Messianism among Jews

and Christians
 Other Titles in the Cornerstones Series

The Israelite Woman by Athalya Brenner-Idan

In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ by Philip R. Davies
Fragmented Women by J. Cheryl Exum
Sanctify Them in the Truth by Stanley Hauerwas
Solidarity and Difference by David G. Horrell
One God, One Lord by Larry Hurtado
Neither Jew nor Greek by Judith Lieu
Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet by Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza
The Christian Faith by Friedrich Schleiermacher
The Pentateuch: A Social and Critical Commentary by John Van Seters
The Christian Doctrine of God by Thomas F. Torrance
Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith by Francis Watson
Word and Church by John Webster
Confessing God by John Webster
Messianism among Jews
and Christians

Biblical and Historical Studies

Second Edition

William Horbury

Bloomsbury T&T Clark

An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY
 Bloomsbury T&T Clark
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Imprint previously known as T&T Clark

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First edition published 2003. This edition published 2016

© William Horbury, 2016

William Horbury has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on

or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can
be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: PB: 978-0-56766-274-3

ePDF: 978-0-56766-275-0
  ePub: 978-0-56766-276-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Series: Cornerstones

Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

 Contents

Abbreviations vi
Introduction to the Second Edition 1
Introduction to the First Edition 29
Particulars of First Publication 51

The Second Temple Period

1 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 61

2 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 91
3 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 110

The New Testament

4 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 153

5 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 186
6 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 220
7 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 260
8 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 289

Synagogue and Church in the Roman Empire

9 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 311

10 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 325
11 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 366
12 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 388

Index of Subjects 419

Index of Authors 421
Index of References 433
 Abbreviations

AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des

Urchristentums
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BJP Brill Josephus Project
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
CHJ Cambridge History of Judaism
CIIP Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae
CIJ J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (i, Rome, 1936;
reissued, revised by B. Lifschitz, New York, 1975; ii, Rome, 1952)
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
EB Encyclopaedia Biblica
EH Encyclopaedia Hebraica
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica [to distinguish the two works bearing this
title, references include a date]
ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics
ET Expository Times
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FJB Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
HDB Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
 Abbreviations vii

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
JANES Journal of the American Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JE Jewish Encyclopaedia
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JIGRE W. Horbury and D. E. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman
Egypt (Cambridge, 1992)
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LXX Septuagint
MGWJ Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MT Massoretic Text
NT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca
PL J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
RB Revue biblique
REB Revised English Bible
viii Abbreviations

REJ Revue des études juives

RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions
RIDA Revue international des droits de l’Antiquité
RQ Revue de Qumran
RV Revised Version
SC Sources chrétiennes
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur
TWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament
TWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament
VC Vigiliae Christianae
VT Vetus Testamentum
WUNT Wissenchaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der älteren Kirche
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
ZWT Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie
 Introduction to the Second Edition

‘Messianism’ can stand for all biblically inspired Jewish communal hope,
spiritual and political, with or without a messiah figure.1 Yet the significance of
the term can also narrow dramatically. So from the 1960s to the early years of
the present century, when this book first appeared, the place of messianism in
ancient Judaism was often minimized (see pp. 30–2, below).2 In ancient as in
modern hope the universal reign of God and the exaltation of Israel do indeed
come to the fore.3 For the Second-Temple period it was stressed, however, that
the interrelated hope for a coming king—that which can most readily be called
‘messianic’—did not always reach expression. How diverse, moreover, was this
hope when it was expressed!
Yet it remained clear that messianism including hope for a ruler had been
central enough in the Second Temple period to influence both Christianity
and later Judaism. Exceptions to the minimizing trend emerged in work which
kept apocalypses, Targums, rabbinic literature and Jewish risings against Rome
in view.4 The writer’s separately published argument for a less minimizing

1
On broad use of ‘messianism’ from Hermann Cohen to Emmanuel Levinas see D. Biale, Gershom
Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History (Cambridge, MA and London, 1979), 148–55; P. Bouriez,
Témoins du futur: Philosophie et messianisme (Paris, 2003), translated by M. B. Smith as Witnesses
for the Future: Philosophy and Messianism (Baltimore, 2010); C. Wiese, The Life and Thought of Hans
Jonas: Jewish Dimensions (Hanover, NH and London, 2007), 108–110, 154–60. For a ‘messianic
idea’ of this breadth as a frame for both ancient and modern hopes see P. Alexander, ‘Towards a
Taxonomy of Jewish Messianisms’, in J. Ashton (ed.), Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in
Honour of Christopher Rowland (Leiden, 2014), 52–72.
2
On this trend and its antecedents see M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels
(FRLANT 151, Göttingen, 1990), 23–34; W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ
(London, 1998), 1–2, 5–7, 36–7; id., ‘Jewish Messianism and Early Christology’, in R. N. Longenecker
(ed.), Contours of Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 2005), 3–24;
M. V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in
Ancient Judaism (New York, 2012), 39–41.
3
On monarchy exercised by God and by the nation in the Pentateuch see W. Horbury, ‘Monarchy and
Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, in M. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195,
Leuven, 2006), 79–128 (80, 87, 89, 91–3, 97–9).
4
Including G. Scholem, ‘Zum Verständnis der messianischen Idee im Judentum’, Eranos Jahrbuch 28
(1959), 193–239, E. T. ‘The Messianic Idea in Judaism’, in G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism
and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (London, 1971), 1–36; R. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale (Analecta
Biblica 22, Rome, 1963); D. Flusser, ‘Jüdische Heilsgestaltungen und das Neue Testament’, in id.,
2 Messianism among Jews and Christians

approach, and the related work gathered afterwards in the present book of
2003, formed part of this reaction.5
The expectation of a coming ruler, rather than biblically inspired hope in
general, is determinative for messianism as studied here.6 Otherwise, however,
the scope remains broad. Messianism as envisaged in this book is attested in
early forms in the psalms and prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. It is a theme
of Jewish sacred books and their interpretative tradition as they are edited,
associated with one another and handed down under the Persians. Messianism
is then significant in tradition as well as life among Jews under Greek and
Roman rule. The present book brings into view the period from Alexander the
Great to the Christian empire of the fifth century, or, in literary history, from
Chronicles and the Septuagint to rabbinic literature.
Twelve essays, originally separate but with many internal connections,
were revised and amplified to form the chapters of this book. They treat Jewish
messianism and the theocentric, national and royal hopes surrounding it as
these developed in Greek and Roman settings, including the setting of early
Christianity (Chapters 2, 5–8, 11) and the cult of Christ (Chapters 9 and 12).
These chapters and their original introduction are reprinted unchanged
apart from small corrections and occasional citation of later work. The present
new introduction is intended to complement its predecessor in review of the
subject. Each is followed by a list of writings cited. For the revised index to the
second edition I am most grateful to Grishma Fredric and her colleagues at
Deanta Publishing Services, working on behalf of Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark.
In the rest of this introduction to the second edition I seek to place the picture
of messianism, which is sketched in this book, in the setting of other current
approaches.

Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, Band 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum (Neukirchen-Vluyn,

1999), 212–52; M. Pérez Fernández, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia
and Jerusalem, 1981); M. D. Herr, ‘Realistic Political Messianism and Cosmic Eschatological
Messianism in the Teaching of the Sages’, Tarbiz 54 (1985), 331–46; M. Hengel, ‘Messianische
Hoffnung und politischer “Radikalismus” in der “jüdisch-hellenistischen Diaspora”. Zur Frage
der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115-117 n. Chr.’, reprinted from
D. Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tübingen, 1983,
repr. 1989), 655–86 in M. Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften I (WUNT 90, Tübingen,
1996), 314–43; id., ‘Die Bar-Kokhbamünzen als politisch-religiöse Zeugnisse’, Gnomon lviii (1986),
326–31, reprinted in Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I, 344–50.
5
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ; id., Messianism among Jews and Christians
(Edinburgh, 2003).
6
Here my approach differs from that of Philip Alexander (n. 1, above).
 Introduction to the Second Edition 3

Jews and Christians

Judaism and Christianity are viewed together here. It is urged that Jewish
messianism, influenced by Greek and then Roman ruler-cult, linked Jewish
piety with the cult of Christ and Christian messianism in such a way that in
the first and second centuries we can speak of ‘one messianism of the Jews and
of the Christians’ (chapter 9, p. 324, below).7 In later Judaism, New Testament
messianic themes are judged to live on through and beyond the period of the
Mishnah, especially in liturgy, Targum and midrash (chapter 10, p. 365, below).
Angels and saints were also remembered, it is suggested, in both communities,
in a way which could frame reverence for a messianic figure (chapter 12, pp. 388,
412–15, below).
The book thus offers glimpses of Jewish messianism, and also of an
associated Christian messianism, before, during and after the age of Christian
origins. The place of messianism in the rolling interpretative tradition which
accompanied biblical writings in the Jewish community, and was both inherited
and further encountered by Christians, is accordingly a concern throughout
(on study of scripture and tradition see pp. 33–8, below).8

A perspective from scripture and tradition

The perspective adopted is then not quite the same as that of work focused
mainly on apocalypses. To quote Norman Cohn on Daniel 7 and its

7
Compare Scholem, ‘The Messianic Idea in Judaism’, 15–16: ‘The political and chiliastic Messianism
of important religious movements within Christianity often appears as a reflection of what is really
Jewish Messianism’; but the shared messianism sketched in the present book is judged to comprise
both the political element which Scholem saw as Jewish and the mystical element which he saw
as Christian. On Scholem’s defence of this contrast see P. Schäfer, ‘Gershom Scholem und das
Christentum’, in W. Schmidt-Biggemann (ed.), Christliche Kabbala (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften
10, 2003), 257–74 (267–70). J. A. Fitzmyer, The One who is to Come (Grand Rapids and Cambridge,
2007), 182–3 echoes the similar contrast in J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel from its Beginning
to the Completion of the Mishnah (E. T. London, 1956), 517–31. Scholem himself is followed by
A. Oppenheimer, ‘Messianismus in römischer Zeit. Zur Pluralität eines Begriffes bei Juden und
Christen’, Jahrbuch des Historischen Kollegs 1997 (Munich, 1998), 53–74, repr. in id., Between Rome
and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society (TSAJ 108, Tübingen, 2005), 263–82.
8
See further E. Grypeou and H. Spurling (eds.), The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians
in Late Antiquity (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 18; Leiden and Boston, 2009);
E. Grypeou and H. Spurling, The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and
Christian Exegesis (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 24; Leiden and Boston, 2013).
4 Messianism among Jews and Christians

development in II Baruch, II Esdras, the Sibyl, Revelation and second-

century Christianity, ‘In the apocalypses poetic imagery of great power
not infrequently served the imperious needs of what can only be described
as a collective megalomania. … This propaganda made great play with the
phantasy of an eschatological saviour, the messiah.’9 Cohn picked out the
perilous fascination exerted in the church and in modern society by hope
for the overthrow of evil through the world-empire of the saints and their
messianic king. He related it to twentieth-century totalitarian régimes as well
as to the repeated millennial risings of mediaeval and early modern Europe.
At the same time the continuing vitality of the messianism of the apocalypses
within post-biblical Judaism was being underlined by Gershom Scholem; for
him this messianism of catastrophe leading to utopia was indeed destructive
and costly, but also blew ‘a kind of anarchic breeze’ through the window of
what might otherwise be a too firmly well-ordered house. The order of which
he spoke arises ultimately from the Pentateuch, heard with its accompanying
tradition as a book of divine law and commandments.10
The coming kingdom pictured in Daniel and later apocalypses is central
below especially in chapter 6, on Jerusalem-centred hope in Paul and his
predecessors, chapter 9, on second-century messianism, and chapter 10, on the
messianism of Yose ben Yose’s synagogue poetry. The book as a whole, however,
sets the apocalypses within the Pentateuchally-related interpretative tradition.
By the time of Alexander the Great, the Pentateuch had become the
primary sacred text, prophets, psalms and other writings were viewed together
with it, and hopes for the future were associated with the books of Moses as
well as the prophets (see pp. 157–8, below, for this outlook in Josephus and
St John’s Gospel). A flexible interpretative tradition accompanied transmission
of these books, and is attested in ancient translation and paraphrase. Within
this tradition, messianic interpretation could persist irrespective of political
circumstances.
This persistence aided the impetus of what may be called a messianic myth.
At the same time, however, the orientation of tradition towards the Pentateuch

9
N. Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London, 1957), 3–5.
10
Scholem, ‘The Messianic Idea in Judaism’, 21, set against the background of argument by Albert
Schweitzer and others for the importance of apocalypses by Biale, Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and
Counter-History, 152–4; on Scholem’s debt to Schweitzer see further pp. 39–40, below.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 5

fostered, with emphasis on law as well as prophecy, the ‘restorative’ as well

as ‘utopian’ tendencies distinguished by Scholem, and moderation of urgent
hope.11 Thus, in a classic instance of restraint, when the daughters of Jerusalem
are adjured not to stir up love prematurely (Cant. R. ii, on Song of Sol. 2:7),
rabbinic interpreters hear a warning not to rebel or hasten the time appointed
for the messiah. The persistence of messianism did not preclude detachment
from it.12

Approaches to messianism

Messianism among Jews and Christians is understood here, as already noted,

in the sense of the expectation of a coming pre-eminent ruler – coming either
at the last, as the word eschatology strictly implies, or simply at some time in
the future. In any case, the advent may be envisaged as near. Messianism here
thus covers treatment of a present ruler in a messianic way.
The term ‘messiah’ may or may not be used in relevant literary texts, but
this broad specification of future rather than simply eschatological expectation
acknowledges a measure of continuity between the use of ‘messiah’ in the
Hebrew scriptures for the Lord’s ‘anointed’ (as in royal psalms which have a
future as well as a present aspect) and its later use as an often unexplained
special term for the coming God-given king.13
In this later period messianism is indeed linked with thought of the ‘last
days’ (the term eschatos is used in Septuagint renderings of this phrase) which
were foreseen according to scripture by Jacob, Balaam and Moses (Gen. 49:1,
Num. 24:14, Deut. 31:29; cf. Hos. 3:5). Yet the expectations commonly called
eschatological may emphasize hope for the future of Israel, notably the
coming glorious kingdom mentioned above, as much as final events for the

11
M. Fishbane, ‘Midrash and Messianism: Some Theologies of Suffering and Salvation’, in P. Schäfer
and M. R. Cohen (eds.), Towards the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco
(Studies in the History of Religions 77, Leiden, Boston and Köln, 1998), 57–71 (57–8). On restorative
emphasis and resistance to it in mediaeval reshaping of messianism see Scholem, ‘The Messianic
Idea in Judaism’, 24–33; on urgency and restraint, pp. 361–2, below.
12
T. Rajak, ‘Momigliano and Judaism’, in T. Cornell and O. Murray (eds.), The Legacy of Arnaldo
Momigliano (Warburg Institute Colloquia 25, London & Turin, 2014), 89–106 (100–102).
13
On ‘messiah’ as an unexplained technical term in the Greek and Roman period, and implications of
this usage, see Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 7–12.
6 Messianism among Jews and Christians

world, so that ‘future’ is again not inappropriate.14 For hearers in the Greek
and Roman age the context of the ‘last days’, ‘that day’ and final events would
have been in view in the Pentateuch and prophets; but in themselves many
prophecies significant for messianism chiefly foretell future victory and reign
(so Gen. 49:10-11, Num. 24:7-9 and 17-19, Isa. 10:33-11:16). Hence, without
dismissing ‘the clearly eschatological connotations that messianic hope
takes on’ (A. N. Chester) after the period of the Hebrew Bible, I would add
that hope for a future reign may sometimes have outshone other aspects of
eschatological hope.15
A broad focus on future hope, including strictly eschatological hope, then
divides my approach from that of those who tie messianism to eschatology.16
Among them Chester treats the question with particular care in his monumental
studies of messianism.17 The broader definition has antecedents in the work of
H. Gressmann, the more strictly eschatological in that of S. Mowinckel.18 On
the understanding adopted in this book, focused on expectation of a coming
ruler, study of messianism embraces royal praise and prophecy in the Hebrew
biblical writings. Many current treatments, however, exemplified by that of
J. A. Fitzmyer, stick to an eschatological view of messianism and set aside
this biblical material.19 Yet even on this view it is hard to make an absolute
distinction between Hebrew biblical texts and later sources. J. J. Collins finds a
modest attestation of eschatological messianism in biblical writings from the
post-exilic age, and possibly earlier.20
In the approach followed here the term ‘messiah’ is important, as noted
above, but some texts which speak of a ruler in other terms are still thought

14
Each kind of expectation can stand out separately, even though both are presented as final and should
therefore be viewed together as eschatological, according to P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen
Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und
apokryphen Literatur (Tübingen, 1934, repr. Darmstadt, 1966), 2.
15
A. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation (WUNT 207, Tübingen, 2007), 202.
16
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 6–7, discussed by Chester, Messiah and Exaltation,
201–3; in his own definition he understands eschatology as importing finality but not necessarily an
end of the world.
17
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 193–205; id., Future Hope and Present Reality, Volume I, Eschatology
and Transformation in the Hebrew Bible (WUNT 293, Tübingen, 2012), 208–10.
18
See Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 14–23; Chester, Future Hope and Present
Reality, Volume I, Eschatology and Transformation in the Hebrew Bible, 232–5.
19
Fitzmyer, The One who is to Come, 2–5, on this point following Mowinckel.
20
J. J. Collins in A. Y. Collins and J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and
Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 2008),
43–6.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 7

to attest messianism. Fitzmyer ties his historical reconstruction, however, to

attestation of ‘messiah’, Hebrew mashiah, in the sense of a national messiah—first
found in his view at Dan. 9:25. The earlier Septuagintal version of the
prophecies of Jacob and Balaam in the Pentateuch did indeed make explicit the
thought of a coming ruler, but, he stresses, one not yet identified as messiah.21
Here, however, these Septuagintal references to a ruler are treated as messianic
(see this introduction, below). Similarly, Fitzmyer judges pre-Septuagintal
attestations of Davidic hope not yet to be messianic, whereas here they are
ascribed to a developing messianism.
Yet the broad ruler-focused understanding of messianism followed here,
unlike the still broader conceptions represented by P. S. Alexander (see n. 1),
itself excludes those attestations of hope which, as noted at the beginning of this
introduction, do not mention a messianic figure. In these texts God himself,
often pictured as a man of war, the ‘double of the messiah’ (as Gressmann put
it), redeems his people (for examples see chapter 1, pp. 67–71, below). This
theocratic emphasis is prominent in some biblical and later Jewish texts which
are thought to indicate hostility or indifference to messianism with a messianic
figure. It is urged here, however, that their outlook may be compatible with
explicitly messianic hope.

Continuity and coherence

A continuity in messianic hope is envisaged here throughout the Second-

Temple period and beyond. This view of course does not imply widespread
or uniform messianism in all times and places. Yet continuity in varying
circumstances was made possible, it is urged, through the transmission of
sacred books together with traditional interpretation. Such interpretation is
attested in the late Persian and early Greek periods by Chronicles and then by
the Septuagint (LXX) Pentateuch, to be discussed later in this introduction
(see also pp. 40, 76–7, 90, below). In the second century B.C.E. it has echoes
in Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Ben Sira. I would now set the Davidic future
hope of Ecclus. 47:11 and 47:22 (pp. 72–5, below) more explicitly beside the

21
Fitzmyer, The One who is to Come, 62–4, 70–72.
8 Messianism among Jews and Christians

future hope for Jerusalem and the sanctuary expressed in Ecclus. 36:12-14
(pp. 231–4, below). Then in the later part of the Hasmonaean age messianic
interpretation reappears dramatically in the Qumran texts.
When the present book first appeared A. Laato had been arguing strongly
for pre-Hasmonaean messianic hope (p. 32, below). Some found instead,
however, a messianic vacuum, especially in the Greek age, or urged that
later messianism might be too incoherent to be significant (pp. 64, 67, 159,
below). Meanwhile attestation of messianic hope in the Persian period has
been reaffirmed by J. Schaper and A. Rofé.22 The importance of tradition for
the continuity of messianism from this time to the Greek age, as Septuagint
translations suggest, has also been restated.23 More limited affirmations of
some continuity (see p. 32, below) have likewise been further developed.
Thus for Collins his modestly attested early messianism reappears, still in a
small way, in the LXX Pentateuch, but later more strikingly in LXX Psalms
and Isaiah; messianism has a clear resurgence in the Qumran texts and later
writings.24 Chester not dissimilarly finds ‘proto-messianic’ passages in the
Hebrew psalms and prophets, later calling these, rather, passages with ‘latent
messianic potential’. He avoids the unqualified ‘messianic’ in this biblical
connection not least because he describes messianic hope as eschatological.
From the Greek age to the later Hasmonaean period he acknowledges a ‘latent
messianism’ (stressing, with the present writer, the influence of edited and
collected scripture), thereafter recognizing a clear messianic hope.25 Collins
and Chester thus both envisage a relatively restricted pre-Hasmonaean
messianism, but they differ strikingly from detections of a messianic vacuum
in the Greek age.

22
J. Schaper, ‘The Persian Period’, in M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton Paget (eds.), Redemption and
Resistance: the Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London, 2007), 3–14; A. Rofé,
‘David their King (whom God will Raise): Hosea 3:5 and the Onset of Messianic Expectation in the
Prophetic Books’, in D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon (eds.), Leshon Limmudim: Essays on the Language
and Literature of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of A.A. Macintosh (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies 593, London, 2013), 130–35.
23
J. Schaper, ‘Messianism in the Septuagint of Isaiah and Messianic Intertextuality in the Greek Bible’,
in M. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195, Leuven, 2006), 371–80; Horbury,
‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 99–102; to later writers of comparable outlook
on tradition listed at 100, n. 39 add L. Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden, 1948),
criticized by M. A. Knibb, ‘The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues’, in Knibb (ed.), The
Septuagint and Messianism, 3–19 (9).
24
Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 42–7.
25
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 229–30, 279–84; id., Future Hope and Present Reality, Volume I,
Eschatology and Transformation in the Hebrew Bible, 213–14, 231, 262–3.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 9

Their recognition of continuity from the time of the Qumran texts onwards
is in contrast again, as Chester emphasizes, with more minimizing treatments.26
For this period continuity, at least in use of messianic language, seems also to
be implied by M. V. Novenson’s argument that (irrespective of any hope or
activism) there was consistent use (but diverse development) of scripturally
moulded language concerning ‘messiahs’, and of a group of biblical texts on
future rule.27 This distinctively language-focused approach indicates concern
with the subject sufficient to generate language-use, and perhaps retains some
kinship with the emphasis on the influence of associated passages of scripture
which is represented in this book and often elsewhere (see pp. 33–8, below).
One possible non-literary attestation of continuity in the early Roman
period is formed by the risings against Rome mentioned already, and the
long-term unrest in which they were high points (pp. 319–24, below, on the
second century). Their connection with messianism has remained debatable,
but has been affirmed especially for the risings at the time of Trajan’s Parthian
campaign, and the Bar Kokhba war fifteen years later.28
A continuity is also discerned here in specifically Jewish messianic tradition,
in the period between the initial rise of Christianity, and the Christian empire
of the fourth century and later, when Talmud and midrash were taking shape.
Messianic themes of the New Testament are considered here to reflect in
many ways the messianism of contemporary Jews in the first and early second
centuries. The messianism of Jews in the later Roman empire is envisaged
as a continuation within Judaism of this Jewish inheritance, not simply as a
fresh development of Jewish messianism under the impact of Christianity (see
especially pp. 364–5, below).
This perception of a continuing impetus among Jews for originally Jewish
views which had also been taken up in Christianity, as it is presented here
in Chapters 9–12, is meant to complement the widely noted recognition of
Christian influence. A Christian context has long been envisaged as providing
the impulse for Christian-like elements in Talmud and midrash and for

26
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 279–80.
27
Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 34 and n. 1, 53–63.
28
See affirmations respectively measured, strong and minimal by Oppenheimer, ‘Messianismus
in römischer Zeit’; Chester, Messianism and Exaltation, 418–20; M. Goodman, ‘Messianism and
Politics in the Land of Israel, 66-135 C.E.’, in Bockmuehl and Paget (eds.), Redemption and Resistance,
149–57; further discussion in W. Horbury, Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge,
2014), 275–7, 360–62, 367, 378–88.
10 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Christian-like piety, such as the remembrance of saints discussed in chapter 12,

below. Interpretation of rabbinic texts on these lines has developed further.29
This book, however, seeks also to keep in view the possibility of long-term
continuity with the hope and piety of earlier Judaism.
The importance of Byzantium and Syriac-speaking Christianity for
those who shaped the Babylonian Talmud has been justly stressed, but
the messianic traditions which they presented did not necessarily arise
solely in creative redaction. The continuity perceived in this book between
messianism at the end of the Second Temple period and in later Judaism
is suggested by the Amidah and other old elements of the liturgy, and the
tradition of biblical interpretation in the Targums.30 It is also suggested by
the sharing as well as the opposition of second-century and later Jews and
Christians in messianic hopes (pp. 241, 321–4, below). Hence, for example,
I think there is still a case for attributing the interpretation of the plural
‘thrones’ in Dan. 7:9 – ‘one for Him and one for David’ – in the name of
R. Akiba, in the Babylonian Talmud, to second-century Jewish opinion (as at
pp. 84, 156, 169–71, below) rather than, as Schäfer argues, to anti-Christian
polemic by a Talmudic editor.31
The question of continuity touches that of coherence. This book suggests a
measure of coherence in the messianism of the Greek and Roman periods,
despite diversity (see especially Chapters 1 and 4, at pp. 80–90, 159–61, below).
Diversity presents itself not only through diverse titles and descriptions in the
sources (including David, son of David, prince of the congregation, messiahs of
Aaron and Israel, messiah son of Joseph) but also through modern classification
of types of messianism (including human versus superhuman, and realistic

29
Examples include I. J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians
in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (translated from Hebrew by B. Harshav and J. Chipman;
Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2006), 10–91; D. Boyarin, ‘Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia’, in
C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffee (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic
Literature (Cambridge, 2007), 336–63; H. M. Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian
Literature (TSAJ 139, Tübingen, 2011); P. Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: how Judaism and Christianity
Shaped Each Other (Princeton and Oxford, 2012).
30
For broadly comparable views see Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 413–20 (on the period down to
the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba rising); Alexander, ‘The Rabbis and Messianism’, in Bockmuehl and
Paget (eds.), Redemption and Resistance, 227–44.
31
Babylonian Talmud Hag. 14a, Sanh. 38b, discussed by Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: how Judaism
and Christianity Shaped Each Other, 68–85. On his view of the Babylonian Talmud see further
W. Horbury, ‘Rabbinic Perceptions of Christianity and the History of Roman Palestine’, in Martin
Goodman and Philip Alexander (eds.), Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine
(Oxford, 2010), 353–76 (356–7).
 Introduction to the Second Edition 11

political versus cosmic eschatological), and many distinguishable motifs.32

Diversity is further underlined when any coherence is found not in messianism
with a messiah figure, but in broader concepts, as when a messianic idea is
envisaged without the necessity for a messiah, or when messianism is viewed
as a series of extensions of the concept of the kingdom of God.33
Then, moves away from the notion of one concept, however broad,
which might in principle cover diverse types of expectation, have helped, as
M. V. Novenson shows, to propagate a sense of the vagueness of messianism.34
They can also bring instead pictures of competing dynamisms, such as the
clash between a theophanic vector, standing for the revelation of the divine,
and an apotheotic vector, representing attempts to transcend mortality
by transformation into angelic or divine form.35 Emphasis can then be laid
advisedly on the fluid competitions and interactions of diverse ideas.
Classifications showing wide diversity, and new pictures of clash and
interaction, can sharpen perception of the individualities of relevant literary
texts; but they need not rule out recognition of interrelationships and
common features. Messianism as envisaged here is hope with a focus on a
coming ruler, but is sensitive externally to contemporary gentile culture,
including ruler-cult, and internally to movements in Jewish piety. It finds fluid
and diverse expression accordingly. Yet (it is urged) this did not exclude a
degree of coherence.
Much of this point is expressed by others. Thus, replacing a unified
Messiasidee with a picture of dynamic interaction, Schäfer says that the diverse
‘ideas’ and ‘notions’ connected with messianic expectations have their own
separate dynamic developments, but are in many ways interrelated.36Again,

32
For examples see pp. 80–81, below, on Bousset, Mowinckel and Morton Smith; Herr, ‘Realistic
Political Messianism and Cosmic Eschatological Messianism in the Teaching of the Sages’; similarly,
Oppenheimer, ‘Messianismus in römischer Zeit. Zur Pluralität eines Begriffes bei Juden und
Christen’; L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early
Judaism’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI and
Cambridge, 2007), 90–113; on motifs, Alexander, ‘Towards a Taxonomy of Jewish Messianisms’.
33
These views are exemplified respectively by Alexander, ‘Towards a Taxonomy of Jewish Messianisms’;
A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân (Assen, 1957), 249.
34
Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 34–43 (welcoming in principle the movement away from
notions of a messianic idea).
35
M. Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London and New York, 2007), 4–5, in an approach to
the history of mysticism which can also be applied to messianism; movement away from a unified
messianic idea, particularly as reconfigured by Scholem, was urged in his Messianic Mystics, 17–18,
32–5.
36
P. Schäfer, ‘Diversity and Interaction: Messiahs in Early Judaism’, in Schäfer and Cohen (eds.),
Towards the Millennium, 15–35 (17).
12 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Chester stresses diversity, but argues that incongruity and inconsistency should
not be overplayed, and that there is a degree of coherence both in Qumran
messianism and when, at a later time, a preexistent, transcendent figure and a
more earthly messiah can both be envisaged.37
This book likewise lays stress on the point that some coherence is
recognizable. I argue in this connection for the compatibility of conceptions of
Davidic kingship and priestly-royal dyarchy, and of human and superhuman
figures (pp. 81–90, below); for an old myth of the birth, wars and reign of
the messianic figure (pp. 33, 372–7, below); and for the debt of messianic
description to biblical portraits of the king (pp. 81, 90, below).38

The Septuagint Pentateuch

For the early continuity sketched above, one literary text has special importance.
Attention was drawn in this book once more, following Z. Frankel, to seeming
attestation of messianism in the Septuagint Pentateuch, translated for Greek-
speaking Jews in Egypt under the Ptolemies in the third century before Christ
(see p. 37, below).39 If this is right, the text forms a bridge in attestation between
the Persian period and the time of Ben Sira and the Qumran texts. It confirms
too that messianism, here associated with the Torah, already has a recognized
place in interpretation of the sacred books.
Relevant Pentateuchal texts include, as noted above, the prophetic Blessing
of Jacob, on the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-12), and the prophecies of Balaam,

37
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 216–9, 274–5, 293–5.
38
On dyarchy see further W. Horbury, Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 2014),
357–60; on earthly and heavenly figures in a coherent messianism, Chester, Messiah and Exaltation,
293–4; on attribution of divine status to royal and messianic figures, J. J. Collins in Collins and
Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 99–100; W. Horbury, ‘Josephus and 11Q13 on Melchizedek’,
in G. Khan and D. Lipton (eds.), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of
Robert Gordon (SVT 149, Leiden and Boston, 2012), 239–52 (245–50); on messianic narratives as
response to Christian stories (by contrast with emphasis, represented in this book, on their probably
pre-Christian roots) M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Mother of the Messiah in the Talmud Yerushalmi
and Sefer Zerubbabel’, in P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture, iii
(Tübingen, 2002), 369–89; ead., ‘The Messiah Son of Joseph in Ancient Judaism’, in R. S. Boustan,
K. Herrmann, R. Leicht, A. Yoshiko Reed and G. Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor
of Peter Schäfer (2 vols., Tübingen, 2013), ii, 771–790.
39
On Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841, repr. Farnborough, 1972), 179–91, on
interpretative tradition, and id., Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik (Leipzig, 1851, repr. Farnborough, 1972), 48–51, 182–5, 213, on Septuagintal
messianism, in their connection with subsequent scholarship, see p. 36, below, and Horbury,
‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 100 n. 39, 103–5.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 13

on the people of Jacob-Israel (Num. 23:7-10, 18-24; Num. 24:3-9, 15-19).40 The
Septuagint (LXX) version of these prophecies and of the Blessing of Moses
(at Deut. 33:5) seems to form, as Frankel noted, a testimony to messianic
hope.41 The appearance of messianic Pentateuchal interpretation later on in
the Qumran texts, from Judaea under Hasmonaean rule, helped to confirm
the place of messianism in exegetical tradition. The richness of the Qumran
material suggests, independently of the Septuagint, that the messianic
theme will have been part of such tradition before the Hasmonaean age.42
This inference from Qumran texts is perhaps relatively uncontroversial, but
messianism in the Septuagint has formed a focus of debate.43 The case accepted
here needs fresh summary.
The writer’s argument presupposes the interpretative tradition mentioned
above. During the Persian period, the books of Moses and the prophets and
the psalms had begun to be associated, as is seen in Chronicles. It is assumed
that the Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch would have been aware of
existing interpretation on these associative lines, irrespective of the question
whether parts of the sacred books were already known in Greek at the time of
the Septuagint translation.44 Thus the descent of David from Judah (I Chron.
2:15, 5:2, 28:4) has encouraged probable echoes of Isa. 11:1 in the blessing
upon Judah as rendered in Gen. 49:9-10 LXX (pp. 161–2, below). It is taken
likewise that LXX renderings which suggest a Hebrew original differing
slightly from the consonants preserved in the Massoretic text may reflect an
existing reading tradition of their Hebrew, as in the famous translations ‘there
shall come forth a man’ and ‘higher than Gog’ in Num. 24:7 LXX.
The Septuagint translators, then, are not envisaged as offering a freely
interpretative translation, but rather as bearing witness, in the course of a
predominantly close translation and sometimes no doubt unintentionally,

40
See chapter 4, at pp. 161, 174–7, below.
41
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 46–51, with further considerations at pp. 146–7,
263–4, 266, below, and in Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 94–6,
107–9, 121–6.
42
Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 105–6.
43
For the debate see especially J. Lust, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays, ed. K. Hauspie
(BETL 178, Leuven, 2004) (see p. 37, below; the essays appeared in the years 1978–2003); J. Schaper,
Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2.76, Tübingen, 1995); Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and
Messianism.
44
On interpretative tradition in relation to the Septuagint see Schaper and Horbury as cited in n. 26,
above.
14 Messianism among Jews and Christians

to interpretative traditions of their time.45 Messianic allusions detected

here in the LXX are therefore viewed as part of the impact of the Hebrew
Pentateuch as it was understood at the time of the translation; what can be
called ‘Septuagintal’ messianism because of its attestation in the Septuagint is
regarded as a reflection or development of interpretative tradition, and is not
ascribed simply to creativity on the part of the translators.
To recall the Septuagintal passages in question, all in the Hebrew are
prophecies relating to ‘the last days’ mentioned already (Gen. 49:1, Num.
24:14, Deut. 31:29). Jacob’s blessing upon Judah in Gen. 49:9-12 speaks in
the Septuagint of a succession of rulers from the lion-like tribe of Judah, the
ancestor of David: ‘There shall not fail a ruler from Judah, and a governor from
his loins, until the things laid up for him come, and he’ – probably the ruler
rather than Judah – ‘is the expectation of the nations.’ Then in Numbers 23-4
Balaam views Israel as the people among whom are the glories of rulers (23:21
LXX) and who shall rise up as a lion (23:24). He foretells with the spirit of God
in him (24:2 LXX), and in a trance-like state – ‘in sleep’, or ‘in a dream’, ‘his eyes
being opened’ (24:4, 24:16, LXX) – that from Israel’s seed ‘there shall come forth
a man’ (24:7 LXX) to be lord over many nations with a kingdom higher than
Gog, and that a star shall rise from Jacob and a man shall stand up from Israel
(24:17 LXX).46 Lastly, in Deut. 33:5 LXX Moses prophesies that ‘there shall be
a ruler in the Beloved, when rulers of peoples are gathered together with tribes
of Israel’. ‘Beloved’ interprets the Hebrew title Jeshurun, which signifies the
Israelite people (loved by God, Deut. 7:8, etc.; see also p. 301, below).
All three passages in their Septuagintal form forecast the rise of rulers in
Israel, within prophecies of the greatness of Israel or the tribes. The unfailing
succession of rulers is prominent in Gen. 49:10 and Num. 23:21 LXX. A
seemingly increased emphasis in the Septuagint of Genesis 49 and Numbers
24 on a great ruler to come coheres with the imperial emphasis laid in
Deuteronomy, in the Hebrew as preserved in the Massoretic text and still more
in the Septuagint, on the future monarchy of Israel over other nations.47 The

45
For the foregoing see Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 102, 121–2.
46
The rendering in Num. 24:4, 24:16 LXX, also found in Targum Onkelos, is compared with other
explanatory descriptions of trance in LXX by W. Horbury, ‘Benjamin the Mystic (Ps. 67:28 LXX)’, in
Boustan, Herrmann, Leicht, Yoshiko Reed and Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor
of Peter Schäfer, ii, 733–49 (744).
47
Deut. 15:6, 26:19, 28:1, 28:13, enhanced in the tradition represented in LXX by the repetition at
28:12 LXX of ‘you shall rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over you’ from Deut. 15:6.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 15

total picture suggested can be compared with the view of a succession of rulers
leading eventually to a messianic king-emperor which appears in some later
texts, including II Baruch 61-73 (see pp. 81–3, below).
Later work on these Septuagintal texts has included affirmation of a
messianic interpretation by M. Rösel, in continuation of his earlier studies,
on Genesis and Numbers.48 Within work which is cautious in recognizing
continuity a generally positive view of this suggestion, with a note of pitfalls
and a desire for further confirmation, was taken by Andrew Chester.49
J. J. Collins and A. Salvesen asked, however, whether a predicted individual
ruler was indeed seen by the translators as specifically messianic.50
Thus Collins finds no messianic overtones in Gen. 49:10. He urges
that the rendering ‘the things laid up for him’, which contrasts with and is
probably earlier than the Greek variant (close to messianic rendering found
in Targum Onkelos and elsewhere) ‘he for whom it is laid up’, shows that
the translator either did not know or did not accept the widespread later
messianic interpretation of the Hebrew, traditionally rendered ‘Shiloh’ in the
English Bible.51 Yet the wording ‘the things laid up for him’, in the sense of
the messianic kingdom to be revealed in the last days, well fits a messianic
interpretation.52 Secondly, Collins holds that Judah rather than the coming
ruler is the expectation of the nations (Gen. 49:10), and he judges that the
Septuagint here foretells leadership for Judah, but fails to link that leadership
with a messianic king. Within the context of verse 10, however, it seems more
natural to take ‘ruler’ and ‘governor’ as the antecedent of ‘he is the expectation

48
M. Rösel, ‘Jakob, Bileam und der Messias: messianische Erwartungen in Gen 49 und Num 22-4’, in
Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 151–75.
49
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 280–81; confirmation of the force of the messianism exhibited here
might include the development of Numbers 24 LXX in Isa. 19:20 LXX (pp. 179–80, below) and in
Philo, quoted in this introduction, below.
50
J. J. Collins, ‘Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: the Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch’, in Knibb
(ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 129–49, summarized by J. J. Collins in Collins and Collins,
King and Messiah as Son of God, 54–5; A. Salvesen, ‘Messianism in Ancient Biblical Translations
in Greek and Latin’, in Bockmuehl and Paget (eds.), Redemption and Resistance, 245–61 (without
knowledge of chapter 4 as presented in 2003).
51
This rendering of the Great Bible (1539–40), following Sebastian Münster (see S. R. Driver, Genesis
(London, 1904), 386), was taken over by King James’s translators and again in RV, and is found in
the margin in RSV and NRSV; for ‘the things laid up for him’ as probably the earlier of the two
renderings preserved in the LXX tradition see also Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the
Greek Pentateuch’, 109.
52
Frankel, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, 50
stresses that the Septuagint here corresponds with Targum Onkelos ‘Messiah, whose is the kingdom’
(my italics), both understanding ‘Shiloh’ as she-lo, ‘that which is his’; p. 81, n. 44, below.
16 Messianism among Jews and Christians

of the nations’, as Rösel and Salvesen do. More broadly, here Collins says
nothing on the association of Judah with his descendant David. This Davidic
association of Judah is brought out before the time of the Septuagint Pentateuch
in Chronicles, as noted above, and then again afterwards in Ben Sira and the
Qumran texts.53 The unfailing Davidic line, together with the future messianic
David noted above, will have been in view in Septuagintal interpretation of
the blessing upon Judah.54
On Numbers 24 Salvesen seems to accept that the star may be messianic,
but she doubts, citing Lust, whether ‘man’ has messianic overtones, and notes
his view that Philo, in his two quotations of Num. 24:7 LXX, speaks of an
eschatological Man restoring primaeval Man, not of a king messiah (see in
response to Lust here pp. 176–7, below).55 Philo writes none the less, in the
context of these two quotations, that the anthropos will have a kingdom which
is advancing every day (Philo, Mos. i 290, following Num. 24:7 LXX), and that
he will lead an army to war which will subdue great nations (Philo, Praem.
95, joining Num. 24:7 LXX with Num. 24:17-18 LXX). By contrast with Lust,
Knibb and Collins as well as Rösel affirm that messianic implications of the
Hebrew are enhanced in Numbers 24 LXX, although Collins stresses that the
‘man’ is not called ‘messiah’.56
On Deut. 33:5, ‘There shall be a ruler in the Beloved, when rulers of peoples
are gathered together with tribes of Israel,’ the Septuagint with ‘there shall
be’ reads the Hebrew as referring to the future, whereas the reading tradition
represented in the Massoretic pointing indicates a past tense, ‘there was’. The
LXX future reading of Deut. 33:5 influenced messianically, as M. Gilbert showed,
the long Latin text of Ecclus. 24:33-4; here an echo of Deut. 33:4 in verse 33,

53
I Chron. 5:2, 28:4; Ecclus 45:25, 47:22, discussed in Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the
Greek Pentateuch’, 108–9; 4Q252, v 1-4, interpreting Gen. 49:9-10 (p. 73, n. 25, below).
54
Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, 108–9; for the future David see Jer.
30:9; Ezek. 34:23-4, 37:24-5; Hos. 3:5 (on the ‘last days’), passages all ascribed to a Persian-period
redactor with a messianic state of mind by Rofé, ‘David their King (whom God will Raise)’; Talmud
Yerushalmi, Ber. ii 4, 5a, in the name of ‘our rabbis’, following quotation of Hos. 3:5 in discussion of
the placing of the benediction ‘Jerusalem’ in the Amidah: ‘whether king messiah is from the living,
David is his name, or from those who sleep, David is his name’; p. 170, below.
55
Salvesen, ‘Messianism in Ancient Biblical Translations in Greek and Latin’, 247–8; Lust’s cited essay
on ‘The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles’ is reprinted in Lust, Messianism and
the Septuagint: Collected Essays, 69–86.
56
Knibb, ‘The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues’, 17–18; Collins, ‘Messianism and
Exegetical Tradition: the Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch’, 142–7; Rösel, ‘Jakob, Bileam und der
Messias: messianische Erwartungen in Gen 49 und Num 22-4’, 168–75 (suggesting that a non-
Davidic messiah is in view).
 Introduction to the Second Edition 17

corresponding to Ecclus. 24:23 LXX, is followed by reference to the raising up of

a king of David’s line. The future reading of Deut. 33:5 recurs, also messianically,
in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti and Fragment-Targum) ‘a king from the house
of Jacob shall arise’.57 It reappears, probably again with a messianic allusion, in a
New Year piyyut of Yose ben Yose (chapter 10, p. 342, below).58
There is then a tradition of understanding the future ruler here messianically.
This seemingly messianic prediction of the Septuagintal version of the Blessing
of Moses is consistent, as Frankel noted, with the Septuagintal reference to the
final ‘day of vengeance’ (Isa. 61:2) in the immediately preceding Song of Moses
(Deut. 32:35 LXX).59 The second part of Deut. 32:35 in both Hebrew and LXX
stresses that such a day is near: ‘the day of their destruction is near, and the
things ready for them hasten’ – in LXX, ‘the things ready for you’ (Israel) ‘are
present’ (see further p. 237, below).
It has been proposed, however, that the future ruler in Deut. 33:5 LXX is God
himself, as in the theocratic hopes noted already.60 Yet the rendering archon,
‘ruler’ for Hebrew melekh, ‘king’ itself suggests that the translators of Deut.
33:5 understood this phrase of a king other than God. The use of archon rather
than basileus for Hebrew melekh in the Septuagint Deuteronomy, represented
here and found also for example in the ‘law of the king’ in Deut. 17:14-15,
corresponds to the pious preference in Ezekiel, the Damascus Document and
other texts for Hebrew nasi’, ‘prince’ or ‘ruler’, instead of melekh, ‘king’, a term
probably now often reserved for God himself.61

57
For Ecclesiasticus and the Targums see Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek
Pentateuch’, 124, citing M. Gilbert, ‘Les additions grecques et latines à Siracide 24’, in J. M. Auwers
and A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.M. Bogaert (BETL 144, Leuven,
1999), 195–207 (204–5).
58
Yose ben Yose, ahallelah elohay, lines 30–31 in A. Mirsky (ed.), Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem,
1977), 92, quoted and discussed at p. 342, below; here in translating the biblical quotation
I originally followed the Massoretic pointing and took the tense as past, but in the context of
the poem I now think it must be read as future, with these Targums. The unambiguous future of
line 31 ‘to Jeshurun again shall there turn back the kingdom’ is then followed by ‘as it is written
in the law, And there shall be a king in Jeshurun’. A past tense is more awkward in the context.
A reference to the messiah later in the poem is recognized by Mirsky (line 55, translated and
discussed at pp. 344–5, below).
59
Frankel, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, 213;
for the connection of a messiah-like angelic king with this day in interpretation of Isaiah 61:2 ‘the
acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God’ see 11Q13 (11Q Melchizedek) ii
13 ‘Melchizedek will execute the vengeance of the judgments of God’.
60
Collins, ‘Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: the Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch’, 147–8.
61
A. Rofé, ‘Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the Biblical
nasi’, Textus 14 (1988), 164–74, followed by C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: le
Deutéronome (Paris, 1992), 225, on Deut. 17:14, and Horbury, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the
Greek Pentateuch’, 93–4.
18 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Again, it is objected, against a messianic interpretation of LXX, that the

ruler (archon) ‘in the Beloved’ is not differentiated by vocabulary from the
others mentioned in the same verse, although two different nouns are used in
the Hebrew here.62 Yet use of the same term need not imply equation, as can be
seen from the use of the same Hebrew and Greek words for the Israelite king
and the gentile kings who make obeisance to him in Ps. 72 (71):1, 10-11.
Deut. 33:5 LXX then speaks of a future king in Israel.63 Its ‘there shall be a
ruler in the Beloved’ understands the Hebrew in the messianic way also seen
in the Palestinian Targum. Deut. 33:5 LXX seems to represent interpretation
of the Hebrew in accord with a future context in Deuteronomy (Deut. 31:29
on the last days; Deut. 32:35 LXX on the day of vengeance) and with earlier
prophecies in Genesis 49 and Numbers 24, which in both Hebrew and LXX
speak of future Israelite rule. Such interpretation can be envisaged as part of
exegetical tradition known to the translators.
Collins incorporates his restriction of messianism to Numbers 24 LXX
into an overall view of messianism under Greek rule. Frankel had rooted
the messianism which he found more extensively expressed in the LXX
Pentateuch in a presumed sense of oppression felt by Egyptian Jews.64 Collins
urges, by contrast, that the smaller place which he gives to messianism in the
Septuagintal books of Moses suits the marginality of messianism under the
Ptolemies among Greek-speaking Jews; the focus of their hope on benevolent
gentile rulers and the general lack of messianic interpretation in their Greek
writings other than the Septuagint might suggest that messianism only began
to flourish among them in the Flavian period and later, when Jewish-gentile
relations had deteriorated.65 Yet (without wishing to link messianism simply
with suffering) one may note that sole emphasis on a communal Jewish
sense of security in Ptolemaic Egypt may be over-optimistic.66 E. Bickerman
envisaged like Frankel a sense of exile and subjection in the Greek-speaking
diaspora, and Jewish festivals in lower Egypt and Alexandria to commemorate

62
Salvesen, ‘Messianism in Ancient Biblical Translations in Greek and Latin’, 249, noting that archon
here renders both melekh, ‘king’ and r’osh, ‘head’.
63
The Septuagint context may suggest a figure combining Mosaic contours with those of the returning
imperial David noted above (n. 54).
64
Frankel, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, 49–50,
182–5.
65
Collins, ‘Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: the Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch’, 148–9.
66
M. Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven and London, 1998), 6–9 suggests many possible life-
situations for messianic hope.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 19

deliverance from Ptolemaic persecution are mentioned in III Maccabees and

Josephus.67
It then seems possible still to argue, after review of alternative proposals,
that the LXX Pentateuch translates prophecies ascribed to Jacob, Balaam
and Moses in such a way as to suggest that central passages are understood
messianically. Messianic interpretation forms part of exegetical tradition as
it has come down to the translators, well before the Hasmonaean age, and is
continued by them.

Messianism and the Israelite people

Lastly, the messiah as presented in this book is a national figure. The

prominence of the people of Israel in hope connected with the messiah was
noted at the beginning of this introduction. The future Israel, like the coming
kingdom of God, has indeed been viewed sometimes as an object of hope to
which messianism is subordinate.68 The Deuteronomic emphasis on future
monarchy of Israel over other nations has been mentioned already (see n. 47,
above). Comparably, the rule of the ‘people of God’ rather than a messiah figure
specifically may be envisaged in the second column of the Aramaic ‘Son of God
fragment’ from Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246), in the light of Daniel 7 and other
passages (pp. 163–5, below).69 Reassessments of the applicability of the term
‘nationalism’ in antiquity have included argument that it is indeed apt for Jewish

67
E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA and London, 1988), 245–6; III Macc.
7:17-20 and Josephus, Ap. ii 55, discussed by J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (E. T.
Edinburgh, 1995), 141–53 (he affirms the possibility of repression of the Jews under both Ptolemy
IV Philopator and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes). Jewish awareness, even in good times, of possible
instability and danger is affirmed in connection with texts including III Maccabees by T. Rajak, ‘The
Angry Tyrant’, in T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken and J. Dines (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic
Rulers (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2007), 110–17.
68
So N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (Oslo, 1941, repr. Darmstadt, 1963), 89, approving Volz’s phrase ‘the
personification of the future state’ to describe the messiah as presented in the Amidah (see Volz, Die
Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde, 175).
69
J. J. Collins in Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 65–74, restating his view of the
Son of God here as messiah, takes him as the figure who ‘shall raise up the people of God’ (col. ii,
line 4); but it seems preferable on balance to translate ‘until the people of God shall arise’, with
G. Vermes and E. Puech, and also, as urged below, to take the personified ‘people’ as the subject in
the following lines (5–9). For the people as judging the earth (lines 5–6), a point for which parallels
have been thought lacking (so J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star (New York, 1995), 159), compare
judgment by the saints or the righteous collectively in I Enoch 91:12, Wisd. 3:8, I Cor. 6:2, and one
possible understanding of Dan. 7:22. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 230–33 makes the subject of
line 4 the people, but the subject of lines 5–9 the messiah.
20 Messianism among Jews and Christians

as well as other ancient thought.70 Jews and Christians both viewed themselves
as belonging to a body continuous with the congregation of Israel described
in the Pentateuch. ‘The prince of the congregation, the branch of David’, to
use Qumran messianic titles (4Q285; p. 374, below), was envisaged within
this setting. Apocalypses presenting visions of the messiah can also include
visions of Israel or the church (p. 289, below). The ‘nationalism’ surrounding
the messiah is represented in this book especially as manifest in the ancient
personifications of ‘Israel’, the ‘people of God’, ‘synagogue’ and ‘church’.
In these ways the nation comes to the fore especially in chapter 5, on the
apostolic Twelve as a sign of messianic restoration of a primitive God-given
constitution, chapter 8, on ecclesial conceptions in the Septuagint and the New
Testament, and chapter 10, on Yose ben Yose. God and his people seem to
predominate over the relatively rarely mentioned messiah in Yose’s hymnody
(pp. 330–34, 342–8, 358, 361), although I would now see the messiah as having
a slightly stronger profile in Yose than I thought originally (see n. 58, above).
This urgent yet also reserved messianism can be compared, however, with the
place for a messiah figure in connection with the people – the king in the
beloved, Deut. 33:5 – which emerges in chapter 8 from the Pentateuch in its
Septuagintal presentation. Here christocentric Christian views of the ecclesia
are judged to represent intensification rather than alteration of existing Jewish
emphasis. The same is true, it is argued, for the cult of Christ discussed in
Chapters 9 and 12 (pp. 314–17, 388–92, 413–15, below).71
The connection between king or messiah and sanctuary, holy city, people
and land stands out especially in chapter 3, on Herodian kingship and the
temple, and chapter 9, on Jerusalem in Pauline and pre-Pauline hope. Here
Paul is envisaged as sharing expectation of a future messianic kingdom in a
Zion prepared by God.72 I would now give more notice to links between the

70
D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, 2006); B. McGing, review of
A.-E. Veïsse, Les ‘révoltes égyptiennes’ (Leuven, 2004), in Archiv für Papyrusforschung 52 (2006),
58–63.
71
On the cult in connection with Judaism see further W. Horbury, ‘Cena Pura and Lord’s Supper’,
in J. Pastor and M. Mor (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem,
2005), 219–65, reprinted in Horbury, Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study, 104–40; id.,
‘Beginnings of Christianity in the Holy Land’, in G. G. Stroumsa and O. Limor (eds.), Christianity in
the Holy Land: From the Origins to the Latin Kingdoms (Turnhout, 2006), 7–89 (80–89). On the cult
of Christ and Christological development see Horbury, ‘Jewish Messianism and Early Christology’,
3–24; id., review of L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, in JTS N.S. lvi (2005), 531–9; A. Chester, ‘High
Christology – Whence, When and Why?’, Early Christianity ii (2011), 22–50.
72
Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 143–4 follows rather the view that Christ’s present reign is
envisaged in I Cor. 15:20-28.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 21

concept of the Twelve (chapter 5) and the messianic kingdom (Chapters 6

and 9) in connection with the division of land.73 Still with a national focus,
divine covenants and promises, including ultimately the messiah and the
messianic kingdom, are envisaged (chapter 2) as the gifts or grace of God to
the congregation; this development of Pentateuchal usage appears in Ezekiel
Tragicus, Philo, Paul and beyond.74

National and messianic suffering

The suffering of the congregation emerges as the counterpart of the consolation

of the messianic age in Yose ben Yose (chapter 10, pp. 330–40, 360).75 Suffering
borne on behalf of the congregation comes to the fore in this book in connection
with patriarchs, martyrs and disciples of the Wise (chapter 10, with more
general discussion of martyrs and saints in chapter 12); but it is also evinced
by the high priest, as Hebrews and various ancient Jewish presentations of the
high priest suggest (chapter 7, on priesthood in Hebrews, pp. 279–83). The
counterpart of king and messiah in the Pentateuchal dyarchy, he is universally
significant but represents above all the congregation in the temple service, with
its messianic overtones (chapter 10, on Yose, pp. 353–7, below). Further early
traces of suffering appear in connection with an eschatological high-priestly
figure, in Qumran fragments (4Q540-541) associated with the traditions
found in the Testament of Levi.76
The comparable suffering of the messianic king (pp. 341, 360, below) can
indeed be suggested by biblical treatments of Moses, the king, and the servant

73
This point is brought out by S. Freyne, The Jesus Movement and its Expansion: Meaning and Mission
(Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 2014), 140–43.
74
See further the commentary by P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique (Studia in Veteris
Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 21, Leiden, 2006); J. M. G. Barclay, ‘“By the grace of God I am what
I am”: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul’, in J. M. G. Barclay and S. Gathercole (eds.), Divine and
Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (London, 2006), 140–57; Horbury, ‘Beginnings
of Christianity in the Holy Land’, 87–8 (on gifts in Jewish and Christian piety); id., ‘Psalm 102:14 and
Didache 10:6 on Grace to Come’, in Baer and Gordon (eds.), Leshon Limmudim, 165–72.
75
The old and central place of mourning for the destruction of the temple in this suffering (pp. 322–3,
338–40, below) is explored by P. S. Alexander, ‘Was the Ninth of Av Observed in the Second Temple
Period? Reflections on the Concept of Continuing Exile in Early Judaism’, in Boustan, Herrmann,
Leicht, Yoshiko Reed and Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer, i, 23–38.
76
M. Hengel, ‘Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit’, in B. Janowski and
P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte (FAT 14,
Tübingen, 1996), 49–91, repr. in M. Hengel, Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften
II (WUNT 109, Tübingen, 1999), 72–114 (92–8); G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
Testament (London, 2005), 140–57 (a chapter on ‘The Apocryphon of Levib and the Messianic
Servant High Priest’); Knibb, ‘The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues’, 12–13.
22 Messianism among Jews and Christians

of God, viewed with the Targum and Justin Martyr (Dial. lxxxix 1–2) on Isaiah
53.77 It stands out, however, only in Christianity, and in the rabbinic messiah
son of Ephraim or son of Joseph.78 The debated ‘Gabriel stone’ seems to offer
too little unambiguous text in this regard to show hope fixed on a slain messiah,
as I. Knohl urges.79 Yet the view that messianic suffering was envisaged before
Christianity is strengthened by the Qumran ‘self-glorification hymn’ (4Q491c,
cf. 4Q427, 4Q471b). Here claims to have suffered occur in a text shown by
Chester to be close to Davidic messianic tradition.80
These remarks may suffice to set this book among other approaches, and
to indicate the flow of study since the first edition. Ancient messianism is
perceived here as a scripturally-rooted element of tradition, integrated with
interpretation of the written Torah. It cohered with conceptions of Israel and
the church, and also of the kingdom of God (pp. 342–5, 358, below). Under
Greek and Roman rule its kinship with ruler-cult was apparent (pp. 118–20,
148–9, 314–17, 380–85, below). Its mingling with mysticism is glimpsed
through prayers, hymns and visionary texts (pp. 160, 165–8, 314–16, 411–13,
below). The approach taken here views this broad messianism with and within
piety focused on the Torah and the temple and synagogue service—somewhat
as in the Psalter the second psalm, on the Lord’s anointed, continues the first,
on meditation in the Torah. Among ancient Jews and Christians these two
psalms could be joined or separated; not dissimilarly, messianism evoked both
assent and pause for thought.81

77
Hengel, ‘Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit’; Horbury, Jewish Messianism
and the Cult of Christ, 33; I. Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: the Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2000); D. Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the
Jewish Christ (New York, 2012), 129–56.
78
A. Goldberg (p. 38, below); Fishbane, ‘Midrash and Messianism’; P. S. Alexander, ‘The Mourners
for Zion and the Suffering Messiah: Pesikta rabati 34—Structure, Theology and Context’, in
M. Fishbane and J. Weinberg (eds.), Midrash Unbound: Transformations and Innovations (London,
2013), 137–57; Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus, 236–71; Himmelfarb, ‘The Messiah Son of Joseph in
Ancient Judaism’.
79
I. Knohl, Messiahs and Resurrection in The Gabriel Revelation (London and New York, 2009);
M. Henze (ed.), Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation (Early Judaism and its
Literature, 29, Leiden and Boston, 2011).
80
Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 242–50.
81
On Pss. 1–2 as a unity, Talmud Babli, Berakhoth 9b-10a; Talmud Yerushalmi, Taanith ii 2, 65c; Acts
13:33; Justin Martyr, I Apol. xl; C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles (ICC, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1994, 1998), i, 646.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 23

Literature

P. S. Alexander, ‘The Rabbis and Messianism’, in M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton Paget

(eds.), Redemption and Resistance: the Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians
(London, 2007), 227–44.
———, ‘The Mourners for Zion and the Suffering Messiah: Pesikta rabati 34 –
Structure, Theology and Context’, in M. Fishbane and J. Weinberg (eds.), Midrash
Unbound: Transformations and Innovations (London, 2013), 137–57.
———, ‘Was the Ninth of Av Observed in the Second Temple Period? Reflections on the
Concept of Continuing Exile in Early Judaism’, in Boustan, Herrmann, Leicht, Yoshiko
Reed and Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer, i, 23–38.
———, ‘Towards a Taxonomy of Jewish Messianisms’, in Ashton (ed.), Revealed
Wisdom, 52–72.
J. Ashton (ed.), Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher
Rowland (Leiden, 2014).
D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon (eds.), Leshon Limmudim: Essays on the Language and
Literature of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of A.A. Macintosh (Library of Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament Studies 593, London, 2013).
J. M. G. Barclay, ‘“By the grace of God I am what I am”: Grace and Agency in Philo
and Paul’, in J. M. G. Barclay and S. Gathercole (eds.), Divine and Human Agency
in Paul and his Cultural Environment (London, 2006), 140–57.
D. Biale, Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History (Cambridge, MA, and
London, 1979).
E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA and London, 1988).
M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton Paget (eds.), Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic
Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London, 2007).
P. Bouriez, Témoins du futur: Philosophie et messianisme (Paris, 2003), translated by M. B.
Smith as Witnesses for the Future: Philosophy and Messianism (Baltimore, 2010).
R. S. Boustan, K. Herrmann, R. Leicht, A. Yoshiko Reed and G. Veltri (eds.),
Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer (2 vols., Tübingen, 2013).
D. Boyarin, ‘Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia’, in C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffee (eds.),
The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge,
2007), 336–63.
———, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York, 2012).
A. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation (WUNT 207, Tübingen, 2007).
———, ‘High Christology – Whence, When and Why?’, Early Christianity ii (2011),
22–50.
———, Future Hope and Present Reality, Volume I, Eschatology and Transformation
in the Hebrew Bible (WUNT 293, Tübingen, 2012).
24 Messianism among Jews and Christians

N. Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London, 1957).

J. J. Collins, ‘Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: the Evidence of the LXX
Pentateuch’, in Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 129–49.
N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (Oslo, 1941, repr. Darmstadt, 1963).
C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: le Deutéronome (Paris, 1992).
M. Fishbane, ‘Midrash and Messianism: Some Theologies of Suffering and Salvation’,
in Schäfer and Cohen (eds.), Towards the Millennium, 57–71.
J. A. Fitzmyer, The One who is to Come (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 2007).
D. Flusser, ‘Jüdische Heilsgestaltungen und das Neue Testament’, in id., Entdeckungen
im Neuen Testament, Band 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum (Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1999), 212–52.
Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841, repr. Farnborough, 1972).
———, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik (Leipzig, 1851, repr. Farnborough, 1972).
S. Freyne, The Jesus Movement and its Expansion: Meaning and Mission (Grand
Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 2014).
M. Gilbert, ‘Les additions grecques et latines à Siracide 24’, in J. M. Auwers and
A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.M. Bogaert
(BETL 144, Leuven, 1999).
D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, 2006).
M. Goodman, ‘Messianism and Politics in the Land of Israel, 66-135 C.E.’, in Paget
and Bockmuehl (eds.), Redemption and Resistance, 149–57.
E. Grypeou and H. Spurling (eds.), The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and
Christians in Late Antiquity (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 18; Leiden
and Boston, 2009).
E. Grypeou and H. Spurling, The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters
between Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series,
24; Leiden and Boston, 2013).
M. Henze (ed.), Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation (Early
Judaism and its Literature, 29, Leiden & Boston, 2011).
M. D. Herr, ‘Realistic Political Messianism and Cosmic Eschatological Messianism in
the Teaching of the Sages’, Tarbiz 54 (1985), 331–46.
M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Mother of the Messiah in the Talmud Yerushalmi and Sefer
Zerubbabel’, in P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco- Roman Culture,
iii (Tübingen, 2002), 369–89.
———, ‘The Messiah Son of Joseph in Ancient Judaism’, in Boustan, Herrmann,
Leicht, Yoshiko Reed and Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of
Peter Schäfer, ii, 771–90.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 25

W. Horbury, review of L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, in JTS N.S. lvi (2005), 531–9.
———, ‘Jewish Messianism and Early Christology’, in R. N. Longenecker (ed.),
Contours of Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge,
2005), 3–24.
———, ‘Cena Pura and Lord’s Supper’, in J. Pastor and M. Mor (eds.), The Beginnings
of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem, 2005), 219–65, reprinted in
Horbury, Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study, 104–40.
———, ‘Beginnings of Christianity in the Holy Land’, in G. G. Stroumsa and
O. Limor (ed.), Christianity in the Holy Land: From the Origins to the Latin
Kingdoms (Turnhout, 2006), 7–89.
———, ‘Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch’, in M. Knibb (ed.), The
Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195, Leuven, 2006), 79–128.
———, Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study (WUNT 193, Tübingen, 2006).
———, ‘Rabbinic Perceptions of Christianity and the History of Roman Palestine’, in
Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander (eds.), Rabbinic Txts and the History of
Late-Roman Palestine (Oxford, 2010), 353–76.
———, ‘Josephus and 11Q13 on Melchizedek’, in G. Khan and D. Lipton (eds.),
Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon
(SVT 149, Leiden and Boston, 2012), 239–52.
———, ‘Benjamin the Mystic (Ps. 67:28 LXX)’, in Boustan, Herrmann, Leicht,
Yoshiko Reed and Veltri (eds.), Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter
Schäfer, ii, 733–49.
———, ‘Psalm 102:14 and Didache 10:6 on Grace to Come’, in Baer and Gordon
(eds.), Leshon Limmudim, 165–72.
———, Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 2014).
L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand
Rapids, 2003).
M. Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven and London, 1998).
———, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London and New York, 2007).
M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT 151, Göttingen,
1990).
J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel from its Beginning to the Completion of the
Mishnah (E. T. London, 1956).
M. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195, Leuven, 2006).
———, ‘The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues’, in Knibb (ed.),
The Septuagint and Messianism, 3–19.
I. Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: the Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Berkeley, Los Angeles & London, 2000).
26 Messianism among Jews and Christians

———, Messiahs and Resurrection in The Gabriel Revelation (London & New York,
2009).
P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique (Studia in Veteris Testamenti
Pseudepigrapha 21, Leiden, 2006).
R. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale (Analecta Biblica 22, Rome, 1963).
J. Lust, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays, ed. K. Hauspie (BETL 178,
Leuven, 2004).
B. McGing, review of A.-E. Veïsse, Les ‘révoltes égyptiennes’ (Leuven, 2004), in Archiv
für Papyrusforschung 52 (2006), 58–63.
J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (E. T. Edinburgh, 1995).
A. Mirsky (ed.), Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem, 1977).
M. V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah
Language in Ancient Judaism (New York, 2012).
A. Oppenheimer, ‘Messianismus in römischer Zeit. Zur Pluralität eines Begriffes
bei Juden und Christen’, Jahrbuch des Historischen Kollegs 1997 (Munich, 1998),
53–74, repr. in id., Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and
Society (TSAJ 108, Tübingen, 2005), 263–82.
M. Pérez Fernández, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia and
Jerusalem, 1981).
T. Rajak, ‘The Angry Tyrant’, in T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken and J. Dines (eds.), Jewish
Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2007), 110–17.
———, ‘Momigliano and Judaism’, in T. Cornell and O. Murray (ed.), The Legacy of
Arnaldo Momigliano (Warburg Institute Colloquia 25, London & Turin, 2014),
89–106.
A. Rofé, ‘Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the
Biblical nasi’, Textus 14 (1988), 164–74.
———, ‘David their King (whom God will Raise): Hosea 3:5 and the Onset of
Messianic Expectation in the Prophetic Books’, in Baer and Gordon (eds.), Leshon
Limmudim, 130–35.
M. Rösel, ‘Jakob, Bileam und der Messias: messianische Erwartungen in Gen 49 und
Num 22-4’, in Knibb, The Septuagint and Messianism, 151–75.
A. Salvesen, ‘Messianism in Ancient Biblical Translations in Greek and Latin’, in
Bockmuehl and Paget, Redemption and Resistance, 245–61.
P. Schäfer and M. R. Cohen (eds.), Towards the Millennium: Messianic Expectations
from the Bible to Waco (Leiden and Boston, 1998).
P. Schäfer, ‘Diversity and Interaction: Messiahs in Early Judaism’, in Schäfer and
Cohen (eds.), Towards the Millennium, 15–35.
———, ‘Gershom Scholem und das Christentum’, in W. Schmidt- Biggemann (ed.),
Christliche Kabbala (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften 10, 2003), 257–74.
 Introduction to the Second Edition 27

———, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton
and Oxford, 2012).
J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2.76, Tübingen, 1995).
———, ‘The Persian Period’, in Bockmuehl and Paget (eds.), Redemption and
Resistance, 3–14.
———, ‘Messianism in the Septuagint of Isaiah and Messianic Intertextuality in the
Greek Bible’, in Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 371–80.
G. Scholem, ‘Zum Verständnis der messianischen Idee im Judentum’, Eranos Jahrbuch
28 (1959), 193–239; E. T. ‘The Messianic Idea in Judaism’, in G. Scholem, The
Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (London,
1971), 1–36.
L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of
Early Judaism’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments
(Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 2007), 90–113.
A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân
(Assen, 1957).
P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter:
Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur
(Tübingen, 1934, repr. Darmstadt, 1966).
C. Wiese, The Life and Thought of Hans Jonas: Jewish Dimensions (Hanover, New
Hampshire and London, 2007).
A. Yarbro Collins and J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human,
and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids and
Cambridge, 2008).
I. J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages (translated from Hebrew by B. Harshav and
J. Chipman; Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2006).
H. M. Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature (TSAJ 139,
Tübingen, 2011).
28
 Introduction to the First Edition

These studies review the setting and content of messianic hope in ancient
Judaism and early Christianity. The earliest among them appeared in 1981,
when their subject was receiving rather less notice in biblical scholarship than
is now the case.
To set the collection in context I have picked out some characteristic
themes of subsequent study for notice in this introduction. The first is the
lively continuance of a time-honoured debate on the importance of messianic
hope in ancient Judaism at the time of Christian origins, a debate closely
linked in the period under review with a second characteristic theme, the
discussion of new sources. Two further notable features of this period are
the study of messianism in its connection with the history of ancient biblical
interpretation, and the perception of messianism in a social context, as bound
up with catastrophe, upheaval and renewal. Finally, the relation of Jewish and
Christian conceptions of an exalted messiah with loyalty to one God continues
to be a focus of discussion. In comment I urge that although ancient Jewish
monotheism is often interpreted with strong emphasis on transcendence,
it also had an important place for divine immanence and divine-human
mediation and intercommunion.
At the end of the introduction the structure and scope of this book are
outlined (see pp. 48–50), and some publications from the period under review
are listed (pp. 52–7). Further details of work cited in the introduction by
author’s name can be found here.

Debate on the importance of messianic hope

When debate on the significance of messianism is considered, the years

since 1981 may seem at first sight to have brought nothing new. So world-
weary a conclusion would be premature, but it is true that both sides of an
30 Messianism among Jews and Christians

old-established argument have continued. The importance of messianism

in Judaism before and during the rise of Christianity was repeatedly both
doubted and affirmed towards the end of the twentieth century. In modern
biblical study this difference of opinion can be traced back continuously
(compare the comments at the beginning of chapter 4, below) at least as far as
the early nineteenth-century doubts of Bruno Bauer on the very existence of a
pre-Christian messianism.1
The doubts expressed by Bauer and others gained force among many who
were personally more attached than Bauer was to Christian tradition, partly
perhaps because a judgment on these lines could readily fit the dissociation
of Christ from the Old Testament in the influential Christology of Friedrich
Schleiermacher.2 Bauer himself had stated his doubts fully in 1841 in
response to the ascription of vast mythopoeic influence to messianism by
D. F Strauss in his life of Jesus; among those who took them up later was one
who urged the necessity of a knowledge of Judaism and Jewish scholarship for
New Testament study, H. J. Holtzmann, although in the end he came to hold
that messianic hope was widespread in the Herodian age.3 Bauer’s doubts
were rediffused, however, in the twentieth century, through the fascinating
portrait of him in Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus. Bauer had
urged, on lines still often followed, that messianism left no clear traces in
the Septuagint, the Old Testament Apocrypha, or Philo; apart from Daniel,
then, a book which would also later be seen as ambiguous in this regard, it
appeared only in post-Christian and possibly interpolated apocalypses like
the Parables of Enoch and 2 Esdras, and in the Targums, which again were not
so early as to give clear attestation of pre-Christian views. He ironically noted
that Strauss’ sceptical indication of messianic myth as the staple of the gospel
narratives itself depends on the venerable Christian assumption that there

1
For a brief sketch see Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 36–7.
2
This was the view of A. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (Leipzig, 1869), vii.
3
H. J. Holtzmann, ‘Die Messiasidee zur Zeit Jesu’, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie. 1867, 389–
411; New Testament students are advised to get Jewish learning and to study the works of the
representatives of the Wissenschaft des Judentums in G. Weber and H. Holtzmann, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel und der Entstehung des Christentums, i (Leipzig, 1867), xxxvii–xxxviii (Holtzmann
was responsible for the treatment of Christian origins). Later on, reckoning now with the work of
H. Gunkel, H. Gressmann and W. Bousset on the deep roots and prevalence of messianic myth, he
came to hold that Davidic messianic hope had become general (‘Gemeingut Aller’) at the beginning
of the Roman period; see H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie (2 vols.,
Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1897), i, 68–85 (81); 2nd edn., eds. A. Jülicher and W. Bauer (Tübingen,
1911), i, 85–110 (103) (now specifying Davidic hope).
 Introduction to the First Edition 31

was indeed a long-standing antecedent messianic expectation to be fulfilled

by Christ.4
Questions have once again been put to this assumption in the later years
now under review, wide-rangingly in J. Becker’s Old Testament study (1977,
ET 1980), and on particular aspects by many contributors to the collective
volumes on messianism edited by J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. S. Frerichs
(1987) and by J. H. Charlesworth (1992); but some scholars have also been
consistently re-emphasizing the importance of Jewish messianism as a factor
in the rise of Christianity, for example J. C. O’Neill (1980, 1995, 2000) and
N. T. Wright (1991, 1992, 1996), on the historical Jesus and New Testament
theology, and C. C. Rowland (1982, 1985, 1998) and A. N. Chester (1991,
1992, 1998) on Christian origins. One encouragement to this approach was
the long-term influence of Gershom Scholem’s collected essays on messianism
and his great book on Shabbethai Zebi, which had appeared in English in 1971
and 1973 respectively (see below).
In work specifically on texts associated with ancient messianism, the
period began with the issue by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black (1979) of a
revised form of E. Schürer’s survey and synthesis, which itself had originally
comprised a considered rejection of the young H. J. Holtzmann’s view (n. 3,
above); perhaps the main gap in this section of the revised Schürer is formed by
its silence on the Septuagint (see below), but it ranges over the Old Testament
Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and the Eighteen Benedictions (Amidah),
with some reference to the Targums and rabbinic texts, and in the revised
version also to Qumran material, surveyed in a new appendix. Particularly
helpful, in the present writer’s view, is the balanced recognition by Schürer
and his revisers of supra-mundane as well as human traits in the portrait of
the messiah at the end of the Second Temple period, and their indication of a
background for all these in the Old Testament. The revisers rightly allowed, by

4
B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, i (Leipzig, 1841), xvii, 391–3 (Strauss
depends here on an ‘orthodox’ presumption), 393–416 (literary sources on messianism), partly
summarized by A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (2nd edn. of Von Reimarus
zu Wrede; Tübingen, 1913), 145–7; ET The Quest of the Historical Jesus, First Complete Edition,
translated by W. Montgomery, J. R. Coates, Susan Cupitt and J. Bowden, ed. John Bowden (London,
2000), 128–30. On Holtzmann’s 1867 restatement (n. 3, above) see E. Schürer, History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Division II, ii (ET Edinburgh, 1890), 127, 135–6; this passage was
retained in Schürer’s revised 1907 edition of the original (Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter
Jesu Christi, ii (Leipzig, 1907), 580, 589–90), but not in the corresponding section of the second
volume of the revised English translation (1979), cited in the bibliography below.
32 Messianism among Jews and Christians

contrast with Schürer himself, for perpetuation of both aspects of this portrait
in later non-Christian Jewish tradition, but they more questionably inclined to
a post-Herodian dating for the Parables of Enoch.5 (Their twofold messianic
portrait is perhaps fully illustrated by some texts in which they found only part
of it, as is suggested for the Psalms of Solomon in chapter 1, pp. 60–2, below.)
In further work on biblical and post-biblical sources both the tendencies
indicated above are clear; messianism melts away in the studies of the title
‘anointed’ by M. Karrer (1990) and of Davidic texts by K. E. Pomykala (1995),
but it regains a fair body of attestation in books reviewing Old Testament as
well as later material by A. Laato (1997) and the present writer (1998). Cautious
affirmation mixed with a good measure of doubt can be tasted in G. S. Oegema
(1994, revised ET 1998) and S. Schreiber (2000). A penetrating critical account
of recent study of messianism opens J. C. O’Neill’s argument for the currency
at the time of Christian origins of developed answers to the question ‘What
would the messiah be like? (O’Neill 2000, 27–72).

New sources in late twentieth-century study

Yet the character of the study of ancient messianism in these years is hardly
captured by the simple observation that an old difference of opinion has persisted.
Students of the subject, whatever their views, have also been appraising a fund of
new or newly-considered source-material. Divergence of opinion has invigorated
discussion of the sources, somewhat as the strength of nineteenth-century doubt
concerning pre-Christian messianism noted by A. Hilgenfeld (n. 2, above) led
him in 1869 to republish the Psalms of Solomon and to issue Greek retroversions
of 2 Esd. 3–14 and the then recently recovered Assumption of Moses.
In the later twentieth century, the front rank among recently recovered
material was occupied by new texts from Qumran Caves 4 and 11, partly
known at the beginning of the 1980s and published in full in the next decade.

5
For a date before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus see M. Black, in consultation with
J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Leiden, 1985), 183–4, 187–8; G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia, Minneapolis, 2012), 58–63 (in the later years of Herod the Great, or shortly
afterwards). Note further that the lack of attestation for the Parables in the Qumran finds applies
also to other late Hasmonaean and Herodian works, including the Psalms of Solomon and the
Assumption of Moses; and that chapter lvi, best explained as alluding to the Parthian threat to
Jerusalem in 40 b.c., seems to be presupposed in the Revelation of St John the Divine (16:12, cf. 1
En. 56:5–6).
 Introduction to the First Edition 33

The intensive study which they have evoked can be approached through the
re-evaluation of these texts by J. J. Collins (1995) and J. Zimmermann (1998),
and through collective works such as that edited by J. H. Charlesworth,
H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema (1998). Important yet often ambiguous
fragments attest a Hebrew ‘messianic apocalypse’ (4Q521; not all would assent
to this title) in which ‘heaven and earth shall listen to his anointed’, and two
compositions influenced by Daniel: 4Q246, in Aramaic, mentioning one who
will be called ‘son of God’ (see chapter 4, below); and 11Q13, in Hebrew, on
Melchizedek (see chapters 1 and 4, below), identifying the bearer of good
tidings (Isa. 52:7) as ‘anointed of the spirit’ (cf. Isa. 61:1). In the present writer’s
view, 4Q521 and 11Q13 probably reflect conceptions of an exalted messiah,
but in 4Q246 the figure who will be called ‘son of God’ seems more likely to be
an adversary. Of clearer significance for the history of messianism are remains
of messianic interpretations in Hebrew of texts which were to become classical
messianic prophecies for later Jews and Christians, notably Genesis 49 (4Q252,
cited in chapter 4, below) and Isaiah 11 (a composition on eschatological war
attested in 4Q285 and 11Q14 and discussed in chapter 11, below). These can
now be viewed together with messianic passages from Qumran texts published
at an earlier date, including the Damascus Document, first edited from Cairo
Genizah manuscripts but also attested in fragments from Qumran Cave 4
edited in 1998, and the recension of the Community Rule and its annexes
long known from Cave 1 (1QS=1Q28, 1Q28a, 1Q28b).6 They confirm the pre-
Christian currency of messianic hope, suggest developed ‘myth’ of the kind
doubted by Bauer but reaffirmed by Gunkel (chapter 11, below), and anticipate
some descriptions of messianic victory in the later apocalypses of Baruch and
Ezra, preserved as the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and 2 Esd. 3–14.

Messianic hope in ancient biblical interpretation

Late twentieth-century discussion of messianic hope was enlivened not only by

new texts, but also by reconsideration of familiar sources. This is true with regard
to what is perhaps the major insight of the second half of the twentieth century in

6
That the two annexes should be viewed as integral to the cave 1 recension of the rule is stressed by
P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.xix, Serekh ha-Yahad and two related Texts (DJD
xxvi, Oxford, 1998), 10.
34 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the study of ancient messianism, namely a regained recognition that messianic

hope belongs to the stream of interpretative tradition which accompanies the
Jewish scriptures throughout antiquity. The texts from the Qumran finds noted
above were part of the material which confirmed this perception. Work on these
lines from the 1980s onwards directly depends on the efflorescence of the study
of ancient exegesis just after the Second World War.
Prominent among the familiar but reconsidered sources have been the
ancient versions of the Old Testament, translations which embody much
interpretative tradition. Of special note are two groups of translations into
ancient Jewish vernaculars, formed by the Greek and the Aramaic versions,
respectively. Greek versions, led by the Septuagint (third century b.c. onwards),
are mainly known through Christian transmission, apart from manuscript
finds in the Judaean wilderness and Egypt. Aramaic translations of Leviticus
and Job are fragmentarily attested in texts from Qumran Caves 4 and 11, and
Aramaic biblical versions include the Peshitta Old Testament of the Syriac-
speaking church, a translation which probably preserves much Mesopotamian
Jewish interpretation (see especially the late M. P. Weitzman’s introduction
to the Peshitta (1999), cited with brief comment in chapter 4, p. 175, below).
The most substantial witness to Jewish interpretation among the Aramaic
versions is formed, however, by the Targums transmitted in connection with
the Hebrew Bible in the continuous literary tradition of the Jewish community.
The Targums often follow interpretations also attested in the midrash, but
they incorporate material ranging in date from the Second Temple period to
the beginning of the Middle Ages. The Septuagint and Targums had an old-
established place in the dossier of texts on messianic hope, as can be seen
from the summary of Bauer given above; but in the years under review their
investigation had received fresh impetus from the post-war revival of concern
with the history of biblical interpretation.
This revival coincided with widespread philosophical, literary and theological
attention to hermeneutical questions, and in biblical study it converged with fresh
appreciation of rabbinic and patristic exegesis and inner-biblical reinterpretation.
At the same time exploration of exegetical tradition was being stimulated by the
discovery of the Qumran pesharim, beginning with the Habakkuk commentary
from Cave 1 (studied in publications by W. H. Brownlee and others from 1948
onwards), by the identification of a complete Pentateuchal Targum text of
 Introduction to the First Edition 35

Palestinian type in Codex Neofiti 1 in Rome (by A. Díez Macho, 1956), and
by the two-stage emergence (1952, 1961) of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll
from Cave 8 in Nahal Hever (Wadi Habra), south of En-Gedi, giving substantial
Palestinian attestation of early Jewish revision of the Septuagint.7
Books conveying the atmosphere of this early post-war period include
I. L. Seeligmann’s The Septuagint Version of Isaiah (1948), reconsidering the
outlook of the translation, H. de Lubac’s Histoire et esprit (1950), on Origen’s
exegesis, and K. Stendahl’s School of St Matthew (1954, revised edition 1968),
reviewing the ‘formula-quotations’ of messianic prophecy in the light of
the pesharim; all these illuminate the exegetical roots of messianism and
Christology, but the place of messianic hope in interpretative tradition perhaps
emerges most clearly from G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism
(1961, revised impression 1973). Some of the light which this book sheds on
messianism in biblical interpretation is indicated in chapter 4, below.
An element in these exegetical studies which has much significance
for messianism is formed by interest in figures and symbols, in typological
interpretation, and in the earliest Jewish and Christian art. Relevant work
includes above all E. R. Goodenough on Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman
Period (13 vols., 1953–68), and the question of messianic symbols in art
was discussed especially in connection with the Dura-Europus synagogue
paintings from the early third century a.d., for example by Goodenough
and by R. Wischnitzer, The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura
Synagogue (1948). This discussion, taken up again in the 1980s and touched
on in chapter 12, below, has now extended to more recently discovered
representations, including a fifth-century synagogue mosaic from Sepphoris.8

7
W. H. Brownlee, ‘The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll’, BASOR cxii (1948), 8–18; A. Díez Macho, ‘The
Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, SVT vii (1959), 222–45; D. Barthélemy, ‘Redécouverte
d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante’, RB lx (1953), 18–29, Y. Aharoni, ‘Expedition
B—the Cave of Horror’ and B. Lifschitz, ‘The Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror’, IEJ xii
(1962), 188–99 (197–9) and 201–7, respectively, and D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT x,
Leiden, 1963), with outline of the sequence of discovery by E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll
from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIGr) (DJD viii, Oxford, 1990), 1.
8
For and against the discernment of a messianic theme at Dura see, respectively, J. Goldstein, ‘The
Central Composition of the West Wall of the Synagogue of Dura-Europos’, JANES xvi–xvii (1984–
5), 99–142 and P. V. M. Flesher, ‘Rereading the Reredos: David, Orpheus, and Messianism in the
Dura Europos Synagogue’, in D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues (2 vols.,
Leiden, New York and Köln, 1995), ii, 346–66 (the composition is Davidic, but not messianic). Hope
for messianic redemption, perhaps with an implied answer to Christian apologetic, was discerned in
the Sepphoris composition by Z. Weiss and E. Netzer, Promise and Redemption: a Synagogue Mosaic
from Sepphoris (Jerusalem, 1996).
36 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Concern with symbols in Jewish and Christian literary exegesis, exemplified

especially in books on typology such as J. Daniélou’s Sacramentum Futuri
(1950), encouraged later symbolic studies bearing on messianism, including
R. Murray on Symbols of Church and Kingdom in Syriac literature (1973), and
A. Jaubert (1973) on messianic symbolism in ancient Judaism as a substratum
of the earliest Christology.
Renewal in all these areas was in part also, however, a continuation of
seminal work on the theological and legal outlook of the ancient versions
achieved in the Wissenschaft des Judentums of the nineteenth century, notably
by Z. Frankel and by A. Geiger (whose Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel
in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (1857) had
been reissued in 1928, introduced by Paul Kahle).9 Their studies had vividly
demonstrated the interconnection of the Septuagint and the Targums with the
development of communal history and thought, and Frankel had underlined
the messianic fervour suggested by some Septuagintal renderings in the
Pentateuch.10
From the 1980s onwards these post-war developments led to the issue
of compendia on inner-biblical exegesis and on the interpretation of the
Old Testament in the New, such as M. Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation
in Ancient Israel (1985) or the collection It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture edited in honour of Barnabas Lindars By D. A. Carson and
H. G. M. Williamson (1988), and on the history of Old Testament
interpretation, with special reference to the ancient versions and the
New Testament, as in the collections Mikra, edited by M. J. Mulder with
H. Sysling (1988), and Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, edited by M. Saebo
(1996 onwards). Work on interpretation of the Old Testament in the New
had always called special attention to messianic exegetical tradition, and
in this area the influential contribution of C. H. Dodd and Barnabas
Lindars was continued by work such as D. Juel’s justified singling-out of
Messianic Exegesis (1988) or R. B. Hays (1989) on Echoes of Scripture in
the Letters of Paul (refreshingly sensitive to literary allusion, but perhaps

9
The remarkable success of Geiger in stimulating work on text and versions is illustrated by
S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago and London, 1998), but its long-term
character emerges less than fully because of the book’s concentration on New Testament study.
10
Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik
(Leipzig, 1851, reprinted Farnborough, 1972), 50–1, 182–5, discussed by Horbury, Jewish Messianism
and the Cult of Christ, 48.
 Introduction to the First Edition 37

underestimating the extent to which Pauline messianic exegesis follows

pre-existing lines; see chapter 6, below).
Within this setting translation of and commentary on the Septuagint and its
dependent Greek versions came to the fore, notably in the commentary-series
La Bible d’Alexandrie initiated by M. Harl (1986 onwards) and in A. Salvesen,
Symmachus in the Pentateuch (1985), and the messianism of the Septuagint
was examined in these commentaries and by writers including J. Koenig
(1982), R. Le Déaut (1984), A. van der Kooij (1987, 1998, 1999) and J. Schaper
(1995). J. Lust (1985, 1995, 1997; discussed in chapter 4, below) has critically
surveyed messianic passages and cautioned against over-interpretation.
I have attempted to use Septuagintal attestation of ancient Jewish teaching
especially in chapters 4, 5 and 8, below, on the messiah and the Jewish and
Christian polity; but it also plays a part in chapters 2, on the thought-world
of Ezekiel Tragicus, 6, on Jerusalem-centred hope, and 12, on the saints. Its
special bearing on the debated pre-Christian history of messianic hope is
discussed in chapter 4, below, and in Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ
(especially 46–52, 90–7, 127–32; see further pp. 13–20, above). The Greek
Pentateuch indicates that in the third century b.c. the Torah was interpreted in
connection with messianism, and Septuagintal renderings in the Pentateuch
and elsewhere illustrate that conjunction of superhuman and human attributes
in the messianic figure which was observed by Schürer in other sources.
The Targums have been enriched with newly-edited textual material
notably but by no means only through Neofiti 1, mentioned above. Like the
Greek versions, they have also received extensive translation and comment,
for example from A. Díez Macho and others, Neophyti 1 (1968–79), from
R. Le Déaut on the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch (1978–81), and from
many authors in the series The Aramaic Bible. Re-examination of Targumic
material on messianism has come not only in work of this kind but also in
more general reviews by S. H. Levey (1974) and, on the Palestinian Targums
to the Pentateuch, M. Perez Fernandez (1981); in the course of study of the
Targums on particular books or in particular sources (as by W. Smelik on
Judges, R. P. Gordon on the Minor Prophets, R. Loewe and P. S. Alexander
on the Song of Solomon, and R. Kasher on the Tosephtoth of the Targum to
the Prophets); and in many studies of individual passages, for example the last
words of David (E. van Staalduine-Sulman, 1999).
38 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The Targumic attestation of messianism belongs together with that offered

in Jewish prayer, including the Amidah (discussed in this connection by
Schürer and his revisers, by R. Kimelman, and by P. S. Alexander), and with
the complex messianic witness of the Talmud and midrash, surveyed and
discussed in this period by writers including P. Schäfer, J. Neusner, J. Maier,
P. S. Alexander and M. Hadas-Lebel, and considered with special reference to
one important source in the Frankfurt studies of Pesikta Rabbathi directed
by A. Goldberg.11 Rabbinic texts attest hostility to as well as interest in
messianism, they have sometimes been interpreted—most importantly in the
case of the Mishnah, as discussed by Neusner and Alexander—as deliberately
neglecting it, and they reflect a long history of Roman, Christian, Parthian and
early Islamic rule which includes many possible occasions for the discussion
or repression of messianic hope. In the context of biblical interpretation,
however, they are impressive as attesting, once again, the persistence of
messianic themes in connection with the Pentateuch and Prophets, and the
continuation of the twofold messianic portrait reflected in the Septuagint
and in other sources of the Second Temple period. Awareness of both Greek
and Aramaic biblical interpretation among rabbinic teachers in Galilee will
perhaps have encouraged these continuities.12
The relative richness of messianic reference in the Targums is compared
and contrasted in chapter 10, below, with the more restrained messianism
of the liturgical poetry of Yose ben Yose, from about the fifth century. The
value of the Targums for the history of messianism lies perhaps not simply in
their much-debated points of contact with pre-Mishnaic Jewish and Christian
sources, but more especially in their general attestation that the Hebrew
Bible in all its parts was interpreted throughout the Roman and Byzantine
periods in connection with messianic hope of a kind largely corresponding
to that of Second Temple times. P. S. Alexander, underlining anti-messianic
tendencies in rabbinic Judaism, puts the Targums next after the liturgy as a
factor encouraging the survival of messianism in the Jewish community of late
antiquity, despite opposition.13

11
Schäfer, ‘Die messianischen Hoffnungen’; Neusner, Messiah in Context; Judaism and Christianity in
the Age of Constantine; ‘Mishnah and Messiah’; Goldberg, Erlösung durch Leiden; ‘Die Namen des
Messias’; Maier, ‘Der Messias’ (on the earliest period); Alexander, ‘The King Messiah in Rabbinic
Judaism’.
12
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 3–4, 99–102.
13
Alexander, ‘The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism’, 472–3.
 Introduction to the First Edition 39

Messianism and catastrophe

The continuity of messianism in interpretative tradition from the Greek

period onwards, as it is attested by the ancient biblical versions, has therefore
received special notice in the second half of the twentieth century and in
the years since 1981 now under review. This perception of later twentieth-
century study recalls the famous remark of Josephus (B.J. vi 312) that the
Jews were incited to war against Rome above all by a biblical prediction of a
world-ruler from Judaea. Josephus here also points, however, to political and
social aspects of messianism which have likewise been much discussed. Thus
G. S. Oegema, cited above, brings out the relationship of conceptions of the
messiah to current conceptions of great rulers, and in the studies collected
here messianism had been similarly linked with Herodian temple-restoration
and ruler-cult (chapter 3), the prestige of the high-priest and the priestly
aristocracy (chapter 7), and resistance to Rome (chapter 9). Messianism can be
associated with the publicity surrounding Jewish rulers of all kinds, whether
established in power or at the head of uprisings. Uprisings and ‘popular’
messianic figures, such as some of the ‘sign-prophets’ mentioned by Josephus
may be judged to be, have of course received much attention, memorably
manifest in Morton Smith’s dictum ‘The most likely way to become a messiah
was to begin as a robber’, and bringing social questions into the centre of
discussion.14 Messianic elements in the Jewish revolts which broke out under
Nero, Trajan and Hadrian have been brought out above all by Martin Hengel
(1976, ET 1989; 1983; 1984–5; see also p. 10, n. 31, above).
Of special importance for the understanding of messianism under both
socio-political and mystical aspects, however, has been its characterization by
Gershom Scholem as ‘a theory of catastrophe’ (see chapter 10, below; p. 4,
above). Scholem appeals in this connection to the series of Jewish apocalypses
extending from Hellenistic times into late antiquity and the Middle Ages, and
to cataclysmic elements in messianic movements, not least in Sabbatianism.15
His diagnosis has been kept in view at the end of the twentieth century
not only because the study of Jewish mysticism has flourished, but also
because contemporary Jewish religion has continued to include mystical and

14
Morton Smith, ‘Messiahs: Robbers, Jurists, Prophets’, 42.
15
Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 7, cf. 1–77; Sabbatai Sevi, 8–9, 464–7.
40 Messianism among Jews and Christians

messianic enthusiasm, not to be overrated but sometimes manifest.16 Scholem

regarded his understanding of messianism as applicable to early Christianity,
and in New Testament study his insights converged during the later twentieth
century with existing interpretation of Jesus and Paul against the background
of Jewish apocalypses, set out at the beginning of the century by Johannes
Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and F. C. Burkitt, and followed by many later scholars.
With Scholem’s phrase ‘theory of catastrophe’, quoted above from a lecture
first published in 1959, compare Burkitt’s phrase (1909) ‘The Christian hope
a preparation for catastrophe’; both Burkitt and Scholem were sympathetic
readers of Albert Schweitzer.17
In the period under review the light shed by Scholem on ascetic, antinomian
and ecstatic elements in messianism has been applied to primitive Christianity
notably by W. D. Davies (1976, reprinted 1984) and C. C. Rowland (see Rowland
(1998), 493–6). The depth of Scholem’s insight should not, however, preclude
recognition of messianic hope as belonging to a biblically-focused exegetical
tradition. The messianic elements in this tradition were current in prosperity
as well as adversity; they had the potential for startling empowerment in given
political and social circumstances, but they were endowed with a measure of
independent continuity by the stream of biblical interpretation to which they
belonged (compare the conclusion of chapter 1, below).

Messianism and monotheism

Despite the traditional Christian connection of Christ with Old Testament

prophecy, noted above, the New Testament literary deposit of christology
and the cult of Christ has often been studied either in separation from Jewish
messianism or in contrast with it. The renewed discussion of messianism
towards the end of the twentieth century has however to some extent converged

16
de Lange, An Introduction to Judaism, 201–6; modern Jewish movements which link messianism
with a conviction that the time of national redemption has come are studied by A. Ravitzky,
Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism, and his work is discussed in connection with
Christian origins by J. Marcus, ‘Modern and Ancient Jewish Apocalypticism’ and ‘The Once and
Future Messiah’, and in connection with Zionism by Y. Amir, ‘Messianism and Zionism’.
17
F. C. Burkitt, ‘The Eschatological Idea in the Gospel’, in H. B. Swete (ed.), Essays on Some Biblical
Questions of the Day by Members of the University of Cambridge (London, 1909), 194–213 (194,
cf. 207–13); cf. H. B. Swete, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London, 1914), 44–5. Schweitzer is
quoted and followed by Burkitt, ‘The Eschatological Idea’, 210–11 and Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, 95–7.
 Introduction to the First Edition 41

with developments in study of the Christian sources, as is exemplified in work

by O’Neill, Wright, Chester, Oegema, Laato and Schreiber. At the same time
the emergence of the cult of the exalted Christ has formed a central question
in New Testament study.
Concern with the religion, not simply the teachings, of Jews and Christians
was an abiding element in twentieth-century biblical study, especially in the
English-speaking world, despite douches of cold water in times of emphasis
on biblical theology.18 In this instance the relevant Christian customs and
conceptions have mainly been derived from Greek and Roman ruler-cult or
Jewish angelology, on the one hand, or from a new inner-Christian association
of Christ with the God of Israel, on the other. The traces in pre-Christian
messianism of influence from ruler-cult and of a superhuman as well as
human messianic portrait nevertheless suggest that messianism above all led
to the exaltation and worship of Christ (see chapters 9 and 12, below, and
my Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ). This view receives a measure of
confirmation from the messianic associations of the principal titles of Christ.
Contemporary Jewish treatment of biblical and later figures as saint-like
heroes would have helped to form a favourable environment for the posited
development (chapter 12, below).
The exalted traits in the messianic portrait mean that, irrespective of the
argument just outlined, Jewish messianism as well as the Christian cult of
Christ invites consideration of ancient Jewish monotheism. However Jewish
loyalty to the one God should be described, for some of its adherents it was not
incompatible with the salutation of an exalted messianic king or, in Christian
terms, our ‘Lord’ (Mar(an)a, Kyrios). This point has been explored in some of
the varying derivations of the cult of Christ noted above, either with reference to
the importance of intermediaries and great angels in Judaism (see for example
the work by Fossum, Barker and Gieschen), or with appeal to new Christian
experience (as made in different ways by Hurtado and Bauckham). In work
represented in this book (especially in chapters 1, 4, 9 and 12) it is taken that
the one God was imagined together with lesser divine beings as ‘a great king
above all gods’ (Ps. 95:3), governing a world of spirits. This presupposition

18
J. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: an Old Testament Perspective (London, 1999), 105
(considering New Testament as well as Old Testament study). In a lively appeal for return to the
study of Pauline religion J. Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven and London, 2000)
perhaps underrates earlier concern with the subject.
42 Messianism among Jews and Christians

is important for the interpretations of messianism and the cult of the saints
offered here, and it can perhaps be clarified through comparison with the
different view of ancient Jewish monotheism taken by R. J. Bauckham, in his
clear-cut ascription of New Testament christology to association of Christ with
the God of Israel.19
He urges that theological descriptions of Jewish monotheism, whatever
their emphasis, fail to satisfy because they miss the vivid and precise Old
Testament perception of the character of God. His own argument can be
roughly summarized as follows. In order to appreciate the monotheism
characteristic of Jews at the end of the Second Temple period, we should
consider the identity of the God of Israel. This deity has a character, outlined
especially in the biblical habit of describing him as a world-creator and
world-ruler who demands exclusive worship. These characteristics made
him unique and distinguished him sharply from all other reality. Yet the
same characteristics are there in New Testament descriptions of Christ. That
suggests that Christ was seen as part of the unique divine identity. At the same
time it also explains how the Christians could genuinely assume that they
shared the ancestral Israelite monotheism. A notable clue to their attitude is
offered by the influential section of Isaiah now designated chapters 40–55,
which will have been read among Christians as a continuous whole, including
the passages on God’s servant; the expression of ‘eschatological monotheism’
in this prophecy will accordingly have been received as a declaration of
‘christological monotheism’.
Correspondingly, in the Jewish monotheism of this period the uniqueness of
the God of Israel was in no way modified (Bauckham urges) by the conception
of intermediaries between the deity and humanity. These are either included
in the unique identity of God, as can be argued in respect of God’s spirit, word,
and wisdom; or else, as can be claimed of great angels and exalted patriarchs,
they are excluded from the unique divine identity and plainly reckoned
as servants of God. Intermediaries of the former but not the latter kind are
thought to share in the work of God as creator; in the work of God as ruler, it
is exceptional to find just one sole intermediary.

19
Bauckham, God Crucified, 1–56, 77–9; Bauckham, ‘The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9–11’;
Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’. The argument builds in part on the
treatment of the worship of Christ in Bauckham, Climax, briefly noticed in Horbury, Jewish
Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 116–17.
 Introduction to the First Edition 43

Similarly, it is argued, the deity no longer shares a ‘species identity’ as a

divinity among divinities. Accordingly, with few exceptions, God’s throne is
unaccompanied by others; but among the Christians Psalm 110, in which the
king is commanded to sit at God’s right hand, is widely applied to Christ—
without known precedent in Jewish messianic interpretation. Correspondingly
again, the Christian exaltation of Christ goes beyond what is attested of the
messiah or archangels, for Christ’s rule is cosmic and supra-angelic; Christ, like
the God of Israel himself, has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:15),
and raises and judges the dead (John. 5:21–3).
An initial comment on the argument from Christian usage summarized
in the preceding paragraph may serve to introduce broader considerations.
In the particular argument just noted for Christian presentation of Christ in
unprecedentedly close association with the one God much seems to be rested,
first, on a shortage of non-Christian evidence for messianic application of
Ps. 110:1–3; but the Parables of Enoch on messianic enthronement (45:3, etc.),
viewed in combination with rabbinic interpretation of both Dan. 7 and this
psalm (including the allotment of the Danielic ‘thrones’ to God and ‘David’,
ascribed to Akiba in a baraitha transmitted at Hag. 14a and Sanh. 38b), and
the implications of Mark 12:35–7, have been held to suggest that the beginning
of the psalm could indeed be understood messianically at the end of the
Second Temple period.20 Similarly, the exaltation of Christ over heaven and
earth and in the general resurrection and judgment is comparable with the
messianic exaltation at the last judgment depicted in the Parables of Enoch
(46–53, 62–4) and perhaps also in 4Q521 (Messianic Apocalypse) and 11Q13
(Melchizedek), discussed above, and with the supra-angelic exaltation of the
messiah later envisaged in rabbinic comment on Isa. 52:13.21 Again it seems
hard to rule out the possibility that exaltation of this kind was current in
messianic interpretation at the end of the Second Temple period, and formed
the background of the comparable exaltation of Christ. The argument from
silence may therefore not be strong in these two instances.
Bauckham’s broader argument, which has been briefly summarized, is
congruent with two often-noticed aspects of ancient Judaism and nascent

20
The cautious evaluation by D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand (Nashville and New York, 1973),
26–30 shows that this possibility cannot be ruled out.
21
Targum ad loc. and Tanhuma Buber, Genesis, 70a, Toledoth, 20, discussed in Horbury, Jewish
Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 139.
44 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Christianity. First, in its description of Jewish monotheism, it recalls the

militant confession of one God which was often manifest in the Jewish
community of the late Second Temple period, in prayer, literary polemic and
martyrdom, and in more commonplace custom, for example in the copying
of texts. Thus the wish to distinguish the God of Israel seems likely to have
been one influence on the practice, attested in some manuscript remains
from this period, of writing the tetragram in palaeo-Hebrew characters in
texts in the square script, or in Hebrew characters in Greek texts. Secondly, as
regards specifically Christian monotheism, this argument highlights the early
Christian capacity for creative development, also exhibited in such institutions
as ‘the Twelve’ (chapter 5, below). Moreover, the broader argument—still in
development, as the author notes—comprises interesting detailed suggestions,
for example on continuous reading of Isa. 40–55 (continuous reading of Isaiah
is similarly posited in chapter 6, below).
Yet an argument on these lines perhaps does less than full justice to the
Old Testament inheritance of Jews and early Christians. The biblical tradition
which they inherited and developed indeed treasures the uniqueness of Israel’s
God, but it expresses divine immanence as well as transcendence, and assumes
not an isolated divine dictator viewed over against all other reality but a divine
king in the midst of a council and court of ‘gods’ or ‘sons of God’ (Ps. 82:1; Job
1:6, 38:7). Biblical vocabulary and idiom expresses not only assertion of the
one God, but also deep-rooted conceptions of a pantheon or divine council,
of primordial and personified wisdom, and of superhuman and human spirits:
within the circle of these conceptions Israel’s deity was not wholly deprived
of a ‘species identity’, for he was ‘a great god, and a great king above all gods’
(Ps. 95(94):3); and humanity was not wholly shut out from the world of the
divinities, for the king could be hailed as a divinely-begotten godlike being
(Isa. 9:5(6); Pss. 2:7, 45:7, 110:1–3).22
In the Second Temple period the God of Israel was correspondingly viewed
as ‘king of gods’ (4Q200 2, 5, with elohim; Rest of Esther 14:12, Philo, Conf.
173, with theoi), presiding over yet accompanied by angelic beings recognized
as in some sense divine, ‘spirits’ who could be entitled ‘gods’ according to the
biblical nomenclature illustrated above. The continuing use of this vocabulary
will have tended to modify that disappearance of the Creator’s ‘species identity’

22
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 88–90, 120–25.
 Introduction to the First Edition 45

on which stress is laid in the argument under review. Moreover, Israel’s

God presiding over these lesser divinities as ‘God of the spirits and all flesh’
(Num. 16:22, 27:16, lxx) was envisaged in comparison as well as contrast with
a not wholly dissimilar Greek or Roman pantheon in which many gods were
presided over by a ‘Father of gods and men’ (Homer, Il. i 544, etc.). The gods of
the heathen might be dismissed as spirits or demons who would be ultimately
ineffective (Ps. 96:5), yet they could also be understood as angel-divinities
providentially appointed to guide or misguide the nations (Deut. 4:19;
Deut. 32:8 (lxx); Ecclus. 17:17; chapter 8, pp. 262–3, below). Similarly, it was
possible for Jewish apologists to interpret Greek recognition of a supreme
divinity, Zeus, as an attempt to name the true supreme God revealed by Moses
(Letter of Aristeas 16; Jos. Ant. xii 22; Aristobulus frag. 4, in Eus. P.E. xiii 12).
Correspondingly again, for many Jews at the end of the Second Temple period,
here too continuing biblical, tradition, human beings can be inspired by divine
or angelic or demonic spirits, and can be described accordingly as ‘sacred spirit’
(Moses in Ass. Mos. 11:16) or ‘unclean spirits’ (the possessed in Mark 3:11).
Against this background of scriptures understood as attesting a world of
spirits, the Christian ‘Christological monotheism’ seems unlikely to have
emerged simply as a new association of ‘Jesus’ with the unique identity of
Israel’s God (the widespread phrase ‘worship of Jesus’ may be misleading in
this respect). Attention should also be given to the conception of a supreme
God accompanied by other great spirits, to the assumed intermingling and
contact between the spirits of human beings and divine, angelic and demonic
spirits, and to the titles of Jesus, which can have spiritual and angelic as well
as royal overtones. Thus ‘Christ’, which often replaced ‘Jesus’, suggested the
biblical superhuman figure of an inspired king (Isa. 11:2), also called a ‘mighty
god’ or ‘angel of great counsel’ (Isa. 9:5(6), Hebrew and lxx respectively).
These considerations can be further related to three particular elements of
the argument under review. First, by contrast with what is sketched in that
argument as the general pattern, the intermediary figures of wisdom and word
on the one hand, and great angels and patriarchs on the other, are not always
clearly distinguished as, respectively, included within and excluded from
the divine identity. An important instance of overlap between the two is the
identification of primordial wisdom with the angel of the Lord who appeared
to the patriarchs and guided the exodus and conquest. Thus in the Wisdom of
46 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Solomon the wisdom active as mediator from the beginning is identified with
the angel of the patriarchs and the exodus (Wisd. 9:9, 10:15–11:1); and this
identification seems already to be assumed in Ecclesiasticus, where primordial
wisdom is enthroned on the pillar of cloud (Ecclus. 24:4; cf. Exod. 14:19). In
Philo the word of God, the Logos, is similarly treated as an angelic figure, ‘eldest
of the angels, as it were Archangel’, and is also identified with the heavenly
man of God’s first creation (Gen. 1:27) and the Dayspring-man pointed out
by Zechariah (6:12) (Conf. 41, 60–3, 146), thereby gaining messianic as well as
angelic overtones.23 Christians, similarly again, united the divine wisdom and
word with the great angelic spirit of the Hexateuch, and understood all three
as the pre-existent Christ (Justin, Dial. lxi 1). This influential line of thought
thus tended to modify the absoluteness of a distinction between divine word
and wisdom, on the one hand, and an angelic servant of God, on the other,
and accordingly it made less sharp the distinction between God and all other
reality.
Secondly, it has already been noted that, by contrast with what is stressed
in the argument under review, Israel’s deity seems not to have been wholly
deprived of a ‘species identity’ in the development of Old Testament tradition
during the Second Temple period, for the use of ‘god’ (elohim, theos) to
describe demigods or godlike angelic powers continued in force. ‘God’ is still
viewed as accompanied by ‘gods’—and godlike spirits can inspire and indwell
humankind. Biblical history can indeed be summed up as the commerce of
divine wisdom with holy souls on earth; ‘in all creations passing into holy
souls, she forms friends of God, and prophets’ (Wisd. 7:27).
Thirdly, in accord with this conception of divine, angelic and human
communion and fellowship, but again in contrast with what is suggested
in the argument under review, the sharpness of emphasis on Israel’s God as
world-creator is modified in the Second Temple period by complementary
emphasis on the metaphor of origin as well as that of creation. Thus the
biblical vocabulary of ‘generation’ is complemented by the equally biblical
yet also Hellenic vocabulary of ‘generation’ and ‘procession’. Perhaps the
most obvious trace of this line of thought is the naming of the first book of
the Pentateuch, by a title already attested in Philo, as ‘Genesis’—‘origin’ or

23
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 94; on messianic associations of Zech. 6:12 and
other LXX passages with anthropos see chapter 4, p. 175, below.
 Introduction to the First Edition 47

‘generation’, in accord with Gen. 2:6 lxx ‘the book of the genesis of heaven
and earth’ and 5:1 lxx ‘the book of the genesis of men’—rather than the
book, of ‘creation’ (ktisis, cf. Gen. 1:1 lxx ektisen).24 Correspondingly, the
new creation of Isa. 65:17, 66:22 (see chapter 6, below) can be spoken of as
‘the regeneration’ (palingenesia, Matt. 19:28). Similarly, human beings or their
souls can be thought of as divinely generated; ‘we also are his offspring’, in
words of the Greek poet Aratus which seemed a good summary of divine
creation to the Christian author of Luke and Acts (Acts 17:25–6, 28–9),
as they already had to the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (fragment 4, in
Eus. P.E. xiii 12, cited above). There is some kinship between the human and
the divine realms (John 1:13, 13:3; 1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:9).25 It is
against this background, yet in full accord with biblical language, that the
divine sonship of Israel (Exod. 4:22) is widely emphasized (for instance in
Ecclus. 17:18, in the longer Greek text, and 36:11; 2 Esd. 6:58), and that the
Rule of the Congregation from Qumran Cave 1 envisages (1QSa = 1Q28a
ii 11–12) that God may ‘beget’ the messiah (cf. Pss. 2:7, 110:1–3). Wisdom
likewise is divinely ‘generated’ (Prov. 8:25 lxx), but can also be envisaged as
‘proceeding’ from the mouth of the most High (Ecclus. 24:3), as an ‘outflow’
of the divine glory or a ‘beam’ of the invisible light (Wisd. 7:25–6). This
vocabulary does not take away the transcendence of the supreme deity, but it
complements the overtones of manufacture with those of kinship.
Comparably, Jesus son of Sirach sums up the biblical theme of the works
of creation by stressing transcendentally that the Lord is ‘above all his works’
and ‘made them all’ (Ecclus. 43:28, 33); but in the same context he has also
stretched out a hand to immanence with the complementary expression ‘he
is all’ (Ecclus. 43:27). Yet another complement to the creation vocabulary is
provided by exploration of the biblical phrase ‘image of God’ (Gen. 1:26; 5:1;
echoed in Ecclus. 17:3; Wisd. 2:23; and with reference now to wisdom rather
than humankind, in Wisd. 7:26).
In these ways the sharp distinction between God and all other reality which
is stressed in the argument under review is modified by thoughts of likeness,

24
Philo, Abr. 1 ‘Of the holy laws written in five books, the first book is called and inscribed Genesis,
from the genesis of the cosmos, which it includes at the beginning’, discussed with other passages by
J. C. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (London, 1895), xx–xxi.
25
Some of the New Testament material on divine generation is set in the context of Hellenic and
patristic thought on divine-human kinship by E. des Places, Syngeneia (Études et commentaires li,
Paris, 1964), 138–41, 183–4, 189.
48 Messianism among Jews and Christians

kinship and communion.26 The relative prominence of the language of divine

generation in the New Testament, illustrated above, underlines the importance
of these modifications for the formation of Christology. More broadly, in
Judaism towards the end of the Second Temple period the thought of the sheer
transcendence of divine kingship was complemented by an understanding of
the scriptures as attesting a world of spirits. In this understanding, the one
‘God of the spirits and of all flesh’ appointed the angel-deities of the nations,
and through divine wisdom and godlike angelic powers conversed with human
spirits. Exalted conceptions of a messianic king developed, therefore, among
both Jews and Christians, against the background of a biblical monotheism in
which the supreme deity was imagined together with lesser divine beings, both
‘above all gods’ (Ps. 95:4) and ‘in the midst of gods’ (Ps. 82:1). The messianic
king embodied an angel-like spirit and touched the society of the ‘gods’ as well
as mortals.

The structure and scope of this book

Biblical and historical studies of messianism which I first published between

1981 and 1998 are revised and collected here to form a series of twelve chapters.
They complement, but are not included in, my Jewish Messianism and the Cult
of Christ (1998).
Some of their contacts with the five characteristic themes of late twentieth-
century study picked out above have already been noted. Thus chapters 1 and 4,
on the Apocrypha and the Son of man, and the first part of chapter 11, on
Antichrist, contribute to discussion of the importance of messianic hope at the
time of Christian origins, and the associated discussion of new sources. They
can be read as complement to the first part of Jewish Messianism and the Cult
of Christ, in which it is argued that messianism was widespread before the rise
of Christianity. Then the third theme, the study of messianic hope as integrated
into the ancient tradition of biblical interpretation, is important throughout
the studies collected below. Interpretative texts are central in chapter 1, on the
Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, chapter 2, on Ezekiel the Tragedian, chapters

26
Compare in general the critique of interpretation of Judaism as a strictly transcendental monotheism
offered by Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism, 124.
 Introduction to the First Edition 49

5 and 6, on the Phylarchs and Jerusalem, chapter 8, on the Septuagint, and

chapter 10, on early synagogue poetry. The fourth theme, the association of
messianism with catastrophe, is explored especially in chapters 9–11, on
suffering and messianism, on Jews and Christians in the second century, and
on conceptions of Antichrist. Finally, the relationship between messianism
and monotheism is explored with reference to exalted conceptions of kings,
saints and heroes in chapter 3, on Herodian ruler-cult, chapter 9, on the second
century, and chapter 12, on the cult of Christ and the cult of the saints. These
three chapters can be viewed together with the second part of Jewish Messianism
and the Cult of Christ, in which homage to an exalted messiah is presented as
the great link between Herodian Judaism and the Christian cult of Christ.
The chapters have been arranged below, however, according to a roughly
chronological ordering of their subject-matter.
The book is focused on the Herodian period and the New Testament, but
looks back to the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and onward to Judaism and
Christianity in the Roman empire. It is divided into three sections, headed The
Second Temple Period (chapters 1–3), The New Testament (chapters 4–8), and
Synagogue and Church in the Roman Empire (chapters 9–12).
Within this framework each section includes some treatment of central
themes, such as messianism in the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (chapter 1),
the Son of man (chapter 4) and Pauline hope for a new Jerusalem (chapter 6),
and Jewish and Christian messianism in the second century (chapter 9).
There are also, however, studies of some relatively neglected topics, including
suffering and messianism in synagogue poetry (chapter 10), and the relation of
Christian and Jewish messianism with conceptions of the church (chapter 8)
and of Antichrist (chapter 11) and with the cult of Christ and of the saints
(chapters 9 and 12).
Throughout, an attempt is made to set messianism in a broad political and
religious context. Its links with revolution and social upheaval have received
much attention, but these studies seek also to explore its setting in religion and
in the conflict of political theories—since the ancient Jewish constitution is
both a ‘church’ and a ‘state’. Thus conciliar and priestly constitutional ideals in
their bearing on Christian messianism form an important theme here (chapters
5, on the Twelve, and 7, on conceptions of the church; compare also chapter 8,
on the Aaronic priesthood), and again one that is relatively little studied.
50 Messianism among Jews and Christians

New Testament subjects which come to the fore include the historical
Jesus (chapters 4–5), Paul (chapters 2 and 6), Hebrews (chapter 7), and New
Testament theology (chapters 8, 11 and 12, and parts of chapters 2, 9 and 10).
With regard to religion, chapter 2 is a counterpart to chapter 10 in its
focus on poetry in honour of Jewish festivals, in this instance pre-Christian
Greek Jewish poetry expressing a theology of God’s gifts, which may include
the messiah; and chapter 3 explores the religious as well as political theme of
messianism and ruler-cult through study of Herod’s temple restoration and
the debated reference in Persius to ‘Herod’s days’, here interpreted as Herodian
festivals kept by Jews in Rome. The relation of messianism and Jewish religion
with elements in Christian religion becomes central in chapter 9, on chiliasm
and the cult of Christ, and chapter 12, on the cult of Christ and the cult of the
saints.
Literary tradition, often of considerable freshness and beauty, is important
throughout. The poetic texts considered include the festal poetry already
mentioned (chapters 2 and 10), hymnody and prayer concerning Jerusalem
(chapter 6), and Septuagintal poems from the Pentateuch and Wisdom
(chapter 8). One aim has been to allow these writings to speak, despite the
need for restraint in quotation.
All the chapters have been revised, and chapters 2–5, 7 and 12 have
considerable additions; chapter 6 is mainly new. In revision an attempt has
been made to represent at least something of the fresh editing of sources and
further study which has taken place since the work first appeared.
Material incorporated below originally appeared in volumes in honour of
G. M. Styler (chapter 10), M. D. Hooker (chapter 6), J. P. M. Sweet (chapter 8),
and E. Bammel (chapters 3 and 7). The thanks to them included in the first
publications are here gratefully expressed again.
Acknowledgement is gratefully made to the following publishers for
permission to reproduce material: the Istituto Patristico Augustinianum;
Messrs. E. J. Brill; Cambridge University Press; Messrs. T&T Clark; J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck); Oxford University Press; Sheffield Academic Press.
I am very grateful to Dr. A. N. Chester and Dr. J. N. B. Carleton Paget
for commenting on drafts of the introduction, and to Ruth Tuschling for
making the indexes. As usual I am deeply indebted to my wife Katharine for
encouragement and forbearance.
 Particulars of First Publication

The table below gives particulars of the first publication of the essays on which
the chapters in this volume are based. The revisions printed here include
alteration and addition.

1. Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: J. Day

(ed.), King and Messiah (Sheffield, 1998), 402–33
2. The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian: ‘Ezekiel Tragicus 106:
doremata’, VT xxxvi (1986), 37–51
3. Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’: William Horbury (ed.), Templum
Amicitiae (Sheffield, 1991), 103–49
4. The Messianic Associations of ‘the Son of Man’: JTS N.S. xxxvi (1985),
34–55
5. The Twelve and the Phylarchs: NTS xxxii (1986), 503–27
6. Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope: ‘Land, Sanctuary and
Worship’, in J. P. M. Sweet and J. M. G. Barclay (eds.), Early Christian
Thought in its Jewish Setting (Cambridge, 1996), 207–24 (208–11, 219–24,
with alterations and additions)
7. The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews: JSNT xix (1983),
43–71
8. Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church: M. N. A.
Bockmuehl and M. E. Thompson (eds.), Vision for the Church
(Edinburgh, 1997), 1–17
9. Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century:
Augustinianum xxviii (1988), 71–88
10. Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose: W. Horbury and B. McNeil
(eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament (Cambridge,
1981), 143–82
11. Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles: M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a
Graeco-Roman World (Oxford, 1998), 113–33
12. The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints: NTS xliv (1998), 444–69
 Literature

P. S. Alexander, ‘The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism’, in Day (ed.), King and
Messiah, 456–73
Y. Amir, ‘Messianism and Zionism’, in Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in
Jewish and Christian Tradition, 13–30
R. S. Barbour (ed.), The Kingdom of God and Human Society (Edinburgh, 1993)
R. J. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament
(London, 1998)
———, ‘The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9–11’, in R. P. Martin and B. J. Dodd
(eds.), Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville, 1998),
128–39
———, ‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis
(eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, 43–69
J. Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament (1977, ET Edinburgh, 1980)
W. Beuken, S. Freyne and A. Weiler (eds.), Messianism through History (Concilium
1993/1, London and Maryknoll, 1993)
J. N. B. Carleton Paget, ‘Jewish Christianity’, CHJ iii (1999), 731–75
J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992)
J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema (eds.), Qumran-Messianism
(Tübingen, 1998)
A. N. Chester, ‘Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline
Christology’ in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum
(Tübingen, 1991), 17–89
A. N. Chester, ‘The Parting of the Ways: Eschatology and Messianic Hope’, in J. D. G.
Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways a.d. 70 to 135 (Tübingen,
1992), 239–313
———, ‘Messianism, Torah and early Christian Tradition’, in G. N. Stanton and
G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity
(Cambridge, 1998), 318–41
R. E. Clements, ‘The Messianic Hope in the Old Testament’, JSOT xliii (1989), 3–19
J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star (New York, 1995)
 Literature 53

J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (Edinburgh, 1991)

———, The Birth of Christianity (Edinburgh, 1999)
W. D. Davies, ‘From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi’, reprinted
from JBL xcv (1976), 529–38 in W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (London,
1984), 257–77
J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield, 1998)
C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and
the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of
Christological Monotheism, 112–28
D. Flusser, ‘Messiah’, EJ xi (1971), 407–17
C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology (AGJU 42, Leiden, 1998)
Arnold Goldberg, Erlösung durch Leiden. Drei rabbinische Homilien über die
Trauernden Zions und den leidenden Messias Ephraim (PesR 34. 36. 37)
(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien, IV, Frankfurt am Main, 1978)
———, ‘Die Namen des Messias in der rabbinischen Traditionsliteratur. EinBeitrag
zur Messiaslehre des rabbinischen Judentums’, FJB vii (1979), 1–93
M. D. Goodman, ‘The emergence of Christianity’, in A. Hastings (ed.), A World
History of Christianity (London, 1999), 7–24
———, (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World (Oxford, 1998)
M. Hadas-Lebel, ‘Hezekiah as King Messiah: Traces of an Early Jewish-Christian
Polemic in the Tannaitic Tradition’, in J. Targarona Borrás and A. Sáenz-Badillos
(eds.), Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (2 vols., Leiden, 1999), i,
275–81
———, ‘ “Il n’y a pas de messie pour Israël car on l’a déjà consommé au temps
d’Ézéchias” (TB Sanhédrin 99a)’, REJ clix (2000), 357–67
D. Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East
(Tübingen, 1983)
M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (2nd edn., Leiden and Köln, 1976), ET, with new
introduction, The Zealots (Edinburgh, 1989)
———, ‘Messianische Hoffnung und politischer “Radikalismus” in der “jüdisch-
hellenistischen Diaspora”: zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen
Aufstandes unter Trajan, 115–117 n. Chr.’, reprinted from Hellholm,
Apocalypticism, 655–86 in Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica, 314–43
———, ‘Hadrians Politik gegenüber Juden und Christen’, reprinted from Journal of
the American Near Eastern Society xvi–xvii (1984–5) [Ancient Studies in Memory
of Elias Bickerman], 153–81 in Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica, 358–91
———, Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften i (Tübingen, 1996)
———, Essays in Early Christology (Edinburgh, 1996)
54 Messianism among Jews and Christians

W. Horbury, ‘The Beginnings of the Jewish Revolt under Trajan’, in H. Cancik,

H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion:
Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1996), i, 283–304
———, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998)
———, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
———, ‘Messianism and Early Christology’, forthcoming in R. N. Longenecker (ed.),
Contours of Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 2002)
———, ‘Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age’, forthcoming in
L. T. Stuckenbruck (ed.), Perspectives on Monotheism
L. W. Hurtado, ‘The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship’, in Newman, Davila
and Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, 187–213
———, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism
(2nd edn., Edinburgh, 1998)
A. Jaubert, ‘Symboles et figures christologiques dans le judaïsme’, in J.-E. Menard
(ed.), Exegese biblique et judaïsme (Strasbourg, 1973), 219–36
D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis (Philadelphia, 1988)
M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT cli, Göttingen,
1990)
R. Kasher, ‘Eschatological Ideas in the Toseftot Targum to the Prophets’, Journal for
the Aramaic Bible ii (2000), 22–59
R. Kimelman, ‘The Messiah of the Amidah: a Study in Comparative Messianism’, JBL
cxvi (1997), 313–24
J. Koenig, L’Herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels
d’Isaïe (SVT xxxiii, Leiden, 1982).
A. van der Kooij, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah 19:16–25: Translation and Interpretation’,
in C. E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and
Cognate Studies Series xxiii, Atlanta, 1987), 127–66
———, ‘Zur Theologie des Jesajabuches in der Septuaginta’, in Reventlow (ed.),
Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik, 9–25
———, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision (SVT
lxxi, Leiden, New York and Köln, 1998)
———, ‘The Teacher Messiah and Worldwide Peace. Some Comments on
Symmachus’ Version of Isaiah 25:7–8’, JNSL xxiv (1998), 75–82
A. Laato, A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal
Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (Atlanta, 1997)
N. de Lange, An Introduction to Judaism (Cambridge, 2000)
R. Le Déaut, ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser (eds.),
Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique (Paris, 1984), 147–95
 Literature 55

L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist (Leiden, 1996)

G. Lindbeck, ‘Messiahship and Incarnation’, in G. Cavadini (ed.), Whom do you say
that I am? (forthcoming)
S. H. Levey, The Messiah: an Aramaic Interpretation, the Messianic Exegesis of the
Targum (Cincinnati, 1974)
J. Lust, ‘Messianism and Septuagint’, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume:
Salamanca, 1983 (Leiden, 1985), 174–91
———, ‘The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles; the ἄnqrwpoV
in Num. 24:7 and 17; Messianism and Lexicography’, in L. Greenspoon and
O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and
Cognate Studies Series xli, Atlanta, 1995), 233–57.
———, ‘Septuagint and Messianism, with a Special Emphasis on the Pentateuch’, in
Reventlow (ed.), Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen
Hermeneutik, 26–45
M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit
(TSAJ xxxiv, Tübingen, 1992)
M. Mach, ‘Christus Mutans: Zur Bedeutung der “Verklärung Jesu” im Wechsel von
jüdischer Messianität zur neutestamentlichen Christologie’, in Gruenwald, Shaked
and Stroumsa, Messiah and Christos, 177–97
J. Maier, ‘Der Messias’, in P. Sacchi (ed.), Il giudaismo palestinese: dal 1 secolo a.C. al
1 secolo d.C. (Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo, Testi e Studi viii;
Bologna, 1993), 157–86
J. Marcus, ‘Modern and Ancient Jewish Apocalypticism’, JR lxxvi (1996), 1–27
———, ‘The Once and Future Messiah in Early Christianity and Chabad’, NTS xlvii
(2001), 381–401.
C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘The Temple Within: the Embodied Divine Image and its
Worship in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish and Christian Sources’,
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers xxxvii (1998), 400–31
C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological
Monotheism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism lxiii; Leiden,
Boston and Köln, 1999)
J. Neusner, Messiah in Context (Philadelphia, 1984)
———, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel,
and the Initial Confrontation (Chicago and London, 1987)
———, ‘Mishnah and Messiah’, in Neusner, Green and Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and
Their Messiahs, 265–82
J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the
Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987)
56 Messianism among Jews and Christians

G. S. Oegema, Der Gesalbte und sein Volk (Göttingen, 1994)

———, The Anointed and his People (Sheffield, 1999)
J. C. O’Neill, Messiah (Cambridge, 1980)
———, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden, 1995)
———, The Point of it All: Essays on Jesus Christ (Leiden, 2000)
A. Oppenheimer, ‘Leadership and Messianism in the Time of the Mishnah’, in
Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition,
152–68
M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia and
Jerusalem, 1981)
K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism (Atlanta, 1995)
E. Puech, La croyance des esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie
éternelle? (2 vols., Paris, 1993)
H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century
(ET London, 1986)
——— (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition
(JSOT Supplement Series ccxliii, Sheffield, 1997)
——— (ed.), Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen
Hermeneutik (Gütersloh, 1997)
A. Rofé, ‘The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology’, in
J. Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient
Israel (Philadelphia, 1987), 117–51
———, ‘Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption’, in J. Vermeylen (ed.),
The Book of Isaiah, le Livre d’Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité
de l’ouvrage (BETL lxxxi, Leuven, 1989)
C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London, 1982)
———, Christian Origins: an Account of the Setting and Character of the most
Important Messianic Sect of Judaism (London, 1985)
———, ‘Christ in the New Testament’, in Day, King and Messiah, 474–96
P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham (eds.), The Lord’s Anointed:
Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Carlisle, 1995)
J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (Tübingen, 1995)
P. Schäfer, ‘Die messianischen Hoffnungen des rabbinischen Judentums zwischen
Naherwartung und religiösem Pragmatismus’, reprinted from C. Thoma (ed.),
Zukunft in der Gegenwart (Bern and Frankfurt am Main, 1976), 95–125 in
P. Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums
(Leiden, 1978), 214–43
G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality
(London, 1971)
 Literature 57

———, Sabbatai Sevi, the Mystical Messiah (first issued in Hebrew, Tel-Aviv, 1957;
revised and augmented ET, London, 1973)
S. Schreiber, Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen
Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften (BZNW CV,
Berlin and New York, 2000)
E. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black, History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, ii (Edinburgh, 1979), 488–554 (bibliography)
M. Smith, ‘What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?’, JBL lxxviii (1959),
66–72, reprinted in M. Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (2 vols, Leiden, New
York and Köln, 1996), i, 161–7
———, ‘Messiahs: Robbers, Jurists, Prophets’, PAAJR xliv (1977), 185–95, reprinted in
M. Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (1996), ii, 39–46
E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘Reward and Punishment in the Messianic Age (Targ. 2
Sam. 23:1–8)’, Journal for the Aramaic Bible i (1999), 273–96
L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension of Isaiah’, in
Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism,
70–89
C. Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism (ET by H. Croner, New York, 1980)
G. Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (London, 2000)
N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh, 1991)
———, The New Testament and the People of God (London, 1992)
———, Jesus and the Victory of God (London, 1996)
A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult’, in Newman, Davila
and Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, 234–57
J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Königliche, priesterliche und
prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT
ii.104, Tübingen, 1998)
M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University
of Cambridge Oriental Publications lvi, Cambridge, 1999)
R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ‘Mysticism and Messianism: the case of Hasidism’, in E. J.
Sharpe and J. R. Hinnells (eds.), Man and his Salvation: Studies in memory of S. G.
F. Brandon (Manchester, 1973), 305–14
58
The Second Temple Period
 1

Messianism in the Old Testament

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Vocabulary and scope

The advantage of the phrase ‘Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’ is that it points

to the Old Testament background which is a vital but sometimes neglected
aspect of these books. Broadly speaking, the Apocrypha are those writings
associated with the Old Testament but outside the Hebrew canon which
early Christian tradition approved; these books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus
and others) were sometimes termed ‘outside’ or ‘ecclesiastical’ books, for
they were ‘outside’ the canon, yet read in ‘ecclesiastical’ usage.1 Jerome, like a
number of his contemporaries and predecessors, especially in the Christian
east, endorsed their use yet stressed their non-canonicity, saying that they
should be ‘set apart among the apocrypha’.2 With emphasis, rather, on their
acceptance in the church, a western view advocated by Augustine and approved
by two councils of Carthage (397, 419) and pope Innocent I held them to be
in principle (whatever might be the case in practice) fully as authoritative for
Christians as the books of the Hebrew canon. The Pseudepigrapha, however,
are those writings outside the Hebrew canon, but dubiously ascribed to or
linked with biblical authors, which early Christian tradition generally doubted
or disapproved; these books (1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch

1
So Origen, in Eus. H.E. 6.25, 2, quoting a Jewish book-list (‘outside’); Rufinus, Symb. 36 (‘there are
other books which were called by our forbears not canonical but ecclesiastical’).
2
Jerome, Prologues to the books of Kings and Solomon, in R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam
Versionem (2nd edn., 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1975), 365 (original of the quotation here), 957; comparably, a
book-list in the Greek Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila lists Tobit, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under
the heading ‘Apocrypha’ (H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge,
1902), 206). On like-thinking predecessors and contemporaries of Jerome see W. Horbury, Jews and
Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998), 208–10.
62 Messianism among Jews and Christians

and many others) included several collectively called ‘pseudepigrapha’

in ancient book-lists, but they were often simply termed ‘apocrypha’ in a
pejorative sense (so Athanasius, with allusion to pseudepigrapha of Enoch,
Isaiah and Moses).3
The designation of the approved books not in the Hebrew canon as ‘the
Apocrypha’ which is followed here became familiar in the Middle Ages
under the influence of Jerome, and notably his ‘helmeted preface’ to Kings,
Prologus galeatus, quoted above.4 The currency of his terminology will have
been enhanced by its entry into the mediaeval tradition of commentary both
on scripture and on canon law. Thus, according to the early mediaeval Gloss
Ordinary on scripture, ‘the canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-
two in number; … any others …, as Jerome says, must be placed among
the apocrypha’; similarly, in the early-thirteenth-century gloss on Gratian’s
Decretum by Johannes Teutonicus, the range of the word ‘apocrypha’ is
illustrated from its customary application to Wisdom and the other approved
Old Testament books not in the Hebrew canon: ‘these are called apocryphal; yet
they are read [sc. in the church], but perhaps not universally’.5 Correspondingly,
among a number of authors using this vocabulary, the fifteenth-century biblical
commentator Alphonsus Tostatus of Avila wrote, with an appeal to Jerome,
that Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ‘are received in the church, and
read, and copied in Bibles, and yet they are apocryphal’; and in 1540 a non-
reformed Franciscan biblical expositor could still recommend to ordinands
an answer to the question ‘What are the books of the Old Testament?’ which

3
Swete, Introduction, 281; Coptic text of Athanasius, Ep. Fest. 39, discussed and translated in E. Junod,
‘La formation et la composition de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Église grecque des quatre premiers
siécles’, in J.-D. Kaestli and O. Wermelinger (eds.), Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et
son histoire (Geneva, 1984), 105–51, 124–5, 141–4.
4
Jerome’s mediaeval influence was illustrated especially by J. Cosin, A Scholastical History of
the Canon of the Holy Scripture (1657; reprinted, ed. J. Sansom, Oxford, 1849). R. Rex, ‘St John
Fisher’s Treatise on the Authority of the Septuagint’, JTS N.S. xliii (1992), 55–116 (63, n. 23)
suggests that Augustine’s view was more prevalent in earlier mediaeval writing, Jerome’s from
about the twelfth century. It may be added that, throughout, the Old Testament was regularly
divided between books of the Hebrew canon and other books, as in Isidore of Seville (Etymol.
6.1, 9, PL 82.228–9) and the ninth-century Latin version of the Stichometry of Nicephorus by the
papal librarian Anastasius (in C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, ii (Leipzig, 1885, reprinted
Hildesheim, 1963), 57–9).
5
Gloss Ordinary, Preface ‘on canonical and non-canonical books’ (PL 113.21, from the edition
of Douai, 1617); gloss on Gratian, Decretum, 1:16, interpreting ‘apocrypha’ in the passage of the
Gelasian Decree which puts the Apostolic Canons ‘among the apocrypha’ (Decretum Gratiani …
una cum glossis (Lyons, 1583), col. 60). Both are quoted by Cosin, ed. Sansom, Scholastical History,
218, 224–5 (paras. 135, 140).
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 63

ended: ‘All the books of the Old Testament are thirty-seven in number, twenty-
eight canonical, nine apocryphal.’6
By 1540, however, Jerome’s terminology had already been taken up in the
reform party, notably through the work of Andreas von Karlstadt on the canon
(1520). The designation of the relevant Old Testament books as apocryphal
which had hitherto been widely current was now soon to be discouraged by
the Council of Trent. In 1546 the council reaffirmed the canonicity of most
of these books, following Augustine, Innocent I, and subsequent conciliar
lists including that of the Council of Florence.7 In Luther’s German Bible of
1534 and Coverdale’s English Bible of 1535 these books had been set apart
as ‘Apocrypha’, in accord with their separate registration in ancient and
mediaeval lists, and under the name which could in the 1530s still be used
irrespective of party; but in 1562 they were perhaps significantly listed in the
Sixth of the Thirty-Nine Articles simply as ‘other books’, not as ‘Apocrypha’.8
The latter term was continued, however, in later English Bibles; in the
Authorized Version of 1611 it appeared in the relatively cautious formula ‘the
books called Apocrypha’. The books of the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha
therefore correspond, respectively, to the Old Testament books renamed after
the Council of Trent by Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheca Sancta (1566) as
‘protocanonical’ and ‘deuterocanonical’; the Pseudepigrapha correspond
to those which he continued to call ‘apocryphal’.9 The frequently reprinted
Clementine Vulgate of 1592 followed the practice of separating books
separately registered in ancient lists, with regard to those Apocrypha which
had not been recommended by Augustine and at Trent, that is 1–2 Esdras

6
Alphonsus Tostatus, Opera, 8 (Cologne, 1613), 12b (preface to Chronicles); Joannes Ferus, Examen
Ordinandorum, in Ferus, Opuscula Varia (Lyons, 1567), 900–26 (910). Compare Cosin, ed. Sansom,
Scholastical History, 248–9, para. 162 (similar remarks elsewhere in Tostatus’ prefaces to Matthew
and Chronicles); 261–2, para. 176 (Ferus). The position of Luther’s opponent cardinal Cajetan
(Thomas de Vio), who also followed Jerome not long before the Council of Trent, seems therefore
to have been rather less unusual than is suggested by G. Bedouelle, ‘Le canon de l’Ancien Testament
dans la perspective du Concile de Trente’, in Kaestli and Wermelinger (eds.), Le canon de l’Ancien
Testament, 253–82 (257–60).
7
Bedouelle, ‘Le canon’, 262–9 describes the recurrence at Trent of arguments for expressing a
distinction between the two classes of canonical books. Karlstadt’s influence is noted without
reference to the broad early sixteenth-century currency of the term ‘apocrypha’ by H.-P. Rüger, ‘Le
Siracide: un livre à la frontière du canon’, in Kaestli and Wermelinger (eds.), Le Canon de l’Ancien
Testament, 47–69 (58–9).
8
The Sixth Article here followed the Württemberg Confession, which had been submitted at the
Council of Trent in 1552 and avoided some controversial terms.
9
On the new vocabulary sponsored by Sixtus (who notes the old terms which he is replacing) see
Bedouelle, ‘Le canon’, 268–74, 280–2.
64 Messianism among Jews and Christians

(3–4 Ezra) and the Prayer of Manasses; these were printed by themselves in
an appendix.
Yet the beneficial association of the names Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
with the Hebrew canon has a concomitant disadvantage. It may divert attention
from other writings outside the Hebrew Bible which shed light on these books.
In particular, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha should be viewed together
with the rich tradition of biblical interpretation attested in the Septuagint,
Qumran exegesis, Philo, Josephus, the New Testament, the Targums and
rabbinic literature. The books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, then, are
closely related to the Hebrew Bible, an important point which these two names
attest; but these books are also to be set within the great stream of early biblical
interpretation which was already moving in the Persian period.
In what follows there are some elements of a survey, but an attempt is
also made to consider the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha as part of the
evidence concerning messianism in the Second Temple period as a whole. The
present writer has urged elsewhere that throughout this period, roughly from
Haggai to Bar Kokhba, messianic hope was more pervasive than is usually
allowed.10 Here it is asked whether the relevant material in the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha, scattered chronologically over the years from Alexander
the Great to Hadrian, is consistent with such a view. The Apocrypha, in
which clear allusions to messianic hope are sparse, are reviewed with regard
to the suggestion that between the fifth and the second centuries there was
a ‘messianological vacuum’. The Pseudepigrapha, in which such allusions are
more plentiful, are considered in connection with the view that messianism
was predominantly diverse.

The Apocrypha and the question of

a messianological vacuum

The Apocrypha of the English Bible have for long been a centrepiece in a
regular manifestation of the study of messianism, which may be called the
‘no hope list’—the list of books wherein no messianic hope is to be found.
The books cited often come from the Hebrew Bible as well as the Apocrypha;

10
W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998), 36–63.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 65

a representative list would include at least Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees,
and the Wisdom of Solomon as writings where mention of a messiah might be
expected, but is absent.11 The most obviously messianic book in the Apocrypha,
2 Esdras (4 Ezra in the Vulgate), is also one of those which lacks strong support
in ecclesiastical tradition, as is evident from the loss of its Greek text and its fate
at the Council of Trent. The Apocrypha, therefore, the group among the books
of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha which enjoyed more authority among
early Christians and probably also among Jews, seems almost to suggest the
unimportance rather than the importance of messianism.
Not all would accept that the distinction drawn by many patristic authors
between the groups of books which came to be known as the Apocrypha
and the Pseudepigrapha was already current among Jews at the end of the
Second Temple period. Some have regarded the two sets of books as virtually
indistinguishable in the pre-Christian and primitive Christian periods.12 Many
of the Pseudepigrapha were probably read as widely as many of the Apocrypha,
as is suggested for the Judaean Jewish community by the Qumran finds and for
early Christian Egypt by quotations and papyri; yet, on the other side, there is a
case, accepted by the present writer, for holding that the Christian distinction
between the authority to be attached to the two sets of writings probably has
pre-Christian antecedents.13 Hence in what follows it is presupposed that at
the end of the Second Temple period, among Jews as well as Christians, most
of the Apocrypha are likely to have been more widely acceptable than the
Pseudepigrapha, even though they were not necessarily always more influential.

11
For such lists see W. V. Hague, ‘The Eschatology of the Apocryphal Scriptures, I, The Messianic
Hope’, JTS xii (1911), 57–98 (64); A. von Gall, ΒΑΣΙLΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ QΕΟΥ, eine religionsgeschichtliche
Studie zur vorkirchlichen Eschatologie (Heidelberg, 1926), 376–7; W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die
Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd edn., Tübingen, 1926), 222; S. B. Frost, Old
Testament Apocalyptic: Its Origins and Growth (London, 1952), 66–7; S. Mowinckel, Han som kommer
(Copenhagen, 1951), 185 (ET He That Cometh [trans. G. W. Anderson, Oxford, 1956], 180); Morton
Smith, ‘What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?’, reprinted from JBL lxxvii (1959), 66–72
in M. Smith (ed. S. J. D. Cohen), Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (2 vols., Leiden, 1996), i, 161–7 (163)
(passing over the Apocrypha); J. Becker, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1977), 74
(ET Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament [trans. D. E. Green; Edinburgh, 1980], 79).
12
So Swete, Introduction, 224–5; J. Barton, Oracles of God (London, 1986), 35–81. R. Beckwith, The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London, 1985),
406–8 similarly holds that the first Christians esteemed a number of books from the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha alike; but he suggests that Jewish groups valued various sets of books, including the
Greek Apocrypha, as adjuncts to the canonical books.
13
Horbury, ‘The Christian Use and the Jewish Origins of the Wisdom of Solomon’, in J. Day,
R. P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel (Cambridge, 1995), 182–96
(185–7); J. Day, R. P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson, Jews and Christians in Contact and
Controversy, 25–35, 206–15.
66 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha overlap in date, but the Apocrypha

include a far greater proportion of writings which can be securely assigned to
the Greek period.14 Thus pre-Maccabaean works in the Apocrypha include,
together with Ecclesiasticus, probably also 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Greek
adjuncts to Esther, and at least the first part of Baruch (1:1–3:8); coaeval
with these books but within the Hebrew canon is the older part of Daniel,
pre-Maccabaean work given its present form in the Maccabaean period. To
return to the Apocrypha, a second-century date is likely for the Epistle of
Jeremy (transmitted in the Vulgate as the sixth chapter of Baruch), the Greek
adjuncts to Daniel, and 2 Maccabees, while 1 Maccabees and probably also
Wisdom can be assigned to the early years of the first century b.c. The short
Prayer of Manasses, handed down in the lxx book of Odes, is probably pre-
Christian. 2 Esdras, in which chapters 3–14 include material from the reign
of Domitian, is probably the latest of all the books in the Apocrypha; but, as
already noted, it teeters on the edge of the class of approved books because of
its weak ecclesiastical support. The works from the Apocrypha represented
in discoveries from the western shore of the Dead Sea are Tobit in Hebrew
and Aramaic, the Epistle of Jeremy in Greek, and Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew.
Also attested at Qumran in Hebrew is a Davidic pseudepigraph which through
the lxx came near to gaining apocryphal status, Psalm 151. All four texts
represented in Dead Sea discoveries are probably from the older material in
the Apocrypha.
On these datings the relatively non-messianic Apocrypha are contemporary
with other more strongly messianic texts in the lxx and the Pseudepigrapha.
These include the lxx Pentateuch in the third century; the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs and the lxx Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Twelve Prophets and
Psalms in the second; and the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), the Psalms of
Solomon and relevant parts of the Third Sibylline book in the first century b.c.
Messianism is then important, from the time of Herod the Great onwards, in
the series of apocalypses beginning with the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 37–71,
not attested at Qumran) and including, after the destruction of Jerusalem by

14
For discussion of date and attestation see especially E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd–4th edn., Leipzig, 1901–9), ET, revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black,
M. Goodman and P. Vermes, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh,
1973–87), iii.1–2; on Wisdom, also Horbury, ‘The Christian Use and Jewish Origins of the Wisdom
of Solomon’, 183–5, and ‘Wisdom of Solomon’, in J. Barton and J. Muddiman (eds.), The Oxford Bible
Commentary (Oxford, 2001).
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 67

Titus, the apocalypses of Ezra (2 Esd. 3–14) and Baruch (2 Baruch, the Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch); two further messianic works, the Fifth Sibylline book
and the Christian Revelation of St. John the Divine, should be viewed together
with this series.
The widespread silence of the Apocrypha on messianism, together with
the ambiguity of Chronicles in this respect, has encouraged the view that a
‘messianological vacuum’ can be identified in Jewish literature between the
fifth and the second centuries.15 This view is already questioned by the third-
century material noted in the preceding paragraph. The lxx Pentateuch, in
particular, presents a messianic interpretation of the prophecies of Jacob and
Balaam which is so strongly developed that it seems likely to be significant for
the fourth century as well as the third, with regard to Chronicles and other
possibly messianic material from the later Persian period.16 Yet part of the
strength of the ‘vacuum’ view lies in its association of silence on messianism,
even if the extent of this silence is debatable, with a theocentric emphasis in
post-exilic Israelite religion.
This emphasis on ‘God who lives for ever, and his kingdom’ (Tob. 13:1)
has sometimes been understood as involving an opposition to earthly Israelite
monarchy which inspired the reapplication of messianic promises to the
nation as a whole or to God himself, for instance in Deutero-Isaiah on the ‘sure
mercies of David’ (Isa. 55:3–4) or Zech. 9:9–10 on the lowly king.17 Despite the
close links of kingship with Israel and the kingship of God, the reapplication
envisaged by exegetes in instances such as these is not beyond question.18
A more clearly marked aspect of theocentrism is the readiness to portray the
deity himself as a warrior king which is evident throughout the Second Temple
period; the two Songs of Moses (Exod. 15; Deut. 32) evince this outlook in a
manner which will have been particularly influential, as is illustrated below,
given their incorporation into the Pentateuch.

15
Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic, 66–7; Becker, Messiaserwartung, 74–7 (ET Messianic Expectation,
79–82); J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star (New York, 1995), 31–8, 40 (with caution), see pp. 8–9,
above.
16
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 36–51, see pp. 13–20, above.
17
So Becker, Messiaserwartung, 63–4, 67–8 (ET Messianic Expectation, 68–70 [Isa. 55], 72–3
[Zech. 9]); R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in Alttestamentlicher Zeit, ii (Göttingen, 1992),
446 (ET A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, ii (trans. J. Bowden, London,
1992), 426 [Isa. 55]).
18
Thus C. R. North, who took Isaiah 55 to speak of transference of the Davidic covenant to the
community, specially noted the difficulty of deciding whether this or revival of monarchy is
in view (C. R. North, The Second Isaiah (Oxford, 1964), 255); and Zech. 9:9 is taken by Albertz,
Religionsgeschichte, II, 639 (ET Religion, ii, 567) to envisage an earthly ruler.
68 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Attention was drawn to the post-exilic importance of this line of thought

by H. Gressmann and A. von Gall, with reference to such passages as the
enthronement psalms, Zech. 14 and the Isaiah apocalypse (Isa. 24–7). Its
vitality throughout the later Second Temple period is confirmed by the hymns
to the divine victor in the War Scroll (e.g. 1QM 12.11–12), by the development
of the portrait of the divine warrior from Isa. 59:16–18 in Wisd. 5:16–23, and
by the bold anthropomorphism with which the Lord is envisaged as a man of
war in some rabbinic tradition.19 Gressmann justly called this hero-deity the
double of the messiah.20 For von Gall the messiah played only a subordinate
part in the eschatology of Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period,
partly because God himself was so vividly imagined as the coming king, and
partly because only extreme nationalists went to the length of envisaging an
earthly leader; that is why the messiah is often unmentioned.21 Thus in von
Gall’s reconstruction the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, roughly speaking
non-messianic and sometimes messianic respectively, would correspond to a
dual Old Testament emphasis on the kingdom of God and the kingdom of
the messiah, respectively; and in the Greek and Roman periods, just as under
the Persians, the theme of the kingdom of God would have been the more
important.
As the reference to the book of Wisdom has already suggested, in the
Apocrypha a silence on messianism can indeed be accompanied by vivid
portrayal of the God of Israel as a hero. Outside the Wisdom of Solomon
this combination is especially noticeable in the substantial group of mainly
prose and mainly narrative books: 1 Esdras, the Greek adjuncts to Esther
and Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, and (with a smaller proportion of
prose) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy. Assessment of their silence or near-
silence on messianism is indeed affected by their narrative character. We
should not expect messianic expectations to be straightforwardly mentioned
in prose historical narrative following the biblical model; for in biblical prose
directly messianic material is mainly found in prophecies or psalms inserted
into the narrative, as is the case with the Song of Hannah or the Pentateuchal

19
See, for example, Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, Beshallah, Shirata 4, on Exod. 15:3 (he appeared at the
Red Sea like an armed warrior); Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 22.5 (he puts on garments of vengeance and
red apparel, as at Isa. 59:17, 63:2).
20
H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie (FRLANT vi, Göttingen, 1905),
294–301.
21
Von Gall, ΒΑΣΙLΕΙΑ, 214–57, 291, 374–7.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 69

prophecies of Jacob and Balaam. It turns out, however, that even the poems
and prayers in these narratives in the Apocrypha, although they do indeed
express hopes for national redemption, regularly lay emphasis on the kingdom
of God, not the kingdom of the messiah.
The narrative books give occasion for the expression of redemptive hopes
above all because their principal figures have prophetic and martyr-like
characteristics. These characteristics are obvious in Daniel and the Three
Children, and Eleazar the scribe and the seven brethren and their mother
(2 Macc. 6–7); but they are there too in Tobit, who flees from persecution and
suffers the loss of all his goods, but returns when times improve (1:19–20, 2:8),
and before his death prophesies the glorification of Jerusalem. Baruch speaks
prophetically of the consolation of Jerusalem at the ingathering. Mordecai and
Esther can to some extent be associated with the martyrs, for in the Greek
Esther his perilous refusal to bow to Haman is explained as a Zealot-like
refusal to honour man rather than God (13:12–14), and she risks her life and
endures a mortal agony of fear (14–15). Martyr-themes also appear in Judith,
where the destruction of the temple and the imposition of ruler-cult are feared
(3:8, 6:2). To the martyr figures of the prose narratives there should of course
be added, from a book which follows the verse tradition of the biblical wisdom
literature, the righteous sufferer whose tribulation and vindication are vividly
depicted in Wisdom 1–5.
The prophecies in these books are concerned above all with the ingathering
and the divine vengeance, considered as a victory over idols and over earthly
enemies. Thus in Esther, Judith, Tobit and 1–2 Maccabees stress is laid on
the overthrow of Israel’s enemies—Persian, Assyrian, or Greek. The prayers
and prophecies in the narratives follow suit, often reflecting the influence of
the depictions of a warrior-deity in the two Songs of Moses. In the Greek
Esther, Mordecai and Esther pray to God as king and victor over idols, in
words which echo the enthronement psalms and the greater song of Moses
in Deuteronomy 32 (see 13:9, 15 [Lord, thou God, king, God of Abraham, cf.
Ps. 47:6–9]; 14:3, 8–12 [king of the gods, cf. Ps. 95:3], 17 [nor have I drunk
the wine of the drink offerings, cf. Deut. 32:38]). Similarly, the prayer and
thanksgiving of Judith (9:7, 16:3) echo Ps. 76:4 (ET 3), on the Lord who
breaks the battle as a warrior king in Zion (cf. also Ps. 46:10 [ET 9]); and
in her thanksgiving (16:2–17) this thought leads to a passage echoing Ps. 96
70 Messianism among Jews and Christians

and Exod. 15 which ends with a woe to the nations, for ‘the Lord almighty
will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, to put fire and worms
in their flesh’ (cf. Deut. 32:41–3; Isa. 66:14–16, 24). Judith’s thanksgiving is
immediately followed by a dedication of the spoils of Holofernes in Jerusalem
(Judith 16:18–20), and this scene crowns an important series of allusions to
the biblical Zion theme; Judith prays for the defence of the sanctuary (9:8, 13)
and stands for ‘the exaltation of Jerusalem’ (10:8, 13:4, 15:9).
Tobit prophesies the ingathering and the end of idolatry (13–14), again
with repeated emphasis on the kingdom of God in his prayer (13:1, 6, 7, 10,
11 and 15), and now with an address to Jerusalem (13:9 onwards). Baruch
4–5 combines echoes of Deuteronomy 32, on Israel’s idolatry and the
coming punishment of the nations, with an apostrophe to Jerusalem on the
ingathering, echoing Isaiah 60. Again, ingathering to the holy place (Exod.
15:17) and vengeance on the oppressor-nations are the main themes of the
Jerusalem prayer in 2 Macc. 1:25–9 which reads like an antecedent of the
Eighteen Benedictions. Lastly, divine vengeance on oppressors is envisaged
in Wisdom 1–5 within the context of a hope of immortality (3:4). At Wisd.
3:1–9 it includes the ‘visitation’ of righteous souls (cf. Gen. 50:24–25; Isa. 10:3;
Ps. 106:4–5 (lxx ‘visit us’); Ecclus. 35:17–19; 1QS 3.14, 4.18–19; Ass. Mos.
1:18); and at Wisd. 5:15–23 they are protected at the world-wide judgmental
victory of the divine warrior (cf. Isa. 59:16–19, as noted above).
Ingathering to Zion and vengeance on oppressors can of course involve a
messianic leader, as in the explicitly messianic ingatherings depicted later on
in Pss. Sol. 17:26, 42–4; 2 Esd. 13:39–40, where in each case the event is still
emphatically presented as the work of God. Is such a leader ruled out by the
sole stress on the kingship of God in these passages from the Apocrypha, with
their echoes of the enthronement psalms, Trito-Isaiah on Zion, and the two
Songs of Moses?
The answer Yes is not so clear as might perhaps be supposed. First, as
already noted, the ‘messianological vacuum’ itself is by no means airtight.
There is no question of centuries kept clear of any breath of messianic hope.
The texts just considered from the Apocrypha are contemporary with others in
which messianic hope is explicit, including the lxx Pentateuch and Prophets.
Secondly, some of the theocentric biblical passages taken up in the Apocryphal
texts were themselves interpreted in ways consonant with messianic hope.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 71

Thus the hymns to the divine warrior which were put in the mouth of Moses
in Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32 had become part of an exodus narrative
in which not only the divine king but also Israel’s earthly ruler, Moses, was
of great importance. Similarly, the Trito-Isaianic prophecies of Zion included
during the Persian period the oracle of a redeemer for Zion, immediately
following the description of the divine warrior taken up in Wisdom 5
(Isa. 59:20); by the second century they were also read as including another
oracle of a saviour (Isa. 62:11 lxx).22 Comparably, the depiction of the divine
avenger in Isa. 63:1–6 was immediately followed by a Zion-oriented prayer
(63:7–64:11[12]) in which the thought of redemption by God alone once again
came to be intensely expressed (Isa. 63:9 lxx ‘not an ambassador, nor an angel,
but the Lord himself saved us’, anticipating a rabbinic formula well known
from the Passover Haggadah); but in this prayer the exodus, the paradigmatic
redemption of old, also explicitly involves Moses, the ‘shepherd’ (Isa. 63:11).
Thirdly, the occasions on which it is said that God himself fights Israel’s battle
do not exclude the figures of Moses and an angel, Joshua, the king, or Judas
Maccabaeus and an angel (Exod. 14:14; Jos. 10:14; Ps. 20:7–9; 2 Macc. 11:8–10).
This is also true of the War Scroll, in a passage (1QM 11.1–7) which concludes
‘Truly the battle is thine and the power from thee. It is not ours. Our strength
and the power of our hands accomplish no mighty deeds except by thy power
and the might of thy great valour. This thou hast taught us from ancient times,
saying, A star shall come out of Jacob …’. Here God’s own action is precisely
the sending of the messiah, the star from Jacob (Num. 24:17).
In sum, therefore, the prayers and predictions in the Apocrypha which
have just been considered show that redemption and judgment could be
satisfactorily imagined through concentration on the portrayal of God himself
as the hero; but they hardly show that a messianic leader was ruled out. It
seems indeed not unlikely that divine redemption could have been taken to
involve human leadership of the kind which was archetypally depicted in the
Pentateuchal narratives of the exodus.
The silence of the Apocrypha on messianism has claimed attention so far,
with the theory of a ‘messianological vacuum’ in view. In at least three of these

22
On the ‘redeemer’ see A. Rofé, ‘Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption’, in J. Vermeylen
(ed.), The Book of Isaiah, le Livre d’Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage
(BETL, lxxxi; Leuven, 1989), 407–10.
72 Messianism among Jews and Christians

books, however, the silence is less than total. 2 Esdras will be considered below,
with the Pseudepigrapha. The other two books in question are among the most
influential of all the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees. The relevant
passages should be considered in the context of the exaltation of Jewish rulers
in these and other books of the Apocrypha. Ben Sira himself of course glorifies
Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, without forgetting David, Solomon, the righteous
kings, and Zerubbabel (45:1–26, 47:1–22, 48:17–49:4, 11), and Simon the high
priest in his own days (50:1–21); but similarly, 1 Esdras honours Ezra ‘the
high priest’ (9:40) as well as the Davidic Josiah and Zerubbabel (1:32, 4:13,
5:5–6); in Judith the high priest Joakim has a central place (4:6–15, 15:8), and
in 2 Maccabees Onias the high priest has the attributes of a saint, represented
in both legend and vision (3:1–36, 15:12–15). The encomia of the Maccabaean
priestly rulers in 1 Maccabees are noted below. In Wisdom, high-priestly praise
emerges again in the lines on Aaron, the blameless servant of God who stayed
the plague, vested in cosmic glory, for ‘in the long robe is the whole world’
(18:20–25); and the presentation of King Solomon and a series of Israelite
leaders as inspired by celestial wisdom (Wisd. 7–10) is implicitly messianic, in
so far as it suggests that Israel may still in the future be similarly blessed.
All these books reflect the glory of the high priest, as that was envisaged
in the Second Temple period, but in Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras and Wisdom the
éclat of the Davidic monarchy is also evident. It is therefore not surprising that
David has a place in the Hymn of the Fathers in Ecclesiasticus; but it is striking,
in view of the author’s strong devotion to the high priest’s honour, that David
and his covenant are noticed three times.23 First, Ben Sira proceeds as might
be expected from Moses and Aaron to Phinehas; but then (45:25) he fits a
reference to the covenant with David in after his reference to the covenant with
Levi and Phinehas, and before he goes on to Joshua. The Hebrew text preserved
in a Bodleian fragment of the Genizah MS B can be rendered on the following

23
The political setting has been discussed, since the first publication of this essay, by J. K. Aitken,
‘Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in his Seleucid Setting’, JJS li (2000), 191–208
(noting that the praise of Simon the high priest could have been taken to imply support for Seleucid
as opposed to Ptolemaic rule). On the context of the Davidic lines in the Hymn see J. D. Martin,
‘Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers: a Messianic Perspective’, in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and
Perspectives (OTS xxiv; Leiden, 1986), 107–23. The line ‘Praise him who makes a horn to flourish
for the house of David’ in the Hebrew psalm of fifteen verses found in two Cambridge leaves of
the Genizah MS B after Ecclus. 51:12 (P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup, lviii;
Leiden, 1997), 92–3) is not considered here; the case for the authenticity of these verses (M. Z. (H.)
Segal, Sepher Ben Sira ha-shalem (2nd edn., Jerusalem, 1958), 352) is outweighed for the present
writer by their absence from the grandson’s version.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 73

lines, in the light of the grandson’s Greek: ‘And there is also a covenant with
David, son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah; the inheritance of a Man [the king]
is to his son alone, the inheritance of Aaron is also to his seed.’24 This abruptly
expressed passage seems to praise the Levitical covenant of priestly descent
though Phinehas by means of a comparison or contrast with the covenant
of Davidic succession, as both the Greek and the Syriac versions suggest. Its
placing and wording are probably influenced by Jer. 33:17–22, a comparison of
the covenants of Levi and David, and one of the passages which promises that
there should never be cut off a ‘man’ to sit on David’s throne.25 In any case, its
presence when the context did not demand it suggests the abiding importance
of the Davidic tradition and hope even when the high priest is the supreme
contemporary figure; there would be no compliment to the priesthood in such
a comparison or contrast if the Davidic covenant did not enjoy great prestige
and expectation of continuity.
Comparably, the passage devoted to David separately in the praise of the
fathers (47:1–11) dwells like Psalm 151 on the God-given strength of his
youthful feats, and ends with a reference to his royal throne over Jerusalem;
taking up an image with a firm place in Davidic dynastic oracles (1 Sam. 2:10,
etc.), Ben Sira concludes that God ‘exalted his horn for ever’.26 In the light of
the earlier passage there is no need to minimize this ‘for ever’, as is sometimes
done; Ben Sira’s great reverence for Simon the high priest need not imply that
he thought the royal line was now subsumed in the high priesthood, never to
revive independently.27 On the contrary, after his ensuing account of Solomon

24
Pointing ʾīš with R. Smend, and emending to lbnw lbdw with I. Lévi, both cited by Segal, Ben Sira,
316; for the text see A. E. Cowley and Ad. Neubauer (eds.), The Original Hebrew of a Portion of
Ecclesiasticus (xxxix.15 to xlix.11), together with the Early Versions and an English Translation,
followed by the Quotations from Ben Sira in Rabbinical Literature (Oxford, 1897), 28–9, with
English translation, or Beentjes, Ben Sira, 81.
25
On the royal ‘man’ in Ecclus. 45:25 and other texts see W. Horbury, ‘The Messianic Associations
of “the Son of Man” ’, JTS N.S. xxxvi (1985), 34–55 (51, = p. 179, below); for David and his seed as
granted the covenant of kingship, see the interpretation of Gen. 49:10 in 4Q252 by means of Jer.
33:17: ‘there shall not be cut off one who sits upon the throne for David … until the coming of the
messiah of righteousness, the shoot of David, for to him and to his seed was given the covenant of
the kingdom of his people’ (my translation; Hebrew text re-edited by G. J. Brooke in Brooke and
others, Qumran Cave 4.xvii (DJD xxii, Oxford, 1996), 205–6; ET in G. Vermes, The Complete Dead
Sea Scrolls in English [London, 1997], 463).
26
On the horn in Davidic oracles and in this passage see D. C. Duling, ‘The Promises to David and
their Entrance into Christianity—Nailing down a Likely Hypothesis’, NTS xx (1973), 55–77 (58, 62).
27
For minimizing interpretation on these lines see J. J. Collins, ‘Messianism in the Maccabean Period’,
in J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the
Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987), 97–109 (98); J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. S. Frerichs, Scepter,
33–4; K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: its History and Significance
74 Messianism among Jews and Christians

he expresses at the end of 47:22, in a line of which only a few letters are preserved
in Hebrew, the expectation that through God’s mercy there will be a ‘remnant’
for Jacob, and a ‘root’ for David. M. H. Segal here identified an allusion to a
prophecy quoted in Rom. 15:12 as a testimony to a messianic Jewish king of
the gentiles, Isa. 11:10 (cf. 1) ‘And there shall be on that day a root of Jesse, who
shall stand for an ensign of the peoples’.28 This identification is strengthened by
the fact that Isa. 11:1–10 continue the oracles of 10:20–34; these begin with the
promise of the return of the ‘remnant of Jacob’ (10:20–1) which is also echoed
in Ecclus. 47:22, and themselves are in the sequel of the oracle of the prince of
peace on David’s throne (Isa. 9:6–7 [ET 5–6]). The comparable combination
of ‘the throne of David’ (Isa. 9:7 [ET 6]) and ‘the house of Jacob’ (Isa. 10:20)
occurs in the Davidic promise of Luke 1:33. The association of the Davidic
oracles of Isaiah 9 and 11 with the ‘house’ and ‘remnant’ of Jacob in Isaiah 10
will have been further assisted by the Davidic interpretation of the blessing
of Jacob in Gen. 49:9–10. This was current before as well as after Ben Sira’s
time, as the lxx Pentateuch shows; compare 4Q252 on Gen. 49:10, the Davidic
covenant of kingship and ‘the messiah of righteousness, the branch of David’
(fuller quotation in n. 25, above) with Gen. 49:9 lxx ‘from the shoot, my son,
you came up’, alluding to Isa. 11:1.29
In the background of the Davidic passages in Ecclesiasticus there may then
be envisaged the combination of the rich narrative material on David (including
its development, outside the Hebrew canon, in Psalm 151) with prophetic
Davidic oracles, notably those ascribed to Nathan and Isaiah, and probably
also with a Davidic interpretation of Jacob’s prophecy of kings descended from
Judah. Ben Sira’s threefold use of this material, within a Levitical atmosphere
which might have been expected to muffle Davidic allusion, has a sufficiently

for Messianism (Atlanta, 1995), 131–45; G. S. Oegema, Der Gesalbte und sein Volk: Untersuchungen
zum Konzeptualisierungsprozess der messianischen Erwartungen von den Makkabäern bis Bar Koziba
(Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 2; Göttingen, 1994), 50–6; revised ET The
Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSP Supplement
Series xxvii, Sheffield, 1998), 48–54, without special discussion of the texts considered here, likewise
judges that kings are solely past authorities for Ben Sira, who lacks messianic hope and tends
rather to ‘messianize’ Simon the high priest. A. Laato, A Star is Rising: the Historical Development
of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (University of
South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism v; Atlanta, 1997), 242–7
dissents from this view, on arguments overlapping with those presented above.
28
Segal, Ben Sira, 329; on this and other allusions to the Davidic promises in Ecclus. 47:22 see
also Duling, ‘Promises’, 61–2. The Isaianic allusion is ignored by Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty
Tradition, 145–7 (denying that 47:22 has any messianic aspect).
29
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 50.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 75

strong and consistent emphasis on succession and hope to merit the adjective
‘messianic’.
One may compare these passages in Ecclesiasticus with the reference to
David’s throne for ever made perhaps nearly a century later in 1 Macc. 2:57.
Once again the immediate setting of the reference is priestly, in this case the
last words of Mattathias the priest, the patriarch of the Hasmonaean line. At
the same time, therefore, the surrounding atmosphere is that of the court
praise given to the ruling dynasty. In 1 Maccabees the Maccabaean house is
‘the seed of those by whose hand salvation (swthría) was given to Israel’ (1
Macc. 5:62). Aretalogical poems honour Judas Maccabaeus as a veritable lion
of Judah, ‘saving Israel’ (1 Macc. 3:3–9, 9:21), and Simon Maccabaeus in ‘his
authority and glory’ (14:4–15). The rulers thus have some of the glamour of
what could be called in a broad sense a fulfilled messianism; but future hopes
probably remain important among Jews in general, as J. A. Goldstein has
emphasized, and it seems possible that even in this court praise such hopes
find rather more reflection than might be suggested by Goldstein’s profile of
Maccabaean propaganda.30 Thus Judas Maccabaeus, ‘saving Israel’, still prays to
God as saviour of Israel (1 Macc. 4:30), and the hymns in praise of Judas and
Simon still leave room for divine deliverance to come. Similarly, the prayer of
2 Macc. 2:17–18, which takes it that through the Maccabees God has restored
‘the heritage to all, and the kingdom, and the priesthood, and the hallowing’,
as promised in Exod. 19:6 lxx, still looks for a future ingathering into the holy
place, and confirms that the Hasmonaean polity was not regarded as the total
fulfilment of the divine promises.
In the last words of Mattathias (1 Macc. 2:49–70) his list of examples for
his sons includes not only ‘Phinehas our father’, as might be expected of a
priest, but also David, who ‘by his mercy inherited a throne of kingdom for
ever’ (ei̓V ai̓w͂ naV, 2:57). ‘Mercy’ here seems to be David’s own good deeds,
as probably in the appeal to his ‘mercies’ at the end of Solomon’s prayer in
2 Chronicles (6:42). The ‘throne of kingdom for ever’ echoes the promise of
2 Sam. 7:13 ‘I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever’ (cf. 2 Sam.
7:16; 1 Chron. 17:12, 14; Isa. 9:7 (6)). A similar echo of this promise and of

30
J. A. Goldstein, ‘How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the “Messianic” Promises’, in
Neusner, Green and Frerichs, Judaisms and Their Messiahs, 69–96, especially 69–81, followed in the
main on 1 Macc. 2:57 by Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition, 152–9; for dissent, see Laato,
Star, 275–9.
76 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Isa. 9:7(6) can be heard at Luke 1:33 (already noticed in connection with
Ecclus. 47:22), ‘the Lord God shall give him the throne of his father David, and
he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever’. ‘For ever’ need not be taken in
its fullest sense in Mattathias’s speech, as has often been emphasized; but the
presence of the phrase suggests that the specifically messianic potential of the
Davidic reference has not been nullified by the author or redactor. Similarly,
although the stress laid here on David’s good deeds fits the presentation in 1
Maccabees of Hasmonaean achievements as Davidic, it also assimilates the
past David to the expected future son of David. Thus in the lxx Isaiah, perhaps
also from the Maccabaean age, the Davidic messiah’s description as a prince
of peace is further underlined (Isa. 9:5–6 lxx); and in the Psalms of Solomon,
towards the end of the Hasmonaean period, the virtue of the coming son of
David is vividly portrayed (Pss. Sol. 17:32–37, noticed further below).31 In the
context of the last words of Mattathias, then, this sentence on David has no
special messianic emphasis; but its presence shows that a tradition with a clear
messianic aspect was current and could be used despite Maccabaean loyalties.
In Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees alike, therefore, a writer who appears to
be a staunch upholder of the current authorities in Judaea finds it natural to
allude not just to David, but to the promises concerning his throne and line.
These relatively slight references are therefore an impressive testimony to the
strength of messianism as part of the biblical tradition. A similar inference can
be drawn from the messianism of the lxx Pentateuch, a document used in
settings where Jews were profoundly conscious of the importance of loyalty to
rulers. In discussion of both Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees by commentators
concerned with messianism, stress has naturally been laid, nevertheless, on
political circumstances which could have inhibited messianic interpretation of
the references to David’s throne and line; and Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees
have sometimes been assigned accordingly to the ‘messianological vacuum’. In
the treatment offered above, by contrast, an attempt has been made to show
how much in both cases has been taken up from the messianic development
of the biblical Davidic promises. Messianism involved an interaction between
biblically-rooted tradition and the external political situation; but the roots

31
The lxx form of Isa. 9:6–7 is associated with Maccabaean Davidic expectation by R. Hanhart, ‘Die
Septuaginta als Interpretation und Aktualisierung: Jesaja 9:1 (8:23)–7(6)’, in A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch
(eds.), Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume, iii (Jerusalem, 1983), 331–46 (345–6).
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 77

of the tradition in the biblical books and their accepted interpretation were
widespread and deep, as the lxx and later on the Targums show. Messianism
therefore had a life in the common mind independently of the special
circumstances which might encourage or discourage it. It is notable, finally, that
Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees, the books in which a reflection of messianic
tradition has been traced, are unlikely to represent marginal opinion; these
are the two books of the Apocrypha which have perhaps most clearly been
esteemed among Jews as well as Christians in antiquity.32

The Pseudepigrapha and the diversity of messianism

The Pseudepigrapha, on the other hand, as noted already, are essentially the
books connected with the Old Testament which Christian tradition doubted
or disapproved. Disapproval implied interest rather than the lack of it,
however, as has already been noted for Christian Egypt; a similar coexistence
of disapproval and interest can be conjectured in earlier Jewish opinion, at
the time of the copying of the texts of Pseudepigrapha deposited at Qumran.
Modern usage has associated with these books some comparable Jewish
works under pseudonyms taken from gentile rather than biblical literature, of
which only the Sibylline Oracles are mentioned here, and some other books
associated with scripture which have been made known through discoveries
of MSS, especially at Qumran.33
To note the earlier Pseudepigrapha roughly in chronological order, the
pre-Maccabaean parts of the Third Sibylline book and of 1 Enoch both
include some possibly third-century material. The Testament of Kohath
(4Q542) and Visions of Amram (4Q543-9) known fragmentarily in Aramaic
from Qumran texts may well also have been composed in the third century.34

32
On Jewish use of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew see Cowley and Neubauer, Portion, ix–xii, xix–xxx
(collecting quotations); on 1 Maccabees in Hebrew, Origen in Eus. H.E. 6.25, 2, cited above
(quoting a Jewish book-list in which ‘the Maccabees’ is an ‘outside’ book with a Semitic-language
title); Jerome, in the Prologue to Kings cited above, ‘I have found the first book of the Maccabees in
Hebrew’ (Weber, Biblia Sacra, i, 365).
33
On date and attestation of the books mentioned below see especially Schürer, Geschichte, ET revised
by G. Vermes, Millar, Black, Goodman and P. Vermes, iii. 1–2; Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls.
34
E. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.xxii, Textes araméens, Première partie, 4Q529-549 (DJD xxxi, Oxford,
2001), 258–64, 285–8.
78 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Other considerations too suggest that much of the expanded Bible attested
in Qumran texts and in books like Baruch may come from early in the Greek
period. Thus Jubilees, possibly also the Genesis Apocryphon, and the extra-
canonical psalms—among which at least Psalm 151 attained near-canonical
status—can be assigned to the second century, and this may be the case too
with the Temple Scroll and the fragmentary Qumran Second Ezekiel, but still
earlier dates are not impossible for all these sources. The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs are known in the main through Christian transmission,
but their basis is probably of the second century b.c., for much in the work
suits Hasmonaean circumstances. Then 3 Maccabees is probably of the
second century b.c., although it is often dated much later. The poem known
as the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) is at latest from the early part of the
first century b.c., and the Psalms of Solomon, which also touch the messianic
theme, are from the mid-first century b.c. The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-
Philo have a kinship with Josephus’ Antiquities which is among the features
suggesting a late Herodian date, but which might alternatively point to a
common source in more ancient biblical paraphrase.
Among writings which enlarge on a particular biblical character or episode,
Joseph and Asenath and Jannes and Jambres are probably both from Ptolemaic
Egypt, and the Prayer of Joseph and the Testament of Job are usually dated
about the time of Christian origins but may be older; 4 Maccabees and
the Paralipomena of Jeremiah are perhaps from about the end of the first
century a.d. Among works which can broadly be called prophecies, the
Parables of Enoch (1 En. 37–71) are of disputed date, but can be ascribed to
the Herodian period with fair probability (see chapter 56); the Assumption
of Moses is Herodian but from some time after the death of Herod the
Great, the fragmentarily attested Eldad and Medad is probably from before
the time of Christian origins, and several writings reflect the impact of the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus—the Fourth and Fifth Sibylline books, the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), and perhaps also the Apocalypse of
Abraham, although it could be earlier. Outside the Pseudepigrapha category,
2 Esdras and the Revelation of St. John the Divine should be viewed together
with this group of apocalypses.
Finally, some more Christianized works like the Life of Adam and Eve,
2 Enoch on Melchizedek, and the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch certainly
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 79

include Jewish material coaeval with the writings mentioned so far. The
Pseudepigraphic writings known through Christian transmission or quotation
which are now also attested by Dead Sea discoveries include 1 Enoch, apart
from chapters 37–71 (Aramaic), Jubilees (Hebrew), Second Ezekiel (Hebrew),
and fragments of the Testaments of Levi (Aramaic) and Naphthali (Hebrew)
which are related to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. As with the
Apocrypha, the books attested in these discoveries are all likely to be old,
probably pre-Maccabaean.
Hence, the series of Pseudepigrapha begins at latest in the third century
b.c., and is substantial in the second century; but it has more material from
the Herodian period and from after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem
than is the case with the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, the books from the Greek
period in the Apocrypha are contemporary with a very considerable literature
in the Pseudepigrapha which contributes to a rewritten and expanded Bible;
indeed, the Bible assumed in the books of the Apocrypha will probably often
have been understood on the lines attested in the Pseudepigrapha. The works
classified as Pseudepigrapha because they did not win approval appear to be
those which seemed to supplant the books of the Hebrew canon, either by
rewriting the text, or by offering new revelations. Hence the Pseudepigrapha
include Jubilees and its congeners, the apocryphal Ezekiel, and the whole
series of Jewish apocalypses from 1 Enoch onwards, with the half-exception of
2 Esdras; the relatively late date of many apocalypses has also probably worked
against them.
The process of rejection seems already to be reflected in 2 Esdras. Here
such books as the Pseudepigrapha are defended by what amounts to an
attack on the prestige of the twenty-four ‘public’ books, through a theory of
a double revelation to Moses like that later expressed in order to validate oral
Torah; in the seventy additional books reserved for the wise is the true spring
of understanding and knowledge (2 Esd. 14:45–8; cf. 14:5–6).35 The serious
use which could be made of Pseudepigrapha by Christian readers, despite all
disapproval, is illustrated by Origen on the Prayer of Joseph (Origen, Jo. ii
186–92 [31], on John 1:6), and by a probably early fourth-century request for

35
Biblical and extra-biblical passages linked with or reflecting this theory, including Deut. 29:28,
2 Baruch 59:4–11, and Lev. R. 26.7, are compared by M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis, 1990),
418–19, 441; for specification of the Mishnah and other traditions as revealed to Moses at Sinai, see
for example Lev. R. 22.1, quoting Joshua b. Levi on Deut. 9:10.
80 Messianism among Jews and Christians

a loan of ‘Esdras’ (probably 2 Esdras) in exchange for a loan of Jubilees, now

documented in a papyrus letter.36
The Pseudepigrapha which attest messianism in particular include, as noted
above, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the second century b.c., the
Psalms of Solomon and relevant parts of the Third Sibylline book in the first
century b.c., and a series of apocalypses extending throughout and beyond
the Herodian period, notably the Parables of Enoch, the apocalypses of Ezra
(2 Esd. 3–14) and Baruch (2 Baruch, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), and the
Fifth Sibylline book.37
These books have been a focus of the widespread scholarly emphasis on
the diversity of messianic hope. Morton Smith drew attention, with reference
to Qumran texts and Pseudepigrapha, to the range of positions suggested by
silence on messianism, dual messianism (as in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs), and concentration on a single figure; he also noted what he
described as an even greater range of eschatological expectation in general, for
example in the various sections of 1 Enoch.38 A. Hultgård, similarly, judges that
diversity is so great that the messianic conception of each document should
be considered on its own; but he is also able to list some common features.39
Earlier, W. Bousset had separated and contrasted what he judged to be two very
different messianic portraits: that of a human ruler, in the Psalms of Solomon,
and that of a superhuman hero, in the apocalypses ascribed to Enoch, Ezra
and Baruch.40 This separation exemplifies a distinction between human and
superhuman messianic figures which is often drawn, although it can be added
that the characteristics of the two figures merge in many sources.41 A similar

36
E. Bammel, ‘Die Zitate aus den Apokryphen bei Origenes’, reprinted from R. J. Daly (ed.), Origeniana
Quinta (BETL CV; Leuven, 1991), 131–6 in E. Bammel (ed. P. Pilhofer), Judaica et Paulina: Kleine
Schriften II (Tübingen, 1997), 161–7; D. A. Hagedorn, ‘Die “Kleine Genesis” in P. Oxy. lxiii 4365’,
ZPE cxvi (1997), 147–8 (criticized by R. Otranto, ‘Alia Tempora, alii libri. Notizie ed elenchi di
libri cristiani su papiro’, Aegyptus lxxvii (1997), 101–24 (107–8), but defended (convincingly, in the
present writer’s view) by A. Hilhorst, ‘Erwähnt P. Oxy. LXIII 4365 das Jubiläenbuch?’, ZPE cxxx
(2000), 192).
37
For a survey of their messianism see especially Andrew Chester, ‘Jewish Messianic Expectations and
Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology’, in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das
antike Judentum (Tübingen, 1991), 17–89 (27–37) and ‘The Parting of the Ways: Eschatology and
Messianic Hope’, in J. D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135
(Tübingen, 1992), 239–313 (239–52) (literature); Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 333–52, 471–96.
38
Smith, ‘What is Implied?’, 162–6.
39
A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,
Historia Religionum, 6; Uppsala, 2 vols., 1977, 1982), i, 301, 323–35.
40
Bousset and Gressmann, Religion, 228–30, 259–68.
41
So Mowinckel, Han som kommer, 185–9 (ET He That Cometh, 280–6).
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 81

yet differently ordered separation is accordingly employed by J. J. Collins to

describe the Davidic messiah, with special reference to the Psalms of Solomon,
on the one hand, and the heavenly saviour king with traits from Daniel 7 on
the other; in contrast with Bousset’s presentation, the Herodian apocalypses,
indebted both to the Davidic tradition and to the Danielic Son of man, are
justly considered in both sections.42
Can any unity be detected in the messianic portraiture of the Pseudepigrapha?
A living tradition of messianic biblical interpretation, such as was discerned
above behind Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees, can be expected to proliferate,
but it will not lose all coherence. The biblical literary deposit of the circle of
ideas surrounding the Davidic monarchy forms a background against which
a considerable unity can in fact be perceived, as a number of students of
messianism have pointed out.43 Three points in support of this understanding
can be briefly illustrated here.
First, a sharp division between Davidic and non-Davidic expectations
is discouraged by the traces in the Pseudepigrapha of a habit of connecting
the messiah not just with David, but with the whole series of Jewish kings
and rulers, including the judges. A particularly important antecedent is Gen.
49:10, cited already; Jacob, speaking of the latter days, foresees a succession
of princes and rulers from Judah, who shall never fail until he comes, to
whom the kingdom pertains.44 Towards the end of the first century a.d. the
interpretation of the cloud-vision in 2 Baruch correspondingly makes the
messiah sit on the throne of his kingdom (chapters 70–3) at the climax of the
series of good rulers—David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah (61, 63, 66). The
connection of the messiah not just with David, but with the line of good kings,
emerges in a different way in the perhaps roughly contemporary last words

42
Collins, Scepter, 48–73, 173–94.
43
So, in different ways, H. Riesenfeld and M.A. Chevallier (see Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the
Cult of Christ, 65), and Laato, Star, see also pp. 11–13, above.
44
For this interpretation see Peshitta (‘whose it (fem.) is’), Targum Onkelos (‘the messiah, whose is the
kingdom’), Targum Neofiti and Fragment Targum (both ‘the king messiah, whose is the kingdom’),
part of the lxx tradition (ἕwV e̓àn ἔlqῃ ᾧͅ a̓pókeitai), perhaps followed by Symmachus, and
4Q252, cited in n. 25, above (‘the messiah of righteousness, the branch of David, for to him and
to his seed was given the covenant of the kingdom of his people’); the emphasis of the main lxx
(‘until the things laid up for him come’) is on the coming of the kingdom to Judah, and the following
clause ‘and he is the expectation of the nations’ then refers back, without full clarity, to the never-
failing ruler of the first half-verse in the lxx (M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 1, La Genèse [Paris,
1986], ad loc.); the material is surveyed by S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London, 1904), 410–15
and M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia and Jerusalem,
1981), 127–35.
82 Messianism among Jews and Christians

ascribed to Johanan b. Zaccai, ‘Set a throne for Hezekiah, king of Judah, who is
coming’ (Ber. 28b); the messiah can be envisaged not only as David, as in Ezek.
37:24–6, but also as one of David’s great reforming heirs, the king in whose
days Assyria was smitten.45
The more straightforward presentation of a royal succession leading up to
the messiah, as in Gen. 49:10, reappears in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,
a work which has a number of points of contact with 2 Baruch.46 Here Kenaz is
presented as one of the kings and rulers mentioned in the prophecy of Jacob; at
21:5 Joshua quotes Gen. 49:10, ‘a prince (princeps) shall not depart from Judah,
nor a leader (dux) from between his thighs’, and at 25:2 ‘the people said, Let
us set up for ourselves a leader (dux) … and the lot fell upon Kenaz, and they
set him up as a prince (princeps) in Israel’. This quotation and its development
strengthen J. Klausner’s messianic interpretation of the paraphrase of the Song
of Hannah later in the Biblical Antiquities (51.5). Here (cf. 1 Sam. 2:9):

the wicked [God] shall shut up in the shadows, for he keeps for the
righteous his light.
And when the wicked shall be dead, then shall they perish; and when the
righteous shall sleep, then shall they be set free.
Yet thus every judgment shall abide, until he who has possession (qui tenet)
shall be revealed.

Klausner suggested that these last words allude to the ‘Shiloh’ oracle at the
conclusion of Gen. 49:10, not quoted at 21:5, understood in the sense ‘until
he come, to whom it pertains’ which was documented above.47 The messianic
king would then be ‘revealed’ (cf. 2 Esd. 7:28, 2 Baruch 29:3) as judge, as in
the Parables of Enoch (61:8–10) and elsewhere. This interpretation in turn fits
Jonathan’s words to David a little later in the Biblical Antiquities (62.9), ‘Yours
is the kingdom in this age, and from you shall be the beginning of the kingdom
that is coming in due time.’48 The messianic king, on this line of thought, is

45
A Sitz im Leben for this saying in Judaea soon after the destruction of Jerusalem is outlined by
M. Hadas-Lebel, ‘Hezekiah as King Messiah: Traces of an Early Jewish-Christian Polemic in the
Tannaitic Tradition’, in J. Targarona Borrás and A. Sáenz-Badillos (eds.), Jewish Studies at the Turn
of the Twentieth Century (2 vols., Leiden, 1999), i, 275–81.
46
Stone, Fourth Ezra, 39–40; K. Berger, with G. Fassbeck and H. Reinhard, Synopse des Vierten Buches
Esra und der Syrischen Baruch-Apocalypse (Tübingen, 1992), 4–5.
47
J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (three
parts, 1902, 1909, 1921; ET of revised edn., London, 1956), 367.
48
Messianic interpretation of 51.4 and 62.9 is taken to be possible and probable, respectively, by
H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (AGJU xxxi; Leiden,
1996), i, 250; but he does not regard messianism as a strong concern of the author.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 83

indeed Davidic; but he forms the climax of the whole line of good kings and
rulers, including the judges, and can be envisaged not only as David but also
as Hezekiah come again.
Secondly, messianic expectation was linked with the royal line, the Jewish
constitution, and the relevant biblical figures not as they were according to
modern historical reconstruction, but as they were envisaged from time
to time in the Graeco-Roman world. This means that material which now
looks multifarious, for it includes messianic treatment of priests, judges
and patriarchs, in the Greek and Roman periods would have naturally
associated itself with the single succession of legitimate Jewish rulers. Thus
the constitutional co-ordination of high-priest and king, as envisaged in the
Pentateuchal portrait of Eleazar and Joshua (Num. 27:15–23), is reflected
in the dual messianism of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the
Qumran texts, and, later on, the ‘Simeon prince of Israel’ and ‘Eleazar the
priest’ coins of the Bar Kokhba revolt. This political theory could evidently
cover what was noticed, in an oracular survey of history in a pseudepigraph
known from a Qumran copy, as the change of government between the days
of the kingdom of Israel and the (post-exilic) time when ‘the sons of Aaron
shall rule over them’ (4Q390 [Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce] fragment 1, lines
2–5).49 Furthermore, the succession of rulers is traced back beyond David
to the judges (Kenaz in Pseudo-Philo, as just noted) and Moses. So Moses
is king, probably in the conception of the book of Deuteronomy (33:5), and
certainly in the Pentateuch as understood by Ezekiel Tragicus and Philo and
in the midrash;50 Justus of Tiberias began his history of the Jewish kings with
Moses.51
Similarly, some biblical redeemer-figures which are often reckoned as
angelic rather than messianic in modern study were interpreted messianically
in antiquity. This pre-eminently applies to the one like a son of man in Daniel,
identified as an angelic figure by many modern interpreters,52 but regularly

49
For text and translation see D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, xxi. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-
prophetic Texts (DJD xxx, Oxford, 2001), 235–44.
50
Ezekiel Tragicus 36–41, 68–89; Philo, Mos. 1.148–62 (w̓nomásqh gàr ὅlou tou͂ ἔqnouV qeòV kaì
basileúV, 158); Targ. Ps.-Jonathan on Deut. 33:5; see further J. R. Porter, Moses and Monarchy
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1963); L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews VI (Philadelphia, 1956), nn. 170, 918.
51
Photius, Bibliotheca, 33, cited and discussed by Schürer, Geschichte (ET History of the Jewish People,
revised by Vermes and Millar, i, 35–7).
52
N. Schmidt, J. A. Emerton, C. C. Rowland and J. Day are among many noted by J. J. Collins, Daniel
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1993), 310, nn. 288–94 as, like himself, representing this interpretative view.
84 Messianism among Jews and Christians

understood as the messianic king at the end of the Second Temple period (in
1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and probably also Sib. Or. 5:414–33). This royal messianic
exegesis seems to be related to the whole scene in Daniel 7 in the saying in
the name of Akiba explaining the ‘thrones’ of verse 9 as two, ‘one for him [the
Almighty], and one for David’ (baraitha in Hag. 14a, Sanh. 38b).53 Secondly,
Exod. 23:20–1, on the angel or messenger sent before Israel, was understood
in rabbinic exegesis as referring to an angel, sometimes identified as Metatron
(see Exod. R. 32.1–9, on 23.20; 3 En. 12.5); but in probably earlier exegesis
by Christians or preserved in Christian sources it was also applied to John
the Baptist, perhaps in his capacity as Elijah (Mark 1:2), and to Joshua
(Justin, Dialogue, 75.1–2), the latter being Moses’ successor and a model of
the royal deliverer. The indwelling of the spirit is prominent in the Old and
New Testament descriptions of both Joshua and John (Num. 27:16, 18; Luke
1:15, 17), and it is likely that they were envisaged as embodied spirits, just as
Moses is called ‘holy and sacrosanct spirit’ in the Assumption of Moses (11:16,
quoted below); similarly, in the Prayer of Joseph noted above, Jacob embodies
the archangel Israel, and Origen judges accordingly that the Baptist was an
angelic spirit. The applications of Exod. 23:20–1 to Joshua and John would
then not be so far removed as might appear at first sight from the rabbinic
applications of the passage to an angel.
Within the body of Pseudepigrapha, the same kind of ambiguity surrounds
a heavenly emissary foretold in the Assumption of Moses (10:1–2):

And then [God’s] kingdom shall appear in all his creation. And then the
devil shall have an end, and sadness shall be taken away with him. Then
shall be filled the hands of the messenger (nuntius) who is appointed in the
highest, who will at once avenge them of their enemies.

Here, then, the kingdom of God will appear, and the messenger will be
consecrated (his hands will be ‘filled’, in a biblical phrase used of consecration
to the priesthood, as at Exod. 28:41; Lev. 8:33); he is appointed in the highest
to avenge the Israelites. This messenger has been interpreted as an angel,
notably Michael, but there is a case for understanding him as a messianic

53
The passages are discussed, together with the treatment of Dan. 7 in Justin, Dialogue 32, in Horbury,
‘Messianic Associations’, 36, 40–8 (= pp. 156–7, 161–3, 170–3, below, see also p. 11, above).
54
Collins, Scepter, 176 (an angel); T. W. Manson, ‘Miscellanea Apocalyptica’, JTS xlvi (1945), 41–5
(43–4) (Elijah); J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (Studia in
Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha x; Leiden, 1993), 228–31 (a human messenger, Taxo the Levite).
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 85

figure.54 He waits in heaven, as the messiah does (2 Esd. 12:32, cf. 7:28, cited
above; 1 En. 46:1–4, 48:6). His hands ‘shall be filled’; but although this term for
consecration suits priests, and therefore angels, it was more broadly applied in
later Hebrew, as appears in 1 Chron. 29:5 and 2 Chron. 29:31. He will avenge
the Israelites, like a good king, and as the messianic king was expected to do
(1 En. 48:7; cf. Isa. 11:4, 61:2; Ps. 2:9; Ps. Sol. 17:23–7; 2 Esd. 12:32–3, 13:37–8;
2 Baruch 72:2–6). Similarly, ‘Melchizedek will execute the vengeance of the
judgements of G[od’, according to a Qumran text (11Q Melch 2.13). Moses
himself in the Assumption is not only ‘holy and sacrosanct spirit’, sanctus et
sacer spiritus but also ‘great messenger’, magnus nuntius (11:16–17). In 10:1–2,
like a prophet-king, this ‘great messenger’ foretells another messenger who
will vindicate Israel as soon as God’s kingdom is revealed—not certainly, yet
not improbably, the messianic king envisaged as a great pre-existent spirit.
These considerations underline the ambiguity of another figure sometimes
described simply as angelic, Melchizedek in 11Q Melchizedek, quoted above.55
His initiation of the heavenly judgment and liberation, as it is represented in
this fragmentary text, seems close to what is envisaged in the brief description
of the messenger appointed in the highest in the Assumption of Moses.
Melchizedek is mighty among the rebellious ‘gods’ (angels) of Psalm 82, but
at the same time he is the ancient king of Salem and priestly forbear of David
(Ps. 110:3). His messianic associations are borne out by the rabbinic tradition
that Melchizedek is one of the four smiths of Zech. 2:3 (Elijah, the Messiah,
Melchizedek, and the priest anointed for war, in the version in Cant. R. 2.13, 4).
In 11Q Melchizedek this departed royal figure is treated as a spirit who answers
to what is envisaged in Isa. 61:1–2, when God’s day is announced by one who
is anointed and upon whom is the spirit of the Lord. He can be compared,
however, not only with the angelic powers over whom he has the mastery, but
also with great returning kings such as Hezekiah in the last words attributed to
Johanan b. Zaccai. Although the fragmentary state of the text makes judgment
tentative, it seems on balance likely that he is indeed a messianic figure, a king
of old who has gained angelic status and will return as deliverer and judge, as

55
Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 500–2; Collins, Scepter, 176; E. Puech, La croyance des esséniens
en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? (Paris, 1993), ii, 516–62; the text has been
re-edited by F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. ii
(DJD xxiii, Oxford, 1998), 221–41 (not available when this essay was first written), and it receives
further discussion in chapter 4, 165–6, below; Horbury, ‘Josephus and 11Q13 on Melchizedek’.
86 Messianism among Jews and Christians

could also be expected of Hezekiah or David.56 In some important instances,

therefore, the redeemer-figures classified as angelic could be interpreted as
human deliverers linked with the line of Israelite kings and rulers.
Thirdly, the messianic portraiture in the Pseudepigrapha is not wholly
suited to the distinctions which have often been drawn between human
and superhuman figures. As noted above, a contrast between human and
superhuman categories, sometimes identified especially with Davidic and
Danielic tradition, respectively, can be accompanied by the observation that
the characteristics of each category often merge. Thus, strikingly, one of the few
common features noted by A. Hultgård in messianic presentations of the Greek
and Roman period is investiture by bestowal of the spirit (passages including
Pss. Sol. 17:42[37]; 1 En. 49:1–3; 11Q Melch 18), under the influence of Isa. 11:1
and Isa. 61:1–2;57 this trait contributes to a conception of the messianic figure as
above all the embodiment of an excellent spirit from above. There is in fact a case
for seeing the ‘superhuman’ portrait as more widespread and more continuously
attested than is commonly allowed, especially in the light of Septuagintal and
rabbinic material.58 Here attention is restricted to the Pseudepigrapha.
A ‘superhuman’ portrait has been widely recognized in the Herodian
apocalypses. The apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch are roughly contemporary
works which have much in common; they perhaps draw on shared traditions
of prayer, hymnody and instruction.59 Comparable portraiture occurs
in the Parables of Enoch preserved in Ethiopic (1 En. 37–71), and the
Fifth Sibylline book, composed in Greek hexameters (see especially lines
414–33). In 2 Esdras, the Parables of Enoch, and probably also the Fifth
Sibylline, traits of the Danielic Son of man combine with those drawn from
messianically interpreted passages in the Pentateuch, prophets and psalms.60
The interpretation of these three texts as referring Danielic and other material
to a single messianic figure seems preferable to K. Koch’s suggestion that in
2 Esdras and elsewhere a ‘two-stage messianology’ is envisaged, turning first

56
So, for example, Hultgård, L’eschatologie, i, 306–9; P. A. Rainbow, ‘Melchizedek as a Messiah at
Qumran’, Bulletin for Biblical Research (1997), 179–94.
57
Hultgård, L’eschatologie, i, 281, 323–4.
58
Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 86–108.
59
Stone, Fourth Ezra, 39–40; Berger, Synopse, 8–9; for II Baruch as earlier see M. Goodman, ‘The Date
of 2 Baruch’, in Ashton (ed.), Revealed Wisdom, 116–37.
60
Pp. 156–61, below; J. VanderKam, ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in
I Enoch 37–71’, in Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis, 1992), 169–91.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 87

on the messiah and then on the Son of man.61 Superhuman features in all these
sources include pre-existence (2 Esd. 13:26, 1 En. 48:3, 6; probably implied at
2 Baruch 29:3, Sib. Or. 5:414); advent from heaven (2 Esd. 13:3 (from the
sea, with the clouds), Sib. Or. 5:414; 1 En. 48:4–7; probably implied at 2 Bar.
29:3); and miraculous annihilation of foes and establishment of kingdom
(1 En. 49:2; 2 Esd. 13:9–13; 2 Baruch 29:3–5, 39:7–40:3; Sib. Or. 5:414–28).
Such features can also be perceived, however, in other messianic portraits
in the Pseudepigrapha. Thus, advent from heaven is probably implied in Sib.
Or. 3:652–6 on the ‘king from the sun’ sent by God.62 It seems also, however,
that in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon, widely taken to represent a ‘human’
messianic figure, traces of a notion of pre-existence emerge in the lines on
God’s foreknowledge of the messianic king (Ps. Sol. 17:23[21], 47[42]):

Behold, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David at the time
which thou knowest, O God …
This is the beauty of the king of Israel, of which God has knowledge, to
raise him up over Israel, to instruct him.

God knows the time when the king is to be raised up, as in Ps. Sol. 18:6 (5),
where the time is the ‘day of choice’, the day chosen by God; God also knows
the king’s ‘beauty’ or ‘majesty’ (eu̓prépeia). This noun is one of those used
to describe the king’s beauty in Greek versions of Ps. 45 (44):4 ‘in your glory
and beauty’ (lxx variant recorded by Origen in the Hexapla) and 110(109):3
‘in the beauty of the holy one’ (Theodotion).63 These textual witnesses both
represent translations which could have come into being later than the Psalms
of Solomon, although this is not necessarily so; attempts to revise lxx passages
will have been made in the first century b.c., and some forms or antecedents
of the version ascribed to Theodotion will certainly have circulated in the
Herodian period.64 In any case, however, the occurrence of eu̓prépeia in Greek
versions of these royal psalms is a pointer to contexts likely to be important

61
Within the long-standing and widespread tradition of messianic biblical interpretation vividly
sketched by Koch, ‘the son of man’ would readily have been associated, in the present writer’s view,
with messianic interpretation of biblical words which can be rendered ‘man’; see K. Koch, ‘Messias
und Menschensohn. Die zweistufige Messianologie der jüngeren Apokalyptik’, in E. Dassmann,
G. Stemberger et al. (eds.), Der Messias (Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie viii) (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 73–102 (especially 79–80, 85–97); Horbury, ‘Messianic Associations’,
48–53.
62
Chester, ‘Jewish Messianic Expectations’, 35 and n. 50.
63
F. Field (ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt ii (Oxford, 1875), 162, 266.
64
See E. Schürer, revised by M. D. Goodman, in Schürer, Geschichte (ET History of the Jewish People,
iii.1, 501–4).
88 Messianism among Jews and Christians

for interpretation of the psalmodic portrait of a coming king in Psalms of

Solomon 17. Both the passages concerned in the Psalms of David are exalted
in style. Psalm 45 is a hymn to the king, and its lines on the king’s beauty
played an important part in second-and third-century Christian concepts of
Christ.65 In Ps. 110(109):3, according to Theodotion ‘in the beauty of the holy
one’ immediately follows ‘with you is the rule in the day of your power’, and
precedes ‘from the womb before the daystar I have begotten you’; it is therefore
associated both with the king’s epiphany on the day of his power, and with his
origin ‘before the daystar’.
It seems likely, then, that in Ps. Sol. 17:47(42) the king’s beauty is considered to
be known to God beforehand. It can have been envisaged as in heaven ready to
be revealed, on the lines of the expectations about the revelation of the heavenly
sanctuary—the ‘ready dwelling’ in the lxx at Exod. 15:17, 1 Kings 8:39 and
elsewhere—which are widely attested from the third century b.c. onwards (for
example, at Wisd. 9:8; 2 Esd. 13:36; 2 Baruch 4:1–6).66 This way of thinking is
applied to a messianic figure in passages including the Lucan canticle Nunc
Dimittis: ‘thy salvation, that which thou hast prepared’ (Luke 2:30–1); 2 Esd. 12:42
‘the Anointed whom thou hast kept’ (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4 ‘kept in heaven’); and 2 Baruch
29:3, 30:1 (‘the messiah shall begin to be revealed … shall return in glory’).
Schürer and his revisers regarded the Psalms of Solomon as contrasting
with the Parables of Enoch and 2 Esdras precisely in the presentation of a
thoroughly human and non-pre-existent messianic figure.67 Nevertheless,
expectation of the kind just discerned in Ps. Sol. 17 is within the range of ideas
independently suggested by Ps. Sol. 18:6(5), cited above, on the day chosen
by God for the ‘raising up’ or ‘bringing back’ (ἄnaxiV) of the Anointed.68 It is
consistent with this interpretation that the spiritual endowment of the king is
emphasized; in a passage noted above with regard to investiture by bestowal

65
Irenaeus, Haer. iii.19 (20), 2, cited with other passages at p. 314, n. 16, below.
66
W. Horbury, ‘Land, Sanctuary and Worship’, in J. Barclay and J. Sweet (eds.), Early Christian Thought
in Its Jewish Context (Cambridge, 1996), 207–24 (210–11).
67
Schürer, Geschichte, ii, 616 (ET History of the Jewish People, revised by Vermes, Millar and Black, II, 519).
68
H. E. Ryle and M. R. James (eds.), Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly called the Psalms of Solomon
(Cambridge, 1891), 149–50, on 18:6, found pre-existence to be suggested by ἄnaxiV, but they
rejected this interpretation because they could find no hint of it in Ps. Sol. 17; such hints seem
to be given, however, by 17:23 and 42, as interpreted above. In 18:6 T. W. Manson’s emendation
a̓nádeixiV, ‘showing’ (Manson, ‘Miscellanea Apocalyptica’, 41–2; cf. Luke 1:80) would equally
suggest a hidden period, on earth or in heaven; but the text, offering a word not familiar from
the gospels, seems preferable.
 Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 89

of the spirit, he is pure from sin, and God has made him ‘mighty in holy spirit’
or ‘mighty by a holy spirit’ (Ps. Sol. 17:41–2 [36–7]; cf. Isa. 11:2, 61:1). In Pss.
Sol. 17–18, then, it seems likely that the glory and beauty of the Davidic king
are known to God, waiting in heaven for the appointed time when the son of
David is to be raised up.69
Against this background it seems likely that Ps.-Philo, discussed above
with reference to 2 Esdras and the Parables of Enoch, should also be taken to
envisage the revelation of a messiah who will be the heavenly judge. There is
likewise a fair probability that the ‘messenger’ of Ass. Mos. 10:2, consecrated
in heaven to avenge Israel, is a preexistent messianic figure. Further, Bousset
rightly associated with the ‘transcendent messiah’ of the Herodian apocalypses
the passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs on the ‘new priest’
whose ‘star shall rise in heaven, as a king’ and on the ‘star from Jacob’, ‘a man
like a sun of righteousness’, the ‘shoot of God’ to arise from Judah (T. Levi
18:2–3, T. Jud. 24:1, 4–6).70 Particularly notable here are links with the star of
Balaam (Num. 24:17) and, once more, with the oracle on Judah in the Blessing
of Jacob (Gen. 49:10), here linked again with Isa. 11:1 (see n. 29, above). The
astral associations suggest that the priestly and royal messianic figures are
being envisaged as embodied spirits, on the lines noted above with reference
to Ass. Mos. 11:17.
In all the Pseudepigrapha noted at the beginning of this section as attesting
the messianic theme, therefore, with the addition of Ps.-Philo and perhaps
also the Assumption of Moses, the messianic portraiture includes superhuman
characteristics. These are not incompatible with the conception of the messiah
as a mortal king (2 Esd. 7:29), perhaps especially because emphasis is laid on
his spiritual aspect. These features recall the superhuman glory of the king in
such biblical passages as Isa. 9:5 (ET 6); Mic. 5:1 (ET 2); Ps. 45:7, 110:3.
In conclusion, therefore, to summarize this short study, it may be said
first of all that the name Apocrypha, inherited from mediaeval usage in its
favourable application to approved books outside the Hebrew canon, and
the accompanying but less favourable term Pseudepigrapha, recall an early

69
The interpretation in the text above was formulated before I had seen Laato, Star, 283–4, where it is
rightly noted that the whole passage is not far from descriptions of ‘transcendental divine agents’, but
the question of pre-existence is left open.
70
Bousset and Gressmann, Religion, 261 (suggesting links with the myth of a king of Paradise); Hultgård,
L’eschatologie, especially i, 203–13 (on T. Jud. 24), 300–26 (on T. Levi 18 in its Jewish setting).
90 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Christian distinction which is not unlikely to have Jewish origins; some

adjuncts to the canonical books were approved, others were disapproved. In
the case of the Pseudepigrapha, the coexistence of disapproval with strong
interest among early Christians probably replicates an earlier conjunction of
contrasting Jewish attitudes to these books, as 2 Esd. 14:44–7 suggest.
The Apocrypha, although in many cases they exemplify silence on
messianism and a theocentric concentration on divine deliverance, do not
encourage the view that there was a ‘messianological vacuum’ in the late
Persian and early Greek period. This notion is in any case implicitly questioned
by the messianism of the lxx Pentateuch; but it is also questioned by the
traces of messianic biblical interpretation in Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees.
These two influential Apocrypha show that authors who loyally upheld the
non-Davidic Judaean authorities of their day were still affected by biblically-
inspired messianic tradition, which had a life of its own in communal
biblical interpretation independently of circumstances which might specially
encourage its development.
The Pseudepigrapha at first glance seem to bear out the widespread view
that the messianism of their period was predominantly diverse; but much
of their material has an underlying unity arising from its roots in biblical
tradition on the king. Modern distinctions between Davidic and non-Davidic
expectations, or between angelic and human messianic figures, are overcome
in ancient presentations. Thus in the Pseudepigrapha messianic figures can
be connected with the whole line of Israelite rulers, from the patriarchs and
Moses onwards, and it can be envisaged that past monarchs may attain angelic
status as spirits in the hand of God.
Similarly, the widespread distinction between human and super-human
messianic portraits seems misplaced; superhuman traits can be detected
throughout those Pseudepigrapha which are known for their messianic
traditions, and also in material in which messianic expectation is less widely
recognized (notably Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and perhaps also
the Assumption of Moses). It is suggested here that these traits reflect above
all the superhuman traits in biblical oracles on the present or future king.
The oracular royal portraiture would have been developed in a continuous
tradition of messianic biblical interpretation, which was always influenced by
political circumstances, but retained its own independent life.
 2

The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian

ἐgὼ qeὸV sῶn, ὧn légeiV, gennhtόrwn

Ἀbraám te kaì Ἰsaàk kaì Ἰakώbou trítou. 105
mnhsqeìV dʼ e̓keínwn kaì ἔtʼ e̓mῶn dwrhmátwn
páreimi sῶsai laòn Ἑbraíwn e̓món.

I am the God of your Forefathers, as you call them,

Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the third. 105
Remembering those, and remembering also my gifts,
I am here to save my own people of the Hebrews.
(Ezekiel Tragicus 104–7)

What are God’s ‘gifts’ (dwrh́mata) in line 106? The interest of the question
emerges from the discussion by Jacobson, 109–12.1 He judges that the
interpretation which would most readily be expected, ‘gifts from God’, is
meaningless here. The contextual mention of the patriarchs might indeed
encourage the often-suggested paraphrase of ‘gifts’ as ‘promises’; but this, in
Jacobson’s view, would over-stretch the Greek.
Instead, Jacobson proposes either the interpretation ‘gifts made to me’
(the meritorious deeds of the patriarchs then being understood as offerings),
or the conjectural emendation e̓mw͂n dh̀ r̔hmátwn (the ‘words’ being God’s
‘promises’). Although Jacobson does not decide between these alternatives, he
concludes that the exegete must adopt one of them.
Perhaps, however, the interpretation ‘gifts from me’ can be accepted. Some
evidence in its favour is reviewed below. The passages concerned support, so it
will be argued, this understanding of line 106; but it will be noted, also, that they

1
Literature cited by author’s name is listed at the close of the chapter.
92 Messianism among Jews and Christians

bring more clearly into view a post-biblical Jewish theological idiom, of some
significance for the ideas of covenant and grace (see p. 21 and n. 74, above).

God’s gifts have already been mentioned by the tragedian in line 35, in
which Jochebed tells the young Moses of (his) génoV patrῷon kaì qeou͂
dwrh́mata. Here the word is taken by Jacobson, 110, to bear its ordinary
sense, which he thinks is not to be found in line 106. Nevertheless, line
106 closely resembles line 35 in two respects: in both lines, God’s gifts are
mentioned immediately after a reference to the Hebrew ancestors, and both
lines are biblically inspired, but not part of a continuous biblical paraphrase.
(Jochebed’s speech is non-biblical, and line 106, although its immediate
context corresponds to Exod. 3:6a and 8, is itself linked with Exod. 3 only
relatively loosely.) This second point may suggest that the phrase was a
current expression in the writer’s time, with a special meaning which the
reader or hearer was expected to grasp. Its connection in both lines with
the patriarchs commends the view that in both the gifts of God to Israel
in particular are intended, the privileges granted to the patriarchs for ‘the
people of the Hebrews’ (lines 106–7).

II

Before this interpretation of the gifts as national privileges is considered in a

broader literary context, the date of Ezekiel Tragicus should be reviewed in
the light of discussion, since this essay first appeared, by R. Van De Water. It is
usually held that one relatively clear indication of date comes from Eusebius
of Caesarea, whose Praeparatio Evangelica (written c. 313–20) is our main
source for the poem; for he notes that his long quotations of Ezekiel Tragicus
on Moses are drawn from the first-century b.c. compiler Alexander Polyhistor,
and Ezekiel Tragicus must then have written in or before the first century b.c.
Van De Water questions this interpretation of Eusebius, and urges that the
quotations were taken directly from the poet Ezekiel. Eusebius’ quotations
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 93

would then show that Ezekiel Tragicus was current in the age of Constantine,
but would provide no further indication of date.
The argument for quotation of Ezekiel Tragicus through Polyhistor should
first be set out more fully. Eusebius is customarily understood to say that
he is producing his quotations of the poet Ezekiel (in P.E. ix 28–9) from the
compilation Concerning the Jews by Alexander Polyhistor, who wrote probably
between 80 and 40 b.c.; they form part of a long section (P.E. ix 17–37) in
which Eusebius, naming this work at the beginning, draws on Polyhistor and
often names him again in the text as the source (see chapters 17, 19, 20, 21,
23, 25 and 37). On Moses, Eusebius makes an initial reference to Polyhistor
in chapter 26, and then successively cites Eupolemus, Artapanus and Ezekiel
(chapters 26–9). Clement of Alexandria on Moses (Strom. i 23) had likewise
quoted successively but more briefly from the same passages of Eupolemus,
Artapanus and Ezekiel, in the same order, and had named Alexander Polyhistor
not here but a little earlier (Strom. i 21); probably he also drew on Alexander for
these excerpts (Freudenthal, 12; E. Schürer, revised by M. Goodman, 510–11).
The poet Ezekiel himself then could not have written much later than 40 b.c.
Van De Water, arguing against a pre-Christian date such as this, first stresses
the silence of Philo and Josephus on Ezekiel Tragicus; secondly, he urges that
Eusebius should not be interpreted as citing Alexander here, and was probably
quoting the poet Ezekiel directly; thirdly, he notes that the biblical echoes in
this poetry occasionally suggest the possibility that the author knew a lxx
text revised towards the Hebrew, such as can best be envisaged in the first
century a.d.; finally, he proposes a date for Ezekiel Tragicus in the Christian
era, suggesting that the exaltation of Moses in the dream described in lines
68–89 is a response to Christian exaltation of Christ.
Van De Water’s discussion of Eusebius in particular will be considered in
a moment. To comment on his three other points briefly, it may first be said
that the silence of Philo and Josephus is not decisive; they are similarly silent
on other writing connected with the Pentateuch and current in Greek by the
first century b.c., for example the work of Artapanus, who is unambiguously
quoted from Alexander Polyhistor by Eusebius (P.E. ix 23). Then, to move to
Van De Water’s third point, revision of the lxx towards the Hebrew is certainly
attested by the mid first century a.d., but the process will probably have begun
earlier, as the ordinance against changing the lxx imagined in the Letter
94 Messianism among Jews and Christians

of Aristeas 310–11 suggests. Lastly, exaltation of Moses is not incompatible

with a date before the rise of Christianity, as is suggested by the heightened
portrayal of Moses as king in the lxx Pentateuch and in Philo (Horbury, 49;
chapter 7, below).
The argument that Eusebius has been wrongly understood as quoting
Ezekiel Tragicus through Alexander Polyhistor would be important if valid;
but two of the relevant introductory formulae in Eusebius are hard to interpret
otherwise than as referring, with two main verbs, first to Alexander and
secondly to Ezekiel: P.E. ix 29, 12 ΤoútoiV e̓págei, metá tina tà metaxù
au̓tῷ ei̓rhména, légwn· Τau͂ta dé jhsin oὕtw kaì Ἐzekih͂loV e̓n tῇ
Ἐxagwg ῇ légwn, perì mèn tw͂n shmeíwn tòn Qeòn pareiságwn légonta
oὕtwV· ‘To these things he makes an addition, after some remarks which he
has made in the meanwhile, saying: These things Ezekiel too says in this way,
speaking in the Exagoge, when he brings forward the god speaking about the
signs as follows: …’; P.E. ix 29, 14 Pálin meqʼ ἕtera e̓pilégei· Fhsì dè kaì
Ἐzekih͂loV e̓n tῷ drámati tῷ e̓pigrajoménῳ Ἐxagwgh́, pareiságwn
ἄggelon ‘Again after other things he adds: Ezekiel also says, in the drama
entitled Exagoge, introducing a messenger …’. Translators who interpret the
formulae in this way include Gifford, iii, 471, 473; Holladay, 377, 387, with
notes 136, 187; and Nielsen, 100, 102.
The Greek of these two passages, when understood in this way, seems plainly
expressed. That is hardly the case, however, on the interpretation proposed by
Van De Water, when one subject (Ezekiel) is taken to govern both main verbs
on each occasion. Thus in the first passage, it is awkward to render (with Van
De Water, 62), ‘But saying these things in this manner, after some intervening
remarks, Ezekiel, in the Exagoge, then adds to these concerning the signs,
introducing God speaking as follows’; for Ezekiel, the supposed subject of the
first main verb e̓págei, is not mentioned until he has also been the supposed
subject of the participle légwn as well as the second main verb jhsin. On
this understanding, the Greek is inelegant and verges on obscurity; but it
becomes clear if Alexander is the unnamed subject of the first main verb and
the participle légwn, as is assumed in the punctuation reproduced above. In
the second passage, it seems impossible to construe metá exactly as implied in
the rendering by Van De Water, 63, ‘Again, after he adds other things, Ezekiel,
in the drama entitled Exagoge, also introduces a messenger’; but the rendering
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 95

‘after other things, Ezekiel adds and says’, which avoids this difficulty but keeps
the proposal of a single subject for the two verbs, would still make the Greek
appear abrupt and clumsy—for again the subject is not reached until after the
reader has encountered both main verbs.
On the other hand, with punctuation as reproduced in the Greek quotations
above, implying a separate subject for each verb, the Greek wording in both
cases is terse and lucid. The implied subject of the first verb in each case will
then be Alexander, last mentioned at the end of chapter 25 and the beginning
of chapter 26; some way back, as stressed by Van De Water, but not so far back
as to make the implication unclear. These conclusions from the introductory
formulae in Eusebius are in turn supported by the indication of Alexander as
the source given by the series of quotations from the same passages of the same
three authors in Clement of Alexandria, as noted above. Ezekiel Tragicus must
then be dated no later than the first century b.c.

III

The view that God’s gifts, in lines 35 and 106, are distinctive national privileges
receives confirmation, first, from Rom. 11:29 a̓metamélhta gàr tà
carísmata kaì h̔ klh͂siV tou͂ qeou͂. Paul can use cárisma interchangeably
with a number of other words for ‘gift’, including dẃrhma (Rom. 5:15–16).
In Rom. 11:29 the patriarchs, once again, have just been mentioned (verse
28), and the gifts are the privileges of the Israelites, whose are (Rom. 9:4) ‘the
adoption and the glory and the covenants and the lawgiving and the promises,
whose are the forefathers (patéreV), and from whom is the Christ, according
to the flesh’.
This list combines gifts especially associated with the exodus (the adoption,
the glory and the lawgiving) with the covenants, which recall the patriarchs as
well as Moses, and the promises, which are particularly closely linked with the
patriarchs; the patriarchs and the messiah are then mentioned separately at the
close. The combination of Mosaic and patriarchal themes is of course already
present in the book of Exodus, including the passage (3:6–8) which is echoed
in Ezekiel Tragicus 104–7. Hence, it would not be unreasonable to hold that
the gifts of God in Ezekiel’s tragedy, in both Jochebed’s speech and the divine
96 Messianism among Jews and Christians

speech, are indeed the national covenants granted to the patriarchs. A more
precise identification of the promises in mind will be attempted at the close.
A similar conception of God’s gifts emerges in 1 Clem. 31–2, a passage
which echoes Rom. 9:3. In 1 Clement, as at the end of the list in Rom. 9, the
gifts are identified as the personages whose calling signifies covenanted mercy.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are upheld as examples; and it is then noted that
the greatness of the gifts (tw͂n … dwrew͂n) given by God appears, when one
considers that from Jacob come the priests, the Levites, and the Lord according
to the flesh; kings, rulers and governors in the tribe of Judah; and the seed as
the stars of heaven in the other tribes (1 Clem. 32.1–2).
Romans and 1 Clement perhaps elucidate a third early Christian allusion
to God’s gift, John 4:10. The woman’s question how it comes about that a Jew
should ask drink of a Samaritan woman here receives an answer beginning
‘If you knew the gift of God (th̀n dwreàn tou͂ qeou͂), and who it is that says
to you …’ Once again, the general context is patriarchal, for the well is Jacob’s
(4:5–6, 12); and the woman’s question makes the immediate context national,
an emphasis which continues to be prominent (4:20–2). Hence, the gift is
likely to signify the privilege granted to the Jews in particular, the patriarchal
covenant promising redemption through a messiah (4:26) who, as the
immediately following words in verse 10 imply, is now speaking. ‘If you knew
the gift of God’ could then almost be paraphrased ‘if you knew that salvation
is of the Jews’ (cf. 4:22). In this interpretation, the saying is rather more closely
integrated with its context than it is when the gift is understood either (as by
Barrett) as water, signifying the law, or (as by P. P Sänger in Schneider-Fascher)
as a general, comprehensive term. The word then appears as another instance
of ‘gift’ in the distinctive sense of a Jewish national privilege, with probable
reference to the messiah rather than the law.
In all three of these early Christian instances, then, the gifts are linked, as
in Ezekiel Tragicus, with the patriarchs and the chosen people. In Romans and
John a contrast is implied between the specially privileged Jewish nation and
the gentiles or the Samaritans, respectively. These features, viewed together
with the two occurrences in Ezekiel’s tragedy, confirm that a distinctively
Jewish usage of words for ‘gift’ is reflected or continued in the Christian
sources. H. Odeberg indeed suggested, without reference to Greek sources,
that a Jewish technical term is reproduced at John 4:10. In support he quoted
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 97

a number of rabbinic texts, the most relevant of which will be considered

shortly. Meanwhile Ezekiel Tragicus, taken together with Romans and 1
Clement, shows that his view was essentially correct, and confirms that the
usage was pre-rabbinic. It is not only early Christian literature, however,
which bears out this judgment. Other inner-Jewish evidence, Greek as well
as Hebrew, will now be noted, and the relation of the usage to post-exilic and
later developments in the understanding of the Old Testament covenants will
be briefly discussed.

IV

The pattern of much Jewish reference to God’s giving, in connection with the
patriarchs and the exodus, is found in the Pentateuch. Both in Genesis and in
the narratives of the exodus, the reports of the promises to the fathers are rich
in allusions to giving (see the passages collected by Clines, 31–43). The verb
rather than a noun for ‘gift’ is used, however, and specific benefits are generally
listed, without reference to undefined gifts. In one probably late example,
Jacob’s prayer at Gen. 32:9–12 (the context is J), undefined benefits occur, not
as gifts, but as ‘mercies’ (verse 10). The plural of ḥesed, used here in connection
with the patriarchs, is connected in like fashion with the Davidic covenant
at Isa. 55:3, and in the prayer-passages Ps. 89:50, 2 Chron. 6:42. As would be
expected, and as later evidence confirms, prayer was clearly an important
setting for the preservation and development of references to God’s giving in
connection with the covenants.
The preference exhibited in the Pentateuch for the verb, for specificity, and
for words other than nouns meaning ‘gift’ if generalization occurs, doubtless
owes something to Hebrew idiom as well as to the weight of revered example.
At any rate, the same preference marks many prayers and exhortations of
the Second Temple period which recall God’s giving in connection with the
patriarchs and the exodus. Examples are Neh. 9, Ps. 105, 7–end, 1 Macc.
4:49–61, Abram’s prayer in Genesis Apocryphon, col. xxi (expansion of
Gen. 13:4), Luke 1:68–75, 2 Esd. 3:4–36, Moses’s speech in Josephus, Ant. iii
84–8 (expansion of Exod. 19:25), and the benedictions Hodaʾah (M. Yoma vii
2, R.H. iv 5; corresponding to the seventeenth (eighteenth) benediction of the
98 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Amidah) and Geʾullah (B. Ber. 9b; modern text in Singer—Brodie, 44–5; short
form in B. Ber. 14b).
Despite the absence of words for ‘gift’ from these passages on the patriarchs
and the exodus, they regularly emphasize God’s giving and his benefits. In the
Greek and Roman periods it became natural for Jews to view the deity, like an
earthly ruler, as ‘Euergetes’ (as noted, with reference to Greek-speaking Jews,
by Knox, 28; knowledge of the benefactor-cult among Jews who used Aramaic
is suggested by Mastin, 84). Philo straightforwardly applies the noun to God
(so Op. mundi 169 ‘benefactor of mankind’); Josephus avoids this application,
possibly with something of the distaste evident at Luke 22:25, but uses the
verb, as at Ant. iv 213 (God’s benefits to Israel). It was then not a long step to
introduce nouns for ‘gift’ into biblically-inspired passages on God’s giving. The
association of this vocabulary with solid and palpable benefits is illustrated by
the application of dwreá, in literature and papyri of the Hellenistic age, to a
grant of land in particular (texts of the third century b.c. are cited by Liddell,
Scott, Jones and McKenzie, 464b, s.v.). Somewhat comparably but much later,
Jewish inscriptions at Sardis (perhaps fourth-century a.d.) and elsewhere
speak of the moneys available to donors as dwreaí of God (Rajak, 232, 236–9).
Accordingly, Josephus, who was familiar with the Hellenic notion of an
exchange of gifts between the gods and men (van Unnik, 365), makes the deity
himself, in Amram’s dream, draw attention to his own side of the exchange,
as ‘having granted (dwrhsámenoV) their ancestors to become so great a
multitude from a few’ (Ant. ii 212). Here the divine promise appears to be
understood as a gift, and the passage was therefore well cited in favour of the
interpretation of the ‘gifts’ in Ezekiel Tragicus 106 as the promises by G. B.
Girardi (Di un Dramma Greco-Giudaico nell’ Età Alessandrina (Venice, 1902),
52; not available to me, but cited by Jacobson, 205, n. 49). Nouns for ‘gift’ are
used by Josephus of the special graces afforded to Israel at the exodus (dwreaí,
Ant. iii 14, iv § 212), above all the law (dwreá, Ant. iii 78, 223), the choicest
gift (dẃrhma, iv 318).
Among these passages, Ant. iv 212 is noteworthy, for it recounts the
prescriptions for morning and evening prayer ascribed to Moses. These have
no explicit biblical warrant, but are clearly linked by Josephus with the Shemaʿ,
which he probably knew with the introduction mentioning the exodus found
at Deut. 6:4 in the lxx and the Nash Papyrus. ‘They are to acknowledge to
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 99

God the gifts bestowed upon them, when they were delivered from the land of
Egypt’ (Ant. iv 212). Here the gifts are the benefits to Israel recalled in a prayer
perhaps to be identified as an early form of the benediction Geʾullah, which
now follows the Shemaʿ. Thus, a summary of a prescribed prayer, which might
be expected to follow the Pentateuchal pattern just noted, instead describes the
national privileges as gifts.
Josephus, therefore, uses ‘gift’ in a sense very close to that which, it is argued,
appears in Ezekiel Tragicus. The connection is with the exodus rather than
the patriarchs, but patriarchs and exodus are often and closely linked in the
Pentateuch. In Josephus, as in the tragedian, the gifts are national privileges.
This usage, as is plain in Josephus, fits a characteristically Hellenistic view
of the deity as bestower of gifts, and it correspondingly recalls the Roman
vocabulary of patronage (Spilsbury, 181–91); but at the same time it remains
close to the Pentateuchal emphasis on God as giver.
Philo presents similar phenomena. Two aspects of his usage deserve
mention. First, like Josephus, he can employ ‘gifts’ of God’s benefits to the
nation (dwreá, Praem. et poen. 79, referring to Lev. 26:7, Deut. 28:1, 7). This
can occur, again as in Josephus, in a prayer-passage; the fruits of the promised
land, in a paraphrase of the canticle recited by the bringer of first-fruits (Deut.
26:5–11), are ‘graces and gifts’ (cáriteV kaì dwreaí, Spec. Leg. ii 219).
Secondly, Philo holds that ‘covenants are written for the benefit of those who
are worthy of the gift (dwreá), so that a covenant is a symbol of grace’ (Mut.
nom. 52, in a comment on Gen. 17:2; the same interpretation of a covenant is
given at De sac. Abelis et Caini 57, on Deut. 9:5).
This view of a covenant as symbolizing God’s grace is influential in Philo.
Thus the treatise De migratione Abrahami begins with a consideration (1–127)
of the Abrahamic covenant of Gen. 22:2–3 as comprising five gifts (dwreaí).
Sometimes Philo takes the covenant as God’s gift to the wise (so Mut. nom.
58), but other passages suggest that this is a development of a simpler view, in
which it is, first of all, a gift to those designated as recipients: Noah, and so the
God-beloved (Gen. 9:11 in Somn. ii 224–5); Abraham (Gen. 22:16 in De Abr.
273); or Phinehas (Num. 25:12–13 Spec. Leg. i 57). Hence, like Josephus, but
now in explicit and frequent connection with the patriarchs, Philo presents
the national covenanted privileges as God’s gifts. The usage found in Ezekiel
Tragicus is therefore attested not only by Christian writers likely to reflect or
100 Messianism among Jews and Christians

perpetuate Jewish idiom, but also, directly, by Hellenistic Jewish authors. This
conclusion has been affirmed, since the essay was first published, in a fuller
examination of Philonic usage by A. M. Schwemer, 83, 92–101.

Now, however, the inquiry has touched passages of importance for the
understanding of biblical berît in the Second Temple period. When that
question has been examined, some of the evidence just reviewed has been
differently interpreted. The post-exilic tendency to give berît the sense of
promise or grant, which in the present inquiry appears as another aspect of
the development whereby national privileges came to be described as gifts, has
been considered mainly in its relation to the central content (however defined)
of Old Testament berît. Accordingly, it was claimed by Heinemann that Philo
had no notion of a covenant (Bunde) between God and the patriarchs and
Israel; rather, in some of the passages just cited, he understood diaqh́kh either
as ‘divine attribute’, an idea which could be equated with the Logos, or as ‘last
will’ (Heinemann, 482–4, 564). Behm, on the other hand, held that Philo was
aware of a broader sense of diaqh́kh as ‘disposition’, and that, therefore, he
stood closer to the biblical usage of berît; but that, in his own interpretations,
he exploited the current understanding of the Greek word as ‘will’ (Behm,
131, followed by Jaubert, 314–15, 414–37). It has since been argued, without
special reference to Heinemann, that, despite this exploitation, the broader
sense ‘disposition’ was genuinely important for Philo, and that herein he
followed the sense which was primary for the lxx translators; and they in turn,
it is further suggested, were in this respect true to the central significance of
biblical berît, which should be rendered with terms like ‘promise, disposition,
allotment’ or ‘ordinance’ (Kutsch, 78–83, 85–7). In response, it has been
noted that the lxx rendering may reflect the changing semantics of berît in
the period, rather than the continuation of the understanding thought to be
central in biblical times, and that it may well have to be related to specific
conditions of Hellenistic Judaism (Barr, 35–6). Since this essay first appeared,
the understanding ‘will’ has again been proposed as important for the lxx
translators, but the Ptolemaic currency of provisions for heirs to enjoy the use
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 101

of property while the testator is still alive has at the same time been picked out
as forming one of the associations of diaqh́kh (Schenker, 127–8, 129–31);
even on this view, then, the lxx rendering is implicitly brought a little nearer
to the broader sense ‘disposition’.
Philo is pivotal in this discussion; but in the passages cited by Behm, which
are all among those already considered above, a play on the meaning ‘will’
is either slight and subordinate (Mut. nom. 51 klh͂ron katà diaqh́kaV
a̓poleíyein, Colson ‘to leave a covenanted portion’), or else not clearly
to be identified at all (De sac. 57 and Somn. ii 223–4, where Deut. 9:5 and
Gen. 9:11 are explained, respectively, in the broader terms of granting a gift
noted above). Heinemann himself (483, n. 7) had found the meaning ‘will’
only in the first two of these three passages; he grouped Somn. ii 223–4, 237
with two other places claimed as examples of the meaning ‘divine attribute’,
which could be equated with the Logos (Det. pot. 68, Qu. in Gen. 3.51). In
De somniis ii, however, the sense ‘divine attribute’ emerges only in the course
of the argument, and does not cancel the meaning ‘gift’ picked out above; for
God’s gift (223–4) is said to reflect his nature (237). In the remaining two
passages, diaqh́kh is paralleled with the divine words (Det. pot. 67, taking
up the parallelism of Deut. 33:9c), or interpreted as the divine word (Qu. in
Gen. 3.51, on Gen. 17:13). In each of these three passages diaqh́kh has a less
strongly doctrinal flavour than Heinemann’s summary suggests, but he rightly
avoided classifying the first passage as an instance of the meaning ‘will’.
The meaning ‘will’, therefore, plays at most a subordinate part in one of the
passages cited to exemplify it, and is certainly neither prominent nor regular
in them. These passages, together with others, are better treated as illustrating
Philo’s view of the national privileges as God’s gifts. His connection of diaqh́kh
with gift then appears within a broader context of his thought than is opened
by study of the interpretation of berît, and it becomes questionable from the
first whether, as Heinemann assumed, Philo makes this connection mainly
because he understands diaqh́kh as ‘will’.
The passages witness, instead, to the Philonic view of the covenants as gifts.
This view has been considered, however, in the present connection, precisely
because it is not peculiar to Philo. Rather, both Philo and Josephus share a view
which already appears in Ezekiel Tragicus. Furthermore, the allusive character
of the tragedian’s references to it suggests that it was already traditional in
102 Messianism among Jews and Christians

his time. Hence, it should be reckoned among possible influences on the lxx
rendering. This consideration would favour the view that diaqh́kh was taken
by the lxx translators to signify ‘disposition’ in a broader sense than ‘will’
(Behm, 130; Kutsch, 58–71, 86).
If the lxx rendering was influenced by interpretation of the covenants as
gifts it can readily be related, as Barr suggested, both to the changing semantics
of berît and to the circumstances of Hellenistic Jewry. The Pentateuch in its
completed form leads naturally, as already noted, to a view of the covenants
as gifts; and this completed form may now be judged both to illustrate, and
to have encouraged, a shift in the semantic range of berît towards the sense of
‘grant’, or the like. This view of the covenants, as has also been noted, fits easily
into a Hellenized conception of the deity as a royal benefactor.
The view expressed allusively in Ezekiel Tragicus, and developed in Josephus,
Philo and first-century Christian writers, is therefore probably interrelated
with the late biblical and Septuagintal interpretation of berît. In the Greek
period, the semantic development already evident in the completed form of
the Pentateuch will have encouraged, and have been encouraged by, a view of
the covenants as gifts of the divine benefactor. The age of this traditional view
of the covenants, its agreement with the emphasis of the completed Pentateuch
itself, and its consistency with the conceptions of the deity which became
natural under the Hellenistic monarchies, all combine to suggest that it will
have been widely influential. That its range embraced Palestine as well as the
Diaspora is shown by the rabbinic evidence, which can now be viewed in the
perspective of pre-rabbinic usage.

VI

Two of the rabbinic texts quoted by Odeberg resemble prerabbinic passages

considered above. First, Simeon b. Yohai used to say (according to B. Ber. 5a, in
a passage identified as a baraitha) that three good gifts (mattānôt) were given
by God to Israel, but all of them only through suffering: the Torah, and the
land of Israel, and the world to come. It is here assumed, as in Ezekiel Tragicus,
Josephus, Philo and Paul, that the covenanted privileges are gifts; and a fine
homiletic turn then presents the common assumption as a consolation.
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 103

Secondly, a saying in the name of R. Nathan (late second century a.d.)

distinguishes between conditional and unconditional covenants, as exemplified
by the covenants with David and the Rechabites. In the Mekhilta this saying is
immediately followed by a consideration of things (debārîm) ‘that were given
(nittenû) conditionally—the land of Israel, the temple, and the kingdom of
the house of David’, as contrasted with ‘the book of the law and the covenant
of Aaron, which were not given conditionally’ (Mekhilta, Yitro, Amalek, ii,
on Exod. 18:27; Horovitz—Rabin, 201). The sequence of the two sayings,
and the mention of Aaron’s covenant in the second, mean that the covenants
themselves are viewed as gifts, in the manner exemplified especially fully in
Philo. Further, the covenantal privileges listed as given overlap with those
noted in Paul (law, [temple-] service, messiah, Rom. 9:4–5) and 1 Clement
(the Levitical priesthood, 1 Clem. 32.2).
A further illustration of the currency of the thought of God’s special gifts to
Israel comes from rabbinic interpretation of the place-name Mattanah (Num.
21:19). Its meaning ‘gift’ is applied either to the miraculous well of the wilderness
journey (so Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) or to the gift of Torah (so, with
reference to the individual rather than the nation, M. Abot vi 2, B. Erub. 54a).
Rabbinic passages therefore exhibit an understanding of national privileges
as divine gifts which is continuous with that just studied in pre-rabbinic
usage. This theological idiom was not restricted to Greek-speaking Jews. The
attribution to Simeon b. Yohai (mid second-century Palestine), viewed together
with the examples from Mekhilta and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, suggests that
in this case Josephus probably reflects the usage of his native land as well as
the Diaspora. The idiom will then have been common to Jews with different
vernaculars, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in both Palestine and the Diaspora,
in the latter part of the Second Temple period. Particularly significant of its
importance is its occurrence in summaries of prescribed prayers (Josephus,
Ant. iv 212; Philo, Spec. Leg. ii 219).

VII

The description of national privileges as divine gifts is therefore common

enough to deserve notice in studies of grace in the writings of the Second
104 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Temple period. Such notice seems not to have been widely accorded, to judge
from the silence of the general treatments by Conzelmann and Dittmann.
Similarly, even when Philo on grace has been considered in connection with
the covenant (Jaubert, 431–7) and with thanksgiving (Laporte, 194–246), this
aspect has remained unmentioned.
Here it can only be suggested that the usage surveyed above, in its
concentration on God’s gifts to the nation, exhibits a connection between
Jewish ideas of grace and those of Paul. Paul’s characteristic application of
‘grace’ to redemption through Christ has been held to contrast with Philo’s
broader usage. Philo constantly finds God’s cáriV in his gifts in nature. For
‘gift’ in this sense he often uses dwreá, sometimes also dẃrhma, cáriV itself
(as in Spec. Leg. ii 219, quoted above), and, twice only, cárisma (Leg. all. iii
78, discussed by Moffatt, 114–15). A comparably broad view of God’s giving
also appears in earlier Jewish literature, without special attachment to cáriV
or its Hebrew equivalents (so, for example, Letter of Aristeas 205 [Laporte,
198–9] or Eccles. 3:13, 5:18). Paul, on the other hand, uses cáriV above all
for redemption through Christ, and cárisma (which he can also apply to
redemption, Rom. 5:15–16) for a spiritual rather than a natural gift.
The novelty of Pauline usage has therefore been emphasized (for example,
with reference to cárisma, by Moffatt, 105, Dörrie, col. 316, and Knoch, col.
353). Nevertheless, in the Jewish usage surveyed above, God’s gifts are those
imparted to his people whom he wills to redeem (cf. Ezekiel Tragicus 106–7).
Accordingly, his gifts in Philo, who shares this usage, are by no means only
the gifts of nature. Hence, if consideration of Paul is broadened beyond the
etymologically linked cáriV and cárisma to include other words for ‘gift’ it
seems that the characteristically Pauline uses of ‘grace’ and ‘gift’ for redemption
through God’s messiah are developments of this Jewish theological idiom.
Thus, when Paul explores the antecedents of ‘this grace’ (Rom. 5:1), in Rom.
4 and Gal. 3 he gives a re-interpretation of the association of God’s gifts to
the nation with the patriarchs and the covenantal promises (see especially
Ezekiel Tragicus and Philo, sections I and II above). Similarly, the Pauline
application of ‘gift’, and of ‘grace’ in the sense of ‘gift’, to redemption through
Christ, is a special instance of the habitual Jewish reference to national gifts.
These could include covenantal grant (Ezekiel Tragicus, Philo, Rom. 9); the
gifts of the exodus deliverance, including the law (Josephus, Rom. 9, Targum
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 105

Pseudo-Jonathan, B. Ber. 5a); and the messiah and the world to come (Rom.
9, B. Ber. 5a, Mekhilta). The cárisma of Rom. 5:15–16, where the gift is ‘this
grace’ (Rom 5:1) of redemption, received by the called and chosen (Rom. 1:6–
7, 9:24–6), therefore specializes cárisma as used for the privileges of Israel in
Rom. 11:29 (cf. Rom. 9:4–5). (That Rom. 11:29 illuminates the beginning of
the Pauline development of cárisma is suggested by Conzelmann, 394, n. 10;
his view may be strengthened if, as argued here, Rom. 11:29 itself reproduces
current Jewish usage.) To move from cárisma to dwreá, the ‘unspeakable
gift’ of 2 Cor. 9:15 includes, as Barrett notes ad loc., a reference to ‘the grace of
our Lord’ mentioned at 2 Cor. 8:9, where cáriV has the sense of ‘generosity’;
but this moral quality of Christ, mentioned also at Rom. 5:15, is taken by
Paul, as the latter verse makes clear, to reflect the prior, redemptive ‘grace of
God and the gift’ (h̔ cáriV tou͂ qeou͂ kaì h̔ dwreá, Rom. 5:15). Hence, this
characteristically Pauline view of God’s grace and gifts, in all its freshness and
intensity, appears as a special development of that Jewish view of national
privileges as God’s gifts which was already traditional for Ezekiel Tragicus.

VIII

In conclusion, it may be possible to specify more closely the particular

covenantal gifts in view in Ezekiel Tragicus 106. The whole line echoes a regular
item of biblical covenantal terminology, the remembering of the patriarchs
and the covenant. This remembering gained liturgical embodiment in an old
element of the New Year services, the recitation of ‘remembrance-verses’—a
catena of biblical texts employing zkr—as a prayer for divine remembrance;
it forms the second in the triad of similarly-composed prayers inserted into
the Amidah, known as malkuyyôt, zikrônôt, šôfārôt (M. R. H. iv 5–6). The
existence of this prayer at the time of the compilation of the Mishnah implies
prior recognition that an appreciable number of Pentateuchal texts can be
classified as ‘remembrance-verses’, and suggests that special attention to these
verses will have been customary for some time. Such attention would be a
natural response to their prominence in the Pentateuch, where the P passages
on remembering the covenant are in some respects strikingly similar to the
praises of God in the psalter for his remembrance (Childs, 41–4, citing, among
106 Messianism among Jews and Christians

other texts, Exod. 6:5, 8 and Ps. 105:8). It is therefore reasonable to suppose,
without implying a particular date of origin for the zikrônôt-prayer, that the
remembrance-verses were already attracting attention as such towards the
end of the second century b.c., at the time of Ezekiel Tragicus. That such
attention is conceivable in the Greek-speaking Diaspora as well as Palestine is
confirmed by Wis. 18:22, where one such verse, Exod. 32:13, forms the basis of
a midrashic insertion into the narrative of Num. 17:6–15 (16:41–50).
Among the remembrance-verses recalled by Ezekiel Tragicus 106 are Exod.
2:24 (just before the biblical passage already invoked by the neighbouring lines
of the tragedy), Exod. 6:5, 8 and Lev. 26:42, 45. Unlike the line in the tragedy,
however, which speaks of remembering the forefathers and remembering the
gifts, in that order, these verses mention the covenant first, and in Leviticus
the patriarchs are named in order of juniority rather than of seniority, again by
contrast with the play (line 105). A closer parallel is afforded by another verse,
already mentioned, Exod. 32:13. Here Moses beseeches the Lord to remember
Abraham, Isaac and Israel (line 106, mnhsqeìV dʼ e̓keínwn), to whom he
swore to multiply their seed and to give their seed the land (line 106, kaì ἔtʼ
e̓mw͂n dwrhmátwn). In these lines of the tragedy, however, the divine speeches
from the beginnings of Exod. 3 and 6 are coalesced (as noted by Jacobson,
98). It may then be suggested that the basis of line 106 lies, in the first place,
in Exod. 6:3–5. This passage relates, successively, how God appeared to the
three patriarchs, established his covenant with them, and now remembers his
covenant. Here the order is that of line 106, but the singular covenant, even
though a plurality of covenants is perhaps implied by the mention of three
patriarchs, contrasts with the plural ‘gifts’ of the play. Further, again by contrast
with the play, the covenant alone is said to be remembered, and the divine
appearing, on which the play is silent, receives emphasis. These discrepancies
may then suggest that, in the second place, as a summary of the longer passage
ending with God’s remembrance, the tragedian took the remembrance-
verse Exod. 32:13, and made it the immediate pattern of his line. This verse
is quoted in the (probably fifth-century) zikrônôt of Yose ben Yose (ʾepḥad
bemaʿaśay, lines 52–5, in Mirsky, 102–3); and in Wisd. 18:22, as already noted,
it influenced a narrative based on Numbers. In a somewhat comparable way,
it is now suggested, Exod. 32:13 influenced a speech based on Exod. 3 and 6.
The ‘gifts’ in mind in Ezekiel Tragicus 106 could then be identified, from Exod.
32:13, as the sworn promises of seed and land.
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 107

Recognition of a Jewish theological idiom in Ezekiel Tragicus 106 has led

to various conclusions, which can now be summarized. Some are directly
exegetical, others bear on the development of the biblical ideas of covenant
and grace.
First, it has appeared that ‘gifts’ in Ezekiel Tragicus 106 need not be taken as
‘gifts to God’ and that the line stands in no need of conjectural emendation. By
‘gifts’ were meant, as in line 35, the national privileges given by God through
the patriarchal covenants; and the promises of increase and of the land were
probably especially in view (cf. Exod. 32:13).
Ezekiel Tragicus is an early witness to this application of words for ‘gift’
to the covenantal privileges of Israel. The allusive character of his usage
suggests that it was already traditional. This view of its age is consistent with
its widespread attestation at the end of the Second Temple period, both among
Greek-speaking Jews (see Philo and Josephus) and among those who used
Hebrew or Aramaic (see the rabbinic texts). A wide currency is also suggested
by its appearance, in Philo and Josephus, in summaries of prescribed prayers.
This Jewish usage was reproduced by St. Paul (Rom. 11:29; cf. Rom. 9:4–5),
and extended in 1 Clement. It offers an explanation of the ambiguous ‘gift of
God’ in John 4:10, which should then probably be taken as a reference to the
messiah rather than the law.
To turn, secondly, to the idea of the covenant, it has been suggested above
that the early development of the usage here surveyed should be viewed
together with the post-exilic semantic development of berît towards the sense
of ‘grant’ or ‘disposition’. Both developments were probably indebted in the
same way to biblical thought as well as the Zeitgeist; the completed form of the
Pentateuch set the covenants in the context of divine giving, and in the Greek
period it became natural for Jews to envisage the deity as a kingly benefactor.
The thought of the covenants as gifts to the nation may already have influenced
the choice of the translation diaqh́kh in the lxx. The Philonic passages which
have been thought to exploit the meaning of diaqh́kh as ‘will’ seem rather to
exemplify the understanding of the covenants as gifts which has been under
review.
Lastly, this Jewish understanding of covenanted privileges as God’s gifts has
appeared as a neglected antecedent of Pauline views of grace. The contrast
somtimes drawn between the Philonic and the Pauline treatments of grace
should be modified, for both are indebted to the Jewish theological idiom
108 Messianism among Jews and Christians

studied here. Paul’s characteristic use of ‘grace’ and ‘gift’ for the messianic
redemption received by God’s chosen develops the widespread Jewish use
of ‘gifts’ for the covenantal grants and promises of Israel’s redeemer. This
Jewish usage, with the special assurance of God’s favour to his people which it
expresses, had already moulded lines 106–7 in Ezekiel Tragicus.

Literature

J. Barr, ‘Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant’, in H. Donner, R. Hanhart and

R. Smend (eds.), Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther
Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen, 1977), 23–38
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd edn., London, 1978)
———, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1973)
J. Behm, diaqh́kh, TWNT ii (Stuttgart, 1935), 127–37
B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London, 1962)
D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (1978, repr. Sheffield, 1982)
F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (trans.), Philo v (1934, repr. London and
Cambridge, MA, 1968)
H. Conzelmann and W. Zimmerli, cáriV, cárisma, TWNT ix (Stuttgart, 1973),
363–397
H. Dittmann, H. Dörrie, O. Knoch and A. Schindler, ‘Gnade’, RAC xi (Stuttgart,
1979–80), cols. 313–446
J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Heft 1 & 2, Alexander Polyhistor und die von
ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau,
1875)
E. H. Gifford (ed. and trans., with notes), Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis
Libri xv (Oxford, 4 vols. in 5, 1903)
I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung (Breslau, 1932)
C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, ii, Poets (Atlanta, 1989)
W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin (eds.), Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael (Frankfurt am Main,
1931, repr. Jerusalem, 1960)
H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge, 1983)
A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme aux abords de l’ère chrétienne (Paris,
1963)
W. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939)
 The Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian 109

E. Kutsch, Neues Testament—Neuer Bund? Eine Fehlübersetzung wird korrigiert

(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978)
J. Laporte, La doctrine eucharistique chez Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1972)
H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, new edition by H. S. Jones and
R. McKenzie (Oxford, 1925–40)
B. A. Mastin, ‘Daniel 246 and the Hellenistic World’, ZAW lxxxv (1973), 80–93
A. Mirsky (ed.), Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem, 1977)
J. Moffatt, Grace in the New Testament (London, 1931)
F. Nielsen, ‘Tragediedigteren Ezekiel. Introduktion og oversaettelse’, Dansk Teologisk
Tidsskrift lxii (1999), 81–105
H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala, 1929)
T. Rajak, ‘The Gifts of God at Sardis’, in M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman
World (Oxford, 1998), 229–39
A. Schenker, ‘Δiaqἡkh pour berit. L’option de traduction de la LXX à la double
lumière du droit successoral de l’Égypte ptolémaïque et du livre de la Genèse’,
in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift
P.-M. Bogaert (BETL cxliv, Leuven, 1999), 125–31
J. Schneider and E. Fascher, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Berlin, 1976)
E. Schürer, revised by M. Goodman, ‘Jewish Literature Composed in Greek’, in
E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd–4th edn.,
Leipzig, 1901–9); ET The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, M. Goodman and P. Vermes, iii.1
(Edinburgh, 1986), 470–704
A. M. Schwemer, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der
jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistischrömischer Zeit’, in F. Avemarie
and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte
in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT xcii,
Tübingen, 1996), 67–109
S. Singer and I. Brodie (eds.), The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the British Commonwealth (London, 5722–1962)
P. Spilsbury, ‘God and Israel in Josephus: a Patron-Client Relationship’, in S. Mason
(ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series xxxii, Sheffield, 1998), 172–91
W C. van Unnik, ‘Eine merkwürdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jos Ant 8,
111–13)’, in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (eds.), Josephus-Studien Otto
Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Göttingen, 1974), 362–9
R. Van De Water, ‘Moses’ Exaltation: Pre-Christian?’, Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha xxi (2000), 59–69
 3

Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’

Ancient accounts of Herod’s temple often pass over the name of Herod. He is
named as builder neither in Mishnah, Middoth, nor by Philo in his description
(Spec. Leg. i 71–8; cf. Leg. ad Gaium 294–7), nor by Tacitus or Cassius Dio,
nor even by Josephus when not following Nicolas of Damascus; the long
description in book v of the War names Solomon as founder of the temple, but
Herod only as builder of Antonia (Josephus, B.J. v 185, 238).
These silences can readily be ascribed to the negative views of Herod
expressed by Josephus and in rabbinic and Christian sources, and reflected
in Strabo’s reference to Jewish ‘hatred towards Herod’ as the justification
for Antony’s execution of Antigonus (in a passage quoted by Josephus, Ant.
xv 9–10). Other reasons for silence can be envisaged, however, including
in different cases the biblically-influenced and traditional character of the
narratives or the writer’s sense that the building was a communal achievement.
Moreover, as will be seen in a moment, the silence is broken not only when
Josephus follows Nicolas, but also when the story of the building of the
sanctuary recurs in rabbinic narrative.
E. Bammel has drawn attention to the political value of the temple, and
in particular its official oversight, for the house of Herod and Herodian
supporters.1 The accounts of Herod’s temple may therefore suitably introduce
some reconsideration of Herodian kingship in its Jewish setting. The
concentration of historiography on Judaea and its movements of revolt against
Rome tends to highlight aspects of the house of Herod which were or were
regarded as non-Jewish. Herodian kingship should also be viewed against its
broader Jewish background, with fuller reference to the diaspora and to likely

1
E. Bammel, ‘The Trial before Pilate’, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His
Day (Cambridge, 1984), 423–4, 446; and in a review of M. D. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea
(Cambridge, 1987) in JTS N.S. xl (1989), 213–17 (215); on Josephus on Herod’s temple, see J. W. van
Henten, Judean Antiquities 15: Translation and Commentary (BJP 7B, Leiden & Boston, 2014).
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 111

differences of attitude among Jews at home as well as abroad, so that areas of

merging as well as contrast gain due prominence.2
A small step in this direction is at any rate attempted here. Some of the
narratives of the building of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem, and Persius’ lines on
‘Herod’s days’ in Rome, are considered as foci of positive associations between
the house of Herod and the Jews of the Roman empire.
The desiderata just outlined are of course not ignored by historians, and
they are prominent in the relatively short pre-war treatments of the house
of Herod by H. Willrich and A. Momigliano; more recently, A. Schalit has
monumentally presented Herod the Great as a Hellenistic monarch imbued
with Augustan ideology, but one sufficiently aware of Jewish feeling to foster
a Herodian messianism as the analogue to a ruler-cult, and one whose
achievements entitle him to be recognized as a king of Israel; while M. Stern,
dissenting from this recognition, has nevertheless indicated many connections
as well as conflicts between the Herods and their Judaean Jewish subjects.3 In
Schalit’s book, however, although Hellenism is central, the claims of political
history accord less prominence to the discussion of Jewish Hellenism, a
debate also relevant to assessment of Herodian kingship (and Schalit wrote
before M. Hengel’s contributions to this debate). Moreover, here and in Stern’s
writing the emphasis still lies mainly on Judaea, as is naturally also true of the
treatment of hostility to the Herods in work on the antecedents of the Judaean
revolt of 66–70 by Hengel and Goodman (see nn. 1 and 2, above).
Since the present essay first appeared, D. Mendels has reviewed Herodian
monarchy in the context of ancient Jewish nationalism, and the diaspora and
Hellenism have received fuller attention from P. Richardson, with a relatively
favourable reassessment of Herod the Great and an affirmation of his Jewishness

2
With regard to Herod the Great, this point has been noted by M. Hengel, The Zealots (ET Edinburgh,
1989), 323–4, n. 68 and (since the present essay first appeared) by P. Richardson, Herod. King of the
Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia, SC, 1996; reissued Edinburgh, 1999), xiii, 45, 53, 62,
93–4.
3
H. Willrich, Das Haus des Herodes zwischen Jerusalem und Rom (Heidelberg, 1929); A. Momigliano,
‘Herod of Judaea’, ‘Rebellion within the Empire’, sections iv–vii, and ‘Josephus as a Source for the
History of Judaea’, in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock and M. P. Charlesworth (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient
History x (Cambridge, 1934, repr. 1971), 316–39, 849–65, 884–7 (the general standpoint differs
from that of Momigliano’s post-war work; see n. 37, below); A. Schalit, König Herodes (Berlin,
1969; a revised and enlarged version of the text originally issued in modern Hebrew, Jerusalem,
1960); M. Stern, ‘A. Schalit’s Herod’, JJS xi (1960), 49–58, and (among other writings) ‘The Reign of
Herod’ and ‘The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judea at the End of the Period of the Second
Temple’, in M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baras (eds.), The Herodian Period (= The World History of the Jewish
People, First Series, Volume vii) (London, 1975), 71–178.
112 Messianism among Jews and Christians

(n. 2, above), and from N. Kokkinos, with a contrasting portrayal of the Herods,
against the background of F. Millar’s exploration of local Syrian cultures, as an
alien line of Hellenized Phoenician descent; but in Mendels the inadequacy of
a Herodian claim to Jewish kingship is underlined, in Richardson the contrasts
between Jewish life in diaspora and homeland emerge more clearly than the
similarities, and in Kokkinos the ancient endeavours to dissociate the Herods
from the Jewish community are naturally re-emphasized.4 Hence, although
S. J. D. Cohen has reaffirmed Herod’s Jewishness, in the sense of his membership
of the community revering the God whose temple is in Jerusalem, it is perhaps
still useful to recall in outline some of the evidence for more positive Jewish
acknowledgement of Herodian kingship, and to note once more the long-
recognized overlap of attitudes between the diaspora and Judaea.5
Estimates of public opinion must of course reckon with a probable
difference between the homeland, where revolts broke out in Idumaea, Judaea,
Peraea and Galilee on the death of Herod the Great, and the diaspora, where
Herodian monarchs were valued as protectors of the Jews. Among Judaean
and Galilaean Jews themselves, however, opinion will also have varied; it is
likely that the division between rich and poor emphasized by Josephus, and
the overlapping division between town and country, often corresponded to a
difference in attitudes to the Herodian government.
Some Jews were supporting the house of Herod in Judaea and Galilee
before Herod the Great established his reign. When he was fighting for the
crown between 40 and 37 he found Jewish partisans in Galilee, Idumaea and
Judaea (especially Jericho); and Jerusalem itself—where leading Pharisees
urged submission to Herod—was divided (Josephus, B.J. i 291–3, 319, 326,
335, 358, parallel with Ant. xiv 395–8, 436, 450, 458, xv 2–3). At the capture
of the city the Jewish attacking forces were as hard to restrain as the Romans

4
D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York, 1992), 213–23; Richardson, Herod,
264–6; N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield, 1998), especially 342–62; F. Millar, The Roman
Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA and London, 1993), especially 235, 345, 351–66.
5
S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London, 1999), 23; on overlap of home and diaspora opinion see for example,
E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, iii (4th edn., Leipzig, 1909), 188–9
(‘Palestinian’ Judaism can be found outside as well as inside Palestine, and ‘Hellenistic’ Judaism inside
as well as outside); W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1948; 5th edn., Mifflintown, PA, 1998),
1–16 (6–7, reciprocal interchange of thought between Palestine and the diaspora); on a Herodian
halakhic instance, E. Bammel, ‘Markus 10 11f. und das jüdische Eherecht’, ZNW lxi (1970), 95–101
(divorce initiated by the wife, as by Herod the Great’s sister Salome in her marriage with Costobar,
was known in Jewish Palestine as well as the diaspora, despite its condemnation as un-Jewish by
Josephus, Ant. xv 259).
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 113

(B.J. i 351 = Ant. xiv 479). Since this essay first appeared, I. Shatzman’s
reassessment of Josephus’ reports on the Herodian forces has shown that the
majority of Herod’s army at the siege of Jerusalem were Jews.6
Thereafter, Jerusalem and Jericho will always have had their wealthy
Herodian constituency (strengthened by the foundation of Phasaelis and
Archelais in the region of Jericho); but it is also notable that the long periods of
Herodian rule in the northern tetrarchies found response in the nomenclature
of more prosperous Jews. The name Herod is attested in Tiberias in 66 (two
leading citizens of that name are mentioned by Josephus, Vita, 33), and, much
later on, in inscriptions perhaps of the fourth century at Capernaum and Beth
She’arim; Philip of Bethsaida (John 1:45, 12:21), like the Herods of Tiberias,
can have been named after the tetrarch who was also city-founder.7 ‘Herodians’,
best understood as supporters of the house of Herod (with H. H. Rowley, n.
31, below), are envisaged both in Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark 3:6, 12:13).
Moreover, Jewish town-dwellers in particular were regularly at close
quarters with gentiles, as at Caesarea or Scythopolis, so that a diaspora-like
situation, in which a Jewish king could be valued, was reproduced in the
homeland. Correspondingly, Herod the Great could be remembered as a
Jewish king and benefactor by the wealthy Jewish community of Caesarea, who
argued that this largely gentile city was theirs, since its founder was a Jewish
king (Josephus, B.J. ii 266). In the diaspora itself, Babylonia and Alexandria
contributed important groups of Herodian adherents (see Stern, as cited in

6
The vast majority of Jews supported Antigonus, in the judgment of M. Stern, ‘Social and Political
Realignments in Herodian Judaea’, The Jerusalem Cathedra ii (1982), 40–62 (40–1); this view
has also been taken, since the first appearance of the present essay, by M. Goodman, ‘Judaea’, in
A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition,
x, The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.-A.D. 69 (Cambridge, 1996), 740. Herodian numbers may indeed
be exaggerated in Josephus, based on Nicolas of Damascus (as in the case of Galilee, according to
Schalit, Herodes, 90—now questioned by I. Shatzman, as cited below); but the Jewish population was
clearly divided, and the significance for this point of the zeal of the Jewish captors of Jerusalem, not
mentioned by Stern, is brought out by Schalit, 173, n. 95. For the Jewish majority in Herod’s own
forces in 37 see I. Shatzman, The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod (TSAJ 25, Tübingen, 1991),
153 n. 98, 163–4.
7
For the inscriptions see B. Lifschitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Paris, 1967),
61, no. 75 (= CIJ ii, no. 983) (donor of column at Capernaum), and M. Schwabe and B. Lifschitz,
Beth Sheʾarim, ii, The Greek Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1967), 17, no. 56; these names suggest some
qualification of Goodman, Ruling Class, 122, n. 16, where the failure of ordinary Jews to take
Herodian names is contrasted with gentile willingness to take the name Agrippa under Agrippa II,
but this evidence (indicating a similar Jewish inclination in Herodian territory) is unmentioned.
Agrippa II will have been in view when Josephus named a son Agrippa (V. 5; 427), as is underlined
in two works of importance for the later Herods which were not available when this essay was first
written: S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition,
xviii, Leiden, 1990), 12; D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I (TSAJ xxiii, Tübingen, 1990), 157, n. 41.
114 Messianism among Jews and Christians

n. 6, above), and Herodian supporters and nomenclature reappear in Rome

(see Rom. 16:10–11 and section II (c), below). Many of Herod the Great’s
descendants gained added prestige from Hasmonaean high-priestly ancestry
(which Agrippa I is represented as valuing particularly in Philo, Leg. ad Gaium
278); and the acclaim which these Herodian princes could receive from Jews
both at home and abroad, in Judaea, Alexandria, the Greek islands and Italy,
is loud and clear in the cases of Mariamme’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus,
and her grandson Agrippa I.
Recognition of the Herods has therefore left widespread traces in the
evidence for the unified but varied ancient Jewish community, in which
differences of standing and outlook often traversed the difference between
homeland and diaspora. The texts considered below against this background
come from a dossier which has often been examined. Thus, M. Stern’s summary
of the claims of Herod the Great to be viewed as a Jewish king largely overlaps
with seventeenth-century argument for the Jewishness of Herod, itself a
reaction against the treatment of Herod as an alien in patristic interpretation
of Gen. 49:10 on the departure of the sceptre from Judah.8
Here two items in Stern’s summary are reviewed again. The narratives of
the temple-building in Josephus and rabbinic literature are compared and
studied with regard to Herodian publicity; the possible link between the
renewed temple and ‘the days of Herod’ mentioned by Persius is re-examined;
and exegesis of the relevant texts is connected with the broader discussion of
Herodian kingship against the Jewish background sketched above. It is urged
below that Persius is a further witness to the Jewish observation of Herodian
festivals attested by Josephus; and that these passages confirm the importance
of the more favourable Jewish attitudes to the house of Herod, bring out the
significance of Herod’s temple as a royal sanctuary, and illuminate the contacts
between Herodian kingship ideology and Jewish messianism.

8
M. Stern, ‘The Reign of Herod’, 110–11; cf. F. Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica (2 vols., Geneva, 1639),
ii, 225–55, summarizing the debate initiated by J. J. Scaliger’s assertion of Herod’s Jewish descent
(cited in n. 31, below). Justin Martyr and Eusebius (cited in n. 18, below) viewed Herod’s allegedly
Ascalonite origin respectively as an objection to and a support for the claim that Christ came when
the sceptre had departed from Judah; this interpretation of Gen. 49:10 is made to rest, rather, on
Herod’s Idumaean descent in the version of Josephus’ account of the deputations to Augustus
concerning Herod’s will in the fourth-century Christian Latin Hegesippus, Historiae, ii 1, 2. Herod is
called alienigena without further specification in the interpretations of Gen. 49:10 in the same sense
by Rufinus, De Benedictionibus Patriarcharum i 7 and Augustine, De Civitate Dei xviii 45 (translated
with further Augustinian material in Ad. Posnanski, Schiloh I (Leipzig, 1904), 71–5).
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 115

I. Narratives of the building of the temple

(a) Josephus
When Josephus follows Nicolas, and presents Herod as the king of the Jews
building the Jerusalem temple (B.J. i 400–1, Ant. xv 380–425), he echoes
court publicity in which three royal associations of the enterprise are heavily
underlined. First, in Herod’s speech to the people beforehand, it is represented
that the Jews’ own king is restoring the temple to the height originally planned
by Solomon. (Regret for the fall of Solomon’s temple, which ‘was high’, and
hope that a future temple will be very high, is reflected at 2 Chron. 7:21; 1 En.
90:29; Sib. v 425.) The forefathers who rebuilt and maintained it after the exile
had to be content with the reduced dimensions prescribed by their foreign
overlords, Cyrus and Darius and others, in a time of necessity and subjection.
Now, however, under Herod, there is peace, prosperity, and friendship with
the universally powerful Romans, as opposed to servitude under the Persians
and Macedonians, and the king can perform the pious duty of restoration
(Ant. xv 385–7).
Significantly, the Macedonians are mentioned, but the Maccabees are not.
This silence is emphasized by the insertion of a reference to the Maccabees
in the tenth-century Jewish paraphrase of this speech in Josippon (50.15–17
in the edition by D. Flusser, i (Jerusalem, 1978), 227). Here it is said that they
won freedom and kingship—the points on which Herodian silence is to be
expected—but could not rebuild the temple—a point which was indeed made
in Herodian publicity (Herod’s speech in Jericho in Josephus, Ant. xvii 162,
quoted below). Those speaking for and under the Herods, however, no doubt
thought it better, if possible, not to mention the Hasmonaean house at all.
Secondly, and consistently with the emphasis in the foregoing on Herodian
deliverance from national servitude, the rebuilt temple signified Jewish victory
under a conquering Jewish king. King Herod dedicated ‘barbarian spoils’
which were fixed round about the whole new sanctuary, with the addition of
those he had taken from the Arabs (Ant. xv 402). ‘Barbarian’ is no doubt a
well-worn substitute for ‘enemy’ in this connection (cf. Virgil, Aeneid ii 504),
but here it seems to have both a Roman and a Jewish reference. Herod had
helped to repulse the Parthians and their allies, the barbarians particularly
feared in Rome, and had taken booty from them; they are repeatedly called
116 Messianism among Jews and Christians

bárbaroi in the previous book of the Antiquities (e.g xiv 341, 347, 441–5,
following Roman usage, in these passages probably mediated by Nicolas, but
also adopted by Josephus himself, see B.J. i 3). Moreover, the rebuilding of
the temple began in 20 b.c., when Augustus visited Syria, added to Herod’s
territory, and by a display of force in Armenia compelled the Parthian king
Phraates IV to restore Roman spoils and standards; this great capitulation was
marked by publicity including coins, sculpture, and many references in the
poets (e.g. Horace, Od. iv 15, 4–8).9
It is likely, then, that ‘barbarian spoils’ are meant to recall the Herodian
Jewish contribution to this vaunted achievement of the Augustan peace. At
the same time, indeed, Herod was building his temple to Augustus at Paneas
(Josephus, Ant. xv 363–5). Herod had also, however, fought traditional
enemies of the Jews in his ultimately victorious war against the Nabataean
Arabs, who had twice defeated Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Ant. xiii 375,
392, xv 147–60). Here, therefore, Herod had beaten the Hasmonaean record,
and ‘barbarian’ could allude to enemies of the Jews, as in 2 Macc. 2:21, 10:4, and
to the Arabs in particular, as in Josephus, B.J. i 274. The spoils could therefore
legitimately recall, as Herod’s speech on the temple restoration is represented
as doing, specifically Jewish victory within the context of Roman friendship.
The emphases represented in the speech and the adornment of the temple
therefore stamp a Herodian impress on the themes of the deliberately
unmentioned Hasmonaean Hanukkah, which recalled how the Maccabees
‘put the barbarian hordes to flight, … recovered the temple …, and freed the
city’ (2 Macc. 2:21–2, cf. 10:1–8). Herod, king of the Jews, has given them,
again and in fuller measure, victory over barbarian enemies and liberty from
alien rule; and—what is more than the recovery of the temple commemorated
at Hanukkah—he has restored the house of God to its former Solomonic
glory. Conditions in fact answer to the zealotically-tinged ideal sketch of
the time of David and Solomon later given in 2 Baruch: ‘much blood of the
nations that had sinned then was shed, and many offerings were offered at the
dedication of the sanctuary. And peace and tranquillity reigned at that time’
(Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 61:2–3).

9
See J. G. C. Anderson in Cambridge Ancient History, x (1934), 262–3; passages from Horace,
Propertius and Ovid on the return of the standards are listed by E. S. Gruen in Cambridge Ancient
History, Second Edition, x (1996), 191–2, nn. 235, 238, 240.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 117

Hence, thirdly, the context is not unfitting for the claim in the speech that
the temple is the king’s act of piety towards God, in return for having obtained
the kingdom—which, with the divine will and counsel, he has brought to
prosperity (Josephus, Ant. xv 383, 387). The themes are at once Graeco-
Roman and characteristically Jewish. Herod displays the eusebeia which was
a prime quality of the Hellenistic monarch (as emphasized by the Jewish sages
in the Letter of Aristeas, 255, 261 and elsewhere), and which was eminently
shown by Augustus, the great restorer of temples.10 It was indeed claimed by
the house of Herod in the title eusebes which was used by Agrippa I and II,
and already by Herod the Great himself (as has been shown since the first
appearance of this essay by a fresh reading of an inscribed lead weight from
Azotus).11 eusebeia is further presented in the War as Herod the Great’s own
notable quality, when he plans the temple restoration and also (in a speech
ascribed to him in his rebuilt temple) when, eight years later, he names his
successors (Josephus, B.J. i 400, 462, cf. Ant. xvi 132–3). The restoration of
the Jerusalem temple is understood in the earlier speech as part of a divine—
human exchange of benefits, a Graeco-Roman concept (as exemplified in
n. 10, above) which had entered Jewish piety in convergence with the later
biblical references to divine gifts, studied in chapter 2, above; thus, in David’s
prayer in 1 Chron. 29:14, his offerings for Solomon’s temple are a return of
God’s gifts, and the opening of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the
temple (1 Kings 8:23 = 2 Chron. 6:14) includes in Josephus a contrasting
recognition that it is impossible to recompense God in the exchange (Ant. viii
111, see n. 10, above).

10
Hailed, for example, as a benefactor who has put the gods themselves under an obligation, in
Ovid, Fasti ii 59–64 (especially 63–4 templorum positor, templorum sancte repostor | sit superis,
opto, mutua cura tui); closer to Jewish emphasis on the priority of the divine side of the exchange
(in agreement with the Stoic view that God needs nothing, Letter of Aristeas 211, Acts 17:25) is
the recommendation of Augustus’ restoration policy in Horace, Od. iii 6, 1–5 delicta maiorum
immeritus lues | Romane, donec templa refeceris.| … dis te minorem quod geris, imperas. For the
Greek background of the concept of exchange of benefits see W. C. van Unnik, ‘Eine merkwürdige
liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jos Ant 8, 111–113)’, in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (eds.),
Josephus-Studien (Göttingen, 1974), 362–9 (364–6).
11
Inscriptions of Agrippa I and II (notably OGIS 419, from Sia in the Hauran, giving both father
and son the title eusebes) are quoted by Schürer, Geschichte, ET, i, revised by M. Black, G. Vermes
and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973), 452 n. 42, 475 n. 15 (on Herodian Sia see Millar, The Roman Near
East, 38, 394–6); for eusebes in the titulature of Herod the Great see A. Kushnir-Stein, ‘An Inscribed
Lead Weight from Ashdod: a Reconsideration’, ZPE cv (1995), 81–4. Temple-oriented Herodian
eusebeia is further considered by the present writer, ‘Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen
Judentum’, in B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel (Tübingen, 1999),
149–68, repr. in Horbury, Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study, 59–79.
118 Messianism among Jews and Christians

In accord with the Jewish overtones of the passage Schalit, followed

by A. Hultgård and Th. A. Busink, finds a Davidic messianism behind
the references to God’s favour to the king; and although, as Stern shows, it
is unlikely that Herod claimed Davidic descent, he is presented here as a
divinely appointed and guided king who is a second and perhaps still greater
Solomon (in his building, comparably, as Busink notes, his retention of the old
‘Solomon’s Porch’ will have designedly set off the greater size and splendour
of his own new work).12 The comparison with Solomon is reinforced in the
Antiquities, where the account of Herod’s temple is preceded by the story of
the Essene prophecy that he would be king of the Jews and enjoy exceptional
good fortune until the end of his life, when his neglect of piety and justice
would bring down the divine wrath (xv 373–9); Solomon, likewise, prospered
by divine providence until idolatry brought wrath upon him (1 Kings 11 as
interpreted in Josephus, Ant. viii 190–211). Further, Herod erected a marble
monument at the tomb of David and Solomon (Ant. xvi 182–3). Herod is
therefore presented as a divinely blessed king of the Jews, a king whose work
approximates to that of the divinely promised royal deliverer of the people—a
king, that is, over whom the aureole of messianism must hover.
Messianism in the Herodian period cannot be dissociated from
contemporary ruler-cult (see Hultgård (n. 12, above), i, 326–76), and could
fasten simply on Jewish rather than specifically Davidic origins, a viewpoint
following naturally from the importance of Pentateuchal messianic texts
such as Num. 24:7 and 17 (and the absence of any Davidic reference in the
‘law of the king’, Deut. 17:14–20), and corresponding to the expectation
of someone ‘from the country’ of the Jews (Josephus, B.J. vi 312). In this
presentation, then, a messianic atmosphere is being fostered around a non-
Davidic reigning king, somewhat as appears to have occurred earlier with
Hyrcanus I, or later on among the following of Bar Cocheba; it is likely
that temple-building was already associated with the messianic king.13 Early

12
Schalit, 475–6; A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (2 vols., Uppsala,
1977 and 1982), i, 376; Th. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes, ii (Leiden,
1980), 1061–2; Stern, ‘A. Schalit’s Herod’, 55–8.
13
On Hyrcanus, see Josephus, Ant. xiii 299–300, interpreted by E. Bammel ‘ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΥΣ PΡΟFΗ
ΤΕΥWΝ’, TLZ lxxix (1954), cols. 351–6, now reprinted with an addition in E. Bammel, mit einem
Nachwort von Peter Pilhofer, Judaica et Paulina: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT xci, Tübingen, 1997),
133–9; on Bar Cocheha, Schürer, Black, Vermes and Millar, i, 543–5. On the temple, note that the
thought of a messianic temple-builder was clearly widespread after 70 (e.g. Sib. v 423–5, Targ. Isa.
53:5, Zech. 6:12–13), but that the hope for a better, God-given temple at the last had then long been
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 119

Christian understanding of the Herodians as those who held Herod to be

the messiah (n. 31, below) was doubtless influenced by the interchangeable
use of ‘king of the Jews’ and ‘Christ’ in Matt. 2:2 and 4, but this use itself
reflects the messianism of Jewish kingship. Later Herodian invocations
of a messianic atmosphere include Archelaus’ appearance enthroned in
the temple, discussed below (an unsuccessful attempt), and Agrippa I’s
enthusiastic reception by the Jews of Alexandria (Philo, Flaccus, 25–39;
section II (d), below).
The restoration was therefore made to point, in an Augustan but also
Jewish messianic manner, to Herodian Jewish victory, peace and piety, and
to the divine appointment of Herod as king. This presentation fits his studied
favour towards Pharisees and Essenes, mentioned with emphasis just before
the account of the restoration (Josephus, Ant. xv 370–1).
These royal aspects of the enterprise are underlined by the completion
of the sanctuary on Herod’s accession day, which was observed with special
distinction on this occasion. (Josephus, Ant. xv 423). It has been noted that
Herod’s building projects usually served not only his ardour for personal
fame, but also broader purposes of state (particularly, in this case, the needs
of the national economy and religion); when the king took his place as
founder of the new temple on his accession day, the solemnity suggests not
only awareness of these needs, but also an intention to present the house of
Herod as a great Jewish monarchy.14 Thenceforth his accession day will also

current; see Tobit 14:5, and Exod. 15:17 lxx e̔͂toimon katoikhth́rion ‘ready dwelling’, discussed
since the first appearance of this essay by Horbury, ‘Land, Sanctuary and Worship’, in J. Barclay
and J.P.M. Sweet (eds.), Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context (Cambridge, 1996), 207–24
(208–11). Zech. 6:12 lxx and 1 En. 53:6 probably indicate that the messiah could be expected to build
or adorn it. See W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen
Zeitalter (3rd edn., Tübingen, 1926), 239; J. Nolland, ‘Sib. Or. iii. 265–94, an Early Maccabaean
Messianic Oracle’, JTS N. S. xxx (1979), 158–66 (the restoration of the temple by Cyrus and
Zerubbabel is presented in Sib. iii as a pattern for the last times), with J. J. Collins, ‘Messianism in
the Maccabean Period’, in J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs
at the Turn of he Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987), 97–109 (99, restricting any significance for the
Sibyl’s eschatology to the possibility that final Jewish restoration will come through a gentile king
like Cyrus; but, if an eschatological reference is allowed, the allusion to judgment more naturally
suggests a messianic figure, as stressed by H. N. Bate, The Sibylline Oracles, Books III–V (London,
1918), 30–1).
14
E. Netzer, ‘Herod’s Building Projects: State Necessity or Personal Need?’, The Jerusalem Cathedra i
(1981), 48–61; M. Broshi, ‘The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy’, JJS xxxviii (1987),
31–7; K. Galling, ‘Königliche und nichtkönigliche Stifter beim Tempel von Jerusalem’, ZDPV lxviii
(1950), 138–42 (141, accession-day dedication shows Herod as a royal patron of the temple on the
pattern of the prince in Ezekiel, and, still more, of Hellenistic monarchs).
120 Messianism among Jews and Christians

have been a Herodian dedication festival comparable with Hanukkah, the

themes of which had been given a Herodian impress in the publicity just
surveyed.
The temple was a traditional place of national assembly;15 but the
specifically dynastic themes of the new building were invoked when Herod
named his successors in Herod’s temple, and the white-robed Archelaus
greeted his new subjects there from a golden throne on a dais before he
offered sacrifice (Josephus, Ant. xvi 132–5, xvii 200–12, paralleled in B.J.
i 457–66, ii 1–9). Archelaus’ throne on a dais may be compared with the
dais provided for Solomon at the dedication of the temple, according to
2 Chron. 6:13; Josephus assumes that Solomon will have been seated there
(Ant. viii 107). A similar dais is to be put up in the temple court for the king
to read the law, seated, at the feast of Tabernacles in the sabbatical year,
according to the Mishnah (Soṭah vii 8). The Jewish and Roman traditions
of Herodian piety were renewed by Agrippa I with a more sensitive
captatio benevolentiae when he offered sacrifices of thanksgiving in due
form, and dedicated in the temple the golden chain given him by Caligula
(Josephus, Ant. xix 295); his reputation for modest hesitancy in claiming
royal rights in the temple is also illustrated by the Mishnaic tradition that
in the sabbatical year he read the law standing, not sitting, and that his eyes
filled with tears when he read from Deut. 17:15 the command that the king
should be an Israelite (Soṭah, ibid.). The royal associations of the temple
were clearly considered likely to encourage support for the monarch, but
the question how far these associations were accepted is underlined by the
silence on Herod in the accounts of his temple noted at the beginning. Satire
which may have earlier antecedents appears in R. Kahana’s description of
‘Herodian doves’ in rows in their cote cooing ‘Kyrie, kyrie’—apart from
one dissenter who comes to a bad end for saying ‘Kyrie cheirie [slave]’
(Babylonian Talmud, Hullin, 139b; see Schürer, Vermes, Millar and Black,
i, 310, n. 77).

15
Evidence from Josephus and elsewhere is gathered by Ad. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety
from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (London, 1922), 205–8; for the idea compare 1 En. 89:50, 69, 90:29, 33, 36;
Test. Benj. 9:2, and probably already 2 Sam. 7:10. An important Pentateuchal antecedent is Exod.
15:17 (cited in n. 13, above), where assembly in the sanctuary immediately follows entry into the
land; see Horbury, ‘Land, Sanctuary and Worship’, 208–11.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 121

(b) The Babylonian Talmud

It is therefore notable that the strongly Herodian account in which Josephus
follows Nicolas16 finds clear echoes in Talmudic tradition. The legend that
rain fell only at night during construction (Josephus, Ant. xv 425) recurs in
rabbinic exegesis of Lev. 26:4 ‘Then I will give you rain in due season’ (Sifra,
Behuqqotay, Pereq 1.1; Lev. R. 35.10; Babylonian Talmud, Taʾanith 23a).
Moreover, an alternative version of the building of the sanctuary appears in the
haggadah of the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 3b–4a). The final sequence
of this rabbinic narrative is strikingly close to that of Nicolas’ account.
Nicolas’ narrative, as presented by Josephus, Ant. xv 365–425, runs as
follows. (i) The king represses dissent, employs many spies, and even disguises
himself to hear what his subjects are saying. (ii) He demands an oath of loyalty,
gets rid of objectors, but excuses Pollion the Pharisee and Samaias and their
disciples, and the Essenes. (iii) Manaem the Essene had prophesied that Herod
would be king. (iv) Herod plans to rebuild the temple, and explains his purpose
in a speech beforehand. (v) The temple is described at length. (vi) The new
sanctuary is swiftly completed within eighteen months, on Herod’s accession
day; the work was expedited, because rain fell only at night.
The haggadah transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud begins with Herod’s
rise to power as a slave of the Hasmonaean house who kills the royal family,
save for one princess; but she prefers suicide to marriage with him. Then,
however (Baba Bathra 3b, end) it approximates to the sequence in Josephus
just outlined, (i) The sages expound Deut. 17:15, teaching that the king must be
an Israelite, and Herod kills them all except for Baba ben Buta, whom he blinds.
(ii) He tries to trick Baba into treasonable talk, but is pleased by his prudent
answers, and expresses regret (now in his own person) at having killed the sages;
Baba advises him to rebuild the temple. (The story is told here in the Gemara of
the tractate Baba Bathra with regard to the question, brought into connection
with the Mishnah on building jointly-owned walls [Baba Bathra 1.1], whether

16
G. Hölscher, ‘Josephus 2’, PW ix.2 (1916), cols. 1934–2000 (1973–82) ascribes some material in this
section, including some legends with rabbinic parallels, to a Jewish author who revised Nicolas; but
Nicolas represents himself as entirely at home when he speaks in defence of the Jews (Ant. xvi 31–57;
cf. xii 126), his native Damascus had a very large Jewish community with numerous non-Jewish
sympathizers, especially among the women (B.J. ii 559–61; did this apply to Nicolas’ own family?),
and the material with rabbinic parallels considered here can therefore be ascribed either to him (so,
probably, 421–3, on the swift completion of the sanctuary) or to Josephus himself (so, probably, 425,
on the regulated rain, a story appended from ‘our fathers’).
122 Messianism among Jews and Christians

a synagogue may be pulled down before a replacement is available; just this

question concerning the temple is said to have dismayed the people when they
heard Herod’s plan, according to Josephus, Ant. xv 388–9.) (iii) Baba advises
that Roman objections can be avoided if a messenger to Rome takes three
years on his mission; meanwhile the temple can be pulled down and rebuilt.
(iv) Herod does so, and Roman prohibition and reproof arrive too late. (v) He
who has never seen the building of Herod has never seen a beautiful building;
Herod wanted to plate it with gold, but the sages said that its variegated marble
was more beautiful, for it was like the waves of the sea.
Josephus and the rabbinic narrative both include, in differing order, spying
by Herod in person; dissent punished by execution, with some exception;
friendly converse between Herod and a sage; rapid completion of the temple
by Herod; and independently expressed praise for its beauty. The Talmudic
Herod is a plebeian and alien usurper, a tyrant and a man of blood—a powerful
caricature placarding the condemnations which are mixed with praise in
Josephus—but both narratives make Herod’s personal spying and repression
the back-ground of the temple rebuilding. The stress then falls in the rabbinic
narrative, as in Josephus, on the prompt execution of Herod’s grand design.
Further, when the brilliant marble structure is praised, it is specifically called—
in striking contrast with the silences noted above—‘the building of Herod’; ‘he
who has never seen the building of Herod has never seen a beautiful building
in his life’ (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, 4a; cf. Sukkah, 51b).
The historical writing of Nicolas or Josephus probably played a part in the
origins of this haggadah, through Jewish readers who reacted positively at least
to this aspect of the presentation of Herod.17 That the tradition concerning
him cannot have been fixed wholly negatively in tannaitic material known in
Babylonia is shown not only by the transmission of this amoraic story in Baba

17
The swift completion of the building in Baba Bathra 4a need not be a sign of the lateness of the
narrative (as held, because of its contrast with the many years occupied by the building of the temple
as a whole, by J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, i (Leiden, 1971), 391);
the sanctuary alone is probably in view, as in Josephus. With the proposal made in the text above,
compare the argument for the indirect derivation of Hasmonaean narratives in the Babylonian
Talmud (notably in Qiddushin 66a and Sanhedrin 19a–b) from Nicolas through Josephus presented
by J. Efron, Studies on the Hasmonaean Period (ET, SJLA xxxix, Leiden, New York, Copenhagen and
Cologne, 1987), 161–97, 215–18 (first read by the present writer after completion of this essay); Efron,
185 notes the similarity in style between Qiddushin 66a and Baba Bathra 3b. A more favourable view
of Nicolas’ historical value than Efron adopts is taken here, but the relationship between Josephus
and the haggadah of the Babylonian Talmud is assessed similarly. The general importance of literary
sources in the rabbinic transmission of folk-tales is shown by E. Yassif, ‘Traces of Folk Traditions of
the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Literature’, JJS xxxix (1988), 212–33.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 123

Bathra 3b–4a, but also by the partly parallel Sukkah 51b, where ‘the building of
Herod’ is positively treated in discussion attributed to Babylonian rabbis of a
baraitha not mentioning Herod but concluding ‘he who has not seen the temple
when it was standing [literally, ‘in its building’] has never seen a beautiful
building’. (M. Eduyoth 8.6, on the method of rebuilding the temple with due
reverence, is noteworthy as another tannaitic tradition not mentioning Herod
but probably implying a favourable view of Herod’s temple.)
In any case, however, it is notable that Baba Bathra 3b–4a includes, together
with condemnation of Herod as a tyrannical usurper, warm and specific
acknowledgement of his achievement as temple-builder. Approbation is
underlined by the claim that the king did this good work on rabbinic advice,
and the warmth with which his benefaction is acknowledged contrasts with
the critical tone of the application of the story in Num. R. xiv 8, to interpret
Num. 7:64 ‘a sin offering’—because Herod’s temple was built by a sinful king.
The closeness of the narrative of the building of the sanctuary in Baba Bathra
3b–4a to Josephus, and its divergence at this point from the negative view of
Herod found in the context and widely reflected in rabbinic sources, suggests
that Nicolas’ publicistic account of the warm reception of the work was not
without foundation (as could be inferred also from the rabbinic accounts of
the regulated rain, the reverent reconstruction, and the beauty of the building),
and that the temple continued to be admired specifically as Herod’s building.

(c) The temple restoration and attitudes to the house of Herod

Three of the criticisms placarded in Baba Bathra 3b and also found in Josephus
would have been blunted in so far as Nicolas’ presentation was accepted. First,
if the house of Herod had usurped the place of the Hasmonaeans, the new
Herodian building made it possible to claim that ‘in the hundred and twenty-
five years of their reign’ the Hasmonaeans ‘had been unable to accomplish
anything like this for the honour of God’ (Herod’s speech at Jericho shortly
before his death, in Josephus, Ant. xvii 162). The themes of the Hasmonaean
Hanukkah, as already noted, were subsumed in and (in respect of the new
building) surpassed by the Herodian dedication.
Secondly, the dynasty of the Herods might be plebeian, but its lofty ambition,
expressed in the temple building, enjoyed the divine favour (Josephus, B.J. i 400,
cited above). The strength of the objection that the house of Herod was not a
124 Messianism among Jews and Christians

royal family is most clear in Josephus’ Antiquities, where it is more prominent

than the charge of Idumaean birth (see Ant. xiv 78, 300 (contrast B.J. i 241), 403
(king Antigonus), 430=B.J. i 313 (the old bandit of Arbela), and 491). Hölscher
(n. 16, above) suspected in these passages the hand of the anti-Herodian Jewish
reviser of Nicolas, but this description well fits Josephus himself, proud of
his Hasmonaean descent (see his criticism of Nicolas, Ant. xvi 184–7). That
Josephus’ view was more widely shared is suggested, however, by its attribution
to Antigonus and his bandit partisan, and its appearance in the gibe of ‘slave’
in Baba Bathra 3b–4a [ʿabda]—where, again, it is more prominent than the
charge of alien descent—and in Hullin 139b (cited in I (a), above) [cheirios].
Thirdly, however, Hasmonaean propaganda made the house of Herod not
only plebeian, but also alien; Herod was a commoner and an Idumaean, in
Antigonus’ answer to Herod’s proclamation before the wall of Jerusalem (Ant.
xiv 403). Idumaean origin, explained here by Josephus as making one a half-
Jew, was by no means inconsistent with zealous Jewish patriotism, as observed
with regard to the house of Herod by A. Kasher (as cited in n. 18, below); but
it was clearly open to suspicion (see Goodman (n. 1, above), 117, 222–3). This
relatively mild charge was no doubt strengthened because Herod’s mother
was Arabian (Josephus, B.J. i 181), and was still further heightened when
it was combined with the charge of plebeian origin, in a story that Herod’s
grandfather was a slave of the temple of Apollo in Ascalon.18

18
See Justin Martyr, Dial. 52.3; and Africanus to Aristides, in Eusebius, H.E. i 6, 2–3 and 7, 11
(cf. Chronicle, Olympiad 186; Dem. viii 1). Ephrem Syrus, commenting on the Diatessaron, takes
the Roman census of Luke 2:1–3 rather than Herodian government as his witness to the fulfilment
of Gen. 49:10 (see n. 8, above). This is perhaps because, since the story of Herod and the wise
men comes later in the Diatessaron, the census forms the first convenient context for noting that
the sceptre had departed from Judah, in accordance with the Pentateuchal testimony. In any case,
Ephrem too calls Herod an Ascalonite. See the Syriac comments on Diatessaron 2.17 and 3.7, in
L. Leloir, ‘Le commentaire d’Éphrem sur le Diatessaron. Quarante et un folios retrouvés’, RB xciv
(1987), 481–518 (490–3, 500–1). At the time of Herod’s Arabian campaign the priests said that
he was ‘an Arabian, uncircumcised’, according to the Slavonic Josephus, passage corresponding
to Greek B.J. i 364–70 (ET in H. St.J. Thackeray, Josephus iii (Loeb Classical Library, London and
Cambridge, Mass., 1957), 636–8: discussion by R. Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙLΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙLΕΥΣΑΣ
(2 vols., Heidelberg, 1929 and 1930), i, 340–8). Justin and Africanus are discussed by J. Jeremias,
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (ET London, 1969), 331–2 (Africanus’ stress on the currency of
the story in Greek histories favours derivation from Ptolemy of Ascalon), Schalit, Herodes, 677–8
(favouring Jewish anti-Herodian origin), E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden,
1976, corrected reprint 1981), 19–20, n. 50 (allowing either Jewish or Christian origin), M. Hengel,
Rabbinische Legende und frühpharisäische Geschichte: Schimeon b. Schetach und die achtzig Hexen
von Askalon (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Ph.-hist. Klasse, 1984,
2), 43 (following Schalit); and A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs (Tübingen, 1988),
62–5, 126–30 (a Christian, not a Jewish story). Since the first appearance of this essay, Ascalonite
origin has been used as a key to interpretation of the Herodian dynasty by N. Kokkinos (n. 4, above);
an Ascalonite element in Herod the Great’s ancestry is credible, and his mixed origin clearly aroused
suspicion, but it is less clear that it will in itself have led Herod unsurprisingly to a merely official
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 125

In practice, then, these charges might make Herodian rule seem to breach
the law of the king in Deut. 17:15, excluding ‘a foreigner that is not thy
brother’ (cf. Isa. 1:26, ‘I will restore thy judges as at the first’, echoed in the
eleventh benediction of the Amidah, and Jer. 30:21); rabbinic sources envisage
Deut. 17:15 as troubling both Agrippa I and Herod the Great (Mishnah,
Soṭah 7.8, and Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, 3b, both cited above). The
Christian connection of this charge with Gen. 49:10 corresponds to Jewish
preoccupation with this verse also as a guarantee of indigenous government,
as the lxx, Qumran paraphrase and the Targums suggest.19 (The fourth-
century Hegesippus, probably a baptized Jew, takes Idumaean descent to be
a reason for regarding Herod as alien (n. 8, above).) Charges on this score
were therefore damaging; Herod met them with a claim to descent from the
foremost Jews who came out of Babylon to Judaea (Josephus, Ant. xiv 9), but
the rebuilding was clearly also intended to present the house of Herod as an
illustrious Jewish dynasty.
According to a fourth criticism, not reflected in Baba Bathra 3b–4a, Herod
favoured non-Jews above Jews in his benefactions. Diaspora Jews probably
in fact gained some toleration on account of these benefactions, as argued by
A. H. M. Jones (n. 51, below). The adverse view of them reflected in Josephus
seems likely to represent Josephus’ own opinion; but, once again, his opinion
was probably more widely shared. In the speech of the Jewish deputies
in Rome after Herod’s death he is said to have adorned gentile cities at the
expense of cities in his own realm (Josephus, B.J. ii 85, parallel with Ant. xvii
306). Similarly, in the narrative of his life Herod is said to have treated gentile
cities so well that he seemed to be forming a defensive ring to contain his own
subjects (Ant. xv 326–30), and characteristically to have been the benefactor
of gentiles rather than Jews (xvi 158–9, in reflection on his benefactions to the
Greek cities), never bestowing any gift worth mentioning on a Jewish city—by

Judaism, as suggested by Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 343–51 (contrast Kasher, as just cited,
on Idumaean Jewish patriotism). Justin ascribes the allegation of Ascalonite connections to Jews,
but Africanus (with a detailed narrative) to gentile historians; it may perhaps be conjectured that an
Ascalonite story, which claimed the great king for the city with a touch of the anti-Jewish ‘poison
of Ascalon’ (Philo’s phrase, Leg. ad Gaium 205), was known both to Ptolemy the writer on Herod
(probably to be identified with Ptolemy of Ascalon) and to anti-Herodian Jews.
19
Posnanski (n. 8, above), 20–31; M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense
(Valencia and Jerusalem, 1981), 123–7, adds reference to Neofiti and to a Qumran comment on Gen.
49 (4Q252, frg. 6) published by J. M. Allegro, ‘Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature’,
JBL lxxv (1956), 174–87 (174–6), and now re-edited by G. J. Brooke in Brooke and others, Qumran
Cave 4.xvii (DJD xxii, Oxford, 1996), 205–6.
126 Messianism among Jews and Christians

contrast with Agrippa I, who was beneficent towards his own people as well
(xix 328–31).
Here his benefactions in Jerusalem are unmentioned; the theatre and
amphitheatre (Ant. xv 268) could no doubt be classed as unacceptable gifts, but
his monument at the tomb of David and Solomon and, above all, the temple
are striking omissions. They are mainly explained, perhaps, by the likelihood
that the complaint in question stems not from Jerusalem but from Jewish
communities near the gentile cities which he adorned (most fully listed by
Josephus, B.J. i 422–8); his benefactions to Ascalon, for example, were perhaps
resented by the mainly Jewish Jamnia, or those to Ptolemais by the neighbouring
Galilaeans. It is also true, however, that even his pious Jerusalem benefactions
were received coolly by some of the inhabitants. Significantly, the monument
to David and Solomon was popularly explained by a story that the king was
trying to plunder their tomb, and Herod is represented as complaining that his
expenditure on the temple has been ungratefully received (by those involved
in the attempt to remove his eagle, Ant. xvii 162–3). The efforts to present the
temple as a Jewish benefaction will have been correspondingly great.
The differing attitudes to the house of Herod noted above in the Judaean
and Galilaean as well as the diaspora Jewish population suggest that such
efforts will not have been entirely vain. This view is borne out by Josephus’
own transmission of Nicolas’ publicity (with annotations), and by its clear
echoes in rabbinic literature. There is evidence, also, for a more detached view
of the house of Herod, at some distance from the Hasmonaean propaganda
of the three criticisms noted first above. Thus, in the Assumption of Moses 6,
the Hasmonaean priest kings are criticized equally with Herod the Great, who
is condemned for his cruelty but not for plebeian or Idumaean origin or for
usurpation; indeed, it is held that ‘he will judge them as they deserve’, iudicabit
illis quomodo digni erunt (6:6). This opinion corresponds, as has often been
noted, to the advice of the Pharisee Samaias during the siege of Jerusalem that
Herod, who was destined to punish them, should be admitted (Josephus, Ant.
xiv 176). In its stress on divine providence the prophecy in the Assumption of
Moses has points of contact not only with the advice attributed to Samaias, but
also, despite its more negative expression, with the emphasis on Herod’s royal
destiny in Nicolas’ treatment of the temple. The relatively detached spirit of
these judgments seems to reappear later on in the laconic chronicle-tradition
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 127

transmitted in the name of R. Jose b. Halafta (mid second century); without

mentioning Roman rule, or endorsing Hasmonaean propaganda, it covers
the period from, the kingdom of Greece to the destruction of the temple
simply by noting two Jewish monarchies of equal duration: ‘kingdom of the
Hasmonaean house, 103 years; kingdom of the house of Herod, 103 years’
(Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah, 8b–9a, parallel with B. Ratner (ed.),
Seder Olam Rabba (Wilna, 1897), 142).
To summarize section I as a whole, Nicolas’ history, advancing this
presentation of Herod, was taken over by Josephus despite his criticisms
(Ant. xvi 184–7), and is likely to have been known to other Jews at the end
of the first century a.d. The story of the building of the sanctuary, like some
other episodes from Nicolas’ Hasmonaean and Herodian history, made its
way either independently or through Josephus into the rabbinic haggadah.
Despite the sensitivity of the issue of the sanctity of the temple, the rabbinic
forms of the story have nothing but praise for what is called ‘the building of
Herod’.
In Nicolas’ account the rebuilding shows Herod as a Jewish king piously
restoring the temple to its Solomonic glory, and as a victor who has conquered
the Jews’ traditional enemies and (by aiding the repulse of the Parthians) has
contributed to the Augustan peace after civil war, a blessing as important to
Judaea as to Italy. He appears, therefore, as a Jewish king touched by the aura
of messianism. This aura will have been regularly rediffused by the celebration
of his accession day, which was now also a feast of dedication. The temple
restoration thereby reinforced the Herodian form of ruler-cult.
The main points of Hasmonaean propaganda were directly opposed to this
presentation, and the persistence of favourable comment on Herod’s temple
in rabbinic tradition, and on Herod as temple-builder in Baba Bathra 4a,
suggests that the court publicity reflected by Nicolas was not wholly unheeded.
The attestation of views which seem to show some detachment from the
Hasmonaean case, together with the evidence that Jews at close quarters
with gentiles valued Herodian kings as patrons, helps to indicate a climate of
opinion in which the Herodian presentation, supported dramatically by ‘the
building of Herod’, could have found some hearing.
During the period from Nicolas to Josephus Herod’s descendants, Agrippa
I above all, had followed his footsteps in presenting themselves as Jewish kings
128 Messianism among Jews and Christians

and patrons. In Josephus’ time Justus of Tiberias composed his Herodian

history of the Jewish kings, from Moses to Agrippa II (Photius, Bibliotheca,
33). Josephus, by his comparison of Herod the Great with Agrippa I, makes
the obvious but important point that the criticisms levelled at Herod the
Great were not all thought to apply to his successors. As has now appeared,
the temple was a focus in this period for more positive views of the house
of Herod as a Jewish monarchy, including what may be called a Herodian
messianism.
The significance of the temple in the diaspora, where the collection of the
temple tax was a prized and threatened privilege defended by Herod (Josephus,
Ant. xvi 28), means that the Herodian presentation of the rebuilding will have
had an impact throughout the Jewish world. Some evidence for diaspora
response to the Herodian rebuilding and the house of Herod will now be
reviewed in connection with Persius’ lines on ‘Herod’s days’. It will be suggested
that Persius is a further witness to the Herodian festivals with which, as has
emerged from Josephus on the temple, a remembrance of the dedication of the
sanctuary was now associated.

II. Persius on ‘Herod’s Days’

(a) Alternative explanations

If ‘Herod’s days’ were indeed days kept in honour of a Herod, the relevant
lines from Persius’ fifth satire (Persius v 179–84) allow a valuable glimpse of
the prestige of Herodian princes among the Jews of Rome towards a.d. 60.
On the other hand, Herod may simply be named by Persius as a well-known
king who was taken to represent the Jewish people. The passage would then
still attest a Herodian reputation for Jewish loyalty; but the ‘days’ would be
days characteristically observed by Jews, perhaps the sabbaths shortly to be
mentioned by Persius, rather than specifically Herodian commemorations.
These alternatives have long been debated. Three full recent commentaries on
the passage opt, after discussion, for identification of the ‘days’ as sabbaths.20

20
M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, i (Jerusalem, 1974), 435–7; R. A. Harvey, A
Commentary on Persius (Leiden, 1981), 177–82; W. Kissel, Aules Persius Flaccus, Satiren (Heidelberg,
1990), 744–5.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 129

Independently of this question, the lines are an important and vivid

portrayal of a Jewish quarter and a Jewish festal dinner in Rome under Nero,
and one of the attestations of the attraction of Jewish rites for Romans. The
Herodian problem posed by the passage is reconsidered here in the light of
some evidence and discussion which is not to the fore in the commentaries just
mentioned, including Herod’s dedication of the sanctuary on his accession-day.
Persius v, lines 179–84, run as follows in the editions by W. V. Clausen
(Oxford, 1956, 28; 1959 (and revised reissue, 1992), 24):
… at cum
Herodis uenere dies unctaque fenestra
dispositae pinguem nebulam uomuere lucernae
portantes uiolas rubrumque amplexa catinum
cauda natat thynni, tumet alba fidelia uino,
labra moues tacitus recutitaque sabbata palles.

They may be rendered, following A. Pretor with slight adaptations:

Then again when Herod’s days come round, and lamps wreathed with violets
and ranged along the greasy window-sills have vomited their murky cloud,
when the tail of the tunny overlapping the red dish floats in its sauce and the
white jar brims with wine, you move your lips in silence and grow pale over
the sabbaths of the circumcised.21

These lines of the satire are part of an imaginative Stoic exhortation addressed
to the man enslaved by his passions, here pictured in the grip of superstition.
Jewish observances form the first example of the strange rites by which he
is too readily overawed; further examples follow from the cults of Isis and
Cybele. The train of thought is displayed in Dryden’s vigorous version:
Thy Superstition too may claim a share:
When Flow’rs are strew’d, and Lamps in order plac’d,
And Windows with Illuminations grac’d
On Herod’s Day; when sparkling Bowls go round,
And Tunny’s Tails in savoury Sauce are drown’d
Thou mutter’st Pray’rs obscene; nor do’st refuse
The Fasts and Sabbaths of the curtail’d Jews.22

21
A. Pretor, A. Persii Flacci Satirarum Liber (new edition, Cambridge, 1907), 86.
22
The Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis. Translated into English Verse by Mr Dryden, And several
Other Eminent Hands. Together with the Satires of Aulus Persius Flaccus. Made English by
Mr Dryden (London, 1697), 484–5.
130 Messianism among Jews and Christians

(b) The scholia

The alternative interpretations of Herodis … dies either as Herodian
commemorations or as other days known to be observed by Jews first appear
in outline in the scholia on Persius. The comments preserved under the name
of Cornutus include varying forms of the note:

hic Herodes apud Iudaeos regnavit temporibus Augusti in partibus Syriae.

Herodis ergo diem natalem Herodiani observant. Aut etiam sabbata, quo die
lucernas accensas et violis coronatas in fenestris ponunt.23

This Herod reigned among the Jews in the times of Augustus in the region of
Syria. The Herodians therefore observe Herod’s birthday. Or also the sabbaths,
on which day they put in the windows lamps lit and wreathed with violets.

The excerpts from the scholia published by Buecheler and Leo and quoted
above do not give a full view of the textual tradition, in part of which, for
instance, another comment on Herod’s days appears before that just quoted.24
Five main forms of the text have been distinguished.25 For this essay I have
compared O. Jahn’s edition of 1843; the editions of 1520 (representing a
different form of text) and 1590 (including the scholia, from a text allied to
that followed by Jahn, selected by J. J. Scaliger for publication by P. Pithou in
1585); and editions of scholia from MSS in Prague and Berne.26 ‘Cornutus’
preserves much from antiquity, perhaps from commentaries on Persius such
as Jerome mentions (Adversus Rufinum i 16); but it also includes mediaeval
additions, notably from the school of Auxerre in the ninth century.27

23
O. Jahn, F. Buecheler and F. Leo, A. Persii Flacci D. Iunii Iuvenalis Sulpiciae Saturae (Berlin, 1910),
54–5.
24
It explains them, probably by assimilation to the Floralia mentioned in line 178, as ‘dies cupidinei’;
see Kvicala, as cited in n. 26 below, 37.
25
Clausen (1956), xiv; P. K. Marshall, ‘Persius’, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A
Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 293–5; on the forms of the text of Cornutus, D. M.
Robathan, F. E. Cranz, P. O. Kristeller and B. Bischoff, ‘A. Persius Flaccus’, in F. E. Cranz and P. O.
Kristeller (eds.), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin
Translations and Commentaries, iii (Washington, 1976), 201–312.
26
O. Jahn, Auli Persii Flacci Saturarum Liber, cum scholiis antiquis (Leipzig, 1843) (see the comments
by Clausen (1956), xiv); Auli Flacci Persii Satyrographi Clarissimi opus emendatum … (Venice,
1520); A. Persii Satyrarum Liber i. D. lunii luvenalis Satyrarum Lib. v. Sulpiciae Satyra i. Cum
veteribus commentariis nunc primum editis. Ex bibliotheca P. Pithoei IC. cuius etiam Notae quaedam
adiectae sunt (Paris, 1590) (see Robathan and Cranz, 236–7); J. Kvicala, Scholiorum Pragensium in
Persii satiras delectus (Abhandlungen der königlichen böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,
Sechste Folge, vi, 1873–4; Prague, 1873); E. Kurz, Die Persius-Scholien nach der Bernerhandschriften.
III. Die Scholien zu Sat. IV–VI (Burgdorf, 1889).
27
Clausen (1956), xxiii–xxiv; J. E. G. Zetzel, ‘On the History of Latin Scholia, II: The Commentum
Cornuti in the Ninth Century’, Medievalia et Humanistica, x (1981), 19–31.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 131

In these circumstances any attempt to distinguish ancient from mediaeval

material must be tentative, but content and textual variation appear to support
the following suggestions.
First, in the extract from the scholia quoted above, the opening comment
on Herod wholly lacks New Testament allusion, and places Herod’s Jewish
kingdom simply in Syria (contrast Luke 1:5 ‘rex Iudaeae’, and the references
to Judaea, Jerusalem and the land of Israel in Matt. 2:1–3, 21–2); the wording
therefore seems better suited to an ancient grammaticus than to a mediaeval
commentator.
Secondly, the same is largely but not entirely true of the following comment.
Its initial reference to Herod’s birthday could derive from the New Testament
on ‘Herod’ (Antipas: Matt. 14:6, Mark 6:21), but it is just as likely to reflect
general ancient custom. By contrast, the ensuing mention of ‘Herodiani’ almost
certainly depends on the New Testament or Christian sources. The comment
was accordingly ascribed to Carolingian revision by Jahn (1843), cxxxv.
It seems possible, however, that mediaeval accretion may be limited to
the word ‘Herodiani’. The sequence ‘Herodis … Herodiani’ is confused in the
textual tradition; the order of the proper nouns can be reversed, or a second
‘Herodis’ can appear instead of ‘Herodiani’, and the Prague scholia as edited
by Kvicala present a text without ‘Herodiani’, as follows: ‘Herodis igitur diem
natalem observant, ut etiam sabbata …’.28 It may be suggested that this text
represents an earlier form of the tradition, and that ‘Herodiani’ is a gloss by a
reader familiar with the New Testament; its insertion into the text caused the
contusion now evident. Formerly, the subject of the sentence had been ‘Iudaei’,
understood; ‘they therefore keep Herod’s birthday, as also the sabbaths …’. It is
also worth noting, without resting too much weight on a place (the beginning
of a clause) perhaps particularly liable to alteration, that the text with ‘ut’
makes better sense before ‘etiam’, and may be more original.
To summarize, there is a case for supposing the word ‘Herodiani’ to be a
gloss on a comment which otherwise comes from non-Christian antiquity,
and which originally explained ‘the days of Herod’ as royal birthdays observed
by the Jews. It possibly also described their observation as being like that of
the sabbaths. The scholiast’s reference to the sabbaths, however, was widely
understood as an alternative explanation, as the reading with ‘aut’ attests.

28
Persius 1520, f.xc, verso ‘Herodiani … Herodis’; Kurz, 38; Kvicala, 38.
132 Messianism among Jews and Christians

In this second understanding one may suspect the operation of the

tendency often found in commentary to harmonize, and to explain unknowns
by identification with knowns. In the scholia on this passage the puzzling
‘Herodis … dies’ were explained by identification with the known Floralia,
mentioned just before (line 178; n. 24, above), as well as with the known
sabbaths, mentioned just afterwards.
The scholia therefore already present the two alternative explanations noted
under (a), above, although one possibly early form of the comment in question
unifies the elements otherwise taken as alternatives. In any case, the reference
to the Herodians is more likely to be a gloss on an old comment than a sign
that the comment which includes it is Christian. In non-Christian antiquity,
therefore, ‘the days of Herod’ were already explained as royal birthdays, and
the identification with the sabbaths was probably also already current, perhaps
as a harmonizing explanation.

(c) Later exegesis

How were the alternative explanations presented by later exegetes? By contrast
with the scholia, the limited number of renaissance commentators on Persius
consulted for this essay incline markedly towards explanation of ‘Herod’s days’
as sabbaths (B. Fontius, A. A. Nebrissensis)29 or as Jewish festivals in general
(Ascensius, Johannes Britannicus, J. B. Plautius, J. Murmellius).30
J. J. Scaliger therefore made a fresh beginning when, in his notes on
Eusebius’ Chronicle (1606), he integrated the scholion on Herod’s birthday
(part of the material he had selected for Pithou) with the patristic and later
view that the Herodians honoured Herod as messiah—a view which had
perhaps already contributed to the appearance of ‘Herodiani’ in the scholia.31
Scaliger urged that, as Persius read in the light of the scholion could be taken
to attest, Herodians in the time of Nero still sacrificed in honour of Herod

29
Persius 1520, f.xc, verso; Persius 1551, 609A; on these commentators see Robathan and Cranz,
265–7, 278.
30
Persius 1551, 602B, 603D, 606C, 609D; see Robathan and Cranz, 273–8, 283–4.
31
J. J. Scaliger, Thesaurus Temporum …, Animadversiones in Chronologica Eusebii (Leiden, 1606),
150 (on Eusebius’ annal for the year 1983 from Abraham); Jerome spoke both for this view of the
Herodians (Adversus Luciferianos, 23) and against it (in his commentary on Matt. 22:15), and it was
favoured by Ps. Tertullian, Epiphanius and others, followed by H. Grotius and other scholars, cited
by H. H. Rowley, ‘The Herodians in the Gospels’, JTS xli (1940), 14–27 (15–16). It was also adopted
by Cornelius a Lapide (1639) in his comments on Matt. 2:1, 2:15 and 22:16.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 133

the Great and celebrated his birthday. Furthermore, Herod was of Jewish
descent, and Christian apologists from Eusebius and Augustine onwards were
therefore unjustified in maintaining that Gen. 49:10 was fulfilled when rulers
and governors ceased from Judah at the accession of Herod the foreigner
(nn. 8 and 18, above).
These arguments evoked lively contradiction, and Scaliger’s interpretation
of ‘Herod’s days’ won only qualified acceptance in contemporary commentary
on Persius in England;32 but it was adopted by two influential editors of
Persius, Isaac Casaubon and Otto Jahn, although each broadened and
modified it.
Casaubon, to whom Scaliger inscribed a copy of his work on Eusebius
(Cambridge University Library, Adv. a. 3.4), preferred Scaliger’s association of
the passage with Herod the Great, and compared the Herodian group with the
Roman sodalities founded to honour emperors after their deaths by sacrifices
and other commemorations (for such associations in Asia Minor see Price
(n. 54, below), 118). Casaubon allowed, however, that Agrippa I might have
been intended, and that royal accession days could have been observed not just
by Herodians, but by Jews in general.33 This is of course a reasonable inference
from the narrative of the dedication of the temple in Josephus.
Jahn, accepting that celebrations of Herod’s birthday by Herodians seem
to be intended, added that Persius could hardly be expected to show accurate
knowledge, and that Herod’s name was particularly familiar to Roman readers
(Jahn (1843), 208). These additional considerations are important among
those which have commended the alternative interpretation of ‘Herod’s days’
as a reference to characteristically Jewish observances.
More recent exponents of the ‘days’ as birthdays or accession days include
J. Conington and A. Pretor (echoing Jahn’s caution), among commentators on
Persius;34 W. Schmidt, writing on birthdays in antiquity (with reference, again,

32
T. Farnaby, Iunii Iuvenalis et Auli Persii Flacci Satyrae Cum Annotationibus (4th edn., London, 1633),
184, ad loc. (the days are either those observed by the nation obedient to Herod, the Jews, or else
Herod’s birthday, celebrated like an accession day; the comment is reproduced unchanged from the
first edition, London, 1612); J. Bond, Auli Persii Flacci Satyrae Sex. Cum posthumis Commentariis …
(London, 1614), 119, ad loc. (paraphrasing line 179 as referring to the sabbaths of the Jews and
Herod’s birthday). Bond therefore combined Scaliger’s proposal with the alternative interpretation,
but Farnaby left the question open.
33
I. Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes xvi (London, 1614), 48; I. Casaubon, Auli
Persi Flacci Satirarum Liber (3rd edn., London, 1647), 458–9, ad loc.
34
J. Conington, The Satires of A. Persius Flaccus (2nd edn., Oxford, 1874), 113; Pretor, 86–7.
134 Messianism among Jews and Christians

to associations for their observance);35 F.-J. Dölger, in the fifth volume of his
work on the symbolism of the fish (but in the second volume he had thought
differently);36 and among writers on Jewish history and the New Testament,
H. Willrich (in a relatively full treatment), A. Momigliano (in his pre-war
work), A. Schalit, H. W. Hoehner and E. Bammel.37
These interpretations have throughout been flanked, however, by
explanations of the days not as Herodian festivals, but as other days
characteristically observed by Jews. Thus M. de Roa, writing just before
Scaliger’s Eusebian study appeared, was followed and echoed later in the
seventeenth century by John Spencer when he preferred to take the phrase
as an allusion to Jewish holidays and sabbaths; for Herod’s fame as a
representative of Judaism de Roa cited the statement that Pompey conferred
the high-priesthood on Herod, in Strabo, Geog. xvi 2, 46.38 Then Scaliger was
vigorously opposed by his Jesuit adversary N. Serarius, who gave his main
attention to the questions raised concerning Christian tradition that Herod
was non-Jewish, but also emphasized that the days mentioned by Persius could
be understood as sabbaths and festivals, especially Tabernacles and Purim; for
the name of Herod as standing for Jewish piety in Roman satire he compared
Juvenal vi 159 on the barefoot celebration of sabbaths by kings in Judaea, in the
context of a reference to Agrippa II.39

35
W. Schmidt, Geburtstag im Altertum (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten vii.1,
Giessen, 1908), 70 (Roman Jews formed a kind of collegium), 130.
36
F.-J. Dölger, ΙΧQYΣ (5 vols., i Rome, 1910, ii–iii Münster i. W., 1922, iv Münster, 1927, v Münster,
1943), ii, 94 and nn. 8–9, 95, 543 (Persius describes a sabbath fish-dinner, which gives a good idea
of the Diaspora Jewish cena pura); v, 384–5 (Persius says that the Jewish community ate fish at their
festal meal on Herod’s birthday in Rome).
37
Willrich, Das Haus des Herodes, 96–7, 180 (not cited in the commentaries by Stern and Harvey
(n. 20, above)); Momigliano, ‘Herod of Judaea’, 332 and n. 1 (a feast called after Herod the Great,
perhaps a birthday or accession day); Schalit, Herodes, 480, n. 1128 (following Schmidt, as
cited in n. 35, above, and asking additionally if the Roman Jewish collegium may have Herod
Antipas in view); H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Cambridge, 1972), 160–1, n. 5 (the proverbially
magnificent birthdays of the Herods); E. Bammel, ‘Romans 13’, in Bammel and Moule (cited in
n. 1, above), 365–83 (368, n. 22 (the celebration of Herod’s birthday by the Jews of Rome)). A
difference between Momigliano’s two groups of writings on Jewish history, between 1930–35
(when he affirmed the importance of Hellenism within the Jewish community) and after 1970
(when he minimized that importance) is brought out and discussed by F. Parente, reviewing
A. Momigliano, Pagine ebraiche a cura di Silvia Berti, in Quaderni di Storia, Year xv, no. 29
(1989), 171–8; the decision on Herodis … dies reflects the standpoint discerned by Parente in the
earlier work; see further Rajak, ‘Momigliano and Judaism’, 103–6.
38
M. de Roa, Singularium locorum ac rerum libri v … de die natali sacra at profana (Lyons, 1604),
187–8; J. Spencer, De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus et earum Rationibus (2 vols., Cambridge,
1727), ii, 1123 (book iv, chapter 6, first published in this edition; Spencer died in 1693).
39
N. Serarius, Rabbini et Herodes … Adversus Ios. Scaligeri Eusebianas Annotationes, et Io. Drusii
Responsionem (Mainz, 1607), 290–1.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 135

Many interpretations of this kind, however, identify the days more precisely
either as sabbaths or as the days of Hanukkah. The lights and the fish menu
described in lines 180–3 suit both. Sabbath lights specified as such were
gently mocked by Persius’ contemporary, Seneca (Ep. xcv 47), and Hanukkah
lights are attested in Josephus (Ant. xii 325) and the Mishnah (Baba Kamma
vi 6). Fish was a festal delicacy, especially but not only eaten on the sabbath
(Mishnah, Bezah ii 1; Tosefta, Bezah ii 1 (colias for the festival)).
The sabbath identification is commended by the specific mention of sabbaths
in line 184. C. Vitringa, amassing evidence on sabbath lights, accordingly held
that the scholiast was deceived in his reference to birthdays; Herod (Agrippa I)
was clearly mentioned as a type of the Jewish people, and Persius alluded to
the sabbath lights and meal.40 Vitringa was cited and followed by E. Schürer;
in the revised English translation of Schürer’s work the specific identification
of ‘Herodis … dies’ as sabbaths has been dropped, but the passage is still
treated as a description of the sabbath, and more recent historians who follow
suit without discussion include M. D. Goodman and N. Kokkinos.41 This
identification of the days is widespread. It was adopted in Latin lexicography
by Lewis and Short (but not by P. G. W. Glare);42 among commentators on
Persius, by G. Nemethy, T. F. Brunner, R. A. Harvey and W. Kissel;43 in study
of the Jews of Rome, by A. Berliner, H. J. Leon and R. Penna;44 in study of
the sabbath, by L. Doering;45 in study of Jewish symbolism, by F.-J. Dölger
in his earlier discussion (n. 36, above), and by E. R. Goodenough (who
favours connection with the sabbath cena pura, but leaves open the possibility
that Herod’s birthday is intended);46 and in collections of texts on the Jews

40
C. Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere libri tres (2 vols., Franeker, 1696), i, 194–5 (book i, part 1, chapter 9).
41
Schürer, Geschichte, iii (3rd edn., Leipzig, 1909), 166, n. 49; ET, revised by M. Black, G. Vermes,
F. Millar, M. D. Goodman and P. Vermes, iii. 1 (Edinburgh, 1986), 161, n. 60; Goodman. ‘Judaea’, in
Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition, x (1996), 739, n. 3; Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 349.
42
C. T. Lewis and C. Short (eds.), A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879), 850, and P. G. W. Glare (ed.).
Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982), 792, s.v. Herodes.
43
G. Nemethy, A. Persii Flacci Satirae (Budapest, 1903), 302, and Symbolae Exegeticae ad Persii Satiras
(Budapest, 1924), 12, no. xxi (supporting the interpretation from Juvenal vi 159, as Serarius did;
see n. 39, above); T. F. Brunner, ‘A Note on Persius 5.179ff.’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity,
i (1968), 63–4; Harvey and Kissel, as cited in n. 20, above.
44
A. Berliner, Geschichte der Juden in Rom von der ältesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart (2 vols. in 1,
Frankfurt am Main, 1893), i, 101–2 (noting that others identify the days as Hanukkah or a Herodian
festival); H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, 1960), 38; R. Penna, ‘Les juifs à Rome
au temps de l’apôtre Paul’, NTS xxviii (1982), 321–47 (324).
45
L. Doering, Schabbat (TSAJ 78, Tübingen, 1999), 285, 288 n. 24.
46
E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols., New York, 1953–68),
i (1953), 36; ii (1953), 106; v (1956), 42–3.
136 Messianism among Jews and Christians

from Greek and Roman sources, by T. Reinach, M. Stern, M. Whittaker and

M. H. Williams.47
The identification of the days as the eight days of Hanukkah, commemorating
the Maccabaean dedication of the temple, can be made without qualification
(as by H. Vogelstein, n. 48, below). It has also been suggested, however, that the
‘days of Herod’ marked a feast of dedication with Herodian aspects. Thus J. de
Voisin held that either Hanukkah, or the feast of dedication of Herod’s temple,
might be in view; J. Derenbourg supposed that the festival was Hanukkah,
but that Herod, well known at Rome, was named by Persius instead of the
Hasmonaeans; and S. Krauss, criticizing the sabbath explanation as forced,
ingeniously argued that under Herod the Hasmonaean Hanukkah was
renamed the feast of Herod—the title echoed in Persius—and that in response
the lights of Hanukkah were introduced, to preserve the officially discouraged
recollection of the Hasmonaeans.48 O. S. Rankin, examining Krauss’ theory,
could not agree that the sabbath explanation was forced, especially in
view of the difficulty of Persius; he also noted that a Herodian origin for
Hanukkah lights seems incompatible with 2 Maccabees, but he allowed that
the construction of Herod’s temple could have affected the understanding of
Hanukkah significantly.49 Section I, above, has offered some confirmation for
the view shared by Krauss and Rankin, that Herod’s temple stood for a dynastic
outlook at odds with the Hasmonaean emphasis of Hanukkah; it has seemed
likely that Herod’s accession day also became a new feast of dedication.
This review of interpretation has underlined reasons which incline many to
find ordinary rather than unfamiliar Jewish observances reflected in Persius
here. He specifically mentions the sabbaths; and the lights and the fish dinner,
so vividly described, fit well-known sabbath and festival customs. These
points are emphasized by Stern, Harvey and Kissel (n. 20, above). It is held,
in interpretation of the passage on these lines, that Persius’ Jewish knowledge

47
T. Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme (Paris, 1895), 264–5; Stern, as cited
in n. 20, above; M. Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge, 1984), 71;
M. H. Williams, The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: a Diasporan Sourcebook (London, 1998),
55–6, no. II.115.
48
H. Vogelstein and P. Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom (2 vols., Berlin, 1895–6), i, 81; J. de Voisin,
Theologia Iudaeorum (Paris, 1647), 94 (book i, chapter 5); J. Derenbourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la
géographie de la Palestine, d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques (Paris, 1867), 165,
n. 1; S. Krauss, ‘La fête de Hanoucca’, REJ xxx (1895), 24–43, 204–19 (36).
49
O. S. Rankin, The Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah (Edinburgh, 1930), 80–6; this full discussion
was not mentioned in the subsequent treatments of ‘Herod’s days’ cited in the present essay.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 137

was probably limited; but that Greek and Roman perception of the Herods, as
attested in Strabo on Herod’s high-priesthood and in Juvenal on royal sabbaths
(cited by de Roa, Serarius and Nemethy, see nn. 38, 39 and 43, above), would
have allowed Persius to take Herod as representing the Jews and Jewish custom.
On the other hand, this perception is not very different from that probably
held by diaspora Jews who valued royal patronage. Those who explain the
days as Herodian birthdays or accession days accordingly view them against
the background of Jewish support for the house of Herod, especially in the
Diaspora. The history of study has shown how readily the observance of
Herodian days would fit the conditions of Jewish life in the Herodian age. Thus
the probable importance of contemporary ruler cults for an understanding of
the Jews’ response to their monarchy was indicated by Scaliger and Casaubon.
The Roman Jews who kept the days might be Herodians (Scaliger) or the
community in general (Casaubon), as in the probably later and earlier forms,
respectively, of the scholion discussed in section II (b), above. The possible
significance of Herod’s newly-dedicated temple in connection with the days
emerges from the explanations of de Voisin and Krauss. Discussion of the
scholion also showed that the sabbath explanation may in early instances have
owed much to the practice of explaining the unknown by identification with
a nearby known.
The understanding of ‘Herod’s days’ as Herodian commemorations which
is suggested below draws on the presentation of Herod’s accession day,
in section I, above, as a dedication festival and a focus of Herodian court
theology. The interpretation offered here is a modified form of that expounded
most fully by H. Willrich. His arguments will now be reviewed with some
additions. Four aspects of the background are thereby considered in turn, as
follows: Jewish—gentile relations, the bearing of gentile dynastic celebrations
on Herodian observances, the Jews in Rome, and the setting in Roman satire.

(d) ‘Herod’s Days’ as royal birthdays or accession days

Willrich (as cited in n. 37, above) set the lines in Persius, first, against the
general background of Jewish-gentile tension. Roman Jewish observance
of Herodian birthdays or accession-days (probably monthly, in the usual
Hellenistic and Roman manner) would be natural, he urged, as part of a bid for
138 Messianism among Jews and Christians

official protection; we know that Herod the Great celebrated his accession-day,
and that Roman Jews organized themselves in synagogues of ‘Augustesians’
and ‘Agrippesians’; they are likely to have paid their respects to their patrons,
including the house of Herod, just as in 13 b.c. the Jews of Berenice in the
Libyan Pentapolis made a decree to honour M. Tittius at each new moon.50
The Roman synagogues mentioned are perhaps more likely to be
associations of slaves and freedmen from the households of Augustus and
M. Agrippa, but the general importance of the motive suggested by Willrich
has been shown more recently from Josephus’ procedure in recording Jewish
privileges; Herod’s defence of the Ionian Jews (Josephus Ant. xvi 28) was
noted at the end of section I, above, and it has been plausibly suggested
that his benefactions to Greek cities (continued by his successors) played
an important part in gaining toleration for diaspora Jews.51 Graeco-Roman
observance of royal birthdays and accession days in the manner to which
Willrich alluded is documented by Schürer and his revisers with evidence
including the Rosetta Stone (196 b.c., on the monthly birthday and accession-
day of Ptolemy V) and 2 Macc. 6:7 (the monthly birthday of Antiochus IV),
and, for the Herods, Mark 6:21, on Antipas, and Josephus, Ant. xix 321,
on Agrippa I (birthdays), and Josephus, Ant. xv 423, on Herod the Great,
cited above (accession-day).52 How naturally Herodis … dies can be taken in
this sense appears from a law of Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius
(7 August 389) in which, after a note of special days (from the Kalends to
the Easter season and Sundays), they require like reverence ‘for our days too’
(nostris etiam diebus)—then explained as the days on which they were born
or began to reign (Theodosian Code ii 8, 19).53

50
kaq’ e̔kásthn súnodon kaì noumhnían, ‘at each [?sabbath] assembly and new moon’; see lines
16–17 of the text republished with commentary by J. M. Reynolds in J. A. Lloyd (ed.), Excavations
at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), i (Supplements to Libya Antiqua, 5, 1977), 244–5, no. 17, and
in G. Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaica (Wiesbaden, 1983), 151–5, no. 71; the
date 13 b.c. is supported, and the situation is connected with the hostility (including threats to the
temple tax) indicated in Josephus, Ant. xvi 160–1, 169, by M. W. Baldwin Bowsky, ‘M. Tittius Sex.f.
Aem. and the Jews of Berenice (Cyrenaica)’, American Journal of Philology cviii (1987), 495–510.
(I am grateful to Dr J. N. B. Carleton Paget, of Peterhouse, Cambridge, for drawing my attention to
this article.) The importance of new moon festivals in the diaspora at the beginning of the Christian
era is shown by T. C. G. Thornton, ‘Jewish New Moon Festivals, Galatians 4:3–11 and Colossians
2:16’, JTS N.S. xl (1989), 97–100.
51
Schürer, Geschichte, revised ET, iii.1, 96; T. Rajak, ‘Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?’, JRS
lxxiv (1984), 107–23 (122–3); A. H. M. Jones, The Herods of Judaea (Oxford, 1938, corrected reprint
1967), 104–5.
52
Schürer, Vermes, Millar and Black, i (Edinburgh, 1973), 347–8 (part of n. 26).
53
P. Krueger, Codex Theodosianus (2 vols., Berlin, 1923 and 1926), i, 65–6.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 139

Secondly, Willrich asked if there were Jewish parallels for a relatively

short-lived celebration of the kind proposed, and how it might have related
to various kings of the house of Herod. He pointed out that the observance of
Herod’s birthday or accession-day by Jews in Rome could be compared with
the localized or relatively short-lived celebration of other Jewish festivals, like
the feast of the Septuagint in Alexandria. ‘Herod’s days’ in the time of Persius,
who will hardly have written this passage long before 60, would have been a
special continuance by Roman Jews of festal days of Herod the Great.
This identification of the Herod in question was not certain, in Willrich’s
view, but he preferred it. He noted that Agrippa I and II, who were significant
for the Jews in Rome, seem to be excluded because they did not use the dynastic
name (although others applied it at least to Agrippa I; see Acts 12:1); and that
Herod of Chalcis, likewise prominent in Rome (Josephus, Ant. xx 13–16,
103–4; B.J. ii 217, 221–3), was less important than Herod the Great. The latter’s
unpopularity might seem to speak against the observance of his days after his
death, but this consideration was outweighed, in Willrich’s judgment, by the
likelihood that the days had the capacity for survival often found in festivals,
and that their discontinuance might have seemed an affront to the house of
Herod; moreover, Herod’s friendship with Augustus would have benefited the
Roman Jews particularly.
Here Willrich seems justified in stressing both the likelihood that Roman
Jews honoured the house of Herod, and the uncertain identification of the
particular Herod of Herodis … dies. Nevertheless, the argument that days in
honour of Herod the Great were observed after his death and are mentioned
here could be rested not only (with Willrich) on his friendship with Augustus,
but also (following the lead of de Voisin and Krauss) on his building of the
temple. The completion of the sanctuary on his accession-day will have made
the day thereafter also a feast of dedication, an addition which might be
expected to strengthen the impetus of the day. Further, the continuation of
honour to a monarch after his death is known (as already noted by Scaliger and
Casaubon, nn. 31 and 33, above) in the royal cults of the Graeco-Roman world,
notably where they are connected with dynasties rather than individuals.54

54
F. W. Walbank, ‘Monarchies and monarchic ideas’, in F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen
and R. M. Ogilvie (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition, vii.1, The Hellenistic World
(Cambridge, 1984), 97–8, on Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynastic cults; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power:
The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 61–2, 118, on second-century celebration
of the birthdays of Augustus and Livia.
140 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The theory of such cultus as acknowledgement of exceptional benefactions is

sympathetically outlined by Nicolas of Damascus (Fragment 125) and by Philo
(Leg. ad Gaium 149–51), and Jews will have expected to render to their own
royal benefactors, as Alexandrian Jews did to the emperor, ‘all the honours
which the laws permitted’ (Philo, Flacc. 97).55 In this context, it would not
be surprising if Jews continued to keep the festal days of the founder of the
Herodian dynasty and the rebuilder of the temple after his death.
Such honours commonly ceased, however, when the monarch died;56
moreover, hostility to Herod the Great after his death was expressed by the
throngs of Roman Jews who supported the Judaean embassy of opposition
to Archelaus’ succession (Josephus, B.J. ii 80–3). Further, accession days are
replaced without affront by the equivalent days of an accredited successor.
It is therefore perhaps rather more likely that Herodis … dies should be
days of later Herodian kings. The festal days of Herod the Great had the
lustre of the founder of the dynasty and the re-founder of the temple; his
successors took over this aureole with the dynastic name ‘Herod’, which
was used by Archelaus, Antipas and Herod of Chalcis, and was applied to
Agrippa I. Their festal days, too, will have been ‘Herod’s days’. About the
year 50 Agrippa II succeeded Herod of Chalcis as protector of the temple,
and it may be suggested that his birthdays or accession-days, inheriting
associations with the house of Herod and with Herod’s temple, were still
known when Persius wrote, perhaps ten years later, by the traditional name
of Herod’s days.
Thus far, then, Willrich’s indication of Jewish—gentile tension as a strong
motive for Jewish honour to Jewish kings has been endorsed, and it has been
suggested that, although there is much to be said for the proposal that the
‘days’ belong to Herod the Great, it is perhaps somewhat more likely that, at
the time of Persius, they should have been days of the reigning Agrippa II.
A third element of Willrich’s case was his argument that the circumstances
of the Jews in Rome in particular favoured his interpretation. To those already
noted—their organization under the names of powerful patrons (or of the
households to which they belonged), and their benefit from the friendship

55
That the panegyric on Augustus in Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 143–7 derives from a composition used
in the Alexandrian synagogues is envisaged, following W. Weber, by E. Bammel, Jesu Nachfolger:
Nachfolgeüberlieferungen in der Zeit des frühen Christentums (Heidelberg, 1988), 19.
56
Price, Rituals, 61–2, with regard to Roman emperors.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 141

of Augustus and Herod—he added the presence of Herodian supporters in

Rome, as in Puteoli.
This consideration opens the larger question of the importance of the
gentile element among Herod’s supporters. Willrich himself emphasized that,
although Greeks were undoubtedly prominent in Herod’s court and following,
Greek or Roman names might cover Jewish personages, and he evidently held
that the Roman supporters were mainly Jews.57
Here Willrich perhaps thought especially of references in Josephus to
Herod’s ‘friends’, in the sense of close political adherents, in connection
with Herodian princes in Rome.58 The passages include Josephus, Ant. xvi
87 (Herod’s correspondence with all his friends made his son Antipater well
known in Rome); B.J. i 602–6, paralleled in Ant. xvii 80 (Herod’s friends in
Rome induced by Antipater and his friends to accuse Archelaus and Philip);
and B.J. ii 104–5, paralleled in Ant. xvii 328–31 (Herod’s friends support the
welcome of the youth who posed as Mariamme’s son Alexander in Puteoli
and Rome). Willrich will also have had in mind, however, two further
passages related to these, on the Roman lodgings of the princes: Ant. xv 343,
on the true Alexander and his brother in Rome at the house of Pollio, ‘one of
those most zealous for Herod’s friendship’; and Ant. xvii 20–1, on the Roman
nurture of Archelaus, Antipas and Philip—in the case of the two former
(Philip’s host is not mentioned) ‘by a certain Jew’, according to B. Niese’s
conjecture Ἰoudaíῳ in xvii 20, where MSS give i̓díῳ, ‘by a member of [the
royal] household’.
In the case of Alexander and Aristobulus (Ant. xv 343), Willrich held that,
especially since Herod would hardly have offended his Jewish subjects by
lodging them with a gentile, their host Pollio was more likely to be a Jewish
Herodian supporter than (as W. Otto had argued) Virgil’s patron C. Asinius
Pollio, who was consul when Herod received the title of king.59 Willrich’s
position on Pollio corresponds to his view that the Roman friends in general
were wealthy Jews, as might be suggested by their part in the welcome of the

57
Willrich, 101–2, 181; for Greek-speaking Jews connected with the Herodian family, see T. Rajak,
Josephus (London, 1983), 53–5; courtiers of Herod the Great usually taken to be non-Jews, but open
to reassessment in the light of Willrich’s remark, include the tutors Andromachus and Gemellus
(Josephus, Ant. xvi 241–3; Schürer, Geschichte, ET revised by Black, Vermes and Millar, i, 311).
58
Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman imperial usage of the title ‘Friend’ is documented by E. Bammel,
FΙLΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ, TLZ lxxvii (1952), cols. 205–10.
59
Willrich, 184–5, against W. Otto, ‘Herodes’, PW viii, Supp. 2 (1913), cols. 69 and 103.
142 Messianism among Jews and Christians

false Alexander. Apart from general considerations, however, an identification

with Asinius Pollio is discouraged, as Willrich noted, by the fact that Josephus
himself makes no explicit connection between the princes’ host and Asinius
Pollio, whom he has mentioned twice in the previous book of the Antiquities
(xiv 138 (through Strabo, as ‘Asinius’) and 389), whereas he might have been
expected to underline the distinction of Herod’s friend.60 Further, it can be
asked whether Asinius Pollio, who was not a close adherent of Augustus and
withdrew from politics under the principate, would have been chosen by
Herod or Augustus as the princes’ host or described by Josephus as zealous
for friendship with Herod; for Herod had indeed formerly, like Asinius Pollio,
been loyal to Caesar and Antony, but had now, unlike Pollio, transferred his
allegiance to Augustus.61
These particular objections probably do not exclude Asinius Pollio
altogether. Josephus can distinguish between individuals of the same name who
might otherwise be confused (n. 60, above), but there is no such distinction
here. The objection derived from Asinius Pollio’s personal detachment from
Augustus retains some force, but it must be balanced against the possibility
that he was, as L. H. Feldman urged, sympathetic with Judaism; this might be
suggested by the subject-matter of the Fourth Eclogue, which Virgil addressed
to him, by Herod’s advancement during his consulate, and by his patronage of
the Alexandrian historian Timagenes, who gave a friendly description of the
Hasmonaean Aristobulus I.62 Otto’s identification of Asinius Pollio as Herod’s
friend was independently defended, however, by Schalit. He questioned whether
a Jewish host would have been viewed as of sufficient eminence to be named in
this context, which emphasizes the distinction of the princes’ reception (their

60
Josephus habitually, however, points out possible confusions arising from recurrences of the
same name, as is noted in connection with Volumnius (with the example of Ant. xvii 343, on
Archelaus and his steward Archelaus) by E. Bammel, ‘Die Rechtsstellung des Herodes’, reprinted
from ZDPV lxxxiv (1968), 73–9, in E. Bammel, Judaica: Kleine Schriften I (Tübingen, 1986), 3–9
(3, n. 2).
61
The career and outlook of Asinius Pollio are described by R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford,
1939, reprinted 1985), 5–6, 291, 482–6, 512, and are likewise taken to be inconsistent with this
identification by M. Grant, Herod the Great (London, 1971), 145. The force of Willrich’s argument is
perhaps recognized in the doubts concerning the identification expressed by E. Groag and A. Stein,
Prosopographia Imperii Romani (2nd edn., Berlin and Leipzig, 1933), A 1241, 253; Asinius Pollio
had been regarded as the host in the first edition.
62
L. H. Feldman, ‘Asinius Pollio and His Jewish Interests’, Transactions of the American Philological
Association lxxxiv (1953), 73–80, followed by Stern, Authors, i, 213; G. Zecchini, ‘Asinio Pollione’,
ANRW ii 30, 2 (1982), 1265–96 (1279–81); and D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 43–4 (further literature).
Timagenes is Strabo’s authority in a description of Aristobulus quoted by Josephus, Ant. xiii 319 and
taken by Stern, Authors, i, 223 to show that (by contrast with other Alexandrian writers) Timagenes
was not hostile to the Jews.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 143

admission, also, to the house of Augustus himself is heavily stressed).63 Once

again, doubt might be prompted by Asinius Pollio’s detachment, but Schalit’s
observation would also suit R. Syme’s tentative suggestion that the friend was
Augustus’ unspeakable intimate Vedius Pollio.64 Asinius Pollio, the Pollio last
mentioned by Josephus, cannot be ruled out, however, given the consideration
from Augustus which his eminence enjoyed, despite his political detachment.
He remains on the whole perhaps the strongest candidate for identification
with this otherwise unspecified Pollio.65 In any case, Schalit’s discernment of
the aims of the passage makes it likely on the whole that the host belonged to
the gentile rather than the Jewish element of the Roman friends.
In the case of Malthace’s sons Archelaus and Antipas, Niese’s conjecture
Ἰoudaíῳ at Josephus, Ant. xvii 20, noted above, would make their host
unambiguously Jewish; but i̓díωι , the reading of the MSS, makes good sense
if rendered ‘a member of the household’, is supported by the Latin, and should
probably be followed. It is then an open question whether this high-ranking
Herodian domestic, who was perhaps also the host of Philip, was Jewish,
gentile, or partly Jewish; but in any case, he was a member of the household
rather than one of the group of friends.
Thus far, then, the friends of Herod in Rome appear as a mixed Jewish—
gentile group. To move beyond the considerations noted by Willrich, Roman
Jews of less wealth and standing connected with the house of Herod can be
discerned with fair likelihood in Rom. 16:10–11, where ‘those of Aristobulus’
perhaps belong to the household of a Herodian prince, the brother or the son
of Herod of Chalcis; the uncle and the nephew Aristobulus are both mentioned
in Josephus, B.J. ii 221, and an Aristobulus who is probably the nephew is
mentioned with Herod of Chalcis in Claudius’ letter of 45 to Jerusalem, as
reproduced in Ant. xx 13. Paul’s kinsman Herodion, who is mentioned in
Romans immediately afterwards (16:11), is probably a former Herodian slave,
perhaps from this same household.66

63
Schalit, Herodes, 413–4, n. 936; for the court-like overtones of admission to Augustus, see Syme,
Roman Revolution, 385.
64
R. Syme, ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?’, reprinted from JRS li (1961), 23–30 in R. Syme, Roman Papers
(ed.) E. Badian, ii (Oxford, 1979), 518–29 (529).
65
Goodman, ‘Judaea’, 742, n. 6 regards Asinius Pollio as probable, but Vedius Pollio as also possible.
66
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (4th edn., reprinted London, 1908), 174–5,
followed by C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, ii (Edinburgh, 1979), 791–2 (regarding the uncle as the likeliest of three candidates for
the identification), and P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten
(Tübingen, 1987), 135–6, 148 (leaving the precise identification open).
144 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Since the first appearance of this essay a further instance of Herodion

as a Jewish name in Rome has been identified by D. Noy (acknowledging a
suggestion by M. H. Williams). The name is found, spelt as Ἡrodíwn, in a
probably third- or fourth-century inscription on marble from the Jewish
catacomb of the Vigna Randanini (CIJ 173); the text, which was formerly
discussed as possible evidence for a synagogue ‘of the Herodians’, is republished
by Noy on the basis of his own reading (1993) and new interpretation as JIWE
ii 292. This identification is rejected by N. Kokkinos because of unexpected
spelling (Omicron for Omega), late date, and wholly Jewish context;67 but these
arguments do not seem strong. For the spelling, compare Omicron for Omega in
the dative of the name Theodora (Qeodórῃ) in a contemporary and comparably
carefully lettered marble plaque from the same catacomb (CIJ 83 = JIWE ii
206). For the date, compare the continuation of the Jewish use of the name
Herod into the fourth century, attested in inscriptions at Capernaum and Beth
Sheʾarim, as noted above (n. 7). On the context, note that these inscriptions also
come from Jewish contexts (synagogue and catacomb, respectively). It seems
likely, therefore, that just as the name Herod could recur in Jewish contexts in
post-Herodian Galilee, so Herodion could recur in a Jewish context in Rome.
Herodian connections are also possible in the synagogue of the Volumnesians
(attested in Roman inscriptions including CIJ 402 = JIWE ii 100), if it takes
its name from Herod’s friend Volumnius, procurator of Syria in 8 b.c.68 Of the
individual Roman Jews named in literary sources outside the New Testament
(eight from the Herodian period are listed by H. Solin), only Livia’s slave Acme
and Josephus himself have known connections with the house of Herod;69 but
Solin’s list does not include the members of the Herodian family who lived or
stayed for long periods in Rome. These data give at least some indication of
sections of the Jewish population, notably slaves or freedmen of households
with a Herodian connection, where the friends of Herod might find support.

67
Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 313, n. 169.
68
The Volumnesian identification is accepted by Penna (as cited in n. 44, above), 327, but judged
dubious by Smallwood, Roman Rule, 138, because Volumnius is not known to have been a benefactor
of the Jews; but this consideration is not so strong if the synagogue members are thought to have
belonged to his household. He was a supporter of Herod, as shown (with emphasis on Josephus,
Ant. xvi 269), by Bammel, ‘Rechtsstellung’ (as cited in n. 58, above), n. 2; and as a procurator of
Syria he could have returned to Rome with Jewish slaves in his household. For further literature and
discussion see now Noy’s commentary on JIWE ii 100.
69
H. Solin, ‘Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt’, ANRW ii. 29.2 (1983), 587–789,
1222–49 (658–9); Acme was executed by Augustus for intriguing with Antipater to bring about the
death of Herod’s sister Salome (Josephus, B.J. i 661).
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 145

The Roman Jews in general were known in the city for their public
demonstrations.70 Two of these have a recorded connection with the house
of Herod. At the second hearing before Augustus to determine Herod’s will
more than eight thousand Jews thronged to the temple of Apollo on the
Palatine to stand by the Judaean embassy opposing Archelaus (Josephus, B.J.
ii 80–3, parallel with Ant. xvii 300–3). The friends of Herod and his sons
failed to muster popular support on this occasion, no doubt because they
were divided, as the Herodian family was (B.J. ii 81). It was quite otherwise on
the occasion soon afterwards when the friends, as already noted, supported
the enthusiastic reception of the false Alexander. The young prince, as he was
thought to be, was borne in a litter with a royal retinue through the narrow
streets, perhaps in the quarter (probably in Trastevere) described by Persius,
amid the acclamations of vast crowds of Jews (Josephus, B.J. ii 101–10, parallel
with Ant. xvii 324–38). Here, as when Agrippa I was later welcomed by the
Jews of Alexandria, there is the atmosphere of what may be called a Herodian
messianism (section I, above).
In the Antiquities Josephus characteristically notes that the impostor was
popular because he was thought to be the son of the Hasmonaean Mariamme.
With a satire written half a century after this scene in view, it should be added
that popularity derived by Herodian princes from this source went towards
the strengthening of the Herodian house, for Agrippa I, his brother Herod of
Chalcis, and his son and daughter Agrippa II and Berenice, all important in
Rome, all shared this descent.
In sum, therefore, the evidence seems to be against the view that there
was little or no connection between the Herodian princes in Rome and the
Roman Jewish community.71 The Herodian friends probably included Jews
as well as gentiles, some of the slaves and freedmen who were an important
element in the community (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 155) are likely to have been
associated with house-holds of the Herodian family or its sympathizers, and
the community as a whole could be united in acclamation of a (supposed)
Herodian prince.

70
The pressure exerted by a crowd is regarded as typically Jewish by Horace, interpreted by J. Nolland,
‘Proselytism or Politics in Horace, Satires I, 4, 138–43’, VC xxxiii (1979), 347–55.
71
This is the opinion of Penna, ‘Les juifs à Rome’, 336 and n. 145, and (with reference to Agrippa I)
D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 43; to the contrary, good relations between Herodian princes and the
Jewish aristocracy in Rome, on the analogy of the Herodian cultivation of wealthy Alexandrian
Jews, are envisaged by S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 140, n. 101.
146 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The Roman Jewish community was therefore a setting in which the

celebration of Herodian festivals can appropriately be envisaged. Two further
aspects of the acclamation scene bear this out. First, the corresponding scene
at Alexandria called forth a famous Greek counter-demonstration, including
satirical cries of Marin, ‘our lord’, and Philo gives a reason for it which suggests
the great political advantage accruing to the Jewish population from the
possession of a king: each Alexandrian Greek was as vexed because a Jew had
been made a king as if he himself had been deprived of an ancestral kingdom
(Philo, Flacc. 29). This underlines the point already noted that, against the
general background of Jewish—gentile tension, the Roman Jews would be
likely to pay attention to the Herodian royal family, so often represented
in Rome. Secondly, the crowds recall that honour to a king was not, as has
perhaps sometimes been assumed in argument on ‘Herod’s days’, a mere
official form arousing no general interest. In the case of the imperial cult it has
been emphasized that the official prescriptions were not an empty formality
(Price (n. 54, above), 117–21), and similar considerations would apply to
Jewish honours.
Lastly, Willrich questioned the sabbath interpretation against the
background of references to Judaism in Roman poetry. ‘Herod’s days’, he
urged, would be a strange designation for the sabbaths, which were well known
to Romans (cf. Krauss, as cited in n. 48, above); one might perhaps expect
‘Saturn’s day’, as in Tibullus (i 3, 18; Stern, Authors, i, no. 126, 318–20). He did
not consider, however, the counter-argument from Juvenal vi 159 (noted in II
(c), above): dedit hunc Agrippa sorori | observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata
reges, ‘Agrippa gave this [gem] to his sister, where kings keep festal sabbaths
barefoot’ (Serarius and Nemethy, nn. 39 and 43, above). Juvenal, referring here
to Agrippa II and Berenice, treats Judaea as the place where kings keep the
sabbath with exotic piety, and Persius might likewise coin a phrase in which
the sabbaths are the days of a Jewish king.
This counter-argument would be reinforced, and Willrich’s doubt
concerning the sabbath interpretation would lose much of its justification, if
‘Herod’ were indeed a metonymy for ‘Jews’ elsewhere in Latin verse. This has
more recently been urged by Harvey (n. 20, above), with reference to Horace,
Ep. ii 2, 184 Herodis palmetis pinguibus; here, in a passage on differences of
taste and character, one brother is said to prefer an idle life to ‘Herod’s rich
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 147

palm-groves’, while the other, wealthy and untiring, works from dawn to dusk.
Harvey takes Persius to be following Horace, and understands the phrase as
equivalent to ‘the rich palm-groves of the Jews’; but this seems questionable,
because the palm-groves of Herod in particular, near Jericho, were famous.
Antony had given them to Cleopatra, and Octavian restored them to Herod
after Actium (Josephus, B.J. i 361, 396). Further, as C. Macleod pointed out,
the passage deals with ambition, and an allusion to the notable ambition of
Herod in particular adds to its force.72
Hence, if Juvenal’s line suggests that the interpretation of the phrase as an
abrupt equivalent for ‘sabbaths’ cannot be ruled out, Horace’s phrase starts the
counter-consideration that the knowledge of the Jews and Judaism available
to Roman satirists should not be minimized. Just as Horace’s reference to
Herod’s palm-groves seems to be precise and accurate, so his at first surprising
allusion to ‘tricesima sabbata’ (Sat. i 9, 69) probably reflects Jewish usage. Here
too it has been argued that this is simply a reference to weekly sabbaths, under
a fanciful name devised by the poet; but it is much more likely to refer to
new-moon festivals observed by the Jews of Rome (see Stern, Authors, i, 129,
324–6, and Thornton, ‘Jewish New Moon Festivals’, cited in n. 50, above).
Persius’ Herodis dies are similarly unparalleled, but appear in a context in
which otherwise, like Horace, the poet shows considerable knowledge of the
Jews in Rome, offering our best description of a diaspora festal meal. Even if
there were not the background of Herodian influence studied here, it would
be reasonable to suppose that Persius was using an uncommon but genuine
Jewish name for a festival.
The Herodian associations of the Roman Jewish community, and the far
from negligible knowledge of the Jews exhibited by satirists who lived in
Rome, therefore support the specifically Herodian interpretation of ‘Herod’s
days’ outlined above. These days were probably royal festivals, as is suggested
by independent references in Josephus and the New Testament to the
celebration of Herodian birthdays and accession days. The phrase Herodis …
dies in Persius is perhaps best explained by the suggestion that the birthdays
or accession-days of Agrippa II had inherited an existing designation,
‘Herod’s days’.

72
C. Macleod, Horace, The Epistles Translated into English Verse with Brief Comment (Rome, 1986), 82.
148 Messianism among Jews and Christians

III. Conclusions

Conclusions reached above can now be summarized as follows.

Herodian publicity, as echoed in the strikingly similar accounts of Herod’s
temple-restoration in Josephus’ Antiquities and the Talmud, found a great
focus in the dedication of the sanctuary on Herod’s accession-day (section I,
above). The restored temple, with all its ‘goodly stones and votive offerings’
(Luke 21:5), was thereby incorporated into the Herodian form of ruler-cult
(sections I (a) and II (d), above).
Jewish observance of the Herodian festivals corresponded to the importance
of the Herodian kings as Jewish patrons and representatives. Herod the Great
was presented in the temple restoration as a great king of the Jews, like the
kings of old. Examination of Nicolas’ narrative, as transmitted by Josephus
(section I (a), above), confirmed the interpretation of Herod’s policy as
thoroughly Augustan, yet thoroughly Jewish: an appeal to the pre-Maccabaean
biblical heritage (I (c), above).73 The Talmudic echo of this presentation (I (b),
above) suggests that it was not entirely rejected. It gave an answer to some
current criticism of Herod the Great, and its virtue as a shield of his house
will have been continually renewed by the impressive temple restoration itself
(Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5), which proceeded continuously until about the year 64
(Josephus, Ant. xx 219).
It can therefore be suggested once again that Herodis … dies in Persius
v 180 are Herodian birthdays or accession days—most probably those
of Agrippa II (section II (c)–(d), above). The Jews of Rome under Nero
about the year 60 would then have kept a Herodian festival, as was already
thought to be the case in comment on Persius from the later Roman empire
(section II (a)–(b) above). The suggestion in the form advanced above is a
variant of an interpretation of Persius put forward by J. J. Scaliger, which
has been perhaps most fully expounded and defended in recent times by
H. Willrich. It associates the passage in Persius with the unambiguous
evidence in Josephus and the New Testament for Jewish celebration of
Herodian festal days.

73
E. Bammel, ‘Sadduzäer und Sadokiden’, reprinted from ETL lv (1979), 107–15 in Bammel, Judaica
(as cited in n. 60, above), 117–26 (118–20); he follows Wellhausen’s view of Herodian policy, but
points also to the Augustan background, and shows how policy was put into effect.
 Herod’s Temple and ‘Herod’s Days’ 149

This argument brings into view a number of links between the Herodian
monarchy and the Jewish community, in the diaspora and in the homeland.
Herodian kings or princes have appeared at the centre of a Jewish community,
in Rome, Alexandria or Jerusalem. These scenes were noticed together with
some of the less dramatic traces of Jewish Herodian support at the beginning of
the essay, and comparable evidence for Herodian links with the Jews of Rome
was somewhat more fully considered in II (d). Hence, without discounting
the influence of the Zealot movement or the complexities of reaction to each
individual monarch, one may acknowledge, with rather more readiness than is
sometimes allowed, a measure of Jewish recognition of the Herods.74
The house of Herod protected a temple which was the focus of Jewish
communal life throughout the world. Herod the Great as temple builder was
invested in Nicolas’ presentation with an atmosphere of what can be called,
with due reserve, Herodian messianism (I (a) and (c), above). Later Herodian
monarchs evoked and shared this atmosphere, in a Jewish counterpart to the
contemporary ruler-cults (I (c) and II (c)–(d), above). The connections and
contrasts between the two appear especially in the career of Agrippa I, hailed
as lord among the Jews of Alexandria and as godlike in the theatre at Caesarea.
The Herodian form of ruler-cult, sometimes viewed merely as a concession
to Graeco-Roman manners, was also a medium for the expression of Jewish
national feeling. It corresponded to real needs of the Jewish community for
protection and for self-assertion, both at home and abroad. This aspect of
Herodian kingship was Jewish as well as Greek and Roman, and it deserves
further consideration among the antecedents of the cult of Christ.75

74
So H. Vogelstein, Rome (Philadelphia, 1940), 28–9. From this standpoint the allowance made by
Goodman, Ruling Class, 122–3 for favourable attitudes to Agrippa I and II among Jews would be
endorsed, and the Jerusalem and Judaean negative views of the Herods which he emphasizes would
be complemented by some notice of likely variations.
75
See now the present writer’s Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998), especially
68–77, 134–6, 144–5, pp. 118–20, above; pp. 314–17, 380–5, below.
150
The New Testament
 4

The Messianic Associations of

‘The Son of Man’1

Was ‘the son of man’, for Jews at the beginning of the Christian era, a messianic
title? During an earlier cycle of intensive study, reviewed by Schmidt, that
more than well-worn question received influential negative answers from
Lietzmann, Wellhausen, Dalman (differing in other respects from Wellhausen),
and S. R. Driver—although Fiebig returned an affirmative of striking clarity.
The affirmative later came to be more widely received; but, whereas Fiebig
had regarded the phrase as open to a messianic understanding by Jews in
general (Fiebig, 95), Billerbeck, finding this interpretation solely in 1 Enoch,
restricted the currency of the usage to ‘apocalyptic circles’ (Strack-Billerbeck,
485, 958). Such a restriction was not whole-heartedly endorsed by Bousset,
who enrolled the gospels as further witness to titular understanding of the
phrase by Jews (Bousset (1), 268; (2), 13); but it was probably encouraged
by his own association of the phrase with a pre-existent heavenly messiah,
differentiated from the human messiah of the Psalms of Solomon, and held to
be attested distinctively (but, in view of some Septuagintal evidence, not quite
exclusively) in the apocalypses (Bousset (1), 259–68).
Mowinckel combined elements of Fiebig’s view with Bousset’s theory.
‘Son of man’, he held, was widely regarded as one with the messiah, but in
apocalyptic circles the phrase meant, not the messiah (unless by a secondary
process of identification), but a distinct, heavenly, eschatological deliverer
(Mowinckel, 360–5).

1
This paper was written, in its first form, for a symposium of the Cambridge New Testament Seminar
in honour of the seventh-fifth birthday of Professor C. F. D. Moule.
154 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Doubts had meanwhile once again been expressed, especially in England,

concerning the prevalence of ‘the son of man’ as a messianic title. It was now
assumed that a distinctive ‘apocalyptic messiah’, as envisaged by Bousset, was
in question. It was noted, however, that the fullest source for the expectation
of such a figure, the Parables of Enoch, was of uncertain date, by no means
clearly pre-Christian, and part of a work with some claim to be rated among
the ‘hundred worst books’ (H. L. Goudge, endorsed by Campbell, 148).
The expectation of a heavenly messiah, even if pre-Christian, was probably
current only among the public for books like Enoch, a body not necessarily
representative of Jews in general. The phrase ‘son of man’ was much more
likely to have been associated with Dan. 7, a passage certainly generally known
among pre-Christian Jews. As used by Jesus, it was not a title, but a reference
to the Danielic figure, understood as a symbol for the saints, in the sense of
the loyal Israelites (so, for example, Manson, 72–4 (citing his earlier studies);
Dodd, 116f. (with reference also to Psalms 8 and 80; Moule (2), 11–14; Hooker
(1), 183–90, and (2), 155f., 158f., 165–8).
T. W. Manson’s exposition was criticized by Bowman, 285a, for minimizing the
importance of the interpretation of Daniel in the first century a.d. Nevertheless,
the powerful development of Manson’s view, as noted at the end of the foregoing
paragraph, has meant that the question whether ‘the son of man’ was a messianic
title is widely regarded as expecting the answer ‘No’. It is negated, for example, by
Kim, 19, even though he thinks that, in the pre-Christian period, the Danielic
figure could already have been viewed as a heavenly messiah.
This negative opinion has recently been strengthened (as noted by Hooker
(2), 158f.) by a return to Lietzmann and Wellhausen, in which the theories
of Bousset and of T. W. Manson are both alike ruled out. G. Vermes rejects
the view that ‘the son of man’ was messianically titular at the time of Jesus
(see Vermes (2), 327f.; (3), 168–77, 188f.; (4), 95–7); but he joins this rejection
with a second, positive argument, for interpretation of the gospel sayings as
circumlocutional. Vermes is endorsed in both respects (with modification of
the second argument) by P. M. Casey, in a detailed study of the history of
the exegesis of Dan. 7; and these authors are followed by Barnabas Lindars,
who applies the results of the two arguments (revising Casey’s revision of the
second) to the whole reconstruction of the historical Jesus (Casey (1), 137–9,
224–8 and (2), 46–54, 150; Lindars, vii–ix, 1–16, 158–61).
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 155

For clarity’s sake, however, it should be noticed that, as Vermes has

emphasized, the argument against the titular character of ‘the son of man’
is distinct from the argument for a circumlocutional use of the phrase by
Jesus (Vermes (3), 188). The two arguments do not stand or fall together. Thus
J. C. O’Neill, in appendix 2 of his book Messiah, argues for a circumlocutional
use by Jesus, but leaves open the question of titular usage; and M. D. Hooker,
on the other hand, accepts that such titular usage is unlikely, but modifies
Vermes’ other argument by urging that, in the mouth of Jesus, the phrase
was not only circumlocutional, but also, and more importantly, Danielic—
an identification with the mission of the people of God (O’Neill (1),
103–15; Hooker (2), 165–8). Prof. O’Neill’s discussion forms part of his
broader contention that Jesus believed himself to be messiah but refrained
from saying so, in reverent accord with a binding custom that one who so
believed should not proclaim himself (hinted at in John 19:7 ‘by our law
he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God’); D. Flusser had
also urged, without reference to such a custom, that Jesus, like the Teacher
of Righteousness in the Damascus Document, was a messiah awaiting the
time when he would be revealed as such (Flusser, 108–9; O’Neill (3), 89–91).
In further work since this essay first appeared, O’Neill has affirmed, with
acknowledgement to the argument on titular usage set out below, that titular
as well as circumlocutional usages of ‘the son of man’ were current in the
time of Jesus, and that both figure in sayings material attributed to him with
a good claim to authenticity; the titular usages (e.g. Matt. 24:37–9, Luke 17:
26–30) referred to the messiah in general but not to Jesus’ own status, and
the circumlocutional ones (e.g. Matt. 8:20, Luke 9:58) to humanity in general
or Jesus in particular but not to the messiah, so that in neither case did these
genuine son-of-man sayings constitute a messianic claim (O’Neill (2), 45–54,
122–32; (3), 80–4). A somewhat comparable combination of usages by Jesus
is suggested by B. D. Chilton; but he underlines the importance of generic
rather than simply circumlocutional senses of the phrase, in a modification
of Vermes like that urged by Casey, as cited above (compare also O’Neill on
applications to humanity in general) (Chilton, 259–68). Chilton takes the
usage described here as titular to be, as urged by Moule, a reference to the
Danielic figure in particular; Jesus would have meant by it an angel with
whom he saw himself as paired, in accord with the angelic as well as messianic
156 Messianism among Jews and Christians

associations of the phrase to be found both in Dan. 7 and in the Parables

of Enoch and Revelation (Chilton, 273–87). These further discussions thus
continue, for all their differences, to bring out the distinct character of the
arguments concerning titular and circumlocutional usage, respectively.
The present study, concentrated on messianism rather than Aramaic idiom,
will therefore treat only one of the two arguments advanced by Vermes. In
his view, which, as just noted, found formidable advocates in the past, and
has won wide acceptance in the present, the phrase ‘the son of man’ was not
employed as a title, and did not evoke any messianic concept at the time of
Jesus. In what follows it will be urged that, on the contrary, the messianic
interpretation of Dan. 7 is likely to be early enough to have given ‘the son of
man’ a messianic association at the beginning of the Christian era; and that
a distinct, but comparable, early messianic interpretation of words for ‘man’,
which appears to be rooted in non-Danielic biblical passages, strengthens the
probability that messianic significance could have been perceived in ‘the son
of man’ on its own. The phrase necessarily had a wide semantic range; but it
is likely that it included, within that range, established messianic associations,
such that it could have been taken by Jewish hearers or readers as a reference
to the messiah. In this sense, it will be suggested, the phrase was indeed a
messianic title.

II

Writers who differ widely on Dan. 7 converge when considering 1 Enoch,

2 Esdras, and sometimes also the interpretation of Dan. 7:9 ascribed to Akiba
(Hag. 14a, Sanh. 38b). In these texts they recognize an approximation between
the understanding of Dan. 7 and the messianic hope. Thus Mowinckel finds an
identification of the heavenly son of man as the messiah; Gese, a more explicit
continuation of the development of Davidic messianism to which he ascribes
Dan. 7 itself; and Vermes, denying that ‘the son of man’ was a title, still allows
that ‘the biblical Aramaic idiom, “one like a son of man”, in Dan. 7:13, though
not individual and Messianic in its origin, acquired in the course of time a
definite Messianic association’ (Mowinckel, 360–2; Gese, 143–5; Vermes (3),
176; (5), 38–40, 175–7). An argument against this conclusion from the Parables
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 157

of Enoch and 2 Esdras was presented, with instructive appeal to the history of
scholarship, by M. Müller, 66–88 (not available to me when this essay was first
published); a brief response, bringing out implications of section IV, below, was
offered in Horbury (1), 482–3. Also since the present essay first appeared, it
has been re-emphasized that (as was argued by Emerton, 236–8) the man from
the sea in 2 Esd. 13 can be seen against the background of Ugaritic texts to have
the traits of Baal in conflict with Yam and Mot and of the Lord in comparable
Old Testament passages, even though it is allowed that the explanation of the
vision in verses 21–58 moves in the direction of a messianic interpretation
(Hayman, especially 7–8, 13). On the other hand, the messianic associations
of ‘one like a son of man’ in the Parables of Enoch and 2 Esdras, and the value
of these texts as independent witnesses attesting common assumptions which
were probably more widespread, have been reaffirmed by Collins, 451–66.
This widely recognized messianic understanding of Dan. 7 corresponds,
as is emphasized below, to the establishment of links between Dan. 7 and
other biblical passages which were thought to refer to the messiah. Daniel was
highly esteemed as prophecy, as Josephus shows (Ant. x 267f., cited by Moule
(2), 14 and 16). Josephus’ silence on chapter 7 should be ascribed not to the
insignificance of the passage in his eyes (as suggested by Kim, 35), but to his
view of it as a prophecy of the downfall of Rome (Fraidl, 20 n. 3; Casey, 121).
His concern with Daniel, as Eduard Meyer showed, is only one instance of the
early and widespread impact made by the book (Meyer, 332f.). Nevertheless,
Josephus’ comments on Daniel suggest that he characteristically viewed it
together with the whole corpus of the law and the prophets. He emphasizes that
Daniel’s words will be fulfilled, in the same way that he speaks of the impending
fulfilment of Balaam’s oracles (Ant. iv 125, also implying the downfall of Rome,
as noted by Fraidl, loc. cit.), and of Moses’ predictions to the tribes (Ant. iv
303, 320; cf. 2 Baruch 84:2–4), and of the prophecy of Isaiah and the twelve
prophets (Ant. x. 35). In his synoptic view of messianic prophecy, beginning
from the fundamental law, but embracing the prophets, with special attention
to Daniel, together with it, Josephus exemplifies the outlook envisaged behind
the interconnection of messianic passages considered below.
Two Johannine passages have a claim to reflect, like Josephus, the broad
biblical basis found for the messianic hope by first-century Jews; one of them
suggests, further, the association of ‘the son of man’ with this hope. In John
158 Messianism among Jews and Christians

1:45 ‘we have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote’.
Further, in John 12:34, ‘we have heard out of the law that the Christ abides
for ever, and how do you say that the Son of man must be lifted up?’ Here, at
least for the simple, the son of man seems to be identified with the messiah,
and the messiah is thought, as in 1:45, to be prophesied in the law. (Bruce, 51,
is representative when he comments that there is no need to suppose that ‘the
son of man’ was current as a synonym for the messiah, and thinks that the
passage may reflect a Christian equation of the two.) On the supposition that
Jewish views are authentically reflected, the ensuing question ‘Who is this son
of man?’ would most naturally be thought to arise not from the obscurity of
the title (as suggested by Kim, 35), but from perplexity that the son of man, the
messiah, should suffer (so Meyer, ii, 337 n. 1, and Vermes (3), 162; cf. Trypho
in Justin, Dial. xxxii). According to these Johannine passages, then, ‘the son of
man’ was titular enough to evoke the thought of the messiah in first-century
Jewish hearers, and their messianic beliefs primarily attached not to newly
revealed apocalypses, but to the law and the prophets.
John therefore, taken at face value, suggests that ‘the son of man’ had been
incorporated into the messianic hope. Josephus confirms that, as would be
expected, Daniel was viewed together with the law and the prophets, the
sources from which, as the two Johannine passages show, the messianic hope
was held to spring. The background against which ‘the son of man’ should be
considered would accordingly be not Dan. 7 alone, but (as Bowman’s criticism
suggests) the messianic interpretation of the law and the prophets, into which
Dan. 7 also had been drawn. Such interpretation, as will be argued in the
following section, had already given the messianic hope a relatively stable core
by the beginning of the first century a.d. The influence of this interpretation,
with its characteristic interconnection of messianic texts, is in mind when
it is suggested, below, that ‘the son of man’ would have gained messianic
significance not only from messianic exegesis of Dan. 7, but also from the
messianic understanding of words for ‘man’ found elsewhere in the Bible.
This significance would have been sufficiently marked to warrant, in the sense
outlined at the end of the previous section, the description ‘messianic title’.
The history of the subject, as has become plain, offers strictly limited
comfort to such a view; but the proposal can appeal to two otherwise sharply
divergent studies of ancient Judaism as a whole. First, Bousset, in Die Religion
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 159

des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, argued that the use of a general

expression like ‘man’ for a messianic title is comparable with the titular use
of a word like a̓natolh́ (the same argument was advanced, with reference to
‘man’ rather than ‘the son of man’, by Vermes (I), 63). Bousset continued by
noting that, if ‘man’ is applied so frequently to a messianic figure as seems
to be the case in the Parables of Enoch, it has gone very far along the road
towards recognition as a messianic title (Bousset (1), 266 n. 1; compare the
recent statement of this view of Enochic usage by Black (2), 201–3). Secondly,
however, G. F. Moore, who strongly dissented from Bousset’s view of the
apocalypses as good witnesses to Judaism, nevertheless himself independently
held, in his book Judaism, that the discovery of the messiah in Daniel’s ‘son of
man’ was not likely to be original with the followers of Jesus or with himself—
this, on the basis, not of 1 Enoch, but of Akiba’s interpretation of the plural
‘thrones’ in Dan. 7:9 as one for the Almighty, and one ‘for David’ (Moore, ii,
336f.).

III

So much for the rags of academic respectability at which this argument may
clutch; but the reader will ask if it has any clothes at all, for it suspiciously
resembles what Lindars, following Paul Winter, now describes as a modern
myth (Lindars, 3–8). It asserts (1) that there was a relatively fixed core of
messianic belief at the time of Christ; and (2) that ‘the son of man’ was already
associated with this belief. Now, therefore, it must be asked what primary
evidence there may be for these assertions.
(1) Was messianism, at the beginning of the Christian era, in any degree a
stable and generally accepted set of beliefs? In the early 1950s, opposite views
on this point were advanced by Dodd and T. W. Manson. Dodd, in According
to the Scriptures (1952), wrote that ‘cristóV was a vague though extremely
honorific title.… It was not until after the fall of the Temple, perhaps not
until the second century, that there was any clearly formulated, and generally
accepted, messianic dogma’ (Dodd, 114). Manson, by contrast, in the Servant-
Messiah (1953), pointed to the remarkable concord in the expectation of
the Davidic king-messiah evinced between different sources, probably pre-
160 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Christian or contemporary with the gospels: Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18,

Philo, de praemiis et poenis; and the Fourteenth Benediction of the Amidah.
Their concord was borne out, so Manson suggested, by the messianic uprisings
of contemporary Jewish history (Manson, 23–35). Casey is among those who
incline towards Dodd’s view (Casey, 136–9), but here he differs from Vermes,
who quotes the same texts as Manson, in an argument leading to the same
conclusion, but with two important additions: first, he shows that Qumran
evidence also attests the significance of the Davidic messiah, and, secondly,
he notes that two of the sources quoted—the Psalms of Solomon and the
Fourteenth Benediction—are prayer-texts, and therefore likely to enshrine
widely held views (Vermes (3), 130–4).
To go beyond the evidence cited by Manson and Vermes, one may note that
the importance of the Davidic hope, and the likelihood that it was relatively
fixed by the beginning of the Christian era, are already suggested by its
prominence in the Old Testament. Especially noteworthy, together with Isa.
11:2–5 is the mention of David as ἄrcwn ei̓V tòn ai̓w͂na (Ezek. 37:25) in the
influential concluding chapters of Ezekiel, after the resurrection of the dead
and the ingathering, and before the war with Gog of the land of Magog: that is
to say, in the middle of what was read as an outline of the eschatological events.
Further, by the first century the Davidic hope of the prophets had been
linked with the law, especially with the blessings of Judah in Gen. 49 and
Deut. 33 (cf. 1 Chron. 5:2, 28:4), and with the oracles of Balaam in Num. 24;
and it is in the law as well as the prophets, as suggested already, that a Jew
of the time would instinctively look for messianic texts. The link between
law and prophets emerges, for instance, from Gen. 49:9f. lxx, where, after
‘Judah is a lion’s whelp’, verse 9b runs ‘from the shoot, my son, you came up’.
ΒlástoV ‘shoot’, is strikingly put in the place of Hebrew ṭerep, ‘prey’; and it is
the word used for the ‘blossom’ of the vine in the chief butler’s dream, Gen.
40:10. This vine was itself interpreted messianically and sacerdotally, in an
exegesis attributed to Bar Cocheba’s uncle, Eleazar of Modin (Hullin 92a).
When ‘from the shoot’ is followed by a̓nébhV, ‘you came up’, however, the
rendering also constitutes a reminiscence of Isa. 11:1 lxx, ‘a bloom shall come
up’ (a̓nabh́setai) ‘from the root’. A comparable connection between these two
verses is presupposed (as noted by Vermes (1), 43) in Rev. 5:5 ‘the lion of the
tribe of Judah, the root of David’, and, probably, in 2 Esd. 12:31f., where the
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 161

seer’s lion is identified as the Anointed, who (in the Syriac text) ‘shall spring up
out of the seed of David’. Similarly, in the next verse of the Septuagint Genesis,
as is well known, ἄrcwn ‘ruler’ renders Hebrew sēbeṭ, ‘sceptre’; and Vermes
draws attention to a comparable connection between this verse and Isa. 11:1 in
Qumran commentaries on both passages (Vermes (3), 133). These exegetical
interconnections, of a type recently studied by Koenig and Heater, tend to
unify and strengthen the complex of messianic texts; and it is noteworthy
that they are developed so far, in specifically messianic interpretation, by the
period of the Septuagint and the Qumran texts.
Hence, there are good grounds for holding that the messianic hope of the
first century a.d. was thought to be rooted in law as well as prophets, as the
Johannine passages and Josephus would suggest; and that, in the expectation
of the Davidic messiah, it already had a stable core of widely shared and
relatively fixed belief. (For further study of the ‘core’ question since this essay
first appeared, see pp. 11–13, above; Horbury (2), 36–108; O’Neill (3), 27–72.)

IV

It can now be asked, (2) To what extent was ‘the son of man’ associated with
this messianic hope? Two classes of evidence will be considered. The first is
drawn from the messianic exegesis of Dan. 7; the second, reviewed in the
following section, is from a distinct, but comparable, messianic interpretation
of words for ‘man’.
At the beginning of section II it was noticed that a messianic understanding
of Dan. 7:13 is widely recognized by students in 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and the
interpretation of the ‘thrones’ attributed to Akiba (one early item in more
extensive rabbinic evidence). Frequent application of a biblical text to
the messiah means that key words in that text are likely to gain messianic
associations. Thus in Gen. 49:9, just considered, ‘Judah, a lion’s whelp’ leads to
Rev. 5:5, where ‘the lion’ is titular, and is identified with ‘the root’, another title,
arising from Isa. 11:1; and ‘a lion’s whelp’ leads also, in 2 Esd. 11:37. to what
may be called a fully paid-up lion, beheld ramping and roaring by the seer, and
interpreted to him as ‘the anointed one’ (12:32). The comparison with a lion
in Gen. 49:9 was thus developed, by virtue of the messianic application of the
162 Messianism among Jews and Christians

verse, into a title signifying the messiah. The description of a man-like figure in
Dan. 7:13 could have initiated a similar development, as was suggested in the
comments by Bousset and (with reference to ‘man’ in other biblical contexts)
by Vermes, noted at the end of section II, above.
The force of this consideration obviously depends upon the age and
frequency of the messianic exegesis of Dan. 7:13. That it was common, and
that it probably goes back at least to the last quarter of the first century a.d.,
can be seen especially clearly from the discussion by Vermes (3), 170–7.
Lindars, going one step further, accepts that the gospel source Q, and
Jewish interpretation in 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras, drew independently upon a
messianic exegesis of Dan. 7 which was already current (Lindars, 159). It may
be inferred that he would regard it as well established by the middle of the
first century a.d.
Casey, however, is not confident that the messianic interpretation of
Dan. 7 is earlier than 2 Esdras; and, unlike Vermes and Lindars, he does not
believe that the saying attributed to Akiba is a testimony to the messianic
interpretation, or evidence for its date (Casey, 85–9, 136f.). The early evidence
for the interpretation should accordingly be reviewed.
It should be noticed, first, that the saying attributed to Akiba is one of a
number of attestations, in sources of different character, from the end of the
first century a.d. and the beginning of the second. It stands together with
1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and Sib. v. 414–33 (dated before Bar Cocheba, and perhaps
in the last years of the first century a.d., by J. J. Collins in Charlesworth,
i, 390). From later in the second century come the remarks on Dan. 7 assigned
to Trypho by Justin, Dial. xxxii (between 155 and 160, according to Harnack,
i, 281).
In all these sources, except the last, the messianic interpretation is assumed
without argument. Consistently with this phenomenon, Trypho is envisaged
by Justin as accepting that Dan. 7 is a prophecy of the messiah, and as objecting
solely to the identification of the glorious Danielic figure with the crucified
Christ. Trypho’s speech permits the interpretation that he expects a great and
glorious human messiah, and its authenticity as a report of Jewish messianism
need not, therefore, be impugned (as by Higgins, 301).
The messianic interpretation is therefore assumed in sources of disparate
provenance: two Jewish apocalypses, a rabbinic tradition, a Sibylline oracle
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 163

from Egyptian Jewry, and a Christian report of Jewish messianic belief. The
first four of these sources, representing both Palestine and the Diaspora, come
from not long before and after a.d. 100. This exegesis is likely, then, to have
been widespread at a considerably earlier date.
Are there indications of its pre-Christian currency? Kim’s suggestion that it
is attested in an Aramaic Qumran fragment needs further substantiation; for
the figure called ‘son of the Highest’ in 4Q246 (partly published by Fitzmyer
(1) 91–4) could be viewed negatively in the text, particularly if the passage on
his titles echoes Ps. 82:6 (a possibility not considered in the discussion by Kim,
20–2). Since this essay first appeared, the text (one partly-preserved and one
complete column, each of nine lines) has been edited in full by E. Puech (2),
who brings out its wealth of Danielic allusion and classifies it as a fragment
of an apocryphon of Daniel. It probably does not constitute further evidence
for the messianic interpretation under review, but it is of note for the present
argument in at least two ways.
First, the view that the lines (i 9–ii 1) on a figure who will be called ‘son
of God’ and ‘son of the Highest’ attest a messianic interpretation of the ‘one
like a son of man’ in Daniel has much to be said for it, as is shown by Collins
(2), 154–72; but the conclusion that this figure hailed with lofty titles is that
of an evil king seems preferable (Puech (2), 178–84), and it fits the thematic
importance of a coming evil king in Daniel and elsewhere (ch. 11, below), and
of ruler-cult in Daniel and its early interpretation (Dan. 6:8–10 (7–9)); lxx
Dan. 3:12, 18 ‘your image’; Mastin, as cited p. 71, above; Horbury (2), 72, 74).
Secondly, however, the text goes on to present (ii 4–9) what seems to be
a vivid personification of ‘the people of the saints of the most High’ (Dan.
7:18–27); war and oppression will last ‘until the people of God arise’ (4Q246 ii
4), when ‘all the provinces will do him [the people] homage; the great God is
his strength, he will wage war for him’ (2:7–8). For this personification of ‘the
people of God’, in expression of similar sentiments, compare the influential
oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam. 7:10 ‘and I will appoint a place for my people Israel,
and will plant him, and he shall dwell in his own place, and shall be disturbed
no more; and the children of iniquity shall not again oppress him, as at the
first’ (the singular pronouns referring to ‘my people Israel’ in the Hebrew here
are rendered by English plurals in AV, RV, REB, NRSV). The view of Israel
which is implied in these lines of 4Q246 would then be broadly comparable
164 Messianism among Jews and Christians

with the presentation of Israel as God’s first-born (Exod. 4:22) in the prayer of
the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504 1–2 cols. iii–iv (xiv–xv), moving from
Israel as son to the honouring of ‘your people’ by the gentiles).
This interpretation of 4Q246 2:5–9 seems on balance more satisfying, as
Puech urges, than renderings (such as that expounded by Fitzmyer (2), 43–51)
which depend on the assumption that after line 4 an unnamed king, probably
the figure to be hailed as divine son in line 1, comes into view in place of
the ‘people’ just mentioned in line 4; and the reference of lines 5–9 to God’s
people, in direct continuation of line 4, can appeal (see Puech (2), 174–8,
183) to biblical and post-biblical passages on the nation as divinely favoured.
Thus 4Q246 2:7–8, just quoted, echo the divine promises to Zion that kings
and nations shall bow down before her (Isa. 49:23, 60:14), taken up again in
Enoch’s vision of the beasts and birds worshipping the sheep (1 En. 90:30), and
then the assurances of Moses, of the priest marching with the army, and Joshua
that the Lord will make war for Israel (Exod. 14:14; Deut. 1:30, 3:22; Deut.
20:4; Jos. 23:10) (these biblical passages, which seem particularly close, can be
added to those cited in Puech’s commentary).
These lines so understood are still of note in the present context, however,
because they suggest that early interpretation of Dan. 7 included meditation
on ‘the people of the saints’ as well as the correlated ‘one like a son of man’. This
line of thought would have been in agreement with the prominence of the flock
of ‘sheep’ and the ‘righteous’ in the second Dream-vision of Enoch and the
Apocalypse of Weeks; see 1 En. 90:19–38 (from the second Dream-vision), cited
above, and 91:12–13 (from the Apocalypse of Weeks), following the Aramaic
text ‘a sword shall be given to the righteous, to execute righteous judgment
upon all the wicked, and they shall be delivered into their hands …’ (4Q212,
col. iv, lines 15–18). The use of the Aramaic language for the transmission of
the text in 4Q246, as for the Enochic prophecies just cited, will have allowed
in principle a relatively widespread reception. Argument that ‘the son of man’
as used by Jesus indicated the Danielic figure understood as a symbol of ‘the
people of the saints’ (see especially Moule and Hooker, cited in section I) can
therefore be strengthened by reference to the importance of the personified
‘people’ in this strand of early Danielic interpretation. Note, however, that
the Enochic dream-vision focused on the sheep finds its culmination in a
white bull symbolizing an Adam-like messianic king; comparably with the
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 165

sheep, he is feared and entreated (cf. Ps. 72:5) by the beasts and birds (1 En.
90:37, as interpreted by Black (3), 20–1, 279–80; Nickelsburg, 406–7). Given
the correlation of people and messianic king exemplified here (and noted in
general terms by Puech (2), 182), the people-oriented strand in meditation on
Dan. 7 was also compatible with the messianic interpretation of the Danielic
‘one like a son of man’ which became common and is studied in this chapter.
Another Qumran find, the Hebrew text 11Q13 (11Q Melchizedek), has
already received a short discussion in chapter 1 (pp. 85–6, above). This text
suggests that the book of Daniel was drawn into messianic interpretation
before the rise of Christianity, but it probably cites the ninth rather than
the seventh chapter of Daniel. The fragments are assigned to three columns
of the manuscript in the fresh edition by García, Tigchelaar and van der
Woude (221–41), published since this essay first appeared. Continuous text
is available only in col. ii, the greater part of which has been recovered; it
includes description of the end of days as the tenth jubilee and (with a series
of allusions to Isa. 61:1–2) as the proclamation of liberty to the captives by
Melchizedek (2.4–6) in his ‘year of grace’ (2.9), when he will also execute
the divine vengeance (2.13). He is the ‘god’ who ‘will judge in the midst of
the gods’ and rebuke their wickedness (Ps. 82:1–2, applied in 2:10–12 to
Melchizedek condemning Belial and his spirits).
The prediction is further confirmed (11Q13, col. ii 15 onwards) by
interpretation of Isa. 52:7, a passage which like Isa. 61:1 presents a figure with
‘good tidings’. The bearer of good tidings in Isa. 52:7 is identified (2:18) as ‘the
anointed of the spirit’ (cf., again, Isa. 61:1) ‘as Dan[iel] said […’. The subsequent
lacuna is filled by the editors from Dan. 9:25, ‘until an anointed, a prince, seven
weeks’. A quotation from this passage would suit the earlier reference in 11Q13
(2:7–8) to ‘the first week of the jubilee’ and to ‘making atonement’ (lekapper,
cf. Dan. 9:24 u-lekapper). The ‘anointed of the spirit’ is often interpreted as a
(possibly prophetic) figure distinct from Melchizedek (so Puech (1), pp. 553–4;
García, Tigchelaar and van der Woude, 232); but the allusion to Isa. 61:1 in
this phrase suggests that it refers rather to Melchizedek himself, a king whose
activity has just been presented in the terms of Isa. 61:1–2 in 11Q13 2:4–6; 9;
13, as noted above (so Hultgård, i, 307–8; Rainbow, 193). The presentation of
Melchizedek in this text, as a formerly earthly king who comes again as a great
spirit or demi-god (elohim) with deliverance from heaven, has been compared
166 Messianism among Jews and Christians

to that of the son of man in the gospels (so, for example, Puech (1), 556–8). This
overall resemblance is noteworthy, and the possibility of a debt to Dan. 7 in
11Q13 is underlined by the phrase ‘peo]ple of the saints of God’ (ʿa]m qedoshey
ʿel) in 11Q13 2.9; but the contribution of 11Q13 to the present argument lies
also in the Danielic citation of ii 18. It emerges here that the book of Daniel was
drawn, before the rise of Christianity, into the complex of messianic biblical
interpretation. The ninth rather than the seventh chapter was probably in
view, given the special suitability of Dan. 9:25 to the context; but the general
likelihood that the seventh chapter too received a messianic exegesis before
the rise of Christianity is enhanced by 11Q Melchizedek through this appeal
to Daniel as well as the seeming echoes of Dan. 7 in portrayal of the deliverer
and the delivered ‘saints’.
Pre-Christian currency for this exegesis is rather more strongly supported
by Ezekiel the Tragedian (first-century b.c. or earlier, as argued in chapter 2,
pp. 92–5). In Ezekiel’s play Moses dreams of a great throne, and a noble man,
crowned and sceptred, sitting upon it; but this figure beckons to Moses, hands
over the sceptre to him, tells him to sit on a (or the) great throne, and gives him
a royal crown. He then departs from the thrones, and Moses sees all earth and
heaven, and counts the stars, which fall before his knees. Raguel tells Moses
that the dream presages his future rule and prophetic knowledge.
The resemblances between this passage (lines 68–89) and both Ps. 110:1–4
and Dan. 7:9ff. are noted by Jacobson, 90f., and influence from Dan. 7 is
definitely identified by van der Horst, 24: Moses, comparably with the man-like
figure in Dan. 7:13f., approaches the throne and receives sovereignty. At many
other points the description is probably indebted to other biblical sources.
Two further considerations, however, are consistent with the suggestion
of influence from Dan. 7 in particular. First, the sovereignty exercised by
the man-like figure in Daniel is underlined in the probably interpretative
rendering of the Old Greek (lxx), where (in contrast with Theodotion) the one
‘as a son of man’, having come, ‘was present as ancient of days’ (Stuckenbruck,
especially 271–6). The presentation of the enthronement of Moses in the
dream is therefore in line with a strand in early understanding of the seventh
chapter of Daniel. Secondly, the plural ‘thrones’ in Ezekiel Tragicus 76 e̓k
qrónwn cwrízetai has been explained as simply an elegant variation on the
singular (commentators cited by Holladay, 444); but it seems likely also to
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 167

reflect biblically-rooted Jewish conceptions of the deity enthroned with great

powers or favoured spirits beside him, and to accord significantly with the
Danielic scene. So in the Wisdom of Solomon, without clear knowledge of
Daniel yet probably in line with existing convention, the divine ‘thrones’ are
shared by wisdom (9:4), but, in a variation comparable with that of Ezekiel
Tragicus here, the deity is asked to send her from the singular ‘throne’ of his
glory (9:10); and, later on in another section of the book, the divine word leaps
from ‘royal thrones’ in heaven (18:15). Comparably, the earthly king David
has ‘thrones’ (Wisd. 9:12; cf. Ps. 122:5). Similarly, in Dan. 7:9 plural ‘thrones’
are set. In Revelation, here with clear knowledge of the book of Daniel, there
is a throne with the surrounding thrones of the elders (4:3–4), and in a later
passage ‘thrones’ (20:4), and then ‘a great white throne’ (20:11). In Ezekiel
Tragicus, comparably, a singular ‘great throne’ (lines 68–9, 74) is occupied by
the ‘noble man’ until he seats Moses upon it and ‘departs from the thrones’
(line 76). The variation in these lines is therefore probably more than simply
stylistic, and it recalls not just current convention in depiction of the divine
thrones, but also the Danielically-influenced literary visions of Revelation.
These two considerations, derived respectively from the Greek Daniel and
from Ezekiel’s diction, do not amount to additional attestations of Danielic
influence on Ezekiel Tragicus here. They show, however, that the proposal that
this narrative is influenced by Dan. 7 is consistent both with the early history
of Danielic interpretation, and with an element in Ezekiel’s diction which has
evoked comment. Danielic influence is probably rightly detected in the central
action of the narrative.
For the present purpose this is significant. As other Danielic passages are
treated as familiar in 1 Macc. 1:54; 2:59f., a work roughly contemporary with
Ezekiel’s play, so here the narrative of 7:13f. in particular has left its mark.
The part played by the man-like figure in Daniel is taken by the man Moses,
who is to be endowed with sovereignty and the gift of prophecy (lines 85–9),
and who was viewed in the first century a.d. and later as a prototype of the
messiah. (See Acts 7:35 with Vermes (3), 97f., citing, among other passages,
Josephus, Ant. xx 97, on Theudas, and Targ. S. of S. 4:5 ‘your two redeemers
who will redeem you, Messiah son of David and Messiah son of Ephraim, are
like Moses and Aaron …’.) Ezekiel’s presentation is itself likely to have been
formed not only by Dan. 7, but also by messianically interpreted psalms, such
168 Messianism among Jews and Christians

as 45 and 110 (both compared by Jacobson, 90f.). Moses’ dream in Ezekiel’s

tragedy (not discussed by Vermes, Casey and Lindars) can therefore be said
to presuppose an exegesis of Dan. 7:13f. which is very close to the messianic
exegesis under review; and the probability that this messianic exegesis is pre-
Christian is considerably strengthened thereby.
Thus far, the variety of the sources in which the messianic exegesis is
attested at the end of the first century a.d. has suggested that it was widespread
considerably earlier; 11Q Melchizedek has shown, if the reading is true, that
Daniel was quoted as a specifically messianic prophet at Qumran; and Ezekiel
the Tragedian, whose understanding of Dan. 7:13f. is close to the messianic
exegesis has been seen to strengthen the likelihood that it was current in the pre-
Christian period. Note is now taken of a feature of the attestations from the first
and second centuries a.d. which points in the same direction, their dependence
on a combination between Daniel and other messianic biblical texts.
The combination of texts manifest in each passage arises from the process
of interpretative interconnection, which was exemplified from Gen. 49:9f.
(section III, above). Thus, 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras draw in different ways on a
link between Dan. 7 and Isa. 11. In the second parable of Enoch, which begins
with a vision based on Dan. 7, the Elect One has the spirit of wisdom and
understanding (1 En. 49:3 Isa. 11:2), and has been identified as the messiah
(1 En. 48:10) and the son of man to whom belongs righteousness (1 En. 46:3;
cf. Isa. 11:4f. and ‘messiah of righteousness’ in a Qumran comment on Gen.
49:10 (4Q252; Allegro, 175; G. J. Brooke in Brooke et al., 205–6; ch. 1, n. 25,
above) and in Targ. Jer. 33:15 (Vermes (1) 53 n. 2)). Similarly, in the third
parable, the enthroned son of man (1 En. 62:2f. will exercise the attributes
described in Isa. 11:2–4 (parallels tabulated and discussed by Theisohn, 57–63;
cf. 100–13). In both parables, the combination of the enthronement of the son
of man by the Lord of Spirits with the doom of the kings (1 Enoch 45:3, 46:3–6,
62:1–3) depends on a link between Dan. 7 and Ps. 110 (Theisohn, 98), and
probably also Ps. 2, where the kings rebel against the Lord and his Anointed
(Nickelsburg & VanderKam, 262), and Ps. 48:4–6. Similarly, again, in 2 Esdras,
the man flying with the clouds of heaven burns up his foes by his words and
breath (2 Esd. 13:3 f., 10; cf. Dan. 7:13; Isa. 11:4).
The possibility of allusions to Isa. 11:4 in 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras is allowed
by Emerton, 237, with reference also to a comparable allusion in Ps. Sol. 17:27;
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 169

but he prefers to derive the description of fire from the mouth in 2 Esd. 13:10
from the abundantly attested storm imagery of Old Testament theophanies,
for example, Ps. 18:8. In both 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras, however, the man-like
figure is identified as the messiah; and, in view of the pre-Christian messianic
application of Isa. 11 already noted in both Hebrew and Greek sources
in section III, above, as well as in Ps. Sol. 17, this chapter seems the more
likely source for the description in 2 Esdras. Isa. 11:4, in a less inflammatory
interpretation, was also influential within the Septuagint of Isaiah, at 32:2 (as
noted by Koenig, 143, with acknowledgement to R. R. Ottley); it seems likely to
the present writer (section V, below) that the latter verse was also understood
messianically by the translator (another interpretation in Koenig, 146 n. 14).
Comparably with the combination of texts in 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras,
Akiba’s saying (Casey’s view of which is discussed below) presupposes a link
between Dan. 7 and a text on messianic session, probably Ps. 110:1. Again,
the Fifth Sibylline, within the Danielic frame of the blessed man who comes
from heaven in the last time of the saints (lines 414, 432; cf. Dan. 7:13, 22, and
Num. 24:17 lxx), sets a picture coloured by other messianic texts; it includes
his God-given sceptre (Pss. 2:9, 45:7f., 110:2; cf. 1Q Recueil des Bénédictions
(1QSb), col. v, line 24 (adaptation of Isa. 11:4 follows immediately), and
Ezekiel the Tragedian, 1.74); his burning-up of the cities and nations of the
wicked (line 419; cf. Num. 24:18f., Isa. 11:4); and his rebuilding of Jerusalem
and the temple (lines 420–7; cf. 2 Sam. 7:10–14; Ezek. 37:24–8; Hag. 2:7; Zech.
7:12). The dependence of this Sibylline passage on Dan. 7:13 is unjustifiably
discounted by Casey, 120; he does not mention the references to the heavens
and the time of the saints.
Lastly, Trypho, having heard out Justin’s declamation of the whole of
Dan. 7:9–28, replies ‘O man, these and other like scriptures compel us to await
one great and glorious, who receives the everlasting kingdom as son of man
from the ancient of days’ (Justin, Dial. xxxii). It is therefore expected by Justin
that, as will indeed have occurred before the passages just examined could take
shape, Dan. 7:13f. would have been set by Jewish interpreters together with
‘other like scriptures’ thought to refer to the messiah.
In these passages, therefore, Dan. 7:13f. have been combined (to note
only the shared allusions) with Isa. 11:2–4 (1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and the Fifth
Sibylline), Ps. 110 (1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, the Fifth Sibylline, and probably Akiba’s
170 Messianism among Jews and Christians

saying; so, already, Ezekiel the Tragedian), and Ps. 2 (1 Enoch; 2 Esdras (God’s
king on Mount Zion; Ps. 2:6; cf. 2 Esd. 13:6f., 35f.), and the Fifth Sibylline).
The wide range of origin of the passages, embracing both Palestine and the
Diaspora, means that their shared links between texts are likely to be old. In
the case of Ps. 110 this likelihood is confirmed by Ezekiel the Tragedian. The
specifically messianic interpretation of Dan. 7 is indicated especially by the
shared link with Isa. 11, as well as with messianically interpreted psalms. From
consideration of the common use of this combination of texts, it would be
natural to ascribe the origin of the messianic interpretation to a period very
considerably earlier than that of the attestations themselves.
Before this consideration is drawn together with those already advanced,
it is necessary to recur to the saying in Akiba’s name; for Casey, as noted
already, discounts it as evidence for the messianic interpretation of Dan. 7:13
(Casey, 86–8). Akiba’s assertion that one of the ‘thrones’ mentioned in Dan.
7:9 is ‘for David’ is referred by Casey, 87, to the historical David rather than
the messiah; but this is implausible, especially when the messianism of the
early second century is remembered, because of the messianic understanding
of ‘David’ already prominent in the Old Testament (as noted in section III,
above, with reference to Ezek. 37:25; cf. Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 34:23f.; Hos. 3:5 (with
jBer. 5a, quoted by Moore, 2, 326). It is objected, further, that Akiba’s reference
to Dan. 7:9 does not necessarily imply any particular interpretation of Dan.
7:13 (Casey, 87; so also Dalman, 391, withdrawing his earlier view). If ‘David’
refers to the messiah, however, the likelihood of such an atomistic exegesis in
this instance is not strong; for verse 13, as already noted, was widely associated
with the messiah. (Add, to the four other passages discussed above, Sanh. 98a
(in the name of Joshua b. Levi, third century) and Num. R. 13.14, on Num.
7:13 (anonymous); in both these places, as in the other passages already noted,
the messianic application of Dan. 7:13 is a matter of course.) Moses’ dream
in Ezekiel the Tragedian also probably implies a connection, as suggested
above, between the thrones and the transmission of sovereignty in verses 13f.
Lastly, Casey suggests that the ascription of one of the thrones to ‘David’ was
intended as a contribution to the widely discussed problem of reconciling a
plurality of thrones with the unity of God; this solution, he thinks, could have
been offered without any associated messianic interpretation of verse 13. It has
already been noticed, however, that an association with ‘David’ in verse 9 is
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 171

likely to imply acceptance of the messianic exegesis of verse 13; and A. F. Segal,
accordingly, in his review of rabbinic discussion of ‘two powers’, finds in this
saying a messianic interpretation of the one like a son of man, and thinks it
likely to be early. The later rabbinic tendency (represented in the disagreement
which Akiba’s saying is reported to have met) was to unify such conflicting
representations of the deity as seemed to be suggested by the ancient of days
and the man-like figure (A. F. Segal, 47–9). This saying can therefore continue
to be viewed as an important indication that, in the Palestinian rabbinic
movement of the early second century, as well as in the Parables of Enoch,
II Esdras, the Fifth Sibylline, and Justin’s picture of Trypho, Dan. 7:13 was
regarded as a messianic text; see p. 11, above.
The considerations evoked by these attestations can now be viewed together.
The range and variety of the sources for the messianic exegesis, at the end of
the first century a.d. and the beginning of the second, immediately suggest
that it was widespread at an earlier date. Secondly, the likelihood that it arose
in the pre-Christian period receives general support from the quotation of
Daniel as a messianic prophet at Qumran, if 11Q Melchizedek is correctly read;
and ascription to this period is more particularly suggested by the witness of
Ezekiel the Tragedian, whose understanding of Dan. 7:13f. in view of the rôle
of Moses as prototype of the messiah, is very close to the messianic exegesis.
Thirdly, the common dependence of the attestations from c. a.d. 100 upon a
combination of Dan. 7:1 with other messianically interpreted texts indicates a
prior exegetical development, such that the messianic exegesis probably arose
very considerably earlier than these attestations of it. The three considerations
all point in the same direction. In particular, the indications of prior exegetical
development, viewed together with the interpretation in Ezekiel the Tragedian,
speak for an origin no later than the early first century a.d., and possibly much
earlier.
New Testament evidence for a messianic interpretation of Dan. 7:13,
however its attribution is more precisely to be determined, could then be
regarded (as by Lindars, 159, in the case of Q) as a further attestation and
development of the widespread Jewish interpretation. Thus, it would be
possible to consider the combination of Dan. 7:13 with Ps. 110:1 in Mark 14:62
not simply as Christian exegetical development (it is so explained by Casey,
182, and Lindars, 110–12), but as a further employment, whether by Jesus (to
172 Messianism among Jews and Christians

whom the saying is ascribed by Moule (1) 86; (2) 27) or an early Christian, of
a combination of texts which also influenced both Ezekiel the Tragedian, and
the attestations of the messianic exegesis which have just been examined.
In the nature of the evidence, the dating of the messianic exegesis which has
now been attempted can be no more than an assessment of probabilities. The
argument offered here, as will have been noticed, is often close to that presented
by Vermes (for example, in the evaluation of Akiba’s saying). It differs, however,
so far as primary evidence is concerned, in including discussion of the Fifth
Sibylline together with the other contemporary attestations considered by
Vermes, and in its attention to possibly relevant pre-Christian sources, notably
11Q Melchizedek and Ezekiel the Tragedian. In respect of interpretation, it
differs in the synoptic view taken of the attestations, and in the emphasis laid on
their variety, and on the common exegetical development which nevertheless
seems to be presupposed in them all. The probability has then appeared to lie,
as Moore thought, on the side of a significantly earlier origin than Vermes and
Casey would suggest.
The question then posed is whether one can, with Vermes, exclude the
possibility that the phrase ‘the son of man’ was capable of being understood
as a messianic title, at the time of Jesus. Vermes holds that rabbinic derivation
of the messianic names Anani and Bar Niphle from ʿanānē, ‘clouds’ in Dan.
7:13 proves that ‘the son of man’ in that verse was never understood as a title
(Vermes (3) 172, with reference to Tanhuma Buber, Genesis, Toledoth, 20 (cited
above) and Targ. 1 Chr. 3:24, on Anani; cf. Sanh. 96a, on Bar Niphli); but these
names, more immediately derived from the Davidic passages 1 Chron. 3:24
and Amos 9:11 respectively, rather witness to the messianic understanding
of Dan. 7:13 as a whole than to the non-titular character of other words in
it. Thus the importance of ‘son of man’ as well as ‘clouds’ in Dan. 7:13 for the
Targumist at 1 Chron. 3:24 is noted by Willi, 120. The other consideration
advanced by Vermes is the lack of a clear titular usage of ‘the son of man’
in the various messianic interpretations of Dan. 7:13 (Vermes (3) 172f., 175).
This observation does not mean, however, that the phrase was insignificant.
The parables of Enoch do not use it without further qualification; but their
repetition of it in various forms, in contexts clearly indebted to Dan. 7:13,
strongly suggests an impression left by those particular words in the verse.
As Bousset noted (end of section II, above), they have gone far along the road
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 173

to becoming a title. Similarly, when 2 Esdras speaks of ‘one in the likeness of

a man’, and ‘that man’ who ‘flew with the clouds of heaven’ (2 Esd. 13), the
phrase ‘one like a son of man’ in Dan. 7 has made its mark. Likewise, although
the Sibyl, with a̓nh́r, makes the slightly more veiled allusion which befits her, it
is probable that she echoes this phrase in Daniel when she sings of the ‘blessed
man’ from the heavens in the time of the saints (Sib. 5:414, 432).
Hence, the lack of a clear titular usage of ‘the son of man’, emphasized by
Vermes, does not mean that the phrase was passed over. On the contrary, it was
echoed and repeated, in contexts in which, through the interpretation of Dan.
7:13, it was associated with the messiah. There is therefore reason to suppose
that, from the messianic exegesis of Dan. 7:13, ‘the son of man’ would have
been likely to develop into an expression which could be taken as a reference
to the messiah, comparably with the development of ‘lion’ noticed at the
beginning of this section. These messianic associations of ‘the son of man’, it
will now be suggested, would have been further strengthened by interpretative
usage, not primarily connected with Dan. 7 in which biblical words for ‘man’
took on a specialized messianic reference.

In the second class of evidence mentioned at the beginning of the previous

section, and now to be considered, messianic significance attaches to words
and expressions for ‘man’, in interpretation of passages other than Dan. 7.
Thus, first, ‘king messiah’ and bar nāš are associated in the Targum of
Ps. 80, where the phrases render MT bēn (verse 16) and ben ʾādām (verse 18)
respectively. The same personage, ‘the man of thy right hand’ (verse 18), is
naturally envisaged in both verses, once bēn is taken as ‘son’; and Septuagint
and Peshitta, accordingly, give the equivalent of ‘son of man’ at each
occurrence. The Hebrew text of the psalm, when verse 16 is thus understood,
places solemn emphasis on ‘son’, ‘man’, and ‘son of man’, in prayer for national
deliverance with recollection of the exodus; that is to say, as the Targum of
verse 16 makes plain, in a context which could readily evoke the thought of
the messiah. ‘Son of man’ is not a synonym for bēn in the Hebrew text, or
(as stressed by Casey, 91) for ‘king messiah’ in the Targum; but its close link
174 Messianism among Jews and Christians

with these words, in text and Targum of a national prayer, gives the phrase a
messianic association independent of Dan. 7. The Targumist (as pointed out
by McNeil, 420) will have understood ‘messiah’ and ‘son of man’ as parallel
designations. In the Septuagint psalm the phrase ‘son of man’, given added
solemnity by repetition, would gain comparable significance from its context.
Here, then, in the Hebrew psalm, as it was understood from the time of the
Septuagint, and in the Aramaic and Greek versions, the phrase ‘son of man’ is
solemnly used, and can be said to have acquired messianic associations.
Other words for ‘man’ are interpreted messianically in the examples
which follow. Particularly noteworthy are two instances of ἄnqrwpoV, ‘man’,
as a messianic title, in the Septuagint of Balaam’s oracles: a fundamental
passage, as the name of Bar Cocheba shows, for messianism in the first and
second centuries a.d. Thus, in Num. 24:7, ‘water shall pour from his buckets’
becomes in the Septuagint ‘there shall come forth a man … who shall rule
many nations.’ (e̓xeleúsetai appears to be an interpretative echo of Isa. 11:1
e̓xeleúsetai r̔ábdoV; compare the use of (e̓x)éleusiV for a messianic advent,
pointed out by Kilpatrick, 136–43.) The messianic interpretation continues
with the transformation of Agag into Gog, in the following verse. Verse
7, in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, has the words ‘king’ and ‘redeemer’, and in
Onkelos ‘king’; and in the Greek, with ἄnqrwpoV, it is twice quoted as a
messianic oracle by Philo (Mos. i. 290; pr. et p. 95), is followed closely in the
wording of the messianic prediction in Test. Judah 24:1, and is probably also
echoed in Test. Naphtali 4:5. The origin of the almost universal messianic
interpretation of this verse is discussed by Vermes (1) 159f., with a reference
to Isa. 45:8 and the messianic associations of ṣedeq; but the significant point
in the present connection is that, given this interpretation of Num. 24:7, the
Septuagint rendering could hardly have arisen unless ἄnqrwpoV were already
recognized as a messianic title. This point is reinforced by the star-oracle of
Num. 24:17, where šēbet, ‘sceptre’, identified as the prince of the congregation
in CD 7.21, and as the messiah in Targums Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan (the
versions are reviewed by Vermes (1) 59), is rendered ‘man’, ἄnqrwpoV, in the
Septuagint. The Peshitta, in verse 7, in accordance with the Septuagint, has
gabrā ‘man’; a point of interest, again, in the present connection, in view of
the probably Jewish origin of the Peshitta Pentateuch. In verse 17, on the other
hand, Peshitta reša ‘head’ spells out the implications of lxx ἄnqrwpoV but is
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 175

itself closer to šalit ‘governor’ in Targum Neofiti (combined there with paroq
‘redeemer’) or to h̔goúmenoV in the quotation in Justin Martyr, Dial. cvi.4. The
Neofiti rendering, viewed together with Onkelos and Ps.-Jonathan as noted
above, underlines the likelihood that the text quoted by Justin represents a
Jewish revision of the lxx. Such a revised Greek text was perhaps known to
the Peshitta translator here.
In a full discussion of Peshitta origins published since this essay first
appeared, the late M. P. Weitzman argued that the earlier books of the
Hebrew Bible were translated into Syriac c. a.d. 150 in a non-rabbinic Jewish
community, probably in Edessa (Weitzman, especially 244–62). However the
translators’ Jewish community is to be characterized, Weitzman’s study shows
that the Peshitta Pentateuch is likely to have drawn on the lxx in a Jewish
rather than a Christian context. The agreement of both lxx and Peshitta at
Num. 24:7 with wider Jewish exegetical tradition is noted by Weitzman, 70.
A word for ‘man’ has messianic significance in a number of other passages
discussed by Vermes, who makes acknowledgement also to Brownlee (Vermes
(1) 56–66). Noteworthy among these are Isa. 66:7 (zākār, Targum ‘her king’),
2 Sam. 23:1 (geber), and Zech. 6:12 (ʾīs), where ‘man’ receives strong emphasis
in statements taken to identify a messiah; the usage is not clearly symbolic,
but it is such as to favour the messianic application seen in the Septuagint
Numbers. Connecting these and other passages, including Num. 24:7, 17, with
the messianic use of geber and zākār in 1QHa xi (iii). 7–10 (and with geber and
ʾīs in the less clearly messianic 1QS iv. 20–2), Vermes concluded that these
commonplace nouns acquired the characteristics of a proper name (Vermes
(1) 63).
In a book unknown to me when this essay was first published, M. Perez
Fernandez put forward much the same argument as is presented in this
section. He urged, mainly on the basis of the evidence cited in the preceding
paragraph together with a special study of the Targums of Num. 24:7 and 17,
that ἄnqrwpoV and geber could be used with a messianic connotation, and
that this usage consequently contributed to the messianic understanding of
‘son of man’; such understanding of the phrase will not have been derived
solely from Dan. 7 (Perez, especially 260–9).
Two studies of Jewish interpretation of Num. 24:7 and 17 in Greek which
have appeared since this essay was first printed should be considered at this
176 Messianism among Jews and Christians

point. First, by contrast with the argument offered above, J. Lust has urged that
ἄnqrwpoV in Numbers 24 lxx does not have clear messianic overtones; in
verse 7 it is ambiguous, despite other elements in the Greek rendering which
could point to kingship, and in verse 17 it seems even to do away with the royal
character of the expected figure, which might have been suggested by the ‘star’
of the first half of the verse (Lust, 236–41). Moreover, in the external witness
to the Greek text of these verses, apart from Philo, ἄnqrwpoV is attested only
in relatively late Christian writers, from about the time of Origen onwards
(Lust classes the quotation of verse 17 in Test. Judah 24:1 and the allusion
to the ‘man’ of both verses in Test. Naphtali 4:5 as Christian insertions); the
earliest clear Christian attestation, in Justin Martyr (Dial. cvi.4, quoted above),
reflects not ἄnqrwpoV but h̔goúmenoV in verse 17, and the Latin text of Irenaeus
similarly has dux—and it is likely too, as Lust well notes, that this form of verse
17 is reflected when Micah 5:1 is quoted with h̔goúmenoV at Matt. 2:6 (compare
Horbury (2), 200, n. 87). Philo, then, is for Lust the sole early external witness
to ἄnqrwpoV, and he is held to have understood it not messianically, but as
a reference to humanity in general (a sense akin to the understanding of the
verse in the later patristic tradition as a prophecy of Christ’s humanity). It is not
impossible, Lust thinks, that Philo himself introduced ‘the man’ into the Greek
of verse 7 for the first time, although it could certainly have stood in the text
which he knew, and could have been understood by the earlier translator on
the lines which Philo later followed. In verse 17, which Philo does not quote,
ἄnqrwpoV is in any case in itself without messianic connotations, in Lust’s
view. It will have established itself in the Greek of both verses, he suggests,
perhaps partly through the influence of the anthological association of Num.
24 with Isa. 11 (compare Horbury (2), 93), which is attested in Qumran texts
and in early patristic writings (note the assonance of ἄnqrwpoV and Isa. 11:1
ἄnqoV), and partly through the attraction of a reference to humanity in verse 7
and the influence of Philo on Christian users of the lxx (Lust, 241–52).
In response it can be said, first, that in both verse 7 and verse 17 the word
appears prominently in a Greek context which, as Lust agrees, suits and even
enhances the expectation of a coming ruler. It will have been thought by the
translator to suit that context, a context which aligns verse 7 with the clearly
ruler-oriented verse 17. This verse in Hebrew foretells the ‘star’ and ‘sceptre’, in
lxx ‘star’ and ‘man’. Secondly, this immediate context in the Greek of Num. 24
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 177

would soon have encouraged a messianic understanding of the term, even if,
contrary to what seems probable, this understanding was not already a factor
when the rendering was chosen. Thirdly, such an understanding would have
been strengthened by the long-standing association of Num. 24 with Isa. 11,
attested in both Hebrew and Greek sources before the rise of Christianity
(add to Lust’s citations the allusion to both texts, together with Ps. 2, in Ps. Sol.
17:21–2, 24). Fourthly, as regards the history of the text, the Peshitta as cited with
Weitzman’s comment above increases the general likelihood that ἄnqrwpoV
in verse 7 antedates Philo. Fifthly, it is by no means so clear as Lust suggests
that Philo understood the passage non-messianically; Philo here appears
to expect the Israelites in their time of future blessing to be following a great
leader (cf. Horbury (2), 85 and n. 77). Lastly, the understanding of the term by
Greek-speaking Jews who knew the lxx cannot be divorced from the messianic
understanding of the two verses attested in the Targum. (See also p. 17, above.)
Further instances of ἄnqrwpoV with messianic overtones in the lxx will
be considered in a moment. Before that, however, it should be noted that the
points just made concerning Philo and the Targums receive support from
a second study of Num. 24 in Greek, in this case focused on Philo. C. T. R.
Hayward compares Philo’s interpretation of Balaam’s prophecies in verses 3–9,
15–19 with the Targums; he finds that both Philo and the Targums connected
these oracles with Jacob’s prophetic blessing in Gen. 49:8–12, concerning the
lion-like Judah and the ruler to arise from him, a passage discussed above for
its exegetical interconnections with Isa. 11 (section III) and its contribution
to the vision of the messiah as a lion in 2 Esdras (section IV). Its connection
also with Balaam’s prophecy in the lxx is noted by Horbury (2), 48–51. This
link will have been encouraged by the comparison with a lion in Num. 24:9.
Hayward shows that both Philo and the Targumists on Num. 24 expect a lion-
like deliverer to spring from the leonine tribe (Hayward, 32–6). Probably,
therefore, ἄnqrwpoV, like geber and other Hebrew vocabulary discussed by
Vermes and Perez, could be used with a messianic connotation.
There is further evidence to support this conclusion. First, in Mishnaic
Hebrew ʾīš ‘man’ could evidently sometimes be honorific, as appears from the
polite form of address to the high priest, ʾīšī kōhēn gādōl (Mishnah, Yoma i.3,
5): literally ‘my man’, but better rendered freely ‘my lord’. In this instance it is
not impossible that the Mishnah preserves usage of the Second Temple period.
178 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Secondly, the specifically royal and messianic associations of ‘man’ would

be strengthened not only by the texts noted above, but also by the repeated
promise that there should never be cut off a man (ʾīš) to sit on David’s throne
(1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; 2 Chron. 6:16; 7:18; Jer. 33:17).
Thirdly, the messianic understanding of ʾīš has further testimony in ancient
Jewish interpretation. First, in lxx Isa. 32:2, after the messianic overtones
of verse 1a in the Hebrew, ‘a king shall reign in righteousness’, have been
somewhat stressed by the rendering ‘a righteous king shall reign’, the Hebrew
text beginning ‘and a man (ʾīš) shall be as a hiding-place from the wind …’
becomes ‘and the man (o̔ ἄnqrwpoV) shall be hiding his words, and shall be
hidden as from rushing water; and he shall be manifest in Zion as a rushing
river, glorious in a thirsty land’. According to Koenig, 146 n. 14, ‘the man’ in
lxx means, by contrast with the Hebrew, every man; the generality of the king’s
subjects are alarmed at his strict righteousness, and lie low. This view debits the
translation at worst with bathos, and at best with decidedly paradoxical praise
of the messianic reign. It seems better to follow up R. R. Ottley’s observation
(endorsed by Koenig, 143 n. 5, as noted in section IV above), that the rendering
of ruaḥ in this verse by ‘words’ echoes Isa. 11:4 lxx. The latter verse, as often
noted already, was messianically interpreted; and the Septuagint translation
of Isa. 32:2 makes consistent sense if ‘the man’ means the messianic king. He
is first hidden, then revealed (cf. 2 (Syriac) Baruch 24:3, and the comparable
texts discussed by Vermes (3), 137f.); he will then be glorious as a rushing
river (compare the fountain, breaking into great waves, which symbolizes the
dominion of the messiah in the vision of 2 (Syriac) Baruch 36:4f., 39:9, and
the messianic interpretation of the ‘water’ of Num. 24:7, noted above). Hence
‘man’ here, in the Hebrew text, is likely to have been taken by the Septuagint
translators as a signal meaning ‘messiah’.
Again, Ps. 87:5 ʾīš weʾīš, ‘a man and a man’, perhaps to be rendered ‘man
after man’, is divided in lxx ‘… a man shall say, both “A man (ἄnqrwpoV) was
born in her”, and “Himself, the Highest, founded her” ’. It would be natural
to take the second ‘man’ in lxx messianically. That the whole Hebrew phrase
could indeed be understood in this way is indicated by Targum ‘king David
and Solomon his son’, and Midrash Tehillim lxxxvii. 6, in the name of Judah
b. Simon (late fourth-century Palestine) ‘the nations of the world will bring
gifts to king Messiah, as it is said, A man and a man is born in her (Ps. 87:5);
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 179

these are the messiahs of the Lord, Messiah son of David and Messiah son of
Ephraim’.
Again, in the second line of Ecclus. 45:25, immediately after a line on
David ‘son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah’, the Hebrew consonantal text begins
nḥltʾš. M. H. Segal points ʾēš, interpreting ‘an inheritance of fire-offerings’, in
agreement with the reference to Aaron in the second half of this second line;
but Smend and Peters (cited by M. H. Segal, ad loc.) point ʾīš, interpreting ‘the
inheritance of a man’, and applying the phrase to David, in accordance with the
repeated Davidic promise noted above. The second line can then be read as a
comparison, in the manner of Jer. 33:17–22, between the covenants of David
and Aaron, and it binds the Davidic reference of the previous line more neatly
and forcefully into its larger Aaronic context than a totally Aaronic second line
can do (against the argument of M. H. Segal, ad loc.). In the present connection
it is notable that, whether or not ʾīš is the true punctuation, it seems to have
been that understood by Ben Sira’s grandson, who rendered the Hebrew by
‘the inheritance of a king’; that is to say, in ‘man’ he heard royal and messianic
overtones.
Fourthly, further to the passages discussed in the first publication of this
essay, it may be added that the influence of the messianic ἄnqrwpoV of the lxx
Pentateuch (Num. 24:7, 17, discussed above) can be detected in Isa. 19:20 lxx.
Here the ‘saviour’ (moshiaʾ) of the Egyptian Jews in the Hebrew text receives
the long rendering ‘a man (ἄnqrwpoV) who shall save us’. ‘Such a rendering of
a participle is quite unusual in lxx Isaiah (and in the rest of the lxx as well)’
(van der Kooij, p. 141). Contrast the more straightforward short rendering
swth́r, ‘saviour’ to which the lxx here was revised in Aquila, Symmachus
and Theodotion (Horbury (2), 50, 147). Within the context of the lxx Isaiah
van der Kooij (142) finds the closest parallel in 8.8 (ἄnqrwpon ὃV dunh́setai
kejalh̀n ἆrai), and he notes that ἄnqrwpoV indicates an important person
here and elsewhere in Isaiah lxx (including 32:2, discussed above). Still within
the Isaianic context, he adds that the immediately following words in Isa. 19:20
lxx, ‘judging (crínwn) he shall save us’, link the ‘man’ of 19:20 with the ruler
from Jesse who shall judge (Isa. 11:3–4 lxx krinei͂), and with him who shall
be ‘judging’ (krínwn) enthroned ‘in the tabernacle of David’ (Isa. 16:5 lxx).
Moreover, the sequel ‘And the Lord shall be known to the Egyptians’ (Isa. 19:21)
implies that the saviour-judge of verse 20 is Jewish (van der Kooij, 143). Within
180 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the lxx Isaiah, therefore, the Greek rendering of 19:20 suggests expectation
of a Jewish judge and deliverer who strongly resembles the coming Davidic
king prophesied in chapters 11 and 16. To van der Kooij’s illumination of this
Isaianic context it may be added that the use specifically of ἄnqrwpoV in this
connection in Isa. 19:20 lxx is likely to reflect the prominent and influential
usage of this word in the lxx Pentateuch at Num. 24:7 and 17, discussed above
with reference also to the interpretative association of Num. 24 with Isa. 11.
Lastly, in Sib. 5:414 ‘a blessed man’, already discussed, it is likely that this
messianic interpretation of ‘man’ has converged with the allusion to Dan. 7:13,
and the imagery of Pss. 45, and 110, and Isa. 11. Similarly, in Test. Judah 24,
the influence of Num. 24 lxx comes together with that of Pss. 45, 110; Isa. 11.
One may suspect a similar background of exegesis, combining messianic ‘man’
with Isa. 11:4, behind Acts 17:31 ‘to judge the world in righteousness by a man
whom he ordained’.
When this additional evidence for messianic interpretation of ‘man’ is
combined with the passages already noted, it emerges, first, that there is a
substantial biblical basis for such a development. A number of Davidic and
messianic texts lay solemn emphasis upon a word for ‘man’: 2 Sam. 23:1
(geber); 1 Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:5; 2 Chron. 6:16, 7:18; Jer 33:17; Zech. 6:2 (in all
these, ʾīš); Ps. 80:18 (ben ʿādām). The messianic development from these texts
was also favoured by the honorific employment of ʾīš in other connections
(M. Yoma).
Further, the messianic interpretation of ‘man’ was known not only in
the Diaspora (Septuagint Numbers and Isaiah, Peshitta Numbers, Greek
Ecclesiasticus, Greek Testaments of Judah and Naphtali, Philo, Fifth Sibylline)
but also in Palestine (Hebrew Ecclesiasticus, Qumran Hodayot, Judah b. Simon
in Midrash Tehillim); and there is pre-Christian evidence in both categories.
Num. 24:7 lxx is a particularly impressive witness to the strong influence of
the interpretation, its early date, and its combination with other messianic
exegesis; but each of these features can be found elsewhere in the evidence.
This second class of evidence, considered on its own, would therefore lead
one to conclude that, by the beginning of the Christian era, words for ‘man’
could be understood in biblical interpretation as references to the messiah.
This conclusion, as ben ʿādām in Ps. 80 underlines, is of significance for ‘the
son of man’ as well as ‘man’.
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 181

VI

To sum up the two classes of evidence which have now been considered in
sections IV and V, it may be said that messianic exegesis of Dan. 7:13 probably
arose not later than the early first century a.d., and possibly much earlier. Key
words in such messianically interpreted passages were subject to a tendency
towards titularity, and ‘son of man’ was significant enough to have been
affected in this way. The messianic associations of the phrase would have
been strengthened by a distinct, but comparable, pre-Christian messianic
interpretation of words for ‘man’, to be found in connection with biblical
passages other than Dan. 7:13.
Evidence exemplified in section III, above, suggests that, at the beginning of
the Christian era, the Davidic hope already constituted a relatively fixed core
of messianic expectation, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Exegetical
interconnections attest that the son of man’ is likely to have acquired, within its
wide range of meaning, definite associations with this hope. There is no need
to envisage a separate ‘son of man concept’, of the type criticized by Vermes (4),
95–7 and Lindars, 8. More probably, as has been argued here, ‘the son of man’
had become one of the words and phrases which could readily be understood
as a reference to the messiah. In that sense, it can be called a messianic title.
A conclusion may perhaps be allowed to sketch, in the briefest catechetical
form, a response to three obvious objections. First, how would such an
interpretation comport with Jesus’ reserve concerning messiahship? Answer,
the range of meaning of the phrase allowed it to be both self-referential and
messianic; in its aspect of opacity, which the hearer was invited to pierce, it
resembled the parables. Secondly, why, then, was it not commonly used in
the church as a title for Christ? Answer, partly, perhaps, because of its special
link with the Second Coming, and partly also because the meaning which was
most obvious to the gentile, ‘human being’, ran directly against the honorific
tendency of Christology; its rarity as a title is therefore comparable with the
relative rarity of cristóV in its Jewish sense of ‘messiah’, rather than as a proper
name. It is consistent with this view that later Christian traces of the phrase as
a title occur where Jewish influence is likely (Acts 7:56; Gospel of the Hebrews,
in Jerome, de viris illustribus, 2; Hegesippus in Eusebius, H.E. ii. 23, 13; Latin
text of Asc. Isa. 11:1; cf. Bousset (2), 13–15, 20). Lastly, does not this argument
182 Messianism among Jews and Christians

recklessly obscure the light cast on the ministry of Jesus, as Moule especially
has shown (e.g. Moule (1), 86–90), by the Danielic imagery of vindication?
Answer, not necessarily so, a disavowal which the treatment above of ‘the
people of God’ in 4Q246 may already have signalled; for if ‘the son of man’ is
rightly understood as messianic, it does not thereby cease to be Danielic.

Literature

J. M. Allegro, ‘Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature’, JBL lxxv (1956),

174–87
M. Black (1), An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn., Oxford, 1967)
——— (2), ‘Aramaic Barnasha and the “Son of Man” ’, ET xcv (1984), 200–6
——— in consultation with J. C. VanderKam (3), The Book of Enoch or I Enoch
(Leiden, 1985)
W. Bousset (1), Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd edn.,
revised by H. Gressmann, Tübingen, 1926)
——— (2), Kyrios Christos (2nd edn. (1921), reprinted Göttingen, 1966)
J. Bowman, ‘The Background of the Term “Son of Man” ’, ET lix (1948), 283–8
G. J. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4.xvii (DJD xxii, Oxford, 1996)
F. F. Bruce, ‘The Background to the Son of Man Sayings’, in H. H. Rowdon (ed.),
Christ the Lord (Leicester, 1982), 50–70
J. Y. Campbell, ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term “Son of Man” ’, JTS xlviii (1947),
145–55
M. Casey (1), Son of Man (London, 1979)
——— (2), From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (Cambridge, 1991)
J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., London, 1983,
1985)
B. D. Chilton, ‘(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus’, in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (Leiden, 1999), 259–87
J. J. Collins (1), ‘The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism’, NTS xxxviii (1992),
448–66.
——— (2), The Scepter and the Star (New York, 1995)
G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, i (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1930)
C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1952)
S. R. Driver, ‘Son of Man’, HDB iv (1902), cols. 579–89
J. A. Emerton, ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS N.S. ix (1958), 225–42
P. Fiebig, Der Menschensohn (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901)
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 183

J. A. Fitzmyer (1), A Wandering Aramaean (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph

Series xxv, Missoula, 1979)
——— (2), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids and
Cambridge, 2000)
D. Flusser, ‘Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. vii’, IEJ ix (1959), 99–109
F. Fraidl, Der Exegese der siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit (Graz,
1883)
H. Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie (Munich, 1977)
A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, i (Leipzig,
1897)
A. P. Hayman, ‘The “Man from the Sea” in 4 Ezra 13’, JJS xlix (1998), 1–16
C. T. R. Hayward, ‘Balaam’s Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the Aramaic
Targums of the Pentateuch’, in P. J. Harland and C. T. R. Hayward (eds.), New
Heaven and New Earth, Prophecy and the Millennium: Essays in Honour of
Anthony Gelston (Leiden, Boston and Köln, 1999), 19–36
H. Heater, Jr., A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job (CBQ Monograph
Series xi; Washington DC, 1982)
A. J. B. Higgins, ‘Jewish Messianic Belief in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho’, NT
ix (1967), 298–305
C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, ii, Poets (Atlanta, 1989)
M. D. Hooker (1), The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967)
——— (2), ‘Is the Son of Man Problem really insoluble?’, in E. Best and R. McL.
Wilson (eds.), Text and Interpretation (Cambridge, 1979), 155–68
W. Horbury (1), review of M. Müller, Der Ausdruck ‘Menschensohn’ in den Evangelien,
JTS N.S. xxxviii (1987), 480–83
——— (2), Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
P. W. van der Horst, ‘Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist’, JJS xxxi (1983),
21–9
A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (2 vols., Uppsala,
1977 and 1982)
H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge, 1983)
G. D. Kilpatrick, ‘Acts vii.52 ΕLΕΥΣΙΣ’, JTS xlvi (1945), 136–45
S. Kim, The Son of Man as the Son of God (WUNT xxx, Tübingen, 1983)
J. Koenig, L’Herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels
d’Isaïe (SVT xxxiii, Leiden, 1982)
A. van der Kooij, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah 19:16–25: Translation and Interpretation’
in C. E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and
Cognate Studies Series xxiii, Atlanta, 1987), 127–66
184 Messianism among Jews and Christians

B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (London, 1983)

J. Lust, ‘The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles; the ἄnqrwpoV
in Num. 24:7 and 17; Messianism and Lexicography’, in L. Greenspoon and
O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and
Cognate Studies Series xli, Atlanta, 1995), 233–57
B. McNeil, ‘The Son of Man and the Messiah: A Footnote’, NTS xxvi (1980), 419–21
T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah (Cambridge, 1953)
E. Meyer, Ursprung and Anfänge des Christentums (3 vols., Berlin, 1921–3)
J. Milik, ‘Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-resaʾ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens (1)’, JJS
xxiii (1972), 95–144
G. F. Moore, Judaism (3 vols., Cambridge, MA, 1927–30)
C. F. D. Moule (1), ‘Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man” ’, reprinted
from J. Gnilka (ed.), Neues Testament und Kirche [Festschrift for R. Schnackenburg]
(Freiburg i.B., 1974), 413–28 in C. F. D. Moule, Essays in New Testament
Interpretation (Cambridge, 1982), 79–90
——— (2), The Origins of Christology (Cambridge, 1977)
——— (3), ‘ “The Son of Man”: Some of the Facts’, NTS xli (1995), 277–9, reprinted
in C. F. D. Moule, Forgiveness and Reconciliation, and other New Testament Themes
(London, 1998), 205–7
S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (ET Oxford, 1959)
M. Müller, Der Ausdruck ‘Menschensohn’ in den Evangelien: Voraussetzungen and
Bedeutung (Leiden, 1984)
J. C. O’Neill (1), Messiah (Cambridge, 1980)
J. C. O’Neill (2), Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Biblical Interpretation Series xi,
Leiden, 1995)
——— (3), The Point of it All: Essays on Jesus Christ (Leiden, 2000).
G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia, Minneapolis, 2001).
——— and J. C. VanderKam, I Enoch 2 (Hermeneia, Minneapolis, 2012).
M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia and
Jerusalem, 1981)
E. Puech (1), La croyance des esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie
éternelle? (2 vols., Paris, 1993)
——— (2), ‘246. 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar’, in Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4.xviii,
165–84
N. Schmidt, ‘Son of Man’, EB iv (1907), cols. 4705–40
A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden, 1977)
M. Z. (H.) Segal, Sepher Ben Sira ha-shalem (2nd edn., Jerusalem, 1958)
 The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’ 185

H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and
Midrasch, i (Munich, 1922)
L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘ “One like a Son of Man as the Ancient of Days” in the Old Greek
Recension of Daniel 7, 13: Scribal Error or Theological Translation?’, ZNW lxxxvi
(1995), 268–76
J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter (Göttingen, 1973)
G. Vermes (1), Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1961; 2nd impression,
Leiden, 1973)
——— (2) ‘The Use of bar nash / bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic’, Appendix E in Black
(1), 310–28
——— (3), Jesus the Jew (London, 1973)
——— (4), Jesus and the World of Judaism (London, 1983)
——— (5), The Changing Faces of Jesus (London, 2000)
M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University
of Cambridge Oriental Publications lvi, Cambridge, 1999).
T. Willi, Chronik (Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament, xxiv, fascicle 2; Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1999)
 5

The Twelve and the Phylarchs

In modern study of Christian origins, especially among those writers

concerned with Jewish history who have been said to form a ‘third quest’ of
the historical Jesus (Wright, 83–4), some New Testament traces of an emergent
constitution have received attention. How can the constitutional implications
of the ministry of Jesus and his disciples be related to the contemporary Jewish
polity, and to the subsequent growth of the Christian ecclesia?
Answers to this question may include comment on the twelve, a body
which appears through references in the gospels, the Acts and Paul to have
been at the heart of the continuity between the ministry of Jesus and the
later Christian communities. Such comment is exemplified in B. F. Meyer,
134, 154; cf. 242, with an emphasis which can roughly be labelled ecclesial,
and in Sanders (1), 326; (3), 184–7; Wright, 299–300, 532; Allison, 101–2;
Frederiksen, 89–98; Freyne, 140–3, with an emphasis which can roughly
be labelled national or Israelite. All six authors affirm, despite varying
emphases, that Jesus did indeed appoint twelve, who stood for the twelve
tribes and the restoration of Israel. Crossan, 337, by contrast, puts such
numbers down to the evangelists and does not discuss the possible rôle of a
group of twelve in Christian origins, despite his interest in Pauline evidence
for the Jerusalem church (Crossan, 423–4); but he indicates a range of Old
Testament associations of a body of twelve (or seventy). Can one go further
towards determining the constitutional significance of a body of twelve for
a Jew of the first century a.d.?
One possible model for the twelve, the group of tribal princes, seems to
be relatively neglected. In what follows attention will be drawn to it, and an
attempt will be made to characterize its interpretation in ancient Judaism.
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 187

Finally, against this background, brief comment will be offered on the place of
the twelve in early church order and in the ministry of Jesus.

II

A prominent group of twelve, in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Hebrew

Bible, is formed by the twelve princes of the tribes. Moses and Aaron chose them,
by divine direction, to be their associates in the great census (Num. 1:4 and 7).
In the Septuagint these nesî’îm or nesî’ey ha-‘edah usually appear as ἄrconteV
(th͂V sunagwgh͂V) but by the first century a.d. Josephus and some other Jewish
writers of Greek refer to them as ‘phylarchs’. Thus, for example, the ‘princes of
Israel’ (Num. 7:2), who are identified in the same verse of the Hebrew text as
‘the princes of the tribes’ who took the census, are additionally specified in the
Septuagint as ‘twelve’, and appear in the corresponding passage of Josephus
as ‘phylarchs’ (Josephus, Ant. iii 220). Philo, speaking of the patriarchs as ‘the
rulers of the nation, twelve in number’, interestingly adds that ‘it is the custom
to call them phylarchs’ (fug. et inv. 73), and the usage is also known to Josephus
(Ant. iii 169). (Compare the complementary Septuagintal usage of ‘patriarch’
for the princes of the tribes, 1 Chron. 27:22 (section IV, below).) Josephus and
others therefore called the princes of the tribes by an honourable name which
could also be applied to the twelve patriarchs themselves.
These developments in Josephus and elsewhere already suggest that
the twelve princes were alive in the first-century mind as a group of rulers
comparable with the patriarchs and, perhaps, inheriting their authority. In a
volume of essays which emphasized the importance of institutions in primitive
Christianity Austin Farrer suggested that the group of twelve disciples was
indeed modelled upon the twelve princes and, thereby, the twelve patriarchs
(Farrer (1), 120–4; cf. (2), 21–2); but his suggestion, so far as the present writer
is aware, has remained isolated in recent study.
Once, however, as Bengel’s note on Matt. 19:28 shows, the thought that
the twelve were modelled upon the phylarchs was more commonplace. In the
seventeenth century it figured in political theory as well as biblical comment.
Hugo Grotius (1641) interpreted Matt. 19:28 as a promise made on the
analogy of the ancient state of the Hebrew kingdom, wherein the phylarchs
188 Messianism among Jews and Christians

had a dignity closely approaching the majesty of the king (Grotius, ii.1, 188,
ad loc.). Spinoza (1670) viewed the Mosaic polity as a theocracy, from which
the Hebrew monarchy was a disastrous decline, but he agreed with Grotius
that the phylarchs had an important constitutional position. Rejecting the
rabbinic view that Moses instituted the sanhedrin, Spinoza held that he chose
the phylarchs to form the army, to divide the promised land, and, after the
division, to handle all the affairs of war and peace in their own tribes; under
these princes the tribes formed a federation comparable with the Estates of the
Netherlands (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, xvii, and note 38, in Wernham,
162–71, 186f., 252–5).
In England Grotius’ view was given precision and development by Henry
Hammond (1653). In his annotation on Matt. 19:28 he observed that the sons
of Zebedee cherished the expectation ‘of some earthly greatness, particularly
of that (so familiar among them) of the júlarcai; and he paraphrased the
promise with ‘You … shall in the new age or state (taking its beginning from the
resurrection and ascension of Christ) have a power in the church instated on
you, as my successors, somewhat proportionable to that of the several Rulers
of the tribes among the Jews.’ Here the apostles’ ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in
succession to their master, is carefully described as in some ways comparable
to that of the phylarchs. The same comparison was incorporated by Hobbes
into his unified description of civil and ecclesiastical polity: ‘For as Moses
chose twelve princes of the tribes, to govern under him; so did our Saviour
choose twelve apostles, who shall sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve
tribes of Israel’ (Leviathan, xli, in Oakeshott, 320).
Any advocate of a cause might welcome the hard-headed Hobbes as support
for the more imaginatively speculative Farrer; but there is a less frivolous reason
for recalling these seventeenth-century scholars. Their studies show that, at a
time when the Mosaic and apostolic constitutions were fiercely scrutinized
for their bearing on government in church and state, the importance of the
phylarchs in the Old Testament stood out clearly—as emerges most strikingly
from their key position in Spinoza’s reconstruction of the theocracy—and
that the likelihood that they formed a model for the twelve apostles seemed
strong. It is not surprising that patristic homily on relevant Old Testament
passages already made the same connection between the princes and Matt.
19:28 (Origen, in Exod. hom. xi.6, on 18:21; in Iesu Nave hom. xviii.1).
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 189

The biblical passages on the phylarchs (reviewed in the following section)

come mainly from P, Ezekiel and Chronicles. In modern study, therefore,
their constitutional significance for pre-exilic Israel has been less prominently
discussed. The phylarch has been variously interpreted as sacral prince (Noth)
or elected representative (Speiser) (see Halpern, 207–10). Source-criticism
shows, nevertheless, that Spinoza’s distinction between the princes and the
sanhedrin is rooted in the texts. Phylarchs and elders appear for the most part in
different sources (Halpern, 212–13). In the Pentateuch, the elders characterize
JE rather than P (apart from Lev. 4:15; 9:1), and the nāśîʾ is regular in P, but
unknown elsewhere (apart from Exod. 22:27 (28)). Thus Exod. 24:1, 9–11,
perhaps a separate tradition in E (Childs, 500–1), a scene with Moses, Aaron,
priests and elders, stands over against Exod. 34:30–2 (P), a scene with Moses,
Aaron and the phylarchs. As between these passages, later harmonized by lxx
and Rashi (sections IV and VI, below), constitutional views already differ.
Hence, however much the importance of the phylarchs in the Old Testament,
and, consequently, their possible relevance to the apostles, has been underlined
by later study of the Bible, it remains to be asked whether that importance
was indeed (in Hammond’s words) ‘so familiar among them’ in first-century
Palestine. Some indications in Josephus have already suggested that this
could have been the case; but the rabbinic tradition from which Spinoza
departed held the sanhedrin rather than the twelve princes to be centrally
important, and a modern account of ‘rule in Jewish tradition’, intended to
reflect the influence of Maimonides and rabbinic thought, can ignore the
phylarchs entirely, in its biblically-based exposition of Jewish political theory
(E. Marmorstein, 13–28). Similarly, they receive only occasional reference in
the study of Jewish political theory in the Second Temple period published
since this essay first appeared by Goodblatt, 6–130. Would they have occurred
more readily to a first-century Jew?

III

The twelve princes of the tribes do indeed appear to have cut a bolder figure
in Jewish biblical exposition of the early Roman period. Increasing attention
to the rabbinic chain of tradition, with its emphasis on the sanhedrin, would
190 Messianism among Jews and Christians

increasingly tend to dim their éclat, even though the biblical narratives
concerning them continued to be read. Their importance in earlier
interpretation of the narratives will be considered in a moment. First, however,
it may be convenient to note the main biblical passages from which expository
speculation could begin.
The nāśîʾ is not to be cursed (Exod. 22:27), and a special sin-offering is
appointed for him (Lev. 4:22–6). ‘The princes of the congregation’ are mentioned
in the narratives of the manna (Exod. 16:22) and of the delivery of the law to
the people, when the face of Moses shone (Exod. 34:31). Princes play a more
active part when they present the jewels of ephod and breastplate (Exod. 35:27),
supervise the census (Num. 1–2), bring special offerings at the dedication of the
altar (Num. 7:1–88), stand ready to assemble at the trumpet-blast (Num. 10:4),
command the tribal hosts with their standards (Num. 10:4–28), and hand over
their rods for the choice of the priestly tribe (Num. 17:16–28(1–13)). ‘The well
which the princes (śārîm) dug’ can recall them (Num. 21:18), and they are
named after Moses and Eleazar the priest, in the fashion of a council, in the
stories of Zelophehad’s daughters (Num. 27:2, 36:1; cf. Jos. 17:4), the spoiling
of Midian (Num. 31:13), and the petition of the Reubenites and Gadites for
an inheritance (Num. 32:2); correspondingly, it is they who are appointed,
with Eleazar and Joshua, to divide the land (Num. 34:16–29). ‘My princes’,
comparably, are to give land for a new allotment (Ezek. 45–8).
Beyond the Pentateuch, the princes continue to be prominent in the stories
of the settlement. Still appearing as a council, they are taken in by the wily
Gibeonites (Jos. 9:15–21), they supervise the division of the land (Jos. 14:1;
21:1), and ten of them are deputed with Phinehas to investigate the altar built
in Gilead (Jos. 22:9–34). Under the monarchy, the princes are among those
assembled for the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:1, see below).
In Chronicles nāśîʾ is more often a notable within the tribe (as 1 Chron.
7:40) than a tribal head (as 1 Chron. 2:10); but the heads of the tribes,
usually śārîm, take a constitutional part resembling that of the princes of
the congregation in P. Thus the Chronicler gives their names, and recounts
their presence at David’s charge to Solomon and their offerings to the temple
(1 Chron. 23:2; 27:16–22; 28:1; 29:6). They are conjoined with the king in
giving orders at Hezekiah’s reformation (2 Chron. 29:30; 30:2, 12; cf. 31:8), and
their association with the king in providing offerings is centrally important in
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 191

the Chronicler’s passovers under Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. 30:24; 35:8;
cf. 1 Chron. 29:6); the śārîm (lxx ἄrconteV) in these passages compare in
wealth and piety with the nesîʾîm of Num. 7 (lxx again ἄrconteV).
The approximation between princes of the congregation in P and princes
(heads) of tribes in Chronicles indicates the relevance of a group of post-
exilic passages in which ‘princes’ (śārîm, ἄrconteV) are mentioned with high
precedence in a recital of the elements in Israel’s constitution: kings, princes,
priests, (prophets,) fathers (Neh. 9:32, 34; Dan. 9:6, 8; Baruch 1:16; 2:1).
Comparably, the ‘heads’ of tribes are mentioned first at Num. 30:2 (P), Deut
5:20; 29:9. The influence of such passages perhaps appears at one important
place, 1 Kings 8:1 (2 Chron. 5:2), where the assembly comprises elders, heads of
tribes and princes of fathers, but in lxx Kings (not Chronicles) simply elders.
If lxx represents an earlier text of Kings (so Burney, 104–5, with analysis of
terminology), Chronicles and the Hebrew text of Kings arise from an attempt
to reconcile elders and princes within a single constitution.
The bulk of this biblical material, particularly that which depicts the princes
as a kind of council, obviously lends itself to the constitutional speculation
which is already discernible as one motive behind the narratives themselves.
The princes are also associated with the two important commandments
mentioned first. These constitutional and regulative passages invite halakhic
interpretation. On the other hand, the material includes a number of memorable
stories. Some of these are indeed elaborated in the haggadah, and, although
the halakhic material just noted may be presumed to have engaged the most
serious attention of a first-century Jew, the princes would have been stirred to
life in his imagination by whatever haggadic developments of the stories were
known to him. Hence, it may be excusable to take the two divisions of material
in this paragraph in reverse order, and to begin a brief and selective survey of
early interpretation with the princes in the haggadah.
One complex of interpretation gives a noteworthy example. The biblical
accounts of the tabernacle, its service and its ministry are strikingly elaborated in
Josephus, Philo and the midrash. Within this set of narratives, the princes stand
out especially clearly when they present their offerings (Num. 7:1–88). This long
chapter, beginning ‘on the day that Moses had fully set up the tabernacle’, was of
halakhic interest in connection with the maʿamād or standing body of priests,
Levites and laymen which, serving with the courses, represented the nation
192 Messianism among Jews and Christians

at the daily sacrifices (Yadin 204, n. 3); but this interest is bound up with the
conviction, abundantly expressed in the haggadah, that the princes’ offerings
stand for Israel’s response to the Almighty, who, in the newly-consecrated
tabernacle, has drawn near to his beloved people like the bridegroom in
Solomon’s Song (see, for instance, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (hereafter PRK) i.l,
on Cant. 5:1 ‘I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse’). Hence the
phylarchs’ offertory procession evokes lyrical comment, of appropriate fulness,
especially from Palestinian homilists of the third and fourth centuries (see
Num. R xii.16, on 7.2, to xiv.18, on 7.88). In a characteristic interpretation, later
words from Cant. 5:1, ‘Eat, O friends; drink, drink deep, O beloved’, are taken
as the Almighty’s invitation to his guests, the twelve princes (Num. R xiii.2, on
7.12; Cant. R v. 1, 1 (R. Simeon b. Yosanyah and R. Berekiah)).
The understanding of the princes’ offerings so dazzlingly developed by these
homilists was a time-honoured one. Even apart from any allusion to Solomon’s
Song, Josephus similarly emphasized that the princes, in Num. 7 represented
the people in their new and closer walk with God (Ant. iii 219–22). ‘The
multitude judged that God was tabernacling together (o̔móskhnon) with them
… and they offered gifts to God according to their tribes. For the phylarchs
came together, two by two … Each of them brought, moreover, other sacrifices,
called “saving” ’ (swthríouV, following the Septuagintal rendering of shelamim
in the Pentateuch). It is reasonable to suppose that an elaborated account of
the princes’ offerings in Num. 7, probably drawing out their significance as
representing Israel’s devotion, circulated in Palestine before a.d. 100 as part of
the larger repertory of narrative and homily concerning priesthood, sanctuary
and sacrifice; especially since Num. 7 was read at Hanukkah (M. Meg. 3.6).
Secondly, under the heading of haggadic interpretation of the princes, note
should be taken of additions to the biblical passages on the phylarchs, and the
establishment of connections between them (a process already noted in the
biblical text of Num. 7:2, section II, above). These developments are sometimes
minor in themselves, but collectively they indicate a creative concern with
the twelve princes as biblical characters, for they come from a wide range of
sources. This selection follows the biblical order.
By the goatskins with which Jacob obtained his blessing (Gen. 27:16) he
atoned for the princes of his tribes, for the prince’s sin-offering is a kid of the
goats (Pithron Torah, on Lev. 4:22 (Urbach 10f.)). ‘The officers of the children
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 193

of Israel’ in Egypt (Exod. 5:14f., 19) were the princes (Sifre Num. 45, on 7.2;
these officers were the members of the sanhedrin, according to Sifre Num 91
and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, both on Num. 11:16). The prince Nahshon
and his house ‘gathered much’ manna (Exod. 16:18, in Mekhilta, Beshallah,
Wayyassa, iv, on Exod. 16:16 (Horovitz-Rabin, 167)). Moses summoned the
princes before the battle with Amalek (addition to Exod. 17:9, in Josephus,
Ant. iii 47). The twelve spies (Num. 13:23f., lxx a̓rchgoí) are described as
phylarchs (Philo Mos. i.22). Contrary to what is most naturally suggested
by Num. 7:17 (2), the princes and the people together inscribed the rods
(Josephus, Ant. iv 63–6); indeed, Moses sealed them with the phylarchs’
signet-rings (1 Clem. 43). The princes who dug the well (Num. 21:18) were the
phylarchs (Tos. Sukkah iii.11; Tanhuma Numbers Bemidbar 2, on 1:1 (481),
Huqqath 21, on 21.17–18 (573); Dura Europos mural (probably; Gutmann,
141f.)), although competitors for the identification include the sanhedrin
(Neofiti margin on Num. 21:18) and others (CD vi. 6, Philo, Mos. i. 256).
The apostate Zimri, ‘prince of a father’s house’ in the tribe of Simeon (Num.
25:14), becomes h̔goúmenoV of the tribe (Josephus, Ant. iv 141; the word is
used of the princes, 1 Chron 27:16 lxx), ‘head’ or ‘prince’ of the whole tribe
(Sifre Num. 131, on 25.5; Tanhuma Buber, Numbers, Phinehas, 3, on 25.10
(Buber, 151); Sanh. 82a, followed by Rashi on Num. 25:6). At the allotment
of land Eleazar, clothed with Urim and Thummim, presided, and the princes
drew the lots (addition to Num. 26:52–6, 34:17f., in B.B. 122a). The ‘phylarchs’
are the first category of those summoned to hear the last song and blessings
of Moses (Deut. 31:28 lxx); and it is they who take up the stones from the
bed of Jordan for a memorial of the crossing (addition to Jos. 4:4 in Josephus
Ant. v 20).
It is not, of course, contended here that all these interpretations were current
during the New Testament period. A first-century circulation seems highly
probable for the first example considered at length (Num. 7); among the eleven
developments in detail just listed, the first probably arose after the cessation of
sacrifice, but the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus and 1 Clement account for six.
What is suggested, rather, is that this combination of later and earlier material
exhibits the continuity of creative interpretative interest in the twelve princes.
This concern is evident in the rabbinic midrash, but it simply continues an
interest which had already prompted alterations and additions in the biblical
194 Messianism among Jews and Christians

paraphrase of the first century and earlier, from which a significant proportion
of the examples has been taken. This imaginative interest in the interpretation
of the phylarchs can therefore properly be assumed as an influence in first-
century Palestine.

IV

That the phylarchs should be included among the possible models of the
company of ‘the twelve’ was suggested in section II, above, with reference to
their prominent place in seventeenth-century reconstructions of the Mosaic
and apostolic polities, which could be considered as a reflection of their
importance in the Old Testament text itself. It was then asked whether this
importance, which rabbinic concentration on the sanhedrin tended to obscure,
would indeed have been recognized by a first-century Jew. An affirmative
answer to this question has now been given (section III, above), on the basis of
a selective review of the phylarchs in the haggadah. Yet, granted the important
point that the phylarchs ‘lived’ as biblical characters in the first-century Jewish
imagination, it remains to consider the first division of material distinguished
at the beginning of section III, the constitutional and regulative passages in
their halakhic interpretation.
This type of interpretation bears closely upon an inquiry into the place
of the New Testament twelve in contemporary Jewish thought, for it was of
primary importance for ancient Jewish interpreters, and is invited, as already
noted, by the nature of many of the Old Testament passages themselves. Here
it is approached, first, by way of traces of the idea of a constitution including a
body of twelve tribal princes; and secondly, in the following sections, through
Josephus and other sources wherein this idea seems to stand in conflict or
connection with the idea of government by sanhedrin. The object will be to
ascertain what constitutional or regulative associations a first-century Jew
might have associated with the twelve phylarchs.
First, traces of the thought of a constitutionally important body of twelve
tribal chiefs are not infrequent. The prominence of the princes in 1 Chronicles,
as compared with 1 Kings (section III, above), already suggests this thought;
and the place of Zerubbabel and his eleven companions, at the head of the
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 195

list of returning exiles (Ezra 2:2 = Neh. 7:7) is often viewed as a trace of it
(Schürer-Vermes-Millar, ii, 201).
However this may be, the phylarchs clearly gain further political importance
in the lxx, despite the translation ἄrconteV which can equate them with
elders (sections II, above, and VI, below). Moses spoke concerning vows ‘unto
the heads of tribes, to the children of Israel’, but in the lxx simply ‘unto the
rulers of the tribes of the children of Israel’ (Num. 30:2). At the giving of the
Ten Commandments there drew near ‘all the heads of your tribes, and your
elders’, but in the lxx ‘all the leaders (h̔goúmenoi) of your tribes, and your
gerousia’ (Deut 5:20 (lxx 23)); here the elders are identified as the council,
but it is envisaged that the tribal leaders, probably the phylarchs (cf. 1 Chron.
27:16 lxx h̔goúmenoV), will take precedence over them. This view of what is
intended in the lxx is supported by a later passage in which, in the Hebrew
text, Moses exhorts ‘your heads, your tribes, your elders and your officers, all
the men of Israel’ (Deut. 29:9); but the Septuagintal version of this list begins
‘your rulers of tribes (a̓rcíjuloi) and your gerousia’. Here the phylarchs are
plainly mentioned first of all, even before the council. Comparably, they are
added, as already noted, as the first category of those who hear the last words
of Moses (Deut. 31:28, lxx).
With these passages one should view Exod. 34:30 lxx presbúteroi
(‘elders of Israel’ for MT = ‘children of Israel,’). The alteration reconciles the
following verse, 34:31, on Moses, Aaron and the princes, with the comparable
earlier account of Moses, Aaron and the elders (Exod. 24:1, 9–11, see section II
above). After the alteration in 34:30 the princes can be understood, in the light
of the lxx passages just mentioned, as the leading members of the council.
In 2 Chronicles lxx, similarly, ‘the princes of hundreds’—who take
precedence immediately after the high priest in the important constitutional
context of Joash’s coronation—become ‘the patriarchs’ (2 Chron. 23:20 lxx);
the same word is chosen, in a counterpart of Philo’s application of ‘phylarch’, to
render an unambiguous Hebrew reference to the rulers of the tribes (1 Chron.
27:11 lxx), and they rather than the inner-tribal heads are probably meant by
the translator to take the highest place the court affords in 2 Chron. 23. The
phylarchs are also inserted, in a cultic context but again probably not without
political connotations, when the twelve he-goats, a sin-offering for all Israel at
the dedication of the second temple (Ezra 6:17, 8:35), are specified in 1 Esd.
196 Messianism among Jews and Christians

7:8 as corresponding to the number of the twelve júlarcai (cf. Lev. 4:22;
Num. 7:87, speaking for RV ‘princes’ rather than REB ‘patriarchs’ at 1 Esd.
7:8). The addition of ‘twelve’ at Num. 7:2, lxx (section II, above) likewise picks
the princes out as a body.
The political precedence awarded in these Septuagintal passages also
appears in the Jewish historian Eupolemus (second century b.c., quoted from
Alexander Polyhistor by Eusebius, praep. ev. ix. 30, 8): David ‘handed over the
government to his son Solomon, in the presence of Eli the high priest and the
twelve princes of the tribes’ (Wacholder, 151). From the biblical list of princes,
priests and Levites (1 Chron. 23:22) Eupolemus retains only the twelve and the
high priest (on whose name ‘Eli’ see Wacholder, 151 and Spiro, 104, n. 29). He
perhaps considers that, with the high priest, the phylarchs form the council (so
Wacholder, 154). As will be seen shortly, Josephus seems to attack this view.
In these Greek Jewish sources a significant place in the Jewish polity is
clearly accorded to the twelve princes. Qumran texts have provided other
evidence for this particular point, together with more general indications of
the constitutional importance of the number twelve. They also attest, without
reference to twelve, the continuing influence of the Pentateuchal image of the
phylarchs at the head of the tribal formations. Thus, in an edition not available
to me when this essay was writen, C. A. Newsom (26–7, 32–5) shows that the
angelic neśîʾîm mentioned several times in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
(so 4Q 403 1 i, lines 1, 10, 21, 26 ‘chief princes’; 4Q 400 3 ii 2 ‘deputy princes’)
are probably the chief priests and deputy chief priests of the seven heavenly
sanctuaries, envisaged on the model of the tribal princes in such passages
as Num. 1:16, 7:2, 10:14, and enjoying a precedence among the angels such
as the princes have on earth. On the number twelve, however, the present
argument converges with the studies of Qumran and the twelve by Flusser and
Baumgarten.
In the Isaiah pesher, as Flusser notes, the pinnacles of the new Jerusalem
(Isa. 54:12) are the twelve chief priests, and its gates of carbuncle the twelve
heads of tribes (4QpIsad, cf. Rev. 21:14; corrected text and translation in
Baumgarten, 146–50). This interpretation can be related to the provision in
the War Scroll for maʿamādôt consisting of twelve priests, twelve levites and
twelve tribal princes (1QM ii. 1–3). Of clearest constitutional importance is
the similar ordinance in the Temple Scroll, compared by Baumgarten: the king
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 197

shall have a council of ‘twelve neśîʾîm of his people’, twelve priests, and twelve
levites, above whom his heart shall not be lifted up, and whom he shall always
consult (Deut. 17:20 as interpreted in 11Q Temple lvii.11–15). These three
passages, in which the twelve princes themselves clearly figure, can be viewed
together with two others, discussed by both Flusser and Baumgarten, in which
the number twelve is important; the Manual of Discipline evisages a council
of twelve men and three priests (1QS viii.1), and the Ordinances provide for a
court of twelve, including two priests (4Q Ordinances ii. 4, iii. 4).
Baumgarten, enlarging on Flusser’s suggestion of a Qumran background
for the New Testament twelve, argues that the New Testament views of the
apostles as tribal judges (Matt. 19:28) and of the heavenly elders as a body of
twenty-four (Rev. 4:4, etc.; see Charles on 4:10, and Geyser, 392–7) depend
not only on Qumran notions of the composition of courts, but also on various
ancient traditions about the membership of the sanhedrin. Views that the court
should be duodecimally based are reflected, he finds, in these (notably in Sanh.
17a, where seventy-two is explained as six from each tribe). His conjecture
rests, however, in large part, on the clearer importance of the number twelve
in the composition of the Qumran courts.
The non-sectarian Jewish evidence from the Septuagint and Eupolemus,
not discussed by Flusser and Baumgarten, may now be thought to confirm
the likelihood of duodecimal Jewish antecedents for both the New Testament
and the rabbinic texts. Here a further, less direct trace of the constitutional
significance of the phylarchs may be added. In pre-Christian passages of
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs the expectation of the resurrection
includes the hope that the twelve patriarchs will be raised as governors of their
tribes (Test. Judah 25:1–2, Benj. 10:7; cf. Zeb. 10:2 (individual patriarch); date
and theme discussed by O’Neill, 95 and Hultgård, i, 260–1, 235–6, 246–7, 254).
This hope for patriarchal government of the tribes recalls the connections
between patriarchs and phylarchs already noted in lxx, Philo and Josephus.
The midrash on Num 21:17–18 already discussed correspondingly says that
the patriarchs are called princes (sarim) (Tanhuma Numbers, Huqqath, 21, as
cited in section III, above; parallels include Num. R. 19.26, on 21.18).
To sum up the present section, it may be said that the constitutional
importance of the twelve princes in particular is clear in the Septuagint
(Numbers, Deuteronomy, Chronicles and 1 Esdras), Eupolemus, and, as Flusser
198 Messianism among Jews and Christians

and Baumgarten have noted, in three Qumran texts (4QpIsa, 1QM, 11Q Temple).
It is also implied by the hope that the twelve patriarchs will arise to govern
their tribes (Testaments of Judah, Zebulun and Benjamin). More generally, the
idea of a governing body of twelve is accepted in 1QS and 4Q Ordinances,
and is conjectured by Baumgarten, with probability, to have influenced early
rabbinic tradition. The Qumran texts, viewed against the earlier background
of P, Chronicles, Ezra and the lxx as well as the second-century Eupolemus
and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, appear to be conservative rather
than idiosyncratic in the prominence they give to the princes. In this particular
the Greek sources bear out Vermes’ general conclusion that the tribally-based
Qumran order represents an earlier view of the Jewish polity (Schürer-Vermes-
Millar, ii, 201). For the present inquiry, however, it is specially notable that,
from the lxx to Qumran, constitutional prominence continued to be given not
only to the tribes, but also to the phylarchs themselves.
Thus far, it seems that the Gospel company of twelve, in the first century
a.d., could well have awakened in their contemporaries associations with
the ancestral Jewish polity, tò dwdekájulon h̔mw͂n (Acts 26:7), and with
the constitutional significance of the twelve tribal princes in particular. The
previous section has shown that an interest in the phylarchs can be assumed in
the biblical interpretation of this period. Yet, as is plain from Josephus, direct
institutional embodiment of the tribal view of the Jewish polity had become
archaic in the first century. The view itself remained influential, because of
its biblical roots, but it had to compete, as already noted, with the practical
and ideological importance of two political institutions, the high-priesthood
and the council, which were also rooted in the Bible. Before a judgment on
the significance of the twelve apostles can be more fully formed, it must be
asked how far the constitutional importance of the princes could survive, in
Josephus and other sources, side by side with the idea of government by high
priest and sanhedrin.

Josephus, who regards the council of elders under high-priestly presidency

as the backbone of the constitution, treats the twelve princes with striking
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 199

ambiguity. In his sketch of the Mosaic polity he allows, if necessary, for a

king (with Deut. 17:14), who shall do nothing without the high priest and
the elders (here Josephus is in noteworthy accord with the Temple Scroll, as
cited in the previous section); but this Deuteronomic provision is only made in
case the nation cannot be content with a (kingless) ‘aristocracy’, the authentic
Israelite constitution (Ant. iv 223f.). This preference for aristocracy may owe
something to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, as noted by Downing, 60. At any
rate, the aristocratic polity is clearly identical, for Josephus, with the ‘theocracy’
(Ap. ii.165) under which the Jews, by ancestral custom, obey the priests (as
Pompey is told, according to Ant. xiv 41). The national decline from sacerdotal
aristocracy occurred in the time of the judges; the biblical description of the
lapse following the settlement is amplified in Josephus by ‘the aristocratic form
of government was already becoming corrupted, and they did not appoint
councils of elders (gerousíai) or any other magistracy (a̓rch́) formerly
ordained by law’ (addition to Judg. 2:11–23 in Josephus, Ant. v 135).
The phylarchs evidently fail to fit neatly into Josephus’ narrative of the
‘aristocratic’ period before this decline. On the one hand, as noted earlier,
Josephus can introduce the phylarchs into the biblical narrative, or heighten
their rôle (Ant. iii 47, iv. 64, v. 20, cited in section III, above). He not only leaves
the phylarchs their place in charge of the census (Ant. iii 287), but also specially
notes, on the basis of the list in Num. 1:5–16, that Moses ‘enrolled’ Manasseh
and Ephraim ‘among the phylarchs’ (katélexen ei̓V toùV julárcouV, Ant.
iii 288); this fulfils Jacob’s charge to his sons (Ant. ii 195), and here Josephus
seems to regard the phylarchs’ authority as patriarchal.
On the other hand, all the biblical passages wherein the princes seem to form
a council (as noted in section III, above) are consistently altered by Josephus.
In almost every instance the phylarchs disappear, and a reader of Josephus
only would be unaware that they are mentioned and given importance at
the corresponding places in the Bible. A brief review of these paraphrases by
Josephus may bring out their character more clearly.
First, shortly after describing the census, Josephus mentions the silver
trumpet which summons the princes. Here he calls them a̓rcaí (adaptation
of Num. 10:4 in Josephus, Ant. iii 292). This broad designation, ‘the authorities’,
can also be used to cover magistracies inferior to the council (as in Ant. v 135,
just quoted). It compares with the generalizing lxx of Num. 10:4 ‘the rulers,
200 Messianism among Jews and Christians

leaders of Israel’, but contrasts with the exact trumpet inscription ‘princes of
God’ in the War Scroll (nesî’ey el 1QM iii.3; Yadin 48, 268). Josephus gives a
still more general rendering than lxx, perhaps because the trumpet summons
the princes to meet in council, and he wants an expression that will cover the
council envisaged in his own political theory, the gerousia.
Such a suspicion seems to be borne out by his treatment of other passages in
which the princes appear as a council. Moses alone is mentioned at the points
where the princes figure in the stories of the spoiling of Midian and the plight
of Zelophehad’s daughters (Josephus, Ant. iv 162, 174f.). Again, ‘the princes’
or ‘the heads of the fathers of the tribes’, who with Moses and Eleazar receive
the petition of Reuben and Gad, become simply those e̓n télei, ‘in authority’
(adaptation of Num. 32:2, 28 in Josephus, Ant. iv 171).
In the three other relevant passages care has evidently been given to a
representation of the ideal sacerdotal ‘aristocracy’, into which a model king
has been introduced in the person of Joshua. Two of Josephus’ paraphrases
accordingly dismiss the princes entirely, in favour of a gerousia presided over
by the high priest. Thus, in the Bible the princes alone are responsible for the
misguided promise to the Gibeonites, but in Josephus it is made by ‘Eleazar
the high priest with the gerousia’ (addition to Jos. 9:15–21 in Josephus, Ant.
v 55, 57). Similarly, the ten princes deputed to investigate the altar of witness
become simply ten men held in honour by the Hebrews (adaptation of Jos.
22:14 in Josephus, Ant. v 104); but they are now despatched not just by ‘the
children of Israel’, but, in good constitutional form, by Joshua and the high
priest Eleazar and the gerousia (addition to Jos. 22:13 in Ant. v 103).
In Josephus’ version of the story of the Gibeonites it might seem that the
phylarchs straightforwardly constitute the council of elders, as was probably
the case in Eupolemus (section IV, above). Any complete identification of the
princes with the council seems questionable, however, in view of the passages
where vaguer terms for ‘authorities’ are substituted by Josephus. This doubt
is underlined by the third and last of the paraphrases in which the phylarchs
have become part of an ideal Mosaic polity.
Here the phylarchs are clearly named together with the council, in
connection with the division of the promised land. This passage is the only
one of the seven under review in which a biblical mention of the princes
survives in Josephus. Difference of opinion on the authority for the allotment
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 201

of the land is already apparent in the Bible itself. Joshua alone divides the land,
according to Jos. 18:10; but Eleazar (named before Joshua) and the princes
or heads of the fathers of the tribes are associated with him, according to
Num. 34:17f., Jos. 14:1; 19:51; 21:1. Josephus, in his paraphrase of Jos. 18:10,
naturally follows the last-mentioned texts, which represent P and its influence,
the chief biblical source of Josephus’ own theory of sacerdotal aristocracy; but
he says that Joshua took with him Eleazar and the gerousia ‘with the phylarchs’
(Ant. v 80).
In the six paraphrases considered hitherto either the phylarchs were excised,
so that Moses appeared to act alone, or the potentially more comprehensive
‘authorities’ or high priest and council were substituted for them. The survival
of the phylarchs in this seventh instance perhaps owes something to the
context, for they are prominently associated with the division of the land not
only in the biblical passages just quoted (cf. Ezek. 45:8), but also in the midrash
(B.B. 122a (section III, above), and PRK v. 9). They survive here in Josephus,
however, only to be named after the gerousia. It is unclear whether they belong
to the council, or are thought of as a separate and perhaps subordinate group.
That Josephus could envisage the phylarchs as part of a larger council, as in
the Temple Scroll (section IV, above), is suggested by his substitution of more
comprehensive terms, including gerousia (twice), in four of the other passages
just considered. The present paraphrase can be understood in the same
way, but its order of words underlines the authority of the council. Herein it
contrasts with Deut. 29:9 lxx quoted in section IV, above, where the phylarchs
are mentioned before the council; but it significantly accords with Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan on the same verse, beginning ‘your heads of sanhedrin and
the rulers of your tribes’ (‘amarkeley shibteykhon) in that order. In Ant. v 80,
then, the isolated survival of the phylarchs with but after the council tends to
exalt the council as a whole, and to reduce the phylarchs to a section within the
council rather than at its head.
In six of the seven paraphrases under review, therefore, the phylarchs are
eliminated; in two of these six, more comprehensive ‘authorities’ appear instead;
in another two, high priest and council are substituted. In the seventh, which
has just been considered, the council is again inserted, and added to Joshua
and the high priest; but in this instance it appears ‘with the phylarchs’, who,
although they have this once been allowed to remain, are probably envisaged
202 Messianism among Jews and Christians

as no more than a group within it. Thus Josephus, despite his heightening of
the phylarchs’ rôle elsewhere, regularly dismisses them, or at least minimizes
them, sometimes clearly in favour of high priest and council, whenever he
paraphrases passages wherein the phylarchs themselves appear as a council of
constitutional significance.
Josephus’ noticeable measure of consistency in the paraphrase of these
constitutionally relevant passages recalls the fact that one of his two purposes
in the Antiquities was to describe the constitution (Ant. i 5). In the book he
puts forward his own view of the Jewish polity, outlined at the beginning
of this section; and it is in the light of this purpose that his apparently self-
contradictory treatment of the phylarchs may be thought to make sense. He
dismisses or minimizes them not because he suddenly scorns those whom
once he delighted to honour, but because he is an advocate of government
by high priest and council, and must show this to be the ‘order of a polity’
(Ant. iii 84) which, as he strongly stresses, was revealed on the mount and in
the tabernacle (on his view of the revelation of a constitution, Horbury (2),
56–7; = 239–40, below).
Josephus’ working out of this purpose is further evinced by his insertion of
the gerousia in passages unconnected with the phylarchs. The levitical priests
and the judge foreordained by Moses as a court of appeal are high priest,
‘prophet’ and gerousia (adaption of Deut. 17:9 in Josephus, Ant. iv 218); Moses
is escorted to his passing by high priest, gerousia and general, all unmentioned
in the biblical narrative (addition to Deut. 34:1 in Josephus, Ant. iv 324);
Joshua is made to behave as a constitutional monarch, for he reports the oath
taken by the two spies in Jericho ‘to the high priest Eleazar and the gerousia’
(addition to Jos. 2:23f.) in Josephus, Ant. v 15); and, as in Josephus’ narrative
of the altar of witness (Ant. v 103, mentioned earlier in this section), so also
in the case of the Benjamites the gerousia advises parley before war is declared
(addition to Judg. 20:8–11 in Josephus, Ant. v 151). Josephus’ advocacy of the
high priest and the council of elders is unmistakable.
Since this essay first appeared, and independently of it and of one another,
Goodblatt (94–7) and Pearce (35–9) have considered the presentation of a
gerousia by Josephus in the Antiquities; from differing standpoints each notes,
comparably with the foregoing paragraphs, the treatment of the princes as
members of a body of elders, and Goodblatt suggests (comparably with the
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 203

following paragraph, but without reference to Ps.-Philo) that Josephus was

indebted to existing paraphrase.
Josephus was perhaps not without precedent in his suppression and
transformation of the phylarchs. Another pre-rabbinic paraphrast, Pseudo-
Philo, in his Biblical Antiquities, likewise deletes them where they are
prominent in the Bible (Num. 1 in Ps.-Philo 14; Num. 17:21 (6) in Ps.-Philo
17.2; Jos. 14:1 in Ps.-Philo 20.9), or turns them into elders (Jos. 22:13–15 in
Ps.-Philo 22.2), despite strong emphasis on the twelve tribes (e.g. Ps.-Philo
10.3, 14.1, 19.5, 20.9, 25.2–26.15, 49.2). To judge by the long Kenaz narrative,
where the author had little biblical material, his preferred constitution was
headed by captain, high-priest and elders (25:6, 28:3). Here again he is like
Josephus, with somewhat less emphasis on priestly rule. It seems likely that
these probably roughly contemporary authors drew on a common narrative
tradition, wherein the phylarchs were dropped in the interest of ruler, high-
priest and elders.
The ambiguity of Josephus’ treatment of the phylarchs therefore arises from a
form of the conflict observed by Spinoza between their biblical importance and
the theory of the sanhedrin. Josephus gives the princes a more definite share in
patriarchal glory than the Bible does, and recognizes them as representatives of
Israel (paraphrase of Num. 7; section III above); but he systematically deprives
them of the conciliar status which they clearly receive in the biblical text. Both
aspects of this treatment were probably already familiar. Re-statement of its
negative side, as seen in Josephus and Ps.-Philo, will nevertheless have been
evoked in the first century a.d. by the prestige of high priest and council, and
by the heightened presentation of the phylarchs found in many older but still
current sources (lxx, Eupolemus, Qumran texts, and Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, reviewed in the previous section). That others shared the outlook of
Josephus is suggested not only by Pseudo-Philo, but also by signs of the same
conflict of political theories in rabbinic texts now to be considered.

VI

The targums continue the generalizing side of lxx interpretation. The

common Greek rendering ἄrconteV included, however, within its wide
204 Messianism among Jews and Christians

range, the possibility pursued by Josephus that the phylarchs are councillors.
ἊrconteV join with elders in sources for a Jerusalem council (Ezra 10:8 lxx
(for Hebrew sarim; elders only at 1 Esd. 9:4); 1 Macc. 14:28; Acts 4:5, 8), and the
Alexandrian Jewry has a gerousia with ἄrconteV in Philo, but seventy ‘elders’
in the Talmud (Philo, Flacc. 80; j Sukkah v 1, 55a); ἄrconteV could sometimes
be used interchangeably with presbúteroi (Harvey, 321; evidence most fully
in Lietzmann (162–9), who warns that the terms need not always overlap).
The same link with the council is probably though less plainly allowed
by the comparable targumic renderings rabrebin, rabrebane, or amarkelin,
‘great men’ or ‘rulers’. Both are probably old; the former also occurs in the
Peshitta Pentateuch (rawrebānēʾ), and the meaning of the latter was debated
(Horayoth 13a, Lev. R. v.3). Possible conciliar overtones emerge in view
of the correspondence of rabrebin with the plural of Hebrew gadhôl and
Greek mégaV (eg. Gen. 12:17 lxx, Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, of ‘great’
afflictions); the Greek and Hebrew words can stand independently for
councillors. Thus Mattathias in 1 Maccabees is ἄrcwn kaì ἔndoxoV kaì
mégaV (2:17), and in a midrash gedhôley yisra’el ‘the great men of Israel’
describe Isa. 3:14 ‘the elders of his people and his princes’ (‫שריו‬, lxx here
ἄrconteV, targum variant rabrebohi (Stenning, 13)), who are enthroned
as assessors in the heavenly court (Dan. 7:9 interpreted in Tanhuma
Buber, Leviticus, Qedoshim 1; p. 72, on Lev. 19:1). The targums therefore
probably allow a conciliar link, and certainly exclude any potential conflict
of jurisdiction between the princes and the elders of the sanhedrin, when
these renderings occur in verses where the princes could be regarded as a
council (e.g. Num. 7:2, 10:4, 17:17, 21:(2, 6), 27:2, 31:13, 32:2; in all these
lxx ἄrconteV, Onkelos rabrebin, Neofiti rabrebane, Peshitta rawrebānēʾ,
Pseudo-Jonathan amarkelin (combined with rabrebin in 7:2)).
Definite advocacy of the sanhedrin also appears, however, as already noted
(section III, above), in a tendency to ascribe ancient worthies to its membership
(the officers of the Israelites in Egypt, who were also identified with the princes,
Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11:16; the princes who dug the well, Neofiti margin
on Num. 21:18). As the former of these examples shows, this tendency could
run directly counter to exaltation of the phylarchs; at Deut. 29:9, as noted in
the previous section, the Septuagintal precedence of phylarchs over council
is reversed by Pseudo-Jonathan, and at Deut. 31:28 ‘the elders of your tribes’
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 205

becomes in lxx ‘your phylarchs’ (section IV, above), but in Pseudo-Jonathan

‘the wise men of your tribes’.
Despite the strength of this tendency the targums preserve, like Josephus,
some traces of the phylarchs’ importance. Thus, in the account of the tribal
formations under the standards (Num. 10:14–28), Pseudo-Jonathan adds to
the biblical naming of each prince the introduction ‘the great man who was
appointed’. In a particularly striking reversal of the commendation of the
sanhedrin, ‘the elders of the congregation’ appear in the targum as ‘the twelve
elders of the congregation who are appointed rulers over the twelve tribes’
(Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 4:15, discussed by Mantel, 43, n. 240). This rendering
is in opposition to Sanh. 13b, where the ‘congregation’ is the sanhedrin (see
below); but it accords with the biblical context, where the elders might be
expected to represent the congregation, and the sin-offering of ‘the prince’ is
soon mentioned (Lev. 4:22). Advocacy of the sanhedrin, continuing Josephus’
propaganda for the gerousia, has here not excluded a reference, perhaps of
earlier origin, to the phylarchs as a ruling council.
A biblical basis for the composition and procedure of the sanhedrin is
sought with special concentration in the Mishnah and early halakhic midrash.
In this context the ‘prince’ and the ‘congregation’ could acquire new, technical
senses; but the recognition of the nāśîʾ as a tribal prince could persist here
as well as in the targum. Thus Lev. 4:13–23, on the sin-offerings of the ‘whole
congregation’ and the prince, the passage from which a verse in targumic
rendering has just been considered, formed the basis of Mishnaic discussion of
errors of judgment by the sanhedrin. ‘Congregation’ was understood as ‘court’,
and ‘prince’ (verse 22) not as tribal prince, but as king (Mishnah, Horayoth
ii.5–iii.3; cf. Tosefta Horayoth i.9, ii.2). Despite the fundamental halakhic
importance of this interpretation, it was still rightly asked ‘Who is a “prince”
(nāśîʾ)?’ (Mishnah Horayoth iii.3, Tosefta Horayoth ii.2); the answer given
is ‘king’, but the comment in the Babylonian Talmud (Horayoth 11 a) is
indeed that a tribal prince like Nahshon might reasonably though wrongly be
envisaged. The understanding of nāśîʾ in verse 22 as tribal prince survived
in Pithron Torah ad loc. (cited in section III, above), and probably influenced
Pseudo-Jonathan on verse 15, just quoted.
The honour of the phylarchs is also strikingly upheld in the opinion that,
whenever the congregation was addressed, the princes were spoken to first
206 Messianism among Jews and Christians

(Sifre Num. 73, on 10.34). By contrast, according to Babylonian Talmud,

Erubin 54b, the laws were expounded in order to Aaron, his sons, the elders,
and finally all the people; the precedence here given to priesthood and council
would have pleased Josephus, and, just as he often did, it excludes the princes
as a special group. Indeed, Exod. 34:31, wherein Aaron and the princes meet
Moses before the people do, is interpreted by Rashi in the light of this Talmudic
passage, the princes being understood (comparably, up to a point, with Exod.
34:30 lxx) as the elders, or as among the elders, of Exod. 24:14 (sections II
and IV above). Sifre, however, keeps the primacy given to the princes at Exod.
34:31, and also to the ‘heads’ of tribes at Num. 30:2, where they are the first to
hear Moses on vows, Deut. 5:20, where they are the first to approach Moses,
and Deut. 29:9, where they are again his first addressees. In the three last-
mentioned passages, as noted already (section IV, above), lxx gives added
emphasis to the precedence of the phylarchs.
Sifre on the princes’ primacy as recipients of the laws may be compared with
the tradition, found in later compilations, that the princes ranked immediately
below Eleazar; they and he would wait each morning on Aaron, who with
the rest would then wait on Moses (Tanhuma Buber, Numbers, on 20:25
(addition to Huqqath, 131–2); Pithron, on Num. 20:25, in Urbach, 187–8).
Rashi on Num. 30:2, in contrast with his comment on Exod. 34:31, speaks
simply of Moses’ custom of honouring the princes by communicating the
divine message first of all to them, and does not mention the elders. Here he
may well have drawn directly on Sifre; but in any case his comment, together
with the tradition preserved in Tanhuma Buber and Pithron Torah, shows that
the primacy of the princes’ council could still be mentioned in rabbinically-
influenced Jewish exposition, even on a subject so closely bound up with the
theory of the sanhedrin as the reception of the Torah.
Hence, despite pervasive concern with the sanhedrin, the princes could still
be envisaged in halakhic interpretation as the phylarchs (Horayoth 11a; Sifre
Num. on 7:2). The targums tend to dissolve the princes’ corporate identity
by generalizing translation, which can merge them in the sanhedrin in the
tradition of lxx, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus; they also displace the princes
from their precedence over the sanhedrin, in the tradition of Josephus but
against one marked tendency of lxx. Nevertheless, the princes can be
mentioned as a ruling council (Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 4:15), qualified to
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 207

receive the divine commandments first of all (Sifre Num. 73, on 10.31–4).
Septuagintal tendency to emphasize the princes’ precedence finds at least a
measure of continuation.
Some survival of the princes’ earlier éclat was probably encouraged by their
natural place in tribally-based views of the Jewish polity. Such views impinge
on the theory of the sanhedrin when it is considered as a body representing the
twelve tribes. Thus, ‘when the heads of the people are gathered together with
the tribes of Israel’ (Deut. 33:5) is taken to refer to the seventy elders gathered
in sanhedrin, representing the corporate union of the tribes (Sifre Deut. on
33:5; Pithron, in Urbach, 334); but, according to Sanh. 17a, Moses is puzzled
whether to choose six or five members of the sanhedrin from each tribe, as
in either case he reaches a total different from the seventy requested in Num.
11:16. In these passages consideration of the sanhedrin itself is affected by that
tribal conception of Israel which would also encourage attention to the more
conveniently numbered tribal princes.

VII

The significance of the biblical passages on the phylarchs was recognized in

ancient Jewry, as has now been seen, both by development and by selective
suppression. From the making of the lxx to the rabbinic homily of the
amoraic period, the princes lived in haggadic exposition (section III above).
Their first-century Greek Jewish designation ‘phylarch’ (section II above)
suggests a share in patriarchal glory, confirmed in Josephus’ two-sided
presentation; and in rabbinic exposition the princes figured uninterruptedly
as national representatives in such important traditional narratives as that
of the phylarchs’ offerings (section III). In halakhic interpretation, however,
continuity was broken by the conflict of constitutional ideals, already evident
in the biblical texts as between the phylarchs in P and the council of elders
in JE. In one group of sources, comprising the Septuagint, Eupolemus, three
Qumran texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (section IV, above),
clear constitutional importance is ascribed to the twelve biblical princes and
their successors. In Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, on the other hand (section
V, above), the princes are deprived of their biblical precedence, the biblical
208 Messianism among Jews and Christians

references to them as a council are almost all suppressed, and, instead, the
high priest and the council of elders are given a much heightened rôle. The
same tendencies emerge in rabbinic exegesis (section VI, above), with its
concentration on the sanhedrin; but the special status of the phylarchs was
sometimes remembered, perhaps in connection with the tribal view of Israel.
In first-century Palestine both the haggadic interpretation of the princes, and
the conflict between the constitutional models offered by the phylarchs on the
one hand and the high priest and elders on the other, can be assumed to have
been familiar.
Three stages in this conflict can be roughly distinguished in the sources
considered above. In the first stage, represented by the lxx passages noted in
section IV, the twelve princes form a body taking precedence immediately after
high priest and monarch, and before the gerousia. Eupolemus, who chooses
simply to mention king, high priest and phylarchs at Solomon’s accession,
may well share this view, but is too fragmentarily preserved for certainty. In
the second stage, represented by the Temple Scroll, and probably also reflected
in the Isaiah pesher and the War Scroll (section IV, above), the twelve princes,
or rather their successors, form part of a larger council. A third stage appears
in Josephus, Pseudo-Philo and the targums. They still allow a link between
the princes and the council, but their generalizing translations obscure
the specific reference to twelve princes which is clear in the three Qumran
texts. Now the princes are largely dissolved as a corporation, by generalizing
renderings or the suppression of biblical references, and emphasis falls on
the high priest and council; if the princes are still mentioned as a body, the
council as a whole takes precedence over them (so Josephus, probably, and
Pseudo-Jonathan).
These roughly distinguished stages in the conflict between two constitutional
models have some correspondence to periods of time. It is not improbable, as
noted above, that the positive constitutional development of the twelve reflects
an early form of post-exilic Jewish polity, which was antiquated by the increasing
importance of a larger council. By the first century, the practical significance
of the theory of high priest and council is confirmed by the predominance of
this constitution in the first period of Jewish self-determination in the revolt
of a.d. 66. Clearly, however, these stages, though broadly successive in time,
could overlap and conflict in the thought of contemporaries; and they did so
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 209

in first-century Palestine, as comparison of the Qumran texts and Josephus

indicates.
The haggadic development of the princes, and their place in the conflict
of constitutional models, are therefore significant for the understanding of
the twelve and the apostles. Two interpretations of early Christian evidence
against this background may be summarily suggested.
First, in the realm of church order, the variations and connections in Luke-
Acts between the twelve and the apostles on one side, and the elders of the
Jerusalem church on the other, can be ascribed in part to an inner Christian
manifestation of the broader Jewish constitutional conflict. Wellhausen
stressed that references to the twelve (eleven) in the gospels and Acts cluster
in the resurrection narratives and their sequels (Wellhausen, 141). Here the
eleven or the apostles receive knowledge for teaching (Luke 24:45; cf. Acts
2:42), commission (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:19; John 20:21), and the
Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:5, 8; 2:1–14, 37 (2:1 continues 1:26; 2:2 kaqh́menoi
suggests dignitaries); John 20:22). Authority to remit sins is given in this
setting in John 20:23 (cf. Matt. 18:18; 16:19). The emphasis on authority to
govern is marked in Matt. 19:28, parallel with Luke 22:30 (Bammel, 45–7), but
mission predominates in the resurrection narratives, in Mark 3:13–19; 6:7–13
and parallels (especially 3:14–15; 6:7). The weight placed on authorization,
particularly evident in the visionary contexts indicated by Wellhausen, is
best ascribed to the claims and prestige of a governing body of apostles
(compare the exaltation of constitutional models in the Jewish interpretation
just considered). Such a body appears in Acts 4:35; 9:27 and especially (as
Wellhausen (144) again stressed) in the constitutional language of Acts 6:2.
(oí dẃdeka convene tò plh͂qoV tw͂n maqhtw͂n). On the other hand ‘elders’
form a council together with apostles at Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16:4, and
elders—but not a group of apostles—are mentioned at Acts 11:30, 21:18. The
‘seventy’ or ‘seventy-two’ of Luke 10:1, 17–20 reflect, it may be suggested, a pre-
Lucan attempt to include the elders in the apostolic commission. (E. Meyer, i,
276, 279–80 takes another view, but inclines to pre-Lucan origin; the proposal
that Jerusalem elders stand behind the passage was once made by W. L. Knox,
but he later thought it temerarious (Knox, ii, 49, n. 2).) Preoccupation, death
or absence of apostles (Acts 6:2, 12:2, 19) may of course have tended to exalt
the elders; but Jewish interpretation of the princes suggests another factor also,
210 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the strength of the contemporary tendency towards merging an authoritative

body of twelve into a council of elders.
Since this essay first appeared, attention has been drawn again (with
emphasis on Jewish as well as Christian influence in respect of the number
twelve) to literary traces of the notion of a body of twelve elders in the church,
notably when bishops appoint twelve elders in the Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions (iii 68, vi 15) and Homilies (xi 36) and in the regulations of
Testamentum Domini i 34; 40; also to comparisons between the council of
presbyters and the apostles, for example in Ignatius, Magn. vi 1 or Const. Ap.
ii 28, 4 (here the presbyters are sunédrion kaì boulh̀ th͂V e̓kklhsíaV);
and also to Jerome (Ep. 146) and other sources on the election of bishops by
presbyteroi at Alexandria in the second and third centuries (van den Broek
(1) 64–5, (2) 108–10). It has been correspondingly suggested both that in
Jewish-Christian tradition James the Lord’s brother as bishop of Jerusalem
was envisaged with twelve elders, as names in the Jerusalem episcopal list in
Eusebius might indicate (van den Broek (1) 63–5); and that the second-century
Alexandrian church eldership was modelled on that of the Alexandrian
Jews (mentioned at the beginning of section VI, above), but was a body of
twelve (van den Broek (2) 110–11). Further, with acknowledgement to van
den Broek (1) and to the argument for the influence of the number twelve
offered above, it has been conjectured that in Jerusalem under James the Lord’s
brother the relatively few remaining members of the original apostolic Twelve
were indeed incorporated into a body of twelve elders (Bauckham, 74–5). On
different lines, however, it has been urged that the mention of elders without
apostles in Acts 11:30, 21:18 reflects the church order familiar to Luke and
his reviser rather than conditions in Christian Jerusalem in the 40s and 50s
(Taylor, 90–1, on Acts 11:30). The texts and customs which form the basis for
all these suggestions again indicate the converging influence of theories of a
body of twelve and a council of elders in the early church, and the importance
both of Pentateuchal precedent and contemporary Jewish interpretation of it.
On Jerusalem as reflected in Luke-Acts, Bauckham’s suggestion attractively
combines the Acts references to Jerusalem church elders with and without
apostles in a way which suits slightly later church custom, but does not include
comment on Luke 10; Taylor’s judgment fits well with the passages from
Acts and the Pastoral Epistles cited at the beginning of the last paragraph,
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 211

but makes less allowance than the view adopted here for the influence of the
constitutional ideal of a council of elders at the earliest stage of Jerusalem
Christianity. The view that the Jerusalem church had long included a body
of elders distinct from the Twelve is favoured, irrespective of Luke 10, by the
passages cited above from Acts 15–16 as well as 11:30, considered together
with the preference for a council of elders evinced in Jewish treatments of the
constitution discussed above.
The same constitutional preference can also be recognized, it may be urged,
in notices of elders in diaspora Christianity (Acts 14:23, 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17;
Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1), sometimes in writings which also
envisage a twelve-tribe polity (James 5:14 (1:1); Rev. 4:4, etc. (7:4, etc.); 1 Clem.
47.6, 54.2, etc. (31:4, 43:2, 55:6)). The conventional view that these attest a
Christian eldership modelled on the Jewish is doubted by Harvey, partly (he
states) because Jerusalem sanhedrists differed considerably from Christian
presbyters, partly because the duties of diaspora elders are unclear, and the
name presbúteroV is rare in the epigraphic evidence, whereas ἄrconteV are
common (Harvey, 319–26). Yet (section VI above, Harvey, 321) these names
could be interchangeable; and the relevant model was not simply or primarily
the contemporary Jewish council, but also the Mosaic sunagwgh́ or e̓kklhsía
wherein, thanks to the lxx translators, oi̔ presbúteroi Ἰsrah́l and pánteV
oi̔ ἄrconteV th͂V sunagwgh͂V dwelt together in unity (the phrases are quoted
from Exod. 34:30–1 lxx, discussed in sections II and VI above).
In a full discussion of elders published since this essay first appeared
R. A. Campbell again urges that among both Jews and Christians at the time of
the rise of Christianity the terms translated ‘elder’ were honorific but imprecise.
By contrast with titles such as ἄrcwn, they referred to a status rather than a
definite office; and they did not necessarily evoke the thought of Pentateuchal
models (Campbell, especially 28–66, 159–63; an overlap rather than a contrast
with ἄrcwn is suggested by some Jewish texts, as noted at the beginning
of section VI, above). In the light of sections V and VI above it seems that
although, as Campbell shows, the sources do not permit detailed definition
of the office of elder (the same is true of a number of ancient Jewish and
Christian communal titles), they do attest the power of the constitutional ideal
of a council of elders, and the association of this ideal with the constitutional
pattern sketched in the Pentateuch.
212 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Secondly, with regard to the ministry of Jesus, the twelve appear against
the background of Jewish interpretation as a body which, like the phylarchs,
must needs attract constitutional speculation. With Jewish models in view the
calling of the twelve seems likely, nevertheless, to have conferred authority
from the first; but it also stands out as distinctive in important respects.
Constitutional speculation has left the deposit indicated by Wellhausen, but
the present writer follows those who, like Roloff (430–9) and Sanders (98–101),
ascribe the twelve to the period of the ministry. The inclusion of the traitor’s
name in the lists of the twelve can perhaps be singled out from the evidence
pointing in this direction.
The passages most susceptible to constitutional modification are those
concerning the titles and authority of the twelve. When examined with a view
to the period of the ministry, they show contrast as well as agreement with
Jewish treatment of the phylarchs.
First, the names ‘twelve’ (Mark 3:14; 1 Cor. 15:5, etc.) and the potentially
broader ‘apostles’ (Luke 6:13; Mark 6:30, etc.) contrast with the continuance
of Pentateuchal titles in the War Scroll, where ‘the prince of the whole
congregation’ heads twelve ‘princes of God’ who command the tribes (1QM
iii.3, v. 1–2). This contrast is striking, in view of the importance in early
Christianity of the Pentateuchal terms ‘ecclesia’ and ‘elder’. The word ‘twelve’,
however, also evokes the repertory of Jewish speculation on the tribes and
their rulers.
Secondly, in the passages on authorization, the emphasis lies on the sending
of the twelve, and their authority to preach and cast out devils (Mark 3:14–15,
6:7, and parallels). This distinctive emphasis is continued in the passages set
after the resurrection, noticed above, where the commission to witness and
teach is central. The theme of government, on the other hand, which is central
in the treatment of the phylarchs, is restricted to Matt. 19:28 and parallel,
with which the passages on binding and loosing, Matt. 18:8 and parallels, can
perhaps be associated. Contrary to expectation this theme is not explicit, apart
from John 20:22–3, in the post-resurrection narratives, although it is perhaps
implied in the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:3–4; cf. Num. 11:25). It accords with the
distinctive emphasis on sending that, if the suggestion offered above on Luke
10:1 has any force, the narrative was intended to include the elders among
those sent (rather than otherwise authorized). It seems, then, that the name
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 213

‘apostle’ corresponds to the aspect of the authorization of the twelve which was
pre-eminent for early Christians (cf. Gal. 2:8, discussed with other evidence for
Paul’s claims by Moule (1), 158–9). This phenomenon suggests that, with all
allowance for development, the sending of the twelve was, as Mark indicates,
the principal feature of their original authorization.
The surprising lack of emphasis on government in the post-resurrection
material also suggests, however, that Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30 deserve serious
consideration as evidence for the period of the ministry. The saying coheres
with the title ‘twelve’, already noted, and both cohere with three contemporary
associations of a body of twelve, as suggested by development of the narratives
of the phylarchs. First, the twelve princes were doubly linked with the monarchy,
both by biblical connection with Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon (note
Eupolemus, section IV above), and by their title nāśîʿ, ἄrcwn, applicable also
to the past and future king (David, Solomon, the Prince of the Congregation,
Moses, Bar Cocheba; Ezek. 34:24; 1 Kings 11:34; 1QSb v.21–9; Acts 7:35,
Second Revolt coins (Schürer-Vermes-Millar-Black, i, 606)). Secondly, the
twelve princes each have their own command. Thirdly, restoration of their rule
over the tribes can form part of the hope of redemption, as seen above from
Qumran texts and the Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs (cf. PRK v.9). The
second and third associations are explicit in Matt. 19:28, and the first coheres
with the view of members of the twelve that their master was messiah (Mark
8:30, 10:38).
These considerations do not apply equally to both forms of Matt. 19:28;
Luke 22:30 (discussed by Bacon, 116–18, 432–3; Bammel, 45–7; Davies, 363–
5; Catchpole, 373–8; Sanders, 98–106). The generalized Lucan form, however,
recalls Jewish generalizing of the phylarchs as well as patristic generalization of
the apostles (Origen, in Matt. comm. xv. 24, on 19:28); it is probably secondary
(so Harnack, 67–8; Schulz, 332 n. 68; the opposite view in Catchpole, 377 n. 2).
There is ground, therefore, in the likely development of the saying and in its
broader associations, for Sanders to conclude that Matt. 19:28 is a prediction,
‘on the whole authentic’, that the twelve will judge the tribes at the end. In
conjunction with the phenomenon of the twelve it is a sign, for both Sanders
and B. F. Meyer (134–6, 153–4), that Israel’s restoration was central in Jesus’
hope. For Farrer this was also true, if restoration be viewed as renewal; the
twelve signified renewal of the patriarchate (the Mosaic appointment of the
214 Messianism among Jews and Christians

princes being so interpreted) in connection with a new covenant and a renewed

Israel (Farrer (1), 121). In Sanders (3), published after this essay first appeared,
the saying reflected in Matt. 19:28 is made the starting-point for an outline of
Jesus’ understanding of his rôle: he envisaged himself as God’s viceroy, at the
head of the judges of Israel (the Twelve), and subordinate only to God himself.
This outline would fit the connotations of the term ‘messiah’, in the present
writer’s view, but Sanders holds that at this period they were far from clear
(compare Sanders (2), 295–8; (4), 113–15, discussed in Horbury (3), 41, 78,
112–13); he suggests that Jesus probably did not think of himself as bearer of
this title, but that his disciples bestowed it on him after his crucifixion in the
setting of belief in his resurrection. The title then in fact roughly corresponded
to Jesus’ own historical claim, probably an even loftier one, that (as implied by
his authority over the Twelve) he would be viceroy over the coming kingdom
of God (Sanders (3), 238–43).
Two prominent aspects of the teaching of Jesus tend, however, to qualify
this shared view; and they can perhaps be linked with the contrasts already
noted between the twelve and the phylarchs. First, explicit reference to Israel
is strikingly rare in the kingdom teaching (Dahl, 147–8). The absence of
Pentateuchal titles for the twelve can be matched by the contrast between the
Lord’s Prayer and the more explicitly national Eighteen Benedictions, even in
the shortened form Habinenu (jBer. 8a, Ber. 29a, both printed by Staerk 20),
or between the parables of the kingdom and the equally theocentric, but also
vehemently patriotic treatment of the kingdom in Yose ben Yose’s synagogue
poetry (Horbury (1), 159–66, = 305–11 below). Secondly, messianism was
disputed between disciples and master (Mark 8:32–3, 10:35–8); the restraint
imposed on the disciples’ fervour accords with the contrast between the
emphasis on government in the traditions of the phylarchs, and the emphasis
on mission in the authorization of the twelve.
These considerations do not impair recognition of Jesus as a Jew appealing
to Israel, which—he takes for granted—is the elect people of God (Mark 7:27);
but they direct attention to the apparent discrepancy between Matt. 19:28 and
the corrective answer to the disciples’ request for places in the kingdom (Mark
10:37–40). Sanders stresses the accord between this request and Matt. 19:28,
but also holds that Jesus probably turned the request aside (Sanders, 147, 233).
The present writer fully accepts these judgments, but would conclude from
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 215

them, with the broader considerations in view, that there is a strong possibility
that Matt. 19:28 arose during the ministry, yet is inauthentic. It would then
represent the messianic fervour of the disciples and their associates, fanned
perhaps by the princely model and the circumstances of the Galilaean mission
(Mark 6:6–13; Taylor 622, treating the Lucan form of the saying as genuine,
thinks this setting the most probable).
On this view, when Jesus ‘made twelve’ (Mark 3:14), the government of
Israel or new Israel was not primarily in question. Jewish speculation on the
phylarchs nevertheless supports the argument of Sanders 232 that the action
can hardly have been ‘mere’ symbol; the predecessors and models of the twelve
were thought to be significant for practical disputes of constitutional authority.
Yet, the contrast between the evidence for the twelve and the phylarchs also
suggests that there is truth in allusions to ‘renewal’ (Farrer (1), 121, 124;
Sanders, 229–30). Jesus’ distinctive purposes in choosing the twelve, so far
as they can be approached, are perhaps best sought through the evidence for
an emphasis on sending in the authorization of the twelve, for a reserve on
national restoration and messianism, and for a strongly theocentric kingdom
teaching. These data suit a work which can be called new (cf. Moule (2), 54),
the urgent preparation of contemporary Israel for the kingdom of God. For
this the twelve would have received immediate authority. Their authorization
thus suits expectation of the kingdom, when messengers are being sent, rather
than a kingdom already established, in which provision is being made for
government. This is still true, as noted above, of the passages set in the context
of appearances of the risen Christ. In this respect there seems to be continuity
between the emphases of the period of the ministry, in which the messianic
zeal of the body of disciples was to some extent both shared and shaped by
their master, and the period of the early church, in which lively expectation of
a kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem long continued (see chapters 6 and 9, below).
In both periods he was hailed as messianic king, and it seems probable that
during the period of the ministry he came to hold that he was called to this
office; the authority implied when he ‘made twelve’ can readily be understood
as royal, on the lines suggested by the links with Moses, Joshua, David and
Solomon noted above.
Jewish treatment of the phylarchs, finally, is not without significance
for the course of events reported in the gospels. Against this background,
216 Messianism among Jews and Christians

news of the twelve would confirm, for observers, that Jesus had messianic
pretensions. (Moses and Joshua, with whom the princes were closely linked,
formed models for Theudas and the Egyptian (Vermes, 97–8; Knox, ii, 143)
as well as the Prince ‘of the Congregation’ (Num. 27:16–17; cf. Mark 6:34).)
Further, the choice of the twelve suggests a distinctive mentality. Jesus thereby
attached himself to an archaic, non-synedrial and eschatologically charged
constitutional model. The sophisticated interpreter, like Josephus or Pseudo-
Philo, combined the twelve-tribe union with synedrial government; a body
of twelve has a primitive air beside the constitutionally more flexible prayer
‘Restore our judges’ (Isa. 1:26) in the Eleventh Benediction. Jesus changed
the associations of the constitutional model, but contemporary interpretation
of the phylarchs suggests that a mind which could summon up ‘the twelve’
worked on lines uncongenial to ‘the rulers and elders and scribes in Jerusalem’
(Acts 4:5).

Literature

D. C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis, 1998)

B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London, 1930)
E. Bammel, ‘Das Ende von Q’, in O. Böcher and K. Haacker (eds.), Verborum Veritas
(Festschrift für G. Stählin, Wuppertal, 1970), 39–50
R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh, 1990)
J. M. Baumgarten, ‘The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, the Apocalypse, and the
Sanhedrin’, reprinted from JBL xcv (1976) in J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran
Law (Leiden, 1977), 145–71
J. A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti (4th edn., London, 1855)
R. van den Broek (1), ‘Der Brief des Jakobus an Quadratus und das Problem der
judenchristlichen Bischöfe von Jerusalem (Eusebius, H.E. IV, 5, 1–3)’ in T.
Baarda, A. Hilhorst, G. P. Luttikhuizen and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Text and
Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J.
Klijn (Kampen, 1988), 56–65
——— (2), ‘Juden und Christen in Alexandrien im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert’ in J. van
Amersfoort and J. van Oort (eds.), Juden und Christen in der Antike (Kampen,
1990), 101–15
S. Buber (ed.), Midrasch Tanchuma (3 vols., Wilna, 1885)
C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford, 1903)
G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London, 1965)
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 217

R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh, 1994)
D. R. Catchpole, ‘The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven’. BJRL lxi (1979),
335–97
R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John
(ICC, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1920)
B. S. Childs, Exodus (London, 1974)
J. D. Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the Years
immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York, 1998; Edinburgh, 1999)
N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (Oslo, 1941, reprinted Darmstadt, 1963)
W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1974)
F. G. Downing, ‘Redaction Criticism: Josephus’ Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels
(I)’, JSNT viii (1980), 46–65
A. M. Farrer (1), ‘The Ministry in the New Testament’, in K. E. Kirk (ed.), The
Apostolic Ministry (London, 1946), 118–32
——— (2), St Matthew and St Mark (Westminster, 1954)
D. Flusser, ‘Qumran und die Zwölf ’, in C. J. Bleeker (ed.), Initiation (Supplements to
Numen, xii, Leiden, 1965), 134–46
P. Frederiksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (London, 2000)
S. Freyne, The Jesus Movement and its Expansion: Meaning and Mission (Grand
Rapids, Michigan & Cambridge, 2014)
A. S. Geyser, ‘The Twelve Tribes in Revelation: Judean and Judeo-Christian
Apocalypticism’, NTS xxviii (1982), 388–99
D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity
(TSAJ xxxviii, Tübingen, 1994)
H. Grotius, Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (1641), in H. Grotius, Opera
Theologica (3 vols., London, 1679), ii.1
J. Gutmann (ed.), The Dura-Europos Synagogue: a Re-evaluation (1932–1972)
(Missoula, 1973)
B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Harvard Semitic Monographs
xxv, Chico, 1981)
H. Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotation upon all the Books of the New Testament
(1653; 2nd edn., London, 1659)
A. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (Leipzig, 1907)
A. E. Harvey, ‘Elders’, JTS N.S. xxv (1974), 318–32
W. Horbury (1), ‘Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose’, in W Horbury and
B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament (Cambridge,
1981), 143–82 [= ch. 10, below]
——— (2), ‘The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JSNT xix (1983),
43–71 [= ch. 7, below]
218 Messianism among Jews and Christians

——— (3), Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (2 vols., Uppsala,
1977 and 1982).
W. L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. H. Chadwick, 2 vols., Cambridge,
1953 and 1957)
H. Lietzmann, ‘Zur altchristlichen Verfassungsgeschichte’, ZWT lv (1914), 97–153,
cited above from H. Lietzmann, Kleine Schriften (TU lxvii, Berlin, 1958), 141–85
H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Harvard Semitic Studies xvii,
Cambridge, MA, 1961)
E. Marmorstein, Heaven at Bay (Middle Eastern Monographs x, London, 1969)
B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London, 1979)
E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (3 vols., Berlin, 1921–4)
Midrash Tanhuma (New York and Berlin, 1927)
C. F. D. Moule (1), The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon
(Cambridge, 1957)
——— (2), The Birth of the New Testament (3rd edn., London, 1981)
C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: a Critical Edition (Harvard Semitic Studies
xxvii, Atlanta, 1985)
M. Oakeshott (ed.), Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes (Oxford, 1960)
J. C. O’Neill, Messiah (Cambridge, 1980)
S. Pearce, ‘Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: the Representation of the High
Court of Deut. 17:8–12 according to Jewish Antiquities 4.218’, JJS xlvi (1995),
30–42
J. Roloff, ‘Apostel / Apostolat / Apostolizität i. Neues Testament’, TRE iii (1978),
430–45
E. P. Sanders (1), Jesus and Judaism (London, 1985)
——— (2), Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London, 1992)
——— (3), The Historical Figure of Jesus (London, 1993)
——— (4), ‘Paul’, in J. Barclay and J. Sweet (eds.), Early Christian Thought in its Jewish
Context (Cambridge, 1996), 112–29
E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd–4th edn.,
Leipzig, 1901–9); ET of 2nd edn. (1886–90), The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1890–1); ET of 3rd–4th edn., revised by G.
Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, M. Goodman and P. Vermes (Edinburgh, i (1973), ii
(1981), iii.1 (1986), iii.2 (1987))
S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich, 1972)
A. Spiro, ‘The Ascension of Phinehas’, PAAJR xxii (1953), 91–114
W. Staerk, Altjüdische liturgische Gebete (Kleine Texte lviii, Bonn, 1910)
J. F. Stenning (ed.), The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford, 1949)
 The Twelve and the Phylarchs 219

Justin Taylor, SM, with an excursus by M.-É. Boismard, Les Actes des deux apôtres, v,
Commentaire historique (Act. 9:1–18:22) (Paris, 1994)
V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952)
E. E. Urbach (ed.), Sefer Pitron Torah (Jerusalem, 5738–1978)
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London, 1973)
B. Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus (Cincinnati, 1974)
J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd edn., Berlin, 1911)
A. G. Wernham (ed. and trans.), Benedict de Spinoza: The Political Works (Oxford,
1965)
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London, 1996)
Y. Yadin (ed.), The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness
(Oxford, 1962)
 6

Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope

At the beginning and the end of the Herodian age poets and visionaries could
link hope for a coming Davidic king very closely with hope for Jerusalem and
the temple. Not long before the reign of Herod the Great, the association was
vividly expressed in lines from a prayer in the Psalms of Solomon asking God
to raise up the king, the son of David:

He shall glorify the Lord at the centre of all the earth,

And he shall purify Jerusalem, making it holy as of old;
So that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory,
bringing as gifts her sons who had fainted,
And to see the glory of the Lord, with which God glorified her
(Ps. Sol. 17:32–5).

Similarly close links between the king on the one hand, and the holy city and
the holy hill on the other, reappear towards the end of the Herodian age in
2 Esd. 13, where he reigns from the top of Zion, and in the Fifth Sibylline
book, where the blessed man from the sky with a God-given sceptre adorns
the city beloved by God and builds up a vast sanctuary with a great tower,
that the righteous may behold the longed-for divine glory (lines 414–27).
The association between king, city and sanctuary evident in all three texts
is of course itself founded on biblical presentations of Davidic kingship in
connection with Jerusalem and the sanctuary, for instance in the narratives of
David and Solomon or in such Psalms as 2, 122 and 132.
Paul was active in a messianic movement in the period of the Herodian
kings Agrippa I and II, but he can seem on the face of it to retain mere vestiges
of this association. The Christ of Paul is still recognizably the Lord’s Anointed,
as many Pauline interpreters have shown (C. E. B. Cranfield, M. Hengel and
others are cited in discussion of the title Christos in Horbury (3), 142–4);
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 221

but the holy city and the holy place, where Paul mentions them, can often be
understood symbolically. Thus, the transference of the language of sanctuary
and sacrifice to Christian life is prominent in Paul, but this is only one of
several considerations which together suggest to W. D. Davies that although
Paul maintained his reverence for Jerusalem and the sanctuary, these became
marginal for him by contrast with his inheritance ‘in Christ’. Herein Paul
exemplified the revolutionary character of Christian messianism as a whole
(Davies, 164–220, 370–3).
This weighty judgment well fits the emphasis laid by other writers on
the importance of the heavenly rather than the earthly Jerusalem for early
Christianity in general (so—all with some qualification—L. Perrone,
G. Stroumsa and C. Markschies), and on the importance of spiritual and
eschatological interpretations of land and city for rabbinic as well as Greek
Jewish writings (so Weinfeld, 213–21; cf. Alexander, 471, n. 30). Moreover,
these trends in Christian and Jewish interpretation are sometimes held to
have been particularly well-marked in traditions of the Second Temple period
which would have influenced nascent Christianity. Thus the Jerusalem temple
in particular might then have received less esteem from Diaspora Jews, as
urged by D. R. Schwartz (2), although Diaspora remittance of the temple tax
and Diaspora literary praise of the temple (as in the Letter of Aristeas and the
Sibylline Oracles) suggest that this was not the ruling attitude; and sanctuary
and sacrifice, including the cult of the Jerusalem temple, might have been
criticized in principle by Jews such as those whose voice is heard in the Fourth
Sibylline book, as suggested by M. Simon and others (although this seems to
me a misunderstanding of the Fourth Sibylline; see Horbury (4), 162–5).
Yet, does this judgment concerning Paul in any case do full justice to the
place of city and sanctuary in Paul’s own future hope? The question is prompted
not only by Paul’s reverence for Jerusalem, fully recognized by Davies, but also
and especially by Paul’s debt in both Romans and Galatians to the prophecies
of a restored land or city in the later chapters of Isaiah. Thus Gal. 4:26–30 quote
Isa. 54:1 ‘Rejoice, O barren’, and Rom. 11:26–7 quote Isa. 59:20–1 in the form
‘a redeemer shall come from Sion’.
For Irenaeus and Tertullian, by contrast with many later Christian exegetes,
Pauline perceptions of the heavenly city fitted well into chiliastic hope for a
kingdom of the saints ruled by Christ in the new Jerusalem (cf. chapter 9,
222 Messianism among Jews and Christians

below). In this hope the link between the king and the holy city and the holy hill
once again reappears with clarity. Now this Christian chiliasm itself depended
especially on the later chapters of the book of Isaiah, as has been brought out
by S. Heid (16–30, 231–2). It will be urged below that St. Paul, who is likewise
indebted to these chapters, stands within the stream of biblical interpretation
which issued in the passages on a paradisal kingdom of Christ and the saints
in Zion in the Revelation of St. John and in Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus
and Tertullian. These passages include, especially in Tertullian, as strong an
emphasis on the spiritual and heavenly character of the new Jerusalem as has
been detected in Paul. They also suggest, however, when viewed in conjunction
with pre-Pauline texts, that Paul too associated hope for the parousia of Christ
with hope for a recreated Jerusalem.
The first part of this study indicates some relevant strands in pre-Pauline
biblical interpretation which seem to reappear in Paul. It is suggested that the
Isaianic texts had been linked in exegetical tradition with other passages on
the sanctuary, notably the Song of Moses at the sea, the prophecy of Nathan
to David, and Solomon’s prayer at the dedication; and that 1 Enoch both
exemplified and influenced this trend.
There was then (it is urged below) a developed body of interpretation on
Jerusalem and the sanctuary in the time of Paul. It includes that contrast
between Jerusalem above and to come, on the one hand, and the present city and
sanctuary, on the other, which is drawn so strongly in Galatians. The contrast
belongs, however, to a broader interpretative context in which the function of
the present holy place is also regularly acknowledged, and the association of
the sanctuary above and that below is emphasized, within a setting of lively
hope and longing for the creation of new Jerusalem. In the second part of the
present study it is urged that Paul takes up elements of this unified body of
interpretation in various contexts, and that he expresses hope for a kingdom
of Christ in a recreated, not just a heavenly, Jerusalem.

Three characteristics of the interpretative tradition into which Paul entered

seem of particular importance for assessment of his appeal to Isaianic prophecy
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 223

on Zion. They are the habit of considering oracles on Jerusalem collectively; the
prominence among them of affirmations of divine preparation and building,
in the past or yet to come; and the union of these affirmations with prophecy
of newly-created heavens, earth and Zion to form a picture of paradisal bliss
in a new Jerusalem.
An influential set of exegetical associations then emerges. There are links
between Isaianic and other Jerusalem prophecies, between Isaiah and the
Pentateuch, and between the Pentaeuch and Isaiah on the one hand and
apocryphal prophecy on the other, especially the book of Enoch. (Rich material
on Jerusalem above, sometimes overlapping with that considered here, is
discussed by Schwemer (2), 197–228.) Pre-Pauline treatment of this exegetical
complex shows the divinely-founded sanctuary above in close association as
well as in contrast with the holy place on earth, and the latter too as divinely
ordained; and it suggests also that Pauline references to Zion, eternal building
and new creation, topics which are sometimes treated separately in study, may
reflect a single set of expectations.

Renewed Jerusalem in prayer and expectation

The actuality of Jerusalem prophecies when Paul wrote is displayed especially
by their currency in contemporary life and thought. They were remembered
in prayer and sacred song, and thought of collectively, for example in Tobit,
Ecclesiasticus and the Hebrew Apostrophe to Zion from Qumran Cave 11. The
mingling of prophecy and hymnody in much of this material is epitomized in
a phrase of the Jewish Sibyl on Jerusalem: kalh̀ póliV ἔnqeoV ὕmnwn, ‘fair
city of inspired song’ (Sib. 5:263).
The tradition of prayer for people, land, city and sanctuary goes back to
the Hebrew Bible (Isa. 63:17–64:12; Ps. 122; Lam. 5, etc.). The form which
it received in Ecclesiasticus (36:10–17) and (2 Maccabees 1:27–9, 2:17–18)
was developed in the Amidah (Eighteen Benedictions), the daily prayer
which was taking shape in the time of Paul, to an extent which allowed
E. J. Bickerman to view the Amidah as originally a civic prayer for Jerusalem;
the ingathering, the city, the sanctuary and the Davidic kingship are the
subjects especially of benedictions 10, 14 and 17 (16) (translated in Schürer
revised, ii, 457–61).
224 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Request for the fulfilment of prophecy is prominent in prayer of this kind.

‘Raise up the vision spoken in thy name’ (Ecclus. 36:17b); ‘may the Lord
perform what he has spoken concerning Israel and Jerusalem’ (Ps. Sol. 11:8);
compare the hymn 11Q Apostrophe to Zion 17 (close to Ecclus. 36:17b), and
the prayer 2 Macc. 1:29, both quoted below.
These passages recall such promises as Exod. 15:17 (planting in divinely-
prepared sanctuary); Lev. 26:3–13 (peace in the land, my tabernacle among
you); Isa. 2:2–4 = Micah 4:1–4 (Zion and the temple mount exalted); Isa.
49:14–26 (Zion graven on the palms of God’s hands); Isa. 54, 59:16–60:22,
62, 65:17–25, 66:5–24 (building of city as adornment of bride, redemption
and new creation of Jerusalem with joy); Jer. 31 (rebuilding of Jerusalem as
‘virgin of Israel’, joy and plenty, new covenant); Ezek. 17:22–4 (planting and
flourishing in the mountain of the height of Israel) and 37:21–8 (after the
revival of the dry bones: ingathering, one nation, David their prince for ever,
covenant of peace, sanctuary in their midst for evermore); Haggai 2:6–9, Zech.
14 (sanctuary and worship).
Within this group of prophecies an important position was eventually held
by the oracle or ‘vision’ (ḥazon, lxx ὅrasiV) of Nathan, communicated to
David after he had brought the ark into Zion (2 Sam. 7:4–17; 1 Chron. 17:1–15;
cf. Ps. 89:19–37). Its promise of a perpetual Davidic dynasty (2 Sam. 7:12–16)
is so strong that it has been called ‘the matrix of biblical messianism’ (Gordon,
236). Correspondingly, its earlier prediction of a divinely-given ‘place’ and
planting for Israel (2 Sam. 7:10) was taken, by analogy with the similar
prediction of planting in Exod. 15:17, as the promise of a future divinely-given
holy place (see the following section).
Much of this body of prophecy is ultimately indebted to the ancient circle
of ideas on the divine foundation of the hill of Zion, but the vision of Nathan,
Leviticus and Ezekiel also reflect emphasis laid on the (in principle mobile)
local manifestation of the deity.
Oracles like these are already mentally grouped in Ps. 87:3 as understood
in the lxx—‘glorious things of thee were spoken (e̓lalh́qh)’. The prophet
Jeremiah was himself believed to make intercession for Jerusalem (2 Macc.
15:14), so that prayer on these lines was the earthly counterpart of a petition
offered in heaven. Thus Tobit in Nineveh was pictured as praying for Jerusalem,
and then prophesying that ‘the house of God shall be built in it for ever with a
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 225

glorious building, as the prophets have foretold’ (14:5). The reverential passive
‘shall be built’ implies the God-given temple of Exod. 15:17, and perhaps also
2 Sam. 7:10, and the reference to the prophets recalls the end of Tobit’s hymn-
like prayer, ‘For Jerusalem shall be builded with sapphires …’ (Tobit 13:16–17),
which is a paraphrase of Isa. 54:11–12; ‘builded’ recalls Isa. 54:14 as interpreted
in the lxx, discussed further below. These passages in the book of Tobit are
fragmentarily attested in Aramaic and Hebrew texts from Qumran Cave 4
(13:16–17: 4Q196 (Aramaic), 4Q200 (Hebrew); 14:5: 4Q198 (Aramaic)). A
broadly comparable combination of Jerusalem-centred prophecy and prayer
was perhaps made in the (? second-century b.c.) Hebrew text partly preserved
in 4Q522, fragment 9 ii (predicting David, ‘the rock of Zion’, and the building
of ‘the house for the Lord’) and fragments 22–5 (Ps. 122, praying for the peace
of Jerusalem); E. Puech notes that the inclusion of the psalm sets a question-
mark against the otherwise plausible attribution of these fragments to an
apocryphal prophecy of Joshua (Puech (2), 71). A hymn like Tobit’s in its praise
of ‘the everlasting king’ (Tobit 13:7, 11), but with reference now to prophecies
such as Isa. 65:17–19 on the sanctuary as the centre of the future joy of the
righteous, seems to be implied by 1 En. 25:7 (discussed further below) ‘Then
I blessed the God of glory, the everlasting king, who prepared for righteous
mortals such things …’.
In St. Luke’s Gospel it is envisaged, plausibly enough in the light of the texts
just reviewed, that there were those ‘who were looking for the redemption
of Jerusalem’ (Luke 2:38)—a phrase recalling two coin legends of the First
Revolt, ‘liberty of Zion’ and ‘of the redemption of Zion’ (Schürer revised, i,
605). The evident power of these phrases as slogans indicates the intensity of
the hope which prayer and hymnody on Jerusalem represent, and to which
they contribute.
Throughout the Second Temple period, therefore, the tradition of prayer
for land and holy place formed an important Sitz im Leben for the ‘glorious
things’ spoken of Zion in prophecy. ‘Receive the vision that was spoken of
thee’, says the poet to Zion with urgent hope, in allusion to Ps. 87:3 on Zion
as well as to the ‘vision’ of Nathan (see especially 2 Sam. 7:10, 13, 17; 1 Chron.
17:9, 12, 14–15; Ps. 89:20) on the house of God and the throne of David (11Q
Apostrophe to Zion 17, in 11Q5, col. xxii, lines 13–14; García and Tigchelaar,
ii, 1176).
226 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Echoes of such prayer in Paul are heard above all in his prayer for Israel.
In Rom. 10:1 his ‘supplication’ draws not directly on a group of oracles, but
on a list of the great Israelite privileges, including the service of the sanctuary
(latreía), and the Israelite ancestry of the messiah (Rom. 9:4–5); this list
(cf. chapter 2, pp. 95–7, above) follows a contemporary pattern of enumerating
gifts, but hereby recalls some of ‘what he [God] has spoken concerning Israel
and Jerusalem’ (Ps. Sol. 11:8, quoted above). The list therefore perhaps helps to
bring in later on in Romans the Isaianic quotation (combined with an allusion
to Jer. 31:33), ‘the redeemer shall come from Sion’ (Rom. 11:26). Another brief
echo of prayer for Israel can be heard, despite difference in tone, near the end of
Galatians, when the Jerusalem-linked Isaianic theme of ‘new creation’ (kainh̀
ktísiV) leads immediately to ‘Peace be on them, and mercy, and on the Israel
of God’ (Gal. 6:15–16). The intensity of the corresponding hope can perhaps
be traced when he notes the servitude of ‘Jerusalem that now is’ (Gal. 4:25),
and when he sees the ‘earthly house of the tabernacle’ (cf. 1 Chron. 9:23) as a
place where we long for the dwelling from heaven (2 Cor. 5:1–2).
The kinship sometimes evident between Paul and the tradition of prayer for
‘Israel and Jerusalem’ encourages the further observation that, just as Paul is
likely in general to have known the prophetic oracles in topical clusters, so one
such cluster will have been formed by Zion-oracles. The general point has often
been made in connection with Paul’s probable debt to testimony-collections,
for example in Rom. 9–11; but the habit of grouping oracles is illustrated
particularly clearly, and with special reference to Zion, by the prayer-tradition
which has just been considered. Paul’s Isaianic Zion-testimonies in Gal. 4:27
and Rom. 11:26–7 are unlikely to have been quoted without awareness of other
similar oracles; each will have evoked for him not just a single passage, but a
group of Zion-oracles, especially those in the later chapters of Isaiah, and the
whole biblical topic of Zion.

Zion prepared and built

The phrase ‘prepared and built’ from the visions of Sion in 2 Esdras (13:36
Sion … parata et aedificata) brings together two threads of biblical Zion-
tradition which also emerge in Paul. Divine preparation can be discerned in
1 Cor. 2:8 ἃ h̔toímasen ‘the things that God prepared’, divine building in the
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 227

symbolically employed temple language of 2 Cor. 5:1, oi̓kodomh̀n e̓k qeou͂

ἔcomen ‘we have a building from God’.
These conceptions emerge clearly in the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha,
but their biblical roots are deep. The divinely prepared sanctuary is ready in
heaven in the Wisdom of Solomon, on the tabernacle ‘which thou didst prepare
beforehand from the beginning’ (a̓pʼ a̓rch͂V; Wisd. 9:8; cf. Exod. 15:17; Prov.
8:23); and this is probably also implied in Wisd. 10:10, on the revelation to Jacob
of God’s kingdom and the knowledge of holy things. Correspondingly, the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, envisages
the forthcoming revelation of the city already prepared ‘here’ (in heaven)
beforehand, at the time when God determined to make paradise, then shown
to Moses on Sinai when he saw the pattern of the tabernacle and its vessels,
and now kept like paradise with God (2 Baruch 4:1–6). The further traces of
this expectation of a future divinely-prepared Jerusalem in Old Testament
apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, in the Targums and rabbinic literature are
widely recognized (for instance in Charles, 6–7; McKelvey, 25–41; Bogaert, i,
421; Attridge, 222–4; Ego, 56–61). The old-established and familiar character
of this hope emerges especially clearly, however, from the witness to it which
is mainly explored below. This is found in the lxx Pentateuch, Prophets and
Psalms, with correspondence in Hebrew as well as Greek sources from the
Second Temple period. These interpretative texts build on a broad basis in the
Hebrew bible itself.
Thus, in the Hebrew text of the biblical books, a divinely prepared holy
place is mentioned at Exod. 15:17. This central prophecy has been noted
already; it was read in the Hasmonaean age as a prophecy yet to be fulfilled,
as appears from 2 Macc. 1:29, quoted below. It has a narrative analogue in Ps.
78:54, 69. This psalm, together with Ps. 87, about to be mentioned, helped
to ensure that the divine foundation of the holy hill here below was kept in
view (see part (c) of this section, below). The tabernacle, the candlestick and
Solomon’s temple all follow a divinely-given pattern (Exod. 25:9, 40; Num.
8:4; 1 Chron. 28:19). God’s throne is correspondingly ‘prepared from of old’
(Ps. 93:2). Zion is ‘his foundation’ (Ps. 87:1) and he himself founds or will
found it (Ps. 87:5). The engraving of Jerusalem on the palms of his hands (Isa.
49:16) can be seen against this background as both a souvenir and a plan.
Similarly, Jacob’s declaration on waking that ‘this is none other than the house
228 Messianism among Jews and Christians

of God … this stone shall be God’s house’ (Gen. 28:17, 22) can suggest, in the
light of the biblical references to earthly construction on a heavenly pattern,
that his dream must have included a vision of the divinely-prepared temple.
The two lines of interpretation concerning ‘preparation’ and ‘building’
which are combined in 2 Esdras lead back into this biblical setting. From
the Hebrew biblical books and the Septuagint, ‘prepared’ in 2 Esdras takes
up the Mosaic prophecy of a place for God’s dwelling which his own hands
have ‘prepared’ (Exod. 15:17 and related passages on the heavenly dwelling
from 1 Kings 8:12, etc., and 2 Chron. 6:1, etc., noted below). ‘Built’ takes up
a theme perhaps rooted primarily in Solomon’s claim to ‘build’ the house
(1 Kings 5:17–19 (3–5), paralleled in 2 Chron. 2:3–5 (4–6); and 1 Kings 8:13,
17–20, 27, paralleled in 2 Chron. 6:2, 7–10, 18). He was divinely commanded
to do so (Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam. 7:13 and 1 Chron. 17:12, recalled by
David in 1 Chron. 22:10, 28:6, and by Solomon in 1 Kings 5:19 (5)), but his
claim to build a house for God is strikingly modified by his concomitant and
contrasting recognition of God’s dwelling in heaven (2 Chron. 2:5 (6); 1 Kings
8:12, 30, 39, 43, 49, paralleled in 2 Chron. 6:1, 21, 30, 33, 39). This extended
treatment of the theme of building in connection with David and Solomon
is clearly influential, but ‘Jerusalem’ with the passive participle ‘built’ most
immediately echoes the phrase ‘Jerusalem the built’ (Ps. 122:3 ha-benuyah,
oi̓kodomouménh), and it recalls the ancient claim that Zion was divinely built,
and prophecies of its future divine building, both exemplifed in biblical texts
discussed below. The lines of interpretation concerned with ‘preparation’ and
‘building’ intertwine with a third, treated in the following section, which takes
up the language of ‘creation’.

(a) Zion prepared

Zion ‘prepared’ will be considered first. Some of the relevant passages suggest
that, although Gal. 4:27 is perhaps the earliest clear witness to the notion
of a heavenly Jerusalem (Ego, 14, citing other sponsors of this judgment),
the expectation of a divinely-prepared holy place above was already well
established in Paul’s time. Other texts in this group also indicate that a contrast
between the earthly and the heavenly divine dwelling, such as is found in Paul,
could in pre-Pauline interpretation be consonant with hope for an ultimate
full divine glorification of Jerusalem on earth.
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 229

1. The Song of Moses at the Sea (Exod. 15:17)

The tradition of Zion ‘prepared’ gains strength from its roots in Exod. 15:17,
at the climax of a prophetic hymn attributed to Moses himself and placed at
a turning-point of the exodus narrative (this hymn is further discussed in
chapter 8, below).

Mayest thou [or, Thou shalt] bring them in and plant them in the
mountain of thine inheritance,
In the place for thy dwelling (makhon le-shibteka; lxx ἕtoimon
kaktoikhth́rión sou ‘thy ready dwelling’) which thou madest, O Lord,
The sanctuary, Lord, which thy hands made ready (konenu, lxx h̔toímasan)
(Exod. 15:17)

A clue to the early interpretation of this passage is given in 2 Maccabees:

Plant thy people in thy holy place, as Moses said
(2 Macc. 1:29 (cf. 2:18), citing Exod. 15:17)

Here the Mosaic hymn, which in its biblical context could be taken to speak
of the forthcoming entry into the land, is treated as a prophecy still not
completely fulfilled.
Its phrase ‘the place for thy dwelling’ (15:17, makhon le-shibteka) links
the ‘preparation’ with the ‘building’ tradition, for it recurs exactly in mt in
Solomon’s claim to have built a ‘place for thy dwelling (makhon le-shibteka) for
ever’ (1 Kings 8:13, paralleled in 2 Chron. 6:3). In the Septuagint, makhon in
1 Kings 8:12–13 (placed in lxx after 8:53) finds no clear correspondence, but
in 2 Chron. 6:3 makhon is rendered by ἕtoimon, ‘ready’, recalling Exod. 15:17
lxx and probably indicating a pre-existent divinely-prepared dwelling. This
influential Pentateuchal translation, ‘ready dwelling’, discussed further below,
interprets makhon ‘place’ paronomastically by nakhon ‘ready’, a term applied
in Isa. 2:2 to the ‘mountain of the Lord’s house’ at the last and in Ps. 93:2 to the
divine throne.
The phrase in Exodus is also very close to mekhon shibteka, used of the
heavenly divine dwelling at 1 Kings 8:39, paralleled in 2 Chron. 6:30, and
Ps. 33:14; in all three verses the lxx translators used the same phrase ‘ready
dwelling’ which is found in Exod. 15:17, as quoted above. Further notable
applications of makhon to a present or future sanctuary occur in Isa. 4:5 ‘all
the place of mount Zion and her assemblies’, and 18:4 (the deity speaks) ‘in
230 Messianism among Jews and Christians

my place’; Ezra 2:68 to set up God’s house ‘on its place’ (lxx 2 Esdras here
e̔toimasía ‘preparation’ is a further reflection of the Pentateuchal rendering
‘ready’); Dan. 8:11 ‘the place of his sanctuary was cast down’.
The song of Moses (Exod. 15:17 in particular) on the divinely-prepared
sanctuary into which the people will be led was correspondingly read as a
Mosaic prophecy of a new temple—the coming divinely-prepared temple—in
texts found at Qumran and in rabbinic interpretation (Schwemer (1), 347–9,
356–7). The texts discussed below are chosen to bring out the old-established
character of this reading, to illustrate the exegetical connections made between
Exod. 15:17 and the prophetic books, including Isaiah, and to show that the
biblical association and contrast between the coming divinely-made sanctuary
and the earthly temple was continued without negation of either side.
First, then, a famous Qumran exegetical text (4Q174) is reconsidered, to
show that strong hope for the new temple is accompanied by a biblically-
grounded contrast with the present sanctuary, which is at the same time an
acknowledgement of its function; then, conversely, the prayer for Jerusalem
in Ecclesiasticus, which echoes Exod. 15:17 but is sometimes judged to be
concerned exclusively with the present temple, is interpreted as hinting also
at hope for renewal; and finally the connection of Exod. 15:17 on ‘preparation’
with the prophecy of Nathan in 2 Samuel is recalled from 4Q174, a further
connection with Isa. 65–6 on new creation is shown from the Temple Scroll,
and the age and pervasiveness of the influence on future hope exercised by
Exod. 15:17 is illustrated from the lxx Pentateuch and Prophets, including Isa.
54, and the New Testament.

2. 4Q Florilegium: The present and the promised sanctuary in future hope

First, future hope in the terms of Exod. 15:17 is seen in a composition which
contrasts the future sanctuary with the present temple, but also acknowledges
the function of the present temple. Exod. 15:17 is important in the Hebrew
text from Qumran Cave 4 designated Florilegium (see 4Q174, col. i, lines 1–7,
attested in fragments 1–2 and 21; freshly collated text and translation with
comments in Puech (1), ii, 574–8). The verses Exod. 15:17–18, promising a
divinely-built sanctuary, are quoted and interpreted in lines 2–5, as part of
an exegesis of Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam. 7:10, quoted in line 1. This promised
divinely-built sanctuary is then contrasted with Israel’s sanctuary, once laid
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 231

waste by strangers (lines 5–6); ‘but he said to build him a sanctuary of man
(miqdash adam), that they might be making incense smoke (maqtirim) for
him in it [or, ‘making sacrifices smoke for him in it’], the works of praise before
him’ (lines 6–7). The connection of ‘praise’ (todah) with making sacrifices
smoke (qatter) occurs at Amos 4:5.
The divine command mentioned here (‘he said’) seems best taken as that
in Nathan’s oracle ‘he [Solomon] shall build a house for my Name’ (2 Sam.
7:13a); for the introductory ‘he said’ in 4Q174, compare David’s speech in
1 Chron. 28:6 ‘And he said to me: Solomon thy son, he shall build my house
and my courts’. The phrase miqdash adam can accordingly be rendered
‘a sanctuary made by human beings’, and understood (with D. R. Schwartz (1),
88) as a reference to the temple of Solomon, who built the house ‘only to make
[incense or offerings] smoke’ (lehaqtir) before him’ (2 Chron. 2:5 [6])—words
in which Solomon summarizes the fuller statement of purpose which he has
just given: ‘to make to smoke (lehaqtir) before him sweet incense, and for
the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening’
(2 Chron. 2:4 [5]).
After this point lines 7–11 then continue with an exegesis of 2 Sam. 7:11–14,
but verse 13a ‘he shall build a house for my Name’ will have been treated in
connection with verse 10 and in advance of the rest of the oracle because the
sanctuary was taken to be the subject of verse 10 (see the previous section).
The relative clarity of these links with Solomon—in the echo of 2 Chron. 2:5
(6)—and with the context—shaped by exegesis of the vision of Nathan, with
its reference to Solomon as temple-builder—commend an understanding of
miqdash adam as Solomon’s temple rather than as the ‘sanctuary of Adam’
constituted by paradise (as in Jub. 8:19, quoted in the following section), or
(as argued by Puech (1), ii, 584–91) an eschatological ‘sanctuary consisting
of human beings’, or (as suggested in a rich discussion by Brooke, 286–91),
a sanctuary both ‘of men’ and ‘of Adam’, that is the community of the elect
in which the re-establishment of the Edenic sanctuary is inaugurated. The
echo of 2 Chron. 2:5 (6) makes it difficult to hold (with Brooke, 287) that an
interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:13a ‘he shall build a house for my name’ has been
designedly omitted in the exegesis of Nathan’s oracle in 4Q174.
It may be added that, on the interpretation of miqdash adam as Solomon’s
temple followed here, the treatment in 4Q174 of the command in Nathan’s
232 Messianism among Jews and Christians

oracle that Solomon should build the temple (2 Sam. 7:13a) as suggesting a
contrast with the divinely-made sanctuary is comparable with the treatment
of the same passage in Nathan’s oracle in the Wisdom of Solomon (9:8). Here
Solomon’s prayer includes the words ‘thou didst say (eἶpaV) to build a temple
in thy holy mount, and an altar in the city of thy tabernacling, a copy of the
holy tabernacle, which thou didst prepare beforehand from the beginning’.
The beginning of the paraphrase of Nathan’s oracle in Wisdom, ‘Thou didst
say to build’, is strikingly close to that in 4Q174, ‘he said to build’; then in
Wisdom, as in 4Q174, a word which can be rendered ‘sanctuary’ or ‘temple’
(naóV) is substituted for the biblical ‘house’. Wisdom now further amplifies by
mentioning an altar, but this addition again recalls 4Q174, which continues
with the reference to making incense or sacrifices smoke discussed above.
Finally, however, Wisdom goes on to recall (from 1 Chron. 28:11–12, 19) that
Solomon’s temple is to be ‘a copy’ (mímhma) of the tabernacle divinely prepared
beforehand, a recollection which brings out not only likeness, but also contrast.
This contrast corresponds with that discerned above in 4Q174, and in both
cases it reflects the contrast which is repeatedly drawn in the biblical narratives
of David and Solomon between God’s earthly house and heavenly dwelling,
as was noted at the beginning of this section. The similarity of the treatment
of 2 Sam. 7:13a in 4Q174 and the Wisdom of Solomon is not considered in
the discussions of 4Q174 cited here, but it offers some confirmation that the
understanding of miqdash adam as Solomon’s temple is on the right lines. In
4Q174, then, as in the Wisdom of Solomon, the biblical contrast is continued;
but in both cases the earthly as well as the heavenly temple is divinely ordained.

3. Ecclesiasticus: Future hope in the praises of the present Jerusalem

Secondly, then, it is unsurprising that the application of Exod. 15:17 to a coming
divinely-prepared temple which is exemplified in 4Q174 did not preclude its
application to the existing hill and sanctuary of Zion, as in Ass. Mos. 1:17–18,
discussed below with texts on the ‘creation’ of Jerusalem. This application to
the earthly Zion could indeed be made in a fashion which, correspondingly,
allows for the other side of the biblical contrast, that is, the hope of Zion’s
eternal divine glorification and the implication of a divine renewal.
Thus in the early second century b.c. the Jerusalemite poet Jesus son of Sirach
alludes to Exod. 15:17 in such a way that the temple here below seems divinely
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 233

‘prepared’. This suits his whole-hearted assertion of its present indwelling by

the pre-existent divine glory, which in his poem is identified with wisdom.
The glory of wisdom, and her identification with the sanctuary, are brought
out in J. C. Lebram’s suggestion that her place in Ecclesiasticus corresponds
to that of a Greek city-goddess. Wisdom’s self-praise in Ecclesiasticus includes
the saying ‘he created me from the beginning, before the world; in the holy
tabernacle I served before him, and thus was I established in Sion’ (Ecclus.
24:9–10, not extant in Hebrew); and this claim seems to be echoed in the
Zion prayer, quoted above in the previous section, in the first part of a line
which can be rendered as follows from the Cairo Genizah Hebrew (MS B,
here represented by the Cambridge fragment T.-S. 16.313, ed. S. Schechter in
Schechter and Taylor, 16):

Give testimony to that which was from the beginning of thy works,
and raise up the vision spoken in thy name.
(Ecclus. 36:14 (15))

Kister (308–9 and n. 17) illuminatingly interprets 36:14a by 24:9, but the
reference in 36:14a is perhaps not primarily to wisdom as pre-existent Torah,
as he suggests in the light of the identification of wisdom with Torah at 24:23:
In 24:10 wisdom ‘serves’ liturgically, and although this can be understood (as
by Smend, 218) as a reference to the Torah as regulating the cult, it seems less
strained to understand it of wisdom as the divine presence or spirit in the
sanctuary (one of two possibilities suggested by Segal, 148). This interpretation
of wisdom commends itself in 36:14 especially in view of the importance of the
temple and the divine glory in the immediate context of this verse.
The two preceding verses (36:12–13) may be rendered from the Cairo
Genizah Hebrew:

Have mercy on the city of thy holiness, Jerusalem, the place of thy dwelling.
Fill Zion with thine honour, and thy temple with thy glory.

In Ecclus. 36:12a ‘have mercy’ echoes Ps. 102:14 ‘thou shalt arise and have
mercy upon Zion’. Then in 12b ‘the place of thy dwelling’ recalls Exod. 15:17
and 1 Kings 8:13, 2 Chron. 6:2 makhon le-shibteka, where the existing holy
place of Zion seems primary, and also mekhon shibteka, used of the heavenly
divine dwelling at 1 Kings 8:39 and other places noted above. In Ecclus. 36:13
‘fill … thy temple (heykhal) from thy glory’ recalls the glory which filled
234 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the tabernacle and the temple and was hoped for in even greater brightness
(Exod. 40:34–5; 1 Kings 8:11, paralleled in 2 Chron. 5:14; 2 Chron. 7:1; Haggai
2:7); from the ‘building’ line of tradition, compare Ps. 102(101):17 lxx ‘for the
Lord shall build Sion, and be seen in his glory’, and the Apocalypse of Weeks,
at 1 En. 91:13 ‘there shall be built the heykhal of the kingdom of the Great One
in the greatness of his glory for all generations of ages’ (Aramaic text in 4Q212,
col. iv, line 18; García and Tigchelaar, i, 444). The continuing importance of
this expectation appears in the lines on the future divine glory appearing in the
holy place cited at the beginning of this study from the Psalms of Solomon and
the Fifth Sibylline book, and it can also be seen in the Targums and rabbinic
literature; ‘thine eyes shall see thy teachers (or, thy Teacher)’ (Isa. 30:20)
becomes in the Targum ‘thine eyes shall be seeing his Shekhinah in the house
of the sanctuary’ (Churgin 101, quoting comparable rabbinic sayings from
Soṭah 49a).
The concern with the sanctuary and divine glory which emerges in these
ways just before the half-line on ‘that which was from the beginning of thy
works’ seems still to be part of the context in the half-line which follows, ‘raise
up the vision spoken in thy name’. The ‘vision’ is likely, as in the Apostrophe
to Zion discussed in the previous section above, to be the ‘vision’ of Nathan,
with special reference, as in the Florilegium, to the promise ‘I will appoint
a place for my people Israel, and plant him’ (2 Sam. 7:10). Nathan is one of
the prophets commemorated by name in the Hymn of the Fathers, later in
Ecclesiasticus (47:1).
The prayer of Ecclesiasticus 36:12–14 in the Hebrew, therefore, expresses
hope for full manifestation of the glory of the divine wisdom now present
but veiled in the sanctuary, and for the fulfilment of the Zion prophecies
with their references to new building, above all the ‘vision’ of Nathan (as in
11Q Apostrophe to Zion, discussed in the previous section). Hayward 135,
having taken 36:14 differently, and having stressed ben Sira’s respect for the
existing temple, urges that he hoped essentially for the ingathering. This hope
was indeed continually bound up with glorification (as at Hag. 2:7–9) and will
certainly have been important for ben Sira (cf. again Exod. 15:17, as echoed
in 2 Macc. 1:29, quoted above); but the allusions in 36:14 to wisdom in the
temple and to Zion prophecies suggest that the poet hoped also for divine
manifestation in a renewed sanctuary.
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 235

This interpretation of 36:14 seems consistent with Ecclus. 49:12, on the

temple restoration of Zerubbabel and Joshua son of Josedech. The second line
of this verse, in the Cairo Genizah Hebrew text from MS B (here represented
by the Cambridge fragment T.-S. 16.314, edited by S. Schechter in Schechter
and Taylor, 19), may be rendered:

they raised high the holy temple (heykhal qodesh),

that which was prepared for everlasting glory
(Ecclus. 49:12b)

This Hebrew text here is identical with or very close to that which lies behind
the grandson’s Greek translation. Against the background of Hebrew and
Septuagintal interpretation of Exod. 15:17 and related passages outlined above,
‘prepared’ here (Hebrew ha-mekhonan, Greek h̔toimasménon) appears as one
more paronomastic interpretation of makhon, in the piyyuṭ-like style of this poet
(Schechter in Schechter and Taylor, 27–9), to allude to the temple as divinely
prepared. The verb konen chosen in the Hebrew, and the verb e̔toimázw chosen
to render it in the Greek, are those encountered in Exod. 15:17 ‘the sanctuary,
Lord, which thy hands made ready’ (MT konenu, lxx h̔toímasan). They are
separately applied to future rebuilding in Isa. 54:11 (lxx e̔toimázw, cited
above), and 54:14 (MT tikkonani, ‘thou shalt be made ready’). The ‘everlasting
glory’ could then be understood not only of the perpetual divine indwelling
expected for the divinely-prepared makhon by King Solomon (1 Kings 8:13;
2 Chron. 6:2) but also of an even more glorious divine manifestation still to
come, when witness is borne to the glory of the wisdom now veiled, ‘that which
was from the beginning of thy works’ (36:14). The vision of the unveiled divine
glory in the sanctuary is the climax of hope, as noted above, in texts ranging
from the Apocalypse of Weeks to the Fifth Sibylline book and the Targum of
Isaiah (see also Yose ben Yose, at pp. 342–3 below).

4. Association of Exod. 15:17 with Nathan’s vision and Isa. 65–6 on

new Jerusalem
Each of the two texts now considered draws attention to the exegetical
interconnection established between Exod. 15:17 and other prophetic texts.
The remembering of Zion prophecies collectively which was surveyed above
will of course have contributed to this process. Thus in the earlier part of the
passage in 4Q174 Exod. 15:17 is clearly understood as promising a future
236 Messianism among Jews and Christians

temple, but lines 1–2 also interpret 2 Sam. 7:10 as a reference to ‘the house’
to be established ‘in the latter days, as it is written … Lord, which thy hands
have made ready’ (Exod. 15:17); that is to say, the lines on the planting of
Israel and the preparation of the sanctuary in Exod. 15:17 had by this time
become associated with the similar line from the vision of Nathan, ‘I will
appoint a place [maqom, not makhon] for my people Israel, and plant him’
(2 Sam. 7:10). The relevant words from 2 Sam. 7:10 are attested in fragment 4
of 4Q174, and Puech follows A. Steudel in placing them immediately before
the later words from the same verse which begin line i of col. 1 as printed
from fragments 1–2 and 21; but through these later words the association of
Exod. 15:17 with 2 Sam. 7:10, from the vision of Nathan, was already evident
from 4Q174 as first published. This prophecy of Moses and the vision of
Nathan both probably receive allusion within a short space in the prayer for
Jerusalem in Ecclesiasticus discussed above. Here 36:12 alludes, with mekhon
shibteka, to Exod. 15:17, and no doubt at the same time to Solomon’s prayer at
the dedication (1 Kings 8:12, etc., and 2 Chron. 6:1, etc.); 36:14, with hazon,
probably alludes to the ‘vision’ of Nathan.
Exod. 15:17, understood as promising a future temple, was connected also
with the ‘new creation’ of Isa. 65:17–18 (cf. 66:22) ‘I create new heavens and
a new earth … I create Jerusalem’. These Jerusalem-oriented passages from
the end of Isaiah lie behind references to new creation or making new in
the Hymns and the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 1 (1QS (1Q28) iv
24 ‘new making’ or ‘making new’ recalls Isa. 66:22 as well as 43:19), and a
connection of them with Exod. 15:17 emerges from the Temple Scroll: ‘I shall
dwell with them for ever and ever, and I shall hallow my sanctuary with my
glory, for I shall make my glory abide upon it until the day of creation, when
I shall create my temple to establish it (lehakhino) for all days, according to the
covenant which I made for Jacob at Beth-el’ (11Q19 (11QTa) xxix 9–10; García
and Tigchelaar, ii, 1250). The connection of ‘creation’ with the sanctuary here
is given by Isa. 65:18, but in view of the importance of ‘my glory’ in this passage
it was perhaps also strengthened by Isa. 4:5, quoted in part above, where ‘the
Lord shall create’ a cloud of glory ‘over all the place of mount Zion and its
assembly’. With the view of the covenant at Beth-el (Gen. 28:10–22, 35:1–15)
taken in the Temple Scroll here compare Test. Levi 9:3–4 ‘When we came to
Beth-el, Jacob my father saw a vision concerning me, that I should be a priest
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 237

for them’; Wisd. 10:10, cited above, ‘wisdom … showed him [Jacob] God’s
kingdom, and gave him knowledge of holy things’; and in rabbinic midrash,
Ber. R. lxix 7, recording an interpretation of Jacob’s words ‘This is none other
than the house of God’ (Gen. 28:17) as his response to a vision of the future
temple built, destroyed, and again rebuilt.
The link made in the Temple Scroll between the last two chapters of Isaiah
and Exod. 15:17—understood as promising a divinely-built temple—recurs
in the prophecies of paradisal bliss at Jerusalem discussed below. Moreover, it
seems likely that in the Temple Scroll the divinely-built temple is thought to
have been shown to Jacob beforehand, somewhat as it provided for Moses the
pattern of the tabernacle and the candlestick, and for David and Solomon the
pattern of the temple (Exod. 25:9, 40; Num. 8:4; 1 Chron. 28:19).
These passages from 4Q Florilegium and the Temple Scroll also bring out the
prevalence of this understanding of Exod. 15:17, and strengthen the view that
the ‘new house’ brought by the lord of the sheep in the second dream-vision
of Enoch is the divinely-built temple, envisaged as pre-existent (1 En. 90:29;
McKelvey 29–30, writing before the first edition of the Temple Scroll, and not
discussing 4Q174 in this connection, judged this interpretation to be probable
but not certain).

5. Exod. 15:17 in the setting of the Septuagint

The early date of the interpretation of Exod. 15:17 as an unfulfilled prophecy
of ‘Sion prepared’, and the extent of its interconnection with other texts,
both perhaps emerge most clearly of all from the Septuagint. First, the lxx
translation ‘ready dwelling’ in Exod. 15:17 suggests that this verse was already
taken to promise a pre-existent God-given temple in the third century b.c.;
for ‘ready’ (ἕtoimoV) signifies divinely prepared (see the following line of the
verse), as in the imminent eschatology of Deut. 32:35 lxx ‘for the day of their
destruction is near, and the things which are ready for you are present’. These
verses come respectively from the lesser and greater Songs of Moses, which
were considered together in the time of Philo (Plant. 54–9, probably moralizing
a current eschatological interpretation), and no doubt earlier too. The phrase
‘the things which are ready for you’ in the greater Song (Deut. 32:35) seems
to be echoed with reference to the paradisal Jerusalem in 1 En. 25:7, already
quoted and to be discussed further below.
238 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Secondly, Exod. 15:17 lxx affected the Greek scriptures elsewhere. Thus the
rendering ‘I make ready (e̔toimázw) for you carbuncle as stone’ in Isa. 54:11
lxx, on the new Jerusalem, cited above, probably echoes Exod. 15:17 ‘made
ready’, on the divinely-prepared sanctuary, and fits well with Isa. 49:16 lxx and
Peshitta ‘I have represented you on the palms of my hands’ (like a designer).
Again, in the Greek scriptures the rendering ‘ready dwelling’ for the Hebrew
phrase ‘the place of thy dwelling’ from Exod. 15:17 became standard, as noted
above, in Solomon’s dedication prayer in Kings and Chronicles and in other
passages. That this phrase was current in Aramaic as well as Greek is suggested
by the appearance of its near equivalent ʿatar mezumman ‘the place prepared’ in
the Fragment Targum and Targum Neofiti (and vestigially in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan) on Exod. 15:17.
The body of Zion-oracles remembered in prayer for Jerusalem and the
temple therefore had a central Pentateuchal element of Mosaic prophecy.
Exod. 15:17, in conjunction with Deut. 32:35 on ‘the things which are ready
for you’, was near the root of an expectation of a divinely-prepared city and
sanctuary which has been best-known from the Wisdom of Solomon, the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and rabbinic texts, but is already attested at
an earlier date in the lxx Pentateuch, Prophets and Psalms, in 1 Enoch, the
Temple Scroll and 4Q Florilegium. It exerted broad influence through a web
of exegetical interconnections, notably with the vision of Nathan, Solomon’s
prayer at the dedication and the later chapters of Isaiah. Its links with
Nathan’s vision and Solomon’s prayer worked to preserve in interpretation
the biblical pattern both of contrast and association between heavenly
dwelling and earthly temple. This pattern could be traced in 4Q Florilegium,
despite a ‘heavenly’ emphasis, and in Ecclesiasticus 36, despite an ‘earthly’
emphasis.
This old-established biblical interpretation also influenced Christian
literature, for example at 1 Pet. 1:5 ‘ready to be revealed in the last time’;
against the Septuagintal background just noted it seems likely that ‘ready’
here echoes Exod. 15:17, and primarily qualifies the ‘inheritance’ ‘kept in
heaven for you’ (verse 4; cf. Exod. 15:17; Deut. 32:35), and not just ‘salvation’,
the noun which ‘ready’ follows in verse 5. In Paul himself this influence can
be detected at 1 Cor. 2:9 ‘the things which God has made ready’, discussed
further below.
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 239

(b) Sion Built

The separate importance of the closely-associated ‘building’ line of tradition
in the Second Temple period emerges especially from the prominence in the
apocalypse of Ezra (2 Esd. 3–14) of ‘the built city’ as a description of Sion
seen in visions (2 Esd. 10:27, 42, 44, 13:36, quoted above; discussion by Stone
129–30). As noted above, this phrase sounds like an echo of ‘Jerusalem the
built’ (Ps. 122:3 habenuyah, oi̓kodomouménh), a phrase clearly applied to
the heavenly city when it is rendered in the Targum ‘Jerusalem that is built
in the firmament’ and in the midrash ‘Jerusalem that Jah built’ (Tanhuma,
Pequde, 1, on Exod. 38:21, also quoting the Targum; ed. Berlin and New York,
1927, 171b). The phrase also recalls, however, other verses on the holy place
as divinely built (Ps. 78:69 ‘he built his sanctuary’, 102:17 ‘the Lord built Zion’)
or as built by divine command (1 Kings 8:13 ‘I have surely built’, cf. 8:20, 27),
and prophecies of future divine building (Jer. 31:4 (lxx 38:4) ‘Again will I
build thee and thou shalt be built’; Ps. 147:2 ‘The Lord is the one who builds
Jerusalem’; Ps. 102 (101):16 lxx ‘for the Lord shall build Sion’).
These expectations of divine re-building are echoed in Tobit 13–14, as
quoted above, especially ‘the house of God shall be built in it for ever with a
glorious building, as the prophets have foretold’ (14:5), and again when Jubilees,
probably in the second century b.c., awaits the time when ‘my sanctuary
shall be built among them for all eternity … and Zion and Jerusalem shall be
established’ (1:27); compare the Apocalypse of Weeks, as quoted above, ‘there
shall be built the heykhal of the kingdom of the Great One in the greatness of
his glory for all generations of ages’ (1 En. 91:13, following the Aramaic text
in 4Q212, col. iv, line 18; García and Tigchelaar, i, 444). This will be the new
creation when ‘the sanctuary of the Lord is created in Jerusalem on mount
Zion’ (Jub. 1:29), ‘mount Zion, which in the new creation will be hallowed for
the hallowing of the earth’ (4:26). In all these passages the reverential passives
indicate divine, not simply human, work.

1. Descriptions of the new building

Akin to the visions of Sion in 2 Esdras are a series of imagined descriptions
of the newly-built city, including such biblical prophecies as Zech. 2:5–10
(1–5), but beginning with the appearance in Ezekiel’s vision of ‘the building
(lxx oi̓kodomh́) of a city opposite’ (Ezek. 40:2 lxx). Here the lxx rendering
240 Messianism among Jews and Christians

a̓pénanti ‘opposite’ (corresponding to mi-neged, rather than mt mi-negeb)

perhaps already attests the Targumic and rabbinic view that the heavenly city is
just above or opposite the earthly (see below; this would supply a contributory
cause for the text-form attested in the lxx, shown probably to be secondary by
Gese 10–11). Another detailed description of the future city and sanctuary is
attested in fragmentary Aramaic texts from Qumran Caves 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, and
has been given the title ‘New Jerusalem’; it includes prescriptions for the cult,
and its elaboration recalls the detailed description of the future temple in the
Temple Scroll. Chyutin 112, noting that the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (59:4)
takes a record of the pattern of Zion to have been shown to Moses, suggests
that the writer of the apocalypse may here allude to this ‘New Jerusalem’ text.
The influence of these full descriptions of the ‘building’, from Ezekiel
onwards, emerges in the late Herodian age in a cluster of visionary texts. These
include Rev. 21:1–22:5 (without ‘building’ terms other than 21:18 e̓ndẃmhs iV,
on the material of the wall, but with considerable detail); and Sib. 5:420–7,
summarized at the beginning of this study, on the glorifying of the beloved
city and the great tower which the blessed man ‘formed’ (ἔplassen). In two
further prophecies from this time, however, the term ‘building’ comes again
to the fore. These are 2 Esdras, cited already for its references to the ‘built city’,
and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), on ‘the Building of Zion’
(cf. Ezek. 40:2 lxx ‘building’) which will be shaken, built again, desolated,
but afterwards renewed in glory (2 Baruch 32:2–4); ‘the pattern of Zion and
its measures’, were shown to Moses (59:4, cited above), for the ‘building’ of
the city was already prepared ‘here’ (in heaven) beforehand, at the time when
God determined to make paradise, and was then shown to Moses on Sinai
when he saw the pattern of the tabernacle and its vessels—and is now kept
like paradise with God (4:1–6). The strength of this theme of the primaeval
and future ‘building’ is illustrated in a fashion of interest for Paul on both
‘building’ and ‘new creation’ by the Septuagintal rendering of Isa. 54:11–17.
Here—renderings at variance with mt are italicized—the city set with jewels is
told ‘in righteousness shalt thou be built’, and again ‘behold, I am founding [or,
creating] thee … I have founded [or, created] thee’ (oi̓kodomhqh́sῃ … ktízw
se … ἔktisá se, at Isa. 54:14, 16–17, lxx). It is notable that this passage
was drawn into the sphere of influence of both ‘preparation’ (verse 11, noted
earlier) and ‘building’ (verse 14, just quoted).
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 241

2. Jerusalem below aligned with Jerusalem above

One further interpretation of the ‘place’ (makhon) in Exod. 15:17 affects
both ‘preparation’ and ‘building’ texts, and can suitably be noted now that
both lines of interpretation have been illustrated. Just as makhon can be
paronomastically identified with nakhon in the lxx, and maqom in 4Q
Florilegium, so in Targumic and rabbinic texts it can be repointed as
mekuwwan ‘set correspondingly’—to the heavenly sanctuary; and the phrase
makhon le-shibteka can be understood accordingly both in the Song of Moses
on ‘preparation’ and in Solomon’s prayer on ‘building’. So the Mekhilta of
R. Ishmael includes among interpretations of Exod. 15:17 the passage:

‘A place (makhon) for thee to dwell in’—set correspondingly (mekuwwan) to

thy dwelling-place. This is one of the statements to the effect that the throne
below corresponds to the throne above; and so it also says, The Lord is in his
holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven [Ps. 11:4]; and it also says, I have
surely built thee a house of habitation, set correspondingly to thy dwelling-
place for ever [1 Kings 8:13].
(Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, Beshallah, Shirata, x; Lauterbach, ii, 78)

This interpretation occurs in the Targums, including Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

on Exod. 15:17 and on Gen. 28:17. Its midrashic employment is sometimes
associated with Simeon b. Yohai (mid second century a.d.), for example at
Ber. R. 55.7, when it seems to form the pattern of his interpretation of ‘Moriah’
(Gen. 22:2) as ‘seen correspondingly to the sanctuary above’, and at Ber. R.
69.7, where Jacob’s words at Bethel ‘and this (we-zeh) the gate of heaven’ (Gen.
28:17) are taken to show that the distance from the holy place below to the
heavenly sanctuary above is eighteen miles, for we-zeh taken numerically adds
up to eighteen. It seems to be assumed again in Targ. Ps. 122:3, quoted in
part above: ‘Jerusalem that is built in the firmament, as a city to be joined
for itself together on earth.’ These exegeses presuppose an established view
that the heavenly city and sanctuary is positioned above the earthly. The late
second-century currency of this view is independently attested in Tertullian’s
report (Marc. iii 24, 4) of the appearance of the city in the skies over Judaea,
further discussed in chapter 9, below. Ego 96 suggests early tannaitic origins
for the corresponding interpretation of ‘a place for thy dwelling’ in Exod. 15:17
and Solomon’s prayer.
242 Messianism among Jews and Christians

A case can be made accordingly for its currency towards the end of the
Second Temple period. Josephus in his paraphrase of Solomon’s prayer at the
dedication (1 Kings 8:13) comes close, with the addition of Stoic colouring,
to the rendering given in the Mekhilta: ‘We know that thou, O Master, hast
an eternal dwelling in those things which thou didst create for thyself, heaven
and air and earth and sea … But I have constructed this temple to thy Name
so that from it we may, when sacrificing and ministering, send up our prayers
into the air to thee’ (Josephus, Ant. viii 107–8). Here, interpreting 1 Kings 8:13
‘a place for thy dwelling’, he brings Stoic views of the divine as permeating
the universe, especially the aerial regions (so Cleanthes in Cicero, N.D. i 37),
together with the notion that the deity is in particular to be found up in the air
above Jerusalem.
In the roughly contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, just cited for
its lines on the ‘Building of Zion’ on earth and with God, Baruch calls out
bitterly in his lament: ‘Ye priests, take the keys of the sanctuary, and cast
them into the height of heaven, and give them to the Lord’ (2 Baruch 10:18,
discussed with parallels by Charles, 17–18). In this passage the temple above is
not specifically mentioned, but there is a similar presumption that the deity is
just over Jerusalem—which will be delivered up for a time, until its perpetual
restoration (6:9). In passages cited already, however, the ‘building of Zion’
below answers to a heavenly original kept with God and to be revealed in the
end (4:1–6), when the ‘building’ below is to be renewed in glory (32:4). In the
composition taken as a whole, it seems that both the deity and his heavenly
Building are close to the earthly building. In 2 Esdras, similarly, although ‘the
built city’ can only be seen in vision from the field where there has been no
building (10:53–4), it is in the end precisely when the man from the sea stands
upon the top of mount Sion that ‘Sion shall come, and shall be showed to all,
prepared and built’ (13:35–6).
Paul’s ‘Jerusalem above’ which is also to come (Gal. 4:25–6) therefore
combines the old expectation of a future Jerusalem, illustrated above from
a series of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek witnesses in connection with ‘Sion
prepared’, with the conception of a heavenly Jerusalem, illustrated above in
connection with ‘building’ as well as ‘preparation’. The lxx phrase ‘ready
dwelling’ suits both lines of interpretation. The association of the heavenly
with the earthly city and sanctuary which has just been illustrated suggests
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 243

that, if Rom. 11:26 may tentatively be viewed together with 1 Thess. 4:17, the
two epistles present a consistent picture of Christ descending from Zion above
to be met by the ingathered saints ‘in the air’ above Jerusalem.

Recreated paradisal Jerusalem

These expectations were in turn associated with hopes for the joy of the
righteous in paradisal bliss in what would later be termed a millennial
reign, centred on the divinely prepared Jerusalem sanctuary. These hopes
built not only on Exod. 15:17 but also on the description of new creation
and joy in Jerusalem in Isa. 65–6. Compare the association of Exod. 15:17
and Isa. 65:17–18 presupposed in the passage quoted above from the Temple
Scroll, 11Q19 xxix 9–10.

1. Primordial and future creation of Zion

The emphasis on Jerusalem’s re-creation in Isa. 65:18 ‘that which I am creating:
behold, I am creating Jerusalem a joy and her people a rejoicing’ helps to give
other creation texts concerning Jerusalem a future as well as a primaeval
dimension. Such texts include Isa. 4:5, quoted above, on the ‘creation’ of glory
over the makhon, and Exod. 15:17 and other passages on the divine ‘making’
and ‘founding’ of the holy place and the holy hill. Thus the primordial divine
creation of the hill of Zion here below, in line with Exod. 15:17 as interpreted
by Ps. 78:54 and Ps. 87:5, all three texts reflecting very old mythology, is still
presupposed in the later Herodian age in the Assumption of Moses. Here Joshua
is to deposit the books of Moses in loco quem fecit ab initio orbis terrarum, ut
invocetur nomen illius, ‘in the place which [God] made from the beginning of
the world, that his Name might be invoked’ (Ass. Mos. 1:17–18, as interpreted
in Horbury (1), 401–2); cf. Exod. 15:17 ‘the place for thy dwelling which thou
didst make, O Lord’. This ancient tenet of the primordial creation of the holy
place has continuing vitality still later in rabbinic speculation on antemundane
creations or planned creations (a baraitha in Pes. 54a and Ned. 39b lists seven
items including the house of the sanctuary; Ber. R. i 4 and Midrash Tehillim
xciii 3 list six items including the house of the sanctuary). The importance of
the primordial creation of Zion encourages hope for new creation precisely at
‘my holy mountain Jerusalem’, as envisaged in Isa. 65–6.
244 Messianism among Jews and Christians

2. Ingathering to a paradisal new Jerusalem

The hopes for a paradisal new creation of Jerusalem are vividly expressed in
1 En. 25, perhaps roughly contemporary with Ecclesiasticus, where wisdom
in the Jerusalem temple is compared with a paradisal tree and rivers (Ecclus.
24:13–17, 25–6; Barker, 88), and with Jubilees, where the Garden of Eden
is ‘the holy of holies and the Lord’s dwelling-place’ (8:19, discussed by van
Ruiten, 218–24). In 1 Enoch the tree of life will be transplanted into ‘the holy
place, by the house of God, the everlasting king’. The righteous ‘will come
into the holy place’ with joy, and the fruits and scents of the tree will give
them lives of antediluvian length (1 En. 25:5–6). ‘Then’, says the seer, in words
quoted above, ‘I blessed the God of glory, the everlasting king, who prepared
(Greek h̔toímasen) for righteous mortals such things, and created them, and
commanded that they should be given them’ (1 En. 25:7).
Here once again the future hope is modelled on the ingathering and
planting in the holy place foretold in Exod. 15:17; the righteous will come
into it for the rejoicing at the chosen place which is prescribed in Deut. 12:12,
18, and prophesied for Jerusalem and ‘my holy mountain’ at Jer. 31:12–14
(joy and abundance in the height of Zion); Ezek. 17:22–4 (planting of a
tree, as in Enoch, and flourishing, in the mountain of the height of Israel),
20:40–2 (ingathering, oblation and manifestation of divine holiness in the
mountain of the height of Israel; cf. 34:13–14); and Isa. 65:17–25, 66:10–14,
20–4, with emphasis on long life (Isa. 65:20–2, 66:14), delight in Jerusalem’s
abundance (Isa. 66:10–11), and ingathering to ‘my holy mountain Jerusalem’
(66:20). So in 1 En. 25 God has now consoled the desolate Jerusalem by
making her wilderness ‘as Eden … as the garden of the Lord’ (Isa. 51:3), and
Israel by making her tents ‘like gardens by the river side’ (Num. 24:5–6).
With a return to the influential language of the two songs of Moses reviewed
above, the seer then (1 En. 25:7) blesses God for what he ‘prepared’ (Exod.
15:17; Deut. 32:35). He is at once (1 En. 26:1) transported to the mid-point
of the earth, and (1 En. 26:2–27:4) sees the holy mountain (of Zion) and the
accursed valley (of Hinnom) in which, respectively, the pious will bless the
Lord at the judgment, and the sinners will be made a spectacle for them (cf.
Isa. 66:13–14, 23–4).
The importance of Isa. 65–6 as well as Exod. 15 for Jerusalem-centred hope
on these lines is suggested by touches in the lxx of Isa. 65–6 which emphasize
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 245

the interrelationship of these chapters with 1 En. 25–7. Examples (lxx phrases
which lack full correspondence in our Hebrew are italicized in the translations
below) occur at Isa. 65:22, lxx ‘as the days of the tree of life shall be the days
of my people’ (so also the Targum on this verse), cf. 1 En. 25:5–6 on the length
of days conferred by the fruits and fragrance of the tree in the holy place; Isa.
66:23, lxx ‘all flesh shall come up before me to worship in Jerusalem’, cf. 1 En.
27:3 ‘here shall the pious bless the Lord of glory’; and Isa. 66:24, lxx ‘they shall
be for a spectacle (ὅrasiV) to all flesh’, cf. 1 En. 27:3 ‘the spectacle of righteous
judgment’.
The ‘delight’ of Isa. 66:11 and the ‘holy mountain’ of Isa. 66:20 are combined
with ‘the mountain of the height of Israel’ from Ezek. 17:24 in a prophecy of
bliss from the Pesher on Psalm 37 attested in fragments from Qumran Cave 4
(4Q171, fragments 1 and 3–4, col. iii, lines 9–11). Here ‘they that are blessed of
him shall inherit the land’ (Ps. 37:22) refers to ‘the congregation of the poor’,
and the promise ‘shall inherit the land’ is amplified as ‘they shall inherit the
mountain of the height of Israel, and in his holy mountain shall they delight’.
A little earlier, on Ps. 37:19 ‘they shall not be ashamed in the evil time’, it has
been said that ‘the converts of the wilderness’, probably the same group, ‘will
live for a thousand generations in salvation, and theirs is all the inheritance of
Adam’ (4Q171, fragment 1, col. iii, lines 1–2). Here they have paradisal length
of days, as in Isa. 65:22 lxx, but with allusion probably to Deut. 7:9 ‘a thousand
generations’, as in CD vii 4–6. Earlier still in the psalm, the promise of ‘delight’
has already been made to the meek in verse 11, in wording like that of verse
22 (‘they shall inherit the land, and shall delight …’); the Pesher on verse 11
(4Q171, fragment 1, col. ii, lines 9–12) identifies them as ‘the congregation
of the poor’ (discerned again, as noted above, in verse 22), and it gives a
paraphrase of verse 11 which would comfort the poor and hungry, but sounds
strikingly carnal to the well-fed: ‘those who inherit the land shall delight, and
shall grow fat in all the delight of flesh’. In the Pesher, then, ‘shall delight’ in
Ps. 37 has been associated with ‘shall delight’ in Isa. 66:11 on Jerusalem (both
texts employ the relatively rare verb hithʿanneg), and the result is a prophecy
of bliss and long life in Zion. It joins hands with the vividly carnal messianic
prophecies in 2 Baruch (29:3–6) and Papias of the time when ‘those who
have hungered will rejoice’ (2 Baruch 29:6; cf. Luke 6:21), but it remains an
interpretation of Isa. 66.
246 Messianism among Jews and Christians

In later development of this tradition the bridal imagery of Isa. 52:1, 54:1–13,
61:10–11, 62:4–5 joins the recollection of Isa. 65–6 and Exod. 15; before the
rejoicing of the righteous ‘the bride shall appear, even the city coming forth’
(2 Esd. 7:26), and this is indeed, as a later chapter says, ‘Sion … prepared and
builded’ (2 Esd. 13:36). It is bound together in thought with paradise, the tree
of life, the ‘preparation’ of the world to come and its plenty, and the ‘building’
of the city: ‘since for you is paradise opened, the tree of life is planted, the time
to come is prepared, plenteousness is made ready, a city is builded’, vobis enim
apertus est paradisus, plantata est arbor vitae, praeparatum est futurum tempus,
praeparata est abundantia, aedificata est civitas … (2 Esd. 8:52). In a similar
Christian apocalypse the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2) is the bride ‘made ready’
(Isa. 54:11 lxx, itself echoing Exod. 15:17), comparably associated with the tree
of life (Rev. 22:14, 19) and paradise (Rev. 2:7, 3:12).
This approach to the exegetical tradition of paradisal bliss in Zion has then
confirmed for the Second Temple period S. Heid’s indication of the great
importance of the later chapters of Isaiah in early Christian treatment of this
topic, but it has also pointed to the influence of other texts, notably the Mosaic
prophecy of Exod. 15:17 and the disputed but popular prophecy of Enoch. The
combination of Pentateuchal and Enochic oracles with Isaiah is likely to have
been especially powerful.
In Paul himself the association of Exod. 15:17 with the prayer and prophecy
concerning Zion in Isaiah seems to appear in the adaptation of Isa. 64:3 (4)
towards Exod. 15:17 at 1 Cor. 2:9 ‘… the things which God has made ready
for those who love him’; compare MT, which may be rendered ‘… a God
beside thee, that shall work [or, make] for the one who waits for him’, and
lxx ‘… beside thee and thy works, which thou shalt do [or, make] for those
who await mercy’. The version in Paul appears to paraphrase the last clause
on the lines of lxx, with explicit reference to the divine works, but now with
their ‘preparation’ beforehand and pre-existence especially in view, in the
line of interpretation connected with Exod. 15:17 lxx ‘thy ready dwelling …
the sanctuary which thy hands made ready’, Deut. 32:35 lxx ‘the things that
are ready’, and 1 En. 25:7 ‘who prepared for righteous mortals such things’.
The list in 2 Esd. 8:52, quoted above, probably enumerates the main ‘things
which God has made ready’ envisaged in 1 Cor. 2:9, ‘things’ which all belong
to paradisal Zion.
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 247

A second and more general Pauline comment arises from the strong
Isaianic association of new creation with Jerusalem. In exegetical tradition this
association, clearly made in the Hebrew text of Isa. 65–6, was underlined not
only by the paradisal picture of Zion in 1 En., Isa. 65–6 lxx, and the Pesher
on Ps. 37, but also by the Septuagintal rendering of Isa. 54:14–17 with parts
of kt ízw (see the previous section), which allows the prophecy to be heard
as an earlier divine declaration on the creation of Zion. ‘New creation’ in
Paul should probably therefore be reckoned as another reflection of the set of
interpretations and expectations concerning Zion.

Summary of Part I
Three characteristic features of the interpretative tradition on Zion which was
current in Paul’s time have now been viewed. In each case some considerations
emerged which might assist understanding of the place of Jerusalem in
Pauline hope. The summary below may then also serve to introduce the
second part of this study, in which the Pauline writings themselves come to
the fore.
The review of exegetical tradition began from Zion as ἔnqeoV ὕmnwn, the
subject of inspired hymnody. It was urged that recollection of Zion prophecies
collectively was encouraged by the custom of prayer and hymnody for Israel
and Jerusalem, and this custom was illustrated by texts surviving in Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek. Such prayer appears to be echoed in Paul. It both reflects
and contributes to the intensity of hope for the renewed holy place and the
divine glory. This Zion-centred intensity is perceptible in Paul, for example at
Gal. 4:25–6 and 2 Cor. 5:1–2.
Some important elements in the group of biblical traditions remembered
collectively were then identified. At the heart of the Zion-oracles was the
Mosaic prophecy of a divinely-prepared holy place (Exod. 15:17 ‘place of thy
dwelling’, lxx ‘ready dwelling’). It was associated with the greater Song of
Moses on ‘the things which are ready for you’ (Deut. 32:35), with Nathan’s
‘vision’ communicated to David, with Solomon’s prayer at the dedication,
and with later prophecies including Isa. 54 and 65–6. These interconnections
are well seen from the lxx, but they also appear in Hebrew texts such as 4Q
Florilegium and the Temple Scroll.
248 Messianism among Jews and Christians

2 Esd. 13:36 on ‘Sion prepared and built’ was taken to indicate two important
threads in interpretation. A notable thread concerned with divine ‘preparation’
depends on Exod. 15:17, but another thread concerned with ‘building’ further
displays the influence of Nathan’s ‘vision’, Solomon’s prayer, Ezekiel’s vision of
a ‘building’, and Ps. 122 on Jerusalem ‘the built’.
From these lines of interpretation it emerged that a divinely-prepared holy
place above and to come had been widely envisaged before Paul’s time. Exod.
15:17 lxx ‘ready dwelling’, a rendering which influenced many other texts,
suggests that this expectation was known when the lxx translation of the
Pentateuch was made in the third century b.c.
It was urged that the biblical contrast and association between the earthly
and the divinely-prepared holy place are not lost even in 4Q Florilegium and
Ecclesiasticus, which have the reputation of emphasizing either future hope
or present achievement, respectively. Association as well as contrast was
underlined by rabbinic interpretation of Exod. 15:17, 1 Kings 8:13 and Ps. 122:3
as locating the heavenly sanctuary in close correspondence with the earthly, and
this interpretation was probably already known at the end of the Second Temple
period. It was suggested that Gal. 4:26–30 and 2 Cor. 5:1–2 stand within the
tradition of contrast and association, and that Rom. 11:26 somewhat comparably
presupposes parousia from the city above, associated with that below.
The recreated paradisal Zion formed the final aspect of exegetical tradition
to be considered. It emerged that hopes for paradisal bliss in a newly-created
Zion, on lines that would later be termed millennial, were expressed especially
through association of Exod. 15:17 with Isa. 65–6. They are displayed in
1 En. 25, to which Isa. 65–6 lxx come strikingly close, and in the Pesher on
Psalm 37 preserved in 4Q171, which in this respect forms an interpretation of
Isa. 66. Interpretation exemplified in Revelation and 2 Esdras brings together
the divine preparation of Exod. 15:17, the bridal preparation of Zion envisaged
in earlier chapters of Isaiah, including Isa. 54, and the paradisal Zion hopes of
Isa. 65–6—two chapters which themselves in the book as we have it respond to
the lament and prayer for Zion in 63–4. It was suggested that the development
of Isa. 64:3 (4) in 1 Cor. 2:9 can be situated within the exegetical association of
Exod. 15:17 with these later chapters of Isaiah.
The importance for the origins of chiliasm of sequential reading of the later
chapters of Isaiah (and not simply of the Johannine Apocalypse) has been
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 249

rightly emphasized by S. Heid; but it emerged, as just noted, that in the Second
Temple period these chapters were linked too with prophecy on the holy place
in the Pentateuch, especially Exod. 15:17, and with apocryphal prophecy of a
paradisal Jerusalem, especially 1 En. 25–7. The importance of the Pentateuchal
links emerges from 1 Enoch itself, and of the Enochic links from the Septuagint
of Isaiah.
Paul himself, then, is likely to have envisaged Zion-oracles as a group.
His contacts with the exegetical strands considered here are not restricted to
Gal. 4:26–30 and Rom. 11:26–7, the passages primarily under consideration,
although in both these cases the Pauline texts appear to situate themselves
within an attested tradition. Other passages found to suggest contact with the
exegetical tradition on Zion have included 1 Cor. 2:9 on the things prepared,
2 Cor. 5:1–2 on the eternal and the present dwelling, and Gal. 6:15–16 on new
creation and prayer for Israel. More generally, the Pauline themes of Zion,
building from God and new creation, which are associated with differing
aspects of his teaching, can be seen to arise from a single group of Zion-
centred interpretations and expectations.

II

Non-Pauline Christian continuation of this interpretative tradition during and

after Paul’s lifetime includes the gospels and Acts on ‘not made with hands’,
and Hebrews on mount Sion and the city prepared, as well as Rev. 20–22. It
was the Old Testament and apocryphal tradition surveyed above, however,
which chiefly contributed to the development of Christian chiliasm (reviewed
together with non-chiliastic interpretations of the heavenly Jerusalem by
Hill (2) and Markschies (2), 311–29). In chapter 9, below, this Christian
phenomenon is understood as in part a manifestation of contemporary anti-
Roman messianism in the majority Jewish community, as that is reflected
in the apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra and the fourth and fifth books of the
Sibylline Oracles (completed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and
used by Christians as well as Jews) and in the Jewish disturbances of the second
century. This argument is further illustrated from the Epistle of Barnabas and
the writings of Justin Martyr in Horbury (2), 146–53.
250 Messianism among Jews and Christians

1. Paul as interpreted in Christian chiliasm

Noteworthy figures in the church in this connection, from the first century
to the third, include John the Divine, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and
Tertullian. Hopes for an earthly kingdom of Christ in a recreated Jerusalem
were not shared by all Christians, as Justin Martyr admitted with regret (Dial.
80.2), but they were clearly influential in the church. An early witness to
them is the Preaching of Peter, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi
15) to the effect that the apostles found in the books of the prophets Christ’s
death and sufferings, ‘and the rising and the taking up into the heavens before
the foundation [or creation] of Jerusalem (prò tou͂ Ἱerosóluma ktisqh͂-
nai)’. This final phrase has sometimes been regarded as corrupt, but it was
surely rightly referred to the new Jerusalem by J. E. Grabe (quoted in Potter,
ii, 804–5). It suits the Hebrew text of Isa. 65:18 ‘I create Jerusalem’, but in the
lxx its use of ktízw recalls rather Isa. 54:16–17 ‘behold I found [or, create]
thee’, discussed above. For the use of this short phrase without explanation
compare the unexplained ‘making new’ in the Community Rule (1QS iv
24, quoted above). For the Preaching of Peter, then, after the assumption of
Christ into the heavens, there is to follow the creation of new Jerusalem as the
kingdom of Christ and the saints.
The chain of witness cited to confirm these hopes came to include Paul.
Thus Justin picked out especially (Dial. 81.1–2) Isa. 65:17–25 on new heaven,
new earth, Jerusalem as a joy, and ‘the days of my people’; but Irenaeus (Haer.
v 33–5) added to this and other passages from Isaiah, notably 54:11–14, some
further Old Testament witness, especially from Jeremiah (Jer. 31:10–14, on joy
in Zion; Baruch 4:36–5:9, on the brightness of Jerusalem displayed everywhere
‘under heaven’), and Christian testimony from ‘John the Lord’s disciple’ (v. 35),
in the Revelation of John, and ‘Elders, disciples of the Apostles’ (v. 36), including
Papias the ‘hearer of John’ (v. 33). Into these quotations, however, Irenaeus
incorporated also ‘the Apostle writing to the Galatians’ on the Jerusalem
above, the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26); he was not thinking of ‘some wandering
Aeon’, says Irenaeus scornfully, but of ‘the Jerusalem which is delineated by
hands’ (Isa. 49:16). His final outline of stages in creation and recreation (v. 36)
culminates in Isaianic and Pauline words: one God ‘promised the inheritance
of the land to the fathers, brought it forth in the resurrection of the just, fulfils
the promises in the kingdom of his Son, and afterwards paternally bestows
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 251

those things which neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the
heart of man’ (1 Cor. 2:9, Isa. 64:4).
Tertullian similarly makes Paul the mainstay of his argument for a
kingdom on earth which is none the less from heaven, ‘in the city of God’s
making, Jerusalem, let down from heaven, which the apostle also points out
as our mother above [Gal. 4:26]; and saying that our politeuma, that is our
citizenship, is in the heavens [Phil. 3:20], he assigns it to some heavenly city.
This is the city which Ezekiel knows, and John the apostle saw’ (Marc. iii 24,
3–4). Like Irenaeus, Tertullian takes Gal. 4:26 as a reference to the city above
which will come down to earth, but he adds that it must also be in view in
Philippians on heavenly citizenship (on Phil. 3:20 in its Pauline context see
Schwemer (2), 228–38, favouring the ‘citizenship’ interpretation exemplified
in Tertullian here). From the Old Testament Tertullian adds Ezekiel’s vision of
the ‘building’ to set beside the vision of John. That he was also indebted both
to Enoch (whose book he defends in Cult. Fem. 3) and to Isa. 65–6 is indicated
by the last chapter of De Spectaculis, on the future spectacle of judgment: ‘what
a kingdom of the righteous! what a city of new Jerusalem! But there are other
spectacles too still to come, that last and unending day of judgment … what
kind of things are those, which neither eye has seen nor ear heard, nor have
come up into the heart of man? [1 Cor. 2:9]’ (Spec. 30). The judgment which
forms this great spectacle is the ‘spectacle (ὅrasiV) to all flesh’ of Isa. 66:24
lxx, further described in 1 En. 27:3 on ‘the spectacle of righteous judgment’ in
the ‘accursed valley’ of Hinnom, discussed above. The final allusion to 1 Cor.
2:9 once again links Paul with depiction of ‘the kingdom of the righteous’; this
text, also connected with the kingdom on earth by Irenaeus, closely recalls
Isa. 64:4, and was discussed above for its links with the traditions of divine
preparation and paradisal Jerusalem.

2. Paul on Zion and messianic reign

Paul could then be understood in the second and third centuries, without
special awkwardness, as a witness to hope for a kingdom of the righteous in the
heavenly Zion on earth. Against this background, it may be suggested that in
Gal. 4:26–30 (quoting Isa. 54:1 ‘Rejoice, O barren’) and Rom. 11:26–7 (quoting
Isa. 59:20–1 in the form ‘a redeemer shall come from Sion’) Paul envisaged a
252 Messianism among Jews and Christians

coming messianic reign in the divinely prepared Jerusalem, bringing together

the king with the city and the sanctuary on the Old Testament pattern noted at
the beginning. Hints at a Jerusalem-centred messianic reign in both passages
would be consonant with the eschatological importance of Zion or the land in
Rom. 9:25–6 (Davies, 195–6).
To present this suggestion briefly, in the larger Pauline context the most
important passage for the question is 1 Cor. 15:20–8. The present writer follows
those who hold that in 1 Cor. 15 Paul envisages a Zion-centred messianic reign,
beginning with a second coming of Christ. As is shown in verses 25–8 by the
exposition of Pss. 110:1, 8:6 on the subjection of enemies, this reign involves
the crushing victory over hostile forces granted to the king, God’s son, in Zion,
on the lines sketched in Psalms 2:6–9, 110:1–6. Comparable developments of
this theme of messianic victory (studied further in chapter 11, below), often
also with reference to one great foe and with allusion to Isa. 11:4, are found in
2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 13:6–13, 32–50 (God’s son on mount Sion destroys gentile
foes); Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 40 (the messiah executes the enemy leader
outside Jerusalem), 72–3; 1QSb ‘with the breath of your lips may you slay the
wicked’ (1Q28b, col. v, lines 24–5; Puech (1), 442); and probably 4Q285 (the
prince of the congregation, the seed of David, puts a foe to death). In Christian
sources this execution of foes in the messianic victory is pictured at 2 Thess.
2:8 and Luke 19:27.
Two informative studies represent the opinion that, rather, the heavenly reign
of the ascended Christ is in view in 1 Cor. 15. C. E. Hill (1) urges, among other
arguments, that Pss. 110:1, 8:6 regularly elsewhere refer to a heavenly reign; but
this is not clear in all cases cited, as at Phil 3:20–1, which also well fits an earthly
reign (Bockmuehl, 235; Schwemer (2), 238). For de Boer, 134–5, Paul differs
from Revelation precisely in failing to specify an interim reign, and probably
views the whole time since the resurrection as war somewhat like that described
in the War Scroll; but messianic reign traditions better account for the Pauline
conjunction of destruction of enemies with a strong emphasis on reigning.
To return now to Galatians, Isa. 54:1 has associations which strongly favour
this interpretation. Some of those which it gained in interpretation were noted
in comments above on the lxx rendering, which presents building as bridal
preparation in verses 11–14 (cited by Irenaeus) and introduces the divine
foundation or creation of the city in verses 14–17. The oracle as it stands in the
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 253

Hebrew Bible, however, is spoken to an unnamed female addressee; but by the

end of the Second Temple period it was linked with the land and with Zion in
particular.
First, ‘Rejoice, O barren’ is among the very few prophetic texts quoted by
Philo (Praem. 158), and this in connection with the Pentateuchal promises
of national redemption; he takes it of the land, revived through its sabbath
of desolation (Lev. 26:42–5), bringing forth a new generation of saints (Deut.
30:5), and this sense is given before he adds an allegory. It seems likely that Isa.
54:1 was already traditionally associated with the fundamental Pentateuchal
hopes of a renewed land.
Secondly, connection of Isa. 54:1 with Zion in particular will have been
encouragedby the similarity between verse 2 ‘Enlarge the place of thy tent …
lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes’ and an earlier passage in the book
of Isaiah, 33:20, where Jerusalem is mentioned by name and then described as
‘a tent that shall not be removed’, with its cords and stakes. The Hebrew and
Greek rendered by ‘tent’ and ‘stakes’ are the same in both passages, in mt and
in lxx, respectively.
Thirdly, pre-Pauline association of Isa. 54 with the coming glorious Zion
is indicated by allusion in the lxx and in literary works made known by the
Qumran finds. Thus in the lxx Isa. 54:11, on the city prepared with precious
stones, seems to be linked with the divinely-built temple of Exod. 15:17 by
the rendering in lxx Isaiah ‘I make ready (e̔toimázw) for you’. Compare
Exod. 15:17 lxx ‘thy ready dwelling (ἕtoimon katoikhth́rión sou), which
thou, Lord, didst make, the sanctuary which thy hands made ready (h̔toím-
asan)’; Micah 4:1 lxx ‘and in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall
be manifest (e̓mjanéV), ready (ἕtoimon) upon the peaks of the mountains’;
and Wisd. 9:8 ‘the holy tabernacle which thou didst make ready before-
hand (prohtoímasaV) from the beginning’. In Hebrew compositions,
correspondingly, a pre-Pauline connection of verse 1 with the city is suggested
by the echo of verse 2 ‘spread wide the place of thy tent’ in 11Q Apostrophe
to Zion 18 ‘Be exalted and spread wide, O Zion’ (11Q5, col. xxii, line 14); and
by the allusions to verse 6, and also to verses 1 and 2, which are intertwined
with language from Lam. i–ii on Zion in 4Q179.2 (Lamentations), lines 3, 6–7:
‘in thy tent’ (cf. verse 2) … ‘like a woman grieved, like a woman forsaken’
(cf. verse 6) … ‘like a barren woman’ (cf. verse 1).
254 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Before the time of Paul, therefore, the prophecy of Isa. 54 was associated
with the coming divine renewal of the land and the coming divinely-prepared
Zion. The influence of Isa. 54:1–2 understood as a prediction of future glory
addressed to Jerusalem is vividly shown shortly after the time of Paul by
the vision of the mourning woman transformed into a large city in 2 Esdras
10:26–7. ‘She suddenly uttered a loud and fearful cry’; compare Isa. 54:1
‘cry aloud’, in the lxx ‘break forth and cry’. Then ‘… the woman appeared
to me no more, but there was a city builded, and a place showed itself of
great foundations’; compare Isa. 54:2 ‘spread wide the place of thy tent’, Isa.
54:11 1QIsaa and lxx ‘thy foundations’, and Ps. 87 (86):2 ‘his foundation
(lxx ‘foundations’) on the holy hills’, and note that Ps. 87:3 and Isa. 54:2
were successively echoed in the Apostrophe to Zion, verses 17 and 18,
quoted individually above. These echoes in 2 Esdras seem not to be widely
recognized (the points of similarity in 2 Esdras 10:25–7 and Isa. 54:1–2, 11
are not discussed in the comments on the Ezra-apocalypse by Box, Violet,
Stone and Lichtenberger); but they are clear enough to merit notice in the
present context. Just as the seer’s later vision of the messiah as a lion (2 Esd.
11:36–12:39) grows out of the interpretative tradition concerning Gen. 49:9
‘Judah, a lion’s whelp’ (compare chapter 4, above, p. 133), so here his vision
draws on existing application of Isa. 54:1–2 to Zion.
The two texts quoted by Paul, Isa. 54:1 (Gal. 4:26) and 59:20–1 (Rom. 11:26),
both recur later on in rabbinic exposition of the new Jerusalem; thus in Pesikta
de-Rab Kahana 20:3 the third-century Palestinian homilist Levi connects
Isa. 54:1 with Sarah, as in Galatians, and ultimately also with 59:20, quoted
in Romans. The rabbinic association of these texts with the new Jerusalem is
probably traditional.
Further, Isa. 54 will have been studied continuously with Isa. 52–3. Thus
the Targum, understanding 53 messianically, links 53 and 54 by taking 53:5
of the messiah rebuilding the temple, and 54:1 of Jerusalem—now named
explicitly as the addressee. In second-century Christianity, similarly, Justin
Martyr quotes the whole of Isa. 52:10–54:6 as a baptismal proof-text (Dial. 13,
discussed with other evidence by Heid, 24–8). The two chapters are likely to
have been read in sequence by Paul, who would then naturally understand 54
of a messianic city restoration, as did Christians and Jews rebuked by Origen
(comm. in Joh. x 25) and Jerome (commentary on Isaiah, book 15, on 54:1).
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 255

In Gal. 4:25–6 ‘the Jerusalem above’ is contrasted with ‘the Jerusalem that
now is’, and appears accordingly as the Jerusalem to come; a future reference is
also implied in the language of promise and inheritance (Barrett, 164–5; Wilken
281, n. 42). When ‘Rejoice, O barren one’ (Isa. 54:1) is quoted in this context,
against the background just outlined it is likely that the coming divinely-built
Jerusalem is in view. ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for [he] shall not
inherit …’ (Gal. 4:30, quoting Gen. 21:10) then refers to exclusion from the new
Jerusalem. This will requite the present persecution described in Gal. 4:29, just
as the joy of the new Jerusalem will console those now persecuted. The ties which
Christians already have with Jerusalem above need not rule out an expectation
of its coming (contra W. D. Davies, 197–8). This future interpretation would
suit the advice of Ps.-Demetrius on elocution, quoted by H. D. Betz to explain
this passage, to the effect that a series of considerations should conclude with a
darkly-hinting and therefore terror-striking argument (Betz, 240).
The interpretation offered by Paul here (4:24 ‘which things are an allegory’)
is regarded by Markschies (2), 306–7, as weakening the connection of
‘Jerusalem above’ with the concrete reality of ‘Jerusalem that now is’, for the
latter is made to represent servitude under the law, while ‘Jerusalem above’
stands for conformity to Christ. Martyn, 440–3, 462–6, and Sanders, 95–7
similarly concentrate on the symbolism and scope of Paul’s interpretation,
taking it to be directed against Jerusalem Christians sponsoring a non-Pauline
mission; they, not the inhabitants of Jerusalem as a whole, are represented
by ‘Jerusalem that now is’. Attempts such as these to define the symbolism
of ‘Jerusalem that now is’ are inevitably debatable, but they do justice to
the clearly polemical intention of Paul’s argument. Yet, do they sufficiently
allow for what Schwemer calls the ‘apocalyptic realism’ of Paul (Schwemer
(2), 227–8)? Paul starts with a polemical allegory, but when he reaches the
contrast between Jerusalem ‘now’ and to come he is thinking of a known city,
its vividly imagined heavenly counterpart, and speedy divine vindication
and retribution. Hence the ‘servitude’ of present Jerusalem may include what
Paul would regard as servitude to law, but is first of all her servitude to gentile
power. The bitterness of the language would then import, as suggested already
in comparison of this passage with 2 Cor. 5:1–2 in part I, fierce longing for the
‘liberty of Zion’ and ‘redemption of Zion’ through the coming of the heavenly
Jerusalem and the kingdom of Christ.
256 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Finally, in Rom. 11:26 the quotation of Isa. 59:20 as ‘a redeemer shall come
from Sion’ is also readily explained by traditions of a messianic reign. It is
indeed sometimes, though not always, understood as reflecting expectation
of the return of Christ precisely from Jerusalem above (an interpretation
denied by Wright, 250–1, allowed as possible by Dunn, 306–7, and affirmed by
Markschies (1), 3; (2), 305; Schwemer (2), 226, 237–8). ‘From Sion’, by contrast
with mt ‘to’ or lxx ‘for the sake of ’, probably reflects Ps. 110:2 ‘The Lord shall
send the sceptre of your power from Sion: rule in the midst of your enemies’.
(Note that ‘sceptre’ in other passages could be taken as a term for the messianic
ruler, as in Gen. 49:10 and Num. 24:17 lxx, CD vii 19.) The application of this
verse from Ps. 110 is illustrated in 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), where the messiah rules
and destroys the wicked from the top of the renewed Zion (13:6–13, 35–8)—
the scene probably imagined in 1 Cor. 15:25, and discussed above at the end of
the consideration of ‘Sion built’. As noted already, in the light of Josephus on
Solomon’s prayer of dedication, the descent of the messiah from the heavenly
Zion would be consistent with 1 Thess. 4:17 ‘in the air’.
The two Isaiah quotations in Galatians and Romans therefore seem likely to
cohere with one another in sketching a messianic reign in the new Jerusalem.
Their mutual consistency is underlined by their links with the interpretative
tradition on Zion reviewed in the first part of this study, and by their setting
in Paul among a number of contacts with this tradition. Thus the contrast in
Galatians continues the biblical contrast marked especially in Solomon’s prayer,
has the intensity of future hope which is repeatedly felt in interpretation of
Exod. 15:17, and stands together with the plangent contrast in 2 Cor. 5:1–2. The
depiction of the whole scene in Galatians, from the city above to the coming
reward within and retribution outside, recalls the recreated paradisal Jerusalem
with the accursed valley outside in Isa. 65–6 and 1 En. 25–7, and the series
of ‘things prepared’ in 1 Cor. 2:9, quoted by Tertullian to crown a more lurid
depiction. Similarly, the redeemer from Zion in Romans comes like the man of
2 Esdras 13 from and with the heavenly city, and resembles the saviour expected
from the heavens where we are citizens in Phil. 3:21 and Christ coming down
from heaven in 1 Thess. 4:16–17. Paul’s expectation as reflected in Galatians
and Romans would then retain the time-honoured association between king,
city and sanctuary found in the Psalms of Solomon before him, and in the Fifth
Sibylline book later on.
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 257

Literature

P. S. Alexander, ‘The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism’, in Day (ed.), King and
Messiah, 456–73
H. W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1989)
M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem
(London, 1991)
C. K. Barrett, 1982 (1976). ‘The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in the
Argument of Galatians’, reprinted from Rechtfertigung, Festschrift für Ernst
Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen and Göttingen, 1976), 1–16 in C. K.
Barrett, Essays on Paul (London, 1982)
H. D. Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia, 1979)
E. Bickerman, ‘The Civic Prayer for Jerusalem’, reprinted from HTR lv (1962) in
E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish History, ii (Leiden, 1980), 290–312
M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (London, 1997)
M. C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and
Romans 5 (JSNT Supplement Series xxii, Sheffield, 1988)
P. M. Bogaert, L’apocalypse syriaque de Baruch (2 vols., Paris, 1969)
G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (London, 1912)
G. J. Brooke, ‘Miqdash Adam, Eden and the Qumran Community’, in Ego, Lange and
Pilhofer, with Ehlers (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 285–301
R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch translated from the Syriac (London, 1896)
P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New Haven, 1927)
M. Chyutin, The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: a Comprehensive Reconstruction
(JSP Supplement Series xxv, Sheffield, 1997)
W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1974)
J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh, 1998)
B. Ego, Im Himmel wie auf Erden: Studien zum Verhältnis von himmlischer und
irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum (WUNT ii.34, Tübingen, 1989)
B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer, with K. Ehlers (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel,
Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des
Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und
frühen Christentum (Tübingen, 1999)
I. M. Gafni, ‘ “Pre-Histories” of Jerusalem in Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian
Literature’, JSP i (1987), 5–22
F. García Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2nd
edn., 2 vols., Leiden and Grand Rapids, 2000)
H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich
untersucht (Tübingen, 1957)
258 Messianism among Jews and Christians

R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: a Commentary (Exeter, 1986)

R. Hayward, ‘The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira’, SJOT vi (1992),
123–38
S. Heid, Chiliasmus und Antichrist-Mythos: Eine frühchristliche Kontroverse um das
Heilige Land (Hereditas vi; Bonn, 1993)
M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (eds.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult
im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (Tübingen, 1991)
M. Hengel, S. Mittmann and A. M. Schwemer (eds.), La Cité de Dieu, Die Stadt Gottes
(Tübingen, 2000)
C. E. Hill (1), ‘Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28’,
NT xxx (1988), 297–320
——— (2), Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford,
1992)
W. Horbury (1), review of J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: a Critical Edition with
Commentary (Leiden, 1993), in VT xlv (1995), 398–403
W. Horbury (2), Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998)
——— (3), Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
——— (4), ‘Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen Judentum’, in Ego, Lange
and Pilhofer, with Ehlers (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 149–68
M. Kister, ‘A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira’, Tarbiz lix (1990), 303–78
J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1933)
J. C. H. Lebram, ‘Jerusalem, Wohnsitz der Weisheit’, in M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies
in Hellenistic Religions (Leiden, 1979), 103–28
L. I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and
Islam (New York, 1999)
H. Lichtenberger, ‘Zion and the Destruction of the Temple in 4 Ezra 9–10’, in Ego,
Lange and Pilhofer, with Ehlers (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 239–49
C. Markschies (1), Between Two Worlds: Structures of Earliest Christianity (1997; ET
London, 1999)
——— (2), ‘Himmlisches und irdisches Jerusalem im antiken Christentum’, in
Hengel, Mittmann and Schwemer (eds.), La Cité de Dieu, Die Stadt Gottes, 303–50
J. L. Martyn, Galatians (Anchor Bible xxxiiiA, New York, 1997)
R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple (Oxford, 1969)
L. Perrone, ‘ “The Mystery of Judaea” (Jerome, Ep. 46): the Holy City of Jerusalem
between History and Symbol in Early Christian Thought’, in Levine (ed.),
Jerusalem, 221–39
M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives
(Kampen, 1996)
J. Potter (ed.), Clementis Alexandrini Opera (2 vols., Oxford, 1705)
 Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope 259

E. Puech (1), La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie
éternelle? (2 vols., Paris, 1993)
——— (2), Qumrân Grotte 4.xviii, Textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579
(DJD xxv, Oxford, 1998)
J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, ‘Visions of the Temple in the Book of Jubilees’, in Ego, Lange
and Pilhofer, with Ehlers (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 215–27
E. P. Sanders, ‘Jerusalem and its Temple in Early Christian Thought and Practice’, in
Levine (ed.), Jerusalem, 90–103
S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus
from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection presented to the
University of Cambridge by the Editors (Cambridge, 1899)
E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (new ET, revised
and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, M. Black and P. Vermes), i, ii,
iii.1, iii. 2 (Edinburgh, 1973, 1979, 1986, 1987)
D. R. Schwartz (1), ‘The Three Temples of 4Q Florilegium’, Revue de Qumran x
(1979), 83–91
——— (2), ‘Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?’, in
Poorthuis and Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem, 114–27
A. M. Schwemer (1), ‘Irdischer und himmlischer König. Beobachtungen zur
sogenannten David-Apokalypse in Hekhalot Rabbati 122–126’, in Hengel and
Schwemer (eds.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, 309–59
——— (2), ‘Himmlische Stadt und himmlischer Bürgerrecht bei Paulus (Gal 4:26
und Phil 3:20)’, in Hengel, Mittmann and Schwemer (eds.), La Cité de Dieu, Die
Stadt Gottes, 195–243
M. Z. (H.) Segal, Sepher Ben Sira ha-shalem (2nd edn., Jerusalem, 1958)
P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (New York, 1987)
R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin, 1906)
M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1990)
G. G. Stroumsa, ‘Mystical Jerusalems’, in G. G. Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy: the
Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (Tübingen, 1999), 294–314
B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS xxxii,
Leipzig, 1924)
M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: the Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the
Israelites (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1993)
R. L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New
Haven and London, 1992)
N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh, 1991)
 7

The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle

to the Hebrews

Hebrews 7:5 treats tithe with an actuality which is noted by historians, but
is on the whole undeveloped in study of the background of the epistle.
Tithing, the commandments upon which formed the very essence of the
law according to one rabbinic dictum (Shabb. 32a, in the name of Simeon
b. Gamaliel), receives more discussion in Hebrews 7 than anywhere else
in the New Testament—‘and that is not much’ (Morton Smith, 353, n. 8);
but even this little sets a query against estimates of the author, offered in
different ways by Moffatt and by Käsemann and his followers, as one who
knew the levitical priesthood through his Bible rather than contemporary
Judaism.
The view is here advanced for consideration that Jewish development
of the biblical teachings on the priesthood had a formative influence on
the epistle, both in its treatment of Jewish practice and in its fundamental
and distinctive arguments concerning the priesthood of Christ. Some
Jewish texts on the priesthood are accordingly compared with Hebrews
on two points of tithe and ritual (section II, below), on the interrelation of
law and priesthood in Heb. 7–8 (III), and on the figure of the high priest
in Heb. 2:17–3:1, 4:14–5:10 (IV). It will aid their evaluation if a general
characterization of the Jewish outlook ascribed to the writer of the epistle is
first outlined (section I, below), even though this must depend for support
to a considerable degree on the particular instances which follow.1

1
The writer is much indebted to Professor C. F. D. Moule for his comments on an earlier draft.
Writings cited by author’s name are listed at the end.
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 261

The view here envisaged as formative for the author of Hebrews can be
described either as a first-century constitutional theory (Roth (2), 297–301), or
as one type of Jewish ‘doctrine of the church’ (Baumbach, 33–6); it comprises
both, for it is, more loosely defined, a Judaism within which the body of ideas
biblically associated with the sons of Aaron is primary. As political theory it
was given the name ‘theocracy’ by Josephus (Ap. 2.165); he imagined it being
put to Pompey in the words ‘the ancestral custom is to obey the priests of
the God whom we worship’ (Ant. xiv 41), although with Deut. 17 he himself
allowed a place, if the nation should not be content with God alone as their
ruler, for a king who should do nothing without the high priest and the advice
of the elders (Ant. iv 223f.). Still in the theoretical sphere, the influence of the
view is evident when Philo treats the high priest as the ‘principal part’ in the
body politic (Spec. Leg. 3.131; cf. Somn. 2.187); its aspect as an ecclesiastical
polity begins to appear when the high priest prays for the whole systema of the
Jews (2 Macc. 15:12). In practice it initially moulded the independent Jewish
government of the First Revolt (Roth (2)), and it left its impress in the legend
‘Eleazar the priest’ on the coins of the Second; it was formative both for Josephus
and his militant adversaries (Lebram, 253). Passages supporting priestly
hegemony, especially in Jubilees and the Testament of Levi, have often been
linked (as by Charles on Jub. 31:15) with the special claims of John Hyrcanus;
but they are equally applicable to the whole Hasmonaean succession (Bammel,
col. 353). In fact, as the pre-eminence of Aaron and Phinehas in Ecclus. 45
shows—and also the account of Jewish hierocracy given by Diodorus Siculus
from Hecataeus of Abdera (Bar-Kochva, 18–43), although it is dated to the
reign of John Hyrcanus by Lebram (246–8)—these ideas have pre-Maccabaean
roots. Josephus’ term ‘theocracy’ has long been rightly applied to the polity of
P, wherein Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the priest, at whose word Israel
shall go out and come in, and the high priest’s death marks an epoch (Num.
27:21, 35:28; discussed by Wellhausen, 149–51).
In this theocratic understanding ‘the polity of Israel’ (Eph. 2:12) is of course
at the same time an ecclesiastical polity whereby God’s word is declared and
Israel is cleansed from sin. The priest is ‘the messenger of the Lord of hosts’
(Mal. 2:7, perhaps echoed in Diodorus’ Hecataeus, 5 [see Stern, i, 31]);
262 Messianism among Jews and Christians

and the high priest ‘shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the
people of the congregation’ (Lev. 16:33). The more than national scope of the
reconciliation ascribed to his ministry well emerges in the cosmic interpretation
of his garments; ‘in the long robe is the whole world’ (Wisd. 18:24), and,
correspondingly, ‘the high priest of the Jews offers prayers and thanksgivings
not only on behalf of the whole race of men, but also on behalf of the elements
of nature, earth, water, air and fire’ (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.97). This fundamental
point is made in various ways in Philo, Josephus and Wisdom (Goodenough,
99, 120); its centrality in ancient Judaism is confirmed by the early synagogal
poetry of the Day of Atonement. Here, in Yose ben Yose (probably fifth
century), the robe of blue is ‘like the brightness of the firmament’ (Yose, ʿazkhir
geburoth, 165, in Mirsky, 155; so also Josephus, Ant. iii 184); and the thought
that the temple-service stabilizes creation, well-known from rabbinic sources,
is reflected in the customary subject-matter of the poems (Pesikta de-Rav
Kahana 1.4f., on Num. 7:1, discussed with parallels in Horbury, 167; = 349,
below). The theocracy of the sons of Aaron was thus conceived as mediating
divine rule in no attenuated sense.
The writer to the Hebrews would thus be seen as profoundly influenced,
like Josephus and Philo, by the theologico-political ideas of the Pentateuchal
‘theocracy’. For the sake of clarity this view should be related to other
assessments of his outlook (surveyed by H. Anderson since the first publication
of this essay, with similar affirmation of the widespread ancient Jewish witness
to relevant views, but special emphasis on the apocalypses and 4 Maccabees).
First, the assessment of the outlook of Hebrews offered here is compatible with
the data taken especially seriously by Moffatt, that the author of the epistle was
an able writer of Greek and a student of the Septuagint; for the Pentateuchal
sacerdotalism was developed in the Septuagint and in Jewish writings current
in Greek from Aristeas to Josephus. By contrast with Moffatt, however, and
with Käsemann’s attribution of the high-priestly theme to Christian liturgy
indebted, like Philo, to a gnostically-recoined Jewish messianism (Käsemann,
107f., 124–40), the writer to the Hebrews is envisaged here not as a scholarly
Hellenist tout court, who had nothing to do with contemporary Judaism, but
as one who was in touch, like Philo and Josephus, with a living Jewish faith.
This view would not, however, be incompatible with the supposition that he
was indebted to Christian tradition in the manner suggested by C. J. A. Hickling,
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 263

in a consideration of striking resemblances between Heb. 2 and Johannine

thought and style; for on this suggestion, by contrast with those of Moffatt
and Käsemann, it is envisaged that the theology of both John and Hebrews
could derive from an element in the first-century Christian population which
was ‘closely in touch with educated Greek-speaking Judaism’ (Hickling, 115).
The present writer would simply underline the closeness and directness of the
contact with Jewry to be presumed in the case of the author of Hebrews.
In the light of G. F. Moore’s work A. C. Purdy long ago argued, against
Moffatt on the one side and the appeal to some unusual, distinctive type of
Judaism on the other, that Hebrews on priesthood and sacrifice was ‘dealing
with a problem which was yet alive in normative Judaism’ (Purdy, 264;
italicization added). The label ‘normative’ is perhaps better avoided, for in
the context of a reference to Moore it may seem to imply that first-century
Judaism is to be judged anachronistically from the standpoint of tannaitic
literature alone. The present writer, holding like Purdy that the common
traditions of Jewry are the most relevant in this case, would rather associate
the Pentateuchal faith reflected in the Greek of Hebrews with a phrase of
Solomon Schechter, as adapted by J. H. A. Hart to evoke the substantial
community of thought between Philo and Palestinian Jewry: ‘the catholic
Judaism of the first century’.
Secondly, therefore, such a view as is here advanced differs from two more
recent placings of the author against a Jewish background, those which set him
either among the Qumran sectaries or among the early merkhabah mystics. In
each case, as it seems to the present writer, ideas which Hebrews derives from
the common stock of Jewry are mistakenly thought to indicate a link with
restricted Jewish groups. Thus the sacerdotalism of Qumran, well brought out
in connection with Hebrews by Kosmala (11–13, 76–96), is simply one striking
instance of the Pentateuchally-rooted thought already noted; G. R. Driver, 543,
judges that the comparable set of parallels adduced by Y. Yadin reflects the
common debt of Hebrews and Qumran to more widespread Jewish tradition.
Similarly, the strength of a comparison with merkhabah mysticism lies not in
kinship between Hebrews and esotericism, but in the likelihood, clearly shown
with regard to Hebrews by Hofius, that the Hekhaloth texts and 3 Enoch
preserve earlier and more widely-attested features of Jewish cosmography. Such
significant themes for Hebrews as the heavenly ascent and the angelic liturgy
264 Messianism among Jews and Christians

are treated in the Hekhaloth, as is emphasized by Schäfer (202, 205f., 215–18,

223–5), in much the same way as in the midrash and the pseudepigrapha.
The descriptions of heaven in the later mystical texts are probably indebted,
by way of a lengthy transmission, to biblical exegesis connected with the
temple-service (Hofius, 12); the heavenly sanctuary (Exod. 25:40, 26:30)
and its service appear in pre-rabbinic as well as rabbinic texts (Test. Levi 3;
Meg. 12b; further texts in Wenschkewitz, 45–9, and Hofius, 13–15, 18f.); and
the association of such exegesis with the sons of Aaron is suggested both by
the cosmic interpretation of their vesture, noted above, and by the mention
of levitical ancestry, in accounts of heavenly ascents, as a qualification for
admission to the vision (Moses, in Pesikta Rabbathi 20.11 [Grözinger, 145–7];
R. Ishmael, in 3 En. 1.3, 2.3).
On the other hand, although some continuous tradition probably links
pre-rabbinic apocalyptic visionaries with the early tannaitic mystics and the
later yoredhe merkhabah of the Hekhaloth texts, Hebrews should perhaps be
read as representing a more broadly corporate outlook on visionary tradition.
The distinction between elementary and advanced teaching, in Heb. 5:12–6:2,
need not be associated specially with ‘ancient Jewish merkhabah-esotericism’,
as by Hofius, 74. The relatively reticent allusions in Hebrews to the heavenly
sanctuary and its service, and the general admission of the brotherhood to the
city of God (12:22), contrast with the more explicit Hekhaloth descriptions of
the several heavens, and their inaccessibility to all but the privileged mystic;
there are no accounts of visions in Hebrews, whether apocalyptic or Philonic
(Michel, 557; Moffatt, lv). Yet the writer links liturgy and mystical piety, and
seems near to Philo’s view that approach to the divine is open to the righteous
(Horbury, ‘Benjamin’, 748–9). The hints of an approved method of study and
prayer in the later texts, which correspond to their association with esoteric
teaching in select groups (Alexander, 167–72), contrast with the intensely moral
and more broadly corporate character of the brotherly exhortation to draw
near in Hebrews. As a homiletic composition for members of a worshipping
body Hebrews probably has less in common with the Hekhaloth texts than
with the Dura-Europos synagogue mural, c. a.d. 245, of Aaron beside a temple
with the striking detail of an open sanctuary (Schubert, 45–7).
Akin to these suggestions of a sectarian or esoteric setting is the
identification of the addressees as ‘Christians from a “dissenting Hebrew”
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 265

background’—perhaps from ‘a dissenting synagogue in Rome’—for

whom the Jerusalem temple is not an experienced reality’ (Murray, 205).
On this proposal, part of a stimulating attempt to clarify discussion of
ancient Judaism, ‘Jews’ would be differentiated from ‘dissenting Hebrews’
by the touchstone of loyalty to the Jerusalem temple. ‘Hebrews’ would
define themselves by their ‘dissent’ from this loyalty. Their antecedents, it
is suggested, are in the circles represented by Enoch; in the first century
a.d. they included Samaritans and Qumran sectarians; and some New
Testament books, the Epistle to the Hebrews among them, accordingly
reflect a ‘dissenting Hebrew’ background.
Welcome as is the proposal to discriminate on the basis of so clearly
fundamental an institution as the temple, it must be asked whether these
suggestions do not conjure up far more ‘dissent’ than the evidence warrants.
1 Enoch on the temple need not have been inconsistent with loyalty to
Jerusalem (compare pp. 223, 244–5, above). Further, the two groups definitely
assigned to the dissenting class, the Samaritans and the Qumran sectaries,
are united by this suggestion in a manner which they themselves might not
have welcomed. Samaritans held that Gerizim rather than Zion was the holy
hill, but the Qumran texts seem to attest full conviction of the election of
Zion, and to accept temple and priesthood as divinely appointed, simply
criticizing the priests who in fact officiate; the authors of these texts have
more in common with the ‘Jews’ of the hypothesis than with the ‘Hebrews’.
The Judaism of the period therefore offers a considerably less commodious
foothold for ascription of the Epistle to sectarians than these proposals would
suggest.
The catholicity in Judaism of the theocratic view here suggested as formative
for the thought of the epistle is confirmed not only by its Pentateuchal basis, but
also by its abiding influence after a.d. 70 both in Palestine and the Diaspora.
In the Jamnian period the priesthood of Palestine was still judicially and
politically important, with a place in messianic hopes which seemed close to
realization (Alon, 318–23; Gereboff, 248f., 449f.; for the priesthood as a body
in messianic hope, 2 Baruch 68:5; Hullin 92a, quoted at the close of section III,
below); the Eighteen Benedictions significantly end with the Aaronic blessing,
long reserved for pronunciation by the priests alone (Hoffmann, 54f.). In the
same epoch Josephus made the fate of the sacerdotal polity one of the two
266 Messianism among Jews and Christians

great themes of his Antiquities (1.5), and defended it in contra Apionem as

a true theocracy. The vitality of levitical ideas in the early church appears,
probably independently of Hebrews, in 1 Clement (Jaubert, 198–200, 202f.);
the phenomenon may not be unconnected with contemporary Judaism, for it
has often been noticed that Jewish inscriptions, both from Palestine and the
Greek-speaking Diaspora, attest the kudos of priestly descent (Wenschkewitz,
39, n. 3 [the Jewish catacomb of Monteverde]; J. Z. Smith, 16f. [Rome and
Beth She’arim]; Kraabel, 84 [Sardis and Dura]). Examples from the Second
Temple period, mainly but not solely giving names of women of priestly
descent, include Semitic-language and Greek ossuary inscriptions from the
Jerusalem region (Milik no. 22 = CIIP 183 [Menahem of the sons of Jachim,
cf. 1 Chron. 24:17]; Rahmani no. 871 = CIIP 534 [Jehohannah, grand-daughter
of Theophilus the high priest]; Ilan no. 8 = CIIP 297 [Megiste hierisa; Greek,
from Aceldama]), and an Egyptian epitaph of 27 b.c. in Greek (Marin hierisa)
from Tell el-Yehoudieh, ancient Leontopolis (CIJ 1514 = JIGRE 84).
In the Mishnah, however, the triple concern of Leviticus with sanctuary,
sacrifice and priesthood is strikingly modified in Seder Qodashim, as Jacob
Neusner notes, by a silence on the priesthood; this Order of the Mishnah
continues with the two other subjects of Leviticus, and Hebrews heightens
the contrast between Bible and Mishnah by its own continuance with all
three (Neusner (1), 21f., 37, 43f.). Yet this silence is likely to betoken, not
the insignificance of the priesthood, but reserve towards its claims, which
retained, as noted in the foregoing paragraph, a political as well as an
ecclesiastical aspect. The abiding importance of the priesthood is suggested
by the attention paid to priestly genealogy in another Order of the Mishnah,
Nashim. Strong interest in the subject evidently persisted both in the
Jamnian period and, after Bar Cocheba, at Usha, this despite the hostility
to priestly exclusiveness in contracting marriages evinced in traditions
attributed to Johanan ben Zaccai and his pupil Joshua ben Hananiah
(Eduyoth 8:3; Yebamoth 15b; Büchler, 20, 22). The reason, Neusner suggests,
is concern that the coming restoration of the cult should not be impeded by
inadequate genealogical care of the priesthood (Neusner (2), v, 197). The
later Palestinian inscriptions of the priestly courses, comparably, show the
importance of the priesthood for synagogue worshippers, as is independently
indicated by the Targums, the early homiletic midrashim, and early liturgical
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 267

poetry (Horbury, 167, 179; = 312, 324, below). The Aaronic mural is by no
means isolated as regards the thought which it suggests. It is this body of
theocratic thought and practice, biblical in its roots, catholic in its attestation
throughout ancient Jewry, which is here suggested as the background of the
argument of Hebrews.

II

The possibility that the writer to the Hebrews knew priestly tradition seems
especially strong when he diverges from the Pentateuch on practical points
of administration and ritual, yet in his divergence approaches post-biblical
Jewish sources. One such divergence is the seemingly difficult statement of
the law of tithe in 7:5, already mentioned. ‘They of the sons of Levi that receive
the priest’s office have commandment to take tithes of the people’; but the
commandment in question, Num. 18:21, assigns tithe to all the levitical tribe,
not just to its priestly members. The priests are not commanded to tithe ‘the
people’ directly; they are entitled to a further tithe out of the levitical tithe
(Num. 18:26–28) as well as to first fruits (Rom. 11:16) and sacrificial portions
(1 Cor. 9:13; Heb. 13:10); but the tithe itself goes to all ‘the sons of Levi’.
The unexpected wording may arise because the author is thinking first
and foremost of priests (6:20; 7:1, 3), and only now does descent from Levi
become significant. Even so, there remains an awkwardness which led one
commentator conversant with rabbinic texts to conjecture lewin for laon,
so as to obtain a straightforward reference to the priestly ‘tithe of the tithe’
(Biesenthal, 184–7). The difficulty seems best explained from the practice,
with which the passage was associated by Jeremias (106) and Stern (41f.),
whereby tithe had long been paid directly to the priest. By contrast with
the Pentateuch, Neh. 10:38 significantly adds that the Aaronic priest is to
accompany the Levite when he takes tithe. Josephus once says simply that
tithe is due to the Levites (Ant. iv 240), but he also summarizes Num. 18:21
with the expansion (not in the Targum) that tithe is due from ‘the people’
(laos, as Heb. 7:5) ‘to the Levites themselves and to the priests’ (Ant. iv 68; cf.
4:205 ‘to the priests and Levites’). Josephus also reports the ‘edicts of Caesar’
which assign tithe to Hyrcanus and the priests (Ant. xiv 203); his Hecataeus
268 Messianism among Jews and Christians

speaks of ‘priests of the Jews who receive a tithe of the revenue and administer
public affairs’ (Ap. 1:188, perhaps reflecting Hasmonaean usage [Bar-Kochva,
159–60]); and he himself, Nehemiah-like, contrasts the profit made from
tithes in Galilee by his priestly colleagues with his own refusal to accept tithes
he could have claimed (Vita, 63, 80). Tithe is due to the priest, and the Levite
is not mentioned at all, in Jud. 11:13–15, Tobit 1:6–8, and Jub. 13:25–27,
32:15. Philo, however (see Leonhardt, 201–7), once clearly describes tithe as
the due of the Levite in particular (Spec. Leg. 1:156f.), and knows the ‘tithe of
the tithe’ (Det. 2), although he once mentions tithe more ambiguously among
the first fruits due tois hieromenois (Virt. 95)—a word which he uses for
priestly and non-priestly Levites together (Mos. 2.174). According to rabbinic
texts the matter was debated in the Jamnian period; against those, including
Akiba, who maintain the letter of Num. 18:21, Eleazar b. Azariah upholds
its interpretation as a grant of tithe to the priest; Ezra punished the Levites
by taking it from them (Ket. 26a, discussed by Zahavy, 30–4). The difficulty
is plaintively evoked in a comment on Hyrcanus’ abolition of the confession
at the presentation of tithes (Soṭah 9:10): ‘The Merciful One said that they
should give them to the Levites, whereas in fact we give them to the priests’
(Soṭah 47b–48a).
In his comment on Heb. 7:5 P. E. Hughes rejects the explanation from
contemporary practice, for the allusion to the priests among the Levites fits
the author’s context, as noted above, and he normally draws simply on the
Old Testament; but the latter point is debatable, and the contextual solution
does not do full justice to the awkwardness of verse 5 as a simple summary of
the specifically mentioned ‘commandment’, or its resemblance to the equally
awkward summaries of Josephus and Eleazar b. Azariah.
A second instance comes from the series of unexpected summaries of the
Pentateuch in Heb. 9. In verse 13 ‘the blood of goats and bulls’ from the Day
of Atonement (Lev. 16:5f.) is linked with ‘the ashes’ of the Red Heifer (Num.
19:17–22), which in the Bible has ‘no connexion whatever with atonement-
day’ (Moffatt, 122). A post-biblical connection, however, is rightly envisaged
by Michel, 313, on the basis of Maimonides’ account of the Day, quoted by
Delitzsch, and first-century reports that the high priest slays the Heifer
(Josephus, Ant. iv 79) and sprinkles its blood (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1:268); he had
already referred to the link made between the Heifer and the Day in Yoma 1a
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 269

(Michel, 168). The connection can also be confirmed from the Mishnah, which
records that the priest set apart for the Day of Atonement was sprinkled from
the ashes of the Heifer (Parah 3.1, in the name of the first-century Hanina,
Prefect of the Priests). This rite is celebrated in the poetry of the Day:

They sanctified him and cleansed him from sin with the waters of
separation,
answering to the sin-cleansing with blood and the oil of anointing

(Yose, ʾattah konanta ʿolam be -rob ḥesed, 76; Mirsky, 183, compares jYoma
1.1, 48c). The sprinkling with the waters mingled from the ashes is here
regarded as equivalent to Aaron’s purification with blood and oil (Exod. 29:21,
the order of which is followed; the parallel Lev. 8:30 mentions the oil first); the
seven days’ consecration of Aaron and his sons is treated as the pattern of the
high priest’s preparation for the Day. Seven days’ preparation was also required
before the burning of the Heifer (Parah 3.1). The procedure, like that of the Day
of Atonement, was hotly disputed between Pharisees and Sadducces (Bowker,
57–62, with translations of the rabbinic texts). The association of the two rites
in Heb. 9:13 thus probably reflects not unconcern over details of the cult (so
Daly, 272f.), and not (only) the exigencies of argument (so N. H. Young, 205),
but first-century understanding of the Day of Atonement.
Other passages, of which we cannot now speak particularly, might well
reward study on these lines. Here there is only room to note, more generally,
that the Pentateuchal interpretations just compared with Hebrews discourage
a rigid antithesis between biblical and contemporary knowledge in the author.
Josephus’ treatments of Num. 18:21, one according to the letter, two others
adapted to the practice which he knew from his own experience as a priest,
show especially clearly that a Jewish writer could expound the Septuagint
without any allusion to contemporary Jewish usage which he undoubtedly
knew. Similarly, an interest in the vanished tabernacle, as displayed in the
halakhic literature of the Day of Atonement, by no means necessarily implies
neglect of the present. Hence it cannot be assumed so unquestioningly as by
Moffatt, 114–16, or Schenke, 426 (on the basis of 9.1–5), that the writer to
the Hebrews was poorly acquainted with the temple. As examination of 7.5
and 9.13 has suggested, his Septuagintal exposition is not incompatible with
knowledge of sacerdotal practice.
270 Messianism among Jews and Christians

III

The priestly ideology bound up with practice emerges, it may be suggested,

in two broad aspects of the argument of Heb. 7–8. The first is the significance
of ‘Levi’ (7:5, 9), introduced when the author’s real interest is in ‘the levitical
priesthood’ (7:11). The awkwardness of this potential inclusion of Levites in an
argument about priests, already noted from 7:5 on tithe, can be appreciated
further in the light of the Levites’ request in a.d. 62 for greater recognition
over against the priests; the concession of their demands was characteristically
viewed by Josephus as a national transgression which could not be expected
to go unpunished (Ant. xx 216–18, discussed by Meyer, col. 727). The writer
to the Hebrews is carried over this awkwardness by his biblical view of ‘the
covenant of Levi’ as the covenant of the priests (Mal. 2:1–10).
It is a familiar fact that in the Pentateuch as now preserved the Levites, ‘given
to Aaron and his sons’ (Num. 8:19; cf. 3:9, 18:6), take second place to the priests,
whose appointment and dues are mentioned first (Exod. 28–30, 40:12–16,
and Lev. 8; Num. 3:1–4 [priests] before Num. 3:5–13 and Num. 8 [Levites];
Num. 18:1 and 6 [priests] enclosing Num. 18:2–5 [Levites]; Deut. 10:6 [Eleazar
succeeds Aaron] before Deut. 10:8f. [separation of Levites]; Num. 18:8–20 and
Deut. 18:3–5 [priestly dues] before Num. 18:21–4 and Deut. 18:6–8 [Levites’
portion]). The notable descendants of Levi (Exod. 6:16–27) are Aaron and
Moses (in that order, verses 20 and 26), Eleazar, and Phinehas—who received
‘the covenant of an everlasting priesthood’ (Num. 25:12f., quoted in Ecclus
45:24; 1 Macc. 2:54). This Aaronic view of Levi is encouraged by his blessing
(Deut. 33:8–11), for it mentions the distinctively priestly prerogatives of Urim
and Thummim, legal interpretation, incense-offering and whole-offering. The
Pentateuchal presentation could be epitomized by Num. 17:3 (18) ‘Thou shalt
write Aaron’s name upon the rod of Levi’.
That Aaron’s adoption of Levi’s tithe simply continues this Pentateuchal
tendency was recognized by Wellhausen (165–7). Two further consequences
of its continuation are manifest in later sources and relevant to Hebrews.
First, Levi becomes above all the patriarch of the priests (Ecclus. 45:6, 17;
Jub. 31:16f., 32:1–15; Test. Levi 2–5, 8–12, 14–18; Joseph and Asenath 28:15
[blessing by Levi]); the Exodus 6 genealogy influences both the Aramaic
Testament of Levi (as shown by Becker, 96–9) and the late third century b.c.
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 271

Jewish chronographer Demetrius, who traces Levi’s progeny down to ‘Aaron

and Moses’ (Demetrius, quoted from Alexander Polyhistor by Eusebius,
Pr. Ev. 9.21; fragment 2 in Freudenthal, 222). The climax of this development
is the Day of Atonement poetry already quoted, in which the narrative of the
high priest’s duties is introduced by praise of Levi and his descendants, once
again patterned after the genealogy of Exod. 6:16–27. In Hebrews ‘Moses said
nothing about priests’ to the tribe of Judah (7:14); but he did (it is implied) to
the tribe of Levi, repeatedly mentioned since 7:5. This is probably an implied
allusion to Moses’ blessing of Levi (Deut. 33:8–11), viewed with Ecclus. 45:17
(echo), 4Q Testimonia, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (see this section, below)
as part of the credentials of the Aaronic priesthood.
A second consequence is the mention of priests in addition to or in place
of Levites. Where the Bible speaks of Levites only, a later source may add the
priests (Num. 1:53 with Josephus, Ant. iii 190; Ezra 8:15, 17 with 1 Esd. 8:42,
46). On the other hand, the nation may be divided into priests and people only,
with no separate mention of Levites, although the high priest may be singled
out additionally (Lev. 16:33, quoted above; Ecclus. 50:13 (‘the sons of Aaron’
and ‘all the congregation of Israel’); Bar. 1:17 (high priest, priests and people);
1 Macc. 14:41, 47 (‘the Jews and priests’); 1 Macc. 14:44 (‘the people’ and
‘priests’); ‘Aaron’ and ‘Israel’ (1QS viii, and often in Qumran texts); Yoma 7.1 and
Soṭah 7.7f. (separate benedictions for ‘the priests’ and ‘Israel’). Lastly, the high
priest alone may be distinguished (Num. 27:19, 22, from the congregation, when
Moses lays hands on Joshua; Ecclus. 50:20, from the congregation, in blessing;
2 Macc. 15:12, from the systema [see section I, above]; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.131,
from the ethnos). In these same ways, in Hebrews, priests are added to Levites, or
rather substituted for them (7:5); the priesthood alone is differentiated from the
people (7:11); and the high priest alone is distinguished (7:27; cf. 2:17, 5:3, 9:7).
Hebrews therefore shares in biblical exegesis and constitutional language
which shows the influence of developments of the Aaronic view of Levi found
in the Pentateuch. The references to Levi rather than Aaron in chapter 7 are
not a sign of polemical alignment with Test. Levi 18 (as suggested by Spicq, II,
124f.). Equally, Philo’s association of the patriarch with the Levites (e.g. Det.
63–7) is not reflected in the epistle. Levi was probably simply introduced into
the argument of priests without hesitation, because the writer had inherited
the priestly view.
272 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The larger argument within which Levi appears (6:20–8:13) has other
presuppositions comparable with those of the theocracy. Christ being
high priest (6:20), both the levitical ministry, and the law of Moses which
presupposes it (7:11f.), are antiquated; he who has obtained a more excellent
ministry is also the mediator of a better covenant (8:6). In this train of thought
Moses’ law and Aaron’s priesthood are viewed as interdependent, and a high
priest whose ministry supersedes that of Aaron is also considered able to
mediate a covenant superseding that obtained by Moses.
The law, however, according to G. Hughes (15–19), has logical precedence
over the priesthood in this argument; for tithe is ‘according to the law’ (7:5),
‘Moses spoke’ concerning those who are priests ‘according to the law of a
carnal commandment’ (7:14, 16; cf. 7:28), and this primacy of law corresponds
to the author’s fundamental concern with God’s ‘address’ to men (1:1f.).
This interpretation seizes a vital strand of the author’s thought, his conviction
that God ‘has spoken’, but seems not fully to reckon with his treatment of
Christ’s priesthood (6:20) as axiomatic, the supersession of both law and
covenant being made to follow from it; Moffatt could take 7:12 as indicating
that, in the author’s whole outlook, ‘the covenant or law is subordinated to the
priesthood’ (xl; cf. 96, 103). Further, God’s address in time past is probably
not to be identified solely with the law; it was also heard in the call of God to
Aaron (5:4–6, 9:4), comparable for the author with the divine appointment of
Christ (5:5f.; cf. 1:2), and giving rise to a single ‘levitical institution’ (Nairne,
lxvii) wherein law and priesthood are co-ordinate. Thus it may be said either
that ‘the law makes men high priests’ (7:28) or, from the other side, that the
levitical priests ‘have a commandment’, one of their privileges (7:5); again,
the law should make perfect (7:19), yet this should come about through the
priestly ministration (7:11, 10:1). Indeed, the law is subordinate in the sense
that it does depend upon the levitical ministry (7:11f.); that ‘Moses said
nothing about priests’ with regard to Judah (7:14) is mentioned not because of
the primacy of the law, but in order to clarify the statement that a change of law
follows from a change of priesthood (7:12), the point which becomes ‘yet more
abundantly evident’ from Christ’s eternal priesthood (7:15f.).
It is therefore legitimate to recognize, in the thought of Hebrews, the
interdependence of priesthood and law, and the decisive importance of the
high priest in the whole levitical institution. These convictions have obvious
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 273

Pentateuchal roots. Only after calling Aaron (Exod. 28:1) does God reveal the
priestly laws directing ‘Aaron’ (Exod. 28:14, etc.) in the closing chapters of
Exodus, in Leviticus, ‘the law of the priests’ in rabbinic as well as Septuagintal
parlance, and in Numbers. In Josephus’ paraphrase the choice of Aaron by
divine revelation (Ant. iii 188) is the prelude to consecration of tabernacle
and priests, and an account of the sacrifices, offerings and laws of purity. By
a partly comparable conception, Levi is designated priest in Jacob’s vision
(Test. Levi 9:3); Isaac then teaches him ‘the law of the priesthood’ on sacrifices
and offerings (Test. Levi 9:7) or ‘the judgment of the priesthood’ concerning
purity laws (Aramaic and Greek fragments in Charles (2), 247 [the Greek is
translated from a Semitic language, the Aramaic itself possibly descends from a
Hebrew original, according to Becker, 72f.]; context favours the interpretation
of ‘judgment’ [din, krisis] as ‘law’ rather than [as suggested by Charles (2),
lv, with reference to Deut. 18:3 mišpāṭ] ‘priestly due’). In this passage, judged
by Becker to derive ultimately from a pre-Christian oral source later than
Jubilees (Becker, 91–3, 103f.), the laws already exist (Test. Levi 9:6), and are
probably thought to be those communicated to Isaac in Jub. 21; but they find
their application when God calls his priest, and Jacob’s dream, confirming the
two visions granted to Levi himself, underlines the independent importance of
God’s call. Its significance in the case of Aaron, already clear in the Pentateuch,
is further brought out by Josephus; in Amram’s dream it is revealed that Aaron
and his descendants will hold God’s priesthood for ever, and the stories of
Korah, Dathan and Abiram and the blossoming rod show that Aaron was
‘thrice elected by God’ (Ant. ii 216, iv 66). God’s choice of Aaron is similarly
emphasized in 1 Clem. 43. In the Pentateuch and Josephus the priestly laws,
envisaged as given for the first time, appear as a consequence of Aaron’s call
These accounts of the institution of the priestly line confirm that Aaron’s
call is likely to carry significant weight in Hebrews. They also illuminate the
interdependence of law and priesthood, and the viewpoint from which the
law could seem subordinate. Such a view of the law is further encouraged
by its association with the tabernacle (Exod. 25:22; Num. 7:89). Josephus
emphasizes this, abridging Exod. 19–32 so as to draw the gift of the law into
close connection with the promise of God’s parousia in the tabernacle (Ant.
iii 202). Moses is given two summary statements, neither of which is fully
paralleled in the Bible. On return from the mount when the decalogue is given,
274 Messianism among Jews and Christians

he says that God has declared to the Hebrews a blessed manner of life and
the order (kosmos) of a polity, and has announced his imminent arrival in
the camp (iii 84; warnings against the overthrow of this ‘order’, Ant. iv 193,
292, 312). Secondly, on return from the forty days in the cloud, the episode of
the Golden Calf being omitted, Moses says to the people that God has shown
him their polity, and has desired that a tabernacle should be made for him,
indicating its measurements and fashion; Moses then displays the tables of the
commandments (Ant. iii 99–101). After the consecration of the tabernacle and
its ministers, Moses writes out the book containing the polity and the laws from
instruction received during visits to the tabernacle, as Exod. 25:22 suggests
(Ant. iii 212, 232); finally, as noted in Deut. 31:9, he hands over the book to the
priests (Ant. iv 304). Thus Josephus associates the ‘polity’, one of his two great
themes (Ant. i 5), with the divine presence in the tabernacle; for the revelation
of the political kosmos begun on Sinai is continued ‘from above the mercy seat’
(Exod. 25:22). Hence, whereas Aaron, Nadab and Abihu only ‘see God’ on the
mount by an exceptional grace (Exod. 24:1f., 9–11), in the tabernacle Moses
receives the continuation of the Sinaitic oracles by an access which is their
normal priestly privilege. Aaron’s successors continue to approach the mercy
seat whence the laws were given (Lev. 16:2), and have custody of the book
containing them. Josephus’ association of law and tabernacle is therefore also,
in this respect, an association of law and priesthood, with the implication that
the priest is the law’s uniquely empowered interpreter (cf. B.J. iii.352).
Levi’s blessing makes this implication explicit, for he is given Urim and
Thummim and the commission to teach the law (Deut. 33:8, 10). The priest with
Urim and Thummim is ‘enlightening’ (Neh. 7:65, lxx; Bammel, col. 356); and
this interpretation of Urim is linked with the teaching office of verse 10 in the
quotation of Levi’s blessing in 4Q175 (Testimonia), line 17 (weyāʾîrû ‘and they
shall enlighten’ for mt yôrû ‘they shall teach’). Qumran again reproduces a more
widespread exegesis, for the Septuagint has dēloi for Urim (verse 8), echoed by
dēlōsousin (verse 10). The long tradition on the Urim is described by Bammel, cols.
351–5; the corresponding tradition of the teaching priest is equally fundamental
to the theocracy. Its prominent Pentateuchal and prophetic basis (e.g. Lev. 10:10f.;
Deut. 17:8–12, 21:5, 33:8–11; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 44:23f.; Mal. 2:6f.) supports the
descriptions of the high priest as the ‘messenger of the commandments of God’
(cf. Mal. 2:7), in the Hecataeus of Diodorus Siculus (section I, above), and of the
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 275

priests as charged with the administration of public affairs, in the Hecatacus of

Josephus (Ap. i.188, quoted in section II, above). Josephus himself regards it as
the glory of the Jewish polity that the priests exercise an ‘exact supervision of
the law’ as judges and exactors of penalties; the high priest in particular, with
his fellow-priests, ‘will sacrifice to God, guard the laws, adjudicate in matters of
dispute, punish those convicted of crime’ (Ap. ii.187, 194).
‘The people received the law’, according to Heb. 7:11f. ‘under’ the levitical
priesthood; a change of priesthood means a change of law. The theocracy of the
Pentateuch, and its interpretation by Josephus and others, have provided three
examples of ways in which the law could seem to rest upon the priesthood: in
the priority of Aaron’s call over ‘the law of the priests’, the association of the
revealed polity with the mercy seat approached only by Aaron’s successors,
and the descriptions of the priests as guardians of the law. A later example,
in the style of folk-lore rather than political philosophy, sets the giving of the
law within the annals of the priesthood. The following extract from Yose’s
alphabetical ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rob ḥesed, lines 66–73 (Mirsky, 181f.) is
typical of a number of Day of Atonement poems (Horbury, 171–3; = 353–5,
below). Its two four-line stanzas represent the letters Pe and Tsade respectively.
Each begins with a word from the priestly vocabulary: peraḥ, ‘sprig’ (cf. ‘sprigs
of the priesthood’ Yoma 1.6 and often), and ṣiṣ, the ‘plate’ (petalon) of the
mitre (Exod. 28:36; etc.; Bammel, cols. 354–6); the two words are used in the
Bible for the ‘buds’ and ‘blossoms’ of Aaron’s rod (Num. 17:23 [8]). The poet,
having spoken of Jacob, continues:

A sprig from his tribes to serve thee thou didst tithe

for his tithing to thee his wealth at the pillar (Gen. 28:22):
Thou didst make the fruit of the righteous flourish from the stem of Levi,
Amram and his descendants as a vine and its tendrils.
Thou didst visit thy flock by the hand of a faithful man (Num. 12:7)
to deliver her from Zoan and to bring her over the waters of the ‘handful’
(Isa. 40:12).
Thou didst crown him with sanctification of day and covering of cloud,
until he should lead captivity captive and take her of the household for
spoil (Ps. 68:19, 13)
With the plate of the priestly crown thou didst endue thy holy one
(Ps. 106:16),
and he shall leave it as an inheritance to his sons after him,
276 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Treasured, preserved for everlasting generations;

and contemners of their glory shall be swallowed up and stricken.
O Rock, thou didst adorn them with a multitude of gifts,
and from the king’s table didst ordain their food.
Thou didst command them to abide at the gate of thy tabernacle
to consecrate them during seven days.

Here Levi is himself Jacob’s tithe, as in Jub. 32:3 (parallels in Charles, ad loc.);
his stem flourishes like the vine of the chief butler’s dream (Gen. 40:9f.). Its
tendrils represent Amram’s children, as in Ber. R. 88.5 (cited by Mirsky, ad
loc.); in an alternative tradition, attributed to Bar Cocheba’s uncle Eleazar
of Modin, they are the temple, the king and the high priest, the buds and
blossoms are the ‘sprigs of the priesthood’, and the grapes are the libations
(Ḥullin 92a). The giving of the law appears as its acquisition by Moses, son of
Amram, of the tribe of Levi; it follows from the fruitfulness of Levi’s stem, the
story of which goes on, as in Ecclus. 45:18–22, to the punishment of Korah
(the later poem has Uzziah also) and the gifts of heave-offering and sacrificial
portions. Aaron’s consecration is mentioned in conclusion as the pattern of the
high priest’s preparation for the Day of Atonement. The narrative here and in
comparable poems deepens the emphasis of the genealogy of Exod. 6:16–27,
which provides their outline; the law is embraced within the levitical history
issuing in the service of tabernacle and temple.
This later synagogal development of Exod. 6 and Ecclus. 45 confirms that
the passages wherein Josephus and others make the law seem to rest upon
the priesthood, in continuation of the Pentateuchal tendency, represent a
widespread manner of thinking. The interdependence of law and priesthood
in Heb. 7–8, the treatment of law as subordinate to priesthood, and the decisive
importance there attributed to the high priest can justifiably be set within this
mode of ancient Jewish thought, and viewed as further signs of the influence
of the Pentateuchal theocracy.

IV

A similar conclusion as to influence can be drawn from the markedly ethical

passages on the high priest in Heb. 2:17–3:1, and 4:14–5:10. These passages
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 277

are interwoven with traditions concerning Christ; only 5:1–4 expressly apply
to the Aaronic high priest. There is, nevertheless, a continuous emphasis on
priestly compassion, and the entire sequence deserves comparison with the
ethical presentations of the high priest inspired by Jewish theocratic views.
R. A. Stewart’s inquiry into the idea of a sinless high priest in ancient Judaism
also showed affinity between Hebrews and Jewish sources on the virtues to be
expected from the priesthood. This affinity seems still not fully recognized in
subsequent studies of the priesthood in Hebrews; in his comments on these
passages Attridge notes some points of contact, but Vanhoye elaborates the
contrast between Hebrews and Jewish literature on this subject drawn, with
a reference to Dean Farrar’s similar opinion, by Spicq on Heb. 2:17. In what
follows some attempt is made to continue Stewart’s inquiry, with a view less to
the special question of sinlessness than to the more general ethical presentation
of the high priest in Hebrews.
In the Pentateuch, a formidable combination of fierce zeal and loving-
kindness characterizes both Levi and Phinehas (cf. Gen. 49:5–7 ‘their anger’
[note also the approval of zealous slaughter by the sons of Levi, Exod. 32:26–9]
with Deut. 33:8 ‘thy pious one’; Num. 25:11f., zeal rewarded by the covenant of
peace). Aaron, more infirm of purpose, is distinguished, rather, by his staying
of the plague, which can be understood as a deed of mercy (Num. 17:11–15
[16:46–50]), and he and his sons give the blessing of peace (Num. 6:26).
Ancient Jewish interpretation by no means neglects the zeal of Levi (Judith
9:4; Jub. 30:18; Test. Levi 5:3) or of Phinehas (Ecclus. 45:23, etc.; further
texts and discussion in Hengel, 154–81 [Phinehas], 182–4, 192f. [Levi]).
Nevertheless, the ‘peace’ of the Aaronic blessing involves not only Phinehas
‘the peaceful man and evident priest of God’ (Philo, Mut. 108) but also the
sons of Levi (Mal. 2:5) and the disciples of Aaron, who love and pursue peace
(Hillel, according to Aboth 1.12). This second and perhaps less-studied line of
interpretation is especially relevant to Hebrews.
Ethicizing interpretation of this kind is common to Semitic and Greek
sources, as is suggested by the closely similar Qumran and Septuagintal
versions of Levi’s blessing, and by the conjunction of Philo and the Mishnah in
the foregoing paragraph. Comparably, the Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrew
synagogal poetry alike replace the patriarchal names, in hagiographical
fashion, with ethical nicknames like ‘the peaceful man’. Aaron, the unnamed
278 Messianism among Jews and Christians

‘blameless man’ of Wisdom (18:21), is in a piyyuṭ likewise simply ‘thy holy one’
(Yose, cited above, following Ps. 106:16; Ecclus. 45:6).
The epithet ‘merciful’ (Heb. 2:17), whence the theme of compassion is
later developed (Heb. 4:14–5:10), recalls the biblical association of kindness
and peace with the priesthood, noted above with regard to the patriarchs of
the tribe. The priests inherit the covenant of life and peace from Levi, God’s
‘pious’ or ‘kind’ one (hasîd, lxx hosios, Deut. 33:8), who was ‘governing in
peace’ (Mal. 2:6, lxx). Hence, although it was indeed held, in Judith and other
sources noted above, that Simeon and Levi took a wholly-justified vengeance
on Shechem with the weapons of violence (Gen. 49:5) which guard the heroine
in Joseph and Asenath, in the latter work it is Levi who twice enforces the duty
of mercy to the enemy (23:8–10, 29:3–5; cf. 28:15), and whose hand Asenath
grasps in affection and veneration (23:8). In this acknowledgement of the
feminine appreciation of priestly compassion Joseph and Asenath resembles
the midrashic portrait of Aaron; whereas only men mourned for Moses, Aaron
was lamented by the women as well (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 20:29;
Tanḥuma on Numbers, addition to Parashath Ḥuqqath, paragraph 2, in Buber,
Numbers, 132).
The topic of priestly mercy is much developed. ‘Merciful and faithful’ (Heb.
2:17) is close to the description of Aaron, in a targumic version of Levi’s blessing,
as ḥasîd—‘pious’ or ‘merciful’—‘entire’ and ‘faithful’; these qualities emerged
when he was tempted (cf. Heb. 4:15) at Massah and Meribah (Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan on Deut. 33:8). In the midrash, the verse ‘mercy and truth are met
together: righteousness and peace have kissed each other’ (Ps. 85:11) interprets
the meeting and kiss of Aaron and Moses (Exod. 4:27); Moses is righteousness,
Aaron is peace (Mal. 2:6), and Aaron is mercy (ḥesed)—because of Deut. 33:8,
ḥasîd—Moses is truth (Tanḥuma on Exodus 25, on 4:27; Buber, ii, Exodus,
15f.). The Aaronic attributes of mercy and peace gathered round the high priest
in the halo of the Day of Atonement; in an alphabetical version of the poem for
the Day, ‘How glorious was the high priest’, based on Ecclus. 50:5–21, he came
forth in ‘piety’ or ‘kindness’ (ḥasîdût), ‘for it was added to him’, with ‘peace’
upon his lips and ‘forgiveness’ in his countenance (Geniza text in Edelmann, 16
[Hebrew] and 40; on this category of poems Roth (1), 172f.).
In Hebrews the compassion of the high priest who is ‘able to feel with us
in our weaknesses’ and ‘able to bear reasonably with the ignorant’ (Heb. 4:15,
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 279

5:2), is expressed in words from the Hellenistic ethical vocabulary, but should
not be dissociated (as by Käsemann, 151f.) from the Hebraic style of such
biblically-moulded descriptions as those just mentioned. Within Hebrews the
passage is an expansion of the earlier epithet ‘merciful’, and in Jewish sources
unaffected by the Hellenistic idiom the thought of priestly compassion is
developed in a comparable way. Thus, in a striking anticipation of Hebrews
noted by Stewart, 128, Levi grieves over the race of men (Test. Levi 2:4); and in
the saying ascribed to Hillel already quoted, the disciple of Aaron is ‘loving the
(fellow-)creatures, and drawing them near to the law’ (Aboth 1.12). Moreover,
Levi, Aaron and the high priests were described with Greek ethical terms in
other Jewish sources wherein, as in Hebrews, the biblical influence is also
evident.
Four such Hellenized descriptions of high priests may be mentioned,
because, much though they differ from one another, they all come close to
the passage on compassion in Heb. 4–5. First, Eleazar the high priest is said
to have sent the Septuagint translators to Alexandria with an Aristotelian
‘magnanimity’ which Josephus delights to imitate in putting forth his own
biblical paraphrase (Ant. i 12); and, according to an earlier writer, the high
priest’s emissaries were worthy of his own virtue, cultivating the mean in
their unostentatious readiness to listen (Aristeas, 122). This passage is closer
in thought to Heb. 5:2 than is the verbally closer commendation by Philo of
Aaron’s metriopatheia, in a philosophical version of the midrashic contrast
between Aaron and Moses, as nothing more than a second best to the apatheia
of the stricter Moses (Leg. All. 3.132–5).
Secondly, two accounts of sacerdotal supplication may be compared with
Heb. 2:18, 4:15 and 5:7f. In a well-known narrative Josephus relates how
Jaddua the high priest faithfully kept his oath to Darius. When Alexander
consequently marched in anger ‘against the high priest of the Jews’, Jaddua, ‘in
agōnia and fear’, commanded the people to pray, and himself made petition
with a sacrifice (Ant. xi 318f., 326). Similarly, in 2 Maccabees, the godly
high priest Onias appears in Judas Maccabaeus’ dream as kalos kai agathos,
reverend yet meek in manner (2 Macc. 15:12). During his life, when he led the
supplications against Heliodorus’ presumption, there was agōnia throughout
the city; and the corresponding agōnia of his own soul (compare that of Jaddua)
was so plainly manifest in his shuddering that it was pitiable to see the high
280 Messianism among Jews and Christians

priest praying in such distress (2 Macc. 3:14, 16f., 20f.). His meekness recalls
5:2 (for metriopathein ‘is allied to praotēs’ [Moffatt, 62]), his sharing of the
general agōnia the ‘sympathy’ of 4:14, and its setting of earnest supplication,
like Jaddua’s sacrifice, the ‘strong crying’ of 5:7.
Lastly, a near-burlesque companion-piece on priestly meekness is the scene
in Joseph and Asenath (33:7–16), worthy of a silent film, in which Simeon draws
his sword against Pharaoh’s wicked son. Levi, at once perceiving his brother’s
hostile intent by prophetic intuition, promptly stamps on his right foot and
signs to him to restrain his anger. Levi then addresses the blackguardly prince
‘with a meek heart and a cheerful countenance’; pointing out that he and his
brother are God-fearing men, but that, if the prince persists in his villainy, they
will indeed fight. Both brothers then draw their swords, and remind Pharaoh’s
son of what happened at Shechem. The prince falls down, shaking with fear,
but Levi raises him up with a gracious ‘Fear not, but beware’, and the two go
out leaving the villain trembling. The characteristic combination of meekness
and strength appears also in the story of Jaddua, before whom Alexander in
the end prostrates himself (Josephus, Ant. xi 331–3); in the present context
the story of Levi is of special interest as a laboured example of metriopathein
(Heb. 5:2).
These ethical descriptions of Eleazar, Jaddua, Onias and Levi correspond
to the view that Aaron was himself chosen priest for his virtue (by God,
Josephus, Ant. iii 188; by Moses, Ap. ii.186f., and Philo, Mos. ii.142); the priests
themselves can be called ‘blameless’ (Ant. iii 279), the nickname for Aaron in
Wisd. 18:21 (see above).
Nevertheless, an aspect of the high priest’s sympathy in Hebrews is his
‘infirmity’, which necessitates the sacrifice for his own sins (Lev. 16:6; Heb.
5:2f., 7:27f., 9:7, 13:11); it is linked with his manhood (2:17f.; 5:1). Similarly,
in contemporary Jewish authors, ‘the priest is primarily a man’—and so Moses
legislates for his marriage (Philo, Spec. Leg. i. 101); and the death of Nadab and
Abihu ‘was a disaster for Aaron considered as a man and a father’, although he
bore it valiantly and, being already invested with the holy robe, refrained from
mourning (Josephus, Ant. iii 208–11).
The repeated mention in Hebrews of Aaron’s sacrifice for himself recalls
its prominence in the narrative of the first sacrifices (Lev. 9; see vv. 7–14); his
infirmity is further evident when accidental impurity debars him from eating
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 281

the sin-offering (Lev. 10:19). This biblical concern is continued, as Stewart

notes, in the ethical and ritual law of the priesthood in the Aramaic Testament
of Levi (quoted above), and in midrashic comments on the potential sinfulness
of the high priest (Stewart, 128, 130f.). In provisions for the Day of Atonement
there is a corresponding emphasis on the high priest’s sacrifice for himself
(Lev. 16:6), the words of his confessions of sin for himself and his house and
for the sons of Aaron (Mishnah, Yoma 3.8, 4.2), and the precautions lest he
fall asleep and contract impurity during the night before the Day (Mishnah,
Yoma 1:4–6); in the last years of Herod the Great the high priest Matthias son
of Theophilus had done so (Josephus, Ant. xvii 166).
Another aspect of ‘infirmity’ is the high priest’s need of instruction in his
duties; Aaron follows orders from Moses when he offers the first sacrifices,
and they enter the tabernacle of the congregation together (Lev. 9:2, 5–8, 10,
21, 23). Aaron learned like an apt pupil (Philo, Mos. ii. 133); and, as Stewart
notes, it was held, in fourth-century rabbinic homily, that the Shekhinah did
not dwell with Moses when he performed this ministry, but only with Aaron
after his consecration (Lev. R. 11.6, discussed by Stewart, 130). Nevertheless,
the charge of ignorance was often deployed against Aaron’s successors,
sometimes not without justification (as by Josephus in the case of Phanni, the
stone-mason made high priest by the Zealots [B.J. iv.156, endorsed by Roth
(2), 316]), sometimes as an element in ritual controversy. According to the
Mishnah, the elders of the priesthood used to adjure the high priest not to
change the order of service for the Day of Atonement that had been committed
to him; and then ‘he turned aside and wept, and they turned aside and wept’
(Yoma 1.5)—‘he, because he was thought a simpleton, and they … because
they were put to this necessity’ (Yose, ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rob ḥesed, line
82 [with Palestinian Talmud, Yoma 1.5, 39a, quoted by Mirsky, 184]). Here,
where the high priest is thought to share the corporate shame of the sons of
Aaron, his ‘often infirmities’ verge, as in Hebrews but in a distinctive fashion,
upon the theme of priestly sympathy.
The theme of sympathy is linked in Hebrews not only with the high priest’s
infirmity, but also with his representative character. ‘We have a high priest’
who is ‘the apostle and high priest of our confession’ and who, it can even be
said, ‘became us’ (Heb. 8:1, 3:1, 7:25); the Aaronic priest, correspondingly, is
‘appointed for men’ (Heb. 5:1). The obvious link between priestly sympathy and
282 Messianism among Jews and Christians

representation also appears in Jewish sources, as in 2 Maccabees 3, discussed

above, and the emphasis on the high priest’s representativeness (Lev. 16:33,
see above) is as strong as it is in Hebrews. Aaron was given ‘the priesthood
of the people’ (Ecclus. 45:7), for ‘we need one to discharge the priestly office
and to minister for the sacrifices and for the prayers on our behalf ’ (Josephus,
Ant. iii. 189); the high priest prays, as common kinsman of all, on behalf of
the whole body of Jewry, all mankind, and the entire universe (2 Macc. 15:12;
Philo, Spec. Leg. i. 97, iii. 131, quoted above). More restrictively, the high priest
is called an ‘apostle’ of the elders and priests—sheluḥenu, ‘our emissary’—in
Yoma 1.5, just quoted, where the emphasis on limitation probably reflects
Pharisaic polemic; but the thought broadens again into the honorific biblical
representation when synagogal poetry depicts his emergence from the holiest
as ‘the faithful messenger’, ‘sending to those that sent him righteousness and
healing’ (Yose, ʾasapper gedoloth, line 59, and ʾazkhir geburoth, lines 268f., in
Mirsky, 206, 171).
The compassion of the high priest, and his solidarity with mankind,
which come to expression with particular force in Hebrews, are therefore
Pentateuchal themes which received comparable development in other post-
biblical sources. In these, as in the traditions concerning Christ taken up in
Hebrews, there is a potentially moving contrast between divine appointment
and human frailty. Even when the writer to the Hebrews probably draws
on sources related to the Gospels, he remains within the bounds of what is
appropriate to his priestly expressions. If the manhood of God’s Son melts the
heart (2:17f.), so in its degree does the manhood of God’s high priest in his
bereavement (Josephus, Ant. iii 208–11); the endurance of temptation (Heb.
2:18, 4:15) and the sorrowful supplication (Heb. 5:7) both well befit a high
priest (Deut. 33:8; Pseudo-Jonathan; 2 Macc. 3:16f., 21).
The presentation of the high priest in Hebrews cannot therefore readily be
contrasted with Old Testament and Jewish views. Such a contrast emerges in
the late twentieth-century commentary tradition even in the context of much
sensitivity to ancient Jewish literature (Braun, 70, on Heb. 2:17; Weiss, 304, on
5:2; Gordon, 67, on 2:17). Yet sacerdotal ‘mercy’ cannot be regarded as new and
distinctive (with Michel, 165, on Heb. 2:17, and Vanhoye (1), 461–3); still less is
the solidarity of the high priest with men opposed to the viewpoint of the Old
Testament and ‘the traditional ideas of the most religious Jews’ (as maintained
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 283

by Vanhoye (1), 457f, and in an otherwise scrupulous study of Heb. 5:1–4 by

Vanhoye (2), 446f., 455f.)., On the contrary, the leading characteristics of the
priesthood, according to Heb. 2:17–3:1 and 4:14–5:10—mercy, faithfulness,
compassion, sympathy, forbearance, earnestness in prayer, humanity, infirmity,
representativeness—have all been amply attested in Jewish sources, both
Hebrew and Greek, especially in the line of interpretation which developed
the Aaronic blessing of peace. As was especially obvious from Malachi 2:6 lxx,
Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, Philo and Josephus, the principal virtues in this list
could be woven into a hagiographical commendation of the high priest as a
fitting governor of the theocracy, and Yose’s poems confirm that both the self-
sacrificing virtue of Aaron and the royalty of the priesthood continued to be
remembered in synagogue prayer (Horbury, 173f.; = 356, below). The special
contribution of Hebrews should probably be sought not in new ideas about
the priesthood, but in the interconnections established by a profound and
sensitive homilist between well-known existing ideas and Christian traditions
concerning Christ.

Käsemann wrote that ‘the religio-historical derivation of the idea of the high
priest in Hebrews is the single most difficult problem of the epistle. Any
exegesis which sees itself forced at this point to have recourse to purely Old
Testament and Jewish roots, whereas elsewhere it cannot deny Hellenistic
influence on Hebrews, will be divided and unclear’ (Käsemann, 116).
The difficulty indicated by Käsemann arises partly from the presentation
of the idea in the epistle itself, and it cannot be wholly resolved, even though
his antithesis between Hebraic and Hellenic influence is untenable in
practice, simply by a reference to the change, since he wrote, in the general
understanding of the Hellenization of Judaism. His solution by a derivation,
through Christian liturgy, from gnostically-remoulded Jewish messianism, has
the merits of holding together Philo and the rabbis, and of linking the central
priestly passages of Hebrews with the rest of the Epistle. Its own difficulty
lies perhaps especially in the fact that it is in effect, as noted above. one more
appeal to an otherwise unknown, distinctive type of Judaism.
284 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The question thus singled out by Käsemann has evoked, more than any
other feature of the epistle, the various derivations mentioned in section
I—from Christianity, from some unknown form of Judaism, or from Judaism
of a sectarian or otherwise unusual description. The more pedestrian approach
adopted here is only an approach, for such important aspects of priesthood
in Hebrews as the nature of Christ’s heavenly ministry remain undiscussed.
Nevertheless, it can invoke the pedestrian Muse without apology, for it is an
attempt to see whether walking in well-worn old paths of Jewish literature, and
in the common traditions of ancient Jewry through which they pass, may not
be a reliable means of progress towards the distinctive ideas of Hebrews. The
unity of basis which Käsemann desiderated can perhaps be claimed, thus far,
but it is an Old Testament and Jewish basis which, like the epistle itself, has
assimilated the idiom of Greek.
It has appeared, from three limited inquiries, that some peculiarities of
Hebrews in its treatment of Jewish practice (section II), and the presuppositions
of some central and distinctive arguments of the epistle—on the priesthood
and the law in Heb. 7–8 (section III) and the ethical attributes of the high priest
in Heb. 2–5 (section IV)—are all found together in the thought and practice
shaped by the Pentateuchal theocracy. Within this context of thought Hebrew
and Greek Jewish sources have been seen to converge, both in particularities
such as a common debt to Exodus 6 or a common interpretation of Deut. 33:10,
and in such larger topics touched by Hebrews as the practice concerning tithe,
the co-ordination of law and priesthood, and the ethical presentation of the
priest as a man of peace. If Hebrews can justifiably be read within this context,
as the inquiries suggest, is any light shed on the historical setting of the epistle?
Michel’s comment on the close links between Hebrews on priesthood and
contemporary Jewish tradition and politics, may now perhaps be allowed
to modify his own earlier historical conclusions. Hebrews on priesthood is
not wholly detached (as maintained by Michel, 55f.) from the real historical
debates of the period of the First Revolt. It is true that the writer does not
enter into these debates, but he shares some of the disputed views. Tithe
belongs to the priest (7:5), a much-discussed interpretation supporting
practice which was notoriously abused, according to Josephus, by the
high-priestly families under Felix and Albinus (Ant. xx 181, 206f.); the Red
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 285

Heifer and the Day of Atonement are considered together with reference to
purification (9:5), and they are both said to have been disputed in this respect
between Sadducces and Pharisees; Levi is the priests’ patriarch, and the
Levites’ claims go unnoticed (an attitude which helps to explain the Levites’
complaints in 62); and the presuppositions of 7–8 and the earlier passages
on the high priest reflect his political as well as ecclesiastical significance
(against Michel, 215), and belong to the sacerdotal polity restored for a time
during the First Revolt.
Clear pointers towards authorship and geographical location can perhaps
hardly be expected, when the ideas concerned were so widely influential.
It is worth noting, however, on the basis of the foregoing paragraph, that
the thought of the epistle concerning priests would well accord with the
Palestinian origin shortly before the First Revolt proposed by Nairne and by
Moule (59f., 97f., 160f.). Sections II and III above also suggest one objection
to the ancient attribution to Barnabas (the merits of which are shown by
Robinson, 217–19), for a Levite would perhaps hardly have treated Levi and
the tithe in so priestly a fashion as the writer to the Hebrews has appeared
to do. His closeness to Josephus rather than to Philo on these same points
might constitute a marginal consideration in favour of Palestinian rather
than Alexandrian authorship, if Philo could be taken as representative; but
the Alexandrian and Egyptian Jewish communities had many contacts with
Judaea, and the variety of outlook manifest in Judaea was probably also
found in Jewish Egypt. Lastly, within the New Testament Hebrews attests a
priestly outlook which can be considered together with the knowledge of the
priesthood and priestly families reflected in varying ways in Matthew, Luke-
Acts, and John (Horbury, ‘Caiaphas’, 44–5).
The line followed here thus leads to reassessment of some characteristics of
Hebrews which have been too quickly judged inconsistent with Judaea before
the First Revolt, although of itself it does not rule out other places and times of
origin. Its indications are clearer, however, with regard to the thought-world
of the Epistle. These observations may serve at least to float the suggestion that
the antecedents of the priestly thought characteristic of Hebrews should be
sought neither in Christianity, nor in sectarian or esoteric Judaism, but in the
pervasive influence of the Pentateuchal theocracy.
286 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Literature

P. S. Alexander, ‘The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch’, JJS xxviii
(1977), 156–80
G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (ET, Jerusalem, 1977)
H. Anderson, ‘The Jewish Antecedents of the Christology in Hebrews’, in
J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis, 1992), 512–35
H. W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia: Philadelphia, 1989)
E. Bammel, ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΥΣPΡΟFΗΤΕΥWΝ, TLZ lxxix (1954), cols. 352–6, reprinted
in E. Bammel, Judaica et Paulina: Kleine Schriften II, mit einem Nachwort von Peter
Pilhofer (WUNT xci; Tübingen, 1997), 133–9
B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora
(Hellenistic Culture and Society xxi; Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1996)
G. Baumbach, ‘ “Volk Gottes” im Frühjudentum’, Kairos N.F. xxi (1979), 30–47
J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf
Patriarchen (Leiden, 1970)
J. H. R. Biesenthal, Das Trostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebräer, kritisch
wiederhergestellt (Leipzig, 1878)
J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1973)
H. Braun, An die Hebräer (Tübingen, 1984)
S. Buber (ed.), Midrasch Tanchuma (3 vols in 1; Wilna, 1885)
G. W Buchanan, To the Hebrews (Garden City, NY, 1972)
Ad. Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des Jerusalemischen
Tempels (Vienna, 1895)
R. H. Charles (1), The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902)
——— (2), The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford, 1908)
R. J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice (Washington, 1978)
G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965)
R. Edelmann, Zur Frühgeschichte des Mahzor (Stuttgart, 1934)
J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien (Breslau, 1875)
J. Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon (Missoula, 1975)
E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light (New Haven, 1935)
R. P. Gordon, Hebrews (Sheffield, 2000)
K.-E. Grözinger, Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott! Eine rabbinische Homilie zum Ersten
Gebot (PesR 20) (Bern and Frankfurt am Main, 1976)
J. H. A. Hart, ‘Philo and the Catholic Judaism of the First Century’, JTS xi (1909),
25–42
M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961)
 The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 287

C. J. A. Hickling, ‘John and Hebrews: The Background of Hebrews 2:10–18’, NTS xxix
(1983), 112–16
L. A. Hoffmann, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (Notre Dame, 1979)
O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes (Tübingen, 1972)
W. Horbury, ‘Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose’, in W. Horbury and B.
McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1981),
143–82
———, ‘The “Caiaphas” Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas’, PEQ cxxvi (1994), 32–48
G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge, 1979)
P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977)
T. Ilan, ‘The Ossuary and Sarcophagus Inscriptions’, in G. Avni and Z. Greenhut
(eds.), The Akeldama Tombs (IAA Reports, No. 1; Jerusalem, 1996)
A. Jaubert, ‘Thèmes lévitiques dans la Prima Clementis’, Vigiliae Christianae xviii
(1964), 193–203
J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (ET, London, 1969)
E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (FRLANT, N.F. xxxvii, Göttingen, 1939)
H. Kosmala, Hebräer—Essener—Christen (Leiden, 1959)
A. T. Kraabel, ‘Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues’, in J. Gutmann (ed.),
Ancient Synagogues (Chico, 1981), 79–91
J. C. H. Lebram, ‘Der Idealstaat der Juden’, in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel
(eds.), Josephus-Studien (Göttingen, 1974), 233–53
J. Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ lxxxiv, Tübingen, 2001)
R. Meyer, ‘Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer Zeit’, OLZ xl
(1938), cols 721–8
O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (6th edn., Göttingen, 1966)
J. T. Milik, ‘Le iscrizioni degli ossuari’, in B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, Gli scavi del
‘Dominus Flevit’, i, La necropoli del periodo romano (Jerusalem, 1958, reprinted
1981), 70–109
A. Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse: Poems ([Hebrew]; Jerusalem, 1977)
J. Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Edinburgh, 1924)
C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3rd edn., London, 1981)
R. Murray, ‘Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed Distinctions’, NT xxiv
(1982), 194–208
A. Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge, 1921)
J. Neusner (1), A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, Part Six (Leiden, 1980)
——— (2), A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women (5 vols.; Leiden, 1980)
M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth (Leiden, 1968)
288 Messianism among Jews and Christians

A. C. Purdy, ‘The Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of Recent Studies
in Judaism’, in H. G. Wood (ed.), Amicitiae Corolla: A volume of Essays presented to
James Rendel Harris (London, 1933), 253–64
L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel
(Jerusalem, 1994)
J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London, 1976)
C. Roth (1), ‘Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service’, JBL lxxi (1952), 171–8
——— (2), ‘The Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 66–70’, JSS ix (1964), 295–319
P. Schäfer, ‘Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-Literatur’, Kairos N.F. xxii (1980),
201–25
H.-M. Schenke, ‘Erwägungen zum Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes’, in H. D. Betz and L.
Schottroff (eds.), Neues Testament und christliche Existenz (Tübingen, 1973),
421–37
U. Schubert, Spätantikes Judentum und frühchristliche Kunst (Vienna, 1974)
Morton Smith, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Ancient Judaism’, NTS vii
(1960–1), 347–60
J. Z. Smith, ‘Fences and Neighbours: Some Contours of Early Judaism’, in W. S. Green
(ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism ii (Chico, 1980), 1–25
C. Spicq, L’Epître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; Paris, 1952–3)
M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism i (Jerusalem, 1974)
R. A. Stewart, ‘The Sinless High-Priest’, NTS xiv (1967–8), 126–35
A. Vanhoye (1), ‘Le Christ, grand-prêtre selon Héb. 2, 17–18’, Nouvelle revue
théologique xci (1969), 449–74
——— (2), ‘Situation et signification de Hébreux v. 1–10’, NTS xxii (1977), 445–56
H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, 1991)
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (ET, Edinburgh, 1885)
H. Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer
im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1932)
R. Williamson, ‘The Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ET lxxxvii (1976),
232–7
N. H. Young, ‘The Gospel according to Hebrews 9’, NTS xxvii (1981), 198–210
T. Zahavy, The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah (Missoula, 1978)
 8

Septuagintal and New Testament

Conceptions of the Church

Visions of as well as for the church were known at the time of Christian
origins. The dreamers of dreams in Israel saw the people as a threatened flock,
and Jerusalem as a mourning and rejoicing mother and bride (1 En. 89–91; 2
Esd. 9–10); and the Christians followed them with visions of the church and
the holy city as a mother and bride, an aged yet joyful woman and a tower
(Rev. 12:1–6, 19:7–8, 21:2; Hermas, Vis. i–iii). These visions of sorrow and
hope in turn contributed to patristic and later distinctions between a visible
and an invisible church, presenting a contrast which could be used to console
or reform the empirical congregation.
The four apocalypses just cited were of disputed value in ancient times,
and remained on the verges of the lxx and New Testament book-collections.
Their visions of the church were shaped, however, by the more generally
accepted scriptures. ‘No doubt a genuine vision lies behind, but the details
evoke scriptural passages’ (Sweet 1979, 195). The visions concretize some of
the similitudes applied to Israel and Jerusalem in the Old Testament.
Against the background formed by these apocalypses it seems likely
that, when the scriptures were read at the time of Jesus and Paul, even non-
visionary hearers shared conceptions of the congregation which arose from
association and development of the manifold biblical descriptions and images.
The Christians were keenly aware of their separate loyalty (1 Cor. 16:22), but
this was owed to the messiah of Israel; they spoke and thought of themselves
as essential Israel, and applied to themselves most of the relevant biblical
vocabulary. So in the biblical manner, without special introduction, Paul could
speak of betrothing the Corinthian church as a pure virgin to Christ (2 Cor.
11:2). To a great extent, therefore, New Testament conceptions of the church
290 Messianism among Jews and Christians

were ready-made before the apostles preached; and this is true not only of the
imagery most readily applicable to the pre-existent or ideal church, but also of
descriptions of the empirical assembly.
To what extent, exactly, were such conceptions ready-made? One
important contribution towards an answer is offered by the Greek translations
constituting the lxx, individually and as a collection of books (briefly
surveyed by Schürer and Goodman 1986, 474–504). The lxx translations
are mainly pre-Christian, and formatively influenced the Greek-speaking
Christianity reflected in the Greek New Testament; and the collection as a
whole shared something of the enormous prestige accorded to the Greek
Pentateuch in particular (the ‘Septuagint’, or work of the seventy translators,
in the strict sense), and was abidingly revered by Christians, from the New
Testament period onwards.
Here attention is concentrated on the two Songs and the Blessing of Moses
(Exod. 15 and Deut. 32; Deut. 33), and the Wisdom of Solomon. These texts
form no more than a particle of the lxx material for conceptions of the
congregation, but their significance is considerable. The Pentateuch is the oldest
and most widely familiar part of the lxx; the two Songs and the Blessing took a
high place, even within this sacrosanct corpus, as prophecies of Moses. This is
plain from Philo and Josephus, and can be glimpsed from the New Testament
(Rev. 15:3–4).1 The two Songs were also transmitted as the first two canticles
in the lxx book of Odes. This book is a Christian collection in its present
form, and it attests the importance of the two Songs in Christian thought and
worship; at the same time it probably reflects Jewish usage in its treatment of
the Songs of Moses and other Old Testament canticles independently of their
biblical context. The Song of Exod. 15 enjoyed widespread veneration among
Jews (Hengel, 1995, n. 6) and had a specifically communal character, discussed
below. Deut. 32 is regularly called ‘the Great Ode’ in Philo (Leg. iii 105 and
elsewhere), perhaps partly as ‘the Greater’ Song of Moses as opposed to the
lesser Song in Exod. 15 (Plant. 59, cited in n. 1, above); and in the context of

1
See Philo, Plant. 54–9, where the two Songs of Moses are considered together; Virt. 72–7, on the
Deuteronomic Song and Blessing; and Mos. ii 288–9, on the Blessing; also Josephus, Ant. ii 346, iv
303, on the two Songs as composed by Moses in hexameters and preserved in the temple, and iv
320, on the prophetic Blessing. The joint influence on the New Testament of a pair of eschatological
verses from the two Songs (Exod. 15:17 and Deut. 32:35) is considered against this background in
Horbury 1996, 210–11. In Rev. 15:3–4 ‘the song of Moses, the servant of God’ is that of Exod. 15, but
the song sung by the victorious martyrs echoes and parallels that of Deut. 32.
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 291

Maccabaean martyrdom it was quoted as ‘the Ode of Open Protest’ (2 Macc.

7:6, recalling Deut. 31:21 lxx) (see Harl in Dogniez and Harl 1992, 319–20).
In the New Testament, similarly, the two Songs were both influential, and the
greater Song with its martyr-links was one of ‘the early church’s favourite texts’
(Sweet, 1979, 240).
The book of Wisdom, by contrast, is relatively late, perhaps of the early
first century b.c.; but in thought it shows kinship with the Pauline writings, it
is another document of martyr-theology, and it was probably known to first-
century Christians (Horbury, 1995). The lxx collection of books, in which
Wisdom and other approved but non-canonical works are associated with
the generally accepted scriptures, probably represents a widespread Jewish
reading practice which was continued by early Christians.2
All these texts are poetic compositions, presented in Greek in lines which
echo the stressed metre of Hebrew verse. They differ markedly from Greek
verse written in the quantitative classical metres, and probably reflect by their
very form a pride in the ancestral biblical tradition.
The general context of this small-scale inquiry is that explored especially
by Dahl 1941, the relation of early Christian conceptions of the church to
conceptions of the nation and congregation current in ancient Judaism.
Within the study of Septuagintal theology (briefly surveyed with examples by
Le Déaut 1984, 175–85, and Schaper 1995, 1–2 and n. 449), this political or
ecclesiological topic has gained sporadic attention (notably from Seeligmann
1948, 110–21, on Isaiah). Examination of the Songs and Blessing of Moses in
this connection is facilitated by the valuable Septuagintal commentaries of Le
Boulluec and Sandevoir 1989 and Dogniez and Harl 1992. The use made of
Deut. 32 in ancient Jewish and early Christian literature is surveyed by Bell
1994, 200–85.
Here the lxx is read with an eye not simply to the importance of the
Greek bible for Greek-speakers, but also to the likelihood that it often reflects
interpretations current in the homeland as well as the diaspora, even among
Jews whose main language was not Greek. The contacts between Septuagintal
and rabbinic exegesis noted from time to time below point in this direction.

2
M. Hengel, by contrast, holds that the collection was essentially Christian, albeit influenced initially
by Jewish practice in Rome (Hengel, ‘Schriftensammlung’, discussed by Horbury 1997b); but the
consistent Christian wish to accord with Jewish biblical usage suggests that the collection was more
representatively Jewish than he allows.
292 Messianism among Jews and Christians

lxx material, used with due caution, may then at times suggest something
of conceptions current among Aramaic-speaking Christians, as well as
the Greek-speakers whose outlook is more directly mirrored in many New
Testament writings.
The passages particularly considered deal with Israel during the exodus,
the miraculous time of union between the people and their God (Exod. 4:22,
19:4–6; Deut. 32:10–14; Isa. 63:11–14; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8) and the pattern
of future redemption (Deut. 30:3–5; Isa. 11:11; Ezek. 16:60; Mic. 7:15).
Conceptions of the congregation are studied first through five attributes which
stand out in the two Songs and Wisdom, and are also prominent in the New
Testament, and then through some community titles common to the Jewish
and Christian material.

Attributes of the Church

To begin with the lesser Song of Moses, it is through and through congregational
as well as prophetic. As presented in Exod. 15 it is communal rather than
individual, and forms a congregational hymn. This is clear in the Hebrew as
well as the lxx. The hymn was sung not only by Moses, but also by the children
of Israel. The singers are articulated into a men’s section and a women’s section,
as befits a comprehensive assembly. In the lxx they still more clearly form
a double choir of men and women; Miriam the prophetess was precentor of
(e̓xh͂rcen) the women (Exod. 15:20–1).3 This method of performance recalls
Greek and Roman employment of antiphonal male and female choirs, for
instance in Horace’s ode for Augustus’ Secular Games of 17 b.c.; it probably had
reflections in Jewish practice at the time of Christian origins, as Philo suggests
when, echoing Exod. 15:21 lxx, he says that the choir of the Therapeutae
models itself on that formed at the Red Sea ‘when the prophet Moses was
precentor of (e̓xárcontoV) the men, and the prophetess Miriam precentor

3
Exarchos, the noun corresponding to the verb used in lxx here, could denote the song-leader in
Greek cults (E. R. Dodds (ed.), Euripides: Bacchae (2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), 87,
on line 141, where the chorus say that Bacchus himself is the exarchos); the noun is applied by Philo
to the male and female precentors of the Therapeutae, in a passage ending with a paraphrase of
Exod. 15 using the verb, quoted in the text below (Philo, V. Contempl. 83, 87). Since this essay first
appeared, Septuagintal and other ancient usage of the verb has been surveyed, and used to interpret
a title found in epitaphs from the Roman Jewish catacomb of Monteverde, by Williams 2000.
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 293

of the women’ (Philo, V. Contempl. 85–9). Practice is similarly suggested by

probably second-century rabbinic debate on the performance of the song,
handed down in the names of R. Akiba, R. Nehemiah and others (Mishnah,
Soṭah 5.4; Tosefta, Soṭah 6.2–3).
The Song of Exod. 15 thus has a congregational atmosphere which is
enhanced in the lxx. Its lxx presentation has a number of features which
reappear in New Testament conceptions of the church. Five at least anticipate
attributes of the church as encountered and envisaged by Paul in particular.
The first of these is a constitutional point: the congregation comprises
both men and women. The assignation of parts to men and women in a
single assembly which has just been noted is an arrangement in principle
taken for granted in 1 Cor. 11–14. Thus, as is often pointed out, it seems
uncontroversial that women may pray or prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor.
11:5); these activities are close to the prophetically-led women’s hymnody of
Exod. 15 lxx. The details left room for debate, as 1 Corinthians amply shows,
but the principle of an articulated assembly with parts for men and women is a
Pentateuchal and prophetic one, made still plainer in the lxx interpretation at
this point. This principle contrasts with and to some extent modifies the more
frequently noticed teaching on the subordination of women in the Pentateuch
and its ancient interpretation. The principle of women’s participation is further
reflected in ancient Jewish practice (discussed in Horbury 1999), for example
in the provision of a women’s court in Herod’s Jerusalem temple; and elsewhere
in Paul, as when (perhaps using an existing testimony-collection) he quotes
prophecy concerning sons (2 Sam 7:8) in the adapted form ‘you shall be to
me for sons and daughters’ (2 Cor. 6:18). The church following this principle
reflected the Pentateuchal ethos of a comprehensive national community,
despite its relatively small local ‘churches’.
Secondly, the hymn of the assembly in the lxx is a confession of faith. ‘They
believed (e̓písteusan) in God, and in his servant Moses. Then Moses and the
children of Israel sang this ode to God’ (Exod. 14:31–15:1 lxx). The assembly
here is a congregation of those who believe in God and his appointed ruler.
This point becomes central in New Testament conceptions of the church, as
when oi̔ pisteúonteV or pisteúsanteV denote church members in famous
phrases from Acts 2:44, 4:32 on ‘believers’; compare the ecclesiastical aspect
of ‘all who believe’ and ‘those who believe’ in Rom. 3:22, Gal 3:22. These
294 Messianism among Jews and Christians

phrases, no doubt in conjunction with the continuing importance of the

lxx for early Christians, worked on patristic tradition and helped to shape
later definitions of the church as ‘a congregation of the faithful’.4 This point
is illustrated in the earliest patristic antecedents of such definitions. Thus, in
Cyprian’s influential treatise on church unity, the church is ‘the new people of
those who believe’ (novus credentium populus), and the phrase is followed by a
quotation of Acts 4:32 (Cyprian, De Unitate, v 19 (25)). Compare also, nearly
a century earlier, Justin Martyr, Dial. lxiii 5: ‘the word of God addresses as
daughter [in Ps. 45(44):10 lxx] those who believe in him [Christ], as being
of one soul and one gathering together (sunagwgh́) and one ecclesia, the
ecclesia which came into being from his name and shares his name—for we
are all called Christians’. Here a reminiscence of Acts 4:32 on the believers as
of one soul is not unlikely, for possible contacts with Acts 4:13, 25–7 occur in
Justin’s First Apology (xxxix 3, xl 6, 11). However this may be, his Dialogue here
exemplifies early continuation of the conception of the church as an ecclesia of
believers, illustrated above from Acts and Paul, and strikingly presented in the
introduction of the lesser song of Moses (Exod. 14:31–15:1 lxx).
Moreover, two small correspondences between these verses in Exodus and
expressions later used by Paul deserve notice. In 14:31, the people have faith
not just in God, but in God and his servant Moses. This binary pattern (found
also at Num. 21:5, here of disbelief) is comparable with the Pauline expression
of communal faith in one God, and one lord—who as messianic leader takes
Moses’ place (1 Cor. 8:6). Secondly, these two consecutive verses in Exodus.
14:31 and 15:1, when read together present praise as the fruit of faith. The two
verses were indeed thus read together in rabbinic exegesis (so the Mekhilta,
quoted below, with homiletic emphasis on the importance of faith); but this
already occurred in the Persian period, as appears from the exodus narrative
in Ps. 106 (lxx105):12 ‘And they believed in [God’s] words, and sang his praise’.
The progression from faith to praise which the consecutive reading embodies

4
For ‘congregation of the faithful’ see Bishop John Hooper’s fourth article of 1552, close to
‘congregation of faithful men’ in the 1552 text which became the Nineteenth of the Thirty-Nine
Articles (both are quoted, with a further comment by Hooper using the word ‘multitude’, as in Acts
4:32, by C. Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion (Cambridge: Deighton, 1851), 290); the
similar ‘blessed company of all faithful people’ had been used in the thanksgiving after communion
composed for the English Prayer-book of 1549. All are probably influenced by Luther, whose view
of the church as a ‘communion of saints’ in the sense of a congregation of pious believers builds on
patristic tradition shaped by Acts as well as Paul (see the text, below).
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 295

later reappears in Paul: ‘with the heart it is believed …, with the mouth it
is confessed’ (Rom. 10:10). Here Paul for a moment reverses the sequence
‘mouth … heart’ derived from his earlier quotation of Deut. 30:14 (Rom. 10:8).
As ‘confession’ (exomologesis) in the Greek biblical tradition regularly has the
sense of hymnic ‘praise’, in the Psalter and elsewhere (for example, Tobit 14:1;
Ecclus. 39:13–15 lxx), it is not unlikely that Paul has in mind the classical
instance of congregational faith and praise at the Red Sea. Ps. 106 was quoted
in Rom. 1; and the mouth, important in Paul here, is picked out in Wisdom
precisely in connection with the Song at the sea: ‘Wisdom opened the mouth
of the dumb’ (Wisd. 10:21).
It is very possible, therefore, that the sequence Exod. 14:31–15:1 lies behind
Rom. 10:10. In any case, however, the pattern of communal faith leading to
communal confession which is given here in Exodus will have facilitated
Christian views of the church as the community of faith and confession. The
believing assembly of men and women in the lesser Song of Moses can be
contrasted with God’s ‘sons and daughters’ who provoked him, according to
the greater Song, as ‘children in whom is no faith (pistis)’ (Deut. 32:19–20 lxx).
The two Songs together, in their lxx form, therefore enforce the conception of
the church as a community of faith and confession. They belong to the biblical
material which qualified the view that the congregation is perpetuated chiefly
by physical descent.
A third and related conception of the church, as the assembly whose
confession is divinely inspired, appears in the interpretation of the lesser Song
as attested in the Wisdom of Solomon. The prophetically-led congregational
hymn of praise was taken to have been inspired, perhaps even ecstatic. In this
hymn God opened the mouth of the dumb, and made the tongues of babes
to speak clearly (Wisd. 10:20–21; cf. Isa. 35:6); and they roamed like horses
and skipped like lambs as they praised the Lord who delivered them (Wisd.
19:9; cf. Isa. 63:13 and Ps. 114:6). In Philo, similarly, they are ‘in ecstasy’,
e̓nqousiw͂nteV, men and women alike (Philo, V. Contempl. 87).
The interpretation shared by Wisdom and Philo appears also in rabbinic
tradition, for example in the Mekhilta: ‘As a reward for the faith with which
Israel believed in the Lord, the holy spirit rested upon them and they uttered
the Song, as it is written, And they believed in the Lord … Then Moses and the
children of Israel sang … (Exod. 14:31–15:1)’ (Mekhilta, Beshallah, 6 (7), on
296 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Exod. 14:31). The formula ‘the holy spirit rested upon Israel and they uttered
the Song’ is also found in versions of the rabbinic debate on the performance
of the Song which has already been mentioned (Mekhilta, Shirata, 1, on Exod.
15:1; Tosefta, Soṭah 6.2, cited above).
The ecstatic aspect of this inspired utterance also reappears in rabbinic
tradition, in general agreement with Wisdom and Philo. Thus, sucklings and
unborn babes in the womb joined in the Song, together with the ministering
angels—as ‘God is my strength and my song’ (Exod. 15:2) suggests when
set beside ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou established
strength’ (Ps. 8:2–3). This probably second-century exegesis is found among
other places at Mekhilta, Shirata, 1, on Exod. 15:1. Comparably, the beginning
of the Song of Songs, ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth’, was uttered
by Israel at the Red Sea, in an exegesis ascribed to the late third-century
Caesarean teacher Hanina bar Papa; the verse so interpreted is paraphrased
in the midrash with a variation on the formula of inspiration noted above,
‘let him make the holy spirit rest upon us, and we will utter before him many
songs’ (Cant. R. i 2, 1)—probably taken to include the Song of Songs, with its
exalted hints of mystical union, as well as the Song of Moses.
The lxx as understood in Wisdom and Philo therefore represents
widespread interpretative tradition. Paul’s assumption that the congregational
cry of Abba is uttered by the Spirit (Rom. 8:15; Gal 4:6) is closer in expression
to the rabbinic version of this tradition, where ‘holy spirit’ regularly occurs;
but it seems none the less to be continuous with the Septuagintal view of the
redeemed congregation as uttering a hymn by divine inspiration.
A fourth attribute of the community of the exodus is a relation between the
congregation and the angels, both bad and good. This emerges with special
reference to the hostile angels in the greater Song.

When the Highest divided the nations, when he dispersed the children of
Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the
angels of God; and the Lord’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his
inheritance, Israel.
(Deut. 32:8–9 lxx)

As is often noted, the translation ‘the angels of God’ here in verse 8 presupposes
a Hebrew text such as is known from Qumran Cave 4, to be rendered with
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 297

‘El’ rather than, as in most English versions, ‘Israel’; and the ‘sons of El’ are
understood as angels, as happened with the ‘sons of God’ in Job. Some Greek
copies have the rendering ‘sons’ (followed with discussion by Harl in Dogniez
and Harl 1992, 325–6); but it was no doubt considered to refer to angels, as
in the majority Greek text. For the present purpose the translation process
reconstructed here is less important than the understanding which governs
it, also attested at Ecclus. 17:17 and Jub. 15:30–2, in line with Deut. 4:19–20:
each nation is allotted to an angel (from among the sun, moon and stars, all the
heavenly host, the gods whom the heathen worship, according to Deut. 4:19);
but the Lord himself takes his own people. The people of God is therefore eyed
jealously by the angel-deities of the nations, but protected by God (and his
angels).
This understanding in turn leaves well-known traces in New Testament
teaching. Sometimes its ecclesiological aspect remains largely implicit, for
example when Paul states that we are redeemed by Christ from the power of
the ‘elements of the world’ and ‘not-gods’ (Gal. 4:3–5, 8–10), most plausibly
understood as the cosmic host of the angel-deities of the nations; here it is
membership of the redeemed people belonging to the true God which brings
protection from the hostile powers to whom the nations are allotted, but the
church is unmentioned. The importance of the church in this connection
emerges more clearly in Eph. 3:8–12, where the manifold wisdom of God will
be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavens through the
church (Eph. 3:10, dià th͂V e̓kklhsíaV)—God’s own people, now consisting,
as it is presumed that the heavenly powers who eye his portion can see, both
of Jews and gentiles. The church is viewed here, like God’s own people in Deut.
32:8, as an object of interest to the angels of the nations—all the more because
their own subjects, the gentiles, are falling away to become fellow-citizens with
the saints, belonging to God (Eph. 2:19).
Lastly, the congregation of Israel is united around a ruler, Moses in the
exodus and another to come. This has already emerged through the binary faith
of the congregation in God and in Moses, noticed above in connection with
the introduction of the lesser Song (Exod. 14:31–15:1 lxx). The importance of
congregational faith in Moses is enhanced elsewhere in the lxx Exodus, in its
version of the narrative of the signs given to Moses (Exod. 4:1–9 lxx, where
by comparison with mt ‘in you’ is added after ‘believe’ in verses 5, 8 and 9).
298 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The significance of Moses as a ruler and the pattern of a messiah is evident

in Philonic and rabbinic passages on Moses as king; see for example Philo,
V. Mos. i 148, 158 (he was named god and king of the whole nation); Midrash
Tehillim i 2, on Ps. 1:1 (like David, he was king of Israel and Judah, as shown by
Deut. 33:5—a passage from the Blessing of Moses discussed below). This point
gains New Testament confirmation not only from Acts 7:35–8, on the legation
of Moses as ruler and redeemer, but also from Paul’s striking statement that
all the fathers ‘were baptized into Moses’ (1 Cor. 10:2), as the Christians were
‘baptized into Christ’ (Rom. 6:3).
To return to the Pentateuch, in his final Blessing Moses foretells, according
to the lxx, that ‘there shall be a ruler in the Beloved, when the rulers of the
nations are gathered together at one time with the tribes of Israel’ (Deut. 33:5
lxx). The future ‘there shall be’, contrasting with the past tense represented
in the Massoretic pointing and in the rabbinic interpretation quoted above,
makes this verse in the lxx a messianic oracle comparable with those of Jacob
and Balaam (Gen 49:9–12; Num. 24:7, 17 lxx); but Deut. 33:5 lxx differs from
these passages in envisaging the coming ruler as a monarch ‘in the Beloved’—
the elect people of God—reigning in an imperial council and forming the focus
of the unity of Israel and, beyond, of the tributary nations of the world. Here
the Blessing in its lxx form is not far from the Stoically-influenced Philonic
and Pauline conception of the nation as one body, headed by the high priest
or Christ, respectively (Philo, Spec. Leg. iii 319; Rom. 12:5) (Dahl 1941, 226–7;
Moule 1977, 83–5). Hence, although the messianic links of the congregation
in these lxx texts are less prominent than New Testament links between the
church and Christ, the lxx presents in the lesser Song and the Blessing of
Moses the picture of a church led by Moses as ruler, or by the greater messianic
ruler still to come.
Thus far, then, the material studied from the lxx has disclosed five
attributes of the congregation which are also prominent marks of the New
Testament church. Constitutionally and liturgically, it is a body in which men
and women each take part, and it is governed by a divinely-appointed ruler.
To turn to theological attributes, it can be described as a community of faith,
the congregation of the redeemed who believe and confess. Correspondingly,
in this corporate confession it is a community of the divinely inspired, and its
confession is led by prophecy. As God’s own peculiar people and portion, it is
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 299

watched by the angel-deities to whom the heathen nations are allotted. Its faith
is faith not only in God, but also in the appointed ruler, and a great ruler to
come will be the focus of its unity. The shape and ethos of the Pauline churches
is anticipated here; and although the theological attributes are not made
normative in these texts, the fact that they are exhibited by the congregation
of the exodus as described in the Pentateuch accords them authority and
influence.
These attributes give some substance to the view of the church outlined
in the lxx passages considered here. The sketch which begins to emerge
constitutes a far-reaching anticipation of New Testament conceptions. Now
this outline can receive further definition from the overlap between some lxx
titles used for the congregation, and New Testament titles for the church.

Titles of the Church

Within the two Songs, the Blessing and Wisdom the principal title of the
exodus congregation is ‘people’ (laos). The Pentateuchal texts also have the
correlative ‘Jacob’, ‘Israel’, and (for the national name Jeshurun) ‘Beloved’. There
is also occasional reference to ekklesia and ‘saints’. Here the evidently national
title ‘people’ will be treated first, followed by the still national but less plainly
ethnocentric ‘Beloved’, ‘ecclesia’, and ‘saints’. All these terms reappear in the
New Testament vocabulary referring to the church, but their fresh application
is not always straightforward.
The self-definition of the assembly as the people (laos) of God just
encountered in the ‘Great Ode’ is central in the lxx material considered here. In
the lesser Song of Exod. 15 the congregation, articulated into men and women,
identify themselves emphatically as the elect people of God, ‘this people whom
you redeemed’, ‘this people whom you possessed’ (Exod. 15:13, 16). The greater
Song, correspondingly, remembering the allotment of God’s own people to
himself in the presence of the angels of the nations (Deut. 32:8 lxx, discussed
above), expects the day when ‘the Lord will judge his people’, when the angels
shall worship him and the nations shall rejoice ‘with his people’, and ‘he shall
purify his people’s land’ (Deut. 32:36, 43 lxx). In the Blessing, similarly, he
has had pity on his people, and there is none like Israel, ‘a people saved by the
300 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Lord’ (Deut. 33:3, 29). Finally, in the later chapters of Wisdom the term laos is
even more clearly a focus of expressions of divine election; thus, in passages on
the exodus, Wisdom delivered a holy people, God did good to his people and
fed them with angels’ food (10:15, 16:2, 20); the Egyptians, on the destruction
of their first-born, confessed ‘the people’ to be God’s son (18:13); his people
journeyed miraculously on when the Egyptians found a strange death, and in
all things God magnified his people (19:5, 22). The theory of divinely-ordered
yet rational miracle elaborated in Wisdom itself serves especially, as these
verses show, to exalt God’s ‘people’ (Sweet 1965, 123–4).
The word laos used here in the lxx, and emerging in Wisdom as tout court
a current name for Israel, is rarely applied directly to the Christians in Paul.
Like the name Israel, it occurs with primary reference to the Jewish people
rather than as a straightforward title of the church (Dahl 1941, 210). This
is probably the case when Deut. 32:43 lxx ‘rejoice, you nations, with his
people’ is quoted at Rom. 15:10. Earlier in Romans, however, those gentiles
whom God has called are held now to share, correspondingly, in the title of
his people and his children, as prophesied in Hosea: ‘I will call the not-people
(as) my people; and her that was not beloved (as) beloved’ (Hos. 2:25, freely
quoted and followed by Hos. 2:1 lxx, at Rom. 9:24–5). Here Paul probably
uses an existing testimony-chain, the compilation of which attests his own
conviction that the gentile Christians share the election of the Israelite laos.
Thus for Christians it was their ‘fathers’, with spiritual privileges like their
own (1 Cor. 10:1–4), who sinned when ‘the people sat down to eat and drink’
(1 Cor. 10:7, quoting Exod. 32:6). Correspondingly, another Pentateuchal
verse on the ‘people’ is used in exhortation to Christians at 2 Cor. 6:16, in a
passage perhaps drawn from a source, as mentioned above. Here the series
of texts on the congregation as the temple of God begins with Lev. 26:11–12,
quoted in a form near to Ezek 37:27, ‘I will dwell among them … and they
shall be my people’. The use of this text as the first of the series supports the
view that a Pentateuchal understanding of the assembly as made up of men
and women contributed to the specification of ‘daughters’ at the end of the
series, as noted above.
The Christians thus belong to the laos, but the title is not restricted to
the church. This is implied also in Acts, where laos can be applied to the
Jewish people, as noted below, but ‘God made a visitation to take from the
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 301

gentiles a people for his name’ (Acts 15:14; cf. Deut. 32:8; Rom. 9:24). The
same interpretation seems likely also to apply to famous texts on Christians as
(belonging to) the people of God in Hebrews (4:9, 10:30, from Deut. 32:40);
1 Peter (2:9–10, from Exod. 19:5–6, 23:22; Hos. 2:25); and Revelation (18:4
‘come out of her, my people’, from Jer. 51:45). These books offer no anti-Jewish
definition of laos, by contrast with the frequent employment, from the Epistle
of Barnabas onwards, of phrases such as ‘the new people’ (Epistle of Barnabas
5.7; see also Cyprian, De Unitate v 19 (25), quoted above). The other side of
this coin is New Testament continuation and awareness of the Jewish use of
laos as a Jewish national title. This was illustrated above from Rom. 15:10 on
‘his people’; but is also reflected in Acts (as at 7:17; 26:17, 23; 28:17, all in
speeches by Christian Jews to non-Christian Jews) and Jude (verse 5). Phrases
like ‘the new people’ imply a doctrine of supersession, but they also recognize
and continue the centrality in biblical and contemporary Judaism of self-
definition as ‘people of God’—the point brought home by the prominence
of laos in the lxx texts considered here. laos can therefore be reckoned only
with qualification among New Testament titles for the church, but the lxx
references to an elect laos are central in New Testament conceptions of the
church.
The election of the Jewish nation was also strikingly asserted in the lxx
rendering of Jeshurun, the name for Israel occurring in the greater Song and
the Blessing of Moses, by o̔ h̓gaphménoV, ‘the beloved’ (Deut. 32:15, 33:5, 26,
followed in the lxx translations of Isaiah (44:3) and the Psalms (29 (28):6);
see below). This interpretation fits the immediate context of Deut. 32:15, a
description of God’s particular care for Israel from the time of his original
choice (Deut. 32:8–14), as well as the larger biblical context of the divine love
shown in the exodus (compare ‘your sons whom you loved’, Wisd. 16:26).
‘Beloved’ appears as a messianic title in the New Testament (Eph. 1:6) and
in continuing Christian usage (for example, Epistle of Barnabas 3.6); in both
these instances h̓gaphménoV is used, but the similar a̓gaphtóV also occurs in
this sense, as in the Greek text of the Ascension of Isaiah (3:17).
‘Beloved’, which could in principle be represented by either Greek word,
was probably already applied by pre-Christian Jews not only to Israel, but also
to the messiah; thus in the Psalms the former sense seems to appear at Ps. 29
(28):6 lxx (o̔ h̓gaphménoV), the latter in the inscription of Ps. 45 (44) lxx ‘for
302 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the beloved’ (u̔pèr tou͂ a̓g aphtou͂) (Schaper 1995, 78–9, taking Ps. 29 (28):6
lxx also as messianic, by contrast with the above).
The thematically related term ‘son’ has a similar dual application to Israel
and the messiah (Exod. 4:22; Ps. 2:7). The stress on election in lxx application
of the title ‘beloved’ to the congregation may be compared with the stress on
Israel’s sonship in Hebrew prayer known from Qumran: ‘thou hast made us
sons to thee before the eyes of all nations, for thou didst call Israel My son, my
first-born’ (4Q504 iii 1–2, lines 3–5, quoting Exod. 4:22).
In the New Testament the singular ‘beloved’ as a title is restricted to the
messiah (Eph. 1:6, already cited, but not in the epistles generally acknowledged
as Pauline; for the title compare Mark 1:11, 9:7, and parallels, for the sense
Col. 1:13 ‘son of his love’). The plural ‘beloved of God’, however, is a title of
the Christians collectively, as at Rom. 1:7 (a̓g aphtoí), 1 Thess. 1:4, 2 Thess.
2:13, Col. 3:12 (h̓gaphménoi); cf. Rom. 11:28 (a̓g aphtoí), of Israel. The link
between the applications to Christ and to the church appears in the immediate
context of Eph. 1:6, a blessing on God who ‘picked us out through him
[Christ] … to be holy and blameless before him in love having foreordained
us …’ (Eph. 1:4–5). Against the lxx and New Testament background just
noted, ‘in love’ here (e̓n a̓g ápῃ) probably refers to God’s love for his people in
election (so Origen), not theirs for one another. This passage could then rank
with Eph. 5:1 ‘[God’s] beloved children’ (tékna a̓g aphtá) (cf. Wisd. 16:26)
as attesting the sense of the church title ‘beloved’ in slightly different language.
This usage directly continues, and applies to the church in each place, the
assertion of communal election made by the rendering ‘beloved’ in the greater
Song and Blessing of Moses. Its continuity with the lxx is emphasized by the
importance of ‘beloved of God’ (Rom. 1:7, 1 Thess 1:4; cf. Eph. 1:4–5, 5:1),
despite the concurrence of the integrally related concept that the church was
loved by Christ; the two are fused at Rom. 8:39.
The most famous and influential of all church titles, ekklesia, occurs in the
introduction of the ‘Great Ode’: ‘Moses spoke to the end the words of this ode
in the ears of all the ecclesia of Israel’ (Deut. 32:1 lxx). This title was quickly
adopted by Christians (1 Thess. 1:1, etc.), by contrast with their qualified
use of laos. Paul often uses it in the form ‘ecclesia of God’ (1 Cor. 1:2, etc.),
thereby underlining the Christian share in the special relationship to God
bestowed on the laos. Although ekklesia recalled the Israelite ‘ecclesia in the
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 303

wilderness’ (Acts 7:38), for which it was regularly used in lxx Deuteronomy,
it was not restricted to this sense. Factors which freed it from the strongly
national associations of laos will have included its absence from lxx Genesis
to Numbers, where synagoge is used for the Israelite congregation. Another
such factor will have been the broad usage of both ekklesia and synagoge, and
the Hebrew qahal and ʿedah and Aramaic qehala and kenisha, to which they
often respectively correspond, for other assemblies as well as that of all Israel.
Thus an application of Aramaic qehala to a pious group is found at Babylonian
Talmud, Ber. 9b, on the prayer practice of ‘the holy congregation’ in Jerusalem.
(The use of this Aramaic phrase here and elsewhere is discussed in connection
with New Testament vocabulary by Jeremias 1969, 247–9.) Hence ekklesia
could be used for the separate Christian ‘churches of the saints’ (1 Cor. 14:33; cf.
Ps. 89 (88):6 lxx ‘the ecclesia of the saints’); but it also presented the churches
as continuous with the congregation of Israel described in the lxx Pentateuch.
Finally, ‘the saints’ appear as Israel corporately in the lesser Song and the
Blessing of Moses. God is ‘glorified among the saints (a̔g íoi)’ (Exod. 15:11
lxx), and ‘all the sanctified (h̔g iasménoi) are under his hands’ (Deut. 33:3
lxx). The first of these passages could have been taken as a reference to angels,
but was perhaps more readily applicable to the congregation, the saints who
are glorifying God by the hymn of Exod. 15 which they are singing. The second
passage is applied to the martyrs in 4 Macc. 17:19. In the book of Wisdom,
comparably, the martyr ‘was numbered among the sons of God, and his lot is
among the saints’ (5:5); the theme of Israel’s sonship (Exod. 4:22) with which
‘the saints’ of Israel are here connected was noted above in Qumran prayer and
elsewhere in Wisdom (16:26; cf. 18:13). Again in Wisdom, at the first Passover
the Israelites covenanted ‘that the saints (a̔g íoi) should share alike in good
things and in dangers’ (Wisd. 18:9).
This Jewish designation of Israel as ‘saints’ is reflected in Acts when gentile
Christians receive ‘a lot among the sanctified’ (Acts 26:18; cf. 20:32, and the
use of laos for the Jewish people noted above in Acts). Phrases speaking of the
‘inheritance’ or ‘lot’ of the saints recur, with the same emphasis on sharing the
privileges of Israel, at Eph. 1:18; Col. 1:12 (compare the stress on the church
as beloved noted above in Eph. 1:4–5, 5:1; Col. 3:12). The privileges are still
implied by ‘the saints’ without ‘lot’ in Eph. 2:19, cited above. This group of
phrases on the ‘saints’ inheritance from Acts, Ephesians and Colossians
304 Messianism among Jews and Christians

correspondingly recalls the ‘Great Ode’ not only on ‘the sanctified’, but also
on the election of Israel as falling to God’s own ‘inheritance’ (Deut. 32:8 lxx,
discussed above).
The Christians, sharing this inheritance, are in the same way collectively
entitled ‘sanctified’ (1 Cor. 1:2) or, more usually, ‘saints’ (for example in 1 Cor.
14:33, quoted above, and in epistolary addresses such as Rom. 1:7; Phil. 1:1).
This title can readily accompany the title ‘beloved’, as at Rom. 1:7, Col. 3:12,
both cited above. In the case of ‘saints’ a Pentateuchally-rooted title has been
taken up, once again, in the Jewish community, as the lxx Pentateuch and
Wisdom attest; and the Christians continue its application to Israel, but also
apply it specially to their own churches.
The four titles now considered present the congregation of the exodus
as the redeemed people of God, God’s beloved, and as the ecclesia of Israel
made up of the ‘sanctified’ or ‘saints’. When these titles are viewed together
with the attributes noted above, the congregation as presented in this lxx
material is more fully characterized. Constitutionally, it is both national and
ecclesiastical, a national assembly for divine service, in which men and women
take an appointed part. Theologically, it is not only a people descended from
the Hebrew ancestors, but also a congregation of the saints who have faith in
God and his servant Moses, and confess their divine Lord. Their corporate
hymn of faith is divinely inspired, and collectively they are God’s own Beloved,
led and unified by God’s appointed ruler, a people on whom the hostile gaze of
the angel-deities is bent in vain.
To return to the opening question, just how far does this picture anticipate
Christian conceptions of the church? The view of the congregation of the
exodus offered in this lxx material would not be wholly inadequate as a
sketch of the church in the New Testament. Thus the Corinthian emphasis on
spiritual gifts, and Paul’s call in reply for decency and order, could both invoke
the example of the Pentateuchal congregation as presented here in the lxx. The
constitutive nature of faith for the church, as met in Acts and Paul, is as much a
feature of the Septuagintal portrait as is the importance of Jewish descent. The
congregation appears in the lxx under designations characteristically used by
Christians, ‘the church’ and ‘the saints’, and the Pauline phrase ‘ecclesia of God’
(as at 1 Cor. 1:2) recalls the Septuagintal view of the people as the Lord’s own
portion.
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 305

On the other hand, it has become clear that the transition from this
portrayal to Christian conceptions and doctrines of the church was not wholly
straightforward. The conviction that Israel corporately were God’s chosen and
beloved, as lxx interpretation so strongly emphasizes, did not disappear. In
this point the Paul of Romans was at one with the Paul of Acts (Rom. 11:28,
15:10; Acts 26:23, 28:17, cited above). Hence, despite expectation that Israel in
the end would be saved through Christ (Rom. 11:25–7), and despite thorough
Christian participation in the concept of the people of God, ‘people’ was not
readily adopted as a church title until Christian claims to be the new elect
people took root.
A second point in which the Christian development seems distinctive
without being discontinuous is the link regularly made in New Testament
sources between the congregation and the messiah. So in Paul the church
is ‘the ecclesia of God’, but it belongs primarily to God’s messiah, and then,
thereby, to God: ‘you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s’ (1 Cor. 3:23). This is a
messianic expansion of the affirmation that the congregation belongs to God
noted above at Deut. 32:8. Similarly, Paul betroths the Corinthian church like
a virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2), not directly to God; the church is beloved by
Christ as well as God, as noted already; and the Christians form one body in
(here probably in the sense ‘because of ’) Christ (Rom. 12:5), or the body of
(belonging to) Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) (for these interpretations of the phrases
see Moule 1977, 71–2). The communal faith is ‘the faith of Jesus Christ’ (Rom.
3:22; Gal 3:22); although for many exegetes this faith is the faith exhibited by
Christ, in the present writer’s view the phrase more probably implies both faith
that Jesus is the Christ of God, the bringer of God’s redemption, and also faith
in Christ like Israel’s faith in Moses (the ecclesiastical aspect of ‘believing’ in
these two Pauline passages was noted above).
Here, however, as this comparison recalls, the lxx has presented an
antecedent noticed above, the binary faith of Israel in God and Moses
(Exod. 14:31; cf. Num. 21:5). Similarly, the conception of the church as the
congregation belonging to and unified by the messiah (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor.
12:27) is anticipated in the lesser Song and the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33:5).
Here the New Testament development can be called not an adaptation, as
in the case of laos, but an intensification, occasioned by the ardent realized
messianism of the Christians.
306 Messianism among Jews and Christians

It can then be said, in conclusion, that the messianic element in Christian

faith, and the concurrent Christian modification of the concept of the people
of God, are foci of what can be called new in New Testament conceptions of
the church. Far more, however, is inherited from Judaism as represented by the
lxx tradition, including what might be thought characteristically Christian
associations of the church with faith, confession, inspiration and the messiah.5

Literature

R. H. Bell, 1994. Provoked to Jealousy: the Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in
Romans 9–11 (WUNT ii.63, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck)
N. A. Dahl, 1941. Das Volk Gottes (Oslo: Dybwad)
C. Dogniez and M. Harl, 1992. La Bible d’Alexandrie, 5, Le Deutéronome (Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf)
M. Hengel, with R. Defines, 1994. ‘Die Septuaginta als “christliche
Schriftensammlung”, ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons’, in
M. Hengel and A. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und
Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck), 182–284
———, 1995. ‘The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship’ (revised English
translation), in M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark),
227–91
W. Horbury, 1995. ‘The Christian Use and the Jewish Origins of the Wisdom of
Solomon’, in J. Day, R. P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in
Ancient Israel (Cambridge: University Press), 182–96
———, 1996. ‘Land, Sanctuary and Worship’, in J. P. M. Sweet and J. M. G. Barclay
(eds.), Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 207–24
———, 1998. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark)
———, 1999. ‘Women in the Synagogue’, in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies and J. V. M.
Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, iii (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 358–401
J. Jeremias, 1969. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave,
with the author’s revisions (London: SCM Press)
A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, 1989. La Bible d’Alexandrie, ii, L’Exode (Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf)

5
I am most grateful to M. N. A. Bockmuehl for comments and suggestions.
 Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church 307

R. Le Déaut, 1984. ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser

(eds.), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf), 147–95
C. F. D. Moule, 1977. The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
J. L. W. Schaper, 1995. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT ii.76, Tübingen:
Mohr/Siebeck)
E. Schürer and M. Goodman, 1986. E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd–4th edn., Leipzig, 1901–9); ET The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, M.
Goodman and P. Vermes (i, ii, iii.1, iii.2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark), iii.1, 470–704
L. Seeligmann, 1948. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah (Leiden: Brill)
J. P. M. Sweet, 1965. ‘The Theory of Miracles in the Wisdom of Solomon’, in C. F. D.
Moule (ed.), Miracles (London: Mowbray), 115–26
———, 1979. Revelation (London: SCM Press)
M. H. Williams, ‘Exarchon: an Unsuspected Jewish Liturgical Title from Ancient
Rome’, JJS li (2000), 77–87, repr. in M. H. Williams, Jews in a Graeco-Roman
Environment (WUNT 312, Tübingen, 2013), 141–53
308
Synagogue and Church in the
Roman Empire
 9

Messianism among Jews and Christians

in the Second Century

I. Introduction

The only difference between Jews and Christians, according to Peter in the
Clementine Recognitions, concerns the advent of the messiah: ‘inter nos atque
ipsos de hoc est solo discidium’.1 Comparable opinions appear in authors
who are more central in the apologetic tradition. In Justin’s Dialogue the Jew
Trypho ascribes the neglect of the law by Christians to their error concerning
the messiah, an error ‘which Justin has propounded zealously (Dial. 8).
Tertullian similarly concludes that no question is more disputed between Jews
and Christians than the coming of the Christ, ‘nec alia magis inter nos et illos
conpulsatio est quam quod iam venisse non credunt’ (Apol. 21, 15).2 Hence,
‘credere in Christum’ became shorthand for the transition from Judaism to
Christianity.3
This view of the difference between Jews and Christians as essentially or
mainly relating to the messiah is already common in the New Testament,4 but
it has long seemed that it may rest on an illusion. For the Jews, in reality, was
not the law the principal thing? Thus, the Mishnah compiled in Galilee at the
end of the second century has little to say concerning the messiah, and in the
diaspora the synagogues, focal points of Jewish life, were associated especially

1
Rec. Clem. i, 50, 5; cf. 43, 2: ‘de hoc enim solo nobis qui credimus in Iesum, adversum non credentes
Iudaeos videtur esse differentia’.
2
Further comparable statements are gathered in the commentary by J. E. B. Mayor, Q. S. F. Tertulliani
Apologeticus (Cambridge, 1917), ad loc.
3
For example, Justin, Dial. 47, 1 (pisteúein); Pseudo-Cyprian, ad Vigilium (the Jew Papiscus ‘et
in Jesum Christum filium Dei credidit’); Epistula Severi 12 (826) ‘in Christum crede’ (advice to
unbaptized Jew; fifth-century Minorca); so already sometimes, perhaps, the Fourth Gospel, e.g.
12:42).
4
For example, at Acts 9:22, 18:5 (cf. 2:35, 4:18, 5:40 and 42); John 7:40–52.
312 Messianism among Jews and Christians

with the reading of the law.5 Correspondingly, both the New Testament and
the later Christian anti-Jewish writings envisage important disagreements
on the subject of the law, for example at John 5:16; Justin, Dial. 8, 4. Further,
the Christian minority was not necessarily important in Jewish eyes. Many
therefore conclude that the picture of a lively conpulsatio between Jews and
Christians concerning the messiah is Christianized and distorted; warnings
on these lines are given, for example, by E. P. Sanders in the New Testament
field and by Johann Maier on Jewish—Christian relations in the patristic age.6
Nevertheless, if the patristic testimony magnifies the preoccupations of the
minority in the imagined debate—the Christian side, it also reflects genuine
interests of the majority—the Jewish side. Thus, the lxx Pentateuch already
included striking expressions of messianic hope (notably at Gen. 49; Num. 24:7,
17), and such expressions are abundant in the Pentateuchal Targums.7 Further,
Jewish concern with the early Christians, and with Christian messianic hopes
in particular, is attested by the traces of Jewish anti-Christian polemic, with
special reference to the Christ of the Christians, found in Celsus as quoted by
Origen and in rabbinic sources.8 Here, indeed, J. Maier is prominent among
those who interpret the passages otherwise, but the present writer would
submit that his reconstruction of their prehistory does something less than
justice to the striking accord on this subject between Jewish and pagan sources,
and between these sources and the allegations of Jewish criticisms in Justin
and Tertullian.9 In the convergence of these indications of Jewish messianic
hopes and anti-Christian polemic with the patristic notices of Jewish-
Christian conpulsatio on the messiah there appears a basis for the investigation
of messianism as a phenomenon common to both Jews and Christians in the
second century.

5
See Acts 15:21; Tertullian, Apol. 18, 8 (‘palam lectitant’).
6
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London, 1985), 281–6 and n. 57 (circumcision was the focus of
disagreement, although Christians may also have suffered for the sake of their loyalty to a discredited
leader); J. Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt, 1978), 6f. and
Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Darmstadt, 1982), 200–2.
7
J. Lust, ‘Messianism and Septuagint’, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress volume: Salamanca, 1983 (SVT
xxxvi; Leiden, 1985), 174–91, accepts as messianic the passages cited here, but holds that the messianic
character of Septuagintal interpretation is often over-estimated; on the other hand, some further
passages could probably be added to his dossier of messianic texts. On the Targums see M. Pérez
Fernández, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia and Jerusalem, 1981).
8
Celsus in passages such as those quoted by Origen, c. Celsum i, 28, 32 (on the Jewish source see
E. Bammel, Judaica (Tübingen, 1986), 265–83); Tosefta, Hullin ii, 22, 24; b. Sanh. 43a.
9
Maier, Jesus, 219–37, 264f., discussed by W. Horbury, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy
(Edinburgh, 1998), 105–8.
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 313

Here the attempt is made to trace a persistent dependence of the Christian

minority on the Jewish majority in messianic hope. Such a dependence may be
defined as cultural, in so far as the Christians, despite the distinctive features of
their teachings and institutions, formed a kind of subculture of the Jews (as is
especially evident in early Christian Old Testament interpretation).10 It can also
be called a doctrinal and institutional dependence, however, in that teachings
and customs were often formed by an instinct, to be illustrated below, either to
follow or to differ from what was perceived as the Jewish norm.
The persistence of this dependence on the side of the Christians during
the second century may also, however, be significant for the understanding
of contemporary Jewish opinion. In Justin’s Dialogue his debate with Trypho
on Christianity is preceded by a conversation between Trypho and his friends
about ‘the war in Judaea’—Bar Cocheba’s revolt (Justin, Dial. 9, 3). This touch in
a literary work once again suggests that Christian second-century sources may
reflect not simply the Judaism of the pre-Christian period, but also something
of the outlook of contemporary Jews. The persistence of Christian dependence
in messianic questions would then indicate the continuing importance of
messianic interpretations of the law among Jews under the Antonine and
Severan emperors, and might illuminate the historical background of the
Mishnah of R. Judah ha-Nasi.
It will now be asked first, therefore, if one can properly speak of a ‘messianism’,
sensitive to contemporary Jewish opinion, among Christians of the second
century; and secondly, if the hypothesis of a dependence of Christians upon
Jews in messianic hope finds confirmation in, and thereby sheds light upon,
contemporary Jewish history.

II. Messianism among the Christians

The concepts of Christ current among second-century Christians have often

been discussed with reference to the history of doctrine;11 but perhaps it is also

10
For example in Christian use of revised Jewish Greek versions (‘Theodotion’ and Aquila), or
Christian inquiry into the biblical canon ‘according to the Hebrews’ (e.g. Origen, preface to com. Ps.
i–xxv, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. vi, 25, 1–2).
11
For example by P. Beskow, Rex Gloriae (Stockholm, 1962), 187–211, and passim; J. N. D. Kelly, Early
Christian Doctrines (London, 51977), 138–54; J. Daniélou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine
before the Council of Nicaea, 3 vols. (ET, London and Philadelphia, 1964, 1973, 1977), passim.
314 Messianism among Jews and Christians

proper to speak of them as evidences of a messianism. They begin to appear in

this light when a connection is made between two well-known manifestations
of second-century piety which are not always viewed together, the cult of
Christ, and chiliasm.12
The cult of Christ can be sensed especially in the phenomenon of hymns
sung ‘Christo, quasi deo’ (Pliny, ep. 96, 7).13 Seen from without, this element
in Christian worship perhaps recalled particularly the cults of heroes and of
sovereigns.14 Thus, in the hymn of Clement of Alexandria, which is redolent
of paideía both in the sense of education and in the sense of a corps of pai͂deV,
the Christ is hailed as king basileu͂ a̔gíwn … basileu͂ paídwn a̓nepájwn (lines
11, 31–2 of the hymn in Clement of Alexandria, Paed. iii, 12).15 Through the
testimony tradition it was emphasized not only that the Christ came ‘as a little
boy … who had neither form nor beauty’ (Isa. 53:2, lxx), a point advanced
by Clement against esteem for merely outward grace, but also that he would
come again as ‘the king’ called ‘fair in beauty beyond the sons of men’ (Ps.
44 [45]:2–3, lxx).16 Although these differing aspects could cause him to be
imagined as a seemingly insignificant boy17 or a Protean figure,18 his beauty
was pre-eminent in art and hymnody, and in many visions.

12
The accord between Christian chiliasm and Jewish messianic hopes is underlined with reference to
the land by R. L. Wilken, ‘Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism, and the Idea of the Holy
Land’, HTR lxxix (1986), 298–307.
13
Beskow, Rex Gloriae, 162–5.
14
Justin, I Apol. 21–2 (Hermes, Asclepius, Dionysus, the emperors), with commentary by A. W. F.
Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr (Cambridge, 1911), 34–8; Celsus in Origen, c. Celsum, iii. 36
(Antinous; meant as an insult, but having enough truth in it to sting; see below on Christ as pai͂V).
15
Note the addition of basileúV in Christian adaptation of the Fourth Eclogue (Oration of
Constantine, 19). On Clement’s hymn the present writer would venture to diverge in one point of
emphasis from the commentary by H.-I. Marrou, in C. Mondésert, C. Matray and H.-I. Marrou,
Clément d’Alexandrie: Le Pédagogue iii (Paris, 1970), 192–207; pai͂V and pai͂deV in the hymn seem
to refer not just to early childhood, the sense stressed by Marrou (e.g. in the summary, p. 192, n. 2),
but also to later boyhood (cf. n. 21, below). Thus in lines 31–2, just quoted, the sense of pai͂deV
a̓népajoi is perhaps not wholly represented in his rendering ‘enfants innocents’, for the Greek
phrase also bears some correspondence to ‘pueri casti’, a phrase used to describe the male section of
a double choir singing a hymn by Horace, carmen saeculare, line 6.
16
Irenaeus, Haer. iii, 19 (20), 2 (alluding to both verses) and Tertullian, adv. Marc. iii, 7, paralleled
in adv. Iud. 14 (quoting both verses); see Cyprian, test. ii, 13 (Isa. 53:2, and other texts quoted
by Tertullian, loc. cit.), 29 (Ps. 44:3); on Isa. 53:2, cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 14, 8 (the two advents)
and Clement of Alexandria, Paed. iii, 1, 3 (with the note by Marrou, ad loc.), Strom. iii, 17; vi, 17
(beauty). Second- and third-century texts on Christ’s outward appearance are gathered by W. Bauer,
Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909, reprinted Darmstadt, 1967),
311–14.
17
Acts of John 88 (boy on the sea-shore); Pseudo-Cyprian, de montibus Sina et Sion, 13–14 (servant-
boy guarding vineyard in hide).
18
Acta Io. 88–91; Origen, c. Celsum vi, 77.
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 315

Thus, Christ appears in catacomb paintings as a young shepherd in the

likeness of Orpheus or Hermes;19 a literary analogue is the description of
the Orpheus-like minstrelsy of Christ the Word in Clement of Alexandria,
Protr. i.20 Similarly, Christ receives the title pai͂V in the hymn of Clement (pai͂V
krateróV, line 61), not without the biblical overtones of ‘servant’ and ‘son’,
but mainly in the sense of a divine ‘youth’.21 It is as a shepherd and ‘a most
fair young man’ (neaníaV) that he appears in Perpetua’s vision,22 as in others
recounted in the acts of the martyrs and the apocryphal acts of the apostles.23
The same concept is perhaps reflected in Justin Martyr, i Apol. 35, where bēn
in Isa. 9:6 (lxx ui̔óV) is rendered neanískoV.
In the cult of Christ, therefore, as attested in hymnody, art, and the
associated visions of ‘the king … fair in beauty’, he was conceived on the model
of the divine iuvenis, the model to which Virgil and Horace had assimilated the
young Augustus,24 sometimes against the same pastoral background.25
One more aspect of the cult of Christ deserves special note in the
present connection. The conceptions of Christ just mentioned bear many
resemblances not only to gentile conceptions of heroes and rulers, but also to
Jewish descriptions of the messiah current in the Graeco-Roman world. Thus,
the Orpheus-Christ in art and literature has long been thought to develop a
Jewish Orpheus-David (n. 20, above). Comparably, A. Hultgård has suggested
that the messianic teachings of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs were

19
J. Stevenson, The Catacombs (London, 1978), 100f.; R. L. P. Milburn in G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), The
Cambridge History of the Bible ii (Cambridge, 1969), 283.
20
The view that this Orphic Christ is adapted from a Jewish Orphic David as represented at Dura
(third century) and Gaza (sixth century) (so, for instance, W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek
Religion (London, 21952, 264), is challenged by C. Murray, ‘The Christian Orpheus’, in Cahiers
archéologiques xxvi (1977), 19–27 and re-asserted by H. Stern, ‘De l’Orphée juif et chrétien’, ibid.,
28; it is consistent with Ps. 151 as attested in Hebrew in 11Qpsa, although this form of the text is
probably not original (M. Smith, ‘Psalm 151, David, Jesus, and Orpheus’, ZAW xciii [1981], 247–53
[250 and n. 8]).
21
Solomon is somewhat comparably called pai͂V Ἑbrai͂oV by Clement, Protr. viii, with prime reference
to the young king as ‘a youth of good parts’ (pai͂V eu̓juh́V, Wisd. 8:19) who prayed for wisdom
(1 Kgs. 3:7–9; Wisd. 7:7–14); that pai͂V in Wisd. 8:19 can indicate present adolescence as well as past
childhood is shown by C. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, ii (Paris, 1984), ad loc.
22
Greek Martyrdom of Perpetua, 20 (ed. J. A. Robinson, Cambridge 1891, 77).
23
Several instances are gathered by G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), s.
vv. neaníaV, neanískoV. Among these the Acts of Xanthippe 15 (ed. M. R. James, Apocrypha
Anecdota, Cambridge 1893, 68), in which Christ in the form of a young man takes the guise of Paul,
recalls the story that Philumene, the prophetess of Apelles, saw visions of a boy who was sometimes
Christ, sometimes Paul (F. J. A. Hort, ‘Apelles’, in Dictionary of Christian Biography, i (London,
1877), 127f.).
24
So Virgil, ecl. i, 42; geo. i, 500; Horace, carm. i, 2, 42; cf. Cicero, Phil. v, 42 ‘divinus adulescentulus’;
see E. Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford, 1957), 214–19.
25
Stevenson, Catacombs, 100.
316 Messianism among Jews and Christians

influenced by ruler-cults.26 Further, there are kingly epiphanies of the messiah

in two writings probably composed about the beginning of the second century,
Fourth Ezra (the man from the sea) and the Fifth Book of the Sibylline
Oracles (the man from the heavens).27 The Jewish literature of testaments,
prophecies and oracles was continued by Christians, as happened with each
of the three books just mentioned. Herein it appears how the cult of Christ
was in substantial continuity with Jewish messianism, despite resemblances
to pagan cults and the Christian assertion adversus Iudaeos that the Christ
had come. Thus, in the Latin Fourth Ezra, the second chapter belongs to the
second-century Christian composition sometimes called Fifth Ezra; and here
is found, prefaced to the book which ends with the Jewish vision of the man
from the sea, a Christian vision of the expected ‘shepherd’, the young son of
God who stands on Mount Sion crowning the saints, ‘iuvenis statura celsus’
(4 Ezra 2:42).28
The position taken here may be clarified by reference to a well-known
divergence of opinion on the origin of christology. In the influential view of
W. Bousset, the cult of Christ as Kyrios arose among diaspora Christians in
Antioch and elsewhere by derivation from the gentile cults of ‘lords many’
(1 Cor. 8:5).29 M. Hengel and C. F. D. Moule are important among those who
have shown that, by contrast with this view, the thought-world and speech
of the Jewish communities are more likely to have been seed-beds of the cult
of Christ.30 Here, in general accord with their indications of Jewish origin,
it is suggested that the second-century cult of Christ, with all its points of
resemblance to the cults of heroes or sovereigns, is in the main a development
of Jewish presentations of the messiah;31 but it is also held that these Jewish

26
A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches, 2 vols. (Uppsala, 1977 and 1982), i,
326–76.
27
Royal elements in these passages are noted by W. Horbury, ‘The Messianic Associations of “the Son
of Man” ’, in JTS N.S. xxxvi (1985), 33–55 (44f. = pp. 168–9, above).
28
The possibility that this passage may reflect pre- or non-Christian conceptions of the ‘son of God’ is
envisaged by R. A. Kraft, ‘Towards Assessing the Latin Text of “5 Ezra”: the “Christian” Connection’,
HTR lxxix (1986), 158–69 (166). If the passage is Jewish and not Christianized, it will be a further
attestation of gentile influence on Jewish messianism, but its adoption by Christians will still
exemplify the continuity between that messianism and the cult of Christ.
29
W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (Göttingen, 21921), especially 99f. followed by R. Bultmann, Theologie
des Neuen Testaments, § 7 (Tübingen, 1948), 52.
30
M. Hengel, The Son of God (ET London, 1975), especially 17–56; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of
Christology (Cambridge, 1977), especially 36–43, 148–50.
31
Jewish antecedents to the cult in particular are considered by Beskow, Rex Gloriae, especially 45–7,
157–60.
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 317

presentations, like their Christian developments, had themselves inevitably

taken forms influenced by the gentile cults. The gentile influence which
Bousset stressed is therefore here thought to have affected the Jewish as well as
the Christian phases of messianism.
Continuity between Jewish and Christian hopes has been more generally
recognized in the second phenomenon under review, the chiliasm of Christian
second-century writers. Thus Jerome states it as a dilemma that, if he takes the
millennium of the Apocalypse according to the letter, he will be Judaizing;
but that, if he expounds it spiritually, he will seem to contradict many of
the older authorities, ‘multorum veterum videbimur opinionibus contraire’
(Jerome, com. Is., introduction to book xviii). His list of these authorities
runs from the second to the third century, comprising Tertullian, Victorinus,
Lactantius, and ‘among the Greek writers, Irenaeus (to pass over others)’; of
these ‘others’, the most important second-century writers are the author of the
Epistle of Barnabas, Papias and Justin Martyr.32 Justin viewed the millennium
in Jerusalem as an important part of a right faith (Dial. 80–1), and although
he knew of good Christians who denied it, and the question was later warmly
disputed, there is no doubt of the widespread second-century influence of
chiliastic hopes. Their roots were in Old Testament promises as interpreted by
the Jews, and conjoined (as in Justin) with prophecies in the gospels and the
Apocalypse.33
Much else in the Christian literary inheritance gave general encouragement
to concrete expectations. Thus the work comprising Luke and Acts anticipates
an apologist like Justin not only in outlining a gospel to the gentiles, but also in
presenting messianic hopes with emphasis on Jerusalem.34 Correspondingly,
second-century writers who are not millennarian may still retain a lively and
concrete hope, and these communal expectations have left their trace even in
Clement of Alexandria.35 Nevertheless, Christian chiliasm, and other concrete

32
The views of the second-century chiliasts and their successors are discussed by Kelly, Doctrine,
474–5, 479–80, and K. Berger, Die griechische Daniel-Diegese (Leiden, 1976), 80–7.
33
C. Mazzucco and E. Pietrella, ‘Il rapporto tra la concezione del millennio dei primi autori cristiani e
l’Apocalisse di Giovanni’, Augustinianum xviii (1978), 29–45, conclude that second-century authors
depend mainly on Old Testament sources, a point which underlines the resemblance of Christian
and Jewish hopes.
34
L. Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden, 1970), 244–369, with reference to such passages as Luke
2:38, 21:8, 24:21; Acts 1:6.
35
M. Mees, ‘Jetzt und Dann in der Eschatologie Klemens von Alexandrien’, Augustinianum xviii
(1978), 127–37 (136f.).
318 Messianism among Jews and Christians

expressions of Christian hope, are unlikely to be indebted to the Jews only

through the literary tradition. The importance of the contemporary Jewish
community in Christian expectation is evident, for instance, in Marcion, who
seems to have understood the prophets as genuinely foretelling the advent of
the messiah of the demiurge, ‘in restitutionem iudaici status’ (Tertullian, adv.
Marc. iv, 6, 3).36
Anti-gnostic controversy is notable among other factors making for literal
interpretation of ‘the promises’,37 but the importance of the Jewish position in
this regard is underlined by Christian sensitivity to Jewish criticism of Christian
hopes. The Jew of Celsus claimed, for example, that the Christians’ Christ was
not like a good general, because he could not keep his followers’ loyalty (Origen,
c. Celsum ii, 12; cf. 29). The comparison implies that he lacked the generalship
which was a standard attribute of the ideal Hellenistic monarch, and was
ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and the king messiah.38 Origen answers partly by
noting that even great philosophers have been deserted, and partly and more
comprehensively by referring to Christian hopes for a second coming, when
their Christ will manifest all the attributes of power and glory desiderated by
Jewish critics. Another comprehensive Christian defence was the claim that
the promise of the kingdom to the Jews had been transferred to the church; in
Fifth Ezra, for example, the Lord commands ‘Adnuntia populo meo, quoniam
dabo eis regnum Hierusalem, quod daturus eram Israhel’ (4 Ezra 2:10). More
particular answers were given with regard to the individual prophecies. Thus
Mic. 4:1–7, on the future reign of the Lord in Mount Sion, is known by Justin
Martyr to be understood messianically by Jewish teachers; but he claims that the
afflicted and cast out who will be gathered in (verse 4) are the Christians, not the
Jews who have been justly punished and cast out in war (Justin, Dial. 109–10).39
The lively hopes focused in the widespread second-century chiliasm can
now, therefore, be viewed together with the equally widespread cult of Christ.
In both cases the Christian evidence has seemed to be moulded in large part

36
E. Evans (ed. and tr.), Tertullian adversus Marcionem, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1972), I, xiii; II, 274.
37
M. Simonetti, Profilo storico dell’esegesi patristica (Rome, 1981) p. 29.
38
Beskow, Rex Gloriae, 209–10 (generalship as royal attribute applied to Christ); see Clement of
Alexandria, Ecl. proph. 6, 2–3 (Moses and Joshua); cf. Ps. Sol. 17:33–7.
39
If Justin correctly reports Jewish opinion here, and if Jews took dispersion after war to include exile
and captivity under Hadrian after the Second Revolt (as Jewish prophetic interpretation transmitted
by Jerome [e.g. on Obad. 20] suggests), their understanding of this oracle implies lively hopes for an
ingathering, and should be noted in evaluation of reports of Jewish unrest at the end of the century
(nn. 54 and 58, below).
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 319

by past and present Jewish piety. The cult of Christ is not always closely linked
to the hope of his second coming, as Clement of Alexandria shows; but such a
link will have been made where this hope was lively, as in the acts of Perpetua.
In that conjunction it seems possible to see a Christian messianism properly
so called, that is, the robust expectation of a king messiah, who receives ardent
communal loyalty. The point is underlined by J. Lawson’s observation, that for
Irenaeus the hope of a kingdom of Christ and the saints in Jerusalem belonged
to the emotional centre of his faith.40
Equally, however, this Christian messianism seems to have been a neuralgic
point. Here, particularly, the Christians were sensitive to the corresponding
beliefs of the Jewish communities, and here the Jews attempted to quell the
unauthorized Christian variations of Judaism. The apologetic picture of
Jewish—Christian debate concentrated on the messiah was in large measure
historically justified. The Christians were doubtless the more profoundly
affected by the exchange, for they felt themselves a minority beside the
‘populus amplus’ of the Jews and their proselytes.41 Now, therefore, it can be
asked whether the hypothesis of the dependence of Christians on Jews in
messianism, which has seemed defensible thus far, finds confirmation in the
history of the Jews themselves.

III. Jewish history in the second century

The part played by messianic hopes in Jewish history during the second century
is debated. It is clear, however, that the century was marked by disturbances
among many of the Jews of the Roman Empire, and among inhabitants of the
province of Judaea, whether Jewish, Greek or Roman. Four Parthian wars
were waged by Rome (under Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, and twice under
Septimius Severus); in the second half of the century there were two revolts of
Romans in Syria, under Avidius Cassius and Pescennius Niger; and near the
beginning of the century there were two great Jewish revolts, under Trajan
principally in the Diaspora and under Hadrian in Judaea.

40
J. Lawson, The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus (London, 1948), 288–90.
41
Tertullian, adv. Marc. iii, 21, 3: ‘et revincet populum amplum [Isa. 2:3], ipsorum imprimis Iudaeorum
et proselytorum’.
320 Messianism among Jews and Christians

In these two Jewish revolts, messianism was probably important under

Trajan, and almost certainly so under Hadrian, because the Jewish leaders
will have been viewed in the light of the general atmosphere of communal
hope.42 Up to a point this observation is also true of R. Judah ‘the Prince’—ha-
naśî—at the end of the century, when he was recognized by the Romans as
head or ‘patriarch’ of the Jewish community; the age of the Severi in which
this took place appears largely if not wholly as an oasis of peace for the Jews of
the holy land,43 and the development of the Jewish patriarchate, accompanied
by the editing of the Mishnah, marked the beginning of the ascendancy of the
rabbinic movement.44
The dependence of Christians on Jews in messianism can be discerned (it is
here suggested) in the literary deposit of three disturbances in second-century
Judaean history. First, the argument in Barn. 16 is probably to be understood
as presupposing that Jews are rebuilding the Jerusalem temple with Roman
sanction, as ‘the servants of the enemy’ (oi̔ tw͂n ἔcqrwn u̔phrétai, 16.4).45
Christians, including the writer, believe that this is happening (a corresponding
Jewish belief is probably reflected in rabbinic midrash);46 and the writer
evidently fears, in this chapter as in earlier passages of the epistle, that the
addressees may go over to the Jews (cf. Barn. 3.6, 4.6). For these Christians the
Romans are ‘the enemy’, as in the Apocalypse; that is to say, those addressed
in Barnabas share the Jewish view of Rome which appears in 4 Ezra and the
Fifth Sibylline book.47 An oracle, perhaps adapted from Dan. 9:24–7, is now
quoted (Barn. 16.6) as a promise of reconstruction: ‘for it is written, that when
the week is ended a temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of
the Lord’ (cf. Sib. v, 415–33, also with Danielic allusions).48 The writer gives a
spiritual interpretation (16:7–10), probably because his addressees understood

42
See W. Horbury, The Jewish Revolts under Trajan and Hadrian, forthcoming.
43
See M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (ET Oxford, 1976), 39–42; Severus and Antoninus favoured
the Jews, according to Jerome on Dan. 11:34 (‘Judaeos plurimum dilexerunt’).
44
Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, 54–64.
45
P. Richardson and M. B. Shukster, ‘Barnabas, Nerva and the Yavnean Rabbis’, JTS N.S. xxxiv
(1983), 31–55; on further debate see Horbury, Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge,
2014), 298–300. Hadrian’s temple of Zeus is preferred by R. Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture
and Covenant (WUNT ii.82, Tübingen, 1996), 18–23; but on this view Barn. 16 becomes harshly
paradoxical.
46
Ber. R. 64, 10, discussed by Richardson and Shukster, Barnabas, 47–50. Here Rome orders rebuilding,
a point not noted by Hvalvik, 20–1.
47
On the two Jewish sources see G. Stemberger, Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden
(Darmstadt, 1983), 25–30, 53–8.
48
Allusions to Dan. 7:13, 22 are made in Sib. v, 414, 432.
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 321

the promise ad litteram; thus Cerinthus, according to his critics, expected the
restoration of the sacrifices.49 The rebuilding of the temple could be expected
of the messiah, as appears, among other places, in the Sibylline passage just
noted; and it seems that the Christians to whom Barn. 16 was addressed were
sensitive to the messianic hopes of the Jewish community, and were drawn to
it when those hopes appeared to be in course of realization.
Secondly, Bar Cocheba is said by Justin Martyr to have commanded
Christians to be punished severely, ‘if they would not deny Jesus as the
messiah, and blaspheme’ (Justin, I, Apol. 31; quoted by Eusebius, H.E. IV, 8, 4).
In the light of the susceptibility to Jewish hopes and the hostility to Rome just
noted in Barnabas, it would not have been unreasonable for Bar Cocheba to
expect that many Christians would come over to the Jewish community at
the time of his success. Justin, in his Dialogue, reserves a particularly strong
condemnation for those who have once acknowledged the Christ of the
Christians, but then ‘go over for whatever cause to the polity of the law, having
denied that he is the Christ’ (Dial. 47, 4–5). To make this denial, to ‘blaspheme’
(Acts 26:11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3), sealed the transition, just as the confession of
Jesus as Christ (see n. 3, above) marked the transition to the Christian body.
In view of the importance of Bar Cocheba’s revolt in the background of the
Dialogue, noted in section I, above, it is possible that those who Judaized in
the revolt are included in Justin’s condemnation. However this may be, the
likelihood that some Christians did so is underlined by the great praise of
the martyrs who would not confess a false Christ of the Jews, in the Ethiopic
text of the Apocalypse of Peter.50 In this second instance from Judaean history
the attractive force of messianic hopes in realization was strengthened by the
pressure of persecution, but it is probable that, as appeared from Barn. 16,
many Christians found it natural to Judaize in the atmosphere of messianism.
In the third instance, from the reign of Septimius Severus, historical
reconstructions differ radically; but much of the sparse evidence becomes
consistent if there was Jewish messianism in Judaea, and Christian sympathy
with it. Tertullian, arguing that the millennium will be enjoyed on earth

49
Gaius and Denys of Alexandria, as reported by Eusebius, H.E. iii, 28, 2 and 5.
50
Apocalypse of Peter, 2, considered and translated by C. Maurer and H. Duensing in E. Hennecke,
W. Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha (ET, 2 vols., London, 1963
and 1965), ii, 664, 669; an allusion to Bar Cocheba can be detected with fair probability, but as
usual in such prophecies the expressions are veiled and traditional, and the oracle could also be
understood of an Antichrist not identified more particularly.
322 Messianism among Jews and Christians

not in existing conditions but in a new Jerusalem which will come down
from heaven, appeals to the sight of a heavenly city seen in Judaea ‘during
the eastern expedition’—that is, Severus’ second Parthian campaign of
197; ‘constat enim ethnicis quoque testibus in Iudaea per dies quadraginta
matutinis momentis civitatem de caelo pependisse’ (Tertullian, adv. Marc.
iii, 24, 4).51 The setting of the ‘eastern expedition’ recalls the constant Jewish
hope and Roman fear of Parthian conquest, a conception which formed
a lively element in both Jewish and Christian messianic expectation,
particularly in connection with the return of the ten tribes from beyond the
Euphrates.52 Eusebius’ Chronicle has an ambiguous notice (for the year 197)
‘Iudaicum et Samariticum bellum’; and in the Historia Augusta the life of
Severus, thought to rest on sources of some value, has well-known notices
of a ‘Jewish triumph’ for the young Caracalla ‘because Severus had been
successful in Syria too’, of rights conferred upon the Palestinians, and of a
prohibition against the adoption of Judaism or of Christianity (HA, Severus,
16; 7; 17, 1).53 These pieces of information cohere if Eusebius’ phrase is
taken to indicate Jewish and Samaritan unrest;54 gentile Palestinians were
encouraged, but Jews and Christians were punished. The interpretation
reported by Tertullian of the appearance in the Judaean morning skies would
then reflect the hopes of Jews in revolt at a time of Parthian war, and the
corresponding expectations of Christians, probably including some in the
army.55 The Jewish and Christian views would have combined to impress
the ‘gentile witnesses’, probably fellow-soldiers, whom Tertullian mentions.
His own use of the story shows how readily it fitted Christian hopes, which at
this time and in the following years were stirred by persecution in Syria and
Egypt, among other places.56 Serapion, bishop of Antioch 199–211, wrote
a lost work addressed to Domnus, who had Judaized during persecution

51
Evans, Tertullian adversus Marcionem i, xviii, 246–9.
52
See, for example, Josephus, B.J. i, 5, Ant. xi, 133; Simeon b. Yohai (mid second century) on Mic. 5:4,
in Lam. R. i, 13; 4 Ezra 13:45f.; Sib. iv, 138f.; Rev. 16:12; Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, 66, 83; M. Sordi,
Commodianus, Carmen apol. 892 ss.: rex ab oriente, Augustinianum xxii (1982), 203–10.
53
Various interpretations are discussed in the commentary by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on
Jews and Judaism ii (Jerusalem, 1980), nos. 513–15.
54
Sulpicius Severus and Orosius so interpreted it; Denys of Tell Mahre and Bar Hebraeus understood
it as ‘war between Jews and Samaritans’, the sense preferred in a review of these interpretations by
Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, 77.
55
On Christian legionaries in the time of Tertullian, see A. Harnack, Militia Christi (1905, ET
Philadelphia, 1981), 74–84 (not considering this passage).
56
R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria, 2 vols. (London, 1914), ii, 314–24 (Appendix I).
 Messianism among Jews and Christians in the Second Century 323

(Eusebius, H.E. vi, 12, 1). On the other hand, the evidence in Jerome
and rabbinic sources for favour shown to the Jews (and especially their
patriarchs) by the Severi, and the lack of clear rabbinic reference to rebellion,
lead perhaps the majority of historians to conclude that there was no Jewish
revolt in Judaea at this time, and to interpret Eusebius’ Chronicle in some
other ways.57 The approach to messianism followed here might suggest
that there is weight in the opinion of the minority, notably W. H. C. Frend,
who affirm (with special reference to contemporary Christian history) the
likelihood of Jewish disturbances.58 Rabbinic sources show that neither the
reign of Septimius Severus nor the patriarchal co-operation with Rome was
universally popular among Jews.59 The dynasty of R. Judah the Prince would
then represent a Jewish élite who, as on other occasions in Jewish history
(and as happened with comparable friends of Rome in other provinces) were
not always successful in controlling anti-Roman feeling.60 In this case, then,
the hypothesis of Christian dependence on Judaism in messianism would
receive some confirmation from its utility as a key to otherwise ambiguous
evidence for Jewish second-century history.
In Judaea, therefore, it seems that Jewish messianism made a strong
impression upon Christians, who had closely similar hopes and who also
sometimes shared Jewish attitudes to Rome. Influence from the Jewish side
emerged clearly from Barn. 16, and in the revolt under Hadrian it probably
prompted agreement as well as reaction among Christians. With these
instances in view, it seems likely that the same influence helps to explain the
disputed evidence for Jewish disturbances under Septimius Severus, and that

57
See n. 54, above, and Stern, Authors, II, 623–5, 627; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule
(1976, corrected reprint Leiden, 1981), 488–9, allows the possibility of a temporary increase in
national unrest, but no more.
58
Tollinton, Clement, 318f., and Juster, cited by Stern, Authors, ii, 624 (the Jews had sided with Niger);
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), 319–21 and ‘Open
Questions Concerning the Christians and the Roman Empire in the Age of the Severi’, JTS N.S. xxxv
(1974), 338–51 (343).
59
Midrash Zuta on Ct. I, 6 (ed. S. Buber, 14), in S. Krauss, Griechen und Römer [Monumenta Talmudica
I] (1914), reprinted Darmstadt, 1972), 63, no. 117 (text, translation and notes), gives the reign of
Severus as the third of three long reigns which the Jews were destined to endure as a punishment;
Babylonian Talmud, B.M. 83b (objections to collaboration), discussed with other comparable
material by Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, 71.
60
Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 486, emphasizes the strength of the anti-Roman feeling opposed
and sometimes shared by the patriarchs; on the rôle of upper-class provincials in quelling unrest, see
P. A. Brunt, ‘The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire’, in D. M. Pippidi
(ed.), Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien (Bucharest and Paris,
1976), 161–73; reprinted in P. A. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990), 267–81, where see
also 517–31, on the rôle of the élite in the First Revolt.
324 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Christians then also responded sensitively to the expectant atmosphere of the

Jewish communities.61

IV. Conclusion

In sum, therefore, it seems that the apologetic depiction of Jewish-Christian

debate on the messiah, noted above in Pseudo-Clement, Justin and Tertullian,
reflects not only the characteristic claims of the Christians but also something
of the authentic messianism of Jews in the second century. This reflection
indicates the continuing dependence of Christians upon Jews in messianism.
Among the Christians, the cult of Christ and chiliasm are both developments
of current Jewish messianic thought and expectation, and the two Christian
phenomena together form a totality which can properly be called messianism.
Christian dependence on the Jews in this sphere finds confirmation in second-
century Jewish history, and in turn suggests the continuing importance of
messianic hopes in Judaea at the end of the century.
This particular Jewish influence was an important element in the broader
cultural influence exerted by the Jewish community on the Christian body. Its
effect among the Christians derived especially from their sense of themselves
as a minority and as newcomers by comparison with the established ‘populus
amplus’ of the Jews and their proselytes. Accordingly, divergence as well as
agreement from Jewish positions can indicate that it was the Jewish positions,
first of all, with which Christians thought they should reckon. Hence, despite
fierce conpulsatio over the advent of the Christ, it remains possible, at least to
the time of the compilation of the Mishnah, to speak of one messianism of the
Jews and of the Christians.

61
I would envisage a mixture of realism and utopianism throughout the second century in Jewish
messianism, rather than the shift away from realism after 135 suggested by A. Oppenheimer,
‘Leadership and Messianism in the Time of the Mishnah’, in H. Graf Reventlow, Eschatology in the
Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield, 1997), 152–68.
 10

Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose

‘If the Sage ranked higher than a Prophet, the Precentor [Vorbeter] was at the
least a Psalmist’, wrote Zunz of the post-biblical development in Judaism;1 but the
Sage has had the lion’s share of attention from students of rabbinic religion. This
is partly, of course, a consequence of Zunz’s own conclusion that the surviving
relics of early synagogal poetry are post-Talmudic. Since he wrote, however,
the Cairo Geniza has multiplied these relics,2 and it has come to be generally
recognized that the early piyyuṭim considerably antedate the Arab conquest.3
Of the earliest poets known by name, Yose ben Yose, Yannai and Kalir, the first
two are set at various times in the Amoraic period, up to and including the sixth
century.4 Talmud and liturgy are held to disclose still earlier poems, reciprocally
related to midrashic literature in the process of formations.5 Johann Maier
nevertheless still constitutes an admirable exception when he gives space to the
early piyyuṭim in an account of religion in the Talmudic period.6
A story current from the fifth century onwards relates it as remarkable
that Eleazar, son of R. Simeon b. Yohai, should have been both a teacher of
Scripture and Mishnah and a precentor.7 The discontinuity as well as the link

1
L. Zunz, Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes geschichtlich entwickelt (Berlin, 1859), 6.
2
P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1959), 34–48.
3
On the piyyuṭ and its origins I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen
Entwicklung, 3rd edn. (Frankfurt am Main, 1931, reprinted Hildesheim, 1962), 280–305 is
supplemented in the Hebrew translation, ed. J. Heinemann (Tel Aviv, 1972), 210–28, and translated
with the supplements into English by R. P. Scheindlin as I. Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive
History (New York, 1993), 219–37; cf. S. W Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd
edn., vol. vii (New York, 1958), 89–105; G. Stemberger, Geschichte der jüdischen Literatur (Munich,
1977), 96–100; L. J. Weinberger, Jewish Hymnography: A Literary History (London, 1998), 1–28;
E. Ben-Eliyahu, Y. Cohn and F. Millar, Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity (Oxford,
2012), 126–39.
4
J. Heinemann and J. J. Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue (New York, 1975), 208.
5
Elbogen-Heinemann, 211; Heinemann-Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue, 209.
6
J. Maier, Geschichte der jüdischen Religion (Berlin, 1972), 153–8.
7
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (PRK) 27.1 (ed. B. Mandelbaum (2 vols., New York, 1962), ii, 403f.);
Lev. R. 30.1 (ed. M. Margulies (5 vols., Jerusalem, 1953–60), iv, 790, with citation of parallels
including Cant. R. on 3, 6). The texts of Mandelbaum and Margulies, each continuously paginated
throughout, are cited below by editor’s name.
326 Messianism among Jews and Christians

between house of study and synagogue is here underlined. Piyyuṭim, belonging

to worship rather than to debate or homily, may therefore complement more
strictly rabbinic sources.
There follows accordingly a modest venture in adding to the passages
commonly discussed with reference to views of suffering and messianism
in the rabbinic period. Surveys of both subjects used for this study restrict
themselves to rabbinic texts in the narrower sense, although the relevance of
the piyyuṭim is noted.8 Here attention is confined to Yose hen Yose, the earliest
of the named poets.9
Yose’s significance for our purpose derives especially from the Sitz im
Leben of his poems, but is enhanced by their likely date. A. Mirsky, whose
work in producing the first critical edition of Yose with commentary makes
this attempt possible, dates him about the fifth century.10 This means that he
is an independent source from the period of the early haggadic midrashim.
Genesis Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah are ascribed to the beginning of
the fifth century, and the earliest homiletic midrashim, Leviticus Rabbah and
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, are held to have been compiled during it. A number
of parallels between Yose and the midrashim are consistent with such datings,
but noteworthy differences in emphasis also emerge.
For Mirsky’s dating, not the earliest that has been proposed, stylistic
considerations are important. Whereas Yannai and Kalir are rich in
characteristically rabbinic material, Yose uses it only occasionally, while
hymn-like compositions that are probably earlier than Yose (such as the
Alenu prayer)11 have no trace of it at all.12 In respect of rabbinic matter Yose’s
contacts appear to be with Palestinian rather than Babylonian tradition.13

8
Rachel Rosenzweig, Solidarität mit den Leidenden im Judentum, Studia Judaica x (Berlin, 1978);
P. Schäfer, ‘Die messianischen Hoffnungen des rabbinischen Judentums zwischen Naherwartung
und religiösem Pragmatismus’, in C. Thoma (ed.), Zukunft in der Gegenwart (Bern, 1976), 96–125
(on the piyyuṭim, 96) (not available to me as reprinted in Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und
Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, AGJU xv (Leiden, 1978)); on a single important saying and
its parallels, E. Bammel, ‘Israels Dienstbarkeit’, in E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett and W D. Davies (eds.),
Donum Gentilicium (for D. Daube; Oxford, 1978), 295–305.
9
Besides Mirsky, cited in the following footnote, see on Yose J. H. Schirmann and A. Sáenz Badillos
in Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd edn (2007), xxi, 398; Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst, 306–8, with
additional note in Elbogen-Heinemann, 231 (ET, 238–9); Maier, Gesch. der jüdischen Religion,
155–7; Ben-Eliyahu, Cohn and Millar, Handbook, 131–2.
10
A. Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Hebrew: Jerusalem, 1977), 13.
11
Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst, 80f. (ET, 71–2).
12
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 12f.
13
Ibid., 29–31, acknowledging and enlarging upon an observation of S. D. Luzzatto. At 32–6 Mirsky lists
parallels with Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, the date of which, he suggests, should be reconsidered in their light.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 327

His name forms an independent ground for the view that he is of Palestinian
origin.14
His surviving poems are mostly handed down in connection with the
liturgy of the ‘Days of Awe’, New Year and Atonement. Saadia in his early tenth-
century Order of Prayer gives a Tekiata for New Year and an Avodah for the
Day of Atonement, both by Yose.15 The Tekiata, thought to have been written
originally as a version of this part of the New Year liturgy itself,16 is used by
Saadia rather as his choice among many current hymns. Its three poems I will
praise my God, I fear amid my doings and I will flee for help (ʾahallelah ʾelohay,
ʾefḥad be-maʿasay, ʾanusah le-ʿezrah) incorporate respectively the catenae of
texts inserted in the Tefillah at New Year, known as Kingdoms, Remembrances
and Trumpets (Mishnah, Rosh ha-Shanah 4.6). The Avodah of Yose chosen
by Saadia is I will recount the mighty works, ʾazkhir gevuroth, Yose’s longest
composition in this genre, in which (below, pp. 348–9) it was customary to recite
the works of God from Creation to the institution of the Aaronic ministry of
the Tabernacle, thereafter describing, with Mishnaic quotations, the Temple-
service (ʿavodah) of the Day of Atonement; a debt to Ecclesiasticus, especially
chapter 50, is apparent.17 Shorter examples of the Avodah by Yose are I will
tell the great works, ʾasapper gedoloth, recovered from Geniza fragments, and
Thou hast established the world in the multitude of mercy, ʾattah konanta ʿolam
be-rov ḥesed, preserved in the French rite and its North Italian offshoot of
Asti-Fossano-Moncalvi (Apam).18 ‘Still to-day the visitor who … hears … the
Avodah of Kippur in isolated communities like that of Asti is struck by certain
resemblances to the modes and phrasing of the Gregorian chant.’19 Also for the
Day of Atonement are Truly our sins, ʾomnam ʾashamenu, a Selihah of the type
known as Hataʾnu from its refrain ‘we have sinned’; another lament, We have
no High Priest, ʾeyn lanu kohen gadol; and possibly Once thou didst make us the
head, ʾaz le-roʾsh tattanu, a second Hataʾnu.

14
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 13.
15
I. Davidson, S. Assaf and B. I. Joel, Siddur R. Saadja Gaon (Jerusalem, 1941), 225–33, 264–75.
16
[E.] D. Goldschmidt (ed.), Maḥzor la-yamin ha-norʾaim (2 vols., Jerusalem, 1970), i, 45 of the
Introduction. He prints and annotates the Tekiata in the text, 238–42, 251–6, 265–70. The ancient
Tekiata de-vey Rav, used in present-day New Year rites, is translated and discussed in Heinemann-
Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue, 57–69.
17
C. Roth, ‘Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service’, JBL LXXI (1952), 171–8.
18
Goldschmidt, Maḥzor la-yamim ha-norʾaim, ii, 23 of the Introduction. He prints and annotates
Yose’s ʾomnam ʾashamenu and ʾattah konanta ʾolam be-rov ḥesed in the text, 20–4, 465–79.
19
Leo Levi, ‘Sul rapporto tra il canto sinagogale in Italia e le origini del canto liturgico cristiano’, in
Scritti in Memoria di Sally Mayer (Jerusalem, 1956), 141.
328 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The simple style of these generally acknowledged poems, on which the remarks
below are based, depends for effect on devices such as paronomasia, alphabetic
arrangement, or the repetition of a final word or refrain. Rhyme is not used—a
writer of the Geonic period indeed classed Yose as a poet without rhyme20—
although it occurs in one of the four poems of less sure attribution printed by
Mirsky in an appendix. Yose’s characteristic beauty was singled out by Graetz
as the terse phrase whereby, for example, the Hasmonaeans, in words recalling
Rom. 15:16, are ‘offering kingship as priestly service’, mekhahane melukhah.21
So biblical a poet as Yose would perhaps have viewed the concerns
designated in the title of this study by ‘suffering’ and ‘messianism’ under such
headings as ‘tribulation’ and ‘consolation’. However that may be, transposition
into scriptural words underlines that biblical interconnection of the two topics
which was memorably traced by E. C. Hoskyns.22 Such an interconnection
emerges also from the principal occasions for which Yose writes. The
messianic hopes of New Year spring from present tribulation, and on the Day
of Atonement that tribulation, token though it be of Israel’s sin, is also the deep
whence arises the cry for pardon and redemption.
The christological interpretation of suffering in the New Testament
encourages attention to this constant association of suffering with messianic
hope. The link appears with special clarity in Gershom Scholem’s understanding
of messianism as ‘not so cheerful’ as belief in progress, indeed as ‘a theory
of catastrophe’.23 To unite the expressions of suffering and messianism is a
characteristic of the piyyuṭ throughout its history.24 Yose’s material on the two
topics will be treated separately, but his words are often relevant to both at once.

Suffering

(a) The interpretation of suffering

Yose’s poems bear out Rachel Rosenzweig’s observation that the ancient
Jewish sensitivity to communal suffering overshadows awareness of universal

20
W. Bacher, ‘Aus einer alten Poetik (Schule Saadja’s)’, JQR xiv (1902), 742–4 (742)
21
H. Graetz, ‘Die Anfänge der neuhebräischen Poesie’, MGWJ ix (1860), 20. The phrase is from
ʾahallelah ʾelohay, line 28.
22
‘Tribulation—Comfort’, in E. C. Hoskyns, Cambridge Sermons (London, 1938), 121–9.
23
G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (London, 1971), 37f., 7f., and index s.v. ‘Catastrophe’.
24
L. Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1855), esp. 5f., 129; similarly Elbogen, Der
jüdische Gottesdienst, 289.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 329

and individual pain.25 The present sufferings most prominent in Yose are the
twin corporate afflictions of servitude and the loss of the Temple service. It is
often hard to judge how far the descriptions of calamity are symbolic; but the
bitterness of outward, historical experience certainly informs Yose’s poems.

The Service has failed from the House of Service;

and how shall we serve the Pure One (zakh) when a stranger (zar)
makes us serve?…
The joy (gil) of the Lots [Lev. 16:8] has ceased from us;
and how shall we go up with joy (gilah) when we are in exile (golah)?
(ʾeyn lanu kohen gadol, lines 3 and 5)

For this predominantly corporate outlook suffering is naturally comforted

by messianic hope. Yose’s regular consolations are derived especially
from the Danielic scheme of the four kingdoms, fore-shadowing the end
of servitude, and the bridal imagery of the Song of Songs, to assure the
return of the Beloved to his desolate dwelling. His biblical interpretations
involve the biblical understandings of suffering as punitive, probative and
meritorious. As in rabbinic texts, these views appear together without entire
consisteney.26
The punitive view of suffering makes intense awareness of corporate
affliction the counterpart of an equally intense consciousness of sin. So, in
a lament the closeness of which to historical experience is emphasized by
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 56, ‘we have eaten up the righteousness of our Fathers’,
the merits of the patriarchs are exhausted (ʾomnam ʾashamenu, 13, cf. ʿefḥad
be-maʿasay, 4; the question how long the merits of the patriarchs endured is
discussed in Lev. R. 36.6).27 The congregation are thrown back on sheer grace,
and still have not kept the commandments.

Thou didst strengthen us when our hand failed [Lev. 25:35];

thou didst make known to us ‘This do, and live’—
yet hands were not stayed upon us, as her that was overthrown in a
moment [Lam. 4:6].
(ʾomnam ʾashamenu, 42–4)

25
Rosenzweig, Solidarität, xiv, 56, 83f.
26
Rabbinic views of suffering are discussed by Rosenzweig, ibid. esp. 56–8, 83f., 188, 224; S. Schechter,
Studies in Judaism, first series (London, 1896), 259–82; and J. W. Bowker, Problems of Suffering in
Religions of the World (Cambridge, 1970), 32–7.
27
Margulies, 851–3.
330 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Zunz paraphrases this last line: ‘Yet we stretched out no helping hand, behaving
like Sodom that was overthrown in a moment’,28 refusal to ‘strengthen the hand
of the poor’ being ‘the iniquity of thy sister Sodom’ (Ezek. 16:49); and the
reference is accordingly to failure in the very commandment, the pattern of
which is the divine grace mentioned two lines earlier. It is not surprising to find
strong emphasis (below, p. 356) on the effect of the Day of Atonement as making
Israel ‘perfect and upright’ (ʾazkhir gevuroth, 275; ʾasapper gedoloth, 60). The
messianic significance of this consciousness of sin lies in the view that sin delays
the kingdom, an assumption manifest in prayers that Israel may be purified and
glorified for the return of the divine presence (below, p. 343). Repentance, the
precondition of redemption according to one prominent but debated rabbinic
view (below, pp. 339–40) may be implied but is left unmentioned.
The view that suffering may be a test is particularly clear in the lines on
Abraham (below, p. 335). It verges on the further view, vital to the link between
suffering and hope, that suffering will be compensated or rewarded by God.
Once again assumed rather than enunciated, it can for example, be combined
with the punitive view in an explanation of Roman dominion.

The hairy man flattered his father with his venison,

and inherited with the voice of weeping the sword and the kingdom.
(ʾahallelah ʾelohay, 29)

Here Yose follows the midrash that Esau (Edom-Rome), because he wept (Gen.
27:38), was granted the sword and the dominion (Gen. 27:40) (Mid. Teh. 80.4).29
This is at once the reward of his suffering, the punishment of Jacob-Israel, and
an implied promise that Israel’s present tears will likewise be rewarded with
the kingdom.

(b) The figure of the Synagogue

Yose’s images for kenesseth yisraʾel, the Synagogue of Israel are at the heart of
his poetry. The passages cited already exemplify a concentration on the fate
of his people, which, natural though it be in liturgical settings, contrasts with

28
Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie, 163.
29
References to this and other midrashim in Goldschmidt, Maḥzor la-yamim ha-norʾaim, i, 241,
and Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, ad loc. On Esau see G. D. Cohen, ‘Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval
Thought’, in A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, MA, 1967),
19–48.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 331

the universalist language found together with the nationalist in the hymn-like
prayers of the Tekiata de-vey Rav.30 The Synagogue in Yose is a figure of past
and future glory but present suffering. Central among his images is that of the
bride, for which he combines the Song of Songs with Jer. 2 and Ezek. 16 in a
manner perhaps already apparent in 2 Esd. 5:23–7, and familiar in rabbinic
sources from tannaitic passages attributed to R. Akiba onwards.31
The three poems of Yose’s Tekiata are especially rich in this imagery. The
first, I will praise my God, ʾahallelah ʾelohay, is mainly triumphant in tone.
It begins confidently with the conquest of Canaan. Israel (lines 13–15) is the
master, king Arad the Canaanite his slave; Israel are the seed of the blessed,
Canaan the accursed; Israel ‘the hosts of the kingdom’ (melukhah, repeated at
the end of each line from the malkhuyyoth-text Ob. 21), whereas Canaan are
(lines 17f.)
strangers
in the land of the children of Shem, the seed of the kingdom

and victory is harshly evoked with ‘the son of Nun slaughtered them’. Then,
however, with an abrupt change of tone like that of Ps. 44:10, Israel themselves
are sheep for the slaughter (line 25, of Haman’s plot) and doves (yonim) sold to
Greeks (yewanim) (line 28, of Antiochus iv; cf. Joel 3:6), until finally Esau, last of
the ‘four kingdoms’ rules them. Yet his younger brother will surely inherit (line
30); and in a concluding passage of triumph incorporating the malkhuyyoth
the Synagogue is the bride ‘clear as the sun’ of Song of Songs 6:10, awaiting the
divine glory in Zion (line 36, introducing Isa. 24:23), and, once again—now
with a definitely present reference—God’s hosts (line 52, introducing Num.
23:21). This messianic conclusion is discussed below (pp. 342–6); here it is
only necessary to note the successive images for Israel: master, seed of the
blessed ones, army, seed royal, sheep, doves, bride, and again army. Those of
triumph precede and follow those of suffering.
A forcible expression of suffering is the simple negation of the imagery of
triumph. So, outside the Tekiata, the language of filiation and the metaphor of
the bride recur in lamentation.

30
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 15f.; I. Elbogen, ‘Die messianische Idee in den altjüdischen Gebeten’, in
Judaica: Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage (Berlin, 1912), 669–79 (672f.).
31
R. Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs’, in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical
Motifs (Cambridge, MA, 1966), 159–96 (161); Bammel, Israels Dienstbarkeit, 302; Rosenzweig,
Solidarität, 53–6.
332 Messianism among Jews and Christians

We were reckoned the holy seed, sons of the living God:

we are polluted, and called a people who bring defilement on
the Name.
(ʾomnam ʾashamenu, 35f; cf. Isa. 6:13; Hos. 2:1 (1:10); Ezek. 22:5)

We have offered no frankincense (levonah) on the mount of Lebanon

[the Temple, 1 Kings 7:2]
and how shall the sin be whitened (yelubban) of her that is fair as the
moon (levanah [Song of Songs 6:10])?
The pure myrrh has ceased from her that is perfumed with myrrh
[Song of Songs 3:6]
and how, on the mount of myrrh [Moriah, the Temple-mount,
2 Chron. 3:1] shall there rest the bundle of myrrh [Song of Songs 1:13]?
(ʾeyn lanu kohen gadol, 23, 25)

These negations of course serve to intensify the hope that Synagogue may
again be affirmatively described as a holy people, the children of God, a fair
bride awaiting the divine bridegroom on his holy hill.32
Bridal imagery could be linked triumphantly in midrash with the four-
kingdom scheme. Israel ‘looked forth as the morning’ under Babylon with
Daniel, was ‘fair as the moon’ under Media with Esther, ‘clear as the sun’
against the Greeks with Mattathias and his sons, and will be ‘terrible as
an army with banners’ to Edom (Song of Songs 6:10 interpreted in Exod.
R. 15.6).33 Yose uses the same link more subtly in a sustained evocation of
alternating fear and hope as Israel moves from tribulation to comfort. In
I will flee for help (Isa. 10:3), the third poem of the Tekiata, he frames the
bridal imagery with the symbolism of timorous creatures such as sheep and
dove, met already in the mournful central section of the first poem of the
Tekiata (p. 331 above). Synagogue, convinced of the divine presence in her
worship, takes heart (line 2–3) to ‘chirp’ (Isa. 10:14) for help for the ‘scattered
sheep’ (Jer. 50:17), dumb before the (Gentile) ‘shearers’ who oppress her
(Isa. 53:7). Yet though the bridegroom said ‘Let me hear thy voice’ (Song of

32
For Song of Songs 1:13 applied to the resting of the Shekhinah in the rebuilt Temple see Pesikta
Rabbati 20.8, edited, with commentary discussing parallels, by K.-E. Grözinger, Ich bin der Herr,
dein Gott!: Eine rabbinische Homilie zum Ersten Gebot (PesR 20), Frankfurter Judaistische Studien ii
(Bern and Frankfurt am Main, 1976), 36, 124–6, 6*.
33
Text with translation and notes in S. Krauss, Griechen und Römer, Monumenta Talmudica V.i
(reprinted Darmstadt, 1972), 34.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 333

Songs 2:14; each line of the poem ends with qol), he fled when he found no
Law in her (line 6). Encouraged by recollection of patriarchs and prophets
(lines 7–12), Synagogue goes in search of him like the bride of the Song of
Songs (lines 13f.). The bridegroom is no longer to be found, as of old, at
the Sea or in the Wilderness; he once spoke from the Temple, but ‘I have
defiled his beloved dwelling’ (lines 15–18). This ‘I’, where ‘they’ might have
been expected, strikingly marks the acute consciousness of sin already noted,
especially apparent at this stage in the poem. The first person singular, for
which no scriptural source is suggested by Mirsky and Goldschmidt ad loc.,
may perhaps arise from Ezek. 8, interpreted as ‘the lodger turning out the
master of the house’ in Lev. R. 17.7 (Margulies, 387).
Synagogue remembers, however, that she was precious in the bridegroom’s
sight (Isa. 43:4); for her he cast down the kingdoms in their order until this
present (Roman) dominion of the ‘Beast of the reeds’ (Ps. 68:31), and, although
the time of deliverance is hidden from her in her misery, she knows (here Yose
prepares for the Shofaroth-texts) that she will rejoice to hear (Song of Songs
5:2) the Beloved knocking at the doors (lines 19–29). ‘For ever will he make
me the seal upon his heart, as once under the apple tree he raised me up with
a voice.’ This line 30, with its allusions to Song of Songs 8:6 and 5, is at once
given its (standard)34 interpretation by ‘the voice of the trumpet exceeding
loud’ in Exod. 19:16, now cited as the first of the Shofaroth. Emboldened as she
recalls the giving of the Law, Synagogue prays earnestly for the gathering of
the dispersion, reverting to the imagery of desolate biblical birds (Hos. 11:11;
Ps. 84:4, 56:1 (title); Isa. 27:13; Zech. 10:8).

The sparrow from Egypt has cried from the wilderness,

and the dove from Assyria has sent forth her voice.
Visit the house-sparrow, seek out the silent dove:
blow for them on the trumpet and hiss for them with a voice.
(lines 36f.)

There follows immediately the third of the Shofaroth (Isa. 27:13), and the
poem ends with twenty further lines of messianic hope, considered below
(pp. 346–8). Its treatment of the Song of Songs is comparable with that of

34
For the Song of Songs interpreted of divine love in the giving of the Law, see Loewe, ‘Apologetic
Motifs’, 161 and (on 8.6) 172.
334 Messianism among Jews and Christians

PRK 5.6–9, but the midrash is more consolatory in tone. Thus, whereas
PRK 5.8 (Mandelbaum, 90) notes positively from Song of Songs 2:8 that Israel
saw the ‘leaping’ Holy One in Egypt, at the Sea and at Sinai, Yose’s lines 15–18,
alluding to the same verse, depend on the thought that this was once the case,
but is so no longer.

(c) The fathers, the slain, and the disciples of the wise
The suffering of Israel is also expressed in the sufferings of representative
figures. Patriarchs and martyrs (the ‘fathers’ and the ‘slain’, ʾefḥad be-maʿasay,
4, 47) are prominent here, and it is probable that the rabbis and their pupils
also have a place.
The patriarchs are frequently described in terms of glory. They are the
‘ancient mountains’ of Deut. 33:15, through whose worth Israel was redeemed
from bondage (ʾefḥad be-maʿasay, 41, with Targum Ps.-Jon. ad loc.; Lev. R.
36.6 (above, n. 27)). In the sidre ʿavodah, as in contemporary midrash, Adam
has the wisdom and beauty of Ezek. 28:12–15, and God spreads his jewelled
couch within the wedding-canopy of Eden (ʾazhhir gevuroth, 39f.; ʾattah
konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 27f; cf. PRK 44; Lev. R. 20.2).35 Jacob’s wrestling
is viewed not as affliction but as victory; ‘blazing fire flees when it wrestles
with him’ (ʾazkhir gevuroth, 102; cf. ʾattah konanta ʾolam be-rov ḥesed, 64).
Like the division of the sea by Moses, the halting of the sun by Joshua, and the
raising of the dead by Elijah and Elisha, it can be cited to demonstrate man’s
God-given lordship over creation (ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 24; cf.
PRK 1.3).36
Equally strong, however, is the emphasis on patriarchal suffering. Adam
received divine comfort after Abel’s murder.

This One bound up the wound of the primaeval creature

when he began to drink the cup mixed for the generations.
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 65)

The consolation, as in Gen. 4:25, was Seth; and with an allusion to Ps. 147:3
the verse expresses the straightforward view stated in messianic form in 2 Cor.

35
Mandelbaum, 66f; Margulies, 446.
36
Mandelbaum, 5.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 335

1:3–5. Tribulation is interpreted as testing especially in the case of Abraham.

God ‘tested him ten times’ (ʾasapper gedoloth, 16), as in Mishnah, Aboth 5.3.
The most important of these tests in Yose is the sacrifice of Mount Moriah,
to which ʾasapper gedoloth immediately proceeds. The Akedah is considered
separately below at pp. 352–3; here we need only note the benefits of this
testing for Israel. Abraham can be appealed to as advocate: ‘Perhaps he will
accept of you, because you obeyed the voice’; and Isaac’s silent self-oblation
gives a ground for petition: ‘Look upon the lamb of Moriah; may the dumbness
of his mouth be righteousness for her that did not obey the voice’ (ʾanusah
le-ʿezrah, 8f.; for the patriarchs as advocates cf. PRK 23.7 (Mandelbaum,
339f.)). Readiness to die is also seen in Moses and Aaron. Moses prayed: ‘Blot
me out, I pray thee’, for the sake of the people; and Aaron braved the plague:
‘he bounded with the censer until the plague was stayed’ (ʾefḥad be-maʿasay,
5, 8; Exod. 32:32; Num. 17:11–13 (16:46–8)).
The ‘martyrological’ character of the Akedah has often been noted, and the
epithet is applied specifically to Yose’s version in ʾazkhir gevuroth, 91–4 (below,
pp. 352–3) by Maier, Gesch. der jüdischen Religion, 119. It is worth gathering a
few other passages in Yose that for convenience may be called martyrological,
even though they speak neither of witness, with the New Testament, nor of
sanctification of the Name, with the rabbis (but note the phrase ‘defilement
of the Name’, above, p. 332). In all of these passages the sufferers are once
again closely linked, or even identified, with the people as a whole. Earlier
quotations have described Israel as ‘sheep for the slaughter’ and ‘doves’ (above,
p. 331), or as a ‘scattered’ and ‘dumb’ sheep ‘driven away’ in exile (above,
p. 332; cf. Jer. 50:17, immediately followed by a promise of punishment on
the Gentile nations). A line on the Synagogue as bride, however, departs from
an otherwise closely followed scriptural model, the zikhronoth-text Jer. 2:2, in
order to mention the slain as especially remembered by God:

The High One has greatly longed for the bride of youth:
her slain and her afflicted have come to remembrance.
(ʾefḥad be-maʿasay, 47)

‘Her slain’, harugeyha, recalls the rabbinic phrase haruge malekhuth, ‘those
slain by the Empire’, applied especially to the so-called ‘Ten Martyrs’ under
Hadrian. The ‘fourth kingdom’ was regarded in rabbinic thought as worse
336 Messianism among Jews and Christians

than its predecessors precisely in this respect, that it made many martyrs.37
Suffering under the empire is also probably described in ʾomnam ʾashamenu,
40: ‘we have been slaughtered, great and small, as fish swallowed up in the net’;
and it is clearly lamented in ʾeyn lanu kohen gadol:

How can we toss the blood [Mishnah, Yoma 1.2] when our blood is shed?
… How can we be purified by wood [Ezek. 41:22) when we have stumbled
under the wood [Lam. 5:13]?
(lines 8 and 32, second halves)

Mirsky notes that Targ. Lam. 5:13 interprets ‘have been crucified’. It is possible
that the last line also constitutes a bitter hint at the Christian Empire in
particular; ‘wood’ comes to be used in anti-Christian polemic.38 In any case,
in accord with the constant use of the first person throughout the poem, the
slain are again identified with the whole people. The refrain ‘we have sinned’,
after every second line, immediately follows both references. Martyrdom is
thus contextually interpreted as punishment for the nation’s sin; the positive
values attached to suffering elsewhere in Yose may be in the mind of poet and
congregation, but remain unexpressed.
Lastly, the Wise and their disciples are by no means so prominent in Yose
as in contemporary rabbinic homily, but the poet is aware of them and appears
to think of them in connection with representative suffering. His awareness
emerges in a significant adaptation of Ps. 123:2; Isa. 30:20, where he says of
the High Priest in divination that ‘his eyes are to his teacher [the Shekhinah]
as those of disciple to master’, ke-thalmid la-rav (ʾazkhir gevuroth, 154). The
disciples of the Wise seem to be regarded as suffering figures in the concluding
prayer of ʾefḥad be-maʾasay, which incorporates the zikhronoth. The poet
has just mentioned the good works of the generation redeemed from Egypt
(lines 33f., introducing Ps. 111:4), and is about to speak of the merits of the
patriarchs (line 41, introducing Exod. 2:24). At this point he prays (lines 36f.):

Look, O God, upon the dwellers in the gardens [Song of Songs 8:13]
hearkening to those who converse on the law for remembrance;
Their work is before thee, and their reward is with thee—

37
Krauss, Griechen und Römer, 20n., 24.
38
For the cross as ‘wood’ see M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late
Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1999), 216–17 (qis); Jerome, In Ep. ad Gal. 2.3, on 3.13 (14) (Deut. 21:23).
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 337

theirs who eat the bread of carefulness [Ps. 127:2]—in the book of
remembrance,
as it is written by the hand of thy prophet, Then they that feared the Lord
spake one with another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of
remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord, and
that thought upon his name [Mal. 3:16].

Israel as a whole is the garden-dweller, according to Canticle Rabbah ad loc.;

but here the feminine singular participle of Massoretic Text becomes masculine
plural, and the verses closely follow Mal. 3:16, which is applied to converse on
Torah in Aboth 3.3. It is likely, therefore, as Mirsky shows, that the ‘gardens’
(gannim) here are houses of study (compare the metaphorical use of tarbiṣ
for ‘academy’), and their ‘dwellers’ the disciples of the Wise who ‘eat the bread
of carefulness’. The context in Yose means that the rabbinic students’ costly
devotion must be regarded as meritorious and representative. His thought
will then be close to that vividly expressed in the homily of PRK 11.24, where
Simeon b. Yohai’s son Eleazar says, when he has laboured in Torah as much as
he can, ‘Let all the sufferings of Israel come upon me.’39
Yose’s allusions to patriarchs and martyrs have a hagiographical ring.
Abraham is an intercessor, Isaac’s death is atoning, and the martyrs are especially
remembered by God. Miracles, as is natural in writing of this tendency (cf.
Heb. 11:33f.), are regarded for the moment as man’s work rather than God’s.
Jewish veneration of the tombs of the patriarchs and the Maccabaean martyrs
is attested well before Yose’s time, and it is in the century after him that a
pilgrim describes Jews as well as Christians offering incense at the patriarchal
shrine in Hebron.40 Yose’s relatively slight reference to the disciples of the Wise
is in so similar a vein as to recall that the tombs of rabbis, too, had begun to be
venerated (see chapter 12, below). The pièce justificative of the Meronites, who
in response to dream-apparitions of R. Simeon b. Yohai stole his son Eleazar’s
body and translated it to the father’s tomb in Meron, is found among other
places in a composition of Yose’s time, PRK 11.23. In such contexts suffering
is seen as meritorious and beneficial; ‘the sufferer … becomes an object of

39
Mandelbaum, p. 200; the parallel Ecc. R. 11.2 edited with notes by G. Dalman, Aramäische
Dialektproben, 2nd edn. (reprinted Darmstadt, 1960), 35 and discussed in connection with Matt.
26:28 by Dalman, Jesus—Jeschua (Leipzig, 1922), 158f.; these traditions and related account of Rabbi
discussed by Rosenzweig, Solidarität, 176–88.
40
E. Bammel, ‘Zum jüdischen Märtyrerkult’ as cited p. 376, below.
338 Messianism among Jews and Christians

veneration’;41 Israel benefits, and the sufferings of the Synagogue as a whole

tend to be seen as a precious sign of favour rather than, or at least as well as,
retribution.

What then is there left to you to say, since the prophets speak of fixed periods
concerning the other [three] captivities, whereas for this [present] one they
fix no period, but on the contrary add that the desolation will last to the end?

Your affairs have gone beyond all tragedy … Where now are the things that
you hold sacred? Where is the high priest? Where are the garments, the
breastplate and the Urim?
(Chrysostom, C. Iud. 5.10 (resumed in 6.2 and 6.5)42

So Chrysostom rhetorically addresses the Jews in 387, when Church members

were inclined to frequent the Synagogue for festivals including those ‘Days
of Awe’ for which Yose wrote. There is a striking identity between the twin
afflictions—servitude and loss of the Temple service—singled out in the patristic
commonplaces vigorously echoed by Chrysostom, and those that have figured
most prominently in Jewish communal expression as represented by Yose.
Chrysostom goes on to treat Lev. 8, which is remembered at the heart of the
Day of Atonement Avodah. In both the external and the inner-Jewish source,
moreover, the connection is made between these sufferings and the sin that
they imply. To note the extent of these shared presuppositions is also, however,
to be made more keenly aware of the wholly different general tendency of Yose’s
poems. Deeply though they lament present suffering, they offer assurance even
in the negations of former glory of We have no high priest (above, p. 332).
Here the link between Yose and contemporary midrash emerges clearly.
Instances in which both draw on a common stock of ideas have already
been noted. Rachel Rosenzweig is able to present the midrash as a mode of
overcoming suffering,43 and the compilations ascribed to the fifth century are
indeed rich in words of comfort. Joseph Heinemann finds a leading theme of
Leviticus Rabbah to be that the sufferings of Israel are in reality ‘nothing but
loving-kindness and atonement’.44 He refers especially to chapters 16, 17 and

41
Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 275.
42
PG xlviii, 899, 905, 911.
43
Rosenzweig, Solidarität, 7, 52.
44
J. Heinemann, ‘The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba’ (Hebrew), Hasifrut II (1971), 808–34
(822a); cf. Heinemann, ‘Profile of a Midrash’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion xxxix
(1971), 141–50 (148).
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 339

26, the last-named (on the Day of Atonement) belonging in his view originally
to Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (where chapter 26 is parallel). Similarly, quite
apart from this chapter, a large section of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (chapters
16–22) is devoted to consolation.45 These and other works likely to stand near
in time to Yose’s poems contain sayings that give the corporate afflictions
themselves a strong positive interpretation. So a homily in the name of the
third-century Palestinian Samuel bar Nahmani, current in several versions,
says that the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 38:28) is in fact a cause of rejoicing,
since it brought Israel the a̓poch́, quittance (Gen. R. 41(42).3)46 or a̓pójasiV,
annulment (Lev. R. 11.7)47 of her iniquities. According to Lam. R. 1.51,48
on that day Menahem (‘Comforter’, the Messiah) was born, giving hope for
the Temple’s rebuilding.49 Again, the saying ascribed to Akiba; ‘Poverty is as
becoming to the daughter of Jacob as a red band on the neck of a white horse’,
occurs at Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 14.3 and Lev. R. 13.4; 35.6.50 E. Bammel
shows that it is implicitly messianic: servitude is a part of redemption itself.51
Contrasts, however, also appear between Yose and such otherwise
comparable midrashic material. They arise in part at least from the fact that
Yose speaks in the name of the congregation, while the midrash is closer to
words spoken in homily to the congregation. Yose expresses, in the manner
appropriate to the day of the Jewish year, the sufferings that the preacher
addresses as consoler and apologist. Hence Yose allows himself, as with the
figure of the Synagogue in I will flee for help or in the lines on patriarchal
suffering and martyrdom (above, pp. 334–5), to enter with less explicit
allusion to comfort than is typical of these midrashic passages into the
corporate affliction and longing for redemption. Hence also, perhaps, the
strong midrashic tie between suffering and repentance52 is absent from Yose.
He takes no side on the question whether redemption depends on Israel’s prior
repentance.53 His concern is not (unless implicitly) to urge repentance, but

45
W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (London, 1975), xxi.
46
J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (eds.), Bereschit Rabba (reprinted Jerusalem, 1965), 1, 407.
47
Margulies, 337, apparatus to line 5.
48
Dalman, Dialektproben, 14f.
49
The traditions cited here are discussed by Rosenzweig, Solidarität, 32f.
50
Mandelbaum, 241f.; Margulies, 281, 824.
51
Bammel in Bammel-Barrett-Davies, Donum Gentilicium, 303.
52
Rosenzweig, Solidarität, 153f, 223f., brings out the strength of the belief that suffering implies sin.
53
The rabbinic material is surveyed by A. Marmorstein, ‘The Doctrine of Redemption in Saadya’s
Theological System’, in E. I. J. Rosenthal (ed.), Saadya Studies (Manchester, 1943), 103–18 (106–12);
cf. Schäfer, ‘Hoffnungen’, esp. 98–100, 110–12, 118 and Bammel in Bammel-Barrett-Davies, Donum
Gentilicium, 302–4.
340 Messianism among Jews and Christians

to express the communal confession of sin and prayer that God will purify
and redeem his people. His poems thus recall the significant closing words of
Mishnah, Yoma: ‘The Holy One, blessed be he, cleanses Israel’; and, though
they are hardly intended as argument, suggest something of the weight behind
the view that redemption is in God’s hand alone. Inevitably thereby they lack
something of that strongly ethical emphasis on man’s co-operation with divine
redemption that Schäfer identifies as an important rabbinic contribution to
messianic hope.54
Despite these points of contrast in treatment, Yose’s interpretations of
suffering are close to those of the rabbinic midrash. Just as, in Solomon
Schechter’s exposition of rabbinic thought, ‘by a series of conscious and
unconscious modifications’ the sufferer ‘passed from the state of a sinner into
the zenith of the saint’,55 so the suffering Synagogue in Yose receives at one
and the same time chastenings for sin and the tokens of divine favour. Here
Yose may be comparable with the New Testament as well as the rabbis. As
M. D. Hooker has shown, the Apostle appears to include all his sufferings,
without discrimination of cause, in the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings.56
For Yose, however, the present sufferings of the community are messianic
in a sense less bound up with the messianic figure. Servitude and the loss of
the Temple service contain within themselves the hope of their reversal in
redemption.

Messianism

‘King Messiah will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its former
dominion. He will build up the sanctuary and gather together the outcasts of
Israel [Ps. 147:2]. All the laws will be restored in his days as they were of old,
and sacrifices will be offered’ (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah xiv. 11.1).57

54
Schäfer, ‘Hoffnungen’, 118.
55
Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 281.
56
M. D. Hooker, ‘Interchange and Suffering’, in W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and
Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament
Seminar (Cambridge, 1981), 80–1.
57
(Amsterdam, Joseph and Emmanuel Athias, 1702), iv, f. 306b; translation and discussion of this
passage in Scholem, Messianic Idea, 28–32.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 341

The twin afflictions lamented by Yose become in reverse the twin

hopes of messianism. The summary of Maimonides shows these hopes
for the kingdom and the Temple-service to be at the heart of messianic
tradition, even though he goes on to restrict them by his own this-worldly
interpretation. A miraculous redemption, in keeping with earlier tradition,
is however expected by his predecessor Saadia, in whose Beliefs and Opinions
(a.d. 933) the same hopes inform a synthesis of rabbinic messianism in
which thirteen stages have been discerned.58 They include the death of
Messiah son of Joseph at the advent of the antichrist Armilus, the battle of
Gog and Magog, and the advent of Messiah son of David, before the three
fundamental events of the gathering of the exiles, the resurrection of the
dead, and the rebuilding of the Temple. Saadia admitted Yose’s poems into
his Order of Prayer no doubt largely because they were widely current; but
his deliberate choice of them from among a great many others also suggests
that their messianism, less elaborate than his own though it may well be, did
not strike him as inconsistent with the views that he was to synthesize.59 His
scheme of redemption is in fact close to apocalyptic works such as the early
seventh-century Zerubbabel.
The works mentioned so far present messianism in a unified manner. In
rabbinic writings, not least the midrashim likely to be near Yose’s time, it is of
course reflected fragmentarily. Yose’s poems have the interest of appearing to
presuppose a connected scheme of redemptive events. One cannot, however,
expect such a scheme to be precisely described in poetry. Kalir’s poem In those
days and at that time is very close to Zerubbabel, but fails to mention Armilus
by name; and a messianic piyyuṭ in Saadia’s name is far from giving the detail
of his prose account.60 With this caution in view Yose’s messianic passages are
now considered. The headings of the kingdom and the Temple service roughly
correspond, with certain overlaps, to the principal themes of the Tekiata and
the Avodah poems respectively.

58
Marmorstein in Rosenthal, Saadya Studies, 113.
59
Saadia is likely to have compiled the Siddur after his travels ending in 921, and probably, though
not certainly, before he received the title of Gaon in 928; so Assaf in Davidson-Assaf-Joel, Siddur
R. Saadja Gaon, 22f. Saadia’s principles in choosing piyyuṭim are summarized by Assaf at 21; for his
testimony to the great number from which he selected Yose’s Tekiata, see 225.
60
Kalir’s poem is printed with comments by J. Kaufmann (Even-Shemuel), Midrashe Geʾullah, 2nd
edn. (Hebrew: Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1954), 109–16; for that in Saadia’s name see S. Stein, ‘Saadya’s
Piyyut on the Alphabet’, in Rosenthal, Saadya Studies, 206–26.
342 Messianism among Jews and Christians

(a) The kingdom

Kingdom is the explicit and traditional theme of the first poem of the Tekiata
(Mishnah, Rosh ha-Shanah 4.6). Yose’s kingdom at the end of each line takes up
the last word of Obadiah 21 (above, p. 331), the much-quoted malkhuyyoth-
text, which unites the national and theocentric elements of messianism.61
The opening description of the conquest has prepared for the allusion to the
downfall of Edom, which, after the mournful central section (above, p. 331),
opens the concluding passage. The hairy man inherited for a while (above,
p. 331), but (lines 30ff.):

the smooth man was exalted to be lord over the brethren [Gen. 27:29], and
to Jeshurun again shall there turn back the kingdom
[cf. Lev. R. 13, n. 61 above];

as it is written in the law, And he shall be [or, ‘And there shall be a’] king in
Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered
together [Deut. 33:5; see p. 17, n. 58, above].

This text is the first of the malkhuyyoth, which are now interwoven with
couplets from the poet into a series of prayers and predictions concerning
redemption. These appear to form two successive sequences dealing largely but
not entirely with the same events. First, the lines on the downfall of Edom, just
quoted, are followed by prayer for the establishment of the messianic kingdom
in Jerusalem (in words close, as Mirsky notes, to the fourteenth Benediction
of the Tefillah):62

Stir and awake the joy of the whole earth,

and establish thy throne in the city of the kingdom.
(line 33, introducing Ps. 48:3)

Before Israel, the bride in the ‘fair city’, the divine glory is to be revealed (lines
35f., introducing Isa. 24:23). The link between bride and city is now grounded

61
Thus it forms the last words of Lev. R. 13, in which the four unclean beasts of Lev. 11:4–7 are the
four kingdoms, Rome the swine (ḥazir) ‘returning (maḥzereth) the crown to its owners’ (text and
notes in Krauss, Griechen und Römer, 20, n. 35); and it is the climax of Zerubbabel (A. Jellinek,
Bet ha-Midrasch (6 parts, reprinted Jerusalem, 1967), 11, 57, line 4 from bottom). Cohen, ‘Esau
as Symbol’, 19f. gives discussion; for the question how far the theocentric climax of 1 Cor. 15:28 is
comparable, see e.g., W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd edn. (London, 1962), 292–8;
pp. 218–19, above.
62
Translated and discussed in E. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. edn., vol. ii (Edinburgh, 1979), 458, 461.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 343

by lines 39f., recalling that ‘the redeemed from Zoan’ in the Exodus foresaw in
the Spirit their plantation in the holy place (Exod. 15:17, about to be quoted).
One of the scarce Pentateuchal kingdom-texts is thereby incorporated,63 and a
confident recollection of past redemption is introduced. The line on the divine
glory is then elucidated, in the same tone of confidence, by a prediction that
the Shekhinah will indeed come back to the Temple.

The gates of the Dwelling were cut down, of the everlasting House
[1 Kings 8:13]
for from between them there ceased the kingdom.
The Holy One shall come within them for ever,
and then shall they lift up their head, when thou renewest the
kingdom.
(lines 43f., introducing Ps. 24:7f., 9f.)

Now Yose reverts to the sombre present, hopefully interpreted as a permitted

lengthening of the days (in implied answer to arguments like that of Chrysostom)
before Edom’s appointed end (line 48). Here there accordingly seems to begin
a second sequence of references to what is fundamentally the same series of
redemptive events. Obadiah 21 is introduced (line 49) by a prayer for victory:
Contend, O saviours, take the glory from Edom:
and set upon the Lord the majesty of the kingdom.

It is followed by an equally earnest prayer for the national purity appropriate

to redemption, quoting and introducing Num. 23:21.

Vanity God hates, and he upon our tongue

sought truth, and there was none; and far away went the kingdom.
Shaddai, turn aside iniquity from thy hosts:
and let them shout unto thee the shout of the kingdom.
(lines 51f.)

This sharply messianic exegesis, interpreting captivity as punishment and

praying for divine cleansing that the kingdom may be hastened, is partly
paralleled in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, where ‘the shout of a king’ is indeed ‘the
call to arms of king Messiah’. There is no comparable urgency in the Targum,
however, where Israel is seen as already free from iniquity, interpreted as

63
L. J. Liebreich, ‘Aspects of the New Year Liturgy’, HUCA xxxiv (1963), 125–76 (140) notes the great
shortage of kingdom-texts in the Pentateuch.
344 Messianism among Jews and Christians

idolatry—that he hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob being similarly emphasized

in the midrash.64 There is an even more marked contrast between Yose and
the non-messianic Onkelos on this verse (seeing Israel are not idolaters, the
Memra and Shekhinah abide with them), followed later by Rashi (God abides
with Israel despite her sins).65 Here Yose’s messianism clearly diverges from
what was to become the royal road of interpretation.
The next couplet, introducing Ps. 93:1, takes up its words beforehand
and gives them two messianic interpretations; these are analogous with its
application especially to the Exodus and Sinai in contemporary homily.66

Thou shalt bind on majesty, and gird thyself with strength—

that no more may there be rule by a stranger in the kingdom;
Thou shalt establish the world—for the wicked one shall be shaken out
[Job 38:13]
but one has set righteousness for his feet [Isa. 41:2], and he shall be
crowned with kingdom.
(lines 54f.)

The verbs in the allusions to the Psalm-verse can be construed as either

prayers or predictions; the latter sense seems more probable in view of the
causal clause in the second line of the Hebrew. The ‘stranger’, then, will rule
no longer, the ‘wicked one’ will be ‘shaken out’, and a righteous figure will
be crowned (yuṣnaf; the royal association of ṣanif (Isa. 62:3) is taken up by
Yose in respect of the sacerdotal mitre, miṣnefeth, at ʾazkhir gevuroth, 161).
It is probably the Messiah who is crowned (Mirsky). The ‘wicked one’ may
therefore be the current ruler of the ‘kingdom of wickedness’, the downfall
of which is closely linked in contemporary midrash with Messiah’s advent
(e.g. PRK 5.9, Mandelbaum, 97).67 The existing plural ‘wicked’ of Job 38:13, to
which allusion is made would, however, have suited a reference to the ‘wicked

64
The Targums are surveyed by S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati,
1974), 19. Neofiti’s version of ‘the shout of a king’ is close to Ps.-Jon. (A. Diez Macho, Neophyti I, vol.
iv (Madrid, 1974), 227). The first words of the verse are cited in Lev. R. 1.12 (Margulies, 27) and PRK
S. 1.4 (Mandelbaum, 44).
65
A. Berliner, Der Kommentar des Salomo b. Isak über den Pentateuch, 2nd edn. (1905, reprinted
Jerusalem, 1962), 329.
66
PRK 22.5 (Mandelbaum, 330) (the sending of the Flood and the giving of the Law); PRK S. 6.5
(Mandelbaum, 469) (the division of the Sea); Midrash Tehillim ad loc., quoted in Yalkut Shimeoni
on the Writings (Wilna, 1909), no. 847, 946 (both the Sea and Sinai).
67
The passage is quoted as typical of many others by S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology
(reprinted New York, 1961), 101; see also p. 331, below.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 345

kingdom’ equally well. Thus ‘the time has come for the wicked men to be
broken’, PRK, loc. cit. (Mandelbaum, 97). It is striking, therefore, that Yose,
without obvious metrical reason, has changed the word into the singular. He
very possibly means, although the passage is not clear enough for certainty,
to indicate the Gentile ruler conceived as anti-christ, who in Zerubbabel is
termed ‘that wicked one’ and is indeed, as in, Targ. Isa. 11:4, ‘the wicked’ slain
by the Messiah ‘with the breath of his lips’ (Isa. 11:4; p. 368, below).68
The last couplet, introducing Deut. 6:4, predicts that God shall ‘break the
staff of wickedness that rules in the kingdom’ (‘the staff of the wicked’ (Isa.
14:5), is mentioned at PRK, loc. cit.), shall abolish idols, and for ever shall
be called ‘the only One to reign in kingdom’. If the previous couplet does
indeed refer to antichrist, the train of thought will be comparable with that of
Zerubbabel: ‘and at once after him [Armilus] the kingdom shall be the lord’s’
(Obadiah 21).69
The events of the first sequence are: downfall of Edom, Messiah’s throne set
up in Jerusalem, return of Shekhinah to Temple. Those of the second sequence
are: downfall of Edom, destruction of ‘the wicked one’ (probably antichrist),
God rules alone. The first sequence significantly fails to end with this
reference to the final sole rule of God. The omission enhances the likelihood
that the second reference to the downfall of Edom (line 48) leads back into
the same series of events at a slightly later stage. The servitude envisaged is
clearly continuous with that of the present. Line 48 cannot then itself refer to
resurgence of ‘the wicked kingdom’ during the messianic age. Such resurgence
would, however, be presupposed by the line on the ‘wicked one’, if it is rightly
taken of antichrist. The midrashim likely to be near Yose’s time envisage a
threat to the messianic kingdom well after its beginning. Thus Messiah will
come and then disappear for a time, during which his faithful followers will
have tribulation; or at his advent Gog and Magog will plan their war ‘against
the lord and against his anointed’ (Ps. 2:2); or ‘the days of the Messiah’ can
be distinguished from, and placed before, ‘the days of Gog and Magog’.70 Yose

68
Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, ii, 56, lines 11f. 14 (ʾotho rashaʿ); ‘Armilus the wicked’ (rashaʿ) in the
commentary on the Song of Songs under the name of Saadia reprinted by Even-Shemuel, Midrashe
Geʾullah, 131, line 7. Job 38:13 is comparably interpreted of the days of antichrist by Gregory the
Great, Moralia 29.6 (10–11) (PL lxxvi, 482).
69
Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, ii, 57, line 4 from the bottom.
70
PRK 5.8 (Mandelbaum, 92) (on Song of Songs 2:9); PRK 9.11 (Mandelbaum, 159) = Lev. R. 27.11
(Margulies, 646); Lev. R. 30.5 (Margulies, 701).
346 Messianism among Jews and Christians

appears to expect the attack at the end of the messianic age, or of a distinct
stage in it. Herein he would be close to the third midrashic passage and to
Rev. 20:7f. as well as to Zerubbabel.71The events envisaged in the poem as a
whole would accordingly be: downfall of Edom, messianic reign in Jerusalem,
Shekhinah returns to temple, antichrist rises and is destroyed, God rules alone.
The third poem of the Tekiata, I will flee for help, has comparable but not
identical messianic references. Synagogue, recalling how the three kingdoms
have been cast down for her (above p. 333), prays ‘from the teeth of iron’ of the
fourth beast (Dan. 7:7):

‘The measure of my end he has not made known to me:

when in my land shall the turtle-dove give voice?’
(line 25)

‘The voice of the turtle’ (Song of Songs 2:12) is ‘the voice of king Messiah’ in
an exegesis ascribed to the third-century R. Johanan and found among other
places at PRK 5.9 (Mandelbaum, 97). This interpretation fits well here, and
is followed by Mirsky, who cites the parallel from Pesikta Rabbati 75.1. God
himself, however, is certainly the subject of the further allusion to the Song of
Songs: ‘when I hear my Beloved knocking at my doors’ (5:2), which shortly
afterwards introduces the first of the shofaroth, Exod. 19:16 (lines 29f.; above,
p. 333).
Further shofaroth are now introduced by couplets describing the giving of
the Law (before Ps. 47:6), praying for the gathering of the exiles (Zech. 10:8;
version at p. 333 above), praying that the commandments may be treasured
(Exod. 19:19), and noting that the end symbolized by New Year is accompanied
by judgment (Ps. 81:4f.). Isa. 18:3 is introduced by lines on the resurrection:

A sound from the grave, a cry from the rock [Isa. 42:11]
as the dry-boned from the dust give voice.
See, an ensign on the mountains, and the voice of a trumpet in the land,
to cause a cry of joy to be heard from the silent with no voice.
(lines 47f.)

The circumstances are unclear. The resurrection is not expressly separated from
the events of the messianic age, such as the ingathering. The ‘end’ looked for in

71
Gog and Magog come before the days of the Messiah, by contrast, in the tradition of Hanan bar
Tahlifa in Sanh. 97b (discussed, without reference to this point, by Schäfer, ‘Hoffnungen’, 15f.).
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 347

line 25 is the beginning of the messianic age, and the same word qeṣ is taken
up in the couplet on New Year and judgement immediately preceding that on
the resurrection. Further, Isa. 18:3, ‘earth’, is so re-used in line 48 as to make the
rendering ‘land’ adopted above possible. These indications are not conclusive,
but they are consistent with the view that Yose is presupposing the widespread
rabbinic association of the resurrection with Palestine in the messianic age
(Ezek. 37:11–14). Saadia says that most in his time expected the resurrection
at the messianic redemption; Zerubbabel expresses this expectation, and it is
the principal theme of Kalir’s messianic poem already mentioned.72 Yose is
perhaps more likely to have envisaged it before the defeat of antichrist, with
the two last-named sources, than afterwards, as in the specially-constructed
scheme of Saadia.
The next couplet introducing Exod. 20:18, predicts that the ‘deceived
heart’ (Isa. 44:20) shall no more be led astray (cf. ʾahallelah ʾelohay, 51;
above, p. 343), and prays: ‘Bring back to me as of old the law, the inheritance,’
doubtless reckoning with the complete observance possible in the messianic
age (Maimonides (above, p. 340) sums up this well-marked topic).73 A couplet
introducing Psalm 150 tells of the ‘understanding’ poured forth in David’s
psalms, which teach praise to the ruler of all. The reference to David in
prophetic terms as ‘the man understanding in speech’ (line 54) may perhaps
have messianic overtones; compare ‘all the words of the songs and praises of
David, son of Jesse, thy servant and anointed’ at the end of the Sabbath morning
Nishmath.74 The next and last couplet, introducing the final text, Zech. 9:14,
recalls first the victory of the sons of Zion over the sons of Greece (Zech. 9:13),
and then predicts battle against Teman (Edom) in the words of the text.
In the whole passage three sequences can be discerned, each beginning
from present corporate recollection of the past. In the first, the congregation,
longing with Synagogue to know ‘the measure of my end’, look forward to the
coming of the messianic age and the ingathering; in the second, they recall

72
Saadia, ʾEmunoth we-Deʿoth, 7. 1, ET by S. Rosenblatt (New Haven, 1948), 264f; Zerubbabel in
Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, ii, 56; Kalir in Even Shemuel, Midrashe Geʾullah, 113–16. The dead in
Palestine rise first, according (for example) to PRK 22.5a (Mandelbaum, 330 (apparatus to line 12)).
On the continuity between rabbinic texts and apocalyptic like Zerubbabel on this topic, see
A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology (London, 1950), 160.
73
So Synagogue says (Song of Songs 5:2): ‘I sleep—in lack of God’s commandments; nevertheless my
heart wakeneth—ready to obey them’, PRK 5.6 (Mandelbaum, 87).
74
T. Kronholm, Seder R. Amram Gaon, Part ii (Lund, 1974), 71, and 14 of the Hebrew text.
348 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the giving of the Law (Exod. 19:19), looking to the ‘end’ (of the year and the
present captivity), with its accompanying heavenly judgment, and to the
resurrection; in the third, again recalling Sinai (Exod. 20:18), they look once
more to the overthrow of Edom and the beginning of the messianic age. The
newly-mentioned events are the ingathering and the resurrection.
The messianic events encountered in the two poems accordingly are:
downfall of Edom, messianic reign in Jerusalem, Shekhinah returns to Temple,
ingathering of exiles, resurrection of the dead, antichrist rises and is destroyed,
God rules alone. The events have been linked with texts from the malkhuyyoth
and shofaroth, but there is likely to have been a degree of free choice among
these texts in Yose’s time.75 Yose nevertheless draws on a fund of messianic
ideas according to need rather than versifying them systematically.
His strong messianism has so far evinced two characteristics generally
seen as typically rabbinic. It is theocentric, clear allusion to the messiah being
rare; and it is concerned with Law, as emerged especially in the prayer ‘Bring
back the law’. A fuller characterization must, however, also take into account
the messianism of the Avodah poems, with their special concentration on
sanctuary and sacrifice.

(b) The temple service

A description of the Day of Atonement service, quoting and paraphrasing
Mishnah, Yoma, is the kernel of the Avodah poems. It begins from a citation of
Lev. 8:34, well compared and contrasted by L. Ligier with the Gospel-citation
opening the narrative of institution in the eucharistic anaphora.76 Elbogen
argued, on the basis of Geniza texts, that this description originally constituted
the Avodah in its entirety.77 Since before Yose,78 however, it had been prefaced
with a recital of God’s works from Creation to the institution of the Tabernacle-

75
Heinemann in Heinemann-Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue, 60; Liebreich, ‘New Year
Liturgy’, 139–41, argues that the prophetic verses had to be eschatological passages from the Latter
Prophets.
76
L. Ligier, SJ, ‘Autour du sacrifice eucharistique: anaphores orientales et anamnèse juive de Kippur’,
Nouvelle revue théologique, lxxxii (1960), 40–55 (52, 54).
77
I. Elbogen, Studien zur Geschichte des jüdischen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1907), 56f; Mirsky, Yosse ben
Yosse, 25, also refers to J. M. Grintz’s suggestion that a Qumran ‘Prayer for the Day of Atonement’
(1Q34 2+1) was an Avodah.
78
The Avodah ʾattah baraʾthaʾeth ha-ʿolam kullo (discussed below at p. 355) published by Elbogen,
Studien, 116f., is set earlier than Yose by Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 26.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 349

service: in Elbogen’s view, a poetic device of one early writer, who was then
imitated by most others.79 In view of the many parallels with Ecclesiasticus,
Roth suggested that the form grew from an original that combined the relevant
parts of the Praise of the Fathers with Mishnah, Yoma.80 Mirsky reinforces this
view by pointing to the Creation-poem, Ecclus. 42:15–43:33, which precedes
the Praise of the Fathers; and he compares the belief, evinced for example at
Gen. R. 1.4, that both the Temple and repentance (the business of the Day of
Atonement) existed before Creation. The recital in the Avodah shows that the
Temple service completes the tale of the works of Creation, and that the world
is founded upon it.81
The literary form of the Avodah thus reflects the conviction that the Temple
service is bound up with the work of Creation. The deep roots of this conviction,
in such biblical passages as Ps. 78:69, are also probably to be traced beneath
other liturgical institutions of Yose’s time. Mishnah, Taanith 4.2–3 obliges the
lay members of a maamad to read the story of Creation while the priests of the
course concerned are ministering in the Temple. The Babylonian Gemara, 27b,
gives the reason as ‘were it not for the maamadoth, heaven and earth could not
stand’. The priestly courses appear to have continued after 70 to fast and to read
daily the relevant portion of Genesis 1 as ‘part of the trend commemorating
the ancient Temple ritual’.82 Among midrashic echoes of the same conviction
a special kinship with the Avodah form appears in the interpretation of Num.
7:1 at PRK 1.4 and 5 (Mandelbaum, 9 and 11): ‘After the Tabernacle was set up,
the earth became stable.’
The anamnesis of the Temple service in these poems is, despite the bitter
sense of loss already noted, in some degree an actualization. ‘Whenever they
read the order of sacrifices I will deem it as if they had offered them before me,
and I will grant them pardon’ (Taanith 27b). Hence the recital, made in lively
awareness of the service as the crown of Creation, in a measure anticipates the
restoration expected in redemption.

79
Elbogen, Studien, 58f.
80
Roth, ‘Ecclesiasticus’, 177.
81
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 26–9.
82
E. E. Urbach, ‘`Mishmarot and Maʿamadot’, Tarbiz xlii (1973), 304–27; the quotation is from the
English summary, p. v. Cf. Urbach, ‘Additional Note’, Tarbiz xliii (1974), 224; Z. Ilan, ‘A Broken Slab
Containing the Names of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses Discovered in the Vicinity of Kissufim’,
ibid., 225f.; Stein in Rosenthal, Saadya Studies, 221; Baron, History, vii, 90; Schürer-Vermes-Millar,
History of the Jewish People, ii, 245–50.
350 Messianism among Jews and Christians

S. Stein has observed that the Gemara of Taanith in the Babylonian Talmud,
which in a section already quoted (27a–28a) deals with the duties of the priestly
courses, significantly ends by describing a dance of the redeemed (31a).83 His
observation is confirmed by the arrangement of Lev. R. 11, in which the first
ministrations of Aaron and his sons (Lev. 9:1) are interpreted by Prov. 9:1–4
(Wisdom’s ‘house’ being expounded successively of the world, the Temple and
the days of Gog and Magog, the Torah, and the Tabernacle), and the chapter
is ended (11:9) by the same tradition, with different attestation and proof-
texts, on the dance of the righteous round the Holy One in the Time to Come.
Discoveries of poems and synagogal inscriptions concerning the priestly courses
have confirmed that throughout the Talmudic period Palestinian priests were
ready, in S. W. Baron’s words, ‘to spring into immediate action upon the advent
of Messiah, and without delay to restore the ancient ritual to full operation’.84
The whole Avodah-form accordingly possesses messianic overtones. The
restoration of the Service, which it looks to and in some degree realizes, will
be the fulfilment of God’s purpose from before the world and the sure token
of his redemption. Some more specific allusions to redemption in Yose’s
interpretation can now be noted.

(i) The rebuilding of the Temple. The throne of glory, to which the Temple
corresponds, is mentioned, as Mirsky notes, immediately after the Law as
created before the world.85

Then before a thousand generations it [the Law] came into mind,

and from it is the preparation of all the works of the pattern [1 Chron 28:19].
In the height he set the throne of his majesty,
spread his cloud and stretched it out as a curtain for a tent.
It shall not be taken down, and none of its stakes shall be removed,
until its end come and it is renewed with a word.
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 10–12)86

Here the Law, as in Gen.R. 1.1, is the plan of Creation, but line 10b uses the
words of 1 Chron. 28:19, which refer to the building of the Temple after the

83
Stein in Rosenthal, Saadya Studies, 221.
84
Baron, History, vii, 90; CIIP 1145.
85
Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 27, also quoting ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 3 and 5, and ʾasapper
gedoloth, 2.
86
This poem is translated (apart from a passage at the end) with comments by A. Murtonen, Materials
for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, vol. i (Helsinki, 1958), 107–13.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 351

heavenly pattern. Murtonen brings this out by rendering malʾakhoth, ‘works’,

as ‘services’, and noting tavnith, ‘pattern’, as an allusive name for ‘sanctuary’. In
the next line ‘height’ is linked by Mirsky with Jer. 17:12: ‘a glorious high throne
from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary’; and ʾohel, tent or tabernacle,
taken here from the description of the heavens in Isa. 40:22, has an obvious
sacred application, to occur shortly in line 26 where Joshua is meshareth ʾohel,
the minister of the tabernacle. The double meaning is sustained, in line 12,
which alludes to Isa. 33:20, where the ‘tabernacle that shall not be taken down’
is Jerusalem. Thus line 12b, on the appointed end and renewal of the heavens,
speaks also of the end and renewal of the earthly Temple.

(ii) The Messianic Banquet. Gen. 1:21, on the creation of sea monsters, fish and
fowl, is linked with the Banquet, as in Targum and midrash, in both the longer
Avodah-poems. In Thou hast established the world in the multitude of mercy,
lines 18–22, the Banquet is connected with the dietary laws, as in Targ. Ps.-Jon.
ad loc.; Leviticus Rabbah at 13.3; 22.10 (Margulies, 278f., 522f.) indeed presents
it as the future compensation for eating kosher. In I will recount the mighty
works, however, the Banquet receives a sacrificial interpretation also. From ‘the
fleeing ones of the deeps’ (Isa. 27:1; Ps. 148:7) created on the Fifth Day

He stored up some for the everlasting banquet …

Tall fowl sprouted from the pool of waters
for them that eat at the king’s table, and the army of his hosts …
There multiplied from the earth horned beasts for sacrifice,
creatures to eat, cattle and creeping things.
He fattened Behemoth with the produce of a thousand hills [Ps. 50:10],
for on the day of his sacrifice he will bring near his sword [Job 40:19].
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 28a, 29, 31f.)

Although the question of uncleanness is expressly mentioned in the omitted

line 30, the emphasis here falls, by contrast with the sources already noted, less
on diet than on sacrifice. Creation provides both for the priests who ‘eat at the
king’s table’ (Ezek. 41:22) and for the lay Israelite. The messianic banquet will
be just such a sacrificial meal. With the due slaughter implied in line 32 we may
contrast Lev. R. 13.3, where the monsters kill one another, although this too is
interpreted as ritual slaughter. A similarly ‘sacrificial’ view of the Banquet may
also be found at 1QSa 2.11–22, where however the model appears to be not the
352 Messianism among Jews and Christians

whole-offerings but the priestly participation in the Shewbread from the altar-
table of Ezek. 41:22, associated with the meal of the messianic Prince in the
Temple described at Ezek. 44:3ff.87 Likewise, in Targ. Cant. 8:2, Israel conducts
Messiah into the Temple for ‘the feast of Leviathan’.88

(iii) The Akedah. The binding of Isaac is interpreted as the equivalent of ‘a lamb
for a burnt offering’ (Gen. 22:8) and the pledge of future redemption. Isaac is
‘the basket of first-fruits’ (Deut. 26:2) and ‘the lamb’ (ʾazkhir gevuroth, 92f.;
cf. ʾanusah le-ezrah, 8; above, p. 299). Zunz drew attention to the emphasis
in the Avodah poems on readiness for sacrifice.89 This emphasis may well
come to Yose by inheritance. In an Aramaic poem dated earlier than Yose by
J. Heinemann ‘the father did not spare his son, and the son did not delay’
(language almost identical with that of ʾazkhir gevuroth, 92b, quoted below);
and Isaac declares, in heavily Graecized diction: ‘Happy am I that Kyrios has
chosen me from the whole kosmos.’90 The link between freely-accepted trials,
sacrifice and atonement is very close (above, p. 299).

He bore like a giant the weight of temptations,

and by command to slaughter his only son thou didst try him, and he stood.
The father rejoiced to bind, and the son to be bound;
for by this will be justified (God’s) carried ones in the chastisement.
Thou didst appoint his atonement (kofer) a ram, and it was
reckoned to him righteousness;
on this day will we hear: I have found atonement.
(ʾatta konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 58–60)

Zunz brings out the emphasis of the last line by rendering ‘we also’, and for
kofer has Lösung, ‘setting free’ or ‘absolution’.91 ʿaqad, ‘bind’, is the term for
tying the lamb of the Tamid before slaughter.92
Similarly in ʾazkhir gevuroth, 92–4, ‘the father did not spare, the son did
not delay’ and ‘the Good and Merciful One’ said ‘We will accept your [plural]

87
M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), 108–11, 146f.
88
Levey, The Messiah, 130–2; on the monsters’ deaths in Kalir, other poets including Yose, and the midrash,
see J. Schirmann, ‘The Battle between Behemoth and Leviathan According to an Ancient Hebrew
Piyyut’, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities iv (1969–70), 327–69 (338–40, 362).
89
Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie, 136f.
90
J. Heinemann, ‘Remnants of Ancient Piyyutim in the Palestinian Targum Tradition’, Hasifrut iv
(1973), 362–75 (366f.).
91
Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie, 137.
92
Mishnah, Tamid 4.1; the point is emphasized by P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, ‘The Aqedah: A
Revised Tradition-History’, CBQ xl (1978), 535.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 353

deed as that of priest and victim’ (zoveaḥ we-nizbaḥ, ‘sacrificer and sacrificed’).
Again, in ʾasapper gedoloth Abraham’s ten trials (above, p. 335) culminated in
the command

to make his son an offering,93 and he did not hesitate.

The lamb was delivered to the sword, and the burning of fire:
jah will look upon him as ashes when we are in distress.
(ʾasapper gedoloth, 16f.)

Throughout, the efficacy of the Akedah is expressed as that of a burnt offering.

The terms are mainly those known from Amoraic texts, the last quotation being
close to those, like Ber. 62b, which speak as if Isaac had in truth been offered.94
In the context of the Avodah, however, emphasis falls rather on the importance
of the sacrificial rites prefigured on Mount Moriah (the Temple-mount, ʾeyn
lanu kohen gadol, 25; above, p. 332) than on the value of the binding of Isaac as
their substitute. The recital of the Day of Atonement offerings will soon follow.
Ligier has noted the striking resemblance between Yose and contemporary
eastern and western Church teaching on Christ as both priest and victim.95
There is probably an element of conscious or unconscious reaction to such
teaching in Yose’s presentation of the binding of Isaac; but in the setting of
the Avodah his interpretation remains true to the early understanding of the
passage as a prefiguration of the Temple service, and of the atonement and
future redemption that the service betokens.96

(iv) The redemption from Egypt. The Exodus, foreshadowing redemption to

come, is described with markedly sacerdotal emphasis. The similarly coloured
Ecclus. 45 only hints at the story, but Yose tells it to the glory of the house of
Levi. Jacob became father of the twelve tribes, and

The third was set aside to behold the King’s face,

to sing and to minister, to enter his chambers.
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 105)

93
shay, often used for qorban in Yose; see Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, 69.
94
S. Spiegel, The Last Trial (New York, 1967), 41–4; cf. 102f. (willingness of father and son), 114f.
(atonement, Cant. R. on 1.14).
95
Ligier, ‘Autour du sacrifice eucharistique’, 55, citing among other texts the Liturgies of S. Basil and S.
Chrysostom in F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, vol. i (Oxford, 1896), 318, lines 34–5,
and 378, lines 5–6 (sù gàr ei̓͂ o̔ prosjérwn kaì prosjerómenoV).
96
See P. R. Davies, ‘Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah’, JJS xxx (1979), 59–67, on the early
interpretation of the passage, and apologetic elements in its development.
354 Messianism among Jews and Christians

This line on Levi is echoed in the account of the service at line 186 of the same
poem; the high priest, seeming like an angel in his vesture (line 157), will be
‘seeing the King’s face and entering his holy chamber’. This stress on the angelic
privilege shared by the priesthood recalls the view expressed in contemporary
Day-of-Atonement homily that Nadab and Abihu abused it by ‘eating and
drinking’ the vision of God (Exod. 24:11 in PRK 26.9 (Mandelbaum, 396) and
Lev. R. 20.10 (Margulies, 466f.)); the High Priest could indeed be described
as an angel, Lev. R. 21.12 (Margulies, 493). These passages, like Yose here,
continue the tendency to compare priests with angels seen at Jub. 31:14; 1QSb
4.24–6 (from ‘Recueil des Bénédictions’).
Meanwhile, however, the poem describes the blossoming of Levi’s rod
or tribe in his three sons (Exod. 6:16) until like ‘a goodly vine’ (Ezek. 17:8)
Amram his grandson sprouts into ‘a priest, a shepherd, and a woman that is
a prophetess’—Aaron, Moses and Miriam (line 110). The order of reference,
following Exod. 6:20 (Aaron and Moses, only) rather than Mic. 6:4 (the three,
with Moses first), is significant of what follows (line 111):

When the time of love drew near [Ezek. 16:8] his blossom was established
to break the bonds of Zoan, and to breach the hedge of the handful
[the sea, Isa. 40:12].

It is, then, through the blossoming of the levitical vine that redemption was
accomplished, when Israel was brought near to the Bridegroom. After three
lines on Moses’ sanctification in the cloud, and his miracles, and a line on
Miriam and her merits, Yose ascribes the pillar of cloud and fire to Aaron’s
merit (lines 116f., each beginning with Levi’s lamed):

The escort of clouds of majesty was granted to the beloved ones

at the hands of a priest ministering in peace and equity [Mal 2:6];
With him and with his seed a covenant of salt was made
that there might never fail the covenant of the salt of offerings of
sweet savour [Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:12f.].

An entirely priestly passage on the company of Korah (in the spirit of Ecclus.
45:18–20) and the duties of the priests as laid down by Moses in Lev. 8 now
leads to the quotation of Lev. 8:34: ‘As he hath done this day, so the lord hath
commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.’ This text, as noted above,
opens the narrative of the rites and ceremonies of the Day of Atonement.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 355

The redemption from Egypt has been presented as part of the annals of
Levi. The same pattern is followed more briefly in ʾattah konanta ʾolam be-rov
ḥesed, 66–72, on the blossoming of the ‘stem of Levi’ (line 67; cf. Isa. 11:1). The
much briefer ʾasapper gedoloth encompasses the matter in lines 20–3, without
mentioning the Exodus. The three offspring of Amram were ‘for a king, and
for a seeress, and to minister and do priestly service’ (line 20), Aaron receiving
the last but the fullest and most honorific reference. Lines 21f. immediately
begin the description of priestly duties, Lev. 8:34 being quoted after line 22.
That this presentation was traditional in Yose’s time is suggested by the bare
bones of it visible in what is considered an earlier Avodah, ʾattah baraʾthaʾeth
ha-ʿolam kullo, lines 12–1697 Here Levi ‘the third’ (cf. ʾazkhir gevuroth, 105,
above, p. 353) is separated; God’s eyes are set on one of his descendants, ‘Aaron
the chief of thy saints’ (Ps. 106:16); to him it has been explained how he shall
enter the holy place. Yose has adorned this structure with the momentous
narrative of redemption, which now appears as wrought through the fruitful
vine of the Levitical priesthood; the effect is to underline the redemptive
significance of the recital of the order of priestly service that follows.

(v) The Day of Atonement. The high priest’s glory is described first when he
vests himself and secondly when he comes forth from the holy of holies.
The atoning value of each garment that he puts on is described (ʾazkhir
gevuroth, 152–86; ʾattah konanta ʾolam be-rov ḥesed, 93–119; no treatment
in ʾasapper gedoloth). Among the collective sins of Israel thus absolved are
the selling of the ‘righteous one’, Joseph (the vestment, ʾazkhir gevuroth, 160;
ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 98) and the making of the golden calf (the
jewel of the breastplate, ʾazkhir gevuroth, 174; ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov
ḥesed, 110). Strong consciousness of the first of these sins emerges also in
the midrash ʾElleh ʾezkerah, where the Hadrianic martyrs suffer for this fault
of their forefathers; for the second, compare I fear amid my doings, line 51.
The messianic significance of this acute awareness of corporate sin has been
noted above at p. 330. Atonement for these sins may be presumed to hasten
the messianic age.
Two items in the vesture in fact recall kingdom rather than atonement. It is
at once noted that the ‘anointed for war’ divines by these garments, and that

97
Text in Elbogen, Studien, 117.
356 Messianism among Jews and Christians

the Urim forecast defeat or victory (Num. 27:21). Hence ‘Praise God, sons of
a great nation (Deut. 4:7); the herald of salvation is near at all times’ (ʾazkhir
gevuroth, 156). The phrase is taken up at the end of the poem, where the high
priest is the herald of salvation (line 269, quoted below). The priest ‘anointed
for war’ (Deut. 20:2–9, Mishnah, Soṭah 8) is a messianic figure at PRK 5.9
(Mandelbaum, 97) where together with Elijah, king Messiah and Melchizedek
he is one of the ‘four carpenters’ of Zech. 2:3 (1:20) who are ‘the flowers’ to
‘appear on the earth’ at the messianic age (Song of Songs 2:12). A similarly
messianic note is struck in the description of the mitre (above, p. 344).

The crown of his head was in royal majesty (be-hod ha-melukhah),

mitred in fair linen for glory and for beauty.
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 161)

In the parallel, ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov ḥesed, 161, it is ‘a royal diadem’,
nezer ha-melukhah. The description recalls the Hasmonaean priest-kings,
mekhahane melukhah (ʾahallelah ʾelohay, 28; above, p. 328), (whose victory
over the third kingdom Yose can mention in a messianic context, as at the end
of ʾanusah le-ʿezrah (above, p. 347).
At the end of the Avodah the High Priest emerges from the holy of holies.

His appearance shines out as when the sun comes forth in his might
[Judg. 5:31; Rev. 1:16];
he is sending to those that sent him righteousness and healing [Mal. 3:20].
The hope of the congregation is for the coming forth of a skilled man,
a herald of salvation and proclaimer of forgiveness.
(ʾazkhir gevuroth, 268f.)

The high priest speaks of God’s forgiveness, and the attendant of the scapegoat
‘gives good tidings of forgiveness’ (ibid., 273) by attesting that the scarlet thread
is whitened (Yoma 6.8); then

Perfect and upright they lead him to his dwelling,

and they make rejoicing as he comes forth without harm.
Happy are the people that are in such a case … [Ps. 144:15]
(ibid., lines 275f.)

The high priest coming forth as the sun represents all Israel as ‘the messenger
of the congregation’ (line 268); cf. ‘faithful messenger’ (ʾasapper gedoloth,
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 357

line 59). The righteousness and healing that he brings make them perfect and
upright.
The sacerdotal vesture in Yose is both priestly and kingly, the token at once
of divine forgiveness and reunion with Israel, and of royalty to be restored. The
emphasis laid on the proclamation of forgiveness by ‘the herald of salvation’ so
vested corresponds not only to acute consciousness of sin, but also to a longing
for the kingdom that sin delays.
The messianic events expected by Yose can now be listed as: downfall
of Edom, messianic reign in Jerusalem, Shekhinah returns to Temple,
ingathering of exiles, messianic banquet, resurrection of dead, antichrist rises
and is destroyed, God rules alone. As has been noted, they are not described
by the poet in this sequence, and the place given here to so important an event
as the resurrection can be no more than probable (above, pp. 346–7). It is
nevertheless significant that a relatively compact body of liturgical poetry
for the ‘Days of Awe’ can yield so full a picture of messianic expectation. To
note the importance of the subject in Yose is the first step towards the fuller
characterization of his messianism that can now be attempted.
Its thematic importance corresponds, first of all, to Yose’s striking urgency
of tone. This is especially audible in the Tekiata, where each poem builds up to
a final section on redemption. The malkhuyyoth pray (above, pp. 342–3):

Stir and awake the joy of the whole earth …

Contend, O saviours, take the glory from Edom …
let them shout unto thee the shout of the kingdom.

(where Yose’s messianism diverges from the line to be taken by classical

exegesis of Num. 23:21). The zikhronoth move from the petition: ‘Look,
O God, upon the dwellers in the gardens’ (above, p. 336) to: ‘Purchase us the
second time [Isa. 11:11], for we are forgotten out of remembrance [line 57,
introducing Ps. 74:2: ‘Remember thy congregation whom thou didst purchase
of old’). In the third poem, ‘When in my land shall the turtle-dove give voice?’
(p. 346), is soon followed by the petitions of the shofaroth (pp. 333, 347): ‘Visit
the house-sparrow … bring back to me as of old the law, the inheritance’,
and the final militant prediction (Zech. 9:14; p. 347): ‘Thou shalt blow the
trumpet; with the whirlwinds to Teman then shall go forth the voice.’ In the
Avodah-poems ‘the hope of the congregation’ (ʾazkhir gevuroth, 269; above,
358 Messianism among Jews and Christians

p. 356) is directed primarily towards the Day-of-Atonement declaration of

divine pardon. ‘The end of days’ (Dan. 12:13; ʾattah konanta ʿolam be-rov
ḥesed, line 1) is also in mind, however; the Temple will be renewed, and
the day of sacrifice for the everlasting banquet will come (above, p. 351);
the remembrance of the work of creation culminating in the service of
the Tabernacle, and the recital of the order of sacrifice for atonement, are
themselves implicitly messianic (pp. 350–1). Similarly, the systematic
account of Temple rites and ceremonies that can no longer be performed, in
We have no high priest, intensifies hope for the restoration of God’s presence
(p. 332). The specially clear note of urgency in the Tekiata recalls that it was
intended not as hymnody simply, but as liturgy (above p. 327); it is formally
comparable with messianic prayers of the Tekiata de-vey Rav (p. 327, n. 16).
Earnest petition is therefore appropriate to its purpose. An estimate of Yose’s
messianism must still reckon with the fact that its expression has the ‘fervent
piety’ (S. W. Baron)98 suited to this traditional form, and that it won for itself
a place in the mainstream of Jewish liturgy.
A second obvious characteristic is Yose’s nationalism. The synagogue of
Israel, rather than mankind or the individual, is at the heart of his thought
(p. 329). This might seem too commonplace for comment, did it not contrast,
as seen already (above, pp. 330–1), with the messianism of the hymn-like
prayers—among the most important antecedents of Yose’s poetry—that
introduce malkhuyyoth, zikhronoth and shofaroth in the Tekiata de-vey Rav.
These exhibit, not entirely without particularist passages, a universalism
marked by such expressions as ‘all sons of flesh shall call upon thee’.99 From
the same malkhuyyoth (including Obadiah 21) quoted after this passage Yose,
so bitterly lamenting the oppression of the fourth kingdom, characteristically
emphasizes not only the kingdom of the lord, but his vengeance on the
heathen (above, p. 343).
Obadiah 21, promising that when the saviours judge the mount of Esau
the kingdom shall be the lord’s, links nationalism with a characteristic
picked out above as typically rabbinic, Yose’s theocentricity. This was especially
noticeable in the third poem of the Tekiata, where an allusion to the messiah
in the language of the Song of Songs (above, p. 346) occurs in the midst of

98
Baron, History, vii, 93.
99
Translation from text in Goldschmidt, Maḥzor la-yamim ha-norʾaim, i, 243; cf. 327 n. 16 above.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 359

a sustained application of the imagery of bridegroom and bride not to the

Messiah, but to God himself and his people. Similarly, suffering, closely bound
up with messianism as we have seen it to be, marks the Synagogue and her
representative patriarchs, martyrs and wise men, but not the Messiah himself.
There is little trace of that meditation on the messianic figure, in which he can
appear as a sufferer, that is evident in rabbinic tradition before Yose’s time. The
theme of the Deity himself as Israel’s bridegroom and earth’s sovereign by far
preponderates over that of the Messiah, to whom only three reasonably clear
allusions have been noticed. As quotation has made plain, this theocentricity
combines intense reverence with extreme boldness, in the manner of the
haggadah. Hence the bridegroom imagery that in Church tradition, from 2 Cor.
11:2 onwards, is characteristically christological (although the christology is
itself theocentric; 1 Cor. 3:23), in Yose is directly theological.
Concern with Torah, the other characteristic already noted as rabbinic, is
present but not pre-eminent. Torah is the pattern of the universe, and the
dietary laws are envisaged in Creation (above, pp. 350–1); the Wise and their
converse are dear to God (pp. 336–7), and Israel longs to keep the Law, given
at ‘the time of love’ in the first redemption, wholly and wholeheartedly in the
messianic age (p. 347). Yet Yose does not strongly emphasize the place in the
divine economy of the Oral Law and its rabbinic elucidation. Herein he differs
from such a rabbinic presentation of Israel’s relation with God as the Targum
to the Song of Songs (below, pp. 361–2); and his position seems to correspond
to the fact that he is only moderately influenced by rabbinic material (above,
p. 326).
More obvious, especially in the Avodah poems, is the levitical flavour of
Yose’s messianism. The rebuilding of the Temple is central to his hopes; the
messianic banquet is sacrificial, and the Akedah prefigures the sacrifices to
be restored, the promise of pardon going with them; the first redemption was
wrought through the levitical priesthood, whose ministry is the appointed
means of reconciliation between Israel and her Beloved (above, pp. 350–7).
Outside the Day-of-Atonement compositions, the return of the Shekhinah
to the Temple is a prominent theme of the malkhuyyoth (p. 343). Like the
midrashic passages compared above, Yose’s poems attest the lively continuance
of the concern with priesthood and sacrifice manifest in the Qumran writings
(cited above pp. 351, 354) or the Epistle to the Hebrews.
360 Messianism among Jews and Christians

With his concern for the Temple-service we may link a last important note
of his messianism, consciousness of sin and desire for reconciliation with God.
When Israel sinned, ‘far away went the kingdom’; God is asked to purify her
for the messianic age (above, p. 343), when the heart will no more be led astray
(the evil yeṣer, in rabbinic terms that Yose does not use, will lose its power)
(p. 347); then, as the first redemption promised, forever will she be the seal
upon his heart (p. 333).

Conclusions

(a) The relations of suffering with messianism in Yose

The corporate sufferings underscored by Yose, servitude and the loss of the
Temple service, answer (as we saw) to the twin hopes of his messianism, with
its series of redemptive events in realm and sanctuary culminating in the sole
rule of God. The foregoing summary has shown, however, that suffering is
not related to messianism simply as deprivation to the hope of restoration,
in precise correspondence. Such a correspondence is indeed envisaged, as
appears in the characteristics of urgency, nationalism and levitical concern
identified above. There is also, however, a more integral relation between
suffering and hope. Yose indeed, as noted above, has no suffering Messiah
among the representatives of suffering Israel; Isa. 53:7 is characteristically
applied to Synagogue herself (ʾanusah le-ʿezrah, line 3; above, p. 332). Yet, as
seen in the first part of this study, Yose gives the Synagogue’s present suffering a
double interpretation as at once punitive and meritorious; and this theological
interpretation is related to the theocentricity of his messianism, his levitical
concern as concern with the means of atonement, his consciousness of sin
and love of God’s Law. An approach to his consolation from its biblical links
with tribulation, the messianic significance of which Scholem has emphasized,
thus leads to the miraculous as well as the this-worldly elements in his view of
redemption. In present, historical suffering he hopes indeed for the overthrow
of Edom and the restoration of Israel; but present suffering itself, viewed as
punishment and merit, implies a larger hope of reconciliation and reward with
God—who returns to the bride of youth in the beloved dwelling, who receives
acceptable sacrifice and service, and who raises the dead.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 361

(b) Yose and rabbinic messianism

Yose’s messianism hopes above all for the establishment of God’s kingdom and
the return of the divine Bridegroom to his sanctuary and people. This hope
embraces a series of expectations, from the downfall of Edom and the return
of the Shekhinah to the resurrection of the dead, the defeat of antichrist and
God’s sole rule. His presentation of them is urgent, nationalist but theocentric;
concerned with God’s Law, and concerned still more obviously with sanctuary,
sacrifice, sin and atonement.
These expectations are known from rabbinic sources, and their presentation
has typically rabbinic features in its restrained treatment of the Messiah and
its concern with Torah (although the latter is less strongly marked, as already
noted, than we might expect). On the other hand, the reflection of so unified a
series of expectations within a relatively confined space itself contrasts with the
more fragmentary and unschematized presentations of messianic traditions
in Talmud and midrash; and the unqualified urgency of Yose’s petitions for
the kingdom, like the fervency with which he affirms the value of sanctuary
and sacrifice, is at variance with the more cautious tenor of the midrash. Thus
Leviticus Rabbah, as Joseph Heinemann observes,100 depicts messianic joys
(e.g. 13.3; above, p. 351), but bridles expectation by reserve on the manner and
time of their coming; and when it affirms sacrificial atonement (e.g. 11; above,
p. 350), also inculcates the atoning value of good works.
A similar difference of emphasis emerges in comparison with the Targum
of the Song of Songs, wherein, as in Yose, the Song is the story of Israel’s
relation with God. The redaction of the Targum is ascribed to rabbinic circles
in seventh- or eighth-century Palestine; R. Loewe also takes note of its contact
with interpretations in the name of the third-century Palestinian R. Johanan
(above, p. 346) and his contemporaries.101 Four features of the Targum are
specially noted by Loewe: the prominence that it accords to Oral Torah as
the central theme in Israel’s story of salvation; emphasis on Israel’s sin (which
can receive apparently gratuitous notice, as in Yose; above, p. 333); affirmation
of atonement through Tabernacle, Temple and sacrifice; and restriction
of Messiah’s role in redemption, with concentration on that of the Deity

100
Heinemann, ‘Art of Composition’, 821, 825f., and ‘Profile of a Midrash’, 146–8.
101
Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs’, 161, 168; P. S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles (London, 2003), 1–9.
362 Messianism among Jews and Christians

himself. These points add up, Loewe suggests, to a mute repudiation of the
Christian understanding of atonement. The striking fact that Yose shares the
last three of the Targum’s notable features may further suggest, in line with
Loewe’s indication of possible sources, that both draw on a common exegetical
tradition, perhaps already marked by the apologetic concern that has also
seemed possible in Yose (above, pp. 336, 353). However that may be, Yose, who
has so much in common with the Targumist, fails to share (as noted above)
his characteristically rabbinic emphasis on Oral Torah. Further, Yose’s urgency
is opposed to a lesser feature of the Targum, its dissuasion from premature
messianism.
These contrasts may in part correspond, as in the case of the treatments
of suffering discussed above, to the formal contrast between congregational
self-expression in Yose and the address to the congregation that in different
modes lies beneath the literary traditions of midrash and Targum. Yose’s
characteristic concerns are shared, however, by the other two sources, which
simply balance them with other emphases. These answer not merely to the
pastoral demands of homily and biblical paraphrase, but also to the conviction
that Israel’s present life according to halakhah is an acceptable offering. Had
this fundamental rabbinic conviction been close to Yose’s heart, he would
probably have expressed it in connection with his unmistakable love of
the commandments. Instead, more strongly conscious of the tendency to
sin in suffering Israel’s present life, he characteristically prays: ‘Bind on the
commandments, lest they fly from me as an eagle’ (ʾanusah le-ʿezrah, 39,
introducing Exod. 19:19; above, p. 346).
Yose’s failure to magnify the Oral Torah and to neutralize his messianic
urgency thus corresponds to a lack of emphasis in these poems on the validity of
Israel’s present observance. Without this emphasis, but with a lively awareness
of present suffering, concern for sin and the appointed means of atonement
is thrown into bolder relief, and the hope for redemption is correspondingly
intensified. This muting of a characteristically rabbinic note in the sphere of
thought recalls Yose’s limited use of rabbinic terms in the sphere of language.
Yose’s messianism constantly draws, as we have seen, on the material of
rabbinic midrash; but distinctiveness over against the ethos of the midrash is
epitomized in his introduction to Num. 23:21 (above, pp. 343, 360). Here he
avoids expressing the midrashic confidence, echoed in Rashi’s comment, that
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 363

God ‘hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob’; but prays instead for the removal of
iniquity and the hastening of the kingdom.

(c) Yose and the New Testament

Yose’s poems, largely scriptural in language, draw on biblical writings and
interpretations known in New Testament times, together with exegesis of later
date. This material subserves an integration of experienced suffering with
messianic hope. The corporate afflictions of the Synagogue are interpreted
not only as deserving compensation, but as constituting tokens of coming
reconciliation and reward with God. The voice of the congregation cries
directly to the divine Bridegroom.
Among the few New Testament passages formally comparable with Yose’s
poems are the hymns in Revelation to God—and the Lamb. Other literary
forms attest this same new Church-consciousness of relation to God through
Christ. The Bridegroom now is the crucified Messiah (above, p. 359). Yose’s
bold biblical images of the Almighty’s longing for the bride of youth are not
far from the spirit of contemporary midrash, wherein God’s ‘undefiled’ in
the Song of Songs is his ‘twin’ whose pain he shares.102 Nevertheless these
poems are, in Rachel Rosenzweig’s phrase, projecting on to God himself
Israel’s own human solidarity in woe.103 For the New Testament writers,
by contrast, the historical Passion of Christ means that the Bridegroom’s
sufferings are primary and determinative in a way for which there is no
parallel in Yose. The corporate sufferings of the New Testament Church are
accordingly related to those of the Lord. The contrast is heightened by Yose’s
combination of theocentric fervour with reserve on the Messiah’s role. A
comparable difference is discerned by P. Prigent between the christocentric
visions of Revelation and their Jewish apocalyptic counterparts, wherein
specifically messianic concern is often subsumed in the longing for
intervention by God himself.104 Yet Yose’s poems also highlight the debt
that he shares with the New Testament writers to their common source, the

102
PRK 5.6 (Mandelbaum, 87f.); the parallel Cant. R. on S.2 is discussed with other passages on God’s
identification with Israel’s suffering in Rosenzweig, Solidarität, 93–9.
103
Ibid., 203.
104
P. Prigent, ‘Apocalypse et apocalyptique’, in J.-E. Ménard (ed.), Exegèse biblique et judaïsme
(= Recherches de science religieuse xlvii (1973), 157–407) (Strasbourg, 1973), 126–45 (133).
364 Messianism among Jews and Christians

application of bridal imagery to redemption in such passages of Hebrew

scripture as Jeremiah 2.105
The importance of suffering and messianism in Yose’s poems evinces
their thematic closeness to the New Testament. The Mishnah and Tosefta, by
contrast, are concerned with the community’s continual observance in daily
life. This concern is by no means absent from the New Testament, but the
Mishnah characteristically evokes a constant and ordered world, whereas the
New Testament atmosphere is formed especially by hopes akin to those met
in Yose.106 Such hopes also appear in post-Mishnaic rabbinic writings like
the midrashim quoted above; but in emphasis, as just noted, the midrash can
differ from Yose just where Yose seems to recall the urgent tone of the New
Testament. It can perhaps be said that the restraint and confidence noted above
at these points in the midrash come nearer to the serenity of the Mishnah. By
the same token, the contrast in atmosphere between the Mishnah and the New
Testament to some extent recurs in a contrast between the overall tranquillity
of the Mishnah and the urgency of Yose.
The hopes manifest in different ways both in the midrash and in Yose are
expressed at a time when Christianity has become prominent. Under one
aspect their expression is inevitably an implied response to Christianity, but it
also owes much to the impetus of inner-Jewish messianic hopes. The currency
of these hopes in the community at the time of the Mishnah has appeared
earlier in this book especially in the ancient Jewish biblical versions and
interpretations, from the Septuagint to the Targums (see for example chapter
9, above).
A small body of poems has been studied here, but Yose speaks for the
congregation and was subsequently felt to have done so worthily. Hence it is
not insignificant that in Yose tranquil daily observance is galvanized, as we
saw in comparison with rabbinic messianism, by consciousness of sin and
urgent hope for redemption. Herein, as already noted from time to time,
Yose takes up themes of other Jewish sources as well as the New Testament.
Concern with sin and redemption is comparably prominent in the Qumran

105
The general New Testament debt to such passages is vividly expounded by J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation
(London, 1979), 279, 301f. (on Rev. 19:7; 21:9); a post-biblical instance is Od. Sol. 42, discussed
by B. McNeil, ‘Suffering and Martyrdom in the Odes of Solomon’, in Horbury and McNeil (ed.),
Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, 136–42.
106
J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, vol. xxi (Leiden, 1977), esp. 322f., and Judaism:
The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago and London, 1981), 235–6, 268–9.
 Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose 365

hymns and the Eighteen Benedictions. Atonement through the ministrations

of the priesthood in sanctuary and sacrifice is important not only in Yose,
but at Qumran, in the background of such New Testament books as Hebrews
and Revelation, in midrashic and Targumic passages noted above, in patristic
references to Judaism like that of Chrysostom,107 and perhaps also in the
explanation of archaeological evidence such as the course-inscriptions.
Yose’s poems thus illustrate some concerns associated with messianic
redemption which had earlier been prominent in the New Testament, whereas
the Mishnah has a strikingly different atmosphere. On the other hand, the
Targums and some rabbinic midrash, spanning the period between the New
Testament and Yose, once again reflect these concerns. The New Testament can
then be judged to embody some themes which, despite their absence from the
Mishnah, continued to influence Judaism. They found their voice in sources
close to the congregation: in Targumic interpretation, in midrashic homily,
and above all in the prayer and poetry rendered by the synagogue precentor.

107
With Chrysostom, C. Iud. 6.5 (above. p. 301); cf. Origen, In Num. hom. 10.2 (Jewish lament
that without sacrifice sin remains unforgiven, PG xii, 638) and Princ. iv.1.3 (loss of priestly
ministrations, PG xi, 347f.; J. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen (Cambridge, 1893), 10,
discussed by N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1976), 45, 97; further comments
in JTS N.S. xxx (1979), 326.
 11

Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles

Antichrist seems as native to Christianity as the devil with horns and a tail.
This impression receives learned support in much recent scholarship. Thus
G. C. Jenks, C. E. Hill and L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte all contend that the figure
of Antichrist is a Christian development. In earlier years, by contrast, it had
been considered originally Jewish by Wilhelm Bousset, Moritz Friedländer,
Louis Ginzberg and Israel Lévi. Then, however, Paul Billerbeck (1926),
concisely summarizing a wealth of material, urged that, despite appearances,
there was virtually no contact in substance between ancient Jewish literature
and the New Testament on Antichrist; in Jewish sources the messiah had
political opponents, but the Christian Antichrist was a religious figure.1 More
recently Stefan Heid, in a book finished in 1990, accepted that Bousset was
fundamentally right. A contrast between Christian and Jewish sources, in
some ways recalling that drawn by Billerbeck, has nevertheless returned to
prominence. For Jenks (1991), Hill (1995) and Lietaert Peerbolte (1996), the
expectation of an enemy specifically opposed to the messiah first occurs among
the earliest Christians, rather than among the non-Christian or pre-Christian
Jews. Pre-Christian traditions, it is urged, refer to an eschatological tyrant, a
final attack by evil powers, or the accompanying false prophecy, rather than a
messianic opponent who can properly be termed Antichrist.
Yet, just as Belial with horns now looms up hauntingly in Qumran texts
(see 11Q Apocryphal Psalmsa, col. iv, lines 6–7), so it may be asked again,
a hundred years after Bousset, whether Antichrist is not pre-Christian and
Jewish as well as Christian. With regard to the Jews in the Roman empire this
question frames itself more precisely. In the early empire, was Antichrist a
Jewish counterpart of Greek and Roman notions concerning the great enemy

1
Billerbeck in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, iii, 637–40, on 2 Thess. 2:3.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 367

of a saviour king? If so, Jews and gentiles would have shared, in this as in
many other respects, a broadly similar pattern of hopes and fears for the
future.2

I. The wicked one

First, was an Antichrist already envisaged by Jews in the early Roman empire?
They might be expected to have imagined such a figure, because biblical
texts which were important in messianic hope naturally emphasize victory
over enemies; see for example three passages which were all later connected
with an arch-enemy of the messiah, Num. 24:17 (the star from Jacob smites
the corners of Moab), Isa. 11:4 (with the breath of his lips he shall slay the
wicked), and Ps. 2:2 (the kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the Lord and against his anointed). Moreover, from the
Persian period onwards it was expected that a tyrannical king would oppress
Israel and the nations just before the decisive divine victory. This thought is
already suggested by the placing of the prophecy of Gog of Magog in Ezek.
38–9, after the prophecies of a David to come and the revival of the dry
bones, and before the description of new Jerusalem; and the expectation is
developed or alluded to in Dan. 7:8, 24–7, 8:9–11, 23–6, on the little horn
which signifies a king of fierce countenance; Ass. Mos. 8:1 (‘regem regum
terrae’, cf. Ps. 2:2 ‘kings of the earth’); and 2 Esd. 5:6 (‘et regnabit quem non
sperant qui inhabitant super terram’). The time-honoured representation
of oppressive rulers or kingdoms as monstrous beasts often marks this line
of thought, as in Daniel and later on in Revelation. An influence of the
expectation of an evil king on the texts associated with messianic victory is
suggested by Ecclus. 36:12 in the Hebrew textual tradition (‘destroy the head
of the corners of Moab’; cf. Num. 24:17; Jer. 48:45; and Ass. Mos. 8:1 ‘king of
the kings of the earth’); but it cannot simply be assumed that oracles which
speak of many enemies of the messiah, like the psalms cited above, had at the
time of the Roman principate been generally interpreted as also indicating
one great anti-messianic overlord.

2
A similar observation is made on different grounds by F. G. Downing, ‘Common Strands in Pagan,
Jewish and Christian Eschatologies in the First Century’, Theologische Zeitschrift li (1995), 196–211.
368 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Of course such a messianic opponent was envisaged by Jews later on. In the
Byzantine period he is the subject of the legend of Armilus the wicked, attested
in the early seventh-century book Zerubbabel and elsewhere. Here Armilus
slays messiah son of Joseph, and is himself slain by messiah son of David, as
prophesied in Isa. 11:4 (‘with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked’).3
Elements of this story, without the name Armilus, can be identified in midrash
and piyyut. So the possibly fifth-century poet Yose ben Yose, in his New-Year
composition ahallelah elohay which incorporates the series of malkhuyyoth
texts, writes (line 55)

… the wicked one shall be shaken out [Job 38:13],

but one has set righteousness for his feet [Isa. 41:2], and he shall be
crowned with kingdom.4

Here Yose seems to reflect the notion of Antichrist—‘the wicked one’, in line
with Isa. 11:4—being removed by the messiah of righteousness; note that the
plural ‘wicked ones’ of Job 38:13 have become singular. Compare a probably
earlier midrash found in Lev. R. 27.11 = PRK 9.11, in Midrash Tehillim 2.4 (on
Ps. 2:2), and elsewhere, in the name of the third-century haggadist R. Levi, on
Gog and Magog (speaking as a single figure) planning war ‘against the Lord
and against his messiah’, as envisaged in Ps. 2:2. This messianic psalm could
indeed be called ‘the chapter of Gog and Magog’, followed by ‘the chapter of
Absalom’ (Ps. 3, ascribed in its title to the time of Absalom’s revolt), as can
be seen from a comment on the juxtaposition of the two psalms repeated by
Abbahu of Caesarea in the name of his mid-third-century teacher Johanan,
who settled in Tiberias (Babylonian Talmud, Ber. 10a); this designation of
Ps. 2 presupposes that the messiah’s enemy is Gog and Magog. The messianic
antagonist is similarly assumed in a famous explanation of the closed Mem
in the prophecy ‘of the increase of government’ in Isa. 9:6 (7), cited as given
by Bar Kappara (early third century) in Sepphoris; the Holy One sought to
make Hezekiah the messiah, and Sennacherib Gog and Magog (Babylonian

3
Text in Ad. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, ii (Leipzig, 1853, reprinted Jerusalem, 1967), 54–7; the related
midrash Signs of the Messiah, as reprinted by Jellinek, ibid., 58–63 from Abqat Rokhel (Amsterdam,
1696), includes a note that Armilus is ‘he whom the nations call anticristo’ (Jellinek, ibid., xxii, 60).
For the dating of the Armilus legend in the time of Heraclius see A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry (London,
1971), 54.
4
Text in A. Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem, 1977), 94, discussed by Horbury, ‘Suffering
and Messianism’, 162–5 (pp. 344–5, above).
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 369

Talmud, Sanh. 94a). At the time of this explanation, the conception of Gog and
Magog as the messiah’s opponent needed no special justification. These three
midrashim citing third-century teachers together suggest that war between
Gog and Magog and the messiah will have been a familiar and uncontroversial
expectation in Caesarea and Galilee under the Jewish patriarchs, by the end of
the age of the Severi.
Nevertheless, even as early as this, the possibility of Christian influence on
Jewish messianic hopes cannot be ruled out. Jewish notions of an opponent of
the messiah are commonly thought to be less well attested, or not attested at all,
at the beginning of the Roman imperial period. The earliest full descriptions
of Antichrist, identified by that name, are Christian, and they come from
sources of the second and third centuries—Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and
the exegetical works attributed to Hippolytus. Moreover, the first attestations
of the Greek word antichristos are Christian, being found—here without fuller
explanation or description—in two of the three Johannine epistles of the New
Testament, probably written towards the end of the first century (1 John 2:18,
22; 4:3; 2 John 7). The ‘antichrists’ are those who deny that Jesus is the messiah
(1 John 2:18–23); their emergence fulfils the familiar teaching that ‘Antichrist
is coming’. Probably they led their followers into or back to the majority Jewish
community; but even if they are to be understood simply as the founders of a
separate party within the Christian body, their leadership will still have had a
political significance for the Christian community which suits the traditional
depiction of the messianic opponent as a ruler. Accordingly, the emphasis on
false teaching in these Johannine passages on Antichrist should not be sharply
contrasted with the emphasis on oppressive rule in the traditions on the
messianic opponent—which themselves include the motif of false teaching, in
the conception of the beast with the mouth speaking great things (Dan. 7:8).5
Antichrist, then, was certainly an important early Christian conception.
Nevertheless, the Christian references to him include much to suggest that,
like the figure of the Christ or messiah, he derived from pre-Christian Judaism
in its Greek and Roman setting. This view is consonant with the lack of
explanation of the Antichrist figure in the New Testament, and it is supported
by Jewish sources from the end of the Second Temple period which describe

5
Such a contrast is drawn, for example, by Billerbeck in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, iii, 637–8;
Hill, ‘Antichrist’, 100; Lietaert Peerbolte, Antecedents, 338.
370 Messianism among Jews and Christians

an Antichrist-like figure without using this term, naming him rather as the
wicked one, Gog, or Beliar.6 These sources can be said to bridge the gap between
the biblical passages already noted, which attest the expectations of messianic
victory and of a final arch-enemy of Israel without explicit interconnection
between them, and the rabbinic passages also noted above, which suggest
that the notion of a great messianic opponent was familiar under the Jewish
patriarchate in the third century.
Against this background it can be seen that the technical Greek term
antichristos, although it is known only from Christian sources, need not
necessarily be Christian in origin. It is true that the distribution of the word
can readily suggest that it is a Christian coinage. Antichristos first occurs in the
Johannine epistles, and it is not used by other Greek Jewish or early Christian
writings which speak of an identical or similar figure, notably the Sibylline
Oracles (but antichristos is somewhat inconvenient for their metre), 2 Thess.
2:1–13; Rev. 11–20, the Didache and Justin Martyr; it next occurs in Polycarp
and Irenaeus—second-century authors who knew the Johannine writings.
Hence a specifically Johannine origin for the word has been regarded as a
strong possibility.7
Yet, in the Johannine epistles antichristos is not treated as a new word, but
as belonging to a teaching which is already current—‘Antichrist is coming’
(1 John 2:18, cf. 4:3); and the gospel of John, which is very close to the epistles
in style and vocabulary, attests for the first time one or two other words which
were probably non-Christian Jewish technical terms, notably the Hellenized
Aramaic messias and the Greek aposynagogos, ‘excluded from assembly’ (John
1:41, 4:25, 9:22, 12:42, 16:2). Christos, used both in John and elsewhere in
the New Testament, was likewise taken over from the contemporary Jewish
vocabulary. The same may well have been true of antichristos. Comparable
Jewish uses of compounds with anti- are exemplified by a̓ntídikoV, in Ben
Sira’s grandson’s rendering of the prayer for the crushing of the arrogant
enemy in Ecclus. 36:7, or the verb a̓ntibasíleuw in Josephus’ depiction of
John of Gischala as a rival sovereign over against the remainder of the Zealot
party (B.J. iv 395), or a̓ntíqeoV, in Philo’s warning against the season of good

6
The Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah on the ‘lawless one’ does the same, but despite Jewish elements
in its source-material (Frankfurter, Elijah, 104) it is not cited in the present argument as a Jewish
document.
7
Hengel, The Johannine Question, 171–2, n. 69, citing R. E. Brown.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 371

fortune which is ‘against God’ and put in the place of God (Num. 14:9 lxx,
as interpreted in Post. C. 122–3). (Is Philo here thinking in part of current
associations of Fortune with the supreme deity, as seen in Horace, Od. i 34–5
and elsewhere?)
Even the technical term ‘Antichrist’, therefore, is by no means clearly of
Christian origin. However that may be, the figure which the term describes—
the great enemy to be slain by the messiah—is probably pre-Christian. In his
argument for this view, Bousset pointed especially to the passage in the twelfth
chapter of the book of Revelation describing how the great red dragon seeks
to devour the man-child borne by the woman clothed with the sun; building
on H. Gunkel’s interpretation of Rev. 11–12 as a fragment of a myth of the
messiah, and noting also that much developed exegesis is presupposed in the
second-century and later Christian texts on Antichrist, Bousset urged that an
‘antichrist myth’ was also known at the time of the New Testament writers.8
Criticism has fastened on his inferences from Christian evidence, including
relatively late material, to a connected myth envisaged as in circulation at the
time of Christian origins; but perhaps too little credit has been given to the
support for his view found in Jewish sources of the Second Temple period,
notably the Septuagint, the Sibylline Oracles, 2 Esdras and 2 Baruch, and the
Qumran texts.
First, messianic expectations of this period included a judgment scene in
which the messiah condemned and executed his great adversary. This scene
was associated with an exegesis of Isa. 11:4 ‘but with righteousness shall he
judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall
smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he
shall slay the wicked’. In the lxx the Hebrew of the second part of the verse
is rendered ‘he shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth, and with a
breath through the lips shall he remove the impious’. In the context of chapter
10 the wicked one in question can readily be understood as a threatening
king, Sennacherib in Isaiah’s time or the great foe of the messiah yet to come.
The application of Isa. 11:4 to the destruction of a special future enemy is of
course found in the New Testament. Thus a judgment scene is presupposed
with allusion to this verse in 2 Thess. 2:8 ‘then shall be revealed the lawless

8
Bousset, Legend, especially 15, 152–90, 214–17, 247–9.
372 Messianism among Jews and Christians

one, whom the Lord Jesus shall remove by the breath of his mouth, and shall
destroy by the epiphany of his advent’; and Isa. 11:4 is also vividly pictorialized
in Revelation, where the enemies of the two witnesses are destroyed by fire
from the Lord’s mouth (Rev. 11:5), and the conquering messiah has a sword
coming out of his mouth (Rev. 1:16, 2:13, 16, 19:15, 21). In the vision of Rev.
19:11–21 the messiah judges in righteousness (verse 11; cf. Isa. 11:4), and with
the sword of his mouth he is to smite the nations (verse 15; cf. Isa. 11:4); the
beast who leads the kings of the earth (cf. Ps. 2:2; Ass. Mos. 8:1) and his false
prophet would be slain by it, as their followers are, if the two leaders were not
preserved to be cast into the lake of fire (verses 19–21; cf. Isa. 11:4 ‘he shall slay
the wicked’).
These Christian texts of the first century in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation
evidently presuppose a scene built on Isa. 11:4. This point gives the passages a
unity which would not be recognized if they were simply classified according
to their descriptions of the opponents. Their shared dependence on Isa. 11:4
suggests the existence of a prophetically-based myth of the messiah and his
adversary, on the lines suggested by Gunkel and Bousset, and their early date
underlines the likelihood that it is originally Jewish; but on the basis of this
evidence alone the possibility that an Antichrist myth first emerged in the
intense messianism of the rise of Christianity would still remain.
Yet the judgment scene associated with this passage of Isaiah is also attested
in non-Christian Jewish sources of the same period. Thus in the apocalypses
of Ezra and Baruch, to be dated not long after the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus, the messiah, taking his stand on mount Zion, first rebukes, and then
destroys, the fourth kingdom—here the Roman empire. The sequence of
reproof and execution found in both apocalypses once again follows Isa. 11:4
(‘judge … and reprove …: smite the earth … and … slay the wicked’). In the
Ezra-apocalypse the kingdom is personified individually in the eagle-vision
of chapter 11, but emphasis later falls on the nations and the multitude who
support its oppressive rule (see 2 Esd. 11:36–46, 12:30–3, 13:4–11, 27–8, 35–8).
The influence of Isa. 11:4 ‘with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of
his lips’, and of the understanding of it attested in the lxx ‘with the word of
his mouth’, is seen in the motif of destruction by the messiah’s voice, which
is also the law (2 Esd. 12:1–3, 13:4, 10–11, 38). (This emphasis on the godlike
power of his voice also approximates the description to contemporary praise of
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 373

rulers.)9 In the Syriac apocalypse of Baruch, on the other hand, the destruction
of all the hosts of the fourth kingdom is reported first; the stream and the vine
of Baruch’s dream-vision destroy the forest first of all, and finally the great
cedar which is its last survivor (2 (Syriac) Baruch 37–9). This vision is inspired
by passages including Ps. 80:15–18, but also, notably in the present context,
Isa. 10:34 (a verse followed immediately by Isa. 11:1–4) ‘he shall cut down the
thickets of the forest, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one’—Lebanon, on
the exegetical convention followed here, standing for a gentile king.10 In the
interpretation of Baruch’s dream, correspondingly, the last leader of the fourth
kingdom is finally singled out and brought to mount Zion for the reproof
and execution suggested by Isa. 11:4; ‘my messiah will charge him with all
his iniquities …, and afterwards he shall put him to death’ (2 (Syriac) Baruch
40:1–2). Here there is close resemblance to the execution of the beast and the
false prophet by the judgment of the messiah in Rev. 19. Thus—to view the
apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch together—the conception of a single messianic
opponent is not absent from 2 Esdras, where it is adumbrated by the contest
between the lion and the eagle; but it takes particularly clear and concrete
form in 2 Baruch, which seems to envisage the messiah as putting the Roman
emperor to death. Both apocalypses are shaped by Isa. 11:4, considered—as is
evident especially from 2 Baruch—in its larger context.
A brief depiction of this messianic judgment scene is given in a third source
close in date to the two apocalypses, Sib. 5:101–10. Here the conqueror of
Persia who attacks Egypt from the west grows formidably great and threatens
‘the city of the blessed’, like the he goat from the west in Dan. 8:5–12; but ‘a
king sent from God against him | shall destroy all great kings and mighty
men; | and so shall there be judgment upon men from the Immortal’ (lines
108–10). As in 2 Esdras, the end of ‘him’ is less emphasized than the general
destruction of his kings and warriors, but it is clear that the messiah has one
great adversary. The description based on Daniel leads to a judgment scene
at Jerusalem like that associated with Isa. 11:4, a verse which is recalled,

9
Compare Acts 12:22 ‘the voice of a god, and not of a man’ (Agrippa I), with Tacitus, Ann. xvi 22,
on Nero (Thrasea Paetus never sacrificed ‘pro salute principis aut caelesti voce’) and other passages
discussed by S. Loesch, Deitas Jesu und antike Apotheose (Rottenburg a. N., 1933), 18–24.
10
The influence of Isa. 10:34 here is brought out by G. Vermes in Vermes et al., ‘Seminar on the Rule
of War from Cave 4 (4Q 285)’, 90; on the conventions followed in the interpretation of ‘Lebanon’ see
Gordon, ibid., 93–4 (urging that in 4Q 285, discussed below, it is simultaneously equated with ‘king’
and ‘nations’).
374 Messianism among Jews and Christians

without any detailed correspondence, by the emphasis in lines 108–10 on

judgment and destruction of foes after the victory of the God-sent king over
his enemy at Jerusalem. The Sibylline passage is also broadly compatible with
the myth of Nero’s return, which is utilized below in lines 137–54. This point
indicates the similarity, noted further below, between the Jewish conception
of a messianic adversary and non-Jewish expectations in the Roman empire.
Further attestations of this messianic judgment scene are found in the Dead
Sea Scrolls. First, in a fragment which has been attributed to the Rule of War
(4Q285, fragment 5), in the course of a continuous exegesis of Isa. 10:34–11:5,
it is said that ‘there shall slay him the Prince of the Congregation, the Branch
of David’. The foe to be slain by the Davidic messiah is unnamed because of
lacunae, but will be connected with the Kittim mentioned in a surviving phrase;
probably he is ‘the king of the Kittim’ who leads the enemy army in the War Scroll
(15:2).11 The scene imagined then corresponds exactly with that described in 2
(Syriac) Baruch. Comparably, the Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation
prays, once again taking up Isa. 11:4, that with the breath of his lips he may slay
the wicked (1QSb col. v, lines 24–5). This slaying is mentioned yet again in the
fragmentary commentary on Isa. 10:33–11:5 in 4Q161.12 Here the ‘high ones
of stature’ (10:33) are ‘the mighty men of the Kittim’ (line 5), and ‘Lebanon’
in 10:34 seems likely again to be their chief or king, although the relevant text
is lacking (beginning of line 8); later in this fragment (lines 16–18) ‘he shall
slay the wicked’ is interpreted of the branch of David who will slay ‘his [en]
emy’ (singular).13 The description of his rule and judgment includes a mention
of Magog (line 20), which recalls the rôle of Gog and Magog as the foe of the
messiah, already noted in connection with rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 2.
Still other biblical passages were probably drawn into this scene in
contemporary exegesis, for example Ps. 68:30–31 on the gifts brought by kings
and the rebuke administered to ‘the beast of the reeds’, who seems to be linked
with the Kittim in a fragmentary commentary on Ps. 68 (1Q16).14 In midrash

11
For text and discussion see P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, ‘4QSefer ha-Milhamah’.
12
J. M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4, i (DJD v, Oxford, 1968), 13–15, and Plate v; translation also in
F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (ET by W. G. E. Watson, Leiden, 1994), 186.
13
ʾw]ybw (line 18) is taken by Allegro and García Martínez as a defectively written plural and rendered
‘his enemies’, but the more straightforward rendering ‘his enemy’, in the singular, seems preferable
against the background sketched above. Vermes and Gordon do not discuss this question in their
comments on 4Q 161 in Vermes, ‘Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q 285)’.
14
So J. T. Milik in D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumrân Cave 1 (DJD i, Oxford, 1955), 82.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 375

and piyyut this beast is Rome; so, in a poetic account of the succession of
the four Danielic kingdoms, ‘to the beast of the reeds then he sold the land’
(Yose ben Yose, ʾanusah leʿezrah, line 23).15 Now in an exegesis of Ps. 68:30–1
attributed to the early-third-century Ishmael b. Jose b. Halafta (who himself is
said to have repeated it as something that ‘my father said’) Rome is rebuked
by or in the presence of the messiah—who has accepted gifts from the other
gentile monarchies (Exod. R. 35.5, on Exod. 26:15; Babylonian Talmud, Pes.
118b). In this interpretation the judgment scene considered above seems to
have been linked with the old and widely-attested scene in which the messiah
receives gifts from the nations; for the latter scene see Ps. Sol. 17:31; 2 Esd.
13:13; cf. Ps. 72:10–11, Isa. 66:20; Ber. R. 78.12, on Gen. 33:11 (quoting Ps.
72:10); Midrash Tehillim 88.6, on verse 4 (quoting Isa. 66:20). In the dream-
vision of 2 Esd. 13:1–13 the two scenes are already connected, through a
messianic interpretation of Isa. 66:5–24; and with the Qumran material in
view it may be suggested that they were also linked in the Second Temple
period on the basis of Ps. 68:30–1.
These passages do not comprise all the Qumran material relevant to
discussion of Antichrist.16 Thus the present writer thinks that the figure
called ‘son of God’ in the Aramaic prophecy in 4Q246 is probably once again
the expected evil king.17 Similarly, the conflict between Melchizedech and
Melchiresha (see 11Q Melchizedek, 4Q Amram (in Aramaic) and 4Q280) can
be interpreted with fair probability as one between angelic spirits who take
human form as the messiah and his great opponent.18 These positions cannot be
presented here, but the argument does not depend upon them. The view that a
messianic opponent was envisaged in the Second Temple period is supported,
rather, by the less-discussed scene of messianic judgment of ‘the wicked one’

15
Mirsky, Yosse, 108; the context is summarized in Horbury, ‘Suffering and Messianism’, 151 (p. 333,
above).
16
Lietaert Peerbolte, Antecedents, 257–86 gives a valuable survey, including interpretations of the
‘son of God’ and Melchizedek texts which differ from those mentioned below, but not including
discussion of the texts on a messianic judgment scene which have just been considered.
17
See Vermes, ‘Miscellanea’, 301–3 (probably the last ruler of the final world empire). Collins, Scepter,
154–72 prefers a messianic interpretation.
18
Collins, Scepter, 176 understands Melchizedek as an angelic saviour, not a messiah. The view that
Melchizedek is a messianic figure, put forward by J. Carmignac and others, is freshly argued by
P. A. Rainbow, ‘Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran’; see also Chapters 1 and 4, pp. 85–6, 165–6,
above. This view of Melchizedek would be consistent with the ancient opinion that, together with
Elijah, king messiah, and the Priest anointed for war, Melchizedek is one of the ‘four smiths’ of Zech.
2:3–4 (1:20–1) who come to cast down the horns of the nations who threaten Judah (PRK v 9, and
elsewhere).
376 Messianism among Jews and Christians

which some Hebrew texts discovered at Qumran share with Jewish prophecies
known through Christian transmission. In the exegesis represented in the
first three Qumran texts, Isa. 11:4 was regularly interpreted of the execution
of ‘the wicked’, probably the ruler of the Kittim, by the branch of David. This
interpretation was also connected with other scriptural passages, including the
prophecy of Gog and probably also Ps. 68, as suggested by 1Q16 in the light
of 2 Esdras and the midrash. This understanding of Isa. 11:4 will therefore
have been familiar among Jews at the beginning of the Herodian period. It will
have influenced both the Christian and the Jewish texts from the end of this
period which have just been considered—2 Thessalonians, Revelation, and the
apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch. Moreover, it had already helped to shape an
imagined scene of messianic judgment, found again in the fifth Sibylline book,
which can properly be called an element in a myth of the messiah and his arch-
enemy. This story could also be attached to other biblical texts, as the rabbinic
passages on Gog discussed above have shown, and from the Second Temple
period onwards it was sometimes linked with the related scene in which the
messiah receives tribute from the nations.
As a pendant to what now appears as a regularly envisaged Isaianic scene
one may note Jerome’s allegation that Bar Kokhba pretended to breathe fire by
a trick (adv. Rufinum iii 31). Probably this reproduces a Jewish tradition hostile
to Bar Kokhba, once again with allusion to Isa. 11:4; compare the talmudic
legend that he was slain because the rabbis saw that he did not fulfil Isa. 11:3
‘he shall not judge by the sight of his eyes’ (Babylonian Talmud, Sanh. 93b).
From among other evidence pointing in the same direction as the judgment-
scene of the ‘wicked one’ of Isa. 11:4, two further old identifications of the
messiah’s adversary may be briefly outlined. First, as already noted, Gog and
Magog constitute his foe in rabbinic interpretation current in the third century;
and in the fragmentary 4Q161, representing exegesis known during the
Herodian period, Magog is named in the context of the messiah’s rule over all
the nations.19 The likelihood that the name is connected here with opposition,
in line with rabbinic exegesis and with Targum Ps.-Jonathan on Num. 11:26,
cited below, is strengthened by Septuagintal references to Gog. Thus in the
third century b.c. Num. 24:7 is rendered in the lxx (presupposing mg(w)g for

19
Material on Gog and Magog is gathered by Billerbeck in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, iii, 638
(on 2 Thess. 2:3), 831–40 (on Rev. 20:8–9), and Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesiánicas, 282–6.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 377

mt mʾgg) ‘there shall come forth a man … his kingdom shall be higher than
Gog’. Here Gog is already the messianic opponent. In the prophets, the end of
Amos 7:1 is rendered ‘behold, one locust was king Gog’ (presupposing gwg
where mt has gzy). This oracle could be understood of Sennacherib’s invasion
(so Jerome), but in the light of Num. 24:7 lxx it seems likely that the translator
took it of a future adversary. Comparably, Amos 4:13 lxx includes the phrase
‘announcing to men his messiah’ (presupposing mšḥw; cf. mt mhšḥw). Both
these Septuagintal renderings in Amos fit the messianic close of the book
(9:11–15).20 On a distinct but closely related line of interpretation, the third
Sibylline book, in a passage reflecting Jewish Egypt perhaps during the second
century b.c., locates ‘the land of Gog and Magog’ in Ethiopia (cf. Ezek. 38:5)
and predicts its doom as a ‘house of judgment’ drenched in blood (Sib. 3:319–
21).
The wide early circulation of the understanding of Gog and Magog as the
enemy to be destroyed by the messiah is further confirmed by its occurrence
in the prophecy of Eldad and Medad according to the Targum: ‘Gog-and-
Magog and his forces go up to Jerusalem and fall into the hand of king messiah’
(Num. 11:26 in Neofiti and the Fragment Targum). 4Q161, if rightly restored,
similarly says that the Kittim or their leaders ‘will be given into the hand of
his great one’ (fragments 8–10, line 8). Pseudo-Jonathan at Num. 11:26 on
‘the king from the land of Magog’ who is overlord of other kings and princes
is comparable with and longer than Neofiti and the Fragment Targum, but
does not specify the messiah. Its phrasing, however, confirms that ‘Magog’
in 4Q161 should be understood primarily of the land, as in Ezek. 38:3 and
Sib. 3:319. The prophecy of Eldad and Medad mentioned in Pseudo-Philo’s
Biblical Antiquities (20.5, exactly corresponding to an earlier prophecy on
Joshua in the Targums on Num. 11:26) and quoted in Greek in the Shepherd
of Hermas (Vis. ii 3, 4, roughly corresponding to a phrase in Pseudo-Jonathan
on the king from Magog) may well have included a version of this oracle on
Gog. The identification of the great messianic adversary as Gog is therefore

20
According to the Greek of Codex Vaticanus (B), Ecclus. 48:17b, on Hezekiah, runs ‘and he led Gog
into their midst’. Gẃg is probably an inner-Greek corruption of Gíwn ‘Gihon’ (see J. H. A. Hart,
Ecclesiasticus: The Greek Text of Codex 248 (Cambridge, 1909), 219–20), but it suggests knowledge
of the close connection in Jewish thought between Hezekiah and the messiah, illustrated above from
Bar Kappara’s saying in Babylonian Talmud, Sanh. 94a. As Hezekiah’s captive, Gog is the messianic
adversary. Expectation of Hezekiah is judged to have been lively at the end of the Second Temple
period by Hadas-Lebel, ‘ “Il n’y a pas de messie pour Israël” ’.
378 Messianism among Jews and Christians

continuously attested in Jewish sources from the Septuagint Pentateuch to the

Targums and rabbinic literature, and 4Q161 can be understood in connection
with this series of interpretations.
A second old identification of the messianic opponent names him Beliar.
Belial or Beliar has of course become the name of an archdemon in Qumran
texts, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and elsewhere, often with the
emphasis on deception found in biblical texts using beliyyaʿal (e.g. Deut. 13:14);
but in Sib. 3:63–74 and in Asc. Isa. 4.1–18 (a Christian insertion following
the pattern of the messianic judgment scene) Beliar also takes the form of
an earthly leader. Thus the Sibyl predicts that Beliar will come forth from the
Sebastenoi to lead many astray by delusive miracles, including raisings of the
dead; but when the divine threats come near to fulfilment, he and his followers
will be burnt up by a fiery power from the deep (Sib. 3:63–74). J. J. Collins,
following the view that the Sebastenoi are the line of the Augusti, takes the
passage as alluding to the return of Nero, which is well attested elsewhere in
the Sibyllines, as noted above.21 He rejects the alternative interpretation of
Sebastenoi as inhabitants of Sebaste (Samaria), urging that there is no parallel
in Jewish writings for the notion of a Samaritan anti-messiah.
Yet the Samaritan interpretation has much to be said for it. It fits the hostility
towards Samaritans evident in the later Second Temple period, for example in
Ben Sira (50:25–6), Pseudo-Philo (Biblical Antiquities 25.10–11, on idolatrous
images of ‘the holy nymphs’ buried at Shechem) and Josephus; this hostility
is linked with Beliar in the Ascension of Isaiah, 2:1–3:12 (a probably Jewish
portion of the work), where a Samaritan false prophet accuses Isaiah under
Manasseh, who serves Beliar. Moreover, despite the apparent lack of Jewish
reference to a Samaritan ‘anti-messiah’, Josephus (Ant. xviii 85–6) describes the
leader of a Samaritan uprising under Pontius Pilate as a deceiver who claimed
to show the hiding-place of the sacred vessels deposited by Moses, according
to a tradition which is satirized in the allegation about hidden idols in Ps.-
Philo, as cited above;22 figures like this Samaritan leader could exemplify the
seductive deception attributed to Beliar ‘from the Sebastenes’. There is nothing

21
J. J. Collins in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, i (London, 1983), 360; his
interpretation is followed by Lietaert Peerbolte, Antecedents, 332–3.
22
Other references to this Jewish allegation based on Gen. 35:4, including Ber. R. 81.4 (idols hidden
beneath the Samaritan temple), are gathered by C. T. R. Hayward, ‘Jacob’s Second Visit to Bethel in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes (Sheffield,
1990), 175–92 (176–80).
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 379

in this Sibylline passage itself to suggest the Nero myth, but on the other hand
it agrees with Jewish expectations; the raising of the dead is associated with
the days of the messiah in the Qumran ‘messianic apocalypse’ (4Q521, 3, lines
1 and 12), and Beliar’s destruction by fire from the sea recalls the fire sent
forth (cf. Isa. 11:4) by the man who comes up from the sea and flies with the
clouds in 2 Esd. 13:3–4. The passage need not then be dated after Nero, but
could be tentatively ascribed to the Hasmonaean or Herodian period, since it
probably assumes the status of Beliar as an archdemon. Like its early Christian
counterpart in Asc. Isa. 4, however, it presents a Beliar incorporate who could
justly be compared with a messiah, as occurs implicitly when St. Paul asks
‘What is the concord of Christ with Beliar?’ (2 Cor. 6:15).
It is noteworthy that 2 Thess. 2:8, quoted already, calls the evil opponent to
be slain by the messiah not ‘wicked’ (a̓sebh́V, as Isa. 11:4 lxx), but ‘lawless’
(ἄnomoV); this choice of adjective is probably influenced by the contextual
use of the noun a̓nomía in the phrases ‘man of lawlessness’ and ‘mystery of
lawlessness’ (2:3 and 7), but that in turn recalls the noun used to render Belial
in the lxx Pentateuch (a̓nómhma, Deut. 15:9). Probably therefore Beliar lies
just beneath the surface here.
In this name the associations of false teaching and seduction to idolatry are
uppermost, but they are compatible with the portrait of a king or leader, like
Manasseh in the Ascension of Isaiah or the Samaritan leader under Pilate in
Josephus.
The great foe to be slain by the messiah was therefore a familiar figure in
Jewish biblical interpretation of the Second Temple period. His execution was
central in a wisely-attested scene of messianic judgment, which was shaped
especially by exegesis of Isa. 11:4. This scene has long been known from the
New Testament (2 Thessalonians and Revelation) and from 2 Esdras, 2 Baruch
and the Fifth Sibylline, but its Jewish origins and its familiarity in the pre-
Christian period have been confirmed by interpretations of Isaiah in Hebrew
texts discovered at Qumran. This material further suggests that, as later
happened in rabbinic interpretation, the scene of the messiah’s victory over
his adversary could be linked with the scene in which he receives offerings
from the gentile nations. Gunkel and Bousset were right, therefore, in positing
a myth of the messiah and his opponent, in the sense of a number of scenes
which were regularly depicted and linked.
380 Messianism among Jews and Christians

The opponent was above all the last leader of the fourth kingdom, in
some cases clearly the Roman emperor. He could be named as Gog, in
an interpretation of Ezek. 38–9 which goes back at least to the Septuagint
Pentateuch and independently attests that the messiah’s adversary was familiar
in exegesis of the Second Temple period. The naming of the adversary as Beliar
brings out the motif of seduction which in any case belongs to the portrait
of the evil king (Dan. 7:8, etc.); the ‘political’ and the ‘religious’ opponent
are not so clearly differentiated as Billerbeck suggested, and the Christian
Antichrist, as is noted below, retains markedly political traits.23 The portrait
of the messiah, as noted in passing, comparably receives motifs from current
political flattery. The ‘wicked one’ of Second Temple Jewish exegesis is
continuous with the opponent later attested in rabbinic interpretation, but he
is also continuous with the Christian Antichrist—as is evident from the New
Testament examples of the messianic judgment scene, and from Christian
adoption and elaboration of the anti-Roman apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch
and the Sibylline Oracles. Antichrist therefore came to belong to specifically
Christian expectations and conceptions of the Roman empire; but he is an
originally Jewish figure, and in the early imperial period he symbolizes Jewish
dissent from Roman assumptions of imperium granted sine fine.

II. Titan

Such Roman assumptions were also, however, touched by fears expressed

through myths which closely resemble Jewish prophecies of opposition to the
heaven-sent king. This point has already begun to emerge from the Sibylline
Oracles, where the messianic opponent fits readily into the general Sibylline
theme of bella, horrida bella. The same point was already expressly made in the
ancient world, where resemblances between biblical tradition and mythology
were often noted,24 by observers who scrutinized the Christian expectation

23
Hence the church fathers whom Hill, ‘Antichrist’, 99–101 views as combining separate emphases on
false teaching and on political power could be regarded rather as continuing both sides of a single
pre-Christian Jewish tradition.
24
See, for example, Philo, Gig. 58, on Gen. 6:4 (Moses did not follow the myth of the giants); on
Christian traditions, 2 Pet. 1:16 (again claiming independence of myth); on the other hand, Justin,
I Apol. xxii (if you accept analogous myths, you can accept Christian teaching), and Tertullian, Apol.
xxi 14 recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 381

of Antichrist. Thus, from within the Christian tradition, elements in this

expectation were compared with the myth of the Titans and the giants which
Philo discussed, as just noted, in connection with the giants of Gen. 6:3. ‘Titan’
is regarded as the most plausible interpretation of the number of the beast in
Rev. 13:8 by Irenaeus, writing towards the end of the second century. Not only
(he notes) does TEITAN add up to 666, but it is thought to be a divine name,
being often applied to the sun; it has a show of vengeance which suits a figure
claiming to vindicate the oppressed; and it is a royal, or rather a tyrannical
name (Irenaeus, Haer. v 30, 3).
Here Irenaeus clearly shares the political interpretation of the myth of the
war of the Titans. Pretenders to the throne, tyranni or adfectatores tyrannidis,
were familiar in the Roman empire.25 In Hesiod’s Theogony the Titans are
Cronus, father of Zeus, and his brothers and sisters. Cronus, aided by the
vigilance of the other Titans, swallowed his children, but Zeus and others
survived; Clement of Alexandria (Protr. ii 15) relates how the Titans tore the
child Dionysus in pieces. The Titans struggled with Zeus and the Olympians
for power, aided by giants, but were thrown down. The sun is called ‘Titan’
(often in Roman poetry, e.g. Virgil, Aen. iv 119) as son of the Titan Hyperion
(Hesiod, Theogony, 371). The name Titan also individually belonged (according
to a rendering of the myth given by Euhemerus and incorporated into Sib.
iii:97–154) to a brother of Cronus, who fought with him for the kingdom when
their father died. A Latin version of Euhemerus, made by Ennius, is quoted by
Lactantius, who also knew the version in Sib. iii (Lactantius, D.I. i 14). Hesiod
links the name with tisis, vengeance (Theogony 209). Rulers were associated
with the sun, as Augustus had been,26 and praised as avengers; so Pliny
(Panegyric 35–6) stressed that Trajan provided ultio against informers. The
giants similarly were avenging the wrongs of the Titans and their mother Earth
(in Claudian, Gigantomachia 27 she addresses the giants as exercitus ultor).
Antichrist therefore appears to Irenaeus—who has based his description on
Daniel, quoted at length, as well as 2 Thessalonians and Revelation—above

25
For these expressions see HA Avidius Cassius v 1 (Aemilius Parthenianus wrote a history of
adfectatores tyrannidis, including Avidius Cassius), Pescennius Niger i 1 (those whom other men’s
victories made tyranni).
26
So Apollo, Augustus’ patron, and Sol—linked but not necessarily identical—are both invoked by
Horace, Carmen Saeculare, lines 1 and 9 (Phoebe … alme Sol). Irenaeus does not quote the Sibyl,
but he may perhaps also have had in view the oracle Sib. 3:652 ‘and then God will send a king from
the sun’, later quoted as a prophecy of Christ by Lactantius, D.I. vii 18, 7.
382 Messianism among Jews and Christians

all as a plausible pretender to power, a figure recalling the Titans who tried to
storm Olympus.
The resemblance between the Antichrist myth and the myth of the Titans
was also noted at about the same time, perhaps under Marcus Aurelius, by
Celsus, the pagan critic of Christianity.27 He says that the Christian doctrine
of the devil and ‘Satanas’, and the teaching of Jesus that Satan will appear
like himself and will manifest great and glorious works, usurping the glory
of God, rests on a misunderstanding of the enigmas of the Greek myths of
a divine war. He specifies ‘the mysteries which affirm that the Titans and
Giants fought with the gods, and … the mysteries of the Egyptians which
tell of Typhon and Horus and Osiris’ (Origen, c. Celsum vi 42). These myths
of course overlapped in their theme of contention for the throne, and had in
common the figure of Typhon or Typhoeus, slain by Zeus in Greek mythology
but also identified with the Egyptian Seth (Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 371B).
The Greek gigantomachy also had a long history in art, including the altar of
Pergamum. In literature, comparably, the Titanomachia was a lost member
of the epic cycle, and the Titans and the giants occupy surviving Greek poets
from Hesiod onwards, and Latin writers from Ennius to Claudian (both
cited above). Geographically, the legend was linked especially with volcanic
areas of Asia Minor (the district of Catacecaumene near Philadelphia,
Strabo, Geog. xiii 4, 11), Sicily and Campania; the battle of the giants took
place on the Phlegraean Fields in Campania, and Typhon was buried alive
beneath Cumae, Procida, Ischia and Etna (Pindar, Pyth. i, epode 1; Virgil,
Aen. ix 715–16).
Celsus in this passage alludes directly or indirectly to Rev. 12:8, on the
casting out of the devil or Satanas, and to Christ’s prophecy of those who will
arise and give signs and wonders to lead astray (Mark 13:21–3). Origen in his
reply therefore deals both with Satan, on the basis of Revelation here, and with
Antichrist, as suggested by Christ’s prophecy. Celsus has urged that all this
Christian material is a misunderstanding of what he takes to be the profoundly
significant myths of the Titans and of Typhon and Osiris. His point of course
has its place in a broader argument among pagans, Jews and Christians over
the allegorization of mythology. In the present context, however, it is notable

27
On the date of Celsus’ work see H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge, 1953, corrected
reprint 1965), xxvi–xxviii (on balance, probability lies with a date in the period 177–80).
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 383

as a pagan identification of mythological counterparts to the Antichrist myth,

converging with the contemporary inner-Christian association of Antichrist
and Titan found in Irenaeus.
The resemblances between Typhon in particular and the evil king as attested
in Daniel are richly documented from both Greek and Egyptian legend by
J. W. van Henten; he shows that the Danielic depiction of Antiochus IV has
been influenced by the originally Egyptian stereotype of a ‘Typhonic king’, but
in the course of this argument he brings out the significance of Typhon as a
symbol of threat to order and sovereignty in the wider Greek world under the
Hellenistic monarchies and later.28 In the present context it is only necessary to
note the continuance and development of such symbolism in the early Roman
empire.
First, the probable influence of Sibylline oracles on the Augustan poets
should be recalled. When Virgil made the Sibyl of Cumae Aeneas’ guide to
the underworld, he indicated among other things a debt to Sibylline writings.
Individual oracles circulated in Rome, and a form of what is now the third
Sibylline book was known there by the middle of the first century b.c.29
Against the dark background of the civil wars at home and the Parthian threat
in the east, Virgil in his early work invoked the hopes of ‘Cumaean song’ in
the Fourth Eclogue, possibly but not plainly drawing on the Jewish prophecies
of prosperity in Sib. 3 as preserved (lines 18–25, 28–30 in the Eclogue have
been compared with Sib. 3:619–24, 743–59, 787–94). At about the same
time Horace, in Epode 16.1–14, appears to echo the third Sibylline book in
language as well as in his more characteristically Sibylline theme of woe.30
Rome is falling through her own strength in the civil wars, ‘suis et ipsa Roma
viribus ruit’ (line 2; cf. Sib. 3:364 Ῥẃmh r̔úmh ‘Rome a mere alley’ or ‘Rome a
ruin’). The ashes of the City will be trampled by a barbarian victor, mounted
and no doubt Parthian, who will scatter Roman bones; ‘barbarus heu cineres
insistet victor … ossa Quirini (nefas videre) dissipabit insolens’ (lines 11–14).
Mythical imagery is lacking, but the nightmare of the fall of Rome at the hand
of an eastern foe corresponds to woes which were to be developed in the later

28
van Henten, ‘Antiochus’, especially 228–36.
29
H. W. Parke, edited by B. C. McGing, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London,
1988), 143–4 (Alexander Polyhistor used Sib. iii).
30
C. W. Macleod, ‘Horace and the Sibyl’, reprinted from Classical Quarterly N.S. xxix (1979), 220–1 in
Colin Macleod, Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), 218–19.
384 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Jewish Sibyllines by integration with the expected return of Nero from the
east, as noted above (see Sib. 4:119–22, 137–9; 5:143–8, 361–4, and compare
the Antichrist of Asc. Isa. 4:2–4 ‘a lawless king, the slayer of his mother’). The
Sibyl had incorporated Greek mythology, including Euhemerus’ version of
the war of the Titans, as noted above; these prophetic passages from Virgil
and Horace show, on the other hand, how fully the poets who commended
the Augustan peace and at once became classical in the empire (Virgil was
soon read at the outposts of empire, Masada and Hadrian’s Wall) shared the
thought-world of the Greek Jewish prophecies heralding the messiah and his
adversary.
Secondly, the myth of the Titans and giants was brought into connection
with the figure of a saviour-king—Augustus—in the longest of Horace’s group
of ‘Roman odes’ (Od. iii 4, lines 37–80). A resemblance to the Jewish and
Christian Antichrist myth emerges strongly. The Muses aid Caesar with their
gentle counsel, Horace writes; and we know that Jupiter, the just ruler of the
universe, overthrew the impious Titans with a thunderbolt—‘scimus ut impios
| Titanas immanemque turbam | fulmine sustulerit caduco’ (lines 42–4). Here,
according to the convention of court poetry, Jupiter stands for Augustus, who
in the following fifth ode of the third book is hailed as the ‘present god’ come
to reign here in earth on Jupiter’s behalf (Od. iii 5, 1–4). Yet, in one of the most
striking statements of the fourth ode, Jupiter had been terror-struck; ‘magnum
ille terrorem intulerat Jovi | fidens iuventus horrida brachiis’ (lines 49–50).
The force of the prominently-placed ‘great terror’ is brought out with spirit in
Philip Francis’ English version:

… the fierce Titanian brood

Whose horrid youth, elate with impious pride,
Unnumbered, on their sinewy force relied;
Mountain on mountain piled they raised in air,
And shook the throne of Jove, and bade the Thunderer fear.

This fear is consistent with the formidable character which Typhon bears in
other poets, notably in the Egyptian motif of the flight of the gods before
him, a flight which in Ovid includes Jupiter.31 Nevertheless, Jupiter, the
slayer of Typhon, usually stands his ground; in Pindar’s first Pythian ode,

31
Ovid, Metam. v 321–31, quoted with other texts by van Henten, ‘Antiochus’, 228–31.
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 385

which is similarly supporting a ruler and influenced this ode of Horace,32 the
punishment of Typhon is central (his body stretches underground from Cumae
to Etna), and there is no mention of any fear on the part of Zeus. In Horace
here Typhoeus is mentioned (line 53), but the fear is inspired by the collective
appearance of the Titans and giants. Their terrifying impact remains startling,
therefore, and recalls the formidable aspect of the messianic opponent and his
followers, notably the sometimes monstrous form which stands for a king of
fierce countenance, as in Dan. 7–8. Moreover, the general symbolism of the
myth as used in Horace is comparable with that of the messianic judgment-
scene; both involve the omnipotent deity and his vice-gerent, and in both the
evil power which would usurp rightful sovereignty is overthrown.
I can then perhaps say with Horace (Od. iii 4, 69–70) ‘testis mearum
centimanus Gyas | sententiarum’. To summarize, a myth of a messianic
opponent, in the sense of regularly envisaged and interconnected scenes in
which the opponent figures, appeared in the first part of this study to have
been current among Jews from before the time of Pompey and throughout
the Roman period. Its specifically anti-messianic focus was strong enough
to warrant Bousset’s term ‘antichrist myth’. It could include an emphasis on
false teaching as well as usurpation. Despite the contrast between Christian
and Jewish views drawn in much study of Antichrist, Christian notions of
Antichrist derived from Jewish tradition. Jewish tradition on this subject also,
however, had many points of correspondence with non-Jewish expectations
current in the Greek and Roman world. The myth of the Titans and the giants
was picked out by both Christian and pagan observers as particularly close to
the Antichrist myth. In the Greek age the figure of Typhon symbolized a threat
to rightful monarchy, and influenced the Danielic depiction of Antiochus IV, as
J. W. van Henten showed. With the Roman empire in view, it can be added that
in the late Roman republic and the principate the Augustan poets entered into
the thought-world of Jewish messianic and anti-messianic prophecy especially
through the medium of Sibylline literature. Against this background, finally,
the treatment of the Titans in Horace’s longest Roman ode has suggested that
it may not be out of place to speak of Antichrist among gentiles as well as Jews
in the Roman empire.

32
E. Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford, 1957), 276–85.
386 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Literature

P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes (eds.), ‘4QSefer ha-Milhamah’, in Qumran Cave 4. xxvi

Cryptic Texts (ed. S. Pfann); Miscellanea Part I (ed. P. Alexander and others) (DJD
xxxvi, Oxford, 2000), 228–46
W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen
Testaments und der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse
(Göttingen, 1895); ET, with a Prologue on the Babylonian Dragon Myth, by
A. H. Keane, The Antichrist Legend. A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore
(London, 1896)
———, ‘Antichrist’, ERE i (1908), 578–81
J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star (New York, 1995)
D. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian
Christianity (Minneapolis, 1993)
M. Friedländer, ‘L’Anti-Messie’, REJ xxxviii (1899), 14–37
L. Ginzberg, ‘Antichrist’, JE i (1901), 625–7
M. Hadas-Lebel, ‘ “Il n’y a pas de messie pour Israël car on l’a déjà consommé au
temps d’Ézéchias” (TB Sanhédrin 99a)’, REJ clix (2000), 357–67
S. Heid, Chiliasmus und Antichrist-Mythos. Eine frühchristliche Kontroverse um das
Heilige Land (Bonn, 1993)
M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (ET by John Bowden, London and Philadelphia,
1989)
J. W. van Henten, ‘Antiochus IV as a Typhonic Figure in Daniel 7’, in A. S. van der
Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel (Leuven, 1993), 223–43
C. E. Hill, ‘Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan’, JTS N.S. xlvi (1995), 99–117
W. Horbury, ‘Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose’, in W. Horbury and B.
McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1981),
143–82 (chapter 10, above)
G. C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (BZNW lix,
Berlin and New York, 1991)
I. Lévi, ‘Le ravissement du Messie à sa naissance’, REJ lxxiv (1922), 113–26
L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: a traditio-historical study of the
earliest Christian views on eschatological opponents (Leiden, 1996)
S. Loesch, Deitas Jesu und antike Apotheose (Rottenburg a. N., Württemberg, 1933)
M. Pérez Fernández, Tradiciones mesiánicas en el Targum palestinense (Valencia and
Jerusalem, 1981)
P. A. Rainbow, ‘Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran’, Bulletin for Biblical Research vii
(1997), 179–94
 Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles 387

H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrasch (Munich, i (1922), ii (1924), iii (1926), iv 1 (1928), iv 2 (1928); index
volumes by K. Adolph and J. Jeremias, v (1956), vi (1961))
G. Vermes and others, ‘The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research: Seminar on the
Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285)’, JJS xliii (1992), 85–94
G. Vermes, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea i’, JJS xliii (1992), 299–305
 12

The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints

The Christ-cult was the most important but not the only manifestation of
its kind in the early church. In the second century it stands beside the cult
of angels and the cult of martyrs and saints, as appears from Justin Martyr
and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Already in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
correspondingly, those who draw near to Mount Sion encounter the angels,
the spirits of the just and Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:22–4). In all three cases the
quest for origins leads through the New Testament writings into Greek and
Roman as well as Jewish thought and practice.1
Angels have long been prominent in inquiry into the origins of the Christ-
cult, the martyrs and saints rather less so. This is partly because reverence for
angels has obvious antecedents in post-exilic Judaism. The cult of martyrs and
saints, however, arguably also has some Jewish roots. These have been explored
by a series of students, including A. Schlatter, J. Obermann, E. Bickerman,
E. Bammel, J. Jeremias, J. Lightstone, W. Rordorf, J. Wilkinson, J. W. van Henten
and A. M. Schwemer. On the other hand, despite this inquiry, the mainly
Christian character of the cult of the saints is widely asserted, for example
by P. R. L. Brown, D. Satran, J. Taylor and G. W. Bowersock. In this paper,
however, it is urged that a case for the importance of a Jewish factor in the
development of the cult of saints can be made on lines slightly different from
those which have been most generally followed; and that Jewish developments
which anticipated and ran concurrently with the Christian cult of the saints
also constituted a factor in the rise of the cult of Christ.
The cult of a hero, ruler, deity or saint can embrace private and domestic
as well as more broadly corporate observance. Delehaye, 123–5, discussing

1
Details of works cited by author and short title are listed in conclusion. I gratefully acknowledge
questions from hearers of this paper, including J. W. van Henten, A. T. Kraabel and K. W. Niebuhr,
and a series of valuable comments from M. N. A. Bockmuehl.
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 389

problems of identifying and defining cult in the case of martyrs, picked out
corporate commemoration as the essential sign of cult. In the present study,
concerned with Christ and Jewish as well as Christian heroic and saintly
figures, the word ‘cult’ is comparably used only when corporate or public, not
merely private observance is envisaged. With regard to the Jewish community,
the scattered direct evidence for public commemoration and frequentation
of tombs is interpreted here against its sometimes neglected background
of a widely shared conception of a class of holy persons, and a communal
transmission of visions of them and legends about them.

Consideration of the cults of Christ and of the saints together is encouraged

by the history of debate about them. In ancient and modern times both
have recalled Greek and Roman cults of heroes, sovereigns and divinities.
A derivation of the Christian from the Greek and Roman customs has been
proposed and resisted in both cases.
In antiquity, Christian apologists for the cult of both Christ and the martyrs
not only stressed the difference between Christian and pagan usage, but also
exploited the resemblance.2 In the case of the martyr-cult, the charge of pagan
origin which apologists rebutted indeed found some acceptance within the
Christian sphere. Thus, in a famous inner-Christian attack on the cult of the
saints at the beginning of the fifth century Vigilantius said, on the use of lights,
‘I see what is almost a rite of the gentiles introduced in the churches under the
pretext of religion’ (Jerome, c. Vigilantium 4); similarly, it was a Manichaean
accusation that the church ‘turned the idols into martyrs’ (Augustine,
c. Faustum xx 4 and 21). Augustine himself, in his campaign to check eating
and drinking at commemorations of the martyrs, could call this custom a
concession to gentile Christians deprived of the pagan festivals (Ep. xxix 9).
These objections endorsed an earlier non-Christian impression, mockingly
embodied in the charge that Christians would worship martyrs instead of

2
On the examples given below, and other texts, see J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Second Part,
iii (2nd edn., London: Macmillan, 1889), 395, on Mart. Polyc. xvii; Lucius-Anrich, 325–36; Frend,
‘North African Cult’, 162–4.
390 Messianism among Jews and Christians

‘the crucified one’ (Martyrdom of Polycarp xvii 2–3) or ‘as gods’ (Eusebius,
H.E. viii 6, 7), ‘adding many corpses newly dead to the corpse of long ago’
(Julian, c. Galilaeos 335B). Augustine repeatedly distinguished between the
cult of God himself and the honour paid to the martyrs. This point is stressed
in his preaching, significantly for the inclination of his people, but he also
polemically shows that martyrs are stronger than gods and heroes (both points
in C.D. viii 26–7, and Serm. 273, on Fructuosus and his companions, sections
3 and 6–9). In contemporary Syria, comparably but in more strongly Hellenic
terms, Theodoret (Affect. viii) distinguished the pagan cult of qeoí from the
Christian cult of the martyrs as qei͂oi ἄnqrẃpoi; but he also argued that the
martyrs’ shrines and festivals had replaced and improved upon those of the
old gods, and that Greeks should find the cult of the martyrs as great patrons
at their tombs fully justified by its likeness to their own tomb-oriented cult of
heroes as guardians who ward off evil—e̓sqloí, a̓lexíkakoi, júlakeV qnhtw͂n
a̓nqrẃpwn (Hesiod, Op. 123, on the golden race, in the form quoted by Plato,
Rep. v 468E–469A and Crat. 397E, passages also quoted by Theodoret).
The same two-edged argument served to defend the cult of Christ.
Apologists had to distinguish the Christ-cult from pagan usage, as Origen
did when answering Celsus’ charge that it was no different from the cults of
Antinous, Asclepius, Dionysus or Heracles (c. Celsum iii 36–8, 42–3). On the
other hand, resemblances to pagan custom were exploited from the second
century onwards in response to the charge of atheism. It was stressed that
Christianity indeed has, in the system of worship which includes the cult of
Christ, something corresponding to Greek and Roman reverence for the gods.
So Justin says ‘We reverence and worship [God], and the Son, and the army
of good angels, and the prophetic spirit’ (Justin Martyr, I Apol. vi).3 Similarly,
still stressing resemblances, apologists could defend the narratives of the
wonderful birth and works of Christ as like the Greek myths of beneficent
heroes, and could prize the hopeful legends that Tiberius recommended
Christ to the senate for apotheosis (consecratio) (so Tertullian, Apol. v 1–2, xxi
14 and 29–30), or that pagans set up a statue in honour of Christ the healer at
Paneas (Eusebius, H.E. vii 18, 2–4).

3
For similar phrases see Athenagoras, Leg. x, and Rev. 1:4–5; their use in the apologists is set against
the background of contemporary Platonic theologies of a demiurge, a world-soul and assistant
divine creators by Stead, 584–5.
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 391

In modern times, not dissimilarly, the two Christian cults have been both
derived and differentiated from the cult of heroes in a debate which still
continues. Criticism of W. Bousset’s case for gentile influence on the Christ-
cult issued in intensive inquiry into Jewish antecedents, but aspects recalling
Greek and Roman custom have also been reconsidered. Thus H.-D. Betz takes
it that the gospels, like the later Christian apologetic just reviewed, reflect both
the influence of the hero-cult and reaction against it. In study of Judaism in
connection with the Christ-cult the importance of Greek influence is stressed
by M. Hengel, but this aspect has been somewhat over-shadowed by varied
recent explorations of angelic and mediatorial figures and of what may be
called the specifically Christian element in origins.
Modern discussion of the saints has run parallel. In the epoch of
Religionsgeschichte their cult was derived from the hero-cult by E. Lucius
(1904), soon followed by F. Pfister on the continuity between pagan and
Christian attitudes to relics, and by E. Nourry with a more popular treatise in
the rationalist interest, Les saints successeurs des dieux. H. Delehaye rejected
this conclusion in the course of his own further work on Greek and Roman
as well as Christian material. In more recent study, as noted already, inquiry
into Jewish roots of the cult has gone side by side with rejection of pagan
derivation (as by Brown, 5–6) and reassertion of its primarily Christian
character. T. Klauser, however, showed that pagan as well as Jewish and
Christian factors should be recognized. In 1960, in the light of Jeremias’ work,
he characterized the martyr-cult as a largely Christian development with some
Jewish antecedents. In 1974, however, he added that this development could
not be dissociated from contemporary pagan custom.
In both cases, then, contemporary observers of early Christian custom,
inside as well as outside the church, noted its likeness to the hero-cult; and
in both cases some modern historians have found significant continuities
between the hero-cult and the Christian usage. In what follows an attempt is
made, accordingly, to hold together these two Christian cults in exploration
of their origins. It is accepted here that there is much truth in the ancient and
modern indications of a common Greek and Roman background for them
both; but it will be argued in the two following sections that full justice has
perhaps still not been done to Jewish development of beliefs and customs
recalling both the hero-cult and the Christian cult of the saints. Identification
392 Messianism among Jews and Christians

of this trend in ancient Judaism then suggests, as outlined in section IV below,

another avenue of approach to study of the Jewish roots of the Christ-cult.

II

How fully did this Jewish development anticipate and resemble the Christian
cult of the saints? In this section a case for substantial anticipation and
resemblance will be outlined, starting from the New Testament, through a
mainly chronological review of some landmarks in the evidence and the history
of study; and an approach slightly differing from those most widely followed
will be suggested. Then the following section will set some signs of corporate
commemoration and veneration in Jewish custom against the background of
Jewish conceptions of a saintly class and transmission of visions and legends.
It will be argued that continuity in Jewish practice and thought on this matter
can be traced from well before to well after the time of Christian origins.
For both sections it is important that, among Christians as well as Jews
in antiquity, biblical saints remained primary, although in both communities
post-biblical figures were added to them. The abiding pre-eminence of biblical
figures among Christians in the later Roman empire emerges not only from
liturgical formulae like ‘patriarchs, prophets, righteous, apostles, martyrs,
confessors’ (Const. Ap. viii 12), but also from the great preponderance of
biblical apocrypha over martyrology in surviving Greek and probably also
pre-Islamic Coptic papyri (Clarysse, 392–5). The cult of saints in Christian
antiquity was in this respect considerably closer to ancient Jewish life and
thought than was the later western Christian cult, with its main orientation
towards ecclesiastical figures.
To begin now with the New Testament, Jewish antecedents for the Christian
cult of the saints are suggested by a number of passages. One group of these
refers to the glory and after-life of the patriarchs and prophets. Thus Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob are alive (Mark 12:26–7 and parallels); they will be in the
kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11), together with all the prophets (Luke 13:28);
‘the fathers’ are a glory of Israel (Rom. 9:5); even now Abraham is favourably
placed in the after-life, with Lazarus carried by the angels into his bosom (Luke
16:22–31); apparitions of Moses and Elijah are seen by the disciples (Mark
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 393

9:4 and parallels); the return of Elijah, Jeremiah, or John the Baptist can be
expected (Matt. 16:19 and parallels); many bodies of the saints who sleep in
their memorials arise at the death of Christ (Matt. 27:52–3); the patriarchs
from Abel to Moses, together with prophets, judges, kings, and righteous
ones, form a cloud of witnesses surrounding Christians on earth (Heb. 12:1),
and are encountered in the heavenly Jerusalem as or among the spirits of the
perfected just (Heb. 12:23, quoted above as linking the spirits of the just and
Jesus Christ); similarly, the souls of the (probably Christian) slain are under
the altar in heaven (Rev. 6:9–11).
A second group of passages, highlighted especially by Jeremias, deal with
tombs of saints. The dead in general are oi̔ e̓n toi͂V mnhmeíoiV (John 5:28; cf.
Isa. 26:19 lxx e̓g erqh́sontai oi̔ e̓n toi͂V mnhmeíoiV), and special mention is
made of the tombs of prophets and righteous (Matt. 23:27–9; Luke 11:44, 47);
memorials holding the bodies of the saints outside Jerusalem (Matt. 27:52–3,
already cited); the tomb of David (Acts 2:29); the tomb of the patriarchs in
Shechem (Acts 7:16); the bones of Joseph (Heb. 11:22, in the context of the
cloud of witnesses, already cited); and, by allusion, the tomb of Rachel near
Bethlehem (Matt. 2:18).
A third group, of indirect importance, reflects the dignity ascribed to
apostles and martyrs.4 Apostolic bodily and spiritual presence is a formidable
honour (as in Rom. 15:18–19; 1 Cor. 4:21, 5:4; Phil 1:26; Acts 5:1–11, 12–13);
power inheres in the apostolic shadow or clothing (Acts 5:15, 19:12; cf. Mark
5:28 and parallels, on the garments of Christ); and the ‘victor’ will share the
messianic throne and judgment (as in Rev. 2:26–7, 3:21; cf. 6:9–11, on the slain,
quoted above). The dignity presupposed derives from Christ’s pre-eminence,
but the specifically Christian reverence reflected here forms a further indirect
sign of customary Jewish honour for the righteous.
Earlier Jewish writings illustrate these New Testament texts. Literary
forms corresponding to praise and invocation of saints appear respectively in
the laudatory patérwn ὕmnoV of Ecclesiasticus and in the Song of the Three
Children, calling on the spirits and souls of the righteous in a context of
martyr-like sacrificial death. The activity and glory of the righteous departed,
the prophets and the patriarchs are pre-supposed in the Wisdom of Solomon

4
On apostolic presence, shadow, and garb see Funk; van der Horst, 61–4; Pfister, 620.
394 Messianism among Jews and Christians

on the coming victory of the righteous souls, and on the holy souls, and
the glories of the fathers (3:1, 4:7, 5:1, 7:27, 19:24). Many other works
roughly contemporary with these are relevant. Thus literature attested in the
Qumran finds includes, from probably non-sectarian sources, hagiography
on patriarchs and later worthies (as in Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon,
Testaments of Judah and Levi, Visions of Amram, Psalms of Joshua,
Tobit); within sectarian writings, comparable treatment of the Teacher of
Righteousness; and in both types of source, expectations of the return of
the great (Melchizedek, probably also the Teacher of Righteousness), the
prayers of righteous souls (Book of Noah = 1 En. 9:10; 1 En. 22:5–7), and
the resurrection and glory of the righteous (Deutero-Ezekiel, 1 En. 10 and 22
(4QEn c–d), 1QH xiv (vi) 34).
From these and other writings there emerge, further, some widespread
concerns which help to form a setting for reverence for the saints. Thus care
for relics and tombs need not imply hope for bodily resurrection, but it readily
coheres with it. Similarly, thoughts of the prayers and the glory of righteous
souls are encouraged by concern for the soul here (Philo, Spec. Leg. i 77, on
the health-bringing half-shekel lútra for the soul, Exod. 30:12); or hereafter
(2 Esd. 7:75; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 21:12–18); or in both respects,
as when Lev 16:31 ‘ye shall afflict your souls’ (on the Day of Atonement) is
interpreted as ‘ye shall fast for your souls’ (Fragment Targum; Ps.-Philo, Ant.
Bibl. 13.6; cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. ii 196 crhstà e̓lpízonteV).
2 Maccabees, however, has three narratives of special note. The first, on
Eleazar and on the seven brethren and their mother (6:18–7:42), deals with
what a Christian would call martyrdom, and mentions intercession (7:37–8).
The second tells how Judas Maccabaeus sacrificed and prayed on behalf of
Jews fallen in battle whose amulets attested a lapse into idolatry (12:38–45).
Lastly, Judas’ vision of Onias and Jeremiah praying for Jerusalem is described
(15:11–16). These passages presuppose intercession by martyrs and righteous
souls, awaiting future glory. Not surprisingly, the sixteenth-century Dominican
Sixtus Senensis (Sisto da Siena) called Maccabees 1–2 vehementer utiles ‘for
confuting the heresies especially of our own times; for in 2 Maccabees there
are very clear testimonies concerning Purgatory, and that prayers should be
made for the dead, and concerning the prayers of the saints’ (Sixtus Senensis,
Bibliotheca Sancta (1566), viii 12; Cologne: P. Cholin, 1626, 829).
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 395

2 Maccabees, an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene’s five-book history, was

issued with its two prefatory festal letters before Pompey’s time, perhaps as
early as 124 b.c. (so M. Goodman in Schürer et al., 532–4; similarly, J. C. H.
Lebram and J. W. van Henten in van Henten, Entstehung, 248–9). Bowersock,
9–13, suggests that the section on martyr-like deaths (6:18–7:42), which (by
contrast with the emphasis of the book elsewhere) lacks any reference to the
temple, may have been interpolated at a relatively late date, perhaps after the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; but any looseness in its attachment to the
context is also well accounted for by ‘the painful labour of abridgement’ (2:26),
and its silence on the temple follows naturally from the author’s or abridger’s
remark that even the temple is of less account in God’s eyes than the nation
(ἔqnoV, 5:19)—which is prominent, together with the ‘race’ (g énoV), in the
ensuing story of the brethren (7:16, 37–8). The section on martyrdom has
other thematic links with the rest of the book. Thus, admiration for the choice
of death rather than idolatry, even in appearance (6:21–8), agrees with fear and
grief on behalf of the dead who did appear to have lapsed (12:38–45); similarly,
the effectual intercession of the faithful brethren (7:37–8) coheres well with the
heavenly intercession of the righteous (15:11–16). Finally, it has been shown
that in vocabulary this section is close to 9:1–18 and is indistinguishable from
the rest of the historical narrative, in the structure of which it is pivotal (van
Henten in Entstehung, 132–6, 248). Bowersock’s redating of 6:18–7:42 therefore
seems unlikely. More probably, this section comes from the Hasmonaean
period, like the material in 2 Maccabees on the saints and the afterlife with
which it is thematically linked.
Thus the New Testament, in the light of the Apocrypha and other pre-
Christian Jewish writings, could reasonably be interpreted as attesting a Jewish
view of departed patriarchs, prophets and others as living (Mark, Matthew,
Luke), interceding (2 Maccabees, Luke), and present, none the less, in their
tombs (Matthew). It also attests a corresponding Jewish custom of honouring
the tombs of the patriarchs, prophets and righteous (Matthew and Luke-
Acts). This is confirmed by Josephus on the patriarchal tomb in Hebron and
Abraham’s terebinth nearby (B.J. iv 532–3, using the word deíknutai of both),
and on the miraculous protection of the tomb of David and Solomon (Ant.
xvi 179–83), and by Cassius Dio (lxix 14, 2) on the ill-omened collapse of the
monument of Solomon. Later evidence includes targumic and rabbinic texts
396 Messianism among Jews and Christians

attesting reverence for and hagiographical treatment of patriarchs, prophets,

kings, the slain, and the disciples of the Wise. In this material viewed as a
whole the recurrent conception of patrons who appear in visions and whose
tombs are honoured recalls aspects of the hero-cult, but is particularly close to
the Christian cult of saints.
Three further bodies of evidence have formed landmarks in discussion,
but some inferences often drawn from them are not presupposed here. First,
at the end of a narrative of the Maccabees in the sixth-century Antiochene
chronicler John Malalas, Antiochus IV’s successor Demetrius is said to have
given Judas Maccabaeus their remains, ‘and they buried them in Antioch
the Great in the place called Kerateon, for there was a synagogue of the
Jews there; for Antiochus had punished them a little outside the city of
Antioch, on the ever-weeping mountain opposite Zeus Casius’.5 Their story
as transmitted in the midrash appears in one amplified form of the Book
of Comfort by the eleventh-century Nissim ibn Shahin of Cairouan with
the addition that ‘king Caesar’ had them buried in one grave and built a
synagogue over them.6 It has been concluded (for example, by Bammel,
81–2; Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 21–3, 124; Cohen, 158–9) that an ancient
Antiochene synagogue stood at the martyrs’ reputed tomb. Yet Malalas may
reflect a provenance-narrative attached to the Antiochene Christian cult of
the Maccabees (as noted by Dupont-Sommer, 71), in a church which had
been a synagogue—perhaps an adaptation of Josephus on the restoration of
plunder from the Jerusalem temple to the Jews of Antioch by Antiochus IV’s
successors (B.J. vii 44); and the additional note in the textual tradition of
the Book of Comfort recalls many similar notices of tombs at synagogues in
mediaeval Jewish itineraries. These passages indicate ancient Christian and
mediaeval Jewish veneration of a Maccabaean tomb at Antioch, but need not
imply an earlier Jewish cult (Rajak, 68–9). This should not be ruled out, but
it is not presupposed here.

5
L. Dindorf (ed.), Joannis Malalis Chronographia, viii, reprinted in PG 97.324 (the context is discussed
by Bickerman).
6
Obermann, ‘Sepulchre’; Obermann, The Arabic Original of Ibn Shâhîn’s Book of Comfort, known as
the Hiibbûr Yaphê of R. Nissîm b. Ya’aqobh (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1933), Plate XXVI
(f.24b); p. 28; S. Abramson (ed.), R. Nissim Gaon: Libelli Quinque (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim,
1965), 367–8 (Nissim’s original text probably said only that he had told their tale elsewhere; ET by
W. M. Brinner, An Elegant Composition concerning Relief after Adversity (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1977), xx; 29, n. 7; 32.
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 397

Secondly, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs their lives and prophetic
visions are treated hagiographically, their burial at Hebron is stressed, they are
to rise from the dead among the first (Test. Judah 25:1, Benj. 10:6–7), and the
related Judaean burial sites of Rachel and Zilpah or Asenath are mentioned
(Test. Jos. 20:3). It is assumed that Levi and Judah are pre-eminent. This point,
viewed together with Qumran attestation of the Testament of Levi, suggests
that the work has a pre-Christian Jewish core. The Testaments were accordingly
a pillar of Jeremias’ Heiligengräber, together with the Lives of the Prophets.
In the present writer’s view, the hagiographical features of the Testaments
should probably be assigned to their pre-Christian core, through comparison
with 2 Maccabees and Josephus. Here, however, the Testaments, Christian in
their present form (as M. de Jonge especially has underlined), are not used
as direct evidence for Jewish thought and custom. Instead, they contribute to
the argument as a witness to continuity between Judaism and Christianity, an
aspect of them which de Jonge (206–7) has also stressed; comparable continuity
between Jewish and Christian usage at the end of the Second Temple period
is suggested here.
Thirdly, the Lives of the Prophets have evoked similar debate. They expand
on birth and burial places and the miracles performed there. Jeremias followed
predecessors, including S. Klein, in viewing the Lives as a Christian version
of Jewish material; its Jewish source was compiled at latest not long after Bar
Kokhba, and more probably before Titus captured Jerusalem. D. Satran, on the
other hand, allows that individual Jewish traditions may have contributed to
the Lives, but maintains that the composition as a whole should be regarded
as a Byzantine Christian work; he takes a position questioned here, that at
the end of the Second Temple period there was no Jewish cult of the saints
sufficiently developed to provide a Sitz im Leben for a Jewish writing on these
lines. A. M. Schwemer, by contrast, argues for a Jewish source earlier than the
destruction of the temple, and traces in a detailed commentary the contacts of
the Lives with Jewish tradition. In the present writer’s view the Lives, suitable
as they were to Byzantine Palestine, probably also attest much earlier Jewish
veneration of the prophets and their tombs. Here, however, this is not taken
for granted.
Lastly, this review of some landmarks should include two archaeological
finds published after Jeremias’ Heiligengräber. First, in the necropolis of Beth
398 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Shearim in south-western Galilee, walled meeting places with stone benches

were identified over two of the catacombs. This interpretation of the finds,
advanced by N. Avigad in 1971 in the light of rabbinic texts (see below),
seemed to strengthen the possibility that in the third and fourth centuries
Jews, not unlike Christians, assembled at tombs to honour the dead, despite
Pentateuchal warnings of impurity there (Num. 19:16–19, noted in Didascalia
xxvi (vi 21–2) as ostensibly discouraging Christian cemetery assemblies);
the Mishnah indeed envisages that people dwell among tomb-monuments,
and that they may touch the sides of them without uncleanness (Erub. 5.1,
Ohol. 7.1). It therefore seems inexact to speak of ‘a fundamental difference
of ideas’ between Jews and Christians on the dead (with Lane Fox, 447–8).
Obermann, ‘Sepulchre’, 263–5 more justly recognized among ancient Jews a
tendency to revere relics and tombs alongside the tendency to restrict contact
with the dead.
Secondly, Old Testament scenes hitherto unattested in Christian art were
found at the fourth-century Via Latina catacomb in Rome, published by
A. Ferrua in 1960; their contacts with the haggadah strengthened the view
already advanced on the basis of other evidence by E. R. Goodenough and
others that early Christian paintings of the Old Testament saints might have
had Jewish models (see, for example, G. Stemberger on the depictions of the
patriarchs). The impression left by targum and midrash that Jews treated the
biblical worthies hagiographically was thereby reinforced.
The literary and archaeological evidence just reviewed suggests that Jews
regarded their saints as inspired patrons and honoured their tombs at least
from the Hasmonaean period onwards. This can be said without the appeal to
an inferred Jewish cult of the Maccabees which has sometimes been made, and
without citation of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Lives of the
Prophets, which are prominent among the many sources adduced by Jeremias.
Although these works probably preserve ancient Jewish tradition, it is desirable
to see if a case can be made, as has been attempted here, simply by confronting
the rich New Testament material with evidence generally accepted as Jewish.
The argument outlined so far may at this point be further elucidated by an
addition to the text as first printed. Some of the objections envisaged above
were expressed again in a study of Jewish pilgrimage in Greek and Roman
Egypt by A. Kerkeslager, published in the year when this essay first appeared,
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 399

and not available when the foregoing paragraphs were written. He brings
forward further material for discussion with regard to holy places, notably
in an extended argument for Jewish interest in Mount Sinai, and for the
currency throughout the Greek and Roman periods of the identification of
Sinai with a mountain near Madyan in north-western Arabia (Kerkeslager,
146–213). He judges the material specifically from Egypt, however, to be
sparse (103), although his treatment of it could have included two Egyptian
Jewish institutions which he does not discuss, the festival and place of prayer
founded at ‘rose-bearing Ptolemais’ in lower Egypt (3 Macc. 7:17–21), and
the Septuagint-festival of Pharos (section III (i), below). On the question of
Jewish concern with the righteous and holy departed, not simply in Egypt
but also elsewhere, he correspondingly stresses the limited nature of evidence
for pilgrimage to tombs in the Second Temple period, and the possible
discontinuities between Jewish and Christian custom.
On evidence for Jewish pilgrimage, he accepts that the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs reflect non-Christian Judaism, but follows D. Satran in
regarding the Lives of the Prophets as essentially a Christian work; he does
not mention A. M. Schwemer’s commentary and argument for earlier dating.
He emphasizes that, if the evidence of the Lives and of an inferred Jewish
cult of the Maccabees is excluded, Jewish pilgrimage to tombs in the Second
Temple period may seem far more limited than was suggested by Jeremias
(Kerkeslager, 134–8; cf. 143–4, on the Egyptian burial and translation of
Jeremiah described in the Lives of the Prophets). In the argument offered
above it was urged, however, that even if these debated bodies of evidence
are excluded, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as well, the New
Testament, 2 Maccabees and other sources of the Second Temple period still
exhibit departed patriarchs, prophets and others as saint-like figures whose
tombs are honoured.
Secondly, Kerkeslager tends to minimize continuity between Jewish and
Christian observance by noting conflict of opinion on the righteous dead
among Jews at the time of Christian origins, the seemingly greater importance
of kinship and national identity in Jewish observance, and the potential
influence among Jews later on of fresh developments, especially the tendency
to treat rabbis as holy men and the growth of the Christian cult of the saints
(Kerkeslager, 132–6, 140–2, 224).
400 Messianism among Jews and Christians

Conflict of opinion on the departed is considered in the reviews of evidence

for commemoration and for concepts of a saintly class in sections III (i) and
(ii), below; Christian influence is considered at the end of III (i). It is urged here
that, despite differences of opinion on after-life, the trend towards regarding
the mighty and righteous dead as a company of the holy who are dear to God
was strong at the end of the Second Temple period. That appears plainly when,
as in the present argument, evidence for pilgrimage and the honouring of
tombs is viewed together with literary and other evidence, already substantial
by the end of the Second Temple period, for commemoration of the righteous
and for the presupposition of a body of righteous departed and the circulation
of legends concerning them (sections III (i)–(iii), below).
It is in this context that the veneration of rabbis is illustrated in section III
(i) below in connection with Meron, Khirbet Shema and Beth Shearim, in
III (ii) from Beth Shearim epitaphs of departed teachers, and in III (iii) from
dream-visions of rabbinic teachers and from narratives of Simeon b. Yohai
and his son. For the argument offered here, there is no need to deny that such
veneration of near-contemporary figures will have given fresh impetus to
commemoration of the fathers and righteous of old, as seems to have been the
case at an earlier time in 2 Maccabees, in the vision of the recently-dead Onias
together with the prophet Jeremiah. What is suggested, rather, is that a long-
standing tradition of commemoration will have been continually renewed by
the incorporation into it of contemporary righteous or slain, from the Second
Temple period onwards (compare Ecclesiasticus and Hebrews, as cited at the
beginning of III (ii), below).
Hence the argument outlined here and below does not rule out the possibility
of Christian influence, but treats it as converging with inner-Jewish tradition
which has also already played a part in the development of Christian custom.
Similarly, contrasts between Jewish and Christian observance need not be ruled
out, but it is urged that resemblances also be given due weight; thus Kerkeslager
(142) justly notes that the encouragement of pilgrimage centres by Herod the
Great (see chapter 3, above) and by later Christian bishops is comparable, but
he does not allow this point to modify his overall contrast between Jewish and
Christian practice. Other modifications to this contrast could be suggested.
Thus the importance of kindred and nation which for Kerkeslager (139–40,
142, 146) characterizes Jewish as opposed to Christian pilgrimage finds some
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 401

correspondence in the quasi-national church-consciousness exemplified in the

Christian martyr-cult (Van Henten, ‘The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian
People’). A further contrast is drawn by Kerkeslager (140–2) between third-
century and later Christian hope for benefits from honoured saints, and earlier
Jewish care for the departed without expectation of prayers from them—care
envisaged either simply as a duty (notably in Tobit) or as a means of gaining
public esteem (as gospel passages on the adornment of sepulchres might
suggest). This contrast too can be modified, however, by reference to the early
depictions of the prayer of righteous souls noted above from 1 Enoch and 2
Maccabees, and to the even earlier biblical view that God specially remembers
the patriarchs, the matriarchs and the meek—a Pentateuchal view which
underlies, as noted in section III (i) below, Philo’s conviction that the ancestors
intercede effectually for their descendants.
Hence, although the developed Christian cult of the saints should not be
unthinkingly merged with Jewish practice of the Second Temple period, there
are striking indications of continuity between Jewish and Christian custom and
belief. Such continuity is further illustrated, as noted above, when discussion
of pilgrimage and tombs is enlarged to include other forms of commemoration
of the departed and beliefs and legends about them. These further topics are
considered in the following section.

III

The material reviewed so far has documented the treatment of the departed
righteous as patrons and the honour given to their tombs, before, during, and
after the time of Christian origins. Now this mainly chronological review of
evidence, beginning from the New Testament, needs supplementation by fuller
treatment of forms of commemoration, and the accompanying conceptions of
a saintly class and legends of the righteous.

(i) Commemoration
The prime importance of public commemoration as evidence for cult was
noted above, with reference to Delehaye on the martyrs. In their case a festal
402 Messianism among Jews and Christians

day forms the central commemoration. For the holy and righteous of ancient
Judaism the anniversary of death will also in some cases have been marked,
with fasting and with eulogy, and sometime with assembly at tombs; but a
further range of public commemorative practice comes into view, connected
with biblical reading, prayer and festivals.
First, as already noted, the majority of these figures were biblical. Their
naming when the law and the prophets were publicly read will have functioned
as commemoration, recalling the legends which enhanced their individual
vitality, and their place as lively members of the congregation of saints (see
below).
Secondly, they were remembered in communal prayer. In the Hebrew Bible
the remembrance of individual figures is already important within the broader
remembrance of divine deliverance which became characteristic of post-exilic
Israel (Childs, 74–80). God remembers the patriarchs and matriarchs (Gen.
8:1, 19:39, 30:22; Lev. 26:45; Ps. 105:42), and the meek (Ps. 9:12, 18); these
passages are echoed in Ezekiel Tragicus 106, discussed in chapter 2, above,
and in Philo (Praem. 165–6) when he says that the founders of the race are
remembered by God, and intercede effectually. In other biblical passages, God
is asked to remember them again, as in Exod. 32:13; Deut. 9:27 (patriarchs);
2 Chron 6:42; Ps. 132:1 (David). This petition was later continued in prayer
for remembrance of the patriarchs and their covenant, as in 2 Macc. 1:2,
1:25, and the Words of the Luminaries, 4Q504 fr.3 ii, 505 fr.124, and later in
the request for remembrance of the fathers and the messiah together with
all Israel in the prayer ya’aleh ve-yavo’ in the festal Amidah (Sopherim 19.7,
42b; Elbogen, Heinemann and Scheindlin, 51, 112; Singer and Brodie, 52); on
comparable Christian prayer for remembrance of the people and the saints,
and on midrashic association of the remembrance-prayer in 2 Chron. 6:42
with David’s body, see this section, below. Israel likewise remembers divine
deliverance specifically at the hand of the patriarchs and Moses and Aaron
(Isa. 63:11; Ps. 77:20, 105:5–27), and the righteous are remembered (Ps. 112:6;
Prov 10:7); as noted above, in later hymnody they are praised (Ecclus. 44:1–
15), and their souls are called on to bless the Lord (Dan. 3:86 lxx). Many
of these texts from the Hebrew Bible were included before the time of the
Mishnah among the Remembrance-verses recited at New Year (R.H. 4.5).
The biblical prominence of the remembrance of the righteous encouraged its
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 403

continuation, and formed part of the context in which their stories were read
and amplified.
Thirdly, commemoration of the righteous formed an element in many
festivals and fasts. The three pilgrim feasts, especially Passover, were of course
connected with Moses, their founder or renewer in the exodus (Lev. 23:44,
Josephus, Ant. iv 203), and with David and Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah;
they came to be linked also with the patriarchs, as in Jub. 6:17–27 (Noah and
Weeks), 16.20–31 (Abraham and Tabernacles). In the later Roman empire,
the fasts of Ninth Ab and the Day of Atonement were connected not only
with destruction and sin but also with the martyrs under Antiochus and
Hadrian (Obermann, ‘Sepulchre’), and Purim was preceded on 12th Adar by
commemoration of martyrs under Trajan (Horbury, ‘Pappus’, 290); and the
network of association between the biblical saints and the feasts and fasts is
evident in the piyyuṭim for the various days and seasons (instances in Horbury,
‘Yose’, 152–5, 169–71; pp. 334–8, 352–3, above).
Post-biblical figures like the Maccabees, the Hadrianic martyrs and
venerated rabbis were therefore drawn through the feasts and fasts into the
company of the biblical saints. This association is somewhat comparable with
the commemoration of Old Testament saints together with others in eastern
church calendars, and in Christian prayer like that of Const. Ap. viii 12, quoted
above, asking God to remember Old Testament and later saints, the departed,
and the faithful (for similar formulae from Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius and
the Liturgy of S. James see Brightman and Hammond, 56–7, 466, 469 n. 13).
Fourthly, in the Second Temple period some individual commemorations
resemble pagan and Christian days in honour of heroes, monarchs and martyrs.
The pious observed a calendar of fasts and feasts (Zech. 7:3–5, 8:19; Judith 8:6;
Megillath Taanith) which will have included commemorations on the lines of
the recurrent public mourning envisaged for Josiah (2 Chron. 35:25), Gedaliah
(seventh-month fast as interpreted in the name of Simeon b. Yohai, R.H. 18b),
and Jephthah’s daughter (Ps.-Philo, Ant. Bibl. 40.8). In these instances it was
probably envisaged that notable figures received a more widespread form of
the mourning customary on the anniversary of the death of a father or teacher
(Ned. 12a names these anniversaries together with the fast of Gedaliah). Two
greater festivals instituted in this period are strongly linked with the righteous:
Hanukkah with its founders, Judas and his brethren (1 Macc. 4:59; 2 Macc.
404 Messianism among Jews and Christians

10:1–8), and with the tribal princes through the reading of Num. 7 (Meg. 3.6;
chapter 5, p. 192 above); and Purim, with Esther and Mordecai (14th Adar was
‘the Mardochaean Day’, 2 Macc. 15:36). Similarly, the annual Septuagint-feast
on the Pharos island will have included honour to the translators, whom Philo
calls spirit-possessed (Mos. ii 7) and whose cells were shown to visitors (Meg.
9a; Ps.-Justin, Coh. Gr. 13). Interest in individuals appears too when villains
are remembered beside heroes; the Mardochaean Day was preceded by the
impious Nicanor’s Day (2 Macc. 15:36; Meg. Taan. xii 3), and Purim condemns
Haman and Zeresh while exalting Mordecai and Esther.
Another public observance, in this case a network of local observances,
is formed by frequentation of the tombs of the righteous. New Testament
indications of this custom can be confirmed, as noted above in section II, even
when the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Lives of the Prophets are
left aside. A further indirect confirmation is offered by attestations of concern
for the bodies and bones of saints, including Ecclus. 46:12, 49:10 (the judges and
the twelve prophets); Matt. 27:53 (buried saints), Acts 2:29, 13:34–7 (David)
and Heb. 11:22 (Joseph), cited above in section II. This concern coheres with
interpretation of Ezek. 37 as a prophecy of resurrection (4Q385.2 (Deutero-
Ezekiel); Justin, I Apol., 52; Dura Europus synagogue, north wall). It later
reappears dramatically in the view that the dedication of Solomon’s temple was
accomplished through the bodily presence of the departed David. Since fire
descended to consume the sacrifices only after Solomon had prayed ‘remember
the mercies of David thy servant’ (2 Chron. 6:42–7:1), in Palestinian rabbinic
exposition it came to be held that this grace—and also the admission of the
ark into the Holy of Holies (Ps. 24:7–10)—was obtained not just by the merits
of David (so Judah b. Ezekiel in the name of Rab, M.K. 9a, Shabb. 30a), but
through his bodily presence and intercession; either he was raised to life again, as
David’s own psalm ‘for the dedication of the temple’ might suggest (Ps. 30:1, 4),
or Solomon brought his coffin into the temple when he prayed ‘Remember’.
Midrash Qoheleth (Eccl. R.) iv i (4), Pes. R. ii, 6b, on Ps. 30:1, and Tanhuma
(Wilna, 1833, reissued New York and Berlin: Horeb, 1927), Exodus, Wa’era, 7, f.
96a–b, on Exod. 7:1, give both these interpretations; Tanhuma Buber, Exodus,
f.11a–b, on Exod. 7:1, has the second interpretation only.7

7
For further sources see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, iv (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1968), 296, n. 65; the importance here attached to David’s relics was underlined
by Smith, Studies, i, 131–2, n. 73.
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 405

Interpretation of tomb-visits with this concern in view likewise appears in

rabbinic texts. Caleb went to the tomb of the patriarchs at Hebron to seek their
intercession, praying ‘my fathers, seek mercy for me’ (Soṭah 34b, in the name
of Raba). The development of a relic-oriented pilgrimage centre is reflected in
the story of the pious theft of the body of Eleazar, son of Simeon ben Yohai, by
the people of Meron in Galilee from nearby Gischala; his sainted father, buried
in Meron, had provoked them to this deed by repeated dream-apparitions
(PRK xi 23, among other places).
Can assembly at tombs be envisaged among ancient Jews, as these rabbinic
stories in conjunction with pre-rabbinic sources suggest, on the lines followed
by Christians at martyr-tombs and in associated churches? Vitringa, 219–20,
answered Yes, judging that ancient synagogues were often built at notable
sepulchres. He compared Matt. 23:29 with the mediaeval Jewish itineraries of
Benjamin of Tudela and others, where venerated tombs in the Holy Land and
elsewhere are often said to be at or near a synagogue; so the thirteenth-century
itinerary of Jehiel of Paris registers tombs just mentioned ‘At Meron, in the
synagogue: R. Simeon b. Yohai and R. Eleazar his son’ (Grünhut and Adler,
ii, 141). From the years between the New Testament and these mediaeval
texts Vitringa cited Lam. R., Proem, 25, on 2 Chron. 32:33 ‘they made him
[Hezekiah] honour at his death’; Judah b. Simon (fourth century) explained:
they built a house of assembly (beth va’adh) above the tomb of Hezekiah, and
when they went up to it they used to say to him ‘Teach us’. Vitringa stressed
that the historical accuracy of all these reports mattered less for his argument
than their presuppositions.
In later study, however, mediaeval synagogue-tombs were linked with
Islamic influence, although Obermann (‘Sepulchre’, 265) urged that some of the
synagogues concerned were probably pre-Islamic. More recently, excavations
at Khirbet Shema, the ancient Galilaean Tekoa, near Meron, showed that the
monument known as the Mausoleum of Shammai and two other tombs were
‘strikingly proximate’ to the third—and fourth-century synagogue (Meyers,
Kraabel and Strange, 121–2). This is among evidence which led Cohen, 168–9,
to judge that in antiquity synagogues were sometimes deliberately built near
tombs.
This question is still discussed, but Beth Shearim finds, as noted above
in section II, have been among evidence prompting reconsideration of the
broader question of assembly at tombs. The tiers of stone seating within an
406 Messianism among Jews and Christians

apsed wall above the monumental façades of catacombs 14 and 20 at Beth

Shearim were interpreted in the light of Lam. R. on Hezekiah by N. Avigad
as houses of assembly, where the mighty dead beneath were eulogized and
remembered in prayer and study (Avigad, 44–5, 83). A courtyard with benches
at a monumental tomb in Jericho has been judged to attest this custom at the
end of the Second Temple period (Hachlili and Killebrew, 112).
Literary and archaeological material therefore strongly suggests that Jews
in antiquity did assemble at tombs to honour the dead. Such customs have
been ascribed to Christian influence (as by Bickerman, 204; Smith, i, 131–2,
n. 73; Taylor, 324–5; Tsafrir, 375); but it is unlikely to be their main source,
given the relatively early witness to this practice at Jericho, and the New
Testament and other pre-rabbinic evidence noted above.
To summarize, commemoration of various kinds can be traced from
the Second Temple period down to the later Roman empire: in public
bible-reading and prayer; in the association of the pilgrim-feasts with the
patriarchs; in the foundation of festivals like Purim, Hanukkah, and the
Septuagint-feast, marking deliverance or blessing accorded at the hand of
individuals; and in commemoration on the lines followed for the notable
dead, including annual fast-days, and often involving assembly and eulogy
at a venerated tomb.
The potential significance of commemoration in its simplest forms is
underlined by instances of invocation (Dan 3:86 lxx; Mark 15:35; Lam. R.
Proem 25; Soṭah 34b). The correlated expectation of intercession by the saints
has appeared in 2 Macc. 7:37–8, 15:14 (cited in the previous section) and in
Philo, Praem. 165, and Soṭah 34b (this section, above). Warnings that such
intercession is excluded, at judgment day (2 Esd. 7:102–5; 2 Baruch 85:12) or
altogether (Ps. Philo, Ant. Bibl. 33.5), seem to presuppose widespread reliance
on it (as expressed in Ps.-Philo, Ant. Bibl. 33.4).

(ii) The assembly of saints

This scattered yet continous evidence for commemoration of various kinds
corresponds to continuous but perhaps somewhat neglected evidence for the
vitality of ancient Jewish conceptions of the company of departed saints. In
the Greek and Roman periods Jews (like Christians) lacked general terms
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 407

corresponding to modern English ‘saint’, although a step in this direction

was taken when sanctus was used to render both ἅg ioV and ὅsioV in Latin
biblical versions. Jews recognized, nevertheless, a glorious company of the
holy and righteous—‘our fathers’, biblical ἔndoxoi or ‘anshe hesedh (Ecclus.
44:1) to whom might be added others more recent (Ecclus. 50:1; Heb. 11:35),
extending to the whole company of the departed ‘righteous’ (1 En. 25:7).
Groups identified among them included ‘the fathers’ and ‘the prophets’,
encountered above in the biblical Apocrypha, the New Testament, rabbinic
and patristic writings, and ‘the slain’, common to Rev. 6:10 and rabbinic
usage, as in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs, ‘the ten slain by the kingdom’,
‘asarah haruge malkuth (Reeg, 4*–6*). Old Testament and New Testament
adjectives in the fields of ‘righteous’ and ‘holy’ are well known as applied to
the whole community (a usage stressed by Delehaye, 1–73, and Proksch and
Kuhn on ἅg ioV), and, in the second case, also to the angels; but departed
saints are also described in these terms in biblical and later texts, as emerges
in part from Büchler, Mach, Schrenk on díkaioV, and Hauck on ὅsioV.
These descriptions give further witness to the importance of a saintly class
for Jews in antiquity.
In general presentations of ancient Judaism the conception of a saintly
class has accordingly had some limited notice. Examples include Bousset and
Gressmann, 189–90, 198–9, on the martyrs and patriarchs and their merits,
against the background of the pious movements of the later Second Temple
period; Volz, 353–5, on the heavenly ‘Gemeinde der Heiligen’ envisaged
in views of the hereafter; and Urbach, 487–511, assessing the place of the
legends and merits of the righteous in rabbinic thought. Sometimes, however,
the conception as a whole has remained implicit, when attention has been
concentrated on one aspect of it, such as the merit of the fathers (as in Moore,
i, 536–44). Not dissimilarly, E. P. Sanders implies the importance of ideas of a
saintly class when he includes Philo (Praem. 165) on the founders of the race
as remembered by God, and general Jewish hope for a purified community,
within his depiction of ‘common Judaism’; but he does not specifically discuss
the broader circle of practice and belief associated with the tombs of the
righteous (Sanders, 272, 290–4). Hence the conception of an assembly of
saints is readily associated with the ancient church, but its currency among
Jews can easily be overlooked.
408 Messianism among Jews and Christians

From the Second Temple period onwards, however, many held that the holy
and righteous rest in the tomb, but their souls form a favoured company; at
the time of redemption, they will appear in glory, together with the angels and
perhaps fighting on their side. These views were not shared by those who ‘say
that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit’ (Acts 23:8); but they were
of long standing when Christianity arose, and continued to be potent in the
Jewish community.
In the Greek period, development towards this outlook appears in the lxx
Pentateuch. Thus the phrase ‘souls (spirits) of the righteous’, which became
widespread (1 En. 22:9; Dan. 3:86 lxx, Wisd. 3:1; Heb. 12:23, cited above; 2
Esd. 7:99; Sifre Deut. 344, quoted below), seems already to be familiar when
Balaam is made to ask that his soul may die e̓n yucai͂V dikaíwn (Num. 23:10
lxx). Again, in the Blessing of Moses, Hebrew which may be translated ‘all his
holy ones are in thy hands’ is rendered ‘all the h̔giasménoi are under his hands’
(Deut. 33:3 lxx). These ‘sanctified’ could be taken as all Israel, with Targums
Onkelos and Ps.-Jonathan, and probably with Acts 20:32, 26:18, alluding to
Deut. 33:3; but a more specialized understanding was also current, for the
verse was applied to martyrs in particular (4 Macc. 17:19), just as Jacob and
the patriarchs in particular as well as the Lord’s whole portion in general were
‘sanctified’ (so, in prayers, 2 Macc. 1:25, cited above, on ‘the fathers’; 3 Macc.
6:3 e̓pì h̔giasménou tékna Ἰakẃb, merídoV h̔giasménhV sou laón). The
familiarity of such special interpretations is suggested by their later recurrence.
Sifre on Deut. 33:3 includes two exegeses recalling 4 Macc. 17:19: the ‘holy’ in
God’s hands are those who have given up their souls for Israel, like Moses and
David; or they are ‘the souls of the righteous’ (naphshotheyhem shel tsaddiqim)
in their storehouse, ‘bound up in the bundle of life’ (Sifre Deut. 344). With
this line of interpretation in view, it seems likely that Wisd. 3:1 ‘the souls of
the righteous are in the hand of God’ is based on Deut. 33:3 in a form closer to
mt than lxx, ‘all his holy ones’ being understood as the souls of the righteous.
The souls of the righteous were therefore identified as a group from the time
of the lxx Pentateuch onwards, and by the end of the Second Temple period
their seven orders in their promptuaria are elaborately described (2 Esdr 7:88–
101); the ‘holy’ could now be envisaged not just as Israel or the angels, but
also as the martyrs or the righteous. The use of adjectives corresponding to
‘righteous’ and ‘holy’ confirms the currency of the conception of a company
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 409

of saints. díkaioi, ‘righteous ones’, already documented, recurs in this sense

among early Christians, as in 1 Clem. 30.7 oi̔ patéreV h̔mw͂n oi̔ díkaioi, and
by reflection in such phrases as epistolae Pauli, viri iusti (Mart. Scill. 12), and
in quotation of Ps. 115:6 (116:15) on the death of the ‘pious’ as honorabilis
mors iustorum (Tert. Marc. iv 39, 8; Cypr. Test. iii 16, Fortunat. xii). The range
of terms such as ‘holy’ or ‘pious’, also current in this sense, could include
honorific reference to the sanctity of rulers, as in second-century application
of ὅsioV and sanctus to the Roman emperor (Delehaye, 4–5; IEphes. 3217 tou͂
o̔siwtátou Αu̓tokrátoroV).8
For qedoshim/ἅgioi, ‘holy’, see, as well as passages quoted in connection with
Deut. 33:3: Isa. 4:3 lxx (ἅgioi), on the righteous remnant; in Qumran texts,
qedoshey ‘ammo (1QM vi 6, xvi 10; 4Q511 (Songs of Sage) fr. 2 i.6), probably
referring to a special group (at 4Q511 fr. 35.1–8, human holy ones seem to
be associated with angels; see Puech, 583–4, n. 58); Rev. 15:6, 16 (ἅgioi); and
Rev. 13:10, 14:12 (u̔pomonh̀ tw͂n a̔g íwn), where ‘holy’ has probably replaced
‘meek’ in an existing biblical phrase (Ps. 9:19 ‘hope of the meek’). Established
terminology is thus followed when the Matthaean ‘saints’ asleep in their tombs
are ἅgioi (Matt. 27:52), and is later continued with qedoshim when ‘the saints
who are in the earth’ (Ps. 16:2) are the buried saints (Midrash Tehillim xvi 2), or,
in Ber. R. (Wilna: Romm, 1887) 97.1, in the name of Azariah (fourth century),
the patriarchs are addressed by Jacob in the words of Ps. 34:10 ‘Ye his holy ones’.
For ὅsioi/hasidim, ‘pious’, see Dan 3:87 lxx (ὅsioi kaì tapeinoì τῇ
kardíᾳ); 2 (Syriac) Baruch 85:1, where intercession has been made by the
righteous and prophets and ‘pious’ (ḥsy, probably reflecting ὅsioi);9 Ps.-
Philo, Ant. Bibl. 33.6 (Deborah lamented as sancta). Jewish as well as gentile
usage could then have been evoked by a Leontopolis epitaph (c. 150–50 B.C.)
ending yuch̀ dʼ ei̓V o̔síouV ἔpete (CIJ 1510 = Horbury and Noy, 33, line
10). The patriarchs as a company of ὅsioi were likewise in view when Philo
(Praem. 166) wrote that the souls of the founders of the nation can intercede
in virtue of their o̔sióthV.

8
Quoted by P. G. W. Glare, with A. A. Thomson, Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996), 232, s. ὅsioV.
9
The reading wherein ‘holy’ lacks the copula and can be taken to qualify ‘prophets’ is preferred by
Bogaert, ii, 157, on the ground that righteous and prophets form a pair in 85.3 and 12; but 85.12 in
fact has the triad fathers, prophets, and righteous, answering well to a triad in 85.1. On Syriac hsyʾ
as regularly rendering ὅsioV see Puech, 23.
410 Messianism among Jews and Christians

All these terms recur correspondingly in later Jewish funerary contexts.

Epitaphs at home and abroad quote Prov. 10:7 ‘the memory of the righteous is
for a blessing’ (LXX metʼ e̓gkwmíwn) (Avigad, 184–5, nos. 25–6; Noy, ii, no. 276);
in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs, God himself utters this text over R. Ishmael
(Reeg, 54*–57*). In Rome the deceased are wished sleep with the ὅsioi or díkaioi
(Noy, ii, index, 545) (compare cum sanctis, cum spirita sancta in Christian
epitaphs, Delehaye 30–1). In Palestine, you could be lamented with the cry
‘alas, the pious; alas, the meek’ (Tos. Soṭah 13.3), and be buried, if qualified, in
the ‘cave of the pious’ (M.K. 17a); at Beth She’arim departed teachers figure as
patéreV ὅsioi (Schwabe and Lifschitz no. 193) and qedoshim (Avigad no. 17).
Lastly, this company of departed saints will be vindicated in glory (1 En.
25:5–6; Dan 12:3; Wisd. 3:4–8, 5:16–17). The pattern followed in Wisdom for
the righteous was outlined for ὅsioi in the lxx Psalter, showing how verses
on hasidim were understood in the Hasmonaean period. ‘The Lord loves
judgment and will not forsake his pious; they shall be guarded for ever’ (Ps.
36: (37)28); he guards their souls, beasts may eat their flesh and their blood
may be shed, but their death is precious (tímioV) in his sight, they will be
gathered to him when he comes manifestly, and vengeance on the heathen is
their glory (Pss 96(97):10); 78(79):2–3 (applied to the slain ‘Asidaeans’, 1 Macc.
7:17); 115:6 (116:15); 49(50):5; 149:9). The ὅsioi and díkaioi are similarly
envisaged in the Psalms of Solomon, for example 14:3–10 (Büchler, 128–95).
The first phase of their vindication is exemplified by Jephthah’s daughter in
Ps.-Philo, Ant. Bibl. 40.4; her death is precious in God’s sight, an allusion to
Ps. 116:15 (115:6) implying that she is one of his saints, and she goes straight
into the bosom of the matriarchs, in sinum matrum suarum. Similarly, in later
midrash, the martyred R. Ishmael will be ‘in the bosom of the righteous ones’,
probably the patriarchs (Semahoth 8.8, 47a). Vindication is completed in ‘the
day of mercy of the righteous’ (Ps. Sol. 14:6), envisaged in later prayer when
New Year petitions inserted in the Amidah speak of the coming of ‘the son of
Jesse, thine anointed’ and the exultation of the righteous, upright, and pious
(Elbogen, Heinemann and Scheindlin, 118–19; modern text in Singer and
Brodie, 327–8).
From the Second Temple period onwards, therefore, many Jews envisaged
an assembly of departed saints or righteous souls, intercessors who awaited
a glorious vindication. This familiar Christian tenet was inherited from and
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 411

shared with Jews. Commemoration in its various forms took place against this
background.

(iii) Legend
One further set of mental furnishings must be indicated in this sketch of the
background against which Jews commemorated the righteous. A complex of
exegetical legend incorporated the biblical saints into an expanded biblical
narrative, already rich in the Greek period, and later manifest in targum,
midrash and piyyuṭ, as exemplified above. The strongly hagiographical
character of this tradition is not always brought to the fore in modern study,
but it was underlined by the Qumran literary finds noted above in section II,
for instance the portrait of Abraham as intercessor and healer in the Genesis
Apocryphon. Other early examples of such portraiture include Habakkuk as
Daniel’s victualler (Bel and the Dragon 33–9), and (here recalling gentile cult)
Moses as Thoth-Hermes in Artapanus (Eus. P.E. ix 27, 6), and probably Joseph
as Serapis (Tert. Nat ii 8; A. Z. 43a, in the name of Judah b. Ilai, discussed by
Mussies). The vitality of the biblical saints in communal thought emerges
especially when those who are little more than names in scripture receive full
depiction, as happens with Kenaz in Ps.-Philo or Serah daughter of Asher in
the midrash. Post-biblical figures perhaps acquired their own legends or ‘acts’,
comparable with those of the Christian martyrs, as is suggested by rabbinic
references to the death of Akiba (Goldberg) and to the Trajanic martyrs Pappus
and Lulianus (Horbury, ‘Pappus’); but in any case they were brought into the
broader legendary tradition on the biblical saints, in the manner exemplified
at the beginning of III (ii) above from Ecclesiasticus and Hebrews, and as their
share in festal commemoration and tomb-veneration would suggest. Thus
homily for the Paschal season as represented in PRK, cited above, passes from
the recovery of Joseph’s coffin from the Nile and its escort through the wilderness
with the not dissimilar ark of God, by way of an apparition of Serah (who looks
down from above during R. Johanan’s exposition to describe the divided Red
Sea), and stories of the Hadrianic martyrs and Simeon b. Yohai and his son,
to a final suggestion that each tribe brought up the bones of its own patriarch
from Egypt (PRK xi 12–25). Here narratives of biblical and rabbinic saints are
brought together within the context of reverence for the bones of the patriarchs.
412 Messianism among Jews and Christians

In the later Roman empire the biblical saints appear in Jewish representational
art, as attested in third-century wall-painting at Dura Europus and mosaic in
later Palestinian synagogue remains; when these are viewed together with non-
Jewish evidence from the Roman catacombs, including the Via Latina paintings
mentioned above, and also from early illustrated biblical manuscripts, it seems
likely that Jewish representation of the saints of Israel in art was not restricted
to Syria and Palestine. This Jewish phenomenon, in its early phases at the end of
the second century, would have been contemporary with the earliest evidence
for Christian representation of saints, for example in the Acts of John 27–9 and
in Irenaeus on the Carpocratians (Haer. i 25, 6).
Lastly, just as the potential significance of commemoration was underlined
by instances of invocation (at the end of part i in this section, above), so the
vitality of the figures portrayed in legend or art is confirmed by accounts of
their appearance in dream or vision. Examples have been met above in 2 Macc.
15:11–16 (Onias and Jeremiah); Mark 9:4–5 (Moses and Elijah); and PRK xi
13 (Serah), 23 (Simeon b. Yohai). The cultivation of such visions is attested
when Ecclesiastes Rabbah (ix 10, 1–2) names some who fasted to obtain
dream-visions of the dead (Horbury, ‘Pappus’, 289).
In section II it was shown from selected literary and archaeological
evidence, including rich New Testament material but without appeal to a
Jewish cult of the Maccabees or to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
and the Lives of the Prophets, that from the Hasmonaean period onwards
many Jews regarded the righteous and holy departed as patrons and honoured
their tombs. Now in section III various kinds of commemoration have been
identified (part i), including but not restricted to assembly at tombs, and
accompanied by invocation; and a sketch has been offered of background
conceptions which encouraged commemoration and endued it with
significance. The souls of the righteous formed an assembly of intercessors,
expecting a glorious vindication (this section, part ii); they included the
honoured names of scripture and recent history, actualized in detailed legend,
ultimately represented in synagogue art, and sometimes seen throughout the
period in dream or vision (part iii).
Public commemoration against this background can appropriately be called
cult. These righteous and holy, often honoured at tombs, resembled Greek
and Roman heroes as strongly as the Christian martyrs did in Theodoret’s
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 413

argument (section I, above); but ancient Jewish practice and belief in this
area had a still closer resemblance to the Christian cult of saints. This emerges
especially, as noted already, when it is remembered that in antiquity the two
communities were to a great extent oriented towards the same set of biblical
and early post-biblical righteous and holy. Moreover, commemoration against
the background sketched here was already prevalent in the Second Temple
period; it was inherited as well as shared by Christians.

IV

These considerations open a further avenue towards the origins of the cult of
Christ. It arose in a setting in which the departed righteous could be honoured
as patron-intercessors. Of course the Christ-cult is not simply one further
instance of this honour. Those who invoke Christ call themselves his own, and
name him together with God (1 Cor. 1:2–3, 3:23, 8:6). These characteristics
indeed recall attitudes to Moses (John 9:28; Exod. 14:31; Num. 21:5; Acts 6:11),
but thereby point also to other aspects of the setting, above all, in the writer’s
view, to reverence for Christ as messianic king (Horbury, Jewish Messianism
and the Cult of Christ).
Yet, as this example shows, there were also continuities between approaches
to the saints in Judaism and to Christ in Christianity. Two were indicated by
Jeremias and endorsed by Wilkinson, 464–5. First, Christ’s rôle as patron-
intercessor (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25) was characteristic of the righteous (cf.
1 John 2:1 on Christ ‘the righteous’ as paráklhtoV); it may be added that
at John 16:26, where the disciples loved by the Father do not need Christ’s
intercession, they themselves implicitly acquire this rôle. Further, ‘the messiah
of righteousness’ (4QpBless on Gen. 49:10) is one of the righteous, even though
he is not thereby fully classified.
Secondly, concern for the tombs of the righteous would have made Christian
concern for the tomb of Christ inevitable from the first. This view traverses
some interpretation of Mark 16:6 ou̓k ἔstin ὧde· h̓γ érqh, now including
H. D. Betz’s suggestion (138–9) that the saying is meant to rule out treatment of
Christ as a hero, a chthonian demigod whose power is bound up with his tomb
in the earth; the cult of heroes would have been familiar to Christians, as Betz
414 Messianism among Jews and Christians

emphasizes, but the gospel material noted in section II, above, including Matt.
27:52–3, Mark 9:5, suggests that they also inherited Jewish concern for saints
and their tombs. Against this background, the saying would be meant to affirm
that the reason for the known emptiness of this tomb was the resurrection. The
following words ἴde o̔ tópoV ὅpou ἔqhkan au̓tón are indeed consistent with
encouragement of pilgrimage.
Links between the cult of Christ and the cult of the saints of Israel have been
identified, therefore, but arguably the relationship between the two extends
further than these observations alone would suggest. First, the messianic
king is associated with the circle of the Fathers, the Holy, the Righteous and
the Slain; they include figures closely connected with messianic expectation,
notably Moses, Elijah, David and Hezekiah, and the messiah himself can be
classified as righteous, as just noted. Correspondingly, the exegetical narratives
of the advent and deeds of the messiah, based especially on Gen. 49, Num. 24
and Isa. 11 and already attested in the Greek Pentateuch and Qumran exegesis,
belong to the larger network of legends of the biblical and later righteous
discussed above. These interconnections are reflected in the synoptic tradition
when Jesus is identified within a range of possibilities afforded by past and
recent Israelite saints, together with the messiah (Mark 6:14–15, 8:28–9).
The apparition of Moses and Elijah to the disciples at the Transfiguration
(Mark 9:4) underlines the point that Christ is pictured in connection with the
company of the prophets and the righteous.
Then, correspondingly, the circle of ideas on the status and work of Christ
overlaps with that surrounding the saints of Israel, as instanced already in
the treatment of Christ as intercessor. Other common elements include the
expectation of the return or replication of notable figures, such as Moses,
David, Elijah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, and the consideration of such
figures as spiritual or angelic, for example Moses, sanctus et sacer spiritus (Ass.
Mos. 11:16). Again, there is a strong case for connection between conceptions
of ‘effective death’ as attested in Jewish accounts of the righteous slain and in
New Testament Christology (van Henten, ‘Martyrs as Heroes’, 311–12).
The development of the cult of Christ will then have been associated from
the beginning in various ways with the ascription of honour to the saints of
Israel. The Christ-cult had distinctive features, as noted already, but the Jewish
reverence for the glorious company of departed saints with which it was linked
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 415

will have helped to form a favourable environment for its growth. For the
Jewish and Christian cult of saints, as for the cult of Christ, there were Greek
and Roman counterparts; but the immediate origins of both Christian cults lay
rather in Jewish tradition and custom which itself belonged to the Greek and
Roman as well as the Jewish world.

Literature

N. Avigad, Beth Sheʾarim, Volume Three, The Archaeological Excavations during

1953–1958: The Catacombs 12–23 (Jerusalem, 1971)
E. Bammel, ‘Zum jüdischen Märtyrerkult’, TLZ lxxviii (1953), cols. 119–26, reprinted
with addendum in E. Bammel, Judaica (Tübingen, 1986), 79–85
H. D. Betz, ‘Heroenverehrung und Christusglaube. Religionsgeschichtliche
Beobachtungen zu Philostrats Heroicus’, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and
P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum
70. Geburtstag (3 vols., Tübingen, 1996), ii, 119–39
E. Bickerman, ‘Les Maccabées de Malalas’, reprinted from Byzantion xxi (1951) in
idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, ii (Leiden, 1980), 192–209
P. M. Bogaert, L’apocalypse syriaque de Baruch (2 vols., Paris, 1969)
W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen
Zeitalter (3rd edn., Tübingen, 1926)
G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge, 1995)
F. E. Brightman and C. E. Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i (Oxford, 1896,
reprinted 1967)
P. Brown, The Cult of the Saints, Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (London,
1981)
A. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.: the Ancient
Pious Men (London, 1922)
B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London, 1962)
W. Clarysse, ‘The Coptic Martyr Cult’, in Lamberigts and van Deun (eds.),
Martyrium, 377–95
S. J. D. Cohen, ‘Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue’, in L. I.
Levine (ed.), The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1987), 159–81
E. Dassmann, K. Thraede and J. Engemann (eds.), Akten des XII. Internationalen
Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie (2 vols., JAC Ergänzungsband xx, 1–2,
Münster, 1995)
H. Delehaye, Sanctus (Brussels, 1927)
416 Messianism among Jews and Christians

A. Dupont-Sommer, Le Quatrieme Livre des Machabées (Paris, 1939)

I. Elbogen, supplemented by J. Heinemann and others, ET by R. P. Scheindlin, Jewish
Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, New York and Jerusalem, 1993)
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965)
———, ‘The North African Cult of Martyrs’, in T. Klauser, E. Dassmann and
K. Thraede (eds.), Jenseitsvorstellungen in Antike und Christentum: Gedenkschrift
für Alfred Stuiber (JAC Ergänzungsband ix, Münster, 1982), 154–67
R. W. Funk, ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, in W. R. Farmer,
C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation:
Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge, 1967), 249–68
A. Goldberg, ‘Das Martyrium des Rabbi Aqiva. Zur Komposition einer
Märtyrererzählung (bBer 61b)’, FJB xii (1984), 1–82
L. Grünhut and M. N. Adler (eds.), Die Reisebeschreibungen des R. Benjamin von
Tudela (2 vols, Jerusalem, 1903)
R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, ‘Jewish Funerary Customs during the Second Temple
Period, in the Light of Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis’, PEQ cxv (1983), 109–32
F. Hauck s. ὅsioi, TWNT v (1954), 88–92
J. W. van Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (Leiden, 1989)
———, ‘The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: some Remarks on the
Continuity between Jewish and Christian Martyrology, with Pagan Analogies’, in
Lamberigts and van Deun (eds.), Martyrium, 303–22
———, Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People (Leiden, 1997)
W. Horbury, ‘Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose’, in W. Horbury and B.
McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1981),
143–82
———, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998)
———, ‘Pappus and Lulianus in Jewish Resistance to Rome’, in J. Targarona Borrás
and A. Sáenz Badillos (eds.), Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century:
Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Congress, Toledo, July 1998 (2 vols., Leiden, Köln and
Boston, 1999), 289–95
——— and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge, 1992)
P. W. van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity (Kampen, 1994)
J. Jeremias, Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen, 1958)
———, ‘Drei weitere jüdische Heiligengräber’, ZNW lii (1961), 95–101
M. de Jonge, ‘Test. Benjamin 3:8 and the Picture of Joseph as “a Good and Holy
Man” ’, in van Henten, Entstehung, 204–14
A. Kerkeslager, ‘Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early
Roman Egypt’, in D. Frankfurter (ed.), Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique
 The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints 417

Egypt (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World cxxxiv; Leiden, Boston and Köln,
1998), 99–225
T. Klauser, ‘Christlicher Märtyrerkult, heidnischer Heroenkult und spätjüdische
Heiligenverehrung. Neue Einsichten und neue Probleme’, Arbeitsgemeinschaft
für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, Heft 91
(Cologne and Opladen, 1960), reprinted with addendum in T. Klauser, ed.
E. Dassmann, Gesammelte Arbeiten zur Liturgiegeschichte, Kirchengeschichte, und
christlichen Archäologie (JAC Ergänzungsband III, Münster: Aschendorff, 1974),
221–9
M. Lamberigts and P. van Deun (eds.), Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective.
Memorial Louis Reekmans (BETL cxvii, Leuven, 1995)
R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (London, 1986)
J. N. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine among Jews in
the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (Chico, 1984)
E. Lucius, ed. G. Anrich, Die Anfänge des Heiligenkults in der christlichen Kirche
(Tübingen, 1904)
R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden, 1957)
E. M. Meyers, A. T. Kraabel and J. F. Strange, ‘Ancient Synagogue Excavations at
Khirbet Shema’, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970–1972 (AASOR xlii, Durham, NC,
1976)
G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: the Age of the
Tannaim (2 vols., Cambridge, MA, 1927)
G. Mussies, ‘The Interpretatio Judaica of Sarapis’, in M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in
Hellenistic Religions (Leiden, 1979), 189–214
E. Nourry, under the nom de plume P. Saintyves, Les saints successeurs des dieux
(Paris, 1907)
D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe (2 vols., Cambridge, 1993, 1995)
J. Obermann, ‘The Sepulchre of the Maccabean Martyrs’, JBL 1 (1931), 250–65
F. Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum (two continuously paginated parts, Giessen,
1909, 1912, reprinted in one volume, Berlin, 1974)
O. Proksch and K. G. Kuhn s. ἅgioV, TWNT i (1933), 88–114
E. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie
éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien (two continuously
paginated parts, Paris, 1993)
T. Rajak, ‘The Maccabaean Martyrs in Jewish Memory: Jerusalem and Antioch’,
in R. S. Boustan, K. Herrmann, R. Leicht, A, Yoshiko Reed and G. Veltri (ed.),
Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer (2 vols., Tübingen, 2013), 63–79
G. Reeg (ed.), Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern (Tübingen, 1985)
418 Messianism among Jews and Christians

W. Rordorf, ‘Wie steht es um den jüdischen Einfluss auf den christlichen

Märtyrerkult?’, in J. van Amersfoort and J. van Oort (eds.), Juden und Christen in
der Antike (Kampen, 1990), 61–71
E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (London, 1992)
D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets
(Leiden, New York and Cologne: Brill, 1995)
A. Schlatter, Der Märtyrer in den Anfängen der Kirche (BFCT xix. 3, Gütersloh,
1915), reprinted in A. Schlatter, Synagoge und Kirche bis zum Barkochba-Aufstand
(Stuttgart, 1966), 237–304
G. Schrenk s. díkaioV, TWNT ii (1935), 184–93
E. Schürer, ET revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, M. Black and P. Vermes,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, iii.1 (Edinburgh, 1986)
M. Schwabe and B. Lifschitz, Beth Sheʾarim, Volume Two, The Greek Inscriptions
(Jerusalem, 1967)
A. M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum
(2 vols. and Synopsis of text, Tübingen, 1995, 1996)
S. Singer and I. Brodie, The Authorised Daily Prayer Book (London, 5722–1962)
M. Smith, ed. S. J. D. Cohen, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (2 vols., Leiden, New York,
and Cologne, 1996)
G. C. Stead, ‘The Origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity’, Theology lxxvii (1974),
508–17, 583–8
G. Stemberger, ‘Die Patriarchenbilder der Katakombe in der Via Latina im Lichte der
jüdischen Tradition’, Kairos N.F. xvi (1974), 19–78
J. E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford, 1993)
Y. Tsafrir, ‘Jewish Pilgrimage in the Roman and Byzantine Periods’, in Dassmann,
Thraede and Engemann (eds.), Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für
Christliche Archäologie, i, 369–76
E. E. Urbach, The Sages (ET, 2nd edn., Cambridge, MA, and London, 1979)
C. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere (Franeker, 1696)
P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde (2nd edn., Tübingen, 1934, reprinted
Hildesheim, 1966)
J. Wilkinson, ‘Visits to Jewish Tombs by Early Christians’, in Dassmann, Thraede and
Engemann, Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie,
i, 452–65
 Index of Subjects

Aaron 72, 83, 103, 206, 261–83, 354, 355 Eschatology 5–6, 65, 80, 237, 238
Angel(s) 41–3, 46, 83–6, 196, 296, 297, Essenes 119, 121
299, 300, 354, 388, 391, 407
Antichrist 48, 49, 51, 341, 344–6, 357, Gnosticism 318
366–85 Grace 21, 98, 99, 104, 105, 108, 314
Apostles 20–1, 186–8, 197, 209–16, Greek text of Scripture
392–3 lxx 12–19, 34–7, 47, 66, 71, 93, 98,
Aramaic texts 179–80
Peshitta 34, 173, 175, 177 Aquila 179
Qumran texts 19, 34, 66, 77, 79, Symmachus 179
163–5, 234, 240 Theodotion 87–8, 179
Targums 30, 36, 38, 174, 177, 238,
241 Hanukkah 116, 123, 135
Art (see also Dura-Europus) 35, 314, 315, Heavenly Jerusalem 221–2, 228, 241–3,
398, 412 251–6, 393
Heavenly messiah 83–8, 153, 154
Bar Kokhba (Cocheba) 10, 64, 83, 376, High Priest 21, 39, 72, 73, 74, 113, 195,
397 196, 200, 202, 203, 208, 276
Human messiah 10, 153, 162
Canon (of Scripture) 61–4
Chiliasm 4, 50, 222, 248, 249, 250–1, 314, Ingathering 69, 70, 223, 244–7, 357
317–18, 324
Christ, cult of 2–3, 20, 37, 41, 48, 49, Jesus 30, 31, 36, 45, 154, 155, 186, 213,
314–17, 324, 388–92, 413–15 214, 215, 305, 321
Christology (see also Son of man; Judgement 38, 347, 371–6
Titles of Christ) 20–2, 30,
35, 36, 42, 45–8, 181, 220, 316, (messianic) King 1, 5, 14–22, 48, 82, 84, 85,
359, 414 87, 118, 164, 165, 215, 340–6, 414
Church 20–2, 36, 49, 162, 181, 186–8, Kingdom of God 12, 20, 68, 69, 70, 74,
209, 215, 289–306, 363 214, 215
Council (gerousia) 201, 202–5
Covenant 21, 72, 81, 95, 96, 97, 99–108 Law (Torah) 4–5, 22, 37, 79, 102, 193, 205,
Creation 46, 47, 84, 222, 236, 240, 243, 233, 259, 272–6, 337, 350, 361, 362
327, 348 Liturgy 3, 11, 262, 283, 358

Davidic messiah 7–8, 10, 13, 22, 76, 81, Martyrs 21, 69, 290–1, 303, 315, 321, 334,
118, 156, 159–61, 178–81, 374 336, 337, 388–412
Davidic monarchy 72, 81 Melchizedek 13, 43, 85, 165
Dura-Europus 35, 404, 412 Merkabah mystics 263, 264
Messiah
Ecclesiology see Church priestly see High Priest
Elders (Christian) 209–11 royal see (messianic) King
420 Index of Subjects

Messianic hope 7, 8, 9, 29–32, 34, 37, 48, Sacrifice 120, 132, 192, 193, 196, 212,
64, 70, 74, 156, 158, 264, 312, 242, 273, 275, 280, 282, 335, 348,
313, 319, 321, 328, 329, 340, 363 351, 352, 361
Messianism Sadducees 269, 285
in biblical interpretation 3–4, 13, Saints 154, 163, 166, 173, 250, 253, 297,
33–8, 40, 48, 64, 72, 81, 84, 90, 299, 304, 388–415
166, 180, 222, 238, 329 Samaritans 96, 265, 378, 379
in social context 18–19, 29, 39–41, Sanctuary 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 229,
148–9, 319–24 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 238, 241,
‘theory of catastrophe’ 4, 39, 40 323
‘Messianological vacuum’ 8, 64, 71, 90 Sanhedrin 188, 189, 193, 194, 201, 203,
Monotheism 40–8 207
Moses 5, 6, 13, 18, 20, 32, 45, 62, 67, 70, Son of man 81, 153–82
71, 83, 85, 90, 93, 94, 97, 126, Spirit (the) 14, 33, 45, 84, 86, 165, 212,
128, 157, 164, 166, 188, 189, 193, 296, 343, 363
195, 199, 206, 216, 240, 243, 247, Suffering 21–2, 279–83, 325–65
272, 280, 281, 290, 295, 296 ‘superhuman’ messiah see Heavenly
messiah
‘No [messianic] hope list’ 64 Symbol 35, 215
Synagogue
Patriarchs 42, 45, 46, 78, 79, 80, 92, 95, (buildings) 98, 121–2, 144, 311–12,
96, 104, 187, 195, 196, 198, 207, 396, 405, 412
337, 359 (personified) 20, 330–4, 359–60, 363
Paul 22, 36, 40, 50, 102, 103, 104, 107,
143, 159, 220, 221, 222, 226, Tabernacle 191, 202, 226, 227, 232–4,
228, 246, 247, 250–1, 254, 237, 240, 253, 269, 273, 274, 276,
255, 294n 281, 349, 351, 358
Pharisees 12, 88, 128, 269, 285 Teacher of Righteousness 358, 361
Piyyutim 235, 238, 275–6, 325–65, 368, Temple 100, 103, 107, 110–49, 197, 198,
375, 403 199, 201, 208, 221, 224, 227,
Prayer 22, 38, 48, 50, 64, 66, 69, 70, 71, 228, 230, 231, 232, 234, 236,
75, 79, 99, 105, 117, 160, 164, 240, 242, 248, 253, 265, 276,
223–6, 236, 238, 256, 264, 303, 320, 327, 332, 333, 338, 340,
342, 343, 393–4, 402, 406 341, 348, 349, 350, 351
Princes (Phylarchs) 186–219 Theocentrism 67, 70, 90, 214, 215,
Privileges (national Jewish) 21, 92, 348, 358
95–109, 226, 301 Theocracy 188, 199, 261, 262, 272, 274,
Prophecy 157, 162, 176, 223, 229, 230, 275, 276, 281
236, 237, 245 Titles of the church 299–306
Titles of the messiah/of Christ 41, 45,
Qumran community 196–8, 263–5 153, 181, 301–2

Rabbinic messianism 1, 9–10, 21–2, 38, (eschatological) War 160, 252, 341, 345,
341, 361–3, 364 348, 366–85
Resurrection 160, 197, 212, 213, 214, 252, Wisdom 42, 44, 46, 47, 167, 233, 234,
346, 347, 394 244, 334
Revolts 1, 9, 39, 83, 111, 112, 208, 225,
261, 285, 313 Zealots 69, 116, 149, 281, 370
Ruler-cult (Herodian) 127, 149, 163, 316 Zion 22, 70, 170, 178, 220–56, 347
 Index of Authors

Abramson, S. 396n Avigad, N. 398, 406, 410, 415

Adcock, F. E. 111n Avi-Yonah, M. 111n, 320n, 322n, 323n
Adler, M. N. 405, 416 Avni, G. 287
Adolph, K. 387
Africanus (Julius) 124n, 125n Baarda, T. 216
Aharoni, Y. 35n Bacher, W. 328n
Aitken, J. K. 19n, 72n Bacon, B. W. 213, 216
Albeck, Ch. 339n Badian, E. 143n
Albertz, R. 67n Bagatti, B. 287
Alexander, P. S. 1n, 2n, 7, 10n, 11n, 21n, Baldwin Bowsky, M. W. 138n
22n, 23, 33n, 37, 38, 52, 221, 257, Bammel, E. 50, 80n, 110, 112n, 118n,
264, 279, 280, 286, 361n, 374n, 134, 140n, 141n, 142n, 144n,
386 148n, 209, 213, 216, 261, 274,
Alexander Polyhistor 64, 92–5, 108, 114, 275, 286, 312n, 326n, 331n,
116, 141, 142, 145, 195, 196, 257, 337n, 339, 388, 396, 415
271, 383n Bar Hebraeus 322n
Allegro, J. M. 125n, 168, 182, 374n Baras, Z. 111n
Allison, D. C. 186, 216 Barbour, R. S. 52
Alon, G. 265, 286 Barclay, J. M. G. 21n, 51, 88n, 119n, 218,
Alphonsus Tostatus 62, 63n 306
Altmann, A. 330n, 331n Barker, M. 41, 244, 257
van Amersfoort, J. 216, 417 Bar-Kochva, B. 261, 268, 286
Amir, Y. 40n, 52 Baron, S. W. 325n, 326n, 349n,
Amram, Gaon 347n 350, 358
Anastasius Bibliothecarius 62n Barr, J. 41n, 100, 102, 108
Anderson, G. W. 65n Barrett, C. K. 22n, 96, 105, 108, 252, 257,
Anderson, H. 262, 286 326n, 339n
Anderson, J. G. C. 116n Barthélemy, D. 35n, 374n
Anrich, G. 389n, 417 Barton, J. 65n, 66n
Aquila 179, 313n Basil, St 353n
Aratus 47 Bate, H. N. 119n
Aristobulus 47, 114, 141–3 Bauckham, R. J. 41–3, 52, 210, 216, 301
Artapanus (historian) 93, 411 Bauer, B. 31n, 33, 34, 263, 368n
Ascensius 132 Bauer, W. 30n, 263, 314n
Ashton, J. 1n, 23, 41n Baumbach, G. 261, 286
Assaf, S. 327n, 341n Baumgarten, J. M. 196, 197, 198, 216
Astin, A. E. 139n Becker, J. 31, 52, 65n, 67n, 270, 273, 286
Athanasius 62 Beckwith, R. 65n
Attridge, H. W. 227, 257, 286 Bedouelle, G. 63n
Augustine 61, 62n, 63, 114, 133, 389 Beentjes, P. C. 72n, 73n
Auwers, J.-M. 18n, 25, 109 Behm, J. 100–2, 108
Avemarie, F. 109 Bell, R. H. 291, 306
422 Index of Authors

Ben-Eliyahu, E. 325n, 326n Brodie, I. 98, 109, 402, 410, 418

Bengel, J. A. 187, 216 van den Broek, R. 210, 216
Benjamin of Tudela 405, 416 Brooke, G. J. 21n, 23, 73n, 125n, 168, 182,
Berger, K. 82n, 86n, 317n 184, 231, 257
Berliner, A. 135, 344n Broshi, M. 119n
Berti, S. 134n Brown, P. R. L. 388, 391, 415
Beskow, P. 313n, 314n, 316n, 318n Brown, R. E. 370n
Best, E. 183 Brownlee, W. H. 34, 35n, 175
Betz, H.-D. 257, 288, 391, 413, 415 Bruce, F. F. 158, 182
Betz, O. 109, 117n, 287 Brunner, T. F. 135
Beuken, W. 52 Brunt, P. A. 323n
Biale, D. 1n, 4n, 23 Buber, S. 193, 216, 278, 286, 323n
Bickerman, E. J. 18, 19n, 23, 223, 257, Buchanan, G. W. 286
388, 396n, 406, 415 Büchler, A. 120n, 266, 286, 407, 410, 415
Biesenthal, J. H. R. 267, 286 Buecheler, F. 130
Billerbeck, P. 153, 366, 369n, 376n, Bultmann, R. 316n
380, 387 Burkitt, F. C. 40, 40n
Bischoff, B. 130n Burney, C. F. 191, 216
Black, M. 32n, 57, 66n, 77n, 88n, 109, Busink, Th. A. 118, 118n
117n, 118n, 120, 135n, 138n,
141n, 159, 165, 182, 185, 213, Caird, G. B. 217
218n, 259, 307, 342n, 352n, Cajetan (Thomas de Vio) 63n
368, 418 Campbell, J. Y. 154, 180
Bleeker, C. J. 217 Campbell, R. A. 211, 217
Blunt, A. W. F. 314n Cancik, H. 54, 415
Böcher, O. 216 Carleton Paget, J. N. B. 8n, 9n, 10n, 23,
Bockmuehl, M. N. A. 8n, 9n, 10n, 23, 51, 50, 52, 138n
252, 257, 301, 306n, 388n Carmignac, J. 375n
de Boer, M. C. 252, 257 Carson, D. A. 36
Bogaert, P.-M. 109, 227, 257, 409n, 415 Casaubon, I. 133, 133n, 137, 139
Boismard, M.-E. 218 Casey, P. M. 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162,
Bond, J. 133n 168, 173, 182
de Boor, C. 62n Cassius Dio 110, 395
Bouriez, P. 1n, 23 Catchpole, D. R. 213, 217
Bousset, W. 11n, 30n, 65n, 80, 89, 119n, Cavadini, G. 55
153, 154, 158, 159, 162, 172, 182, Cave, C. H. 306
316, 317, 366, 371, 372, 379, 385, Cave, F. H. 306
386, 391, 407, 415 Celsus 312, 312n, 314n, 316, 318, 382,
Bowden, J. 31n, 67n, 368n 382n, 390
Bowersock, G. W. 388, 395, 415 Cerinthus 321
Bowker, J. W. 269, 286, 329n Chadwick, H. 218, 382n
Bowman, A. K. 113n Champlin, E. 113n
Bowman, J. 154, 158, 182 Charles, R. H. 197, 217, 227, 242, 257,
Box, G. H. 254, 257 261, 273, 276, 286
Boyarin, D. 10n, 22n, 23 Charlesworth, J. H. 31, 33, 52, 86n, 162,
Brandon, S. G. F. 57 182, 286, 378n
Braude, W. G. 339n Charlesworth, M. P. 111n
Braun, H. 282, 286 Chester, A. 6n, 8, 8n, 9, 9n, 10n, 15, 15n,
Brightman, F. E. 353n, 403, 415 19n, 20n, 22, 22n, 23, 41, 50, 52,
Brinner, W. M. 396n 80n, 87n
 Index of Authors 423

Chevallier, M. A. 81n Dassmann, E. 87n, 416–18

Childs, B. S. 105, 108, 189, 217, 402, 415 Daube, D. 326n
Chilton, B. D. 155, 156, 182, 351n Davidson, I. 327n, 341n
Chrysostom, John 338, 343, 353n, Davies, P. R. 352n, 353n, 378n
365, 365n Davies, W. D. 40, 53, 112n, 213, 217,
Churgin, P. 234, 257 221, 252, 255, 257, 306, 326n,
Chyutin, M. 240, 257 339n, 342n
Clarysse, W. 392, 415 Davila, J. R. 52–5, 57
Claudian 381, 382 Day, J. 51, 53, 56, 65n, 83n, 257, 306
Clausen, W. V. 129, 130n Deines, R. 305
Cleanthes 242 Delehaye, H. 388, 391, 401, 407, 409,
Clement (of Alexandria) 93, 95–7, 103, 410, 415
107, 193, 250, 266, 314, 314n, Delitzsch, Franz 268
315, 315n, 317, 318n, 319, 322n, Demetrius (chronographer) 271
323n, 324, 381 Ps.-Demetrius 255
Clements, R. E. 52 Denys (of Alexandria) 321
Clines, D. J. A. 97, 108 Denys of Tell Mahre 322n
Coates, J. R. 31n Derenbourg, J. 136
Cohen, G. D. 330n, 342n van Deun, P. 415–17
Cohen, H. 1n, 331n Di Lella, A. A. 259
Cohen, S. J. D. 65n, 112, 396, 405, 415, Díez Macho, A. 35, 35n, 37, 344n
418 Dimant, D. 83n
Cohn, N. 3, 4n, 24 Dindorf, L. 396n
Cohn, Y. 325n, 326n Diodorus Siculus 261, 274
Collins, J. J. 7, 7n, 9, 9n, 13n, 16, 16n, 17, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 199
17n, 18n, 19, 19n, 20n, 21n, 24, Dittmann, H. 104, 108
27, 33, 53, 67n, 73n, 81, 81n, 83n, Dodd, B. J. 52
84n, 85n, 119n, 157, 162, 163, Dodd, C. H. 36, 154, 159, 182
182, 375n, 378, 378n, 386 Dodds, E. R. 292n
Colson, F. H. 101, 108 Doering, L. 135, 135n
Conington, J. 133, 133n Dogniez, C. 19, 24, 291, 297, 306
Conzelmann, H. 104, 105, 108 Dölger, F.-J. 134, 134n, 135
Cook, S. A. 111n Donner, H. 108
Cornelius a Lapide 132n Dörrie, H. 104, 108
Cornutus (scholiast) 130, 130n Doudna, G. L. 77n
Cosin, J. 62n, 63n Downing, F. G. 199, 217, 367n
Coverdale, M. 63 Driver, G. R. 263, 286
Cowley, A. E. 73n, 77n Driver, S. R. 16n, 81n, 153, 182
Cox, C. E. 54, 183 Dryden, J. 129, 129n
Cranfield, C. E. B. 143n, 220 Duensing, H. 321n
Cranz, F. E. 130n, 132n Duling, D. C. 73n, 74n
Crossan, J. D. 53, 186, 217 Dunn, J. D. G. 52, 80n, 256, 257
Cupitt, S. 31n Dupont-Sommer, A. 396, 416
Cyril (of Jerusalem) 403
Edelmann, R. 278, 286
Dahl, N. A. 20, 24, 214, 217, 291, 298, Efron, J. 122n
300, 306 Ego, B. 117n, 227, 228, 241, 257, 258,
Dalman, G. 153, 170, 182, 337n, 339n 259
Daly, R. J. 80n, 269, 286 Ehlers, K. 257, 258, 259
Daniélou, J. 36, 313n Eisler, R. 124n
424 Index of Authors

Elbogen, I. 325n, 326n, 328n, 331n, Freyne, S. 21, 24, 52, 186, 217
348, 348n, 349, 349n, 355n, Friedländer, M. 366, 386
402, 410, 416 Frost, S. B. 65n, 67n
Emerton, J. A. 55, 83n, 157, 168, Funk, R. W. 393n, 416
182, 312n
Engemann, J. 415, 418, Gafni, I. M. 257
Ennius 381, 382 Gaius 321n
Ephrem (Syrus) 124n von Gall, A. 65n, 68
Epiphanius 132n, 403 Galling, K. 119n
Euhemerus 381, 384 García Martínez, F. 85n, 165, 225, 234,
Eupolemus (historian) 93, 196, 197, 198, 236, 239, 257, 374n
200, 203, 207, 208, 213 Gaston, L. 317n
Eusebius (of Caesarea) 92–5, 114n, 124n, Geiger, A. 36
132, 132n, 133, 210, 322 Gereboff, J. 265, 286
Evans, C. A. 182 Gese, H. 156, 183, 240, 257
Evans, E. 318n, 322n Geyser, A. S. 197, 217
Even-Shemuel see Kaufmann, J. Gieschen, C. A. 41, 53
Ezekiel Tragicus 37, 48, 83, 91 Gilbert, M. 17n, 24
Ginzberg, L. 83n, 366, 386, 404n
Farmer, W. R. 416 Girardi, G. B. 98
Farnaby, T. 133n Glare, P. G. W. 135, 409n
Farrar, D. 277 Gnilka, J. 184
Farrer, A. M. 187, 188, 213, 217 Goldberg, A. 22n, 38, 53, 411, 416
Fascher, E. 96, 109 Goldschmidt, (E.) D. 327n, 330n,
Fassbeck, G. 82n 333, 358n
Feldman, L. H. 142 Goldstein, J. A. 35n, 75
Ferrua, A. 398 Goodblatt, D. 20n, 24, 189, 202, 217
Ferus, J. 63n Goodenough, E. R. 35, 135, 262, 286, 398
Fiebig, P. 153, 182 Goodman, M. 9n, 24, 51, 53, 66n, 77n,
Field, F. 87n 86n, 93, 109, 110n, 111, 113n,
Fishbane, M. 5n, 22n, 24, 36 124, 135, 143n, 149n, 218, 259,
Fitzmyer, J. A. 3n, 6, 6n, 7, 7n, 24, 163, 290, 307, 395, 418
164, 182 Gordon, R. P. 37, 65n, 224, 258, 282, 286,
Flesher, P. V. M. 35n 306, 373n, 374n
Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 53 Goudge, H. L. 154
Flint, P. 77n Grabe, J. E. 250
Flusser, D. 1n, 24, 53, 115, 155, 183, 196, Graetz, H. 328
197, 217 Grant, M. 142n
Fontius, B. 132 Gratian 62
Fossum, J. 41 Green, D. E. 65n
Fraenkel, E. 315n, 385n Green, W. S. 31, 55, 73n, 75n, 119n, 288
Fraidl, F. 157, 183 Greenhut, Z. 287
Francis, P. 384 Greenspoon, L. 55, 183
Frankel, Z. 36 Gressmann, H. 6, 30n, 65n, 68, 80n, 89n,
Frankfurter, D. 370n, 386, 416 119n, 182, 407, 415
Frederiksen, M. W. 139n Grintz, J. M. 348n
Frederiksen, P. 186, 217 Groag, E. 142n
Frend, W. H. C. 323, 389n, 416 Grotius, H. 132n, 187, 188
Frerichs, E. S. 31, 55, 56, 73n, 75n, 119n Grözinger, K.-E. 264, 286, 332n
Freudenthal, J. 93, 108, 271, 286 Gruen, E. S. 116n
 Index of Authors 425

Gruenwald, I. 55 Hess, R. S. 56
Grünhut, L. 405, 416 Hickling, C. J. A. 262, 287
Grypeou, E. 3n, 24 Higgins, A. J. B. 162, 183
Gunkel, H. 30n, 33, 371, 372, 379 Hilgenfeld, A. 30n, 32
Guthrie, W. K. C. 315n Hilhorst, A. 80n, 216
Gutmann, J. 193, 217, 287 Hill, C. E. 249, 252, 258, 366, 369n,
380n, 386
Haacker, K. 109, 117n, 216, 287 Himmelfarb, M. 12n, 22n, 24
Hachlili, R. 406, 416 Hinnells, J. R. 57
Hadas-Lebel, M. 38, 53, 82n, 377n, 386 Hippolytus 369
Hagedorn, D. A. 80n Historia Augusta 322, 380n
Hague, W. V. 65n Hobbes, T. 188, 218
Halpern, B. 189, 217 Hoehner, H. W. 134
Hammond, C. E. 403, 415 Hoffmann, L. A. 265, 287
Hammond, H. 188, 189, 217 Hofius, O. 263, 264, 287
Hanhart, R. 76n, 108 Holladay, C. R. 94, 108, 166, 183
Hardwick, C. 294n Hölscher, G. 121n, 124
Harl, M. 37, 81n, 290, 291, 297, 306 Holtzmann, H. J. 30, 30n, 31
Harland, P. J. 183 Hooker, M. D. 50, 154, 155, 164, 183,
Harnack, A. 162, 183, 213, 217, 322n 340
Harris, J. R. 288 Hooper, J. (bishop) 294n
Hart, J. H. A. 263, 286, 377n Horace 116n, 147, 292, 383
Harvey, A. E. 204, 211, 217 Horovitz, H. S. 103, 108, 193
Harvey, R. A. 128n, 134n, 135, 136, 146 van der Horst, P. W. 166, 183, 393n, 416
Hastings, A. 53 Hort, F. J. A. 315n
Hauck, F. 407, 416 Hoskyns, E. C. 328
Hay, D. M. 43n Hughes, G. 272, 287
Hayman, A. P. 157, 183 Hughes, P. E. 268, 287
Hays, R. B. 36 Hultgård, A. 80, 86, 89n, 118, 165, 183,
Hayward, C. T. R. 177, 183, 234, 258, 378n 197, 218, 315
Heater, H. 161, 183 Hurtado, L. 20n, 25, 41, 54
Hecataeus (of Abdera) 261, 267, 274 Hvalvik, R. 320n
Heckel, U. 52, 80n
Hegesippus 125, 181 Idel, M. 11n, 18n, 25
Heid, S. 222, 246, 249, 254, 258, 366, 386 Ilan, T. 266, 287
Heinemann, I. 100, 108 Ilan, Z. 349n
Heinemann, J. 325n, 326n, 327n, 338, Innocent 61, 63
348n, 352, 361, 402, 410, 416 Irenaeus 176, 221, 222, 250, 251, 252,
Hellholm, D. 2n, 53 317, 319, 369, 370, 381, 383
Hengel, M. 21, 22, 39, 53, 54, 80n, 109,
111, 117n, 124n, 220, 258, 259, Jacobson, H. 82n, 91, 98, 106, 108, 166,
277, 287, 290, 291n, 306, 316, 168, 183
370n, 386, 391, 415 Jahn, O. 130n, 131, 133
Hennecke, E. 321n James, M. R. 88n, 315n
van Henten, J. W. 110n, 383, 385, 386, James, Liturgy of St 403
388, 395, 401, 414, 416, Jason of Cyrene 395
Henze, M. 22n, 24 Jaubert, A. 36, 54, 100, 104, 108, 266, 287
Herr, M. D. 2n, 11n, 24 Jehiel of Paris 405
Heschel, S. 36n Jellinek, A. 342n, 345n, 347n, 368n
Hesiod 381, 382 Jenks, G. C. 366, 386
426 Index of Authors

Jeremias, J. 124n, 267, 287, 303, 306, 387, Klausner, J. 82

388, 391, 393, 396, 397, 398, 399, Klein, S. 397
413, 416 Knibb, M. 3n, 8n, 13n, 15n, 16, 16n,
Jerome 61, 77n, 317, 323, 376 21n, 25
Jesus son of Sirach 47, 232, 259 Knohl, I. 22, 22n, 25
Joel, B. I. 327n, 341n Knoch, O. 104, 108
Johannes Britannicus 132 Knox, J. 416
Johannes Teutonicus 62 Knox, W. L. 98, 108, 209, 216, 218
John Malalas 396 Koch, K. 86
Jones, A. H. M. 125, 138n Koenig, J. (E.) 37, 54, 161, 169, 178, 183
de Jonge, M. 397, 416 Kokkinos, N. 112, 124n, 135, 144
Josephus 19, 39, 64, 78, 93, 97, 104, 110, van der Kooij, A. 37, 54, 179, 180, 183
112, 113, 115–28, 120n, 133, 135, Kosmala, H. 263, 287
138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, Kraabel, A. T. 266, 287, 388n, 404, 417
157, 158, 161, 187, 189, 191, 193, Kraft, R. A. 316n
194, 196, 197, 198, 205, 206, 217, Krauss, S. 136, 137, 139, 146, 323n, 332n,
256, 262, 265, 267, 268, 273, 281, 336n, 342n
283, 290, 378, 396 Kristeller, P. O. 130n
Josippon 115 Kronholm, T. 347n
Juel, D. 36, 54 Krueger, P. 138n
Jülicher, A. 30n Kuhn, K. G. 407, 417
Junod, E. 62n Kuntzmann, R. 54, 307
Juster, J. 323n Kurz, E. 130n, 131n
Justin 45, 114n, 162, 171, 222, 249, 250, Kushnir-Stein, A. 117n
317, 318, 321, 388 Kutsch, E. 100, 108
Justus of Tiberias 83, 128 Kvicala, J. 130n, 131
Juvenal 137, 147
Laato, A. 32, 41, 54, 74n, 75n, 81n, 89n
Kaestli, J.-D. 62n, 63n Lactantius 317
Kahle, P. E. 36, 325n Lamberigts, M. 415, 417
Kalir 325, 326, 341, 347, 352n Lampe, G. W. H. 315n
Kapstein, I. J. 339n Lampe, P. 143n
von Karlstadt, A. 63 Lane Fox, R. 398, 417
Karrer, M. 32, 54 Lanfranchi, P. 21n, 26
Käsemann, E. 257, 260, 262, 279, 283, Lange, A. 117n, 257, 258, 259
284, 287 de Lange, N. R. M. 40n, 54, 365n
Kasher, A. 124, 124n Laporte, J. 104, 109
Kasher, R. 37, 54 Larcher, C. 315n
Kaufmann, J. 341n Lauterbach, J. Z. 241, 258
Keane, A. H. 386 Lawson, J. 319
Kelly, J. N. D. 313n, 317n Le Boulluec, A. 291, 306
Kerkeslager, A. 398, 399, 400, 416 Le Déaut, R. 1n, 26, 37, 54n, 291, 307
Killebrew, A. 406, 416 Lebram, J. C. H. 233, 258, 261, 287, 395
Kilpatrick, G. D. 174, 183 Leloir, L. 124n
Kim, S. 154, 157, 163, 183 Leo, F. 130
Kimelman, R. 38, 54 Leon, H. J. 135
Kirk, K. E. 217 Leonhardt, J. 268, 287
Kissel, W. 128n, 135, 136 Levey, S. H. 37, 55, 344n, 352n
Kister, M. 233, 258 Lévi, I. 73n, 366, 386
Klauser, T. 391, 416, 417 Levi, L. 327n
 Index of Authors 427

Levine, B. A. 56 Marshall, P. K. 130n

Levine, L. I. 258, 259, 415 Martin, J. D. 72n
Lewis, C. T. (and Short) 135 Martin, R. P. 52
Lewis, G. S. 53, 54, 55, 57, 135 Martyn, J. L. 255, 258
Lichtenberger, H. 33, 52, 54, 109, 254, Mason, S. 109
258, 415 Mastin, B. A. 98, 109, 163
Liddell, H. (and Scott) 98, 109 Matray, C. 314n
Liebreich, L. J. 343n, 348n Maurer, C. 321n
Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. 55, 366, 369n, Mayer, S. 327n
375n, 378n, 386 Mayor, J. E. B. 311
Lietzmann, H. 153, 154, 204, 218 Mazzucco, C. 317n
Lifschitz, B. 35n, 113n, 410, 418 McGing, B. C. 20n, 26, 383n
Lightfoot, J. B. 143n, 389n McKelvey, R. J. 227, 237, 258
Lightstone, J. N. 388, 417 McNeil, B. 51, 174, 184, 287, 340n, 364n,
Ligier, L. 348, 353 386, 416
Lindars, B. 36, 154, 159, 162, 168, 171, Mees, M. 317n
181, 183 Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J. 19n, 26
Lindbeck, G. 55 Ménard, J.-E. 54, 363n
Lintott, A. 113n Mendels, D. 111, 112
Lloyd, J. A. 138n Meyer, B. F. 186, 213, 218
Loesch, S. 373n, 386 Meyer, E. 157, 184, 209, 218
Loewe, R. 37, 331n, 333n, 361 Meyer, R. 270, 287
Longenecker, R. N. 25, 54 Meyers, E. M. 405, 417
de Lubac, H. 35 Michel, O. 109, 264, 268, 282, 284,
Lucius, E. 389n, 391, 417 285, 287
Lüderitz, G. 138n Milburn, R. L. P. 315n
Lust, J. 13n, 16, 16n, 26, 37, 55, 176, 177, Milik, J. T. 184, 266, 287, 374n
183, 312n Millar, F. 31, 57, 66n, 77n, 83n, 88n, 109,
Luther, M. 63, 294n 112, 117n, 118n, 120, 135n, 138n,
Luttikhuizen, G. P. 216 141n, 195, 198, 213, 218, 259,
Luzzatto, S. D. 326n 307, 325n, 326n, 342n, 349n, 418
Mirsky, A. 17n, 26, 106, 109, 262, 269,
Mach, M. 55, 275, 276, 281, 287, 326, 327n,
Mach, R. 407, 417 328, 329, 330n, 331n, 333, 336,
Macleod, C. W. 147, 383n 342, 344, 345, 348n, 349, 350,
Maier, J. 38, 55, 312, 325, 326n, 335 353n, 368n, 375n
Maimonides, M. 189, 268, 340, 347 Mittmann, S. 258, 259,
Mandelbaum, B. 325n, 334, 334n, 335, Moffatt, J. 104, 260, 262, 264, 268, 269,
337n, 339n, 344, 344n, 345, 345n, 272, 290, 287
349, 354, 356, 363n Momigliano, A. 111, 134
Manson, T. W. 84n, 88n, 154, 159, 184 Mondésert, C. 314n
Mantel, H. 205, 218 Montgomery, W. 31n
Marcion 318 Moore, G. F. 159, 170, 172, 184, 263,
Marcus, J. 40n, 55 407, 417
Margulies, M. 325n, 329n, 333, 334n, Morray-Jones, C. R. A. 55
339n, 344n, 351n, 354 Moule, C. F. D. 110n, 134n, 153n, 154,
Markschies, C. 221, 249, 255, 256, 258 155, 157, 164, 172, 182, 184, 213,
Marmorstein, A. 339n, 341n, 347n 215, 218, 260n, 285, 287, 298,
Marmorstein, E. 189, 218 305, 308, 316, 416
Marrou, H.-I. 314n Mowinckel, S. 65n, 80n, 153, 156, 184
428 Index of Authors

Muddiman, J. 66n Otto, W. 141, 142

Mulder, M. J. 36 Ovid 116n
Müller, M. 157, 183, 184
Munnich, O. 55, 183 Papias 222, 245, 250, 317
Murmellius, J. 132 Parente, F. 134n
Murray, C. 315n Parke, H. W. 383n
Murray, R. 36, 265, 287 Pearce, S. 19n, 202, 218
Murtonen, A. 350n, 351 Penna, R. 135, 144n, 145n
Mussies, G. 411, 417 Pérez Fernández, M. 2n, 26, 37, 56, 81n,
125n, 175, 177, 184, 376n
Nairne, A. 272, 285, 287 Perpetua 319
Nebrissensis, A. A. 132 Perrone, L. 221, 258
Nemethy, G. 135, 137, 146 Persius 50, 111, 114, 128–40, 145–8
Netzer, E. 35n, 119n Peters, N. 179
Neubauer, A. 73n, 77n Petuchowski, J. J. 325n, 327n, 348n
Neusner, J. 31, 38, 56, 73n, 75n, 119n, Pfann, S. 386
122n, 266, 287, 364 Pfister, F. 391, 393n, 417
Newman, C. C. 53, 54, 55, 57, Philo 17, 44, 46, 64, 83, 93, 98, 104, 108,
Newsom, C. A. 196, 218 110, 160, 174, 191, 193, 195, 197,
Nicephorus see Anastasius 262, 263, 268, 271, 281, 290, 295,
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 32, 165, 168, 184 380, 401, 402
Nicolas of Damascus 110, 113n, 115, 116, Ps.-Philo 89, 203, 378, 394, 403, 406,
121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 140, 409–11
148, 149 Philonenko, M. 287
Niebuhr, K. W. 388n Pietrella, E. 317n
Niebuhr, R. R. 416 Pilhofer, P. 80n, 117n, 118n, 257, 286
Nielsen, F. 94, 109 Pippidi, D. M. 323n
Niese, B. 141, 143 Pithou, P. 130, 132
Nissim ibn Shahin (Gaon) 396 des Places, E. 47n
Nolland, J. 119n, 145n Plautius, J. B. 132
North, C. R. 67n Polycarp 370, 388
Noth, M. 189 Pomykala, K. E. 32, 56, 73n, 74n, 75n
Nourry, E. 391, 417 Poorthuis, M. 258, 259
Novenson, M. V. 1n, 9, 9n, 11, 11n, 20n, 26 Porter, J. R. 83n
Noy, D. 144, 409, 416, 417 Posnanski, A. 114n, 125n
Potter, J. 250, 258
Oakeshott, M. 188, 218 Pretor, A. 129, 133
Obermann, J. 388, 396n, 398, 403, 405, 417 Price, S. R. F. 133, 139n, 146
Odeberg, H. 96, 102, 109 Prigent, P. 363
Oegema, G. S. 32, 33, 39, 41, 52, 56, 74n Proksch, O. 407, 417
Ogilvie, R. M. 139n Propertius 116n
O’Neill, J. C. 3, 31, 32, 41, 56, 155, 161, Puech, E. 19n, 56, 77n, 84n, 163, 184, 225,
184, 197, 218 230, 236, 252, 259, 409, 409n, 417
van Oort, J. 216, 417 Purdy, A. C. 263, 288
Oppenheimer, A. 3n, 9n, 26, 56, 324n
Origen 35, 61n, 77n, 79, 84, 87, 176, 302, Rabin, I. A. 103, 108, 193
312, 318, 365, 382 Rahmani, L. Y. 266, 288
Orosius 322n Rainbow, P. A. 86n, 165, 375n, 386
Otranto, R. 80n Rajak, T. 5n, 19n, 26, 98, 109, 138n, 141n,
Ottley, R. R. 169, 178 396, 417
 Index of Authors 429

Rankin, O. S. 136 Schäfer, P. 3n, 10, 10n, 11, 11n, 12n, 22n,
Rashi 189, 193, 206, 344, 362 26, 38, 54, 56, 264, 288, 326n,
Ratner, B. 127 340, 346n, 415
Ravitzky, A. 40n Schalit, A. 111, 113n, 118, 124n, 134,
Reeg, G. 407, 410, 417 142, 143
Reinach, T. 136 Schaper, J. L. W. 8, 8n, 13n, 27, 37, 56,
Reinhard, H. 82n 291, 302, 307
Reventlow, H. Graf 54, 55, 56, 324n Schechter, S. 233, 235, 259, 263, 329n,
Rex, R. 62n 338n, 340, 340n, 344n
Reynolds, J. M. 138n Scheindlin, R. P. 325n, 402, 410, 416
Reynolds, L. D. 130n Schenke, H.-M. 269, 288
Richardson, P. 111, 112, 320n Schenker, A. 101, 109
Rieger, P. 136n Schindler, A. 108
Riesenfeld, H. 81n Schirmann, J. H. 326n, 352n
de Roa, M. 134, 137 Schlatter, A. 388, 418
Robathan, D. M. 130n, 132n Schleiermacher, F. 30
Robinson, J. Armitage 315n, 365n Schlosser, J. 54, 307
Robinson, J. A. T. 285, 288 Schmidt, N. 83n, 153,
Rofé, A. 8, 8n, 16n, 17n, 26, 56, 71n, 76n Schmidt, W. 133, 134n
Roloff, J. 212, 218 Schnackenburg, R. 184
Rordorf, W. 388, 417 Schneemelcher, W. 321n
Rösel, M. 15, 15n, 16, 16n, 26 Schneider, J. 96, 109
Rosenblatt, S. 347n Scholem, G. 1n, 3n, 4, 4n, 5, 5n, 11n, 27,
Rosenthal, E. I. J. 339n, 341n, 349n, 350n 39, 40n, 56, 328, 340n, 360
Rosenzweig, R. 326n, 328, 331n, 337n, Schottroff, L. 288
338, 339n, 363 Schreiber, S. 32, 41, 57
Roth, C. 261, 278, 281, 288, 327n, 349 Schrenk, G. 407, 418
Rowland, C. C. 31, 40, 56, 83n Schubert, U. 264, 288
Rowley, H. H. 113, 132n Schulz, S. 213, 218
Rufinus 61n Schürer, E. 31, 37, 57, 66n, 77n, 83n, 87n,
van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. 244, 259 88, 93, 109, 112n, 117n, 118n,
Ryle, H. E. 88n 120, 135, 138, 141n, 195, 198,
Ryle, J. C. 47n 213, 218, 223, 225, 259, 290, 307,
342n, 349n, 395, 418
Saadia Gaon 327n, 328n, 341n, 344n, Schwabe, M. 113n, 410, 418
347n Schwartz, D. R. 113n, 142n, 145n, 221,
Sacchi, P. 55 231, 259
Saebo, M. 36 Schwartz, S. 113n, 145n
Sáenz-Badillos, A. 53, 82n, 326n, 416 Schweitzer, A. 4n, 30, 31, 40, 53
Safrai, C. 258, 259 Schwemer, A. M. 100, 109, 223, 230, 249,
Salvesen, A. 15, 15n, 16, 16n, 18n, 26, 37 251, 252, 258, 259, 306, 388, 397,
Sanders, E. P. 186, 212–15, 218, 255, 259, 399, 418
312, 407, 417 Seeligmann, I. L. 35, 76n, 291, 307
Sandevoir, P. 291, 306 Segal, A. F. 171, 184
Sänger, P. P. 96 Segal, M. Z. (H.) 72n, 74, 179, 184,
Sansom, J. 62n, 63n 233, 259
Satran, D. 388, 397, 399, 417 Serarius, N. 134, 137, 146
Satterthwaite, P. E. 56 Shaked, S. 55
Scaliger, J. J. 114n, 130, 132, 133, 134, Sharf, A. 368n
137, 139, 148 Sharpe, E. J. 57
430 Index of Authors

Shatzman, I. 113 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 11n, 27, 54, 57, 166,

Shukster, M. B. 320n 185
Simon, M. 221 Stuiber, A. 416
Simonetti, M. 318n Sturdy, J. V. M. 306
Singer, S. 98, 109, 402, 410, 418 Styler, G. M. 50, 340n
Sixtus Senensis 63, 394 Sulpicius Severus 322n
Skehan, P. W. 259 Sweet, J. P. M. 50, 51, 88n, 119n, 218, 289,
Smallwood, E. M. 124n, 144n, 323n 291, 300, 306, 307, 364n
Smelik, W. 37 Swete, H. B. 40n, 61n, 62n, 65n
Smend, R. 73n, 108, 179, 233, 259 Syme, R. 142n, 143
Smith, J. Z. 266, 288 Symmachus 179
Smith, M. 39, 57, 65n, 80, 260, 288, 315n, Sysling, H. 36
404n, 406, 418
Sokoloff, M. 336n Tacitus 110, 373n
Solin, H. 144 Targarona Borrás, J. 54, 82n, 416
Sordi, M. 322n Taylor, C. 233, 235, 259
Spanheim, F. 114n Taylor, Justin 210, 218
Speiser, E. A. 189 Taylor, J. E. 388, 406, 418
Spencer, J. 134 Taylor, V. 219
Spicq, C. 271, 277, 288 Tertullian 221, 222, 250, 251, 256, 311,
Spiegel, S. 353n 312, 314, 314n, 317, 318, 318n,
Spilsbury, P. 99, 109 319n, 321, 322, 322n, 369
Spinoza, B. 188, 189, 203 Ps. Tertullian 132n
Spiro, A. 196, 218 Thackeray, H. St. J. 124n
Spurling, H. 3n, 24 Theisohn, J. 168, 184
van Staalduine-Sulman, E. 37, 57 Theodor, J. 339n
Staerk, W. 214, 218 Theodoret 390, 412
Stählin, G. 216 Theodotion 87, 88, 166, 179, 313n
Stanton, G. N. 52 Thoma, C. 48n, 56, 57n, 326n
Stead, G. C. 390n, 418 Thompson, M. E. 51
Stein, A. 142n Thomson, A. A. 409n
Stein, S. 341n, 349n, 350 Thornton, T. C. G. 138n, 147
Stemberger, G. 87n, 320n, 325n, 398, 418 Thraede, K. 415, 416, 418
Stendahl, K. 35 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 85n, 165, 225, 234,
Stenning, J. F. 204, 218 236, 239, 257
Stern, H. 315n Timagenes (historian) 142, 142n
Stern, M. 111, 113n, 114, 118, 128n, Tollinton, R. B. 322n, 323n
134n, 136, 142n, 146, 147, 261, Tov, E. 35n
267, 288, 322n, 323n Tromp, J. 84n, 258
Steudel, A. 235 Tsafrir, Y. 406, 418
Stevenson, J. 315n
Stewart, R. A. 277, 279, 281, 288 van Unnik, W. C. 98, 109, 117n
Stone, M. E. 79n, 82n, 86n, 239, 254, 259 Urbach, E. E. 192, 204, 207, 219, 349n,
Strabo 110, 137, 142 407, 418
Strack, H. L. 153, 184, 366n, 369n, Urman, D. 35n
376n, 387
Strange, J. F. 405, 417 Van de Water, R. 92–5, 109
Strauss, D. F. 30, 31n VanderKam, J. C. 32n, 77n, 86n, 168,
Stroumsa, G. G. 52, 55, 221, 259 182, 184
 Index of Authors 431

Vanhoye, A. 277, 282, 283, 288 Wernham, A. G. 188, 219

Vermaseren, M. J. 258, 417 Whitaker, G. H. 108
Vermes, G. 19n, 31, 33n, 35, 57, 66n, 73n, White, R. T. 378n
77n, 83n, 85n, 88n, 109, 117n, Whittaker, M. 136, 136n
118n, 120, 135n, 138n, 141n, Wiese, C. 1n, 27
154–6, 158–62, 167, 168, 172, Wilken, R. L. 252, 259, 314n
173–5, 177, 178, 181, 185, 195, Wilkinson, J. 388, 413, 418
198, 213, 216, 218, 219, 259, 307, Willi, T. 171, 185
342n, 349n, 373n, 374n, 375n, Williams, M. H. 136, 136n, 144,
378n, 386, 387, 418 292n, 307
Vermes, P. 66n, 77n, 109, 135n, 218, 259, Williamson, H. G. M. 36, 65n, 306
307, 373n, 418 Williamson, R. 264, 288
Vermeylen, J. 56, 71n Willrich, H. 111, 111n, 134, 134n,
Victorinus 317 137–43, 141n, 142n, 146, 148
Violet, B. 254, 259 Wilson, R. McL. 183, 321n
Virgil 141, 142, 315, 315n, 381–4 Winter, P. 159
Vitringa, C. 135, 135n, 405, 418 Wischnitzer, R. 35
Vogelstein, H. 136, 136n, 149n Wood, H. G. 288
de Voisin, J. 136, 136n, 137, 139 van der Woude, A. S. 12n, 27, 72n, 83n,
Volz, P. 6n, 20n, 27, 407, 418 85n, 165, 216, 386
Wright, N. T. 31, 41, 57, 186, 219, 256, 259
Wacholder, B. Z. 196, 219
Walbank, F. W. 139n Yadin, Y. 192, 200, 219, 263
Watson, W. G. E. 374n Yahalom, J. 336n
Weber, G. 30n Yannai 325, 326
Weber, R. 61n, 77n Yarbro Collins, A. 27, 57
Weber, W. 140n Yassif, E. 122n
Weiler, A. 52 Yose ben Yose 5, 18, 18n, 21, 22, 38,
Weinberger, L. J. 325n 106, 214, 217, 235, 262, 287,
Weinfeld, M. 221, 259 325–400, 416
Weiss, H.-F. 282, 288 Young, N. H. 269, 288
Weiss, J. 40
Weiss, Z. 35n Zahavy, T. 268, 288
Weitzman, M. P. 34, 57, 175, 177, 185 Zakovitch, Y. 76n
Wellhausen, J. 148n, 153, 154, 209, 212, Zecchini, G. 142n
219, 261, 270, 288 Zellentin, H. M. 10n, 27
Wenham, G. J. 56 Zetzel, J. E. G. 130n
Wénin, A. 18, 25, 109 Zimmerli, W. 108
Wenschkewitz, H. 264, 266, 288 Zimmermann, J. 33, 57
Werblowsky, R. J. Z. 57 Zunz, L. 325, 325n, 328n, 330, 330n,
Wermelinger, O. 62n, 63n 352, 352n
432
 Index of References

Old Testament 49.5–7 277, 278

49.8–12 12, 277
Genesis
49.9 161, 254
ch. 1 349
49.9–10 74
1.1 lxx 47
49.9–12 14
1.21 351
49.10 73 n.25, 74, 81, 82, 89, 114, 114
1.26 47
n.8, 124 n.18, 125, 133, 168, 256, 413
1.27 46
50.24–25 70
2.6 lxx 47
4.25 334 Exodus
5.1 47 2.24 106, 336
5.1 lxx 47 3.6 92
6.3 381 3.8 92
6.4 380 n.24 4.1–9 246
8.1 402 4.1–9 lxx 297
9.11 99, 101 4.22 47, 164, 292, 302, 303
12.17 lxx 204 4.27 278
13.4 97 5.14–15 193
17.13 101 5.19 193
17.2 99 6.3–5 106
19.39 402 6.5 106
21.10 255 6.8 106
22.2 241 6.16 354
22.2–3 99 6.16–27 270, 271, 276
22.8 352 14.14 71, 164
22.16 99 14.19 46
27.16 192 14.31 296, 305, 413
27.29 342 14.31 lxx 305
27.38 330 14.31–15.1 lxx 293, 294, 297
27.40 330 ch. 15 67, 70, 244, 246, 290, 292, 293,
28.10–22 236 299, 303
28.17 228, 237, 241 15.1 296
28.22 228, 275 15.2 296
30.22 402 15.3 68 n.19
32.9–12 97 15.11 lxx 303
33.11 375 15.13 299
35.1–15 236 15.16 299
35.4 378 n.22 15.17 70, 120 n.15, 224, 225, 227, 228,
40.9 276 229, 230, 232–8, 241, 243, 244, 246,
40.10 160 248, 249, 253, 256, 290 n.1, 343
ch. 49 33 15.17 lxx 88, 119 n.13, 229, 238, 246,
ch. 49 lxx 160 247, 248, 253,
434 Index of References

15.20–1 292 4.22–6 190

16.16 193 ch. 8 270, 338, 354
16.18 193 8.30 269
16.22 190 8.33 84
17.9 193 8.34 348, 354, 355
18.27 103 9.1 189, 350
ch. 19–32 273 9.2 281
19.4–6 292 9.5–8 281
19.5–6 301 9.7–14 280
19.6 lxx 75 9.10 281
19.16 333, 346 9.21 281
19.19 346, 348, 362 9.23 281
19.25 97 10.10–11 274
20.18 347, 348 10.19 281
22.27(28) 189 11.4–7 342 n.61
23.20–1 84 16.2 274
23.22 301 16.5–6 268
24.1 189, 195, 274 16.6 280, 281
24.9–11 189, 195, 274 16.31 394
24.11 354 16.33 262, 271, 282
24.14 206 23.44 403
25.9 227, 237 25.35 329
25.22 273, 274 26.3–13 224
25.40 227, 237, 264 26.4 121
26.15 375 26.7 99
26.30 264 26.11–12 300
ch. 28–30 270 26.42 106
28.1 273 26.42–5 253
28.14 273 26.45 402
28.36 275
Numbers
28.41 84
ch. 1 202
29.21 269
ch. 1–2 191
30.12 394
1.4 187
32.6 300
1.5–16 199
32.13 106, 107, 402
1.7 188
32.26–9 277
1.16 196
32.32 335
1.53 271
34.30–2 189
3.1–4 270
34.30 lxx 195, 206, 211
3.5–13 270
34.31 190, 206
3.9 270
34.31 lxx 189, 206
6.26 277
35.27 190
ch. 7 187, 192
40.12–16 270
7.1 262
40.34–5 234
7.1–88 190, 191
Leviticus 266 7.2 187, 192, 196, 204, 206
2.12–13 354 7.2 lxx 196
4.13–23 205 Peshitta Num. 7.2 204
4.15 189, 205, 206 7.17 193
4.22 192, 196, 205 7.64 123
 Index of References 435

7.87 196 ch. 24 160, 177

7.89 273 24.5–6 244
8.4 227, 237 24.7 118, 174–80
8.19 270, 354 24.7 lxx 16, 180, 298, 377
10.4 190, 199, 204 Peshitta Num. 24.7 175
10.4 lxx 199, 204 24.9 177
10.4–28 190 24.17 14, 71, 89, 174, 367
Peshitta Num. 10.4 205 24.17 lxx 16, 169, 256
10.14 196 24.18–19 169
10.14–28 205 25.11 277
10.34 205 25.12–13 99, 270
11.16 193, 204, 207 25.14 193
11.25 212 26.52–56 193
12.7 275 27.2 190, 204
13.23–24 193 27.2 lxx 204
14.9 lxx 371 Peshitta Num. 27.2 204
16.22 lxx 45 27.15–23 83
17.3 270 27.16 84
17.6–15 106 27.16 lxx 45
17.11–13 (16.46–8) 335 27.16–17 216
17.11–15 277 27.18 84
17.16–28 191 27.19 271
17.17 204 27.21 261, 356
17.17 lxx 204 27.22 271
Peshitta Num. 17.17 204 30.2 191, 195, 206
17.21 203 31.13 190, 204
17.23 274 31.13 lxx 204
17.41–50 106 Peshitta Num. 31.13 204
18.1 270 32.2 190, 200, 204
18.6 270 32.2 lxx 204
18.2–5 270 Peshitta Num. 32.2 204
18.8–20 270 32.28 200
18.19 354 34.16–29 190
18.21 267, 268, 269 34.17–18 193, 201
18.21–4 270 35.28 261
18.26–28 267 36.1 190
19.16–19 398
Deuteronomy
19.17–22 268
1.30 164
21.2 204
3.22 164
21.2 lxx 204
4.7 356
Peshitta Num. 21.(2,6) 204
4.19 45, 297
21.5 294, 413
4.19–20 297
21.5 lxx 305
5.20 191, 195, 206
21.6 204
6.4 345
21.6 lxx 204
6.4 lxx 98
21.18 190, 193, 204
7.9 245
21.19 103
9.5 99, 101
23.10 lxx 408
9.10 79 n.35
23.21 331, 343, 357, 362
9.27 402
436 Index of References

10.6 270 32.43 lxx 299

10.8–9 270 ch 33 160, 290
12.12 244 33.3 300, 408
12.18 244 33.3 lxx 303, 408
13.14 378 33.5 86, 206, 292, 296, 342
15.9 lxx 379 33.5 lxx 298
ch 17 261 33.8 277, 278, 282
17.8–12 218, 274 33.8–11 270, 271, 274
17.9 202 33.9 101
17.14 199 33.10 284
17.14–20 118 33.15 334
17.15 120, 121, 125 33.26 300
17.20 197 33.29 301
18.3 273 34.1 202
18.3–5 270
Joshua
18.6–8 270
2.23–24 202
20.2–9 356
4.4 193
20.4 164
9.15–21 190, 200
21.5 274
10.14 71
21.23 336 n.38
14.1 190, 201, 203
26.2 352
17.4 190
26.5–11 99
18.10 201
28.1 99
19.51 203
28.7 99
21.1 190, 203
29.9 191, 195, 204, 206
22.9–34 190
29.9 lxx 201, 204, 206
22.13 200
29.28 79 n.35
22.13–15 203
30.3–5 292
22.14 200
30.5 253
23.10 164
30.14 295
31.9 274 Judges
31.21 lxx 291 2.11–23 199
31.28 193, 195, 204 5.31 356
31.28 lxx 193, 195, 204 20.8–11 202
ch 32 67, 69, 70, 290, 291
1 Samuel
32.1 lxx 302
2.9 82
32.8 297, 301, 305
2.10 73
32.8 lxx 45, 299, 304
32.8–9 lxx 45, 296, 299, 304 2 Samuel
32.8–14 301 ch 7 183
32.10–14 292 7.4–17 224
32.15 301 7.8 293
32.35 237, 238, 244, 247, 290 n.1 7.10 120 n.15, 163, 224, 225, 230, 234,
32.38 69 236
32.19–20 lxx 295 7.10–14 169
32.35 lxx 237, 246 7.11–14 231
32.36 lxx 299 7.12–16 224
32.40 301 7.13 75, 228, 231, 232
32.41–3 70 7.16 75
 Index of References 437

7.17 225 28.4 160

23.1 175, 180 28.6 228, 231
28.11–12 232
1 Kings
28.19 227, 232, 237, 350
2.4 178, 180
29.5 85
3.7–9 315 n.21
29.6 190
5.17–19 228
29.14 117
5.19 228
7.2 332 2 Chronicles
8.1 191 2.3–5 228
8.2 234 2.4(5) 231
8.11 234 2.5(6) 231
8.12 228, 236 3.1 332
8.12–13 lxx 229 5.2 191
8.13 228, 229, 233, 235, 239, 241, 242, 5.14 234
248, 343 6.1 228, 236
8.17–20 228 6.2 228, 233, 235
8.20 239 6.3 229
8.23 117 6.3 lxx 229
8.25 178, 180 6.7–10 228
8.27 228, 239 6.13 120
8.30 228 6.14 117
8.39 228, 229, 233 6.16 178, 180
8.39 lxx 88 6.18 229
8.43 228 6.21 229
8.49 228 6.30 229
9.5 178 6.30 lxx 229
ch. 11 125 6.33 228
11.34 213 6.39 228
6.42 75, 97, 402
1 Chronicles
6.42–7.1 404
2.10 190
7.1 234
3.24 172
7.18 178, 180
5.2 160
7.21 115
7.40 190
23.20 lxx 195,
9.23 226
29.30 190
17.1–15 224
29.31 85
17.9 225
30.2 190
17.12 75, 228
30.12 190
17.14 75, 228
30.24 190
17.14–15 224, 228
31.8 190
22.10 228
32.33 405
23.2 190
35.25 403
23.22 196
35.8 190
24.17 266
27.11 lxx 195 Ezra
27.16 lxx 193, 195 2.2 195
27.16–22 190 2.68 229, 230
27.22 lxx 187 6.17 195
28.1 190 8.15 271
438 Index of References

8.17 271 45(44).2–3 lxx 315

8.35 195 45(44).4 lxx 87
10.8 lxx 204 45.7 44, 89, 169
45(44).11 lxx 294
Nehemiah
46.10 [ET 9] 69
7.7 195
47.6 346
7.65 lxx 274
47.6–9 69
ch. 9 97
48.3 342
9.32 190
48.4–6 168
9.34 190
49(50).5 410
10.38 267
50.10 351
Job 56.1 333
1.6 44 68.13 275
38.7 44 68.19 275
38.13 344, 345, 368 68.30–31 374, 375
40.19 351 68.31 333
72.5 165
Psalms 66
72.10–11 375
Ps. 2 168, 169, 177, 221, 372
74.2 357
2.2 345, 346, 367, 368, 372
76.4 [ET 3] 69
2.6 170
77.20 402
2.6–9 252
78(79).2–3 410
2.7 44, 47, 302
78.54 227, 243
2.9 85, 169
78.69 239, 349
Ps. 3 368
Ps. 80 173, 180
Ps. 8 154
80.15–18 373
8.2–3 296
80.18 180
8.6 252
81.4–5 346
9.12 402
Ps. 82
9.18 402
82.1 44, 48
9.19 409
82.1–2 165
11.4 241
82.6 163
16.2 409
84.4 333
18.8 169
85.11 278
20.7–9 71
87.1 227
24.7–8 342
87.2 254
24.7–10 404
87.3 224, 225, 254
24.9–10 342
87.5 178, 227, 243
29(28).6 lxx 301, 302
89(88).6 lxx 303
30.1 404
89.19–37 224
30.4 404
89.20 225
33.14 229
89.50 97
33.14 lxx 229
93.1 344
34.10 409
93.2 227, 229
36(37).28 410
95.3 41, 44, 69
37.19 245
95.4 48
37.22 245
Ps. 96 69
44.10 331
96.5 45
Ps. 45 168, 180
96(97).10 410
45(44) lxx inscr. 301
 Index of References 439

102.14 233 2.12 345, 354

102.17 234 2.14 332
102(101).17 lxx 234, 239 3.6 332
105.5–27 402 5.1 192
105.7–end 97 5.2 333, 345
105.8 106 5.52 345n
105.42 402 6.10 331, 332
106.4–5 lxx 70 8.5 333
106(105).12 lxx 295 8.6 333
106.16 275, 278, 355 8.13 336
Ps. 110 42, 167, 168, 169, 180
Isaiah 42, 67
110.1 169, 171, 251, 252
1.1–4 372
110.1–3 43, 44, 47
1.26 125, 216
110.1–4 166
2.2 229
110.1–6 251
2.2–4 223
110.2 169, 256
2.3 319n
110.3 85, 88,
3.14 204
111.4 336
4.3 lxx 409
112.6 402
4.5 229, 235
114.6 295
4.7 242
115.6 409, 410
6.13 332
116.5 43
8.8 lxx 179
116.15 409, 410
9.5(6) 43, 44, 76, 85
Ps. 122 221, 223, 224, 248
9.6 315, 368
122.3 227, 237, 248
9.6–7 [ET 5–6] 74, 76n
122.5 167
9.7(6) 76
123.2 336
10.3 71, 332
127.2 336
10.14 332
Ps. 132 220
10.34 372
132.1 402
10.20–34 74
144.15 356
10.33–11.5 374
147.2 239, 340
10.34–11.5 373
147.3 334
ch. 11 168, 177, 180
148.7 351
11.1 74, 86, 89, 163, 169, 174, 177, 355
149.9 410
11.1 lxx 162
Ps. 150 345
11.1–10 74
Proverbs 11.2 47, 89, 168
8.23 226 11.2–4 168, 169
8.25 lxx 47 11.3 376
9.1–4 350 11.3–4 lxx 180
10.7 402, 410 11.4 85, 168, 169, 180, 252, 344, 367,
368, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376,
Ecclesiastes
378, 379
3.13 104
11.4 lxx 178, 371, 372, 379
5.18 104
11.10 74
Song of Songs 331, 333, 356 11.11 292, 357
1.13 332 11.25 161
2.8 333 14.5 344
2.9 345n ch. 16 180
440 Index of References

16.5 lxx 180 55.3–4 67, 97

18.3 345, 346 59.16–18 68, 71
18.4 229 59.16–60.22 223
19.16–25 184 59.17 68n
19.20 lxx 179, 180 59.19 71n
19.21 lxx 180 59.20 71, 221, 251, 251, 254
ch. 24–7 67 ch. 60 71
24.23 331, 342 60.14 164
26.19 lxx 393 61.1–2 85, 86, 165
27.1 351 61.2 85
27.13 333 61.10–11 246
30.20 234, 336 ch. 62 223
32.2 lxx 169, 178, 179 62.3 344
33.20 252, 351 62.4–5 246
35.6 295 62.11 lxx 71
40.12 275, 354 ch. 63–64 248
40.22 351 63.1–6 71
41.2 336, 351 63.2 73n
42.11 347 63.7–64.11(12) 71
43.4 333 63.9 lxx 71
43.19 237 63.11 71, 402
44.20 347 63.11–14 292
44.3 lxx 301 63.13 295
45.8 175 63.17–64.12 223
49.14–26 223 64.3 246, 248
49.16 227, 250 64.4 250, 251
49.16 lxx 238 ch. 65–66 229, 236, 241, 242, 243, 246,
Peshitta Isa 49.16 238 247, 248, 251, 255
49.23 164 ch. 65–66 lxx 243, 247, 248
51.3 242 65.17 47
52.1 246 65.17–18 236, 241
52.7 165 65.17–19 224
52.10–54.6 254 65.17–25 223, 242, 250
52.13 46 65.18 236, 241, 250
53.2 lxx 314 65.20–22 242
53.7 332, 360 65.22 lxx 243
ch. 54 223, 229, 248, 242 66.5–24 223, 375
54.1 221, 251, 252, 250, 251 66.7 175
54.1–2 250 66.10–11 242, 243, 246
54.1–13 246 66.10–14 242
54.11 235, 238, 246, 250 66.13–14 243
54.11 lxx 235, 238, 246, 250 66.14 242
54.11–12 225 66.14–16 71
54.11–14 250, 252 66.20 244, 245, 375
54.11–17 lxx 235 66.20–24 242
54.12 196 66.22 47, 236
54.14 235 66.23–24 243
54.14 lxx 224, 235 66.23 lxx 243
54.14–17 lxx 247, 250 66.24 71
54.16–17 240, 250 66.24 lxx 243, 251
 Index of References 441

Jeremiah 66 41.22 336, 351, 352

ch. 2 331, 364 44.23–24 278
2.2 252, 335 44.3ff. 352
17.12 351 ch. 45–48 191
18.18 278 45.8 200
30.9 170
Daniel 66
30.21 125
3.12 163
ch. 31 223
3.18 163
31.4 239
3.86 lxx 402, 406, 408
31.10–14 250
3.87 lxx 409
31.12–14 242
6.8–10(7–9) lxx 163
31.33 225
ch. 7 43, 84, 154, 156–8, 161, 169, 175,
33.17 73n, 178, 180
386
33.17–22 73, 73n, 179
ch. 7–8 385
38.4 lxx 239
7.1 171
38.28 339
7.7 346
48.45 367
7.8 367, 369, 380
50.17 328, 331
7.9 154, 156, 159, 166, 167, 169, 170, 204
51.45 301
7.9–28 169
Lamentations 7.13 154, 156, 161, 166–72, 180, 181, 184,
4.6 326 320n
ch. 5 223 7.18–27 163
5.13 335 7.22 169, 320n
7.24–27 367
Ezekiel 66, 189
8.5–12 373
ch. 8 333
8.9–11 367
ch. 16 331
8.11 230
16.8 292, 353
8.23–26 367
16.49 330
9.6 191
16.60 292
9.8 191
17.8 353
9.24 165
17.22–24 223, 242
9.24–27 84n, 320
17.24 243
9.25 165, 166
20.40–42 242
12.3 410
22.5 328
12.13 358
28.12–15 330
34.13–14 242 Hosea
34.23–24 169 2.1(1.10) 332
34.24 212 2.1 lxx 300
ch. 37 404 2.25 300, 301
37.11–14 347 3.5 169
37.21–28 253 11.11 333
37.24–26 84, 169
Joel
37.25 161, 170
3.6 331
37.27 300
ch. 38–39 367, 380 Amos
38.3 378 4.5 231
38.5 378 4.13 lxx 377
40.2 lxx 239, 240 7.1 lxx 377
442 Index of References

9.11 172 7.8 196

9.11–15 377 7.102–105 407
7.88–100 409
Obadiah
8.42 271
21 331, 34, 343, 345, 358
8.46 271
Micah 9.4 204
4.1 lxx 253 9.40 72
4.1–4 224
2 Esdras (= 4 Ezra) 63, 65, 63, 78, 84, 87,
4.1–7 318
89, 154, 163, 169, 169, 177, 241, 248,
5.1(2) 84, 176
249, 316, 320, 373, 377, 380
6.4 353
2.10 318
7.15 292
2.42 316
Haggai 2.68 229
2.6–9 224 ch. 3–14 32, 33, 67, 84, 237
2.7 169, 234 3.4–36 97
2.7–9 234 5.6 367
5.23–27 331
Zechariah
6.58 47
2.3 85, 356
7.26 246
2.3–4 375n
7.28 82
2.5–10 239
7.29 89
6.2 180
7.75 394
6.12 46, 118n, 175
7.88–101 408
6.12 lxx 119n
7.99 408
7.3–5 403
7.102–105 406
7.12 169
8.52 246
8.19 403
ch. 9–10 260, 290
9.9–10 67
10.25–27 254
9.13 347
10.26–27 254
9.14 347, 357
10.27 240
10.8 333, 346
10.42 240
ch. 14 67, 224
10.44 240
Malachi 10.53–54 242
2.1–10 270 11.36–46 372
2.5 277 11.36–12.39 254
2.6 278, 354 11.37 163
2.6 lxx 278, 283 12.1–3 372
2.6–7 274 12.30–33 372
2.7 261, 274 12.31–32 162, 163
3.16 337 12.32 85
3.20 356 12.42 89
ch. 13 128, 173, 183, 220, 242
Apocrypha 13.1–13 375
13.3 87, 168
1 Esdras (= 3 Ezra) 63, 66, 78
13.3–4 379
1.32 72
13.4 372
3.4–36 97
13.4–11 372
4.13 72
13.6–7 169
5.5–6 72
13.6–13 252, 242
5.23–27 331
 Index of References 443

13.9–13 87 13.14–15 70
13.10 168 13.15 70
13.10–11 373 14.3 70
13.13 375 14.8–12 70
13.26 88 14.12 44
13.27–28 373 ch. 17 70
13.32–50 252
Wisdom of Solomon 61, 64, 66, 72, 240, 290
13.35–36 169, 243
ch. 1–5 70, 71
13.35–38 242, 373
2.23 47
13.36 88, 226, 240, 246, 247
3.1 393, 408, 409
13.37–38 85
3.1–9 70
13.38 373
3.4 70
13.39–40 70
3.4–8 410
13.45–46 322n
4.7 393
14.5–6 79
ch. 5 71
14.44–47 85
5.1 393
14.45–48 79
5.5 303
Tobit 64, 66, 393 5.16–17 410
1.6–8 268 5.16–23 68, 70
1.19–20 70 ch. 7–10 72
2.8 70 7.7–14 315n
ch. 13–14 70–1, 240 7.25–26 47
13.1 66 7.26 47
13.7 225 7.27 46, 393
13.11 225 8.19 315n
13.17–18 225 9.4 167
14.1 295 9.8 88, 227, 253
14.5 119n, 225, 240 9.9 46
9.10 167
Judith 64, 66
9.12 167
3.8 70
10.10 227, 237
4.6–15 72
10.15 300
6.2 70
10.15–11.1 46
8.6 404
10.20–21 295
9.4 280
10.21 295
9.7 70
16.2 300
9.8 70
16.20 300
9.13 70
16.26 301, 302, 303
10.8 70
18.9 303
11.13–15 268
18.13 300, 303
13.4 70
18.15 167
15.8 72
18.20–25 72
15.9 70
18.21 278, 280
16.2–17 70
18.22 106
16.3 70
18.24 262
16.18–20 70
19.5 300
Rest of Esther 66 19.9 295
13.9 70 19.22 300
13.12–14 70 19.24 393
444 Index of References

Ecclesiasticus 35, 66, 73, 54, 63, 229, 248, 50.1 407
312, 393 50.1–21 72
17.3 47 50.5–21 278
17.17 45, 297 50.13 271
17.18 47 50.20 271
24.3 47 50.25–6 378
24.4 46
Baruch 64, 77
24.9–10 233
1.1–3.8 66
24.10 233
1.16 191
24.13–17 244
1.17 271
24.23 233
2.1 191
24.25–26 244
ch. 4–5 71
35.17–19 70
4.36–5.9 250
ch. 36 240
36.7 370 Epistle of Jeremy (Baruch 6) 66
36.10–17 233
Song of the Three Children 393
36.11 47
36.12 233, 367 Bel and the Dragon 33–9 411
36.12–13 233, 235
Prayer of Manasses 64, 66
36.12–14 233
36.13 233 1 Maccabees 64, 66, 84, 92
36.14 234 1.54 167
36.14(15) 233, 235 2.17 204
39.13–15 295 2.49–70 75
42.15–43.33 349 2.54 270
43.27 47 2.57 75
43.28 47 2.59–60 167
43.33 47 3.3–9 75
44.1 407 4.30 75
44.1–15 402 4.49–61 97
ch. 45 261, 353 4.59 404
45.1–26 72 5.62 75
45.6 270, 278 7.17 410
45.7 282 9.21 75
45.17 270 11.85–89 167
45.18–20 354 14.4–15 75
45.18–22 276 14.28 204
45.23 277 14.41 271
45.24 270 14.44 271
45.25 72, 73n, 179 14.47 271
46.12 404
2 Maccabees 64, 66
47.1 235
1.2 402
47.1–22 72, 73
1.25 402, 408
47.22 74, 76
1.25–29 70
48.17 377n
1.27–29 224
48.17–49.4, 11 72
1.29 224, 227, 229, 234
49.10 404
2.17–18 75, 224, 229
49.12 235
2.21–22 116
ch. 50 327
2.26 394
 Index of References 445

3.1–36 72 ch. 37–39 373

3.14 279, 280 39:7–40:3 87
3.16–17 279, 280, 282 39:9 178
3.20–21 279, 280 ch. 40 252
3.21 282 40:1–2 373
5.19 394 59:4 240
ch. 6–7 69 59:4–11 79n
6.7 138 61:2–3 116
6.18–7.42 394 68:5 265
6.21–28 394 ch. 70–73 81
7.6 291 ch. 72–3 67n
7.16 394 72:2–6 85
7.37–38 394, 407 84:2–4 157
9.1–18 394 85:1 409
10.1–8 116, 404 85:3 409
10.4 116 85:12 406
11.8–10 71
3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch) 78
12.38–45 394
15.11–16 394, 412 Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (4 Baruch) 78
15.12 261, 271, 279, 282
1 Enoch 61, 77, 79, 80, 84, 153, 156, 159,
15.12–15 71
161, 162, 168–71, 222, 238, 244, 249,
15.14 224, 407
265, 401
15.36 404
9:10 167, 268, 394
22:5–7 394
Pseudepigrapha
22:9 408
Letter of Aristeas ch. 25 93, 95
16 45 ch. 25–27 119, 227
122 279 25:5–6 244, 245, 410
205 104 25:7 225, 237, 244, 246, 407
211 117n 26:1 244
255 117 26:2–27:4 244
261 117 27:3 245, 251
310–11 94
Parables of Enoch (ch 37–71) 30, 32, 43,
2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of 66, 78, 80, 82, 86, 88–9, 154, 156–7,
Baruch) 67, 78, 80, 86n, 240, 159, 172
376, 379 45:3 43, 168
4:1–6 88, 227, 240, 242 46:3 168
6:9 242 46:1–4 85
10:18 242 46:3–6 168
21:12–18 394 48:3 87, 342
24:3 178 48:4–7 87
29:3 82, 87, 88 48:6 85
29:3–6 245 48:7 85
29:6 190, 191, 245 48:10 168
30:1 88 49:1–3 86
32:2–4 240 49:2 87
32:4 242 49:3 168
36:4–5 178 53:6 119n
446 Index of References

56:5–6 32n Odes of Solomon

ch. 61 81 42 364n
61:8–10 82 Psalms of Solomon 32, 66, 76, 78, 80, 81,
62:1–3 168 87, 88, 153, 160, 220, 234, 256, 410
62:2–3 168 11:8 224, 226
89–91 155, 289 14:6 131, 410
89:50 97, 120n 17 and 18 160
89:69 120n 17:21–22 177
90:19–38 164 17:23 85, 87, 88n, 275
90:29 115, 120n, 237 17:23–27 85
90:30 164 17:24 177
90:33 120n 17:26 70
90:36 120n 17:27 168
90:37 165 17:32–35 220
91:12–13 164 17:32–37 76
91:13 234, 239 17:33–34 220
2 Enoch 78 17:33–37 318n
17:41–42 89
Jubilees 78, 79, 80, 239, 244, 259, 261, 17:42–44 86
273, 286, 394 17:42 86, 88n
1:27 46, 223, 239 18:6 87, 88
1:29 224, 227, 229, 234, 239 17:31 180, 375
4:26 96, 221, 239, 248–51, 254, 259
6:17–27 403 Psalm 151 66, 73, 74, 78, 315n
8:19 231, 244, 270, 315n, 403 Sibylline Oracles 77, 119n, 221, 249, 316,
13:25–27 268 370, 371, 380, 383
15:30–32 297 3 Sib 377, 381, 383
16:20–31 392 4 Sib 221, 249, 384
ch. 21 93 5 Sib 115, 118n, 162, 169, 170, 172, 180,
30:18 277 220, 234, 235, 249, 256, 316, 320
31:14 354 3:63–74 378
31:15 261 3:97–154 381
31:16–17 270 3:265–94 119n
32:1–15 270 3:319–21 377
32:3 276 3:364 383
32:15 268, 301 3:619–24 383
3:652 381n
3 Maccabees 19, 19n, 78
3:652–6 87
6:3 229, 298, 381, 408
3:743–59 383
7:17–21 399
3:787–94 383
4 Maccabees 78, 262 4:119–22 384
17:19 303, 408 4:137–39 384
4:138–39 322n
Ascension of Isaiah
5:101–10 373
2:1–3:12 378
5:108–10 373, 374
3:17 301
5:137–54 374
4:1–18 378
5:143–48 384
4:2–4 384
5:263 223
11:1 14, 46, 74, 86, 89, 160, 161, 174, 176,
5:361–64 384
181, 355, 373
 Index of References 447

5:414 87, 162, 173, 180, 320n Second Ezekiel 78, 79

5:414–27 87 Assumption of Moses 32, 61, 78, 85, 89,
5:414–33 84, 86, 162 90, 126, 243, 258
5:415–33 320 1.17–18 232, 243
5:420–27 240 1.18 70
5:423–5 118n 8.1 367, 372
5:425 115 10.1–2 84
5:432 173 320n 11.16 45, 84, 414
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 66, 11.17 89
78–80, 79, 83, 89, 197–8, 203, 207, Life of Adam and Eve 78
213, 286, 315, 378, 397–9, 404, 412
Joseph and Asenath 78
TBenjamin 23.8–10 278
3:8 416 28.15 270, 278
9:2 120n 29.3–5 278
10:6–7 397 33.7–16 280
10:7 197
Apocalypse of Abraham 78
TJoseph
20:3 397 New Testament
TJudah 394 Matthew
ch. 24 180 2.1–3 131
24:1 89, 174, 176 2.2 119
24:4–6 89 2.4 119
25:1 397 2.6 176
25:1–2 197 2.18 393
TLevi 89, 236, 264, 270, 393 2.21–22 131
ch. 2–5 270 8.11 392
2:4 279 8.20 155
ch:3 264 14.6 131
5:3 278 16.19 209, 393
ch. 8–12 270 18.8 212
9:3–4 236, 273 18.18 209
9:6 273 19.28 47, 187, 188, 197, 209, 212–14
9:7 273 23.27–29 393
ch. 14–18 270 23.29 404–5
ch. 18 271 24.37–39 155
18:2–3 89 26.28 337n
27.52 409
TNaphtali 27.52–53 393, 413
4:5 174, 176 27.53 404
TZebulun 28.15 43
10:2 197 28.19 209

Testament of Job 78 Mark

1.2 84
Prayer of Joseph 78, 79, 84 1.11 302
Eldad and Medad 78, 377 3.6 113
3.11 45
Jannes and Jambres 78
448 Index of References

3.13–19 209 17.26–30 155

3.14 212 19.27 252
3.14–15 209, 212, 214 21.5 148
5.28 394 21.8 317n
6.6–13 215 22.25 98
6.7 209, 212 22.30 209, 212, 213
6.7–13 209 24.21 317n
6.14–15 414 24.45 209
6.21 131, 138 24.48 209
6.30 212 24.49 209
6.34 215
John
7.27 214
1.13 47
8.28–29 414
1.41 370
8.30 213
1.45 113, 158
8.32–33 214
4.5–6 96
9.4 393, 414
4.10 96, 107
9.4–5 412
4.12 96
9.5 413
4.20–22 96
9.7 302
4.25 370
10.35–38 214
4.26 96
10.37–40 214
5.16 312
10.38 213
5.21–23 43
12.13 113
5.28 393
12.26–27 393
7.40–52 311n
12.35–37 43
9.22 370
13.1 148
9.28 413
13.21–23 382
12.21 113
14.62 171
12.34 158
15.35 406
12.42 311, 370
16.6 413
13.3 47
Luke 16.2 370
1.5 131 16.26 413
1.15 84 19.7 155
1.17 84 20.21 209
1.33 74, 76 20.22 209, 212
1.68–75 97 20.23 209, 212
2.1–3 124n
Acts
2.30–31 88
1.5 209
2.38 225, 317n
1.6 317n
6.13 212
1.8 209
6.21 245
2.1–14 209
9.58 155
2.2 209
ch. 10 210–11
2.3–4 212
10.1 209, 212
2.29 393, 404
10.17–20 209
2.35 311n
11.44 393
2.37 209
11.47 393
2.42 209
13.28 392
2.44 293
16.22–31 392
4.5 204, 215
 Index of References 449

4.8 204 26.7 198

4.13 294 26.11 321
4.18 311n 26.17 301
4.25–27 294 26.18 303, 408
4.32 293, 294 26.23 301, 305
4.35 209 28.17 301, 305
5.1–11 393
Romans 96
5.12–13 393
ch. 1 295
5.15 393
1.6–7 105
5.40 311n
1.7 302, 304
5.42 311n
3.22 293, 305
6.2 209
ch. 4 104
6.11 413
ch. 5 258
7.16 393
5.1 104
7.17 301
5.15–16 95, 105
7.35 167, 213
6.3 298
7.35–38 298
8.15 296
7.38 303
8.34 413
7.52 184
8.39 302
7.56 181
ch. 9 105
9.22 311n
ch. 9–11 226, 306
9.27 209
9.3 96
11.30 209, 210
9.4 95
12.1 139
9.4–5 103, 105, 107, 226
12.2 209
9.5 392
12.19 209
9.24 301
12.22 373n
9.24–25 301
13.34–37 404
9.24–26 104
14.23 210
9.25–26 252
ch. 15–16 210
10.1 226
15.2 209
10.8 295
15.4 209
10.10 295
15.6 209
11.16 267
15.14 301
11.25–27 305
15.21 311n
11.26 226, 243, 248, 254, 256
15.22 209
11.26–27 221, 226, 249, 251
15.23 209
11.28 302, 305
16.4 209
11.29 95, 105, 107
17.25 117n
12.5 298, 302, 305
17.25–26 47
ch. 13 134n
17.28–29 47
15.10 300, 301, 302
17.31 180
15.12 74
18.5 311n
15.16 328
19.12 393
15.18–19 393
20.17 210
16.10–11 114, 143
20.29 369n
20.32 303, 408 1 Corinthians
21.18 209, 210 1.2 302, 304
23.8 408 1.2–3 413
450 Index of References

2.8 226 Ephesians

2.9 238, 246, 248–9, 251, 256 1.4–5 302, 303
3.23 305, 359, 413 1.6 301, 302
4.21 393 1.18 303
5.4 393 2.12 261
8.5 316 2.19 297, 303
8.6 294, 413 3.10 297
9.13 267 3.8–12 297
10.1–4 300 5.1 302, 303
10.2 298
Philippians
10.7 300
1.1 304
ch. 11–14 293
1.26 393
11.5 293
3.20 251
12.3 321
3.21 256
12.27 305
14.33 303, 304 Colossians
ch. 15 252, 258 1.12 303
15.5 212 1.13 302
15.20–28 252, 258 2.16 138n
15.25 256 3.12 302–4
15.28 342n
1 Thessalonians
16.22 289
1.1 302
2 Corinthians 1.4 302
1.3–5 335 4.16–17 256
5.1–2 226, 227, 247–9, 255, 256 4.17 243, 256
6.15 379
2 Thessalonians 376, 379
6.16 300
2.1–13 370
6.18 293
2.3 366n, 378n, 379
8.9 105
2.7 379
9.15 105
2.8 252, 371, 379
11.2 289, 305, 359
2.13 302
Galatians
1 Timothy
2.8 213
5.17 210
ch. 3 104
3.22 293, 305 Titus
4.3–5 297 1.5 210
4.3–11 138n
Hebrews 260–82 passim
4.6 297
1.1–2 271
4.8–10 297
1.2 271
4.24 251
ch. 2 261
4.25 226
ch. 2–5 284
4.25–26 242, 247, 255
2.10–18 286
4.26 250, 251, 254
2.17 270, 276, 277, 278, 282
4.26–30 221, 248, 249, 252
2.17–18 282, 288
4.27 226, 228
2.17–3.1 260, 276, 283
4.29 255
2.18 279, 282
4.30 255
3.1 281
6.15–16 226, 249
ch. 4–5 279
 Index of References 451

4.9 301 1 Peter

4.14 279 1.4 88, 238
4.14–5.10 278, 276, 277, 282 1.5 238
4.15 278, 279, 282 1.23 47
5.1 280, 281 2.9–10 301
5.1–4 276, 283 5.1 211
5.2 278, 279, 280, 282
2 Peter
5.3 270
1.4 47
5.4–6 271
1.16 380n
5.5–6 271
5.7–8 279, 282 1 John
5.12–6.2 264 2.1 413
6.20 267, 271 2.18 369, 370
6.20–8.13 271 2.18–23 369
ch. 7–8 260, 270, 276, 284 2.22 369
7.1 267 3.9 47
7.3 267 4.3 369, 370
7.5 267, 268, 268, 269–71, 284
2 John
7.9 260
1 210
7.11 270, 271, 275
7 369
7.12 271
7.14 270, 271 3 John
7.15–16 271 1 210
7.16 271
Jude
7.19 271
5 301
7.25 281, 413
7.27 270, 280 Revelation 66, 82, 155, 223, 248, 376, 379
7.28 271 1.4–5 390n
8.1 281 1.16 356, 372
8.6 271 2.7 246
ch. 9 268, 288 2.13 371
9.1–5 269 2.16 371
9.4 271 2.26–27 393
9.5 264, 284 3.12 246
9.7 270, 280 3.21 393
9.13 268, 269 4.3–4 167
10.1 271 4.4 197, 211
10.30 301 4.10 197
11.22 393, 404 5.5 160, 161
11.33–34 337 6.9–11 392, 393
11.35 407 6.10 407
12.1 393 7.4 211
12.22 264 ch. 11–12 371
12.22–24 388 ch. 11–20 370
12.23 393, 408 11.5 372
13.10 267 12.1–6 289
13.11 280 12.8 382
13.8 381
James
13.10 409
5.14(1.1) 210
452 Index of References

14.12 409 173 44

15.3–4 290
Det.
15.6 409
2 268
15.16 409
63–7 271
16.12 32n, 322n
67 101
18.4 301
68 101
ch. 19 373
19.5 371 Flacc.
19.7 364n 25–39 119
19.7–8 289 29 146
19.11 372 80 204
19.11–21 371 97 140
19.15 371
Fug.
19.19–21 371
73 187
19.21 371
ch. 20–22 249 Gig.
20.4 167 58 380n
20.7 346
Leg. ad Gaium
20.8–9 376n
143–7 140n
20.11 167
149–51 140
21.1–22.5 240
155 145
21.2 246, 289
205 125n
21.9 364n
278 114
21.14 196
294–97 110
21.18 240
22.14 246 Leg. all.
22.19 246 3.78 104
3.105 290
NT Apocrypha 3.132–35 279
Acts of John Migr. Abr.
27–9 412 1–127 99
88 314n
Mos.
88–91 314n
1.22 193
Acts of Xanthippe 1.148 298
15 315n 1.148–162 83n
1.158 298
Apocalypse of Peter
1.256 193
2 321n
1.290 174
Preaching of Peter 250 2.7 404
2.133 281
Philo 2.142 280
2.174 268
Abr.
2.288–89 290n
1 47n
273 99 Mut. nom
51 101
Conf.
52 99
41 46
58 99
60–63 46
108 277
146 46
 Index of References 453

Op. mundi 2.195 199

169 98 2.212 98
2.216 273
Plant.
2.346 290n
54–9 237, 290n
3.14 98
Post. Caini 3.47 193, 199
122–3 371 3.78 98
3.84 202, 274
Praem. et poen.
3.84–88 97
79 99
3.99–101 274
95 174
3.169 187
158 253
3.184 262
165–6 402, 406, 407
3.188 280, 280
166 409
3.189 282
Q. in Gen 3.190 271
3.51 101 3.202 273
3.208–11 280, 282
Sacr. Abelis et Caini
3.212 274
57 99, 101
3.219–22 192
Somn 3.220 187
2.187 261 3.223 98
2.223–24 101 3.232 274
2.224–25 99 3.279 280
2.237 101 3.287 199
3.288 199
Spec. Leg.
3.292 199
1.57 99
4.63–66 193
1.71–78 110
4.64 199
1.77 394
4.66 273
1.97 262, 282
4.68 267
1.101 280
4.79 268
1.156–57 268
4.125 157
1.268 268
4.141 193
2.196 394
4.162 200
2.219 99, 103, 104
4.171 200
3.131 261, 271, 282
4.174–75 200
3.319 298
4.193 274
Virt. 4.203 403
72–7 290 4.205 267
95 268 4.212 98, 103
4.213 98
V. Contempl.
4.218 202
83 292n
4.223–24 199, 261
85–9 293
4.240 267
87 292n, 295
4.292 274
4.303 157, 290n
Josephus
4.304 274
Ant. 4.312 274
1.5 202, 266, 274 4.318 98
1.12 279 4.320 157, 290n
454 Index of References

4.324 202 15.259 112n

5.15 202 15.268 126
5.20 193, 199 15.326–30 125
5.55 200 15.343 141
5.57 200 15.363–65 116
5.80 201 15.365–425 121
5.103 200, 202 15.370–71 119
5.104 200 15.373–79 118
5.135 199 15.380–425 115
5.151 202 15.383 117
8.107 120 15.385–87 115
8.107–108 242 15.387 117
8.111–113 117n, 117 15.388–89 122
8.190–211 118 15.402 115
10.35 157 15.423 119, 138
10.267–68 157 15.425 121
11.133 322n 16.28 128, 138
11.318–19 279 16.31–57 121n
11.326 279 16.87 141
11.331–33 280 16.132–33 117
12.22 45 16.132–35 120
12.126 121n 16.158–59 125
12.325 135 16.160–61 138n
13.299–300 118n 16.179–83 395
13.319 142n 16.182–83 118
13.375 116 16.184–87 124, 127
13.392 116 16.241–43 141n
14.9 125 16.269 144n
14.41 199, 261 17.20–21 141, 143
14.78 124 17.80 141
14.138 142 17.162 115, 123, 126
14.176 126 17.166 281
14.203 267 17.200–212 120
14.300 124 17.300–303 145
14.341 116 17.306 125
14.347 116 17.324–38 145
14.389 142 17.328–31 141
14.395–98 112 17.343 142n
14.403 124 18.85–6 378
14.430 124 19.295 120
14.436 112 19.321 138
14.441–45 116 19.328–31 126
14.450 112 20.13 143
14.458 112 20.13–16 139
14.479 113 20.97 167
14.491 124 20.103–104 139
15.2–3 112 20.181 284
15.9–10 110 20.206–207 284
15.147–60 116 20.216–18 270
 Index of References 455

20.219 148 Vita

33 113
Ap. 266
63 268
1.188 268, 275
80 268
2.165 199, 261
2.186–87 280
Josippon
2.187 275
50.15–17 115
2.194 275
B. J. Aristobulus
1.3 116 fr. 4 45, 47
1.5 322n
1.181 124 Ezekiel Tragicus 96, 167, 171
1.241 124 13–14 170
1.274 116 35 92, 95, 107
1.291–93 112 36–41 83n
1.313 124 68–69 167
1.319 112 68–89 83n, 166
1.326 112 74 167, 169
1.335 112 76 166, 167
1.351 113 104–107 91, 95
1.358 112 106 91, 92, 95, 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 402
1.361 147 106–107 92, 104, 105, 108
1.364–70 (Slavonic) 124n 419 169
1.396 147 420–27 169
1.400–401 115, 117, 123
1.422–28 126 Ps.-Philo, Bibl. Ant. 78, 82, 90
1.457–66 120 10.3 203
1.462 117 13.6 394
1.602–606 141 ch. 14 203
1.661 144n 14.1 203
2.1–9 120 17.2 203
2.80–83 140, 145 19.5 203
2.81 145 20.5 377
2.85 125 20.9 203
2.101–10 145 21.5 82
2.104–105 141 22.2 203
2.217 139 25.2 82, 203
2.221 143 25.6 203
2.221–23 139 25.10–11 378
2.266 113 26.15 203
2.559–61 121n 28.3 203
3.352 274 33.4 406
4.156 281 33.5 406
4.395 370 33.6 409
4.532–3 395 40.4 410
5.185 110 40.8 403
5.238 110 49.2 203
6.312 39, 118 51.5 82
7.44 396 62.9 82
456 Index of References

Inscriptions Od. 3.4.53 385

CIIP 183 266 Od. 3.4.69–70 385
CIIP 297 266 Od. 3.5.1–4 384
CIIP 534 266 Od. 3.6.1–5 117n
CIIP 1145 350n Od. 4.15.4–8 116
CIJ ii.983 113n Sat. 1.4.38–43 145n
CIJ 83 = JIWE 2.206 144 Sat. 1.9.69 147
CIJ 173 = JIWE 2.292 144 Julian, C. Galileos 335B 390
CIJ 402 = JIWE 2.100 144 Juvenal 6.159 134, 146
CIJ 1510 = JIGRE 33 409 Ovid
CIJ 1514 = JIGRE 84 266 Fasti 2.59–64 117n
IEphes 3217 409 Met. 5.321–31 384n
OGIS 419 117n Persius
Ashdod 117n 5.179–84 128, 129,
Beth Shearim 113n, 144, 135n
266 5.180 148
Capernaum 113, 144 5.184 135
Dura Europus 266 Pindar, Pyth. 1, epod. 1 382
Rome 266, 292n Plato
Rosetta stone 138 Crat. 397E 390
Sardis 98, 266 Rep. 5.468E–469A 390
Pliny
Classical authors ep. 96.7 314
Cassius Dio 69.14, 2 395 Paneg. 35–36 381
Cicero Plutarch, Is. Osir. 371B 382
Nat. deor. 1.37 242 Seneca, ep. 95.47 135
Phil. 5.42 315n Strabo
Claudian, Gigantomachia Geog. 16.2.46 134
27 381 Geog. 13.4.11 382
Euripides, Bacch. 141 292n Tacitus, ann 16.22 373n
Hesiod Tibullus 1.3.18 146
Op. 123 390 Virgil
Theog. 209 381 Aen 4.119 381
Theog. 371 381 Aen 2.504 115
Historia Augusta Aen 9.715–16 382
Avidius Cassius 5.1 381n ecl. 1.42 315n
Pesc. Niger 1.1 381n ecl. 4 142
Severus 16 322 ecl. 4.18–25 383
Severus 17.1 322 ecl. 4.28–30 383
Homer, Il. i 544 45 georg. 1.500 315n
Horace
Carm. saec. 1, 9 381n Legal writers
Carm. saec. 6 314n Gratian, Decretum 1.16 62n
Ep. 2.2.184 146 Theodosian Code 2.8, 19 138
Epod. 16.1–14 383
Od. 1.2.42 315n Christian
Od. 1.34–5 371 Apostolic Constitutions
Od. 3.4.37–80 384 2.28, 4 210
Od. 3.4.42–4 384 8.12 392, 403
Od. 3.4.49–50 384 Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39 62
 Index of References 457

Athenagoras, Leg. 10 390 Cyprian

Augustine Test. 2.13 314n
Ep. 29.9 389 Test. 3.16 409
C. Faustum 20.4, 21 389 Fortunat. 12 409
C.D. 8.26–27 390 De unitate 5.19(25) 294, 301
C.D. 18.45 114n Ps.-Cyprian
Serm. 273.3, 6–9 390 De mont. Sina et Sion 314n
Epistle of Barnabas 249 Ad Vigilium 311n
3.6 301, 320 Didascalia 26(6.21–2) 398
4.6 320 Ephrem
5.7 301 Comm. Diatess. 2.17 124n
ch. 16 320, 321, 323 Comm. Diatess. 3.7 124n
16.4 320 Eusebius
16.6 320 Chronicle, Olympiad 124n
16.7–10 320 Chronicle, year 228 322
Chrysostom Dem. 8.1 124n
C. lud. 5.10 338 H.E. 1.6, 2–3 124n
C. lud. 6.2 338 H.E. 1.7, 11 124n
C. lud. 6.5 338, 365n H.E. 2.23, 13 181
1 Clement 96, 97, 103, 107, 193, 266 H.E. 3.28.2, 5 321n
30.7 409 H.E. 4.8.4 321
ch. 31–2 96 H.E. 6.12.1 323
31.4 211 H.E. 6.25.1–2 313n
32.1–2 96, 103 H.E. 6.25, 2 61n, 77n
43 193, 273 H.E. 7.18, 2–4 390
43.2 211 H.E. 8.6, 7 390
47.6 211 P.E. 9.17–37 93
54.2 211 P.E. 9.21 271
55.6 211 P.E. 9.23 93
Clem. Alex. P.E. 9.27, 6 411
Ecl. proph. 6.2–3 318n P.E. 9.28–9 93
Paed. 3.12 314, 315 P.E. 9.29, 12 93–4
Paed. 3.1.3 314n P.E. 9.29, 14 94
Protr. 1 315 P.E. 9.30, 8 196
Protr. 2.15 381 P.E. 13.12 45, 47
Protr. 8 315n Gregory the Great, Moralia 29.6
Strom. 1.21 93 (10–11) 345n
Strom. 1.23 93 Hegesippus, Hist. 2.1, 2 114n
Strom. 3.17 314n Hermas
Strom. 6.15 250 Vis. 1–3 289
Strom. 6.17 314n Vis. 2.3, 4 377
Clem. Hom. 11.36 210 Ignatius, Magn 6.1 210
Clem. Recog. Irenaeus
1.43, 2 311n Haer. 1.25, 6 412
1.50, 5 311n Haer. 3.19(20).2 314n
3.68 210 Haer. 5.30, 3 381
6.15 210 Haer. 5.33–5 250
Commodian Haer. 5.36 250
apolog. 892ff. 322n Isidore of Seville, Etymol.
Oratio Constantini 19 314n 6.1, 9 62n
458 Index of References

Jerome Origen
Prologue to books of Kings 77n, 78 Comm. Joh. 2.186–92 79
comm. Isa. 15 on 54.1 254 Comm. Joh. 10.25 252
comm. Isa. intro. bk. 46 317 Comm. Matt. 15.24 211
comm. Dan 11.34 320n Comm. Ps. 1–25, preface 313n
comm. Obad. 20 318n C. Cels. 1.28 312n
comm. Matt. 22.15 132n C. Cels. 1.32 312n
comm. Gal. 2.3 336n C. Cels. 2.12 318
ep. 46 256 C. Cels. 2.29 318
ep. 146 208 C. Cels. 3.36 314n
adv. Luciferianos 23 132n C. Cels. 3.36–8 390
adv. Rufinum 1.16 130 C. Cels. 3.42–3 390
adv. Rufinum 3.31 376 C. Cels. 6.42 382
c. Vigilantium 4 389 C. Cels. 6.77 314n
vir. illustr. 2 179 in Exod. hom. 11.6 188
Justin in Iesu Nave hom. 18.1 188
1 Apol. 6 390 in Num. hom. 10.2 365n
1 Apol. 21–22 314n Princ. 4.1.3 365n
1 Apol. 22 380n Photius, Bibl. 33 83n, 128
1 Apol. 31 321 Rufinus
1 Apol. 35 315 Symb. 36 61
1 Apol. 39.3 294 De Ben Patriarch. 1.7 114n
1 Apol. 40.6, 11 294 Ep. Seven 12 (826) 311n
1 Apol. 52 404 Tertullian
Dial. 8 311 Apol. 5.1–2 390
Dial. 8.4 312 Apol. 18.8 312n
Dial. 9.3 313 Apol. 21.14 380n, 390
Dial. 13 254 Apol. 21.15 306
Dial. 14.8 314n Apol. 21.29–30 390
Dial. 32 57n, 158, 162, 169 Adv. Marc. 1.18 322n
Dial. 47.1 311n Adv. Marc. 3.7 314n
Dial. 47.4–5 321 Adv. Marc. 3.21.3 319n
Dial. 52.3 124n Adv. Marc. 3.24.3–4 248
Dial. 61.1 45 Adv. Marc. 3.24.4 241, 322
Dial. 63.5 294 Adv. Marc. 4.6.3 318
Dial. 75.1–2 84 Adv. Marc. 4.39.8 407
Dial. 80–1 317 Adv. Iud. 14 314n
Dial. 80.2 250 Cult. Fem. 3 249
Dial. 81.1–2 250 Nat. 2.8 409
Dial.106.4 173, 174 Spect. 30 249
Dial.109–10 318 Testamentum Domini
Ps.-Justin, Coh. Gr. 13 402 1.34, 40 208
Lactantius Theodoret, Affect. 8 390
D.I. 1.14 381 Dial. of Timothy and Aquila 61n
D.I. 7.18, 7 381n
John Malalas, Chronogr. 8 395 Qumran
Mart. Perpetua 20 315n 1Q16 374, 375
Mart. Polycarp 17.2–3 389 1QH xiv (vi) 34 393
Mart. Scill. 12 407 1QHa xi (iii).7–10 174
 Index of References 459

1QIsa a 54:11 251 4Q285 fr. 5 373

1QM ii.1–3 195, 196 4Q385 ii 403
1QM iii.3 198, 210 4Q390 fr. 1, 2–5 83
1QM v.1–2 210 4Q400 3 ii 2 195
1QM vi.6 407 4Q403 1 i, II. 1, 10, 21, 26 195
1QM xi.1–7 61 4Q491 22
1QM xii.11–12 59 4Q504 1–2 163
1QM xv.2 374 4Q504 iii 1–2, II. 3–5 301
1QM xvi.10 407 4Q504 fr. 3 ii 402
1QS = 1Q28, 1Q28a, 1Q28b 33 4Q505 fr. 124 402
1QS iii.14, 4.18–19 60 4Q511 fr.2 i 6 407
1QS iv.20–2 174 4Q511 fr.35.1–8 407
1QS (1Q28) iv.24 235, 248 4Q521 33. 66
1QS viii 270 4Q521 iii 1, 12 378
1QS viii.1 196 4Q522 fr. 22–5 224
1QSa = 1Q28a ii.11–12 47 4Q522 fr. 9 ii 224
1QSa ii.11–22 351 4Q540–541 21
1QSb (1Q28b) v.24–5 250 4Q542 77
1QSb iv.24–6 353 4Q543–9 77
1QSb v.21–9 210 4QAmram 375
1QSb v.24 168 4QEn c-d 10, 22 393
1QSb v.24–5 374 4QOrdinances 2.4, 3.4 196
4Q161 374, 376, 377 4QPBless 411
4Q161 fr. 8–10, 1.8 377 4QpIsa d 195, 196
4Q171 246 11Q5 col. 22, II. 13–14 225
4Q171 fr. 1 ii 9–12 243 11Q5 col. 22, I. 14 251
4Q171 frs. 1, 3–4, ii.9–11 243 11Q13 13, 33, 164, 165
4Q171 fr. 1 iii.1–2 243 11Q13 ii. 4–6;9;13 164
4Q174 229, 231, 234, 236, 237, 239, 245, 11Q13 ii.7–8 164
246 11Q13 ii.9 165
4Q174 fr. 4 235 11Q13 ii 15ff. 164
4Q174 i 1–7 (frs. 1–2, 21) 230 11Q13 ii.18 165
4Q175 xvii 273 11Q14 33
4Q179 ii. 3, 6–7 251 11Q19 29.9–10 235, 24
4Q196 224 11QapocPs a iv 6–7 366
4Q198 224 11QApostr. Zion 223, 233
4Q200 224 11QApostr. Zion 17 223, 225, 251
4Q200 ii, 5 44 11QMelch 167, 170, 375
4Q212 iv 15–18 163, 233, 238 11QMelch xviii 75
4Q246 19, 162, 163, 180, 155, 375 11QMelch ii.13 74, 164
4Q246 i.9–ii.1 162 11QPs a, Ps. 151 315n
4Q246 ii.4–9 162 11QTemple lvii.11–15 196
4Q246 ii.5–9 163 CD 155
4Q246 ii.7–8 162, 163 CD vi.6 192
4Q246 ii 4 162 CD vii.4–6 243
4Q252 5, 73n, 74, 81n, 167 CD vii.19 253
4Q252 fr. 6 125n CD vii.21 173
4Q280 375 Gen Apocryphon 51, 393
4Q285 20, 250, 372n, 374n, 386 Gen Apoc. col. 21 97
460 Index of References

PsJosh 393 24:17 173

Temple Scroll 237, 245 27:2 203
Test. of Kohath 77 31:13 203
Vis. Amram 77, 394 32:2 203
Deutero-Ezekiel 394 Ps.-Jon Num.
7:2 203
Targums 10:4 203
Fragment Tg Gen 10:14–28 203
49:10 73n 11:16 192, 203
Neofiti Gen 11:26 376, 377
49:10 73n, 125n 17:17 203
Onkelos Gen 20:29 277
12:17 202 21:(2, 6) 203
49:10 15n, 73n 21:19 102
Ps.-Jon Gen 23:21 343
1:21 350 24:7 173
12:17 202 24:17 173
28:17 240 27:2 203
Fragment Tg Ex 31:13 203
15:17 237 32:2 203
Neofiti Ex Neofiti Deut
15:17 237 33:5 17
Ps.-Jon Ex Ps.-Jon Deut
15:17 237, 240 29:9 203
Fragment Tg Lev 31:28 203
16:31 394 33:15 334
Ps.-Jon Lev 33:5 83n
4:15 203, 204, 205 33:8 277, 281
Fragment Tg Num Tg 1Chr 3:24 171
11:26 377 Tg Ps.
Neofiti Num. 80:16, 18 172
7:2 203 87:5 177
10:4 203 122:3 237, 240
11:26 377 Tg Cant.
17:17 203 4:5 166
21:(2, 6) 203 8:2 351
21:18 margin 192, 203 Tg Isa
23:21 343n 11:4 344
24:17 173 30:20 233
27:2 203 52:13 46
31:13 203 53:5 119n, 252
32:2 203 54:1 252
Onkelos Num. 65:22 243
7:2 203 66:7 173
10:4 203 Tg Jer 33:15 167
17:17 203 Tg Lam 5:13 336
21:(2, 6) 203
23:21 343 Mishnah
24:4, 16 14n Erubin 5.1 397
24:7 173 Yoma 178, 347, 348
 Index of References 461

1.2 335 Babylonian Talmud

1.3, 5 176, 178 Berakoth
1.4–6 279 5a 101, 103
1.5 280 9b 96, 302
1.6 274 10a 368
3.8, 4.2 279 14b 96
6.8 355 28b 81
7.1 270 29a 212
7.2 174 61b 414
Yoma, end 339 Shabbat
Bezah 2.1 135 30a 403
Rosh Hashanah 32a 260
4.5 97, 104, 401 Erubin
4.6 78, 327, 341 54a 103
Taanith 4.2–3 348 54b 206
Megillah 3.6 192, 402 Pesahim
Sotah 54a 242
5.4 292 145b 374
7.7f. 270 Yoma 1a 268
7.8 120, 125 Sukkah 51b 122, 123
8 355 Rosh Hashanah 18b 402
Baba Kamma 6.6 135 Taanith
Eduyoth 23a 121
8.3 266 27a–28a 349
8.6 123 27b 348, 349
Aboth 31a 349
1.12 276, 277 Megillah
3.3 336 9a 402
5.3 334 12b 263
6.2 102 Moed Katan
Horayoth 9a 403
2.5–3.3 203 17a 408
3.3 204 Hagigah 14a 10n, 84, 156
Qodashim 265 Yebamoth 15b 266
Tamid 4.1 351n Ketuboth 26a 267
Ohalot 7.1 397 Nedarim
Parah 3.1 268 12a 402
39b 242
Sotah
Tosefta
34b 403, 405
Sukkah 3.11 192
47b–48a 267
Bezah 2.1 135
49a 233
Sotah
Gittin 57b 396
6.2–3 292, 295
Qiddushin 66a 122n
13.3 408
Baba Metzia 110b 322n
Horayoth
Baba Bathra
1.9 203
1.1 121
2.2 203, 204
3b–4a 121, 122n, 123–8
Hullin 2, 22, 24 312
4a 122, 127
462 Index of References

122a 193, 200 32.1–9 84

Sanhedrin 35.5 374
13b 203 Leviticus Rabbah 326
17a 196, 205 1.12 343n
19a–b 122n 5.3 202
38b 10n, 84, 156 11 349, 360
43a 312 11.6 279
82a 192 11.7 338
93b 376 11.9 349
94a 368, 376n 13 341
96a 171 13.3 350, 360
97b 345n 13.4 339
98a 169 16, 17, 26 338
99a 386 17.7 333
Avodah Zarah 20.2 334
8b–9a 127 20.10 353
43a 409 21.12 353
Horayoth 22.1 79n
11a 204, 205 22.10 350
13a 202 26.7 79n
Hullin 27.11 345n, 368
92a 160, 265, 275 30.1 325n
139b 120, 124 30.5 345n
Sopherim 19.7, 42b 401 35.6 339
Semahoth 8.8, 47a 409 35.10 121
36.6 329, 334
Palestinian Talmud Numbers Rabbah
Berakoth 12.16 191
5a 169 13.2 191
8a 212 13.14 169
Yoma 14.8 123
1.1, 48c 268 14.18 191
1.5, 39a 268 19.26 196
Sukkah 5.1, 55a 202 Cant. Rabbah
1.2, 1 296
Midrash on 1.14 352n
Bereshith Rabbah 326 on 2.7 5
1.1 350 2.13, 4 75
1.4 242, 348 on 5.2 361n
41(42).3 339 on 3.6 325n
55.7 240 on 8.13 336
64.10 320n v.1.1 191
69.7 235, 240 Midrash Zuta on Ct. 1.6 323n
78.12 374 Eccl. Rabbah
81.4 378 4.1(4) 403
88.5 275 9.10, 1–2 410
97.1 407 11.2 337n
Exodus Rabbah Lam. Rabbah 326
15.6 332 Proem 25 404, 405
 Index of References 463

1.51 338 Sifra

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Behuqqotay, Pereq 1.1 121
Beshallah 6(7) on Ex. 14.31 295 Sifre
Beshallah Shirata 1on Ex. 15.1 295 Num. 45 193
Beshallah Shirata 4 68n Num. 73 206, 207
Beshallah Shirata 10 on Num. 91 193
Ex. 15.17 239 Num. 131 193
Beshallah Wayyassa 4 192 Num. on 7.2 206
Yitro Amalek 2 101 Deut. 344, 408
Midrash Tehillim Deut. on 33.5 207
1.2 298 Tanhuma
2.4 368 Exod. Wa’era 7, f.123a–b 403
16.2 409 Numbers Bemidbar 2 193
80.4 330 Huqqath 21 193, 197
87.6 178 Pequde 1 239
88.6 375 Tanhuma Buber
93.3 243 Gen 70a 15, 172
ad Ps. 93.1 344 Exod. f. 11a–b 404
Pesikta Rabbathi Exod. 15f. 277
2, 6b 404 Huqqath, 159–60 204
20.8 332n Num. Huqqath 2 277
20.11 264 Num. on 20.25 204
75.1 346 Num. Phinehas 3 193
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 326, 327n, 338, Lev. Qedoshim 1 204
409 Toledoth 20 15, 172
1.1 192
1.3 334 Megillath Taanith 403
1.4, 5 349 12.3 404
1.4–5 262
5.6 347n, 363n Seder Olam Rabba 127
5.6–9 334
5.8 334, 345n Smaller Midrashim
5.9 201, 213, 344, 346, 356, 375n 3 Enoch 263
9.11 345n, 368 1.3 264
11.12–25 411 2.3 264
11.13 412 12.5 84
11.23 337, 405, 410 Hekhalot Rabbati 122–126 259
11.24 337 Midrash Ten Martyrs ( ʿElleh
14.3 339 ʿezkerah) 355, 407, 410
16–22 339 Signs of the Messiah 368n
20.3 254 Zerubbabel 341, 342n, 345, 346–47, 368
22.5 344n, 347n
23.7 335 Prayers
26.9 354 Eighteen Benedictions/Amidah 70,
27.1 325n 98, 159, 214, 223, 265, 342, 363,
44 334 402, 410
S.1.4 343n Ben 10 223
S.6.5 343n Ben 11 125, 213
Pithron Torah 192, 205, 206 Ben 14 159, 223
464 Index of References

Ben 17(16) 223 30 333

Ben 17(18) 97 36–37 333
Habinenu 214 39 362
Alenu 326 47–48 346
Ge’ullah 98, 99 54 346
Passover Haggadah 71
ʾasapper gedoloth 327
Tekiata de-vey Rav 327n, 331, 358, 358
2 350n
Piyyut 16 335
16–17 353
ʾattah baraʾtha ʾeth ha-ʾolam kullo 348n, 20 355
355 20–23 355
21–22 355
Kalir 22 355
ba-yamim ha-hem 341 59 357
60 330
Yose ben Yose
ʾattah konanta 327
ʾahallelah ʾelohay 327 1 358
13–15 331 3 350n
17–18 331 5 350n
25 331 18–22 351
28 328n, 331, 356 24 334
29 330 27–28 334
30 331 58–60 352
30ff. 17n, 341–2 64 334
33 342 66–72 355
35–36 342 66–73 275,
36 331 67 355
39–40 342 76 268
43–44 342 82 281
48 342, 344 93–119 355
49 342 98 355
51–52 343, 346 110 355
52 331 161 356
54–55 343
ʾazkhir gevuroth 327
55 368
10–12 349, 350
57 356
26 350
ʾanusah le-ʿezrah 339, 356 28 350
2–3 332 29 350
3 360 30 350
6 333 31–32 350
8 352 32 350
8–9 335 39–40 334
7–12 333 65 334
13–14 333 91–94 335
15–18 333 92–93 351
19–29 333 92–94 352
23 375 102 334
25 345, 346 105 316, 354
29–30 345 110 353
 Index of References 465

111 353 8 335

116–17 353 33–34 336
152–86 354 36–37 336
154 336 41 334, 336
156 355 47 334, 335
157 353 51 354
160 354 52–55 105
161 344, 355
165 265 ʾeyn lanu kohen gadol 327, 336, 357
174 354 3 329
186 353 5 329
268–69 280, 355 8 336
269 355, 356 23 332
273 355 25 332, 353
275 330 32 336
275–76 355
ʾomnam ashamenu 327–9
az le-roʾsh 328 13 329
efhad be-maʿasay 327 35–36 332
4 329, 334 40 336
5 335 42–44 329
466
467
468
469
470
471
472