The Formation of the Jewish Canon (the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) - Timothy H. Lim

The Formation of the Jewish Canon

2

The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library is a project of international and interfaith scope in which Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars from many countries contribute individual volumes. The project is not sponsored by any ecclesiastical organization and is not intended to reflect any particular theological doctrine. The series is committed to producing volumes in the tradition established half a century ago by the founders of the Anchor Bible, William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. It aims to present the best contemporary scholarship in a way that is accessible not only to scholars but also to the educated nonspecialist. It is committed to work of sound philological and historical scholarship, supplemented by insight from modern methods, such as sociological and literary criticism. John J. Collins General Editor

3

THE ANCHOR YALE BIBLE REFERENCE LIBRARY TIMOTHY H. LIM

4

The Formation of the Jewish Canon

5

“Anchor Yale Bible” and the Anchor Yale logo are registered trademarks of Yale University. Published with assistance from the Mary Cady Tew Memorial Fund. Copyright © 2013 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail sales.press@yale. edu (U.S. office) or [email protected] (U.K. office). Set in Sabon type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lim, Timothy H. The formation of the Jewish canon / Timothy H. Lim. pages cm. — (The Anchor Yale Bible reference library) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-16434-3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Bible. Old Testament— Canon. 2. Bible. Old Testament—History. 3. Canon (Literature)—History. 4. Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1135.L56 2013 221.1′2—dc23 2013014159 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

6

For my mother Josephine Yu Lim (1926–2004) IN MEMORIAM

7

Contents

Preface List of Abbreviations 1 Modern and Ancient Views of the Canon 2 The Emergence of the Canon Reconsidered 3 The Earliest Canonical Lists and Notices 4 The Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 5 The Letter of Aristeas and Its Early Interpreters 6 The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and 2 maccabees 7 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures 8 The Holy Books of the Essenes and Therapeutae 9 Canon in the Gospels and Pauline Letters 10 The Formation of the Jewish Canon Appendix 1: Some Modern Canons Appendix 2: Early Canonical Lists Appendix 3: Bryennios’ and Epiphanius’ Lists Appendix 4: Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings and the Pauline Letters Appendix 5: Scriptural References in Sirach 44–50 Notes Select Bibliography Index of Subjects Index of Modern Authors 8

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources

9

Preface

In the Prologue to the Wisdom of Ben Sira the grandson wrote that while devoting himself to the translation and publication of his grandfather’s book, he experienced ἀγρυπνία,, a wakefulness caused by care and anxiety. The same thing happened to the epitomist of 2 Maccabees when he abridged Jason of Cyrene’s history. I had never really experienced insomnia until I began to work on this book. Probably like most people, I had been restless some nights as I pondered a particular issue or problem. But I had not had a sustained period of sleeplessness until I began in earnest to produce the book that is before you. The writing of this book consumed me more than I had previously experienced or cared to admit. My interest in the formation of the canon goes back a long way, ever since I investigated the textual characteristics of the scriptural citations in the letters of Paul and the sectarian commentaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Over the years I have continued to research and write on various topics, such as the “praise of the fathers” in Ben Sira, the canonical notice in 4QMMT, and the meaning of “the defilement of the hands” in the Mishnah. This long period of reflection was necessary given the scope of the subject and the burgeoning scholarly literature. There were numerous terminological and conceptual issues at stake, and they were, in turn, dependent on how key primary sources were interpreted. To compound the challenges, these sources were found within the fields of several subdisciplines that have as their research goals the study of the Pentateuch, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, writings of Philo, books of Josephus, Pauline letters, and Rabbinic literature. I felt, however, that there was advantage in discussing the subject as a whole rather than piecemeal. Ever since the three-stage theory was demolished in the past generation, scholarly opinion has been divided and no consensus has emerged. Part of the reason may be found in the specialization of studies that tend to focus on narrower concerns and do not address the big picture. The emergence of the canon is a general issue that crosses disciplinary boundaries. In this book, I have proposed a theory of the majority canon. First, I reviewed the scholarly literature in a preliminary way. Then I worked on each chapter. Finally, I drafted the conclusions and rewrote the first three chapters. I have been fortunate to have “aired” some of my views beforehand in seminars and conferences. I have presented papers in the Biblical Studies seminars in Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and King’s College, London. I have spoken at the SNTS conference in Vienna, the BAJS conference in Southampton, a scrolls conference in Metz, and the Qumran section of the SBL International Meeting in London. I thank all the organizers of these seminars and conferences for the invitations. Several colleagues have also read and responded to drafts of my chapters or engaged me in discussion. 10

In particular, I would like to thank the following: Edward Adams, Philip Alexander, Graeme Auld, Hans Barstad, Markus Bockmuehl, Juan Carlos Ossandón, Sidnie Crawford, James Davila, Karl Donfried, Steven Fraade, Jörg Frey, Florentino García Martínez, Martin Goodman, Larry Hurtado, Sarah Pearce, Tessa Rajak, David Reimer, Jean-Sébastien Rey, Raija Sollamo, Loren Stuckenbruck, Joan Taylor, William Tooman, Kristin de Troyer, and Cecilia Wassen. Alison Salvesen read the chapter on the Letter of Aristeas and gave me very useful suggestions. James Charlesworth sent me a copy of his soon-to-be-published article on Deut 27:4. Lee McDonald sent me his publications on the canon and offered valuable feedback on the book. I spent a memorable few hours of conversation with Menahem Kister in France discussing the concept of canon. I also thank the anonymous readers for taking the time to respond to the proposal and draft manuscript during the review process. I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to two colleagues, John Barton and John Collins. The former read probably half of the chapters and encouraged me to pursue a topic for which he is a leading expert. John’s gentle words were often disarmingly profound in their criticism. John Collins not only invited me to contribute to the series for which he serves as general editor, but he also took a great interest in the project, reading literally every word of the book, sometimes more than once! John’s well-known keen eye and sharp criticism saved me from numerous errors and helped hone the argument in a way that makes the book far better. What imperfections remain are naturally my own responsibility. I would like to thank the editors at Yale University Press—Jennifer Banks, Margaret Otzel, Heather Gold, Susan Laity, and Bojana Ristich—for the courtesy, helpfulness, and excellent support throughout the process from its embryonic proposal to publication. I dedicate this book in loving memory of my mother, who knew by heart virtually the whole of the Old and New Testament in Chinese.

11

Abbreviations

The abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style (1999) with the following additions. AEP The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. Siegfried Meurer. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991. BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. Bible as Book The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Biblical Canons The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Canon and Masorah The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader, ed. S. Z. Leiman. New York: Ktav, 1974. Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament: Sa formation et son histoire, ed. J.-D. Kaestli and O. Wermelinger. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984. Canon Debate The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Canon of Scripture The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Le canon des Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, ed. P. S. Alexander and Jean-Daniel Kaestli. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007. Canonization and Decanonization Canonization and Decanonization, ed. Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn. Leiden: Brill, 1998. DEJ The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. DSSHC The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim et al. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 2000. Emanuel Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2003. HB/OTI Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), ed. M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. Jewish Perspectives Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, ed. Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken, and Jennifer Dines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Mikra Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. OHDSS The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 12

Pentateuch as Torah The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Persia and Torah Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. QHBT Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Scripture in Transition Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. SDB Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Septuagint Research Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. W. Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. SSCW Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, ed. G. J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. TAD Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, ed. Bezazel Porten and Ada Yardeni. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–1999.

13

1 Modern and Ancient Views of the Canon

The concept of canon is a contentious topic, and not just in Biblical and Jewish Studies. The view that there is a canon that represents the highest literary merits and core values of Western society has been championed by some and denounced by others. The “Great Books” debate in American universities is a curricular manifestation of this philosophical and cultural clash. Supporters argue that it is possible to identify a set of works of heroic stature from the time of Homer to the present day that represents the touchstones of Western civilization. Critics counter by pointing to the imperial, ideological, ethnic, political, and gender bias of such a concept, which has no place in postmodern society.1 The very idea of a canon divides and polarizes opinion in a way that few other concepts do. In Britain, the discourse took a different turn and was instigated by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who in his criticism of the public policy of multiculturalism and its fragmentation of society advocated a national culture based on the idea of canon, “a set of texts that everyone knew,” including the Bible, Shakespeare, and the great novels.2 Sacks’ view that there is a closed list of works that represents core values has been criticized, and dissenters have wondered whether ethnic and religious diversity could not be better embraced by advocating a multiplicity of canons, including those of the minorities. The debate in the public sphere over the canon is fueled by ideological, philosophical, political, and pedagogical contretemps. One of the vital points of disagreement is about the nature of the canon itself. Is the notion of the canon inherently prescriptive— endorsing what ought to be accepted and read—or is it endemic, validating the eminence of a set of texts in Western society? What does the canon signify by way of a common set of values? Is the concept of a single canon justified, or is it better to think of a plurality of canons, with each community championing its own set of accepted texts? This public debate could be better informed by our returning to the beginning and investigating the notion of canon in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. When did the canon of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament close? What process led to its formation? Did all ancient Jews hold a single canon, or did each group have its own canon? By shedding light on the origins of the canon, I hope that a historical perspective can be added to the public discussion of canon.

Terminological Considerations The term kanon, from Greek and literally meaning a measuring stick, rule, and (by 14

analogy) a list, was used by the Christian church in its conciliar decisions that determined which books were to be included in the Bible. It seems an unsuitable term to use for describing the historical formation of Jewish scriptures since it is anachronistic and implies a fixed list. John Barton points out that there are two clearly identifiable scholarly traditions, one that “speaks of texts as ‘canonical’ if they are widely received as possessing authority, and another which reserves the term for those texts which, after a process of sifting and evaluation, have been approved and stand on a limited list.”3 He argues that the word “canon” is an inappropriate term to use to describe the scriptures of Jews and Christians in the first few centuries of the Common Era, primarily because there was not to be found any sense that scripture formed a closed list.4 Eugene Ulrich advocates a strict definition of “canon” to describe only the decisions made by official bodies. He nonetheless recognizes that the making of official lists is related to the historical development that saw the transformation of oral and written literature into scriptures, and he calls this activity “the canonical process.”5 A recent conference proceeding on the subject avoids the term “canon” and instead uses the term “authoritative scriptures” in its title.6 That is not a designation that an ancient Jew would recognize, but it is not thereby unsuitable. In the ancient sources, scripture is denoted in Hebrew and Greek by various phrases and titles, but “authoritative scriptures” is not one of them. In Ezra-Nehemiah, several designations are deployed with the terms “torah,” referring to laws and narratives, and/or sepher, meaning book or scroll: (Neh 8:13); (Neh 8:3); (Ezra 7:6); (Ezra 6:18); (Neh 8:1); (Neh 8:18; cf. Neh 8:8); and (Neh 9:3). Moreover, there are Aramaic expressions embedded in the documents and narratives: (“the book of the law of the God of Heavens,” Ezra 7:12) and (“the law of your God,” Ezra 7:26). In Chronicles, the passover tradition is retold in a way that claims dependence on the earlier prescriptions of the laws of Moses, legal ordinance, authority of the ruling king, and the prescriptions of David and Solomon (2 Chr 35:4–12). Significant is the mention that the passover tradition is to be found “in the writing of David” , “in the document of Solmon” , and “in the book of Moses” . Among the sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, designations of scriptures include the following: (CD 4:8; 5:7; 6:4, 7; 1QS 8:15; 4Q159 fr. 5, l. 6, etc.); (CD 5:2); (CD 15:12; 16:2; 1QS 5:8); (4Q397 fr. 14, l. 10; 2Q25 fr. 1, a l. 1; verso of 4QpapCrypt ); (CD 7:17//4Q266 fr. 3 col. 3, l. 18; 4Q177 fr. 1, col. 4, l. 14); (11Q13); and (4Q491 fr. 1, l. 4). In Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods and in the writings of the early church, scripture is most commonly called “the writing” (ἡ γραφή e.g., Let. Aris. 155, 168; Philo, Virt. 51; Gal 3:22, 1 Clem 34:6); “the writings” (αἱ γραφαί e.g., Philo, Cher. 11); “the holy writings” (αἱ ἱεραί γραφαί, τὰ ἱεραὶ γράμματα; e.g., Philo, Abr. 121; 15

Mos. 2.290; 2 Tim 3:15); “the law” (ὁ νόμος, ἡ νομοθεσία; e.g., Philo, Opif. 46; Contemp. 78; Luke 10:26); “the law and prophets” (ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται; e.g., Sir 1:1; 2 Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10; Matt 7:12; Rom 3:21); “the book” (ὁ βίβλος; e.g., Let. Aris. 316); “the holy books” (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια; e.g., 1 Macc 12:9; οἱ ἱεροὶ βίβλοι; e.g., Philo Mos. 2.36); and “the oracles (of God)” (τὰ λόγια; e.g., Let. Aris. 158; τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγια; e.g., Philo, Decal. 48; Rom 3:2). In Rabbinic literature, scripture is designated commonly by “what is read” , “what is written” , “the writings” , “the holy writings” , “the book or scroll” , “the books or scrolls” , “the law” , and “the law and prophets” . “Authoritative scriptures” is not a term that the ancients used. In fact, whatever term one chooses would be problematic in some sense, and one could expend an inordinate amount of effort discussing terminology without shedding much light on the matter. It is important to maintain a sense of proportion about the terminological debates. I agree entirely with Ulrich, who wrote: “The definition of a canon is a relatively minor matter. Much more important, interesting, and ripe for analysis is the canonical process—the historical development by which the oral and written literature of Israel, Judaism, and the early church was handed on, revised, and transformed into the scriptures that we have received, as well as the processes and criteria by which the various decisions were made.”7 The essence of the problem is that ancient Jews did not use a term equivalent to “canon” or “authoritative scriptures,” but they did have the concept. Implied in the titles “the books of Moses” and “the books of the Prophets” is the idea of a collection, which is an important element of a canonical or authoritative list. Moreover, Rabbinic Judaism used the term “outside books” to describe “heretical books” (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1). This implies that there must have been books that were included, most probably in a list (b. B. Bat. 14–15), but they were not called “inside books” or “canonical books.” Those included in the list were called “holy scriptures” . In addition, when the rabbis debated whether the Song of Songs and Qohelet “defiled the hands” and therefore were to be considered “holy scriptures,” they also knew what was holy and not holy, but they did not explain their thinking.8

Canon and Authoritative Scriptures In this study, I will use “canon” to refer to the list of biblical books. As will be seen, there is more than one list and therefore strictly speaking more than one canon, although the lists overlapped to a large extent. This definition is consistent with the decisions of the ecclesiastical councils, the first being the Council of Laodicea in ca. 360, which decided which books were to be included in the Bible. But the definition is only broadly “conciliar” in meaning since it is not confined to the deliberations of early Christianity. 16

Josephus’ Contra Apionem, 4 Ezra, and Mishnah Yadayim imply lists of biblical books; Baba Bathra, Origen, and Jerome enumerate Jewish lists of biblical books. I use “authoritative scriptures” to refer to the collections of authoritative writings before the appearance of the first lists. Authoritative scriptures are to be found among the post-exilic Judean community, Samaritans, Alexandrian Jewish community, communities reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Essenes, Therapeutae, Pharisees, Sadducees, Pauline churches, etc. before the end of the first century CE. My understanding of authoritative scriptures is indebted to Sid Leiman, although, unlike him, I avoid using the term “canon.” He argues that from the traditional Jewish perspective, a canonical book is “a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations. Furthermore, such books are to be studied and expounded in private and in public.”9 In the tannaitic period, moreover, the rabbis drew a distinction between the categories of “canonical” and “inspired,” the latter referring to those books believed to have been composed under divine inspiration (“by the spirit of holiness”). In this sense, the Mishnah and Megillat Taanith were canonical but not inspired; the biblical books were both canonical and inspired. Leiman’s equation of canon with authoritative scriptures is instructive. For traditional Jews, authority is established by the acceptance of the community in matters of religious belief and practice and is binding for all time. This authority is thought to have its origins in divine inspiration and is manifest in the command to study the books and to comment on their meaning. This definition is consistent with the biblical understanding of authority. In Exodus 24:3–7, Moses took the record of the covenant and read it out loud to the people, commanding them to do all that is written in it. The people of Israel accepted the binding nature of the commandments by declaring that they would obediently do all that the Lord had spoken. Likewise, in the time of the monarchy, King Josiah read out loud to the people the book of the covenant that had recently been discovered been in the house of the Lord (2 Kgs 22–23). Both the king and the people made a covenant before the Lord, pledging to do all that was written in the book of the covenant . In the postexilic period, Ezra is reported to have read out the book of the law of Moses before those assembled in front of the Water Gate. Ezra blessed the Lord, and the people affirmed by replying “Amen, amen,” lifting their hands, and bowing their heads and worshipping the Lord with their faces to the ground (Neh 8:1–6). Leiman’s definition, therefore, is not only applicable to Rabbinic Judaism but is also a biblical concept of canon. However, the distinction that Leiman draws between “canonical” and “inspired” is open to challenge. David Kraemer argues that in the later Rabbinic community, “the literature that embodied the norms and values of Jewish society had finally to be understood as inspired,” and therefore Leiman’s distinction between inspired and uninspired canon is untenable.10 17

Andrew Steinmann criticizes Leiman for combining two kinds of authoritative writings, the scriptural canon and another canon of religious literature. The critique exposes the weakness in Leiman’s failure to distinguish among different kinds of authoritative literature. In Steinmann’s words: “That religious communities oftentimes accept other collections of books as authoritative but not on the level of scripture does not mean that they have one canon divided into two categories. Instead, it implies that they recognize two collections: a collection of Scripture and a collection of other books that, though useful, are not recognized as both authoritative and inspired.”11 As an example, Steinmann points to the way Lutherans also regard the Book of Concord as authoritative when they already recognize the scriptural canon of the Old and New Testaments. One doubts, however, that Steinmann’s criticisms are justified. The comparison between the Lutheran Church and Rabbinic Judaism is questionable since the former has had a fixed canon for hundreds of years, whereas the latter has its beginnings when the Bible itself was in its formative stage.12 It is highly doubtful that the authoritative status of, say, the Mishnah in Rabbinic Judaism is comparable to the Book of Concord in the Lutheran Church. For Rabbinic Judaism the Oral Torah has an authoritative status in a way that the Book of Concord does not. The Rabbinic belief is that Moses did not receive just the Written Torah at Mt. Sinai, but also the Oral Torah, literally “torah according to the mouth” , which has been passed down in an unbroken chain of succession. Also, in Leiman’s view the Mishnah and Megillat Taanith are canonical but not inspired. The different historical context and period, the break from the Catholic Church, and the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura mean that the authority of the Book of Concord is not a suitable parallel to the authority of Rabbinic literature in Rabbinic Judaism. My working definition, then, is the following: “authoritative scriptures” refer to collections of writings that were accepted and used by a particular Jewish or Christian community. The term does not refer to a fixed list of books decided by an official body but implies a community’s recognition of the divinely inspired nature of certain writings. That these divinely inspired writings were gathered in “collections” is evidenced by the titular descriptors, such as “the books of Moses,” “the books of the Prophets,” and “the Psalms of David.” That these writings were considered authoritative is shown by their acceptance and use within a community for study, commentary, worship, ritual, teaching, and moral behavior.

Prophetic Status and Revealed Writings The above terminological discussion raises the issue of authority: Are there different kinds of authority? Is a distinction to be drawn between the authority of the writings that were eventually included in the canon, which is scriptural authority, and the authority of other writings? What are the indicators of authority? There is no one answer to these 18

questions since the sources under consideration are diverse. They reflect a variety of literary contexts and historical circumstances. Moreover, the evidence that is available in the sources is often indirect and oblique. For the most part the sources do not address the issue; the principles, where they exist, are implied or couched in passing comments. There are nonetheless a few indicators that will help point the way forward. Several of the sources identify prophecy as an important element. This prophetic legitimacy is expressed in different ways, and writings were considered prophetic and inspired by God. Inspiration may be attributed to God alone or through his holy spirit. The writings so characterized are, by implication, different from other kinds of writings. In Rabbinic Judaism, the hallmark of prophecy was an important criterion for distinguishing between the biblical texts and other writings. Tosefta Sotah states: “When the last prophets—that is, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—died, the holy spirit ceased in Israel (13:2).” This means that the cessation of the holy spirit was associated with their deaths. Given that these three also wrote prophecies that “came at the end of the prophets” (bB.Bat 14a), the passage is also understood to indicate the closing of the second division of the Hebrew Bible.13 Subsequent revelation is by a heavenly voice or bat qol. The authoritative nature of Rabbinic literature is thus distinguished from the biblical texts. Important to note here is that this is a Rabbinic claim about the cessation of prophecy within the context of the sages’ worldview and theology. As such, it is distinguishable from the historical question of whether prophecy actually did or did not cease at the end of the Second Temple period.14 Also to be bracketed aside is the question of whether the bat qol was an inferior form of revelation, which is an important issue in the debate over the inclusion of Rabbinic writings along with the biblical texts as canonical.15 Josephus, in defending the twenty-two books of the Jewish canon against Greek detractors, distinguishes between the historical trustworthiness of the biblical texts with those written after the break of “the exact line of the succession of prophets.” According to him, the events from the Persian period to his own time had indeed been recorded, but the recording had not been judged to be “worthy of the same trust” as that of the books of Moses and the Prophets (C. Ap. 1.38–41). Josephus, moreover, tells us elsewhere that there were other prophets (e.g., Theudas, Ant. 20.97) after Malachi—the socalled “sign prophets”—but one would infer that these were not placed on the same level as the biblical prophets. Josephus seems to have had different kinds of authority in mind when he drew a distinction between the prophets who wrote and other authors who also wrote about what happened in their own time. Immediately before the passage that enumerates the twenty-two-book canon, he discusses the trustworthiness of the priestly genealogy and record for the writing history: and this [i.e., the record] is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and

19

others have written what has happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also (C. Ap. 1.37).

Significant here is the clause translated as “is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer.” The Prophets have written by divine inspiration, while others have written about the events that happened in their own times “in a very distinct manner also” (σαφῶς). Josephus uses the adverb σαφῶς in various ways in his writings, but given the context, it most naturally refers to writings that were composed “differently.” Those writings were drafted by men who were not prophets and who accounted for the things that had happened in their own time. The writings were not composed through divine inspiration and do not have the same authority. Philo, in recounting the rendering of the law of Moses into Greek, likened the translators to inspired prophets who came up with exactly the same wording: “They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them” (Mos. 2.37). Significantly, Philo uses the verbs ἐνθουσιάω (“to be moved by a deity”) and προφητεύω (“to prophesy”) to describe the medium and source of the divine translation. Philo too distinguishes between the sacred books, which most probably consist of the Pentateuch, and other books in his writings. In his life of Moses, he interwove what he learned from the “sacred books” and the “traditions of the elders of the nation” (Mos. 1.4). Both inform his exposition on Moses’ life, but they are distinct in his mind. In the early church, 2 Timothy, written by followers of Paul, famously formulated the criterion this way: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness (3:16).” Scripture (γραφή) most likely refers to the biblical books in accordance with its usage in other New Testament texts. However, the early church also believed that divine revelation continued through the person of Jesus, the apostles, the Christian communities, and the holy spirit. Thus other writings eventually assumed an authoritative status. By the end of the first century or beginning of the second century, the Pauline letters themselves came to be regarded as divinely inspired. 2 Peter compares Paul’s letters to the “rest of the scriptures”—namely, the Jewish scriptures—because “Paul wrote according to the wisdom given him,” a description that is equivalent to the inspiration of the spirit (3:15–16). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the community of the yahad was enjoined to live according to the “rule of the community” just as God had commanded through Moses and the Prophets (1QS 1:1–3). The community was to study the law that God had commanded through Moses, in order to act in accordance with what was revealed, and “just as the prophets revealed by the holy spirit” (1QS 8:15–16). The communities reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Khirbet Qumran believed that revelation had not ceased and that the writings that they produced were also divinely inspired. The canon had not 20

closed, and the distinction among the authority of different texts thus became blurred.

Divine Origins of Scripture The prophetic status of certain texts, then, is founded on the underlying principle of divine revelation, which distinguishes texts that were eventually included in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament from other texts that were useful for teaching and moral guidance and, in Josephus’ case, also for historical writing. Both the law of Moses and the writings of the Prophets were believed to have been inspired by God’s holy spirit. The law of Moses was believed to have issued from Mount Sinai, although in its original biblical context of the book of Exodus what was received and passed on by Moses were the Decalogue and the rest of the laws in a broad sense, and not the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch. As for the Prophets and their writings, divine origin was mediated through the holy spirit. The Deutero-Pauline letter of 2 Timothy, mentioned above, uses a rare verb in its participial, adjectival form to express the divine origin of scripture;16 θεόπνευστος is often translated as “inspired,” but literally it means “Godbreathed” (2 Tim 3:16). The sense is similar to the way that God created man by breathing into him the breath of life. The notion of “God-breathed” implies that the ultimate source of authority of all scripture is to be found in God. The author of 2 Peter 1:20–21 states it more explicitly when he draws a distinction between real and false prophecy: “No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the holy spirit spoke from God.” The source of real prophecy, therefore, is its divine origin, and real prophets “spoke from God,” a formulation that is consequent on God speaking to Moses (e.g., Exod 6:2) and is similar to how divine revelation is received “from the mouth of God” (e.g., 4Q175.i.5–6; 1QHa xx.12; 1QpHab ii.1–2; Matt 4:4). Some Jews even claimed that the principle of divine inspiration was recognized by the Greeks.17 The pagan Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera is quoted to have said about the books of the Law of the Jews: “Their legislation is most philosophical and flawless, inasmuch as it is divine [θείαν]” (Let. Aris. 31). Likewise, Demetrius of Phalerum, when asked why no previous historian or poet had mentioned the Jewish law, replied that the law is holy (σεμνός) and “has come into being through God” (διὰ θεοῦ γεγονέναι; Let. Aris. 313). Some, like Theopompus and Theodectes, did attempt to introduce Jewish law into their history and play, but as they were about to do so, they were struck by mental and physical illnesses. To Theopompus it was revealed in a dream that the cause of the affliction was due to “his meddlesome desire to disclose divine matters to common men” (Let. Aris. 313–316). The principle of divine origin has another aspect that helps explain why the authority of texts varies in different communities. The belief that someone “spoke from God” is based on the understanding that his prophecy has a divine origin. But that perception is 21

open to different interpretations: one community’s “true oracle” could be another’s false proclaimer. One straightforward solution is to base the proof of true prophecy on whether the predicted event is fulfilled. The Temple Scroll offers a pragmatic fix to the quandary:18 How shall we recognize that which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the prophecy is not fulfilled and does not come to pass, that is a prophecy I have not spoken (11Q19 61:2–4).

But not all prophecy is predictive. Much of what the biblical prophets include in their oracles passes for admonition, warning, and counsel. The Temple Scroll’s solution would not apply. The acceptance that one prophecy is true and another one false, therefore, is often based on the discernment of a community. The principle of divine origins admits different perceptions of prophecy and consequently different kinds of authoritative texts.

Imperial Validation of the Traditional Torah Not all indicators of authority, however, are strictly speaking religious. It is true that the ancients did not maintain a clear distinction between the political and religious spheres, but it would seem that the promulgation of the Torah in the post-exilic period was influenced by the authority of the Persian imperial government. In the Achaemenid period, the Persian court lent its authority to the validation of the traditional laws of the Judeans. Petitioned by the community in exile, Artaxerxes sent Ezra to reestablish the traditional cultic worship at the Temple in Jerusalem, to appoint judges and magistrates to adjudicate in cases, and to instruct the people who did not already know the law. Punishments were threatened against anyone who did not obey “the law of your God and the law of king” (Ezra 7:26). As a consequence, the authority of the traditional Torah was reestablished in the life of the post-exilic Judean community. The Persians, however, acted in their own self-interest to secure the border regions with Egypt, and they were unlikely to have been interested in the details of the Judean Torah. What was important to them was its iconic value in reestablishing the traditional laws of a vassal state. The appeal to imperial authority is likewise evident in the Hellenistic period, when the Alexandrian Jewish community promulgated the myth of the origins of the Septuagint. This legend appealed to the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus and the great library of Alexandria as the originator of the initiative to translate the Hebrew laws into Greek. As a result, the nomos of the Jews in Alexandria gained a prestige that rivaled the works of Homer. Several of the Hellenistic monarchs before Antiochus Epiphanes regularly issued decrees confirming the reestablishment of ancestral laws. Elias Bickerman showed that it was the convention of the Hellenistic monarchs to bestow, as one of the first gestures toward a conquered people, the reestablishment of their ancestral laws.19 According to Josephus, Antiochus III did exactly that when he conquered Jerusalem. “Let all of that 22

nation,” he delcared, “live according to the laws of their own country” (Ant. 12.142). As John J. Collins summarized it: “Neither in the case of Ezra nor in the case of the Seleucid take-over of Jerusalem, however, was there great interest in checking to see whether traditional custom corresponded to the written law.”20

Citation as Indicator of Authority Another indicator of authority is the way that several of the sources use citation as a technique. Authority may be inferred from the direct and indirect quotation of texts. Verbatim citation is an indicator of authority in the way that it draws a distinction between the source-text and the interpretation. In the sectarian commentaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, the typical pesher takes the form of lemma + introductory formula + comment. The implication is that the source-text, represented by the biblical lemma, is authoritative and its words need to be interpreted. Moreover, the sectarian comment is grammatically and thematically separated from the source-text by the interposition of an introductory formula, such as “its interpretation” , and a blank space. Formally, the implication is that the lemma is qualitatively different from the comment. In practice, however, the pesherist blurs the distinction because he believes that his own comments, as mediated through the prophetic figure of the Teacher of Righteousness, are also divinely revealed and therefore authoritative. The blurring of the distinction is seen in the way that the pesher controls the meaning of the biblical verse. It is the case that some ancient Jews, especially those who were influenced by Greek culture and language, also cited other sources. In 1 Cor 15:33, for instance, Paul cites a popular saying first attested in Menander’s Thaïs; Paul tells the Corinthian church: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’” Moreover, scholars have identified various preexistent slogans that Paul incorporated into his letters. What is important to note is that with perhaps a single exception, the enigmatic “do not go beyond what is written” of 1 Cor 4:6, Paul reserves the use of introductory formulas (e.g., “as it is written”; καθὼς γέγραπται) for the citation of biblical texts. His use of introductory formulas is not invariable; some biblical texts are cited without a short opening phrase, but he does not cite sayings and slogans with an introductory formula. The technique of indirect citation or allusion is more complicated because one is less sure whether a word, phrase, clause, sentence, or passage derives from a source or is part of an unintended linguistic reflex. It would be easier to posit dependence if a purported allusion included a cluster of distinctive lexical items that could be identified in the presumed source-text. Thus the Temple Scrolls’ use of Exodus and Deuteronomy, for instance, is commonly acknowledged; the final columns of 51–66 are a close paraphrase of Deut 12–26. By contrast, it is debatable whether Paul indirectly cited books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha since the suggested allusions are no more than literary affinities and parallels, many of which may be explained by the use of a common biblical and Jewish source. 23

Another example from the Pauline letters would further illustrate the point. Paul does not cite directly from the Book of Numbers. However, in 1 Cor 10:8 he alludes to the incident at Shittim and Israel’s consorting with the daughters of Moab (Num 25) when he admonishes the Corinthians to abstain from indulging in immorality and idolatry. The number of those who fell (23,000), however, disagrees with Num 25:9 (24,000). This error could be due to Paul’s failed memory or his conflation of the number of males who were enrolled in the census (Num 26:62). This reuse of the biblical texts by indirect citation or allusion recurs regularly in ancient Jewish exegesis. Its technique is different from verbatim citation because it subsumes the source-text in its own interpretative paraphrase. There is no lemma, and the boundary between the source-text and the interpretation is intentionally blurred. There is, however, an implied sense of authority. One infers that the sourcetext is authoritative by the very fact that it is reused. The converse, the non-use of another text, does not imply that it is not authoritative. On first impression, the difference between direct and indirect citation lies in interpretative technique. The technique implies a difference in the self-perception of the interpreter as a commentator of an authoritative text (lemmatic exegete) or a participant in the unfolding of divine intention (paraphrastic exegete). However, this dichotomy is not strictly maintained, and the sources are often a mixture of these two, but the formal distinction is a useful way of thinking about the issue.21 What is important is that indirect citation also implies a sense of authority to that which underlies the technique of verbatim citation.

Recognizing the Multiplicity of Canons There is a long history of scholarship that has investigated the development of the canon. Research into the canon was thoroughly done in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From this body of scholarship, there emerged a three-stage theory of canonization corresponding to the three traditional divisions of the Tanak: the Torah or Pentateuch was fixed around 500 BCE, followed by the Nevi’im or Prophets in the fourth or third century BCE and the Kethuvim or Writings in 90 CE. In the 1970s and 1980s this consensus was challenged as scholars tore down the pillars of the theory and razed its foundations to the ground. The consensus, once fractured and burnt, did not rise again out of the ashes like the proverbial phoenix. Instead, scholarly opinion was now divided, and remains so today, between those who believe that the canon was closed much earlier—in the middle of the second century BCE, in the Maccabean period, or earlier—and those who hold that the canon remained open well into the centuries of the Common Era. The discovery of the scrolls found in caves on the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea has provided us with an opportunity to think anew about the formation of the canon. This heterogenous collection of around 800–900 scrolls belonged to the sectarian communities identified by scholarly consensus with the Essenes. About one-quarter of the scrolls were recognizably biblical texts, while the remaining three-quarters consisted 24

of sectarian, apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, and other hitherto unknown works. The scrolls were first discovered in 1947, but the well-known delay in the publication of all the manuscripts means that the full evidence has not been considered. Discussion of the formation of the canon based on the full evidence of the scrolls, therefore, is a desideratum. The publication of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible in 1999 was a significant moment in raising awareness of the biblical scrolls. Long neglected in favor of the non-biblical scrolls, the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament found by the Dead Sea remained almost exclusively the concern of text critics, who studied them in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. The translation of the biblical scrolls into English for the first time brought them to the attention of a wider circle of scholars and the public alike. It gave unprecedented insight into the important contributions that these scrolls make to our understanding of the nature of the Bible before its fixation. In the opening line of their introduction the editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible state: “At the time of Jesus and rabbi Hillel—the origins of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism—there was, and there was not, a ‘Bible.’”22 To say simultaneously that there existed and did not exist “a Bible” is contradictory; it is, moreover, confusing since the key term is qualified by quotation marks, meaning that it is not to be taken literally. It is surely fallacious to assert that something was and was not. It is an informal way of saying that there was a kind of Bible, as the authors go on to explain. Also, why was this something called “a Bible.” Do they not mean the Bible? In this one sentence, the authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible have raised a host of important issues that are at the heart of the present book. What was the Bible like before its canonization?23 What is the relationship between the canonical Bible and the authoritative books before canonization? Is it historically accurate to speak about “the Bible” or “the canon” at the turn of the era? Moreover, the indefinite description of “a Bible” suggests that there was more than one Bible. Before we delve into the complexities of canonical research, it will be useful to stand back to reflect on what we might mean by the term “the Bible.” In common parlance, the term is used by Christians to refer to the books of the Old and New Testament. For Jews, the same term denotes the books of the Tanak or Hebrew Bible, which is equivalent to the Christian Old Testament. The term is also used more broadly and symbolically to connote anything that is authoritative, ranging from the sacred scriptures of other religions to any trusted volume or guide (e.g., “the Buddhist Bible or “the wine taster’s Bible”). Even if we restrict ourselves to the Judeo-Christian sense of the term and limit its reference to the first part of the Christian Bible, the Old Testament (the Jewish Tanak), it is evident that the noun preceded by the definite article, “the Bible,” is meaningful only relative to a community. There never was, and there is not, a definition of “the Bible” that is universally agreed upon by Jews and Christians (see appendix 1). One exception is the guild of biblical scholars (with or without religious affiliation) that agrees that the 25

original Old Testament is the Jewish Tanak or Hebrew Bible.24 In Christianity, there are several different canons: the Protestant canon consists of thirty-nine books; the Catholic canon has forty-six books plus three additions; and the Orthodox canon totals forty-nine books plus eleven additions.25 The Lutheran and Reformed tradition, with its cri de coeur of sola scriptura, defines its canon in line with the Jewish Tanak, but even here there are differences: the count of thirty-nine books differs from the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible due to the combination or separate counting of 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and the twelve Minor Prophets. The Protestant canon, moreover, differs from the Jewish canon in its ordering and categorization of the books. Apart from the Torah or Pentateuch, which is identical, Jewish tradition divides the rest of the books into the two categories of Prophets and Writings, whereas Protestant tradition classifies the remaining books according to their genre of historical books, poetic and wisdom texts, and prophecies. Despite the plurality of canons, each religious community refers to its own collection as “the Bible,” underscoring the point that the sense of definitiveness is fixed by the community. Each community, at least in its term of reference, recognizes only “the Bible” that it advocates. Each community uses the definite form of “the Bible,” not “a Bible,” in describing its sacred scriptures as though no other rival versions exist or are recognized.

The Majority Canon Like the modern controversies over the literary and religious canons, the debate over the formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible is an issue that is in need of further discussion. What I attempt to provide in this book is an investigation into the formation of the Jewish canon.26 The hypothesis is that throughout the post-exilic period up to around 100 CE there was not one official canon accepted by all Jews; there existed a plurality of collections of scriptures that were authoritative for different communities. The Pharisees had a canon of twenty-two/twenty-four books that became the canon of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Judaism. The Samaritans regarded only the Pentateuch as authoritative. There is no clear evidence that the Sadducees had a notion of canon. The Therapeutae probably had a concept of authoritative scriptures that included their own sectarian writings. Philo’s description, however, is ambiguous, and the shape of the authoritative scriptures cannot be described with certainty. As for the sectarian communities, whom I identify with the Essenes, my argument is that they held a broadly bipartite collection of authoritative scriptures that included the Torah or Pentateuch and an open-ended category of “prophetical books.” This core of biblical texts was supplemented by other texts that have a graded authority. In the New Testament, the pattern is varied. The letter of Jude cited 1 Enoch as prophetic literature and considered its authority in a way no different from other Old Testament texts. But the letters of Paul presuppose the Pharisaic collection of authoritative scriptures that itself had not yet been finally defined. Luke 26

attests to a tripartite collection that included the psalms in the third division. My approach is distinctive in the way that it problematizes authoritative scriptures in relation to a community. For me, the concept of “authoritative scriptures” in the abstract is much less meaningful than when it refers to a community;27 the issue of “authoritative scriptures” would be better accompanied by the question “Authoritative for whom?” This approach means that I will focus on what a community cited as authoritative texts, rather than what it included in its library. It will be argued that the sources do not support the postulate of a definite canon, closed once and for all. Differences of opinion continue to be expressed. However, by the end of the first century CE there was a determined canon that was accepted by most Jews. Almost all the books included in this majority canon are to be found in the lists. There were disputes only about a few books, especially Qohelet and the Song of Songs.

27

2 The Emergence of the Canon Reconsidered

Today, scholarly opinion is deeply divided between those who believe that the canon was closed in the Persian or Maccabean period and those who hold that the canon remained open well into the centuries after the turning of the era. Fundamental disagreements exist not only about the interpretation of such passages as the Prologue to the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees 2:13–15, 4QMMT C 10–11, Matthew 23:34–36, Luke 24:44, Mishnah Yadayim 3.5, Josephus’ Contra Apionem 1.38–42, and Bavli Baba Bathra 14b–15a and what they may or may not say about the formation of the canon, but also about the theoretical framework of how the development of the canon should be discussed. Disputes over the significance of these loci classici center on the meaning of various descriptors of the prophets and writings found in the ancient sources. Are they formal titles of defined sections that correspond to the traditional divisions of the Nevi’im and Kethuvim? Or should they be understood in the generic sense of “prophetical books” and “writings”? For instance, when the Prologue of Ben Sira mentions, along with “the Law,” “the prophets/prophecies” and “the rest of the books,” is it referring to the books that belong to the traditional sections of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings? Or again, when Luke 24:44 directs the reader to the fulfillment in Jesus of “the law of Moses,” “the prophets,” and “the psalms,” does the Evangelist have in mind the tripartite division of the Old Testament? There is much less dispute about the interpretation of the references to the law of Moses than about those of the other two sections. In fact, there is wide agreement that very early on what the sources called “the Torah” included the five books of Moses that are preserved in the traditional Bible. When this section closed varies in the view of one scholar to the next, and often the socalled “Samaritan schism” is identified as the historical key to the dating.

The Three-Stage Theory Scholarly disagreements are also evident on the question of how the development of the canon should be discussed. The three-stage theory, as articulated in the nineteenthcentury studies of Frants Buhl, Gerrit Wildeboer and especially Herbert E. Ryle, assumes a stage-by-stage closing of each section of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings in sequential order.1 This linear development of the closing of the canon has been criticized by Roger Beckwith, who has argued that all the books of the Old Testament were canonized very early on. The tripartite division of the canon was not closed in three but two different 28

stages, first the section of the Law, followed by the two sections of the Prophets and Writings together: “The Law was never the whole of the canon, and the other two sections were formed not so much by canonizing fresh material as by subdividing material already canonical.”2 John Barton also found difficulties with the three-stage theory and proposed that throughout the post-exilic period to the time of the New Testament and beyond, “Scripture was bipartite rather than tripartite,” consisting of “the Torah and prophets.”3 The canon did not develop stage-by-stage, as Ryle and others have suggested, but consisted for a long time of the Torah or Pentateuch, “the only corpus of material that was “Scripture” in the fullest sense, the only set of documents on which the character and integrity of Judaism crucially depended.”4 All other holy books may be described under the general and open-ended category of “prophets.” These books were secondary to the Torah, and their use depended upon the particular interests of the various groups. There was no third division because there was not yet a second one: “the prophets” was not a fixed and closed second division.

The Samaritan Schism More specifically, scholars found difficulties with the way that the three-stage theory depended upon the dating of two historical events, the Samaritan schism and the “council” of Yavneh. It is argued that the Samaritans, when they separated from the Jews, took with them the Pentateuch, which they considered canonical. Ryle dated this schism to 432 BCE and understood this date as the terminus ad quem. He inferred that the Pentateuch must have been closed before this date and suggested that it must have been some time in the fifth century.5 But the dating of this schism is itself highly problematic. Ryle argued that the renegade Jewish priest Manasseh, mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 11.306–312), should be identified with Eliashib’s grandson in Neh 13:28, and it was through this self-same Manasseh that the Samaritans obtained their Torah. But the historical value of the Josephan account is disputed.6 Hugh Williamson subjected the various theories to scrutiny and concluded that Josephus’ account was a garbled variant of the account in Nehemiah. Moreover, to arrive at the date of 432 BCE, Ryle had to use Josephus’ account selectively; he rejected, for instance, Josephus’ date, which he considered inaccurate.7 Beckwith criticized Ryle’s dating of the schism and instead pointed to the destruction of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in ca. 120 BCE as the decisive moment of the parting of the two groups: “It is in this period, therefore, namely from the second century BC onwards, and not in the time of Nehemiah, that the religious breach between Samaritans and Jews is likely to have become, for the first time, complete.”8 Beckwith argued that the relationship between Jews and Samaritans varied over time. 29

For the Jews antipathy toward the Samaritans was consistent ever since they returned from exile. There was only a brief period, between the second and third centuries CE, when the Samaritans were viewed more favorably than the gentiles by the rabbis, tolerating as they did the partaking of meals with them. By contrast, the Samaritans pretended to be the kinsfolk of the Jews, descended from the northern tribes, in times of prosperity, but in adversity, they denied such links, claiming their origins as colonists from abroad who were brought to Judaea by the Assyrians. Beckwith found support for his second-century dating of the Samaritan schism in the palaeographical and text-critical analysis of James Purvis, who argued that the script, spelling and textual tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch were paralleled in the scrolls, which are to be dated to the Hasmonean period between the mid-second to mid-first centuries BCE. But Purvis’ view that the Samaritan sect originated at this time is not a necessary conclusion of his palaeographical and text-critical study. While it is the case that the Qumran scrolls include a number of texts of the Samaritan text-type, such as 4Qpalaeo-Exodusm and 4QNumb, it is to be doubted that one can then reconstruct the origins of the Samaritans on the basis of the text-type of their Pentateuch.9 Beckwith’s reading of the evidence of the so-called “Samaritan schism” is one-sided; it perpetuates the biases against the Samaritans in Josephus’ account.10 Recently, Magnar Kartveit has reviewed the evidence from both the Jewish and Samaritan sources and has proposed that the “Gerizim project,” which he dated to the first part of the fourth century BCE, was the most likely origin of the “Jews of Samaria.” For Kartveit, it is the establishment of a Yahweh-worshipping Temple on Mt. Gerizim (MT: Mt. Ebal), in accordance with Deut 27:4, that constitutes the birth of the Samaritans.11 The Samaritans were Jews who remained in the land while their compatriots were exiled to Babylon. They worshipped Yahweh and venerated Moses over the prophets who followed him. In Kartveit’s conception, therefore, there was no “schism” in the way that it usually implies the Samaritans splitting off from the Jews. Rather, the Samaritans were Jews who were fulfilling the precepts of the Pentateuch in establishing a cultic site of worship on Mt. Gerizim. They shared Israel’s foundation document, which already included a discussion of the relationship between Moses and the prophets, but later expanded it to emphasize the Mosaic elements and significantly to change the imperfect verb “he will choose” to the perfect “he has chosen” in relation to the place of cultic worship on Mt. Gerizim in Deuteronomy. This version, then, was selected around the turn of the era or later to become the Samaritan Pentateuch. Kartveit concluded that “there was one version of the Pentateuch in circulation at the time when Deut 27:4 provided the temple founders with their necessary hieros logos for the project, but their version of the Pentateuch was deliberately chosen around the turn of the era or later. It is impossible to date the Samaritan ‘schism’ after the supposed ‘canonization,’ or to date the ‘canonization’ before the ‘schism.’”12 The use of the dating of the so-called “Samaritan schism” as a decisive moment in the formation of the Torah is thus called into question, be it dated to the fifth century, as 30

Ryle would have it, or to the second century, in Beckwith’s view. The extant sources are biased, redactionally complex, and incomplete.13 It is unwise to build one theory on the shaky foundations of another. Before we move on to the other historical pillar of the three-stage theory, the gathering of rabbis at Yavneh, brief mention should be made of an alternative reconstruction of the development of the canon by Andrew Steinmann.14 Steinmann obviated the whole issue of the Samaritan schism and simply assumed that the whole canon was closed toward the end of the fifth century BCE. In subsequent centuries, he maintained that the books of this canon were differentiated among various Jewish and Christian groups; the oldest organization of the canon was the books of “the Law and Prophets” before the tradition split it into two strands, one maintaining the bipartite division of “the Law and Prophets” and the other dividing the canon into the three parts of “the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms/Writings.” Steinmann’s work is not about the closing of the canon as such; it is about the closed canon’s subsequent development into two or three divisions. Steinmann based his assumption upon David Noel Freedman’s theory of the symmetry of the books of the Bible and its implications for the closing of the canon.15 According to Freedman, the whole Bible could be divided into two groups, one called “Primary History” (consisting of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets) and another group that combined the Latter Prophets and the Writings (without Daniel, which he dated to the Maccabean period). Freedman pointed out that the two groups show remarkable symmetry, containing as they do 149,641 and 149,940 words respectively, and this symmetry could only be achieved once all of the books had been assembled into collections at about 400 BCE and its final shape was formalized at ca. 160 BCE, when Daniel was added. Freedman’s theory of symmetry and of the closing of the canon is open to question. His division of the Hebrew Bible into two groups is artificial; he had to invent a category of “Primary History” because he could not find a name for this group in the ancient sources. Moreover, the statistical count is based upon the Leningrad Codex of the Middle Ages and on the questionable assumption that the Masoretic Text was not only the dominant text-type, but also that its textual form was already fixed by the time of Ezra.16 He ignored the earliest evidence of the biblical texts from Qumran that shows a diversity of text-types, including the proto-MT text, the Samaritan text, septuagintal text, and others besides. In the past, the evidence of the Qumran biblical scrolls was marginalized; they were seen as sectarian and not representative of mainstream Judaism. This marginalization cannot now be maintained, as it is increasingly becoming clear that the scrolls found in caves by Khirbet Qumran consisted of a heterogenous collection of writings, including sectarian and non-sectarian texts. All the scrolls may have belonged to the collection, but they are not all sectarian in the sense that they represent only the peculiar views of a small group. Rather the scrolls also represent the textual situation of the biblical texts in 31

the Second Temple period generally. Steinmann’s alternate reconstruction of the development of the canon, therefore, rests on some contentious assumptions.

The “Council” of Yavneh The other historical event that propped up the three-stage theory was the gathering of rabbis at Yavneh in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. Ryle suggested that the third division of the canon, the Writings, was closed at the “council” of Yavneh in 90 CE. Searching critiques have since queried such a characterization of the gathering of rabbis. The label of “council” has been shown to be anachronistic. In 1964 Jack Lewis criticized the translation of beth din, beth ha-midrash, yeshiva, methivta, and “in the vineyard of Javneh” by “council” or “synod”: “Though these are legitimate renderings of these terms, sixteen hundred years of ecclesiastical usage and twenty-one ecumenical councils have given these latter words certain ecclesiastical connotations of officially assembled authoritative bodies of delegates which rule and settle questions.”17 Rather Lewis proposed that “school,” “court,” or “assembly” would be more suitable terms for conveying the nature of the gathering at Javneh. Terminology aside, Lewis also made the important point that the specific “canonical discussion” at Javneh did not include all scripture but only Qohelet and the Song of Songs and that, moreover, the so-called “decision” settled nothing, as evidenced by the ensuing debate about these same two books. It is now recognized that the modern, Christian-influenced conception of the gathering at Javneh can be traced back to the work of the Jewish scholar Heinrich Graetz, who suggested that the canon was closed by the “Synode” of Javneh. In an excursus to his study of Qohelet or Ecclesiastes in 1871, Graetz suggested that the third division of the writings was assembled in two stages, first by the Pharisees and Sadducees in 65 CE, and then at the synod of Javneh in 90 CE. The final closing of the canon took place only with the redaction of the Mishnah, which he dated to 189 CE. The first two divisions of the Torah and Prophets having been previously decided, the synod of Javneh confirmed the closing of the canon.18 Subsequent scholars modified Graetz’s dating by making the “synod/council of Yavneh” not just the confirmation but also the final closing of the canon.19 Graetz’s view is based on a passage in the Mishnah that he interpreted as describing the tumultuous leadership succession of Johanan, Gamaliel II, and Eleazar ben Azariah in the academy of Yavneh (m. Yad. 3.5–4.4). In the same passage, the sages ruled that “all the holy scriptures defile the hands,” an enigmatic criterion for deciding the canonicity of books, and reported disputes over the status of the Song of Songs and Qohelet. David Aune has investigated the source and influence of Graetz’s views and has suggested that he must have read Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, published in 1670, in which Baruch Spinoza proposed that the canonization of sacred scripture took place at a 32

“concilium pharisaeorum” some time in the late Second Temple period. For Aune, both Graetz and Spinoza used the conciliar decisions of the church as a model for conceptualizing the Jewish process of defining the extent of the Hebrew Scriptures.20 Lewis, in an update of the discussion, doubted that it could be known “whether Graetz borrowed the idea of a synod from Spinoza.”21 If Yavneh was not a “council” or “synod,” what then did it signify? Shaye Cohen has argued that the gathering of rabbis at Yavneh was a “grand coalition” of different groups and parties. It was not a “pharisaic triumph,” as it is often described in the literature. While many, if not most, of the sages were Pharisees or their descendants, there was no attempt to make anything of their ancestry, nor any intention of defining orthodoxy.22 Yavneh saw the end of sectarianism self-definition. Whether it is the Sadducees, Essenes, or members of the house of Hillel or Shammai, the rabbis allowed all Jews of whatever persuasion “to agree to disagree.” The rabbis at Javneh did not experience a sense of crisis and did not feel a need to use exclusion as a means of establishing a normative religion. Rather there was a grand coalition representing the cessation of sectarianism. Before Javneh, Cohen argued, Judaism was characterized by sectarianism and the exclusion of some Jews by other Jews who did not agree with them. The destruction of the Temple, therefore, provided the impetus for reconsidering the damaging effects of internal divisiveness. Martin Goodman has recently challenged Cohen’s depiction of the post-70 reconstitution of Rabbinic Judaism at Javneh.23 In particular he questions (1) whether any of the groups before 70 really separated from the Temple, and (2) whether variety within Judaism really came to an end after 70. Goodman argues that before 70 the centrality of the Temple remained for all Jews, with the sole exception of the extreme allegorists attacked by Philo (de migratione Abrahami 89–93). For Goodman, Josephus did not hide disagreements among Jews on the cultic service, but such differences of opinion did not “prevent unanimity between these groups on the value of the worship carried out in Jerusalem by the priests on behalf of the whole nation.”24 Goodman then discussed the Essenes and the community (yahad) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguing that the scholarly view that these groups abandoned the Temple is wrong. First, the only explicit reference to the Essene separation from the Temple is found in the Latin version of AJ 18.19, which states that the Essenes “send votive offerings to the Temple but do not offer (non celebrant) animal sacrifices.” Philo, describing the Essenes, states that they are “utterly dedicated to the service of God (θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ), not offering up animals, but judging it more fitting to render their minds truly holy” (QOP 75). Goodman argues that reading these passages as an avoidance of the Temple is possible but not necessary. In fact, the Essenes seemed to have participated in the Temple, only they used their own distinctive rituals. Thus Josephus states that the Essenes, “sending votive offerings to the Temple[,] perform sacrifices with a difference of purifications” and that they 33

“carry out sacrifices by themselves, being banned from the common precinct” (AJ 18.19). This suggests to Goodman that the Essenes were restricted to certain areas in Jerusalem, near the Temple site and perhaps by the Essene Gate. On Philo’s description, Goodman argues that it is an idealization and should not be understood literally as a disapproval of animal sacrifices. Turning to the scrolls, Goodman accepts that the references in the Pesher Habakkuk recount the dispute between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. Nonetheless, he does not see any evidence that the the scrolls precluded a continuing participation in the Temple cult. The Temple Scroll details the rules for the Temple; the mishmarot texts contain calendars of priestly courses; there are references to priests, Aaron, and Zadok; the Copper Scroll contains a list of Temple treasures; the Damascus Document legislates on sacrifices and offerings in the Temple; MMT provides advice to the high priest on the administration of the Temple. Most of all, Goodman sees the importance of Deuteronomy among the biblical scrolls, which “renders deeply implausible the notion that those who treated this text as authoritative will simply have ignored its injunction.”25 Goodman concludes by suggesting that the destruction of the Temple meant not so much the end of sectarianism, but the end of a public stage on which the disagreements were played out. After 70, Jews could disagree without having to confront each other in person; they could do so in “untroubled isolation.”26 Goodman’s view that the Essenes and yahad of the scrolls did participate in cultic worship at the Temple is possible but not inevitable. The importance of the book of Deuteronomy in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not decisive, as he seems to think. Goodman believes that Deuteronomy centralizes the cult at Jerusalem. In fact, in Deut 12 the verb is significantly in the imperfect, and five times it states that the Lord God “will choose” the place of his habitation (Deut 12:5, 11, 12, 18, 26). At least in Deuteronomy, the place has not been decided as Jerusalem. It is only in the Samaritan Pentateuch that the verb occurs in the perfect, “has chosen,” and that the cultic site is Mt. Gerizim and not Jerusalem.27 Goodman’s appeal to a host of scrolls, from the Temple Scroll to the Copper Scroll to the Damascus Document, does not exclude an interpretation of the anti-Temple stance by one or more communities of the scrolls. These scrolls are not all sectarian and vary in genre. The Temple described in the Temple Scroll, for instance, is clearly idealized. The Temple Mount, according to the dimensions stipulated, would span across the Kidron Valley and occupy the Mount of Olives. It is more like the Temple of the book of Revelation than the Herodian Temple. The Copper Scroll is most likely a fictional text about the hiding of treasures, akin to the rabbinic tractate masseket kelim, and not a real treasure map. Finally, the evidence that Goodman cites to support the view of Jewish unity all comes from Josephus’ Against Apion (2.193–195; 2.196; 2.179–81), where the overarching rhetorical strategy is to contrast the disunity of the Greeks with the singular agreement of the Jews. 34

As far as the canon was concerned, it was the Pharisaic 22/24 books that became majority canon. Uniformity of canon followed diversity. John Collins applied the significance of Yavneh to the formation of the canon: “If most rabbis at Jamnia were Pharisees, it was inevitable that Pharisaic opinion would prevail. So it was with the canon. If the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon had taken shape before 70 CE, as it seems likely, it was the canon of a party, not of all Jews. After 70, through the influence of Jamnia, other Scriptures were ignored and lost.”28 Collins’ view that the Pharisaic canon became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism is the basic model that I have followed in this book. It is widely accepted that Rabbinic literature holds a broadly Pharisaic point of view. What is interesting is the way that the canon has been connected to the end of sectarianism. It means that before Yavneh, different collections of scriptures were held by different sects. Unlike Collins, however, I would place less significance on Yavneh. The link between the canon and Yavneh is based on Mishnah Yadayim, in which it is thought that R. Eleazar ben Azariah replaced Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, a tradition that is textually and historically unsound.29 Also, the debates about the canonical status of Qohelet and the Song of Songs, as well as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, did not end but continued into the second century CE and beyond.

The Temple and the One Canon A central criticism against the three-stage theory is the conception of the sequential closing of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Linear development, however, persists in subtler forms, whether it is in Leiman’s and Beckwith’s theory of the Maccabean dating of the closing of the canon or in Barton’s bipartite theory. Assumed in the linear development is the view of an official canon that all Jews recognized. Sid Leiman argued that the Torah and Prophets were considered to have been inspired and canonical by 450 BCE, shortly after the cessation of prophecy between 500 and 450 BCE. Some books, such as Job and Psalms, were excluded either because “they did not properly belong in a religious history of the Israelite nation” or because the books, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, were composed after the prophetic canon was closed. Leiman admitted that it was rather speculative but that the earliest canonical activity could be traced back to the time of Moses, Samuel, Solomon, and Hezekiah. By contrast, he believed that the closing of the canon could be established with some certainty: it took place around 164 BCE under the aegis of Judas Maccabee.30 Beckwith too advocated a modified view of the sequential closing of the canon. In his theory all the books of the Old Testament were canonized very early on. The tripartite division of the canon was closed in two stages, first the Law, followed by the Prophets and Writings together. Based on 2 Macc 2:14, he argued that in 164 BCE Judas Maccabaeus must have classified and subdivided the single, non-Mosaic collection into a second and third section of Prophets and Writings by “compiling a list.” Beckwith even 35

wondered whether the list of the order of the books of the Prophets and Writings in b. Baba Bathra 14a originated with Judas.31 This is entirely conjectural since 2 Maccabees does not mention any list-making activity by Judas. Arie van der Kooij questioned the historical trustworthiness of the account and pointed out that “the tradition about Nehemiah founding a library is generally assumed to be fictional. Furthermore, the text does not offer any indication that the collection of books by Judas should be interpreted as a classification of the books in the sections of the Prophets and Writings.”32 Moreover, the order of the biblical books in b. Baba Bathra was not fixed, as evidenced by its continued fluctuation in Hebrew manuscripts and codices to the Middle Ages. On the origins of the canonization of the Torah, Beckwith was uncharacteristically vague. He distinguished between the process of canonization and final fixation of an individual book: “Could it be that the earlier (often shorter) books which formed the original nuclei of certain canonical books were already, in their original shape, recognized as canonical, and then simply remained canonical as they were elaborated, completed and located in one of the three ultimate sections of the canon?”33 This view of the origins has some similarities to Leiman’s discussion of the earliest canonical activity, although Leiman clearly noted that this earliest stage also included non-canonical works (e.g., book of the Wars of the Lord, Num 21:14).34 According to Beckwith, books or portions of books of the Law were canonized very early, the dating of “the Decalogue, perhaps from the time of Moses and Deuteronomy, from the time of Josiah.”35 He did not give precise times but presumably was thinking of the traditional dating of Josiah in the seventh century BCE and Moses in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BCE. Linear development can also be detected in John Barton’s theory of the bipartite canon of “the Law and the Prophets.” For him, the Torah was defined and closed at some early time. All other authoritative books were considered under the general rubric of “prophets” and remained so throughout the post-exilic period and the first few centuries after the turning of the era. There was no third division of Writings because there was not yet a fixed, second division of Prophets.36 The sequential closing of the canon as such is not problematic. The traditional division of the Hebrew Bible into the Torah, the Prophets, and Writings can be seen as a clue to its development. More difficult is the implication of an official canon in such a linear development. Leiman, Beckwith, and Barton all supposed that there was an official canon in ancient Judaism, and it was this canon to which the ancient sources referred. Leiman and Barton, to their credit, did recognize the possibility of the existence of other canons among the Qumran community, Philo, and other esoteric groups.37 Beckwith, by contrast, believed that there was only one canon that was the common inheritance that all ancient Jews accepted. There was no disagreement among the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes about what he called “the public canon.” On the Qumran-Essene community, Beckwith argued that they did not have a 36

different, enlarged canon. The apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic works that they esteemed were regarded by them as “a sort of interpretative appendix” and of a lower order than the canonical books. The Essene canon was the public canon that all Jews, including the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Therapeutae, accepted as authoritative, the enumeration of which was twenty-two books; the variant figure of twenty-four books found in 4 Ezra and rabbinic literature is due to the different numbering of Ruth and Lamentations with or separately from Judges and Jeremiah.38 Beckwith’s view that the Essenes held a twenty-two-book canon is based on the questionable assumption that the Greek translator of Jubilees was an Essene who inserted a reference to this number of scriptural books in Jubilees 2:23. As James VanderKam summarized it: “Beckwith learned from Milik that there was no space in a Qumran manuscript of Jubilees for this additional line (which is lacking in all Ethiopic manuscripts), so he argues that it must have been added by the Essene scholar who translated Jubilees into Greek no later than the first century C.E. But this line of argument is completely unconvincing.”39 Beckwith argued that from the time of the Maccabees to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 CE there was a public canon that was “laid up” in the Temple. This Second Temple custom followed the earlier Israelite practice of the First Temple and Wilderness periods that saw the deposit of “an incipient canon of Scripture” in or beside sacred objects, such as the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, and in the sanctuaries, such as Shechem. According to Beckwith, this practice not only continued in the Second Temple period, but from the time of Judas Maccabee in the second century BCE, it was also the closed canon of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings that was deposited at the Temple in Jerusalem, serving as the canon for all Jews: “It seems, therefore, that for as long as the Temple stood there was no essential disagreement among the different Jewish schools about the public canon.”40 There are several problems with Beckwith’s historical reconstruction of a public canon. First, as mentioned above, he accepted the account of 2 Maccabees in his argument that the canon was closed under Judas in the second century BCE. As will be shown in chapter 6, the view that Judas, like Nehemiah, founded a library, is not supported by a close reading of 2 Maccabees 2:13–15. Second, the evidence that Beckwith adduced from Josephus and Rabbinic literature is insufficient to show that “the Temple Scriptures” included the whole of the Tanak. Josephus’ evidence explicitly mentions the Law (War 7.150), and it may also have alluded to Joshua (Ant. 5.61), but it says nothing about the rest of the prophets and the writings at the Temple. To find reference to these, Beckwith cited Tosefta Kelim Baba Metsia 5.8, which states that the books of Ezra, the Prophets, and “the Fifths” make the hands unclean if they come out of the Temple. Beckwith took it for granted that the books of the Prophets corresponded exactly to the books of the second division. As for “the Fifths,” he interpreted it not just as a reference to the Psalter, but the whole of the Writings.41 The title of “the Fifths” may refer to the Pentateuch or the Psalter, but even 37

when it points to the latter, it is doubtful that it could mean the whole of the Writings.42 In Tosefta Kelim B. M. 5.8 most likely refers to “the five books (of Moses).”43 Third, Beckwith felt compelled to reconcile his theory of the public canon with the view of Origen (Against Celsus 1.49; Commentary on Matthew 17:35f) and Hippolytus (Refutation 9.29) that the Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, had a canon that consisted only of the Pentateuch.44 Whether the church fathers were correct in their reports is moot. Hippolytus’ account, for instance, is not as reliable as Beckwith believes it to be. In the same work, Refutation of All Heresies, Hippolytus clearly conflated the Essenes with the Zealots and Sicarii (9.26). Moreover, a late midrash implies that the Sadducees knew more than the Pentateuch.45 Preferring the testimony of the church fathers, Beckwith advanced a further theory of the Sadducees, their canon, and the Temple to explain the apparent discrepancy between the patristic sources and his theory of the public canon. According to him, when the Sadducees took over the Temple in the second century BCE, they inherited the public canon that had already been accepted, even though they themselves held a canon that contained only the Pentateuch. Then, in the second and early third centuries CE and in the aftermath of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the Sadducees “joined up with the Samaritans” since their own cultic center was now in ruins. The evidence for this view is based on the highly questionable account of the Samaritans and Sadduceans in Hippolytus’ Refutation 9.29, which is likely to be another instance of conflation.46 It is improbable that the Sadducees, who were aristocratic priests based on the cultic centrality of Jerusalem, would now abandon that ideology and become part of the group that had established the rival cultic site on Mt Gerizim.47 There is scant information about the Sadducees, apart from the fact that they were part of the Judean nobility, from whom some of the high priests were appointed. Beckwith’s view is entirely unconvincing, compounded as it is with one questionable view piled on top of another. Notwithstanding Beckwith’s theory of the public canon, it should be asked whether there was a canon that all Jews accepted. Arie van der Kooij has argued that from the second century BCE onward there existed an “official and authoritative” canon, as evidenced by the Wisdom of Ben Sira, both in its original conception by the grandfather in 39:1–3 and the Prologue of the grandson. According to van der Kooij, the tripartite division of “the Law,” “the Prophets,” and “the other books of our ancestors” in the Prologue matches the three divisions that Josephus enumerates in Against Apion 1.38–43. The first two divisions of the Law and Prophets are defined and closed. As for the third division, van der Kooij followed Beckwith in arguing that the definite article of “the other books of our ancestors” (τὰ ἄλλα πατρία βιβλία) also indicates that it was closed. The twenty-two-book canon of Josephus is not an “ad hoc construction” but reflects the canon of the Pharisees.48 The Prologue, van der Kooij continues, differs from the original conception of the grandfather; in chapter 39:1–3, it is not the tripartite canon that is in view. Rather the ideal scribe is to reflect on “the Law of the Most High,” “the wisdom of all the ancients,” 38

and “the prophecies.” The “wisdom of all the ancients” seems to imply “a wider literary horizon than the wisdom literature of ancient Israel,” whereas the grandson’s Prologue emphasizes the threefold structure of the collection of books, a thorough study of these books, and the exclusive use of “the books of the ancestors.” Van der Kooij attributed this shift as a corollary to the Maccabean revolt and its increased nationalism.49 There are several difficulties with van der Kooij’s theory of an official and authoritative canon. It is undoubted that the Temple served as the depository of some of the scriptures, especially the Torah and the Psalms (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.323). Josephus reports that at the capture of Jerusalem “the Law of the Jews” was taken as booty along with the golden table, candlesticks, and lamps to Rome to be deposited in Vespasian’s palace (War 7.148, 150, 162), and Titus gave him the concession to keep the holy books (Life 418). But Against Apion 1.38–43, a passage on which van der Kooij depended, says nothing about the Temple. The context is an apology for the historical accuracy of Jewish history. Josephus, in a polemical flourish, was attempting to show his Greek readers that Jewish history was both accurate and consistent because “every Jew” considered the twenty-two books as the decrees of God. His account is marked by rhetorical exaggeration that every Jew “will cheerfully die for them” (i.e., the books) and that “no one has ventured whether to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable.”50 The Wisdom of Ben Sira, both the Prologue and the original instruction, also says nothing about the presence of these books in the Temple. Moreover, the act of depositing something in the Temple, whether in the library or archive, as such does not necessarily imply “canonization.” Other important works and documents were deposited there for safekeeping. The lists of priestly genealogies, for instance, were deposited in the Temple and were consulted in the event that a priestly lineage needed to be established (Josephus, Apion 1.34–36; cf. War 2.427, 6.354; Life 1.6). Conversely, holy books were not just deposited in the Temple; they were also found in the synagogues (Josephus, Ant. 16.164). What Josephus says about the canon in Against Apion will be discussed below. Suffice it to note here that van der Kooij’s assertion that the Prologue of Ben Sira corroborates the closed, Pharisaic canon of Josephus is open to challenge. Josephus and Jesus ben Sira’s grandson do not appear to have the same conception of a closed canon. Notwithstanding any surface similarities between the two notices (e.g., in the description of “the remaining books”), Josephus’ conception of canon is closed and fixed, as evidenced by his enumeration of five, thirteen and four books for each of the sections of “the books of Moses,” “the Prophets,” and “the remaining books” respectively. For him, there are only twenty-two books in the Jewish canon. By contrast, the Prologue does not provide a similar book count for each section nor a total for all three sections. As will be shown in chapter 6, both the Wisdom and Prologue describe the curriculum of the scribe. John Barton has argued that in the context of the Prologue “the other books” is more naturally understood as “all other books” since the point is that all books lose something 39

in translation, not just scripture. Barton’s interpretation of books in general is in keeping with the general thrust of the Prologue, which describes the grandfather as not only learned in scripture but simply learned.51 Finally, it should not be supposed that the Temple authorities served like a church council or synod in decreeing a canon that was to be followed by all Jews. There is no evidence that the scriptures of the Temple were considered normative in this sense. Canon was not, for the most part, a point of contention in ancient Judaism as it was in Christianity. Rather, disputes centered on the halakhic interpretation of the biblical texts; what constituted a “biblical text” was simply assumed. The eventual adoption of the Pharisaic canon by the rabbis may be explained by the membership of those who founded Rabbinic Judaism. The other sects that joined this “grand coalition” presumably were willing to accept this canon. Why they did so cannot now be known, but one possibility is surely that their canons shared a considerable common core of authoritative books, and their halakha did not depend upon the books whose status is disputed.

Scriptural Scrolls Deposited at the Temple There were no “Temple Scriptures” that served as the public, common, or official canon of all Jews.52 This does not mean that there were no scriptural scrolls kept at the Temple. Josephus explicitly mentioned copies of the law in connection with the Temple. Scrolls of scriptures were used for public reading and worship. Psalms were sung during worship at the Temple, and it is not unreasonable to assume that there were copies of one or more versions of the psalter kept there for this purpose. The scriptural scrolls of the Temple did in specific times and cases have an authoritative function: the discovery of the law book was a catalyst for cultic reform in the reign of Josiah in 622 BCE, and the three Torah scrolls, according to Rabbinic literature, were used to establish a standardized text. But these instances are not indicative of an official canon kept in the library of the Temple. In pre-exilic times Hilkiah, the high priest, discovered “the book of the law,” identified by many with the book of Deuteronomy or a version of it (Urdeuteronomium), when repairs were being made to the Temple (2 Kgs 22). The book was brought before King Josiah and read aloud by Shaphan, his secretary. Upon hearing its words, King Josiah tore up his clothes and sought to know what Yahweh had intended for him, his people, and Judah, for he perceived that divine wrath was directed against them on account of the disobedience of the ancestors to the words written in it (v. 13). He was filled with remorse, and his response to the hearing of the words of the law was deemed suitably chastened. Huldah, the prophetess, described how King Josiah had “softened his heart” and “humbled himself before Yahweh” (v. 19), the reward of which was that he would not see the divine wrath on Judah and would die in peace (v. 20). The discovery of the law book precipitated an extensive cultic reform program, as 40

Josiah made a covenant with Yahweh to keep all commandments, purged the Temple of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah of idolatry, and reinstated the observance of the feast of passover (2 Kgs 23). This reform lasted one generation, as his sons Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim again did what was evil before Yahweh and returned to what the fathers had done in practicing idolatry (2 Kgs 23:32).53 The law book found in the Temple clearly had an authoritative function in Josiah’s cultic reform program, but it was not a public canon. First, it consisted of only one book and not the Torah or Tanak.54 Second, unlike the Deuteronomist who compiled the history, the law book was not recognized by the Judean kings before and after Josiah as the standard by which to guide their behavior. The kings before Josiah neglected the law book, and his sons Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim subsequently abandoned it. The law book would be better described as a book of reform rather than a public canon.55 Third, the narrative does not presuppose a “Temple library.” 2 Kgs 22 does not specify a place within “the house of YHWH.” It was presumably a place for the safekeeping of valuable treasures and documents. “Library” is a convenient term, but it misleads if one also thinks of it as an institution that was accessible to the public and was primarily for books. In the Chronicler and Josephus’ versions of the story, the accounts of Hilkiah’s discovery also included a reference to “the silver” (2 Chr 34:14) and “the gold” (Ant. 10.58) that was being brought out of the same place as the book of the law (cf. Ezra 6:1; bSanh 22a). Karel van der Toorn described the place of depository as an area closed off from the public, “a storage room.”56 It is often thought that in the Hellenistic period a designated library at the Temple could be identified. The letter embedded within 2 Macc 2:13–15 may be legendary as an account of its foundation by Nehemiah, but the reference to a “library” (βιβλιοθήκη) that Judas established (“in the same way”) was presumably real and verifiable by readers in the second century BCE. This institution was similar to a modern library as it included “all the books” lost in the war. This library of books was offered to Jewish compatriots in Alexandria in the event that they “had need of them,” which probably meant a loan for the purposes of making copies of books that were missing in the Alexandrian collection. This common understanding of 2 Macc 2:13–15, however, is untenable. What was being compared was the collection of books in a general sense. Judas did not collect the same books as Nehemiah, nor did he found a library. What he did was to collect the books that had fallen to pieces because of the war. The persecution of Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes included the burning and cutting up of the books of the law (see chapter 6). Put simply, there were scriptural scrolls deposited in the Temple but no public canon. The book of the law found in the Temple storeroom during Josiah’s reign was a book of reform. It was inaccessible to the public and did not serve as the standard of piety for all Israelites. According to Rabbinic literature, the scrolls kept at the Temple served an authoritative function in establishing textual readings, but this role is not the same as 41

canonization. In the Jerusalem Talmud, it states: Three Scrolls of the Law were found in the Temple Court: the me’ona scroll, the za’atute scroll and the hi’ scroll. In one of them they found written (Deut 33:27) and in the other two they found written they adopted the reading of the two and discarded the reading of the one. In one they found written (Exod 24:5); and in the other two they found written they adopted the two and discarded the one. In one they found ‫ איה‬written nine times, and in the other two they found it written eleven times; they adopted the two and discarded the one (jTa’anith 4, 2; 68a).

This passage, paralleled in three other places in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Sifre, and Soferim, reports in a rather terse manner, typical of Rabbinic literature, an apparent acceptance of the reading of the majority of two in the case where three manuscripts disagree. Thus the fuller spelling of “refuge” in the phrase “the ancient God is a refuge” is accepted over the word orthographically spelled without a final heh. Likewise, the Aramaic-influenced variant of “young men” , in the phrase “he designated some young men among the Israelites,” is rejected over the reading of attested by two manuscripts. Finally, the spelling of the feminine, singular, independent pronoun (instead of ) in eleven places in the Pentateuch is accepted because of its attestation by two manuscripts. This passage describes the text-critical function of Torah scrolls in the Temple, but it is not about canonization. It denotes scribal activity, in the act of copying scrolls, that involved what one could call “text-critical decision making by majority reading.” Shemaryahu Talmon would go further in reconstructing dissident groups behind each text-tradition (e.g., the extreme conservatives who preferred the ancient spelling of ). Thus the Rabbinic texts attest to “the confirmation and authorization of a reading which had already been accepted by the rabbis.”57 Talmon believed that the issue was about defending the textus receptus that had already been established.58 It was not about canonization. The scribes who worked at the Temple must have had occasion to compare the various scrolls and their readings. In their copying, they would have been faced with a choice of variants, and this choice sometimes involved patterns of divergent readings in certain scrolls. It would seem that they engaged in rudimentary textual criticism, but in establishing a standardized text, they were not also fixing the extent of the scriptural collection. There were collections of scrolls deposited at the Temple of Jerusalem, but these were not “Temple Scriptures” that served as the standard for Jewish religious behavior. What conclusions can be drawn from this critical review of the scholarly discussions concerning the emergence of the canon? First, the two pillars of the three-stage theory, the so-called Samaritan “schism” and the “council” of Yavneh, do not provide solid bases for a historical reconstruction of the formation of the canon. Second, there is scholarly impasse on the dating of the closing of the canon. Central to this deadlock are disagreements about what books are implied by the descriptive 42

phrases or titles “the Prophets” and “the Writings.” There is no substantial disagreement about the Torah, its content, or the order of the five books. However, scholars do not see eye to eye on the second and third divisions, what they included, and when they were closed. An important factor identified in the disagreements is the approach that reads the evidence in a linear way that also assumes the existence of a public canon at the Temple. Third, depositing books at the Temple as such did not mean that they were canonized since other works, like the priestly genealogies, were likewise stored there. Conversely, scriptures were also stored in the synagogues. It is also to be doubted that the Temple authorities considered their books to be normative in the sense that they acted to make sure that the ordinary Jew and sectarian complied with their decrees.

43

3 The Earliest Canonical Lists and Notices

It is widely agreed that the earliest list of the canon in rabbinic literature is to be found in the Babylonian Talmud. The passage in Baba Bathra is important evidence for the closing of the Jewish canon, but the nature of the list and its dating are not as straightforward as is sometimes assumed. It is only one of several early Jewish lists of biblical books. In the following I will discuss the earliest canonical lists and notices. The distinction between the two is in the explicit or implicit expression of the biblical books. Thus, for instance, while Baba Bathra details the biblical books of the canon, 4 Ezra and Josephus assume them in a general description of the number of books. It will be shown that by the end of the first century CE, there was a Jewish canon, even if it was not finally defined and the inclusion of a few books was still open to dispute.

The Rabbinic Canon The Talmudic list is found in the gemara of b. Baba Bathra 14a–15b. The context of the mishnah is the division of property and belongings in the event that partners break up. The subject of division leads to a digression and to the issue that sacred scrolls are not to be divided. The halakhic concern, it would seem, is for the ordering of scriptures when copied on a single scroll or bound together in a volume.1 The Pentateuch is not mentioned; it is assumed since its order is not in dispute. Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, “God spoke first to Hosea” (Hos 1:2). But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan (250–290), however, has explained that [what it means is that] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first?—Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first?—Since his book is so small, it might be lost [if copied separately]. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first?—Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation. The order of the writings is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. Now on the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come first? —We do not begin with a record of suffering. But Ruth also is a record of suffering?—It is a suffering with a sequel [of happiness], as R. Johanan said: Why was her name called Ruth?—Because there issued from her David who replenished the Holy One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises. 2

The number of books enumerated is the same as the traditional twenty-four-book canon 44

(see appendices 1 and 2): Prophets (7 + 1), Writings (11), and the Pentateuch (assumed; 5). Only six of the Twelve Minor Prophets are mentioned. There is no reference to Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, but it is reasonable to assume that they were included in the “Twelve Minor Prophets” mentioned since there is evidence that these shorter prophetic books were collected by the first century CE (8HevXIIgr, 4QXIIa–g and Mur 88). There is no mention of Nehemiah, but Ezra and Nehemiah are often considered as one book. This twenty-four-book canon is well attested in the late midrashim, but not in the early tannaitic sources. The passage allows one to confirm that the sequence agrees with the traditional order only in the enumeration of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the last three Minor Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The other prophetic books differ in their order, or the arrangement is simply not mentioned. Hosea, Amos, and Micah prophesied in the same period as Isaiah, but the ordering is according to the size of the book rather than to chronology. Hosea, and presumably also Amos and Micah, is included in the Minor Prophets scroll because it is so small. The sequence of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which became the traditional order, was known, but the order advocated by Baba Bathra is Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah on the thematic dovetailing of destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation. Finally, the passage notes that while Job would have come first in chronological order, the righteous sufferer apparently having lived in the days of Moses, the third division of the Tanak does not begin with suffering but with the book of Ruth, since its suffering is tempered with the prospect of the Davidic line. The dating of this passage is fraught with difficulties. One clue to the date is the reference to R. Johanan (250–290), a Palestinian amora, who was responding to some unidentified rabbis (“our rabbis taught”). As is typical of rabbinic discourse, R. Johanan need not be contemporary with the unnamed rabbis. The tradition taught by these anonymous rabbis may be contemporary with or earlier than Johanan.3 One way of narrowing down the time frame is to appeal to corroborative evidence from the church fathers. Patristic writings include numerous references to the canon, and those of particular importance include a discussion of the Jewish canon. Philip Alexander has argued that the final closing of the Rabbinic canon took place around 200 CE in reaction to the “growing power of Christianity, which, at the end of the second century, made decisive moves to define its canon of Scripture, and to add a Second Testament to the First.”4 He supposed that the baraita of Baba Bathra must have come from before 200 CE and that this dating is corroborated by the canonical lists in Melito, Origen, and Jerome.

Melito’s List The patristic evidence is more ambiguous than Alexander allows. Melito, the bishop 45

of Sardis (died ca. 190), wrote to Onesimus, “his brother” (perhaps a designation of a fellow bishop), about how he “learned accurately the books of the Old Testament” when he went east to the place “where these things were preached and done.” It is reasonable to assume that he came to Palestine, but it is uncertain whether the source of the canonical list he acquired was Jewish. The letter, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26, reads as follows: Accordingly when I [Melito] came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you [Onesimus]. These are their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. 5

Melito’s list differs in certain respects from that of Baba Bathra (see appendix 2). The order of Numbers-Leviticus is inverted in comparison with the traditional order. Melito did not mention Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Esther. Even if we assume, for argument’s sake, that he counted Nehemiah with Ezra and Lamentations with Jeremiah, Melito’s canonical list still lacked Esther.6 Melito referred to 4 Reigns (four books of Kingdoms) according to the designation of the Greek Bible for Hebrew 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. Moreover, he divided the whole into two parts, the “five books of Moses” and “the Prophets.” The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, the Psalms, Proverbs, Eccclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job are listed after Deuteronomy and before the next section heading of the Prophets. There is no heading for this middle section, and it is a selective combination of books from the traditional divisions of the Prophets and the Writings.

Origen’s Hebrew Books Origen (ca. 185–254) listed “the canonical books as the Hebrews have handed them down” in his commentary on the Psalms. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25, cited this passage, which originally formed part of Origen’s comment on Psalm 1. There is no doubt that the list is Jewish. But it should be known that there are twenty-two canonical books, according to the Hebrew tradition; the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet…. These are the twenty-two books according to the Hebrews: That which is entitled with us Genesis, but with the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, that is “In the beginning.” Exodus, Ouelle smoth, that is, “These are the names.” Leviticus, Ouikra, “And he called.” Numbers, Ammes phekodeim. Deuteronomy, Elle addebareim, “These are the words.” Jesus the son of Nave, Iosoue ben noun. Judges, Ruth with them in one book, Sophteim. Of Kingdoms i, ii, with them one, Samuel, “The called of God.” Of Kingdoms iii, iv, in one, Ouammelch david, that is, “The kingdom of David.” Chronicles i, ii, in one, Dabre iamein, that is, “Words of days.” Esdras i, ii, in one, Ezra, that is, “Helper.” Book of Psalms, Sphar thelleim. Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth. Ecclesiastes, Koelth. Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir assireim. Esais, Iessia. Jeremiah with Lamentations and the Letter, in one, Jeremia. Daniel, Daniel. Ezekiel, Ezekiel. Job, Job. Esther, Esther. And outside these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el. (Commentary on the Psalms apud Eusebius, EH 6.25).

46

Origen provided Greek titles and the corresponding Hebrew titles in Greek transliteration and translation. Origen stated that the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books, corresponding to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Despite this, there are only twentyone books on his list. It is reasonably supposed that the Twelve Minor Prophets, counted as one book, was accidentally left out of his enumeration.7 Origen also included with Jeremiah, Lamentations and the letter of Jeremiah, the latter indicating that he was trying to harmonize his Greek Bible with the Hebrew Bible. He also clearly indicated that “Maccabees entitled Sarbeth Sarbane El” does not belong (“apart from these”) to the twenty-two-book canon. This expression likely reflects the Rabbinic description of “outside books.” The list does not section the canon into three divisions, but the books agree with the list of Baba Bathra. As for the date of when Origen wrote, it has to be before 232 since he wrote his commentary on the first twenty-five Psalms while he was still in Alexandria (Eusebius, EH 6.24, 26). The existence of this “Hebrew” list, therefore, must have been before 232.

Three Hebrew Countings of the Biblical Books Jerome (ca. 342–420) also mentioned the Jewish canon in several places of his writings, the most important of which is in his Prologue to the Books of Samuel and Kings.8 In this preface, which he described as “a helmeted introduction” (galeatum principium, meaning a head covering for protection against anticipated attacks), he referred to three different ways of counting the books of the canon: That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified by the Syrian and Chaldaean languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written…. And again, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e. Lamentations…. The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, which is Leviticus; the fourth Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law. The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachot, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eight is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra. To the third class belong the Hagiographa of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of the Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the

47

sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther. And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the lamb. (Prologue to the Books of Samuel and Kings).

There are twenty-two books of the Old Testament corresponding to the “elementary characters” of the Hebrew alphabet, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa. However, some include Ruth and Lamentations (or Kinoth, from the Hebrew for “elegy” or “dirge”) in the Hagiographa and separate them from Judges and Jeremiah respectively, thus increasing the total to twenty-four books, a number Jerome relates to the twenty-four elders who adore the lamb in the book of Revelation (Rev 4:4, 5, 10; 5:8; 11:16; and 19:4). Jerome considered the twenty-two-book canon to be the count of the majority (“by most people”); the twenty-four-book enumeration is a variant enumerated by “some.” He also seems to know a twenty-seven-book count when he states that there are five letters of the Hebrew alphabet that are “double letters” (kaph, mem, nun, peh, and tsadeh) that change shape depending on whether they are written at the beginning and in the middle (medial) or at the end (final). The canonical implication is that Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth (or Lamentations) are reckoned as double, thus increasing the total to twenty-seven. Jerome further notes (not cited above) that the books not included in the list are to be placed among the apocryphal writings—namely, the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Judith, Tobit, Shepherd, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Jewish canon that Jerome discusses, whether it be counted as twenty-two, twenty-four, or twenty-seven, has the same content as the books mentioned in Baba Bathra. It is also tripartite, divided as it is into the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, but the internal order of the books in each of the two sections of the Prophets and Hagiographa is not the same as that found in Baba Bathra. By the fourth and fifth centuries, it is clear that the Jewish canon was set, but Jerome’s notice says nothing about when that canon was first closed.

Date of the Closing of the Jewish Canon Was the Jewish canon closed at around 200 CE? The date of Origen’s canonical list, giving due allowance for the accidental omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets, provides a terminus ante quem; it must have been prior to 232. To be more precise about the date, however, one has to turn to the Bryennios list. In 1950, Jean-Paul Audet republished a canonical list that he dated to the first half of the second century CE or earlier.9 It is a list of names, partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic, of the biblical books of the Hebrew Bible transcribed in Greek letters, accompanied by their corresponding Greek names.10 The list was first published by P. 48

Bryennios in 1883 at the end of his introduction to the principal edition of the Didache. The Bryennios list contained twelve lines on folio 76a of manuscript 54 of the Greek Patriarchate Library of Jerusalem, inserted between the second Epistle to Clement and the Didache. This copy of the Jerusalem manuscript is dated to 6564 of the Greeks or 1056 CE, but the origin of the list Audet traced to the first half of the second century CE or earlier. It is unknown who compiled this list, but Audet argued that it was used by Greek-speaking Christians who derived it originally from a Jewish source. Audet pointed out that the Bryennios list shared a common literary tradition with one of the three lists found in Epiphanius’ writing (On Weights and Measures 22f; see appendix 3).11 The list includes a total of twenty-seven books, it is not divided into sections, and it diverges significantly from the traditional order. Each of Judges and Ruth (not adjacent), 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah is counted separately. The order of the books is notable. The first three books of the Pentateuch, GenesisExodus-Leviticus, follows the well-attested sequence. This is then followed by JoshuaDeuteronomy-Numbers, an order that is otherwise unattested. As noted above, Melito’s list inverts Leviticus-Numbers to Numbers-Leviticus. Two other canonical lists, Mommsen’s African Catalogue (359–365) and that of Leontius of Byzantium, agree with Melito’s inversion of the third and fourth books of the Pentateuch.12 But none follows the Bryennios order. An ingenious solution was suggested by Peter Katz that this anomalous order was caused by a mistaken boustrophedon (“ox turning”), a bi-directional reading of sequential lines likened to the ploughing of a field. Thus the copyist read the Greek of the first line, Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus, from left to right. At the end of the first line, the scribe then copied the original order backward because he was now reading the second line from right to left. The second line was thus mistakenly copied as Joshua-DeuteronomyNumbers.13 Katz’s solution is supported by Epiphanius’ list, with which the Bryennios list shares a common tradition, which corrects the sequence to the usual order of the pentateuchal books. The books of Ruth, Job, Judges, and Psalms, in that order, come after Numbers and before the historical books. There is no good explanation for this order. Audet described the order as “haphazard” and characterized the list as a particular example of “early freedom.”14 The order of historical books (1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings), with 1–2 Chronicles, is attested by Melito’s and Origen’s lists. The order of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs is similarly attested. Audet asserted that “the prophets as a whole are grouped in a recognizable way,” but no other list agrees with the sequence of Jeremiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and 1–2 Esdras.15 The order of Jeremiah before Isaiah agrees with Baba Bathra, but the insertion of the Minor Prophets between them is anomalous. Melito’s list has a similar grouping of the prophets but not in the same order. Esther completes the enumeration of the OT books at the end, just as it does in Origen’s and Jerome’s lists. The Bryennios list does share a number of features with Epiphanius’ list. This has led 49

some to believe that it is late.16 But Audet has provided good text-critical reasons for thinking that the Bryennios list is not dependent upon Epiphanius’ list. For instance, Epiphanius’ list is more fullsome, complex, and grammatically correct, and it is unlikely that the Bryennios list, had it depended on the former, would have changed it to a more primitive form.17 Audet suggested that the two lists shared a common corrupt source, as evidenced by the identical errors of the Greek transliteration of Hebrew or Aramaic titles (e.g., the delta of ουδωιεκρα [Epiphanius] and οδοικρα [Bryennios list] does not correspond to anything in the Hebrew title of Leviticus, and is likely to be a significant error in the text-critical sense of the term). As for its date, Audet offered several arguments, including the view that the Bryennios list, which he called “the Jerusalem manuscript,” circulated among Greekspeaking Christians. There must have been lists, like the Jerusalem manuscript, in circulation among the churches in Asia Minor that were creating confusion and that led Onesimus to seek clarification about the state of the Old Testament canon. Along with his request for extracts of passages from the Old Testament sections of the Law and Prophets that testified to Jesus, Onesimus asked Melito for “accurate facts about the ancient writings, how many they are in number, and what is their order.” The fluidity of canonical lists is presupposed in Onesimus’ request, and it could only prevail before the establishment of Origen’s influence in Palestine and in the Greek-speaking countries.18 If Audet is correct, and he has made a substantial case for his dating, then a Jewish list of canonical books, agreeing in content but not in order, division, and count to the list of Baba Bathra, existed by ca. 150 CE at the latest. This conclusion in itself does not address the question of when the canon was closed. To do so, we must look at passages in the Mishnah, Josephus, and 4 Ezra.

Canonical Notices around the End of the First Century The evidence of the formation of the canon changes as one moves back in time. There are no longer any lists to examine and compare; what appear in the sources are passages that mention collections of books without explicitly enumerating what they included. Three passages that date to around the end of the first century or beginning of the second century CE provide different accounts of the state of canon. In Against Apion, Josephus states the following: Among us there are not thousands of books in disagreement and conflict with each other, but only twentytwo books, containing the record of all time, which are rightly trusted. Five of these are the books of Moses, which contain both the laws and the tradition from the birth of humanity up to his death; this is a period of a little less than 3,000 years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place in their own times in thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instructions for people on life. From Artaxerxes up to our own time every event has been recorded, but this is not judged worthy of the same trust, since the exact line of succession of the prophets did not continue. (1.38–41; emphasis added). 19

50

Much scholarly ink has been spilled over the question of whether Josephus’ notice attests to the closing of the canon. Questions have been raised about the total number of twenty-two and its division into the five books of Moses, thirteen books of the Prophets, and four books containing hymns and ethical teachings. These have caused many difficulties for scholars who approach Josephus in the context of a linear development of the canon. If we start from the earliest Jewish lists, however, and discuss the various orders of the books and systems of enumeration, many of these difficulties disappear. The count of the twenty-two-book canon is not remarkable and is clearly one possible counting; according to Jerome and corroborated by the earlier sources, it is, in fact, the count of the majority. The division of all the books into a tripartite canon was evident in the canonical list of Baba Bathra and Jerome but was not the only system of ordering books or of dividing them into collections. Most important, the lack of agreement on book order and sectional division did not imply that there was disagreement about which books were to be included in the canon. Bryennios and Origen simply listed them; Melito differentiated between the five books of Moses and the Prophets in a bipartite division. Even when Baba Bathra and Jerome agreed on the tripartite division, they differed on the order of Jeremiah-Ezekiel-Isaiah, and Psalms-Job and the placement of Ruth in the Prophets or the Writings. In other words, a book’s canonical status is not dependent on its position within an ordered sequence or section. Josephus’ passage falls short of a “canonical list” since he did not specify which books were included in his description of “our books.” It provides a summary of a twenty-two-book canon as it is divided into three sections. The five books of Moses are almost certainly the Pentateuch. The order of the five is unknown; it could be the traditional order or one reflected in Melito’s list, with Numbers before Leviticus. Melito’s list, after all, was not a popular version, as was evidently the Bryennios list; the bishop of Sardis determined the content and order after careful investigation, which involved travel to Palestine and consultation of the authorities. As for the prophetical books, Josephus enumerated them as thirteen. The same number may be deduced from Antiquities 10:35 when he extolled Isaiah as a wonderful man, speaking in truth, writing down his prophecies, and leaving them behind in books. Isaiah did not do this alone, Josephus stated, but there were other prophets, “twelve in number,” who did the same. Several suggestions have been made as to the content of the Prophets in Josephus’ canonical notice. Beckwith believed that they were as follows: Job, Joshua, Judges (+ Ruth?), Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah (+ Lamentations?), Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther.20 Beckwith was unsure about the inclusion of Ruth and Lamentations in the prophetic section. They may alternatively be found in the four-book-section on the hymns: Psalms (possibly with Ruth), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (alternative: Lamentations). 51

The contents of these lists are no more than educated guesses.21 Steinmann provides an alternate list with some justification. His list is based on references to, or allusions to episodes in, the books elsewhere in Josephus’ writings. His prophetic list includes the following: Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamenations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve Prophets. But Steinmann had to resort to an assertion about the inclusion of Job and Chronicles: “This leaves only Job and Chronicles as not mentioned by Josephus. Since these books are attested as early as Ben Sira, we have no reason to doubt that Josephus’ list includes these books also.”22 There really is no sure way of knowing which other books Josephus would have included in his other twelve prophets. The delineation of his canon based on use is promising.23 In addition to scripture, he used various sources, archival material, lists of kings and priests, Jewish and Hellenistic authors, and extra-canonical books (1 Maccabees, additions to Esther, 1 Esdras) in his writings.24 Josephus appears to have distinguished among different kinds of authority. Scholars often suppose that Josephus’ canon was the canon of the Pharisees of his time.25 The basis of this claim needs to be probed. One obvious place to start is his autobiographical account. In the description of his ancestry, as found written in the public records, Josephus was born of priestly, Hasmonean lineage (Life 1–6). At the age of sixteen, he tried out the three sects or schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes with a view to selecting the best. He also gained experience in the ways of ascetic life by devoting himself to Bannus and his manner of living in the wilderness for three years. At the age of nineteen, he stated that “I began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees” (Life 10–12). Doubts have rightly been expressed over Josephus’ curriculum vitae for the simple fact that his numbers just do not add up. There are only three years between sixteen and nineteen, and yet he was apparently able to squeeze into that time experience with not only the three sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, whose initiation period alone, he tells us elsewhere, was two or three years long (War 2.137–142), but also three other years in the wilderness with Bannus. Steve Mason has mounted a case against the prevailing tendency to view Josephus either as a Pharisee or a pro-Pharisaic apologist in Antiquities-Life. The anti-Pharisaic passages in his oeuvre cannot be attributed to his sources on the grounds that he could not have written them. Mason has argued that the key phrase, to be translated as “following the Pharisaic school” (τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν; Life 12b), should not be understood literally but rhetorically. It was “a necessary function of his entry into public life.”26 While Josephus was not and never claimed to be a Pharisee, he acknowledged the influence of the school when he returned from the wilderness to the city to begin his political life. Josephus knew a lot about the Pharisees, but he disliked their reputation for “accuracy” (ἀκριβεία), which he thought was undeserved.27 On Josephus’ canon Mason argued against the prevailing scholarly consensus. He contended against the sectioning of Josephus’ canon, which he believed was closed, into 52

three or two divisions in Against Apion 1.37–43. Instead, he tried to show that Josephus’ classification of the Judaean records was according to genre: Moses’ writings included both laws and tradition; the prophets wrote history or tradition; and the rest of the collection consisted of hymns and hortatory advice. He concluded that this classification was “generic.”28 Mason emphasized the genre to the exclusion of the division and enumeration of the books in Against Apion. It may be the case that he classified the Judean records according to genre, but Josephus also grouped the various genres into categories, marked as they were by the number of works in each division as five, thirteen, and four respectively, totaling a twenty-two-book canon. Moreover, Josephus described these categories or divisions as “the books of Moses,” “the Prophets,” and “the remaining four books.” The fact that each section contained various genres of writings does not then mean that the three divisions or sections did not exist.29 Josephus may not have been a Pharisee, but there are good reasons for thinking that he was advocating the canon of the Pharisees. The first is circumstantial. Josephus recognized that the Pharisees had an increasing influence over the masses. According to him, so great was “their power over the multitudes” (τὴν ἰσχὺν παρὰ τῷ πλήθει) that when they spoke against the king or high priest, they were immediately believed (Ant. 13.288). Whether this recognition was a result of political expediency—in an attempt to convince the Romans that the Pharisees were the party to support for keeping peace in Palestine—or simply an acceptance of the political reality, the implication for canon is the same: it would be in Josephus’ interest to advocate the canon of the dominant party at the end of the first century CE.30 Second, while Josephus’ twenty-two-book canon was at odds with the enumeration of the biblical books in Baba Bathra and other rabbinic texts, according to the combined attestations of Origen and Jerome, it was one of the two ways of counting the biblical books among the Hebrews. In his commentary on the Psalms Origen referred to the twenty-two canonical books, corresponding to the Hebrew alphabet, “as the Hebrews have handed them down” (apud Eusebius, EH 6.25). The phrase “as the Hebrews” (καθ ἑβραίους) is ambiguous since Origen used the term in various ways. Nicholas de Lange’s warning should be heeded: “There is nothing to urge, and indeed much to counter, the suggestion that Origen’s Hebraioi are necessarily ‘rabbinic’ or Aramaicspeaking Jews, or even that Origen made this distinction.”31 Yet Origen could, and indeed did, use hebraioi here to refer to contemporary Jews, as de Lange himself argued.32 Origen knew a great deal about the rabbis: he was acquainted with Jewish institutions and could speak about the succession of the patriarchate; he consulted many Jews and even mentioned the patriarch Huillus/Ioullos by name; and he may even have referred, in his commentary on the Psalms, to Hoshaya “the Great,” who lived in Caesarea at the same time.33 Origen’s count of the twenty-two canonical books is related to the Hebrew alphabet. In this, he showed that he was influenced by Jewish mystical theology, which attributes 53

to the Hebrew alphabet a central role in creation. In Sefer Yesira, the mystic used the Hebrew alphabet to hew out the foundations of the universe.34 A late Rabbinic source, Midrash Psalm 1, states that “R. Joshua b. Qorha and R. Judah (second century) say: occurs 22 times in the Psalms, like the letters of the alphabet.”35 Josephus’ canon did not include this mystical element; he did not relate his canon to the Hebrew alphabet nor delve into the mysteries of the number twenty-two. His discussion of the canon, even with due allowances for exaggeration, was framed in a way that represented majority opinion and not the views of an esoteric minority. It has to be supposed, then, that at the time when Josephus was writing Against Apion, the twenty-two-book canon, which presumably any of his readers could verify, was the way that most Jews counted the books before the canon was adopted by mystics, who found deep significance in the coincidence of the number twenty-two with the Hebrew alphabet. The twentyfour-book canon, as attested for the first time in the apocalypse of 4 Ezra, then became the normative enumeration in Rabbinic Judaism. Third, both Josephus and rabbinic literature use the cessation of prophecy in relation to the closing of the canon. Tosefta Sotah states that “when the last prophets—i.e. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—died, the holy spirit ceased [ ] in Israel. Despite this, they were informed by means of oracles [13:2) .” Josephus too used the same argument, although his formulation at first glance appears to be rather different. In Against Apion 1.41, he admitted that Jewish history from the time of Artaxerxes to his own day was not deemed equally worthy because of the “failure of the exact succession of the prophets” (τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν). What this means is not entirely clear since Josephus’ argument here is partial and undeveloped.36 Rebecca Gray has argued that what Josephus must have meant was that “there was enough material to string together a story, but not enough to write a completely comprehensive history of the period.”37 Josephus may have boasted that “the complete history has been written,” but an examination of the Antiquities shows that this was not the case. For Gray, Josephus’ belief that the “exact succession of the prophets” had come to an end after Artaxerxes was an inference that he drew from the sources that he had in composing the Antiquities and not “a theory about the disappearance of individuals called ‘prophets.’”38 Thus, she concluded, following John Barton, that Josephus’ belief that prophecy had ended “was not an absolute dogma, but rather one expression of a vague nostalgia that idealized the past as a time when people were, in some indescribable way, closer to God and holier than in the present.”39 Gray did not discuss the similarity of the reasoning of Against Apion and Tosefta Sotah. Just as Apion held that prophecy continued even when there was a belief that it had ended, so Sotah believed that revelation continued in a heavenly voice or bat qol after it was thought that the inspiration of the holy spirit had ceased with the death of the last prophets. The logic is similar if not the same. Moreover, both Sotah and Apion perceived, if only through nostalgic reflection, a difference between prophetic revelation 54

of the past and present. This shared understanding of prophecy and revelation is in contrast to other Jewish groups, like the sectarian Essene communities and the earliest followers of Jesus, who believed that revelation had not ceased. In all likelihood Josephus’ twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended.40 Josephus’ polemics against his detractors depended on his claim for the consistency of Jewish history and the agreement of all his compatriots on the sacred books. If by “every Jew” he meant that all Jews throughout all times held the same canon, then it clearly was not the case. The rabbis who took the decision about Qohelet and Song of Songs and those who subsequently disputed whether these books “defiled the hands” did not agree on a fixed canon. However, if Josephus meant that most Jews in his present time at the end of the first century CE agreed on the canon, then that would have been a credible generalization.

The Twenty-Four-Book Canon of 4 Ezra A second canonical notice is found in the apocalyptic book of 4 Ezra, a work dominated by seven visions, in which the seer, identified as Ezra the scribe, converses with an angel (visions 1–3), meets a woman in mourning (vision 4), has a dream about a redeemer figure and the fall of the Roman Empire and other wicked nations (visions 5 and 6), and receives a revelation of the books (vision 7). It is a theodicy that attempts to make sense, theologically and emotionally, of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans. 4 Ezra dates to between 70 and 100 CE. It is in the seventh vision that we find the canonical notice. The context is that the law, having been burnt, will be given again in a revelation, inspired by the spirit of God’s holiness, to Ezra, who will dictate it for forty days and nights to his five scribes, who will record it on writing tablets. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” And I did so. (4 Ezra 14:45–48; emphasis added)

The ninety-four-book canon of 4 Ezra is bipartite but not in the traditional sense. It is divided into a first section of twenty-four public books for all, both “the worthy and the unworthy.” The second section, however, is a much larger corpus, consisting as it does of seventy books, which are to be given to “the wise.” It is widely accepted that the twenty-four-book collection corresponds to the canon of the Hebrew Bible.41 While this correspondence may be, it should be noted that the only indication of it is the number twenty-four. As discussed above, a count of twentyfour books is one possible enumeration of the canonical list; according to Jerome the twenty-four books are counted by “some” as an alternative to the twenty-two-book canon. 4 Ezra does not tell us which books are included. “The law” in v. 21 refers to the whole ninety-four-book corpus.42 In keeping with esoteric tendencies, 4 Ezra reserves the remaining seventy 55

books for the wise. It is this seventy-book collection that has greater authority.

Disputes over the Song of Songs and Qohelet A third canonical notice is found in Mishnah Yadayim 3:5, a passage that was central to the discredited theory of the “council” of Yavneh. The context of the Mishnah is whether a scroll that has been erased and in which eighty-five letters remain “defiles the hands,” an enigmatic criterion for determining the holiness of scriptures. This highly specific issue leads to a more general discussion of all scriptures and their status in defiling the hands: A. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. B. The Song of Songs and Qohelet defile the hands. C. R. Judah (135–170) says: The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute concerning Qohelet. D. R. Yose (135–170) says: Qohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute concerning the Song of Songs. E. R. Simeon (135–170) says: Qohelet is among the lenient decisions of the School of Shammai and among the stringent decisions of the School of Hillel. F. R. Simeon ben Azzai (110–135) said: I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day that they seated R. Eleazar ben Azariah (110– 135) in the academy; [it was decided] that the Song of Songs and Qohelet defile the hands. G. R. Akiba (110–135) said: God forbid! No man in Israel ever disputed the status of the Song of Songs saying that it does not defile the hands, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. H. For all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holiest of the holy. I. If there was a dispute, it concerned Ecclesiastes. J. R. Johanan b. Joshua (135–170), the son of R. Akiba’s father-in-law, said: Ben Azzai’s version of what they disputed and decided (‫ )ורמג ןכ‬is the correct one. 43

Typical of mishnaic discussions, the passage collects and presents the opinions of various rabbis who lived at different times. Its opening lines (A–B) state the premises of the discussion—namely, that all scriptures defile the hands and that the Song of Songs and Qohelet/Ecclesiastes also defile the hands.44 The specification of these two biblical books is intentional, as it introduces the disputes over whether they in fact defile the hands. Three rabbis who lived between 135 and 170 disagree (C–E). R. Judah believes that the Song of Songs is holy but that there is dispute over the status of Qohelet. R. Yose then proves Judah correct by stating that Qohelet does not defile the hands, but he adds that the status of the Song of Songs is also in dispute. Finally, R. Simeon reports that the house of Shammai, known for its stringency, adopted the lenient ruling in this case in deeming that Qohelet does not defile the hands, whereas the house of Hillel, usually more lenient, took the uncharacteristically stringent ruling that the same book was holy.45 Central to the question of whether Mishnah Yadayim attests to the closing of the canon is the dictum of R. Simeon b. Azzai (F). Was a decision in fact taken that 56

confirmed the canonical status of the Song of Songs and Qohelet? What was the historical context to which it referred? Those who supported the theory of the “council” of Yavneh interpreted the phrase “they seated R. Eleazar b. Azariah” as a reference to his installment at the head of the Academy at Yavneh. The historical context, so it was assumed, was the temporary deposition of Gamaliel II, and replacement by Eleazar, as head of the Academy (cf. yBerakhot 4.7). This view was bolstered by the phrase “on that day” which apparently prefaced the issues that were discussed at Yavneh (i.e., mYad 4.1–3, mEduyot, and various talmudic passages). But Leiman has argued that “on that day” says nothing about the date or place of origin; rather, it is a Rabbinic technique that introduces a halakha that was discussed on the same day as the immediately preceding one.46 Alexander has further questioned the whole historical context of the socalled deposition of Gamaliel. He doubts that this is the reference behind “seating in the Academy” and also wonders whether there is any historical truth of Gamaliel’s alleged deposition as such. Alexander instead argues that Simeon’s dictum is syntactically awkward and is probably a secondary insertion into the text: the mention of “seventytwo” (presumably referring to Yavneh) and “seating of Eleazar” is tautological. He therefore suggests that the “seventy-two” may have referred to the Sanhedrin and to a context before 70.47 If Alexander is correct, then the decision taken on the holiness of the Song of Songs and Qohelet must have occurred before 70 CE. The specific occasion is not indicated. A complicating factor, not discussed by Alexander, is that the institution of the Sanhedrin was not permanent; it acted as a kind of ad hoc committee that would meet when specific issues and cases demanded it. What is clear in m.Yadayim is that during “the seating of Eleazar,” whatever the historical situation to which it may have referred, a decision was taken about the holiness of both the Song of Songs and Qohelet (F). This was confirmed by R. Johanan b. Joshua (135–170), the son of R. Akiba’s father-in-law (J). The decision, however, did not settle anything since rabbis continued to dispute the holiness of the two books for years to come (A–E, G). The search for the source of Baba Bathra’s enumeration of the biblical books found three earlier canonical lists by Origen, Melito, and Bryennios. None of these lists agrees exactly in number and order with Baba Bathra’s list. Jerome’s list, dating years later, also disagreed with Baba Bathra’s order of certain books. In fact, no two lists discussed agreed with each other exactly. There were three systems of counting, totaling the books to be twenty-two, twenty-four, or twenty-seven. The lists of Jerome, Baba Bathra, Origen (with due allowance), and Bryennios, however, agreed in content, thus indicating the same canon. The ordering and division of books must further be distinguished from the question of canonical status. Apart from the Torah or Pentateuch, there is no agreement on the sectioning of the books in the earliest canonical lists: Baba Bathra has a tripartite division; 57

Melito, a bipartite canon; and Origen and Bryennios enumerate a single, undifferentiated list. It is the inclusion of a book in such a list, not its ranking sequence or position within a division, that makes it canonical. Baba Bathra’s tripartite division eventually became the traditional division of the Jewish Tanak, but even then the order of the books within the divisions was not the same in the two lists. The closing of the canon is related to, but distinguishable from, the search for the earliest canonical lists. From the Mishnah, it appears that all scriptures were considered holy, except for the Song of Songs and Qohelet, and a decision was taken about the holiness of these two books. Two possibilities have been suggested as to the historical context in which that decision took place: at the Academy in Yavneh at ca. 90 CE or by the Sanhedrin some time before 70 CE. This issue remains unresolved. What can be said is that that decision must have taken place before R. Simeon b. Azzai (who flourished between 110 and 135), in whose name the report was given. The decision, once taken, did not, however, become the accepted norm, as rabbis continued to debate the holiness of the Song of Songs and Qohelet well into the second century. The notion of the “closing of the canon” has to be further nuanced. The ancient sources discussed do not support a definite, once-for-all fixation of the canon. Dissenting opinions continued. The issue is when it was closed for most Jews. In this sense, one can hazard a guess: the closing of the canon in Rabbinic Judaism probably took place between 150 and 250 CE. This “closing” did not end all debates. For instance, the rabbis continued to dispute the status of the book of Ben Sira. However, it was probably for most rabbis a significant moment that marked the recognition of the authority of those books that would eventually become the Tanak. Finally, at the end of the first century, Josephus attests to a tripartite canon that totaled twenty-two books. This canon is likely to have included all the books that are also found in Baba Bathra but, apart from the Torah, in a different order and division. The twenty-four-book corpus of 4 Ezra referred likewise to the biblical canon, and it shows that the system of counting twenty-four books already existed at the end of the first century.

58

4 The Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods

There is no ancient source that describes the process by which certain books became the holy scriptures of Judaism. How did Jews come to regard some books but not others as authoritative? While a full answer to the origins of the Jewish canon remains elusive, it has been recognized that the period subsequent to the return from exile is critical for understanding the emergence of authoritative scriptures. Was the rise of “the torah” supported by imperial edict? In particular, the account of the commission of Ezra has taken center stage in recent scholarly debates. Is the rescript of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12–26 authentic? This issue had been previously debated and a consensus reached by the middle of the 1980s. In his influential commentary published in 1985 Hugh Williamson could state that while the authenticity of the edict was formerly questioned, “it is now acknowledged in outline, at least, by nearly all.”1 This consensus, however, has since been challenged as scholars have investigated the redaction of Ezra-Nehemiah,2 the linguistic features of the Imperial Aramaic of Ezra 4–7,3 the conventions of northwest Semitic epistolary formulas,4 the identification of the edict with Hellenistic deeds of donation,5 and the historical plausibility of the edict as a whole.6 At about the same time that Williamson was penning those words, Peter Frei was articulating a theory that the firman of Artaxerxes should be understood in the light of Persian provincial governance.7 He used the German term “Reichsautorisation” to describe what he saw as the imperial “approval of local norms” and control over a “selfgoverning body in a constitutional manner.”8 Based on an investigation of Persian practices in Egypt and Asia Minor, Frei described the process of authorization in the following way: “The imperial authority issues in writing a norm proposed by subordinates. In this way, a normal act of high-level legislation would be transferred to the area of the local norms.”9 Frei’s theory has been widely discussed but not always understood. Konrad Schmid clarified that Frei was not advocating a centralization of local laws. What he meant was not that the local norms were “centrally registered and codified as ‘imperial law,’” but rather that these local rules were elevated to the status of imperial law.10 Some scholars are not persuaded by Frei’s theory, but the case is not closed.11 In the following, Ezra’s commission will be discussed in relation to the issue of canon. It will be suggested that the theory of imperial authorization is a way of circumventing the impasse of form-critical analyses of the edict of Ezra 7:12–26. But this geopolitical approach must be complemented by attending to the priestly ideology that shaped the book. It will be suggested that the priestly theology adapted Artaxerxes’ edict 59

by overlaying it with the language of volition. The scholarly debate over the authenticity of the edict and imperial authorization brackets off the question of what was meant by “the law.” It simply assumes that “the law” was the Pentateuch. But this assumption needs to be probed by an examination of those passages widely considered as part of the Ezra memoirs. It will be argued that the depiction of Ezra reading “the book of the torah of Moses” in Nehemiah 8 is idealized. It is unlikely that Ezra read the whole of the Pentateuch in one morning. However, Nehemiah 9 presupposes knowledge of six biblical books, from Genesis to Joshua, and these books are referred to as “torah.” That these books are authoritative is shown by their use in the confessions of the sins of Israel.

The Edict of Artaxerxes Ezra 7:12–26 may be divided into three sections: (1) the decree to send Ezra to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem and to bring silver and gold for the Temple in Jerusalem (vv. 12–20); (2) an edict instructing the treasurers to grant Ezra what he asks and to exempt the Jerusalem Temple functionaries from tax (vv. 21–24); and (3) an instruction commanding Ezra to appoint legislative officials and to teach the laws to those who are ignorant of them and a stipulation of the punishment for those who do not comply with the laws (vv. 25–26). Ezra 7:12–26 states the following: 12

Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven. And now 13 I make a decree that any one of the people of Israel or their priests or Levites in my kingdom, who freely offers to go to Jerusalem, may go with you. 14 For you are sent by the king and his seven counselors to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God, which is in your hand, 15 and also to convey the silver and gold which the king and his counselors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16 with all the silver and gold which you shall find in the whole province of Babylonia, and with the freewill offerings of the people and the priests, vowed willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem. 17 With this money, then, you shall with all diligence buy bulls, rams, and lambs, with their cereal offerings and their drink offerings, and you shall offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. 18 Whatever seems good to you and your brethren to do with the rest of the silver and gold, you may do, according to the will of your God. 19 The vessels that have been given you for the service of the house of your God, you shall deliver before the God of Jerusalem. 20 And whatever else is required for the house of your God, which you have occasion to provide, you may provide it out of the king’s treasury. 21 And I, Artaxerxes the king, make a decree to all the treasurers in the province Beyond the River: Whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, requires of you, be it done with all diligence, 22 up to a hundred talents of silver, a hundred cors of wheat, a hundred baths of wine, a hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 23 Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done in full for the house of the God of heaven, lest his wrath be against the realm of the king and his sons. 24 We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll upon any one of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God. 25 And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and those who do not know them, you shall teach. 26 Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.

60

Section one begins with the statement: “Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven.” The opening is not dated, but the narrative frame of Ezra 7:7–9 assigns the arrival of Ezra and his companions in Jerusalem to the first day of the fifth month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes—that is, July/August 458 BCE. This edict must have been written in the same year or slightly earlier (cf. Ezra 7:28). The epithet of Artaxerxes, “the king of kings,” occurs in other places to characterize Persian monarchs (Arsame and Darius) and the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek 26:7 and Dan 2:37).12 Ezra is identified as “the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven.” His priestly status is traced back to Aaron and the high priesthood (7:1–5), although he nowhere makes this claim. He is, according to the genealogical note, the son of Seraiah, the last high priest killed by Nebuchadnezzar before Judah was taken into exile (2 Kgs 25:18–21). He is also “the scribe” ( 7:11), but the sense of this epithet implies more than a high level of literacy (cf. “a scribe skilled in the law of Moses,” 7:6); he may have been an official of the royal court or of the diasporan community.13 The Persian loanword could mean “law” or “decree” (Dan 2:13, 15; Ezra 7:21), but in Ezra 7 it has both a moral (“law of your God”) and legislative (“law of the king”) connotation (7:26). The title “the God of heaven” ( Ezra 5:11; 6:9, 10; Dan 2:18, 37, 44) is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew theophoric title ( [Gen 24:3, 7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4; 2:4; Jonah 1:9] or [Ps 136:26]). What is in view is an edict, ensconced in the formula “I make a decree” (lit. “from me a decree is made,” v. 13), but the rescript is presented in the form of a letter. There are two such letters in Ezra 7:12–26; the second is found in the address to all the treasurers of the Persian province of Abar-Nahara or “Beyond the River” (v. 21). Dirk Schwiderski argues that certain features in this and other Aramaic letters of Ezra support a later dating of the composition. For instance, the use of the preposition in 7:12 (“to [Ezra]”) and 7:21 (“to [all the treasurers]) belies a Hellenistic dating. In the Achaemenid period, letters used the prepositions or .14 Williamson accepts the linguistic characterization but counters that the sporadic uses of along with in the Aramaic letters are “features better accounted for as relics of earlier texts which may have been overlaid than as haphazard attempts to give a flavour of antiquity.”15 Both explanations are possible, and there is no way to decide on linguistic grounds alone. The edict stipulates two commands that are probably related. First, it orders Ezra to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem (v. 14). The remit is not stipulated, but it is reasonable to assume that the inquiry relates to the state of the cultic worship in Jerusalem. The mention of “the king and his seven counselors” indicates that authority comes from the royal court (cf. Esth 1:14; Herodotus, Hist. Bk 3 § 31, 84, 118). Second, Ezra is tasked to bring silver and gold (v. 15). Important here is the use of the reflexive verb to emphasize that the donation was freely given. Significantly, the donation was not given to the Jerusalem Temple per se but to “the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem.” The Persian largess is described in terminology similar to the 61

Israelite freewill offering to God . In fact, the voluntary nature of the donation is unmistakable when the following verse equates the silver and gold with (lit.) “the offerings freely given of the people and the priests, willingly given for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem.” The all-encompassing nature of the royal donation (“all the silver and gold” and “in the whole province of Babylonia”), however, is undoubtedly an exaggeration probably designed to show that all the resources of the Persian Empire were at Ezra’s disposal. It is unlikely to be historically accurate. The editor sensed this problem and juxtaposed a second letter to qualify the limits of the royal donation, but he did not smooth out the wrinkles. It seems to me that one of the most persuasive arguments for the use of earlier documents in Ezra is precisely this uneven feature. Had the documents been composed de novo in the time of the editing of Ezra-Nehemiah, then one would have expected more consistency across the documents themselves and also with the narrative.16 The final four verses of this first section, then, enumerate the animals, grain, and wine offerings to be purchased with the money made available through the untying of the royal purse strings. Notable here is that the generosity of the Persians extended to the leftover monies. Apparently, Ezra and his companions have complete discretion in spending what remains of the grant. Section two (vv. 21–24) turns to addressing all the treasurers in charge of the finances of the province of Abar-Nahara. It too is couched in epistolary form and is therefore a letter within a letter.17 In this letter Artaxerxes orders his treasurers to fulfill diligently whatever Ezra requires. This time the royal munificence is not unlimited but capped: up to 100 talents of silver, 100 cors of wheat, 100 baths of wine, 100 baths of oil, and an unspecified amount of salt. There is no mention of gold. The grant is nonetheless generous; for instance, one talent is estimated at 75 pounds, which would mean that the cap places the amount of silver at 7,500 pounds when the total annual tax revenue in the province of Abar-Nahara amounted to 350 talents, approximately 29 percent of the total levy.18 Verse 23 introduces the motivation behind this royal generosity—namely, to avert potential divine wrath against the king and his sons. In a similar vein Darius, in his support for the building of the Temple, decreed that the elders of the Judeans should be given whatever was needed so that they may “offer pleasing sacrifices to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons” (Ezra 6:10). Finally, Artaxerxes orders that no tax of any kind be imposed on the Temple officials. This exemption for religious personnel seems ideologically motivated but is not unprecedented (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 3 §91).19 Section three (vv. 25–26) does not include an opening formula, but the transition back to Ezra indicates that this is the beginning of a third section. Commentators are exercised about how this section relates to the preceding sections. It seems clear to me that vv. 21–24 are parenthetical and that vv. 25–26 continue the edict of vv. 12–20. In v. 25, Ezra is commanded to appoint judges for all the people of Abar-Nahara. 62

This remit is broad and on the face of it historically dubious. Apart from the Judeans, there are different peoples living in the province. Are they all expected to know the laws of Ezra’s God? Presumably, those who know the laws are Judeans, or at least some of them are. But is it plausible that Ezra is being charged to educate other non-Judeans who do not know them? One solution is to interpret “all the people” to refer to “Judeans.” In this view “Judeans” do not just live in Judah and Jerusalem (cf. 7:14) but also in other places in the province. The judges and magistrates that Ezra is ordered to appoint, then, would be comparable to the ones mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy, one of whose functions it is to teach (Deut 1:16–17; 16:18; 17:8–13; cf. “the wisdom of your God,” Ezra 7:25).20 They would not judge all other peoples, just “Judeans,” those who lived in and outside of Judah.21 The final verse of the edict sets the possible punishments for non-compliance: death, corporal punishment (RSV: “banishment”), confiscation of goods, or imprisonment. Significant is the juxtaposition of what appear to be religious and secular laws, “the law of your God” and “the law of the king.”

Persian Support for the Authority of the Torah Did the Persians have a hand in the rise of “the torah”?22 From the outset it should be observed that quite apart from the possible influence of the Persians “the torah” had a traditional authority as implied in Ezra 7:25–26. Judges are appointed because of their knowledge of the law. Apparently, some of the “Judeans” already knew and were observing the law. The authority of the law preceded Ezra and the possible Persian involvement. Compliance was ensured by the stipulation of punishments. More uncertain is the role that the Persians might have played in elevating the authority of the Torah. Alongside the religious law is mentioned “the law of the king,” which presumably would be secular law. But are we to understand that a distinction is being drawn between the religious and the secular? The juxtaposition of the two could alternatively be understood as a coupling of two kinds of law. The text of Ezra 7:25–26 is ambiguous, and the arguments for and against its authenticity are often circular, depending on what is presupposed about the literary editing of Ezra-Nehemiah. An alternative approach is to interpret Ezra 7:25–26 historically by an investigation of the Persian governance of vassal states within its enormous empire. Is there a pattern of imperial intervention, and, if so, what form did it take? This approach is ostensibly circumstantial, but it has some advantages. If Ezra’s mission is situated within imperial policy, the issues are set in a historical context. Frei’s imperial authorization theory has attracted much attention but also mixed reactions. Recently, Kyong-Jin Lee has entered the fray by thoroughly reexamining the inscription of Udjahorresnet, the Passover letter from Elephantine, the document on the verso of the Demotic Chronicle, the trilingual inscription from Letoon, the Gadatas letter, 63

and a Greek inscription from Miletus.23 Lee discusses Ezra’s mission within the geopolitical context of the westernmost provinces of the Persian Empire. In her view, the edict of Artaxerxes is to be interpreted as shrewd political strategy, especially in the empire’s relation to Egypt, rather than some idealistic benevolence of religious plurality on the part of the Achaemenid dynasty. The Persians recognized the importance of the religious shrines, not only as focal points of cultic worship but also as administrative centers of local communities. In particular, Lee enumerates six parallels in relation to selected verses in Ezra 7:24 (1) The Persian-Egyptian conflict in the fifth century dates Ezra 7:8 to 458 BCE. (2) Ezra 7:13 is similar to the account of the repatriation of Judean exiles from Babylon as attested in the Cyrus Cylinder. (3) The reference to seven counselors in Ezra 7:14 is in keeping with the Achaemenid tradition of conferring with seven noble families. (4) The donation of silver and gold in Ezra 7:15 finds an analogy in the Persepolis Tablets, which describe cultic donations made by the imperial government. (5) The reference to treasurers in Beyond the River (Ezra 7:21a) situates Judah within this satrapy, a fact that is corroborated by the Gadatas letter. (6) The tax exemption of religious personnel in Ezra 7:24 is also attested in the remission of levies by the priests of Caunios in the Letoon inscription. “In light of the parallel historical cases from Egypt and Asia Minor,” Lee concludes, “I have established that Frei’s model was correct when it identified the Persian cognizance of the instrumentality of traditional law within the various societies it had conquered.”25 In fact, Lee accepts Frei’s theory in part, arguing that while the Persian Empire lacked a foreign policy and state religion, it did intervene in local administrative affairs through legislation, thus allowing it to understand how vassal states operated. But she rejects Frei’s claim that the imperial government protected its authorized rulings.26 The Persian Empire grew rapidly and lacked the manpower to enforce the compliance of vassal states with Persian legislation. What it did was to lend its authority to local legislation. Many of the same points have already been made in the scholarly literature that Lee critically reviews throughout her thesis. There is no decisive evidence, and the contribution lies in the cumulative effect of Lee’s having made the case for imperial authorization theory more thoroughly than had been done hitherto. An important issue that Lee raises but does not resolve is the impetus of the edict. She assumes, like some others before her, that the Babylon Jews petitioned the Persians, who then responded with an edict that sent Ezra and his companions to Judah to reestablish the cultic worship at the Jerusalem Temple, which was already built. This would go along with her characterization of the Persian legislative approach as “bottomup.”27 But the edict says nothing about such a petition, and she does not show how her assumption is justified by the text. Williamson, however, has suggested that the “request” of Ezra 7:6 would have included the provisions for the journey (cf. Ezra 8:22) and the 64

permission for the whole venture.28 One solution is to recognize that the edict itself, and not just the narrative frame of Ezra 7, has probably been edited by Judean scribes. One of the ideologies that shaped this editing is the priestly theology of divinely inspired action. The God of Israel is ultimately behind the apparently willing action of the Persian kings. As discussed above, it is striking how imperial volition is expressed in the language of freewill offering. The silver and gold of Artaxerxes and his counselors are equated with the freewill offerings of the people and priests. In the edict of Cyrus that opens the book, a passage that has numerous affinities with Ezra 7, the Lord “roused the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia” (Ezra 1:1) to proclaim that he has been charged with “building Him a house in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2). The Persian king is presented as having acted on his own volition, although in fact the reader is informed that the royal actions were in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah. Williamson senses this, although he strongly argues for the authenticity and integrity of the Aramaic documents as primary sources. He hints at the same when he asks how Cyrus could have known the titles “the Lord (Yahweh),” “the God of heaven,” and “the God of Israel.” His answer is that “the decree is a response to a petition by the Jews” and that the language of the decree follows the petition.29 Of course, no such petition is included, and implicit in the discussion is a tacit recognition of the Judean features of the edict. This priestly theology uses the language of volition, which expresses the wishes of the people and the sacrifice of the Temple. In Ezra 1:3–4 it states: “Whoever among you, from all his people … let him go up to Jerusalem … and let him build the house of the Lord the God of Israel.” But those who do not wish to do so should help those who return: “But everyone who remains, wherever he may be living, the men of his place, shall help him [i.e., the one who is going up] with silver and gold, goods, beasts, in addition to the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.” It is in keeping with this priestly theology that the edict of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 has been edited. The volition is expressed not only in the wishes of any one of the people of Israel, priests, and Levites to go with Ezra, but also in the freely contributed silver and gold, which, together with the freewill offering, were freely given to the Jerusalem Temple. The recognition of this priestly theology explains the presentation of the edict in Ezra 7 as the initiative of the Persian court. Without the mention of a local petition Artaxerxes is said to have issued a decree commissioning the reestablishment of the Jerusalem cultic center so important for Persian geopolitical strategy. It is vital to the priestly editor, in stark contrast to the conventions of Persian policy that are likely to have been followed in the case of the Judeans, to show that Artaxerxes enacted a legislative intervention from the top down. Persian intervention in the religious affairs of Yehud, therefore, is plausible in the light of the pattern of imperial provincial governance. Interest in the Judean cultic center is already evident in previous commissions to rebuild the Temple. As for “the law of your 65

God and the law of the king,” Lee interprets Ezra 7:26 as a propagandistic slogan that promotes the notion that the monarch is “a divinely sanctioned champion of the law” since authority is embodied in a person rather than a text in Persian legal conventions.30 She does not explain that this law was identified with “the torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:6) and “the torah of the Lord” (Ezra 7:10) or what biblical books might be implied by those titles, although she assumes the the Mosaic Torah is the Pentateuch.

Ezra Reading the Book of the Torah One of the dramatic moments in the restoration of Judean piety in the post-exilic period took place in the square before the Water Gate. The account in Nehemiah 8 may be divided into two sections: (1) the reading of the law on the first day (vv. 1–12), which is preceded by a chronological date (7:73b [Heb 7:72b]); and (2) the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13–18). The first part reads as follows: And when the seventh month had come, the children of Israel were in their towns. 1 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. 2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the Law. 4 And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden pulpit which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Ma-aseiah on his right hand; and Pedaiah, Misha-el, Malchijah, Hashum, Hash-baddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand. 5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; and when he opened it all the people stood. 6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. 7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Ma-aseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. 8 And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. 9 And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn or weep.” For all the people wept when they heard the words of the law. 10 Then he said to them, “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” 11 So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, “Be quiet, for this day is holy; do not be grieved.” 12 And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.

No year is mentioned in this account; the date, however, is the seventh month (Tishri; 7:72b) and it is the first day (8:1). The assembled are called “the sons of Israel” (7:72b), “all the people” (8:1, 6), and “the congregation” (8:2). The collective purpose is indicated by the description of the gathering “as one man” (8:1). The place is the square before the Water Gate, but where it is located in Jerusalem is disputed. The people asked Ezra the scribe to bring out “the book of the law of Moses” (8:1–2). There appears to be some uncertainty as to who read the book. According to v. 3, it is Ezra (“he read”), whereas in v. 8 there are several people (“they read”). The 66

procedure also seems confused since Ezra unrolled the scroll (“he opened the book”, v. 5) only after he had apparently read it. Williamson suggests that v. 3 should be understood as a heading that summarizes what is to take place.31 Thus the procedure should be followed sequentially in vv. 4–8: Ezra stood on a wooden pulpit or platform with thirteen companions, six on his right and seven on his left (v. 4);32 Ezra unrolled the scroll, and when he did so, all the people stood up (v. 5); he then blessed the Lord, and the people responded with three acts of affirmation by saying “Amen, Amen,” by lifting up their hands, and by bowing down and worshipping (v. 6). Verses 7 and 8, however, pose other difficulties of sequence, for how can the Levites help the people understand before the reading of the law? Moreover, the antecedent of the subjects of v. 8 (“they read”) most naturally points to the Levites of the preceding verse, which would contradict v. 3, which states that Ezra did the reading. Solutions have been suggested. Verse 7 could be considered another summary heading. But this view is unlikely since v. 7 is more detailed than v. 8. Williamson, instead, postulates an implied step in the procedure, due to the incomplete editing of the chapter.33 He assumes that between vv. 6 and 7, Ezra begins to read the law. This is followed by the explanation of the Levites. Verse 8, then, forms the summary of the entire paragraph, and the subjects of the clause “they read” are Ezra and his companions in v. 3, whereas the antecedents of “they gave their sense” are the Levites of v. 7. Williamson’s postulate of a missing step that describes Ezra reading the law between vv. 6 and 7 has much to commend it. It is demanded by the logic of the narrative; otherwise, the narrative would jump from the people’s response to the assistance of the Levites. But the view that v. 8 is a recapitulation seems unlikely; it would insinuate that there is not one but two summary statements for six short verses. Moreover, the supposed resume of v. 8 introduces new information. Verse 3 states that Ezra alone read the book (“he read”); it does not say that his companions joined him in the reading. Of course, it seems improbable that Ezra alone would have read the law book from dawn until noon; it is more likely that he had others, perhaps one or more of his companions on the platform, to help him. But that is a question about historical plausibility. The text does not say that anyone else helped Ezra read the law. Finally, reading v. 8 as a recapitulation would make the verse grammatically awkward: the plural subjects of this one verse would refer to two different groups, Ezra and his companions (“they read”) in the first clause and the Levites in the second clause (“they gave the sense”). An alternative exegesis would be to take the subjects of v. 8 with the immediately preceding antecedent of the Levites in v. 7. In an attempt to help the people, they too read out loud to the people. Significantly, the verse adds the pual participle , meaning “it was made distinct,” implying that the first reading was not clear enough to the people.34 But in what ways did the Levites make the reading distinct? The same verb is used in Ezra 4:18 to refer to the letter that Rehum, Shimshai, and the rest of their associates sent to King Artaxerxes: “Now the letter that you sent to me 67

has been read before me.” This verb in Aramaic could mean “to explain” or “to 35 translate.” Thus the letter was either read with explanation or in translation. Williamson, however, translates the Aramaic participle “verbatim” and argues that the pael participle has the sense of “word by word.”36 In his view, the letter was read in full rather than summarized. But the letter to the Persian king is not that long; it takes up a mere six verses in Ezra 4:11–16. There is no need to state that it was read verbatim since there is no question of a summary. The Persian loan word that introduces the letter in v. 11 is , the same word used elsewhere to mean “a copy” (Ezra 4:23; 5:6) and not a summary.37 Instead, what seems to be in view is bilingualism. The context suggests that the letter to which Artaxerxes was responding in 4:17–22 had been translated. There are three letters referred to in 4:6–24: (1) the letter of Bishlam, Mithredtah, Tabeel, and their associates (4:7); (2) the letter of Rehum and his colleagues (4:8–16); and (3) the king’s reply to letter no. 2 (4:17–22). The procedure of royal correspondence must be pieced together from the information given in these letters. In 4:7, the wording needs explanation. According to this verse, “in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and their associates wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia.” The next clause, however, literally states that “the written document of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated” (4:7). The word “Aramaic” is added a second time to the end of the verse, and translations vary in their understanding of its grammatical relationship to the rest of the clause. The RSV does not translate it, while JPS renders it separately as “Aramaic,” preceding the linguistic switch of the original text from Hebrew to Aramaic. Williamson translates the final clauses in the following way: “and the document was written in the Aramaic script but translated. (Aramaic).”38 He argues that need not 39 refer to a written document. Moreover, he understands as the writing in Aramaic script, and as the translation of the document into Hebrew.40 The mention of Aramaic for the second time is taken as a scribal note. But it is not at all clear that Ezra 4:7 is distinguishing between script and translation. There is no change to the Aramaic square script in 4:8 onward or any evidence that the presumed original text of Ezra had such a switch of scripts. It seems to me that should be translated by its usual sense of a written document. It could mean “the letter” or alternatively “the instruction, the rescript,”41 but there is no reason to suppose that it was unwritten or oral. In the book of Ezra refers in other passages to written documents (e.g., a letter or report; see Ezra 4:18, 23; 5:5; 7:11). Williamson argues that refers to script as in Esther 1:22. In that context it makes sense to understand as “script” in parallel to as “language” since King Ahasuerus’ letter is being sent to various peoples in the royal provinces “according to the language of his people” But in Ezra-Nehemiah refers to a written document (“these, the ones enrolled by their genealogy, searched their registration ”; Ezra 2:62; Neh 68

7:64). In a related context, the same term is used by the Chronicler to mean royal correspondence (2 Chr 2:10) and the plans of the Temple that David gave to Solomon (1 Chr 28:19; 2 Chr 35:4). The penultimate clause of Ezra 4:7 refers to the writing of the letter in the Aramaic language: “the written document of the letter (or instruction) was written in Aramaic.” The use of underscores the written form of the communication. As for in other uses of the term (2 Kgs 18:26; Isa 36:11, Dan 2:4) there is likewise an absence of a preposition;42 the nominal form is understood adverbially, in the sense of “in Aramaic.” Moreover, in those three other cases the reference is to the language and not the script. The final clause means “and translated” The subject of the masculine participle is either “the written document” or “the letter.” The clause does not specify whether it was translated orally or in writing. The second occurrence of is perplexing. If it is also adverbial, then the last two clauses of verse 7 become tautological. There is no need to say that the letter was translated into Aramaic since it was already written in Aramaic. However, it could be a scribal note, indicating the switch from Hebrew to Aramaic, as Williamson suggested. Once “Aramaic” is grammatically disentangled from “and translated,” then the final two clauses of v. 7 make much better sense. The letter was written in Aramaic but translated into another language, followed by a scribal note indicating that the language of the narrative is switching, as it does, to Aramaic in v. 8 and following. Thus understood 4:7 provides information about the procedure of royal correspondence. It speaks of a letter or instruction addressed to the king during the reign of Artaxerxes. The message sent to the king was not just an oral report brought by a messenger but a document written in Aramaic and translated into a different language, presumably Old Persian, that the king preferred or understood more easily.43 The verse summarizes the two-stage procedure of committing the missive into writing in Aramaic and delivering it in translation before the king. In Ezra 4:18, the king responds to Rehum and his associates’ letter, which has been read before him. The introduction (4:8–11a) does not say how the letter was conveyed to the king, but if the procedure of 4:7 applied, then the letter or report would likewise have been written in Aramaic, as it in fact is. This letter in Aramaic was read before the king and made distinct. Given that 4:7 also stipulates a subsequent procedure of translation, then it is likely that of 4:18 would mean that the letter was made distinct in the sense of having been translated. The translation was before the king, whether extemporaneously or as a prepared piece, but in any case done before the sovereign. The procedure of receiving reports in the royal court, then, would imply that letters, reports, and other documents written in the official language of correspondence and diplomacy, Aramaic, would be rendered into the language of the king. Our interpretation of Ezra 4:18 means that the same verb in Neh 8:8 could have the sense of translation. It is a masculine singular pual participle. Its subject could be “the book or the scroll” ;44 thus “they read the translated book, the torah of God.” The 69

participle could alternatively be understood as an adverbial accusative:45 “they read the book, the torah of God, in translation.” The effect, however, is the same; it is translated. The first half of Neh 8:8, then, would have the same subject as the second half: the Levites read in translation the book of the law of God and gave the sense, so that the people would understand. Did they read from a scroll, or did they translate extemporaneously? The rules of translation into the Aramaic targum stipulate that a meturgeman must not translate from a written document but must render the words extemporaneously.46 But according to the subsequent account in Neh 9:3, “they read the book (or scroll) of the torah of the Lord their God” while standing in their place. The subject is unspecified, but the immediately preceding antecedent is “the descendants of Israel” of the previous verse.47 It is not impossible that Neh 8:8 envisions the Levites reading from scrolls, whether of the Hebrew text and/or an accompanying translation, as they moved among the people. This reconstruction involves Ezra initially reading from the book of the law, presumably in Hebrew. He must have paused. Then the Levites “read the translated book, the torah of God”—whether wholly repeating the portion of the reading or only in part—making it distinct by rendering the reading into a language that was preferred or better understood. Nehemiah 8 does not say into which language the Levites had translated the reading, but later Jewish tradition understands it to be Aramaic and the whole episode as the origins of the Aramaic targum.48 Then the Levites gave the sense,49 perhaps in the form of explanations, so that the people would understand the reading.

Did Ezra Read the Pentateuch? The book of the law of Moses ( ) in Neh 8:1 is often identified with the Pentateuch or five books of Moses, but this determination is not free from problems. In the subsequent account of the celebration (Neh 8:13–18), there is no mention of Yom Kippur alongside the festival of booths (cf. Lev 23:27–36, 39–43; 25:9). Conversely, there is a reference to the obligation to offer up the wood-offering (Neh 10:35) that is not found in the traditional Pentateuch but is attested in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 11.3) and other scrolls. Thus several possibilities have been suggested, including the identification of Ezra’s Law book with one or more books or sources of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy alone or with the priestly source is commonly seen as the reference standing behind “the book of the law of Moses.”50 It is unlikely that Ezra’s reading of the law in Nehemiah 8 presupposes the Pentateuch as we know it. The book is read in one day or, more precisely, in one morning (lit. “from the light until midday”; Neh 8:3).51 According to the Masorah, there are 5,845 verses or in the traditional five books of Moses. If one estimates that the duration of the morning consisted of six hours (“from first light until noon”), then Ezra would have had to read 974 verses for each of the six hours or 16 verses each minute! It would be difficult to achieve this. It would not allow the Levites enough time to translate 70

and give the sense as they went around helping the people who stood in their place (Neh 8:7). One way of obviating this unlikely scenario is to postulate that Ezra read only a portion of the book of the law. Apart from the fact that Nehemiah 8 does not say so, this interpretation would run against the grain of the narrative since the thrust of the scene is that the children of Israel affirm the entire law of Moses. Ezra is unlikely to have read only some of the laws while leaving others out. There really is no way of knowing what Ezra’s law book contained by looking at the material in this way. The danger is that one simply assumes that one knows what a book title or descriptive phrase means. The term “torah” has various meanings, including “instruction,” “generic law,” “the Law,” “the book of Deuteronomy,” “the five books of Moses,” etc.52 The meaning of the term is dependent on the context in which it appears. Instead, the reading of the law in Nehemiah 8 should be understood as part of the literary unit that constructs an ideal figure of Ezra. This is not to say that there is no historical Ezra, only that the historical kernel is well wedged within the literary husk. Source-critical analyses have shown that it belongs to the unit of Neh 8–10 and what has been called the “Ezra memoir.”53 Neh 8 is dislocated in the Ezra-Nehemiah corpus and properly belongs to Ezra 7–9.54 In the literary depiction of Neh 8, Ezra becomes a kind of second Moses, reading the entire book of the law, in a reenactment of the covenantal ceremony of the giving of the law at Sinai.55 As such, it tells us more about the community of the editor, thought to belong to the priestly circles and dating to around 300 BCE, than the returnees from exile in the fifth century.

The Hexateuch in Nehemiah 8–10 Another way of ascertaining what books might be implied by “the torah of Moses” is to investigate the books known to Ezra-Nehemiah, and especially in the review of Israelite history in Neh 9. Lester Grabbe points out that there are two traditions, one associating the promulgation of the Torah of Moses with Ezra (Neh 8) and a separate one that associates the same law with Nehemiah, the Levites, and the people without any mention of Ezra (Neh 9–10). He matches up passages in Ezra-Nehemiah with intertexual parallels in the Pentateuch. He finds parallels to all five books of the Pentateuch, as well as to the book of Joshua, and concludes that Ezra-Nehemiah relates not only to the legal sections, but also to “the whole of the Pentateuch.”56 The biblical passages implied in Ezra-Nehemiah are the following: Genesis (Neh 9:6, 7–8), Exodus (Neh 9:9–11, 12–21), Leviticus (Ezra 3:4; 6:19–22; Neh 8:14–17; 10:32; 13:15–22), Numbers (Neh 9:12–22), Deuteronomy (Ezra 3:4; 6:19–22; Neh 10:32; 13:1– 2; 13:25), and Joshua (Neh 9:23–25; cf. 9:26–37).57 Other passages may be added to this list, but it will suffice to show that Ezra-Nehemiah knows the biblical books. “We cannot absolutely demonstrate,” Grabbe states, “that it [i.e., Ezra-Nehemiah] had in mind the Pentateuch precisely as we know it today, but it is a fair assumption that something quite 71

close was in mind.”58 Grabbe does not discuss where the book of Joshua fits in, but he evidently has a collection of five books of Moses in mind.59 While I agree that the books of Genesis to Joshua are implied in Neh 8–10, I do not see two divisions of the Pentateuch plus Joshua. Surely the evidence points not to the Pentateuch but to a six-book collection, including the book of Joshua as Neh 9:23–25 clearly implies.60 But this inference would raise other problems.

Joshua 24 and Nehemiah 8:17–18 If a “hexateuch” is implied, then how does it relate to the various descriptions of the collection? Recently Thomas Römer and Marc Brettler have revived the theory of a Persian Hexateuch that has particular significance for the understanding of what “the torah” might have signified for the post-exilic community. They point out that the two endings of Joshua 23 and 24 are important not just for source-criticism, but also historically for the emergence of a six-book collection (Genesis to Joshua). The latter is “a post-exilic and post-Dtr text” created by the Hexateuch redactor as a summary for the whole.61 The title of the book is (Josh 24:26), which should be translated not as a law book but “the book of the instruction of God,” giving a wider sense to torah than the term “law” might imply.62 Moreover, they find this same book in Neh 8:17–18, concluding that “the book that was read by Nehemiah was the Hexateuch.”63 Römer and Brettler provide plausible answers to some of the questions posed by Neh 8, but they leave aside other problems. Attractive is the suggestion that the Hexateuch would clarify v. 18 as a reference to the first commemoration of the festival of booths “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun.”64 The postulate of the Pentateuch alone would not adequately account for knowledge of this chronological note. However, in v. 14 the same torah is explicitly said to have come from the hand of Moses (“the torah that the Lord had commanded Moses”). Römer and Brettler do not discuss whether this description is a reference to the Pentateuch—and if so, in what way it is Mosaic—or a variant of “the book of the instruction of God.” Moreover, it is not at all clear that Nehemiah is the subject of the clause “and he read” of Neh 8:18. The antecedent points to Ezra (Neh 8:13).

The “Torah” of Nehemiah 8–10 It seems to me that the rub lies in the loose use of various titles of collections and descriptions and how they may or may not match up with the books implied in Neh 8– 10. Six designations are used in Neh 8–10: “the book of the torah of Moses with which the Lord had commanded Israel” (Neh 8:1); “the torah” (Neh 8:2); “the book of the torah of God” (Neh 8:8); “the torah that the Lord had commanded by the hand of Moses” (Neh 8:14); “the book of the torah of God” (Neh 8:18); and “the book of the torah of the Lord their God” (Neh 9:3). The common element is “torah.” 72

Williamson takes all these references as stylistic variants of the same title, which he equates more or less with the Pentateuch.65 But Neh 9:23–25 also shows knowledge of the conquest narrative, and the book of Joshua would have to be included in the designations, including those that refer specifically to Moses.66 However, Joshua 1:7–9, distinguishes itself from the book of Moses when it refers to the latter as an entity distinct from itself (“according to the torah which Moses my servant commanded you” and “this book of the torah shall not depart from your mouth”). So far as I am aware, the book of Joshua is not known to be part of “the torah of Moses” in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods.67 How, then, can one cut through this Gordian Knot? One way is to recognize that the editor does not use the various titles and descriptions strictly, so one would not be able to find exact correspondences. The editor does not distinguish between descriptors that include an explicitly Mosaic reference from those that do not. In a similar way, the Chronicler uses the title “the book of the law of the Lord” to refer to the law in the days of Josiah (2 Chr 34:14), which he explicitly relates to Mosaic origins (“by the hand of Moses”). This book is often identified with Deuteronomy or a version of it; in Chronicles, however, it probably refers to the entire Pentateuch.68 But the Chronicler also uses the same title to call attention more generally to the book of the law in the time of Jehoshaphat, son of Asa (2 Chr 17:9). His princes and Levites taught this book among the cities of Judah and among the people. This latter usage is found in the context of “a post-exilic reality, anachronistically projected back to the age of the monarchy.”69 It is unclear what this book might have included, but it is not explicitly characterized as Mosaic. In Ezra 6:18 the editor assigns the governance of the service of the Temple to the book of Moses but this tradition is not in the Pentateuch. It is, however, found in 1 Chr 23–27, and in that text it is David who organized the priests according to the appointed duties in their service (1 Chr 24:3).70 In other words, Ezra-Nehemiah seems to be familiar with not five but six biblical books, Genesis to Joshua. They are designated by various titles but not the “Hexateuch.” The various designations have one common element, “torah,” which must mean more than a strictly legal corpus. It is equivalent to what we would call laws and narratives. The term “torah” in Ezra-Nehemiah is used in two main ways. It signifies the traditional laws of the Judeans that Ezra read out to the assembled of Israel. This literary use of “torah” is symbolic; it does not refer to the Pentateuch as such. It raises aloft an emblem of Judean tradition that was being reestablished after the return from exile. A second use is torah as the signification of the laws and narratives of the Jewish people in the time of the final redaction of Ezra-Nehemiah. The scripturalization of this narrative as found in the first six books of the traditional Hebrew Bible forms the charter myth of Judean identity that represents the faithful and merciful God in the disobedient acts of the fathers of old.

73

Prescription and Acceptance of Torah The recognition that “torah” in Ezra-Nehemiah refers to both laws and narratives clarifies what is meant by the emergence of “torah.” The “torah” as traditional Judean laws are prescribed by Ezra and accepted by the people. Neh 8:9 states that the people responded in tears and then in joy after Ezra and the Levites taught them. The following day, the people enacted what they found written in the law concerning the festival of booths (Neh 8:13–18). Notable in this narrative is the way that the teaching of the law is understood to be prescriptive. Ezra and the Levites did not just convey the law for information; in reading the scroll and making the people understand, they intended that the people should observe the traditional laws about the festival of booths. The prescriptive nature of this teaching represents a significant shift in the understanding of law. There is precedent for this use of laws in the book of reform during the reign of Josiah.71 The cultic reform that ensued after the discovery and reading of the book is similar to the changing of the behavior of the people after Ezra’s reading of the Law. The comparison may even be extended to the royal backing of the prescription. But as John J. Collins notes, “While Josiah’s reform was certainly a milestone in the development of the Torah as Law, his lawbook was not yet a statutory law for Judah.”72 It is only in Ezra-Nehemiah that the law becomes statutory. It is enacted by edict, judges are appointed, and penalties for disobedience are stipulated. However, the requirement of compliance seems to have been theoretical. It was not demanded in practice by either the secular or religious authorities. Ezra never forced the people to comply to the practices of the Mosaic law book.73 The Persians were not very interested in the specifics of the Judean laws, and they neither had the will nor the resources to enforce them, but they nonetheless exercised royal patronage over Ezra’s mission and lent their authority to the traditional law that he was reestablishing in the province of Yehud. Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah also refers to narratives. The intertwining of sacred story and obedience to the law is not to be missed. The story of God’s dealings with his people is traced all the way back to Abram and Creation and forms the narrative of the confession of sins in Nehemiah 9. M. Gilbert compares various confessions of sins in the Hebrew Bible and observes that even if the law is not central, Neh 9 continually repeats the disobedience of the fathers from the law.74 The prayer reaches a crescendo in the final confession of God’s steadfast maintenance of the covenant even while the people sinned. Acceptance of this charter myth is ensured by the cutting of the covenant, documenting the prescriptions in writing, and sealing the scroll with the signatories of secular and priestly authorities (Neh 9:32–10:40).75 It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the Persians had a hand in the promulgation of the Judean Torah. It served the interest of imperial geopolitical strategy to reinforce the traditional law of a subject people in order to maintain security and peace throughout the 74

realm and especially in the vulnerable border region with Egypt. In the light of a discernible pattern of Persian governance, the edict of Artaxerxes is more likely to be authentic than a forgery. At its core is a historical rescript that supports a Persian intervention into the religious affairs of the Judeans in the fifth century BCE. It has, however, been adapted by a priestly editor who wants to underscore his theology of volition, which depicts both Persian kings and Israelites alike as willing participants in the divine drama. Thus the representation of the edict as a Persian initiative may be understood as a departure from the pattern of local petition and imperial reaction. In the edict of Ezra 7:12–26, the main purpose is the reestablishment of the cultic center in Jerusalem. The promulgation of the traditional Torah is subsumed under this overall aim, and it is to Neh 8–10 that one must look to see what books are in view. The depiction of Ezra reading the Torah, however, is fraught with form-critical and historical difficulties, not least in ascertaining what books “the torah” might have included. Nehemiah 9, however, evidently knows six books, Genesis to Joshua, broadly designated under the title of “torah,” which means laws and narratives.

75

5 The Letter of Aristeas and Its Early Interpreters

It is often said that the Septuagint was the Bible of the Jewish diaspora in the period after the return of the Jews from exile to the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism. The simplicity of this assertion belies the complexity of the subject. Martin Hengel, in his discussion of the Christian reception of the Septuagint, entitles his opening chapter “A Difficult Subject.”1 Hengel points out that the topic belongs to one of the most exclusive of specialities, septuagintal studies, and is therefore terra incognita to most scholars. Moreover, the subject itself is difficult. “We cannot prove,” explains Hengel, “the existence of a genuine Jewish, pre-Christian collection of canonical value, unambiguously and clearly delimited…. Nor, especially, can it be shown that such a ‘canon’ was already formed in pre-Christian Alexandria.”2 The indeterminacy makes the present task more difficult but is no excuse for avoiding the topic, as Hengel’s book clearly shows. Despite its legendary and propagandistic nature, the Letter of Aristeas is not without historical value in attesting to the existence of a canon, not in its literary setting of the third century BCE, but among the Alexandrian Jewish community of the first century and perhaps also the second century BCE. This canon of Jewish laws probably consisted of the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. But as the legend of the origins of the Greek translation was passed on, it was adapted to changed circumstances, and the translated texts came to mean more than the Pentateuch in the writings of the church fathers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius.3 The translation of Hebrew scriptures to Greek should not be considered a phenomenon of the Jewish diaspora only. First, there is a scarcity of information about the Jewish diaspora. We do not know what Jews outside of Palestine held by way of canon. Did they read their scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin?4 It is only in Alexandria and Egypt, and now also at Qumran, that we have evidence of the role and function of authoritative scriptures. Second, the discoveries of the Judean desert show that the phenomenon of translating Hebrew scriptures into Greek was not confined to Egypt. Among the finds of the Judean desert are septuagintal texts, the most significant of which is the Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, dating to the first century BCE, which attests to the early revision of a Greek translation. This kaige or proto-Theodotion recension evidences that Palestinian Jews likewise were engaged in revising existing translations toward the proto-MT. They too had a concept of canon as the Minor Prophets were transmitted as a collection.

The Sinai Pattern 76

According to the Letter of Aristeas, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE), the Jewish laws were translated into Greek at the request of the chief of the library in Alexandria. During his term as head of King Ptolemy’s library, Demetrius of Phalerum is portrayed as noting that “the laws of the Jews are worthy of transcription and of being included in your library” (10).5 This is tantamount to a request for “library acquisition” to fill a gap in the collection. Consequently, Aristeas, a courtier of the palace, and Andreas, the chief of the royal bodyguards, were entrusted by Ptolemy on a deputation to Jerusalem to acquire a copy of the laws of the Jews. The request was granted by the high priest, Eleazar, who sent seventy-two Jewish elders from Jerusalem to Alexandria, and in due course they translated the laws from Hebrew to Greek in seventy-two days, to the great acclaim of the Jewish community (§50, 273, and 307). The climax of the account is worth quoting in its entirety as it includes several salient features: When the work was concluded Demetrius assembled the community of the Jews at the place where the translation was executed, and read it out to the entire gathering, the translators too being present; these received a great ovation from the community also, in recognition of the great service for which they were responsible. And they accorded Demetrius a similar reception, and requested him to have a transcription of the entire Law made and to present it to their rulers. When the rolls had been read the priests and the elders of the translators and some of the corporate body and the leaders of the people rose up and said, “Inasmuch as the translation has been well and piously made and is in every respect accurate, it is right that it should remain in its present form and that no revision of any sort take place.” When all had assented to what had been said, they bade that an imprecation be pronounced, according to their custom, upon any who should revise the text by adding or transposing anything whatever in what had been written down, or by making any excision; and in this they did well so that the work might be preserved imperishable and unchanged always (§308–311).

This denouement is highly significant as an act of acceptance of the authoritative status of the Greek translation of the Jewish laws in Alexandria. The translation was read out to the Jewish community, which in turn responded by praising the work of the translators and Demetrius. The priests and elders of the translators, moreover, declared the translation to be perfectly accurate and that no revision of any kind should be made to its present form, a sentiment shared by the community, which immediately invoked a ban, valid for all time, on changing the text in any way. In an important article published in 1975, Harry Orlinsky pointed out that the description of the acceptance of the Greek translation in the Letter of Aristeas is modeled on the “Revelation of the Torah at Sinai,” as evidenced by the terminology and the use of what he called “the biblical procedure in designating a document as official and binding.”6 He described this procedure of canonization to involve the reading aloud of the sacred text in the hearing of the people and the subsequent affirmation by the assembled, and he finds this pattern not only in the revelation of the law on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:3–7), but also in the discovery of the book of the Covenant in the house of the Lord in the time of Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23) and in Ezra’s reading of the Torah of Moses before the Water Gate (Neh 8:1–6). Moreover, Orlinsky pointed out that the imprecation against change of any kind is drawn from Deut 4:1–2 and the biblical directive to preserve the 77

very words of the Hebrew text. Details of the account are highly significant, and Orlinsky goes on to show that the terminology of “the community of Jews” is used in an official sense to refer to the “the Jewish people.” The seventy-two translators evoke the memory of the elders of the twelve tribes and the priests who witnessed the events at Sinai. And the name of the high priest in Jerusalem, Eleazar, is chosen intentionally to echo his namesake, the third son of Aaron, in the biblical account. Orlinsky’s study is acknowledged by scholars for its contribution to the identification of the “example at Sinai” in the Letter of Aristeas.7 However, he does not discuss the many historical problems relating to the account. In what sense is the Letter of Aristeas a historical account of the acceptance of the Greek translation as canon in Alexandria? What constituted the laws of the Jews?

Legend, Propaganda, and Narrative It is widely agreed that the Letter of Aristeas is legendary and should not be taken at face value. The issue is whether there is a historical kernel embedded in it that reflects the views of the Jewish community in Alexandria. The literary form of the Letter of Aristeas, as with much else about the composition, has engendered debate. The designation of the composition as a “letter” is late, 8 first attested in Codex Regius (Q), a fourteenth-century manuscript. Some scholars would prefer to identify it as a literary “epistle” over an occasional “letter,” while others wonder whether such a distinction corresponds to modern English usage.9 The ancient sources do not call it a “letter.” Philo does not acknowledge the Letter of Aristeas, even though it is likely that he knew it rather than an independent source of the story (Mos. 2.25–44). Josephus, the first writer to mention the composition, ends his summary of the banquet scene by referring his readers to “the book of Aristeas” Ant. 12:100). Eusebius calls it “on the interpretation of the law of the Jews” (Praep. Evang. 9.38), which some believe was its original title.10 Epiphanius gives it the generic designation of “collection” ( de Mens. et Pond. 9). And the manuscript tradition provides the superscription “Aristeas to Philocrates.” The Letter of Aristeas is not a letter at all, and its designation as such is apparently due to the medieval scribe who was misled by the first-person voice of the narrative and the dedication to Philocrates.11 It refers to other documents as “letters” (§28, 34, 41, 42, 51, 173), but it does not call itself “a letter.” According to its own self-description, the Letter of Aristeas is a (§1, 322) or narrative of a certain Aristeas to his “brother” Philocrates. This literary form is equivalent to the Latin narratio and was part of the rhetorical curriculum or progymnasmata of the aspiring rhetorician.12 For Abraham Wasserstein the Letter of Aristeas is “a collection of exercises,” including ekphraseis, symposia, questions and answers, and speeches, framed by a story of the translation: “The account of the translation is a Rahmenerzahlung, a frame story, 78

the purpose of which is to provide a framework for a multitude of other stories and examples of varied literary genres.”13 Thus the purpose of the Letter of Aristeas is not about the translation of the law as such but the creation of a propaganda to show, on the one hand, how successful Jews were in the Egyptian court, and, on the other, the benign reign of the Ptolemaic regime toward Alexandrian Jewry.14 “The style of the work as a whole,” Moses Hadas has stated, “pointed to a writer of belles-lettres rather than of history.”15 Recently, Sylvie Honigman put the matter succinctly, encapsulating the genre as “a historical diegesis written in epistolary form.”16 She compares the Letter of Aristeas to Homeric scholarship and argues that it is the “charter myth” of the LXX in the context of the Jewish community in Alexandria. The diegesis of the Letter of Aristeas contains a heady mixture of history, imaginative embellishments, and digressions.17 There are numerous literary “asides” and excursuses (e.g., the structure and rituals of the Jerusalem Temple; a history of the Egyptian Jews); the account is concerned with Jewish practices and shows great admiration for the high priest; and there are passages of philosophical discourse in which the king poses a series of prepared questions to each of his Jewish guests, who spontaneously give responses worthy of admiration. Indeed, one of the unexpected features of the narrative is just how little attention is paid to the issue of the translation (§301–307).18 Yet without this account of the origins of the translation, there is no story to tell.19 This is certainly how the first interpreters of the Letter of Aristeas understood it. Philo and Josephus may have embellished, adapted, and omitted various details and passages of the narrative in their writings, but they did not leave out the origins of the translation. The church fathers likewise focused on the legend of the Septuagint.

Author and Date In the past scholars called the writer “Pseudo-Aristeas,” but it made little sense to add “pseudo” to the name of an author who would otherwise have been unknown.20 This prefix is typically affixed to a known personage, such as Moses, Ezra, or Ezekiel. The author is, however, “pseudo” in another sense. Despite being a purported courtier in Ptolemy’s court, he was probably a Jew rather than a Greek, judging by what he knows and says about Judaism. He shows detailed knowledge of Judaea, the Jerusalem Temple, and its cultic practices (§83–120). He admires the high priest, Eleazar, and approves of his apology of Jewish food laws as directed toward justice (§167–171). And he lauds the Jewish translators as far more advanced than the philosophers because they made God their starting point (§235). A particularly telling comment from the narrator extols the virtues of the seventy-two translators because of their devotion to God: “For in their conduct and discourse these men were far in advance of the philosophers, for they made their starting-point from God” (§235). This is evocative of the story of Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian 79

court that dates to the second century BCE. Most scholars now believe that “Aristeas” was the nom de plume of an unidentified Hellenized Jew who adopted the literary persona of an Egyptian courtier. He wrote in good literary Koine, although his style has a tendency to pretentiousness.21 There are likewise doubts about the date of the composition.22 Scholars are in rare agreement that the literary setting of the Letter of Aristeas takes place during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The name “Philadelphus,” in fact, is never mentioned. Consistent with the point of view of a courtier, the monarch is referred to as “the (great) king” in the Letter of Aristeas. On two occasions, he is simply called “Ptolemy” (§35 and 41), and the royal identity must be inferred from the reference to Ptolemy Lagus (or Ptolemy I Soter) as the king’s father (§12–13). There are, however, slips and inaccuracies that betray a later date of composition. In §182, when Nicanor instructs Dorotheus to make special provisions of food, drink, and recliners for the benefit of the visiting translators, the narrator adds: “For such was the arrangement instituted by the king, which you may observe in use even now” The perspective is that of an author who was removed in time from the events and needed to explain the conventions of a contemporary practice to the reader. Or again, in §28, when the narrator adds an explanatory gloss to the royal practice of requiring a written submission of the proposed acquisition of the Jewish books, he nostalgically reminisces of a bygone age: “These kings used to administer all their business through decrees and with great precaution; nothing was done negligently or casually.” The use of the past tense, “used to administer,” is incompatible with a contemporary author.23 Moreover, the plural “kings” is inaccurate, given that there was only one other king before Philadelphus (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12:10). The most glaring of such blunders is the naming of the librarian as Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 350–297 BCE). He never held the office in the library of Alexandria, and he enjoyed the patronage of Ptolemy Soter and not of his son Philadelphus.24 In fact, in the rivalry for succession, Demetrius supported his half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus against Philadelphus. Upon his accession, Philadelphus banished the “Peripatetic” scholar.25 Despite its claim of using public records to guarantee the accuracy of the account (§296–300) the Letter of Aristeas is not quite what it seems. Its date of composition is clearly after the time of Philadelphus. Here the consensus that holds sway with regard to the literary setting gives way to a multitude of scholarly views. Suggested dates of composition range between the third century BCE and first century CE. Most scholars, however, would agree that the terminus ante quem was the end of the first century CE. In book 12 of the Jewish Antiquities, when recounting the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus to power in Egypt, Josephus gives an account of the origins of the Greek translation (11–118). His paraphrase differs from the Letter of Aristeas in several ways. It is shorter by intentional contraction; for instance, Josephus states that “I have not thought it necessary to report the names of the seventy elders” (57).26 His account 80

adds the occasional personal touch. He explains that the tears of the king, upon seeing the scrolls, is a sign of joy and not sadness: “It is natural for great joy to be expressed by the same signs as grief” (91). Josephus’ version of the story also differs in numerous details, especially those relating to numbers (e.g., library books, slaves, prices, and wages). There is little doubt, however, that Josephus used the Letter of Aristeas as a source rather than an independent tradition. Major differences may be explained by what Josephus did with his source. In some cases, he simply summarized it. On the banquet scene in which the king questioned each of the seventy-two translators, Josephus referred the interested reader to “the book of Aristeas” for further details (99–100). The differences between Ant. 12 and the Letter of Aristeas may be explained by Josephus’ historical method. He states this most clearly when he prefaces his description of the royal gifts of furniture for the Temple with the justification that “although perhaps my History does not call for such an account, because I believe that in this way I shall bring home to my readers the king’s love of art and his magnanimity” (59). The inclusion of details, therefore, and presumably also the contraction, addition, and adaptation of his source, are dependent on how he wants to tell the story. Since Josephus used it in his paraphrase, the date of the composition of the Letter of Aristeas must have been prior to the end of the first century CE, when the Antiquities was written. In his two-volume work, On the Life of Moses, Philo (20 BCE–50 CE) also recounts the story of the translation (2.25–44). It would seem that he too used the Letter of Aristeas as a source, although there are numerous differences between the two. The major discrepancies are three. In Philo’s version, the Greek translation was not brought about by the need to fill a gap in the library but by the necessity to make known the laws to the Greeks, who had hitherto been denied access because the laws were written in the “Chaldean tongue.” It was not Demetrius the chief librarian but “some people” who thought “it a shame that the laws should be found in one half only of the human race, the barbarians, and denied altogether to the Greeks” (Mos. 2.27). These unnamed “people,” probably Greeks in Alexandria, then set in motion the translation of the Jewish laws. Because of its public interest, the proposal was referred to the king, who immediately dispatched envoys to Jerusalem. The Philonic account also differs in its description of the process of translation. In the Letter of Aristeas the work was tantamount to “a translation by committee.” The translators compared their translations and harmonized the details under the direction of Demetrius, completing their work in seventy-two days (§300–307). By comparison, Philo recounts that each scribe sat in seclusion translating and under inspiration wrote the same “word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter” (Mos. 2.37). Finally, Philo mentions an annual feast on the island of Pharos, attended by Jews and Greeks, to commemorate the translation at the place where “the light of that version first shone out” (Mos. 2.41). Within the literary context of the Letter of Aristeas and its account of the original translation of the Jewish laws, no yearly remembrance was 81

instituted. Moreover, there is no hint that that tradition had already been established by the time the Letter of Aristeas was composed. Philo’s account occurs in his biography on the life of Moses. In the first volume, he recounted the birth, early life, and activities of Moses; the exodus from Egypt; wanderings in the wilderness; and the troubles that were overcome. In the second volume, Philo focused on Moses’ role as legislator, high priest, and prophet, based on the Platonic view that states could flourish only if either the kings were philosophers or philosophers were kings (Mos. 2.2). It is in the second volume and in the section on Moses as legislator that Philo includes the account of the Greek translation. The literary context is vital in accounting for the first two discrepancies. Philo’s emphasis upon kingship, especially on the house of the Ptolemies, explains the omission of Demetrius and the library. The books were not translated into Greek because the chief librarian thought it good to include a copy of the Jewish laws in his collection but because Moses was “the best of all lawgivers in all countries” (2.12), and his laws, once known in Greek translation, would be universally recognized for their superiority. The institutions found in them (namely, the sacred seventh day and the fast, 2.21, 23) are highly respected, and “each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honouring our laws alone” (2.44). This is because, for Philo, Moses was not just the legislator of the Jews but “the best of all lawgivers in all countries” (2.12). Moreover, for Philo, Moses was the ruler of the Jews, and it was fitting that the need for the translation of his books should not only be recognized by the people, but also that it be carried out under the authority of no less a royal figure than Ptolemy Philadelphus, who was highly regarded in Roman Alexandria and whose praises, so it was reported, were sung “even till to-day” (2.29). In the Letter of Aristeas and the Life of Moses the recounting of the translation process included two different “miraculous” elements. In the former, the translation was completed in seventy-two days, “as if this coincidence had been the result of some design” (§307). A more obvious “coincidence,” however, is between the duration of the translation and the number of translators who represented the twelve tribes of Israel. By the Ptolemaic period, the Israelite tribal organization had long since ceased, but in the appointment of six elders from each of the twelve legendary tribes, the Letter of Aristeas is symbolically underscoring the acceptance of the Jewish community. The duration of the translation is best explained by the significance that the Letter of Aristeas attaches to the number. In the latter, Philo’s “miraculous” element is found in the exact agreement of the translations by scribes who worked in isolation (2.37–38).27 The number of scribes was unimportant, as was the banquet scene, which he summarized briefly (2.33). Important to Philo was the divine inspiration of the translation. He described the scribes as though they were “possessed and under inspiration” and that their translation was dictated to them by God (2.37). As a result, their translation agreed exactly “word for word.” Philo 82

added that the translational agreement was all the more astonishing given that the Greek language “abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression to the occasion” (2.38). Philo’s emphasis upon inspiration here is consistent with his view that Moses was an inspired prophet. Later on in the same work, Philo describes Moses “as a prophet possessed by God’s spirit” (Mos. 2.258). The scribes who would translate Moses’ books likewise had to recognize the lofty task before them, “reflecting on how great an undertaking it was to make a full version of the laws given by the Voice of God, where they could not add or take away or transfer anything, but must keep the original form and shape” (2.34). It is likely that Philo adapted the Letter of Aristeas when he wrote his biography of Moses. This would mean that the Letter of Aristeas must be dated prior to the turning of the era. But can we be more precise? Moses Hadas has argued that the Letter of Aristeas is to be dated to 130 BCE. His comprehensive discussion of all the internal and external evidence leads him to posit a date in the second half of the second century. The lynchpin of his argument is the linkage between the Letter of Aristeas and the Prologue of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. “If, as seems not unlikely,” Hadas concluded cautiously, “the version referred to in Aristeas is indeed a revision and Ben Sirah’s objection refers to the unrevised version, it would seem most reasonable to assign a date shortly after 132 BCE.”28 What Hadas had in mind, of course, was the grandson’s observations in the Prologue about translations and original compositions: “For things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated into another tongue: and not only these, but the Law itself, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their original language.”29 Hadas interpreted these words to imply a criticism against previous, unsatisfactory Greek translations; the Prologue of the Wisdom of Ben Sira is witness to a dissatisfaction with existing translations that is also found in the Letter of Aristeas. For Hadas, when Demetrius informed the king that the books of the law of the Jews “have been committed to writing somewhat carelessly and not adequately” (§30), he was referring to previous translations and not to Hebrew manuscripts. What Demetrius sought from Ptolemy, therefore, was an official revision and not a translation de novo. But this whole line of argument depends upon an unlikely interpretation of the verb , which Hadas translated neutrally as “have been committed to writing.” In his notes, Hadas showed that he was actually following Paul Kahle’s view that means “interpreted” and “translated” rather than “written down” since the king was unlikely to be interested in the state of the Hebrew text.30 Gunther Zuntz, however, has convincingly shown, by appealing to comparative lexical usage, that the verb means “to write” and not “to translate.”31 He points out that the verb literally means “to betoken” or “to indicate,” and in the papyri it is often 83

used in the clause “write to me.” This same sense is found in 1 Esd 8:48 (“the catalogue of all the names has been written” and 2 Macc 2.1 (“as has been written . Zuntz placed particular weight on the usage of the verb in Aristobulus, given its relationship to the Letter of Aristeas: “Hence I have written as required.” For Zuntz Demetrius must have meant, when he wrote to the king, that the books of the Jewish laws were written rather carelessly.32 But why would an Alexandrian librarian or his king care about the state of the Hebrew text? David Gooding has argued that it must be remembered that the author of the Letter of Aristeas was a Jew and not a Greek and that Demetrius was not Philadelphus’ librarian. “Though the author has accurately copied the style of court memoranda for the sake of verisimilitude,” stated Gooding, “he has made Demetrius say whatever he wanted him to say, and in the process has made him speak more like a Jew than a Greek.”33 It could be added against Hadas that while the interpretation of the Prologue of Ben Sira as a criticism against existing translations is possible, it is not necessary. A nonapologetic reading of the Prologue is equally possible, if not more likely: the grandson is simply noting the inadequacy of translation as such. The translation of “the law,” “the prophecies,” and “the rest of the books” into Greek is simply an example of how any translation, including his own Greek rendering of his grandfather’s Hebrew work of wisdom, differs markedly from the original. The grandson’s own admission that “despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly” is surely not a self-criticism of his own inadequate effort and skill. Rather it is a recognition that his own translation, like all translations, merely approximates the sense of the original, as any bilingual person would know intuitively. Finally, Hadas does not explain the vital discrepancy between “the Jewish laws” of the Letter of Aristeas, which he understood to be the Pentateuch, and Sirach’s enumeration of the law, prophecies, and the rest of the books. A more promising way of dating was suggested by Henry Meecham. In his commentary he appealed to linguistic evidence for his dating of the Letter of Aristeas to 100 BCE. Comparing features of the Letter of Aristeas’s Koine to usage in the papyri, Meecham concluded that the date must have been in the “late Ptolemaic period (say about 100 B.C.).”34 He pointed to six key features of lexical usage, grammar, and morphology: the occurrence of the plural “the keepers of the bodyguard” §12, 40); the use of (§45) in the technical sense of “friends of the king”; the omission of the pronoun in the formula “if then it seems good” ( §32); the use of the shorter epistolary greeting “greeting and health” §35); the incidence of the phrase “you will then do well” plus participle; §39, 46) in polite discourse; and the use of various lexical forms as well 35 as the term “Coele-Syria and Phoenicia” (§12). 84

The linguistic evidence is by no means decisive, as Meecham himself is well aware, and further discoveries of papyri may well show earlier usages of these terms. Moreover, there is always the possibility that a later author may have been using archaizing language. Nonetheless, the linguistic evidence as it stands is consistent with a 100 BCE dating. Sylvie Honigman has further argued that the date of the Letter of Aristeas may be pushed back to the middle of the second century BCE. As mentioned above, she interprets the book as the charter myth of the LXX composed by an anonymous Jewish author for a highly educated Alexandrian Jewish audience. This political myth provides a record and validation of the origins of the Septuagint, which was a matter of prestige for the Jewish community in an intellectual climate that saw the standardization of the Homeric texts by Aristarchus. Honigman eschews the usual historical discussions of the realia of the narrative. Rather she focuses on the more elusive task of finding hints in the “ideology and beliefs presented in the work” as a way of dating the text and reconstructing its historical context.36 Honigman argues that Aristarchus, the fifth head of the library of Alexandria (ca. 180–145 BCE), produced an edition of Homer with commentary that acquired the status of an authoritative text. This “scripture” is corroborated by the papyri, which show a normalization and standardization of the Homeric works by 150 BCE.37 The Letter of Aristeas was composed at this time, and the reference in §30 to manuscripts that “have been transcribed somewhat carelessly” is a retrojection of a second-century situation to the period of Ptolemy II. But the Letter of Aristeas does not mention any comparison to Homer’s works. Honigman assembles her case based upon a thorough literary analysis of the Letter of Aristeas itself, where there is an intermingling of what she calls “the Homeric pattern,” “the Alexandrian pattern,” and “the Exodus pattern.”38 For her, one particularly telling detail is in the use of the Greek verb to refer to a textual emendation among Homeric grammarians undertaking their form of textual criticism. This same verb is used in the Letter of Aristeas§31, which referred to the emended form of the books to be deposited in the Alexandrian library.39 Honigman’s dating is based on the intellectual climate of Alexandria in the second century BCE, specifically the textual standardization of the Homeric works.40 By its nature, it is circumstantial, but it reaches that level of probability to which one is accustomed in investigating ancient historical matters.

The Origins of the LXX and the Canon of the Alexandrian Jews The concept of “charter myth” is dependent on the notion of cultural memory. A community that perpetuates a myth of this kind creates a composition based upon reminiscences of what it believes to have happened in the distant past. It is not necessarily unhistorical; it is just not entirely factual. 85

The task then is to separate history from subsequent embellishment in the Letter of Aristeas. Legendary elements within the main theme are likely to include the number of seventy-two elders who translated the Jewish laws into Greek in seventy-two days (§307). The deference that the Ptolemaic king pays to both the original manuscripts and translation (§177–178, 317) also smacks of an overt concern for royal approval among the second century Alexandrian Jewish community. The central claim of the Letter of Aristeas, however, is likely to contain a historical kernel. The Jewish laws were remembered to have been translated into Greek some time in the early Ptolemaic dynasty, whether during the reign of Soter or Philadelphus. This memory is not entirely inaccurate and is supported in a general way by the earliest septuagintal manuscripts found in Egypt. The first-century BCE fragments known as Papyri Fouad include Greek translations of Genesis (PFouad 266a) and Deuteronomy (PFouad 266b, 266c). They were found in Fayyum and attest to the phenomenon of translating the Jewish laws into Greek in Egypt. Papyrus Ryland 458 (Deuteronomy), moreover, dates a century earlier and is likely to have come from the same area. This activity is not restricted to Egypt. The finds of the Judaean desert likewise evidence the same translational phenomenon. Fragments of Greek Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut [4Q122], ca. 200–150 BCE), Numbers (4QLXXNum [4Q121], ca. 40 BCE–10 CE), and Leviticus (4QpapLXXLeva [4Q119], ca. 125–1 BCE; 4QpapLXXLevb [4Q120], ca. 100–1 BCE) were found in one of the caves by Khirbet Qumran. These have been dated to the first or second century BCE. Cave 7, which contained only fragments of Greek manuscripts, also yielded a few fragments that have been identified by the principal editors as early septuagintal manuscripts of Exodus (7QpapLXXExod [7Q1]; 100 BCE) and the Epistle of Jeremiah (7QpapEpJer [7Q2]; 100 BCE). A notable find is the Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr; 50–1 BCE). This Greek text not only attests to a collection of six of the Twelve Minor Prophets books in one scroll (Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah), but its textual character also shows that the revision of existing Greek translations toward the proto-MT had already begun.41 This has been described as a kaige recension, by virtue of its stereotyped translation of the Hebrew gam by the Greek kaige, or more commonly as the proto-Theodotion recension, signaling the affinities of the Theodotion recension to this scroll. Translations from Hebrew to Greek had already taken place in the second century BCE, as indicated by the earliest Greek manuscripts from Egypt and the land of Israel. The process had likely begun before that time. Further corroborating evidence may be garnered from the identifiable citations and references in the works of Jewish Hellenistic authors, most notably that of Aristobulus, who referred to an early Greek translation of “the narrative of the leading forth of the Hebrews,” followed by “the complete translation of the Law and all its contents” under Ptolemy Philadelphus (in Eusebius, Praep Evang. 13.13.2).42 The Letter of Aristeas itself hints at even earlier Greek translations that were 86

misused by the historian Theopompus (ca. 376–300 BCE) and the tragic poet Theodectes (ca. 380–334 BCE) with serious psychological and physical consequences (§314–316), although this account of the use of Jewish laws by renowned Greeks could be a literary topos.43 Additionally, it has been shown that the language of the Septuagint of the Pentateuch is consistent with the Koine of the third- or second-century BCE Egypt. John Lee’s comparative study of the Septuagint of the Pentateuch and the papyri confirms that the translators were familiar with the “vocabulary of their time.”44 Greg Horsley, moreover, has shown that the Septuagint translators did not use a special form of Jewish-Greek, as was suggested by earlier scholars, but that they used idiomatic Koine Greek.45 The cumulative force of this evidence points to the second or the third century BCE. Various translations were carried out in several localities (Fayyum, Judaean desert) and not just in Alexandria. But in the Letter of Aristeas the second-century Alexandrian Jewish community claimed that the translation took place in its city and under the royal patronage of the early Ptolemaic dynasty. The standardization of the Homeric epics in the second century, as Honigman suggested, may have given an anonymous Alexandrian Jewish author the impetus to produce his own account of the origins of the translation of the Jewish laws based on the communal recollections of earlier generations. These cultural reminiscences are not entirely accurate. The reference to Demetrius as librarian is clearly a mistake, although he may have been associated with the translation in some way.46 The ostensible acquisition of a library copy is also likely to reflect the concerns of the Jewish community in the second century to establish the official Alexandrian translation.47 The more likely reason probably had to do with the changing linguistic use and facility of Greek over Hebrew among the Jews in the diaspora and in the land of Israel in the period that saw the Hellenization of the ancient Near East. The Prologue of the Wisdom of Ben Sira attests to this need to translate a work from Hebrew into Greek. Among the scrolls found at Qumran, there is evidence of knowledge of Greek.48 The number of translators is also unlikely to be correct and is probably symbolic of the tribal organization of ancient Israel conflated with the elders who witnessed the events on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:1, 9). Rabbinic tradition mentions five as the number of translators (Avot of Rabbi Nathan B 37, 94f), which would be consistent with the textual assessment of the translation of the Pentateuch as having been done by a handful of translators.49 The Letter of Aristeas attests to the beliefs of the Jewish community in Alexandria. Its “charter myth” claims the story of the origins of the translation in reaction to the standardization of the Homeric epics. Other translations, not mentioned by the Letter of Aristeas, also took place elsewhere. As propaganda, it speaks first and foremost for what the Jewish community of second-century Alexandria believed about the significance of the translation of the Jewish laws into Greek.

87

The Jewish Laws and the Pentateuch It is widely held that the Letter of Aristeas attests to the translation of the first five biblical books, the Pentateuch. This is possible, but nowhere in the composition is this explicitly mentioned. What was translated is described as “the divine law” ( §3); “the laws of the Jews” §10); “the law” §176, 313); “the books” ( §176, 317); “the entire law” ( §309); and “the rolls” ( 179, 310). There are also references to Jewish laws and writings but not specifically in the context of the translation: “the holy law” ( “the law” ( §122, 168); “the scripture” ( §155, 168); and “the book” ( §316). One of these terms, the plural

, is etymologically the root of the term “the

Pentateuch” ( ), which the church fathers Tertullian, Origen, and Epiphanius used to refer to the first five books. The first attested use of the term, however, dates to the first century CE.50 It appears in a certain letter of Ptolemy’s to his “sister” Flora, in which he refers to “the Pentateuch of Moses” (in Epiphanius, Against Heresies 33.3.1–33.7.10).51 But literally means “jars, cases” and in the Letter of Aristeas denotes “the rolls,” “scrolls,” and “books.” These rolls were “precious parchments” on which “the law” was inscribed “in Jewish letters with writing of gold” (§176). Elsewhere in the Letter of Aristeas it is said that the divine law is written on “parchments in Hebrew characters” (§3). If “Hebrew characters” is understood to mean the ancient Hebrew script and “Jewish letters” the square script, then there appears to be some discrepancy. Solomon Zeitlin suggested that the phrase “in Jewish letters” was a secondary interpolation dating to the period after the destruction of the Temple, when the Jewish script was much more in use than the ancient Hebrew script.52 Rabbinic tradition alludes to Egyptian Torah scrolls written in gold (cf. Sopherim 1.10), but what was written in gold was only the names of God. It is possible that what the Letter of Aristeas had in view by way of the translation of the Jewish laws was a “tetrateuch.” Passages from four of the five biblical books— Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—appear in the Letter of Aristeas.53 The book of Genesis, however, seems to have been used very little, if at all. One possible allusion is found in a response to the king’s question as to why the majority of men do not embrace virtue. The elder (the sixty-third in sequential order!) replies that all men are by nature “intemperate and have an innate propensity to pleasure” (§277). This view that human nature has such a propensity recalls a similar sentiment of the good and evil inclinations of man in Philo’s writings and in the midrashic interpretation of Gen 2:7.54 The various terms associated with the Jewish laws can have different referrents. For instance, in §155, “scripture” is used to introduce a conflated quotation of Deut 55 7:18 and 10:21. It does not refer to the Pentateuch. Moses is mentioned only once by 88

name; he is more often called “the legislator” (§131, 139, 148, 312). In the one instance in which he is named, the reference introduces a discussion of the unclean animals of Lev 11:29 (§144). Perhaps the most indicative evidence of the translation of the Pentateuch is to be found in the reference to “the entire law” (§309), which in the context must mean more than Deuteronomy and could have theoretically included all five biblical books in separate scrolls.56 Genesis, however, does not fit the description of law. Philo (see below) considers the first book as history rather than law. The alternative would be to take “the entire law” as a “tetrateuch” of books from Exodus to Deuteronomy.57

Philo’s Greek Canon Philo’s retelling of the origins of the Greek translation was discussed above in relation to the dating of the Letter of Aristeas. What needs further consideration is his own understanding of the significance of the translation as canonical scriptures. A striking difference between the Letter of Aristeas and Moses is the absence of “the Sinai Pattern.” In the latter, there is no account of the reading aloud of the translation and its acceptance by the Jewish people. It may be that the Jewish community in Alexandria at the turn of the era knew the story well and Philo felt no need to repeat it.58 It is more likely that Philo was writing to a Greek audience who was unlikely to be convinced by the superiority of Moses simply because his laws were given by God on Mt. Sinai and whose translation into Greek was acclaimed by the Jewish community in Alexandria. In the opening of book 1, Philo refers to “the Greek men of letters” who refused to treat Moses in their writings out of envy and because many of his laws were opposed to those of different states (Moses 1.2). Philo’s rhetorical strategy is to show the excellence of the Jewish laws as such. These laws were superior to other laws by the universal recognition of the institutions of the Sabbath and fasts enshrined in them. Moses was not only the philosopherking par excellence, but he also displayed the faculties of the legislator, high priest, and prophet (Moses 2.2). Despite the absence of “the Sinai Pattern,” there is little doubt that Philo considered the translation authoritative. In his account of the translation, Philo draws heavily on the notion of inspired scriptures. He describes the translators as men “possessed, and under inspiration, [who] wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter” (Moses 2.37). Sebastian Brock has shown that within the context of ancient translation theory, Philo’s view falls along the literalistic end of the spectrum, where the Hebrew text is translated into Greek verbum e verbo rather than sensus de sensu.59 Adam Kamesar, however, has argued that Philo’s view of the translation is not comparable to the extremely literalistic translation of someone like Aquila since for him the Hebrew (which Philo calls “Chaldean”) and Greek are both word-for-word and sense-for-sense perfect.60 89

The key to Kamesar’s explanation is what Philo says about the translators’ “communion, through sheer thought, with the most pure spirit of Moses” (Moses 2.40). “This may indicate,” Kamesar suggested, “that the Seventy were able to communicate with Moses (in his capacity as ever-living author of the Pentateuch) by means of logos endiathetos (internal speech), rather than logos prophorikos (enunciated, articulated speech).”61 As if the representation of the identical word and thought is not enough, Philo also describes the sanctity of the translation of the holy scriptures with the imprecation, derived from Deut 4 and 13, that nothing should be added to or taken away from or changed in any way (Moses 2.34).62 For Philo, the translation was sacred, and holy scripture was the Greek Pentateuch.63 A comprehensive listing of the citations and allusions to biblical sources in Philo’s works shows an overwhelming preponderance of pentateuchal references over books outside of the five.64 Philo divides the sacred books into two parts, the historical (τό ἱστορικὸν μέρος) and the commandments and prohibitions together (αἱ προστάξεις καὶ ἀπαγορεύσεις; Moses 2.45–48). The first part began with the world’s creation (Moses 2.37) in order to show that the Father and Maker of the world was also its truest lawgiver, so that the law-observant person would understand that he was living in harmony with the order of the universe (Moses 2.48, 52). There is little doubt that this refers to Genesis, as his subsequent paraphrase shows (Moses 2.49–65). The second part consists of portions from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, which he used to illustrate Moses’ faculties as high priest and prophet (Moses 2.66–292). Deuteronomy also figures in various places in Philo’s writings, especially in On Rewards and Punishments, On the Decalogue, and On the Special Laws I–IV.65 According to Nikolaus Walter, Philo’s emphasis upon the Pentateuch follows a tradition, also evident in the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus, that gave preference to the first five books of Moses over the rest of the scriptures.66 This is not to say that Philo avoided using extra-pentateuchal sources in his writings.67 Rather he draws a clear distinction between scripture and other sources of information. On composing his biography, Philo states his method: he will tell the story of Moses as “I have learned it, both from the sacred books , the wonderful monuments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation [τοῦἔθνους πρεσβυτέρων]; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life’s history” (Moses 1.4). Scripture and tradition figure in Philo’s writings, but they are not indistinct in his mind.

Josephus, the Greek Translation, and Canon Unlike Philo, Josephus replicates the “Sinai Pattern” at the end of his paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas. He follows his source by recounting how the translation was read 90

aloud to the assembled and the people expressed their approval. He even includes a modified version of the imprecation against change by describing how the priest, eldest of the translators, and the chief officers of the community all requested that the translation “remain as it was and not be altered” (Ant. 12.108). However, he immediately qualifies the apparently eternal validity of the translation: “Accordingly, when all had approved this idea, they ordered that, if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it; in this they acted wisely, that what had once been judged good might remain for ever” (Ant. 12.109). This final paragraph is not part of the Letter of Aristeas and stands in contradiction to what had just been paraphrased, which suggests that either Josephus was drawing on another source or he was expressing his own views about the Greek translation. As no source has been identified, it is likely that we have here an insight into what Josephus thought about the Greek translation.68 Josephus advocates changing the text whenever anyone should notice (ὁρᾷ) anything “additional” (περισσός) or “lacking” (λεῖπον) to “what was written in the law” (τι προσγεγραμμένον τῷ νόμῳ). That person should examine it, make it known, and correct it. This could refer to a situation in which there were textual variants found in different Greek texts. More likely, however, given that the context is the translation of the Jewish laws, it points to the known differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts. Those who are able to read the Hebrew, like Josephus himself, and who also have facility in Greek should point out any discrepancies between the original and the translation and change them. As was discussed above, Josephus’ canon was also the canon of the Pharisees. According to the Mishnah, holy scriptures must be written in “square Assyrian (Hebrew) script” on parchment, and in ink (mMeg 2:1); otherwise they do not “defile the hands” (mYad 4:5), an enigmatic concept that probably refers to the sancta contagion of holy objects. The Aramaic passages in Daniel and Ezra must be written in Aramaic and not Hebrew, and vice versa for the Hebrew passages (mYad 4:5). The physicality of the Torah finds its clearest expression in the medieval period, but that notion was already evident when the Mishnah was edited in the second century.69 Josephus, like Paul (whom we will discuss in chapter 9), was a bilingual Jew. He originally wrote The Jewish War in Aramaic or Hebrew before he translated it into Greek. The translation, however, was not literal but a thorough reworking of the text to such an extent that his Vorlage could not be recovered from the translation. For him, the Greek translation of the Jewish laws was just that, a translation. It did not carry with it any notion of a fixed and authoritative form. When it was faulty, it needed to be corrected, so that “what had once been judged good might remain for ever” (Ant. 12.109). In the foregoing I have discussed the legend of the Septuagint and its earliest interpreters, Philo and Josephus. Although there is no decisive proof, the Letter of Aristeas was likely to have been composed in second-century BCE Alexandria by an 91

anonymous Jew who conceived it as a charter myth of the translation of the Greek laws. This was done in reaction to the editing of the Homeric epics in Alexandria. The Letter of Aristeas did not acknowledge that translations of Hebrew scriptures into Greek were also taking place elsewhere in Egypt and in the land of Israel. The claim, therefore, is that the translation occurred in Alexandria, under royal patronage, and in the early Ptolemaic dynasty of the third century BCE. For the Jewish community in second-century Alexandria, the translation was canonical, as evidenced by the reading aloud of the text and the approval of the Jewish people. For Philo, the Greek Pentateuch was canonical. This Jewish Alexandrian philosopher and exegete did not appeal to the “Sinai Pattern.” Rather he drew on the concept of divine inspiration as a means of expressing his understanding of the equivalence of form and thought of the Hebrew and Greek. Philo used other sources in his writings, both Jewish and Greek, but he did not blur the distinction of authoritative scriptures with other kinds of writing. Josephus’ addition to the Letter of Aristeas changes the significance of the “Sinai Pattern” entirely. For him, the Greek translation had no canonical status since it could be changed. Rather, it was a translation of holy scriptures that had been written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The canon for Josephus was the twenty-two book canon of the Pharisees.

92

6 The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and 2 Maccabees

The second century is an important period for our understanding of the formation of the Jewish canon. Scholars have appealed to the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and 2 Maccabees to bolster the view that the canon was determined, if not already closed. In the following, the texts will be examined to see just how far the evidence can take us. It will be argued that the Prologue of Sir does not have in view the closed canon. In its conception, the collection of authoritative scriptures consisted of the law, the prophets, and the other ancestral books, but this is not a bipartite or tripartite canon. It is a reference to the curriculum of the scribe, and the books included in this syllabus have been divided into two divisions, plus a third category of miscellaneous books of ancient Israelite literature. Likewise, the praise of the fathers (Sir 44–50) does not assume a closed canon. Absent in this parade of Israel’s heroes are four biblical books. Moreover, the praise of Simon, the high priest, which culminates the section, implies that Sir presents itself as part of the literary heritage of Israel. As for 2 Maccabees, it will be argued that the comparison between Nehemiah and Judas should be understood in a general way. It does not mean that there was an official library of books in Jerusalem during the Maccabean period. What Judas collected were books damaged during the war. These books are now back in the possession of the people.

The Wisdom and the Prologue The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira is one of the most textually complex works of ancient Jewish literature. It was originally written in Hebrew and translated to Greek in the second century BCE, as recounted in the grandson’s Prologue. The textual tradition attests to two different Hebrew texts (the original, HT1, and an expanded one, HT2) and two Greek translations (GI and GII). There is also an Old Latin and Syriac recension. The textual relationship among these texts, translations, and versions is complex.1 By contrast, the dating of the book is relatively straightforward. There is scholarly consensus that the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira must have been written some time in the first quarter of the second century BCE. This dating is deduced by piecing together several historical data. According to the Prologue, the anonymous grandson went to Egypt “in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes.” There are only two Ptolemaic kings known by this epithet, Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246–221 BCE) and Ptolemy VII Physkon Euergetes II (170–117 BCE), and it is the latter who reigned thirty-eight years or more. The grandson, then, must have gone to 93

Egypt in 132 BCE. It has been conjectured that he spent the next fifteen years translating his grandfather’s book of wisdom into Greek and published the Prologue after 117 BCE. The date of the grandfather’s writing of the book of wisdom is inferred from the likely age of the grandson and an estimate of the number of years that separate one generation from another. It is commonly supposed, therefore, that the grandson was an adult when he traveled to Egypt and that he would have been between twenty-five and forty years of age. If the years between the two generations are further reckoned to be between forty and fifty years, then the date of the composition would range between 222 and 197 BCE. Two internal considerations help narrow the date of composition. In Sir 50:1–21, there is a praise of Simon, son of Onias, who served as high priest between 219 and 196 BCE. Its detailed description of the sacerdotal garments and rituals suggests that ben Sira lived in Simon’s time and that his report was based on eyewitness testimony. However, Ben Sira also referred to the high priest as a figure of the past (“in his days”; Sir 50:1, 3), suggesting that Simon was already deceased by the time of the writing of Sir. This would imply that Sir must have been written after 196 BCE. A second internal consideration is the absence of any reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who began imposing his Hellenizing policies in 175 and was finally repulsed by Mattathias and his sons in 164 BCE. It is thought that had ben Sira been writing his Wisdom during this time, he surely would have mentioned the Maccabean Revolt. The date of the composition of Sir, therefore, is thought to have taken place after 196 and before 175. The different dates of the writing of the Wisdom and Prologue have led Arie van der Kooij to conjecture two concepts of the canon.2 Embedded within a section that compares the vocation of the skilled worker and the scribe (38:24–39:11) is a passage that describes the resources available to the one who devotes himself to study. Van der Kooij makes the point that “the wisdom of all the ancients” implies a broader category than the wisdom literature of ancient Israel and adduces the parallel to LXX 3 Reg 5:10, where Solomon’s wisdom is said to have been greater than “the wisdom of all the ancients” (τὴν φρόνησιν πάντων ἀρχαίων ἀνθρώπων).). The same verse goes on to state that Solomon’s wisdom is superior to that of all the ancient peoples and above all the wise men of Egypt. By contrast, according to van der Kooij, “the Prologue clearly reflects a new attitude towards the ancient books.”3 In his view, the Prologue defines the tripartite canon and is comparable to what Josephus says about the canon. In particular, van der Kooij sees the use of the definite article as significant in describing three defined sections of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books.4 He attributes the sharpened focus on the ancestral laws to the events of the Maccabean Revolt. In view of the threat to the city of Jerusalem, the Temple, cult, and laws of the Jews by the Hellenizing policies of the Seleucid Antiochus, “it can easily be imagined that this crisis resulted in a strong emphasis on everything ‘ancestral’ (πάτριος or πατρῷος), such as the ancient books, 94

books of the Jewish traditions, symbolizing the Jewish self-identity.”5 Van der Kooij has correctly observed a difference in the canonical notices of the Wisdom and the Prologue. However, I would explain it as a difference in formulation over substance. Ben Sira was speaking to a Judean audience, notably those who attended his beth midrash in Jerusalem (Sir 51:23). By contrast, the grandson was in Egypt and was addressing Greek-speaking Jews. The two communities probably knew both Hebrew and Greek but used only one language as their dominant tongue. It is likely that Ben Sira’s school of study in Jerusalem was conducted in Hebrew, whereas the Jewish scribes in Egypt functioned primarily in Greek, prompting the grandson to translate his grandfather’s wisdom book into that language. Moreover, Ben Sira would have been teaching in an environment that was predominantly Jewish, while the grandson was introducing his work to a diasporan community that lived among non-Jews. Van der Kooij’s explanation of the heightened nationalism, resulting from the threat against Judaism, is unlikely. Nowhere else in the Prologue is this supposed nationalistic tendency to be detected. The grandson wrote his Prologue after the Maccabean Revolt, but he did not mention the events that led to the expulsion of the Seleucid king. We do not know from where the grandson had come. If he had previously lived in Jerusalem, then he may have personally experienced the revolt. But if so, then it made no impact on him.

The Grandson’s Formulation Ben Sira describes the curriculum of the scribe in the following way: 39:1 (alternately 38:24): On the other hand he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High (ἐν νόμῳ ὑψίστου) will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients (σοφίαν πάντων ἀρχαίων), and will be concerned with prophecies (ἐν προφητείαις);2 he will preserve the discourse of notable men (διήγησιν ἀνδρῶν ὀνομαστῶν) and penetrate the subtleties of parables (ἐνστροφαῖς παραβολῶν); 3 he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs (ἀπόκρυφα παροιμιῶν) and be at home with the obscurities of parables (ἐναἰνίγμασι παραβολῶν).

This curriculum includes several categories of writings: law, wisdom, prophecies, discourse, parables, and proverbs. Some of these categories overlap: wisdom could include parables (cf. Sir 1:25), and discourse is parallel to proverbs (cf. Sir 6:35). It is unclear how many categories Ben Sira had in view. Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella suggest that Ben Sira’s order of the material (Law, Wisdom books, Prophets) follows the LXX and Latin Bibles, but that the grandson’s Prologue stipulates the canonical division (Law, Prophets, rest of the books) of the MT.6 This suggestion depends on the questionable separation of 39:1 from 39:2–3. Moreover, it advances the unlikely scenario that Ben Sira was following the canon of the LXX in Jerusalem, whereas his grandson was advocating the canon of the MT among Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Unlike Skehan and Di Lella, Peter Rüger interprets Ben Sira’s canon to be bipartite 95

and open.7 For him, the first two divisions of the Law and Prophets were closed, but the third division remained open, as evidenced by its variable designations. Rüger likewise draws a distinction between 38:34–39:1 and 39:2–3; however, for him both halves refer to Israelite literature. That Sir 39:1–3 (alternatively enumerated as 38:34–39:3) is a literary unit is required by the immediately preceding verse; 38:34 brings the stanza on the products of the skilled scribe to a close. A new unit is signaled with the preposition πλήν, “nevertheless, but” (39:1), reprising the theme begun in 38:24 that the wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure. A new topic of the scribe’s place in society, his travels, and his pious devotion is introduced in 39:4. The leisure, free from the cares of toil, allows the scribe to devote himself to what can only be described as study. In 39:1, Ben Sira begins to detail the components of this study with two participial clauses (in the genitive and dependent on the preposition), literally meaning “the one giving his soul and understanding in the law of the Most high.” Significant is the use of the Greek ἐπιδίδωμι plus ἡ ψυχή to express the idea of devotion. This expression will be echoed in the grandson’s Prologue (see below). What follows is an enumeration of the scribe’s curriculum, formulated in six clauses, all using the future indicative tense: he will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients (σοφίαν πάντων ἀρχαίων ἐκζητήσει); he will be concerned with prophecies (ἐν προφητείαις ἀσχοληθήσεται); he will preserve the discourse of notable men (διήγησιν ἀνδρῶν ὀνομαστῶν συντηρήσει); he will penetrate the subtleties of parables (ἐν στροφαῖς παραβολῶν συνεισελεύσεται); he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs (ἀπόκρυφα παροιμιῶν ἐκζητήσει); and he will be at home with the obscurities of parables (ἐν αἰνίγμασι παραβολῶνἀναστραφήσεται). The first three verses of chapter 39 constitute one long periodic sentence. The sense of the first two participial clauses is completed by the subsequent indicative verbs. The scribe’s devotion is to the law of the Most High, but his commitment also requires study of other kinds of knowledge and writings. The sources enumerated are wisdom, prophecies, discourse, parables, and proverbs. “Parables” are mentioned twice, underscoring their artful and obscure nature. Each of the terms is ambiguous and could refer equally to Israelite and non-Israelite sources. There is nothing to preclude an understanding of vv. 2–3 as a reference to different kinds of Israelite literature. There is one term that requires further explanation. The Greek διηγήσις (“discourse”) is a technical term used in the rhetorical manuals. It is the term that the Letter of Aristeas uses to designate itself as “a narrative” (see chapter 5 and below). In the grandson’s vocabulary, however, the word is used in the non-technical sense of “every narrative” (6:35); “the discussion about the law” (9:15); “the inopportune chastisement” of the child (22:6); “the wise talk of the godly man” (27:11); “the offensive chatter” of the fool (27:13); and “the talk about bulls” (38:25). In the hands of the grandson, diegesis has a general, rather than technical, meaning. 96

It is unclear whether Ben Sira thought that these categories referred only to the literature of ancient Israel. In these verses we do not have Ben Sira’s own words, just the grandson’s translation. A clue to the grandson’s understanding may be found in his use of the Greek ἀρχαίοι, “ancient.” This adjective is used twenty-six times in the LXX to mean “ancient, old, and long ago.” As mentioned above, van der Kooij pointed out that the adjective is used in LXX 3 Reg 5:10 in the sense of ancient peoples other than Israelites. However, the most important context is surely the grandson’s own usage. He deploys the adjective three other times in his translation: he means by its use “an old friend” in 9:10 and “the ancient giants” of the Watchers’ myth in 16:7.8 Significantly, in 2:10, he also uses the adjective to refer to Israel’s ancestors; Ben Sira rhetorically asks his disciples to look to the ancient generations (εἰς ἀρχαίας γενεάς) and see who had faith in the Lord and yet was put to shame. This leading question assumes the answer “no one.” The adjective is never used by the grandson to refer to the ancestors of non-Israelites like the Egyptians. The probable reference of “ancient,” therefore, is to the Israelites of old. The phrase σοφία πάντων ἀρχαίων should be understood as “the wisdom of all Israelite ancestors” and not the wisdom of the ancient ancestors of other peoples in general. Understood in the context of the grandson’s Greek usage, 39:1–3 is likely to be a reference to Israelite literature.9 The Prologue helps clarify the grandson’s understanding of the scribal curriculum. It provides direct access in the form of the grandson’s own words. 1

Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the Law (τοῦ νόμου) and the Prophets (τῶν προφητῶν) and the others that followed them (τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων), and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. 2 Now, those who read the scriptures must not only themselves understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word to help the outsiders. 3 So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law (τὴν τοῦ νόμου) and the Prophets (τῶν προφητῶν) and the other books of our ancestors (τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων), and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law. 4 You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. 5 For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. 6 Not only this book, but even the Law (ὁ νόμος) itself, the Prophecies (αἱ προφητεῖαι), and the rest of the books (τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων) differ not a little when read in the original. 7 When I came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes and stayed for some time, I found opportunity for no little instruction. 8 It seemed highly necessary that I should myself devote some diligence and labor to the translation of this book. 9 During that time I have applied my skill day and night to complete and publish the book (τὸ βιβλίον) for those living abroad who wished to gain learning and are disposed to live according to the law (ἐννόμως). (versification added)

The rationale for writing the Prologue is clear enough. The grandson wants to introduce his grandfather’s book of wisdom to those who love learning. The addressees, “you” in 97

the plural, are invited to read it, so that they will make further progress in living according to the law (v. 4). The grandson’s intended audience is the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt. He describes them as “those living abroad” (v. 9). Moreover, they were probably scribes as the following descriptors imply: “those who read (scripture)” (v. 2) and “the lovers of learning” (v. 2). The word “scribe” (γραμματεύς and ) occurs in 38:24 (cf. 10:5). These scribes must not just understand the great teachings of Israelite scriptures, but must also help the outsiders. Skehan and Di Lella have suggested that what stands behind this reference to the outsiders is the narrative of Neh 8:8–12.10 The phrase τοῖς ἐκτός (v. 2) is better rendered as “those who are without them,” and refers to the laity or to those who are unable to read the original scriptures because they lack the scriptures or wisdom.11 The scribes, therefore, must in speech and in writing help the laity. The nature of the scribal assistance, however, is not through translation and explication in the way that the Levites went around and offered help to those who heard the reading of the law in the square before the Water Gate (Neh 8:7). The scribes, to be sure, must have been bilingual, as the appeal to goodwill and indulgence in assessing the imperfect translation implies. But it is not their translational skills that are needed here. Rather, so the grandson specifies, the scribal aid consists of oral teaching and the drafting of a book of instruction and wisdom. His grandfather, the scribe par excellence, had devoted himself to the reading of the law, the prophets, and the other books, and having acquired considerable proficiency in them had himself written a book of instruction and wisdom that was being recommended. The grandson refers to the law, the prophets, and the other books three times in his Prologue. In all three occasions, the expression of the law and the prophets/prophecies is invariable. By contrast, the description of the third category varies in all three instances: it is described as “the others that followed them” (τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων), “the other books of our ancestors” (τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων), and “the rest of the books” (τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων). The third category, then, has three slightly different designations. Despite some verbal resemblance (τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων,, v. 6) to Josephus’ canonical notice (αἱ λοιπαί, C. Ap. 1.40), there is no similar enumeration of the third category to contain exactly four books. The definiteness of all three divisions, and not just the third category, is required by the grammar and is not indicative of a closed, tripartite canon. Verse 3 is a reference to the scribal curriculum of the law, the prophets, and the other ancestral books. When the grandson wrote that Ben Sira had devoted himself to the reading of “the law,” “the prophets,” and “the other books of our ancestors,” he meant that his grandfather had studied and acquired proficiency in the content of the syllabus as outlined in 39:1–3. The link between the Prologue and 39:1–3 is explicit in its expression of devotion to study. In the Prologue, the grandson uses the expression “having devoted himself” (ἑαυτὸν δούς) to describe his grandfather’s vocation. This use of δίδωμι plus the reflexive pronoun is reminiscent of the more Hebraic sounding ἐπιδίδωμι plus ἡ ψυχή of 39:1. 98

The grandson designates the ancestral writings “books” in the same way that he calls the Wisdom of his grandfather “this book.” Ben Sira’s original expression may not have included the word sepher (cf. Sir 50:27; Masada Ms B reads: “instruction, understanding, and suitable proverbs”). The law corresponds to “the law of the Most High.” The reading of the prophets is another way of expressing the scribe’s concern with prophecies. In 39:1, the mention of prophecies comes after the reference to wisdom. And “the other books of our ancestors” is a summary of everything else. This miscellaneous third category is alternatively called “the rest of the books” and refers to all the other books of wisdom, discourse, parables, and proverbs. Notable is the use of the adjective “[our] fathers” (πατρίων) that qualifies “the other books,” which corresponds to the “ancient Israelite ancestors” (ἀρχαίων) of 39:1. The Prologue refers only to Israelite literature. However, it is not a closed canon. The third category of other books is not a closed, third division. In fact, it is not one category at all but an undefined number of categories in the way that is implied by the formulation of “the other books” and “the rest of the books.” It is an open-ended way of referring to books other than the law and prophecies. That the grandson did not have a closed canon is further evidenced by the grammar of the Prologue in v. 3. Two participial clauses are followed by an indicative and infinitive that complete the sense. Thus the grandfather “having devoted himself” (ἑαυτὸν δούς) and “having acquired considerable proficiency in them” (ἐν τούτοις ἱκανὴν ἕξιν περιποιησάμενος) “was himself led to write down (προήχθη καὶ αὐτὸς συγγράψαι) something pertaining to instruction and wisdom.” The following purpose clause makes explicit the reason. Literally it states: “so that the lovers of learning, when they come under the influence of them [i.e., the instruction and wisdom], might add [ἐπιπροσθῶσιν] much more in living according to the law.” To the grandson, then, the scripturalization of his grandfather’s teachings is meant to help the scribe live piously by adding a worthy book to his study. There is no sense whatsoever that the scribal syllabus is already closed or that Ben Sira’s book is to be excluded from the list. Quite the opposite, the Prologue is a recommendation to include ben Sira’s book of instruction and wisdom in the scribal curriculum of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt.12 In sum, the grandson’s Prologue should be understood in relation to what Ben Sira said about the devotion of the scribe. Both in the translation of 39:1–3 and the Prologue, it would appear that the grandson saw the scribal curriculum to consist of the literature of ancient Israel. Moreover, in the Prologue, he intended that his grandfather’s book, which he had with great effort translated into Greek, be included in that syllabus.

In Praise of the Men of Piety (Sir 44–50) To ascertain which biblical books might have been included in the categories of the law, the prophets, and the other books, we must turn to the Wisdom of ben Sira itself. In 99

the final chapters of Sir, there is an extended section known in Hebrew as , “in praise of the fathers of old” (Genizah Ms B). Sir 44:1–50:24 praises various figures, beginning with Enoch and ending with Simon, the high priest in Ben Sira’s day. The genre of this parade of Israel’s worthies has been identified as the Beispielreihe (series of examples), a literary form of recounting prominent figures of the past that is attested in Jewish and Greek literature of the day.13 It is thought that this literary procession of figures assumes the biblical texts in their traditional order. “Throughout these chapters,” Skehan and Di Lella state, “Ben Sira manifests an easy and thorough familiarity with earlier Scriptures—the Pentateuch (the Law), Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, Chronicles, Nehemiah, Psalms, Proverbs and Job.”14 Rüger, by contrast, argues that the analysis of the praise of the fathers permits a conclusion that is virtually certain—namely, that the third division of the canon remained open in the time of Ben Sira.15 Sir 44:1–15 provides an apt introduction to the praise of the fathers, but the precise meaning of these verses is obscured by the knotty text-critical problems centered on the pronoun “these” (Heb. , Gk Syr. hlyn, Lat. illi) in v. 10. A proper understanding of this opening section, therefore, is a necessary step toward ascertaining the scriptural basis of the entire section. The Genizah Ms B, the Masada Scroll, and the different versions allow a variety of interpretations. Verse 10 reads in the RSV translation: “But these were men of mercy, whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten.” If we follow the reading of Genizah Ms B and Syriac, the antecedent of “these” could hardly refer to v. 9 since it states that some of them have no “memorial” ( and dwkrn’). It would directly contradict what is said subsequently: “for eternity their memorial ( and dwkrnhwn) will stand” (v. 13) and “their name (šmhwn) will live forever” (v. 14; reading with the Syriac; Genizah is mutilated). The Masada Scroll, Greek and Latin, however, read, respectively, and semen eorum. Three different interpretations have been proposed.16 The pronoun “these” has been understood to refer to those fathers described in vv. 10–15 and in vv. 3–8—namely, those men who “have caused a name to remain.” In this interpretation, v. 9 would be the sole reference to the impious of Israel who have been condemned to perpetual anonymity by the absence of a memorial. But this interpretation does not account for the force of the conjunction “but, nevertheless,” which ostensibly contrasts the men of v. 9 with those of v. 10. A second interpretation takes “these” proleptically, referring forward to Israel’s pious men in vv. 10–15 and their everlasting memory. By contrast, vv. 3–9 are understood to recount the pagan heroes, only some of whom will be remembered. But the heroes of vv. 3–9, most especially the “prophets” (v. 3) and “scribes” (v. 4), are unsuitable descriptors of pagan figures. The alternative view that there was a mixed group of Israelite and pagan heroes described by Ben Sira in vv. 3–9 is unlikely. A third way interprets the demonstrative pronoun as a reference to the fathers of vv. 100

10–16. Accordingly, Ben Sira describes Jews generally in vv. 3–9, before turning to the fathers whose deeds have been memorialized in Israel’s scriptures. Verse 9 would refer to some good Jews who have left neither a memorial nor a family. But the figures described in vv. 3–9 are hardly ordinary Jews; they are “rulers,” “leaders,” “musicians,” and “the rich.” Moreover, in this interpretation, v. 9 would contradict one of Ben Sira’s themes that the good will leave a good name. It seems to me that the pronoun “these” should be interpreted in connection with its most obvious antecedent, the men who have no memorial in v. 9. The difficulty with v. 13 may be resolved by appealing to the Masada Scroll in the Greek. Rather than mentioning “their memorial,” it reads: “for eternity their seed shall stand.” The men who have no memorial were nonetheless men of piety whose glory will not be forgotten and whose name will remain in their descendants for generations (cf. 46:11). Understood in this way, the opening section of the praise of the fathers envisages two groups of men who will leave behind a good name (vv. 8 and 14). There is a play on the word shem, which means both “name” and “memorial.” The shem of v. 14 will live forever only as it is perpetuated by the descendants, whereas in v. 8 it means a “memorial” (cf. the parallel zkr in v. 9), some literary or concrete reminder of the pious lives of old. Thus those who have caused a “name” to remain have in fact left a memorial, whereas those without a memorial will have in their children the propagation of their name. There are several advantages to interpreting 44:1–15 in this way.17 It is consistent with the important theme in Ben Sira that the good will leave a good name (e.g., 41:11– 12). It makes sense of the otherwise puzzling reference in v. 9d: “and their children after them.” The men who die without a memorial are those who, with their children, were as though they had not existed. Since these men are also men of piety, then their righteousness will not be cut off (v. 10), and their descendants shall stand forever (v. 13). This opening salvo, then, is not only an introduction to the heroes of Israel’s past, but also an unmistakable harbinger of the praise of the high priest, Simon, that is to come. The house of Onias, hitherto without a literary record, but pious and praiseworthy, will be remembered through his glorious son Simon. As will be seen, ben Sira’s praise of Simon both elevates him to the status of Israel’s pious men of old and secures a literary memorial for the house of Onias.

The Scriptural Basis of the Praise The praise of the fathers of old begins in 44:1 and extends to 50:24. Skehan and Di Lella, who have a similar understanding of 44:1–15 to the above, however, divide the unit into the praise proper (44–49) and an appendix (50).18 But this division is based on their questionable view that the canon was already closed. The praise of Simon is surely the culmination of the chapters, not a secondary section of additional material. 101

Manuscript B describes Simon as “the great one of his brothers” and “the splendour of his people” (Sir 50:1). It calls him “priest,” which surely means “high priest” (cf. Sir 45:24, where the high priesthood is explicitly mentioned). The unity of 44:1–50:24 is moreover assured by the autobiographical notice in 50:27 that marks the end of the whole section. The intervening vv. 25–26 are a secondary insertion of unrelated material.19 The praise of the fathers implies most of the books of the traditional Jewish canon, more or less in the the same book order (see appendix 5). It deviates from the traditional order in one or two places, most notably when it refers to Enoch (for the second time), Joseph, Shem, Seth (also Enosh), and Adam in Sir 49:14–16. But this passage may have been inserted secondarily to smooth out the transition to Simon.20 Chronicles occurs in connection with David and the books of Samuel and not at the end of the kethuvim as found in the traditional canon. The sequence of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel disagrees with the order of Baba Bathra (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah) but agrees with the MT order. The agreement could hardly be coincidental. Ben Sira was either following an extant list of heroes and their deeds or he was himself constructing this parade of Israel’s worthies from the biblical scrolls. Either way, the parade of figures follows a book order that mostly agrees with the traditional MT order. The position of Chronicles agrees with the LXX order. Notably absent is Deuteronomy and most of the books of the Writings except for Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. Beyond the laus patrum, knowledge of other biblical books may be detected. Only four books are unattested in Sir: Ruth, the Song of Songs, Esther, and Daniel. Rüger investigated the issue and concluded that these four books were not attested in Sir 44–50 nor in the rest of the book of Ben Sira.21 Similarly, Pancratius Beentjes states: “There is consensus of opinion that ben Sira does not mention, or quote from, the books of Esther, Ruth, Daniel, Song of Songs, and the book of Ezra.”22 Oddly enough, Beentjes then goes on to argue that Sir 45:17 (“to teach the precepts of his people, and the norms of the descendants of Israel”) is dependant on Ezra 7:10. In his view, the absence of the Ezra tradition may be explained by Ben Sira’s guiding principle in the composition of the praise of the fathers, and that is to emphasize the high priesthood. Nehemiah, however, is mentioned in Sir 49:11–13 and Ezra-Nehemiah is invariably considered as one work.23 There are, then, four biblical books not attested in the Wisdom of ben Sira.24 In this sense, Sir does not imply the closed canon. Robert Kraft, however, has queried this entire approach to ascertain the canon of Ben Sira. He argues that there is a distinction to be drawn between “scriptural consciousness” and “canonical consciousness” and that knowledge of laws and traditions does not necessarily mean knowledge of writings and books. Thus he argues that Sir does not give explicit references to scriptural passages.25 Beentjes has directly refuted Kraft’s claim by pointing to numerous instances of scriptural references marked by halô and kî and once by hakkatûb. Additionally, there 102

are what Beentjes calls “inverted quotations” and the structural use of scripture.26 Even if not all of these examples are equally convincing,27 it is undeniable that Ben Sira did use writings, as exemplified in Sir 24:23 and its reference to “the book of the Most High God,” which is, moreover, equated with “the law of Moses.” Benjamin Wright has recently discussed the issue of authority. For him, authority is not only about the use of scriptural texts, but also about how Ben Sira adapts Israel’s literary heritage into a figured world of wisdom teaching. The world that Ben Sira constructs for his students is also informed by the oral tradition of the sages that was handed down and the observation of the material world, especially the meditation on creation.28 It seems to me that what has yet to be emphasized in this discussion is the presentation of the praise of the high priest Simon as a literary memorial. Sir 50:1–24 is not an appendix; rather it is the climax of the parade of worthy figures of the past. As such, it sets itself up as a literary memorial to Simon, the ramification being that the Wisdom of ben Sira sees itself as a continuation of the literary heritage of Israel as found in the biblical texts and in oral, wisdom tradition. Scripture in the view of Ben Sira is not just the traditional biblical texts, but also the wisdom tradition that he himself has committed to writing. In sum, the Wisdom of ben Sira does not attest to a closed canon as is often supposed. Both the grandfather and grandson recognized the literary heritage of Israel in the form of the law, most probably a reference to the Pentateuch, an assortment of prophetic writings that includes all the biblical prophetic books and other ancestral books. It does not imply a bipartite or tripartite canon. The divisions may be characterized as 2 + n, where n equals any number of other categories. Ben Sira considered his own book as prophetically inspired (cf. Sir 50:27), and it is unclear whether he or his grandson would include it in the second division of prophets or in the miscellaneous category of other books.

The Notice of 2 Maccabees Another text that has been frequently discussed is 2 Macc 2:13–15 and its reference to Judas Maccabeus collecting “a library” of books. On first blush, this notice should be discarded as historically worthless. Its context is legendary, as seen, for instance, in the story of the preservation of the fire of the Temple’s altar in liquid! Moreover, 2 Maccabees compares Judas’ postwar efforts to Nehemiah’s role in the founding of a library and the collection of books when the biblical sources say nothing of the kind. The biblical Nehemiah was a builder of the wall surrounding Jerusalem that had fallen down; he was no patron of a library. The contemporary depiction of Nehemiah in Sir 49:11–13 confirms that this tradition was known in the second century. Arie van der Kooij, who otherwise questions its reliability as an account of canonization, nonetheless argues for an official public canon at the Temple on, among 103

other things, the combined evidence of 2 Maccabees and the supposed tripartite division of the canon in 4QMMT. The latter will be discussed below in chapter 7. Suffice it to say here that 4QMMT does not mean what van der Kooij wants it to say. On 2 Maccabees, van der Kooij speculates: “It might be that in connection with the purification of the temple and the restoration of the cult, the temple library or archive was replenished with copies of books and letters formerly kept there.”29 Van der Kooij’s suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand. According to 1 Macc 1:56–57, the books of the law were torn and burnt during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is not impossible that they were restored in the aftermath of the rebellion. Does 2 Macc 2:13–15 contain a historical kernel? A series of interconnected issues will be explored. The mention of “a library” in association with Judas in 2 Maccabees must be explained. Was it, in fact, a temple library, and why was it attached to the achievements of Judas? What kind of books were mentioned and how do they match up with the canon of Jewish scriptures?

The Jerusalemite Redaction of 2 Maccabees The first issue to be discussed is the redaction of 2 Maccabees and what that might mean for the origins of the notice. 2 Maccabees is a composite document containing various sources that underwent a complex process of editing. A source-critical analysis of the text shows that it was originally an abbreviated account of a much longer history. The abridged version was a text of diasporan Jewry, as shown clearly by its ideological stance that prioritizes the chosen people over the Temple (5:19). But it was later adapted by anonymous Jerusalemite scribes who attached the opening festal letters to the narrative and inserted the passage of 10:1–8. The final redaction of 2 Maccabees, therefore, is Jerusalemite. The opening chapters of 2 Maccabees contain two or three letters, depending on how the dates included in them are interpreted. The opening verse begins with a letter from Jews in Jerusalem and Judea to their compatriots in Egypt (1:1–9). In 1:10, a second, longer letter is cited, again from the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea—this time with the “senate” or “elders of Israel” (gerousia) and Judas—and is addressed to Aristobulus, the teacher of Ptolemy (1:10–2:18). The section of 1:1–10 is complicated by the dates attested in the verses and what they might mean in terms of the number of letters included in the preface. In 1:7, it states that the Judean Jews had written “in the one hundred and sixty-ninth year” of the reign of Demetrius. This date is pegged to the chronology of the Seleucid era, which is counted from 312 BCE, and it falls within the first reign of Demetrius II (145–139 BCE and 129– 125 BCE). According to v. 7, then, the Jerusalemite and Judean Jews wrote to their Egyptian brothers in 143 BCE. In v. 9, there is a second date: “and now see that you keep the feast of booths in the month of Chislev, in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year.” This too is dated to the Seleucid era, thus 124 BCE. 104

It would appear that the Judean Jews were writing in 124 BCE and referring to a letter written previously in 143 BCE. This would mean that the letter quoted a second letter that has not been preserved.30 Recently, Daniel Schwartz has queried this widely accepted dating of the letter: “It does not seem that there was anything special about that year.”31 Instead he dates the first letter to 143 BCE, the year of the Hasmonean independence, during which time the Jerusalemites invited the Egyptian Jews to keep the feast of booths of the Seleucid year “148”—namely, the year 164 BCE, when the Temple was rededicated. To arrive at this conclusion, Schwartz inverts the significance of the datings in vv. 7 and 9 and appeals to a textual variant of “148” for “188” found in two Greek manuscripts. Rather than taking the date of 169 SE (= 143 BCE) in v. 7 as the date of a previous letter quoted, Schwartz argues that this is the very date of the letter despite its placement at the beginning. The Jerusalem Jews were writing to their Egyptian counterparts on the occasion of the independence of the Hasmonean state to invite them to celebrate the feast of booths. He argues that the tense of v. 7 is an epistolary perfect (γεγράφαμεν) and does not refer to the past but the present. Moreover, the date in v. 9 refers to the year when the Temple was rededicated. It should not read “188,” a scribal error, but “148” of the Seleucid era, which is equivalent to 164 BCE. Schwartz has offered persuasive arguments for the redating of the letter, and in doing so, he has linked the opening more closely with the narrative. The preface and the narrative are not just documents loosely edited together, but they are part of the final redaction of 2 Maccabees.32 The opening section of 2 Macc 1:1–2:18, then, consists of two letters. The first letter, 1:1–10a, includes a conventional greeting, an admonition, an account of the distress and divine intercession, the offering of sacrifices, and the invitation to keep the feast of booths. A second, much longer letter, 1:10b–2:18, is addressed to Aristobulus and also begins with a conventional greeting. It thanks God for having driven out those who fought against the holy city, invites the Egyptian Jews to join in the celebration of the purification of the Temple, and provides an account that emphasizes the continuity between pre- and post-exilic cultic worship. The two letters serve as a kind of preface before the real preface begins in 2:19. The opening of the story begins in chapter 3, as marked by the previous verse: “At this point therefore let us begin our narrative, adding only so much to what has already been said; for it is foolish to lengthen the preface while cutting short the history itself” (2:32). This verse not only introduces the narrative proper, but it also says something about 2 Maccabees’ relationship to its source. Verse 2:32 describes itself as “the narrative,” and the Greek term ἡ διήγησις means here an epitome or abbreviated account of “the history” (ἡ ἱστορία). The author of the history was Jason of Cyrene, who wrote about the matters concerning Judas and his brothers; the purification of the great temple; the rededication of the altar; further wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator;33 the heavenly appearances that aided 105

the few to overcome the hordes of barbarians and recover the famous temple, liberate the city, and restore the law that was in danger of being abolished (2:19–23). The author of 2 Maccabees has distilled all that was written in five volumes into a single book, and he described his own digest as “an epitome” (2:26). He clearly did not write the history; he is “the epitomist” and “the abridger,” and his identity is unknown. According to his own self-description this “epitomist” expended great effort in the abridgement, a standard topos of the diligent author,34 toiling under the drudgery of epitomization and experiencing sleepless nights (2:26–31). His intention is not to provide an exhaustive treatment of history but a “brevity of expression,” recasting the history in a way that omits the confusing mass of numbers and details (2:24, 31). As an abridger, his goal was to profit all readers by an appeal to the imagination, pleasing those who wish to read and facilitating those who want to memorize (2:25). He leaves the exact details to the “record keeper” or “historian,” while striving to follow the rules of epitomization (2:28). He is not the master builder of a new house, the architect who is concerned about the entire construction, but the decorator who adorns the walls with paintings (2:29). An appreciation of the intentions of the epitomist helps explain the characteristics of the book (chs. 3–15) and how the preface complements it (chs. 1–2). The narrative of 2 Maccabees follows a cyclical pattern of a good beginning, degeneration of the situation, recovery, and finally a happy ending. Such a literary ring would not only delight those who read the account, but also aid those who would commit the narrative to memory. It begins with an idyllic and peaceful description of the holy city, its inhabitants pious in their legal observance under the leadership of the high priest Onias, and honored by foreign kings (3:1–3). There follow accounts of betrayal by Simon (3:4; 4:1–6), Jason (4:7–22), and Menelaus (4:7–50). Chapter 5 recounts the defilement of the Temple and robbery of its treasures by Antiochus Epiphanes. Matters continue to deteriorate as various Greek customs were forced upon individuals and the Jewish populace equally, atrocities were committed, and noble acts of defiance exemplified (ch. 6). The nadir of the decline is also the turning point of the fight-back, at least in spirit. Eleazar, the aged scribe, defied the order to eat swine flesh and instead chose the punishment, thus exemplifying and memorializing by his death the nobility and courage of the Jewish nation (6:18–31). The mother and the seven brothers chose martyrdom over the transgression of Jewish law (ch. 7). The fight-back takes on a decidedly military slant from chapter 8 onward, when the narrative turns to Judas Maccabeus and his companions secretly entering villages and enlisting six thousand Jews faithful to the Jewish religion for the rebellion. This military resistance is adumbrated in 5:27 with its signposting of Judas and nine others fleeing to the mountains so that they might not share in the defilement. Chapter 9 reports the death of Antiochus Epiphanes when he falls out of the chariot as he rushes from Ecbatana to Jerusalem. His death is precipitated by “the judgment of heaven” (9:4), which strikes Antiochus with pains in his bowels. 106

The excruciating death of the Seleucid tyrant is followed by an account that is closely tied to the festal letters. Judas and his companions recapture the Temple and city, tear down foreign altars, purify the sanctuary, build another altar, offer sacrifices on it, and celebrate it for eight days in the manner of the feast of booths. That 2 Macc 10:1–8, often called the Hanukkah passage, is a secondary unit is clear from v. 9, “such then was the end of Antiochus who was called Epiphanes,” which links it to 9:29. The first eight verses of chapter 10 could be excised without interrupting the narrative; 9:29 flows naturally into 10:9. Schwartz points out that the secondary nature of 10:1–8 and its link to the first festal letter is evidenced grammatically and thematically. The exclusive Greek style of both passages is characterized by parataxis (the frequent use of “and”). Thematically, 10:1–8 is distinctive from the surrounding chapters by its hostile attitude toward the gentiles, the interest and priority of the Temple and its cult, and the lack of concern over potential Dionysiac associations.35 Finally, the link between the letters and 10:1–8 is shown by the way that the passages depend on each other for comprehensibility: the otherwise odd reference to extracting fire from rocks (10:3) is intelligible in view of the liquid fire that was poured on rocks (1:31–32), and only 10:6–7 and 1:9 and 18 describe Hanukkah as a kind of festival of booths. The remaining chapters of 2 Maccabees recount the various victories of Judas and his companions, culminating in the victory over Nicanor and the return of the holy city to the Hebrews (10:9–15:39). In this final section, Schwartz also detects intervening editorial stages where the author used a source that helped him draft up the narrative between 10:9–11:37 and 13:3–8.36 The complex redactional history of 2 Maccabees may be summarized as follows: it was originally an epitome of Jason of Cyrene’s five-volume history; the abridgement viewed the story of Judas and his brothers from a diasporan perspective; other materials were added; and the final redactional layer adapted the whole work from a diasporan to a Judean perspective by adding the Hanukkah passage and the festal letters. In its completed form, therefore, 2 Maccabees is a Jerusalemite redaction.

The Authenticity of Judas’ Letter The content of the letter may be divided as follows: (1) the opening address and greeting (1:10b); (2) a thanksgiving to God for deliverance (1:11); (3) a recounting of the ambush of Antiochus in the Persian Temple as a sign of divine judgment and expulsion of those who attack the holy city of Jerusalem (1:12–17); (4) an invitation to the Egyptian Jews to join in the celebration of the purification of the Temple (1:18); (5) the hiding and recovery of the fire of the altar before and after the exile, including a prayer of dedication and the sacralization of the hiding place (1:19–36); (6) a reference to Jeremiah’s order that those being deported should take with them some of the fire of the altar and his exhortation that they not forget the commandments nor be led astray by 107

idolatry (2:1–3); (7) an account, also from the writings of Jeremiah, of the sealing of the tent and ark in a cave of unknown location. The prophecy also includes the reassurance of an eventual divine disclosure in the form of the appearance of the glory of the Lord and of the cloud. The final line mentions that Solomon too asked that the place be sanctified, a comment that serves as a transition to the following section (2:4–7); (8) loosely related comments about Solomon sacrificing during the rededication and completion of the Temple; Moses and Solomon praying so that fire would descend from heaven to burn up the sacrifices; the eating of the sin-offering that was not consumed by fire; and Solomon’s celebration, which lasted eight days (2:9–11); (9) the reference to Nehemiah and Judas founding a library and collecting books (2:12–15); and (10) a reiteration of the invitation for Egyptian Jews to celebrate the holiday of purification with their Judean brothers (2:16–18). The logic of the second festal letter twists and turns from pillar to post, and sourcecritics vary in their judgments, depending on the perceived coherence or incoherence of the narrative. For instance, Daniel Schwartz postulates a secondary insertion in 1:13–16 that recounts the death of “the leader” in Persia (1:13–16),37 whereas Ben Zion Wacholder argues that the same passage is “an integral part of the letter.”38 The passage is, in any case, the only account that attests to the death of Antiochus before the purification of the Temple.39 A different account of the death is given in chapter 9. The main point of the letter, however, is clear: it is an invitation to Egyptian Jews to join the celebration of the purification of the Temple. The letter purports to come from Judas and other Jews in Jerusalem and Judea, including the elders of Israel, but commentators have questioned this attribution. As it stands in 2 Maccabees, the second festal letter is addressed to Aristobulus, who was the teacher of the king, commonly identified with Ptolemy VI, who ruled Egypt between 180 and 145 BCE. The letter was written by (among others) Judas, who died in 160 BCE, and on the face of it there is nothing to preclude the attribution of authorship to Judas. The authenticity of the letter, however, has been questioned on chronological grounds. Jonathan Goldstein interprets 1:12–17 as a contemporary reporting of Antiochus’ demise in Istafan, Persia, in 164/163 BCE and argues that news could not have reached Jerusalem and subsequently been passed on to Alexandria in time for the celebration of the purification of the Temple on the twenty-fifth of Chislev.40 The chronological objection, however, is overcome if the invitation is to a celebration of the first anniversary of the purification of the Temple.41 The second festal letter has been characterized as a forgery, written by an Egyptian Jew sympathetic to the exclusive legitimacy of the Jerusalem Temple and the dynastic claims of the Hasmoneans. Goldstein postulates that the real author wrote in November or early December 103 BCE, when Ptolemy IX invaded Egypt and the Oniads were powerless to help (Josephus, Ant. 13.352). The second festal letter, therefore, is “an antiOniad propaganda” designed to champion the legitimacy of the Jerusalem Temple over the Temple in Leontopolis.42 But it would be very odd to attach a supposed propaganda 108

piece to 2 Maccabees when the narrative extols the virtues of the high priestly line of Onias. Moreover, the letter describes itself as originating from Jerusalem and Judea to Egypt, not the other way around. The authenticity of the second festal letter is being reconsidered. Goldstein stated: “It cannot be excluded that it is based on an original going back to Judas himself.”43 Earlier Wacholder had accepted the authenticity of the letter, arguing, among other things, that if it was a forgery, then it would have been a “unique type of Hellenistic forgery” since forgeries normally involve the assumption of a pagan voice in praise of the Jews.44

The Notice in Context The authenticity of the second festal letter is sub judice. The question remains about the validity of the claim that Judas, like Nehemiah before him, collected books of Israel’s heritage. Aspersions have been cast on the integrity of the notice of 2 Macc 2:13–15 by an appeal to its overall context, which includes non-biblical traditions and miraculous events. Thus Nehemiah is said to have built the Temple and altar (2 Macc 1:18) when he is known in his own writings for bolstering the infrastructure, especially the walls surrounding the holy city (Neh 1:1–7:5). He is commonly thought to have arrived after both the Temple and altar had already been rebuilt. Historical inaccuracies have been pointed out, including the statement that the Israelites were deported to Persia rather than Babylonia (2 Macc 1:19). Some of these incongruities find satisfactory explanations. The reference to Persia over Babylonia, for instance, is apparently due to the changed geopolitical situation. Jews writing in the second century referred to the traditional territory of Babylonia by its contemporary political designation of “Persia.”45 Other references remain incongruous with the biblical sources, which themselves do not always agree. Thus Ezra 3 describes the building of the altar and the construction of the foundations of the Temple by Jeshua and Zerubbabel, whereas in Ezra 5:16, it is Sheshbazzar who lays the foundations of the house of God. The objection that Nehemiah did not build the Temple should be tempered by the recognition that what is preserved in the biblical accounts is only partial.46 Josephus concludes book 11 of Antiquities by stating that “Nehemiah had done many other excellent things” (183). In his retelling, Nehemiah asked King Xerxes not only to give him leave to build the walls of Jerusalem, but also “to finish the building of the Temple” (165). 2 Macc 1:18 attests to this tradition, which attributes to Nehemiah a role in the completion of the Temple building.47 As for the miraculous events, they are not the kind of material that would be considered historical, but they are biblical and traditional, and their inclusion in the second festal letter is no reason for rejecting the notice. The biblical texts are infused with supernatural events. Fire, for instance, came down from heaven to consume the 109

sacrifice at the altar (1 Chr 21:26). There are no more a priori reasons for doubting the validity of 2 Macc 2:13–15 based on its context in the second festal letter than any other historical event embedded in the biblical texts.

2 Maccabees 2:13–15 The passage states: 13

The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemiah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings. 14 In the same way Judas also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war which had come upon us, and they are in our possession. 15 So if you have need of them, send people to get them for you.

This notice is based on the information derived from “records” and “the memoirs of Nehemiah.” The first term, “record” (ἀναγραφή), does not occur elsewhere in the LXX. It occurs six times in Let. Aris., nine times in Philo, and forty times in Josephus, and it means either a documentary record or literary text, such as the sacred scripture. The second term, “memoir” (ὑπομνηματισμός), refers to archival material. It occurs three other times in the LXX. In Ezra 4:15 (paralleled in 1 Esdr. 2:19), it occurs in Rehum and Shimshai’s letter to Artaxerxes, in which the Persian king is requested to look in “the book of the your fathers”48 to discover the history of the rebellious city of Jerusalem. In 2 Macc 4:23, it refers to the recording of essential business transactions involving money. The “memoirs of Nehemiah” are an accepted scholarly construct that postulates a source that was used in the compilation of the book of Nehemiah. The identification of the passages that make up these memoirs is debated, but it often includes the following verses: 1:1–2:20; 3:1–32; 3:33–7:5; 11:1–2; 12:27–47; 13:1–31, and the genealogical list of 11:3–12:16. In these passages, there is no reference to a library and collection of books. In fact, 2 Macc 2:13 refers to a tradition about Nehemiah that is unattested elsewhere, but it is not thereby unreliable. But what did Nehemiah found? The Greek term translated by “library” could also mean “an archive.” Stefan Schorch has argued that βιβλιοθήκη in Hellenistic Greek means “a royal archive” and points to the occurences in LXX Ezra 6:1 and Esther 2:23. He admits that while the difference between a “library” and an “archive” is not always clear, “the distinction between the two should nevertheless be upheld.”49 However, this distinction between an archive that stores official documents and a library servicing a collection of literature is not maintained by the term or its content. The Greek βιβλιοθήκη could also refer to a “library” (e.g., Let. Aris. 9, 8, 29; Philo, Legat. 151; and Josephus, Ant. 12.12, 14, 36, and 48). Moreover, Nehemiah’s collection includes documents and literature, as Schorch himself argues. The necessary conclusion is surely that no distinction was drawn between a bibliotheke as an archive and as a 110

library. Armin Lange has argued that the letter uses the “reassembling of the Jerusalem temple library by Judah Maccabee to show the temple in more Hellenistic light,”50 the rhetorical effect of which is to gain the Egyptian Jews’ sympathy. But this seems unlikely. Egyptian Jews would have been familiar with the great library of Alexandria, which produced critical editions of Homer’s works at this time, and inviting a comparison between the two would result in a negative rather than the desired positive response. Moreover, the view that Judas reconstituted the temple library is altogether questionable (see below). Three kinds of writings were collected by Nehemiah. The phrase “the books about kings and prophets” is a vague description. Schorch pointed out that the use of the preposition “about” (περί) grammatically makes both “kings” and “prophets” the logical objects.51 They are instead books and stories about kings and prophets. Schorch does not mention it, but LXX Jer 14:15 corroborates this understanding when it describes what “the Lord says concerning the prophets [περὶ τῶν προφητῶν] who prophesy lies in my name.” He argues that what is in view are the kind of documents attested in 2 Maccabees 2:1–7 and not the historical and prophetic books of the canon. However, given the vagueness of the formulation, the description does not preclude an identification of the books of Samuel and Kings or, for that matter, several of the prophetic books like Jeremiah. The second category of writing refers to “the books of David.” This has often been compared to the phrase “in David” in 4QMMT, but that text may not refer to the writings or psalms of David. Rather, the phrase in MMT could mean either the deeds or the example of David. However, the psalms are mentioned in other scrolls. In the Great Psalms Scroll and 11QMelch authorship of the psalms is ascribed to David (see chapter 7). The same attribution of authorship of the psalms to David may be found in other texts (see chapter 9 for a discussion of Luke 24:44). Finally, there were “letters of kings about votive offerings.” Daniel Schwartz points out that royal correspondence concerning Temple matters is attested in Eupolemus, possibly a Jerusalemite priest, who refers to missives sent between Solomon and Hiram that were stored in Tyrian archives.52 The notice compares the activities of Judas to those of Nehemiah. The comparison forms part of the broader literary purpose of the second festal letter in linking the Hasmonean rededication of the altar to Temple worship in the days of Nehemiah and Solomon. The adverb (ὡσαύτως) means “likewise” or “in the same way.” What is being explicitly compared is the collection of books. Verse 14 even uses the same verb “to collect” (ἐπισυνάγω). What kinds of books were collected by Judas is not specified. The usual translation of the clause makes Judas collect all the books “that had been lost on account of the war which had come upon us.” This is a logical absurdity, for how can things that are lost be 111

collected? It is not mentioned that they were found. The verb διαπίπτω, however, literally means “to fall to pieces.” In the myth of the origins of the Septuagint, the term is used to refer to defective or imperfect books in the library of Alexandria (Let. Aris. 29; Josephus, Ant. 12.36).53 A better translation, therefore, is that Judas collected all the books that “had fallen to pieces on account of the war.”54 After all, according to 1 Macc 1:56, the books of the law were torn to pieces or cut up (κατασχίζω) and burnt (ἐμπυρίζω) during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. Presumably, these books were only partially destroyed, so Judas was able to gather these tattered and burnt books of the law. There is no mention of Judas establishing a library. To read the construction of a Maccabean library into this verse is to overload the comparative sense of the adverb. In fact, the recovered books are not in a library but “in our possession” or “among us” (παῤ ἡμῖν). The plural subject of this phrase most naturally refers to the authors of the letter, who are inclusively the Jerusalemite and Judean Jews, the elders of Israel and Judas. That the books of the literary heritage of Israel are found among the people is evidenced by 2 Macc 2:1–3 and its recounting of the words of Jeremiah. The prophet not only asked those being deported to take some of the fire, but also “the law,” so that they might not forget the commandments. 1 Macc 1:56–57 recounts how during the Seleucid persecution, a death sentence was pronounced on anyone in possession (παρά τινι) of the book of the Covenant. In sum, the adverb in v. 14 (“in the same way”) should not be pressed beyond what it can bear. The comparison should be understood in a general sense. Judas did not collect the same kinds of books, nor did he found a library like Nehemiah. What he seemed to have done was, like Nehemiah, to collect books. The books that he gathered were damaged during the war, and his reassembling of them formed part of the restoration of Jewish heritage. They were now back among the Judeans.

A Maccabean Library? It was Sid Leiman who saw 2 Macc 2:13–15 as important evidence of the closing of the canon in the second century BCE. Although he did not actually say that Judas founded a library, his discussion has led subsequent scholars to draw that conclusion. He wrote in his introductory chapter about the portrayal of Nehemiah: “What may well be described here [i.e., 2 Macc 2:13] is a collection and canonization of biblical books.”55 Further on, he described Judas’ collection of books in this way: “The literary activity ascribed here to Judah Maccabee may, in fact, be a description of the closing of the Hagiographa, and with it, the entire biblical canon. Although literary activity is nowhere else ascribed to him, such activity by Judah Maccabee, or by other Hasmoneans under his aegis, may have been a response to the attempt on the part of Antiochus IV to destroy Hebrew Scripture.”56 112

Leiman spoke of “literary activity” and not about a library, and in his footnotes, he was more careful in his formulation, but he also mentioned a private library. According to him, the literary activity ascribed to Nehemiah “may reflect the formation of a private library rather than an act of canonization.”57 John Barton noted this tendency in Leiman to be more cautious in his footnotes than in the main text.58 In any case, Leiman’s views came to be understood as Judas founding a library in Jerusalem,59 a reading of 2 Macc 2:13–15 that has now been called into question. The second century was indeed an important period in the study of the formation of the canon. Both the Wisdom of ben Sira and 2 Maccabees, in their own way, attest to the emergence of collections of authoritative writings that served Jewish communities in Judea and Egypt. There is no evidence, however, that the canon was already closed or that the Jerusalem Temple functioned as a depository of official books. Jesus ben Sira and his grandson had slightly different conceptions of scriptural collections, but they shared the view that the book of Wisdom belonged to the literary heritage of Israel, which had not been fixed and closed. Thus they recommended that the scribe who devoted himself to the law of the Most High should study inter alia the Wisdom of ben Sira. The view that the canon was closed in the second century is based on an interpretation of 2 Maccabees that cannot be sustained. The above examination has shown that the notice belongs to the second festal letter written by Jews from Jerusalem, possibly including Judas. It forms part of the final Jerusalemite redaction that gave 2 Maccabees its present shape. The historical notice of 2 Maccabees 2:13–15, however, does not say that Judas reconstructed a library. Rather, it compares the Maccabean leader’s collection of books to an otherwise unattested tradition of Nehemiah gathering books and founding a library. Some of the books collected by Nehemiah, like the books of David, probably correspond to the psalms in a general way rather than as a defined psalter. Others are official correspondence about offerings that do not have an obvious counterpart. Yet others are ambiguous and could refer to non-biblical documents or the narratives of Samuel and Kings or prophetic books. But Judas did not collect the same books as Nehemiah. The adverb should be understood in a general sense of comparing an earlier act of book collection to that of Judas’ postwar act of reconstitution. The Maccabean collection is a reassembling of books damaged during the war that were now back in the possession of the people. It does not say anything about a Maccabean library or canonization.

113

7 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures

The Qumran-Essene theory holds that manuscripts discovered by Bedouin goatherds in caves by the Dead Sea in 1947 belong to the community of the Essenes. These scrolls were found in eleven caves close to the archaeological site of Khirbet Qumran and comprised “the library” of a monastic-like group of sectarians known from the classical sources as the Essenes. From the early days of research, scholars have advanced various views about the archaeology of Khirbet Qumran, its relationship to the scrolls found in the nearby caves, the origins of the community, the identification of key figures in the scrolls like “the Wicked Priest,” “the Liar,” and “the Teacher of Righteousness,” and the history of the community until its disappearance. Some believe that the community came from Babylon, while others have argued that the archaeological site was a military fortress and had no association with the community described in the scrolls. Still others have developed the Qumran-Essene theory to postulate that the Qumran community was one of two daughter sects of the Essene movement; the other was that of the Therapeutae, who lived in Egypt by Lake Mareotic. Finally, scholars trained in Jewish law have underscored the importance of halakha for those who lived there, one scholar conjecturing a Sadducean origin of the Qumran community. Nonetheless, the Qumran-Essene theory reigned supreme until the beginning of the 1990s. Broadly speaking, it remains the view today, if one can still speak of a consensus; the Qumran-Essene theory in the hands of various scholars has since transformed in ways that one could justifiably ask whether it should still be described as one and the same theory. In the last twenty years or so and prompted by the release and publication of all the remaining scrolls from Cave 4 in 1991, there has been a vigorous reassessment of the Qumran-Essene theory in all its essential tenets. Archaeologists have subjected Khirbet Qumran to a thorough reexamination, advancing various ideas about the character and function of the archaeological site through the periods of occupation, with or without regard to the scrolls found in the caves nearby, the classical descriptions of the Essenes, Pliny’s geographical notice, and other sites in the surrounding region. The adjoining cemetery has also been reexamined for female skeletons and its burial practices compared to Jewish customs found elsewhere. The release of the remaining scrolls from Cave 4 made it possible to study the different versions of the sectarian documents, in particular the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Document, and to posit the dispersal of sectarian communities throughout Judaea. For some, this has 114

resulted in the decentralization of Khirbet Qumran as the “mother house” of Essenism and the postulate of different communities of the yahad. A discussion of these developments in research is well beyond the scope of this chapter. These views are, in any case, accessible in the articles, books, proceedings of conferences, and other publications that offer an assessment of the state of research.1 What will be offered below is an examination of the issue of authority in relation to the scrolls. In a subsequent chapter I shall discuss the authoritative scriptures of the Essenes and Therapeutae. This approach to the topic is a way of including all the relevant sources that are conventionally considered under the rubric of the scrolls, the sectarian community, the Essenes, and the Therapeutae. It does not imply a particular theory, apart from the general identification of the community of the scrolls with the Essenes and the relationship of the scrolls to the archaeological site of Khirbet Qumran. It will be suggested that the biblical scrolls, while important in attesting to the presence of works that will eventually be included in the canon, do not by themselves tell us what the communities of the scrolls considered as authoritative scriptures. They need to be complemented by an examination of the use of the same biblical books in the sectarian documents. It will be argued that the sectarian scrolls imply a broadly bipartite collection of authoritative scriptures consisting of the “Torah of Moses,” referring to the Pentateuch, and an undefined collection of writings that are considered prophetic. The sectarians also used writings other than those that were eventually included in the Jewish canon, and it will be suggested that these have a graded authority, a sliding scale of influence, ranging from those that are authoritative interpretations of the biblical texts to sources and traditions that were used to produce the rulebooks and other sectarian scrolls.

From Library to Collections The collection of nine hundred or more scrolls found in the eleven caves has often been described as “the library of the Qumran community.”2 In this library, there are copies of all the books of the Hebrew Bible except for Esther. Some of the books, like the Psalms, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Genesis, and Leviticus, are represented by several copies, while Ezra and Nehemiah have but a single exemplar each.3 The Qumran “library,” then, attests to the entire Hebrew Bible with the exception of one book, but it does not tell us what the Qumran community thought of the canon or indeed whether it even had a concept of authoritative scriptures. Did the Qumran community distinguish as authoritative those books that were eventually included in the canon from other writings that were also found in the library? There are good reasons for asking this question. It is now widely recognized that the Qumran library was diverse in content. Quite apart from the biblical books, it contained scrolls of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books, as well as previously unknown writings, a number of which reflect the concerns of one or more Jewish sects. 115

The labels “apocryphal” and “pseudepigraphical” are, of course, formal descriptors. They do not imply that the Qumran community considered the scrolls so described to be extra-canonical. The branding of scrolls as “biblical” is likewise heuristic. It allows us to speak intelligibly about texts among the Qumran library that have a patent relationship with the books of the canon without prejudging whether they were already considered in this way. The conventional practice of dubbing the collection of scrolls as “the library,” then, should be taken in a broad sense. In the library are to be found writings that were both manifestly sectarian and other texts that did not exhibit any such traits. The biblical scrolls belong to this latter category, and their presence in the collection might suggest that they were valued and read by the community. But if “the library” is not really a library but a heterogenous collection of writings— consisting, to be sure, of a core of sectarian writings but mixed in with the writings of ancient Jews in general—then the inclusion of the biblical text within the corpus by itself is no evidence of authority. The presence of the biblical texts in the collection does not tell us how the sectarian community regarded them vis-à-vis other texts that were also found in “the library.” In fact the analogy of “the library” breaks down precisely in this respect. Significantly, there is no criterion for distinguishing the status of one text from another. The scrolls of the eleven caves do not contain any internal differentiation of a “special collections,” “reserved books,” or “reference only” section in the way that a modern library signals the importance and distinctiveness of certain books within its general collection.4 Therefore, the inclusion of “biblical” books in the Qumran “library” as such is not equivalent to the consideration of them as authoritative scriptures. In fact, it would be better to stop calling the Dead Sea Scrolls “a library” and instead refer to them by the generic and nondescript term of “a collection” or “collections.”

Biblical Scrolls of Second Temple Judaism Another issue concerns the nature of the biblical scrolls themselves. These scrolls do not exhibit any evidence of sectarian variants. According to Eugene Ulrich, they are “the Scriptures of late Second Temple Judaism,” and they are distinguished by the “absence of sectarian variants.”5 “Absence,” as a construct, implies an argumentum e silentio. In this case, however, the lack of evidence is more akin to the scientific theory of the null hypothesis. Ulrich has shown that there is no relationship between the character of the biblical scrolls and the postulate of the sectarian nature of the corpus. He does this by illustrating what a sectarian variant would have looked like. For instance, the Samaritan Pentateuch intentionally changed the deuteronomistic formula “the place where the Lord will choose” (e.g., Deut 12:5; 14:23; 16:2; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2). The future tense of this formula in the MT and LXX indicates that a decision had yet to be made about the location of 116

Yahweh’s dwelling place. The same passages in the Samaritan Pentateuch, however, read “the place where the Lord has chosen,” thus explicitly stating that the place of the sacred sanctuary had already been chosen in the time of Moses and Joshua as Mt. Gerizim, a tendentious modification of the text for religious reasons.6 Jerusalem, of course, was later considered by Jews to be the chosen place. According to Ulrich, the variants found in the biblical scrolls are not of this type. Rather, they reflect mechanical changes of scribal copying errors and technical alterations for greater clarity.

The Canonical Status of the Great Psalm Scroll Reconsidered The distinction between a scroll deposited among the collection and one considered authoritative by the sectarian community has not been sufficiently recognized in the debates about the status of the Great Psalm Scroll (11QPsa) as either an early form of the Hebrew Psalter or a secondary liturgical composition. In 1965, James Sanders published a well-preserved, five-meter-long scroll that included forty-nine or fifty compositions, of which thirty-nine were previously known psalms primarily from the last third of the traditional Psalter.7 11QPsa (11Q5) was dissimilar to the MT-Psalter, however, in several respects: the order of the psalms did not always follow the traditional psalter; and it included non-MT psalms (e.g., LXX Ps 151, Sirach 51:13–23, 30), non-canonical songs (e.g., “Apostrophe to Zion,” “Hymn to the Creator”), and a prose composition of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in column 27. The scroll is palaeographically dated to 30–50 CE. Initially, Sanders argued that the scroll was Essenic, and therefore sectarian, because he believed that when the group separated from Jerusalem in the second century BCE, it took along to Qumran a psalter that had partially been fixed in its last third section.8 The last third section, corresponding roughly to books III and IV of the traditional Psalter, remained fluid. The traditional MT-Psalter contains 150 psalms and is divided into five books: I (psalms 1–41, containing most of the “Psalms of David”); II (42–72, including the psalms of Korah and Asaph); III (73–89, comprising additional psalms of Korah and Asaph); IV (90–106, consisting of untitled psalms); and V (107–150, concluding with mostly pligrimmage psalms). The division of the collection of psalms into five books was a late development made to parallel the Pentateuch (“Moses gave the five books of the Torah to Israel and David gave the five books of Psalms to Israel”; Midrash Tehillim 1.2); however, in this discussion, it is used in a heuristic sense to compare the division of 11QPsa to the MTPsalter.9 Sanders’ view of the fixation of the first two-thirds of the Psalter was not based on the evidence of 11Q5 since Ps 101 (frs. A, B, and CI) is the first composition preserved in that scroll. Rather it was deduced from other previously published Qumran psalms scrolls that preserved psalms from books I–III. According to Sanders’ early view, there 117

were several versions of the psalter, 11Q5 being one of them. This scroll is a true psalter that the sectarian group took with it to Qumran and to which it added its own Hasidic and proto-Essene poems. Sanders also believed that the Jerusalem establishment stabilized the same third portion and disseminated the official version of the psalms that eventually became the accepted MT-Psalter. The consequence of this initial formulation, however, is that Sanders was in effect arguing that 11Q5 was a sectarian psalter! But this was either not his intention or he later changed his mind.10 What he eventually came to say was that 11Q5 was evidence of a true psalter, not a sectarian one, that the sectarians happen to have taken with them to Qumran. Sanders’ characterization of the non-canonical psalms as “Hasidic” and “protoEssene” additions, which he later dropped, has contributed to the confusion. What Sanders ended up saying was that the features of 11Q5 were not peculiarities of a secondary, sectarian collection; rather they attested to the fluidity of the last third of the psalter, which had a different order via-à-vis the MT-Psalter and included noncanonical material. The authenticity of 11Q5 as a true psalter, according to Sanders, is shown by the Davidic emphasis throughout the scroll, but especially at the end, and the stylistic similarities between the biblical and non-biblical psalms. Sanders’ views were criticized by several scholars, notably Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Shemaryahu Talmon and Patrick Skehan.11 Objections of a general and specific kind were leveled at Sanders’ hypothesis, but they were not very effective since they assumed that the MT-Psalter was the orthodox psalter that had already been formed in the fourth century BCE and from which the 11QPsa-Psalter was drawn. For instance, arguments against the order of the psalms found in 11Q5 presuppose that the MT-Psalter was the standard order from which the scroll deviated. Moreover, the arguments that the liturgical interests of 11Q5 are incompatible with a canonical psalter seem altogether baffling, for what is a psalter if not a liturgical composition! In a study taking account of all the psalms manuscripts from Qumran, Peter Flint has critically evaluated Sanders’ views, which he dubbed “the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis.”12 He supports Sanders’ claim that 11QPsa is evidence of the gradual stabilization of the Psalter: there is little variation in Psalms 1–89 in order and content, but Psalms 90–150 remained in a state of flux. Flint also agrees that there were two or more versions of the Psalter. He develops Sanders’ views by positing three literary editions (following Ulrich’s variant literary editions of the biblical scrolls): an early psalter (edition I), whose arrangement of Psalms 1–89 had already stabilized (as seen in 4QPsa, 4QPsb, and 11QPsc); a second version (edition IIa = edition I + the arrangement of 11QPsa), attested by 11QPsa, 11QPsb, and perhaps 4QPse; and a third version (edition IIb = edition I + Pss 89–150) or the MTPsalter (so MasPsb).13 Flint, however, disagrees with Sanders’ early view that 11QPsa was put together at Qumran and was therefore sectarian. Instead he cites approvingly of Sanders’ subsequent 118

change to the view that 11QPsa was compiled outside Qumran and brought in by novices who joined the community. The view that there were “two or more” literary editions is possible, but the evidence is not as straightforward as it seems. First, while the nineteen psalms (within Pss 5–71) of 4QPsa primarily follow the MT-Psalter order, Ps 33 immediately follows Ps 31, and Ps 71 comes directly after Ps 38. Likewise, while 4QPsb preserves fifteen psalms (between Pss 91 and 118), Ps 112 is placed right after Ps 103. The third exemplar, 11QPsc, preserves nine compositions between Pss 2 and 25 in what appears to be the MT-Psalter order. These three scrolls do not attest to one literary edition.14 Second, the problems inherent in the characterization of edition I are compounded by the supposition that there was an edition IIa that comprises edition I plus the arrangement of 11QPsa. The twenty-six fragments of 4QPse are too badly mutilated to serve as positive evidence of the 11QPsa order. The codicological argument that another composition, no longer extant, must have come between Pss 104 and 105 does not require that Ps 109 is that composition.15 11QPsb has the same order of Pss 141→133→144 as 11QPsa, and it includes portions of non-canonical compositions of the catena “plea for deliverance” and “apostrophe to Zion.” Moreover, 11QPsb includes Ps 77:18–78:1, which has the sequence of the MT-Psalter, but it is insufficient to show that that was the order of edition I since those verses are not attested in the extant witnesses. Finally, edition IIb should not be straightforwardly equated with the MT-Psalter since two of the three exemplars (4QPsa and 4QPsb) of its first constituent part (i.e., edition I) do not have the same order as the MT-Psalter. The heart of the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis lies in the characterization of 11QPsa as a true psalter. Arguments for it being a true psalter center on the ascription of Davidic authorship throughout the scroll, but especially in col. 27, lines 2–11, where it is said that David wrote 3,600 psalms and songs to sing before the altar in the course of a 364-day year. Gerald Wilson has, moreover, argued that the Great Psalms Scroll is structured according to the principles that governed the arrangement of books IV and V of the MTPsalter.16 But neither of these arguments necessarily leads to the view that 11QPsa was a true psalter. It could alternatively be interpreted, as Flint correctly and recently concluded, “as a collection drawn from a Psalter that had previously been finalized.”17

From “True Psalter” to Liturgical Collection In fact, discussing 11Q5 as a “true psalter” is itself questionable. It is a petitio principii that supposes that the sectarians already had a concept of an authoritative body of hymnic material different from other liturgical texts. Would they have differentiated the variant literary editions of the psalms from other liturgical compositions that were also 119

included in the scrolls corpus? How, for instance, is the authority of the Hodayot different from that of the psalms? The discussion about the status of 11QPsa has latterly developed away from the view that it was a Qumran-Essene psalter and as such has weakened the claim to authoritative status in the sectarian community. If the Great Psalms Scroll is to be considered a nonsectarian composition that was imported into the scrolls collection, then like other biblical scrolls, it does not by itself indicate how the community understood it. The sectarian documents do indeed cite the psalms numerous times and even exegeted them in their typically sectarian form of pesher interpretation (1QpPs, 4QpPsa, and 4QpPsb), but the text-form of the lemmata of 4Q173, the only pesher to preserve overlaps with 11Q5 (namely, Ps 129, attesting to the MT), is not derived from the 11QPsa-Psalter. The contention, then, is that while evidence for the specific use of the 11QPsa-Psalter is found wanting, the psalms are cited in pesherite and other sectarian texts.

Authoritative Status of the Psalms The debate about the status of the Great Psalms Scroll as a “true psalter” is distinguishable from discussions about the authoritative status of the psalms among the sectarian scrolls. Textual form is an important element in the choice of a particular text by each religious group and tradition: the MT for Rabbinic Judaism and Protestantism, the LXX for the Alexandrian Jewish community and the Greek Orthodox Church, the Vulgate for Roman Catholicism, and so forth. But the sectarian scrolls do not exhibit any such preference for a particular text. For instance, 4Q175 (4QTest) tolerates various textual forms, attesting as it does to the Samaritan text-type of Deut 5 and 18, the MT of Num 24 and Deut 33, and the “Psalms of Joshua” (4Q379) (including the LXX of Josh 6:26).18 Pesher Habakkuk is aware of the MT and textual variants from 8HevXIIgr, LXX, and Peshitta.19 4QpPsa (4Q171) has the variant “the lovers of the Lord” (frs. 1–10, col. 3:2, 5a, 7) rather than “the enemies of the Lord” of the MT (Ps 37:20b). 1QpMic attests to the definite “the land” (Mic 1:3 in frs. 1–5, lines 2–3), a reading that is also found in the LXX. And 4Q252 attests to the LXX reading “my spirit shall not dwell” (fr. 1, l. 2) rather than “my spirit will not judge” of the MT of Gen 6:3. The sectarian documents, therefore, did not assign authoritative status to one particular text-type. They tolerated textual variants and sometimes exploited their interpretative possibilities in their exegesis. The psalms were quoted and interpreted, and it did not matter whether they textually followed the MT, the LXX, or another text-type. It is nonetheless probable that a concept of authoritative scriptures in the form of a collection of psalms already existed at Qumran. 11QMelch, a thematic pesher, introduces Ps 82:1 (textually MT with a minor variant of the Qumran nominal form of ‫ )בקורב‬by the introductory formula “as it is written concerning him [i.e., Melchizedek] in the psalms 120

of David” (11 ,‫ריור ירישב‬Q13 1:10). The nominal plural suggests that these psalms were regarded as a collection, and the construct is best understood as a genitive of authorship, “the collection of songs written by David.” In another scroll, 4Q491, a version of the War Scroll, the terminology of ‫( ספר התהלים‬fr. 17, l. 4) is preserved, though the immediate context has been lost. The psalms, it would seem, are part of a collection and are to be found in a sepher, probably meaning a book or a scroll.20

The Meaning of “be-David” in 4QMMT The publication of 4QMMT (“some precepts of the torah”) in 1994 engendered a debate about the possible attestation of the tripartite canon at Qumran. According to the principal editors, MMT refers not only to the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets, but also to the Writings.21 This canonical notice is preserved in a badly mutilated line that the editors reconstructed and translated as follows: “We have [written] to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and (the writings of) Dav[id]” (Composite Text [hereafter CT], C 10). This has been questioned, but most scholars accept the editors’ reconstruction.22 The rub lies in the contested meaning of the phrase be-david. The editors have suggested that it meant “the writings of David,” but there are good reasons for querying this interpretation. The collection of psalms is known in other sectarian documents as “the songs of David” (11QMelch) and “the book of psalms” (4Q491). The phrase bedavid could theoretically have been a third way of referring to the psalms, but there is no unambiguous evidence of the technical use of the preposition beth followed by a proper name to refer to Writings.23 It is more likely to be a reference to “the deeds of David,” as paralleled in the phrase “the deeds of the kings” (CT C 28).24 One objection to this interpretation is that be-david should be understood in the same way as “the book of Moses” and “the books of the prophets,” which immeditately precede it in line 10. Daniel Schwartz argues that be-david should be understood as a reference to “books by or about David.”25 He invokes the Latin tag eiusdem generis (lit. “of the same kind”) as an argument against the interpretation of David’s deeds. According to Schwartz, this rule of interpretation justifies the assumption that “the third item is of the same genus as the first two.”26 But the fact of the matter is that the third item is not of the same genus as the first two. It does not include the word “sepher” as in the other two. Rather, the phrase is simply be-david and not be-sepher david. It follows two references to collections of books, which led to the mistaken interpretation of it as the third division of the Hebrew Bible.27 A further consideration of the broader context of MMT, taking account of the end as well as the beginning, raises another possibility that be-david could mean the example of David. The end of MMT reiterates the beginning and the admonition to consider the kings of Israel and their deeds in the familiar, deuteronomistic pattern of blessings and curses. David is singled out as a role model.28 121

Thus the we-party is admonishing the you-party to consider both the authoritative writings of the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets, in which are found narratives about the life and deeds of Israel’s kings, and especially stories about King David, whose own life, marked as it is by the sin against Uriah, is otherwise distinguished by its piety.29 In MMT, David is mentioned several times, but there is no distinctive use of the psalms.30 Line 10 means, “We have written to you so that you may carefully consider the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and the example of David.” MMT does not appear to refer to the psalms.

Broadly Bipartite Collection of Authoritative Scriptures By the second half of the first century BCE the sectarians already had an implicit sense of authoritative scriptures in the form of a collection of writings attributed to Moses,31 another set of books of the Prophets,32 and one or more versions of the psalter. 4Q397, the only copy of MMT to preserve the notice,33 palaeographically dates to the first half of the Herodian period;34 11QMelch (11Q13) palaeographically dates either to the late Hasmonean period (75–50 BCE) or early Herodian period (50–25 BCE); and 4Q491 palaeographically dates to the Herodian period (30–1 BCE).35 It is uncertain when these three scrolls were originally composed, but the palaeographical dating of their copies converges remarkably well. By the first half of the Herodian period (ca. 50–1 BCE) or earlier, these sectarian scrolls together refer to three collections of scriptures. It is not, however, a tripartite division.

The Book of Moses The phrase “the book of Moses” most likely refers to the Pentateuch. There is even evidence of the citation of all five books in connection with the title. Stephen Pfann argued that the title midrash sepher moshe of 4QpapCrypt A (4Q249) is related to the midrash ha-torah of 1QS 8:15.36 The extant portion of the scroll, however, attests only to Leviticus and Exodus 7. It is possible that the original unmutilated scroll included “a midrash” of passages from all five books of the Pentateuch. But “ha-torah” could alternatively refer more generally to “the instruction.” However, the title itself is suggestive; “the torah” has “a midrash.” “Mid-rash” later became the title of a genre of Rabbinic literature, but here it probably means “interpretation.”37 The term is related to “study” (darash), and it is possible that it refers to the documents that issued from the sectarian community’s nightly study of the torah. Moreover, “the torah” is explicitly said to have been decreed by God through Moses. In CD 4–7, there is evidence that “sepher moshe” refers to the five books of the Pentateuch. The title is embedded in the phrase “in the book of the torah that is sealed” (‫ בספר התורה החתום‬CD 5:2). This phrase belongs to a complex exposition of the three 122

nets of Belial and Isaiah 24:17, which warns against bigamy and incest, and the so-called “well-midrash” of Num 21:18. Several biblical passages are referred to in this section, significantly including references to all five books of the Pentateuch from Genesis to Deuteronomy (e.g., Gen 1:26 in CD 7:9; Exod 25:16, 21, and 40:20 in CD 5:2–3; Lev 18:13 in CD 5:8–9; Num 21:18 in CD 6:3–4; and Deut 17:17 in CD 5:2).38 It is unlikely that this “book” or “torah” of Moses remained open and included other compositions.39 That it was closed is implied by CD’s characterization of the book of Jubilees as a perush or explanation of the Torah of Moses. There is a formal distinction between the two corpora. The book of Jubilees is not considered part of the Torah, but it is nonetheless an authoritative explanation of the Torah of Moses (see below).

The Books of the Prophets More difficult to ascertain are the works that are likely to have been included in “the books of the prophets.” Within the context of MMT, the phrase “the books of the prophets” most naturally refers to the books of Samuel and Kings. MMT CT C 17–19 states the following: [It is written in the book] of Moses [and in the books of the Prophets] that there will come […] [the blessings have (already) befallen …] in the days of Solomon the son of David. And the curses [that] have (already) befallen from the days of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and up to when Jerusalem and Zedekiah King of Judah went into captivity. 40

This paragraph is an apt summary of the narrative of the books of Samuel and Kings. The author of MMT mentioned the kings by name, and they are in this context used as temporal markers of the narrative. The phrase ‫“( בימי‬in the days of”41; 2x) and the preposition ‫“( עד‬until”) call attention to the deeds of all the kings between Solomon and Jeroboam, on the one end, and Zedekiah, on the other, that have engendered God’s blessings and curses (CT C 18–19). In this context, ‫ספרי הנביאים‬, mentioned just a line before this phrase, would most naturally refer to the books of Samuel and Kings. But the sectarian understanding of the “books of the prophets” is unlikely to have been restricted to the two books of the former prophets as found in MMT since other figures are also known as prophets and their writings considered prophecies.42 Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are explicitly called prophets. Joshua, Jeremiah, Amos, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Hosea, Nahum, Zephaniah, Micah, and possibly Obadiah and Malachi are associated with writings that are prophetic. Further corroborating evidence is to be found in the collection of the Minor Prophets in individual scrolls. There are good reasons to be cautious about equating “the books of the prophets” with the second division of the Hebrew Bible. The book of Daniel is found in the third division of the traditional Jewish canon, in the section of “Writings,” but among the sectarians it was considered prophetic (see 4QFlor and 11QMelch).43 Likewise, the pesharim interpret the psalms in the same way that they do the 123

prophetic texts. It is possible that the psalms would have come under the broad category of “the books of the prophets.” The collection of psalms, then, would be considered as a sub-collection in the same way that the Minor Prophets form an identifiable group of texts within the group of prophetic texts. As will be discussed in chapter 9, Luke 24:44 raises the possibility that the psalms were considered prophetic and may have been included in the collection of the books of the Prophets. Unfortunately, no such evidence is available in the scrolls.44 What can be said is that the psalms were understood by the sectarians as an identifiable collection; they are called “the songs of David” and “the book or scroll of the psalms.” What has been suggested thus far is that the sectarians recognized collections of authoritative scriptures: the five books of Moses; different collections of prophetic books (e.g., Samuel-Kings, Minor Prophets); and one or more collections of psalms. Moreover, the psalms are likely to have been considered prophetic in nature, but it is uncertain whether they would have been considered prophetic in the canonical division sense of the word. It is better to say that the sectarian scrolls assume a broadly bipartite collection of authoritative scriptures.

Graded Authority of Other Authoritative Writings There are non-biblical writings that appear to have some claim to authoritative status within the Qumran community. To assess these claims, it should be clear from the outset that a book’s claim of authority by itself is insufficient. Authority is dependent on the acceptance of the community. A work that has a self-referencing authority does not by itself mean that the sectarian community accepted this claim. Thus, for instance, while the fragments of Reworked Pentateuch (4Q364–7 and 4Q158) appear to present themselves as biblical texts with virtually no noticeable exegetical Tendenz, there is no evidence that they were accepted by the sectarians as authoritative.45

The Book of Jubilees as Authoritative Explanation It is widely believed that the book of Jubilees was considered authoritative by the sectarian community, but in what sense were the teachings found in it normative for the life and practice of the community of the Damascus Document? CD 16:1–3 states the following: 1

Therefore, let a man bind himself to an oath to return 2 to the Torah of Moses, indeed in it everything is specified. The explanation of their times when 3 Israel is blind to all these, it is detailed according to the book of the Divisions of the Times by Jubilees and weeks.

This passage is partially preserved in two manuscripts of D from Cave 4 (4QDc 2 ii 5 and 4QDe 10 ii 17) with no significant textual variant. The beginning literally reads, “Let the man set upon himself to return to the torah of Moses.” The definite noun is used in the sense of “each man.” The verb is imperfect and probably hiphil rather than qal, the infix 124

yod being indistinguishable from vav in the writing. The object is implied and could be an oath or vow. The reading of “yourself” in the manuscript is corrected to “himself” (‫)נפשו‬, as in line 4. The noun ‫ תורה‬could mean “instruction” or “law” in the generic sense, but the parallel sepher suggests that it is used as the title of “the Torah of Moses.” The verb translated as “specified” (‫מדוקדק‬, meaning “to study closely” or “to inquire”) is a technical term used in Rabbinic literature for detailing the specifics of the law (e.g., m.Naz. 1:2). CD 16:1–3 is not a verbatim citation of the book of Jubilees as is often believed. Its admonition begins by calling each man to bind himself to a return to the Torah of Moses, a title referring most likely to the Pentateuch, as argued above. The reason for doing so is unclear; the clause, as rendered in some English translations (“for in it all things are strictly defined”), would not be sufficient reason for requiring obedience. The fact that the Torah of Moses contained everything is no reason for obeying it. Alternatively, ‫כי‬ could be translated as “indeed” and the clause understood explicatively to state that everything is in the Torah of Moses; thus “indeed in it everything is specified.” CD 16:2 states that the explanation of their times is to be found in “the book of the divisions of the times by Jubilees and weeks.” The use of ‫פרוש‬, translated as “explanation,” is significant because it defines the role of the sepher. It becomes a technical term in Rabbinic literature for expounding the nature of specific laws. The sepher mentioned is widely understood to be the book of Jubilees.46 In Jub 1:4, it states that God’s revelation to Moses not only included the first and last things, but also “the account of the division of all the days of the Law and of the testimony” (cf. 1:26; 50:13). The two descriptions are not identical, but they are close and allow one to assume that CD is speaking about the book of Jubilees. This identification is corroborated by the presence of multiple copies of the book of Jubilees among the scrolls corpus and the citation of the book in the fragmentary text 4Q228 (50–25 BCE), fr. 1 i 2 and fr. 1 i 9. The explanatory role of the book of Jubilees is evidenced in the application of the 364-day calendar to selected events of the flood story in a sectarian text (4Q252).47 It is important to underscore that CD understands the book of Jubilees as a perush or legal explanation.48 What the admonition calls for is that a man should bind himself to the Torah of Moses and not to the book of Jubilees as such. The sectarian, however, could not effect his return to the teachings of the Mosaic Torah without the aid of the book of Jubilees. Everything is included in the Torah of Moses, but not everything is clear: the Torah requires explication as regards chronological matters.49 The book of Jubilees is secondary to the Torah of Moses, but it too has authority. One cannot help but think that what lies behind this is the concern over the proper observance of the calendar. CD justifies its reference to the book of Jubilees by an allusion to the time of Israel’s blindness to these calendaric concerns. The solemn command requires that each man should not only bind himself to the authority of the 125

Torah of Moses, but also abide by the explanation of the book of Jubilees. There is no need to think of the book of Jubilees as part of Torah in order for it to have authority. It is an authoritative explanation of the Torah. In CD’s view, there are two categories of authoritative writings, the Torah of Moses, on the one hand, and its explanation in the form of the book of Jubilees on the other. The book of Jubilees appears to set itself up as the sole Sinaitic revelation. The title states the following: This is The Account of the Division of Days of the Law and the Testimony for Annual Observance according to Their Weeks (of years) and Their Jubilees throughout all the Years of the World just as the Lord told it to Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up to receive the tablets of the Law and the commandment by the word of the Lord, as he said to him, “Come up to the top of the mountain.”50

Yet in 6:22, it recognizes the primacy of another body of writings, which it calls “the book of the first law.”51 In the context of an admonition for the children of Israel to celebrate the feast one day each year, 6:20–22 states that “Shebuot [is] twofold and of two natures,” probably playing on the two possible senses of the Hebrew word as meaning “weeks” and “oaths.” The passage, then, refers to a prior recording of this dual nature and states that “this is because I have written it in the book of the first law, which I wrote for you, so that you might observe it in each of its appointed times, one day per year.” This first law is understood to be the Torah of Moses (cf. 30:12, 21; 50:6). The book of Jubilees’ understanding of itself is implied rather than explicit. One infers that it is not a rival torah since it recognizes “the book of the first law” as authoritative, admonishing the children of Israel to “observe it.” By implication it must be “secondary” in some sense. Hindy Najman suggests that the book of Jubilees, like the Temple Scroll, is an extension of the Mosaic discourse, a “seconding of Sinai.”52 James VanderKam argues, however, that by the second century BCE, when Jubilees was composed, the discourse already had a long history. “Our author,” he states, “wanted to be part of it but not as an epigone; he wanted to be the originator of the tradition. He was not seconding Sinai; he was initiating Sinai.”53 But John Collins questions whether the smashing of the first tablets by Moses necessarily means that Jubilees sees itself as setting the precedent. Collins observes: “Presumably the tablets that were destroyed were accurately replaced. The fact that the traditional Torah is called ‘the first law’ would seem to grant it priority, in a sense. But the ‘testimony’ is also revealed on Mt. Sinai, so for all practical purposes Jubilees and the ‘first law’ are coveal and complementary.”54 This self-understanding of Jubilees, however, does not mean that the sectarian community likewise regarded it on the same status as the traditional Torah of Moses. VanderKam is surely correct when he notes that the author of CD is alluding to material from “two Mosaic texts.”55 But as the above discussion shows, the Damascus Document did not consider the book of Jubilees to be a competing rival to the traditional Torah of 126

Moses. Rather, it understood the two corpora to be complementary and it gave precedence to the traditional Torah of Moses.56 It is even possible that a reference was made to the book of Jubilees in 4Q177. Once known as 4QCatenaa, this sectarian text has more recently been reconstructed by Annette Steudel to be part of an eschatological mid-rash.57 Whether 4Q174 and 4Q177 are copies of the same text is moot since there is no overlap between the two manuscripts. In any case, there is a reference to “the book of the second torah” (‫ )ספר התורה השנית‬in frs. 1–4, l. 13, of 4Q177. Now this second torah has been understood to be a reference to the Temple Scroll. Yigael Yadin and James VanderKam equate it with the torah mentioned in the Psalms Pesher, which the Teacher of Righteousness sent to the Wicked Priest, prompting a murderous attempt on the former’s life.58 But nowhere is the Temple Scroll called “the second torah.” It refers to itself as “this torah” (11 ;‫התורה הזואת‬QTS 56:12–21). It is unlikely to be Deuteronomy since the biblical book calls itself “a copy of this torah” (‫ ;משנה התורה הזאת‬Deut 17:18).59 This second torah, however, could be the book of Jubilees. There is a tantalizing possibility that the dual pattern discussed above may have been original to the now mutilated text of 4Q177. In its interpretation of Hosea 5:8, 4Q177 interpreted the parallel “horn” and “trumpet” as two sepharim respectively. 4Q177, fr. 1, col. 4, lines 13 and 14, states the following: 13

Blow a horn in Gibeah (Hos 5:8a). The horn is (the) book of [the torah]. [A trumpet in Ramah (Hos 5:8b). The trumpet] 14 is (the) book of the second torah.

The reconstruction of these lines is based on the known procedure of atomization and the formulaic use of the independent pronoun. Steudel has argued that the original margin in the manuscript was large enough to include a reference to the Torah, followed by the lemma, atomization, and identification of “trumpet” with ‫ספר התורה השנית‬. However, she does not believe that evidence for a second book of the law could be found at Qumran and translates the phrase as “that is the book of the law again.”60 But that would be an odd sense of the Hebrew.61 The straightforward rendering is surely “the book of the second torah.” Understood literally, 4Q177 possibly attests to the dual pattern that has been described. The fragmentary nature of the scroll prevents us from drawing any firmer conclusion than that. CD’s understanding of the nature of the book of Jubilees is that it is a pe-rush or explanation of the Law of Moses, and it may have been referenced in 4Q177. It is not quite the same as Jubilees’ understanding of itself.

Pesher as Authoritative Commentary I have elsewhere analyzed the lemmatic structure of the pesharim in relation to 127

scriptural authority.62 There is no need to repeat the discussion here. What I would like to suggest is that the dual pattern described above is implied in the structure of pesherite exegesis. Pesherite exegesis may be deconstructed into the following elements: lemma + interpretative formula + sectarian comment. The pattern is not invariable, but it is regular. The formula shows that the lemma or verbatim quotation of a biblical text was considered qualitatively different from the interpretation. In this formula the pesherite comment is secondary; its role is to explain the biblical text. The reconstituted biblical verses could stand on their own, but the sectarian interpretation would be incomprehensible without the lemmata. The sectarian comment is nevertheless authoritative since both the method and content of pesherite interpretation are divinely revealed. God enlightened the Teacher of Righteousness by giving him understanding to interpret (‫ )לפשור‬the prophetic oracles (1QpHab 2:8–10). He also revealed the content of the mysteries of the prophetic oracles to the sectarian leader (1QpHab 7:4–5). One step removed from the source, the pesherists both recorded the content of the divine utterances as passed down from the Teacher of Righteousness in scrolls that we now call pesharim and followed the revealed method of exegesis as shown to him.63

Citation of Pesherite Commentary The sectarian community not only accepted the authoritative commentary of the pesher, but also used it in its rulebook. CD 4:12–19 states the following: 12

During all those years Belial will be let loose 13 against Israel, as God said through Isaiah the prophet, the son 14 of Amoz: “Terror, and the pit, and the snare (are) upon you, O inhabitant of the land.” Its interpretation (15:(‫( פשרו‬these are) the three nets of Belial, about which Levi the son of Jacob said 16 that he catches Israel in them and makes them appear to them as three kinds 17 of righteousness. The first is fornication, the second wealth, the third 18 making the sanctuary unclean. He who escapes from one will be caught in another, and he who saves himself from that will be caught 19 in the third. 64

This gobbet is also extant in fragment 3 of 4Q266. It is the central passage in the admonitions section of CD, and much scholarly attention has been trained on the identification of sectarian teachings about incest, divorce, and polygamy.65 Important for the present discussion is the use of the technical term pesher in its suffixed form to introduce the sectarian interpretation of Isaiah 24:17 as the three nets of Belial. This has been described by Deborah Dimant as an “isolated pesher.”66 As such, it implies that the author of CD either used the same method of exegesis while drafting his composition or he cited from a pesher on Isaiah no longer extant. None of the five continuous pesharim on the book of Isaiah (4QpIsaa–e) preserves an interpretation of Isa 24:17. Given that CD uses various sources in composing its texts, it seems more likely that the pesher of Isa 24:17 is being cited. The pattern of authoritative biblical text and commentary is notable. According to CD 128

4, Isa 24:17 is authoritative because its source is to be found in a divine revelation to Isaiah, the son of Amoz. Moreover, Isaiah’s words are quoted, confirming that the prophetic oracle is regarded by the sectarian author to be authoritative. The pesherite exegesis, then, identifies the three snares of the Isaianic verse with the three nets of Belial and includes an internal reference to the words of Levi, the son of Jacob, a source no longer extant but one that may have been originally associated with the Testament of Levi or the book of Jubilees. The remaining sectarian commentary (preserved only in part) expands on the three nets of Belial. It is notable that while the biblical verse of Isaiah is the authoritative text quoted, the subsequent discussion in CD 4 is focused on the interpretation of the passage and not on the biblical text as such. It is not about the Isaianic “terror,” “pit,” and “snare” that are upon the inhabitants of the land, but the pesherite explication of them as fornication, wealth, and the defilement of the sanctuary in the years of Belial. The pesher may be secondary to the biblical verse, but it sets out the parameters of the discussion.

Thematic Pesher and the Dual Pattern of Authority The same dual pattern is also evident in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). The only one to fit the description of the genre of “thematic pesher,” the scroll cites several instances of pesherite interpretation.67 The technical term “pesher” occurs five times in the scroll (11Q13 2:4, 12, 17, 20; fr. 6:4).68 It is used to interpret biblical sources but also serves to introduce a commentary on the periodization of history. Column 2 preserves what may be seen as two blocks of interpretation, involving the citation and interpretation of numerous verses around the theme of redemption. Each block is marked by the expression “and as it said” (‫ )רמרשאו‬in lines 2 and 25.69 The first block begins with a reference to what Lev 25:13 states about the year of Jubilee (line 2), followed by a citation of Deut 15:2 (line 3) on the manner of that remission (‫)שמטה‬. The technical term pesher is extant in the introductory formula of line 12 (pishro al). It introduces the interpretation of Ps 82:2, in which the psalmist, David in the view of the author of 11Q13 (see line 10), asks how long “you” will judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked. The plural subject “you” is, then, identified with Belial and the spirits of his lot who rebelled by turning away from the statues of God. As was true in CD 4:12–19, the biblical source-text has primacy, but the pesherite comment controls the meaning of the biblical verse. In the following line 13, the figure of Melchizedek is said to “raise the vengeance of the laws of God.” This interpretation picks up the two biblical source-texts cited earlier in lines 10–11, which describe how a divine being (‫ )אלוהים‬has taken his seat among other divine beings (‫ )אלוהים‬and will judge (Ps 82:1) and that in the highest heaven a divine being (‫ )אל‬will judge the people (Ps 7:7–8). Melchizedek is understood to be that divine being of the psalms who is described in terminology that is normally reserved for God. Helping him are other divine beings, as it is stated in Isa 61:3 (line 14).70 129

Line 15 is badly mutilated, but it seems to move on to the topic of the appointed “day” and the roles of the prophets and anointed figure. The “day” may be restored to “the day of vindication,” given that Isa 61:2 is cited subsequently in lines 19 and 20. The broaching of the prophets is made through an interpretation of Isa 52:7 and the figurative identification with “the mountains” (lines 15–17). The Isaianic “messenger” is then recognized as the anointed one of Dan 9:26 who, moreover, is understood to be the one who announces the day of vindication when God will also comfort the mourners, as stated in Isa 61:2. The final lines 20–25 of column 2 interpret Isa 52:7 and Lev 25:9, probably referring to Melchizedek as the redeemer who delivers those who uphold the covenant from the hands of Belial. There is also a fragmentary reference to the periodization of history (line 20), which would correspond with earlier chronological comments on the timing of the Jubilee, the day of Atonement (line 7) and the death of the anointed one (line 18). The same dual pattern can be seen in the first half of column 2 if the reconstruction of the technical term pesher in line 4 is accepted (“[its interpretation] is about the last days concerning the captives”). Lev 25:13 and Deut 15:2 are quoted, but the subsequent comments on the figure of Melchizedek in lines 6–8 are governed by the pesherite comment.

Use of Pesher in Scrolls of Different Genres The technical term pesher also occurs in other scrolls that are not pesharim. Most often it is used to interpret a biblical source. 4Q174 interprets Ps 1:1 by identifying the blessed man who “does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” with “those who turn from the way,” presumably of the wicked (frs. 1–2, col. 1, line 14). The meaning of the line is puzzling: Midrash (‫ )מדרש‬of “Happy is the man that walketh in the counsel of the wicked.” The interpretation (‫)פשר‬ of the passa[ge…] those who turn aside from the way of […]. 71

It seems unnecessary to include both “midrash” and “pesher.” The suggestion that this is a hybrid genre of “midrash pesher” does not resolve the difficulties but rather introduces new complications. One solution is to render “midrash” not in the titular sense but as a tradition based on the explanation of the verse accompanying communal deliberations. According to 1QS 8:15, the community engaged in midrash ha-torah (“the expounding of the Torah”), an activity that was commanded by God through Moses. It is possible that these communal deliberations were written down and studied.72 If “midrash” is used in 4Q174 in an analogous manner, then it refers to the community’s deliberation of the prophetic meaning of the psalms. Line 14, therefore, may be seen as the title of the section referring to the community’s understanding of the verse. The pesherite comment is not only a comment on Ps 1:1, but also on the interpretative tradition as passed down by the community. 130

The use of pesher in the sectarian community is primarily for exegesis. 4Q177 uses the method to interpret various biblical texts from the Psalms (17:2; 11:1–2; and 13:2–3) and Isaiah (37:30). 4Q252 interprets Reuben’s indiscretion with his father’s concubine Bilhah (Gen 49:3–4) with the pesher technique. And 4Q464 introduces a quotation of Gen 15:13 with “pesher.”73 The use of pesher in the scrolls, however, is broader than an exegesis on the biblical text. In 4QOrd (4Q159), the term pesher is used to interpret words that do not correspond to biblical quotations (fr. 5, lines 1 and 5). In another scroll, there is a tantalizing suggestion that it may have been used to introduce the concept of the “ages” (4 ;‫הקצים‬Q180 fr. 1, lines 1 and 7) that God had created and the tradition of angels consorting with the human females (cf. Gen 6:4). One assumes that the use of pesher here is related to, rather than being directly on, the biblical texts.

Pesher and Authority There is little doubt that the pesher functioned in an authoritative manner in the sectarian community. It is both a method of interpretation and the resulting content of that exegesis. It functions to explicate a biblical text, concept, and teaching. Its authoritative status is confirmed by its use in documents that are considered sectarian by other criteria.74 As a form of exegesis, the pesher presents itself as a comment. The lemma, almost invariably in the form of a verbatim biblical citation, is authoritative because it requires comment. However, the sectarian discussion is controlled by the comment and not the lemma. The meaning of the biblical verse, in its own literary context (such as in the prophecies of Habakkuk, Nahum, and Isaiah or in individual psalms), is supplanted in favor of the meaning attached to it by sectarian exegesis. The biblical quotation has a formal primacy that is accepted by the sectarians. One infers that by the time of the writing of some of the pesharim, probably around the first century BCE, these biblical texts had already gained an authoritative status that was widely recognized among Jews generally and that the pesherists could not ignore. However, in the context of pesherite hermeneutics it is the revelation of God, mediated through the Teacher of Righteousness and as passed down in the sectarian communities, that determines the meaning for belief and practice. In this sense, the pesher is secondary, but in a counter-intuitive way it is also more authoritative. The pesher is formally a comment and supplement to the biblical lemma, but in practice it is understood as the authoritative expression of divine intention.

The Authority of Biblical Excerpts and Anthologies There are other scrolls of varying character that appear to have some authority among the sectarians. These scrolls differ in the form of authority that they display. 131

The text once called “the Psalms of Joshua” is now known by its official title as “the Apocryphon of Joshua” (4Q378–379). A passage from 4Q379, fr. 22,75 is cited in 4QTestimonia (4Q175), lines 21–30, alongside other biblical texts (Deut 5:28–29; 18.18– 19 [Sam Exod 20:21]; Num 24:15–17; and Deut 33:8–11). It consists of a citation of Josh 6:26 (LXX) and its interpretation of an accursed man of Belial and his two sons. The type of interpretation is akin to the pesher, but the technical term is not used. Scholars have interpreted this passage to be an allusion to historical figures in the Maccabean period, most notably to Simon Maccabee and his two sons, Judas and Mattathias. 4Q175 is a collection of excerpts. Whether it is also a collection of proof-texts for the sectarian community is less clear. It is a single sheet whose text was penned by the scribe who also copied 1QS. The first three excerpts are all biblical, but the fourth one is nonbiblical. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that 4Q379 had the same authoritative status as Deuteronomy and Numbers. But for whom? Evidence of the sectarian character of 4Q175 is indirect. At the thematic level, the three figures of a prophet like Moses, priest and king, correspond to sectarian thought. In CD 7:19 the “star” and “scepter” of Num 24:17 are identified with the interpreter of the law and prince of the whole congregation respectively. The blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8–11 has been interpreted by scholars to refer to the priestly messiah of sectarian thought or a reference to the Teacher of Righteousness, who was known as a priest. The sectarian character of 4Q175 is seen primarily in the selection of the biblical passages. The combined citation of Deut 5:28–29 and 18:18–19, however, is not used by the sectarian documents.76 It is unnecessary to suppose that the sectarians cited from this biblical anthology rather than from the biblical scrolls of Numbers and Deuteronomy themselves. In fact, there is some indication that the sectarians quoted directly from a biblical scroll. For instance, the author of 4Q174, frs. 6–7, cites Deut 33:8–11, but it is unlikely that he did so from 4Q175. 4Q174 exegetes sections larger than Deut 33:8–11: it interprets vv. 19–21 in frs. 9–10 and possibly v. 12 in fr. 8. Those verses of Deuteronomy are not included in the relevant extract of 4Q175. The aligning of a passage from the Apocryphon of Joshua in 4Q175 alongside other biblical passages is substantiation that some, perhaps the sectarian community, regarded 4Q379 as authoritative. However, the absence of explicitly sectarian features of the scroll and the indecisive evidence of its use in sectarian texts mean that it remains a possibility and not a certainty or even a probability.77

Literary Sources in the Rule of the Community The sectarian rule book known as the Rule of the Community used more sources than the biblical texts. The constituent parts are not cited with introductory formulas. Rather they are incorporated into the creation of the composite sectarian document. Various non-biblical sources were used to create the different versions of the Rule of 132

the Community (1QS and 4QSa–j). Take, for instance, the Cave 1 copy (1QS). This version of the Rule includes two different texts appended to the end of the composition, conventionally designated as 1QSa (Rule of the Congregation) and 1QSb (Rule of Blessings) and a title page. Moreover, the last column of 1QS includes a hymn that is evocative of the Hodayot or Thanksgiving Hymns. This hymn is detachable from the rest of S, as evidenced by its replacement with a calendaric text (otot) in another version of the rule (4QSe). The composite character of 1QS may also be differentiated linguistically in the use of two conjugations for the root ndb “to volunteer”: the first four columns use the niphal (1:7, 11), whereas the rest of the document the hithpael (5:1, 6, 8, 10. 21 [2x]; and 6:13). Corroborating this linguistic division is the evidence of 4QpapSa (4Q255) and 4QSd (4Q258); the former includes the equivalent of columns 1–4 of 1QS, and the latter begins only with column 5. 4QSd, moreover, is missing the two spirits passage (1QS 3:13–4:26), which is likely to have been a preexistent source.78 Unlike the biblical texts, these sources are incorporated into the Rule of the Community without introductory formulas. The authority of these sources is qualitatively different from that of the biblical text and pesher that are cited with introductory formulas. They have a literary, as opposed to scriptural, authority.79

Borrowings and Use of Common Traditions as Indicators of Authority The scrolls appear to use traditions and concepts found in the Temple Scroll, the book of Enoch, the Thanksgiving Psalms, and 4QInstruction. Some of these scrolls are themselves sectarian, so the phenomenon analyzed in the following is partly a question of inner-sectarian borrowings. The challenge lies in establishing the nature and direction of the dependence. More often than not, the evidence points to the use of a common tradition. There is an implied sense of authority in this phenomenon of borrowing and using of common traditions. What was borrowed and used must have been important enough to the scribe, editor, and author to incorporate it into his text. He is not citing the material to refute it but is adopting it in a way that makes it his own.

Bigamy and Hanging in the Temple Scroll, CD, and Pesher Nahum. The Temple Scroll is a non-biblical text that systematically rewrites the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. There are three copies of the Temple Scroll, two dating to the Herodian period (11Q19 and 11Q20) and an older copy from the Hasmonean times (4Q524). Two other scrolls (4Q365a and 11Q21) are either copies of the Temple Scroll or sources used by it. The Temple Scroll is so called because of its extensive discussion of the Temple, its sacrifices, and the laws of the holy city (11Q19, cols. 3–48). It also includes an 133

introduction (col. 2) and a section on laws of general application (cols. 48–66). 1 Chr 28:11–19 recounts the story of David making known to Solomon the plans of the architectural features of the Temple, the divisions of the priestly services, and the weight of the various cultic objects. The biblical text did not preserve the actual plans and specifications mentioned, and the Temple Scroll supplies what is missing. This characterization of gap-filling, however, is only one way of construing the nature of the text. The Temple Scroll could alternatively be seen as a sectarian scroll, attesting to “a new Deuteronomy,” “the Qumran Torah,” or “a seconding of Sinai.” The Temple Scroll has several points of contact with sectarian scrolls. Two of the best known are the laws on bigamy and hanging. CD 4:20–21 stipulates a prohibition against taking “taking two wives in their lifetime.” There is a long-standing scholarly debate over the nature of this prohibition—does it rule against polygamy, divorce, and/or remarriage? My own view is that it is about bigamy and not divorce. The unusual use of the suffix (-hem) in CD to refer to two women is a clue to uncover the story of Jacob’s marriages to Rachel and Leah.80 The Temple Scroll likewise prohibits bigamous marriage to two women (11Q19 57:17–18), and it has been suggested that there is convergence and perhaps even dependence. CD 4:20–21, therefore, should be understood in the light of the ruling of the Temple Scroll.81 This harmonization of the sources, of course, is methodologically debatable. One could argue that each document should first be understood in its own terms. Important for the present discussion is that while the Temple Scroll and CD have the same prohibition, they draw on the common source of Lev 18:18 (“And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive”). The independence of the traditions is assured by the different formulation of the same law. The Temple Scroll is closer to the biblical text: “And he shall not take upon her (his wife) another wife, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life” (11Q19 57:17–18),82 whereas CD states quite distinctly that “they [i.e., the builders of the wall] are caught in two (traps): in fornication by taking two wives in their lifetime” (4:20–21). Based on these differences, it is unlikely that CD depends on the Temple Scroll. Rather CD and the Temple Scroll appear to draw, in their own way, on Lev 18:18. Another well-known point of contact concerns the interpretation of the biblical law of hanging in the Temple Scroll and Pesher Nahum (4Q169). Deut 21:22–23 specifies the procedure of the capital punishment in putting a man to death, impaling his corpse, and finally removing the body overnight. The Temple Scroll, however, rendered this passage as a law of killing by hanging when it inverted the biblical sequence to “you shall hang him” and “he shall die” (11QTS 64:6–13). It has often been suggested that the hanging of men alive, either by crucifixion or a rope, in 4QpNah (4Q169, frs. 3–4, col. 1, line 7) reflects the influence of the Temple 134

Scroll, but this dependence is called into question once it is realized that Paul too interpreted the same Deuteronomy passage as the cursed crucifixion of Jesus (Gal 3:13).83 Given the distinctive formulations of the law in each text, it is unlikely that the Temple Scroll, 4QpNah, and Galatians were literarily dependent on each other. More likely, they were drawing on a shared exegetical tradition that interpreted Deut 21 as a punishment of putting someone to death.

Enochic Traditions in the Scrolls The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) is a composite document containing five books (the book of Watchers, chs. 1–36; the book of Parables or Similitudes; chs. 37–71; the Astronomical book, chs. 72–82; the book of Dream Visions, chs. 83–90; and the Apocalypse of Weeks, chs. 91–105) and three appendices (the book of Noah, chs. 106– 107; another book written by Enoch, ch. 108; and the book of Giants) dating to different periods (ca. from 350 BCE to 75 CE). Eleven copies of Enoch were discovered in Cave 4; four of them are copies of the Astronomical book (4QEnastra–d), and the remaining seven are copies of other parts of 1 Enoch. There is no copy of the Similitudes, and the scrolls also include nine copies of the book of Giants (1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q206 2–3, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533, 6Q8), whose relationship to the book of Enoch is debated. There is also a very fragmentary text (1Q19) that has been possibly identified as the book of Noah. One or more parts of the composite book of Enoch influenced Jewish circles related to the sectarian community.84 For instance, the book of Jubilees refers to the authoritative status of Enoch and his writings several times, stating that “the work of Enoch had been created as a witness to the generations of the world so that he might report every deed of each generation in the day of judgment” (10:17; cf. 4:24; 7:39). In the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), there is a reference to “the Book of the Words of Noah,” and there may also be a commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks in a Qumran scroll (4Q247). It is not surprising, therefore, to find the influence of Enochic thought among explicitly sectarian scrolls. In 4Q180 and 4Q181, once called the “Ages of Creation” and also known as the “Pesher on the Periods,” there is an interpretation (pesher) concerning the ages that includes the story of the Watchers consorting with women known from 1 Enoch 6–16.85 The fragmentary text refers to Azazel, the angels, and the birth of the giants (4 ;‫גברים‬Q180 fr. 1, lines 7–8). The Damascus Document likewise is influenced by this myth of the Watchers. In CD 2:14–19, the admonition for the sectarian to please God and live perfectly is based on the warning against the “sinful urge” and “eyes of fornication,” by which many have gone astray, and even mighty warriors have stumbled. The influence of 1 Enoch is particularly evident in the consequent “falling” of “the Watchers of Heaven” (‫ ;עירי השמים‬cf. Dan 4) and the birth of offspring who were as tall as “the height of cedars” and whose bodies 135

were “as mountains.” The myth behind this reference, of course, is the story of the watchers or angels who descended from heaven because of their lust for the daughters of man, a legend based on Gen 6:1–4 but developed fully in the Enochic tradition.

The Use of the Hodayot in the Pesher As its title suggests, the Hodayot or Thanksgiving Psalms are liturgical songs akin to the biblical psalms. There are some thirty such psalms preserved in eight copies from Caves 1 and 4 (1QHa and 1QHb; 4QHa–f).86 These psalms are considered sectarian and are divided into the Teacher-hymns and the Community-hymns. It is probable that they had a role in the liturgical life of the community (cf. 1QS 6:8), but sectarian liturgy is itself a disputed matter. 1QH is the best preserved of the copies and shows numerous affinities with sectarian scrolls, especially the pesharim. It has been suggested that when the Habakkuk pesherist cited Hab 2:15, he derived the textual variant “their feasts” (1QpHab 11:3; MT: “their nakedness”) from 1QHa12:13 (cf. 1QHa 9:26). The difficulty with this view is that the term , meaning “feast,” is very common in the sectarian documents (e.g., CD 3:14; 1QS 4:18; 1QSa 2:2; 1Qm 2:6). The suffixed form is even attested several times (1QS 1:15; 10:5; 1QM 2:4; 11Q20). The significance of feasts and appointed times seems a more generally sectarian rather than a specifically Hodayot concern. More promising is the literary affinity between 1QpHab 11:2–8 and 1QH 12:5–12 on the use of six sobriquets (“violent or ruthless,” “lie or falsehood,” “seekers of smooth things,” “simple,” “poor,” and “interpreters of knowledge by wonderful mysteries”).87 This affinity is based on the use of a textual variant of “the traitors” in Hab 1:5 and its identification with the “ruthless ones” in both the Pesher Habakkuk and the Hodayot.88

The Hodayot and 4QInstruction 4QInstruction (1Q26 and 4Q415–418a, 418c, and 423) is a badly preserved text of uncertain length that appears to be an instruction manual for a student or mevin but with a broader audience in mind.89 It follows the traditional sapiential tradition as found in the book of Proverbs but adds a revelatory element to its teaching on the concept of raz nihyeh or “mystery that is to come.”90 The mevin is urged to gaze upon the mystery, to meditate on it, and to grasp it. The phrase and concept are also found in the Rule of the Community (1QS 11:3–4) and the book of mysteries (1Q27 fr. 1, col. 1, lines 3–4; also in 4Q300), but it is difficult to ascertain the nature of the dependence. They seem to be sharing a tradition, wider than the sectarian thought-world, that synthesizes traditional wisdom teachings with apocalyptic modes of divine revelation. 4QInstruction shares a number of features with 1QHodayot. The two texts take the overall perspective of instruction. They settle on the didactic posture of teaching all those who want to learn wisdom and to do the works of truth. The target audience is, 136

moreover, the elect to whom God has revealed the divine plan in the context of creation. Notably, the two texts share the exact words: “according to their knowledge they will receive honour, each one more than his neighbour” (4Q418 fr. 55, line 10, and 1QHa 18:29–30). It is difficult to say which text cited the other. They could both be citing a third source that was considered authoritative. The sectarians who wrote some of the Dead Sea Scrolls had a notion of authoritative scriptures, but it was not developed. On one level, the concept is formal. It is about groups of traditional writings, whether they be the five books of Moses, different prophetic collections, or the psalms. I have argued that their authoritative scriptures may be characterized broadly as a bipartite collection. The Torah of Moses is most likely the Pentateuch. The books of the Prophets include various individual prophecies and sub-collections of prophetical books (e.g., the Minor Prophets, Samuel-Kings, etc.). The Psalms, and not necessarily the Great Psalms Scroll as such, were certainly regarded as a collection, but it is questionable that they formed the nucleus of a third division. It is unlikely that the psalms were part of a third division since a second division of prophetical books does not appear to have been closed or defined. Moreover, the psalms appear to have been considered prophetic. This formal notion of authoritative scriptures is manifest in some of the things that the sectarians said and assumed. The sectarian scrolls interpret this traditional collection of authoritative scriptures in various ways, using techniques of direct and indirect citation and reformulation. The biblical texts have a formal authority, but the sectarian interpretation has contemporary authority. In fact, more often than not the sectarian interpretation governs the meaning of the biblical text; it is not what the biblical text says that is ultimately authoritative but what the sectarian scrolls understood it to have meant. I have discerned this textual phenomenon as the dual pattern of authority by which the traditional biblical text serves as the source of the sectarian interpretation but is also in turn defined by it. The sectarian hermeneutics subvert the biblical texts by wresting control of the meaning from the biblical text. What is important is not what Moses, David, Isaiah, Habakkuk, etc. said but what the sectarians understood them to have meant. The locus of authority sits on both the authoritative interpretation and the biblical text. The notion of authoritative scriptures also admits patterns other than the relationship between the traditional biblical texts and their interpretation. The conceptual advantage of using “authoritative scriptures” over “canon” comes to the fore in this respect. There is no need to limit the examination to the books that eventually made it into the canon because the sectarians did not yet have a notion of a closed list of authoritative books. They appear to have used non-biblical material, including their own sectarian writings, in the same way that they used the biblical texts. Authority is implied in various ways—by citation, allusion, borrowings, and 137

incorporation of common traditions. Moreover, the source of the authority is not the biblical text as such; it is non-biblical, traditional material (e.g., the book of Jubilees, the books of Enoch) or specifically sectarian compositions (e.g., pesher, Hodayot). To be sure, this traditional and sectarian material is associated with the biblical texts, whether directly (as in the case of the pesher, secondary anthologies of the biblical texts) or indirectly (e.g., the book of Jubilees, the book of Enoch, Hodayot, the sources of the Rule of the Community). But it is not biblical. It was argued above that the nexus of diverse relationships among these non-biblical, but nonetheless authoritative, texts may be characterized by a graded authority. The authority of various non-biblical texts seems to be on a sliding scale of importance. The book of Jubilees and pesher have the strongest claim to authority by virtue of what the sectarian texts said about them and what they did with their content. They are explanations and interpretations of the traditional biblical texts, but they are themselves also considered authoritative. One has to wonder: had the sectarians developed a canon, would these texts have been included in their list? The gradation of authority in the remaining material is less clear. Further work needs to be done to tease out the relationship among them. For instance, how is the use of the quotation in the Hodayot and 4QInstruction any different from the use of sources in S and other rule texts? An important reason for this graded authority is that the sectarians believed that revelation had not ceased. God continued to reveal his will to the Teacher of Righteousness, the pesherists, and the community. This belief blurs the boundary between the traditional authority of Moses and ancient prophets and that which was still being revealed to the community of the renewed covenant. A formal distinction may be drawn between the biblical text and the interpretation, but in practice the line is fuzzy as authority, often greater than that of the biblical source-text, is conferred on the interpretation.

138

8 The Holy Books of the Essenes and Therapeutae

It is difficult to know with certainty what the Essenes and Therapeutae understood by way of one or more collections of authoritative scriptures since what we know about both Jewish groups is derivative. The description of the Essenes is to be found in a few classical and patristic sources, not wholly independent of each other, and the Therapeutae are recounted only in the writings of Philo.1 Because of this narrow evidential base, it is essential to situate the sources in their literary context. How did Philo and Josephus characterize the scriptures of the Essenes and Therapeutae?

The Essenes’ Ancestral Laws Philo describes the Essenes a few times in his literary oeuvre; the most important of these descriptions are to be found in Apologia Pro Iudaies and Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit. The former is a reference to Hypothetica, the title given by Philo to his work. It is preserved as an extract in Praeparatio Evangelica 8.5, 11, and Eusebius was responsible for describing the contents as “the apology for the Jews” (8.10, 19).2 The latter, “for every good man is free,” is the second part of a larger work that discusses the relationship between ethics and civil freedom in a way that is reminiscent of Stoic ideals. This too is preserved as a fragment in the same work by Eusebius (book 8, chapter 12). The authenticity of this latter excerpt has previously been questioned but is now generally accepted as genuine. It is in Probus 75–91 that Philo hints at the kind of writings that were considered authoritative. He describes how the the Essaioi (variant of Essenes), who numbered some four thousand in Palestinian Syria, were models of ethical living. Their virtue is indicated by their name, which Philo acknowledges is not Greek and thinks it means “holiness,” and exemplified by the way they live. The Essenes flee from the cities and towns and instead live in villages, in order to avoid the ungodliness of the town dwellers. The rationale for the avoidance is the corrupting influence of intermingling with the ungodly, which Philo compares to the spread of disease: “As noxious air breeds epidemics there, so does the social life afflict the soul with incurable ills” (76). Philo’s description is idealistic. He portrays the Essenes as rural, peaceful agriculturalists who are entirely unconcerned with material goods and weapons of war. Apparently, they do not hoard silver and gold or amass wealth to generate revenue (76); moreover, there are no makers of arrows, javelins, swords, helmets, armor, or shields among them (78). There are no slaves among them, and their lives are characterized by mutual support and help: “There are no slaves among them, not a single one, but being all free they help one another” (78–79); “they are useful to themselves and to their 139

neighbours” (76). It is an ideal based on the biblical command to love your neighbor, who is like you (Lev 19.18, 34).3 Idealism is also evident in the incongruous way that Philo describes the Essenes’ attitude toward goods and property: “Almost alone among all mankind, they live without goods and without property” (77). This is at odds with what Philo just stated about the Essenes working in the fields (76). The reference to authoritative writings occurs in the next section of Prob. (80–82), where Philo’s description of the Essenes moves from their customs to philosophy. He first contrasts the emphasis of the Essenes on ethics over philosophy, which he associates with “word-chasers” and “street orators” (80), probably a reference to rhetorical sophistry. This philosophy, in his words, “is useless in the acquisition of virtue,” except in teaching about God and the creation of the universe (80). By contrast, the Essenes devote themselves to the moral part of philosophy. What Philo writes may be literally translated as follows: “They work out ethics rather well, using as teachers the ancestral laws which it is impossible for a human mind to think up without someone being divinely inspired .” Philo uses in several other places in his writings (Somn. 1.69, 129; Mos. 1.22, 48; Spec. 2.98; and Praem. 5) to compare the discipline of virtue to the athletic regime of trainers. The phrase πατρίοι νόμοι is used in other places to refer specifically to the laws of the book of Exodus (QE 2.14; cf. Hypoth. 7.11), though here he probably had a reference to pentateuchal laws more generally. He attributes their origins to divine inspiration. According to Philo, the pedagogic role of the ancestral laws is shown by their use within the community (81–82). The Essenes instruct themselves at various times with these laws, but especially on the holy seventh day. On the Sabbath, they cease their work and gather in holy places, called synagogues, and sit in an orderly fashion according to age. One of them takes and reads the books and another, more experienced member explains whatever is not clear since the laws are given enigmatically through symbols. This Essenic custom corresponds to the pattern of reading and explanation in Neh 8 and may reflect synagogal practice. Notably, there is no mention of the complementary prophetic portion of the haftharah. It would seem that the Essenes, at least in Philo’s portrayal, only had the Pentateuch as authoritative scriptures.

The Holy Books of Laws and Prophetical Sayings Josephus includes a description of the Essenes in a number of passages in his works, the most important of which for the present purposes is his description of the three schools in War 2.119–161. This long account may have once belonged to an independent source since Hippolytus also used it in his history of the three Jewish sects (Refutation of all Heresies 9.18–28). The broad context of the passage is Josephus’ narrative concerning the 140

transformation of Archelaus’ territory into a Roman province in 6 CE. Coponious was sent as the procurator of the province, and under his administration a revolt flared up under the leadership of the Galilean Judas, who convinced his followers to refuse Roman taxation and to submit to no one except God. The sect led by Judas is elsewhere called the “fourth philosophy” (Ant. 18.9, 23). Mention of Judas’ sect then calls to mind the three sects of Judaism of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Josephus describes the Essenes’ communal life, their daily routine, initiation, disposition, and beliefs, ending with a brief notice about another order of Essenes who differed only in their attitude to marriage. Josephus’ characterization of the Essenes’ authoritative writings differs from Philo’s in important respects. He calls them “holy books” and says that some of the Essenes were trained in their study (159). What Josephus probably meant by these holy books was the Pentateuch. He associates them to “different sorts of purifications,” which ostensibly refers to the purity laws in Leviticus and Numbers. Given that Josephus also has the lawgiver in view (152), it is likely that these holy books refer not just to Leviticus and Numbers, but also to all five books of Moses. Elsewhere in his writings, Josephus uses the same term, “holy books,” and qualifies it with “of Moses” (e.g., Ant. 1.26; 10.58, 10.63). In War 2.159, the phrase is followed by two explanatory clauses (“and different purifications” and “and prophetic apophtegms”) that define the content of the holy books. The holy books therefore must also have included some undefined prophetical writings in addition to the Pentateuch. Thus, according to Josephus, some of the Essenes are educated in the study of the holy books and become expert foretellers of the future, rarely erring in their predictions. Josephus’ characterization of the Essene authoritative scriptures corresponds well to what was described in the previous chapter about the sectarian conception of the Torah and a broadly defined group of prophetical writings. Additionally, Josephus corroborates the authoritative status of other writings when he describes how the initiated Essene swears to preserve “the books of their sect and the names of the Angels” (War 2.142). The sectarian books also had authority, and they are distinguishable from the biblical books.4 Josephus’ description of the Essenes’ authoritative scriptures is reliable, given that elsewhere he says that the Jewish canon is the twenty-two-book tripartite canon. He must have been following his source when he described the Essene holy books as broadly bipartite. Philo, on the other hand, appears to have described the Essenes’ authoritative scriptures in line with the Alexandrian understanding of the Pentateuch as the authoritative ancestral laws (see chapter 5).

The Holy Scriptures of the Therapeutae Knowledge of the Therapeutae is derived from a single source whose authenticity has 141

previously been challenged. “On the Contemplative Life” (De Vita Contemplativa) is now widely regarded as genuine. Its genuineness was once doubted because the description of the Therapeutae resembled that of the monastic life. Moreover, Philo’s negative comments about Plato (Contempl. 59–62) seem incongruous with his open admiration of the Greek philosopher. But resemblance between the Therapeutae and Christian monks is not an a priori reason for doubting Contempl.’s authenticity. It could be argued that it was a Christian forgery if we also knew that there were no Jewish groups devoted to the contemplative life. Moreover, Philo’s critique of the Symposium is not necessarily inconsistent with his admiration of the Greek philosopher. Platonic thought is followed, but the criticism against homosexuality is based on the book of Leviticus, whose stance against same-sex intercourse is authoritative for Philo. Philo mentions the authoritative scriptures of the Therapeutae in the context of describing their dwellings and contemplative habits (24–28). Before this, Philo introduces the Therapeutae by tracing the etymology of their name to healing (1–2). He then draws comparisons with Greek philosophy and sophistry and the Egyptian worship of animals (4–10) and asserts that “the therapeutic kind” is superior in its quest for the divine Being (11). These Therapeutae are superior because, according to Philo, they are otherworldly: they are carried away by a heavenly love, and they believe that their mortal life has already ended (12–13). Thus while still alive, they leave behind their inheritance for the benefit of others and do not simply abandon their property and possessions to ruin as some Greek ascetics do (13–17). The Therapeutae also divest themselves of their social relationships, abandoning their family and friends, lest they ensnare them, and live in isolated places, beyond the city walls (18–20). They are found in many parts of the known world but especially in Egypt, in each of the nomes or districts, and in every neighborhood of Alexandria, notably a settlement upon a low hill above Lake Mareotic (21–23). Philo then goes on to provide an extended description of the Therapeutae’s dwellings and customs, comparing them when he deems appropriate to the practices of the Greeks (24–90). The immediate context of the notice is the description of the dwellings (24–28). The Therapeutae live in modest individual dwellings, not too close to nor far apart from each other, and in each house there is a holy room, called the sanctuary and monastery, into which nothing is brought except sacred books: “but only the law and the oracles delivered under inspiration by the prophets along with the Psalms, and the other (books) by means of which religion and sound knowledge grow together into one perfect whole” (25). Further on, Philo calls these books “the holy scriptures” (28). What is translated above as “the law” literally reads “laws” . It is one of the terms Philo uses to describe the five books of Moses. The prophet Moses is mentioned subsequently (64), and it is reasonable to suppose that here the laws refer to the Pentateuch. The clause “the oracles under inspiration through the prophets” is a conventional way of describing 142

prophecies in Jewish Greek literature. What is unclear is whether Philo had in mind three or four divisions. The Greek conjunction is ambiguous. It could mean either that the “psalms” were part of the Prophets (i.e., “along with Psalms,” as in the above translation) or that they comprised a separate division (i.e., “and the Psalms”). There is no way of deciding based on grammar. The final category is simply notated by “the others” ( ), implying the plural noun “books.” Again the conjunction could mean either that the other books are part of the Prophets and Psalms or that they are a separate division. The accompanying description is too general to help identify what these other books might have contained (“by means of which religion and sound knowledge grow together into one perfect whole”). The definite article is required by the grammar and does not imply a closed division.5 The authoritative scriptures of the Therapeutae could be a bi-, tri-, or quadripartite collection. Philo also mentions that the Therapeutae have produced their own writings, including allegorical interpretations and hymns. Some of these sectarian writings were drafted by the founders of the sect, while others were being composed by members of the sect. The authoritative nature of these sectarian writings is not only ensured by the antiquity of the authorship, but also by their use as exemplars of an ideal character to be emulated (29). Both the biblical and sectarian texts have authority, but they are not indistinct. What Philo says about the Therapeutae’s authoritative scriptures appears to be idealized. The mechanical and material aspects of book production need to be taken into consideration in assessing its historical validity. Philip Davies argues that canons emerge out of the influence of the intellectual circles of the scribal class. It is the scribes who preserve the scriptures of biblical Israel by faithfully copying, adding, and shaping both the form and traditum. These social factors are evident in Qohelet and Ben Sira, the latter notably with the mention of the house of study (Sira 51:23).6 Menahem Haran traces the development of the writing material of biblical books and argues that “the use of skins as the standard material for copying books of importance was one of the practices adopted and brought by the Jews returning from Babylonia.”7 Haran argues that the switch from the use of papyrus to skin took place at the end of the Assyrian period and in the Neo-Babylonian empire. Haran adduces linguistic evidence of texts from the city of Erech that denote two scribes, “one who writes on skin” (KUŠ.ŠAR) and “one who writes on clay tablets” (DUB.ŠAR). Moreover, the reliefs of the last Assyrian kings, from Tiglath Pileser III onward, depict scribes recording on both cuneiform clay tablets and skins. The frequency of use of skin increases in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, so much so that clay tablets as writing material are altogether eclipsed by the beginning of the Common Era. Haran associates the greater use of skin with the spread of the Aramaic language. He adduces Ctesias of Cnidos’ statement, reported in Diodorus, that the Persians record their events on “royal skins” and suggests that the dikhronah or the memorandum of 143

Cyrus’ edict in Ezra 6:1–2 may also have been written on skin. For Haran, it is the “Aramaizing” of daily life that is the reason for the Jewish adoption of the use of skin for copying biblical scrolls. Given the costs of book production, especially if they followed the custom of requiring skin for copying out sacred texts, and the impecunity of the Therapeutae, it seems to me unlikely that each member had the equivalent of the Torah, prophetical writings, psalms, and other books in each of his sacred rooms. The Philonic depiction would imply that the Therapeutae each had a mini-library in the home. Instead, his characterization could have been of the holy books of the Therapeutae in general. Since Philo’s own understanding of the holy books is the Pentateuch (see chapter 5), he would have been following his source at this point, even if he did not entirely do so faithfully, despite the protestations of his polemical introduction (1–2). The Essenes and Therapeutae were two ancient Jewish groups that were previously associated with the communities of the scrolls. Recent scholarship has critically reviewed the links between these communities. Joan Taylor and Philip Davies have questioned the association of the Therapeutae, who lived in Egypt by Lake Mareotic, with the Essenes, who dwelled in Palestine.8 They have further argued that the name “therapeutae” means “attendants” of God and not “healers,” as was previously supposed.9 Objections have also been raised over the characterization of “the Qumran community.” John Collins has contended that it is misleading to use the term “the Qumran community” since the communities described in the Damascus Document and different versions of the Rule of the Community do not presuppose a Khirbet Qumran setting alone. He has advocated a dispersal of multiple communities, with a quorum of ten men, throughout Judaea and in keeping with the various locations of the Essenes.10 Our conclusion is consistent with the view that the sectarian communities are to be identified with the Essenes. Josephus’ description of a broadly bipartite collection of authoritative scriptures of the Essenes converges well with what we know of the sectarian scrolls’ use of the biblical texts. Moreover, the Essenes, like the scrolls communities, held that books composed by the sect were also authoritative and distinct from the biblical texts. The link between the Therapeutae and the Essene and scrolls communities has been rightly questioned. On first encounter, it would seem that the Therapeutae also had a concept of authoritative scriptures different from that of the scrolls and Essene communities. However, a closer examination shows that what Philo says about the authoritative scriptures of the Therapeutae is highly idealized. The grammar is, moreover, ambiguous and could refer to two, three, or four internal divisions.

144

9 Canon in the Gospels and Pauline Letters

It is a truism to say that the Christian gospel was seen to complement the authoritative scriptures of ancient Judaism. The notion of fulfillment permeates the New Testament writers’ way of relating the significance of Jesus’ life and death to the words of Jewish scriptures (e.g., Mark 14:49; Matt 26:56; Luke 4:21; Acts 1:16; John 19:36; James 2:23). This fulfillment was expressed variously as the foretelling of ancient prophecy (e.g., Matt 2:15; Acts 3:18); the accomplishment of something that had been predicted (e.g., Matt 8:17; John 12:38; Rom 1:2); or the reader’s discovery of the true meaning of an ancient oracle (e.g., Acts 8:34–35). Ascertaining what these authoritative scriptures were, however, is more difficult than is often thought. The authors of the New Testament took for granted what they regarded as authoritative scriptures. Paul, for instance, was more concerned with the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles and the nurturing of the fledgling churches in Italy, Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia Minor than he was with defining his canon. “According to the sources preserved for us,” Martin Hengel noted, “the question of a delimited canon was not a problem considered or discussed. It was believed to be self-evident that one could know what were ‘Holy Scriptures.’”1 Another difficulty surrounds the contentious task of extracting historical information from literary texts. Many scholars have turned away from the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels as a way of describing what he did and believed. Ed Sanders, for instance, focuses on deeds to reconstruct the historical Jesus.2 Other scholars avoid historical issues altogether and limit themselves to the literary portrayals in the Gospels, speaking instead of a Matthean, Markan, Johannine, and Lukan “Jesus.” In the following it will be argued that Luke and Paul had an implied notion of authoritative scriptures. Matthew 23:34–36 is problematic as evidence for the existence of a closed canon from Genesis to Chronicles since the passage is not intended to define the beginning and end of a list of books. It selectively draws out biblical figures from Abel to Zechariah to exemplify the shedding of innocent blood. Luke 24:44, by contrast, does attest to at least a tripartite collection. “Moses” and “the prophets” are metonyms for the writings that belong to the first two divisions, the Torah and the Prophets. “The psalms,” however, do not represent all the books included in the unnamed third division, nor was this third division called “the Writings.” Paul belonged to a Jewish sect that had a canon that was determined but not yet defined. To call his bible “the Septuagint,” however, is simplistic. Paul certainly knew the Septuagint, but he most commonly cited biblical passages that belong to the textually uniform tradition of the LXX and MT. Paul’s citation of texts with an introductory 145

formula is an important, but incomplete, indicator of what he considered canonical. Writing in the 50s, Paul was a Pharisee, and this background, widely accepted as genuine, is seen to be a key to the view that he was heir to an emerging, but not yet defined, canon.

From Abel to Zechariah Roger Beckwith has argued that Jesus knew the tripartite canon.3 According to him, when Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew and referred to the death of Abel and Zechariah, he had in mind the whole Tanak, from Genesis to Chronicles, in its traditional order. The Gospel of Matthew states the following: Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation (23:34–36).

Beckwith did not discuss whether this anti-Pharisaic passage was an authentic saying of Jesus; he simply assumed it. He pointed out that the parallel passage in Luke 11:49–51 included the significant addition that all the martyrs in question were described as “prophets,” rather than denoted as prophets, wise men, and scribes, as they are in the Matthean version. For Beckwith, Jesus had denounced the Pharisees and laid the guilt of taking innocent blood on them by an appeal to the whole of the Old Testament, encapsulated, as he saw it, in the phrase “from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah.” Beckwith identified Abel as the one murdered by his brother Cain according to the account in Genesis 4. The identification of Zechariah, however, was more problematic since there are numerous individuals known by that name in the Old Testament and ancient Judaism. Beckwith first discussed four possible candidates: (1) Zechariah the prophet (Zech 1:1, 7); (2) the “faithful witness” Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah (a longer form of Berechiah or Barachiah; Isa 8:2); (3) Zechariah, the son of Baruch, who was murdered by the Zealots just before the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem (Josephus, War 4.334–344); and (4) Zechariah the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1). The second of these Zechariahs is disqualified by Beckwith because he was not known to be a prophet or martyr. Also, Beckwith asserted that “it would have been strange if Jesus ended his reckoning at the Book of Isaiah.”4 The third Zechariah is also disqualified because Josephus’ description of the location of his death is not specific enough; it was stated that the Zealots murdered Zechariah “in the middle of the Temple,” whereas Jesus specified that it was “between the sanctuary and the altar.” Also, Jesus was speaking about the past and not the future. Beckwith did not consider the possibility that it may have been the evangelist who, writing at the end of the first century, was referring to traditions preserved in Josephus. 146

Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are dated to between 80 and 100 CE, and there is nothing to exclude the possibility that they may have known a tradition also found in Josephus. As for the specificity of the location, that is a literary question and not one about the identification of the Zechariah in Josephus’ account: “in the middle of the Temple” is not incompatible with the more specific location of “between the sanctuary and the altar.” Zechariah the father of John the Baptist is also ruled out of consideration by Beckwith, despite the identification of early Christian writings, on account of the nature of the New Testament Apocrypha, which do not provide independent tradition but “fanciful elaboration of things recorded in the canonical gospels.”5 Moreover, John the Baptist’s father was never known to have had the patronym of the son of Barachiah. Having eliminated three of the four Zechariahs, Beckwith then considered the prophet (Zechariah number 1) along with a fifth candidate, Zechariah the son of the priest Jehoiada. This latter figure lived in the time of King Joash (835–796 BCE) and prophesied against the wicked officials of Judah who transgressed the commandments of Yahweh and reverted to Baal worship. The officials in turn conspired against him, and he was stoned to death (2 Chron 24:19–22). The problem with the identification of the prophet Zechariah is that he was not known to have been martyred, whereas the difficulty in equating the Zechariah mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel with his namesake of 2 Chr 24 is that the latter never had a patronymic epithet “the son of Berachiah” attached to his name; he was known as “the son of Jehoiada” ( v. 20), which Beckwith interpreted to mean “the descendant of Jehoiada.” Beckwith tried to explain away this difficulty by suggesting that Zechariah was not the literal son of the priest Jehoiada, who died at 130 years of age, but his grandson, a consideration, moreover, that meant that Zechariah may have had a father named Berachiah.6 But 2 Chronicles does not say that Jehoiada was Zechariah’s grandfather or that he had a father called Berachiah. While it is possible that “son of” could mean “descendant of,”7 2 Chronicles 24:22 unambiguously states that Jehoiada was Zechariah’s father (“his father” ) and not his grandfather.8 Beckwith was aware of how tenuous was his explanation. So he finally opted to interpret Jesus to be referring to both the prophet Zechariah and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. Invoking the use of the rabbinic technique of “homiletic identification”—that is, the conflation of different individuals of the same name in the Hebrew Bible—Beckwith argued that Jesus used this technique and identified both Zechariahs, the canonical prophet and the son of Jehoiada, in order to make a sermonic rather than a historical point about the vengeance of innocent blood. There is no evidence, however, that Jesus or any of the New Testament writers knew and used this technique elsewhere. Moreover, it would be an unnatural reading of Matthew 23:35 since the reference to Abel is to a singular figure. It would be decidedly odd that that reference would then be coupled with a composite figure of Zechariah. 147

Beckwith’s rather involved argument is unconvincing. It depends on the piling up of a series of questionable theories and assumptions: (1) Jesus was not only aware of the rabbinic technique of “homiletic identification,” but he was also using it in his reference to two Zechariahs; (2) Jesus must have been referring to the traditional Jewish canon; and (3) the order of the books was the same as that found in Baba Bathra. We do no know what concept of canon, if any, Jesus held. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as teaching primarily in parables, and he uses scriptures in his dispute with the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.9 Matthew 23 should be understood within the context of the Gospel’s hostile attitude toward the Pharisees, who figure as prominent opponents of Jesus. Throughout the Gospel, the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees and Herodians, are portrayed in a negative light as they attempt to test or trick Jesus but never succeed. They are concerned with the finer points of the law: eating with tax collectors and sinners (9:11); plucking grain on the Sabbath (12:2); posing questions about purity laws (15:1–9) and divorce (19:3). In collusion with the Herodians, they try to trap Jesus on the issue of Roman taxation (22:15). In 9:32–34 and 12:22–32, they accuse Jesus of using demonic forces to exorcise a demon from one possessed (“It is only by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons, that this fellow casts out the demons”; 12:24). In 5:20, there appears to be an exception to the negative portrayal of the Pharisees. Jesus states, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” This seems to be a tacit admission that the scribes and Pharisees excel in righteousness and that “the crowds” (the lost sheep of 9.36) ought to emulate them. However, in chapter 23 Jesus denounces the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, snakes, and vipers, for their actions do not match their teachings; they do not practice what they preach, for they are pompous and prefer the outer trappings of religiosity over the inner righteousness of God. The theme of inconsistency between the outer show of rituals and the humble, inner spirituality also appears in 6:5, 16, and 7:5, although the Pharisees are not mentioned. In 15:12–14 Jesus accuses the Pharisees of upholding the tradition of the elders while neglecting the commandments of God. Given what Matthew says about them elsewhere, 5:20 is best understood as profound irony rather than as a genuine recognition of the Pharisees’ righteousness. The attitude toward the Pharisees in chapter 23 has more to do with the Gospel of Matthew than with the historical Jesus. In the Gospels the descriptions of the Pharisees vary from one account to the next.10 Common among them is the depiction of the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus, whether as the main rivals and/or leaders of the Jews. There is also an emphasis on their expertise as interpreters and strict observers of the law.11 The perceptible difference in the way that the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels appears to reflect the rise of the Pharisaic party as the dominant party of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple and the recognition of their influence 148

by the Christian communities. Mark portrays the Pharisees primarily as opponents of Jesus on matters of legal observance (Mark 2:16; 2:23–4; 3:1–6; 10:2–10). They are not involved in the passion narrative and the crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew is entirely hostile to the Pharisees, and they have a small role in asking Pilate to provide soldiers to guard the tomb in case Jesus’ disciples should steal his body and claim that he has resurrected (Matt 27:62–65). Luke-Acts treats the Pharisees with far less hostility. The Pharisees do criticize Jesus for sharing food with sinners and tax collectors, but their disagreement about food purity does not prevent them from participating in the banquets (Lk 7:36–39; 11.37; 14:1). Disagreements are over the degree of legal observance. In Acts, the Pharisees are, moreover, portrayed as a party with political clout (e.g., the influence of the Pharisee Gamaliel in the council, Acts 5.34, or the insistence of the party of the Pharisees in the apostolic council on the circumcision of Gentile believers, Acts 15:5). In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, along with the chief priests, are in charge, and they are the driving force behind the opposition to Jesus (John 7:45–52, 11:45–53). When the Matthean Jesus refers to the innocent blood from Abel to Zechariah son of Berachiah, he is not setting out the limits of the canon. He is drawing lessons from scripture about the shedding of innocent blood, exemplified by the deaths of all the righteous ones from Abel to Zechariah. Zechariah is possibly the “Zechariah son of Jehoiada” mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:19–22. Significantly, Luke 11:51 does not include the patronym “the son of Berachiah,” and its addition is probably a Matthean error of reference, confusing the one Zechariah of the monarchic period with the exilic prophet Zechariah who is explicitly called “the son of Berechiah” (Zech 1:1). Some scholars would see this as Matthew’s addition to Q. There are some thirty different Zechariahs known in the Hebrew Bible alone, and it is not surprising that a mistaken identity could arise.12 The prepositions “from” (ἀπό) and “until” (ἕως) indicate the range of examples to which the Matthean Jesus’ words refer. The examples of spilling innocent blood are drawn from pre-history, in the form of Adam’s second son Abel, until the ninth century and the figure of the prophet Zechariah during the reign of King Joash. But these are not the first and last recorded murders of the prophets of God in the Hebrew Bible as is sometimes thought. Abel was a shepherd whose sacrifice inexplicably garnered the favor of Yahweh (Gen 4:4); he was not a prophet, wise man, or scribe. In Hebrews 11:4, his more acceptable sacrifice, compared to that of Cain, was considered an act of faith and righteousness, but the sprinkled blood of Jesus speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel (12:24). When Jesus referred to Abel in Matthew 23:35, he was pointing to a biblical example of the spilling of innocent blood and not the killing of a messenger of God; it was a proof by example of only one element of the prophecy, the spilling of innocent blood. It was the example of Zechariah that was the proof of the murder of God’s prophets.13 As for the claim that Zechariah was the last of the murdered prophets, that is unlikely to be correct. Jeremiah 26:20–23 indicates that Uriah, the son of Shemaiah from Kiriath149

jearim, who prophesied against the city and land and fled to Egypt, was brought back and murdered by King Jehoiakim and his officials in the late seventh or early sixth century BCE. The account of the stoning of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:19–22 but is not found in the parallel account of 2 Kings 11–12. This nonsynoptic material shows that it is an independent tradition that the Chronicler had but was not found in the books of Kings. Jesus in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, appears to know this same tradition, and it is a reasonable assumption that the former may reflect a tradition that he read it in a scroll of Chronicles or a source also used by the Chronicler. But it does not mean that Chronicles was the last book of the canon that the Matthean Jesus had in mind. The book of Chronicles is last in the order of the accepted Tanak, and it is also last in the list embedded in Baba Bathra. But it is found in the middle order, after Reigns or Samuel and Kings, in the early canonical lists of Melito and Origen (see appendix 2). It is also unlikely that Chronicles was included in the third division of Josephus’ canonical notice since that was described as the remaining four books of hymns and precepts. In other words, the passage of Matthew 23:34–36 is about the selective use of biblical examples drawn from the time of Adam to the monarchic period of the ninth century to bolster Jesus’ prophecy against the Pharisees. It is not an exhaustive list of the first and last murdered prophets. More important, it does not say or imply much, if anything, about the canon of Jesus; as a would-be canonical notice, it is rather inconsequential.14

Luke 24:44 and the Tripartite Canon According to some scholars, Luke 24:44 is indicative of a tripartite canon or at least an incipient one.15 The verse states the following: Then he [i.e., Jesus] said to them [i.e., his disciples], “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” (Emphasis added)

The passage occurs in the post-resurrection narrative, after Jesus had appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, had supper with them, disappeared from them, and finally reappeared to those who were gathered in Jerusalem. That the subject is the scriptures there is little doubt. The issue is whether the Lukan Jesus was referring to a tripartite canon of the Torah, Prophets, and the Writings. Those who take this view usually interpret “the psalms” as the third category pars pro toto, the part representing the whole of the third division of “the Writings.” John Barton, however, has pointed out that the three sections mentioned in Luke 24:44 are the exception to the overwhelmingly bipartite reference to “the Law and the Prophets” in the New Testament.16 Barton’s point is not just about the internal divisions of the canon in New Testament times, but also whether the canon remained open and 150

comprised of books in addition to those that were eventually included in the Jewish canon. Craig Evans has added that there is a close connection among David, the psalms, and prophecy in Luke-Acts (cf. Acts 1:16, 20; 2:30; 4:25), which means that in v. 44 the “‘prophets and the psalms’ should probably be taken together.”17 Evans holds that all the things written about Jesus are found in the Law and Prophets (including the Psalms), not the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Luke 24:44 should be read in the light of vv. 25–27 of the same chapter: And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Linguistic links between vv. 27 and 44 are evident (εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐλάλησαν/ ἐλάλησα, ἔδει//δεῖ, Mωϋσέως, πάσαις/πάντα, τῶν προφητῶν/τοῖς προφήταις and ταῖς γραφαῖς/τὰ γεγραμμένα).18 In v. 27, it states that “beginning from Moses and from all the prophets he [i.e., Jesus] interpreted to them [i.e., Cleopas and his companion] in all the scriptures the things concerning him.” The participial phrase “beginning from” (ἀρξάμενος ἀπό) points to something beyond “Moses” and “the prophets.” Given that the Lukan Jesus is interpreting texts, the nouns “Moses” and “the prophets” would naturally represent writings believed to have been written by or associated with them. Moreover, they function as categories of collections of writings, and they are consistent with the first two divisions of the Torah and the Prophets. The Lukan Jesus, then, must have begun from the texts of these two divisions and interpreted “all the scriptures” to Cleopas and his companion concerning himself. The phrase “all the scriptures” is Luke’s way of saying that the entirety of Jewish scriptures attest to Jesus. It implies that there is at least a third division of scripture, distinct from Moses and the prophets; it could, of course, imply more than one other division. The mention of “the psalms” in v. 44 specifies what else was included in “all the scriptures” of v. 27, but they are unlikely to be equivalent. The psalms are mentioned because Luke gives them a prominent place in his writings. Luke is unique among New Testament authors to single out the book of psalms;19 there are explicit references to “the book of psalms” in the introductory formulas of Luke 20:42 and Acts 1:20.20 There is also no evidence that “the psalms” represent the whole of this third division or that this third division was called “the Writings” or Kethuvim.21 Read together, vv. 27 and 44 of chapter 24 imply a canon that included more than the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets. Luke does not specify which books were included in these collections, but the law of Moses is likely to have included the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch. There is some uncertainty about which books were included in the Prophets. Luke’s citation of passages from the prophetic books is dependent upon Mark and Matthew. C. K. Barrett states that “Luke’s contribution to the Christian use of the OT is very small” 151

and points to his distinctive use of Isaiah in Luke 4:18, 19, and 22:37.22 Nonetheless, the use of scripture beyond verbatim citations is pervasive. “It is safe to say,” Barrett declares, “that there is no major concept in the two books [i.e., Luke-Acts] that does not to some extent reflect the beliefs and theological vocabulary of the OT.”23 It is potentially confusing that the psalms were also considered prophetic by Luke because David was believed to have been the author of the psalms (Acts 1:16; 4:25) and he was regarded as a prophet (Acts 2:30). In the light of our interpretation of v. 27, the psalms must have been included in a third division, but they were nonetheless also considered prophetic, in the sense that they were believed to have issued from the mouth of one considered to be a prophet. Phrased differently, for Luke the psalms were not prophetic in the canonical division sense of the word, but they were prophetic because they were believed to have come from David, who was considered a prophet (Acts 2:30).24 For him, not every book that was considered prophetic was included in the second division of the Prophets. In fact, it is possible that for Luke all scriptures were prophetic. Luke 24:25 states that the suffering of the Christ before his glorification was spoken about by the prophets, implying that all the scriptures, including the books found in the canonical divisions of “Moses” and “the prophets,” were prophetic (vv. 26–27). Acts 3:22 quotes Deut 18:15 and the raising up of a prophet like Moses. Within the context of Peter’s speech to the crowd (Acts 3:11–4:4), it is clear that Luke, following Deuteronomy, also considered Moses a prophet. One way of reconciling these views is to postulate that for Luke all scriptures were by nature prophetic,25 but they were not all included in the second division of the canon. Since he also maintained distinctions between the books of “Moses” and “the Prophets” and those found in a third, unnamed category, he must also have been following a tradition that by the end of the first century had already differentiated the scriptural books into at least three canonical divisions.

Paul, the Septuagint, and Textual Classification It is surprising that many scholars take for granted that what the apostle had by way of authoritative scriptures was the Septuagint.26 This assumption needs to be examined. More often than not, it refers to the verbatim scriptural citations in the Pauline letters that agree with the purported source-passages in the LXX. Typically, scholars arrive at this view based on a casual comparison of the text found in Nestle-Aland with the presumed source-text of the Septuagint, usually as found in Rahlfs’ edition. However, in an article that summarizes previous research on Paul’s use of the Old Testament, Moisés Silva tabulates the four categories of textual classification of the Pauline citations that expose the weakness of this view.27 He also includes a fifth category of ten passages whose source-texts are open to debate. Silva’s list is maximal in that it includes Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters. If the references to the Deutero-Pauline 152

letters are removed from his lists (namely, 1 Tim 5:18a, 2 Tim 2:19a, Eph 4:8, Eph 5:31, and Eph 6:2 Moisés 3), then the following are the totals: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Paul = LXX = MT: 41 times 28 Paul = MT ≠ LXX: 6 times Paul = LXX ≠ MT: 17 times Paul = LXX ≠ MT: 28 times

As expected, the overall change is not great since most of the verbatim quotations are found in Paul’s Hauptbriefe. Category 3 remains the same. The modified textual categories show how misleading it is to claim that Paul simply used the LXX. It is true that Paul’s citations agree with the LXX 58 times, but in 41 of those cases they also agree with the MT, which means that in 45 percent of the total number of cases the textual tradition is uniform. Paul cites distinctively septuagintal texts only 17 times out of 92 (18 percent). By comparison, he cites the MT 47 times, and 6 times distinctively (7 percent). His citations also diverge from the LXX in 28 cases (30 percent) when it disagrees with the MT. It is true that some of Paul’s verbatim citations may be textually classified as distinctly septuagintal, but most often he cites a textual tradition that is common to both the LXX and MT. Next most frequent is the quotation of verses that diverge from both the LXX and MT. Last, he cites least often quotations that are distinctly MT. It is simplistic to say that he used the Septuagint.

The Scrolls, Pauline Quotations, and Textual Variants The Dead Sea Scrolls play an important role in corroborating the textual characteristics of the Pauline quotations. The discovery of “septuagintal” manuscripts written in Hebrew (e.g., 4QJerb, 4QNumb) shows that it is the content and not the language that forms the basis of textual classification. The septuagintal biblical scrolls from Qumran evidence that for some of the translations into Greek there was indeed a Hebrew source-text.29 The divergences are not just interpretative; the Jewish Greek translator was using an extant Hebrew text that differed from the MT. The scrolls also provide variants that agree with the Pauline quotations. Take, for example, the verbatim citation of Rom 9:33. The verse begins with an introductory formula followed by the citation of Isa 28:16 and 8:14–15: καθὼς γέγραπται ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται Thus it is written: “Behold I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock that causes one to trip, but the one who believes in him

153

shall not be put to shame.”

The opening words of the combined quotation, “Behold, I am laying,” are expressed by ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ in the LXX. The synonym ἐμβαλῶ expresses the same sense as Paul’s τίθημι except that it has a future rather than a present tense. The MT reads: (lit: “behold me, he laid”), with a third-person piel perfect. The change from Hebrew first to third person is sometimes smoothed out in commentaries by interpreting an implied relative clause: “Behold, I am he who laid.” Alternatively, the consonantal text may be repointed to read a qal participle (defectively spelled). While these solutions are possible, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab attest to a masculine singular qal participle ( ) and a piel participle ( ) that obviate the grammatical incongruity. In Rom 9:33, then, Paul’s citation is consistent with a Hebrew text not identical with the MT. Paul and the LXX appear to be using a variant text that presupposes one of the Qumran readings.

Paul and the Language of the LXX A potential objection could be raised about the use of the language of the Septuagint in Paul’s letters. Given that the Greek language is rich in nouns, verbs, prepositions, particles, etc., it is surely more than coincidence that Paul often chooses the same combination of lexical items and even follows the same word order. In Philo’s description of what he believes to have been the inspired translation of the Greek scriptures, he expresses this point well. He describes how the translators, sitting in isolation “became as it were possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter. Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression to the occasion?” (Moses 2.37–38). Philo’s view has been previously discussed in chapter 5. It belongs to his translational theory that the same word and thought in Hebrew are perfectly expressed in the Greek rendering. Paul did not hold this translational theory, but Philo’s astute observation about the nature of the Greek language raises the issue of the use of the septuagintal language in Paul’s letters. It allows us to clarify that the above discussion of the Septuagint is about textual classification. Paul did not always cite a biblical passage that can be textually classified as distinctly septuagintal, but he did know the septuagintal translations of various biblical books (see categories 1 and 3 above). The language of the Septuagint had a profound influence on Paul and other Jews writing in Greek. A modern analogy may be seen in the influence of the Authorized Version or the King James Version (KJV) on the English language. Many of the common turns of phrase and expression still used today can be traced back to this translation, even when Anglophones are unaware of it.30 For instance, someone may quip, “the voice of him that crieth,” derived from the KJV, even though he is discussing the MT of Isa 40:3. The KJV, 154

following the LXX version and the citation of Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3, renders “in the wilderness” together with “the voice of him that crieth,” thus locating the crying voice in the desert. The RSV more accurately translates the MT of Isa 40:3 as a voice crying in some unknown location, the message of which includes the preparation of the way of the Lord in the locality of the wilderness: “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.’” Paul uses the language of the LXX because he knew the Septuagint and cited it when it suited him. The language of the LXX also influenced his own writings when he was not citing biblical texts. Textual classification of his biblical citations, however, concerns the content and not the linguistic form of a text-type, and the above point is that Paul does not always use the septuagintal text-type. He most commonly cites a passage that belongs to the uniform tradition of the LXX and MT.

Critique of the Alexandrian Canon In the 1960s, Albert Sundberg mounted a thoroughgoing critique of the theory that the New Testament recognized a canon larger than the Palestinian canon that included the books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Apocrypha or Deuteroncanonical books.31 The critique consisted of arguments of a particular and general kind, two of the most penetrating being the New Testament’s use of books in addition to those of the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha and the fluctuation of the contents of the canonical lists and biblical manuscripts in the first few centuries of the Christian era. Sundberg showed that the New Testament authors were not only acquainted with all the books of the Apocrypha, but that they also knew the Psalms of Solomon, 2 (4) Esdras, Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Assumption of Isaiah, and 4 Maccabees. This would mean that they did not endorse a concept of a fixed canon from Egyptian Judaism.32 They acknowledged a larger collection of authoritative scriptures. An examination of the canonical and conciliar lists in patristic sources and the contents of the great codices of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus similarly showed that there was no recognition that the Alexandrian canon was accepted by the church.33 The standard critical edition of the New Testament provides in one of its appendices a long list of references to Jewish literature, those belonging to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament as well as to apocryphal and pseudepi-graphical texts.34 Nestle-Aland’s loci citati vel allegati includes one purported citation of the Apocrypha in 2 Tim 2:19. The sentiment of the clause “let him turn away from wickedness” (ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας) may be found elsewhere (e.g., Prov 3:7; Isa 52:11), but Sirach 17:26 presumably has been identified as the source-text by virtue of its verbal proximity, varying only in the use of a different verb (ἀπόστρεφε). 2 Timothy, however, is widely considered a DeuteroPauline letter. In none of the genuine letters does Paul directly quote the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.35 The Nestle-Aland list is maximal in including every possible allusion, no matter how 155

attenuated, to the alleged source-passages.36 The relevance of several of the purported allusions is questionable. The “loci” include works that postdate the Pauline letters— namely, 2 Esdras (end of first century CE), 4 Maccabees (first/second century CE), (Syriac) Apocalypse of Baruch (second century CE), Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (second century CE), and the Life of Adam and Eve (terminus post quem, seventh century CE). For these works, the literary relationship of the Pauline passages to the purported source-passages must not be one of dependence but of similarity of thought or expression. Of the pre-Pauline works suggested in the Nestle-Aland list, the evidence for direct dependence is not compelling (see appendix 4).37 Several of the suggested sources share terminology that is found in the Pauline letters but also elsewhere in Jewish literature (e.g., the scrolls, Philo, Josephus), especially in the biblical texts. A few share distinctive terminology with the Pauline letters. As for themes and religious ideas, they sometimes express similar sentiments, but the different context and formulation of the passages militate against a literary dependence. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Ben Sira share the most extensive literary affinities with the Pauline letters.

Different Senses of Authority It has long been suggested that there is a correspondence of thought between Paul’s letter to the Romans and the Wisdom of Solomon.38 There is no comparable scholarship investigating affinities between the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Pauline letters. In Rom 1:19, for instance, Paul writes “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” James Dunn observes that Paul and Wisdom both share a kind of natural theology and that the apostle was, moreover, “conversant with and indeed indebted to a strong strand of like-minded Hellenistic Jewish wisdom theology.”39 On the parallel between Rom 1:19–32 and Wis 12–15, Dunn states that the parallel is “too close to be accidental.”40 It is not just about natural theology, however, that affinities may be detected. There are common themes of election, immorality, and idolatry that permeate Paul’s thinking in Romans. For instance, in Rom 2:4, Paul writes in diatribe-like form: “Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” Paul appears either to be lecturing a presumed Jewish interlocutor or to be addressing a sentiment that he heard from certain Jews. His criticism focuses on the abuse of God’s mercy as it is shown to the elect, a form of piety expressed in Wis 15:1–5: But you, our God, are kind and true, longsuffering and ordering all things with mercy. 2 For even if we sin, we are yours, knowing your might, but knowing we are considered yours, we will not sin; 3 for to know you is perfect righteousness, and to recognize your might is the root of immortality. 4 For neither has the artful inventiveness of human beings led us astray, nor the fruitless toil of painters, a figure stained with varied colors, 5 whose appearance arouses yearning in fools so that they long for the unbreathing form of a dead image.

156

In Rom 2:4, Paul is seen to be arguing against those who have abused the mercy that God has for his chosen people. Unlike Wis 15, where sinning is to be avoided (“We will not sin”), Paul’s Jewish opponents took for granted God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience, not realizing that they too, like the gentiles, needed repentance. While similar ideas are found in the biblical texts (e.g., Exod 34:6–9; Ps 86:5, 100:5, 145:8), Wisdom is presumably seen to be a source of Romans not only because of the cluster of common themes, but also because of shared terminology: τὸ χρηστόν and χρηστότης; μακροθυμίας and μακρόθυμος. If Paul used the Wisdom of Solomon in Romans, then he did not do so straightforwardly.41 In Rom 2:4, Paul does not argue against Wisdom 15 as such but against Jews who he believed abused the mercy of God by continuing to sin. Wisdom itself does not advocate sinning despite God’s mercy. On the parallel between Rom 1:19– 32 and Wis 12–15, it has recently been argued that Paul’s polemic runs diametrically opposed to that of Wisdom because the apostle blurs the distinction between Jew and Gentile whereas Wisdom maintains this anthropological dualism.42 If one takes the consensus view as correct, then Paul would be summarizing Wisdom in Romans. He provides a paraphrase without indicating that it was derived from a source. The form of implied authority of the source would be similar to the way that the “Rewritten Bible” or “Rewritten Scripture” genre subsumes its source-text in a seamless new creation without interpretative markers. However, if Paul was instead polemicizing against Wisdom, then his use of it is analogous to the way that the slogans of his opponents appear elsewhere in his letters. He would be referring indirectly to or quoting from the views of his opponents in order to refute them. The issue, then, is what kind of authority may be inferred from Paul’s textual engagement with Wisdom and whether a distinction can be drawn among the different kinds of sources that he used when writing his letters. Paul was an urbane and multilingual Jew43 who cited his scriptures from the Septuagint and other existing Greek translations or a revision;44 he could alternatively provide his own translation of the Hebrew original, whether of the MT or another variant Hebrew text.45 Paul also quoted biblical proof-texts from memory46 and from preexistent florilegia and catenae.47 He often included catchphrases and slogans current in the churches to which he was writing,48 and in one case he even cited a popular saying first attested in Menander’s Thaïs.49 His letters show a casual acquaintance with the techniques and strategies of Greek rhetoric.50 When appropriate he also used hymns and traditions newly formed in the nascent church.51 As a rule, Paul uses an introductory formula only when he is quoting a text that was eventually included in the canon. He does not always use formulas to introduce his quotations,52 but when he does use them, he is almost invariably citing texts that would later be included in the canon.53 In an important study comparing the citation formulas in the scrolls and the New Testament, Joseph Fitzmyer states: “While these formulae were 157

often stereotypes in both literatures, they nevertheless indicate the conscious and deliberate appeal made by these writers to the Old Testament as the ‘Scriptures.’”54 Likewise, Johann Lust asserts: “It is true that Qumranic authors, like those of the NT, appear to use the quotation exclusively when citing writings which we now call ‘biblical’ books.”55 One possible exception is the difficult passage of 1 Cor 4:6. The RSV translates the clause (μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται) as “do not go beyond what is written.” It is part of a purpose (ἵνα) clause that would instruct the Corinthians not to exceed what Paul had said about himself and Apollos. There are, however, numerous textual, grammatical, and interpretative issues attached to this clause. First, the clause is elliptical and needs a verb to be read as a negative articular infinitive. Some manuscripts supply ϕρονειν, thus “not to think beyond what is written.” Second, there is numerical incongruity between the plural relative pronoun and its singular antecedent. Some manuscripts change the relative to the singular ho. Third, its referent has been variously interpreted: (a) the meaning is utterly corrupt and beyond recovery; (b) the clause was a scribal gloss that has been introduced subsequently into the text; (c) it is a reference to a public document of the Corinthian church; (d) it alludes to the metaphors of planting and building in 1 Cor 3:5–7; (e) it means scripture generally; (f) it has in mind the biblical quotations in 1 Corinthians specifically; or (g) Paul may have been quoting a slogan or proverb known by the Corinthians.56 1 Cor 4:6 is textually corrupt and too obscure to be considered positive evidence that Paul used citation formulas for non-canonical texts. Moreover, the verb γέγραπται does not necessarily connote an authoritative status in the way that it does when Paul uses it in a formula introducing a biblical quotation. It could simply mean what was written previously or above. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that Paul was acquainted with the Wisdom of Solomon and interacted with passages from it in the opening chapters of his letter to the Romans, but if his use of introductory formulas is anything to go by, he did not consider it scripture. Passages from Wisdom were like other sources that he used in his letter. They informed his thinking and writing, but they were not considered scripture.

Scriptural Citations and Excerpts Dietrich-Alex Koch counted sixty-six scriptural citations that are introduced by a formula in Paul’s letters. If frequency of citation is an indication of importance, then Isaiah (21x), Psalms (16x), and Deuteronomy and Genesis (11x) are the most important.57 Whether this should be described as “a canon within a canon” is moot; it is at least a selection of scriptural passages that speak to the occasions and circumstances that Paul was addressing. For Paul, certain scriptural passages are particularly important, and these cannot be reflected in a statistical count. One such passage is Habakkuk 2:4, which is cited twice in 158

the letters (Gal 3:11 and Rom 1:17; cf. Hebrews 10:37–38). The first four verses of the second chapter constitute the hermeneutical center of the prophecy.58 Paul, as an adroit reader of scripture, selected this vital verse, which originally referred to the faithfulness of the righteous Israelite, as the key verse on which to hang his theological belief that righteousness for Gentiles came through faith in Christ Jesus: “The one who is righteous shall live by faith” (significantly omitting the possessive “his”).59 Frequency of citation, therefore, is only one aspect of Paul’s use of scripture. In other words, quotations of the Old Testament need to be weighed rather than just counted. It is unlikely that Paul carried around scrolls of scriptures with him as he traveled from place to place. It was his custom, according to Acts 17:2–3, to argue with Jewish opponents in the synagogue, explaining and proving from scriptures (ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν) that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. If the Lukan account can be believed, then Paul did so for three weeks in the Thessalonian synagogue. The scrolls of scriptures available to him may have belonged to the Jewish synagogue that he visited, and depending on the wealth of the community, the extent of the collection of scriptural scrolls would vary.60 It has sometimes been suggested that Paul quoted his scriptural texts from memory, evidenced by conflations and other errors indicative of remembering incorrectly. This is certainly possible, given the importance of studying and memorizing scripture among the Jews of his day. By his own boasting Paul was more advanced than his Jewish contemporaries, he was a zealot for the traditions of the fathers (Gal 1:14), and he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5). Intensive study of scripture would have been par for the course for one so precocious. There is some evidence, however, that Paul may also have used aides-mémoire in the form of biblical excerpts. In 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul or one of his followers writing in his name asks his fellow teacher Timothy to bring from Troas the cloak, the books (τὰ βιβλία), and especially the parchments (μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας). It is uncertain what “the books” contained. It has been suggested that they may have been legal papers attesting to his Roman citizenship or material relating to his ministry or person. The membrana (parchment notebook), however, may have contained excerpts of biblical passages. Such biblical excerpts have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of which, 4Q174, includes a passage from 2 Samuel 7:14 that is also found in the so-called “Essene interpolation” of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1.61

Limitations of Scriptural Citations The question of what canon Paul had in mind remains an unsolved problem primarily because he did not cite all the scriptures that he considered authoritative. He was not concerned to define the extent of his canon. He was a missionary, and there were many more pressing issues before him. Practically, he used certain scriptural texts more than others to bolster his pastoral and theological concerns; he debated with other Jews by 159

using scriptural scrolls that were available at the synagogue; he may also have used convenient biblical excerpts to compose his letters; and he also referred to works that were not included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Paul cited or alluded to all the books of the traditional Jewish canon except for the Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, and Ezra-Nehemiah. No passage from Numbers is cited directly, but there is little doubt that in 1 Cor 10:8 Paul had in view the incident at Shittim when Israel “played the harlot” with the daughters of Moab (Num 25). Paul makes scant use of the narratives of the conquest, the period of the judges, or the history of the monarchy. Joshua may have been used by Paul if his ignoble escape from the clutches of the governor of Damascus via a basket lowered by a rope down the city wall is an allusion to the escape of Joshua’s spies (2 Cor 11:32–33; Josh 2:15). When Paul refers to the riches of the olive tree root (Rom 11:17), he may have had in mind Judges 9:9, though it could also be proverbial (cf. Jos. As. 5:7, T. Lev 8:8). 1 Samuel is represented only by a brief citation in Rom 11:2 that affirms that God had not rejected or abandoned his people, whom he foreknew (1 Sam 12:22). The familial relationship expressed in the Davidic covenant of 2 Sam 7:14, suitably modified by the addition of θυγατέρας, is cited in 2 Cor 6:18. Though there may be one or two possible allusions elsewhere (2 Kgs 6:22 in Rom 12:20 [?]; and 2 Kgs 17:15 in Rom 1:21[?]), Paul used the book of Kings primarily in relation to the account of Elijah and his encounter with the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 19 in Rom 11). There is no perceptible use of Obadiah and Haggai, but several of the Minor Prophets (Joel, Amos, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah, and Malachi) are quoted, and the Minor Prophets were considered as one book by the time Paul was writing in the middle of the first century CE.62 1–2 Chronicles are also not well represented in Paul. The Davidic covenant of 2 Sam 7:14 quoted in 2 Cor 6:18 is also found in the synoptic passage of 1 Chr 17:13. The word προσωπολημψία (lit: “the taking of the face”—i.e., favoritism) in Rom 2:11 may have been derived from the LXX of 2 Chr 19:7, where “to marvel the face” (πρόσωπον) is combined with the taking (λαβεῖν) of gifts.

Paul and Canon In his letter to the Phillipians, Paul turns from disparaging his opponents as dogs, evil workers, and mutilators to his own impeccable background: circumcision on the eighth day, from the people of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; and as to righteousness under the law, blameless (3:2–6). Paul’s Jewish credentials are widely accepted (cf. 2 Cor 11:22). In his early life and before his conversion, it is believed that Paul belonged to the Pharisaic sect or school. In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul is reported to have claimed that his father was also a Pharisee (23:6) and that he was even a student of Rabban Gamaliel (22:3). It is, therefore, entirely natural to compare Paul’s canon to that of the 160

Pharisees. But what do we know of the canon of the Pharisees? As argued in chapter 3, implicit in Josephus’ and 4 Ezra’s canonical notices is the Pharisaic canon. What may be added here is that in Romans Paul describes the biblical texts as “holy scriptures” (γραφαί ἁγίαι, 1:2), a description unique in the NT and an exact translation of the Rabbinic expression for “holy scriptures” ( ). The use of scripture in Paul’s letters does not correspond exactly with the 22/24 book Pharisaic canon. The Song of Songs, whose authoritative status is debated in rabbinic literature is never cited or alluded to by Paul. There is only one citation to Ecclesiastes or Qohelet in Rom 3:10, but it may be doubted whether Paul was citing the scriptural text at that point. Rom 3:10–18 seems to have been using a catena of scriptural verses that also included Ps 14:1–3 (= 53:2–4), Ps 5:10, Ps 139:4, Isa 59:7, Prov 1:16, and Ps 35:2,63 and Paul may not have been conscious of citing Ecclesiastes as such. As the manuscript tradition indicates, the whole catena may have been considered a collection of psalms.64 Ruth and Esther are also absent from the letters. Interestingly, the status of all four books was also in question in rabbinic literature:65 “R. Simeon b. Johai (135–170) says: Ecclesiastes is among the lenient decisions of the School of Shammai and among the stringent decisions of the School of Hillel, but [all agreed that] Ruth, Song of Songs, and Esther defile the hands (bMeg 7a).” The dispute over the status of Qohelet is indicated by the different positions taken by the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. The description of stringency seems to be inverted here since the former school is normally considered stricter than the latter in halakhic matters. One possible resolution is to interpret leniency or stringency not in relation to the authoritative status of the book of Qohelet as such but to the requirements for purification once “the hands” have been defiled. That is, the decision of the School of Shammai was considered “lenient” because in its view Qohelet did not defile the hands and therefore did not require purification, whereas the School of Hillel was “stringent” precisely because it considered as necessary purification of the hands once someone had touched the same book. In any case, the authoritative status of Qohelet was in dispute (cf. mYad 3:5). The Talmudic passage goes on to indicate that Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Esther defile the hands. But why would R. Simeon b. Johai specifically name these three and not other books? It is possible that they are mentioned precisely because there was uncertainty over the authoritative status of all three books. It was well known that the status of the Song of Songs was disputed (mYad 3:5). There was also doubt over the book of Esther (bMeg. 7a). As has often been noted, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain a copy, citation of, or allusion to Esther. On the book of Ruth, Sid Leiman has argued that “the need to list Ruth in this passage implies that its biblical (i.e., inspired canonical) status was not readily accepted by all,” despite the absence of any passage questioning its status in rabbinic literature.66 Leiman suggested that it may have been because the book of Ruth was not part of the 161

Torah, the national history of Israel, or the didactic literature. Alternatively, the book of Ruth may have raised questions because it contradicted the injunction against Moabites in Deut 23:4 and cast doubt over the legitimacy of David’s lineage.67 Notwithstanding Leiman’s explanations, it is notable that the book of Ruth was mentioned along with these three disputed books, which indicates at the very least that its authoritative status had to be affirmed by way of indicating that it defiled the hands. What emerges from this examination is that Paul’s use of biblical books corresponds broadly to what we know of the emerging Pharisaic canon. The Pharisaic canon itself had not yet been finally defined, and there are disputes about a few books. Paul cites or alludes to all the biblical books except for the Song of Songs, Qohelet, Esther, and Ruth, whose authoritative status is disputed in rabbinic literature. Paul did not use EzraNehemiah. One can only guess at why it was not cited. Perhaps the absence of references to this biblical book may be due to its emphasis on the rebuilding of the physical Temple, the observance of the law, and its stance on Jewish identity and exogamy, all of which would have been highly inconvenient for Paul’s teachings. The writings of Paul and Luke date to the middle and latter half of the first century CE respectively. This date is late in the history of the formation of the canon, and it is thus not surprising that implied notions of canon could already be detected in them. Luke attests to a tripartite canon with the psalms constituting one sub-collection of, rather than representing, the whole third division. But Matthew 23 is not a canonical notice. It is a reference to biblical examples of the killing of God’s prophets and the shedding of innocent blood. It is an oversimplification to say that the Septuagint was Paul’s Bible.68 It was suggested that “the Septuagint” or “septuagintal” had three distinguishable referents: the textual classification of the Pauline citations; the language of the Greek translation and its influence on Jewish authors writing in Greek; and the theory of the Alexandrian canon. When the topic is thus differentiated and analyzed, the following may be concluded: (1) Some of Paul’s citations may be textually classified as “septuagintal,” but most often he is citing a uniform text of the LXX and MT; (2) Paul knew the Septuagint, and the language of the Greek translation shaped his own expressions; and (3) Paul likely knew the Wisdom of Solomon, but he did not consider it scripture. Paul used various sources in his letters, but he regularly distinguished his use of scripture from other types of material by the inclusion of an introductory formula. He did not always use an introductory formula when he cited scripture, but when he did use this technique, it was almost always in quoting texts that would be later considered “biblical.” I have argued that Paul had a sense of different kinds of authority. The study of Paul’s citations and his use of scripture more broadly informs us of which biblical books he considered important—namely, Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Genesis—but we do not know the extent of his canon. Paul’s letters were occasional, and the scriptural texts that he cited and used were determined largely by the 162

circumstances in which he was writing. I have suggested, therefore, that Paul’s widely accepted background as a Pharisee complements the study of his citations as a way of ascertaining his canon. His canon was the canon of the Pharisees, which was itself emerging and not yet finally closed.

163

10 The Formation of the Jewish Canon

The process that led to the formation of the Jewish canon is complex and not easily summarized. In the foregoing discussion I selected important texts and issues to discuss with no attempt at a comprehensive survey, for the scope of such a review would have had to include the whole of ancient Jewish and early Christian literature. Instead, I opted for a narrower textual and scholarly engagement that traded breadth for depth. It seems to me that there are three broad areas that could benefit from a synthetic and reflective final discussion: the emergence of the canon; the various conceptions of authoritative scriptures; and authority and canon.

Origins and Development This study confirms the conclusions of previous scholars that the three-stage theory of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries cannot be maintained. Elegant in its simplicity of a stage-by-stage closing of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings the theory tottered and finally collapsed when its rotting pillars were pulled apart. There was no “council” at Yavneh, and the Samaritan schism is not a solid basis for inferring the closing of the Jewish Pentateuch. What remained of the three-stage theory was reconceived in several ways in the late 1970s and 1980s, but no scholarly consensus emerged. Scholarly opinion remains divided over the origins and history of the canon. There are, however, two basic positions with variations on the theme. Sid Leiman and Roger Beckwith argue that the canon was closed by the second century BCE, whereas Albert Sundberg and John Barton maintain that it remained open well into the first centuries of the Common Era. These views have their detractors and supporters, and neither side has garnered the same kind of broad acceptance that was enjoyed by the three-stage theory. A critical review of the theories in chapter 2 showed that the more recent views were also built on some unexamined assumptions. It was assumed that there was an official canon at the Temple library that served as a normative collection of texts that regularized the development of the canon. Sectarians, like the communities reflected in the scrolls and the Essenes, may or may not have had their own canon, but it was assumed that most Jews in the wider society held the canon that was authorized by the Temple. I have found no evidence to support the view that scrolls found at the Temple were used to define the canon. The hypothesis advocated in this book is that by the end of the first century of the Common Era the Pharisaic canon became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who gathered in the grand coalition at Yavneh were Pharisees. Building 164

on the understanding of the significance of Yavneh by Shaye Cohen, John Collins proposed this theory in the mid-1990s, but it has not been widely discussed.1 Before there was one common canon, there were several collections of authoritative scriptures held by different groups. The above discussion supports what I would call the theory of the majority canon. Collins himself does not use this description. This theory proposes that the canon of the majority became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism. It does not imply that there were other canons. It is unknown whether the authoritative collections of other Jewish groups (such as the Alexandrian Jewish community) also became canonical. I differ from Collins on a few points. I would not see as much significance as Collins does in the apparent gathering at Yavneh since debates about a few books persisted to the second century and beyond. Also, the evidence for the historical reconstruction of Yavneh is more ambiguous than Collins allows (see chapter 2). I also differ slightly from Collins on the exclusion of books from the canon on pragmatic grounds alone, such as the late date of the composition and the concern to limit the number of books.2 In my view, the belief that holy scriptures defile the hands is an important criterion that contributed to the formation of the Rabbinic canon. Based on the priestly theology that sees contagion in the sancta, one important feature that cannot be ignored is the way that holiness of scriptures is understood to have had a detrimental effect on the mundane. The Song of the Ark, cited in Mishnah Yadayim, is an important if neglected piece of evidence that points to the story of Uzzah grasping the Ark with his hand. The Lord struck him down for transgressing the boundaries between the holy and the mundane. This majority canon was not officially closed at the end of the first century CE. There is no evidence that ancient Judaism had an official body, like the ecclesiastical councils, which pronounced on the inclusion or exclusion of individual books. Josephus was the first to articulate the twenty-two-book canon. His claim that every Jew regarded the scriptures as the “decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them” is an exaggeration. Mishnah Yadayim shows that there was no universal agreement; disputes continued over the status of two books, Qohelet and the Song of Songs, as holy scriptures. Other rabbinic texts record disputes over the status of the Wisdom of Ben Sira as well as the books of Ruth and Esther. On the whole, the theory of the majority canon finds support in the above chapters. By the end of the first century CE, there was a canon that most Jews accepted. I emphasize most and not all because the search for a universally accepted canon is illusory. Disagreements existed in the past and continue in the present. When this canon actually closed is not clear, but a rough estimate of between 150 and 250 CE would not be far off the mark. Philip Alexander describes the process as the quiet end of an event of considerable moment.3 He dates the baraita of Baba Bathra to before 200 CE but notes that it is 165

embedded in a sugya of a much later date. He also observes, however, that the Rabbinic canon did not finally come to a close until the middle ages. In fact, the whole “modelling of the canonic process in terms of openness and closure … is problematic.”4 Alexander has questioned the concept of closure in Rabbinic Judaism and suggested that the openness of the canon never really ceased but “is as much a feature of the situation post 200 CE as it is a feature of pre-70 CE.”5 The order of the books of the Prophets and Writings continued to fluctuate in Jewish manuscripts, and stabilization, but not uniformity, occurred only with the emergence of the great codices of St. Petersburg and Aleppo.6 I do not know whether the debates about the disputed books died away in the way implied by this characterization or whether dissenting views were simply not recorded in Rabbinic literature. There is vagueness in the way that Alexander maintains both that the Rabbinic canon was closed at around 200 CE and that the openness of the canon was a feature of post-200 CE Rabbinic Judaism. One way of disambiguating the issue is to distinguish between primary and secondary features of the canon. What Alexander sees as features of openness is the fluctuation of the order of the books of the Prophets and Writings. As argued in this book, the sequence of the books on a list is a secondary feature; what defines the canon is the inclusion and exclusion of books on a list. This would obviate the apparent tension between openness and closure. In my view, the Rabbinic canon was already closed when Baba Bathra enumerated the books in a list (chapter 3). The subsequent fluctuation of the order of the books of the Prophets and the Writings in Jewish manuscripts and lectionaries did not mean that the canon remained open. The explicit reason given for Baba Bathra’s specification is the ordering of the books of the Prophets and Writings. This has been interpreted as either an issue related to the sequence of shelving scrolls in a library or the use of longer scrolls in the copying of different series of books (the Pentateuch, all the Prophets, and infrequently all the Hagiographa). But it seems to me that this pragmatic concern assumes that the books that it wants to order are already considered holy scriptures. It is best to avoid singling out one consideration that led to the canonization of books in Rabbinic Judaism. There are numerous factors that contributed to the final closing of the canon. As seen in the foregoing chapters, many of the books that were eventually included in the Rabbinic canon had been considered for a long time the traditional scriptures of Judaism. These books were read, studied, and interpreted but also used for moral guidance and worship. The debates in Rabbinic literature are about a few books that do not have obvious halakhic implications. The closing of the Rabbinic canon may be likened to the reaching of a consensus of opinion. It does not imply the absence of dissenting voices; it means that most accepted the canon of 22/24 books. Another factor is the influence of non-Jews. The first ever attested articulation of the Jewish canon was forged in controversy. In his apology of the Jews against Greek detractors, Josephus emphasized the unity of the Jewish canon in the form of only 166

twenty-two books. Josephus’ rhetorical strategy in Contra Apionem demanded that he contrast the universal agreement of Jews for the one canon with the myriad of inconsistent Greek histories. The influence of non-Jews is particularly telling in the way that the books of Homer were explicitly ruled out as holy scriptures. In Mishnah Yadayim 4:6, the Sadducees attribute the following halakhic position to the Pharisees: “According to you the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, whereas the writings of Homer would not defile the hands.” The epics of Homer became “canonical” in the Hellenistic period (chapter 5).7 Excluding them as holy scriptures is a way of differentiating among different kinds of writings that the rabbis knew. The position of the Pharisees is, in fact, not all that different from the view of the Alexandrian Jewish community. Implied in both the exclusion of the Iliad and Odyssey and the comparison of the charter myth with the epics of Homer is the belief that the ballads of the Greek bard are prized but also distinguishable from the traditional Jewish scriptures. That the Pharisees felt the need to hold this position implies that some Jews were blurring the authority of traditional Jewish writings with the authority of highly prized but non-Jewish works. Rabbinic Judaism was also influenced by Christianity. It is becoming increasingly clear that the rabbis knew books of the New Testament. Peter Schäfer has argued that the depictions of Jesus in rabbinic literature constitute an anti-Christian, counter-narrative to the NT Gospels.8 He believes the following: (a) behind the parody of Jesus’ origins, his virgin birth, and Davidic genealogy is the infancy narrative of Matthew; (b) the depiction of Jesus as the bad son/disciple is a possible allusion to Mary Magdalene/the immoral woman of Luke and also of John; (c) Jesus’ teaching of the law in the Temple or on the Sermon on the Mount is a polemic against Luke and John; (d) Jesus’ execution is dependent on all four Gospels, but his trial the day before Passover agrees exclusively with John; (e) the description of Jesus’ disciples is to be read against all four Gospels, Acts, and Paul; (f) Jesus’ punishment is based on John; and (g) there is no source for the rabbinic portrayal of Jesus as “the frivolous disciple.” Schäfer believes that the views of Jesus in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud may be differentiated. In the former, the criticism is primarily directed at the Christian sect parting from Rabbinic Judaism. In the latter, the Sassanian Empire, with its Zoroastrian religion, allowed Babylonian Jews to attack Jesus personally, his birth, life, and resurrection. The Gospel of John, in particular, was singled out because of its theological nature and provenance in the Jewish diaspora of Asia Minor. The Babylonian Jews may have known it or its narrative through Tatian’s Diatessaron.9 The closing of the Jewish canon may be seen as part of the Jewish reaction to knowledge of books of the New Testament and the increasing influence of Christianity.10 The Tosefta, for instance, polemicizes against the holiness of Christian writings, characterizing them as heretical books: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands” (tYad 2:13). Joshua Bloch argued that Rabbi Akiba coined the term “outside books” not to refer to apocalyptic literature or heretical books but “to stigmatize as un167

Jewish” the books of the Nazarenes or Christians.11 Thus the ban against books of the New Testament involved the imprecation that any Jew who read them aloud in the synagogue would not have a place in the world-to-come.12 It would be tempting to find the reason for the closing of the canon in Rabbinic Judaism’s reaction to Christianity. Alexander, for instance, has suggested that the concept of “heresy” entered Rabbinic Judaism at about the same time as the emergence of “orthodoxy” in the Christian church, and this had “canonic implications.”13 But the above discussion shows that the influence was wider than Christianity alone. The closing of the biblical canon of Rabbinic Judaism is more protracted than is often assumed. The Rabbinic debates eventually disappeared, but a de facto canon was already fixed between the second and third centuries CE. Just as the end was drawn out, so the beginning did not emerge at a singular moment. Despite what was later believed to have been the reception of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, the emergence of the Pentateuch was much more complex. Scholarship has shown that Moses did not receive the first five books in one revelatory event but that the Pentateuch grew over time in an extended Transmission history that included revisions, rewritings, and editing. Authoritative texts in the pre-exilic period included hypothesized sources like J and individual books or parts of books, like Urdeuteronomium, and not a collection of five books. In the post-exilic period, however, there is a discernible collection of the books of the “torah,” but this did not just include the Pentateuch. Nehemiah 8–10 uses the term “torah” loosely as a label for the first six books, from Genesis to Joshua. The “torah” is not to be taken in the strictly legal sense but means what we would call laws and narratives together. By the second century BCE, in the Letter of Aristeas the translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew to Greek was mentioned. The anonymous Jewish author began the legend of the Septuagint as part of the charter myth of the community and drew on the collective memory of the Alexandrian community, which preserved the story of the translation of the Torah in the third century and under the royal patronage of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Philo’s retelling of this story shows that his own authoritative scripture was the Greek Pentateuch, whereas Josephus considered the Septuagint a translation. His own canon, however, was the twenty-two-book canon. Also in the second century, the Prologue and Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira presupposed a much larger collection of authoritative scriptures. This collection included all the books of the Hebrew Bible with the exception of four biblical books: Ruth, the Song of Songs, Esther, and Daniel. But this collection was not closed; the grandfather considered his own book of wisdom as part of the literary heritage of Israel. It was also not bi- or tripartite. The internal divisions may be characterized by its inclusion of the categories of the Pentateuch, the prophecies, and a third miscellaneous division of other ancestral books. There is no evidence that the canon was closed in the second century. 2 Maccabees 168

does not attest to the closing of the canon under Judas, as Leiman and Beckwith supposed. Rather, it gives credence to the view that Judas collected books that had fallen to pieces after the war against the Seleucids. The inference that it referred to the founding of a Maccabean library is based on a misreading of the text. What Judas had done was to collect the books that had been damaged during the war; he was now returning them to the people. The books included were not specified. Beginning some time in the second century BCE and extending to the first century CE, the communities that wrote some of the Dead Sea Scrolls held a notion of authoritative scriptures that was different again. From the sectarian scrolls, it can be deduced that the shape of the authoritative scriptures was the Torah, referring to the five books of Moses, and a category of prophetical writings, including several sub-collections of prophecies (e.g., the Minor Prophets, Samuel-Kings). The psalms were also compiled into collections, but it is unclear whether the sectarians drew a distinction between what were later included in the canon and other psalms that were also considered authoritative by the community. Moreover, the psalms were considered prophetic in nature, and it is uncertain whether they were to be counted among the books of the prophets or formed the nucleus of a third and as yet undetermined division. As described by Josephus, the authoritative scriptures of the Essenes consisted of the Torah and the prophetic books, corresponding strikingly to the broadly bipartite shape of authoritative scriptures reflected in the sectarian scrolls. The authoritative scriptures of the Therapeutae, however, are described by Philo in an idealized way, implying that each sectarian had a mini library of sacred writings in his room. Moreover, the description of what they may have contained is ambiguous, and it could to refer to a bi-, tri-, or quadripartite collection of authoritative scriptures. Writing in the middle of the first century CE, Paul was not interested in defining his authoritative scriptures. The common assumption that what he had by way of “the Bible” was the Septuagint has been called into question. There is no doubt that Paul knew some of the Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, but discussions about his use of the Septuagint should be differentiated according to what is meant by textual classification, use of LXX language, and his citation techniques. It has been argued that Paul’s background as a Pharisee complemented his use of scripture. Together they show that in his letters there is a recognizable outline of the Pharisaic collection of authoritative scriptures that was itself emerging and not finally closed. Despite what Beckwith and his followers believe, Matthew 23:34–36 is not evidence of the closed twenty-two-book canon. The passage selectively uses biblical examples to bolster Jesus’ prophecy against the Pharisees. Written at the end of the first century, the Gospel of Luke is aware of all the books of the Old Testament. For Luke, all scriptures are by nature prophetic, but since he maintains a distinction between the books of Moses and the prophets, and a third unnamed division, he must have been following a tradition that by the end of the first century CE had already differentiated the scriptural books into at least three divisions. 169

The theory of the majority canon, therefore, is amply supported. Before the emergence of this Pharisaic canon at the end of the first century CE, there was a diversity of collections of authoritative scriptures.

Diversity and Unity Before this majority canon there were several collections of authoritative scriptures. Such a description, however, should not be taken to mean that the formation of the canon was an inexorable march from the diversity of collections of authoritative scriptures to the unity of the majority canon. The diversity of collections of authoritative scriptures should not imply that there were distinctly different “canons.” It would be a mistake to exaggerate the differences and ignore the overlaps. The five books of Moses or Pentateuch, once emerged in the Achaemenid and early Hellenistic periods, figure in almost every formulation of authoritative scriptures that has been examined. A core of prophetical books (e.g., Samuel-Kings, the Minor Prophets) and psalms is also used in several communities. Rather, diversity is manifest in the inclusion of other books. In the second century, the Jewish Alexandrian community held up the Greek Pentateuch as its authoritative scriptures. Contemporaneous with the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira implies a larger collection. In “the praise of the fathers,” as well as in the prescriptions of the scribal curriculum in chapter 39 and in the Prologue, virtually all the books of the traditional Hebrew Bible (with the exception of four books) are known. Moreover, Ben Sira considered his own wisdom book part of the literary heritage of Israel. One possible explanation of the differences is that Ben Sira’s collection represents the scribal conception of authoritative scriptures in Palestine, transplanted to Egyptian soil, whereas the collection of the Jewish Alexandrian community consisted of the Pentateuch alone. Yet a third conception may be found in 2 Maccabees. According to the second festal letter, Nehemiah not only founded a library, but also collected books about kings and prophets, the writings of David, and royal correspondence. It is not certain that this is about a collection of authoritative scriptures, as is sometimes supposed, rather than a description of the holdings of the library. In any case, the collection of books is unusual and is otherwise unattested, and there is doubt about the notice’s authenticity. Judas likewise collected books damaged in the war, and some of these are presumably law books, but he did not tell us what they were. In sum, the process did not develop from the many collections of authoritative scriptures to the one canon. Rather, there were many collections and then there was the majority canon. Once sectarianism disappeared, so did the variety of collections.

Canon and Authority The above investigation has raised time and again the issue of power, influence, and the emergence of collections of books. The complex relationship between canon and 170

authority may be profitably discussed by grouping the issues into sub-categories. The relationship of authoritative scriptures to secular power is evident in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Jewish communities in Babylonia and the city of Alexandria appealed to the ruling authority to legitimate and promote traditional Jewish law. In the case of Babylonian Jewry, Ezra’s petition was to reestablish Temple worship and to instruct the Judeans who did not know the law. Imperial authorization took the form of a rescript that elevated the Jewish Torah to the status of imperial law. In a slightly different but not altogether dissimilar way, Alexandrian Jewry preserved in its collective memory the origins of the Septuagint. Evidently, the authority of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria was sanctioned by the Ptolemaic dynasty. This royal imprimatur gave the translation an unrivaled authority and raised its translation to the level of a new Torah. The charter myth that is the Letter of Aristeas not only promotes the official Greek translation by way of the royal seal of approval, but it also recognizes no other translational activity elsewhere in Egypt and Palestine. A slight variation on the theme occurs in the account of the books that Judas returned to the people at the end of the war against the Seleucids. What Judas, and not a foreign king, did was to reinstate traditional Jewish observance among the people. 2 Maccabees depicts the return of the books to the people. This act has a symbolic value that cannot be missed in the reestablishment of traditional Jewish laws. After the war against the Hellenizing Antiochus, the Temple is rededicated, the Hanukkah festival is celebrated, and the books are returned to the Judeans. Another issue raised in the above discussion is the relationship between the books that were eventually included in an authoritative list and different collections of authoritative scriptures before the first lists were compiled. This issue is about terminology but also methodology. We have problematized the conception of canon and authoritative scriptures rather than assumed that the two are equivalent. Throughout we have maintained a distinction between “canon” as a list of books and “authoritative scriptures” as a description of pre-canon collections of authoritative writings. Philip Davies warns against the “teleological fallacy” that “within the process of formation of a canon lie the seeds of the final canon itself—as if the final shape of the canon were the outcome of an inevitable growth rather than being the result of discrete historical decision.”14 This is a warning well worth heeding. However, the foregoing discussion has shown that earlier collections of authoritative scriptures do overlap to a large extent with the lists of books found later in Josephus, 4 Ezra, Mishnah Yadayim, the early church fathers, and Baba Bathra. The relationship between the authority of biblical books and other books not eventually included in the canon admits various patterns. Both the grandfather and grandson regard the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira as belonging to the literary heritage of Israel. The Wisdom is to be recommended as part of the scribal curriculum alongside other biblical books. By contrast, for the community of the Damascus Document the book of Jubilees was 171

an authoritative perush or interpretation. It specifies the times and seasons that are found in the Torah, and its authoritative status is secondary in the formal sense. This means that while the sectarian author is informed by more than the biblical texts, the traditional scriptures of ancient Israel had a formal primacy. A similar pattern may be detected in Philo’s interweaving of scripture and tradition. In his writings, he is clearly informed by Greek philosophy as well as Jewish tradition, but he did not blur the line and kept “the sacred books” distinct in his mind. So also with Josephus’ writing of history as he distinguished between those writings that were trustworthy because of their prophetic credentials and those that came after prophecy was believed to have ceased. Likewise for Paul, who used various popular slogans, aphorisms, and popular sayings in writing his letters but reserved the use of introductory formulas for biblical texts. Closely related is the issue of the relationship between authoritative scriptures and interpretation. On the one hand, the content of the biblical books was simply reiterated, as, for instance, in the confessions of sins in Nehemiah 9 or the praise of the fathers of old in Sira 44–50. This implies a clear recognition of the authority of traditional scriptures. On the other hand, the content of the biblical books was reused, adapted, and lemmatically interpreted in a variety of ways. Analytically, the act of paraphrasing and rewriting is different from the technique of citation. The former subsumes the source-text in a way that makes indistinct the biblical text and its interpretation. By contrast, lemmatic exegesis maintains a clear distinction between source and interpretation. The interpreter’s self-perception is that his own writing is manifestly distinct from the source that he cites. This broad difference between the lemmatic and paraphrastic approaches must be qualified by two factors that blur the boundary: (1) some of the rewriting process involves the presentation of extensive passages of what can only be described as direct borrowings; and (2) lemmatic exegesis does not always preserve the distinction between “biblical” and “post-biblical.” Verbatim quotations from the biblical source-texts are also open to the interpreter for adaptation and rewriting. Traditional authority rests on the biblical texts, but the authority of application sits squarely on the accompanying interpretation. Finally, I note the relationship of authoritative interpretation to the formation of a new canon. The use of the biblical texts in several ancient Jewish communities preserved the embryo of the generation of a new canon. This is clearest in the way that the Pauline letters themselves become authoritative scriptures of Christian churches at the end of the first and beginning of the second century. The resulting canon of the New Testament did not appear until Athanasius, but the Pauline epistles were already circulating as a collection much earlier.15 The sectarian scrolls likewise could be seen to contain this generative power, as would the traditions of the fathers that the Pharisees interpreted and transmitted. One cannot help but think that the belief in the continuing revelation of God, whether in the 172

form of revealed exegesis of scripture or the voice from heaven that pronounced legal rulings, was ingrained with the generative power to form a new canon. But that is a topic for another occasion.

173

Appendix 1: Some Modern Canons

174

175

Appendix 2: Early Canonical Lists

176

Appendix 3: Bryennios’ and Epiphanius’ Lists

Bryennios List

Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures, 22ff.

1. Genesis

Genesis

2. Exodus

Exodus

3. Leviticus

Leviticus

4. Joshua

Numbers

5. Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy

6. Numbers

Joshua

7. Ruth

Job

8. Job

Judges

9. Judges

Ruth

10. Psalms

Psalms

11. 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel)

1 Chronicles

12. 2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel)

2 Chronicles

13. 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings)

1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel)

14. 4 Kingdoms (2 Kings)

2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel)

15. 1 Chronicles

3 Kingdoms (1 Kings)

16. 2 Chronicles

4 Kingdoms (2 Kings)

17. Proverbs

Proverbs

18. Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes

19. Song of Songs

Song of Songs

20. Jeremiah

The Twelve Prophets

21. The Twelve Prophets

Isaiah

22. Isaiah

Jeremiah

23. Ezekiel

Ezekiel

24. Daniel

Daniel

25. 1 Esdras (Ezra)

1 Esdras (Ezra)

26. 2 Esdras (Nehemiah)

2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 177

27. Esther

Esther

Source: From Audet, “A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 136 and 138.

178

Appendix 4: Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings and the Pauline Letters

The list below is compiled from Nestle-Aland’s loci citati vel allegati.1 It includes all the purported allusions or echoes to extra-canonical Jewish writings in the Pauline letters. Since Nestle-Aland simply lists the sources and does not offer explanations, the brief notes included in column three of the table below are intended to draw out the possible basis for and to assess the validity of the suggested source-texts by a comparison of the lexical, literary, and thematic affinities with the Pauline passages.2 There are no verbatim citations. The identification of an allusion or echo involves a greater degree of subjective judgment than one would prefer. What a reader perceives as an oblique reference to a purported source-text could either be (1) an allusion of Paul, or (2) Paul’s reflexive and unintended use of terminology current in his time and/or drawn generally from the biblical texts. In the latter, it is the reader rather than the author who has made the literary connection. A cluster of terms and themes in the letters that corresponds to a source is an indicator that Paul may have had a particular text in mind when he penned his correspondence. Formalizing this in the form of specifying the minimum number of words is not useful since allusions may occur as several shared words or a few (or even one) distinctive terms. The case for literary affinity between the purported source-text and a Pauline passage is naturally made stronger if the terminology and theme are rare and distinctive. Terminology or motif found in several sources has a weaker claim to literary affinity or dependence. The comments accompanying the list below show that on the whole literary dependence of the Pauline letters on apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts is not supported by the evidence. The purported “sources” are often better described as “literary affinities” or “parallels.”

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

Appendix 5: Scriptural References in Sirach 44–50

192

193

194

195

Notes

1. Modern and Ancient Views of the Canon 1. So Lee Morrissey, “Introduction: ‘The Canon Brawl: Arguments over the Canon,’” in Debating the Canon: A Reader from Addison to Nafisi (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 8–9, who describes the polarizing effect of the canon debate, exacerbated as it was by the publication of Harold Bloom’s book on the Western canon (The Western Canon: The Books and the School of Ages [London: Papermac, 1995]): “We live with them [i.e., the polarities] in the way we live with the results of so many conflicts: unresolved, adjusting to a truce, wondering what had happened, and how it had escalated.” See also Frank Kermode’s Tanner lectures on Pleasure and Change: The Aesthetics of Canon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), ed. Robert Alter, with responses from Geoffrey Hartman, John Guillory, and Carey Perloff. 2. Jonathan Sacks, “Wanted: A National Culture,” Times (London), October 20, 2007. See also Jonathan Sacks, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society (London: Continuum, 2007). Sacks is influenced by Bloom, Western Canon. For a critique, see Richard Jenkyns, “Do We Need a Literary Canon?” Prospect, issue 141 (December 22, 2007): 44–47, who argues that while the views of Sacks are affirmed, the canon is not to be imposed by a social mandate. 3. Barton, The Spirit and the Letter, 12. For instance, Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 65, distinguishes between canon as a list and canon as a rule of faith and practice; the latter he calls “an incipient canon.” 4. Barton, Oracles of God, 44, 55–82. Cf. Barr, Holy Scripture, 50–51; Maier, “Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons,” 137–138. 5. Ulrich, “Notion and Definition of Canon,” 21–35, 33. For further discussion see Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 303–304. 6. See Popovi ć, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. 7. Ulrich, “Notion and Definition of Canon,” 33. 8. For an explanation of this enigmatic principle, see Lim, “Defilement of the Hands.” I suggest that the holiness of scripture may be explained by the concept of sacred contagion analogous to the effects that the Ark of the Covenant had on Uzzah. 9. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 14. 10. Kraemer, “Formation of Rabbinic Canon,” 616. 11. Steinmann, Oracles of God, 16. 12. Martin Luther distinguished between the “Hebrew truth” and the Apocrypha. 196

He translated the Bible into German in 1534, in which the Apocrypha was included as an appendix. The Council of Trent, in 1546, rejected Luther’s distinction and declared that the apocryphal books were canonical, following the wider canon of the Vulgate. 13. So Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. 14. Levison, “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel?” 49, has argued that the tSot 13.2–4 should be understood as expressing the principle of intermittance, according to which the holy spirit withdrew with the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi but had now returned because of the righteous Hillel and Samuel the small. 15. See Alexander, “‘A Sixtieth Part of Prophecy,’” 418, who argues that the bat qol was not simply a residual echo of prophecy. 16. This verb is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It does not occur in the LXX, Philo, or the Pseudepigrapha and rarely in pre-Christian literature. 17. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 111 n. 31: “It is not impossible that the statement here cited is from the real Hecataeus.” See also the comments on pp. 222– 223 n. 312, where Hadas sees Hecataeus’ insistence on the divine origin of the Law as a foreshadowing of Philo. But see Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 54–121, who questions the authenticity of Hecataeus’ On the Jews. 18. The same test of true prophecy is implied in Josephus’ accounts of the Essenes: Judas prophesying the death of Antigonos (War 1.78–80); Simon, reminiscent of Joseph in Genesis, interpreting Archelaus’ vision of nine ears of corn and oxen to portend the imminent demise of the ethnarch (War 2.111–113); and Manaemus’ prescience in addressing the boy Herod as “king of the Jews” (Ant. 15.373–379). 19. Bickerman, Studies on Jewish and Christian History, 340. Doran, “The Persecution of Judeans by Antiochus IV,” 423–434, argues that the description of what Antiochus IV did as “religious persecution” is flawed since religion and politics were not separable. Based on 2 Macc 5–7, Doran proposes that Antiochus had abrogated the gift of allowing Jerusalem to live by its ancestral laws. 20. John J. Collins, “Transformation of the Torah,” 466. Collins shows that this pattern of imperial validation all changed with the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes. Cf. Jackson, Wisdom-Laws. 21. A similar issue is raised in the act of translation. Brock, “To Revise or Not to Revise,” 301–308, distinguishes between the expositor and the interpres or hacktranslator. 22. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The UK edition was published in Edinburgh by T and T Clark. 23. See also A. Paul, La Bible avant la Bible. 24. The disagreements are manifest in the denominational reactions to the United Bible Societies’ publication of the “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation 197

in Bible Translations” (Meurer, AEP, 2, 208–220). See also the discussions of the Apocrypha from Jewish, Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Protestant, and Evangelical perspectives in Kohlenberger, The Parallel Apocrypha. 25. The complexities of the canons of the Eastern churches have been discussed by Oikonomos, “The Significance of the Deuterocanonical Writings in the Orthodox Church,” and Rüger, “The Extent of the Old Testament Canon,” in AEP, 16–32, 151– 160. Oikonomos argues that the Greek Orthodox Church, on the strength of Athanasius’ arguments, affirms the deuterocanonical books. On the basis of manuscripts and printed Bibles, Rüger points out that the extent of the Old Testament of the Coptic Orthodox Church cannot be determined with certainty since there are two recensions of the canonical list, uncertainty centering on the status of Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. The Ethiopic Orthodox Church distinguishes between a wider and narrower canon, and the Ethiopic Bible includes the entire Septuagint, plus Jubilees and Enoch. The Syrian Orthodox Church has a canon in agreement with the Septuagint, whereas the Armenian Apostolic Church’s canon has the same books as the Vulgate. 26. The bibliography on the canon is enormous and continues to grow. In the limited scope that I have set myself, I could include only some of the most important articles and books that relate to the topics that I discuss. For studies on the scribal book productions, ancient libraries, and the ancient wisdom tradition, see especially Haran, Biblical Collection; Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël; Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches; Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus; and van der Toorn, Scribal Culture. 27. This point has been emphasized by James Sanders, Torah and Canon and From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Cf. Carr, “Canonization in the Context of Community,” 23–24.

2. The Emergence of the Canon Reconsidered 1. Frants Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Faber, 1891); Gerrit Wildeboer, Die Entstehung des alttestamenlichen Kanons (Gotha, 1891); and Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament. One dissenting voice was Beecher, “Alleged Triple Canon of the Old Testament,” 119, who states: “This doctrine of three successively formed canons is now received, I suppose, with a unanimity that has few exceptions. It is therefore with some misgiving that I venture to say that it seems to me not only not well grounded, but positively contrary to the evidence.” 2. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 165. 3. Barton, Oracles of God, 93. 4. Barton, Oracles of God, 93. 5. Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, 93.

198

6. Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, 91. The historical value of Josephus’ account has been defended by James VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 53–54, but questioned by J. Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 267. 7. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 401. Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” 254, rightly cautioned: “In light of the uncertainties regarding the historicity of the narratives in the two passages, it would be imprudent to build a theory on them of how the Pentateuch came to the Samaritans.” 8. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 130. 9. Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” 934: “We need not necessarily conclude with Purvis and others that the Samaritan sect began at this time.” 10. In a recent study, Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 282, attributed Josephus’ varying attitude to the different purposes of the Antiquities and Jewish War. In the former, he used the Samaritans as a foil for presenting the Jews as loyal subjects of the Romans, whereas in the latter he showed no antipathy toward them. Pummer concluded: “Josephus’ neutral reporting in War confirms that he did not harbor such strong feelings against the Samaritans.” 11. Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 359. 12. Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 368. 13. Knoppers, “Cutheans or Children of Jacob?” 223–240, showed that two postexilic Samarian histories are present in the same chapter of 2 Kgs 17. 14. Steinmann, Oracles of God. The studies by J. Blenkinsopp, Odil Steck, Stephen Dempster, and Stephen Chapman argue that the Law and the Prophets formed early in the Persian period, but Arie van der Kooij has criticized the description of this kind of “scriptural intertext” as “canonical” (“Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books,” 28). 15. Freedman: “The Law and the Prophets,” 250–265; Unity of the Hebrew Bible; and “Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible.” 16. See similarly the criticisms by Chapman, “How the Biblical Canon Began,” 42, and Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 99–100. 17. Lewis, “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” 128. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 120, notes that earlier doubts about Yavneh were already expressed by G. Allon and H. H. Rowley. The Hebrew for “in the vineyard of Yavneh,” which Lewis did not cite, is ba-kerem be-yavneh (mEduyot 2:4, mKet 4:6). 18. Graetz, “Der alttestamentliche Kanon,” 147–173. 19. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 120, points to Frants Buhl as the popularizer of this view. 20. Aune, “Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh,’” 493. 21. Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” 159. 199

22. S. Cohen, “Significance of Yavneh,” 50. 23. Goodman, “Religious Variety,” 202–213. 24. Goodman, “Religious Variety,” 206. 25. Goodman, “Religious Variety,” 208. 26. Goodman, “Religious Variety,” 211. 27. Some scholars argue that the MT is actually a textual correction to a more ancient reading in the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch (e.g., Christophe Nihan, “Torah between Samaria and Judah,” and Adrian Schenker, “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?”). 28. John J. Collins, “Before the Canon,” 238–239. See also John J. Collins, “Canon, Canonization.” 29. Alexander, “Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” 63–64, argues that mYad 3:5, F, is tautological and the seating of Eleazar ben Azariah is a secondary insertion. Alexander suggests that the tradition reported by Rabbi Ben Azzai “had nothing to do with Yavneh and [had] only secondarily been linked with it.” Cf. Golden-berg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” 183: “Epstein’s demonstration relative to the sense of ‘on that day’ has already been referred to. Tradition took the claim at face value; we can no longer trace how this understanding developed.” 30. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 24 and 131. 31. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 153 and 165. 32. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 25. 33. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 133. 34. Leiman lists twenty-four non-canonical works referred to in the canonical Bible; Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 17–19. 35. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 135. 36. Barton, Oracles of God, 35–95. 37. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 34–37, and Barton, Oracles of God, 93–94. 38. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 261 and 436. 39. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature,” 19. 40. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 63–104. Commenting on Beckwith’s theory of scriptures being “laid up” in the Jerusalem Temple, Karel van der Toorn remarked: “This argument is not very impressive, since the sanctity conferred on written scrolls housed in the temple does not imply that their contents were canonical” (Scribal Culture, 239). 41. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 85. Beckwith 200

also mentioned the Rabbinic tradition that describes how the high priest spent the night before Yom Kippur in the Temple reading the scriptures. But this tradition referred only to the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Daniel, Ezra, or Chronicles. 42. Beckwith cited evidence for his view, the most direct of which is a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 2.3, which states: “If it [i.e., the book of Esther] is written (in a copy of) the Fifths, they do not read publicly in it.” Beckwith inferred that “the Fifths” had to mean the hagiographa; otherwise, the book of Esther could not be read publicly if it were written in a scroll that contained only the Psalter (Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 112–115; 167 n. 11). The halakhic basis of this claim is to be doubted. The “Fifths” more likely refers to the five megillot in which the book of Esther was included. 43. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 57, 105, and 190, argues that refers to the Torah written on parchment. 44. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 87–91. 45. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 358–359, rejects the views of the church fathers as “sans valeur” and as a confusion of the identities of the Sadducees and Samaritans. It is a very late Samaritan author (Aboul Faith, fourteenth century) who states that the Sadducees based their belief only on the Law. The Tanhuma reports that the Sadducees denied the resurrection by citing Job 7:9. Beckwith cites this passage but favors the reports of Origen and Hippolytus. 46. Le Moyne argued that the church fathers’ claim that the Sadducees recognized only the authority of the Pentateuch arose out of their confusion of the Sadducees with the Samaritans and the incorrect interpretation of Acts 23:8 as a reference to the negation of the holy spirit and therefore of the inspired prophetic books (Les Sadducéens, 150 and 358–359). 47. Ruairidh Bóid (M. N. Saraf), “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra,” 630–632, argued that the Samaritan exegeses of Exod 21:24 and Deut 25:9 and 22:17 agree with the Boethusians’ interpretations, but he did not then conclude that they were one and the same group. 48. van der Kooij: “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 22; “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books,” 31–33. 49. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 34 and 36. Following Ryle’s terminology, van der Kooij distinguished between the canon that was “defined” from that which was not “definitively closed.” In a subsequent study, he clarified that what he meant by “canonical” was “the sense of highly authoritative, but this collection should not be seen as closed or fixed” (“Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books,” 28). 50. For the use of this rhetorical topos, see Lim, Holy Scripture, 37–40. 51. Barton, Oracles of God, 47. Van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 23–24, criticized Barton’s view because the definite article of “the other books” 201

presupposed a defined section. But “the rest of the books” seems a rather odd way of describing the third section. Rüger, “Le Siracide,” 66, interpreted this formulation as an indication that the canon remained open. 52. See A. F. Klijn, “A Library of Scriptures in Jerusalem?” 265–272. 53. The Chronicler has a different account (2 Chr 34–35), with his own emphasis, but the synoptic problem of the Josianic reform need not detain us. 54. Shaphan, the secretary, was able to read the scroll twice in one day, once to himself (2 Kgs 22:8) and a second time before the king (2 Kgs 22:10). The language is ambiguous, and he may have scanned the scroll the first time, noting its relevance, before reading the entirety before the king. 55. See Na’aman, “The ‘Discovered Book,’” 47–62, who also argues for a book of reform. 56. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 238. 57. Talmon, “Three Scrolls of the Law,” 27. 58. Lange, “‘They Confirmed the Reading,’” 79, contends that this textual standardization began in the second half of the first century BCE.

3. The Earliest Canonical Lists and Notices 1. Sarna, “Order of the Books,” 410–411, believes that the issue is the preserved order of shelving and cataloguing in Jewish libraries. However, Haran, “Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books,” 51–61, has pointed out that Jewish libraries first came into existence in the Gaonic period and that the baraita is about the use of longer scrolls for writing the whole of the Pentateuch, all the Prophets, or all the Hagiographa on the same scroll. Cf. Haran, Biblical Collection, where Haran argues for the anthologizing of texts as a principle of canonization. 2. Translation adapted from Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 52; emphasis added. 3. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 56, 166 n. 271, states that the passage is anonymous and cannot be dated, although he believes that its present form attests to its relative antiquity. 4. Alexander, “Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” 64; emphasis in original. 5. Translation in Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 1:393. 6. Melito’s reference to the Solomonic proverbs has led to different interpretations. Lee McDonald translated the Greek as “the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom” and understood it as a reference not only to the book of Proverbs, but also the apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Biblical Canon, 201). Leiman, however, rendered 202

the phrase as “the Proverbs of Solomon also called his Wisdom” (Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 42 and 158 n. 226). The Greek literally reads “the Proverbs of Solomon or also Wisdom” and is more naturally understood as a description or alternative title of Proverbs (cf. Eusebius, HE 4.22, who gives the alternative name of Proverbs as “all-virtuous Wisdom”). 7. Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, 2:216, argue that the omission may be due to the defective manuscript used by Eusebius. Both Rufinus (345–410), who translated Origen’s works from Greek into Latin, and Hilary of Poitiers (315–367), whose commentary on Psalms followed Origen closely, reinserted the Minor Prophets as one book into their canonical lists (see Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 210). Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 63, believes that the omission must have been accidental. 8. Cf. Jerome, Prologue to Daniel. See Skehan, “St. Jerome and the Canon of Holy Scriptures,” 259–287. 9. Audet, “Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 60, 62–63. 10. The extent of the use of Aramaic titles has been queried by scholars (cf. Goodblatt, “Audet’s ‘Hebrew-Aramaic’ List,” 75–84). 11. Epiphanius’ other lists are found in Panarion 1.1.8.6 and On Weights and Measures 3–5. 12. The texts are conveniently listed in Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 207 and 212, and translated into French in Kaestli and Wermelinger, Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament, 99–102, 135–151, 197–210. 13. Katz, “Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria,” 206. 14. Audet, “Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 150–151. 15. Audet, “Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 150. 16. Notably, Mcdonald, Biblical Canon, 203–204, places it with Epiphanius and the Eastern church fathers in the fourth century. Steinmann, Oracles of God, 150 n. 198, agrees with Audet against McDonald. Frank Cross, From Epic to Canon, 221–222, accepts the reconstruction of the common source and describes Audet’s conclusions as “sound and even overly cautious.” 17. Audet, “Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 141 18. Audet, “Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books,” 143–144. 19. Translation by Barclay, Against Apion, 29–30. 20. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 119. 21. H. St. John Thackeray’s list is slightly different: for the prophets, they are Joshua, Judges + Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra + Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah + Lamentations, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, and Daniel; for the hymns 203

they are Psalms, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Josephus, 179n). 22. Steinmann, Oracles of God, 116. 23. Seth Schwartz has argued that Josephus knew only selections of the biblical texts when he wrote the Jewish War (Josephus and Judaean Politics, 25, 225–226). By contrast, in Antiquities 1–11, he clearly knew much of the biblical texts. 24. For Josephus’ sources, see especially S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 24–66, and Feldman, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” 455–518. 25. For example, van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books,” 22, stated: “The passage of Contra Apionem may be understood as attesting to a particular, presumably Pharisaic, concept of the time (the end of the first century CE) regarding the biblical books.” 26. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 356. 27. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 373–374. 28. S. Mason, “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon,” 114. 29. Ossandón, “Flavio Josefo y los veintidós libros,” 653–694, argues that Josephus must have been using traditional material since the four non-historical books of his canon do not contribute to his polemics for Jewish history. Moreover, had he invented the list, one would have expected him to have said that the books covered the entire history of the Jews. 30. Contrast the views of S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 144–151, and S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 194–195, 374. 31. de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 30. 32. de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 52. 33. Bacher, “Church Father, Origen, and Rabbi Hoshaya,” 357–360; de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 25, 33, and 52. See also S. Cohen, “Sabbath Law and Mishnah Sabbath in Origen De Principii,” 160–189. 34. See the critical edition of the text in Hayman, Sefer Yesira. 35. Quoted in de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 175 n. 24. 36. Barclay, “Josephus v. Apion,” 194–221, has characterized Josephus’ mode of argumentation as mixed. Sometimes he is sound but insufficient. Other times he is artificial and even contradictory. 37. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 13. 38. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 12. Contrast Gray’s views to earlier formulations that understand Josephus’ notice as a principle about the cessation of prophecy and closing of the canon. For instance, Barthélemy, “L’état de la Bible juive,” 22–23, traces the 204

belief in the cessation, or interruption, of prophecy back to the second century BCE (cf. 1 Macc 14:41). 39. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 34. 40. See also Cross, From Epic to Canon, 221: “Thinly concealed behind Josephus’s Greek apologetics is a clear and coherent theological doctrine of canon. There can be little doubt that he echoes his own Pharisaic tradition and specifically the canonical doctrine of Hillel and his school.” 41. The affinities with rabbinic literature are well known. Less persuasive is the identification of the author of 4 Ezra as a scribe of Yavneh who wrote in response to the fall of the Temple (Longenecker, “Locating 4 Ezra,” 271–293). The dual themes of healing and preserving the nation are too unspecific to make the case compelling. 42. Stone, Fourth Ezra, 427, notes that the scriptures included everything “from creation to eschaton.” See now Hogan, “Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” 530–552. 43. Translation adapted from Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 121. 44. On this enigmatic criterion, see Lim, “Defilement of the Hands.” I argue that holy scriptures were considered as sacred contagion that had a detrimental effect of defilement on those who were not eligible to touch them. 45. Leniency or stringency is determined by the subsequent requirement to purify “the hands,” which in my view is a metonym for the whole person. 46. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 122. 47. Alexander, “Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” 64.

4. The Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 1. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 98. Gunneweg, Esra, is a notable exception. 2. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, and J. Wright, Rebuilding Identity. 3. Grabbe: History of the Jews, 77, and “‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra,” 533. See, however, Williamson’s reply in “Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” 54–57. 4. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars. 5. Grätz, Edikt des Artaxerxes, 139–140. 6. For example, Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah; Janzen, “‘Mission’ of Ezra,” 619–643; and Edelman, Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple. 7. Frei published his views in 1984 in “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie,” 8–43. A summary of his views appeared in “Persische Reichautorisation der Thora,” 47–61, which was translated by James W. Watts as “Persian Imperial Authorization.” Frei was not the first or only one to have proposed a theory involving Persian imperial 205

authorization, but the scholarly discussion has revolved around his name and formulation. 8. Frei, “Persian Imperial Authorization,” 38. 9. Frei, “Persian Imperial Authorization,” 33. 10. Schmid, “Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem,” 28. 11. In his introduction to the proceedings of a joint session at the SBL meeting in 2000 James Watts summed up in the following way: “Taken together, these articles suggest that the available evidence will not support Frei’s comparison of Persian policy with modern federal arrangements of governing the relationship between local and national governments” (Persia and Torah, 3). However, Schmid, “Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem,” 31, has corrected Watts’ negative assessment. He notes that several scholars in the Persia and Torah volume are actually not opposed to Frei’s theory. 12. Kent, Old Persian, 116 and 119. 13. Cf. Ahikar, who was “a wise and skilfull scribe” who was a counselor and bearer of the seal of Sennacherib (Porten and Yardeni, TAD, 3:C1.1). The view that a “scribe” was more like a “secretary” in the imperial court was suggested by Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 39 and 58. However, Galling, “Bagoas und Esra,” 166–167, argues that it is an official title of diasporan Jewry. 14. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars, 102–107, 354. 15. Williamson, “Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” 58. 16. A case in point is the mention of a letter in Ezra 4:7 without its inclusion. The following verse begins another letter of Rehum and Shimshai. 17. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 98, sees vv. 21–25 as an intrusive element but cites precedents for the inclusion of a letter within a decree, but Ezra 6:3–12 is not an exact parallel as it is a letter to Tattenai within a decree of Cyrus. 18. See Herodotus, Hist. 3 §91. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 103, calculates the liquid measure of a bath to be twenty-one liters or less, and a kor to contain ten baths. On the high cap of silver, Williamson wonders whether an error had crept into the text because of the subsequent mention of hundreds. Cf. his discussion of the Persepolis tablets, “Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis,” 41–61. 19. So Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 103. 20. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 104. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 150–151, draws further comparisons with Jehoshaphat’s appointment of judges for the purpose of instructing the people throughout the cities of Judah (2 Chr 19:4–11). 21. Alternatively, Lisbeth Fried, “‘You Shall Appoint Judges,’” 63–90, argues that 206

Ezra’s order was to appoint Persian magistrates and judges. 22. In Ezra 7:25–26, “the laws” or “the law” translates the Aramaic term dat (sg. and pl.), which is a Persian loan word. This law or laws of Ezra’s God is the same as “the torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:6) and “the torah of the Lord” (Ezra 7:10). The meaning of “torah” will be discussed below. 23. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah. 24. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah, 251–252. 25. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah, 203. 26. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah, 258. 27. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah, 265. For a similar view, see E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums, 65. 28. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 92–93. 29. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 11. That a petition is probable is also suggested by Neh 2:4. 30. K. Lee, Authority and Authorization of Torah, 249. 31. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 288. 32. The asymmetrical number of companions on either side of Ezra has, not surprisingly, engendered various emendations, notably by either taking “Hashbaddanah” as two names or removing “Meshullam” (which is not preceded by the copula in the MT) as a secondary addition. 33. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 290. 34. Even though the interpretation suggested here is supported by later Jewish tradition, it is proper to leave aside the rabbinic interpretation, for which see Le Deaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique, 30. 35. The verbal root occurs four times elsewhere (A6 1:3; C1 1:207; D7 24:15; and D5 58:2, see Porten and Yardeni, TAD). The fifth-century BCE Passover papyrus (D7 24:15) is the closest parallel, but the Aramaic could mean either “I sent to him to explain” (or “to translate”) the matter. 36. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 53 and 56 n. 18a. 37. While there are different ways of expressing the notion of summary in Hebrew and Aramaic, one would have expected the use of the term as in the “sum” or “essence” of the Lord’s word is truth (Ps 119:160) or Daniel’s “summary of the matters” of his dreams (Dan 7:1). 38. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 53–54. Willliamson, “Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” 49–51, reprises the issue, arguing that the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had documents before him. 207

39. There is unclarity in Williamson’s presentation. He argues that means “script” and ‫“ ןותשנה‬instruction, rescript” and “not necessarily written,” but he translates the clause as “and the document was written in the Aramaic script.” According to his discussion, the clause should literally read “the script of the instruction (or rescript) was written in Aramaic.” To what does “the document” in his translation correspond? Moreover, how could something unwritten be written in the Aramaic script? 40. So Williamson states explicitly in “Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” 50. 41. So Willliamson, “Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” 50. 42. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 54 n. 7d, takes this occurrence as analogous to Ezra 4:7. The term in Dan 2:4, however, need not be a scribal gloss; it could mean “the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic” (cf. John J. Collins, Daniel, 148). 43. The use of trgm for a translation into a language other than Aramaic is consistent with its later usage. The verb simply means “to translate,” which came to refer primarily, but not exclusively, to the Aramaic targum. In Rabbinic literature its verbal and nominal forms could also apply to Greek translations or explanations of Hebrew words. 44. So Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 288, though he translates it as “distinctly,” implying the care taken in the reading. 45. As such, the singular may be governed by a plural subject (so Williamson, EzraNehemiah, 278–279). Williamson, however, renders the particle as “paragraph by paragraph” in line with his understanding of Ezra 4:18 (275, 276 n. 8a). 46. Cf. Alexander, “Targumim, and Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of Targum,” 14–28. 47. Some commentators see this as a secondary editorial insertion and understand the subject as the Levites, in conformity with Neh 8. 48. The earliest of such translations are to be found in the Job Targum (4Q157, 11Q10) and the Leviticus Targum (4Q156), dating to the first century CE and late second or early first century BCE respectively. 49. Although the infinitive absolute (‫ )םוש‬could theoretically have a different subject to the first clause, the most natural reading is to take its subject as the same as in the first clause. 50. Cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 155. Williamson reviewed the various arguments and concluded that the Ezra law book “included parts, at least, of both D and P, in which case it was similar to, if not yet fully identical with, our Pentateuch” (Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix). 51. By contrast, Neh 9:3 describes how the Israelites spent one-fourth of the day reading and another one-fourth confessing and worshipping God. 208

52. Still useful is Östborn, Tôrâ in the Old Testament. 53. Inclusion of Neh 9–10 as part of the Ezra memoir is dependent on the acceptance of “Ezra” in LXX Neh 9:6 against the MT, which leaves the speaker unidentified. 54. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 286. 55. The first-century CE apocalypse of 4 Ezra develops this literary figure as Ezra dictates the entire twenty-four-book canon to scribes. See Halivni, Revelation Restored, who describes, from a rabbinic perspective, how Ezra corrected the maculated Torah that had become corrupt as a result of Israel’s sin. 56. Grabbe, History of the Jews, 337. Grabbe provides a table showing how verses in Ezra-Nehemiah correspond to passages in the Pentateuch and Joshua. See also his “Law of Moses in Ezra Tradition,” 91–114. 57. Rearranged from Grabbe’s table (History of the Jews, 336–337) according to the traditional order. 58. Grabbe, History of the Jews, 337. 59. Newman, Praying by the Book, ch. 2, discusses the scripturalization of the review of history but does not discuss her view of the canon. 60. While pentateuchal passages (e.g., Num 21:21–35, 26, and Deut 2–3, 6:10–11, and 8:7–10) may be implied in the description of Neh 9:24–25, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the book of Joshua, especially 1–12, was known to the editor. Boda, Praying the Tradition, argues that the date of the prayer is the early Persian period and likens Neh 9 to Haggai and Zech 1–8. 61. Römer and Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” 409. 62. They do not actually provide a translation, but their understanding of the phrase is clear (Römer and Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” 415, 418). 63. Römer and Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” 416. 64. Ostensibly elaborating on the view of Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 292. 65. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix, 311. 66. See now Schmid, Dozeman, and Römer, Pentateuch, Hexateuch or Enneateuch? 67. Despite Joshua’s affinities and even dependence on the Pentateuch (so Albertz, “Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua”). 68. So Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 1030.

209

69. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 749. 70. Thus Williamson argues that it is unlikely that the Chronicler is to be identified with the redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah. But he also notes that the Chronicler’s concern to safeguard the priestly privileges comes close to Ezra 6:18 and concludes that “the author of Ezra 1–6 comes from the same circle as the pro-priestly reviser of Chronicles” (Ezra, Nehemiah, 84; cf. his “Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses,” 251–268). Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work, 117–118, points out that the Chronicler was uninterested in distinguishing between the requirements of David and Moses. 71. Cf. Patrick, Old Testament Law, 200. 72. John J. Collins, “Transformation of the Torah,” 459. Cf. LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, argues that Israel’s law collections underwent changes in content and esteem and a radical recharacterization. 73. LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 103–131, details seven discrepancies and concludes: “Ezra-Nehemiah does not display concern for the enforcement of Torah’s stipulations.” 74. Gilbert, “La place de la loi,” 315. 75. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, shows the literary sophistication of the covenantrenewal account and the democratization of the Torah in passing through the hands of an expanding circle of Ezra, Levites, heads of ancestral families, the priests, and Levites and Israelites as a whole.

5. The Letter of Aristeas and Its Early Interpreters 1. Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, ch. 1. 2. Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 19. 3. See Harl, “Septante chez les Pères grecs,” 289–320; Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, 78–98; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 338–360. For the Jewish reception of the LXX, see Wasserstein and Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, 51– 83. 4. Recently Ilan, “Torah of the Jews of Rome,” has argued that the Jewish community in Rome held as authoritative the Latin work Liber antiquitatem biblicarum. 5. Unless noted otherwise, the English translation is taken from Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates. 6. Orlinsky, “Septuagint as Holy Writ,” 94 and 100. 7. See, e.g., A. Paul, “Traductions grecques de la Bible,” 4:321–325, who discusses the Sinaitic gift of the Greek Bible. 210

8. Describing the scholarly discussion, Gilles Dorival summed it up aptly: “La Lettre d’Aristée a soulevé, et soulève encore, bien des controverses” (in Harl, Dorival, and Munnich, La Bible Grecque des Septante, 41). For Codex Q, see H. St. J. Thackeray, “Introduction to the Letter of Aristeas,” in Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 542. 9. E.g., Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 29–30, following A. Deissmann’s classic distinction between the non-literary letter and the public epistle; however, Rajak, Translation and Survival, 31 n. 12, queries this usage. 10. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 92 nn. 1–8, is of the opinion that Josephus uses “the book of Aristeas” as a description rather than a title. However, Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 2, adopts it as the preferred title. On Eusebius’ description, see Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 56 and 92 nn. 1–8, followed by Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 30. 11. So Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 1. 12. Some of these textbooks are preserved in the works of the second-century CE rhetorician Theon. See now Kennedy, Progymnasmata. 13. Legend of the Septuagint, 24. Though this work was co-authored by Abraham Wasserstein and David Wasserstein, ch. 2 was written principally by the former. 14. Wasserstein and Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, 25. 15. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 58. 16. Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 1. So also Rajak, Translation and Survival, 47, who characterizes the Let. Aris. as “a historical myth” and part of the collective memory of Alexandrian Jewry. 17. In §322, Let. Aris. compares itself favorably to “the books of the romancers” (τὰτῶν μυθολόγων βιβλία), suggesting that “the difference is of degree rather than kind” (Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 226 n. 322). 18. Wasserstein and Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, 24, estimate that over two-thirds of the work has no consequence for the story of the translation. 19. The history of scholarship is lined with a multitude of other scholarly opinions about the character and purpose of the Let. Aris. Gilles Dorival conveniently categorized the scholarly views into three lines of interpretation. First, the Let. Aris. is an apology for the Greek translation of the Torah (so Philo and Josephus). Second, the Let. Aris. is Jewish propaganda intending to show Greeks the excellence of Jewish religion and law. Third, the Let. Aris. defends Alexandrian Jews from the attacks of their Palestinian co-religionists over the translation of the LXX, the allegorical interpretation of the Law, and the synthesis of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy. On the issue of translation, the line of interpretation may be further subdivided into one that affirms the value of the Greek translation, championing the 211

LXX against the Palestinian tendencies toward revision, and another that defends the LXX against the rival translation of Leontopolis (Dorival in Harl, Dorival, and Munnich, La Bible Grecque des Septante, 43–44). 20. Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” has identified Aristeas with the historian who wrote “On the Jews,” but most scholars believe that he is an unknown figure (Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 2.) 21. Meecham, Letter of Aristeas, 158–168. 22. However, N. Collins, “281 BCE,” 405–503, has dated it precisely, on the basis of the notices in Eusebius and Epiphanius, to the transitional period between the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. 23. So Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 109 n. 28, who notes that the imperfect tense is not textually certain. 24. See Plutarch, The Life of Demetrius. 25. In the Strom. Clement identifies Aristobulus as the figure mentioned in 2 Macc 1:10 who belonged to the Peripatetic school, but this may have been meant in the general sense of a philosopher and not necessarily a member of the Aristotelian school in Alexandria (see Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 3: Aristobulus, 73, 204–205). 26. A few paragraphs earlier in book 12, Ptolemy’s letter to Eleazar requests six elders from each of the twelve tribes (12:49). The numerical discrepancy between seventy-two and seventy did not seem to trouble Josephus. 27. Wasserstein and Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, 45, interpret Philo to be describing translators who worked on different parts of the Law and who used the same words in different contexts. But this is not a plain reading of the account. 28. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 54. Kahle argued that the verb σεσήμανται was a reference to previous Greek translations that had been “translated” carelessly and inadequately and that the Letter of Aristeas was intended to legitimize not the original translation of Hebrew scriptures but a revision of it. “Demetrius,” he averred, “can hardly be supposed to have an interest in any form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, nor say that these Hebrew copies were made carelessly” (Cairo Genizah, 135–136). 29. Translation from Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 28. 30. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 110. 31. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies 2,” 118. Zuntz referred to the meaning of the verb in 1 Esdr 8:48, 2 Macc 2, and especially the fragment of Aristobulus (in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 13.12). 32. Howard, “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism,” 339–340,

212

repunctuates §30 and renders σεσήμανται as “middle,” meaning “to signify,” concluding that the passage refers to corrupt Hebrew manuscripts rather than corrupt Greek translations. Similarly, A. Paul, “Traductions grecques de la Bible,” 318–321, compares the use of σημαίνειν in various Hellenistic sources, concluding that it does not mean “to translate.” 33. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins,” 359. 34. Meecham, Letter of Aristeas, 333. 35. See also Bickerman, “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas,” 287–293, who dates the letter to between 145 and 127 BCE on the basis of a careful study of the political, geographical, and diplomatic terminology in the Let. Aris. 36. Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 142. 37. Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 128–136. 38. On other themes of the Exodus, see Hacham, “Letter of Aristeas,” who argues that the Let. Aris. creates a foundation story of Hellenistic Jewry. 39. Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 44–45. 40. Cf. McDonald, “Hellenism and the Biblical Canons,” who argues that the use of pinakes or “lists” in the great Alexandrian library parallel the concept of “canon.” See also S. Cohen, “False Prophets (4Q339), Netinim (4Q340),” who argues that the use of cards or pinakes was already evident in the scrolls. 41. See Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. For the editio princeps, see Tov, Greek Minor Prophets Scroll. On the implications for canon, see Barthélemy’, “L’état de la Bible juive.” 42. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 26–27, questioned the evidence of Aristobulus. More recently, Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 3:43–75, has concluded that Aristobulus’ exegetical work, dedicated to the young king, can be confidently dated to the reign of Ptolemy Philometer (180–145 BCE). 43. So Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 224 n. 316. 44. J. Lee, Lexical Study of the Septuagint, 145. See further T. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. 45. “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek,’” in Horsley, New Documents, 5:5–40. See also T. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch, who discusses the bilingual nature of the Septuagint’s Koine Greek. 46. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 3:213–214 n.70, believes that the core of the legend derives from Demetrius’ efforts in developing Egyptian laws and his advice that Ptolemy I Soter collect and read books on kingship. The setting in the time of Philadelphus, however, derives from an independent tradition. 47. Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 136, notes, however, that the 213

authoritative status of the Homeric epics was achieved “through a commentary.” 48. The Habakkuk pesherist probably derived the textual variant “his sword” from the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (see Lim, Pesharim, 60–61). 49. So J. W. Wevers: “Apologia for Septuagint Studies” and “Göttingen Pentateuch,” 51–60. 50. References to the church fathers may be found in Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 123 n. 3. Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 27, points out that Ptolemy was a contemporary of Justin (103–165). 51. Ptolemy flourished between 136 and 180 CE. For a translation and introduction to the text, see Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 306–315. The reference to the Pentateuch occurs in Ptolemy’s discussion of the multiple authorship of the law of Moses: “The law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not established by a single author, I mean not by god alone: rather, there are certain of its commandments that were established by human beings as well.” See Pearson’s discussion of this passage in relation to Valentinian gnosticism in “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in Gnostic Literature,” 644–646. 52. Zeitlin’s views appear in Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 168 n. 176. Zeitlin also understands “the Hebrew tongue” (§38) to be a reference to Hebrew characters, but that is unlikely. The Mishnah requires holy scriptures to be written in square (“Assyrian”) letters, on parchment, and in ink (mMeg 2:1; mYad 4:5). 53. Note that in pentateuchal criticism “Tetrateuch” refers to the corpus of books from Genesis to Numbers. 54. According to Genesis Rabbah 14.4 and Philo, Spec. Laws 4.24.123, man has two yetsarim or natures, a teaching that is derived from Gen 2:7 (so Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 208 n. 277). 55. The principal differences between the citation in MT and LXX are (1) use of the participial genitive (τοῦ ποιήσαντος) instead of the adjectival (ὅσος; LXXDeut 7:18) or indefinite relative pronoun (ὅστις; LXXDeut 10:21) plus finite verb (ἐποίησεν); MT has qal perfect , and (2) use of “the wonderous things” (τὰ θαυμαστα) instead of “these glorious things” of LXXDeut 10:21 (τὰ ἔνδοξα ταῦτα); MT has . Elsewhere in §57, the description of the table being made of pure gold agrees with the LXX against the MT, where it is made of acacia wood (Exod 25:23). 56. Dorival (in Harl, Dorival, and Munnich, La Bible Grecque des Septante, 64) estimates that a deluxe edition of the Greek Pentateuch can be accommodated in five individual scrolls, but “la disposition sur un seul rouleau, comme dans l’usage juif courant, paraît exclue.” This multi-scroll compilation has been related to the plural τὰ τεύχη by Troyer, “When Did the Pentateuch Come into Existence?” 278. 57. Rajak, Translation and Survival, 15 and 90–91, likewise queries the common 214

assumption that what the Let. Aris. has in view is the Pentateuch: “He more than likely meant the entire Torah, but the Greek formulation does not exclude the possibility that only a legal core was covered in the first instalment.” 58. Philo does recount the revelation on Mt. Sinai but relates the origins of the LXX to Moses’ high priesthood (Moses 2.70). 59. Brock, “To Revise or Not to Revise,” 301–308. 60. Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” 66–72. See also Kamesar, “Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation.” 61. Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” 71. 62. Benjamin Wright likewise concludes that Philo’s emphasis upon the form of the translation is a necessary premise for his exegesis (“Translation as Scripture,” 313). 63. Textually, Philo follows the Septuagint where it differs from the MT. For instance, the inclusion of “salt” (hales) along with bread in Moses 2.104 agrees with the LXX of Lev 24:7 against the MT. 64. Allenbach et al., Biblia patristica. 65. See Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” 23–24. 66. Walter, Thoraausleger Aristobulos, 31–32. 67. Knox has argued that in Philo’s writings there are some fifty-five instances of quotations of non-pentateuchal books. Of these, the Hannah-Samuel-Wisdom group of citations should not be attributed to Philo, as they are his use of preexistent “testimonies.” Only citations from the Psalms and Hosea are “genuine Philonic additions.” Knox explained that the sparse citations of biblical books outside of the Pentateuch was a reflection of the state of the Septuagint translation: “There seems only one explanation of the rarity of quotations from outside the Pentateuch in Philo’s writings and the groups into which they fall, namely that the bulk of Philo goes back to an Alexandrine tradition of exegesis which was established when the Pentateuch alone had been translated into Greek” (“A Note on Philo’s Use of the Old Testament,” 33– 34). Naomi G. Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures, has explored Philo’s use of non-pentateuchal material, especially Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, among the allegorical circle. Amir, however, has pointed to the importance of the Torah in Philo’s writings, stating baldly that “the preponderance of the Pentateuch in Philo’s use of the Bible becomes downright overwhelming” (“Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” 422). For Amir, Philo’s focus on the Pentateuch does not stem from Alexandrian synagogal practice but the emphasis of Hellenistic Judaism on the figure of Moses, the prophetic figure par excellence, whose laws were considered perfect in every detail. 68. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe, 189, suggests that Josephus omitted the imprecation against change of the texts of the Greek law because he too indulged in the paraphrase 215

of the Pentateuch in the Antiquities. Cf. Nodet, “Josephus and the Pentateuch.” S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, ch. 2, shows that Josephus used his sources inconsistently, including Aristeas, LXX, Esdras, and 1 Maccabees, but in accordance with Greek historiographic traditions. 69. See Levy, Fixing God’s Torah.

6. The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and 2 Maccabees 1. Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 55; B. Wright, No Small Difference; and Nelson, Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. 2. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 33–36. 3. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 36. 4. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 23–24. 5. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 36. 6. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 452. 7. Rüger, “Le Siracide,” 65–66. 8. It may have been a translation of the Hebrew

and

respectively.

9. Quite what ben Sira himself meant is another matter. Pagan sources, especially Greek and Egyptian, have been detected in his writings, and it is possible that Ben Sira read more than Israelite literature (see Jack Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom). However, it would seem that the scribal curriculum that he outlines in 39:1–3 was understood by the grandson to refer only to Israelite literature. 10. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 133. 11. So also B. Wright, “Why a Prologue?” 635 n. 5. 12. Cf. Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 568, who argues that Ben Sira thought of his own book as inspired. 13. Cf. T. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. 14. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 500. 15. Rüger, “Le Siracide,” 65. 16. For references, see Lim, “‘Nevertheless These Were Men of Piety.’” 17. So also Beentjes, “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom,” 122–133, who understands the laus patrum as a description of only famous Israelites. 18. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 499. 19. Rightly, Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 558. 20. Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 545, who point to the catch word 216

“glory.” 21. Rüger, “Le Siracide,” 65. 22. Beentjes, “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom,” 172. 23. The first separation of the book of Ezra from Nehemiah occurs in Origen’s list (ca. 185–254 CE), which distinguishes between “Esdras i, ii, in one, Ezra, that is, ‘Helper’” (in Eusebius, HE 6.25.2; see chapter 3). 24. Interestingly, three of the four books—Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Esther— are also absent in the letters of Paul (see chapter 9). 25. Kraft, “Scripture and Canon in Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 201– 202 and 211. 26. Beentjes, “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom,” 172–183. See also B. Wright, “Use and Interpretation of Biblical Traditions in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors,” 183–207. 27. B. Wright, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira,” 363–388, criticizes Beentjes on his handling of two passages. 28. B. Wright, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” 29. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 26 and 37–38. 30. This was suggested by Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief,” 233–254, and followed by most scholars. 31. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 524. 32. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 36–37. 33. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 172, notes the humorous way that the son is referred to simply as “Eupator,” without “Antiochus.” The play on the name continues in the reference to heavenly “appearances” or “epiphanes” that helped the Jews against the Seleucid king. 34. Such complaints are standard fare in ancient prefaces (cf. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 178). 35. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 8–9. 36. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 36–37. 37. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 133 and 147. 38. Wacholder, “Letter from Judah Maccabee,” 99. 39. Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 169. 40. Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 157–167. It is thought that the report should precede 10:8, the public ordinance that all Jews should observe these days annually. 41. So Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 81. 217

42. Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 162. 43. Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 144. 44. Wacholder, “Letter from Judah Maccabee,” 128. 45. So Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 170. 46. Josephus used non-biblical material, including 1 Esdras (cf. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction,” 231–246). 47. The rebuilding of the Temple and its completion must have been a complex project. It is likely that several hands were involved at various times. In 2 Macc, Nehemiah’s role is enhanced and is itself increased by a comparison to that of Judas (see Bergren, “Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18”). 48. In Aramaic,

.

49. Schorch, “Libraries in 2 Macc 2:13–15,” 173. 50. Lange, “2 Maccabees 2:13–15,” 167. Likewise, see Haran, “Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books,” 51–61. 51. Schorch, “Libraries in 2 Macc 2:13–15,” 171. 52. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 167. 53. 2 Macc 2:15 resonates with the story of the LXX. 54. Barton, Oracles of God, 57, likewise questioned the reading of 2 Macc 2:13. The passage has nothing to do with canonization; it is “about a salvage operation on archival material of all kinds, including scripture.” 55. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 28. 56. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 29. 57. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 149 n. 132. 58. Barton, Oracles of God, 57–58: “As is often the case, Leiman’s footnote on the first suggestion [i.e., about canonization] is more cautious than the main text.” 59. Notably, van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Books,” 25. In his critique of Leiman and Beckwith, van der Kooij writes: “The passage of 2 Macc 2:13–14 does reflect a strong interest in a collection of books kept in the library of the temple. It may well be that this passage has a bearing on the history of canonization.” So also Lange, “2 Maccabees 2:13–15.”

7. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures 1. E.g., Lim and Collins, Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. For this scholarly usage, see the introduction in Lim and Collins, Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2. 218

3. It is often noted that Nehemiah is also absent, but see now James Charlesworth, who has published in preliminary form a fragment of Neh 3:14–15 on the Institute for Judaism and Christian Origins website (http://www.ijco.org/?categoryId=28681). In an e-mail correspondence Charlesworth confirmed that the fragment came from Cave 4. 4. Tov, on the basis of orthography and scribal practices, has attempted a differentiation based on sectarian copying habits (see Scribal Practices and Approaches). 5. Ulrich: “Qumran Biblical Scrolls” and “Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants,’” 179– 196. 6. See now Charlesworth, “An Unknown Dead Sea Scroll.” 7. James Sanders, Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. See also James Sanders, Dead Sea Scrolls. 8. James Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises,” 294–295. 9. J. T. Milik interpreted the partially preserved title of to be a reference to the five books of the Pentateuch or the Psalter (1Q30. DJD I. Qumran Cave I, 132– 133), but the text is too mutilated to be certain. 10. See Sanders’ views in “Cave 11 Surprises” and “Psalm 154 Revisited,” 296– 306. 11. Wilson, “Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered,” critically reviewed the debate. For an update, see Flint, “Psalms Scrolls.” 12. Flint: Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, ch. 9, and “Psalms Scrolls.” 13. For a critique, see Dahmen, “Psalmentext und Psalmensammlung,” 109–126. 14. Wilson, “Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of the Psalms,” 387, lists 4QPsa and 4QPsb as “contradictory to MT.” 15. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, 34–35. 16. Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. 17. Flint, “Psalms Scrolls,” 1109. 18. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 311. 19. Lim, Pesharim, 54–63. Pesher Habakkuk cites “staggering” in its quotation of Hab 2:16 in 1Qphab 11:8–15, a variant attested in the LXX and Peshitta. 1QpHab refers to “his sword” of 8HevXIIgr. 20. For the various meanings of sepher, see Lim, “Alleged Reference,” 29–31. 21. Qimron and Strugnell et al., Qumran Cave 4, 59, 93–94, and 111–112. 22. Ulrich, “Non-Attestation of a Tripartite Canon,” 202–214, rejects the official editors’ reconstruction; Bertholet, “4QMMT et la question du canon,” 3, questions 219

Ulrich’s reconstruction of the otherwise unattested and argues that “la proposition des éditeurs reste encore la plus plausible.” Puech, “Quelques observations,” 121 n. 9, doubts Ulrich’s join and the space among the preserved letters. Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 97, 206, argues that there are two different versions in what she considers to be lines 17–19 of her alternative composite text. Only in 4Q397 is the phrase to be found, and her reconstruction of it follows that of the official editors. 23. Bertholet, “4QMMT et la question du canon,” 4, points to the references of Jeremiah in 4Q182 and 4Q163, which I cited in Lim, “Alleged Reference,” as evidence that sepher was assumed in the phrase “in David.” But Bertholet supposes that of 4Q163 is simply a shortened form of (4Q182). In her reading the would presumably be an elliptical beth essentiae. It is possible, but not necessary and in fact is unlikely, since the beth of the former is more likely to be an instrumental beth, literally meaning “in” but more suitably translated as “by Jeremiah,” especially as it is accompanied by a passive “as it is written” ( ). The two possibilities were raised long ago by Horgan (Pesharim, 106). Most recently Puech, “L’épilogue de 4QMMT revisité,” 322– 327, argues that be-david refers to “(ceux) de Davi[d],” ostensibly following the same interpretation as Bertholet. But the implied plural, “(those) of David,” is presumably derived from the preceding phrase, “the books of the prophets”; however, this interpretation not only assumes a title for the writings of David that is unprecedented, but it also contradicts the attested singular title of “the book of Psalms.” 24. Lim, “Alleged Reference,” 35–36. 25. D. Schwartz, “Special People or Special Books?” 52. 26. D. Schwartz, “Special People or Special Books?” 52. 27. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 314. 28. See Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 313–314. 29. See, however, Hempel, who has challenged the view that MMT refers to the pre-sectarian stage of the origins and history of the Qumran community (“Context of 4QMMT and Comfortable Theories,” 275–292). 30. Bertholet argues that be-david refers to an undetermined book on David because “la vie et la royauté de David sont illustrés non seulement par 1–2 Samuel et 1 Rois, mais aussi par les Psaumes” (“4QMMT et la question du canon,” 5). Her reference to the parallel texts of 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 is only generally relevant. Instead she could have pointed to Pss 32 and 51, where David’s sin against Uriah is explicitly addressed. But it is not necessary to suppose that MMT was referring to the Psalms rather than the account in Samuel-Kings. It could theoretically refer to both, but there is nothing distinctively psalmic in MMT’s description of David. 31. Evidently known in the sectarian scrolls as “the book of meditation” ( ; cf. CD 10:6; 13:2; 14:8; 4Q266 fr. 8, col. 3, l. 5; 4Q267 fr. 9, col. 5, l. 12; and 1QSa 1:7), based on Josh 1:8 (“let not this book of the law depart from your 220

mouth, but you shall meditate

on it day and night”).

32. D. Schwartz, “Special People or Special Books?” 49–62, argues that should be translated as “the books of the prophets” rather than “prophetical books,” but the distinction that he draws between “special people” and “special books” is not borne out by the scrolls or, for that matter, Rabbinic literature. 33. Lim, “Alleged Reference,” 25, notes that “the phrase is entirely reconstructed in 4Q398.” 34. So Yardeni, “4Q397. 4Q398. Script,” 21–25 and 29–34. 35. Tov, Texts from the Judaean Desert, 398 and 418. 36. See Pfann, Qumran Cave 4: Halakhic Texts, 1–3. 37. See Lim, “Origins and Emergence of Midrash,” 595–612. 38. For a detailed discussion, see Lim, “Alleged Reference,” 27–31. 39. For a discussion of James VanderKam’s “open core canon,” see Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 314–318. 40. Weissenberg, 4QMMT, ch. 2, has reconstructed an alternative composite text of the admonitions section to the official one found in DJD, chiefly by moving 4Q398, frs. 11–13, to the beginning of the section. 41. Qimron and Strugnell et al. tentatively suggest that there may be a variant in MSd C 19 but note that the reading and context are doubtful (DJD X, 91). If this is correct, then it would strengthen the view that Solomon and Jeroboam are used as markers of the beginning of the assumed narrative. 42. Details are found in my previous discussions (Lim: “Alleged Reference,” 31–34, and “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 309–310). 43. So also in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They divide the canonical books differently, but both include Daniel in the division of the Prophets against the traditional Jewish order. 44. It is notable that David is never called a prophet in the scrolls, even in the Great Psalms Scroll, where he is said to have composed songs and psalms by prophecy. One possible explanation is that the scrolls are following the biblical texts that do not call David “a prophet” (see Lim, “All These He Composed through Prophecy,” 61–76). By contrast, David is called a prophet in Acts 2:30. 45. Tov states: “These five groups of fragments should therefore be seen as copies of the same composition, rather than, in more general terms, of the same literary genre” (in Tov and White, Qumran Cave 4, 191). Sidnie White Crawford, who co-edited the fragments in DJD with Tov, has changed her mind, now believing that these are different exemplars written in the same scribal technique (Temple Scroll and Related Texts, 57, and “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” 132–133 n. 16). 221

So also M. Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” 391–399. 46. An exception is Dimant, “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions,” 242–248. 47. Lim, “Chronology of the Flood Story.” 48. The same term is used elsewhere in CD to interpret mishpatim or laws (CD 14:18–19//4Q266 f. 11: 18–19//4Q270 fr. 7 2:12–13) and shemot of a genealogical list of Israel (CD 4:4b–5a). 49. The authority of the book of Jubilees, however, is not inviolable. VanderKam suggested that 4Q252 corrected the chronology of the flood story in the book of Jubilees by adding two days, Wednesday and Thursday, to make the 150 days of the waters of the flood fit the dates of the beginning (2/17) and end (7/17) (“Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 399). 50. Translation by Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 52. 51. 4QJuba (4Q216) 7:17: . For a discussion of the Heavenly Tablets as Torah and te’udah, see M. Segal, Book of Jubilees, 282–316. 52. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 41–69. Alternatively, see Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” 195–211. 53. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 31. 54. J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” 31. 55. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 43. 56. The Damascus Document’s self-understanding has been characterized either as “an interpretation of the laws” (so Baumgarten, “4Q265,” 31–32) or “Midrash on the Eschatological Torah” (Wacholder, New Damascus Document, and Stegemann, “Towards Physical Reconstructions,” 193–194). 57. Steudel, Midrasch zur Eschatologie. 58. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:396–397, and VanderKam, “Questions of Canon,” 104. 59. On the influence of the LXX, Deuteronomy came to be regarded as “the second law” in some early Jewish literature in Greek (see Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” 6–26). But it is unlikely that Qumran sectarians regarded Deuteronomy similarly since in their terminology such a designation would be tautological. For them, “the torah of Moses” was the Pentateuch. 60. Steudel, Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 108–109. 61. One would have expected the torah again.”

had the sectarian meant “the book of

62. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 305–307. 63. There is a possible, but badly mutilated, reading of the imperative “interpret” in the fragmentary scroll 1Q22. Milik reconstructs the word as , suggesting that God 222

had commanded Moses to interpret the words of the law to the heads of the families and priests (DJD I. Qumran Cave I, 91–97). 64. Hebrew added to the English translation by Knibb, Qumran Community, 38–39. 65. My own view is that CD 4:20–21 is about bigamy (see Lim, “‘The Husband of One Wife’”). 66. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 504. For a discussion of the genre of pesher, see Lim, Pesharim, ch. 3. 67. The terminology of “pesher thématique” was coined by Carmignac, who described the method thus: “The author chooses for himself the biblical texts which lend themselves to his interpretation” (“Document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq,” 361). Carmignac sees as the central theme the deliverance of the righteous from the dominion of Belial rather than Melchizedek per se. The theme of other scrolls (4QFlor, 4QCatenaa, and 4QCatenab) included in this genre is much more difficult to identify (see Lim, Pesharim, 46–48). 68. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude, Qumran Cave XI, 11Q2–18. 11Q20–31. 69. The same phrase also occurs in lines 10, 11, 15, and 18. 70. The text is partially mutilated:

.

71. Translation by Allegro, Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158–4Q186), 54. 72. The title midrash sepher moshe is found on recto of 4Q249 (so Pfann in Qumran Cave 4: Halakhic Texts, 1–3). The same usage seems to be evident in 4QSd (4Q258) fr. 1, col. 1:1, “midrash for the Maskil”; 4QSb (4Q256) fr. 5, col. 1:1 (compare 1QS 5:1). 73. It is possible that the sectarians may have considered the book of Genesis prophetic in nature. Abraham functioned as a prophet in Gen 18–19 and is explicitly called a prophet in Gen 20:7. 74. For instance, the presence of sectarian terminology (e.g., yahad) and important figures (e.g., the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest). 75. See Newsom, “4Q378 and 4Q379,” 278–281. 76. Deut 18:18, however, is cited in Acts 3:22–23 and 7:37 and to God’s raising of a prophet like Moses. 77. It is, of course, theoretically possible that 4Q379 quoted from 4Q175, but that seems unlikely in the context where the first three passages are excerpts from other scrolls. 78. See Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh ha-yahad, and Metso, Serekh Texts. 79. Most evident in the way that 4Q265 contains a medley of laws from the 223

Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community (see Baumgarten, “4Q265,” 57– 78). 80. See Lim, “‘The Husband of One Wife.’” 81. So Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:357, also believes that the law should be understood as divorce. 82. Translation by Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:355. 83. See Lim, Holy Scripture, 165–167. 84. Cf. Nickelsburg, “Books of Enoch at Qumran,” and Knibb, “Reflections on the Status of the Early Enochic Writings,” 143–154. 85. See Allegro, Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158–4Q186), 77–80, and Dimant, “‘Pesher on the Periods.’” 86. Sukenik, Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, and Schuller, “4Q427– 432.” 87. So Davies, Behind the Essenes, 87–105. See now M. Collins, Use of Sobriquets. 88. See Lim, Pesharim, 78–79. 89. Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV. Sapiential Texts. 90. The translation and understanding of this phrase is debated. Lange, “Wisdom Literature and Thought in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 458–459, translates it as “the mystery of being and becoming” and states that it is reminiscent of a Greek philosophical concept foreign to Hebraic thought. See also Lange’s earlier study, Weisheit und Prädestination, and Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 51–79.

8. The Holy Books of the Essenes and Therapeutae 1. The sources are collected in Vermes and Goodman, Essenes according to the Classical Sources, and Adam, Antike Berichte über die Essener. Unless otherwise indicated, the English translations are quoted from Vermes and Goodman’s anthology. Important discussions include the following: Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes; Berg-meier, Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus; Taylor and Davies, “SoCalled Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa”; and Taylor: Jewish Women Philosophers and “Classical Sources on the Essenes and the Scrolls Communities.” 2. Cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.2:867– 868. 3. In the context of the Holiness Code, the command means loving a fellow Israelite who is like you (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 19–22). By “neighbor” Philo must have meant a fellow Essene. Meier, A Marginal Jew, ch. 36, argues that in the light of the triple attestation of Mark, Q, and John, the historical Jesus issued “some sort of 224

commandment or commandments enjoining love.” Meier also discusses several passages where Philo comes close to the double commandment of love in Mark. 4. “The works of the ancients” (τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν συντάγματα; War 2:136) is ambiguous. It could refer to the sectarian books or the biblical books. 5. Note that the previous nouns are not preceded by the definite article, and the phrase ἄλλα βιβλία does not occur in Philo. 6. Davies, Scribes and Schools. 7. Haran, “Book Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period,” 123. 8. Taylor and Davies, “So-Called Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa.” 9. See also Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers, 342: “We have reconfigured the Therapeutae as one of the ascetic, contemplative groups that formed part of the philosophical school of Jewish allegorical exegesis in the first-century Alexandria.” 10. J. Collins: Beyond the Qumran Community and “Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

9: Canon in the Gospels and Pauline Letters 1. Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 105. 2. E. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism. 3. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 211–222. 4. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 212. 5. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 213. 6. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 216. 7. This is a rare use of “son of,” but it is possible (see, e.g., 2 Chr 22:9; Ahaziah, the grandson of Jehoshaphat, is called ). 8. Chronicles never uses “father” to mean grandfather, although it does use “mother” to mean grandmother: Maacah, mother of Abijah and grandmother of Asa, is called 2) Chr 15:16; cf. 2 Chr 13:2). 9. Exceptionally, Jesus quoted scripture to reinforce his parable in Mark 12:10–11. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 548, rejects the view that this was a secondary addition by Mark. Rather she suggests that it corresponds to the later rabbinic technique of nimshal. 10. See Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus. 11. See Deines, “Die Pharisäer und das Volk,” 147–180. 12. So also Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 677. 13. Cf. Moore, “Conjectanea Talmudica,” 323: “It is not, then, because the death of 225

Zechariah was the last crime of the kind in Jewish history that it is named in the Gospel, but because it was in popular legend the typical example of the sacrilegious murder of a righteous man, a prophet of God, and of the appalling expiation God exacted for it.” 14. Cf. Peels, “The Blood ‘from Abel to Zechariah,’” 600, who rightly states that “Jesus’ words in Mt 23,35 and Lk 11,50f. would have sounded exactly the same if the narrative of Zechariah’s death had occurred in the book of Kings or in the Psalms.” 15. See, e.g., among many, Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 401. 16. Barton, Oracles of God, 35. 17. C. Evans, “Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” 190–191. 18. Nolland, Luke, 3:1218–1219, states that except for the position of “all” and “the scriptures,” even the word order is the same. 19. Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 106, observes: “Luke is the only New Testament author who explicitly mentions the book of Psalms four times, otherwise they are simply subsumed under ‘the prophets’ (indeed in Paul and John sometimes under ὁ νόμος) and introduced with one of the usual citation formulae.” 20. In Acts 13:33, the second psalm is mentioned, although there are some textual variants that combine the first and second psalms (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 412–414). 21. The adjective “all” makes clear that “all the scriptures” of v. 27 is not the same as “the Writings.” 22. Barrett, “Luke/Acts,” 237. 23. Barrett, “Luke/Acts”, 231. 24. For the “Davidicization” of the Psalter in Luke-Acts, see Miura, David in LukeActs. 25. It would seem that Matthew had a similar view: “for all prophets and the law prophesied until John” (11:13). 26. See, e.g., Wilk, “Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text,” 253–271, and Stanley,’ Paul and the Language of Scripture. 27. Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” 631. Silva’s chart is based on previous studies by Otto Michel, E. Earl Ellis, and Dietrich-Alex Koch. 28. In accordance with scholarly convention the symbol “=” means “agrees with” and “≠” means “disagrees with.” 29. There are, of course, also septuagintal scrolls in Greek (e.g., 4QLXXLeva,b, 4QLXXNum, 4QLXXDeut). 30. The Authorized Version, of course, is not an entirely new translation but incorporates previous translations and revisions, much like the Septuagint. See a 226

discussion in Richards, “King James Version (KJV),” 9–26. 31. Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 3–5. 32. Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 53–55. 33. Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 56–62. 34. Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 53–55, uses the marginal notes of Nestle-Aland as the basis of his claim that the New Testament used extra-canonical literature. He states: “Comparing the marginal references in Nestle’s edition of the New Testament (cf. Table I), we find that the New Testament authors are apparently acquainted with all the books of the Apocrypha, but in addition they know and use the Psalms of Solomon, II (IV) Esdras, Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Assumption of Isaiah, and IV Maccabees.” He simply lists and does not discuss the references. 35. The New Testament authors varied in their understanding of canon. The Deutero-Pauline author of 2 Tim cited Ben Sira, and the author of Jude likewise could cite 1 Enoch 1:9 as authoritative scripture. The latter may also have used a version of As.Mos. 36. My guess is that this list has grown over time and from one edition to another. Many thanks to Dr. Klaus Wachtel of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster, for confirming this in an e-mail correspondence. 37. Cf. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 387, who rightly observes: “All one can say is that there is an occasional correspondence of thought which suggests a knowledge of some of them.” 38. Grafe, “Verhältniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salmonis,” 251– 286, was the first to propose this view. 39. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 56 and 72, believes that Rom 1:19–21 “constitute almost a summary of Wisd Sol 13:1–9 and vv. 23–25 of the powerful anti-idol polemic.” 40. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 56–57. 41. Fitzmyer, Romans, 301, points out that it is the divine qualities of goodness, forbearance, and long suffering that are paralleled in Wisdom 15:1–3 but also in 2 Esdr 7:62–69. 42. So Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human.” 43. Cf. Lim, Holy Scripture, ch. 10, and Unnik, “‘With Unveiled Face.’” 44. So Koch, Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. 45. For instance, Paul writes: “We have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things” (1 Cor 4:13). Lam 3:45 of the MT (but not the LXX) may lie behind this verse: “You have made us offscouring and refuse among the peoples.” If so, then Paul was either using another Greek translation that was closer to the MT or he himself translated the verse (so Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 220, 227

following Hanson). 46. See, e.g., the number of twenty-three thousand that he cites in 1 Cor 10:8, which disagrees with Num 25:9, where it is said that twenty-four thousand died that day. The discrepancy may be due to Paul’s citation by memory or a conflation with the enrollment of males in Num 26:62. 47. Lim, Holy Scripture, 155–158. 48. E.g., 1 Cor 6:12–13; 7; 2 Cor 10:10. 49. 1 Cor 15:33, “Bad company ruins good morals” (φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί). 50. See Lim, “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom.” 51. E.g., Phil 2:6–11. 52. See, e.g., Rom 10:18; and 2 Cor 13:1. Particularly illuminating is a comparison of the same citation with and without an introductory formula. Thus, 1 Cor 1:31 cites Jer 9:22, 23, introduced by “Therefore, as it is written,” whereas 2 Cor 10:17 quotes the same verse without a formula. Similarly, compare the technique used in citing Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11. 53. A notable exception is 1 Cor 2:9, where Paul cites a passage whose source remains elusive. 54. Fitzmyer, “Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations,” 301. 55. Lust, “Quotation Formulae and Canon in Qumran,” 68. 56. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 215–216, provides a helpful update on the ongoing scholarly discussion, himself preferring to consider the purpose clause as quoting a Corinthian slogan. 57. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, 21–23. 58. Habakkuk 3 was not part of the original prophecy. By its own designation (3:1), it is a prayer exalting the Theophanic vision of God coming from Teman and appearing on Mount Paran. 59. Similarly, hab 2:1–4 forms the pivotal hermeneutical passage for the pesherist’s own understanding of the role of the Teacher of Righteousness (1QpHab 6.12–8.3; see Lim, Pesharim, 85). 60. For the cost of scrolls in early Christianity, see Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt. 61. The theory of biblical excerpts is discussed in Lim, Holy Scripture, 149–158. For biblical excerpts of Deuteronomy, see Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” 62. Similarly, in bBabaBathra 14a only six of the Twelve Minor Prophets are 228

mentioned. There is no reference to Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, but it is reasonable to assume that they were included in the “Twelve Minor Prophets” mentioned since there is evidence that these shorter prophetic books were collected by the first century CE (8HevXIIgr, 4QXIIa–g and Mur 88). 63. I have elsewhere discussed how the embedded catenae of 4QFlor and 2 Cor 6:14–17 overlap (Lim, Holy Scripture, 154–158). 64. The LXX and NT were frequently transmitted together in Christian tradition, and while codices do preserve differences that exist between the Septuagint and the Pauline lemmata, others succumb to the inherent need to make them agree. Codex A, for instance, reflects a number of such attempts to harmonize. At Ps 13:3, it has a long, seven verse plus that corresponds precisely to Rom 3:13–18. For the scribe of Codex A, the string of biblical passages derives entirely from the Psalms. 65. The canonical status of the Wisdom of Ben Sira was also debated, some of the rabbis citing it as scripture (e.g., R. Levitas citing Sira 7:17 in Avot 4:4), while others considered it as belonging to “the outside books” (so, e.g., R. Akiba in ySanh 28a). 66. Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 190 n. 504. Unless stated otherwise, all translations of rabbinic passages are from Leiman. 67. Although Leiman does not discuss it, mYev 8:3 resolves the problem by interpreting the prohibition of Deut 23:4 in relation to male, but not female, Moabites. 68. See now Norton, Contours in the Text, who proposes that the concept of “sense contours” is a better analytical category to the text-critical classification of the biblical citations in the Pauline letters.

10. The Formation of the Jewish Canon 1. John J. Collins, “Before the Canon,” 225–241. 2. John J. Collins, “Before the Canon”, 283–240. 3. Alexander, “Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” 65. Cf. Bloch, “Outside Books,” 202: “Gradually and through usage only the collection of Hebrew Scriptures acquired a recognized authoritative position.” 4. Alexander, “Criteria for Recognizing Canonical Texts,” 7. See also Alexander, “What Happened to the Jewish Priesthood After 70?” 5–33. 5. Alexander, “Criteria for Recognizing Canonical Texts,” 7. 6. Alexander, “Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” 66. See the lists compiled by Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 450– 468. 7. For knowledge of Homer and Greek, see the studies of Saul Lieberman: Greek in Jewish Palestine and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. See also J. Collins and Sterling, 229

Hellenism in the Land of Israel, and Finkelberg and Stroumsa, Homer, the Bible, and Beyond. For Josephus’ knowledge of Homer, see CA 1.12–13. 8. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. 9. See also Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, in which he argues for the influence of the veneration of the Virgin Mary in Sepher Bahir. 10. Still important is Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, which showed that the interaction between Jews and Christians did not end in the second century. See Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple. 11. Bloch, “Outside Books”, 223. 12. Bloch, “Outside Books”, 221–222. 13. Alexander, “Criteria for Recognizing Canonical Texts,” 3–4. Alexander is ostensibly following the views of Moore, “Definition of the Jewish Canon,” 99–125, but differing from him on the significance of Yavneh. Moore concludes: “Not the least interesting result of an examination of these sources is the fact that the attempt authoritatively to define the Jewish canon of the Hagiographa begins with the exclusion by name of Christian scriptures” (125). 14. Davies, “Loose Canons,” 57. 15. The topic of the development of the New Testament canon is beyond the scope of this book. See David Trobisch, Die Enstehung des Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfangen christlicher Publizistik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1989), who proposed that all the Pauline collections in the manuscript tradition developed from just two collections, a thirteen-letter and a four-letter collection, and that their origins are to be found in Paul. E. R. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 8 (1998):151–166, highlights the role of the secretary in this process. Cf. Barton, Spirit and the Letter; Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?”; and Gamble, “New Testament Canon,” 267–294.

Appendix 4. Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings and the Pauline Letters 1. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece 800–806. 2. Not included are the following: (1) references to Deutero-Pauline passages; (2) passages whose relevance is unclear (Wis 16:6 [1 Cor 11:24]; 1 En 104:13 [1 Cor 4:17]; Wis 17:17 [Gal 6:1]; 4 Ezra 9:37 [Rom 7:12]; 4 Macc 1:26 [Rom 1:29–31]; 4 Macc 2:15 [Rom 1:29–31]; 4 Macc 7:8 [Rom 15:16]; Sir 4:27 [Rom 13:1]; Sir 10:21 [Rom 11:15]; Sir 36:20 [Rom 5:18]; Wis 12:12 [Rom 9:19]; Wis 17:11 [Rom 2:15]; Jub 2:19 [Rom 9:24]; Pss. Sol. 4:25 [Rom 8:28]; Pss. Sol. 8:28 [Rom 3:3]; Pss. Sol. 14:1 [Rom 7:10]; 1 En [Rom 1:21]; As. Mos. 5:4 [Rom 1:25]; 2 Bar 32:5–6 [Rom 8:18]; 2 Bar 51:3 [Rom 4:13]; 2 Bar 54:17 [Rom 1:19]; 2 Bar 59:6 [Rom 9:22]; T. Zeb. c. 9 fin 230

[Rom 11:25]; T. Jos. 7:8 [Rom 1:26]; 4 Macc 16:12 [1 Thess 1:8]; Wis 17:14 [1 Thess 5:3]; Wis 7:23 [Phil 4:13]; 1 En 102:5 [Col 1:22]); (3) unidentified passages (1 Cor 9:10; 2 Cor 4:6); (4) the unidentified passage of the Apocalypse of Elijah in 1 Cor 2:9 (as suggested by Origen). 3. Wrongly listed in Nestle-Aland as Rom 8:19 (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 800). 4. Fitzmyer, Romans, 509, points to Paul’s borrowing of an expression from Greek philosophers who used a woman’s labor as a metaphor for the vernal rebirth of nature. 5. Cf. D. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 160–161. 6. N. Clayton Croy, 3 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 2006), xx, stated that the seven New Testament passages referring to 3 Maccabees “are at most faint lexical or thematic parallels. None of them rises to the level of a likely allusion.” 7. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 220, rightly questions the suggestion of understanding this word to mean “ransom.” 8. So Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 177. 9. The main source text is Gen 1:26–27, which Paul adapts to exploit the notion of “glory” rather than “image.” 10. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 161, however, rightly notes that while Paul has adapted this Hellenistic Jewish teaching, the typology is not exact. Paul has not identified Christ as the personified and preexistent wisdom but as Christ crucified. 11. See now Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human,” 217, who argues that Rom 1:18–2:5 is textually dependent on Wis 13–15 in order to establish a theological difference. 12. So Fitzmyer, Romans, 300. 13. Translation by R. H. Charles, revised by L. H. Brockington, “The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 835–896. 14. Brian S. Rosner, “A Possible Quotation of the Test. of Reuben 5:5 in 1 Cor 6:18a,” JTS 43 (1992): 127, while recognizing the shared tradition of Gen 38, asserted that Paul was directly dependent on the T. Reu. It is unclear how this is the preferable and simpler explanation. 15. So Fitzmyer, Romans, 640. 16. It is likely that v. 5 rather than v. 4 of T. Lev 14 is meant (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 805). 17. Probably v. 11 rather than v. 7 of T. Lev 18 is meant (Novum Testamentum Graece, 805). 18. Translation by L. S. A. Wells, revised by M. Whittaker, “The Life of Adam and 231

Eve,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 184.

Appendix 5. Scriptural References in Sir 44–50 1. The comparison with David was probably prompted by the tradition that describes his covenant as “a covenant of peace” (Ezek 34:25–26). 2. Ms B and Syr also include Enosh (Gen 4:26).

232

Select Bibliography

Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999. Abel, F.-M. Les livres des Maccabées. Paris: Gabalda, 1949. Adam, Alfred. Antike Berichte über die Essener. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Adler, William. “The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 211–228. Albertz, Rainer. “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua.” In Lipschits, Knoppers, and Albertz, Judah and the Judeans, 287–304. Alexander, Philip S. “Criteria for Recognizing Canonical Texts: A Survey and Critique.” Paper delivered at the “Qumran und der biblische Canon” seminar, Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Conference, in Vienna, August 5, 2009. ———. “The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism.” In Alexander and Kaestli, Canon of Scripture, 57–80. ———. “‘A Sixtieth Part of Prophecy’: The Problem of Continuing Revelation in Judaism.” In Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer, ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred Watson, 414–433. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. ———. “The Targumim, and Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of Targum.” In Congress Volume Salamanca, ed. J. A. Emerton, 14–28. Leiden: Brill, 1984. ———. “What Happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?” In A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. Z. Rodgers with M. Daly-Deton and A. F. McKinley, 5–33. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Alexander, Philip S., and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, eds. The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007. Alexander, Philip S., and Geza Vermes. Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh ha-yahad and Two Related Texts, DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Allegro, John. “Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” JBL 75.3 (1956): 174–187. ———. Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158-4Q186), DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allenbach, Jean, et al., eds. Biblia patristica: Supplément: Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982. Alter, Robert. Canon and Creativity: Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Amir, Yehoshua. “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo.” In Mulder, Mikra, 421–454. 233

Amsler, Samuel. L’Ancien Testament dans l’église. Essai d’herméneutique chrétienne. Neuchatel: Éditions Delachaux and Niestlé, 1960. Anderson, George W. “Canonical and Non-Canonical.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, 113–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Andrews, H. T. “The Letter of Aristeas.” In Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 83–122. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Audet, Jean-Paul. “A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription.” JTS 1 (1950): 52–71. Auld, A. Graeme. “Reading Joshua after Kings.” In Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer, ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred Watson, 167–181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Aune, David E. “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’” JBL 110 (1991): 491–493. ———. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Auwers, J.-M., and H. J. de Jonge, eds. The Biblical Canons. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Bacher, Wilhelm. “The Church Father, Origen, and Rabbi Hoshaya” JQR 3.2 (1891): 357–360. Bagnall, Roger S. Early Christian Books in Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Baldermann, Ingo, et al., eds. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons, vol. 3. Neukircken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion, vol. 10: Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE– 117 CE). Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1996. ———. “Josephus v. Apion: Analysis of an Argument.” In Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steve Mason, 194–221. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Bar-Kochva, Bezazel. Pseudo-Hecataeus: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Barr, James. “Did the Greek Pentateuch Really Serve as a Dictionary for the Translation of the Later Books?” In Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen, 523–544. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. ———. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. Barrett, C. K. “Luke/Acts.” In Carson and Williamson, It Is Written, 231–244. Barthélemy, Dominique. Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1978. ———. Les Devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le Désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de 234

notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. Leiden: Brill, 1963. ———. “L’état de la Bible juive depuis le début de notre ère jusqu’à la deuxième révolte contre Rome (131–135).” In Kaestli and Wermelinger, Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament, 9–45. ———. “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?” In On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley, 2–31. The Hague: Mouton, 1984. ———. “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante.” RB 60 (1953): 18–29. Reprinted in Cross and Talmon, QHBT, 127–139. Barton, John. “Canonical Approaches Ancient and Modern.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 199–212. ———. “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs.” In Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung, ed. Anselm Hagedorm, 1–7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. ———. The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. ———. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986. ———. “The Significance of a Fixed Canon of the Hebrew Bible.” In Sæbø, HB/OTHI, 67–83. ———. The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon. London: SPCK, 1997. ———. “Unity and Diversity in the Biblical Canon.” In Barton and Wolter, Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons, 11–26. Barton, John, and Michael Wolter, eds. Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Baumgarten, Joseph. “4Q265.” In Qumran Cave 4: Halakhic Texts, DJD 35, 57–78. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Baynes, Leslie. “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.” In E. Mason et al., A Teacher for All Generations, 799–818. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Beall, Todd S. Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Becker, Eve-Marie, and Stefan Scholz, eds. Kanon in Konstruktion und Dekonstruktion Kanonisierungsprozesse religiöser Texte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart: Ein Hand-buch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Becker, Michael. “Rewriting the Bible: 4 Ezra and Canonization of Scripture.” In Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26, 2006, ed. A. J. Laato and J. van Ruiten, 79–101. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2008. Becker, Michael, and Jörg Frey. Qumran und der biblische Kanon. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 235

Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Beckwith, Roger T. “Formation of the Hebrew Bible.” In Mulder, Mikra, 39–86. ———. “A Modern Theory of the Old Testament Canon,” VT 41 (1991): 385–395. ———. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK, 1985. Beecher, Willis J. “The Alleged Triple Canon of the Old Testament.” JBL 15 (1896): 118–128. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Ben Zvi, Ehud, ed. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures: Comprising the Contents of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vols. 1–4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006. Bergren, Theodore A. “Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18.” JSJ 28.3 (1997): 249– 270. Bergmeier, Roland. Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des judischen Historiographen. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993. Bertholet, Katell. “4QMMT et la question du canon de la bible hébraïque.” In From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tighchelaar, 1–14. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bickerman, Elias. Der Gott der Makkabäer. Berlin: Schocken, 1937. ———. “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.” ZNW 32 (1932): 233–254. ———. Studies on Jewish and Christian History. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas.” ZNW 29 (1930): 280–296. Bilde, Per. “Contra Apionem 1.28–56: An Essay on Josephus’ View of His Own Work in the Context of the Jewish Canon.” In Feldman and Levison, Josephus’ Contra Apionem, 95–114. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah. London: SCM, 1988. ———. “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 53–67. ———. Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. “The Mission of Udjahoressnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah.” JBL 106.3 (1987): 409–421. ———. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. ———. “Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 41–62. 236

Bloch, Joshua. “Outside Books.” In Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 202–223. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Boccaccini, Gabriele, and Giovanni Ibba, eds. Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Aux origines de la fixation du canon: Scriptoria, listes et titres: Le Vaticanus et la stichométrie de Mommsen.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 153–176. Bohak, Gideon. “Ethnic Continuity in Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity.” In Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. J. R. Bartlett, 175–192. London: Routledge, 2002. Bóid Ruairidh (M. N. Saraf). “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition.” In Mulder, Mikra, 595–633. Bons, Eberhard, and Jan Joosten, eds. Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage and Reception. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Borgen, P. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Bowker, John. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Briant, P. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Brock, Sebastian P. “Bibelübersetzungen I 2: Die Übersetzungen des Alten Testaments ins Griechische.” TR 6 (1980): 161, 163–172. ———. “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation.” In Brooke and Lindars, SSCW, 301–338. Brooke, George J. “‘Canon’ in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls.” In Alexander and Kaestli, Canon of Scripture, 81–98. ———. “E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls.” In Lim et al., DSSHC, 107–122. ———. “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher.” DSD 17 (2010): 361–386. ———. “Prophets and Prophecy in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.” In Clements and Schwartz, Text, Thought and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity, 31–48. Brooke, George J., and Barnabas Lindars, eds. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Broshi, Magen, ed. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992. Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988. Campbell, Jonathan. “4QMMT d and the Tripartite Canon.” JJS 51 (2000): 181–190. Campenhausen, H. von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Carmignac, Jean. “Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq.” RQ 7 (1969–1970): 342– 237

378. Carr, David. M. “Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.” In A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. R. D. Weis and D. M. Carr, 22–46. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. ———. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. “The Rise of Torah.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 39–56. ———. Writings on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Chapman, Stephen B. “How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions.” In Finkelberg and Stroumsa, Homer, the Bible, and Beyond, 29–52. ———. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. “The Book of the People from the People of the Book: 1QpHab and Its Scribes.” In Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of “Canonical” and “Non-Canonical” Religious Texts, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. McDonald, 46–59. London: T and T Clark, 2010. ———. “An Unknown Dead Sea Scroll and Speculations Focused on the Vorlage of Deuteronomy 27:4.” In Jesus, Paulus und Qumran, ed. J. Frey and E. Popkes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Clements, Ruth A., and Daniel R. Schwartz, eds. Text, Thought and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Clines, David J. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Based on the Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Cohen, Naomi G. Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “False Prophets (4Q339), Netinim (4Q340), and Hellenism at Qumran.” JGRCJ 1 (2000): 55–66. ———. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as an Historian. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ———. “Sabbath Law and Mishnah Sabbath in Origen De Principii.” JQR 17 (2010): 160–189. ———. The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism. Tübingen: 238

Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ———. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA 55 (1984): 27–53. Cohen, Shaye J. D., and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Diasporas in Antiquity. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993. Cohn, L., and P. Wendland, eds. Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt. 6 vols. Berlin: George Reimer, 1896–1930. Collins, John J. “Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism.” In Old Testament. Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, ed. J. L. Mays, D. L. Petersen, and K. H. Richards, 225–241. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. ———. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. New York: Crossroad, 1986. ———. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “Canon, Canonization.” In Collins and Harlow, DEJ, 460–463. ———. “Changing Scripture.” In Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Martilla, 23–46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. ———. Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993. ———. “Epilogue: Genre Analysis and the Dead Sea Scrolls” DSD 17 (2010): 418–430. ———. “The Genre of the Book of Jubilees.” In E. Mason et al., A Teacher for All Generations, 737–755. ———. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ———. (2010). “The Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Lim and Collins, OHDSS, 151–172. ———. Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Transformation of the Torah in Second Temple Judaism” JSJ 43 (2012): 455–474. Collins, John J., and Daniel Harlow, eds. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, John J., and Gregory E. Sterling, eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Collins, Matthew A. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Continuum, 2009. Collins, Nina. The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “281 BCE: The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy.” In Brooke and Lindars, SSCW, 403–503. Cook, Johann. “Textual Diversity and Canonical Uniformity.” In Auwers and de Jonge, 239

Biblical Canons, 135–152. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period.” In Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. Kristin de Troyer and Armin Lange, 127– 140. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. ———. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. ———. “The Use of the Pentateuch in the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document in the Second Century BCE.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 301– 318. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Cross, Frank Moore. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, Frank Moore, and S. Talmon, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Crüsemann, Frank. “Le Pentateuch, une Tora: Prolégomènes à l’interprétation de sa forme finale.” In Le Pentateuch en question, ed. A. de Pury, 339–360. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991. ———. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Trans. Allan Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Dahmen, Ulrich. “Psalmentext und Psalmensammlung: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit P. W. Flint.” In Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der hebräischen Bibel, ed. Ulrich Dahmen, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, 109–126. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. ———. Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Davies, Philip R. Behind the Essenes. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. ———. The Damascus Covenant. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. ———. “The Hebrew Canon and the Origins of Judaism.” In The Historian and the Bible, ed. P. R. Davies and D. V. Edelman, 194–206. London: T and T Clark, 2010. ———. “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 36–52. ———. “Loose Canons: Reflections on the Formation of the Hebrew Bible.” In Ben Zvi, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures, 57–72. ———. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1998. ———. “The Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document.” In Temple Scroll Studies, ed. George J. Brooke, 201–210. Sheffield: Shefield Academic Press, 1989. Deines, Roland. “Die Pharisäer und das Volk im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus.” In Josephus und das Neue Testament, ed. C. Böttrich and J. Herzer, 147–180. Tübingen: 240

Mohr Siebeck, 2007. de Lange, Nicholas. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third Century Palestine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Dempster, Stephen. “From Many Texts to One: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible.” In The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl, 19–56. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Dimant, Devorah, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180 and 4Q181).” Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979): 77–102. ———. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M. E. Stone, 483–550. Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984. ———. “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of Jubilees in CD 16:3–4.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. P. Flint, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. London: T and T Clark, 2004. Doran, Robert. “The Persecution of Judeans by Antiochus IV: The Significance of ‘Ancestral Laws.’” In The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow, Karina M. Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Joel S. Kaminsky, 423–434. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. ———. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose of 2 Maccabees. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. ———. 2 Maccabees. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Dorival, Giles. “L’apport des Pères de l’Église à la question de la clôture du Canon de l’Ancien Testament.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 81–110. Duggan, Michael W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40). Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Dunn, James D. J. Romans 1–8. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988. Edelman, Diana. The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem. London: Equinox, 2005. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran. Oxford: Blackwells, 1965. Ellis, E. Earle. “The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church.” In Mulder, Mikra, 653–690. ———. The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1991. Eskenazi, T. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. Atlanta: 241

Scholars, 1988. ———. “Nehemiah 9-10: Structure and Significance.” In Ben Zvi, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures, 365–378. Evans, Craig. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of Scripture.” In The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint, 67–79. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 185–195. Evans, Craig, and Emanuel Tov, eds. Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House and Brazos, 2008. Evans, Craig, and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. London: T and T Clark, 2009. Evans, T. V. “Approaches to the Language of the Septuagint.” JJS 56 (2005): 25–33. ———. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Fabry, H.-J. “11QPsa und die Kanonzität des Psalters.” In Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Gross, ed. F. L. Hossfeld, 45–53. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986. Feldman, Louis H. “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus.” In Mulder, Mikra, 455–518. Feldman, Louis H., and John R. Levison, eds. Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Février, J. G. La date, la composition, et les sources de la Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate. Paris: Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, 1925. Finkelberg, Margalit, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fishbane, Michael. “Law to Canon: Some ‘Ideal-Typical’ Stages of Development.” In Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honor of his 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, 65–86. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. ———. “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” In Mulder, Mikra, 229–378. Fitzmyer, J. A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974. ———. First Corinthians. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. Romans. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992.

242

———. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran and in the New Testament.” NTS 7 (1960–1961): 297–333. Fitzpatrick-McKingley, Anne. The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law. Sheffield: JSOT, 1999. Flesher, Paul, and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “Psalms Scrolls.” In Collins and Harlow, DEJ, 1107–1110. Folmer, M. L. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale, 1971. Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Freedman, David Noel. “The Law and the Prophets.” SVT 9 (1962): 250–265. ———. “The Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible.” ST 46 (1992): 83–108. ———. The Unity of the Hebrew Bible. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. Frei, Peter. “Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary.” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 5–40. English translation of “Die Persische Reichautorisation der Thora: Ein Überblick.” ZABR 1 (1995): 47–61. ———. “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achamenidenreich.” In Frei and Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, 8–43. Frei, Peter, and Klaus Koch, eds. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1984. 2nd ed., 1996. Fried, Lisbeth. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ———. “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes.” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 63–90. Friedman, Shamma. “The Holy Scriptures Defile the Hands: The Transformation of a Biblical Concept in Rabbinic Theology.” In Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honor of his 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, 115–132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Galling, Kurt. “Bagoas und Esra.” In Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter, 149–184. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of the Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. ———. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ———. “New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis.” In 243

McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 267–294. García Martínez, Florentino. “Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond.” In Popović, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 19– 36. García Martínez, Florentino, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave XI, 11Q2-18. 11Q20-31, DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Gilbert, M. “La place de la loi dans la prière de Néhémie 9.” In De la Tôrah au Messie, ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot, 307–316. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Goff, Matthew J. “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction.” DSD 10 (2003): 163– 186. ———. “Reading Wisdom at Qumran: 4QInstruction and the Hodayot.” DSD 11 (2004): 263–288. ———. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goldenberg, Robert. “The Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II: An Examination of the Sources.” JJS 23 (1972): 167–190. Goldstein, Jonathan A. “The Message of Aristeas to Philocrates: In the Second Century BCE, Obey the Torah, Venerate the Temple of Jerusalem, but Speak Greek, and Put Your Hopes in the Ptolemaic Dynasty.” In Eretz Israel: Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Mutual Relations, ed. Menachem Mor, 1–23. Lanham, MA, and New York: University Press of America, 1991. ———. 1 Maccabees. New York: Doubleday, 1976. ———. 2 Maccabees. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Goodblatt, David. “Audet’s ‘Hebrew-Aramaic’ List of the Books of the OT Revisited.” JBL 101 (1982): 75–84. Gooding, D. W. “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies.” VT 13 (1963): 357–379. ———. “Philo’s Bible in the De Gigantibus and the Quod Deus sit Immutabilis.” In Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, ed. D. Winston and J. M. Dillon, 110–122. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Goodman, Martin. “Constructing Ancient Judaism from the Scrolls.” In Lim and Collins, OHDSS, 81–91. ———. “The Qumran Sectarians and the Temple in Jerusalem.” In Hempel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 263–274. ———. “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Temple Period and Its Aftermath.” JJS 60.2 (2009): 202–213. ———. “Sacred Scripture and ‘Defiling the Hands.’” JTS 41.1 (1990): 99–107. Grabbe, Lester L. Ezra-Nehemiah. London: Routledge, 1998. ———. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T and T Clark, 2004. 244

———. “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” JBL 106.2 (1987): 231–246. ———. “The Law of Moses in Ezra Tradition: More Virtual Than Real?” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 91–114. ———. “The Law, the Prophets and the Rest: The State of the Bible in Pre-Maccabean Times.” DSD 13 (2006): 319–338. ———. “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, 531–570. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra.” In Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period, ed. P. Davies, 98–106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. ———. “What Was Ezra’s Mission?” In Second Temple Studies 2, ed. T. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Grabbe, Lester L., and Oded Lipschits, eds. Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE). London: T and T Clark, 2011. Graetz, H. “Der alttestamentliche Kanon und sein Abschluss.” In Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger übersetz und kritisch erläutert, ed. H. Graetz, 147–173. Leipzig: Winter, 1871. Grafe, E. “Das Verhältniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salmonis.” In Theologische Abhandlungen: Carl von Weizsäcker zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage 11. December 1892, ed. A. von Harnack, 251–286. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1892. Grätz, Sebastian. Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra, 12–26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. ———. “The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah: The Hermeneutics of the Torah in the Books of Ruth and Ezra.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 273–287. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Greenspahn, Frederick. “Why Prophecy Ceased.” JBL 108.1 (1989): 37–49. Grol, Harm van, and Jeremy Corley, eds. Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Gruen, Eric. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Gunneweg, A. H. J. Esra. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1985. Habicht, C. 2. Makkabäerbuch. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Hacham, Noam. “The Letter of Aristeas: A New Exodus Story?” JSJ 36.1 (2005): 1–20. Hadas, Moses. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. 245

Hagedorn, Anselm. “Local Law in an Imperial Context: The Role of Torah in the (Imagined) Persian Period.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 57–76. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28. Waco, TX: Word, 1995. Halbertal, Moses. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press, 1997. Halivni, David Weiss. Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Maccabaeorum liber II, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1959. Haran, Menahem. “Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books.” JANESCU 22 (1993): 51–61. ———. “Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran to the Middle Ages.” HUCA 56 (1985): 21–62. ———. The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages. (Heb.) Vols. 1–3. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1996, 2004, and 2008. ———-. “Book Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins.” HUCA 54 (1983): 111–122. ———. “Problems of the Canonization of Scripture.” (heb.) In Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 227–253. Harl, Marguerite. La langue de Japhet: Quinze études sur la Septante et le grec des chrétiens. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992. ———. “La Septante chez les Pères grecs et dans la vie des chrétiens.” In Harl, Dorival, and Munnich, La Bible Grecque des Septante, 289–320. Harl, Marguerite, G. Dorival, and O. munnich. La Bible Grecque des Septante: Du judaïsm hellénistique au christianisme ancien. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988. Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 196–210. Harris, R. Laird. “Was the Law and the Prophets Two-Thirds of the Old Testament Canon?” BETS 9 (1966): 163–171. Hayman, A. Peter. Sefer Yesira: Edition, Translation and Text-Critical Commentary. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Context of 4QMMT and Comfortable Theories.” In Hempel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 275–292. ———, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond.” In Lim et al., 246

DSSHC, 187–198. Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. London: Continuum, 2002. Henze, Matthias, ed. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Herbert, Edward D., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. London: British Library, 2002. Heschel, Abraham J. Prophetic Inspiration after the Prophets: Maimonides and Other Medieval Authorities. Ed. M. M. Faierstein. Preface by M. Idel. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996. Hilhorst, A., E. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar, eds. Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Höffken, Peter. “Zum Kanonsbewusstsein des Josephus Flavius in Contra Apionem und in den Antiquitates.” JSJ 32 (2001): 159–177. Hogan, Karina M. “The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 38 (2007): 530–552. ———. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution. Brill: Leiden, 2008. Hoglund, Kenneth G. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1:Historians. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. ———. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 2: Poets. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1989. ———. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, volu. 3:Aristobulus. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1995. Honigman, Sylvie. “The Narrative Function of the King and the Library in the Letter of Aristeas.” In Rajak, Pearce, Aitken, and Dines, Jewish Perspectives, 128–146. ———. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London: Routledge, 2003. Horgan, Maurya. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979. Horsley, G. H. R. “Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible.” Biblica 65 (1984): 393–403. ———. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 5. North Ryde, New South Wales: Macquarie University, 1989. Houtman, C. “Ezra and the Law.” OtSt 21 (1981): 91–115. Howard, George. “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism.” JTS 22 (1971): 337– 348. Hübner, Hans. “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament.” In Sæbø HB/OTHI, 332–373. 247

———. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Vol. 2: Corpus Paulinum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ilan, Tal. “The Torah of the Jews of Rome.” JSQ 16 (2009): 363–395. Jackson, Bernard. “Marriage and Divorce: From Social Institution to Halakhic Norms.” In Hempel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 339–364. ———. Wisdom-Laws: A Study of Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Janzen, David. “The ‘Mission’ of Ezra and the Persian-Period Temple Community.” JBL 119.4 (2000): 619–643. Japhet, Sara. I and II Chronicles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jellicoe, Sidney. “The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Reexamination.” NTS 12 (1965–1966): 144–150. ———. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000. Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. Atlanta: SBL, 1995. Joosten, Jan. “The Impact of the Septuagint Pentateuch on the Greek Psalms.” In XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, ed. Melvin K. H. Peters, 197–205. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. ———. “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies.” In Voitila and Jokiranta, Scripture in Transition, 163–178. Kaestli, J.-D., and O. Wermelinger, eds. Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament: Sa formation et son histoire. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984. ———. “Le récit de IV Esdras 14 et sa valeur pour l’histoire du canon de l’Ancien Testament.” In Kaestli and Wermelinger, Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament, 71-102. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Genizah. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959. ———. Opera Minora: Festgabe zum 21. Januar 1956. Leiden: Brill, 1956. Kamesar, Adam. “Biblical Interpretation in Philo.” In Kamesar, The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 65-94. ———, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo of Alexandria and the D-Scholia to the Iliad.” GRBS 44 (2004): 163–181. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Katz, Peter. “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria.” ZNW 47 (1956): 248

191–217 ———. Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and Its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Kent, Roland G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1950. Klijn, A. F. J. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt.” NTS 11 (1965): 154–158. ———. “A Library of Scriptures in Jerusalem?” In Studia Codicologica, ed. K. Treu, 265–272. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1977. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ———. “Reflections on the Status of the Early Enochic Writings.” In Popović, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 143–154. ———, ed. The Septuagint and Messianism. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Knoppers, Gary N. “An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 115–134. ———. “Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan Origins in 2 Kings 17.” In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and Brian Aucker, 223–240. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. 1 Chronicles. New York: Doubleday, 2003–2004. Knoppers, Gary N., and Bernard M. Levinson, eds. The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Knox, Wilfred. “A Note on Philo’s Use of the Old Testament.” JTS 41 (1940): 30–34. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Kohlenberger, John R., III, ed. The Parallel Apocrypha. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Koole, J. L. “Die Bibel des Ben-Sira.” OTS 23 (1965): 374–396. Kraemer, David. “Formation of Rabbinic Canon: Authority and Boundaries.” JBL 110.4 (1991): 613–630. Kraft, R. A. “Scripture and Canon in Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Sæbø, HB/OTHI, 199–216. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 77–104. Kraus, Wolfgang, and Glenn R. Wooden, eds. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. 249

Kugel, James L. A Walk through “Jubilees”: Studies in the “Book of Jubilees” and the World of Its Creation. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lake, Kirsopp. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. London: W. Heinemann, 1926. Lange, Armin. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of the Pentateuch.” In On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, 287–304. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. ———. “From Literature to Scripture: the Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library.” In One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser, 51–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. “‘Nobody Dared to Add to Them, to Take from Them, or to Take Changes’ (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 142): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Hilhorst, Puech, and Tigchelaar, Flores Florentino, 105– 126. ———. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible.” DSD 13.3 (2006): 277–305. ———. “The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process.” In Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 21–30. ———. “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta’an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” In From Qumran to Aleppo, ed. Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold, and József Zsengellér, 29–80. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2009. ———. “2 Maccabees 2:13-15: Library or Canon?” In The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005, ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, 155-167. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———-. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “Wisdom, Literature and Thought in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In OHDSS, 455– 478. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011. Lawlor, H. J., and J. E. L. Oulton, eds. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History; and the Martyrs of Palestine. 2 vols. London: SPCK, 1927–1928. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. London: SCM, 1987. Le Deaut, Roger. Introduction à la littérature targumique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Lee, John A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. ———. “A Lexical Study Thirty Years On, with Observations on ‘order’ Words in the 250

LXX Pentateuch.” In Paul, Kraft, Schiffman, and Fields, Emanuel, 513–524. Lee, Kyong-Jin. The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. LeFebvre, Michael. Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-characterization of Israel’s Written Law. London: T and T Clark, 2006. Leiman, Sid Z., ed. The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. New York: Ktav, 1974. ———. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden: Archon Books, 1976. Lemaire, André. Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981. Le Moyne, Jean. Les Sadducéens. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972. Levenson, Jon D. “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. Hanson, and S. McBride, 559–574. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Levison, John R. “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data.” NTS 43 (1997): 35–47. ———. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The Spirit in First-Century Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Levita, Elias. The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth. 1504. English translation by C. D. Ginzberg was published in London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1867. Levy, B. Barry. Fixing God’s Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Text in Jewish Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Lewis, Jack P. “Jamnia Revisited.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 146– 162. ———. “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” JBR 32 (1964): 125–132. Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942. ———. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century BCE–IV Century CE. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Lightstone, Jack N. “The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Judaism of Late Antiquity: Prolegomeena to a General Reassessment.” SR 8 (1979): 135–142. ———. “The Rabbis’ Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 163–184. Lim, Timothy H.”An Alleged Reference to the Tripartite Division of the Hebrew Bible.” RevQ 77 (2001): 23–37. ———. “All These He Composed through Prophecy.” In Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and 251

Extra-Biblical Prophecy, ed. K. de Troyer and A. Lange, 61–76. Louvain: Peeters, 2010. ———. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Lim and Collins, OHDSS, 303–325. ———. “A Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252).” JJS 43 (1992): 288–298. ———. “Defilement of the Hands as a Principle Determining the Holiness of Scriptures.” JTS 61.2 (2010): 1–15. ———. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” In Deuteronomy in the New Testament, ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise, 6–26. London: Continuum, 2007. ———. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. ———. “‘The Husband of One Wife’ in the Light of the Scrolls.” in Jesus, Paulus und Qumran, ed. J. Frey and E. Popkes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming 2013. ———. “Nevertheless These Were Men of Piety (Sir xliv 10).” VT 38.3 (1988): 338– 341. ———-. “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power.” NovT 29 (1987): 137–149. ———. “The Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Scriptures.” In The Midrash: An Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, 595–612. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. Pesharim. London: Continuum, 2002. ———. “Towards a Description of the Sectarian Matrix.” In Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, 7–31. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Lim, Timothy H., and John J. Collins, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lim, Timothy H., et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 2000. Linebaugh, Jonathan A. “Announcing the Human: Rethinking the Relationship between the Wisdom of Solomon 13–15 and Romans 1.18–2.11.” NTS 57 (2011): 214–237. Lipschits, Oded, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz, eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Longenecker, Bruce. Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. ———. “Locating 4 Ezra: A Consideration of Its Social Setting and Functions.” JSJ 28.3 (1997): 271–293. Lust, Johan. “Quotations Formulae and Canon in Qumran.” In van der Kooij and van der Toorn, Canonization and Decanonization, 67–77. 252

———. “Septuagint and Canon.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 39–56. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2007. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. Les Samaritains: Histoire d’une légende. Israël la province de Samarie. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994. Macholz, C. “Die Entstehung des hebräischen Bibelkanons nach 4 Esra 14.” In Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann, 379–391. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Maier, Johann. “Early Jewish Interpretation in the Qumran Literature.” In Sæbø HB/OTHI, 108–129. ———. “Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Frühjudentum im Licht der Qumranfunde.” JBTh 3 (1988): 135–146. Marcus, Ralph, ed. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books XII–XIV. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press, 1943. Mason, Eric F., et al., eds. A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Compositional-Critical Study. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ———. “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 110–127. ———. “Josephus on Canon and Scriptures.” In SæbøHB/OTHI, 217–235. McCready, Wayne O., and Adele Reinhartz, eds. Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism. minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. ———. Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009. ———. “Hellenism and the Biblical Canons.” In The New Testament and Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. ———. The Origin of the Bible: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T and T Clark, 2011. McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. McLeod, Roy, ed. The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London: I. B. Tauris, 2000. Meecham, H. G. The Letter of Aristeas: A Linguistic Study with Special Reference to the Greek Bible. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935. ———. The Oldest Version of the Bible: Aristeas on Its Traditional Origin. London: Holborn Publishing House, 1932. Meier, John. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New Haven: Yale 253

University Press, 2009. Meisner, Norbert. “Aristeasbrief.” In JSHRZ 2.1:42–43. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973. Menken, Maarten J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Metso, Sarianna. The Serekh Texts. London: Continuum, 2007. Metso, Sarianna, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Metzger, Bruce. Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. ———. “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the N. T. and the Mishnah.” JBL 70.3 (1951): 297–307. ———, ed. Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1995. Meurer, Siegfried, ed. The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective. Trans. Paul Ellingworth. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991. Meyer, Eduard. Die Entstehung des Judentums: Eine historische Untersuchung. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1896. Meyer, R. “Bemerkungen zum literargeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Kanontheorie des Josephus.” In Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker, and M. Hengel, 285–299. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1974. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. New York: Doubleday, 1987. ———. Zechariah 9–14. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 19–22. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Milikowsky, Chaim. “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity and Holy Scripture in Rabbinic Literature.” In Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M. J. H. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 149–162. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. London: T and T Clark, 2004. Miura, Yuzuru. David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Modrzejewski, J. Mélèze. Les Juifs d’Egypte de Ramsès II à Hadrien. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “The Second Book of Maccabees.” Classical Philology 70.2 (1975): 81–88. Moore, George Foot. “Conjectanea Talmudica: Notes on Rev. 13:18; Matt. 23:35f.; 28:1; 2 Cor. 2:14–16; Jubilees 34:4, 7; 7:4.” JAOS 26 (1905): 315–333. ———. “The Definition of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of the Christian Scriptures.” In George Foot Moore, Essays in Modern Theology and Related Subjects, 99–125. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911. Mor, Menachem, and Friedrich V. Reiterer. Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. 254

Moyise, Steve. Jesus and Scripture. London: SPCK, 2010. Mulder, M. J., ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Murray, Oswyn. “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship.” JTS 18 (1967): 337–371. Myers, Jacob M. Ezra-Nehemiah. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Na’aman, Nadav. “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform.” JBL 130, vol. 1 (2011): 47–62. Nam, Roger S. “How to Rewrite the Torah: The Case for Proto-Sectarian Ideology in the Reworked Pentateuch (4QRP).” RevQ 90, vol. 23 (2007): 153–166. Nelson, Milward Douglas. The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Nestle, Eberhard, and Kurt Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Neusner, Jacob, and W. S. Green, eds. Writing with Scripture: The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. New, D. S. Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels and the Two Document Hypothesis. Atlanta: SBL, 1993. Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Newsom, Carol, ed. “4Q378 and 4Q379.” In Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, DJD 22, 241–288. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. ———. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “The Books of Enoch at Qumran: What We Know and What We Need to Think About.” In Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel, 99–113. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Niehoff, Maren. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Nihan, Christophe. “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 187– 224. Nodet, E. “Josephus and the Pentateuch.” JSJ 28.2 (1997): 154–194. Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993. Norton, Jonathan D. H. Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad. London: T and T Clark, 2011. Noy, David. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. London: Duckworth, 2000. ———. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt with an Index of Jewish 255

Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ———. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe 2: The City of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Orlinsky, H. M. “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators.” HUCA 46 (1975): 89–114. ———. “Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon.” JBL 110 (1991): 483–490. Ossandón, Juan Carlos. “Flavio Josefo y los veintidós libros: Nuevas preguntas en torno a Contra Apionem I, 37–45.” EstBib 67 (2009): 653–694. Östborn, Gunnar. Tôrâ in the Old Testament: A Semantic Study. Lund: Håkan Olson, 1945. Overholt, T. W. “The End of Prophecy: No Players without a Programme.” JSOT 42 (1988): 103–115. Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Pao, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” In Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 251–414. Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. London: SCM, 2000. Paul, André. La Bible avant la Bible: La grande révélation des manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2005. ———. “Traductions grecques de la Bible avant la Septante?” In Mélanges P. Lévêque. IV. Religion, vol. 4: 315–328. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990. Paul, Shalom M., Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields, eds. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Pearson, Birger A. “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in Gnostic Literature.” In Mulder, Mikra, 635–652. Peels, H. G. L. “The Blood ‘from Abel to Zechariah’ (Matthew 23, 35; Luke 11,50f) and the Canon of the Old Testament.” ZAW 113 (2001): 583–601. Pelletier, A. Flavius Josèphe: Adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée. Une réaction atticisante contre la koinè. Paris: Librairie C. Klingksieck, 1962. ———. “Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Septuagint.” In Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 97–115. Brill: Leiden, 1989. ———. Lettre d’ Aristée à Philocrate: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, index complet des mots grecs. Paris: Le Cerf, 1962. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard, et al., eds. Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pfann, Stephen. Qumran Cave 4: Halakhic Texts, DJD 35, ed. J. Baumgarten et al., 1– 24. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1941. 256

Popović, M., ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Porten, Bezazel, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–1999. Porter, Stanley E. The Pauline Canon. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Puech, Émile. “L’épilogue de 4QMMT revisité.” In E. Mason et al., A Teacher for All Generations, 2:309–340. ———. “Quelques observations sur le ‘canon’ des .” In Popović, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 117–142. Pummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 237–272. ———. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Purvis, James D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. ———. “The Samaritans and Judaism.” In Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert Kraft and George Nickelsburg, 81–98. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984. Pury, Albert de. “The Ketubim, a Canon within the Biblical Canon.” In Alexander and Kaestli, Canon of Scripture, 41–56. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma’aseh HaTorah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Rabin, Chaim. The Zadokite Documents: I. The Admonitions. II. The Laws. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954. Rajak, Tessa. “‘Torah Shall Go Forth from Zion’: Common Judaism and the Greek Bible.” In McCready and Reinhartz, Common Judaism, 145–158. ———-. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Rajak, Tessa, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken, and Jennifer Dines, eds. Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reymond, Eric D. New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the NonMasoretic Poems of 11Q5 (=11QPsa). Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Richards, Kent H. “King James Version (KJV).” In The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, ed. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Volker Leppin, Choon-Leong Seow, Hermann Spieckermann, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric Ziolkowski, 9–26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Richardson, Peter, and Stephen Westerholm, eds. Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Empire: The Debate over Torah and Nomos in Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991. Römer, Thomas C. “La mort de Moise (Deut 34) et la naissance de la première partie du canon biblique.” In Alexander and Kaestli, Canon of Scripture, 27–40. Römer, Thomas C., and Marc Z. Brettler. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian 257

Hexateuch.” JBL 119.3 (2000): 401–419. Roskop, Angela R. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of the Torah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Esra und Nehemiah. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949. Rüger, H. Peter. “Le Siracide: Un livre à la frontière du canon.” In Kaestli and Wermelinger, Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament, 47–69. Ryle, H. E. The Canon of the Old Testament. London: Macmillan, 1892. Sæbø, Magne, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. ———. “Vom >Zusammendenken< zum Kanon. Aspekte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Enstandien des Alten Testaments.” JBTh 3 (1988): 115–134. Sanders, Ed P. “Common Judaism Explored.” In McCready and Reinhartz, Common Judaism, 11–26. ———. “Covenantal Nomism Revisited.” JSQ 16.1 (2009): 23–55. ———. “The Dead Sea Sect and Other Jews: Commonalities, Overlaps and Differences.” In Lim et al., DSSHC, 7–44. ———. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985. ———. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, Jack T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ———. “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon.” In Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 37–51. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. ———. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. “Psalm 154 Revisited.” In Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink, ed. G. Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean McEvenue, 296–306. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1993. ———. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 [11QPsa], DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed.” In On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley, 79–99. Paris: Mouton, 1974. ———. “The Scrolls and the Canonical Process.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Comprehensive Assessment after Fifty Years, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, 1–23. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. Torah and Canon. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1972. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Sarna, Nahum. “The Order of the Books.” In Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History 258

and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev, ed. C. Berlin, 410–411. New York: Ktav, 1971. Scott, Ian W. “Revelation and Human Artefact: The Inspiration of the Pentateuch in the Book of Aristeas.” JSJ 41 (2010): 1–28. Schaeder, Hans Heinrich. Esra der Schreiber. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930. Schäfer, Peter. “Die sogenannte Snode von Jabne, II. Der Abschluss des Kanons.” Judaica 31 (1975): 116–124. ———. Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur. Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1972. ———. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. ———. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Schaper, Joachim. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kultund Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ———. “The ‘Publication’ of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah.” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 225–236. Schechter, S., and C. Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Schenker, Adrian. “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique.” In Voitila and Jokiranta, Scripture in Transition, 339–351. Schmid, Konrad. “The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34.” In Lipschits, Knoppers, and Albertz, Judah and the Judeans, 237– 252. ———. “The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 23–38. Schmid, Konrad, Thomas B. Dozeman, and Thomas Römer. Pentateuch, Hexateuch or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works from Genesis through Kings. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Schniedwind, William. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Schorch, Stefan. “The Libraries in 2 Macc 2:13–15, and the Torah as a Public Document in the Second Century BC Judaism.” In The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, 169–180. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schuller, Eileen. “4Q427–432.” In Qumran Cave 4.II: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, DJD 29, 69–232. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC– AD 135), vols. 1–3.2, revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar et al. Edinburgh: T and 259

T Clark, 1973, 1979, 1986, 1987. Schwartz, D. R. “MMT, Josephus and the Pharisees.” In Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, ed. J. Kampen and M. J. Bernstein, 67– 80. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. ———. “Special People or Special Books? On Qumran and New Testament Notions of Canon.” In Clements and Schwartz, Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity, 49–62. ———. 2 Maccabees. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Schwiderski, Dirk. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. ———. Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Segal, Eliezer. “Aristeas or Haggadah: Talmudic Legend and the Greek Bible in Palestinian Judaism.” In McCready and Reinhartz, Common Judaism, 159–172. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, 1947–1997, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, 391–399. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Shaver, Judson R. Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989. Sheppard, G. T. “Canon.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, 3:62–69. New York: Macmillan, 1987. ———. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas.” In OTP, 2:7–34. Siegert, Folker. “Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style.” In Sæbø HB/OTHI, 130–198. Silva, Moisés. “Old Testament in Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin, 630–642. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993. Simokovich, M. Z. “Greek Influence on the Composition of 2 Maccabees.” JSJ 42 (2011): 293–310. Ska, Jean-Louis. “‘Persian Imperial Authorization’: Some Question Marks.” In Watts, Persia and Torah, 161–182. Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008. Skehan, Patrick. “St. Jerome and the Canon of Holy Scriptures.” In A Monument to Saint Jerome: Essays on Some Aspects of His Life, Works and Influence, ed. Francis X. Murphy, 259–287. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1952. 260

Skehan, Patrick, and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smith, D. Moody. “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?” JBL 119.1 (2000): 3–20. Smith-Christopher, Daniel. “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13.” In Second Temple Studies, ed. T. Eskenazi and K. Richards, 243–265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Sollamo, Raija. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the Septuagint.” In X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998, ed. Bernard A. Taylor, 329–342. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation.” JBL 115.1 (1996): 31–47. Spawn, Kevin L. As It Is Written and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax and Significance. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Staerk, W. “Der Schrift—und Kanonbegriff der jüdischen Bibel.” Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 6 (1929): 101–119. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Steck, Odil H. Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Towards Physical Reconstructions of the Qumran Damascus Document Scrolls.” In The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998, ed. J. Baumgarten, E. Chazon, and A. Pinnick, 177–200. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Steiner, Richard C. “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6.” JBL 125.4 (2006): 641–685. ———. “The MBQR at Qumran, the episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of LBQR’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project.” JBL 120.4 (2001): 623–646. Steinmann, Andrew E. The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon. Saint Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1999. Stemberger, Günter. “Jabne und der Kanon.” JBTh 3 (1988): 163–174. ———. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. “La formation et la conception du canon dans la pensée rabbinique.” In Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’antiquité: Perspectives nouvelles sur la formation des canons juif et chrétien dans leur contexte culturel: Actes du colloque 261

organisé dans le cadre du programme plurifacultaire La Bible à la croisée des savoirs de l’Université de Genève, 11–12 avril 2002, ed. E. Norelli, 113–131. Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2004. Stern, David. “On Canonization in Rabbinic Judaism.” In Finkelberg and Stroumsa, Homer, the Bible, and Beyond, 227–252. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1974–1984. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata,b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textebestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (‘Florilegium’) und 4Q177 (‘Catena A’) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Steyn, Gert. Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature of the Acta Apostolorum. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1995. Stone, Michael. Fourth Ezra. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. Strugnell, John, and Daniel J. Harrington, eds. Qumran Cave 4. XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsār Lĕ Mēvîn): 4Q415ff, DJD XXXIV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Stuckenbruck, Loren. “To What Extent Did Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants Presuppose a Knowledge of the Enochic and Other Sources Preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” In The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, ed. Daid T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling, 131–142. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Stuhlhofer, Franz. Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistiche Untersuchungen zur Kanongeschichte. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Significance of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for the Understanding of Jesus and Christology.” In Meurer, AEP, 1– 15. Sukenik, E. L., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1955. Sundberg, Albert C. “Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (1975): 352–371. ———. “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.” JAAR 60 (1992): 350–355. ———. “The ‘Old Testament’: A Christian Canon.” CBQ 30 (1968): 143–155. ———. The Old Testament of the Early Church. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. ———. “The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 68–90. ———. “Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon.” SE 4 (1968): 452– 461. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Rev. R. R. Ottley with an appendix by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262

1914. Tait, M., and P. S. Oakes, eds. The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar of June 2008. London: T and T Clark, 2000. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran.” In Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 5–20. ———. Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essay Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. ———. “The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple Court.” Textus 2 (1962): 14–27. Taylor, Joan E. “Classical Sources on the Essenes and the Scrolls Communities.” In Lim and Collins, OHDSS, 173–199. ———. Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo’s ‘Therapeutae’ Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———. “Philo of Alexandria on the Essenes: A Case Study on the Use of Classical Sources in Discussions of the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis.” In The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, ed. David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling, 1–28. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Taylor, Joan, and Philip Davies. “The So-Called Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa: Identity and Character.” HTR 91.1 (1998): 3–24. Thackeray, H. St. John, ed. Josephus: The Life. Against Apion. London: William Heinemann, 1926. ———. Josephus, the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929. Thomassen, Einar, ed. Canon and Canonicity: The Formation and Use of Scripture. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2010. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert.” In The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, ed. S. McKendrick and O. o’Sullivan, 97–122. London: British Library, 2003. ———, ed. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr). DJD VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. ———. “The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” In Sæbø, HB/OTHI, 49–66. ———. “The Nature of the Greek Texts from the Judaean Desert.” NovT 43 (2001): 1– 11. ———. “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX.” JSJ 15 (1984): 65– 263

89. ———. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. “The Septuagint.” In Mulder, Mikra, 161–188. ———, ed. The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and An Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie White. “Reworked Pentateuch.” In Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts. Part 1, DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Tramontano, R. La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate. Naples: Ufficio Succursale della Civiltà Cattolica, 1931. Trebolle-Barrera, Julio. “A ‘Canon within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized.” RevQ 19 (2000): 282–299. ———. “Origins of a Tripartite Old Testament Canon.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 128–145. ———. “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts.” In Lim et al., DSSHC, 89–106. Triplet-Hitoto, V. Mystères et connaissances cachées à Qumrân: Dt 29,28 à la lumière des manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2011. Troyer, Kristin de. “When Did the Pentateuch Come into Existence? An Uncomfortable Perspective.” In Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, 269–286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Twelftree, Graham. Saint Paul and the Miraculous: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, forthcoming. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran.” In Herbert and Tov, Bible as Book, 179–196. ———. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” In The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam, 77–94. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. ———. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” In ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to S. Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov, 269–291. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “The Non-Attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT.” CBQ 65 (2003): 202– 214. ———. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 21–35. 264

———. “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 57–80. ———. “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls—The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism.” In Lim et al., DSSHC, 67–87. ———. “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value.” In Brooke and Lindars, SSCW, 49–80. Unnik, W. C. van. “De la règle μήτε προσσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l’histoire du canon.” VC 3 (1949): 1–36. ———. Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1978. ———. “‘With Unveiled Face,’ An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12–18.” NovT 6 (1963): 153–169 VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. ———. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004. ———. “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees.” In Metso, Najman, and Schuller, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 25–44. ———. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 91–109. ———. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.” In James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, 1–30. Brill: Leiden, 2000. VanderKam, James, and J. T. Milik, eds. “Jubilees.” In Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD 13, 1–186. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. van der Kooij, Arie. “The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem.” In van der Kooij and van der Toorn, Canonization and Decanonization, 17–40. ———. “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 27–38. ———. “The Promulgation of the Pentateuch in Greek according to the Letter of Aristeas.” In Voitila and Jokiranta, Scripture in Transition, 179–192. ———. “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule.” In Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 289–300. van der Kooij, Arie, and Karel van der Toorn, eds. Canonization and Decanonization. Leiden: Brill, 1998. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Veltri, Giuseppe. Eine Tora für den König Talmai: Untersuchungen zum 265

Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ———. Libraries, Translations and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “Zur Traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung des Bewuβsteins von Einem Kanon: Die Yavneh-Frage.” JSJ 21.2 (1990): 210–226. Venard, L. “Citations de l’Ancien Testament dans le Nouveau Testament.” SDB 2 (1934): 23–54. Vermes, Geza, and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Vermeylen, Jacques. “Une étape majeure dans la formation du canon des Écritures: L’oeuvre deutéronomiste.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 213–226. Viezel, Eran. “The Formation of Some Biblical Books according to Rashi.” JTS 61.1 (2010): 16–42. Voitila, Anssi, and Jutta Jokiranta. Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Waard, Jan de. A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus TorahCommandment.” In Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies: Cambridge 1995, ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen, 195–211. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Maccabees 1:10b–2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49 (1978): 89–133. ———. The New Damascus Document. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Walter, Nikolaus. Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos: Untersuchungen zu seinen Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jüdisch hellenistischen Literatur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964. Waltke, Bruce. “Samaritan Pentateuch.” ABD 5:932–940. Wasserstein, Abraham, and David Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Watts, James W., ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Weissenberg, Hanne von. “‘Canon’ and Identity at Qumran: An Overview and Challenges for Future Research.” In Voitila and Jokiranta, Scripture in Transition, 629–640. ———. 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Weissenberg, Hanne von, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Martilla, eds. Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. 266

Wendland, P. Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900. Werman, Cana. “‘The and the Engraved on the Tablets.” DSD 9 (2002): 75– 103. Westcott, Brooke Foss. A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1855. Wevers, John Williams. “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies.” BIOSCS 18 (1985): 16– 38. ———. “The Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy.” CBQ 39 (1977): 240–244. ———. “The Göttingen Pentateuch: Some Post-Partem Reflections.” In VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. C. E. Cox, 51–60. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991. ———. “The Interpretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version.” In Sæbø, HB/OTHI, 84–107. Wilk, Florian. “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text.” In Kraus and Wooden, Septuagint Research, 253–271. Wilken, Robert L. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind : A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Williams, Margaret H. The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Sourcebook. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1998. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited.” JTS 59.1 (2008): 41–62. ———. “The Composition of Ezra 1–6.” JTS 34.1 (1983): 1–30. ———. Ezra and Nehemiah. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. ———. “Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis.” BRB 1 (1991): 41–61. ———. Ezra, Nehemiah. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. ———. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ———. “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of 1 Chronicles xxiii–xxvii.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton, 251–268. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ———. Studies in the Persian Period. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wilson, Gerald Henry. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of the Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–388. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 45 (1985): 624–642. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–463. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. 267

Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In OTP, 2:35–142. Woude, A. S. van der. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament.” In Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, ed. J. N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez, 164–168. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1992. Wright, Benjamin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” In Henze, A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, 363–388. ———. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Reception History of the Septuagint.” In Wright, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction, 275–314. ———. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989. ———. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint.” In Voitila and Jokiranta, Scripture in Transition, 147–162. ———. “Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo.” In Kraus and Wooden, Septuagint Research, 47–62. ———. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Traditions in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” In Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on Deuteroncanonical Books, ed. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, 183–207. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Greek Translation.” In Paul, Kraft, Schiffman, and Fields, Emanuel, 633–644. Wright, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965. ———, ed. The Temple Scroll. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Vols. 1–3. Yarbro Collins, Adela. “Aristobulus.” In OTP, 2:831–842. ———. Mark: A Commentary. Ed. Harold W. Attridge. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Yardeni, Ada. “4Q397. 4Q398. Script.” In Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma’aseh HaTorah, DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Zaman, Luc. Bible and Canon: A Modern Historical Inquiry. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Zeitlin, S., and S. Tedesche. The Second Book of Maccabees. New York: Harper, 1954. Zenger, Erich. “Der Psalter im Horizont von Tora und Prophetie: Kanongeschichtliche und kanonhermeneutische Perspektiven.” In Auwers and de Jonge, Biblical Canons, 111–135. Zevit, Ziony. “The Second-Third Century Canonization of the Hebrew Bible and Its 268

Influence on Christian Canonization.” In van der Kooij and van der Toorn, Canonization and Decanonization, 133–160 Zuntz, G. “Aristeas Studies 1: The ‘Seven Banquets.’ JSS 4.1 (1959): 21–36. ———. “Aristeas Studies 2: Aristeas and the Translation of the Torah.” JSS 4.2 (1959): 109–126.

269

Index of Subjects

Artaxerxes, edict of 55–59 Ben Sira, prologue of 95–102 biblical: excerpts 140–41; scrolls 122 bipartite collection 128–31 Breynnios, list of 41–43 canon, terminology of 1–6 canons, multiplicity of 13–15 citation and authority 11–13 diversity and unity 185–86 Essenes, ancestral laws of 148–51 Ezra and the torah 62–72 festal letter 111–13 Fourth Ezra, canonical notice of 49–50 graded authority 131–46 Hodayot 141–42, 144–46 imperial authorization 54–55, 59–62 imperial validation 10–11 Jerome, list of 39–41 Jerusalemite redaction 107–11 Josephus, canon of 43–49, 91–93 Jubilees as perush 131–35 Letter of Aristeas, genre of 77–85 Luke, Gospel of 162–65 Maccabean library 106, 114–17 majority canon, theory of the 15–16, 179–85 Matthew, Gospel of 157–62 270

Melito, list of 37–38 Mishnah Yadayim, disputes in 50–52 MMT and be-David 127–28 Nehemiah and the Temple 113–14 Origen, list of 38–39 Paul, canon of 174–76 Paul, use of: Septuagint 165–69; Wisdom 169–72; citations and excerpts 172–74 Pentateuch 88–89 pesher, authority of 135–36, 138–39 Pharisaic canon 179 Philo, canon of 89–91 praise of the fathers 102–106 prophecy and revelation 6–9 psalms, authority of 126 Psalm Scroll, authority of 122–25 psalter and liturgical collections 125–26 Rabbinic canon 35–37, 179–85 Samaritan schism 18–21, 178 scripture, divine origins of 9–10 scrolls, collections of 121–22 Septuagint, origins of 86–88 Sinai pattern 75–77 Temple and canon 25–34, 179 Temple library 32–34 Temple Scroll 141–43 thematic pesher 137 Therapeutae, holy scriptures of 151–54 three stage theory 18 torah, prescription of 72 Yavneh, council of 22–25, 178 271

272

Index of Modern Authors

Alexander, Philip 37, 51, 180 Audet, Jean-Paul 41–43 Aune, David 22–23 Barrett, C. K. 164 Barton, John 2, 18, 26–27, 31, 48, 117, 163 Beckwith, Roger 18–20, 26–28, 157–58, 185 Beentjes, Pancratius 105 Bloch, Joshua 182 Brettler, Marc 70 Buhl, Frants 18 Cohen, Shaye 23, 179 Collins, John J. 25, 72, 133, 154, 179 Davies, Philip 154, 187 Di Lella, Alexander 97, 104 Evans, Craig 163 Fitzmyer, Joseph 171 Flint, Peter 124 Freedman, David Noel 21 Frei, Peter 54–55, 60 Gilbert, M. 73 Goldstein, Jonathan 112 Gooding, David 84 Goodman, Martin 23–25 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe 124 Grabbe, Lester 69 Graetz, Heinrich 22–23 Gray, Rebecca 48 Hadas, Moses 78, 83–84 273

Haran, Menahem 153–54 Hengel, Martin 74 Honigman, Sylvie 78, 85 Horsley, Greg 87 Kahle, Paul 83 Kamesar, Adam 90 Kartveit, Magnar 20 Katz, Peter 42 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 172 Kooij, Arie van der 26, 29–30, 96, 99, 107 Kraemer, David 5 Kraft, Robert 105 Lange, Armin 115 Lee, John 87 Lee, Kyong-Jin 60–62 Leiman, Sid 4–6, 25–27, 117, 175–76, 179 Lewis, Jack 22 Lust, Johann 171 Mason, Steve 46 Meecham, Henry 84 Najman, Hindy 133 Orlinsky, Harry 76–77 Purvis, James 19 Römer, Thomas 70 Rüger, Peter 97, 105 Ryle, Herbert 18–20, 22 Sacks, Jonathan 1 Sanders, Ed 157 Sanders, James 123 Schäfer, Peter 182 Schmid, Konrad 55 274

Schorch, Stefan 115 Schwartz, Daniel 108, 110, 112, 127–28 Silva, Moisés 165 Skehan, Patrick 97, 104, 124 Spinoza, Baruch 23 Steinmann, Andrew 5–6, 20–21 Steudel, Annette 134 Talmon, Shemaryahu 34, 124 Taylor, Joan 154 Toorn, Karel van der 32 Ulrich, Eugene 2, 4, 122 VanderKam, James 27, 133–34 Wacholder, Ben Zion 112–13 Wasserstein, Abraham 77 Wildeboer, Gerrit 18 Williamson, Hugh 54, 64, 66, 70 Wilson, Gerald 124 Wright, Benjamin 106 Yadin, Yigael 134 Zuntz, Gunther 83

275

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources

HEBREW BIBLE Genesis 2:7 89 24:3 57 24:7 57 Exodus 24:1 88 24:4–7 5, 76 24:9 88 Leviticus 11:29 89 Numbers 21:14 27 25 12 25:9 12 26:62 12 Deuteronomy 1:16–17 59 4:1–2 76 7:18 89 10:21 89 12:5 24, 122 12:11 24 12:18 24 12:26 24 276

14:23 122 16:18 59 17:8 122 17:8–13 59 18:6 122 26:2 122 Joshua 1:7–9 71 23 70 24 70 24:26 70 2 Samuel 23:1–7 123 2 Kings 18:26 66 22 32 22–23 5, 76 23:32 32 25:18–21 57 Isaiah 26:7 57 36:11 66 Jonah 1:9 57 Psalms 136:26 57 Esther 1:22 66 277

2:23 115 Daniel 2:4 66 2:18 57 2:37 57 2:44 57 Ezra 1:1 61 1:2 57, 61 1:3–4 62 2:62 66 3 113 3:4 69 4:6–24 65 4:7 65–67 4:8–11 67 4:8–16 65 4:11–16 65 4:15 114 4:17–22 65 4:18 65–67 4:23 65–66 5:5 66 5:6 65 5:11 57 5:16 113 6:1 32 6:1–2 154 6:9, 10 57 278

6:18 3, 71 6:19–22 69 7:1–5 57 7:6 3, 57, 61–62 7:7–9 56 7:8 60 7:10 62, 104 7:11 57, 66 7:12 3, 57 7:12–26 54–59, 73 7:13 60 7:14 60 7:15 60 7:17 3 7:21 57, 60 7:24 60 7:25 59 7:25–26 59–60 7:26 3, 10, 57, 59, 62 7:28 57 7:64 66 8:22 61 Nehemiah 1:1–2:20 114 1:1–7:5 113 1:4 57 1:19 113 2:4 57 3:1–32 114

279

3:33–7:5 114 8–10 70–73, 183 8:1 3, 63, 68, 70 8:1–2 63 8:1–6 4, 63, 76 8:1–12 62–69 8:2 63, 70 8:3 3, 63, 68 8:4 64 8:5 64 8:6 64 8:7 64, 68, 100 8:8 3, 64, 67, 70 8:8–12 100 8:9 72 8:13 3, 70 8:13–18 68, 72 8:14 70 8:14–17 69 8:17–18 70 8:18 3, 70 9 73 9:3 3, 70 9:6 69 9:7–8 69 9:9–11 69 9:12–21 69 9:23–25 69–70 10:32 69 10:35 68 280

11:1–2 114 11:3–12:16 114 12:27–47 114 13:1–2 69 13:1–31 114 13:15–22 69 13:25 69 1 Chronicles 21:26 114 23–27 71 24:3 71 28:19 66 2 Chronicles 2:10 66 17:9 71 34:14 32, 71 35:4 66 35:4–12 3 36:23 57

SEPTUAGINT Genesis (= Papyrus Fouad 266a) 86 Deuteronomion (= Papyrus Ryland 458) 86 (= Papyrus Fouad 266b) 86 (= Papyrus Fouad 266c) 86 3 Reigns

281

5:10 96, 99 1 Esdras 2:19 114 8:48 83 2 Esdras A (= Ezra) 6:1 115 1 Maccabees 1:56 116 1:56–57 107, 116 2 Maccabees 184, 186–87 1–2 109 1:1–9 107 1:1–10 108 1:7 108 1:9 108, 110–11 1:10 111 1:10–2:18 107–109 1:11 111 1:12–17 111–12 1:13–16 112 1:18 111, 113 1:19–36 111 1:31–32 111 2:1 83 2:1–3 111, 116 2:1–7 115 2:4–7 111 2:9–11 112

282

2:12–15 112 2:13–15 28, 32–33, 106–18 2:14 26 2:16–18 112 2:18 108, 114 2:19–23 109 2:24 109 2:25 109 2:26 109 2:26–31 109 2:28 109 2:29 109 2:31 109 2:32 109 3–5 109–10 3:1–3 110 3:4 110 4:1–6 110 4:7–22 110 4:23 114 5:19 107 5:27 110 6 110 6:18–31 110 7 110 8 110 9 110, 112 9:4 110 9:29 110 10:1–8 107, 110 283

10:3 110 10:6–7 111 10:9 110 10:9–11:37 111 10:9–15:39 111 12:9 3 13:3–8 111 15:9 3 4 Maccabees 169 18:10 3 Psalms 151 123 Wisdom of Solomon 169–70 12–15 169 15:1–5 170 Sirach 185–86 Prologue 17, 29, 95, 99–102, 183 1:1 3 2:10 99 6:35 98 9:10 99 9:15 98 16:7 99 22:6 98 24:23 106 27:11 98 27:13 98 38:24 99

284

38:24–39:11 96–97 38:25 98 39:1–3 29, 30, 97–99, 101 44–50 102–106 44:1–15 102–104 44:25–26 104 44:1–50:24 104 45:17 105 49:11–13 105, 107 49:14–16 105 50:1 95 50:3 95 50:1–24 106 50:1–21 95 50:27 101, 104 51:13–23 123 51:23 96, 153 51:30 123 Ieremias 14:15 115

JUDEAN DESERT MANUSCRIPTS CD (Damascus Document) 187 2:14–19 144 4–7 129 4:8 3 4:12–19 135, 137 4:20–21 142–43 5:2 3, 129

285

5:2–3 129 5:7 3 5:8–9 129 6:3–4 129 6:4, 7 3 7:9 129 15:12 3 16:1–3 131–35 16:2 3 1QpHab (Habakkuk Pesher) 135 2:1–2 10 2:8–10 135 7:4–5 135 11:2–8 145 11:3–4 145 1Q16 (1QpPs) 126 1Q20 (Genesis Apocryphon) 144 1Q26 (Instruction) 145–46 1Q27 fr. 1, col. 1, lines 3–4 145 1QS (Rule of the Community) 141 1:1–3 9 5:8 3 8:15 3, 129, 138 8:15–16 9 1QHa(Hodayot) 144–46 12:5–12 145 12:13 145 286

20:12 10 1Q35 (1QHb) 144 4Q119 (4QpaplXXleva) 86 4Q120 (4QpaplXXlevb) 86 4Q121 (4QLXXNum) 86 4Q122 (4QLXXDeut) 86 4Q158 131 4Q159 fr. 5, l.1 and 5 139 fr. 5, l. 6 3 4Q169 (4QpNah) frs. 3–4, col. 1, l. 7 143 4Q171 (4QpPsa) 126 4Q173 (4QpPsb) 126 4Q174 (4QFlor) 130, 134, 138, 140 frs. 1–2, col. 1, l. 14 138 4Q175 (4QTest) 126, 140 fr. 1, 5–6 10 4Q177 134, 138 fr.1, col. 4, l. 14 3, 134 4Q228 fr.1 i 2 132 fr.1 i 9 132 4Q249 129 4Q252 126 287

4Q255 (4QpapSa) 141 4Q258 (4QSd) 141 4Q259 (4QSe) 141 4Q266 fr.3 136 fr.3 col. 3, l. 18 3 4Q268 (4QDc) 2 ii 5 131 4Q270 (4QDe) 10 ii 17 131 4Q364–67 131 4Q365a 142 4Q378 140 4Q379 126, 140 145 4QMMT Composite text C 10 127 C 17–19 129 C 18–19 130 C 28 127 4Q397 fr. 14, l. 10 3 4Q415–418a, 418c, 423 (Instruction) 145–46 4QHa–f (4Q427–32) 144 4Q491 128

288

fr. 1, l. 4 3, 127 4Q524 142 7Q1 (7QpapLXXExod) 86 7Q2 (7QpapEpJer) 86 11Q5 (11QPsa or Psalm Scroll) frs. A, B and CI 123 27 123 Apostrophe to Zion 123 Hymn to the Creator 123 11Q13 (Melchizedek) 137–38 2:10 3, 127–28, 130 11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 133, 142 11:3 68 51–66 12 56:12–21 134 61:2–4 10 64:–13 143 11Q20 142 11Q21 142 8HevXIIgr 86, 126

PHILO Creation 46 3 Cherubim 11 3

289

Migration 89–93 23 Dreams 1.69 149 Abraham 121 3 Moses 1.4 8 1.22 149 1.48 149 2.2 81, 90 2.12 81–82 2.21 81 2.23 81 2.25–44 77, 80 2.27 81 2.33 82 2.34 82, 90 2.36 3 2.37 8, 82, 90 2.37–38 82, 167 2.38 82 2.40 90 2.41 81 2.43 81 2.44 81 2.45–48 91 2.49–65 91 2.66–292 91 290

2.258 82 2.290 3 Decalogue 48 3 Laws 2.98 149 Virtues 51 3 Rewards 5 150 On the Contemplative life 1–2 152 4–10 152 11 152 12–13 152 13–17 152 18–20 152 21–23 152 24–28 152 24–90 152 25 152 28 152 29 152 59–62 151 64 152 78 3 Hypothetica (= Apology for the Jews) 7.11 150 291

Gaius 151 115 Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.14 150 For Every Good Man 148–50 75 24 75–91 149 76 149 77 149 78–79 149 80 149 80–82 149 81–82 150

JOSEPHUS Jewish war 2.119–61 150–51 2.137–42 46 2.142 151 2.152 151 2.159 150 2.427 30 6.354 30 7.150 28 Jewish Antiquities 5.61 28 10.58 32 11.118 80 11.165 114 292

11.183 113 11.306–12 19 12 80 12.12 115 12.14 115 12.36 115–16 12.48 115 12.59 80 12.100 77 12.108 92 12.109 92 12.142 11 12.323 30 13.288 47 13.352 112 16.164 30 18.9 150 18.19 23–24 18.23 150 20.97 7 57 80 91 80 99–100 80 Against Apion 181 1.37 8 1.37–43 46 1.38–41 7, 17, 29, 43–44 1.40 101 1.41 48

293

2.179–81 25 2.193–95 25 2.196 25 Life 1–6 45 6 30 10–12 45 12b 46 418 30

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 4:4 10 5:20 160 6:5 160 6:16 160 7:5 160 7:12 3 9:11 160 9:32–34 160 9:36 160 12:2 160 12:22–32 160 12:24 160 15:1–9 160 15:12–14 160 19:3 160 22:15 160 23 160, 176

294

23:34–36 17, 157–62, 185 23:35 159, 161 27:62–65 161 Mark 1:3 167 2:16 161 2:23–24 161 3:1–6 161 10:2–10 161 Luke 4:18 164 4:19 164 7:36–39 161 10:26 3 11:37 161 11:49–51 158 11:51 161 14:1 161 22:37 164 24:25 164 24:25–27 163 24:44 17, 130, 157, 162–65 John 7:45–52 161 11:45–53 161 Acts 1:16 164 2:30 164

295

3:22 164 4:25 164 5:34 161 15:5 161 17:2–3 172 22:3 174 23:6 174 Romans 1:2 174 1:17 172 1:19 169 1:19–32 169–70 2:4 169–70 2:11 174 3:2 3 3:10 175 3:10–18 175 3:21 3 9:33 166–67 11:2 174 11:17 174 1 Corinthians 3:5–7 171 4:6 10, 171–72 10:8 12, 173 15:33 10 2 Corinthians 11:32–33 174

296

Galatians 1:14 173 3:11 172 3:13 143 3:22 3 6:14–7:1 173 6:18 174 Philippians 3:5 173 2 Timothy 2:19 168 3:2–6 174 3:15 3 3:16 7, 9 4:13 173 2 Peter 1:20–21 9 3:15–16 9 Jude 14 16

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 143–44 6–16 144 Jubilees 133–34 Title 133 6:20–22 133 6:22 133 297

Letter of Aristeas 183, 185–86 1 77 3 88–89 5 88 8 115 9 115 10 88 12 84 12–13 79 28 77, 79 29 115–16 30 83–84 31 10 32 85 34 77 35 79, 84 39 84 40 84 41 77, 79 42 77 45 84 46 84 50 75 51 77 83–120 78 122 88 131 89 139 89 144 89 148 89 298

155 3, 88–89 158 3 167–71 78 168 88 173 77 176 88–89 177–78 86 179 88 182 79 235 77–78 273 75 277 89 296–300 80 300–307 81 301–307 78 307 75, 82, 86 308–11 76 309 88–89 310 88 312 89 313 10, 88 313–16 10 314–16 87 316 3, 88 317 86, 88 322 77 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras 3–14) 169 14:45–48 49 Apocalypse of Baruch 169 299

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 169

RABBINIC TEXTS Mishnah Megillah 2:1 92 Sanhedrin 10:1 4 Yadayim 180–83 3:5 17, 50–52 3:5–4:4 22 4:5 92 Tosefta Sotah 13:2 7, 48 Kelim to Baba Metzia 5:8 28 Yadayim 2:13 182–83 Jerusalem Talmud Ta‘anit 4, 2; 68a 33 Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 180–81 14–15 4, 17, 35 14a 7, 26 Sanhedrin 22a 32 300

Avot of Rabbi Nathan B 37, 94f 88 Patristics 1 Clement 34:6 3 Origen Against Celsus 1.49 28 Commentary on Matthew 17:35f 28 Hippolytus Refutation 9:26 29 9:29 28, 29 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4:26 37 6:24 39 6:25 38–39, 47 6:26 39 Preparation for the Gospel 148 Jerome Prologue to the Books of Samuel and Kings 39 Epiphanius Weights and Measures 9 77 Against Heresies 33.3.1–33.7.10 88

301

302

Index Title Page Copyright Page Contents Preface List of Abbreviations 1 Modern and Ancient Views of the Canon 2 The Emergence of the Canon Reconsidered 3 The Earliest Canonical Lists and Notices 4 The Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 5 The Letter of Aristeas and Its Early Interpreters 6 The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and 2 maccabees 7 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures 8 The Holy Books of the Essenes and Therapeutae 9 Canon in the Gospels and Pauline Letters 10 The Formation of the Jewish Canon Appendix 1: Some Modern Canons Appendix 2: Early Canonical Lists Appendix 3: Bryennios’ and Epiphanius’ Lists Appendix 4: Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings and the Pauline Letters Appendix 5: Scriptural References in Sirach 44–50 Notes Select Bibliography Index of Subjects Index of Modern Authors Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources

303

4 6 8 10 12 14 28 44 59 76 93 114 139 145 164 174 176 177 179 192 196 233 270 273 276

304