Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHRISTIANITY
Edited by
Craig A. Evans
Volume 15
Published under
LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
392
formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn,
Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole,
John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton,
Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams
EARLY C H R I S T I A N LITERATURE A N D
INTERTEXTUALITY
EDITED BY
CRAIG A. EVANS
H. DANIEL ZACHARIAS
t&tclark
Copyright © Craig A. Evans, H. Daniel Zacharias, 2009
www.continuumbooks.com
ISBN: 0-567-34100-3
ISBN 13: 978-0-567-34100-6 (hardback)
Craig A. Evans
H. Daniel Zacharias
Acadia Divinity College
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xxvi
INTRODUCTION 1
Craig A . Evans and H . Daniel Zacharias
9. WHY CAN'T THE ONE WHO DOES THESE THINGS LIVE BY THEM'?
THE USE OF LEVITICUS 18.5 IN GALATIANS 3 . 1 2 126
Preston M. Sprinkle
BIBLIOGRAPHY 200
INDEX OF REFERENCES 225
INDEX OF AUTHORS 233
ABBREVIATIONS
OG Old Greek
OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae I -
II (Leipzig, 1903-1905)
Or Orientalia
OrChr Oriens christianus
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (New York, 1983-85)
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien (journal)
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien (monograph series)
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research
PAM Palestine Archaeological Museum (in reference to the
accession numbers of the photographs of the Dead Sea
Scrolls)
PCB Peake's Commentary on the Bible
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graeca
PGM K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae
PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
PL J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia latina
Presby Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review
PrincSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin
PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies
PS Patrologia syriaca
PSBSup Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplement
PSTJ Perkins School of Theology Journal
PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series
PW A. F. Pauly, Paulys Realencylopddie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft (49 vols; Munich 1980)
QC The Qumran Chronicle
QD Quaestiones disputatae
RAC Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum
RB Revue biblique
RCB Revista de cultura biblica
REB Revised English Bible
Ref Reformatio
REJ Revue des etudes juives
RelEd Religious Education
RelS Religious Studies
RelSRev Religious Studies Review
RestQ Restoration Quarterly
Rev. SC. Re. Revue de Science Religieuse
RevExp Review and Expositor
Abbreviations xxi
I N T E R T E X T U A L I T Y
V O L U M E 2: E X E G E T I C A L S T U D I E S
original story. Beginning in the role of mother of the Jewish race, Sarah is
changed into a model of faith for the Christian readers of Galatians and 1
Peter.
4
Tze-Ming Quek's "I will give Authority over the Nations": Psalm 2.8-
9 in Revelation 2.26-27' shows how Psalm 2, read messianically in certain
contexts, has come to be used as a promise to the community of believers
by John the Seer, not unlike what we find in 4Q174. It is argued that the
likely explanation for this movement between singular and plural is the
Davidic covenant seen as a basis for corporate protection.
And finally, in 'Exegesis of Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage',
Bogdan Bucur examines Aphrahat's exegesis of Isa. 11.2, as Aphrahat
provides valuable insight into early Christian doctrine and exegetical
practices. Aphrahat prefers the LXX version of Isa. 11.2-3 with its
enumeration of seven spirits. Bucur then compares Aphrahat's reading of
Isa. 11.2-3 with Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. He finds that
Aphrahat uses Isa. 11.2 to support his doctrine of partial versus
incomplete pneumatology, while Justin asserts the argument that the
prophets only received a portion from the Spirit. Clement also connects
the angels of the Face in Isa. 11.2 with intercessory activity of the Spirit,
something Aphrahat does not do with this verse.
Chapter 1
Jan-Wim Wesselius
1 Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the
Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); the translation of 1 Reigns ( = 1
Samuel in the Hebrew Bible) by Bernard A. Taylor. An electronic text is on http://ccat.sas.
upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
2 See, for example, D. Barthelemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and
Literary Criticism Papers of a Joint Research Venture (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires,
1986) and Arie van der Kooij, 'The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its
Text', ETL 68 (1992): 118-31.
WESSELIUS David and Goliath 1
the discussion, which has not led to anything even remotely like a
consensus.
The one thing, in my opinion, which is clear after many years of
discussions about this aspect of the story of David and Goliath, is that it
turns out to be impossible to prove the priority of either of the two
versions based on literary merit or text-critical considerations only.
Emanuel Tov carefully summarized and weighed the various arguments
and cautiously proposed that the Septuagint version is to be regarded as
the more original one, and that the present Masoretic Text is the result of
a conflation with a second account, but his thesis clearly does not amount
to a decisive proof of his position, at least not one which is able to
3
convince the other scholars who dealt with this issue. As the discussion,
in spite of scholars' exertions, has not resulted in a clear conclusion, it
seems rather likely that the approaches which have been employed up to
now cannot lead to such a conclusion. We shall therefore start our
discussion from a completely different vantage point, namely the literary
position of 1 Samuel 16-17 within the global literary framework of the
Primary History, the historical work extending from Genesis 1 to the end
of 2 Kings, and some important intratextual links which can be observed.
An aspect which is very much present in Tov's article (as well as in the
publications of many other scholars) is the traditional presupposition that
contradictions, frictions and reduplications in texts are features which are
in a sense irregular, and need an explanation from outside the text itself.
Elsewhere I described a highly remarkable and hitherto unnoticed
literary feature of these historical books at the beginning of the Bible,
which partly applies also to some other narrative texts in the Hebrew
Bible. The situation is well known: though the individual episodes look
like fine literary works, often with a clear formal structure, the connection
between them or between their constituent parts seems more or less
haphazard, as if a number of well-formed stories, poems and lists have
been glued together by a more or less incapable editor, who did not care
about frictions, contradictions and duplications in the text. It can be
observed, however, that certain highly regular patterns in the distribution
of these strange features can be discerned and that one of the ordering
principles of the Primary History is the presence of counter-intuitive
features which may serve, firstly, to unify the text as a whole, secondly, to
emphasize certain important events in the text, and thirdly, to express the
3 Emanuel Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in Light of the Septuagint', in The
Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 333-62;
for a recent survey of research, see A. Graeme Auld, 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test
Case for Synchrony plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit:
Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit; Beitrage zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches
(Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28; the
volume also contains many other valuable contributions to this discussion.
8 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
presence of two distinct narrative voices in one text. Thus the irregular
features are shown to be, not anomalies to be explained in some way,
whether from the history of the text or from its literary nature, but
instruments which structure the overall course of the narrative both on the
formal level and for its substance. The authors of the Primary History and
of several other narrative books in the Hebrew Bible indulged in various
types of language play, such as deliberate balancing of continuity,
discontinuity and super-continuity (the use of elements which are drawn
together in spite of being really independent), interruption, emulation of
and allusion to other works in the Hebrew Bible and outside of it, and the
4
use of separate narrative voices to describe the same episode.
These regularities having apparently been forgotten between the writing
of the biblical texts and the beginning of the Common Era, when we
would certainly expect some kind of reflex of them if they had still been
remembered, we can safely presume that these writings originated in a
literary culture (priestly circles in Jerusalem?) which died out sometime in
the Hellenistic era, and which was characterized by a highly developed
sense for literature of various origins, besides the original Israelite also
5
Greek, Mesopotamian and general West-Semitic, and a pronounced taste
for the use of various refined literary instruments, including techniques
such as emulation and allusion, and deliberate use of ambiguity,
6
contradiction and discontinuity.
As in all cases of two closely related texts, the relation of which is to be
determined, the existence of unrecognized features in such texts constitutes
an Archimedean point from which in many cases the priority of one of the
texts can be proven. This peculiar nature of some, mainly narrative, texts in
the Hebrew Bible enables us to obtain a new view on the history of their
texts, especially as far as our oldest witnesses, mainly the Septuagint and the
Dead Sea manuscripts, are concerned. This is not to say that the principles
set forth in this article have universal significance, as the history of these
texts is hardly comparable for different books. They should, however,
make us very cautious in dealing with translation issues for biblical books
for which we do not see the rationale behind their present form.
One of the features discussed above is of especial importance for our
purpose. The introductions of the eight persons whose combined
biographies form a large part of this great historical work which starts
at creation and runs on to the taking and destruction of Jerusalem by the
Babylonians in 587 BCE, follow a highly similar literary pattern. A cursory
reading of the separate texts will not reveal this at once, but once it has
been pointed out it stands out very clearly. In each of these eight cases, at
the beginning of each person's biography, two separate scenarios are
presented to the reader, which can be read as subsequent episodes or as
alternatives of some sort and thus provide the narrative with a basic
ambiguity, which is reinforced by the fact that many later episodes in
these biographies continue either of the two alternative accounts of their
introduction. This is, in fact, not something which is hidden from the
reader, and most scholars will know it for most or all of the persons
involved: Humankind (or rather the first man), Abram, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, Samuel, Saul and David. Most will also know that in each case the
difference between the two versions can be formulated as a question which
thus is basically left unanswered, or at least engenders tremendous
discussion among scholars and ordinary readers alike: Was Abram called
from Ur and/or from Haran? Was Joseph sold by his brothers and/or by
the passing Midianites? Was Saul appointed as king of Israel in a private
meeting with Samuel and/or in a kind of royal lottery? These questions are
most prominent at the beginning of each biography, but in most cases the
reader is reminded of them throughout each biography because of
allusions to either of the two versions. This is particularly striking when of
two so-called duplicate stories (e.g., Saul tries to kill David, David is able
to kill Saul, but refuses to do so, etc.) each refers to one of the two
versions. Interestingly, not rarely at the end of a biography one of the two
is denied or strongly affirmed. A full survey of these striking common
7
literary features of the biographies is in Table l.
One of the characteristic features of this double introduction is the
presence of a number of words and expressions, which the two alternative
versions have in common, and which are sufficiently striking that we can
say that they connect the two. We shall make a brief survey of such
elements in the episodes which are under scrutiny here. In 1 Samuel 16 and
17 we encounter a considerable number of such common words and
expressions: they are in the third column of the comparative table. Thus
we see that in both the three eldest of Jesse's eight sons are mentioned by
Indirect sequel of Gen. 5.1-2; 'I am the LORD Jacob is a 'He is not' (Gen.
version 1 Flood, who brought you fugitive; 'a few 42.13, 32, 36);
Abimelech, from Ur of the days' (Gen. 'stolen' (Gen.
Hagar, etc. Chaldeans' (Gen. 29.20; 27.44) 40.15); Reuben's
15.7) reproach (Gen.
42.22)
WESSELIUS David and Goliath 11
'A man from the '.. .all that I have 'the rest of the people David going to and
house of Levi ... the spoken...' (1 Sam. he sent home' (1 Sam. from Saul (1 Sam.
daughter of Levi' 3.12) 13.2) 17.15)
(Exod. 2.1)
The Israelites are Samuel lives in Sin in Gilgal: letting Various exploits;
exceedingly numerous Ramah (passim), no Agag and cattle live (1 sword of Goliath (1
(passim) mention of Samuel in Sam. 15) Sam. 21.9)
episode of war with
Philistines in 1 Sam. 4
The Israelites are Sin in Gilgal: David as musician
related through close sacrificing too early (1 (passim)
family ties (passim) Sam. 13)
12 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
name, and that the names are the same in both versions and are found in
the same order: Eliab, Abinadab and Shammah. The description of David
when he is first introduced in 16.12, 'Now he was ruddy, and also with
beautiful eyes, and good to look at' C»13101U'TV nST US ^ftlX K i m ) ,
and when we see him so to say through the eyes of Goliath in 17.42, '
[Goliath disdained him], for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and also with
a beautiful countenance' (TWIG nST US ^DTK i m *U) is highly 9
8 On the nature of the Old Greek of Daniel, see Alexander A. Di Leila, 'The Textual
History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel', in Peter W. Flint and John J. Collins
(eds), The Book of Daniel, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 586-607. On this aspect of the
translation, see J. W. Wesselius, 'The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the
Linguistic Character of its Aramaic', Aramaic Studies 3 (2005); 241-83 (259-60); idem, 'The
Origin of the Oldest Greek Version of Daniel' (forthcoming).
WESSELIUS David and Goliath 15
9 Wesselius, 'Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel', p. 253, contra Olivier Munnich,
'Texte massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Danielin Adrian Schenker (ed.), The
Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the
Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 93-120.
10 As pointed out by Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18', pp. 349-50. Tov was
right, of course, in noting that this episode has a more natural place in 19.10 than in 18.10-11,
but we now see that one of the most important aspects of this episode is precisely its
duplication, so it is not likely that 18.10-11 is secondary, as he suspected.
16 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
and its authority underlies this remarkable translation strategy. Did the
translators (alternatively, the makers of their Vorlage or later editors of
the LXX text) take a critical or pre-critical view of the origin of the text,
with cases such as the contradictions between 1 Samuel 16 and 17
indicating that there were accretions to the text of a story or an episode
which could be deleted from it to restore it to its former shape? Or were
they aware to some degree of the peculiar literary strategy of bipolar
narration employed in the biographies of the Primary History, and did
they wish to choose one or the other of the two alternatives, and did they
view this as their legitimation for deleting part of the text? An argument
for the latter might be that the book of Chronicles apparently also
removed one of the two narrative voices in favour of the other in all these
11
cases. Against it, however, one can argue that in nearly all the other
introductions to the biographies the translators appear to have refrained
from such interventions, and that they apparently did not worry very
12
much about other contradictions issuing from this literary strategy. In
any case, a systematic survey of the relation between the literary form of
the main biographies in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is highly
desirable and could throw new light on at least some of the issues which
we addressed here with regard to the story of David and Goliath.
One conclusion, however, can already be formulated. This new view of
the literary nature of the Primary History allows us to have another peek
into the degree to which the translators of the Septuagint understood the
biblical texts which they worked on, and more importantly, it allows us to
determine their starting point and strategy for the translation of some
biblical books with more certainty than ever before.
Comparative table of 1 Samuel 17, with, from left to right, RSV, the New
English Translation of the LXX, and parallels from 1 Samuel 16 and some
notes. Italics = words or expressions common to 1 Samuel 16 and 17.
RSV NETS Parallels in 1 Sam. 16
and notes
1
Now the Philistines And the allophyles
gathered their armies for gathered their armies for
battle; and they were battle, and they were
gathered at Socoh, which gathered at Sokchoth of
belongs to Judah, and Judea, and they
encamped between Socoh encamped between
and Azekah, in Sokchoth and between
Ephesdammim. Azeka, in Ephermen.
2
And Saul and the men And Saul and the men of
of Israel were gathered, Israel were gathered and
and encamped in the encamped in the valley;
valley of Elah, and drew they formed ranks for
up in line of battle against battle opposite the
the Philistines. allophyles.
3
And the Philistines And the allophyles stood
stood on the mountain on on the mountain here,
the one side, and Israel and Israel stood on the
stood on the mountain on mountain there, and the
the other side, with a valley was between them.
valley between them.
4
And there came out And a mighty man came
from the camp of the out from the ranks of the
Philistines a champion allophyles; Goliath was
named Goliath, of Gath, his name, from Geth; his
whose height was six height was four cubits
cubits and a span. and a span.
5
He had a helmet of And he had a helmet on
bronze on his head, and his head, and he was
he was armed with a coat armed with a coat of
of mail, and the weight of chain mail; and the
the coat was five weight of his coat was five
thousand shekels of thousand shekels of
bronze. bronze and iron.
6
And he had greaves of And there were bronze
bronze upon his legs, and greaves of brass on his
a javelin of bronze slung legs, and a bronze shield
between his shoulders. between his shoulders.
18 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
A C A S E O F P S Y C H O L O G I C A L D U A L I S M
P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A A N D T H E I N S T R U C T I O N O N T H E T W O S P I R I T S
Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer
1. Introduction
Dualism is a concept that is hard to define. Originally a term developed to
describe Iranian thought, at times it has come to refer to any type of
opposites. Against this weak use of the term Ugo Bianchi proposed a
strict definition of dualism as the opposition of two irreducible
fundamental principles, either in the form of a 'radical' dualism with
two principles versus a 'moderate' one with only one principle, a
'dialectical' (eternal) versus an 'eschatological' (limited in time) dualism,
or a 'pro-cosmic' (the world is neutral or positive) versus an 'anti-cosmic'
1
dualism (the world is negative). In Judaism, however, these distinctions
do not apply: God's creation cannot be negative, any evil influence must
be limited in time and the idea of a radical dualism of two powers would
compromise the universal power of the creator. The conclusion is either
that there is no dualism in Judaism or that more precise criteria for the
definition of dualism in the Jewish context must be sought. Based on the
textual material the following categories have been found: a 'metaphys
ical' dualism, which finds two equal powers as the cause of the world, a
'cosmic' dualism which divides the world and mankind according to two
opposing but not necessarily co-eternal or causal forces, a 'spatial'
dualism, which divides the cosmos into heaven and earth, above and
below and so on, an 'eschatological' or 'temporal' dualism which divides
time and history into two separate eons, an 'ethical' dualism which divides
mankind into good and evil people, a 'soteriological' dualism which
divides mankind not on account of good and evil deeds but on their
having faith or not, a 'theological' or 'prophetical' dualism, which
opposes God to man, the creator to the creation, a 'physical' dualism
shows how versatile this particular tradition is and the breadth of its
influence on Second Temple Judaism. This paper will study the
Instruction on the Two Spirits first in terms of the types of dualism it
uses. Then the way in which the Qumran community took up this
tradition will be contrasted. After that Philo's passage on the Two Spirits
will be examined. A final part will sum up the results of the comparison
and present a theory of the way in which the tradition of the Instruction
could have reached Philo.
11
tradition. As mentioned above, it lacks community terminology and
ideology and it does not even have a specific concept of a community at
12
all, it does not even refer to the TIT. By contrast it mentions once the
'God of Israel' (111,24) thus identifying itself as a Jewish writing aimed at
the nation as a whole.
The Instructions on the Two Spirits can broadly be structured in six
parts:
1QS 111,13-15: Title and topic
1QS 111,15-18: 'Hymn of creation': God as lord of creation places it
under the dominion of mankind.
1QS III, 18-IV, 1: The two spirits
1QS IV,2-14: The effect of both spirits and the fate of both kinds of
people
2-8: Spirit of light
9-14: Spirit of deceit
1QS IV, 15-23: Struggle of the two spirits and final intervention of
God
13
1QS IV,23-26: Summary and conclusion.
(WMANT, 29; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Eraehungsvereins, 1968), esp. pp. 114-
235; A. G. Hamman, L'homme image de Dieu: Essai d'une anthropologie chretienne dans
l'Eglise des cinq premiers siecles (Relais-Etudes, 2: Paris: Ed. Desclee, 1987), esp. pp. 106-13.
10 J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls, vols. 1, 2 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994);
A. S. van der Woude, 'Fifty Years of Qumran Research', in Flint and VanderKam (eds), The
Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, p. 29; Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 116.
11 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 114; Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX,
p. 10.
12 Cf. Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 89.
13 Without the subdivision of IV,2-14 in Frey, 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought',
p. 290. Without the final subdivision of IV, 15-26 in Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei
LEONHARDT-BALZER Psychological Dualism 31
DDI'TO 1
dx? a m i r o ] m i p s ? ! a m - v m Dirrara ?1
Thus the heading does not create any explicit dualism, there is no specific
mention that there are exactly two spirits, and the only potentially
dualistic reference is that to rewards and punishments. The overall
worldview is one of unity, not division.
As in all Jewish writings, the emphasis in the Instruction on the Two
Spirits is placed on the overwhelming power of the creator God. Right at
the beginning it is emphasized that 'from the God of knowledge is all that
is and that will be' ( T T T m I T p n *7D m O T ! 1QS 111,15). God rules
over everything. The whole of creation is under his power (111,15-17).
This could be seen as the first sign of a dualistic contrast, and thus it has
been identified as a 'physisch-metaphysischen Dualismus', in the strict
15
distinction between creator and creation. But this is not the metaphys
ical dualism mentioned above, as there is no battle between the two, no
counter-force to the power of God. At the beginning there is only the
contrast between the supreme power of God and everything else which is
created. And even the next step does not involve any dualistic powers. It is
mankind that was created to rule the world (111,17-18). And only for the
sake of man the two spirits are given (111,18). Only now the number of the
spirits is introduced. It is not explicitly mentioned that they were created -
this would mean to admit that God created the evil spirit - but it can be
implied from the fact that God is the origin of all there is and that nothing
can act against his plan.
Welten, pp. 30-4. Licht divides the Instruction into 'A) Main statement, B) Elaboration, C)
Summary', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 93. A more detailed
structure can be found in A. Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung
und Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 140-3,
but it also follows this fundamental division.
14 On the translation 'nature', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits',
pp. 89, 95; F. Garcia Martinez and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition,
vol. 1, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 75. The translation is debated. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran,
p. 143, and Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination, pp. 137, 148-9 translate as 'history',
parallel to the priestly genealogies in Gen. 10.1 and 4Q418. But the latter links the term to the
rPrJD n, the 'secrets of being', a wisdom term which refers to the order of creation and not
necessarily to the course of history. Similarly the Instruction expects the end of the effects of
darkness, not that of humanity as a whole.
15 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 104-8, esp. 104, 108.
32 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
19 Translation: Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I,
p. 77.
20 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 110-11.
21 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, p. 111.
34 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
33 Against P. Wernberg-Meller, The Manual of Discipline, p. 71. The other texts which
he mentions, T. Dan 5.6 and T Ben. 3.3 are not community made and they are not older than
the Instruction on the Two Spirits.
34 The addressees, who are called 'sons' in CD 11,13 are marked by the fact that they 'see
and understand the deeds of God' "'BUM 'pnnVl Wblb, 14-15), and that they do not
follow the 'guilty inclination and the spirit of whoredom'.
35 Cf. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 53.
LEONHARDT-BALZER Psychological Dualism 37
meant to take away God's responsibility for evil. But the enemy
responsible for evil, Belial, has his power only for a limited time and over
a limited group. It is notable that the community does not speculate on
Belial's origin or his surrounding but only contemplates his effect on the
37
world. Mankind is divided into two groups, those who keep God's
covenant - the rules of the community - and those who reject it and thus
38
demonstrate their adherence to the forces of evil. Cosmic dualism is
clearly tied to the social situation of the community. The only text in the
Yahad on the origin of evil is the Instruction, and here the absence of the
name Belial is notable. Still by naming the force of evil Belial the Yahad
seems to intensify the mythical aspect of the Instruction. The ethical
dualism is also amplified in the Yahad through a more precise separation
of the two forces and their spheres of influence, which goes hand in hand
with the claim that the Yahad as well as everybody else lives in the time of
the 'dominion of Belial' (1QS 11,19) until the forces of evil will be finally
overthrown and destroyed (1QM). This constitutes the same eschatolo
gical dualism already present in the Instruction. Thus we find all aspects
of the dualism of the Instruction - ethical, mythical, cosmic and
39
eschatological - in the Yahad except one: the psychological dualism.
This aspect is deliberately pushed aside and all references to the
Instruction reinterpret the tradition to exclude any aspects of psycho
logical conflict.
This selective use is all the more reason to compare the use of the
Instruction in a different tradition. And in this context Philo of
Alexandria's reference to the two powers in QE 1.23 comes into its own.
(Svvaueis), the salutary and the destructive (r\ uev ocoTnpia, r\ &
<J)6opoTroi6s). If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite
43
one is too weak to see'. Marcus assumes that in the Greek the last word
44
was not opav - to see - but opuav - to attack.
Through these powers the world too was created. People call them by
other names: the salutary (power) they call powerful and beneficent, and
the opposite one (they call) unbounded and destructive.
Philo comments on how the planets were created by these two powers,
particularly through the salutary one.
But the nation is a mixture of both (these powers), from which the
heavens and the entire world have received this mixture. Now
sometimes the evil becomes greater in this mixture, and hence (all
creatures) five in torment, harm, ignominy, contention, battle and
bodily illness together with all the other things in human life, as in the
whole world, so in man. And this mixture is in both the wicked man and
the wise man but not in the same way. For the souls of the foolish men
have the unbounded and destructive rather than the powerful and
salutary (power), and it is full of misery when it dwells with earthly
creatures. But the prudent and noble (soul) rather receives the powerful
and salutary (power) and, on the contrary, possesses in itself good
fortune and happiness, being carried around with the heaven because of
kinship with it.
Philo then returns to the quotation of Exod. 12.23c and praises its use of
terms. He interprets the text as referring to the fact that the evil power
attempts to enter the soul but is driven away by the beneficent power of
God. Philo adds a philosophical interpretation of the mixed and negative
influences of this power on 'those from whom the favours and gifts of God
are separated'.
The first part on the two powers and their influences appears to describe
a certain tradition, the second after the return to Exod. 12.23c applies this
to the text. Comparing the tradition Philo presents here with the
Instruction there are a number of notable parallels: the Armenian
reference to the birth could, if the Greek was apex -rfj YEVEOEI, as seems
likely, be a play on the double meaning of birth and creation. But even if
Philo intended to write not about the creation of the world but the birth of
man, this reading is still parallel to the Instruction's introduction of the
two spirits after the reference that mankind was given dominion over
creation (111,17-18). It is furthermore notable that this reference occurs
after Philo introduces the 'literal' meaning of God as the sovereign king of
creation. God's sovereign power is also a matter emphasized at the
beginning of the Instruction (111,15-17) before it turns towards the two
spirits. Philo's reference to the continuing struggle between the two
powers, particularly if Marcus' emendation is correct, also runs parallel to
Instruction IV, 15-18 and the continuing struggle between the divisions of
man. After this Philo seems to include a different tradition, introduced by
his reference to the different names for these powers. Philo's reference to
astronomy could also imply an apocalyptic insertion in the particular
version of the Instruction he had at his disposal. This is particularly
noteworthy in view of the fact that the reference to the Instruction in the
Damascus Document includes a reference to the Watcher myth and thus
to Enochic material and the prominent astronomic references in the
Enoch traditions.
Coming back to the Instruction material itself Philo moves away from
the discussion of the soul and turns towards the nation as consisting of
two kinds of people. Here Philo moves from a psychological towards an
ethical dualism, similar to the references to the 'sons of righteousness' and
the 'sons of deceit' in 111,20-21. Philo does not introduce the idea of a
remnant, he refers to the 'people' or 'nation'. This could reflect the
Instruction's reference to the God of Israel and its indication that the
Instruction is directed at the Jewish people. Philo proceeds to describe
the influence of the evil power. At this point his account parallels the
Instruction's references to the attacks of the 'angel of darkness' on
the 'sons of righteousness' causing them to fail in their behaviour and to
experience hardship (111,21-24). The different degrees of influence, of the
mixture of the two powers, also mirror the different shares human beings
have in the light and the darkness in 1QS IV,15f., 23-26.
Even after the passage has moved from the account of the tradition to
Philo's exegesis by referring back to God's protection of the soul from the
'destroyer', Philo's reference to God's beneficent power driving out the
harmful influence of the evil power can be seen to reflect the Instruction's
account of God's holy Spirit's cleansing the 'sons of righteousness' in
IV, 19-22, which in Philo is followed by a reference to those rejected by
God while the Instruction mentions the salvation of the elect, those
chosen by God for his covenant (IV,22).
A table can illustrate the parallels in concept between the two texts:
LEONHARDT-BALZER Psychological Dualism 41
Philo's thought of the mixture seems to take up the idea of each human
being's being composed of unequal shares in light and darkness which is
particularly prominent in IV, 15-16. Thus Philo seems to systematize the
Instruction at a point where it repeats itself and where one of its emphases
is on eschatological judgement, a thought completely alien to Philo.
Whether Philo summarized his source or had a shorter tradition, what
seems clear is that the Instruction on the Two Spirits had acquired a
Greek version by Philo's time. And it is noteworthy that Philo's reception
emphasizes everything, which the Qumran reception does not: the
psychological dualism and the potential of 'wise' (Philo) or 'righteous'
people being influenced by the evil power.
just as the idea of the spirit of the lie, dominant in the Iranian myth, does
48
not occur in the Instruction on the Two Spirits.
By contrast, there are clear similarities between wisdom traditions and
the Instruction: the tendency to divide the world into good and evil (e.g.
Prov. 1-9 - even if this division here is mainly based on ethical grounds
and here only represents a duality and no dualism, as the opposition does
not permeate the whole world order). The revelation of the truth is more
49
the unmasking of God's plan for salvation and of his secrets. Wisdom
50
traditions have been found to move towards including apocalyptic ideas.
And J. J. Collins emphasizes that in the Instruction on the Two Spirits,
'The literary form . . . is not apocalypse or revelation but the classic
51
sapiential form of the instruction." The influence of apocalyptic wisdom
can particularly be found in the ambivalent concept of the elect and the
possibility of their being seduced by the evil power in other wisdom texts
52 53
of the time. Thus 4QMysteries frg. 3a ii-b 4-6 contrasts the deceit and
the evil doings of Belial to the wise, but due to the fragmentary state of the
text it is unclear whether Belial actually seduces the wise. In 4QInstruction
(4Q416f) the 'secrets of being' are related to the distinction between truth
and deceit (4Q417 frg. 2 col. 3,14; 4Q416 frg. 2 col. 1, 1-6). It is the task of
the wise to delve into the secrets of God's plan in everything there is. In
view of this plan the success of evil remains a mystery. The term 'secret'
has the same function in the Instruction. There the success of the spirit of
deceit is inexplicable, it remains one of the 'secrets of God' ''"H until
the end (111,23). Thus the Instruction takes up strands of apocalyptic
wisdom literature, which are avoided in the original community texts.
It is noteworthy that it is precisely these strands, which are prominent in
Philo's reception: the emphasis on psychological and ethical dualism.
Furthermore, Philo's reference to the stars might even indicate that his
source had apocalyptic references at this point. This is highly speculative
but it would fit with an apocalyptic wisdom text. And the book of Ben
Sira shows that Israelite wisdom was thought to be of interest in the
Alexandrian Jewish community. Philo's application of the Logos termin
ology to the interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5 also shows his close knowledge of
54 Cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, 'Der Logos und die Schopfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif.
20-25) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1-18)', in J. Frey and U. Schnelle (eds), Kontexte des
Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelism in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher
Perspektive (WUNT, 1/175; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 295-319.
Chapter 3
J E S U S ' J E W I S H H E R M E N E U T I C A L M E T H O D I N T H E N A Z A R E T H
S Y N A G O G U E
R. Steven Notley
A great deal has been written about the importance of Jewish sources for
1
our understanding of Jesus and the early Church. Unfortunately, there
remains a lack of corresponding recognition regarding the contribution of
the New Testament to our knowledge of Jewish life and thought during
the closing days of the Second Commonwealth. The New Testament
serves as an invaluable historical witness, because it often is our earliest
written record.
A few examples will illustrate. For archaeologists and historical
geographers the New Testament provides seminal information, because
it possesses the earliest written references to certain Jewish cities and
villages founded in Galilee during the Hellenistic and Roman periods - for
2
example, Tiberias, Nazareth, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida. On the
other hand, Jewish and Christian students of the history of Jewish
tradition rarely recognize that the earliest evidence for the common Jewish
practice to name one's son at his circumcision on the eighth day is the
Lukan birth narratives about John the Baptist (Lk. 1.63) and Jesus (Lk.
3
2.21). Outside of the New Testament, the next mention in written Jewish
4
sources appears in the seventh-century-CE work, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer.
The parents of Moses saw that his appearance was like that of an angel
of God. They circumcised him on the eighth day and called him
Yekutiel (Chapter 48).
1 D. Flusser and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus' Genius (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 1-5.
2 See Y . Tsafrir, L. DiSegni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: IUDAEA-
PALESTINA: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994).
3 L. V. Snowman, 'Circumcision', EJ 5:571.
4 S. Safrai, 'Naming John the Baptist', Jerusalem Perspective 20 (May 1989): 1-2.
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 47
5 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First
Century (CRINT, 2; Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 908-44 (928).
6 Contra H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1961), p. 30.
7 H. Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (9 vols; Groningen: W. Zuidema,
1826-34) 3: 225.
8 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue and Sabbath', Jerusalem Perspective 23 (Nov.-Dec. 1989): 8-10.
48 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
9 Safrai, 'Synagogue', pp. 929-30; cf. D. Bivin, 'One Torah Reader, Not Seven!'
Jerusalem Perspective 52 (Jul.-Sep. 1997): 16-17.
10 H. F. D. Sparks, 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943): 129-38 (129).
11 Sparks, 'Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', p. 132; cf. N. Turner, A Grammar of New
Testament Greek (4 vols; ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976), 4:46-50.
12 M. H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic',
JQR 20 (1908): 647-737; see also idem, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1927).
13 E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959): idem, 'Hebrew Language', EJ 16:1593-1607; idem, A
History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982); and idem, Hebrew and Aramaic
Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977 [Hebrew]).
14 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845); cf.
A. Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwold; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 162.
15 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; New York: Doubleday,
1981), p. 531.
MOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 49
that the Evangelist has drawn from earlier reports (Lk. 1.1-4) that were
shaped by a Hebrew language environment. Recognition that the incident
in Nazareth occurred in a Semitic milieu opens up new possibilities for
Hebrew idioms and fresh cultural perspectives. Close attention to the
linguistic evidence can ultimately provide insight into the hermeneutical
methodology of Jesus and other first-century Jews in their use of
Scripture, and hopefully illuminate what Jesus intended to communicate
to his hearers by his combination of texts.
The first evidence for the linguistic environment of Luke's report is his
introductory phrase, 'and there was given to him the book of the prophet
Isaiah' (Lk. 4.17). Little attention is given to the designation of Isaiah's
work as a 'book'. Of course, in concrete terms the reader in a first-century
synagogue would have been given a parchment scroll, not a book or
codex. However, our interest here is not the physical shape of the
document but the idiom, 'the book' of Isaiah - whether expressed in Greek
(PipAos, [JiPAiov) or Hebrew O ? 0 ) . A quick search informs us that the
work of Isaiah is never referred to as a 'book' in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, it seems it is a post-biblical designation.
What is more surprising is to discover that the phrase, 'the book of
Isaiah', never occurs in Jewish literature of the Second Commonwealth
composed in Greek - for example, the Septuagint, Greek Pseudepigrapha,
Josephus or Philo. Not only is Luke the only writer in the New Testament
to preserve this idiom, his is the only occurrence in the entire Greek
corpus of Jewish literature. On the other hand, seven times in the Hebrew
portions of the Qumran library we hear citations from Isaiah with the
prefaced phrase, iTfiET ISDH m r O *W&: 'as it is written in the
book of Isaiah the prophet' (e.g. 4Q174 frag.l 2:15; 4Q176 frag.l 2:4;
4Q265 frag. 1,3) - the exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek phrase
recorded by Luke. In other words, the only time in first-century Jewish
literature that the work of Isaiah is called a 'book', it appears in Hebrew.
While this point may seem insignificant, the idiomatic usage signals to the
modern reader the need to approach the words and setting in Luke's
report from a Hebraic perspective. The implications of this shift will soon
become apparent.
Luke records that Jesus 'opened the book [i.e., scroll] and found the
place' (Lk. 4.17). Evidence from the Cairo Genizah indicates that already
in first-century Judaea designated weekly portions from the Torah were
read in the synagogue in consecutive order on a triennial cycle (i.e., the
16
Pentateuch was read through entirely in three years). By contrast,
selections from the Prophets were not fixed. They were often chosen at the
discretion of the reader to complement the Torah reading on the basis of
17 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 530-9; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary
on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), pp. 182^1.
18 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 533.
19 Marshall, Luke, pp. 185-6.
20 R. Buth, 'Aramaic Targumim: Qumran', in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter
(eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: I VP, 2000), pp. 91-3.
21 U. GleBmer, 'Targumim', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
pp. 915-18 (916).
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 51
century Jews did not know Hebrew and needed the Aramaic translation to
understand the Hebrew Scriptures.
Indeed, we have no evidence of the presence and use of Aramaic
Targums in synagogues of the Land of Israel prior to the Usha period
(140 C E ) , following the Bar Kochba Revolt. The appearance of Aramaic
Targums coincides with the immigration of Jews from Babylonia, who
most likely brought their Aramaic Bibles (i.e., Targums) with them, and
the decline of spoken Hebrew in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba Revolt
22
due to population shifts. Additionally, in certain contexts the Aramaic
Targums may have served not so much as literal translations, but as a type
of simultaneous commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures - a repository of
23
Jewish interpretation. So, we hear: 'He who translates a verse literally
falsifies it' (t.Meg. 4(3).41). In a later time, the Targums would be read in
the synagogues in languages other than Hebrew in order to distinguish
them from Holy Scripture. A parallel to this practice exists. In the
Babylonian Talmud block citations from the Mishna are recorded in their
original Mishnaic Hebrew, and thus distinguished from later deliberations
(i.e., the Gemara) upon the Mishna that are routinely preserved in
Aramaic. In any event, this is a practice that developed after our period of
interest.
The most obvious deviation from Isa. 61.1-2 in our passage is the final
phrase recorded in Lk. 4.18. Jesus interjects Isa. 58.6: 'to let the oppressed
go free', and then returns to Isa. 61.2 with the conclusion, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord'. As we will see, Jesus' ingenious fusion of Isa.
61.1-2 and 58.6 presents the clearest evidence that he read from the
Hebrew Scriptures and that Luke's source for the citation was not the
Septuagint.
Jesus' creative reading from Isaiah is neither haphazard, nor coinci
dental. It betrays an intimate familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures and
24
contemporary Jewish methods of interpreting them. Fitzmyer has
suggested that the combination of the two Isaianic verses is because of the
Greek catchword a<J>EOis that appears in the Septuagint's translation of
25
both verses (Isa. 58.6: D^EBri; Isa. 61.1: Ti*"n). His instincts are correct,
but his presumption of Luke's reliance on the Septuagint has caused him
to overlook the distinctive, unique verbal thread that enabled Jesus to
combine these two passages. The Greek term, a<J>EOis, appears frequently
22 A. F. Rainey and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
(Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2006), p. 398.
23 S. D. Fraade, 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the
Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries', in L. J. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late
Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 253-86.
24 See J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1954), pp. 52-118.
25 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX p. 533.
y
52 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
structure in the exchange between Jesus and the high priest Caiaphas in
32
Lk. 22.69-70. The former's allusion to Ps. 110.1-3, and his adversary's
use of vocabulary drawn from Ps. 2.7, is based upon a consonantal
reading of the Hebrew text which is identical in both verses. Only in these
do we find ym^T (Ps. 110.3: your youth ^ 1 1 1 ^ ] ; Ps. 2.7: / have
begotten you FpFn*^])- What is important in all of these examples is the
recognition that the verbal links that allow the combination of otherwise
unrelated verses are based upon the exact word forms of the Hebrew text,
not the Aramaic Targums or Septuagint. While the rabbinical method
may find its impetus from the world of Greek rhetoric (ouvxpiois npos
'(oov),33 its application in rabbinical tradition is based on Hebrew verbal
34
analogy.
Are there Hebrew verbal links evident that allow Jesus to fuse Isa. 61.1-
2 and 58.6? To my knowledge no notice has been given to the fact that in
the entire Hebrew Scriptures only in our two blocks of Scripture (Isa.
58.1-9; 61.1-4) do we find the phrase HIPP b ]1in ('the Lord's favour').
Again, scholars have overlooked the verbal bridge between these two
verses, because they have presumed that the Septuagint is the source of
Luke's citation. Yet, the rendering of the Hebrew phrase is missing in the
Septuagint's truncated Greek translation of Isa. 58.5: KaAeoeTS vrjaTeiav
5SKTT)V. It thus eliminates the essential verbal tie to Isa. 61.2. The linkage is
35
likewise obscured in the Aramaic Targum of these verses.
In other words, Jesus' creative genius is possible only if he is drawing
upon the Hebrew Scriptures. Isa. 61.2a speaks of 'the Year of the Lord's
favour', whereas Isa. 58.5-6 designates the time of the hoped-for
redemption as 'the Day of the Lord's favour'. The difference between
these two passages, however, is more than a temporal distinction (i.e. iT3E?
and OV). The content of the redemptive expectations in these two
passages represents starkly divergent hopes in Jesus' day regarding both
the timing and the nature of God's future redemption of his people. It
certainly is no accident that Jesus breaks off his quotation of Isa. 61.2,
eliminating the final phrase: irrt^K^ Dj53 DVT: 'the day of the
32 See D. Flusser, 'At the Right Hand of Power', Judaism and the Origins of Christianity
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 301-5; Flusser and Notley, The Sage from Galilee, p. 115 n.
24.
33 S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine I Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York and
Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994), p. 62.
34 'Strictly speaking this {gezerah shavah] is only to be used if two given Torah statements
make use of identical (and possibly unique) expressions' (Strack and Stemberger, Talmud and
Mishnah, p. 21).
35 See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 3:117, 121; J. F.
Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 195, 205.
54 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
vengeance of our God' (Isa. 61.2b). Jesus did not want to identify the
37
day of the Lord's favour with a time of divine vengeance.
In order to grasp the full significance of Jesus' exegetical message, some
background on contemporary Jewish thought is needed. In his historical
biography on Jesus, Flusser explored the widely diverging redemptive
38
expectations that existed in the first century. The Qumran Congregation
and John the Baptist shared a hope that their present day would be
followed soon with the advent of a heavenly Redeemer, who would bring
vindication for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. The
immediacy of this time of judgement is reflected in John's proclamation:
'The axe is already at the root of the trees' (Mt. 3.10; Lk. 3.9).
On the other hand, Jesus and his Rabbinic contemporaries embraced a
39
tripartite view of redemptive history. In the opinion of Jesus and Israel's
sages, between the present era and the future End of Days - which would
include resurrection for the righteous and judgement upon the wicked -
they understood the need for an intermediate period. In the opinion of
Jesus, that intermediate era began with the ministry of John the Baptist:
40
'The law and the prophets were until John' (Lk. 16.16), 'From the days
of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven forcefully advances'
41
(Mt. 11.12).
It was John's and Jesus' differing opinions concerning the stages of
redemption that led to the Baptist's question: 'Are you the One who is to
Come, or shall we look for another?' (Mt. 11.3). John defined the hoped-
for Redeemer with notions belonging to eschatological judgement and
adopted terminology related to the Coming One from Malachi:
'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.
Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the
messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come* says the Lord
Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand
when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap
42
(Mai. 3.1-3).
36 J. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 210.
37 By contrast, note the role of the priestly redeemer (Melchizedek) in 11Q13 in which
Isaiah 61 is also heard. Following the citation, the author continues: 'Therefore Melchizedek
will thoroughly prosecute the veng[ea]nce required by Go[d's] statu[te]s' (HQ 13 2.13).
38 Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, pp. 76-96.
39 b.Sanh. 99a; Midr. Pss 90.15; cf. Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 92.
40 The redemptive content of Jesus' testimony is indicated by its Talmudic parallel
IT&rn HID'''? bbk 1*0303 \*b Outran to: 'All the prophets prophesied solely concerning
the days of the Messiah'. See b.Ber. 34b; b.Shab. 63a; b.Sanh. 99a.
41 Notley, 'The Kingdom Forcefully Advances', pp. 303-7.
42 See also Dan. 7.13: HIH HHtJ IZDtft "Q3 ; Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee,
pp. 107-16.
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 55
John's message from the prison of Herod Antipas questioned: 'If the
Redeemer has come bringing divine judgement, why are the righteous still
suffering at the hands of the wicked?' Jesus' response addresses John's
mistaken understanding of God's redemptive timetable. Not surprisingly,
Jesus uses a combination of Isaianic passages - Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18;
26.19 - that included Isa. 61.1 (the same verse read in the Nazareth
synagogue). Among the discoveries in the Qumran library, a work
designated 4Q521 - and which Puech has suggested was likely non-
sectarian - was composed around a similar compilation of biblical
43
passages describing the messianic age.
[... For the heajvens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah [and all
w]hich is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the
holy ones... For He will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His
eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free (Ps 146.7), opening the eyes of
the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down] (Ps 146.8)... and the
Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said.
For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He
shall send good news to the afflicted (Isa. 61.1). (4Q521 frag. 2 ii, 4.1-12)
In another work (11Q13) the Qumran Congregation described their
expectation of a priestly redeemer identified with the biblical
44
Melchizedek. The Qumran sectarians - like others of their contempor
aries (e.g. T. Levi 17.1-18.2) - expected the advent of that redeemer to
coincide with the Jubilee year. Since the Jubilee was inaugurated on the
Day of Atonement (Lev. 25.9), their hope was that God would atone
the sins of the nation and consequently redeem his people. One of
the important proof-texts for this redemptive Jubilee framework was the
passage read by Jesus in Nazareth - Isa. 61.1-2. Elsewhere, I have tried to
show that these ideas form the background for John's proclamation of 'a
baptism that would lead to a [Jubilee] remission of sins' ((3anTiOMCc
jjETCcvoias B\S a<J>eaiv aiiapTicov: Mk. 1.4; Lk. 3.3).
It seems that John (like his Qumran contemporaries) expected the
45
redeemer to appear in the Jubilee year. John hoped that repentance and
righteous initiative signified by the act of ritual immersion would bring
4
43 See E. Puech, Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)', RevQ 60 (Oct. 1992): 475^522;
Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 28.
44 D. Flusser, 'Melchizedek and the Son of Man', Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity, pp. 186-92; R. S. Notley, The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect
and the Order of Blessing in the Christian Eucharist', in R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B.
Becker (eds), Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill,
2006), pp. 128-35; A. Steudel, 'Melchizedek', in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1: 535-7; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa
(Washington, DC: CBAA, 1981), pp. 49-74.
45 See B. Z. Wacholder, 'Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and
the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles', HUCA 46 (1975): 201-18.
56 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
How did the audience react to Jesus' creative reading that day in
Nazareth? Most readers assume that the point of provocation was Jesus'
sharp comments in Lk. 4.23-27. However, there are clear indications that
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 57
the audience was already taken aback by the message of Jesus' conflated
reading from Isaiah and the message it signalled. Unfortunately, most
English translations gloss over these indicators. The translates that
N R S V
the crowd 'spoke well of him'. Yet, the Greek passage describes their
response: Ken iravxes euapTupouv auTcp, which should be rendered: 'They
all witnessed (against) him.' The objection of the crowd is indicated by the
unusual Greek construction of the dative pronoun with the verb
uccpTupeTv. The Greek phrase reflects an underlying Hebrew idiom (e.g.,
Deut. 31.19: 'wnftr ^ 3 3 IBb; cf. Jer. 32.44; Mt. 23.31)
Jeremias already recognized the immediate congregational discontent
over Jesus' interpretative reading.
Both verbs are ambiguous: martyrein with the dative can mean either
'give witness for' or 'give witness against,' and thaumazein can mean
either 'be enthusiastic about,' or 'be shocked at.' The continuation of
the pericope shows that the words must be interpreted in malam partam.
In that case, the interpretation of ['concerning the words of grace'] (v.
22) must be: the people of Nazareth are shocked that Jesus quotes the
words of grace from Isaiah 61 to preach about, and omits the mention
46
of vengeance, although it occurred in the t e x t .
46 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. 206-7.
47 Mark's parallel clearly represents a 'Christian' hesitation to the Lukan patronymic. V.
Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1957), pp. 299-300.
48 D. Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message', Judaism and
the Origins of Christianity, pp. 469-89 (480).
58 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
49 This is likewise the opinion of Hillel: 'Do not judge your neighbor until you come into
his place' (m.Abot 2.5; cf. b.Shab. 31a).
50 See a similar saying by R. Abbahu: 'Greater is the day of rainfall than the day of
resurrection. For the latter benefits only the pious, whereas the former benefits pious and
sinners alike' (b.Ta'an. 7a).
51 Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity', p. 482.
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 59
means that one must now examine more intently one's own desperate need
for God's mercy and forgiveness. The spiritual challenges of the first
century are both timeless and human - they remain with us. The message
from Nazareth is a caution to remain vigilant against ungodly prejudices
and the comfortable gravitation to easy categories. At the same time, it
extends the promise of heavenly blessing to the willing: 'Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy' (Mt. 5.7).
Chapter 4
T H E M A G N I F I C A T A M O N G T H E B I B L I C A L N A R R A T I V E - S E T P S A L M S
Scot Becker
Introduction
A conspicuous feature of the infancy narrative of Luke's Gospel is that it
contains several passages which follow linguistic conventions normally
associated with biblical Hebrew poetry. These Lukan passages have a
concentration of what Kugel calls linguistic 'heightening features'. In
particular they show a consistent pattern of two-part lines where the latter
1
part completes, or 'seconds' the former. The passages in question tend
toward the compactness of Hebrew poetry, and make use of its
characteristic syntactical patterns and conventional language. In addition,
all are direct speech, set off from the narrating line by the common lexical
and syntactic markers of embedded discourse.
Both annunciations fall into this category (Lk.l.13-17 and 1.30-33, 35),
as does the beginning of Elizabeth's greeting to Mary in 1.42 ('Blessed are
you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!') Such poetic
speech can also be found in four expressions of praise, the so-called
'canticles' of Luke's infancy narrative, found on the lips of Mary (1.46-
I would like to thank the participants of the 2007 gathering of the International
Postgraduate Theological Symposium (Prague) who gave feedback on an earlier draft of this
paper, which was then printed as a part of the conference proceedings in Parus Parusev,
Ovidiu Creanga and Brian Brock, Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European Reasoning:
Proceedings of the Third Annual Theological Symposium (Prague: IBTS Publishing, 2007),
pp. 131-40.
1 In KugeFs understanding it is 'seconding' which is constitutive of Hebrew biblical
poetic heightening, rather than parallelism itself: 'The parallelistic style in the Bible consists
not of stringing together clauses that bear some semantic, syntactic or phonetic resemblance,
nor yet of "saying the same thing twice," but of the sequence / / / i n which B is
both a continuation of A and yet broken from it by a pause, a typically emphatic,
"seconding" style in which parallelism plays an important part, but whose essence is not
parallelism, but the "seconding sequence."' (James L . Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry:
Parallelism and Its History [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], pp. 53-4.) For
the purposes of this essay, 'poetic' and 'poetry' are used for spans of discourse with a high
concentration of such two-part lines, terse syntax and frequent semantic parallelism.
BECKER The Magnificat 61
55), Zechariah (1.68-79), the angelic host (2.14), and Simeon (2.29-32). As
poetic expressions of praise within an otherwise prose narration, the
literary form of these canticles is virtually unique in New Testament
2
literature.
2 The only significant analogue in the Gospels is the shout of the people at Jesus' entry
into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.9; Mk 11.9-10; Lk. 19.38; Jn 12.13), which has discernible poetic
sequencing in all four accounts. As an allusion to Ps. 118, the Lukan version does serve as an
expression of joy at the 'royal entry' of Jesus, and so is a kind of praise. See Joel B. Green,
The Gospel of Luke (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 686-7. Outside the
Gospels, the closest equivalents in the New Testament are the songs of Revelation (4.8b, 11;
5.9-10, 12, 13; etc.).
3 We are working with a concept of genre akin to Fowler's concept of the iocal
inclusion' of one genre within another. Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction
to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), pp. 179-81. A concept of
genre which operates on parts of a work is necessary for the Gospels, if for no other reason
than the prominence of direct speech, which by its very nature enables the possibility of the
'inclusion' of a genre within another.
4 The following is a partial list of the intertextual activities which can be seen in the
Lukan infancy narrative alone: (1) The narrative is explicitly set within the biblical account of
God's covenantal attention to Israel. (2) The Lukan narrative imitates biblical stories,
particularly the birth stories in the patriarchal narratives and those of Samson and Samuel
(see Green, Luke, pp. 52-8). (3) Typology: Jesus will be the Davidic king; John will be a new
Elijah. (4) Septuagintal linguistic features (parataxis, other 'Semitisms'), (H. F. D. Sparks,
'The Semitisms of Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 [1943]: 129-38; Bruce Chilton, God in Strength:
Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom [Freistadt, Austria: Plochl, 1979], esp. pp. 123-77. For
recent discussion on Luke's use of the Jewish Scriptures, see Dietrich Rusam, Das Alte
Testament bei Lukas [BZNW, 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003] and Kenneth Litwak, Echoes of
Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People Intertextually [JSNTSup, 282;
London: T & T Clark International, 2005]).
62 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
5 The other meaningful points of comparison are of course those Second Temple Jewish
works which likewise take up the same convention. These must unfortunately remain outside
the scope of the present study: Add. Dan.; Jdt. 16.1-17; Tob. 3.11-15; 8.5-7, 15-17; 11.14-15;
13.1-17, and Pseudo-Philo's versions of the songs of Deborah and Hannah (cf. 1 Mace. 2.7-
13). For related conventions in Greek literature, see James W. Watts, Psalm and Story. Inset
Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 215. Recent
treatments of biblical poetry outside the Psalter include: Susan E. Gillingham, Poems and
Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994),
esp. pp. 137-69; Steven Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a
Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1997); Hans-Peter Mathys, Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus
spdtalttestamentischen Zeit (OBO, 132; Freiberg: Universitatsverlag, 1994).
6 James Watts, Psalm and Story; idem, ' "This Song": Conspicuous Poetry in Hebrew
Prose', in Johannes de Moot (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42;
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993), pp. 345-58 (esp. 353-5; idem, 'Biblical Psalms Outside
the Psalter', in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds), Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception
(VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 288-309. Watts uses the term 'narrative role' where I use
'rhetorical role', but at this point it is a difference in terminology only. In both cases we are
speaking of the text's relationship to the reader.
BECKER The Magnificat 63
7 I use 'psalm', 'hymn', 'song' broadly of these passages. My argument does not turn on
any precise definition of them. I do, however, prefer to call them 'narrative-set', since (to my
ear) it relaxes the association with the putative editorial act of 'insetting' external material.
The compositional history of these passages should be decided on an individual basis (as
Watts does).
8 See Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 14-16 for a longer discussion of his criteria for
inclusion.
9 'They contain either an imperative invocation to praise God, an indicative statement
of praise to God, both, or a promise of praise or worship to God' (Watts, Psalm and Story,
p. 15).
10 Watts, 'This Song', p. 353.
11 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 186-9.
64 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
12 Ibid., p. 187.
13 Dale Patrick and Alan Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: Almond
Press, 1990), p. 12. This is basically a pragmatic or functionalist theory of language, as
quintessentially expressed in J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson
and M. Sbisa; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975).
14 On the 'Red' vs. 'Reed' Sea in Exodus, see, convincingly, Bernard F. Batto, 'The Reed
Sea: Requiescat in Pace', JBL 102 (1983): 27-35.
BECKER The Magnificat 65
Since this will be the content of the song (15.2), the reader is here given the
same insight as the singers have.
The first half of the song (15.1-12) retells the story of the watery demise
of Egypt's army. The beginning of this account (15.1-2) contains a general
(i.e., not situation-specific) expression of praise to YHWH: 'YHWH is my
strength and my song, and he has become my salvation. This is my God,
15
and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him' (v. 2). Verses
15.3-10 then narrate Pharaoh's fall, which resolves into a doxological
16
comparison in v. 11 ('Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?') The
effect is that the hymn fits plausibly within the narrative of the book of the
Exodus, but the general, even liturgical elements which begin and end this
first stanza suggest an affinity with Israel's tradition of cultic praise, and
thus presumably with the cultic practice of both the editor and reader of
Exodus.
Beginning in v. 13, the song begins to speak of the conquest of Canaan,
which, of course, in the scheme of pentateuchal chronology is still to
come. The song's speakers have yet to experience YHWH leading them
past the nations (Philistines, Edomites, Moabites and Canaanites, 15.14-
16) to 'the mountain of your possession, the place, YHWH, that you
made your dwelling, the sanctuary, YHWH, that your hands have
established' (15.17-18). According to Watts:
The psalm moves from the temporal perspective of the narrative, in
which the land's settlement lies in the future, to that of the readers, for
whom it is in the past. The effect of the move is to allow the readers to
17
join in the celebration of the sea from their own temporal perspective.
Thus the narrative summary in 14.30-31, the traditional liturgical quality
of some of the expressions of praise, and the temporal perspective of the
hymn all serve to give the hymn a certain proximity to the ideal (ancient
Israelite) reader's own frame of reference.
Characterization
Another clue to the rhetorical effect of Exodus 15 is what the hymn adds
to the characterization of its speakers within the narrative. At the
beginning of Exodus, the seventy (Gen. 46.27) who came down to live
with Joseph in Egypt have become the bene yisrael, the 'children of Israel'
(Exod. 1.7), a collective narrative figure with an initially sympathetic
narrative portrayal. They are heirs to the promises of Genesis and have an
implied claim on the royal protection given to Joseph. They prosper in
their adopted country, even under 'a new king . . . who did not know
15 Cf. Pss. 22.22; 35.18; 43.4; 69.30; 71.16; 109.30; 119.7; 146.2; Isa. 25.1.
16 Cf. Pss. 35.10; 71.19; 113.5.
17 Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 51.
66 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
18 The narrator's approval of their cry is indicated by the fact that God 'looked upon the
Israelites and took notice of them' (2:25). As with biblical narrators generally, the narrator of
Exodus adopts a perspective on events, that is indistinguishable from God's own. On
omniscient narrators, see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological
Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 84.
19 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 51-2.
BECKER The Magnificat 67
rivals any other biblical event. The events from Moses' first audience
with Pharaoh to the crossing of the Red Sea - often seen as a single divine
act - are cited and celebrated in a variety of biblical literature as YHWH's
21
prototypical victory on Israel's behalf. The following review of a few of
those biblical citations of the event is made with the intent of showing how
readily the exodus event is used liturgically and rhetorically.
The book of Exodus itself places the memory of the deliverance from
Egypt in prominent narrative positions. A celebrative recounting of the
exodus is anticipated even before the actual escape itself. YHWH tells
Moses that he has hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and his officials 'in
order to set these my signs within him, and so that you may recount to the
ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of Egypt and the
signs which I set among them - so that you may know that I am YHWH'
(Exod. 10.1-2). Later, the institution of the Passover also includes a
retelling of the events. ('You shall tell your son on that day, "It is because
of what YHWH did for me when I came out of Egypt."' Exod. 13.8). In
this way, the Israelites (and so the implied Israelite readers) are given an
account of the significance of the exodus for generations yet to come.
This calls to mind the rhetorical stance of Deuteronomy, which
identifies the Israel of its own narrative with that of Sinai/Horeb: 'YHWH
our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did
YHWH make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive
today' (Deut. 5.2-3). Both Exodus's explicit attention to coming gener
ations and Deuteronomy's insistence on the contemporaneity of the
covenant are devices which serve to identify the pentateuchal narrators'
implied audience with the Israel of their narratives.
Several psalms also recount the Red Sea events as raw material for praise.
Psalm 77, a psalm of individual distress, ends with the following account
of YHWH's deeds, in which he is given glory for the crossing of the Red
Sea:
15
With your strong arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. (Selah)
16
When the waters saw you, O God,
when the waters saw you, they were afraid;
the very deep trembled...
20 For the arguments for an early date, see Frank Cross, Jr., 'Song of the Sea and
Canaanite Myth', JTC 5 (1968): 1-25.
21 William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation and Commentary (AB; New
York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 803.
68 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
[...] we remain aloof and one does not count us among the nations. And
[...] Y o u are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud [...]
your [hol]y [...] walks in front of us, and your glory is in [our] midst [...]
2 3
the face of Moses, [your] serv[ant .. . ]
The Magnificat
The beginning of the Gospel of Luke unfolds not so much as a biography
26
of Jesus, but as a narrative of God's activity within Israel. Mary's hymn
is uttered in the midst of this unfolding divine activity, responding both
implicitly and explicitly to the divine message delivered in the three
preceding scenes: the annunciation to Zechariah, the annunciation to
Mary herself and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Each of these scenes adds to
the reader's growing sense of the significance of the events of Luke's story.
In the two opening scenes, Zechariah and Mary each receive an angelic
announcement regarding the birth of a child. According to the angel,
Zechariah's son John will be 'filled with the Holy Spirit from birth', and
will 'turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God'. He will 'go
before him' (cf. Mai. 3.1) and 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous' (cf. Mai. 3.24). The
angel's words proclaim that Israel's God will arrive, and that John will
precede that arrival with his own work, which the angel describes as
'making ready for the Lord a people prepared' (1.17). According to the
angel's announcement, Zechariah's son will be a prophet in the tradition
of those in the Jewish Scriptures.
The announcement to Mary is shorter, but its assertions about what is
now underway go even further. God will give her son 'the throne of his
ancestor David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of
his kingdom there will be no end' (1.32-33). Like the announcement to
John, this is an overwhelmingly eschatological announcement: Israel's
27
God is acting within history to deliver the nation.
When Elizabeth and Mary meet (1.39-56), Elizabeth's welcome serves
to express her wonder at the new activity of God: 'Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb... Blessed is she who
believed that there would be a fulfillment of that which was spoken to her
by the Lord' (1.42, 45). It is in response to this greeting that the
28
Magnificat is spoken. The context is the announcement of an
eschatological work of God, wherein a new prophet will precipitate a
national repentance ('many in Israel will turn') and God will re-establish
his covenantal rule over Israel through a new Davidic king.
According to Mittmann-Richert, Mary's act of speaking this psalm
represents her recognition of salvation (Heilserkenntniss). In a Gospel
where the recognition of Jesus and the salvation which arrives through
2 9
him is an important motif, it would be odd indeed, she contends, if we
did not also find such recognition just here, where God's deliverance is
first revealed to be underway. 'Luke could not put the Magnificat at any
other place than exactly here, where the mother of the yet unborn
messianic child recognizes her son as her own and the world's redeemer
and steps into the new eon in conscious recognition of this redemptive
30
deed'.
In this way, the song functions much like the Song of the Sea, which
also serves as an expression of Heilserkenntniss. Both songs are essentially
responses to the saving activity of Israel's God. In fact, like the Song of
the Sea, the Magnificat celebrates YHWH as a warrior (Exod. 15.3). In
Exodus, Israel's God fights on behalf of those who 'groaned under their
slavery and cried out' (Exod. 2.23). In Luke, he defeats the powerful and
proud on behalf of the iowly' (1.52), the 'hungry' (1.53) and the nation
itself (1.54). In both cases, God 'overthrows' the powerful (mn.Exod.
15.7; Ka9ccip£co: Lk. 1.52) with the strength of his arm (Exod. 15.16, Lk.
1.51). This idea of God protecting Israel by defeating its enemies is taken
up even more explicitly in Zechariah's Benedictus (Lk. 1.68-79).
The Magnificat has a conspicuous structural similarity to many of the
canonical psalms. It begins with an opening declaration of praise and
follows that with the grounds for this praise: 'My soul magnifies the Lord
. . . for he has looked with favor' (1.46-47). This is the quintessential
formula of Israelite praise, found in nearly all of the hymns and
31
thanksgiving songs in the Psalter. It is not hard to see how Mary's hymn
would have a particularly liturgical resonance for those whose communal
prayers included these psalms.
Strictly speaking, its narrative context makes Mary's song hers alone.
She thanks God that he has looked with favour on his servant ( T %
SouArjs OCUTOU:1.48) and for what he has done for her (1.49). Wherever the
psalm may have come from (and the non-Lukan theories are nearly all
32
liturgical), it cannot be a completely open-ended liturgical prayer as it
now stands.
Conclusion
I have argued with respect to Exodus 15, that for readers who understand
themselves in continuity with the Israel of the story, the psalm works as a
way for them to liturgically appropriate the event of deliverance described
in the preceding narrative. To that I now add a similar conclusion for
Mary's song: whatever else the Magnificat does in the Gospel of Luke, it
has a specific function for readers who understand themselves in
continuity with those in Luke's birth story. For readers who follow
Mary in her reception of the angelic words about her son, her song
presents them with first-person words of prayer by which they too can
welcome the annunciation of the angel, and with it the rest of the good
news according to Luke.
A N ECHO OF MERCY
Nathan Lane
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10.25-37) stands among the most
often-remembered stories from Jesus' teaching. The message of exploding
social classes and religious associations for ancient and contemporary
times is far-reaching. This article will argue, however, that one of the main
characters of the story has been largely neglected. Readers have
traditionally understood the lawyer as simply either a foil for Jesus or
as a character that has been portrayed wholly negatively. This article will
argue that the lawyer is actually a dynamic character who eventually
understands the parable of Jesus. Luke marks the lawyer's understanding
by placing an Old Testament quotation in his mouth. This article will first
set up some parameters for determining an echo/quotation, and then use
those parameters to measure the lawyer's response to Jesus' parable.
1 For a fuller discussion of the markers of direct quotations see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The
Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), p. 3; and Christopher D.
Stanley, Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and
Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
pp. 65-6. See also Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's
Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), who analyses all of the explicit
quotations of Scripture by Jesus in Luke.
LANE An Echo of Mercy 75
2 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989), p. 15.
3 For a literary-theoretical analysis of the dialogic relationship between texts and
communities see Michael Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. Michael
Holquist; trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Slavic Series 1;
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Julia Kristeva, influenced by Bakhtin, has worked
upon the ideas of intertextuality and concludes that all texts are in dialogue with other texts.
She famously asserts that 'any text is the absorption and transformation of another' (Desire
in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [ed. L. S. Roudiez; trans. T. Gora, A.
Jardine and L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University, 1980], p. 66). Kristeva's ideas of
intertextuality differ from those of Hays. Hays seems to limit his idea of what constitutes a
'text' to written traditions, while Kristeva asserts that any number of cultural, social,
ideological, etc. ideas function as 'texts'.
4 Hays, Echoes, pp. 29-33. For entry into the scholarly dialogue surrounding Hays's
work see Kenneth D. Litwak, 'Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on
Paul's Use of the Old Testament', CRBS 6 (1998): 260-88 and Craig A. Evans and James A.
Sanders (eds), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993).
5 Hays, Echoes, p. 30.
76 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
passage. Simply, does it fit with the rest of what we know about the
author's theology? Fifth, the rule of historical plausibility guards against
those who want to read their agendas into the author of the text. For
example, Paul read as a first-century Jew, not a Lutheran or deconstruc-
tionist. Sixth, history of interpretation looks for others who have read the
passage as an echo. This rule is the least binding of the seven; the fact that
others have not heard the echo does not mean that it does not exist.
Lastly, satisfaction asks whether or not the proposed intertextual reading
6
makes sense to a community of competent readers.
Availability
The criterion of availability holds that Luke must have had the text of
Exod. 34.6-7 available to him and that the audience of Luke must have
been familiar enough with the text to hear it. The fact that Luke uses
8
Scripture is widely held in scholarship. Some authors have even proposed
that Luke was writing to God-fearing gentiles. John Nolland bases his
9
commentary on the assumption that Luke's audience was God-fearers.
These God-fearers would have been familiar with the synagogue, liturgy
and traditions of the Jewish people. Joseph B. Tyson not only agrees with
Nolland that the implied reader is a God-fearer, but he gives seven further
10
characteristics of the implied reader. Two of these characteristics are
important for our study. First, 'The implied reader has a limited
6 It is important to note that these are not hard and fast rules; every echo does not have
to match each of these seven criteria. Instead they are given to help readers become attentive
to echoes and intertextual allusions.
7 The rule of history of interpretation will not be discussed because as stated earlier
interpreters of this passage have traditionally missed the echo.
8 Charles Kingsley Barret, 'Luke/Acts', in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson
(eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), pp. 205-19.
9 John Nolland, Luke 1-9.20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. xxxii.
10 Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press, 1992), pp. 35-9.
LANE An Echo of Mercy 11
knowledge of both pagan and Jewish religions, an aversion to some pagan
11
practices, and an attraction to Jewish religious life'. Second, 'the implied
reader is familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek translation
and acknowledges their authoritative status but is not familiar with those
methods of interpretation that find their fulfillment of the scriptures in
12
Jesus'. Thus, the implied reader is familiar with the LXX and familiar
with Jewish religious practices.
One of the central texts of the OT is Exod. 34.6-7. Literarily, the text
comes in a very tumultuous time for the ancient Israelites. Shortly after
the giving of the covenant in Exodus 20, the people apostatize and
worship the golden calf (Exod. 32). Exodus 33-34 records an intense
dialogue between Moses and YHWH concerning the future of the
covenant people. YHWH eventually concedes to have mercy on the
people and renew the covenant. Moses requests to see YHWH's glory, but
is only granted a glimpse at God's back. The Lord hides Moses in a rock.
As YHWH passes by Moses, YHWH proclaims:
The Lord is God, compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and full of
mercy and truth. He keeps righteousness and gives mercy to the
thousandth generation, taking away iniquity, unrighteousness and sin.
But he does not make clean the guilty, bringing the sins of the fathers to
the children and the children's children even to the third and fourth
generation.
The significance of this passage comes as YHWH gives Moses divine
attributes related to God's dealings with his people. These attributes
become important for future OT writers in their discussion of YHWH's
13
covenant faithfulness. The passage is quoted so much that some have
14
called it the 'adjectival credo' of the ancient Israelites.
In addition to the importance of its content, the numerous repetitions of
the credo in the Old Testament also bear witness to its significant place in
ancient Israelite religion. Parallels of Exod. 34.6-7 are seen in each of the
three major sections of the OT. In the Torah, major parallels occur in
Exod. 20.4; Num. 14.18-19 and Deut. 5.9-10. In the Prophets, there are
parallels in Jer. 39.18; Jon. 4.2; Joel 2.13 and Nah. 1.2, 3. The Writings
Recurrence
This section of the paper will look for other places than the parable of the
Good Samaritan where Luke alludes to Exod. 34.6-7. The word EXEOS
occurs six times in Luke. Five of those times come in the first chapter
(1.50, 54, 58, 72, 78). The only other occurrence comes in 10.37 in the
lawyer's answer to Jesus' question after the parable. All six of the
occurrences are echoes of Exod. 34.6-7. They will be examined in the order
of their appearance.
Of the five first occurrences, Lk. 1.50 is the most obvious parallel to
Exod. 34.6-7. Mary's Magnificat (1.46-55) comes as she is realizing that
she is carrying the Messiah. In 1.50 she exclaims, 'His EXEOS is from
generation to generation to those fearing him'. All three elements of 1.50
can be found in Exod. 34.6-7. First, TO EXEOS OCUTOU ('his mercy') refers to
the "IDPl of YHWH that is central to the credo. The of YHWH is
also central to Mary's song. It is the core attribute of God that governs
her praise. Mary can glorify the Lord because of the mercy given to her
(1.46-49) and because of the mercy given to the previous generations
(1.50-55). Second, EIS YEVECCS KOU YEVECXS is given as a temporal limit of
YHWH's mercy. The credo reflects this temporal limit with the affirm
ation of the thousand generations that YHWH will forgive or punish the
third or fourth generation of the sinful. For this attribute, the ancient
Israelites held that God's mercy would be available to innumerable
generations ('thousands'), but wrath was limited, extending to only three
or four. Mary's praise is that God's mercy spills over from each
generation to the next. Third, TOIS (|>O{$OUU£VOIS OCUTOV ('to those fearing
him') is also part of the tradition of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. 'The ones
fearing him' appears with a version of the credo in Exod. 20.6, Deut. 5.10
and Ps. 102.17. This addition adds the human part of the divine-human
element. Significant trajectories in the tradition of the credo show that
YHWH's mercy is not given without reservation, but only to the faithful.
All three of the parts of this portion of Mary's praise can be found in a
parallel to the credo in Ps. 102.17. In fact, Joseph Fitzmyer holds that this
18
section of Mary's song comes from Ps. 102.17. Not as specific as
Fitzmyer, Stephen Farris notes that EXEOS is directly tied to YHWH's
IDPl, stating 'God's "mercy" is his covenant love for his people' and links
19
it to the tradition of Exod. 34.6-7. Darrell Bock also sees a connection
with the theological balance of the credo between unmerited mercy and
20
legalistic works.
18 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981), p. 368.
19 Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and
Significance (JSNTSup, 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p. 120.
20 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (ed. Grant R. Osborne; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994), p. 47.
80 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
The second echo of the credo comes in Lk. 1.54 which states: 'He has
helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy'. While IAEOS is the only
parallel phrase from the tradition of the credo, the themes of the verse
show it to be an echo. The verse recalls YHWH's nDPI to Israel. Fitzmyer
states: 'In the Lukan context [the uses of E'AEOS] are to be understood of
Yahweh's intervention in Jesus' conception on behalf of his people Israel.
The Davidic heir to be born is yet another instance of Yahweh coming to
21
the aid of his people.' This verse emphasizes the covenantal relationship
between YHWH and ancient Israel in which the credo played a significant
role.
The third echo (Lk. 1.58) comes in the narrative immediately following
the Magnificat and is a narration of the E'AEOS mentioned in 1.54. It is also
connected to 1.49-50 with a chiastic wordplay of Mary's original praise.
Previously, Mary praised God's magnificent deeds (MsydAa) and his
mercy (TO EAEOS CXUTOU), now the narrative states that 'the Lord has
magnified (eneydAuvEv) his mercy to her' (TO EAEOS OUTOU). 22
directly or indirectly related to the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. Three out of the
five are very direct echoes. Luke 1.50 has three firm parallels with the
original. Luke 1.72 shows connections with 'the fathers' and a reference to
the covenant. Luke 1.78 shows continuities with Qumran literature that is
parallel with the credo. The other two references (Lk. 1.54, 5 8 ) are
indirectly related because they refer back to 1.50. Another important
discovery is that all of the uses of EXEOS in Luke 1 are acts of God's mercy
27
towards humanity. It is never used to describe one person's act of
kindness toward another.
Volume
Two factors govern the question of volume. First, a sheer word count is
emphasized. How much of a proposed text is assumed to be an echo? How
much of the original text is echoed? Second, the prominence of the text is
considered. Are the echoed words important words in the passage? The
first part is easily answered. The echo only contains one word and does
not provide a significant amount of this aspect of volume. The placement
of the echo, however, comes at a crucial point of the story and provides a
significant amount of 'volume'.
The parable (Lk. 10.25-37) begins with a lawyer coming to test Jesus by
asking: 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus asks: 'How do you
read the Law?' The lawyer answers correctly that a summary of the law is
'love God' and iove neighbour'. Jesus tells him that he has answered
correctly and commands: 'Do this and live.' The dialogue continues as the
lawyer again tries to trick Jesus by asking: 'Who is my neighbour?' Jesus
answers this question with the Good Samaritan parable. Jesus then asks:
'Which of these three was as neighbour to the man who fell into the hands
of robbers?' The lawyer answers, 'The one who had EXEOS on him.' Jesus
again answers: 'Go and do likewise.' The allusion comes at the climax of
28
the story. After Jesus' second question, the reader waits to hear what the
lawyer will answer. The echo of Exod. 34.6-7 constitutes the substance of
his answer.
Another factor that would have increased the 'volume' of this echo is
the placement of EXEOS in Luke's Gospel. As noted above, it appears five
times in the first chapter. The reader would have been bombarded with the
allusion very early in the narrative and would have been prepared for
further allusions. The word only appears once again in the Gospel. The
answer to Jesus' question with an echo would have reminded the readers
of the first chapter occurrences and of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7.
Thematic coherence
The rule of thematic coherence asks: 'How does hearing an echo clarify
the meaning of the passage?' Traditionally, the lawyer has been read as a
static character in this passage. In this traditional view, the answers to
both of Jesus' questions show the lawyer to be unaware of who God is and
how God acts. The lawyer's response: 'The one who had EXEOS on him' is
normally seen as racist against the Samaritan. Bock holds that the lawyer
29
cannot bring himself to mention the Samaritan's race. He asserts that,
30
'he does not understand the call of God'. Likewise, Fitzmyer believes
that the answer to Jesus' questions unmasks the lawyer's attempt at self-
31
justification. These two represent the typical stance of scholars
concerning the lawyer's answer.
Perhaps hearing the echo supports a more favourable reading for the
lawyer. The lawyer answers both of Jesus' questions correctly. When
asked: 'How do you read the Law?' he answers correctly. Jesus' response
affirms the lawyer's answer. His answer to the second question: 'Who was
a neighbour?' may also be better than most people initially imagine. I
believe that the lawyer realized the message of Jesus' parable. His response
does not de-emphasize the ethnicity of the Samaritan, but emphasizes the
covenant mercy of YHWH.
Reading E'XEOS as an echo shows the lawyer to have fully understood the
implications of the parable. The radical implication of Jesus' teaching is
that those in the community are called to extend the same kind of love
toward one's neighbour as YHWH extended toward Israel. Jesus' second
question then is directly related to the lawyer's question. Who one's
neighbour is, is dramatically changed by how one views God's actions
toward humanity. YHWH's mercy was extended to those who least
deserved it. Continually the people sinned and deserved punishment.
Exodus 34.6-7 was often used as an invocation of YHWH's covenant
32
mercy.
Usually, those reading the parable leave out the vertical aspect of this
horizontal mercy. Both of the lawyer's responses tie the two together.
Bock has rightly seen that a major emphasis of the passage is the
33
connection of the love of God and the love of others. One cannot love
God without loving others. The lawyer's assertion shows that he
recognized the Samaritan's mercy as mirroring that of YHWH.
29 Bock, Luke, p. 196.
30 Ibid., p. 199.
31 Fitzmyer, Luke XXXIV, p. 884.
32 Thorir F. Thordarson has argued that the credo played a major role in a yearly
covenant renewal ceremony of the ancient Israelites. The people rehearsed the credo at a
climatic time when it was imagined that YHWH renewed the covenant with the people ('The
Form-Historical Problem of Ex. 34.6-7', PhD diss.: Chicago Divinity School, 1959).
33 Bock, Luke, p. 196.
LANE An Echo of Mercy 83
Historical Plausibility
The rule of historical plausibility guards against the interpreter reading his
theological agenda or ideology back into the ancient texts. For the echo to
be present, the evangelist would need to have been familiar with Jewish
Scripture. This topic has been covered above.
Satisfaction
The rule of satisfaction asks whether the proposed reading makes sense.
This rule is the most intuitive and subjective. It weighs each of the other
six rules and decides accordingly. I believe that hearing an echo enhances
the meaning of the passage. All of the rules for hearing an echo are
present. The arguments for hearing an echo come in four main points.
First, Exod. 34.6-7 would have been a significant text for the early
Christians as they retained the Jewish Scriptures. Undoubtedly, Luke, as a
34 Charles Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 124, sees a chiastic structure in Luke's narration of
these two stories together. The two great commands given in 10.27 are to love God (A) and
to love neighbour (B). The Good Samaritan parable emphasizes love of neighbour (B') and
the story of Mary and Martha emphasizes love of God (A')- Perhaps, the lawyer serves as a
bridge between the two stories.
35 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1951), p. 316.
36 Interestingly, this is Martha's only appearance in Luke. She does not enjoy the
positive characterization that she receives in John. Lawyers in general are portrayed in a
negative light (cf. Lk. 7.30; 11.46, 52). This makes the lawyer of this passage all the more
remarkable.
84 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
reader of Scripture, would have been familiar with its imagery. Second, all
five of the other occurrences of eXeos are firmly connected to the imagery
of the credo. Also, all five refer to YHWH's mercy on humans. Third,
I'XEOS comes at the climax of the story, its first appearance since the
abundance of appearances in Luke 1. Fourth, hearing the echo
emphasizes the major theme of the passage - intersections of the love of
God and the love of others. By the end of the parable the lawyer
understands that eternal life requires that we interact with others as God
has interacted with us.
Chapter 6
P S A L M 2 A N D T H E S O N O F G O D I N T H E F O U R T H G O S P E L
Steven B. Nash
From the very first verse of the Fourth Gospel John alerts the reader that
his use of the Old Testament will include intentional allusions to the
Scriptures. Virtually all commentators admit an allusion to Gen. 1.1 in the
opening of the Fourth Gospel, the prepositional phrase 'in the beginning'
1
[ev apXT)] reflecting precisely the LXX rendering of the opening of the OT.
Few, however, have noted the importance of the fact that the Prologue,
though replete with striking allusions to the OT, has not a single verbatim
citation. It seems to me quite likely that in its final form, the Prologue not
only signals some important theological themes which will be developed in
the Gospel (light and darkness, revelation, the deity of Christ, new life,
testimony/witness, etc.) but also provides an interpretative clue to the
reader in terms of the use of the OT in the document. John smiles at his
biblically literate readers and alerts them to listen for further allusions to
the Scriptures as he presents his story of Jesus. In reading this Gospel the
reader must constantly ask: 'Why is John using this OT language? What
text is he evoking? Why does he want me to think about this connection?'
Indeed for John, allusions to the OT in which it appears he expects a
thoughtful reader to hear the language and to consider the context being
evoked are much more prevalent than specific citations. Early in the
Gospel the disciples recognize that Jesus is the One spoken of in the
OT Scriptures (1.45). When the writer explicitly states his purpose toward
the end of the main body of the narrative, he juxtaposes two key
OT messianic titles (20.31). What were the specific OT texts that found
their fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah? This paper will argue that John
made dual allusions to the second Psalm in the first major section of his
1 Kdstenberger, for example, observes: 'The phrase "in the beginning" echoes the
opening phrase of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1.1) and establishes a canonical link between the
first words of the OT Scriptures and the present Gospel' (Andreas J. Kdstenberger, John
(Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 25.
86 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
2
Gospel, and will offer a suggestion as to the purpose of these allusions. I
propose that John's use of Psalm 2 reflects an early Christian tradition
that saw the psalm as a bridge to the title 'Son of God', and as an
introduction to the Psalter, and so to the psalms of lament and the idea of
a rejected and suffering king. Before looking at these allusions in John, it
would be appropriate to say a word about the Psalms, in general, and
Psalm 2, in its canonical context. We will then take a sweeping glance at
the first major section of John's Gospel which includes our two allusions:
1.19-4.54. Finally we will see how these allusions function in their
contexts, evoking the OT in presenting the argument that Jesus is the
Messiah.
2 This study is based on and partially excerpted from my doctoral dissertation, 'Kingship
and the Psalms in the Fourth GospeF (PhD diss.: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000).
It was presented in an abbreviated form at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, in Washington,
DC, 2006.
3 Hans-Joachim Kraus says it was because the language of the Old Testament was 'alive
and present' that the early church could find 'analogies' to the Old Testament texts as the
apostolic preaching took form (The Theology of the Psalms [trans. K. Crim, Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992], p. 190).
4 See Beckwith who argues for the antiquity of the psalm titles: 'The psalm-titles,
therefore, may well be as old as the fourth century BC, and very little (if any) younger than the
Books of Chronicles' (Roger T. Beckwith, 'The Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 87
[1995]: 1-28 [10]. Cf. B. S. Childs, 'Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis', JSS 16 (1971): 137-
50; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979),
p. 520; B. K. Waltke, 'Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both', JBL 110 (1991): 583-96.
5 M. Hengel, 'The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel', in C. A. Evans and W. R.
Stegner (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 380-95 (382).
6 See, e.g. Beckwith, 'Early History'; S. J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the
Psalms (JSOTSup, 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); John Durham, 'The King as Messiah in
the Psalms', RevExp 81 (1984): 425-36; John W. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1986); J. L. Mays,' "In a Vision": The Portrayal of the Messiah in the
Psalms', Ex Auditu 1 (1991): 1-8; B. K. Waltke, 'A Canonical Process Approach to the
Psalms', in John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, (eds), Tradition and Testament: Essays in
Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 3-18; J. H. Walton, 'The
Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant', JETS 34 (1991): 21-31; G. H. Wilson, 'The
Shape of the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 129-42.
7 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), p. 21.
8 Ibid., p. 169.
88 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
9
theme in the Psalms has been proposed. Mays sees 'Yahweh reigns' as a
central organizing theological motif of the Psalter. He writes:
The sentence itself occurs in a relatively few but crucial psalms. In those
contexts the verb malak means more an activity than an office. It is a
term for a dynamic sovereignty administered in two patterns of activity.
One is the pattern of ordering chaos to bring forth cosmos and world.
The other is a scenario of intervening in human disorder by judgment
and deliverance. The reign of God is God's activity as creator and
maintainer of the universe, and as judge and savior who shapes the
10
movement of history toward the purpose of God.
Though it might well be argued that the search for a single unifying theme
11
in a collection as complex as the Psalter is tenuous at best, Mays's
argument certainly shows 'Yahweh's reign' as a prominent theme in the
Psalms and a useful perspective from which the collection can be
considered. A critical aspect of the theology of the Psalms is certainly the
relationship between the reign of God, and his vicegerent, the human
12
king. Mays observes that 'Statements of YHWH's dominion are
scattered through the Psalms, attached to a variety of topics. The roles
of warrior, judge, benefactor, and shepherd, which belong to the human
13
kingship depicted in the Psalms, are also those of Y H W H . ' He says that
'in the Psalms as a collection the Messiah plays a crucial role in the reign
14
of Y H W H . ' He notes that 'as sovereign, YHWH has a special person.
The person is called his king, his anointed, his son, his chosen, David his
15
servant.' As Mowinckel has noted, 'The king stands in a closer relation
16
to Yahweh than anyone else. He is His "son" (Ps ii 7).' This connection
is introduced at the very beginning of the collection, in the second
9 James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook of the Psalms (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 13. See also H. J. Kraus, who sees in the titles used
of Yahweh in the Psalter a 'witness to an absolute right of lordship and majesty over the
entire world, in contrast to the claims of all gods and supernatural powers' {Theology, p. 25).
He treats in some detail the 'Kingship of Yahweh' as a significant theological motif in the
Psalter (Theology, pp. 25-30).
10 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 7.
11 Cf. Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1975). Hasel argues for a 'multiplex' approach to Old
Testament theology. The Psalms themselves might well be so diverse as to demand a similar
approach.
12 Mowinckel wrote: 'The Israelites' attitude to their king is most characteristically
expressed in the term used of his relation to Yahweh, Yahweh's Anointed (He That Cometh,
p. 63). Cf. Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 19.
13 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 13.
14 Ibid., p. 17.
15 Ibid.,p.\9.
16 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 67.
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 89
Psalm. Notice in Ps. 2.2 that the 'plotting' is against Yahweh and his
anointed:
In Ps. 2.3 it is their 'cords and bands' that are being cast aside:
18
In 2.6, 7 the subject is God's king and God's son:
If the son but asks, the nations, indeed the ends of the earth, are offered as
an inheritance (v. 8):
n
p*r Da& -jnin^i y\bm
KCCI 6cooco o o i E0VT] TT|V KATIPOVOMICXV
a i T T j o a i Trap' s p o u aou KCCI TT|V
KCXTCXOXSOIV o o u TCX TTEPCXTCX TTJS Y%
Worshipping Yahweh (v. 11) is paralleled with doing homage to the son
(v. 12).
In fact the identification is so close, one might ask who is it that is the
place of refuge, the object of trust, in Ps. 2.12c, Yahweh, or the son?
17 We will argue below that Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the collection (see
for example Gerald T. Shepherd, Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 [1992]: 140-9
[149]). The Western variant at Acts 13.33 attributing a quotation from Ps. 2 to the 'first
psalm' may indicate that the two psalms were viewed by some at the time as a two-part
introduction to the collection.
18 The LXX diverges from the MT here. In the Greek, the anointed is the passive subject of
the verb: T have been made king by him.' In the Hebrew, Yahweh is still speaking: T have set
my king.'
19 Notice in the LXX the 'Lord' continues as the subject, in v. 12, whereas in the MT the
command is to 'kiss the son'.
90 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
20 Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988),
p. 69.
21 Cf. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, pp. 155-72. See also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 107-
23.
22 J. Kenneth Kuntz, 'Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent Research',
CRBS 2 (1994): 77-106 (93).
23 J. Clinton McCann, 'Preface', in J. C. McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the
Psalter, (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 1-10 (7).
24 Childs, Introduction, pp. 505-25.
25 Gerald H. Wilson, Editing the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76, Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1985).
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 91
not identical with their meaning in Israel's cult. This final literary
context is a setting that calls for study in its own right, along with
26
historical and cultic settings.
1 argue that this structure lends support to a 'royal' interpretation of the
Psalms, and also suggest that this structure, at least in one obvious
feature, may have been noticed by the New Testament writers. Though
not embracing the canonical shape of the Psalter as an authoritative key
to its interpretation, Shepherd likewise concluded that 'the studies on the
shape of the Psalter make it more than just probable that the book of
Psalms has received a structure that calls attention to its messianic
27
elements'.
McCann likewise recently noted that 'at the beginning of Book 1, Psalms
1 and 2 provide a literary context for reading Psalms 3-41 as well as for
30
the Psalter as a whole'.
26 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 120. L. C. Allen also noted of the placement of Psalm 2,
that 'the Royal theme is obviously of prime importance in the redactional ordering of the
Psalter' (Psalms: Word Biblical Themes [Waco: Word, 1987], p. 114).
27 J. Shepherd, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 450. Another unrelated study has
argued that the LXX translation of the Psalter emphasized the messianic elements of the
collection (J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT, 76; Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1995], esp. pp. 72-126). These two factors may provide evidence of a developing
messianic expectation in the pre-Christian era.
28 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 120.
29 P. D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 87. See
also Sheppard, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 149.
30 J. C. McCann, 'Books I—III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter', in
McCann (ed.), Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, pp. 93-107 (103).
92 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
How is it that this 'introduction' was intended to lead the reader into
the Psalter? The reader of the Psalms is first invited to identify himself
with the righteous man of Psalm 1 who delights in God's Torah. Clearly
the Psalter itself is being viewed as an expression of that Torah. Mays
notes that 'the fivefold division of the book continues the identification. It
gives the book a form that corresponds to the five books of the Mosaic
Torah. The Psalter is a 'Davidic Torah,' which corresponds to and
31
responds to the first one.' The reader is called upon to submit to God's
Word, and so to experience the abundant life of blessing that he offers.
The second part of the introduction, Psalm 2, introduces the reader to
the motif of the reign of Yahweh, as it relates to the human subject of the
Psalms, God's anointed, his 'son', the king. The absence of headings on
Psalms 1 and 2 set them off from the following series of laments. It is
possible that the Western reading of Acts 13.33 which alludes to Ps. 2.7 as
being written in the 'first psalm', may indicate that either (1) Psalms 1 and
2 were viewed as a unit introducing the Psalter or (2) The Psalter was still
in the process of being edited, and not all collections included Psalm 1 in
its current position. The reader is introduced to the king in Psalm 2, and
called upon to submit to his sovereignty. Mays states:
A topic is identified that is central and recurrent in the book as a whole:
The kingship of the Lord. The Lord appears as one who reigns. His reign
in the work [?] is represented by a place and a person. The place is Zion.
The person is his chosen king. Zion as city of God and the king as the
Lord's anointed will themselves be the subject of many particular psalms.
32
What happens to them and through them involves the reign of the Lord.
Psalm 2 also introduces conflict: resistance to the rule of God and his
anointed. This will help the reader of the Psalter understand the presence
of the 'enemies' in the Psalms, and to put the experiences of crisis in the
laments into perspective, with the assurance of God's ultimate and certain
victory. Yahweh laughs at the foolish rebellion of humans, his kingdom
will certainly be established. We should note that both Acts 4.25-28 and
Heb. 1.5 (cf. 5.5) give canonical evidence that Psalm 2 was understood and
interpreted quite early as messianic, and, in Acts, was seen as referring to
the blindness of the religious leaders and secular authorities to the identity
of Jesus. Is it coincidental that this psalm, which was arguably purposely
placed at the beginning of the Psalter, is evoked near the beginning of all
33
four Gospels, as it is at the beginning of Hebrews (1.5)?
34 Its transitional nature is evident in that in outlining John, it could be included with the
Prologue as an introduction to the document, although the majority of commentators see it
as the beginning of the main body of the narrative.
35 Though I refer to this structure I will not take the time to argue for it since it is not
integral to the point of the study. Some recent works have, with some success, attempted to
argue for the extensive use of concentric parallelism or chiasm in John. See, e.g., M.
Rodriguez-Ruiz, 'Estructura del Evangelio de San Juan desde el punto de vista cristologico y
eclesiologjco', EstBib (1998): 75-96; G. Mlakuzhyil, The Concentric Literary Structure of the
Fourth Gospel (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1987); J. Staley, 'The Structure of
John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 241-
64; P. Ellis, The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984).
36 Several studies have agreed that the Johannine Prologue is structured concentrically,
differing only in their assessment as to whether the 'centre' of the Prologue is 1.12-13 (Staley,
'Structure of John's Prologue', 1.12 (K. D. Booser, 'The Literary Structure of John 1.1-18:
An Examination of its Theological Implications Concerning God's Saving Plan through
Jesus Christ', Evangelical Journal 61 [1998]: 13-29), or 1.12b (R. A. Culpepper, 'The Pivot of
John's Prologue', NTS 27 [1981]: 1-31). For a dissenting position, see M. Coloe, 'The
Structure of John's Prologue and Genesis 1', AusBR 45 (1997): 40-55. In the above articles,
Staley and Culpepper suggest that a chiastic structure in John 1.1 might fairly be seen as a
'clue' for the reader to be ready for such a structure in the Prologue. In view of the opening of
the Gospel and the structure of the Prologue, it seems to me we should not be surprised to
find examples of concentric or chiastic parallelism in the structuring of the narrative itself.
94 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
A.
1.19-34 John: T am not the Christ' John testifies regarding Jesus'
identity
B. 1.35-41 Jewish disciples confess Jesus: 'We have found the
Messiah.. .Christ'
C. 1.42-51 Jesus' first converts confess him: Psalm 2 allusion
D. 2.1-11 (1st sign) wedding, water into wine (six large jugs)
bridegroom
E. 2.13-25 The Temple cleansing at Passover, disciples
remember Ps. 69.9
F. 3.1-3 Nicodemus: 'We know you are a teacher sent from
God'
G. 3.4 Nicodemus questions, 'How can a man be
born...?'
H. 3.5 Born of water and spirit
I. 3.6-7 'You must be born again'
H' 3.8 Born of spirit
G' 3.9 Nicodemus questions, 'How can these things be?'
F' 3.10-12 Jesus: 'Are you the teacher of Israel and don't
understand'
E' 3.13-21 The 'lifting up' of the son predicted (reference to
Moses)
D' 3.22-30 John: much water, bride, bridegroom
C 3.31-3.36 John's testimony: Psalm 2 allusion
B' 4.1-25 Samaritan considers Messiah's identity: '... Messiah ...
Christ'
A' 4.26-54 Jesus: T who speak to you am he': Samaritan testifies to Jesus'
identity
The section begins with John the Baptist's statement: T am not [the
Christ], (eyco OUK Eipi: 1.20), rather he was to prepare the way for the
'coming one'. It ends with Jesus' statement, T am he', (eyco elpi), that is,
the Christ who was to come (4.26). The concern of the section (and the
document, cf. 20.30-31) is that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament
messianic expectation, and that in him we can have new life. The reader
has already been reminded that that expectation included rejection and
suffering. The subsection 2.1-4.54 is marked off by the references to the
first sign (2.11) and second sign (4.54) in Galilee. These hearken back to
the pivotal verse 1.18, which speaks of the revelatory character of Jesus,
and also ahead to 20.30-31 and John's statement regarding his editorial
purpose in incorporating specific 'sign stories' into his Gospel. Indeed,
Jesus did many other signs, but those recorded in the Gospel were written,
that the reader might believe Jesus is the promised Messiah, and so
experience new life in him.
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 95
John turns aside the issues of Davidic royalty and Jewish messianic
expectation as though, unlike the other evangelists, he does not have to
Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology [JSNTSup,
84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 65-82, see also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 111-19). It is
notable that the Synoptic tradition evokes Ps. 2.7 (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22) in the
Father's testimony at Jesus' baptism. As such it forms the basis for the 'Son of God' title in
the first three Gospels (See J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old
Testament in the Gospel of Mark [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992], pp. 48-79; E. E. Ellis,
'Background and Christology of John's Gospel: Selected Motifs', SWJT31 [1988]: 1-12 [12]).
John's knowledge and/or use of the Synoptic tradition is a difficult question (for bibliography
and an outline of some of the complexities to the question see J. G. Dvorak, 'The
Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETS 41 [1998]: 201-13), but I would
argue that this is an example of him assuming knowledge of that tradition (as he does with
Jesus' baptism [1.29-34], the question of the place of his birth [7.41-43] and the charge
brought against him at his crucifixion [18.33-34]) while employing the same text at the same
point in his Gospel, in a somewhat different manner. Certainly if the reader is familiar with
the Synoptics, and is expecting such an allusion, he is more likely to 'hear' an allusion to the
psalm in the convergence of these titles (and I will argue, in the apparently overlooked
allusion in Jn 3.35-36).
40 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), p. 61.
41 F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1998), p. 56.
42 J. R. Michaels, John (NIBC, 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), p. 41. Mateos and
Barreto agree that Nathanael is confessing Jesus in messianic terms based on the OT, but
conclude that his parallel of Son of God and King of Israel reveals a nationalistic messianic
hope: 'Para... Natanael, o Filho de Deus significaria o rei messianico, segundo as categorias
do AT ("aquele descrito por Moises na Lei, e pelos Profeta>"), ou seja, o sucessor prometido
a Davi (cf. SI 2,2.6-7; 2 Sm 7,14; SI 89,4s.27), que efetuaria uma salvacao sociologica. O
horizonte de Natanael e nacionalista, Jesus e para ele o rei esperado, o predileto de Deus, que
restaurant a grandeza do povo, implantando o regime justo prometido pelos profetas' (J.
Mateos and J. Barreto, O Evangelho de Sao Jodo: Andlise Linguistica e Comentdrio Exegetico
[Sao Paulo: Edicoes Paulinas, 1989], p. 117).
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 97
defend the church against the charge of sedition. The issues have been
settled, and Jesus' kingship is only the transcendent royalty of the Son
43
of God.
I would argue that John is correcting, or perhaps extending the popular
messianic understanding, rather than turning it aside. Lindars points out
that for John, this royal expectation was a correct, but limited
understanding of Jesus' identity: 'Though John certainly holds the
metaphysical implications of Son of God, as outlined in the prologue, he
correctly understands it as, from a scriptural point of view, a messianic
44
title derived from Ps 2.7Z Koester agreed that this idea of a 'royal
messiah' was the starting place, but not the end, of Johannine Christology.
He argued:
Nathanael understood the titles in terms of Jewish messianic expect
ations; he coupled 'Son of God' with 'King of Israel' indicating that
both should be taken as royal titles. His understanding was informed by
OT passages that use the term 'messiah' for the 'king of Israel' who was
designated as God's 'son' in Ps 2.7, 2 Sam 7.14, and Ps 89.26-27. Jesus
45
accepted these titles, but declared they were only a beginning.
John had followed the Baptist's initial use of this title with a repetition of
'Lamb of God' in v. 36. Both 'rabbi' (v. 38) and 'Messiah' (v. 41) are
simply transliterations from Aramaic (or Hebrew) which are then
translated for the reader into Greek, as 'teacher' and 'Christ' respectively.
Why does he give the Hebrew terms? Kostenberger suggests:
Since John's Diaspora readership is not necessarily expected to know
Aramaic, the predominant language of first-century Palestine (transla
tions are also provided in 1:38; 42), John translates the Semitic term into
the equivalent Greek expression (Xpioxos, Christos, the Anointed
46
One).
However, the question is not whether the readers needed a translation, but
rather why did he include the Semitic term at all? After all, the entire
conversation was probably in Aramaic! The effect would seem to be to
remind the reader that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Hebrew (that is, the
Old Testament) expectation. The testimony of John the Baptist sets the
stage for the statements of the 'soon to be' disciples. John spoke of the
coming one (1.27) who would be Lamb of God (1.29-30) and Son of God
(1.34). If the reader is not yet certain what John is saying, the testimony of
The initial section, 1.19-4.54, asserts that the promised Messiah has come,
offering new life. I have argued that an allusion to Ps. 2.7 has served as an
exegetical bridge to the lament psalms which will be part of John's
scriptural argument that Jesus' fate was not a defeat, but a fulfilment of
57 J. Ramsey Michaels did note that Jn 3.35-36 is a 'brief meditation on Jesus' baptism'
and 'echo(es) the synoptic tradition of a voice from heaven (Mark 1.11)' (John, p. 66). It
seems more likely to me that both passages are alluding to the same source, i.e., Psalm 2.
58 'Son of Man' (3.13, 14) would appear to function separately, harkening back to its
previous usage in the Gospel (1.51), there also on the lips of Jesus (See C. Ham, 'The Son of
Man in the Gospel of John', StoneCamJ 1 [1998]: 67-84). Note that in both of these passages
the allusion is to the Mosaic corpus.
59 Note my proposed concentric outline for the section (chs 1^1) above. If this is indeed
valid, it is interesting that the two allusions to Psalm 2 occur at parallel points in the outline
C and C . (See also, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel', p. 77.)
60 Though John does not use the same word as the Psalm, the terms are virtually
synonomous and the conceptual parallel is unmistakable.
102 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
the LXX, to 'hear' an allusion to Psalm 2. The thematic and verbal links
certainly echo Psalm 2 and are sufficient to show that an allusion probably
was intended.
Conclusion
With this allusion complementing the earlier allusion to Psalm 2, the two
together bracket the citation of Ps. 69.9 at Jn 2.17, forming an inclusio
which helps explain the first explicit quotation from the Psalter in the
document. They point to Psalm 2 as the scriptural basis for the 'Son of
God' title. It is as Messiah, King, and Son of God that Jesus must suffer.
John evokes the psalm, part of the introduction to the Psalter, inviting his
readers to read the collection messianically. Thus Psalm 2, which was
certainly viewed as messianic in the first-century Church (see Heb. 1.5;
Acts 4.25-31; 13.33; cf. Mt. 3.17; Mk 1.11; Lk. 3.22; Rev. 2.26, 27), forms
a kind of hermeneutical bridge to Psalm 69, and with it, to the other
Davidic psalms of lament. Psalm 2 itself envisioned resistance, however
futile, to the reign of Yahweh and his anointed one. The lament psalms
are evoked in John as specific expressions of that resistance. And so the
Psalms are used in this Gospel to explain the rejection of Jesus and as a
vindication of his messianic identity.
Chapter 7
Steven E. Runge
Introduction
The text of Acts 2.17-21 is generally regarded as a quotation from the
Septuagint ( L X X ) . However, the number and nature of the departures
from the LXX reading that are attested in Acts 2 have led many to
1
conclude that more is going on here than simple quotation. Ruis-Camps
and Read-Heimerdinger state: 'More than simply citing the passage of
Joel 2:28-32a LXX word for word, Peter will interpret and adapt it to [sic]
2
so as apply it to the current situation.' In terms of textual criticism,
several significant variants are attested between the Western text and the
Alexandrian, with the former having a shorter reading rather than a
longer one. Efforts to resolve these problems have followed traditional
lines, arguing either for original adaptation by the writer, or for some kind
3
of correction by a later scribe.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical impact that these
The two critical LXX texts and Codex Vaticanus read a rather generic
temporal expression IGTCXI p e x a T a u T a , very much in keeping with that
4
observed in the Hebrew Bible ( M T ) Q T ^ t J K ""^O!)- Barrett comments
that 'MSTCX TauTa simply looks forward and declares that the events in
question will happen at some time in the future. Ev xaTs e a x a T a i s
ilMepais points to the last act of history and claims that they are part of
5
God's final act of redemption'. Similarly, Conzelmann states that the
reference to the 'last days' 'has become a stereotyped expression (cf. 1 Tim
4:1; 2 Tim 3:1) and no longer expresses an expectation of an immediate
6
end'. The insertion of a more detailed temporal expression has the effect
of recasting the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit from some point in
time after the events of Joel 2, to an eschatological time, one which Peter is
7 Polhill states: 'Joel's prophecy was originally given after a locust plague had ravaged
the land, creating a severe famine. Joel called the people to repentance, promising the
restoration of their prosperity and going on to foresee the coming of the Day of the Lord, the
dawn of the messianic age, when the Spirit would be poured out on all of Israel. Peter could
not miss its applicability to Pentecost. Joel began his prophecy by saying "and afterward."
Peter's version refers more specifically to "in the last days," reflecting his conviction that the
messianic age had already dawned in the resurrection of Christ, that we are indeed already
living in the final days of God's saving history' (J. B. Polhill, Acts, p. 109).
8 Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 295.
9 'Asysi 6 8eos (kiysx K i i p i o s , D E latt Ir , GrNy) is an addition to the text of Joel (3.5
lat
has KOCSOTI EITTEV icupios). An ascription is no doubt desirable in Acts; in Joel, after 2.27 (Eyco
K u p i o s 6 0EoG uucov) it was not necessary' (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:136).
10 L X X (Cambridge) and BHS join the temporal clause with the main clause using KCCI,
whereas LXX (Gottingen) uses asyndeton. Whether the KCCI is original in the LXX or not, its
omission in any GNT manuscripts is most likely caused by the addition of this prophetic
formula.
11 Note that an inverted form of this frame (6 0E6S EITTEV) is found in Acts 7.7, also clause
medial in an OT quote. However there is a variant reading attested in D, E and the Majority
text, which transposes the elements, thus matching the reading found in Acts 2.17.
12 2 Sam. 23.3; Isa. 40.1; 41.14; 44.6.
13 For a thematic motivation for the reading in Bezae, cf. Ruis-Camps and Read-
Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p . 169: 'Whereas 0E6S is a reference to
God, Kiipios is potentially ambiguous since it can mean Yahweh, as in LXX, or Jesus. Verse
2.33 will make clear that Jesus is intended.'
106 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Watson notes that expressions like HIIT'DiM and HliT H3, 'even
if [they are] later editorial insertions - can help show where major
structural segments are demarcated', stating on the following page that
14
these introductions can also be used to arouse the reader's interest.
Parunak, in attempting to provide a unified description of the discourse
function of miTTD&W, notes that its most basic function is to mark a
T "* 15
disjunction in the text. But he also claims that it is a focus marker,
signalling 'a highly local highlighting of a clause or phrase that merits the
16
recipient's attention'.
In the vast majority of occurrences of HI IT TDM in the Hebrew Bible,
the formula is found at the end of a clause, rather than in the middle as
here in Acts 2. Only 14 out of the 65 (i.e., 22%) occurrences in the Book of
the Twelve are clause-medial, and the proportion is even lower for the
entire Hebrew Bible, 39 out of 268 (i.e., 15%). Of the 14 clause-medial
occurrences of HI !T "DIM in the Twelve, nine of them separate a temporal
frame of reference (e.g., Tt will come about in those days...') from the
disclosure of what will happen at that time. In other words, placing the
formula clause-medially after the temporal frame has the effect of
delaying the disclosure of what exactly will come about in that day. This
delay creates a greater sense of expectation than would have occurred
using a clause-initial HIIT lib, or a clause-final HIiT'OK]
I propose that the clause-medial prophetic formula used in the context
of Acts 2.17 has the effect of highlighting the action that will come about
in the last days, in a manner that is completely consistent with the usage of
rnrP""DtM in Jeremiah and the Twelve. In other words, 'the pouring out of
the Spirit' receives special prominence due to the clause-medial placement
of the prophetic formula, the core point that Peter is making with the
crowd regarding their misinterpretation of what they have seen. The
writer could have just as easily (and perhaps more properly) used a clause-
14 W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T & T
Clark, 2001), p. 164.
15 H. V. D. Parunak, 'Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Formulas in Jeremiah', in
R. D. Bergen (ed.), Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 489-519 (514).
16 Ibid., p. 511. O'Connor attributes a similar function to oracle titles such as rnrrTMW
which he refers to as 'discourse level focus-markings' (M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), p. 356. Similarly, Revell notes that repeated speech
introductions can often be best explained as 'intended to draw attention to the following
speech' (E. J. Revell, 'The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical
Hebrew', VT 47 (1997): 91-110 (109). Thus, most explanations either claim that it is
structural or else accomplishing some sort of highlighting, but not both. I have argued
elsewhere that these issues are more accurately described in terms of an entailment hierarchy,
whereby one function is entailed within another; cf. S. E. Runge, 'A Discourse-Functional
Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative' (diss.: University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007), esp. ch. 6.
RUNGE Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 107
adverbial use can give us insight into the significance of ye found in Acts
2.18. Joel 2.29a is the fifth consecutive clause to begin with KCCI, making it
difficult to construe it as an additive without making reference to the
Hebrew reading. However, the presence or absence of an additive in this
context has a significant effect on how the information structure of the
clause is processed.
Acts 2.17c and 2.17d begin with what has traditionally been called a
contrastive topic. This construction has the effect of establishing specific
19
topical frames of reference for the clause that follows. Each topic frame
is followed by the object of the verb, which I construe as positioned before
20
the verb for the sake of emphasis. Thus, two back-to-back clauses use a
fronted subject to create a new topical frame, followed immediately by an
emphasized element before the verb. This structure in v. 17 leads Lenski to
state, 'the three predicates form a unit, each predicate saying the same
21
thing with variation, as each subject is only a variation'. Comparing the
reading in Acts to Joel 2.29, the fronting of km TOUS SOUAOUS KCU km
L X X
19 For a thorough introduction to the information structure observed in the Greek New
Testament, cf. S. H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook
on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: SIL International, 2nd edn,
2000).
20 Ibid., pp. 37-45.
21 Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75.
22 Most commentators understand the fronted prepositional phrases of Acts 2.18a as
emphatic, e.g., Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75; J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Acts of the Apostles (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 253; Barrett, Acts of the
Apostles, 1:137; B. M. Newman and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles
(UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1972),
p. 44; however none discuss the difference that the presence or absence of ys has on this
reading.
RUNGE Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 109
23
will happen to the menservants and maidservants. Thus, ye in Acts 2.18
has the effect of disambiguating the information structure of the clause,
clarifying that the fronted element is emphatic, not contrastive. Though
the reading in the LXX is ambiguous, NETS has translated the Kai
adverbially. Thus, while reading ye may represent an addition with respect
to the LXX, it plays a significant role in disambiguating the intended
meaning of the clause, preserving the clarity that is attested in the MT.
Codex Bezae departs from the other major manuscripts regarding the
2 4
reading of Acts 2.18, reading eyco for y s . As I stated, Acts 2.17c and
2.17d began with contrastive subjects that establish new topical frames of
reference for the following clause. This could create the expectation that
the fronting of ETH TOUS SouXous pou Ka\ im x a s SouXas \iov in v. 18 is
serving a similar function. However, the presence of the explicit subject
eycb in Bezae would be construed as yet another topic frame, establishing
a contrastive switch from the topic of v. 17d. Hence, even without ye, the
fronted prepositional phrase would still be analysed as emphatic in Bezae
since the question of whether it is a contrastive topic or not is settled by
the presence of the contrastive personal pronoun. Bezae also omits the
temporal phrase EV TaTs l u p o u s EKEivais, which further disambiguates
that the motivation for fronting im TOUS SOUXOUS pou Kai im TCCS SouXas
pou is for emphasis, not to establish a contrastive topic.
In the LXX editions of the quoted text, the Gottingen and Cambridge
editions differ in their understanding regarding the intended parallelism of
Joel 2.30. Based on the placement of the atnach accent in BHS, the text is
to be read as a general statement about the giving of signs in the heavens
and on the earth. This is followed by what would technically be called a
right-dislocation, a syntactically independent appositional phrase that
provides epexegetical information about some referent in the main clause.
In this case, the signs (and possibly the wonders too) are given greater
specification: blood, fire and columns of smoke. This is the reading
adopted in the NETS version, exemplified in the use of a colon to separate
the main clause from the right-dislocation. The Gottingen edition uses a
comma to disambiguate how the text should be read, in agreement with
BHS and NETS.
There is an alternative reading reflected in the Cambridge edition,
wherein there is a comma following oupavco. While the Cambridge edition
is not considered the authoritative critical text, its reading points to the
fact that the LXX text has some degree of ambiguity in how to read the
verse, one which requires punctuation to disambiguate. This has a rather
significant effect on the verse structure, creating contrasting statements
about what will happen in the heavens and on the earth.
KOC\ Scooco TEpocTa EV Tea oupavcp, And I will give wonders in the
heavens,
K a i
ffi V % a \ | j a Ka\ m j p And on the earth, blood and fire
Ka\ ax|ji5a KOTTVOG, and columns of smoke.
Read in this way, the verse creates a chiasm with the prepositional
phrase in the second colon, which creates a new spatial frame of reference
to switch from 'in the heavens' to 'on the earth'. The verb in the second
colon would be construed as elided and thus dependent upon the first
colon. On this basis, it seems that the reading in the LXX editions evinces
an ambiguity in the Greek, one which each clarifies through the use of
punctuation.
On the other hand, the NT manuscripts nearly universally attest three
additions in Acts 2.19, unattested in the LXX or in the MT: KCCTCO, OTIM^OC
and avco. The presence of these words effectively counters the possibility
of the second reading found in Cambridge edition, essentially disambig-
112 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Conclusions
We have surveyed how insights from discourse grammar can inform and
even correct text-critical judgements in new and helpful ways.
Understanding the discourse function of clause-medial prophetic formulas
added insight into why an unattested addition in either the L X X or M T
could reasonably be construed as original, helping to corroborate the
widespread manuscript support. Insights from information structure
combined with a functional description of KCU allowed us to see the
meaningful difference that various readings would make on the overall
structuring of the passage. Attention to the impact that the various
readings would have on the poetic structure of the passage provided
additional criteria for sifting through the text-critical evidence attested in
this passage. Only one of the five significant variations from the LXX
RUNGE Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 113
reading have been given much consideration within the literature, other
than evaluating the manuscript evidence for or against the reading.
The kinds of unattested variants found in Acts 2.17-20 often raise
questions about whether they represent some later L X X reading, or
alternatively an adaptation of the original into some new and different
message. Other than the change in temporal frame from generic to
specifically eschatological in Acts 2.17, I have demonstrated that each
variation plays a significant role in its context of preserving the original
Hebrew meaning, at least as it is attested in BHS, by clarifying ambiguity
observed in the LXX readings. I contend that these variations should not
be understood as evidence of later recensions, nor should they be rejected
based on their absence from the LXX reading. Rather, the variations evince
a consistent attempt to provide grammatical clarity to the message
communicated.
Chapter 8
G E N E S I S 1-3 A N D C O N C E P T I O N S O F H U M A N K I N D I N
4 Q I N S T R U C T I O N , P H I L O A N D P A U L
Matthew Goff
Introduction
4QInstruction (1Q26, 4Q415-18, 423) is the last lengthy text from Qumran
1
to be published. Its official edition appeared in 1999. The composition
includes a dualistic understanding of humankind, using 'flesh' and 'spirit'
terminology that is grounded in an interpretation of Genesis 1-3. There
are similar anthropological reflections and exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in Philo
and Paul. I will argue that these authors were influenced by Palestinian
Jewish traditions that are attested in 4QInstruction, which shaped how
they understood Genesis 1-3. Since 4QInstruction is a sapiential text, it is
possible to understand this as an example of the influence of the Jewish
wisdom tradition on both Philo and Paul. I will not be able to examine the
full range of their writings but will focus on De opificio mundi and 1
Corinthians.
4QInstruction
2
First, some background regarding 4QInstruction. Most commentators
A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature in San Diego, California on 18 November 2007.1 would also like to thank Eibert
Tigchelaar for sending me his paper, 'Flesh and Spirit: Reading 4QInstruction in the Light of
1 Corinthians', that he presented in Leuven in December 2007.
1 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2.
4QInstruction (Musar le Mebin): 4Q415ff. With a Re-edition of 1Q26 (DJD, 34; Oxford.
Clarendon, 1999). T. Elgvin is the editor of 4Q423.
2 Recent books on 4QInstruction include M. J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom
of 4QInstruction (STDJ, 50; Leiden: Brill, 2003); B. G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The
Qumran Wisdom Document 'Musar leMevin' and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions
(WUNT, 2/201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning
for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish
Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ, 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001). For other scholarship, consult
GOFF Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind 115
The Vision of Hagu, the Fleshly Spirit and the Spiritual People
The expression 'the vision of Hagu' f U n n ]1Tn) also signifies heavenly
revelation in 4QInstruction. The composition mentions this vision in a
lesson regarding the 'spiritual people' and the 'fleshly spirit' in 4Q417 1 i
13-18. This much-discussed passage reads:
13. And you,
14. understanding one, inherit your reward by remembering the mi[ght
because] it is coming. Engraved is the statute, and ordained is all the
punishment,
15. because engraved is that which has been ordained by God against all
the iniquities of] the sons of Sheth. The book of remembrance is written
before him
16. for those who keep his word - that is, the vision of Hagu for the
book of remembrance. He bequeathed it to Adam (OTX) together with a
spiritual people, be[cau]se
17. he fashioned it (lit. 'him') according to the likeness of the holy ones.
But no more did he give Hagu to the fleshly spirit because it did not
distinguish between
5
18. [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit.
This article will not discuss all aspects of this complex passage. It is
addressed to the mebin and is presented as a teaching that he is to ponder
and study (11. 13-14). The vision of Hagu is associated with a heavenly
6
book and is thus reasonably considered a form of divine revelation. Lines
13-15 suggest that the revealed content of the vision includes knowledge
of the final judgement. He is to understand that this judgement is divinely
ordained (cf. 4Q416 1; 4Q418 69 ii).
The vision of Hagu passage lays out two different types of humankind -
m
the 'spiritual people' (Tin US) and the 'fleshly spirit' p (TH). The
former has access to the vision and the latter does not. The spiritual
people are connected to angels (O^ETHp) and revelation (Hagu). The
fleshly spirit is associated with a lack of revelation and of the knowledge
of good and evil. The 'spirit' of the spiritual people represents affinity with
the heavenly world, and the 'flesh' of the fleshly spirit signifies separation
from this realm. The expression 'spiritual people' is not attested elsewhere
in 4QInstruction but 'fleshly spirit' is. 4Q416 1 12 states that 'every fleshly
spirit will be laid bare', or destroyed, during the final judgement. The
5 Scholarship on this passage includes GofT, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 80-126;
Wold, Women, Men and Angels, pp. 124-49; J. J. Collins, Tn the Likeness of the Holy Ones:
The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran', in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich
(eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30; Leiden: Brill,
1999), pp. 609-19; A. Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination: Weisheitliche Urorahung und
Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 80-90. For
discussion of the transcription upon which this translation is based, see Goff, Worldly and
Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 84-8. Consult also Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV,
pp. 160-6; Tigchelaar'To Increase Learning, pp. 52-4.
6 The term 'the vision of Hagu' is similar to 'the book of Hagu' mentioned in the
Damascus Document and the Rule of the Congregation (CD 10:6; 14:6-8; lQSa 1:6-7).
GOFF Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind 117
author in 4Q418 811-2 tells the addressee that he has been separated from
the fleshly spirit in order to remove him 'from all that he (God) hates'. The
fleshly spirit is doomed to die and is distinguished from the intended
audience of the composition.
The phrase 'fleshly spirit' evokes the mortality of the body. In the
Hodayot the expression denotes bodily, creaturely existence that is
distinguished from a soul or spirit with a connection to the heavenly
realm. The speaker asserts: 'In the mysteries of your insight [you]
have apportioned all these things... [However, what is] the fleshly spirit
p E Q r m ) to understand all these matters?' (1QH 5:19-20). The poet
refers to his base humanity with the term 'fleshly spirit' and he
acknowledges its tension with his reception of revelation. In
4QInstruction the 'fleshly spirit' is denied revelation. The assertion in
4Q418 81 that the mebin is not among the fleshly spirit indicates that in
this work, unlike the Hodayot, the expression does not refer simply to
mere bodily existence. The phrase can be reasonably understood as
referring to the rest of humankind, aside from the elect to whom the
composition is addressed. 4Q418 81 asserts that God 'hates' the fleshly
spirit, but polemic about its evil nature is not a prominent feature of the
text (cf. 4Q416 1 16; 4Q417 1 ii 12). It never states that they are wicked.
People in this category would include the unjust but would not be limited
to such people. The core issue is not that the people of the fleshly spirit are
evil but that they do not have the knowledge necessary to obtain eternal
life. Those among the fleshly spirit are not in the lot of the angels, do not
possess the raz nihyeh, and thus do not have the knowledge necessary to
obtain eternal life. The situation is different with the spiritual people.
Elsewhere 4QInstruction asserts that the angels enjoy eternal life (4Q418
69 ii 13). Since they are associated with the angels, the spiritual people can
be linked to eternal life as well. They have the prospect of life after death,
whereas the fleshly spirit does not.
The spiritual people are not only associated with the angels. The vision
is also disclosed to (1.16). While the interpretation of this term is
debated, it is reasonable to consider a reference to Adam, as John
7
Collins has argued (cf. 1QS 3:18). The reference to the knowledge of
good and evil in the Hagu passage evokes Adam. The phrase 'according to
the likeness of the holy ones' (CTKJnp rP3D!7D) can be understood as
paraphrasing the expression 'in the image of God' (DTf*?K D^UD) from
7 Collins, *In the Likeness of the Holy Ones', pp. 613, 615. Strugnell and Harrington,
Qumran Cave 4. XXIV, p. 164, suggest that is either a reference to the patriarch Enosh
or to humanity in general. Both interpretations are possible but difficult to uphold. Enosh
never receives revelation in early Jewish literature. If refers to humankind in 4Q417 1 i
16, the line states that all of humanity receives the vision of Hagu. This is difficult to reconcile
with the assertion in line 17 that this vision is not given to the fleshly spirit.
118 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
8 The text can also be read as mentioning the inclination, or yetzer, of these spiritual
people.
9 The phrase "lED 1TH may reflect the expression i m ©S3 ('living being') of Gen. 2.7.
See Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 98-9.
10 I explore this interpretation at greater length in 'Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life:
Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in G. Xeravits (ed.), The Book of
Wisdom and Jewish Hellenistic Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Lange, Weisheit und
Prddestination, p. 53, translates: 'Doch die Erklarung wurde nicht dem Geist des Fleisches
gegeben.'
11 J. J. Collins, 'The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and
the Wisdom of Solomon', in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL, 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Peeters, 2003), pp. 287-305 (esp. 302); idem, 'Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of
Adam and Eve', in H. Najman and J. H. Newman (eds), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation:
Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup, 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 293-308.
GOFF Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind 119
similar to the spiritual people and different from the fleshly spirit. The
spiritual people possess the vision of Hagu, as the addressee has the
mystery that is to be. He is in the lot of the angels; the spiritual people are
in the likeness of the holy ones. Like the spiritual people, the mebin is
removed from the fleshly spirit (4Q418 81 1-2). The affinity with the angels
suggests that the spiritual people enjoy the prospect of life after death,
whereas the fleshly spirit does not. The elect addressees of 4QInstruction
were apparently taught that they were to join the angels after death, and
in that sense their elect status is only fully realized after the expiration of
12
the body. As the spiritual people are connected to Adam, 4QInstruction
portrays the addressee as having authority over Eden in 4Q423.
4Q417 1 i 13-18 provides a lesson to the mebin about his elect status.
The spiritual people signify the elect. As such, they represent an ideal that
the addressee is to emulate. This instructional aim, and the pedagogical
nature of the work in general, assumes that the mebin could follow the
wrong path. He can be like the spiritual people or fleshly spirit. It is God's
plan that he should be among the elect but he has to realize this destiny
through his own conduct, and he could fail.
Philo
One of Philo's numerous interpretations of Genesis 1-3, known as the
'double creation of man', is similar to the Hagu passage of 4QInstruction
13
in several respects. Philo argues that Genesis 1-3 has two different
accounts of Adam. These biblical chapters contain two separate creations
of man, one heavenly and one earthly. Writing before the emergence of
4QInstruction, in the 1980s Thomas Tobin suspected that Philo's 'double
creation of man' relies on older tradition because at times he often
'corrects' the dichotomy so that it refers not to two men but two minds
14
(e.g., Plant. 44-46; QG 1.8). As John Collins has suggested,
4QInstruction provides an impression of older Jewish interpretative
Paul
23 Refer to the summary of the relevant scholarship in Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', pp. 371—
4.
24 Aside from his 'Flesh and Spirit' article, consult J. Frey, 'The Notion of "Flesh" in
4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage', in D. Falk et al. (eds), Sapiential,
Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ, 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
pp. 197-226; idem, 'Die paulinische Antithese von "Fleisch" und "Geist" und die
palastinisch-judische Weisheitstradition', ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77.
25 Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', p. 403.
26 For the sapiential elements of 1 Cor. 1-4, see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 55-62; S. Grindheim, 'Wisdom for the
Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 2.6-16)', JBL 121 (2002): 689-709
(esp. 692-7). Note that the word oofyia occurs sixteen times in this unit, but only three times
elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 11.33; 1 Cor. 12.8; 2 Cor. 1.12). Paul in this section also employs the
term 'mystery' to signify supernatural revelation that is disclosed to the elect, similar to the
usage of raz in 4QInstruction (1 Cor. 2.7; 4.1).
GOFF Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind 123
The core distinction in this passage is not simply between sarx and pneuma
(v. 50). The pericope is dominated by two interlocking oppositions. One is
between psyche (VJAJXT)) and spirit. The other is between Adam and Christ.
This latter dichotomy is expressed by three pairs of phrases - the first
Adam and last Adam (v. 45), the first man and the second man (v. 47),
and the man of dust and the man from heaven (v. 49). In the logic of the
passage, psyche is associated with the man of dust and pneuma with the
man from heaven.
While the two words have a range of meanings, in 1 Corinthians the
essential difference between them is that psyche signifies the vitality of
living people, restricted to their creaturely existence, whereas spirit
denotes the aspect of the human being that has affinity with the heavenly
realm (cf. 1 Cor. 2.13-15). The meaning of the term psyche in 1 Cor. 15.44-
49 is thus similar to that of the word sarx in 1 Cor. 3.1 and ruah basar
28
('fleshly spirit') in 4QInstruction. All three expressions in these passages
refer to forms of human existence that end with physical death. All three
understand this type of life as a category of humankind that comprises not
only the wicked, but all those who do not have the knowledge or potential
to attain a blessed afterlife after death. I have already argued this with
regard to the fleshly people of 1 Cor. 3.1 and the fleshly spirit of
4QInstruction. In 1 Cor. 15 the distinction between the two anthropo
logical categories conveyed by psyche and pneuma, respectively, is made at
the eschatological moment of the resurrection of the dead - some people
have their existence end at physical death and others will live on, not with
their 'psychical' bodies but rather their 'spiritual' bodies (v. 44; cf. v. 21).
4QInstruction and chs 3 and 15 of 1 Corinthians contrast those who are
merely fleshly or 'psychical' with those who are spiritual. Both documents
27 Recent studies of this famous passage include J. R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1
Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 2000); Hultgren, 'Origin of Paul's Doctrine', pp. 343-70.
28 I am not arguing for a general identification of the terms but rather that their
meanings are compatible in these specific texts.
124 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
associate spirit with eternal life after death, but one should not conclude
that they operate with the same conception of spirit or of the nature of the
eternal life that awaits the elect.
Paul and 4QInstruction utilize Genesis 1-3 in similar ways. In
4QInstruction the spiritual people are described with language that
recalls Adam in Genesis 1 and the work's portrait of the fleshly spirit
alludes, more indirectly than in the case of the spiritual people, to Adam
in Genesis 2-3. In 1 Corinthians 15, Adam, the man of dust, is described
with language that recalls Adam in Genesis 2-3, while the passage's
account of Jesus, the man from heaven, draws upon terminology used for
Adam in Genesis 1. Paul's claim in 1 Cor. 15.49 that 'we will also bear the
image (TT|V e'tKovcri of the man of heaven' alludes to Gen. 1.27. The word
EIKCOV translates D7H in LXX Gen. 1.27. In the schema of 1 Corinthians 15,
bearing this 'image' refers to the 'spiritual body' which the followers of
29
Christ will receive when the dead are resurrected. The 'image' language
in 1 Cor. 15.49 is also employed in relation to Adam, the first man, a move
which is unparalleled in 4QInstruction.
The language of Gen. 2.7 is also applied to both Adam and Christ. This
is obvious in the case of Adam, the 'man of dust'. The passage's frequent
use of'dust' (XOI'KOS) language (vv. 47,48,49) is a patent reference to Gen.
2.7, which is loosely cited in 1 Cor. 15.45. This verse states: 'Thus it is
1
written, "The first man, Adam became a living being [sis v^X ^ £>caoav]";
the last Adam became a life-giving spirit [in/sOua £ C O O T T O I O U V ] ' . LXX Gen.
30
2.7 reads: 'God formed man, dust from the earth [TOV dvBpcoirov x°uv
duo -rfjs yfjs], and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man
31
became a living being (eis V|AJXT|V Ccooav).' The expression eis ^ A J X ^ 1
Conclusion
Philo and Paul, while undoubtedly coloured by their interaction with the
wider Hellenistic world, turned to Genesis 1-3 to explain the nature of
humankind in ways that are similar to 4QInstruction. Paul and the author
of 4QInstruction both offer a dualistic understanding of humankind.
They both assert in ways that draw upon Genesis 1-3 that some have the
potential for life after the death of the body and that others do not. The
presentation of fleshly and spiritual types of humankind in 4QInstruction
is similar to Philo's argument that Genesis 1-3 recounts a mortal and an
immortal Adam. 4QInstruction suggests that Philo and Paul appropriated
and reworked exegetical traditions regarding Genesis 1-3 attested in the
Jewish wisdom tradition in Palestine in the second century BCE. This thesis
deserves to be explored further in future scholarship, because it can make
a substantial contribution to the study of both Philo and Paul. This is
particularly the case with regard to Paul since scholars at times explain his
anthropology and use of Genesis by turning to Philo, as well as the
Wisdom of Solomon, and thus understand Paul as drawing primarily on
32
Hellenistic Jewish ideas. This article addresses but does not fully
investigate the possibility that the Hellenistic Jewish traditions that
shaped Paul's thought can themselves be traced back to Palestinian
sources to an extent that was not possible before the full publication of the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
W H Y C A N ' T T H E O N E W H O D O E S T H E S E T H I N G S L I V E B Y T H E M ' ?
T H E U S E O F L E V I T I C U S 18.5 I N G A L A T I A N S 3.12
Preston M. Sprinkle
1. Introduction
Galatians 3.10-14 is often considered among the most difficult passages in
1
Paul, not because his assertions are ambiguous - they are in fact quite
clear. The difficulty lies, rather, in his choice of scriptural texts used to
support his assertions. With regard to Paul's use of Scripture here, most
commentators focus on the enigma of 3.10 leaving little space for 3.12.
But this latter passage, where Paul cites Lev. 18.5, plays a more
fundamental part in Paul's theology of law: not only is Lev. 18.5 the
'John 3.16 of early Judaism' ('the one who does these things will live by
them'), but it is also the antithesis of Paul's own 'John 3.16', namely, Hab.
2.4. But why? Why does Paul reject Moses' promise that if you obey the
law you will have life? Or, why can't 'the one who does these things live by
them'?
The following treatment will concentrate on Gal. 3.11-12, giving special
attention to Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12b. I will first mention four
main views on Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12.1 will then interact with
these views by examining the Leviticus citation in light of the letter as a
whole, noting certain features of the letter that may shed light on Paul's
opposition to Lev. 18.5.
This paper was presented at the annual SBL meeting in Washington D C in November
2006 and is reproduced here with little modification. For a more recent and thorough
discussion of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12, see my, Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early
Jewish and Christian Interpretation (WUNT 2.241; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), pp. 133—
64.
1 Richard Hays, The Letter to the Galatians, (The New Interpreter's Bible, 11; Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 257; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), p. 137.
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 127
2
1 Law/Gospel (I). Doing the law in order to gain life is impossible
because no one (in Adam) can do the law perfectly. So, the 'one who
does these things can't live by them' because of his/her condition:
the problem is an anthropological one.
3
2 Law/Gospel (2). Doing the law is denounced in light of faith,
because the law itself is defective. Not only is the law unable to give
life, but the Leviticus construction itself underscores human agency
in attaining salvation. So, the 'one who does these things can't live
by them' because 'these things' lack the power to give life to the
human doer: the problem is a nomological one.
4
3 Non-Soteriological. Lev. 18.5 does not address soteriology: 'the one
who does these things will live in them'; that is, if you do the law you
will have to continue to live in accordance with it. So, 'living in these
things' is the wrong sphere of existence: the problem is a locational
one.
2 T. R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 60-1; Frank Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1992), p. 124; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the
Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 128-64; F. F. Bruce, The
Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982),
p. 159 (to some extent); R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988), p. 146; Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books,
1990), pp. 120-1; F. MuBner, Der Galaterbrief(HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 191,
229-31; U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984),
p. 129: 'Da dem sundigen Menschen die Befolgung aller Gebote aber nicht moglich ist, kann
er durch das gesetz nicht am Leben gelangen (vgl. V. 2If)'.
3 Hans Joachim Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
Galater 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), p. 136; see also G. Klein,
Tndividualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus', in G. Klein (ed.), Rekonstruktion und
Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze am Neuen Testament (BEvT, 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969),
pp. 180-224 (206), cited in Eckstein, Verheifiung, p. 149; cf. 144-5. Francis Watson is similar,
but frames the issue in terms of divine and human agency; Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith
(London: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 162, 200-1, 208, 276-7, 329, 428, 475.
4 See in particular James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 152-4, 374-5, and his recent collection of essays, idem, The New
Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), pp. 65-7; cf. 125-6, 446,
454; see also Robert A. Bryant, The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS, 185;
Atlanta: SBL, 2001), p. 177; Friedrich Avemarie, 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According
to the Scripture: Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor and
Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem:
Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 125-48 (141); Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The
Hermeneutical Significance of Paul's Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (SBLDS, 14;
Atlanta: SBL, 2004), p. 174; cf. 159, 167-77.
128 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
5
4 Salvation History. Faith (and Hab. 2.4) represents the time of
covenant fulfilment; the law (and Lev. 18.5) represents the old
covenant. So 'the one who does these things' no longer can 'live by
them': the problem is a chronological one.
3. Critical Analysis
Paul here reveals his disagreement with the common Jewish understand
ing that the law was given for the purpose of leading to life, an
understanding no doubt embraced by his opponents in Galatia.
Significant for our concerns is the question whether Paul denies the
validity of the life-giving power of the law in light of his anthropology or
in light of his nomology. That is, is Paul critiquing the law or humanity's
ability to perform it in 3.21? Bruce Longenecker argues for the latter:
'Paul evidently assumes a fundamental problem not with the law itself but
with the condition of humanity; the law sets out a path to life, but those
6
who seek to live by it inevitably fail to do so.' This emphasis on the
condition of humanity for reading Gal. 3.21 may find additional support
in 3.22 where Paul says that all humanity is under sin.
5 Joel Willitts, 'Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', TynBul
54 (2003): 105-22; Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument
and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), p. 59.
6 Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in
Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), p. 120; see J. L. Martyn (Galatians: A Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], pp. 359-60) and
Hays (Faith, pp. 112-16) for the opposing view. I do not deny that Paul's radically pessimistic
anthropology would prevent him from thinking that humanity is capable of adequately
performing the law, but I do not think that this is the main point here in 3.19-22.
Longenecker finds clear support for this in Romans 7 where Paul labours to defend the law
against the potential claim that it was responsible for bringing death rather than life (Rom.
7.7-13). There, Paul emphatically, and empirically, claims that the law is not to blame; rather,
the sin (or Sin), which took hold of the law and used it to effect death, is the culprit. But even
in Romans 7-8, while not blaming the law for sin (7.7-13), Paul does affirm the law's inability
to rescue humanity from their plight (8.3-4). And so it seems that both ideas are clearly in
view there, the condition of mankind and the powerlessness of the law.
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 129
But against this view, it is not clear that Paul is thinking primarily along
anthropological lines here. In Gal. 3.19-22, Paul's discussion concerns the
law, as his opening question makes clear (3.19), and the rest of this
passage is focused on the salvation-historical role of the law (3.19-25).
Even in 3.22, the one statement that refers explicitly to the condition of
7
mankind, is focused on the accomplishments of the law ( = 'Scripture'): it
has 'enclosed all things under sin'. And so Paul's primary attention in 3.21
is on the inability of the law to grant life, not on humanity's inability to
gain life. This does not lessen Paul's pessimistic anthropology nor does it
deny that the sinful condition of humanity prevents an adequate
performance of the law. But when it comes to the supposed life-giving
power of the law, Paul rejects this notion on fundamental grounds.
Therefore, Paul does not entertain the suggestion that 'the law may in
principle set out a means to life', but 'in practice something seems to have
8 9
gone wrong' - at least not in Gal. 3.19-25. Paul, rather, denies both the
10
ability and the intention of the law to be a life-giving agent.
We see, then, from 3.21 (cf. 2.21) that Paul's denial of the law's ability
to give life is based not explicitly on humanity's condition but on the law's
own condition and divine intention. While this distinction cannot be
pressed too far, it may shed light on Gal. 3.12. If Paul's reasoning in 3.21
underlies 3.12, then we can find support for the LawjGospel (2) view
represented by Eckstein and Watson. According to this view, Paul rejects
the law categorically because it was not intended to grant life; 'the one
who does these things' in order to 'gain life by them' is attempting to elicit
from the law something that it cannot, and was not intended to, give -
namely, life. And so if we were to ask Paul, 'Why can't "the one who does
these things live by them"?' We might expect him to say, 'Because "these
things" ( = the law) lack the ability to grant life to the doer and neither
was it their intention to do so.'
7 The view that 'the Scripture' refers to 'the law' here is taken by F. F. Bruce, Galatians,
p. 180; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1973), p. 119; B. Longenecker, Triumph, pp. 124-5; cf. Martyn,
Galatians, p. 360, for a similar view. For opposing views, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die
Galater (KEKNT, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1971), pp. 164-5; H.
D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galalia (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 175; and the discussion in R. Longenecker, Galatians,
p. 144.
8 Longenecker, Triumph, p. 120.
9 But see Rom. 7.7-13.
10 Rightly, E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1983), p. 27.
130 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Now before this faith came, we were confined by the law, being shut up
until the faith about to be revealed, so that the law has become our child
12
instructor to lead us until Christ, in order that we might be justified by
faith; but when this faith has come, we are no longer under a child
leader. (Gal. 3.23-25)
Here, 'faith' is personified and stands for an eschatological age or epoch
that has been inaugurated with Christ. The 'law', which acts as a
TTaiSaycoyos for a set period of time ('until Christ'), may also delineate
the old epoch (i.e., the time of the law's jurisdiction over humanity). This
passage, in as much as it can be correlated with 3.11-12, may lend support
for Willitts's conclusion that 'faith' and 'law' ( = Lev. 18.5) delineate two
distinct historical eras. The Leviticus formulation is opposed to faith in
light of its chronological inferiority.
But do Hab. 2.4 (faith) and Lev. 18.5 (law) mutually exclude each other
simply because of their respective salvation-historical functions? One
problem with this approach is that it downplays, or even eradicates, any
inherent deficiency in Lev. 18.5. In Willitts's view, it seems that the only
problem Paul has with adherence to Lev. 18.5 is that such adherence is
simply past its time: in principle there is nothing wrong with 'doing these
13
things' in order to 'live by them'. If Lev. 18.5 represents the time of
'unrealized covenant potential', then what has caused its unrealization? As
seen above, Paul sees the law's inability to grant life as at least part of the
problem, and Paul's pessimistic anthropology most certainly looms in the
background (cf. 3.10).
So while there is an eschatological orientation of 'faith' in 3.11-12 (and
11 'Context Matters'.
12 I understand eis here to be temporal not teleological (so Longenecker, Triumph,
p. 118; Betz, Galatians, p. 178).
13 I am drawing here on R. Barry Matlock who critiques James Dunn on the same
grounds (see his 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul',
JSNT12 [1998]: 67-90 [77]).
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 131
especially in 3.23-25), this does not exhaust its validity as the only basis on
which one receives righteousness and life.
19 Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2', p. 316; see too, Martyn, Galatians, pp. 152-3, 159-61.
20 vuv 5s y v o v T s s 0s6v, uaAAov 6S YVCOOSSVTES UTTO 0EOG.
21 Cf. the stimulating essay by John Barclay, 'By the Grace of God I am what I am', in
John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His
Intellectual Environment (Edinburgh: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006), pp. 140-57. Barclay,
while not discussing Gal. 4.9, refers to similar instances in 1 Cor. 15.10; Phil. 3.11-12; and
Gal. 2.19-21.
22 The interpretation of Ipycov vouou has been the subject of a long debate; for a good
summary of the issues with extensive bibliography, see Tom Schreiner,' "Works of Law" in
Paul', NovT 33 (1991): 214-44. More recently, the discussion is centred on whether the phrase
refers to prescriptions of the law or to the actual performance of those prescriptions. The
former view has been argued extensively by Michael Bachmann, 'Rechtfertigung und
Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus', TZ 49 (1993): 1-33; reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief:
Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus
(NTOA, 40; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1999), pp. 1-31; idem, '4QMMT und Galaterbrief,
m m "WO und EPrA NOMOY', ZNWS9 (1998): 91-113, reprinted in Antijudaismus im
Galaterbrief, pp. 33-56. Bachmann's view has been recently countered by Otfried Hofius,
who argues that the phrase refers to the actual performance of the law, see his,' "Werke des
Gesetzes": Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den spya v o p o u ' , in Dieter Sanger
and Ulrich Mell (eds), Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und
johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (WUNT, 198; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006),
pp. 271-310, esp. 273-85. With regard to these two options, James Dunn is probably correct
in critiquing Bachmann for driving 'a wedge between "precept/prescription" and "deed
(prescribed)", as though the former could be grasped without thought to the latter' ('Noch
einmal "Works of the Law": The Dialogue Continues', in The New Perspective on Paul
[WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], pp. 407-22 [414]).
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 133
23 This is confirmed by Gal. 3.10-12 where the most likely antecedent to 'these things*
(auTa) of 3.12 is 'everything written in the book of the law' (TTOCOIV TOTS ysYpauuEvots sv TOO
p(pXicp vouou) of 3.10, namely, the 'works of the law'.
24 Longenecker, Galatians, p. 103; B. Longenecker, Triumph, p. 75.
25 Martyn argues that the term in Gal. 3.3 refers to circumcision based on this meaning
in Gal. 6.12-13 and the association of 'flesh' with 'circumcision' throughout Genesis 17.
26 Paul also uses oap£ to refer to an evil inclination or desire (cf. Gal. 5.17, 24) but this
nuance cannot be intended here.
27 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1988), pp. 202-9.
28 Ibid., p. 206.
29 Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1-
4.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002), p. 170.
30 Cf. Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, p. 86.
134 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
31 This is different from the LawI Gospel (1) approach; e.g., even if someone did 'these
things' perfectly and in a non-legalistic manner, this would still be a 'merely human' way of
achieving what can only be created through divine action.
32 Such was the view also of the Qumranites as seen in their commentary on Hab. 2.4
'[But the righteous man will live because of their faith(fulness) to him] Its interpretation
concerns everyone who does the law (pT\*\V\T\ "'Efll? 'TQ) in the house of Judah, whom God will
free from the house of judgement on account of their toil (phOV) and their faith(fulness)
(prtiDKI) in the Teacher of Righteousness' (lQpHab 7.14-8.3). Law-obedience (THinn "'CTl
U; cf. lQpHab 7.11; 12.4-5) is conflated with faith(fulness) to (the teaching of) the Teacher of
Righteousness, and both are necessary for God's restoration of the community.
33 An exception to this is Alan Gignac ('Citation de Levitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et
Galates 3,12: Deux lectures differentes des rapports Christ-Torah?', Eglise et theologie 25
[1994]: 367^403), who argues through an intertextual analysis that these two passages are not
antithetical in light of their original contexts.
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 135
34 The wicked are Judaeans; see Francis Anderson, Habakkuk: A New Translation and
Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 24; Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi
(WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), pp. 94-5, 99; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1992), p. 34; contra Marshall Johnson, 'The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1.4',
(FT 35, 1985): 257-66 (259).
35 Although the meaning of TISD is debated, the sense of 'ineffective' is clear from the
context and its use elsewhere. It is used in Gen. 45.26 to refer to Jacob becoming 'numb' or
'fainthearted'. In Ps. 77.3(2) it refers to 'a wearying paralysis'. In Ps. 38.9(8) it means
'broken', or 'numbed'; see further Johnson, 'Paralysis', pp. 259-60. But is Habakkuk's
complaint directed to the Torah itself or the failure among the Judaeans to obey it? Marshall
Johnson argues that Habakkuk's complaint is directed at a failure inherent in the Torah.
Habakkuk, according to Johnson, was a 'disillusioned deuteronomist' who could not
understand why the 'righteous' were not being blessed as the Torah promised (Johnson,
'Paralysis', p. 264). While Johnson's understanding would fit Paul's thought well, his
argument that the prophet was concerned with the failure of Torah to mediate the blessings
of Deuteronomy goes beyond the evidence in Habakkuk. It seems best to side with the
majority that Habakkuk's complaint is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society; see
Haak, Habakkuk, p. 34, G. Janzen, 'Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk',
CBQ 44 (1982): 394-414 (397-9); Smith, Micah-Malachi, p. 99. In any case, Habakkuk
critiques the efficacy of the Torah, whether by its own inherent ineffectiveness or because of
its inability to keep the wicked from persecuting the righteous.
136 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
to the righteous one is the reliability that God will intervene to perform a
36
future act of salvation. The reliability of the vision (and thus of God) is
meant to evoke a response of 'faith' from the prophet and all who are
'righteous', but all through the vision-oracle of 2.2-5 and the theophany of
ch. 3, the emphasis lies in divine action as the solution to the problem of
wickedness.
Leviticus 18.5, on the other hand, does not depict the same theological
outlook. It exhibits a conceptual world similar to the deuteronomists:
blessing will come to those who obey the Torah - the very conception that
had proved to be a failure in Habakkuk where the righteous were being
persecuted, not blessed. In Leviticus itself, the conditions of Lev. 18.5 are
not met as seen in the book as a whole, for the restoration of the nation
(26.40-45) comes after a time of wickedness, apostasy, and exile (26.14-
39). The same is true in Ezekiel, where the text is cited three times (Ezek.
20.11, 13, 21) to highlight Israel's failure to meet the conditional demands.
Israel's rebellion - its failure to 'do these things' (Lev. 18.5) - is written
into the script of salvation history.
It is not the case, therefore, that Paul has split apart two otherwise
compatible texts as most interpreters think. Habakkuk 2.4 'n'envisage pas
l'Alliance sous le meme angle que Lv 18,5' ('Does not envisage the
Covenant under the same angle as that of Lev. 18.5'). According to
Habakkuk, the accent is no longer on God's response to human action,
37
but on human response to God's initiative. Within the Old Testament,
there is at least the potential for Paul to read Lev. 18.5 as a cul-de-sac
preparing the way for divine intervention anticipated by Hab. 2.4.
4. Conclusion
In answer to our opening question - why can't 'the one who does these
things live by them'? - and in response to the four different ways scholars
have attempted to address that question, I suggest the following. First, the
Law/Gospel (1) view has rightly stressed Paul's pessimistic anthropology,
yet it does not seem that this is the driving force in Paul's criticism of the
Leviticus passage. It may 'loom in the background', as I stated, but there
is probably something else that shapes Paul's discourse here. Moreover,
describing Paul's pessimism in terms of lack of perfect obedience seems to
go beyond what Paul actually says. Second, the LawI Gospel (2) view has
36 It is probably this vision itself that is referred to, at least in the Hebrew, in the
much discussed pronoun of Hab. 2.4b: 'but the righteous will live by its faithfulness'
OmiDKn J7H1TI rTiT); so Janzen, 'Habakkuk 2.2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological
Advances', HTR 73 (1980): 53-78 (esp. 54-61); idem, 'Eschatological Symbol', pp. 395, 406;
Haak, Habakkuk, p. 59; Anderson, Habakkuk, p. 214.
37 Cf. Gignac, 'Citation', p. 386.
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 137
S U R R O G A T E , S L A V E A N D D E V I A N T ?
T H E F I G U R E O F H A G A R I N J E W I S H T R A D I T I O N A N D P A U L
( G A L A T I A N S 4.21-31)
Troy A. Miller
Paul's use of Scripture is a subject that certainly has not suffered from a
lack of attention within scholarly circles. Quite the contrary, studies
1
assessing Paul's employment of Scripture have abounded. Included in
this scholarly attention is Gal. 4.21-31 - the Sarah and Hagar pericope. A
great deal of the scholarship on this passage has been focused specifically
on trying to identify which established method of scriptural interpretation
Paul is employing here, with the primary proposals being allegory,
2
typology, midrash and targum. While these studies of the various Jewish
conventions of Scripture interpretation have produced some valuable
insights, more detailed studies on the actual Sarah and Hagar stories in
Jewish literature are surprisingly not so common. With respect to Hagar,
markedly absent in Pauline scholarship or elsewhere is a study dedicated
to the interpretative traditions surrounding the figure in Second Temple
Jewish literature - the body of writings that would reflect the various
1 A selection of these works includes E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981); Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); J. W. Aageson, Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the
Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993); Francis Watson, Paul and the
Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004); and Christopher D . Stanley, Arguing
with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark,
2004).
2 For the various proposals, see for example, C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982), pp. 154-70; J. Louis Martyn, 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah', in John
T. Carroll et al. (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92; Patrick G. Barker, 'Allegory and Typology in Galatians
4.21-31', SVTQ 38 (1994): 193-209; Michael G. Steinhauser, 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of
Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21-3P, Bib 70 (1989): 234^0; and Mary C. Callaway, 'The
Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions Behind Galatians 4.21-31', Radical Religion 2
(1975): 94-101.
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 139
nuances in Jewish interpretation on Hagar and that also would allow one
to assess how traditional or novel Paul's usage might be. While some
commentators and writers on Galatians have alluded to or drawn on one
or more of these Jewish texts on Hagar, such texts are strikingly absent in
many studies and only partially surveyed in others, with some appealing
largely or even exclusively to the Genesis narratives.
In an effort to redress some of this imbalance, an examination of these
Second Temple Jewish writings on Hagar is vital for 'connecting the dots'
in Paul's interpretative portrait. Therefore, in this essay, I will (1)
inventory and examine the appearances of'Hagar' in Jewish writings prior
to and contemporaneous with Paul in an effort to highlight the unique
interpretative dimensions that appear and (2) measure the significance of
these texts and traditions for Paul's use of the figure in Galatians. On the
latter element, I will seek to demonstrate that the portrayal of Hagar in
Gal. 4.21-31 is in continuity with the Jewish interpretative traditions
(outside Genesis) on the figure. However, I will also argue that Paul's
reversal of ethnic identities, in his application of the story to the social
setting in Galatia, represents a distinct innovation within Jewish tradition.
3
Genesis Tradition on Hagar (Genesis 16.1-15 and 21.8-21 )
Hagar comes onto the scene in Genesis 16 as a seemingly unimportant
actor in the greater drama that the editor of Genesis is directing. She is
provided no origins or background, other than that she is Egyptian (16.1).
The Genesis storyline that introduces her revolves around the seemingly
ineffective covenant promise of God, which is evident in the present lack
3 Though redaction critics rightly note that these texts, like many in Genesis, may have
been shaped by the final redactor to fit the newly created narrative context, I will not attempt
a source-critical or redaction-critical excavation of the texts in an effort to determine what
underlies them. Such an analysis is highly speculative and therefore would be of little or no
value to this study. Instead, I will examine these Genesis texts in their current form, using it
to account for the Genesis tradition on the figure of Hagar.
140 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
of an heir for Sarai and Abram, and which results in Sarai's proposed
resolution to that problem via the surrogacy of Hagar. Here it is Sarai, not
Hagar (or Abram), who is the protagonist. It is Sarai who perceives the
current lack of an heir to be a problem; it is Sarai who volunteers Hagar as
a surrogate; and it is Sarai who gives the directive to Abram to 'go in to'
Hagar (16.1-2). Later in the passage, it is Sarai who upbraids Abram
regarding the results of Hagar's conception (16.5) and, finally, it is Sarai
who afflicts and mistreats Hagar leading to her flight (16.6b).
Sarai is not only the lead character, but also the one who bears the yoke
of culpability in the story. Her subsequent actions toward Hagar (16.4)
stem from her perception of a loss of status to Hagar, now that Hagar
bears in her womb the potential inheritor of the covenant blessings.
Though bbp {qll) can carry the sense of 'to curse' or 'to treat with
contempt', it does not regularly do so in the qal stem. Here, as a passive
verb (7pm), any demonstrable negative action by Hagar to Sarai is
largely ruled out. Furthermore, there is no contextual support for Hagar
having formally cursed Sarai. Not only would the qal stem make this an
odd construction (i.e., 'her mistress was cursed in her sight'), the lack of
any recognition by Abraham or the Lord of a proposed curse leaves such
a translation and interpretation untenable.
Rightly understood, ^pm communicates that Sarai, her mistress, was
'of little account' or 'lightly esteemed' in Hagar's sight due to the rising
4
social status of Hagar, now that she had conceived. As Phyllis Trible
notes, 'Structurally and substantively, new understanding encircles
Hagar's view of herself and her mistress. Hierarchical blinders drop.
The exalted mistress decreases; the lowly slave increases. Not hatred or
5
contempt but a reordering of the relationship emerges.' The actions of
Sarai that follow - that is, her blame of Abram (16.5) and her
mistreatment of Hagar that caused her to flee (16.6b) - stem from
Sarai's jealousy and/or lack of acceptance of the current standing of
Hagar, as well as her likely anticipation of Hagar's further ascension in
6
status if things persist.
Hagar's flight does not even attract negativity to her in the account.
4 Issues related to the renegotiation of social standing, and therefore of power and
authority, were not uncommon or without problem in this context, as is evidenced by the
ancient legal codes that were constructed to regulate such tensions in marriage. See for
example, Laws of Ur-Nammu 22-23 and Laws of Hammurabi 146; cf. Prov. 30.23.
5 Phyllis Trible, 'Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing', in Phyllis Trible and
Letty M. Russell (eds), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim
Perspectives (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), pp. 33-69(39).
6 Reinforcing this 'less-provoking' interpretation of Hagar is the often noted paralleling
of Sarah's actions in 16.3 with those of Eve in 3.6, which further accentuates and
characterizes Sarai's actions as initiatory and negative. Cf. W. Berg, 'Der Sundenfall
Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16.1-6', BN 19 (1982): 7-14.
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 141
even in the sense o f conjugal caress' (cf. Gen. 26.8). These readings of the
term here in 21.9 all infuse some level of negative behaviour into Ishmael's
stance and/or actions toward Isaac, thus removing some or all of the
responsibility from Sarah for her subsequent actions.
Though the term is used in these negative senses in other places in the
MT, such a reading is very difficult to sustain here for several reasons.
First, such an interpretation lacks any contextual support for Ishmael's or
Hagar's negative portrayal or culpability (in chs 16 or 21). Second, Sarah
is consistently portrayed negatively, as the 'guilty one', in these same texts.
Third, the MT provides no modifying terms or phrases as evidence for
determining the specific type of or intention behind the proposed negative
behaviour. However, fourth, the L X X contains a prepositional phrase,
peTOc IOCXCXK (meta Isaak), as a modifier of nai^ovTa (paizonta), which
decidedly rules out these negative options. In the LXX, a neutral
interpretation (e.g., 'playing', 'laughing', and/or 'dancing') is the only
tenable option.
In the MT, then, it is preferable to understand the term neutrally,
possibly as a play on words with Isaac's name (which already is a
prominent theme in the Genesis story), but surely communicates the
playing and/or laughing of the two children (cf. Zech. 8.5; Job 40.20; Ps.
9
104.26). Skinner notes that, 'it is the spectacle of the two young children
playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah's
10
maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demands'. Sarah perceives this
shared laughter and play as being potentially 'dangerous' to Isaac's (as
well as her own) unique position within God's covenant promises, and she
moves to squelch it. In line with the previous narrative (Gen. 16), Sarah
retains the promise of the covenant but Hagar, ironically, is the more
positively portrayed character.
aid God's covenant promise. Rather, it comes after God and Moses make
a covenant with Abram (as had been done with Noah in that same month
[14.20]). Abram then returns to Sarai rejoicing and believing that 'he
would have seed' but unfortunately, Sarai 'did not give birth' (14.22).
Abram is clearly positioned as the central figure in the Jubilees tradition
12
and, comparatively speaking, Sarai takes a lesser place. As a result of
this overarching context for the story, it is in covenant faithfulness (to
God and Moses) that Sarai introduces Hagar as a surrogate, which is
emphatically endorsed by Abram (14.23), so that they might receive an
heir to the promise. In the Jubilees tradition, Abram and Sarah are not
out of place in their introduction and use of Hagar.
In Jubilees 17, at the feast for the weaning of Isaac, the account runs
largely parallel to the Genesis tradition (Gen. 21), yet again not without
its own unique features and emphases. Abraham is rejoicing and blessing
God on this occasion because he 'had not died without sons', referring to
both Ishmael and Isaac (17.2). Sarah observes Ishmael 'playing and
dancing' (17.4), presumably with Isaac, and Abraham 'rejoicing very
13
greatly' over it (17.4). Her response to such a sight is spelled out
explicitly: 'she was jealous' (17.4), something that is only implied in the
Genesis tradition. Sarah demands Hagar and Ishmael be driven out (17.4),
Abraham is aggrieved over it (17.5), and God assures Abraham that
Sarah's words are to be obeyed for the promise of his seed will go through
Isaac (17.6-7). Unlike Jubilees 14, this story recounts Hagar and Ishmael's
banishment by Abraham, her plight in the wilderness and God's coming
to her (17.8-14). Notable in variation from the Genesis tradition, though,
as VanderKam observes, is that 'the angel of God who appears to Hagar
in Gen. 21.17 is in Jubilees "one of the holy ones" (17.11), that is, not an
14
angel of the presence, but a member of the other noble class of angels'.
This part of the Jubilees tradition (ch. 17) on Hagar, for the most part,
reinforces the characterization of the figures in the Genesis tradition.
Sarah is the jealous wife of Abraham, though still the one through whom
the covenant will be established. Likewise, Hagar is still the one who is
cast out. However, when taken together (chs 14 and 17), the Jubilees
15 The Genesis Apocryphon is not the only text from Qumran that notes the figure of
Hagar. 4Q365 (noted above) preserves only two lines, which are in continuity with Gen. 21.9-
11a, and 4Q254 (an even smaller fragment) may also preserve a reference to Hagar, but the
lack of a context makes it uncertain. All the other references to the figure are in the biblical
manuscripts.
146 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Abraham knew his wife Sarah and she conceived and bore Isaac (8.3).
Absent are almost all of the intervening details regarding the figures of
Sarah and Hagar, save them giving birth to their children. The Pseudo-
Philonic tradition yields very little on Hagar; and what it does relate
hardly deviates from the other traditions surveyed already.
16
Josephus Tradition on Hagar (Ant. 1.186-193, 213-221)
Of the interpretative traditions on Hagar examined thus far, the Josephus
tradition stands out as most distinct, even though it shares some features
in common with the Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon traditions. Like
these traditions, the Josephus tradition conspicuously portrays Sarah and
Hagar as positive and negative, respectively. This writing includes the
following prominent details regarding the figure of Sarah: (1) It is Abram
(not Sarah) who is distressed over Sarah's sterility (1.186). (2) Sarah
brings Hagar to Abram's bed because of a command from God to do so;
in variation from the Genesis tradition, it was not here initiated by Sarah
(1.186). (3) When Ishmael was born, Sarah is said to have cherished him
with no less affection than if he were her own son, knowing that he would
one day be an heir (1.215). Also in the Josephus tradition, (4) at the
weaning of Isaac, Sarah does not seek to get rid of Ishmael (and Hagar)
due to jealousy over covenantal inheritance (as implied in the Genesis
tradition and explicitly stated in the Jubilees tradition). Rather, she holds
that the two should not grow up together because Ishmael may injure
Isaac after Abraham dies (1.215). Even more so than the Jubilees
tradition, the Josephus tradition presents a faithful, obedient, and caring
portrait of Sarah. As such, the Josephus tradition not only varies from the
Genesis tradition, but the characterization of the figure of Sarah in these
two sources seems to bear only a faint resemblance.
The Josephus tradition on Hagar complements the interpretative thrust
seen above on the figure of Sarah, specifically as her counterpoint. Sarah's
exceedingly positive picture is inversely matched by Hagar's decidedly
negative characterization. In this tradition: (1) Hagar acts in a crass and
haughty manner toward Sarah, exploiting her newfound identity as the
mistress of Abram after conceiving ('Becoming pregnant, this servant had
the insolence to abuse Sarra, assuming queenly airs as though the
dominion were to pass to her unborn son' [1.188]). (2) Hagar flees from
Sarah not because Sarah drives her out but because Hagar cannot endure
the rightful punishment that Sarah is inflicting on her for her insolence
(1.188). (3) In line with the Genesis tradition and the second part of the
16 Though Josephus' Jewish Antiquities are consistently dated later than Galatians, the
writing is instructive for this study because it includes a recounting of the Hagar stories, and
some of the traditions that Josephus recounts could well reflect Jewish interpretative
traditions from a period contemporaneous with or even prior to Paul.
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 147
Jubilees tradition (Jub. 17.1-14), God meets Hagar in her flight from
Sarah. However, in variation from these other traditions, the divine words
here in Josephus chastise Hagar for not exercising self-control in her
behaviour toward Sarah. Also, though her return to Sarah is mandated by
the Lord, it is predicted to be a happy return only if she expresses greater
self-control and alters her behaviour, otherwise she will perish (1.189).
Finally, the Josephus tradition notes that (4) Ishmael was named by God,
but only after Hagar returned and received forgiveness from Sarah
(1.190). No mention is made of Hagar naming Ishmael, as is seen in the
Genesis tradition. In the end, the qualitative characterization of these two
figures is starkly apparent and polarizing. Contra the Genesis tradition,
but in line with nearly all of the other traditions surveyed in this essay, the
figure of Hagar bears the brunt of the blame and negativity in the
Josephus tradition. Inversely, almost nothing negative clings to the figure
of Sarah here in Josephus. The Josephus tradition reflects not only a
sharing in, but also a heightening of, the qualitative characterization of
the figures of Hagar and Sarah seen previously.
4
17 Cf. Yehoshua Amir, The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in
Philo', in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel
(ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, et al.; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25.
18 The translation is taken from LCL. Cf. Cher. 3, 6, 8; Post. 130; Congr. 11, 20, 23-24,
4
71, 88, 121-122; Somn. 1.240; and Peder Borgen, Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in
148 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Philo's usage of the two figures is dominated by allegory and with them
functioning as two types; types that are correlated with personal or mental
qualities related directly to the Greek system of education and learning.
In light of the other Jewish writings surveyed, Philo's qualitative
distinction between the two figures stands in broad continuity with much
of the tradition outside the Genesis tradition. Hagar represents the lower
entity and Sarah embodies the higher qualities. Though the things that the
Philonic Hagar represents are not despised (i.e., they are still of some
value in attaining higher learning), it is still clear that one figure (Sarah)
consistently stands above the other (Hagar) when allegorizing them. In the
end, though the form in which the Philonic tradition on Hagar is found is
a novum in Jewish tradition, the use or functions of the figures (as higher
and lower) reflect the same basic interpretative thrust noted in the non-
Genesis traditions above.
This inventorying of Jewish traditions on the figure of Hagar reveals
several salient observations. First, the Genesis tradition appears to be the
only tradition that presents the figure of Hagar in a positive (or even
neutral) light. Likewise, it is the tradition that most clearly and thoroughly
characterizes Sarah negatively. All of the other traditions characterize the
two, explicitly and/or implicitly, in exactly the opposite manner. It is clear,
then, that the predominance of Jewish tradition reflects Hagar to be the
antagonist, or even the villain, in the stories. Second, though all of these
writings cannot be dated with precision, it is apparent that later in the
Second Temple period (especially with Josephus) the negative character
ization of the figure of Hagar is quite thorough. Finally, outside of Philo's
allegorical form, all of these Hagar stories and traditions are found within
works that purport to provide some span of Israelite or Jewish history;
yet, none is without an interest in the contemporary circumstances in
19
which they were written.
Philo's and Paul's Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael', in Peder Borgen and Soren Giversen
(eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 151-64
(153).
19 While it is not the aim of this study to demonstrate a clear line of development or to
chronologically prioritize the Hagar traditions in Jewish literature, it seems likely from this
essay that the Genesis tradition precedes the others. I would contend that it is less likely that
the Genesis tradition is later than the others (i.e., it effectively 'redeemed' Hagar from earlier
negative portrayals of the figure). More likely, I would argue, is that Hagar is deviantized in
the traditions outside of Genesis (later in the Second Temple period) as a distinct alteration
to the positive (or at least neutral) portrayal in the Genesis tradition. Though the focus and
parameters of this essay preclude going into the level of detail needed to fully substantiate
such a claim, it is worth noting that Hagar is also negatively characterized in the Targums
and early Midrashim (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 16.1, 5; Tg. Neof. Gen. 16.5; Gen. Rab. 45.4; Pirqe
R. El. 30) and is consistently caricatured as 'the other' throughout the rabbinic literature,
which lends credence to my supposition. Cf. Carol Bakhos, 'The Double Identity of Hagar
and Keturah' (forthcoming).
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 149
20 See Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, pp. 1-13 and Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 35.
21 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, p. 3.
22 Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the
Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 324-5, finds Philo's allegorical use of Hagar
(and Sarah) to be quite instructive and informative for reading Paul in Gal. 4, especially in
the contemporizing function that they exhibit. This is in contrast to Barrett, Essays on Paul,
pp. 154-70, who holds that Philo's allegory contributes very little in form or substance to
Paul.
150 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
opposition, Paul allegorizes the figure of Sarah as: 'the free woman' (4.22);
the one whose child was born 'according to the promise' (4.23); the
Jerusalem above (4.26); as 'our mother' (4.26); and the one who will be the
rightful inheritor of the promise (4.30). As Elizabeth Castelli rightly notes,
'allegory as a rhetorical trope possesses a capacity to persuade its reader
23
or hearer to reimagine the meanings of a text or tradition'. The
allegorical associations of Hagar and Sarah here in Paul are thorough and
striking, offering a stereotyped, reimagined meaning of the two figures to
characterize certain actors in the current Galatian drama. While the form
of the passage clearly links Paul and Philo's use of Hagar to the same
tradition, the significant variation in what the figures are allegorically
linked to indicates that the Philonic tradition is not the only Jewish
interpretative tradition that is evident in Paul's use of Hagar.
Conspicuously absent in the cadre of Jewish traditions on the figure of
Hagar is any normative set of details. Each writing records its own unique
set, some fuller and some slimmer, based on variations within or alterations
to the traditions. Paul's relating of the Hagar story in Gal. 4.21-31 is no
exception. He offers a very brief and highly stylized account. The few
details that he relates are as follows: (1) Abraham had two sons (4.22); (2)
Ishmael (though not referred to by name) 'persecuted' Isaac (4.29); and (3)
the slave woman, Hagar, and her child are to be driven out (4.30).
Beyond its allegorical form, two additional aspects of Paul's account
reflect a clear continuity with one or more of the Jewish interpretative
traditions on Hagar. First, in line with the Jewish traditions outside of
Genesis, especially Jubilees and Josephus, compellingly absent in
Galatians are any of the particulars in the Genesis tradition (particularly
Gen. 16) that negatively characterize the figure of Sarah. Paul does not
contend for a positive characterization of Sarah in Galatians, rather he
assumes it. Similarly absent in Paul are any of the details seen in the
Genesis tradition that portray Hagar in a positive light. The figure of
Hagar clearly is the negative trope. The most likely (or perhaps only)
logical reason for how Paul can so matter-of-factly (i.e., without
argumentation) present this highly charged, dualistic characterization of
these two figures, is that his hearers and/or readers share with him a
24
common knowledge of the Jewish traditions on these figures. On this,
24 Many (myself included) see the situation of Paul and the other teachers in Galatia as
one of 'competing exegesis' - i.e., both are seeking to normatively interpret the story of
Abraham (including that of Sarah and Hagar) for the Galatians. Seemingly, these other
teachers have introduced their own interpretative account of these stories to the Galatians,
and now Paul is providing an interpretative response (e.g., 3.7, 16). The Galatians' previous
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 151
on Gen. 21.9), wicked (e.g., Gen. Rab. 53.4; Exod. Rab. 3.2), and,
specifically in his treatment of Isaac, as persecuting him by shooting
'deadly arrows' at him while hunting (e.g., Pesiq. R. 48.3; Pirqe R. El. 30).
The profoundly negative characterization of Ishmael in the rabbinic
literature not only paints a vivid picture of this scene, but it also reveals
the traditional character of Paul's interpretation. Again, while this nuance
of Jewish interpretative tradition in the Rabbis is not found in other pre-
Pauline Jewish texts, and though these rabbinic traditions cannot be dated
prior to Paul with certainty, it is clear that Paul is in continuity with
Jewish tradition in this characterization of Ishmael.
A final traditional aspect of the Galatians account is evident in Gal.
4.30, where Sarah has been removed as the source of the command (as it is
in the Genesis tradition) and 'Scripture' is inserted in her place. For Paul,
'Scripture' says, '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' ( N R S V ) . 2 6
This critical command that Paul wishes the Galatians to hear and enact
now does not come simply from Sarah, or even Paul, but from (and
assuming the authority of) Scripture. This is an effort by Paul to further
exposure to the Sarah-Hagar story seems sure due to what Paul assumes, as well as to the
movement of the passage (e.g., 4.21, 24, 30). However, we do not and cannot know what
shape or form it came to them in. The teachers themselves may well be the (or at least a)
source for the Galatians' knowledge of these stories and traditions. See, for example, J. Louis
Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A; New
York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 18-19, 117-26, 302-7.
25 Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 230.
26 See Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 116.
152 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
27 J. C. O'Neill,' "For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians 4.25)', in Steve
Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North
(JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210-19 (218), argues that Gal.
4.25 and much of the pericope is traditionally Jewish, but deems it to be of Essene origin.
O'Neill, however, presents little compelling evidence to support such a specific claim.
28 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 323. Cf. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 232 and
Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia.
(Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 241-2.
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 153
influence the gentile Galatian believers. They are the ones (in Paul's eyes)
who are in slavery and bondage, and they are not the inheritors of the
covenant promise. In the climax of the passage, and some would say of the
entire letter, Hagar (i.e., the teachers) is to be driven out by Sarah (i.e., the
29
gentile Galatian believers).
Paul's interpretative innovation here with the recasting of the figures of
Hagar and Sarah comes with its own twist - a reversal of the ethnic
identities typical to the figures in Jewish tradition. The traditional 'Sarah',
consistently reflecting covenantal Judaism as over against the nations, is
30
now embodied in the Galatians 'Hagar'. Hagar, in Galatians, is the
group of teachers who continue to demand Torah observance even for
new gentile converts. They are the Sinai covenant. Likewise, the
traditional 'Hagar', consistently reflecting the nations, is now found in
the Galatians 'Sarah'. In this context, the figure of Sarah now represents
the gentile Galatian believers. They are the Abrahamic covenant. For
Paul, they are the inheritors of the promise through faith.
In the end, it is not that one ethnicity (i.e., Jewish), along with the
practice of its piety (e.g., Torah-observance), is being monolithically
supplanted by another (i.e., gentile or Graeco-Roman). Paul is not
rejecting, in their entirety, Judaism, the Jewish people, the law or even
circumcision. Rather, here in Galatians, he inserts this innovation within
Jewish tradition specifically to contend against the demand of Torah-
observance, as a type of oppression, by these teachers (i.e., the Galatians
Hagar) for the gentile Galatian converts to Christ (i.e., the Galatians
31
Sarah). This radical final manoeuvre by Paul does not deny the
traditional Jewish character of the Sarah-Hagar story evident in Gal.
4.21-31. Quite the contrary, Paul asserts it as an (or in Paul's mind the)
authoritative interpretation within the ongoing Jewish conversation and
tradition on Scripture.
32 This is another subject to which I will give further attention in a future essay.
Chapter 1 1
S U B V E R T I N G S A R A H I N T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T
G A L A T I A N S 4 A N D 1 P E T E R 3
Jeremy Punt
Introduction
The presence of a person as important as Sarah in the narratives of the
Hebrew Bible comes as no particular surprise, since she was after all the
one to whom Jewish people would trace their matrilineal descent: Sarah,
1
mother of nations. Our modern perception and frame of reference should
nevertheless not deceive us in taking the female presence outside of, and to
some extent detached from, her home - and the public acknowledgement
of a married woman - for granted in a patriarchal world. Nevertheless,
apart from her role as consort or wife of Abraham, Sarah occupies an
2
important position in the biblical narratives.
Sarah's portrayal in the New Testament sees her deployed in important
roles, but neither the particular ways in which she was appropriated, nor
these portrayals as such, are without some ambivalence. At first glance, it
could be noted that her presence is somewhat unexpected in the New
Testament epistolary material, especially her generally positive depiction,
given the Epistles' propensity for specificity and, of course, the patriarchal
context of the time. On the other hand, reference to Sarah is not that
surprising considering that she was the wife of the patriarch, the father of
faith and therefore carried the responsibility of bearing him a child, a
responsibility which was accentuated because of the particular role in
which Abraham himself was portrayed. But again, while Sarah's ultimate
responsibility to provide a lineage is reflected in the New Testament
documents as they at times recount the compromising situation Sarah
This is an edited version of a paper read at the Annual SBL Meeting in Washington DC,
USA, November 2006 - an earlier version appeared in Scriptura 96 (2007): 453-68, and it is
published here with the kind permission of its editor.
1 T. J. Schneider, Sarah: Mother of Nations (New York and London: Continuum, 2004).
2 Cf., however, also the patterned literary presentations of women in the Hebrew Bible as
described by A. Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the
"Birth of the Hero" Paradigm', FT 363 (1986): 257-73.
156 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
4
Sarah, Wife of Abraham, in the Hebrew Bible
In the patriarchal world of the Bible, bolstered by endogamous marriage
practices and patrilineal descent, it is difficult to reflect upon Sarah
5
without considering her in relation to Abraham. The New Testament
documents show more than a fleeting acquaintance with the Abraham
3 Space does not allow discussion of the introductory questions concerning Galatians
and 1 Peter. Suffice it to claim that Galatians is seen as one of Paul's authentic letters,
addressed to the early Christian churches founded by Paul in central Asia Minor or central
Anatolia (so Betz). It was most probably written in the early fifties (50 or 51 CE), although its
provenance remains a puzzle: Ephesus, Macedonia, Corinth and even Rome have been
suggested. Galatians is a short and confrontational letter, probably representing the early
phase of a dispute with adversaries relating to the relationship between theological issues and
socio-political matters such as the identity of the community, within the context of first-
generation followers of Jesus. 1 Peter was most probably written in the period between 73
and 92 CE, pseudonymously and from Rome by a group of Jesus followers formed around the
name and legacy of the apostle Peter. 1 Peter is directed to members of this group dispersed
through Asia Minor.
4 Cf. an earlier discussion in J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of
the Father of Faith in Galatians 4.21-5.1', Neot 40(1) (2006): 101-18.
5 Indeed, Sarah's role is circumscribed in her role as legitimate wife and mother of the
male successor rather than being presented as an individual in her own right, cf. G. A. Yee,
'Sarah (person)', ABD 5.981-2. 'The chief aspiration which informs these women's being . . .
is biological motherhood and its benefits' (Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 264).
Schneider presents a different perspective, and concludes: 'Thus, Sarah becomes not just the
wife of the patriarch; instead, the Deity chooses Sarah as surely as Abraham, especially in
terms of continuation of the promise' (Schneider, Sarah, p. 129).
PUNT Subverting Sarah 157
6 D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's
First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), p. 40.
7 P. Trible, Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT, 13;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press), p. 11.
8 As W. Brueggemann {Genesis [Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], p. 119)
somewhat anachronistically puts it, 'an index of what we crave: well-being, security,
prosperity, prominence'.
9 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 40-1, 47; cf. P. R. Davies, Whose Bible is it Anyway?
(JSOTSup, 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 105-8.
10 The Hebrew Bible's narratives on the matriarchs develop according to a relatively
fixed literary paradigm where the legitimate wife is paired with another, rival co-wife with
characteristics not present in the former (Yes, 'Sarah', p. 981; cf. Brenner, 'Female Social
Behaviour'). However, later interpreters found Hagar's maltreatment difficult to explain, and
so, e.g., Philo in his generally positive portrayal of Sarah, carefully avoided Sarah's
mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael in his literal interpretation, dealing with it only
allegorically, cf. M. R. Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic
Midrash', HTR 91/4 (2004): 413-^4 (429).
11 In a less than positive portrayal of Abram in their return to Egypt when famine struck
(Gen. 12), he showed fewer morals than Pharaoh in putting Sarai up for grabs, ostensibly
because of the danger her beauty could cause him, and so incurring the favours and riches of
the Pharaoh. While safety and certainly economic gain seem to be prime considerations for
his actions, Abram showed little concern for Sarai as a partner to the divine blessing, much
158 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
the slave, Hagar, for her own security (Gen. 16), and so the victimized
became the victimizer. 'For Sarai, Hagar is an instrument, not a person.
12
The maid enhances the mistress.' When Sarai's plan to ensure a lineage
through her slave led to unexpected complications, an indifferent Abram
withdrew from Sarai's harsh and revengeful treatment of Hagar, which is
so effective that Hagar flees into the desert. 'The struggle between the
women is a regular power struggle, unaffected by love inasmuch as it is
13
centered round motherhood and its attendant benefits.' Still, apart from
this incident, Sarah's life in Genesis marks her as worthy of becoming the
mother of the nation, and although her secondary place to Abraham was
inscribed by patriarchy, her behaviour often subverted both her and
Abraham's roles and aspects of such twists and turns in the Hebrew Bible
narratives surfaces in the New Testament as well.
14
Sarah in the New Testament
less an integral part in realizing it. In fact, through his 'sense of exclusivity' and distrust of
God's protection, Abram has interfered with God's plan. Underlining his failure to
appreciate Sarai's value, the earlier fearful Abram rallied at great personal risk to the defence
of Lot in Gen. 14, and the participant of Egyptian riches later declined the king of Sodom's
offer of wealth. A similar pattern is again present in Gen. 18-20 where Abraham deemed Lot
more worthy of risk and trouble than his own wife (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 42-5).
12 Trible, Texts of Terror, p. 11.
13 Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 272. Hagar returned to Abram and Sarai at
God's instruction, but not before she also received a promise, even if an ambivalent one and
secondary in all respects to the promise made to Abram, except that she too will have a
mighty lineage. Ishmael will also be blessed, but it is through Isaac that God will renew the
covenant (Gen. 17.19-21; Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 45, 48).
14 Cf. also J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline allegory in Gal 4.21-5.1', Neot
40(1) (2006): 87-100; idem, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2'. Four direct references to Sarah are
found in the NT: Rom. 4.19, on the contrast between Abraham's faith and Sarah's womb;
Rom. 9.9, on the promise situated in Sarah's son; Heb. 11.11, on Sarah's conception and
faith; and 1 Pet. 3.6, on Sarah's obedience; Gal. 4.21-5.1 is clearly about Sarah, referred to as
the 'free [woman]'). The conspicuous absence of Sarah in Stephen's account of the history of
Israel (Acts 7.2-53) is difficult to explain. Abraham is explicitly mentioned 73 times in the
NT: Mt. (7); Mk (1); Lk. (15); Jn (i 1, all in ch. 8); Acts (7); Paul's letters (19; Rom. (9); 2 Cor.
(1); Gal. (9); Heb. (10); Jas (2); 1 Pet. (1). Van Rensburg holds that references to Abraham's
children would include Sarah of necessity (cf Rom. 9.7; Jn 8.39), and refers also to Isa. 51.2
who juxtaposes Abraham as father and Sarah as the one who gave birth (F. J. J. Van
Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-Historical Interpretation of the
Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3.5-6 to take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness',
Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60/1, 2 (2004): 249-60 (257).
PUNT Subverting Sarah 159
quest. The promise, which according to the Hebrew Bible came from
God, concerns Israel becoming a great nation. The importance of the
promise potentially sidelines interest in these women, and the significance
of what they do or what happens to them and their children, to matters of
secondary nature. On the other hand, and not without some irony, women
16
as mothers are first and foremost caretakers of the promise, granting
matriarchs a vital role in the patriarchal narratives. It follows that their
babies, their children, are more than offspring but are those who will
17
move, claim or lose the promise.
Many of the tensions generated by powerful women in a patriarchal
context reverberate through the New Testament, which picks up on the
18
traditions regarding Sarah, albeit with varying emphases. 'The New
Testament supplies several proof texts that the Christian community has
19
used to shape its understanding of Sarah and her character.' While
Rom. 4.19 focuses on her barrenness in contrast to Abraham's faith in
20
God's promises, and 1 Pet. 3.6 sees in Sarah's behaviour a legitimation
15 The gender politics is determined by the male God who takes the initiative and
enables/empowers the female of the patriarch to ensure his (God's and the patriarch's)
promises and lineage. However, the male God challenged the quick-fix solution of the male
patriarch in conceiving a child with his concubine. In their discussions, Fewell and Gunn
(Gender) implicate the male God as much as the male patriarch.
16 Initially God addressed women (Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah) directly but no more after
Rebekah and especially the birth of Jacob or Israel. Following the lead of Rebekah who
ensured Jacob's inheritance of the choice land and prosperity to the detriment of Esau,
Israel's mothers will from now on attend to the promise (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 89-
90).
17 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 89-90; C. Osiek, 'Galatians', in C. A. Newsom and S.
H. Ringe (eds), Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville: WJK, exp. edn, 1998), pp. 232-7
(236). Abraham later married again and had other children too (Gen. 25.1-4), but the
promise underwrote the contrast between Sarah and Hagar, and their sons. Cf. J. D. G.
Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 245.
18 An interesting intertext is Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, in the book of Tobit. She
was to become the wife of Tobias after all seven of her husbands were killed by the demon
Asmodeus on their wedding night. In her patriarchal setting she also maltreated her servants,
because they blamed her for being unable to keep a husband (Tob. 2.9-9) - creating an
interesting parallel with the biblical Sarah's harsh treatment of Hagar. Cf. Yee, 'Sarah',
p. 982.
19 Schneider, Sarah, p. 131. Schneider, Gender, pp. 124-33 argues that the NT is
prominently responsible for a prejudiced reading of Sarah, in contrast to her portrayal in
Genesis; on the other hand she admits both to not being a 'specialist in the New Testament',
and coming to 'preliminary' conclusions after taking the NT 'at face value'.
20 R. Hoppin, 'The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla's Letter', in A. Levine and M. M.
Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland:
Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 147-70 (154-5) explains how Sarah's prominent and assertive role in
steadying the lacklustre and at times weak conduct of Abraham has been translated away
through androcentric concerns, and how this was done to retain the patriarchal image of
Abraham.
160 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Sarah in Galatians
Galatians 4 provided an alternative, allegorical reading intent on a
contemporary if dissident understanding of the Genesis narrative,
challenging the notion that Jews belonged to the lineage of Abraham
through their physical descent from Abraham and Sarah. Such a radical
hermeneutical shift made Paul dependent on a disposition of trust towards
the interpreter, that the Galatian churches would accept him as faithful
21
interpreter of Scripture. In essence, Paul's retelling of the origin of
22
Abraham's children rests on a comparison of his two wives, Sarah and
23
Hagar. Paul's sublime appeal is through his hermeneutical procedure in
which the example of Abraham is treated as typical and normative,
concentrating on scriptural texts, which emphasized that Israel's special
24
place with God, is relativized.
21 Cf. S. E. Fowl, 'Who can read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in
Galatians', JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95; C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture. The Rhetoric of
Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 130-5.
22 Cf. Cyprian's Testimonia (1.20) for other instances of comparing wives: in the case of
Jacob's two wives, Leah represents the synagogue and Rachel (mother of Joseph) the church;
with Elkana's two wives the church is deemed to be symbolized by Hannah, mother of
Samuel (another messianic figure).
23 In Gen. 25.1 another wife is mentioned, Ketura, and the names of six sons Abraham
had with her. Scholars differ about the nature of the claim (biographical or literary, and the
latter probably in order to associate certain peoples with Abraham), the chronology involved
regarding its placement in the fife of Abraham (e.g., before or after sending Hagar away in
Gen. 21), and so on (cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994).
24 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville:
WJK, 1990), p. 203.
PUNT Subverting Sarah 161
33
Sarah in 1 Peter
Sarah makes a surprise appearance within the household code of 1 Peter,
concluding - and justifying - the call upon Christian wives to submit to their
husbands (3.1), while her conduct, even more surprisingly, is portrayed as
impacting also on men - and potentially destabilizing gendered societal
34
norms. The broader socio-cultural setting is highlighted in 1 Pet. 3.7
31 Rather than being an indication o f the audience's familiarity with the narrative (so M.
C. De Boer, 'Paul's quotation o f Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27', NTS 50 (2004): 370-89 (375
n. 18).
32 Reappearing in a later and most radical format in the deutero-Pauline tradition, 1
Tim. 2.15: oco8rjaETai 6e 5ia TT\S T E i c v o y o v i a s ('[a woman] will be saved through
childbearing'). On 'barrenness' in Gal. 4, cf. Jobes, 'Jerusalem', pp. 306-8.
33 Cf. also the discussion in J. Punt, 'The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household
Code of 1 Peter 3.7', South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46-56.
34 The imbalance in instructions issued to men and women should not primarily be
related to the social make-up of the community (e.g., T. Hanks, The Subversive Gospel. A
New Testament Commentary of Liberation ([trans. J. P. Doner; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press,
2000], p. 212, 'immigrants, poor slaves, and women constituted the basic nucleus') but rather
to the socio-cultural conventions regarding honour and shame (cf. J. H. Elliott, 'Disgraced
Yet Graced. The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honour and Shame', BTB 24/4
[1995]: 166-78). Richard sees 1 Peter's description (2.11) of the community members as
irapoiKoi 'or political aliens' as entailing 'corresponding honor to officials and . . . their share
of political and social duties' and as Traps TTI&EUOI or 'religious exiles' as owing 'their non-
believing neighbors the honor owed God's creatures or servants' (E. J. Richard, 'Honorable
Conduct Among the Gentiles - A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter', Word& World 24/
4 [2004]: 412-20 [417, 420]). Elliott's comment that the reference to Abraham and Sarah
might have been included as an example of the oikos amidst a paroikia situation (J. H. Elliott,
A Home for the Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 250 n. 92) disregards the point that the reference is
primarily about Sarah and not Abraham!
PUNT Subverting Sarah 163
35 D. L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS, 26;
Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 114 n. 92.
36 An important point of departure within Graeco-Roman ethics was the postulated
inferiority of women, which was considered an important consideration in regulating
relationships between men and women, and as of course between husbands and wives. It is
already with Aristotle that it is considered important to rule over wives and children in the
household (Politics 1.5.1), because men are their superiors (Laws 11.917a); these relationships
should be arranged already in the household (Politics 1.2.1, 1253b). WTnle UTTOTCXOOCO ('to
bring under control') is primarily about the 'maintenance of the divinely willed order' and
not about inferiority and superiority (J. R. Slaughter, 'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in
the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153 [1996]: 63-74 [70]) it is this very order which was believed to
presuppose a gendered superiority and inferiority. For the household being a microcosm of
the city-state, cf. W. A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christian (Library of Early
Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 19-39. Such ideas also influenced Jewish
society, with Josephus claiming the importance of a wife's submission as situated not in her
humiliation but so that she can be 'directed' since God gave authority to men (C. Ap. 2.200-
201).
37 K. E. Corley, '1 Peter', in E. Schussler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2:
A Feminist Commentary (London: SCM, 1994), pp. 349-60 (353).
38 It is not legitimate to claim that in the Christian Church of 1 Peter 'women had their
equality and human dignity restored and were treated as persons in their own right' (Van
Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness', p. 255) - such claims should be carefully qualified since
while women in the early Christian Church did seem to have had relatively more freedom, the
patriarchal net tightens around them at about the turn of the first century; and they were
probably never legally treated as 'persons in their own right' but had their identity
consistently determined by either a father or a husband. And the idea that 'partnership'
increasingly replaces patriarchy (R. L. Richardson, 'From "Subjection to Authority" to
"Mutual Submission": The Ethic of Subordination in 1 Peter', Faith and Mission 4 [1987]:
70-80 [74]) should be qualified in the same way; contrary to Richardson's suggestion, it is
unlikely that the call towards mutual humility in 1 Pet. 5.5 should be read to include any
others but the elders of the community! Slaughter's ('Submission', esp. pp. 68-9) notion of
mutual submission and A. B. Spencer's ('Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10/
1 [2000]: 107-19 [110]) claim that 'submission is respectful cooperation with others', are
suspect for similar reasons. A certain degree of subversion of the social order seems to be on
the cards, but socio-political equality in gender and status does not characterize 1 Peter.
164 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
39 40 41
time. As part of the apologetic use of the household code in 1 Peter,
Sarah is presented along chauvinistic lines as the ideal or perfect
4 2
Hellenistic wife
The appeal to husbands to treat their wives with consideration follows
upon the section of the household code where wives ([cci] y u v a i K e s ) were
exhorted to submit to their husbands (TOTS tSiots av5paoiv: 1 Pet. 3.1-
43
6). The exhortation to be submissive is propped up with a missionary
motif (ivcc.. .KEpSnOrjoovTai 'in order that [they] be won over'; 1 Pet. 3.1),
where the - silent - behaviour of the wives will lead to their unbelieving
44
husbands' conversion. Wives are exhorted to concentrate on the inward
aspects of their lives rather than outward appearances, and in support of
the call to submissiveness the obedience of Sarah to Abraham is cited,
45
Kupiov auTov KCcAouoa ('calling him Lord': 1 Pet. 3.6a).
46
The reference in 1 Pet. 3.6a is probably to Gen. 18.12, which is more
regularly remembered for Sarah's laughing disbelief that she can still
conceive at an old age, than for her all-but-fleeting reference to Abraham,
as 'my Lord is (or has become) old' (|pT ^TKIT; LXX: 6 5e Kiipios pou
irp£o(3uTspos). In Gen. 18 the emphasis seems to be on Abraham's age,
rather than Sarah's reference to him as 'my Lord', a conventional term of
submission, respect and honour at the time, as is clear throughout the Old
Testament. Conversely, it is clearly important for the author of 1 Peter to
stress both Abraham's lordship over Sarah, and her acknowledgement
thereof. 'The author's hermeneutics of Scripture seems to be predomin
antly determined by social, political and ideological concerns and
objectives, which mutatis mutandis, mediated the actualization of the
47
Abraham-Sarah cycle and resulted in his image of Sarah.' In short,
women's submissiveness needed to be grounded in sacred tradition.
The Sarah image is invoked to validate and add support to the appeal
to wives to act with the necessary submissiveness towards their husbands,
48
and the proper relationship is found illustrated in the title used by Sarah:
Abraham is her lord or master. The issue is not about when or how
49
women became believers, but how Christian wives are to act in
50
potentially hostile situations of marriage to unbelieving husbands.
Matters are even more ambiguous. As argued above, the figure of Sarah in
51
the Old Testament is hardly one of being constantly submissive,
although her initial childlessness, or failed sexuality according to the
sentiment of the time, did complicate matters. In the end, Sarah is more of
a good example of a woman whose husband denied their marriage, calling
present a situation where Sarah experienced unfair treatment (cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 360).
Gen. 12 and 20 are probable intertexts because they share similar motifs of being faithful in a
foreign country amidst unfair treatment of Sarah/wives and with accompanying motifs of
prayer and beauty - cf. M. Kiley, 'Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3.6', JBL
106/4 (1987): 689-92), and for Gen. 12 in particular cf. Spencer ('Pedagogical method',
pp. 112-16). Claiming that a general pattern rather than one incident is in view here because
a present participle is used (Spencer, 'Pedagogical Method', p. 113), is not convincing. While
Achtemeier is critical of 'other Jewish texts' than Gen. 18.12 serving as the source for the
Lord title (7 Peter, p. 215 n. 141), Troy Martin proposed T. Abr. as the most probable
intertext for 1 Pet. 3.6 (T. W. Martin, 'The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6', ZNW
90/1-2 [1999]: 139^6): Sarah frequently calls Abraham 'Lord' and is portrayed as the
mother of the elect, and the document connects good deeds and fearlessness.
47 Misset van de Weg, 'Sarah Imagery', p. 125.
48 Moreover, Sarah is the mother of women proselytes, appropriate to the context here
of winning converts as the main purpose of women's submission (Balch, Wives, p. 105).
49 Achtemeier insists that neither is Sarah made the type for Christian wives, nor do the
latter become the fulfilment of the former (1 Peter, p. 216 n. 145).
50 Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, p. 216.
51 'First Peter depicts Sarah as a pious, submissive wife (3.5-6), but in Genesis she is
strong, not always submissive, and is the first person in the scriptures accused of
"oppression"' (Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 196).
166 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
her his sister for self-protection (Gen. 12, 20), and in a certain sense an
inappropriate example of being treated considerately and with respect as
called for in 1 Pet. 3.7. Furthermore, with slaves being sexually available
to their masters, and wives having to submit to the sexual inclination of
their husbands in the first-century Mediterranean world, 1 Peter 3 seems
to suggest that slaves and wives should be willing to submit to sexual
53
abuse - as Sarah did! 'It is not implausible to see unjust treatment,
probably at the hands of a husband, as a dynamic of the exhortation to
54
wives as well.' To put it bluntly, Sarah's constructive role as presented in
Genesis seems to come to naught in 1 Peter, and degenerates into little less
than providing legitimacy for the abuse of wives in the interest of avoiding
accusations against the broader community of faith, of being counter-
conventional!
58 Although Paul refers in Gal. 4.24 to his rereading of the story of Abraham's two wives
and sons as allegory, his use of Scripture was in line with the prevailing hermeneutical
approaches of the day. It is unlikely to argue that Scripture functions simply as justification
for an argument and that Paul only cited Scripture when disagreeing with opponents (A. Von
Harnack, 'The Old Testament in the Pauline Letters and in the Pauline Churches', in B. S.
Rosner [ed.], Understanding Paul's Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 27-^9 [33, 45, 48-9] ).
59 S.-K. Wan, 'Allegorical Interpretation East and West: A Methodological Enquiry
into Comparative Hermeneutics', in D. Smith Christopher (ed.), Text and Experience.
Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (The Biblical Seminar, 35; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), pp. 154-79 (164).
60 D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); cf. Fowl, 'Abraham's Story'.
61 The traditional understanding of allegory makes the reading strategies of Philo,
Valentinus and Clement appear simplistic and naive, and does not account for contemporary
literary critical interest in allegory (Fowl, 'Abraham's Story', p. 81; cf. Dawson, Allegorical
Readers).
62 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, pp. 130-5.
168 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Interpretative interests
Paul is not hesitant to name the two wives - rather than the two sons - of
Abraham as the allegorized versions of life under the law and life
according to the Spirit, a fleshly versus a spiritual existence, a life of
bondage or slavery as opposed to a life of freedom. Paul's allegorical
reinterpretation of the Genesis material focuses attention on the 'inter
pretative interests' of his reading, and the interpretative power which is
73
evoked in the process. The socio-political setting of Paul's interpret
ations is important for understanding how Paul put the Hagar-Sarah
74
narrative to use, allegorically. The end result is, though, that Paul
75
transposes traditional interpretation, although in later Pauline inter
pretation his original internal Jewish polemics became part of the
76
Christian empire, and its anti-Judaism. Paul's hermeneutical efforts
jeopardized Jewish identity when he reduced the ethnic as well as spiritual
link Jews treasured with Sarah, wife of Abraham, to spiritual lineage
77
only. Not only was Sarah subverted, the link between her and the
(largest part of the) Jewish nation severed, but Sarah, at least moment-
arily, subverted Abraham in becoming the primary reference point for the
faithful!
While Sarah is never presented in the Genesis narratives as obeying
(UTTCXKOUEIV) Abraham, he on the other hand is presented on three
occasions as obeying Sarah: Gen. 16.2, 6; 21.12. 'One may speculate that it
is the author's culturally conditioned concern not to remind the
addressees of a weakness of the "father of faith" that makes 1 Peter
refrain from more explicitly referring to Abraham as one of the sources of
78
Sara's problem.' Such details would have been problematic for an
argument offered in support of sustaining the conventional husband-wife
79
relationship of the patriarchal marriage in the first century.
Arguing from adaptations made by Philo and Josephus to the Sarah
80
narratives of Genesis as well as allegorical interpretations of these
narratives, it has been suggested that the author of 1 Peter would have
experienced the same pressures that the Sarah narratives put on
patriarchal culture and its prescribed roles for wives and husbands. So
while in 1 Peter 'wives are paradigmatic for the whole of the Christian
81
community', their silence as commanded in 1 Pet. 3.6 is however not
exemplary since it will then override the exhortation to provide a ready,
82
verbal defence of their faith. In 1 Peter, therefore, the submission of
83
wives is directly linked to 'non-verbal witness'. The author of 1 Peter
therefore constructed a polemical argument going beyond the details of
78 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 691; cf. Schneider, Gender, p. 133 n. 1; Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 127.
79 Philo and Josephus as contemporaries of the author of 1 Peter made it clear that it
incurred shame when husbands did as they were told by their wives, violating the common
principles of hierarchy and patriarchy. Employing allegory, denial of Sarah's womanhood
and altering details in the Genesis narratives are employed by Philo in order to sustain the
socio-cultural and socio-political conventions of the day (cf. Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', pp. 127-9).
Whereas Josephus' interpretation diminishes Sarah's constructive role, and Philo's played
itself out within patriarchal structures and notions complete with gender and sexual
stereotypes, even to the extent of presenting Sarah with masculine traits, Philo did not
downplay the significance of Sarah and her specific virtues (Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden',
pp. 413-44).
80 E.g., Philo allegorized Abraham as mind, and obeying virtue or wisdom as the
allegorical meaning of Sarah (cf. Sly, '1 Pet. 3.6b', p. 127).
81 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 396; cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, pp. 559, 566-70. The repetition of
characteristics highlighted in the ideal woman (1 Pet. 3.1-6) in the general admonitions of 1
Pet. 3.14-15 (cf. Richardson, 'Ethic of subordination', p. 75) suggests the woman as model.
82 See in Brown, the comparison between the language used in 1 Pet. 3.1-6 and 3.14-16,
showing how the language used to describe wives is also used to describe the community's
faithfulness amidst suffering, and so establishes 'a point of ethical tension' between the texts
(Brown, 'Silent Wives', pp. 396-7). It is rather slaves (1 Pet. 2.18-25) who are to become
examples for the whole community (e.g., Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', pp. 72-3).
83 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 398; contra Michaels, / Peter, p. 158 who contentiously
argues that wives' verbal witness is possible but not obligatory.
PUNT Subverting Sarah 171
84 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 129. The strong condemnation in 1 Pet. 3 of outdoor adornment
is remarkable in light of the tradition which held that Sarah was, apart from being
exceedingly modest, also exceptionally beautiful: was the prohibition on external beautifying
to encourage women to aspire towards the natural beauty of Sarah, or simply to establish a
contrast between modesty and adorned beauty?
85 Dowd, '1 Peter', p. 463.
86 E.g., Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 400.
87 Martin, 'TestAbr', p. 139.
88 In elaboration upon 1 Pet. 2.17 irdvTas TiurjoaTE ('honour all') (cf. Richard,
'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles', pp. 417-20) but contrary to the honour and
shame culture of the first-century Mediterranean stratified society, where honour should
properly be bestowed by the inferior upon the superior (cf. Elliott, 'Disgraced', pp. 166-7).
Richard's ('Honorable Conduct', p. 419) notion that, 'all are owed honour according to their
relationships in the social order' tends to transform honour into a rather twenty-first-century
concept. Brown ('Silent Wives', p. 401) refers to Philo who cited a creation order argument in
favour of a woman's lower honour compared to men (Philo, QG 1.27).
89 The instruction directed to men or husbands (oi ofv6pes) in 3.7 is also introduced (as
in 3.1) by 'likewise' (ouoicos) and therefore connects at least indirectly with Sarah (the
reference to her being part of the previous section, 3.1-6). Whether the compliance by men
with such a counter-cultural instruction would necessarily have lessened the potential for the
Christian community of being accused of subversion (so Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 401), is
debatable.
172 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Sarah thus becomes once more, albeit in a different time, context and
90
capacity, a model of subversive submission.
marriage, 'a model [for] those wives who obey their spouses in an unjust
92
and frightening situation in a foreign land/hostile environment'.
The appeal to the contemporary wives to become 'daughters of Sarah'
93
was tantamount to calling upon them to emulate Sarah. The participles
in the concluding part of 1 Pet. 3.6 ( l a p p a . . . r\s iyevr|ftr]TE
TEKvd dya6o7ToioGoai KCX\ tyo$o6\i£va\ unSepiav irronaiv) have in
the past often been translated - if not also interpreted - as conditional: '
[Sarah] of whom . . . you are . . . her children if you do right and let nothing
94
terrify you'. They should more properly be read as consequential or
resultative and further probably having imperative force: 'a command to
95
action in light of new covenant status as Sarah's children'. Whereas the
96
apologetic role of the household code already suggests some socio-
97
cultural conformity, Sly contended that 'some details in the Genesis
account of Sarah and Abraham's marriage were embarrassing to men in
the Hellenistic age and that consequently the writer of 1 Peter may have
98
been more deliberate in reinterpreting the story'.
In the end, it is not too surprising that Sarah appears in both New
Testament letters which are often cited for their, albeit a contained and
implicit, challenge to the socio-cultural structures of the time. Reference is
often made to Gal. 3.28 and 1 Pet. 3.7" as instances of a significant
contestation of the patriarchal system, or even a breakthrough in how
gender relationships were conceived in the first century church. Sarah's
portrayal in the Genesis narratives and to some extent also in these texts
correlate with the different but nevertheless grounding roles she is
accorded in Galatians and 1 Peter.
92 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 692, emphasis in original; cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 216.
93 Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361 refers to the similar use of 'sons of...' as, e.g., in Mt. 5.44-
45 ('in order that you be sons of your Father') to express likeness in character.
94 Cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361.
95 Cf. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', pp. 105-9.
96 Balch, Wives.
97 The rest of the letter also suggests that the believing community it addressed,
experienced some social ostracism and abuse, probably because of the believers' rejection of
pagan temple activities (4.3-4) which would have been viewed as antisocial behaviour and not
only withdrawing from religious activities. This provides the context for 1 Peter's call to
comply with the social customs of the day, as also spelt out in the household code, but with
the provision that their allegiance to Christ should not be compromised (2.12-13) (cf. Brown,
'Silent Wives', p. 401).
98 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 126.
99 Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', p. 79 n. 14, quoting also Stendahl.
174 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Conclusion
In the New Testament, Sarah's role as mother of the Jewish race (Gen.
100
51.2) is subverted, and she is reappropriated as the model of faith in the
Christian tradition - the characteristics she was traditionally renowned
for, beauty and wisdom, still intact albeit in subtle ways! Sarah finds
herself in positions she did not occupy in the Genesis narratives, especially
since New Testament interpretations in an ironic way became the lenses
through which Sarah's presence and behaviour in Genesis were and are
101
read and evaluated. In Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 Sarah is presented as
an important figure regardless of the prominence bestowed on Abraham;
and although she is presented and her life interpreted in different ways,
she is mostly deemed exemplary by the New Testament documents - even
if for different reasons as required by these authors' rhetorical goals and
strategies.
102
My contention is that closer investigation shows that New Testament
authors could appropriate Scripture in ways that at times subtly and at
times less subtly subverted traditional positions, whether at socio-political
(Galatians) or socio-cultural (1 Peter) level. In the two texts examined it
can hardly be claimed that Scripture was simply appropriated to provide
103
sanction for traditionalist positions, while the representations of Sarah
entailed both her subversion and enlisting her as mode and model of
subversion, even if in subtle ways!
Tze-Ming Quek
Introduction
The second psalm has been described as the favourite psalm of John the
1
Seer. This is justified, as no other NT writing appeals to it more
frequently. Allusions to Psalm 2 are found in Revelation 2.26-27; 11.15,
2
18; 12.5, 10; 19.15. This essay is concerned with the first of these, which
occurs in the fourth of the letters to the seven churches near the beginning
of Revelation.
beginning of the letter, promises to 'the one who conquers and does my
works to the end' that 'I will give him authority over the nations'. The
words Scooco and E0VT) give the cue for Psalm 2, and this leads to a
grammatically adjusted allusion to Ps. 2.9.
3 D. E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols; WBC 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98), 1:212.
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 177
12
Psalm 2 in 4Q174 (= 4Q Florilegium)
Theme, Description
4Q174 is concerned with identifying and characterizing the community
over against its enemies in the era of the 'latter days', enemies whose
ultimate defeat is certain because of Yahweh's intervention and rule, thus
resulting in the community's security and vindication after the time of
13
testing.
Annette Steudel's material reconstruction has thrown more light on the
flow of the text in the twenty-six fragments that comprise 4Q174. Because
of this I have also used her new column numbering. As a rough guide,
columns 1 and 2 in DJD and Garcia Martinez are now columns 3 and 4
respectively. As reconstructed by Steudel, 4Q174 contains at least three
10 E.g., G. K. Beale, 'Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old
Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22', in C. A. Evans and J. A.
Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and
Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 421-46, (440).
11 P. Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. W. Pradels; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p. 189.
12 For an introduction, analysis and thorough reconstruction of the text of 4Q174, see A.
b
Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschaf' ) :
Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung
des durch 4Q174 ('Florilegium') und 4Q177 ('Catena A') reprasentierten Werkes aus den
Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
13 G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 143-4; 59.
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 179
14 No trace of the last line of column II survives, but some kind of citation of 2 Sam.
7.10-11 certainly has to begin there, since parts of w . 10c-1 la are found in what is clearly the
first line of column III. Interestingly, what survives in III, 1 does not correspond exactly to
the MT, since it contains a word not found in the MT: [ ~~ ]iHft (enemy). This is probably a
result of influence from the near parallel from Ps. 89.23. See the discussion in Brooke,
Exegesis, pp. 97-9; and Steudel, Midrasch, pp. 41-2.
15 See the reconstruction of Une 19 in Steudel, Midrasch, p. 25.
,
16 Y. Yadin, A Midrash on 2 Sam. vii and Ps. i-ii (4Q Florilegium) , IEJ 9 (1959): 95-8
(98).
180 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
interpretation of this refers to the Sons of Zadok the priests and they are
the elect of Israel in the End of Days.'
The second attempt comes from Brooke. Instead of restoring a plural in
the lemma against the MT tradition, he looked to other characters in
unquoted parts of Psalm 2 to relate the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. He settled
on 'those who take refuge in him' from Ps. 2.12, and so his reconstruction
reads: 'The real interpretation of the matter [is that "the nations" are the
Kittjim and "those who take [refuge in Him" are] the chosen ones of Israel
17
in the latter days.' In this way he breaks the identification between the
'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in the pesher.
Both the restorations of Yadin and Brooke have been shown to be
inadequate by Steudel. I only highlight these two attempts to show the
lengths to which scholars have gone to avoid the consequence of the
likeliest restoration, which is the correspondence between the singular 'his
18
anointed' and the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel'. It is better to take the
tension as it stands and admit to some kind of correlation between the
two. This should not be understood as a return to 'corporate personality',
as popularized by H. Wheeler Robinson from the early part of the last
19
century. Previously, scholars like Gartner attempted to account for the
correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in
20
4Q174 by appealing to this concept.
The problem is that subsequent scholarship has so seriously under
mined Robinson's hypothesis that few resort uncritically to 'corporate
personality' today; at least, not in the form he first envisaged and with the
21
explanation he provided. Nevertheless, it remains the case that signifi-
cant parts of the OT (and the NT) imply a peculiarly strong sense of
solidarity between an individual figure or speaker and the group, even if
this is not to be accounted for by the incorporation of the group in an
22
individual.
Gartner's reliance on 'corporate personality' meant that the relation
ship between the two terms amounted to simple identity - 'his anointed'
actually means the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. The most obvious objection to
this is that nowhere else in the Qumran corpus is the community called
23
'anointed'. A better way to understand the relationship is solidarity
between an outstanding individual of a group and the group itself, so that
whatever happens to that individual is seen to be happening to the group
and vice versa. Some interrelated strands of evidence give clues on how
this can be accounted for, and these clues lead us to a reading of the
Davidic covenant. The first clue is found in the context of the biblical
lemma Ps. 2.1-2, and the second is found in the context of 4Q174 as a
whole, and the third comes from another Qumran document, 4Q252.
Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 314; but see A. Perriman, 'The Corporate
Christ: Re-assessing the Jewish Background', TynBul 50/2 (1999): 241-63 (245-6) for his
critique on the validity of this.
22 See J. W. Rogerson, 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in Ronald E. Clements
(ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives
(Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37 (25). In effect, Rogerson's target of criticism is
not so much Robinson's data, but his explanation of the alleged primitive Hebrew mentality.
Indeed, Kaminsky has demonstrated that corporate ideas (by which he means mainly
corporate responsibility) in the OT are 'common, central and persistent'. See Kaminsky,
Corporate, pp. 30-54.
23 Gartner wants to see the community at the centre of interpretation throughout 4Q174.
In line with this, he proposes, by analogy with CD I, 4-11, that the 'Branch of David' in
4Q174 III, 11-13 is a symbol for the community, which appears under the leadership of the
Interpreter of the Law. His explanation is forced, and flies against the evidence of other
documents such as 4Q252 V, 3; where the 'Branch' is the 'Righteous Anointed/Messiah', and
the context clearly demands an individual royal figure.
24 On the reception history of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 see W. M. Schniedewind, Society and the
Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7.1-17 (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999), esp. pp. 69-70.
182 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
considered the fons et origo of Davidic ideology. It has not always been
obvious, but Davidic ideology is corporate because its ultimate purpose is
25
the typically deuteronomic motif of 'rest' for the nation. That the
Davidic covenant is inextricably linked with the security of the nation can
be clearly seen in the lines leading up to the dynastic promise of 2 Sam.
7.14:
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so
that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and
evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I
appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all
your enemies. (2 Sam. 7.10-1 la)
Context of4Q174
Second, the context of 4Q174 reveals that in the section immediately
preceding the citation of Psalm 2 (namely, 4Q174 III, 1-13), we have an
eschatological commentary on 2 Sam. 7.10-14. The section begins with a
citation and commentary of 2 Sam. 7.10-1 la. This is precisely the text
from which the close connection between Davidic ideology and the
fulfilment of God's promises of security for the nation can be seen.
Moreover, in that commentary, the author of 4Q174 appropriates the 'I
27
will give you [singular] rest' of 2 Sam. 7.11a and interprets it as '
[Yahweh] will give them [plural] rest from all the children of Belial' (III, 7-
8). The promise to David is thus appropriated - without further
explanation - by what must be the community. This exegetical move is
very similar to the correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones
of Israel' when the author comments on Ps. 2.1-2 later. In the commentary
25 Kaminsky, Corporate, pp. 47-8. See Deut. 12.9-10; Josh. 1.13; 21.42; 22.4; 23.1; 1 Kgs
5.18; 8.56.
26 A. Gileadi, 'The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection', in
A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 157-63 (159). See 1 Kgs 9.4, 6-7; 2 Kgs 20.6; Isa. 37.35.
Gileadi notes this as one of the resemblances between the Davidic covenant and Hittite and
Neo-Assyrian suzerain-vassal relationships.
27 Following some older interpreters (Ewald, Wellhausen, Driver) who felt v. 1 la should
contain a promise of 'rest' to Israel from its enemies rather than to David from his enemies,
McCarter emends the text to: 'Then I shall give him (i.e., Israel) rest from all its enemies' P.
K. McCarter Jr., / / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary
(AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 193. There is no textual support for this
reading, and the reading in 4Q174 clearly has the second-person suffixes.
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 183
We note especially the idea that the 'ruler's staff is the covenant of his
kingdom, which is further described as the 'covenant of the kingdom of
His people'.
Therefore, to sum up what is going on in 4Q174: Because of the Davidic
covenant, the Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community,
who understand themselves as eschatological Israel. The promise of rest to
him applies to the community in their struggle against Belial. This is their
interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.10-11. In the same way, the rebellion by the
nations/children of Belial against Yahweh and his Anointed/Messiah is
also a threat against the Chosen ones of Israel. This is their interpretation
of Ps. 2.1-2.
Thus, scholars who conclude that the 'corporate' understanding of 'his
anointed' precludes a 'messianic understanding of Ps 2.1, 2' in 4Q174 are
being unnecessarily fussy. Instead, it is only with the presupposition of a
future Davidic Messiah in Ps. 2.1-2 who, under the Davidic covenant,
stands in such solidarity with eschatological Israel, that the interpretation
in 4Q174 III, 19 works.
184 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
This is not to say that there is any direct dependence between the two
texts. But it does seem to be that this cluster of eschatological ideas,
found in common in 4Q174 and the Thyatiran letter, was there in the
ether in the first century. It is interesting then that there is one more
significant thing in common: the application to the messianic community
of a biblical text that is understood elsewhere to refer to a Davidic
Messiah. In the case of 4Q174, we see this for both 2 Sam. 7.10-11 and Ps.
2.1-2. In Rev. 2.26-27, we see this for Ps. 2.8-9. I have argued that this
exegesis works in 4Q174 because of a conception of the Davidic covenant
as a basis for corporate protection. Under the Davidic covenant, this
Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community who understand
themselves as eschatological Israel, because the promise of rest to him is
linked to the nation's security as well. And so the promise of rest to David
and his seed can be appropriated by the community in their struggle
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 185
28 W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan
of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904), pp. 312-22; C. J. Hemer, The
Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT,
1986), pp. 111-17, 127.
29 Osborne, Revelation, p. 167; Smalley, Revelation, p. 79.
30 Cf. Rev. 22.16, where Jesus speaks of himself and connects the messianic text Isa. 11.1
with the star: T am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star'. Num.
24.17 was interpreted messianically in Jewish writings, e.g., 4Q175 9-13. Some have noted
that the use of Balaam's prophecy is apt here because Balaam is a symbol in Rev. 2.14 for the
same false teaching described in Thyatira. See Beale, Revelation, p. 268.
186 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Conclusion
Psalm 2.8-9 was interpreted messianically in the first century (Ps. Sol.
17.24-25; Rev. 12.5; 19.15), and Ps. 2.7 was widely construed as a
messianic text in early Christianity (Mt. 3.16-17 par.; Acts 13.33-35;
Heb. 1.5; 5.5) and perhaps Qumran (lQSa 2.11-12); that is, they referred
to an individual eschatological Davidide. Here in Rev. 2.26c-27, Ps. 2.8-9
is given a corporate application to the followers of the Messiah.
Something very similar happens in 4Q174 III, 18-21, where a pesher to
Ps. 2.1-2 interprets the singular 'anointed' of Ps. 2.2 as the plural
'Chosen ones of Israel'. From readings of: (a) royal ideology as
expressed in Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7.10-14; (b) the context of 4Q174; and
(c) 4Q252; the best explanation for this oscillation between the singular
and the plural for 4Q174 is not 'corporate personality' but an
understanding of the Davidic covenant as a basis for corporate
protection and security. I have argued that the same Davidic covenant
and ideology underpins the interpretation in Rev. 2.26-27. Against the
majority I do not think it sufficient to merely invoke the general motif of
31 See W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1959), pp. 40-2.
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 187
the followers sharing the Messiah's final rule. But against Witetschek I
think the allusion to Ps. 2.9 applies to both the Messiah and his followers,
for it is only with a messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 and the corporate
implications of Davidic covenant theology that the Seer's highly allusive
and sophisticated use of Scripture works.
Chapter 1 3
Bogdan G. Bucur
And concerning this Stone he stated and showed: on this stone, behold, I
open seven eyes [Zech. 3.9]. And what are the seven eyes opened on the
stone other than the Spirit of God that dwelt upon Christ with seven
operations? As Isaiah the Prophet said, There will rest and dwell upon
him God's Spirit of wisdom and of understanding and of counsel and of
courage, and of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord [Isa. 11.2-3]. These
are the seven eyes that were opened upon the stone [Zech. 3.9], and these
2
are the seven eyes of the Lord which look upon all the earth [Zech. 4.10].
3 For details in this respect, see Sebastian Brock, 'The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1.35 and
the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation', in W. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the
Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 117-31; Columba Stewart, 'Working the Earth of the Heart':
The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1991), p. 212.
4 Karl Schlutz (Isaias 11.2 [Die sieben Gaben des Heiligen Geistes] in den ersten vier
christlichen Jahrhunderten [Munster: Aschendorff, 1932], p. 35) thinks that Aphrahat might
have counted 'the Spirit of God' as one of the seven gifts. I find this very unlikely. First,
Aphrahat clearly distinguishes between the two terms, 'the Spirit' and 'the seven operations
of the Spirit'. Second, there is an obvious parallelism between 'the Spirit of God that abode
on Christ with seven operations', and the immediately following proof text from Isa. 11.2-3:
'The Spirit of God shall rest and dwell upon him', followed by the 'seven' (in reality six)
operations. Finally, patristic writers who echo this tradition count, without exception, seven
gifts of the Spirit as distinct from 'the Spirit of God'.
5 Schlutz {Isaias 11.2, pp. 2-11) provides a detailed treatment of the versions and their
relationship.
6 Isa. 11.2 is used in a speculation about the six spirits on the Messiah in Gen. Rab. 97.
The numerous patristic references to Isaiah 11 and the Holy Spirit adduced by Schlutz have
no counterpart in the rabbinic literature surveyed by Peter Schafer in his Die Vorstellung vom
Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kosel, 1972).
7 Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, p. 8. In / En. 61.11 the seven-fold angelic praise is said to rise up 'in
the spirit of faith, in the spirit of wisdom and patience, in the spirit of mercy, in the spirit of
justice and peace, and in the spirit of generosity'. Yet, as Schlutz (Isaias 11.2, p. 20) notes,
this is in no way connected to Isa. 11.2-3. In / En. 49.3 the Spirit resting over the coming
Messiah is five-fold.
190 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
8 For the patristic exegesis of the passage, see Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, passim. Folker Siegert
(Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'liber Jona', 'liber Jona' < Fragment> und
'liber Simson' [WUNT, 61; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992], 2:275) views the homily's use of
Isa. 11.2 as a Jewish precursor of the Christian tradition.
9 So also Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', p. 127; Bruns,
Christusbild, p. 140.
10 Dem. 6.12 (1/288); 10.8 (1/464); 1.19 (1/44); 6.13 (1/288); 6.12 (1/288); 6.10 (1/281); 6.14
(1/293).
11 Dem. 6.12 (1/288).
12 Dem. 6.10 (1/281).
13 Bruns, Unterweisungen, pp. 200 n. 22, 205 n. 26. The passages are Dem. 6.10 (1/281)
and Dem. 6.14 (1/293).
14 Dem. 6.12 (1/285).
15 On the 'massive presence' of this verse in rabbinic literature, see Pierre, Exposes,
p. 395 n. 73.
BUCUR Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage 191
the apostle Paul: 'God distributed from the Spirit of Christ and sent it into
16
the prophets' (d-palleg alaha men ruhd da-msiheh w-saddar ba-nbiye).
Even though scholarship is not unanimous on this point, I find it
indisputable that Aphrahat is quoting 'the blessed apostle' according to 3
Cor., an apocryphal text that Aphrahat and Ephrem seem to have
17
regarded as canonical. The relevant verse (3 Cor. 2.10) reads as follows:
'For he [God] desired to save the house of Israel. Therefore, distributing
from the Spirit of Christ, he sent it into the prophets (Mepioas ouv arro
18
TOU TTV£UpaTOS TOU XplOTOU ETTE|Jv|#V ElS TOUS TTpO<J>TlTas).
This passage is part of the Demonstration 'On the Sons of the Covenant'.
Aphrahat argues here one of the axioms of his ascetic theory, namely that
the Holy Spirit departs from a sinful person and goes to accuse that
person before the throne of God. The above-quoted fragment is preceded
by the following remarks:
Anyone who has preserved the Spirit of Christ in purity: when it [the
Spirit] goes to him [Christ], it [the Spirit] speaks to him thus: the body to
which I went and which put me on in the waters of baptism, has preserved
me in holiness. And the Holy Spirit entreats Christ for the resurrection
of the body that preserved it in a pure manner... And anyone who
receives the Spirit from the waters [of baptism] and wearies it: it [the
Spirit] departs from that person . . . and goes to its nature, [namely] unto
Christ, and accuses that man of having grieved it.
According to the Sage, Christians receive the Spirit at baptism. If one
keeps the Spirit in purity, the latter will advocate for that person before
the throne of God; if, on the contrary, one indulges in sinful behaviour,
the Spirit leaves the house of the soul - which allows the adversary to
break in and occupy it (Dem. 6.17) - and goes to accuse the person before
God. For Aphrahat, the notion that the Spirit can be present in the
believer, and subsequently leave, must have been part of a traditional
ascetic theory. Indication that this is an inherited tradition can be found in
20
the striking similarities with the Shepherd of Hermas. There are,
however, no Syriac manuscripts of the Shepherd, and no references to this
21
work among Syriac writers. Nadia Ibrahim-Fredrikson raises the
hypothesis of a common source behind both Aphrahat and the
Shepherd, a source whose views of spiritual dualism and divine indwelling
22
would have been similar to that of the Community Rule at Qumran.
What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that Aphrahat describes
the work of the Holy Spirit by using unmistakably angelic imagery: the
20 According to the Shepherd of Hermas, the Trvsuucc inhabits the believer (Herm. Mand.
10.2.5) and, under normal circumstances, intercedes on behalf of that person. Yet, the
Shepherd warns that the Holy Spirit is easily grieved and driven away by sadness (Herm.
Mand. 10.1.3; 10.2.1), in which case he will depart and intercede with God against the person
{Herm. Mand. 10.41.5).
21 Martin Leutzsch, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums, 3;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), pp. 120-1; Anton Baumstark,
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensischen Texte
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1922), pp. 75-7; Sebastian Brock, 'The Syriac Background to the World
of Theodore of Tarsus', in From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1999),
p. 37.
22 N. I. Fredrikson, 'L'Esprit Saint et les esprits mauvais dans le pasteur d'Hermas:
Sources et prolongements', VC 55 (2001): 262-80 (273, 277, 278). For similarities between
Aphrahat's ascetic theology and that of the Qumran documents see A. Golitzin, 'Recovering
the "Glory of Adam": "Divine Light" Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian
Ascetical Literature of Fourth-Century Syro-Mesopotamia', in J. R. Davila (ed.), The Dead
Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003),
pp. 275-308.
BUCUR Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage 193
Spirit 'is always on the move', he stands before the divine throne, beholds the
face of God, entreats Christ on behalf of the worthy ascetics, accuses the
unworthy and so on. It is significant that the action of carrying prayers from
earth to the throne of God is sometimes (Dem. 4.13) ascribed to the
archangel Gabriel. This is again similar to the Shepherd(Herm. Sim. 8.2.5),
where the archangel Michael states that, in addition to the inspection of the
believers' good deeds by one of his angelic subordinates, he will personally
test every soul again, at the heavenly altar (syco OCUTOUS em TO 0uoiaoTripiov
Soiaudaco). Both Aphrahat and the Shepherd deploy the traditional imagery
23
of angels carrying up the prayer of humans to the heavenly altar.
In the case of Aphrahat, the angelomorphic element is even more
pronounced, given that the Spirit's toing and froing between earth and
heaven, and his intercession before the divine throne, are 'documented'
with an unlikely proof-text, namely Mt. 18.10 ('their angels in heaven
always behold the face of my Father'). In his commentary on the
Diatessaron, Ephrem interprets 'the angels of the little ones' as a
metaphor for the prayers of the believers, which reach up to the highest
heavens. Later Syriac authors (Jacob of Edessa, Isodad of Merv,
Dionysius Bar Salibi) use Mt. 18.10 as a proof-text for the existence of
24
guardian angels. For Aphrahat, however, the angels of Mt. 18.10
illustrate the intercessory activity of the Holy Spirit.
23 For a long list of relevant texts and detailed discussion, see Loren Stuckenbruck,
Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 70; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 173-80;
Cornelis Haas, 'Die Pneumatologie des "Hirten des Hennas'", ANRWllj 21A (1993): 552-
86 (560, 567 n. 49).
24 Winfrid Cramer, 'Mt 18.10 in fruhsyrischer Deutung', OrChr 59 (1975): 130-46.
25 Dem. 6.10(1/279-280).
194 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
It is quite evident that 'the pledge' (rahbuna, appcc(3cov) refers to the Spirit.
There is, first, the allusion to 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5 and Eph. 1.14. There are,
then, a number of obvious parallels with statements made elsewhere in the
same Demonstration, where the same is said in reference to the Holy
26
Spirit. The notion of 'despising' the Spirit is significant here. Aphrahat
returns to it later in the same Demonstration, also supplying a fitting
scriptural proof: 'the Spirit that the prophets received, and which we, too,
have received' is indicated by something 'that our Lord said, Do not
despise any of these little ones that believe in Me, for their angels in heaven
27
always gaze on the face of my Father'.
Aphrahat's notion of 'fragmentary' Spirit-endowment and his angelo
morphic pneumatology should be considered jointly. The connection
between Zech. 3.9, Isa. 11.1-3 and Mt. 18.10 illustrates very well what
Pierre calls a 'network of scriptural traditions', which Aphrahat inherited
28
from earlier Christian tradition. That this is, indeed, the case, is made
clear by the occurrence of the same cluster of biblical verses and echoes of
angelomorphic pneumatology in Clement of Alexandria.
26 In the text just quoted, Christ leaves his pledge upon his ascension, just as in another
passage: 'when he went to his Father, he sent to us his Spirit' (Dem. 6.10 [1/282]); the
exhortation to 'honor the pledge' finds a counterpart in an earlier exhortation, to 'honor the
Spirit of Christ, that we may receive grace from Him' (Dem. 6.1 p/241]); the characterization
of the pledge as 'that which is of his [Christ's] own nature' is very similar to the statement
about the Spirit going 'to its nature, [namely] unto Christ' (Dem. 6.14 [1/296]); 'two-way'
discourse on the required attitude towards the pledge, corresponds perfectly to the ascetic
theory of the same Demonstration, which opposes those who 'preserve the Spirit of Christ in
purity' and those who defile the Spirit (Dem. 6.14-15).
27 Dem. 6.14-15 (1/292, 297).
28 Some of these traditions were embodied in a 'series of testimonia that might have
circulated orally and been transmitted independently from the known biblical text'. As a
matter of fact, Aphrahat is 'one of the richest witnesses' to the use of testimonia, with Dem.
16 furnishing 'the largest collection ever realized by a Father'. See Pierre, 'Introduction', pp.
115, 138, 68. See also Murray, 'Rhetorical Patterns', p. 110; idem, Symbols of Church and
Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (London and New York: T & T Clark
International, 2nd edn, 2004), pp. 289-90; Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4, 40, 58.
BUCUR Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage 195
also with the 'seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of
29
Jesse' (Isa. 11.1-3 LXX): this, for him, is 'the heptad of the Spirit'.
The exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and that of Aphrahat offer a
surprising convergence. Both writers use the same cluster of biblical
verses: 'the seven eyes of the Lord' (Zech. 3.9; 4.10), 'the seven gifts of the
Spirit' (Isa. 11.2-3), and 'the angels of the little ones' (Mt. 18.10); both
echo the tradition about the highest angelic company; finally, both use
30
angelic imagery to express a definite pneumatological content.
Trypho suggests that Isa. 11.1-3 deals with the reception of the seven
'powers of the Holy Spirit', and therefore excludes Justin's idea of a pre-
existent 'Lord', distinct from the Father, and endowed with the 'powers'.
Justin responds by interpreting the Isaiah passage as a reference to the
Jordan event: the seven powers of the Spirit rested on Jesus Christ when
the Spirit 'fluttered down on' him (ITTITTTT^VQI, Dial. 88.3) at the Jordan
31
baptism. In reaction, most likely, to contrary subordinationist views,
Justin insists that Jesus' baptism was a theophany, which did not create
Christ's identity but revealed it to the world (cf. Jn 1.31:1 va 4>avEpco8fl
29 Strom. 5.6.35; Eel. 57.1; Exc. 10; Strom. 5.6.35; Paed. 3.12.87.
30 For a detailed treatment of this topic in Clement, see Christian Oeyen, Eine
fruhchristliche Engelpneumatologie bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Erweiterer Separatdruck aus
der Internationalen Kirchlichen Zeitschrift: Bern, 1966); Bogdan G. Bucur, 'Revisiting
Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', VC
61 (2007): 381^13.
31 The connection between the seven-fold Spirit of Isa. 11.1-3 and the descent of the
Spirit at the Jordan baptism also occurs in Irenaeus (Epid. 9), who regards it as an element of
Church tradition.
196 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
32
Top 'lopar|X). In support of his view, he states that a fire was kindled (rrup
33
avrj<|>0Ti) in the Jordan at the moment of the baptism. For Justin, Jesus
Christ pre-existed as bearer of the seven 'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as
he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the powers'.
This theory of the 'powers' proves serviceable for an account of Old
Testament prophecy and New Testament charismatic endowment.
According to Justin, each of the prophets received 'some one or two
powers from God': KCU OTI oi irap'uMiv irpo^fjTai, e K a o x o s VIOLV TIVCX fi
KOU SeuTspav Siivapiv i r a p a TOU 0eou Aaii(3avovTes. Thus Solomon had
the spirit of wisdom; Daniel, that of understanding and counsel; Moses,
that of strength and piety; Elijah, that of fear; Isaiah, that of knowledge.
The seven powers of the Spirit enumerated by Isaiah were later
reassembled in Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of the powers' (Dial. 87.4).
Specifically, the Spirit 'ceased' (eirauoccTo) from being poured out
fragmentarily upon the prophets when it is said to have 'rested'
( a v e i r a u o a T o ) upon him (Dial. 87.3) at the Jordan baptism. After his
ascension, Christ turns the prophetic powers of the Spirit into various
SOMCCTCC or xapiopocTa to the Church, thus fulfilling the prophecies of Joel
3.1 (/ shall pour out my Spirit over all flesh) and Ps. 67.19, LXX (He
4
ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the sons of men)?
Justin is quite likely to be using a collection of testimonia here. He quotes
Ps. 67.19 in a form closer to Eph. 4.8 than the LXX; his quotation from
Joel 3.1 begins as in the LXX (KOL\ IOTOCI METCX TOUTO) rather than Acts 2.17
(Kai eoTcci ev TO\S eoxiTous fiMepais), but then speaks of'my servants', as
in Acts 2.18, rather than 'servants', as in Joel 3.2. Some of the gifts listed
in Dial. 39.2, namely 'healing', foreknowledge', and 'teaching', echo 1
Corinthians 12, which also explains the shift from 5 o p a T a to
35
XapiopccTa. It is noteworthy that the gifts of the Spirit received by the
Church are also distributed fragmentarily: 'from the grace of the power of
his Spirit to those who believe in him, to each one inasmuch as he deems
36
him worthy'.
Trypho finds nothing objectionable in Justin's pneumatology. This is
not because 'Trypho' would be nothing more than a literary construct of
Justin's - a position that Timothy J. Horner has challenged quite
37
convincingly. It seems rather, as Michel Rene Barnes argues, that Justin
3
and Trypho share a Pneumatology. * As a case in point, Justin's
interpretation of Isaiah 11 finds its counterpart in the Pseudo-Philonic
39
synagogal homily 'On Samson'. This text is at pains to explain how it
was possible that Samson committed sins even though he was possessed
by the Spirit. The argument is that the prophets only received one or the
other of the 'spirits' mentioned in Isa. 11.2. Moving away from the
wording of the verse, the homilist gives some examples: Abraham received
the spirit of righteousness, Joseph the spirit of self-restraint, Simeon and
a£iov EKCXOTOV ETriaTcxTat with the statement about the 'powers of the Spirit' received by the
prophets: EKaoTos uiav i v a rj Kai SEimpav ouvapiv irapa TOO 6EOU AauPavovTEs.
T
Levi the spirit of zeal, and Judah the spirit of discernment. As for Samson,
he only received 'the spirit of strength' - which explains his utter lack of
40
wisdom! Despite the fact that 'On Samson' enumerates only six spirits in
Isa. 11.2, the resemblance with Justin is obvious. 41
I now return to the challenge posed by Trypho: how can Justin's claim
about a pre-existent Messiah be consistent with the idea that he received
the seven powers of the Spirit? I noted earlier that Justin rejects any
subordinationist views, and affirms that the Jordan event is, essentially, a
revelation of who Jesus Christ is: the pre-existent bearer of the seven
'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the
powers'.
This language of Suvapeis, Suvaneis TOU TTVEUMCXTOS, and loipios TCOV
SuvdpEcov, and the connection between the seven gifts of the Spirit (Isa.
11.2-3) and the 'powers' are not accidental. As has already been
documented in scholarship, Justin understands the Old Testament phrase
Kupios TCOV 5uvd|JEcov such that the 'Lord' is Jesus Christ and the 'powers'
are, at the same time, certain angelic beings (Dial. 85) and the seven
'powers of the Spirit' referred to in Isaiah 11 (Dial. 8 7 ) . 42
Conclusions
Both Aphrahat and Justin combine Isa. 11.2-3 (the seven gifts of the
Spirit) with Joel 3.1 (T shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh') and Ps. 67
(68). 19 ('He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the
sons of men'). Unlike Justin Martyr, who uses Isa. 11.1-3 to contrast the
43
'partial' outpouring of the Spirit over the prophets and Christ's 'full' and
sovereign possession of the Spirit, Aphrahat uses the Isaiah verse only for
the Messiah, and never to affirm the partial endowment of prophets and
baptized Christians. In other words, Isa. 11.2 serves, in Dem. 1, the same
role as Jn 3.34 ('it was not by measure that his Father gave the Spirit unto
him') in Dem. 6. Like Justin, Aphrahat states that the prophets received
only '[a portion] from the Spirit of Christ, each one of them as he was able
to bear' - but he prefers to use 3 Cor. 2.10 rather than Isa. 11.2 in support
of this statement.
B o t h Aphrahat and Clement use the same cluster of biblical verses (Isa.
44 In Aphrahat, Mt. 18.10 is instead linked to other texts such as 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; Eph.
1.14; 3 Cor. 2.10; Num. 11.17; 2 Sam. 16.14-23 (the evil spirit sent to Saul).
45 I have already mentioned the resemblance with the Shepherd of Hermas. Another case
refers to the striking resemblance between the exegesis of Judg. 7.4-8 by Aphrahat (Dem.
7.19-21) and Origen (Horn. Judic. 9.2). R. H. Connolly ('Aphraates and Monasticism', JTS6
[1905]: 538-9) hypothesized that the sage might have read Origen. In response, Loofs
(Theophilus, pp. 258-9) stated that a common source is a far more likely explanation.
46 Quispel, 'Genius and Spirit', 160, 164. See also Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4. A fresh
and compelling view has been proposed recently by April DeConick, Recovering the Original
Gospel of Thomas: A History of The Gospel And Its Growth (LNTS, 286; Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 2005), pp. 236-41.
Bibliography
Aageson, J. W., Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical
Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993).
Achtemeier, P. J., 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).
Alexander, P. S., and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yahad:
(DJD, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Allen, L. C , Psalms: Word Biblical Themes (Waco: Word, 1987).
Amir, Y., 'The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in
Philo', in Frederick E. Greenspahn et al. (eds), Nourished with Peace:
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico:
Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25.
Anderson, F., Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 25;
New York: Doubleday, 2001).
Asher, J. R., Polarity and Change in 1 Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics,
Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2000).
Auld, A. G., 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test Case for Synchrony
plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit:
Diachronie und Synchronic im Wettstreit. Beitrage zur Auslegung des
ersten Samuelbuches (Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28.
Aune, D. E., 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls. A
Reassessment of the Problem', in D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H.
Ulrichsen (eds), Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of
Peder Borgen (NovTSup, 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 281-303.
Revelation (3 vols; WBC, 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98).
Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson and M.
Sbisa; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975).
Avemarie, F., 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture:
Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor
and Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A
Collection of Articles (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005),
pp. 125-48.
V
Bachmann, M., '4QMMT und Galaterbrief, m i m EH7D und EPTA
NOMOY,' ZNW 89 (1998): 91-113.
Bibliography 201
Shepherd, G. T., 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 140-9.
Siegert, F., Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'Uber Jona,'
'UberJona' <Fragment> und 'liber Simson (WUNT, 61; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1992).
et al. (eds and trans.), Pseudo-Philon: Predications synagogales (SC,
345; Paris: Cerf, 1999).
Skinner, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930).
Slaughter, J. R., 'Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3.5-6)', BS
153 (1996): 357-65.
'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153
(1996): 63-74.
Sly, D. I., '1 Peter 3.6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus', JBL 110
(1991): 126-9.
Smalley, S. S., The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text
of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005).
Smith, Ralph, Micah-Malachi (WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984).
Snowman, L. V., 'Circumcision', EJ 5.571.
Soards, M. L., 'The Life and Writings of Paul', in M. A. Powell (ed.), The
New Testament Today (Louisville: WJK, 1999), pp. 86-99.
'The Psalter in the Text and Thought of the Fourth Gospel', in R. B.
Sloan and M. C. Parson (eds), Perspectives on John: Method and
Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1993), pp. 251-61.
Sparks, H. F. D., 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943):
129-38.
Spencer, A. B., 'Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10
(2000): 107-19.
Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962).
Sprinkle, P., Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early Jewish and
Christian Interpretation (WUNT; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008).
Staley, J., 'The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the
Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 241-64.
Stanley, C. D., Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the
Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004).
Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Stanton, G., 'The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr', in G. N.
Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, and S. C. Barton, (eds), The Holy Spirit
and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 321-34.
Steinhauser, M. G., 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal
4,21-31', Bib 70 (1989): 234-40.
220 Bibliography
Galatians 1 Timothy
2.17 104-8, 109, 113, 1.11-12 131 4.1 104
197 1.12 132
2.17-20 112 1.13-2 131 2 Timothy
2.17-21 103 2.2 132 3.1 104
2.18 104, 107, 108, 109, 2.16 133
197 2.19-21 132 Hebrews
2.19 111,112 2.20-21 134 1.5 92, 99, 102, 186
2.20 104, 111 2.21 129 5.5 92, 186
2.25-31 87 3.1 172 11 157
4.25-28 87, 92, 99 3.1-5 132 11.11 158, 160, 162
4.25-31 102 3.2-5 133
7.2-53 158 3.5 134 James
10.35 56 3.6 75 2 157
13.14-15 47 3.6-29 161
13.33 89, 99, 102 3.7 150 1 Peter
13.33-35 186 3.10-12 133 1.1 168
16.25 73 3.10-14 126 1.10-12 168
3.11 135 1.14 168
Romans 3.11-12 126 1.18 168
1.3^ 191 3.11-12 131, 132, 134 1.21 168
3.20 133 3.12 126, 129, 133 1.22 168
4 157 3.19-22 128, 129 2.1 168
4.19 158 3.19-25 128, 129 2.12-13 173
7.7-13 128 3.21 128, 134 2.17 171
8 121 3.22 128 2.18-25 170
8.3-4 128 3.23-25 130 2.21-25 168
9.7 158 3.28 173 2.22-25 168
10.5 133 4 156 2.3 168
11.33 122 4.3 151, 172 2.7-8 168
4.9 132 2.9 168
1 Corinthians 4.21-31 138, 139, 149, 3 156
2.7 122 150, 153, 154 3.10-12 168
2.12 121 4.21-5.1 158, 160 3.1-6 164, 170
2.13-15 123 4.24 167 3.14-15 168
3.1 123 4.26 167 3.14-16 170
4.1 122 4.27 162 3.15 164
12 197 4.29 151, 161 3.5 168
12.8 122 5 121 3.6 158, 168, 170, 171,
15 123 5.12 172 172, 173
15.1 132 5.15 172 3.7 162, 166, 171. 173
15.32 75 5.17 133 4.14 168
15.44-49 123 6.12-13 133 4.18 168
15.45 124 4.3-4 173
15.45-49 123 Ephesians 4.3-5 168
15.47 124 1.14 194, 199 4.6 168
15.49 124 4.8 196, 197 4.8 168
5.5 168
2 Corinthians Philippians 5.8 168
1.12 122 3.11-12 132
1.22 194, 199 1 John
5.5 194, 199 Colossians 4.1-6 28
9.9 56 1.16 194
230 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
Holladay, C. R. 29 Lieberman, S. 53
Holquist, M. 75 Lindars, B. 97
Hoppin, R. 159 Lipscomb, W. L. 44
Homer, T. J. 197 Litwak, K. D. 61, 75
Horsley, R. A. 29, 125 Longenecker, B. W. 128-31, 133,197
Hovhanessian, V. 191 Longenecker, R. N. 127, 129, 133
Hultgren, S. 120-1, 123, 125 Longman, T., Ill 90
Huppenbauer, M. W. 28, 30-1, 33, Loofs, F. 188, 191
37, 43
Mack, B. L. 119
Janzen, G. 135-6, 168 Madas-Lebel, M. 29
Jardine, A. 75 Malbon, E. S. 150
Jeremias, J. 57 Marcus, J. 96
Jervel, J. 120 Marcus, R. 39
Jewett, R. 121 Marmonstein, A. 38
Jobes, K. H. 161-2 Marshall, I. H. 50, 103
Johnson, E. E. 161 Martin, D. 121, 124
Johnson, M. D. 135 Martin, J. P. 197
Johnson, S. E. 95, 97 Martin, T. W. 165, 171
Martyn, J. L. 128-9, 131-3, 151, 161
Kaiser, W. C , Jr. 74 Mateos, J. 96
Kaminsky, J. S. 181-2 Matera, F. 127
Kamlah, E. 28 Mathys, H.-P. 62
Kampen, J. I. 29, 44 Matlock, R. B. 130
Karrer, M. 178 Mayer, G. 38
Kiley, M. 165-6, 169-70, 173 Mays, J. L. 87-8, 91-2, 99
Kim, S. 127 Mazzanti, A. M. 29
Kimball, C A. 74 McCann, J. C. 90-1
Klein, G. 127 McCarter, P. K , Jr. 183
Knibb, M. A. 175 McDonnell, K. 196
Kobelski, P. J. 55 McKnight, E. V. 150
Koch, D. A. 38 Meeks, W. A. 163
Koester, C. R. 97 Mell, U. 132
Koester, H. 122 Menken, M. J. J. 95, 175
Kostenberger, A. J. 85, 97 Metzger, B. M. 103, 105
Kraus, H.-J. 72, 86, 88, 90, 95-6 Michaels, J. R. 96, 101, 164, 168,171
Kraus, W. 98 Miller, P. D. 71, 91
Kreitzer, L. J. 100 Miller, T. 3
Kristeva, J. 75 Mittmann-Richert, U. 70-2
Kugel, J. L. 60 Moloney, F. J. 96
Kuntz, J. K. 90 Moulton, J. H. 48
Kutscher, E. Y. 48 Mounce, R. H. 177
Mowinckel, S. 71, 87-8, 90, 98
Lane, N. 2, 78 Moyise, S. 152, 175
Lange, A. 28, 31, 35, 116, 118, 121 Muilenburg, J. 69
Leaney, A. R. C. 28, 30-1, 35-6 Munnich, O. 15
Lenski, R. C H. 103, 108 Murray, R. 188, 194
Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 1, 35, 38, 45 MuBner, F. 127
Leutzsch, M. 192
Levine, A. J. 159, 164 Najman, H. 118
Levine, L. J. 51 Nash, S. 2, 86, 99, 101
Levinsohn, S. H. 108 Newman, B. M. 108
Licht, J. 28, 30-1, 34 Newman, J. H. 118
Lichtenberger, H. 34, 38, 121 Newsom, C. A. 159, 166
236 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2