneutics as essentially stemming from the beit midrash of Rabban Gamliel. Otto Michel, like Bonsirven, failed to note the chronological problem, and proceeded to explain Paul’s interpretation of scripture in light of rabbinic midrash.5 W.D. Davies, notes that “we cannot, without extreme caution, use the Rabbinic sources as evidence for first century Judaism.”6 Yet, he nonetheless frames his entire project as “an attempt to set certain pivotal aspects of Paul’s life and thought against the background of contemporary Rabbinic Judaism, so as to reveal how, despite his apostleship to the Gentiles, he remained, as far as was possible, a Hebrew of Hebrews, and baptized his Rabbinic heritage into Christ.”7 All of these studies employ rabbinic literature to re-create Paul’s Jewish background, and they use a mix of late (Tannaitic) and even later (Amoraic and postamoraic) sources to do so. By means of an inverted chronology, these studies generate a fictitious image of “Rabbi Saul of Tarsus” (as per Acts 22:3) and

2 Henry St. John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900), 3. 3 Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 180. 4 Joseph Bonsirven, Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 1939). 5 “Die Paulinische Beweisführung ist zum großen Teil einfach aus dem Rabbinentum zuerklären,” see Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Güttersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929), 102. 6 W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, Revised Edition. (New York: Harper & Row, 1955), 2. 7 Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, xvi.

Introduction

3

then proceed to narrate a story of Paul’s conversion from rabbinic Judaism to “Christianity.” The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had surprisingly little impact on the assumed kinship between Paul and Tannaitic sources. A.T. Hanson described his attempt to think of Paul’s hermeneutics in relationship to Philo, Qumran, and rabbinic literature as “our own attempt to view Paul as an exegete against the background of his contemporary exegetes,”8 failing to note the chronological problems in such a construction. Joachim Jeremias also assumed this transtemporal kinship, and even went so far as to identify Paul as a Hillelite, in light of his (presumed) use of the seven middot of Hillel.9 Richard Longenecker presented a lengthy methodological introduction warning against the anachronistic use of rabbinic sources to reconstruct Paul’s Jewish background, but he too ultimately proceeded to do exactly that, placing a few, insufficient constraints on rabbinic literature.10 E.E. Ellis followed suit, noting that “there are several objections to taking the rabbinics of the Talmud and Midrash as representative of first century Judaism,”11 while going on to present Paul as a rabbi whose “reading habits, methodology and hermeneutical norms were firmly implanted by his parents, his synagogue and, most of all his teacher in rabbinics—Gamaliel.”12 In a recent article, Michael Benjamin Cover has attempted to study Paul’s interpretation of scripture and some exegetical techniques of Rabbi Ishmael comparatively.13 But although he is well aware of the central methodological questions entailed by this endeavor, he nevertheless argues, on the basis of some hermeneutical similarities between Paul and Ishmaelian midrash, that Paul should now be understood as a source for first century Pharisaism: Nonetheless, one expects to be able to detect certain hallmark features of Paul’s various stages of education, and the contours of this Pharisaism anticipate not only the midrashic playfulness of Rabbi Akiva but also the 8 9 10 11 12 13

Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 205. Joachim Jeremias, “Paulus als Hillelit,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. Edward Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), 88–94. Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). Edward Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 42. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 38. Michael Benjamin Cover, “Paulus als Yischmaelit? The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael,” JBL 135.3 (2016): 617–37.

4

Introduction

“scripturalist warrant” of Rabbi Ishmael. Both of these traditions have a firm foothold in the Pharisaism of the first century, as Paul’s letters attest.14 For Cover, genealogy is not an explicit assumption, but rather a conclusion. Yet, even when the genealogical claim is based on a proposed similarity between Paul and the Tannaim, attempting to employ such sources to shed light on first century Pharisees in general is highly problematic. 2

Paul the Pharisee? A Critique of the Paul/Pharisees/ Tannaim Continuum

As noted, the vast majority of scholarship with regard to the relationship between Paul and midrash builds on two claims. The first is that Paul received a Pharisaic education in Judea/Jerusalem, where he acquired his “midrashic” knowledge. The second claim is that Tannaitic literature reflects or preserves Pharisaic traditions, and specifically, Pharisaic scriptural interpretations. Both of these claims are highly questionable, and we will deal with each of them in turn. Paul identifies as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5–6, where he describes his ethnic, tribal, and cultural affiliation in these terms: “Circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the ekklesia; as to righteousness under the law (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ), blameless.”15 But what was this “Pharisaism” of which he writes? In Philippians, it refers to a specific orientation toward the law.16 Yet nowhere does Paul say exactly what this orientation was or what precisely the traditions of his ancestors were, nor does he tell us anything else about his life and relationship with the Pharisees. It is therefore unclear if he uses the term “Pharisee” in Philippians in any way other than to praise his own expertise. Paul’s biography according to Acts expands on his Pharisaism, but since Acts postdates Paul by at least two generations, and often contradicts information preserved in Paul’s own letters, it has been largely discredited by scholars as a reliable source for his 14 15 16

Cover, “Paulus als Yischmaelit?,” 636. In Galatians 1:14, Paul does not use the term “Pharisee,” but characterizes himself as “zealous for the traditions of my ancestors,” a common attribute of the Pharisees, echoed in Philippians and known to us also from Josephus; see Ant. 13.10.16 (297–98). Perhaps implicitly tied in Galatians to a zealousness regarding ancestral traditions, παράδοσις (Gal 1:14, without the explicit use of “Pharisee”).

Introduction

5

biography.17 Acts emphasizes Jerusalem as a formative location for the Judean Christ movement, and presents Paul’s biography in similar fashion. However, Paul’s remarks about himself do not reflect or even coincide with this story. If Paul was so proud of his ancestry and background, why did he not mention Gamliel in his letters?18 Similarly, Paul says he visited Jerusalem [only] twice (Gal 1:18, 2:1), which contradicts the claim that he resided there for a substantial period of time, as narrated by Acts. How could he not have been “known by sight to the communities (ἐκκλησίαι) of Judea” (Gal 1:22)?19 Therefore, from the chronology in Galatians it appears that he did not receive any serious education in Judea. If Galatians is preferred as the source for Paul’s biography,20 we must assume that he was not a former resident of Jerusalem, and although he describes himself as a Pharisee with respect to the Law, there is very little we can positively infer from this self-description. Not only is our understanding of Paul’s Pharisaism limited, so also is our knowledge of the historical Pharisees themselves and of their methods of scriptural interpretation. Our primary source for the Pharisees is Josephus, who claims to have joined the Pharisees for a certain period of time (Vita §12), though he is highly critical of them, both in War and in Antiquities.21 Josephus 17

18 19 20 21

The critique of Acts as a source for the historical Paul goes back to the Tübingen school; see Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre (Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845). After the work of John Knox, it has become widely accepted. See John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950); E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 21–23; Robert Jewett, Dating Paul’s Life (London: SCM Press, 1979), 23; James D.G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 500–1; Thomas A. Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 67, 73; John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 61–62; Charles Kingsley Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts,” The Journal of Theological Studies 50.2 (1999): 515–34; Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters, WUNT 310 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, 18; Fredriksen, Paul, 61–62. Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, 22. See also Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 68–69. E.P. Sanders follows John Knox, concluding that “the primary evidence is Paul’s letters. Acts should be disregarded if it is in conflict.” Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 181. Whether this critical approach should be attributed directly to Josephus, or perhaps to his sources, such as Nikolaus of Damascus, is vigorously debated by scholars. For the first view, see Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, StPB 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 373– 74. For the second, see Morton Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel:

6

Introduction

describes the Pharisees as exact in the laws and their explication (Φαρισαῖοι μὲν οἱ μετὰ ἀκριβείας δοκοῦντες ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα; JW 2.162),22 and as a school that “prided itself greatly on its extremely precise observance of the ancestral heritage” (Ant. 17.41, a statement resembling that of Paul in Gal 1:14).23 Albert Baumgarten has shown that these attributes are consistent with the name ‫פרושים‬, as deriving from the Hebrew verb ‫פרש‬, denoting in our context “those who specify,” or “specifiers” of the law.24 The Pharisees observed laws that are not written in the Law of Moses (Ant. 13.297), a paradosis received from their fathers, which the Sadducees apparently rejected.25 Yet Josephus provides no information regarding the content of Pharisaic interpretations or traditions. His own rewriting of scripture in the first eleven books of Antiquities could serve as a good starting point for the search for Pharisaic interpretations of scripture, contrasting them with Tannaitic midrashim and other sources, but such work has barely begun, and will likely encounter methodological obstacles.26 Although certain Pharisaic traditions have been gleaned from the DSS, from the gospels, and from Tannaitic literature in several recent studies,27 these studies focus on themes of Pharisaic halakhah and aggadah and not on hermeneutics. So far, they have yielded extremely limited results with regard

22 23 24 25

26 27

Its Role in Civilization, by Moshe Davis (New York: JTS Press, 1956), 67–81; Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 144–51. A similar description of the Pharisees was also known to the author of Acts (see Acts 22:3; 26:5), as well as Nicolaus of Damascus (Josephus’ source in Ant. 17.40–45). On this see Albert Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees,” JBL 102.3 (1983): 414–16. For a similar description of Simon, from Jerusalem, see Ant. 19.332 (Καὶ δή τις ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἀνὴρ ἐπιχώριος ἐξακριβάζειν δοκῶν τὰ νόμιμα, Σίμων ἦν ὄνομα τούτῳ). Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees.” Mark 7 and Matthew 15 also associate the Pharisees with a received tradition, a paradosis. The Pharisees are probably also the subject of the criticism in the Thanksgiving Hymns, see 1QHa XII 15–16: ‫וידרשוכה בלב ולב ולא נכונו באמתכה … ועם שרירות לבם יתורו‬ ‫ וידרשוכה בגלולים‬. On these, see further in Albert Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic Paradosis,” HTR 80.1 (1987): 63–77. This characterization fits the description of received tradition in the opening Mishnah of tractate Avot. Daphne Baratz is conducting such work in her graduate studies at Tel Aviv University. See also Chaim Joseph Milikowsky, ed., Seder Olam Rabbah (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 58–60 [Hebrew]. For two attempts at this task, see Yair Furstenberg, Purity and Community in Antiquity: Tradition of the Law from Second Temple Judaism to the Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2016) [Hebrew]; Vered Noam and Tal Ilan, Josephus and the Rabbis, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017) [Hebrew]. Furstenberg’s work convincingly retraces Pharisaic legal traditions on purity and impurity, through comparative analysis of the Mishnah, the Gospels and the DSS. Our work on Josephus and the rabbis has similarly identified and reconstructed a vast corpus of historical Pharisaic aggadot, shared by both corpora.

Introduction

7

to Pharisaic interpretation of scripture. Since, except for Paul and Josephus, we have no writings from the Pharisees,28 there is very little that can be confidently claimed about the historical Pharisees in general, and about their scriptural hermeneutics in particular.29 As shown by the work of Ellis Rivkin and Shaye Cohen on the genealogical ties between the Tannaim and Pharisees, we must also be cautious in assuming that Tannaitic literature should be understood as continuing Second Temple Pharisaism, or that the Pharisees of the Mishnah can be straightforwardly identified as the Pharisees of Josephus and the New Testament.30 Yet “Paul and midrash” scholarship is based almost without exception on this position. In the specific field of scriptural hermeneutics, a genealogical connection between the Tannaim and the Pharisees is exceptionally problematic. The Pharisees held strongly to an oral paradosis apart from the written Torah, and it is simply impossible to determine whether and how their scriptural exegesis worked to bridge these two bodies of knowledge. Although studies of Tannaitic literature have discussed the connections between these two constructs of knowledge,31 information about the Pharisees is too scarce to allow us to project their conclusions back to the first century.

28

29 30

31

Who may have refrained from writing their oral traditions altogether. Several facts point in this direction. Apart from Paul and Josephus we have no other written Pharisaic texts. Furthermore, according to the tradition of the Scholia to Megillat Ta‌ʾanit the act of writing of legal traditions and scriptural interpretations was hotly debated between the Pharisees and the Boethusians. See Schol. Meg. Ta‌ʾanit on 4 Tamuz, thoroughly reconsidered by Vered Noam. See Vered Noam, Megillat Ta‌ʾanit: Versions, Interpretation, History (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003), 206–16 [Hebrew]. Finally, the Tannaim, who keep and rework some Pharisaic customs, refrain from writing Oral Torah or scriptural interpretation. Vered Noam speaks of our reconstruction of Pharisaic oral literature as a “lost continent,” which doubtlessly existed. We can only get a glimpse of it through the parallel traditions in Josephus and the rabbis. Noam and Ilan, Josephus and the Rabbis, 39, 484. Shaye J.D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27–53. Cohen does not claim that the Tannaim were not the descendants of the Pharisees but holds that “the rabbis were latter-day Pharisees who had no desire to publicize the connection.” Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh,” 40–41. Compare Ellis Rivkin, “Who Were the Pharisees?,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity III: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, HdO 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), vol. 3, 1–33. Among them Menhem Kister, Adiel Schremer, Albert Baumgarten, and Aharon Shemesh, discussed in detail below.

8 3

Introduction

Genealogy as Goal and Its Hermeneutical Limits

The only “genealogist” who has been able to break the “Paul-Pharisees-Tannaim” triangle is Menahem Kister, who has taken a different approach in his studies of Pauline and midrashic hermeneutics.32 Unlike the scholars mentioned above, who focused mainly on (presumed) parallel methods of interpretation (most often, the middot of Hillel), Kister focuses specifically on parallel interpretations of scripture that he finds in both bodies of literature. Kister does not simply assume the genealogical connection between Paul and the Tannaim, as others do; nor does he explicitly build on Acts or on the assumption of common Pharisaic background to explain the parallels that he finds. Rather, he presents them as attesting to a shared tradition, which he understands as stemming from a common source preceding both Paul and the Tannaim. Kister never identifies this source as specifically or necessarily Pharisaic, but only as an ancient Jewish interpretation that Paul and the rabbis both evidently received and reworked for their different purposes. Perhaps to avoid over-speculation, Kister does not explain how these traditions reached Paul, or in what language. He has, however, in several studies, offered evidence that Paul knew Hebrew, perhaps indirectly implying that these traditions did not reach Paul in Greek.33 The choice to focus on the contents of parallel interpretations allows Kister to avoid some of the pitfalls of the “genealogical presupposition,” as the traditions he points to must have reached both literatures somehow, probably from a shared Jewish tradition. But even when the connection between the sources seems more plausible, we face another fundamental problem of genealogical 32

33

See Menahem Kister, “Romans 5:12–21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage,” HTR 100.4 (2007): 391–424; Menahem Kister, “ ‘In Adam’: 1 Cor 15:21–22; 12:27 in Their Jewish Setting,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar, JSJsup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 685–90; Menahem Kister, “ ‘First Adam’ and ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Reimund Bieringer et al., JSJsup 136 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 351–66; Menahem Kister, “Qumran, Jubilees, and the Jewish Dimensions of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28–30 May, 2013, ed. Ruth A. Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal, STDJ 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2018); Menahem Kister, “Deeds, Reward, and Divine Mercy: Jewish Views and Pauline Passages,” JSJ 52 (2021): 1–44. See also Kister’s forthcoming monograph on Paul and ancient Judaism that will undoubtedly make a field changing contribution to Paul scholarship. Jan Joosten and Menahem Kister, “The New Testament and Rabbinic Hebrew,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Reimund Bieringer et al., JSJsup 136 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 335–50; Kister, “Romans 5:12.”

Introduction

9

reconstruction: it tells us too little about hermeneutics. Kister’s published work presents Paul not as an exegete with hermeneutical agendas, but as reiterating ancient traditions and reworking them ideologically. According to this understanding, Pauline hermeneutics is in danger of being understood as mere “Christological patina overlaying Jewish ideas.”34 Thus, this book both builds on and differs from Kister’s mode of inquiry, invested in the complex histories of traditions but not in hermeneutical projects. In fact, this critique applies to the vast majority of “Paul and midrash” studies mentioned above, even though many do declare an interest in hermeneutics. When a Pauline interpretation is identified as midrash, Richard Hays insightfully claims, “the label midrash tends to bring the interpretative process to a halt, as though it had explained something, when in fact we should keep pressing for clarity.”35 The issue at hand, I believe, is not only the label “midrash,”—as a Pharisaic connection may be claimed without labeling Paul as a darshan—but rather the presuppositions of genealogy as explanation. When genealogy is the working assumption of the comparison, and especially when it is its goal, the sources are treated as compilations of interpretative traditions and the inquiry simply ends when a parallel is identified. But this line of inquiry gives us a far too narrow understanding of what scripture was for Paul and how he reworked it for his audience, and so, the results of the genealogical study of “Paul and midrash” are unsurprisingly meager. In light of the methodological problems of the genealogical claim and the narrow scope of its hermeneutical insight, Richard Hays has chosen to study Pauline hermeneutics in isolation. Daniel Boyarin’s work on Paul,36 though not primarily dedicated to the question of Paul’s interpretation of scripture, has also been shaped in response to these issues. Boyarin, as “a talmudist and postmodern Jewish cultural critic reading Paul,”37 thinks about rabbinic literature and Paul comparatively,38 and does not drive a wedge between Paul and the 34 35 36 37 38

See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions and the Rabbis: Three Case Studies,” HTR 110.2 (2017): 171. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 14. Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 1. Boyarin is well aware of the chronological switch of the common genealogical reconstruction and wishes to escape it: “I would like to make this absolutely clear. It is proper to speak of ‘rabbinic’ Judaism only with regard to the second century and onward, because we have no direct evidence for such a movement prior to the Mishnah formed in the late second century. The rabbis see the first century Pharisees as their spiritual ancestors, and there is no reason to doubt that sensibility, but, on the other hand, neither is there reason to assume that the later rabbinic reports about those Pharisees have not

10

Introduction

rabbis as a methodological prerequisite, as Hays demands. Yet, his hermeneutical analysis, which is as culturally and literarily sensitive and broad as that of Richard Hays, also ends with a separation between the literatures. Boyarin concludes that Paul and the Tannaim do not share hermeneutic assumptions, but are in fact “opposites,” and presents Paul’s interpretation of scripture, which he understands as allegorical, as a polar opposite to rabbinic midrash: “The opposite of allegorical interpretation is not literal interpretation but rather midrashic reading as the very refusal of both univocity and the very existence of a signified which subsists above, beyond, or behind the signifier.”39 But in light of Kister’s extensive work attesting to common interpretations, and as the present study will show in other ways, this approach of regarding allegory and midrash as somehow binary opposites is untenable. We can now return to our initial question, and rephrase it as follows: Is there good reason to think about Paul and midrash together? If so, can we find a way to study them together without resorting either to a problematic (and necessarily speculative) genealogy or to a narrow hermeneutical investigation? 4

Why Should We Compare?

Genealogy has driven the study of Paul and midrash to a dead end—which makes moving beyond genealogy and carving a path for thinking of Pauline hermeneutics and rabbinic midrash together a highly compelling endeavor. This is true especially since they share some fundamental features that are also found in Qumran literature, which therefore will become a central part of our investigation as well. Qumran literature, Paul, and the Rabbis labor to build sacred communities based on a reworking of scriptural constructs, such as “Israel” or the “seed of Abraham.” The goal of Qumran literature is to define and negotiate membership in the yahad, an attempt to redefine the “seed of Israel” as an elite minority within the Jewish ethnos. The redefinition of community is based on eschatological convictions, argued and maintained by the reading of scripture as presented by the Teacher of Righteousness. Tannaitic hermeneutics can also

39

been substantially re-formed in the light of rabbinic Judaism itself. Accordingly, when we speak of rabbinic Judaism, we are speaking of a post-Pauline religious development. This means that Judaism formed itself for good and for ill in the context of Pauline (and other Christian) thought, sometimes undoubtedly reacting simply for the purpose of selfdefinition but also, more positively, answering in its own distinctive fashion theological and other challenges placed before it by Pauline Christianity.” Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 2. Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 16.

Introduction

11

be understood as an exegetical endeavor undertaken with a view to found and maintain a community on the basis of scripture, demarcating on scriptural grounds the true members of the community from those outside it and those on its borders. Paul uses scripture to gather ex-pagan pagans40 by generating reading practices that allow them to see themselves as being addressed directly by Jewish scriptures and to understand how they must live in order to be included in eschatological redemption.41 Focusing on scriptural hermeneutics as a fundamental facet of community building places two of Paul’s contemporaries—Philo and Josephus (who like Paul claimed a connection to the Pharisees)—on the margins of our study. Josephus does not work to build communities, but rather, to mediate Jewish history to his Roman readership.42 Though his rewriting of scripture in the first eleven books of Antiquities could also be studied comparatively with Paul’s interpretation of scripture, his work is of marginal relevance to the current study as he is not driven by the communal motivations central to it. Philo, similarly does not share the communal goals of Qumran, Paul, and midrash. His work too will, therefore, be discussed only when immediately pertinent to the matter at hand, most prominently in our discussion of allegorical interpretations (Chapter 2).43 40

41

42

43

A term coined by Paula Fredriksen who uses it to highlight the state of Paul’s audience, the ethnē (“the nations, gentiles”), who are religiously transformed (ex-pagan) yet nevertheless not-Israel (thus, still “the nations”). She notes: “My phrase ‘ex-pagan pagans’— by which I mean to describe those non-Jewish members of the first generation of the messianic movement around Jesus—is thus deliberately oxymoronic. The term’s inelegance highlights the extreme anomaly, socially and therefore religiously, that this first generation represented: they were non-Jews who, as non-Jews, committed themselves to the exclusive worship, in some specifically Jewish ways, of the Jewish god.” Fredriksen, Paul, 34. On scripture, education and community building in Paul see Florian Wilk, “Schriftauslegung als Bildungsvorgang im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus—untersucht ausgehend von 1 Kor 4,6,” in Scriptural Interpretation at the Interface between Education and Religion: In Memory of Hans Conzelmann, ed. Florian Wilk, TBN 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 88–111; Florian Wilk, “‘Zu unserer Belehrung geschrieben …’ (Römer 15,4): Die Septuaginta als Lehrbuch für Paulus,” in Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption, ed. Wolfgana Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer, WUNT 325 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 559–78. Josephus presents his motivation to write Antiquities, so as to provide “all of the Greeks” with the possibility to study the history of the Jews, their origins, form of government, laws and customs. Josephus especially notes that the book is meant communicate the antiquities of the Jews to “others,” see Ant. 1.1–9. For a comparative consideration of Pauline and Philonic hermeneutics see Michael Benjamin Cover, Lifting the Veil: 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 in Light of Jewish Homiletic and Commentary Traditions, BZNW 210 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015); Jason M. Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia: Reading Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Light of Philo of

12

Introduction

In constituting their communities by interpreting scripture, scripture is rendered the central source in the writings of the Qumran sect, Paul’s letters and Tannaitic literature. As we shall see in more detail below, prioritizing scripture over-against other authoritative resources (such as paradosis) is by no means self-evident in antiquity.44 The rise of scripture as a source of knowledge and guidance of community identity was highly contested, and it was the work of these literatures to generate hermeneutics that allowed them to present scripture as foundational to their communities. Analyzing the respective interpretive strategies employed by them to place the scriptures at the foundation of the community will allow us to bring their aims and agendas comparatively to the fore. While each understands and defines its community differently, we are compelled to ask: how do Qumran, Paul, and the rabbis work exegetically toward forming and maintaining their communities on the basis of scripture? Building my inquiry on the basis of these characteristics common to sectarian Qumran literature, Paul’s letters, and the Tannaitic corpus enables me to go beyond genealogy as either the assumption or the goal of the comparison. It also allows me to found this inquiry on a thick notion of hermeneutical study—that is, to go beyond the mere identification of shared interpretative traditions, and ask how is scriptural exegesis used to render a text meaningful to a community? Can Qumran, Paul, and the rabbis be shown to share hermeneutical methods and assumptions? Do they share a common conception of scripture? If they do, as some of the following chapters will show, one must then ask how these shared methods, assumptions, and concepts are employed in the service of the specific meanings the different corpora seek to produce and promote. How were these meanings used to achieve the communal goals of Qumran, Paul, and the rabbis, in their desire to establish or strengthen a community defined and described by scripture? How do those who reinterpret scripture within the limits of the ethnic “Israel” (Qumran and the rabbis) differ from those who generate scripture as speaking to an audience beyond the limits of the ethnos? This line of inquiry will advance our understanding of midrashic hermeneutics as well as that of Qumran, on the one hand, and our

44

Alexandria’s,” in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Karina M. Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, Early Judaism and Its Literature 41 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), 283–308. Beyond the work of Adiel Schremer, Menahem Kister, Albert Baumgarten, and Aharon Shemesh discussed in detail below, see also Michael L. Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014); John J. Collins, The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017).

Introduction

13

understanding of Paul’s work with scripture, on the other. Let us address each of these questions in turn. 5

What Is to Be Gained from a Comparative Study of Paul, Midrash, and Qumran?

The Prehistory of Tannaitic Midrash and the Problems of Its Definition Scholars have grappled with the question of how to define midrash and to explain its origins. Midrash has been defined as a genre,45 as a rhetorical form,46 and as a hermeneutical system.47 Some scholars have placed the hermeneutical category within the limits of rabbinic midrash,48 while others have viewed it in relation to other exegetical corpora, in order to define it or to generate its history, as will be discussed below. Many studies focus on the etymology of darash/midrash vocabulary, and note that its interpretive meaning is rooted in the earliest Second Temple texts, beginning with Ezra,49 appearing later in 5.1

45

46

47

48 49

See, e.g., André Robert, “Litteraires (genres),” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, supplément, ed. Fulcran Vigouroux, Louis Pirot, and André Robert (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1957), 405–21; Addison G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967); R. Le Déaut, “Apropos a Definition of Midrash,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 25.3 (1971): 259–82; René Bloch, “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, ed. William Scott Green, BJS 1 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 51–75; Gary G. Porton, “Defining Midrash,” The Study of Ancient Judaism 1 (1981): 55–92. Arnold Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 10 (1982): 1–45; Arnold Goldberg, “Distributive und kompositive Formen: Vorschläge für die descriptive Terminologie der Formanalyse rabbinischer Texte,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 12 (1984): 147–53; Arnold Goldberg, “Midraschsatz: Vorschläge für die descriptive Terminologie der Formanalyse rabbinischer Texte,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 17 (1989): 45–56; Lieve Teugels, “Midrash in the Bible or Midrash on the Bible: Critical Remarks about the Uncritical Use of a Term,” in Bibel und Midrasch: zur Bedeutung der rabbinischen Exegese für die Bibelwissenschaft, by Gerhard Bodendorfer and Matthias Millard, FAT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 46–63. Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 9. On the three types of definition see Carol Bakhos, “Method(ological) Matters in the Study of Midrash,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. Carol Bakhos, JSJsup 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 161–87; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, What is Midrash, forthcoming [Hebrew]. Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana Univer­ sity Press, 1990). Most significantly in Ezra 7:10 and Isa 34:16; and in the noun form in 2 Chron 13:22; 24:27.

14

Introduction

Qumran50 and finally reaching center stage with the Tannaim.51 The etymology of the word darash as denoting an exegetical activity shows that the history of midrash is longer and more varied than the compilation of midrashim in the Tannaitic period.52 Paul is rarely taken into account in the study of midrash, and in what follows I will point to several ways that thinking of Paul and midrash together may advance and refine our understanding of what midrash is. First, Paul allows us to reconsider reconstructions of the history of midrash that have rooted its origins as an exegetical activity in Qumran literature, and then presented rabbinic midrash as the culmination of a diachronic progression. For example, scholars have suggested that midrash originated in the Qumran sect. Thus, Kister argues that seminal texts such as the Animal Apocalypse in Enoch, Jubilees 1:9–16 and 23:16–30 present a narrative according to which Israel had abandoned the Torah already in the First Temple period, and continued to deviate from it. The sect, depicted as a new generation (the 50

51 52

See e.g., dorshei ḥalaqot (‫ )דורשי חלקות‬in 1QHa X, 17; X, 34; 4Q169 3 I, 2; 3 II, 2; CD 1:21. And darash ba-torah / doresh ha-torah (‫התורה‬/‫ )דורש ב‬in 4Q174 I, 11; I, 17; 1QS VI, 6–7 (cf. V, 10); CD 6:7; 7:18. The term is usually mentioned as also appearing in Ben Sira 51:23, but see Kister’s claim that Ben Sira 51:13–30 is not the Hebrew original, but rather a later translation from the Syriac. Menahem Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59.3/4 (1990): 304 n. 2 [Hebrew]. Pinchas Mandel, “Darash Rabbi X: A New Study,” Dappim: Research in Literature 16/17 (2008): 27–55; Paul D. Mandel, The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text, JSJsup 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 87–144. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); Steven D. Fraade, “Looking for Legal Midrash in Qumran,” in Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, JSJsup 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 145–68; Steven D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash of Sifre to Deuteronomy (New York: SUNY Press, 1991); Aharon Shemesh, “Biblical Exegesis and Interpretations from Qumran to the Rabbis,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 467–89; Adiel Schremer, “[T]he[y] Did Not Read in the Sealed Book: Qumran Halakhic Revolution and the Emergence of Torah Study in Second Temple Judaism,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999, ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz, STDJ 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 105–26; Mandel, “Darash Rabbi X: A New Study”; Paul D. Mandel, “Midrashic Exegesis and Its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 8.2 (2001): 149–68; Menahem Kister, “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implications,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 101–11.

Introduction

15

young among the herd in Enoch, and youngsters in Jubilees), then returned to the Torah of Moses, and did not deviate from it.53 Kister thus claims that the origins of midrash are in the Qumran sect’s return to the words of scripture, against the (deviant) traditions of the fathers.54 Adiel Schremer has similarly rooted midrash in the sectarian turn to scripture, and has insightfully shown that the importance of scripture is by no means a self-evident phenomenon, nor does it persist throughout history. He argues that a shift occurred in halakhic discourse in antiquity, in which the prominence of tradition-based halakhic consideration (paradosis) was replaced with a return to the written book as a source of legal knowledge. This shift is a first century BCE phenomenon, according to Schremer, who identifies its beginnings in Qumran literature.55 A similar turn subsequently occurred in Pharisaic circles in the time of Hillel, who began to employ halakhic arguments on the basis of reading, and Tannaitic sources present evidence that his practice was highly contested by tradition-based ideologues of his time.56 Schremer’s work makes a strong case against scholars who assume that scriptural interpretation was always a central activity in Jewish circles,57 as he describes midrash and the beit midrash culture, as born of a return to the (previously neglected) written word. He then describes a gradual evolution of legal scriptural exegesis: from elementary scriptural arguments found in Qumran legal interpretation of scripture, as well as those of Hillel, which are all very close to the literal meaning of scripture, to the elaborate and intricate interpretations of Tannaitic halakhic midrashim.58 Albert Baumgarten offers similar descriptions in his study of sectarian literacy as a first step in the historical process of placing the Bible as the foundational text of the nation.59 Aharon Shemesh similarly claims that the Qumran sect replaced the traditions of the fathers with the study of

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Kister notes how the promise not to deviate from the exact teachings of Torah is a fundamental ideology of the Dead Sea sect, and refers to 1QS I, 13–15; 4Q504 II, 13–14. Menahem Kister, “Concerning the History of the Essenes,” Tarbiz 56.1 (1987): 1–18 [Hebrew]. See Schremer, “[T]he[y] Did Not Read in the Sealed Book,” 110–11. For similar analysis see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to Exegesis,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lauren L. Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 335–62. This position is sometimes taken by Paul scholars; see, e.g., Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004). Schremer, “[T]he[y] Did Not Read in the Sealed Book,” 118–19. Albert Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation, JSJsup 55 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 114–36.

16

Introduction

scripture, and that Tannaitic midrash should be understood as a later development of this trend.60 Paul drives us to rearrange these reconstructions. Like the DSS before him and the rabbis after him, Paul actively places scripture and its interpretation at the center of his writing with a view to establish scripture as meaningful to his non-Jewish communities. Considering Paul comparatively with scriptural interpretations of Qumran and midrashic literature allows us to bring to the fore the specific reading and rhetorical strategies that each of these bodies of literature develops and employs in order to prioritize scripture as their primary source of knowledge and guidance. Furthermore, by taking Paul into account, we may reshuffle the terms of our analysis. Instead of focusing on the question of midrashic origins, which forces us into a linear diachronic construction, taking Paul into account reveals that midrash arises as a specific hermeneutic within a social matrix of gradual, independent, and varied processes by which scripture was constructed as fundamental to given communities.61 The prioritization of scripture as a source of guidance and knowledge is achieved by a variety of strategies in sectarian and rabbinic contexts. As mentioned above, these efforts not only render the scriptures foundational to the communities by reinterpretation, but do so in an effort to build communities and define their borders: the DSS use scripture in their delimitation of the yahad within Israel; Paul reinterprets scripture for the sake of establishing a new community of ex-pagan gentiles; and the rabbis redefine the limits of the community by the establishment of new laws of Judaization, retraced back to scripture. A second advantage of taking Paul into account in a study of midrash is that it aids us in rethinking the premises of “ancient biblical interpretation” as a scholarly field. James Kugel has claimed that all ancient interpreters of scripture, despite their differences in style, language, and method, share fundamental assumptions with regard to the text.62 First, that the meanings of the scriptures are not readily evident. Second, the Bible is not a historical text but rather a book of instruction, and has ongoing relevance to its readers, by teaching them how to act and live. Third, the Bible is a unified composition, and it holds no contradictions. Finally, all of scripture is divine, or divinely inspired. 60 61 62

Aharon Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis, The Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 6 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 72–106. Michael Satlow’s work on canonization is highly relevant to this claim. See Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy. Satlow focuses primarily on authority and canonization processes, and less on hermeneutical methods as vehicles of literary centralization. James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 15–19.

Introduction

17

In her monograph, Eva Mroczek insightfully criticizes Kugel’s literary model, which imagines a postexilic “age of interpretation.” Kugel speaks of “biblical interpretation” in Second Temple time, not only anachronistically reifying the “Bible” as a relevant literary category in Second Temple literature, but also presenting diverse literatures as “interpretative,” while in fact they relate to what he identifies as “biblical texts” in thoroughly different ways.63 In her discussion of the Book of Jubilees, Mroczek argues instead that viewing it as “rewritten Bible,” as Kugel and many others have done, “obscures the fact that Jubilees both participates in and presents a literary world that is not configured in relation to the Bible.”64 Jubilees, as Mroczek argues, is best understood as in continuation with the literary activity of Sinai, as it places itself “with Moses on Sinai, within earshot of the angels, and claims to transmit freshly revealed material. Indeed, it is prior to the revelation of the Torah of Moses, pitching itself as, in David Lambert’s term, prewritten, not rewritten.”65 David Lambert has argued that the Book of Jubilees played a major role in generating Mosaic Torah as including not only law, but also narrative—that is, Jubilees is not an interpretative reaction to the “Bible,” but rather plays a central role in shaping it as such.66 Bringing Paul’s work with scriptures to the forefront allows us to join Mroczek and Lambert in reassessing Kugel’s thesis, and perhaps to even elaborate on their claims. As I will argue in Chapter 1, Paul’s work with scriptures shows that not all interpreters in Jewish antiquity subscribed to the view that scriptures represented a unified and harmonious entity.67 More importantly, the separate works of Mroczek and Lambert have presented us with a reconfiguration of the analytical categories in thinking the history of the “Bible” as well as its exegesis. Paul’s letters, the pesharim and the Tannaitic midrashim are all exegetical compositions, placing themselves outside of scripture (ἡ γραφή, ‫ )הכתוב‬as they interpret it. However, these literatures not only negotiate scriptural meaning(s), but more fundamentally, address the very conception of scripture as a unified text with continuous relevance to present communities. The pertinence of scripture to the yahad, to Paul’s ex-pagans, and to the Jewish communities addressed by the Tannaim, is not assumed by these diverse texts, 63 64 65 66 67

Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 135–39. Mroczek, The Literary Imagination, 140. Mroczek, The Literary Imagination, 141. David Lambert, “How the ‘Torah of Moses’ Became Revelation: An Early, Apocalyptic Theory of Pentateuchal Origins,” JSJ 47.1 (2016): 22–54. See Chapter 1 of this study and the discussion of the Paul’s double nomos in Romans 3 there.

18

Introduction

as per Kugel, but is rather an objective to be achieved. Neither is “The Bible” an operative category for these literatures, rather, they independently negotiate, construct and rework the scope and conceptualization of torah (or nomos). What is torah/nomos for these texts is a central question of the present study, that can by no means be answered by a projection of the “Bible” as an analytical category. Studying Qumran, Paul and Tannaitic literature comparatively, without projecting canonical categories onto them, will also allow us to understand the specific exegetic efforts they dedicate to retaining the relevancy of scripture. A third contribution of considering Paul within the study of midrash lies in the redefinition of hermeneutical methods. Several studies have attempted to define midrash by comparing and contrasting it to other exegetical methods, mainly the Qumran pesher and Philonic allegory, while Paul is rarely considered in these cases. Midrash is defined over-against the pesharim, both generically—as focused on law rather than prophecy—and hermeneutically. The basis for such comparisons is an apparent similarity: the Qumran pesharim, like Tannaitic midrashim, are commentaries. Both corpora present a (more or less) running commentary on scripture that explicitly distinguishes between a scriptural lemma and its interpretation. But Tannaitic midrash is built around the Pentateuch, and has been understood in contrast to the pesharim as having but a limited interest in eschatology or in the realization of prophecy. Instead, it focuses on biblical law.68 In terms of genre, Tannaitic midrashim stand even closer to Philo’s commentaries than to the Qumran pesharim, as both focus mainly on the Pentateuch. Most scholars have nevertheless defined midrash over-against Philo, as Philo produces systematic allegories that aim to bring together scripture and philosophy. Torah for Philo is thus rewritten philosophy.69 Paul requires us to rethink these neat categorizations. Chapter 1 deals with the midrash-pesher form found only in Qumran, the rabbis, and Paul. While this exegetical technique is common to the three corpora, they use it in very different ways. An investigation of how midrash-pesher is used, and toward what ends, will allow us to better explain midrash and its unique characteristics. Midrash, as we have seen, has been presented as the binary opposite of allegory.70 Yet, as Chapter 2 will show, Paul’s allegory (unlike that of Philo), 68 69 70

Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 3–12. This of course does not mean that Tannaitic midrash is not focused on narrative. See Rosen-Zvi, What is Midrash, chap. 2. Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 is treated by midrash scholars as a key to understanding Paul’s hermeneutics in general; they go on to contrast it with midrash, and present the

Introduction

19

does not stand in contrast to midrashic exegesis. The fact that Paul uses hermeneutical techniques previously known from Qumran, on the one hand, and from Alexandria, on the other, demands that we reconsider the ways that midrashic, pesherite, and allegorical hermeneutics differ. Lastly, Paul requires us to reassess and refine the existing distinction between Hellenistic and Palestinian hermeneutics. Several studies have purported to show that midrash is deeply tied to Hellenistic rhetoric and interpretation. They make the case that in a variety of ways, midrashic exegesis was constructed under heavy Hellenistic influences. For example, David Daube has claimed that “in its beginnings, the Rabbinic system of hermeneutics is a product of the Hellenistic civilization then dominating the entire Mediterranean world.”71 Daube retraces this influence to Alexandria, citing a tradition from the Babylonian Talmud according to which the teachers of Hillel, Shemaya and Avtalyon, were converts from Alexandria. Hillel’s seven rules of scriptural interpretation stem, according to Daube, from Alexandrian scholarship.72 In subsequent essays, Daube elaborates on his theory of the Alexandrian origins of midrash. Saul Lieberman presented a similar theory, pointing to scribal techniques found in both rabbinic culture and Hellenistic Alexandria. Lieberman, in his study of midrashic exegesis, was unwilling to place its roots only in Alexandrian literature, or in other Hellenistic sources, but nevertheless used the parallel hermeneutical techniques in order to explain problematic cases in rabbinic midrash. Yakir Paz, in his comprehensive study of midrashic techniques and the Homeric Scholia in Alexandria, has also demonstrated that midrashic rhetoric and methods of interpretation were influenced by Alexandrian scholarship. Thinking of Paul in comparison with midrashic exegesis complicates this Palestinian/Alexandrian axis. As I will show in Chapter 2, there are stark differences between Philo’s philosophical allegories and Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4. Paul uses what I call “genealogical allegory.” Unlike Philonic allegory that translates scripture into abstract concepts or philosophical categories, Paul’s allegory of Hagar/Sarah is dedicated to the concrete polemical reappropriation

71 72

two as opposites. See Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 32–36; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 263 [Hebrew]. David Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949): 240. See Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric”; David Daube, “Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis,” in Festschrift Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1953), 27–44. My review here is based on Yakir Paz, “From Scribes to Scholars: Rabbinic Biblical Exegesis in Light of the Homeric Commentaries” (PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014), 8–16.

20

Introduction

of Abrahamic genealogy. Like Pauline allegory, midrashic allegories are never used for philosophical abstraction. Furthermore, Pauline and midrashic allegories are similarly established and argued. This case study, then, compels us to reassess Hellenism and midrash, and the prominence of Alexandria in this trajectory. 5.2 Rethinking Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture I have urged that Tannaitic midrash cannot be used to reconstruct Paul’s “Jewish background.” Nevertheless, our comparative approach to the study of Paul’s interpretation of scripture and the variant forms of contemporary, or antecedent, Palestinian/Judean scriptural hermeneutics, is imperative—first and foremost in light of an insistent supersessionist bias still evident in Christian scholarship, long after the emergence and widespread reception of the “New Perspective on Paul” paradigm (perhaps because it was also supersessionist itself).73 Paul and rabbinic Judaism are still often perceived as polar opposites, even when no such simple opposition exists. Even without placing Paul within his native “Judean” context (that is, as having been shaped and influenced by local forms of Judaism),74 teasing out the similarities between Paul’s Judaism and other forms of more or less contemporary Judaism is necessary in order to counter the persistent (supersessionist) view, that Paul’s Judaism and rabbinic Judaism are to be understood as opposites. More specifically, comparing Paul with Qumran exegesis and rabbinic midrash may serve to illuminate difficult and opaque passages in Paul’s letters. Paul frequently uses scripture in his letters, but his language does not usually indicate that he is interpreting a verse at all. In fact, Paul only rarely argues scriptural meaning directly, and almost never voices the possibility that a verse may be read differently than he reads it.75 Unlike the Qumran pesharim, Philo’s 73 74 75

For a critique of the supersessionism of the New Perspective on Paul, see the introduction to Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). Cf. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). Only in rare cases does Paul engage in the question of how a verse or even scripture in general should be interpreted and understood. One of these cases is his interpretation of the muzzled ox in 1 Cor 9:8–10, where the question of how to read a verse is explicitly raised: “Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake …” Citing a verse, raising a possible interpretation, rejecting it and replacing it with another is a rhetorical device most common in rabbinic midrash. There we find the common form: citation, followed by a presentation of a possible interpretation (usually after the technical term yakhol, ‫ )יכול‬and its rejection in favor of another interpretation (usually after the technical term talmud lomar, ‫)תלמוד לומר‬.

Introduction

21

writings, and midrash, which are all included in the genre of commentary, Paul writes letters and is free of such obligations. We do not find in his interpretations of scripture some of the basic exegetical components of scriptural commentaries, such as solving scriptural contradictions, or explaining specific choices of words.76 We repeatedly find this difference in genre explained in scholarship as a hermeneutical difference, rather than a political difference—that is, a difference owing to the specific communal conditions of the communities addressed. Many scholars have claimed that Paul’s interpretations are comparably less forced than rabbinic ones, or have attempted to demonstrate that Paul is implicitly aware of a “literal” sense of scripture. Others have claimed that Paul’s deviations from what they take as scripture’s literal sense do not reflect his own hermeneutics but rather the language of his Jewish opponents. Richard Longenecker, for instance, has made all three of these claims: “In the majority of his Old Testament citations, Paul adheres to the original sense of the passage.”77 He points to only a handful of instances in which Paul seems to deviate from the literal sense of the text,78 and ultimately attempts to explain them away as literal interpretations or as reflections of his opponents’ arguments. E.E. Ellis claims that while Paul picked up some techniques of interpretation “in his training for the rabbinate,”79 these do not characterize his hermeneutics, as he generally was “loyal” to scripture: Their splinterised [sic], purposeless, speculative musings which “suspend dogmatic mountains on textual hairs” have not the remotest kinship with Paul’s theology or hermeneutical principles … the rabbis worshipped the letter and sought to justify their traditions by arbitrary exegesis; Paul’s usage is not arbitrary or against the literal sense.80

76 77 78 79 80

Other cases of explicit interpretation in Paul’s letters include the typological inference from Adam to Christ in Rom 5, explicitly laid out in verse 14 as typological: “Nevertheless, death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come (Ἀδὰμ ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος).” Similarly, the explicit identification of the Hagar/Sarah narrative as allegorical (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, Gal 4:24) is a note on how scripture should be properly understood, appearing in a highly polemical context. Paul never solves scriptural contradictions. Only once does he make an argument on the basis of a specific choice of word in scripture (in Gal 3:16). See David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1956), 438–44. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 121. Rom 10:6–8; Gal 3:16; Eph 4:8; 1 Cor 9:9; Gal 4:24. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 46. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 75.

22

Introduction

The question of the quality of an interpretation is a value judgment, which is not only ideologically motivated, but also deeply misguided: midrash is not “purposeless,” “speculative,” or “arbitrary,” nor is Paul deeply committed to a “literal” sense of scripture, whatever that sense may be. However, Ellis’s view is not uncommon, though it is exceptionally blunt: “midrash” is at times used in New Testament scholarship negatively, marking specific scriptural interpretation as digressions from a central argument or theme.81 It seems that the issue of Paul and midrash scholarship has been subjected to the perpetual argument between Jews and Christians about the true reading of scripture. Ellis and Longenecker seem to be taking part in the very same dispute. Furthermore, they represent a preference for “literal reading,” stemming from the Reformation and shared by many present-day readers.82 And if literal readings are considered superior, then Paul is presented as a literalist—thus as a Protestant avant la lettre. Although these explanations cannot be sustained, we are still compelled to ask whether Paul reads scripture literally, and whether and how we can use scriptural exegesis in adjacent cultures to explain his utilization of scripture. Taken historically, the “literal” should not be thought of as noninterpretation or even as a mode of interpretation at all, but rather, as Margaret M. Mitchell has shown in a different context,83 as a rhetorical trope evoked in the context of a debate or argument. Therefore, when Paul presents himself as “prooftexting” or as just reading correctly what the verses actually say, he may be using rhetorical tropes claiming for simplicity of reading. In Paul’s words: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?” (Gal 4:21).84 Accordingly, however we understand what the “plain” meaning of scripture is—the reconstructed “intention” of scripture, its contextual meaning, its meaning within historical context—Paul cannot be considered a “literalist,” as he regularly deviates from the “literal” meaning of the text, and does so in a variety of ways. 81

82 83 84

See for other examples, One example is Gaston, who quotes Windisch on 2 Cor 3:7–18; see Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 152. See also Wayne Meeks, “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 (1982): 73; R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959), 82. Thomas H. Luxon, Literal Figures: Puritan Allegory and the Reformation Crisis in Representation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 34–76. Margaret Mary Mitchell, “Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1 Samuel 28 on Trial,” JR 85.3 (2005): 414–45. Although these opening words of the allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah are indeed a solid example, in fact every “as it is written” functions in a similar manner.

Introduction

23

To identify these deviations, we must first distinguish between the differences in rhetoric with regard to commentary on scripture, and the use of scripture in a nonexegetical context—a distinction already presented elsewhere by Ishay Rosen-Zvi.85 Since Paul uses scripture in a way that often conceals the fact that he is indeed interpreting scripture, considering his interpretations in relation to other exegetical literatures will enable us to reveal his hermeneutical procedures. The case of the Hagar/Sarah allegory in Galatians 4:21–31, discussed in depth in Chapter 2, demonstrates this possibility well. Paul can be read as presenting the allegory of Hagar/Sarah not as an interpretation of scripture, but rather as scripture’s own allegorical utterance.86 When Paul says that “these things are said allegorically” (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, v. 24), he presents himself as reading allegorical scripture literally. In truth, of course, it is Paul who has chosen to engage in allegorical interpretation here; we should place his allegory in the context of the history of allegory, and interpret it in that light. In conclusion, Paul is an exegete of scripture who often engages in interpretation only implicitly, without disclosing the act of interpretation at all, thus intentionally “passing” a meaning to his audience as if simply repeating what the biblical text itself says. These too are interpretations, of course, and his use of scripture can and should be viewed in the context of other Jewish interpretations of antiquity, covert or overt, systematic or occasional, without neglecting the differences in genre and in rhetoric. Thinking of Paul together with Qumran, midrash, and Philo, all of which are more explicit with regard to their hermeneutics, will help us in uncovering Paul’s implicit hermeneutical procedures. 6

How to Move beyond Genealogy

Whereas the study of Pauline and midrashic hermeneutics is persistently entangled with genealogical reconstructions, in the field of Paul and Qumran, 85 86

See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 209–19. This is an arguable claim, undoubtedly, and will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Steven DiMattei has purported to show Paul is making an argument about scripture as speaking allegorically, and not presenting his reading as allegory. Matthew Thiessen and Jason M. Zurawski have also accepted this reading and further elaborated on it. See Steven DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” NTS 52 (2006): 102–22; Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 202–3; Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia.”

24

Introduction

scholars have been able to work beyond the genealogical assumptions to produce studies that shed light on both of these literatures—not so much with regard to scriptural hermeneutics, but often in the realms of shared terminologies, eschatology, and law. In the two decades that followed the publication of the first DSS in 1947, the study of Qumran literature was dominated by New Testament scholars who sought the origins of Christianity in the scrolls.87 The Qumran sect was presented as a prototype of Christianity, preparing the way for “the Christian New Covenant.”88 Some scholars mistakenly placed a late date on the scrolls and identified them as Christian writings (especially those of cave 7), or spoke of the scrolls as Christian typological interpretations. However, by the time texts from the other Qumran caves were published and studied, the initial excitement had largely diminished, and these hypotheses were abandoned. The identification of Qumran as ancient or proto-Christianity was replaced by genealogical reconstructions. In an attempt to explain the similarities they found between Qumran and the New Testament, scholars have claimed that the literature of the cult influenced the thought of the Christ movement. Yet, in ways quite similar to our present case, no New Testament figure or author is mentioned in Qumran texts, and no mention of Qumran or the Dead Sea sect is made in any New Testament text. Thus, scholars have recognized as dubious the progression from identifying textual analogies to claiming influence. In an attempt to move beyond a speculative genealogy, scholars have opted for a comparative approach that has indeed allowed Qumran to revolutionize Paul scholarship. The meaning of erga nomou (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28), unparalleled before the finding of Qumran and its ‫מעשי התורה‬, has been thoroughly reinterpreted in light of Qumran usage. Though scholars disagree with regard to the exact interpretation of both erga nomou and ‫מעשי התורה‬,89 87

88 89

I am indebted to Jörg Frey and his review of the history of Qumran and NT scholarship for this information. See Jörg Frey, “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 347–65. See on this André Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952). The full scope of possible interpretations of erga nomou in light of its Qumran parallel is too vast to be retraced here. Dunn has argued his view in a series of essays. See James D.G. Dunn, “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law’: A Response,” in The New Perspective on Paul, by James D.G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 213–26; James D.G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” in The New Perspective on Paul, by James D.G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 339–46; James D.G. Dunn and James D.G. Dunn, “Noch Einmal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialogue Continues,” in The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 413–28. Compare Martin G. Abegg,

Introduction

25

few question their mutual relevance, and a direct dependence or acquaintance of Paul with Qumran literature is rarely presented as the basis for thinking the parallel terms together. Similarly, Qumran has revolutionized the scholarly understanding of Paul’s notion of flesh as the source of sin and evil deeds, also contrasted with spirit (Gal 5:17; Rom 8:5–9). Paul’s use of “flesh” does not fit with scriptural usage, and cannot be fully explained in light of other Hellenistic writings, but it has many parallels in the DSS usage of ‫בשר‬.90 Also, Paul’s dualistic thought has been reinterpreted in light of Qumran.91 Moreover, his extension of the language of purity and temple to the community (see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:1–2; 3:16–17; 6:19)92 parallels similar practices in Qumran.93 Pauline eschatology has also been thoroughly reconsidered in light of Qumran literature. This is specifically true with regard to the meaning of Christos, and its relationship to parallel terminologies in other Jewish texts.94 Scholars have studied and rearticulated Paul’s notion of the Endtime in light

90

91

92 93 94

“4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness,’” DSD 6.2 (1999): 139–47; N.T. Wright, “4QMMT and Paul: Justification, ‘Works,’ and Eschatology,” in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. Aang-Won (Aaron) Son (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 104–32; Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, “The Concept of ‘Work of the Law’ in Jewish and Christian Literature,” in Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. Pearson (New York: T&T Clark, 2000), 116–47; Lutz Doering, “4QMMT and the Letters of Paul: Selected Aspects of Mutual Illumination,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 69–88. Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, AGJU 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 92–95; Jörg Frey, “The Notion of Flesh in 4QInstuction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, ed. Maurice Baillet et al., STDJ 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 197–226; Menahem Kister, “Body and Sin Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 171–208. Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History‫‏‬.,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten et al., STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335. See on biblical language of purity and holiness extended from the temple to Paul’s expagans in Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010): 232–52. See, e.g., Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 193–95. See, e.g., Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995).

26

Introduction

of its Qumran parallels.95 Similarly, 1 Thess 5:5, and its distinction between sons of light/day and sons of darkness/night, has been explained in light of its Qumran parallels, so much so that some see it as interpolation.96 Comparative study of halakhah in Paul and in Qumran has also yielded important results, most prominently with regard to the parallel laws of divorce in Paul (1 Cor 7; Rom 7:1–4) and in Qumran (e.g., CD 4:20–5:1; 11Q19 57:17–19).97 In contrast, the field of scriptural hermeneutics in Paul with respect to Qumran and the rabbis has not successfully moved beyond the “genealogical assumption.” The present study is dedicated to doing so by means of a comparative approach. How rendering scripture a fundamental source for present communities was achieved by each of these works is the main question of the present study. More specifically, we ask: How do Qumran, Paul, and the rabbis use common methods of scriptural interpretation for their disparate communal and ideological ends? The fact that hermeneutical techniques are worked in a variety of ways and for diverse ends/results in and of itself requires a retheorization of these methods, and this study addresses this challenge. The present study goes beyond genealogy by using a comparative method, as presented by Jonathan Z. Smith, whose theory of comparison allows us to transcend what he astutely calls the “is this an analogy or genealogy” dichotomy.98 According to Smith, comparisons point not to what things are, “but to how they might be ‘re-described’…. Comparison provides the means by which we ‘re-vision’ phenomena as our data in order to solve our theoretical problems.”99 The work of Richard B. Hays is of exceptional importance for the current study, and is a model for the scope and depth needed in any hermeneutical 95 96

97

98 99

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Overlapping Ages at Qumran and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, by Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 309–26. See, e.g., Albert L.A. Hogeterp, “Paul and the Jerusalem Church: Light from the Scrolls on Graeco-Semitic Language Contacts and Ethics of Gospel Mission,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 262; Marcus K.M. Tso, Ethics in the Qumran Community: An Interdisciplinary Investigation, WUNT 292 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 181. See Peter J. Tomson, “Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Reimund Bieringer et al., JSJsup 136 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 289–332; Aharon Shemesh, “4Q271.3: A Key to Sectarian Matrimonial Law,” JJS 49 (1998): 244–63; Vered Noam, “Divorce in Qumran in Light of Early Halakhah,” JJS 56 (2005): 206–23; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “‘Even If One Found a More Beautiful Woman’: An Analysis of Grounds for Divorce in Rabbinic Literature,” JSIJ 3 (2004): 1–11 [Hebrew]. Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). Smith, Drudgery Divine, 52.

Introduction

27

inquiry. For Hays, the key to understanding Paul’s hermeneutics is intertextuality. His method is to identify the intertexts that underlie Paul’s discussions of scriptural passages. He seeks the literary echo, the metalepsis, that “functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A.”100 Perhaps more than any other systematic work in the field, Echoes of Scripture addresses Pauline hermeneutics as a profound literary activity that centers on intertextuality and metalepsis, and should be thought of as lying far beyond the scope of rhetoric and persuasion. He therefore points to how rarely Paul explains his interpretations: “Rather than filling the intertextual space with explanations, Paul encourages the reader to listen to more of Scripture’s message than he himself voices.”101 The central aspect of Paul’s hermeneutics is to “read Scripture … as a narration that foreshadows God’s purpose to raise up a worldwide community of people.”102 As such, Paul’s intertextuality, his hermeneutics, is motivated by community concerns. The present study builds on Hays’s understanding of Paul’s hermeneutics with regard to its literary intricacy and its communal aims, yet it departs from his view that midrash (and Qumran) is irrelevant or unhelpful to thinking about Paul’s hermeneutics. Hays fails to register the extent to which midrashic and Qumranic exegesis and Paul’s interpretations, as he understands them, steer close to one another. This similarity is the cornerstone of my analysis, and must not be abandoned. Much like Hays, I aim not to identify Paul as a darshan, or midrash as Pauline, but rather to delimit and define midrash, Paul’s interpretation of scripture, and the Qumran pesher as specific communitydriven hermeneutics. This will enable us to articulate a broader realm of hermeneutics as driven by the communal in antiquity, while acknowledging their similarities and differences, and accounting for how similar reading tactics are used within different social contexts. A comparative study of hermeneutics as way to build and maintain communities on the basis of scripture is best conducted through a focus not on the specific meanings given to scripture by interpreters, but rather on the hermeneutical tools they used. This will enable a better understanding of how interpretations are developed and presented, and allow us to consider the dynamics between ideologies (expressed in the content of specific interpretations) and the ways in which they are generated as scriptural expressions. In this regard, this study differs from the work of Francis Watson, who has sought ways (contra Hays) to think of Pauline and other Jewish interpretations of 100 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 20. 101 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 177. 102 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 177.

28

Introduction

scripture together. Very much like the present study (for which his work has been central), he does not seek to retrace influences, but takes another route: The format adopted here is to set a Pauline reading of, for example, the Abraham narrative or the closing chapters of Deuteronomy alongside one or more alternative readings of the same text. In this way, a critical dialogue opens up between the two (or more) readers. They read the text for themselves, but they also argue with one another about how it should be read. As they do so, appealing to the text itself in support of their proposals, it becomes clear how and why they have chosen to realize the text’s semantic potential in such divergent ways.103 Watson does not make any assumptions about the historical relationship between Jewish texts when he considers “alternative readings” in his study of Pauline hermeneutics, and in this sense, he stands methodologically close to the present study. Two central differences, however, set my work apart from Watson’s. First, the texts he places in dialogue with Paul are Second Temple texts: Qumran, the apocrypha, Josephus, and Philo. Rabbinic literature is generally omitted from Watson’s study: Tannaitic literature is never brought into the conversation, and Genesis Rabbah is discussed twice in the notes. Watson thus limits himself to literature predating or contemporaneous with Paul. Second, his justification for bringing texts together is “thinner” than the one adopted here. Watson focuses on reading as a practice for generating meaning, a specific realization of “the text’s semantic potential.” My focus is not to retrace the multiple possibilities of how to read a verse in antiquity, but rather to compare hermeneutical methods (such as pesher, allegory, and typology) and how they function in Qumran, Paul, and midrash. The focus on methodology will allow us not only to rearticulate what pesher interpretations are, or what allegory is, in their different uses, but also to turn our attention to the processes that transform scripture into a source of knowledge and guidance for different texts of antiquity. Watson, and perhaps also James Kugel, as discussed above, seem to presume that scripture was considered meaningful, and that exegetes disagreed only about what its precise meaning was. But what seems to be truly at stake, at least for the present study, is how scripture was interpreted as addressing particular present communities directly, and as being meaningful to them: gentile ekklesiai in Paul’s case, the Yahad in the case of Qumran, and contemporary rabbinic communities for the Tannaim. Scripture is rendered meaningful through reading, as well as through a variety of textual processes: 103 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, xii.

Introduction

29

reworking, redaction, atomization, allegorization and so on. The present study focuses on these processes by comparing their use in each of these literatures, and demonstrates that they are mutually illuminating. This, in turn, will give some insight into the question of “what is Torah” for these communities, and how each rendered it meaningful for them. 7

Plan for This Study

This study focuses on three cases, all of which deal with central issues in Pauline hermeneutics and the ways that they discursively relate to rabbinic hermeneutics, as well as to other exegetical methods and assumptions operating in Jewish literature of the period from 200 BCE to 200 CE, mainly in Qumran but also in Philo. Chapter 1 addresses the midrash-pesher form and retraces its appearances, found in Qumran, Tannaitic literature, and its single appearance in Paul’s letters (Rom 10:5–13). The chapter analyzes the particular features of this rhetorical form as well as its hermeneutical functions in these three corpora. We will find that this is a particular exegetical technique, unknown from other sources in Greek or Hebrew, and we will examine how this form is used exegetically, in each of these literatures, and toward what ends. In Rom 10:5–13, the midrash-pesher form is used to interpret a highly redacted citation from scripture (taken from Deut 30), and to set it against another citation from scripture (from Lev 18). The final sections of the chapter are dedicated to the textual assumptions that allow Paul to let the scriptural contradiction remain unresolved, comparing them to similar, yet vastly different, assumptions of Qumran, Philo, and midrash. This analysis prompts a reassessment of the genealogy of the rabbinic terms Oral Torah and Written Torah. Chapter 2 readdresses a dichotomy prevalent in the scholarship of Pauline and other Jewish hermeneutics: midrash and allegory. The chapter analyzes the way Paul allegorizes Hagar/Sarah in Galatians 4, and retraces a history of allegorical interpretation in Jewish texts, in Greek and Hebrew. It addresses several questions: first, whether midrash, as an exegetical endeavor, is “opposed” to allegory; and second, whether the Tannaim allegorized and, if so, whether they achieved allegorical interpretation by the same means Paul did. The chapter promotes a new understanding of Jewish allegory and its limitations, and shows that there is no reason to claim that midrash and allegory are dichotomous. The third case study in this book addresses a major difference between Paul’s interpretation of scripture and that of the rabbis. Paul has what I call a “hermeneutic of the Endtime.” He sees himself as interpreting scripture in the

30

Introduction

last times and revealing its final and full meaning. The rabbis, who did not see themselves as the final generation, form a different hermeneutic, resisting the idea that the meaning of scripture can be fully revealed. Through an analysis of 2 Corinthians 3 and its hermeneutics of unveiling, I retrace a rabbinic hermeneutic of veiling. In 2 Corinthians 3 we find the use of a terminology that I identify as being used also by the rabbis. The shared terminology serves as the starting point for an analysis of how the terms are used within their disparate contexts. Finally, the concluding chapter and afterword of this study synthesize the findings presented in the body of the work.

chapter 1

Scripture Reconceived

Romans 10:5–13, The Hermeneutics of Midrash-Pesher and a New Genealogy of ‘Oral Torah’

In the opening of Romans 10, Paul says that “For the messiah is the goal (τέλος) of the law for (or ‘unto’) righteousness, for everyone who trusts,”1 readdressing a central theme of his letter to the Romans: that Jews and gentiles stand on equal footing with regards to the eschaton (“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,” Rom 10:12).2 He also evokes the distinction between “righteousness by law” and “righteousness by pistis” constructed earlier in the letter.3 The notion is fundamental to the question of the eschatological inclusion of gentiles in Israel’s impending redemption, and the path of being rendered righteous by pistis (“confidence” or “trust”)4 in Christ, and not through conversion.5 Though Romans 10 constructs righteousness by pistis in opposition 1 Rom 10:4. 2 J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 157–65. 3 The interpretation of the relationship between pistis/nomos and pistis/erga nomou is a fundamental issue for the New Perspective on Paul scholarship and one of its central criticisms of Lutheran norms in New Testament scholarship. The notion of “righteousness by pistis” has been decentered already by Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A. and C. Black, 1953). It was then taken apart by Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Many other central voices in NPP scholarship have similarly worked to separate between Paul’s use of pistis/ergon and its Lutheran interpretations. See on this Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, WUNT 29 (Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983); Gaston, Paul and the Torah; James D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 4 Pistis means “trust,” “steadfastness,” “confidence” and not “faith” or “belief,” the more common modern (and Protestantized) translations, and is so translated in this study. To avoid confusion, I often leave the word untranslated. See Fredriksen, Paul, 36; Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). New Testament Studies dedicated a volume to a discussion of Morgan’s view. See, Francis Watson, “Roman Faith and Christian Faith,” NTS 64.2 (2018): 243–47; Mark A. Seifrid, “Roman Faith and Christian Faith,” NTS 64.2 (2018): 247–55; Teresa Morgan, “Roman Faith and Christian Faith,” NTS 64.2 (2018): 255–61. 5 Paul polarizes “righteousness by pistis” and “righteousness by deeds,” pistis Christou and erga nomou, but we must be careful not to read Paul’s gospel to the gentiles as “lawless.” Paula Fredriksen has claimed on several occasions that Paul demands of his ex-pagan pagans

© Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_003

32

chapter 1

to the righteousness by deeds, it does not present righteousness through pistis as a concept independent of scripture. On the contrary, Paul argues the case for righteousness by pistis with scripture and does so explicitly.6 This chapter aims to show that in Romans 10 and 3 pistis Christou and erga nomou are both [equally] scripturally-informed constructs for Paul and will unpack their dynamics. If these terms correspond to a difference between the nations (who need not take upon themselves all of the ethnic practices implicit in erga nomou) and Israel (who are covenanted to and by them), then we must ask: How does the scriptural basis of these two constructs—pistis Christou and erga nomou—with their ethnic significance, effect Paul’s notion of Torah? This question—how does Paul understand Torah when he contemplates the distinction between Jews and gentiles with respect to the law?—is tied directly to the question of how Paul uses scripture to present his message to his gentile audiences. In other places in Romans, Paul constructs “righteousness by pistis” based on scriptures by bringing together several quite distant excerpts: Hab 2:4; Gen 15:6; Ps 32:1–2; Gen 17:5. Paul joins verses from both the Torah and the Prophets to establish and formulate his notion, each serving a specific cause. Habakkuk 2:4 provides the general rule; Abraham’s trust in God is credited as righteousness (Gen 15:6) even though it preceded the law and his circumcision, provides the historical precedent and model. The promise to Abraham that he will father many nations (Gen 17:5) grounds the extension of the righteousness accredited to Abraham’s pistis to ex-pagans-in-Christ hearers. Paul uses the intertexts to present righteousness by trust not as his own invention but as a historical and scriptural datum. In the famous lines from Romans 10:6–8, righteousness by trust receives a voice and speaks. The passage presents a most intricate establishment of the textuality of righteousness by pistis, achieved by a plethora of rhetorical and to renounce their idols and worship the Jewish God, two central ancestral customs of the Jews, as well as others. She has thus urged that Paul is indeed “Judaizing” his audience, though he opposes proselyte circumcision. By receiving divine spirit, the gentiles can turn from their gods to the Jewish god and fulfill his laws. See Paula Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” JBL 137.1 (2018): 193–212; Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel”; Paula Fredriksen, “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith,’” JBL 133.4 (2014): 801–8. Matthew Thiessen has argued similarly that the constructions of Paul as anti-legalistic or as anti-ethnocentric widely miss the mark. Thiessen does not claim Paul to be a “Judaizer” as Fredriksen does, a term he allocates to Paul’s opposition who demand that the gentiles circumcise. According to Thiessen, Paul argues that the gentiles should commit only to the laws given to them and not those given to Jews alone (such as covenantal circumcision). See Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 10–12. 6 Rom 3:21.

Scripture Reconceived

33

exegetical operations: decontextualization, recontextualization, intertextualization, and the reformulation of the language of scripture. In what follows, I retrace the establishment of the textuality of the righteousness by pistis in Romans 10, as well as the ways in which Paul interprets the scriptural text base and the rhetorical forms by which he presents its interpretation, namely the midrash-pesher form. 1

The Scriptural Sources in Romans 10:5–13 and the Language of the Citations 5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “The person who does these things will live by them” (Lev 18:5) 6 But the righteousness by trust says, “Do not say in your heart, (Deut 9:4) ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” that is, to bring Christ down 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Deut 30:13–14) that is, the word of trust (ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως) that we proclaim; 9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one trusts with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. 11 The scripture says, “all who have trust in him will not be put to shame” (Isa 28:16) 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32/3:5).7

According to Paul, Moses wrote about the righteousness that is by the law (τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου) the words from Leviticus 18:5. The righteousness by trust speaks the fused words of Deuteronomy 9:4 and Deuteronomy 30:2 followed by (redacted) fragments from Deuteronomy 30:13–14.8 The passage ends with two additional citations from scripture: Isaiah 28:16 (LXX) and Joel 3:5. 7 Rom 10:5–13. For a discussion of the textual versions of Paul’s scriptural citations here, see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 126–34. 8 The differences between the cited verses in Rom 10:5–13 were explained in scholarship by arguing that Paul here does not cite scripture at all, but is merely paraphrasing it (see William Sanday and Arthus Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to

34

chapter 1

As scholars have noted, Paul uses here the classical trope of “speech in character” when he grants righteousness by trust a speaking voice.9 It is nonetheless a unique—perhaps “Judaized”—version of this classical trope, in the sense that not only does Paul give righteousness by trust a voice, but it speaks scripture. More precisely, righteousness by trust speaks redacted scripture and intertexts, which is a feature unique to her speech in the immediate context of the Romans passage. In comparison, the words attributed to Moses are a closed unit of scripture, a (more or less) direct citation of Leviticus 18:5,10 used in a way that coheres with its original context. Scripture is manipulated into the speech of the righteousness by trust by two main textual processes: (a) Intertextual Fusion and replacement: Paul fuses “do not say in your heart,” taken from Deuteronomy 9 with our verses from Deuteronomy 30. (Indeed, the “heart” is of importance in Deuteronomy 30, and is especially relevant to Paul’s reading in Romans 10). We find another intertextual replacement in Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 30. To “fit” the citation from Deuteronomy with his Christological theme, Paul replaces Deuteronomy’s phrase “Nor is it beyond the sea” with wording similar to that of Psalms 106/7:26. The abyss replaces the sea. (b) Omissions: Scholars have noted another manipulation of Deuteronomy 30 as it appears in Romans 10, most famously put in the words of Dietrich-Alex Koch: “Paul dissociates Deuteronomy from the theme of the Law.”11 In Romans 10 Paul omits all references to the law and the commandments the Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 287; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 114; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 123). Yet the work of Christopher Stanley shows that in Rom 10:6–8 Paul clearly manipulates the language of scripture intentionally, and should therefore be understood as citing manipulated scripture. See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 128–133. 9 See Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 309; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 622. 10 Paul introduces a few minor changes to the language of Lev 18:5 (LXX): Rom: [Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι] ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ. LXX: [καὶ φυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγματά μου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά] ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. The changes stem from the omission of the beginning of the verse and its replacement by the Pauline terminology of “righteousness that is by the law,” intended to create grammatical continuity between Paul’s language and that of the LXX. See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 126–28. 11 Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 131; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 284.

Scripture Reconceived

35

from Deuteronomy 30. The inserted words “do not say in your heart” replace the explicit subject-matter of Deuteronomy: the commandment (ἡ ἐντολή). Not only does Paul drop the theme of the law from this citation, but also the auditory nature of the law. All these omissions serve Paul’s purposes and are clearly intended to bring Deuteronomy 30 closer to Paul’s notion of righteousness by pistis.12 It should not be taken as a coincidence that the words Moses “writes” are a simple and straightforward prooftext, while the words the righteousness by pistis “speaks” are molded citations of recomposed scripture. A twofold action occurs here: Paul establishes the textuality of righteousness by pistis by recomposing Deuteronomy 30, intertextually (as the presence of Deut 9 and Ps 106 shows) and decontextually (by dissociating the verses from the law and its auditory nature). At the same time, Paul presents his textual reference as spoken. In other words, Paul’s “righteousness by pistis” speaks rendered scripture, and at the same time, he renders scripture as oral speech (rather than written word) through its re-composition. Several themes thus cross paths in Romans 10: (a) the relationship between Torah and euangelion, i.e., the establishment of the scripture relevant to Paul’s gospel to the gentiles and its distinction from righteousness by deeds/works; (b) methods of re-composition of scripture, in the texts Paul cites in the context of his gospel; (c) the prioritization and preference for the oral over the written. 2

Exegetical Rhetoric in Romans 10: Midrash-Pesher and Its Uses

Paul reworks Deuteronomy 30 so that it may be fully interpreted. He omits words and themes to enable a running (re)interpretation of scripture. This is an important point: not only does Paul edit the verses from Deuteronomy to mean what he needs them to mean, but he also edits them to fit the form of interpretation that he uses. Paul edits scripture so he may interpret it word by word, fully and in sequence. This feature is not trivial, as Paul generally does not introduce word-for-word or line-by-line interpretations.13 Yet in Romans 10:6– 10, he redacts Deuteronomy not only to thematically cohere with his gospel but also to fit with what is best described as the midrash-pesher form. 12 13

Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 130; Florian Wilk, “Schriftbezüge im Werk des Paulus,” in Paulus Handbuch, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, TBN 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 483. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 155.

36

chapter 1

Rom 10:6–8 has often been categorized as a pesher or midrash-like interpretation by New Testament scholars in the past.14 Yet, such identifications, not only of Paul’s writings but of scriptural interpretations in the New Testament more broadly, were since heavily criticized by scholars who advocated the uniqueness of the Qumran pesher.15 The labeling of Romans 10:6–8 as a midrash was similarly rejected. Richard B. Hays led the way by arguing that such identifications provide little insight into Paul’s exegetical work,16 and since the publication of his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul in 1989, “Paul and Midrash” scholarship has almost wholly disappeared.17 The problem with this discourse is that too little has been done to go beyond the general labels of “pesher” and “midrash.” The present study proposes that Paul in Rom 10 uses a specific exegetical technique otherwise used in Qumran texts before him and by the Tannaim after him, but not in other ancient texts in Hebrew or Greek.18 This technique, which I refer to as midrash-pesher, has not been studied as a phenomenon that appears across Qumran, Paul and the rabbis. In what follows, I intend to fill this lacuna.19 As I have argued in the introduction, we cannot answer the question of how this commonality came to be with any confidence.20 Instead, I ask how these different sources use this form, with the contention that comparing the usage of the midrash-pesher technique will shed light on how it shifts across independent literary contexts. The midrash-pesher technique presents an interpretation of a verse in the following way. It cites a scriptural passage (usually a single verse, but often two consecutive verses) but splits the passage into building blocks, or “pegs”; 14

15 16 17

18 19 20

Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer‫‏‬, HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 96; Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel, 238ff; Koch, Die Schrift, 130; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 284; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 139–147; Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 79–80; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (Dallas: Word Book Publishers, 1988), 607; Jewett, Romans, 622–23. See e.g., Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 81–83; George J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 60. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 10–11; See also Philip S. Alexander, “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament,” ZNW 74.3 (1983): 237–46. Menahem Kister’s persistent work on Paul and ancient Jewish interpretation is an exception to this rule. Kister, “A Common Heritage”; Kister, “Romans 5:12”; Kister, “In Adam”; Kister, “First Adam”; Menahem Kister, “An Apocalyptic Phrase in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and in 1 Thess 5:3a,” RdQ 31.2 (2019): 283–90. Indeed, by all strata of rabbinic literature. But the present study focuses on Tannaitic literature alone. See also, Yael Fisch, “‘Midrash-Pesher’: A Shared Technique of Interpretation in Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim,” RdQ 32.2 (2020): 213–33. It may stem from a common scriptural background, such as Isa 9:13–14. See Kister, “A Common Heritage,” 103–4.

Scripture Reconceived

37

it interprets the pegs (more or less) in sequence, and laces the interpretation through the citation; it connects the lemmata and their interpretations with a pronoun (‫הן‬/‫הם‬/‫הוא‬/‫היא‬/‫אלו‬/‫זו‬/‫ )זה‬used in a copulative function or demonstratively. The following homily from the Sifre Deuteronomy on Deut 33:2 provides an example: .‫כשנגלה הקב״ה ליתן תורה לישראל לא בלשון אחד נגלה אלא בארבע לשונות‬ ‫ “הופיע מהר‬,‫ “וזרח משעיר למו” זה לשון רומי‬,‫“ויאמר ייי מסיני בא” זה לשון עברי‬ .‫ “ואתא מרבבות קודש” זה לשון ארמי‬,‫פארן“ זה לשון ערבי‬

When the Holy One Blessed Be He appeared in order to give Israel the Torah, he did not appear in one language but in four languages: “The Lord came from Sinai”—this is Hebrew; “and dawned from Seir upon us”—this is Roman language; “he shone forth from Mount Paran”—this is Arabic; “With him were myriads of holy ones”—this is Aramaic.21 Several such individual pesher-like interpretations exist in Qumran texts. Shani (Berrin) Tzoref calls them “pronominal pesharim,”22 and other scholars name them “pesher-like” or “midrash-like” interpretations.23 Most of the scriptural interpretations within the Qumran Pesharim formally differ from the rhetoric described here: they usually do not use pronouns, but rather a more specific terminology such as ‫פשרו על‬, nor will they typically break down the verses they interpret into smaller lemmata. Instead, most pesher-interpretation cite or refer to an entire verse, and then present its interpretation with the technical term ‫ פשרו על‬or one of its variants. Despite its differences from the more common form of pesher interpretations, I opt for the name midrash-pesher for the exegetical rhetoric under discussion since, as the evidence currently stands, most midrash-pesher interpretations are Tannaitic. Thus, it seems ill-fitting to name this rhetoric by an exclusively Qumranic title (such as “pronominal pesharim”), thereby centralizing the pesher over against midrash. In contrast, the etic term midrash-pesher marks the prominence of this technique in both the Scrolls and in rabbinic literature. 21 22 23

Sifre Deut §343 (ed. Finkelstein, 395). Shani L. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study Of 4Q169, STDJ 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 159, 295–96. See e.g., Bilhah Nitzan, “The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of The Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 345–46.

38

chapter 1

Admittedly, the name midrash-pesher has some limitations. It is a recycled term, coined for different ends by William H. Brownlee, and justly rejected by scholars in the past. Brownlee has used the terminology within the limits of Qumran research and argued that three kinds of midrash exist in Qumran literature: midrash halakhah, midrash aggadah, and midrash pesher.24 Timothy Lim, conversely, claimed the very foundation of the term in the DSS, specifically in Pesher Habakkuk, “dubious,” and recommended that “this alleged hybrid genre should … be left out of a discussion of pesherite or Pauline exegeses.”25 Midrash-pesher, as denoting a genre, is indeed a hybrid best excluded from scholarly discourse. Yet as Lim has himself pointed out, Paul’s rhetoric in Rom 10:6–8 resembles the form of pesher-like interpretations that use pronouns to present interpretations, precisely the form this study traces. Furthermore, within the Scrolls, the type of interpretation I analyze here often appears not in Pesher compositions (as the name might be understood to imply) but rather in other Qumran texts, mainly the Damascus Document.26 But the advantages of this naming seem to outweigh the disadvantages. Midrash-pesher technique should not be confused with the more general presentation of interpretation with a single deictic identification (a singular “this is that”).27 Specifically, some scholars have claimed that Rom 10:6–8 is an example of a single “this is that” interpretation, and trace it back to both Semitic and Hellenistic usage.28 But they are incorrect in describing the 24 25

26 27

28

William H. Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, SBLMS 24 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979). Timothy Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 139. See also Timothy H. Lim, “Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, JSPSup 26 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 280–292; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 305 n. 42; Steven DiMattei, “Biblical Narratives,” in As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 76 n. 49. As is well known, the Damascus Document uses both ‫ פשר‬and ‫ דרש‬terminology. See for example, the homily in Mishnah Yoma 5:5: “‘Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement on its behalf’ (Lev 16:18), this is (‫ )זה‬the golden altar.” Mishnah Yoma does not present a midrash-pesher as defined by this study. The homily in the Mishnah is structured as “this (quotation) is that (meaning),” similar to examples found frequently in many types of literature. See e.g., the examples from the NT, Matt 27: 46 (ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι ; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν· θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες); Acts 1:19 (Ἁκελδαμάχ, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν χωρίον αἵματος). Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Approach to the Old Testament in Rom 10:6–8,” TJ 6 (1985): 3–37. Other scholars followed Seifrid’s rejection of identifying Rom 10:6–8 as indicative of a pesher-like interpretation. See e.g., Filippo Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture

Scripture Reconceived

39

scriptural phenomenon in Paul that conforms to the “pegging” technique I discuss here: the words of righteousness by trust are interrupted not once but three times by “that is” (tout estin), used to introduce a short exegesis. Indeed, we should expect to find a singular “this is” in any interpretative text.29 But while they are on a continuum, midrash-pesher has several distinct characteristics but remains understudied. In the context of Pesher George Brooke has commented that: Perhaps the most important items concerning interpretation in the Qumran literature, as elsewhere, are the third person pronouns which when used demonstratively permit the identification of one thing with another and produce a wonderful range of “this” is “that” possibilities, interpretative moves that are highly significant when the dominant exegetical strategy is the making contemporary of earlier traditions. A whole study could be devoted to demonstratives and the various ways they function in particular context in the Qumran literature.30 The present study progresses in the direction Brooke points to and will offer an analysis of the midrash-pesher form, a specific exegetical rhetoric that uses pronouns to present running interpretation, in Qumran literature, Paul and the Tannaitic corpus. Midrash-Pesher Form: A Short History of Its Functions in Qumran and Tannaitic Literature 2.1.1 Pronominal-Pesharim in Qumran We find several cases of the midrash-pesher rhetorical form in writings from Qumran, and the following discusses examples from the Damascus Document31 2.1

29 30 31

in Romans 9–11, AnBib 183 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010), 245 n. 188; George Carraway, Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans 9–11 LNTS 489 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 146–47. See also Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 9–16), Vol. 2, EKK 6/2 (Göttingen: Patmos, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 119–20. Yet he too completely misses the mark when he says: “Bei diesem Ausdruck handelt es sich durchaus nicht um ‘eine exegetische Einführungsformel nach der pescher-Methode,’ denn sie ist als erklärungseinleitende Konjunktion in der hellenistischen Literatur im Sinne von ‘das heißt’ sehr zahlreich belegt, und zwar gerade auch zur Erläuterung von Zitaten wie in Röm 10,8.” (see n. 19 there). For an attempt to describe the history and afterlife of the interpretative use of ‫ זה‬see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 455. George J. Brooke, “‘Pesher’ and ‘Midrash’ in Qumran Literature: Issues for Lexicography,” RdQ 24 (2009): 80. CD 6:2–11 will be discussed in detail. But compare also 3:20–4:4; 7:14–21; 8:9–13 (in CDa).

40

chapter 1

and Pesher Nahum. Like the pesher more generally, midrash-pesher presents scripture—and most centrally prophecy—as speaking of the life of the Qumran community. They engage in the interpretation of contemporary settings, construed as realizations of scriptural depictions. As such, both the pesher and the midrash-pesher in its Qumran usage, work in two directions simultaneously. They load scripture with contemporary meaning and interpret the present through scripture.32 Furthermore, Steven Fraade described the pesher as a hermeneutic framework geared to translating “the enigmatic terms of the original narrative … into the manifest language of a new narrative.”33 And indeed, the pesher unit, also in its pronominal form, is most often used for the transformation of a narrative. A well-known example of the midrash-pesher is the interpretation of the Song of the Well in the Damascus Document: ‬‎‫… ויקם מאהרן נבונים ומישראל‬ ‬‎‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‫כרוה‬ ‫‮חכמים וישמיעם ויחפורו את הבאר באר חפרוה שרים‬ ‬‎‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‫‮נדיבי העם במחוקק הבאר היא התורה וחופריה‬ ‫הם‬ ‬‎ ‫שבי ישראל היוצאים מארץ יהודה ויגורו בארץ דמש‬ ‫ק‬ ‬‎‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‫הושבה‬ ‫‮אשר קרא אל את כולם שרים כי דרשוהו ולא‬ ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫ והמחוקק הוא דורש התורה‬‭‫‮פארתם בפי אחד‬

‫אמר ישעיה מוציא כלי למעשיהו  ונדיבי העם הם‬ ‫הבאים לכרות את הבאר במחוקקות אשר חקק המחוקק‬ ‫להתהלך במה בכל קץ הרשיע וזולתם לא ישיגו עד עמד‬ ‫יורה הצדק באחרית הימים‬

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

32 33

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

He raised up from Aaron insightful men and from Israel wise men and He taught them and they dug the well: ‘the well the princes dug, the nobility of the people dug it with a rod’ (Num 21:18). The Well is the Law, and its ‘diggers’ are the captives of Israel who went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus; because God had called them all princes, for they sought him and their honour was not denied by a single mouth. vac And the ‘rod’ is the interpreter of the Law of whom Isaiah said, ‘he brings out a tool for his work’ (Isa 54:16). vac The ‘nobility of the people’ are Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 4–5; Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 10. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 4.

Scripture Reconceived 9 10 11

41

those who come to ‘dig the well’ by following rules that the Rod made to live by during the whole era of wickedness, and without these rules they shall obtain nothing until the appearance of one who teaches righteousness in the last days.34

The Damascus Document interprets the Song of the Well (Num 21:18) to unfold the history of the sect and articulate its relationship to Torah. It does so by breaking down the verse and interpreting each building block in (an almost perfect) sequence. The words ‫היאה‬/‫ היא‬and ‫המה‬/‫ הם‬function here as a copula between the verse fragment (lemma) and its meaning. Both the fragmentation of the verse and its interpretation in order are somewhat flexible. The lexeme may slightly change its form (“dug” ‫ חפרוה‬in the verse, “its diggers” ‫ חופריה‬in the pesher) to better serve the desired meaning and interpretative form. The word sequence is also changed slightly (though not at the beginning of the verse, and this will be a general rule): and so ‫“ נדיבי העם‬the nobles” is interpreted after ‫“ במחוקק‬Lawgiver,” though they appear within the line in reversed order. The rhetoric of this interpretation seems to hide as much as it is revealing. The pronoun does not disclose the interpretive procedure that led to the specific meaning but presents only a conversion of meaning: x (from the scriptures) is y. This is a persistent feature of the midrash-pesher rhetoric but is remarkable in the context of an interpretation that claims the divine provenance for certain exegetical tools35 with which the diggers can dig the well 34

35

CD 6:2–11. For the sake of convenient reading, the source is cited from Emanuel Tov, “CD,” trans. Martin G. Abegg, Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2542-3525_dsselnbt_DSS_EL_NBT_CD. The relevant fragments from the scrolls confirm the use of pronouns as connecting the lemmata and their interpretation. Compare 4Q266 3 II and 4Q267 2. For other discussions of this interpretation, Jonah Frankel, Darkhe Haaggadah VeHamidrash (Jerusalem: Yad LaTalmud, 1991), 478ff. [Hebrew]; Michael Fishbane, “The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and Its Ancient Transformations,” in “Sha‌ʾarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–16; Cana Werman, “Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s): Competing Claims to Authority,” in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 7–9 January, 2003, by Steven D. Fraade, Aharon Shemesh, and Ruth Clements, STDJ 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 179; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making, 43; Devorah Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies, FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 313–14; Mandel, The Origins of Midrash, 107–11; Liora Goldman, “The Admonitions in the Damascus Document as a Series of Thematic Pesharim,” DSD 25.3 (2018): 385–411. Paul Mandel, against most other readers, does not understand ‫ במחוקק‬to speak of exegetical tools. See Mandel, The Origins of Midrash, 107–11.

42

chapter 1

of Torah. The midrash-pesher presents an interpretation without making the hermeneutical process explicit. The force of this rhetoric of interpretation lies then, not in its argumentation but its totality: it transports the verse in its entirety to a new context. Another interesting example of the midrash-pesher form in Qumran texts is found in Pesher Nahum: ‎‬‫הנני אלי̇ [כה‬ 8 ‫תאכל חרב והכר[תי‬ ̇ ‫ ‮נא[ם יהוה צבאות והבערתי בעשן רובכ]ה וכפיריכה‬9 ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‭‫מארץ ט] ̇רפה‬ ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‫ ‮ולא י[שמע עוד קול מלאכיכה פש]רו רובכה הם גדודי חילו וכפיריו‬10 ‫הם‬ ‫קב[צו כוה]נ̊ י ירושלים אשר‬ ̊ ‫ גדוליו [      ]ו̇ ̇ט ̇רפו הוא ̇ה ̊הו̊ ן אשר‬11 ]  [ ‫ישראל‬ ̇ ‫ [י]תנוהו ע[      א] ̇פרים ינתן‬12 8 9

10

11 12

“Behold I am against [you] it is the declar[ation of the Lord of Hosts. I will burn in smoke you]r [multitude,] and your young lions the sword will consume. I will cut [off p]rey, [from the land] and no [longer will be heard the voice of your messengers’ (Nah 2:14) vac] Its [interpre]tation: “your multitude”—they are the legions of his army [ ] and “his young lions”—they are his great ones[      ]and “his prey”—it is the weal]th which [the prie]sts of Jerusalem am[assed] that [th]ey will give it [      E]phraim. Israel will be given [  ]36

This pesher contemporizes Nahum 2:14.37 Notably, it consists of a hybrid form. It uses both the specific terminology ‫( פשרו‬line 10) as well as a repetition of pronouns to present the interpretation. This example shows the strong formal kinship between pesher interpretations and the form I am retracing here. Not only do we find the midrash-pesher form within a continuous Pesher composition,

36

37

4Q169 3–4 I, 8–12. Translation from Emanuel Tov, “4Q169,” trans. Shani L. Berrin, Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts, Emanuel Tov, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1163/2542-3525_dsselnbt_DSS_EL_NBT_4Q169. Subsequent quotes from the Nahum Pesher are also taken from this source. For an interpretation of this pesher see Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 158–63.

Scripture Reconceived

43

but the rhetorical structures of the pesher and midrash-pesher are intertwined. A similar hybrid can be found in 4Q169 3–4 III, 8–10, on Nah 3:8.38 2.1.2 Midrash-Pesher in Tannaitic Literature I have collected fifty-five cases of the midrash-pesher form in Tannaitic literature.39 Thirty-three of these are aggadic homilies40 and twenty-two pertain to halakhah.41 As one would expect of Tannaitic literature, the form most commonly interprets passages from the Pentateuch.42 Still, we find several derashot-pesher on some of the Prophets43 and Writings as well.44 The Tannaim rarely use the midrash-pesher in service of an eschatology,45 but often do as a vehicle of contemporization. In other words, midrash-pesher bridges gaps between scripture and rabbinic conventions.46 Also, Tannaitic literature rarely uses the midrash-pesher to interpret full verses. The vast majority of derashot-pesher in Tannaitic literature (42) use the form is to interpret 38

The pesher on Nah 3:8 only includes two repetitions of “x is y,” namely that ‘Amon’ is Manasseh and ‘the rivers’ are the nobles of Manasseh. and thus does not conform fully to my definition of the midrash-pesher. Yet it also involves a notable hybridity of the explicit pesher interpretation and a use of the pronominal form: 8 ‘Are you better than Am[on situated among] the rivers?’ (Nah 3:8) 9 Its interpretation (‫)פשרו‬: ‘Amon’ is Manasseh, and ‘the rivers’ are the nobles of Manasseh, the honoured ones of the [ ] 10 ‘Which was surrounded by waters, whose rampart was the sea and whose walls were waters.’ (3:8) vac For an interpretation of this pesher see Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 278–79. 39 I was looking for a repetitive use of the deictic words ‫הן‬/‫אלו‬/‫היא‬/‫הוא‬/‫זה‬, used in midrashim that fragmentize verses. Essentially looking for the form fragmental quote ‫זה‬ midrashic meaning. Interpretations which present less than two repetitions of this form within a verse were not included. The homilies appear in the following books: Sifre Deut. (11 instances); Mek. RI (11); Sifra (9); Tosefta (8); Sifre Num. (6); Seder Olam (4); Mishnah (2); Sifre Zuta Num. (2); Mek. Rs (2). For the list of midrash-pesher I have collected from Tannaitic literature see Appendix. 40 Appearing in the following books: Mek. RI (9); Tosefta (7); Sifre Deut. (6); Seder Olam (4); Sifra (3); Sifre Num. (3); Mek. RS (1). 41 Appearing in the following books: Sifra (6); Sifre Deut. (5); Sifre Num. (3); Sifre Zuta Num. (2); Mishnah (2); Mekhilta (2); Sifra (1); Mek. RS (1); Tosefta (1). 42 Deut (17); Lev (8); Num (5); Exod (4); Gen (4). 43 Isa (3); Ezek (3). 44 Song (4); Dan (2); Prov (2); Chron (1). 45 Mek. RS 19, 17 (Epstein-Melamed ed., 143); Sifra Behuqotai 2, 3 (ed. Weiss, 111d); t. Ber. 1:11. 46 Many of these homilies bridge, as would be expected, between scriptural and Tannaitic norms. Only in one case the midrash-pesher actualizes a verse (Dan 8:7) reading it as pertaining to Tannaitic figures. See t. Miqw. 7:11.

44

chapter 1

lists. In most of these cases (29 instances), the homilies interpret short lists presented in a biblical verse. The remainder of these derashot-pesher (thirteen examples) render “simple” verses into lists. Let us consider both of these variants. 2.1.3

Pesher as a Method of Interpretation of Lists in Tannaitic Literature The midrash-pesher form is most commonly employed to present an interpretation for each item within a scriptural list with view to justify (seeming) superfluities47 or clarify ambiguities. Among the lists that the midrash-pesher form interprets are the list of obligations towards the Hebrew slave-wife in Exodus 21:10 (‫“ ְׁשאֵ ָ ֛ר ּה ְּכסו ָּת ּ֥ה וְ ֹענ ָָת ּ֖ה ֥ל ֹא יִ גְ ָ ֽרע‬he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights”); the list of things Moses wished to see when he asked to cross over the Jordan according to Deuteronomy 3:25 (‫ה־ּנא וְ ֶא ְר ֶא ֙ה‬ ָ֗ ‫ֶא ְע ְּב ָר‬ ‫ֹובה א ׁ ֲֶש ֖ר ְּב ֵע֣בֶ ר הַ ּי ְַר ֵדּ ֑ ן הָ ָה֥ר הַ ּ ֛טֹוב הַ ֶ ּז֖ה וְ הַ ְּלבָ ֽ ֹנון׃‬ ָ ֔ ‫“ אֶ ת־הָ ָ ֣א ֶרץ הַ ּט‬Let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that fine hill country and Lebanon”); the things that are atoned for by the priestly rite on Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16:33 (‫וְ ִכ ֶּפ ֙ר‬ ֵ ‫ת־מ ְקדַּ ׁ֣ש הַ ּ֔ ֹק ֶד ׁש וְ ֶאת־ ֹ ֧אהֶ ל מ‬ ‫ל־ע֥ם הַ ּ ָק ָה֖ל יְ ַכ ֵ ּֽפר׃‬ ַ ‫ֹוע֛ד וְ ֶאת־הַ ִּמזְ ּ ֵב ַ֖ח יְ ַכ ֵ ּ֑פר וְ ַ ֧על הַ ֹ ּכה ֲִנ֛ים וְ ַעל־ ּ ָכ‬ ִ ֶ‫א‬

“He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly”). In some cases, the very identification of a verse as a list is in and of itself a hermeneutical choice driven by a rabbinic rejection of the biblical use of synonyms of hyperbolic repetition. The rabbis often understand lists of synonyms or hyperbolic repetitions within scripture to be redundant and seek to explain them away.48 Midrash-pesher achieves this goal by granting each “item” a particular meaning within the framework of a list: see for example, Ezekiel 20:33 (‫ם־לֹא ְּב ָי֨ד חֲזָ ָ ֜קה ו ִּבזְ ֹ ֧ר ַוע נְ טוּיָ ֛ה‬ ֠ ‫י־אנִ י … ִא‬ ָ֕ ‫ַח‬ ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫“ ו ְּבחֵ ָמ֥ה ְׁשפוּכָ ֖ה ֶא ְמֹל֥ וְך ֲע ֵל‬surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm and with anger poured out will I be king over you”) in which each item, best understood as hyperbolic metaphors, is interpreted as an item in a list of makkot.49 These superfluities and ambiguities are “solved” or interpreted in various ways. Some may be read in a manner quite close to the contextual 47

48 49

See e.g., Mek. RI Yitro 2 (Horowitz-Rabin ed., 197); Mek. RI Amalek 1, (Horxowitz-Rabin ed., 181); Mek. RS 12, 19 (Epstein-Melamed ed., 24); Sifre Zuta Num 28, 2 (ed. Kahana, 322); Sifra Aharei 5, 3 (ed. Weiss, 83b); Sifre Num §77 (ed. Kahana, 182); Sifre Num §115 (ed. Kahana, 328); Sifre Num §117 (ed. Kahana, 345); Sifre Deut §8 (ed. Finkelstein, 16). See similarly in James Kugel’s study of Midrash and the “forgetting” of parallelism. See James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 96–134. See the Passover Haggadah; Sifre Num. 115 (ed. Kahana, 328–29).

Scripture Reconceived

45

meaning of the item, others may be ascribed a meaning quite far and foreign to the text. In some cases, the midrash-pesher seeks to expand scriptural lists so that they may contain more items.50 It may do so to justify superfluities within a passage, but it may also do so to make a list more comprehensive from a Tannaitic perspective. The midrash-pesher on the list of tithes appearing in the declaration in Deuteronomy 26:1351 cited above is a case in point. First, the homily translates the different actions listed in the verse from biblical language into the halakhic language of the Tannaim. Finally, the midrash-pesher breaks “I have removed the sacred portion from my house” into two, so it denotes two tithes: “I have removed the sacred portion” = second tithe and netta revai; “from the house” = dough offering. And so, the midrash-pesher in the Mishnah serves a twofold cause: it explains the biblical list through translation to Tannaitic terminology and adds to it two “missing” items. In similar cases, biblical lists are expanded through the splitting of phrases52 and other grammatical structures,53 or by granting meaning to superfluous particles (‫ )ואת ;וגם‬thereby creating new entries.54 Within the school of Rabbi Akiva we find a specific 50

51 52

53

54

Sifre Zuta Num 28,2 (ed. Horowitz, 322); Sifra Aharei 5, 3 (ed. Weiss, 83b); Sifra Zavim 4, 1 (ed. Weiss, 78c); Sifra Tsav 11, 3 (ed. Weiss, 40b); Sifra Sheratsim 1, 2 (ed. Weiss, 47a); Sifre Num §117 (ed. Kahana, 347); Sifre Deut §8 (ed. Finkelstein, 16); Sifre Deut §63 (ed. Finkelstein, 130). See m. Maʿaś. Š. 5:1; Sifre Deut §83 (ed. Finkelstein, 321). See for example Sifre Zuta 28, 2 (ed. Horowitz, 322), which interprets Num 28:2, after the preceding items in the list are interpreted, the derashah splits the phrase ‫“ ֵר ַיח נִ יח ִֹחי‬a sweet savor” in two: ‫ “ניחוחי“ אלו הנסכים‬,‫‘ “ “ריח“ זה השמן‬sweet’ is the oil; ‘savor’ are the drink offerings.” Another example is Sifre Deut §63 (ed. Finkelstein, 130) which interprets Deut 12:6. After the preceding items in the list are interpreted, the homily splits “and the firstborn of your herds and flocks” into several different items in the list: firstborn = firstborn; herds and flocks = sin offerings and guilt offerings. See e.g., Sifra Aharei 5, 3 (ed. Weiss, 83b) interprets Lev 16:33: “He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.” The verse lists the things that the high priest atones for in his Day of Atonement ceremony. But the homily treats words that are not individual items in the list, as if they were. The homily reads: “‘He shall make atonement for the sanctuary’—This is the inner side; ‘tent of meeting’—this is the hekhal; ‘the altar’—this is the altar; ‘he will make atonement’— also for the courtyards; ‘the priests’—these are the priests; ‘all the people of the assembly’—these are Israel; ‘he will atone’—also for the Levites.” And so the two appearances of the verb ‫“ יכפר‬he shall make atonement” are interpreted once as referring to the atoning of the courts and once to the atoning of the Levites. For another example, see Sifre Num §117 (ed. Kahana, 347), a midrashic expansion of the priestly gifts in Num 18:12. See e.g., the interpretation of Exod 17:13 (“And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword”) as listing three parties defeated by Joshua and not two in Mek. RI Amalek 1

46

chapter 1

variant of the midrash-pesher form that not only interprets the verse in the pesher order, but treats the letters ‫ בי״ת‬and ‫ ו״ו‬as independent lexemes in the list so as to expand it.55 The interpretation of lists is sometimes not motivated by a need for explanation or justification at all. Instead, the midrash-pesher form transports lists to a different scriptural context. The Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael interprets a passage from Song of Songs 6:8–9 (“There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is but one.”) as speaking of the exodus and Moses: ‫ ”ושמנים‬,‫ ”ששים המה מלכות” אילו ששים ריבו‬.‫”ששים המה מלכות ושמונים” וגו׳‬ ‫ ”ועלמות אין מספר” אילו קטנים שאין להם‬,‫פלגשים” אילו מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה‬ .‫ אף־על־פיכן ”אחת היא יונתי תמתי” שהיא שקולה כנגד הכל‬.‫מינין‬

“There are sixty queens”—these are the sixty ten-thousands;56 “and eighty concubines”—these are those under twenty years old; “and maidens without number”—these are the minors who are numberless; nevertheless, “my perfect one is but one”—for she countervails all.57 The verse lists a plurality of women (“There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines and young women without number”), contrasting them with the singularity of the beloved (who “is but one”). The Mekhilta interprets the passage as speaking of the plurality of the sons of Israel in the exodus census, against the singularity of Moses or the People as a whole. Another example is Tosefta Sotah 7:20–21. It introduces several interpretations of Proverbs 24:27, a passage listing the actions leading to building a

55 56 57

(Horowitz-Rabin ed., 181): “‘Amalek’—as it sounds [literally]; ‘and’—these are his wife and his sons; ‘his people’—these are soldiers who are with him.” Another example is the interpretation of Exod 18:18 (“You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone”) in Mek RI Yitro 2 (Horowitz-Rabin ed., 197) that similarly treats the word and as an item on the list: “‘both you’—this is Moses; ‘and’—this is Aharon; ‘these people with you’—these are the seventy elders, the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Eleazar ha-Modai says: ‘you’—this is Moses; ‘and’—this is Aharon and Nadav and Avihu; ‘these people with you’—these are the seventy elders.” See Sifre Zuta Num 10, 10 (ed. Horowitz, 296), in which not only each word within the list is interpreted, but some of the words that include added prefix (such as ‫ )ו״ו‬are interpreted several times and attributed several different meanings. Referring to Israelites who came from Egypt, see Exod 12:37. Mek RI Shirta 9 (Horowitz-Rabin ed., 145).

Scripture Reconceived

47

home (prepare your work outside; prepare your fields; and then build your home). Most of the homilies collected in this source interpret the verse metaphorically as speaking not of home-building but Talmud Torah.58 According to one interpretation, one must study Torah (prepare your work outside), study mishnah (your fields), and lastly midrash (build your home).59 According to another interpretation, the work is confined to the realm of Oral Torah, and so the building blocks are mishnah, midrash and then halakhot respectively,60 and so forth. The last interpretation, in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Yossi Haglili, transports the verse to yet another context: prepare your work = Talmud Torah; prepare your field = good deeds; build your home = claim and collect your wages (in the world to come). Both examples from the Mekhilta and the Tosefta interpret verses outside of their contexts. Still, the interpretations do not seem exegetically motivated, as nothing about the lists in these verses is ambiguous or superfluous. The midrash-pesher structure is used here to transport scriptural lists into a different context, be it historical (Canticles—Exodus), normative (stages in building a home—the building blocks of scholarly curriculum) or theological (stages in building a home—building a home in the world to come). 2.1.4

Creating Lists with the Midrash-Pesher Form in Tannaitic Literature In the texts discussed in the previous section, the Tannaitic midrash-pesher interprets scriptural lists. In thirteen particularly interesting cases, the midrash-pesher transforms simple verses into lists.61 Scholars recognized the importance of list-making in rabbinic culture but focused mainly on lists as mnemonic tools (organizing miscellaneous items in groups) or as anthologies.62 58 59 60 61

62

The first interpretation presented in this source from the Tosefta stands out as it does not transport the verse to another context, but rather changes its meaning (prepare your work = home; your field = field; your home = wife). This is perhaps a pun on ‫—בית‬understood in the homily as ‫בית מדרש‬. The last step in this interpretation refers perhaps to ruling in Judgment. Mek RI Pisha 16 (Horowitz-Rabin ed., 60); m. Soṭah 8:4; Seder Olam 5; Sifra Sheratsim 1, 1 (46, 4); Sifra Sheratsim 1, 3 (47, 2); Sifre Deut §264 (ed. Finkelstein, 285); Sifre Deut §165 (ed. Finkelstein, 286); Sifre Deut §171 (ed. Finkelstein, 292); Sifre Deut §306 (ed. Finkelstein, 340); §343 (ed. Finkelstein, 395); §355 (ed. Finkelstein, 419); t. B. Qam. 8:18; t. Š eb. 7:12. Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, TSAJ 136 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 99ff.; Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 101; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “The Body and the Temple: The List of Priestly Blemishes in the Mishnah and the Place of the Temple in the Tannaitic Study House,” Jewish Studies 43 (2006): 49–87 [Hebrew].

48

chapter 1

The midrash-pesher form in Tannaitic midrash shows that list-making also has a hermeneutical function. It is a way for the Tannaim to create new meaning by overthrowing the syntactical structure of the verse and replacing it with an alternative linguistic structure. The homily reads words as consecutive items in a list, thereby allowing the rabbis to bridge gaps between their own cultural and ideological constructs and scripture. In fact, in many such uses, the lists are not extracted from the verse at all. Instead, the midrash-pesher modifies a verse into a pre-existing Tannaitic list. The Tannaitic use of midrash-pesher to overthrow the syntactical structure of the verse and re-figuring it as a list has not been noticed. Let us consider several examples in more detail. The Mekhilta (Pisha 16, Horowtiz ed., 60) asks about the scriptural origins of the halakhic obligation to say birkat hamazon, and subsequently points to the corresponding verse in Deuteronomy 8:10. It breaks down the verse and interprets its pegs as referring to the benedictions forming the Tannaitic birkat hamazon in the order of their appearance in liturgical practice63: ”‫ ”על הארץ‬.‫ומנין שמברכין על המזון? שנ׳ ”ואכלת ושבעת” וגו׳ זו ברכה ראשונה‬ ”‫ ”אשר נתן לך‬.”‫ שנ׳ ”ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון‬,‫ ”טובה” זו ירושלם‬.‫זו ברכה שנייה‬ .‫שגמלנו כל טוב‬

Whence is the obligation to give grace on the food? For it says “You shall eat your fill etc.” (Deut 8:10)—this is the first benediction; “for the (good) land”64—this is the second benediction; “good”—this is Jerusalem,65 for it is written “this good mountain and the Lebanon”; “he has given you”— that he has granted us good.66 The question ‘whence is the obligation to give grace on the food?’ is answered by a midrash-pesher listing the four benedictions of birkat hamazon in their order of appearance. The midrash implicitly claims that we learn the obligation from the words of Deuteronomy 8:10, and their specific order of appearance gives insight to its comprehensive fulfillment. It achieves this interpretation by reading the verse simultaneously as a grammatical sentence that decrees giving blessing on the food, and as a list of consecutive items, each pointing to the passages of the Tannaitic liturgy. 63 64 65 66

See on this source Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Responsive Blessings and the Development of the Tannaitic Liturgical System,” JSIJ 7 (2008): 1–29 [Hebrew]. The order of these words in the MT is reversed (‫)על הארץ הטובה‬, and interpreted individually and in their order. Referring to the third benediction (‫ )בונה ירושלים‬that mentions the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Referring to the fourth and last benediction which addresses God’s benevolence.

Scripture Reconceived

49

A similar procedure is found in an aggadic midrash in Seder Olam Rabbah 5, seeking to show that the seven laws of Noah67 were already given to Adam. The midrash breaks down Genesis 2:16 and interprets each of its fragments as pointing to one of the seven laws. However, Genesis 2:16 (“And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden’”) does not deliver a list at all, but only contains a single commandment presented as part of a narrative. The midrash-pesher is used to re-contextualize the verse and then break down its syntactical structure so that what was once a regular sentence—is now a list. Mishnah Sotah 8:4 lists those that are to remain at home in case of war: (1) One who built a new home and dedicated it; (2) One who planted a vineyard and has just begun to enjoy it; (3) One who has just married the woman he betrothed; (4) One who has taken in his dead brother’s wife (‫)יבמה‬. The Mishnah brings Deuteronomy 24:5 as prooftext and interprets it with the midrash-pesher form, so it may be read as expressing the Mishnaic list, even though the verse only states that if a man has recently married (i.e. no. 3, and perhaps 4, in our list), he may not be sent to war in his first year of marriage. The derashah changes the order of the words in the verse, so that the verse agrees with the order of the list: ‫ לביתו‬is interpreted before ‫יהיה‬. Clearly, the list is not gleaned off the verse, but rather, it is read back into it. This is a derashah belonging to the school of R. Akiva, and different homily (albeit reaching a similar conclusion) from the school of R. Ishmael, is found in the Tosefta68: .”‫ ”ארש אשה ולא לקחה‬,”‫ ”נטע כרם ולא חללו‬,”‫אין לי אלא ”בונה ביתו ולא חנכו‬ ‫מניין בנה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים־עשר חדש? נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה‬ ‫שנים־עשר חדש? ארש אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים־עשר חדש? מניין שאין זזין‬ .‫ ולמה יצא? להקיש עליו‬.‫ממקומן? ת׳ל ”כי יקח איש אשה חדשה” דבר זה בכלל היה‬ ‫ מה זה מיוחד שאירש אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים־עשר חדש שאין זזין‬:‫לומר לך‬ 69.⟨‫ ⟩אף כולן כן‬.‫ממקומן‬ 67

68 69

On the rabbinic and pre-rabbinic history of the Noahide laws, see Cana Werman, “The Attitude towards Gentiles in the Book of Jubilees and Qumran Literature Compared with Early Tannaitic Halakhah and Contemporary Pseudepigrapha” (PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1996) [Hebrew]; Moshe Lavee, “The Noahide Laws: The Building Blocks of a Rabbinic Conceptual Framework in Qumran and the Book of Acts,” Meghillot 10 (2013): 73–114; Christine Hayes, What’s Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 354–69. On the possibility that this specific homily is of post-Tannaitic provenance see David Sabato, “The Noahide Commandments in Tosefta Avodah Zarah,” JSIJ 16 (2019): 1–35. Jacob Nahum Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text (Jerusalem, 1948), 2:636 [Hebrew]; Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1992), 8:691–92 [Hebrew]. t. Sot. 7:20 (ed. Lieberman, 198–99).

50

chapter 1

I have only “built a new house but not dedicated it”; “planted a vineyard but not yet enjoyed its fruit”; “become engaged to a woman but not yet married her.” Whence [do we know that also he who] built a house and did not live in it for twelve months? Planted a vineyard and enjoyed it, but not for twelve months? Become pledged to a woman, married her and did not live with her for twelve months? From where do we have that they do not move from their place? Talmud lomar “if a man takes a new wife”—this was part of the general rule, and why does it stand outside (of it)? So we may infer from it. To tell you: in what way is it distinct that a man became pledged to a woman, married her and did not live with her for twelve months? That they do not move from their place, ⟨and so are all the others⟩. The homily from the school of R. Ishmael locates the origin of our list in Deuteronomy 20:5–7.70 According to the Ishmaelian midrash, Deuteronomy 24:5 does not contradict 20:5–6, but rather “stands outside [of the general rule in Deuteronomy 20] so we may infer from it.” And thus the midrash deduces that in all of these cases the exemption from war is extended to a whole year after consecration. The midrash-pesher in our Mishnah takes a different hermeneutical route. The Mishnah does not recognize a contradiction between the verses, because it finds that the list which appears explicitly in Deut 20:5–6 is implied in the words of Deut 24:5. And so the Akkivian midrash-pesher solves two problems by a single solution: it gives precedence to the Mishnaic halakhah as well as addresses a scriptural discrepancy. Perhaps one could say that the contradiction between verses exists only on a syntactic level, but if the words are taken as items in a (given) list, then the contradiction disappears. 2.1.5 Midrash-Pesher: Conclusions and Implications The rhetorical force of the midrash-pesher form lies in its comprehensiveness. The form points to the inner structure of the scriptural verse and, through the unfolding of the interpretation together with its linguistic building blocks, the new interpretation—far-reaching as it may be—is presented as (nothing but) an explication of scriptural meaning. The form suggests a sympathetic 70

“Then the officials shall address the troops, saying, ‘Has anyone built a new house but not dedicated it? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another dedicate it. Has anyone planted a vineyard but not yet enjoyed its fruit? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another be first to enjoy its fruit. Has anyone become engaged to a woman but not yet married her? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another marry her.’” (Deut 20:5–7)

Scripture Reconceived

51

and harmonious relationship between the text and its newly-granted meaning, and the power of the new interpretation stems from this sympathy. Indeed, midrash-pesher does not say how it interprets. In the context of Qumran interpretations, this is not surprising since scriptural interpretations in Qumran are often implicit or presented as revealed knowledge.71 Yet, it is notable that the Damascus Document narrates the divine origins of the sect’s interpretative tools, using rhetoric that does not disclose these tools. Paul utilizes the midrash-pesher technique to interpret a highly reworked scriptural passage. And so, through its totality and ordering, the midrash-pesher in Rom 10:6–8 authorizes not only Paul’s interpretation but also the base-text he interprets. In the context of Tannaitic midrash, the midrash-pesher rhetoric is outstanding. Tannaitic homilies usually argue their interpretations with explicit technical terminology. However, the midrash-pesher technique uses just a pronoun to present the lemmata and their correlate meanings. It has often been noted that pesher exegesis is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to contemporize and actualize scriptural texts, mainly, though not exclusively, of prophecy. If we take “contemporization” as a broad category, not limited to eschatology or apocalyptic, it captures the hermeneutic of the midrashpesher across its different uses discussed here, even in the Tannaitic context. The Tannaitic midrash-pesher does not usually address eschatological themes, but bridges gaps between scripture and Tannaitic norms and figures. We may describe this bridging as a process of a contemporization of scripture that overcomes the distance between scriptural texts of the past and the Tannaitic constructs of the present. Both the totality of reading and the process of contemporization I have described above work to render scripture, in whatever shape and form, as central to the life of a given community. This is true of all three literary contexts discussed here. Specifically, in the case of Paul’s writing, the midrashpesher rhetoric is part of his consistent commitment to speak to his gentile audience with and through verses and present scripture as speaking directly to them and their condition. Midrash-pesher transforms scripture so that it speaks directly to contemporary circumstances and at the same time, draws the learners’ attention to the particularities of the verse, its word choices, and its construction. In Tannaitic literature, this feature is amplified. The Tannaim often use midrash-pesher to justify the specific wording of a verse, that may 71

Scholars noted the implicit nature of legal interpretations in Qumran, see Kister, “A Common Heritage”; Fraade, “Looking for Legal Midrash in Qumran.” While the interpretations I have dealt with here are clearly more explicit, I have argued that they too do not disclose much about the interpretative process.

52

chapter 1

seem redundant to them (the rabbinic ‫)צריכותא‬. Tannaitic midrash-pesher performs—or better yet, creates—scripture as comprehensive (nothing is lacking from scripture), relevant (scripture represents Tannaitic halakhah), and consistent. Furthermore, the cases in which the Tannaim use midrashpesher to read words both in their syntactical context and as items on a list, broaden their possibilities to show scripture as speaking to their own, clearly post-scriptural, norms. The different functions of midrash-pesher can perhaps be traced back to the contexts of what have been claimed to be the biblical predecessors of the pesher, both of which use a variant of the roots ‫ פש״ר‬and ‫פת״ר‬: (1) Joseph and the interpretation of dreams72; (2) Daniel and the interpretation of the writing on the wall.73 Joseph interprets dreams by contextualizing their narratives in the immediate future. Dreams, according to this logic, are inverted histories that disclose the future through narratives. The interpretation of the writing on the wall in Daniel 5 presents a different hermeneutical challenge. While dreams present narratives and images, the writing on the wall presents a list. The divine writing on the wall ‫ ְמנֵ א ְמנֵ א ְּת ֵקל ַּופ ְר ִסין‬, is usually understood as a list of weights.74 Daniel is called to translate a list into a message, that is, give a list of measurements a syntactical backbone. The functions of the midrashpesher form in later antiquity are perhaps rooted respectively in these two models. The re-contextualization of images and narratives in Qumran and Romans 10 corresponds to the inner logic of the interpretation of dreams, while the midrash-pesher in rabbinic literature correlates with the transition between lists and syntactical structures found in Daniel 5. The rhetoric of the midrash-pesher implies monosemy. This is apparent both in the examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul, all of which present a single interpretation to the passages they interpret. The Qumranic and Pauline midrash-pesher is consistent with the broader hermeneutical stances these texts assume. Scholars have correctly argued that both these corpora view scripture “as an enigma to be solved and decoded,” the power and authority of which “depends directly on the absoluteness of its claim that each and

72 73 74

Gen 40–41. Perhaps the revelation and the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2, should also be mentioned, in which the contents of the dream are concealed, and they are first to be revealed by Daniel, and then interpreted. Dan 5. See e.g., David Instone Brewer, “Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5:25 in Cuneiform,” TynBul 42.2 (1991): 310–16; Al Wolters, “The Riddle of the Scales in Daniel 5,” HUCA 62 (1991): 155–77; Marian Broida, “Textualizing Divination: The Writing on the Wall in Daniel 5:25,” VT 62.1 (2012): 1–13.

Scripture Reconceived

53

every interpretation is true.”75 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the univocity of scriptural meaning is tied to a view of interpretation as solution. Tannaitic midrash adopts the rhetoric of the midrash-pesher with its monosemic features (“x is y”) but recasts it in a polysemic context, thereby stripping midrash-pesher from its univocity. Tannaitic collections may present a series of different derashotpesher on the same verse one after the other (like in the case of t. Soṭah 7:20–21 discussed in detail above) and often present a midrash-pesher among other homilies on the same verse. One is left with the impression that the hermeneutical function of the identification “is” in the Tannaitic midrash-pesher is transformed. Lastly, since the rhetoric I trace here often does not use the specific terminology of ‫פשרו על‬, scholars have sometimes labeled these of the Dead Sea Scrolls interpretations discussed here as “midrash.” Rom 10:6–8 has sometimes been similarly labeled. Yet, the detailed analysis of the midrash-pesher tool problematizes and complexifies such labels. While the sources uniquely share an exegetical tool, they differ in how they employ it. The characterizing features of the Tannaitic midrash-pesher is the interpretation and construction of scriptural lists and their use in a context that may present multiple interpretations to a single verse. These hermeneutical features are not demonstrated in earlier sources that use the midrash-pesher. The Qumran interpretations discussed here are not midrashim, nor is Paul performing midrash. Rather, the same exegetical tool is used across these corpora in different ways and for diverse ends. 3

Scriptural Hermeneutics in Romans 10: Towards New Genealogy of Oral Torah

How does Paul interpret Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 10? By opting for the midrash-pesher rhetoric, Paul renders the hermeneutical procedures operating in Romans 10 implicit. We must read against the grain to find an answer 75

David Stern, Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996); Steven D. Fraade, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization,” AJSR 31.1 (2007): 1–40. Some scholars have pointed out cases of polysemic interpretation in Qumran, see Markus Bockmuehl, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Biblical Commentary,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004, ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz, STDJ 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19. Bockmuehl follows Lim, Pesharim, 32–33. Nonetheless, the examples they discuss are singular exceptions to the rule.

54

chapter 1

to this central question. In what follows, I point to some hermeneutical affinities between Tannaitic midrash and Romans 10, as well as to a significant difference between them. 3.1 Midrash and Intertextuality We have already established that the persona of “righteousness by pistis” speaks intertextualized scripture and that Paul crafts her from intertexts. Furthermore, the structure of the passage as a whole (Rom 10:5–13) resembles intertextual midrash. Like Tannaitic homilies, the interpretation centers on a passage from the Pentateuch (Deut 30:12–14). It uses the midrash-pesher to present the passages as “speaking” Paul’s gospel. Finally, Paul supports his interpretation of Deuteronomy with two verses from the Prophets. This structure has been extensively discussed by Daniel Boyarin in the context of Tannaitic midrash, which he fundamentally understands as an intertextual hermeneutic. According to Boyarin, midrash amplifies an inner-biblical intertextuality, in which the Prophets and the Writings respond to and interpret the Pentateuch. Tannaitic midrash interprets passages from the Pentateuch through the Prophets and Writings, thereby rendering scripture both the interpreted text and the means of its interpretation. The directionality of midrash is typical: gaps and ambiguities within the Torah are filled and interpreted by the prophets.76 Romans 10 manifests the very same structure. Paul interprets the ambiguous language of Deuteronomy 30 by two unambiguous quotes from the Prophets. What is the word that is in the heart and the word that is the mouth of which Deuteronomy speaks? Paul explains that the word in the heart is trust in Christ, and the word in the mouth is the proclamation of that trust. Joel 2:32 and Isaiah 28:6 give explicit support to this reading: Joel, according to the LXX, promises that “everyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame,” and Isaiah that “[Everyone] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” As in Tannaitic midrash, Paul’s reading of Torah is argued not only through the interpreted passages themselves, but by prophetic exclamations juxtaposed with them. And so, both the midrash-pesher form and the intertextual structure of the passage in Romans 10:6–13 point to the literary and hermeneutical tradition of midrash. It should be noted that while many ancient Jewish texts interpret scripture intertextually, midrashic intertextuality can be characterized more specifically. In inner-Biblical exegesis, we find Ezra (implicitly) bringing together verses from different parts of the Pentateuch, but not the interpretation of 76

See Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 16–17.

Scripture Reconceived

55

Torah through the prophets.77 In the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, intertextual interpretations do not appear in the pesharim, and appear only rarely in other texts, and generally only implicitly drive the interpretation.78 As Yakir Paz has shown, intertextuality was not an explicit hermeneutical method in Qumran but served as a fundamental tool in Alexandrian interpretations of Homer. Aristarchus is attributed the rule of clarifying Homer through Homer alone.79 Philo rarely cites the Prophets and Writings in his work—in all less than fifty times.80 Many of these quotations, as Naomi G. Cohen has claimed, are from the haftarah reading cycle. In other words, Philo uses intertexts his audience knew well and would readily accept.81 Since Paul’s ex-pagan audience was hardly familiar with the haftarot, his intertextual choices (even when the verses stem from the haftarah) call for a different explanation. And so, Paul presents his audience with a reading of a Pentateuchal verse driven by the Prophets—a logic deeply tied to midrashic intertextuality. 3.2 Unresolved Scriptural Contradiction and the Twofold Torah Paul presents Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:12–14 as oppositions, though in their original form and context they are not in opposition at all, as both passages speak in favor of the Law.82 Yet Paul’s rendition of Deuteronomy 30:12–13 allows him to set these verses in the following binary structure:

77 78

79 80 81

82

See Ezra 9:10–12, paraphrasing Lev 18:24–30; Deut 7:3; 23:7. See Steven D. Fraade, “‘Comparative Midrash’ Revisited: The Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Midrash,” in Higayon L’Yonah: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah, and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. Joshua Levinson, Galit HasanRokem, and Jacob Elbaum (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006), 270, 279 [Hebrew]; Paz, “From Scribes to Scholars,” 5. Paz, “From Scribes to Scholars,” 7, 38. David A. Runia, “Philo’s Reading of the Psalms,” SPhiloA 13 (2001): 102–21; Naomi G. Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism, JSJsup 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 10–11. That the Haftarah cycle has already been established in the First century is a claim that cannot be fully substantiated. An alternative hypothesis could be that Paul’s could have reached his interpretation here simply by an association between verses in the Torah and Prophets on the basis of lexical similarity (gezerah shawa). See Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 284–87; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer‫‏‬, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 327; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word Book Publishers, 1988), 601–2; Filippo Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, AnBib 183 (Rome: G&BP, 2010), 239, 262–76; George Carraway, Christ Is God over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans 9–11, Library of New Testament Studies 489 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 148–49.

56

chapter 1

Leviticus 18:5

Deuteronomy 30:12–14

Moses about the righteousness that is by the law Writing “Does these things”

The righteousness that is by trust Saying “In your mouth and in your heart”; “we proclaim”; “declare”; “believe”; “profess”

Paul constructs the antithesis between Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10. Beyond the similarity between Romans 10 and midrashic rhetoric and hermeneutics retraced above, we also find a stark difference, perhaps even a fissure between them: Romans 10 raises a scriptural antithesis, a textual incompatibility that Paul then leaves unresolved. The relationship between ‘righteousness that is by the law’ and ‘righteousness that is by trust’ and their respective expressions in scripture in Rom 10:5– 13 has been a source of both scholarly disagreement and puzzlement. The weighty exegetical questions surrounding Rom 10:4 and the meaning of Christ as the telos of the law have intensified the difficulty. In recent decades, pushing against a supersessionist reading of Rom 10:4 according to which Paul held to a Christ/Torah dichotomy, scholars have argued that Rom 10:5–13 should not be understood as contrasting the two types of righteousness.83 Besides formulating a broad theological critique of the Christ/Torah and works/faith dichotomies, these scholars have pointed out the absence of the μέν–δέ structure in Rom 10:5–13 and subsequently argued that Paul uses the δέ of verse 10:6 in the accumulative sense.84 Many scholars have nevertheless argued strongly for the antithesis between erga (works) and pistis (trust) in Rom 10,85 mainly for (his83 84

85

Discussed in further detail below. See e.g., Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 76; Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 308–12. See for example Robert Badenas’ reading: “The context does not compel us either to interpret these two quotations as antithetical, opposing Scripture against Scripture. By jeopardizing the unity of Scripture and by discarding a part of it as ‘wrong’ in its teachings, Paul not only would have been very unconvincing in his argument with the Jews and Jewish Christians to whom, at least indirectly, this passage was addressed (cf. 9.1–4 and 10:1), but he would have worked against his main argument.” Robert Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, JSNTsup 10 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 123. This is the common reading in scholarship predating the New Perspective on Paul school of thought, or in scholarship that does not identify with their readings. For some examples see, Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 32–42; Käsemann, Romans, 284–88; C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Moffatt New Testament

Scripture Reconceived

57

torically questionable) theological concerns, but most persuasively in light of Paul’s thorough reworking of Deut 30:12–14, understood to “dissociate the citation from the theme of law,”86 that can hardly be explained without the erga/ pistis antithesis. How to read Rom 10:5–13 is a question often debated within the context of much broader theological concerns about Paul and the Torah, or faith and works. Richard Hays contended that Rom 10:5 and 10:6 “must not stand in antithesis to one another…. The efforts of some commentators to drive a wedge between these two texts as though they represented radically different conceptions of righteousness have wrought disastrous consequences for Christian theology.”87 In light of this overarching theological concern, he presents a reconstruction in which Rom 10:5 and 10:6 are not antithetical but “synonymous.” Stanley Stowers, in his rereading of Romans, similarly understands vs. 5 and 6 as in continuity rather than in opposition and argues against a supersessionist reading of these verses, which contrasts doing and believing.88 Others have rejected such readings and prefer to read the δέ connecting vs. 5 and 6 as adversative.89 In what follows, I wish to suspend the question of Paul and the commandments and focus on the hermeneutical aspect instead. Those who played-down the antithesis between Rom 10:5 and 10:6 have often supported their reading by questioning the possibility that Paul would pit scripture against itself.90 While

86 87 88

89

90

Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932), 164–66; Koch, Die Schrift, 153–60; Belli, Argumentation, 239–48.; Akio Ito, “Νόμος (τῶν) ἔργων and νόμος πίστεως: The Pauline Rhetoric and Theology of νόμος,” NovT 45.3 (2003): 237–59. The words of Koch, Die Schrift, 131. But see also Käsemann, Romans, 284; Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 130. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 76. See Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 308–12. For other interpretations of “doing” as “believing” albeit with different results, see Ragnar Bring, Christus Und Das Gesetz (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 54; Wagner, Heralds, 160; John Paul Heil, “Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30–10:8),” CBQ 63.3 (2001): 488. For some examples, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10:4–5,” WTJ 55 (1993): 113–35; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 645–50; Arthur J. Dewey, “A Re-hearing of Romans 10:1–15,” Semeia 65.2 (1994): 116; Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 303–4, 324 n. 34. See e.g., Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast Or Continuum?: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 67–69; Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 123; Glenn N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4, JSNTsup 39 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 194; W.S. Campbell, “Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4,” in Studia Biblica III: Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies Oxford 3–7 April 1978, by E.A. Livingstone, JSNTsup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 78; C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical

58

chapter 1

this question does not successfully support discounting the antithesis between the two types of righteousness in Rom 10, it is nonetheless a reasonable question from the perspective of the history of hermeneutics, and very much worthy of our consideration. If indeed Paul actively generates Deut 30:12–14 through the reformulation of its scriptural language as antithetical to Lev 18:5, then it is curious—and in the wider context of scriptural exegesis of the first century, truly exceptional—that this antithesis is not presented as one that calls for resolution.91 Contradictions and discrepancies between biblical verses are a fundamental motive for interpretation. Scripture, and specifically the Pentateuch, is filled with incompatibilities and we find all genres of Jewish literature of late antiquity repeatedly addressing scriptural incompatibilities and smoothing them out. This has been understood to imply that all of these literatures (rewritten Bible; targum; midrash) share a common conception of Torah as unified and divine, and as such unequivocal and consistent. If this is true, Paul in Romans 10 positions himself almost completely outside of this traditional concept of scripture when he pits the scriptural words of the righteousness by pistis against those of Moses/righteousness by the law, while leaving the seeming incompatibility unresolved. In light of the Jewish hermeneutics of antiquity, it is outstanding that Paul would generate an antithesis within scripture and then leave it unresolved. For the Dead Sea Scrolls,92 Philo (and Alexandrian exegetes before

91

92

and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), II:521–22. Compare Dunn, who says: “the argument that Paul would not set scripture against scripture cannot stand. Rather we should say he follows good Jewish hermeneutical precedent in consulting different scriptures to see if he can resolve the difficulty he now perceives in the characteristic Jewish understanding of Lev 18:5.” Dunn, Romans 9–16, 602. Dunn then proceeds to explain how Paul solves the contradiction between the verses in what seems to be a farfetched interpretation, see ibid., 613. I therefore follow Dunn in his first statement but not the last. Paul does set scripture against scripture in Rom 10, but in this, rather than following good Jewish hermeneutical precedent, he differs from contemporary Jewish hermeneutics. Paul does not reinterpret Lev 18:5 so as to harmonize it with his rewritten Deut 30—as would be the common exegetical custom in Jewish texts from antiquity—rather, the tension between the verses stands in Rom 10. On scriptural harmonization in the Temple Scroll see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the ‘Temple Scroll,’” RdQ 15.4 (60) (1992): 543–67; M. Weinfeld, “God Versus Moses in the Temple Scroll,” RdQ 15.1/2 (57/58) (1991): 175–80; Israel Knohl, “The Bible Reworked at Qumran: The Temple Scroll and 4QRewroked Pentateuch,” in The Qumran Scrolls and their World (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 157–58 [Hebrew]; Jacob Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Offering,” RdQ 16.3

Scripture Reconceived

59

him),93 and the Tannaim after them94 scriptural incompatibilities are elementary exegetical incentives. We have countless instances in which these texts raise two conflicting verses in order to harmonize tensions and generate new scriptural meanings. When scripture is equivocal and inconsistent these literatures are hermeneutically invested in generating consistency.95 Yet in Rom 10:5–13 it is a mere textual reality that two polarized types of righteousness both exist within scripture and that within the context of Paul’s gospel to the gentiles one is preferred to the other. Why does Paul not solve the tension between Lev 18:5 and the redacted passages from Deut 30? A new reading of Rom 3 presents us with the possibility of answering this question. In what follows I will argue that Paul presents us with a notion of double-torah that has so far been overlooked. Israel Yuval has attempted to make a similar claim, but the textual path he takes is unconvincing.96 According to Yuval, Paul is “the first one to speak in a clear manner of two divine laws: the Law of Moses (which he refers to by the word “Law,” without modification), and the law of Christ.”97 Yuval understands Paul in 1 Cor 9:20–21 as abrogating the Law of Moses that is a text, and subjugating himself and others to

93

94

95 96

97

(63) (1994): 449–56; Cana Werman and Aharon Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakha in the Qumran Scrolls (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2011), 64–65 [Hebrew]. On harmonization in the Damascus Document and other Qumran works see Moshe J. Bernstein and Shlomo A. Koyfman, “The Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 80–85. Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 139–45; Francesca Calabi, The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of Alexandria, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 188 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 102. See for example, Menahem I. Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages,Part 2: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al., CRINT 3b (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006), 8, 14 n. 55; David Henshke, “Studies in the Method of ‘Shnei Ketuvim Hamkhishim zeh et zeh,’” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 11.1 (1993): 39–46 [Hebrew]; David Henshke, “The Rabbis’ Approach to Biblical Self-Contradictions,” Sidra 10 (1994): 39–55 [Hebrew]; Azzan Yadin-Israel, “Shnei Ketuvim and Rabbinic Indetermination,” JSJ 33.4 (2002): 386–410. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 15–19. Israel Jacob Yuval, “The Orality of Jewish Oral Law: From Pedagogy to Ideology,” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the Course of History: Exchange and Conflicts, ed. Lothar Gall and Dietmar Willoweit, Schriften Des Historischen Kollegs 82 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2011), 237–60. Yuval, “The Orality of Jewish Oral Law,” 239. With reference to 1 Cor 9:21.

60

chapter 1

the law of Christ, that is: “not a text, but rather the living teaching which Paul disseminates to the Gentiles through his epistles and his sermons—in other words, it is an oral teaching or Torah.”98 But there are several problems with this proposal. First, Paul cannot be understood as abrogating the Law and turning away from the Torah of Moses as a text, when only a few passages earlier he says about a citation from Deuteronomy: “does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake.”99 Viewing Paul as negating Torah renders his rhetoric—so deeply immersed in scripture in all of his letters— completely senseless: Paul speaks his gospel with and through verses from the Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings. Second, nowhere do we find the “law of Christ” presented as oral, or as anti-text. But a double-nomos is found elsewhere in Paul’s writing. It has so far gone unnoticed, perhaps because of the persisting image of Paul as antinomian. Scholars, mainly of the New Perspective on Paul school, have repeatedly and justifiably criticized the representation of Paul as antinomian and as such, preaching a law-free or Torah-free gospel.100 Nevertheless, according to Paula Fredriksen: “This Paul—anti-Jewish, antiritual, anti-Torah—continues to flourish in academic publications, not least of all because he is so usable theologically. Indeed, this theological usability (hardly an accident, given the intellectual and social genealogy of Western Christendom) is sometimes even held up as a criterion of successful historical reconstruction.”101 The prevalence of the anti-Torah Paul, generated misreadings that prevented scholars from comparing his nomos with other conceptualizations of torah in Jewish antiquity.102 As I will argue below, scholars who identify with the New Perspective on Paul school have also been unable to recognize the two nomoi in Paul because they have been committed to minimizing the difference between faith/works that is inextricably tied to Paul’s double-nomos. But when read more accurately, Paul’s concept of torah can help to establish a new understanding not only of Paul’s pitting of scripture against scripture in Romans 10, but also of the genealogy of the Tannaitic concept of Oral Torah and Written Torah. 98 Yuval, “The Orality of Jewish Oral Law,” 239. 99 1 Cor 9:9–10. 100 Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 197–247; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 76–79; Fredriksen, Paul, 110, 227 n. 29; Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 169–73. 101 Fredriksen, Paul, 109. 102 In this regard Israel Yuval’s article is the exception, presenting Paul as antinomian and at the same time as sharing a conception of Torah with Judaisms around him, particularly rabbinic culture.

Scripture Reconceived

61

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 whom God put forward for himself (προέθετο) as a hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον; lit. “conciliation”), through faithfulness in his blood, in order to reveal his justice because of the passing over of sins already committed, in God’s forbearance,103 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law of works? No, because of the law of trust (διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως). 28 For we maintain that a person is righteoused by trust apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles too? Yes, of gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith? 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law (νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν).104 Like Romans 10:5–13, Romans 3:19–31 is dedicated to the establishment of the concept of righteousness by pistis and its relationship to scripture. The Torah, as νόμος τῶν ἔργων (Rom 3:27), is portrayed as addressing only the Jews (vs. 19), and as such, presents an ineffective path of righteousness for gentiles.105 It is through a different nomos, the nomos of pistis that righteousness is truly available to them. The meaning of these two instances of nomos has been a source of much writing and disagreement in scholarship. In supersessionist readings Paul’s gospel is “law-free” and accordingly law and Christ/gospel are antithetical.106 103 Translation of this verse from Aaron Glaim, Rethinking Jesus as Sin Sacrifice in the Pauline Epistles (Forthcoming). 104 Rom 3:19–31. 105 Rom 3:19–20. 106 See on this Fredriksen, Paul, 110, 227 n. 29.

62

chapter 1

This framework generates serious problems in understanding Romans 3: when nomos and pistis are thought to be antithetical, then the term “law of faith” is a true puzzle, often presented as a paradox. Scholars have produced in recent decades a variety of interpretations in order to solve the conundrum, explain the term and still keep nomos and pistis separate. Several scholars have opted to interpret the nomos in nomos pisteōs as “principle.” According to Heikki Räisänen, the “law” in “law of faith” is only used metaphorically or as word play, and is not a law at all, but an “order” or “principle.”107 This interpretation has been adopted by several prominent scholars.108 Other scholars understand nomos pisteōs to denote the “Law of Moses,” but are invested in the Law/ Christ antithesis and therefore claim that the “law of faith” is the love command (Lev 19:18).109 Both of these explanations are far from satisfying, because they represent Paul as anti-Torah: Marking nomos pisteōs as the opposite of the Torah or law of Moses (the result of interpreting nomos pisteōs as “principle of faith”) or as a single commandment within the laws of Moses does not fit with Paul’s expansive reliance on and use of scripture in Rom 3:19–31 itself, as elsewhere. Interpreting nomos pisteōs as the Torah of Moses should be preferred. Several scholars have taken this route,110 yet they either minimized the scope of this “Torah of Moses” (as including merely the love command), or neglected to unfold the hermeneutical implications of equating nomos pisteōs with Torah, perhaps because of a theological focus. Nomos is indeed best understood as “Torah,” and Rom 3 should be read not only as an argument against boasting, but as an argument against the claim that Paul is nullifying Torah (vs. 31). This formulation has vast hermeneutical implications. The terms ‘Torah of deeds’ and ‘Torah of trust’ should both be 107 Heikki Räisänen, “Paul’s Word-Play on Nomos: A Linguistic Study,” in Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays, JSNTsup 43 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 69–94. See also Moo, Romans, 247–50. 108 Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 122–26; Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 335 n. 68; Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 195–200. 109 Victor Paul Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1973). 110 See e.g., Gerhard Friedrich, “Das Gesetz des Glaubens Röm. 3, 27,” TZ 10 (1954): 401–16; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 186–87; Cranfield, Romans, 218–20. For an overview and summary of this trend and its implications for other Pauline texts, see also Todd A. Wilson, “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation,” CurBR 5.1 (2006): 123–44.

Scripture Reconceived

63

understood as referring to scripture, that is, as different facets of Torah itself. According to Rom 3, after the coming of Christ, Torah holds two distinct voices: (1) the Torah of works, prescribing ordinances to the Jews; (2) the Torah of faith, speaking to “all.” As Romans 3:21 clearly states, both of these paths are within scripture: “But now apart from the law (νόμου), the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Torah and the Prophets testify (μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν).” Paula Fredriksen and Matthew Thiessen have provided useful—though different—analyses of Paul’s conceptualization of the laws that the gentiles must adopt, that may help us understand Paul’s rhetoric in Romans 3, overshadowed by Protestantized readings of Paul’s mission to the gentiles as antilegalistic. Paul should be understood here as conceptualizing Torah differently for Jews and the ethnē. While the Jews are covenanted to the full breadth of ritual commands prescribed in the Torah, gentiles, who are Paul’s interlocutors, are not. Fredriksen argues that Paul interpolates his audience as ethnē, thus stripping them from their specific ethnic identities and gathering them as a collective conceptualized as not-Israel,111 while, at the same time, tying them (pneumatically and then ritually) to the Jewish god. For gentiles to be saved as gentiles, they must not become proselytes,112 but are nevertheless commanded to renounce their ethnic gods (no graven images) and exclusively worship the god of Israel. And it is by trust in the Jewish god that the gentiles receive pneuma and are able to keep the laws that speak to them. Thus, Fredriksen urges us to think of Paul precisely as Judaizing the nations, with all of the paradoxicality the term carries: the gentiles are Judaized yet do not become “Israel” or “Jews” (i.e., an ethnic divide is erected and maintained between Israel and the ethnē), and at the same time they are indeed Judaized, by adopting the Jewish god as their own as well as his customs.113 Thiessen does not view Paul as Judaizing the gentiles as Fredriksen does,114 but similarly urges that Paul 111 See on this also Adi Ophir and Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 140–78. 112 Thiessen argues more firmly, that Paul claims they cannot become proselytes as they cannot fulfill the “entire law” since they cannot circumcise on the eighth day. Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 60–64. Yet I think his reading of Paul together with Jubilees to substantiate his point is unconvincing. 113 Fredriksen has argued this point from different angles. See Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel”; Fredriksen, “The Ten Commandments”; Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God?”; Fredriksen, Paul. Thus, Fredriksen names Paul’s gentiles-in-Christ “ex-pagan pagans,” to stress their paradoxical relationship with the Jewish god without indeed becoming Jews. 114 And thus continues to speak about Paul as opposed to Judaization, see for example: “Rather, Paul has abandoned one message directed toward gentiles, Judaization, for

64

chapter 1

insists on a different path of attachment to and salvation by Israel’s god for Jews (with circumcision) and gentiles (without circumcision) that should not be confused.115 Both of these are attested to in scripture. Our present interest lies in precisely this last point: Paul argues that scripture speaks to both Jews and ethnē, and in Romans 3 says more specifically that there are two nomoi in Torah. My reading also explains how Paul “upholds” the Torah (Rom 3:31). Torah is upheld by making it meaningful to his gentile audience, a goal he achieves with the notion that scripture contains a doublenomos: the “nomos of works” which is for the Jews and ineffective or even futile for gentiles-in-Christ, according to Paul, and nomos pisteōs which is the torah that speaks to and of gentile Christ followers. And so, after what seemed to be a blatant rejection of scripture in Romans 3:19–26, Paul follows with the very establishment of the authority of Torah in vs. 31 and then actively continues to ground “righteousness by trust” in scripture in the Abraham pericope in Romans 4. Perhaps because Romans 4 presents a reading of an Abrahamic narrative, Richard B. Hays has claimed that in the scriptural manifesto of Romans 3 Paul rejects the law and embraces narrative in its place.116 Yet nowhere does Paul say that the “torah of trust” is generically different from the “torah of works,” and this is also not his practice when he uses scripture to present his gospel to the gentiles. Paul uses scripture to teach his audience how to act and behave

another message also directed toward gentiles, a circumcision-free gospel of Jesus Christ” Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 41. 115 “Paul argues that his readers should not worry themselves about their position, only about the commandments that pertain to that position…. He argues that Jews should keep the laws that God gave to them, while gentiles should be satisfied with the laws that God has laid upon them, not coveting those laws that God has given to Jews alone” Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 10. A similar logic allows Fredriksen to explain Paul’s perplexing argument about the law in Romans 7, on the one hand defending its goodness (Rom 7:12, 14, 16) and asserting its part of the problem (Rom 7:8). Is Paul speaking of two laws in Romans 7, a Law of God and a law of sin? Fredriksen explains: “Paul’s point in this snarled passage then, would not be to lament some general impossibility of living according to the precepts of Jewish law … but rather to lament the futility of a non-Christ-following gentile’s efforts to do so. Gentiles can fulfill (some) Jewish law, Paul urges, and they should. But, as he emphasizes here and elsewhere, gentiles are enabled to do so solely through Christ (Rom 7:25), or through the spirit of God or of Christ (Rom 8:1–11).” Fredriksen, Paul, 124. Fredriksen explanation shows, I believe, that the law of god/law of sin distinction in Romans 7, differs from the two-Torot distinction I retrace here with regards to Romans 3. 116 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 156–58.

Scripture Reconceived

65

within the community,117 and so Romans 3 should rather be taken plainly: scripture holds, according to Paul, two nomoi, and it is through the torah of trust that he speaks to his community. It is the first step of Paul’s hermeneutics to extract, select and interpret the words which “speak” his gospel, the words that testify to the righteousness by trust. The notion of the double-torah as unfolded in Rom 3 explains and legitimizes the pitting of scripture against scripture and the unresolved antithesis in Rom 10. A profound tension exists between the scriptural textuality of the righteousness by deeds and that of the righteousness by trust, and Paul is invested in extracting and interpreting the latter. Paul laboriously establishes the textuality of the righteousness by trust: it is produced by intertextualization, decontextualization and recontextualization. Paul’s dissociation of Deuteronomy 30 from the theme of the law is in fact a sophisticated textual maneuver: he extracts the “torah of trust” from within the “torah of deeds.” In this case then, the very same text contains both nomoi, and Paul, as presenter of scripture to his gentile audience, draws out and amplifies the voice of the torah of trust from within it.118 3.3 Is Paul Using shnei ketuvim? Though no notion of this magnitude exists within Tannaitic literature, the Pauline tension between Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 10 brings to mind a possible affinity to the midrashic rule (middah) shnei ketuvim that, according to the extended formulation in the Sifra, states the following: 119.‫שני כתובין מכחישין זה את זה עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם‬ Two verses contradict each other, until a third verse comes and decides between them.

117 For example: Should they cover their head in the assembly? (1 Cor 11:7, cf. Gen 1:26–27; 1 Cor 11:8, cf. Gen 2:21–23); what can they eat? (1 Cor 10:25, cf. Ps 23:1); Why must they financially support his apostleship? (1 Cor 9:9 cf. Deut 25:4). 118 Francis Watson has also pointed out that for Paul ‘righteousness by faith’ and ‘righteousness by works’ both exist within Deut 30: “contending with one another like Esau and Jacob in their mother’s womb.” Though he does not tie Rom 10 and 3 together as this study does, he does point out Paul’s hermeneutical work to generate the “Strange new voice that avails itself of the words of Deuteronomy.” See Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 314. 119 Sifra Nedava 1, 1 (ed. Finkelstein, 4).

66

chapter 1

The verb tenses in this middah imply that two verses [presently] stand in contradiction and await the future entrance of a third verse that will resolve it. Textually speaking, all verses are of course simultaneously existent within scripture, and so an implicit metaphor emerges: the middah constructs the opposing verses as if standing in trial awaiting a third person, a witness. David Henshke and Menachem Kahana have both opposed the possibility that the role of the third verse is to corroborate one possibility within the disagreement thus “doing away” with the other. They both have preferred that ‫יכריע ביניהם‬ means not “to determine” but rather “to generate a compromise.”120 Indeed, homilies that use shnei ketuvim generally tend to reconcile the parties, as several of their features attest: (1) in most cases of shnei ketuvim the midrash does not seek a third verse to exclude one possibility but seeks to harmonize the textual possibilities without the aid of a third verse121; (2) the question in these homilies is most commonly built according to the following structure122: ?‫ כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובין אלו‬Y ‫ וכתוב אחד אמר‬X ‫כתוב אחד אמר‬

One verse says X And the other verse says Y; How may both verses be up-kept? The homilies commonly seek to allow both verses to “stand,” and from the outset (when the problem is presented but not yet solved) the derashah demands a harmonization of the verses. One must nevertheless ask if we find any cases of shnei ketuvim in which ‫ יכריע ביניהם‬is understood simply as a third verse adjudicating the contradiction by ruling against one of them? Henshke answers this question with a resounding no. Yet one example of this kind of midrash shnei ketuvim is found in the name of Rabbi Akiva in the Mekhilta:

120 Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text, 205–11; Henshke, “The Rabbis’ Approach to Biblical Self-Contradictions”; Menahem I. Kahana, Commentary on Sifre Numbers (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2011), II:393 n. 13 [Hebrew]. 121 Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” (ed. Safrai et al.), 14 n. 55; Henshke, “Shnei Ketuvim”; Yadin-Israel, “Shnei Ketuvim.” 122 See e.g., Mek. RI Pisha 4 (ed. Horovitz, 13); 8 (ed. Horovitz, 27); 14 (ed. Horovitz, 50); Shira 4 (ed. Horovitz, 124); 4 (ed. Horovitz, 131); Bahodesh 11 (ed. Horovitz, 242); Nezikin 7 (ed. Horovitz, 274); Kaspa 20 (ed. Horovitz, 323) = 20 (ed. Horovitz, 325); 20 (ed. Horovitz, 330); Sifre Zuta Num. 7, 89 (ed. Kahana, 254) and many other cases.

Scripture Reconceived

67

‫ וכת׳ אחד או׳ ”מן הכשבים ומן העזים‬123‫ כת׳ אחד או׳ ”וזבחת פסח” וג׳‬:‫ר׳ עקיב׳ או׳‬ ‫ שני כתובים זה‬.‫ זו מידה בתורה‬:‫ כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים הללו? אמרת‬124.”‫תקחו‬ ‫כנגד זה וסותרים זה על ידי זה ומתקיימין במקומן עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע‬ 126.‫־צאן לפסח ולא בקר לפסח‬125‫ ”משכו וקחו לכם צאן” וגו׳‬.‫ביניהן‬

Rabbi Akiva says: one verse says “sacrifice the Passover [to the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd]”127 and one verse says “you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats”128 how may both of these verses be up-kept? This is a middah of the Torah. Two verses one against the other, and that contradict one another exist in their respective places until a third verse will come and decide between them. “draw out and take you lambs [according to your families and kill the Passover]”129—lambs for the Passover and not cattle for the Passover. The verse from Deuteronomy is “done away with,” so to speak, as Rabbi Akiva rules against it and prefers the version that commands to take the Passover from the flock—and not from the cattle. Henshke, followed by Kahana, presents this singular case as a philological anomaly from which nothing can be concluded. He points out the peculiarity of Rabbi Akiva using a Rabbi Ishmaelian rule of interpretation; the attribution of the rule in a way that differs from the common language associated with the rule in midrash; Rabbi Akiva’s refusal to harmonize the verses, though harmonizing interpretations already exist before him in rabbinic culture. Hence, Henshke concludes, no midrashic case of “doing away” with a scriptural witness exists. Is Paul using here the midrashic tool of shnei ketuvim? I believe the answer is no. Paul does not decide between Leviticus 18:5 and the verses from Deuteronomy 30 by appeal to a third prooftext (katuv shlishi) that sides with one of them. Furthermore, the Tannaitic rule explicitly seeks to maintain both verses (?‫“ כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים הללו‬How may both of these verses be upkept?”), and Paul does not. And yet both the derashah by rabbi Akiva and the language of the Ishmaelian rule itself suggests a split in Torah conceptually 123 ‫ר־יִב ַ ֣חר ה׳ ְל ַׁש ֵ ּ֥כן ְׁש ֖מֹו ָ ֽׁשם׃‬ ְ ‫קֹום ֲא ֶׁש‬ ֙ ‫ֹלהיָך ֹ ֣צאן וּבָ ָ ֑קר ַּב ָּמ‬ ֖ ֶ ‫( וְ זָ ַ ֥ב ְח ָּת ֶּפ ַ֛סח ַלה׳ ֱא‬Deut 16:2). 124 ‫ן־ה ִע ִ ּ֖זים ִּת ָ ּֽקחּו׃‬ ָ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‫ן־ה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂ֥שים‬ ַ ‫ן־ׁש ָנ֖ה יִ ְה ֶי ֣ה ָל ֶכ֑ם ִמ‬ ָ ‫( ֶ ׂ֥שה ָת ִ ֛מים זָ ָ ֥כר ֶּב‬Exod 12:5). 125 ‫ּוק ֨חּו ָל ֶ ֥כם ֛צ ֹאן ְל ִמ ְׁש ְּפח ֵֹת ֶיכ֖ם וְ ַׁש ֲח ֥טּו ַה ָ ּֽפ ַסח׃‬ ְ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶ ֑הם ִ ֽמ ְׁש ֗כּו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ָ ֥רא מ ֶ ֹׁ֛שה ְל ָכל־זִ ְק ֵנ֥י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל וַ ּ֣י‬ (Exod 12:21). 126 Mek. RI Pisha 4 (ed. Horovitz, 13). 127 Deut 16:2. 128 Exod 12:5. 129 Exod 12:21.

68

chapter 1

similar to the one I have reconstructed in Paul, as they suggest that one of the disputing verses is outweighed, pray, even wrong. Though we find traces of this idea in Tannaitic culture it is thoroughly marginalized, and is never presented as an overarching characteristic of Torah, as Paul claims in Romans 3. 3.4 The Twofold Nomos, Oral and Written If my reading of Romans 3 as establishing a twofold-torah within scripture is correct, then the distinction between the “torah of trust” and the “torah of deeds” is allied in Romans 10 with a distinction between the written and the oral. Moses writes about the righteousness by deeds, whereas the righteousness by trust speaks. Some scholars have minimized the distinction, yet I side with those who have argued for its centrality.130 Paul in Romans 10 scripturalizes the righteousness by trust, and he generates its textuality as speech. If only difference was only limited to the introductory formulae (graphei vs. legei), the distinction would have indeed been weak, for as we know, graphei and legei are used in Paul (and in other ancient texts) more or less interchangeably. But in Romans 10 there is a connection between the introductory formula and what is included and omitted from Deuteronomy 30. The words of the righteousness by trust are about speech: “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your trust and are saved.” What is omitted from Deuteronomy 30 is not only the theme of law, as scholars have recognized, but also the oral nature of that law. Deuteronomy says about the commandment: “It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven to bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” And so, Paul’s selective usage of these verses, not only leaves out “deeds” but also leaves out the fact that the verses speak of the law as auditory or oral.131 Paul actively generates the scripture of 130 Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q, Voices in Performance and Text (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997); Käsemann, Romans, 287. Though I disagree with other, Lutheran, aspects of their interpretations, they have rightly pointed to the theme of orality in Rom 10. See also Dewey, “A Re-hearing of Romans 10:1–15.” 131 This claim should also be considered broadly, against the backdrop of the rise of writing into prominence in ancient Israel, and the role the notion of writing played in the history of scriptural interpretation, specifically, in the book of Jubilees. On this see Hindy Najman, Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity, JSJsup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–38.

Scripture Reconceived

69

righteousness by deeds as written, and the scripture of righteousness by trust as spoken. When Romans 3 and Romans 10 are read together, the Torah of trust can be understood as an oral torah and the torah of deeds as written, and in the context of Paul’s gospel to the gentiles, one is preferred to other. There are other manifestations of the preference for the spoken word to the written in Paul’s letters that support my reconstruction of Paul’s oral nomos. Judith Newman has persuasively pointed out Paul’s preference for living speech that she contextualizes in a general preference in Graeco-Roman antiquity for oral teaching.132 Paul’s gospel is an oral message to be proclaimed, and his letters should be generally understood on a continuum with oral practices.133 The oral is preferred to the written also in the letter/spirit divide in 2 Corinthians 3:2–6: You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts…. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The letter/spirit distinction in 2 Corinthians 3 has been largely over-played in scholarship and read as a testament to Paul’s rejection of Torah. But as has been already established, this claim is unfounded and cannot guide our reading.134 2 Corinthians 3 accords with Paul’s concept of Torah in Romans 10 and 3. In both Romans 10:5–13 and in 2 Corinthians 3 we find a devaluation of writing, the latter case more poignant. But the devaluation of writing is not a rejection of scripture in general: In Romans 10:5–13 the preference for the oral is creatively utilized in the manufacturing of a written(!) authoritative text. 132 Newman compares Paul’s preference for the oral to the figure of the maskil in the DSS, see Judith H. Newman, “Speech and Spirit: Paul and the Maskil as Inspired Interpreters of Scripture,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, Ekstasis 5 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 241– 64., and points out the centrality of oral teaching in Ben Sira, see Judith H. Newman, Before the Bible: The Liturgical Body and the Formation of Scriptures in Early Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 44–45. In both of these cases she argues, following Loveday Alexander, that credible teaching was performed by a teacher in antiquity. In Graeco-Roman antiquity a living teacher was preferred to written texts. Ben Sira, the Hodayot and Paul participate in this practice, but none of these texts use oral teaching to supersede written texts. 133 See Eve-Marie Becker, Letter Hermeneutics in 2 Corinthians: Studies in “Literarkritik” and Communication Theory, JSNTsup 279 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 37–38. 134 See similarly, Newman, “Speech and Spirit,” 260.

70

chapter 1

The “theoretical” distinction between letter and spirit in 2 Corinthians 3 is in Romans 10 internal to scripture itself, not as a distinction between textual/ non-textual but as a dual aspect of scripture. Paul’s strategy in Romans 10 and 3, as I have reconstructed it here, is to make a division within scripture that allows him to marginalize many commandments with regards to the salvation of gentiles, while embracing and promoting other scriptures for them, re-presented as oral and living teaching. 3.5 A New Pauline Perspective on Oral Torah and Written Torah The evidence in Paul calls for a reevaluation of the genealogy and emergence of the rabbinic terminology of Oral Torah/Written Torah. The distinction between Written Torah (‫ )תורה שבכתב‬and Oral Torah (‫ )תורה שבעל פה‬is considered to be one of the defining markers of rabbinic culture, and scholars have been occupied with the question of its origin. The terms appear explicitly for the first time in Tannaitic literature, but many understand them to reflect a late Second Temple and specifically Pharisaic concept. This early dating is achieved by mapping the Tannaitic terminology onto other terms used in earlier sources. Those who conversely understand Oral Torah/Written Torah to be a later—Tannaitic—distinction have usually relied on a different reading of the same limited body of evidence. Yet, it is more methodologically and historically sound to move away from the question of the origins of Oral Torah/Written Torah, which implies a singular and traceable moment of birth from which Oral Torah/Written Torah linearly developed. There are two main reasons for this. First, scholars rely on limited and disputable Second Temple evidence to ascribe an early date to the Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction, namely, Ant. 13.297. Josephus describes the Pharisees as having a paradosis apart from the Torah of Moses, a position that the Sadducees, who held to the authority of the Torah alone, rejected. Those who rely on Ant. 13.297 to establish an early date for the distinction,135 do so by triangulating Josephus’ description with 135 Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic Paradosis”; Noam, Megillat Ta‌ʾanit, 206–15; Werman, “Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s)”; Yaakov Sussman, Oral Law—Taken Literally: The Power of the Tip of a Yod (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2019) [Hebrew] (= Talmudic Studies 3, 2005, 209– 384); Peter Schäfer, “Das ‘Dogma’ von der mündlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum,” in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, by Peter Schäfer, AGJU 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 153–97; Shmuel Safrai, “Oral Tora,” in The Literature of the Sages: Part 1, Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson, CRINT Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 3a (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1987), 35–119; Urbach, The Sages, 254–78; Abraham Rosenthal, “Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai—Law and Practice,” Meḥqerei Talmud 2 (1993): 448–89 [Hebrew]; Yonatan Sagiv,

Scripture Reconceived

71

some rabbinic sources that attribute the terms to Second Temple sages.136 But they mainly refer to the Scholion to Megillat Ta‌ʾanit, which speaks of a disagreement between the sages and the Boethusians137 about the permissibility of writing halakhah in a book.138 This cluster of sources is then used to establish a genealogical link between the Pharisees and the Tannaim and mark a continuity between the Josephan terminology and the Tannaitic terms. Josephus’ account in Ant. 13.297 is the only Second Temple source used by these scholars to establish an early date for the Tannaitic Oral Torah/Written Torah. Yet, Josephus’ description can hardly be identified with or translated into the Tannaitic distinction. Indeed, Martin Goodman, Steve Mason, Martin Jaffee and Steven Fraade have separately rejected any such identification. Instead, these scholars attribute other meanings to the Pharisaic paradosis and ascribe a later date—within Tannaitic culture—to the Oral Torah/ Written Torah distinction.139 Steven Fraade has gone further and describes the Tannaitic Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction as a radical departure from Second Temple varieties of Judaism.140 Josephus in Ant. 13.297 speaks of “regulations” (nomima) that the Pharisees received as tradition from the fathers that were not written in the laws of Moses. Steve Mason has shown that Josephus is not claiming that these observances were transmitted orally (only that they are not written in the laws of Moses).141 Furthermore, when Josephus speaks of Pharisaic nomima, he should not be understood as presenting them as another

136 137 138 139

140 141

“Studies in Early Rabbinic Hermeneutics As Reflected in Selected Chapters in the Sifra” (PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009), 57 [Hebrew]. In Tannaitic literature Sifre Deut §351 (ed. Finkelstein, 408). On the identification of the Boethusians as Sadducees, see Eyal Regev, The Sadducees and their Halakhah: Religion and Society in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2005), 32–58 [Hebrew]. For a comprehensive assessment of scholarship and some of the misrepresentations of the Scholion to Meg. Ta‌ʾan. on 4th Tamuz, see Noam, Megillat Ta‌ʾanit, 206–15. Martin Goodman explains the Pharisaic paradosis in Josephus as “traditional behavior rather than traditional teachings,” see Martin Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays, AGJU 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 118. Martin Jaffee’s in his study of “Torah in the mouth” concludes that while many Jews—the Pharisees among them—transmitted their ancient traditions orally in Second Temple Judaism there was not yet a concept of “Torah in the Mouth.” See Martin S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE to 400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 39–61. See also Steven D. Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, JSJsup 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 372–74; Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. Fraade, Legal Fictions, 372–74. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 243. See also Fraade, Legal Fictions, 373.

72

chapter 1

Torah of Sinaitic origins, but rather, as “observances” or “regulations.”142 Only later sources, such as the Scholion of Megillat Ta‌ʾanit, present the Second Temple sages as speaking of an “unwritten Torah” alongside the Written Torah,143 but this formulation should not be retrojected onto the account in Antiquities. Second, within rabbinic literature (both Tannaitic and Amoraic) Oral Torah/ Written Torah is only one configuration of torah among several others. The discourse of “origins” in scholarship often assumes Oral Torah/Written Torah to be the solidified endpoint of an evolutionary process, and presents the distinction as rabbinic “dogma,”144 “doctrine,”145 or “theology.”146 These borrowed terms overshadow the fact that within rabbinic literature itself we find variegated, pluriform conceptions of torah. In a well-known source, the Tannaim explicitly debate whether there are two Torot, one Torah or indeed many: “These are the statutes (‫ )החקים‬and ordinances (‫ )המשפטים‬and laws (‫( ”)והתורות‬Lev 26:46): “statutes”—these are the midrashim, “ordinances”— these are the deductions, “laws”—this teaches us that two Torot were given to Israel, one in script and one in the mouth. Said Rabbi Akiva: Were (only) two Torot given to Israel? Many torot were given to them! As it says: “This is the ritual (lit., torah) of the burnt offering” (Lev 6:2); “This is the ritual (lit., torah) of the sin offering” (Lev 6:14) “This is the ritual (lit., torah) of the grain offering” (Lev 6:7); “This is the ritual (lit., torah) of the sacrifice of the offering of well-being” (Lev 7:11); “This is the law (lit., torah) when someone dies in a tent” (Num 19:14); “This is the torah that the Lord established between himself and the people of Israel on Mount 142 These are either legal traditions that are transmitted orally, as per Jaffee (Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 39–61.), or are traditional behaviors (rather than teaching) as per Goodman. see Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World, 118; See also, Fraade, Legal Fictions, 373. 143 The sages present a derasha to the Boethusians: “it is said: ‘in accordance with these words (‫ )על פי הדברים האלה‬I have made a covenant with you and with Israel’ (Exod 34:27) ‘According to the law (‫ )על פי התורה‬which they shall teach thee’ (Deut 17:11)—this teaches that one should not write [halakhot] in a book.” (Scholion to Meg. Ta‌ʾan. on 4th Tamuz, see Noam, Megillat Ta‌ʾanit, 206.) Exodus speaks explicitly of Torah in this verse. And so by citing this verse this tradition presents the halakhot that should not be written down as Torah. 144 Schäfer, “Das ‘Dogma’ von der mündlichen Torah.” 145 Steven D. Fraade, “Concepts of Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism: Oral Torah and Written Torah,” in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, by Benjamin D. Sommer (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 35. 146 Martin S. Jaffee, “How Much ‘Orality’ in Oral Torah?: New Perspectives on the Composition and Transmission of Early Rabbinic Tradition,” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 10.2 (1992): 59.

Scripture Reconceived

73

Sinai through Moses” (fused verses from Deut 4:44 and Lev 26:46)—this teaches you that the Torah, halakha, their details and interpretations were given through Moses in Sinai.147 The discussion in the Sifra shows that the distinction between the two Torot, Written and Oral, was disputed in the second century CE. According to the first, anonymous, opinion in the Sifra, written scripture is one Torah and oral another. Yet Rabbi Akiva uses the multiplicity of torot mentioned within scripture to promote the singularity of Torah and its interpretation. In other words, Rabbi Akiva argues against the dual-Torah terminology. Other Tannaitic sources share this view of a single Torah with Rabbi Akiva.148 The distinction between Oral Torah/Written Torah appears only once more in Tannaitic literature,149 and in the Mishnah it does not appear at all.150 Categories that are used more frequently in Tannaitic literature divide the realm of torah in other ways. The Tannaim most often use the terms mikra and mishnah. Terminology matters: the mikra/mishnah distinction does not present an understanding of two Torot of equal standing—mishnah is not presented as torah at all. Moreover, the terms cannot be straightforwardly mapped onto the polarity of Oral Torah/ Written Torah,151 since mikra and mishnah often appear not as a pair but rather as part of a list (such as: mikra, mishnah, halakhot and aggadot). Even when the terms Oral Torah/Written Torah eventually become more prominent (in 147 Sifra Behuqotai 2, 7 (112, 3). In his discussion of this homily, Yonatan Sagiv suggested that Rabbi Akiva’s opinion does not represent a view of multiple Torot, but his argument is not compelling. See Sagiv, “Studies in Early Rabbinic Hermeneutics,” 56–60. 148 “When the speech came out of God’s mouth, Israel saw it and learned from it. And they knew how much midrash was in it, how much halakhah was in it, how many inferences a minore ad maius were in it and how many lexical analogies in it” (Sifre Deut §313, ed. Finkelstein, 355). 149 “‘And Israel Thy law (‫( ’)ותורתך‬Deut 33:10)—this teaches you that two Torot were given to Israel, one by mouth and one by script. Agnitos the Hegemon asked Rabban Gamliel and said to him: ‘How many Torot were given to Israel?’ He said to him: ‘Two. One by script and one by mouth.’” (Sifre Deut §351, ed. Finkelstein, 408). Additionally, the Scholion to Megillat Ta‌ʾanit discussed above, does not present the explicit categories, though it seems to assume them. 150 It seems that the chain of transmission in Mishnah Avot speaks not of the Torah given publicly at Sinai but rather of another Torah, passed from Moses to Joshua, i.e., the Torah that is passed by tradition. But there are no two Torot in this chain of transmission: the terminology is not used (this torah is not presented as ‘Oral Torah’) nor does the duo appear (Oral Torah/Written Torah). 151 Though scholars often tend to present these categories as equivalent. See e.g., Rosenthal, “Oral Torah,” 455–56.

74

chapter 1

Amoraic literature), the sages still repeatedly debate their borders, and some sages do not think that mishnah is torah in the same way that mikra is.152 The rabbinic concept of Oral Torah/Written Torah is part of a wider conversation about what torah is in antiquity, and we find several variations on a double-torah notion. Some of these speak of a double revelation of written scripture. According to Jubilees, Moses received two torot, one written by God on tablets (Jub 1:1) and one written by Moses, dictated to him by an angel reading from heavenly tablets (Jub 1:4–27). Cana Werman claims that Oral Torah/ Written Torah were Pharisaic concepts,153 and interprets Jubilees as adopting, reworking and countering a Pharisaic twofold-Torah solution that was already prevalent and popular.154 But as there is no evidence for Oral Torah/Written Torah before the Tannaim, we must understand Jubilees as preceding the Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction, not as responding to it.155 Philo also seems to hold a specific notion of double law. As Hindy Najman has shown,156 Philo speaks of two divinely legislated laws, the law of nature and law of Moses. Najman exposes a paradox inherent to Philo’s conception: The law of nature cannot be written and can only be embodied in the lives of sages, nevertheless 152 Abraham Rosenthal has exemplified this point with regards to Talmudic usage of the terms, and the Amoraic debate regarding what is the “Torah” in terms of the requirement of a benediction of the Torah (‫)ברכת התורה‬. In the Babylonian Talmud the disagreement surrounds the question of whether one should say the blessing only on the Written Torah (‫ )מקרא‬or also on the Oral Torah (Mishnah/Talmud/Midrash), see b. Ber. 11b and compare y. Ber. 1:8 (3c). This legal disagreement should be taken as one of the practical ramifications of a variegated view of how the literary world of Torah is mapped in rabbinic sources. See Rosenthal, “Oral Torah,” 476–75. 153 Werman, “Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s),” 181. 154 According to Werman, “The claim to authority raised by Jubilees, that of a second written Torah given at Sinai, is comprehensible only in light of the opposing claim of an authoritative oral Torah, given from the desert mount.” 155 Though Yaakov Sussmann understands Oral Torah/Written Torah to be a Pharisaic concept, he understands the polemic to work in this direction. He explains the rise of the distinction between two Torot, Oral and Written as a response to other Jewish attempts to continue to write scriptural/prophetic works. The Written Torah is sealed, while the Oral Torah expands and evolves. I disagree with his early dating, but the logic of the polemic as Sussmann lays it out is correct: “The creation of a closed framework of ‘holy scriptures’ and the abstinence from writing the Oral Torah are two sides of a single coin—the complete canonization of the Written Torah and the abstinence from writing of the Oral Torah go hand in hand. The strict distinction between the holy scriptures and the words of scribes, between Moses’s Torah (ha-katuv) and the Torah she-be-ʿal Peh (halakhah) is foundational to the rabbinic concept of two Torot.” Sussman, Oral Law—Taken Literally, 372–73. Translation my own. 156 Hindy Najman, “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox,” SPhiloA 15 (2003): 54–63.

Scripture Reconceived

75

the law of Moses is, according to Philo, a written copy of the law of nature. Najman solves this riddle by showing that Philo holds that the patriarchs and Moses were followers of the unwritten law before the law was put to writing, and that the laws of Moses are copies, “expressions of the ‘actual words and deeds’ of sages.”157 Najman herself, and other scholars, have rightly claimed that Philo’s unwritten law of nature does not parallel the Tannaitic Oral Torah, and that they should be understood as conceptually independent.158 4 Ezra depicts Ezra as a new Moses, who receives a divine revelation of scripture resulting in the writing of ninety-four books, twenty-four of which were given and revealed to the public, and the remaining seventy of which were intended solely for the “wise among your people.”159 According to this narrative, the torah of Ezra is the product of a new instance of writing that replaces the Mosaic Torah. 4 Ezra, like Jubilees, stresses the act of writing as crucial.160 For Philo, the law of nature is unwritten but paradoxically copied in the Mosaic Torah. To this mix we should now add Paul, whose strategy in Romans 10 and 3, as I have reconstructed it here, is to make a division within scripture that allows him to marginalize many commandments with regards to the salvation of gentiles, while embracing and promoting other scriptures for them, re-presented as oral and living teaching. Could Paul be used to reconstruct a linear development of Oral Torah/ Written Torah? Building on Paul’s Pharisaism (Phil 3:5–6),161 two such linear 157 Najman, “A Written Copy,” 61. 158 That Philo’s agraphos nomos does not present a parallel to the terms has been thoroughly argued. Urbach, The Sages, 291–92; Menahem Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 575 n. 15. Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJsup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 130–31; Fraade, Legal Fictions, 373. 159 Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 150–53. 160 On Jubilees in this regard see Najman, Seconding Sinai, 117–26. See especially her argument against F. García Martínez who claimed for an analogy between the rabbinic notion of Oral Torah and Jubilees’ idea of heavenly tablets. See also Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 80–82; Mroczek, The Literary Imagination, 139–56; and the slightly overstated claim by Lambert, “How the ‘Torah of Moses’ Became Revelation.” 161 It is unclear how this Pharisaism of which Paul writes should be understood. Acts presents an extended account of his time in Judea, but it is an unreliable source for Paul’s biography (see Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul; Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 21–23; Jewett, Dating Paul’s Life, 23; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 500–1; Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts, 67, 73; Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism; Fredriksen, Paul, 61–62; Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts”; Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters.), and

76

chapter 1

genealogies come to mind: (a) The (Tannaitic) Oral Torah/Written Torah terminology is indeed of Pharisaic origin, and Paul reworked it for his own needs. (b) That Paul conceived of the Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction as a way to produce a distinction within written scripture. The Tannaim adopted and reworked it in order to distinguish between their oral teachings and written scriptures and by and by mark both as Torah. However, the current state of the historical evidence makes both of these narratives impossible to prove. After discounting Ant. 13. 297 as attestation of a Pharisaic Oral Torah, there is no evidence that such a concept existed before Paul or the Tannaim. We cannot attribute Oral Torah/Written Torah to the Pharisees by reading it into Antiquities and then align Paul with these reconstructed Pharisees. The second possibility is equally difficult to support as we have no evidence for Paul’s letters circulating in Roman Palestine before 230 CE.162 The differences between the various terminologies should lead the way instead. There are no two torot (Pharisaic or other) in Josephus. Jubilees, Philo, and 4 Ezra all present variations on a double-torah in different ways, occupied primarily with the authority of the written text. Jubilees and 4 Ezra, as scholars have shown, clearly participate in a long tradition that values the written text qua written text.163 Philo’s distinction between the law of nature and the Law of Moses presents a different configuration of torah, intended to establish the consistency of the Law of Moses with the universal law of nature. Though Philo’s law of nature is an unwritten law, nowhere does he prefer the oral to the written.164 In contrast to these Second Temple models, Paul’s discourse is embedded in a preference of speech, and he conceives of scripture from the chronology in Galatians it appears that he did not receive any serious education in Judea. See Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, 18, 22. See also Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 68–69. E.P. Sanders follows John Knox, concluding that “the primary evidence is Paul’s letters. Acts should be disregarded if it is in conflict.” Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 181. In Philippians, this Pharisaism refers to a specific orientation toward the law and its commandments, Perhaps implicitly tied in Galatians to a zealousness regarding ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14, without the explicit use of “Pharisee”). These descriptions might coincide with Josephus’ description of the Pharisees as having a paradosis, Ant. 13.297–98. 162 See on this Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions,” 175. Ishay Rosen-Zvi and Adi Ophir dealt with a similar situation in their study of the goy: something of the uniquely Tannaitic goy is already found in Paul. See Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, Goy, 140–78. Perhaps as more such evidence accumulates, we will be able to draw stronger conclusions. 163 Hindy Najman writes: “Lurking beneath every aspect of the book of Jubilees is its fascination with the importance and authorizing power of sacred writing.” Najman, Past Renewals, 41. 164 See Najman, Seconding Sinai, 132.

Scripture Reconceived

77

relevant to his gospel as speaking. I have argued that Romans 3 introduces a double-nomos, that in Romans 10 is implicitly attached to a discourse of orality. Paul, like some of the Tannaim, thinks of a double-torah, spoken and written. Though their concepts are different, Paul nevertheless provides us with a conceptual precedent for the Tannaitic configuration and allows us to date an Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction to the mid-first century CE. The Pauline evidence compels us to move away from historical reconstructions that present the appearance of the Tannaitic terms as radically departing from all previous concepts of torah/torot: “Although several antecedents to rabbinic Judaism express the idea of a two-fold revelation, not one differentiates between written and oral components.”165 Indeed, the Tannaim were not the first and only ones to conceptualize Torah as written and oral. But the evidence from Paul also shows that the distinction between Oral Torah/Written Torah is a common name for different literary solutions that are meant to solve different cultural problems. For Paul, the distinction between the two nomoi is used to present (parts of) scripture as living teaching that speaks directly to his gentile audience and guides them. Yet, from a rabbinic perspective, both of Paul’s nomoi would fall under the category of written scriptures. For the Tannaim, the twofold Torah is used to claim Sinaitic authority for the living traditions of the beit midrash, thereby allowing Torah to be simultaneously ancient (from Sinai) and continuously growing, expanding and evolving. The division between two Torot, oral and written, is a single solution within a wider rabbinic discourse that promotes other, competing, literary divisions that map and define torah differently. 165 Fraade, Legal Fictions, 372.

chapter 2

Hagar and Sarah Midrash and Allegory

The previous chapter argued that Paul employed an exegetical technique, midrash-pesher, otherwise used only in Qumran texts and rabbinic literature. While the method appears in all these bodies of literature, I have argued that it functions differently in each of them. In analyzing the Pauline midrashpesher, I also pointed to a distinction between two Torot in Romans (echoed in Rom 10:5–13 and explicit in Rom 3), otherwise known only from rabbinic literature. I have also argued that the double-Torah/nomos is a hermeneutical concept shared by the two corpora but put to profoundly different use and attributed very different meanings in each of them. Recognizing Paul’s doublenomos accounts both for some of his hermeneutical choices (specifically his work with a scriptural contradiction) and for the rabbinic formulation of oral and written traditions as two Torot. The present chapter also inquires into a shared method of interpretation and focuses on Pauline and midrashic allegory. Scholars presented Paul as an “allegorist,” a characterization used by some to distinguish his interpretations from midrashic exegesis, which has been conceptualized as the opposite of allegory. To put it differently, scholars conceive midrash and allegory as opposites and of Paul as an allegorist in order to present the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity as occurring—at least in nuce— already in his time. However, this construction misrepresents both Pauline and midrashic exegesis and demands a thorough reformulation. Are midrash and allegory indeed opposed? The allegorical interpretation of Hagar/Sarah in Galatians 4:21–5:1, the only occurrence of “allegory” as an explicit term in Paul’s writing, will be the focus of our inquiry, which will be both hermeneutical and historical. In what follows, I present a reading of Paul’s representation and interpretation of the Hagar/ Sarah narrative. I attempt to explain why Paul turns to allegory in his interpretation of Abraham’s genealogy, in what ways his interpretation is allegorical, and how Paul’s allegory thus construed stands in relation to the history of allegorical interpretation in ancient Jewish texts. I then compare Paul’s allegory and rabbinic midrash and reexamine their postulated polarity. My analysis focuses on the exegetical craft of Dorshei Rashumot and concludes with a comparative reassessment of the hermeneutical relationship between allegory and midrash more generally. © Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_004

Hagar and Sarah

1

79

Galatians 4:21–5:1 21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now these things are said allegorically: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.” 28 Now you my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” 31 So then, brothers, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

2

Rhetorical Structure: Lemma & Paraphrase

Paul begins by laying out what seem to be textual facts. It is written that Abraham had two sons one born from a slave-woman (παιδίσκη) and one from a free-woman (ἐλευθέρα). But, Paul says, the child of the slave woman was born according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), and the child of the freewoman was born through the promise (δι’ ἐπαγγελίας). Paul goes on to announce and interpret: “These things are said allegorically; these women are two covenants.” Rhetorically, Paul’s formulation seems structurally akin—though not identical to—standard constructions of explicit interpretations in antiquity also found in the pesharim, midrashic literature and Philo’s writings (lemma + exegetical term + interpretation). First the text is laid out, paraphrased rather than quoted, which would have been the more common lemmatic form. It is followed by an interpretative term (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα), naming the mode of textual expression or the technique of interpretation to be used, or simply explicitly declaring that an interpretation/an explication of meaning will take place.

80

chapter 2

Paul chooses to paraphrase scripture rather than quote it directly in Galatians 4, and so his presentation of scripture is already mixed with interpretation. It accords with scripture that the birth of Isaac—and not of Ishmael— was the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham (Gen 21:12). However, the κατὰ σάρκα/δι’ ἐπαγγελίας distinction is thoroughly Pauline and implies a metaphysics foreign to the biblical narrative. That Paul does not maintain a strict boundary between the text and its interpretation is commonplace for him as and other works in Jewish antiquity,1 even for rabbinic literature, famous for firmly differentiating between citation and interpretation.2 This kind of creative paraphrasis is a productive hermeneutic strategy meant to introduce new ideas in the guise of scriptural tradition. It is rare however—though not unheard of—for Paul, for rabbinic literature and for the DSS that such a paraphrase should appear after an introductory formula such as γέγραπται γὰρ. In a famous example from the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis say about a person who prevents people from walking through his empty fields though they are unable to cause him damage: “about him scripture says: that which is good do not call bad.” The introductory formula is followed not by a citation but by a paraphrase (Prov 3:27), as the Talmud itself immediately notes. The lemma in rabbinic midrashim is not usually presented in paraphrastic form, but rather as a direct citation. We do nevertheless find similar cases. Tannaitic homilies sometimes present scripture with the term ‫אמרה תורה‬ “Torah says” followed by a paraphrase of a verse, and then an interpretation. For instance: ‫ מה ביד כרך אחד אף בראש‬.‫הואיל ואמרה תורה תן תפילין ביד תן תפילין בראש‬ … ‫כרך אחד‬

Because Torah said: put phylacteries on your hand, put phylacteries on your head. As (phylacteries) on the hand are bound once, so on the head they are bound once….3

1 Such as Josephus’ representation of the Pentateuchal narrative in Antiquities and many other examples. 2 See b. Ber. 30a; b. B. Qam. 81b. 3 Mek. RI, Pisha 17 (ed. Horovitz, 66). There are many more examples for this structure, see several consecutive homilies on phylacteries in the Mekhilta above, but also other examples: Mek RI Pisha 18 (ed. Horovitz, 72); Nezikin 18, (ed. Horovitz, 313); Kaspa 20, (ed. Horovitz, 327); Sifre Num. 115 (ed. Kahana, 320); 160 (ed. Kahana, 544).

Hagar and Sarah

81

In addition, within textual units (in a single mishnah, halakhah or derashah) we may often find a paraphrase of scripture followed by a midrashic interpretation.4 In the pesharim, such paraphrases are frequent, and some scholars have postulated this frequency has to do with the fluidity of scripture at the time. By the time the Tannaitic compositions were redacted, scripture’s language was quite set, and we nonetheless see paraphrase used similarly. 3

Ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα: What Is Allegory?

The meaning of the participle ἀλληγορούμενα in 4:24, notoriously obscured by scholarly disagreement, presents another problem discerning text from its interpretation. Scholars debate whether the participle speaks to the text or its given meaning, whether it should be understood as saying (a) that these things are said allegorically;5 or (b) that these things are interpreted allegorically.6 It seems that the problem relates to the ambiguity of the term allegoria itself, historically employed to denote both a mode of expression (and later, a genre in literature and the arts) as well as a type of hermeneutic. Allegory as a mode of expression is tied to its very etymology: allos “other,” agoreuein “to speak,” or rather, “to speak in assembly.” We nevertheless also find allegorical interpretation as a prominent practice from ancient Greece onwards. And so, a short history of allegory is required here, to help determine the correct translation of ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα as well as to ultimately substantiate our understanding of Paul’s method and its relationship to Tannaitic allegory. The noun ἀλληγορία, as well as the verb form ἀλληγορέω, came into promi­ nence no earlier than the first century CE,7 although the history of allegorical 4 See for instance homilies which use the introductory formula ‫“ שכן מצינו‬Because we find [in scripture],” followed by a paraphrase or scriptural generalization. See e.g., m. Sanh. 2:2–3; m. Menaḥ. 4:3; Mek. RI Beshalah 6 (ed. Horovitz, 114) and many other examples. 5 DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory”; Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 253. 6 See the references cited by DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 107 n. 22. See also “ἀλληγορέω,” in TWNT, I, 260–64; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary 41 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 208; James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 247; Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 113. 7 Instances in Philo are too many to cite. For the verb ἀλληγορέω, see e.g.,: Flavius Josephus, AJ 1.24; Athenaeus, Deipn. 2.80; Demetrius, Eloc. 99–102, 151, 280; Heraclitus, All. 24, 41.12; Plutarch, Is. Os. 362b, 363d; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2. For some uses of allēgoria see: Plutarch, Adol. poet. aud. 19e; Pyth. orac. 30; Longinus, Subl. 9.7; Quintilian, Inst. VIII 6.44; Philo­demus, Rhet. I. 164 col. 3, 181 col. 23.

82

chapter 2

interpretation dates back to the interpretation of poetry in pre-classical Greece, probably as early as the sixth century BCE. The term ἀλληγορία plays a minor role in this ancient discourse, but we find other cognate terms similarly used to speak of the hidden meanings of poetry, such as hyponoia, symbolon, and ainigma.8 It seems that this ancient discourse understood ancient allegory as a type of reading (as opposed to a mode of speech or expression), a “hunt for hyponoiai, ‘hidden ideas’ ”9 mobilized to uncover otherwise hidden insights available in poetry. The Derveni Papyrus, the only direct pre-Socratic evidence for allegorical interpretation in antiquity and the oldest extant papyrus, attests to this practice. The Derveni Papyrus provides a commentary on a hexametric orphic poem marked as an esoteric work truly accessible only to an elect few. At its outset, the work describes the poem as “enigmatic,” and demands (and allegorizes): “close the doors, uninitiated,” implying a closed readership. The Derveni commentator frequently uses the term αἴνιγμα10 to present the orphic poem as a riddled text hiding deep truths. αἴνιγμα is terminologically tied to the αἶνος, a type of riddled speech, “a well-established mode of veiled expression,”11 that is, expressions that convey a meaning indirectly. And so, the Derveni commentator allegorizes an orphic poem that speaks in riddles and is immersed in symbols, very much like oracular speech or Heraclitus’s mode of expression (535–475 BCE) that “disguises common meanings and clothes them in strange ones; he speaks like a mythmaker.”12 The riddles demand deciphering in the form of close reading. In the (translated) words of the Papyrus: “Since in his whole poetry he speaks about facts enigmatically (αἰνίζεται), one has to speak about each word in turn.”13 The allegorical reader deciphers enigmas and has unique insight to hidden, disguised meanings.

8

9 10 11 12 13

See Peter T. Struck, Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 3 n. 1; Dirk Obbink, “Early Greek Allegory,” in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory, ed. Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 16. Plutarch explicitly notes that there is a shift in terms in history, and that what he calls allegories—the ancients called hyponoiai (Plutarch, Adol. poet. aud. 19e). See Obbink, “Early Greek Allegory,” 18. Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 33. Andrew Laughlin Ford, The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 74. Derveni Papyrus, column 4. Translation from Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 33. Derveni Papyrus, column 13, Translation in Gábor Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology, and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 29.

Hagar and Sarah

83

The poetics and hermeneutical disposition expressed in the Derveni Papyrus differs significantly from the allegorical interpretations of Homer and Hesiod, which emerged more or less at the same time. The allegorical readings of the greats were designed to rescue the divine from inappropriate representation. Such is the case according to the scholiast on Homer,14 speaking of a certain Theagenes of Rhegium, mentioned as the first to have interpreted Homer allegorically. In a comment on Iliad 20.67ff, where the poet describes how Poseidon lines up in war against Apollo, the War God against Aphrodite, Hera against Athena and so on, the scholiast remarks: [Homer’s] account of the gods tends to be worthless and unsuitable, for the myths he tells about the gods are inappropriate. To such charges as this, some reply on the basis of Homer’s way of speaking [lexis], holding that everything is said by way of allegory [allēgoria] and refers to the nature of the elements, as in the passage where the gods square off against one another. For the way that the dry battles with the wet, the hot with the cold, and the light with the heavy. Moreover, water extinguishes fire while fire evaporates water, so that there is an opposition between all the elements composing the universe, which may suffer destruction in part but remains eternal as a whole. In setting out these battles Homer gives fire the name Apollo, Helius, or Hephaestus, he calls water Poseidon or Scamander, the moon Artemis, the air Hera, and so on. In a similar way he sometimes gives names of the gods to human faculties: intelligence is Athena, folly is Ares, desire Aphrodite, speech Hermes, according to what is characteristic of each. Now this kind of defense is very old and goes back to Theagenes of Rhegium, who first wrote about Homer.15 Such apologetics will become central in the allegorical interpretation of Homer, used to defend the reputation of the gods by and by defending Homer from criticism of his “inappropriate” depiction of divinity, thus justifying the text and language of the poets. Scholars often depict the beginnings of allegorical interpretations as rooted in a tension or gap between (old and new) ideas about deities. However, the discovery of the Derveni Papyrus implies 14 15

Andrew Ford, “Performing Interpretation: Early Allegorical Exegesis of Homer,” in Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 34. Porphyry, apud schol. B ad Iliad 20.67, based on Schrader, Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem, 240.14–241.12. Translation by Ford, “Performing Interpretation,” 35.

84

chapter 2

differently, as it is not apologetic at all. Another generalization may be proposed then: Ancient Greek allegories interpret the divine and the mythical, either with a view to defend and harmonize outdated or inappropriate ideas about the gods or to solve the riddled speech of divine poems. Although they do not explicitly use the term “allegory,”16 we know of two cases of Jewish allegory in Greek predating Philo and Paul: one in the Letter of Aristeas, from the second century BCE and one in the fragments of Aristobulus.17 In Eleazar the High Priest’s apology for the law, the Letter of Aristeas deals with the meaning and purpose of the dietary laws, claiming that they embody virtues and faults. The question regarding the law is framed as follows: Most men feel some curiosity concerning passages in the law dealing with food and drink and animals regarded as unclean. When we inquired, then, why it was that, creation being one, some things are regarded as unclean for food and some even to the touch (for the Law is scrupulous in most things but in these doubly scrupulous), he began his reply as follows …18 In what follows, Eleazar the high priest first gives a straightforward explanation, according to which the dietary laws are intended to separate Israel from other nations (τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν, §139). But ultimately an allegorical interpretation is also offered: These laws have all been solemnly drawn up for the sake of justice, to promote holy contemplation and perfecting of character. For the winged creatures of which we make use all are gentle and distinguished by cleanliness…. But of the winged creatures which are forbidden you will find that they are wild and carnivorous and with their strength oppress the rest and procure their food with injustice…. Through these creatures then, by calling them ‘unclean,’ he set up a symbol that those for whom the legislation was drawn up must practice righteousness in spirit and oppress no one … nor rob anyone of anything, but must guide their lives in accordance with justice, just as the gentle creatures among the birds 16 17 18

See Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Texts and Translations 20 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 204 n. 23. Aristobulus is mediated through Eusebius, Praep. ev. VIII.10, and so this evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. I am careful in considering this second-hand transmission of Aristobulus as evidence for the use for specific terminology. Let. Aris. §129. Translation from Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper Bros., 1951), 153.

Hagar and Sarah

85

above mentioned consume pulses that grow upon the earth and do not tyrannize to the destruction of their kindred…. All the regulations concerning what is permissible with reference to these and other creatures, then, he has set out figuratively (τροπολογῶν ἐκτέθειται). For the ‘parting of the hoof’ and the ‘cloven foot’ is a symbol (σημεῖον) to discriminate in each of our actions with a view to what is right. For the strength of the whole body and its energy depend upon the shoulders and legs. He constrains us, by taking note through these symbols (σημειοῦσθαι), to do all things with discrimination and with a view to righteousness. An additional signification is that we are set apart from all men.19 According to the Letter of Aristeas, the dietary laws function as symbolic indicators of ethical behaviors, pointing by way of allegory to a righteous path. Eleazar’s argument is an instance of apologetic allegory intended to explain a distinction that seems unnatural, arbitrary or irrational (§128). But something of the other type of allegory, intended to solve a mystery, can also be identified here. The straightforward justification (that the dietary laws are ancestral ethnic markers separating Israel from the nations) does not seem to be enough to account for the notoriously arbitrary nature of the dietary laws. And so, in this case at least, both apologetics and demystification converge in the literary function of the allegorical exposition. The fragments testifying to Aristobulus’ allegorical interpretations have reached us second-hand only through Clement and Eusebius,20 who present him time and again as a teacher and philosopher close to one of the early Ptolemaic kings and author of many volumes of scriptural interpretation.21 According to these secondary sources, he viewed scripture as the origin for all wisdom and therefore spoke of an old translation of the Torah into Greek that the great philosophers learned from and knew.22 According to Aristobulus, Moses used allegory as a rhetorical device to transmit hidden and profound messages in the Torah. From the evidence available to us, anthropomorphic depictions of God in scripture particularly troubled Aristobulus23 who 19 20 21 22 23

§144–47, Translation from Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), 159. We have no fragments from Aristobulus prior to Clement. He is only mentioned earlier by name in 2 Macc 1:10. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 47. David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 75. Aristobulus encourages his recipient “to take the interpretations in a natural way, and to hold fast the fitting conception of God, and not to fall off into the idea of a fabulous anthropomorphic constitution” Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.

86

chapter 2

claimed that Moses spoke of mighty deeds and certain arrangements of nature “by adopting phrases applicable to other things,” specifically “things outward and visible.” People of wisdom and inspiration understand this mechanism, says Aristobulus, but the foolish “cling close to the letter”24 and miss its inner meanings completely. And so, God’s hands are his kingly power and majesty, his “standing” is a metaphor for the establishment of all things by him, the descent on Sinai, as by a great un-consuming fire is a metaphor for God’s “allpervading majesty.”25 Aristobulus’s allegory is apologetic: the scriptures, exposed to all who read Greek, present an anthropomorphic—and thus philosophically embarrassing— depiction of the divine. And so, Aristobulus reverses the meaning of the verses twice in service of his solution. First, rather than simply interpreting scripture according to philosophical and cosmological truths, he claims that the great philosophers knew the Torah and derived their scientific truths from it.26 He then presents the text itself as allegorical (“our lawgiver in saying that the effects are God’s hands, has made the word a beautiful metaphor of majesty”). The readers are subsequently divided into wise and foolish: those who read the text literally are fools (for God does not have limbs, nor does he speak or descend on mountains), grossly misreading the text, while the wise see beyond the letter and recognize its true meaning. Both the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus reflect a deep affinity to techniques of Alexandrian scholarship, both Homeric and Biblical, as the work of Maren Niehoff has shown.27 Niehoff claims further that the Letter reflects disapproval of critical techniques, such as adding to the text, transferring motifs in it, and deleting words.28 Aristobulus, on the other hand, generates his allegory along the lines of critical Alexandrian scholarship. According to Niehoff, “he emerges as an Aristotelian scholar, who offers metaphorical solutions to textual problems.”29 And so, we may add, allegory appears for the first time in a Jewish text as a hermeneutical device dedicated to the intactness and stability of the text, here, against the critical and literalist tendencies of the exegetical tools of Alexandrian scholarship. Consecutively, Aristobulus introduces metaphors to solve textual problems, and his allegory is “remarkably 24 25 26 27 28 29

This of course reminds us of Paul’s letter/spirit distinction. This language may have penetrated through Eusebius. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10. This is a claim made by several Jewish apologists, including Philo. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 19–37, 58–63. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 27–28. Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 58.

Hagar and Sarah

87

faithful to the literal text,” and he does not conjure the language of mystery like the Derveni Papyrus, nor does he evoke the rhetoric of hidden meaning.30 His allegory emerges from textual-critical questions and shows commitment to Aristotelian literary notions. Much like Aristeas, Aristobulus uses allegory in order to reinforce the language of the text and protect it from redaction by solving and explaining what otherwise seem like problems. Scholars often consider Philo—Paul’s elder contemporary—and his allegorical interpretations in comparison to Paul’s allegory,31 despite several important differences. Philo wrote comprehensive allegorical commentaries, or allegorized scripture in his Questions and Answers works, and both of these type of works differ generically from Paul’s isolated interpretations of scripture. Philo’s philosophical and scientific interests also set him apart from Paul, and so do his hermeneutical reasons for interpreting scripture allegorically. Philo uses allegory to several ends. He does so to present scriptural law as appealing to non-Jews, as an apologetic seeking to present the Torah of Moses as the source of all truth and wisdom. He employs allegory to answer textual and conceptual questions (“What does it mean that…?”; “Why did he do that…?” “Why does he say that…?”). In this regard, Philo’s allegories stand close to Aristotelian interpretations. The elaborate interpretations protect the language and structure of the text from editorial practices.32 They are also employed to aesthetic ends and used to bring scripture closer in line to contemporary literary ideals. Something of the dispute regarding the meaning of Paul’s ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, as referring to rhetoric or reading, harks back to what we find in these geographically remote literary predecessors. Nothing in Genesis itself suggests that the narratives about Abraham’s descendants and the expulsion of Hagar are allegorical or enigmatic, and so it seems quite clear that it is Paul who is interpreting them allegorically. Yet, if indeed ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα means “these things are said allegorically,” then Paul is presenting his interpretation as (nothing but) an explication of biblical speech. The common usage of the verb in Paul’s day points in this direction, since as far as I can tell, nowhere in antiquity do we find ἀλληγορέω used in the sense of “to interpret allegorically.” 30 31

32

Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 63. Hanson, Allegory and Event, 79–83; Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (Louiseville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 20–30; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 239; John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle, Householder Commentaries 1 (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969), 394. I expand on Philo’s allegorical interpretations of Hagar and Sarah below and also discuss in detail the analysis of Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia.” Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 133–50.

88

chapter 2

The Letter of Aristeas and perhaps Aristobulus as well,33 did not use the word ἀλληγορία but they indeed thought of allegory as a mode of expression. Later sources, using the word explicitly, point in this very direction. Josephus in the beginning of Antiquities of the Jews speaks about the greatness of the lawgiver and says “some things the lawgiver shrewdly veils in enigmas, others he set forth in solemn allegory (τὰ δ᾽ ἀλληγοροῦντος μετὰ σεμνότητος), but wherever straightforward speech was expedient, there he makes his meaning absolutely plain.”34 Similarly, Plutarch speaks of those men who are “like the Greeks who say that Kronos is but a figurative name for Chronos (Time) (ἀλληγοροῦσι τὸν χρόνον).”35 Plutarch’s point is that these men as well as the ancient Greeks have an idea about how a name is used (allegorically), not how it is interpreted.36 Similarly, when Heraclitus speaks of Homer’s language and style, he explains that “it seems to me that the reason why Homer allegorizes (ἀλληγορεῖν) so constantly about these matters is to make the obscurity which seems to threaten his lines more intelligible by continuous inculcation of the lesson.”37 Here, again, the denotation is clearly “speaking allegorically,” not “interpreting allegorically.”38 Though the difference between these two possibilities has been exaggerated in scholarship—since rhetorical interpretations generally assume, imply or declare post factum that the text is in fact spoken allegorically39—a difference in rhetoric, and thus in cultural affinities still exists. Paul presents scripture as speaking allegorically: this rhetorical device allows him to present the narrative as speaking to and of his gentile audience, a point on which I shall elaborate below. And so, Paul claims, he is not interpreting the text but merely reiterating it.40 33 34

35 36

37 38 39

40

As Aristobulus is only extant in fragments, I am careful in drawing firm conclusions here. Josephus, Ant. 1.24. The trend to stylistically prefer “plain speech” over enigmatic, metaphorical forms of expression goes back to Aristotle and others, who found enigmatic speech stylistically inferior. See Aristotle, Poet. 1458a18. See on this, Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 23–24, 64–69; Stephen Halliwell, Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 344–49. Plutarch, Is. Os. 363d. Examples for similar uses, in which ἀλληγορέω and its conjugations are used in the sense of “speaking allegorically” see Strabo, Geogr. 1.2; Athenaeus, Deipn. 2.80; Demetrius, Eloc. 151.5, 285; Heraclitus, All. 41.12, 24; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.5, 10. It is also in accordance with ἀλληγορία as a rhetorical trope (rather than a hermeneutical stance), a common use by the theorists and grammarians of late antiquity. Heraclitus, All. 41.12. See for a similar discussion and a similar conclusion, DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory.” See for instance in the case of Aristobulus, who first interprets allegorically and identifies his reading as metaphorical (μεταφέροντας), and later praises Moses for using metaphors for speaking of the Godly. See Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.9, and on this Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 69. For a similar conclusion see Anne Davis, “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4.21–5.1,” BBR 14.2 (2004): 161–74; DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 106–7; A.B. Caneday, “Covenant Lineage

Hagar and Sarah

4

89

But Is There an Allegory at All?

Paul presents the allegory of Hagar/Sarah at first as a simple equation: The slave woman and the free woman allegorically stand for two covenants. There is, of course, nothing simple about this equation, central elements of which are quite obscure. The basic building blocks of Paul’s allegory are that Abraham’s two wives are two covenants. The slave-woman, Hagar, is the covenant from Sinai. Her child, also a slave, represents the sons of the Sinai covenant who are themselves slaves to the law. The free woman is “our mother,” thus Isaac represents the free son, that is, the Christ community, children not of flesh but of God’s promise to Abraham (“You my friends are children of the promise”). Paul goes on to claim that as the son of the slave woman persecuted the son of the free woman, so similarly now those (Christ followers?) who are under the law persecute those Christ followers who stand free of the Law. But only the son of the free woman inherits; similarly, Paul insists, only the members of the (gentile) Christ community who do not receive circumcision will inherit the fortune and life promised to Abraham. Paul layers a few more details on this basic allegorical construction, somewhat complicating his rhetoric. For instance, he attaches an excess of referents to the allegorical signifier Hagar, presented in chronological sequence. This is perhaps best conveyed visually: Hagar, the slave woman, is one covenant / Mount Sinai present Jerusalem One expects from an allegorical signifier to have but one signified. This is the case in the example from Plutarch cited above “that Kronos is but a figurative name for Chronos.” Kronos is not a figurative name for many or several things but for a single thing (time). Quintilian implies a similar logic in his: “Allegory … either presents one thing in words and another in meaning, or else something absolutely opposed to the meaning of the words.”41 Even in elaborate cases like Philo’s allegorization of the tree of life, which lays out several allegorical interpretations, each individual interpretation abides by this general rule.42 But Hagar, Abraham’s slave-wife, excessively signifies three things: slavery, the Sinai covenant, and the earthly Jerusalem.

41 42

Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21–31),” SBJT 14.3 (2010): 54–55. Quintilian, Inst. VIII 6.44. Philo, QG 1.10.

90

chapter 2

Scholars of Pauline hermeneutics often conceive of Paul’s interpretation of the Hagar/Sarah narrative as typological.43 Indeed, several features of Galatians 4:21–5:1 may fit with how typology is generally understood, namely as a hermeneutic that interprets scripture temporally rather than conceptually. The first norm of typological interpretation is that historical—most commonly scriptural—figures or events refer to later figures or events. In other words, the type is located in the past and the interpreter generates a trajectory between it and a future person/event. So conceived, some of Paul’s maneuvers in Galatians 4 are clearly typological. The hermeneutical move from Hagar to Sinai or to “Jerusalem now” is typological. When Paul speaks of Ishmael persecuting Isaac and says: “But just as at that time … so it is now also” (vs. 29), he seems to use typological language. When Paul ties between the Galatian gentile ekklesiai and Isaac: “you my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac” (vs. 28), he is possibly also evoking such typological language. Nonetheless, there are several reasons to reject the idea that Paul is reading typologically rather than allegorically. The first is that Paul says that ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, and does not mention τύπος, as he does in Romans 5:14 when he speaks of Adam as a type for Christ. Furthermore, even if some typological features in Paul’s interpretation, others that are not. For instance, his fundamental exegetical claim in the passage: these women are two covenants (αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, vs. 24) does not seem typological at all. Typology does not shift between registers of language. It forms a temporal trajectory between a person in the past (Adam, Isaac) and a person in the future (Christ) or between an event in the past (the binding of Isaac) and another in the future (the crucifixion). As a phenomenon it is traceable back to biblical typology as characterized by Michael Fishbane,44 and is an elementary feature of pesher as well as of NT typologies. Yet Paul is equating things of wholly different orders, namely, women and covenants.45 This is the fundamental material of a 43

44 45

Following the footsteps of John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. IV.710 (PG 61.662). For a full reference to modern scholars who took this position see DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 103 n. 4–5. Matthew Thiessen also understands Galatians 4 as related to Paul’s typological interpretations. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 150. I intend to elaborate upon Paul’s use of typos in the future, but we may tentatively note that Paul does not use τύπος as commonly understood. Τύπος denotes for Paul ‘example’ or ‘pattern.’ It is used in both hermeneutical/non-hermeneutical contexts, and has in several cases a pedagogical function for Paul, learning/teaching the proper way to act by looking at an example or setting one. It does not necessarily involve a temporal axis and thus does not imply prefiguration. Rather, Paul evokes τύπος to generate a new relationship between text and a new (gentile-in-Christ) reader. Framing the scriptural narrative

91

Hagar and Sarah

conceptual metaphor rather than a simple analogy, and so brings us closer to allegory rather than to typology. Lloyd Gaston pointed to Paul’s use of the verb συστοιχέω (συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, 4:25) and claimed that “Paul is not indulging in allegory but draw�� ing up two columns of opposites” of Pythagorean definite contraries or binary opposites. According to his novel interpretation, the rare verb συστοιχέω does not simply denote “corresponds to,” as it is commonly translated, but points to a Pythagorean practice of arranging linguistic items in contrasting columns46: Hagar

Sarah

Son (Ishmael) Slave Born according to the flesh Covenant from Sinai Does not inherit

Son (Isaac) Free Born according to the promise Covenant with Abraham?/a new covenant? Inherits

According to this view, the hermeneutical process consists of generating a column, a row (στοῖχος) of terms placed next to another row (σύστοιχος). But admittedly, we know almost nothing about the actual use of the verb συστοιχέω and have no real evidence of its use in this kind of practice.47 For Boyarin, nevertheless, Gaston’s interpretation is foundational in identifying Paul’s implicit philosophy of language as logocentric and Saussurian, and marking rabbinic midrash as an alternative to the hegemonic structures of languages and modes of signification in western culture.48 Paul uses συστοιχέω not to generate disparate items in columns joined together as parallel items in a binary structure, but rather to present an additional signified of the signifier Hagar (συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ). Furthermore, Paul engages in binary logic on many occasions, placing idiosyncratic oppositions against each other while tying them to other, more universally accepted binary oppositions. Consider the idiosyncratic letter/spirit distinction, in and of itself not an opposition at all, harnessed in 2 Corinthians 3 to classical (some indeed Pythagorean) opposites and molded by them: old/

46 47 48

as a precedent is a hermeneutical strategy that allows Paul to address an audience beyond Israel. Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 84. Followed by Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 33–34. As Gaston himself points out, Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 83. Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 16.

92

chapter 2

new; death/life; veiled/unveiled. Yet, nowhere is a technical term needed to generate these oppositions and the relationships between them. Why then is one needed here? Furthermore, if Paul does not “indulge” in allegory, why does he opt to use the term? συστοιχέω appears when Paul introduces “current Jerusalem” as an additional signified of Hagar. This, and not the formation of binary oppositions, is the denotation of συστοιχέω in the passage. It points out the “expansion” of the allegorical structure and enables it. Hagar is an allegory for the covenant from Sinai and also corresponds to present Jerusalem. It is a three-fold allegory, a piling of maternal figures. Hagar, mother of Ishmael, Sinai mother of Israel and Jerusalem of now, enslaved with her sons, function in concert as figures of expelled/forsaken mothers.49 συστοιχέω does not function linguistically or logi�cally in the context of binaries, but in the context of lining up the additional signifier (current Jerusalem) on the signifier Hagar, already associated with Sinai.50 5

What Do Sarah and Hagar Stand for?

Hagar is a mother figure and an allegory for a covenant that is presented metaphorically in turn as mother. The idea that Sinai is a mother is found in a later rabbinic midrash: ‫ שנא׳‬,‫ ואין אב אלא הקב״ה‬.‫ אם בטלו ישראל את המצות כאילו מקללים אב ואם‬,‫הוי‬ ‫ שנא׳ “ואל תטוש תורת אמך“ והיא‬.‫ ואם—זו התורה שהיא אמנו‬.“‫“כי אתה אבינו‬ 51.“‫ שנאמ׳ “בדרך חכמה הוריתיך‬.‫מגדלת בסיני‬

If Israel do not do the commandments they are likened to cursing their father and mother. And “Father” is none but the Holy One Blessed be He, for it is said “you are our father” (Isa 63:16) and “Mother”—this is 49 50

51

Zion as mother figure is a prominent biblical theme. See Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21–31,” WTJ 55.2 (1993): 299–320. Perhaps this needs reiteration: I am in disagreement with Gaston and Boyarin with regards to the linguistic function of συστοιχέω and the implicit structure of relationships generated within the “table.” According to Gaston and Boyarin, συστοιχέω generates oppositions. Yet, according to the reading proposed here, it is used to line up an additional signifier. Furthermore, Boyarin’s reductive lining up understands all of the object lined up on one side as equally weighed: Hagar = Slave = Zion = Current Jerusalem = According to the flesh. Yet, in my reading, Hagar is (through the use of συστοιχέω) both Zion and Current Jerusalem. This is perhaps a fine line to draw, but it is an important one if we wish to understand the allegorical method in Galatians. Exodus Rabbah 30, 5.

Hagar and Sarah

93

the Torah, who is our mother. As it is said “do not forsake your mother’s teaching”52 (Prov 1:8). And she bore53 you in Sinai, as it is written “I have taught54 you the way of wisdom” (Prov 4:11). We find the idea that the Torah is a mother in the Palestinian Talmud, not to all of Israel, but to her scholars: ,‫ “מפני בנה הוא עומד‬:‫מהו לעמוד מפני ספר תורה? ר׳ חלקיה ר׳ סימון בשם ר׳ לעזר‬ 55.“‫לא כל שכן מפני תורה עצמה‬ From where do we learn that one must stand before a Torah scroll? Rabbi Hilqiah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Eleazar said: “He stands before her son, all the more so before Torah herself.” Paul explicitly identifies only the covenant tied to Hagar and thus riddles the fundamental allegorical equation with indeterminacy.56 What is the other covenant? The one corresponding to the Jerusalem above, who is “our” mother? According to a classical interpretation, it is the new covenant, a covenant in Christ.57 This is a possible interpretation, though not without problems, as Paul does not use the distinction between old/new covenants as such in the context of Galatians at all.58 It seems that this reading may be supported by the Genesis narrative itself since Isaac, the son of the free woman, is the younger brother who inherits his father instead of his elder brother, Ishmael. But reading Paul in this manner interprets his allegory as centered on the sons rather than their mothers. The “other” covenant is more reasonably the covenant with 52 53 54 55

56

57 58

Literally, the Torah of your mother. The Hebrew ‫ מגדלת‬is used in rabbinic sources in the sense of “growing” something in the egg or a womb. See b. Betzah 6b. The Hebrew ‫ הוריתיך‬has a double meaning, both “taught you” as in ‫הוראה‬, teaching; but also “gave birth to you,” as in ‫“ הורה‬parent.” y Meg. 4:1 74d. Elliot Wolfson has noted that the same idea appears in the Babylonian Talmud but without the mother/son metaphor. We find there: “from where do we learn that one should stand before a Torah scroll? Hilqiya and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eleazar Said: ‘A fortiori. You stand before her students, even more so before her,’” b. Qidd. 33b. See Elliot R. Wolfson, Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism (New York: SUNY Press, 1995), 2. It is interesting to note that in Cover’s discussion of the allegory this question and all its implications are not discussed. Cover states the impossibility of determining what covenants Paul is pointing to see Cover, Lifting the Veil, 31–33. Consequently, the question of who might be the subject of Paul’s allegorical interpretations becomes indeterminable. Betz, Galatians, 243. καινῆ διαθήκη appears in 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Cor 11:25.

94

chapter 2

Abraham.59 In this sense, it is not a new covenant, but (at least implicitly) the more ancient and eternal covenant, as the language of Genesis 17:19 suggests: “And God said to Abraham, ‘Verily, behold! Sarah your wife will bear to you a son and you will call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him to [be] an eternal covenant and for his offspring after him.’”60 In this reading, the social standing of each of these wives is an allegory of a covenant: the slave woman to the enslaving covenant of Sinai, the free woman, to the Abraham covenant, free of the Law. Perhaps the neighboring Galatians 3:15–17 supports our reading. The passage speaks of the law and the promise and uses the very same term as in our allegory—διαθήκη—emphasizing that the promise made to Abraham (to his seed, i.e., Christ) precedes the law. Thus, Sarah’s social status as a free woman, is an allegory for the promise made to her husband. Significantly, Paul does not generate here a trajectory through space or time (as in a typological interpretation), but rather engages in allegory. Galatians 3:7 already stated that “those who trust (ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως) are the descendants of Abraham,” but Paul then goes on to speak of the promise to Abraham being extended to all the gentiles, but does not work exegetically to root this genealogy in scripture. This only happens in the allegory of Galatians 4. Paul’s interpretation of scripture in Galatians 4 is thus a genealogical allegory aimed to ground his gospel to the ethnē in scripture. The function and meaning of the allegory are shadowed by scholarly disagreement as to who should be identified as the child of the slave woman and who is the child of the free. According to a traditional reading, highly antagonistic towards the Jews,61 59

60 61

See e.g., Bligh, Galatians, 392. Martinus C. de Boer, “Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in Galatians,” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken, ed. Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden, NovTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 222. Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 111–18. Matthew Y. Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31,” BTB 43.1 (2013): 18. LXX: εἶπεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αβρααμ Ναί· ἰδοὺ Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ισαακ καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτόν. MT: ‫יתי‬ ֥ ִ ‫ת־ּב ִר‬ ְ ‫ת־ׁש ֹ֖מו יִ ְצ ָ ֑חק וַ ֲה ִקמ ִֹ֨תי ֶא‬ ְ ‫את ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֲא ָבל֙ ָׂש ָ ֣רה ִא ְׁש ְּת ָ֗ך י ֶֹל ֶ֤דת ְל ָ֙ך ֵּ֔בן וְ ָק ָ ֥ר‬ ִ֗ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּ֣י‬ ‫ֹעול֖ם ְלזַ ְר ֹ֥עו ַא ֲח ָ ֽריו׃‬ ָ ‫ִא ֹּ֛תו ִל ְב ִ ֥רית‬ According to this reading, Paul warns gentiles of Judaizing and claims that the Jews are not only enslaved but are to be banished like Hagar and her son. It may be true that the Hagar and Ishmael narrative is not entirely negative—she is heard in the desert (hence, ‫)ישמע־אל‬, rescued by God who also gives her a promise that her son will become a great nation. Nevertheless, these aspects of the narrative are left untold in Galatians. Indeed, for a person encountering the biblical narrative for the first time through Paul’s mediation,

Hagar and Sarah

95

Hagar = Sinai = Jerusalem ultimately denotes the Jews, and Sarah = Abrahamic covenant = heavenly Jerusalem, the (gentile?, Christian?) Church.62 According to this view, Paul is turning on its head the genealogy of Israel as (plainly) told by scripture, and the self-understanding of the Jews as being the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with it. Scholars of the “Radical New Perspective” and “Paul within Judaism” schools reject this possibility, and claim, conversely, that the sons of Hagar are gentiles in Christ who (now) wish to take upon themselves circumcision and all the decrees of Torah. The sons of Sarah are gentiles-in-Christ, who though they are not circumcised and not proselytes, gain the status of Abraham’s seed and heir.63 The distinction is then not an ethnic one (Jew/gentile [in Christ]), nor is it a general distinction between law/lawlessness, but a distinction between gentiles-in-Christ who wish to be circumcised and those who know better and who will not be.64 In other words, the Hagar/Sarah allegory functions as a narrative of selection within the Christ-community. This reading is strongly supported by the fact that Paul writes and speaks to gentiles, specifically adult males who are not (yet)

62 63

64

the slave wife and her son do not inherit Abraham and are cast-out, possibly doomed to death. this reading usually goes hand in hand with the supersessionist view retraced above, speaking of a younger son/a new covenant replacing the banished older son/the old covenant. See e.g., Betz, Galatians, 243. Bligh, Galatians, 390–91. de Boer, “Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in Galatians,” 222. Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 32–36. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 114–15. Davis, “Allegorically Speaking.” DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 113. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 242; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 91–92; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 449–457; Mark D. Nanos, “What Does ‘Present Jerusalem’ (Gal 4:25) in Paul’s Allegory Have to Do with the Jerusalem of Paul’s Time, or the Concerns of the Galatians?,” in Annual Meeting of the Central States Region of the SBL. St. Louis, 2004, 1–18; Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 87–91. Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 191–92. The question of Christ-following and the law (rather than the question of Christ and law in general) is the context of Galatians. According to a view, advocated by certain Jewish-Apostles of Christ, the gentiles must take upon themselves the commandments (most importantly, circumcision) in order to be saved. Paul is arguing against this position from the beginning of the letter. This is most probably the nature of the other gospel of Gal 1:6 (εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον). This “other gospel” is tied to the Jerusalem Christ-community (and in Gal 2 specifically to Peter). Paul teaches a different message: now, in the eschaton, gentiles may be saved as gentiles by pistis and according to a divine promise made to Abraham, without circumcision. See Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42.2 (1991): 532– 64; Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel.”

96

chapter 2

circumcised (“You who want to be under the law” Gal 4:21). Furthermore, the fact that the letter opens with hostile references to Paul’s gentiles listening to “a different gospel” (Gal 1:6) supports their framing of Hagar (= a different gospel) and Sarah (= the only right gospel, that is, Paul’s, as per Gal 1:8). The problem with their interpretation is that it limits what seems to be a broad rhetoric on Paul’s part distinguishing between Sinai and Abraham; that is, between being with and without the law. Furthermore, it demands that we understand “Sinai” as a metaphor for circumcising gentiles only, which seems farfetched.65 The allegorical denotation of Hagar in Paul’s recapitulation is especially problematic. Betz, and many after him, called it a “a real crux interpretum.”66 The note τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ has raised some serious questions. Scholars note the peculiarity of the form Σινᾶ ὄρος.67 Furthermore, equating women to mountains is not at a well-known rhetorical figure, indeed, almost unheard of. And finally, why Paul would need to append this geographical remains unclear.68 Hagar has already been identified in the previous verse as the covenant from Mount Sinai, and will immediately be identified as present Jerusalem, so what is the purpose of mentioning Sinai’s location? The possibility that this is an interpretative gloss that found its way from the margins into the body of the text, has been raised by many.69 And indeed, vs. 24–25 read more smoothly if the geographical note is completely omitted.70 Though some have argued extensively for this reading, it seems that the interpretational shift—from Hagar to the Torah—needs substantiation. Paul is leaning 65

66 67 68 69 70

This is perhaps the reason why Matthew Thiessen marginalizes “Sinai” in his discussion of Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4, limiting the scope of Paul’s allegory to circumcision only. It indeed seems plausible to me that Paul interprets Hagar as symbolizing covenantal circumcision that his audience should not adopt. But that “Sinai” is a covenant only of circumcision is more difficult to claim. While many laws were given at Sinai, circumcision was not one of them. I thus believe Paul’s reference to “Sinai” here goes beyond the issue of proselyte circumcision alone. In her discussion of “justification,” Paula Fredriksen has argued that Paul urges his audience to adopt many of the ten commandments, see Fredriksen, “The Ten Commandments.” Yet Paul’s explicit denunciation of “Sinai” in Galatians 4, and, according to my reading, also his denunciation of the stone tablets in 2 Corinthians 3, does not fit smoothly with a centrality of the ten commandments she finds elsewhere in his letters (e.g., Rom 13:8–10). Betz, Galatians, 244. ὄρος Σινᾶ—as it appears in vs. 24—is the standard name. For the suggestion that “Hagar” was a name of Mount Sinai, see Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal and Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31,” Early Christianity 9 (2018): 405 n. 6. and their references there. On Richard Bentley’s hypothesis see Stephen C. Carlson, “‘For Sinai Is a Mountain in Arabia’ A Note on the Text of Galatians 4,25,” ZNW 105.1 (2014): 81–82. See Carlson, “For Sinai Is a Mountain,” 81–82.

Hagar and Sarah

97

on the scriptural identification of Hagar with the desert to affirm the denotation Hagar = covenant from Sinai. Some claim that Paul draws attention to the desert and places present Jerusalem allegorically outside the promised land to underscore present Jerusalem’s inferiority,71 yet this interpretation seems forced. Contemporary Jerusalem stands in opposition to heavenly Jerusalem. Later Jewish sources will deny that there is a contrast between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem, and will prefer to speak of a continuity between them, or a “resonance.”72 Paul sets the two Jerusalems in opposition, by juxtaposing them with the enslaved/free dichotomy.73 The sons of Hagar who are represented by “the present Jerusalem” should be understood as gentiles-in-Christwho-are-also-under-the-law, linked to Israel through the radical Judaization of circumcision.74 If Hagar is identified with the Jews and their Sinai covenant, then their identification with present Jerusalem is straightforward, and includes the Jewish Christ community there—and perhaps, as well, Jerusalemite Jews in general.75 6

The Intertext, Isaiah 54:1 and Its Allegorical Function

The Hagar side of the allegory is explicitly elaborated upon in Galatians while the allegorical Sarah is somewhat left to the inference of the reader.76 Most abstruse is the way in which the prooftext from Isaiah 54:1 supports or sheds light upon Paul’s reading of Genesis. Karen Jobes formulated these questions most clearly:

71 72

73 74 75 76

Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 15–16. ‫“ מרוב אהבתה של מטה עשה אחרת של מעלה‬From the love of the earthly Jerusalem, he made another one above.” (Tanhuma Pequddei 1) For a full history of the ancient notion of Jerusalem-Above see Ephraim E. Urbach, “Jerusalem above and Jerusalem Below,” in The World of the Sages: Collected Essays (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 376–91 [Hebrew]. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 9–32. There is nothing “inherently” opposed between “now” and “above.” Thinking about them as mirror cities, can be thought of in simple terms of correlation, as many Jewish sources do. Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 366. See Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 17. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 302.

98

chapter 2

One thing that is clear is that Paul’s argument depends upon the fact that both Hagar and Sarah did have a son by Abraham…. Therefore it seems confusing to introduce the thought of barrenness by quoting Isa 54:1. Though Sarah had been barren for much of her life, Paul’s reference here is specifically to her as the mother Isaac. Who then is this barren woman how does she contribute to such an exegetical reversal? How is the barren one related to Sarah and Hagar? How is the barren one relevant to the Galatians Christians? … One would expect the quotation of Isa 54:1, in some way, to justify, explain, or support Paul’s claims that: (1) the Jerusalem above is free; (2) the Jerusalem above is our mother; (3) Christians are like Isaac, i.e. Sarah is our mother (and therefore Abraham is our father). A surface reading of Isa 54:1 is disappointing because it seems to answer none of these expectations.77 If these questions remain unanswered, what does the “intertextual space,” to use a term coined by Hays,78 generated by the citation of Isaiah contain? Hays points out that Galatians 4 presents a case of metalepsis, that is, that the quote from Isaiah does not function as a prooftext or as a simple intertext but as a pointer to the wider context of deutero-Isaiah, without which it cannot be understood. That Zion is at all the subject of the verse is not communicated in the intertext, nor is the connection to Sarah. Hays (and others) have pointed specifically to Isaiah 51:1–2, as the context that clarifies the intertext, as it speaks to “you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord.” These “recipients” are then tied to the (direct) lineage of Abraham: “Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was only one man, and I blessed him and made him many.” In the following verse Zion is also brought to the fore. According to this reading, without the wider context in Isaiah the intertext is completely opaque. And so, in light of the awkwardness of attaching Isaiah 54:1 to Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 16/21, this suggestion is quite tempting. But why would Paul quote Isaiah 54:1 and not 51:1–2? Furthermore, so rarely do intertexts function in Jewish exegesis—in the pesharim or midrashim—in this free manner, and so this interpretation is far from compelling. Lastly, given that Paul is addressing the letter to gentiles, who probably do not know Isaiah 51, Hays’ interpretation seems farfetched.

77 78

Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 302–3. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 118–19.

99

Hagar and Sarah

Perhaps it is helpful that the verse from Isaiah is the opening verse of the haftarah,79 the portion reading from the prophet attached in the Palestinian triennial reading cycle80 to Genesis 16:1ff.81 While we cannot know if this reading cycle82 was performed as such in Judea in the time of Paul,83 the coincidence here is remarkable. As is the case in many haftarot, the attachment of Isaiah 54:1ff to Genesis 16:1ff is based on a gezerah shawa, a link between phrases, existing most clearly in the Hebrew. In our case: Isaiah 54:1

‫ָר ִּנ֥י ֲע ָק ָ ֖רה ֹ֣לא י ָָל ָ֑דה ִּפ ְצ ִ֨חי ִר ָּנ֤ה וְ ַצ ֲה ִ ֙לי‬ ‫עּול֖ה‬ ָ ‫י־ֹׁשומ ָ ֛מה ִמ ְּב ֵנ֥י ְב‬ ֵ ֵ‫י־ר ִ ּ֧בים ְ ּֽבנ‬ ַ ‫א־ח ָלה ִ ּֽכ‬ ָ֔ ֹ ‫ל‬ ‫ָא ַ ֥מר ה׳׃‬

Genesis 16:1

‫וְ ָׂש ַר֙י ֵ ֣א ֶׁשת ַא ְב ָ ֔רם ֹ֥לא יָלְ ָ ֖דה ֹל֑ ו וְ ָלּ֛ה ִׁש ְפ ָ ֥חה‬ ‫ּוׁש ָ ֥מּה ָה ָ ֽגר׃‬ ְ ‫ִמ ְצ ִ ֖רית‬

Εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα, ῥῆξον Σαρα δὲ ἡ γυνὴ Αβραμ οὐκ ἔτικτεν αὐτῷ. καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα, ὅτι πολλὰ ἦν δὲ αὐτῇ παιδίσκη Αἰγυπτία, ᾗ ὄνομα τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχού- Αγαρ. σης τὸν ἄνδρα, εἶπεν γὰρ κύριος. “Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband” says the Lord. 79 80 81 82

83

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar;

See also Mary Callaway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash, SBLDS 91 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 111. DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory.” And not to our contemporary cycle, based on the Babylonian reading cycle, in which Isa 54:1ff is the haftarah of Parashat Noah (Gen 6:9–11:32). See Yosef Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographia,” Tarbiz 58.2 (1989): 176 [Hebrew]. That a reading of the Torah with the Prophets was practiced in the time of the Second Temple is attested by several sources, mostly by the NT. See Acts 13:14–15, 27: “after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them.” In Luke 4:16–22, the Sabbath reading from the prophets, specifically from Isaiah, is followed by a sermon. Which segments from the Prophets were attached to the Torah portion is unknown. On the history of the Palestinian reading cycle see Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions.” On the possibility that this reading cycle was known and used by Philo, see Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures.

100

chapter 2

The haftarah, by intertextual association, identifies “the barren one” in Isa 54:1 as Sarah. It is a silent connection (indeed, a metonymy) based on the linguistic affinity between the Sarah narrative and the Isaianic prophecy. Interestingly, we find this kind of connection in the haftarah, an intertextual liturgical practice, and not in an explicit midrash unraveling and explaining the connection between the two verses. In other words, we find in Jewish tradition a link between Sarah and Hagar of Genesis to the barren one and the one who has a husband in Isaiah, opaque and silent like Paul’s. The coupling with the haftarah suggests that the basis for the linkage is a midrashic one, that is, a linguistic semblance generating new meaning, very much depending on the Hebrew. Karen Jobes claimed that the intertextual meaning is generated in the Greek.84 Yet, it seems that the intertext may have been chosen in light of its Hebrew resonances (incommunicable in Greek). The coupling of the opposition Sarah/Hagar with the opposition between of the barren one/the one who has a husband is especially felt in the Greek (which Paul uses): τὸν ἄνδρα.85 In the Hebrew however, the opposition is between the barren ‫( עקרה‬or ‫)שוממה‬ and ‫בעולה‬. This word, at least in rabbinic Hebrew, does not denote “she who has a husband,” but functions exclusively as the antonym of ‘virgin.’ The sources attesting for this meaning are numerous, but the following Mishnah is abundantly clear: ,‫ משארסתני נאנסתי‬:‫ היא אומרת‬.‫והנושא את [ה]אשה ולא מצא לה בתולים‬ .‫ לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך והיה מקחי מקח טעות‬:‫ והוא אומ׳‬.‫[נסתחפה] שדך‬ .‫ אינה נאמנת ולא מפיה אנו חיים‬:‫ ור׳ יהושע או׳‬.‫ נאמנת‬:‫רבן גמליא׳ ור׳ אליעזר אומ׳‬ .‫ עד שתביא ראייה לדבריה‬.‫ הטעתו‬.‫אלא הרי זו בחזקת [בעולה] עד שלא תתארס‬ He who marries a woman and does not find her virginity. She says: “After you betrothed me I was raped. Your field was flooded.” He says: “It wasn’t so. But it was before I betrothed you, and my purchase was made in error.” Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: “She is believed.” And Rabbi Yehoshua says: “She is not believed and it is not by her mouth that we live. But rather: she is presumed a non-virgin [‫ ]בעולה‬from before her betrothal, and that she has deceived him, until she brings evidence supporting her claim.”86 84 85 86

Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 306. The other appearance of ‫ בעולה‬in Scripture (Isa 62:4) is not of great help, as it appears in the LXX as Οἰκουμένη “inhabited.” m. Ket 1:6.

Hagar and Sarah

101

Similarly, the Sifre speaks of ‫בעולה שיצת מרשות אביה‬, a non-virgin who leaves her father’s house, who is clearly not a married woman, but an unmarried non-virgin.87 Indeed, in a recent article, Michal and Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal argue precisely this point: that Paul builds on an understanding of ‫ בעולה‬in Isa 54:1 as “a woman who had intercourse.”88 And so, according to such a reading, through the lens of Mishnaic Hebrew, Isaiah promises that the sons of the barren one (who bore no children perhaps because she never had sexual relations) will be more numerous than the sons of the non-virgin. Unlike its Greek parallel in the Septuagint, this opposition fits the Sarah/Hagar opposition: Paul through the intertext claims that Hagar had only one child, born and conceived according to the flesh, that is, through sexual relations and by natural childbirth. Sarah, on the other hand had a child according to the promise— and not by the flesh at all.89 According to this reading, gentiles-in-Christ are thus those who are not “Sinai” and circumcised, but the sons of Abraham through the promise. The fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham is not carnal, and his heir is not born through the flesh, but is actually born now, in the form of many nations. The intertext from Isaiah, both directly and metaleptically, provides us with this content.90 The song and laughter of the barren one are understood as “a last laugh”: the joining of the gentiles is the prosperity of Zion/Sarah. The birth and mother are understood allegorically as spiritual (or more precisely, non-carnal) birth according to the promise and its freedom from the law (associated with the free-woman, Sarah), the sonship and the inheritance are ultimately understood as real and concrete. If Paul’s claim at first seemed typological (“you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise,” vs. 28) the final statement is allegorical (“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman,” vs. 31). Sarah/heavenly Jerusalem is “our” mother. Like Isaac in the biblical narrative, “we” are children of the promise.91 87 88 89

90 91

Sifre Num. 154 (ed. Kahana, 510–11). Bar-Asher Siegal and Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31.” Boyarin has suggested a similar reading in a note. See Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 269 n. 44. He also notes the affinity to Philo’s claim to the virginity of the matriarchs, see Philo, Cher., 13.45. The linguistic discussion in Elitzur and Michal Bar-Asher Siegal offered linguistic substantiation to the claim. Bar-Asher Siegal and Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31,” 422. As has been sufficiently noted by Callaway, Sing, 111–12; Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 309. Jobes has shown that Isaiah provides us with the shift from the singular child (Isaac) to the many/the “nation,” so foundational to Paul’s reading. My reading here differs from that of Paula Fredriksen, as well as that of Matthew Thiessen, who read Paul’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah as consistent with his pneumatic adoption

102

chapter 2

As a side note, it is interesting to consider the way this verse has been read by rabbis in Palestine. Except for the association of Isaiah 54:1 and Genesis 16:1 by the haftarah cycle, we do not find ‫“( רני עקרה‬Sing, o barren one”) expounded upon in the Tannaitic midrashim.92 But the fifth benediction in the wedding ceremony is a rewrite of the verse: ‫שוש תשיש ותגל עקרה בקבוץ בניה לתוכה‬ .‫ ברוך אתה ה׳ משמח ציון בבניה‬.‫בשמחה‬

And the barren one will rejoice and be merry, when her sons are happily gathered in her. Blessed are You, Lord, who gladdens Zion in her sons.

‫ׇר ִנ֥י ֲע ָק ָ ֖רה ֣ל ֹא יָ ָל ָ֑דה ִפ ְצ ִ֨חי ִר ָנ֤ה וְ ַצ ֲה ִ ֙לי‬ ‫עּול֖ה‬ ָ ‫י־ׁשֹומ ָ ֛מה ִמ ְב ֵנ֥י ְב‬ ֵ ֵ‫י־ר ִ ֧בים ְ ֽבנ‬ ַ ‫א־ח ָלה ִ ֽכ‬ ָ֔ ֹ ‫ל‬ ‫ָא ַ ֥מר ה׳׃‬

“Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband,” says the Lord.

The rabbinic benediction, one which we cannot easily date,93 draws and explicit ethnic connection between Zion and the barren of Isaiah 54. Since the text is a benediction in a wedding ceremony, “the sons” are probably the actual sons to be born of the marriage, (Jewish) children to be born according to the flesh that make Zion full of joy. 7

Pauline Allegory and Rabbinic Midrash: The Central Scholarly Positions

Though mostly without explanation, Paul’s interpretation of the Hagar/Sarah narrative is identified as a midrash on several occasions in NT scholarship, an

92 93

narrative(s). Compare Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God?,” 206; Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 89, 105. I believe that the allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah allows Paul not to speak of adoption, but rather of a (spiritual?) birth according to God’s promise to Abraham. More generally, according to my reading, Paul resorts to a variety of kinship images that do not completely overlap. Who becomes the father of gentiles-Christ? Is it God that they call abba (Gal 4:6) or Abraham (Gal 4:21–31, through his free wife, Sarah)? For the interpretation of the verse in later midrashim, see Callaway, Sing, 116ff. The benedictions appear for the first time in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Ketub. 7b–8a and are mentioned first by their common name (‫ ברכת שבעה‬,‫ )שבע ברכות‬only later in Kallah Rabbati 1, 1. According to the context in the Bavli, in the times of the Tannaim in Palestine some (five) benedictions existed, though their exact language and content is unclear, and they are not mentioned in the classical Palestinian sources at all.

Hagar and Sarah

103

identification that usually—though certainly not always—goes hand in hand with the rejection of allegory as a relevant or precise name for Paul’s reading of scripture in Galatians 4. R.P.C. Hanson, arguing against the identification of Paul’s exegesis with “Alexandrian allegory,” claimed that Paul here is using typology “distorted in an unconvincing but highly Rabbinical fashion in to allegory.”94 Gaston, whom we have cited earlier as rejecting the possibility that Paul is engaging in allegory here, calls Paul’s interpretation heilsgeschicht­ liche midrash.95 When scholars of rabbinic literature approach the text, a different reality usually emerges. Not only is Galatians 4 taken as the epitome of allegorical interpretation, but it is also presented as key to understand Paul’s hermeneutics in general. And so E.E. Urbach speaks of Paul’s “radical allegory” and his nullification of the law, as two sides of a single coin.96 Boyarin not only understands Galatians 4 as revealing the true essence of Pauline hermeneutics in general, he then places (Pauline) allegory and (rabbinic) midrash as binary oppositions, corresponding to the table of binaries Paul generates in Galatians. Like Hagar is the opposite of Sarah and flesh is the opposite of promise (spirit),97 so is midrash the opposite of allegory. What all of these positions share is a polarization of midrash (either as genre or hermeneutic) and allegory. The categories are understood not merely as deeply distinct but as diametrically opposed. It is only very recently, with the appearance of the work of Michal and Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal that a more nuanced approach began to form. Their work highlights the “midrashic and Semitic-based traditions in Gal 4 and finds support in a parallel tradition in the roughly contemporary writings of Philo of Alexandria.”98 My line of thought joins them in questioning the dichotomy between Hebrew/Greek (scripture and interpretation), Midrash/Allegory, Judea/Alexandria. I believe that the prominent positions in both New Testament and rabbinic scholarship widely miss the mark. First, Tannaitic literature holds allegorical-derashot, most of which are attributed to a group of interpreters called Dorshei Rashumot. In the next section I turn to their interpretations in an attempt to further dismantle the dichotomy. Second, I believe that Philo’s interpretation of Hagar/Sarah, which Jason Zurawski recently brought into comparison with Galatians 4, 94 95 96 97 98

Hanson, Allegory and Event, 82. Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 83. Urbach, The Sages, 263. See Dawson’s interesting critique of Boyarin’s glitch here, understanding promise and spirit as interchangeable. David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 25. Bar-Asher Siegal and Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21– 31,” 431.

104

chapter 2

does not line up with Paul’s hermeneutics. I attend to Philo in the subsequent sections. 8

Dorshei Rashumot and the History of Allegory

When Daniel Boyarin addressed Dorshei Rashumot and their exegetical craft, he argued against their identification by Jacob Z. Lauterbach as rabbinic allegorists and claimed rather that since ‫ רשום‬in Hebrew is synonymous for ‫חתום‬ “sealed,” so Dorshei Rashumot had an expertise not in allegory, but rather in clarifying textual opacities and solving textual riddles.99 In Tannaitic literature we find six such homilies.100 Boyarin is correct in his claim that all of these are derashot in the most common sense. That is, the exegesis is carried out via classical Tannaitic practices and is driven by prevalent midrashic questions and motivations. And yet, it seems important that when Boyarin seeks to show that not all the interpretations of Dorshei Rashumot are allegories he cites one late example from the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 24a), and one stub of interpretation from Tannaitic literature. Yet, the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot as they appear only in Tannaitic sources generally do find their place in the history of allegory.101 We find two interpretations of Dorshei Rashumot on the episode of the bitter water of Marah. Boyarin here insightfully identifies both their interpretations as allegories, driven by serious exegetical issues in the text. The text speaks of Israel not finding any water after three days of walk in the desert of Shur. They find bitter waters in a place that is hence named Marah. The following verses Exod 15:25–26 speak for some unknown reason, of commands and decrees: ‫ֹלהיָך וְ ַהּיָ ָ ׁ֤שר ְּב ֵעינָ ֙יו‬ ֶ֗ ‫ם־ׁש ֹ֨מ ַוע ִּת ְׁש ַ֜מע ְל ֹ֣קול׀ ה׳ ֱא‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָ ּ֖פט … ִא‬ ִ ‫ָ ׁ֣שם ָ ׂ֥שם ֹ֛לו ֥חֹק‬ Boyarin’s linguistic claim is far from solid. His identification of ‫ רשום‬as ‫“ חתום‬sealed” is based on a singular use found only in the Bavli (though ‫ דורשי רשומות‬is a Tannaitic, perhaps pre-Tannaitic term), and used by Rav, the Babylonian Amora. In the source Rav contrasts between ‫ רשום‬and ‫“ פתוח‬open.” But it is unclear if ‫ רשום‬means “sealed,” in the sense of “closed” or means “marked (as closed).” The denotation “marked as closed” is not at all far from “writing,” the more common understanding of ‫רשום‬, see Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Ancient Jewish Allegorists in Talmud and Midrash—Part 1,” JQR 1.3 (1911): 291–333; Daniel Boyarin, “Dorshei Rashumot Amru,” Beer-Sheva 3 (1988): 30–31 [Hebrew]. 100 Mek. RI Vayassa 1 (ed. Horovitz, 154); 3 (ed. Horovitz, 166); 4 (ed. Horovitz, 168) = Mek. RS 16, 21 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 112); 5 (ed. Horovitz, 170) = Mek. RS 16, 31 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 114); Sifre Deut. 165 (ed. Finkelstein, 215); Mek. RS 17, 8 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 120). 101 The central flaw with Lauterbach’s reconstruction is that his analysis is based on the print editions of the midrash and Talmud, and that he does not differentiate between Tannaitic and later sources. See Lauterbach, “Allegorists.”

99

Hagar and Sarah

105

‫ל־ח ָ ּ֑קיו‬ ֻ ‫ֹותיו וְ ָׁש ַמ ְר ָ ּ֖ת ָּכ‬ ָ֔ ‫“ ַּת ֲע ֶׂ֔שה וְ ַ ֽה ֲאזַ נְ ָּ֙ת ְל ִמ ְצ‬There the Lord made for them a statute and an ordinance…. If you will listen carefully to the voice of the Lord your God, and do what is right in his sight, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes.” This is an abrupt transition completely foreign to the problem of no-water/bitter-water introduced in the previous verses. Even the Hebrew verb ‫“( ויורהו‬and the Lord showed him a piece of wood”) denotes “pointing to” or “showing” but also ambiguously “teaching” or “commanding.” Dorshei Rashumot present two alternative allegorical interpretations (that cannot co-exist)102 of this episode. According to one Torah is water, according to the other the Torah is a wood/tree (both, in Hebrew, ‫)עץ‬: ‫ ומניין לדברי‬.‫ “לא מצאו מים“—דברי תורה שנמשלו במים‬:‫דורשי רשומות אמרו‬ .‫תורה שנמשלו במים? שנ׳ “הוי כל צמא לכו למים“ וגו׳‬

Dorshei Rashumot said: “They did not find water” (Exod 15:22)—the words of Torah which are represented by103 water. And how do we know that the words of Torah are represented by water? For it says: “Come, all you who are thirsty—come to the waters” (Isa 55:1104).105 ‫ שנ׳ “עץ חיים היא למחזיקי׳‬,‫ הראהו דברי תורה שנמשלו בעץ‬:‫דורשי רשומות אומ׳‬ .“‫בה‬

[on ‫ּיֹורהּו ה׳ ֵעץ‬ ֵ ַ‫“ ו‬And the Lord showed him a piece of wood” (Exod 15:25)] Dorshei Rashumot say: He showed him words of Torah that are represented by wood/tree. For it says: “She [wisdom] is a tree of life for those who take hold of her” (Prov 3:18).106 Interpreting Torah allegorically, once as water (vs. 22) and once as wood (vs. 25), generates a smooth narrative by bridging between the mysterious legal content 102 Menahem Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9–11 January, 2007, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth Clements, and David Satran, STDJ 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 158–59. 103 -‫“ נמשלו ב‬are ‘metaphorized’ as.” 104 In the context of Isa 55, water and food are used as metaphors for (adhering to) the words of God “Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good” (55:2). 105 Mek. RI Vayassa 1 (ed. Horovitz, 154). 106 Mek. RI Vayassa 3 (ed. Horovitz, 166).

106

chapter 2

of the episode and the water problems Israel suffered. It is being without Torah that caused the uprising, and it is Torah that sweetened the (possibly real!) bitter waters of Marah.107 Indeed, an exegetical conundrum which drives the allegorical interpretation of the Dorshei Rashumot, and the classical intertextual techniques of midrash inspire and enable their allegorical interpretation. Furthermore, we see that within a closed unit of text, Torah carries different, indeed, incoherent interpretations. In the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon we find the following derashah that seems to fit in as part of a sequence of homilies above on Israel’s sins in the desert: ‫ לפי שריפו יש׳‬.‫ אין רפידים אלא ריפיון ידיים‬.‫“ויבא עמלק“—דורשי רשומות אומרים‬ ‫ לפי שאין השונא בא אלא על החטא‬.‫ידיהם מדברי תורה ⟩לפיכ⟨ך בא עליהם שונא‬ ⟨…“ 109…⟩ ‫ ומה‬.‫ שנ׳ “ויהי כהכין מלכ׳ רחבעם וכחזקתו עזב את“ ג׳‬108.‫⟩… …⟨רה‬ .‫קדש בארץ“ ג׳‬

“And Amalek came” (Exod 17:8)—Dorshei Rashumot say, ‘Refidim’ is nothing but weakness [lit., “weakness of the hands”; The homily interprets Refidim as short hand (notarikon) for Rifyon Yadaim, weakness of hands]. Because Israel let their hands go from the words of Torah, therefore an enemy attacked them. For the enemy only attacks because of sin ⟨and transgression⟩ for it says: “And it came to pass, when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” (2 Chron 12:1) ⟨and what was his punishment?⟩ “And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” (ibid, 2).110 The homily generates a causality as justification for Amalek’s attack upon Israel in the desert. The lacuna is filled by a midrash-shem, taking a name and translating it into a concept: Refidim—rifyon. This is very much similar to the Kronos–Chronos allegories mentioned above. In the Mekhilta we find two quite difficult homilies of Dorshei Rashumot, interpreting certain points in the episode of the manna in Exodus 16. Lauterbach, in his foundational essay on rabbinic allegory, over-interpreted the homilies by reading Philonic interpretations into them, and was rightly 107 In some interpretations, it is the bitter-water which is (polemically) allegorized as Torah. On this allegory in Origen and its relation to rabbinic traditions, see Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations,” 159–61. 108 Epstein-Melamed fill the gap: ‫ועל העבירה‬. 109 Epstein-Melamed: ?‫ומה עונשו‬. 110 Mek. RS 17, 8 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 120).

Hagar and Sarah

107

criticized by Boyarin, who unfortunately left the derashah unexplained. The derashah appears twice, once on vs. 15 and once on vs. 31 in Exodus 16: ?‫ מהו‬,‫ מה הוא? כך אמרו זה לזה‬:‫“ויראו בני ישר׳ ויאמרו“ וגו׳—כאדם שאו׳ לחבירו‬ .‫ ישראל קראו את שמו מן‬:‫דורשי רשומות אמרו‬ “And the sons of Israel saw it and said man hu111 …” in a manner that a man says to his fellow: what is it? So they said to each other: what is it? Dorshei Rashumot said: Israel called it Man.112 ‫ בני ישר׳ קראו את‬:‫⟩“ויקראו בית ישר׳ את שמו מן“—דורשי⟨ רשומות אמרו‬ .‫שמו מן‬

⟨“And the house of Israel named it Man [manna]”—Dorshei⟩ Rashumot said: the sons of Israel called it Man.113 While the second version of this homily is completely opaque in this rendition, the first one gives us some information. The language of verse 15 in Exodus 16 is ambiguous. Israel sees the strange stuff fallen from the sky and say: ‫מן הוא‬ which both is a question (‫“ ?מן הוא‬what is it?”) but ultimately, as vs. 31 clarifies, also its name (‫“ !מן הוא‬it is Man”). While it seems that this is exactly the force of the name Man—that the name itself is constructed from the question of its identification (“what is it?” and “it is manna” are both possible translations of the coupling ‫)מן הוא‬. The derashah in the Mekhilta presents a disagreement between two opinions, both of which seek to disambiguate the clause ‫מן הוא‬: According to the first view, ‫ מן הוא‬appears in vs. 15 as a question. Implicit in this reading is that the question is answered in vs. 31: first Israel asks what it is, ultimately, they call it Man. Dorshei Rashumot read verse 15 differently, and understand it as saying: “the sons of Israel saw it and said this is Man.” This homily seems very far from allegory. But it is shortly followed by another derashah of Dorshei Rashumot on the manna, which perhaps allows for its clarification: ‫ מיכן שהיה במן‬:‫ דורשי רשומות או׳‬.‫“וילקטו אתו בבקר בבקר“—בשחרית בשחרית‬ .“‫“בזעת אפך תאכל לחם‬

111 Ambiguous: also “it is man” and “what it is?” 112 Mek. RI Vayassa 3 (ed. Horovitz, 166). 113 Mek. RI Vayassa 5 (ed. Horovitz, 170).

108

chapter 2

“And they gathered it early in the morning [lit., “in the morning in the morning”]” (Exod 16:21)—early in the morning. Dorshei Rashumot say: from here we learn that there was in the manna (something of) “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread.”114 We are once again presented with two interpretations. The first interpretation only translates the biblical ‫ בבקר בבקר‬to the rabbinic ‫ בשחרית בשחרית‬both meaning—very early in the morning. Dorshei Rashumot learn from this that the manna had something of the traits of bread: it too was gained by labor. And indeed the full parashah of the manna, as well as taking the previous derashah of the Dorshei Rashumot on the manna into account shows that Dorshei Rashumot deal with an exegetical issue here, touching upon the riddled name and nature of the manna. Vs. 15 reads in full as follows: ‫אמר מ ֶֹׁש ֙ה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ה־הּוא וַ ּ֤י‬ ֑ ‫ל־א ִח ֙יו ָ ֣מן ֔הּוא ִ ּ֛כי ֥ל ֹא יָ ְד ֖עּו ַמ‬ ָ ‫אמ ֜רּו ִ ֤איׁש ֶא‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ ּיִ ְר ֣אּו ְב ֵנֽי־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ֗אל וַ ּ֨י‬ ‫ֲא ֵל ֶ֔הם ֣הּוא ַה ֔ ֶּל ֶחם ֲא ֶׁ֨שר נָ ַ ֧תן ה׳ ָל ֶכ֖ם ְל ָא ְכ ָ ֽלה׃‬

And the sons of Israel saw it and said to each other: man hu [what is it?], For they did not know what it was; And Moses said to them: this is the bread that the Lord has given you to eat. According to the reading of Dorshei Rashumot, manna is a strange thing, unidentifiable to the people. Indeed, it is strangely described in vs. 14 as a thin layer on the ground (‫ל־ה ָ ֽא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ ) ַ ּ֣דק ְמ ֻח ְס ֔ ָּפס ַ ּ֥דק ַּכ ְּכ ֖ ֹפר ַע‬and later, in vs. 31 as “white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey” (‫ְּכ ֶ �ז ַ֤רע ּגַ ֙ד ָל ָ֔בן וְ ַט ְע ֹ֖מו‬ ‫יחת ִּב ְד ָ ֽבׁש‬ ֥ ִ ‫) ְּכ ַצ ִּפ‬. Nevertheless, Moses, reiterating God’s language, persistently calls it “bread” (vs. 4, 8, 11, 15, 22, 29, 32). How may a thing that looks nothing like bread (but rather like a thin layer of coriander seeds) and tastes nothing like bread (but like wafers with honey), be called bread? Dorshei Rashumot point out—Moses and Israel call it by different names, manna and bread. When Dorshei Rashumot interpret ‫ בבקר בבקר‬they claim that there are indeed breadlike features to the manna: Israel rose early and worked hard to collect it. What we have here may be traces of a midrash of Dorshei Rashumot on the names ‫ מן‬and ‫ לחם‬and the connection between them. The interpretation of names as revealing some hidden essence of the substance/object is a common allegorical practice though, as we have seen, its legitimacy is debated. The exploration of names was a central method for the revelation of hidden 114 Mek. RI Vayassa 4 (ed. Horovitz, 168).

Hagar and Sarah

109

meanings already in the Derveni Papyrus,115 and is also mentioned and criticized by Plutarch.116 This type of midrashic interest can indeed be understood as part of the history of allegorical and figural interpretations. In another derashah, interpreting the obligation to gift the foreleg, cheeks and maw of the sacrificed animal to the priest (Deut 18:3), we find another form of interpretation that we may associate with ancient allegory:117 .‫ “והלחיים“ זה לחי תחתון‬.‫ “הזרוע“—זרוע שלימין‬.‫“ונתן לכהן“—לכהן עצמו‬ ‫ וכ׳‬.‫ נתן לו זרוע {} תחת היד‬:‫ דורשי רשומות אומ׳‬:‫ ר׳ יהודה או׳‬.‫“והקיבה“במשמעה‬ ‫ כ׳ ה׳ א׳ “ויעמד פינחס‬.‫ הלחיים תחת תפלה‬.“‫ה׳ א׳ “ויקם מתו׳ !העם! ויקח רמ׳ בי׳‬ .“‫ ()[ש]נ׳ “וא!ל! האשה אל קבתה‬.‫ קיבה תחת קיבה‬.‫ויפלל“ וגו׳‬ “He shall give to the priest”—to the priest himself. “The forearm”—the right forearm. “And the cheeks”—this is the bottom cheek. “And the stomach”—as it is written.118 Rabbi Yehuda says: Dorshei Rashumot say: He gives him the forearm in place of the hand (-‫ )תחת ה‬and so he says: “he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand” (Num 25:7). The Cheeks are in place of prayer, and so he says: “But Phineas stood up and intervened,119 and the plague was checked” (Ps 106:30).120 The stomach is in place of the stomach, for it says: “and into the woman’s stomach” (Num 25:8).121 The homily presents an allegorical interpretation of a priestly gift, bringing to mind the attempt of apologetic allegory in the Letter of Aristeas to explain the arbitrariness of the dietary laws. The midrash—and Eleazar’s interpretation in 115 See Charles D. Kahn, “Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus?,” in Studies on the Derveni Papyrus, ed. Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 61–63. 116 “Those who insist that the body is called Hades, since the soul is, as it were, deranged and inebriate when it is in the body, are too frivolous in their use of allegory,” Plutarch, Is. Os. 362b (F.C. Babbit, LCL 197, 68–69). See also: “These men are like the Greeks who say that Cronus is but a figurative name (ἀλληγοροῦσι) for Chronus (Time), Hera for Air, and that the birth of Hephaestus symbolizes the change of Air into Fire.” 363d (F.C. Babbit, LCL 197, 77). 117 Boyarin does not discuss this example. 118 ‫—במשמעה‬a use of a variation of the Tannaitic exegetical term; ‫—כשמועו‬used here to point that the word ‫“ קיבה‬maw” is not interpreted. On the term and its uses, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Midrash and Hermeneutic Reflectivity: Kishmu’o As a Test Case,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren Niehoff, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 329–44. 119 In Hebrew ‫ויפלל‬. 120 The Cheek is tied to Prayer, probably because it is part of the mouth. 121 Sifre Deut. §165 (ed. Finkelstein, 215).

110

chapter 2

Aristeas too—turns (language) objects into symbols. The cheek is not merely a cheek, and the forearm is not merely an animal’s forearm: both are symbols of the righteous act of Phineas. The central difference between the allegoricalmidrash of the Dorshei Rashumot and the apologetic allegory of Aristeas is that it generates the symbolism through intertexts rather than a shift from scripture to philosophical concepts. Perhaps, in the case of Dorshei Rashumot, the intertexts are like two riddles that when superimposed are both solved. At the one end Phineas is used to explain the reasoning behind the priestly gift, and at the other the priestly gifts are used to interpret Phineas’ reward. Two difficult verses may have been thus solved: the strange language of ‫יתי‬ ֖ ִ ‫ת־ּב ִר‬ ְ ‫ִהנְ ִ֨ני ֹנ ֵת֥ן ֛ל ֹו ֶא‬ ‫“ ָׁש ֹֽלום‬I will give him my covenant of peace” (Num 25:12) and also ‫ְּב ִ ֖רית ְּכהֻ ַּנ֣ת‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֥י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל‬ ְ ‫אֹלהיו וַ יְ ַכ ֵ ּ֖פר ַע‬ ָ֔ ‫“ ע ָֹול֑ם ּ ַ֗תחַ ת א ׁ ֲֶש֤ר ִקּנֵ ֙א ֵ ֽל‬He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites” (vs. 13).122 Both of these verses disclose that Phineas is forever given a divine gift. The word choice of ‫תחת אשר‬ may be taken as alluding to a correspondence between Phineas’s act and the reward that he was granted, and this may have driven the symbolic interpretation offered by the Dorshei Rashumot. In conclusion, one of the central motivations for allegorization in the history of exegesis is the solving of textual, scriptural problems. We find Jewish allegorical interpreters in Alexandria, especially Philo, using allegory to solve textual problems and to explain the nonsensical and the arbitrary while justifying the language and structure of the text. Furthermore, the allegorical interpretation of Dorshei Rashumot is commonly generated through an intertext, a remote scriptural context that helps form the figure. This is the case of Torah as water and wood, as well as the case of Phineas and the priestly gifts. Sometimes it is the sound of an interpreted word that generates the new figure. As such, they are classical darshanim, as Boyarin would have them. A central terminology used by the Dorshei Rashumot is ‫שנמשל ב‬, which I translated as “is represented by,” or “symbolized by.” The terminology appears in additional homilies in Tannaitic literature, not attributed to a specific group of darshanim. In the Sifre and the Mekhilta we find two such examples: ‫ מה אש נתנה מן‬.‫“מימינו אש דת למו“—מגיד הכתוב שדברי תורה נמשלו באש‬ ‫ שנאמר “אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי‬,‫השמים כך דברי תורה ניתנו מן השמים‬ 122 A homily in the Sifre Num, not attributed to Dorshei Rashumot, ties this eternal covenant mentioned in numbers to the twenty-four gifts given to the priests. In a later collection midrash ha-gadol, this derashah is indeed attributed to Dorshei Rashumot. But not so in direct Tannaitic sources. See on this Kahana, Commentary on Sifre Numbers, 4:1115.

Hagar and Sarah

111

‫ מה אש אם קרוב לה אדם‬.‫ מה אש חיים לעולם אף דברי תורה חיים לעולם‬.“‫עמכם‬ ‫ פירש‬,‫ כל זמן שאדם עמל בהן חיים הן לו‬.‫ רחוק ממנה צונן—כך דברי תורה‬,‫נכווה‬ ‫ ומה אש משתמשין בה בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא—כך דברי‬.‫מהן מיד ממיתין אותו‬ ‫ ומה אש כל המשתמש בה עושה בגופו‬.‫תורה משתמשין בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא‬ ‫ ⟩מה אש⟨ בני אדם‬.⟨‫רושם—כך ⟩דברי תורה כל המשתמש בהם עושי בגופו רושם‬ ‫העמילין בה ניכרין [הן] בין הבריות—כך תלמידי חכמים ניכרין בדיבורן ובהילוכן‬ .‫ובעטיפתן בשוק‬

“From his right hand went a fiery law for them”123 (Deut 33:2)—scripture tells that the words of Torah are symbolized by fire. Like fire was given from the heavens, so the words of Torah were given from the heavens, for it says: “You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (Exod 20:19). Like fire is life for the world, so the words of Torah are life to the world. Like fire, when a person comes close to it he is burned, when he moves away from he is cold—so are the words of Torah: as long as a person labors with them, they are life to him. If he distances himself from them—they immediately kill him. And like fire is used both in this world and in the world to come, so the words of Torah are used in this world and in the world to come. And like fire that all who use it, it leaves a mark on their body, so are the words of Torah, all who use them, they leave a mark on their bodies. Like fire, people who work with it are noticeable/distinguished among other people, so are the students of Torah are noticeable/ distinguished in their talk, their walk and their dress in public.124 ⟨‫ מפני‬.‫“והר סיני עשן כלו“—יכול מקום הקב״ה? תל׳ לו׳ “כלו“ ולא מקום ה⟩קב״ה‬ ‫ ⟩מה אש חיים⟨ לעולם‬.‫מה? ש“ירד ה׳ עליו באש“—מלמד שנמשלו דברי תורה באש‬ ‫ מה אש קרב לה אדם נכוה רחק ממנה צנן כך דברי‬.‫אף דברי תורה חיים לעולם‬ ‫ מה אש קטן מדליק ⟩מן הגדול וגדול⟨ מדליק מן הקטן כך דברי תורה קטן‬.‫תורה‬ ⟨……⟩‫ כל המפרפר באש בעולם הזה זוכה ומ‬.‫למד מן הגדול וגדול למד מן⟨ הקטן‬ ‫ כל המקבל עליו‬:‫אחר‬-⟨‫ ⟩דבר‬.⟨…⟩ “‫⟩כי מה⟨ יש לנו “הלך צדקות ודברי מישרים‬ ‫ וכל הפ⟩ורק …⟨ נותנין עליו ע⟩ו⟨ל מלכיות‬.‫עול תורה ⟩…⟨ מלכיות שנמשלו באש‬ ⟩…⟨ ‫ ⟩… “…⟨ מהאש יצאו‬.⟨…⟩‫ש‬ “And mount Sinai smoked in every part” (Exod 19:18)—Could it be that the place of the lord was fire? Talmud Lomar “in every part” and not the 123 The verse in Deuteronomy is poetic, and its translation is debatable and varied. The English standard version reads: “he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.” 124 Sifre Deut. §343 (ed. Finkelstein 399–400).

112

chapter 2

place of the lord. How so? “because the Lord descended upon it in fire” (ibid.)—scripture teaches us that words of Torah are symbolized by fire. Like fire is life to the world, so are the words of Torah life to the world…. Like fire, when a person comes close to it he is burned, when he moves away from it he is cold—so are the words of Torah. Like fire, a small thing may be lighted from the big, and a big thing may be lighted from the small so are the words of Torah—a small one learns from the big, and the big learns from the small. Whoever nearly kills himself in fire [Torah] in this world wins ⟨…⟩ ⟨as what⟩ have we “Those who walk righteously and speak uprightly” (Isa 33:15) ⟨…⟩. Another thing: Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of Torah ⟨…⟩ kingdoms, symbolized by fire. And whoever breaks ⟨…⟩125 the yoke of kingdoms is placed on him since ⟨…⟩ ⟨…⟩ came from fire ⟨…⟩126 These homilies present the metaphor Torah = fire. Both in the case of Sifre Deuteronomy as well as in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon, they are not intertextual derashot per se. While the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot used intertexts in order to drive metaphors from the Prophets and Writings for the sake of solving a textual problem in the Torah, here it seems that Torah = fire is a truism, a given metaphor that need not be based upon a prooftext, and is so presented.127 That God came down on mount Sinai in fire (Exod 19:18) is the only textual reason given by the derashah for understanding ‫ אש דת למו‬as speaking figuratively of Torah as fire. In other words, a metonymy in Exodus becomes a metaphor in Deuteronomy, but a textual reasoning for the generation of the metaphor is not directly provided. The absence of a poetical prooftext from the Prophets or Writings brings to mind allegory as we have come to know it from the Letter of Aristeas, the Aristobulus fragments and Philo’s works. At least rhetorically, the figure is not generated via intertexts but rather through analogy: fire is Torah because it shares many traits with it.128 Driven by analogy rather than by an intertext, this 125 Most probably: whoever breaks the yoke of Torah. Cf. m. ʾAbot 3:5. 126 Mek RS 19, 18 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 144). 127 Precedents for this symbol are found in scripture. Consider e.g., “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” (Jer 23:29). 128 This is simpler and more direct in some analogies in the derashah more than others. The analogy between fire and Torah with the respect of lighting/learning from big or small— is a straight forward analogy. So is the idea that there is no life without Torah, is a simple analogy. The claim that if you are close to fire—you are burned and if you are far you are cold—and the way it is analogous to Torah is quite strange: if you are far from it you are cold—and in the case of Torah, you die (and are cold …) is clear. But what does getting burnt have to do with “life”?

Hagar and Sarah

113

type of allegory stands closer—though undoubtedly also deeply differs from— the way philosophical concepts are introduced to scripture by the Alexandrian interpreters (and other allegorists in later periods): through the power of analogy alone. Another case of a homiletical use of ‫ שנמשלו ב‬terminology, outside of Dorshei Rashumot traditions, is found at the end of Sifre Deuteronomy: ‫ אמ׳‬.“‫“אשר ידעו פנים אל פנים“ למה נאמר? לפי שנאמר “ויאמר הריני נא את כבודך‬ ‫ [ש]נאמר “ויאמר לא תוכל לראות את‬.‫ בעולם הזה אי אתה רואה ש[נ]משל בפנים‬:‫לו‬ ‫פני“ אבל רואה אתה בעולם הבא שנמשל באחוריים שנאמר “והסירותי את כפי ראית‬ .‫ הא למדת שהמתים רואין‬.‫את אחורי“ אימתי הראהו? סמוך למיתה‬

“whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut 34:10) why is this said? For it is said “show me your glory” (Exod 33:18). He said to him: In this world you do not see, for it is symbolized by “face,” for it is written “Thou canst not see my face” (Exod 33:20). But you may see in the world to come, symbolized by “backside”—“and I will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back” (Exod 33:23). When did he show him? Close to his time of death. This teaches you that the dead are granted vision.129 The homily from the Sifre does not generate the allegory at all. Both the world to come = back = east and this world = face = west are cases of a metaphors generated elsewhere, rooted already in Psalms: ‫ָאחֹור וָ ֶק ֶדם ַצ ְר ָתנִ י וַ ָת ֶשת ָע ַלי ַכ ֶפ ָכה‬ “You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me” (Ps 139:5). The homily transforms the spatial, bodily images into a temporal one.130 But the phrase “face to face” (‫ )פנים אל פנים‬in the interpreted verse is not at all allegorized, but rather given specificity, through the metaphorization of face/ back as this world/the next. In other words, Moses truly saw the face God (not allegorically), but the question of the homily is when? And its answer: before his death. Other cases of ‫ נמשל ב‬homilies, similarly lack the allegorical features of Dorshei Rashumot who allegorized Pentateuchal narratives. Perhaps the only case in which we find a “thick,” even carnal, allegory, coming close to the practice of Dorshei Rashumot is the following homily: 129 Sifre Deut. §357 (ed. Finkelstein, 431). 130 This is a tricky Tannaitic interpretation, but I believe this is the correct way to understand why the homily identifies the world to come with ‫ אחוריים‬and this world with ‫פנים‬ (and not the other way around, as one would expect from this interpretation). ‫ אחוריים‬is played on with the meaning of “afterwards” (‫ )אחרי‬and the face (‫ )פנים‬as “before” (‫)לפני‬. Otherwise we would expect ‫ פנים‬and ‫ קדם‬to denote the next world. But this is not the case in this homily.

114

chapter 2

‫ משל למלך שכעס על בנו והכהו‬.‫“ושמ׳ את דב׳“—מגיד שנמשלו דב׳ תור׳ בסם חיים‬ ‫ כל זמן שרטייא זו על גבי מכתך אכול‬,‫ בני‬:‫ אמ׳ לו‬.‫מכה רעה ונתן רטייה על גבי מכתו‬ ‫ אבל‬.‫מה שהנייך ושתה מה שהנאך ורחוץ בין בחמין בין בצונין ואי אתה נזוק כלום‬ .‫אם הגבה־ת׳ אותה מיד היא מעלה נמייה‬ ‫ “הלא אם תטיב‬,‫ בראתי לכם יצר הרע שאין רע הימנו‬:‫כך אמ׳ ל()[ה]ן הקב׳ה ליש׳‬ ‫ ואין פורשין אתם מדברי תורה הרי הוא‬.‫ היו עסוקים בד׳ תו׳ ואינו שולט בכם‬.“‫שאת‬ .“‫ שנ׳ “לפתח חטאת רובץ ואליך תשוקתו‬.‫שולט בכם‬

“You shall put these words of mine in your heart” (Deut 11:18)—This is to say that the words of Torah are symbolized as an elixir of life. This is a parable: for a king who was angry at his son, and hit him badly and then put a bandage on his wound. He said to him: my son, as long as this bandage is on your wound you may eat what you wish and drink what you wish, and wash in hot or cold water, and you will not be harmed. But if you remove it, your wound will immediately fester. Thus the Holy One said to Israel: I have created in you a yetzer, there is nothing eviler than it, “but if you do right, there is an uplift” (Gen 4:7), be occupied with the words of Torah, and it will not rule you. But if you abandon the words of Torah, it will rule you. As it says: “sin crouches at the door, its urge is toward you.” (Gen 4:7)131 The derashah interprets ‫ ושמתם‬as an acronym (‫תם‬-‫ )סם‬and the verse in Deuteronomy is then allegorized as referring to the war with the yetzer: putting words of Torah on one’s heart—like a bandage—is the cure for one’s yetzer, here presented as an ailment. In this case, a difficult verse is solved and a full dramatic rendition of it is presented, in a scope similar to that of Dorshei Rashumot. But this extensive homily stands out in Tannaitic allegories which in fact are usually based on available allegories, with only a very narrow narrative scope, like the other ‫ נמשלו ב‬homilies listed above.132 The differences between these homilies and those of Dorshei Rashumot are telling. (1) Dorshei Rashumot are generally interested not in clauses from scripture but in full narratives, such as Israel’s sins in the desert and the manna. Later Tannaitic allegories, as we have seen, solve a difficult clause ‫אש דת‬ and a contradictory verse (‫)ידעו פנים אל פנים‬. (2) Dorshei Rashumot generate 131 Sifre Deut. §45 (ed. Finkelstein, 103). For a detailed analysis of this homily see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: Yezter Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 21ff. 132 for other cases see e.g., Torah = water, in Sifre Deut. §45 (ed. Finkelstein, 110); Torah = honey and oil in Sifre Deut. §45 (ed. Finkelstein, 111); Torah = peace Sifre Zuta Num. 6, 26 (ed. Horovitz, 250).

Hagar and Sarah

115

their allegories intertextually: they bring forth metaphors from the Prophets/ Writings in order to reinterpret a Pentateuchal episode. Their reading is substantiated by the implicit midrashic idea that the Prophets/Writings are the key to reading the Torah itself. Conversely, in both the allegorical derashot from the Sifre no intertext is provided (though it indeed may exist) and the symbolism is either just presented as fact (‫ )פנים ואחור‬or simply as a good analogy (Torah/Fire). The intertextual component of the derashot of Dorshei Rashumot is key: it allows us to dismantle the common dichotomy between midrash and allegory and claim Dorshei Rashumot are allegorical darshanim. Midrash (as hermeneutics) and allegory are in continuity and are not binaries. 9

Precedents for Hebrew Allegory: Allegory in Qumran

9.1 Allegory and Actualization in the Continuous Pesher Literature The hermeneutic of the continuous pesharim is founded on the premise that the Endtime has indeed come. The pesharim repeatedly and systematically “actualize” scripture, interpret prophecies as speaking of contemporary reality, and see the divine promises of old as being presently realized. In this sense, it the Qumran community shares a sense of reality with the first-generation Christ-community, as well as a shared hermeneutical backbone: ancient prophecies are now being fulfilled. As such, the pesharim most commonly deal with sources speaking explicitly of eschatological themes and scenarios (Such as Ps 37;133 Isa 5:11–18;134 Isa 10135) and interpret them according to the views of the sect. And so, “the wicked” of Psalms 37:12 are identified by the Psalm Pesher as “the ruthless ones of the covenant, who are in the house of Judah.”136 The righteous in the same verse are specifically understood as “those who do the Torah, who are in the Council of the Community.” Many of the scriptural interpretations of the pesharim adhere to this elementary logic that differs from that of allegorical interpretations. Pesher interpretations are usually dubbed as contemporizations, but most important to our purpose, they are specifications: who are the evil-doers the prophet speaks of? The evil doers are the Pharisees/Romans/ Ephraim/Manasseh. The movement through time, and the turn towards the more specific sets them apart from allegory which generally moves towards 133 134 135 136

4Q171 (Pesher Psalms A). 4Q162 (Pesher Isaiah B). 4Q163 (Pesher Isaiah C). ‫פשרו על עריצי הברית אשר בבית יהודה‬, 4Q171 1-2 II, 13–15.

116

chapter 2

the conceptually different (shifting for instance from narrative figures to philosophical concepts) or to the more abstract. According to some scholars, the difference between allegory and typology is inconsequential. Boyarin regards typology as a subtype of allegory: it is a specific case of “other-speak,” of saying one thing and pointing to another, when the “otherness” of the new, typological denotation is that it is historically set apart from the signifier. David Dawson137 and Menahem Kister138 have similarly played down the difference between typology and allegory presenting them as variations on a similar exegetical operation. Blurring or downplaying the difference between allegory and typology has historiographical implications. When allegory is defined too broadly— like in Quintilian’s definition, as saying of one thing and meaning another— differences between distinct systems of hermeneutics (such as hermeneutics of the pesharim, the allegorical interpretations of Philo, Paul’s interpretation of scripture and midrashic hermeneutics) collapse.139 Parables (the rabbinic mashal and the parables of the NT) are also a form of “other-speak” but they should not be confused with other hermeneutical structures. All of these are adjacent yet distinct hermeneutical phenomena of antiquity, and much scholarly effort has justifiably been allocated to distinguish between them. Similarly, those who think of allegories simply as “extended metaphors” may unjustifiably blur the distinctions between these two hermeneutical structures.140 The distinction between typology and allegory is essential and indispensable. Do we find allegory in the Qumran pesharim? That is, do we find interpretations of scripture that move from the specific to the conceptual, or shift from different plateaus of meaning in service of the mainly typological pesher? We do, though only very rarely. Bilhah Nitzan has mentioned allegory as one of the hermeneutical procedures of the pesher, and notes two examples from Pesher Habakkuk.141 A few other examples can be found in Pesher Nahum.142 In all of these cases, the interpreted verse(s) either does not deal with the eschaton at all, or deals with it figuratively. Let us consider one example from the Nahum Pesher (4Q169 1–2 I, 1–11), an interpretation of Nahum 1:3b–6:143 137 Dawson, Allegorical Readers, 16. 138 Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations,” 133 n. 2. 139 This is the central problem both with DiMattei, “Paul’s Allegory.” See also, Davis, “Allegorically Speaking.” both otherwise illuminating studies. 140 See e.g., Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations,” 135; Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 30. 141 Bilhah Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986), 33–79 [Hebrew]. 142 See, apart for the example discussed at length below, Pesher Nahum 4Q169 3–4 III, 8–10. 143 ‫ל־הּנְ ָה ֹ֖רות ֶ ֽה ֱח ִ ֑ריב ֻא ְמ ַל֤ל‬ ַ ‫�ּֽיַּב ֵׁ֔שהּו וְ ָכ‬ ְ ‫ֹּגוע֤ר ַּבּיָ ֙ם ַו‬ ֵ  4 ‫ּוב ְׂש ָע ָר ֙ה ַּד ְר ֹּ֔כו וְ ָע ָנ�֖ן ֲא ַ ֥בק ַרגְ ָ ֽליו׃‬ ִ ‫סּופה‬ ֤ ָ ‫ ה׳ ְּב‬3b ‫ ָה ִר ֙ים ָר ֲע ׁ֣שּו ִמ ֶּ֔מּנּו וְ ַהּגְ ָב ֹ֖עות ִה ְתמ ָֹג֑גּו וַ ִּת ָ ּׂ֤שא ָה ָ֨א ֶר ֙ץ ִמ ָּפ ָ֔ניו וְ ֵת ֵ ֖בל‬ 5 ‫ּופ ַרח ְל ָבֹנ֖ ון ֻא ְמ ָ ֽלל׃‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ׁשן וְ ַכ ְר ֶ֔מל‬ ֙ ָ ‫ָּב‬ ‫ֹתו נִ ְּת ָכ֣ה ָכ ֵ֔אׁש וְ ַה ֻּצ ִ ֖רים נִ ְּת ֥צּו ִמ ֶ ּֽמּנּו׃‬ ֙ ‫ּומי יָ ֖קּום ַּב ֲח ֹ֣רון ַא ֹּ֑פו ֲח ָמ‬ ֥ ִ ‫ֹמו ִ ֣מי ַי ֲֽע ֹ֔מוד‬ ֙ ‫ ִל ְפ ֵנ֤י זַ ְע‬ 6 ‫וְ ָכל־ ֹ֥י ְׁש ֵבי ָ ֽבּה׃‬

Hagar and Sarah

117

]‫בסופה ובשערה דרכו ו] ענן א[בק רגליו‬ 1 ]‫]עי שמיו וארצו אשר בר[אם‬.…[‫]ת ר‬.……[‫ה‬ 2 ‫גוע[ר] בים ויוב[ישהו  פ]שרו הים הם כל הכ[תיים‬ 3 ]‫לעש[ות] בהם משפט ולכלותם מעל פני [הארץ  וכל הנהרות החריב‬ 4 ‫ עם [  מו]שליהם אשר תתם ממשתלם [אמלל בשן] וכרמל ופרח לבנן‬5 ]‫אמלל פ[שרו‬ [‫ [וה]חר[י]ב רבים רום רשעה כי הב‬6 [‫ [כר]מל ולמושליו לבנון ופרח ל[ב] נון היא‬7 ‫ [אנשי עצ]תם ואבדו מלפני[  ] בחיר[ו‬8 ]‫ [וכו]ל יושבי תבל      הר]ים ראשו ממנו והגבעות יתמוגגו‬9 ]‫ [ותשא] הארת ממנו ומלפני[ו תבל וכו]ל[ יושבי בה לפני זעמו מי יעמוד ומי‬10 ‫ [יקום] בחרון אפו ח[מתו] נתכה כאש והצורים נתצו ממנו‬11 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9



[… His way is in the whirlwind and in the storm, and] clouds (are) the d[ust of his feet. (Nah 1:3b) …] H[…]t r[…]ʾy his heavens and his earth, which he cre[ated …] He rebuk[ed] the sea and drie[d it up.] its interpretation: “the sea” that is all the Ki[ttim …] so as to ren[der] a judgment against them and to wipe them out from upon the face of [the earth. And he dried up all the rivers.] with [all] their [ru]lers, whose dominion will be ended [… Bashan is withered] and Carmel, and the blossom of Lebanon is withered. [Its] int[erpretation …] [and] they [will make] many deso[la]te (at) the height of wickedness, for hb[…] [Car]mel and regarding its rulers, Lebanon. And the “blossom of Le[ba]­non” is […] [and the men of] their [couns]el, but they will perish before [… his] elect […] [and all] the inhabitants of the world (vacat) Mountain[s quaked before him and the hills melted away.]

“His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and he dries up all the rivers; Bashan and Carmel wither, and the bloom of Lebanon fades. The mountains quake before him, and the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who live in it. Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and by him the rocks are broken in pieces.” Citation of Pehser taken from: Tov, Emanuel. “4Q169.” Translated by Shani L. Berrin. Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts, Emanuel Tov, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2542-3525_dsselnbt_DSS_EL_NBT_4Q169.

118 10

11

chapter 2

[And] the earth [is laid waste] before him, and before [him the world and al]l [who inhabit it. Before his indignation who can stand, and who] [can endure] the heat of his anger? [His] wr[ath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are pulled down by him.]

The pesher presents an allegorical interpretation, though unfortunately the central allegorical referents are unidentifiable. We can discern that the sea is a certain contemporary group of evil-doers, and that God will “ren[der] a judgment against them and to wipe them out from upon the face of [the earth]” (line 4).144 The consecutive allegorizations of “the river,” “Bashan,” “Carmel,” and “Lebanon” are similarly unidentifiable, but they too point to specific wicked-entities. Though the evidence does not allow for a definite restoration, it seems that Pesher Nahum takes Nahum 1:3b–6 as an allegory for God’s vengeance upon non-sectarian groups in the end of days. In their original context, the verses present a poetic image of divine power that overcomes of the most potent forces of nature: the sea, the rivers, the hills, the earth and all of its inhabitants. Contrary to the literal sense, the pesher understands the verses as the allegorical restatement of the previous verse: ‫ֹיְביו‬ ֽ ָ ‫ֹנוטר ֖הּוא ְלא‬ ֥ ֵ ְ‫נֵ ֹ֤קם ה׳ ְל ָצ ָ ֔ריו ו‬ “the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and rages against his enemies”— and so the sea, the rivers and the hills are not a metaphor for God’s power but images of “his enemies.” Pesher Nahum generates an allegorical actualization: the images of God’s force are understood as the forceful extermination of his actual and contemporary enemies. Furthermore, Shani L. Berrin (Tzoref) notes that “Bashan,” “Carmel” and “Lebanon” are doubly interpreted in the pesher, once as concrete enemies and once as ‫( רבים רום רשעה‬in this context, according to Berrin, be translated as: “the great haughtiness of men”). If this reading is correct, then the allegorical denotations generated by the pesher are not exactly actualizations, but rather abstractions. Rather than translating images to concrete enemies, in this case “the lemma’s literal geographic regions are transformed into metaphorical terms representing qualities associated with these regions.”145 The language of Nahum is figurative, in the sense that it erects images—not allegories—of nature retreating before the power of 144 Allegro has suggested to restore “‘the sea’ that is all the Ki[ttim …]” Shani Berrin has criticized the restoration, which attests to an inclination to assume an “intrinsic connection between the symbol of the sea and that which it represents.” She notes Doudna’s alternative restoration, according to which the sea are gentile enemies, and a third possibility, according to which the sea denotes all non-sectarians, gentile or Jewish. See Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 75. 145 Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 84 n. 40.

Hagar and Sarah

119

God. Pesher Nahum allegorizes these images, turning them to concrete forceful actions against concrete groups of evil-doers in the end of days. In the Damascus Document we find the famous allegorical interpretation of the Song of the Well (Num 21:17–20),146 and in Pesher Melchizedek we find an allegorization of shemitah,147 both of which function quite differently from the interpretations in the continuous pesharim. The Damascus Document (CD 6:2–11 and 3:16) allegorizes the Song of the Well (Num 21:17–20) with view to legitimize the sect’s hermeneutics, and so presents a magnificent example of a reflective allegory, an allegory substantiating itself: ‫ ה“באר“ היא התורה ו“חופריה“ הם‬.“‫“באר חפרוה שרים כרוה נדיבי העם במחוקק‬ ‫שבי ישראל היוצאים מארץ יהודה ויגורו בארץ דמשק אשר קרא אל את כולם‬ ‫ וה“מחוקק“ הוא דורש התורה‬.‫“שרים“ כי דר[ש]והו ולא הושבה פארתם בפי אחד‬ ‫ ו“נדיבי העם“ הם הבאים לכרות את הבאר‬.“‫אשר אמר ישעיה “מוציא כלי למעשיהו‬ ‫ וזולתם לא ישיגו עד‬.‫במחוקקות אשר חקק המחוקק להתהלך במה בכל קץ הרשיע‬ 148.‫עמד יורה הצדק באחרית הימים‬

“The well which the princes have excavated the nobles of the people dug by the direction of the Lawgiver” (Num 21:18). The well is the Torah and its excavators are the penitent of Israel who will exit from the land of Judah and dwell in the land of Damascus, all of whom God has called “princes,” for [they] all will have interpreted it (the words of Moses) and their glorious (interpretation) cannot be challenged by anyone. And the Lawgiver is the interpreter of the Torah about whom Isaiah said, “One who brings forth an instrument for his works” (Isa 54:16). And the nobles of the people are the ones who will come to excavate the well (Torah) with legislative mastery which the Lawgiver has etched so that they will walk by them during the entire epoch of wickedness; and those who are apart from them will not attain (understanding) until the True Lawgiver arises at the end of days.149 Unlike most of the sect’s interpretations, the pesher deals with the history of the sect not its destiny. The well is an allegory for Torah, its interpretation is 146 147 148 149

Discussed also in the previous chapter, as it is formed as a midrash-pesher. Both mentioned by Kister, “A Common Heritage,” 109–111. From the Historical Dictionary, Based here on TS 6 K10. Translation taken from Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document, STDJ 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 39.

120

chapter 2

allegorized as digging in it. The tool for digging (‫ )המחוקק‬is the ‫ דורש התורה‬the interpreter of Torah.150 The intertext from Isaiah substantiates that his tool of excavation/interpretation was created by God (‫אתי ָח ָ ֔רׁש נ ֨ ֵֹפ ַ ֙ח‬ ִ ‫ֹכי ָּב ָ ֣ר‬ ֙ ִ ‫הן [ ִהנֵ ה] ָ ֽאנ‬ ‫ּוֹמוציא ְכ ִ ֖לי ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֑שהּו‬ ִ֥ ‫“ ְּב ֵ ֣אׁש ֶּפ ָ֔חם‬See it is I who have created … One who brings forth an instrument/weapon for his works”). With regards to the history of allegory as we have retraced it, we may note the following: (1) The interpreted text—the Song of the Well—is an enigmatic poem/song, and as such, it is similar to allegories of mysterious orphic poetry, such as those of the Derveni Papyrus. (2) The metaphor digging is interpreting imagines meaning as hyponoia. Torah holds hidden meanings and its interpretation requires to somehow “dig into” it. (3) The tools of interpretation are divinely granted (as the intertext shows), but at the same time are left unspecified and undisclosed. Allegory is established thus as a type of esoteric interpretation, granted by God and so marked with authorial intent. Is allegory a type of text or a type of interpretation? Both, as the author has provided the text as well as its key. (4) The citation of Isaiah operates quite differently from the intertexts in Tannaitic literature as well as from Paul in Galatians. The verse from Isaiah does not present a prophetic metaphor used to allegorize a verse from the Torah, but is allegorized together with the Song of the Well and read as speaking of a divinely created tool of interpretation. In Pesher Melchizedek we find the following allegory, quite outstanding in the history of allegory in Judea/Palestine: ‫ואשר אמר בשנת היובל [הזואת תשובו איש אל אחוזתו ועליו אמר וז]ה‬ 2 ‫ [דבר השמטה] שמוט כול בעל משה יד אשר ישה [ברעהו לוא יגוש את רעהו‬3 ‫ואת אחיו כיא קרא] שמטה‬ 4 ‫לא[ל פשרו לא]חרית הימים על השבוי ים אשר [ ] אשר‬ ‫מוריהמה ה ומנחלת מלכי צדק כי[א] והמה נחל[ת  מלכי צ]דק אשר‬ 5 ‫ ישיבמה אליהמה וקרא להמה דרור לעזוב להמה [משא] כול עוונותיהמה ו[כן‬6 ‫יהי]ה הדבר הזה‬ ‫ בשבוע היובל הראישון אחר תש[עת ה]יובלים וי[ום הכפ]ורים ה[וא]ה סוף‬7 ‫[היו]בל העשירי‬ … ‫ לכפר בו על כול בני [אור ו] אנש[י] גורל מל[כי] צדק‬8 2

And that which he said: “in [the] year of the Jubilee [each of you will return to his property” (Lev 25:13) and concerning it, he said “And th]is

150 His relationship to ‫ מורה הצדק‬is unclear.

Hagar and Sarah 3

4 5 6

7 8

121

[(is) the manner of the release:] let every creditor release the loan which he loaned [to his neighbor. He shall not press his neighbor or his brother for repayment because one has proclaimed a] release to G[od.” (Deut 15:1–2) Its interpretation for the l]atter days concerns the captives who […] whose teachers h and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, fo[r …] but they (are) the inherit[tance of Melchize]dek who will make them return to them and he will proclaim to them an emancipation to release them [from the burden of] all their sins, and [thus] thus word [will come to pas]s in the first week of the jubilee after [the] ni[ne] jubilees. And [the] d[ay of atonem]ent i[s] the end of [the] tenth [ju]bilee, in which atonement is made for all the Sons of [Light and] the me[n of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek …151

The sabbatical cycles and the Jubilee are central to the sect’s eschatological and ethical views. The pesher interprets the commandment of remission of debts in the sabbatical year as an allegory for the freeing of the sons-of-light from sin in the Endtime. This is a quite singular case of allegorical interpretation of the law in Judea/Palestine. No intertext is provided here, and it seems that the allegory is formed through the conceptual connection between the day of atonement (in the seventh month), the sabbatical year, the Jubilee (seven times seven years) and the end of days. 10

Philo’s Allegorization of Hagar and Sarah

The focus of my analysis up to now was to map allegoresis in Jewish texts in Hebrew and Greek with view to (a) present evidence that midrash and allegory are not to be viewed as opposites and (b) set the stage for discussing similarities (and differences) between Paul’s allegories and midrashic allegories. The discussion until now focused then on hermeneutic method and on rhetoric and not on content. In this section I wish to center on Philo’s allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah, which recent scholarship highlighted as precedence for Paul’s interpretation in Galatians. 151 11Q13 1 II, 2–8. English translation from James H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1994), 4:267.

122

chapter 2

Jason M. Zurawksi argues that Paul’s interpretation of Hagar and Sarah reworks ideas found in Philo of Alexandria’s pedagogical allegory of the two wives of Abraham: Quite a different woman claims our compliance, a woman such as Sarah is seen to have been, even paramount virtue. The wise Abraham complies with her when she recommends the course to follow. For at an earlier time, when he had not yet become perfect but, before his name had been changed, was still only inquiring into supramundane things, being aware that he could not beget seed out of perfect virtue, she advises him to beget children out of the handmaiden, that is school-learning,152 even Hagar (Gen. xvi. 2 ff.). This name means “Sojourning,” for he that is studying to make his home in perfect virtue, before he is registered as a member of her city, sojourns with the subjects learned in the schools, that he may be led by these to apply his unfettered powers to virtue. Afterwards, when she sees him brought to perfection, and capable now of begetting…. And if he, filled with gratitude towards the education by means of which he was brought into union with virtue, thinks it harsh to reject it, he shall be brought to compliance by an oracle of God bidding him, “In all that Sarah saith to thee listen to her voice” (Gen 21:12).153 Philo reads Abraham’s relationship with his wives as a wisdom allegory. According to Philo, Sarah is wisdom, the “paramount virtue.” Since Abraham was not prepared at first for wisdom (“he could not beget seed out of perfect virtue”), Sarah councils him to take a handmaid—who in the allegory is encyclical education. Only once prepared and perfected in these studies, could Abraham move on, enter wisdom and renounce his preparational studies. Philo makes the same point also elsewhere in his writing,154 and along the same lines he presents Ishmael as “sophistry” and Isaac as sophos, a wise man (Sobr. 9). Zurawski argues that Paul’s allegory in Galatians builds on this same discourse and modifies it.155 First, Paul presents “Mosaic Law,” symbolized by 152 ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης τουτέστι παιδείας τῆς ἐγκυκλίου. Zurawski translates: “out of her handmaid, that is to say, out of encyclical education.” Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia,” 287. 153 Philo, Leg. 3.244–45 (F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, LCL 226). 154 See Congr. 9–10; 20; 36; 151–52; 158–59, Sobr. 9. All these sources are discussed in detail by Zurawski. 155 “Paul’s interpretation has at its foundation a tradition akin to Philo’s,” Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia,” 293.

Hagar and Sarah

123

Hagar, as a preliminary paideia of sort, not of wisdom itself. Second, for Paul wisdom is freely distributed among all who are in Christ. This messianic current is absent in Philo. Zurawski’s reading integrates through Philo several adjacent themes in Galatians which otherwise are difficult to tie in together. While the allegory in Galatians 4:21–31 itself does not relate to wisdom or education, Zurawski highlights that Paul elaborates on these themes both in Galatians 3:24–25 and 4:1–2. Galatians 3:23–25 presents a graduation narrative, in which the law serves as the child pedagogue, but with pistis, “we are no longer under a pedagogue.” (Gal 3:24). According to Zurawski, Paul presents the law as preliminary and necessary knowledge given to the Jews in preparation for the Messiah, knowledge that is no longer required after his arrival. Galatians 4:1–2 pushes the argument forward, as according to Zurawski, Paul likens the continued devotion to the Mosaic Law to idolatry,156 both of which should be left behind in Christ. This is an illuminating reading, which offers a fresh outlook on what is new in Paul’s argument, from a Jewish-Hellenistic perspective. Indeed, Paul’s conceptualization of Torah in these highly contesting passages in Galatians, builds on earlier discourses and thoroughly radicalizes them. Yet the differences should also be stated, and one wonders if Zurawski does not slightly overstate his case. Indeed, Zurawski’s integration of the different passages in Galatians provides a purpose for the Mosaic law in Paul’s letter, one that seems to be absent from the dichotomous allegory of Hagar and Sarah when read in isolation. But this integration is unsmooth, since Paul mixes his metaphors. The pedagogical metaphors Paul uses earlier in the letter speak of the upbringing of a child, and this framework does not coincide with the allegory that speaks of two children. It is unclear whether we can apply the dynamics of progress expressed the education earlier in Galatians onto the allegory of Hagar and Sarah that speak of two children that simply express opposites. In the Philonic counterpart, the educational narrative of progress is unified through the figure of Abraham, who graduates from Hagar (= preliminary education) to Sarah (= wisdom). But Paul’s arguments are less consistent. Paul uses here, as he often does, a variety of images, arguments and constellations to promote a single point. This variety does not form a consistent conceptualization of sonship, genealogy, or education, therefore, it does not seem to reject the Law consistently on the same grounds. Zurawski goes further and claims that Philo’s allegories not only illuminate our understanding of Paul, but also drove the understanding of his readers: 156 Zurawski builds here on Martinus C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase Τὰ Στοιχεῖα Τοῦ Κόσμου in Galatians,” NTS 53 (2007): 204–24.

124

chapter 2

We may best understand the crisis in the Galatian communities by assessing Paul’s motivations, not only for using the allegory at this point in his argument, but also for explicitly stating that these passages from Genesis are spoken of allegorically (Gal 4:24). Nowhere else does Paul make such an unequivocal reference to his allegorical interpretation of scripture, and, in so doing, he attempts to alert his audience to the allegorical understanding of the narrative of which they were already aware, namely, an exegetical tradition similar to Philo’s, the only allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah we know of at this time.157 Zurawski’s leap from Paul to his audience goes unsubstantiated: He only cites as support Elizabeth Castelli’s theoretical insight that to make the interpretation work allegory requires a common ground (“a consensus,” in her words) between the reader and interpreter.158 Yet there is no evidence that Philo’s allegory is this common ground between Paul and his readers. Since there is no evidence for the acquaintance of Paul’s Galatian audience with any Philonic material, I find it hard to imagine Paul’s audience was versed in Philo’s allegory. Therefore, though Zurawski is correct that Philo’s are the only allegorical interpretations of Hagar and Sarah we know of today, we may not deduce that in antiquity there were not others, nor do I believe that such knowledge of alternative allegories is needed to understand (or be persuaded by) Paul’s reading of Genesis. Zurawski is persuasive, however, in his central claim, that Paul is conversant with existing interpretations of scripture in Greek. Yet this history of ideas does not undermine the claims I am promoting here: (a) that Paul’s allegorical interpretations draw on midrashic conventions otherwise attested to only in rabbinic literature. As I have argued, when allegory is viewed not as a method of interpretation, but rather as a hermeneutic goal to be achieved, we must ask not only what meaning the interpreter ascribes to the text, but also how he achieves the shift between denotations. (b) As my discussion of Isa 54:1 shows, and as argued recently also by Michal and Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, there are textual signs that Paul is (also) drawing on Hebrew traditions.

157 Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia,” 301. 158 See Zurawski (“Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia,” 301 n. 31) citing Elizabeth A. Castelli, “Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4:21–31 with Postmodern Feminist Eyes,” in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament, ed. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight, JSNTsup 109 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 231. He also brings, along the same lines, Charles H. Cosgrove, “The Law Has given Sarah No Children (Gal. 4:21–30),” NT 29 (1987): 220.

Hagar and Sarah

11

125

Pauline, Qumranic, Philonic and Midrashic Allegories: Relationship and History

We find allegory in Tannaitic midrash, and so, midrash and allegory cannot be thought of as opposites. Furthermore, we find significant similarities between rabbinic allegory and Paul’s interpretation in Galatians.159 Before addressing the similarities, let us first consider the differences: much of the content of Paul’s allegory is quite foreign to Tannaitic exegesis. Zurawski recognized and pointed out that when Paul identifies Hagar as Mosaic Law, he evokes, radicalizes and argues against an allegorical discourse already found in Philo, which saw in Hagar preparatory knowledge. This line of interpretation is nowhere to be found in rabbinic midrash. Moreover, speaking of Hagar as the slavewife and mainly of Sarah as the free-woman, is stylistically foreign to rabbinic Hebrew. The identification of Torah-obedience = Hagar = slavery, is an exaggeration of an existing biblical idea (found also in rabbinic literature), that Israel is enslaved to God.160 Yet rabbinic literature never ties this enslavement to notions of expulsion, nor, does it seem, is slavery so derogatory.161 In fact, midrashic literature metaphorically speaks of Israel both as sons and as slaves of God, and the metaphor of enslavement never stands in tension with their divine inheritance. Nonetheless, in terms of its exegesis and rhetoric, the similarities between Pauline and rabbinic allegory are striking. Like the midrashim of Dorshei Rashumot, Paul interprets a narrative from the Torah. All homilies of Dorshei Rashumot interpret episodes from the Pentateuch (manna; Israel’s sins in desert; the priestly gifts). Furthermore, the interpretation not only moves away from the plain meaning of the text—a much too general hermeneutical definition of allegory—but does so through a positioning of narrative objects (Hagar/Sarah) as concepts or symbols (slavery/freedom). So is the case of Bread = work; Refidim = rifyon; water = Torah; wood = Torah found in the interpretations of Dorshei Rashumot. Finally, when we go beyond the question of whether the interpretations of Dorshei Rashumot are allegorical, and ask 159 Both Lauterbach and Arthur Feldman have briefly mentioned this idea, though left it unsubstantiated. Lauterbach, “Allegorists,” 330 n. 33; Arthur Feldman, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis: Agricultural and Pastoral (London: Cambridge University Press, 1927), 3 n. 2. 160 Compare Romans 6:15–23, where Paul’s gentiles become “slaves of righteousness” and “slaves of God.” 161 Compare to Josephus’ downplaying of the servile origins of Israel in Jewish Antiquities, probably due to first century Roman views slaves and freedmen. See David A. Friedman, “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews,” JSJ 45 (2014): 523–50.

126

chapter 2

instead—how is the allegory manufactured?—additional similarities appear. The history of allegory shows that there are many ways to attach a new referent to an existing signifier, and that the shift towards a new meaning is usually accompanied by a justification. And so, allegorical interpretations often are aided by hermeneutical argumentation. They may also be questioned and criticized, like we have seen Plutarch pointing out allegories that have gone too far. Sometimes the allegorical shift is justified by an analogy alone, sometimes by a founding narrative: in the philosophical allegories of Alexandria, the shift between the text and its allegorical meaning is justified by a substantiating myth, according to which the great Greek philosophers knew and read the Torah of Moses. Within this framework, an interpretation may just be based upon an analogy between the narrative objects and a philosophical concept. And indeed, this is also the case in Philo’s interpretation of Hagar and Sarah, that shifts from the narrative figures to allegory of pedagogy, based on his understanding of structure of philosophical and scriptural knowledge. We find a similar legitimizing structure in the texts of the Qumran community, founded upon the myth of the divinizing Teacher of Righteousness as human messenger of a new divinely-sanctioned reading. The similarity between Paul and Dorshei Rashumot stands out when placed on this background. In both Paul and Dorshei Rashumot allegory is ultimately revealed as established intertextually: The hermeneutic key is found in later books of scripture and brought back to solve riddled narratives in the Torah.162 While Paul’s allegory in Galatians is close to the allegories of Dorshei Rashumot, both differ from the allegories in the Letter of Aristeas, Aristobulus and Philo, all of which are deeply committed to squaring scripture and philosophical knowledge, an end quite foreign to Paul as well as the rabbis. As the work of Maren Niehoff shows, allegory in Jewish Alexandria is an exegetical device aimed at solving textual problems—an unbelievable narrative (anthropomorphic depictions of God; scientifically implausible happenings) a redundancy, an unexplained detail—while justifying the text and maintaining it against practices of textual reassessment and emendation, prominent in local academic scholarship. Both the polemic against critical scholarship and philosophical-allegory as its solution are not on the horizon of Paul’s allegory, and seem to be a local issue in Alexandria. 162 See on this also Kister who points out that in midrash, allegories are a product of taking poetic metaphors from the Prophets and Writings and stretching them out on a narrative from the Pentateuch. Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations,” 135–36. I do not believe that this is the only way allegories work in Tannaitic literature (see the case of priestly gifts above), but that rabbinic allegorists almost exclusively work with existing scriptural material is fundamentally true.

Hagar and Sarah

127

Nevertheless, too strong a divide between “Alexandrian allegory” and “Palestinian allegory” (in which Paul falls on the Palestinian side) as per R.P.C. Hanson,163 should not be retained. The contents of Paul’s allegory relate to Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, as Zurawski has shown. Moreover, allegory is a Hellenistic concept, and Paul uses it by its contemporary name— ἀλληγορέω—and in the Greek. The fact that the term is unparalleled in Tan­ naitic Hebrew is telling. It manifests Paul’s own, quite up to date, Hellenistic knowledge of this hermeneutic and thus reflects his cultural affinity with Alexandrian scholarship, who like him are allegorizing the Septuagint. Yet, the penetration of allegory as a hermeneutical practice into Hebrew speaking circles in Judea and then Palestine, as the DSS and subsequently Tannaitic literature show, is a sign of the Hellenistic influence on Palestinian Judaism. This Hellenic connection should not obscure the fact that Paul manufactures and substantiates his allegory in ways that are in line primarily with rabbinic allegory. Though the contents of Paul’s allegory has parallels in Philo, unlike him—but very much like rabbinic allegories—he needs an intertext from the prophets to substantiate and facilitate his interpretation of the Pentateuchal narrative. Indeed, as the comparison to the allegories in Qumran shows, it is not merely “Palestinian allegory” that Paul is conversant with, but specifically midrashic allegory. Pesher allegories, as well as the allegorical interpretation of the Song of the Well and of the shemitah operate differently rhetorically, but most importantly, intertextually, and so are set apart. Paul’s allegory in Galatians is thus formally and technically similar to rabbinic allegory. Dorshei Rashumot were an ancient Tannaitic—perhaps Pharisaic—group of interpreters, who according to Lauterbach “must have been among the very earliest Jewish interpreters of the Scriptures.”164 This early dating gains support from the fact that it is not often that darshanim receive a title as a group in Tan­ naitic literature, designating them as unique in their midrashic craft. In Sifre Deuteronomy we find a singular mention of Dorshei Haggadot, who according to scholars were engaged in a specific type of aggadic midrash, perhaps some sort of theosophical study of Torah.165 In later literature we also find Dorshei Hamurot. Paul’s interpretation of Hagar/Sarah as a parallel case of

163 See Hanson, Allegory and Event, 35–36. 164 Albeit for the wrong reasons. See Lauterbach, “Allegorists,” 291. 165 See Marc Hirshman, “Aggadic Midrash,” in The Literature of the Sages, Part 2: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al., CRINT Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 3b (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006), 112 and additional references in n. 29.

128

chapter 2

midrashic-allegory, and the fact that his allegory is crafted similarly to the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot provides some support for the early dating of the group. Let us draw the history of Jewish allegory as we now have it. Though we cannot retrace a history of influences, it is nevertheless clear that allegorical interpretations of scripture were born in Alexandria in the second century BCE, in service of the justification and reinforcement of the text of the Septuagint. The ancient allegorical interpretations of Homer and Hesiod functioned similarly, as actions of canonization aimed at harnessing the language and imagery of the interpreted texts against changing ideas about the gods. Jewish literature in Second Temple Palestine does not present cases of allegorical interpretation, except for a few examples from the Qumran pesharim. In these few cases, allegory is used to substantiate the very legitimacy of the methods of interpretation of the sect (in the Song of the Well cited above) and their conceptualization of the eschaton. We also find in the Qumran pesharim a singular case of allegorization of the law. In Alexandrian Jewish exegesis allegory is a Hellenistic method of interpretation, solving textual problems (such as redundancy, contradiction, arbitrariness) by introducing Greek philosophical ideas into scripture, as is evident from the allegorical interpretations of Philo and Aristobulus before him. In other Jewish contexts (Qumran, Paul and the Tannaim), allegory is never employed toward philosophical ends. Allegory serves them to either solve textual problems or ground and present eschatological ideas. We witness a disappearance of allegory from Tannaitic literature, where it seems to have been abandoned as a living exegetical practice, as early perhaps as the end of the first century CE. Moreover, ancient allegorical-midrash (i.e., first century allegory) seems to have been employed and contained, yet at the same time marginalized. The Tannaim cite allegorical interpretations when they wish to, and give them equal ground as other interpretations formed by the most classical methods of interpretation of midrashic hermeneutics.166 Yet, at the same time, they designate these derashot to a closed group with a specific name, and refrain from using their methods themselves. Another limitation on allegorical interpretation in rabbinic circles, as the case of Dorshei Rashumot as well as traces of allegorical interpretations found by Menahem Kister in Tannaitic literature show, is that it is always aggadic. Kister has suggested that this Tannaitic tendency is tied to the antinomian potential of allegory, which may be used to spiritualize—and thereby obliterate—the 166 Consider for instance, how the homily of Dorshei Rashumot on the water in the desert appears after the Tannaitic homilies of R. Yehoshua, R. Eliezer and “others,” Mek. RI Vayassa 1 (ed. Horovitz, 154).

Hagar and Sarah

129

commandments. But this threat should be thought of historically, as it has nothing to do with allegory as a hermeneutical device per se. Philo in the Migration of Abraham emphatically and explicitly speaks against “extreme allegorists” who read the commandments only allegorically, and abandoned their physical, literal meaning.167 And yet, this has not stopped him (or his Alexandrian predecessors) from interpreting scripture—law as well as narrative—allegorically. Moreover, we find allegory employed in these Alexandrian literatures with a view to reinforcing and justifying the law. It is only in rabbinic literature that allegory is abandoned as a method of interpretation.168 Hence the historical context of the decline and marginalization of allegory is post-Pauline. 12

Torah to the Gentiles

As mentioned earlier, the Hagar/Sarah allegory in Galatians 4 was written in the context of the polemic regarding the gentiles and the nomos. Paul speaks against an existing view: the gentiles must take upon themselves all of the Jewish law in order to be redeemed through Christ. Paul, by contrast, preaches a different gospel. Now, in the Endtime, gentiles may be redeemed as gentiles, without proselyte circumcision, that it, without losing their identity as non-Israel. But why does Paul need Abraham’s genealogy to make his claim? Some have tried to claim that the allegory of Hagar/Sarah was established because the preachers of the “different gospel” forced genealogy into the conversation.169 But Abraham’s children are too central in Paul’s letters to be explained away so easily. Paul reads Torah, tells and retells it to his readership and argues through it. Scripture is not simply used to prooftext an argument. Rather, Paul generates Torah as also speaking to his gentiles.170 Torah tells them not only how their story will end but how it has begun, by his allegory of Abraham and his two wives. 167 Philo, Migr. 86–93. 168 How to think of the allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs is a problem beyond the reach of this chapter. Boyarin’s enlightening suggestion that according to the rabbis Song of Songs is not a lock to be opened (that is, a riddle to be solved allegorically) but rather the key to a variety of other locks. And, according to Boyarin, the rabbis evoke not allegorical interpretation, but rather midrashic interpretation in this context. Daniel Boyarin, “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality, Allegory and Midrash,” in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory, ed. Regina M. Schwartz (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 214–30. 169 Betz, Galatians, 239–40. 170 See similarly, Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 165–68; Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), 9.

130

chapter 2

This claim is a modification on the thesis presented by Caroline Johnson Hodge in If Sons then Heirs, who argues that Paul is engaged in mythmaking to facilitate the formation of the new identity of the gentile believers. With regards to the genus she is indeed correct: Paul produces the interpretation of Hagar/Sarah to form a myth of origin for a new identity.171 But Johnson Hodge understates the place of allegory in service of this mythmaking, and trivializes the fact that it is a scriptural myth that Paul is creating. Through his allegorical interpretation in Galatians Paul generates Torah as speaking of and to the gentiles, and as such, deeply relevant to their pistis as well as their social standing before God and man. This is a great achievement for Paul that should be thought of in the broader context of other hermeneutical projects that aimed to present the Torah as speaking to gentiles.172 Presenting gentiles in Christ not only as the addressees of the Torah (see also 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11 and many other places) but as its subjects generates the hermeneutical gap that Paul is continuously bridging. Scripture is a particular collection of books, speaking to and of Israel, which is now directed to not-Israel, to Paul’s gentile communities. This difference—in and of itself generated by Paul—between the Torah as addressing Israel, and its new gentile readership in the last generation, pushes Paul’s hermeneutic to its most extreme “flexibilities.” In the allegory in Galatians 4 Paul not only adds his gentiles as recipients of scripture (allowing them to “listen” to the law, 4:21) but as its subject. Understanding Paul thus stands against a too common (mis)conception in scholarship, according to which the redemption of the gentiles is without Torah, or that a Christ-Torah antithesis exists in Paul’s writing.173 The redemption of the gentiles is without circumcision, but Torah is brought to the gentiles by Paul, who re-sounds it for them. 171 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul, 151ff. 172 I intend to elaborate on these discourses in future publications. 173 See e.g., Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 169ff.

chapter 3

Veiling and Unveiling

2 Corinthians 3 and Tannaitic Hermeneutics

This chapter moves away from hermeneutical techniques to a comparative study of hermeneutical self-conception. In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul narrates a hermeneutic of unveiling-in-Christ, which will serve as our test case and point of departure for a comparative analysis. The chapter aims to provide an understanding of the rhetorical and hermeneutical processes operating in Paul’s notoriously complex argument in 2 Corinthians 3. The heart of 2 Corinthians 3 is Paul’s interpretation of Exodus 34:29–35, which he uses to ground his specific hermeneutic. In what follows I present a detailed account of this hermeneutic and its scriptural basis in Exodus, followed by their reconsideration in the context of Qumran and Tannaitic hermeneutics. 1

2 Corinthians 3: A Close Reading 1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! 12 Therefore, since we have such

© Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_005

132

chapter 3

a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the spirit. 2 Corinthians 3 begins with an antithesis. Without introduction, Paul contrasts the need of “some people” for letters of recommendation to justify and to authorize their apostolic mission, and the collective “we” who need not depend on written praise.1 While Paul’s Corinthian audience must have known who these “some people” are, the modern reader is at first ignorant of their identity. 2 Corinthians 3 opens with a presentation of binary structure contrasting the two groups: “Some people”

“Us”

Written letters of recommendation Written in ink, by man

Letters written on our hearts A letter from Christ, written with the spirit of the living God On human hearts

On tablets of stone

Within this binary structure, Paul slides between images, a sliding that finally reveals the identity of the people whom he is criticizing. When Paul moves from “their” letters of recommendation to the image of tablets of stone, he shifts from what was until that point a realistic, contemporary image of certain people holding letters of recommendation written in ink, to the symbolic

1 On the identity of these “some people” see Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC 34 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 217–19; Paul B. Duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3, NovTSup 159 (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

Veiling and Unveiling

133

image of the Mosaic tablets. And so, through the symbolic use of the stone tablets we may infer that “some people” who need written letters of recommendation are Jews, probably Jewish apostles of Christ who advocate that baptized pagans circumcise. What was at first a letter written on papyrus—an actual letter—has become by verse 3 a symbol of other Jewish Christ-apostles who advocate proselyte circumcision for Christ-following gentiles, phrased as a general polemical statement on the dependence of (these other) apostles on the written word—both scripture, but also “letters of recommendation” (2 Cor 3:1).2 The immediate implication of these opening lines is that Paul and the collective “we” he is presenting do not depend on writing at all. Their confidence in their mission stems not from letters but directly from God, as the new ministry of the new covenant is independent of writing, and its authority derives directly from God and the spirit, therefore giving life and not death. The term “new covenant”/”new testament,” that will come to denote the canonized “scripture” of the Christian Church, is thus first developed in an anti-textual context.3 By the first half of verse 7, Paul has established a case against writing in the service of the denunciation of these other apostles:

2 An implicit allusion to the Sinaitic narratives is already apparent here. It seems that Paul is thinking of the writing of the Jews as written by man on tablets of stone. This is an implicit reference to the second tablets that were eventually received by Israel, which, unlike the first tablets, were written by Moses rather than by the hand of God. According to Exodus, the hand-writing of the Lord is inaccessible to Israel (because of the golden-calf sin), and Paul is elaborating on this biblical theme. For an elaboration on this theme see Cover, Lifting the Veil, 250–51. 3 The term “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη) is used by Paul independently only here in 2 Cor 3. Its only other appearance in the Pauline epistles is found in the Corinthian context (1 Cor 11:25), where Paul cites the Eucharist. Both of these cases detach the covenant from writing. In our case in 2 Cor 3, this separation is explicit and polemic. In 1 Cor 11, the new covenant is a corporeal feature—it is formed through the spilling blood of the Messiah—and again, detached from the concept of writing. It is worth mentioning that in other cases the covenant relevant to the community addressed by Paul is not presented as new. In Gal 4, the two covenants are thought of in terms of two sons from the two wives of Abraham and in terms of the earth and heaven dichotomy. The Chronological old\new distinction is inapplicable to that distinction. Similarly, Paul sometimes presents the new Messianic age as a fulfillment of the ancient Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:15).

134

chapter 3

Old covenant

New covenant

Letter Kills Ministers that brought death to gentiles

Spirit Gives life Ministers of a new covenant of the spirit to gentiles

Within the premise of the binary dichotomy retraced here, Paul turns to a reading of Exodus 34 that builds on two central rhetorical actions: a rewriting of scripture and a series of a minori ad maius arguments inferring the “new covenant” from scripture. Both of these are interesting choices worth expanding on. Paul’s choice to retell, rather than quote scripture directly seems deeply tied with his denunciation of the written word. Even in this early stage of the argument unfolded in 2 Corinthians 3, well before Paul has formulated his rejection of the letter as a hermeneutical approach,4 it has a rhetorical value. Scripture is not cited directly, but rather its narrative is retold. The second point is interesting, not so much because Paul rejects the old covenant and then immediately continues to depend on its documents to make assertions about the new, but because the common way to read scripture is rejected while in fact, Jewish methods of study and deduction are implicitly maintained. Let us at first consider Paul’s rendition of Exodus 34 and its relationship with the original. Since his rendition departs from the narrative of Exodus 34, we shall first consider the mosaic narrative independently, before returning to Paul’s retold-scripture. A discussion of Paul’s a minori ad maius argument will follow. 2

Exodus 34: Structure and Meaning

‫ וַ יְ ִ֗הי ְּב ֶ ֤ר ֶדת מ ֶֹׁש ֙ה ֵמ ַ ֣הר ִס ַ֔יני‬29 ‫ּוׁש ֵ֨ני ֻל ֤חֹת ָ ֽה ֵע ֻד ֙ת ְּביַ ד־מ ֶֹׁ֔שה‬ ְ ‫ֹׁשה ֽל ֹא־יָ ַ ֗דע ִ ּ֥כי‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ן־ה ָ ֑הר ּומ‬ ָ ‫ְּב ִר ְד ֹּ֖תו ִמ‬ ‫ וַ ַּ֨י ְרא‬30 ‫ָק ַ ֛רן ֹ֥עור ָּפ ָנ֖יו ְּב ַד ְּב ֹ֥רו ִא ֹּֽתו׃‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֤י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל֙ ֶאת־מ ֶֹׁ֔שה‬ ְ ‫ַא ֲה ֜ר ֹן וְ ָכ‬ ‫וְ ִה ֵּנ֥ה ָק ַ ֖רן ֹ֣עור ָּפ ָנ֑יו וַ ִ ּֽי ְיר ֖אּו ִמ ֶּג ֶׁ֥שת‬ ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ָ ֤רא ֲא ֵל ֶה ֙ם מ ֶֹׁ֔שה וַ ּיָ ֻ ׁ֧שבּו‬31 ‫ֵא ָ ֽליו׃‬ ‫ל־הּנְ ִׂש ִ ֖אים ָּב ֵע ָ ֑דה‬ ַ ‫ֵא ָל֛יו ַא ֲה ֥ר ֹן וְ ָכ‬

29 Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face was shining, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But

4 A point that will be discussed at length below.

Veiling and Unveiling

‫י־כן‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ וְ ַא ֲח ֵר‬32 ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּ֥בר מ ֶ ֹׁ֖שה ֲא ֵל ֶ ֽהם׃‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל וַ יְ ַצ ֵ ּ֕ום ֵא ֩ת‬ ְ ‫נִ ּגְ ׁ֖שּו ָּכ‬ ‫ל־א ֶׁ֨שר ִּד ֶ ּ֧בר ה׳ ִא ֹּ֖תו ְּב ַ ֥הר ִס ָינֽי׃‬ ֲ ‫ָּכ‬ ‫וַ יְ ַכ֣ל מ ֶֹׁ֔שה ִמ ַּד ֵ ּ֖בר ִא ָ ּ֑תם וַ ּיִ ֵ ּ֥תן ַעל־‬ 33 ‫ּוב ֨ב ֹא מ ֶֹׁ֜שה ִל ְפ ֵנ֤י ה׳‬ ְ 34 ‫ָּפ ָנ֖יו ַמ ְסֶוֽה׃‬ ‫ת־ה ַּמ ְסֶו֖ה ַעד־‬ ַ ‫ְל ַד ֵּב֣ר ִא ֹּ֔תו יָ ִ ֥סיר ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ֔אל‬ ְ ‫אֹתו וְ יָ ָ֗צא וְ ִד ֶּב ֙ר ֶא‬ ֑ ‫ֵצ‬ ‫ וְ ָר ֤אּו ְב ֵנֽי־‬35 ‫ֵ ֖את ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר יְ ֻצֶּוֽה׃‬ ‫ת־ּפ ֵנ֣י מ ֶֹׁ֔שה ִ ּ֣כי ָק ַ ֔רן ֹ֖עור‬ ְ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל֙ ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ַּמ ְסוֶ ֙ה‬ ַ ‫ְּפ ֵנ֣י מ ֶ ֹׁ֑שה וְ ֵה ִׁ֨שיב מ ֶ ֹׁ֤שה ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּפ ָ֔ניו ַעד־ּב ֹֹ֖או ְל ַד ֵ ּ֥בר ִא ֹּֽתו׃‬ ָ ‫ַע‬

135 Moses called to them; and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses spoke with them. 32 Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face; 34 but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would take the veil off, until he came out; and when he came out, and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of his face was shining; and Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

Exodus 34 describes Moses’s physical appearance after the writing the second stone tablets. According to this narrative, the countenance of Moses was transformed by his intimate conversation with God on Mount Sinai (‫ּומ ֶ ֹׁ֣שה ֽל ֹא־יָ ַ ֗דע ִ ּ֥כי‬ ‫) ָק ַ ֛רן ֹ֥עור ָּפ ָנ֖יו ְּב ַד ְּב ֹ֥רו ִא ֹּֽתו‬, a transformation presented as recurring from this point onwards, after every conversation between God and Moses. As he descends from Sinai, Moses is at first received with fear by the sons of Israel. He therefore first speaks with Aaron and the leaders of congregation, and only later addresses the rest of the people. In both of these conversations according to Exodus, the face of Moses is exposed and it is only later that he covers his face with a veil, used thereafter to distinguish between Moses speaking the prophetic words of God, and Moses as he speaks in other capacities.5 The transformation of his countenance marks the divine authority of his message and the unveiling is a specific marker of prophetic speech, of Moses’s capacity as messenger. This short and singular description has several counterparts within scripture. The function of the veil is structurally similar to the prescribed 5 See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louiseville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 610, 618–19; Thomas B. Dozeman, “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah,” JBL 119.1 (2000): 21–45; Thomas B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 751–56; Menahem Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer, JSOTsup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 159–73.

136

chapter 3

separations within the tabernacle (Exod 35), which include a separation of the holy of holies by a screen that has a temporal and spatial role with regards to the revelation of the divine.6 The presence of the divine in the tabernacle is persistent, but a screen limits its revelation and penetration by the High Priest to once a year. Additionally, we find in scripture the theme of veiling/unveiling of a prophet several times, all of which highlight the singularity of Moses. Elijah wraps his face in his mantle when he hears God’s voice (1 Kings 19:13), and similarly, Ezekiel, receiver of an unprecedented vision of the chariot and of the “appearance and likeness of the glory of the Lord” (‫)מראה דמות כבוד ה׳‬, nevertheless falls upon his face as he hears a voice speaking to him. God’s image and his speaking voice are often separated in biblical prophecy. This is not the case with Moses, who according to several accounts spoke intimately with God, both saw and heard him.7 Several weighty questions arise from the peculiar account in Exodus 34:29– 35. How exactly is Moses’s countenance transformed (i.e., what is the correct meaning of ‫ ?)קרן עור פניו‬What exactly causes the transfiguration of Moses? The meaning of ‫ קרן עור פניו‬has received two main interpretations, both originating in antiquity. According to one, the verb ‫ קרן‬means “to sprout horns.” As is well known, this is the translation in the Vulgate, and according to Origen a similar interpretation is found already in the translation of Aquila to Amos 6:13.8 This interpretation links, both structurally and symbolically, the appearance of Moses as he descends Sinai to the story of the golden calf.9 Yet, according to a more common Jewish interpretation, Moses’s face gloriously 6 See Hafemann, who also draws this analogy, Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1995), 223. Hafemann goes on to claim that Moses’s veil—like the screen in the tabernacle—“should be seen as an act of mercy to keep the people from being destroyed by the reflected presence of God. The veil of Moses makes it possible for the glory of God to be in the midst of the people, albeit now mediated through Moses, without destroying them.” But this, I believe, goes beyond what the biblical narrative discloses. The veil is indeed an object of separation (similar to other objects of separation) but Moses’s countenance is not presented as dangerous (in contrast to the very image of God). Quite the opposite is true: According to Exodus 34 Moses reveals his face to the people when he speaks to them the word of God. 7 See e.g., Exod 33:11. 8 Referenced to by Matityahu Tsevat, “‘The Skin of His Face Was Radiant’ (Ex. 34:29),” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16 (1982): 163, 166 n. 3 [Hebrew]. Seth Sanders also offers insight on ‫ קרן‬as relating to horns in ancient Jewish interpretations, see Seth Sanders, “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face,” VT 52 (2002): 400–6. 9 See on this Jack M. Sasson, “Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative,” VT 18 (1968): 380– 307; Mordechai Agmon, “Inyan Krinat Or Pnei Moshe, Shemot 34:29–35,” Beit Mikra 31.2

Veiling and Unveiling

137

shines as he descends the mountain. This interpretation is attested by most of the Jewish-Greek sources10—2 Corinthians 3 among them—as well as rabbinic sources,11 and ties the descent of Moses to other scriptural accounts of the physical revelation of the divine, usually accompanied by fire and light. These two alternative interpretations seem to be linguistically linked, in the sense that in the Hebrew ‫ קרן‬may be a bovine metaphor for radiating, beaming light presenting the emanation of light as a sprouting of horns.12 Nonetheless, the second interpretation seems more plausible, as it is deeply tied to standard descriptions of theophany in scripture. Exodus does not say what caused the transformation of Moses’s face. We know only that other biblical narratives associate God’s appearance with fire and light, and that Moses’s countenance gloriously shines while—or perhaps because of—his conversing with God (‫ּומ ֶ ֹׁ֣שה ֽל ֹא־יָ ַ ֗דע ִ ּ֥כי ָק ַ ֛רן ֹ֥עור ָּפ ָנ֖יו ְּב ַד ְּב ֹ ֥רו ִא ֹּֽתו‬ “Moses knew not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him”). Several scholars have suggested that the light of Moses’s face is the “afterglow” of the radiating divine splendor.13 The language of the LXX emphasizes the divine source of the light, and perhaps also implies a divine intention behind the glowing face of Moses, when it says that the face of Moses was “glorified” (using the verb δοξάζω). Ancient exegetes, Paul among them, responded to this ambiguity. 3

Interpretations of Exodus 34:29–35 in Philo, LAB, Qumran, Targum and Rabbinic Literature

Paul’s is not the only interpretation of Exodus 34:29–35 in Jewish antiquity. Yet, few texts respond to the theme of the veil and the reception and interpretative history of these verses remains relatively obscure. This section maps several (1986): 186–88 [Hebrew]; Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation (Louiseville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), 311. 10 LXX: Μωυσῆς οὐκ ᾔδει ὅτι δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτῷ. Philo, Mos. II.70; LAB 12.1. 11 See mainly Sifre Zuta Num. 27, 20 (ed. Horovitz, 321), which is discussed below, and more concisely in Sifre Num 140 (ed. Horovitz, 186). See also for e.g., b. Meg. 19b; Pesiq. Rab Kah., Hahodesh 3 (p. 83); Songs Rab. 3, 7, and the Targum traditions. 12 Indeed, see Lamentations Rab. 2, 6, which lists all the ‫קרנות‬, ‫ קרניים‬in the Torah, among them both “horns” and the “beaming” face of Moses. 13 Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus [Shemot]: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: JPS, 1991), 221; Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, 603, 609ff.; Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, FAT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 222.

138

chapter 3

ancient interpretations that, like 2 Corinthians, build on the transfiguration of Moses. Through this map, the novel (and traditional) in Paul’s reading, may possibly emerge. But most significantly, this map reminds us of the fluidity of scriptural narratives in ancient Judaism. These ancient texts—2 Corinthians 3 among them—duplicate and reappropriate the transfiguration of Moses in Exodus 34 in a variety of ways that craft new narratives (about Jesus, Paul, and perhaps about the Teacher of Righteousness), and simultaneously cast new perspectives on ancient ones. Indeed, a variety of ancient texts, some of which eventually received the status of scripture, speak of the righteous, the chosen, or the wise as illuminated by divine light, with an emphasis on the glorified face.14 Exodus 34:29–35 in this sense, eventually participates in a broad discourse to which prophetic, poetic, visionary, apocalyptic and wisdom texts also belong. This growing and variegated discourse is noteworthy for two reasons: first, we must remember that as the discourse grows Exodus 34:29–35 ceases to be an isolated text, and it never resonates alone in later texts. Later texts read Exodus 34 (implicitly or explicitly) with the resonances of the Psalms, Daniel, and other authoritative texts. And so, when we focus-in on texts which interpret the transfiguration of Moses and the veil, we recognize that other texts are also at play. Second, 14

To cite but a few examples: Ps 4:7 (‫הוה׃‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫ה־ע ֵלינּו ֹ֨אור ָּפ ֶ֬ניָך י‬ ֭ ָ ‫ים ִ ֽמי־יַ ְר ֵ ֪אנּו֫ ֹ֥טוב ְנ ָֽס‬ ֮ ‫ַר ִ ּ֥בים א ְֹמ ִר‬ “There are many who say, ‘O that we might see some good! Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord!’”); 89:16 (‫ֹאור־ּפ ֶנ֥יָך יְ ַה ֵּל ֽכּון׃‬ ָ ‫הוה ְ ּֽב‬ ֗ ָ ‫רּועה ְ ֝י‬ ֑ ָ ‫ֹיוד ֵע֣י ְת‬ ְ ‫“ ַא ְׁש ֵ ֣רי ָ֭ה ָעם‬Happy are the people who know the festal shout, who walk, O Lord, in the light of your countenance;”); 90:8 (‫“ ֲ֝ע ֻל ֵ֗מנּו ִל ְמ ֹ֥אור ָּפ ֶנֽיָך‬our secret sins in the light of your countenance”); Dan 12:3 (‫ֹעולם וָ ֶ ֽעד׃‬ ֥ ָ ‫ֹּכוכ ִ ֖בים ְל‬ ָ ‫יקי ָ ֽה ַר ִּ֔בים ַּכ‬ ֙ ֵ ‫ּומ ְצ ִּד‬ ַ ‫“ וְ ַ֨ה ַּמ ְׂש ִּכ ֔ ִלים יַ זְ ִ ֖הרּו ְּכ ֹ֣ז ַהר ָה �ר ִ ָ֑ק ַיע‬Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever”); 2 Bar 51:3 (“… those who are now righteous in my Torah … then their splendor will be glorified through transformations: the shape of their faces will be turned into the light of their beauty, so that they will be able to acquire and receive the world [or: age] that does not die”; translation from Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, trans., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013, 116). See also 4 Ezra 7:97, 125; 6:16; 13:54. 1Qs interprets the Priestly Blessing (specifically ‫יח ֶּנ�ּֽךָ ׃‬ ֻ ‫הו֧ה׀ ָּפ ָנ֛יו ֵא ֶל֖יָך ִ ֽו‬ ָ ְ‫ )יָ ֵ֨אר י‬as speaking to the illumination of the heart in wisdom (See 1Q28 II, 1–4) and according to some textual version, one of the versions of the second blessing before the Shema has: ‫“ גלה מלכותך עלינו והאר פני משיחך ותרים קרנינו ותשמח לבינו ותוציא לאור צדקינו‬Reveal your kingdom upon us and illuminate the face of your anointed and exalt our horn and bring joy to our hearts” (see Oxford Bodleian e.41 (2721), 109–110). On the illuminated face in Psalms see Michael Schneider, The Appearance of the High Priest—Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology: From Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2012), 156 [Hebrew]. See also, Mark S. Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50.2 (1988): 171–83.

Veiling and Unveiling

139

while these ancient texts often evoke and develop the image luminous face of God and the illuminated face of the righteous, they rarely mention Moses’ veil. These later narratives present transfigured faces, illuminated by God, but usually omit their eventual covering. As we shall see, 2 Corinthians 3 stands out in this regard. In what follows I begin with reviewing the two cases which interpret the transfiguration of Moses directly (Philo and Pseudo-Philo) and then I turn to some transfiguration texts that respond to it more implicitly (Hodayot, 2 Enoch, Transfiguration of Christ in the synoptic Gospels, and rabbinic literature). Philo’s retelling of this episode, for example, emphasizes Moses’ glorification and beauty but omits the veil: Then, after the said forty days had passed, he [Moses] descended with a countenance far more beautiful than when he ascended, so that those who saw him were filled with awe and amazement; nor even could their eyes continue to stand the dazzling brightness that flashed from him like the rays of the sun.15 Philo stresses that the transformation of Moses’s face was a positive one and that his countenance was more beautiful when he came down than when he went up. He also speaks of Israel’s inability to withstand the dazzling brightness, and in this respect, his reading parallels Paul’s in 2 Corinthians 3. Most significantly, Philo retells Exodus 34:29–35 only in part, altogether omitting Moses’s success in speaking to the people and with it the theme of the veil. In fact, Philo’s account divorces the glorification of Moses from the public revelation of God’s word: Moses’s ascent is not tied to the tablets, which Philo’s narrative leaves unmentioned in this context, nor to the transmission of Torah. In The Life of Moses 2.67, Philo only mentions that Moses was awarded God’s teaching on all matters pertaining to ritual, and in 2.71 he adds that on the mount Moses “was being instructed in all the mysteries of his priestly duties.”16 Indeed, Philo recounts the entire episode with an emphasis not on Torah, but on Moses’s priesthood (2.66–186). A more detailed exposition on Moses’s descent from Sinai is found in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 12.1:

15 16

Philo, Mos. II.70 (F.H. Colson, LCL 289, 485). Translation from (F.H. Colson, LCL 289, 485).

140

chapter 3

Moses came down. (Having been bathed with light that could not be gazed upon, he had gone down to the place where the light of the sun and the moon are. The light of his face surpassed the splendor of the sun and the moon, but he was unaware of this). When he came down to the children of Israel, upon seeing him they did not recognize him. But when he had spoken, then they recognized him. This was similar to the event in Egypt, when Joseph recognized his brothers, they however did not recognize him. Afterwards, when Moses realized that his face had become glorious, he made himself a veil with which to cover his face.17 After his transfiguration, Moses was identifiable to the people only by his voice.18 This detail, together with the analogy to Joseph and his brothers, is a novelty of LAB. LAB also stands out as the only ancient text, apart from 2 Corinthians 3, to explicitly mention the veil. Yet, unlike Paul, LAB does not interpret it or ascribe it any specific meaning. Indeed, some scholars labored to tie the veiling of Moses’s face in LAB to the grim outcome of the first tablets, since LAB chooses to place the veil narrative before the Golden Calf episode.19 But this seems an over-interpretation. For LAB, Moses is ignorant of his transformation, and veils himself after he delivers God’s word as he realizes the transfiguration. The text offers no further elaboration. Qumran Scrolls offer no explicit interpretation of Exodus 34:29–35.20 Yet, the luminous face of a messenger resonates in the dead sea scrolls in a variety of ways,21 and this example from the Hodayot is worth dwelling on:

17 18

19 20 21

Translation from Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation, AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 110. This brings to mind a dynamic found often in theophanic narratives in the Torah, in which the splendorous visual image is attractive and extraordinary, and the divine is only recognized by its speaking voice, immediately rendering the visual image unbearable. Such is the case of the burning bush (Exod 3); and the Merkabah vision (Ezek 1). See Linda L. Belleville, “Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7–18,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTsup 83 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 173–74. Belleville, “Tradition or Creation?,” 175. See e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7–4:6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif,” TS 42.4 (1981): 640–44; Belleville, “Tradition or Creation?,” 174. For other examples of illumination narratives in Qumran, especially in the context of enthronement, see Eva Mroczek, “David Did Not Ascend into the Heavens” (Acts 2:34): Early Jewish Ascent Traditions and the Myth of Exegesis in the New Testament (2015). “Judaïsme Ancien—Ancient Judaism, 3, 219–252. Doi:10.1484/j.Jaaj.5.103822,” Judaïsme Ancien—Ancient Judaism 3 (2015): 219–52.

141

Veiling and Unveiling

]   [ ‫אודכה אדוני כי האירותה פני לבריתכה ומ‬ 6 .‫ [ בכול ל]ב אדורשכה וכשחר נכון לאור(תו)ם הופעתה לי‬7 … ‫ כי הודעתני ברזי‬.‫ ובי האירותה פני רבים והגבר עד לאין מספר‬2 8 ‫ פלאכה ובסוד פלאכה הגברתה עמדי והפלא לנגד רבים בעבור כבודכה‬29 ‫ולהודיע‬

22.‫לכול החיים גבורותיכה‬

30

6 I thank you, O Lord, for you have enlightened my face according to your covenant and […]; 7 [With all my heart] I seek you and like a sure dawn, with [perf]ect light you have shone for me … 28 And through me you have enlightened the face of many and you are mighty beyond reckoning. For you have made known to me the mysteries of your 29 wonder and in the council of your wonder you have made mighty my position; and you have done wonders in front of many on account of your glory and to make known 30 to all the living you mighty acts.23 The speaker (identified by several scholars as the Teacher of Righteousness),24 gives thanks for the illumination of his countenance which in turn illuminated the faces of many. The Qumran fragments celebrate the illuminated (and illuminating) mediation between God and community. The veil narrative is alluded to in these fragments, which portray the speaker in the likeness of Moses, who was illuminated by God and then turned to the public to transmit his divine message. That the listeners were illuminated through the messenger, is not in Exodus but an elaboration of the Hodayot, but both texts apparently agree that the public saw, at least figuratively, the light radiating from the face of the illuminated messenger. 22 23

24

Taken here from 1QS XII, 6–7, 28–30. Hebrew text from Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010), 1:74 [Hebrew]. Translation from Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, STDJ 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 98–101. While she notes the allusion to Exod 34 with regards to the first lines, Hughes does not note the reference in lines 28–30. See Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, 105 nn. 150–51. The identification of the speaker or author of the first-person hymns in the Hodayot scroll is a highly-debated subject. For scholarship reviewing the debate see e.g., Michael C. Douglas, “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux,” DSD 6 (1999): 239–66; John J. Collins, “Amazing Grace: The Transformation of the Thanksgiving Hymn at Qumran,” in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions, ed. Margot Elsbeth Fassler and Harold W. Attridge, SymS 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 75–86; Eileen M. Schuller, “Recent Scholarship on the ‘Hodayot’ 1993–2010,” CurBR 10.1 (2011): 119–62.

142

chapter 3

2 Enoch 37 also builds on Exodus 34 when it narrates that divine light transformed Enoch’s appearance. An angel of ice and snow chills Enoch’s face so that he may endure the imminent encounter with the divine. According to the longer manuscripts of 2 Enoch, God also explains that had Enoch’s face not been chilled, no human being could ever look at it.25 2 Enoch 64:2 goes further and Enoch’s transformation surpasses Moses, as his countenance glorifies others.26 This last point is deeply tied to the idea that Enoch was appointed the prince of divine presence, (‫שר הפנים‬, lit.: “prince of face”). Enoch’s frozen face is a reappropriation and elaboration on the veil from Exodus. Like the veil, it is a protective layer that allows Enoch/Moses to have contact with other men. This Enochic tradition stresses—in a way quite close to the Hodayot—that the glorified protagonist extends God’s luminosity to others. But unlike the fragments from the Hodayot, and in fact, also unlike Moses in Exodus 34, Enoch “wears” a protective shield in his congress with God. His face is covered with ice to protect him and his mission. The Synoptic Gospels also use illumination themes when they present the transfiguration of Christ (Mat 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36). The Exodus narrative stresses that Moses transformed out of the public eye, on the mountain.27 Jesus and three of his disciples—Peter, James and John—are on the mountain together. Jesus’s face and clothes are illuminated before them, a detail that both grants him authority, elevates him (at least) to the status of Moses and Elijah, but also elevates the status of the three witnesses. They see Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah and hear a divine voice declaring his sonship. As they descend the mountain, Jesus orders them not to reveal what they heard and saw on the mount until “the Son of Man had risen from the dead” (Mat 17:9; Mark 9:9). These traditions raise Peter, James and John to a position of privilege among the disciples and the followers of Christ more generally. It has been suggested that Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 responds to the transfiguration narrative, and argues against this particular hierarchy. As we shall see, according to 2 Corinthians 3, all who are in-Christ are equally glorified like Moses, with 25 26 27

2 Enoch 37:2. Grant Macaskill notes that the two reasonings for the cooling of Enoch’s face are at odds. See Grant Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch, Studia Juaeoslavica 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 294 n. 182. On the luminosity of Enoch’s countenance in 2 Enoch, and the continuity of this theme in the Merkabah literature see Andrei Orlov, “Glorification through Fear in 2 Enoch,” JSP 25.3 (2016): 171–88. This brought about the idea found in LAB that the people did not recognize Moses when he descended from Sinai.

Veiling and Unveiling

143

Paul himself perhaps the most Moses-like of them all.28 Yet, since the textual evidence is reversed, and Paul’s letters should be taken as earlier than the evidence from the Gospels, we should hesitate to reconstruct such a direct polemic. Instead, the sources exemplify the elasticity of the scriptural narratives in ancient Judaism. Glorification narratives duplicate and recast Moses in diverse ways. For our present purposes, the absence of the veil from the transfiguration of Christ is noteworthy. Indeed, these narratives raise Jesus to a position higher than Moses’ (and Elijah), singling him out as the son of God. And so, the absence of veiling in the transformation narrative, could perhaps mark a difference in status. The luminosity of Christ’s clothes perhaps also hints at this hierarchy. In Exodus, only the face of Moses shone, and not his clothes (had they shone too, would Moses not know that he was glorified?), and he at some point covers his face with a garment. Unlike Moses, Jesus knows he is luminous, and the garments that cover his body shine with him too. As has been frequently noted, rabbinic literature does not offer an interpretation of the veil at all.29 Unlike the beaming light from Moses’s face, which indeed received Tannaitic attention, it is only in postamoraic literature that we first find interpretations of his face covering.30 In this, rabbinic literature is in line with the majority of Jewish interpretations of the Exodus narrative. We find in Tannaitic midrash the following derashah interpreting the verb ‫קרן‬:

28

29

30

See, David Wenham and A.D.A. Moses, “‘There Are Some Standing Here …’: Did They Become the ‘Reputed Pillars’ of the Jerusalem Church? Some Reflections on Mark 9:1, Galatians 2:9 and the Transfiguration,” NT 36.2 (1994): 146–63. Cf. Simon S. Lee, Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Believers’ Transformation: A Study of the Transfiguration and Its Development in Early Christian Writings, WUNT 265 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 50–52. With the exception of Linda Belleville who claims otherwise, and yet only cites irrelevant post-Amoraic sources. See, Belleville, “Tradition or Creation?,” 180–82. Those who note the absence of the Veil from rabbinic interpretation follow Str-B 3:516. Most recently, see on this Cover, Lifting the Veil, 262–63. see e.g., Midrash Agur 8 (at least 799 CE); Pesiq. Rab.10 37b (normally dated no later than the 9th century, see Rivka Ulmer, “The Transmission of Pesiqta Rabbati in 11th Century France in Narbonne and in Champagne: Borderlands Theories,” REJ, 83–113 179 (2020)). This may be an unfortunate result of the focus on halakhic midrash in Tannaitic literature, and the absence of Amoraic aggadic midrashim on the later chapters of Exodus. It may also be a result of the theophanic nature of the narrative in Exodus 34, perhaps the rabbis ideologically refrained from interpretation here, but one cannot argue anything from this specific case of silence.

144

chapter 3

‫ שנ׳ “וראו בני ישר׳ את פני משה כי‬.‫“ונתת מהודך“—מהוד שניתן עליך מהר סיני‬ ‫ ש׳ “ונוגה‬.‫קרן“—מלמד שקרנים היו יוצאין מפני משה כקרנים שיוצאין מגלגל חמה‬ .“‫כאור תהיה קרנים‬

“Give him [= Joshua] some of your authority [lit., your glory]” (Num 27:20)—From the glory bestowed upon you from Mount Sinai, as it is written: “And the Israelites saw that his face was radiant” (Exod 34:35)— this comes to teach us that beams emanated from the face of Moses like they emanate from the sun, as it is written: “His splendor was like the sunrise; rays flashed from his hand” (Hab 3:4).31 The minimalism of the rabbinic tradition should be noted: The biblical narrative is neither expanded upon nor re-appropriated. The homily only interprets ‫ קרן‬as denoting “beaming light,” and attaches to Moses the simile of the beaming sun, together with a supporting prooftext from Habakkuk. As should be expected, similar interpretations are found in the Targumim. As we turn to a close reading of Paul’s interpretation of the transfiguration of Moses, we may conclude that the ancient Jewish texts we have discussed exemplify great freedom in how they work with their sources. Paul certainly shares this attitude, as he takes up the transfiguration of Moses as a central theme and reworks it. Yet, he also stands out. In ancient Jewish literature, the luminous face of Moses eclipsed the theme of the veil. With the growing discourse on illumination and physical transformation in meeting with the divine, texts that reappropriate or interpret this Sinaitic scene tend emphasize the glorification of Moses and not his veiling. Only Pseudo-Philo mentions the veil explicitly (but does not develop it), and some versions of 2 Enoch rearticulate the veil as a protective layer of ice that allows Enoch to survive the meeting with the divine. 2 Corinthians 3 stands out as the only ancient text to emphasize and thematize the veil of Moses. In what follows, we shall explore in detail his recasting of the veil. 4

How Is Exodus 34:29–35 Retold in 2 Corinthians 3?

According to Paul, the ministry of Moses came with glory (ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ) and the Israelites could not look at Moses’s face because of its glory (διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ). This rendition slightly departs from the narrative 31

Sifre Zuta Num. 27, 20 (ed. Horovitz, 321).

Veiling and Unveiling

145

of Exodus 34 and the language of the Septuagint that states that Aaron and the Israelites were afraid to approach Moses (‫ וַ ִּי ְֽיר ֖אּו ִמ ֶּג ֶׁ֥שת ֵא ָ ֽליו‬καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν ἐγγίσαι αὐτοῦ) when he came down from Sinai because his face shone (‫וְ ִה ֵּנ֥ה‬ ‫ ָק ַ ֖רן ֹ֣עור ָּפ ָנ֑יו‬καὶ ἦν δεδοξασμένη ἡ ὄψις τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ). Paul, in accordance with the slightly “thicker” version of the Septuagint, speaks of the glorification of Moses’s face, rather than just speaking of its luminosity. The Hebrew of Exodus 34 only mentions the shining of Moses’s face, generated by his conversation with God (‫) ִ ּ֥כי ָק ַ ֛רן ֹ֥עור ָּפ ָנ֖יו ְּב ַד ְּב ֹ֥רו ִא ֹּֽתו‬, and says nothing about glory. More importantly, scripture says nothing about the Israelites being unable to look at the face of Moses,32 in fact, the contrary is true. Exodus presents the descent of Moses in terms of a theophany, and the narrative as a whole strives to show how it was made possible for the Israelites to look at the face of Moses. Aaron and the Israelites are at first afraid to approach Moses, but he calls to them (‫ )וַ ּיִ ְק ָ ֤רא ֲא ֵל ֶה ֙ם מ ֶֹׁ֔שה‬and is approached first by Aaron and the leaders of the congregation, and then by the public as a whole (‫ל־ּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל‬ ְ ‫י־כן נִ ּגְ ׁ֖שּו ָּכ‬ ֥ ֵ ‫)וְ ַא ֲח ֵר‬. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 pushes this difference further and claims that Moses did not speak to the Israelites with an unveiled face at all, though Exodus states otherwise. And so, while Exodus tells a story of a successful theophany, (a divine-like Moses appears publicly, and the public gazes upon him), 2 Corinthians 3 tells a story of a failed or limited manifestation. Moses according to Paul is charged with glory that is in fact left unseen by the Israelites, who could not be exposed to his light. Another novelty in Paul’s rendition is that the glory shining from Moses’s face is fading and transitory. The same verb (καταργέω) is used in 2 Corinthians 3 to describe the transitory nature of the old covenant itself, but the idea that the glory of Moses’s face was transitory is nowhere to be found in Exodus 34.33 In fact, with regards to the ministry of Moses, the opposite is true: the shining of Moses’s face is repeatedly recharged by his encounters with God, and so he veils himself when he is not speaking to Israel in the capacity of God’s messenger. The transitory nature of this glory might be tied to the uniqueness 32

33

This is a tradition which is found in other Jewish Hellenistic interpretations. A similar rendition to that of 2 Cor 3 is found in Philo, Mos. 2.70: “Then, after the said forty days had passed, he descended with a countenance far more beautiful than when he ascended, so that those who saw him were filled with awe and amazement; nor even could their eyes continue to stand the dazzling brightness that flashed from him like the rays of the sun.” See Also Belleville, “Tradition or Creation?” On καταργέω and its translations and meanings see Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 284–85.

146

chapter 3

of Moses, the only prophet to speak so intimately with God, and with the dying of Moses, one may assume, the divine light also disappeared.34 And so, another scriptural theme is reversed by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3: While in the biblical narrative, the light emanating from Moses’s face serves as an (eternal) stamp of approval to his message and ministry recorded in scripture, in 2 Corinthians 3 the same theme is used to denote the transience of the covenant. While Paul does not deny the divine glory, he reshapes Exodus 34 in order to present it as stressing the fading glory of Moses’s ministry; claiming that Israel did not look at Moses’s shining face; and finally arguing that Moses veiled the telos of Torah (that is, the returning of Christ).35 These manipulations, together with the representation of writing on stone as inferior to the writing on the heart, allow for the establishment of Paul’s next argument.36 4.1 The a minori ad maius Argument in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul’s argument has been largely identified as an a minori ad maius deduction, known also from rabbinic midrash is qal vahomer. The general logical structure of a minori ad maius is as follows: if A (minor) has X, then B (major) all the more so has X. According to this classical formulation, X is constant. Such is the logic and structure of two examples in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: That is a thing can be produced without art or preparation, it can be produced still more certainly by the careful application of art to it.37 That if anything is possible to inferior, weaker and stupider people, it is more so for their opposites; thus Isocrates said that it would be a strange thing if he could not discover a thing that Euthynus had found out.38

34 35 36 37 38

Harris, 2 Corinthians, 284–85. Carol Kern Stockhausen, “Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical, and Theological Substructure of II Corinthians 3:1–4:6” (PhD Dissertation, Marquette University, 1984), 223–24; Fredriksen, Paul, 166. Michael Cover labors to unfold the positive aspects of Paul’s representations of Moses though they seem to be overshadowed by Paul’s critique of Moses. Compare Cover, Lifting the Veil, 271–73. Aristotle, Rhet. 1392b6–7. See Jonathan Barnes, ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 2218. Ibid, 1392b10–12. See Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.

Veiling and Unveiling

147

In both of these Aristotelian examples, X (= the production or a specific thing; a discovery of a specific thing) is constant, and difference is assigned with regards to the two compared A (minor) and B (major). To cite but another renowned example, we similarly find in Cicero that “What is valid in the less should be valid in the greater.”39 Scholars40 have noted that the logic of the rabbinic qal vahomer is similarly limited through the rule of dayyo (‫דיו לבא מן‬ ‫[ הדין להיות כנדון‬lit., “it is sufficient for the deduced to be as that which it was deduced from”]), according to which X remains constant within the procedure of deduction.41 Qal vahomer can be therefore understood as constructed in a manner similar to the Greek and Hellenistic rhetorical mechanism. The deduction in 2 Corinthians 3 has a slightly different logic. Paul claims that if the inferior A (the ministry of death) had X (glory), then the supreme B (the ministry of life) has X2 (more glory). This inference is then structurally different from the general rule retraced above. This difference drove Hyam Maccoby to claim that Paul’s use of the inference places him closer to its Greek and Hellenistic uses.42 But, in fact, this is only partially true. In Tannaitic literature we find a deep difference in the utilization of qal vahomer between halakhic and aggadic homilies. Halakhic homilies are generally faithful to the limitation of dayyo, and are also very well aware of the logical and judicial problems qal vahomer and other similar deductions generate, and as a result disallow punishment in halakhot which were deduced by such inferences. But aggadic homilies, even of the earliest origin, use of this type of deduction more freely, and in a manner not far removed from Paul’s use of the inference.43 Since Paul similarly uses the qal vahomer inference in an “aggadic” context, 39 40

41 42

43

Cicero, Top. IV.23 (Translation by H.M. Hubbell, LCL 386). See also an example in Quintilian, Inst. 5.10.88. See Hyam Maccoby, “Some Problems in the Rabbinic Use of the Qal Va-Chomer Argument,” Melilah 4 (2010): 81; Nina L. Collins, “Observations on the Jewish Background of 2 Corinthians 3:9, 3:7–8 and 3:11,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict, Essays in Honour of of Margaret Thrall, ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott, NovTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 80–81. For a Biblical example see the example cited in the Tannaitic Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael, see Sifra 1, 1 (ed. Finkelstein, 4). Maccoby, “Qal Va-Chomer,” 81. Maccoby notes only that Paul’s a minori ad maius arguments do not adhere to the rabbinic rule of dayyo and so stands closer to Greek rhetoric in this regard, but cites no examples. See also Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1986), 64–65. See for instance the Tannaitic inference from the blessing of the manna in the Desert to the greater riches for the righteous in the world to come, Mek. RI, Vayissa, 3 (ed. Horovitz, 165). For other examples see Mek. RI, Amalek 1 (ed. Horovitz, 195) and many others.

148

chapter 3

he is quite in line with the rabbinic structure and use of the deduction.44 And so, at least structurally (but not historically), Paul can be viewed as using “rabbinic” logic to overthrow the authority of the ministry of Moses,45 and positing the unwritten over the written in stone. 4.2 The Hermeneutical Function of the New Covenant In verse 13, 2 Corinthians 3 shifts thematically once more: Exodus 34 is not only read as proof for the partiality of the mosaic revelation, but as the historical reason for a permanent inability of Israel to read scripture, that is, as Paul reads it. Because of the “veiled” transmission of the Torah Israel is also veiled in their reading of it. According to Paul, this veil is taken away in Christ, and so, Torah can finally be properly understood—that is, it leads to recognition of Christ (cf. Rom 10:4). In other words, the unwritten new covenant is the hermeneutical key to the written Torah. Paul turns to his final image, to the glorified countenance of those who are in Christ, receiving pneuma through Christ, transformed into the Lord’s image by gazing in the glorified mirror, unveiled.46 In what follows, I wish to show that Paul introduces a hermeneutic of “unveiling,” which the rabbis perhaps reacted to directly, and with vehement criticism. Many traditional and scholarly interpretations of the hermeneutics of 2 Corinthians 3 have understood the letter/spirit distinction as key to Paul’s attitude towards interpretation. Such for instance is the work of Ernst Käsemann, whose voice was prominent in reviving the hermeneutical importance of 2 Corinthians 3. The possibility of “spirit hermeneutics” generates not only a new type of divine word, written, as the prophecy of Ezekiel goes, on the hearts rather than on stone tablets, but a new, spiritual, reading of the Torah. This means, according to Käsemann, a reading that firstly acknowledges the “old testament” in its historicity, that is, as a document of the past; and secondly, sees it not as a demand for “good works” (the misunderstanding that springs from reading Torah according to the letter) but according to the message of justification.47 It is through this hermeneutical idea that Paul is able to retain the written word of scripture, by calling for its interpretation according to the spirit, that is, Christologically. It is perhaps because the gramma/pneuma 44 45 46 47

This is true for the deduction in 2 Cor 3, as well as in cases in Paul’s writing, See Rom 5:10; 5:15–17; 11:12. This, I believe, has a strong relationship with “Mosaic discourse” as described and formulated by Hindy Najman. See Najman, Seconding Sinai. See similarly Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 152–53. Ernst Käsemann, “The Spirit and the Letter,” in Perspectives on Paul, ed. Ernst Käsemann, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1971), 155.

Veiling and Unveiling

149

dichotomy is a Pauline novelty,48 that Käsemann and others saw it as the focal point of his hermeneutics. But as Richard Hays has so convincingly shown, the gramma/pneuma distinction does not offer insight to specific exegetical processes or hermeneutical principles.49 It only offers a path to reading through the ideological transformation within Christ.50 Trusting the salvific power of the Christ event generates according to Paul a new hermeneutic. It unveils the gaze and the heart of the reader, allowing him to truly understand scripture. Until the Christ event this possibility was unavailable because Moses veiled the transitory nature of the covenant. In the language of 2 Corinthians 3, Paul’s hermeneutics is a “hermeneutics of unveiling.” I believe that this “unveiling” is the central hermeneutical idea of 2 Corinthians 3, and I intend to show that the rabbinic idiom ‫המגלה פנים‬ ‫ בתורה‬addresses this hermeneutic directly, despite the fact that Tannaitic and Amoraic literature never offers an interpretation of Moses’s veil. 5

‫המגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה‬

The exact meaning of the Tannaitic idiom ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬has been widely debated in scholarship.51 Aharon Shemesh, Cana Werman and Paul Mandel have adopted the denotation presented by E.E. Urbach “he who finds 48 49 50

51

Though it is rooted in Ezek 11:19 and 36:26. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 149–51. Daniel Boyarin, in a review of Richard Hays’ Echoes of Scripture noted the deep difference between Paul’s hermeneutics in 2 Cor 3 and rabbinic midrash. Midrash, he claims, is thoroughly immersed and interested in the language of scripture, in its specificity and most intricate detail. Paul’s hermeneutics on the other hand is uninterested in the specific letters and word choices, but in the symbolic meaning of the text for the enlightened community of Christ-followers. Daniel Boyarin, “The Subversion of the Jews: Moses’s Veil and the Hermeneutics of Supersession,” Diatrics 23.2 (1993): 17–19. See, Urbach, The Sages, 263–64. See also his references in n. 31; Adolf Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (New York: Ktav, 1967), 103; Naftali H. Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), 261–62 [Hebrew]; Wilhelm (Benjamin Zeev) Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, 2 vols. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905), 149–51; David Flusser, “Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics,” Tarbiz 61.3–4 (1992): 336 [Hebrew]; Werman and Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden, 482; Aharon Shemesh, “Traces of Sectarian Halakhah in Tannaitic Literature,” Meghillot 2 (2004): 101–2; Menahem Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‌ʾaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68.3 (1999): 327 n. 42 [Hebrew]. Hananel Mack, “What Else Did King Manasseh of Judea Discover in the Torah?,” Meghillot 2 (2004): 105–11 [Hebrew]; Mandel, “Midrashic Exegesis,” 166–67.

150

chapter 3

within the Torah illegitimate meanings, (that do not correspond to rabbinic opinion).”52 This explanation, probably inspired by an interpretation offered in the Babylonian Talmud, has been rejected by many.53 The term ‫[ גילוי פנים‬lit. “a revelation of face”], used in Tannaitic literature in some contexts without “Torah,” rather denotes audacity and shamelessness, and is quite similar to the Hebrew idioms ‫ להחציף פנים‬and ‫עזות מצח‬.54 ‫ גילוי פנים‬indeed appears in Tannaitic literature in several connections all denoting shamelessness and impertinent, disruptive intentions,55 and the ‫מגלה פנים בתורה‬, correspondingly, is a person who teaches and studies Torah impertinently and with disruptive intentions. ‫ שלא כהלכה‬is an interpretative gloss that came to explain in what way ‫ גילוי פנים‬is disruptive, and is quite similar to that which Sifre on Numbers says with regards to King Manasseh’s reading of scripture, who was ‫ מגלה פנים בתורה‬and who was “sitting and teaching spiteful Aggadah before God” (‫)יושב ודורש בהגדה על דופי לפני המקום‬, that is, shamelessly finding fault in God and his scriptures. And so, if Urbach, Shemesh and Werman understood ‫ פנים‬to refer to facets of meaning in the Torah (like in the post Amoraic idiom ‫“ שבעים פנים לתורה‬seventy meanings to the Torah”), according to Bacher, Tur-Sinai and Kister, the face (‫ )פנים‬is that of the reader and not of the text. I contend that the idiom ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬in its Tannaitic usage functions in a way opposite to Paul’s hermeneutics of unveiling laid out in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul says that while Israel continues to read the Torah with a veil on hearts, preventing them from understanding the true, spiritual, meaning of scriptures, those in-Christ are unveiled. They may look directly in the glory of God, and in 52 53 54

55

See, Urbach, The Sages, 263–64; Aharon Shemesh and Cana Werman, “The Hidden Things and Their Revelation,” Tarbiz 66.3 (1997) [Hebrew]; Mandel, “Midrashic Exegesis.” Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie, 149–51; Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book, 261–62; Menahem Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‌ʾaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68.3 (1999): 327 n. 42. See specifically Tur-Sinai’s comment that the idiom should be read without the definite article: “‫מגלה פנים “ ְבתורה“ ולא “ ַבתורה‬, so it denotes: “He who intends to disrupt/anger in his teaching against the Halakha.” Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book, 262. It should be noted that this vocalization is not supported by M.S. Kaufmann, which reads ‫ ַבתורה‬. See with regards to Amalek, who attacked Israel “overtly” (—“‫ “ויבא עמלק‬:‫“ר׳ אליע׳ אומ׳‬ .“‫ שנ׳ “אשר קרך בדרך‬,‫ לפי שכל הביאות שבא לא בא אלא במטמוניות‬.‫שבא בגלוי פנים‬ .‫ לכך נאמ׳ “ויבא עמלק“—שבא בגלוי פנים‬.‫)אבל ביאה זו לא בא אלא בגלוי פנים‬, Mek. RI Amalek 1 (ed. Horovitz, 176); See also the ‫ המשומד בגילוי פנים‬in y. Eruv. 6:1 (23b) and b. Eruv. 69a, who is the overt convert or he who overtly and shamelessly disregards the laws of Shabbat. See also the midrash on Goliath, “who stood shamelessly before God” (‫שעמד‬ ‫)בגילוי פנים כנגד המקום‬, as he, according to this specific midrash, challenged God directly (b. Sot. 42b).

Veiling and Unveiling

151

terms of hermeneutics, they have access to the true meaning of his scriptures. Paul grants the metaphor of “unveiling the face” a hermeneutical meaning with a positive resonance. The rabbis use an equivalent idiom ‫( המגלה פנים‬lit. he who reveals his face) to similarly denote a hermeneutical meaning, yet with a negative resonance. We find within the mentioned scholarship two propositions for a cultural identification of the kind of person the Tannaim call ‫המגלה פנים בתורה‬. Aharon Shemesh and Cana Werman56 have promoted the interpretation that ‫המגלה‬ ‫ פנים בתורה‬is the “Sadducee” who, in the language of the rabbis, should be identified as a member of the Qumran sect. Urbach57 interpreted the term as pointing to the “early Christians,” specifically the followers of Paul. Both approaches should be reassessed and revised, as the reasoning of both seems flawed. Shemesh and Werman’s identification of ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬relies upon a proposed reading of a sequence of homilies in Sifre Numbers that tie the term (‫ )המגלה פנים בתורה‬to a prooftext (Num 15:30–31): ‫ “את ייי‬.‫“והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה“—זו מגלה פנים בתורה כמנשה בן יחזקיהו‬ ‫ לא היה לו לכתוב בתורה‬:‫ או׳‬.‫הוא מגדף“—יושב ודורש בהגדה על דופי לפני המ׳‬ ‫ עליו מפורש‬.“‫אלא “וילך ראובן“ ולא היה לו לכתוב בתו׳ אלא “ואחות לוטן תמנע‬ ‫ כסבור אתה שמא כדרכי‬.‫בקבלה “תשב באחיך תדבר“ וגו׳ “אלה עשית והחרשתי“ וגו׳‬ … “‫ “אוכיחך ואערכה לעיניך‬.‫בשר ודם דרכי מקום‬ ‫ ד׳–א׳ “כי דבר‬.‫ “ואת מצותו הפר“—זה אפיקורוס‬.‫“כי דבר ייי בזה“—זה צדוקי‬ ‫ מיכן‬.‫ “ואת מצותו הפר“—זה המיפר ברית בבשר‬,‫ייי בזה“—זה המגלה פנים בתורה‬ ‫ המחלל את הקדשים והמבזה את המועדות והמיפר בריתו שלאברהם‬:‫א׳ ר׳ אלעזר‬ ‫אבינו והמגלה פנים בתורה אף־על־פי שיש בידו מצוות הרבה כדי הוא לדחותו מן‬ .“‫ “כי דבר ייי בזה‬.‫ כל התורה אני מקבל עלי חוץ מדבר זה‬:‫ אמ׳‬.‫העולם‬

“But the person who acts defiantly” (Num 15:30a)—This is the person who is impertinent towards the Torah (lit. reveals his face to the Torah) like Manasseh son of Hezekiah; “that person dishonors the Lord” (Num 15:30c)—Sits and teaches slanderous Haggadah before God. He Says: he shouldn’t have written in the Torah so but “Reuven went” and he should not have written in the Torah so but “and Lotan’s sister was Timna.” It is to him that scripture refers in the qabbala (in the tradition): “[And to the wicked God said: Who are you to recite my laws, and mouth the terms of my covenant, seeing that you spurn my discipline and brush 56 57

Followed also by Mack, “King Manasseh.” See also Kister, “4QMMT,” 327 n. 42.

152

chapter 3

my words aside?] You sit and malign your brother, you slander the son of your mother! If I failed to act when you did these things, you would fancy that I was like you!” (Ps. 50:16–21) You may suppose that the ways of God are like those of man?! “So I censure you and confront you with charges!” (ibid.) … “Because he has despised the word of the Lord” (Num 15:31a)—this is the Sadducee; “and has broken his commandment” (Num 15:31b)—this is the ʾApiqoros. Another thing: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord”—This is ‫“ ;המגלה פנים בתורה‬and has broken his commandment”— this is he who breaks the covenant of the flesh. From this [verse] said Rabbi Eleazar: He that profanes things sacred and he that contemns the festivals; and he that annuls the covenant of Abraham our father, and he who is impertinent towards the Torah, even though has [done] many good deeds, should be rejected from the world [to come]. [If] he said: I accept all of the Torah except for this thing, “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.”58 According to Shemesh and Werman the homilies in the Sifre identify ‫המגלה‬ ‫ פנים בתורה‬with the Sadducees. Echoes of Numbers 15:31 are used in Qumran literature to present the defiant and manipulative midrashim of the Pharisees, and the interpretation in the Sifre responds to these Qumranic allegations. According to Shemesh and Werman, the two interpretations on ‫ִ ֤כי ְד ַבר־ה׳ ָב ָ֔זה‬ “Because he has despised the word of the Lord” are in fact not two alternative interpretations, but different formulations of a single reading. And so, according to their reading, the midrash creates the following equation: “Because he has despised the word of the lord” = Sadducee = ‫“ ;המגלה פנים בתורה‬and has broken his commandment” = ʾApiqoros = he who breaks the covenant of the flesh [‫]המפר ברית בשר‬.59 Shemesh and Werman’s reading unjustifiably molds two distinct interpretations into one, while the midrash explicitly presents the two homilies as distinct interpretations (separated by the term ‫דבר אחר‬, “another thing”). Furthermore, equating the ʾApiqoros with ‫( המפר ברית בשר‬one who breaks the covenant of the circumcision), as Shemesh and Werman do, is groundless.60 58 59 60

Sifre Num §112 (ed. Horovitz, 120–21). Werman and Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden, 481. On the term ‫ מפר ברית בשר‬see Yedidah Koren, “The Foreskin and the Foreskinned in Ancient Jewish Literature and the Creation of ‘the Foreskinned Jew’” (MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2014), 88 [Hebrew]. On the identification of the Tannaitic denotation of

Veiling and Unveiling

153

Rather, the Sifre presents two separate, albeit adjacent, Tannaitic interpretations to the same passage.61 While the first homily ties the verse to Sadducees and Epicureans, the second homily to ties the verse to heretics: Christ-followers (who reveal their face) and Hellenizers who undo their circumcisions (who break the covenant of their flesh). The linguistic equivalence between the Tannaitic ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬and Paul’s idealized unveiled reading of scripture is striking (‫המגלה פנים‬, ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι). Not only is their language identical, but both terms are used to describe a hermeneutic. It seems, that rather than limiting ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬to a particular hermeneutical technique, it should be understood as any audacious reading which uses scripture to contest scripture, to read against it with—what is marked by the rabbis as—ill intention. E.E. Urbach was the only scholar to rightfully tie ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬to Paul, albeit for misconstrued reasons. Urbach did not notice the linguistic link between the rabbinic idiom and 2 Corinthians 3, but only describes what he generally understands as Pauline hermeneutics to be and how removed it is from rabbinic methods of reading scripture. Urbach understands the rabbinic term as a response to the “radical allegorization” of the Torah and the annulment of its commandments. He proposes that ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬points to one who interprets the Torah allegorically thereby causing the cancellation of the festivals, the sacrilege of things sacred, and the annulment of the covenant of Abraham.62 This sequence, according to Urbach, is a direct reference to Paul, who allegorized the circumcision.63 There are several problems with this formulation, but most centrally it seems that Urbach implicitly interprets ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬through the prism of the ‫“ מפר ברית בשר‬he who revokes the covenant of the flesh.” And yet, one need not tie both sides of each derashah (i.e., the Sadducee and the ʾApiqoros; Pauline Christian and the breaker of the covenant of the circumcision) to each other and assume they both refer to the same cultural “type.” In rabbinic parlance ‫ מפר ברית בשר‬is ‫המשוך‬, that is, specifically a man who surgically undoes his circumcision,64 is best understood

61 62 63 64

“ʾApiqoros” see Jenny R. Labendz, “‘Know What to Answer the Epicurean’: A Diachronic Study of The ʾApiqoros in Rabbinic Literature,” HUCA 74 (2003): 175–214. See a similar critique in Kister, “4QMMT,” 327 n. 42. All the themes of m. Avot 3:11, reiterated in the Sifre Num cited above. See Urbach, The Sages, 263. Urbach does not distinguish between how ancient Jews perhaps understood Paul and what Paul said. See t. Šabb. 15:9 (‫‘ “ ”והמפר ברית בשר”—לרבות את המשוך‬and has broken the commandment’—to add also the un-doer of the circumcision”) See, Koren, “The Foreskin and the

154

chapter 3

as a Hellenizer and not a Christ-follower. In any case, one should distinguish between Paul’s attitude to circumcision (a requirement for the Jew who is under the law and not for the gentile) and the way his position was received and popularized (as an abolishment of circumcision). Paul has been remembered as the un-doer of the circumcision. Yet I do not believe that ‫המפר ברית‬ ‫ בשר‬necessarily reflects this position. ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬refers to a “Pauline” disposition. The use of “unveiled face” by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 helps us to understand ‫ מגלה פנים‬in Tannaitic sources, as both contexts use the revelation of the face as a hermeneutic idiom, though in opposite ways. The parallel between Paul’s idealized unveiled face in 2 Corinthians 3 and ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬that the Tannaim condemn is striking. First, the shared image of the veiled/ unveiled face of a reader of scripture is remarkable and stands out as unique in ancient texts. Second, Paul ties this image to a theme of boasting, that is not far removed from the shamelessness of the rabbinic ‫מגלה פנים בתורה‬, but argues for its positivity: “Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold (πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα). We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face.”65 Third, the language of covenant is central to Paul’s pericope,66 as it is in the Sifre Numbers 112. Clearly, Paul and the Tannaim develop their concepts of unveiled reading independently of each other. Still, the force of this parallel between Paul and the Tannaim suggests that the sources are interconnected in some way.67 It seems that Paul’s use of “unveiled faces” in 2 Corinthians 3 reflects his knowledge of the Hebrew idiom ‫המגלה פנים בתורה‬. We cannot know precisely how Paul encountered this idiom or in what language.68 The figure of the reader’s exposed face is exceptionally negative in sources extant in Hebrew, and Paul reverses it and renders it into an apocalyptical image that celebrates the possibility of finally understanding scripture in Christ. Paul, it seems, is

65 66 67 68

Foreskinned in Ancient Jewish Literature and the Creation of ‘the Foreskinned Jew,’ ” 88. and her reference to Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:251. 2 Cor. 3:12–13. 2 Cor. 3:6, 14. In a forthcoming article, titled “Reading Unveiled: A Genealogy of a Metaphor in Ancient Jewish Texts,” I explore these interconnections in more detail. Menahem Kister’s work on parallels between Paul and rabbinic literature (or other Jewish literature that postdates Paul) is helpful here. Kister often understands the appearance of the tradition in Paul to imply that the tradition already existed in Jewish texts. See e.g., Kister, “A Common Heritage”; Kister, “Romans 5:12”; Kister, “In Adam.” In Kister’s assessment Paul was at least bilingual, and knew texts both in Hebrew and in Greek. See e.g., Kister, “An Apocalyptic Phrase,” 289 n. 31.

Veiling and Unveiling

155

well aware that he is reversing a negative figure that denotes shamelessness, and therefore labors to justify that his boldness is not excessive, since it comes from Christ: “Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness.” (2 Cor. 3:12). Ishay Rosen-Zvi warns that studies which “move from the rabbis to Paul are in danger of reading Pauline assertions as just Christological patina overlaying Jewish ideas and thus underplaying Paul’s theological innovation.”69 This is not the case in 2 Corinthians 3. The textual and exegetical work Paul undertakes in transforming the veil of Moses into an apocalyptical image is highly intricate and also very much his own. Paul’s scriptural hermeneutics, here as elsewhere, are not transplanted from a preexisting Jewish context but are shaped in conversation with Jewish traditions of his time. It is also possible that the interaction did not end there. The Tannaitic usage in the Sifre Numbers and the Mishnah, does not merely reiterate an ancient idiomatic and negative usage of ‫המגלה פנים בתורה‬. Perhaps it is also reshaped within this polemic, and rearticulated in response to the Pauline, idealized usage, of the exposed face. That the exposed face is reshaped in the Tannaitic collections polemically, is supported by the fact that the Tannaitic ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬describes scriptural teachings that the sages considered not merely wrong but heretical, therefore associated with the idolatrous transgressions and with Numbers 15:30–31. The Tannaim quite possibly made this association in reaction to Christian teachings that saw the unveiled face as the embodiment of wisdom and understanding in the Endtime. The midrashic use of “exposed face in Torah” that I have reconstructed in this study allows us therefore to reintroduce Urbach’s reading that took Mishnah ʿAbot as responding to Pauline usage, though with some emendation: the exposed face is a main locus of disagreement between Paul and the Tannaim about the correct disposition toward the Torah. The latter use ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬to mark a shameless and heretical reading, using a trope that was in turn remodeled in 2 Corinthians 3 to idealize a specific reading (in Christ). If my textual reconstruction is correct, the analysis of ‫המגלה פנים בתורה‬ joins several recent studies that point to the possibility that Tannaitic concepts were shaped in conversation with Pauline constructs.70 Yet, even if we resist the temptation of explaining these sources genealogically, or accept it only partially, the linguistic resemblance allows us to go back and forth between 2 Corinthians 3 and Tannaitic literature and see that they 69 70

Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions,” 171. See mainly Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions”; Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, Goy.

156

chapter 3

are mutually illuminating. The case before us is no different than common terminologies in the DSS and Paul. There is no evidence that these literatures know or depend on each other, yet they use equivalent terminologies such as erga nomou/‫מעשי התורה‬, unknown to us from other sources, and so may—and indeed have—been interpreted together and have been mutually illuminating. 6

Modesty and Interpretation in Rabbinic Literature

Paul establishes in 2 Corinthians 3 a hermeneutics of unveiling, presenting his scriptural interpretation as full and final as the Endtime itself. Tannaitic sources neither share Paul’s eschatological views nor see midrash as the end of scriptural interpretation, but rather as an endless and limited endeavor. The limitations on midrash are tied in Tannaitic culture to a discourse of modesty, a hermeneutics of veiling. Paul’s hermeneutics of unveiling is seen by the rabbis as shameless (‫גילוי‬ ‫)פנים‬. Indeed, in many other places in rabbinic literature the discourse of modesty and the discussion of the limits of interpretation coincide. Moshe Halbertal’s work on esotericism has shown that the Tannaim have limited midrashic activity in order to protect the glory of God. The Mishnaic limitation of midrashic activity is deeply tied to the limitation of the gaze onto his glory: ‫אין דורשים בעריות בשלושה ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים ולא במרכבה ביחיד אלא‬ ‫ כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים רתוי לו כילו לא בא‬.‫אם כן היה חכם והבין מדעתו‬ ‫ כל שלא חס על כבוד קוניו רתוי‬.‫ מה למעלן ומה למטה מה בפנים ומה לאחור‬:‫לעולם‬ .‫לו כילו לא בא לעולם‬

Sexual relations may not be expounded upon before three persons, nor the work of creation before two, nor the chariot before one alone, unless he is wise and understands of his own knowledge. Any person who looks onto four things, should better have not been born into the world: what is above and what is below, what is ahead and was is before. Any person who does not keep his Maker’s honor, should better have not been born into the world.71 Midrashic activity is restrained and limited not because the Torah cannot provide insight on the secrets of creation or the corporeality of the Godhead, but rather because it trespasses upon God’s honor. And so looking (‫ )כל המסתכל‬is 71

m. Hag. 2:1.

157

Veiling and Unveiling

limited for the sake of the honor of God. Ethical responsibility is thus attached to the craft of the darshan, who is called to safe-keep God’s honor (‫חס על כבוד‬ ‫ )קונו‬by confining his gaze. Halbertal has pointed out that Tannaitic sources differentiate between a shameless, gluttonous gaze upon the glory of God captured by the idiom “feeding the eyes” (‫)לזון עינים‬, and a legitimate—albeit dangerous—“peek” (‫ )להציץ‬allowed only to a select few.72 From a Tannaitic perspective, then, a claim to a limitless “visual” availability of the glory of God such as the one made by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, is thoroughly unchaste. In a recent study, Yair Furstenberg has shown that Mishnah Hagigah 2:1, and the limiting of midrash it prescribes, heavily relies upon and reworks traditions from Ben Sira and Qumran, both preceding Paul.73 He cites the famous lines from Ben Sira: ‫ולענוים יגלה סודו‬ ‫ומכוסה ממך אל תחקור‬ ‫ואין לך עסק בנסתרות‬

‫כי רבים רחמי אל‬ ‫פלאות ממך אל תדרו‬ ‫ש‬ ‫במה שהורשית התבונן‬

For abundant is the mercy of God, and to the humble he reveals his secret. What is too sublime for you, seek not; what is hidden from you, search not. What has been permitted to you, look upon; have no business with mysteries. Though Ben Sira 3:21–22 does not use the idiom of ‫( המגלה פנים בתורה‬this might further support of the possibility that the Tannaim are responding directly to Paul), the theme of a modesty of readership as the basis for a limitation of midrash is clearly present. In this sense, Paul is indeed correct that Jews (before him) read scripture with a veil on their hearts, that is, their scriptural hermeneutics place limits on what should be learned from scripture. The rule “do not search” (‫ )אל תדרוש‬prescribes a position of humility that will eventually be rewarded by the mercy of God (‫)לענוים יגלה סודו‬. Paul perhaps responded to 72 73

See Moshe Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and Its Philosophical Implications (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007), 15–16. and his references to rabbinic literature there. Yair Furstenberg, “The Rabbinic Ban on ‘Ma’aseh Bereshit’: Sources, Contexts and Concerns,” in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity, ed. Lance Jenott and Sarit Kattan Gribetz, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 24 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 39–63. Translation of Ben Sira 3:21–22 here follows Furstenberg, see his claryfing comments in p. 45 n. 27.

158

chapter 3

this type of Jewish tradition that limited the craft of interpretation (‫)אל תדרוש‬, but promised the humble (that is, those who are not audacious!) a full revelation of scriptural secrets in the Endtime. In Tannaitic and Amoraic sources, the accusation of shamelessness and audacity of reading (such as ‫ )המגלה פנים‬has been possibly redirected to Paul. The rabbinic notion of a “gluttonous gaze” is itself an intensification of the idea that one may be nourished by the sight of the glory of God,74 which brings us back to Exodus 34, the central text of 2 Corinthians 3. The central derashah presenting the idiom ‫( לזון עיניים‬feeding the eyes) appears in Leviticus Rabbah: ‫ דאמ׳ ר׳‬.‫ מיכן היו ראויין להשתלחת יד‬:‫“ואל אצילי בני יש׳“ אמ׳ ר׳ פינחס‬ ‫ מלמד שזנו עיניהם‬.“‫ וכי קילורית עלת עמהן מסיני? דכ׳ “ויחזו את האלה׳ים‬:‫הושעיא‬ :‫ ר׳ יוחנן אמ׳‬.‫מן השכינה כאדם שהוא מביט בחבירו מתוך מאכל ומתוך משקה‬ ‫ מלמד שפרעו את‬:‫ אמ׳ ר׳ תנחומ׳‬.“‫ ה׳ מ׳ ד׳ אמ׳ “באור פני מלך חיים‬.‫אכילה וודיי‬ ‫ משה‬:‫ ר׳ יהושע דסיכנין בש׳ ר׳ לוי‬.‫ראשיהם והגיסו את לבן וזנו עיניהן מן השכינה‬ .“‫ לא זן מן השכינה מנ׳? “ויסתר משה פניו‬.‫לא זן עיניו מן השכינה ונהנה מן השכינה‬ ‫ בשכר “ויסתר משה פניו“ זכה “ודבר ייי‬.“‫ונהנה מן השכי׳ מנ׳? “ומשה לא ידע כי ק׳‬ ‫ בשכר “מהביט“ זכה “ותמונת‬.“‫ בשכר “כי ירא“ זכה “וייראו מגשת אליו‬.“‫אל משה פנים‬ .‫ נדב ואביהוא זנו עיניהם מן השכינה ולא נהנו מן השכינה‬.“‫ייי יביט‬

“And upon the nobles of the children of Israel” (Exod 24:11).75 Said Rabbi Pinhas: From this [verse, it may be inferred that] they deserved to have a hand laid upon them. As Rabbi Hoshaya said: Did provisions go up with them from Sinai? It is written: “And they beheld God [and did eat and drink]” this teaches that they fed their eyes upon the shekhinah as a man looks upon his neighbor while in the act of eating and drinking. R. Yohanan says: [It was] actual eating, as it says: “In light of the king’s countenance is life” (Prov 16:15). Said R. Tanhuma: [this] teaches that they uncovered their heads and became shameless and fed their eyes on the shekhinah. R. Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levy said: Moses did not feed his eyes on the shekhinah but enjoyed [lit., nourished from] it. Where does it say he did not feed his eyes on the shekhinah? “And Moses hid his face” (Exod 3:6). And where does it say that he enjoyed the shekhinah? “And Moses did not know his face shone” (Exod 34:29). As a 74 75

Many Tannaitic sources attest to this notion, mainly through the use of the idiom /‫ניזונין‬ ‫ נהנין מזיו השכינה‬for references and short discussion see Schneider, The Appearance of the High Priest, 156. See especially n. 160. See full context of the theophany in Exod 24:9–11.

Veiling and Unveiling

159

reward for “And Moses hid his face” he was awarded “and the Lord spoke to Moses face to face” (Exod 33:11). As a reward for “he was afraid” (Exod 3:6) he was awarded “they were afraid to come near him” (Exod 34:30). As a reward for “[afraid to] look” he was awarded “And the similitude of God he beholds [lit. ‫ ”]יביט‬Nadav and Avihu fed their eyes on the shekinah but did not enjoy the shekhinah.76 The homilies mainly expound upon the theophany in Exodus 24:9–11, and are interested in the sequence “and they beheld God and did eat and drink” ‫אכ ֖לּו וַ ּיִ ְׁש ּֽתּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֹלהים וַ ּי‬ ִ֔ ‫ת־ה ֱא‬ ֣ ָ ‫ ַ �וּֽיֶ ֱח ֙זּו ֶא‬and its meaning. The homilies interpret the elders feasting after the theophany as the audacious feasting of the eyes upon the shekhinah,77 contrasted to the modesty of Moses’s gaze upon the glory of God. The derashah notes that in the episode of the burning bush, Moses successfully refrains from gazing upon God (Exod 3:6) despite his initial curiosity (3:3). Moses’s restraint, says the midrash, was rewarded by nourishment from the glory of God, (Exod 34:29).78 Through Exodus 34, Moses is presented as the ideal, well balanced model for a visual intimacy with God: Moses refrained from ocular gluttony on the one hand, and yet enjoyed the nourishment from the sight of the glory on the other. The language of scripture here brings us full circle, as Moses in the Burning Bush narrative is depicted as “covering his face” (‫)וַ ּיַ ְס ֵ ּ֤תר מ ֶֹׁש ֙ה ָּפ ָ֔ניו‬. What we have before us is a system of counter-hermeneutics: A hermeneutics of unveiling in 2 Corinthians 3, against a hermeneutic of modesty in rabbinic literature. In both cases, the hermeneutical metaphor of veiling/unveiling is attached to the reader and his gaze (not to the text and its hidden, private meaning). It is plausible that Paul is reworking an existing, originally negative, idiom which he transforms into a positive image for scriptural understanding. I believe that the linguistic connection between the language of unveiling in 2 Corinthians 3 and the Tannaitic idiom ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬supports the possibility that the rabbis responded to Pauline ideas put forth in 2 Cor 3. And so 76 77 78

Leviticus Rabbah 20, 10. It is perhaps interesting to note that the shamelessness of the elders is described as ‫פריעת‬ ‫ראש‬, and uncovering of the head, and a shameless heart ‫לב גס‬, terms that bring to mind the language of 2 Cor 3. Perhaps in the idea that the glowing light shining from the face of Moses is a sign that he was nourished from the glory of God, is an implicit midrashic explanation to the fact that Exod 34 describes Moses as not having food or drink for forty days and forty nights. Not food and drink, implies the midrash, but rather, direct nourishment through the eyes, from the glory of God.

160

chapter 3

we see a dialectic formation of counter hermeneutics: while unveiling is a hermeneutical ideal in 2 Corinthians 3, for Tannaitic literature, it is an abomination. While the rabbis (and their traditions) endorse a restrained hermeneutic, refraining from penetrating the privacy of the glory of God through midrash, Paul indeed accuses his contemporaries of veiling their hearts—not recognizing that the messiah has come and is about to come back—in their reading of Torah.

Conclusion The conjoint study of Paul’s interpretation of scripture and rabbinic midrash has been largely abandoned, after being trapped between extremes. On the one hand, scholars have claimed—as H. St. John Thackeray had already done in 1900—that “there is perhaps no aspect of the Pauline theology in which the influence of the Apostle’s rabbinic training is so clearly marked as the use which is made of the Old Testament.”1 On the other hand, Richard B. Hays has criticized claims of the “influence” of rabbinic Judaism on Paul’s hermeneutics, and advocated the study of Paul’s letters (and midrash) separately and on their own terms. Hays’s critique exerted a strong influence on New Testament scholarship, and since the publication of his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul in 1989, only a handful of articles addressing the theme have been published. The objective of the present study was to find a way to think about Paul and midrash comparatively, without assuming a direct or literary dependence between Paul’s letters and Tannaitic hermeneutics, a claim that our historical sources cannot sustain. I argued in the introduction that thinking of Paul, Qumran, and the Tannaim comparatively is a compelling and fruitful project, especially once the claims of “influence” and “shared genealogy” are dropped. Qumran literature, Paul’s letters, and Tannaitic midrash are all exegetical enterprises that use the (re-)interpretation of scripture for the sake of building (and maintaining) sacred communities. This common feature is the foundation for the comparative approach promoted in this study. Using scripture as a main source for knowledge and guidance was not at all trivial in antiquity but rather an ideological and literary effort confronted by strong opposing agendas. The present study stems from a reformulation of a thesis promoted by Menahem Kister, Adiel Schremer, Aharon Shemesh, and Albert Baumgarten, who have all independently claimed that in the first century BCE we witness a turn to scripture as a central source of communal guidance against existing tradition-based models that ground their ways of life on paradosis. Kister, Schremer, Shemesh, and Baumgarten see a linear development, from Qumran and then Hillel, from which the beit midrash culture was born. The present study has criticized the linearity of their arguments. Paul’s participation in this dynamic, I believe, compels us to take a less linear and more nuanced approach. Paul arduously worked to generate scripture as a fundamental source for his communities, and so we witness, from late Second 1 Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 180.

© Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_006

162

Conclusion

Temple literature (as evident in the Qumran pesharim and other sectarian sources, as well as Paul) to the second century literary efforts of the Tannaim, a prioritization of scripture in sectarian, apostolic, and rabbinic contexts, all for the sake of building communities. Precisely how this prioritization of scripture was hermeneutically achieved by these literatures, and how they compare to each other, were the fundamental questions for the present study. By using a comparative approach in place of genealogy, I have been able not only to rearticulate our historical reconstructions but also to reconsider scriptural hermeneutics in Qumran, Paul, and the rabbis. Genealogical studies (focusing on Paul’s Jewish background or the shared exegetical traditions in Paul and either Qumran or Tannaitic literature) have usually concluded by identifying a similarity between the sources as a result of “influence” or “borrowing.” These identifications, as I have established in the introduction, are not only historically questionable but also limited in what they reveal about scriptural hermeneutics. In the case studies I have presented, similarities (and especially differences) between the sources contribute to a “thick” hermeneutical inquiry into the notions of scripture and prophecy these literatures maintain, how they promote and produce meanings, and how they understand the work and authority of the exegete. The main contribution of the present study lies in the comparative analysis of exegetical techniques in Paul, Qumran, and the Tannaim. These case studies have allowed a better understanding of their separate hermeneutics, a retheorization of some central exegetical techniques, and a reassessment of how similar techniques can be used by different sources to disparate exegetical and communal ends. In conclusion, I shall first present a synthesis of my findings and discuss their implications for our understanding of Pauline hermeneutics. I will then turn to consider the implications of the present study for research on midrash. 1

Pauline Hermeneutics in Light of Qumran and Midrash

Irenaeus (130–202 CE) interprets Paul’s proclaimed hardship in 1 Corin­thians 15:10 (that he had “worked harder than all” of the apostles) as stemming from the impossibility of relying on scripture in his mission to the gentiles: This is why Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, says, “I labored more than them all” (1 Cor 15:10). For them [apostles speaking to Jews], in fact, the teaching was easy, since they had proofs from the scriptures…. (24.2) But the gentiles had to learn this very thing, that actions of this kind were

Conclusion

163

evil, harmful, and useless, and damaged those who committed them. Therefore he who received the apostolate to the gentiles labored more than those who proclaimed the Son of God among the circumcised. The scriptures aided the latter because the Lord confirmed and fulfilled them when he came just as he had been predicted. For the former, however, it was an alien learning and a novel teaching…. All that was preached orally to the gentiles, without any scriptures; this is why those who preached to the gentiles “labored more.”2 Indeed, Paul had to work hard as apostle to the gentiles—not because he was unable to argue his Gospel through scripture, as Irenaeus has it, but precisely because he did. It was Paul’s work to build from among the gentiles an ekklesia around scripture, even though it was “an alien learning and a novel teaching” to them. Paul had to labor to generate hermeneutically Israel’s Torah as speaking directly to his gentile audience and allowing them to “listen to the law” (Gal 4:21). Paul, in Origen’s (apologetic) words had “taught the Church which he had gathered from among the gentiles how to interpret the books of the law.”3 Manufacturing scripture as speaking to gentiles (in Christ) is not only at the heart of Paul’s letters but also a novelty within Judaism, and the present study has pointed to some of the central ways in which Paul accomplished this end. However unique Paul’s communal aims were, his hermeneutical techniques and textual assumptions are often similar to those we find within Qumran exegesis and Tannaitic midrash. Their interpretations, often laid out more explicitly than Pauline interpretations of scripture, can help us reach a more accurate understanding of Paul’s work with scripture. More importantly, this allows us to think about the basic problem these literatures share: how can present communities see the text as speaking to them directly and meaningfully? 1.1 Reformulating Scripture and the Double Nomos Thesis At least for Paul, one of the ways in which he generated scripture as meaningful to his gentiles-in-Christ was by reformulating it, as seen in all the cases dealt with in this study. In the case of Romans 10:5–13, discussed in Chapter 1, Paul evokes the classical trope of “speech in character,” generating “righteousness by pistis,” as speaking the fused and thoroughly redacted verses from Deuteronomy 9:4 and Deuteronomy 30:2, followed by (redacted) fragments 2 Irenaeus of Lyons, Haer. 4.24.1–2. Translation from Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 118. 3 Orig. Hom. Exod. 5.1.

164

Conclusion

from Deuteronomy 30:13–14. In Romans 10:5–13 the verses spoken by the “righteousness by pistis” are contrasted with those written by Moses, not only with regard to their contents, but also with respect to form. While the words of “righteousness by pistis” are reformulated scripture, the words Moses writes are made of a (more or less) simple, straightforward quotation of Leviticus 18:5. Chapter 1 thus argued that the textuality of “righteousness by pistis” should be thought of as manufactured, established by intentional recomposition, intertextualization (as the presence of Deuteronomy 9 and Psalms 106 shows), and decontextualization (dissociation from the law and from its auditory nature). Paul’s hermeneutical work begins by generating scripture as speaking his message. The other cases discussed in this study point in the same direction. When Paul retells the narrative of Moses’ veil in 2 Corinthians 3 he departs from the scriptural narrative of Exodus 34:29–35 on several central accounts, in order to facilitate his claims. Similarly, though less dramatically, when Paul tells his audience about Abraham’s two wives and the children they bore him, his interpretation permeates scripture, even before the allegory of Hagar and Sarah begins: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise” (Gal 4:22–23). The κατὰ σάρκα/δι’ἐπαγγελίας distinction that Paul presents as scriptural is in fact novel, blurring the lines between scripture and its interpretation. Christopher D. Stanley and Dietrich-Alex Koch have noted in their separate works that Paul’s interference in the language of scripture is often intentional and should not be explained away as a consequence of quotation from memory.4 “Interpretive rendering” of the language of scripture, Stanley claims, was a literary convention in Jewish antiquity, shared by Paul.5 While it may be true that “interpretive rendering,” as well as decontextualization of verses, is common in antiquity (and beyond), some cases, such as Romans 10:5–13, seem to stretch the limits of this convention.6 4 Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 16–18; Koch, Die Schrift, 48–57. 5 Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 29. 6 We find Jewish texts both in Hebrew and in Greek reformulating the language of scripture for hermeneutical reasons. Assaf Rosen-Zvi has shown that the Tannaitic midrashim stemming from the school of Rabbi Akiva often intentionally cite verses fragmentarily or partially in order to fortify a proposed interpretation. See Assaf Rosen-Zvi, “Text, Redaction and Hermeneutic in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Kaspa” (PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2016), 77–96 [Hebrew]. We find similar practices in earlier Jewish literature. On “interpretative rendering” (i.e., changes in the language of scripture that cannot

Conclusion

165

While we may find continuities between Paul and other Jewish practices in antiquity with regard to the manipulation of the language of scripture, Paul presents a radical and unique conceptualization of scripture that scholars overlooked. Paul thinks of scripture as consisting of a double nomos: the nomos of faith and the nomos of deeds. This nomos should not be understood, as it generally has been, as “law,” but rather Torah (in the sense of instruction). In other words, Paul sees within Torah two torot, one speaking of trust and the other of deeds, both equally recorded within scripture. Paul takes it upon himself to present to his gentile audience the Torah of pistis, to extract from scripture those verses that speak directly to his message; this allows him to reject Torah as νόμος τῶν ἔργων while embracing it as it speaks as the Torah of pistis. This reading clarifies Romans 3:31, which may now be read as saying: “Do we then nullify Torah by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Torah (ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν).” After what seemed a blatant rejection of the relevancy of scripture in Romans 3:19–26, Paul establishes the relevancy of scripture in verse 31. The double-nomos thesis presented in Chapter 1 allowed me to explain why in Romans 10:5–13, Paul refrains from solving a contradiction he raises between the scriptures of the “righteousness by the law” and the verses of the “righteousness by pistis.” For all interpreters of Jewish antiquity, contradictions are the bread and butter of interpretation geared to rereading Torah as unified and consistent is essential. However, generating unity within scripture is not one of Paul’s aims in Romans. The scripture of the “righteousness by deeds” is not (perhaps we may say more forcefully, should not be) harmonized with the scriptural text spoken by the “righteousness by pistis.” While the double-nomos thesis sets Paul apart from contemporaneous Jewish understandings of Torah as unified and “harmonious,” it is similar to (yet differs from) the notion of the double Torah known to us from the Tannaim. Paul’s notion of the double nomos laid out in Romans 3 is met in Romans 10 with a distinction between be claimed to attest to a different vorlage of the verses, but are reformulations that service interpretation) in Qumran texts (some more than others), See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 296–306. A similar practice is also found in Philo’s writings, see Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 326–36; James R. Royse, “Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria,” in Composite Citations in Antiquity: Jewish Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, by Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn, LNTS 525 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 74–91. Apart from Paul, all of these literatures address audiences well acquainted with the scriptures in Hebrew or in Greek but nevertheless rework their language. This difference is important, and it points that “interpretative rendering” in each specific literature should be studied independently, on the basis of their disparate exegetical goals, textual assumptions, and audiences, as I do here with regards to Paul.

166

Conclusion

the written (text of Moses, of the law) and the oral (text of the righteousness of pistis). This distinction is structurally akin to the letter/spirit distinction Paul lays out in 2 Corinthians 3. The letter/spirit distinction has been overplayed and ideologically bound up with the idea that Paul completely rejected the law. Both in Romans 10 and in 2 Corinthians 3 we find a devaluation of writing, specifically, of written Torah. Nevertheless, this does not imply that Paul rejects Torah (or even the law): the distinction made in 2 Corinthians 3 between letter and spirit (corresponding to Paul’s dichotomy between written tablets and the message written on the heart) can thus be read as “internalized” to Torah itself in Romans 3 and 10. In this way, it generates not a dichotomy between the textual/nontextual but a more intricate distinction within Torah itself: a double Torah, written and oral, within scripture. As the analysis of Romans 10 in Chapter 1 of this study shows, both nomoi may be found in the same verses, and it was Paul’s work to extract the nomos of pistis from the nomos of deeds. My new reading of Romans sheds new light on the conceptions of Torah in antiquity as well as on the question of the origins of the rabbinic distinction between Oral Torah and Written Torah. Several variations on a “double Torah” notion can be traced in Jewish antiquity. Some literatures speak to a double revelation of written scripture. For example, 4 Ezra depicts Ezra as a new Moses, receiving a revelation of scripture by God, resulting in the writing of ninety-four books, twenty-four of which are to be presented and revealed to the public, while the remaining seventy are intended for the “wise among your people.” In a somewhat different vein, we find in Jubilees the notion of the heavenly tablets, the archaic writings that precede Sinai. Furthermore, both Jubilees and 4 Ezra stress the act of writing as crucial.7 Philo also introduces a notion of double law, the Law of Nature and the Law of Moses. Paul participates in this wide discourse in which the concept of torah is negotiated and redefined. The comparative framework I have adopted here benefits our understanding of Paul: we have reinterpreted Paul’s use of nomos, as well as defined more precisely how it serves him as a hermeneutical distinction (allowing him not to solve scriptural contradictions between the two Torot and the Torah). Furthermore, I have argued that the similarities between the Pauline and Tannaitic concepts of torah should not be reduced to a linear and teleological model, that overstresses Paul’s Pharisaism. It is only in Paul and in rabbinic 7 On Jubilees in this regard see Najman, Seconding Sinai, 117–26. Note especially her argument against F. García Martínez who claimed an analogy between the rabbinic notion of “Oral Torah” and Jubilees’ idea of heavenly tablets.

Conclusion

167

literature that we find an operative concept of an oral torah and a written torah, but a linear explanation does not account for the conceptual differences between Paul and the Tannaim, not for the conceptual variety of torah in Tannaitic sources. The implication on the genealogy of ‫ תורה שבעל פה‬as a concept will be discussed in more detail below. 1.2 Genealogical Allegory in Galatians 4 In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul interprets the Hagar/Sarah narrative allegorically in order to generate gentiles-in-Christ as the true sons and heirs of Abraham. Paul’s interpretation of scripture in Galatians 4:21–5:1 is a specific kind of allegory, a genealogical allegory, aimed at grounding his gospel to the gentiles in scripture. The logic of this maneuver is important: Paul establishes a concrete and actual genealogy by allegory. As Caroline Johnson-Hodge shows, at the beginning of Galatians 4, as well as at other places in the letters, gentiles-inChrist become sons via spirit through a process of adoption. This sonship narrative differs from the Hagar/Sarah narrative at the end of the same chapter in Galatians, as it presents a pneumatic adoption of gentiles through Christ and places God as father. Our allegory tells a different tale on all accounts: gentilesin-Christ are the concrete (not pneumatic) sons of Abraham (not God, unlike Gal 4:6) through allegory (and not adoption). The Hagar/Sarah allegory establishes an actual, paradoxically carnal, genealogy.8 Paul uses kinship language often in his letters, but it is mainly in Galatians 4:21–31 that this language is substantiated by and harnessed to scripture. Through Galatians 4, we may understand precisely how Paul and his audience share an ancestry, as is explicitly stated—but not argued—in places such as 1 Corinthians 10:1: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea.” Paul’s frequent use of “my brothers” is also substantiated by this scriptural maneuver, not as a pneumatic fraternity but as a concrete relation to Abraham. Paul uses the genealogical allegory of Hagar/Sarah not only to argue only for the promise and inheritance gentiles-in-Christ will receive when the salvation is fulfilled (a cause that adoption narratives would have satisfied), but 8 As I have attempted to argue in Chapter 2 of this book, the allegory of Hagar/Sarah cannot be consistently read as a pneumatic adoption narrative and thus differs from the conclusions of Paula Fredriksen and Matthew Thiessen. I believe that Paul uses a variety of inconsistent images of how the gentiles become sons of God, Christ and/or Abraham, that slightly differ from each other (Is Abraham father of the gentiles-in-Christ? Or is God? If the adoption narrative through pneuma is enough, why does Paul work so hard to establish the gentiles as sons of Abraham?). Compare Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God?,” 206; Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 89, 105.

168

Conclusion

also to generate scripture as speaking directly to the gentiles-in-Christ: telling them their ancient history, teaching them how they should live (with pistis and without Judaizing), and telling them how their history will end. In other words, he uses the genealogy to present gentiles-in-Christ with a new history documented in the scriptures. This point and its implications cannot be overstressed: Paul is not merely engaged in “mythmaking,” as Johnson-Hodge argues. His “mythmaking” goes hand in hand with his scriptural hermeneutics, generating a new self-understanding through and by (a newly interpreted and rescripturized) Torah. In Chapter 2, I retraced the history of allegory as a mode of interpretation, with particular stress on its Jewish forms. I have claimed that allegory, against some existing views in scholarship, is not to be identified as “Paul’s hermeneutic.” Allegory per se is found only in Galatians 4:21–31, the only location in which Paul uses the term. Furthermore, in the context of the uses of allegory as a tool of interpretation, Paul should not be seen as radicalizing “Alexandrian allegory” or as going further than Philo, so as to allegorize and cancel the Law. E.E. Urbach and others have painted Paul as one who uses allegory for the sake of the Torah-free gospel, seeking to free “man” from Torah by the power of faith in Christ.9 I departed from this analysis on several levels. Paul does not preach a Torah-free gospel. He uses allegory to generate Torah as relevant and meaningful—that is, not to distance gentiles from Torah but rather to work to include them in it. With regard to the allegorization of the law, Paul’s allegory (in its single appearance in Gal 4) does not reinterpret the law at all, but rather reinterprets genealogy. Paul’s use of allegory cannot be presented as a variation on “Alexandrian allegory” (Letter of Aristeas, Aristobulus, Philo). Paul’s argument for and construction of his allegorical interpretation in Galatians 4 share traits with allegories found in Qumran and also, more prominently, in ancient midrash. The similarity between the hermeneutical techniques extends to the contents of Paul’s interpretation. The (paradoxically carnal!) genealogy of Abraham that Paul generates for the gentiles-in-Christ is close to Jewish ideas about genealogy in Judea/Palestine. 1.3 Reading as Unveiling and Hermeneutics of Modesty Chapter 3 of this study presented a reading of 2 Corinthians 3, in which Paul renarrates and interprets the narrative of the veiled face of Moses in the book of Exodus. Paul views Exodus 34 as the historical reason for a permanent inability of Israel to read the old covenant properly. Not only was the face of Moses veiled when he transmitted the Torah, the hearts and minds of Israel are “to this day” veiled when they read Torah. According to Paul, this veil is taken 9 Urbach, The Sages, 262–63.

Conclusion

169

away in Christ, and so Torah can finally be properly understood. Paul turns to his final image, the glorified countenance of those who are in Christ, transformed into his image by gazing in the glorified mirror, unveiled. According to Paul, being in Christ generates a new hermeneutic: it unveils the gaze and the heart of the reader, allowing him to truly understand scripture. Until the Christ event, this possibility was unavailable because Moses veiled the telos of the Torah. In the language of 2 Corinthians 3, Paul’s hermeneutics is a “hermeneutics of unveiling,” which serves the purpose of re-addressing Torah to the gentiles: it presents the messianic time as a historical turning point for the function of scripture and the power and authority of its reading-in-Christ. The Tannaitic use of the idiom ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬is a mirror image of this Pauline terminology. Paul claims that while Israel continues to read the Torah with a veil on hearts, preventing them from understanding the true, spiritual meaning of scripture, the believers in Christ are unveiled and may thus look directly in the glory of God, and access the true meaning of scripture. The rabbis use the same idiom ‫( המגלה פנים‬lit. “he who exposes his face”) to denounce a negative exegetical activity with regard to scripture. The Tannaim use the “revelation of face” as a metaphor for audacious reading that uses scripture to contest scripture, to read against it, with what is marked by the rabbis as ill intention. The double-ended use of “revelation of face” as a metaphor for the act of interpretation is tied to a more general opposition between Paul and rabbinic midrash, about the nature and telos of scriptural interpretation. We repeatedly find in Paul a trajectory with respect to scripture and its reading—a teleological movement from scripture which was written then (προεγράφη) with an intent for the “now.”10 In some places, this trajectory implies that the end of days brings with it a new epistemology, that is, the end of times brings with it not only salvation but also an ultimate understanding of scripture and the promises of God. In the context of 2 Corinthians 3, “unveiling” is a metaphor implying that reading at the end of times as full and final. I have argued that the rabbis, in contrast, have a hermeneutic of modesty, idealizing the limitation of the gaze of readers. The school of Rabbi Akiva, who developed a hermeneutic according to which everything can be learned from scriptural exegesis (thus marginalizing the reliance on halakhic tradition), also constructed the norm that there are issues that should not be midrashically expounded upon.11 This is the logic of the precept in Mishnah Hagigah 2:1 ‫אין דורשין‬, which limits midrashic activity on the sexual prohibitions, Ma‌ʾaseh Bereshit and Ma‌ʾaseh 10 11

Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Cor 3; and other places. See on this Menahem I. Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages: Second Part, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al. (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006), 24–26.

170

Conclusion

Merkabah. While this halakhah, as recorded in extant Tannaitic sources, is tied to the time of Rabbi Akiva, Yair Furstenberg has shown that Mishnah Hagigah 2:1 heavily relies on and reworks ancient wisdom traditions preceding Paul.12 And so, Paul is indeed correct that Jews of his time read scripture with a veil on their hearts—that is, their scriptural hermeneutics placed limits on what should be learned from scripture. While ancient sources, such as Ben Sira 3:21–22, do not use the idiom of ‫המגלה פנים בתורה‬, the theme of modesty of readership as the basis for a limitation of midrash is clearly present. Not to search (‫)אל תדרוש‬13 is a position of humility that will eventually be rewarded by the mercy of God (‫לענוים יגלה‬ ‫)סודו‬.14 In Tannaitic and Amoraic sources, the accusation of shamelessness and audacity of reading (such as ‫ )המגלה פנים‬has been directed to such attempts, such as the one attested in 2 Corinthians 3. When considered in comparison to other exegetical systems of Jewish antiquity,15 Paul differs significantly both from Pharisaic hermeneutics (as much as they can be reconstructed) as well as from the Hellenistic interpretation of scripture. These exegetical circles do not see themselves as redeemed (or on the verge of salvation), nor do they speak of an epistemological shift allowing for the ultimate interpretation of scripture. In this, Paul and the Qumran sect have a similar ideology, tying together the Endtime and the end of interpretation. Yet with regard to how scriptural interpretation is achieved, Paul differs from the Qumran pesharim, and stands closer to the rabbis. The pesharim speak of a revealed meaning of prophecies in the last generation, while Paul has a notion of interpretation—never founded upon revelation— realized through the Christ event in the Endtime. Paul’s claim for a radical epistemological shift affecting scriptural interpretation in the end of days (e.g., 2 Cor 3, 1 Cor 1) should not be taken at face value.16 While Paul has deeply novel ideas about scripture, many of the techniques of interpretation he uses and much of his rhetoric in presenting these interpretations, are not in tension with Jewish hermeneutical traditions.17 The question 12 13 14 15 16 17

Yair Furstenberg, “The Rabbinic Ban on ‘Ma‌ʾaseh Bereshit’: Sources, Contexts and Concerns,” in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity, ed. Lance Jenott and Sarit Kattan Gribetz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 39–63. Sir 3:21 (in TS 12 863–64). Sir 3:20 (in TS 12 863–64). This issue will be elaborated upon further below. Compare Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel, 153. The history of the pesher-midrash reconstructed and discussed in Chapter 1 and the history of Jewish allegorical interpretation in Chapter 2 of this study present two such cases in detail.

Conclusion

171

is, therefore, in what ways do Paul’s hermeneutics reuse and modify variant forms of Jewish exegesis, in order to materialize his unprecedented exegetical end—to realize his mission to the gentiles through scripture at the Endtime. 1.4 Form and Content Daniel Boyarin saw a strong opposition between Paul and the rabbis with respect to both content and form.18 Midrash, according to Boyarin, has a carnal disposition toward language, working its way to generate meaning through the materiality of words. Midrash, as a hermeneutic of the body and flesh, is defined by multiplicity and difference. Allegory in general, and Paul’s allegorical hermeneutic as part of it, is logocentric: it seeks sameness and strives for the univocity of the spirit. Paul, according to Boyarin, is indeed one of the fathers of western logocentrism, and midrash is its radical opposition, allowing a multiplicity that defies the unification of the logos. David Stern similarly dichotomizes between the midrashic hermeneutics and that of the DSS and the New Testament.19 The Paul who emerges from this study does not fit with this distinction. Not only is Paul’s allegorical interpretation a marginal technique, operating only in Galatians 4, but as argued in Chapter 3, its locus is not the spirit, but rather (carnal!) genealogy. Similarly, Paul’s hermeneutics is not in discontinuity with ancient midrash. His interpretations do not seek to undo difference for the sake of universality, as Boyarin’s Paul is depicted as doing.20 Rather, Paul is interested in establishing communities of gentiles around scripture, and through the particularity of Abraham, establishing a new kinship that is exclusive and in no way universalized. Thus, we have no need to generate these polarities, with regard to either content or exegetical form. Paul can, and indeed does, use tools known to us as midrashic techniques. His ekklesia is not universal, but an in-Christ kinship to Abraham’s genos. Both the way he speaks of his ekklesiai and his scriptural hermeneutics carry a multiplicity of methods and techniques of generating meaning. It is nevertheless true that Paul’s interpretation of scripture does not share some central features with midrashic hermeneutics. Only once does Paul 18 19 20

Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 16–18; Daniel Boyarin, “The Subversion of the Jews: Moses’s Veil and the Hermeneutics of Supersession,” Diatrics 23.2 (1993): 16–35. Stern, Midrash and Theory, 23. In the chapters added to the Hebrew translation of his Intertextuality Boyarin has retracted many of the claims he made in his Paul monograph. See Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2011), 231–72 [Hebrew].

172

Conclusion

deduce a meaning from a verse because of its exact choice of a word, in the case of Galatians 3:16: “it does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ as of many; but it says, ‘And to your offspring,’ that is, to one person, who is Christ” (οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός). This rhetoric is commonplace in midrashic exegesis, arguing from the specific choice of language of scripture. In Paul’s letters, it is nonetheless the exception and not the rule. Thus, we should reject the dichotomy of Tannaim = midrash = multiplicity and Paul/Philo = allegory = univocity. Yet, I have argued (also contra Boyarin’s claims)21 that allegory was a midrashic possibility, marginalized in Tannaitic literature after Paul. Furthermore, scholars have pointed out that in Philo we find a multiplicity of allegories on a single verse.22 Similarly, I have argued, the allegorical interpretation of Hagar/Sarah is in fact a form of ancient midrash. Instead of dichotomizing Paul and midrash, we must ask about use. How does Paul use rhetorical tools that are known to us as “midrashic,” to speak his gospel to the gentiles? How does a midrashic hermeneutical tool operate when used to read a Greek text, and not Hebrew? What happens to midrashic hermeneutics when it is used for an eschatological end? We now may offer some tentative answers to these questions. Paul’s eschatological hermeneutics is tied to a finality of meaning. Taking the case of midrashpesher, we see that not only does Pauline hermeneutics exemplify this, but also that of Qumran. In Tannaitic midrash this rhetoric is ultimately (within the beit midrash and surely within the redaction of the midrashim) met with the possibility of multiple interpretation. For Paul, in the x is y structure of the midrash-pesher, x is truly only y. From another angle, Paul uses “midrashic” tools (that is, exegetical tools prevalent in Tannaitic literature) to make claims within his letters. Paul’s aim is not to write commentaries and solve exegetical questions, which within the “academic” efforts of the beit midrash may be solved in several ways.23 Paul uses interpretation to make claims about the community through scripture, and so their exegetical function is marginalized within his rhetoric, while their communal function is foregrounded. In this 21 22

23

Boyarin, “Dorshei Rashumot Amru.” See most recently Katell Berthelot, “Philo and the Allegorical Interpretation of Homer in the Platonic Tradition (With an Emphasis on Porphyry’s De Antro Nympharum),” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren R. Niehoff, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 155–74. Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121; Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 13. This is especially true for aggadic interpretations within Tannaitic culture.

Conclusion

173

sense, then, Paul is not a darshan for Christ, and his readings are not merely Jewish traditions covered with a thin Christological patina.24 But in what ways does Paul rework the techniques of midrash? The chronology of the texts makes this question problematic to answer. Qal vahomer operates in Paul and in rabbinic midrash aggadah similarly, and it seems Paul does not rework its logic, but only puts it to radical use. Similarly, Paul uses the midrash-pesher tool in way that is in line with other uses in Jewish antiquity. Yet, unlike the midrash-pesher both in Qumran and the Tannaitic corpus, Paul reworks his text base so thoroughly, the meaning of the verses from Deuteronomy is revolutionized even before the midrash-pesher begins. Put differently, the reworking of the language of scripture is in and of itself an exegetical tool, one that Paul uses extensively while stretching its common limits. In the case of Galatians 4, Paul does not need to rework scripture so extensively; his genealogical allegory is enough to produce his meanings. 2

Midrash in Light of Paul and Qumran

Apart from a handful of studies, scholars have systematically neglected Paul’s interpretation of scripture in the study of midrash. This study aimed to seek ways to take Paul into account in the study of midrashic hermeneutics, and ultimately to contribute to the understanding of midrashic hermeneutical techniques and assumptions, as well as their histories. 2.1 Hermeneutical Methods and Concepts This study has argued for a more complex understanding of several midrashic techniques and terminologies, all of which are used to interpret and generate scripture as meaningful and relevant to a present community. Chapter 1 of this study discussed the midrash-pesher technique and mapped its usage in Qumran literature, Paul’s letters, and Tannaitic literature. The midrash-pesher form uses the structure and semantic sequence of verses in order to enhance the authority of the new interpretation that it presents. The form points to the inner structure of the original scriptural verse; through the unfolding of the interpretation, together with its linguistic building blocks, the new interpretation, far reaching as it may be, is presented as a direct explication of the verse. Unlike most (Tannaitic) derashot, it generally does not

24

See, for this metaphor and critique of a strand in Paul scholarship within the discipline of Jewish studies, Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions,” 170–71.

174

Conclusion

disclose the exegetical procedure leading to the interpretation, as it presents only a correlation between the lemma and its given meaning. This rhetoric allows scripture to retain its relevancy for the community at hand. In Qumran sources the midrash-pesher form mainly serves as a vehicle for contemporization and recontextualization of scripture. The midrashpesher form does this in a way that grants particular importance to the choice of words and their placement within the verse. In the specific case of Romans 10, the midrash-pesher form is used similarly, not only to grant authority to the interpretation, but also to strengthen the interpreted text itself. While the text of the righteousness by trust is created through a manipulation of Deuteronomy 30:12–14, the midrash-pesher form reinforces its coherence and serves to conceal the true nature of the citation: a fragmented and intertextualized segment. In Tannaitic midrash-pesher, the form is used either to justify the specific wording of a verse or to create bridges between postscriptural or Tannaitic constructs (such as the seven Noahide laws and the four benedictions of birkat hamazon) and the sentence construction in scripture. In these cases the form serves to reinforce scripture by presenting it as comprehensive (nothing is lacking), relevant (rabbinic halakhah is represented in scripture), and consistent. The midrash-pesher in Qumran is mainly dedicated to the recontextualization of scriptural narratives, and prophecies are reread as sectarian history and eschatology. As I have attempted to show, only very rarely is this the function of the Tannaitic midrash-pesher, which is mostly used for interpreting and creating lists. And so, we see that an exegetical tool can be used for different ends by different exegetical communities, but it is always tied to the reinforcement of the scriptures (in whatever form or language) for a present community. Mapping the variant uses of the midrash-pesher form contributes to the study of midrashic exegesis, as it brings to the fore the particular characteristics of the rabbinic use of an ancient technique. The analysis of Romans 10:5–13 pointed out that Paul does not solve a contradiction between scriptures, which I have explained through a new reading of Romans 3, showing that Paul has a notion of two Torot that parallels (though it is not identical with) the Tannaitic notion of a double Torah, oral and written. No other Jewish sources have a notion of two Torot (or two Nomoi, as Paul has it) oral and written Could Paul be used to reconstruct a linear development of Oral Torah/Written Torah? Building on Paul’s Pharisaism (Phil 3:5–6),25 two 25

It is unclear how this Pharisaism of which Paul writes should be understood. Acts presents an extended account of his time in Judea, but it is an unreliable source for Paul’s biography (see Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul; Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles,

Conclusion

175

such linear genealogies come to mind: (a) The (Tannaitic) Oral Torah/Written Torah terminology is indeed of Pharisaic origin, and Paul reworked it for his own needs. (b) That Paul conceived of the Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction as a way to produce a distinction within written scripture. The Tannaim adopted and reworked it in order to distinguish between their oral teachings and written scriptures and by and by mark both as Torah. Yet, the current state of the historical evidence makes both of these narratives impossible to prove. After discounting Ant. 13. 297 as attestation of a Pharisaic Oral Torah, there is no evidence that such a concept existed before Paul or the Tannaim. We cannot attribute Oral Torah/Written Torah to the Pharisees by reading it into Antiquities and then align Paul with these reconstructed Pharisees. The second possibility is equally difficult to support as we have no evidence for Paul’s letters circulating in Roman Palestine before 230 CE.26 The differences between the various terminologies should lead the way instead. In Romans 3 and 10, Paul uses the distinction between the two Nomoi for his own communal needs: so that gentiles-in-Christ can see themselves in scripture, without taking upon themselves the nomos of deeds. Many Jewish texts in antiquity negotiate and (re)define torah. While Paul’s concept is not the “origin” of the Tannaitic distinction, the evidence from Romans shows that Tannaitic Oral Torah/Written Torah distinction is by no means a radical departure from Second Temple varieties of Judaism.27 Rather, I contend that the meaning and function of the double-Torah distinction was not at all set and “closed.” The Tannaim differ on whether there are only two Torot, one or many and often prefer to use other terminological distinctions (such as mikra/ mishnah) that do not participate in the double-torah discourse.

26

27

21–23; Jewett, Dating Paul’s Life, 23; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 500–1; Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts, 67, 73; Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism; Fredriksen, Paul, 61–62; Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts”; Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters.), and from the chronology in Galatians it appears that he did not receive any serious education in Judea. See Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, 18, 22. See also Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 68–69. E.P. Sanders follows John Knox, concluding that “the primary evidence is Paul’s letters. Acts should be disregarded if it is in conflict.” Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 181. In Philippians, this Pharisaism refers to a specific orientation toward the law and its commandments, Perhaps implicitly tied in Galatians to a zealousness regarding ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14, without the explicit use of “Pharisee”). These descriptions might coincide with Josephus’ description of the Pharisees as having a paradosis, Ant. 13.297–98. See on this Rosen-Zvi, “Pauline Traditions,” 175. Ishay Rosen-Zvi and Adi Ophir dealt with a similar situation in their study of the goy: something of the uniquely Tannaitic goy is already found in Paul. See Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, Goy, 140–78. Perhaps as more such evidence accumulates, we will be able to draw stronger conclusions. As Steven Fraade claims in Fraade, Legal Fictions, 372–74.

176

Conclusion

Rather, the evidence from Romans and Tannaitic literature I have presented in Chapter 1 shows that the distinction between the two Torot in the first and second century was not yet set, nor has it set in the Tannaitic period. Rather, it but was used in different ways in order to solve different cultural problems. For Paul, the distinction between the two nomoi is used to present (parts of) scripture as living teaching that speaks directly to his gentile audience and guides them. Yet, from a rabbinic perspective, both of Paul’s nomoi would fall under the category of written scriptures. For the Tannaim, the twofold Torah is used to claim Sinaitic authority for the living traditions of the beit midrash, thereby allowing Torah to be simultaneously ancient (from Sinai) and continuously growing, expanding and evolving. Chapter 2 reassesses Tannaitic allegory in relation to other manifestations and usages of allegory in Jewish literatures of antiquity. I have claimed that Tannaitic literature kept ancient allegorical midrashim (collected as the teachings of Dorshei Rashumot), but gradually abandoned allegory as a hermeneutical method. The interpretations of Dorshei Rashumot are both allegorical (as my mapping of the historical uses of allegory in Jewish antiquity has shown) and midrashic—that is, their allegorical interpretations are both manufactured and argued as derashot are manufactured and argued, by intertextual inferences from the prophets to the Pentateuch. Thus, Chapter 2 allowed me to retheorize allegory (as we know it from ancient Jewish sources) as more than interpreting an utterance as saying one thing and meaning another. Rather, allegories must be actively legitimized and argued, and in allegorical derashot, the move from one denotation to another is facilitated and legitimized by intertextual interpretation. In this sense, Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 steers close to midrashic allegory on two counts: first, it too is manufactured intertextually, while Jewish Alexandrian authors very rarely establish their allegories on intertextual arguments; second, it is neither apologetic nor philosophical, two central functions of allegories from Jewish Alexandria. Taking Paul into account allows us to reconsider intertextuality as the defining process of midrashic exegesis. Daniel Boyarin has insightfully claimed intertextuality to be the rabbis’ main vehicle for generating new meanings for scripture. Boyarin has shown that midrash is based on the assumption that interpretation is driven by recontextualization, and in aggadic midrash in Tannaitic literature, it is specifically a recontextualization of Torah with the Prophets. That is, Torah is interpreted through the lens of a verse from the Prophets and Writings: “Midrash performs its hermeneutic work by quoting. The quoting and resituating of texts from the Torah and the Prophets and Writings.”28 28

Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 26.

Conclusion

177

The present study has shown Paul as one deeply engaged in a similar hermeneutic. Romans 10:5–13 bears the marks of this trajectory. Deuteronomy is the interpreted text base, and its reading is driven and substantiated by two verses from the Prophets, Isaiah and Joel. A similar pattern is found in Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Hagar/Sarah, in which Genesis is read through Isaiah. Other exegetical procedures are also available to him (as for midrash!), but for both Pauline and rabbinic hermeneutics, reading Torah through the Prophets is a fundamental exegetical method.29 This is less so with Qumran interpretations, which are generally devoted to the interpretation of prophecies, and rarely rely upon intertextual procedures in order to ground their pesher. Yet the difference between intertextuality in Paul’s letters and in Tannaitic literature is no less significant than the similarities: for Paul, reading scripture through the lens of the prophets is a hermeneutic that stems from his eschatology. Paul indeed reads the world, not only the Pentateuch, through the prism of salvation prophecies. The rabbis understand the prophets not through their eschatological capacity but rather as readers of Torah. And so a hermeneutic firmly based in eschatological and apocalyptic notions in Paul is repeated and reworked in rabbinic literature in such a way that its eschatological features are removed. A similar dynamic perhaps also exists with regard to the notion of scripture written in the past with a view to a present reader, discussed in the next section. The Prioritization of Scripture: Community-Driven Hermeneutics and the End of Interpretation I have traced a tendency to mark the beginnings of midrash in biblical exegesis in Qumran literature. These portrayals are thoroughly teleological, explaining the history of midrash as a linear development from Qumran exegesis. Scriptural interpretation in Qumran exegesis is narrated as generally implicit with regard to its hermeneutical processes, and as “primitive” interpretation, steering close to the literal meaning of scripture. Midrash, on the other hand, is both explicit with regard to its hermeneutics and far-reaching and elaborate with regard to scripture. While rejecting their linear and evolutionary explanation, the present study has accepted and built on a central claim made in these studies: that in the late first century BCE, we find a turn to scripture as an authoritative source of teaching (rather than paradosis). Taking Paul into account allows us to refine our understanding of midrash in its wider Jewish matrix. A turn to scripture as an authoritative text for the sake of community

2.2

29

This claim goes hand in hand with, yet is not identical to, Ross Wagner’s thesis on Paul’s reading scripture with Isaiah. Wagner, Heralds.

178

Conclusion

building is the fundamental objective of the literature of the Qumran sect, Paul’s letters, and Tannaitic midrash, and we see its traces everywhere in these literatures. A specific aspect of the process of generating scripture as fundamental to community building appears in Romans 15:4. Paul says about scripture that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us” (ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη). With this, he generates a trajectory of a writing “then,” clearly intended for an audience of gentiles (in Christ) in Paul’s “now.” Paul’s communal hermeneutic is thus tied to eschatology, as this passage echoes his notion that Torah’s meanings are realized in the Endtime, a theme thoroughly discussed in Chapter 3 of this study dedicated to unveiling as a hermeneutical metaphor. A parallel notion to Paul’s concept of scripture as “written in the past for us” can be found in the pesharim, where, as in Paul’s letters, eschatology and hermeneutics go hand in hand. Pesher Habakkuk interprets Habakkuk 2:2,30 claiming that the writing of the prophecy is not intended so that “a reader may run with it,” as the language of Habakkuk has it, but rather so that “the reader may run with it,” that is, the teacher of righteousness. According to this description, the prophet is a vessel who cannot fully comprehend the prophecy he delivers by writing, which is intended to be fully understood only by the teacher of righteousness, in the “present generation.” This trajectory of contemporization is tied not only to the fulfillment of the prophetic promises (that is, eschatology) but to a full comprehension (that is, apocalyptic hermeneutics).31 As argued in Chapter 3, the Tannaim do not share with Qumran and Paul this type of eschatological hermeneutic, which in the case of Paul I have called “hermeneutics of unveiling.” Rather, they constructed a counter-hermeneutic of “veiling,” limiting the act of scriptural interpretation through a discourse of exegetical modesty. This hermeneutic of modesty has ancient roots already 30



31

1QpHab VII, 1–5 (compare also 1QpHab II, 5–10): ‫וידבר אל [אל] חבקוק לכתוב את הבאות על {על} הדור האחרון ואת גמר הקץ לוא‬ ‫ ואשר אמר למען [ירוץ] הקורא בו פשרו על מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את כול‬.]‫הוד()[עו‬ .‫רזי דברי עבדיו הנביאים‬ “And God spoke to Habakkuk to write what is to happen to the present generation, and when time will end, he did not tell him. And that which he said: ‘so that the reader may run with it’ Pishro ʿal the Teacher of Righteousness to which God revealed all the secrets of his servants, the prophets.” (translation my own) See, for a similar—though not identical—statement, Steven DiMattei, “Biblical Narratives,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 77–78. See on this (though not tied to the Pauline model) Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 33–79; Fraade, Legal Fictions, 42–43.

Conclusion

179

in Ben Sira. In this way, the Tannaim generate scripture as a central source of knowledge not by claiming that they “now” can fully understand scripture, but rather by generating scripture and its learning as continuously relevant. Does rabbinic midrash have a similar notion of scripture and prophecy written “before” (προγράφω, in the language of Paul in Romans 15) for a specific reader (or specific readers) of a later generation? Does rabbinic midrash entertain a notion of a later reader (or later readers) fully comprehending scripture, in a way that was previously unavailable? Midrash is the continuous practice of the beit midrash and is never presented as an eschatological hermeneutic (such as that of Paul or Qumran). Nevertheless, several points, which have not been mentioned earlier in this study, are worth elaborating on. We see the Tannaim engaged in the hermeneutical effort of rendering scripture as continuously relevant to their times, with respect both to the Torah and to the Prophets, though in different ways. With regard to Torah, and specifically with regard to its legal aspects, we find repeated attempts to contemporize laws to their current times. Let us take, for instance, the opening homilies in Sifre Numbers dealing with Numbers 5:1–4, a biblical narrative presenting a particular decree God gave the Israelites “to put out of the camp everyone who is leprous, or has a discharge, and everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse” (v. 2), a task that they ultimately performed (“The Israelites did so,” v. 4). The Sifre addresses the question of whether this was a decree pertaining only to its time, or whether these verses also speak to later generations (‫)לדורות‬.32 At 32



‫ “הציוי מיד ⟨בשעת⟩ מעשה ולדורות או‬:‫ אתה או׳‬.‫“צו“—הציוי מיד בשעת מעשה ולדורות‬ ‫אינו אלא לאחר זמן? תל׳־לו׳ “צו את בני יש׳ וישלחו“ “ויעשו כן בני יש׳ וישלחו אתם אל מחוץ‬ ‫ ולדורות מנין? ת׳ל “צו את בני יש׳ ויקחו אליך‬.‫למחנה“ הא למדת שהציוי מיד בשעת מעשה‬ ‫ מציוי‬.‫ הא למדנו שהציוי מיד בשעת מעשה ולדורות‬.‫שמן זית זך“ וג׳ “מחוץ לפרכת העדות“ וג׳‬ .‫ הואיל ונאמרו צוואות בתורה סתם‬:‫הזה מנ׳ לכל הצוואות שבתורה? היה ר׳ ישמעאל או׳‬ ‫ אף אל׳ פורט אני לכל הצוואות‬.‫ופרט באחת ⟨מהן⟩ שאינה אלא מיד בשעת מעשה ולדורות‬ .‫שבתורה שלא יהו אלא מיד בשעת מעשה ולדורות‬ “Command [the Israelites to put out of the camp everyone who is leprous, or has a discharge, and everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse]” (Num 5:2)—the command is for now, at the time of action, and for generations [to come]. You say the command is for now, at the time of action and for generations, or is it not only for some later time? Therefore it says “command the Israelites to put out” (Num 5:2) “the Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp” (Num 5:4). Thus you learn that the command is for now, at the time of action. And whence the command for generations? Therefore it says: “Command the people of Israel to bring you pure oil of beaten olives etc.” (Lev 24:2) “outside the curtain of the covenant etc.” (Lev 24:3) Thus we learn that the command is for now, at the time of action, and for generations. And from this command, how do we [extend] to all the commands [‫ ]צוואות‬in the Torah? Rabbi Ishmael would say: Since the commands were said in the Torah without details, and he gave details in one of them that it is both for now, at the time of action, and for generations. In all the other commands in

180

Conclusion

least the derashot belonging to the school of Rabbi Ishmael strongly side with the latter possibility,33 with Rabbi Ishmael even recorded as making the interpretation that whenever Torah says ‫“( צו‬command”) it means not only a temporary order, but a perpetual one (‫)לדורות‬.34 That laws and practices recorded in scripture are meant not only for their own time is a regular hermeneutical move in Tannaitic midrash. In fact, we rarely find scriptural practices designated as being relevant only to their own time.35 A hermeneutics of contemporization generates Torah as continuously relevant. Furthermore, with regard to laws that cannot be performed after the destruction of the Temple, the study of these laws in the beit midrash serves as a substitute for their physical enactment, reifying in turn the act of learning as an act of worship. We see similar hermeneutical efforts with regard to the aggadic parts of the Pentateuch. Thus, for instance, Ishay Rosen-Zvi has pointed to an act of midrashic contemporization in the Mekhilta on the Song of the Sea, going beyond the exegetical maneuver and allowing the theophanic narrative of the Red Sea to appear as a historical event serving as a model for the future salvation. The midrash allows the sages the hermeneutical and literary possibility of singing the Song of the Sea themselves, despite their own desolate physical state.36 But all of these instances are attempts to generate a narrative of continuity between the historical world of Torah and the contemporary world of the sages, and as such, they stand apart from the realization of scriptural meaning found in the “προγράφω” ideologies of Paul and Qumran, which were intended to generate not a continuity of scriptural relevance but rather a “jump in time,” imagining a writing of scripture “then” realized fully and truly only “now.” The only case I found that presents something of the ideology of Paul’s idea of scripture as “written in the past for us” is the famous narrative in the

33 34

35 36

the Torah I specify that they are for now, at the time of action, and for generations. (Sifre Num §1 [ed. Horowtiz, 1]). The Sifre presents several homilies by sages not belonging the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who read the verses within the context of the scriptural historical narrative. Even Rabbi Simeon (of the school of Rabbi Akiva), who is recorded in this context in Sifre Num. as interpreting this verse only historically (i.e., not ‫)לדורות‬, seems to minimize this possibility, and to prefer reading verses as applying contemporarily. Compare, for instance, Mek. RI Beshalah 1 (ed. Horovitz, 83). Such is, for instance, putting the blood of the ‫ פסח מצרים‬on the doors of Israel in Egypt, see Mek. RI Pisha 11 (ed. Horovitz, 39). “I have suggested that the homiletical activity itself as the mechanism that allows the homilist to transcend the past/future model and join himself the biblical hymn.” Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Can the Homilists Cross the Sea Again? Revelation in Mekilta Shirata,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions About Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 245.

Conclusion

181

Babylonian Talmud about Moses who finds God “tying crowns to the letters” for Rabbi Akiva: ‫ בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב׳ה שקושר כתרים‬:‫אמ׳ רב יהוד׳ אמ׳ רב‬ ‫ [אדם] אחד יש שעתיד‬:‫ מי מעכב על ידך? אמ׳ לו‬,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫ אמ׳ לפניו‬.‫לאותיות‬ ‫להיות בסוף כמה דורות ועקיבא בן יוסף שמו שעתיד לדרוש על כל קוצין וקוצין תילי‬ .‫ חזור⟨ לאחוריך‬:‫ אמ׳ לו‬.‫ הראהו לי‬,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫⟩אמ׳ לפניו‬+ .‫תילים של הלכות‬ ‫ כיון שהגיע‬.‫ תשש כוחו‬.‫הלך וישב בסוף שמונה עשר שורות ולא היה יודע מהן אומ׳‬ .‫ נתיישבה דעתו‬.‫ הלכה למשה מסיני‬:‫ ר׳ מניין לך? אמ׳ להם‬:‫לדבר אמרו לו תלמיד׳‬ ‫ שתוק‬:‫ יש לך אדם כזה ואתה נותן תורה על ידי? אמ׳ לו‬:‫ אמ׳ לפניו‬.‫חזר ובא לפני הק׳‬ .‫ הראיני שכרו‬,‫ הראיתני תורתו‬,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫ א׳ לפניו‬.‫כך ⟩עלתה⟨ במחשבה לפני‬ ‫ רבונו‬:‫ אמ׳ לפניו‬.‫ ראה ששוקלין בשרו במקולין‬.‫ חזר לאחוריו‬.‫ חזור לאחורך‬:‫אמ׳ לו‬ .‫ שתוק כך עלתה במחשבה לפני‬:‫ זו תורה וזו שכרה? א׳ לו‬.‫של עולם‬

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav said: When Moses went up to the high place, he found the Blessed One tying crowns to the letters. He said to him: Master of the Universe, who is holding you back? He said to him: there is one man, who will be in the end of some generations, and his name is Akiva ben Yosef. And he will expound on every tag and tag, mountains and mountains of halakhot. He said to him: Master of the Universe, show him to me. He said to him: turn around. He went, and sat at the end of eighteen rows [of students] and did not understand what they were saying. His might deflated. When they reached a certain thing, his student said to him: Rabbi, from whence do you know this? He said to them: Halakhah to Moses from Sinai. Moses was calmed. He returned and stood before the Holy One. He said to him: You have a man like that and you give Torah by me? He said to him: Silence! This is what arose in my thoughts. He said to him: Master of the Universe, you have shown me his Torah, show me his reward. He said to him: Turn around. He turned around and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in the marketplace. He said to him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah, and this is its reward? He said to him: Silence! This is what arose in my thoughts.37 37

b. Men 29b. Many scholars have addressed this narrative, most centrally Shlomo Naeh, “The Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought (B): Transcriptions and Thorns,” Leshonenu 72.1–2 (2010): 89–123; Yakir Paz, “‘Binding Crowns to the Letters’—A Divine Scribal Practice in Its Historical Context,” Tarbiz 86 (2019): 233–67 [Hebrew]. Yair Furstenberg, “The Agon with Moses and Homer: Rabbinic Midrash and the Second Sophistic,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren R. Niehoff, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 209–328; Azzan Yadin-Israel, Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 103–18; Daniel Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (Chicago:

182

Conclusion

The talmudic narrative paints God as writing Torah specially for Rabbi Akiva, who in turn is presented as scripture’s ultimate reader, who will expound heaps of halakhot on every verse.38 Moses, who is about to deliver Torah to Israel, is completely unable to follow Rabbi Akiva’s teachings, and so the narrative is generally understood as glorifying Rabbi Akiva, presenting him as greater in Torah than Moses himself.39 I am less interested here in the power play explicated by this narrative, between midrash (Akiva) and Torah (Moses), than in the “written in the past for us” structure of this narrative, which is structurally akin to that which we find in Paul and Qumran, though without any traces of apocalyptic hermeneutic. Torah was written for Akiva, who by his own midrashic tools deduces deep scriptural meaning. As in the case of Habakkuk in 1QpHab, Moses is a carrying vessel, profoundly ignorant of the full meaning of the Torah he is giving. Yair Furstenberg has proposed to place this narrative in the context of the trope of the “ignorant messenger” known from Greek literature. He shows that while this narrative is known only from the Babylonian Talmud, we in fact never find Moses as an expounder of Torah in Tannaitic midrash. Moses is repeatedly presented by the Tannaim as carrying only scripture and not its interpretation. He notes how this ideology stands in stark contrast to earlier materials, both from Alexandria (Letter of Aristeas) and Palestine (Josephus), that present Moses as one who knew all aspects of the law in all its detail.40 In a comment, Furstenberg mentions the possible parallel in 1QpHab VII, 1–5, only to dismiss it, on the grounds that (a) Qumran speaks of a minor prophet, rather than Moses himself; and (b) that Moses’ ignorance is “inherent to the nature of apocalyptical revelation.”41

38 39

40 41

University of Chicago Press, 2009), 231–33; Jeffrey Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2010), 182–202. For the interpretation of ‫ קוצין‬as ‫ קווצה‬and its meanings, see Naeh, “The Script.” Yakir Paz provided compelling evidence for this hypothesis in light of Hellenistic scribal practices, see Paz, “‘Binding Crowns.’” There is room, nevertheless, to consider the possibility that this narrative is not hagiographical but in fact ironic, or deeply critical of Rabbi Akiva’s fanciful expounding on scripture. See Boyarin’s reading of this narrative as “Menippean satire”: Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 233–36. See Furstenberg, “The Agon with Moses and Homer.” Furstenberg, “The Agon with Moses and Homer,” 316 n. 57. By this comment, Furstenberg argues that Pesher Habakkuk discusses apocalyptic (Habakkuk is ignorant about the Endtime and how his message relates to it) and that rabbinic sources about the ignorant Moses do not, and there for he dismisses or minimize similarities between Qumran and the Rabbis around the theme of the ignorant messenger. While I agree that the sources

Conclusion

183

Romans 15:4 provides us with a link allowing us to reinstate this comparison. Furstenberg is indeed correct that rabbinic sources, both Tannaitic and Amoraic, do not share with Qumran the notion of apocalyptic revelation. Yet the question at hand is for whom scripture was written. And in this, Qumran, Paul, and the Bavli share the notion of scripture being written for an idealized reader (or hearer) who comes much later in the course of history. This theme is deeply tied to the written nature of scripture (and prophecy) not just to a fulfillment of meaning. Romans 15:4 helps us anchor this tripartite connection. Pesher Habakkuk generates only a minor prophet, namely, Habakkuk, as a vessel carrying a message he cannot understand. But Paul in Romans, very much like the rabbis, does so with Torah itself. And so, the logic of “writing in the past for a future reader” is not inherently an eschatological hermeneutic. 2.3 Midrash and Its Hellenistic Connections Finally, Paul requires us to reassess further the persisting dichotomy between Hellenistic and Palestinian hermeneutics. As argued in the introduction to this study, scholars have shown that midrash is deeply tied to Hellenistic rhetoric and interpretation, and some have made a similar case with regards to the Hellenistic aspects of Qumran writings.42 They have demonstrated in a variety of ways that midrashic rhetoric and methods of interpretation were influenced mainly by Alexandrian scholarship. Thinking of Paul in comparison with midrashic exegesis has allowed us to complexify this Palestinian/Alexandrian axis. Chapter 2 of this study has shown that there are stark differences between Philo’s philosophical allegories and Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4. Paul works what I call “genealogical allegory.” Unlike Philonic allegory, which translates scripture into abstract concepts or philosophical categories, Paul’s allegory of Hagar/Sarah is dedicated to the concrete reappropriation of Abrahamic genealogy. Like Pauline allegory, midrashic allegories are never used for philosophical abstraction. Furthermore, Pauline and midrashic allegories are similarly established and argued. And so, while Tannaitic allegories can—and should—be thought of in the context of Hellenistic usage, despite some similarities, the Alexandrian connection to Paul’s rhetoric of interpretation here is relatively weak.

42

from Qumran and from rabbinic literature differ deeply in questions of interpretation and Endtime, I argue here that through the [Pauline] lens of προγράφω, we may think of these sources together and highlight their shared discourse. Pieter B. Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period, STDJ 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2017).

184

Conclusion

We therefore see a discontinuity between Alexandrian and Palestinian hermeneutics, perhaps a Palestinian Hellenism that differs from the local Jewish appropriations of Hellenistic thought elsewhere. Methodologically, these literatures nevertheless should be studied together, yet without assuming that they depend on each other. Rather, let us view them as allowing us a multifaceted view of Hellenism in its variety of Jewish forms.

Appendix

Locations of Midrash-Pesher Homilies in Tannaitic Literature 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Mishnah m. Maʿaś. Š. 5:1 m. Soṭah 8:4

Tosefta t. Ber. 1:11 t. Šeb. 7:12 t. Sukkah 3:9 t. B. Qam. 8:18 t. Sanh. 8:9 t. Soṭah 6:9 t. Soṭah 7:20–21 t. Miqw. 7:11

Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Pisha 16 (ed. Horovitz, 60) Shirta 9 (ed. Horovitz, 145) Vayassa 1 (ed. Horovitz, 157) Amalek 1 (ed. Horovitz, 181) Amalek 2 (ed. Horovitz, 182) Yitro 2 (ed. Horovitz, 197) [Two midrash-pesher homilies on location] Yitro 2 (ed. Horovitz, 197) [Two midrash-pesher homilies on location] Yitro 2 (ed. Horovitz, 202) Nezikin 3 (ed. Horovitz, 258) Bahodesh 9 (ed. Horovitz, 236) Nezikin 18 (ed. Horovitz, 312)

© Yael Fisch, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004511590_007

186 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.



Appendix

Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon 12 19 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 24) 19, 17 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 143)

Sifra Miluim 1, 2 (ed. Weiss, 44c) Tsav 11, 3 (ed. Weiss, 40b) Sheratsim 1, 1 (ed. Weiss, 46b) Sheratsim 1, 2 (ed. Weiss, 47a) Sheratsim 1, 3 (ed. Weiss, 47b) Sheratsim 3, 2 (ed. Weiss, 50d) Zavim 4, 1 (ed. Weiss, 78c) Aharei 5, 3 (ed. Weiss, 83b) Behuqotai 2, 3 (ed. Weiss, 111d)

Sifre Numbers §77 (ed. Kahana, 182) §115 (ed. Kahana, 328) §117 (ed. Kahana, 345) §117 (ed. Kahana, 347) §119 (ed. Kahana, 364) §134 (ed. Kahana, 445)

Sifre Zuta Numbers

39. 10, 10 (ed. Horovitz, 296) 40. 28, 2 (ed. Horovitz, 322)



Sifre Deuteronomy

41. §8 (ed. Finkelstein, 16) 42. §63 (ed. Finkelstein, 130) 43. §264 (ed. Finkelstein, 285)

Locations of Midrash-Pesher Homilies in Tannaitic Literature 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55.

§265 (ed. Finkelstein, 286) §271 (ed. Finkelstein, 292) §303 (ed. Finkelstein, 321) §306 (ed. Finkelstein, 340) §313 (ed. Finkelstein, 356) §316 (ed. Finkelstein, 359) §343 (ed. Finkelstein, 395) §355 (ed. Finkelstein, 419)

Seder Olam Rabbah 5 (ed. Milikowsky, 236) 7 (ed. Milikowsky, 242) 23 (ed. Milikowsky, 295) 30 (ed. Milikowsky, 324–25)

187

References Paul’s letters are cited from Nestle-Aland 28th edition, and translations are based on the NRSV Bible, emended by me as needed. Citations from Tanakh are similarly based on NRSV and emended by me. Rabbinic texts are cited according to the manuscripts chosen by the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of Hebrew Language (available at maagarim: http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il). Translations of rabbinic sources are my own, and in the exceptional cases where I use existing translations, I provide references. I have also provided references to critical editions of rabbinic sources: Tosefta: ed. Lieberman (New York, 1956–88) for Berakhot-Baba Batra and ed. Zuckermandel (Trier, 1881; reprint, Jerusalem, 1970) for the remainder. Mekhilta: ed. Horovitz-Rabin (Breslau, 1930). Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon: ed. Epstein-Melamed (Jerusalem, 1956). Sifra: ed. Weiss (Vienna, 1862). Sifre Numbers: ed. Kahana (Jerusalem, 2011). Sifre Deuteronomy: ed. Finkelstein (Berlin, 1939). Genesis Rabba: ed. Theodor-Albeck (Berlin, 1936). Leviticus Rabba: ed. Margulies (Jerusalem, 1958). References to other rabbinic works, as well as Greek and Latin authors, are provided in the footnotes. Abbreviations and transliterations follow the SBL style guide. Abegg, Martin G. “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness.’” DSD 6.2 (1999): 139–47. Agmon, Mordechai. “Inyan Krinat Or Pnei Moshe, Shemot 34:29–35.” Beit Mikra 31.2 (1986): 186–88. [Hebrew]. Alexander, Philip S. “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament.” ZNW 74.3 (1983): 237–46. Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Bacher, Wilhelm (Benjamin Zeev). Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. 2 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905. Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. JSNTsup 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Bakhos, Carol. “Method(ological) Matters in the Study of Midrash.” Pages 161–87 in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash. Edited by Carol Bakhos. JSJsup 106. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur, and Michal Bar-Asher Siegal. “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31.” Early Christianity 9 (2018): 404–31. Barnes, Jonathan, ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. “The Historicity of Acts.” The Journal of Theological Studies 50.2 (1999): 515–34.

References

189

Baumgarten, Albert. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. JSJsup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Albert. “The Name of the Pharisees.” JBL 102.3 (1983): 411–28. Baumgarten, Albert. “The Pharisaic Paradosis.” HTR 80.1 (1987): 63–77. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre. Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845. Becker, Eve-Marie. Letter Hermeneutics in 2 Corinthians: Studies in “Literarkritik” and Communication Theory. JSNTsup 279. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Belleville, Linda L. “Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7–18.” Pages 165–86 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTsup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Belli, Filippo. Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11. AnBib 183. Rome: G&BP, 2010. Bernstein, Moshe J., and Shlomo A. Koyfman. “The Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods.” Pages 61–87 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Berrin, Shani L. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study Of 4Q169. STDJ 53. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Berthelot, Katell. “Philo and the Allegorical Interpretation of Homer in the Platonic Tradition (With an Emphasis on Porphyry’s De Antro Nympharum).” Pages 155–74 in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters. Edited by Maren R. Niehoff. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Betegh, Gábor. The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology, and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Bligh, John. Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle. Householder Commentaries 1. London: St. Paul Publications, 1969. Bloch, René. “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 51–75 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1. Edited by William Scott Green. BJS 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. Bockmuehl, Markus. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Biblical Commentary.” Pages 1–29 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 84. Leiden: Brill, 2009. de Boer, Martinus C. “Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in Galatians.” Pages 211–26 in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition:

190

References

Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken. Edited by Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden. NovTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2013. de Boer, Martinus C. “The Meaning of the Phrase Τὰ Στοιχεῖα Τοῦ Κόσμου in Galatians.” NTS 53 (2007): 204–24. Bonsirven, Joseph. Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne. Paris: Beauchesne, 1939. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Boyarin, Daniel. “Dorshei Rashumot Amru.” Beer-Sheva 3 (1988): 23–35. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2011. [Hebrew]. Boyarin, Daniel. Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Boyarin, Daniel. “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality, Allegory and Midrash.” Pages 214–30 in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by Regina M. Schwartz. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Boyarin, Daniel. “The Subversion of the Jews: Moses’s Veil and the Hermeneutics of Supersession.” Diatrics 23.2 (1993): 16–35. Brewer, David Instone. “Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5:25 in Cuneiform.” TynBul 42.2 (1991): 310–16. Bring, Ragnar. Christus Und Das Gesetz. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Broida, Marian. “Textualizing Divination: The Writing on the Wall in Daniel 5:25.” VT 62.1 (2012): 1–13. Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Büchler, Adolf. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. New York: Ktav, 1967. Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Calabi, Francesca. The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of Alexandria. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 188. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Callaway, Mary. Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash. SBLDS 91. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Campbell, W.S. “Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4.” Pages 73–81 in Studia Biblica III: Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, Sixth International

References

191

Congress on Biblical Studies Oxford 3–7 April 1978. By E.A. Livingstone. JSNTsup 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. Caneday, A.B. “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21–31).” SBJT 14.3 (2010): 50–77. Carlson, Stephen C. “‘For Sinai Is a Mountain in Arabia’ A Note on the Text of Galatians 4,25.” ZNW 105.1 (2014): 80–101. Carraway, George. Christ Is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans 9–11. Library of New Testament Studies 489. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Castelli, Elizabeth A. “Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4:21–31 with Postmodern Feminist Eyes.” Pages 228–50 in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight. JSNTsup 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Charlesworth, James H. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1994. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louiseville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Cohen, Naomi G. Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism. JSJsup 123. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Cohen, Shaye J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism. TSAJ 136. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Cohen, Shaye J.D. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27–53. Collins, John J. “Amazing Grace: The Transformation of the Thanksgiving Hymn at Qumran.” Pages 75–86 in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions. Edited by Margot Elsbeth Fassler and Harold W. Attridge. SymS 25. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Collins, John J. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Collins, Nina L. “Observations on the Jewish Background of 2 Corinthians 3:9, 3:7–8 and 3:11.” Pages 75–92 in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict, Essays in Honour of of Margaret Thrall. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott. NovTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Law Has given Sarah No Children (Gal. 4:21–30).” NT 29 (1987): 219–35. Cover, Michael Benjamin. Lifting the Veil: 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 in Light of Jewish Homiletic and Commentary Traditions. BZNW 210. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

192

References

Cover, Michael Benjamin. “Paulus als Yischmaelit? The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael.” JBL 135.3 (2016): 617–37. Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Daube, David. “Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis.” Pages 27–44 in Festschrift Hans Lewald. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1953. Daube, David. “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric.” HUCA 22 (1949): 239–64. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1956. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. JSNTsup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Davies, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. Revised Edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1955. Davis, Anne. “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4.21–5.1.” BBR 14.2 (2004): 161–74. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Dawson, David. Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Dewey, Arthur J. “A Re-hearing of Romans 10:1–15.” Semeia 65.2 (1994): 109–27. Dimant, Devorah. History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. DiMattei, Steven. “Biblical Narratives.” Pages 59–93 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. DiMattei, Steven. “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of FirstCentury Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics.” NTS 52 (2006): 102–22. Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932. Doering, Lutz. “4QMMT and the Letters of Paul: Selected Aspects of Mutual Illumination.” Pages 69–88 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by JeanSébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Donaldson, Terence L. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Douglas, Michael C. “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux.” DSD 6 (1999): 239–66. Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

References

193

Dozeman, Thomas B. “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah.” JBL 119.1 (2000): 21–45. Duff, Paul B. Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3. NovTSup 159. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Dunn, James D.G. “4QMMT and Galatians.” Pages 339–46 in The New Perspective on Paul. By James D.G. Dunn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Dunn, James D.G. Beginning from Jerusalem. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38b. Dallas: Word Book Publishers, 1988. Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Dunn, James D.G. “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law’: A Response.” Pages 213–26 in The New Perspective on Paul. By James D.G. Dunn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Dunn, James D.G., and James D.G. Dunn. “Noch Einmal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialogue Continues.” Pages 413–28 in The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9–16. Dallas: Word Book Publishers, 1988. Dunn, James D.G. The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Dupont-Sommer, André. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. Ellis, Edward Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Emerson, Matthew Y. “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31.” BTB 43.1 (2013): 14–22. Epstein, Jacob Nahum. Introduction to the Mishnaic Text. Jerusalem, 1948. [Hebrew]. Feldman, Arthur. The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis: Agricultural and Pastoral. London: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Fisch, Yael. “‘Midrash-Pesher’: A Shared Technique of Interpretation in Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim.” RdQ 32.2 (2020): 213–33. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Fishbane, Michael. “The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and Its Ancient Transformations.” Pages 3–16 in “Sha‌ʾarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7–4:6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif.” TS 42.4 (1981): 630–44.

194

References

Flusser, David. “Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics.” Tarbiz 61.3–4 (1992): 333–74. Ford, Andrew. “Performing Interpretation: Early Allegorical Exegesis of Homer.” Pages 33–53 in Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Ford, Andrew Laughlin. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Fraade, Steven D. “‘Comparative Midrash’ Revisited: The Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Midrash.” Pages 261–84 in Higayon L’Yonah: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah, and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel. Edited by Joshua Levinson, Galit Hasan-Rokem, and Jacob Elbaum. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006. [Hebrew]. Fraade, Steven D. “Concepts of Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism: Oral Torah and Written Torah.” Pages 31–46 in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction. By Benjamin D. Sommer. New York: New York University Press, 2012. Fraade, Steven D. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash of Sifre to Deuteronomy. New York: SUNY Press, 1991. Fraade, Steven D. Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages. JSJsup 147. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Fraade, Steven D. “Looking for Legal Midrash in Qumran.” Pages 145–68 in Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages. JSJsup 147. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Fraade, Steven D. “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization.” AJSR 31.1 (2007): 1–40. Frankel, Jonah. Darkhe Haaggadah VeHamidrash. Jerusalem: Yad LaTalmud, 1991. [Hebrew]. Fredriksen, Paula. “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology.” JBL 137.1 (2018): 193–212. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” JTS 42.2 (1991): 532–64. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel.” NTS 56 (2010): 232–52. Fredriksen, Paula. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Fredriksen, Paula. “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith.’” JBL 133.4 (2014): 801–8. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation. Louiseville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991. Frey, Jörg. “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 347–65 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

References

195

Frey, Jörg. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History‫‏‬.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Frey, Jörg. “The Notion of Flesh in 4QInstuction and the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 197–226 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Friedman, David A. “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews.” JSJ 45 (2014): 523–50. Friedrich, Gerhard. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens Röm. 3, 27.” TZ 10 (1954): 401–16. Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast Or Continuum?: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1973. Furstenberg, Yair. Purity and Community in Antiquity: Tradition of the Law from Second Temple Judaism to the Mishnah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2016. [Hebrew]. Furstenberg, Yair. “The Agon with Moses and Homer: Rabbinic Midrash and the Second Sophistic.” Pages 209–328 in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters. Edited by Maren R. Niehoff. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Furstenberg, Yair. “The Rabbinic Ban on ‘Ma‌ʾaseh Bereshit’: Sources, Contexts and Concerns.” Pages 39–63 in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lance Jenott and Sarit Kattan Gribetz. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Furstenberg, Yair. “The Rabbinic Ban on ‘Ma‌ʾaseh Bereshit’: Sources, Contexts and Concerns.” Pages 39–63 in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lance Jenott and Sarit Kattan Gribetz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Glaim, Aaron. Rethinking Jesus as Sin Sacrifice in the Pauline Epistles. Forthcoming. Goldberg, Arnold. “Die funktionale Form Midrasch.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 10 (1982): 1–45. Goldberg, Arnold. “Distributive und kompositive Formen: Vorschläge für die descriptive Terminologie der Formanalyse rabbinischer Texte.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 12 (1984): 147–53. Goldberg, Arnold. “Midraschsatz: Vorschläge für die descriptive Terminologie der Formanalyse rabbinischer Texte.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 17 (1989): 45–56.

196

References

Goldman, Liora. “The Admonitions in the Damascus Document as a Series of Thematic Pesharim.” DSD 25.3 (2018): 385–411. Goodman, Martin. Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays. AGJU 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Hadas, Moses. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper Bros., 1951. Hafemann, Scott J. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1995. Halbertal, Moshe. Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and Its Philosophical Implications. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. Halliwell, Stephen. Aristotle’s Poetics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Hanson, R.P.C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1959. Haran, Menahem. “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography.” Pages 159–73 in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström. Edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer. JSOTsup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Hartog, Pieter B. Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period. STDJ 121. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hayes, Christine. What’s Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives. Princeton: Prince­ ton University Press, 2015. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2005. Heil, John Paul. “Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30–10:8).” CBQ 63.3 (2001): 484–98. Henshke, David. “Studies in the Method of ‘Shnei Ketuvim Hamkhishim zeh et zeh.’” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 11.1 (1993): 39–46. Henshke, David. “The Rabbis’ Approach to Biblical Self-Contradictions.” Sidra 10 (1994): 39–55. Hirshman, Marc. “Aggadic Midrash.” Pages 107–32 in The Literature of the Sages, Part 2: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions,

References

197

Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. CRINT Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 3b. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006. Hogeterp, Albert L.A. “Paul and the Jerusalem Church: Light from the Scrolls on Graeco-Semitic Language Contacts and Ethics of Gospel Mission.” Pages 261–76 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Texts and Translations 20. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ito, Akio. “Νόμος (τῶν) ἔργων and νόμος πίστεως: The Pauline Rhetoric and Theology of νόμος.” NovT 45.3 (2003): 237–59. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jaffee, Martin S. “How Much ‘Orality’ in Oral Torah?: New Perspectives on the Composition and Transmission of Early Rabbinic Tradition.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 10.2 (1992): 53–72. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jeremias, Joachim. “Paulus als Hillelit.” Pages 88–94 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by Edward Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969. Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul’s Life. London: SCM Press, 1979. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21–31.” WTJ 55.2 (1993): 299–320. Johnson Hodge, Caroline E. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Joosten, Jan, and Menahem Kister. “The New Testament and Rabbinic Hebrew.” Pages 335–50 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter Tomson. JSJsup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Kahana, Menahem I. Commentary on Sifre Numbers. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2011. [Hebrew]. Kahana, Menahem I. “The Halakhic Midrashim.” Pages 3–105 in The Literature of the Sages, Part 2: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions,

198

References

Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. CRINT 3b. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006. Kahana, Menahem I. “The Halakhic Midrashim.” Pages 3–105 in The Literature of the Sages: Second Part. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2006. Kahn, Charles D. “Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus?” Pages 55–63 in Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Edited by Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Spirit and the Letter.” Perspectives on Paul. Edited by Ernst Käsemann. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1971. Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Voices in Performance and Text. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Kister, Menahem. “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implications.” Pages 101–11 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kister, Menahem. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59.3/4 (1990): 303–78. Kister, Menahem. “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies.” Pages 133–83 in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9–11 January, 2007. Edited by Gary A. Anderson, Ruth Clements, and David Satran. STDJ 106. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kister, Menahem. “An Apocalyptic Phrase in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and in 1 Thess 5:3a.” RdQ 31.2 (2019): 283–90. Kister, Menahem. “Body and Sin Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts.” Pages 171–208 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Kister, Menahem. “Concerning the History of the Essenes.” Tarbiz 56.1 (1987): 1–18. Kister, Menahem. “Deeds, Reward, and Divine Mercy: Jewish Views and Pauline Passages.” JSJ 52 (2021): 1–44.

References

199

Kister, Menahem. “‘First Adam’ And ‘Second Adam’ In 1 Cor 15:45–49 In The Light Of Midrashic Exegesis And Hebrew Usage.” Pages 351–66 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter Tomson. JSJsup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kister, Menahem. “‘In Adam’: 1 Cor 15:21–22; 12:27 In Their Jewish Setting.” Pages 685– 90 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJsup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kister, Menahem. “Qumran, Jubilees, and the Jewish Dimensions of 2 Corinthians 6:14– 7:1.” The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28–30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth A. Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Kister, Menahem. “Romans 5:12–21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage.” HTR 100.4 (2007): 391–424. Kister, Menahem. “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah.” Pages 571–88 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kister, Menahem. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‌ʾaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar.” Tarbiz 68.3 (1999): 317–71. Knohl, Israel. “The Bible Reworked at Qumran: The Temple Scroll and 4QRewroked Pentateuch.” Pages 157–68 in The Qumran Scrolls and their World. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009. [Hebrew]. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koren, Yedidah. “The Foreskin and the Foreskinned in Ancient Jewish Literature and the Creation of ‘the Foreskinned Jew.’” MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2014. [Hebrew]. Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Labendz, Jenny R. “‘Know What to Answer the Epicurean’: A Diachronic Study of Theʾ Apiqoros in Rabbinic Literature.” HUCA 74 (2003): 175–214. Lambert, David. “How the ‘Torah of Moses’ Became Revelation: An Early, Apocalyptic Theory of Pentateuchal Origins.” JSJ 47.1 (2016): 22–54.

200

References

Lauterbach, Jacob Z. “The Ancient Jewish Allegorists in Talmud and Midrash—Part 1.” JQR 1.3 (1911): 291–333. Lavee, Moshe. “The Noahide Laws: The Building Blocks of a Rabbinic Conceptual Framework in Qumran and the Book of Acts.” Meghillot 10 (2013): 73–114. Le Déaut, R. “Apropos a Definition of Midrash.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 25.3 (1971): 259–82. Lee, Simon S. Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Believers’ Transformation: A Study of the Transfiguration and Its Development in Early Christian Writings. WUNT 265. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta. Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1992. [Hebrew]. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer‫‏‬. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Luxon, Thomas H. Literal Figures: Puritan Allegory and the Reformation Crisis in Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Macaskill, Grant. The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch. Studia Juaeoslavica 6. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Maccoby, Hyam. “Some Problems in the Rabbinic Use of the Qal Va-Chomer Argument.” Melilah 4 (2010): 80–90. Maccoby, Hyam. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1986. Mack, Hananel. “What Else Did King Manasseh of Judea Discover in the Torah?” Meghillot 2 (2004): 105–14. Mandel, Paul D. “Midrashic Exegesis and Its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 8.2 (2001): 149–68. Mandel, Paul D. The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text. JSJsup 180. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Mandel, Pinchas. “Darash Rabbi X: A New Study.” Dappim: Research in Literature 16/17 (2008): 27–55. Marguerat, Daniel. Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters. WUNT 310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

References

201

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. StPB 39. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Meeks, Wayne. “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22.” JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer‫‏‬. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Michel, Otto. Paulus und seine Bibel. Güttersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929. Milgrom, Jacob. “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Offering.” RdQ 16.3 (63) (1994): 449–56. Milikowsky, Chaim Joseph, ed. Seder Olam Rabbah. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013. [Hebrew]. Mitchell, Margaret Mary. “Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1 Samuel 28 on Trial.” JR 85.3 (2005): 414–45. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Morgan, Teresa. “Roman Faith and Christian Faith.” NTS 64.2 (2018): 255–61. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Mroczek, Eva. “‘David Did Not Ascend into the Heavens’ (Acts 2:34): Early Jewish Ascent Traditions and the Myth of Exegesis in the New Testament (2015).” Judaïsme Ancien—Ancient Judaism 3 (2015): 219–52. doi:10.1484/j.Jaaj.5.103822. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Naeh, Shlomo. “The Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought (B): Transcriptions and Thorns.” Leshonenu 72.1–2 (2010): 89–123. Najman, Hindy. “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox.” SPhiloA 15 (2003): 54–63. Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Najman, Hindy. Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJsup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJsup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Nanos, Mark D. “What Does ‘Present Jerusalem’ (Gal 4:25) in Paul’s Allegory Have to Do with the Jerusalem of Paul’s Time, or the Concerns of the Galatians?” Pages 1–18 in Annual Meeting of the Central States Region of the SBL. St. Louis, 2004. Nanos, Mark D., and Magnus Zetterholm. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

202

References

Newman, Judith H. Before the Bible: The Liturgical Body and the Formation of Scriptures in Early Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Newman, Judith H. “Speech and Spirit: Paul and the Maskil as Inspired Interpreters of Scripture.” Pages 241–64 in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison. Ekstasis 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. Newton, Michael. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Nitzan, Bilhah. Pesher Habakkuk. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986. [Hebrew]. Noam, Vered. “Divorce in Qumran in Light of Early Halakhah.” JJS 56 (2005): 206–23. Noam, Vered. Megillat Ta‌ʾanit: Versions, Interpretation, History. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003. [Hebrew]. Noam, Vered, and Tal Ilan. Josephus and the Rabbis. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017. [Hebrew]. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Obbink, Dirk. “Early Greek Allegory.” Pages 15–25 in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory. Edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ofer, Yosef. “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographia.” Tarbiz 58.2 (1989): 155–89. Ophir, Adi, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Orlov, Andrei. “Glorification through Fear in 2 Enoch.” JSP 25.3 (2016): 171–88. Paz, Yakir. “From Scribes to Scholars: Rabbinic Biblical Exegesis in Light of the Homeric Commentaries.” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014. Paz, Yakir. “‘Binding Crowns to the Letters’—A Divine Scribal Practice in Its Historical Context.” Tarbiz 86 (2019): 233–67. Phillips, Thomas A. Paul, His Letters, and Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009. Porton, Gary G. “Defining Midrash.” The Study of Ancient Judaism 1 (1981): 55–92. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010. [Hebrew]. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983. Räisänen, Heikki. “Paul’s Word-Play on Nomos: A Linguistic Study.” Pages 69–94 in Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays. JSNTsup 43. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Regev, Eyal. The Sadducees and their Halakhah: Religion and Society in the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2005. [Hebrew].

References

203

Rivkin, Ellis. “Who Were the Pharisees?” Pages 1–33 in Judaism in Late Antiquity III: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, vol. 3. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. HdO 53. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Robert, André. “Litteraires (genres).” Pages 405–21 in Dictionnaire De La Bible, Supplément. Edited by Fulcran Vigouroux, Louis Pirot, and André Robert. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1957. Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. Louiseville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. de Roo, Jacqueline C.R. “The Concept of ‘Work of the Law’ in Jewish and Christian Literature.” Pages 116–47 in Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. Pearson. New York: T&T Clark, 2000. Rosenthal, Abraham. “Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai—Law and Practice.” Meḥqerei Talmud 2 (1993): 448–89. Rosen-Zvi, Assaf. “Text, Redaction and Hermeneutic in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Kaspa.” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2016. [Hebrew]. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Can the Homilists Cross the Sea Again? Revelation in Mekilta Shirata.” Pages 217–46 in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions About Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 12. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yezter Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “‘Even If One Found a More Beautiful Woman’: An Analysis of Grounds for Divorce in Rabbinic Literature.” JSIJ 3 (2004): 1–11. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Midrash and Hermeneutic Reflectivity: Kishmu’o As a Test Case.” Pages 329–44 in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters. Edited by Maren Niehoff. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Pauline Traditions and the Rabbis: Three Case Studies.” HTR 110.2 (2017): 169–94. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Responsive Blessings and the Development of the Tannaitic Liturgical System.” JSIJ 7 (2008): 1–29. [Hebrew]. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “The Body and the Temple: The List of Priestly Blemishes in the Mishnah and the Place of the Temple in the Tannaitic Study House.” Jewish Studies 43 (2006): 49–87. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. What is Midrash, forthcoming. [Hebrew]. Royse, James R. “Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 74–91 in Composite Citations in Antiquity: Jewish Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses. By Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn. LNTS 525. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016. Rubenstein, Jeffrey. Stories of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2010.

204

References

Runia, David A. “Philo’s Reading of the Psalms.” SPhiloA 13 (2001): 102–21. Sabato, David. “The Noahide Commandments in Tosefta Avodah Zarah.” JSIJ 16 (2019): 1–35. Safrai, Shmuel. “Oral Tora.” Pages 35–119 in The Literature of the Sages: Part 1, Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson. CRINT Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 3a. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1987. Sagiv, Yonatan. “Studies in Early Rabbinic Hermeneutics As Reflected in Selected Chapters in the Sifra.” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009. [Hebrew]. Sanday, William, and Arthus Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Sanders, E.P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Sanders, Seth. “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face.” VT 52 (2002): 400–6. Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus [Shemot]: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: JPS, 1991. Sasson, Jack M. “Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative.” VT 18 (1968): 380–307. Satlow, Michael L. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Schäfer, Peter. “Das ‘Dogma’ von der mündlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum.” Pages 153–97 in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums. By Peter Schäfer. AGJU 15. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the ‘Temple Scroll.’” RdQ 15.4 (60) (1992): 543–67. Schneider, Michael. The Appearance of the High Priest—Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology: From Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2012. [Hebrew]. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10:4–5.” WTJ 55 (1993): 113–35. Schremer, Adiel. “[T]He[y] Did Not Read in the Sealed Book: Qumran Halakhic Revolution and the Emergence of Torah Study in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 105– 26 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999. Edited by David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 37. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Schuller, Eileen M. “Recent Scholarship on the ‘Hodayot’ 1993–2010.” CurBR 10.1 (2011): 119–62.

References

205

Schwartz, Daniel R. “Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to Exegesis.” Pages 335–62 in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lauren L. Johns. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. London: A. and C. Black, 1953. Seifrid, Mark A. “Roman Faith and Christian Faith.” NTS 64.2 (2018): 247–55. Shemesh, Aharon. “4Q271.3: A Key to Sectarian Matrimonial Law.” JJS 49 (1998): 244–63. Shemesh, Aharon. “Biblical Exegesis and Interpretations from Qumran to the Rabbis.” Pages 467–89 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. By Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Shemesh, Aharon. Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. The Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 6. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Shemesh, Aharon. “Traces of Sectarian Halakhah in Tannaitic Literature.” Meghillot 2 (2004): 91–104. Shemesh, Aharon, and Cana Werman. “The Hidden Things and Their Revelation.” Tarbiz 66.3 (1997): 471–82. [Hebrew]. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Smith, Mark S. “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50.2 (1988): 171–83. Smith, Morton. “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century.” Pages 67–81 in Israel: Its Role in Civilization. By Moshe Davis. New York: JTS Press, 1956. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996. Stockhausen, Carol Kern. “Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical, and Theological Substructure of II Corinthians 3:1–4:6.” PhD Dissertation, Marquette University, 1984. Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze, trans. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Struck, Peter T. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Overlapping Ages at Qumran and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology.” Pages 309–26 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. By JeanSébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

206

References

Sussman, Yaakov. Oral Law—Taken Literally: The Power of the Tip of a Yod. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2019. [Hebrew]. Teugels, Lieve. “Midrash in the Bible or Midrash on the Bible: Critical Remarks about the Uncritical Use of a Term.” Pages 46–63 in Bibel Und Midrasch: Zur Bedeutung Der Rabbinischen Exegese Für Die Bibelwissenschaft. By Gerhard Bodendorfer and Matthias Millard. FAT 22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought. London: Macmillan, 1900. Thiessen, Matthew. Paul and the Gentile Problem. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC 34. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Tomson, Peter J. “Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition.” Pages 289–332 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson. JSJsup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. “4Q169.” Translated by Shani L. Berrin. Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts, Emanuel Tov, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2542-3525 _dsselnbt_DSS_EL_NBT_4Q169. Tov, Emanuel. “CD.” Translated by Martin G. Abegg. Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2542-3525_dsselnbt_DSS_EL _NBT_CD. Tsevat, Matityahu. “‘The Skin of His Face Was Radiant’ (Ex. 34:29).” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16 (1982): 163–67. Tso, Marcus K.M. Ethics in the Qumran Community: An Interdisciplinary Investigation. WUNT 292. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Tur-Sinai, Naftali H. The Language and the Book. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955. [Hebrew]. Ulmer, Rivka. “The Transmission of Pesiqta Rabbati in 11th Century France in Narbonne and in Champagne: Borderlands Theories.” REJ 179 (2020): 83–113. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Jerusalem above and Jerusalem Below.” Pages 376–91 in The World of the Sages: Collected Essays. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988. [Hebrew]. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. [Hebrew]. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The New Damascus Document. STDJ 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004.

References

207

Watson, Francis. “Roman Faith and Christian Faith.” NTS 64.2 (2018): 243–47. Weinfeld, M. “God Versus Moses in the Temple Scroll.” RdQ 15.1/2 (57/58) (1991): 175–80. Wenham, David, and A.D.A. Moses. “‘There Are Some Standing Here …’: Did They Become the ‘Reputed Pillars’ of the Jerusalem Church? Some Reflections on Mark 9:1, Galatians 2:9 and the Transfiguration.” NT 36.2 (1994): 146–63. Werman, Cana. “Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s): Competing Claims to Authority.” Pages 175–97 in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 7–9 January, 2003. By Steven D. Fraade, Aharon Shemesh, and Ruth Clements. STDJ 62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Werman, Cana. “The Attitude towards Gentiles in the Book of Jubilees and Qumran Literature Compared with Early Tannaitic Halakhah and Contemporary Pseudepigrapha.” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1996. [Hebrew]. Werman, Cana, and Aharon Shemesh. Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakha in the Qumran Scrolls. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2011. [Hebrew]. Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer. FAT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wilk, Florian. “Schriftauslegung als Bildungsvorgang im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus—untersucht ausgehend von 1 Kor 4,6.” Pages 88–111 in Scriptural Interpretation at the Interface between Education and Religion: In Memory of Hans Conzelmann. Edited by Florian Wilk. TBN 22. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Wilk, Florian. “Schriftbezüge im Werk des Paulus.” Pages 479–90 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. TBN 22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Wilk, Florian. “‘Zu unserer Belehrung geschrieben …’ (Römer 15,4): Die Septuaginta als Lehrbuch für Paulus.” Pages 559–78 in Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. Edited by Wolfgana Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Wilson, Todd A. “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation.” CurBR 5.1 (2006): 123–44. Wolfson, Elliot R. Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism. New York: SUNY Press, 1995. Wolters, Al. “The Riddle of the Scales in Daniel 5.” HUCA 62 (1991): 155–77. Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre Midrash. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967. Wright, N.T. “4QMMT and Paul: Justification, ‘Works,’ and Eschatology.” Pages 104–32 in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday. Edited by Aang-Won (Aaron) Son. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Yadin-Israel, Azzan. Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

208

References

Yadin-Israel, Azzan. “Shnei Ketuvim and Rabbinic Indetermination.” JSJ 33.4 (2002): 386–410. Yuval, Israel Jacob. “The Orality of Jewish Oral Law: From Pedagogy to Ideology.” Pages 237–60 in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the Course of History: Exchange and Conflicts. Edited by Lothar Gall and Dietmar Willoweit. Schriften Des Historischen Kollegs 82. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2011. Zurawski, Jason M. “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia: Reading Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Light of Philo of Alexandria’s.” Pages 283–308 in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Karina M. Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman. Early Judaism and Its Literature 41. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017.

Index of Ancient Texts Hebrew Bible Genesis 2:16 49 4:7 114 6:9–11:32 99 15:6 32 16 99 17:5 32 17:19 94 21 98 21:12 80, 122 Exodus 3 140 3:3 159 3:6 158–59 12:5 67 12:21 67 15:22 105–106 15:25–26 105–106 16:4 108 16:11 108 16:15 107–108 16:21 108 16:22 108 16:29 108 16:31 107 16:32 108 17:8 106 17:13 45 18:18 46 19:18 111–112 20:19 111 21:10 44 24:9–11 158 33:11 136, 159 33:18 113 33:20 113 33:23 113 34:27 72 34:29–35 131, 135–147, 158–160, 164, 168–69 34:29 158–59

34:30 158 34:35 144 35 136 Leviticus 6:2 72 6:7 72 6:14 72 7:11 72 16:33 44, 45 18 29 18:5 33–34, 55–59, 65, 67, 164 18:24–30 55 19:18 62 24:2 179 24:3 179 26:46 72–73 Numbers 5:1–4 179 5:2 179 5:4 179 15:30–31 151–52, 155 18:12 45 19:14 72 21:17–20 119–120 21:18 40–41, 119 25:7 109 25:8 109–110 25:12–13 110 27:20 144 28:2 45 Deuteronomy 3:25 44 4:44 73 7:3 55 8:10 48 9 34–35, 164 9:4 33, 163–64 11:18 114 12:6 45 16:2 67 17:11 72

210 Deuteronomy (cont.) 18:3 109 20:5–7 50 23:7 55 24:5 49–50 30 29, 34–35, 54, 65, 67–68 30:12–14 33–35, 53–59, 65, 164, 174 33:2 111 33:10 73 34:10 113 1 Kings 19:13 136 Isaiah 5:11–18 115 9:13–14 36 10 115 28:16 (LXX) 33, 54 33:15 112 34:16 13 54:1 97–102, 125 54:1–2 98–99 54:16 40, 120 55:1 105–106 55:2 105 63:13 92 Ezekiel 1 140 11:19 149 20:33 44 36:26 149 Joel 2:32 33, 54 3:5 33 Amos 6:13 136 Nahum 1:3b–6 116–118 2:14 42 3:8 43

Index of Ancient Texts Habakkuk 2:2 2:4 3:4

178, 182 32 144

Psalms 4:7 138 32:1–2 32 37 115 37:12 115 50:16–21 152 89:16 138 90:8 138 106/7:26 34–35, 164 106:30 110 139:5 113 Proverbs 1:8 93 3:18 105 3:27 80 4:11 93 16:15 158 24:27 46 Song of Songs 6:8–9 46 Daniel 5:25 52 8:7 43 12:3 138 Ezra 7:10 13 9:10–12 55 2 Chronicles 12:1–2 106 13:22 13 24:27 13 Second Temple Literature and Pseudepigrapha 2 Maccabees 1:10 85

211

Index of Ancient Texts 2 Baruch 51:3 139

4Q266 (Damascus Document) 3 II 41

2 Enoch 37 142 37:2 142 64:2 142

4Q267 (Damascus Document) 2 41

4 Ezra 6:16 138 7:97 138 7:125 138 13:54 138 Ben Sira 3:21–22 157–58, 170 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa (Hodayot) X, 17 14 X, 34 14 XII, 6–7 141 XII, 15–16 6 XII, 28–30 141 1QpHab (Pesher Habakkuk) II, 5–10 178 VII, 1–5 178, 182 1QS (Rule of the Community) I, 13–15 15 II, 1–4 138 VI, 6–7 14 4Q162 (Pesher Isaiah B) 115 4Q163 (Pesher Isaiah C) 115 4Q169 (Pesher Nahum) 1–2 I, 1–11 116–117 3 I, 2 14 3 II, 2 14 3–4 I, 8–12 42 3–4 III, 8–10 43, 116 4Q171 (Pesher Psalms A) 115 1–2 II, 13–15 116

4Q504 (Words of the Luminaries) II, 13–14 15 11Q13 (Pesher Melchizedek) 1 II, 2–8 121 11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 57:17–19 26 CD (Damascus Document) 1:21 114 3:16 119 3:20–4:4 39 4:20–5:1 26 6:2–11 39–41, 119–120 6:7 14 7:14–21 39 7:18 14 8:9–13 (CDa) 39 Jubilees 1:1 74 1:4–27 74 1:9–16 14 23:16–30 14 New Testament Matthew 15 6 17:1–8 142 27:46 38 17:9 142 Mark 7 6 9:2–8 142 9:9 142 Luke 4:16–22 99 9:28–36 142

212 Acts 1:19 38 13:14–15 99 13:27 99 22:1–21 1 22:3 2 26:4–23 1 Romans 3 17, 32, 61–65, 68–70, 75, 78, 165, 174 3:19–26 64, 165 3:19–31 61–64 3:19 61 3:20 24, 61 3:21 32, 63 3:27 61 3:28 24 3:31 63–64, 165 4 64 5:10 148 5:15–17 148 5:14 21, 90 6:15–23 125 7 64 7:1–4 26 7:8 64 7:12 64 7:14 64 7:16 64 7:25 64 8:1–11 64 8:5–9 25 10 31–37, 54–65, 68–70, 75, 174 10:4 31, 56–57, 148 10:5 56–57 10:6 56–57 10:5–13 29, 31–37, 53–61, 68–69, 78, 163–65, 174 10:6–8 21, 32, 38, 51–54 10:6–10 35 10:12 31 11:12 148 13:8–10 96 15:4 169, 178–79, 183

Index of Ancient Texts 1 Corinthians 1 170 1:1–2 25 3:16–17 25 6:19 25 7 26 9:8–10 20 9:9 21, 65 9:10 130 9:9–10 60 9:20–21 59 10:1 167 10:11 130, 169 10:25 65 11:7 65 11:8 65 11:25 94, 133 15:10 162 2 Corinthians 3 29, 69–70, 131–160, 164, 168–70 3:1 133 3:2–6 69–70 3:3 133 3:6 93, 154 3:7 134 3:12–13 154–155 3:14 154 Galatians 1:6 96 1:8 5, 96 1:14 4, 6 1:22 5 2:1 5 2:16 24 3:2 24 3:5 24 3:7 94 3:10 24 3:15 133 3:15–17 94 3:16 21, 172 3:24–25 123 4 18, 29, 134 4:1–2 123 4:6 102, 167 4:21 22, 96, 130, 163

213

Index of Ancient Texts Galatians (cont.) 4:21–31 23, 102, 123–124, 129–130, 167–68, 171 4:21–5:1 78–82, 88–104, 123–124, 129–130 4:22–23 164 4:24 21, 23, 80–81, 88–91, 96, 123 4:24–25 97 4:25 91 4:28 90, 102 4:29 90 4:31 102 5:17 25 Ephesians 4:8

21

Philippians 3:5–6

4, 75, 174

1 Thessalonians 5:5

26

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah ʾAbot 3:5 112 3:11 153 Hag. 2:1 156–157, 169–70 Ket. 1:6 100 Maʿaś. Š. 5:1 45 Menaḥ. 4:3 81 Sanh. 2:2–3 81 Soṭah 8:4 47, 49 Yoma 5:5 38 Tosefta B. Qam. 8:18 47

Ber. 1:11 43 Šabb. 15:9 153 Šeb. 7:12 47 Soṭah 7:20–21 46, 49, 53 Miqw. 7:11 43 Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Pisha 4 66–67 8 65 11 180 14 65 16 47, 48 17 80 18 81 Beshalaḥ 1 180 6 81 Shirta 4 65 9 46 Vayassa 1 104–106, 129 3 104–107, 143 4 104, 108 5 104, 107 Amalek 1 44, 45, 147, 150 Yitro 2 44, 46 Bahodesh 11 66 Nezikin 7 66 18 80 Kaspa 20 66, 80 Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon 16, 21 104 16, 31 104 17, 8 104, 106–107 19, 17 43 19, 18 112

214 Sifra Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael 1, 1 Nedava 1, 1 Tsav 11, 3 Sheratsim 1, 1 1, 2 1, 3 Zavim 4, 1 Aharei 5, 3 Behuqotai 2, 3 2, 7

Index of Ancient Texts

147 65 45 47 45 47 45 44, 45 43 73

Sifre Numbers §1 179–80 §77 44 §112 152–55 §115 44, 80 §117 44, 45 §140 137 §154 101 §160 80 Sifre Zuta Numbers 6, 26 7, 89 27, 20 28, 2 10, 10

114 66 137, 144 44, 45 46

Sifre Deuteronomy §8 44, 45 §45 114–115 §63 45 §83 45 §165 47, 109 §171 47 §264 47 §313 73 §343 37, 47, 111 §351 71 §355 47 §357 113

Seder Olam Rabbah 5

47, 49

Passover Haggadah

44

Palestinian Talmud Ber. 1:8 3c Eruv. 6:1 23b Meg. 4:1 74d

74 150 93

Babylonian Talmud B. Qam. 81b 80 Ber. 11b 74 24a 104 30a 80 Eruv. 69a 150 Ketub. 7b–8a 102 Meg. 19b 137 Men. 29b 181 Qidd. 33b 93 Soṭah 42b 150 Scholion to Meg. Ta’anit 4 Tamuz

7, 71–73

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Hahodesh 3

137

Pesiqta Rabbati 37b 144 Exodus Rabbah 30, 5

92

Leviticus Rabbah 20, 10

159

215

Index of Ancient Texts Lamentations Rabbah 2, 6

137

Songs Rabbah 3, 7

137

Kallah Rabbati 1, 1

102

Heraclitus All. 41.12 81, 88 41.24 81, 88

Tanhuma Pequddei 1

97

Irenaeus of Lyons Haer. 4.24.1–2 162–63

Midrash Agur 8

143

Greek and Roman Texts Athenaeus Deipn. 2.80 81, 88 Aristeas. See Letter to Aristeas Aristotle Poet. 1458a18 88 Rhet. 1392b6–7 146 1392b10 146 Cicero Top. IV.23 147 Demetrius Eloc. 99–102 81 151 81, 88 280 81 285 88 Derveni Papyrus 82–83 col. 4 83 col. 13 83

Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.10 84–86

John Chrysostom Hom. Gal. IV.710 90 Josephus War 2.162 6 Antiquities 1.1–9 11 1.24 81, 88 13.297–98 6, 76, 175 13.297 70–72, 76, 175 17.41 6 19.332 6 Vita 12 5 LAB 12.1

137, 139–140

Letter to Aristeas §128 85 §129 84 §139 84 §144–47 85 Longinus Subl. 9.7

81

Origen Orig. Hom. Exod. 5.1

163

216 Philo Alleg. Interp. 2.5 88 2.10 88 Congr. 9–10 122 20 122 36 122 151–52 122 158–59 122 Leg. 3.244–45 122 Migr. 86–93 129 Mos. 2.66–186 139 2.67 139 2.70 137, 139–140, 145 2.71 139 QG 1.10 89 Sobr. 9 122

Index of Ancient Texts Philodemus Rhet. I 164 col. 3 I 181 col. 23

81 81

Plutarch Adol. poet. aud.  81 Is. Os. 362b 81, 109 363d 81, 88, 90, 109 Porphyry apud schol. B ad Iliad

83

Quintilian Inst. 5.10.88 147 8.6.44 81, 89 Strabo Geogr. 1.2

81, 88

Index of Subjects ‫אין דורשים‬/‫ אל תדרוש‬156–158, 169–170 ‫ אמרה תורה‬80 ‫ בעולה‬92–102 ‫ גזירה שווה‬55, 99 ‫ גילוי פנים‬149–160, 168–171 ‫ דבר אחר‬152 ‫ לדורות‬179–180 ‫ דיו‬147 ‫ הגדה על דופי‬150–152 ‫ המגלה פנים בתורה‬149–160, 168–171 ‫ מעשי התורה‬24, 156. See also erga nomou ‫ משוך‬153–154 ‫ משל‬105–106, 110–115 ‫ קל וחומר‬134, 146–148, 173 ‫ שבעים פנים לתורה‬150 ‫ שכן מצינו‬81 ‫ שני כתובים‬65–68 -‫ נמשל ב‬110–115 ‫ כבוד‬136, 156–157 αἴνιγμα 82–83, 88 αἶνος 82 ἀλληγορέω 87–88, 127 ἀλληγορία 81–82, 88 ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα 21, 23, 79, 81–88 γέγραπται γὰρ 80 προγράφω 169, 178–83 συστοιχέω 91–92 τύπος 90–92 a minori ad maius 134, 146–148 Abraham 20, 28, 32, 64, 78, 80, 87, 89–130, 164, 171–172, 183 covenant of 91, 94–97, 133–135, 152–154 seed of 10, 94–95 sons of 79, 87, 89–130, 164, 167–168 two wives of 80, 89–130, 134 actualization 43, 51, 115–116, 118–119 adoption 101–102, 167–68 aggadah 6, 38, 43, 49, 73, 127–128, 143, 147, 150–151, 172–173, 176, 180 ainigma. See αἴνιγμα allegory/allegorical. See also ἀλληγορέω; ἀλληγορία; ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα a short history of 81–88, 127–128, 168

allegorical text or interpretation 81–88, 120 and abstraction 19, 116, 118, 121, 183 and apologetics 83–87, 109 and midrash 18–19, 29, 78, 103–115, 125–129, 153–154, 171 and pesher 115–121, 127–128 and typology 90–92, 94, 102–103, 116 and univocity 172 antinomian potential of 128–129 as hermeneutical goal 125, 127–129 as solving riddles 82–84, 104, 110, 126, 129 etymology of the word 81 genealogical allegory 19, 78, 94–96, 129–130, 167–68, 171, 183 in Alexandria 19–20, 83–88, 102–104, 110, 113, 125–129, 168, 176, 183–184 in the Dead Sea Scrolls 115–121, 127–128 Jewish-Hellenistic allegory 83–88, 125–129, 168, 176, 183–184 marginalization of 128 of anthropomorphism 85 of Dietary Laws 84–85, 109 of Hagar/Sarah 19, 21–23, 29, 78–130, 167–68, 172, 176–77 Philo’s allegory of Hagar/Sarah  121–124 of Homer 83–88, 128 of law 120–121, 128 Philonic allegory 121–129, 168, 172, 183 philosophic allegory 19, 86, 125–129, 183 radical allegory 103, 129, 153–154 Tannaitic allegory 104–115, 125–129, 168, 176 ʾApiqoros 152–154 apocalyptic 51, 138, 154–155, 177–178, 182–183 apologetics 84–87, 109, 163, 176 Amalek 45–46, 106, 150 analogy 24, 26, 73, 91, 112–115, 126, 140 antinomism 60, 63, 128 antithesis 56–58, 62, 65, 130, 132 atomization 29

218 barren woman 98–102 birkat hamazon 48–49, 174 boldness 154–156 Christos 25 Chronos 88–90, 106 circumcision 32, 63–64, 89, 95–97, 101, 129–130, 133, 152–154 comparative method 1, 6, 9, 10–20, 24, 26–29, 78, 131, 161–162, 166 commandment/s 34–35, 49, 57, 62–63, 68, 70, 75, 92, 96, 105, 121, 129, 152–153, 175, 179 commentary 18, 21, 23, 82 contemporization 40, 42–43, 51, 60, 115, 119, 174, 178–180 contradiction 5 within scripture 16, 21, 29, 50, 55–60, 65–67, 78, 115, 128, 165–166, 174 conversion 3, 31, 150. See also Judaization covenant 32, 63, 72, 80, 89–92, 97, 110, 115, 141, 146 old/new 24, 69, 91, 93–95, 133–135, 145–46, 148–49, 168 with Abraham 91, 93–96, 134, 153–154 of the flesh 152–154 Derveni Papyrus 82–84, 87, 109, 120 dietary laws 84–85, 109–110 divine splendor/glory 136–140, 144–147, 156–160 honor 110, 156–157 divorce 26 Dorshei Haggadot 127 Dorshei Hamurot 127 Dorshei Rashumot 78, 104–115, 125–129, 176 Elijah 136, 142–143 Endtime 25, 29, 115, 118–119, 121, 129–130, 156–158, 170–171, 178, 182–183 erga nomou 24, 31–32, 56–57, 156 eschatology 10–11, 18, 24–25, 31, 43, 51, 96, 115, 117, 120–121, 128, 156, 172, 174, 177–179, 183 eucharist 133 eyes feeding the 157–159 Ezekiel 136, 148 Ezra 13, 54, 75–76, 166

Index of Subjects face shining 135–146, 159. See also Moses; transfiguration frozen 142 exposed. See ‫גילוי פנים ;המגלה פנים‬ figure 96, 110, 112, 119, 154–155 fragmentation 41, 43, 49, 163, 164, 174 gentiles 2, 11, 16, 31, 98, 99, 101–102, 125 and the Torah/law 32, 35, 59–61, 63–65, 69–70, 75, 94–97, 129–130, 133–134, 162–165, 167–169, 171–172, 175, 178 gezerah shawa. See ‫גזירה שווה‬ golden calf 133, 136, 140 gramma/pneuma. See letter/spirit haftarah 55, 99–100, 102 Hagar 19, 21–23, 29, 78, 87, 89–129, 130, 164, 167–68, 172, 177, 183 as encyclical education 122–124 halakhah 6, 26, 38, 43, 50, 52, 71–74, 81, 147, 169–170, 174 heretic 153–156 hermeneutics and the Endtime 29–30, 115, 121, 129–130, 156–169, 170, 178, 182 and making communities 10–13, 16–17, 21, 26–29, 40, 51, 65, 130, 161–164, 171–175, 177–178 Hellenistic and rabbinic 19, 23, 38, 123, 127–129, 148,160, 162, 182–184 methods of interpretation 18–19, 27, 29, 35–36, 42, 65–68, 78, 89–94, 116–117, 125, 136, 172–173 as riddle solving 52, 82–84, 104, 108, 110, 126, 129, 172 and unveiling 148–149, 158–160, 168–170, 178 Hillel 3, 8, 15, 19, 161 Homer 19, 55, 83–84, 86, 88, 128 honor of God. See Divine Honor hyponoia 82, 120 influence 1–2, 19–20, 24, 28, 127–128, 161–162, 183 intertextuality and intertext 27, 32–35, 54–55, 65, 92, 97–101, 106, 110, 112–13, 115, 120–21, 126–127, 164, 174, 176–77

219

Index of Subjects interpretation. See also specific categories throughout index word by word 35 literal 10, 15, 21–22, 86–87, 118–119, 120, 129, 177 shameless/audacious 150, 154–159, 170. See also ‫המגלה פנים בתורה; גילוי פנים‬ implicit/explicit interpretation 21–23, 41–42, 48, 51, 53, 66, 88–89, 99–100, 115, 120, 133, 159, 173–174, 177–178 Isaac 80, 89–95, 98, 101–102 as sophos 122–125 Ishmael 80, 90–95 as sophistry 123–124 Jerusalem 1, 4–5, 42, 48, 96, 106, 143 present Jerusalem 90–92, 95–97 earthly Jerusalem 90–92, 95–97 heavenly Jerusalem 93–97, 101 Jesus 11, 33, 61, 68, 138, 142–143 the clothes of 143 Joseph 52, 140 Josephus 4–7, 11, 28, 70–71, 76, 80, 88, 125, 175, 182 judaization 16, 32, 34, 63, 94, 97. See also conversion; circumcision justification 32, 68, 96, 149 kinship 102, 167–68, 171 law of nature 74–76, 166 lawlessness 31, 95, 129 lemma 18, 37, 41, 51, 79–80, 118, 174 letter/spirit 69, 86, 91–92, 134, 148–149, 166 letters of recommendation 132 list making 44–50, 52–53, 174 literal sense 10, 15, 21–23, 46, 86–87, 118–119, 120, 129, 177 logocentrism 91, 171 manna 106–109, 114, 125, 147 mashal 116 Marah 104–106 marriage 49–50, 100–102, 124–125 metalepsis 27, 98, 101 metaphor 44, 47, 62, 66, 86–89, 91, 92, 93, 96, 105, 112–116, 118–120, 123, 125–126, 137, 151, 159, 169, 173, 178 midrash passim as arbitrary 21–22

and allegory 18–19, 29, 78, 103–104, 115, 125–129, 153–154, 171 etymologies of 13–14 origins of 14–15 problems of its definition 13 genealogies of 1–12 seven middot of Hillel 3, 17 and solving superfluity 44–45, 47, 52 and the expansion of scripture 45 shnei ketuvim 65–68 as restrained and limited 156–159 midrash-pesher 18, 29, 31–53, 54, 78, 119, 172–174, 185–187 midrash-shem 106–109 modesty 156–160, 168–170, 178 monosemy 52–53 Moses 6, 15, 17, 20–21, 33–35, 44, 46, 58–60, 62, 68, 70–76, 85–86, 88, 108, 113, 119, 126, 131–133, 135–160, 166, 168–169, 181–182 his priesthood 139 veil of 135–160, 164, 168–170. See also veil/unveil shining face of 135–160. See also transfiguration Philo’s Interpretation of 139 sprouting horns 136–137 myth and mythmaking 82–84, 126, 130, 168 narrative 14, 17–18, 21, 28, 40, 49, 52, 64, 75–76, 78, 80, 87–91, 93–96, 100–102, 105, 113–116, 123–29, 133, 134–146, 159, 164, 167–168, 174–175, 179–182 fluidity of 137–139 crafting new narratives out of old  137–139 New Perspective on Paul school 20, 31, 56, 60, 95 Radical New Perspective 95 Noahide laws 49, 174 nomos/nomoi 17–18, 31, 59–65, 68–69, 75, 77, 78, 129, 163, 165–67, 175–76 nomos pisteōs 62–65 Oral Torah. See under Torah orality 7, 35, 60, 68–69, 72–77, 163, 166 orphic poem 82–83, 120 parable 114–116 paradosis 6–7, 12, 15, 70–72, 76, 161, 175, 177

220 paraphrase 33, 55, 79–81 creative paraphrasis 79–80 paraphrase after quotation formula  80–81 Paul within Judaism school 95 pedagogue 123 Pharisees/Pharisaism 1, 3–11, 14–15, 70–71, 74–76, 115, 128, 152, 166, 170, 174–75 pesher 18, 27–29, 35–54, 90, 115–121, 126–128, 170, 172–174, 177–178, 182–183, 185–187 pistis 31–35, 54, 56–58, 61–62, 95, 123, 130, 163–166, 168 polysemy 53, 172 priestly gifts 45, 109–110, 125–126 prooftext 22, 35, 49, 67, 97–99, 112–113, 129, 144, 151 pronominal pesharim 37–43, 51 Pythagorean opposites 91–92 qal vahomer. See ‫קל וחומר‬ Qumran 3, 10–20, 23–29, 36–43, 49–53, 55, 78, 115–121, 125–130, 138, 140–142, 151–152, 157, 161–163, 165, 168, 170, 172–174, 177–180, 182–183 and proto-Christianity 24 quotation 38, 54–56, 80, 98, 134–135, 164–166 quotation formula 80–81 Rabban Gamliel 1–3, 5, 73, 100 Rabbi Akiva 3, 66–67, 72–73, 169–170, 180–182 school of 45–46, 49, 65–68, 164, 169, 180 Rabbi Ishmael 3–4, 179–180 school of 3–4, 45, 49–50, 65–68, 180 redaction 29, 33–35, 58–59, 81, 86–88, 163–164, 172 Refidim 106–107, 125 rhetoric 13, 16, 19–23, 27, 29, 35–53, 56, 60, 63, 80, 86–92, 96, 112, 122, 126–127, 134–135, 146–148, 170, 172, 174, 183–184 riddles 82–84, 104, 108, 110, 126, 129 righteousness by pistis/deeds 31–35, 39, 54–69, 163–165, 174 Sadducee/s 6, 70–71, 151–154 Sarah 19, 21–23, 29, 78, 89–104, 122–130, 164, 167–68, 177, 183 as wisdom 12, 122–125

Index of Subjects scripture. See also Torah authority of 177 commentary on vs. use of 23 reworking of 29, 34–35, 51, 80–81, 86–88, 134, 163–165 what is 29 antithesis within 55–60 relevancy of 179–180 shemitah 119, 127 signifier/signified 10, 90–92, 116, 126 Sinai 17, 37, 72–77, 86, 89–97, 101, 122, 133, 135–137, 139, 142–146, 166, 176, 181 as mother 92 Song of the Well 40–42, 119–120, 127–128 Song of the Sea 180 Song of Songs 129 speech in character 34, 163 supersessionism 20, 56–57, 61–62, 95 symbolon 82–85 symbolism 82–85, 88, 96, 109–110, 111–115, 123, 126, 133, 136, 149 syntax reading against it 47–50, 52 tablets heavenly tablets 69, 74–75, 131, 166–167 stone tablets 69, 74–75, 96, 131–136, 139–140, 148, 166 teacher of righteousness 10, 126, 138, 141, 178 theophany 137, 139–140, 143–46, 158–159, 180 Torah abandoned 14–15, 106 and Christ antithesis 56, 62, 130 and rewritten scripture 17, 18 as bandage/medicine 114 as fire 111–113, 115 as mother 93 as tree/wood 105–106, 110, 126 as unified and divine 16, 58–59, 73 as water 105–106, 110, 115, 126 as a well 40–42, 119–120 blessing of (‫ )ברכת התורה‬74 conceptualization of 17–18, 29, 32, 35, 58–77, 123 delivering of 140, 150–151, 168, 18. See also Sinai; veil/unveil; transfiguration, of Moses for gentiles 129–130, 163, 168–169 negated/Torah free. See antinomism

221

Index of Subjects Torah (cont.) of trust and deeds 164–166, 174–175 public reading of 99 telos of 56, 146, 168–169 translation of 86 two torot, double Torah 59–77, 78, 165–167, 174–76 what is. See Torah, conceptualization of Written Torah/Oral Torah 7, 29, 59–77, 78, 166–67, 174–76, 183 transfiguration of Christ 139, 142–143 of Enoch 142 of Moses 136–160

typology 21, 24, 28, 90–91, 94–95, 101–103, 116–117 virgin 100–102 veil/unveil 29, 131–160, 164, 168–170, 178 wisdom 85–87, 93, 105, 122–125, 138, 155, 170 writing 7, 56, 68–69, 71, 74–75, 104, 133–134, 135, 146, 148, 166, 178–182 Written Torah. See under Torah Zion 92, 98–99, 101–102