On Human Nature in Early Judaism

Journal of Ancient Judaism

Supplements

Edited by

Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam

Advisory Board

Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of

Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University
of Bochum), Esther Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University
of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of
Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University
of London), Alex P. Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan
University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol
Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman
(University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence
H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich),
Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University
of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger
(University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of Salzburg),
Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University)

Volume 34
 Jeffrey Paul García

On Human Nature in
Early Judaism
Creation, Composition, and Condition
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.

© 2021 Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn, an Imprint of the Brill Group

(Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore;
Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland)

www.schoeningh.de

Cover design: Anna Braungart, Tübingen

Production: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn

ISSN 2198-1361
ISBN 978-3-506-70486-3 (hardback)
ISBN 978-3-657-70486-6 (e-book)
To my best friend, wife, and go-to editor,
Maureen

Honey you are the sea

Upon which I float
And I came here to talk
I think you should know

That green eyes

You’re the one that I wanted to find
And anyone who tried to deny you
Must be out of their mind

(“Green Eyes,” Coldplay)

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

Chapter 1
Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature in Early Judaism . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Rationale and Method of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4 The Plan of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.5 Theoretical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 2
Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi to
Depict Human Nature in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2 Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4 Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.5 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 3
From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of the Use of
Creation Topoi and the Amplification of Human Lowliness . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.2 Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.3 Testament of Naphtali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.4 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.5 Hodayot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.6 Excursus: “Mother and her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7 . . . . . . . 104
3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Chapter 4
Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit: Examining Humanity’s
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2 Describing the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
viii Table of Contents

4.3 Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.4 Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.5 Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.6 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.7 The Testament of Abraham B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.8 Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy and the Composition
of Humankind in the Second Temple Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Chapter 5
Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism through the
Lens of Psychic Strife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.2 Hodayot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Chapter 6
Mapping the Human Condition: Free Will and the Inclination(s)
to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6.2 Free Will in Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, the Damascus
Document (CD), and Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Chapter 7
A Predetermined Condition: Humanity’s Double Duality,
Nothingness, and “Fleshly” State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
7.2 The “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22) . . . . . . . 245
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “Fleshly” Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Chapter 8
Human Nature in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.2 Collective Humanity as a Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.3 A Composition in Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Table of Contents ix

8.4 Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition . . . . . . . 274

8.5 A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature in Ancient Judaism . . . 276
8.6 The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
8.7 Obedience and Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
8.8 God and Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
8.9 Further Studies in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
8.10 Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament and
Rabbinic Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Ancient Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Acknowledgements

This study, a revised version of my dissertation, was completed by one person

but the journey to this point involved many. What follows is but a modicum
of gratitude to them. First, my Doktorvater, Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman
who was a constant source of encouragement and support during my graduate
studies. Before entering graduate school, I was advised by a good friend that
it was critical to not only study with a brilliant scholar, but someone who was
also a good person and diligently sought for the success of his/her students.
Both are true of Professor Schiffman; he is a scholar among scholars and won-
derful person. This study has benefitted at every stage from his keen editorial
eye and critiques. It is much richer because of him and I am better researcher
for it. Without that first phone call to schedule the meeting where he would
invite me to apply to NYU’s Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies’
(HJS) PhD program, this accomplishment would have likely been out of reach
for a Puerto Rican from East Harlem, New York City.
I would also like to thank the members of my committee who took the time
to read and comment on this study. Professor Daniel Fleming, who was not
only a member of my committee, but, as the director of graduate studies at
HJS, was also a continual source of encouragement, especially with his ability
to perceive my anxieties whenever we met. His care and concern for his stu-
dents are second to none. Professor Adam Becker, whose critiques have helped
to improve the revision of this study. Professor Jeffrey Rubenstein, for making
sure that methodological issues within in this work were fully thought out and
expressed in its pages. Professor Alex Jassen who, despite joining the depart-
ment well into my writing process, was willing to become one of my readers.
Additionally, I would like to thank Nyack College, President Michael Scales,
Provost David Turk, Executive Vice President David Jennings, and Dean Ron
Walborn for allowing me to join the New York City faculty during this process.
A special thanks to Dean Walborn, who lessened my faculty load in order to
give me time to write. I am thankful for the revisions suggested by Prof. Armin
Lange; they have added positively to this work. Thanks, are also in order to the
editors of the Journal for Ancient Judaism Supplement Series, Armin Lange,
Bernard Levinson, and Vered Noam, for accepting this project into their pres-
tigious series. I would also like to thank Christina Seipelt and Verlag Ferdinand
Schöningh for their care and patience with my manuscript.
I am grateful to Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Mackey, who saw something in me as an
undergraduate that I could not yet see. Professor Steven Notley’s friend-
ship, mentoring, and chance meeting in 2001 was the initial spark that finds
xii Acknowledgements

materialization with the completion of this project. Without his wisdom and
guidance, much of this would have remained a dream—and by that I am in-
cluding, graduate work, my doctorate, and sitting in the upper deck of Yankee
stadium to watch the home team win the 2009 World Series (Game 6). I can
never repay him for what he has so kindly and freely given. I am thankful to
Sunya Notley for her ever-present smile, encouragement, and prayers. Thank
you to my brother and best friend, Jeff. His support and patience were, and are,
incredible. “You got this,” were the words he spoke to me—so simple, yet so
profound. To my tio Arnold, I am grateful for all of our talks that involved al-
most every conceivable topic, especially those about the Bible. He has been an
ever-constant guide during times that seemed so difficult. To my father, whose
sense of humor and kindness reverberate in who I am—may his memory be
for a blessing. Gracias a mi queridos abuelos, Santos Arroyo and Salustiana
“Caridad” Arroyo, who came from the sugar cane fields and campos of Puerto
Rico in the 40’s and were continuously supportive of my education with the
hopes that I and the rest of their grandchildren would receive opportunities to
which they never had access. For this I am indebted and eternally grateful—
may their memories be for a blessing.
A note of eternal gratitude to my mother, who was a single mom with two
small children in perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in New York City
and fought to make sure that my sister and I were given access to a world of
diverse cultural experiences and education that were otherwise foreign and
strange to most in Spanish Harlem; I am utterly indebted to her. While oth-
ers fell to the lure of the streets, she made sure that such temptations paled
in comparison to our Buddy System. If there is a single reason why I did not
become a negative statistic (or as my friend, Ilan, once said, “in jail or dead”),
it was, and is, her—a woman among women. It would be her struggle to make
sure that the streets were never an option for neither me nor my sister. Words
cannot express how thankful I am to her; I am because she is. To my sister, one
of my closest friends, she is my favorite partner in crime and a constant source
of encouragement in times when her sarcastic and straight-shooting words
were exactly what I needed. I am forever thankful to her. Our owls represent
something precious and forever secure.
To my daughters, Ariana, Deirdre and Niamh (pronounced Neev), who have
taught me more about being a father than I could ever hope to return: Ari who
is the best amalgamation of cynicism, wit, and sarcasm; Didi, consistently
pushing to make me think out of box about every subject from the Bible to hor-
ror movies; Niamhy (pron. neevie), whose love, sweetness, and compassion are
a curing balm in a world of wounds. I am thankful to them for always requiring
me to be a better person. To Abigail, my niece, and Cora, my granddaughter,
Acknowledgements xiii

who were born during this process, they are the brightest stars in a world that
is often all too dark. Finally, last but surely not least, my wife, Maureen, whose
unending patience, comfort, and compassion made me believe that this was
even possible (as she constantly reminded me). While teaching and tending to
her own graduate studies, she made sure that I had the free time to write and
was, and will always be, my editor of choice. The dedication of this work to her
is but the smallest of deserving acknowledgements. I could not have hoped for
a better person, woman, and partner with which to experience life. If there was
ever a day that is forever cherished, it is that day at Belvedere Castle in Central
Park by Turtle Pond where I asked her to marry me, my ‫! ֵא ֶשׁת ַחיִ ל‬
Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AnBib Analecta Biblica
AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
ANEM Ancient Near East Monographs/Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano
Oriente
ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies
APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by
Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913.
ATDan Acta Theologica Danica
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BCAW Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World
BDAG Bauer, Walter, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and
F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999.
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BEL Biblical Encyclopedia Library
BIB Biblica
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BLS Bible and Literature Series
BM Biblioteca Midrásica
BRLJ Brill Reference Library of Judaism
BSIH Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History
BThS Biblisch-Theologische Studien
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Monograph Series
CCP Cambridge Companion to Philosophy
CJEL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature
CQS Companion to the Qumran Scrolls
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
xvi Abbreviations

CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B. Chabot

et al. Paris, 1903-.
DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies
DCLY Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der
Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1995.
DJD( J) Discoveries of the Judeaen Desert (of Jordan)
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
DSSSE Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez
and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
DSSSMM Burrows, Millar, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. 2 vols.
New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951.
EB Études bibliques
EDSS Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Ekstasis Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middles Ages
EJL Early Judaism and Its Literature
ER The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade. 16 vols. New York,
1987.
ExpTim Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FJTC Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GAP Guides tot he Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
HALOT Koehler, Ludwig, Walter, Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited
under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994-1999.
Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAJSup Journal fort he Study of Ancient Judaism Supplement Series
JAOS Journal fort he American Oriental Society
Jastrow Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2d ed. New York, 1903.
JCP Jewish and Christian Perspective Series
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
Abbreviations xvii

JR Journal of Religion
JSPSup Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series
JSJ Journal of Jewish Studies
JSJSup Journal of Jewish Studies Supplement Series
JSOTSup Journal for the Study oft he Old Testament Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
LLDDSSL Leon Levy Digital Dead Sea Scroll Library
LSJ Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English
Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996.
LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies
MG Materia Giudaica
MK Magyar Könyvszemle
NICOT New International Commentary of the Old Testament
NT Novum Testamentum
NTL The New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols.
New York, 1983.
PA Philosophia Antiqua
PACS Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Edited by
James H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Reitz. 1985-
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
QD Quaestiones Disputatae
RCT Revista catalana de teología
RHR Revue de l’Histoire des Religions
RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses
RTL Revue théologique de Louvain
SA Scriptores Aetiopici
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLPS Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Series
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series
SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Text and Translations
SBP Studia Post-Biblica
SCS Septuagint Commentary Series
xviii Abbreviations

SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

Schürer Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.
Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes, Matthew Black, Fergus Millar.
3 vols. Edinburgh. 1979.
ScrHeir Scripta Hierosolymitana
Semeia Semeia
SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SHR Studies in the History of Religions (supplements to Numen)
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SQC Trever, J. C. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I (= Three Scrolls from Qumran).
Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeology and the Shrine of the Book,
1972.
SPA Studies in Philo of Alexandria
SPNP Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition
StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature
STDJ Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah
SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica
SWR Studies in Women and Religion
TAP Themen der antiken Philosophie
Tarbiz Tarbiz
TBDAG The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek
TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W.
Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974-
TEG Traditio Exegetica Graeca
TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study
THE Theologische Existenz heute
ThWQ Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with
assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols.
Peabody, Mass., 1997.
TS Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge University Library
TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
VCSup Vigiliae Christianae Supplements
TTCJC T and T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series
VGTB Van Gorcum Theologische Bibliotheek
VT Vetus Testamentum
Abbreviations xix

VTG Vetus Testamentum Graecum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World
WLAW Wisdom Literature from the Ancient World
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der
älteren Kirche
ZFRG Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte
Sigla

Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira

In the Hebrew Text

‫ ׄא‬damaged probable letter

‫ א‬
֯ damaged possible letter
◦◦◦ traces of letters that cannot be read
[‫ ]א‬reconstructed letter
[ ] lacunae
{ } letter(s) erased by the scribe
… text not cited
vacat writing space; usually intentional
‫ עם עם‬ supralinear insertion

In the English Translation

letters in italics individual letters in Hebrew

[…] lacunae of any length
[   ] translation of reconstruction
 Chapter 1

Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

in Early Judaism

1.1 Introduction

Human1 nature, more specifically, the complex of characteristics that are un-
derstood to be universally innate, and/or God-given, to humanity, is of central
interest to early Jewish authors. This interest which is represented across several
languages and genres within ancient Judaism’s extensive intellectual and liter-
ary diversity, is not exclusively particularistic, although the immediate concern
was often communal-specific. That is to say, while authors often described
human nature with common Jewish concepts, the portrayal was not limited
to the Jewish world but was an attempt to grasp a general, or universal, human
nature. Texts from the Second Temple period are saturated with these ideas.
Central to much of them are questions about humanity’s existence in relation
to God and the ramifications of that relationship. As such, the focus of this
work is narrowed to three categories that encapsulate some of the most preva-
lent themes about human nature in ancient Judaism, namely, creation, com-
position, and condition, which also form the three major sections of this work.
The three themes seek to address critical questions, whose answers effectively
portray how ancient authors conceive of human nature These questions are as
follows: 1) in what manner does the language of humanity’s creation in Genesis
in 1 and 2 influence how human nature is understood in this period; 2) how do
the texts from this period understand humanity’s constituent parts, specifical-
ly, body, soul, and/or spirit; 3) in what manner does humanity’s relationship to
God affect its innate condition, especially in regard to free will, predestination,
obedience, and transgression? Therefore, this study is broadly set, examining
a large corpora of texts that date to the Greco-Roman period (4th c. BCE-1st
c. CE) with a critical methodology that is described below (1.3). Due to the
number of critical studies, however, that touch on particular aspects of our

1 While “human” and “humanity” are thoroughly modern concepts (ca. 14th century), it is uti-
lized in this study to describe living creatures that are distinct from animal life, considered
God’s creations, and are in some sort of relationship with God, whether it be benevolent or
hostile. Essentially, it is intended to describe a collective group that share universal innate
and/or God-given qualities, especially those that evoke their own unique connection to God.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_002

2 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

examination—despite their being no comprehensive study on human nature

in ancient Judaism—this chapter begins with the state of research and reviews
of the most germane of the aforementioned studies.

1.2 State of Research

The lion’s share of the studies regarding human nature in antiquity is limited
to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.2 This has been complemented,
more recently, in New Testament studies by examinations that have critically
(and necessarily) engaged its early Jewish background.3 Unfortunately, many
of them are tasked with analyzing the Apostle Paul’s theological anthropol-
ogy, and the Jewish context is often ancillary.4 Notably, however, rather than

2 See e.g., Walther Zimmerli, Das Menschenbild des Alten Testaments, TEH 14 (München: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1949); Ernst Würthwein, Geschichte und Verantwortung: Vom Menschenbild
des Alten Testaments; Wort und Exisetnz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970);
Phyllis Bird, “Theological Anthropology in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Blackwell Companion
to the Hebrew Bible, ed. Leo G. Perdue (Londres: Blackwell, 2001), 258-75; Was ist der Mensch,
dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift
für Bernd Janowski zum 65, ed. Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, Peter Reide; Geburtstag,
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008); Hubert Irsigler, “Zur Interdependenz von
Gottes und Menschenbildern in Kontext alttestamentlicher Anthropologien,” in “Denk
an deinen Scöpfer”: Studien zum Verständnis von Gott, Mensch, und Volk im Alten Testament
(Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2015), 195-230; W. D. Davies, “Paul in the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (London:
SCM, 1958) 157-82; Udo Schnelle, Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus, Paulus, Johannes,
BThS 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991); Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); Christian Frevel, ed. Biblische Anthropologie: Neue
Einsichten aus dem Altem Testament, QD 237 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Verlag Herder, 2010).
3 There were some studies in the early days of Qumran research that recognized the impor-
tance of understanding the image of humanity in Hodayot and, in general, the sectarian
scrolls for examining Paul’s own view: W. D. Davies, “Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and
Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, 157-82; David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and
Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael
Yadin, ScrHier 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 215-66; repr. in Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1988), 23-74; Egon Brandenburger,
Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1968).
4 See Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in de paulinischen
Briefen, FRLANT 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960); Robert Jewett, Paul’s
Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, AGJU 10 (Leiden: Brill,
1971); Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology,
SNTSMS 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Udo Schnelle, “Der erste
Thessalonicherbrief und die Entstehung der paulinischen Anthropologie,” NT 32 (1986):
1.2 State of Research 3

c­ircumventing ancient Jewish texts that were authored prior to the New
Testament, interest in the formative days of Judaism has gained a small, but
sure, foothold in Pauline scholarship and is the primary impetus for the ideas
that founded the so-called “New Perspective on Paul.” Still, there remains a
dearth of studies that treat human nature more broadly in ancient Judaism
by focusing on the corpus of Second Temple texts. There is, however, a good
deal of research that bears weight on our analysis of collective human nature.
Since these studies witness a dramatic shift with the full release of the Dead
Sea Scrolls to the public in 1991, the following survey appears in two sections:
1) Research from the Early 20th century—1990, and 2) Research from 1991.

1.2.1 Research from the Early 20th century—1990

Frank C. Porter’s 1901 article, “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of
Sin,”5 is the earliest study of an aspect of human nature. In it he examines the
rabbinic concept of the “good” and “evil” inclination as originating in 2 Baruch,
4 Ezra, 2 Enoch, and Ben Sira. The latter, Ben Sira (2nd c. BCE), however, is
not a contemporary of the others which date to after the destruction of the

207-24; Joseph Onsei-Bonsu, “Anthropological Dualism in the New Testament,” SJT 40 (1987):
571-90; Hans Dieter Benz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ό εσω άνθρωπος) in the
Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46/1 (2000): 315-41; David M. Hay, “Philo’s Anthropology, the
Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae and a Possible Connection with Corinth,” in Philo und
das Neue Testament: wechseleitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus
Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 1.-4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm
Neibuhr, WUNT 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 127-42; George H. Van Kooten, Paul’s
Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient
Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008); Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu, Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient
Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscaba/Budapest, CBET 54 (Leuven: Peeters,
2010); Matthias Konradt and Esther Schläpfer, eds., Anthropologie und Ethik in Frühjudentum
und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen—Internationales Symposium in
Verbindung mit dem Projeckt Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (CJHNT) 17.-20.
Mai 2012, Heidelberg, WUNT 322 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Friedrich Avemarie “Image
of God and Image of Christ: Developments in Pauline and Ancient Jewish Anthropology,” in
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill,
2014); repr. from Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: gesammelte Aufsätze, ed.
Jörg Frey and Angela Standhartinger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Nicholas Meyer, Adam’s
Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and
Theology, NTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2016); Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Jakobus und Paulus über
das Innere des Menschen unde den Ursprung seiner ethischen Entscheidungen,” ΝΤS 62/1
(2016): 1-30.
5 In Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic
and Biblical Faculty of Yale University, Yale Bicentennial Publications (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901), 136-58.
4 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

Temple in 70 CE. Porter argues that the lack of attention he gives to texts that
are contemporaneous with Ben Sira is due the terminological absence of “in-
clination” (‫)יצר‬, while it appears far more frequently in the aforementioned
texts. The study’s primary purpose is to critique the argument that the dualistic
foundation of the two inclinations is Greek in origin—an idea that he states
can be “confidently denied.”6 His conclusions that the rabbinic “inclination” is
simply humanity’s evil tendency, which one must try and subdue (though he
notes a partial personification), and that Ben Sira bears evidence of this rab-
binic conception, have now been examined in light of new discoveries, and
are outdated. Of course, Porter’s study was limited due to the lack of access to
the scrolls which at the time of publication were more than four decades from
being discovered, sans the two medieval copies of the Damascus Document
discovered in Cairo, Egypt in the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Porter’s
study is the first critical examination of a component of human nature.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and initial publication of the cave 1
scrolls in 1954 by Eliezer Sukenik7 (posthumously)—especially, the Hodayot
(1QH) and Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS)—brought fresh scrutiny to ideas of human
nature in ancient Judaism. Yet, in the early days of scrolls’ research, the Hodayot
attracted the majority of attention. In 1956, just two years after the editio prin-
ceps, J. P. Hyatt published an article entitled “The View of Man in the Qumran
Hodayot,” and concluded that the hymns depict a pessimism toward humanity
that lacks parallel in the Hebrew Bible.8 Such striking human lowliness was
noted by other scholars in the early days of Qumran research. In the same year,
Jacob Licht in his The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judah
drew a connection between the baseness of humanity depicted in the Hodayot
with the “deep pessimism” (‫ )הפסימיות העמוקה‬one finds in the Eden narrative
of Gen 2, the words of the prophets, and the self-reflective lowliness of the
authors’ in the Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Yet, he notes that the common
refrain “creature of clay” exacerbates that pessimism, heaping shame upon
shame on the head the human beings, by highlighting its earthly origin. He
notes further that a “deep disgust” emanates from the speaker of the hymn
with the use of terms like “impurity” (‫ )נדה‬and “shame” (‫)ערוה‬.9 Like Hyatt,

6 Porter’s “Yeçer Hara,” 136.

7 Eliezer L. Sukenik, Otzar ha-megillot ha-genuzot shevayade ha-universitah ha-ivrit, prepared
by Nahman Avigad for press (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1954); Eng. trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the
Hebrew University, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955), 48-58.
8 N TS (1956): 283. Hyatt is not of the opinion that the “view of man” in the Hodayot is an “an-
thropology” or a “doctrine of man” since the hymns are not a theological work per se.
9 Jacob Licht, Megillot ha-hodayot: mi-megillot midbar yehudah (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1956), 33-34
(Heb.); idem, “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll,” IEJ 6 (1956): 10-11.
1.2 State of Research 5

Licht argued that while some of the pessimism towards humanity is connected
to biblical imagery, there is a significant debasing of it in the Hodayot. The
remarkable lowliness of humanity that permeates the nearly thirty columns
of the Hodayot is also discussed by Sven Holm-Neilsen, Menachem Mansoor,
and Mathias Delcor in their respective studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Hodayot, although their works reframe, to some degree, what Licht had al-
ready argued.10 Additionally, Licht briefly notes in his 1965 study, “An Analysis
of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD,”11 that the distinct emphasis on pre-
destination in the Treatise envisions humanity divided into two opposing fac-
tions, but stops short of a full examination of its depiction in that portion of
Serekh ha-Yaḥad.
Naturally related to this conversation on human nature is the employment
of the terms “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in these cave 1 scrolls. In 1958 David
Flusser published “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the
New Testament.”12 In it he examines the flesh/spirit dualism attested in the
Hodayot and Serekh ha-Yaḥad suggesting that it is similar to what appears in
the Pauline corpus. In particular, it is the “spirit” that purifies one from the
misdeeds of the flesh and questions whether “flesh” is metaphorically the sin-
ful condition that humanity overcomes. In 1965, Flusser also published a sem-
inal study on Paul, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” which
appeared in the same volume as Licht’s aforementioned examination of the
Treatise.13 Many of the findings from Flusser’s earlier study are revised and
­expanded. He analyzes several theologoumena in the New Testament that par-
allel the earliest scrolls discovered, especially, the texts that are thought have
originated with the self-identified yaḥad. The purpose is not to interpret the

10 For humanity specifically, Svend Holm-Nielsen, “The Concept of Man,” in Hodayot: Psalms
from Qumran, ATDan 2 (Arhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 274-7; Menahem Mansoor,
“View of Man and Sin,” The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 59-62; Mathias
Delcor, “L’anthropologie,” in Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané,
1962), 47-52. See also, Jean Carmignac, “Homme,” in Les textes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey
et Ané, 1961-1963), 137-8. This is not to suggest that any of these authors knew or were
dependent on Licht’s analysis but simply to state that their examinations do not progress
the conversation beyond his analysis.
11 In Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, ScrHier 4 (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1965), 88-100.
12 “Ha-dualizim ‘basar-ruach’ be-megillot midbar uve-‘berit ha-hadashah,” Tarbiz 27 (1958):
158-165 (Heb.); repr. in Yahdut bayit sheni: qumran ve-apokaliptika, ed. Serge Ruzer
(Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2002), 244-51 (Heb.); trans. in Judaism and the Second Temple
Period, vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Prespective, 2007), 283-92.
13 In Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 215-66; repr. in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.
6 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

New Testament in light of them, nor to use them solely as a background to

Pauline thought, but rather to examine a particular type of Jewish thought that
Paul would inherit. First, he notes the variation of the use of “spirit” between
the apostle and the scrolls. He deals particularly with the gift of a holy spirit
and the “spirit of knowledge,” which is apparently limited to God’s elect com-
munity. In relation to the spirit/flesh duality, Flusser scrutinizes the differences
between spirit/flesh in the scrolls and that of Greek thought, arguing that the
poor view of the body in the latter is related to its general view of the world,
whereas in the former the material world is “morally neutral.” Due to the con-
trol of Belial, however, the world is polluted as is each person. Flusser argues
further that the flesh/spirit duality allowed for humanity’s nature to be “en-
nobled” by the divine gift of spirit. His study predates the prevalent interest in
drawing connections between the “spirit/flesh” dichotomy and its functioning
in Pauline literature. The study also points to the Jewish origins of theological
motifs that permeate the New Testament. As noted below, since 1991 scholars
have noted the “spirit/flesh” dichotomy in other texts of the yaḥad.
The examination of “spirit,” as part of humanity’s composition, also appears
in Arthur Anderson’s 1962 study, “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in 1QS, 1QH, and 1QM [i.e.,
the War Scroll].” He suggests that the use of “spirit” falls under several general
headings. One such use is that of the “spirit of man” either as a “constituent
part” of the person, the “self,” or representative of the various human moods
and characteristics.14 Anderson notes that the human spirit is a creation of
God, and not eternal, although he does not discuss the lack of eternality. His
survey, while dealing with the various negatively portrayed human spirit(s)
does not deal with the varied use of “spirit” to depict God’s spirit or “the spirit
of his holiness,” which at least in the Hodayot expresses the yaḥad’s hope of
insight into the statutes of God.
A notable exception to the dearth of general studies dealing with humanity
in extra biblical texts was Jacob Jervell’s Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum,
in der Gnosis und in de paulinischen Briefen, which was published in 1960.15 In
attempting to describe the use of the Gen 1:26 in Paul’s epistles, however, he
limits his background work to Philo of Alexandria and Gnostic texts. These
texts which are sometimes separated by 300 years, prove to be an all too lim-
ited sample to properly examine the use of Gen 1:26 in early Judaism. While the
Genesis passage is undoubtedly critical to ancient writers’ description of hu-
manity, Philo of Alexandria is but one of a tapestry of texts that bear witness to

14 J SS 7/2 (1962): 293-303.

15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960).
1.2 State of Research 7

how, in particular, the “image of God” is employed. As a result, many of Jervell’s

findings have become outdated and must be reassessed.
Jean Hadot’s Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira
(L’Ecclésiastique)16 appeared in 1970. His work, as the title suggests, is an
examination of the “evil inclination” and free will in Ben Sira. He plots this
examination in a non-traditional manner, beginning with the texts that are
chronologically later than Ben Sira, rather than those that are earlier or con-
temporaneous. Hadot acknowledges this and argues that since the purpose
of the study is to deal with the “evil inclination” in Ben Sira, it is important
to first analyze the more fully developed concept in rabbinic literature, mov-
ing backwards chronologically—analyzing 4 Ezra, the Pauline corpus, and the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—and thus closer to Ben Sira.17 Hadot
notes that the “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as an internal human disposition is already
present in Ben Sira’s translation with the use of “reasoning” (ἐνθύμημα), and
suggests that the more prevalent sense is that of the “intellect,” which origi-
nates in the Bible and is the core conception of pre-Christian and Hellenistic
Judaism. He also stresses the “voluntary” aspect of “inclination” (‫)יצר‬, in light
of a similar use in the scrolls, and of “deliberation” (διαβούλιον)—Ben Sira’s
Greek translation of “inclination” in 15:14—in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs. As shown in this study, however, the use of the ‫ יצר‬in the Qumran
scrolls is decidedly different than that of Ben Sira. In regard to the “evil inclina-
tion,” while Hadot admits that the occurrence of “inclination” is far from the
teaching of the rabbis, he suggests that Ben Sira attests to the ingredients for
that development. It is, however, not Ben Sira that attests the raw material but
rather it is the diversified use of “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as preserved in the scrolls
that bears witness to these ingredients.
Gerhard Maier’s 1971 study Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen
Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus18 deals with the portrayal of
various types of free will that are attested between Ben Sira and Paul. In his
examination, Maier curiously associates certain texts with the specific Jewish
philosophies—as outlined by Josephus—namely, the Psalms of Solomon with
the Pharisaic outlook and the yaḥad texts with the Essenes. While he notes
that not a single example of Sadducean literature exists, he suggests that some
of the underlying thought in Ben Sira—especially with attestation of the “sons
of Zadok”—represents priestly thinking and thus, to some extent, Sadducean
thought. In light of that Maier finds that there are portions of Ben Sira that

16 (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970).

17 Penchant mauvais, 19.
18 W UNT I 12 (Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 1971).
8 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

follow Josephus’ descriptions of the Sadducean view of free will and retribu-
tion. The Essenes, on the other hand, who according to Maier, are now known
from the Qumran material—an debated identification that requires nuance—
emphasize predestination and that this may be the reason the Sadducean
faction, who shared a priestly connection with them, affirmation of free will.
As noted, the Pharisaic position is thought to be reflected in the Psalms of
Solomon where, like Josephus’ description of their philosophy, fate and free
will play a role in human affairs. Maier’s overall argument is to show that the
issue of free will was an important theme in Jewish theological discourse, es-
pecially in relation to obedience to the Torah and God’s sovereign control over
human history.19 Unfortunately, Maier’s desire to fit the depiction of free will
into Josephus’ outlined philosophies causes certain analytical blind spots. For
example, forcing Josephus’ depiction of the Sadducees into parts of Ben Sira
and the Essenes into the Qumran texts ignores some of the complexities of
identifying the communities responsible for these texts, as well as the possible
depiction of free will in other yaḥad texts, like the Damascus Document (CD).
The first full length study dealing with humanity in the texts of the yaḥad is
Hermann Lichtenberger’s 1980 study, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der
Qumrangemeinde. As the title suggests, Lichtenberger’s examination was limit-
ed to those texts that were thought to originate within the Qumran [i.e., yaḥad]
community, more specifically, 1QS, and 1QSa+b, 1QHa, 1QM, 1QpHab, and
4QpPs 37 (4Q171, i.e., 4QPsa), noting, however, that the wider body of scrolls
texts must be employed for clarification despite having originated outside of
the yaḥad.20 His analysis isolates portions of texts from their larger context,
which VanderKam critiques as both obvious at some points but questionable in
others.21 Among Lichtenberger’s more critical points was that basing the sect’s
anthropology on the Treatise is mistaken. His most important contribution
largely lies in his analysis of the extent to which the lowliness of humankind is
depicted in relation to God’s righteousness (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien22 [i.e., low-
liness doxologies]), as well as humanity’s utter sinfulness (Elendsbetrachtungen
[i.e., meditations on misery]). Within this Niedrigkeitsdoxologien, humankind

19 Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 116-48, 343-50.

20 Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde, SUNT 15 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980), 45.
21 James VanderKam, review of Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in
Texten der Qumrangemeinde, CBQ 43/3 (1981): 447-9.
22 This was suggested first in a study by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegen-
wärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang
über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1966).
1.2 State of Research 9

is only capable of sinning and the autonomous person with free will is said to
not exist in Qumran texts.23 In limiting his study to the yaḥad, Lichtenberger
provides an important analysis and basis for conversation with contemporane-
ous texts outside of the yaḥad-specific corpus. More recently, Lichtenberger
echoes a similar sentiment in regard to Qumran anthropology.24
In 1984 George H. Cohen-Stuart’s The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil:
An Inquiry into the Originof the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara’ 25 was published.
The work is divided into two major themes. The first deals with “inclination”
(‫ )יצר‬in sources dating from the 2nd c. BCE but also with rabbinic sayings from
the Tannaitic (1st-2nd c. CE) and Amoraic (3rd-6th c. CE) periods. The second
deals with various conceptions of sin that occur outside of the use of ‫יצר‬. Both
themes are dealt with together until the concluding chapter. Cohen-Stuart’s
analysis is, for lack of a better expression, chronologically liberal in that the
study is not limited to the Second Temple period but incorporates evidence
from later texts including the Targumim and Vulgate. He concludes with three
major overarching representations of humanity’s struggle between “good” and
“evil.” The first, which he notes is present in Philo and Ben Sira—is especially
pertinent to this study—where there is no “power of evil … and the struggle is
fought within man.” Uniquely, according to him, these texts depict humanity
as having the ability to withstand evil. Second, the writings of the Apostle Paul,
4 Ezra, and that of the rabbis all depict a struggle within the person, and that
the human being cannot overcome the “evil inclination” naturally. Third, in the
texts of the yaḥad the person is said to have the ability to be obedient to God
although humanity’s struggle is largely a cosmic one.26
John R. Levison’s Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch27
was published in 1988. In Levison’s study, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not play a
major role in his examination and may reflect the situation of Jewish studies in
the 1980’s—that is access to the Dead Sea Scrolls in toto was limited to a small
number of scholars. Furthermore, whereas studies are generally structured
topically, Levison’s work treats each text individually, beginning with Sirach
(Ben Sira) and working chronologically, it seems, ending with 2 Baruch. He ar-
gues that many of the studies on the figure of Adam in early Judaism are largely

23 Studien zum Menschenbild, 232-5.

24 Hermann Lichtenberger, “‘Dem Tode verfallen war ich wegen meiner Sünden’ (11QPsa XIX,
1-18),” in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman,
and Egyptian Literature, ed. Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittmann, DCLS 18 (Berlin: Boston;
Walter de Gruyter, 2015), 179-96.
25 (Kampen: J. H. Kok 1984).
26  Cohen-Stuart, The Struggle, 213.
27 (SJPSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988).
10 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

inadequate and the volume is an implicit critique of the use of Pauline catego-
ries to interpret ancient Jewish texts, as well as the unnecessary tendency to
constrict the discussion of Adam to the so-called “Adam-cycle,” that is, the ten-
dency by scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to narrow Adamic
lore to an underlying Adamic literature. While Levison’s work sheds insight
into the portrait of Adam in early Judaism, it differs from a study on human
nature in three critical ways: 1) “Adam” is not always a metaphor for collec-
tive humanity and serves a purpose other than depicting a particular aspect of
human existence (e.g., Jubilees), 2) an allusion to Gen 1:26-27 is not uniformly
an allusion to the creation of Adam, and 3) the author does not put enough
stock in the use of Gen 1:26-27—the “image of God”—and Gen 2:7—created
“from the earth”—to describe inherent characteristics of collective humanity.
Arthur Sekki’s The Meaning of Ruaḥ’ at Qumran was published in 1989.
Chapter 2 of his study deals with the employment of “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as human-
ity’s spirit. Sekki’s textual sample is somewhat broader than Anderson’s earlier
study; he incorporates additional texts that likely originate at Qumran (e.g.,
4QDa), although the Hodayot rightly receives the most attention. Many of his
conclusions are not unlike Anderson’s (see above) in that “spirit” follows bib-
lical categories albeit with a decidedly negative emphasis. Sekki differs from
Anderson, however, when he rightly notes that the positively described “spirit”
of the Qumran community is often referring to God’s spirit. Unfortunately,
Sekki gives no clear indication whether “spirit” means a “disembodied specter”
or is part of the human’s personality that survives death28—a conversation
that is critical to the Qumran texts.

1.2.2 Research from 1991

After the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991 to the academic community
and the general public, there is a noticeable growth in the studies examining
ancient Jewish views of human nature. With few exceptions, the majority of
these deal with newly published scroll texts, although the Hodayot and the
Treatise remain of primary interest. Notably, Ben Sira is still afforded a good
deal of scrutiny, while other Second Temple texts, for example 1 Enoch begin
to have a proper place in larger discussion on human nature. What follows is a
survey of research from 1991.
In 1991, George W. E. Nickelsburg’s study, “The Qumranic Transformation of
a Cosmological and Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” argued that the
Hodayot, in particular 4:29-40 (col. 12 in DJD XL), anthropologize cosmologi-
cal traditions that are preserved in 1 En 1-5. The reworking of these Enochic

28 S BLDS 110 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 95.

1.2 State of Research 11

traditions by the hymnist has made them “part of a description of his own
bodily and emotional reaction to the presence of the God who confronted
(and confronts) him—sinful flesh and clay—as the holy righteous judge.”29
The cosmic reaction to divine judgment that is present in 1 Enoch functions
as an antecedent to the sectarian hymns. In part, Nickelsburg’s study is key
because it is evidence of the “humanization” of parallel, non-anthropological,
traditions and indicates the importance of comparing the Hodayot with other
texts that did not originate at Qumran.
In a series of articles, Carol Newsom explores the construction of “self”
at Qumran, especially within the Hodayot. In 1992, “Case of the Blinking
‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH,” she suggests that in the sectarian
hymns the “self” represents the intersection of powerful and abject subjective
knowledge.30 In that same year, in “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics
of Knowledge as Qumran,” she notes that representations of the “self” reflect
the fundamental tensions present within the culture of the yaḥad.31 Finally,
in 2001, in the “Apocalyptic Subjects: Social Construction of the Self in the
Qumran Hodayot,” she argues that dueling images (e.g., terror and trust) form
an inward divided subjectivity, casting it on the other, and constructing a “self”
that is a convergence between “human nothingness and divine intentionality.”32
These studies are crucial because of her use of psychological studies on the
“self” and the application of their findings to understanding ancient texts like
the Hodayot.
These studies form a foundation for Newsom’s 2004 study The Self as
Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran.33 This study
examines, primarily, the Hodayot and the Treatise as important examples of
internal communal discourse. Attempting to weave a path through compet-
ing constructions of identity in the Second Temple period, Newsom draws

29 In The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead
Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner,
STDJ 11, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:657; repr. from “The Qumranic Radicalizing and
Anthropologizing of an Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” in Ernten, was man sät:
Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65 Geburstag, ed. Dwight D. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer
and Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1991), 423-35.
30 “Case of the Blinking ‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH,” in Discursive Formations,
Ascetic Piety and the Interpretation of Early Christian Literature, Semeia 57 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992), 13-23.
31 “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge as Qumran,” in Ideological
Criticism of Biblical Texts, ed. David Jobling and Tina Pippin, Semeia 59 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1992), 139-53.
32 J SP 12/1 (2001): 3-35.
33 S TDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
12 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

attention to the function of the Treatise as a critical source of “knowledge of

self” within the Qumran community. The Treatise, as she notes, reflects the self
as the very embodiment of “cosmic processes of the plan of God.”34 Its incor-
poration into the Serekh ha-Yaḥad indicates its importance to the Qumranites.
So, also, the Hodayot forge a self-understanding based on the authoritative self
who speaks in the hymns. Their language serves as a “teaching example” of the
desired characteristics that the community should emulate. Both texts form a
structure of “self” that is intended to both estrange and align the speaker with
community. Newsom’s work is particularly critical because of the manner in
which the self-reflective hymnist(s) of the Hodayot assists in shaping the al-
ready diverse conceptions of humanity in ancient Judaism.
Newsom’s work continued to examine the construction of identity in
“Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others’ through Non-Polemical Discourse”
(2008). She argues for the importance of examining non-polemic discourse in
the Hodayot and its function in developing group affinity and estrangement.35
More recently, in 2012 Newsom, as she has done previously, incorporates the
social sciences, this time utilizing cognitive studies on indigenous psycholo-
gies to examine the God-given “spirit” which is said to override the hymnist’s
“subjective autonomy.” She concludes partly that the hymns attempt to create
a normative type of psychology that is founded upon this “spirit.”36 Newsom’s
work offers important insights for the present study, in particular, how human
nature outside of the yaḥad is understood.
In 1998—six years after Newsom’s first article—Jörg Frey published a
study entitled “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die
palästinisch-jüdisch Weisheitstradition.”37 In it Frey argues that certain wis-
dom texts from Qumran indicate a dualization that represents a background
and alternative for deriving the Pauline conversation regarding “sinful flesh”
and its antithesis, the “spirit.” Apart from his examination of sectarian texts,
especially 1QM, 1QS, and 1QHa, Frey analyzes Musar le-Mevin for evidence of

34 Self as Symbolic Space, 350-51.

35 In Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the
Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Mladen
Popović, STDJ 70 (Leiden, New York: Brill, 2008), 13-22.
36 “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion
of her 65th Birthday, ed. by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98
(Leiden: Brill, 2012), 339-54. This and other studies have now been incorporated into a new
collection of Newsom’s essays, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics: Approaches to Text, Tradition
and Social Construction in Biblical and Second Temple Literature, FAT 130 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2019).
37 Z NW 90 (1999): 45-77.
1.2 State of Research 13

this “flesh/spirit” dichotomy. While he notes that there is no clear termino-

logical antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit” in Musar texts, he suggests that
the appearance of “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and “spiritual people” (‫ )עם רוח‬in
4QMusar le-Mevinc (4Q417) is the earliest parallel to the “flesh/spirit” dualism
that one then finds in Pauline literature.38 Any actual contrast between the
“spirit” and “flesh” is only conceptually, and not terminologically, present in
4Q417. Regarding the Qumran texts, Frey does not see the same antithesis with
the use “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in the Hodayot or in Serekh ha-Yaḥad, as its use portrays
the human weakness to sin and is more reflective of biblical usage (apart from
a handful of examples). The same conclusions appear generally in his 2002
study, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the
Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.”39 Just two
years prior, Frey returned to the discussion of “flesh” in his study, “The Notion
of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.”40 He exam-
ines Qumran communal texts for parallels to the negative use of “flesh” by the
Apostle. He argues additionally that the occurrence of negatively portrayed
“flesh” in Musar texts moves beyond the biblical examples, are connected with
human frailty, but not with disobedience or sin. While Frey’s argument that
the Musar texts are a “pre-Essene sapiential tradition” is worthy of further ex-
amination, it is clear that the 4Q417 fragment highlighted by him is key to un-
derstanding not only Pauline texts but the conception of humanity’s “fleshly”
condition and the growing antithesis between “flesh” and God’s bestowing of a
(his) spirit in the Second Temple period.
Crispin Fletcher-Louis’ 2002 work, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthro­
pology in Dead Sea Scrolls, is worth noting at this point. His work focusses on a
particular conception of humanity that he argues is unique to the scrolls. This
examination is founded on two interlocking points, “(1) the theology of ancient
Judaism took for granted the belief that in its original, true, redeemed state hu-
manity is divine (and/ or angelic), and that (2) this belief pattern was concep-
tually and experientially inextricable from temple worship in which ordinary
space and time and, therefore, human ontology are transcended because the
true temple is a model of the universe which offers its entrants a transfer from

38 Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 65-67.

39 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed.
Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven, Paris;
Sterling, VA: Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404.
40 In Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting
of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of
Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35
(Leiden: Brill, 2000).
14 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

earth to heaven, from humanity to divinity and from mortality to immortality.”41

Fletcher-Louis argues that this type of theological anthropology was at the very
heart of the Qumran community. This results from Fletcher-Louis’ 1) particular
anthropological interpretation of liturgical texts, and 2) the assumption that
liturgical texts were of central importance to community. This view is then
imposed on the anthropology of the Essenes in light of their asceticism and
celibacy as described in Classical sources.42 There are numerous assumptions
regarding the Qumran community that make some of Louis-Fletcher’s conclu-
sions tendentious. While it is clear in certain texts that members of the yaḥad
were thought to have an ability to commune with angelic beings and that dis-
enfranchisement from the temple system evoked a particular eschatological
hope, it is far less certain that the community members viewed their innate
nature as divine or angelic. Furthermore, the argument that this anthropology
was central to the community does not seem to agree with the preponderance
of evidence.
A number of important works that touch on the present study deal specifi-
cally with Ben Sira. The sage’s focus on creation, free will, and election warrant
a close analysis. For over a decade, Otto Kaiser has taken up part of this task.
In 2003, his study, “Göttliche Weisheit und menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira,”43
deals with Ben Sira’s so-called apologetic “bipolarity” (Zweipoligkeit) between
divine and human agency. Kaiser spends a great deal of time examining the
possible philosophical backgrounds to Ben Sira’s thought. The most pertinent
point for the present study is that within the tension between God’s revelation
of universal wisdom through Torah and envisioning the world in distinct po-
larities, humanity has the ability to be obedient to God’s laws, since God does
not demand anything that humanity is not capable of as a creation. According
to Kaiser, however, this is coupled with the implication that the person, in par-
ticular, the person that is part of Ben Sira’s community, has limited knowledge
of God’s immense power.44
In 2010, Kaiser’s collection of articles, Gott, Mensch und Geschichte: Studien
zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in der klassischen, bib-
lischen und nachbiblischen Literatur, includes two studies that deal with the

41 (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), xii.

42 Louis-Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam, 476-80.
43 In Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck an-
lässlich seiner Emeritierung, ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller,
BZAW 331 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 291-306. This same study appears again in Kaiser’s
2008 work, Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und
Hermeneutik, where he expands upon his analysis of Ben Sira’s parallels with Stoicism.
44 Kaiser, “Göttliche Weisheit,” 291-2, 297, 304-5.
1.2 State of Research 15

anthropologies of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, “‘Was ist der Mensch
und was ist sein Wert?’ Beobachtungen zur Anthropologie des Jesus Sirach
nach Sir 16,24-18,14” and “Anthropologie und Eschatologie in der Weisheit
Salomos.”45 As in his previous study, “Göttliche Weisheit,” Kaiser notes the im-
portance of Ben Sira’s apologetic (see above) to his Jewish audience. His analy-
sis of Ben Sira 16:24-18:14 finds that the sage sets the stage here to define human
nature. Ben Sira’s teachings are not unlike the three replies to the question in
the Hebrew Bible, “what is the person?” (Ps 8:4-5, 144:3-4, Job 15:14-16), namely,
by understanding human nature to be composed of three primary character-
istics: humanity has a spirit, the ability to make a choice, and lives a rather
short life especially in contrast to eternity. Furthermore, according to him, the
human being is the rational image of God, whose thinking ability allows it to
fear God but due to a finite existence it leans towards evil and is in need of
repenting and keeping God’s statutes.46 In his following study—appearing in
this volume for the first time—Kaiser finds five major parts of Wisdom’s an-
thropology: 1) Wisdom is not a systematic presentation but rather a number of
interconnected themes that utilize psycho-physical terminology in an incon-
sistent manner, 2) there is a distinct body-soul dualism where the soul is the
animating component of the person, and not permanently tied to the body,
3) immortality is not an anthropological guarantee and hinges on obedience
to the revelation of wisdom through the Torah which results in acting justly,
4) the impermanent person is created originally for immortality, and the pious
who retain that immortality live rightly, and 5) the person is inextricably linked
to God as he is the giver of wisdom and the benefactor of immortality.47
Within the years of Kaiser’s work, and unlike the early days of Qumran
research, one begins to note a distinct increase in studies dealing with the
“inclination” (‫ )יצר‬as part of the human condition—many of which exam-
ine the origins of the rabbinic “inclinations” (‫—)יצרים‬some as a background
study into the Pauline corpus. Johann Cook’s 2007 study, “The Origin of the
Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫יצר הרע‬,’”48 traces this rabbinic idea to back to
the Septuagint’s [LXX] translation of Proverbs. He argues that the origin of
the rabbinic “inclinations” could also have its roots in Ben Sira. Cook’s study,
however, is primarily a survey of the results of previous studies. His one new ar-
gument is that the “inclinations” are already reflected in the LXX’s translation

45 Kaiser, Gott, Mensch und Geschichte, BZAW 413 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 290-304,
341-64. “‘Was ist der Mensch und was ist sein Wert?’” repr. in Was ist der Mensch, dass du
seiner gedenkst?, 215-26.
46 Kaiser, “‘Was ist der Mensch?,” 292-7, 303-4.
47 Kaiser, “Anthropologie und Eschatologie,” 363.
48 J SJ 38 (2007): 80-91.
16 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

of Prov 2:11 and 17 (“good counsel” [βουλὴ καλὴ], “bad counsel” [κακὴ βουλὴ]).
While the suggestion is intriguing, it seems tenuous since the Jewish texts that
postdate the LXX reflect the raw materials for the later rabbinic development,
and further corroboration of the “inclinations’” in texts contemporaneous to
the LXX is wanting.
In regard to Ben Sira, Frank Ueberschaer’s 2007 study, Weisheit aus der
Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira,49 examines the portrayal of an
educational system for teaching wisdom in Ben Sira in light of its development
in the Ancient Near East, as well as in the Hellenistic schools from the pre-
classical through the Hellenistic periods. Ueberschaer also deals with various
educational institutions, the place of the student in that system, and the edu-
cation goal of Ben Sira’s work. In a small part of that study, Ueberschaer notes
a number of anthropological themes that are present in Ben Sira, in particu-
lar that a person is made in the “image of God” and with it comes the power,
domination, and awe of God’s other creation. Additionally, every human being
is capable of knowing God. While the human being is limited in regard to edu-
cation, physically and mentally, he/she is created with the faculties that allow
him/her to receive education.50
Eibert Tigchelaar’s study in 2008, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I (4QSectarian Text?),”51 examines the inno-
vations relating to the “evil inclination” and the presentation of a new reading
of 4Q486i, a fragment of a prayer which refers to the “evil inclination in our
heart.” He surveys several scroll texts noting partly that the linguistic difference
between the Bible’s “inclination of the thoughts” (‫ )יצר מחשבת‬and the scrolls’
“thoughts of the inclination” (‫ )מחשבות יצר‬is evidence of their general inter-
changeability, a point that is questioned in the present study. Furthermore,
he notes that it is unclear in texts like 4Q417 whether the “evil inclination” is
considered a general or more specific part of human nature. He concludes that
the binary dual inclination of the rabbis is relatively rare in the Second Temple
period “and it is questionable whether the rabbis embrace one specific con-
cept of the ‘evil inclination.’”52 Regarding his re-edition of 4Q486i, Tigchelaar’s
argues that the small fragment presents, unlike a common sectarian text, the

49 B ZAW 379 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007).

50 Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 137-58.
51 In Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem
van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-Van de Weg,
AJEC 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-57.
52 Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 354.
1.2 State of Research 17

“first case” where an evil inclination is relegated to all of humanity rather than
those outside of the speaker’s community.53
George Henrik van Kooten’s 2008 Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image
of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient
Philosophy and Early Christianity54 surveys the concept of the “image of God”
in ancient Judaism. The results of his study are supplemented by an examina-
tion of the “image of God” and “being made like God” in Graeco-Roman pa-
ganism and an emphasis on Philo’s work as a background to Pauline thought.
It is the first part of the study that is the most pertinent to our examination.
This is primarily the content of Chapter 1. Notably, despite examining Pauline
anthropology, his treatment of the “image of God” is not influenced by Pauline
categories—as per Levison’s critiques of earlier works. This may be due to the
fact that the concept of the “image of God” which originates in Judaism is not
strongly attested in Pauline texts. Van Kooten’s examination also incorporates
works that have disputed dating (e.g., Sibylline Oracles and Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs) or show evidence of later Christian redaction, although he
is careful to note these later interpolations. Van Kooten’s study is critical in
both his treatment of Philo and his suggestion, which is examined further in
this study, that by the first century CE the common position in ancient Judaism
was that humanity was composed of three parts, mind/spirit, body, and soul.
Loren Stuckenbruck deals with anthropological internalization of dualism
within the Treatise of the Two Spirits in his 2010 study, “The Interiorization of
Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the
Two Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context.”55 His examination is a notable
exception to the studies introduced to this point since it is not limited to the
Treatise, but explores the dualistic opposition in compositions that originated
in the 2nd century BCE, Ben Sira, 1 Enoch 91-105 and Musar le-Mevin. Regarding,
the Treatise’s theological anthropology, Stuckenbruck argues that it envisions
the human as the battleground between cosmic forces. He notes further that
this depiction of human nature is an embodiment of socio-religious conflict
that could no longer be “circumscribed by physical boundaries.”56 In yet anoth-
er study in 2011, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the
Problem of Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being,” Stuckenbruck
examines the image of the “double heart” in several texts (Hodayot, 4Q452,

53 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 354-7.

54 W UNT I 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
55 In Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Con­
temporary World, ed. Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric M. Meyers, Armin Lange, and Randall
Styers, JAJSup 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010), 145-68.
56 Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 165-8.
18 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, the Treatise) with the intention of uncovering the modes
of discourse regarding the “heart” in their respective theological anthropolo-
gies. He notes that one of the more important differences between Ben Sira,
1 Enoch, and the Hodayot is that they are not interested in the internal life of
the person, whereas the Treatise images the “heart” as the “battle zone” of each
person. He concludes that “double-heartedness” and the “human heart” repre-
sent the internalization of the community’s religious tensions and “how they
attempted to negotiate them in relation to their communities’ ideals.”57
Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s 2011 study, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of
Evil in Late Antiquity (2011), in part, offers some important insights into wheth-
er the use of “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬in Qumran writings is the place of origin for
the rabbinic concept. His larger work deals primarily with the reification of
the “evil inclination” in rabbinic sources. Chapter three, in particular, consid-
ers the question whether ‫יצר‬, or ‫יצרים‬, in the scrolls envisages what appears
among the rabbis. He notes that within Qumran texts ‫ יצר‬primarily notes the
yaḥad’s internal disposition to sin, and while significantly reworked by the rab-
bis, the Qumran examples help to establish the demonic nature of the “evil
inclination.”
Miryam Brand’s 2013 study, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and
Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature,58 is worth noting here. Her
study is particularly germane because it is broadly set, like the present work,
examining ideas that permeate several texts. She examines the complexity
of the portrayal of sin as it appears in prayer, covenantal, wisdom, and philo-
sophical texts, dividing the depiction of sin into two major themes, an internal
human disposition to sin, and an external force that leads one to sin. Brand’s
study is critical to understanding the complexity of the portrayal of both the
human inclination and effect of malevolent spirits as causes of sin.
Frey’s earlier study already notes the importance of Musar le Mevin texts
to understanding the negatively portrayed concept of “flesh” and its appar-
ent antithesis, the “spirit.” In particular, Frey points to the fragment of Musar
le-Mevinc (4Q417) as representative of the earliest conceptual evidence to a
phenomenon which is distinctly present in Pauline literature. From the late
90s, there are considerable advances in the study of anthropological aspects of
Musar le-Mevin. The impetus for this interest is two-fold, the attestation of the
“evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬and the apparent opposition between a “fleshly spir-
it” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and a “spiritual people” (‫)עם רוח‬. Regarding the “evil inclination,”
Matthew Goff argues in 4QInstruction (2013) that there is little evidence in

57 Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 1:452-3.

58 JAJSup 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2013).
1.2 State of Research 19

4Q417 1 that this “inclination ‘seduces’” or is a personified entity but acknowl-

edges room for debate.59 In a study that examines the “evil inclination” (‫יצר‬
‫ )רע‬in Barkhi Nafshi and the Plea for Deliverance alongside Musar le-Mevin,
Benjamin Wold’s “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction,”
comes to a similar conclusion. He surveys and examines the various occur-
rences of ‫ יצר‬and argues that the function of ‫ יצר רע‬vis-à-vis humanity in
4Q417 1 ii 12 leaves little evidence that it represents an external or independent
force. He concludes, however, that Musar le-Mevin “may well be participat-
ing in demonizing sin similar to the Plea for Deliverance and Barkhi Nafshi.”60
Column I of the same fragment has also drawn a great deal of discussion due
to the apparent opposition between the “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and “spiritual
people” (‫ )עם רוח‬in the same context as the so-called “vision of hagu,” or “vision
of meditation” ( ֯‫הגוי‬
ׄ ‫)חזון ֯ה‬. In particular, whether the vision—the divine revela-
tion of wisdom—is given to a part of humanity or all of humanity has more
recently become a matter of debate. Scholars initially agreed that the fragment
envisioned a bifurcation of humanity into two camps, where the “fleshly spirit”
and “spiritual people” are opposed to one another. The “fleshly spirit” is denied
access to the “vision of meditation” to which the “spiritual people” are given
access. Moreover, the occurrence of ‫—אנוש‬which has been translated and
understood by various scholars as “humanity,” “Enosh” and “Adam”—further
complicate matters. Armin Lange’s 1995 work, Weisheit und Prädestination:
Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran,61
agrees with the aforementioned division of humanity into two camps. He
suggests further that as the antithesis to the “fleshly spirit,” the “spiritual
people” may designate people associated with Enosh, the biblical patriarch,
or angelic beings. Lange differs from others in that he suggests ‫ אנוש‬should
be understood as the biblical patriarch Enosh. John J. Collins’ 1999 study, “In
the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text
from Qumran,”62 upholds the bifurcation of humanity into two camps in light
of the heavy allusions to Genesis’ creation accounts—especially the state-
ment that the “spiritual people” are said to be created “according to the like-
ness of the holy ones”—although he parts ways with Lange since he suggests

59 Matthew Goff, 4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013),

180-81.
60 In Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and
Chris Keith, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).
61 S TDJ 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
62 In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated
Issues and Technological Innovations, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry, STDJ 30
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 609-18.
20 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

that ‫ אנוש‬carries the sense of Adam, the first biblical patriarch. In a series of
studies from 2003-2013,63 Matthew Goff follows Collins’ argument regarding
the ontological division of humanity into two camps, arguing for the presence
of strong Genesis allusions and the lack of logic involved with understanding
humanity’s access to the “vision” in any other way. Part of Goff’s studies are in
response to others that question this ontological division. Wold’s 2005 study,
Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and
its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions,64 argues that Musar le-Mevin’s
(i.e., 4QInstruction) anthropology envisions humanity as originating from a
single creation. Because a portion of humanity did not task itself to God’s di-
vine revelation, this portion, namely, the “fleshly spirit,” is denied continual
access to this revelation. Wold disagrees that the division among humanity
is ontological as previous scholars have argued. In that vein, Jean-Sébastian
Rey’s 2009 study, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology, notes that the Musar
texts are innovative in that they provide a universal sapiential revelation for
all of humanity and not simply a particular community or group.65 Wold again
argues for his previous position in a 2013 study, “The Universality of Creation
in 4QInstruction.” He deals partly with the translation of ‫ אנוש‬and ‫ ועוד לא‬in
4QInstruction, arguing of the latter that translating ‫ ועוד לא‬as “no longer” re-
quires finding an ontological division between the “fleshly spirit” and the “spir-
itual people” elsewhere and outside of the context of creation. As he suggests,
all humanity struggles with the “flesh” and the difference between the “fleshly
spirit” and “people with a spirit” (Wold’s translation) is that the former are “no
longer” given access to “vision of meditation.”66 Indeed, ascertaining the de-
piction of humanity in Musar texts, especially whether humanity’s envisioned

63 Matthew Goff, “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction,” DSD 10/2 (2003): 165-70; idem,
Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden:
Brill, 2007); idem, “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and
Paul,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Volume 2: Exegetical Studies, ed. Craig
Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T and T Clark, 2009), 114-25; idem, “Adam, the
Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies
in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravitz and Joszef Zsengellér, JSJSup 142 (Leiden, Brill,
2010), 1-22; idem, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis
of Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body, Christian Self:
Concepts of Early Christian Personhood, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson,
WUNT 284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 41-59; idem, 4QInstruction.
64 W UNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
65 S TDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
66 RQ 102/1 (2013): 211-26.
1.3 Rationale and Method of the Present Study 21

separation is ontological or not, is critical to understanding the portrayal of the

human nature in ancient Judaism and is discussed here in chapter 7.

1.3 Rationale and Method of the Present Study

The majority of studies introduced above are limited to an individual text or

a single concept (e.g., human “inclination”) that occurs in a specific set texts.
While these studies are useful, a fuller examination of human nature in Second
Temple Judaism is warranted. More recent works (e.g., Brand’s Evil Within and
Without) have shown that theological/topical studies with a more ample set
of Jewish texts can be fruitful. Therefore, this work seeks to fill the lack by ex-
ecuting an examination of varying elements of human nature as portrayed in
Greco-Roman Judaism.
Before continuing with an analytical methodology, some preliminary pre-
suppositions are worth outlining. First, human nature, as noted above, is de-
fined as characteristics, innate and God-given, that are thought by the author
to be true for general, collective humanity. Second, the texts examined here
date to the Greco-Roman period of Jewish history, which for this work spans
from Alexander the Great’s entry into the east in the 4th c. BCE to the close
of the 1st c. CE. The majority of these texts also fall within the Second Temple
period—ending with the destruction of the Jerusalem’s Temple in 70 CE—
with a few exceptions, specifically, Josephus, Testament of Naphtali [T. Naph.],
4 Ezra, and the Testament of Abraham [T. Ab.]. Josephus is a special case
because the works that are relevant to this study—Jewish War and Jewish
Antiquities—were written so soon after the Jerusalem’s destruction that the
content is relevant to understanding Second Temple Judaism. The latter two
texts are exceptional due the presence of terminological and conceptual paral-
lels to texts that undoubtedly date to before the destruction.
Three categories have been identified in the aforementioned collection of
texts that embody discussions of human nature, namely, creation, composi-
tion, and condition. What follows is the analytical methodology employed for
each category of this study.
1. “Creation” examines the use, impact, and reapplication of the unique
language of humanity’s creation in Genesis one and two—male and
female and adam, respectively—to characterize collective human-
ity. It tracks two creation topoi—the “image of God” and “from (out of)
earth”—that are continually employed as connotative of human nature.
Although preserved in Jewish literature, a thorough consideration of
22 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

these creation-inspired topoi illustrates that they are not intended to be

limited to Judaism, or the Jewish world, but reflect ideas regarding cor-
porate humanity by utilizing distinct Jewish ideas of both creation and
creator.
2. “Composition” explores the diverse language utilized for both the physi-
cal and metaphysical components of human existence. More specifically,
it analyzes the use of various terms for the body, soul, and spirit as they
relate specifically to humanity and the manner in which they express
characteristics with regard to humanity’s constituent parts. Additionally,
this work considers the use of the aforementioned terminology in prayer
and liturgical texts that portray an inner, psychic turmoil and the manner
that this depiction presumes a particular compositional reality.
3. “Condition” examines the conceptualization of free will and other nu-
ances of agency that are ingrained in the human “inclination” and the
“flesh/spirit” dichotomy. Furthermore, this examination elucidates the
stark impact on the characterization of humanity’s innate condition in
texts that ascribe to ideas of predestination (or strong determinism), es-
pecially regarding humankind’s presumed ability, or utter impotence, to
obey God’s commandments.
In light of this tripartite methodology, several texts come to the fore. Among
them Ben Sira, the Hodayot, and the “Treatise of Two Spirits” receive a good
deal of attention. Portions of the first two texts play a role in each category.
Other texts that exhibit evidence germane to this study include Qohelet,
Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, Philo of Alexandria, 2 Maccabees,
1 Enoch, the Damascus Document, “The Prayer of Levi” (4QLevbar), the Prayers
of Noah and Abraham in Jubilees, the “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), Songs
of the Sagea,b (4Q510-4Q511), Psalms of Solomon, 4QCommunal Confession
(4Q393), 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q436), Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), and Musar le-Mevin
(1Q/4QInstruction). Other texts that were authored after the destruction of the
Temple but nonetheless preserve content that is clearly from an earlier period
and, therefore, key to this work are Josephus’ Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities,
Testament of Naphtali., 4Ezra, and Testament of Abraham.

1.4 The Plan of the Present Study

This study is comprised of three primary parts, Creation, Composition, and

Condition. Each section is comprised of two chapters.
1.4 The Plan of the Present Study 23

Chapter 2: Of Image, Earth, and Dust—The Emergence of Creation Topoi to

Depict Humanity in Early Judaism

This chapter is the first of the “Creation” section. It examines the emergence
of creation topoi,67 that are, literary threads which develop from the peculiar
language of the creation of humanity in Gen 1 and 2—the “image of God” and
“of the dust from the earth” (and its subsequent variations—“out of [from]
earth”). Qohelet is the earliest evidence that this unique language is employed
to portray characteristics of collective humanity. Its continual use in post-
biblical literature suggests that the phraseology of Genesis have become topoi,
more specifically, creation topoi. Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon are par-
ticularly invested with these creation topoi. So too is a lesser-known wisdom
text named after a 6th c. BCE gnomic poet, Phocylides. Each of these post
biblical wisdom texts utilize both creation topoi to depict humanity and are
therefore an important barometer for the innovation of employing creation
to depict human nature. Qohelet chapters three and twelve are drawn to the
pessimism of the topos that develops from Gen 2, while Ben Sira chapters
seventeen and thirty-three—seeming to present opposing points of view on
humanity—attests both creation topoi. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 2 utilizes
one creation topos in relation to the immortality of the righteous, and again in
chapter fifteen in a diatribe against the idol maker. In a discussion of the prop-
er place of mourning, Pseudo-Phocylides utilizes the creation topoi in order to
describe what occurs to collective humanity upon death. An examination of
these texts not only identifies a new innovation with the implementation of
creation topoi but, importantly, provides an early picture of human nature that
develops within wisdom literature.

Chapter 3: From Image and Earth to Dust—The Growth of the Use of Creation
Topoi and the Amplification of Human Lowliness

67 This study defines creation topoi—a method used in Classical Greek rhetoric to structure
arguments—as literary threads that develop from the unique language of biblical narra-
tives and are employed when the author is structuring an argument. In that sense, creation
topoi that develop from the unique language of the creation of humankind in Gen 1-2 and
are used by Second Temple Jewish authors to comment on characteristics that are uni-
versal to collective humanity. See esp. Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the
Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask, Bollingen Series 36 (Princeton University Press:
Princeton and Oxford, 2013), 79-105.
24 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

This chapter analyzes the continuing prevalence and varied utilization of

creation topoi in Second Temple texts. Moving beyond Qohelet, Ben Sira,
Wisdom, and Pseudo Phocylides, chapter three examines their use in Philo of
Alexandria, T. Naph., 4 Ezra, and 2 Macc. One finds in these texts that ancient
writers are drawn to one of the two topoi in order to highlights specific human
attributes. The chapter also provides a critical analysis of one of the closing
hymns in the Hodayot (20:7-22:42) and is brought into conversation with the
results of chapter two and three of the current study. In particular, it discuss-
es the reworking of our second topos—“of the dust from the earth” (and its
subsequent variations—“out of [from] earth”)—into the pervasive phraseol-
ogy “creature of clay” and “creature of dust,” while intentionally ignoring the
first topos—the “image of God.” Such an approach allows a unique depiction
of human lowliness to be amplified when compared with the larger world of
ancient Jewish thought. Additionally, because it draws on creation motifs that
are similar to our literary threads, a brief critical note on the “Mother and Her
Seven Sons” narrative in 2 Macc is examined.

Chapter 4: Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit—Examining Humanity’s

Composition

This chapter is the first chapter of the “Composition” section and examines
the use of terminology that specifically describes the body and soul (‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬,
‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά). Again, Ben Sira is critical in this analysis since is utilizes
ψυχὴ more than any other Jewish text written in Greek. This is of particular
importance since according to the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira most of the
occurrences of ψυχὴ appear to be a translation of ‫נפש‬. Thus, the Hebrew and
Greek Ben Sira offer a great deal of textual evidence for the use of these terms
in describing human existence and the presumed composition of humanity in
ancient Judaism. Furthermore, it offers some insight into whether the “soul”
is considered to be a separate metaphysical human component. Moreover,
the apparent immortality of the “soul” is a crucial part of this chapter’s analy-
sis, especially as it appears in the Wisdom of Solomon, Jewish War and Jewish
Antiquities on the Jewish schools, the so-called “Mountain of the Dead” narra-
tive in 1 Enoch, and the “soul” of Abraham in B of the T. Ab. The results of this
examination invite some comment on George Henrik van Kooten’s argument
that a view of humanity as trichotomous (body, soul, and spirit) was the work-
ing assumption in the late Second Temple period.

Chapter 5: Internal and External Disturbance—Body/Soul Dualism Through

the Lens of Psychic Strife
1.4 The Plan of the Present Study 25

This chapter takes a novel approach to the examination of humanity’s con-

stituent parts. It examines presumed human composition through the lens
of “psychic strife,” that is an analysis of body/soul dualism in the portrayal
human vulnerabilities to external and internal forces and its voiced expres-
sion through physical and metaphysical language. The Hodayot and Jewish
apotropaic prayers are particularly vital here. In part, this is comprised of the
Hodayot’s utilization of “soul” (‫)נפש‬, “heart” (‫)לב‬, and “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as barom-
eters of the hymnist’s and the community’s inner turmoil. Additionally, Jewish
apotropaic prayers, specifically, “The Prayer of Levi” (4QLevbar), the Prayers of
Noah and Abraham in Jubilees, the “Pleas for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), Songs of
the Sagea,b (4Q510-4Q511)—expressing a distinct concern for human vulner-
ability to external malevolent spirits—are analyzed here to assess what these
perceived vulnerabilities presume about humanity’s constituent parts.

Chapter 6: Mapping Human Condition—Free Will and the Inclination(s) to

Sin

This chapter begins the section of this study that explores humanity’s innate
condition. It examines, in part, the conceptualization of free will, namely, the
conception of humanity as an agent of unfettered choice. Three texts are criti-
cal for this part of the analysis, Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, and the Damascus
Document. The second part of this chapter looks at the appearance of the “in-
clination” (‫ )יצר‬in various forms. The texts discussed in this part of the chapter
are the Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, 4QCommunal Confession, and a Dead Sea
copy of Jubilees. Special attention is given to the occurrence of the “evil incli-
nation” (‫ )יצר רע‬in Second Temple texts and in particular to a Barkhi Nafshi text
that amounts to perhaps the only occurrence where “evil inclination” refers to
an actual component of human desire.

Chapter 7: A Predetermined Condition—Humanity’s Double Duality, Nothing­

ness, and Fleshly Condition

The closing chapter of the “Condition” section deals with texts that presume
shifting degrees of God’s sovereign, determinative control over human affairs. It
is divine predestination that divides humanity into two camps (the wicked and
the righteous), one of which is destined to be eternally part of God’s communi-
ty and the other to some sort of unfavorable end. This type of worldview seems
to lead to three general views of the human condition: 1) it must exist under
specter of double duality, predestined to one camp and, at the same time, the
embodiment of a battle between dueling cosmic forces, 2) is utterly nothing,
26 1 Introduction: Towards a Portrait of Human Nature

inescapably base, and 3) is beset by a “fleshly” unknowing condition. The texts

that best represent these general views are two originally-independent por-
tions of Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), the Treatise of the Two Spirits (3:13-4:26) and
the Hymn of Praise, (10:9-11:22), and Musar le-Mevin (1Q/4QInstruction).

Chapter 8: Conclusion: Describing Humanity in the Second Temple Period

This final chapter summarizes the findings of this study, drawing out some of
the more prominent themes and conversations taking place the Second Temple
period regarding human nature (e.g., flesh vs. spirit, obedience vs. transgres-
sion). It will also suggest the importance of this study for future Second Temple
studies, as well as to the fields of New Testament and Rabbinic literature.

1.5 Theoretical Issues

This study is concerned with collective humanity, namely, characteristics that

are universal to every person regardless of gender (male/female), communal
affiliation or identity. Of course, an examination of texts from a community
like Qumran, which are starkly self-defined in relation to a group of outsiders,
communal affiliation and identity must naturally be part of the conversation.
Further, this study utilizes inclusive terminology when dealing with gender in
ancient texts unless a specific gender is referenced. Thus, one will note “hu-
manity,” “humankind,” or “human being” rather than “man” and “mankind,”
since the descriptions examined here most often presume all people regard-
less of gender. Moreover, “one,” “person,” or “individual” are utilized rather than
“his,” “her,” or “sons,” again, unless issues of gender are specified or ascertained
contextually (e.g., in sectarian texts).68 This study makes every attempt to not
ignore those issues when they arise.
On some occasions, the term “sectarian” is utilized to describe material that
originated with the Qumran community, and “non-sectarian” for other texts
found in the caves of the Judaean desert. Although “the community” or yaḥad
are preferred, “sectarian” is employed, not to indicate a separate religious or-
thodoxy, but rather as a social signifier—a group identifier of sorts—that de-
marcates the Qumran community and texts thought to originate with them.

68 See for example, Maxine Grossman, “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,”
DSD 11/2 (2004): 212-39.
 Chapter 2

Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of

Creation Topoi to Depict Human Nature in
Early Judaism

Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay

To mould me Man, did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?”
John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667

2.1 Introduction

Genesis describes collective humanity, male and female, as created “in the
image of God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ; ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬1:27). While the initial statement of human cre-
ation, “Let us make humankind in our image (‫) ְב ַצ ְל ֵמנּו‬, after our likeness (‫ִכ ְדמּו־‬
‫ ; ֵתנּו‬v. 26)…,” refers to both God’s image and likeness, early Jewish authors were
drawn to the “image” of the later passage. The draw to verse 26 is perhaps due to
the perplexing first-person plural endings on “our image” (‫ ) ַצ ְל ֵמנּו‬and “our like-
ness” (‫מּותנּו‬ֵ ‫) ְד‬.1 This does not, however, offer a reason why later authors prefer
to utilize image rather than likeness. The likeness of God is referenced again in
Gen 5:1, “this book is of the generations of Adam, when God created mankind
he made it in the likeness of God (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫) ִּב ְדמּות ֱא‬,” and 9:6, which prohibits mur-
der on the rationale that humanity bears the divine image: “Whoever sheds
the blood of a person, by a person his blood should be spilled, for in the image
of God (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ) ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬he made humankind.” Outside of Genesis, however, bibli-
cal literature does not refer to God’s image or likeness. The creation of “man”
(‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫ ) ָה‬and “woman” (‫ ) ָה ִא ָשּׁה‬in Gen 2:4b-25 is decidedly different from its

1 Lyle Eslinger, “The Enigmatic Plurals like ‘One of Us’ (Genesis I 26, III 22, and XI 7) in
Hyperchronic Perspective,” VT 56/2 (2006): 171. See also Florentino García Martínez, “The
Genesis of Alexandria, the Rabbi, and Qumran,” in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies
on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 219-40, esp. 249-53; also Ryan Scott Dulkin,
The Rabbis Rereading Eden: A Traditions-Historic Study of Exegetical Motifs in the Classical
and Selected Post-Classical Rabbinic Sources on Genesis 1-3 (Ph.D. Diss., Jewish Theological
Seminary 2011), 55-108. Dulkin examines with selected passages in Rabbinic literature which
deal with the theological problems caused by Gen 1:26.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_003

28 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

biblical counterpart. The most important difference for this study is that
the “man,”2 not humanity—although ‫אָדם‬ ָ is utilized in Gen 1 to refer to
humankind—is formed “from the dust of the ground” (‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬
ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬.
By the Hellenistic period (3rd c. BCE), two literary threads emerge from
Genesis’ unique language for creation. The imago dei of 1:27 and “of the dust
from the ground” of 2:7,3 which is reshaped into “from (out of) the earth/
ground,” or “from dust/clay,” are more than allusions; they are employed to
describe innate attributes of collective humanity. In this study, these liter-
ary threads or topoi4 (i.e., topics), referred to hereon as creation topoi, are
adapted from the particular language of the creation of humankind in Gen 1-2.
Their employment by early Jewish authors is intended to comment and even
introduce characteristics that are common to all of humanity.5 The earliest

2 The “woman” (‫ ) ִא ָׁשה‬is created from the man’s “side-chamber” (‫) ֵצ ָלע‬.
3 Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems that Genesis’ creation, especially Gen 2, receive special
treatment. See Esther Eshel, “Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
1-12, and, more specifically, Esther Glickler Chazon, “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the
Dead Sea Scrolls,” 13-24, in The Book of Genesis on Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation,
ed. Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay, TEG 5 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997). The employ-
ment of the “image of God” in Second Temple, early Rabbinic, and Christian texts has gar-
nered some attention, although., Rabbinic and Christian texts have received the lion’s share.
More recently, Yair Lorberbaum, Tselem elohim: halakha ve-aggadah (Tel Aviv: Schocken
Publishing House, 2004) (Heb.); idem, In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical
Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body
as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87/2 (Apr., 1994): 171-95; Morton Smith, “On
the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in
Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 315-
26; Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei; Alexander Altmann, “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian
Theology,” JR 48/3 (Jul., 1968): 235-59; Samuel Vollenweider, “Der Menschgewordene als
Ebenbild Gottes: zum frühchristlichen Verständnis der Imago Dei,” in Ebenbild Gottes—
Herrscher über die Welt: Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen, ed. Hans-Peter Mathys,
BTS 33 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 123-46; also George H. Van Kooten,
Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in
Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT I 232 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008); Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and
Before, WUNT 2.317, (Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). These last two studies are particularly
interested in Second Temple Judaism as a window to understanding Pauline theological
anthropology.
4 See section 1.3.
5 For example, Curtius notes regarding topoi in Classical Greek rhetoric: “In the antique system
of rhetoric topics is the stockroom. There one found ideas of the most general sort such as
could be employed in every kind of oratory and writing. Every writer, for example, must try
to put the reader in a favorable frame of mind. To this end, until the literary revolution of
the eighteenth century, a modest first appearance was recommended. The author had next
to lead the reader to the subject. Hence for the introduction (exordium) there was a special
topics [sic]; and likewise, for the conclusion. Formulas of modesty, introductory formulas,
2.2 Qohelet 29

evidence of creation topoi in Second Temple Jewish literature are primarily

in Wisdom texts, a genre that generally shows interest in creation.6 Creation
topoi are preserved in four texts, Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and
Pseudo Phocylides, which are authored in the Hellenistic period and are dated
between the 3rd-2nd c. BCE. This chapter will focus on the occurrences of
these creation topoi and the manner which they reflect key characteristics of
human nature that were prevalent in ancient Judaism.

2.2 Qohelet

Despite being attributed to Solomon,7 “the son of David” (‫ן־דּוִ ד‬ ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬, 1:1), schol-
ars are largely in agreement that Qohelet is a post-exilic text, written at some
point in the Hellenistic period.8 As Mark Sneed states, “The consensus for the

concluding formulas, then, are required everywhere. Other topoi can be used only for some
particular species of oratory for the judicial oration or the epideictic oration,” European
Literature and the Middle Ages, 79.
6 Leo Purdue notes the importance of anthropology to both biblical and post-biblical wis-
dom literature though he references Gerhard Von Rad’s speculation that these themes did
not come to fruition until the 6th c. BCE, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom
Literature (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 41-46. See also Roland Murphy, “Wisdom and
Creation,” JBL 104/1 (Mar., 1985): 3-11.
7 Solomon is never referenced explicitly. See Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes,
NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 33-45.
8 For second century BCE, Charles F. Whitley places Qohelet in the mid-second century
BCE, Koheleth: His Language and Thought, BZAW 148 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 10.
Although, Daniel C. Fredericks, notes that Whitley’s dating of Qohelet to 152 BCE is extreme,
Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date, ANETS 3 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen, 1988), 1. See Avi Hurvitz’s review of Koheleth where he notes that Frederick’s conclu-
sion that Qohelet’s language should be classified as classical or pre-exilic cannot be “satisfac-
torily substantiated” on the basis of Frederick’s philological examination, review of Qoheleth’s
Language, HS 31 [1990]: 154. For the 3rd century BCE, see Aarre Lauha, Kohelet, BKAT 19
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 3; Norbert Lohfink, Kohelet (Würtzburg:
Echter Verlag, 1980), 7-15; Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes, JSOT 316
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 15-16; Christoph Uehlinger, “Qohelet im Horizont
mesopotamischer, levantinischer und ägyptischer Weisheitliteratur der persischen und hel-
lenistischen Zeit,” 155-248, and Reinhold Bolen, “Kohelet im Kontext hellenistischer Kultur,”
249-274, in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie, ed.
Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, BZAW 254 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1997). Some argue that Ben Sira (ca. 175 BCE) may have been familiar with Qohelet and
provides a terminus ad quem; see Jeremy Corley, “Qohelet and Ben Sira: A Comparison,”
in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his
Eightieth Birthday, ed. Nuria Caluduch-Benages, BZAW 445 (Berlin and Boston: Walter de
Gruyter, 2014), 145-54; also Johannes Marböck, “Kohelet und Sirach,” in Das Buch Kohelet,
30 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

date of Qohelet is still the Ptolemaic [i.e., Hellenistic] period,” due to language,
Greek influence, and the “author’s psychological disposition.”9 Although, there
is some argument for a Persian dating of the work (5th c. BCE),10 this study
follows the later dating. Thus, a Hellenistic dating and the content of Qohelet
make it pertinent to this study. In particular, 3:16-22 and 12:1-7 present a pic-
ture of humanity’s death that is not unlike what one fines elsewhere in early
Judaism.

2.2.1 Qoh 3:19-22 and 12:1-7

In 3:19-22, Qohelet begins to deal with the “fate of humanity” (‫אָדם‬ ָ ֵ‫ ִמ ְק ֶרה ְבנ‬,
ָ ‫י־ה‬
v. 19). Germane to this study is the creation topoi which describes humanity
as coming “from dust” and “returning to dust” (v. 20). It occurs in a section of
chapter 3 where Longman notes a shift in the author’s attention to the issue
of justice.11 Verses 16-22, which form the second part of the chapter, bemoan
the presence of the “wicked” (‫ ) ָה ָר ַשׁע‬even in the place of “the just” (‫) ַה ֶצּ ֶדק‬.
Following a theme from part one of the chapter (vv. 1-15), Qohelet returns to
there being a time for everything, in particular, the judgment of both the wick-
ed and the just.

275-302, esp. 296. Lange argues that the Dead Sea Qohelet manuscript 4QQoha (4Q109) is
pre-Maccabean (prior to 175 BCE), “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library
and the Hebrew Bible,” DSD 13/3 (2006): 277-305. See also, Eugene Ulrich, “Qoheleth,”
in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer et al., DJD XVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 221-7. Longman has an ex-
tended discussion and favors a late dating for Ecclesiastes. He points out, however, that
language is not a good barometer for dating, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 50.
9 Mark R. Sneed, The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to Israelite and Jewish
Wisdom Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 348.
10 C. L. Seow disagrees with a Hellenistic dating. “In terms of a typology of language, then
Qohelet, belongs in the Persian period, specifically between the second half of the 5th
century and the 1st half of the fourth,” Lingusitic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet,”
JBL 115/4 (Winter, 1996): 666. See also James L. Kugel, “Qohelet and Money,” CBQ 51/1
(Jan., 1989): 32-49; Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Jobs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes—A
Translation with Commentary (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010),
644.
11 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 285.
2.2 Qohelet 31

3:19. For the fate of humanity and the ‫וּמ ְק ֶרה‬

ִ ‫וּמ ְק ֶרה ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה‬
ִ ‫אָדם‬ ָ ֵ‫ ִכּי ִמ ְק ֶרה ְבנ‬.19
ָ ‫י־ה‬
fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, ‫רוּח ֶא ָחד ַלכֹּל‬ַ ְ‫ֶא ָחד ָל ֶהם ְכּמֹות זֶ ה ֵכּן מֹות זֶ ה ו‬
so dies the other. They all have the same ‫ן־ה ְבּ ֵה ָמה אָיִ ן ִכּי ַהכֹּל ָה ֶבל׃‬
ַ ‫אָדם ִמ‬ ָ ‫וּמֹותר ָה‬
ַ
spirit, and man has no advantage over
the beasts; for all is vanity.
20. All go to one place; all are from the ‫ן־ה ָע ָפר‬
ֶ ‫ל־מקֹום ֶא ָחד ַהכֹּל ָהיָ ה ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ ַהכֹּל‬.20
ָ ‫הֹולְך ֶא‬
dust, and all turn to dust again. ‫ל־ה ָע ָפר׃‬ֶ ‫וְ ַהכֹּל ָשׁב ֶא‬
21. Who knows whether the spirit of ‫אָדם ָהע ָֹלה ִהיא ְל ָמ ְע ָלה‬ ָ ‫רוּח ְבּנֵ י ָה‬ַ ‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ִמי‬.21
man goes upward and the spirit of the ‫אָרץ׃‬
ֶ ‫וְ רוּ ַה ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה ַהיּ ֶֹר ֶדת ִהיא ְל ַמ ָטּה ָל‬
beast goes down to the earth?
22. So I saw that there is nothing bet- ‫אָדם‬ָ ‫יתי ִכּי ֵאין טֹוב ֵמ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְשׂ ַמח ָה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָר ִא‬.22
ter than that a person should enjoy his ‫יאנּוּ ִל ְראֹות‬
ֶ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲע ָשׂיו ִכּי־הוּא ֶח ְלקֹו ִכּי ִמי ִיְב‬
work, for that is his lot; who can bring ‫אַח ָריו׃‬
ֲ ‫ְבּ ֶמה ֶשׁיִּ ְהיֶ ה‬
him to see what will be after him?‫‏‬

Animals and humans face the same death; humanity has no advantage over
animals. Death is the great equalizer.12 Both have the same “spirit” (‫רוּח‬ ַ /LXX:
πνεῦμα) and, it appears at first, that they also share the same final destination.13
Fischer argues, from death comes the realization that a good reputation, pos-
sessions, and descendants are transient (cf. also Qoh 4:2-3).14 It is in death
that humans and animals are said to return from whence they came, “from
dust” (‫ן־ה ָע ָפר‬
ֶ ‫) ִמ‬15 “to dust” (‫ל־ה ָע ָפר‬
ֶ ‫ ֶא‬, also Qoh 12:7; cf. Sir 17:1). The expres-
sions “from dust” and “to dust” are an unmistakable allusion to Gen 2:7, “then
the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground” (‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬, and
Gen 3:19, “for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return
(‫ל־ע ָפר ָתּשׁוּב‬
ָ ‫אַתּה וְ ֶא‬ָ ‫י־ע ָפר‬
ָ ‫‏כּ‬ִ ; see also, Job 10:9, 34:15; Psalm 90:3, 104:29).16 The
creation topoi speaks of the inevitable meaninglessness of humanity’s death,
“for all is meaningless” (‫) ִכּי ַהכֹּל ָה ֶבל‬.17 To be placed on equal footing with the

12 See Jennifer L. Koosed, (Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book,
LHBOTS 429 (New York and London: T and T Clark, 2006), 90; Richard Alan Fuhr Jr.,
An Analysis of the Inter-Dependency, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York, Peter Lang,
2013), 126. Sneed notes that death is a large component of Qohelet’s overall pessimism,
The Politics of Pessimism, 8.
13 Longman is correct when he suggests that this also an indication of sharing the same
origin, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 293-4.
14 Fischer speaks to this in a larger conversation of “profit” in Qoh 1:3, Skepsis, 192.
15 In particular, “from dust” has greater linguistic affinities to Gen 2, although as we will
show, depictions of humanity on Gen 3:19 also appear in the Hodayot.
16 See Charles C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” JSS 5 (1960): 256-63; Longman, The
Book of Ecclesiastes, 295.
17 On the meaning of ‫ חבל‬see Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 87-104. Sneed notes that
“futility” fits the contents of the book of Ecclesiastes best, The Social World, 350-2. See
also idem, The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 155-75; Whitley,
Koheleth, 6-7; Michael V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet,” JBL 105/3 (Sep., 1986):
32 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

animals indicates, at least heuristically,18 a lowering of humanity’s value, if

any was assumed by the author and is a departure from the portrayal that hu-
manity have some sort of rulership over the animals (e.g., Gen 1:28, 2; Ps 8:6;
also, Sir 17:4).19 Moreover, “dust” is a symbol of human futility. As the conclu-
sion of Qoh 3 states, the return to dust implies that the tasks upon which God
has saddled humanity, especially its work (10-15), is ultimately without value.
The consequence of this image is as Sneed notes, “Essentially, the book of
Qohelet attempts to create a great divide between the human and the divine
that cannot be breached or overcome.”20 This is part of a general pattern in
Qohelet where human life is envisioned as temporary, fragile, and without ul-
timate meaning.21
Qohelet 3:21 questions whether upon death humanity’s spirit goes “up”
(‫) ָהע ָֹלה‬, while that of the animals goes “down” (‫) ַהיּ ֶֹר ֶדת‬. Longman is right when
he states that the Masoretic pointing of the he (with a patach) in both terms as
definite articles is out of the context with the force of the interrogative “who”
(‫) ִמי‬, and frames Qohelet’s outlook as someone who knows the final place of
either’s spirit.22 Yet, for Qohelet, the place of the spirit after death remains
in question. The Septuagint more properly renders the inquiry regarding hu-
manity’s spirit with the conditional conjunction “if” (εἰ), “whether it goes up-
ward (εἰ ἀναβαίνει αὐτὸ εἰς ἄνω)… whether it goes downward to the earth” (εἰ
καταβαίνει αὐτὸ κάτω εἰς γῆν). Moreover, that the human spirit goes elsewhere
as the body returns to the dust is an idea that is echoed elsewhere in early

409-27; idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions, BLS 18 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 29-
52; Douglas B. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫לבה‬,” JBL 117/3 (1998): 437-54; Richard
Alan Fuhr Jr., An Analysis of the Interdependency of the Prominent Motifs of the Book of
Qohelet, StBibLit 151 (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 29-64; Tilman Zimmer, Zwischen Tod
und Lebensglück, BZAW 286 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 25-32.
18 There is little to suggest that the author is familiar with the creation of Gen 1. See
David E. Clemens, “The Law of Sin and Death, Ecclesiastes in Gen 1-3,” Them 19 (1994):
5-8. Clemens makes a number of connections between Qohelet and Gen 3, but little is
said of Gen 1, especially to the “image of God” of 1:26-27.
19 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 295.
20 Sneed, The Politics of Pessimism, 165-7.
21 In his examination of ‫חבל‬, Miller contends, “Qohelet searched out an image that, for his
rhetorical purposes, could symbolize the human experience in its entirety. Instead of
symbols used elsewhere, he chose ‫חבל‬, a vapor or wisp of wind. He presents ‫ חבל‬om-
nivalently in his thesis statement (1:2), then immediately begins to demonstrate how, in
various ways, life is vapor. While his primary concern in the first half of the book is the
insubstantiality dimension of ‫ חבל‬in relation to human effort (including wisdom and
pleasure), he also introduces Foulness early and continues to develop it …” “Qohelet’s
Use,” 18.
22 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 297.
2.2 Qohelet 33

Jewish texts (e.g., Ps. Phoc. and Wisdom below), but it is unclear whether this
is indicative of an afterlife for either spirit. Indeed, “up” and “down” conjure
up images of the afterlife that develop more clearly in the Hellenistic period
(cf. Tob 13:2, Wis 6:13, 4 Ezra 4:8). Tilman Zimmer suggests that the question of
the afterlife may be considered initially in Qoh 3:17-19, that is, that the author
has seriously considered an afterlife, but further existence of the spirit, at this
point, can only remain a question.23 Even more to the point, Longman states
in his commentary on v. 19 and following, “at the very least, then, Qohelet is
frustrated with the unknowability of the afterlife, if not its existence.”24
In this particular case, “spirit”25 (‫רוּח‬
ַ ) indicates humanity’s—and animals’—
breath, that which animates life and upon death comes to an end. Indeed, even
if Qohelet affirms the existence of an afterlife, whether the spirits of either go
“up” (‫ )עלה‬or “down” (‫)ירד‬, that existence of the spirit/breath after death does
not necessitate a lengthy existence. Pseudo-Phocylides shares similar concep-
tion of the human spirit/soul, “For we possess a body out of earth; and then,
when into earth again; we are resolved, we are dust; but the air has received our
spirit” (107-108). Utilizing similar Genesis imagery, the human body is dust and
from the earth (cp. Ps 7:5, 44:25, 103:14), but the spirit is separate and upon death
is received by the air. The continued existence of the spirit seems postmortem,
but is extremely limited (see below for a fuller treatment of Ps. Phoc.), perhaps
not even what one might consider an existence.26 The same might be said of
the above passage in Qohelet, spirit has a very limited existence after death in
that it raised or lowers. Regardless of the spirit’s postmortem existence, how-
ever, the author reminds us that it is a moot point, since what the person has,
namely work, is in fact “his lot” (‫ ֶח ְלקֹו‬, 22).27 As Sneed states, “Qohelet counsels
honest acceptance of death and its uncertainties, which help reprioritize life’s
values: the present moment is most precious.”28

23 Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 50-51.

24 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 296.
25 For an examination of ‫רוּח‬ ַ , see Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 13-15.
26 Fox notes that this verse does not affirm an afterlife but rather affirms death, Qohelet and
His Contradictions, 197-9, 308.
27 See Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 58-71.
28 The Social World, 358, also 370. See also, Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 51, 112; Fox, Qohelet and
His Contradictions, 73; Rudman, Determinism, 55-60. Also Michel Diethelm who states
that the discussion of the spirit is to further dispel any difference between humanity and
cattle, Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet, BZAW 183 (New York and Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 248-9. Eunny P. Lee sees the description here in Qohelet as a
motivator for humanity to embrace life even more, The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s
Theological Rhetoric, BZAW 353 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 5. A simi-
lar view is held by Fuhr Jr., An Analysis of the Inter-Dependency, 157.
34 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

Fragile and uncertain, human existence is depicted with similar imagery in

Qoh 12:7,29 “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to
God who gave it” (‫ֹלהים ֲא ֶשׁר נְ ָתנָ הּ‬
ִ ‫ל־ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫רוּח ָתּשׁוּב ֶא‬
ַ ‫אָרץ ְכּ ֶשׁ ָהיָ ה וְ ָה‬ ָ ‫ וְ יָ שׁ ֹב ֶה ָע ָפר ַע‬30).
ֶ ‫ל־ה‬
As with Qoh 3:20, there is a clear allusion to Gen 2:7 and 3:19.31 Beginning with
the command to remember God in one’s youth, Qohelet 12:1-8 reminds that
humanity returns to dust. Unlike chapter 3 there is no question as to whether
the human spirit rises; it returns to God. The portrayal here bears closer resem-
blance to the Ps. Phoc. text referenced above, where the spirit is received by
the air. As Michael Fox notes, there is a contradiction here with 3:21 because
of the emphasis placed on the spirit. He argues further, “12:7 does not imply
afterlife, it is actually more pessimistic than 3:21. In the earlier verse, Qohelet
at least allows that the life spirit’s ascent to God would redeem humanity from
absurdity, whereas in the later verse he affirms such an ascent and yet sees no
escape from death’s obliterating power or life’s universal absurdity.” Indeed, for
Fox the futility of life coupled with a return to God “redeems humanity from
absurdity.”32 While he may be right, the escape from absurdity is minimal. Both
texts affirm that death is inevitable and will result in a return to dust; no alter-
native exists. For the human spirit of chapter 12, which somehow has a distinc-
tive journey from the body, the journey is particularly limited, and does not
intimate an afterlife.33 Chapter 3’s question regarding humanity and animals
should be read rhetorically; the answer is assumed that the flight of a person’s
spirit, whether up or down, does not ultimately matter—all come to death.
Humanity and beast share the same spirit and the same destiny. Chapter 12 is a
bit more direct; its return to God indicates “death and nothing more.”
The separation of the spirit upon death may reflect the process of death.
First, 12:5 refers to each person’s “eternal home” (‫)בית עלם‬. Matthew Suriano
understands this as a reference to the tomb. Part of the Suriano’s larger dis-
cussion is regarding the transition of death and the sense of liminality that
Sheol conveys in the Hebrew Bible—specifically with Psalms.34 Second, both

29 He also states that Qoh 12:1-7 is a subunit that begins in 11:7 and has its own integrity, The
Book of Ecclesiastes, 462.
30 Qoh 3:20 and 12:7 preserve the only occasions of ‫ ָע ָפר‬, but its use parallels that of Job 10:9;
17:16, 21:26; 30:19, 34:15; also Is 26:19; Ps 7:5, 22:29, 30:9, 44:25, 103:14; Dan 12:2.
31 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 477.
32 Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 309.
33 Reference to an afterlife in Qohelet is unclear, although most scholars agree that the au-
thor does not intended imply an afterlife in the discussion of the spirit. In fact, Fox con-
tends that Qoh 3:21 is countering the early Jewish idea of the soul ascent to eternal life
and, more specifically, that 12:7 does not imply an afterlife, Qohelet and His Contradictions,
309; and Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 477; Zimmer, Zwischen Tod, 13-15.
34 A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 217-22.
2.2 Qohelet 35

Qoh 3:20a and 12:5c utilize the same language, employing the masculine parti-
ciple of ‫ חלך‬to speak of humanity’s going to dust. The only reference to Sheol
in Qohelet 9:10c, again uses the same precise form of the verb.35

3:20a All go to one place …‫ל־מקֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ ‫ ַהכֹּל‬3:20

ָ ‫הֹולְך ֶא‬

9:10c knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to ָ ‫ …וְ ָח ְכ ָמה ִבּ ְשׁאֹול ֲא ֶשׁר‬9:10c

‫אַתּה ה ֵֹלְך ָשׁ ָמּה‬
which you are going

12:5c because man goes to his eternal home …‫עֹולמֹו‬

ָ ‫ל־בּית‬
ֵ ‫אָדם ֶא‬ ִ 12:5c
ָ ‫…כּי־ה ֵֹלְך ָה‬

Therefore, the very minimal, terse existence of the of the spirit, may represent
this liminal space as life transitions to death and eventually the tomb and/or
Sheol. Considering these matters, questions about the afterlife here in Qohelet
should be left to side.
Qohelet’s author utilizes a topoi on two occasions that is generated from the
creation of adam Gen 2:7, as well as Gen 3:19, in order to express humanity’s
ultimately futile nature. That is to say, although the author argues for cherish-
ing one’s life, work, etc., it is done in the pessimistic shadow of humanity’s
ultimate end, death. From dust the fragility of life is wrought and to dust life
comes to its meaningless end without hope or concern for anything after that
return. The human animating breath/spirit is separate from the body (see also
chap. 4), but there is no actual existence after the corporeal return to the dust
and the spirit’s return. The point here is to express a transition from the place
of the living where there exists some liminality—paralleling psalmic imagery,36
not an afterlife. Therefore, by use of a topoi that develops from Genesis’ cre-
ation, the earthly origins of one single person, adam (as in Ben Sira, see below),
is extended to all of humanity in order to create the portrayal of life’s absurdity
and transience.37

35 The same verb is employed 11 times, 6 of which imply death (1:4; 2:14, 3:20, 6:6, 9:10, 12:5)
36 A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 223-47.
37 The separate existence of the spirit upon death, however limited, does not attest to the
constituent parts of a person that is examined in chapter 4 of this study. The spirit (‫ )רוח‬of
humanity in Qohelet is perhaps closer to the breath of a person then a separable compo-
nent that carries the character, mind, and emotions of that person. However, these things
are expressed with the use of “heart” (‫לב‬, e.g., 1:13, 2:20).
36 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

2.3 Ben Sira

According to the prologue, Ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus) was authored

originally in Hebrew. A Greek translation was done by Ben Sira’s grandson in
the decades after the completion of the original.38 Yet, Ben Sira’s textual his-
tory is complex; its complexities affect our examination. Two primary Greek
forms account for the extant uncial and miniscule mss.39 Both of these Greek
forms are largely based on different Hebrew recensions. The Syriac versions
are also based on a Hebrew Vorlage that suggests the unification of Hebrew
versions.40 In the late 19th century portions of four medieval Hebrew manu-
scripts were discovered in the Cairo Genizah (MSS A, B, C, D).41 In 1931, a por-
tion of a fifth manuscript (E) was deciphered in the Adler Genizah collection
housed in the Jewish Theological Seminary and published by Joseph Marcus in
1931.42 J. Schirmann discovered four new leaves, one in 1958 (from B) and three
in 1960 (one from B, and two from C).43 The discovery of Judaean Desert frag-
ments from Qumran and Masada44 indicated that the medieval copies from
the Genizah were “essentially authentic” though the discrepancies attest to dif-
ferent recensions of Ben Sira.45 Leaves continue to be deciphered among the

38 Cf. Ben Sira’s prologue in 0:15-25. Ben Sira’s Greek manuscript tradition bears witness to
a translation of a Hebrew original. See, Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The
Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 55-56.
39 G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach” APOT 1:281. Skehan refers to these Greek forms
as GI and GII, noting by way of Zeigler that GII is not represented in any single Greek
manuscript, Ben Sira, 53.
40 Skehan, Ben Sira, 57. See also, Naria Calduch-Benages, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, La
Sabiduría del Escriba: Edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el
Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española en inglesa, BM 26 (Estella (Navarra), Espana:
Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003), 11-34.
41 Skehan, Ben Sira, 51-52.
42 Joseph Marcus, “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931): 223-40; Skehan and Di Lella,
Ben Sira, 51-52.
43 J. Schirmann, A New Leaf from the Hebrew ‘Ecclesiasticus’ (BenSira)/Daf chadash
matoch sefer ben sira ha‘vri” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 440-3 and “Some Additional Leaves from
Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew/Dafim nosfim matoch sefer ben sira,” Tarbiz 19 (1960): 125-34
(Heb.). See also, Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in
Hebrew,” Bib 45/2 (1964): 153-67.
44 Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân, DJD
III, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 75-78; James Sanders, The Psalms Scrolls from Cave 11
(11QPsa), DJD IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 79-84. Yigael Yadin, “The Ben Sira Scroll from
Masada,” in Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Report (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999).
45 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 54. They contend that there is some retroversion of the
Syriac and Greek evident in Genizah manuscripts (58-59).
2.3 Ben Sira 37

Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection (Additional Series) housed at Cambridge

University Library.46

2.3.1 Sir 17:1-4

Perhaps the earliest interplay of the “image of God” and “from (out of) earth,”
the two aforementioned creation topoi, occurs in Ben Sira 17:1-4,47 for which
no known Hebrew parallel is extant.

1. Κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον καὶ πάλιν 1. The Lord created man out of earth, and
ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτὸν εἰς αὐτήν. turned him back to it again.
2. ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 2. He gave to men few days, a limited
καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς. time, but granted them authority over the
things upon the earth.
3. καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸυς48 ἐνέδυσεν αὐτοὺς ἰσχὺν καὶ 3. He endowed them with strength that
κατ᾿ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς befits them;50 and made them in his own
image.
4. ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης σαρκὸς 4. He placed the fear of them in all living
καὶ κατακυριεύειν θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν49 beings, and granted them dominion over
beasts and birds.51

46 A. Sheiber, “A New Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza,” in
MK 98 (1982): 175-85; also, “An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew” in Jubilee Volume
in Honor of Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, ed. Sha’ul Yisra’eli, Norman Lamm,
and Yitshak Refa’el (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984),
2:1179-85 (Heb.). Shulamit Elizur and Michael Rand, “A New Fragment of the Book of
Ben Sira, T-S AS 118.78,” https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/taylor-
schechter-genizah-research-unit/fragment-month/fragment-month-14-0 and Shulamit
Elizur, “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira,” DSD 17 (2010): 13-20. See also
Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew
Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill,
1997). According to Gary Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein, about two-thirds of the Hebrew
original of Ben Sira have been accounted for. These manuscripts have now been collected
on one website, “The Book of Ben Sira,” http://www.bensira.org/introduction.html.
47 Unless otherwise noted the English translation of Ben Sira is from the Revised Standard
Version Apocrypha (1977).
48 Di Lella prefers ἑαυτὸυς rather than Zeigler’s ἑαυτὸν, Ben Sira, 282-3.
49 Joseph Ziegler, Sapentia Iesu Fili Sirach, VTG 12.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1965), 201.
50 The translation “that befits them” here follows Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 276.
51 The text here forms part of an extended poetic section regarding the creation of hu-
mankind. Various scholars, however, treat the context of this passage differently. For ex-
ample, Di Lella outline 17:1-24 as a unified text entitled “Divine Wisdom and Mercy as
seen in the Creation of Mankind,” Ben Sira, 276-86. Following Haspecker and Levinson,
Gilbert argues that Di Lella’s shorter unit should include 15:11-16:23, Maurice Gilbert,
“Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis I-II,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in
honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., CBQMS 38, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp
38 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The poetic pericope, which references the creation of humanity “out of earth”
and “in God’s image,” is undoubtedly a harmonization of both Genesis creation
accounts. As already noted, the creation of “man,” not woman, or humanity, is
“of the dust of the ground.” Yet Ben Sira has employed an unmistakable allu-
sion to Gen 2 (ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον [Sir]; τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ52 τῆς γῆς [Gen 2:7
LXX]) in order to depict, not simply a single being, but the creation of humani-
ty. Thus, the sage utilizes the singular accusative “person” (ἄνθρωπον) to refer to
every person, i.e., all of humankind.53 This is especially noticeable as Ben Sira’s
allusion shifts from Gen 2 to Gen 1 with a reference to God’s image in vv. 3b-4.
The employment of both literary threads (vv. 1, 3) depict two distinct aspects
of human existence. On the one hand, being created “out of earth” reflects hu-
manity’s impermanence, that is to say, its lifespan is limited (vv. 1-2). The other
topos, that humankind was created in “his [i.e., God’s] image” (εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ), is
somehow connected to a “strength” (ἰσχὺς) that befits humanity (17:3). The term
ἰσχὺς does not simply reflect physical prowess, however; it can also refer to one’s
“capability.”54 Segal suggests that this capability is defined as having dominion
over the earth (v. 4),55 an authority he contextually links to God’s image (vv.
5-8).56 If so, the value of “God’s image” for understanding Ben Sira’s conception
of humanity does not end with verses 1-4. Yet, Levison contends that “Ben
Sira’s portrayal of humanity in 17.1-4 is ambiguous;” humanity is only given a

(Washington: CBA, 2005), 91. Perdue treats a slightly smaller section as a unity, 16:24-
18:14, Wisdom and Creation, 259-62. See also, John R. Levinson, Portraits of Adam in Early
Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch, JSPSup 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 34-
48. That said, 17:1-4 forms a particular view of creation that echoes throughout the sur-
rounding context, 16:24-18:14.
52 Ben Sira does not utilize the same preposition as the LXX, using ἐκ rather than ἀπὸ. It
seems, however, that the sage’s choice of preposition has the same semantic range as its
biblical counterpart, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 281; also, Levinson, Portraits of Adam, 39. Gilbert
notes that when employing texts from Gen 1-11 Ben Sira never quotes the biblical passage
exactly, “Ben Sira,” 90.
53 Skehan and Di Lella, “Ben Sira,” 281; also, Levinson, Portraits of Adam, 39.
54 ἰσχύς, LSJ, 363.
55 Interestingly, Jubilees also references the authority over earth given to humanity but does
so in its rewriting of Gen 1 (cf. 2:14). Unlike Ben Sira, however, Jubilees quite noticeably
omits any reference to the “image of God:” “And after all this He created man, a man and
a woman created He them, and gave him dominion over all that is upon the earth, and in
the seas, and over everything that flies, and over beasts and over cattle, and over every-
thing that moves on the earth, and over the whole earth, and over all this He gave him
dominion,” Jub 2:14.
56 Moshe H. Segal, Sefer ben sira ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958), 105 (Heb.).
2.3 Ben Sira 39

modicum of authority, since its authority is related to its mortality.57 He suggests

further that Ben Sira’s teaching on humanity is not filled with “the vitality of
seeing the human race crowned with glory and honor or just a little lower than
God/the angels” evoked in Ps 8.58 And while Ben Sira’s portrayal of humanity
in 17:1-4 may not echo the granted glory of Ps 8:3-8, humanity’s supremacy over
all creation—literarily linked to bearing God’s image—is unambiguously posi-
tive. In fact, God’s image remains in focus throughout vv. 4-8. First, God places
fear (of humanity) upon all flesh (ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης σαρκὸς) and
gives them power over all beasts and birds (v. 4)—a clear allusion to Gen 1:28. By
virtue of bearing God’s image humanity has a higher standing than God’s other
creations (cf. also Philo, Heir 7).59 It receives the Lord’s five faculties,60 sight,
touch, smell, hearing, and tasting.61 These are partly enumerated in Sir 17:6-7,
in particular the description of the each person’s ability to interpret and glorify
God’s creation62 with the discretion63 of one’s tongue, eyes, and ears, as well as
an understanding heart (17:5-6). To this God also “fills” (ἐνέπλησεν) humanity
with “knowledge” and “sagacity” (ἐπιστήμην, συνέσεως), showing them “good
and evil” (ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ, v. 7). Therefore, reference to God’s image in 17:3 is

57 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 37. Levison outlines three aspects of this ambiguity: 1) humans
are ephemeral and sinful in contrast to celestial beings; 2) humans only reign as mortals
over mortal animals; 3) the animals submit to human authority, not because of a fear of
humanity, but because of a fear of God, Portraits of Adam, 37. His comments take into ac-
count the larger portion of Ben Sira, 15:9-18:14.
58 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 37.
59 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 276; Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 93.
60 This is perhaps the earliest appearance of a concept that finds fruition in Rabbinic lit-
erature, namely, that the “image of God” is somehow reflected in humanity’s physical
being. See Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,”
HTR 87/2 (Apr., 1994): 171-95; Morton Smith, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of
the Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough,
ed. Jacob Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 315-26. Levison suggests that the five facul-
ties are to experience the majesty of God’s creation and to praise him for it, Portraits of
Adam, 37-38. See also, 2 En 65; and Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, OTP 2:678-80, 690-4,
and Sibylline Oracles, OTP 1:22-24.
61 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 282.
62 What is labelled here as v. 5 comes from what Skehan and Di Lella have labelled GII,
which are a number of expansions from different Greek manuscripts, Ben Sira, 55.
63 Skehan and Di Lella have additionally noted that the Greek for “discretion” (διαβούλιον)
is the same term utilized to translate the Hebrew ‫“( יצר‬to shape or form”) in 15:4, which
is the precise verb that is employed with the creation of man (Gen 2:7), a verb that dis-
tinguishes Gen 2 from 1. There is no Hebrew text extant for Ben Sira 17:5, but if in fact ‫יצר‬
is the verb which best represents the Vorlage then Ben Sira continues to harmonize the
creation accounts.
40 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

not an isolated aphorism. That is to say that Ben Sira’s use of the imago dei is
not simply related to some undefined “capability” (ἰσχύς, v. 3b) that humanity
is given. Rather, the wisdom, senses, gifts, and capability endowed to humanity
with the “image of God” allow it or a portion thereof, to be part of the “everlast-
ing covenant” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος) and observe “the commandments” (τὰ κρίματα,
v. 12). Thus, Uebeschaer is correct that 17:1-14, not 1-4, is a basic (grundlegende)
passage for understanding Ben Sira’s teaching on humanity.64
Yet, the question remains whether Ben Sira intended 17:1-14, or even the
larger literary unit (15:11-18:14), to be directed towards collective humanity or
more specifically to the Jewish people since vv. 11-14, 17-18 recall Israel’s sacred
history. Jervell suggests that these sections indicate a narrowing of Ben Sira’s
focus to Israel.65 Levison counters that Ben Sira’s tendency is to argue from
the universal to the specific, suggesting that the wisdom revealed to human-
ity is evident in 16:24-17:25 and is particularized at Sinai and embodied in the
Torah—a point to which Ben Sira returns in chap. 24.66 Segal finds common
ground between both positions, claiming that the purpose of creation in 16:24-
17:25 is that (all) creation observe the commandments.67
Indeed, referencing the Torah, an everlasting covenant, and the command-
ments appears to narrow Ben Sira’s perspective. Yet, those passages which re-
call Israel’s history are few in this section (vv. 11-14, 17-1868). In fact, these texts
contrast somewhat with the focus of the larger literary unit, which provides
several indications that Ben Sira has collective humanity in his sights:

64 Frank Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira,
BZAW 379 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 137.
65 Jervell, Imago Dei, 31-33.
66 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38.
67 Segal, Ben Sira, 103.
68 v. 18 only appears in what Skehan calls GII, Ben Sira, 277. As noted, GII is not represented
in on manuscript but is representative of G1 (uncials A, B, C, S and their dependent cur-
sives), which was at some point expanded, Ben Sira, 55.
2.3 Ben Sira 41

15:14. αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ 15:14. It was he, from the first when he cre-
ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ. ated humankind,70 who made them sub-
ject to their own free choice.

19. καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς 19. The eyes of God behold his handiwork;
φοβουμένους αὐτόν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιγνώσεται he perceives every person’s every deed.
πᾶν ἔργον ἀνθρώπου.

16:12. κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, οὕτως καὶ 16:12. Great as his mercy is his punishment;
πολὺς ὁ ἔλεγχος αὐτοῦ· ἄνδρα κατὰ τὰ ἔργα he judges people; each according to his
αὐτοῦ κρινεῖ. deeds.

17:22. ἐλεημοσύνη ἀνδρὸς ὡς σφραγὶς 17:22. A person’s goodness God cherishes

μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ χάριν ἀνθρώπου ὡς κόρην like a signet ring, a person’s virtue, like the
συντηρήσει. apple of his eye.

30.-32. οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι 30.-32. The like [i.e., God’s forgiveness]
ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς cannot be found amongst humans, for not
ἀνθρώπου.69 τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ immortal is any human being. God holds
τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται accountable the hosts of highest heaven.
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (see ‫ בשר ודם‬below). δύναμιν Is anything brighter than the sun? Yet it
ὕψους οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, καὶ can be eclipsed. How obscure then the
ἄνθρωποι πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός. thoughts of flesh and blood?
while all humans [are] dust and ashes.

18:8a. Τί ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τί ἡ χρῆσις αὐτοῦ… 18:8a. What is a human being, of what
worth is he …

13a. ἔλεος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, 13a. A person may be merciful to his
ἔλεος δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα· neighbor, but the Lord’s mercy reached all
flesh (emphasis mine).

Clearly, Ben Sira’s teaching is not limited to those of Israel; his sayings cast a
wider net and consider God’s relationship to humankind. Thus, Ben Sira pre-
serves a conception of collective humanity to which he constructively adds tra-
ditions which were “at his disposal,” specifically those of Israel.71 Furthermore,
accounting for Levison’s “general to particular” observation,72 the double foci

69 Likely a translation of “son of man” (‫ )בן אדם‬which is often utilized to speak of an indi-
vidual, Israelite or non-Israelite, in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Num 23:19), while the plural
“sons of man” (‫ )בני אדם‬is used to speak generally about humanity, e.g., Ps 12:1.
70 The following translation is taken from Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 268-86.
71 John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1997), 41.
72 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38. Ben Sira utilized various wisdom teachings—both Jewish
and other—to pave a path of obedience to the Jewish law. As noted in his grandson’s
prologue, “…[Jesus was] led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in
42 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

of Israel-specific traditions and general humanity indicates that both are key
to the sage’s teachings. Ben Sira is speaking generally about humanity, which is
partially defined and contoured, particularly, by Israel’s sacred tradition espe-
cially that which evokes creation73 and Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai.74
Thus, as Segal suggests, the hope is that all of humanity (i.e., God’s creation)
will, at a maximum, be successful at living according to God’s law, and, at a
minimum, have the ability to do so because it is created in the “image” of the
law giving creator.
With that in mind, some additional observations can be made regarding the
interplay of the creation topoi in 17:1-4. First, the influence of our second liter-
ary thread, “from (out of) earth,” is present in two allusions to Gen 3:19; human-
ity’s creation “out of earth” foreshadows their eventual return to it (cf. 16:30;
17:1; see Qoh above). Second, the impermanence (or mortality) of an “earthly”
humanity is spoken of in light of God’s mercy:

order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make
even greater progress in living according to the law (0:1).” Therefore, the purpose of writ-
ing down these instructions on wisdom is ultimately to be successful in living according
to the Jewish Law. Ben Sira did not shy away from Hellenistic culture and borrowed from it
when it reconciled with the teachings and traditions of Israel. Collins adds, “the main in-
novation of Sirach in the tradition of the Jewish wisdom school was in the prominence he
gave to the Torah of Moses,” Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 41. Collins notes elsewhere that Greek
and Hebrew wisdom traditions ground their view of humanity in their understanding
of creation, “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and The
Wisdom of Solomon,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on Jewish Encounters
with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 173. Of the larger text,
Corley suggests that it shares a structural and contextual similarity with Proverbs, Job,
as well as Egyptian and Greek wisdom texts, Jeremy Corley, “Searching for Structure and
Redaction in Ben Sira: An investigation of Beginnings and Endings,” in The Wisdom of
Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe
Bellia, DCLS 1 (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 21-48, esp. 23-28. See also,
James T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, SBLMS 28 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983);
Alexander O. Di Lella, “Wisdom of Ben Sira,” ABD 6:934; Skehan, Ben Sira, 16.
73 Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 93. He misses, however, that while Ben Sira universalizes the cre-
ation of humanity, he does not depict the creation of humanity as “man” and “woman”
separately—a unique quality to Gen 2. Rather, while utilizing both creation topoi, Ben
Sira portrays the creation of humanity as a whole.
74 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 38
2.3 Ben Sira 43

17:29-32 ὡς μεγάλη ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τοῦ 17:29-32 How great is the mercy of the
κυρίου καὶ ἐξιλασμὸς τοῖς ἐπιστρέφουσιν Lord, and his forgiveness for those who
ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι ἐν turn to him! For all things cannot be in
ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. humanity, since a son of man is not im-
τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· mortal. What is brighter than the sun? Yet
καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. its light fails. So, flesh and blood devise
δύναμιν ὕψους οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, evil. He marshals the host of the height
καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός. of heaven; but all men are earth and ashes
(author’s emphasis).

Because humanity lacks immortality, temporal like “earth and ash,” God ex-
tends his mercy and forgiveness to those who repent (cf. Pss. Sol. 9). Levison
adds, “the result of mortality, according to Ben Sira, is not hiddenness from
God (16.17-22) but becoming the object of God’s mercy.”75 Third, Di Lella notes
that 16:24-18:14 deals “… with God as Creator and with the human beings as
creatures whose dignity derives from being fashioned in the image of God.”76
Yet, before it can be ascertained that God’s image is central to humanity’s so-
called “dignity” in 16:24-18:14, some larger literary themes must be drawn out.
According to Gilbert there are two primary parts to this text: 1) it deals with
human responsibility for sin in light of an admonishment,77 “say not, ‘It was
God’s doing that I fell away’” (15:11),78 and 2) with divine wisdom and mercy
bestowed on humanity.79 In both, humanity’s creation and creatureliness (e.g.,
“flesh and blood,” 17:31; cf. also 14:18) are emphasized. As a result of that cre-
ation, humanity is said to be left with its inclination (διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ=‫יצרו‬
[A 6r:25]) and the freedom to choose, if he/she should desire (θέλῃς=‫תחפץ‬
[A 6r:26]; ‫תחפץ‬ׄ [B 2r:16]), to follow God’s commandments.80 Although, while

75 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 40.

76 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 280.
77 Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 91.
78 μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην / ‫( אל תאמר מאל פשעי‬A 6r:22; B 2r:11), Beentjes, The Book
of Ben Sira, 44, 52).
79 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271, 280.
80 Ben Sira alludes to the second creation of humankind by employing the verb ‫“( יצר‬form,”
17:3), in the same literary context as the creation of humanity and where one finds the
nominal form ‫“( יֵ ֶצר‬inclination”). Hengel has noted that the term yetzer “gains its cen-
tral anthropological significance in the sense of ‘character’, ‘disposition’ for the first time
in Ben Sira,” Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine
during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991),
140. See chapter 6 of this study). Later, the rabbis understand the odd double yod of the
verb ‫יצר‬ ֶ ִ‫“( וַ ּי‬and he formed”) in Gen 2:7 to imply the creation of the ‫“( יצר הרע‬the evil
inclination”) and the ‫“( יצר הטוב‬the good inclination;” Gen Rab 14:4; b. Ber 61a). See also,
Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 57-58.
44 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

humanity is made subject to its inclination, Ben Sira strongly implies that the
choice to follow the commandments is the best, if not the only, option, con-
tinually reminding its audience that no deed is done beyond God’s sight (e.g.,
15:19, 16:17-23, 17:15-20, more on this later).
Indeed, the instruction to follow God’s commandments is echoed through-
out Ben Sira.81

81 One text that does not appear in every Greek version is a variant of 16:4: “Whoever does
good (lit. righteousness; ‫[ צדקה‬A 6v:16-17]) has his wage, and each person will receive ac-
cording to his deeds.” The terminology utilized by Ben Sira regarding these deeds echoes
ideas that are employed by other Second Temple authors to contour and shape what it
meant for humanity to be created in “image of God.” In the Greco-Roman period, it is well
known that the semantic range for ‫ צדקה‬grew to encompass the concept of charity and
was utilized terminologically for charity, e.g., 1QS 5:4. See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of
the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2006) 1263-64 [henceforth: Jastrow]; Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in
Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995), 19. The lexical developments that led to
this stem from the concept of “justice and righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible, which
Weinfeld has noted is not simply related to juridical matters but reveals a growing con-
cern for those in need, Weinfeld, Social Justice, 44. The expectation is that the judge on
earth will reflect, in his actions, the “righteousness and justice” of God, Weinfeld, Social
Justice, 44. This concept of charity as imitatio dei is attested elsewhere in Ben Sira: “Make
yourself beloved in the congregation; bow your head low to a great man. Incline your ear
to the poor and answer him peaceably and gently. Deliver him who is wronged from the
hand of the wrongdoer; and do not be fainthearted in judging a case. Be like a father to
orphans, and instead of a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most
High, and he will love you more than does your mother” (4:7-10).
 Gregory claims that Ben Sira is the first to use ‫ צדקה‬unambiguously as almsgiving
though Aramaic cognates exist in Tobit and Daniel as well, Bradley C. Gregory, Like an
Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach, DCL 2 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter,
2011), 178. Again, in Sir 17:22-23, there are aphorisms with a similar idea regarding almsgiv-
ing: “A person’s almsgiving is like a signet with him … Afterward he will arise and repay
them” (ἐλεημοσύνη ἀνδρὸς ὡς σφραγὶς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ…μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξαναστήσεται καὶ ἀνταποδώ-
σει αὐτοῖς). In fact, charity appears to be a central characteristic of the person who seeks to
fulfill God’s commandments: it “atones for sins” (ἐξιλάσεται ἁμαρτίας/‫חטאת תכפר‬, 3:30),
is a memorial “like a signet ring” (ὡς σφραγὶς, 17:22); “delivers from all affliction” (ἐξελεῖταί
σε ἐκ πάσης κακώσεως, 29:12), “endures forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διαμενεῖ/‫תכון לעד‬, 40:17),
and rescues from trouble (ῥύσεται/‫מצלת‬, 40:24). Moreover, the section that recalls Israel’s
sacred history, 17:11-14, emphasizes two important paraphrases of Torah law, to “avoid all
injustice” (Προσέχετε ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδίκου) and each person’s responsibility to care about
their neighbor (περὶ τοῦ πλησίον, 17:14). Di Lella contends that this is an allusion to the two
great commandments assuming that the reference to “avoid all injustice” is a summary of
all the negative commandments and thus a deft allusion to the first part of the Decalogue,
while the commandments about neighbors reflect the second half, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 282-
3. The problem with such a reading is that the so-called dual love commandments are
not positive (“you shall …”). That notwithstanding, reference to commandments about
neighbors (πλησίος) in Ben Sira is, at least, a partial allusion to Lev 19:18, “And you shall
2.3 Ben Sira 45

But are these somehow connected with our creation topoi, specifically the
“image of God”? Those texts in 16:24-18:14 that refer to the impermanence of
humanity or its mortality are undoubtedly connected to its creation “out of the
earth.” It then stands to reason that our other topos, the “image of God,” applies
to the other human characteristics portrayed there. Di Lella contends that the
appearance of the “image of God” is “the character statement of human dignity
and equality of all men, women, and children in the sight of God.”82 While it
is tempting to utilize the “image of God” retroactively, that is, to appropriate
and apply its value and meaning in later Second Temple, early Christian, and
Rabbinic texts, it should be avoided if the evidence is lacking. As this study
already notes, the immediate context of the “image of God” states that God
gives humanity certain capabilities (ἰσχύς). The implication of this capabil-
ity, according to the literary structure of Ben Sira, is that humanity is imbued
with specific characteristics and faculties to fulfil the commandments—e.g.,
avoiding evil and acting charitably to their neighbor (17:5-14)—and not neces-
sarily the “character statement of human dignity and equality” that Di Lella
contends. Consequently, the acute value given to the imago dei in later Jewish

love you neighbor as yourself”, which in the Greco-Roman period is exegetically fused to
Deut 6:5 (both texts are only two of four passages where the verb ‫ וְ ָא ַה ְב ָּת‬appears [also,
Lev. 19:34, Deut 11:1]). Ben Sira alludes again to Lev 19:18 in 27:6-7, “Remember the end of
your life, and cease from enmity, remember destruction and death, and be true to the
commandments. Remember the commandments, and do not be angry with your neigh-
bor …” (cf. also 28:2). The New Testament also attests to this passage as the second of
two commandments, known in the Gospels as the Great Commandments (Matt 22:39;
Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27. See also Gal 5:14 and James 2:8). Indeed, Lev 19:18 is singled out by
the Second Temple sages as the essence of Torah. In the Talmud, Hillel, a rabbinic sage
who flourished in the 1st c. CE, singles to a potential convert that Lev 19:18 is the essence
of the Torah. In several rabbinic texts, Rabbi Akiva refers to the Leviticus passage as a ‫כלל‬
‫“( גדול‬essential precept,” Sifra, Qed., 8:4.; also y. Ned. 9, 41c; Gen. Rab. 24). Although these
traditions are preserved in the later Rabbinic works (3rd-6th CE) there is evidence from
Second Temple texts that Lev 19:18 gains cultural and religious significance and was often
integrated with the second line of the Sh’ma (Deut 6:5). Already in the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs and Jubilees, the dual love commandment is attested. See Marinus
de Jonge, “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”
NT 44/4 (Oct., 2002): 371-92, and Surge Ruzer, “The Double Love Precept in the New
Testament and the Rule of the Community” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the
Synoptic Gospels—Vol. 1, JCP 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81-106. Therefore, Ben Sira attests to
what Flusser calls a “new sensitivity,” namely, a growing Jewish humanism that was dem-
onstrated by an emphasis on loving God by loving your neighbor through acts of char-
ity (or righteousness) and deeds of loving kindness, David Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in
Judaism and the Christian Message,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity [Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1988], 469-89; repr. from HTR 61/2 (Apr., 1968): 107-27.
82 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 282.
46 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

and Christian texts is lacking here; human dignity and equality among men,
women, and children, as Di Lella argues, is at best an anachronistic reading of
Ben Sira, although there is modicum of elevated human character. As Perdue
notes, “Humans … made in the divine image and given dominion over the other
creatures, are endowed by the creator with wisdom and the ‘fear of God,’ which
form the basis and potentiality for obedience.”83 Uerberschaer concludes that
the “image of God” indicates three things: 1) the strength given to humanity
in order to fear God, 2) authority over all of creation, and 3) functioning as
a sort of partner with God on earth.84 Humanity’s so-called partnership and
special relationship with God expresses its distinct quality, although it does
not indicate the equality of the masses. To summarize, the interplay of the
two creation topoi examined in Ben Sira emphasizes two primary aspects of
human existence: 1) humanity’s creation from the dust of the ground denotes
its mortality, and 2) the capability, endowed by God’s image, to participate in
his everlasting covenant by following his commandments.

2.3.2 Sir 33:7-15

According to Di Lella, this short poem, 33:7-15, “is important for an understand-
ing of Ben Sira’s thought on the antinomies or polarities or opposites that are
found in creation.”85 Since it attests to one of our creation topoi, “from (out of)
earth,” some comment is warranted. The second of our two topoi occur in 33:10:

LXX E 1r:18
καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους, :‫[…] לי חמר‬
καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ·86 ‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם׃‬
All of humanity is from the ground […].ly clay
And Adam was created from earth And from dust Adam (’dm) was formed.

The poem begins with a question regarding one day’s importance over anoth-
er, “Why is any day distinguished from another, when all the daylight from the

83 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 264.

84 Uerberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 151.
85 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 399.
86 The Greek translator has rendered the noun ‫ אדם‬as a singular proper noun Αδαμ. The
reason, suggested by Levison is “in this translation ‘Adam’ is the paradigm of all people:
‘Adam was created from the earth, so also are all people from clay,’” Levison, Portraits, 41.
Both the Hebrew and Greek attests that Ben Sira follows Gen 2 closely in that he speaks of
Adam being created from dust. As a paradigm of creation, then, all of humanity is affected
by this earthly creation.
2.3 Ben Sira 47

year is from the sun” (v. 7)? Verses 8-9 depict the separation of days, seasons,
and feasts: “By the Lord’s decision they were distinguished, and he appointed
the different seasons and feasts; some of them he exalted and hallowed (ἀπ᾿
αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἡγίασεν/ ֯‫[ ֯ברך והקדשו‬E 1r:17]), and some of them he made
ordinary days.” The language is reminiscent of the end of the first creation,
“And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it” (καὶ ηὐλόγησεν [‫ ]וַ ָיְב ֶרְך‬ὁ θεὸς
τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἑβδόμην καὶ ἡγίασεν [‫ ]וַ יְ ַק ֵדׁש‬αὐτήν, Gen 2:3).87 The language of
the first creation is then complemented in v. 10 by Genesis’ second creation:
“all of humanity is from the ground, and Adam was created from earth.” There
is a dual allusion employed by Ben Sira to reflect humanity’s mortality. Adam,
the paradigm of all people, is created “out of earth/clay” (ἐκ γῆς/‫ )חמר‬and all
of humanity is said to be “from the ground/from dust” (ἀπὸ ἐδάφους88/‫)מן עפר‬.
Both elements in the verse, which in some way echo Gen 2:7, synonymously
parallel one another (i.e., ἐκ γῆς = ἀπὸ ἐδάφους/‫)מן עפר = חמר‬. In other words,
both Adam and humanity share the same earthly origins.89 In fact, the function
of “from the ground” is unsurprisingly similar to “out of earth” in Ben Sira 17:1-4.
Yet, the context is decidedly different.

87 Cf. also Exod 20:8-11

88 The use of ἔδαφος for ‫ עפר‬is also is attested in the LXX translation of Isaiah (e.g., 25:12,
26:5, 29:4).
89 Therefore, our variant topoi, created from “clay” (Heb.) or “from the ground” (Gk.) are
intended to elicit the creation imagery. Two things are key here: 1) E has attested to the
variant of our topos, “out of earth,” where “earth” (γῆς) is apparently a translation of “clay”
(‫)חמר‬. Marcus reconstructs ‫ ]כל איש מכ]לי חמר‬based, it seems, on Job 33:6, 10:9, and the
Syriac version. Job 10:9 shares a close resemblance to our distich, “Remember that you
made me out of clay, and to dust you will return me” (‫ל־ע ָפר‬ ָ ‫יתנִ י וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫י־כח ֶֹמר ֲע ִׂש‬
ַ ‫זְ ָכר־נָ א ִּכ‬
‫) ְּת ִׁש ֵיבנִ י‬, cf. also Ben Sira 17:1; Joseph Marcus, “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira,” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931):
232. There is no exact parallel that exists in the Hebrew Bible or the Syriac that reflects
Marcus’ reconstruction, however. Segal reconstructs ‫ ]וְ גַ ם ִאיׁש ְּכ] ִלי ח ֶֹמר‬but contends
that ‫( ְּכ ִלי‬vessel) should be read ‫“( ֻּכלֹו‬all of it,” Ben Sira, 211). Both reconstructions are
partially based on the Syriac version, “and all of the sons of man [are] from mud.” See Paul
de Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace (Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus; Londinii:
Williams and Norgate, 1861). However, one might construct 33:10 in E, humanity is de-
picted as originating from “clay” (‫)חמר‬. Yet, if we accept the reconstructions, the closest
linguistic parallel “vessel of clay” (‫ )כלי חמר‬appears in the Hodayot where both “vessel
of clay” (‫יצר חמר‬, e.g., 1QHa 20:29) and, the synonymous, “vessel of dust” (‫ ;יצר העפר‬e.g.,
1QHa 21:25) are preserved. Indeed, neither reconstruction agrees with the LXX or Syriac.
The LXX reads, “and all men [are] from the ground” (καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους).
The verbless clause indicates that the LXX has closely followed the Semitic Vorlage but
neither of the reconstructions nor the extant Syriac are a 1:1 parallel with the Greek. The
problem cannot be solved by Septuagintal variants either, cf. Zeigler, Ben Sira, 278.
48 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The opening question in v. 7 regarding differing days, feasts, and appointed

seasons is significantly narrowed to focus on the origins of humanity in v. 10.
All of humankind share the same beginning and the same end; the dust from
which they came will be the dust to which they return (cf. Sir 17:1; cf. Job 10:9).
As Levison contends, “Ben Sira unifies all days by the common feature that
they all share the sun’s light (v. 7), so the unifying feature of humanity is its
earthiness, not its dominion or moral faculties.”90 Our topos is not simply a
reference to mortality, however. Verse 11 adds, “In the fullness of his knowledge
the Lord distinguished them and differentiated their ways.” As God judges and
differentiates between days, so does he “distinguish” (διεχώρισεν) and “alter”
(ἠλλοίωσεν) their ways.91 Though humanity shares the same origins God dif-
ferentiates between them in what appears to be corresponding pairs—“some
of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he made holy and brought
near to himself; but some of them he cursed and brought low, and he turned
them out of their place” (vv. 11-12). It is the poem’s parallelism that helps us to
grasp Ben Sira’s emphasis. The first three verses (7-9) parallel the last three (10-
12) in an A1-B1, A2-B2, A3-B3 structure.92

90 Levison, Portraits of Adam, 41. See also, Gilbert, Ben Sira, 95; Winston, Wisdom, 400.
91 The Hebrew of E indicates a deft allusion to a specific creation account. In E 1r:19 God
is said to distinguish humanity with the verb ‫ ;תבדילם( בדל‬33:11), specifically the hiphil
form ‫“( להבדיל‬to separate, distinguish”). Mark Smith has referred to the hiphil form
‫ להבדיל‬as a “hallmark priestly term,” The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2009), 71, which of the limited times it occurs in the Bible, is attested in the priestly
creation of Gen 1 five times (vv. 4, 6, 7, 14, 18). It is not, however, utilized in the second
creation account, cf. Smith, The Priestly Vision, 71. By this, Ben Sira reveals his interpretive
ingenuity by fusing together an overt allusion to Gen 2, utilizing a variant of our topos
“from earth,” along with the passive form of the verb ‫)נוצר( יצר‬, and a verbal allusion to
Gen 1 with the Hiphil of ‫בדל‬.
92 The parallelism in the poem can be broken down further. Ben Sira’s literary artistry is
quite complex; each verse, except v. 12, contains a couplet that can be structured in an A-B
format. Each verse couplet moves from the general to the specific—a common feature in
biblical Hebrew poetry, cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books,
1985), 19. Di Lella suggests, “In 33:10, there is an a:b::b’:a’ chiastic arrangement in the order
of the nouns: people:clay::earth:human(kind). The point of the verse is that all human
beings have a common origin, viz., from the clay of the earth,” Ben Sira, 400.
2.3 Ben Sira 49

LXX93
(A1) 7. Διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει, καὶ (B1) 10. καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους,
πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾿ ἡλίου; καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ·

(A2) 8. ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν, καὶ (B2) 11. ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος
ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς· διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς
αὐτῶν·

(A3) 9. ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἡγίασεν, (B3) 12. ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐλόγησεν καὶ ἀνύψωσεν
καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔθηκεν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἡμερῶν. καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἡγίασεν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἤγγισεν·
ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν κατηράσατο καὶ ἐταπείνωσενκαὶ
ἀνέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ στάσεως αὐτῶν.

RSVA
(A1) 7. Why is any day better than anoth- (B1) 10. All men are from the ground, and
er, and all the daylight in the year is from Adam was created of the dust.
the sun?

(A2) 8. By the Lord’s decision they were (B2) 11. In the fullness of his knowledge
distinguished, and he appointed the dif- the Lord distinguished them and ap-
ferent seasons and feasts; pointed their different ways;

(A3) 9. some of them he exalted and hal- (B3) 12. some of them he blessed and ex-
lowed, and some of them he made ordi- alted, and some of them he made holy
nary days. and brought near to himself; but some of
them he cursed and brought low, and he
turned them out of their place.

The parallelism is evident in that the B-bicola are either an intensification or

specification of the A-bicola. In fact, the A-bicola direct the reader’s attention
to its corresponding pair in the B-bicola.

A1 > B1 day(s) > mankind

A2 > B2 Lord’s appointed seasons/feasts > Lord’s appointed humanity’s ways

A3 > B3 exalted/hallowed ordinary days > blessed/exalted humanity

This emphasis is punctuated in v. 13 by depicting God’s direct engagement with

his creation of humanity:

93 Zeigler, Ben Sira, 278.

50 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

13. ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι 13. As clay in the hand of the potter—all
αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, his ways are as he pleases—so men are in
οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος the hand of him who made them, to give
αὐτοὺς, ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν them according to his judgment.
αὐτοῦ.

While interest in this passage has focussed primarily on God and creation,94
this small poem supplements Ben Sira’s conception of humanity. As already
mentioned, v. 11 recalls the shared origin of each human by utilizing the vari-
ant of our topos, “from the ground” (or, “clay” in E). Besides humanity’s shared
origin, v. 13 provides an accentuation (perhaps even an interpretation) of our
topos that is not present earlier in Ben Sira. Because humankind is made
from dust/clay and God is the potter—a clear allusion to prophetic traditions
in Isaiah and Jeremiah—humanity’s ways are decided according to his (i.e.,
God’s) pleasure and judgment. Ben Sira’s language leads the reader specifically
the potter’s house in Jeremiah 18.95 Unlike Jeremiah, however, where the clay
on the potter’s wheel is intended to be representative of Israel, the language in
Ben Sira’s poem is not nation-specific, but depicts a conception of collective
humanity. Influenced by prophetic tradition, Ben Sira intends to portray God’s
sovereignty over all of humankind. This sovereignty has been interpreted by
Collins as comparable to the determinism present in the “Treatise of the Two
Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26),96 although Paul Winter warned against making such

94 Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer, “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah
within Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 209-32, esp. 217-8. Cf. also Di Lella, Ben Sira,
400-401.
95 There are four texts in the Hebrew Bible that refer to the potter (‫יֹוצר‬ ֵ ,‫ )ּי ֵֹצר‬and clay (‫)ח ֶֹמר‬:
Isa 29:16, 41:25; Jer 18:4, 6. In particular, Jer 18:1-6, shares strong linguistic parallels to Ben
Sira 33:13, especially the depiction of the clay in the potter’s hand. Yet another biblical
passage which may provide an alternative background for Ben Sira is Is 45:9-13, especial-
ly verse 13, “I will make straight all his ways (‫ל־ּד ָר ָכיו ֲאיַ ֵּׁשר‬
ְ ‫ ;וְ ָכ‬LXX: πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ
εὐθεῖαι). This language appears again in Enoch 8:2 as depicting Azael’s corruption of hu-
manity. Moreover, Di Lella suggests that there are parallels to Ben Sira in Wis 15:6 and
Rom 9:20-23, Ben Sira, 401. In particular, Paul incorporates the creation language of Gen 2,
“But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder,
‘Why have you made me thus?’ ‘Has the potter no right over the clay (ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ
κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ), to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and
another for menial use?’” (9:20-21). There appears to be a dual allusion in Rom 9 to both
Jer 18 and Is 29:15-16. Paul utilizes potter/vessel language to indicate God’s sovereignty
over humanity, namely, that he is merciful and hardens the hearts of whomever he wills
(9:18).
96 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85. Collins refers to the determinism in the poem as being
“remarkably” similar to that of the teaching of the sectarians, especially 1QS 3:15-16.
Although, he contends that this determinism stands at odds with Ben Sira’s defense of
human responsibility in earlier chapters. Mattila argues that in this poem God is depicted
2.3 Ben Sira 51

assertions.97 Indeed, one thing is clear, the determinism of the Treatise is far
more complex than what we have here in Ben Sira (see 7.2).98 That said, Ben
Sira’s view of God’s sovereignty may move us closer to the Treatise. Ben Sira,
who espouses God’s ultimate sovereignty, while elsewhere affirming human
responsibility and free will (cf. 15:11-20), may reflect the conceptual tension
that is then utilized, highlighted, and transformed by the author of a document
like the Treatise in order to emphasize its strong (pre)determinism.
Ben Sira undoubtedly conceives of God as having absolute authority, espe-
cially in the Hymn of Creation (42:15-43:33).99 It does not seem, however, that
this authority involves the predestination of humanity’s actions. Although ad-
mittedly, this speculation regarding determinism may be heightened by the
duality of the final two verses (vv. 14-15): moral qualities, existence, and moral
individuals are depicted as binary opposites.

14. ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, 14. Good is the opposite of evil, and life
καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή, the opposite of death; so the sinner is the
οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός· opposite of the godly.

15. καὶ οὕτως ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔργα 15. Look upon all the works of the Most
τοῦ ὑψίστου, δύο δύο,100 ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ High; they likewise are in pairs, one the
ἑνός. opposite of the other.

as a divine potter who forms clay into good or evil vessels. The vessels have no control
over the type they will be, Sharon Lea Mattila, “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination
of the Evidence,” JBL 119:3 (Aut., 2000): 479. The poem, however, makes no reference to
clay being molded into “good” or “evil” vessels. Therefore, this reading appears to be the
tendency to read the strict determinism of the Treatise back into the poem.
97 Paul Winter, “Ben Sira and the Teaching of the ‘Two Ways,’” VT 5/3 (Jul., 1955): 315-8.
Winter’s primary contention is that the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” is primarily apoca-
lyptic, where Ben Sira is not.
98 See Jean Duhaime, “Determinism,” EDSS 1:194-8. Duhaime notes that his examination of
the Qumran material leaves very little doubt that history could escape God’s predeter-
mined plan. Humanity on the other hand, has some degree of free will (195-6).
99 Di Lella, Ben Sira, 491-2.
100 Note the appearance of the Greek δύο δύο (Hb. ‫[ שנים שנים‬E 1v:2]) in Ben Sira 33:15 to
describe all of God’s creations. In the LXX, δύο δύο occurs only in Genesis’ flood narra-
tive (6:19, 20; 7:2, 3, 9, 15). The Greek does not appear elsewhere in literature from the
period. In the Hebrew Bible ‫ שנים שנים‬occurs three times, two of which are in the Flood
Narrative. Without fail, both the Greek and the Hebrew are utilized to reference the male
and female of every living creature or as Gen 7:15 states, “two and two of all flesh in which
there was the breath of life” (‫רּוח ַחּיִ ים‬
ַ ‫ל־ה ָּב ָׂשר ֲא ֶׁשר־ּבֹו‬
ַ ‫) ְׁשנַ יִ ם ְׁשנַ יִם ִמ ָּכ‬. Due to the limited
number of occurrences of either the Greek or the Hebrew in the Bible, or more contem-
poraneous literature, it is likely that “all of works of the Most High” is, in fact, an allu-
sion to creation. The one occurrence of ‫ שנים שנים‬at Qumran comes in the Damascus
52 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

This duality is not eschatological in nature. Consequently, it appears that the

dualism presented in Ben Sira should be more broadly defined. McCarter’s
definition of dualism is key here:

The polarities that animate and define the world, as perceived by these societ-
ies, are utterly opposed or at least opposite, and they are irreducible (that is,
they cannot be resolved into a single entity). But they are not always relentlessly
hostile, and the goal of history does not envision the ultimate elimination of one
or the other, even though they can never be fully reconciled. This broader type
of dualism is sometimes characterized as complementary or dialectical, to distin-
guish it from the eschatological dualism just described. In systems embracing this
complementary view, the very separateness of the opposed principles produces
a cosmic equilibrium that is the chief characteristic of the experienced world,
so that living in such a universe requires recognizing and participating in the
harmonious balance inherent in the relationship between the defining polarities
(author’s emphasis)101

Therefore, Ben Sira espouses a worldview where the world is comprised of

complementary polarities; these polarities uphold creation’s cosmic bal-
ance. In other words, there is day as there is night; there is good as there is
evil—all things are in corresponding pairs. Collins contends that this duality
is the result of Stoic influence, specifically the philosopher Chrysippus. Within

Document (5:1) where Gen 7:9 is quoted to substantiate the argument that a man is to
have one wife for his entire life.
101 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr, “Dualism in Antiquity,” in Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient
Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, ed. Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric
Meyers, Armin Lange, Randall Styers, JAJSup 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
2010), 19-20. On the other hand, Bianchi warns against seeing every duality as a cosmic
dualism: “Not every duality or polarity is dualistic—only those that involve the duality
or polarity of causal principles … They are dualistic only when they are understood as
principles or causes of the world and its constitutive elements,” “Dualism,” ER 4:2505. See
also, Jean Duhaime, “Dualism,” EDSS 1:215-20; Loren Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization
of Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two
Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context,” 159-84, and McCarter, “Dualism in Antiquity,”
19-35, in Light Against Darkness. Gilbert, commenting on the whole of Ben Sira, states
succinctly, “There is no trace of dualism in the elements of the world, but they end up
differently.” He contends that our poem, though it shows evidence of Ben Sira’s recourse
to cosmology, is intended to “throw light on the questions which man puts to himself
about himself and about God,” Maurice Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings of
the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Van Gorcum: Assen,
1984), 296. Gilbert may work under the assumption that a singular literary/philosophical
thought works its way through Ben Sira, with little deviation. When compared to other
contemporaneous texts it appears, however, that Ben Sira touches on the broadly defined
dualistic thought that already existed in various forms in the ancient Mediterranean.
2.3 Ben Sira 53

Stoicism, duality was simply an innate quality of things, part of the created
order. Collins suggests further that such a systematic division in creation has
no precedent in the Hebrew Bible, even though he admits to certain binary
opposites in Gen 1.102 Brand is right to note that these connections are, at best,
tenuous.103 Ben Sira’s dualities may find their inspiration closer to home, in
particular, as tacitly noted by Collins, the complementary pairs of the priestly
portions of the first creation. The scribe’s priestly affinities, which have been
well-examined104 and documented, provide some explanation of the duality in
the small poem’s final verses. Taking this into account, the creation of human-
ity in Ben Sira 33 is precisely where one should expect to find the world divided
into complementary pairs.
A depiction of this type of dualism, especially the language of the last verse
“one the opposite of the other” (ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός), appears as well in the

102 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85. Ben Sira was not written in a cultural vacuum and Stoic phi-
losophy is but one possible influence. As already noted, within the Hellenistic world,
Ben Sira would have had access to Greek, Egyptian, and perhaps even (early) Zoroastrian
influence—all of which have been shown to preserve dualistic thought, cf. Bianchi,
ER 4:2505. See also, Light Against Darkness, lest one forget Israel’s own literary tradition.
In fact, Mattila contends that the number of similarities between Ben Sira’s conception of
pairs and what appears in Jewish eschatological texts argues that this connection is much
closer than that of Ben Sira and the Stoics, “Ben Sira,” 484.
103 Brand, Evil Within, 111-2.
104 Scholars have already noted that Ben Sira’s support of priesthood is “wholehearted” and
occurs socially when others either critiqued or depicted themselves as disenfranchised
from Jerusalem’s guild, Benjamin Wright III, “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben
Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction:
Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint; JSJSup 131
(Leiden: Brill, 2008), 96-126, esp. 123-4; repr. from The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research,
ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes, BZAW 255 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 189-222.; idem,
“Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the
Wisdom of Ben Sira,” SBLSP 35 (1996): 133-49. See also, Samuel P. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s
Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80/3 (Jul., 1987), 261-86; Joseph L. Angel, “The
Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran,” in Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly
Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, ed. Lawrence Schiffman and
Shani Tzoref (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 27-54, esp. 33-40. Angel notes that Ben Sira envisioned
the priesthood as the ideal form of government, “The Traditional Roots,” 44; also Skehan
and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 87-88. Ben Sira’s support is most notable in the so-called “Praise
of Israel’s Ancestors” (44-49) where Aaron receives far more attention than Moses and
David, “The Traditional Roots,” 34; Wright III, “‘Fear the Lord,’” 101. This extended lauda-
tion is punctuated by the extended panegyric to Simon, son of Yohanan (Gr. Onias), one
of Jerusalem’s high priests in the pre-Hasmonean period. Olyan notes, “consistently, Ben
Sira’s ideology of priesthood stands closest to that found in the priestly writing of the
Pentateuch,” Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship,” 285.
54 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

Testament of Asher, part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work

which was, in some form, originally contemporary to Ben Sira.105

1:3. δύο ὁδοὺς ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς υἱοῖς 1:3. Two ways has God given to the sons of
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ δύο διαβούλια καὶ δύο men, and two inclinations, and two kinds
πράξεις καὶ δύο τρόπους καὶ δύο τέλη. 4 διὰ of action, and two modes (of action),
τοῦτο πάντα δύο εἰσίν, ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός. and two issues. 4 Therefore all things are
5 ὁδοὶ δύο, καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ· ἐν οἷς εἰσι τὰ by twos, one over against the other. 5 For
δύο διαβούλια ἐν στέρνοις ἡμῶν διακρίνοντα there are two ways of good and evil, and
αὐτάς. with these are the two inclinations in our
breasts discriminating them.

It is sufficient to say that deterministic language is missing from this text,

though the outlook remains dualistic, at least when defined broadly.106 The
same language appears again in T. Ash. 5:1, “You see, my children, how there
are two in all things, one against the other (ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός), and the one
is hidden by the other: in wealth covetousness, in conviviality drunkenness, in
laughter grief, in wedlock profligacy.” As with the first occurrence, the text re-
flects the more complementary duality attested in Ben Sira. The patriarch pres-
ents opposing pairs as viable options for his sons. Such polarity provides him
with the opportunity for his sons to walk with singularity before God, search-
ing out his commandments (v. 4). The exhortation indicates that his sons have
a choice, even an ability, to follow these commandments. Obedience and dis-
obedience is not a forgone conclusion.
Returning to the final verses of Ben Sira 33, one should be careful drawing
too close a parallel with the stark and complex dualism of the texts from the
Qumran community, especially the Treatise. Furthermore, Ben Sira’s dual-
ism is not the eschatological dualism attested in other texts since it is neither
concerned with the ultimate fate of the world and/or humanity, nor does the
dualism indicate the inescapability of humanity’s fate. Due to the fact that
the creation of humankind in v. 13 and the duality of vv. 14, 15 may be more
closely related to prophetic and priestly traditions (respectively), some obser-
vations can be made regarding Ben Sira’s conception of humanity in 33:7-15.
The whole of humanity is a creation of earth (v. 10; ἀπὸ ἐδάφους; lit. “from the
ground”). The Greek of Ben Sira emphasizes humanity’s creation by narrowing

105 Elias J. Bickerman, “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies in
Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees,
ed. Amram Tropper, AGJU 68 (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:272-94.
106 H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” OTP 1:779. The term ἔδωκεν (“to give”)
does not seem to have the deterministic force of the terminology we find elsewhere (e.g.,
‫ הכין‬in 1QS 3:15; 1QHa 21:8).
2.3 Ben Sira 55

the poem’s focus to Adam (καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ), an exemplar of humanity.
A creation of dust, or earth, which is used earlier in Ben Sira to portray human
impermanence, is utilized here to depict human subjugation to God. Ben Sira
alters its (i.e., humanity’s) ways and distinguishes between it in the same way
that he does the days. The first six lines of the poem are structured (vv. 7-12),
it seems, to punctuate the final three lines. That is, line 7-12, which highlight
God’s sovereignty is resolutely reaffirmed with use of the biblical prophetic
tradition that hearkens back to the potter and his clay (God and humanity; vv.
13-15) in Jer 18. Additionally, while some have compared verse 13 to the deter-
minism of the Treatise, God’s sovereignty over his creation evinces a degree
of human subordination, and it does not appear to be the complex, if not also
absolute, degree attested in the Treatise or elsewhere in the Qumran corpus.
Moreover, the language of Ben Sira’s final two verses (14-15) and T. Ash. (5:1-3;
5:3-5), which share a linguistic parallel to one another, have little to do with es-
chatological dualism and more to do with the admonition that there is indeed
a right (and wrong) way to walk before God.107
The poem clearly affirms God’s sovereignty and the use of our topos is not
accidental. The emphasis on God’s sovereignty over humanity in Ben Sira illus-
trates a two sided portrayal of humankind. God, the potter, is sovereign and hu-
mankind is distinctly connected to him by virtue of originating as clay on the
potter’s wheel. God’s sovereignty is not absolute, however, and humanity does
not exist under a fatalistic shadow from which it cannot escape.108 Indeed, the
same has been argued of Treatise.109 Rather, as Ben Sira indicates by placing

107 This conception of God’s creation appearing in pairs, which communicates the whole-
ness of the world—namely, it is complete as God has created it, Di Lella, Ben Sira, 491-3—
occurs in just one line in the Hymn to Creation, “All things are twofold, one opposite the
other, and he has made nothing incomplete. One confirms the good things of the other,
and who can have enough of beholding his glory” (42:24-25).
108 Pace Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 274. Perdue argues that by virtue of being molded
from clay humankind’s destinies are set. Yet, while the biblical potter accounts contain a
strong sense of God’s sovereignty, there is little to no evidence, in Jeremiah or Isaiah, that
God’s sovereignty is absolute or that humankind (or Israel) must inescapably persist in
a predetermined path. Indeed, within biblical tradition, human free will is not left at the
curb. So also, with his allusion to the biblical metaphor, Ben Sira is not negating free will
but firmly emphasizing God’s sovereignty. Of course, within this balance between both
lies the perennial philosophical problem: where does God’s sovereign control end and
human free will begin. Indeed, Ben Sira does not seek to answer this question but simply
remind his readers that even a modicum of choice plays a role in relation to God’s unique
sovereignty over his creation.
109 See, Duhaime, “Determinism,” 195-8. See also, Chad Martin Stauber, “Determinism in the
Rule of the Community (1QS): A New Perspective,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls:
A Canadian Collection (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 345-58; Jonathan
56 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

this poem in ch. 33, “No evil will befall the person who fears the Lord, but in
trial he will deliver him again and again (Τῷ φοβουμένῳ κύριον οὐκ ἀπαντήσει
κακόν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν πειρασμῷ καὶ πάλιν ἐξελεῖται). A wise person will not hate the
law, but he who is hypocritical about it is like a boat in a storm” (vv. 1-2), clearly
indicates that choice plays a role even in light of divine sovereignty. Therefore,
Ben Sira’s small poem offers a form of compatibilism, namely, that free will and
determinism co-exist and are not logically inconsistent.

2.4 Wisdom of Solomon

There is no consensus regarding the dating of the Wisdom of Solomon.

Winston suggests somewhere from the late 3rd c. BCE to the middle of the 1st
c. CE110 Holmes, on the other hand, prefers a date closer to the end of the 1st c.
BCE.111 Collins narrows this dating to between 30 BCE and 70 CE112 In either
case, Wisdom clearly fits within the scope of our examination. While the use
of our creation topoi is not terminologically precise in Wisdom, the allusions
formed by utilizing synonymous language to both creation accounts requires
that they be examined here.

2.4.1 Wisdom 2:23-24

Humanity’s creation in God’s “image” is attested for the first time in Wis 2:23-24:

23. ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ 23. But God created humanity (lit. man)
ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος for incorruption; he made him in the
ἐποίησεν αὐτόν· image if his own eternality [or: his own
proper being114].

24. φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν 24. but through the devil’s envy death en-
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, πειράζουσιν δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ τῆς tered the world, and those who belong to
ἐκείνου μερίδος ὄντες.113 his party experience it.

Klawans, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism
and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and
New Approaches and Methods, ed. Maxine L. Grossman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),
264-83.
110 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AB 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 20-25.
111 Samuel Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” APOT, 1:521.
112 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 178-9.
113 Unless otherwise noted, all Greek texts from Wisdom are from Sapientia Salomonis,
Joseph Ziegler, ed., VTG 12.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980).
114 Winston, Wisdom, 112.
2.4 Wisdom of Solomon 57

The creation of humankind in the image of God’s “eternality” (ἀϊδιότητος) is

part of a dichotomization familiar in wisdom literature (1:1-2:24), those who
are godly versus those who, in this case, seek death (i.e., the wicked and the
righteous). This section is considered by Collins to be part of a larger literary
unit he calls “the book of eschatology.”115 Chapter 1 begins with a plea that
those who have dominion on earth, specifically,

1:1 Ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν 1:1 Love righteousness, you rulers of the
γῆν, φρονήσατε περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἐν ἀγαθότητι earth, think of the Lord with uprightness,
καὶ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας ζητήσατε αὐτόν and seek him with sincerity of heart; be-
cause he is found by those who do not put
him to the test, and manifests himself to
those who do not distrust him.

This verse sets out a thematic structure that views humanity in two streams,
those who seek God and those who procure death.116 Verses 1-11, however, are
primarily interested in the things that separate wisdom and knowledge from
humankind, namely, deceit, sin, and injustice (cf. vv. 4-11), which are evident
in one’s words (βλάσφημον ἀπὸ χειλέων αὐτο, lit. “blasphemy from his lips”) and
deeds (ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας ζητήσατε αὐτόν).
Discussion of humanity’s procurement of death begins in v. 12, “Do not strive
after death through your deviant way of life (μὴ ζηλοῦτε θάνατον ἐν πλάνῃ ζωῆς
ὑμῶν), nor draw down destruction by the works of your own hands.”117 From
there the poetic structure sets the stage between the death and eternality of a
person. God created all to exist on earth, perhaps eternally, and those who seek
death seek an end to that existence (vv. 13-15). The manner in which these two
parties are separate is illustrated in 15-16a, “For righteousness is immortal and
the ungodly by their hands and words summoned it [i.e., death]” (δικαιοσύνη
γὰρ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν Ασεβεῖς δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν καὶ τοῖς λόγοις προσεκαλέσαντο αὐτόν).
Righteousness, likely represents interpersonal justice118—and even later “char-
ity”—and indicates how those individuals who attain immortality “seek the
Lord with goodness and … with a generous heart” by their actions to others.119

115 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 179-82.

116 Death primarily dominates the discussion in vv. 12-24.
117 Author’s translation.
118 See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Foundations of Tzedek and Tzedakah: Righteousness and
Charity in the Jewish Tradition,” unpublished article.
119 The connection between humanity’s creation, dominion over the world’s creatures, and
judging righteously and uprightly is noted in a prayer in Wis 9:1-3: “O God of my fathers,
and Lord of mercy, who has made all things with your word, and ordained man through
your wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which you have made, and
order the world according to equity and righteousness, and execute judgment with an
58 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The larger context of Wis 2:1-20 is primarily the speech of the wicked. In it,
death is seen as final; there is no afterlife. The “grossly distorted” Epicurean120
instinct to follow the pleasures of the here and now becomes most important.
As Winston states, “Life is a mere chance event; it is short and troublesome
and will soon be forgotten. The unavoidable conclusion is self-evident: Let us
enjoy while we can, for this is clearly our allotted portion.”121 2:24, which al-
ludes to both creation accounts with the employment of God’s image and the
incorporation of death’s entry into the world through the devil,122 closes the
literary unit. Here, humanity is said to be created “for incorruption.” The term
“incorruption” (ἀφθαρσία) appears three times in Wisdom (2:23; 6:18, 19)123 and
generally indicates immortality. Thus, the sense one is given in v. 23 is that hu-
mankind was intended to be immortal but lost it through Adam’s transgres-
sion. Reflected in the larger context, which is focussed on the ungodly, is that
the godly person loves righteousness, seeking God with words and deeds. This
righteous individual apparently retains some form of humanity’s original im-
mortality. Collins connects this with the immortality of the soul as espoused by
Plato.124 Yet, “Wisdom … certainly does not espouse the full Platonic doctrine,
but it does betray acquaintance with the idea of the preexistence.”125 The im-
mortality of the righteous seems distinctly connected to God’s own peculiar
“eternality” (ἀϊδιότητος). In fact, the bicola in v. 23 are intended to poetically
parallel one another,126

upright heart” (καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ σου κατασκευάσας ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα δεσπόζῃ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ γενομένων
κτισμάτων καὶ διέπῃ τὸν κόσμον ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν εὐθύτητι ψυχῆς κρίσιν κρίνῃ).
120 Winston, Wisdom, 114.
121 Winston, Wisdom, 114. He argues that the speech is not simple Epicureanism and at-
tempts to draw lines between the speech and the popular elements underlying it, 114-20.
122 While the second of our two threads, “out of earth,” does not appear in this text, Wis 2:23-
24 undoubtedly has the second creation account in sight with its reference to the “devil”
(διάβολος). The “devil,” as such, is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis although early inter-
preters connected the garden’s serpent with the devil or Satan. See James Kugel, Traditions
of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.;
Harvard University Press, 1998), 98-100.
123 Collins notes that ἀθανασία (“immortality”), a synonym to ἀφθαρσία (“incorruption”), ap-
pears five times in Wisdom (3:4, 4:1; 8:13, 17; 15:13). Winston suggests that both terms are
specifically Epicurean but does not elaborate beyond their use by Epicurean philoso-
phers, Wisdom, 121. ’Αθανασία is also used in 1 Cor 15:53 in an eschatological component of
the Pauline letter where at the end of the age humanity “will put on immortality” (ἐνδύσα-
σθαι ἀφθαρσίαν).
124 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185. Indeed, the term “soul” (ψυχὴ) is not referenced here, though
we find the soul mentioned elsewhere in Wisdom (9:15; 8:19, 20).
125 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185.
126 Winston notes that some codices read ἀϊδιότητος rather than ἀφθαρσία (Wisdom, 121).
2.4 Wisdom of Solomon 59

23. ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ 23. But God created humanity (lit. man)
ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ for immortality
καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος ἐποίησεν and he made him in the image if his own
αὐτόν· eternality127

In other words, humankind’s original incorruption, the intention for which it

was created, is due to bearing the “image” of God’s eternality. Moreover, this
incorruption (or immortality) remains only if the person seeks righteousness.

2.4.2 Wisdom 15:7-13

Part of an extended discussion regarding the futility of idolatry (15:7-13), what
Winston considers to be an intentional excursus on idol worship,128 employs
the topos “out of earth,”

18. καὶ κακόμοχθος θεὸν μάταιον ἐκ τοῦ 18. With misspent toil he molds a nothing-
αὐτοῦ πλάσσει πηλοῦ, ὃς πρὸ μικροῦ ἐκ god out of the same clay, he who but
γῆς γενηθεὶς, μετ᾿ ὀλίγον πορεύεται ἐξ ἧς shortly before came into being out of the
ἐλήμφθη, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαιτηθεὶς χρέος. earth and shortly after returns whence he
was taken, when the life that was lent him
is demanded back.129

The larger polemic begins in 13:1-9 with the worship of nature. The “harangue,”
as Grabbe describes it, against idolatry is not limited to nature, but also in-
cludes idol worship in the forms of both wood and clay (13:10-15:17), as well as
Egyptian animal worship (15:14-19).130 Collins suggests that 13:10-19—dealing
primarily with wooden idols—resembles some of the stronger denunciations
of idolatry in the Hebrew Bible, namely, those attested in second Isaiah (e.g.,
44:9-20).131 The subject shifts slightly as the diatribe regarding wooden idols
moves on to those made of “clay” (πηλός). Verses 7-13 directly address the
“potter,” drawing natural parallels with biblical texts, especially Is 29, 45 and
Jer 18 (as noted above). Grabbe notes that the condemnation in this section is
“harsher and more bitter.”132

127 Author’s translation.

128 Winston, Wisdom, 248. See also, Lester L. Grabbe, “Idol Worship and Polytheism,” in
Wisdom of Solomon, Guides to Apocryha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffied
Academic Press, 1997), 57-60.
129 Winston’s translation, Wisdom, 286.
130 Grabbe, Wisdom, 57.
131 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 209-10. Collins provides other related biblical passages (e.g., Jer 10,
Hab 2:18-19, Pss 115:4-8, 135:15-18). He also suggests that the closest parallels to this section
of Wisdom are to be found in Philo and elsewhere in post-biblical Jewish literature that
deals with the denunciation of idolatry, Jewish Wisdom, 209.
132 Grabbe, Wisdom, 57.
60 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

The use of the literary thread is to emphasize that both the idol and the idol
maker are made of the same substance, clay. The “potter” has some authority
over what he creates from it, viz., some vessels are made for clean and others
for non-clean purposes. The potter is the one who determines the purpose of
each. The language here resembles partly Sir 33:13 (see discussion above), al-
though in Ben Sira the concerns are regarding the ways of humankind (cf. v. 7).
Similar language of the potter who establishes the utilization of the created
vessels is also found in the book of Romans (9:20-21). Not unlike Ben Sira, the
potter is God and the vessels are humanity. On the other hand, Wisdom depicts
a creative biblical reversal in these passages, the potter is a person (not God)
and is said to make a “vain idol” (θεὸν μάταιον) out of the same clay from which
the potter himself was taken (15:8). It is “out of earth” (ἐκ γῆς) from which the
potter himself was created and to which he will return (see discussion of the
Hodayot in the following chapter). The potter and the idol are created from
the same substance, empty, idol, and vain clay (=earth).133 The potter’s arro-
gance lies in that he has not recognized that the essence of his origins conse-
quently results in a temporal and brief life. Rather, the potter competes with
the other idol-makers.134 Grabbe, however, makes a curious statement in rela-
tion to this metaphor, “… the vessels for common, even lowly use, are made
from the same substance of the divine image.”135 This statement is problematic
since it posits that Wisdom’s position regarding the earthly origins of the pot-
ter naturally includes an implicit reference to the divine image. Yet, chapter
15’s polemic does not consider the divine image as part of its rhetoric. Rather
than employing the divine image, the human potter, although afflicted with
the same substance as the idol, is distinguished from it by possessing a “a soul”
(ψυχῇ)—a “debt” (χρέος) that must be settled upon the potter’s death (see Ps.
Phoc. below).136 Thus, the divine image is intentionally absent, since the per-

133 “clay” (πηλός) and “earth” (γῆ) are clearly utilized as synonyms in 15:7, as well as Ben
Sira 33:7-15.
134 Winston notes that terms utilized for “silversmiths” (ἀργυροχόοις) and “molders of bronze”
(χαλκοπλάστας) are utilized here for the first time in Wisdom and then in Patristic litera-
ture, Wisdom, 287.
135 Grabbe, Wisdom, 58.
136 A composition of this sort has natural parallels with Platonic view of the immortal soul,
especially in that the soul is a loan of sorts that is separated from the body upon death. It
states in Plato’s Phaedo, “‘Let us then,’ said he, ‘speak with one another, paying no further
attention to them. Do we think there is such a thing as death?’ ‘Certainly,’ replied Simmias.
‘We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that
the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and ex-
ists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself? Is
death anything other than this?’ ‘No, it is this,’ said he, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito,
2.4 Wisdom of Solomon 61

son is composed as a “man” (‫ )אדם‬is in Gen 2:7, clay (or earth) and a soul—
neither of which appears to involve, or necessitate, the imago dei.
In the latter half of the poem, the potter’s temporal existence is further de-
valued. Even with a soul, the person (i.e., the potter) ultimately has a heart of
ash, whose hope is cheaper than earth, and who is less than the clay from which
he is created (σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, καὶ γῆς εὐτελεστέρα ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτοῦ, πηλοῦ τε
ἀτιμότερος ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ, Wis 2:10). Clarke notes that the author’s contempt for
the potter is “because he put himself on par with God, who shaped man from
clay” (Gen 2:7).137 Yet, the contempt is not because the potter has attempted to
play God but rather, as Wisdom states, “he failed to know the one who formed
him and inspired him with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit:”
(ὅτι ἠγνόησεν τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτὸν, καὶ τὸν ἐμπνεύσαντα αὐτῷ ψυχὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν,
καὶ ἐμφυσήσαντα πνεῦμα ζωτικόν, 11)—a clear reworking of Gen 2:7. Thus, it ap-
pears that the earthly creation of humanity, as derived from Gen 2, provides
the filter by which Wisdom portrays the humanity of the potter and those who
lack recognition of their creator. For the potter, human existence is largely a
game of profits (cf. vv. 11-12); he is cognizant of his sin (οἶδεν ὅτι ἁμαρτάνει, v. 12),
but not of his impermanence.
The exposition against clay/earth idols in Wisdom utilizes the “of (out of)
earth” topos to reflect, not only the temporal existence of, in this case, the idol-
creating potter, but also his vanity and lack of value. This is the result of having
failed to recognize the Great Potter, if you will. The use of this topos is decid-
edly different from what we find earlier in Wisdom (2:22-23), where humanity
is said to be created for incorruption. Here the earthly origins of the second
creation serve rhetorically to emphasize the potter’s baseness and, by exten-
sion, the baseness of all those who, as creations of earth, have failed to recog-
nize the one who formed them.

Phaedo, Phaedrus vol. I, trans. H. N. Fowler LCL 36 (London: William Heinemann; New
York: The Macmillan co., 1914), 223-5. Schmitt has noted that the concept that life and
property are loans is a common topos in Greek literature, citing the following references,
Plato, Tim 42e; Euripides, Hik 532-6; Cicero, Tusc. I 93; Seneca, Dial. XI (ad Polybium) X
4-5. See also, Armin Schmitt, Das Buch der Weisheit: Ein Kommentar (Würzburg : Echter,
1986), 120; Winston, Wisdom, 277-8.
137 Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973), 101.
62 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

2.5 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides

One text that has received little attention is the wisdom text, Pseudo-Phocylides,
a Greek poem of 230 lines which is pseudonymously attributed to Phocylides,
an Ionic poet of the 6th c. BCE138 The work dates to between the 3rd c. BCE
and the 3rd c. CE139 While some of the traditions preserved in Ps. Phoc. fall
outside of our Second Temple purview, the lines which utilize our literary
threads appear to closely parallel other Second Temple works (e.g., Wisdom,
T. Naph.). Additionally, as Horst has noted, while the text is written in Greek
(Ionic) hexametric poetry, “a close study of the text reveals its undeniably
Jewish character.”140

2.5.1 Ps. Phoc. 105-108

The lines which concern us here are 97-115, “Death and Afterlife.” Like much of
the rest of Ps. Phoc. our text deals with an ethical teaching, specifically, proper
attitudes and actions towards death and burial. Wilson notes, in particular,
that Ps. Phoc. is concerned with three things regarding death: 1) burial, 2) mod-
eration in mourning, and 3) excessive grief.141 After prohibiting the violation of
tombs because of the hope in resurrection142—a decidedly Jewish hope—Ps.
Phoc. delves into the immortality of the soul (105-108).

105. ψυχαὶ γὰρ μίμνουσιν ἀκήριοι ἐν 105. For souls remain unscathed in the
φθιμένοισιν. deceased.
106. πνεῦμα γάρ ἐστι θεοῦ χρῆσις θνητοῖσι 106. For the spirit is a loan from God to
καὶ εἰκών· mortals, and is [God’s] image.
107. σῶμα γὰρ ἐκ γαίης ἔχομεν κἄπειτα πρὸς 107. For we possess a body out of earth;
αὖγῆν and then, when into earth again
108. λυόμενοι κόνις ἐσμέν· ἀὴρ δ᾿ ἀνὰ πνεῦμα 108. we are resolved, we are dust; but the
δέδεκται. air has received our spirit.143

138 Pieter W. van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” OTP 2:565. See also Walter T. Wilson, “The
Sentences as Pseudonymous Jewish-Greek Poetry,” in The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides,
CEJL (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 3-8; idem, The Mysteries of Righteousness: The
Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, TSAJ 40 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1994).
139 Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 2:567; Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences of
Pseudo Phocylides (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 6.
140 Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” OTP 2:565.
141 Wilson, The Sentences, 142. Wilson draws comparisons with Sir 38:16-23.
142 Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness, 109.
143 Translation of Greek is from Wilson, Sentences, 141.
2.5 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 63

Ps. Phoc. utilizes creation topoi, “out of earth” (ἐκ γαίης) and “image” (εἰκών), to
punctuate postmortem aspects of humanity that are key to his overall teach-
ing. First, souls are said to remain unharmed in the deceased.144 Here “soul”
(ψυχὴ) and “spirit” (πνεῦμα) are being used synonymously,145 that is to say, that
the “soul” that remains unharmed is synonymous with the “spirit” that is lent to
humanity; these elements bear God’s image. Each person’s body is formed “out
of earth” and upon death return to it (cf. Gen 3:19; see, Sir 16:30, 17:1). The body
is temporal, vulnerable, and earthly; it is “dust”146 (κόνις; Ps. Phoc. 108).147 The
body returns to that earth, and the air “receives” (δέδεκται) humanity’s spirit,
that which is lent to humanity by God (cf. also Wis 15:8) and encapsulates the

144 Collins disagrees with van der Horst’s translation of ἐν φθιμένοισιν as “in the deceased.”
Rather, Collins suggests translating the Greek as “among the dead” to disambiguate van
der Horst’s suggestion that the souls remain in the dead corpses, “Life After Death in
Pseudo-Phocylides,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter
with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 128-42; repr. from
idem, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of
A. Hilhorst, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, JSJSup 82 (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 75-86. See also, Horst’s response in “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife: A
Rejoinder to John J. Collins,” JSJ 35 (2004): 70-75; repr. from Jewish and Christians in their
Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays in Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and
Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 96; repr. from, and Collins’ “Postscript” in
“Life After Death,” 139-42.
145 Van der Horst, “Pseudo Phocylides,” 2:578; idem, The Sentences, 185-95; Wilson, The
Sentences, 146; idem, Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of
the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 109. We have chosen
to follow Wilson’s and van der Horst’s understanding that the “spirit” and “soul” as syn-
onymous. John J. Collins disagrees with this reading, arguing that lines 105-107 distinguish
between the soul and the spirit, “Life After Death in Pseudo-Phocylides,” 136-7. Van der
Horst’s response to Collins maintains his position, specifically that it is more defensible
to read soul and spirit synonymously since it avoids the problem of God ruling souls in
Hades (cf. 110) while the spirit as God’s image is with God in heaven (“Pseudo-Phocylides
on the Afterlife,” 96-97). Collins’s disagreement brings to light that there are multiple ways
to interpret Ps. Phoc.’s aphorisms. Yet, van der Horst’s argument is key: “It is said explicitly
that the spirit (πνεῦμα) is a loan from God to mortals and also his image … In several other
Graeco-Jewish texts, this is what is said about the soul (ψυχὴ). That does not necessarily
imply that the same is meant here as well, but another point should be kept in mind
as well. The spirit is taken up into the air and returns to God because he had given it to
humans only as a loan. It is to be assumed that from the moment of death onwards God
rules over these spirits; after all they were his loan. The text, however, says that God rules
over the souls not the spirits,” “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife,” 96-97.
146 This term is used elsewhere in Jewish and Greek texts to refer to the ash of mourning, cf.
3 Macc 1:18, 4:6; Eur. Hec. 496.
147 This same idea is echoed in Tobit 3:6: “And now deal with me according to thy pleasure;
command my spirit (πνεῦμά) to be taken up, that I may depart and become earth (γῆ).”
64 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

inner person.148 Wilson notes that Ps. Phoc.’s statement is decidedly close
to a Roman funerary inscription: “He has returned to the air and his body to
the earth.”149 The synonymous parallelism in lines 106-108 emphasizes this
human duality. In other words, upon death the air receives the human spirit/
soul (106/108); and that which is dust, the body, returns to the earth (107/108).
Again, an allusion to Gen 2:7 speaks to humanity’s temporal vulnerability,
while the Gen 1:26 thread reflects the abstract, metaphysical component of the
person, viz., the soul/spirit.
The poem is a confluence of Greek and Jewish elements. The hope for resur-
rection is particularly Jewish but—as Wilson notes—the soul’s/spirit’s return
to the air is characteristically Greek.150 This overlap should not be viewed as
contradictory151 but rather as a style that characterizes and highlights the view
of the afterlife present in Jewish-Hellenistic texts. Therefore, the soul/spirit
(in line with van der Horst’s interpretation)—that which bears the image of
God—is thought to essentially return to God/the air.152 Yet, the “image of God”
present in the soul/spirit is described as eternal and ageless (cf. Ps. Phoc. 115).
Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that Ps. Phoc.’s teaching builds upon
itself—each statement is supported and strengthened by the following lines.
More specifically, “it should be emphasized that the basic observations set
forth in verses 101b-108 not only reinforce the concrete injunctions of verses
99-101a but pertain to the main thought articulated in the thesis statement,
verse 97-98.153 In other words, Ps. Phoc.’s argument in 99-101, “Let the unburied
dead receive their share of the earth. Do not dig up the grave of the deceased,
nor something unseen you expose to the sun …,” is reinforced by the rest of
the teaching, in particular, 105-108. Therefore, Ps. Phoc.’s discussion about the
afterlife stresses the importance of burying the dead, so that the image and
the earth return to their proper place—God and the ground, respectively—
although these elements will eventually be reconstituted (103).154

148 By “inner person” we mean something akin to “psychological,” which refers to the mental
and/or emotional state of a person.
149 Wilson, The Sentences, 148. Wilson notes that Josephus’ Hellenized view of the Essenes
depicts them as having the belief that while the body was corruptible the immortal soul
emanated into the air (148; see chapter 3 below).
150 Wilson, The Sentences, 148.
151 Wilson, Mysteries of Righteousness, 109.
152 Collins, “Life after Death in Pseudo-Phocylides,” 136.
153 Wilson, Mysteries of Righteousness, 110.
154 The importance of burying the dead is also discussed in Tob 1:16-2:8.
2.6 Conclusion 65

2.6 Conclusion

The examination of two creation topoi—having been adapted out Genesis 1

and 2—the “image of God” and “from (out of) earth,” in Qohelet, Ben Sira,
Wisdom of Solomon, and Pseudo Phocylides, in part, bears witness to their
growing use in the Hellenistic period and their consistent (even logical) em-
ployment as markers for varying conceptions of general humanity that were
extant in the Second Temple period. The unique language of Genesis’s creation
offers creation language that is unique and memorable enough to be reworked
in the ancient author’s burgeoning attempts to say something about general
human existence. Wisdom traditions provide the fertile soil for such querying
since they often ground their views on humanity in creation.155
As we have examined, Qohelet is perhaps the earliest Hellenistic evidence
for the use of these creation topoi, despite that a consensus for a date remains
lacking.156 It has been noted that Qohelet’s view of human existence is pessi-
mistic. On two occasions, the author states that a person comes from dust and
returns to the dust (3:20; 12:8). The former questions this existence in relation
to that of the animals, while the latter, lacking any regard to the aforemen-
tioned animals, notes a similar end. The topoi are not exact, but closely mimic
the language of creation, namely, “of the dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7). Thus,
allusions to both Gen 2:7 and 3:19 are without question. But Gen 2:7 is more
clearly emphasized in the two verses’ reflection on the place of the spirit (‫)רוח‬
after death, which 3:19 does not mention. Such concerns are not indicative
of Qohelet’s position on an afterlife but is simply a questioning of where the
animating breath, i.e., spirit, goes upon death. While it is not clear that the au-
thor of Qohelet knew Genesis 1’s creation, he finds the right degree of tempo-
ral meaninglessness by employing the topos of humanity’s terrestrial nature.
Heuristically, it is a significant lowering of human value when considering the
divine image. However, one cannot be sure if this is in line with Qohelet’s mo-
tives, apart from that the earthly make-up of the general person and its striking
temporality—perhaps coupled with a lack of, or poorly diminished, afterlife—
struck the note that the author was trying to convey.
Ben Sira 17:1-4 employs both creation topoi. “From (out of) earth” is uti-
lized to speak to humanity’s impermanence; life is limited, and humankind’s
earthly origin is to blame. On the other hand, the “image of God” is imme-
diately associated with a “capability” (ἰσχύς) given to his creation to follow

155 Collins, “The Mysteries of God,” 173.

156 In this study, it is agreed that Qohelet is a Hellenistic work, especially in light of its use of
creation topoi that are employed on other Hellenistic works examined in this chapter.
66 2 Of Image, Earth, and Dust: The Emergence of Creation Topoi

God’s commandments. In its immediate context, this speaks to humanity’s au-

thority over creation. The weight of this “capability,” however, carries beyond
vv. 1-4, and is key to understanding several points of contact from within the
larger literary unit, 15:11-18:14, which appears to address humanity in light of
Israel-specific traditions. When all is considered, humanity’s creation in the
“image of God” indicates that it has been imbued with specific characteristics
and faculties to fulfil the commandments—e.g., avoiding evil and acting chari-
tably to one’s neighbor (cf. 17:5-14). This use of the imago dei is not equal to
the value it is given in later Jewish and Christian texts but nonetheless signals
something significant about humankind. In a poem from the later chapters
of Ben Sira (33:7-15), “from earth” which speaks to humanity’s impermanence
temporarily shifts and God’s sovereignty over his creation comes to the fore. It
does not result in the complex determinism attested in texts like the Treatise
although it perhaps reflects the raw philosophical ingredients from which such
a viewpoint developed. In Ben Sira, God’s authority, which has some sway over
humanity’s ways, is inextricably linked to its creation from the dust. The dual-
ity in the small poem, when compared to other texts, suggests that there are
two ways for humans to walk and that a singular walk before God is possible.157
As affirmed by the beginning of chapter 33, the choice to fear God remains a
choice and rhetorically, the reader, understanding that he/she is mere clay from
the ground, strives to “not hate the law” (33:2).
Early on, Wisdom of Solomon utilizes a variation of the “image of God,”
namely, the “image of his eternality.” The author employs a variation of our
topos to indicate that humanity was originally created for “incorruption”
(ἀφθαρσίᾳκαὶ), which is related to immortality (2:23). Humanity can only
maintain this state if the person seeks “righteousness”—a term that involves
interpersonal justice. In Wisdom, as in Ben Sira, the “image of God” indicates
humankind’s ability, and even requirement, to do so. Later in Wisdom, the sec-
ond of our two topoi are used in an extended diatribe against idolatry. The por-
tion germane to this study deals with the maker of clay idols, especially 15:7-13.
The thread is not used simply to indicate the vulnerability and mortality of the
potter but also his/her vain, worthless existence. While the text focusses in on
the potter, the importance for our study is that the use of the topos is again a

157 There is some similarity between what we find here and the doctrine of the “two ways”
that one finds in texts like the Didache (Doctrina Apostolorum)—a 1st c. CE Christian doc-
ument that is based on Jewish sources. See Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, ed., The
Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press; Assen: Royal Gorcum, 2002).
2.6 Conclusion 67

rhetorical device to depict the baseness of all creation and, by extension, the
danger posed to those who fail to recognize their maker, the Great Potter.
Pseudo-Phocylides utilizes both creation topoi in a teaching on the impor-
tance of burial. Both are used to express two components of human existence,
the body—as a result of being created out of earth—and spirit/soul—which
result from bearing God’s image. In light of the teaching on burial, the body is
viewed as temporal and the spirit/soul is portrayed as returning to God who
initially provided it as a loan. It appears that both components are somehow
returned to humanity during the resurrection. The components of human ex-
istence are not a central focus of the text but indicate one view of humanity
extant in the Jewish world.
While we have examined several occurrences of creation topoi in wisdom
texts that date to the Hellenistic period, these uses do not stray far from each
other in meaning. Generally, the “from (out of) earth” topos is employed to
illustrate humanity’s physical body, mortality, and impermanence, while the
“image of God” most often describes humanity’s ability to follow God’s com-
mandments, as well as God’s own knowledge of humankind. In light of wisdom
literature’s interest in creation, and humanity in general, God’s image indicates
yet another side humanity’s, albeit distinct, relationship with him. Moreover,
our “earthly” topos, while used for humanity’s mortality, is also employed to
depict God’s sovereignty over his creation. Not only does it demonstrate the
extent of God’s omniscience over the nature of his creation, it also speaks to
a modicum of God’s deterministic influence. As the potter, the formation of
clay (=earth) is utterly known by his/her creator. As before, a creation betrays
human impermanence and is the justification for admonition to obedience.
Human composition, namely, the physical body (“from earth”) and the spirit/
soul (i.e., the divine breath) also plays a part in the utilization of this particular
topos (more on this in chapters four and five). This relationship is unique among
all his creation as, apart from Qohelet, there is no suggestion that animals can
share in it. The next chapter, explores the manner in which these creation
topoi continue to permeate, in varying degrees, later Hellenistic and Roman
Jewish texts.
 Chapter 3

From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of the

Use of Creation Topoi and the Amplification of
Human Lowliness

God in pity made man beautiful and alluring,

after his own image; but my form is a filthy
type of yours, more horrid from its very
resemblance
Mary Wollstone Shelley, Frankenstein, 1818

3.1 Introduction

From the first appearance of creation topoi in wisdom literature, there is a

continual growth in their employment in Jewish texts of the Second Temple
period.1 This use, which spans a number of genres (e.g., allegory, apocalypse),
is just one indication of their developing importance. Another is the deliber-
ate variation in these texts, utilizing them in tandem, alone, or reshaping them
with the intention of portraying humanity’s absolute value, utter futility, and
the degrees between these two poles. This chapter begins with an examination
of Philo of Alexandria, the Testament of Naphtali, 4 Ezra, the Hodayot, and
2 Maccabees. In particular, one of the closing hymns of the Hodayot plays
a critical role in our discussion since it sheds light on an important reshap-
ing of the second creation topos, i.e., “from (out of) dust/clay.” The Hodayot
(Thanksgiving Hymns) have long been known to depict a lowly view of human
existence which is partly the hymnist’s own self-recognition, as well as that of
the yaḥad, and, by extension, collective humanity. In conversation with the
variegated use of creation topoi in contemporaneous early Jewish literature,
it is clear that the hymns are intentionally further debasing already existing
conceptions of human nature.

1 This remains in Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity where authors gravitate primarily
to the image of God as a foundational principle regarding the importance of each person, see
e.g., m. Avot 3:14, 1 Clem 33:4.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_004

3.2 Philo of Alexandria 69

3.2 Philo of Alexandria

Philo, the Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher of the 1st c. BCE, utilizes creation

topoi in a myriad of contexts, although their use to describe humanity is limited
to several main points. George H. van Kooten has surveyed Philo’s interpreta-
tions of the “image of God” in ancient Jewish texts.2 His work partially focusses
on four uses of the “image of God,” 1) the implications of the plurality of Philo’s
reading of Gen 1:26-27, 2) the exact meaning of the Greek phrase “according to
the image of God” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ), 3) humanity’s creation not in, but after
the “image of God,” and 4) Philo’s comments on “according to [our] likeness”
(καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν) as a qualification of (“according to our image” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἡμε-
τέραν).3 Yet, our study study differs in a couple of ways: 1) it is more narrowly
focussed on exploring two creation topoi, whether employed alone or together,
and what they indicate about Philo’s view of human nature, and 2) our decon-
struction of Philo’s view of human nature vis-à-vis these creation topoi differs
significantly from Van Kooten’s methodology. The conclusions bear some simi-
larities to his work but the structure and focus of this chapter result in impor-
tant deviations from it. For example, regarding the first difference, we will not
examine where Philo utilizes the “image of God” to speak of the cosmos, or
specifically, biblical figures like Adam, unless it is intended to express some-
thing about collective humanity. As to the second of our distinctions, Philo’s
view of humanity will be broken into three categories: 1) The “‘Image of God’
and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of Humanity,” 2) “After God’s Image,”
and 3) “Two-Types of Humankind?”

3.2.1 The “Image of God” and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of

Humanity
One interpretation of the “image of God” or more precisely, “the image and
likeness of God”—a phrase attributed to Moses (Creation 69)—is that human-
ity is similar to God more than any other creation.

2 George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 48-68. Van Kooten’s overall purpose
is to contextualize Paul’s view of humanity and not simply to elucidate Philo’s. See also
Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, WUNT 2.317
(Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 138-84.
3 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 48.
70 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

μετὰ δὴ τἄλλα πάντα, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη, After all the rest, as I have said, Moses
τὸν ἄνθρωπόν φησι γεγενῆσθαι κατ᾿ tells us that man was created after the
εἰκόνα θεοῦ καὶ καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν· πάνυ image of God and after His likeness …
καλῶς, ἐμφερέστερον γὰρ οὐδὲν γηγενὲς Right well does he say this, for nothing
ἀνθρώπου θεῷ. τὴν δ᾿ ἐμφέρειαν μηδεὶς earth-born is more like God than man.
εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρι· οὔτε γὰρ Let no one represent the likeness as one
ἀνθρωπόμορφος ὁ θεὸς οὔτε θεοειδὲς τὸ to a bodily form, nor is the human body
ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα. ἡ δὲ εἰκὼν λέλεκται κατὰ God-like. No, it is in respect of the Mind,
τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόνα νοῦν· πρὸς γὰρ ἕνα the sovereign element of the soul, that
τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐκεῖνον ὡς ἂν ἀρχέτυπον ὁ ἐν the word “image” is used; for after the pat-
ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀπεικονίσθη (69). tern of a single Mind, even the Mind of
the Universe as an archetype, the mind in
each of those who successively came into
being was moulded (69).4

Philo attempts to imitate the language of Gen 2:7 with the use of “earthborn”
(γηγενὲς), but warns against presuming that the “image of God” is the physi-
cal body.5 It is not the body that bears the “image” or “likeness” but rather the
most important part of the soul, the “mind” (νοῦς; variant: νόος), that is, the
place of “perception,” “sense,” and, according to David Runia, is an expression
of human intellect.6 While “invisible” (ἀόρατος) and “undiscernible” (ἄδηλος),
it can see everything itself and discern the “essence” (οὐσία) of all things. Philo
then describes the mind’s search for knowledge and wisdom. Runia notes that
in the longer passage, Creation 69-71, Philo sets out 5 stages for the quest of
human knowledge: searching 1) the earth, land and sea, 2) the air and meteoro-
logical phenomenon, 3) the heavens, heavenly bodies, and celestial motions, 4)
contemplation of the world of ideas, and 5) finally, attempting to get to God’s
heavenly retinue—only to be rebuffed by a radiating light.7
A similar exposition of the “image of God” as the intangible element of
humanity—part of the soul—the part by which humanity is able to reason,
is attested elsewhere in Philo’s oeuvre, in particular, Worse 84-90. Some of the
elements in this section parallel Runia’s aforementioned five stages, especially
Worse 87-89 where the “mind” (νοῦς) is spoken of as traversing the world and

4 Greek and English from Philo, vol. I: On Creation, Allegorical Interpretation on Gen 2 and 3,
trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL 226 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1981), 55. Only the pertinent portion of the Greek text is provided.
5 See, David T. Runia, One the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction,
Translation and Commentary, PACS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 224; also, Jonathan D. Worthington,
Creation in Paul, 143.
6 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 222.
7 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 222-3.
3.2 Philo of Alexandria 71

reaching the heavens. Philo again refers to the human intellect as that which
dominates the soul. It is distinguished and separated from the physical body,
which is “earthborn” (cf. Creation 69; Worse 87;8 Flight 68).9 In describing intel-
lect, Philo utilizes the “image of God” to describe this impression (ἐνσφραγίζω;
Worse 86) given to the soul. Or, as it is described in Laws 1:171, “… for our domi-
nant part, the rational spirit-force within us which was shaped according to the
archetypal form of the divine image.”10 Van Kooten adds, “according to Philo
the creation of the highest part of man, the non-mortal portion of the soul,
‘that in us which is rational,’ ‘the sovereign faculty in the soul,’ is undertaken by
God himself (author’s emphasis).”11 In fact, Flight 68-69 depicts God in conver-
sation with his own powers (ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν)12—a plurality that Philo derives
from his interpretation of the plural “let us make” (‫ )נַ ֲע ֶשה‬in Gen 1:26—and
speaks to God’s direct responsibility with impressing his “image” on human-
ity’s soul. Furthermore, humanity’s soul—bearing God’s image—is precisely
how it differs from the rest of creation and is, in part, the reason why humanity
is given supremacy over it (cf. Moses 2:65).
Later, in Creation 134-135, Philo moves away from the “image of God” and
shifts to an allusion to Gen 2:7 to describe an aspect of human nature.

8 Cf. Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and History of Interpretation, CBQMS 14
(Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1985), 88-89.
9 Some have noted in Philo’s illustration of the mind a decidedly anti-anthropomorphic
view of God, e.g., Tobin, The Creation of Man, 44-46. See also Annewies van den Hoek,
“Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s Thoughts on Adam and Eve,” in The
Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretation of Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian
Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, TBNJC 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 66-67; Runia, One
the Creation of the Cosmos, 224. He also references Platonic themes and motifs as seen in
the Phaedrus.
10 Greek and English from Philo, vol. VII: On the Decalogue, The Special Laws, trans.
F. H. Colson (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1998), 197.
11 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 49.
12 Philo is careful when describing a plurality in the heavens to state that when God is in
conversation with his own powers, they remain subordinate to him, and are, in fact, not
equal. Therefore, in Flight 68-69 that part of humanity that is subject to mortality, or
kept in subjugation is created by those things that are subject to him. On the other hand,
God himself is involved with shaping that in humanity, which acquires knowledge of the
world, that which bears his image, the mind.
72 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι “ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς After this he says that “God formed man by
τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, taking clay from the earth, and breathed
καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ into his face the breath of life”… By this
πνοὴν ζωῆς” …ἐναργέστατα καὶ διὰ τούτου also he shows very clearly that there is
παρίστησιν ὅτι διαφορὰ παμμεγέθης ἐστὶ a vast difference between the man thus
τοῦ τε νῦν πλασθέντος ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ formed and the man that came into ex-
κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον· ὁ istence earlier after the image of God: for
μὲν γὰρ διαπλασθεὶς αἰσθητὸς ἤδη μετέχων the man so formed is an object of sense-
ποιότητος, ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς, perception, partaking already of such or
ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, φύσει θνητός· ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὴν such quality, consisting of body and soul,
εἰκόνα ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς, νοητός, man or woman, by nature mortal; while
ἀσώματος, οὔτ᾿ ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ, ἄφθαρτος he that was after the (Divine) image
φύσει (134). was an idea or type or seal, an object of
thought (only), incorporeal, neither male
nor female, by nature incorruptible (134).13

Philo portrays the difference between the person generated now—an illustra-
tion of collective humanity—“who was formed” (πλασθέντος; v. πλάσσω) from
a lump of clay and to whom the breath of life was given, and the first man,
created earlier, who was generated from “God’s image” (τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ, 134).
The two creation topoi examined here are interpreted by Philo to speak of
two-types of person (see more on this below). The one created earlier, that
upon whom is the divine image, is understood allegorically as an idea that is
perceptible only to the intellect and incorporeal, neither male nor female, nor
incorruptible by nature (134). Still, the creation “from earth” reflects at least
one of the philosopher’s conceptions of nature, viz., that it is composed of two
components—derived from Gen 2:7—“the body” and “soul,” i.e., the earthly
substance and the divine breath. According to Philo both aforementioned el-
ements indicate humankind’s “natural mortality” (see, φύσει θνητός, 135) and
“immortal” (ἀθάνᾰτος) qualities. As Worthington notes, this immortal element
is presented more positively than the mortal ones14 since it proceeds from a
“blessed and fortunate” (μακαρίας καὶ εὐδαίμονος) nature. This unique composi-
tion is referred to on Creation 135.

13 Philo, vol. I, 106-7.

14 Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo, 166-70.
3.2 Philo of Alexandria 73

τοῦ δ᾿ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ μέρους ἀνθρώπου It says, however, that the formation of the
τὴν κατασκευὴν σύνθετον εἶναί φησιν ἔκ individual person, the object of sense,
τε γεώδους οὐσίας καὶ πνεύματος θείου· is a composite one made up of earthly
γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ τὸ μὲν σῶμα, χοῦν τοῦ substance and of Divine breath: for it
τεχνίτου λαβόντος καὶ μορφὴν ἀνθρωπίνην says that the body was made through the
ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαπλάσαντος, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀπ᾿ Artificer taking clay and moulding out of
οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ it a human form, but that the soul was
πατρὸς καὶ ἡγεμόνος τῶν πάντων (135)· originated from nothing created whatev-
er, but from the Father and Ruler of all …
(135, cf. also 139).15

The physical form of humanity originates “from the earth” (ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, 134),
a variant of our second creation topos, while the divine breath is depicted as
emanating from nothing created (ἀπ᾿ οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, 135) but from
God himself. Both components are employed as needful (ἀναγκαῖόν, 135). In
fact, Philo, towards the end of 135, states quite clearly that the mortal compo-
nent of humanity is evident in “the body” (τὸ σῶμα), while the immortal por-
tion of humankind is represented by “the mind” (τὴν διάνοιαν, 135). The divine
image as part of this depiction is absent here.

3.2.2 “According to” God’s Image

With regard to the “image of God,” Philo often refers to humankind’s creation
according to the image, rather than in the image. He appears to be uncomfort-
able with the idea that humanity in some way bears an exact copy of the di-
vine image. This discomfort is dealt with by exploiting the Septuagint’s [LXX]
use of “according to” (κατὰ), which is an imprecise—but for Philo, useful—
translation of the preposition “in” (‫ )ב‬in Gen 1:26, 27. One of the primary wit-
nesses to Philo’s “according to the image of God” appears in Heir 231:

καλεῖ δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸν μὲν ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς εἰκόνα And Moses calls the one which is above
θεοῦ, τὸν δὲ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τῆς εἰκόνος ἐκμαγεῖον. us the image of God, and the one which
“ἐποίησε” γάρ φησιν “ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον” abides among us as the impression of
οὐχὶ εἰκόνα θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ “κατ᾿ εἰκόνα” ὥστε that image. For, he says, “God made man,”
τὸν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἡμῶν νοῦν, ὃς δὴ κυρίως not an image of God, but “according to
καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, τρίτον [that] image.” So that the mind which is
εἶναι τύπον ἀπὸ τοῦ πεποιηκότος, τὸν δὲ in each of us, which is in reality and truth
μέσον παράδειγμα μὲν τούτου, ἀπεικόνισμα the man, is a third pattern proceeding
δὲ ἐκείνου. from the Maker. But the middle one is a
model of the one and a copy of the other.16

15 Philo, vol. I, 106-7 (slightly emended).

16 Greek and English from Philo, vol. IV: On the Confusion of Tongues, On the Migration of
Abraham, Who is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies, trans.
74 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

The text explains that a component of human existence is patterned “accord-

ing to the image” (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα), which is a copy, and not God himself.17 The
imago dei is intended to represent a model upon which the person is based—a
middleman (no pun intended), if you will: God > the image of God > humanity
(see Heir 232).18 This image, represented by the human mind,19 is one and the
same as the immortal element discussed above in Creation. Humanity’s cre-
ation “according to” the divine image is referenced again in Alleg. Interp. 3:96
with an allegorical reading of the name “Bezalel.”

ἑρμηνεύεται οὖν Βεσελεὴλ ἐν σκιᾷ θεοῦ· What, then, the image impressed on it is
σκιὰ θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ we shall know if we first ascertain accu-
ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίει. αὕτη rately the meaning of the name. Bezalel
δὲ ἡ σκιὰ καὶ τὸ ὡσανεὶ ἀπεικόνισμα means, then, “in the shadow of God;” but
ἑτέρων ἐστὶν ἀρχέτυπον· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς God’s shadow is His Word, which he made
παράδειγμα τῆς εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰν νυνὶ use of like an instrument, and so made
κέκληκεν, οὕτως ἡ εἰκὼν ἄλλων γίνεται the world. But this shadow, and what we
παράδειγμα, ὡς καὶ ἐναρχόμενος τῆς may describe as the representation, is the
νομοθεσίας ἐδήλωσεν εἰπών· “καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ archetype for further creations. For just as
θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ” … ὡς τῆς God is the Pattern of the Image, to which
μὲν εἰκόνος κατὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀπεικονισθείσης, the title of Shadow has just been given,
τοῦ δὲ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα λαβοῦσαν even so the Image becomes the pattern of
δύναμιν παραδείγματος (3:96). other beings, as the prophet made clear at
the very outset of the Law-giving by say-
ing, “And God made the man according
to the Image of God” … implying that the
Image had been made such as represent-
ing God, but that the man was made after
the Image when it had acquired the force
of a pattern (3:96).20

Philo allegorizes the “shadow” in Bezalel’s name (Hb. ‫אל‬+‫צל‬+‫“=ּב‬in the shadow
of God”) to be representative of God’s word (θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν) by
which the world was created and by which the “shadow” (σκιᾷ), a representation
of God, is the reason for further creations. The “shadow” is then understood
to parallel the “image of God,” a representation of the divine—but not God
himself. The “shadow,” which is also his Word (i.e., God’s λόγος), is depicted

F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL 261 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1939), 398-9.
17 See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 57-76.
18 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 51.
19 See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 89. See also, Creation 24-25; Laws 1:80-81, 3:83.
20 Philo, vol. I, 364-6 (slightly emended).
3.2 Philo of Alexandria 75

as the paradigm upon which humankind is patterned.21 Thus, the “word” and
“shadow” appear to have the same value as “the image”—all which likely exists
in some sort of hypostasis with God—functioning as the mold upon which
humanity is formed. As we have noted previously, the imago dei referenced
in Gen 1 is viewed as having a middle standing in creation between God and
humankind and representative of the human intellect. Thus, human existence
is a copy, of a copy, of the divine.
This middle-standing aforementioned copy in the creation of humanity oc-
curs again in Philo’s Creation, where humanity is portrayed not as a copy of a
copy but rather as an imperfect copy of the first man, Adam. Indeed, this first
creation is superior since he is the model upon which the rest of humanity is
based. He is said to be created with exactness and “from the choicest of mate-
rial” (ἐκ καθαρᾶς ὕλης, Creation 137). Indeed, it is understood that the copy is
inferior to the original model.

ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἡμετέρα γένεσις ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, For our beginning is from human beings
τὸν δὲ θεὸς ἐδημιούργησεν· ἐφ᾿ ὅσον δὲ whereas God created him, and the more
κρείττων ὁ ποιῶν, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον καὶ τὸ eminent the maker is, so much the better
γινόμενον ἄμεινον … ὅπερ ἐπί τε πλαστικῆς is the work … I have observed the same
καὶ ζῳγραφίας γινόμενον εἶδον· ἀποδεῖ γὰρ thing happening in the case of sculp-
τὰ μιμήματα τῶν ἀρχετύπων, τὰ δ᾿ἀπὸ τῶν ture and painting: the copies are inferior
μιμημάτων γραφόμενα καὶ πλαττόμενα πολὺ to the originals, and what is painted or
μᾶλλον, ἅτε μακρὰν ἀφεστῶτα τῆς ἀρχῆς moulded from the copies still more so,
(Creation 140-141). owing to their long distance from the
original (Creation 140-141).22

Therefore, humanity is an inferior copy of the precise and perfect model, the
“visible image” (ὁρατὴν εἰκόνα, 146) of the invisible God (again, cf. Moses 2:65),23
but lacking the superiority and precision of the original.
As a sidebar, the use of λόγος to refer to the human mind is attested again
in Plant. 18-20. Philo argues that the reasonable part of the soul is like a coin
stamped with the “seal of God” (σφραγῖδι θεοῦ). The philosopher then inter-
prets the “breath of the life” in Gen 2 as evidence that each person is a rep-
resentation of his creator (Plant 19). He interjects the “image of God” at this
point to justify the argument that human reason is a copy of said image. The

21 Tobin, The Creation of Man, 58. Furthermore, Tobin draws a connection between Philo
and Platonic ideas, especially those espoused in Plato’s Timaeus. According to Tobin, the
primary difference between Plato and Philo has to do with cosmology and not anthropol-
ogy (Tobin, The Creation of Man, 59-60). See also David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and
the Timaeus of Plato, PA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 467-75.
22 Philo, vol. I, 111-4 (emended).
23 See Van Kooten’s comments in Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 50.
76 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

difference in this text is that the better part of the soul—the mind—which
represents that image, is fashioned after an “archetypal word” (ἀρχέτυπον λόγον,
Plant. 20). Like Alleg. Interp., the mind is modeled after the logos, a representa-
tion of the “image” specifically, and not of God himself (cf. Heir 231). Moreover,
it is notable that the physical body is not forgotten in this text. In fact, this
section of Planter follows the earlier text in Creation 137 with the implication
that the physical body is of creational value. The discussion regarding the “di-
vine breath” and the “divine image” is coupled with the idea that the body was
chosen from “the purest of all portions of the universe” (τὴν καθαρωτάτην τοῦ
παντὸς μοῖραν οὐρανόν, Plant. 20; cf. also Creation 137). With regard to the image,
however, Philo utilizes it for two critical points, 1) the “image” is a reflection
of God, that is, a lesser valued copy of the divine, so that humanity, conse-
quently, is an inferior formation based on that copy, and, in a similar sense, 2)
the human mind, i.e., the reasonable and better part of the soul, is also created
after this image.

3.2.3 Two Types of Humanity?

Philo again employs creation topoi to illustrate what appear to be two types of
humankind. One of the more important witnesses to this is Alleg. Interp. 1:31.
Philo allegorizes Gen 2:7 and relates it to “two races of humankind” (διττὰ
ἀνθρώπων γένη).

“Καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν “And God formed the man by taking clay
λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ from the earth, and breathed into his face
πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο a breath of life, and the man became a
ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν”…διττὰ living soul”… There are two types of men;
ἀνθρώπων γένη· ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐράνιος the one a heavenly person, the other an
ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ γήϊνος. ὁ μὲν οὖν οὐράνιος earthly. The heavenly person, being made
ἅτε κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονὼς φθαρτῆς καὶ after the image of God, is altogether with-
συνόλως γεώδους οὐσίας ἀμέτοχος, ὁ δὲ out part or lot in corruptible and terres-
γήϊνος ἐκ σποράδος ὕλης, ἣν χοῦν κέκληκεν, trial substance; but the earthly one was
ἐπάγη· διὸ τὸν μὲν οὐράνιόν φησιν οὐ compacted out of the matter scattered
πεπλάσθαι, κατ᾿ εἰκόνα δὲ τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ, here and there, which Moses calls “clay.”
τὸν δὲ γήϊνον πλάσμα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γέννημα, εἶναι For this reason he says that the heav-
τοῦ τεχνίτου (1:31). enly person was not moulded, but was
stamped with the image of God; while the
earthly is a moulded work of the Artificer,
but not His offspring (1:31).24

24 Philo, vol. I, 166-7, slightly emended.

3.2 Philo of Alexandria 77

Of these two types, one is heavenly and the other is earthly.25 The heavenly
person is said to bear the “image of God” and does not participate in anything
“corruptible” (φθαρτῆς) or “earthlike” (γεώδης). The incorruptibility of bearing
the image is also referenced in Wis 2:23 (see 2.4). Yet, Wisdom is addressing
actual humanity, while Philo has seemingly abstracted the image. As before,
Philo is not speaking of the “image” (or even a copy of that image!) that is
stamped upon collective humanity, but a form of person altogether different. It
seems that he refers to a metaphysical and “heavenly” (οὐράνιος) person/being.
Tobin suggests, however, that while the sense is abstract, the “heavenly man” is
a real figure who yearns after the logos and is interpreted elsewhere in Philo as
a real figure.26 Yet, the passages referenced by Tobin continually indicate that
the heavenly man is an “idea” (ἰδέα) who “lacks a body” (ἀσώματος). The two-
fold race of humanity is described again in Heir 57-58, but the abstraction of
the one created “after the image of God” is depicted as an actual person:

ὥστε διττὸν εἶδος ἀνθρώπων, τὸ μὲν θείῳ So we have two kinds of men, one that
πνεύματι λογισμῷ βιούντων, τὸ δὲ αἵματι of those who live by reason, the divine
καὶ σαρκὸς ἡδονῇ ζώντων. τοῦτο τὸ εἶδός ἐστι inbreathing, the other of those who live
πλάσμα γῆς, ἐκεῖνο δὲ θείας εἰκόνος ἐμφερὲς by blood and the pleasure of the flesh.
ἐκμαγεῖον. χρεῖος δ᾿ ἐστὶν οὐ μετρίως ὁ This last is a moulded clod of earth, the
πεπλασμένος ἡμῶν χοῦς καὶ ἀναδεδευμένος other is the faithful impress of the divine
αἵματι βοηθείας τῆς ἐκ θεοῦ· διὸ λέγεται image. Yet this our piece of moulded clay,
“οὗτος Δαμασκὸς Ἐλιέζερ”—ἑρμηνευθεὶς tempered with blood for water, has im-
δέ ἐστιν Ἐλιέζερ θεός μου βοηθός,—ἐπειδὴ perative need of God’s help, and thus we
ὁ ἔναιμος ὄγκος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὢν read “this Damascus Eliezer.” Now Eliezer
καὶ νεκρὸς συνέστηκε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται interpreted is “God is my helper,” for this
προνοίᾳ θεοῦ τοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ὑπερέχοντος καὶ mass of clay and blood, which in itself is
ὑπερασπίζοντος, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἱδρυθῆναι dissoluble and dead, holds together and
παγίως δυνηθέντος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τοῦ γένους is quickened as into flame by the provi-
ἡμῶν (57-58). dence of God, who is its protecting arm
and shield, since our race cannot of itself
stand firmly established for a single day
(57-58).27

The exposition entails an allegorical reading of the name Eleazar (of Damascus)
who appears in Gen 15:2. The two types of persons differ from what has been ex-
amined previously: one type lives by “reason” (λογισμῷ) and the other lives ac-
cording to the “blood and pleasure of the flesh” (αἵματι καὶ σαρκὸς ἡδονῇ). Thus,
as Tobin notes, the “heavenly” person that is stamped with the image of God
envisions a real person who expressly lives by reason. Moreover, the portrayal

25 Tobin suggests that the “heavenly man” is the result of an interpretation of Genesis and
not from “Iranian traditions about a Primal Man,” The Creation of Man, 132.
26 Tobin, The Creation of Man, 118-9.
27 Philo, vol. IV, 310-3.
78 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

of the second type closely parallels the language of Gen 2, especially with the
phraseology “one formed of earth” (πλάσμα γῆς). Those that are “fashioned of
clay” (πεπλασμένος χοῦς) and “imbued with blood” (ἀναδεδευμένος αἵματι) are in
need of God’s assistance (i.e., ‫עזר‬+ ‫אלי‬, “my God is a helper;” Heir 58). Due to
this condition, the earthly person is vulnerable, perishable and, therefore, in
need of divine help.
Germane to this study is the philosopher’s employment of both creation
topoi to describe two types of person. The “earthly” person, created from
clay and imbued with blood, is “aflame with seething passions and burning
lusts,”28 devoid of reason, and abandoned to its senses (57-64).29 Indeed, this
person cannot be the heir of divine things (63). The second, stamped with
the “image of God,” lives according to reason. Thus, the person who desires
to learn becomes an inheritor of both divine and incorporeal matters (63-64).
Consequently, the divine image differs here significantly from what occurs in
Alleg. Interp.. Juxtaposing, for a moment, the passages from Alleg. Interp. and
Heir referenced above, the latter offers interpretive parameters to understand
the “image of God” in the former. The depiction of the imago dei as a person
who lives by reason in Heir has simplified the abstraction in Alleg. Interp. and
confirms Tobin’s speculation that Philo’s “heavenly” person is speaking of a
conceivable reality, for some (cf. 54). The “earthly person” in Alleg. Interp., on
the other hand, differs from the “heavenly person” because of his/her, well,
“earthliness.” While the heavenly person avoids corruptibility because he is
“not formed” (οὐ πεπλάσθαι), the one of clay, formed from the ground, has no
such assurances. Philo artfully utilizes the language of Gen 2 to highlight the
corruptibility of the physical frame (πλάσμα; ἔπλασεν, Gen 2:7). Thus, being
formed “out of earth” represents an earthly, inferior mind, which mingles with
the body and results in corruptibility (Alleg. Interp. 1:32). This “earthly” person
moves beyond its “molded” state by the en-souling divine breath, a discrepancy
between Gen 1 and 2 that Philo deals with in 1:35-40. The mind of the “earthly”
person, to whom the divine breath is given is weaker than that which is made
out the divine image.

ὁ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα γεγονὼς καὶ The mind that was made after the image
τὴν ἰδέαν νοῦς πνεύματος ἂν λέγοιτο and original might be said to partake of
κεκοινωνηκέναι—ῥώμην γὰρ ἔχει ὁ λογισμὸς spirit, for its reasoning faculty possesses
αὐτοῦ—ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὕλης τῆς κούφης καὶ robustness; but the mind that was made
ἐλαφροτέρας αὔρας … (1:42) out of matter must be said to partake of
the light and less substantial air … (1:42)

28 Philo, vol. IV, 312-3.

29 See, Tobin, The Creation of Man, 119-25.
3.3 Testament of Naphtali 79

Both the “earthly” and “heavenly” conceptions are utilized by Philo to conceive
of a contrast among humankind—one that is delineated through the exercis-
ing of intellect and reason. The “heavenly” person, stamped with the imago dei,
is virtuous and his mind has been gifted by God with “facility in apprehend-
ing, persistence in doing, and tenacity in keeping” (Alleg. Interp. 1:55). Philo
clarifies that these gifts involve noble deeds and retaining the memory of holy
precepts (55). The implication is that the “earthly person” lacks these gifts; he/
she does not have the ability to be virtuous or retain the memory of holy pre-
cepts: this person’s mind “neither keeps in mind nor carries out in action the
things that are noble, but has the facility to apprehend them and no more than
this.”30 In his allegory of the Garden of Eden, Philo describes the virtues that
are to be carried out as “prudence, self-mastery, courage, [and] justice” (Alleg.
Interp. 1:63-78). Though the earth-born person is given good sense, he/she can-
not carry out the aforementioned virtues, while the heavenly person is given
the facility to do so (78-79).

3.3 Testament of Naphtali

As part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Naphtali,

originates in the Second Temple period.31 Like the other testaments, T. Naph.
records Naphtali’s final exhortation to his sons (cf. 1:1-5) and preserves another
occasion where both creation topoi are utilized in tandem.

30 Philo, vol I, 180-3.

31 Elias J. Bickerman, “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in Studies in
Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees,
ed. Amram Tropper, AGJU 68, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:272-94. Though there is
a lengthy discussion as to whether the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs should be
considered a Christian work, when compared with other Jewish texts, points of the ear-
lier pre-Christian work can be detected. For the larger debate, see Marinus de Jonge,
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin,
VGTB 25 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953); idem, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and
Interpretation, ed. Marinus de Jonge, SVTP 3, (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193-246; R. A. Kugler,
“Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the,” EDSS 2:952.
80 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

1:2. καθὼς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς οἶδε τὸ σκεῦος, 1:2. For as the potter knows the vessel,
πόσον χωρεῖ, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸ φέρει πηλόν, how much it is to contain and applies clay
οὕτω καὶ ὁ κύριος πρὸς ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ to that purpose, so also the Lord make the
πνεύματος ποιεῖ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ πρὸς τὴν body after the likeness of the spirit, and
δύναμιν τοῦ σώματος τὸ πνεῦμα ἐντίθησι, according to the capacity of the body
3. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι λεῖπον ἓν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς τρίτον does he implant the spirit. 3. And the one
τριχός· σταθμῷ γὰρ καὶ μέτρῳ καὶ κανόνι does not fall short of the other by a third
πᾶσα κτίσις ὑψίστου. 4. καὶ καθάπερ οἶδεν part of a hair for by weight and measure
ὁ κεραμεὺς ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς and rule every creation of the Most High
ἱκανή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ κύριος οἶδε τὸ σῶμα, ἕως is (made). 4. And as the potter knows the
τίνος διαρκέσει ἐν ἀγαθῷ, καὶ πότε ἄρχεται use of each (vessel) and what it is suitable
ἐν κακῷ. 5. ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι πᾶν πλάσμα καὶ for, so also the Lord knows the body, how
πᾶσα ἔννοια ἣν οὐκ ἔγνω κύριος· πάντα γὰρ far it will persist in goodness, and when
ἄνθρωπον ἔκτισε κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἑαυτοῦ.32 it begins in evil. 5. For there is nothing
that is molded and no thought which the
Lord does not know, for he created every
human being33 according to his own
image.34

Our text begins after a brief biographical note (2:1; cf. Gen 49:21), which pref-
aces the exhortatory portion of the work.35 Once again the potter/clay imagery

32 Greek text is from Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical
Edition of the Greek Text, PVTG 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 114-5. While fragments of a
Hebrew T. Naph. were discovered in cave four of Qumran, the text currently under dis-
cussion is not attested.
33 The translation of πάντα γὰρ ἄνθρωπον deviates from Hollander and Jonge’s “for every
man” since it appears that ἄνθρωπος is not, this case, gender specific but refers to both
men and women.
34 English translation is from H. W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, SVTP 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 300.
35 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295 and 302. As they note, T. Naph., unlike the other
testaments, does not focus on any one sin or virtue but rather on good works. See also
Vered Hillel, “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” JSP 16/3
(2007): 171-201, and natural (i.e., nature) goodness. This is indicated by the subheading in
manuscripts b ,l ,d, m, e, and f, περί φυσικῆς ἀγαθότητος (“concerning natural goodness”).
To this Hillel adds regarding the brief biographical information in 1:1-2:5, “the only bio-
graphical information given in T. Naph. about Naphtali apart from his birth and physi-
cal appearance (1.4-11) is his appointment as a messenger (2.1). Unlike most of the other
testaments, which intersperse and link biographical and ethical passages by using events
from the patriarch’s life as an example of the vice or virtue upon which the testament
focuses, T. Naph. mentions only this one event from Naphtali’s life. Although T. Naph.
does not focus on one particular vice or virtue but rather on ‘order unto good [works]’,
or ‘natural goodness’, the author does not veer from the established pattern of using the
patriarch as an example in the testament. Naphtali’s appointment as a messenger ‘for all
missions and messages’ (2.1) serves this purpose;” in Hillel, “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph,” 174.
See also, Robert Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, GAP (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001), 71.
3.3 Testament of Naphtali 81

is utilized, although the metaphor differs from what we have examined earlier
in Wis 15 (cf. 2.4). Here the potter is not an idol-maker; instead, the potter—
in good biblical fashion—is a metaphor for God. The second of our literary
threads is implied in that God, like the potter, brings “clay” (πηλόν) to form
the person (T. Naph. 1:2). As we have already suggested in this study, “clay” (or
“dust”) can be used synonymously with “earth.” Thus, the language of human-
ity’s creation from natural material originates from creation in Gen 2. This is
strengthened by the depiction of God bringing clay to “form the body” (ποιεῖ
τὸ σῶμα).
Yet, the rewrite of Gen 2 is more expansive here since the body and the spirit
are said to correspond to one another (v. 2). This correspondence is a reminder,
though not explicitly, of the second creation account where man appears to
have two parts, a body, which is formed from “the dust of the of the ground”
(‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬
ָ ‫) ָע ָפר ִמ‬, and a soul/spirt, which is given with the “breath of life”
(‫נִ ְש ַמת ַחיִ ים‬, e.g., Ant. 1:34; cf. also our discussion on Philo above). According to
Harm Wouter Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, this correspondence reflects
T. Naph.’s emphasis on the order in creation. Their speculation is corroborated
in v. 3, “… and from one to the other there is no discrepancy, not so much as
a third of a hair, for all the creation of the Most High (καὶ κανόνι πᾶσα κτίσις
ὑψίστου) was according to height, measure, and standard.”36 Mladen Popović
posits that the correspondence between both is similar to the basic premise
governing Greco-Roman physiognomics, namely, the belief that something
can be said about a person’s character based on his/her physical appearance.37
Like the poetic harangue against idolatry in Wis 15,38 T. Naph. depicts the
potter as having some degree of sovereign knowledge over the created vessels.

36 Hollander and Jonge, The Testament, 295.

37 Popović quotes from Pseudo-Aristotle’s Physiognomonica: “soul and body react on each
other; when the character of the soul changes, it changes also the form of the body, and
conversely, when the form of the body changes, it changes the character of the soul.” As
he notes, the different between Greco-Roman physiognomics and T. Naph. is that in the
testament God is believed to be “responsible for the sympathy between body and soul;”
Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Hellenistic Early-Period Jerusalem, STDJ 67 (Leiden, Brill, 2007), 289.
38 See also the note above on Rom 9:20-21. It may be tempting to suggest that the close-
ness by which this reflects Pauline thought is largely because of the later Christian influ-
ence on the Testaments. Some scholars have suggested, like Jonge, that “The Testaments
of Twelve Patriarchs may no longer be reckoned to the pseudepigraphic literature of
the Old Testament. They must be classified among the literary products of the early
Christian Church …” Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 117. See also, Kugler,
The Testaments, 35-38; idem, “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of,” 2:952; James R. Davila,
The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, JSJSup 105 (Leiden:
Brill, 2005), 5, 232. Incorporating the portions of the Testaments here is not an attempt to
82 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Unlike Wisdom, the potter is God and his knowledge is of the humanity’s
deeds (1:5). This knowledge of humankind is also similar to the potter in Ben
Sira who knows all of humanity’s “ways” (αἱ ὁδοὶ, Sir 33:13). In T. Naph. 1:5, how-
ever, God’s knowledge is distinctly connected to the “image of God” and not to
its earthly origins as suggested in Ben Sira 33. That is to say, the consequence to
humanity of bearing the divine image is that God is completely knowledgeable
of creation’s deeds, whether good or evil (cf. Sir 15:11-18:14).39 While there is no
creation (lit. anything molded or imitated; πλάσμα40) or intent that is beyond
God’s knowledge, unlike Ben Sira, there is little indication in this early text that
God functions deterministically (see discussion on Sir 15:11-20 in chap. 5).
Hollander and Jonge note that this text forms part of a larger exhortation
in T. Naph. (2:1-3:5).41 It depicts both sides of humanity, that is, the abstract
aspect of the mind, perhaps intended to reference the soul, and the concrete,
namely, that which is taken from earth or, in this case, that which the potter
created from clay. Since it is stated that both sides correspond to one another,
Hollander and Jonge posit that v. 6 “shows how the (inward) disposition of a
man corresponds with his activities; again these are either good or bad, either
in the law of the Lord or the law of Beliar”42 That is, that the two sides of each
person are inextricably linked.43 Humanity’s deeds, whether good or evil—of
which God is fully cognizant—cannot be separated from the state of the soul
or vice versa. Therefore, T. Naph. utilizes both creation topoi to describe both
the metaphysical and physical aspects of humanity, the body and soul/spirit.
Here the “image of God” is not so much a statement about each person but an
indication of God’s knowledge. Rhetorically, however, it allows the author to
exhort, even admonish, his audience to obedience since all of his creation is
connected to him by virtue of that image. The point is clear, God is omniscient
over human affairs because it bears his image, and one should take care to fol-
low his statutes.
The two connected aspects of humanity poetically diverge into a larger du-
alism (vv. 7-9). A clear line is drawn between light and darkness, the law of the

uncover its Jewish origins but to examine and discuss those texts that distinctly parallel
other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts.
39 Hollander and Jonge, The Testament, 295.
40 The use of πλάσμα is clearly speaking of humankind and not all of creation (e.g., animal
life). In particular, humanity is initially distinguished by having an “intent” or a “thought”
(ἔννοια). Humanity is further qualified as the focal point of this text with the use of for
humanity (γὰρ ἄνθρωπον).
41 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295; Kugler, Testaments, 71.
42 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295, 302. So, also Hollander and Jonge note, “Man’s
inner disposition determined his actions … there is a basic choice involved between good
and evil (see also, T. Abr. 1:6-8),” The Testament, 303; also, Hillel, “Naphtali,” 172.
43 See n. 141.
3.3 Testament of Naphtali 83

Lord and law of Beliar44—an antithesis often found in the T. 12 Patr.45 If the
human’s soul is identified with either, its actions will correspond. Therefore, as
1:7 suggests, not all humans are the same: “And as there is a division between
light and darkness, between seeing and hearing, so also is there a division be-
tween man and man, and between woman and woman; and it is not to be said
that the one is like the other either in face or in mind.” This dualism that again
indicates an order in God’s creation46 is evident in the descriptions of human-
kind’s physical qualities, which are described in v. 8:

πάντα γὰρ ἐν τάξει ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς καλὰ· For God made all things good in their
τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ τὸν order, the five senses in the head, and He
τράχηλον συνάπτει τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ τρίχας joined on the neck to the head, adding to
πρὸς δόξαν, εἶτα καρδίαν εἰς φρόνησιν, it the hair also for glory, then the heart
κοιλίαν εἰς διάκρισιν στομάχου, κάλαμον for understanding, the belly for secretion
πρὸς ὑγίειαν, ἧπαρ πρὸς θυμόν, χολὴν πρὸς of the stomach, calamus for health, the
πικρίαν, εἰς γέλωτα σπλῆνα, νεφροὺς εἰς liver for wrath, the gall for bitterness, the
πανουργίαν, ψύας εἰς δύναμιν, πλευρὰς εἰς spleen for laughter, the reins for crafti-
θήκην, ὀσφὺν εἰς ἰσχὺν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ness, the muscles of the loins for power,
the sides for lying down, the loan for
strength, and so on …47

The concluding exhortation (v. 9) exemplifies God’s order, “So then, my chil-
dren, be in order (τάξει) unto good, in the fear of God, and do nothing disor-
derly in scorn or out if its due season.”
This “order” (τάξις) is central to the exhortation here. With creation there
is an order; clay and spirit are brought together to create beings that would be

44 The “law of Beliar” (νόμῳ Βελιάρ) is decidedly unique language that does not appear else-
where in Second Temple Jewish literature. Beliar (Gk variant of Heb: “Belial”) is a term
that often appears in the sectarian documents at Qumran. See Michael Mach, “Demons,”
EDSS 1:189-92. Paul is the only NT writer to use the name Beliar: “Do not be mismated with
unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship
has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial (τίς δὲ συμφώνησις Χριστοῦ
πρὸς Βελιάρ)?” (2 Cor 6:14-16).
45 Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study, 59. As Hollander and Jonge note,
the dualities in this portion reflect a cosmic balancing that is key to complementary dual-
ism, The Testament, 304.
46 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 295, 302.
47 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 301. Jonge states that this verse presents great
textual difficulties. Some elements are paralleled in Rabbinic works (e.g., b. Ber. 61a-b)
while others are not. See his comments in Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Study, 57-58; Hollander and De Jonge, The Testaments, 304. Hillel notes, “The lengthy
excursus on the various parts of the body and their purpose that follows elucidates the
correlation between the vessel (human) and its function: God, like the potter, knows what
every vessel (human) contains and therefore, its purpose,” “Naphtali,” 301.
84 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

obedient to God.48 To follow his commandments is equivalent to participating

in the intended order. Humanity is created to have the “ability” to recognize and
follow the law of God and avoid the law of Beliar.49 To do otherwise, would be
to work against that intended order. Opting for such “disorderliness” (ἀταξίᾳ) is
equivalent to the gentiles, the Watchers,50 and the residents of Sodom, whom
all changed their order (3:1-5) and did not recognize God’s creation.
The use of creation topoi, the first of which utilizes Gen 2—creation “from
the dust of the ground” and the being given the “breath of life” (i.e., the soul)—
is intended to describe a natural human duality, and, second, the “image of
God,” shows that it is part of the creative order and is given the ability to rec-
ognize God and be obedient. In fact, T. Naph.’s audience is exhorted to obe-
dience; to choose disorderliness places God’s creation in the maligned camp
of the Israel’s mythic enemies. Comparatively, some nuance to the use of the
divine image occurs here that is missing in texts examined earlier. Even though
God has absolute knowledge over humanity, precisely because of the “image,”
the imago has a reciprocal effect allowing the person, in turn, to recognize
God’s law.51 Thus, there is a dual function for the divine image, providing God
with knowledge over humanity and conversely facilitating a recognition of
God among humanity.

3.4 4 Ezra

While 4 Ezra is just beyond our Second Temple purview, this work, which
was composed between the end of the 1st c. CE and the beginning of the
2nd c. CE, preserves traditions that date to an earlier period.52 4 Ezra was

48 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 305; Hillel, “Naphtali,” 301. These dual elements ap-
pear to offer some conceptual parameters for understanding T. Naph.’s use of the “image
of God”—though God’s image here says more about his absolute knowledge than it does
about humanity. Rhetorically, however, the reader understands that something is being
said about his own humanity and relation to God.
49 Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments, 304.
50 Hollander and Jonge note that the Watchers are often found in collocation with Sodom
(e.g., Sir 16:7, 3 Macc 2:4, Jub 20:5, Lk 17:26, 2Pet 2:4, and Jud 6), Hollander and Jonge, The
Testaments, 308).
51 A similar message is introduced in the Sib. Or. 3:9-11: “You men that bear the form that God
did mold in his image, why do you wander at random and walk not in the straight path,
being ever mindful of the eternal Creator” (ἄνθρωποι θεόπλαστον ἔχοντες ἐν εἰκόνι μορφήν
τίπτε μάτην πλάζεσθε καὶ οὐκ εὐθεῖαν ἀταρπόν βαίνετε, ἀθανάτου κτίστου μεμνημένοι αἰεί)?
52 On the dating of 4 Ezra, see Michael Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of
Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 9-10. Stone is specific in his
3.4 4 Ezra 85

originally authored in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek,

which are survived through paraphrases and quotation in early Christian lit-
erature. The Greek version, which is largely lost, survives only in later trans-
lations, Latin (e.g., the Latin Vulgate), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian,
Georgian, and Coptic.53 Portions of chapter 8, which occur within the third of
seven visions (6:35-9:25) that form the overall structure of the book,54 are rel-
evant to this study. According to Stone, this third vision55 is broken into three
“subvisions” (6:38-7:44, 7:45-8:3, 8:4-62).56 The first subvision (6:38-7:44) of the
third vision begins with an extended rewriting of Gen 1’s creation. Indeed,
God’s purpose and responsibility to creation and humankind permeates the
rest of the work.57 Upon the creation of humanity, Adam is given rule over
all and spoken of as the one from whom all nations descend (i.e., “the people
whom you have chosen,” 6:53-54; the “other nations,” 6:56).58 The conversation
continues the same pattern of the first two visions; Ezra, the scribe and seer, is
conversing with the angel Uriel. In 7:45-74, Ezra petitions Uriel on humanity’s
behalf as he looks forward to the bliss of the world to come and is disturbed
that many will be tormented.59

dating of 4 Ezra suggesting a date during the reign of Emperor Domitian between 81-96
CE. Also, idem, “4 Ezra,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT 2.2 (Assen:
Van Gorcum; Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984), 412-14; Bruce Metzger, “The Fourth Book
of Ezra,” OTP 1:520; John J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing; Livinia: Michigan,
1998), 195-6. On its relation to Second Temple literature, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 36-42, and
Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” 522-3.
53 G. H. Box, “4 Ezra,” in APOT, 2:543-49. See esp. Andy Chi Kit Wong, “4 Ezra,” The Online
Critical Pseudepigrapha, https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/intro/4Ezra; Metzger, “The
Fourth Book of Ezra,” 1:518-20.
54 The seven-vision structure is similar to 2 Baruch, Stone, Fourth Ezra, 51.
55 The first three visions are dialogues between Ezra and Uriel, which Stone suggests is
an unusual form of revelation, “Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple: Theology,
Perception and Conversion,” JSJ 12/2 (1981): 202.
56 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 50.
57 Stone, “4 Ezra,” 413. See also, Jonathan A. Moo, Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra,
FRLANT 236 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011).
58 The conception that from Adam (and Eve) all people descend also occurs in Tob 8:6, “you
made Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of
mankind has sprung (ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα).” See also Acts 17:26, “… and
he made from one [man] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth …(ἐποίη-
σέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς).”
59 Collins quotes 7:47, “the world to come will bring joy to the few, but torment to the many,”
in regard to Ezra’s most pressing concern, Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 204. In this
subvision Ezra is warned that he must not place himself among the sinners (7:77; 8:1-3).
86 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

In the beginning of chap. 8, Ezra’s concern for humanity is echoed in re-

lation to creation (cf. 8:5-10). The seer’s concern shifts, however, in v. 8 from
collective humanity to God’s people (v. 14). The attention seems to shift back
again to general humanity with a biblically styled question, “‘But what is man
that you are angry with him; or what is a corruptible race, that you are so bit-
ter against it’” (8:34)? The question departs from biblical tradition (cf. Job 7:17,
15:4; Pss 8:4, 144:3) and takes on a decidedly negative tone.60 The portrayal of
humanity here is decidedly low, if not, pessimistic (4 Ezra 8:36).61 Uriel’s re-
sponse, as Stone notes, is that “God rejoices over the reward of the righteous”
and is not concerned with the death, destruction, and judgment of sinners (v.
37).62 The angelic host rhetorically argues on God’s behalf by the use of a farm-
ing metaphor, “For just as the husbandman sows much seed upon the ground
and plants a multitude of plants, and yet not all which were sown shall be
saved in due season, nor shall all that were planted take root; so also they that
are sown in the world shall not all be saved.” Ezra cunningly reverses the meta-
phor to petition for all of humanity (8:42-45):

I answered and said, “If I have found favor before you, let me speak. For if the
farmer’s seed does not come up, because it has not received your rain in due
season, or if it has been ruined by too much rain, it perishes. But humanity, who
has been formed by your hands and is called your own image because he is made
like you, and for whose sake you have formed all things—have you also made
him like the farmer’s seed? No, O Lord who are over us! But spare your people
and have mercy on your inheritance, for you have mercy on your own creation.63

Interestingly, the first line of his petition places the onus on God for the un-
successful crop, since he is ultimately responsible for the amount of rain that
falls.64 In what appears to be a style of argumentation resembling a minori ad

60 Stone also notes parallels to 2 Bar. 48:14, 17, Fourth Ezra, 275.
61 See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 125-126. Thompson comments on Ezra’s personal pessi-
mism that Ezra’s penchant is to number himself among the sinners, at least until 9:36,
although he notes that those sections where Ezra is concerned with the tragic end of
humanity occur in early episodes, especially prior to chapter 9, Responsibility for Evil, 131.
62 A similar response is given to Ezra after pleading from the argument on sinners behalf
(4:4-19), “I will not concern myself about the fashioning of those who have sinned … but
I will rejoice over the creation of the righteous,” Stone, Fourth Ezra, 281. See also, Karina
Martin Hogan’s comments on Wolfgang Harnisch’s work, Verhängnis und Verheißung der
Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4 Buch Esra und in
der syr. Baruchapokalypse, FRLANT 97 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969), in
Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 17.
63 Except for a few English language updates translations are from Stone, Fourth Ezra, 276-7
(slightly emended).
64 Thompson, Responsibility for Evil, 128.
3.4 4 Ezra 87

maius—arguing an inference from a minor to a major premise—the seer shifts

from the seed of the husbandmen, the minor premise (minori), to God’s cre-
ation, humanity, the major premise (maius). This style of argumentation65 sug-
gests that the major premise is established upon the validity of the minor one.
The dependence of the seed’s growth on God, who sends the rain, and human-
ity’s dependence, which bears the divine image, marks the minor and major
premise, respectively. If it is true that God is responsible for a failed crop, then
does his responsibility not also extend to humanity which bears his image?
More to the point, if the success of the seed’s growth is dependent on God, who
sends the rain, then how much more important is it to humankind,66 who is
formed in his image, and made like him. Ezra’s argument is punctuated at the
end of v. 44, “… for whose [i.e., all of humanity] sake you have formed all things.
Have you made him like the farmer’s seed?” In the end, the petition only serves
to raise Ezra’s status because he placed himself among the unrighteous, but it
fails to convince God; the unrighteous, though perhaps bearing the “image of
God,” have “scorned his law and forsaken his ways” (8:55).
In conclusion, what have we learned about 4 Ezra’s depiction of human na-
ture from its use of the imago dei? First, it is clear that all of humanity bear, in
some way, the image of their creator (and are also the very workmanship of

65 This style of argumentation is also attested in the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature.
In Rabbinic parlance this style of argumentation is known as qal va-ḥomer (lit., light and
heavy) and is attributed to Hillel in the Tosefta (t. Sanh. 7:11), a document which is first
codified in the 3rd c. CE. See Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction
to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1996, 18, but clearly preserves elements of Jewish thought and interpretation from
earlier centuries. For a discussion of these ancient Jewish methods of interpretation as
they appear in several pericopae in the gospels (e.g., Luke 4:18-19, 10:25-37, Matt 11:10), see
R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. García “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to
Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea:
Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels Volume 2, ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley,
JCP 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 348-74.
66 The argument indicates a departure from the notion one encounters earlier in 4 Ezra,
namely, that the world was created for Israel’s sake, Stone, Fourth Ezra, 284. Cf. also 4
Ezra 6:55-59. The rest of the nations which descend from Adam are insignificant and
there exists a particular hope that God will respond on Israel’s behalf. To the contrary, the
seer’s petition here is for the whole of humanity rather than simply for a single nation (cf.
2 Bar 4:18). On a side note, one might be tempted to follow Stone’s suggestion that 8:42-45
is the only place where Adam is referred to as being created in the “image of God,” Stone,
Fourth Ezra, 284. Adam, however, is not referred to explicitly in this section. Yet, if the rest
of the nations descend from Adam, and the nations refer to all humanity, then one may
infer that Adam bears the imago dei.
88 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

his hands67). Because some have rejected God’s ways, his image does not save
creation from judgment but instead invites it. Second, the link is so critical
that it initially seems reasonable to argue that God should be compassionate
even to those who will lack a share in the world to come.68 After all, would
God allow the destruction of a portion of creation which is made like him—in
his image—and for whose sake all things were formed? If God is responsible
for the failed crop, is God not also somehow responsible for human failures?
To this the answer is simple: although humanity—the workmanship of his
hands—is created in his image, God’s mercy and protection from final judg-
ment is not necessitated. Regardless of the imago dei, humanity still incurs the
judgment for its rejection of God and God’s statutes.

3.5 Hodayot

After the decipherment of the Hodayot, scholars quickly noticed the particu-
larly low view of humanity contained in the poetic compositions. Already in
1956, just two years after the publication of the editio princeps,69 and less than
a decade after their discovery in Cave 1, J. P. Hyatt published “The View of Man

67 The language of being “formed” by God’s hands in 8:42 may allude to Gen 2. Levison,
however, contends that it is simply a reflection of the potter metaphor found in biblical
literature. He states further, “… the implicit view of God as a potter who created humanity
from the ground is a positive portrait of creation from the earth,” Portraits of Adam, 125.
We have suggested earlier that the language generally contained in the metaphor of the
potter and his clay originates with Gen 2. The juxtaposition of the “image of God” with
the one “who has been formed” indicates that the author of 4 Ezra had both creation ac-
counts in mind.
68 To the request for God’s mercy on behalf of humanity, see also the likely related text in
the Apocalypse of Sedrach, a Christian text dating between the 2nd c. and 5th c. CE,
OTP 1:606: “‘Have mercy, Lord, on your image (τὴν εἰκόνα σου) and have compassion, for
the three years are many.’ God says to him: ‘If a man live an hundred years and remember
his death and confess before men and I find him, after a time I will forgive all his sins.’
Sedrach says again: ‘I will again beseech your compassion for your creature (τὸ πλάσμα
σου; lit. “your formed thing”). The time is long otherwise death overtake him and snatch
him suddenly.’” In his plea Sedrach refers to humankind as “his image” and “his creature.”
While the language is not precisely parallel to our creation topoi, the ideas are clearly
parallel. God is expected to have mercy on his creation to which he is so intimately related
by having stamped them with his image, as well as being responsible for forming them
(πλάσμα is the nominative form of πλάσσω, cf. LXX, Gen 2:7.
69 Sukenik, idem, Otzar ha-megillot, Eng. trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955), 48-58. See more recently Hartmut Stegemann, Eileen Schuller,
and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 4QHodayota-f
and 1QHodayotb, DJD XL (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009); also, Eileen M. Schuller and
3.5 Hodayot 89

in the Qumran Hodayot,” concluding that the hymns depict a pessimism to-
ward humanity that lacks parallel in the Hebrew Bible.70 In that same year,
Licht noted that the Thanksgiving Hymns utilized, among other things, the
common expression “creature of clay” to express humanity’s baseness.71 So too
Lichtenberger, in an important work that examines the image of humanity (men-
schenbild) in the scrolls, highlights the extent to which the lowliness of human-
kind is depicted in relation to God’s righteousness (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien72),
as well as humanity’s utter sinfulness (Elendsbetrachtungen), in the hymns.73
More recently, Daise notes that one of the concepts that permeate the col-
lection is how humanity as a creation is formed from “dust,” “clay,” or “ash”.74
Yet, while the hymns have not lacked attention, studies specifically dealing

Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition, EJL 36 (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature), 10-11.
70 N TS 2/4 (May, 1956), 283.
71 Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 33-34; idem, “The Doctrine,” 10-11.
72 This was suggested first in a study by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegen-
wärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang
über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1966).
73 Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1980), 73-75. See also Stephen Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the
Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, STDJ 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 415.
74 Michael Daise, “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty
Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed.
Lawrence H. Schiffman et. al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 293-305. Others
have noted the importance of creation to Qumran literature, see John J. Collins, “In the
Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,”
in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated
Issues and Technological Innovations, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry, STDJ 30
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 609-18; idem, “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology
in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García-Martínez, BETL 168
(Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 287-305; idem, “Interpretations of the Creation of Humanity
in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, SDSSRL (Grand Rapids;
Eerdmans, 2005), 29-43; Bilhah Nitzan, “The Idea of Creation and Its Implications in
Qumran Literature,” in Creation in Christian in Jewish Tradition, ed. Henning G. Reventlow
and Yair Hoffman, JSOTSup 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic: 2002), 240-64; Florentino
García-Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Creation of Heaven and Earth:
Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity,
and Modern Physics, TBN (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 49-70; Matthew E. Gordley, “Creation
Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers,” JJS 59/2 (2008): 252-72; Moshe Bernstein,
“Contours of Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and Nomenclature,”
in Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran, STDJ 107, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2013),
1:63-91.
90 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

with the baseness of humanity have waned somewhat.75 One area, however,
that has remained at the forefront of research is the Hodayot’s re-use of the
Hebrew Bible,76 much of which is not preserved in explicit quotations77 but,
instead, in deft allusions.78 These allusions, however, are not simply a pastiche

75 See Eileen Schuller and Lorenzo Di Tommaso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayot, 1948-1996,”
DSD 4/1 (Mar.,1997): 55-101; and Schuller, “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot, 1993-
2010,” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011): 119-162. For humanity specifically, see Hyatt,
“The View of Man in the Hodayot”; Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 27-52; idem, “The
Doctrine,” IEJ 6 (1956): 1-13, 89-101, esp. 10-11; Svend Holm-Nielsen, “The Concept of Man,”
in Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, ATDan 2 (Arhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 274-7;
Menahem Mansoor, “View of Man and Sin,” 59-62; Jean Carmignac, “Homme,” in Les textes
de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961-1963), 137-8; Mathias Delcor, “L’anthropologie,” in
Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris : Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 47-52; Lichtenberger,
Studien zum Menschenbild, 74-75. See also Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam; Stephen
Hultgren, “Covenant, Law, and the Righteousness of God: A Study in the Hodayot of
Qumran,” in From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community (STDJ 66;
Leiden: Brill, 2007), 409-60, esp. 444-7; Nicholas A. Meyer, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory:
Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology, NTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, August 2016).
76 See Schuller, “Recent Scholarship,” 146-8.
77 Although Wernberg-Møller argues that dependency on the Hebrew Bible is witnessed
particularly when the Hodayot utilizes specific phraseology, P. Wernberg-Møller, “The
Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism,” in Textus: Annual of the Hebrew
University Bible Project, ed. Shemaryahu Talmon, vol. 4, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 134-5.
78 The only full length study on allusions in the Hodayot is Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural
Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, STDJ 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). See also Mathias
Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 26-30; Emile
Puéch, “Hodayot,” EDSS 1:365-8, esp. 367; John F. Elwolde, “The Hodayot’s use of the
Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 1),” in Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at
the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn, August 2006, ed. Bob Becking and Eric
Peels (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 65-88; idem, “The ‘Hodayot”s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical
Contributions (Book 3: pss 73-89),” DSD 17/2 (2010): 159-79; idem, “The ‘Hodayot”s Use
of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 2: PSS 42-72),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls
in Context I: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages,
and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange et al., in association with Bennie H. Reynolds III, 2
vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:79-99; idem, “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical
Contributions (Book 4: Pss 90-106),” in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of
the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, ed. George J. Brooke et al.; Leiden (Brill, 2012),
65-87; Armin Lange, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature,
JAJSup 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011), 281-90; William A. Tooman,
“Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and Composition in ‘Hodayot’
(1QHa) 11:6-19,” DSD 18/1 (2011): 54-73; Sarah J. Tanzer, “Biblical interpretation in the
‘Hodayot,’” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Mathias Henze
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 255-75; Armin Lange, “The Textual History of the Book
of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran ‘Hodayot,’” in
Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen
3.5 Hodayot 91

of earlier, or contemporary biblical literature but reflect the rich, theological—

even ideological—understanding, whether intended or not, of the yaḥad.79
Especially key in this regard is the methodology by which the author shapes his
allusions, echoing the content of one biblical narrative, and, as we will argue,
purposely steering away from a closely related text. Germane to this study are
the occasions in which the Thanksgiving Hymns allude to the unique creation
language of Gen 2, specifically, the idea that humanity is a “creation of clay” or
“dust,” while avoiding, it seems, the “image of God.”80

3.5.1 Creation Topoi and the “Creatures of Dust” and “Clay”

The Hodayot are permeated with depictions of humanity’s utter frailty. The
hymnist(s) sought to depict this vividly with the refrain “creature of dust”
(‫יצר עפר‬, e.g., 1QHa 21:17), or the more common expression, as initially noted by
Licht, “creature of clay” (‫יצר חמר‬, e.g., 1QHa 12:30). As Mathias Delcor astutely
posits, “many times in the hymns the idea appears that man is a creation of
clay … which is keeping with the account about the first man from Genesis.”81
Indeed, the language utilized for “creature of dust,” ‫ יצר‬and ‫עפר‬, and the lat-
ter “creature of clay,” ‫ יצר‬and ‫חמר‬, are terminologically linked to the creation
of man in Gen 2.82 So too, Newsom states, “The background to this general
conception is easy enough to identify—the creation story in Genesis 2, where
human beings are “shaped” (‫ )יצר‬by God from the “dust” (‫ )עפר‬of the earth …”83
This link becomes clearer when one considers that “clay” (‫ )חמר‬appears to be

Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday, ed. Jeremy Penner et al., STDJ 98 (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 251-84. As Elwolde notes regarding the lack of biblical citations in the hymns,
“Moreover, the lack of citation formulae (or other indicators) in the Hodayot means that
usages derived from the Bible are always embedded or woven into the text as a whole
and their identification is always a matter of speculation,” in “The Hodayot’s Use of the
Psalter,” 80.
79 It has already been noted that the redacted nature of the Hodayot betrays evidence
of more than one author’s editorial hand and the scroll has been divided between the
Teacher Hymns and Community Hymns (DJD XL, 10-11). Although further differentia-
tion among the Community Hymns has been suggested by Angela Kim Harkins, “The
Community Hymns Classification: A Proposal for Further Differentiation,” DSD 15 (2008):
121-154, she notes, “Among the distinctive features of the latter group are the themes of
creation (and in turn predestination); salvation through God’s covenant; rhetorical ques-
tions; soteriological confessions; the need for the salvation of the lowly speaker; and em-
phasis on revealed knowledge” (109).
80 See Fletcher, All the Glory of Adam, 107.
81 Delcor, Les Hymnes De Qumran, 47.
82 See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 77-79.
83 Carol A. Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” 345.
92 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

synonymous with “dust” (‫ )עפר‬in the Bible.84 Furthermore, as we have already

noted above, “clay” (‫ חמר‬/πηλός) appears to be an acceptable replacement for
‫ עפר‬when rewriting the creation account of Gen 2 in Second Temple texts.
Both phrases, “creature of dust” and “creature of clay,” which employ a sub-
stantive form of the verb ‫יצר‬, and ‫( ]ה[עפר‬and its synonym ‫)]ה[חמר‬, function
as idiomatic expressions, which develop from the language of the Bible but
are, strictly speaking, not biblical phrases. Moreover, since biblical terminol-
ogy allows ‫ ָע ָפר‬and ‫( ח ֶֹמר‬and even ‫ ) ֵא ֶפר‬to function synonymously, “creature
of clay” (‫ )יצר ]ה[חמר‬and “creature of dust” (‫ )יצר [ה]עפר‬are not unlike one
another; they both share the same basic meaning. Lichtenberger contends
that the “the creature of dust” has two points of biblical inspiration, Gen 2:7
and Ps 103:14. While the phrase does not explicitly occur in the Bible, the two
biblical passages offer a place that comes very close, with Gen 2:7 being the
“base point” (Grundstelle).85 Both are the only places in the Hebrew Bible that
use some form of ‫—יצר‬the verb, Gen 2, and its derivative noun, Psalm 103—in
collocation with ‫עפר‬. Gen 2, however, is a more commendable point of ori-
gin. It depicts “man”—and viewed in later texts as a paradigm for collective
humanity—as being formed of “dust from the ground” and, therefore, as “a
creature of dust/clay.”86
Our suggestion presumes that both idioms (i.e., topoi) also function as allu-
sions. Hughe’s, however, attempts to delineate between allusions and idioms.
She, in particular, highlights the phrase “creature of clay and kneaded with
water” (‫יצר החמר ומגבל המים‬, cf. 1QHa 9:23) and its variations.87 She rightly
notes that the term “to knead” (‫ )גבל‬is decidedly non-biblical and an example
of early Mishnaic Hebrew.88 She remains doubtful that every occurrence of

84 A couple of examples suffice to show that ‫ עפר‬and ‫ חמר‬are synonyms of one another:
“Please remember that you made me like clay and to dust you will return me“ (‫זְ ָכר־נָ א ִכי־‬
‫ל־ע ָפר ְת ִש ֵיבנִ י‬
ָ ‫יתנִ י וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫ ַכח ֶֹמר ֲע ִש‬, Job 10:9); “Whether they should heap up silver like dust,
and to arrange clothing like clay” (‫ ִאם־יִ ְצבֹר ֶכ ָע ָפר ָכ ֶסף וְ ַכח ֶֹמר יָ ִכין ַמ ְלּבּוׁש‬, Job 27:16). See
also 4:19, 30:19.
85 Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 80.
86 Lichtenberger is correct when he notes that ‫ יצר [ה]עפר‬has a wider array of connec-
tions with the Hebrew Bible than with ‫יצר [ה]חמר‬, citing, Gen 2:7, 3:19, Ps 103:14, 104:29,
Job 4:19, 8:19, 10:9, Qoh 3:20, 12:7, Studien zum Menschenbild, 79-80.
87 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46; Kittel notes, “The whole expression is one characteristic
of the author’s theology …” The Hymns of Qumran, 61.
88 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46; Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 81-82. See
Jonas C. Greenfield, “The Root ‘GBL’ in Mishnaic Hebrew and in the Hymnic Literature
from Qumran,” in Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic
Philology, ed. Jonas C. Greenfield, Shalom Paul, Michael Stone, and Avital Pinnick
(Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 690-8; repr. from RevQ 2 (1959-1960): 155-62.
3.5 Hodayot 93

‫ יצר‬amounts to an allusion, suggesting that the “creature of clay” should be

considered an idiom, not an allusion, unless there is evidence to suggest other-
wise.89 Three points are especially pertinent here. First, as already noted, since
“clay” (‫ )חמר‬can function as a synonym for “dust” (‫ )עפר‬then “creature of clay”
(‫ )יצר חמר‬is linguistically similar to “creature of dust” (‫)יצר עפר‬. Second, an
idiom may also serve as allusion.90 While the unique phrasing “creature of
clay” is non-biblical, the unique elements of the idiom echo a particular nar-
rative and are therefore an allusion.91 Third, the allusive tendency of this
phraseology is strengthened by the substantive use of ‫ יצר‬to indicate “someone
formed.” In biblical literature, the substantive of ‫ יצר‬is most often utilized to
speak of an individual’s “inclination” (e.g., Is 26:3).92 The only occasion where
this form of ‫ יצר‬is used in biblical literature to refer to someone who has been
formed is Is 29:16. Unsurprisingly, it appears in one of Isaiah’s potter/clay con-
texts. Moreover, our only legitimate biblical parallel to “creature of dust/clay”
is Gen 2:7. While “creature of clay” has brought us additionally to Is 29:16, the
intention to portray the baseness of humanity that results from one’s earthly
origins, again, naturally transports the reader back to Genesis. This is not to
suggest that either phrase has a single reference point (cf. Jer 2), but instead
those phrases develop through a host of biblical images that provide the raw
material for the Hodayot’s poetic license. In fact, while our focus here is on
allusions to Gen 2, it should be noted that these distinct phrases are intended
to recall—along with creation—an intertextual biblical complex which deals
with the earthly and base origins of humanity.93

3.5.2 The Creature Speaks in 1QHa 20:7-22:4394

One of the closing hymns in the Hodayot—although fragmentary at points—
preserves the most attestations of both “creature of dust” (20:29; 21:17, 25, 34)
and “creature of clay” (20:29, 35; 21:38; 22:12).95

89 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46.

90 Pace Kittel who argues that allusions have a single reference point, The Hymns of
Qumran, 51.
91 See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 78.
92 Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 77.
93 See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 87.
94 See “Division of Psalms,” in DJD XL, 271.
95 Some of these are reconstructed on partial readings (21:11-12, 34). There appears to be at
least a partial attestation with “creature” in 21:19.
94 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Col. 2096
29. … And there is a return to dust for ]‫ …ותשובת עפר ליצר חמר בקצ ֯א ֯פ[כה … י‬.29
the creature of clay at the time of [your] ‫ אל אשר לקח משם ומה ישיב עפר‬30 ‫עפר‬ ֯ ‫֯שו֯ ב‬
anger […] dust returns 30 to that from …‫וא ֯פ ֯ר[ על משפטכה ומ] ֯ה יבין‬
֯
which it was taken. What can dust and
ashes reply [concerning your judgment?
And ho]w can it understand …

35. … As for me, I remain silent. What ‫ …ואני נאלמתי ומה ֯אדבר על זות כדעתי‬.35
could I say concerning this? According to ‫ אדבר כיא אם‬36 ‫דברתי מצורוק יצר חמר ומה‬
my knowledge I have spoken, a creature ‫פתחתה פי ואיכה אבין כיא אם השכלתני‬
mixed from clay. What 36 can I say unless
you open my mouth? How can I under-
stand unless you give me insight?
Col. 21
11. … And as for me, a creature 12 [of clay ‫ [חמר ומגבל מים מבנה ע] ֯פר ולב‬12 ‫ ואני יצר‬.11
(‫ )יצר החמר‬and a thing mixed with water, …‫האבן למי נחשבתי עד זות‬
a structure of d]ust and a heart of stone
with whom shall I be reckoned until
this?…

17. […] and as for me, a creature of dust ‫ [ … ולבר] ֯ך‬‎18‫[… ] ‏‬°°° ‫ ‏[ … ]ואני יצר העפר‬.17
[…] 18 [… and to ble]ss your name I will ]°°‫ ד אל‬-- [‫צר‬ ֯ ֯‫ [… ]י‬‎19‫֯ש ֯מ ֯כה אפתח ֯פ]י …א] ‏‬
open [my] mouth[…’] 19 […]creature […
d …’l …]

24. … How] 25 can I, as a creature of dust ‫ אשמר ביצר עפר מהתפרר‬‎25‫ …איכה] ‏‬.24
(‫)יצר עפר‬, be preserved from being divid- ‫ ו֯ מקוי‬‎26‫ומת{ו}ך דונג ֯ב ֯ה[מס לפני אש … ] ‏‬
ed and from dissolving (like) wax when it ‫אפר‬
֯
m[elts before the fire …] 26 and a heap of
ashes …

31. […] ‘ vacat And as for me, a creature, h ] …97‫ עפר‬or ‫[ חמר‬°‫ע [[ ]] ואני יצר ה‬°] … [ .31
(of dust or clay) […]

34. [And as for me, a cr]eature of dust ‫ [ואני י] ֯צ ֯ר העפר ידעתי ברוח אשר נתתה‬.34
(‫)י] ֯צ ֯ר העפר‬, I know by the spirit that you ] … [‫בי ֯כי֯ ֯א‬
have placed me in that[…]

37. […] ḥ š to you rage and aven[ging] jeal- ‫ לכה חמה וקנאה‬°°°°‫ ש‬°°°°°‫ ֯ח‬°°] … [ .37
ousy […] 38 […] creature of clay […] ] … [° ‫הח ֯מ ֯ר‬
֯ ‫ [ … ] י֯ צר‬38 ]‫נו֯ ֯ק[מת‬

96 For the sake of brevity, rather than reproducing the entire hymn, we have provided the
passages where either of are two phrases appear. Unless otherwise noted Hodayot texts
and translation are from Stegemann, Schuller, and Newsom, 1QHodayota. See, more re-
cently, Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot. The numbering of the hymn follows DJD XL,
which have been converted from Sukenik’s earlier edition.
97 See DJD XL, 267, for reconstruction.
3.5 Hodayot 95

Col. 22
12. … And I, a creature of clay, depend ‫ ואני יצר החמר נשענתי‬.12
13. upon [your strong] ar[m and …] my ‫זר[ועכה החזקה ו…] ֯ר ֯גלי‬
֯ ‫ ֯ע ֯ל‬.13
feet …

19. […] And I, a creature of clay or ] …98 ‫ העפר‬or ‫יצר[החמר‬

֯ ‫ [ … ] ואני‬.19
dust …]…

20:7-14 presents a liturgy which lists the daily times of prayer in the Qumran
community—a list that is similar to 1QS 9:26-10:4.99 Lines 14-27 presents the
maskil’s affirmation that he is knowledgeable of God because of the spirit placed
in him (‫ )ידעתיכה אלי ברוח אשר נתתה בי‬by God, a sentiment which is echoed else-
where (cf. 1QHa 5:36; 8:29; 21:34). Indeed, it is God’s holy spirit (‫ רוח קודשכה‬100)
that has given the maskil access the mysteries of God’s wisdom. The rest of this
particular section, though fragmentary, attempts to draw a rhetorical chasm
between the speaker—all those who belong to God’s appointed community—
and all those outside of the community. Such is garnered from the lines in the
hymn that describe, on the one hand, the “appointed times of destruction”
(‫מועדי שממה‬, 20:20) for the wicked, and, on the other, those “who know you in
the time of your glory they will rejoice,” (‫יודעיכה ובקצ כבודכה יגילו‬, 25).
The first section of the hodayah that evokes humanity’s creatureliness by
way of Gen’s creation incorporates the first occurrence of “creature of clay.”
Lines 27-30 of col. 20 are an expanded rewrite of Gen 3:19.

Gen 3:19 1QHa 20:27-30

‫ִמ ֶמנָ ה ֻל ָק ְח ָת‬ ‫ואני מעפר לקח[תני‬
‫ומחמר ק]ורצתי למקור נדה וערות קלון‬

‫י־ע ָפר ַא ָתה‬

ָ ‫ִכ‬ ‫מקוי עפר‬
‫ומגבל[ במים סוד רמ]ה ומדור חושך‬

‫ל־ע ָפר ָתׁשּוב‬

ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ותשובת עפר‬
‫ליצר חמר בקצ אפ[כה‬

‫ִמ ֶמנָ ה ֻל ָק ְח ָת‬ ‫י]שוב עפר אל אשר לקח משם‬

98 See DJD XL, 273, for reconstruction.

99 See Richard S. Sarason “Communal Prayer at Qumran and Among the Rabbis,” in
Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the
Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther Chazon
et al., STDJ 40 (Leiden Brill, 2003), 157.
100 Lit. “the spirit of your holiness.” This is an important distinction. The “spirit of your holi-
ness” mimics the language of the Hebrew Bible and the single occasion of ‫רּוח ָק ְד ְשָך‬ ַ
(Ps 51:11). This form appears five times in the 1QHa (4:38; 6:24; 8:20, 25, 30) and once in
1QFestival Prayers 3 ii 7. As one moves into the New Testament the possessive pronoun is
lost (e.g., Luke 1:67; 2:25).
96 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

Gen 3:19 1QHa 20:27-30

… for out of it you were taken … As for me from dust [you] took [me,
and from clay] I was [sh]aped as a source
of pollution and shameful dishonour,

… you are dust … a heap of dust

and a thing kneaded [with water, a coun-
cil of magg]ots, a dwelling of darkness.

… and to dust you shall return … And there is a return to dust

for the creature of clay at the time of
[your] anger […]

… and to dust you shall return … dust returns

to that from which it was taken.

Part of the additions that expand and rewrite Genesis depict a heavily pessi-
mistic view of the speaker’s humanity (cf. also, 5:32, 9:24). Yet, while he refers
to himself in exceedingly demeaning terms, this view is not solely the realm of
the speaker. A parallel in another hodayah indicates that the language here is
intended to reflect the yaḥad and, by extension, collective humanity.

5:30-33
‫ [כי מה ה]יא רוח בשר להבין‬ .30
‫[ גדול ומה ילוד אשה בכול [ג]ד[ו]ל[י]ך הנוראים והוא‬ ]◦‫ בכול אלה ולהשכיל בס‬.31
‫ מבנה עפר ומגבל מים ֯א[שמה וחט]אה סודו ערות קלון ומ[קור הנ]דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬.32
‫ בו‬.33

30. …[But how i]s a spirit of flesh to understand

31. all these things and to discern bs◦[…] great […]? What is one born of woman amid
all your [gre]at fearful acts? He
32. is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ful gui]lt is his founda-
tion, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit rules
33. him.

The most pertinent portion here is the response to the question, “What is
one born of woman amid all your great fearful acts” (‫ומה ילוד אשה בכול גדוליך‬
‫ ?)הנוראים‬The response is quite similar to the speaker’s self-description in our
hodayah, especially the portrayal of humanity as a “source of impurity” (‫מקור‬
‫ )הנדה‬and an “obscene shame” (‫)ערות קלון‬. What is clearly the self-recognition
of the speaker in our hodayah is expanded to depict collective humanity (i.e.,
all those born of woman). Certainly, the depiction in lines 27-30 is much lower
than what is attested in the Bible. Newsom astutely notes, “A real difference
exists between this characterization of the human subject and the language
of self-abasement found in the Psalms. For the most part the language of the
3.5 Hodayot 97

Psalms is the language of misery, not self-loathing.”101 This self-loathing—to

utilize Newsom’s terminology—is intensified by the use of “creature of clay”
(20:29). A creature of filth, whom the speaker embodies, is made of the same
substance to which he will return; from dust he is created, a source of impurity
and shameful dishonor. “The language of self-loathing,” as Newsom contends,
“is unleashed as the self repudiates itself in disgust. Described in terms that
are the inverse of the divine autonomous will, wisdom, and righteousness,
it is a creature of inert clay and water, without understanding, both unclean
and guilty.”102 The speaker who is made of “dust and ashes” is inherently cor-
rupt and without value. So base is his existence that the creature is unable to
respond to God’s judgment or acquire understanding apart from God’s direct
engagement (cf. 20:30-38).
A series of rhetorical questions reveal the creature’s utter inability to act
without God: “What can I say unless you open my mouth? How can I under-
stand unless you give me insight? What can I speak unless you reveal it to my
mind? How should I walk the straightway unless you establish my step? How
shall my step stand without (your) making it firm in strength” (20:36-38)?103 The
rhetoric carves out the depths that separate the speaker from God. Moreover,
while the text here appears to be a rewriting of Gen 3:19, done so as to depict
the utter impotence of being a “creature of clay”—and there are other biblical
texts that seem to influence this rewrite104—there is also an element where
lines 27-30 the echo creation account of Gen 2. Accounting for the synonymy
of “clay” and “dust” in biblical literature—and in the Hodayot—having been
taken from “clay” or “dust” (‫ )מעפר לקח[תני‬indicates something regarding the
existence of the speaker—and humanity—that originates with the creature’s
forming. As Newsom notes, “Described in terms of dust … it lacks the animat-
ing breath of God that distinguishes a living being from inert stuff.”105

101 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 219-20; Hyatt, “The View of Man,” 283.
102 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 226.
103 Angela Kim Harkins has noted that one of the features of the second collection of
Community Hymns is the use of rhetorical questions, as well as themes of creation, salva-
tion through God’s covenant, soteriological confessions, the need for the salvation of the
lowly speaker, and an emphasis on revealed knowledge, “A New Proposal for Thinking
about 1QHa Sixty Years after its Discovery,” in Cave 1, 109.
104 Indeed, the language of the first addition, “and from clay] I was [sh]aped” (]‫ומחמר ק‬...[
‫צתי‬ ֯ ‫)ו֯ ֯ר‬, which if reconstructed correctly—even with the plene spelling of ‫—קרץ‬appears
to be a quotation of Job 33:6: “I too was formed from a piece of clay” (‫ֵמח ֶֹמר ק ַֹר ְצ ִתי גַ ם־‬
‫) ָאנִ י‬. See DJD XL, 257.
105 Newson, The Self at Symbolic Space, 219; idem, “Flesh, Spirit, and Indigenous Psychology,”
345.
98 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

The content of 21:2-11, though somewhat fragmentary, is paralleled else-

where in the hymns. The earliest lines speak of “one born of woman” (‫)ילוד אשה‬
but quickly shift back into the first-person voice of the hymnist. The rhetori-
cal questions which seem to conclude col. 20 are picked up again in lines 4-6
of col. 21. Yet, the discussions which bookend this small text again refer back
to the “one born of woman” (cf. 21:2, 10). Borrowed from the language of Job,
especially 15:4,106 the individual born of woman fits the image of lowliness wit-
nessed throughout this hodayah.
Moreover, the question that is key to this study and appears only in the
Hodayot, is the question, “what is flesh” (‫ומה בשר‬, 21:7)?107 Elsewhere, 26:33-
36, the question is a rhetorical flourish that mirrors the separation between
humanity and God,108

]‫ אל הצדק והשכלנו בא[מתכה מלך הכבוד כיא ראינו קנאתכה‬.33

]‫ בכוח גבורה והכר[נו משפטיכה בהמון רחמים והפלא סליחות‬.34
]‫ מה בשר לאלה ומ[ה יחשב עפר ואפר לספר אלה מקץ לקץ‬.35
‫ ולהתיצב במעמד[ לפניכה ולבוא ביחד עם בני שמים‬.36

33. God of righteousness, and we understand [(your) truth, O king of glory. For we see
your zeal]
34. with (your) powerful strength. And[ we] recognize [your judgments in the over-
flowing of mercy and wonderful forgiveness.]
35. What is flesh in relation to these things? And h[ow is dust and ashes to be reckoned
that it should recount these things continually]
36. or take (its) station[ before you or come into community with the children of
heaven

Like col. 26, in this hodayah God maintains himself on one end of the rhe-
torical chasm, but engages the community by bringing (‫הביאותה‬, 21:10) certain
individuals into a covenant. God establishes everything for his glory (‫להכין‬
‫כול לכבודכה‬, 8) and with the hosts of knowledge109 recounts to humanity his

106 See also Job 25:4, “What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that
he can be righteous?” (‫ּומה־יִ זְ ֶכה יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬
ַ ‫ם־אל‬
ֵ ‫ּומה־יִ ְצ ַדק ֱאנֹוׁש ִע‬
ַ ). ‫ יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬also appears
in Job 14:1, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble (‫ה־אנֹוׁש ִכי־‬ ֱ ‫ָמ‬
‫)יִ זְ ֶכה וְ ִכי־יִ ְצ ַדק יְ לּוד ִא ָשה‬.”
107 Lichtenberger has noted that ‫ בשר‬as utilized in the scrolls can have a meaning of weak-
ness, Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 81-82. Therefore, it is not surprising to find
the phrase ‫“( יצר בשר‬creature of flesh”) in 1QHa 18:25, 24:6 (perhaps also, 4QInstructionb
1 16).
108 Much of this is reconstructed from 4Q427 7 ii 14-18. See, DJD XL, 298-9.
109 In this hymn, human communion with angelic beings, which is a common feature in
the Teacher Hymns (10-17), as well as the latter half of the Community Hymns (18-28),
appears, at first glance, to be missing. The appearance of the ‫ צבא‬in 21:9 may signal this
3.5 Hodayot 99

mighty acts and statutes (‫לספר לבשר גבורות וחוקי נכונות‬, 9). To those chosen to
be brought into the covenant there their innate standing as “dust” and “flesh”
is revealed in order that they might find a way of guarding against the perils of
those that seek to ensnare them.
21:11-42 contains the rest of the column. This section of the hymn preserves
the most occurrences of “creature of dust” and “creature of clay.”110 Lines 11-19
depict the creature’s concern with the understanding that his existence is
largely futile without God’s direct intervention. Without it the creature faces
the perils of the snares of wickedness and the dangers of the net which have
been spread over the pit, Abaddon (‫אבדון‬, cf. 21:21-24)—the place of destruc-
tion. This net (‫ )רשת‬is spread to take the creature’s life: “And as for them, the
net they spread against me seized their feet, and the snares they hid for my life,
they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground” (10:31;
see also 12:11-13). The hymnist’s life is tenuously wrought: “can I, as a creature
of dust, be preserved from being divided and from dissolving (like) wax when
it m[elts before the fire …] (21:25).”111 Nickelsburg has argued that this intense
language is the anthropologizing of parallel traditions, “some of 1 Enoch’s vivid

communion, however. The similarities between col. 21 and 26 may indicate that in the
fragmentary portions of the former was originally some mention of this communion.
Col. 26’s reflection upon humanity’s inability to stand before God’s righteousness is
questioned in line 36, “or take (its) station [before you or come into community with the
children of heaven (‫)בני שמים‬.” Although reconstructed, the term ‫—בני שמים‬a common
reference to angelic hosts—is restored from a parallel in 4QHa (7 i 6-23). While we can-
not reconstruct col. 21 based on this, it seems appropriate to suggest, in light of a shared
rhetorical query regarding flesh, that with the appearance of ‫( צבא‬or near to it) was some
reference to communion between the community and the angelic hosts. Kim Harkins
notes that this communion plays a role in the depiction of human lowliness in contrast to
God’s glory (Niedrigkeitsdoxologien). She notes, “The Niedrigkeitsdoxologien that appear
in these sections of 1QHa result from the speaker’s experience of being in the presence of
heavenly beings and express the speaker’s self-consciousness in the midst of angels. Thus,
the praise of God and images of heavenly beings naturally conjure up an awareness of
the unworthiness of humanity and the thought of joining the angelic praise underscores
these feelings. Realization that the speaker is in the presence of the holy immediately
brings about a profound sense of unworthiness,” “A New Proposal,” 111.
110 The reconstruction of either ‫ העפר‬or ‫ החמר‬in line 31 remains tentative. ‫ יצר החמר‬in
line 38 is preserved without context. The resh in ‫ יצר‬in line 19 is not certain according to
Schuller et al., DJD XL, 266. Without any discernible context we cannot make any strong
arguments as to whether ‫ יצר‬should be read in line 19—though this was Licht’s reading. It
is probable, although not certain, that if the line reads ‫ יצר‬it would also read ‫ עפר‬or ‫חמר‬
and should not be translated “inclination.”
111 Hughes notes, “The juxtaposition of like wax before the fire and like water poured down a
slope is a marker to the theophany of judgment in Mic 1:4. The connotation is that the
speaker is physically overwhelmed by fear of God’s awesome judgment for his sins,” 117.
100 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

language about the cosmic reactions to God’s judgment has been anthropolo-
gized by the author of the hymn and made part of a description of his own
bodily and emotional reaction to the presence of the God who confronted (and
confronts) him—sinful flesh and clay—as the holy, righteous judge.”112 Angela
Kim Harkins, who focusses on the Hodayot in the light of ancient visionary
traditions and the religious experience which results from the first person per-
spective, has gone a step beyond Nickelsburg’s suggestion that the “I” of some
of these passages rhetorically heightens the terror and fear of the reader.113 Not
only is the creature faced with the immortal impermanence of his filth-ridden
origins, but he also encounters, becomes aware, and experiences the height-
ened dangers that exist with God’s willful engagement (which is fostered by
being a member of the covenantal community). As such, the final lines of the
column (27-38), which indicate that with divine succor the creature is able to
elevate (or be elevated) above his earthly origins—whereas his enemies, those
who prepare the snares, will meet their end—highlight the precarious balance
struck by the very existence of said creature.
The use of the aforementioned phraseology—creature of dust/clay—again,
reflects the utter inability and futile existence of the speaker. By God’s won-
drous acts and revelation of his statutes, the speaker, and by extension the
yaḥad, can be elevated beyond this base reality. Yet, the rest of humanity—the
speaker’s enemies who will meet their end—exist without God’s revelation of
his statutes and therefore, remain, in its innate creatureliness. The speaker, the
yaḥad, and his enemies share the same natural lowly, filth-ridden existence.
They are all “creatures of dust/clay.” Created from earth, they lack any self-
worked ability to raise up beyond it. The speaker’s saving grace, if you will,

112 George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Qumranic Transformation of a Cosmological and

Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40),” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings
of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle
Barrerra and Luis Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial
Complutense, 1992), 2:657. Nickelsburg, who follows Sukenik’s numbering of the hymns,
is dealing with 1QHa 4 (new system = col. 12), yet, his points on anthropologizing are per-
tinent here.
113 Although Kim Harkins is examining another hodayah, her comments are germane to our
hymn as well. Furthermore, she suggests that this anthropologizing technique, which is
use to arouse fear and terror, led to the formation of some of the later Hodayot, specifi-
cally, 1QHa 11, 13:22-15:8, Angela Kim Harkins, Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking
at the Qumran Hodayot Through the Lens of Visionary Traditions, Ekstasis 3 (Berlin: Walter
De Gruyter, 2012), 156-71.
3.5 Hodayot 101

is the extension of God’s merciful hand to raise this creature to new heights,
communing with angels, and in some manner, able to fulfill God’s statutes.114
22:6-42, which preserves the end of our hymn, has a great deal in common
with the earlier columns. The clear occurrence of “creature of clay,” again, in-
dicates the speaker’s dependence on God: “And I, a creature of clay, depend
upon [your strong] ar[m” (‫זר[ועכה החזקה‬ ֯ ‫ואני יצר החמר נשענתי ֯ע ֯ל‬, 12-13). Even
if the reconstruction were to prove mistaken, the creature remains dependent
(‫על נשענתי‬, 12-13). The more legible portions of the column are divided between
lines 6-16 and 22-38. 6-16 speak of those, likely outside of the yaḥad, whom can
neither understand nor recount God’s wonders. The “creature of clay” is him-
self self-loathing regarding his existence and dependent upon God to rise from
any affliction and guard himself (‫להתקומם לפני נגע ולהשמר‬, 10). Lines 22-38 ad-
dress those who live and stand successfully in God’s covenantal community.
Shifting back to the first-person voice, the speaker compares himself to others:

115]‫לפ]ניכה ומי יזכה במשפטכה ומה אפה[וא‬ [ .29

]‫[◦אנו במשפט ושב אל עפרו מה יבי[ן‬ ] .30
]‫כיא אתה א]לי פתחתה לבבי לבינתכה ותגל אוז[ני‬ ‫]ב‬ .31
[ ]◦◦◦‫[ולהשען על טובכה ויהם לבי כ‬ ] .32

29. [… befo]re you. And who can be cleared of guilt in your judgment? And what, then,
is h[e]
30. […] ’nw in judgment, and who returns to his dust. What can he understa[nd]
31. [… for you,] O my [Go]d have opened my heart to your understanding, and you have
uncovered [my] ea[r]
32. […]and to rely upon your goodness

Yet, the column concludes with the speaker’s acknowledgement that while
God elevates and establishes the spirit within him, he remains aware of his
limitations: “my heart is like wax that melts because of transgression and sin”
(‫אה‬ ֯ ‫)ולבבי כדונג ימס על פשע‬. God’s response to the utter futility of human
֯ ‫וחט‬
existence does not negate his, or the yaḥad’s, base limitations. While the speak-
er and his community await God’s direct engagement because of their lowly
nature, the rest of humanity suffers from the same innate reality—all humans
are creatures of dust/clayand will return to the putrid dust from whence they
were formed.

114 See Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 60.

115 See 1QHa 18:14 for this form.
102 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

3.5.3 The Amplification of Human Lowliness in the Hodayot

Derived from biblical language and imagery, the creaturely phrases examined
here are partly inspired by the creation of man “of the dust from the ground”
in Gen 2:7. As such, the discussion of both idiomatic expressions, “creature
of clay” and “creature of dust,” belongs to the larger examination of creation
topoi. Though they are often employed by the speaker in the first person, the
lowliness of the hymnist is a shared state with humanity. Furthermore, one
can easily sense that whether this hymnic composition(s) was used devotion-
ally, introspectively, or didactically,116 the repetitive use of these unique terms
not only identify the speaker as a “creature of dust/clay” but also describes an
innate human condition. This view of humanity was intended to deeply affect
all readers of the Hodayot. Newsom states, “the Hodayot assist the sectarian
in learning dispositions of humility and a willingness to submit to the reor-
dering of his self according to the will of God as expressed in the sect and its

116 Scholars have debated how the Hodayot were utilized within the yaḥad. More recent-
ly, Esther G. Chazon has noted several elements that indicate the liturgical function of
the Cave 1 Hodayot. Among them is the layout of the so-called Teacher and Community
Hymns, as well as liturgical themes that are “piled” towards the end of the collection
“notably in the hymn in 1QHa 19:18-20:6 that culminates with three benedictions, and
in the final extant hymn, 25:34-27:3, that closes with several sections of plural invita-
tions to praise God,” “Liturgical Function in the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection,” in Qumran
Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth
Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk, Sariano Metso, Donald W. Parry, and
Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, STDJ 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-52. Gordley has argued that some
of the Hodayot were used didactically, “… the prayers and hymns that contain ‘intensi-
fied’ or otherwise more theologically developed instances of creation language are for
the most part those which are didactic in nature and function, rather than liturgical,
Matthew E. Gordley, “Creation Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers,” JJS 59/2 (2008):
271. Schuller suggests that some of the 4QH manuscripts have evidence of liturgical use,
Qumran Cave 4 XX: Poetic and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon, 199),
74-75. See also, idem, “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts Among
the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in the Light of the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the
Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Esther G. Chazon et al., STDJ 48
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 173-90. See also Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 348. Schiffman notes regard-
ing the devotional use of the Hodayot, “It is tempting to regard the Thanksgiving Scroll as
a series of hymns for public worship. But we have no evidence that this material was in
fact liturgical. These poems are individual plaints, perhaps composed by a leader of the
sect—some scholars claim by the Teacher of Righteousness himself—concentrating on
serious matters of theology and belief. The Thanksgiving Hymns were certainly not part
of a regular order of prayers. Rather, they belong to a genre of devotional, introspective
poetry,” Reclaiming the Dead Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity,
and the Lost Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 145.
3.5 Hodayot 103

leadership.”117 “Humility” and the “reordering of self” is partly attained by join-

ing the yaḥad and following its regulations.
Elsewhere in Second Temple literature the “image of God” is utilized to con-
vey the uniqueness of humanity, especially that it is endowed with certain in-
trinsic qualities that irrevocably link its existence to God. While the qualities
vary from text to text, the divine image signals some sort of human ability,
whether it be intellect (e.g., Philo) or an ability to follow the commandments
of God (e.g., Ben Sira). The “from (out of) earth” topos generally addresses hu-
manity’s impermanence, or mortality, but can also refer to God’s sovereign
knowledge over his creation (e.g., Wisdom). Philo goes a step further suggest-
ing that God took time to pick a prime, valuable portion of clay in order to
create humanity and raises the value of the second topos. The Hodayot have
done something unique in describing humanity’s baseness. First, in their refer-
ence to creation, the hymns—at least what has survived—omit any reference
to the “image of God,” although they attest to some knowledge of the cosmic
creation of Gen 1, “… [you determined] all your works before you created them
(‫)בראתם‬, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of [your holy
ones,] your holy expanse (‫[ )רקיע‬and all] its hosts, together with the earth and
all that springs from it, in the seas and the deeps (‫( … )ובתהומות‬1QHa 5:25, 26).”118
Second, the Hodayot have creatively shaped distinct phraseology that embod-
ies humanity’s frailty, an infirmity that permeates every aspect of the creature’s
existence. This embodiment is amplified with creaturely imagery derived from
Gen 2 and the intentional omission of the “image of God,” as well as any refer-
ence to God’s divine, animating breath (2:7b).119 It is true that any reference to
humanity’s endowment with the “image of God120 would narrow the separa-

117 Newsom, The Self as a Symbolic Space, 349

118 This forms part of what Sarah Tanzer has called a “composition on creation,” and of our
two creation accounts the language of this passage most closely imitates Gen 1 if not
also Psalm 33. See Sarah Tanzer, Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the “Hodayot” (Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Harvard University, 1986), eadem, “Biblical Interpretations in the Hodayot,” in
A Companion to the Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand
Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), 255-75.
119 See Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 219.
120 Indeed, the “image of God” (‫ )צלם אלהים‬is missing altogether from the yaḥad’s scrolls. Of
course, it is highly probable that it would have been there in the Genesis biblical manu-
scripts if those lines had survived. However, in a rewriting of the creation of Genesis 1,
the creation of humanity is described as “in the likeness of your [i.e.,God’s] glory” (‫בדמות‬
‫כבוד[כה‬
֯ , 4Q504 8 recto 4). The fragmentary remains of 4Q504 8 incorporate aspects of
Genesis 2, since it refers to the breath of life (‫נשמת חיים נ] ֯פ ֯חתה באפו‬, 5), Eden (‫עדן‬, 6),
and describes Adam as flesh and dust (‫] ֯בשר הואה ולעפר‬, 9). See Maurice Baillet, “Prières
104 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

tion between it and God, and also soften the rhetorical force regarding human-
ity’s futile existence.
Gen 2 easily assists one side of the hymns’ general rhetorical construct: if
God is, on one end, the highest, most sublime being upon which humanity
is dependent for knowledge and ability, then humanity, at the other end, is
a “creation of clay/dust,” frail, base, and easily corruptible in all its ways. The
chasm, of course, is not simply built off of the second creation account, as
noted by Lichtenberger; there is a complex of biblical passages that provide
the groundwork to create the image of human baseness. Yet, the Hodayot delve
into human inability in a manner that lacks parallel in the Bible and, indeed,
in early Jewish literature not associated with the yaḥad. The “creature of dust/
clay” addresses the hymnists’ own lowly existence and thereby embodies an
natural characteristic of collective humanity.

3.6 Excursus: “Mother and her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7

Though the account of the “Mother and her Seven Sons” does not fit neatly
into the literary threads of Gen 2, the connection between resurrection and
creation warrants a comment here.

Ὑπεραγόντως δὲ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμαστὴ καὶ The mother was exceedingly amazing and
μνήμης ἀγαθῆς ἀξία, ἥτις ἀπολλυμένους worthy of being remembered well – she
υἱοὺς ἑπτὰ συνορῶσα μιᾶς ὑπὸ καιρὸν who, after watching the destruction of
ἡμέρας εὐψύχως ἔφερεν διὰ τὰς ἐπὶ κύριον seven sons on one and the same day bore
ἐλπίδας. ἕκαστον δὲ αὐτῶν παρεκάλει it in high morale due to her hopes upon
τῇ πατρίῳ φωνῇ γενναίῳ πεπληρωμένη the Lord. In the ancestral language she en-
φρονήματι καὶ τὸν θῆλυν λογισμὸν ἄρσενι couraged each of them, filled with noble
θυμῷ διεγείρασα λέγουσα πρὸς αὐτούς 22 purpose. Awakening her womanly reason-
Οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐφάνητε κοιλίαν, ing power with masculine fervor she said
οὐδὲ ἐγὼ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῖν to them: “I do not know how you appeared
ἐχαρισάμην, καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου στοιχείωσιν in my womb, nor was it I who bestowed
οὐκ ἐγὼ διερρύθμισα· τοιγαροῦν ὁ τοῦ upon you spirit and life; it was not I who
κόσμου κτίστης ὁ πλάσας ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν arranged the various elements of each of
καὶ πάντων ἐξευρὼν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα you. Therefore the Creator of the cosmos,
καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῖν πάλιν ἀποδίδωσιν μετ᾿ He who designed the genesis of mankind
ἐλέους, ὡς νῦν ὑπερορᾶτε ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τοὺς and invented the genesis of everything,
αὐτοῦ νόμους (7:20-23). will in mercy return to you both spirit and
life, just as you now look beyond your-
selves due to His laws” (7:20-23)

pour les fêtes (ii),” in Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD VII (Oxford: Clarendon,
1982), 162-3.
3.6 Excursus: “ Mother and her Seven Sons ” in 2 Maccabees 7 105

Perhaps the most famous chapter of 2 Maccabees121—a book thought by

Schwartz to have been written before 1 Maccabees122—is the portrayal of a
mother and her seven sons facing certain death if they do not eat the pork
that the king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is forcing upon them.123 One by
one the sons begin to refuse the option to transgress God’s commandments.
While their final words differ, there is an assumption attributed to some of the
sons that God will respond to their death by giving them life.124 The second
son to die states, “‘you, O Avenger, free us from the present life, but the King of
the cosmos will raise us up, since we have died for His laws, to eternal resur-
rection unto life’” (εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἡμᾶς ἀναστήσει; 7:9).125 With his
final words, the third son incorporates creation motifs already examined here,
“also courageously extending his hands (τὰς χεῖρας εὐθαρσῶς), and nobly said:
‘I acquired these from heaven (Εξ οὐρανοῦ ταῦτα κέκτημαι; i.e., he received his

121 The story of the “Mother and Her Seven Sons,” sometimes known as the Maccabean
Martyrs, became an important account in later Jewish and Christian traditions, e.g., Lam
Rab 1:16, Pes. Rab. 43, b. Gitt 57b), Chrysostom, Homily on the Holy Maccabees, 1, Gregory of
Nanziane, Homily, 15. See Schwartz, 2 Macc, 298; Gershon N. Cohen, “Hannah and her Seven
Sons,” in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (New York: JPS; 1991), 39-6; Rouwhorst
Gerard, “The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother in Christian
Tradition,” in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Marcel Poorthius
and Joshua J. Schwartz, JCPS 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 183-204; Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski,
“The Mother and the Seven Sons in Late Antique and Medieval Ashkenazi Judaism:
Narrative Transformations and Communal Identity” in Dying for the Faith, Killing for
the Faith: Old Testament Faith-Warriors (1 and 2 Maccabees) in Historical Perspective, ed.
Gabriela Signori; BSIH 206 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 127-146; idem; Christian Memories of the
Maccabean Martyrs (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009); Raphaëlle Ziadé, Les martyrs
Maccabées: de l’histoire juive au culte chrétien, VCS 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Robert Doran,
“The Martyr: A Synoptic of the Mother and Her Seven Sons,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient
Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, SCS 12
(Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 189-221; Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as
Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
122 Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008),
11-15.
123 There is a parallel second account of “The Mother and Her Seven Sons” in 4 Macc 5-18.
The retelling of the story intended to inspire the readers to utilize pious reasoning; how-
ever, it does not include the mother’s exhortation given to her sons and misses the literary
thread that we are seeking to examine. Therefore, 4 Macc will not be discussed here.
124 For a discussion of the elements of resurrection in this story, see, George W. E. Nickelsburg,
Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early
Christianity, exp. and ed., HTS 56 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006),
119-37.
125 English translations from Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 296-8.
106 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

hands from God126) and on account of his laws I now look beyond them, hop-
ing to receive them again from Him’ ” (ταῦτα πάλιν ἐλπίζω κομίσασθαι; vv. 10-11). It
is the third son that first employs the physical nature of resurrection and states
that God will, as Nickelsburg notes, “heal what Antiochus has hurt; he will
bring to life those things that Antiochus has killed.”127 “Those things,” accord-
ing to Nickelsburg are the various constitutive elements that God is respon-
sible for creating, that which he himself formed. The fourth son again refers
to resurrection, “‘It is better to pass away from among men in the expectation
of the God-given hopes of again being resurrected by Him; you, in contrast,
will have no resurrection unto life’ (vv. 13-14).” After the fifth and sixth sons
speak, choosing not to transgress the Law of Moses, the mother who is said to
be “exceedingly amazing and worth to be remembered well” (περαγόντως δὲ…
θαυμαστὴ καὶ μνήμης ἀγαθῆς ἀξία; v. 20), attempts to encourage each of them.128
While the language is not precise, we suggest reading the giving of “spirit and
life” (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν) as an allusion, whether intended or not, to Gen 2.
The language of 2 Macc, however, could very well fit with elements that appear
in either creation narrative. To that end, we cautiously suggest that the lan-
guage here provides a fusion of both accounts: 1) God is portrayed here as the
creator of the cosmos (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου κτίστης, cf. Gen 2:1), and 2) he is spoken of
as having moulded the beginning of humankind with the Greek “πλάσας”—the
aorist ἔπλασεν is used in the creation of man in LXX of Gen 2. Both the cosmic
and earthly creation are presented in the mother’s exhortation. The particle
“therefore” (τοιγαροῦν) indicates that the mother’s certainty regarding resur-
rection hinges on God’s creative force. The consequence of being a creation
of God is that those who are faithful to the Torah will be given life again and
avenged.129 Death is not a stopping point to whom God has given a soul/spirit.

126 “… here this term (οὐρανοῦ) alludes to God Himself (and not just to the place of His habi-
tation …),” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 305.
127 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 121. Goldstein and Schwartz note a strong affinity between this
chapter and the language of Deut 32, Goldstein, II Maccabees, 294-295. Also Shwartz,
2 Maccabees, 22, 300-319. Nickelsburg’s comments on the parallel story in Testament of
Moses 9:1-7 and Deut 32, Resurrection, 125.
128 Schwartz notes that the mother’s entrance into the narrative, when the reader expects the
seventh son to speak, announces that the last scene will be more extensive—although the
reader becomes aware that all seven sons will die, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 308.
129 There is yet another parallel story in the As. Mos. 9:1-7. A man named Taxo exhorts his
sons not to transgress the Lord’s commandments: “Then, even as he was speaking, there
will be a man from the tribe of Levi whose name is Taxo. He, having seven sons, will speak
earnestly to them, (my) sons, behold a second punishment has befallen the people; cruel,
impure, going beyond all bounds of mercy—even exceeding the former one. For which
nation or which province or which people, who have (all) done many crimes against the
3.6 Excursus: “ Mother and her Seven Sons ” in 2 Maccabees 7 107

“What God has created, he will recreate—in spite of the king’s attempt to de-
stroy it.”130 This giving of life is not limited to the metaphysical but to the whole
of the human being, soul/spirit, and body.131
The purpose of the brothers’ resurrection is not simply salvation from
permanent death but a vindication of their obedience.132 Moreover, it is not
simply obedience that determines resurrection but also God’s obligation to hu-
manity’s constitutive elements. As God’s creation, being formed by him and,
perhaps even, the bearer of his image, God’s creation is rewarded to with re-
newed life. Furthermore, it is stated by the seventh son that their death will
induce God’s mercy on behalf of the nation (2 Macc 7:37).133 Bearing some
quality of creation, that differentiates humanity from other creations (e.g.,
soul/spirit; image of God), they who die obediently in the face of ungodly

Lord, have suffered such evils as have covered us? Now, therefore, sons, heed me. If you in-
vestigate, you will surely know that never did (our) fathers nor their ancestors tempt God
by transgressing his commandments. Yea, you will surely know that this is our strength.
Here is what we shall do. We shall fast for a three-day period and on the fourth day we
shall go into a cave which is in the open country. There let us die rather than transgress
the commandments of the Lord of Lords, the God of our fathers. For if we do this, and do
die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord,” trans. from J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,”
OTP 1:931. The same connection is lacking in another parallel to our story in 1 Macc 2:15-
28, 29-38, 49-68. See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 127-30, for the literary development of
these traditions. Nickelsburg argues that the Assumption of Moses is the earliest witness
to the aforementioned parallels, Resurrection, 127, though Edna Israeli is of a different
opinion regarding their origins, Edna Israeli, “‘Taxo’ and the Origin of the ‘Assumption of
Moses,’” JBL 128/4 (Wint., 2009): 735-57.
130 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 121. Nickelsburg notes further that this idea, pleading to God so
that the physical death would not be the end is also echoed in 2 Macc 14:37-46 with the
story of one the elders of Jerusalem named Razis. Razis, who faced certain death at the
hands of the Greek general Nicanor, unsuccessfully attempted to kill himself so that he
would not fall into the hands of sinners. Towards the end of his life he called upon “the
Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again,” Resurrection, 121. Schwartz notes
that there is a distinction in language between chapter 7 and 14. Chapter 7 speaks of the
“body” and “soul” while chapter 14 utilizes “life” and “spirit.” He is right to state, “It does not
appear, however, that this difference should be pushed very far, since no attempt is made
to use such terms with any precision,” 2 Maccabees, 23.
131 Moreover, one might suggest that the fusion of both creation narratives implicitly points
to the physicality of the sons being related to the image of God—though no explicit
language of this sort is stated. What we may have here are the early roots of what finds
fruition in the literature of the rabbis, namely, that bearing the “image of God” involves
humanity’s corporeality. Even when the idea of the soul is engaged in Rabbinic anthro-
pology there is largely no metaphysical difference. Gottstein has argued that that this is
the reason why “The future life takes the form of resurrection of the dead, rather than the
eternal life of the soul,” “The Body as the Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” 177.
132 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 120-121.
133 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 122-123.
108 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

persecution can be a catalyst for national mercy. Extrapolating these ideas to

collective humanity, and not simply to a particular nation, humanity is so in-
timately linked to God by virtue of creation that obedience and disobedience
warrant a response. This idea is exemplified in the seventh son’s final words,
“for our brothers, on the one hand, after undergoing brief suffering have come
into God’s covenant of eternal life; you, on the other hand, shall in the divine
judgment incur the just punishments for your arrogance (v. 36).

3.7 Conclusion

Philo offers perhaps the most complex use of the creation topoi examined
in this chapter. We have deconstructed his use into three primary categories:
1) The “Image of God” and the Intangible (Immortal) Quality of Humanity,
2) “According to” God’s Image, and 3) Two Types of Humankind. Of the first,
the imago dei is employed by Philo to describe the dominant part of the soul,
namely, the mind, or human reason (Creation 69). Humanity’s reasoning ca-
pability is responsible for seeking knowledge and wisdom (Worse 87-89). It
separates humanity from other forms of creation and divides the soul into two
parts, the dominant of which, the mind, is said to be stamped with the “image
of God.” The second use of this topos is intended to argue that humanity is
not an exact copy of God, but instead created “according to the image of God”
(Heir 232) and not in his image. The “image” is separate and distinct from God,
so it forms the middle ground of sorts to the creation. In fact, the image is
a copy of God, and humankind is a copy of that image, not a copy of actual
divinity. Furthermore, the philosopher speaks of humanity as being created
by the logos (Plant. 18-20). The logos functions similarly to the “image” in that
it maintains a middle position between God and humankind. Additionally, in
other Philonic texts, this separation is depicted as being a copy of the first man,
Adam, who was designed from the choicest of material. In that sense, humanity
is a degraded replica of the original, perfect model (Creation 140-141). That said,
the ramifications of being degraded copies is not readily clear. With the third
use, Philo interplays both creation topoi to discuss two types of humanity. He
utilizes both to construct a contrast between the person made in the “image
of God” and one who is “from earth” or “clay.” These are further described as
the “heavenly” and “earthly person.” Philo initially depicts a being bearing the
imago dei—the “heavenly” person—as altogether other, an individual who is
largely metaphysical and abstracted. Other Philonic texts help to shed light on
this abstraction. That is, the “heavenly person” is described as the virtuous indi-
vidual (Heir 57-58). The “heavenly person,” created in the “image of God,” does
3.7 Conclusion 109

not participate in anything “corruptible” or “earthlike.” The “earthly person” is

corruptible and in need of God’s assistance. The individual who bears God’s
image, living by reason, has the ability to be virtuous, while the other person,
made of earth, lacks these gifts. For Philo, these creation topoi demonstrate a
duality among all of humanity between the virtuous, described as those that
practice “prudence, self-mastery, courage, justice” (Alleg. Interp. 1:63-78), and
all others, those who are given good sense and can apprehend virtue but lack
the ability to carry it out.
In T. Naph. humanity is depicted as bearing the “image of God,” although
the author employs Gen 2 and the potter metaphor—appropriated from bibli-
cal tradition—to depict the physical body and spirit, which are said to cor-
respond to one another (1:2-3). Moreover, the potter, identified as God, has
sovereign knowledge over his vessels. God’s knowledge is similar to what is
preserved in Ben Sira regarding humanity’s ways and is here associated to
God’s image (vv. 4-5). Furthermore, the context of T. Naph. here forms part of
a larger exhortation where the “order” of creation is critical. Both topoi are
employed to demonstrate humanity’s role in that order and its ability for it to
recognize and follow God’s commandments. To do otherwise is to participate
in disorderliness.
The following text examined in this chapter is 4 Ezra 8:42-45. The seer, Ezra,
argues to Uriel that God should be merciful to all of humanity and not just to
the righteous. Ezra’s plea is founded on the idea that God is inextricably linked
to humanity because it bears his image. Utilizing Uriel’s metaphor of the hus-
bandman/farmer, Ezra argues by a minori ad maius that if God is responsible
for the farmer’s seed because God is the bringer of rain, how much more so is
there a responsibility to extend mercy to those created in the divine image. The
argument fails, however. With the seer’s argument, it is apparent that God’s
mercy is an even more pressing matter when those who face bear that image
face final judgment. The “image of God,” again, intimately connects human
nature to God, a unique and valuable relationship amidst all creation.
This chapter provides a special treatment of one of the closing hymns of the
Hodayot in 1QHa 20:7-22:43, which accounts for the most occurrences of two
unique idioms, “creature of clay” and “creature of dust.” These idiomatic ex-
pressions originally derive from the unique language of creation in Gen 2:7 and
are, therefore, an important part of our larger discussion. Both phrases, as they
appear in this hymn and, indeed, throughout the Thanksgiving Hymns, are em-
ployed to rhetorically illustrate the chasm that exists between the contempt-
ible hymnist and a sublime God. This abominableness is not limited to the
speaker, however, but reflects humanity’s existential reality. The hymnist has
creatively shaped the language of Gen 2 in order to describe humanity’s utter
110 3 From Image and Earth to Dust: The Growth of Creation Topoi

frailty, an infirmity that permeates every aspect of the creature’s existence. The
only hope, for the hymnist and the yaḥad, is that God will intervene providing
the creature both knowledge and the ability to observe his statutes through an
endowment of his spirit. In that sense, the rest of humanity is essentially for-
saken to its baseness. This portrayal is uniquely amplified by the topos that is
missing. Although the Hodayot imply some knowledge of the cosmic creation
of Gen 1, the “image of God” is nowhere to be found. Our examination of other
Second Temple texts has shown the significance of this lacuna. Elsewhere the
divine image is employed to speak both of God’s sovereign knowledge over hu-
mankind and its ability, even responsibility, to participate in God’s covenant.
The rhetorical chasm between humanity and God is deepened by the omis-
sion of the imago dei. Indeed, rather than having been bestowed with some
aspect of divinity, the “creature of clay/dust” is engraved with inability and
insignificance, serving to intensify the lowliness of humanity when brought
into conversation with contemporaneous Jewish thought. The author(s) is not
simply working in a vacuum but is clearly aware of a literary tendency, attest-
ed elsewhere, that depicts human nature through the lense of creation topoi;
“creature of clay/dust” is an implicit contrast to any suggestion that humanity
retains any inherent, creational significance.
In a brief excursus, the unique relationship between God and his creation is
exemplified in the story of the “Mother and Her Seven Sons” in 2 Maccabees 7.
In particular, important are the final words of the third son and the mother.
They demonstrate that in being a creation, the obedience and disobedience of
the person warrants a response from its creator. God’s function as the one who
forms and gives the person existence obliges God to respond to its deliberate
destruction. This response is not limited to the individual but is even thought
to warrant mercy for the nation of Israel who, of course, is depicted at war
against Antiochus and the Seleucids. While the creation topoi do not precisely
appear in this narrative, the idea that resurrection, life after death, and the con-
veyance of mercy are distinctly connected to God’s creation implies something
significant about human nature. More specifically here that as an inherent cre-
ation, obedience and transgression warrant a divine response.
 Chapter 4

Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit: Examining

Humanity’s Composition

4.1 Introduction

This chapter is a terminological analysis of humanity’s physical (e.g., “flesh,”

“body”) and metaphysical components (e.g., “soul”), and the relationship be-
tween the two, namely, whether collective humanity is presumed to be com-
prised of a single, indivisible element, a body-soul duality, or a trichotomy, i.e.,
body, soul and spirit. While it is clear that the equivalents for “flesh” and “spirit”
are utilized in dualistic worldviews to depict humanity’s moral qualities, this
chapter seeks to examine how the ancients understood flesh and spirit, body
and soul in regard to a humanity’s constituent parts, not how these ideas were
employed metaphorically (for this see chapters 6 and 7 in this study). Thus,
this chapter is organized to first examine the terminology that is utilized to
describe the body and soul and the manner in which it betrays assumptions
about human composition, which is followed by an exploration of the concep-
tions of humanity’s metaphysical nature: 4.2) Describing the Body, 4.3) Ben
Sira, 4.4) Wisdom of Solomon, 4.5) Josephus’ Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities,
4.6) 1 Enoch, 4.7) The Testament of Abraham, 4.8) Excursus: Anthropological
Trichotomy and the Composition of Humankind in the Second Temple Period,
and 4.9) Conclusions.
Prior to our examination, it is briefly worth noting that the composition of
collective humanity in biblical literature, prior to the Hellenistic period, is not
uniform. For many scholars, the term ‫נפש‬, whose semantic range in the mid
Second Temple period encompasses, in part, a separable human component
(i.e., a soul), in the Hebrew Bible does not depict the existence of a human
component that is separate from the body. Human nature is viewed as a psy-
chosomatic unity. Furthermore, life appears to end with little implication
that humanity is conceived as constituting more than a single element.1 More

1 James F. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice
in Iron Age Judah,” JNES 70/1 (2011): 42, n. 48. Osborne supports his argument by directing
the readers to Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory
of the God of Life (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2006), 29-30. Levenson states,
“That death represents an absolute terminus, as it does to the modern mind, is not a fore-
gone conclusion in biblical thought,” 30. It is possible for biblical figures like the patriarchs

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_005

112 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

recently, however, Richard Steiner has argued that strict lack of body-soul dual-
ism can no longer be maintained. Although the evidence is minimal, according
to him, there appears to be a degree of body-soul dualism in the Hebrew Bible
that results from the influence of particular Ancient Near Eastern circles.2
Indeed, often the simplest indicator that human existence is composed of sep-
arable constituent parts—one physical and the other metaphysical—rather
than a whole, is the description of an afterlife where specific terminology de-
scribes a metaphysical component as explicitly having a separate existence
from the body. Yet, even the small number of biblical texts that explicitly at-
test to an afterlife (e.g., Dan 12:2) do not necessarily imply a body-soul dual-
ism. Thus, apart from the appearance of specific terminology (e.g., soul, spirit)
along with the depiction of an afterlife, it is difficult to ascertain whether hu-
manity is thought to be more than a single, yet, complex entity, rather than a
composition of parts. In general, Second Temple texts preserve depictions that
run the aforementioned gamut, namely, the depiction of humanity as a psy-
chosomatic unity, a body-soul dualism where both components are separate
from one another, and, what appears to be a later (mid to late 1st century CE)
development within Hellenistic Judaism, a composition that divides humanity
into three components.3

to continue after death without resurrection (bodily) and, “not, it should be underscored, as
disembodied spirits but as the people whose fathers they will always be,” author’s empha-
sis, 30. See also, Robert Laurin, “The Concept of Man as a Soul,” ExpTim 72 (1960-1961):132;
Seth L. Sanders, “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects of
the Katumuwa Stele,” BASOR 369 (2013): 35-55; Matthew Suriano, “Breaking Bread with the
Dead: Katumuwa’s Stele, Hosea 9:4, and the Early History of the Soul” JAOS 134/3 (July-Sept.,
2014): 385-405.
2 He notes, “It has long been accepted by most scholars that ‘the Hebrew could not conceive of
a disembodied ‫נפש‬. However, if that is true, he must have been oblivious to beliefs and prac-
tices found all over the ancient Near East,” Disembodied Souls: the Nefesh in Israel and Kindred
Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription, ANEM 11
(Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 124, also 1-9. Further, in the early 20th century “… it was still possible
to assert that ‘nefesh is used as the name of the disembodied spirit’; that ‘the Hebrews ap-
parently retained down to historical times the conception of the soul as a separable thing,
which can be removed from a man’s body in his lifetime, either by the wicked art of witches,
or by the owner’s voluntary act in order to deposit it for a longer or shorter time in a place of
safety’; that ‘like many other peoples of antiquity, the ancient Israelites believed that the soul
could slip in and out of the body at will,’” 1.
3 It seems that both a body-soul dualism, and later trichotomy, are the results of various
Hellenistic influences that arrived with the Alexander the Great’s entry eastward in 332/3 BCE.
For example, the writings of Plato, which predate the texts presented here and would have
been influential in the Levant, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See, Jacques
Brunschwig and David Sedley, “Hellenistic Philosophy,” 151-83, and “Roman Philosophy,”
184-210, in The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy, ed. David Sedley,
4.2 Describing the Body 113

4.2 Describing the Body

4.2.1 ‫ ְ ּגוִ ָיּה‬, ‫ ּ ָב ָ ׂשר‬, ‫ ְׁשאֵ ר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά

4.2.1.1 The Physical Body: ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and ‫ְש ֵאר‬
There are several terms that are utilized to describe humanity’s physical nature.
The most important are, ‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά. Post-biblical Hebrew
appears to employ the three former terms with little additional nuance from
their biblical usage. Both ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and ‫ ְש ֵאר‬appear in a limited number of contexts
when referring to the human body. The Hebrew mss. of Ben Sira utilize both
terms; is 4‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬limited to the later chapters of the book, as well as ‫ ְש ֵאר‬,5 with
one appearance in Sir 7 [A 2v:26-27]. When contextually dealing with the fate
of the wicked and the value of a “gracious name” (‫)שם חסד‬, Ben Sira states, “the
human body is a fleeting thing, but a virtuous name will never be annihilated”
(41:11 [B 11r:3]).6 The impermanence of the wicked is compared to humanity’s

CCP (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Middle Platonism is thought
to be especially influential to Philo. See, John Dillon, “Philo and Hellenistic Platonism,” in
Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. Francesca Alesse, SPA 5 (Leiden:
Brill 2008), 223-32; idem, “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology,” in The Afterlife of
the Platonic Soul: Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions, ed. Maha
Elkaisy-Friemuth and John M. Dillon; SPNP 9 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), 17-24; idem, The
Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, rev ed. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996), explic-
itly distinguish between the body and the soul. See Plato’s Phaedo 102-7; also T. M. Robinson,
“The Defining Features of Mind-Body Dualism the writings of Plato,” in Pysche and Soma:
Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment,
ed. John P. Wright and Paul Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 37-55; Ellen Wagner, ed.,
Essays on Plato’s Psychology (Lanham; Boulder; New York; Oxford: Lexington Books, 2001);
Richard Kraut, “Introduction to the Study of Plato,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plato, ed.
Richard Kraut, CCP (Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1992), 6-8.
4 H ALOT 1:181. Unless otherwise noted the Greek and Hebrew of Ben Sira are from Ziegler,
Sapentia Iesu Filii Sirach, and Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, respectively.
5 H ALOT 4:378-9.
6 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 465. We have opted for their translation since it seems to ren-
der the sense of the Hebrew and not Greek versions, see, Ziegler, Sirach, 318. Skehan and Di
Lella do not include a rationale for their translation, but their utilization of the Hebrew ver-
sions elsewhere suggests that they have done the same here, see, Ben Sira, 468. A more literal
translation of B is, “the vanity of person [i.e., humanity] is in his body, but the gracious name
will not be cutoff” (‫הבל אדם בגויתו אך שם חסד לא יכרת‬, 11r:3). See also the parallel in Mas 1h
3:13. The Greek versions have a decidedly different reading “the mourning of humanity is
about their bodies, but the not good name of sinners will be wiped out” (Πένθος ἀνθρώπων ἐν
σώμασιν αὐτῶν, ὄνομα δὲ ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ ἀγαθὸν ἐξαλειφθήσεται). A marginal note in the Ben
Sira B adds ‫ בני‬prior to ‫ אדם‬and is perhaps the reason why the Greek translation reads with
the plural ἀνθρώπων, Ziegler, Sirach, 318. See also the marginal note to 37:25, “The life of a man
is numbered by days, but the days of Israel are without number,” where a Hebrew marginal
note in D inserts ‫ גויתהן‬for ‫איש‬.
114 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

most vulnerable; component, its body. This appears to hold true in the Greek
translation; “body” (σῶμα) represents humankind’s temporal physical frame.
Conversely, the body is positively affected by one’s wisdom, “should one be
wise to himself, the benefits of his knowledge [are evidenced] on his body” (‫פרי‬
‫דעתו על גויתו‬, 37:22 [B 7v:15; D 1v:11-12]). The Greek here deviates from the ex-
pected use of σῶμα. “Understanding” is said to benefit one’s mouth rather than
the entire body, “another is wise to himself; and the fruits of understanding
are commendable in his mouth” (καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ στόματος
πιστοί). Later in Ben Sira, humanity’s perishable body again naturally benefits
from one’s wisdom,7 although the “body” (‫ )גויה‬of humankind is always vulner-
able to death (cf. Sir 38:16 [B 8v:4-5]; 41:11 [MAS 1h 3:13; B 11r:3]; 44:14 [MAS 1h
7:21; B 13v:17]; 49:15 [B 19r:5]) or some sort of affliction.8 Therefore, ‫ גויה‬and
σῶμα generally refer to the utter mortality of humanity—one that is effected
by the application of wisdom.9 Indeed, for any wisdom text, its application
generally has a real world effect that moves beyond the abstract (e.g., long life).
Moreover, the body, at least as ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and σῶμα are utilized, is understood as hu-
manity’s mortal component, vulnerable to both death and illness. For Ben Sira,
while wisdom can positively affect one’s body, it does not abrogate the body’s

7 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 437.

8 A similar wisdom instruction is directed to the “poor” in 4QInstruction. For instance,
“Remember that you are poor […] and your poverty you will not find, and when you violate
a promise [… If someone] leaves something valuable with you, do not touch it, lest you be
burned and your body consumed by its fire” (‫תכוה [ו] ׄבאשו תבער‬ ׄ ‫אל תשלח ידכה בו פן‬
‫ ;גויתכה‬4Q416 2 3:2-4). The fragment deals with the proper conduct of the poor to a loan
or deposit left with the addressee. See Matthew Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of
4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 142-43; idem, “The Poverty and Social Location
of the Mebin,” in 4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 23-27.
While the punishment, “your body consumed by fire” is metaphorical, the imagery is not un-
like that of Ben Sira, namely, that the body is directly affected by one’s actions.
9 Sometimes ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬is modified with ‫“( ָב ָשר‬flesh,” cf. ‫בגוית בשרו‬, 1QpHab 9:1-2) to illustrate mor-
tal vulnerability, as well as a lifeless body (i.e., “a corpse,” ‫בגוית בשרם‬, 4QpNah 3 4 2 4-6). The
context of the former speaks of the turmoil facing the Wicked Priest, see Moshe Bernstein,
“Pesher Habakkuk,” EDSS 2:647-51, or priests. Also, Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim, Companion
to the Qumran Scrolls (London, New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 72, states that it
speaks to a distinct vulnerability experienced by more than the priest. Moreover, Fabry has
suggested that the the Greek equivalent for ‫ בגוית בשר‬appears in Sir 23:16: ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς,
“‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬,” TDOT 2:437. He also notes that similar language is used in the epistle to the Colossians
(ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς, 1:22; τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, 2:11). As in Ben Sira the language is
utilized metaphorically referring to human morality. ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬in the Damascus Document is also
utilized to speak of the bodies of the mythic offspring of the rebellious angels from Enochic
lore (CD 2:19; par. 4QDa f2 2:19). See Fabry, “‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬,” 2:437.
4.2 Describing the Body 115

mortality (see Wisdom below).10 Moreover, it is not apparent, in these cases,

that the sage is interested in differentiating the human life between a physical
and metaphysical components and that there is a distinct unity between un-
derstanding, the abstract application of wisdom, and the body that represents
the sum of human existence.
The Hebrew ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is also used to speak of the body but can also refer to physi-
cal “flesh” and one’s relative.11 In regard to the body, Ben Sira displays a specific
concern for the “body” of one’s daughter, “Do you have daughters? Watch their
bodies and do not shine a countenance upon them” (‫בנות לך נצור שארם ואל‬
‫תאיר אלהם פנים‬, A 2v:26-27;12 θυγατέρες σοί εἰσιν; πρόσεχε τῷ σώματι αὐτῶν, καὶ μὴ
ἱλαρώσῃς πρὸς αὐτὰς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου, 7:24).13 The focus of Ben Sira’s teaching
is a concern for the father’s responsibility to watch over his daughter’s body,
or more specifically, what may be done to her body (so, Skehan and Di Lella’s
“chaste”14). Ibolya Balla states,

These instructions depict a loveless relationship between father and daughter

even to the point that in Sir 7:24b a father is urged not to shine his face upon
her, or as the Greek translates, not to show a “cheerful” face to her. This idea may
mean that if the father is too indulgent with the daughter, she may make use of
it. For instance, she may use her freedom or the lack of the father’s supervision
to engage in sexual intercourse.15

That Ben Sira depicts a “loveless relationship between father and daughter”
seems to break through the interpretive boundaries of the text. While Ben
Sira has been noted for having a poor view of women,16 this warning does not

10 Tobit states, “For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin” (ἐλεημο-
σύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, καὶ αὐτὴ ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν). Surely, this is not some
claim of human immortality but more so a hope for a longer life (cf. v. 10’s “fullness of life,”
πλησθήσονται ζωῆς).
11 H ALOT 4:138-79.
12 See also, Sir C 3v:9-10, var. ‫ ;תאר‬Sir D 2r:6-7.
13 It appears that the Greek attempts to smooth out the Hebrew by adding the 2nd per-
sonal pronoun σου, which is likely implied but missing in all the extant Hebrew mss.
Additionally, C includes a variant indicating that Ben Sira is directing his teaching to sons
]…[‫בנים לך נצור שאר‬, Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 97, not daughters. Additionally, Skehan
and Di Lella suggest that there are biblical parallels here with Ps 73:26 and Prov 5:11, Ben
Sira, 206.
14 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 203. Ibolya Balla, “Chastity,” in Ben Sira on Family, Gender,
and Sexuality, DCLS 8 (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 37-38. See also, Segal,
Ben Sira, 49.
15 Balla, Ben Sira, 39.
16 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 90-92. The authors suggest that while some of Ben Sira’s
teaching on women seem to be deplorable, and must be noted as such, within the context
of a patriarchal society, it would have drawn little criticism (91). Also, Henry McKeating,
116 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

connote a “loveless” relationship—thought the relationship may not reflect a

modern, Western view of “love.” Moreover, it may reflect a misplaced, poorly
defined/practiced “love,” where control replaces concern. Such seems repre-
sented in Balla’s subsequent comments, namely, that somehow the daughter’s
body is something for the father to be concerned with. Or perhaps, more to the
point, the father is taught to exercise a modicum of control over her body, thus
assuring her chastity and that she will be fit to be married, thereby bringing an
end to the father’s anxieties (cf. 7:25). Therefore, Balla’s negative reading is not
far off. In that sense, the use of ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is utilized to depict the various elements
of the human body that function in relation to another, especially bodily and
sexual vulnerabilities. For Ben Sira, then, ‫ ְש ֵאר‬is not intended to encompass
the entire physical frame but rather is narrowed to focus on the sexual compo-
nents and vulnerability faced by one’s daughter—especially, in regard to her
chastity.17 The use of σῶμα to translate ‫ ְש ֵאר‬offers some additional semantic
nuance to what has been noted above. While in the aforementioned context,
σῶμα is employed to address human mortality and that part of humanity that
is affected by wisdom, death, and illness, here, the use of σῶμα is intended to
reflect the daughter’s sexuality.

4.2.1.2 Body/Flesh (σὰρξ, ‫ )בשר‬as Human Mortality and the Lives

of Mortals
Human mortality is generally described in Hellenistic-Jewish literature with the
term “flesh” (σὰρξ). Wis 7:1 reads, “I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant

“Jesus ben Sira’s Attitude to Women,” ET 85 (1973): 85-87; Roger Tomes, “A Father’s
Anxieties (Sirach 42:9-11)” in Women in Biblical Tradition, ed. George J. Brooke, SWR 31
(New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), 71-91; Claudia V. Camp, “Understanding Patriarchy:
Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira” in “Women Like
This” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine,
EJIL 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 1-40; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Daughters and their
Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira,” in DCLY (2012-2013): 183-201; Balla, Ben Sira, 54-56;
Maurice Gilbert, “Ben Sira et la femme,” RTL 7 (1976): 426-42; Warren C. Trenchard,
Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis, BJS 38 (Chico: Scholars Press 1982); Nuria
Calduch-Benages, “‘Cut Her Away from Your Flesh:’ Divorce in Ben Sira,” in Studies in the
Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical
Books, Shime‘on Center, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József
Zsengellér, JSJSup 127 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), 81-96.
17 It is then not surprising to find the use of ‫ שאר‬elsewhere to describe familial relation-
ships. For example, in the Damascus Document, “Unto the sister of your mother you shall
not draw near; she is the flesh of your mother (‫ ;שאר אמך היא‬Lev 18:13). But the law of
consanguinity is written for males and females alike, so if the brother’s daughter uncovers
the nakedness of the brother of her father, she is the flesh (‫והיא שאר‬, CD 5:8-11).” See also
CD 7:11, 8:6, 19:19, 4QDa 3 iv 4, 4QDd 4 ii 4, 6 2a, 4Q365 36 1, 4Q386 1 ii 4, 4Q387 A2, 4Q416 2
iv 5, 4Q418 10 ab 7, 4Q477 2 ii 8, 6Q15 4 4.
4.2 Describing the Body 117

of the first-formed child of earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded
into flesh” (καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ18).19 These words, placed on the
lips of King Solomon, express the shared mortality of collective humanity, so
that both king and subject have a common entrance and exit to the world: “…
there is for all mankind one entrance into life, and an equal departure” (μία δὲ
πάντων εἴσοδος εἰς τὸν βίον ἔξοδός τε ἴση, 7:6). Ben Sira utilizes σὰρξ in a similar
manner, “All living beings become old like a garment (πᾶσα σὰρξ20 [‫כל הבשר‬,
A 6r:6] ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιοῦται), for the decree from of old is, ‘You must surely
die!’” (14:17). The implications are obvious in that those composed of σὰρξ/‫בשר‬
have a finite existence. Flesh is truly an impermanent thing, with an “exit” that
is inescapable.21 Moreover, Ben Sira also makes use of an idiom to describe
general humanity that is routinely utilized in Rabbinic literature and the New
Testament to refer to human mortality, especially in relation to God,

ὡς φύλλον θάλλον ἐπὶ δένδρου δασέος, Like flourishing leaves on a spreading tree
τὰ μὲν καταβάλλει, ἄλλα δὲ φύει, οὕτως which sheds some and puts forth others,
γενεὰ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος,22 ἡ μὲν τελευτᾷ, so are the generations of flesh and blood
ἑτέρα δὲ γεννᾶται. πᾶν ἔργον σηπόμενον (‫ ;כן דורות בשר ודם‬A 6r:8): one dies and
ἐκλείπει, καὶ ὁ ἐργαζόμενος αὐτὸ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ another is born; every work decays and
ἀπελεύσεται (4:18-19) ceases to exist, and the person who made
it will pass away with it (4:18-19).

The use of “flesh and blood” (σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος; 23‫ )בשר ודם‬is contextually
linked to mortality in that death does not delay. As with every work and every
deed, they cease to exist, so will the one who does them. Furthermore, all of
humanity should remember God, do good (deeds), and indulge oneself on a

18 Unless otherwise note the Greek text from Wisdom is from Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Rahlfs
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
19 See Winston, Wisdom, 162-7. He notes that it is common for the human side of royalty to
be emphasized in Hellenistic texts, 162. Also, Grabbe, Wisdom, 64. Winston notes further
that elements of Wis 7:1-6 bear some parallel with Greek science, in particular, the state-
ment “compacted with blood” (παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι, 164).
20 The terminology “all flesh” (πᾶσα σὰρξ; ‫ )כל בשר‬is also a common reference for all of hu-
manity (see below).
21 Indeed, one can read in the Hebrew of this passage, ‫כל הבשר כבגד יבלה וחוק עולם גוע‬
‫( יגועו‬A 6r:6-7), that death is an inescapable statute for all (‫)חוק עולם‬. See also Sir 17:2.
22 The Greek here is a verbless clause, thus rendering the Hebrew literally.
23 In particular, this refrain is found in Rabbinic parables, e.g., t. Ber 6:18, t. Suk 2:6, t.
Sot 11:3, t. Bab Qam 7:4, t. San 8:9, Mek. R. Ish, Besḥ 6:8, Shir 1:104, 2:127, 8:60, Amalek 2:22,
Mek R. Sh Yoḥ 14:15, 14:19, 14:22, 15:1, 2, 10, 25, 16:4, Sifra, Shem 2:8, Sifrei Bemid, 84:5, 86:1,
87:1, 103:1, 104:1, 105:1, 117:2, 119:1, 134:4. See Ze’ev Safrai and R. Steven Notley, The Parables
of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011). The New
Testament also attests to this post-biblical idiom, see, Matt 16:17, 1 Cor 15:50, Gal 1:16,
Heb 2:4.
118 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

good day while time lasts (vv. 11-14).24 The message is clear, “flesh and blood,”
like all temporal things, will pass and the “fruits of one’s labor” will be left to an-
other since there are no earthly luxuries that will accompany him/her to Hades
(vv. 15-18). In other words, enjoy the present by wisely being good to another
and being obedient to God.
Ben Sira’s use of this idiom elsewhere, however, seems to be painted with a
more negative hue,

οὐ γὰρ δύναται πάντα εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι For all things cannot be in men, since
οὐκ ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. τί φωτεινότερον a son of man is not immortal. What is
ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν brighter than the sun? Yet its light fails. So
ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. δύναμιν ὕψους flesh and blood devise evil. He marshals
οὐρανοῦ αὐτὸς ἐπισκέπτεται, καὶ ἄνθρωποι the host of the height of heaven; but all
πάντες γῆ καὶ σποδός. (17:30-32).25 men are dust and ashes (17:30-32).

While humanity’s lack of immortality is emphasized (e.g., “son of man is not

immortal,” “all men are dust and ashes”), “flesh and blood” is said to plot evil.
The deviser of “evil” (πονηρός) is exhorted to return to the Most High and turn
away from iniquity (ἐπάναγε ἐπὶ ὕψιστον καὶ ἀπόστρεφε ἀπὸ ἀδικίας, 26; cf. also
25-32). While a bit darker than the sage’s previous teaching, the message is sim-
ilar, namely, “flesh and blood” (i.e., human) in the plotting of evil forgets that
it is temporal, impermanent, and that there is only one who is eternal (18:1).
Additionally, it is implied that the evil planned by “flesh and blood” will fail in
the same way that the light of sun eventually does.26

24 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 260. Also, for a similar idea see 2.2.1 in this study.
25 There is no Hebrew parallel for this text.
26 The idiomatic expression “flesh and blood” employed to illustrate the mortality of hu-
manity appears also in 1Enoch. As Enoch enters the heavenly retinue, God sends a mes-
sage to the fallen angels. He questions why, once holy and eternal, have they chosen to
defile themselves with earthly woman and father offspring with them (15:4; cf. also 102:5).
The angels are accused of doing what they do—“flesh and blood,” (i.e., humanity). Cf.
also T. Gad 7:2, “remembering that all flesh will die …” (μνημονεύοντες ὅτι πᾶσα σὰρξ ἀπο-
θανεῖται). We follow Nickelsburg’s reading of 15:4b “And with the blood of men you have
lusted, and you have done as they do—flesh and blood, who die and perish.” He notes,
“Since humans are flesh and blood (i.e., mortal), they need progeny to perpetuate their
name and line. God created woman and sex as a means to this end. By contrast with
flesh and blood, the watchers, being spiritual, are immortal and therefore have no need
to procreate,” George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary in the Book of 1Enoch
Chapters 1-36; 81-108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 271-2. See also,
Charles, APOT 2:198; Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of
the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 100. “Flesh and blood” is
also utilized in the Testament of Abraham B (13:7) where Abraham expresses his inability
to stand before the ethereal spirit of death. Its use in this fashion does not escape the
authors of the New Testament (cf. Matt 16:17, 1Cor 15:50, Gal 1:16, Eph 6:12, and Heb 2:14).
4.2 Describing the Body 119

Apart from depicting human mortality, σὰρξ can also be employed to de-
scribe the union between two people. When Ben Sira speaks of divorce he refers
to the husband cutting the wife away from his flesh, “If she walks not by your
side, cut her away from your flesh” (or “yourself” [cf. RSVA]; ἀπὸ τῶν σαρκῶν σου
ἀπότεμε αὐτήν).27 This text appears in an extended teaching on wicked women/
wives (25:13-26). It presumes that if a wife cannot be controlled the husband
should divorce her. The language of marriage and divorce is spoken of as a
binding and cutting of the flesh (a clear allusion to Gen 2:23).28 Furthermore, it
is an indication that “flesh” (σὰρξ) can refer to the part of a person that engages
with another in either marriage or divorce. Moreover, this metaphorical use is
also intended as a reminder to the reader that he/she and the rest of humanity
are subjugated to the same impermanent “fleshly” condition. Therefore, one
should not maintain anger against his neighbor’s wrong doings, “If he himself,
being flesh, maintains anger (αὐτὸς σὰρξ ὢν διατηρεῖ μῆνιν), who will make ex-
piation for his sins?” (28:5). This vulnerable depiction comes within a rhetori-
cal flourish that seeks to argue a significant point of reciprocity, “Forgive your
neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you
pray” (28:2). The person is admonished to remember that his “fleshly” physical
condition is something shared by all other people. As a result, one should be
forgiving and compassionate. The consequence of this interpersonal teaching
is that the merciful, forgiving one will be visited with mercy and forgiveness.
“Flesh,” therefore, is reminder of each person’s utter mortality, the reminder
that it is fickle—willing to devise evil—and admonished to do good. The use of
“flesh” especially in its ability to plot evil rings of a psychosomatic unity. That
which emotes, reasons, and plots is one with a fleshly nature.

4.2.1.3 “All Flesh” (πας σὰρξ, ‫ )כ[ו]ל בשר‬as Collective Humanity

Another designation for collective humanity is the phrase “all flesh” (πας σὰρξ,
‫)כ[ו]ל בשר‬.29 This phrase is not overly common in Greek texts and occurs most
often in Ben Sira. This terminology, however, can refer to all living beings with-
out a distinction between human and animal life. For example, “He placed the
fear of them in all living beings (lit. “all flesh;” πάσης σαρκὸς) and granted them

27 The addition “with a bill of divorce” appears in the Greek versions but not the Syriac.
See, Zeigler, Sirach, 246; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 346. See also, Balla, Ben Sira, 95;
Calduch-Benages, “‘Cut Her Away From Your Flesh,” 91.
28 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 346; Calduch-Benages, “Cut Her Away,” 90-91. This state-
ment is not unlike Paul’s statement in Eph 5:28. The Apostle’s marital instructions (5:22-
33) metaphorically depict the importance of the husband loving the wife in the same
manner that he would love his own body. Thus, the value of the wife is akin to the value
of her husband’s body.
29 Both phrases appear in the Hebrew Bible and the NT.
120 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

dominion over beasts and birds” (17:4; cf. also 13:6). Here “all flesh” refers to
beings both “beast and birds” (θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν). Elsewhere, the sage again
clearly uses “all flesh” to refer to all living beings, “… both human and beast …”
(ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους, 40:8). The occurrences that pertain to this study
are those occasions that utilize this terminology to refer solely to human-
ity. It is stated in Ben Sira that wisdom is “with all flesh” (μετὰ πάσης σαρκὸς,
1:10),30 according to each person’s gift, but is specifically “given abundantly”
(ἐχορήγησεν) to those who love him. Skehan and Di Lella understand the par-
ticiple “those who love him” (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν, 1:10) as referring to faithful Jews
“who observe the Law.”31 This, however, requires some nuance. As we have dis-
cussed in chapter 2, while Ben Sira has integrated a Jewish-specific focus to his
wisdom teachings, they incorporate such a general wisdom—amassed from
various influences—that a larger audience appears to be in view, one which
encompasses all of humanity. Thus, we read the participle “those who love” as
most immediately referring the faithful Jews but extended to those non-Jews
who might join themselves to the God of Israel and follow his commandments
(e.g., see 0:14). Indeed, as suggested by Segal, there is some expectation in Ben
Sira that all of creation, all of humankind, would follow the commandments.32
On two other occasions in Ben Sira, “all flesh” is utilized to express God’s re-
lationship to humanity. First, he is merciful and forgiving to “all flesh” because
he knows that their end is without value (τὴν καταστροφὴν αὐτῶν ὅτι πονηρά,
18:12).33 The sage concludes regarding God’s all-encompassing mercy, “The
mercy of a person (lit. man) is for his neighbor, but the mercy of the Lord is
for all flesh,”34 (ἔλεος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ἔλεος δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν
σάρκα, 18:13). Second, this phraseology is employed to depict God’s sovereign
knowledge, “The works of all flesh are present to him; nothing is hidden from
his eyes”35 (ἔργα πάσης σαρκὸς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κρυβῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν
ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ, 39:19). As God’s creation—being made of flesh—humanity’s
deeds cannot escape God’s sovereign knowledge. As such, if we might recall
for a moment some of the aforementioned teachings in Ben Sira, the admoni-
tion here is that humanity, that is, “all flesh” should be careful of their actions

30 Segal notes that ‫( כל בשר‬πάσης σαρκὸς) refers to either God’s creation, including all living
beings (e.g., beasts), or simply humanity, Ben Sira, 5.
31 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 139.
32 Segal, Ben Sira, 103. Jubilees makes is quite clear that angelic beings are circumcised
and observe the Sabbath (2:17-18, 15:27). See James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 120-33.
33 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 286.
34 Author’s translation.
35 Skehan and Di Lella translate πάσης σαρκὸς (B 9r:5 ‫ )כל בשר‬as “humankind.”
4.2 Describing the Body 121

because this “fleshly” condition leaves them utterly knowable by God and in
danger of judgment.36
The Hebrew equivalent ‫ כ[ו]ל בשר‬is also utilized to describe collective hu-
manity, as well as those who fall outside of the redeemed yaḥad of Qumran.
In the “Plea for Deliverance” (11QPsa 19:1-18), “humanity” (‫ )כל בשר‬is said to
have received the breath of life from God (‫חי נשמת כול בשר אתה נתתה‬, 4). It
does not appear contextually that ‫ כל בשר‬is referring to all living creatures,
both animal and human.37 First, lines 3 and 4 appear to be Second Temple
reworking of Gen 2:7 (cf. Wis 15:11)—the creation of Gen 2 is the creation of
the male, not of the woman or animal life. Yet, as in others contemporaneous
texts, Gen 2:7 is not viewed as solely the creation of a single male, but rather
humanity. Second, the context of Is 38:19—partially quoted in line 2 (‫חי חי יודה‬
‫יֹודָך ;לכה‬
ֶ ‫] ַחי ַחי הּוא‬MT])—deals with the praise given by a living person. Third,
the context of the non-canonical psalm deals with saving the speaker from sin
and Satan (11QPsa 10-18; see also col. 5). Again, the reference appears to be a
general phrase for all of humanity. Eibert Tigchelaar more recently notes that
‫כל בשר‬elsewhere appears in the context of court-like language that echoes
Jer 25:31.38 Pertinent to our study is the beginning of the Damascus Document,
“When He [i.e., God] has a dispute with any mortal (lit. all flesh,‫)כל בשר‬, he
passes judgment on those who spurn him” (CD 1:2). Indeed, in the historic por-
tion of the scroll (1:1-4:12), “all flesh” (i.e., humanity)—even Israel (cf. 1:3)—
faces the judgment of God should they desert God (‫)מנאציו‬. The playing field
for collective humanity has been leveled, and all stand, presently,39 before him
to be judged. Additionally, the lot of humanity in the War Scroll (1QM) that
falls outside of God’s redeemed, the chosen of Israel, is described as ‫כול בשר‬
(1QM 4:3, 15:13, 17:8). This group does not reflect the entirety of humanity, or a
shared trait, since there appears to be a dual conception for the living, namely,
those who are redeemed by God’s hand (i.e., the yaḥad) and those who will be
destroyed (i.e., specifically, their enemies; more broadly, the rest of human-
ity). The redeemed of Israel, the yaḥad, are not considered within the ‫כול בשר‬
lot. This likely develops from a view of ‫ בשר‬that metaphorically represents an
unredeemable human quality (more on this later). In the context of human

36 In the Testament of Abraham, “all flesh” portrays every person descended from Adam that
will rise on the final Day of Judgment (version a, 7:16). In a late text of the Sibylline Oracles,
“all flesh” is employed in a Jewish/Christian depiction of judgment (cf. 8:219, 8:227).
37 For this use of ‫כול בשר‬, see also e.g., 4QDa 2 i 7, 4QDc 1 10, 4Q423-424 2 ii 22, 4Q418 8 1,
4Q419 8 ii 7, 4Q511 35 1, 4Q525 10 5.
38 Tigchelaar, “‫בשר‬,” 543.
39 See Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological
Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary, STDJ 56
(Leiden: Brill, 2007), 142-3.
122 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

history’s final battle, it is not surprising that what is witnessed in other texts,
namely, that “all flesh”—whether in Greek or Hebrew—represents collective
humanity, has shifted here and the so-called “sons of light” stand separately
from this particular “lot” that will ultimately be destroyed. Yet, even this dis-
tinction in the War Scroll, other Qumran texts seem to indicate that the totality
of human existence—especially for those outside of the yaḥad—is subject to
the “flesh.” Both the metaphysical and physical aspects of human existence
are terminologically circumscribed by it. The only distinction for this is made
within the ideology of the Qumran community, although their uniqueness
never seems to truly remove the general baseness of this reality.40

4.3 Ben Sira

4.3.1 Meaning of ψυχὴ

Ben-Sira utilizes ψυχὴ more than any other Second Temple text, the majority
of which apparently translate ‫נפש‬.41 Both Hans Walter Wolff and Horst Seebass
have noted a similar semantic range for the biblical usage of ‫נפש‬: 1) Throat,
Gullet, 2) Desire, 3) Life (Living Creature), Individuated Life,42 Person, and 4)
Vital Self, Pronouns.43 Apart from “throat, gullet,” the semantic nuances delin-
eated by Wolff and Seebass are also reflected in Ben Sira. That is to say, that the
sage’s employment of ‫ נפש‬closely follows its use in the Hebrew Bible; the Greek
translation ψυχὴ then shares a similar semantic range. This is not wholly sur-
prising since Ben Sira is heavily influenced by the biblical wisdom traditions.
The most common meanings employed by Ben Sira for ψυχὴ, “desire,” “life,”
and regarding “the self”—a reflexive reference to the individual that generally
requires introspection on the part of the reader (e.g., “prepare yourself [ψυχήν

40 This idea will be dealt with more fully in chap. 7.

41 On a small number of occurrences ψυχὴ is paralleled by ‫( לב‬e.g., Sir 6:32 [A 2v:2], 7:29
[A 2v:28])
42 Seebass presents “life” and “individuated life” as two separate categories, ‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬,” TDOT
10:512-16. Yet, in Ben Sira we do not find a variation that warrants two separate categories.
43 Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (London:
SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 10-25; Seebass, “‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬, 497-518. Seebass dis-
agrees with Wolff’s contention that ‫ נפש‬can refer to the (outward) neck, 505. He notes,
“… in all cases the imagery suggests strangulation …” 505. Both discuss the translation of
“soul.” Wolff states that “soul” is a proper translation for “the seat and action of other spiri-
tual experiences and emotions as well,” 17. Seebass, on the other hand, concludes that the
few times that “soul” can be proffered as a translation is often of a reference to the vitality
and energy of life, 509-10. Neither suggest that the “soul” has a separate existence from the
human body.
4.3 Ben Sira 123

σου] for temptation,” 2:1). Where ψυχὴ appears and the various depictions and
actions associated with it—appearing in parenthesis—are listed in the follow-
ing chart.

Ben Sira’s Use of ψυχὴ

Desire Life (Living Creature) The Self

Individuated Life
Person
5:2*44 (do not fol- 4:2 (is hungry); 14:8†- 1:30† (dishonor to), 2:1† (prepare for
low), 6:4 (evil), 9* (disregards/is with- temptation), 17† (be humbled), 4:6
14:4 (deprived), ered), 16:30† (all living (bitter within), 4:17*45 (trusted in), 20
18:31† (taking beings), 19:3 (is reck- (bring shame to), 22 (shows partial-
plea­sure), 23:6† less), 16† (may slip), ity), 6:2 (do not exalt), 26 (came to her
(shameless), 26: 21:2† (be destroyed), [i.e., wisdom] with), 32† (applicable),
14-15† (disci- 37:28 (enjoys every- 7:11*46 (bitter within), 17*47 (be hum-
plined/chaste), thing), 51:3 (is sought), ble), 20 (is devoted), 21 (can love), 29*48
31:20 (is with 6 (is near Hades), 19-20 (fear the Lord), 9:2 (do not give to a
him), 34:17† (lift- (grappled with wisdom/ woman), 6 (do not give to a harlot),
ed), 37:27 (test it), directed to wisdom), 26 9*49 (stay away from another’s wife),
51:24 (thirsty) (receives instruction) 10:28-29 (glorify in humility/dishonor),
12:11*50 (be watched), 14:2 (is not condemned), 16:17 (what is it), 19:4† (do wrong to),
20:22 (may be lost), 21:27-28† (is cursed, defiled), 23:18† (speaking to), 24:1† (wisdom
praises its own), 25:2† (it hates), 27:16† (a friend to), 29:15† (life is giving to), 30:21 (do
not give to sorrow), 30:23 (be delighted), 31:28-29*51 (gladness/embittered), 32:23 (be
guarded), 33:31† (need a servant as), 34:15† (blessed who fears the Lord), 37:6*52 (do
not forget a friend), 8 (take a thought), 12*53 (like minded with another), 19 (unprofit-
able to), 37:27-28 (test it/person enjoys everything), 39:1† (be devoted), 40:29 (is pol-
luted with another’s food), 45:23*54 (has goodness), 50:25 (is vexed)
*indicates a parallel Hebrew term that differs from the Greek and does not utilize ‫נפש‬.
† no Hebrew parallel exists.

44 ψυχὴ parallels ‫“( לב‬heart,” A 1v:21).

45 The Greek form here is longer and where ψυχὴ appears no parallel is extant (see A1v:5).
46 “in the bitterness of his soul” (ἐν πικρίᾳ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ) is paralleled by “with a bitter spirit”
(‫במר רוח‬, A 1v:15).
47 ψυχὴ translates “pride” (‫גאוה‬, A 2v:19; C3v:3).
48 “with your whole soul” (ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ σου) is paralleled “with your whole heart” (‫בכל לבך‬, A
2v:28).
49 The Greek form is longer than the Hebrew parallels.
50 ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬A 5r:9).
51 ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬F 1r:6).
52 “do not forget a friend in your heart” (μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ φίλου ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου) is paralleled with
“do not forget a friend in battle” (‫אל תשכח חביר בקרב‬, B 7r:13; D 1r:10).
53 ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬B 7v:5).
54 ψυχὴ parallels ‫( לב‬B 15v:1).
124 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

These categories warrant commentary and a few key examples will suffice to
illustrate Ben Sira’s overall usage. Regarding desire, Ben Sira instructs for one
to be careful with it, “If you allow your desire (ψυχῇ) to take pleasure in lust-
ful longing, it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies” (18:30).55 Yet,
“desire” is not an overly common meaning used in Ben Sira (see chart above).
On only one occasion, ψυχὴ is utilized to illustrate God’s creativity in bringing
forth all manner of life, both animal and human: “After this the Lord looked
upon the earth, and filled it with his good things; with all kinds of living be-
ings (ψυχῇ παντὸς ζῴου) he covered its surface, and to it they return” (16:29-30).
Some of the more common semantic distinctions noted above, “individuated
life,” “person,” and “life (living creature)”—as noted by Seebass—seem limited
to negative characteristics. So, the “evil man with a begrudging eye” (πονηρὸς ὁ
βασκαίνων ὀφθαλμῷ), which is the miser,56 disregards people (lit. souls; ψυχάς)
and the “greedy man’s” (πλεονέκτου) life withers (14:8-9). Sin is described as
utterly destructive to human lives, “the teeth thereof are as the teeth of a lion,
slaying the lives of men” (ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων, 21:2). In several of the ex-
amples above, the use of ψυχὴ seems to indicate a psychosomatic unity, body
and soul, without a separate component.

4.3.2 ψυχὴ in the Sage’s Prayer

Ben Sira 51, especially the sage’s prayer (1-12), is critical to understanding its
use of ψυχὴ. Skehan and Di Lella break this chapter into 3 sections: 1) Ben Sira’s
prayer (1-12); 2) the Hymn of Praise (12:i-xvi); and 3) the Autobiographical Poem
on Wisdom (13-30).57 What follows is an analysis of key parts of the prayer and
autobiographical poem.

Stanza II (2d-3c)58

You have delivered me from the slanderous tongue,

and from the lips of lying miscreants:
You have been with me in the face of my attackers,
have helped me in your abundant mercy

55 See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 292.

56 See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 259.
57 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 560-80.
58 The translation and poetic structure here follows Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 560-1.
Their translation is based on both the Hebrew (B) and various Greek manuscripts. There
are no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that follow their translation precisely. That said,
however, the areas that are most pertinent for our discussion appear in both Greek and
Hebrew and are noted in parenthesis.
4.3 Ben Sira 125

Out of the snare of those looking for my downfall,

the clutches of those seeking my life (τὴν ψυχήν μου; ‫[ נפשי‬B 20r:15]).

Stanza IV (6b-8)

Close as I was to death—

my life (ἡ ψυχή μου; ‫[ נפשי‬B 20v:1]), to the depths of Hades—
Wherever I turned, there was no one to help me;
though I looked for support, there was none.
Then I remembered the LORD’S mercies,
his solicitude from times long past;
How he delivers those who take refuge in him
and defends them against evil of every kind.

Prior to Stanza II, Ben Sira praises God for protecting his body from destruc-
tion, “I give thanks to thy name, for you have been my protector and helper
and has delivered my body from destruction” (ἐξομολογοῦμαι τῷ ὀνόματί σου, ὅτι
σκεπαστὴς καὶ βοηθὸς ἐγένου μοι, καὶ ἐλυτρώσω τὸ σῶμά μου ἐξ ἀπωλείας, 51:1-2).
The Hebrew of B has a creative interplay which provides an interpretive grid
for understanding the employment ψυχή/‫ נפש‬in the rest of the poem.
51:1 (B 20r:11)

1 (11) I will recount your name as strength ‫כי פדית ממות‬: ‫) אספרה שמך מעוז חיי‬11( .1
of my life: for your redeemed my life from ‫נפשי‬
death.

‫“( נפש‬life”) is synonymously parallel with ‫“( חיי‬life”) in 51:1. This is surely an
indication that the ‫ נפש‬is not a separate component of human life but is uti-
lized to describe the psychosomatic reality and totality of the speaker’s nature.
In stanza II, Ben Sira’s life is saved from his enemies and in stanza IV, Hades/
Sheol (ᾅδης; ‫[ שאול‬B 20v:1]). The reference to Hades, however, is not neces-
sarily an indication of a place to where a disembodied component of human
existence goes after the death of the body. That is to say, since Ben Sira has
not given any clear indication that the “soul” per se has a separate existence
from the body, the reference to Hades/Sheol is not the abode of humanity’s
metaphysical component. Collins contends that Ben Sira does not express a
belief in the significant survival of the individual after death, since “such an
anemic existence [in Sheol] is not considered ‘life’ in any meaningful sense of
the word.”59 Indeed, Ben Sira’s use of ᾅδης does not seem to stray from Hades’

59 Collins, “The Root of Immortality,” 181, 188. This of course does not mean that some sense
of immortality is lacking in the Bible (see, e.g., Qoh 12:8, Dan 12:2).
126 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

varied, Septuagintal usage.60 However, one should pause and consider that
the imagination of an author who envisions his life descending into Hades
would have at least contemplated the existence of life after death—however
that might look. In fact, it seems that the depiction of Hades elsewhere inti-
mates some sort of existence—whether “anemic” or not—after death, “Give,
and take, and beguile yourself, because in Hades one cannot look for luxury” (ὅτι
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ᾅδου ζητῆσαι τρυφήν, 14:7 [RSVA], cf. also, 17:27). What is given over
to Hades is life without any reference to a distinguishable disembodied part
residing there. Di Lella notes, “in Ben Sira’s view, there are ‘no joys to seek’ in
Sheol, the netherworld (v 16b), because rewards for a life of virtue (and pun-
ishment for a life of sin) take place not in the afterlife but only in the present
life.”61 He refers back to Ben Sira 7:17, “More and more, humble your pride; what
awaits humans is worms”62 (‫כי תקות אנוש רמה‬, A 2v:20), as an indication for the
total lack of an afterlife. Yet, the Greek manuscripts of this text have a slightly
different reading and seem to provide a stronger implication of an afterlife,
“for the punishment of the ungodly is fire and worms”63 (ὅτι ἐκδίκησις ἀσεβοῦς
πῦρ καὶ σκώληξ). Di Lella suggests that between the original composition of
Ben Sira (c. 180 BCE) and its translation (c. 117 BCE) there was a development
in the belief in the afterlife, which earlier was “not yet part of Israel’s faith.”64
At least one post-biblical text which may predate or is, at least, contemporary
with Ben Sira65 envisions going down and rising up out of Sheol: “For he af-
flicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades, and brings up again, and
there is no one who can escape his hand” (ὅτι αὐτὸς μαστιγοῖ καὶ ἐλεᾷ, κατάγει
εἰς ᾅδην καὶ ἀνάγει, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐκφεύξεται τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, Tob 13:2). That
said, it is not readily clear that Ben Sira conceived of an actual afterlife apart
from communicating the importance of caring for the here-and-now. It is not
beyond the pale to read “punishment” (ἐκδίκησις) in the aforementioned text
as referring death and decomposition as that very penalty.
By far the lion’s share of ψυχὴ is used to depict the “self.” By “self” we mean
that which is characteristic of a psychosomatic unity, the part of the person
which both perceives, knows, and emotes, as well as the person’s bodily ex-
istence. That is to say that teachings that involve the “self” are not simply

60 ‫ ְשאֹול‬, HALOT 4:1365. See also, Theodore J. Lewis, “Dead, The Abode of,” ABD 2:101-6.
61 Skehan and DiLella, Ben Sira, 260.
62 This is Skehan and DiLella’s translation. The language here is reminiscent of 1QS 11:21, “…
his body is but the bread of worms …” (‫)מגבלו ולחם רמה‬.
63 Zeigler, Sirach, 158.
64 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 201-2
65 See Robert J. Littman, Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus, SCS (Leiden: Brill,
2008), xxviii.
4.3 Ben Sira 127

directed to the person’s internal psychological struggle but rather presume a

union between humanity’s physical and metaphysical self. For the sage, this
revolves around that characteristic that leads the individual to obey wisdom’s
instruction.66 A few examples outside of chapter 51, before returning to Ben
Sira’s prayer, are warranted.
While the collection of verses, where “self” best renders ‫נפש‬, need not be
referenced here (see chart above), several passages are still worth noting.
Particularly pertinent is the admonition not to give one’s self to a woman or
a harlot:

9:2
μὴ δῷς γυναικὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου Do not give yourself to a woman
ἐπιβῆναι αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν ἰσχύν σου.67 so that she gains mastery over your strength
(no Hebrew).

μὴ δῷς πόρναις τὴν ψυχήν σου, Do not give yourself to harlots (‫אל תתן לזונה‬
ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσῃς τὴν κληρονομίαν σου. ‫[ נפשך‬A 3v:4]) lest you lose your inheritance.

Again, the ψυχή/‫ נפש‬that is threatened in these passages points to the both cor-
poreal and non-corporeal realities of the person. Although one must be aware
of their emotions, the mishandling of them has physical consequences, namely,
the mastery over one’s strength and the loss of inheritance. While Ben Sira may
be speaking metaphorically of “strength” and “inheritance,” wisdom’s instruc-
tion is not simply limited to the spatial plane of perceptions and emotions,

66 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 40-46; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 62. See also Eckhard J.
Schnabel, “The Function of the Law,” in Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition
Historical Enquiry in the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1985), 46-54. Skehan and Di Lella note “From his reading and study of Israel’s
holy books, particularly Proverbs, he compiled his own notes, comments, and reflections,
which eventually he edited and published as a separate book … Ben Sira’s dependence
on Proverbs can be detected in almost every portion of his book,” Ben Sira, 43. As Corley
notes, Ben Sira’s dependence on biblical tradition, especially Proverbs, is creatively adapt-
ed biblical tradition, reshaping some of it with the larger wisdom literary context, which
includes Greek and Egyptian influence, Jeremy Corley, “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs
and Ben Sira” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent
Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), 155-82.
67 The Hebrew parallel references that love should not be “jealous:” ‫אל תקנא לאשה נפשך‬
(A 3r:28). The Greek versions, while not offering an understanding the subjunctive μὴ
δῷς (“should not give”), do not refer to jealousy within relationships, see Skehan and Di
Lella, Ben Sira, 218-19. Balla suggests that the situation reflected here “may be compared to
Sir 47:19-21, where Solomon came under the control of his wives via sex and let them rule
over him. The woman in question in Sir 9:2 could be a person with whom one should not
have relations, for example a prostitute,” Ben Sira on Family, 101, also, 98-101.
128 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

but rather presume real world ramifications. Therefore, the threat to a person’s
ψυχή is a reference to the whole person, both physical and metaphysical.
Additionally, portions of chap. 37 refer to “self” in relation to others,68

μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ φίλου ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου; καὶ μὴ Do not forget a friend in yourself, and be
ἀμνημονήσῃς αὐτοῦ ἐν χρήμασίν σου… (37:6) not unmindful of him in your wealth …
(37:6)

ἀλλ᾿ ἢ μετὰ ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβοῦς ἐνδελέχιζε, ὃν But stay constantly with a godly man
ἂν ἐπιγνῷς συντηροῦντα ἐντολάς, ὃς ἐν τῇ whom you know to be a keeper of the
ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν σου, καὶ ἐὰν commandments, whose self/person is in
πταίσῃς, συναλγήσει σοι… (12)69 accord with yourself, and who will sorrow
with you if you fail … (12)

The text seems to indicate a best practice when relating to others. It is essential
that one builds relationships with those who are of the same mind and deed.
Di Lella notes regarding v. 12, “like a true friend he is your other self” (see also,
37:8).70 Ben Sira’s lesson indicates that one should be careful to make relation-
ships with individuals that are in accord with one’s own life, that is, a person
who is set on the same path in both thought and deeds. In other words, as the
sage points out in 37:1-5, the difference between a good and a bad friend is that
a good friend is one who is like another in regard to words and action.71
Returning to chapter 51, the final portion of the “Autobiographical Poem” (vv.
19-20, 24, 26, 29) is perhaps most representative of the larger work.72 In 51:19-
20, Ben Sira speaks primarily of his desire regarding his struggle with wisdom,

68 See Jeremy Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, BJS 317 (Providence: Brown
University, 2001), 80.
69 See textual notes in Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 429-30. The Hebrew texts here do not
have the same sense. One might expect ‫ בנפשך‬for the ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου but rather B (7r:13)
and D (1r:10) preserve the noun “midst” (‫)קרב‬.
70 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 433.
71 Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching in Friendship, 81. Corley notes that while Ben Sira’s teaching is
reminiscent of an attitude that is found in Greek and Egyptian literature it is also steeped
in biblical allusions, especially to the story of David in 1 and 2 Samuel, 82. See also, Georg
Sauer, Studien zu Ben Sira, BZW 440 (Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 51-53.
72 This concluding poem was discovered in 11QPsa (col 21, 2:11-17-21, 1:1), which dates to
the first half of the 1st c. CE. See James Sanders, The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11
(11QPsa) DJD IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 79-84; idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll
(Ithaca: New York, 1967), 79. The Greek of the poem is an expanded form of what was
originally a Hebrew alphabetic acrostic poem. See also, Leo G. Perdue, “Ben Sira and the
Prophets,” in Intertextual Studies, 121-3.
4.3 Ben Sira 129

διαμεμάχισται ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ ἐν My desire grappled with her [i.e., wis-
ποιήσει νόμου διηκριβασάμην. τὰς χεῖράς dom], and in my conduct I was strict. I
μου ἐξεπέτασα πρὸς ὕψος, καὶ τὰ ἀγνοήματα spread out my hands to the heavens and
αὐτῆς ἐπένθησα. τὴν ψυχήν μου κατεύθυνα lamented my ignorance of her. I directed
εἰς αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐν καθαρισμῷ εὗρον αὐτήν. my desire to her, and through purification
καρδίαν ἐκτησάμην μετ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς· I found her. I gained understanding with
διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλειφθῶ (51:19-20). her from the first, therefore I will not be
forsaken (51:19-20).

The content of the Hebrew manuscripts, which form an alphabetic acros-

tic poem, are somewhat different73 but the use of ‫ נפש‬remains the same.74
Additionally, Ben Sira’s contention with wisdom and his lament over his igno-
rance of her (τὰς χεῖράς μου ἐξεπέτασα πρὸς ὕψος, καὶ τὰ ἀγνοήματα αὐτῆς ἐπένθη-
σα) is missing in the Hebrew version where the sage’s relationship to wisdom is
more secure.75 Later in this chapter ψυχὴ/‫ נפש‬refer to human lives, specifically
an exhortation for those lives to receive wisdom’s teaching:

τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν, Put your neck under the yoke,
καὶ ἐπιδεξάσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν παιδείαν. and let your lives receive instruction
ἐγγύς ἐστιν εὑρεῖν αὐτήν (51:26). it is to be found close by (51:26).
B 21v:6-7

And put your necks under her yoke, and ‫ומשאה תשא נפשכם׃‬ ‫וצואריכם בעלה הביאו‬
let your soul take up her burden
She is near to those who seek her, and the ‫ונותן נפשו מוצא אתה׃‬ ‫קרובה היא למבקשיה‬
one who gives himself finds her.

73 The Qumran text is arranged differently than the Greek versions—19-20 in the Greek
form appears as 19a, 20a, 19bc in the Hebrew—yet, “desire” seems to correctly render the
meaning of both versions.
74 Sanders, DJD IV, 79-85; idem., The Dead Psalms Scroll, 114-15. The Greek of Ben Sira here
parallels with 11Q5 21:15-16: ‫חריתי נפשי בה‬. Διαμαχίζομαι (“to strive for”) is not a pre-
cise equivalent with ‫“( חרה‬to burn, become hot, become angry”). B of Ben Sira [Taylor
Schechter (TS) 16.315] may offer a better parallel: ‫“( חשקה נפשי בה‬my self desired her”
[i.e., wisdom]). Sanders notes that later textual witnesses attempted to “purge” any of
the sensuousness overtones suggested by ‫ חריתי נפשי בה‬with the Syriac ‫ חשקה‬and the
Greek διαμαχίζομαι, DJD IV 82. For Muraoka’s examination of Sanders’ interpretation. See,
Takitsu Muraoka, “Sirach 51:13-30,” JSJ 10/2 (1979): 166-178. Deutsche notes that about half-
way through the poem Ben Sira abandons erotic language because it is no longer appro-
priate, C. Deutsch, “The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation,” ZAW 94 (1982):
407. It should be noted that in its Greek form much, if any, of the presumed eroticism
present in the Hebrew is lacking.
75 See, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 574-6.
130 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

The understanding of ψυχὴ, again, presumes that wisdom affects the entire
person. There is nothing that indicates that Ben Sira presumes a body-soul du-
ality. Even the additional stich in the Hebrew of B, which speaks of finding wis-
dom through giving one’s self (‫)ונותן נפשו מוצא אתה‬, utilizes ‫ נפש‬as a reference
to this psychosomatic unity.
The rest of the poem involves inviting others to learn wisdom from him and
comments on a personal lack of wisdom.

ἐγγίσατε πρός με, ἀπαίδευτοι, καὶ αὐλίσθητε Draw near to me, you who are untaught,
ἐν οἴκῳ παιδείας. τί ὅτι ὑστερεῖσθαι λέγετε and lodge in my school. Why do you say
ἐν τούτοις, καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ ὑμῶν διψῶσι you are lacking in these things, and why
σφόδρα,76 ἤνοιξα τὸ στόμα μου καὶ ἐλάλησα, are your desires very thirsty? I opened
Κτήσασθε ἑαυτοῖς ἄνευ ἀργυρίου. τὸν my mouth and said, get these things for
τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν, καὶ yourselves without money. Put your neck
ἐπιδεξάσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν παιδείαν. ἐγγύς under the yoke, and let your lives receive
ἐστιν εὑρεῖν αὐτήν.77 ἴδετε ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς instruction; it is to be found close by. See
ὑμῶν ὅτι ὀλίγον ἐκοπίασα, καὶ εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ with your eyes that I have labored little
πολλὴν ἀνάπαυσιν. μετάσχετε παιδείας ἐν and found myself much rest. Get instruc-
πολλῷ ἀριθμῷ ἀργυρίου, καὶ πολὺν χρυσὸν tion with a large sum of silver, and you
κτήσασθε ἐν αὐτῇ. εὐφρανθείη ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν will gain by it much gold. May lives re-
ἐν τῷ ἐλέει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθείητε ἐν joice in his mercy, and may you not be put
αἰνέσει αὐτοῦ.78 ἐργάζεσθε τὸ ἔργον ὑμῶν to shame when you praise him Do your
πρὸ καιροῦ, καὶ δώσει τὸν μισθὸν ὑμῶν ἐν work before the appointed time, and in
καιρῷ αὐτοῦ (51:23-30). God’s time he will give you your reward
(51:23-30).

Physical desire is used metaphorically to illustrate thirst (διψῶσι) for wisdom.79

Because wisdom is free, the individual should accept the “yoke” (ζυγός) of in-
struction (cf. also 6:23-30). Moreover, an encounter with wisdom causes one to
“rejoice” and “not be shamed.” As Balla notes, “Not only does the wise person
have reason to rejoice and praise God … for his gift, wisdom … but it is also
his purpose and duty.”80 Ben Sira’s metaphorical use of other body parts, “the
neck” (τὸν τράχηλον) and “eyes” (ὀφθαλμοῖς), indicates that the aforementioned
desires are not physical in nature. The other two occasions of the singular form
of ψυχὴ in this text represent one’s life.

76 B 21v:4 [TS 16.315]: ‫ עד מתי תחסרון מן אילו ואילו‬/ ‫ונפשכם צמאה מאד תהיה‬
77 B 21v:6-7 [TS 16.315]: ‫ ומשאה תשא נפשכם‬/ ‫ וצואריכם בעלה הביאו‬/ ‫קרובה היא למבקשיה‬.
78 B 21v:10 [TS 16.315]: ‫ ולא תבושו בשירתי׃‬/ ‫תשמח נפשי בישיבתי‬. The Greek MSS switch to
the third person, referring to God, while the Hebrew—with the first person—seems to
refer to Ben Sira’s “council” and “song.”
79 See especially B 21v:5 [TS 16.315]: ‫(…חכמה בלא כסף‬wisdom without silver)
80 Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 216.
4.4 Wisdom of Solomon 131

The use of ψυχὴ—as evident in this final chapter and throughout Ben Sira—
recalls the various semantic nuances that are already attested in the Hebrew
Bible’s use of ‫נפש‬, namely, “desire,” “life,” and the psychosomatic “self.” It is im-
portant to note that Ben Sira speaks of human nature as a single living unit,
not as a composition of parts, i.e., a physical body or a soul that has a separate
existence from it. This view is tempered, however, with two points, 1) the sage
likely envisions some degree of an afterlife, albeit minimally, with his inte-
gration of Hades into his wisdom instruction, although it does not indicate a
divisible existence for collective humanity, and—as has already been noted—
2) when Ben Sira employs “body” (σῶμα [‫ ]בשר‬7:24, 23:17, 30:14-16, 38:16, 41:11,
44:14, 47:19, 48:13, 51:2) it is regularly limited to humanity’s temporal existence.
Interestingly, this use of σῶμα in this fashion does not appear in the same con-
texts as ψυχὴ. Terminologically then there appears to be little implied, if any-
thing, about two distinct components that comprise human nature.

4.4 Wisdom of Solomon

4.4.1 The Immortality of the Soul

Wisdom of Solomon reflects an understanding that the person is composed
of at least two components; that is to say, it is clear that both body and soul
are considered distinct from one another. Early in Wisdom, “body” (σῶμα) and
“soul” (ψυχὴ) are juxtaposed to one another and the introductory command,
“Love justice, you who rule the earth,” (αγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν
γῆν, 1:1),81 expresses the notion that wisdom is opposed to a person that is cor-
rupted: “For wisdom will not enter a fraudulent soul, nor make her home in a
body mortgaged to sin” (ὅτι εἰς κακότεχνον ψυχὴν οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται σοφία οὐδὲ
κατοικήσει ἐν σώματι κατάχρεῳ ἁμαρτίας, 4).” A couple of things are germane
here. First, the use of ψυχὴ indicates some sort of decision-making faculty. The
context of vv. 1-15 suggests that the individuals commanded to “love justice” in-
volve a determination to stay clear of “lawless acts” (ἀνομημάτων; v. 9). For this
reason, Winston’s translation of ψυχὴ as “mind” is appropriate.82 Second, due
to the poetic nature of this portion of Wisdom it appears that σῶμα and ψυχὴ
parallel one another. The parallelism is intended not to indicate that both com-
ponents are essentially the same but rather that human nature is composed

81 Winston, Wisdom, 100-101. He notes here that the imperatives are ingressive, expressing
the coming about of conduct which contrasts with prior conduct.
82 Winston, Wisdom, 99.
132 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

of two components, both of which are affected by wisdom. This is confirmed

later in Wis 2:3, “When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the
spirit will dissolve like empty air” (οὗ σβεσθέντος τέφρα ἀποβήσεται τὸ σῶμα, καὶ
τὸ πνεῦμα διαχυθήσεται ὡς χαῦνος ἀήρ).83 Although the author has employed
“spirit” (πνεῦμα), rather than “soul,” it speaks to a tendency to view human ex-
istence as composed in parts. Again, the body and spirit are paralleled to one
another—the body becomes ashes and the soul/spirit dissolves. The parallel,
especially that the soul has a varied end from the body, indicates some degree
of differentiation. Such a viewpoint need not contradict the immortality of the
soul as expressed by Wisdom later.84 The “spirit” (πνεῦμα) dissolving upon the
death of the body may simply demonstrate the fate of the wicked, perhaps the
“punishment” (ἐπιτῑμία) referred to in the next chapter (cf. 3:10).
The clearest dichotomization of human existence is attested later in
Wisdom 8:19-20.

19. παῖς δὲ ἤμην εὐφυὴς 19. As a child I was by nature well en-
ψυχῆς τε ἔλαχον ἀγαθῆς, dowed, and a good soul fell to my lot;

20. μᾶλλον δὲ ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα 20. or rather, being good, I entered an un-
ἀμίαντον. defiled body.

The “soul” (ψυχῆς) is distinct from the body into which it enters (ἦλθον, see
again, 1:4); the soul exists prior to the body and is described as a loan that must
be returned upon death (e.g., 15:8; cf. also Ps. Phoc. 106; sec. 2.5).85 Winston
notes, “This verse is as clear a statement of the concept of preexistent souls as
one could wish, and there is no need to explain it away as many commenta-
tors have done.”86 The soul is also depicted as distinct from the body in 9:15:
“for a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthy tent burdens the
thoughtful mind” (φθαρτὸν γὰρ σῶμα βαρύνει ψυχήν, καὶ βρίθει τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος
νοῦν πολυφρόντιδα; cf. Tob 3:6). In a decidedly negative portrayal of the human
body, the physical and “corruptible” (φθαρτὸν) aspect of humanity weighs

83 For a similar conception, see section 2.5.

84 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 186. See also, 2 Macc 6:30, 7:37
85 Both Winston, Wisdom, 198, and Grabbe, Wisdom, 53, suggest that this text may bear
evidence of metempsychosis or the transmigration of the souls. “It would assume that
Solomon’s soul was good because of effort in a previous life,” Grabbe, Wisdom, 53.
86 Winston, Wisdom, 198; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 185. Winston also draws parallels between
verse 20 and the T. Naph. 2:2. See chapter 2 in the present volume. Collins notes the simi-
larity of Wisdom with the myth of Er in Plato’s Republic. Furthermore, he notes that the
second formulation in v. 20 is a nod to the Platonic tradition regarding the pre existence
of the soul. See also Chrysostome Larcher, Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, EB (Paris:
Gabalda, 1969), 270-79.
4.4 Wisdom of Solomon 133

down the soul; it is a burden to the inner (perhaps, “real”) person.87 The same
view of body and soul is attested in Josephus where the body is corruptible
and mortal, while the soul is immortal, “For it is a fixed belief of theirs [i.e.,
the Essenes] that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter imperma-
nent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable” (Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ᾿
αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν τὰς
δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, J.W. 2:154; 4.5 below).88 Both Wisdom and the
first century historian utilize the same term to describe humanity’s corruptible
body (φθαρτός)—a term which emphasizes humankind’s perishable and mor-
tal existence.89 Such a view closely parallels the body-soul dualism attested in
Platonic texts: “… so long as we have the body, and the soul is contaminated
by such an evil, we shall never attain completely what we desire, that is, the
truth … we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities
with the eye of the soul alone” (Phaedo 66b-d).90 While Ben Sira’s portrayal of
the body is temporal, prone to affliction and death, Wisdom has gone a step
further by depicting the body as a container of sorts that will release a human’s
metaphysical self upon death. Plato’s view of the human body, however, seems
more wretched than the image in Wisdom and Ben Sira. The sense one gets in
Wisdom is that the human body is more than vulnerable or temporal; it is a jail
for the immortal element which desires to be freed,91 although the body does
not seem to be a contaminating influence on the soul.
As to the immortality of the soul, in Wisdom it seems limited to the righ-
teous: “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment

87 Both Winston, Wisdom, 207; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 86. A similar sentiment is preserved
in the Apocalypse of Sedrach 1:10. See also, Testament of Abraham A 15:17. Furthermore,
Wisdom’s retelling of the Enoch narrative from Genesis, where the ante-diluvian patriarch
is taken from earth (5:24), is utilized to express the dangers faced by the ψυχὴ that lives
among sinners and the particular pleasing ψυχὴ (i.e., life) of righteous 1 Enoch 4:10-14.
88 Josephus, Jewish War Book I-II, trans. H. J. St Thackeray, LCL 203 (Cambridge, London:
Harvard University, Press, 1997), 380-3.
89 B DAG 268.
90 Plato: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. Harold North Fowler, LCL 36
(Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1990), 228-31.
91 The Apostle Paul seems to hope for the same end to the righteous: “Lo! I tell you a mystery.
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable
(ἀφθαρσίαν), and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imper-
ishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the
imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that
is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”” (see also, 2 Cor 5:8). He utilizes the same
terminology that Wisdom does to describe the incorruptibility of being created in his
image (Wis 2:23-24; see 2.4).
134 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

will ever touch them” (Δικαίων δὲ ψυχαὶ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἅψηται αὐτῶν
βάσανος, 3:1).92 It is clear that ψυχαὶ indicates a separate and distinct aspect of
human existence since 3:2-4 reference the death of the righteous.93 The after-
life of the soul, in particular, of the righteous, is consistent with idea of death
elsewhere in post-biblical Jewish literature (cf. 3 Bar 10:5; Rechab 14:4), namely,
“the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord” (Δίκαιοι εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα ζῶσιν, καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτῶν, 5:15). Grabbe notes that the immortal-
ity of the soul seems to be a gift to the righteous, while it is less clear that the
soul is naturally immortal.94 Collins states, “… immortality is an attribute of
the spiritual: righteousness and the souls of the righteous are immortal.”95 The
righteous are kept from torment, but the wicked will be punished having disre-
garded the righteous and rebelled against God (3:10). Furthermore, the context
in chapter 3 seems to indicate that the punishment referenced in v. 10 is in
the here and now and not after death (cf. 3:11-14). Indeed, Collins suggests that
this is simply a description of final death but immortality is the realm of the
righteous.96 This differs from other depictions, for example, in 1 En 22, where
the souls of both the righteous and the wicked are present, but separated, as
they await judgment (see 4.6.1 below). Josephus, following the fashion of the
Greeks, although he credits them after the fact, also portrays the separation
of immortal souls into abodes of the righteous and the wicked (J.W. 2:154-158,
more on this below).97

92 See Winston, Wisdom, 125-6.

93 “In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died (αν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀφρόνων τεθνάναι),
and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their
destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished,
their hope is full of immortality” (RSVA).
94 Grabbe, Wisdom, 55.
95 John J. Collins, “The Roots of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,”
HTR 71 3/4 (Jul.-Oct. 1978): 188.
96 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 186 (cf. Collins note on 5:14); Pace Matthew Goff, “Adam, the
Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in Studies
in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza Xeravitz and József Zsengellér (JSJSup 142; Leiden, Brill,
2010), 8. Although the suggestion that no “torment” (βάσανος) will come to the righteous
in the context of death may lean on the side of their being an afterlife for the wicked as
well.
97 Josephus (J.W. 2:158) associates this belief with the Essenes. There is a great deal of dis-
cussion as to whether the Essenes are one with the community at Qumran. Although be-
yond the scope of this study, suffice it to say that there remains a number of unanswered
questions as to the differences between the portrayal of the Essenes in Josephus and the
texts that have been thought to be composed by the yaḥad.
4.5 Josephus 135

The concept that the person is comprised of distinct components, body and
soul,98is clear in Wisdom despite the few occasions where ψυχὴ may be em-
ployed to represent a single life (e.g., 1:11, 2:22). The text’s use of ψυχὴ indicates
both an individuated life and, even more so, a component of humanity that ex-
ists separately from the body. As previously noted, the latter may be the result
of Platonic/Hellenistic influences.99 Furthermore, this component, which is
separate from the body, is depicted as immortal. Winston states that the im-
mortality of the soul “represents a new emphasis in the history of Jewish tradi-
tion, although it must be seen as part of a continuous development in Jewish
Hellenistic thought.”100 Unlike Ben Sira, where the use of ψυχὴ/‫ נפש‬recalls
much of the semantic range already attested in the Hebrew Bible, especially
the view of humanity as a psychosomatic unity, Wisdom transitions to a more
Hellenistically-driven depiction where the “soul” has a separate and eternal
existence—at least for the righteous.

4.5 Josephus

Although Josephus’ earliest work, Jewish War, is written after the Second
Temple period (75-79 CE)101 it is an indispensable source for ideas regarding

98 Obviously, the life of the soul after it is thought to depart from the body, which is evidence
of its immortality, is not a quality shared by body. Once the soul departs, it seems con-
sistent throughout Second Temple literature that the body remains lifeless and, in some,
lifeless until the resurrection.
99 Especially that of Middle Platonism; see Dillon, Middle Platonism, 96-101; Winston,
Wisdom, 26-32; Goff, “Gen 1-3,” 8.
100 Winston, Wisdom, 32.
101 Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume 1: Books 1-2, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U Press, 1927) xii; Steve Mason notes, “the last datable event
mentioned in Judean War is Vespasian’s dedication of the stunning Forum and temple
of Peace, which housed many of the spoils from Jerusalem’s temple, near Augustus’s
Forum in the city center (War 7.158-162; cf. Pliny, NH 36.102). The site was opened
in 75, so Agrippa and Berenice may have timed their arrival for the big event (Cassius
Dio 65/66.15.1). Josephus thus finished his account at some point after the summer of 75
and before Vespasian’s death on June 23, 79. We should allow margins on either side, for
Josephus to finish Book 7 after mentioning the temple of Peace and to circulate drafts
before having copies disseminated,” “Josephu’s Judean War,” in A Companion to Josephus,
ed. Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, BCAW (Sussex: John Wiley and Sons,
2016), 14-15, esp. 15. See also Shaye J. D. Cohen who argues that for Book 1-6 there was a
“relatively coherent uniform work finished as a whole before 81,” Josephus in Galilee and
Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 84-90.
136 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

the composition of humanity in early Judaism prior to the destruction of the

Temple (70 CE).

4.5.1 Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities on the Body and Soul in
Jewish Schools102
The most relevant sections begin with the historian’s extended discussion in
Book 2 of the three Jewish philosophies, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes
(119-166). While the Essenes receive the most attention, Josephus describes re-
spective positions of the three schools regarding human composition. Before
introducing the Essene doctrine of the body and soul, Josephus describes in
length their willingness to face death at the hands of the Romans during the
First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE). Fearing that they would be required to somehow
transgress the law, they gave their lives with cheerfulness expecting that they
would receive their souls again (ἠφίεσαν ὡς πάλιν κομιούμενοι; J.W. 2:151-153).103
Later, the Essene belief of the body and the soul closely corresponds with
this depiction:

Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the
φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην body is corruptible and its constituent
οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους matter impermanent, but that the soul
ἀεὶ διαμένειν, καὶ συμπλέκεσθαι μὲν ἐκ is immortal and deathless.104 Emanating
τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος ὥσπερ from the finest ether, these souls become
εἱρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασιν ἴυγγί τινι φυσικῇ entangled, as it were, in the prison-house
κατασπωμένας, ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν of the body, to which they are dragged
κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷα δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας down by a sort of natural spell; but when
ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους once they are released from the bonds of
φέρεσθαι (J.W. 2:154-155). the flesh, then, as though liberated from a
long servitude, they rejoice and are borne
aloft (J.W. 2:154-155).105

102 See Steve Mason’s discussion on what is intended by the use αἱρέις, Flavius Josephus in the
Pharisee: A Composition-Critical Study, SPB (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 127-8.
103 Steve Mason notes that the language here of given one’s life is used in the martyrdom
scenes of 2 Macc, in particular, the account of the Mother and Seven Sons in 2 Macc 7 (see
excursus in chap. 3). In fact, Mason states that the language of receiving their bodies again
“echo the martyrdom scenes of 2 Macc 7:11, 14, 23, 29; esp. 14:46,” Judean War 2—Translation
and Commentary, FJTC 1B (Leiden: Brill, 200], 123, n. 943). Unlike 2 Maccabees, the por-
trayal of a returned life for the Essenes does not induce God’s mercy on behalf of the
nation.
104 I have chosen to translate ἀθανάτους as “deathless” following Mason as it rightly intimates
Josephus’ intention to describe the Essene belief in the immortal soul, The Jewish War, 123.
105 Unless otherwise noted the Greek and English of J.W. is from Josephus, The Jewish War,
203.
4.5 Josephus 137

Paralleling a paradigm for humanity’s constituent parts that is attested else-

where in Jewish literature (sec. 4.4.1), Josephus states that the Essenes’ belief
that each person is composed of two parts, a body and soul. The body is “per-
ishable” (φθαρτός) and the soul is “deathless/immortal” (ἀθάνατος). As Joseph
Sievers notes, this is common terminology for Josephus when discussing the
soul’s immortality.106 Rather than using the negative form of φθαρτός,107 “im-
perishable” (ἄφθαρτος), Josephus is explicit and unequivocal, the soul is be-
yond imperishable or subject to decay, death has no sway over it.
The Essenes are also said to believe in the preexistence of the soul (154).
They emanate from the finest “ether” (αἰθήρ), which according to Mason is
similar to Homeric cosmology,108 but they do not exist specifically, it seems, ex-
pressly for humanity as their metaphysical existence is not immediately con-
nected with a person. Rather, the soul, is entangled by a “spell” (ἴυγξ) of sorts,
as if the physical part of the person is active in trapping the soul, imprisoning it
until the death of that body; death offers release to the soul. The soul’s separa-
tion of the body follows Platonic body-soul dualism.109 As in Platonic thought,
the imprisoned soul “rejoices” (χαίρειν) from its “servitude” (δουλεία) hav-
ing ended, thus the soul’s natural place existence is disembodied. Moreover,
the soul’s departure into the metaphysical realm is not a return to the ether110
from whence it came, although Josephus’ description of the soul’s ascent upon

106 Joseph Sievers, “Josephus and the Afterlife,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives,
ed. Steven Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 21. Deathless/
immortal is the same language utilized by Ben Sira to describe humanity’s temporality,
which is seen in relation to a person’s ability to devise evil (cf. 17:30-32).
107 This is precisely what Paul does in Romans, “and exchanged the glory of the immortal
God (τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ) for images resembling mortal man (φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου) or birds
or animals or reptiles” (1:23). While Paul does not refer to the body here, he does utilize
φθαρτός in order to describe human mortality.
108 Mason, The Judean War 2, 124, n. 945.
109 See notes on Wisdom of Solomon in 4.4; and Plato: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo,
Phaedrus, trans. Harold North Fowler, LCL 36 (Cambridge, London: Harvard University
Press, 1990), 228-31; also, Todd S. Beal, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes as Illustrated by
the Dead Sea Scrolls, SNTSM 58 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 105. In
Greek thought, the soul is thought to return to the aether.
110 Discussing the afterlife in Orphic Myth and Pythagorean philosophy, Alan Segal refers to
an inscription that speaks of the death of Athenians at Potidea—a Corinthian colony—
states, “After one dies, the soul abides in the upper atmosphere, as we learn from an
inscription concerning the Athenians who perished at Potidea in 432 BCE: ‘The aether
[i.e., ether] has received their souls, but their bo[dies the earth],’” Alan F. Segal, Life After
Death: A History of the Afterlife in Religions of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 443.
138 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

death is not far afield from other Greek ideas. In fact, scholars have long noted
the influence of Hellenism on Josephus.111 As Todd Beall notes,

Josephus’ desire to depict the Jews in a favorable manner to his Gentile readers
sometimes results in an adaptation of his material to Greek ways of thinking.
And in this discussion of immortality, he even explicitly mentions twice that the
Essene doctrine is similar to the Greeks’. Thus, he is especially concerned with
maximizing the similarities and minimizing the differences between the Essene
and Greek views.112

Josephus departs so far from his initial description of Essenic belief, it is

worth asking whether he has not simply minimized the differences between
both worlds—Essene and Greek views—but has fully transformed the trek
of the soul to the place of refreshing or retribution (155-156)—as one sees in
1 Enoch—into a pastiche of various Greek conceptions of the afterlife, mak-
ing specific reference to the blessed place of heroes, and demi-gods, as well
as the punishments of such well known figures as Sisyphus, Tantalos, and
Tityus, the giant (156). This is the only place where Josephus arrays Essene be-
lief with such embellishment. If the historian has chosen to portray belief in a
non-Essene, perhaps even, non-Jewish manner,113 it resolves why he does not
return to the Essenes’ belief that prefaced this section, namely the return of
life to the dead, i.e., the resurrection, or, more specifically the soul’s return (cf.
153).114 That is to say, his description that the soul, as its reenters the ethereal
world and escapes a bodily prison, does not address its eventual return to or
the implication of resurrection for the Essenes.115 Moreover, this contrasts with

111 Most notably, Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus,” in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered,
JSJSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 313-762.
112 Beall, Essenes, 105.
113 By “non-Jewish,” I do not mean as opposed to Hellenism, or Greek thought, in a strict
sense. I am referring more to Josephus’ departure from his portrayal of Essene belief into
a rehashing of Greek myth.
114 See Mason, Judean War, 123, n. 942, who points out that the verbiage of this section recalls
accounts of resurrection in other early Jewish sources. However, it should be noted, that
Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes in J.W. 2:154-157 is probably a true authorial embel-
lishment rather than a precise assessment of Essenic belief or rather a received Essene
tradition. This fits better with the otherwise succinct presentations of the three schools
in J.W. and Ant.
115 While there are no parallel accounts of the Essenes, specifically, outside of Josephus, and
there is not description of the immortality of the soul in early Jewish literature that is not
infused with Greek myth, we have shown above and in previous chapters that the idea
of the immortality of the soul existed in Jewish literature—in particular, Wisdom (2.3),
Ps-Phoc (2.4), and 1 Enoch (4.4.2). Furthermore, we are treating the Essenes as a separate
4.5 Josephus 139

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE) who states that the idea of the resurrection
is “strong” (ἔρρωται) among the Essene community.116 Jonathan Klawans does
not see the same inconsistency in Josephus, however. Based on his translation
of ὡς as “as” in 2:153, “as expecting to receive them [i.e., their souls] again,” indi-
cates that the Essenes who were willing to give their lives were “motivated not
by a firm belief that they would get their souls back, but that their souls would
live elsewhere” (author’s emphasis).117 Indeed, if the adverb is intended in this
way, then it resolves the rational for Josephus’ extended embellishment—one
that is not matched with his description of the Pharisees here in J.W., or of any
of the schools in Ant. But it does not explain the Essene expectation, however
one translates ὡς, that the Essenes would receive their soul “again” (πάλιν). To
receive the soul again implies a return the body, the very thing that is missing
in Josephus’ diversion.
Later, in Antiquities, Josephus returns to the Essene belief in the immortality
of soul, stating succinctly, “They regard the soul as immortal (ἀθανατίζουσιν δὲ
τὰς ψυχὰς περιμάχητον)…” (Ant. 18:18). While he continues to unpack the vir-
tues of the members of the Essenes, he does not return to the Greek myth of
J.W. He also makes no mention of the Essene hope for the return of the soul.
Moreover, the school is described last of the three,118 where in J.W., the Essenes
are depicted with the lengthiest and most impressive view of the soul. Perhaps
the historian’s brevity in Ant. is due to his previous portrayal of the schools in
J.W. (cf. Ant. 18:11). Still, Josephus omits critical points of Essene opinion re-
garding the soul, namely, its eventual return and its journey through an ethe-
real plain.
The Pharisee’s and the Sadducee’s view of the body and soul in J.W. is com-
paratively more concise than that of the Essenes.

group despite decades of debate as to whether the Essenes are in fact the Jewish group
that existed at Qumran. See Beall’s discussion in Josephus’ Description, 105-108.
116 Refutation of All Heresies, 9:27; Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium,
ed. Miroslav Marcovich, PTS 25 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986) 374. See also, Refutation
of All Heresies, trans. and notes M David Litwa, WGRW (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 684-5.
117 Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012),
269, n. 72.
118 Morton Smith, “The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena,”
HUCA 29 (1958): 292-3; also, Gunaar Haaland, “What Difference Does Philosophy Make?
The Three Schools as a Rhetorical Device in Josephus,” in Making History: Josephus and the
Historical Methhod, ed. Zuleika Rodgers, JSJSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 275-6.
140 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

Pharisees (2:163b)
ψυχήν τε πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον, μεταβαίνειν Every soul, they maintain, is imperish-
δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην, able, but the soul of the good alone pass-
τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀιδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι es into another body, while the vile suffer
eternal punishment.119

The language employed to describe the Pharisee’s and Essene’s view of the
soul differs somewhat. The Pharisees believe in an “imperishable” soul, and
the Essenes, one that is “deathless/immortal” (ἀθάνατος, see above). Yet, the
Pharisaic view of the soul does not receive the same treatment as its Essene
counterpart. Both groups basically agree on the immortality of the soul, despite
the latter receiving a grandiose display of the soul’s afterlife. For the Pharisees,
the soul of the “good” (ἀγαθῶν) enters “another body” (ἕτερον σῶμα).120 The
Essenes, on the other hand, are said to believe that the body is a prison for the
soul. Once the soul is released it does not return to the body; the body in gen-
eral is dispensable. Yet, as Mason notes, “It would appear, then, that Josephus
understands the Pharisaic and Essene views of immortality to be quite simi-
lar. The only noticeable difference is on the question whether the soul after
death goes to an idyllic heavenly location or enters a new body …”121 The new
body is limited to the “good,” while the “vile” (or “bad;” φαύλων) are not given a
new body but will suffer eternally. The Pharisaic view, however, makes no men-
tion of the individual’s current body. Klawans argues further that the Pharisaic
position regarding the soul is resurrection couched in Hellenistic ideas of re-
incarnation (broadly-speaking). In particular, those that are adapted partly
from Pythagoras and Plato. However, the use of “other body” (ἕτερον σῶμα) is
a significant departure from the portrayal of resurrection elsewhere in early
Judaism. While Klawans agrees regarding resurrection, he rightly notes that
the reason for Josephus’ cryptic description is the “conundrum” caused by the
precise nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism.122
In Ant. 18:14-15, the Pharisees’ position parallels J.W. closely.

119 Mason’s translation of the clause, “whereas those of the vile are punished by eternal ret-
ribution” (τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀιδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι), renders the meaning better than
Thackeray’s, “while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.”
120 Reference to another body is missing from Hippolytus’ Refutation, 9:28.
121 Mason, the Pharisees, 158.
122 Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 110-11. See also Klawans interaction as to whether
these ideas have to do with metempsychosis or transmigration, 106-11. Both Mason and
Klawans point to the writings of the Apostle Paul to argue for parallel descriptions of the
Josephan resurrection, specifically, 1 Cor 15.
4.5 Josephus 141

ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς They believe that souls have power to sur-
εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ vive death and that there are rewards and
τιμὰς οἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν punishments under the earth for those
τῷ βίῳ γέγονεν, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀίδιον who have led lives of virtue or vice: eter-
προτίθεσθαι, ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν nal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls,
while the receive an easy passage to a
new life.

Linguistically, Josephus departs from his previous work, but the sentiment is
the same. Rather than being imperishable, souls, quite literally, are said to have
the strength to be immortal (ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς…εἶναι). Rewards
and punishments are described for those who lived virtuously (“of virtue;”
ἀρετῆς) or of vice (“of vice,” κακίας), respectively; for the latter, they will be
placed in “eternal imprisonment,” while the former will find an easy path “to
return to life” (ἀναβιοῦν). Josephus makes no mention of “another body” but
there is an expectation that the reader will know or return to his previous work
(see above). Although the historian clarifies that “new life” is post-mortem, it
implies that the dual components—body and soul—of the person that ex-
isted prior to death will return again. In Jewish War, the soul is transferred to
another—likely physical—body, and in Ant. to new life, both of which are un-
derstood to be resurrection is the bringing together of the body—perhaps a
new one—and the soul. The reward of the good soul is a return to an earlier
state where human nature is composed of two separate components. The vile
are partly punished by not experiencing the same return, while suffering pun-
ishment and an eternal prison.
The third school in J.W. to be discussed by Josephus is the Sadducees, a
group that is often associated with the Jewish priestly class.123

Sadducees (165c)
ψυχῆς τε τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ τὰς καθ᾿ As for the persistence of the soul after
ᾅδου τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσιν. death, penalties in the underworld, and
rewards, they will have none of them.

There is very little that can be ascertained in regard to the Sadducean position
regarding the composition of the person from this text apart that the idea that
the soul “persists” (διαμονή) after death. Consequently, reward and punishment

123 See Hillel Newman’s arguments regarding two parts of the Sadducees. The “Jerusalem
Sadducees,” which are the aristocratic priests of Jerusalem and the “halakhic Sadducees,”
which broke from the Jerusalem priests, like Qumran, and shared a similar halakhic
system, Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups in the Ancient Period, ed. Ruth
Ludlam, BRLJ 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81-82.
142 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

are irrelevant.124 In Antiquities 18, Josephus’ descriptions of the Sadducean po-

sition is even more terse, “The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along
́
with the body” (18:16, cp. λύσιν γὰρ ἐ�σεσθαι καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, Hippolytus,
Refutation 9:29). The soul and the body dying together leaves no indication
whether these components are separate. As we have noted above, a descrip-
tion of the afterlife, in whatever form, is the easiest indicator that the body and
the soul are separate components. The Sadducean position, as portrayed here,
leaves little room regarding the question of constituent parts but it is unlikely
that Josephus intends to describe the body as a psychosomatic unity, which by
the writing of his work was an idea that no longer curried favor.
In Josephus’ speech to his soldiers during Roman siege of the Upper Galilean
city of Yodfat (also, Jotapata),125 he identifies with ideas regarding the body
and soul that are indicative of their separate nature. In an attempt to convince
the soldiers that self-inflicted death was not the best method of escaping the
Roman onslaught (and opposed to God’s laws), Josephus argues, “Why set asun-
der such fond companions as soul and body” (ἢ τί τὰ φίλτατα διαστασιάζομεν,
σῶμα καὶ ψυχήν, J.W. 3:362)? The verb διαστασιάζω, translated by Whiston as
“variance” and Thackeray as “set asunder,” can also be interpreted to “separate
into factions,” indicating that Josephus is speaking of the dichotomy between
a person’s constituent parts. In other words, the soldiers committing suicide
would cause a separation between those parts. Later in his speech, Josephus
expands his point,

124 See the Rabbinic discussion attributed to Antigonus of Sokho in Avot de Rabbi Natan
where his two disciples, Zadok and Boethos—both of whom are traditionally connected
with the Sadducees—interpreted Antigonus’ statement regarding the serving their mas-
ter with no expectation of reward (Avot 1:3) and was an indication that the former genera-
tions believed there was no reward (or punishment) in world-to-come, Avot de Rabi Natan
(Schechter, 26) ver. A, chap. 5. See also, the interpretive expansion of the Cain and Abel
story (Gen 4:1-18) in the Targumim. Martin McNamara notes that this “midrash” regarding
judgment in the afterlife has been received by several targumic MSS: Tg. Neof., Tg. Ps.-J.,
Tg. CGen, MSS B, I, FF and X, The Aramaic Bible: Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis I—Translated,
with Apparatus and Notes, The Aramaic Bible, The Targums: A Michael Glazier Book;
(Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 66, n. 12; R. Le Déaut, “Traditions
targumiques dans le corpus paulinien?” Biblica 42/1 (1961): 28-48; José Ramón Díaz, “Dos
Notas Sobre el Targum Palestinense,” Sef 19/1 (1959): 133-6; Schürer 2:406; Isenberg, “An
Anti-Sadducees Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HTR 63/3 (1970): 433-
44; Géza Vermes, “The Targumic Versions of Gen 4:3-16,” in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies
(Leiden: Brill, 1975), 92-126; Flusser, “A New Sensitivity,” 469-89.
125 See Klawan’s discussion in the similarities of this speech and Josephus’ recasting of
Eleazar ben Yair’s speech at Masada (J.W. 7:358-370), Josephus and the Theologies, 117-9.
4.5 Josephus 143

τὰ μέν γε σώματα θνητὰ πᾶσιν καὶ ἐκ All of us, it is true, have mortal bodies,
φθαρτῆς ὕλης δεδημιούργηται ψυχὴ δὲ composed of perishable matter, but the
ἀθάνατος ἀεὶ καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σώμασιν soul lives forever, immortal: it is a por-
ἐνοικίζεται εἶτ᾿ ἐὰν μὲν ἀφανίσῃ τις tion of the Deity housed in our bodies. If,
ἀνθρώπου παρακαταθήκην ἢ διαθῆται then, one who makes away with or mis-
κακῶς πονηρὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄπιστος εἰ applies a deposit entrusted to him by a
δέ τις τοῦ σφετέρου σώματος ἐκβάλλει τὴν fellow-man is reckoned a perjured villain,
παρακαταθήκην τοῦ θεοῦ λεληθέναι δοκεῖ how can he who casts out from his own
τὸν ἀδικούμενον. καὶ κολάζειν μὲν τοὺς body the deposit which God has placed
ἀποδράντας οἰκέτας δίκαιον νενόμισται there, hope to elude Him whom he has
κἂν πονηροὺς καταλείπωσι δεσπότας αὐτοὶ thus wronged? It is considered right to
δὲ κάλλιστον δεσπότην ἀποδιδράσκοντες punish a fugitive slave, even though the
τὸν θεὸν οὐ δοκοῦμεν ἀσεβεῖν. ἆρ᾿ οὐκ ἴστε master he leaves be a scoundrel; and shall
ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἐξιόντων τοῦ βίου κατὰ τὸν τῆς we fly from the best of masters, from God
φύσεως νόμον καὶ τὸ ληφθὲν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ Himself, and not be deemed impious?
χρέος ἐκτινύντων ὅταν ὁ δοὺς κομίσασθαι Know you not that they who depart this
θέλῃ κλέος μὲν αἰώνιον οἶκοι δὲ καὶ γενεαὶ life in accordance with the law of nature
βέβαιοι καθαραὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπήκοοι μένουσιν and repay the loan which they received
αἱ ψυχαί χῶρον οὐράνιον λαχοῦσαι τὸν from God, when He who lent is pleased to
ἁγιώτατον ἔνθεν ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων reclaim it, win eternal renown; that their
ἁγνοῖς πάλιν ἀντενοικίζονται σώμασιν. ὅσοις houses and families are secure; that their
δὲ καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ἐμάνησαν αἱ χεῖρες τούτων souls, remaining spotless and obedient,
ᾅδης μὲν δέχεται τὰς ψυχὰς σκοτεινότερος are allotted the most holy place in heav-
ὁ δὲ τούτων πατὴρ θεὸς εἰς ἐγγόνους en, whence, in the revolution of the ages,
τιμωρεῖται τοὺς τῶν πατέρων ὑβριστάς they return to find in chaste bodies a new
( J.W. 3:372-376). habitation? But as for those who have laid
mad hands upon themselves, the darker
regions of the nether world receive their
souls, and God, their father, visits upon
their posterity the outrageous acts of the
parents ( J.W. 3:372-376).

Utilizing similar language to the portrayal of the Essenes in his previous chap-
ter, the body is described as “perishable” (φθαρτῆς), while the soul is “immortal”
(ἀθάνατος, 372). Klawans notes further that Josephus’ concern with “both the
rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked after death” is in
agreement with the Essenes.126 The historian, however, seems to align more
with Pharisees. First, the soul is spoken of as a divine deposit (καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα
τοῖς σώμασιν ἐνοικίζεται, 373)127 so he/she mistreats that deposit is considered
a perjured villain. Thus, to commit suicide would be a misuse of the soul and,
therefore, put the soldiers in danger of judgment. But those who die “naturally”

126 Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 119.

127 Mason notes, “It is worth noting, however, that Josephus himself comes close
to this Stoic teaching when, in his speech against suicide at Jotapata, he speaks of the soul
as a ‘portion of God’” or divine deposit (J.W. 3:372), On the Pharisees, 140, n. 75.
144 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

(φύσεως), repaying the loan of the soul, gain “eternal fame” (κλέος μὲν αἰώνιον,
374). Second, like the Pharisaic view, the souls of the spotless and obedient
are given another “body” (σώμασιν; cp. εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα, J.W. 2:163b)128 after
the eschaton—i.e., a revolution of the ages (ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων, 374, see, ἐκ
περιτροπῆς, Ag. Ap. 2:218)—while those, laying mad hands (ἐμάνησαν αἱ χεῖρες),
taking their lives into their owns hands, end up in Hades (ᾅδης, J.W. 3:375).129

4.6 1 Enoch

The “Mountain of the Dead” [MOD]130 narrative (1 En 22:1-14) appears in the

Book of Watchers (1-36), the first book of 1 Enoch. Dating to the 3rd century
BCE, it is one of the oldest books of the five that comprise 1 Enoch.131 The origi-
nal language of this narrative was likely Aramaic, as was the rest of 1 Enoch,
though there are later Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic (Ge’ez) ver-
sions.132 The MOD text is part of Enoch’s cosmic journey eastward (chaps.
20-36), which Nickelsburg notes, provides “locative reinforcement for the pre-
dictions made elsewhere in the book.”133 It is complemented in the following
chapters (chaps. 24-26) by journeys to the paradise of the righteous positioned
among seven mountains, the Tree of Life, and the “center of the earth,” i.e.,
Jerusalem.

4.6.1 The “Mountain of the Dead”

The MOD narrative (1 En 22:1-24) is particularly germane to this study because
it provides for one of the earliest depictions of both the immortality of the soul
and human composition. Enoch’s journey takes him to a great mountain of

128 Klawans suggests this alignment specifically with the hope for “re-embodiment,” Josephus
and the Theologies, 119.
129 Josephus similarity to the Pharisees is not wholly surprising since he speaks of joining the
school at the age of nineteen, Life 12.
130 We have adapted George W. E. Nickelsburg title for this narrative (see 1 Enoch 1, 300-309).
131 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 7. The oldest portion of 1 Enoch is thought to be the third major por-
tion, the Astronomical Book or the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries 72-82.
132 See The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Józef T. Milik, with
Matthew Black (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 70-89; Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic
Books of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments vol. 1: Text and
Apparatus; vol. 2: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1978); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 9-20.
133 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 7.
4.6 1 Enoch 145

“hard rock” (πέτρας στερεᾶς) with hollow places in it.134 Three of these hollow
places are dark and the fourth is illuminated with a fountain in the middle.135
After commenting on the smoothness of the hollows, Raphael, Enoch’s angel
companion, responds to the scribe:

Then Raphael answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to
me, “These hollow places (are intended) that the spirits of the souls of the dead
might be gathered into them. For this very (purpose) they were created, (that)
here the souls of all human beings should be gathered. And look, these are the
pits for the place of their confinement. Thus they were made until the day (on)
which they will be judged, and until the time of the day of the end of the great
judgment that will be exacted from them (3-4).136

The angel guide notes that the hollows are the “spirits of the souls of the dead.”
Unfortunately, the Aramaic only preserves a portion of the line, “the souls of all
the sons of humankind” (‫[נפש]ת כל בני אנשא‬, 4QEnear 1 22 1). Comparatively,
at least one Greek version preserves nearly the same portion of this statement,
“all the souls of humanity” (πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), while the Grkpan
(the Akhmim MS) preserves the fuller statement.137 Hebrew and Greek forms
utilize ‫ [נפש]ת‬and ψυχὰς to indicate the metaphysical, separable component
of collective humanity. In the fuller reference quoted above, it is clear that the
“spirits” and the “souls” are not separate components but are synonymously
parallel. In other words, the statement particularizes “spirits” by describing the
release of the “souls” from the body at death, or as one Ethiopic MS reads, “The
beautiful places (are intended for this) that the spirits, [that is] the souls of
the dead, might be gathered into them …”138 Therefore, Enoch is referring one
component of human existence, rather than two.
In the mountain, the souls/spirits are enumerated between the righteous
and the sinners. The souls of humanity seem to retain their consciousness, that
is, some degree of awareness of their existence, thoughts, and feelings. Both
of these are exemplified in the spirit of one dead man who “making suit” so

134 See Knibb’s note on favoring the Greek reading rather than the Ethiopic, The Ethiopic
Books of Enoch, vol 2, 108. Nickelsburg suggests that ‫( פחתיא‬4QEnear/4Q206 1 22 1) lies
behind all of the Greek variants of “hollow places” (1 Enoch, 304). See also Matthew Black,
in consultation with James C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch of 1 Enoch: A New English
Translation with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 166, n. 2.
135 As whether there are three or four “hollow places,” see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 301-303.
136 Unless otherwise noted, English translation from 1 Enoch is from George W. E. Nickelsburg
and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2012).
137 Knibb, The Ethiopic Books of Enoch, vol 1, 79.
138 See Black and VanderKam, The Book of Enoch, 166.
146 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

that “his lamentation went up to heaven and cried and made suit” (5). Raphael
identifies it as the spirit which came from Abel when he was murdered by Cain.
Variously described as the “spirit of a dead man” (6; ‫רוח אנש מת‬, 4QEnear 1 22
3-4) and “spirit that went forth,” Raphael also refers to him simply as “Abel” (7b)
who makes an ongoing complaint against the posterity of his murderer, Cain,
until it is obliterated.139 The soul/spirit of Abel retains his identity and life ex-
periences. In an earlier chapter (9:1-11), it is the “souls of men,” who have died
make suit to their angelic intercessors. Nickelsburg notes that this portrayal
is a departure from the rewriting of Genesis 6 in the Book of Watchers as it
specifies the human race as victims rather than perpetrators of evil.140 Of these
victims, however, it is only those that were murdered “in the days of sinners”
(22:12)—epitomized in Abel—that make suit, raising their lamentations about
their destruction. The sinners and others who await some form of judgment or
annihilation do not; they are apparently silent or having nothing to make suit
about.
After Enoch queries why the hollows are separate from one another, Raphael
responds, “‘These three were made that the spirits of the dead might be sepa-
rated. And this has been separated for the spirits of the righteous, where the
bright fountain of water is’” (9). The four places for the spirits of the dead are
an ethereal intermediate state for the righteous and various sinners prior to the
divvying out of reward and punishment.141 Couched in the angelic response
is the bifurcation of humanity’s composition upon death, “And this has been
created for <the spirits of the> sinners, when they die and are buried in the
earth, and judgment has not been executed on them in their life.” After death,
the person’s soul is released to this transitional place. Unlike Ps. Phoc. and
Wisdom (sans the righteous) the spirit/soul does not simply dissolve into the
air (sec. 2.4, 2.5) but, as we have noted above, the metaphysical component re-
tains the identity of the individual. Despite the spirits having been taken from
their earthly physical selves, there remains some continuity with that previous
life, namely, the souls are rewarded “according to the circumstances of that ex-
istence….” As Nickelsburg notes, “certain functions appropriate to the human

139 Nickelsburg notes that it is “widely assumed” that the reference to Cain’s posterity, as well
as the complaint made by all those who were murdered indicates early traditions regard-
ing Abel’s transformation into the exemplar for those who were violently put to death.
Yet, he states, “Nonetheless, pre-Christian texts, including 1 Enoch, do not specifically at-
test such an interpretation,” 1 Enoch, 306.
140 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 202-14. See 1 Enoch 9:3, 10: “And now to <us>, the holy ones of heav-
en, the souls of men make suit saying (3); And now look the spirits of the souls of men
who have died make suit (10),” Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 26-27.
141 1 Enoch 24-25 detail the reward of the righteous.
4.7 The Testament of Abraham B 147

body are attributed to the spirits.”142 The awaited reckoning for either camp
suggests that the spirits/souls of humankind are immortal but, more impor-
tantly for this study, that they are distinct. Indeed, unlike Wisdom, immortality
is not only the realm of the righteous, but of all humanity.
The MOD narrative is one of the earliest Jewish texts to explicitly attest a
body-soul dualism, as well as the immortality of the soul. This is a result of
the influence of prevalent Hellenistic, and perhaps biblical,143 traditions.
Regarding Hellenistic traditions, Nickelsburg draws a connection between
Abel’s suit and the restless spirit of Clytemnestra in Aeschylus’ Greek tragedy
The Eumenides (5th BCE).144 The search for various influences notwithstand-
ing, MOD’s anthropology is key. As noted, human nature is composed of two
elements.145 Upon death, the body is buried, and the soul is released. Retaining
its self-identity, all of the souls of the dead are intermediately located in the
hollows of a great mountain. The idea that they are awaiting either punish-
ment or reward, and eventual resurrection, indicates yet another layer to the
existence of the soul .

4.7 The Testament of Abraham B

What we find in Wisdom regarding the immortality of the soul, and in

1 Enoch regarding a body-soul dualism, is not wholly unlike what is found
in the Testament of Abraham. The testament, which is known in two recen-
sions (T. Ab. A [the long recension], T. Ab. B [the short recension]), is notori-
ously difficult to date due to its complex manuscript and redaction history. Ed
Sanders states positively, “despite being repeatedly copied by Christian scribes,

142 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 306.

143 More recently, Ekaterina Matusova has suggested that much of what we find in MOD does
not need to be solely traced to the realm of Greek/Hellenisitic traditions but rather that
there is evidence that this narrative is reworked from traditions that are preserved already
in biblical tradition, “The Post-Mortem Divisions of the Dead in 1 Enoch 22:1-13: Against
the Background of the Greek Influence Hypothesis,” in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the
Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman and Egyptian Literature, ed. Beate Ego and
Ulrike Mittman (Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2015), 149-77.
144 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 305.
145 See also, the 1 Enoch 102:4-5: “Fear not, souls of the righteous: take courage, you pious who
have died. And do not grieve because your souls have descended into Sheol with grief, and
your body of flesh did not fare in your life according to your piety, because the days that
you lived were the days of sinners and curses on the earth,” Nickelsburg and VanderKam,
1 Enoch, 158. While an afterlife is missing, the components of human life are obvious as the
body perishes while the soul continues its existence.
148 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

the Testament of Abraham in both recensions remains unmistakably Jewish.”146

Allison counters, “The situation here as throughout T. Ab. is reminiscent of the
Testimonium Flavianum or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: one senses
both a Jewish original and a Christian revision, but it is often impossible to
know exactly what belongs to which.”147 While it is certain that these matters
render T. Ab. outside of the immediate methodology, parallel traditions with
Wisdom and 1 Enoch regarding body-soul dualism indicate that these ideas
originate in the Second Temple period and warrant a brief examination.148 Of
course, we proceed with Allison’s warning in mind: “… and any use of them
[i.e., T. Ab. B texts] to add to our knowledge about ancient Judaism must pro-
ceed with caution.”149

4.7.1 The Cognizant Soul

T. Ab. B begins with Michael’s announcement to Abraham about his death
(1:1-7 [A]; 1:1-3 [B]). Prior to Michael’s announcement, the longer recension A
provides an extensive description of Abraham’s pious qualities: “Yet above all
people he has been righteous, good, hospitable, and strongly affectionate to
the end.”150 Michael assures Abraham that he is about to depart a “futile world”
(τοῦ ματαίου κόσμου) which Allison believes to be a later Christian addition.151
The part of the archangel’s statement which is pertinent for us is, “you are
about to be absent from the body,” (ἐκδημεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, T. Ab. A 1:7).152 Upon
Abraham’s death he will be immediately absent from the body and “among
the good ones” (ἀγαθοῖς). It is likely that Abraham’s piety, his righteousness,
qualifies him to be among “good people” or “good things.”153 Indeed, this is not

146 See Sander’s discussion which argues for an original date no later than the 2nd c. CE “plus
or minus twenty-five years,” “Testament of Abraham,” OTP 1:874-75. More recently, Allison
suggests, based on T. Ab.’s knowledge of the Septuagint, a terminus a quo of the 2nd c.
BCE for recension B, Dale C. Allison, Jr., Testament of Abraham, CEJL (Berlin, New York:
Walter De Gruyter, 2003), 34-40.
147 Allison, The Testament of Abraham, 31.
148 Our comments are limited to a grouping of texts where Abraham is told by Michael that
he will depart his body and his refusal/request to view all the inhabitable earth prior to
his death.
149 Allison, The Testament of Abraham, 31.
150 Unless otherwise noted English translations are from Allison, Testament of Abraham.
151 Allison, Testament of Abraham, 80.
152 Author’s translation.
153 While Allison is unsure whether the plural dative ἀγαθοῖς should be translated as a “good
things” or “good people,” he notes, “But it is clear that Abraham, being himself good … be-
longs there” (i.e., where the soul can be with the Master), Testament of Abraham, 80. Both
4.7 The Testament of Abraham B 149

unlike Wisdom’s conception that the souls of the righteous, which are in the
hands of God and avoid torment (cf. Wis 3:1). Additionally, it is implied that
Abraham’s soul retains his own consciousness—as in 1 Enoch154—since it is
Abraham, not simply a character-less soul, that will depart the body (cf. also
T. Ab. A 15:7, B 4:9). Surely, this is presumed in Wisdom, since it is not simply
the soul which returns to God, but the souls of the righteous.
In a brief parallel between T. Ab. A and B, Abraham prays that he may com-
plete one task prior to his death.

T. Ab. A 9:6
καὶ νῦν, δέσποτα κύριε, εἰσάκουσόν μου τῆς And now, Master Lord, hear my prayer.
δεήσεως, ὅτι ἔτι ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σώματι ὢν θέλω While I am yet in my body I wish to see all
ἰδεῖν πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην καὶ τὰ ποιήματα the inhabited earth and all things made,
ἃ διὰ λόγου ἑνὸς συνέστησας, δέσποτα, καὶ which you established through one word,
ὅτε ἴδω ταῦτα, τότε ἐὰν μεταβῶ τοῦ βίου Master; and after I have seen these things,
ἄλυπος ἔσομαι. the I shall not grieve when I depart from
this life.
T. Ab. B 7:18
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἁβραὰμ εἶπεν πρὸς Μιχαήλ· And Abraham answered and said to
Παρακαλῶ σε, κύριε, ἐὰν ἐξέρχωμαι ἐκ Michael, “I beg you, Lord, if I am to go out
τοῦ σώματός μου, σωματικῶς ἤθελον of my body, I would like to be lifted up so
ἀναληφθῆναι, ἵνα θεάσομαι τὰ κτίσματα ἃ that, before I am carried away, I might see
ἐκτίσατο κύριος ὁ θεός μου ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ all the creation which the Lord created in
ἐπὶγῆς. heaven and on earth.”

Abraham’s prayer to see all of the inhabited world is answered (T. Ab. A 9:8;
B 8:2) and he is raised upon a chariot of cherubim to see it (T. Ab. A 10; B 12).
Again, there is an explicit acknowledgement that upon death both body and
soul are separated from one another, implying that the soul—upon death
and apart from resurrection—no longer has access to the body or the earthly
realm.

Allison, Testament of Abraham, 64; Sanders, OTP 1:882; Michael Stone, The Testament of
Abraham, SBLTT 2, SBLPS 2 (Montana: SBL, 1972), 5, render ἀγαθοῖς as “good.”
154 And perhaps Tob 3:6, “Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the
eternal abode; do not turn thy face away from me” (ὅτι ὀνειδισμοὺς ψευδεῖς ἤκουσα, καὶ λύπη
ἐστὶν πολλὴ ἐν ἐμοί).
150 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

4.8 Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy and the Composition of

Humankind in the Second Temple Period

George H. van Kooten’s study, “Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and
Paul of Tarsus: The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body”155
suggests,

What is virtually unknown, however, is that by the first century AD this tripartite
anthropology, which distinguishes between mind, soul and body, was being re-
ceived and reworked by Jewish and Jewish-Christian authors such as Philo, Paul,
and Flavius Josephus. Especially for Philo and Paul, this type of anthropology,
reshaped by their Jewish interpretation, strongly coloured their understanding
of man.156

His work is pertinent here because of the suggestion that Philo (and Paul)
adopts a tripartite anthropology that distinguishes between body (σῶμα), soul
(ψυχὴ), and spirit (πνεῦμα). While Van Kooten’s work is ultimately interested
in Pauline anthropology—a topic that is beyond the scope of this present
study—his interest in Philo warrants some comment.
Van Kooten notes first that Philo’s anthropology reworks the highest com-
ponent of the soul in Greek philosophy, the mind (nous), placing it in the realm
of the spirit (pneuma). Thus, the metaphysical component of the person is di-
vided between the place of reason and the seat of emotion. With that he cau-
tions, “Properly speaking the nous is not identical with the pneuma … Rather
the pneuma is greater than or equal to the nous, in Philo’s view, it is within the
nous that the pneuma is received; the nous is the receptacle. The nous, in turn,
mediates this pneuma to the rest of the soul so that this spirit dominates both
nous and (the rest of the) psyche.”157 His examination of Alleg. Interp. 1:39-40
suggests further that for Philo the nous (“mind”), infilled by the divine pneuma
(“spirit”), becomes synonymous with humanity’s innate pneuma, thereby, at-
testing that Philo “not only knows” the mind, soul, body trichotomy of Greek
philosophy—which is also present Paul’s writings—but is also influenced by
the exegesis of Gen 2:7. This interpretation is apparently paralleled in Josephus
where the historian reworks Gen 2:7 to read that God breathed both “soul” and

155 After appearing in Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike, 263-309, this study was in-
corporated into Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 269-312. For the sake of this study, we will
quote from the more recent version of his essay in Paul’s Anthropology in Context.
156 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 269. Surely, if Philo adopts a tripartite view of
humankind than this idea has some footing in the 1st c. BCE.
157 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 279.
4.8 Excursus: Anthropological Trichotomy 151

“spirit” into Adam.158 The appearance of Gen 2:7 in Philo, Paul, and Josephus
leads Van Kooten to conclude that the body, soul, spirit reflects a “common”
Jewish, or Jewish-Hellenistic understanding of the Greek tripartite division
of man and is not a Gnostic invention as argued by some. According to Van
Kooten, this three-part division in Philo’s anthropology is not limited to the
first man, Adam, but is also the constitution of Adam’s descendants. Philo’s in-
terpretation of Lev 17:11 is essential in this regard. Evidence of the Alexandrian
philosopher’s philosophical anthropology is also demonstrated in his dealing
with the “degeneration and the fall of man” and his ideas on the “restoration
of the human mind and spirit.”159 Part of Van Kooten’s analysis involves Philo’s
treatment of Abraham’s sojourn from Haran, as allegorically reworked in On
the Migration of Abraham. He concludes that the depiction of Abraham’s body
confirms Philo’s tripartite view of humanity, especially that the “… pneuma in-
fluences the soul, and the soul, in turn, the body …” Van Kooten’s contention is
that Philo is consistent in his view of a tripartite human composition.160 He is
correct to note the appearance of a trichotomous conception of humanity in
Jewish texts like Philo (as well as Josephus and Paul). Of course, he begins with
the assumption that there is a body-soul dualism already present in Jewish
texts, which as we have shown is not necessarily as prevalent as previously
thought. Yet, as we have noted in our examination of creation topoi in Philonic
texts (3.2), the Alexandrian philosopher clearly divides the soul into two parts,
the spirit and the most important part of the soul, the mind.
Van Kooten’s suggestion appears to be a growing minority in the latter quar-
ter of the Second Temple period, especially texts that closely date to the close
of the 1st c. BCE. and the first 70 years of the first century CE. Additionally,
Philo, and Paul, (post 70 CE), which bear strong Hellenistic influences, also
uniquely betray the understanding that human existence is comprised of sepa-
rate parts. In particular, the use of νοῦς (“mind”) to distinguish yet another ex­
istential component seems grow as one nears the end of the first century CE.161

158 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 271, 273-80.

159 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 292-97.
160 Van Kooten does note, however, that Philo also discusses the basic dichotomy between
the body and the soul, while in other passages Philo offers a “more detailed descrip-
tion of man and distinguished between the soul and its leading part, the mind,” Paul’s
Anthropology in Context, 286.
161 The growth is witnessed when one traces its use from those texts that date closer to the
LXX (3rd c. BCE): Of the twelve times that it is utilized in the LXX, the Greek is used
to render ‫( לב‬e.g., Exod 7:23, Josh 14:7, Job 7:17). Other uses of νοῦς are additions to the
Hebrew text (Prov 29:7, Job 7:20), translate “your ways” [Prov 31:3], “ears” [Job 33:16], and
“will keep you” (Job 36:19). Postbiblical texts: Wis (2x: 4:12, 9:15), 1 Esdras (2x: 2:9, 9:41),
Judith (1x: 8:14), and 2 Macc (1x: 15:8); 3 Macc (1x: 1:25); 4 Macc (9x: 1:15, 35, 2:16, 18, 22, 3:17,
152 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

The evidence here shows, however, that the predominant view in the Second
Temple period mimics and transitions from the prevalent “biblical tradition”
to a body-soul dualism. The majority of texts written prior to beginning of the
Common Era attest a different view of human composition, namely, either a
psychosomatic unity or a composition of two parts (body/soul; body/spirit), in
which the metaphysical portion is immortal and retains some degree of con-
sciousness after bodily death. Texts like Ben Sira seem to stay close to biblical
tradition utilizing ψυχὴ and ‫ נפש‬to describe the aforementioned psychoso-
matic nature of each person. Wisdom preserves the Jewish-Hellenistic view of
an immortal soul where the righteous continue to exist after death. The same
view of human existence is attested in the Hodayot of Qumran, as well as cer-
tain Jewish apotropaic prayers (more on this in 5.3). The trichotomous view
of humanity seems to grow as one shifts to more Hellenized texts that date
from about the mid-1st c. CE. Philo is perhaps the first to reflect such a distinc-
tion and does so just prior to the beginning of the Common Era, which as Van
Kooten has noted is then picked up and reworked by authors like the Apostle
Paul (50-60 CE) and Josephus (1st-2nd century CE). However, for the moment,
Josephus should be held in tension as the texts that we have examined in this
chapter indicate that three Jewish schools and Josephus himself—redescribing
the onslaught of Rome upon Yodfat—depicts collective humanity as being
composed of two parts—body and soul. Yet, for the most part, an examination
of texts that find their final form after the close of the first century CE., and are
beyond the scope of the present study (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Sibylline
Oracles), seem to reflect the final stage of development where speaking of hu-
manity’s tripartite composition becomes more common (e.g., body, soul, and
spirit or mind).

4.9 Conclusion

This chapter analyzes collective humanity’s composition as portrayed in early

Judaism. More specifically, it examines humanity’s physical frame and the
metaphysical aspect of human existence that is responsible for emotion and
reason. An analysis of “flesh/body” (‫ )בשר‬and “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬as reference to a
person’s presumed moral proclivities or particular condition is dealt with later

5:11, 14:11, 16:13); Sibl. Or. (24x: 1:35, 99, 134, 304, 2:75, 120, 3:165, 196, 300, 421, 574, 771, 821,
5:79, 265, 286, 364, 7:144, 8:284, 359, 366, 437, 464, 23:41); For T. 12 Patr. (14x: see, n. above).
See, also, Ps.-Orph. 1:12, 39, 40; Theod. 3:13, 7:0; Ps. Phoc. 48.
4.9 Conclusion 153

in this study (see 7.4).162 In regard to the body, there are various terms ‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬, ‫ ָב ָשר‬,
‫ ְש ֵאר‬, σὰρξ, and σῶμά. These terms are often utilized to express both the imper-
manent and fragile physical nature of humanity. ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬and σῶμά are perishable
and vulnerable to death or some sort of damage. While ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬does not seem to
have the dual semantic sense of “flesh” and the whole “body” as with σὰρξ and
‫ ָב ָשר‬, ‫ גְ וִ יָ ה‬always refers to the entire body. ‫ ְש ֵאר‬appears in wisdom traditions
in reference to the dangers wealth poses to the body (Sir 7:24 [A 2v:26-27]),
as well as in warning fathers to be concerned for their daughters in order to
prevent their bodily defilement. This terminology is also employed, in bibli-
cal literature, to describe familial relations (e.g., CD 5:8-11). The use of σῶμα
to translate ‫ ְש ֵאר‬indicates that σῶμά plays an additional role referring to the
body’s vulnerabilities, mortality, and aspects regarding human relationships.
It indicates that the “body” is not simply a physical component of existence—
although physicality is an overt emphasis—but, contextually, the totality of
the person, inclusive of that part which reasons, emotes, etc.
Σὰρξ and ‫ בשר‬also find their way into contexts that speak of human mortal-
ity (Wis 7:1, 14:17). Σὰρξ is employed to speak to a shared connectivity among all
people. As a result, Ben Sira teaches that one should be merciful to his neigh-
bor because all of humanity share in the same “fleshly” condition. Additionally,
the sage is one of the earliest texts to attest to the Hebrew idiom for human-
ness, “flesh and blood” (σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, ‫)בשר ודם‬. Furthermore, “all flesh”
(πας σὰρξ, ‫ )כ[ו]ל בשר‬is used to speak to collective humanity but can also refer
to all living beings, both human and animal. On some occasions this language
is utilized to express God’s unique relationship with humanity. These passages
suggest that as a result of everyone’s “fleshly” weakness, humanity stands to
receive God’s mercy, or perhaps, more specifically, are in need of it. This state
is uniquely connected to God’s sovereignty, since the “fleshly” creation cannot
hide from God and maybe the raw ingredients for the more metaphorical use
of “flesh” that we find on other texts.
The use of ψυχὴ in Ben Sira closely parallels its use in the LXX. In the former,
it generally speaks of a “life,” the “self,” and human nature as a psychosomatic
unity. There is little in Ben Sira that suggests a qualified distinction between
the body and the soul. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the Hebrew
equivalent exists, ψυχὴ is paralleled with ‫נפש‬. In particular, towards the end
of Ben Sira’s work this terminology often represents the sage’s psychosomatic
experience which not only marks the place of emotion, desire, reason, but is
also implies the realm of the body.

162 See Lawrence H. Schiffman and Alexandria Frisch, “The Body in Qumran Literature: Flesh
and Spirit, Purity and Impurity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 23 (2016): 155-82.
154 4 Describing Body, Soul, and Spirit

In the Wisdom of Solomon, the clear division between the body and soul
becomes evident (e.g., 8:19-20). The human soul is depicted as having a sepa-
rate existence from the body and is immortal (9:15). This immortality of the
soul (cf. 3:1, 5:15), which upon death is with God and protected from torment,
depicts an afterlife for the righteous. As such, the soul represents the rational
and emotional component of humankind (4:12, 9:15). The body, on the other
hand, is generally viewed as a detriment to the soul and is separated from the
soul with death. This division of humanity’s constituent parts is also present
in Josephus’ accounts of the three Jewish schools (J.W. 2, Ant. 18), specifical-
ly the Pharisee and the Essenes. The Sadducees, it appears, did not consider
this division of the body and the soul since both died are said to together es-
chewing any discussion of an afterlife. For the Essenes, the body is perishable,
while the soul is “deathless.” Josephus additionally launches into an extended
voyage of the Essene soul into the “ether” and beyond, paralleling a host of
Greek myths. There is a single statement regarding the Essene belief that the
soul would eventually return to them—hinting at resurrection—but discus-
sion of this ends with the historians’ divergence into Greek post-mortem be-
liefs. This departure, however, does not seem to be associated with a received
Essen tradition as much as it is the author’s own embellishment. The Pharisaic
position on the body and the soul is not unlike that of the Essenes with one
considerable difference, the soul returns to another body. This return to life,
however, is only for the good and just and the soul of the wicked suffer eternal
punishments or an eternal imprisonment. While Josephus employs different
language in J.W. and Ant., the positions of the schools are essentially the same.
Again, the Pharisaic view occurs again in the historian’s speech to his soldiers
during the Roman siege of Yodfat (J.W. 3). When considering self-immolation
rather than give themselves over to the Romans, Josephus argues partly that
the taking of one’s life separates the body and soul. To do so unnaturally mis-
uses the God-given deposit of the soul. As in Wisdom, the three schools and
Josephus follow the dichotomy of the body and the soul, where the body is
impermanent, but the soul is immortal.
The body/soul dichotomy is attested in 1 Enoch’s MOD narrative (23:1-14),
where the souls of humanity are separated from the body upon death and re-
main in one of several mountain hollows to await a final reckoning. Present in
the abode of the dead are both the righteous and at least two types of sinners.
Therefore, 1 Enoch also speaks to the immortality of all human souls, contra
Wisdom where immortality is the realm of the righteous. Although in Enoch,
the righteous are those that make suit to God—epitomized by Abel’s death—
having been the victims of various forms of untimely deaths.
4.9 Conclusion 155

The separation of the soul from the body in T. Ab. B returns it to the territory
of the righteous, announcing to Abraham that due to his piety he will leave his
body and be with the Lord upon his death. Wisdom, 1 Enoch, and T. Ab. B share
some similarity in that the physical body appears to be somewhat detrimental
to the soul, or that the physical nature of the person exists in a vain and futile
world. As in Jewish-Hellenistic tradition, the body is a temporary physical state
(even prison; e.g., Wis 16:14) of sorts for the soul which is released upon death.
This is especially the case in Wisdom and T. Ab. B. 1 Enoch elevates humanity’s
physical nature a bit by presuming the resurrection and a return of the spirts
of the dead to their respective bodies (22:13). Additionally, the spirit/soul of
humanity retains the identity of the individual and parallels some of its physi-
cal characteristics prior to death. More to the point, and as noted elsewhere,
the prevalent view of human composition in T. Ab. B. is that of two distinct
components, body and soul.
Finally, in a brief excursus, this chapter examines Van Kooten’s conten-
tion that the prevalent view in the 1st c. CE was that humanity existed in a
tripartite division, body, soul, and spirit. Much of what we have in the Second
Temple period is steeped in earlier biblical traditions where anthropological
composition is depicted as either a psychosomatic unity or a body-soul duality.
This dichotomy between the body and soul is solidified under the influence of
Hellenistic thought. Prior to the Common Era, Philo begins to clearly distin-
guish between the soul and the most important part of this soul, the mind.
While some evidence exists for the beginning of a distinguishing of human-
ity’s inner person into two separate parts—the place of reason and the seat of
emotion—this concept does not seem to gain much attention until midway
through the 1st c. CE in the works of Paul and Josephus (save particular parts
of J.W. and Ant. examined here). Thus, the texts examined here note a trajec-
tory of sorts where the conception of human composition shifts from speak-
ing of human existence in terms of single unitary life—a monism of sorts—a
dichotomy, and a trichotomy, albeit a tradition that only develops more fully
towards the close of the Second Temple era.
 Chapter 5

Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul

Dualism through the Lens of Psychic Strife

5.1 Introduction

The Hodayot and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers betray human composition

through vivid portrayals of the respective speaker’s psychic strife. That is, the
description of an internal, self-aware, mental/emotional turmoil reflects an
implicit understanding of humanity’s constituent elements. Moreover, as-
sumed psychic and physical vulnerabilities—even those which are exploited
by demonic entities—raise the question as to whether the reader is intended
to understand a duality between body and soul or simply the tumultuous life
of a psychosomatic being. For the hymns of Qumran, this is terminologically
connected to the use of nefesh (‫)נפש‬, “heart” (‫)לב‬, and “spirit” (‫)רוח‬. Not only do
they speak to the existence of the speaker, but they partly connote the reality
of the yaḥad, as well as those who are outside of the community. Furthermore,
the request for protection against malevolent spirits in apotropaic prayers im-
plies a general vulnerability that is directly aimed at particular component of
human nature. Therefore, this chapter examines the aforementioned termi-
nology in several hodayot and both non-sectarian and sectarian apotropaic
prayers for evidence of human composition through the varied depictions of
internal tumult and external influence(s).

5.2 Hodayot

5.2.1 The Use of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫ רוח‬and Humanity’s Inner Turmoil in the
Hodayot
Several hodayot are first-person reflections upon the hymnist(s)’s lowly ex-
istence. This depiction, however, is not limited to the speaker as it is also
intended in part to represent the reality of those who utilized these texts com-
munally. As Newsom has rightly noted regarding the Hodayot (and Serekh
ha-Yaḥad), they “are self-consciously devoted to the formation of languages
of self and community.”1 Yet, the construction of the self is not limited to the

1 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 196.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_006

5.2 Hodayot 157

author or the yaḥad, but also implicitly ruminates on the contemptibility of

collective humanity. While we have already examined the self-denigration of
the hymnist(s) casted through the lens of Gen 2:7, the Hodayot also betray an
assumed human composition through the portrayal of the hymnist’s inner tur-
moil. The Hodayot’s use of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫רוח‬, which appear more in the hymns
than in any other text,2 are central in portraying this conflict.

The Occurrences of ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, and ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot

3‫נפש‬ ‫לב‬ ‫רוח‬
(MS A) 6:28, 7:23, 29, 31, (MS A) 3:25, 4:34, 38, 6:19, (MS A) 3:26, 4:14, 16-19, 29,
8:28, 9:34, 10:9, 22-23, 25-26, 7:23, 8:25, 35, 9:39, 10:11, 35, 37-38, 5:14-15, 25, 30, 32,
30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 11:7, 20, 30, 12:14-16, 18-19, 22, 25, 36, 39, 6:14, 22, 24, 36, 41,
26, 12:22, 13:14-17, 19-20, 36, 13:28, 33, 14:5, 10, 24, 15:8, 7:26, 35, 8:16, 18, 20-21, 24-
41, 14:26, 15:26, 16:30, 33, 39, 16, 19, 30, 41, 16:2, 27, 33, 25, 27-30, 32, 9:11-14, 17, 24,
17:7-8, 28-29, 33, 18:31, 33, 38, 18:3, 25, 32-33, 35, 19:5, 30-31, 34, 10:8, 17, 11:19, 22-
19:10, 33, 20:4; 20:37, 21:6, 10, 12-13, 22:32, 23, 12:32, 37, 13:30, 38, 14:17,
24:29, 25:13; 26, 15:8-9, 14, 26, 32, 16:1, 13,
30, 37, 17:12, 16, 32, 18:10, 24,
34, 19:15-16, 20:14-15, 21:26,
34, 23:16, 29, 33, 24:11, 26-27,
25:6, 8, 23;

4QHa 2:5; 4QHa 2 1, 10 2-3; 4QHa 2:1, 7 ii 8; 8 ii 9, 17-18;

11:4,
4QHb 3:3-4, 16:1; 4QHb 9:3, 10:5-6, 8, 18:2, 4QHb 10:7, 14:5, 15:3, 17:1,
19:2;
4QHc 1 ii 4-5, 3:7, 4 ii 3 4QHc 2:7, 3:3-4, 4 i 10, 4QHc 2:12, 3:9, 4 ii 2
4QHd 1:1, 3, 6-7

2 This is stated with the understanding that the Hodayot as they have been reconstructed con-
stitute one of the longest scrolls among the Qumran texts. According to Stegemann, Schuller,
and Newsom the scroll was at least seven sheets long, including an opening and closing
handle sheet measuring approximately 4.5 meters (about 15 ft., DJD XL, 46). In terms of ac-
tual text, they have noted that after the reconstruction of 1QHa, with mss. from cave 4, that
columns 4-26 are “more than seventy-five percent complete, and about half of these columns
are preserved almost in their entirety” (49).
3 The closest texts to the Hodayot in terms of number are, ‫( נפש‬1QHa 50x): Temple Scroll
(11Q19)—30x; ‫( לב‬1QHa 50x): The Community Rule (1QS)—16x, The Damascus Document
(CD)—14x; ‫( רוח‬1QHa)—89x; The Community Rule (1QS)—39x. Based on the amount of
text preserved in Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS) and the Hodayot (1QHa), the occurrences of ‫ רוח‬are
relatively similar. Every occasion of ‫ רוח‬in the scrolls, however, is not pertinent to this study,
since ‫רוח‬, more so that ‫ לב‬and ‫נפש‬, is utilized to describe something other than an innate
human characteristic.
158 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

Important to our study are the places where this terminology is employed
specifically to express the inner life of the speaker, the community, and hu-
manity. Therefore, this examination is interested in two areas: 1) the use of the
aforementioned terminology to describe humanity’s internal experience and
its compositional nature4—if there is evidence for such, and 2) the speaker’s
description of his own poorly imagined existence as a paradigm for the yaḥad’s
and humanity’s own creatureliness,5 especially the individual’s state prior to
the internalization of a new knowledge-giving spirit.

5.2.2 ‫—נפש‬Composition, Life, and Inner Person6

Seebass and Ryan Bonfiglio provide several meanings for ‫ נפש‬in the Dead Sea
Scrolls.7 While the Hodayot attests much of this semantic range, our inter-
ests are specifically pointed to its utilization as an indication of the perceived
compositional nature of the hymnist, the yaḥad, and collective humanity. Our
methodology for examining the hymns is terminologically driven. Thus, this
study draws upon individual compositions8 which most frequently employ the
term ‫ נפש‬indicating that it plays an integral role in the presentation of human

4 See Richard C. Steiner, Disembodied Souls; also Carol Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the
Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 345;
Santiago Fernández-Ardanaz, “El Problema del Hombre en los Textos de Qumrán: Semántica
de los Principales Términos Antropológicos,” RCT 15/1 (1990): 1-65.
5 See also the discussion in 3.2.1 on the Hodayot’s unique phraseology, “creature of clay” and
“creature of dust.”
6 Moreover, by “inner person” we mean something akin to “psychological,” which refers to the
mental and/or emotional state of a person.
7 Seebass notes that the use of ‫ נפש‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls remains relatively close to what
is found in the Hebrew Bible “even if there have been changes and extensions of meaning
at some points” (‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, TDOT 10:517-18). He suggests: 1) “throat” (1x in 11QPsa 19:8), 2) “desire,
wish, craving, greed, etc.,” 3) “vitality, self, reflexive pronoun,” 4) “individuated life,” 5) “the
‫ נפש‬of God,” and 6) “‫“—”על נפש‬upon oneself,” 517-18. Seebass notes that ‫ על נפש‬is dis-
tinctly formulaic to the scrolls and not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Yet, he does not seem
to distinguish it from the several extant biblical examples (e.g., Num 30, Ps 94:21, Lam 2:19).
Ryan Bonfiglio suggests a similar semantic range with some additional nuances: 1) “throat,”
2) “desire, hunger, etc.,” 3) “seat of emotion, will power,” “expression with one’s whole” ‫נפש‬,
4) “breath, spirit, inner being,” 5) “life, vitality,” 6) “Individual, Person,” “non-human living
creature,” 7) “personal pronouns, reflexive pronouns, possessive pronouns,” 8) a “to be” oath,
9) “the dead, corpse,” and 10) “grave, grave chamber,” ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, ThWQ 2:1007-18.
8 Unless otherwise noted, texts and hymns divisions are from Hartmut Stegemann,
Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota: With Incorporation
of 4QHodayota-f and 1QHodayotb, DJD XL (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009). See also
Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study
Edition, EJL 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
5.2 Hodayot 159

nature in that particular hodayah. Four hymns are pertinent in this regard:
7:21-8:37, 10:22-32, 13:7-21, and 16:5-17:36.9

5.2.2.1 Hodayah 7:21-8:37 and 8:28-30

The hymn in 7:21-8:3710 is not complete but preserves several occurrences of
‫נפש‬.

7:23-31
֯‫[ ואהבכה בנדבה ובכול לב ובכול נפש בררתי ֯מ ֯עו֯ ו֯ ן֯ [ ועל נפ] ֯שי‬ .23
‫הקי֯ [מותי לבלת]י֯ סור מכול אשר צויתה ואחזיקה על רבים מו֯ ֯ע ֯די֯ ֯ם ֯ל[יום הרגה לבלת]י‬ ֯ .24
‫ ואני ידעתי בבינתך כיאלא ביד בשר [יוכל להתם ]אדם‬vacat ‫ עז֯ וב מכו֯ ֯ל ֯חוקיך‬.25
‫ דרכו ולא יוכל אנוש להכין צעדו ואדעה כי בידך י֯ ֯צר כול רוח [וכול פעול] ֯תו‬.26
‫אתה ֯ב[רא]תה‬ ֯ ‫ הכינותה בטרם בראתו ואיכה יוכל כול להשנות את דבריכה רק‬.27
‫ולהגי֯ ֯ש עליו‬ ֯ ‫ צדיק ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון להשמר בבריתך ולתהלך בכול‬.28
‫ בהמון רחמיך ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו לישועת עולם ושלום עד ואין מחסור ותרם‬.29
‫ מבשר כבודו ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬.30
‫בברי֯ ֯ת ֯כ[ה וחוקי]ך תעבה נפשם‬
֯ ‫ כי הלכו בדרך לא טוב וימאסו‬.31

7:23. and I love you freely. With all (my) heart and with all (my) soul I have purified
(myself) from iniquity. [ And upon] my [li]fe
24. [I] have sw[orn no]t to turn aside from all that you have commanded. I will stand
firm against the many appointed for the [day of slaughter, no]t
25. abandoning any of your statutes vacat And as for me, I know, by the understand-
ing that comes from you, that it is not through the power of flesh [that] an individual
[may perfect]
26. his way, nor is a person able to direct his steps. And I know that in your hand is the
inclination of every spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty
27. you determined before you created it. How could anyone change your words? You
alone [crea]ted

9 Scholars generally divide the Hodayot into two separate collections, the “Teacher Hymns”
and “Community Hymns.” Schuller and Newsom note that the “Teacher Hymns” hymns
were differentiated due their distinct linguistic features and vocabulary, while the
“Community Hymns” are more of a “nebulous” category, The Hodayot, 2-3. With the recon-
struction of A of the Hodayot, the “Teacher Hymns” now comprise the middle columns
from 10-17, while the “Community Hymns” (1-9, 18-28) bookend them. More recently,
Angela Kim Harkins, following Puech, notes the importance of the occurrence of ‫למשכיל‬
hymn headings, which appear throughout both collections, to understanding the edito-
rial shaping of the “Community Hymns” and as an indicator of earlier smaller collections
of hymns, Observations of the Editorial Shaping of the So-Called Community Hymns in
1QHa and 4QHa (4Q427)” DSD 12/3 (2005): 233-56. Our examination appears to indicate
that the hymns’ general anthropology did not fall neatly into particular collections and
was consistently pessimistic throughout, despite there being an emphasis on the “crea-
ture of clay and dust” in one of the closing hymns (see 3.2.1).
10 Regarding the division of the psalms see DJD XL, 99-100, 110-11. Schuller and Newsom end
the hymn here at 8:42, which is the end of the column, The Hodayot, 9-10. But the last line
of legible writing is 8:37.
160 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

28. the righteous, and from the womb you prepared him for the time of favor, to be
attentive to your covenant and to walk in all (your way,) and to advance (him) upon it
29. in your abundant compassion, and to relieve all the distress of his soul for eternal
salvation and everlasting peace, without lack. And so you raise
30. his honor higher than flesh. But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your
wrath, and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter.
31. For they walk in the way that is not good, and they despise yo[ur] covenant, [and]
their soul abhors your [statutes].

8:28-30
֯ ‫רשמתה רוח צדיק ואני בחרתי להבר כפי כרצו[נ] ֯ך ונפש ֯ע ֯בדך‬
‫תע ֯בה כול‬ ֯ ‫ ובדעתי כי אתה‬.28
‫תה ֯בי֯ להשלים‬
֯ ‫נת‬ ֯ ‫מבלעדיך ואחלה פניך ברוח אשר‬ ֯ ‫ מעשה עולה ואדעה כי֯ לא יצדק איש‬.29
‫עבד ֯ך ֯ל[עו] ֯ל ֯ם לטהרני֯ ברוח קודשך ולהגישני ברצונך‬
֯ ‫ ֯ח ֯ס ֯דיך עם‬.30

28. Because I know that you have recorded the spirit of the righteous, I myself have
chosen to cleanse my hands according to your wil[l.] The soul of your servant abhors
every
29. malicious deed. I know that no one can be righteous apart from you, and so I en-
treat you with the spirit that you have placed in me that you make
30. your kindness to your servant complete [for]ever, cleansing me by your holy spirit
and drawing me nearer by your good favor …

The first occurrence of ‫ נפש‬describes the hymnist’s own purification from iniq-
uity ( ֯‫ובכול נפש בררתי ֯מ ֯עו֯ ו֯ ן‬, 23)—a purification from the spiritual, or interiorly
experienced non-physical uncleanness of sin.11 This purification leads to an
active obedience to the commandments (24).12 The allusion to the Sh’ma13—
“and with all (his) heart and soul” (‫ובכול לב ובכול נפש‬, 23)—indicates that the
speaker intends to be obedient with his whole person. In fact, Bonfiglio posits
that the appearance of “heart” and “soul” are some form of merism referring to
the whole person, “its nature, identity, and will power.”14 If the reconstruction

11 See Jonathan Klawans, “Sin as Defilement,” in Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 75-79.
12 Fernández-Ardanaz notes that this obedience is not merely the experience of the exterior
person but even more so representative of the “configuration” of the interior person, “El
Problema del Hombre,” 22.
13 An allusion, intentional or otherwise, to the Sh’ma (Deut 6:4-9, esp. 5) which appears most
often in literature associated with the yaḥad (cf. CD 15:12, 4Q266 8 i 3, 4Q270 6 ii 6, 4Q271 4
i 12, 1QS 1:2, 5:9, 4Q225 1:2, 4Q256 9:7, 4Q258 1:6, 1QHa 7:23). See also 4QpapTobitaar 17 ii 1,
4QpapJubh 2 iv 13, 4Q375 1 i 3, 4Q504 1 2 recto ii 13.
14 Bonfiglio, ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬, 1011. While the Hodayot is a sectarian composition, this search for purifi-
cation is not sectarian-specific. Newsom notes regarding the Serekh ha-Yaḥad, “What is
remarkable about this statement is how unremarkable it is. There is nothing distinctly
sectarian about it. It would be difficult to find any Jew of the Second Temple period who
would disagree with the centrality of these matters or with the way in which they were
expressed.” The same is true here; the commitment of the hymnist to be obedient with his
5.2 Hodayot 161

of the end of line 23, ֯‫ ועל נפ] ֯שי‬is correct, than once again the speaker has uti-
lized ‫ נפש‬to speak of himself and his affirmation not to turn away from God’s
statutes. While ideas regarding the composition of humanity are difficult to
infer, it appears that the hymnist envisions his pursuit of God with his whole
person, both the inner and outer person. Furthermore, the two stanzas in col. 7
(27c-30a/30b-32b) juxtapose the “righteous” and the “wicked” and when paired
together shed a more nuanced light on the use of ‫ נפש‬in this hymn.

The Righteous (27c-30a) The Wicked (30b-32b)

‫ צדיק‬.28 ‫אתה ֯ב[רא]תה‬
֯ ‫ …רק‬.27 ‫ …ורשעים בראתה‬.30

‫ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון‬ ‫ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬

‫להשמר בבריתך‬ ‫ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬
‫ולתהלך בכול‬ ‫ כי הלכו בדרך לא טוב‬.31
‫ולהגי֯ ֯ש עליו‬
֯ ‫בברי֯ ֯ת ֯כ[ה‬
֯ ‫וימאסו‬
‫וחוקי]ך תעבה נפשם‬
‫ צויתה‬.32 ‫ולא רצו בכול אשר‬
‫ויבחרו באשר שנאתה‬

‫ בהמון רחמיך‬.29 ‫כיא ֯ל ֯ק[צי חרו]נ֯ ך הכינותם‬

֯
‫ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו‬ ‫לעשות בם שפטים גדולים‬
‫לישועת עולם‬ ‫ לעיני כול מעשיך‬.33
‫ושלום עד‬ ‫לאות‬
֯ ‫ולהיות‬
‫ואין מחסור‬ ‫ו֯ ֯מ ֯ופ[ת דורות ] ֯עולם‬

…‫ מבשר כבודו‬.30 ‫ותרם‬ …‫ הגדול‬.34 ‫לדעת ֯כו֯ ֯ל ֯את כבודך ואת כוחך‬
27. … You alone [crea]ted 28. the righteous, 30. … But the wicked you created
and from the womb you prepared him for for the [pur]pose of your wrath, and from
the time of favor, the womb you dedicated them for the day
to be attentive to your covenant of slaughter.
and to walk in all (your way,) 31. For they walk in the way that is not
and to advance (him) upon it good,
and they despise yo[ur] covenant,
[and] their soul abhors your [statutes].
They do not take pleasure in anything
that
32. you have commanded,
but they choose what you hate.

whole person is largely unremarkable. The sectarian hymnist, however, purposely limits
this obedience to those who have been destined to be part of the yaḥad (cf. 7:27-26).
162 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

29. in your abundant compassion, For you determined them for the a[ges
and to relieve all the distress of his soul of] your [wra]th
for eternal salvation in order to execute great judgments upon
and everlasting peace, them 33. in the sight of all your creatures,
and without lack. and to be a sign and a por[tent for] ever-
lasting [generations],

And so you raise 30. his honor higher so that all may know your glory and your
than flesh … great 34. strength.

Both camps are portrayed as having a ‫נפש‬. The “righteous” (‫ )צדיק‬individual’s

“soul-distress” (‫ )צרת נפש‬is said to be relieved by God who offers eternal salva-
tion and everlasting peace (28). While the language may be considered po-
etically hyperbolic, aimed at communicating that God is without restraint in
satiating the distress of those who belong to his lot, the language here appears
to offer (“for eternal salvation, and everlasting peace,” ‫)לישועת עולם ושלום עד‬, in
some regard, a life that is without end—at least for the righteous (cp. 4.4). Τhe
wicked, who are created for wrath (‫)ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬, are portrayed
as having, or being, a ‫ נפש‬that “abhors” (‫ )תעב‬God’s commandments and turns
to what God hates (‫ויבחרו באשר שנאתה‬, 32), while the hymnist’s existence—
spoken of later in the hymn—stands in opposition to the wicked, “The soul
of your servant abhors every malicious deed” (‫תע ֯בה כול מעשה עולה‬ ֯ ‫ונפש ֯ע ֯בדך‬,
8:28-29). The ‫ נפש‬of the wicked is active, namely, it abhors, does not take plea-
sure, and chooses what God hates. The ‫ נפש‬of the righteous is passive; at least
in this portion of the hymn; it is in distress and in need of salvation and peace.
Even when active later in the hymn, the ‫נפש‬, again, is said to abhor (‫תע ֯בה כול‬ ֯
‫מעשה עולה‬, 8:28-29). Despite its essentially positive portrayal God’s servant, the
action connotes a negative, “to hate” (rather than, e.g., “to love”). The ‫ נפש‬here
is then a generally unfavorable aspect of human nature. Even when the ‫ נפש‬is
active in the servant of God, it takes on a broadly negative action.
It is not clear whether the ‫ נפש‬is viewed as a separate metaphysical com-
ponent, although a couple of things are worth nothing. First, the active ‫נפש‬
is depicted with a verb of emotion (i.e., ‫)תעב‬, and the body15 is not depicted

15 ‫ בשר‬is utilized three times in this hymn (7:25, 30, 34), none of which appear to refer
to the physical body. See Jörg Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential
Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,”
in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Studies in
Wisdom at Qumran and its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East,
the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin
Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404,
esp. 378-83; idem, “Die paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist und die palästinisch-
jüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90/1 (1999): 45-77.
5.2 Hodayot 163

in a way where a body-soul dualism is explicit. Second, while there is ongoing

discussion about the concept of an afterlife in the Hodayot,16 for the moment
the language, “eternal salvation” (‫ )ישועת עולם‬and “eternal peace” (‫)שלום עד‬,
seems to imply at least a modicum of life after death. Significant in this regard
is the description of the wicked in 7:30, “But the wicked you created for the
[pur]pose of your wrath (‫)ורשעים בראתה ל[י] ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו֯ נכה‬, and from the womb
you dedicated them for the day of slaughter (‫”)יום הרגה‬17 The juxtapositioning
of the righteous and the wicked is a common motif in biblical and post-biblical
wisdom literature. In particular, the Wisdom of Solomon utilizes this motif to
describe the eternal existence awarded to the righteous; death from which
there is no return is the fate of the ungodly (cf. Wis 1:1-2:24). It is also clear in
Wisdom that the soul of the righteous has a separate existence from the body
and is immortal. John Collins has noted that the early portion of Wisdom (1-5)
has “notable parallels with the Scrolls.”18 While it would be mistaken to suggest
that this hymn is a clear indicator of an afterlife in the Hodayot, considering
that it attests a similar juxtaposition between the righteous and the wicked
that occurs in Wisdom, and that an “eternal salvation,” an “everlasting peace,”
and “the day of slaughter” are directed to their respective ‫נפשות‬, there is, at
least, the implication that the ‫ נפש‬exists separately from the body. For the righ-
teous, this involves some sort of eternality, and for the wicked, it marks a deci-
sive end. This, of course, hinges on how one might understand the judgments
doled out to either camp. The hodayah may simply be expressing the hope for
life after God’s enemies are slaughtered—a day from which their ‫( נפשות‬i.e.,
lives) are saved and from which peace is attained.
Considering the parallels to Wisdom, however, if the ‫נפש‬, that is the separate
“soul,” of the righteous maintains some sort of life after the day of slaughter
it may assume, as well—albeit incipiently—a body-soul dualism. In general,
however, ‫ נפש‬refers, as in the allusion to the sh’ma, to the totality of a person, or
people. That is to say, there is a lack of explicit evidence that the ‫ נפש‬is viewed

16 Robert Laurin, “The Question of Immortality in the ‘Hodayot’” JSS 3/4 (1958): 344-55.
See also Johannes van der Ploeg, “The Belief in Immortality in the Writings of Qumran,”
BibOr 28/3-4 (1961): 118-24. John Collins states succinctly, “Nonetheless there are no un-
ambiguous references to resurrection in the Hodayot, and even possible references are
very rare. We have noted a similar lack of resurrection language in the sectarian rule
books,” “Conceptions of the Afterlife in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jenseitsvorstellungen im
Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum, ed. Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang (Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 116; see also Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving
Hymns, STDJ 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 84-87.
17 ‫ יום הרגה‬appears in the Hebrew Bible once, Jer 12:3.
18 Collins, “Conceptions of the Afterlife,” 115. His specific concern is with the elevation of the
spirit elsewhere in the Hodayot.
164 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

as distinct and separate from the body. The early occurrences in line 23 surely
indicate a psychosomatic unity.19 As we move into the portion of the hymn
between the vacats, lines 25-34, ‫ נפש‬is nuanced, perhaps implying a body-soul
dualism, but, more importantly, it is paired with an aversive verb. Even the
‫ נפש‬of God’s servant is said to “abhor,” although his abhorrence is of “mali-
cious deeds.” These uses do not explicitly note a division between body and
soul; they indicate an internal human experience (e.g., “take pleasure,” “hate”)
that has outward ramifications of obedience, prolonged life, and death, as else-
where in wisdom traditions.

5.2.2.2 Hodayot 10:22-32 and 13:7-21

The following shorter hymns, 10:22-32 and 13:7-21,20 both begin by extolling
God for his protective and merciful acts on behalf of the speaker. The first
11-line psalm utilizes ‫ נפש‬six times; in each, the speaker is referring to himself.

10:22-32
‫אודכ ֯ה ֯א ֯דו֯ ני כי שמתה נפשי בצרור החיים‬
֯ vacat .22
‫ ותשוך בעדי מכול מוקשי שחת ֯כ[י] ֯א עריצים בקשו נפשי בתומכי‬.23
‫ בבריתךה והמה סוד שוא ועדת ֯ב ֯ליעל לא ידעו כיא מאתכה מעמדי‬.24
‫והמה מאתכה גרו‬ ֯ ‫ ובחסדיכה תושיע נפשי כיא מאתכה מצעדי‬.25
‫ על נפשי בעבור הכבדכה במשפט רשעים והגבירכה בי נגד בני‬.26
‫ אדם כיא בחסדכה עמדי ואני אמרתי חנו עלי גבורים סבבום בכל‬.27
‫ כלי מלחמותם ויפרו חצים לאין מרפא ולהוב חנית כאש אוכלת עצים‬.28
‫ וכהמון מים רבים שאון קולם נפץ ו֯ זרם להשחית רבים למזורות יבקעו‬.29
‫ אפעה ושוא בהתרומם גליהם ואני במוס לבי כמים ותחזק נפשי בבריתך‬.30
‫ והם רשת פרשו לי תלכוד רגלם ופחים טמנו לנפשי נפלו בם ורגלי עמדה במישור‬.31
vacat ‫ מקהלם אברכה שמכה‬.32

22. vacat I thank you, O Lord, that you have placed my soul in the bundle of the living
23. and that you have protected me from all the snares of the pit; f[o]r ruthless people
have sought my life when I held fast
24. to your covenant. They are a council of deception and a congregation of Belial.
They do not know that my station comes from you
25. and that by your kindness you save my life, for from you come my steps. And be-
cause of you they have threatened
26. my life, so that you may be glorified in the judgment of the wicked and manifest
your strength through me before
27. human beings,21 for by your kindness do I stand. And I myself said, “Warriors have
encamped against me; they have surrounded (me) with all

19 See Carol Newsom’s comments regarding another hymn which hold true for this hymn,
“Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” 345.
20 See the “Division of Psalms,” DJD XL, 134 and 169, respectively.
21 Author’s translation. See Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 33-35.
5.2 Hodayot 165

28. their weapons of war. Arrows for which there is no cure destroy, and the blade of
the spear is like fire that devours trees.
29. Like the roar of mighty waters is the tumult of their shout, a cloudburst and tem-
pest to destroy a multitude.
30. When their waves mount up, deception and vanity burst forth toward the constel-
lations.” But as for me, even when my heart melted like water, my soul held fast to your
covenant.
31. And as for them, the net they spread against me seized their feet, and the snares they
hid for my life, they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground.
32. Far away from their assembly I will bless your name. vacat

The speaker is thankful that his ‫ נפש‬places him among the living and that
God’s closely protects it (24-26). Divine protection is complemented with the
various dangers faced by the hymnist (e.g., his enemies are encamped against
him and they spread a net to seize him, 27, 31). These dangers range from the
physical to the psychological, although the experience of the speaker—who
is likely not currently in actual warfare—emphasizes the speaker’s internal
strife. The use of ‫ נפש‬in this hymn creates a space for personal subjectivity with
which the author and the yaḥad identify.22 In reference to the use of ‫ נפש‬and
‫“( לב‬heart”) Newsom notes, “These two terms, like their rough English equiva-
lents, do not, of course, refer to two different parts of the self, but they do mark
the inner conflict for the subject who experiences himself as the scene of this
cosmic confrontation. They are the inner emotional correlates of the external
forces.” Yet, the “resolution of the crisis” is exhibited in the speaker’s external
frame.23 This is noted by the hope that God’s strength be manifest through the
speaker (26-27). Thus, ‫ נפש‬does not simply reflect an inner correlate to external
forces but implies consequences to the speaker’s physical frame, and thereby
represents his whole life, both corporeal and metaphysical. Its use marks a par-
ticular view of his/their condition specifically and not of general humanity,
however. The hymn creates a “we” vs. “them” duality, and the “them,” or “other,”
represents the larger world of human affairs, that of the ‫“( בני אדם‬human be-
ings,” 26-27), the group who more than likely play a partial role in setting the
trap against the speaker and his community (31). Human existence has come
to a fork in the road, where those in the speaker’s community are protected by
God against the onslaught of his enemies, while the rest of humanity is in con-
tinual danger—not from their own enemies—but of God’s judgment.

22 Newsom notes, “In those cases, as with the Hodayot, the first-person accounts serve to
create a standardized experience for all members of the community,” Symbolic Space, 240.
In particular, see Newsom’s definition of subjectivity, The Self as Symbolic Space, 13-15;
eadem, “Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others,’” 1-5.
23 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 238.
166 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

The second hodayah in col 13 is not unlike that of col 10, especially the final
eight lines (14-21), where ‫“( נפשי‬my soul/life”) is encountered. Line 14 reads,
“For in my soul’s distress you did not abandon me, but you heard my cry in
the bitterness of my soul” (‫)כי בצרת נפשי לא עזבתני ושועתי שמעתה במרורי נפשי‬.24
Again, the endangered hymnist expresses gratitude for not being abandoned
or forgotten. Prior to the vacat at the end of line 19, the wicked are said to
endanger the hymnist’s ‫נפש‬, “The wicked among the peoples rushed against
me with their torments, and all day they crush my soul” (‫)וכול היום ידכאו נפשי‬.
These references, especially to “bitterness” (‫ )מרור‬and “crushing” (‫)דכא‬, seem
to be pointed at the psychosomatic reality of the self, where the dangers faced
by the ‫ נפש‬are both internal and external. Yet, again, however, the use of ‫נפש‬
communicates more about the experience of the speaker and the community
than of collective humanity. At most, the ‫ נפש‬of the community is the realm of
God’s concern. He engages intently when the lives of the “poor ones”—likely a
reference to the speaker and the yaḥad25—are in danger. Described in col. 10,26
in part, so that the rest of humanity will see God’s strength. Consequently, the
life of the “other,” those outside of the community are considered abandoned
“lives” (‫)נפשות‬.

5.2.2.3 Hodayah 16:5-17:36

The lengthiest of the hymns under consideration here, 16:5-17:36,27 employs
‫ נפש‬on five (or six, depending on the reconstruction of line 3928) occasions. In
these portions the hymnist is again endangered, but his inner person (i.e., (‫נפש‬
is said to meditate on God who is his refuge even when facing peril (cf. 17:6-9,
27-29); in the end he is delivered (cf. 17:36). The most pertinent section for our
study appears in col. 16 where the hymnist is depicted in a consistent personal
agony. The agony ravages all parts of the speaker’s existence, both corporeal
and non-corporeal. On two occasions he refers to his ‫נפש‬. The first appears in
lines 29-31: “… Among the dead my spirit29 searches, for [my] li[fe] goes down

24 While the “distress of the soul” parallels the language of the biblical psalter (see Ps 31:7,
143:11), the “bitterness of the soul” does not, although it appears elsewhere in 1QpHab
(9:11).
25 See Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the in the Qumran
Community, STDJ 40 (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
26 10:26-27: “you might display your might through me before human beings” (‫אדם והגבי־‬
‫ ;)רכה בי נגד בני‬13:18: “you might display your might through me against human beings”
(‫)בני אדם הגבירכה בי לנגד‬.
27 See “Division of Psalms” in DJD XL, 218, 228.
28 D JD XL, 218; Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 52.
29 The use of the “my spirit” (‫ )רוחי‬appears one other time in his this hodayah (17:12. See also,
12:37). It does not seem that ‫ רוח‬is being used to refer to another component of humanity,
5.2 Hodayot 167

to the pit […] my soul is faint day and night without rest” (‫יומם ולילה‬֯ ‫֯תתעטף נפשי‬
‫)לאין מנוח‬. The first occasion is clearly a reference to the inner self. The ‫נפש‬,
which faints day and night, parallels the psychological, interior experience of
the speaker, as seen elsewhere in the hymn (cf. 16:27-41). Clearly, the distress
of the ‫ נפש‬represents the interiorized turmoil of the hymnist, although much
of it is depicted with physical terminology (e.g., ֯‫בע ֯צ ֯מי‬
֯ , “my bones,” 31—see dis-
cussion on apotropaic prayers below).30 Despite the physical imagery, the use
of ‫ נפש‬seems to be a reference to the inner life of the speaker, although this
component of life does not appear to be separate from the physical body.
The second occasion is of particular importance in that the poetic structure
seems to offer an interpretive grid to understand what is meant by the use of
‫נפש‬. “… and my soul is completely worn down (‫)ונפשי עלי תשתוחח לכלה‬. For my
strength is departed from my body (‫)כי נשבת מעוזי֯ מגויתי‬, my heart is poured out
as water …” (16:33). What follows is a description of bodily trauma, “… my flesh
(‫ )בשרי‬is melted as wax. The strength of my loins (‫ )מותני‬has become a calam-
ity, my arm (‫ )זרועי‬is broken from the shoulder (‫) ֯מ ֯קניה‬, [and I am no]t [able] to
swing my hand (‫)יד‬. And my [ foo]t (‫ )ו֯ ֯ר ֯גלי‬is caught in fetters, my knees (‫)ברכי‬
become as water, and I am not able to take a step …” (34-35). The particle ‫כי‬
(“for,” “because,” 16:33) offers a simple commentary on the clauses which pre-
cede it. The consequence of the hymnist’s soul being worn down is that his full
“body” and “heart” are negatively affected. Rather than referring to the inner
person with ‫נפש‬, it appears that the poetic structure of the poem has shifted
ever so slightly to represent both the physical (‫ )גויה‬and non-physical (‫ )לב‬as-
pects of human nature. It is utilized here to express the complex state of a

at least one separate from the ‫נפש‬. It appears that ‫ רוח‬is simply synonymous to both
‫ נפש‬and ‫ )לבב( לב‬as a referent to the inner person but it is not intended to distinguish
various compositional elements of general humanity. In fact, this seems to be the case
in the texts of the scrolls whenever the speaker refers to his own “spirit” (see 4Q437 2 i 8,
13, 11Q10 4:3). This of course is not intended to suggest that ‫ רוח‬throughout the texts of
the scrolls is intended to refer to the inner person. Clearly, as we will explore later in this
chapter, the use of ‫ רוח‬is more complex than solely as an illustration of humanity’s inte-
rior life. This is especially true when ‫( רוח‬and ‫ )בשר‬are utilized metaphorically. See Eibert
Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual people,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation:’ Reflections
on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New
Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, , STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 103-18; Arthur
Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, SBLDS 110 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989);
David Flusser, “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament,”
in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Vol. I: Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2007), 283-92; trans. from “Yahdut bet-sheni qum-
ran ve-apoqaliptiqah,” Tarbiz 27 (1958), 244-51.
30 The use of ‫ רוח‬in line 30 warrants additional commentary. See below for the examination
of this term in the Hodayot.
168 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

living being, expressing both physical and non-physical consequences. While

the overall emphasis appears to be on non-corporeal components (e.g., “the
cry of the soul”), the presumed physical consequences are equally stark. Still
there is little, if anything, which indicates that the hymnist’s life is divisible
into separate components.

5.2.3 ‫—לב‬The Location of the Inner Person

The Hodayot also offer a unique window into the use of “heart” (‫ )לב‬as the met-
aphorical location of humanity’s inner person.31 Loren Stuckenbruck notes
that to some degree the use of ‫ לב‬can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible, but
also that, “there are a number of expressions and phrases among the Scrolls
texts which, in their precise form, mark a departure from language preserved
in the Hebrew Bible.”32 Many of Stuckenbruck’s examples are attested in the
Hodayot. His study, however, is limited to the “Activity of the Double Heart”
and “‘The Heart of Man’ in the Treatise of the Two Spirits.”33 While we make
no attempt to rehash the aforementioned analysis, and an exhaustive treat-
ment of ‫ לב‬in the scrolls is beyond the scope of this study, an examination of
‫ לב‬in the Hodayot, which offers some additional nuances to the psychologi-
cal experience of collective humanity, is warranted. Pertinent to our study are
two hymns, 12:6-13:6 and 13:22-15:8. Furthermore, central to this discussion is
the complex way in which ‫ לב‬is utilized to describe facets of humanity that
are otherwise differentiated in Greek texts with the terms “heart” (καρδία) and
“mind” (νοῦς).34

31 The methodology of sampling the hymns is, again, terminologically driven in the same
way as the hymns in the previous section were culled. Heinz-Josef Fabry, in a compre-
hensive treatment of the use of ‫ לב‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls, has suggested five overarching
themes: 1) body part and function, 2) seat of emotions, 3) seat of reason, 4) religious and
ethical references, and 5) the “heart” of God, “‫ ” ֵלב‬TWzQ 2:466-67.
32 Stuckenbruck has suggested 10 variations from the Hebrew Bible, 1) “foolish ones of
heart,” 2) “to bring/give/open up understanding to/teach the heart,” 3) “a good heart,”
4) “open the heart,” 5) “heart of knowledge/knowledge of the heart,” 6) “illumination of
the heart/enlighten the heart,” 7) “Belial, I will not keep in my heart,” 8) “‘spirit of holiness’
placed by God in the heart,” 9) “walk in the way of your [i.e., God’s] heart,” and 10) “make
upright in heart,” “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the Problem
of Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context:
Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed.
Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, 2 vols., VTSup 140 (Leiden, Boston:
Brill, 2011), 1:437-40—6, 7, 8, and 10 have no corollary in the Hodayot.
33 Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,”441-53
34 For the limited use of νοῦς, see Wis 4:2, T. Reu. 3:8, 4:6, 2:7, T. Sim. 2:7, 4:9, T. Jud. 14:1, 14:8,
20:2, T. Iss. 4:4, T. Dan. 4:4, T. Naph. 2:6, T. Gad 6:2, T. Ben. 8:3, T. Job 36:6, Let. Aris. 276,
4 Macc 1:15, 1:35; 2:16, 18, 22, 3:17, 5:11, 14:11, 16:3, Jub. 11:6, Ps.-Orph. 1:12, 1:39, Theod. 3:13,
5.2 Hodayot 169

5.2.3.1 Hodayah 12:6-13:6

The portions of the first hymn (12:6-13:635) that pertain to this study are pre-
served in 12:13-26. The intriguing quality of this hymn is that the human ‫ לב‬is
mirrored by a description of God’s anthropomorphic ‫( לב‬cf. 12:14, 18, 19, 22, 25).
Lines 13-17 ascribe a ‫ לב‬to both God and the enemies of the yaḥad,

12:13-17
‫כי אתה אל תנאץ כל מחשבת‬... .13
‫ בליעל ועצתכה היא תקום ומחשבת לבכה תכון לנצח והמה נעלמים זמות בליעל‬.14
‫ יחשובו וידרשוכה בלב ולב ולא נכונו באמתכה שורש פורה רוש ולענה במחשבותם‬.15
‫ ועם שרירות לבם יתורו וידרשוכה בגלולים ומכשול עוונם שמו לנגד פניהם ויבאו‬.16
‫ לדורשכה מפי נביאי כזב מפותי תעות‬.17

13. …But you, O God, despise every plan of

14. Belial36 and it is your counsel that will stand and the plan of your mind that will be
established forever. But they, the hypocrites, concoct plans of Belial
15. and seek you with a divided heart. And so they are not steadfast in your truth. A root
that grows poison and wormwood is in their thoughts,
16. and in the stubbornness of their heart they explore, and they seek you among idols.
The stumbling block of their iniquity they have placed before themselves, and they
come
17. to inquire of you by means of the mouth of lying prophets, who are themselves
seduced by error.

In line 13, the plan of God’s heart is contrasted with Belial, assuming that God’s
plan will stand forever but Belial’s will not.37 Contrasting the plan of God’s

7:0, Phoc. 48. See the use of νοῦς as a distinguishing component of humanity in Philo
in George H. van Kooten, “The Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of
Tarsus: The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body,” in Philosophische
Anthropologie in der Antike, ed. Ludger Jansen, Christoph Jedan, and Christo Rapp, TAP 5
(Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, New Brunswick: Ontos-Verlag, 2010), 264-309. See also this
essay reworked in Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 268-312.
35 Schuller and Newsom have suggested that there may a “psalm incipit” in 12:41 or the very
fragmentary beginning of col. 13, although the editors’ note that there is nothing to sug-
gest a small psalm between the end of one column and the beginning of the other, DJD
XL, 159.
36 The use of “Belial” is a slight emendation of Schuller and Newsom’s translation. Schuller
and Newsom translate ‫ בליעל‬as an adjective “devilish,” DJD XL, 165 and The Hodayot, 39.
Why no reasoning is given for their translation, this study opts for “Belial” since God is
juxtaposed with Belial early in the hymn.
37 Fabry notes that the portrayal of God’s “heart” generally appears in a context that also
deals with Belial and idols (“‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:478). The use of ‫ לב‬to depict from where God’s plan
originates seems closely related to the faculty of thought and reasoning, especially in light
of the use of ‫“( מחשבה‬thought,” “plan,” HALOT 2:570). So, Schuller’s and Newsom’s trans-
lation “mind” is apropos here. This use however is not sectarian-specific as it also occurs
170 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

heart with those of Belial’s lot suggests that the people within either camp will
naturally seek to complete those respective plans. Those who follow the plans
of either God or Belial must also have a similar ‫ לב‬as those beings. This is the
case, at least, for those who are said to fall to Belial’s lot in line 15, “seek you
with a divided heart” (‫)ידרשוכה בלב ולב‬, and line 16, “and with the stubbornness
of their heart they explore” (‫שרירות לבם יתורו‬38 ‫)ועם‬. Indeed, the most nefarious
lot concoct, literally, “plans of Belial” (‫זמות בליעל‬, 14). Furthermore, “stubborn-
ness of heart” (‫—)שרירות לב‬a common phrase in the scrolls39—provides addi-
tional nuance to the perceived human experience. Adapted from the familiar
biblical phrase,40 it is utilized in line 16 to describe those who seek God in
“idols” (‫גלולים‬, 12:16).
Elsewhere, the “stubbornness of heart” is a general depiction of those who
reject God’s commandments (e.g., CD 8:19), but, more specifically, those who
walk away from the community having been an initiate,

… cursed be anyone initiated with unrepentant heart, who enters this Covenant,
then sets up the stumbling block of his sin, so turning apostate … that he shall
bless himself in his heart, saying ‘Peace be with me, though I walk in the stub-
bornness of my heart (‫ …)בשרירות לבי‬He shall be cut off from all the Sons of Light
because of his apostasy from God, brought about by unrepentance and the
stumbling block of sin (1QS 2:11-17).41

It is also utilized for those who have walked away, perhaps momentarily from
God’s law, and are punished for such disobedience (cf. 7:19-24, 9:10). The “men

in Tobit and Ben Sira. A few examples will suffice: Tob 4:19, “So, my son, remember my
commands, and do not let them be blotted out of your mind (ἐκ τῆς καρδίας σου),” Sir 22:16;
“A mind established on intelligent thought (καρδία ἡδρασμένη ἐπὶ διανοίας συνέσεως), is like
the stucco decoration on the wall of a colonnade,” 27:6; “The fruit of a tree shows the care
it has had, so too does a person’s speech show the bent of his mind” (οὕτως λόγος ἐνθυμήματος
καρδίας ἀνθρώπου, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 353, 356). See also Sir 1:28, 3:26, 29, 4:3,
6:37, 8:19, 12:16, 14:21, 16: 20, 24, 17:6, 21:26, 22:17-18, 23:2, 27:6, 34:5, 36:19-20, 40:2, 6, 43:18,
45:26, 51:20. The use of ‫ לב‬to indicate the part of the person that perceives is also found
elsewhere in the Qumran corpus (e.g., 1QS 4:2, 5:9, 10:24, 1QHa 10:11, 1Q20 2:11, 4Q158 6:5,
4Q175 1:3, Fabry, “‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:470-1). Other Greek texts utilize “mind” (νοῦς), to describe the
place of reasoning, and thereby distinguish it from the seat of emotions. The location of
emotion is then limited to the term “heart” (καρδία).
38 See Fabry, “‫ ֵלב‬,” 2:474.
39 CD 3:5, 8:8, 19, 19:20, 19:33, 1QS 1:6, 2:14, 26, 3:3, 5:4, 7:19, 24, 9:10, 4Q256 9:4, 4Q258 1:4,
4Q259 2:7, 4Q266 2 ii 17, 3 iv 6, 5 ii 11, 4Q270 7 i 8, 4Q390 1:12, 4Q393 3:3, 3:5, 4Q487 1 ii 3,
11Q29 1:2.
40 This phrase is especially common in Jeremiah 3:17, 7:24, 9:14, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12, 18:12, 23:17.
See also Deut 29:19, Ps 81:12.
41 P TSDSSP 1:11.
5.2 Hodayot 171

of the yaḥad” (‫)אנשי היחד‬, on the other hand, are spoken of as holding fast to
the covenant and not continuing with a stubborn heart (‫לוא ילך איש בשרירות‬
‫לבו‬, 5:4). By joining the community, the initiate chooses not to acquiesce to
the power of his stubborn heart. Here Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the hymn have
provided a baseline for the human experience. This place of internal personal
conflict, namely, the “stubborn of heart,” is experienced by all of humanity but
rejected by those who choose to obey God’s covenant by entering the commu-
nity, although it continues to afflict the Qumranite.
Stuckenbruck suggests that line 15’s “double-hearted” (‫ )לב ולב‬is related to
Ps 12:3: “with flattering lips and a double heart they speak” (‫ְש ַפת ֲח ָלקֹות ְב ֵלב וָ ֵלב‬
‫)יְ ַד ֵברּו‬. He contends, however, that the double-hearted has nothing to do the
interior state of humanity, as much as it marks the dualistic tendency to dis-
tinguish Belial’s lot from God’s. According to him, the hodayah contrasts with
the Treatise (see 7.2) where the heart is more clearly defined as a battleground
for control over humanity.42 Within this dualistic framework, the double-heart
of the wicked would then contrasts with the “complete heart” (‫לב שלם‬, e.g.,
1QHa 8:25, 35, CD 1:10) of the righteous. Those with a “complete heart” cling
to “the truth of your [i.e., God’s] covenant” (‫ )אמת בריתך‬and are “the observers
of your [i.e., God’s] prece[pts” (‫שומרי מצוו֯ ֯ת[יך‬, 1QHa 8:35), while those with a
“double heart” are not “steadfast in your truth” (‫ )נכונו באמתכה‬and inquire of
“lying prophets” (‫)נביאי כזב‬. Enoch’s exhortation to Methuselah and his broth-
ers warns of them to not “draw near to uprightness with a double heart, nor
associate with those who have a double heart” (1 Enoch 91:4, cp. 81:5; 92:1-5).
Stuckenbruck rightly notes, “the “double heart” is unique within the early
Enoch tradition, though frequently attested in contemporary Jewish writings.”43
His understanding of the “double-heart” in Enoch follows the above hodayah
in that it does not reflect a statement about an “inner moral conflict” but rath-
er, “double-heartedness,” which is “disposition that cannot even begin to pur-
sue righteousness, which in the following verse … is presented as its opposite.”44
Newsom, however, reads the same hymn somewhat differently. She under-
stands the double-hearted as a double consciousness. For her, the hymn pairs
the character of the liar with the person of truth. She shows particular interest
in the phenomenon of lying, which assumes that the individual, or the “they”
in this psalm, would have to know the truth to distort it. In fact, she notes,

42 Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 443-46, 452.

43 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108 (CEJL, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 164. It is argued that
the uniqueness of the “double-heart” is one of three reasons that this exhortation is an in-
dependent tradition that was added in order to bridge between the Apocalypse of Weeks
and the Epistle of Enoch, 156.
44 Stuckenbruck, 166-8.
172 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

“At Qumran the opposite of knowledge is not ignorance but falsity or perver-
sion, a very different pairing.” Thus, the one who is double-hearted, the liar,
is able “to sustain doubleness within him,” a divisiveness that causes him to
seek God and truth in the wrong places. Contrary to Stuckenbruck’s reading,
Newson understands the double-heart to be illustrative of an inner-state of
being where the so-called “double consciousness” is possessed by both the liar
and the person of truth, “In a certain sense a formal resemblance exists be-
tween the character of the liar and the character of the person of truth in that
both are formed as divided selves, possessing a doubled consciousness. But the
structure and function of that sense of inner division is quite different.”45 The
difference between both is that the liar, having known the truth, “asserts his au-
tonomy” over against it,46 while the person of truth utilizes divine knowledge
in order to view himself and his guilt.47 The character of the liar, as Newsom
describes, denies the “vision of knowledge” (‫)חזון דעת‬. Terminologically, there
is little to no parallel in the Hodayot or other scrolls with the “vision of knowl-
edge” in 1QHa 12:19, but there may be some relation to the “Vision of Hagu”
referenced in 4QInstruction.48 If so, it may suggest then that humanity can
know or have some divinely illuminated knowledge49 and deny it. Regarding
both Stuckenbruck’s and Newsom’s approaches, it is not beyond the mark to
suggest that both are valuable and can co-exist. Depicting humanity’s double-
consciousness (Newsom) is not mutually exclusive from a dualistic presenta-
tion of Belial’s lot (as per Stuckenbruck). While functioning within the overall
dualistic system, to be “double-hearted” (‫ )לב ולב‬can reflect, as it does in the
Treatise, the battle that is waged in the inner person.
Returning to the depiction of God’s ‫( לב‬15), 1QHa 12:22 and 26 describe it,
as having no “deception” (‫ )הולל‬or “deceit” (‫מזמה‬, 12:21-22). It is also in opposi-
tion to all those who speak to his people with a “strange (other) tongue” (‫לשון‬
‫ )אחרת‬and do not “pay attention” (‫ )האזינו לדברכה‬to his word (12:17-18). Those
who are in accordance with the covenant and have heeded the words of hymn
walk in the way of the divine ‫לב‬. Moreover, God’s ‫ לב‬is portrayed as opposed to
the ‫ לב‬of those who follow Belial (i.e., humanity outside of the yaḥad or, more
immediately, their perceived opponents), not Belial himself. The implications
are thus clear for those outside the hymn’s perceived community; the human
“heart” is naturally deceitful and deceptive, choosing to heed neither the

45 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 324-6

46 To this assertion of autonomy, it seems appropriate to include the occurrences of the
“stubborn heart.”
47 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 324
48 See Erik W. Larson, “Visions,” EDSS 2:957-958.
49 Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 440.
5.2 Hodayot 173

speaker’s words or God’s covenant (cf. Jer 17:8-10). The collective, extra com-
munal, human ‫ לב‬that appears in lines 13-16, can be “divided” or “double” (‫לב‬
‫)ולב‬, “stubborn” (‫)שרירות‬,50 know—i.e., the place of thought and reasoning—
and not stay steadfast (‫ )נכונו‬to God’s truth, seeking him, albeit incorrectly (e.g.,
“among idols,” ‫)בגלולים‬. Despite the inferences gathered by examining God’s ‫לב‬,
as well as, in part, the “heart” of his opponents, the general view of humanity
in this hymn is not positive (sec. 3.5), as lines 31-32 imply, “I know that righ-
teousness does not belong to humankind nor perfection of way to a mortal”
(‫ואני ידעתי כי לוא לאנוש צדקה ולוא לבן אדם תום דרך‬, 12:31-32).51 Below, this study
takes on the idea that even when pictured as followers of God, the base nature
for the members of the yaḥad, and to which God intervenes, exists with this
aforementioned lack of perfection attributed to humanity. In other words, the
members of the community share the same condition but differ because of
what God has done.

5.2.3.2 Hodayah 13:22-15:8

What we find in the next hymn, 13:22-15:8,52 is not unlike what has already been
examined. God is juxtaposed against Belial and his lot. They are described as
plotting “the destruction they have in their heart” (‫הוות לבם‬, 13:28). The au-
thor’s opponents devise plans to against him so that his ‫ לב‬is in a tumult within
him (‫ויהם עלי לבי‬, 13:33). The “broad place” (‫ )מרחב‬that God had opened is said
to be “made tight with distress” (‫ויוספוה לצוקה‬, 13:35). The pains caused by these
plans result in a crisis within the author’s ‫לב‬. This crisis does not appear to be
a quality of general humanity, as much as it is a depiction of what the hymnist
must endure now enlightened having heeded God’s covenant. Those outside of
the community have a ‫ לב‬in opposition to the speaker, one that continuously
plots evil (see “flesh and blood,” sec. 2.3).
Later in the hymn there occur references to the ‫ לב‬of God, the author, and
their opponents (14:10, 24, 25). For those who walk in the way of God’s ‫לב‬, their
own way is “without iniquity” (‫)אין עול‬. Their opponents, on the other hand, are
depicted as “staggering” away from God’s heart because, “Belial like a counselor

50 Cf. Jer 11:8; Ps 81:12.

51 Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 41.
52 D JD XL, 169, 184, and 200. Schuller et al. argue that the psalm which begins in line 22
continues to at least the end of the column, 169. They note that the division of this hymn
has been noted by other commentators arguing that lines 4-6 in column 14 continue the
language and themes from col 12, 184. The hymn is thought to end in 15:8, partly, because
a new hymn begins in 15:9 and the editors are not of the opinion that such a short psalm
existed in lines 4-8 (200).
174 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

is in their heart” (‫לבבם‬֯ ‫)וכמוא יועץ בליעל עם‬.53 Therefore, the use of ‫ לב‬in both
cases represents, perhaps more explicitly than ‫נפש‬, the inner life of humanity;
the place of internal strife where God and Belial wage war.54 The ‫ לב‬in this
hymn is depicted as the place of division, a “double consciousness,” if you will.
For the member of the yaḥad, it is a where internal conflict causes external
distress and, for outsiders, where deceit inhabits.
In summary, the ‫ לב‬is a place of internal conflict. For those who walk away
from the “way of God’s heart” they internally deny God’s covenant. This inner
person is where injustice resides; it is where Belial’s influence inhabits. On the
other hand, the ‫ לב‬of the hymnist, and his community, is the interior location
where the dangers of the plans devised by his opponents are experienced with
terror and trauma. In that sense the ‫ לב‬also refers to the mind, the seat of rea-
son; it is the seat of crisis where reason is “made desolate” (‫השם‬, 1QHa 15:6) by
the community’s enemies. It is precisely where one decides to follow God or
Belial.

5.2.4 ‫—רוח‬Humanity’s Innate Spirit

Another crucial aspect of our examination of the Hodayot is the use of ‫רוח‬
(“spirit”) to depict a component of the human person. Arthur Sekki notes, “the
basic semantic range for ruaḥ as man’s spirit in the non-biblical, Hebrew Scrolls
seem for the most part to reflect biblical categories but with a more negative
emphasis and with a tendency to describe man as not only having a spirit but
also as being one.”55 Our primary focus here is on ‫ רוח‬as it reflects the reality of
collective humanity, an innate component of human life that all share in. This
is essential since within Qumranite (and even nascent Christian56) ideology

53 See Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 47. ‫ כמוא יועץ‬is phraseology that is unique to the
scrolls.
54 The final use of ‫ לב‬in the final line of the hymn should be noted but needs little comment.
It refers to the physical heart, and the physical response to the plans of Belial and his lot.
“All the foundations of my frame groan, and my bones are dislocated. My bowels are to me
like a ship in a raging storm, and my heart beats wildly to the point of destruction” (‫ויהם‬
‫לבי לכלה‬, 15:8). The “heart” in this hymn, while not wholly different from what we have
examined before, adds some additional nuance.
55 Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ, 95. See also Arnold A. Anderson, “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in
1QS, 1QH and 1QM,” JSS 7/2 (1962): 293; Jörg Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in Jewish Sapiential
Tradition and the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in
The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte
Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven, Paris, Sterling,
VA: Leuven University Press, 2002), 367-404, esp. 380.
56 See Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in Jewish Sapiential Tradition,” 402-4.
5.2 Hodayot 175

there is a use of ‫רוח‬that is initially external and eventually internalized.57 The

concept of an external/internal spirit(s, cf. 4:29) is a necessary quality for the
speaker and the members of the yaḥad to declare the works of God and fulfill
his commandments.58 While this ‫רוח‬reflects a possible internal experience
of the speaker and his community, it does not explain the experience of col-
lective humanity. Rather, it reflects the yaḥad’s eventual encounter with God’s
spirit—sometimes synonymous with the holy spirit.59 As Newsom notes, “this
holy spirit is not something that he possesses by right of birth but is external to
his original status (emphasis mine).”60 Therefore, although it is internalized, it
is not innate to the person, and more correctly reflects a conception of sectar-
ian being, not collective humanity. Those outside of the community have no
chance of being gifted by a spirit like the spirit of understanding ( ֯‫]ה[רוח ֯בי֯ נ‬,
8:24, also, ‫“[רוח דעה‬spirit of knowledge”]). Indeed, the human spirit—and
the human condition—in the Hodayot is viewed quite negatively (e.g., 8:32).
Often when the hymnist(s) refers to his own spirit positively, he is speaking of
this later spirit, given to him by God which is eventually internalized (e.g., 4:29
[‫]רוחות‬, 5:36, 8:29, 20:15, 21:34).61
There are two notable exceptions which describe the hymnist(s)’s/hu-
man’s spirit as something other than this subsequent God-given spirit. The

57 Carol A. Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer
and Poetry, 344.
58 See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349-50.
59 Newsom notes that whether the speaker addresses his own encounter with the “spirit” or
the “holy spirit,” though there is a varied verb pattern (‫נתתה בי‬, ‫הניפותה בי‬, respectively),
there appears to be no substantive difference between the two. “The two expressions ap-
parently refer to the same internal experience of insight,” Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349.
60 Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349.
61 By this spirit(s) the speaker declares “your righteous acts” (‫צדקותיך‬ ֯ ), knows “all your
works are just and your word will not depart” (‫ודב ֯ר ֯ך ֯ל ֯א ישוב אחו֯ ֯ר‬֯ ‫וצדק כול מעשיך‬,
5:36), “you make your kindness to your servant complete [for]ever …” (‫להשלים ֯ח ֯ס ֯דיך עם‬
‫עבד ֯ך ֯ל[עו] ֯ל ֯ם‬
֯ , 8:29), and “listened faithfully to your wondrous counsel by your holy spir-
it” (‫נאמנה שמעתי לסוד פלאכה ברוח קודשכה‬, 20:15). See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349. The
hymn in 12:6-13:6 also fits this particular concept of the person’s spirit. The “way of man”
(‫ )דרך אנוש‬is depicted as not lasting without the spirit that God created for him (12:32).
This spirit is specifically ‫להתם דרך לבני אדם למען ידעו כול מעשיו בכוח גבורתו ורוב רחמיו‬
‫“( על כול בני רצונו‬to perfect a way for mortal beings, so that they may know all his works
through his mighty strength hand his abundant compassion toward all the children of
his good will,” 12:33-34). It is later described by the speaker in light of his own spirit, “and
my spirit (‫ )רוחי‬grew strong to stand against affliction” (12:38). As the hymn transitions
from God’s creation of the spirit—so that one might know his great compassion—to the
speaker addressing his own spirit—strengthened to stand in the time of affliction—it un-
derscores the internalization of the spirit which gives insight and ability to declare God’s
righteousness.
176 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

first appears in part of a hymn that we examined above, “…[And dis]may [has
come] upon me like those who go down to Sheol, and among the dead my spirit
searches (‫)מתים יחפש ֯רוחי‬, for [my] life has reached the pit […] my soul (‫)נפשי‬
faints day and night without rest” (16:29-31). The use of ‫ נפש‬in this text and the
implication to both the physical and non-physical aspects of humanity have
already been examined, yet the occurrence of ‫ רוח‬in this context warrants a
brief comment. The hymn contains a vision of paradise, which is followed by a
description of a lament that racks the speaker with excruciating pain (16:17-23).
Poetically, “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “soul” (‫ )נפש‬are synonymously paralleled to one an-
other.62 So, it is unlikely that the hymnist intends to describe the components
of human existence. Rather, they are intended to describe actual physical pain63
and the utter totality of what the speaker must endure. Rather than depicting
separate components, they describe the inner person, the place where the per-
son experiences an internal conflict due to external pressures.64 John Levinson
notes our other exception (9:29-31), which he refers to as “uncommon glimpse
of optimism”—a description of human spirit given to it at birth.65

9:29-31
‫ אתה בראתה‬vacat .29
‫ רוח בלשון ותדע דבריה ותכן פרי שפתים בטרם היותם ותשם דברים על קו‬.30
‫ ומבע רוח שפתים במדה‬.31

29. …You yourself created

30. breath (lit. spirit) for the tongue. You know its words, and you determine the fruit of
the lips before they exist. You set the words according to the measuring line,
31. and the utterance of the breath (lit. spirit) of the lips by measure.

62 (29) … upon me like those who go down to Sheol,

and among (30) the dead my spirit searches,
for [my] life has reached the pit […]
my soul faints day and night (31) without rest
63 Kim-Harkins, Reading with an ‘I,’” 238-9.
64 Because of it he has numbered himself among those who go down to Sheol (‫כיורדי שאול‬
‫)תהי מה]ו֯ מה עלי‬, the abode of the dead, that is, the place of the pit. The terminological
shift from the physical to the ethereal, from pain to the place of the dead, is significant.
While ‫ רוח‬and ‫ נפש‬signal the totality of human life, there still remains a sense of some-
thing other here—albeit not explicitly so—that suggests an existence after death (see
above).
65 John R. Levinson, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans,
2009), 186. Levinson mistakenly notes the line numbers, which are lines 29-31, not 26-27.
5.2 Hodayot 177

He posits, “God has given spirit-breath and tongue and rhythm, and these are
the dimensions of a human being …” As part of a larger hymn (9:1-10:4),66 how-
ever, it is worth examining context of these lines. 9:7-22 depicts the celestial
order of creation which occurs according to a divinely-willed plan.67 Some
of the language in this passage is reminiscent of the created order present in
other Qumran texts.68 In this introductory portion of the hymn, every “spirit”
is said to be “formed” by God (‫ )אתה יצרתה כול רוח‬and their works are deter-
mined, as is their judgment. The created spirits here encompass more than hu-
manity, as noted in lines 12-13: “powerful spirits according to their laws, before
they came to be ho[ly] angels [and …]ms eternal spirits in their dominions”
(‫ה] ֯כי֯ נ֯ ו֯ תה לרצונכה ורוחות עוז לחוקיהם בטרם היותם למלאכי ֯ק[ודש ו…] ֯ם לרוחות‬
‫)עולם‬. What is critical is the occurrence of “human spirit” or the “spirit of man”
(‫ )רוח אדם‬in 9:17: “for the human spirit that you fashioned in the world for all
the days of eternity and everlasting generations …” (‫֯לרוח אדם אשר יצרת בתבל‬
‫]…[ לכול ימי עולם ודורות נצח‬, 17-18). ‫ רוח אדם‬and its counterpart in this hymn
‫(רוח אנוש‬34) are unique to this hymn. The ‫ רוח אדם‬appears to be a generic
manner of describing the full breadth of living humanity and its place in God’s
divine plan. This is strengthened in light of line 17, which closely resembles the
language utilized for humanity’s creation in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Zech 12:1,
also Gen 2:7).69 The sense given to ‫ רוח אדם‬is not unlike the use of ‫ רוח‬in col 7,

And I know that in your hand is the in- ‫ואדעה כי בידך י֯ ֯צר כול רוח [וכול פעול] ֯תו‬
clination of every spirit, [and all] its (26-27) ‫הכינותה בטרם בראתו‬
[activi]ty you determined before you cre-
ated it (26-27).

You yourself have formed the spirit and ]‫הכינות[ה מעולם‬

֯ ‫אתה יצרתה רוח ופעולתה‬
determined its activity [from of old]. And (35) ‫ומאתך דרך כול חי‬
from you (comes) the way of every living
being (35).

66 Schuller and Newsom, The Hodayot, 9-10. Newsom notes that the beginning of the com-
position, although it is now lost, was at the end of col. 8, The Self as Symbolic Space, 222,
esp. n. 48.
67 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 224. Newson numbers these lines 7-20 which ends in
a vacat. Although in DJD XL, the vacat occurs at the end of line 22, DJD XL, 118, Hodayot,
40. The numbering issue is perhaps because Newsom begins her text, which she numbers
line 7, in what is officially published as line 9, thus making her text 2 lines off. This does
not wholly affect her analysis of this text, however, since what is legible in lines 7-8 is
restated conceptually at the beginning of the hymn.
68 Newsom references 1QS 3:15-17, The Self as Symbolic Space, 224. See also 4QShirShabbc 4:1-15.
69 Newsom notes that there is biblical evidence where ‫ רוח‬stands in for the ‫ נשמה‬of Gen 2
as in Ps 104:29, “Flesh, Spirit,” 345.
178 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

The language of both hymns, again, evokes the creation of humanity. In fact,
the rhetorical question in 7:34, “But what is flesh (i.e., a human being) that it
should have insight into [these things? And] how is [a creat]ure of dust able
to direct its steps?” indicates that the “spirit” which is formed in line 35 is in
fact a reference to humanity, rather than simply a component of it. Again, the
spirit(s) spoken of here seem to indicate living persons whose actions, afflic-
tions, and judgments are part of a divinely orchestrated plan.
‫ רוח אדם‬is synonymous with ‫רוח אנוש‬. While the former appears is represen-
tative of collective humanity, the latter, which also depicts the living person,
is attributed to the enlightened hymnist(s), “And you, in your compassion and
your great kindness, you have strengthened the human spirit in the face of afflic-
tion (‫ )חזקתה רוח אנוש לפני נגע‬and [the poor] soul (‫ )נפש‬you have cleansed from
great iniquity so that it might recount your wonders before all your creatures”
(9:33-34). The ‫רוח אנוש‬, strengthened by God’s compassion, is synonymously
paralleled with the ‫נפש‬, which is cleansed “from abundant iniquity” (‫מרוב עוון‬,
34). The hymnist stands in a unique place among humanity, reformed and en-
lightened. Saddled with the horrors of lacking insight and unable to recount
the wonders of God, the rest of humanity remains unreformed. There is noth-
ing, however, to suggest that what happens to the ‫ רוח אנוש‬will happen for col-
lective humanity apart from coming under the tutelage of the yaḥad. Still, ‫רוח‬
‫ אנוש‬and ‫ רוח אדם‬function to describe the totality of the person, in particular,
a being that needs to be transformed. In that sense the ‫רוח אדם‬, and to some
extent ‫רוח אנוש‬, is not a component of human existence, but rather a reference
to a “living person” who stands in need of God’s purification and insight.70
The realization extolled by the hymnist that he has been reformed by the
gift of understanding; a gift that that all others are lacking. The hymnist can
recognize both the great mysteries of God and understand his own baseness.
The description of this lowly existence is perhaps the clearest representative
of how the Hodayot conceive of the rest of humanity, “Yet I am a vessel of clay
and a thing kneaded with water, a foundation of shame and a well of impurity,
a furnace of iniquity, and a structure of sin, a “erring spirit” (‫) ֯רוח התו֯ עה‬, and a
perverted being, without understanding, and terrified by righteous judgments”
(9:23-24). For the member of the yaḥad this “erring spirit” can be purified (e.g.,
1QHa 11:22, 1QS 4:20). The rest of humanity, on the other hand, burdened by

70  ‫־א ָד‬
‫ם‬ ָ ‫רּוח‬
ַ appears also in Zech 12:1. Yet, the phraseology here seems to be a harmoniza-
tion of both creation accounts: “The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the
LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of
man within him” (RSV; ‫־א ָדם ְב ִק ְרּבֹו‬
ָ ‫רּוח‬
ַ ‫)נ ֶֹטה ָש ַמיִ ם וְ י ֵֹסד ָא ֶרץ וְ י ֵֹצר‬. The text reflects imag-
ery and language from both Gen creation accounts.
5.2 Hodayot 179

it, must unknowingly bear it. While the hymnist is aware of his own baseness,
and the duality between knowledge and the perversion of it, humankind—
structures of sin—remain without this knowledge of this despicable state (cf.
1QHa 6:22-23, 12:32-33).
The spirit(s) that plague humanity is an important feature of the Hodayot’s
conception of collective humanity.71 It seems consistent to presume that if the
hymnist views himself, partly and presently (‫ואני‬, 9:23), as “a structure of sin”
and a “spirit of error,” that such self-loathing duels with the, albeit insecure,
state of insight and understanding. This prior state of error and sin seems to
be the speaker’s original state and also the innate state, perhaps, of all those
who lack understanding. Sekki notes that the most common reference to the
human spirit is with one or more genitives.72 Several examples of ‫ רוח‬are ger-
mane here: “perverse spirit” (‫רוח נעוה‬, 5:32, 8:18, 11:22, 16:1, 19:15), “stiff-necked
spirit” (‫רוח עורף קשה‬, 8:16), “erring spirit” (‫רוח התועה‬, 9:24), and “spirit of stag-
gering” (‫רוח עועיים‬, 15:8).73 These are largely synonymous to one another in that
they describe the dismal state of a group that lacks understanding.
Yet, do these various spirits indicate an innate quality of collective human-
ity? In other words, while the former state of the person (that is, prior to entry
into the yaḥad) is, in part, that they lack divine illumination and are troubled
by an onerous spirit, are these various spirits original to humankind? The “spir-
it of perversion,” which appears in col. 5, may give us the parameters to answer
this question, “What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at fearful acts?
He is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ ful gui]lt is his
foundation, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit
rules him” (‫ ֯א[שמה וחט]אה סודו ערות קלו֯ ן֯ ו֯ ֯מ[קור הנ]דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬, 5:31-33).
Spoken of in terms of one born of a woman (‫)ומה ילוד אשה‬, the “perverted
spirit” seems to represent a predetermined state upon birth, an innate condi-
tion (see chap. 7).
Circling back to Levinson’s position regarding the so-called “glimpse of op-
timism” regarding humanity’s spirit in 9:29-32, or, more specifically, the state-
ment, “you determine the fruit of the lips before they exist” (30). While the
larger hymn presents a catchall phrase for living, breathing humanity—‫רוח‬
‫—אדם‬the term also reflects the stark duality present with the hymnist. Existing

71 See our discussion in the following chapter on the Damascus Document’s depiction of the
patriarch’s “free will.”
72 Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ, 101-102.
73 For a more thorough list that examines other Qumran texts, see, Sekki, The Meaning of
Ruaḥ, 102. Sekki’s list does not simply deal with the negative terminology since his focus
is simply the “spirit of man,” whether it be an innate quality or whether it be a spirit given
at another point in time. Therefore, he goes beyond the scope of the present study.
180 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

with a “spirit of error,” as well as the “spirit of enlightenment,” he can grasp and
extoll the mysteries of God and also understand his own inherent baseness.
Therefore, Levinson’s description of three lines from the hymn as a positive
“glimpse” appear overly giving, since under the weight of the hymn’s context,
human existence is portrayed as innately contemptible. God is, however, con-
veniently separated from this portrayal by describing humankind’s spirit in the
context of birth rather than creation. The lines highlighted by Levinson are
simply pointing out God’s sovereignty over humanity. There is nothing particu-
larly positive or negative in them.
What then can be said about the spirit’s relationship to the body? Newsom
convincingly argues that the hymnist’s physical self is often described like a
container, though she notes that it is difficult to determine whether viewing
the body as a container and the placing of the (new, later-given) spirit in the in-
dividual conceptually developed in unison.74 In particular, she points to those
phrases that imply humanity’s creation, especially references to the speaker
as a “vessel of clay/dust,”75 “a source of impurity” (‫)מקור נדה‬, and “a crucible
of sin” (‫ )כור העוון‬as indications of the Hodayot’s conception of the body as a
container.76 Within this container, which eventually internalizes the initially
external, divinely-wrought spirit, there is little indication that the aforemen-
tioned and various described spirits—reflecting humanity’s original state—
depart from the person, but rather simply cease to “rule” the person (cf. 5:3277).
This seems to hold even when the imagery suggests that this unfavorable spirit
has been removed physically from the individual (cf. 15:38-39, 16:1-2).78 Indeed,

74 She suggests that if both developed in unison one might expect the spirit to be described
as a liquid, which is already referenced in the Bible (Prov 1:23). According to Newsom, the
pouring of the spirit does not appear in the Hodayot except for one notable exception in
8:24. She concludes, “even if that is the case in this instance, this possible image of the
spirit poured into the body was not developed as a prominent trope in the Hodayot. More
likely, general shifts in the conception of the interiority of personhood simply found their
way unconsciously into parallel but uncoordinated imagery for the placing of the spirit in
the person and the representation of the physical body as a container,” Newsom, “Flesh,
Spirit,” 351-3.
75 Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 353.
76 Regarding the first phrase Newsom posits, “Just as the female body contains fluids that
can pollute, so the speaker envisions himself as a container of impurity,” while the “cru-
cible of iniquity” refers to the containers used in antiquity to process various liquid met-
als, “Flesh, Spirit,” 352.
77 This is indicated by the perfect ‫“( משלה‬ruled”) in 5:32.
78 “… a perverted spirit without] [knowledge you expelled from my bowels” (]‫ורוח נעוה‬
‫)[בלוא דעת הכאתה מתכמי‬. A portion of line 2, ‫[“( דעת הכאתה מתכמי‬i.e., a spirit with-
out] knowledge you expelled from my innards”), is reconstructed from 4QHb 10, Schuller
and Newsom, The Hodayot, 50, DJD XL, 216. The reconstruction of “a spirit of perversion
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 181

as we will see later in this study, some Qumran texts suggest that “the spirit
of understanding” does not prevent the righteous from stumbling.79 Despite
the internalization of a new spirit, the old spirit does not seem to leave and is
rendered impotent.
In the Hodayot, the spirit given to humanity at birth is one with the body in
life and is the active force by which a person is inherently corrupt. While the
innate “spirit” of humanity is poor and wretched and the body is depicted as
a container of sorts, it does not appear to be a separate component of human
nature even for those who receive the divinely-wrought spirit that brings un-
derstanding. The innate spirit is known by the hymnist, but it is largely pacified
by God’s knowledge-endowing spirit.

5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers

Jewish apotropaic prayers, both sectarian and non-sectarian, are supplications

that request divine protection from various evils (e.g., satan, impure spirits,
etc.).80 The prayers reflect contemporary beliefs on how demonic spirits might
affect the mind/soul and body, thereby betray idea regarding human compo-
sition. The non-sectarian prayers, which are examined here are the Prayer of
Levi in 4QLevbar (4Q213a), the “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19), and the Prayer
of Noah (Jub 6:1-7) and the Prayer of Abraham (12:19-20) in Jubilees. These
prayers do not appear to have been composed by the Qumran community. As
David Flusser and Esther Eshel have noted, they lack any sectarian-specific lin-
guistic affinities81 and thus bear witness to the larger Jewish world. Apotropaic

without” (‫)בלוא ורוח נעוה‬, which is not attested to in any other Hodayot MSS, is largely
due to the traces of the he and the kaph in the verb, the first legible word in line 4QHb 10:8,
‫דעת‬, and the general sense of B that “God removed something negative from my limbs,”
DJD XL, 218. Based on similar phraseology (e.g., ‫ ֯רוח התו֯ עה ונעוה בלא בינה‬, 9:24-25), it is
‫ דעת‬that must be negated, though the editors state that reconstructions other than the
adopted are possible, DJD XL, 218.
79 See discussion below.
80 See David Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers” in Jewish Writings, 560-61. Also idem, “Qumrân
and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem:
Magness Press, 1998), 214-28, repr. from IEJ 16/3 (1966): 194-205, also, Esther Eshel,
“Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and
Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of
the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Esther
Chazon, STDJ 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 69-89.
81 Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 218-9; Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 68. Archie Wright notes
that the free use of the Tetragrammaton suggests a non-Qumran origin, though he
182 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

prayers that have been identified as coming from within the Qumran com-
munity, however, are not conceptually distant enough in their concerns and
are of some value to our examination. Therefore, some concluding remarks
regarding them is warranted.

5.3.1 Prayer of Levi (4QLevbar; 4Q213a)

The Prayer of Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document is written in late Herodian
script and dated to the mid-1st c. BCE.82 It is thought to be the oldest postbibli-
cal apotropaic prayer.83 Although the Aramaic text is fragmentary, Greenfield
and Stone reconstruct the entire prayer utilizing a Greek manuscript from the
11th century CE.84 The most pertinent portions of the prayer are the eight lines
(Gr 5-10), to which portions of the Aramaic85 correspond (Ar 10-17). Both the
Aramaic and fuller Greek are examined here.86

10. … 5“O Lord, you know all hearts”

11. and you alone understand all the thoughts of minds

6and now my children are with me,

12. and grant me all the paths of truth.

7make far from me, O Lord, the unrighteous spirit,

13. and evil thought and fornication,

and turn pride away from me.
8let there be shown to me, O Lord, the holy spirit,

14. and counsel, and wisdom and knowledge

and grant me strength,
9in order to do that which is pleasing to you

warns against making such a claim definitive, The Origins of Evil Spirits: The Reception of
Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2/198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 172.
82 D JD XXII, 3.
83 Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 75. As Eshel notes, these prayers have a biblical precedent in
the “Priestly Blessing” (Num 6:24-26).
84 Michael E. Stone and Jonas C. Greenfield, “4Q213a: 4QLevb,” in Qumran Cave Cave 4. XVII.
Parabiblical Texts: Part 3, DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 25-36. The Greek par-
allel is Cod. 39 in MS Athos, Koutloumous. See also, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition,
Translation, Commentary, ed. Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel,
SVTP 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 60-64. The superscript numbers indicate the numbering of
the Greek manuscript.
85 ‫ב]אישא‬...[ .13, ‫[ ֯ארחת קשט ארחק‬...] .12, ‫ א]נתה בלחודיך ידע‬...[ .11, ‫]אמרת מרי אנתה‬...[ .10
‫] ֯דשפיר ודטב‬...[ .16, ‫לא]שכחה רחמיך קדמיך‬...[ .15, ‫ח]כמה ומנדע וגבורה‬...[ .14, ‫וזנותא דחא‬
 ‫ו] ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן‬...[ .17, ‫קדמיך‬, DJD XXII, 28-29.
86 The following English translation is from DJD XXII, 31-32.
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 183

15. and find favor before you,

and to praise your words with me, O Lord.

16. … and that which is pleasant and good before you.

17. 10and let not any satan have power over me,
to make me stray from your path.87

As we have seen elsewhere God is described as omniscient over all of hu-

mankind; he knows “all hearts” (πάσας τὰς καρδίας) and understands “all the
thoughts of minds” (πάντας τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς ἐννοιῶν, 5).88 The request for
protection indicates the speaker’s presumed vulnerabilities; they are: “evil
thoughts” (διαλογισμὸν τὸν πονηρὸν/ ‫ב]אישא‬, 1389), “fornication”(πορνείαν/
‫)זנותא‬,90 and “pride/insolence” (ὕβριν, 7). The solution to such is a request that
“the holy spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον), “counsel” (βουλὴν), σοφίαν/‫“( ח]כמה‬wis-
dom”), “knowledge” (γνῶσιν/‫ )מנדע‬and “strength” (ισχύν/‫ )גבורה‬be shown to the
speaker (δειχθήτω μοι, [13-14] 8). This portion concludes, “And let not any satan
have power over me” ( ׄ‫ו] ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן […ע] ׄלי‬/καὶ μὴ κατισχυσάτω με πᾶς
σατανᾶς, [17] 10). The battle of the speaker seems to be an internal one, yet it
does not clarify whether the body is equally vulnerable to some illness or if the
affliction is under the control of a satanic spirit. A line that is preserved only
in the Greek MS may offer some clarification, “Purify my heart, Master, from
every impurity …” (καθάρισον τὴν καρδίαν μου, δέσποτα, ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας,
14).91 Levi’s request for the purification of his heart indicates that the realm
of the evil spirit is the inner person, more specifically, his will. Although it is
clear that such disturbance bears physical consequences (e.g., fornication),
the struggle for control is within. Therefore, the prayer provides two aspects of
human nature that will reverberate throughout the prayers, 1) a natural vulner-
ability to demonic influence, and 2) the realm of influence is predominantly
the metaphysical component (i.e., emotions, reason, etc.).

87 Eshel notes “This ancient prayer includes several apotropaic elements: a request for the
knowledge of God, a plea for protection from sin and evil spirits, a request to be distanced
from unrighteousness, and a plea for salvation,” “Apotropaic Prayers,” 75.
88 For the Aramaic reconstruction, see The Aramaic Levi Document, 60.
89 The numbering in the brackets corresponds to the Aramaic, 4Q213aar.
90 Greenfield and Stone have noted ‫ זנותא‬and ‫ ב]אישא‬as poetic pairs, DJD XXII, 31.
91 Greenfield and Stone have noted that lines 12-15 in the Greek manuscript represent the
lost top part of fragment two, DJD XXII, 32.
184 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

5.3.2 “Plea for Deliverance” (11QPsa col. 19)

The non-canonical psalm known as the “Plea for Deliverance,” in 11Q5 col. 19,
dates from the early to late Herodian period, and shares certain commonalities
with the Prayer of Levi.92 The apotropaic elements appear in lines 13-16:

‫ סלחה יהוה לחטאת וטהרני מעווני‬.13-14

‫ רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל אתקלה בעווה‬.14-15
‫ אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה‬.15
‫ מכאוב ויצר רע אל ירשו בעצמי‬.15-16

13-14. Forgive my sin, O Lord, and purify me from my iniquity.

14-15. Vouchsafe me a spirit of faith and knowledge, and let me not be dishonored in
ruin.
15. Let not satan rule over me, nor an unclean spirit;
15-16. Neither let pain nor the evil inclination take possession of my bones.93

The apotropaic portions in The Plea and the Prayer of Levi are strikingly simi-
lar. Both prayers seek purification from sin, calling on a spirit (here: of faith
and knowledge, ‫)אמונה ודעת‬, and requesting that satan (apparently a singu-
lar entity) to have no rule over the speaker.94 Unlike Levi’s prayer, the Plea
for Deliverance offers some additional details, which betray a conception of
human vulnerability to evil spirits. In this psalm, satan, an “unclean spirit” (‫רוח‬
‫)טמאה‬, has the ability to “rule” (‫ )תשלט‬over the individual. Yet, the preposi-
tion ‫“( ב‬over/in”) in line 15 does not indicate the type of control. Elsewhere
‫“( בי‬in me”) appears to reflect an individual’s internal reality (cf. 1QHa 5:36)
and, according to Newsom, is used in the Hodayot to describe the speaker as a
container (see above). Lines 15 and 16 are a bit more explicit as to disturbance
faced by the speaker. The final request that “pain and the evil inclination” (‫כאוב‬
‫ )ויצר רע‬not possess the bones of the speaker indicate the effect of demonic
influence over the body or the ability to cause pain to that body. Eshel states
that ‫ ירשו בעצמי‬means, “have control over my bones.”95 She notes further, “this

92 Fragments of this poem also appear in 11Q6 4 5 14-16, Sanders, DJDJ IV, 76-79.
93 Trans. from Sanders, DJD IV, 77-78; idem, Psalms Scroll, 70-71. Tigchelaar also notes that
this is the only place in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the “evil inclination” is mentioned
together with evil spirits, “Evil Spirits in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Brief Survey and Some
Perspectives,” in Dualismus, Dämonologie und diabolische Figuren, ed. Jörg Frey and Enno
Edzard Pokes, WUNT2 484 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 131.
94 See Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 218. Additionally, Flusser notes that the second striking
similarity between the two prayers is the interpretation of Ps. 119:133b, “Let all iniquity not
rule over me” where “iniquity” is replaced with “satan.” Furthermore, there is little need to
presume that the “Plea” utilizes “satan” differently from Levi’s prayer.
95 This meaning, according to Eshel, is utilized in some Aramaic deeds dated to the Bar
Kokhba period (132-135 CE), “Apotropaic Prayers,” 76. The Testament of Job, which dates
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 185

meaning perfectly fits that of the control spirits presumably have over human
beings.”96 The speaker, however, is not simply concerned with bodily pain. The
first-person prepositional phrase seems to also assume that God can prevent
evil’s control over the mind by giving him a “faithful and knowing spirit” (‫רוח‬
‫ ;אמונה ודעת‬14). Eshel has drawn attention to the demonic control over mind
and body attested in other Second Temple works, including an incantation text
(4Q560).97 She notes that the reference to “iniquity and transgression” suggests

between the 1st c. BCE and 1st c. CE, R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” OTP 1:833-4, attests
varied types of demonic control. When relating what was allowed to be done to him by
Satan, Job specifically states that his body was given over to his control (20:1-3): (“Then
the Lord gave me over into his hands to be used as he wished with respect to the body;
but he did not give him authority over my soul” (χρήσασθαι τῷ σώματι μου ὡς ἠβούλετο,
τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μου οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν). As such, Job’s body is riddled with afflictions
and plagues from head to toe (cf. 6-9). Additionally, there are parallels here to some of
the Gospel accounts which involve demon possession. The pericope of the “Healing of
the Demoniac in the Synagogue” (Matt 1:23-28; Luke 4:33-37) presents the possessed in-
dividual as suffering from convulsions (σπαράξαν, lit. “throw to and fro”) in Matt and the
throwing of the person down (ῥῖψαν) in Luke. In the pericope of the “Dumb Demoniac”
(Matt 9:32-34; Mark 12:22-24), the Gospels report that a demon-possessed man who was
deaf and mute was brought to him. The demon seems to be limited to physical maladies
but not those that deal pain. The demon does not seem to control the demoniac’s mind in
as much as the mind was credited in antiquity with controlling the ability to speak or hear.
The pericope of the “Gerasene Demoniac” (Matt 8:28-34 [Gadarene demoniac], Mark 5:1-
20; Luke 8:26-39) depicts a demon possessed man (two men in Matt) whose strength is
demonically controlled, breaking through shackles and other forms of binding (Mark and
Luke). The demon possessed (men) in Matt are said to be so violent that a path is blocked.
When the demons are exorcised in Mark and Luke, the Evangelists describe the individ-
ual as having a “right mind” (σωφρονοῦντα). The unique quality of this final pericope is
that there are multiple “demons” (δαιμόνια). Luke has the unique description that many
demons “entered” (εἰσῆλθεν) the individual, which may imply the disturbance of both
the soul and mind. A parallel to these demonic encounters in the Gospels appears in the
Testament of Solomon, “And I asked him: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘I am a three-pronged
spirit, which overpowers in three deeds: In the wombs of women I blind children and I
close up ears and I make them mute and deaf. Also, I strike humans against the body (καὶ
τύπτω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κατὰ τοῦ σώματος) and I make them fall and foam and grind their
teeth’” (12:1-2), OTP 1:973. What is clear the final Gospel pericope, as well as the Testament
of Solomon, is that the demons are free to disturb the physical body and inhabit the soul/
mind. The function of these demons seems to intimate a distinction between the body
and the inner person, since they can disturb both in unison and agitate either.
96 Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 76.
97 Douglas L. Penney and Michael O. Wise notes that the reading of 4Q560 of “flesh” (‫)בשרא‬
differs from the usual term for “body” (‫ )פגרא‬in incantation texts (1 i 3), “The expression
‫ בבשרא עלל‬may simply anticipate or reflect the nature of the affliction often attributed
to the demon called ‫חלחיא‬. It may be that ‫ בבשרא‬is the expected preposition and ob-
ject combination following the root ‫ חלחל‬i.e., ‘poisoning,’ affects the ‘flesh’ in particular,
not so much the ‘body’ in general,” “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation
186 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

that demons cause both physical and spiritual problems.98 The same holds
true for the “Plea;” the reference to sins (‫לחטאתי‬, 13) and bone pain, indicate
both the physical and spiritual disturbance caused by demons. The explicit ref-
erence to vulnerabilities, both physical and spiritual, implies that the human
body is composed of at least two separable components that malevolent spir-
its may have access but does not explicitly indicate either can be separate from
the other.

5.3.3 Prayers of Noah and Abraham in Jubilees (10:1-7, 12:19-20)

Related to this conversation are two prayers that appear in the Book of
Jubilees—a book dated to about the mid-2nd c. BCE99 and for which no
Hebrew parallel exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls.100 The first is placed on the lips
of Noah (Jub 10:3-6):101

3. He prayed before the Lord his God and said: “God of the spirits which are
in all animate beings—you who have shown kindness to me, saved me and my
sons from the flood waters, and did not make me perish as you did to the people
(meant for) destruction—because your mercy for me has been large and your
kindness to me has been great: may your mercy be lifted over the children of
your children; and may the wicked spirits not rule them in order to destroy them
from the earth. 4. Now you bless me and my children so that we may increase,
become numerous, and fill the earth. 5. You know how your Watchers, the fathers

Formula from Qumran (4Q560),” JBL 113/4 (1994): 627-50. Émile Puech is not as nuanced
as Penney and Wise, stating that the poison (i.e.,‫ )חלחל‬effects both the flesh and body,
Émile Puech, “Livret Magique: 4QLivret magique ar” in Qumran Grotte 4 XXVII: Textes
Araméens Deuxième Partie, DJD XXXVII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 297. Despite
the uncommon use of “flesh” in incantation and magical texts, separating the flesh from
the body, when flesh is not utilized to describe the sinful aspect of the person, is largely
unnecessary.
98 Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 84. Eshel also references Amulet 12 in Joseph Naveh and Shaul
Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem:
Hebrew University Press, 1987), 94-97.
99 The Book of Jubilees, trans. James VanderKam, CSCO 511, SA 87 (Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters,
1989), V-VI, also Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees: Chapters 1-21, Hermeneia,
ed. Sidnie White Crawford (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 28-38.
100 VanderKam also notes that in the transmission of history of Jubilees 10:1-14, it only ap-
pears on the Ethiopic version. Further, there is “important parallel evidence on the Book
of Noah (that is the introduction to the Book of Asaph), a Hebrew work that begins with
a passage reading much like Jub 10:1-14,” VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 398.
101 Marth Himmelfarb notes the parallels between this prayer and the beginning of the me-
dieval work, the Book of Asaph, “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature”
in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves
(Atlanta: SBL, 1994), 128-36, also VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 398, n. 4.
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 187

of these spirits, have acted during my lifetime. As for these spirits who have re-
mained alive, imprison them and hold them captive in the place of judgment.
May they not cause destruction among your servant’s sons, my God, for they are
savage and were created for the purpose of destroying. 6. May they not rule the
spirits of the living for you alone know their punishment; and may they not have
power over the sons of the righteous from now and forevermore.102

Prior to the prayer there is a brief narrative where “impure demons” have de-
ceived (ἐπλάνησαν103) Noah’s grandchildren, making them act foolishly, blind-
ing, and killing them (10:1-3).104 Unlike the “Plea for Deliverance” (see above),
it does not seem that the demons cause any physical pain, although the man-
ner in which they “deceive” Noah’s grandchildren have physical ramifications
(e.g., death, blindness). Rather, it appears that some control over their mind/
soul is intimated. In fact, the use of “to deceive” (πλανάω) may be of some as-
sistance in this regard. This term implies a deception of the mind which leads
to irregular action.105Noah’s prayer begins in v. 3 with the pronouncement of
God as the deity over all “animate beings.” This prayer begins as the others do,
with an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty.106 His supplication is founded
on the mercy exhibited to his family during the flood.
The most important verses of the prayer for this study are those that de-
scribe demonic influence, especially, “and may the wicked spirits not rule them
in order to destroy them from the earth” (3), “may they not cause destruction
among your servant’s sons” (5), and “may they not have power over the sons
of the righteous from now and forevermore” (6). Noah prays that the wick-
ed spirits, these demons connected to Watchers of Enochic lore,107 not rule
over his children and grandchildren in a manner that will lead to their death.
The demons inten to kill them (in some manner; see 10:2) in order to prevent
Noah and his family increasing and filling the earth (4). While Noah’s prayer is
narrowed to his grandchildren, the persistence of demonic control threatens

102 All English translations from Vanderkam, Jubilees.

103 The Greek text is from Syncellus, Chrongraphia (49.6-15) in Jubilees, 266. The Greek frag-
ments can also be accessed online on “The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha,” http://ocp.
tyndale.ca/. The online version is adapted from VanderKam’s volume.
104 VanderKam, Jubilees, 58.
105 “πλανάω,” LSJ 1411; also BDAG 821-22.
106 Flusser provides a comparative chart of the elements that commonly appear in Jewish
Apotropaic prayers, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 223.
107 See Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 78; also Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible,
Redactions, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17-77; VanderKam,
Jubilee 1, 402-3.
188 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

the entire world to become as it was prior to the flood. Germane to this dis-
cussion is what sort of control over humanity does Noah’s prayer assume?
In contrast to the “Plea for Deliverance,” physiological pain is not an explicit
problem for Noah and his family. The patriarch’s concern is the death of his
grandchildren which results from the misleading or control over the “spirits of
the living.” Therefore, Noah’s concern is primarily about the demonic control
over the souls of his children and the “sons of the righteous” that they might
“not have power over [them]… from now and forevermore.” VanderKam notes,
“Noah does not want them to be able to influence people—more particularly
the righteous. His request is that they be prevented from ever again exercising
such power.”108
It is unclear, however whether the use of “spirits”109 reflects a duality be-
tween spirit and flesh. Earlier in Jubilees idols are portrayed as being without a
spirit, “What help and advantage do we get from these idols before which you
worship and prostrate yourself? For there is no spirit in them because they are
dumb” (12:3).110 The text implies that humanity differs from idols in that they
have a spirit with a fleshly, physical form. Malevolent spirits then have an abil-
ity to lead the righteous astray, by not controlling the body but by governing
the component the makes being animate. Therefore, Noah’s prayer is working
with the existence of duality between body and spirit.
Abraham’s prayer (12:19-20) makes a clearer declaration of demonic control.

19. My God, my God, God most High, you alone are my God. You have created
everything; everything that was and has been is the product of your hands. You
and your lordship I have chosen. 20. Save me from the power of the evil spirits
who rule the thoughts of people’s minds. May they not mislead me from follow-
ing you, my God. Do establish me and my posterity forever. May we not go astray
from now until eternity.111

Abraham is particularly concerned about his own protection from “evil spirits
who rule the thoughts of people’s mind.”112 The concern is not unlike Noah who
is concerned that his grandchildren will be misled, thereby putting his poster-
ity into question. Abraham’s prayer, however, clearly distinguishes the realm of
demonic control, namely, the “thoughts of people’s minds” (20, see also Prayer
of Levi above). Eshel notes that the language of both prayers implies “that the

108 Jubilees 1, 404.

109 VanderKam notes that “spirits” in regard to evil entities depict an immortal aspect of the
giants that they inherited from the Watchers, despite the fact that their fleshly existence
can die; therefore, the duality is apparent, Jubilees 1, 403-4.
110 Translation, VanderKam, Jubilees 1, 441.
111 VanderKam, Jubilees, 72.
112 See VanderKam, Jubilees, 72, n. on 12:19.
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 189

evil spirits can cloud knowledge of God and mislead humans from following
God’s will.”113 VanderKam notes, “He [i.e., Abraham] knows that the spirits con-
trol people’s mind … so his prayer is that God save him from their influence.”
Again, unlike the “Plea for Deliverance,” a physiological effect is not attested
here, so the realm of evil influence is solely the metaphysical component of
the person. In fact, VanderKam argues that that Ethiopic term for “thoughts”
(ḥellina) very likely reflects each person’s “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬where it refers to a
neutral feature within a person that is open to outside pressure …”114
Both prayers in Jubilees indicate that the realm of demonic influence is
the metaphysical part of each person, namely, the soul and mind. Any physi-
cal consequences are a byproduct, but not a direct result of that disturbance.
Furthermore, the terminological use of “spirit(s)” intimates a clearer form of
body-soul dualism that is not found in other apotropaic prayers. While the
human spirit is not spoken of as having a separate existence from the body,
the realm of external demonic control is the mind/soul/spirit, that part of the
person that distinct from its physical nature.

5.3.4 Sectarian Apotropaic Prayers

While these texts are thought to come from the Qumran community, their per-
spective regarding demonic activity is not isolated from other Second Temple
texts. Surely, the vulnerabilities thought to be faced by those within the yaḥad
were also thought to be the malady of those outside of it, and thus a danger
faced by collective humanity. In other words, dangers posed to the mind/soul/
heart as well as the physical body were thought to be both a problem and were
an intracommunal and extracommunal issue. Therefore, even the sectarian
texts offer relevant information regarding humanity’s vulnerabilities to de-
monic influence.

5.3.4.1 4QSongs of the Sagea (4Q510)

At least one sectarian apotropaic prayer indicates what part of the individual
is susceptible to demonic influence. The so-called Songs of the Sage (4Q510-
4Q511)115 appear to be two copies of the same document, although nothing
that has been preserved in either is an identical copy of the other.116 Nitzan
describes these texts, which are a collection of conventional songs of praise

113 Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 78.

114 VanderKam, Jubilee 1, 454.
115 Maurice Baillet, “510. Cantiques du Sage (i),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD
VII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 215-19, with one emendation.
116 Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. Jonathan Chipman, STDJ 12
(Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994), 236; trans from Tefilat qumran ve-shiratah be-zikatan
la-mikra, BEL XIV, (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1996).
190 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

that were perhaps part of communal ritual,117 as exhibiting apocalyptic and

eschatological elements.118 The first portion that is germane to our discussion
consists of five nearly-intact lines uttered by the maskil in 4Q510 1 4-8.

]‫ולב[הל‬
ׄ ‫ ואני משכיל משמיע הוד תפארתו לפחד‬vacat ‎.4‫‏‬
]…‫ כול רוחי מלאכי חבל ורוחות ממזרים שדאים לילית אחים ו[ציים‬.‎5‫‏‬
]‫ בקץ ממשל[ת‬119‫ והפוגעים פתע פתאום לתעות רוח בינה ולהשם לבבם ונ֯ תתם‬.‎6‫‏‬
‫ רשעה ותעודות תעניות בני או[ר] באשמת קצי נגוע[י] עוונות ולוא לכלת עולם‬.‎7‫‏‬
120‫ [כי א]ם לקץ תעניות פשע‬.‎8‫‏‬

4. And I, a Maskil, declare the splendour of his radiance in order to frighten and terr[ify]
5. all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, owls and
[jackals …]
6. and those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of understanding, to
make their hearts desolate. And you have been placed in the era of the rul[e of]
7. wickedness and in the periods of humiliation of the sons of lig[ht], in the guilty pe-
riods of /[those] defiled by/ iniquities; not for an everlasting destruction
8. [but ra]ther for the era of the humiliation of sin.121

The presumed danger faced by the Maskil is that the “spirit of understanding”
(122 ‫ )רוח בינה‬be led astray, thereby making his heart desolate. Flusser has noted
that “understanding,” or the desire for it, is a common element in apotropaic

117 Cf. Joseph Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage
(4Q510-511),” DSD 19 (2012): 2.
118 Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 236; Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 80.
119 Baillet does not offer a reconstruction for the trace marks left behind by the two medial
letters in ‫תם‬°°‫ ֯ת‬but suggests that the initial tav may be read as ‫תם‬°° ֯‫ונ‬. Furthermore, after
the nun there may be an ayin although what should be restored here remains elusive, DJD
VII, 216, especially since the middle part of the word appears immediately near a tear in
the fragment. Nitzan reconstructed this to read ‫ ונ֯ פשתם‬based on a parallel with ‫לבבם‬
in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, Bilhah Nitzan, “Shirey shevach me-qumran ‘le-fached ve-
lehavel’ ruchot rasha’” Tarbiz 51/1 (1985): 21 (Heb.). Yet, on the parchment there are traces
of what appears to be the top of Baillet’s nun and the top half of what may be a second
and, even perhaps, a third letter. At the point where fragment 1 breaks off, and the text
continues, there appears a bottom ligature prior to the bottom half of the tav and a clear
final mem. While the traces between the apparent nun and the break are difficult to make
out, what is preserved in the second smaller fragment does not appear to have the bottom
shape of the shin when compared to shins written by this scribe elsewhere in the frag-
ment. García Martínez and Tigchelaar’s restoration ‫ נתתם‬seems to fit the traces best and
is the restoration opted here, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:1027.
120 Text from Baillet, DJD VII, 217.
121 English translation of both 4Q510-511 from DSSSE 2:1026-36.
122 ‫ רוח בינה‬is not a common expression and appears primarily in sectarian material, 1QS 11:1,
1QHa 8:24, 4Q230 12 3, 4Q301 4 2, 4Q418 58 2, 73 1.
5.3 Jewish Apotropaic Prayers 191

prayers.123 In this way “understanding” functions conversely to keep demons

away.124 Or, as Joseph Angel states, “the Songs invoke the power of divine
knowledge in the active quest to deter the demons.”125 Similar to some of the
prayers that have been surveyed above, the sphere of demonic influence is the
mind/soul but it does not seem to bring harm to the body apart from caus-
ing the individual to act against God’s commandments. Unlike the “Plea of
Deliverance”, where the body is racked with pain, the sectarian text depicts
the disturbance of the mind and, as Brand notes, these demons “are capable of
leading a person who is usually righteous astray, even if she is endowed with
a ‘spirit of understanding.’”126 The prayer indicates that the “spirit of under-
standing” is not a stand-alone measure against demonic disturbance.

5.3.4.2 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511)

A small fragment in 4Q511 refers to the physical body: “… His knowledge he put
[in my] hear[t …] the praises of His righteousness, and […] and by His mouth
he frightens [all the spirits] of the bastards to subdue […] uncleanness. For
in the filth of my flesh is the foundation of [… and in] my body are conflicts”
(‫ ;וב]גויתי מלחמו֯ ֯ת‬48 49 + 51 1-4). The frightening of the ‫“( ממזרים‬bastards”)
shares a parallel with fragment 1 of 4Q510 but here demonic influence causes
inward conflicts and results in some form of impurity (‫ ֯ט ֯מאה‬, 3).127 While the
text is not as clear as the physical pain referenced in the “Plea,” it indicates
some level of effect that moves beyond psychological influence.
An incantation text, which shares some thematic content with the above
fragment, may offer a more useful understanding of the potential demonic ef-
fect to the physical body: “As for me, I am the dread of God. He opened my
mouth with the knowledge of his truth, and […] empowered by his holy spir-
it. […] truth for all [thes]e, and they became contentious spirits in my bodily
frame (‫[ ;)במבניתי‬God’s] statute[s …] [… in] the the innards of flesh” (‫ב] ֯תכמי‬

123 Flusser, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 223; Joseph Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious
Experience,” 6-7.
124 And indeed God is praised for the bestowal of understanding. In a fragment from 4Q511,
“You [pl]aced knowledge in my frame of dust in order that I might p[raise you]” (28 29 3).
Angel notes the close parallels here with the Hodayot, “Maskil, Community and Religious
Experience,” 8.
125 Angel, “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience,” 11.
126 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 203. Brand has also noted that these demons are given
some limitation in that the are only allowed to function in the “period of the dominion of
wickedness.” See also her discussion on 4Q511 35 6-8, Evil Within and Without, 203-204.
127 See, Brand, Evil Within and Without, 201-2.
192 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

‫בשר‬, 4Q444 1 4 i + 5).128 Brand provides an extensive discussion on the trans-

lation of innards (‫ )תכמי‬and her conclusion is particularly pertinent, “… the
word *tĕkāmîm appears to be a more general expression referring to the in-
nards in the body, particularly when the body is ‘infested’ with sinfulness or
affliction.”129 While the rest of the text is fragmentary, it shares enough affini-
ties with the Songs of the Sage—with the parallel of “innards” (‫תכמים‬, which
only appears in sectarian material130)—to suggest that the “bodily struggles”
(‫ )מלחמות‬referenced in 4Q511 are in fact some form of actual physical distur-
bance.131 Like the prayers in Jubilees, 11Q5, and the Prayer of Levi, the sectarian
material indicates a similar concern regarding demons, particularly the poten-
tial for them (or “it”, if a singular demon is intended) to both lead the person
away from knowledge and, thus, away from God’s commandments, as well as
to rack the physical body with pains and afflictions.132 The sectarian material

128 Hebrew text from Esther Chazon, “444. 4QIncantation,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical
and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. Esther Chazon and Torleif Elgvin et al., DJD XXIX (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1999), 367-77
129 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 204-5, n. 35.
130 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 204, n. 35.
131 Texts from the Hodayot and the so-called Aramaic Magical Book (4Q560) provide more
attestations to the physical disturbance caused by malevolent entities. 1QHa 4, which
is reconstructed as the end of col. 22, “[… from plagues of a] man and from pa[ins
(‫ מנגי]עי גבר וממכא[וב‬...[) …] […] they watch, and upon their courses [they shall stand …]
you rebuke every adversary who ruins and […] and you have uncovered my ear. For […]
the men of the covenant were deceived by them” (4-8); also, DSSSE 1:194. Eshel notes that
the text uses “telling phrases” that connect it with other apotropaic prayers, “Apotropaic
Prayers,” 83. In light of other prayers, it is not surprising that this fragment speaks to the
potential plagues and pains, if reconstructed correctly, that one faces as a result of de-
monic activity. The Aramaic Magical Book = 4QExorcismar (DSSSE 2:1117) fragment 1,
1:3-4, reads, “… male and female poison(ous substance) enters into (invades) the flesh …
iniquity and sin; fever and chills, and the fire (or fever) of the heart” (‫אשא ועריא ואשת‬
‫)לבב‬, trans. Joseph Naveh, “Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran,” IEJ 48
3/4 (1998): 257. Douglas L. Penney and Michael O. Wise state that the last words of line
4, namely, “fever and chills” and “fever of the heart” (or “chest pain”), designate diseases,
“By the Power of Beelzebub,” 627-50. “Two are well attested in other texts, and the third
has a number of precedents” (642). Naveh notes that the most frequently mentioned ill-
ness in the 5th century Palestinian amulets was thought to be malaria but was expressed
with the Aramaic definite forms ‫“( אשתה והעריה‬fever and chills”), “Fragments,” 257.
Therefore, 4Q560 attests further to human nature’s complex vulnerability to malevolent
disturbances.
132 Somewhat pertinent to this discussion is a text from the Testament of Solomon, written
sometime between the 1st and 3rd c. CE, D. C. Duling, “Testament of Solomon” OTP 1:940-
943, collects in part traditions and folklore of Solomon’s building of the Temple. At the very
beginning of the testament a demon, Ornias, comes to disturb the master workman—
who was just a young man, “Testatment,” 1:961, n. f, and to deprive him of half his wages
5.4 Conclusion 193

parallels the other prayers in that human person is conceived as existing in two
components, body and soul, each of which is individually vulnerable to being
troubled by evil spirits, although the mind seems to be the primary point of
emphasis.

5.4 Conclusion

The Hodayot’s pervasive focus on the personal turmoil of the hymnist and the
yaḥad warrant an examination of the terms that form a ground zero of sorts
for those experiences, namely, “life” (‫)נפש‬, “heart,” (‫ )לב‬and “spirt” (‫)רוח‬. A close
reading of specific Hodayot betrays how the hymnist(s) conceives of collec-
tive humanity’s composition, as well as the various intra-communal and extra-
communal distinctions. Our study of ‫ נפש‬shows that the hymns remain close
to what is attested in biblical tradition, namely, it envisions human nature as
a psychosomatic unity. It represents the totality of the speaker’s existence, al-
though its employment to describe the speaker’s internal terror, without ex-
plicit reference to the body, implies some degree of distinction between both.
More explicitly than ‫נפש‬, however, ‫ לב‬points to the hymnist’s inner, psychologi-
cal component of each person. It describes the part of humankind that can fol-
low God’s or Belial’s heart. The “divided heart” (‫ )לב ולב‬depicts an innate state

and his provisions (1:1-2). As a result, the young boy grows thinner. After Solomon, who
was thought to be an exorcist in the Second Temple period, see Ant. 8:5, interrogates the
craftsman due to his gaunt appearance, the craftsman responds that after he is released
from work on the Temple he is bothered by demon and “lo, my soul is oppressed, and so
my body becomes thinner every day” (ἰδοὺ θλιβομένης μου τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ σῶμα μου λεπτύνε-
ται καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 1-4)? The testament here attests to the effect on the human body
when the soul of the person is demonically disturbed. Additionally, the demonic influ-
ence on the body and soul is also attested in the Testament of Simeon. In this portion of
the testament warns his children to beware of jealousy and envy, commanding them to
walk in singleness of the soul and heart, two terms, in parallel, that synonymously refer
to the whole person (cf. 4:5). Instructing his sons to put away “the spirit of envy,” the very
spirit that caused him to hate Joseph, he explains how the spirit ravages both the body
and soul: “For this makes the soul wild and destroys the body, it gives anger and war to the
mind and stirs (it) up to the deeds of the blood … moreover, it takes away sleep and gives
tumult to the soul and trembling to the body … And with evil spirits is disturbs his soul,
and it causes the body to be startled, and the mind to awake from sleep in confusion, and
as having an evil and poisonous spirit …” (καὶ ἐν πνεύμασι πονηροῖς διαταράσσει τὴν ψυχὴν
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκθροεῖσθε τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖ, καὶ ἐν ταραχῇ διυπνίζεσθαι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ ὡς πνεῦμα πονη-
ρὸν καὶ ἰοβόλον ἔχων…4:8-9). It is again clear that evil spirits are thought to disturb both the
body and soul, with the apparent implication that the human person is composed of two
components, both of which are actively vulnerable to demonic disturbance.
194 5 Internal and External Disturbance: Body-Soul Dualism

of being which the member of the yaḥad must combat, seeking the “complete
heart” for whom faithfully observes God’s covenant. It does not simply refer
to the seat of human emotion but also describes the space of reasoning, the
mind. It has been shown that Ben Sira and Wisdom utilize “heart” (καρδία = ‫)לב‬
with the same dual purpose, while other texts—although very limited—(e.g.,
T. 12 Patr.,133 Jud [1x]), Wis [2x], and 2 Macc [1x]) utilize νοῦς to differentiate the
“mind” from the “heart.” In the hymns, and in post-biblical Hebrew, for that
matter, ‫ לב‬consistently represents the totality of the inner person where emo-
tion, as well as reason, are seated.
The employment of ‫ רוח‬straddles the line between describing a living
human being (e.g., ‫רוח אדם‬, ‫ )רוח אנוש‬and a description of the onerous, innate
spirit that humanity, both within the community—largely pacified by God’s
spirit—and outside of it, must struggle to live with. This spirit, as well, reflects
the inner person, that is the place of internal strife where the battle is fought
to be part of either God’s or Belial’s lot. The person can also be corporately
be referred to as a ‫—רוח‬although, it emphasizes the speaker’s internal, not
physically experienced fears. Certain hymns, however, do not simply relegate
this experience to the metaphysical inner person, the experienced trauma has
ramifications for the physical body. Moreover, ‫ רוח‬is not a distinct, separable
component of human existence. The separation between the body and soul
is, indeed, so implicit—if it is intended at all—that it is mistaken to presume
that the hymnist(s) has a definitive distinction in mind. Thus, the person in the
Hodayot that is reflected by the hymnist’s self-awareness is not envisioned as
composed of divisible parts as existence apart from one another is not evident
in the hymns. Thus, human nature in the hymns is described as a composi-
tional duality, although the parts do not exist apart from one another.
The ambiguous dichotomization of humanity into physical and metaphysi-
cal is more clearly attested in apotropaic prayers. Human vulnerability to exter-
nal demonic activity preserve evidence of human composition by describing
which aspects are in fact susceptible. The Prayer of Levi, in both its Greek and
Aramaic forms, seeks protection for the author’s inner person from malevo-
lent spirits. This hope for protection, however, indicates that should demons
rule the individual they would lead the individual to the willful transgression
of God’s commandments. The primary target of externally wrought distur-
bance is with the mind of the person and not the person’s physical nature,
although there are physical effects. The “Plea for Deliverance” (11Q5 19:13-16),
on the other hand, indicates that demons have a modicum of control over the
human body, causing pain to the bones. The prayers of both Noah (10:1-7) and

133 See 4.4.3, n. 121.

5.4 Conclusion 195

Abraham (12:19-20) in Jubilees indicate some demonic control over the mind,
a control that leads individuals to disobey God’s covenant. Here, there appears
to be no direct effect on the body apart from a secondary effect. The same influ-
ence is preserved in the sectarian prayers the Songs of a Sage (4Q510-511). The
danger of demonic disturbance is primarily one of the mind, which is caused
by a straying away of the “spirit of understanding” (4Q510 1 6). Moreover, 4Q511
preserves evidence of some indefinite bodily disturbance caused by evil spirits
(48 49 51 1-4; see also 4Q444 1 4 i 5). Thus, the apotropaic prayers of the yaḥad
parallel the conception of demonic disturbance prevalent in non-sectarian
prayers, namely, that the body and soul/mind have a degree of separation and
thus experiences with demonic disturbance can vary, even if those parts are
not conceived as having separate existences.
 Chapter 6

Mapping the Human Condition: Free Will and the

Inclination(s) to Sin

“f It be your will, if there is a choice

Leonard Cohen, If It Be Your Will, 1984

6.1 Introduction

Part of the human condition, namely, the presumed fundamental character-

istics of a person regarding action, resides largely on a spectrum between two
opposing poles, God’s absolute sovereignty and human free will, sometimes de-
picted by modern scholars as the tension between divine and human agency.1
When accounting for the various schools of thought in ancient Judaism,
Josephus himself identifies them along the lines of their beliefs regarding fate
(divine agency) and free will (human agency, Ant. 13:171-173). As the first cen-
tury historian exemplifies, the point on the spectrum is constantly moving.

1 Many of the recent studies on human agency are drawn to a comparison between Second
Temple Jewish thought and Pauline literature in order to better understand the teach-
ing of the Apostle. See more recently, Jason Matson, Divine and Human Agency in Second
Temple Judaism: A Comparative Study, WUNT 2 297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 22-124;
Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Enviroment, ed. John Barclay and Simon
Bathercole (London: T and T Clark, 2006), esp. 9-26; Robert Kugler, “A Note on Lev 26:41,
43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1-2 recto 5-6; and 1QS 8:3 (par. 4Q259 2:12): On Human Agency
in the Divine Economy at Qumran,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related
Literature, ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill,
2012), 245-50; also an older but still important study, Gerhard Maier, Mensch und freier Wille,
60-116). Additionally, there is a distinct interest in these concepts as they play out in Ben Ben
Sira; see Otto Kaiser, “Göttliche Weisheit und Freiheit menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira,” in
Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner
Emeritierung, ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller, BZAW 331 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 291-305; Ursel Wicke Reuter, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche
Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa, BZAW 298 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2000), OdaWischmeyer, “Theologie und Anthropologie im Sirachbuch,” in Ben Sira’s God:
Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Urshaw College 2001, ed. Renate
Egger-Wenzel, BZAW 321 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 18-32; Jean Hadot, Penchant
mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique) (Brussels: Presses
Universitaires, 1970).

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_007

6.2 Free Will 197

Indeed, this conversation is an attempt by ancient authors to map the human

condition, namely, to delineate the co-existence between God’s determin-
ing authority and humanity’s freedom to act upon its own discretion. It is a
conversation that attempts to answer key questions: 1) who is responsible for
humanity’s deeds, and 2) in what manner is humankind “inclined” to sin and
obedience? This chapter examines Ben Sira, the Psalms of Solomon, and the
Damascus Document, in order to engage the first question, and the evolution
of the ‫“( יצר‬inclination”) in depictions of the innate human desire towards sin
in order to address the second.

6.2 Free Will in Ben Sira, Psalms of Solomon, the Damascus Document
(CD), and Josephus

Ben Sira 15:11-20, Psalms of Solomon 9, and the Damascus Document 3:2-12a all
deal to some degree with human agency. That is to say, they assume an ability
on the part of the person to act of their own accord, in particular, the ability
to be obedient or transgressive. In general, Ben Sira and the Psalms hone ideas
on human responsibility for sin, largely relegating choice to one’s “desire,” “in-
clination,” and the ability to deliberate between good and evil. The Damascus
Document, on the other hand, raises an important and unique view of free
will. The depiction of Abraham having the ability to act against the “will/favor”
(‫ )רצון‬of his “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬appears in the same context that describes God’s pre-
destinating all things. It begs the question, is Abraham’s choice intended to
portray a characteristic of for collective human nature?

6.2.1 Ben Sira 15:11-20

In dealing with theodicy—the justification of God’s “goodness” in light of the
problem of evil—Ben Sira argues that the responsibility for sin lies at the feet
of humanity.2 The sage presents quite clearly that humankind has a degree of
free will, that is, the power of acting based on personal discretion without the
constraint of necessity, fate, or divine sovereignty. The most relevant passages
in this regard are 15:11-20 where, again, the onus for sin is placed upon each

2 See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 34; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271; Beentjes notes, “The
Book of Ben Sira, however, does not offer one consistent doctrine as far as theodicy is con-
cerned, but provides its readers with several approaches to this existential problem which
differ in such a way that they sometimes appear to be irreconcilable with one another,”
P. C. Beentjes, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed.
Antii Laato and Johannes de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 509-24.
198 6 Mapping the Human Condition

individual.3 As already argued above, despite containing Israel-specific tradi-

tions, the context of 15:11-18:14 indicates that the sage’s wisdom instruction is
intended to present various aspects of human nature.4 15:11-20 are preserved in
the LXX, as well as in Hebrew in A.

15:11-13 LXX5 A 6r:22-246

11. μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην· ‫ אל תאמר מאל פשעי כי את אשר שנא‬.(22) 11
ἃ γὰρ ἐμίσησεν, οὐ ποιήσει. ‫לא עשה‬
12. μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν· ‫ פן תאמר הוא התקילני כי אין צורך‬.(23) 12
οὐ γὰρ χρείαν ἔχει ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ. ‫באנשי חמס‬
13. πᾶν βδέλυγμα ἐμίσησεν ὁ κύριος, ‫ ותעבה שנא ייי ולא יאננה ליראיו‬/ ‫ רעה‬.(24) 13
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαπητὸν τοῖς φοβουμένοις
αὐτόν.
15:11-13 A 6r:22-24
11. Do not say, “Because of the Lord I de- 11 (22). Do not say, “My transgression is
parted;” for he will not make what he from God.” For he does not make that
hates. which he hates.
12. Do not say, “It was he who led me 12 (23). Lest you say, “It is he who caused
astray;” for he had no need of a sinful me to stumble.” For he has no need for
man. men of violence.
13. The Lord hates all abominations, 13 (24). Evil and abomination the Lord
and they are not loved by those who fear hates and he will not cause it to befall
him. those who fear him.

Manuscript A is clear: human sin cannot be attributed to God; God is categori-

cally opposed to it (v. 11). The LXX does not specifically reference transgres-
sions but speaks of having “departed” (ἀπέστην7) with the sense of distancing
oneself from God. The sage warns readers that they should be careful not
to ascribe to God their own failings as if he is responsible, or they stand in
danger of being deemed “men of violence” (‫אנשי חמס‬, 12 [23])—biblical lan-
guage for the wicked enemies of God (e.g., 2 Sam 22:9, Ps 140:4 [MT 5], 11 [12],
Prov 26:29).8 The Greek differs in two ways: 1) the plural “men” (‫ )אנשי‬is the

3 Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 60-116; Hadot, Penchant, 75-105.

4 See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 34; Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 102-103.
5 Greek text from Zeigler, Sapentia Iesu, 194-95.
6 Martin G. Abegg, transcription; “View the Manuscript,” The Book of Ben Sira, http://www.
bensira.org/. See also, Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 44, 52. The author is responsible for the
translation of both the Greek and Hebrew. Although this story appears as well in B (2r:11-15)
but the text is largely the same, especially in what pertains to this study.
7 ἀφίστημι, BDAG, 158; Takitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain:
Peeters, 2009), 108-9. This verb is used at least three times in the LXX: 2 Chron 21:8, 10 (2);
HRCS 1:183-84.
8 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271.
6.2 Free Will 199

singular nominative “a man” (ἀνδρὸς) in the LXX, and 2) “people of violence”

‫ )אנשי חמס‬in A is “person of sin” (ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ). While the Hebrew alludes
to biblical literature, the Greek preserves a term that appears elsewhere in Ben
Sira (cf. 10:23, 12:14, 15:7, 27:30, 28:9)9 and seems to refer to one who refuses
wisdom.10 In both cases, however, it is implied that “sin” and “evil” are utterly
separate from God.
Although Ben Sira contends in v. 11 that sin does not originate with God,
because God cannot make what he hates (15:11), the LXX and A diverge from
one another again on v. 13. Manuscript A indicates that there is some degree
of divine protection, namely, that evil and abomination will not befall those
“who fear him” (‫ליראיו‬, A 24). Ursel Wicke-Reuter argues that the Hebrew ‫ליש‬
‫ ראיו‬takes Ben Sira’s argument one step further. Ben Sira renounces that God
is responsible for sin and that he also protects “the upright even from sin.”11
While “sin” is not specifically mentioned in v. 13 [A 24], Wicke-Reuter’s point
may be understood if “evil” (‫ )רע‬and “abomination” (‫ )תעבה‬of the later A are
the consequences of sins. The LXX, on the other hand, omits this protection
and portrays “those who fear” (φοβουμένοις) as in agreement with God’s hatred
of sin. Therefore, in A the “righteous” are given divine protection from the re-
percussions of sin, while in the Greek Ben Sira no such protection is offered.
With or without these differences, the point of both texts is undoubted; God is
utterly separate from sin and those who fear (Heb. version) him receive protec-
tion from its affects. Verses 14-17 distance God further from sin by highlighting
humanity’s freedom to choose.12

15:14-17 LXX A 6r:24-28

14. αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον ‫ אלהים מבראשית ֗א ברא אדם וי�ש‬.(24-25) 144
καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ. ‫תיהו ביד חותפו ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬
15. ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολὰς ‫ אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה ותבונה‬.(26-27) 15
καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι εὐδοκίας. ‫לעשות רצונו אם תאמין בו גם אתה תחיה‬
16. παρέθηκέν σοι πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ· ‫ מוצק לפניך אש ומים באשר תחפץ‬.(27-28) 16
οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου. ‫שלח ידיך‬
17. ἔναντι ἀνθρώπων ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ὁ θάνατος, ‫לפני אדם חיים ומוות אשר יחפץ ינתן לו‬֯ .(28) 17
καὶ ὃ ἐὰν εὐδοκήσῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ.

9 For other parallels see 1 Macc 1:34; 2:62.

10 Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 92.
11 Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 114.
12 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 271.
200 6 Mapping the Human Condition

15:14-17 A 6r:24-28
14. It was he who created humankind in 14 (24-25). God made humanity from the
the beginning, and he left it in the hand beginning and put him into the hand of his
of his own inclination. snatcher13 and gave it into the hand of his
inclination.
15. If you want, you can preserve the 15 (26-27). If you desire you will observe
commandments. the commandment,
And to do faithfully is a matter of good for the doing of his will is understanding.
will If you trust in him you will also live
16. He has placed before you fire and 16 (27-28). Fire and water are poured out
water: stretch out your hand for whatever before you,
you want. Whichever one you desire you can stretch
forth your hands.
17. Before humanity is life and death; 17 (28). Before humanity is life and death,
and what he favors will be given to him. that which he should desire will be given
to him.

According to Ben Sira, since creation humanity has been left to their own in-
clination, thus, it is free to choose according to its desire. The noun “inclina-
tion” (‫ )יצר‬is utilized in its biblical sense (Gen 6:5, 8:21) and does not indicate
a disposition to either good or evil, but is rather neutral.14 Segal notes that this

13 Brand has argued that “and he put him into the hand of his snatcher” (‫)וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬
is an addition to the original text, one that does not appear in the Greek and is a medi-
eval retroversion from the Syriac version. She notes that the additional stich distorts the
meaning of the entire passage and is a “third leg” to a text that is generally written in
bicola. The “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬here, according to Brand, is compatible with an “almost de-
monic evil inclination,” which is attested in Rabbinic literature, Evil Within and Without,
99-100. Ishay Rosen-Zvi states, regarding the Rabbinic ‫יצר‬, “… they consider the yetzer as
separate from humans, enticing them to sin against their inner will … But, as seen above,
yetser is something of a demon itself: an independent evil being dwelling in the hearts
of humans, pulling them deliberately and consciously away from God,” Demonic Desires:
Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: UPenn Press, 2011), 52.
14 Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” APOT 1:371; Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 93-103; Maurice Gilbert,
“God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International
Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw 2001, BZAW 321 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter,
2002), 120; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1975), 1:471-83. Levison notes, “Because he wishes to demonstrate that all people
are responsible for their evil, he removes the reference to ‫ יצר‬from the flood narrative
(a context which permits the interpretation that originally not all people had this ‫)יצר‬
and places it into the context of creation. God implants a ‫ יצר‬into each person since the
beginning,” Portraits of Adam, 35. Levison argues for a shift in meaning so that moving
the ‫ יצר‬from the flood narrative frees Ben Sira to neutralize it and remove the original
connotation of evil. Whether “evil” was intended to be the “original” meaning is still ques-
tionable since, as Brand has noted, while the Genesis accounts paint the “inclination”
with a negative hue, it is not inherently negative since it must be qualified with the ad-
jective ‫“( ַרע‬evil”), Evil Within and Without, 100-101. See also Cohen Stuart who notes that
6.2 Free Will 201

concept is unspecified (‫)סתמי‬, that is to say, that it is not an “inclination to sin”

as much as it is simply a penchant to do either good or evil.15 Brand makes a
similar observation, “the result is that the yēṣer in 15:14 is a neutral capacity that
enables the human being to make a moral choice …[it] denotes human char-
acter” (Brand’s emphasis). She notes further that its place at creation indicates
that the ‫יצר‬/διαβούλιον is an inherent part of humanity that has always been.16
This same sense of ‫ יצר‬is utilized in Sir 27:6: “According to the working of a tree
shall its fruit be, so one’s thoughts are according to one’s inclination” (‫כן חשבון‬
‫על יצר אחד‬, A 2r:25). Di Lella notes regarding the agricultural metaphor, “a tree
has been cultivated and tended, so speech shows the thoughts of a person’s
mind … i.e., whether or not he has a disciplined, trained, and upright mind.”17
Yet, the LXX’s translation of ‫ יצר‬in 27:6—if this approximates the original—
ἐνθύμημα (“piece of reasoning”), differs from 15:14’s διαβούλιον.18 Brand argues
that ἐνθύμημα in 15:14 (and 17:6) is a “conscious choice by the [i.e., Greek] trans-
lator” to indicate that the ability to deliberate between good and evil was given
to humanity at creation.19 Cohen Stuart argues, on the other hand, that the use

humankind was given the ‫ יצר‬to withstand evil, G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man
Between Good and Evil: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara’
(Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1984), 89-90.
15 Segal, Ben Sira, 96, also, Beentjes, “Theodicy,” 513.
16 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 101. She notes further that this is likely a response to a de-
terministic outlook where “humans will have an inevitable inclination to sin, God has de-
termined evildoing itself,” 99-100. Di Lella draws attention to two NT passages, Matt 7:16
and 12:33-37, the first of which utilizes the metaphor of a tree bearing good and evil fruit
for humanity, and the second, which deals with the idea that a person brings good and
bad from “the abundance of his heart” (τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας). It is from this
abundance that he/she speaks (λαλεῖ) and by which he/she will be judged or condemned.
To this we would add Matt 15:10-20 (Mk 17:17-23). While the agricultural metaphor is miss-
ing, the passage deals with what comes out of a person’s mouth as being truly defiling
since it “proceeds from the heart” (ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχεται). However, this was likely not
the original intention. The Markan parallel, which likely preserves a later Christian teach-
ing, offers an interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that “declares all foods clean” (καθαρίζων
πάντα τὰ βρώματα), 19. See James Crossley, “Mark 7.1-23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All
Foods Clean,’” in Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne
Seminar of June 2008, ed. Peter Oakes and Michael Tait (New York; London: T and T Clark,
2009), 8-20.
17 Skehan and DiLella, Ben Sira, 356.
18 Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 103. On 15:14, Hadot notes that διαβούλιον connotes the actual
exercise of choice.
19 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 104-105. There are at least two occurrences in the T. 12
Patr. where διαβούλιον, that is the ability to deliberate between good and evil appears with
a modifying adjective (τοῖς πονηροῖς, T. Iss. 6:2, T. Benj. 6:4, also T. Ash. 1:8). Yet, on other
occasions T. Benj. speaks of the inclination of “the good man” (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς), while
T. Ash. refers to “two inclinations” (δύο διαβούλια), which is perhaps a later interpolation
202 6 Mapping the Human Condition

of this Greek term indicates that the translator was intentionally neutralizing
the ‫ יצר‬to demonstrate humankind’s true deliberative ability.20 Cohen’s argu-
ment presumes that ‫ יצר‬is not truly neutral. Yet, the context of A makes this
difficult to maintain.
In verses 15-17, the sage provides several aphorisms where the choices ref-
erenced therein are attainable by the person if he/she is willing, or desirous
(‫חפץ‬/θέλω).21 In fact, the choices presented in the aphorisms are mutually ex-
clusive, “one cannot have them at the same time” (cf. esp. 16-17).22 The sage’s
point is to locate God as far as possible away from human sin, and place its
burden within humanity’s free choice. As Gilbert notes, humankind “chooses
what eventually will be given to him, either life or death. In a word, man is
responsible for his choices: if he prefers to observe the divine precept, he will
receive life, and if he prefers not to observe it, death will be given to him” (cf.
Deut 30:15-16).23 Ben Sira, not only distances God from human sin, the sage
also avoids shifting blame to external demonic forces. Bocaccini states, “he
[Ben Sira] excludes the idea that evil should be attributed to an agent exter-
nal to human beings, either to an angelic rebellion in heaven or even to God.
Sirach is an unshakable champion of human free will and responsibility …”24
Despite being an “unshakable champion,” however the sage closes this text
with a reminder that God is “mighty in power” (ἰσχυρὸς ἐν δυναστείᾳ) and

since two inclinations do not appear in texts whose terminus ad quem is prior to the
Second Temple period. The closest parallel to late Second Temple ideas is T. Jud. 13:8’s
“according to the inclination of my heart” (κατὰ τὸ διαβούλιον τῆς καρδίας μου) which is a
rewriting of the Judah and Tamar account in Gen 38, which partially, at least conceptu-
ally, parallels Gen 6:5, “and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart (‫יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹת‏‬
‫ ) ִלּבֹו‬was only evil continually,” cf. also T. Jud. 13:2). Elsehwere in T. 12 Patr. presume that
humanity bears a neutral sense of desire, e.g., “the inclination of the soul,” (τὸ διαβού-
λιον τῆς ψυχῆς, T. Reu. 4:9, also, T. Jud. 18:3, T. Jos. 2:6) and “the inclination of youth” (τὸ
διαβούλιον τῆς νεότητος, T. Jud. 11:1). On another occasion it appears that the διαβούλιον
is perturbed by the spirit of envy (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ φθόνου, T. Sim. 4:8-9, cf. also T. Iss. 4:5),
lying and wrath trouble it (T. Dan. 4:2, 7), leads one to salvation after true repentance
(T. Gad 5:7), and is at rest due to obedience (7:3). As it stands, however, the T. 12 Patr. now
postdates the Second Temple period and without direct parallels to earlier texts one can-
not say with certainty that the references to an inclinations(s) come from the Second
Temple period with certainty.
20 Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 91.
21 This follows our interpretation that the “capability” (ἰσχύς) given to humanity in 17:3 in-
volves an ability to successfully observe God’s statutes.
22 Beentjes, “Theodicy,” 514.
23 Maurice Gilbert, “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in Ben Sira’s God, 120.
24 Gabriele Boccacini, “Where Does Ben Sira Belong? The Canon, Literary Genre, Intellectual
Movement, and Social Group of a Zadokite Document,” in Studies in the Book of Ben
Sira, 36.
6.2 Free Will 203

sovereignly knowledgeable over every human deed (vv. 18-20). Human agency
is not absolute and is tempered by God’s sovereignty—of which the most criti-
cal representation of this is in Ben Sira 33:7-15 (see 2.3). When viewed together
the tension between free will and divine sovereignty comes to the fore. Suffice
it to say that contextually, then, Ben Sira presents a compatabilistic view
where human free will and God’s sovereignty somehow share the same stage.
Humanity is free to choose, but God maintains his sovereignty in specific areas
of human existence (e.g., “he exalts,” “he blesses,” “he curses and brings low,”
7:13). This is perhaps exhibited best in that humanity, who is responsible for its
choice, is ultimately responsible to God by virtue of its creation (7:10). The ten-
sion sensed here is not the result of Ben Sira’s logical inconsistency but more so
the attempt to strike a balance between paradoxical concepts. Nonetheless, it
seems that for Ben Sira human agency dominates this relationship.25 Klawans
clarifies this by noting that Ben Sira’s focus in 33:7-15 is “divine election,” that is,
“the idea that a certain group or nation has been singled out from among oth-
ers for both revelation and responsibility,” and not the pre-determinism pres-
ent in texts like the “Treatise of the Two Spirits.”26
According to the sage, humanity’s nature is founded on an ability, an “in-
clination,” of choice. Ben Sira’s argument is intended to defend God from any
opposing claim that he is responsible for evil. As a result, human ability to
choose takes center stage. While God remains sovereignly knowledgeable over
all human deeds, the burden of sin and evil is placed squarely on humanity’s
shoulders. Each person is given a faculty to deliberate between transgres-
sion and obedience without God’s influence or control, or any other external
force(s). Furthermore, the conceptual strain between the portrayals in chap. 15
and 33 indicates that free will does not exist apart from God’s sovereignty, and

25 Matson, Divine and Human Agency, 65.

26 Jonathan Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of
Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 6; also idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and
the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering
the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed.
Maxine L. Grossman; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 264-83. Klawans attempts to show
that Josephus presents two ways of understanding the Pharisaic balance between free
will and fate, namely, compatibilism. Presuming that the Pharisaic outlook is the compat-
ibilist view, he argues that Ben Sira is theologically “libertarian” since the sage holds to di-
vine election which precludes the foreordination of human action. Rather than splitting
hairs too finely we have opted to utilize the term “compatibilist/m” since Ben Sira seems
to maintain a coexistence between free will and sovereignty without any explicit indica-
tion as to which plays a stronger role. A similar position is attributed to Rabbi Akiva,
“everything is seen, but choice is given” (‫ וְ ָה ְרשׁוּת נְ תוּנָ ה‬,‫ ַהכֹּל ָצפוּי‬, m. Avot 3:15).
204 6 Mapping the Human Condition

that God maintains some dominion over human creation—although the de-
gree of the control does not seem to be necessarily deterministic.

6.2.2 Psalms of Solomon 9

A similar view of humanity is preserved in the Psalms of Solomon. The psalms
are thought to have been written in Hebrew sometime in the 1st c. BCE trans-
lated to Greek early in the 1st c. CE, prior to the destruction of the Temple
in 70 CE, and then into Syriac.27 While many of the psalms appear to reflect
the shifting political realities of 1st c. BCE Jerusalem,28 there is a brief occa-
sion in the ninth psalm where free will is depicted as a human characteristic.
This is true despite preserving a distinct intra-Jewish, even communal-specific,
outlook.29
Pss. Sol. 9 is pseudepigraphically attributed to Solomon, and entitled
“Regarding Rebuke” (εἰς ἔλεγχον30). The psalm begins with a self-rebuke of
sorts, recalling the exile which was caused by Israel’s lawlessness (ἀνομίαις, 1-2).
In the midst of this tragedy, God is proven as the “just judge over all the people
of the earth” (κριτὴς δίκαιος ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς τῆς γῆς). It is this statement
that marks a transition from Israel to humanity. Verse 3 reminds the reader that
there is nothing, neither injustice nor righteous action, that is beyond God’s

27 Wright suggests that the psalms reached their final form prior to the destruction of
Temple in 70 CE, in particular, because the destruction is not mentioned in the Psalms,
Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:640-42; idem, The Psalms of Solomon: A
Critical Edition to the Greek Text, TTCJCT 1 (New York; London: T and T Clark, 2007), 7-13.
Trafton notes that the Syriac, as well as the Greek were both translated from the Hebrew,
Joseph L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6:116-17.
28 See, e.g., Otto Kaiser, “Geschichte und Eschatologie in den Psalmen Salomos,” in Gott,
Mensch und Geschichte: Studien zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in
der klassischen, biblischen und nachbiblischen Literatur, BZAW 413 (Berlin; New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 81-82; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 264-80; Joseph L. Trafton,
“Solomon, Psalms of,” 116-7; Rodney W. Werline, “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of
Rule,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III
and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSS 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 69-88;
Johannes Tromp, “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17,” NT 35/4 (1993),
344-61; Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at
Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118/3 (1999): 435-60.
29 Studies have associated these psalms with the Pharisees and even the Essenes, or Hasidim,
but Kenneth Atkinson argues that it makes little sense to attribute the psalms to any one
known Jewish group but rather they reflect a heretofore unknown Jewish group, as well
as the “theological diversity” of the period in which they were composed, “Towards a
Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implication for understanding the Sitz im Leben of an
Unknown Jewish Sect,” JSP 17 (1998), 112, esp n. 3-6. See also, Wright, “Psalms,” 641; Trafton,
“Solomon,” 116.
30 Greek text is from Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 126-33.
6.2 Free Will
. 205

knowledge: “For none that do evil shall be hidden from your knowledge, and
the righteous acts of your devout are before you, Lord.”31 God’s omniscience
is pointed to with the question: “Indeed, where can a person hide from your
knowledge, God?”32 The rhetoric completes the widening focus of God’s re-
lationship to humankind and in so doing reflects a view of humanity that is
similar to Ben Sira 15.

4. Our works (are) in the choosing and 4. Τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς
power of our souls, ψυχῆς ἡμῶν
to do right and wrong (is)33 in the works τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν
of our hands, ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν·
and in your righteousness you oversee καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐπισκέπτῃ υἱοὺς
human beings (lit. sons of men). ἀνθρώπων.
5. The one who does righteousness trea- 5. ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ
sures up life34 for himself with the Lord, παρὰ κυρίῳ,
And the one who does what is wrong καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἀδικίαν αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς
causes his own life to be destroyed; ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ·
For the Lord’s righteous judgments are τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κατ᾿
according to the individual and the ἄνδρα καὶ οἶκον.
household.

Verse 4 notes that all human deeds are under the choice and power of human-
kind (τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν; lit. “our souls”).35 The use of ψυχή here seems to indicate
an individuated life, rather than a metaphysical component which is paired
with the body (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5-6, 18). In other words, the ability to do right and
wrong is under the control of each person; humankind has agency.36 Bons
notes that human responsibility is “underlined” by the last line of v. 4 since

31 English translation it from Wright, “Psalms,” OTP 2:660-61.

32 Author’s translation.
33 “(is)” is not in Wright’s translation, yet it is the clear that the first two verbless clauses—
an indication of a Semitic Vorlage—require an English translation with the verb “to be.”
Wright facilitates this translation in 4a with “(are),” but not in 4b. So, we have emended it
accordingly.
34 Author’s translation of δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν.
35 See Eberhard Bons, “Philosophical Vocabulary in the Psalms of Solomon: The Case 9:4,”
in The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology, ed. Eberhard Bons and Patrick
Pouchelle, EJL 40 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 49-58. Bons notes in his study that the phrase
ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ belongs to philosophical terminology and that the “typical biblical
background” is missing in the first two lines of 9:4. See also Joachim Schüpphaus, Die
Psalmen Salomos: ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des
vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 50-52; Kenneth Atkinson, I Cried to the
Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting, JSJSup 84
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), 189-90.
36 See David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers,” in Jewish Writings, 573-4.
206 6 Mapping the Human Condition

God will at some point “closely examine” (ἐπισκέπτομαι) it.37 The dichotomy
between free will and God’s sovereignty parallels—at least conceptually38—
that which appears in Ben Sira, although God’s “examination,” implies a clearer
picture of eventual judgment.
Not unlike a person’s ability to choose between life and death in Ben Sira
(15:17), life is either “destroyed” or “with God” if the person chooses to do righ-
teousness39 or wrong. God’s righteous judgments, in response to those actions,
are according to each person and household (5c). These verses are part of a
system where humanity—not simply Israel—is responsible and free in rela-
tion to God. Ultimately, God will judge its c­ hoices.40 His ability to forgive those
that recognize their sin and repent of their sin (Pss. Sol. 9:6-8) indicates that
agency is not without consequence. Forgiveness, however, seems to be more
closely directed towards Israel, than collective humanity. This emphasis on
Israel appears to be due to God’s election of a people through Abraham’s seed
(ὅτι σὺ ᾑρετίσω τὸ σπέρμα Αβρααμ, 9a). That said, in the end, the psalm does not
preclude collective humanity from acting justly.
The middle of the hymn presents a conception of humanity that parallels
what has been examined already in Ben Sira, sans any reference to creation.
Humanity is portrayed with free will and the ability to choose between right
and wrong. The parameters of a right and wrong choice are based on the abil-
ity to act justly or wickedly in relation to God’s law. While Ps. Sol. 9 does not

37 Bons, “Philosophical Vocabulary,” 52.

38 Bons notes a number of differences between Ben Sira and Ps. Sol., namely, “the idea of
leading astray (v. 11), fear of the Lord (v. 13), creation (v. 14), the commandments (v. 15),”
“Philosophical Vocabulary,” 56.
39 See Pss. Sol. 9:5: “To do righteousness saves up life for himself with the Lord” (ὁ ποιῶν
δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ) is not unlike the language of charity that
appears in Tob 4:8-9, “If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in propor-
tion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be lay-
ing up a good treasure (θέμα γὰρ ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ) for yourself against the day
of necessity” (RSVA). The concept that laying up some sort of treasure is equivalent to
performing “righteousness” is a common motif in Second Temple Jewish texts. See Gary
Anderson, “You Will Have Treasure in Heaven,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical
Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings
of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for
the Study of Christianity, 9-11 January, 2007, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and
David Satran (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013), 107-32. While the language is similar, however,
it seems that δικαιοσύνη is intended to indicate “acting justly” (i.e., choosing not to sin),
rather than charity. Laying up “treasure in heaven” is also preserved in the NT as a refer-
ence to charity (Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). See also the statement attributed to
Monobases in t. Peah 4:18: “and I stored [i.e., treasure] above” (‫)ואני גנזתי למעלה‬.
40 Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 313-6.
6.2 Free Will 207

preclude God’s forgiveness from sin, it seems to be strongly implied for Israel
only and not for the rest of humankind.

6.2.3 CD 3:2-12a—Free Will in the Damascus Document?

Two medieval copies (10th-12th c.) of the Damascus Document were first dis-
covered in the late 19th c. in the genizah of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo,
Egypt.41 Along with very small fragments from Qumran’s cave 5 (5Q12) and 6
(6Q15), older and more complete manuscripts were discovered in cave 4, the
earliest of which, 4Q266 (4QDa), dates to the first half of the 1st c. BCE42 The
opening portion of CD forms what is called the “Admonition” (1:1-4:12a)—a
historical detail of the biblical past, those who were faithful to God, and the
establishment of a remnant community. Philip R. Davies notes that the admo-
nition breaks down into three separate discourses.43 The most relevant portion
of the Admonition to this study occurs in the section that Hempel entitles,
“Exhortation Spelling out the Consequences of Following Guilty Thoughts and
Lustful eyes.” She states, “The bulk of this section recalls how past generations
brought divine punishment upon themselves by following guilty thoughts and
lustful eyes, from the generation of the watchers (cf. Gen. 6.1-4) to the exile.
Only three faithful individuals (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are singled out as
obedient and worthy of the description ‘friends of God.’44 The presentation of
the patriarchs offers some insight into CD’s view of human agency.

CD 3:2-6 (par. 4Q266 2 ii 21-23)45

‫ אברהם לא הלך בה ויעל אוהב בשמרו מצות אל ולא בחר‬.2‫‏‬

‫ ברצון רוחו וימסור לישחק וליעקב וישמרו ויכתבו אוהבים‬‎.3‫‏‬
vacat ‫ לאל ובעלי ברית לעולם‬‎.4‫‏‬

41 The editio princeps was published by Solomon Schechter in 1910, Documents of Jewish
Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1910). For the history of the manuscripts and edition of CD see, Lara Guglielmo,
“Manuscripts, Editions and Translations of the Damascus Document from 1896 to 2007:
Towards a (Re-) Edition 4Q266,” MG 13/1-2 (2008): 251-78.
42 Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273), DJD
XXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 23. See also Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the
Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction, STDJ 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1-2.
43 He notes that each discourse begins with a similar formulaic introduction, The Damascus
Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Press, 1983), 56. The manuscripts from cave 4 preserve, according to Hempel, opening
lines (4QDa 1 a-b 1-5a) and an admonition (4QDa 1 a b 5b 25, 1 c f?, 2 i 1 6a, 4QDb 1:2-
8, 4QDc 1:1-8) prior to the “Admonition” of the Cairo text, The Damascus Texts, CQS 1
(Sheffield, England; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 26-27.
44 Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 28.
45 Text and translation from DSSSE 1:554-5.
208 6 Mapping the Human Condition

2. Abraham did not walk in it (i.e., his own will; see ‫ רצון‬in preceding lines), and was
counted as a friend for keeping God’s precepts and not following
3. the desire of his spirit. And he passed (them) on to Isaac and to Jacob, and they kept
(them) and were written up as friends
4. of God and as members of the covenant forever

The text begins with calling attention to the reader and listener, which Davies
notes is the opening formula to the third discourse (‫ועתה בנים שמעו‬, 2:14).
Initial attention is given to God’s deeds and the generations who were drawn
away by “the thoughts of the guilty/sinful inclination and lecherous eyes”
(‫במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות‬, 16). Consequently, God utterly rejects the pre-
flood generation including the Watchers, referred to here as “the watchers of
heaven” (‫עירי ֯ה[שמים‬, 4Q266 2 ii 18), and their children (15-19). The mortals of
this generation were wiped out because they followed “their own will” (‫)רצונם‬
and as a result “they did not observe the commandments of their maker” (‫ולא‬
‫שמרו את מצות עשיהם‬, 2:21). So too, Noah’s children and their families are killed
(‫נכרתים‬, 3:1).46 While we treat ‫ יצר‬more fully in the following section, it does not
appear here to be inherently negative. Otherwise, the adjective guilt (‫)אשמה‬
would be unnecessary. That notwithstanding, these two negative aspects
to human nature (i.e., the lecherous eyes and sinful/guilty inclination) are
thought to be a present reality: “and warriors of great strength from earlier
times stumbled in them and still do” (‫וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה‬, 2:17).
Abraham is first in the truncated telling of primeval history to walk not ac-
cording to his own “will” (‫—)רצון‬i.e., what is pleasing to him47—thus succeed-
ing at what all previous generations (and the angels) had failed. Due to their
enumerated weaknesses, those who came before Abraham went in the direc-
tion of their own ‫רצון‬. The patriarch is decidedly different because he choos-
es (‫בחר‬, 3:2) not to follow “in what was pleasing to his spirit” (‫ברצון רוחו‬, 3:3,
4Q266 2 ii 22). Brand summarizes, “Abraham chose to ignore his own will, which
would naturally lead him to sin, and instead followed God’s commandments.”48
The language of patriarch’s defiance to his will, in particular, the pairing ‫רצון‬
and ‫ רוח‬is unique to CD among the scrolls and does not occur in the Hebrew
Bible. Yet, this fits with the conception of collective humanity portrayed in

46 While Noah is numbered among the generations that were destroyed, he is not explicitly
referenced among them. This may imply an uncomfortability on the part of the author to
portray Noah’s death with the generation of those who followed their mistaken will, since
the patriarch plays such an important role in Qumranic thought. See Dorothy M. Peters,
Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antquity,
EJL 26 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 151-72.
47 H ALOT 3:1282.
48 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 79.
6.2 Free Will 209

other communal texts. As we have argued in the previous chapter, humanity’s

innate spirit inclines away from God and his commandments in the Hodayot
and 1QS. Without God’s knowledge-giving spirit (sometimes a holy spirit) the
individual will live, without fail, in accord with that leaning. The patriarch’s
choice not only marks a detour from the failing of all previous generations,
but a freedom where he can somehow go against this condition and the draw
of that innate spirit. The problem for him—or that of the generations who
preceded him—is not his “will ,specifically,” but, rather, that the innate human
“will” that is tainted by the “the thoughts of the sinful/guilty urge and the lech-
erous eyes.” More specifically for Abraham, is the direction of “his spirit.” Isaac
and Jacob are also portrayed as obedient because of Abraham’s passing down
(‫ימסור‬, 3:3) of the commandments. While not stated explicitly, it appears that
they choose to act in opposition to their faulty, innate leaning and, like their
father, choose to observe the commandments.
Two points are key for this study. First, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not
representative of collective humanity, but of the individuals who are founda-
tional to the formation of the yaḥad in CD. Every generation, who ultimate-
ly perished, from the patriarchs to the revelation of his hidden things to his
chosen (‫לגלות להם נסתרות‬, CD 3:13-14), transgressed and followed their natural
character. For example, “and they chose according to their own will and fol-
lowed after their stubborn heart for each person to do according to his own
will” (‫אחרי ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו שרירות לעשות איש את רצונו לבם לעשות איש את‬
‫רצונו‬, 3:11-12). Thus, the ability to choose God’s statute in opposition to one’s
own will is not representative of an ability that collective humanity possesses,
but is the special rule of the three patriarchs and faithful house of Israel, to
whom hidden knowledge has been given. This line of reasoning reflects the di-
vine agency that is exhibited in Davies’ second discourse (2:2-14a). It ends with,
“and those which he hated, he caused to stray” (‫ואת אשר שנא התעה‬, 13), which
denotes both the complex tension between divine and human agency but is a
reminder, as Davies notes, that those who are invited to join the community
have been predestined to do so.49 Complemented by the early lines of the third
discourse, “choosing that which he wills and rejecting that which he hates”
(‫ולמאוס כאשר שנא ולבחור את אשר רצה‬, 15), the patriarch’s choice is somehow
determined by God, as is the obedience of those to whom the hidden laws have
been manifested. For all intents and purposes, this solely belongs to the faith-
ful “remnant for Israel” (‫שאירית לישראל‬, CD 1:4-5). The apparent choice is not
“free,” but rather obedience is the realm of those God chooses so that divine
agency subjugates human free will. Second, the human condition is generally

49 Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 75-76.

210 6 Mapping the Human Condition

portrayed negatively. The “stubborn heart,” “sinful/guilty inclination,” “lecher-

ous eyes,” and the “will of the spirit” are opposed to God’s law. In order to be
faithful, the patriarchs must “choose” to act against these aspects of their ex-
istence. Obedience is wrought against the natural will. Thus, the patriarch’s
actions are not representative of collective humanity. Human nature has an
innate inclination to sin that is antagonistic to God’s law.

6.2.4 Antiquities 13, 18—Fate and Free Will in Josephus’s Three

Jewish Schools
Chapter four of this study examines Josephus’ portrayals of the three Jewish
schools’—Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees—views of the body and soul in
J.W. 2:154-163 and Ant. 18:11-18 (see 4.5). Josephus adjoins to this, the Pharisaic
and Sadducean view of fate and free will in J.W. The Pharisaic and Essenic
views appear in two passages in Antiquities as well. The Essenic view is not
represented in J.W. while the Sadducean view is omitted in the first Ant.’s text
but is present in the second.

J.W. 2:162-165

1. Pharisees

Δύο δὲ τῶν προτέρων Φαρισαῖοι… τε καὶ Of the two first-named schools, the
θεῷ προσάπτουσι πάντα καὶ τὸ μὲν πράττειν Pharisees … attribute everything to fate
τὰ δίκαια καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς and to God; they hold that to act rightly or
ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκαστον otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part
καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην (162-163) with people, but that in each action fate
co-operates (162-163).

2. Sadducees

Σαδδουκαῖοι δέ τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα τὴν μὲν The Sadducees, the second of the orders,
εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσιν καὶ do away with fate altogether, and remove
τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν God beyond, not merely the commission,
τίθενται. φασὶν δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τό but the very sight, of evil. They maintain
τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν προκεῖσθαι καὶ κατὰ that man has the free choice of good or
γνώμην ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκατέρῳ προσιέναι evil, and that it rests with each man’s will
(164-165) whether he follows the one or the other.
(164-165).

Reference to the Essene’s belief in fate and

free will is not mentioned here.50

50 Considering Josephus’ extensive elaboration of the Essenes and his willingness to diverge
into Greek myth reading their view of the soul and its afterlife journey into the “ether,” it
is surprising that the historian says nothing in J.W. regarding their views on fate and free
will. He references it later, but with relatively little fanfare (see below).
6.2 Free Will 211

Ant. 13:172-173

1. Pharisees

οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοι τινὰ καὶ οὐ πάντα τῆς As for the Pharisees, they say that certain
εἱμαρμένης ἔργον εἶναι λέγουσιν τινὰ δ᾿ events are the work of fate, but not all;
ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν συμβαίνειν τε καὶ μὴ as to other events, it depends upon our-
γίνεσθαι selves whether they shall take place or
not.

2. Essenes

τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν The sect of Essenes, however, declares
εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ that fate is mistress of all things, and that
μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν nothing befalls men unless it be in accor-
(172). dance with her decree (172).

3. Sadducees

Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην But the Sadducees do away with fate,
ἀναιροῦσιν οὐδὲν εἶναι ταύτην ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ holding that there is no such thing and
κατ᾿ αὐτὴν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα τέλος λαμβάνειν that human actions are not achieved in
ἅπαντα δὲ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κεῖσθαι ὡς καὶ accordance with her decree, but that all
τῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίους ἡμᾶς γινομένους καὶ things lie within our own power, so that
τὰ χείρω παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀβουλίαν we ourselves are responsible for our well-
λαμβάνοντας ἀλλὰ (173) being, while we suffer misfortune through
our own thoughtlessness (173).
Ant. 18:13, 18

1. Pharisees

πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες Though they postulate that everything

οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπ᾿ is brought about by fate, still they do not
αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ deprive the human will of the pursuit of
κρίσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ what is in man’s power, since it was God’s
καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ ἐθελήσαντι good pleasure that there should be a fu-
προσχωρεῖν μετ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας (13). sion and that the will of man with his
virtue and vice should be admitted to the
council-chamber of fate (13).

2. Essenes

Εσσηνοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν θεῷ καταλείπειν φιλεῖ The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to
τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος (18). leave everything in the hands of God (18).

Reference to the Sadducees’ belief in fate

and free will is not mentioned here.
212 6 Mapping the Human Condition

The Pharisees’ view of fate and free will appears in all three accounts that the
Jewish schools are described. In Jewish War 2, they are portrayed as ascrib-
ing “all” (πάντα) to fate51 and God. Acting rightly, for “the most part” (τὸ πλεῖ-
στον), is left to each person, although fate somehow “assists” (βοηθεῖν).52
Antiquities 13:171-173, which depicts all three schools, specifically addresses
“human actions” (ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων). For the Pharisees, certain events are
the work of fate, “but not all” (καὶ οὐ πάντα). Other matters are dependent on
each person. In Antiquities 18, “all things” (τὰ πάντα) are brought about by fate,
but because of God’s judgment, a “person’s will” (τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον)
is left so that he/she can approach vice and virtue. There is not a great degree of
difference regarding the Pharisees among the three accounts. Josephus seems
confident of this since he sends readers in both Ant. accounts (Ant. 13:173, 18:11)
to his earliest work. Jewish War 2 then appears to be the exemplar for readers of
Ant. 13 since he refers to his former account as “accurate” (ἀκριβεστέραν).
According to Josephus, the Pharisees strike some balance between divine
fate and the freedom for the person to act of their own accord (i.e., free will),
although it is unclear where the point rests between the two. In J.W., while
the Pharisees may ascribe everything to God, there remains a capacity for hu-
manity to act rightly or wrongly; fate is simply supportive in this endeavor.
If J.W. is indeed the exemplar to which Josephus refers readers, it is tempting
to understand the next occasion in Ant. 13 as a further explanation of what

51 Josephus employs the same term for “fate,” εἱμαρμένην (μείρομαι), in all three accounts.
“Fate” here suggests that a person received what is already allotted or decreed to them,
BDAG, 1302; Mason, Judean War 2, 133. Mason argues that the use of this terminology
is similar to its use within Stoicism, which was still alive and well in the Greco-Roman
world of the first century CE. He equates this also with the juxtaposition of fate and God.
George Foot Moore posited that the Greek term was opposed to Jewish thought and that
“to God” (καὶ θεῷ) was added at Josephus’ behest “to give God something to do with it.”
Indeed, Moore suggests that in this section of J.W. the historian is indebted to his source,
Nicolaus of Damascus, George Foot Moore, “Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies
According to Josephus,” HTR 22/4 (1929): 383. Ludwig Wächer argues that the Greek ter-
minology for “fate” along with “God” is intended to provide a picture of God that a Jewish
mind could agree with, since fate in Hellenistic terms would strike mistaken to that ear,
“Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener zur Heimarmene
nach dem Bericht des Josephus,” ZFRG 21/2 (1969): 107-8. Both of these points emerge
from a time where Judaism was viewed in contrast to Hellenism, rather than seeing their
confluence as existing on a spectrum, where clear lines between both cannot necessarily
be drawn. Indeed, Mason counters that these strategies are “superfluous” when one notes
the amount of times that Josephus employs both terms in his work. He notes further
that Josephus’ willingness to substitute God and fate in his description of the Essenes in
Ant. 18 precludes “extravagant source hypotheses,” Josephus on the Pharisees, 136-7.
52 Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees, 134-9; idem, Judean War 2, 132, n. 1007.
6.2 Free Will 213

has already been stated. That is to say, that the statement regarding fate and
freedom in Ant. 13 implies that God determines which matters are under his
authority and those that are within humanity’s capability. This nuance, as it
were, adds some contrast to J.W. 2. It unravels what is otherwise an illogical
knot, namely, that “all (πάντα) things are fated” and “some things” are not. It is
clear, that with Ant. 13 a balance of sorts is struck, all is under divine authority,
some of which is fated (determined), but humanity maintains a modicum of
choice, even if the line between the two remains elusive. In Antiquities 18, one
returns, it seems, to the J.W. 2 where “everything” (πάντα) is accomplished by
fate. Humanity, therefore, has a decree of moral choice which is its own pur-
view of responsibility (ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς).
All three portrayals are a form of compatibilism that vary only in content but
not in meaning. While Klawans agrees that the Pharisaic view is a form of com-
patibilism, he disagrees that Josephus intended one form. Klawans argues that
there are two distinct forms of compatibilism attested in Josephus. Type 1, the
fusion between fate and free will is preserved in J.W. 2 and Ant. 18. He points to
three things that exemplify this fusion, 1) the presence of strong determinism,
2) human will does not “independently rule” over anything, 3) the minimiza-
tion of free will is left to moral decisions.53 Type 2 the a “partial determinism”
that is reflected in Ant. 13, which shares a number of analogues with rabbinic
literature. Part of Klawans’ argument is intended for those who suggest that
Josephus is working without philosophical precision. Rather the historian has
two separate visions of the Pharisaic view that are paralleled in both early
Jewish and rabbinic texts. However, it seems unnecessary to bifurcate Josephus’
Pharisaic view in such a way. The historian’s reference back to his previous
works, in Ant. 13 which exemplifies Klawan’s Type 2 form of Josephan com-
patibilism, betrays that Josephus views little difference between them. That
is to say, whatever apparent difference there is between strong and soft deter-
minism, as well as human choice is largely insignificant; somehow, God/fate
functions in the world and humanity is responsible for its choices. Where the
elusive point falls on that spectrum is uncertain, but it surely does not excuse
human action. Therefore, Flusser is right that Josephus, influenced by Stoicism,
presents a fairly coherent picture, i.e., namely, “… the Pharisees attribute every-
thing but just and unjust actions [to God], and even in this providence plays a
part as the decision is ultimately the result of both divine guidance and human
inclination.”54

53 Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 68-71; also, idem, “Josephus on Fate,” 66-75.
54 David Flusser, “Josephus and the Pharisee on the Stoa,” in Judaism of the Second Temple
Period: Sages and Literature, Vol.2, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 226.
214 6 Mapping the Human Condition

The Sadducees have perhaps the simplest view among the three schools.
Unfortunately, their position is missing from Ant. 18. In the former works, the
school is described as not holding to the idea that fate functions in the world.

Σαδδουκαῖοι δέ τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα τὴν μὲν The Sadducees, the second of the orders,
εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσιν (2:164) do away with fate altogether (2:164)
Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην But the Sadducees do away with fate
ἀναιροῦσιν (13:173) (13:173)

There is little to no difference between Josephus’ two descriptions of the

Sadducees. With fate removed, God is removed from, at least, the world of
human action. Unfettered free will indicates that the responsibility of choice
(ἐκλογῇ, 2:165) lies solely with humanity—God does not factor into the equa-
tion. For Josephus, the Sadducean opinion is an extremity, human “judgment”
(γνώμην) is solely responsible good or evil. Newman argues, however, that that
they believed in providence,

… is proven by all the descriptions of the Sadducees, and by the very fact that
Josephus includes them in the same category of philosophical-religious groups
in the Jewish world of the time. Also by the fact that the Sadducees accept cer-
tain books and certain Halakhot (Ant. 18:16-17), and had arguments over ideolo-
gies. Moreover, Josephus claims that the Sadducees did not attribute “evil” to
God (J.W. 165), which implies that they did attribute the “good” of the world, and
other things, to God.55

Günther Baumbach disagrees suggesting that a disavowal of fate presents the

Sadducees as atheists. He argues that God is wholly removed from human af-
fairs as well as there being an apparent connection between the Sadducean
removal of fate and the Epicurean denouncement of providence (πρόνοιαν) in
Ant. 10:278.56 While Baumbach nuances the meaning of atheist, it appears that
this is an attempt to keep the Sadducees within the confines of Judaism, name-
ly, that they accept God’s existence but remove any divine participation with

55 Newman, Proximity to Power, 74-75, n. 97.

56 “The Sadducees in Josephus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and
Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 174-5. Baumbach’s argument for
the connection between the Sadducees and the Epicureans is based on Josephus’ use of
εἱμαρμένην and πρόνοιαν which are said to be equivalent. Baumbach nuances his athe-
ist speculation noting that the Sadducees are not the kind of atheists that are portrayed
in Psalm 14:1, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Consequently, Josephus still
views them as part of Jewry, 175. Wächter disagrees with the equivalency between both
terms, noting that they are distinct, and that εἱμαρμένην is not yet a definite concept for
the historian, “Die unterschiedliche Haltung,” 100-101.
6.2 Free Will 215

humanity. Of course, what he describes is not traditional atheism, but rather,

deism, where God exists, is even responsible for the creation of the world, but
does not interact with the created world. Baumbach’s suggestion, however,
that the Sadducean position intended to move God from aligning in any way
with evil, fits comfortably with Ben Sira chap. 15 (see above), which offers per-
haps the clearest definition for human free will. However, unlike Josephus’s
presentation, contextually Ben Sira’s portrayal of free will is complemented by
God’s eventual judgment of humanity because of those freely-wrought choic-
es. In Josephus, the Sadducees remove God completely from human action;
they are not concerned with good or evil and judgment is not a factor (see 4.5).
Therefore, Josephus’ presentation of the Sadducean view is the most radical
view of free will that we have in early Judaism.
The Essenes prove to be a more interesting proposition, namely, due to
the debated connection between them and the yaḥad.57 The Essenic posi-
tion regarding fate and choice, or lack of choice, does not appear in J.W. de-
spite Josephus’ extensive elaboration of their bravery in face of the Roman
onslaught, as well as their view of the soul after death. Issues of fate are de-
picted in Ant. 13 and 18.

τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν The sect of Essenes, however, declares
εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ that fate is mistress of all things, and that
μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν nothing befalls men unless it be in accor-
(13:172) dance with her decree (13:172).
Εσσηνοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν θεῷ καταλείπειν φιλεῖ The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to
τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος (18:18) leave everything in the hands of God
(18:18).

Again, there is little difference between both Josephan descriptions and there
is little to no other elaboration of the Essenic position. The terminology,

57 While this is not the forum to closely examine the similarities and differences between
Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes and Qumran’s self-betraying portrait in the texts that
are thought to be communal texts, e.g., Serekh ha-Yaḥad (1QS), the Hodayot (1QH, 4QH),
etc., Beal points out twenty six general similarities—some of which, admittedly, could
apply to several groups (e.g., reverence for God)—and twenty one “probable” parallels
between the two, Beal, Josephus’ Description, 123-7. Beal, however, notes ten Josephan
statements that have no Qumranic parallel and six discrepancies between Josephus and
Qumran (128-9). See also idem, “Essenes,” EDSS, 262-9; John Collins, The Dead Scrolls:
A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 52-56. The most germane
parallel, that of the control of fate/God’s determining authority in the “Treatise of the
Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26) is dealt with separately as a distinct view of God’s determin-
ism that is more complicated than what one finds ascribed to the Essenes in Josephus
(see 7.2).
216 6 Mapping the Human Condition

however, of either differs somewhat. For instance, Josephus’ distinct use of

“fate” (εἱμαρμένην) in J.W. 2 and Ant. 13 is missing in Ant. 18; God (θεῷ) replac-
es fate.58 In the first text above, fate is said to have authority over all things,
whereas, in the second, “everything” (τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος) is left to God. Indeed,
the Essenic removal of human choice, bears the other extremity of Josephus’s
views of the three schools. While there are some similarities with the “Treatise
of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26), the presentation of God’s deterministic
hand is far more complex than what Josephus depicts here (more on this later).
Josephus is uneven in his presentation of the three schools’ views of fate
and human action. Antiquities 13 is the only text where the views of the three
occur, while the Pharisaic opinion is the only one to appear in each of the
three primary texts.59 Taken together, it is worth nothing that Josephus cre-
ates a spectrum where the Jewish schools represent three possible points. Two
extremes are represented with the Sadducean unfettered free will and lack
hinderance to human action and responsibility, as well the Essenic view, all is
determined by fate or God. The variable, somewhere between to the two afore-
mentioned poles, is the position of the Pharisees. As such, Klawans argues that
the Pharisaic view represents two types of philosophical compatibilism. He
argues further, that these types are evident in rabbinic sources (see above).
The spectrum between the two poles, however, is unknowably varied and the
so-called types are the attempt to strike an understandable balance between
fate and free will, not to outline precise types of compatibilism. The Pharisaic
view, which is embodied in Josephus’ earliest work, is largely the same apart
from verbal difference that are intended to indicate the variability of that par-
ticular position.
Josephus presents the ideal image of the three Jewish schools’ views of fate
and free will. It may accurately reflect part of their historical views, but as
chapters 6 and 7 of this study have shown, there is a great diversity of opinion
regarding human action and God’s sovereignty. The difference of opinion is
sometimes an intra-communal discussion, which suggests that Josephus’ fairly
precise portrayal is decidedly romantic. What one might expect within an an-
cient group dynamic is nuance and variation. Yet, Josephus has successfully
ironed out the wrinkles of nuance among Jewish society of his day, compress-
ing it to three primary views that essentiall cover all the bases.

58 Indeed, God and fate appear together in the historian’s earliest description, J.W. 2:162-163.
59 Josephus’ treatment of the Pharisees is probably related to his role as a member of that
group. There is no such justification, however, for his expansive treatment of the Essenes
in J.W. 2.
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 217

6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition

The concept of an internal “inclination(s)” in the Second Temple period has

garnered a great deal of attention from scholars. In particular, this interest has
been recently limited to the origins of what becomes a thoroughly rabbinic
idea, namely, humankind’s two inclinations, “the good inclination” (‫)יצר הטוב‬
and “the evil inclination” (‫)יצר הרע‬.60 The inspiration for the use of the noun ‫יצר‬
(“inclination”) is undoubtedly biblical, esp. Gen 2:7, 6:5, and 8:21.61 Linguistically,
‫ יצר‬in the Bible occurs in a construct state. For example, Gen 6:5 reads, “… and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his [i.e., humanity] heart” (‫וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר‬
‫) ַמ ְח ְשבֹת ִלּבֹו‬.62 The same is true of Gen 8:21, as well as 1 Chron 28:9 and 29:18.
In each case the ‫ יצר‬functions as a description of another aspect of humanity
nature. The Genesis passages describe the “inclination of the thoughts of his
heart” (‫ )וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹת ִלּבֹו‬and, simply, “inclination of heart of a person” (‫יֵ ֶצר‬
‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫) ֵלב ָה‬, respectively; the Chronicles passages follow in the same vein.63 Yet,
Genesis and Chronicles indicate that the ‫ יצר‬has yet to become a distinguish-
ing marker of humanity’s internal life even by the early Second Temple period.
One cannot appropriately speak in the Hebrew Bible of a human ‫ יצר‬apart
from it describing a person’s “heart,” “thoughts,” or “thoughts of the heart.”

60 Cohen-Stuart, The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil, 94-100; Johann Cook, “The
Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬,” JSJ 38 (2007): 80-91; also Eibert
Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I
(4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi, 347-57; Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Evil
Inclination ‫יצר הרע‬,” DDD 317-19; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires “Yetzer Hara” and
the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity, Divinations: Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 44-53; Benjamin Wold, “Demonizing Sin? The Evil
Inclination in 4QInstruction,” in Evil in Second Temple, 93-103; and Brand’s comments on
Adam’s sin in 4 Ezra, Evil Within and Without, 138-41. Some of the studies are interested
in the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, especially in the Pauline Corpus: Jeremy Cohen,
“Original Sin as the Evil Inclination: A Polemicist’s Appreciation of Human Nature,” HTR 73
3/4 (Jul.-Oct., 1980), 495-520; F. C. Porter, “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of
Sin,” in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the
Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University (Yale Bicentennial Publications; New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901), 136-58.
61 See the Rabbinic interpretation regarding the double yod in ‫יצר‬ ֶ ִ‫ וַ יּ‬in Gen 2:7 that appears
in b. Ber. 61a, Sifre Deut. 45; also Horst, “The Evil Inclination,” 318.
62 author’s translation.
63 1 Chron 28:9, “and every inclination of thoughts” (‫ ;)וְ ָכל־יֵ ֶצר ַמ ֲח ָשבֹות‬1 Chron 29:18, “the
inclination of the thoughts of the heart” (‫)יֵ ֶצר ַמ ְח ְשבֹות ְל ַבב‬. Tigchelaar suggests that the
‫ יצר מחשבת‬is qualified as evil in Genesis but appears neutral in the Chronicles passages,
“Evil Inclination,” 349. Indeed, he is correct, but it should be further qualified that in the
Genesis passages the focus is on the machinations of the human heart which are referred
to as the inclination of its thought.
218 6 Mapping the Human Condition

Examples of this biblical style are also evident in 4QAdmonition Based on the
Flood (4Q370), “… and according to the thoughts of the inclination of their
[evil] hearts” ([…‫… ׄו ׄכמחשבות ֯יצ ֯ר לבם ֯ה[רע‬, 1 i 3), and in 4QMysteriesa, “incli-
nation of our heart” (]‫לבנ֯ [ו‬ ֯ ‫יצר‬, 8 6).64 To these one might add Tigchelaar’s
reconstruction of 4QSectarian Text? (4Q468i),65 “the evil [incli]nation of our
hearts …” (‫י]צר לבני הרע‬, 3). There is little departure here from the earlier bibli-
cal use of ‫יצר‬, that is as a description of humanity’s inner person, and not a
standalone characteristic.
Yet, the use of the noun ‫ יצר‬elsewhere in post-biblical texts indicates a
small, yet significant development. In particular, there is evidence of the evolv-
ing nature of the ‫ יצר‬into a standalone characteristic of human nature rather
than as an adjective for some other component. As has been noted, there are
seventy occasions—not accounting for textual overlaps—where the noun ‫יצר‬
appears in non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.66 More than half of these appear in
the 1QHa. Our interests narrow the examination of this collection in two ways,
1) to note the development of the ‫ יצר‬into a separate aspect of human nature
and 2) to explore the implications of these developments for understanding
the human condition.
Surely, influence from earlier, biblical literature is present in the develop-
ment of ‫יצר‬, but particular scrolls attest one critical difference. Serekh ha-Yaḥad
flips Genesis’ grammar and refers, for example, to “… the thoughts of his incli-
nation” (‫מחשבת יצרו‏‬, 5:5), rather than the biblical “inclination of thoughts” (‫יֵ ֶצר‬
‫ ַמ ְח ְשבֹת‬, Gen 6:5). This change is minor, but within the construct chain ‫ יצר‬is
now functioning genitivally. It is spoken of as something innate to the mem-
bers of the of yaḥad, rather than intentionally modifying another component
(e.g., “thoughts”) Moreover, it is implied that this ‫ יצר‬also belongs to collective
humanity as the penitent to the yaḥad must “circumcise” the foreskin of this

64 Carol Newsom, “4Q370. 4QAdmonition on the Flood,” in Magen Broshi et al., in consul-
tation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, DJD XIX
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “4Q299: 4QMysteriesa” in Torleif
Elgvin et al., in consultation with Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts,
Part 1, DJD XX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 50. The same is attested in only two scrolls:
4Q381 76 77 2, 75 3, 4Q525 7 4.
65 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 354-7. See also the editio princeps of the text, Armin
Lange, “4Q468i: 4QSectarian Text” in Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic
Texts; P. S. Alexander et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Miscellanea,
Part 1, DJD XXXVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 416-7.
66 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 348. There are actually 75 occasions but Tigchelaar
notes, “This number includes six overlaps, parallel textual occurrences in different manu-
scripts, resulting in seventy cases.” Of these occurrences, those in which this term refers
to a “vessel” or “thing formed” (e.g., ‫ )יצר חמר‬are intentionally avoided.
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 219

‫למול ביחד עורלת יצר( יצר‬: “they shall circumcise the foreskin of the inclination,”
5). The context of the passage betrays its biblical influence not only by employ-
ing both ‫ מחשבה‬and ‫ יצר‬but also by referring to the community members who
will no longer continue to follow their “willful heart” (‫ ;שרירות לב‬cf. Jer 11:8,
Ps 81:12).67 Additionally, 68‫ מחשבת יצר‬followed by ‫“( אשמה‬sinful/guilty;” e.g.,
CD 2:16, see above)69 and ‫ לב‬betrays further biblical influence, as does the
phrase “the thoughts of the inclination of their hearts” (‫ )מחשבות ֯יצ ֯ר לבם‬in
4QapocrJoshb.70 Tigechelaar, however, notes that the varied collocations (‫יצר‬
‫ מחשבת‬to ‫ )מחשבת יצר‏‬are not free biblical quotations but rather reflect their
general interchangeability. He suggests further that the evidence in the LXX in-
dicates that we should not put too much emphasis on the use of the noun ‫יצר‬.71
Yet, while the shift in terminology here and in other texts seems minimal, the
difference marks an important change in understanding a person’s internal life.
This is especially striking that despite biblical influence, precise biblical quota-
tions elude us. Matters have changed from the biblical precedent regarding the
“inclination of the thoughts of a person’s heart” or the “inclination of the heart
of a person.” The “thoughts” (‫ )מחשבת‬are now of the “inclination” (‫)יצר‬, rather
than the other way around (cp., again, Gen 8:21, 6:5 and 1Chron 28:19, 29:18); the
change is slight, but not insignificant. The ‫ יצר‬now plays a more prominent role
in describing an aspect of human character. It is the ‫ יצר‬of the individual that
has “thoughts” (‫ )מחשבת‬and in that sense, unlike our biblical examples, func-
tions similarly to the “heart” or “mind.” Furthermore, ‫ יצר‬is sometimes quali-
fied with “guilt” (‫ )אשמה‬and identified with Belial (1QHa 15:6-7). Rosen-Zvi
connects ‫יצר אשמה‬, at least in the hymns, with the speaker’s persecutors—the
“sons of guilt” (‫—)בני אשמה‬and as an indication, in this particular case, of the
inherent evil of the ‫יצר‬.72 This qualification of the ‫ יצר‬exemplifies that it has

67 ‫ יצר‬is also synonymous to ‫ לב‬in 1QHa 13:33.

68 Appears sometimes with the plene spelling ‫( מחשבות‬e.g., 4Q266)
69 This appears as well in two additional copies of CD in 4QDa 2 ii 15, and 4QDe 1 i 1. There
are several occasions where ‫ מחשבות יצר אשמה‬is reconstructed ‫מחשבות יצר אשמתכה‬
(“thoughts of the inclination of your guilt”) and while plausible they are not reconstruct-
ed based on any textual parallels. Moreover, this phrase is not attested in the scrolls. See
DJD XXIX, 6, DJD XI, 7-60.
70 See Roland E. Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39/3 (1958): 344.
71 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349.
72 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 49. He points to two other appearances of ‫ יצר‬that reflect the
same negativity (1QHa 21:29-30). Due to the fragmentary nature it is difficult to gather
how it is being utilized in the hymn. ‫ יצר רמיה‬may refer to a “deceitful creature” and
not a person’s desire, since it speaks to the eventual destruction of those who attempt to
snare the speaker (cf. 21:28). The same could be argued of the second occasion, ‫יצר עולה‬,
when one considers the use of ‫ יצר‬throughout this hymn. The speaker in lines 25-30 self
220 6 Mapping the Human Condition

become more substantial than its biblical counterpart. It has become more
concrete and is no longer a description of another human component but,
quite distinctly, a part of the human condition in its own regard.

6.3.1 Hodayah 13:7-21 and the Negative ‫יצר‬

In at least one hodayah (13:7-21), the speaker extolls the greatness of God for
neither abandoning him nor the community while they lived “among the for-
eign people” (‫בעם נ֯ ֯כ ֯ר‬, 13:7). In its utter thankfulness, the hymn states, “You
did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination” (‫ולא עזבתני בזמות יצרי‬,
13:8).73 In the Hodayot, the plural construct “devices” (‫ )זמות‬is associated gen-
erally with Belial (1QHa 12:14; 4QHd 1) or a person (“the fool,” 4Q165 6 5, also
4Q177 5 6 6).74 Therefore, its use intentionally implies a negative. More impor-
tantly, it is thought to naturally plot wickedness. The concern of the speaker
suggests that if abandoned, the ‫ יצר‬would incline against his best interest. In
this way, though not reified as in rabbinic literature, the ‫ יצר‬attains a meaning
that is not present in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Rosen-Zvi asserts, “the use of
‘plot’ (‫ )מזמה‬testifies that the ‫ יצר‬is an independent component, with sinister
intent.”75 Moreover, one also finds the “inclinations of man” (‫ )יצרי גבר‬spoken
of negatively, “As for me, a fount of bitter mourning was opened to me […]and
trouble was not hidden from my eyes when I knew the inclinations of humans (‫ו֯ לא‬
‫)נסתר עמל מעיני בדעתי יצרי גבר‬, and I un[derstood] to what mortals return, [and
I recognized the mour]nfulness of sin, and the anguish of guilt.” (1QHa 19:22-
24). For the yaḥad, there is little to no confidence in the human inclination.
For all of humanity, the inclination bellows negativity from which the person
cannot escape, except for—as we see in the hymns—the divine protection of-
fered to the hymnist and his fellow sectarians, as well as the gifting of a new,
knowledge-giving obedient spirit. Yet, even with this protection, or escaping
from the plots of the inclination, the speaker of the hymns is at least aware that
he remains a “creature of dust” and recalls the sinfulness to which his inclina-
tion inherently leans.

identifies as a “creature of dust” who is divinely protected from destruction where other
deceitful and unjust “creatures” are given no such assurance. Rosen-Zvi’s understand-
ing of 21:29 would not reflect the general character of the Hodayot, especially since the
hymns never suggest the eventual “destruction” (‫ )תמם‬of the human “inclination.” Even
the speaker, who describes himself as a “creature of clay/dust,” thanks God for divine pro-
tection but does not specifically envision a destruction of his ‫יצר‬.
73 D JD XL, 167-8.
74 See also ‫ מזמת‬which can refer to the plans of a person (e.g., CD 5:19, 11:16), a heart (e.g.,
1QHa 18:3, 25:12), of God (4Q402 3 ii 13). See Menahem Kister, “‘Yetzer lev ha-adam’ haguf
vehatihur min hara‘,” Meghillot 8-9 (2010): 243-84 (Heb.).
75 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 50.
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 221

6.3.2 The “Steadfast Inclination” (‫ )יצר סמוך‬of Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the
Hodayot
The concretization of ‫ יצר‬into a human characteristic is noted elsewhere, espe-
cially when it is qualified by a passive participle “steadfast” (or “firm,” ‫)סמוך‬. A
“steadfast inclination” (‫ )סמוך יצר‬occurs in both the Serekh ha- Yaḥad and the
Hodayot. It also appears in the Treatise where the spirit engenders a “firm in-
clination” to obey God and his covenant (1QS 4:5). Although this section of the
Rule was originally independent, ‫ יצר סמוך‬appears again in 1QS 8:3, “They are
to preserve faith in the land with a ‘steadfast inclination’ (‫ )יצר סמוך‬and a bro-
ken spirit.” Both cases do not express the reality of collective humanity, how-
ever. In the Treatise, it represents the reality of a member who has received
God’s reforming spirit, in particular, the twelve men and three priests (8:1) that
will lead and establish the community. In fact, the “steadfast inclination” may
represent the circumcised ‫יצר‬, referenced elsewhere in 1QS (5:5), especially
when one considers the similar conception of the yaḥad in both portions of
the Rule.76 In that sense, those who have a circumcised “inclination” (col. 5)
are also those who have “steadfast inclination” (col. 8). The phrase appears
again in the Hodayot but the meaning seems to be the same, especially in that
the speaker hopes that “those who are eager,”77 that is, those who meditate on
wisdom, will have a steady inclination, which is certainly not a reflection of
humanity at large but rather of those for whom the hymns play a communal
role. The hope for a ‫ יצר סמוך‬is because the speaker’s natural ‫יצר‬, as ordained,
is problematic. In general, the human inclination is not “steadfast” but chooses
to move away from God’s statutes, despite God himself being responsible for
directing one’s step (1QHa 7:25-27). It is the ‫ יצר סמוך‬that keeps one from “de-
ception” (‫הולל‬, cf. 10:38).

76 1QS 5:5-6: “to establish and foundation of truth for Israel [which is] an eternal covenant
for the yaḥad” (‫ ;)ליסד מוסד אמת לישראל ליחד ברית עולם‬1QS 8:5: “the congregation of
the yaḥad will be established in truth, that is an eternal planting” (‫נכונה {ה}עצת היחד‬
‫)באמת {ל} למטעת עולם‬.
77 Stegemann et al., suggest that the immediate context of the hymns, although previously
interpreted the negative, indicates that ‫ ו֯ נ֯ ֯מהרים‬should be read as a positive, namely,
“those willing/those who do not hesitate,” DJD XL, 128. Similar language is found in 23:14
where ‫ יצר‬refers to the sustaining of the individual, “… and (you) open the f[oun]tain
of your truth to the (human) vessel whom you have sustained by your strength” (‫ולפתח‬
‫) ֯מ[קו] ֯ר אמתכה ליצר אשר סמכתה בעוזכה‬. See trans. in DJD XL, 281.
222 6 Mapping the Human Condition

6.3.3 The “Faithful Inclination” (‫ )יצר אמונות‬of 4QCommunal Confession

(4Q393)
The only other positive ‫ יצר‬is mentioned in 4Q393, an eight-fragment text
which was written in the first two-thirds of the first century CE78 Falk has
noted that the character of the text that has survived is that of a penitential
prayer and “belongs to a group of post-exilic prayers of communal confession.”
Falk notes that there are four main elements to these prayers, 1) confession of
the sins of the fathers,79 2) acknowledgement of God’s just sentence, 3) histori-
cal recollection of mercies, and 4) petition for mercy.80 The speaker’s use of the
first person plural shapes the document into the confession of a community’s
sins and differs from the first person singular confession style of some of the
Hodayot.81 Conceptually, however, the confessor of this fragmented hymn, at
least in the manner in which it and the community are envisioned, is similar to
the hymnist(s) of the Hodayot.82
The most pertinent portion for our study appears in frags. 1 ii 2, “A new spirit
create in us, and establish in us a faithful inclination” ( ֯‫ורוח ׄחדשה ברא בנו וכונ֯ ן‬
‫רבנ֯ ו֯ יצר אמונות‬ ׄ , 5-683). This apparently positive inclination, however, is not
֯ ‫בק‬

78 Daniel Falk,“4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JSJ 65/2 (1994): 186; idem, “4Q393.
4QCommunal Confession,” in Esther Chazon et al., in consultation with James
VanderKam and Monica Brady, Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2,
DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 46-47.
79 In his re-edition of 4Q468i Tigchelaar suggests a number of new readings and argues that
the text reflects evidence of confessional and/or penitential prayer. He notes further that
line 3 of fragment 1 should read “the evil inclination of our heart” or the “incli[nation of
our evil heart” (‫)י]צר לבנו הרע‬, rather than the original editor’s initial reading “]enemy?
To the sons of evil” (‫)…]צר לבני הרע‬, “The Evil Inclination,” 355. While Tigchelaar may be
right that the small fragments resembles a confessional text, and that there is no reason
to ascribe this text to the sectarians, his reading of ‫ יצר‬in the passage is nearly impossible
to ascertain since the left side of the fragment ends at the end of the tsade—not even
a trace of the rest of the tsade or the letter prior to it are preserved, see 4Q468i: https://
www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-496213; also, Armin Lange,
“468i: 4QSectarian” in Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4 XXVI: Cryptic Texts, DJD XXXVI
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 417.
80 Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” 199; idem, “4QCommunal Confession,” 47.
81 See Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” 184.
82 Falk notes that there is no concrete evidence that this text originates with the sectarian
community although he notes there are hints of two spirit dualism and determinism,
“4QCommunal Confession,” 48.
83 In Falk’s earlier study, ““4Q393: A Communal Confession,” he transcribes ‫ יצר‬as ‫]…ת[עצר‬
(“[… wi]thhold,” 187). He questions whether this reading is connected to Ps 51:13. It is in
the later DJD publication that Falk changes his transcription to ‫ יצר‬noting that, “with
the exception of the final nun, all of these letters are almost certain on PAM 44.196.” For
images of these fragments, see “4QCommunal Confession,” 49, and “4Q393, Plate 124,
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 223

an innate part of the person. Rather, as one finds elsewhere in Qumran texts,
especially in the Hodayot (e.g., 4:38, 7:35, 8:25, 17:32), the expectation of those
who participate in the confession hope that God will create a “new spirit” in
them. This hope of a new spirit is paralleled by the request for a faithful incli-
nation. Those who receive such are not part of collective humanity but rather
form a remnant of those who love and keep the commandments (cf. 4Q393 3).
Instead, a sinful inclination seems to be humanity’s natural standing.84 Such
is evident in the confession that the community was formed in sin, “Behold, in
our sins w[e] were set … (85]‫נסכנ֯ [ו‬
֯ ‫) ֯ה ׄנה בעונותינו‬, 2), admitting that ultimately
they are responsible for their sin and indeed God is “just” (‫ )צדק‬in his judg-
ments. Consequently, the confessing sinner of the community is dependent
upon God for his forgiveness (1 ii 2 8).

6.3.4 ‫ יצר‬in 4QpapJubh

Perhaps the clearest occasion of the human “inclination” to sin is in the
Hebrew text of Jubilees that is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in 1QHa 13:8
(discussed above).86 The Hebrew portions of the Jubilees, of which the papy-
rus text dates to the Hasmonean period (75-50 BCE), is partly reconstructed
from the Ethiopic version.87 Milik and VanderKam reconstruct the Hebrew of
Jubilees 35:9 to read, “For you know that the Esau’s inclination has been evil

Frag 1, B-294940” in LLDDSSL, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/

image/B-298164. There is a tear in the right side of the fragment that seems to cut off part
of the word. What is left behind appears to be a tav with the right ligature missing or a
tzade. Under close examination, however, one notes that it is undoubtedly a tzade since a
break in the ink on the top right hand of the letter is present and the down stroke of the
right ligature for the tav is missing. Such is especially noticeable on PAM M42.560, which
is now in “4Q393, Plate 124, B-283848” in LLDDSSL, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/
explore-the-archive/image/B-283848. One will especially note in this image the presence
of the upper portion of yod that appears in the tear, which bears a strong similarity to the
style of yod elsewhere in the fragment, see 2 ii 7; also “Plate 124, Frag 2, B-295485,” http://
www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295485.
84 This is not to suggest that that 4Q393 espouses the idea of “Original Sin,” that is the later
Christian doctrine mistakenly derived from Rom 5.
85 The root ‫ נסך‬means “to pour, to make a cast a statue,” HALOT 2:701. The niphal, as in our
text, seems to indicate being poured out as if being casted into a statue. The speakers in
4Q393 envision themselves as being casted into sin, as one castes metal to make a statue.
86 For a fuller treatment of the ‫ יצר‬in Jubilees and the Ethiopic term ḥellinna; see Hermann
Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von im ‫ יצר‬Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14:1 (1983):
1-10, esp. 3-5.
87 Author’s translation, which follows Milik’s “17-18. Livre des Jubilés,” in D. Barthélemy, O. P.
and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I, DJD I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 83.
224 6 Mapping the Human Condition

from his youth” (‫יצר עשו אשר הו[א] [רע מנעוריו‬ ׄ ‫כי ׄי[וד] ׄע אתה את‬, 1Q18 1 2 1).88 It
is unlikely that the use of ‫ יצר‬here is a reference to the reified, external “evil
inclination.”89 Rather, and more likely, it is a descriptor of Esau’s internal incli-
nation. The incorporation of Gen 8:21 (‫אָדם ַרע‬ ָ ‫—)יֵ ֶצר ֵלב ָה‬originally occurring
in the Noah account—into the Jubilean rewrite of the Esau narrative indicates
that the “inclination” is a neutral innate human characteristic without a lean-
ing to either good or evil. This is noted by the necessity to point out that Esau’s
“inclination” as evil, as well as Rebecca’s statement that it is “devoid of virtue.”90
Moreover, it is representative of the transition from the use of the ‫ יצר‬in the
Hebrew Bible, that is, its association with another human component (e.g., the
heart), to a standalone human characteristic; what was “the inclination of the
heart of a person” is now simply the “inclination of [a person].”91
Brand argues that the use of Esau here in Jubilees and the Canaanites in
Wis 12 suggests that “certain Gentiles do not operate under the same paradigm
of sin as Jews or the rest of humanity.”92 That is to say that certain Gentiles exist
with an inescapable, innate sinfulness that according to Wisdom is “perma-
nently in place” (ἔμφυτος) and “whose reasoning never changed” (οὐ μὴ ἀλλαγῇ
ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 12:10). She notes further that this is not intended
to be a pan-Gentile view but allows readers to apply it to perceived persecu-
tors.93 Indeed, by the Second Temple period, Esau was a biblical persona non
grata, whose name eventually developed into a sobriquet for the oppressive

88  This texts is utilized to reconstruct part of the 4Q223-224 2 i 49 (4QpapJubh):

[‫ ;…כי יודע אתה את יצר עישאו אשר ר[ע מן נעוריו‬See, James VanderKam and J. T. Milik,
“223-224. 4QpapJubileesh,” in Harold Attridge et al., in consultation with James
VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon,
1994), 105.
89  Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349; Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen,” 6; also
VanderKam, Jubilees 2: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 22-50, ed. Sidnie
White Crawford, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 944.
90 Following VanderKam’s translation, Jubilees 2, 936.
91 Pace Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 349.
92 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 146.
93 Katell Berthelot cautions understanding the Canannites as an exemplar of non-Jews. She
notes that in the Hellenistic and Roman period Jews viewed the Canaanites as enemies of
the biblical past. “There is only one case of non-Jews living on the fringe of Judaea in the
Hellenistic and Roman period who are designated as ‘Canaanites,’ namely the reference
to the father of the bride in 1 Macc 9:37, but this isolated use of the term in no way consti-
tutes a paradigm of the way the Hasmoneans looked at the non-Jewish inhabitants of the
land,” “Where May Canaanites Be Found: Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Others in Jewish
Texts from the Hellenistic and Roman period,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the
Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman
(Oxford; New York; Oxford University Press, 2014), 273.
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 225

Roman empire.94 If, in fact, there is a “hostile” group of Gentiles envisioned

here, then Jubilees’ description of Esau is not intended to portray collective hu-
manity. Still, other matters need to be considered here. The manner in which
‫ יצר‬is utilized in Jubilees parallels other texts that are examined above, namely,
that it becomes a standalone characteristic of human nature, thereby speaking
to a tendency to lean towards and perhaps precipitate movement away from
God. While Wisdom and Jubilees have surely redirected this expression to
speak of those hostile to the respective audience of these works, the use of ‫יצר‬
parallels what we find elsewhere. In particular, it has shifted from its biblical
origins to a component manipulated to characterize either the good or wicked
leaning of each person. While Brand may not be wrong, and the audience of
the text is allowed to ascribe this hostility to any group of “persecutors,” the
use of ‫ יצר‬addresses a universal inclination without something about collective
humanity that is the explicit ascription of a moral quality.

6.3.5 “Evil Inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬and the Human Condition in 4QBarkhi

Nafshic
6.3.5.1 ‫ יצר רע‬as an External Force
Much has been written about the “evil inclination” in the Second Temple period
as a precursor to the various rabbinic developments, including its reification
into an external demonic entity.95 “Evil inclination” is not, however, a com-
mon expression in Second Temple texts. It is found primarily in the Dead Sea
Scrolls,96 and only in a limited number of occasions, the Plea for Deliverance
(11Q5 19:15-16), Musar le-Mevinc (4Q417 1 ii 12), 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i
a + b 10), and, perhaps, 4QSectarian Text (4Q468 i 3). Tigchelaar notes, “Those
few explicit references to an ‘evil inclination’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate
on the one hand the influence of Gen 6:5, which relates the ‘evil inclination’
to ‘thoughts’ and the ‘heart’, and on the other hand a new development where
the ‘evil inclination’ is personified, perhaps in the form of a spirit.”97 Ben Wold
argues that the appearance of the “evil inclination” in the Plea indicates some-
thing at least partly external to the person, “I am convinced that the yetzer ra in

94 See Kugel, The Bible, 358.

95 See n. 2.
96 There is the occurrence of the “evil inclination” and a description of the inclination lean-
ing towards evil in T. Iss. 6:2 and T. Ash. 1:8, respectively. The language of T. Ash. (see n. 14)
is similar to 4QpapJubh in that the “evil inclination” does not appear as a phrase. In the
former the inclination is described as “leaning” (κλίνῃ) toward evil and the latter is a de-
piction of Esau whose inclination is described as evil from his youth.
97 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 352. Indeed, Rosen-Zvi notes that as the ‫ יצר‬shifts from
biblical usage it marks the beginning of is reification, Demonic Desires, 49.
226 6 Mapping the Human Condition

these lines is not an inward part of a person, or at least exclusively, but parallel
to ‘satan’ and ‘unclean spirit’ and therefore also an outward force.”98 So also
Armin Lange notes that the parallelism in the Plea is not unlike what one finds
in the Aramaic Levi Document and signals a demonic being which “manifest[s]
their rule over the praying person …”99 At least for Wold, the same is true of the
appearance of the ‫ יצר רע‬in 4QInstructionc (4Q417 1 ii 2-16): “The activity as-
cribed to the evil inclination in line 12 helps locate its actions as an external or
independent force.”100 Regarding the Plea, Rosen-Zvi is less convinced,

Several scholars have correctly suggested that Satan and the spirit of defilement
should be differentiated from pain and yetzer ra, due to the verbs associated with
them; the latters seem to be the result of the ‘rule’ of the formers over humans.
Thus, yetzer here appears as a trait rather than a thing, just like ‘pain’ with which
it is grouped.

For him, the same is true of ‫ יצר רע‬in 4QBarkhi Nafshic, “It seems, however, that
the context points indeed to yetzer’s identification with an evil tendency rather
than a demonic being.”101 Brand similarly concludes that the use of the verb
“rebuke” (‫ )גער‬in Barkhi Nafshi, which Tigchelaar notes is utilized commonly to
“rebuke” Satan or evil spirits,102 speaks of the individual’s “heart” (4Q436 1 a + b
i 10) and that the “evil inclination” is paralleled with both the “heart” and “lech-
erous eyes” (4Q436 1 i a + b 1, cf. also, CD 2:16). The “evil inclination” is then an
internal evil and not an external spirit.103 In that same vein, Goff suggests, un-
like Wold, that the ‫ יצר רע‬of 4QInstruction is merely a part of humanity, which

98 Wold, “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction,” in Evil in Second Temple
Judaism and Early Christianity; idem, “Apotropaic Prayer and the Matthean Lord’s Prayer,”
in Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen—The Devil, Demons, and Dualism, ed. Benjamin
Wold, Jan Dochhorn and Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, WUNT II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
forthcoming); Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 353; also, Loren Stuckenbruck, “Pleas for
Deliverance from the Demonic in Early Jewish Texts,” in Studies in Jewish Prayer, JJSSup 17
(Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press/University of Manchester, 2005), 58.
99 Armin Lange, “Consideration Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Die
Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im
Kontext ihrer Umwelt—Demons: The Demonology of Israelite Jewish and Early Christian
Literature in the Context of their Environment, ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger,
and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 262.
100 Wold, Demonizing Sin.
101 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 47.
102 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 351.
103 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 47. She notes further, “The distinction between the bibli-
cal use of g‘r and its appearance in this passage is strengthened by the fact that the bibli-
cal idiom is g‘r b-, indicating the character being rebuked, and not g‘r m- as seen here,
referring to the ‘host’ of the rebuked entity,” 47.
6.3 Inclination(s) and the Human Condition 227

leads it to act sinfully. Furthermore, “there is no evidence,” for Goff, “however,

in 4QInstruction that an evil inclination ‘seduces’ or is a personified entity that
somehow deceives or entices the mebin.”104
Wold and Lange have a worthwhile argument regarding the Plea. Wold’s
note regarding the “outward force” seems to fit the parallelism in the poem,
that is, “satan” and an “impure spirit” are responsible for “pain” and the “evil
inclination” that perturbs the individual (cf. 5.3). Our examination argues,
however, that the Plea marks an evolution from the Bible that bears witness to
the raw ingredients for its eventual reification, although not specifically a fully
outward force. As Tigchelaar cautiously notes regarding it, “It is not entirely
certain how the ‘evil inclination’ in the Plea is to be understood, whether as
an outward or as an inward force, but in any case it seems to have gained a
substance of its own, independent of a human’s heart;”105 the same, we argue,
is true of 4QInstructionc. The context does not allow for a more definitive es-
timation, a shift to independence—no longer dependent on another human
component—is clear. The “evil inclination” marks a distinct characteristic of
each person, but likely not one that had been envisioned as wholly outward.

6.3.5.2 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i a + b 1)

Barkhi Nafshi may then be the standalone occasion that identifies the “evil
inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬with an inherent human component. The text written in
semi-formal Herodian script is made up of four fragments (1 i a, 1 i b, 1 ii, and
2). 4Q436 differs from other Barkhi Nafshi texts, in that rather than being a
thanksgiving hymn it depicts “the power of God to give understanding and
knowledge to those whom he has delivered.”106

4Q436 1 i a + b 1 9-11, 1 ii 1-4

‫]ה ובידכה ׄהחזקתה בימיני ותשלחני בי֯ ֯ש[ר‬  [ .9
‫גער[תה מן כליותי‬
֯ ‫ [לב האבן ג] ׄערתה ממני ותשם לב טהור תחתיו יצר רע‬‎.10‫‏‬
[ vacat ]  [ ‎.11‫‏‬

]‫ [ורוח קוד]ש שמתה בלבבי זנות עינים הסירותה ממני ותבט ֯א[ת כול‬‎.1‫‏‬
]‫ענוה זעף אף הסירותה [ממני ותשם‬
ׄ ‫ [דרכיכה ע]ו֯ רף קשה שלחתה ממני ותשמו‬‎.2‫‏‬
]‫ממני [רוח שקר‬
ׄ ‫תה‬°°‫ורו֯ ם עינים התנ‬ ֯ ‫ [לי רוח אר]וך אפים גבה לב‬‎.3‫‏‬
‫ולב[ נד] ֯כה נתתה לי י֯ ֯צ[ר‬
֯ ‫] ׄה‬ ‫ [אבדת‬‎.4‫‏‬

104 Goff, 4QInstruction, 178-81.

105 Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination,” 351.
106 Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “4Q436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX:
Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. Esther Chazon, Torleif Elgvin, Esther Eshel et al.,
in consultation with James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, DJD XXIX, (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1999), 295-6.
228 6 Mapping the Human Condition

9. [ ] and with your hand you have caught hold of my right hand, and you have sent
me forth in the straight[t ]
10. [the heart of stone] you have [dri]ven with rebukes far from me, and have set a pure
heart in its place. The evil inclination [you] have driven with rebukes [from my inmost
parts]
11.[ ] vacat

1. and the spirit of ho]lines you have in my heart. Adulterousness of the eyes you have
removed from me, and it gazed upon [all]
2. [your ways. The s]tiffness of neck you have sent away from me, and you have made it
into humility. Wrathful anger you have removed [from me, and have set]
3. [in me a spirit of lo]ng-suffering. Haughtiness of heart and arrogance of eyes you
have for[got]ten to reckon to me. [a spirit of deceit]
4. [you have destroyed] and a [bro]ken heart you have given to me. The inclina[tion107

First, the ‫ יצר‬is found in parallel with an ongoing discussion about the individ-
ual’s “heart” (‫לב‬, 4Q436 1 i a + b 1, 5, 10, ii 1). Second, while ‫ גער‬in demonic con-
texts implies a “rebuke” there is little, if anything, to suggest that the individual
in prayer is concerned with outward influencing entities. In other words, to
presume that ‫ יצר‬is external due to the appearance of ‫גער‬, one might have to
argue that the other elements of the speaker, which are variously described as
being sent away—“adulterous eyes,” “stiffness of neck” and “wrathful anger”
(‫זנות עינים‬, ‫עורף קשה‬, and ‫—)זעף אף‬are also external. This is certainly not the
case. Reading ‫ יצר רע‬as reference to a demonic entity forces one beyond the
literary boundaries of the larger context. Rather, the struggle of the speaker is
always faced inward, especially in those matters that deal with being obedi-
ent to the commandments: [On my heart] you [have enjoined] your law, on
my inmost parts you have engraved it (‫[על לבי פקד]תה תורתכה וכליותי פתחתה‬
‫ ;)ותחזק עלי‬and you have prevailed upon me, so that I pursue after you[r] ways,
[and perform all] your [good plea]sure” (4Q436 1 i a + b 6).108 The language
regarding the removal of these negative traits from the speaker’s innards is not
their expulsion or exorcism but more so their pacification in light of the “holy
spirit” (‫)רוח קודש‬. The holy spirit’s placement into the heart of—or prevail-
ing over (‫—)ותחזק על לב‬the speaker provides a deep knowledge that empow-
ers him/her to follow God’s statutes. This is not a thanksgiving for the gift of
perfect obedience, but the ability to be obedient despite the aforementioned
struggles. Thus, Barkhi Nafshi is perhaps the only Second Temple text to attest
to the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬as an innate part of human nature that causes
divergence from obedience.

107 English translation from Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “4QBarkhi Nafshic,” 295-306.
108 Weinfeld and Seely, “4Q436,” 295-305.
6.4 Conclusion 229

Discussed as part of the internal struggle of the individual to obey God, the
“evil inclination,” much like the “heart” elsewhere, reflects a normalized inte-
rior human tendency. The struggle seems to be a “normalized” part of collec-
tive humanity, since the speaker extols God for his role in having set a pure
heart in the place (‫ותשם לב טהור תחתיו‬, 10) of a stone heart. As we have noted
elsewhere, in the Qumran conception of humanity there is an expectation that
God will bypass those elements of human nature that prevent it from obedi-
ence, especially a lack of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (1-2), a “stone
heart” (10), and, in Barkhi Nafshi specifically, an “evil inclination.” An exter-
nal entity (or -ies) is not what plagues the speaker. It is the innate nature of
humanity which bars it from knowing and understanding God’s precepts and
gaining an ability to be compliant.

6.4 Conclusion

Ben Sira and the Psalms of Solomon are the only texts examined here that de-
pict humanity with significant amount of free will. These two texts represent
as close to an unqualified ability to choose according to personal discretion
without the constraint of God’s sovereignty or determination. After creation,
humanity is said by Ben Sira to be left to their “inclination,” a neutral aspect of
human nature that is neither negative, nor positive, but represents an actual
ability to deliberate between obedience and sin. Despite the exhortation of
God’s people to be obedient and do righteousness, the power to choose “right
and wrong” (Ps. Sol. 9:4) is within the power of the individual. Although, hu-
manity is not completely free from the shadow of God’s control, especially in
Ben Sira where God’s sovereignty in creation, the election of Israel, and final
judgment are prevalent themes (18, 27, 33:7-15).
CD attests a somewhat ambiguous presentation of the patriarchs’ ability to
act in contrast to the natural desire of their will. This ability, however, is limited
to those who are foundational to Israel vis-à-vis God’s covenantal relationship
to the remnant community that has received an understanding of his “hid-
den” things. Every generation in between—including the rebellious angels—
follows the desires of their will with no deviation. As a result, they all perished,
which is likely intended to contrast the “eternal life” given to the obedient rem-
nant (CD 3:20). Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not explicitly described
as perishing in the fashion of the other generations. Placed within the larger
context of CD’s “Admonition,” it appears that God’s determining control plays
a stronger role with the patriarchs’ choice to go against their natural leaning.
Consequently, the image of the condition of collective humanity is negative.
230 6 Mapping the Human Condition

The person’s “will,” “spirit,” and “heart” are naturally inclined to disobedience.
The rest of humanity does not have the same opportunity as the patriarchs
and the yaḥad. Obedience belongs the solely to the remnant of Israel; the rest
humanity will naturally transgress God’s statutes.
Josephus paints an ideal portrait of the three Jewish schools’ views on fate
and free will. While it may represent, to some degree, the actual views of por-
tion of these groups, the diversity of opinions represented in this chapter
points to the historian’s romanticism. Two extremes are represented with the
Sadducean unfettered freedom and the Essenic seemingly strict determinism,
namely all is determined by fate, or God. The variable, somewhere between
to the two aforementioned poles, is the position of the Pharisees. The spec-
trum between the two extremes, however, is unknowably varied and is an at-
tempt to balance between fate and free will, which appears to be a form of
compatibilism.
The concept of the human “inclination” (‫ )יצר‬is preserved in several early
Jewish texts. Its use marks a transition from biblical literature, where it is as-
sociated with other aspects of human nature to a standalone characteristic
of the human condition. In the Hodayot and Serekh ha-Yaḥad the human ‫יצר‬
indicates a negative disposition against God’s statutes. This is exemplified
with the occurrence of positive “inclinations” (‫)יצרים‬, the “steadfast inclina-
tion” (‫ )יצר סמוך‬and the “faithful inclination” (‫)יצר אמונות‬. Their qualification as
“steadfast” and “faithful” reflects the assumed negativity of humanity’s natural
“inclination” and the hoped-for ideas of the yaḥad. Collective humanity—in
the aforementioned texts—does not have access to these positive “inclina-
tions,” nor can it hope for such a beneficial disposition apart from belong-
ing to the Qumran community. While there remain some questions as to the
4QCommunal Confession’s (4Q393) affiliation to the yaḥad, the hope for a
“new spirit” which results in a “faithful inclination” appears to have the same
narrowing affect that we find in the Hodayot and Serekh. The same is true of
the rewrite of the Esau narrative in Jubilees. While it may reflect a specific por-
tion of humanity, the natural, “inclination” parallels what we find elsewhere,
namely, as a component of the human condition that is primarily negative.
Furthermore, there little to no evidence in these texts that someone can act in
opposition to their natural “will” apart from God’s intervention, whether that
involves predestination or the giving of a holy spirit. Certainly, the choice of
obedience and disobedience are not on an equal playing field; the person will
naturally act in contrast to God’s statutes.
4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436 1 i a + b 1) provides the clearest occasion where
the “evil inclination” (‫ )יצר רע‬is depicted as a component of human na-
ture. It is unlikely—in spite of the use of the exorcism verb ‫—גער‬that the
6.4 Conclusion 231

inclination reflects the external force that it may represent elsewhere (e.g.,
Plea of Deliverance, 4QInstructionc), since it is one of several negative charac-
teristics that are removed from the person. If understood as an external entity
one would have to presume that “heart” and “lecherous” eyes—spoken of as
being “removed” or “sent away”—prove to be a similar type of external dan-
ger. Alas, they do not. The “evil inclination” functions in Barkhi Nafshi as one
among a number of negative traits. This innate human tendency is precisely
what plagues the speaker and the reason for extolling the holy spirit—if the
reconstruction is correct109—for their pacification. As we have noted, in the
Hodayot this removal is indicative of the individual’s purification from being
immersed in sin, and not the removal of an external entity. Thus, the “evil in-
clination,” as the “inclination,” is representative of a lack of choice, and the
necessity for divine succor in order to be obedient.
The various texts examined in this chapter reflect the moving target of free
will. Each falls somewhere on the spectrum between a discretionary choice
that is (almost completely) unfettered by divine agency and a will that natural-
ly inclines towards disobedience. The former distances God from any responsi-
bility for sin and places it squarely in the realm of human choice, whereas the
latter does not entertain the question of responsibility but, rather, the ability
of some to be obedient because God has chosen them to be so. The human
inclination is generally negative—sans Ben Sira’s neutral ‫—יצר‬and any choice
hangs under the guise of a negative-leaning will (or spirit), so that, without
divine assistance, the choice to sin is inevitable and expected.

109 Reconstructed in light of Ps 51:13b, ‫אַל־תּ ַקּח ִמ ֶמּנִּ י‬

ִ ‫רוּח ָק ְד ְשָׁך‬
ַ ְ‫(ו‬DJD XXIX, 303). The editors
have not followed Ps 51 precisely, reconstructing ]‫ ורוח קוד]ש‬rather than ‫רוּח ָק ְד ְשָׁך‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬. The
rationale is not explained, except to say that ‫ רוח קודש‬is very common at Qumran.
 Chapter 7

A Predetermined Condition: Humanity’s Double

Duality, Nothingness, and “Fleshly” State

7.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the depiction of the human condition in texts that
presume God’s sovereign control over human affairs. Two later additions to
the cave 1 manuscript of Serekh ha-Yaḥad, the Treatise of the Two Spirits
(1QS 3:13-4:26) and the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22), and an important wis-
dom text, Musar le-Mevin, collectively reflect a general pessimism regarding
the human condition. Of course, it is notable that the authors of the aforemen-
tioned texts are ensconced within the camp of the righteous and, indeed, as it
seems to be without deviation, those that belong with the “chosen” are also are
responsible for shaping the contours of the general despair that collective—
that is the rest of—humanity must endure. Within the Treatise, this pessimism
is strengthened by divine agency, having chosen an elect group, “the children
of truth,” who despite the possibility of stumbling and the danger of afflictions,
is ruled by the Angel of Light, while the rest of humanity is set to exist under
the resulting vices of being ruled by the Angel of Darkness. Moreover, apart
from perhaps the War Scroll (1QM), where the Sons of Light are depicted in an
epic hollywood-esque eschatological battle against the Sons of Darkness, the
Treatise is perhaps the clearest, most explicit division of humanity into two
camps that is found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The stark duality depicted
here is tempered briefly by another duality, an internal one which reflects the
ongoing struggle in a person’s heart. The Hymn of Praise closes the Serekh
ha-Yaḥad; the presentation of humanity in this small hymn is largely morose.
The speaker self-reflects on his own role as part of wicked humanity and sinful
flesh, admitting that he is utterly dependent upon God—implying the innate,
continued sinfulness of both the speaker, his community, and the rest of hu-
manity. In light of that, the human conditions’ desperation is often depicted
as the consequence of a “fleshly” state, namely, he/she is unable to know the
hidden things of God and respond in kind. Finally, Musar le-Mevin has gener-
ated a great deal of debate, especially in regard to the appearance of “fleshly
spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and the “Vision of Meditation” in 4Q417 1. Much of this debate
has centered on whether the Musar text depicts an ontological division within

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_008

7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 233

collective humanity and the consequent ramifications to its understanding of

the human condition.

7.2 The “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS 3:13-4:26)

The Treatise is one of the few Second Temple texts that explicitly sets out
to teach about human nature, “To the maskil, to enlighten and teach all the
sons of light regarding the nature1 off all humanity,” (‫למשכיל להבין וללמד את‬
‫כול בני אור בתולדות כול בני איש‬, 3:13-14).2 The Treatise in toto comprises nearly
of two columns of the Serekh scroll. Yet, as we noted above, it likely originated
independently and was redacted into 1QS at a later point, either as a literary
unit or through a complex literary development.3 This section deals primarily

1 Jacob Licht notes that the meaning “nature” fits “reasonably well” in the treatise, “An
Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the DSD,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, ScrHeir 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 89-90, n. 5.
See also DSSSE 1:75, PTSDSSP 1:15. For other translations, see Lichtenberger, Studien zum
Menschenbild, 123-4; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 137, 148-9; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule
of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1966), 143, also 141.
2 Metso argues the that superscription (3:13-15a) was added later in order to incorporate the
Treatise within the larger Serekh text, Textual Development, 137-40. So, it reflects the manner in
which the later editor understood the text and the role it played within the Community. Also,
Peter von der Osten-Sacken, argues that the ending portion of the Treatise (4:15-23a, 23b-26)
represents later phases of its literary development, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche
Unersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1969), 17-89.
3 See e.g., André Dupont-Sommer, “L’instruction sur les deux Eprits dans le “Manuel de
Discipline”,” RHR 142/1 (1952): 5; Jacob Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two,” 88-
100; Devorah Dimant, following Licht, notes, “Again it presents a unified chiastic structure,
though consisting of distinct units,” Jewish Writings, 500; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran
and Its Meaning, 46-56; Osten-Sacken. Gott und Belial, 165-89; Jerome Murphy O’Connor,
“La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 (1976): 541; Metso, The Textual
Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 24-25; Armin
Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 126-28; Jean Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle et ten-
sions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, 103-
31; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “‘These are the names of the Spirit of …’: A Preliminary Edition of
4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise
(4Q257 and 1Q29a),” RQ 21/4 (2004): 538-42; Clause Coulot, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits
(1QS III, 13-IV, 26),” RSR 82/2 (2008): 147-60; Charlotte Hempel, “The Treatise of the Two
Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Dualism in Qumran, ed.
Géza G. Xeravits, LSTS 76 (London: T and T Clark, 2010), 119-20.
234 7 A Predetermined Condition

with the most complete text of the Treatise in the cave 1 manuscript,4 which
is dated paleographically between 100-75 BCE,5 but notes where other earlier
witnesses assist in understanding its development.
Early commentators, prior to publication of all the Qumran texts, regarded
the Treatise as the central summation of sectarian theology. Licht notes, “It
gives us, in the first place, the fullest and clearest information about the beliefs
of the Dead Sea Sectarians …,” which are “… authoritatively stated …”6 While
scholars, more recently, have tempered their views of the Treatise vis-à-vis
its centrality to the yaḥad, especially in regard to its depiction of dualism,7
there is little doubt of its relevance to understanding the complex beliefs of
the Community.8 The importance to our study, as numerous commentators
have long noted, is that it deals with a particular view of the human condition.9
The early lines of the Treatise are intentionally introductory10 and intended
to provide the necessary theological framework for what follows. After the su-
perscription in 3:13-14, the Treatise establishes that all human deeds are pre-
destined until the time of God’s eschatological “visitation” (‫)לפקודת‬. In fact,

4 There are at least two other fragments that clearly preserve remnants of the Treatise
(4Q255, 4Q257). Tigchelaar suggests that the “manuscript evidence can be enlarged” by
the re-attribution of several fragments to other manuscripts,” namely, 4Q502 16, 4Q487 37,
and 1Q29 13-17, which he suggests renaming 1Q29a, otherwise known as, 1QTwo Spirits
Treatise?, “A Preliminary Edition,” 538-45.
5 P TSDSSP 1:2-3.
6 Licht, “An Analysis,” 88; cf. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 123-4.
7 In regard to the dualistic framework in the Treatise, however, it has been noted by Hempel
and Frey note that in light of the publication of the Qumran material the type of dualism
present in the Treatise is not as pervasive as some may have formerly thought, Hempel,
“The Treatise of the Two Spirits,” 102-3; see also Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic
Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal
Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization
for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed.
Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill,
1997), 275-80.
8 See n. 2 above. Lange notes evidence of the pervasive influence (großen Einfluß) of the
Treatise with the theology of the yaḥad in the Hodayot, the Damascus Document, 4Q181,
4Q511, and 4Q280, Weisheit und Prädestination, 132-5.
9 Jerome Murphy O’Connor has remarked that one of the two main camps of research
into the Treatise is anthropology, “La genèse littéraire,” 541. See Stuckenbruck, “The
Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being,” in Light Against Darkness, 168. As
Stuckenbruck convincingly argues, “It is appropriate, therefore, to interpret the Treatise
on the Two Spirits as a document in its own right rather than as simply an extension of its
literary context in the Community Rule,” “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 161.
10 Duhaime outlines that 3:13-15a “sert d’introduction l’ensemble du texte,” “Cohérence
structurelle,” 106.
7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 235

“all that is and will be” (‫)הווה ונהייה‬11 stems from the God of knowledge (15-16).
His sovereign control cannot be changed (‫ואין להשנות‬, 16); “in his authority”
(‫בידו‬, lit. “in his hand”) are the judgments of all, and he provides for all their
desires” (16b-17). It is in the following lines, 17-18a, that a partial portrait of
human nature is painted: “and he [i.e., God] created humankind to dominion
of the world” (‫)והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת תבל‬. This “dominion” (‫)ממשלה‬, howev-
er, seems contrary to God’s determinative jurisdiction over “all that is and that
will be,” and is in contrast to what follows with the institution of the two spirits.
Lichtenberger suggests that this statement is not an anthropological statement
(Topos der Anthropologie) but rather a statement regarding the omnipotence
of God.12 Brand argues that “dominion” indicates humanity’s “power over their
environment.”13 Without further elaboration within the Treatise, it seems that
God’s sovereignty is not overly mechanistic in that humanity bears some, even
slight, responsibility over its own actions and does not exist under a fatalistic
shadow where God plays the role of puppet master to his creations. The seem-
ing tension between God’s utter sovereignty and humanity’s “dominion” may
anticipate the stumbling of the righteous referenced later in the Treatise.14 The
allotted ‫ ממשלה‬should, however, not be confused with free will; the system
of the Treatise—as we have it in 1QS—is so starkly predestined that even the
lapses of the righteous are determined by God’s sovereignty. This, in fact, is
the intention of the redacted introduction of the Treatise (3:13-17). It purposely
frontloads the text with an unquestioned sovereignty, pointedly reminding the
reader of this reality despite bearing witness in the rest of the text to a slightly
more complex image of human nature.

11 The language of God determining authority is not unlike what is noted in John 1:2-3, “by
him all things came to be, and nothing came to be without him” (πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν). The biggest difference of course is that the Johannine text
is referring to Jesus as the λόγος in verse 1. Interestingly, the remaining verse of this meta-
phor includes reference to “light” and “darkness:” “In Him was life, and the life was the light
of humankind (ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων). And the light shines in the darkness (καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν
τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει), and the darkness did not comprehend it” (vv. 4-5).
12 Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 126.
13 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 258.
14 Even Calvinism, the 16th c. Christian theological system where humanity is double
predestined for either salvation or damnation must address the issue where those de-
termined for salvation are responsible for sin. This is partly because the abstract philo-
sophical underpinnings of the system do not completely mesh with the real world. Where
humanity is neatly distributed between the saved/righteous and the damned/wicked, this
decisive duality does not seem to hold true with the actual deeds of either camp.
236 7 A Predetermined Condition

7.2.1 1QS 3:18b-25a—Two Spirits for Humankind15

‫ …וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלך בם עד מועד פקודתו הנה רוחות‬.18

‫ האמת והעול במעין אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬.‎19‫‏‬
‫ ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו וביד מלאך‬.‎20‫‏‬
‫ חושך כול ממשלת בני עול ובדרכי חושך יתהלכו ובמלאך חושך תעות‬.‎21‫‏‬
‫ כול בני צדק וכול חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו‬.‎22‫‏‬
‫וכול נגיעיהם ומועדי צרותם בממשלת משטמתו‬. ‫ לפי רזי אל עד קצו‬.‎23‫‏‬
‫ וכול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור ואל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר לכול‬.‎24‫‏‬
…‫ בני אור‬.‫‏‬‎25

18. … And he placed two spirits for him (i.e., ‫=אנוש‬humanity, 3:17) in which to walk
until the time of its visitation. These are the spirits
19. of truth and deceit. From within a spring of light is the nature of truth and from a
source of darkness is the nature of deceit.
20. In the hand of Prince of Lights is the dominion of the children of righteousness; in
the ways of light they walk. And in the hand of the Angel of
21. Darkness is all the dominion of the children of iniquity and in the ways of darkness
they walk. And with the Angel of Darkness is the error
22. of all the children of righteousness and all of their sins, iniquities, guilt, and defiant
deeds is in his dominion
23. according to the mysteries of God until his time. And all their afflictions and times
of their distress are in the dominion of his enmity
24. and all the spirits of his lot cause the sons of light to stumble. But the God of Israel
and the angel of his truth help all
25. the children of light …16

One of the most pertinent anthropological portions of the Treatise, 3:18b-25,17

is purposely set within the context of creation: “And he created humanity to
have dominion over the earth” (‫והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת תבל‬, 17b-18a). These
lines are a clear rewriting of Gen 1:28, where male and female (i.e., human-
ity) are told to have dominion over all of creation: “and have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing
that moves upon the earth’” (‫ל־חיָּ ה ָהר ֶֹמ ֶשׂת ַעל־‬
ַ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ‫וּבעֹוף ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם‬
ְ ‫ְוּרדוּ ִבּ ְדגַ ת ַהיָּ ם‬
‫אָרץ‬ֶ ‫) ָה‬. Connected with God’s creative event, “two spirits” (‫ )שתי רוחות‬are said
to be placed for all of humanity to walk in until the time of God’s “eschato-
logical visit” (‫)פקודה‬, namely, the “the spirits of truth and deceit” (‫רוחות האמת‬
‫והעול‬, 18-19) whose “natures” (‫ )תולדות‬arise, respectively, “from a spring of light”
(‫ )אור במעין‬and “from a source of darkness” (‫)ממקור חושך‬. The dominions of
the children of righteousness, who walk in ways of the light, and that of the

15 Unless otherwise noted the Hebrew text and translation is from PTSDSSP 1:17-19.
16 Author’s Translation. Hebrew text is from PTSDSSP 1:15-19.
17 Some extend this portion to 4:1. See Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 166; Puech,
“Cohérence,” 105-6; Licht, “An Analysis,” 93; for 4:14, Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, 143-4.
7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 237

children of darkness, who walk in darkness, are under the authority of Prince
of Light and Angel of Darkness, respectively. From lines 17b-21a humanity and
ethereal forces—whether they are external or internal18—are neatly divided
into two camps. Flusser was one of the earliest scholars to remark, “in the
Sectarian teaching this basic dualistic outlook leads to a fundamental division
of all mankind into two camps. The sect deems itself to be identical with the
righteous part of humanity and calls itself ‘Sons of Light.’”19 Yet, humanity’s

18 It is somewhat unclear whether these spirits are external or internal. More recently,
Mladen Popovic notes that it remains ambiguous as to whether the Treatise is refer-
ring to internal or external spirits, “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in
Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13-4:26) and Other Texts from the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” in ‘And God Breathed into Man the Breath of Life’—Dust of the Ground and
Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Development of Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and
Christianity, and Their Umwelts, ed. J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and Gerhard H. van Kooten,
TBN 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
19 David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Aspects, 218. This divi-
sion of humanity into specific camps is not foreign to other sectarian and sectarian-related
texts. The most well-known division comes from texts that were central to the yaḥad. The
“Sons of Light” (‫ )בני אור‬occurs on several occasions in the Serekh text and the War Scroll
(1QS 1:9, 2:16, 3:13, 24, 1QM 1:1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 13:16. See also 4QCantenaa 12 13 i 7, 11, 4QDa 1 a b 1,
4Q Songs of the Sagea 1:7, and reconstruction in 4QSongs of the Sageb 10:4, 11QMelch 2:8,
and reconstruction in line 22). Despite reflecting a varied dualism—cosmic, ethical, or
social—the depiction of humanity largely functions as an insider/outsider group des-
ignation. “This passage portrays a dualistic worldview,” Brand notes, “in which cosmic
dualism … is responsible for social dualism, namely the division between the ‘children
of righteousness’ and the ‘children of deceit,’” Brand, Evil Within and Without, 259. To the
“insider” designation one might add “children of the righteous” (‫בני הצדוק‬, 1QS 9:14),
or “righteousness” (‫צדק‬, 1QS 3:20, 1QM 9:10, 4Q468b 1 4, 4QWar Scrolle 2:2), and “chil-
dren of his truth” (‫)בני אמתו‬. See also 1QM 17:8, 1QHa 14:32, and reconstruction in 26:32,
4QHa 7 ii 4, 4QDa 1 1:7, 4QDe 7 i 20, 4QSc 5:2, 4, Musar le-mevinb 1 10, 4QWar Scrolla 1 ii
15, also “children of truth” (‫בני אמת‬, 1QS 4:5-6) and “children or your truth” (‫;בני אמתכה‬
1QHa 17:35). Those who are outsiders are designated with various monikers, most com-
monly, “children of darkness” (‫בני חושך‬, 1QS 1:10, 1QM 1:1, 7, 10, 16, 3:6, 9, 13:16, 14:17,
16:11, 4QWar Scrolla 8 10 i 14; 1 1 ii 9, 4QWar Scrollf 3 7), “children of Belial” (‫בני בליעל‬,
4QFlorilegium 1 2 ii 8; 4QBlessingsa 7 ii 6, and reconstruction in 4QBlessingsb 6:5;
11Q11 6:3; 11Q19 55:3), or “children of deceit” ([‫בני עול]ה‬, 1QS 3:21, 1QHa 13:10, 14:21, 4QHc 1
i 3, 4 i 5, 4QFlorilegium 1 2 i 1, Musar le-mevind 69 ii 8, 4QSongs of the Sageb 1:8.). Jubilees
also divides humankind into opposing camps. In what occurs towards the end of a har-
monization and reworking—primarily an expansion—of both creation accounts from
Gen 1 and 2 (see 2:1-16, VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 12-13) humanity is bifurcated as a
consequence of the observance of the Sabbath. Within the context of creation and an ex-
tended exposition regarding the importance of the Sabbath (2:17-33), humanity is divided
between Israel, the Sabbath observers (to which the beings of the heavenly retinue are
numbered as having observed the Sabbath prior to it being revealed to flesh [see, vv. 18,
30]), and the nations, who were not given the holy day. Segal notes, “… if Israel is indeed
the Lord’s ‘[special people]’ from the time of creation, then their requirement to observe
238 7 A Predetermined Condition

orderly division into two camps is somewhat muddied by the stated dominion
of the Angel of Darkness. That is to say that its dominion (or influence) is not
solely limited to the “children of darkness.” Rather, the “children of righteous-
ness” knowingly have the Angel to thank for their own misdeeds and afflic-
tions, specifically, “all of their sins, iniquities, guilt, and defiant deeds” (‫וכול‬
‫חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם‬, 22, emphasis added), as well as “their
afflictions and time of distress” (‫וכול נגיעיהם ומועדי צרותם‬, 23). The spirits of the
Angel’s lot are the reason that the “sons of light” will, and do, stumble—an
answer to the, perhaps, real world quandary regarding how those who belong
to the yaḥad can continue to face various afflictions, as well as transgress God
statutes and the rules of the community.20 These infractions, however, are not
counted against them; the “children of righteousness” have assistance from
“God and the angel of his truth” (‫ואל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר‬, 24) and will experi-
ence the necessary purification during his visitation (4:15-16). Yet, it must be, if
only entertained at this early point in the Treatise, that humanity in general is
not explicitly responsible for their righteous or wicked deeds since these seem,
at least, initially, to be the dominion of the two angels/spirits and the spirits
of their lot. Responsibility for obedience and sin exists in the cosmic realm as
it has been determined by God. This seems to be the case despite their being
a clear recognition later that humanity’s division is based on vice and virtue,
the responsibility they bear, and the judgment that each of the two camps will
experience. At this point, however, the human condition is inescapable; those
who sin and those who will eventually be obedient are destined to be so.

the commandments was also in force from that time as well. The giving and observance
of the commandments in the patriarchal period are thus the direct result of the special
relationship between God and Israel during this early period,” Segal, The Book of Jubilees,
7. Jubilees does not initially refer to the institution of the Sabbath at creation, since it is
the “seed of Jacob” which is chosen from all of humanity to be sanctified (20). The heads
of humanity prior to Jacob and his seed were already declared blessed (24). Later in the
same chapter, however, it seems that keeping the Sabbath holy—the boundary marker
between both human camps—is established at creation and commanded to all the sons
of Israel (25-33). Its placement at creation, regardless of the special status of the “twenty-
two” heads of humankind between Adam and Jacob, suggests that the defining separating
characteristic is the instituting of the Sabbath.
20 There is evidence that the Qumran Community fully expected their members to “stum-
ble” in their walk and transgress God’s commandments, as well as the communal rules.
The most important text in this regard are the Serekh columns following the Treatise, the
Damascus Document (e.g., 4:18b-22), and 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer (4Q477).
7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 239

7.2.2 1QS 3:25b-4:23—Humanity’s Inescapable Condition

‫ …והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושך ועליהון יסד כול מעשה‬3:25

‫ [וע] ׄל[ סוד]י֯ הן כול עבודה ועל דרכיהן [כו]ל [פ] ֯קו֯ דה‬‎.26‫‏‬
vacat ‫ ‏[מו]עדי עולמים ובכול עלילותיה ירצה לעד אחת תעב סודה וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח‬4:1
‫ ואלה דרכיהן בתבל להאיר בלבב איש ולישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק אמת ולפחד לבבו‬vacat ‎.2‫‏‬
‫במשפטי‬
‫ אל ורוח ענוה ואורך אפים ורוב רחמים וטוב עולמים ושכל ובינה וחכמת גבורה מאמנת בכול‬‎.3‫‏‬
‫ מעשי אל ונשענת ברוב חסדו ורוח דעת בכול מחשבת מעשה וקנאת משפטי צדק ומחשבת‬‎.4‫‏‬
‫ קודש ביצר סמוך ורוב חסדים על כול בני אמת וטהרת כבוד מתעב כול גלולי נדה והצנע לכת‬‎.5‫‏‬
‫ אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת תבל ופקודת כול הולכי בה‬vacat ‫ בערמת כול וחבא לאמת רזי דעת‬‎.6‫‏‬
‫למרפא‬
‫ ורוב שלום באורך ימים ופרות זרע עם כול ברכות עד ושמחת עולמים בחיי נצח וכליל כבוד‬‎.7‫‏‬
vacat ‫ עם מדת הדר באור עולמים‬‎.8‫‏‬
‫ ולרוח עולה רחוב נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר גוה ורום לבב כחש ורמיה‬vacat ‎.9‫‏‬
‫אכזרי‬
‫ ורוב חנף קצור אפים ורוב אולת וקנאת זדון מעשי תועבה ברוח זנות ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה‬‎.10‫‏‬
‫ ולשון גדופים עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן קושי עורף וכיבוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושך וערמת רוע‬‎.11‫‏‬
‫ופקודת‬
‫ כול הולכי בה לרוב נגיעים ביד כול מלאכי חבל לשחת עולמים באף עברת אל נקמת לזעות נצח‬‎.12‫‏‬
‫וחרפת‬
‫ עד עם כלמת כלה באש מחשכים וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון ורעת מרורים בהווות חושך עד‬‎.13‫‏‬
vacat ‫ כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬‎.14‫‏‬

3:25 … He created the spirits of light and darkness and upon them he founded every
work,
26. l[…]hn every action, and upon their ways (are) [al]l […]dh. The one God loves for all
4:1 [app]ointed times of eternity, taking pleasure in all its doings forever; (concerning)
the other he loathes its assembly, and all its ways he hates forever.
2. And these are their ways in the world: to illuminate the heart of man and to level be-
fore him all the ways of true righteousness; and to make his heart fear the judgments of
3. God; and a spirit of humility and patience, of great compassion and constant good-
ness, and of prudence, insight, and wonderful wisdom, which is firmly established in
all
4. the works of God, leaning in his great mercy; and a spirit of knowledge in all work
upon which he is intent, zeal for righteous precepts, a holy intention
5. with a steadfast purpose; and great affection towards all the children21 of truth; and
a glorious purity, loathing all unclean idols, and walking with reservation
6. by discernment about everything, concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowl-
edge. The (preceding) are the principles of the spirit for the children of truth in the
world. The visitation of all those who walk in it (will be) healing
7. and great peace in a long life, multiplication of progeny together with all everlasting
blessings, endless joy in everlasting life, and a crown of glory
8. together with a resplendent attire in eternal light vacat

21 We have opted to translate ‫ בני‬as “children” rather than “sons.”

240 7 A Predetermined Condition

9. vacat But concerning the Spirit of Deceit (these are the principles): greed and slack-
ness in righteous activity, wickedness and falsehood, pride and haughtiness, atrocious
disguise and falsehood,
10. great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable works in a spirit
of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship,
11. a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and
hardness of heart, walking in all the ways of darkness, and evil craftiness. The visita-
tion of
12. all those who walk in it (will be) many afflictions by all the angels of punishment,
eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath, everlasting terror
13. and endless shame, together with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of the dark re-
gion. And all their times for their generations (will be expended) in dreadful suffering
and bitter misery in dark abysses until
14. they are destroyed. (There will be) no remnant nor rescue for them vacat22

Lichtenberger suggests that 3:25b-4:1 has a dual function: 1) it directs the reader
back to the God’s creative activities and 2) it sets the stage for the lists of vir-
tues and vices that follows.23 The call back to creation brings the reader to the
very beginning of the Gen 1 narrative where immediately, after reference to
God’s spirit, he speaks light into existence: “And God said, “let there be light,”
and there was light” (‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי אֹור וַ יְ ִהי־אֹור‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬, Gen 1:3). Light, recognized
ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬
as “good” (‫)טֹוב‬, is separated from “darkness” (‫חושך‬, 4). The implication is that
the spirits responsible for the two ways in the world, as well as the bifurca-
tion of human existence, are closely aligned with the stark divisions of Gen 1’s
creation. Therefore, the determination of all human deeds (‫יסד כול מעשה‬,
3:25b)24—established upon the dominions of these two spirits—is a matter
that is either founded at creation, or like creation, a reflection of the innate
economy of the world. Yet, despite this systematic foreordination, God is said
to love one and forever hate the other (‫וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח‬, 4:1).25
The remaining portion of the text (4:2-14) details the various internal conse-
quences that result from walking in the way of either of these two spirits: 2-8
details the knowledge and zeal given to the children of truth; 9-14 provides the
varying negative characteristics of the opposing camp, those who are under

22 English translation from PTSDSSP 1:17.

23 Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 131.
24 While the rest of line 26 is fragmentary, the following depiction in 4:2-14 clarifies that the
works being founded are indeed those of humankind.
25 Lichtenberger notes that there remains an open question regarding God’s responsibil-
ity for the creation of evil, Studien zum Menschenbild, 133. However, if one follows the
Treatise, as it appears in 1QS, the creation of evil is not part of the discussion. Although, in
the scrolls, evil and sin are generally presented in opposition to God’s plans and in direct
contrast to God’s creation and his determining sovereignty.
7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 241

the dominion of the Spirit of Deceit.26 As Lange notes, the entirety of the sec-
tion emphasizes the role of the two spirits in spheres of vice and virtue.27 It
describes the internal characteristics that guide each person in the way that
has been predestined for them. Again, however, this is not wholly consistent
with the depiction of the work of the two spirits in 3:18b-25a since the “sons
of light” must bear the afflictions caused by the extended governance of the
Angel of Darkness and its lot. A further inconsistency is noted with the offer of
healing (‫ )למרפא‬to “children of truth.” Healing assumes that they will, or have,
endured varying afflictions (3:23-24). In that sense, the human condition is al-
lotted some complexity in that the “children of truth” must at least confront
certain issues of sin and other various distresses. Although it has been argued
that these parts of the Treatise have a separate literary development28 and
were later redacted into a whole, whatever incongruity or contradiction that
the redactor noted—if any was noted at all—did not call into question the
portrayal of human nature. Stuckenbruck rightly notes, “But the writer is deep-
ly aware that experience does not correspond to the straightforward divisions
of the world into two realms of influence, realms that are socially expressed in
the bounded existence of a righteous community.”29
4:15-23 notes the eventual destruction of deceit and the triumph of truth.
Initially, however, it shows that humanity’s condition, in an eschatological
sense, is set and inescapable,

‫ באלה תולדות כול בני איש ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כול צבאותם לדורותם ובדרכיהן יתהלכו וכול‬.15
‫פעולת‬
‫ מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי עולמים‬.16‎

26 See Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 167. Also, Lichtenberger notes that while God
predetermined the function of every spirit to each person, as well as those who will be
saved and damned, there remains an open question regarding the pious person who sins,
Studien zum Menschenbild, 133. Moreover, there is a parallel between the ethical dualism
depicted here and division between the works of the flesh and spirit attributed to the
Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornica-
tion, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness,
dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned
you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control; against such there is no law” (5:19-23, RSV).
27 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 167.
28 Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120-1.
29 Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 166.
242 7 A Predetermined Condition

15. In these (two spirits are) the natures of all the sons of man (i.e., humanity), and in
their (two) divisions all their hosts of their generations gave a share; in their ways they
walk, and the entire task of
16. their walks (falls) with their divisions according to a person’s share, much or little,
in all the times of eternity.

Deceit and truth continue to co-exist until the end, where at the appoint-
ed time deceit will be destroyed and those that are chosen will be purified
by a holy spirit (18-22). Those who were chosen, and to whom the Angel of
Darkness (and the angels of his lot) have been given limited governance, will
be purged “from the innards of his flesh” (‫מתכמי בשרו‬, 20). The language of
cleansing one’s “innards” (‫ )תכמים‬is not unlike 4QIncantation, “As for me, I am
the dread of God. He opened my mouth with the knowledge of His truth, and
[…] empowered by His holy spirit. […] truth for all [thes]e, and they became
contentious spirits in my bodily frame (‫[ ;)במבניתי‬God’s] statute[s …] [… in] the
the innards of flesh” (‫ב] ֯תכמי בשר‬, 4Q444 1 4 i 5), as a reference to the innards of
the body when they are infested with sinfulness and afflictions.30 Indeed, this
purification is a preemptive step so that the so-called “upright ones” (‫)ישרים‬
“may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of
the sons of heaven” and those that are “perfect in the way” (‫ )תמימי דרך‬might
receive understanding (22). To these chosen ones will be given the “glory of hu-
manity” (‫)כבוד אדם‬,31 which enigmatically may refer to the “prospect of eternal
life,” according to Goff, or as Crispin Louis Fletcher suggests, “the position in
creation that God originally gave Adam before his fall.”32
The duality present in the Treatise permeates its presentation of the human
condition. Although the stated purification during the eschaton and the Angel
of Darkness’ extended dominion over the children of truth entertain a more

30 See 5.3.4, 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) in the present study.

31 The two other occasions of this unique terminology is CD 4:20, “… those who hold firm to
it shall receive everlasting life, and all human honor is rightly theirs …” (‫המחזיקים בו לחיי‬
‫)נצח וכל כבוד אדם להם הוא‬, and 1QHa 4:27, “[forgiving every] transgression and casting
away all their [iniquities,] giving them all the glory of man [or Adam] as an inheritance
[along with] long life” (‫ותם ולהנחילם בכול כבוד אדם ֯לרוב‬ ֯ ֯‫ ] ֯פשע ולהשליך כול עו֯ ו֯ נ‬-- [
‫)ימים‬, help us to gather some understanding of ‫כבוד אדם‬. Both CD and the hodayah par-
allel ‫ כבוד אדם‬with forgiveness of transgressions and a long, or eternal‫ ת‬life. The Treatise
agrees on both points as it explicitly refers to “eternal life” (‫חיי נצח‬, 4:7) for those who
walk in the Spirit of Truth and have their deeds purified (‫ואז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי‬
‫גבר‬, “And then in his truth God will purify all human deeds,” 4:20).
32 Matthew Goff, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon
and 4QInstruction,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef
Zsengeller, JSJSup 142 (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 10; Crispin Louis-Fletcher, All the Flory of Adam:
Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 107.
7.2 The “ Treatise of the Two Spirits ” (1QS 3:13-4:26) 243

complex condition, the rest of humanity’s more certain condition—natural

sinners—is determined by God and his sovereignty. The establishment of two
spirits, and every human deed, bookend this portrait of the human condition.
Yet, 4:23 adds another layer of complexity to human nature, “Until now the
spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of humans” (‫עד הנה יריבו רוחי‬
‫אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬, 23). Apparently, each person seems to embody some phe-
nomenological meeting point where the seemingly opposed realms of truth
and deceit converge, while at the same time, somehow, each person abstractly
inhabits a permanent place in God’s predestined schema that was initiated at
creation and will be confirmed at his visitation.

7.2.3 1QS 4:23c-26—A Double Duality, an Epilogue on the Human

Condition
The final lines of the Treatise 4:23c-26, which were also a later addition,33 seem
to form a epilogue where the double duality of the human condition plays out.

‫ …עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬.23

‫ יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת וכפי נחלת איש באמת וצדק וכן ישנהא עולה וכירשתו בגורל עול ירשע‬‎.24‫‏‬
‫בו וכן‬
‫והואה ידע פעולת מעשיהן לכול‬. ‫ יתעב אמת כיא בד בבד שמן אל עד קץ נחרצה ועשות חדשה‬‎.25‫‏‬
‫קצי‬
] ‫[… מועד‬°‫ [עולמי]ם וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב [ורע…]ל[ה]פיל גורלות לכול חי לפי רוחו ב‬‎.26‫‏‬
‫הפקודה‬

23. … Until now the spirits of truth and injustice feud in a person’s heart.
24. they walk in wisdom and folly. In agreement with a person’s inheritance in the
truth, he shall be righteous and so abhor injustice; and the its share in the lot of injus-
tice, he shall act wickedly in it, and so
25. abhor the truth. For God has sorted them into equal parts until the appointed end
and the new creation. He knows the result of their deeds for all times
26. [everlas]ting and has given them as a legacy to the son of man so that they know
good [and evil … and] to cast the lots of every living being according to his spirit […
until the time of] the visitation.

Stuckenbruck notes that the Treatise’s theological anthropology envisions,

partly, “the human being as the battleground between cosmic forces.”34 The
early portions of the Treatise are not explicitly clear regarding the location of
the spirits of truth and injustice. Line 23 clarifies that this struggle is partly
internal, waging in the hearts of humanity, “Until now the spirits of truth and

33 Duhaime, “L’Instruction ser les deux espirits,” 589-94; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning,
201-3.
34 Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism,” 168.
244 7 A Predetermined Condition

deceit struggle in the heart of humankind” (‫בלבב גבר‬, 23). Yet, this “struggle”
(‫ )ריב‬is not present in the final three lines (24-26). Instead God’s predetermin-
ing sovereignty takes center stage. These lines demonstrate human nature’s
double duality. The individual has both some “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬in truth and
“possession” (‫ )ירושה‬in deceit, that is, a person is the embodiment of an internal
convergence of the struggle between these opposing forces which, dependent
on one’s portion in those particular realms, will direct him/her to obedience
or transgression (4:24). Even with this embodiment, the person remains ex-
ternally set in either predestined camp until God’s visitation when things
“are made new” (‫עשות חדשה‬, 25).35 This complexity of the human condition,
where the righteous stumble, and perhaps even the wicked, have a modicum
of right action (or an ability to do so), does not necessarily call into question
the ultimate standing of the children of truth or deceit—these matters are
immovable.
This epilogue on the human condition hedges the Treatise with the same
view of God’s sovereignty that it opened with (3:18-25). Consequently, humani-
ty’s position among the children of truth or deceit, which is ultimately inescap-
able, bookends the Treatise as well. What occurs between these points is largely
a continual emphasis on the cosmic and ethical duality, interspersed with the
depiction of an ability (or lack thereof)—for the children of righteousness—
to know truth and act accordingly, as well as God’s role in establishing that. To
this, the Treatise cannot escape representing the complexity of human nature,
as the convergence of these ethical realms, which ultimately necessitates the
purification of children of truth upon God’s visitation (‫ )הפקודה‬from their af-
flictions and distress. Although, while the Treatise entertains this complexity
(e.g., the battle that is waged within each person), however, the closing lines
note that it has no effect on what God has predestined; the mystery of God’s
determining control—and humanity’s place in it—remains intact.36
The Treatise’s depiction of the human condition is that of a double dual-
ity. Anthropologically, each person belongs to one of two opposing camps, the
righteous or the wicked, the children of truth or the children of deceit. This

35 Leaney correctly notes that the concept of all things being made “new” appears elsewhere
in post-biblical Jewish literature, as well as the New Testament, The Rule of Qumran, 161.
36 Again, in the Reformed Tradition of the 16th c. French theologian John Calvin, actual
human action does not question God’s predetermined plan but rather casts a nega-
tive light on a person’s place with the larger camps of the righteous/saved and wicked/
damned, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (London:
Bonham Norton, 1599), Book III. The reason for such is, as in the Treatise, that God foreor-
dination of humanity’s deeds does not negate the real-world struggle between obedience
and sin.
7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22) 245

reality is governed by two spirits, and the spirits of their lot. This predestined
condition is maintained for the better part of the Treatise despite the Angel
of Darkness’ extended governance over the “children of truth.” The other as-
pect of this duality is that each person embodies an internal struggle between
truth and deceit and will act according to whatever inheritance or possession
was determined for him/her. This indicates that the Treatise, in its final form,
preserves two paradoxical points that shape the contours of human nature: 1)
humanity is locked into one of two camps which are wholly opposed and will
ultimately bear eternal life or condemnation upon God’s “visitation,” and 2) the
complexity of actual human action—the struggle in humanity’s heart—which
cannot be confined so neatly to this aforementioned division. Therefore, the
human nature consists of an external and internal duality.

7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22)

The Hymn of Praise [HP] is an originally independent text37 which closes the
Serekh ha-Yaḥad text. Licht notes that the entirety of the hymn deals with one
subject, “the praise of God and the speaker’s trust in God.”38 HP can be divided
into four major sections: 1) “First-person Praise of God” (10:8-16b), 2) “Judgment
of Humanity” (16c-19b), 3) “Judgment and the Speaker’s Righteousness” (19c-
11:5b) and 4) “Human Sinfulness and the Yaḥad” (5c-22). The hymn begins
with a first person perspective of the speaker, or, as Newsom describes it,
10:8-11:2a preserves a long-section where “first-person verbs cluster thickly.”39
Both Newsom and Brand note that this text reflects, in part, aspects of human-
ity’s condition,40 especially its sinfulness. In the first three sections, there are
a couple of references to the speaker’s own sin, as well as that of humanity. Of
course, the speaker’s transgression is wiped away by God’s own righteousness

37 Sarianna Metso notes the material reconstruction from 4QSe, which “concluded with
a different calendrical text 4QOtot,” The Serekh Texts, LSTS 62, CQS 9 (London; New
York: T and T Clark, 2007), 14. Portions of the hymn also appear in the 4QSb,d,f,j. See
also, eadem, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden:
Brill, 1996), 108; Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 69-130; Michael Knibb, “Rule of the
Community” EDSS 2:795; Markus Bokhmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the
Community,” RQ 18/72 (1998): 541-60.
38 Jacob Licht, Megillat ha-serakhim mimegillot midbar yehudah serekh ha-yaḥad, serekh ha-
‘edah serekh ha-berakhot (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965), 203.
39 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 109.
40 The Self as Symbolic Space, 169; Brand, Evil Within and Without, 68. In particular, Brand
notes that hymn provides us with a perspective in the nature of sin.
246 7 A Predetermined Condition

(‫בצדקותו ימח פשעי‬, 11:3),41 while human rebellion is thought to have an end in
judgment (‫ פשעם‬42‫ומעל אנשים עד תום‬, 10:23-24). The shift to a more distinct
comparison between humanity’s sin and the yaḥad begins in the fourth section
of the hymn. This section can be broken down further: 1) “A Vision of Sound
Wisdom” (11:5c-6), 2) “Wisdom is Hidden from Humanity” (6b-7a), 3) “Divine
Choosing of the Yaḥad” (7b-9a); 4) “The Speaker’s Self-Awareness” (9b-10a),
5) “Justification from Humanity’s Sin” (10b-20a) and 6) “Rhetoric of Human
Nothingness”43 (20b-22).
This section is distinguished by an introduction where the speaker has his
eyes gaze upon what “always is” (‫הווא עולם‬44). The understanding of “wisdom”
(‫ )תושיה‬is given to the speaker but concealed from humanity on three occa-
sions (11:6-7). Three different terms are utilized synonymously to describe
humankind, ‫אנוש‬, ‫בני אדם‬, and ‫סוד בשר‬.45 The repeated refrain rhetorically sep-
arates the enlightened speaker, and even the readers/community, from the rest
of the hoi polloi. It further serves to heighten the uniqueness of God’s chosen
community (‫ )בחר אל‬and strengthens the opposing duality between humanity
and the yaḥad (11:7b-9a). The chosen community is spoken of as being joined
with “angelic beings” (‫ קדושים‬and ‫)בני שמים‬, and as an assembly “built for holi-
ness” (‫)מבנית קודש‬, and “an eternal planting for all ages to come” (‫מטעת עולם עם‬
‫)כול קץ נהיה‬. It is after this that the hymn begins to identify more clearly with
humanity’s sinful condition and the speaker’s own participation.

7.3.1 “The Speaker’s Self-Awareness” (11:9b-10a)

46‫ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד בשר עול עוונותי פשעי חטאתי {…} עם נעוית לבבי‬... 11:9b
‫ לסוד רמה והולכי חושך‬.10a

41 In a sense the judgment of all humanity as part of the human condition is also paralleled
in 4QInstruction (e.g., 4Q416 1 4-6, 4Q417 2 i 15-16, 4Q418 77 3). See Matthew Goff, The
Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 204. This
text is addressed later in this study.
42 “until completion” or “until an end” (‫)עד תום‬, seems to indicate that the end to human-
ity’s transgression is not temporary but permanent. See HALOT 4:1752; also 1QM 16:1,
CD 20:14.
43 Adapted from Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 169.
44 Unless otherwise noted Hebrew text from the Community Rule is from DSSSE, 68-98.
45 The phrase ‫ סוד בשר‬is rarely utilized in the scrolls occurring only twice in the “Hymn
of Praise” (11:7, 9). Its appearance in another fragmentary text, 4Q511 26 1-5, appears
in Baillet’s reconstruction, although he utilizes the Community Rule, DJD VII, 234.
See P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an
Introduction, STDJ 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1957), 152.
46 Unless otherwise noted English translations of the Community Rule are the authors.
7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22) 247

11:9b. And I belong to wicked humanity, and to the council of sinful flesh. My iniquities,
my transgressions, my sins {…} with the perverseness of my heart,
10a. belong to the council of maggots and those who walk in darkness.

Brand notes that the speaker’s divinely-given wisdom and expected justifica-
tion from sin is contrasted here by “his ongoing sinful nature.”47 In light of the
speaker’s dualistic opposition between himself, God’s chosen, and everyone
else, his own self-debasement betrays a view of collective humanity. First
“wicked humanity” (‫ )אדם רשעה‬and “council of sinful flesh” (‫ )סוד בשר עול‬do
not seem to indicate a portion of humankind but rather the whole lot, that
is, those both inside and outside of the community. While both phrases are
peculiar to the hymn, “sinful flesh” (‫ )בשר עול‬appears again the War Scroll,
“‘From God is the power of war against all sinful flesh’” (‫מאת אל יד מלחמה בכול‬
‫בשר עול‬, 1QM 4:2-3). Indeed, “sinful flesh,” against whom God and his armies
fight, represent the nations of the world (see 1QM 2-9).48 Is the speaker in HP
then self-identifying with the enemy nations of the world? The occurrences of
‫ בשר עול‬in HP and the War Scroll are not precisely equivalent. It is unlikely that
the speaker in HP envisions himself as belonging to the nations of the world
in the War Scroll, especially since the writer’s participation in “wicked human-
ity” is rectified by God’s righteousness.49 The War Scroll’s parallel, nonethe-
less, attests the pervasiveness of the use of “flesh” to describe a natural human
opposition to those whom God has revealed true knowledge and has elected.
Elsewhere it seems that “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬is ultimately in opposition to “spirit”
(‫)רוח‬, especially the God-given spirit issued to the elect to know, understand,
and obey his commandments. The speaker of the hymn acknowledges this du-
ality, having a true understanding of how he is immersed in wickedness and
transgression, and thoroughly dependent of divine agency to move beyond it.
Second, the speaker’s view of human nature seems partly tied to mortality; he
and the rest of humankind belong “to the council of maggots” (‫לסוד רמה‬, 10a).50
Human nature is largely unenlightened and described as “those who walk in
darkness” (‫)הולכי חושך‬, metaphorically utilized for those who lack understand-
ing. Therefore, the speaker’s self-reflection on his/her own sinfulness echoes
an innate part of the human condition with which the speaker—elected by

47 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 68.

48 See Philip R. Davies, “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness,” EDSS 2:965-8.
49 ‫ צדקה‬appears 7X to describe the manner in which God justifies the speaker from his iniq-
uities and feelings.
50 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 69.
248 7 A Predetermined Condition

God and enlightened—must still deal.51 The reality of the speaker is not unlike
a first-person retelling of the Treatise.

7.3.2 “Justification from Humanity’s Sin” (11:10b-20a)

‫ דרכו ואנוש לוא יכין צעדו כיא לאל המשפט ומידו‬52‫… כיא ל(וא ל)אדם‬
.10b
‫ ואני אם‬vacat ‫ תום הדרך ובדעתו נהיה כול וכ{ע}ול הויה במחשבתו יכינו ומבלעדיו לוא יעשה‬.11
‫ אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי לעד ואם אכשול בעוון בשר משפטי בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬.12
‫ יפתח צרתי ומשחת יחלץ נפשי ויכן לדרך פעמי ברחמיו הגישני ובחסדיו יבוא‬.13
53‫ משפטי בצדקת אמתו שפטני וברוב טובו יכפר בעד כול עוונותי ובצדקתו יטהרני מנדת‬.14
‫ אנוש וחטאת בני אדם להודות לאל צדקו ולעליון תפארתו ברוך אתה אלי הפותח לדעה‬.15
‫ ׄלב עבדכה הכן בצדק כול מעשיו והקם לבן אמתכה כאשר רציתה לבחירי אדם להתיצב‬.16
‫ לפניכה לעד כיא מבלעדיכה לוא תתם דרך ובלי רצונכה לוא יעשה כול אתה הוריתה‬.17
‫ כול דעה וכול הנהיה ברצונכה היה ואין אחר זולתכה להשיב על עצתכה ולהשכיל‬.18
‫ בכול מחשבת קודשכה ולהביט בעומק רזיכה ולהתבונן בכול נפלאותיכה עם כוח‬.19
‫ גבורתכה‬.20a

10b. … For humanity’s way is not his own, because humankind cannot establish his
own step; since judgment is God’s and from his hand
11. is the perfection of the way. And by his knowledge everything shall come to be, and
everything that exists he establishes it by his plan, and without him nothing is done.
And I, if
12. I stagger, the mercies of God shall be my salvation forever. And if I stumble in the
sin of the flesh, my judgment shall be in the righteousness of God which shall stand
forever.
13. If my distress shall be loosed, he shall deliver me (lit. my soul) from the pit and shall
steady my steps for the way. In his mercies, he shall bring me near, and by his loving-
kindnesses he shall bring forth
14. my judgment. He shall judge me in the righteousness of his truth, and in his plenti-
ful goodness always atone for all of my sins, and in his righteousness, he shall cleanse
me from the impurity of
15. humanity and from all the sin of the humankind (lit. sons of man), so that I can
give God thanks for his righteousness and the heights of his beauty. Blessed are you,
my God, who opens

51 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 69. She notes that this differs from the presentation in the
Hodayot where those “who are predestined to be righteous are not only free from sin but
are elevated to a status close to that of the angels,” 68.
52 This is text from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE 1:98. No reason is given for the
emendation of the text, ‫ל(וא ל)אדם‬. This is paralleled by Johann Maier, “‘Denn nicht
beim Menschen steht sein Weg’” (author’s emphasis), Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom
Toten Meer: Band I, Uni-Taschenbücher (München: E. Reinhardt, 1995), 199. The closest
parallel of ‫ ל(וא ל)אדם‬occures in 1QHa 12:39. See W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual
of Discipline: Translation and Notes, BASORSup 10-12 (New Haven: ASOR, 1951), 45;
Wernberg-Møller, The Manual, 43, 153, and Licht, Megillat ha-serakhim, 231, for the paral-
lels between this text and biblical phraseology esp. in Jer 10:23, Prov 16:9.
53 See also 4QSj (4Q264) 1, DJD XXVI, 201-6.
7.3 Human Condition in the Hymn of Praise (1QS 10:9-11:22) 249

16. the heart of your servant to knowledge. Establish all his works in righteousness, and
raise up the son of your handmaid to stand
17. to stand before you forever. Because apart from you the way is not perfected (com-
plete) and apart from your will nothing is done. You teach
18. all knowledge and all that shall be shall come to be because of your will. Beyond you
there is no one to oppose your counsel, to understand
19. any of your holy thoughts, to gaze into the abyss of your mysteries, to fathom all
your marvels or the strength of
20a. your might.

The opening in 10b-11 acknowledges that humanity is utterly dependent on

God since all is determined by him; a person cannot set his own steps. That is
to say, that humankind lacks any self-wrought ability to free itself from its in-
nate sinful condition. Though God has engaged the speaker, enlightening him
so that he is aware of his own failings, God is expected to continually rescue
him should he stagger or stumble in “sin of the flesh” (‫עוון בשר‬, 11:11c-13). This
phrase appears again in a short hymn of the Hodayot (15:37-16:4), though in
this hodayah whatever causes “impurity” (‫ )נדה‬and the “sin of the flesh” is re-
moved: “you expelled from my innards” (‫)הכאתה מתכמי‬.54 So also in HP, the
speaker’s dependence on God is so outright that he expects God to atone for
all the his sins (‫יכפר בעד כול עוונותי‬, 1QS 11:14). To that end, God will also purify
the speaker “from the impurity of humanity” (‫מנדת אנוש‬, 14-15). The speaker’s
awareness of his own condition reflects the condition of general humanity.55
His anticipated and continual justification from sin is a partial release from
an innate condition that for those outside the speaker’s community is wholly
inescapable. In the closing portion, which begins with “Blessed are you, my
God” (‫)ברוך אתה אלי‬, the speaker shifts to the third-person requesting God’s di-
vine knowledge, acknowledging equal dependence on God (15b-20a) because
“apart from your will nothing is done” (‫ובלי רצונכה לוא יעשה‬, 17).

7.3.3 “Rhetoric of Human Nothingness” (11:20b-22)

‫… ומי יכול להכיל את כבודכה ומה אף הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬ .20b
ׄ ‫ וילוד אשה מה ישב לפניכה והואה מעפר מגבלו ולחם רמה ׄמדורו והואה‬.21
‫מצירוק‬
56‫ חמר קורץ ולעפר תשוקתו מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד ולעצת מה יבין‬.22

54 Brand notes this difference between HP and the “Hodayot,” Evil Within and Without,
59-68.
55 See “3.5 The Amplification in Human Lowliness in 1QHa 20:7-22:4” in the present study.
56 See also “‫ ”[ולעפר תשוקתו מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד ולעצת ]מה יבין‬in 4Q256 23:1, and
DSSSMM 2, SQC 126-47.
250 7 A Predetermined Condition

20b. … Who is able to endure your glory? Indeed, what is the human being (lit. son of
man) among all of your wondrous deeds?
21. And one born of a woman, how shall he dwell before you? He who is kneaded from
dust, and whose corpse57 is food for maggots. He is spit saliva,58
22. pinched-off clay whose desire is for the dust. And what can clay and one formed by
hand reply? And what counsel does he understand?

A declaration of human nothingness closes HP. The rhetorical flourish is con-

textually unique from the rest of the hymn: 1) the speaker disappears into the
background, 2) the servant of lines 15-18 has also retreated, and 3) praise of
God for his salvific acts has gone missing. Additionally, the juxtaposition be-
tween the speaker’s sinful condition and God’s continual engagement on the
speaker’s behalf or that of his servant has been replaced by what appears to be
an independent reflection on humanity’s lowly condition. Its chiastic structure
suggests that the emphasis is on human nothingness, specifically that a person
is mere dust and food for maggots (cf. 10a). The following text is intended to
show this chiastic structure that intentionally highlights humanity’s baseness.

A. Who is able to endure your glory? ‫ ומי יכול להכיל את כבודכה‬.A

B. And what is humanity (lit. the son of ‫ ומה אף הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬.B
man) among your wondrous deeds?

C. And one born of a woman, how shall ‫ וילוד אשה מה ישב לפניכה‬.C
he dwell before you?

D. He who is kneaded from dust ‫ והואה מעפר מגבלו‬.D

D. And whose corpse is food for maggots ‫ ולחם רמה ׄמדורו‬.D

C. And he is spit saliva and pinched-off ׄ ‫ והואה‬.C

‫מצירוק חמר קורץ ולעפר תשוקתו‬
clay, whose desire is for the dust

B. What can clay, and one formed by hand ‫ מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד‬.B
reply?

A. And what counsel shall he understand? ‫ ולעצת מה יבין‬.A

This emphasis is also present in the Hodayot. Indeed, some of the language
in this closing text appears again in certain hymns. The futility of trying to

57 For this translation of ‫ ׄמדור‬see, PTSDSSP 1:51, esp. n. 303.

58 Charlesworth and Qimron translate ‫מצירוק‬ ׄ as “discharge” taken partly from Mishnaic
Hebrew where “spit” (‫ )רוק‬is a euphemism for “semen” (e.g., b. Nidd 16b) and ‫מצי‬ ׄ , which
“is a contraction of the Hiphil participle of the root yṣ’, written defectiva …, and meaning
‘coming forth,’” PTSDSSP 1:51, n. 305.
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 251

understand God’s work reverberates through the Hodayot with similar rheto-
ric: “And so, what is a person of nothingness and a possessor of vanity that
he should contemplate your wondrous deeds” (‫מעשי פלאך‬, 1QHa 15:35-36/‫מעשי‬
‫פלאך‬, cp. 1QS 11:20b). Elsewhere in the Hodayot one reads regarding the innate
uselessness of one born of a woman (‫ )ילוד אשה‬in contrast God’s own deeds:
“What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at awe-inducing works?” (‫ומה‬
‫בכול [ג] ֯ד[ו] ֯ל[י] ֯ך הנוראים‬
֯ ‫ילוד אשה‬, 5:31; see also 1QHa 23:12-14, 4QHb 14 1-3). The
speaker “born of a woman” is nothing but a “edifice of dust” (‫)מבנה עפר‬, “his
foundation is an obscene shame” ( ֯‫ )סודו ערות קלו֯ ן‬and “he is ruled by a per-
verted spirit” (‫)רוח נעוה משלה‬. HP and the Hodayot again parallel each other
by referring to the “kneaded edifice of dust” (‫מבנה עפר ומגבל‬, 5:32/‫הואה מעפר‬
‫מגבלו‬, 1QS 11:21). Furthermore, towards the closing of the hymns there is a refer-
ence to humanity’s dust-like condition59 which is described as a formation of
spit (1QHa 20:35, 23:28-29, 36, also 4QSongs of the Sageb 28 29 3). In both the
Hodayot and HP humanity’s innate condition is a by-product of having not
been enlightened by God’s spirit. Apparently, this is the permanent condition
suffered by those who exist outside of the yaḥad where the Rule texts and the
Hodayot originate. In both HP and the Hodayot there is some respite from this
condition through God’s righteousness and the giving of his spirit. Within the
context of 1QS, there is a clear end of this condition for those who belong to the
Community. Yet, like the Hodayot, the writer of HP acknowledges his own par-
ticipation in this vile lot, despite having been granted divine enlightenment.
His existence, sans the giving of wisdom, is utterly abject, a reflection of the
condition of all “wicked humanity” and “sinful flesh.”

7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “Fleshly” Condition

7.4.1 The Plight of “Flesh”

One of the consequences of being corporeal is the utilization of the noun “flesh”
(‫בשר‬, σὰρξ) to imply human sinfulness, vulnerability, or mortality. This idea
may stem from the various transgressions associated with humanity’s physical
nature.60 Ben Sira utilizes the unique term, “body of flesh” (σώματι σαρκὸς),
in order to portray the dangers posed by fornication to the physical self: two
sorts of men multiply sins, and a third incurs wrath; the soul heated like a
burning fire will not be quenched until it is consumed; a man who commits

59 See comments on “vessel of clay/dust” in this study’s section 3.5.

60 See Tigchelaar’s discussion on the various meanings of “‫ ” ָבּ ָשׂר‬in TWzQ 1:537-547.
252 7 A Predetermined Condition

fornication with his body of flesh61 will never cease until the fire burns him up;
to a fornicator all bread tastes sweet; he will never cease until he dies (23:16-17)62
The stanza here denounces lewd desires and adultery involving the flesh of
the body. As such it seems that being composed of “flesh” implies a consider-
able moral weakness. In regard to the dangers of loving money, T. Jud. attri-
butes a considerable amount of weakness, sin, and repentance, to the “flesh.”

61 Skehan and Di Lella render ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ as “with his own kindred,” Ben Sira,
319, implying that the stich here is referring to incest. Unfortunately, there is no reason-
ing provided. Although no Hebrew version exists for these chapters, Skehan and Di Lella
may have based their translation on the possible Hebrew equivalent ‫( ְש ֵאר ְב ָשרֹו‬lit. “flesh
of his flesh;” see Lev 18:6, 25:49, CD 7:1, 8:6, 19:19, 4QDa 4 iv 4, 4QDd 6:2, 4QApocJer Cb,
A 2, 4Q477 2 ii 8), which is understood as next of kin or familial relation (such is inti-
mated in Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 324; also, Segal, Ben Sira, 141). Lev 18:6, in par-
ticular, deals with incest but the translation of the Hebrew terminology, at least, in the
LXX does not parallel the phraseology of Ben Sira. Finding the appropriate meaning
leads us to the Greek of 1Enoch. Various studies have shown the value of comparing Ben
Sira with 1 Enoch. For example, Karina Martin Hogan, “The Mortal Body and the Earth
in Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers,” in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of
Early Christian Personhood, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson, WUNT 284
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 21-39; Benjamin G. Wright, “Wisdom, Instruction, and
Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction, 147-163;
repr. from idem, Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor
of Michael E. Stone, ed. Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements, JSJSup 89
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), 105-21. 1Enoch may offer parameters for translating σώματι σαρκὸς.
The Greek fragments of the Epistle of Enoch utilizes the similar phrase τῷ σώματι τῆς
σαρκὸς ὑμῶν (“the body of your [pl.] flesh;” 102:5), Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 515. The text of
1Enoch is an exhortation to the righteous souls that they now have no need to worry even
though their bodies (i.e., their body of flesh) did not fare well in life because they lived in
a world of sinners; see Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 515. The focus on the physical nature of the
body seems to elucidate also how the NT uses this precise phraseology (Col 1-2). For this
reason, we have opted to utilize the more literal translation. It suggests that the text is
speaking against those lewd acts committed with one’s physical body and not incest. See
Eibert Tigchelaar’s note on ‫ גוית בשרם‬in “‫”בשר‬, TWzQ 1:541.
62 Ben Sira employs numerical proverbs which abound in biblical literature, Skehan and
Di Lella, Ben Sira, 324). See also, Guiseppe Bellia, “An Historico-Anthropological Reading
of the Work of Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 53. Additionally, Büchler has noted,
“It is almost exclusively the relations of man to man that govern Sirach’s conception of
sin; and such offences are, at the same time, sins against God, while man’s transgressions
against God alone are mentioned only very rarely,” A. Büchler, “Ben Sira’s Conception of
Sin and Atonement” JQR 14/1 (Jul. 1923): 83. The Apostle Paul uses similar language to
refer to the work of Christ on behalf of the people in Collosae. Essentially, Jesus is said
to have become a “body of flesh” (τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς) to free humanity, specifically the
community he writes to, from the sinful condition of that flesh (Col 1-2).
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 253

On account of money I utterly lost my children, and had it not been for the peni-
tence of my flesh (καὶ εἰ μὴ ἡ μετάνοια σαρκός μου63), the humility of my soul, and
the prayers of my father, Jacob, I would have met death childless … The prince of
error blinded me, and I was ignorant—as a human being, as flesh, in my corrupt
sins (ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὡς σὰρξ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις φθαρείς)—until I learned of my own
weakness after supposing myself to be invincible (19:2-4).

From there one notes a further abstraction of “flesh,” which moves beyond
referencing the transgressions caused by the human body to a metaphorical
catchall for sinfulness, in particular, transgressions that are caused through a
lack of knowledge.64 Two phrases that express reality, “sin of flesh” (‫)עוון בשר‬
and “unjust flesh” (‫)בשר עול‬, also appear in the Serekh’s HP (1QS 10:9-11:22).
In regard to HP, which is examined above, sin is attributed to both human
physicality65 and a lack of having understanding. The speaker who bears these
shared characteristics also belongs to “wicked humanity” (‫ )אדם רשעה‬and his
penchant to sin is also in line with the rest of humanity—a proclivity that
is innate. Despite being a member of the chosen community, and having

63 Greek text, Jonge, The Testaments, 73.

64 In the regard, Pauline texts have gained a great deal of attention in this regard: e.g.,
Egon Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968); Frey, “Flesh and Spirit,” 371-4; idem, “Die
paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist,” ZNW 90/1 (1999): 45-48; idem, “The Notion
of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical,
and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the International
Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed.
Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35 (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 197-226; also Robert Jewett’s survey of the history of scholarship on Paul’s use
of “flesh” (σὰρξ) in Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings
(Leiden: Brill, 1971), 49-94.
65 Brand, Evil Within and Without, 70. Brand duly notes the difference between the portrayal
of sin envisioned by the Community Rule here and in the Hodayot. In the Rule the speak-
er does not have communion with the angels, he belongs to the counsel of worms, and
must face the chance of sinning in the future. It is fitting at this point to make a brief note
about the term ‫( גויה‬body) in the scrolls. On several occasions the term indicates a corpse
(4QMusar le-Mevind 127 3, 167 a + b 6, 4Q169 34 ii 4, 6, 4Q225 3 ii 2). On other occasions it
is employed to speak to a person’s physical nature, specifically that part which is vulner-
able to illness and disease (1QpHab 9:1-2; 4QMusar le-Mevinb 2 ii 18). Thus, it appears that
this terminology refers simply to the vulnerable physical nature of an individual but does
not carry the spiritual/physical dynamic that ‫ בשר‬does in the Qumran-specific material.
Additionally, Ben Sira attests the same semantic range with σῶμά. Although wherever a
Hebrew parallel exists, the Greek appears to be translating ‫( שאר‬and on two occasions,
‫)בשר‬. Yet, when Ben Sira utilizes this terminology, he focuses in solely on the physical na-
ture of an individual: as a corpse (38:16, 41:11, 44:14, 48:13), bodily health (30:14-17); physical
body (“daughters,” 7:24; “fornication,” 23:16; 47:19), and salvation from destruction (51:2).
254 7 A Predetermined Condition

wisdom revealed to him that is otherwise hidden from “fleshly counsel” (‫סוד‬
‫בשר‬, cf. also 4Q511 26 1), it seems that the speaker in the Serekh text continues
to sin.66 What saves him is a dependence on God to stop the cycle. So also,
“unjust flesh” (‫ )עוון בשר‬is the lot of the speaker, whose only hope is that God
has established his footing and set his path (1QHa 15:40; par. 4Q428 10:4). The
stark difference with the rest of humanity is that, while they share the same
debased, “fleshly” condition, the rest lack God’s sublimely determined revela-
tion, forgiveness, and mercy.67 This type of sinfulness—stemming from a lack
of understanding—is especially present in the ‫רוח‬/‫ בשר‬interplay preserved in
certain Musar le-Mevin texts and the Hodayot. It does not express corporeal
human life necessarily but rather the component which is susceptible to vari-
ous forms of transgression.

7.4.2 The “Fleshly” Condition in Musar le-Mevin

Dated to the 2nd c. BCE, the majority of the Musar le-Mevin manuscripts
from Qumran were discovered in Cave 4 (4Q415-418, 4Q418a, 4Q423), with one

66 At least there is possibility that he will: “And If through sin of flesh I stumble” (‫בשר ואם‬
‫)אכשול בעוון‬.
67 In fact, the great eschatological battle as depicted in the War Scroll is said to be against
this lot of humanity, “God is the power of war against all unjust flesh” (‫אל יד מלחמה בכול‬
‫ בשר עול‬1QM 4:3). Undoubtedly, those chosen, and part of the covenantal community
will in the end not belong to this lot, so the collective term here reflects everyone else (see
below). Moreover, ‫ עוון בשר‬appears again in the 1QHa 15:40 (par. 4Q428 10 4). It should
also be noted that in the messianic banquet described in the Rule of the Congregation
(1QSa) requires such an absolute physical purity that normal human maladies will ex-
clude these afflicted individuals from it, cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Eschatological
Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation, SBLMS 38
(Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 37-53. See e.g., 1QS 2:4-6, “… No man with a physical handicap—
crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or possessed of a visible blemish
in his flesh, or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation may en[ter]
to take a place in the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation” (‫או ידים פסח או עור או‬
‫בבשרו לראות עינים או איש זקן וכול מנוגע בבשרו נכאה ֯ר ֯ג ׄלי֯ ם‬ׄ ‫חרש או אלם או מום מנוגע‬
‫)כושל לבלתי התחזק בתוך העדה אל יב[ואו ]אלה להתיצב [ב] ׄתו֯ ך עדת ׄא[נ]ושי השם‬. The
same idea is paralleled in the makeup of those who will participate in the final eschato-
logical battle. 1QM 7:3-5: “… No youth nor woman shall enter their encampments from the
time they leave from Jerusalem to go to battle until their return. No one crippled, blind or
lame, nor a man who has a permanent blemish on his skin, or a man affected with ritual
uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go with them to battle. All of them shall be
volunteers for battle, pure of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the day of vengeance”
(‫וכול נער זעטוט ואשה לוא יבואו למחנותם בצאתם מירושלים ללכת למלחמה עד שובם וכול‬
‫פסח או עור או חגר או איש אשר מום עולם בבשרו או איש מנוגע בטמאת בשרו כול אלה‬
‫לוא ילכו אתם למלחמה כולם יהיו אנשי נדבת מלחמה ותמימי רוח ובשר ועתודים ליום נקם‬,
DSSSE 1:124).
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 255

manuscript discovered in Cave 1 (1Q26).68 Formerly known as Sapiental Work

A,69 Musar le-Mevin, also known as 4QInstruction and 1QInstruction, is the
longest sapiential work among the Dead Sea Scrolls.70 Much of what can be
read from the seven identified manuscripts is “explicitly pedagogical,” though
it also incorporates cosmological and eschatological ideas.71 This instruction is
primarily directed towards the ‫( מבין‬mevin), the “understanding one.” The por-
tion of the text that is most germane to our study is the portrayal of the human
condition as “spirit of flesh” (‫ )רוח בשר‬and its relationship ‘m ‘m rwḥ (‫עם עם‬
‫ )רוח‬in getting, or being given, access to the “Vision of Meditation,” otherwise
known as the “Vision of Hagu ( ֯‫הגוי‬
ׄ ‫)חזון ֯ה‬.”72 The two texts which legibly pre-
serve ‫ רוח בשר‬are 4Q417 1 i 13-18 (par. 4Q418 43) and 4Q418 81 + 81a 2.

7.4.2.1 4Q417 1 i 13-18 ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫רוח בשר‬

The context prior to 4Q417 1 i 1-13a portrays what Goff describes as two separate
sections, “Lines 1-5, the worst preserved section, describe the vast knowledge
that can be acquired through the mystery that is to be—the past, the present,
and the future, using a tripartite division of time. Lines 6-13 also provide an

68 Eibert Tigchelaar notes that these identified manuscripts are made up of 425 fragments,
“The Addressees of 4QInstruction,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from
Qumran, 62-63. See also Matthew J. Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 10-11.
69 See John Strugnell’s and Daniel Harrington’s discussion in “Instruction,” in John Strugnell,
Daniel J. Harrington and Torleif Elgvin, ed., in consultation with J. A. Fitzmyer, Qumran
Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction (Musar le-Mevin): 4Q415 ff. With a reedition of 1Q26, DJD
XXXIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 3. See also the history of research on this text as
surveyed by Jean-Sébastian Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatologie, STDJ 81 (Leiden:
Brill, 2009),1-2, 9-11; Eibert Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones:
Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction,
STDJ 44 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 3-27.
70 Daniel J. Harrington, “Recent Study of 4QInstruction,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection:
Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech, ed. Florentino García Martínez,
Annette Steudel, Eibert Tigchelaar, STDJ 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 105; Matthew Goff,
4QInstruction, WLAW 2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 1.
71 Matthew Goff, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of
Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body, Christian Self, 42;
rev. from “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul,”
in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, 114-25. See also DJD XXXIV, 3; Goff,
Discerning Wisdom, 9-12; idem, 4QInstruction, 12-16.
72 D JD XXXIV, 151-2. See par. 4Q418 43 45 i 12. There have been various transcriptions of
‫ההגוי‬. More recently, Goff, following Tigchelaar, Puech, and Rey, has opted for ‫ההגות‬,
4QInstruction, 141. Since the transcription is not largely relevant to our discussion we have
opted for the transcription of the official publication.
256 7 A Predetermined Condition

impression of what one can learn by means of the ‫רז נהיה‬.”73 While scholars
have debated as to the translation of rz nhyh (‫)רז נהיה‬, it is clearly a divine rev-
elation of God’s deterministic plan of history—past, present, and future—to
the ‫מבין‬.74 Its purpose is that the mevin might know “truth and evil, wisdom,
[and falsehood …]” (‫ ;אמת ועול חכמה [ואול] ׄת‬1 i 6-7, cp. 4Q418 43 45 i 4) and he/
she may live (‫להתהלך‬, 10) by this understanding. Thus, the revelation locates
the mevin’s condition in contrast to those outside of his/her circle. It is the
third section of this fragment that depicts aspects regarding creation and an
understanding of human nature. Yet, this is also precisely where scholars are
divided.

4Q417 1 i 13-18 (with 4Q418 43)75

ׄ ׄ‫ ו‬.13
‫את ֯ה‬
‫דה‬
֯ ‫הפקו‬
ׄ ׄ ‫]בא ֯ח ֯ר ׄו ׄת החוק}כה{ ו֯ חקוק‬
‫כול‬ 76[°‫רוש פעלתכה בזכרון ׄה‬ ׄ ‫מבין‬‎ .14‫‏‬
‫] בני שית וספר זכרון כתוב לפניו‬  [°°‫כי חרות מחוקק לאל על כול ע‬‎ .15‫‏‬
‫הגוי֯ ֯לספר זכרון וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו֯ לאנוש עם עם רוח ֯כ[י] ֯א‬ ׄ ‫לשמרי דברו‬‎ .16‫‏‬
ׄ ‫והואה חזון ֯ה‬
‫הגו ׄי לרוח בשר כי לא ידע בין‬ ׄ ‫כתבנית קדושים יצרו ועוד לוא נתן‬‎ .17‫‏‬
…[‫וחו‬
ׄ ]‫[טו] ׄב לרע כמשפט [ר‬‎ .18‫‏‬

13. and you

14. understanding one inherit your reward in remembrance of the ha[ ] it comes.
Engraved is the statute and ordained is all the punishment
15. because engraved is that which is ordained by God against all the in[iq]uit[ie]s of
sons of Sheth.77 And the book of remembrance is written before him

73 Goff, 4QInstruction, 142.

74 See Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 56-59; Torleif Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come:
Early Essene Theology of Revelation,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments,
ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 131-9; Goff, “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction,” DSD 10/2
(2003): 165-70; idem, 4QInstruction, 144-6. Cana Werman, What is the Book of Hagu?,”
in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20-22 May, 2001, ed. John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling,
Ruth A. Clements, STDJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 140.
75 D JD XXXIV, 151-2.
76 Strugnell and Harrington restore this break [ ‫ ׄה ֯ש[לום כי‬, noting that the concept fits
nicely but would otherwise be a tight fit in the available space, DJD XXXIV, 161. Since the
reconstruction of this lacuna varies, Goff, 4QInstruction, 140, we have opted to omit the
reconstruction. See also Wold, “The Universality of Creation,” 219.
77 Goff notes that that the spelling “Sheth,” rather than “Seth”—a figure that gains a good
deal of positive prominence in the Second Temple period—is due to the adaption of lan-
guage from Num 24:17 and the judgment that the sons of Sheth face. He notes further,
“The tribe mentioned in that verse is obscure, but the proclamation of their destruction is
explicit. In early Jewish literature the verse is utilized as a proof text for the assertion that
God will destroy the wicked,” 4QInstruction, 158, see esp. n. 58. See also, DJD XXXIV, 163.
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 257

16. for the ones who keep his word—that is, the vision of meditation of the book or
remembrance. He bequeathed it to ‘nsh ‘m ‘m rwḥ be[cau]se
17. according to the likeness of the holy ones he formed it (or him). Furthermore, he
did not give what is meditated upon to the rwḥ bsr, for it did not know between
18. [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit.

The text above largely follows Goff’s translation but we have left three im-
portant phrases untranslated: ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫רוח בשר‬.78 Understanding
these terms represents an open disagreement among scholars in regard to
this text’s general anthropology. In particular, these terms indicate whether or
not0 4Q417 1 intends to depict an ontological division among humankind—a
“spiritual” and “fleshly” humanity. The former is given access to the “Vision of
Meditation” and the latter is denied it. As Wold notes, it “is crucial to under-
standing whether all of humanity or only a specific group is revealed wisdom.”79
Consequently, defining the human condition in this text also shifts if only an
elect group is given access to this wisdom.

7.4.2.1.1 Tracing the Difficulties

The original editors, Harrington and Strugnell, already understood some of the
challenges with the aforementioned terms, especially ‫אנוש‬.80 Lange later ar-
gues that ‫ אנוש‬should be read as the patriarch, Enosh (cp. Gen 4:25, 5), while
Collins is of the opinion that it carries the sense of Adam.81 Goff argues that

78 Goff, 4QInstruction, 139; idem, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 80-116.
79 Benjamin Wold, “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction,” RQ, 102/1 (2013): 214;
idem, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and its
Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions, WUNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),
138-41. For a bibliography of the studies on this periscope, Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual
People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’: Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1
Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino
García Martínez, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 103-4.
80 D JD XXXIV, 163-5.
81 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 87-88; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age,
121-5; idem, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom
Text from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and
Eugene Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 610-2. See also Jörg Frey who suggests that
enosh is representative of the biblical figure and the humanity, “Flesh and Spirit in the
Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the
Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development
of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Herman Licthenberger,
BETL 159 (Leuven University Press; Leuven, 2002), 393; idem, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in
4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical
Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for
258 7 A Predetermined Condition

it cannot refer to humanity since it would disrupt the presumed logic of lines
16-17, that is, in line 16, humanity receives the “vision of meditation,” and in line
17 the “the fleshly spirit” is denied it.82 Goff’s reading, of course, assumes an
ontological division among humanity. These differing interpretations of ‫אנוש‬
are in some ways related to how ‫ בני שות‬in line 15 should be read. If referenc-
ing the “sons of Seth,” the biblical patriarch of Gen 4-5, then ‫אנוש‬, as “Enosh,”
seems reasonable. Yet, Goff rightly notes that rather than associating the nega-
tive portrayal here with the sons of the biblical Seth, it should be related to the
ֵ ֵ‫“( ְבּנ‬sons of Sheth”), a Moabite tribe mentioned in Num 24:17.83
‫י־שׁת‬
Regarding the anthropology of the Musar text, both Lange and Collins agree
that two types of humanity are depicted here. This duality is substantiated
with a presumed creational division between the ‫עם רוח‬, the so-called “spiritu-
al people,” and ‫רוח בשר‬, the “fleshly spirit.” Collins posits that what is reflected
here is akin to creation narratives of Gen 1 and 2. ‫ אנוש‬and the ‫ עם רוח‬are cre-
ated in the likeness of the “holy ones” (‫ )קדושים‬in order to distinguish them
from the creation of the “spirit of flesh” or the “fleshly spirit.”84 Goff argues,
“The spiritual people signify the elect, who are like the angels and possess ac-
cess to revelation. The fleshly spirit represents the non-elect; they are denied
revelation.”85 In terms of humanity, Lange notes that—‫ עם רוח‬understood in
antithesis to—‫ רוח בשר‬is a spiritually positive human group that is somehow
associated with Enosh or angelic beings (Volk himmlischer Geister).86 On the
other hand, Jean-Sébastien Rey notes that the meditation of history brings to
humanity (l’homme) an understanding of good and evil.87 Rey is perhaps the

the Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel Falk,
Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 35 (Leiden, Brill 2000), 218-9;
also, “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische
Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90/1-2 (Jan. 1999): 63.
82 Goff, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1-3
in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians,” in Christian Body and Christian, 46; idem,
Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden:
Brill, 2007) 34-36; 4Qinstruction, 162-3.
83 D JD XXXIV, 163; idem, 4QInstruction, 157; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 30-31; Wold,
“Universality of Creation,” 5.
84 Collins, “In the Likeness,” 615-6.
85 Goff, 4QInstruction, 168.
86 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 88. See also Frey, “Flesh and Spirit,” 393; idem, “The
Notion of ‘Flesh,’” 218-9.
87  Jean-Sébastien Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology, STDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009),
304. See also Émile Puech, “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques et Sapientiels de Qumrân
à l’Eschatologie du Judaïsme Ancien,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García Martínez, BETL 168 (Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 2003), 138.
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 259

first to note that the “vision of mediation” is given “to humanity” (l’homme) in
general rather than to a particular portion thereof. More recently, Goff notes,
“4QInstruction posits two opposed types of humankind, one associated with
spirit and the other with flesh, and grounds this dichotomy in the language of
Gen 1-3,” an approach similar to that already suggested by John Collins et al.
He suggests that the “vision” is given to both Enosh, “an enigmatic term that
probably signifies Adam,” and denied to the those of the “fleshly spirit,” who as
a result of this denial do not possess the knowledge of good and evil.88
Wold parts ways with others like Goff and Collins, suggesting—contra in
particular Goff—that an ontological binary division between humanity is not
present in the text.89 He posits that understanding ‫ אנוש‬as “humanity,” rather
than “Adam” (à la Collins and Goff), indicates that Musar depicts a single cre-
ation. Furthermore, unlike, Collins, Goff, and Lange, Wold notes that the dis-
tinction between ‫ עם רוח‬and ‫“ רוח בשר‬is a delineation between a dualism at
the present time that was not part of primordial creation.”90 Two points are
particularly critical for Wold’s argument: 1) his reading—as per Cana Werman’s
understanding91—of the scribal emendation in line 16’s ‫ עם עם רוח‬as “with”
thereby rendering this phrase, “a people, with a spirit,” rather than “together
with a spiritual people,” and 2) understanding the phrase ‫ ועוד לוא‬as “and no
longer” which implies that at some point all of humanity had access to the
“Vision of Meditation.” Since some did not tend to wisdom, they are consid-
ered foolish and “a fleshly spirit,” having given into their weak condition.92
As to Wold’s reading of ‫ועוד לוא‬, Tigchelaar has recently suggested that his
reading of ‫ ועוד לוא‬has no grammatical basis, “A translation ‘no more’ might be
based on the poetic Job 24:20 ‫‘ עוד לא־יזכר‬he is no more remembered,’ but we

88 Goff, 4QInstruction, 18; idem, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 94-100.
89 Wold, “The Universality of Creation,” 225-6; idem, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran
Wisdom Document Musar le-Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions,
WUNT 2 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 135-7; idem, 4Qinstruction: Divisions and
Hierarchies, STDJ 123 (Leiden: Brill 2018), 142-3.
90 Wold, Women, Men, and Angels, 139-40.
91 Werman, “What is the Book of Hagu?,” 125-40. It may be that Werman’s understanding
would stand even without the supralineal emendation ‫( עם‬i.e., ‫“ = לאנוש עם רוח‬to Enosh
[humanity] with a spirit”), which is by no means a certain reading. Indeed, this scribal
emendation, which is read by the original editors as ‫עם‬, is not certain, especially since the
upper right ligature of the ‘ayin looks more like an ’aleph than it does an ‘ayin. Perhaps,
however, the scribal addition may be in the hand of someone other than the original
scribe. That said, there seems to be no better alternative reading.
92 See Puech’s discussion in “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques,” 137-9.
260 7 A Predetermined Condition

have no single example of ‫ ועוד לוא‬with either perfect or participle.”93 Before

unraveling these knots, it is worth examining some parallels in another Musar
text.

7.4.2.1.2 A Parallel in Musar le-Mevind (4Q418 81 + 81a 1-20)

One other Musar text, 4Q418 81+81a 1-20, is relevant to understanding 4Q417 1.
As Goff notes, “The overall goal of 4Q418 81 is to help the mevin understand
that he is different from the rest of humankind because God has given him
elect status. This theme is the main focus of the first fourteen lines of the
column.”94 A couple of things are important here. First, the mevin is told to
bless the “holy ones” (‫)קדושים‬, a term—referring to angelic beings—that ap-
pears twice here and in 4Q417 (as well as its parallel 4Q418 43 45 i 3). Second,
is the critical statement that the mevin has been “separated” (‫ )הבדיל‬from the
“fleshly spirit” (‫)רוח בשר‬, “He has caused you to be separate from every fleshly
spirit, so that you would be separate from everything that he hates” (‫הבדילכה‬
‫בכול רוח בשר ואתה הבדל מכול אשר שנא‬, 1-2). In what remains of 4Q418 81 + 81a,
it does not explicitly refer to how God “separates” the mevin from the “fleshly
spirit,” or whether that separation is ontological. The more reasonable sugges-
tion, as will be shown, is that the mevin is separated by the endowment of a
God-given spirit or being part of the “a people with a spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬. What
is important to note at this juncture is that the “fleshly spirit” represents, in
part, “every abomination of the soul” (‫נפ ֯ש‬֯ ‫כול תעבות‬, 2), “all that God hates”
(‫)כול אשר שנא‬, and an utter lack of knowledge. The elect mevin is then com-
manded to stay away from these things, watching over his gifted inheritance
and the knowledge that has been opened (‫ )פתח‬to him (cf. 3-12).

7.4.2.1.3 Unraveling Some of the 4Q417 1 i Knots

Returning to Wold’s argument, he is correct that ‫ ועוד לוא‬is important to un-
derstanding the meaning of our small fragment, I disagree with his reading—
and not because, as Tigchelaar has noted, it has no grammatical basis.95
Tigchelaar’s reference to ‫ עוד לא‬in Job is not precisely parallel to ‫ועוד לוא‬. In
fact, the evidence for ‫ ועוד לוא‬in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple texts is
non-existent;96 in neither corpora is there a single example of ‫ ועוד לוא‬outside

93 Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation:’ Reflections
on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New
Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 113, n. 41.
94 Goff, 4QInstruction, 243.
95 Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’” 113, n. 41.
96 Wold notes that there are seven occasion in the Hebrew Bible where the phrase ‫לוא‬
and ‫ ועוד‬appear in the same passage (Gen 17:5; Deut 18:16; 2 Sam 7:10; Is 47:8; Jer 23:4;
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 261

of 4Q417 (and, perhaps, its reconstructed parallel in 4Q418 43 45 i 13). There are
a limited number of examples of ‫]ו[לא עוד‬, which might better offer the trans-
lation “no longer” (e.g., 1Q20 0:15, 4Q538 1 2 5)97 or, as the original editors trans-
lated ‫ועוד לוא‬, “no more.” If “no longer” then, as Wold argues, ‫ רוח בשר‬was given
access to the “Vision of Meditation” at some undefined point and then denied
it.98 These renderings are problematic, however, since they do not take enough
stock of the fact that ‫ עוד‬appears prior to ‫לוא‬, or that ‫ ו‬signals the beginning of
a new informative clause. Moreover, the ‫ ו‬distinguishes it from Tigchelaaar’s
one biblical example and, as noted, makes it unique among Second Temple
texts. While occurrences of ‫ ועוד לוא‬are utterly lacking in the Hebrew Bible
and Second Temple texts, there are a large number of examples of ‫ ועוד לוא‬in
Rabbinic literature, which render ‫“ ועוד‬furthermore” or “moreover,” while ‫לוא‬
generally negates the following verb (e.g., Mek. R. Ish., Shir 4).99 So, ‫ועוד לוא‬
should be read separately (‫לוא נתן‬, ‫ )ועוד‬and not as a standalone phrase. Thus,
we suggest translating ‫ועוד לוא נתן‬: “and furthermore, it was not given,” imply-
ing that 4Q417 is providing additional, more specified information that there
was a group of people that were not given access to this special revelation.
It appears then that the structure of lines 16-18 envisions two opposing
camps of humanity, though for the moment, let us leave to the side whether
that opposition is ontological. First, the overwhelming evidence seems to sug-
gest that ‫ אנוש‬is a reference to humanity, or as a metaphor for it, and neither

Job 24:20; 1 Chron 17:9). These examples are not precise, however. ‫ ועוד‬and ‫ לא‬do not ap-
pear in collocation in the Hebrew Bible.
97 See also Jastrow for the some of the examples of ‫ ולא עוד‬for “no longer,” 1048.
98 See Wold, 4QInstruction, 107-8.
99 Examples of ‫ ועוד לוא‬begin to occur more frequently in aggadic midrashim and in the
Yerushalmi, specifically. While the examples are significantly late in the history of the
development of Hebrew, they offer additional evidence to translate ‫ ועוד לוא‬in Musar le-
Mevin as “furthermore, not” or “moreover, not.” For example, one occurrence of ‫ועוד לוא‬
appears in Shemot Rabbah in an interpretation of Exod 4:21, “And the Lord said to Moses,
‘When you return to Egypt, see [that you do] all of the miracles which I have placed in
your hand, and do them before Pharaoh, and I will strengthen his heart, so that he will
not let the people go’—to which of the wonders did he refer? Should you should say to the
serpent, and the leprosy, and the blood, well, did God not tell him to do these wonders only
before Israel? Furthermore, we do not find that Moses performed these before Pharaoh (‫והלא‬
‫אותן נסים לא אמר לו הקב”ה לעשות אלא לישראל ועוד לא מצינו שעשה משה אותן לפני‬
‫)פרעה‬. While there is another example in the midrash that conveys the sense, “no longer”
(cp. Shem Rabb. 10:6), the alternate sense, “furthermore” or “moreover” is significant (see
also, b. Yoma 23b, b. Zev 55a). There seems to also be a minimal amount of examples where
‫ ועוד לוא‬means “and again, not + verb,” for example, the Yerushalmi reads, “Two Amoras:
One said, “He threw them upward, and they did not come down again” (‫ועוד לא ירדו‬,
y. Sheq. 6b) Bar Ilan University: Online Responsa Project, http://www.responsa.co.il/
default.aspx.
262 7 A Predetermined Condition

a single person nor the biblical patriarch Enosh is intimated. Indeed, there is
almost no references to “Enosh,” the biblical character, in texts that are not
specifically rewriting Genesis (cf. 11Q12 2:1, see Jub 4:13).100 We also disagree
that ‫ אנוש‬is somehow a reference to biblical Adam, apart from, perhaps, as
a metaphor for collective humanity.101 As Wold notes, humanity is the “most
reasonable” translation for ‫אנוש‬.102 Second, I am inclined to accept Werman’s
translation of ‫ עם עם רוח‬as “a people with a spirit,” rather than “together with
a spiritual people.”103 This reading clarifies any apparent contradiction noted
by Goff.104 Furthermore, any apparent contradiction is better dealt with if ‫אנוש‬
is intended, not to depict humanity in toto, but rather a specific elect portion
of it. That is to say that 4Q417 1 is clarifying those that receive access to the “vi-
sion.” Most commentators have noted that the ‫ מבין‬has a special “elect” status
that the wicked, non-elect lack. In other words, the line ‫וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו֯ לאנוש עם עם‬
‫ רוח‬is intended to be read “and he bequeathed to elect humanity, [that is], a
people with a spirit [i.e., God’s spirit].” One finds the use of a common noun
that refers indefinitely to a human being in order to distinguish God’s elect in
the Hodayot, “… you have allotted to a person an eternal lot with the spirits of
knowledge, to praise your name with shouts of joy, and to recount your won-
ders before all your creatures” (‫ותפל לאיש גורל עולם עם רוחות דעת להלל שמכה‬
‫ביחד רנ֯ ֯ה ולספר נפלאותיכה לנגד כול מעשיכה‬, 1QHa 11:23-24). ‫ איש‬is clearly not
representative of collective humanity but rather those, who like the hymnist,
are raised to eternal heights (‫העליתני לרום עולם‬, 21) and allowed to commune
somehow with angelic beings (‫בני שמים‬, “sons of heaven,” 23). Therefore, ‫לאנוש‬
‫ עם עם רוח‬is intended to be read as delineating the elect.

7.4.2.1.4 “Fleshly Spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬in the Hodayot and the “People with a
Spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬
The occurrence of “fleshly spirit” (‫ )רוח בשר‬in the Hodayot indicates that the
sectarian hymns may offer further insight into the Musar texts examined here.

100 Steven Fraade notes that rabbinic exegesis was far more interested in the “Generations of
Enosh” than Enosh, “Enosh and His Generations Revisited,” in Biblical Figures Outside of
the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (Harrisburg; Trinity International
Press, 1989), 80-83; idem, Enoch and His Generations: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in
Post-Biblical, SBLMS (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984).
101 Pace Collins, “In the Likeness,” 610-2; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 33-34; idem, “Adam, the
Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,”
in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef Zsengeller, JSJSup 142
(Leiden: Brill, 2010) 14-15; Goff, 4QInstruction, 162-4.
102 Wold, Women, Men, and Angels, 139.
103 Werman, “What is ‘the Book of Hagu?’ 137.
104 Goff, “Anthropological Reflection,” 45-46; Discerning Wisdom, 34-35; 4QInstruction, 162-3.
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 263

Indeed, in the sectarian hymns ‫ רוח בשר‬is a negative starting point for all of
humanity:105 “[…] the spirit of flesh (‫ )רוח בשר‬that it might understand all these
things and to understand bs […] great. And what is one born of a women (‫ילוד‬
‫אישה‬, i.e., general humanity) among your great and fearful deeds. But he is
an edifice of dust and kneaded by water …” (1QHa 5:15-16).106 The ‫ רוח בשר‬is
pictured in opposition to the gaining of knowledge. This reality is true of the
hymnist as well, “[… th]eir dominion (i.e., wicked spirits) is within my innards,
for your servant has a fleshly spirit” ( ‫בש ֯ר ֯עבדך‬
֯ ‫‏כי רוח‬, 4:37). Yet, it is precisely in
the Hodayot, specifically col. 4, that the hymnist refers to that which separates
the author from humanity’s lowly existence, “[blessed are you, God most high,
for] you have spread your holy spirit on your servant” (‫קודשך על‬ ֯ ‫ניפותה רוח‬
֯ ‫֯ה‬
‫עבדך‬
֯ ; 4:40). This “fleshly spirit” is viewed in contrast to the knowledge-giving,
holy spirit which purifies and enlightens the hodayah’s hymnist. This spirit is
given at some point, but is not given at creation, since ‫ רוח בשר‬is juxtaposed
with the rhetorical ‫ילוד אישה‬. In that sense, both phrases speak to humanity’s
innate contemptibility. Although the hymn breaks off and an explanation of a
“holy spirit” (‫ )רוח קודש‬is lacking, elsewhere the ‫ רוח קודש‬is thought to bring
“understanding” to the hymnist,

And as for me, I know the understanding that comes from you for through your
goodwill toward a p[e]rson you mult[iply his portion] on your holy spirit. Thus
you draw him closer to your understanding (‫לבינת ֯ך‬
֯ ‫) ֯ב ֯רו֯ ח קודשך וכן תגישנו‬. And
according to his closeness, so is his zeal against all evildoers and people of de-
ceit. For all who are near to you do not rebel against your command, and all who
know you do not pervert your words (6:23-26, see also 1QS 4:21).

It is God’s ‫ רוח קודש‬which gives the hymnist a knowledge that allows the per-
son to steer clear of the wicked and be faithfully obedient. While it is not ex-
plicitly referenced in this hodayah, it seems to reflect the hymnist’s reality as
well; God’s ‫ רוח קודש‬brings understanding and, consequently, obedience (cp.
also 8:25-30, 17:32, 20:15, 23:33). Moreover, and critical to 4Q417 1 i, the ‫רוח קודש‬
is sometimes referred to simply as ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot. There is no better ex-
ample than the hodayah in col. 20, “And I, the Instructor, I know you, my God, by
the spirit that you have placed in me (‫)ידעתיכה אלי ברוח ֯אשר נתתה בי‬. Faithfully
have I heeded your wondrous secret counsel. By your holy spirit you have
[o]pened up knowledge within me (‫לתוכי דעת‬ ֯ ‫ )ברוח קודשכה [פ]תחתה‬through
the mystery of your wisdom …” (20:14-16, see also 5:36). The ‫ רוח‬here is not

105 See Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 55.

106 Unless otherwise noted the English translation of the Hodayot here are the author’s.
Hebrew text is from DJD XL.
264 7 A Predetermined Condition

natural to the person, since throughout the hymns humanity’s innate spirit is
largely base and without value (see 5.2.4). Throughout the Hodayot it is clear
that God is in control of humanity’s spirits (e.g., 6:11-12), but the spirit which
gives the hymnist understanding is a later-given spirit107—it does not originate
with the person—and is eventually internalized (e.g., 4:29 [‫]רוחות‬, 5:36, 8:29,
20:15, 21:34). This spirit, in some cases, a ‫רוח קודש‬, is a necessary quality for the
hymnist and the members of the yaḥad to declare the works of God and fulfill
his commandments.108 Without this spirit there is no gift of knowledge and, if
parallel with 4Q417, there is no access to the “Vision of Meditation.”
Our examination of the ‫רוח‬/‫ רוח קודש‬in the Hodayot offers a framework
by which to understand ‫ רוח‬in ‫“( עם עם רוח‬a people with a spirit”),109 namely,
that it refers to a group of people who have received a later, God-given spir-
it, which brings understanding and obedience to the mevin and others like
him. Elsewhere, 4Q416 2 ii 6 warns the mevin against selling his ‫ רוח קודש‬for
money. In the same fragment it advocates for the mevin to “be a servant in
spirit” (‫ברוח‬
ׄ ‫היותכה עבד‬, 4Q416 2 ii 17-18). While the sample size is somewhat
limited, it seems that the Musar texts indicate that ‫ רוח‬and ‫ רוח קודש‬bring the
mevin wisdom. It is this group of humanity, ‫“ עם עם רוח‬a people with a [later,
God-given, or holy] spirit,” which have been given knowledge and understand-
ing of good and evil, which causes the mevin to meditate and know the mys-
teries of God. Our point here is not to draw too close a connection between
a conceptual world of Musar texts and Hodayot, but to note that the hymns
reflect an understanding of the revelation of knowledge, spoken within the
context of a (holy) spirit, and that these parallels to Musar le-Mevin cannot be
ignored.110 In this particular case, the hymns offer how one might understand

107 Lichtenberger notes that “knowledge,” which is limited through one’s “flesh,” is canceled
by the gift of the divine spirit, Studien, 91.
108 See Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit,” 349-50.
109 While, it is largely agreed that Musar le-Mevin is not a sectarian text “since it contains
none of the distinctively sectarian elements and organizational features….,” overlaps in
language with sectarian texts might offer insight into an otherwise fragmentary text. In
light of its apparent view of humanity, as Wold has more carefully noted, “While Musar
le-Mevin divides humanity into two basic categories and uses language at times found in
wide cross-sections of early Jewish literature including documents from Qumran, such
factors do not warrant the claim that the document has an Essene provenance or was
later interpolated by an Essene group,” Women, Men, and Angels, 20.
110 This is not the place to note the differences between these two texts, but Wold notes,
“4QInstruction may be exerting influence on the hymns, but the hymns do not share
the same view of humankind, election, or determinism. If the hymns are familiar with
4QInstruction then changes occur in regard to accessing wisdom; there is a shift from all
Israel to a narrow, elect group. In the hymns not only is revelation disclosed, but also the
psalmist is in an extraordinary position of authority. The theological shifts in the hymns
7.4 Musar le-Mevin and the “ Fleshly ” Condition 265

the so-called “spiritual people” of 4Q417, as well as the use of ‫רוח בשר‬. Simply,
the ‫ רוח בשר‬indicates a lack of access to enlightenment, while the “people with
a spirit” embody this God-given spirit that offers access to wisdom.111

7.4.2.1.5 Structural Parallel in 4Q417 1

The structural use of the particle ‫( כי‬also, ‫ ) ֯כ[י] ֯א‬in 4Q417 1 offers some addi-
tional insight for interpreting the anthropology of this Musar text. It suggests
that one portion of humanity is given access to the vision as an inheritance
“because according to the form of the holy ones is its fashioning” or “inclina-
tion” (‫) ֯כ[י] ֯א כתבנית קדושים יצרו‬, and an other “because it did not know be-
tween good and evil according the judgment of its spirit” (‫כי לא ידע בין [טו] ׄב‬
‫)לרע כמשפט [ר]וחו‬. As to the former, Collins has already rightly noted, as Lange
did previously,112 that ‫ קדושים‬is an unambiguous reference to angelical figures,
as well as bearing a distinct connection to the later rabbinic interpretations of
Genesis’ creation narratives.113 To the latter, this portion of humanity seems
to stumble by its own misjudging spirit (18). Thus, the fleshly spirit is denied
access to the vision because its innate spirit is unable to provide a discerning
knowledge between good and evil. The larger structure of lines 16-18 are an
intentional juxtapositioning between both camps.

Structural Parallel of 4Q417 1 i 16-18

Rationale for Giving To Whom it is Given The Giving/Not Giving

‫֯כ[י] ֯א כתבנית קדושים יצרו‬ ‫לאנוש עם עם רוח‬ ֯‫ וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו‬.A
‫ ועוד‬.B
‫כי לא ידע בין [טו] ׄב לרע‬ ‫לרוח בשר‬ ׄ ‫ לוא נתן‬.A1
‫הגו ׄי‬
ׄ ]‫כמשפט [ר‬
‫וחו‬

match well with an evolution of a worldview that, because of discontent and marginaliza-
tion, seeks to limit and control access to revelation,” “‘Fleshly Spirit’ (‫ )רוח בשר‬and ‘Vessel
of Flesh’ (‫ )יצר בשר‬in 4QInstruction and the Thanksgiving Hymns,” in The Origins of the
Origins of Evil, ed. James Aitken, Hector Patmore, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi (forthcoming).
111 Goff, 4QInstruction, 156-8; idem, Discerning Wisdom, 32-36; idem, “Being Fleshly or
Spir­itual,” 45-48. See also Stefan Beyerle, “Dualismen und der Schöpfergott im antiken
Judentum,” in Dualismus Dämonologie, 122.
112 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 86.
113 Collins, “In the Likeness,” 614-5.
266 7 A Predetermined Condition

The Giving/Not Giving To Whom it is Given Rationale for Giving

A. And he bequeathed to humanity [that is] a because according to the

people with a [later-given form of the holy ones is it
or holy] spirit fashioning
B. Furthermore,
A1. he did not give Hagu to the fleshly spirit because it did not know
between good and evil ac-
cording to the judgment of
its spirit

First, the use of ‫ אנוש‬in the phrase ‫ לאנוש עם עם רוח‬intentionally informs the
reader who the “elect” ‫ אנוש‬are, namely, “And he bequeathed [i.e., the vision of
meditation] to elect humanity [that is], a people with a spirit.” Furthermore,
one should not read ‫ ועוד לוא‬as a distinct phrase but rather ‫ועוד‬, as “moreover,”
“furthermore,” or, even “additionally” and ‫ לוא‬in relation to the following verb.
The scribe then explicitly states that ‫ רוח בשר‬was not given “Hagu.” The “fleshly
spirit,” unlike the “people with a spirit”—who are formed according to the like-
ness of the Holy Ones—have a spirit that does not “know” (‫)ידע‬, or better said,
cannot know between good and evil. The ‫ רוח בשר‬must labor under the burden
of a perverse, unknowing spirit.

7.4.2.1.6 Is Humanity Divided Ontologically?

This study has yet to answer whether this human division is ontological. There
is no doubt that Collins is correct regarding the overt creation motifs present in
the text. Yet, the allusion to both Genesis creations is not necessarily an indica-
tion of an ontological division. The language which adapts Gen 1’s creation in
the divine image (i.e., 114 ‫ )תבנית קדושים‬and linguistically alludes to Gen 2 with
the verb ‫“( יצר‬to form”) appears in the portrayal of “the people with a spirit.”
The language suggested to allude to Gen 2, specifically “because, they did not
know between good and evil” (‫כי לא ידע בין‏ [טו] ׄב לרע‬, cf. Gen 2:9, 17),115 repre-
sents the “fleshly” spirit. Yet, one might expect the elements of Gen 1 and 2 to
be more neatly assigned to each realm of humanity if an ontological division
is intimated. That is to say, that creation in accord with the “holy ones” is rep-
resentative of the “people with a spirit,” while any reference to Gen 2 would be
the lot of the “fleshly.” Rather, the clear creation motifs may simply signal God’s

114 Collins argues that ‫ תבנית קדושים‬is a paraphrase of the ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬, Collins, “In the
Image,” 615-8. ‫ תבנית קדושים‬is more likely a subtle, yet critical, step away. See discussion
on Philo’s ideas on creation “according” to the “image” but not “in” the image of God, and
the lack of any such to the image of God in the Hodayot (3.2.1).
115 Goff, “Gen 1-3,” 46.
7.5 Conclusion 267

revelatory act towards a specific lot of humanity, on the one hand, and, on the
other, a denial without any implication to an ontology.
The denial is not unlike the Hodayot where God’s given (holy) spirit brings
the hymnist closer to wisdom. Furthermore, the Hodayot may assist in prop-
erly explaining the appearance of “holy ones” (‫ )קדושים‬in Musar. After being
purified from his lowly standing, having his soul redeemed from the pit (‫פדיתה‬
‫נפשי משחת‬, 11:20), the hymnist is raised to somehow take a stand with ‫קדושים‬
(i.e., angelic beings, 1QHa 11:22-24). To be “formed” according to the ‫ קדושים‬is
then the reality of the elect mevin and his elect community, not a reference to
when a division took place. Thus, the use of creation can be read as a duality,
albeit not ontologically.
Additionally, creation becomes the context that best describes the elect’s
standing, which despite implying a predestined division of humankind, is not
realized by the mevin until it is revealed. Once a part of the elect community,
the mevin belongs to the “people with a [God-given] spirit,” and can somehow
escape this base condition, thereby understanding the mysteries of God and
being raised to a standing among the angelic hosts (a la Hodayot). Those of the
“fleshly spirit” never gain access to this revelation and are never offered such.
Nonetheless, the “fleshly spirit” is also representative of collective humanity.
That is to say, until the “vision of meditation” is revealed to the elect person, he
too remains as one who lacks knowledge. Thus, “fleshly spirit” reflects a general
image of humanity—a beginning point for all—in Musar le-Mevin. Until the
mevin is enlightened, he too is an unknowing “fleshly spirit.” That is, the mevin
too lacks the understanding of God’s mysteries until they are revealed to him.
In the Hodayot, humanity’s innate spirit is never taken away completely, the
continuous tending to wisdom, knowledge, and poverty by the mevin pacifies
and frustrates his alternate base being (e.g., do not stray due to a “fleshly” un-
derstanding: ‫ ;נבונות בשר אל תשגכ[ה‬4Q417 1 ii 14).

7.5 Conclusion

The depiction of the human condition in texts examined in this chapter is

generally negative and exists opposed to a God-given understanding of his
statutes, which engenders obedience, among the elect, to an otherwise innate
desire to sin. This condition, which is largely inescapable for most, can only be
surpassed by being enlightened and pacifying the natural tendency to oppose
God’s laws. Access to this enlightenment is determined by God and unlocked
socially by belonging to a particular group that form his elect. Outside of this
group, however, the human condition is set and unchangeable.
268 7 A Predetermined Condition

The Treatise offers varying strands of dualistic thought in its unique por-
trayal of human nature. Its view of the human condition is a double duality.
All of humankind is predestined to one of two camps, the children of truth
and the children of deceit. These two groups are ruled by the Angel of Truth
and the Angel of Darkness, which result in the either positive or negative
characteristics—to know or transgress—respectively. This is a definitive con-
dition and will bear consequences during the eschaton. The other side of this
double duality is that the person somehow embodies the battle between these
cosmic forces where truth and deceit wage war for one’s heart. In other words,
the righteous person is capable of stumbling, bearing certain afflictions and
distresses, and, as it is implied, but never stated explicitly, the wicked can act
rightly. Ultimately, however, the determination of God vis-à-vis the Angel of
Light and Angel of Darkness and those that they have dominion over is an
absolute, immovable dichotomization. The wicked, children of deceit, are eter-
nally condemned and the righteous, children of truth, are given life.
The Hymn of Praise, despite addressing God’s assistance on behalf of the
author, describes the human condition as contemptible. Again, we are con-
fronted with a negative and lowly presentation of human nature. The speaker
recognizes his ability to sin, but it is God’s righteousness in which he depends.
He is unable to will his way out of his/her present struggles. The rest of human-
ity is denied such sustenance. The self-reflective speaker also refers to his own
stumbling with the use of “flesh” (‫)בשר‬, specifically “sinful flesh” (cp. ‫בשר עול‬,
‫)בשר עוון‬, which describes the contours of humanity’s innate penchant to sin.
Again, the speaker can request divine assistance and that God’s judgment be
established in his divine righteousness, but the speaker is fully aware of his
own human limitations. While he may receive assistance, the rest of humanity
is fatally locked in. Towards the end of the Hymn of Praise, pessimism towards
humanity is portrayed in a Hodayot-like rhetorical flourish: it is base, without
value, and utterly contemptible, which apart from God’s direct intervention is
largely a hopeless affair.
The use of “flesh” (‫בשר‬/σάρξ) in order to depict human frailty to sin is a
common motif in early Jewish texts. Sometimes these terms are depicted in
opposition to the “spirit” (‫)רוח‬, where “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬prevents access to the true
knowledge of God and the ability to be obedient to his statutes, while the ‫רוח‬
gives access. One of the more important wisdom texts to be discovered at
Qumran, Musar le-Mevin, specifically, 4Q417 1 i 13-18, preserves an important
phrase, i.e.,‫“( רוח בשר‬fleshly spirit”). It describes a select group of humanity
that is denied access to the so-called “vision of meditation.” Scholars are di-
vided as to whether Musar portrays an ontological division of mankind into
two camps. The occurrence of ‫אנוש‬, ‫עם עם רוח‬, and ‫ רוח בשר‬are especially key
in this regard. In summary of our examination, ‫ אנוש‬is neither a reference to
7.5 Conclusion 269

biblical Enosh nor, the biblical patriarch, Adam. Rather, ‫ אנוש‬seems to indicate
a specific part of humanity—a special elect group—namely, “people with a
spirit” (‫)עם עם רוח‬, that is, the spirit that God imparts to them in order to give
them access to knowledge through the “vision of meditation.” Access to this
vision has been considered by Wold to be universal, and those who did not
tend to wisdom were labeled ‫ רוח בשר‬and, at some point, denied access. He sug-
gests further that translating ‫ ועוד לוא‬as “no longer” provides partial evidence
of this reading. Despite accepting the importance of ‫ועוד לוא‬, this study chal-
lenges this reading. ‫ ועוד לוא‬should be understood separately (i.e., …‫לוא‬, ‫)ועוד‬,
thus, translating ‫ ועוד‬as “furthermore,” while ‫ לוא‬as related the following verb
‫נתן‬. Our translation of 4Q417 1 i 17 reads: “Furthermore (or additionally), he did
not give …” While the difference is subtle, it indicates that unlike the “people
with the spirit,” the “fleshly spirit” is in general denied access to the vision.
Additionally, the dual use of the particle ‫ כי‬indicates a literary structure
where two camps that make up all of humanity are literarily opposed to one
another. This opposition is festooned with allusions to Genesis creation ac-
counts. We would caution, however, that the allusion to creation necessitates
only an ontological division. The divine creation of Gen 1 appears to reflect
the reality of the speaker having been given access to a spirit of understand-
ing, the “vision of meditation,” and, in some way, refers to an existence that is
not unlike the Hodayot’s reference to a communion with angelic beings. The
language elsewhere in Musar le-Mevin indicates that the mevin was separated
from the ‫ רוח בשר‬and must tend to wisdom in order to maintain his standing.
This implies however that until the moment of divine revelation the speaker,
like everyone else, is a “fleshly spirit”—the speaker himself also retains some
of this identifying marker.
The three texts examined here show a general pessimism regarding the
human condition. Determined by God, despite an acknowledgement of the
person’s internal battle, it represents human nature’s innate penchant to work
against God statutes. The choice for the person is not free in that his/her natu-
ral discretion instinctively leans towards sin, and any liberation beyond this
status is according to divine authority. Therefore, whether ultimately righ-
teous or wicked, sinner or saint, humanity’s fate is set and inescapable.116 The
human condition is innately sinful and continuously so without God’s direct
engagement.

116 Indeed, this is the position attributed by Josephus to the Essenes: “But the sect of the
Essenes affirm that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is ac-
cording to its determination” (δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαί-
νεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατ᾿ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν, Ant. 13:171).
 Chapter 8

Human Nature in Early Judaism

8.1 Introduction

This study set out to examine human nature in early Judaism according to
three prevalent themes attested in Greco-Roman Jewish texts (4th c. BCE-
1st c. CE), creation, composition, and condition. All three form the catego-
ries by which ancient authors describe various innate characteristics that
are shared by collective humanity. They also form the major sections of this
study. Creation argues that the language for the creation of humanity in Gen 1
and 2 became creation topoi, which offered Jewish authors linguistic markers
which encapsulated portrayals, assumptions, and rhetoric regarding human
existence. The creation narratives, specifically, the phraseology “image of God”
and “from the dust (of the earth)” (and certain variations therein), evoke an
human ontology that was later interpreted by ancient authors. Composition
is an examination of how humanity’s physical and metaphysical nature was
envisioned. Having already been influenced by early-dated literature that
would become biblical, ideas of human composition, it is argued, shift under
the weight of Hellenistic influence. Particularly critical in this regard, are
texts that evoke an internal physic (of the mind, or heart) turmoil that results
from internal or external forces. Condition deals with the assumed rational
for collective humanity’s penchant towards sin and obedience. It argues that
ancient opinion on this issue was largely splintered along the lines of an in-
nate human nature and whether it has the jurisdiction to act under its own
discretion, is directed by a so called “inclination,” or is inherently debased leav-
ing obedience within the realm of God’s determining authority. The present
chapter is intended to review the aforementioned results of this analysis—not
simply to reiterate the conclusions of each chapter—in order to demonstrate
that manner in which early Judaism distinguished its own portrayal(s) of
human nature.

8.2 Collective Humanity as a Creation

One of the unique qualities of early Judaism depictions of human nature is

the utilization of Genesis’ creation accounts. The language of the creation
of humanity in Gen 1 and 2 (i.e., Adam and Eve) offers ancient authors a lens

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021 | doi:10.30965/9783657704866_009

8.2 Collective Humanity as a Creation 271

through which human nature is viewed. Specifically, the “image of God” and
“from the dust (or from earth)” become creation topoi that signal an encap-
sulation or presentation of innate human characteristics. This is witnessed in
several places, Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, the
Hodayot, Philo, Testament of Naphtali, and 4 Ezra. Although the earliest ex-
amples of these creation topoi occur in wisdom literature.
Qohelet is perhaps the earliest dated wisdom text in our examination and
may attest the raw ingredients that inspired creation topoi. Here, humanity’s
creation from dust is emblematic of its futile existence (2.2). In other wisdom
texts, humanity’s creatureliness is exhibited by the use of both the “image of
God” (Gen 1) and “of the dust from the ground” (Gen 2; or, “out of earth”) to
describe the duality of human existence. Each person is the embodiment of
a mortal being, impermanent and vulnerable to various afflictions, but im-
pressed with the divine image and, therefore, capable of following and obeying
God’s commandments (2.3). In Wisdom, creation in the divine image is indica-
tive of humanity’s original immortality, although the clay of the idol maker
is rhetorically fit to describe humanity’s physical temporal nature (2.4). The
divine image is also employed to describe humanity’s physical and metaphysi-
cal nature with the use of the divine image. Pseudo-Phocylides, in describing
this duality in death, speaks of the “image” of the divine as the component
which returns to the air, while the body returns to the dust from whence it
came. Existence comes to an end and any afterlife is utterly lacking (2.5). Philo
notes this “image” as representing the human mind, although the “image” that
humanity bears is not equivalent to God himself but is rather a copy of divinity.
The Alexandrian philosopher also utilizes both Genesis depictions to describe
two types of humanity. Although created from the choicest of clay, collective
humanity is inherently corruptible and the person who truly bears the imago
dei lives justly, is prudent, and well-tempered (3.2). So, also, the Testament of
Naphtali utilizes both creation topoi to speak to this duality—having a body
and soul that correspond to one another—which reflects the order of the
­cosmos (3.3).
The use of creations’ language to describe collective humanity is not lim-
ited, however, to the aforementioned texts. In 4 Ezra, even the wicked are
worthy of God’s mercy because of that “image” (3.4). Elsewhere, creation is
the catalyst for the utter debasement of human existence. Gen 2’s description
of the earthly origins of Adam, which is attributed to collective humanity in
the Greco-Roman period, becomes the cauldron in which humanity’s lowliest
and most shameful portrayal is mixed. In the hymns of the Hodayot, the “crea-
ture of dust” and “creature of clay” are illustrative of humanity’s lowest point,
a place of shame and impurity that is intended to be contrasted with God’s
272 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

unmitigated glory. When placed in the light of the aforementioned postbibli-

cal portrayals, the Hodayot succeeds in amplifying the image of human lowli-
ness, especially with its intentional omission of any reference to the “image of
God,” despite implying some knowledge of cosmic creation (3.5). Moreover,
as this study argues regarding the mother of the seven sons in 2 Macc, it is the
imago dei or, in the least, that God involves himself uniquely with creating the
individual parts of each person, which indicates that for those who are faithful
unto death persecution will not be their end. God does not stand idly by as his
faithful die; he responds with resurrection (3.6).

8.3 A Composition in Parts

Under the weight of Greek influence, which entered the east under the lead-
ership of Alexander the Great (4th c. BCE), there is an evolution within early
Jewish texts that display variations in the conceptions of the composition of
collective humanity. Its physical and metaphysical existence, and the relation
between the two, shifts somewhat from the picture that is attested in earli-
er dated material that would eventually become biblical. Generally, in these
works human existence is portrayed as a psychosomatic unity, that is an ex-
istence, whose outer, physical and inner, emotional and/or psychic reality is
couched in the inseparability between either. This is sometimes referred to as
monism, indicating that there is no fundamental distinction within human
nature. Indeed, it has been rightly asserted by scholars that human existence
in biblical texts is more complex and a psychosomatic unity is not the only idea
represented there, although it appears to be predominant. In early Judaism,
ideas regarding composition differ, in particular, with the explicit individua-
tion of the metaphysical, soul or spirit, which is referenced in texts that portray
an afterlife.
Regarding the physical body, the diverse terminology utilized reflect mor-
tality, vulnerability to a host of afflictions, harmful vices, and the component
that suffers the effects of sin (4.2). Yet, our discussion of humanity’s constitu-
ent parts begins the semantic range of ψυχή/ ‫( נפש‬soul, life). These terms are
utilized in Ben Sira with the sense of a psychosomatic unity. This is not very
striking since ψυχή is nearly always a translation of what was originally ‫נפש‬,
which aligns itself closely to the predominant semantic range in earlier biblical
texts (4.3). Another understanding that becomes prevalent is that humanity is
composed of two individual parts, body and soul, and, in some texts, the soul
has continued existence beyond the death of the body. In Wisdom, the “soul”
(ψυχή) of the righteous—its metaphysical component—is promised eternity.
8.3 A Composition in Parts 273

“Righteousness” is closely tied to obedience and living justly according to God’s

commandments (4.4). Josephus’ presentation of the three Jewish schools at-
tests an optimal view of body and soul. For the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes the soul is separable from the body, which is perishable. Each school
is said to believe in the immortality of the soul; the soul for Pharisees is said to
enter a new body, while the Sadducees are said to believe in the “persistence”
of the soul despite there being no rewards or punishments in the afterlife. The
latter seems altogether rhetorical or, perhaps, in jest, as if the irrelevance of
soul’s existence after death should be read with absurdity and whimsy. The
Essenes contrastingly receive a more detailed treatment regarding their view
of the soul as it is depicted making a Hellenistically-inspired journey into the
afterlife. (4.5). In 1 Enoch, the soul’s separate existence is a circumstance for all
of humanity and not simply the righteous. At the abode of the dead, at least
one person, Abel, makes a continual complaint against Cain. Although, ini-
tially Enoch describes the spirits of the dead (i.e., the children of men) raising
their voices and making suit to heaven suggesting that the consciousness of
the dead remain. It seems that even the consciousness of the wicked remains
since their judgment presumes such (4.6). In the Testament of Abraham—
the text with perhaps the most debatable dating—depicts a similar idea as
Abraham remaining cognizant of himself when his soul is separated from his
body (4.7). The concept that humanity is innately composed of three parts,
body, soul, and spirit does not take hold until well in the first century CE. Much
of this appears to closely parallel discussions in Greek literature that speak to
the composition of collective humanity, in particular, the work of Plato. Apart
from a small sample of Philonic texts (as well as, Paul and Josephus), however,
this point of view is not well represented in early Judaism (4.8).
The portrayal of an acute personal, inner strife in both the Hodayot and
Apotropaic prayers offer another lens to view human composition. Part of
this internal struggle is described with the terms “heart,” “soul,” and “spirit.”
Descriptions of the internalized strife of the hymnist(s) in the Hodayot is a
struggle that results from being enlightened. His lowly pestilent existence is
the lowliness of being human, a debasement that is only succored by God’s
sublime mercy—a mercy that is only accorded to the yaḥad. Despite not being
given to collective humanity, the negative lowly portrayal of the hymnist seems
to imply a specific human composition. The body/soul dualism that is undoubt-
edly present in other texts is only incipiently demonstrated in the hymns, if at
all. First, the range of ‫ נפש‬in the Hodayot seems to indicate a psychosomatic
unity, indicating a life, rather than the separate metaphysical part of each per-
son. Although it is worth questioning whether ‫נפש‬, when described as facing a
significant internal conflict, and when juxtaposed with a portrayal of physical
274 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

harm, represents at least a modicum of distinction. Indeed, the expectation

that the “structure of dust” will “return from where it came” leaves an answer to
this question somewhat ambiguous. So also, the “divided heart,” which signals
another degree of humanity’s internal strife with itself, indicates the distur-
bance faced by understanding how putrid an existence humanity must suf-
fer while simultaneously acknowledging the God-given gift of understanding.
But it does little to represent a body/soul dualism. In fact, the shaping of the
physical heart into the metaphorical place of turmoil again suggests psycho-
somatic unity in that there are both physical and non-physical consequences.
Moreover, the portrayal of humanity’s onerous innate spirit, yet again, reflects
an inner battle. While this innate human spirit is pacified by God’s spirit—a
gift limited to the yaḥad—the hymnist’s self-reflection testifies that there re-
mains part of his/her debased nature. After the internalization of God’s spirit
there may then be a body/soul dualism, albeit metaphorically—a struggle of
sorts between sinful flesh and the obedient, willing spirit—but this is not a
conception of collective humanity and is communal-specific (5.2).
A more distinct separation is evident in early Jewish apotropaic prayers.
The speaker in the prayers vividly describes an internal disturbance from what
are originally, external demonic entities, particularly in those areas that affect
obedience and sin. In some cases, this disturbance leads to death, or specific
bodily pains. The effect to the body, however, seems to be a secondary conse-
quence to the control of the will and mind of a person. The overall concern
for the soul/mind in apotropaic prayers indicates a modicum of separation
between the person’s metaphysical and physical nature. While it is not clear
that the inner person/soul/mind has an existence beyond the body, there is a
conceptual separation between these components as human vulnerability to
these malevolent spirit is located within the inner person (5.3).

8.4 Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition

Discussion of humanity’s innate condition in regard to sin and obedience is

often splintered between free will and God’s determining authority. Perhaps
the clearest conception of free will appears in Ben Sira. For the sage, humanity
is able to make decisions under the power of its own discretion. Consequently,
God is removed from any blame for sin. However, elsewhere, Ben Sira argues
that collective humanity remains under the sway of God’s sovereignty. The
work as a whole strikes a balance between the two, forming a paradox, where
human free will and divine sovereignty co-exist, playing a vital role in human
action (6.2.1). A similar picture is attested in the Psalms of Solomon. Within an
8.4 Discretion and Determination of the Human Condition 275

exhortation of the speaker to do righteousness and be obedient, it is stated that

the power to obey is according to each person (6.2.2).
An alternative view of free will in the Damascus Document is accorded
solely to Israel’s patriarchs. Abraham’s ability to act against his will is not truly
a portrayal of free will. It is contextually clear that God determines both the
present and future. Therefore, those who stray from God do so because he
has rejected them. The “free will” of the patriarch in the Damascus Document
is an illusion. One that was expected to be held by the Qumranites, namely,
that their own obedience was a gift from God and truly not within their own
authority. Thus, collective humanity’s innate will is naturally directed against
divine authority, despite this very authority nullifying that will for his chosen
community (6.2.3). Regarding the views of the three Jewish schools, Josephus
creates a spectrum for the relationship between fate and free will. The Essenes
and the Sadducees represent the extreme poles of that spectrum. The former
is said to believe that all is fated, while the latter places all on free will. The
Pharisees are somewhere between the two where fate and free will both play a
role in human affairs (6.2.4).
The human condition is also exhibited in humanity’s “inclination,” which
is generally a negative internal disposition. In order for it to be “steadfast” and
“faithful,” as described in the Hodayot and 4QCommunalConfession (4Q393),
it must be gifted by God; otherwise, the inclination naturally veers away from
obedience. In one manuscript of 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q436), the speaker must
contend with an innate “evil inclination.” The “evil inclination” is depicted as
having to be expelled, although the removal seems to be a metaphorical ex-
pulsion specifically, one that purifies from a sinful state. Without divine inter-
vention the human condition remains bowed against God’s statutes, although,
in 4QBarkhi Nafshi and 4QCommunal Confession there is a distinct hope on
behalf of those community members who might request it (6.3).
The human condition within a system where human affairs and history
have been predestined is far direr. In the Treatise of the Two Spirits, human
nature reflects a double duality where the battle for obedience is waged in the
hearts of each person. While an outward fate has been predetermined for both
the wicked and the righteous. Those who act justly according to God’s stat-
utes, have an internalized struggle that causes the righteous to stumble, but
are equally part of God’s lot having been destined so. This double duality in the
redacted Treatise is represented as two interrelated elements, an internal and
external reality of the members yaḥad. The rest of humanity naturally persists
under the weight—perhaps unknowingly—of a forgone conclusion (7.2).
The human condition is far more devaluated in the texts that originated at
Qumran, than in other early Jewish texts. The futility of human existence is
276 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

on display in HP at the end of the Serekh ha Yaḥad. This is highlighted when

contrasted with God’s glorious self, a contrast that is intentional. Simply, the
human condition—even for those who join the yaḥad—remains naturally
wretched, an inescapable condition for all except those who have been di-
vinely destined to be part God’s elect (7.3). Texts like the Hodayot or Musar
le-Mevin equate the “fleshly” state with this inescapable condition. Regarding
the former, this is defined as a lack of insight into God’s wondrous deeds and,
for the latter, a division that denies a portion of humanity access to “vision
of meditation”—a divinely revealed teaching for the “understanding one” to
know and follow God’s correctly demarcated path. (7.4).

8.5 A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature in Ancient Judaism

Any synthesis of the diversity of opinion regarding human nature in Second

Temple Judaism threatens a disservice. Since defining the communities of
each particular text, apart from the Qumran community, is elusive, the best
synthesis is perhaps one that accounts for the periodization of each text and
provides a sense to the evolution of specific ideas. Some of the following
portrait(s) is painted in light of known social realities but is not intended to
indicate a singular construct. In fact, this is an attempt to piece together an
image(s) of human nature—from a diverse mosaic—that provides the source
but also pays close attention to chronological development, despite ongoing
debates regarding the dating of some.
Arguably, the earliest depiction of human nature in the Greco-Roman pe-
riod is with the duality of human composition. Specifically, the souls of col-
lective humanity—both wicked and righteous—are portrayed as having a
continual existence after death indicating that each person is composed to two
separable components (1 Enoch). Elsewhere, this separation is non-existent,
human nature is that of psychosomatic unity, created with free will but subject
to God’s divine agency. Free will is the benefit of being created in the “image
of God”—a freedom that is distinctly connected to obedience, especially those
commandments that involve interpersonal engagement (Ben Sira). Of course,
humanity must also contend with the fact the he/she was also created from
the ground, or out of earth. Consequently, humanity is mortal and effected
by various afflictions and the consequences of sin, while still being subject to
the aforementioned divine sovereignty (Ben Sira, Wisdom). This mortality—
created from dust—is the most striking evidence that life is futile, and time is
conceptually limited in this life. Despite the admonishment to cherish life, it
is life that exist under the shadow of inherent pessimism (Qohelet). Moreover,
8.5 A Synthesis: The Story of Human Nature 277

that humanity is a creature bearing the “image of God” it indicates that for the
faithful who face persecutions (i.e., Antiochene) death would not be the final
end. While the body is perishable, God is thought to respond to obedience by,
at some point, returning life to the dead.
Yet, the return of life implies humanity is created of constituent parts
(2 Macc). Following in the heels of the earliest depiction of human composi-
tion, which was in turn influenced the permeation of Hellenistic ideas into
Jewish culture, human existence is composed of two parts, a body and soul
(Wisdom, Ps. Phoc., Josephus: Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees). These two
parts are thought to perfectly correspond to one another and reflect the order
of the cosmos (T. Naph.). The metaphysical part of the human beings either
returns to the air or exists beyond the body, retaining the person’s conscious-
ness, namely, its feelings, thoughts and memories (Testament of Abraham).
The growing distinction between the body and soul is evident in the acute
focus on the inner person and the manner that it represents an internal battle
that sometimes remain wholly internal (Hodayot). The soul, sometimes de-
scribed as the mind, is vulnerable to a host of malevolent, demonic entities
that cause it to act contrary to God’s design and statutes (Philo, Apotropaic
Prayers, Hodayot). It is only a request for divine succor that assists with this
particular susceptibility and keeps the demonic entities away (Apotropaic
Prayers). Physical imagery, like “heart,” as well as the terms “soul” and “spirit,”
are utilized to depict an internal strife that each person must contend. From
here, the human being takes on a more negative hue. It exists with a “divided
heart” and an innately onerous, impure spirit. Only a portion of humanity,
those that belong to the yaḥad, are afforded a God-given spirit that then pacifies
their natural lowliness and enlightens the community member to understand
God’s wondrous deeds (Hodayot). In fact, every person’s “inclination”—that
is an internal disposition—is naturally bent away from God, and an innate
temptation to sin is in every person. So also, in some circles it is thought that
each person must struggle with an internal “evil inclination,” which can only
be expelled by God’s purification. This intrinsic inclination is the reality for
all people and associated with the person’s perverse “heart.” Again, these mat-
ters can only be changed by God’s direct intervention (4QBarkhi Nafshi). While
the “faithful” and “steadfast” inclination is possible, it is, again, dependent on
God. For at least the Qumran community, the “steadfast” inclination is again
communal specific (Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, and, perhaps, 4QCommunal
Confession).
Human nature also becomes negatively polarized. God has predestined all
including two commanding spirits—i.e., the Angels of Darkness and Light—
which effectively dividing humanity into two camps. Although the human
278 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

being must face an internal battle, his/her place among the wicked and the
righteous is set. The defining parameters of these two camps are essentially
ethical. The wicked are disposed to sin, while the righteous are disposed to
obedience. The righteous, however, stumble under the realm allotted to the
Angel of Darkness and its spirits. This indicates that the righteous sin, and at
least implies that the wicked can be partly obedient, but not in a manner that
would change their predestined state. In the end, the wicked and the righteous
are locked into an inescapable state (the Treatise). The state of the wicked is in-
dicated by the fact that they have been denied access to God’s divine revelation
of his statutes to which tending would engender obedience (Musar le-Mevin).
Any hope of actual free will, or that the human being can act against its own
natural will, which is set against God, is something that has already been deter-
mined (Damascus Document). This debasement of the human being is further
achieved by reminding it that it originated from earth, and as a “creature of
clay” and “dust” it is a source shame and impurity. This hopeless existence is the
reality for all, although knowledge of its innate, base reality is limited to only
a single group (Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad). In fact, the one “born of woman”
(i.e., every person), who is effectively nothing, is responsible for the sin com-
mitted through his/her own perverse heart; belonging to the “council of mag-
gots” every person walks in darkness unless God enlightens them. Humanity is
utterly dependent on divine assistance because it is helpless (Hymn of Praise).
Unfortunately, the hope of God’s intervention is limited to those who belong to
his elect. Yet, within this very small scope of time, free will is not abandoned.
The human being is commended to be righteous—likely a reference to inter-
personal justice. The power to do so is within the discretion of each person
(Psalms of Solomon, Josephus: Pharisees). So also, the lowliness of humanity
is abated, philosophically, with the concept that humanity is created from the
choicest of clay. The “image of God” is reflected in one’s mind but no one is
created in the “image” but rather after it. Each person is based on a model of
God, that is an “image” of divinity but not on God himself. On the one hand,
despite being created from the choicest of clay, the human is “earthlike” and
“corruptible.” On the other hand, being created in either the “image of God” or
“out of earth” envisages two types of people, the latter, as a result of the divine
image, is prudent and just (Philo). On the other hand, it is argued that the
“image of God” is so important to human existence that even the wicked are
worthy of God’s eschatological mercy. As a result of bearing the imago dei every
person’s value is singled out (4 Ezra). Still, for some God is not present and
each person exists with a natural, unfettered free will (Josephus: Sadducees).
With this view, there is little reason to worry about the divine image or
sovereignty.
8.6 The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit ? 279

8.6 The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit?

One of the most distinct portrayals of human nature comes through the use
of “flesh” as representative of a physical reality, but also, more importantly,
as a metaphor for human morality. In Ben Sira, “flesh” can refer to the per-
son’s physical mortality, but can also reflect a personal relationship, especially
marriage—drawing on imagery from Gen 3—divorce, and for the teaching of
sexual mores. The sage also employs the unique phraseology “flesh and blood”
connecting it to both mortality and to negatively depict the plotting of evil. On
a number of occasions, Ben Sira, the Plea for Deliverance and the Damascus
Document, employ the phraseology “all flesh” to describe collective humanity,
and, in the War Scroll (1QM), to describe the lot of humanity against whom
God’s elect and angelic forces fight. It is likely that within the context of the
War Scroll “all flesh” implies a unique negativity. This metaphorical use of
“flesh” is present in the Hodayot, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, and in Musar le-Mevin. In
the Hodayot and Serekh ha- Yaḥad “flesh” generally indicates the unenlight-
ened masses who are not given the knowledge that comes with God’s spirit,
or holy spirit. In the Hodayot there is attestation to “flesh” as part of each per-
son’s sinfulness. Additionally, it is argued here that Musar le-Mevin is similar
to what appears in the hymns and the Serekh but also encapsulates those who
were denied access to the very thing that would engender obedience.
Although much has been made of the dichotomy between the “flesh” and
the “spirit” because of the dualism present in the Pauline corpus, a brief note
about the Pauline categories that is often disregarded as it is related to under-
standing collective humanity is warranted. As in Qumran texts, the assumed
antagonism between the “flesh” and the “spirit” has little to do with human-
ity’s sinful “flesh” and its innate “spirit.” Rather, the dualism occurs between
the natural inclination to sin, and, for Paul, the God-given “spirit”—not natu-
ral to humanity—that is promised, given to, and internalized by the follow-
ers of Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:4; Eph 1:13). Thus, the “flesh” and “spirit” dualism is
communal-specific, namely, a community to whom its members have been
given God’s spirit for the sake of understanding and salvation.
So also, the Hodayot, among other Qumran texts, clearly demarcate that a
later-given spirit is eventually internalized and indicates the very reason the
hymnist(s), and his community, have insight into their own lowliness, having
an ability to commune with angels and the promise of a long life, described in
at least one of the hymns as “eternal” (1QHa 7:29). Therefore, the “spirit/flesh”
dichotomy is not a conversation about collective humanity, but rather a con-
ception that occurs within the parameters of communal-specific dynamics of
enlightenment and ignorance to God’s statutes. The Pauline perspective likely
280 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

originates from a similar community to that of the Qumran community, if not

in the community itself. Although Paul’s contact with the priests (e.g., Acts 9:1),
while brief, and the Qumranites priestly origins, may argue that their particu-
lar views of “flesh” and “spirit” originate in priestly school(s) of thought. What
may have initially been the philosophy of the priests has likely been subsumed
and reworked within the yaḥad and Paul’s letters.

8.7 Obedience and Sin

Early Jewish texts reveal the impetus for ancient authors’ attention to human
nature, obedience and sin. Whether texts address free will, predestination, ac-
cess to wisdom teachings, the “image of God,” being created “out of earth,” an
internal psychic strife, and vulnerability to demonic forces, all of it revolves
around obedience and transgression. What causes obedience and transgres-
sion of God’s law? Is it innate, does it originate at creation, or is it the result of
external forces to which all humanity is susceptible? As expected, the answer
is never uniform. And these questions are the primary catalysts that lead to
such a diverse picture of human nature. Indeed, in most texts, even within
the variegated portrayal of sin, the overall concern is to explain how (true)
obedience is possible and, sometimes, impossible for collective humanity.
Even when the person is depicted as having an innate “inclination,” it is only
the elect that are portrayed as being given an obedient inclination. The rest of
the humanity is subject to an “inclination” that intrinsically leans towards dis-
obedience. The “inclination” is at times described negatively, but more often,
humanity’s natural inclination—without God’s direct assistance—will lead to
transgression. Even still, this portrayal is not a rule. For certain ancient authors,
like Ben Sira, obedience is within the authority of each person and not God’s
responsibility.

8.8 God and Humanity

The relationship between humanity and God seems to betray another impe-
tus. Each text that examined in this study forms a shifting gradient, where at
one end a relationship with God is open to every person—to whom obedience
is possible under its very own will—while at the other end, only a small group
can foster obedience because of the benefits of being elect. Even at the elect
8.9 Further Studies in Early Judaism 281

end of the spectrum, however, it speaks to a relationship between God and

the rest of humanity. This relationship is largely negative, which brings with it
an unfavorable fate. The individuals who are not elect must—very much un-
knowingly and impotently—contend with a relationship that is severely hand-
icapped. Moreover, at every point on the spectrum, humanity is dependent on
God to varying degrees. Humanity’s utter dependence is thereby a force ma-
jeure within a system where all is predestined, and an advocated choice where
obedience falls within the power of one’s will.
To some extent this gradient is narrowed with the imago dei. Through the
divine image, collective humanity is brought closer to God than all other cre-
ations. This is likely the reason why references to the “elect” also purposely
avoid the concept of the divine image (e.g., Hodayot, Serekh, Musar le-Mevin,
Paul’s letters). While the use of “image of God” seems to allow a wider berth for
choice, it also gives humankind an inherent value that remains regardless of
communal affiliation.

8.9 Further Studies in Early Judaism

This study has been methodologically narrowed to focus on early Jewish in-
sights to human nature through three lenses, creation, composition, and
condition, which has been heretofore largely neglected. However, there are a
number of areas for further study that are beyond the scope of the present
one. For instance, this study was fairly conservative in regard to the Greco-
Roman period, dealing with texts that can be confidently dated to that period,
and including texts with debatable dating only when close parallels occur.
Nonetheless, the questions asked here can be extrapolated to other texts like
the Testament of Twelve Patriarchs, Sibylline Oracles, the Life of Adam and
Eve and 4 Ezra, whose final forms are reached well after the Second Temple
period. Further nuance and definition can also be achieved by highlighting
one of the lenses employed here. This study was intentionally more broadly
set to examine three prevalent themes that encapsulate explorations of the
ancients on human nature. Apart from the examination of specific texts, closer
scrutiny can be given to where ideas of human nature fall among social groups
of the day and how gender studies can further elucidate and challenge some
of findings here. Clearly, this is not an indication that early Judaism should be
without further study on this issue as this is merely part of the first steps taken
into such a foray.
282 8 Human Nature in Early Judaism

8.10 Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament and

Rabbinic Judaism

Without discounting various discontinuities between early and Rabbinic

Judaism, David Flusser once remarked that early Judaism was essentially the
parent to both nascent Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which are siblings.
Thus, any study that deals with early Judaism must question, even briefly, the
implications for these adjacent fields. While the Pauline corpus has garnered
the majority of attention in terms of the Apostle’s anthropological point of
view, the corpus attributed to him accounts for just over thirty percent of the
New Testament. Nearly sixty percent of the New Testament, however, is pre-
served in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Yet, regardless of the diverse and
key conceptions of human nature attested in these works, studies regarding
these issues in the Synoptic Gospels, John, and Acts are sorely lacking.
In regard to the Gospels, a study that deals with early Jewish ideas of human
nature taking into consideration the differing linguistic and conceptual idio-
syncrasies of each Evangelists is warranted. Markan priority has so unnecessar-
ily colored the lenses of New Testament scholars that the prominence of early
Jewish ideas that disagree with the Markan presentation are sometimes con-
sidered creative enhancements rather than actual representations of Second
Temple Jewish thought. Ideas about human nature in the early Judaism can fur-
ther shed light in teachings attributed to Jesus, for instance, the predominant
concept of caring for the poor that appears in the four gospels. In particular are
ideas associated with the “image of God” that Ben Sira literarily connects with
observing the commandments. While the Gospels never refer to the “image
of God,” the importance of caring for those in need, which appears in, for ex-
ample, in the “Parable of Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37),” is likely founded on
the concept that all of humanity is created in the imago dei. Additionally, the
diversity of ancient Jewish practice necessarily opens up questions regarding
the view of human nature in the rest of the New Testament. That is to say, is
Pauline anthropology representative of a singular anthropological approach
that is present in all New Testament texts, or does an examination of the New
Testament’s assortment of genres, historical periods, and authorial character-
istics bear witness to a conceptual bouquet of views that were present in na-
scent Christianity?
Many of the same ideas can also be carried over to rabbinic literature. While
the “image of God” in rabbinic literature has already garnered some attention,
and early Judaism is often examined by scholars for the points of origin regard-
ing certain rabbinic concepts, some of the more unique parallels and evolution
of Jewish ideas still require examination. For example, how are the Genesis
8.10 Opening the Door to Studies in the New Testament 283

creation accounts utilized to describe human nature in the Mishnah, Tosefta,

and midrashim? Furthermore, the philosophical balance between human
agency, divine determination, and providence remains in the purview of the
early rabbis. Statements attributed to, for example, Rabbi Akiva (m. Avot 3:15)
and Hanina Ben Dosa (b. Ber. 33b, b. Nidd. 16b, b. Hul 7b) depict slightly varied
opinions on the matter and show a continued discussion which develops into
the later Judaism of the Talmud. Having better footing in early Jewish concep-
tions of human nature may assist capturing a better nuance of perhaps where
rabbinic Judaism is a tradent in earlier Jewish ideas.
Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Aland, Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Revised
Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
Albeck, Henoch, ed. Shisha Sidrei Mishnah. 4 vols. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik and
Dvir, 1958.
“Bar Ilan University: Online Responsa Project.” http://www.responsa.co.il/default.aspx.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant
Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Elliger, Karl, William Rudolph et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Flavius Josephus. De bello Judaico libri vii. Edited by B. Niese. http://www.perseus.tufts.
edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0147
Flavius Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae. Edited by B. Niese. http://www.perseus.tufts.
edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0145
Jonge, Marinus de. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the
Greek Text. PVTG 1. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1926-1965.
Lagarde, Paul de. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace. Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus;
Londinii: Williams and Norgate, 1861.
Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium.
PTS 25. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Milik, J. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. With Matthew
Black. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1929-1962.
Plato Volume I: Euthypro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedrus. Translated by H. N. Fowler.
LCL 36. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1914.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Safrai, Ze’ev, and R. Steven Notley, The Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus
to Rav Ashi. Jerusalem: Carta, 2011.
Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.
Bibliography 285

——. Avot de Rabbi Natan. Vienna. 1877. Reprint. New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America,1997.
Schuller, Eileen. and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study
Edition. EJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
“Sefaria: A Living Library of Jewish Texts.” https://www.sefaria.org
Segal, Moshe H. Sefer ben sira ha-shalem. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1958.
Tov, Emanuel Discoveries of the Judean Desert. Vol. IX-XL. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1992-2011.
“The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha.” http://ocp.tyndale.ca/.
——. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. SA 87. Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters,
1989.
Vaux, Roland de, Pierre Benoit, and John Strugnell, eds. Discoveries of the Judaean
Desert of Jordan. Vols. I-VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955-1990.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapentia Iesu Fili Sirach. VTG 12.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1980.
——. ed. Sapientia Salomonis. VTG 12.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980.

Secondary Literature

Agaësse, Paul, SJ. L’anthropologie chrétienne selon saint Augustin: image, liberté, péché
et grâce. Paris: Médiasèvres, 2004.
Aitken, J. K. “Divine Will and Providence.” Pages 282-301 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings
of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by
Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.
Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books: Jobs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes—A Translation with
Commentary. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010.
Altmann, Alexander. “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology.” JR 48/3
(Jul., 1968): 235-59.
Anderson, Arnold A. “The Use of ‘Ruaḥ’ in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM.” JSS 7/2 (1962): 293-303.
Anderson, Gary. “You Will Have Treasure in Heaven.” Pages 107-32 in New Approaches
to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and
in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the
Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly
Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9-11 January,
2007. Edited by Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran. Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2013.
Angel, Joseph L. “The Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran.” Pages 27-54
in Dead Sea Scrolls 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and
Alumni. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
286 Bibliography

——. “Maskil, Community and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510-
511).” DSD 19 (2012): 1-27.
Atkinson, Kenneth. “Towards a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implication for
Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.” JSP 17 (1998) 95-112.
——. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light
from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118/3 (1999): 435-60.
——. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and
Social Setting. JSJSup 84. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Avemarie, Friedrich. “Image of God and Image of Christ: Developments in Pauline and
Ancient Jewish Anthropology.” Pages 209-36 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline
Literature. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014; repr. from
Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by
Jörg Frey and Angela Standhartinger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Baillet, Maurice. “510. Cantiques du Sage (i).” Pages 215-19 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III
(4Q482-4Q520). Edited by Maurice Baillet. DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.
——. “Prières pour les fêtes (ii).” Pages 177-83 in Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520).
DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.
——. Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. DJD III. 2 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.
Balla, Ibolya. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin/New York:
Walter De Gruyter, 2011.
Bauckham, Richard. “Life, Death, and Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 245-
56 in The Jewish World Around the New Testament: Collected Essays I. WUNT 233.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Repr. The Jewish World Around the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Bauks, Michaela, Katherin Leiss, and Peter Reide, eds. Was ist der Mensch, dass du
seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift
für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.
Baumbach, Günther, “The Sadducees in Josephus.” Pages 173-95 in Josephus, the Bible,
and History. Edited by Louis Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1989.
Baumgarten, Joseph M. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273).
DJD XXVIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant
Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
——. “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 509-24 in Theodicy in the World of
the Bible. Edited by Antii Laato and Johannes de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Bibliography 287

——. “Daughters and their Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 183-202 in Family
and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo
Passaro. DCLY. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012-2013.
Bellia, Guiseppe. “An Historico-Anthropological Reading of the Work of Ben Sira.”
Pages 49-77 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology.
Edited by Angelo Passaro and Guiseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin, New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2008.
Benz, Hans Dieter. “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος) in the
Anthropology of Paul.” NTS 46/1 (2000): 315-41.
Bernstein, Moshe. “Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 647-51 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
——. “Contours of Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and
Nomenclature.” Pages 57-85 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by James Kugel.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2001. Repr. pages
63-91 in vol. 1 of Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran. STDJ 107. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Berthelot, Katell. “Where May Canaanites Be Found: Canaanites, Phoenicians, and
Others in Jewish Texts from the Hellenistic and roman Period.” Pages 253-274 in
The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought. Edited by
Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman. Oxford: New York; Oxford
University Press, 2014.
Beyerle, Stefan. “Dualismen und der Schöpfergott im antiken Judentum.” Pages 63-
124 in Dualismus Dämonologie, und diabolische Figuren. Edited by Jörg Frey and
E. Edzard Popkes. WUNT 2 484. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Bianchi, Ugo. “Dualism.” Pages 2504-17 in vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by
Lindsay Jones. 15 vols. 2nd ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomas Gale, 2005.
Bickerman, Elias J. “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 272-94
in vol. 1 of Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including
The God of the Maccabees. Edited by Amram Tropper. AGJU 68. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill,
2007.
Bird, Phyllis. “Theological Anthropology in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 258-75 in The
Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Leo G. Perdue. Londres:
Blackwell, 2001.
Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Intra-Jewish Debate on the Tension between Divine and
Human Agency.” Pages 9-26 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural
Environment. London: T and T Clark, 2006.
——. “Where Does Ben Sira Belong? The Canon, Literary Genre, Intellectual Movement,
and Social Group of a Zadokite Document.” Pages 21-42. In Studies in the Book of
Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,
288 Bibliography

Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza Xeravitz and József
Zsengellér. STDJ 127. Leiden. Brill, 2008.
Bokhmuehl, Markus. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community.” RevQ 18/72
(1998): 541-60.
Bolen, Reinhold. “Kohelet im Kontext hellenistischer Kultur,” Pages 249-74 in Das Buch
Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludger
Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1997.
Bonfiglio, Ryan, “‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” Pages 1007-16 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den
Qumrantexten. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 2 vols.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2013.
Bons, Eberhard. “Philosophical Vocabulary in the Psalms of Solomon: The Case of Ps.
Sol. 9:4.” Pages 49-58 in The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology. Edited
by Eberhard Bons and Patrick Pouchelle. EJIL 40. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.
Botterweck, G. Johannes. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.
Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” Pages 268-517 in vol. 1 of The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vol. Oxford,
1913.
Brand, Miryam. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed
in Second Temple Literature. JAJSup 9. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Göttingen, 2013.
Brandenburger, E. Fleisch und Geist. Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit. WMANT 29.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.
Brownlee, W. H. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes.
BASORSup 10-12. New Haven, 1951.
Brunschwig, Jacques and David Sedley. “Hellenistic Philosophy.” Pages 151-83, and
“Roman Philosophy.” Pages 184-210 in The Cambridge Companion to Greek and
Roman Philosophy. Edited by D. Sedley. Cambridge Companion to Philosophy.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Büchler, Adolf. “Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement.” JQR 14/ (Jul. 1923):
461-502.
Burns, J. Patout, trans. and ed. Theological Anthropology. Sources of Early Christian
Thought; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba: Edición
diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con
traducción española en inglesa. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella (Navarra), Espana:
Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003.
Calduch-Benages, Nuria. “‘Cut Her Away from Your Flesh:’ Divorce in Ben Sira.”
Pages 81-96 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International
Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Center, Pápa, Hungary,
Bibliography 289

18-20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and Jószef Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2008.
Camp, Claudia V. “Understanding Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem
Through the Eyes of Ben Sira.” Pages 1-40 in “Women Like This” New Perspectives on
Jewish Women in the Greco Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. EJL 1. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1991.
Carmignac, Jean. Les textes de Qumran. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961-1963.
Charles, Robert H. The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis. London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1902.
Chazon, Esther. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 13-24
in The Book of Genesis on Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. Edited Judith
Frishman and Lucas van Rompay. TEG 5. Louvain: Peeters, 1997.
——. “444. 4QIncantation,” Pages 367-77 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical
Texts, Part 2. Edited Esther Chazon and Torleif Elgvin et. al. DJD XXIX. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1999.
——. “Liturgical Function in the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection.” Pages 135-152 in Qumran
Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the
Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso,
Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
——. David Satran and Ruth Clements, eds. Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish
and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Clarke, Ernest G. The Wisdom of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973.
Clemens, David E. “The Law of Sin and Death, Ecclesiastes in Gen 1-3.” Them. 19 (1994):
5-8.
Cohen Stuart, G. H. The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: An Inquiry into the
Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara‘. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1984.
Cohen, Gershon N. “Hannah and her Seven Sons.” Pages 39-60 in Studies in the Variety
of Rabbinic Cultures. New York: JPS, 1991.
Cohen, Jeremy. “Original Sin as the Evil Inclination: A Polemicist’s Appreciation of
Human Nature.” HTR 73 3/4 (Jul.-Oct., 1980): 495-520.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a
Historian. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Collins, John J. “The Roots of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom.”
HTR 71 3/4 (Jul.-Oct. 1978): 177-92.
——. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1997.
——. Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd
ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing; Livonia, Michigan: Dove Booksellers, 1998.
290 Bibliography

——. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom
Text from Qumran.” Pages 609-18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by
Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
——. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom
Text from Qumran.” Pages 609-18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead
Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations. Edited
Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill. 1998.
——. “Interpretations of the Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 29-43
in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
——. “Life After Death in Pseudo-Phocylides.” Pages 75-86 in Jerusalem, Alexandria,
Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst. Edited by
Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. JSJSup 82. Leiden: Brill,
2003. Repr. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with
Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
——. “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and The
Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 287-306 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168.
Leuven Paris: Leuven University Press; Dudley, MA : Peeters, 2003. Repr. pages 159-
180 in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on Jewish Encounters with Hellenism
and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
——. “Conceptions of the Afterlife in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 103-25
Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Michael
Labahn and Manfred Lang. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007.
——. The Dead Scrolls: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
——. “Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 25-47 in The Religious
Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister,
and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Cook, Johann. “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫יצר הרע‬.’” JSJ 38
(2007): 80-91.
Corley, Jeremy. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS 317. Providence: Brown University,
2001.
——. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155-82 in Intertextual
Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38.
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005.
——. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira: An Investigation of Beginnings
and Endings.” Pages 21-48 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction,
Bibliography 291

and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin, New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
——. “Qohelet and Ben Sira: A Comparison.” Pages 145-54 in Wisdom for Life: Essays
Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday.
Edited by Nuria Caluduch-Benages. BZAW 445. Berlin and Boston: Walter de
Gruyter, 2014.
Coulot, Clause. “L’instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III, 13-IV, 26).” RSR 82/2 (2008):
147-60.
Crossley, James. “Mark 7.1-23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean.” Pages 8-20 in
Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar
of June 2008. Edited by Peter Oakes and Michael Tait. New York; London: T and T
Clark, 2009.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Translated by
Willard R. Trask. Bollingen Series 36. Princeton University Press: Princeton and
Oxford, 2013
Daise, Michael. “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 293-305 in The Dead
Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress,
July 20-25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2000.
Davies, Philip R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus
Document.” JSOT 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1983.
——. “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965-8 in vol. 2
of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Davies, W. D. “Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit.” Pages 157-82 in The Scrolls
and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. London: SCM, 1958.
Davila, James R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?
JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Delcor, Mathias. Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot). Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962.
Di Lella, Alexander. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45/2
(1964): 153-67.
Diethelm, Michel. Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet. BZAW 183. New
York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.
Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. rev ed. New York: Cornell
University Press, 1996.
——. “Philo and Hellenistic Platonism.” Pages 223-32 in Philo of Alexandria and
Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Edited by Francesca Alesse. Studies in Philo of
Alexandria 5. Leiden: Brill 2008.
——. “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology.” Pages 17-24 in The Afterlife of the
Platonic Soul: Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions. Edited
292 Bibliography

by Maha El-Kaisy and John M. Dillon. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the
Platonic Tradition 9. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009.
Dochorn, Jan, Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, and Benjamin Wold, eds. Das Böse, der Teufel und
Dämonen—Evil, the Devil, and Demons. WUNT 2 412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Douglas, Michael C. “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old
Crux.” DSD 6/3 (1999): 239-66.
Duhaime, Jean. “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les
deux esprits.” Pages 103-32 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.
Duling, D. C. “Testament of Solomon.” Pages 935-88 in vol. 1 of Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and
Company, 1985.
Dulkin, Ryan Scott. The Rabbis Rereading Eden: A Traditions-Historic Study of Exegetical
Motifs in the Classical and Selected Post-Classical Rabbinic Sources on Genesis 1-3.
Ph.D. Diss., Jewish Theological Seminary 2011.
Dupont-Sommer, André, “L’instruction sur les deux Eprits dans le «Manuel de
Discipline».” RHR 142/1 (1952): 5-35.
Elgvin, Torleif. “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation.” Pages 113-
50 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer
and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010):
13-20.
——. and Michael Rand, “A new fragment of the book of Ben Sira, T-S AS 118.78,” http://
www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/fotm/january-2011/index.html.
Elwolde, John F. “The Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 1).”
Pages 65-88 in Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society
for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en
België, Apeldoorn, August 2006. Edited by Bob Becking and Eric Peels. Leiden: Brill,
2007.
——. “The ‘Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 3: pss 73-
89).” DSD 17/2 (2010): 159-79.
——. “The ‘Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 2: PSS 42-
72).” Pages 79-99 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context I: Integrating the
Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by
Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, in association with Bennie H.
Reynolds III. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
——. “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 4: Pss 90-
106).” Pages 65-87 in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh
Bibliography 293

Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki. Edited by George J. Brooke, Daniel K. Falk,

Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Eshel, Esther. “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 69-89 in
Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings
of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by Esther Chazon. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill,
2003. 69-89.
Eslinger, Lyle. “The Enigmatic Plurals like ‘One of Us’ (Genesis I 26, III 22, and XI 7) in
Hyperchronic Perspective.” VT 56/2 (2006): 171-84.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “‫גְ וִ יָ ה‬.” Page 437 in vol. 2 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterwek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.
——. “‫ ֵלב‬.” Pages 466-76 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten.
Edited by Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 2 vols. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer. 2013-
——. and Ulrich Dahmen et al. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten. 2
vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2011-.
Falk, Daniel.“4Q393: A Communal Confession.” JSJ 65/2 (1994): 184-207.
——. “4Q393. 4QCommunal Confession.” Pages 45-62 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical
and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Esther Chazon et al., in consultation with
James VanderKam and Monica Brady. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible. California: University of
California Press, 1998.
Fernández-Ardanaz, Santiago. “El Problema del Hombre en los Textos de Qumrán:
Semántica de los Principales Términos Antropológicos.” RCT 15/1 (1990): 1-65.
Flavius Josephus: Judean War 2. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary.
Translated and edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Flusser, David. “Ha-dualism ‘basar-ruach’ be-megillot midbar ve-beberit ha-chadashah.’”
Tarbiz 27 (1958): 158-65. Repr. pages 244-51 in Yahdut beit shani, Qumran ve-
apokaliptikah. Edited by Serge Ruzer. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2002. Trans. and
repr. pages 283-92 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Vol. I: Qumran and
Apocalypticism. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 2007.
——. “Qumrân and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers.” IEJ 16/3 (1966): 194-205. Repr. pages
214-28 in Judaism and Origins of Christianity. Edited by Brad Young. Jerusalem:
Magness Press, 1998.
——. “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity.” Pages 215-66 in Aspects of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. ScrHeir 4. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1965. Repr. in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1988.
294 Bibliography

——. “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message.” HTR 61/2 (Apr., 1968):
107-27. Repr. pages 469-89 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Edited by Brad
Young. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.
——. “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers.” Pages 551-78 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus.
Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands Van Gorcum, 1984.
——. “Josephus and the Pharisee on the Stoa.” Pages 221-31 in Judaism of the Second
Temple Period: Sages and Literature, Vol.2. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009.
Forman, Charles C. “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis.” JSS 5 (1960): 256-63.
Fraade, Steven D. “Enosh and His Generations Revisited.” Pages 4-17 in Biblical
Figures Outside of the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren.
Harrisburg; Trinity International Press, 1989.
Fraade, Steven D. Enoch and His Generations: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in
Post-Biblical. SBLMS. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984.
Fredericks, Daniel C. Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date. ANETS 3.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988.
Frevel, Christian, ed. Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Altem Testament.
QD 237. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Verlag Herder, 2010.
Frey, Jörg. “Die paulinische Antithese von »Fleisch« und »Geist« und die palästinisch-
jüdisch Weisheitstradition.” ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77.
——. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections
on Their Background and History.” Pages 275-335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues:
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran
Studies, Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by
Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
——. “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.”
Pages 197-226 in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding
of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998,
Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by Daniel Falk, Florentino
García Martínez, and Eileen Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
——. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the
Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 364-404 in
The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Studies
in Wisdom at Qumran and its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near
East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament. Edited by Charlotte
Hempel, Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 2002.
Bibliography 295

——. “The Notion of Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Texts of the Early Jesus
Movement.” Pages 83-102 in The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited
by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister, and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Frick, Peter. “Monotheism and Philosophy: Notes on the concept of God in Philo and
Paul (Romans 1:18-21).” Pages 237-58 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism:
Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited Stanley E. Porter and
Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 10. ECHC 2. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.
Frisch, Alexandria and Lawrence H. Schiffman. “The Body in Qumran Literature: Flesh
and Spirit, Purity and Impurity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 23 (2016): 155-82.
Foot Moore, George. “Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to
Josephus.” HTR 22/4 (1929): 371-89.
Fox, Michael V. “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet.” JBL 105/3 (Sep., 1986): 409-27.
——. Qohelet and His Contradictions. BLS 18. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989.
García-Martínez, Florentino. “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49-70 in The
Creation of Heaven and Earth Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism,
Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics. TBNJCT: 8. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
——. “The Genesis of Alexandria, the Rabbis, and Qumran.” Pages 241-60 in Qumranica
Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition. 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999.
García, Jeffrey P. “‘Vessels of Dust:’ The Use and Disuse of Genesis’ Creation Accounts to
Depict Humanity in the Hodayot.” Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting,
Baltimore, November 2013.
Gerard, Rouwhorst. “The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother
in Christian Tradition.” Pages 183-204 in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and
Christianity. Edited by Marcel Poorthius and Joshua Shwartz. JCPS 7. Leiden: Brill,
2004.
Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira et la femme.” RTL 7 (1976): 426-42.
——. “Wisdom Literature.” Pages 284-324 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus.
Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984.
——. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14.” Pages 118-35 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings
of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw 2001. BZAW 321. Berlin;
New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.
——. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis I-II.” Pages 89-99 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira
and Tobit: Essays in honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. CBQMS 38. Edited by
Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. Washington: CBA, 2005.
296 Bibliography

Goff, Matthew. “The Mystery of Creation in 4QInstruction.” DSD 10/2 (2003): 165-70.
——. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
——. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116.
Leiden: Brill, 2007.
——. “Gen 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul.”
Pages 114-25 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Volume 2: Exegetical
Studies. Edited by C. Evans and H. D. Zacharias. London: T and T Clark, 2009.
——. “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Gen 1-3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and
4QInstruction.” Pages 1-22 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravitz
and Jószef Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden, Brill, 2010.
——. “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of
Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians.” Pages 41-59 in Christian Body,
Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild
and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
——. 4QInstruction. WLAW 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.
Goldstein, Jonathan. 2 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 41a. New York: Doubleday, 1983.
Gordley, Matthew E. “Creation Imagery in Qumran Hymns and Prayers.” JJS 59/2
(2008): 252-72.
Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature.” HTR 87/2
(Apr., 1994): 171-95.
Grabbe, Lester L. Wisdom of Solomon. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffied Academic Press, 1997.
Grossman, Maxine. “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document.” DSD 11/2 (2004):
212-39
Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Root ‘GBL’ in Mishnaic Hebrew and in the Hymnic
Literature from Qumran.” RevQ 2 (1959-1960): 155-62. Repr. pages in 690-98 in Al
Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by
Jonas C. Greenfield, S. Paul, Michael Stone, Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
——. Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition,
Translation, Commentary. SVTP 91. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Gregory, Bradley C. Like and Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach.
DCL 2. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011.
Guglielmo, Lara “Manuscripts, Editions and Translations of the Damascus Document
from 1896 to 2007: Towards a (Re-)Edition 4Q266.” MG 13/1-2 (2008): 251-78.
Gundry, Robert H. Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology.
SNTSMS 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Haaland, Gunaar. “What Difference Does Philosophy Make? The Three Schools as a
Rhetorical Device in Josephus.” Pages 262-88 in Making History: Josephus and the
Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. JSJSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bibliography 297

Hadot, Jean. Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira
(L’Ecclésiastique). Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970.
Harnisch, Wolfgang. Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum
Zeit und Geschichtsverständnis im 4 Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse.
FRLANT 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969.
Harrington, Daniel J. “Recent Study of 4QInstruction.” Pages 105-23 in From 4QMMT to
Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino
García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 62. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
Hay, David M. “Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae and a
Possible Connection with Corinth.” Pages 127-42 in Philo und das Neue Testament:
wechseleitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-
Hellenisticum, 1.-4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-
Wilhelm Neibuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
——. “The Treatise of the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the
Community.” Page 102-20 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits.
LSTS 76. London: T and T Clark, 2010.
——. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction. STDJ 29.
Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine during the
Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Henten, Wille van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2
and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Hezser, Catherine. “Paul’s ‘Fool’s Speech’ (2 Cor 11:16-32) in the Context of Ancient
Jewish and Graeco-Roman Culture.” Pages 221-44 in 2 Corinthians in the Perspective
of Late Second Temple Judaism. Edited Reimund Bieringer, Emmauel Nathan, Didier
Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson. CRINT 14. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Hillel, Vered. “Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”
JSP 16/3 (2007): 171-201.
Himmelfarb, Martha. “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature.”
Pages 115-41 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha.
Edited by John C. Reeves. Atlanta: SBL, 1994.
Hollander, H. W. and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A
Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATD 2. Arhus: Universitets­
forlaget, 1960.
Holmes, Samuel. “The Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 518-68 in vol. 1 of The Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols.
Oxford, 1913.
298 Bibliography

Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
Hultgren, Stephen. From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community:
Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 66. Leiden:
Brill, 2007.
Hippolytus in Rome. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by M. David Litwa. WGRW.
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.
Hurvitz, Avi. “review of Qoheleth’s Language.” HS 31 (1990): 144-54.
Irsigler, Hubert. “Zur Interdependenz von Gottes und Menschenbildern in Kontext
alttestamentlicher Anthropologien.” Pages 195-230 in “Denk an deinen Scöpfer”:
Studien zum Verständnis von Gott, Mensch, und Volk im Alten Testament. Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2015.
Isenberg, Sheldon. “An Anti-Sadducees Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition.”
HTR 63/3 (1970): 433-44.
Jervell, Jacob. Imago Dei: Gen 1.26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in de paulinisch-
en Briefen. FRLANT 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960.
Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings.
AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Jonge, Marinus de. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text,
Composition and Origin. VGTB 25. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953.
——. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193-246
in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited
Marius de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
——. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text.
PVTG 1. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
——. “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.”
NT 44/4 (Oct., 2002): 371-92.
Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. “The Mother and the Seven Sons in Late Antique and
Medieval Ashkenazi Judaism: Narrative Transformations and Communal Identity.”
Pages 127-46 in Dying for the Faith, Killing for the Faith: Old Testament Faith-Warriors
(1 and 2 Maccabees) in Historical Perspective. Edited by G. Signori. Brill’s Studies in
Intellectual History 206. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Kaiser, Otto. “Göttliche Weisheit und menschliche Freiheit bei Ben Sira.” Pages 291-
306 in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck
anlässlich seiner Emeritierung. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, Johannes
Schiller. BZAW 331. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
——. Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und
Hermeneutik. BZAW 392. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Bibliography 299

——. “‘Was ist der Mensch und was ist sein Wert?’ Beobachtungen zur Anthropologie
des Jesus Sirach nach Sir 16,24-18,14,” Pages 290-304, and “Anthropologie and
Eschatologie in der Weisheit Salomos,” Pages 215-26 in Gott, Mensch und Geschichte:
Studien zum Verständnis des Menschen und seiner Geschichte in der klassischen, bib-
lischen und nachbiblischen Literatur. BZAW 413. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.
——. Die Weiheit Solomos: Üersetzt, eingeleitet und durch biblische und außerbiblische
Parallelen erläutert. Stuttgart: Radius-Verlag, 2010.
Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775-828 in vol. 1 of Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
and Company, 1985.
Kim Harkins, Angela. Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot
Through the Lens of Visionary Traditions. Ekstasis: 3. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012.
——. “The Community Hymns Classification: A Proposal for Further Differentiation,”
DSD 15 (2008): 121-154.
——. “Observations of the Editorial Shaping of the So-Called Community Hymns in
1QHa and 4QHa (4Q427).” DSD 12/3 (2005): 233-56.
Kittel, Bonnie. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. SBLDS 50.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981.
Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
——. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism
and Freedom of Choice.” Pages 264-83 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An
Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited Maxine L. Grossman.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
——. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.”
Numen 56 (2009): 60.
——. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2017.
Knibb. Michael A. The Ethiopic Books of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic
Dead Sea Fragments vol. 1: Text and Apparatus; vol. 2: Introduction, Translation, and
Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
——. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793-97 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and Johan Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E.
J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999.
Konradt, Matthias and Esther Schläpfer, eds. Anthropologie und Ethik in Frühjudentum
und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen—Internationales
Symposium in Verbindung mit dem Projeckt Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi
300 Bibliography

Testamenti (CJHNT) 17.-20. Mai 2012, Heidelberg. WUNT 322. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014.
Kraut, Richard. “Introduction to the Study of Plato.” Pages 1-50 in The Cambridge
Companion to Plato. Edited by R. Kraut. CCP. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
Kugel, James L. “Qohelet and Money.” CBQ 51/1 (Jan., 1989): 32-49.
——. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It was at the Start of the Common
Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Kugler, Robert. “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the.” Pages 952-3 in vol. 2 of
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and
James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
——. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001.
——. “A Note on Lev 26:41, 43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1-2 recto 5-6; and 1QS 8:3 (par.
4Q259 2:12): On Human Agency in the Divine Economy at Qumran.” Pages 245-50
in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Edited by Jeremy
Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den
Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart
in der Verkündigung Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966.
Labahn, Michael and Outi Lehtipuu, eds. Anthropology in the New Testament and its
Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscaba/Budapest. CBET 54.
Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Lange, Armin. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination
in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
——. “4Q468i: 4QSectarian Text.” Pages 416-417 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts,
Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann, Philip S. Alexander et al., in consul-
tation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady. DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon,
2000.
——. “Consideration Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2.” Pages 254-68
in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen
Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt—Demons: The Demonology of Israelite Jewish
and Early Christian Literature in the Context of their Environment. Edited by Armin
Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2003.
——. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible.”
DSD 13/3 (2006): 277-305.
——. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011.
Bibliography 301

——. “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit
Quotations in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’“ Pages 251-84 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion
of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Larcher, Chrysostome. Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969.
Lauha, Aarre. Kohelet. BKAT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.
Laurin, Robert. “The Question of Immortality in the ‘Hodayot.’” JSS 3/4 (1958): 344-55.
——. “The Concept of Man as a Soul.” ExpTim 72 (1960-1961): 131-34.
Le Déaut, R. “Traditions targumiques dans le corpus paulinien?” Bib 42/1 (1961): 28-48.
Lea Mattila, Sharon. “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence,”
JBL 119:3 (Aut., 2000): 473-501.
Leaney, A. R. C. The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, and
Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.
Lee, Eunny P. The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric. BZAW 353.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.
Lagarde, Paul de. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace. Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus;
Londinii: Williams and Norgate, 1861.
Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the
God of Life. London: Yale University Press, 2006.
Levinson, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans,
2009.
Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch. SJPSup 1.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Lewis, Theodore J. “Dead, The Abode of.” Pages 101-6 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992.
Licht, Jacob. “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll.” IEJ 6/2 (1956): 89-101.
——. Megillat ha-serakhim me-megillot midbar yehudah: serekh ha-yaḥad serekh
ha-‘edah serekh ha-erakhot. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965.
——. “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the DSD.” Pages 88-100 in
Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. ScrHeir 4.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965.
Lichtenberger, Herman. Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde.
SUNT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980.
——. “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von im Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14:1 (1983): 1-10.
——. “‘Dem Tode verfallen war ich wegen meiner Sünden’ (11QPsa XIX, 1-18).”
Pages 179-96 in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish,
Greco-Roman, and Egyptian Literature. Edited by Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittmann.
DCLS 18. Berlin: Boston; Walter de Gruyter, 2015.
Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. CQS. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
302 Bibliography

Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Lohfink, Norbert. Kohelet. Würtzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980.
Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.
Lorberbaum, Yair. Tzelem elohim halachah ve-aggadah. Tel Aviv: Shocken Publishing
House, 2004.
——. In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism. New York,
Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Louis Fletcher, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead
Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Maier, Gerhard, Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwi­schen
Ben Sira und Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971.
Maier, Johann. Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom Toten Meer: Band I. Uni-
Taschenbücher. München: E. Reinhardt, 1995.
Mansoor, Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Leiden: Brill, 1961.
Marböck, Johannes. “Kohelet und Sirach.” Pages in 275-302 in Das Buch Kohelet:
Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludgwe
Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
Marcus, Joseph. “A Fifth Ms. of Ben Sira.” JQR 21/3 (Jan., 1931): 223-40.
Martin Hogan, Karina. “The Mortal Body and the Earth in Ben Sira and the Book of the
Watchers.” Pages 21-39 in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian
Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omniun Haeresium.
PTS 25. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Matson, Jason. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism: A Comparative
Study. WUNT 2 297. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus in the Pharisee: A Composition-Critical Study. Studia
Post-Biblica. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
——. “Josephus’ Judean War.” Pages 13-35 in A Companion to Josephus. Blackwell
Companions to the Ancient World. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika
Rodgers. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2016.
Matusova, Ekaterina. “The Post-Mortem Divisions of the Dead in 1 Enoch 22:1-13:
Against the Background of the Greek Influence Hypothesis.” Pages 149-77 in Evil and
Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish, Greco-Roman and Egyptian
Literature. Edited by Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittman. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015.
McCarter, Jr, P. Kyle. “Dualism in Antiquity.” Pages 19-35 in Light After Darkness:
Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited
Bibliography 303

by Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric Meyers, Armin Lange, Randall Styers. JAJSup 2.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, s2010.
McKeating, Henry. “Jesus ben Sira’s Attitude to Women.” ExpTim 85 (1973): 85-87.
McNamara, Martin. The Aramaic Bible: Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis I—Translated, with
Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible: The Targums. Collegeville: A Michael
Glazier Book; Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992.
Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21.
Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Metzger, Bruce. “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” Pages 517-61 in vol. 1 of Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
and Company, 1985.
Meyer, Nicholas A. Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory: Rethinking Anthropogony and
Theology in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul. NTSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Milik, J. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. With Matthew
Black. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
Miller, Douglas B. “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫לבה‬.” JBL 117/3 (1998): 437-54.
Mirguet, Françoise. “Attachment to the Body in the Greek Testament of Abraham: A
Reappraisal of the Short Recension,” JSP 19/4 (2010): 251-275.
Moo, Jonathan A. Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra. FRLANT 236. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2011.
Muraoka, Takitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009.
Murphy O’Connor, Jerome. “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76
(1976): 528-49.
Murphy, Catherine M. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the in the Qumran Community.
STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Murphy, Roland E. “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature.” Bib 39/3 (1958): 334-4.
Naveh, Joseph. “Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran.” IEJ 48 3/4 (1998):
256-61.
Newman, Hillel. Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups in the Ancient Period.
Edited by R. Ludlam. BRLJ 25. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Newsom, Carol. “Case of the Blinking ‘I”: Discourse of the Self at Qumran 1QH.”
Pages 13-23 in Discursive Formations, Ascetic Piety and the Interpretation of Early
Christianity Literature. Semeia 57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
——. “Knowing as Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge as Qumran.” Pages 139-
53 in Ideological Criticism of Biblical Texts. Edited by David Jobling and Tina Pippin.
Semeia 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
——. “4Q370. 4QAdmonition on the Flood.” Pages 85-98 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al., in consultation with James
VanderKam. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
304 Bibliography

——. “Apocalyptic Subjects: Social Construction of the Self in the Qumran Hodayot.”
JSP 12/1 (2001): 3-35.
——. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran.
STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
——. “Constructing ‘We, You, and the Others’ through Non-Polemical Discourse.”
Pages 13-22 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentino
García Martínez and Mladen Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden, New York: Brill, 2008.
——. “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot.” Pages 339-54 in
Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Essays in Honor
of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner,
Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
——. “Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot.” Pages 193-211 in The
Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fourteenth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 28-30 May, 2013. Edited by Ruth Clements, Menahem Kister,
and Michael Segal. STDJ 127. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
——. Rhetoric and Hermeneutics: Approaches to Text, Tradition and Social Construction
in Biblical and Second Temple Literature. FAT 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Qumranic Transformation of a Cosmological and
Eschatological Tradition (1QH 4:29-40)” Pages 649-59 in vol. 2 of The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid 18-21, 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrerra and Luis Vegas Montaner.
STDJ 11. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. repr. from “The
Qumranic Radicalizing and Anthropologizing of an Eschatological Tradition
(1QH4:29-40).” Pages 423-35 in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu sei-
nem 65 Geburstag. Edited by Dwight D. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer, and Martin Rösel.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1991.
——. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, 81-108. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
——. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early
Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2006.
Nitzan, Bilhah. Tefillat qumran ve-shiratah. BEL 14. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1996.
English translation Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by J. Chipman.
STDJ 12. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994.
——. “The Idea of Creation and Its Implications in Qumran Literature.” Pages 240-
64 in Creation in Christian in Jewish Tradition. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow and
Yair Hoffman. JSOTSup 319. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic: 2002.
Bibliography 305

Notley, R. Steven and Jeffrey P. García “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach

to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 349-74 in The Language Environment of
First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels Volume 2. Edited by
Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley. JCP 26. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Olyan, Samuel P. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80/3 (Jul., 1987),
261-86.
Onsei-Bonsu, Joseph. “Anthropological Dualism in the New Testament.” SJT 40 (1987):
571-90.
Osborne, James F. “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and
Practice in Iron Age Judah.” JNES 70/1 (2011): 35-53.
Osten-Sacken. Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Unersuchungen
zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1969.
Penney, Douglas L., and Michael O. Wise. “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic
Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560).” JBL 113/4 (Winter 1994): 627-650.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1994.
Peters, Dorothy M. Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and
Controversies of Antquity. EJL 26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Phillip Hyatt, J. “The View of Man in the Hodayot.” NTS 2/4 (May, 1956): 283.
Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Early-Period Jerusalem. STDJ 67. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
——. “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits
Treatise (1QS 3:13-4:26) and Other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 59-98
in ‘And God Breathed into Man the Breath of Life’—Dust of the Ground and Breath
of Life (Gen 2:7): The Development of Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism
and Christianity, and Their Umwelts. Edited by J. T. A. G. M van Ruiten and
Gerhard H. van Kooten. TBN. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Porter, F. C. “Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin.” Pages 136-58 in Biblical
and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and
Biblical Faculty of Yale University. Yale Bicentennial Publications. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons; London: Edward Arnold, 1901.
Puéch, Emile. “Hodayot.” Pages 365-68 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
——. “Apports des Textes Apocalyptiques et Sapientiels de Qumrân à l’Eschatologie
du Judaïsme Ancien.” Pages 137-60 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.
306 Bibliography

Puech, Émile, “Livret Magique: 4QLivret magique ar.” Pages 291-302 in Qumran Grotte 4
XXVII: Textes Araméens Deuxième Parti. DJD XXXVII. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
2009.
Rahlfs, Alfred., ed. Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
Rajak, Tessa. “The Individual and the Word in Hellenistic Judaism: Cases in Philo
and Josephus.” Pages 298-314 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient
Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Ramón Díaz, José. “Dos Notas Sobre el Targum Palestinense.” Sef 19/1 (1959): 133-6
Rey, Jean-Sébastian, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology. STDJ 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Robert Doran, “The Martyr: A Synoptic of the Mother and Her Seven Sons” Pages 189-221
in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins
and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico: Scholars
Press, 1980.
Robinson, T. M. “The Defining Features of Mind-Body Dualism the Writings of Plato.”
Pages 37-55 in Pysche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body
Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment. Edited by John P. Wright and Paul Potter.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.
Rosen Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity.
Philadelphia: UPenn Press, 2011.
Rudman, Dominic. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. JSOT 316. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44;
Leiden: Brill, 1986.
——. One the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and
Commentary. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Ruzer, Serge. “The Double Love Precept in the New Testament and the Rule of the
Community.” Pages 81-106 in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic
Gospels—Vol. 1. JCP 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Safrai, Ze’ev, and R. Steven Notley, The Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus
to Rav Ashi. Jerusalem: Carta, 2011.
Sanders, James. The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJDJ IV. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1965.
——. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca: New York, 1967.
Sanders, Seth L. “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects
of the Katumuwa Stele.” BASOR 369 (2013): 35-55.
Sarason, Richard S. “Communal Prayer at Qumran and Among the Rabbis” Pages 151-
72 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 19-23 January,
2000. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. STDJ 40. Leiden Brill, 2003.
Bibliography 307

Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the
Background of Christianity, and the Lost Library of Qumran. New York: Doubleday,
1995.
——. “Foundations of Tzedek and Tzedakah: Righteousness and Charity in the Jewish
Tradition.” (unpublished article).
——. “4Q299: 4QMysteriesa.” Pages 33-98 in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1.
Edited by Torleif Elgvin et al., in consultation with Joseph A. Fitzmyer. DJD XX.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Schmitt, Armin. Das Buch der Weisheit: Ein Kommentar. Würzburg: Echter, 1986.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. “The Function of the Law.” Pages 46-54 in Law and Wisdom from
Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry in the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and
Ethics. WUNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985.
Schnelle, Udo. “Der erste Thessalonicherbrief und die Entstehung der paulinischen
Anthropologie.” NT 32 (1986): 207-24.
Schnelle, Udo. Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus, Paulus, Johannes. BThS 18.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991.
Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development
for the Community Rule. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Schuller, Eileen M. and Lorenzo Di Tommaso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayot, 1948-
1996.” DSD 4/1 (Mar., 1997): 55-101.
——. “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts Among the Dead
Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173-90 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in the Light of
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion
Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by
Esther G. Chazon et. al. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
——. “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot, 1993-2010.” Currents in Biblical Research 10
(2011): 119-162.
——. and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns): A Study Edition.
EJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Salomos: ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und
Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Seebass, H. ‫”נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” Pages 497-518 in vol. 10 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament. Edited by Gerhard Johannes Botterwek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2006.
Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redactions, Ideology and Theology.
JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
308 Bibliography

Segal, Moshe H. Sefer ben sira ha-shalem. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958.
Sekki, Arthur Everett. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989.
Seow, Choon-Leong. “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” JBL 115/4 (Win.,
1996): 643-66.
Sheiber, A. “A New Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.”
Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 175-85.
——. “An Additional Page of Ben Sira in Hebrew” Pages 1179-85 in vol. 2 of Jubilee Volume
in Honor of Moreinu Hagaon Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik. Edited by S. Yisra’eli, N. Lamm,
and Y. Refa’el. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Kook; New York: Yeshiva University, 1984.
Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New
York: Doubleday, 1987.
Smith, Morton. “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles.” Pages 315-26
in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by
Jacob Nuesner. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Sneed, Mark R. The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to Israelite and Jewish
Wisdom Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.
——. The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes. Atlanta: SBL, 2012.
Stauber, Chad Martin. “Determinism in the Rule of the Community (1QS): A New
Perspective.” Pages 345-58 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Stegemann, Hartmut, Eileen Schuller, and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III:
1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 4QHodayota-f and 1QHodayotb. DJD XL. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2009.
Steiner, Richard. Disembodied Souls: the Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the
Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription. ANEM 11.
Atlanta: SBL, 2015.
Stone, Michael E. “Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple: Theology, Perception
and Conversion.” JSJ 12/2 (1981): 195-204
——. “Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 383-442 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus.
Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984.
——. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990.
——. and Jonas C. Greenfield. “4Q213a: 4QLevb.” Pages 25-36 in Qumran Cave 4. XVII.
Parabiblical Texts: Part 3. DJD XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Strack, Hermann L. and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
Edited and Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Bibliography 309

Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington and Torleif Elgvin, in consultation with

J. A. Fitzmyer. Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction (Musar leMevin): 4Q415 ff. With a
reedition of 1Q26. DJD XXXIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Stuckenbruck, Loren. “Pleas for Deliverance from the Demonic in Early Jewish Texts.”
Pages 55-78 in Studies in Jewish Prayer. JJSSup 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press/
University of Manchester, 2005.
——. “The Interiorization of Dualism with the Human Being in Second Temple
Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits in its Tradition-Historical Context.”
Pages 145-68 in Light After Darkness: Dualism in the Ancient Mediterranean Religion
and the Contemporary World. Edited by Bennie H. Reynolds III, Eric Meyers, Armin
Lange, and Randall Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010.
——. “The ‘Heart’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Negotiating Between the Problem of
Hypocrisy and Conflict within the Human Being.” Pages 437-53 in vol. 1 of The
Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient
Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias
Weigold. 2 vols. VTSup 140. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011.
Suriano, Matthew. A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2018.
Suriano, Matthew. “Breaking Bread with the Dead: Katumuwa’s Stele, Hosea 9:4, and
the Early History of the Soul.” JAOS 134/3 (July-Sept., 2014): 385-405.
Tanzer, Sarah J. Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the “Hodayot.” Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard
University, 1986.
——. “Biblical interpretation in the ‘Hodayot.’“ Pages 255-75 in A Companion to Biblical
Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2012.
Tigchelaar, Eibert. “The Addressees of 4QInstruction.” Pages 62-78 in Sapiential,
Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of
Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and
Eileen Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
——. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the
Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
——. “‘These are the names of the Spirit of …’: A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue
of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257
and 1Q29a).” RQ 21/4 (2004): 538-42.
——. “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’: Reflections on
4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians.” Pages 103-18 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran
and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden:
Brill, 2009.
310 Bibliography

——. “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-edition of 4Q468I
(4QSectarian Text?).” Pages 347-57 in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in
Antiquity; Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina
Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-van de Weg. AJEC 73. Leiden: Brill,
2008.
——. “‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬.” Pages 537-547 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum den Qumrantexten.
Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Ulrich Dahmen et al. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
2011.
Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14.
Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1985.
Tomes, Roger. “A Father’s Anxieties (Sirach 42:9-11).” Pages 71-91 in Women in Biblical
Tradition. Edited by George J. Brooke. Studies in Women and Religion 31. New York:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.
Tooman, William A. “Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and
Composition in ‘Hodayot’ (1QHa) 11:6-19.” DSD 18/1 (2011): 54-73;
Trafton, Joseph L. “Solomon, Psalms of,” Pages 116-7 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992.
Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis. BJS 38. Chico:
Scholars Press 1982.
Tromp, Johannes. “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17.” NT 35/4
(1993): 344-61.
Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira.
BZAW 379. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
Uehlinger, Christoph. “Qohelet im Horizont mesopotamischer, levantinischer und
ägyptischer Weisheitliteratur der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit.” Pages 155-
248 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie.
Edited by Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. New York and Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1997
Ulrich, Eugene. “Qoheleth.” Pages 221-7 in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles.
Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Joseph A. Fitzmyer et al. DJD 16.
Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.
Urbach, Ephraim. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979.
Van den Hoek, Annewies. “Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s
Thoughts on Adam and Eve.” Pages 63-75 in The Creation of Man and Woman:
Interpretation of Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by
Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. TBNJC 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Van der Horst, P. W. The Sentences of Pseudo Phocylides. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Bibliography 311

——. “Pseudo-Phocylides.” Pages 565-82 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

Edited by James Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company,
1985.
——. “The Evil Inclination ‫יצר הרע‬.” Pages 317-9 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in
the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst.
Leiden, 1995
——. “Pseudo-Phocylides on the Afterlife: A Rejoinder to John J. Collins.” JSJ 35
(2004): 70-75. Repr. pages 93-97 in Jewish and Christians in their Graeco Roman
Context: Selected Essays in Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity.
WUNT 196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Van der Ploeg, J. “The Belief in Immortality in the Writings of Qumran.” BibOr 28/3-4
(1961): 118-24.
Van Kooten, George H. Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation
to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early
Christianity. WUNT I 232. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
——. “The Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. The
Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul, and Body.” Pages 264-309. In
Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike. Edited Ludger Jansen, Christoph Jedan,
and Christof Rapp. TAP 5. Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, New Brunswick: Ontos-Verlag,
2010.
Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. “The Creation of Man and Woman in Early Jewish Literature.”
Pages 34-62 in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical
Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizen;
TBN 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
VanderKam, James. “Review of Hermann Lichtenberger Studien zum Menschenbild in
Texten der Qumrangemeinde.” CBQ 43/3 (1981): 447-9.
——. The Book of Enoch of 1 Enoch: A New English Translation with Commentary and
Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
——. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. SA 87. Lovanii: Aedibus E. Peeters,
1989.
——. Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Chapters 1-21. Edited by Sidnie
White Crawford. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018.
——. Jubilees 2: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Chapters 22-50, Edited by Sidnie
White Crawford. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018.
Vermes, Geza. “The Targumic Versions of Gen 4:3-16.” Pages 92-126 in Post-Biblical
Jewish Studies. SJLA. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Vincenz Reiterer, Friedrich “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah
within Ben Sira.” Pages 209-31. In The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition,
Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Guiseppe Bellia. DCL 1.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
312 Bibliography

Vollenweider, Samuel. “Der Menschgewordene als Ebenbild Gottes: zum frühchrist-

lichen Verständnis der Imago Die.” Pages 123-46 in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher
über die Welt: Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by H. P. Mathys.
BthS 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998.
Wächer, Luwig. “Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener
zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus.” ZFRG 21/2 (1969): 97-114.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological
Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. STDJ 56.
Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Wagner, Ellen, ed. Essays on Plato’s Psychology. Lanham; Boulder; Oxford: Lexington
Books, 2001.
Walter Wolff, Hans. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1974.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Social Justice in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995.
Werline, Rodney W. “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule.” Pages 69-88 in
Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Bennie G. Wright
III and Lawrence M. Wills. SBLSS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Werman, Cana. “What is the Book of Hagu?” Pages 125-40 in Sapiential Perspectives:
Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 20-22 May, 2001. Edited by John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling,
and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Wernberg-Møller, P. The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an
Introduction. STDJ 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957.
Westermann, Claus. “‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‬nepeš ‘soul.’” Pages 743-49 in vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of
the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann.
Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997.
Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira
und der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Williams, Jarvis J. “Martyr Theology in Hellenistic Judaism and Paul’s Conception
of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3:21-26.” Pages 493-522 in Christian Origins and
Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by
Stanley E. Porter, Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 10. Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic
Context 2. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.
Wilson, Walter T. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. CEJL. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1965.
——. The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the
Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. TSAJ 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 43. New York: Doubleday, 1979.
Bibliography 313

Winter, Paul. “Ben Sira and the Teaching of the ‘Two Ways.’” VT 5/3 (Jul., 1955): 315-18.
Wischmeyer, Oda. “Theologie und Anthropologie im Sirachbuch.” Pages 18-32 in Ben
Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Urshaw
College 2001. Edited Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2002.
Wold, Benjamin, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le-
Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions. WUNT 2 201. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2005.
——. “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction.” RQ 102/1 (2013): 211-26.
——. “Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction.” Pages 34-48 in Evil in
Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and
Chris Keith. WUNT 2. Reihe 417. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
——. “Apotropaic Prayer and the Matthean Lord’s Prayer.” Pages 101-112 in Das Böse,
der Teufel und Dämonen—Evil, the Devil, and Demons. Edited by Benjamin Wold, Jan
Dochhorn, and Susanne Rudnig-Zelt. WUNT II. Reihe 412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2016.
——. 4Qinstruction: Divisions and Hierarchies. STDJ 123. Leiden: Brill 2018.
Worthington, Jonathan D. Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before.
WUNT 2.317. Tügingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Wright III, Benjamin. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the
Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” SBLSP 35 (1996): 133-49.
——. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem
Priesthood.” Pages 96-126 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben
Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill,
2008. Repr. from 189-222 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by
Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
——. “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch.” Pages 147-63 in
Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of
Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Wright, Archie. The Origins of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish
Literature. WUNT 2/198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Repr. The Origin of Evil
Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2015.
Wright, Robert B. “Psalms of Solomon,” Pages 640-2 in vol. 2 of Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and
Company, 1985.
Wright, Robert B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition to the Greek Text. Jewish and
Christian Texts Series 1. New York; London: T and T Clark, 2007.
Würthwein, Ernst. Geschichte und Verantwortung: Vom Menschenbild des Alten
Testaments. Wort und Existenz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970.
314 Bibliography

Yadin, Yigael. “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.” Pages 151-231 in Masada VI. The
Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Report. Revised by Elisha Qimron. Edited
by Shemaryahu Talmon. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, 1999.
Yoshiko Reed, Annette. “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection:
Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the ‘Testament of Abraham.’”
JSP 40/2 (2009), 185-212.
Young, Norman H. “Reconciliation on Philo, Josephus, and Paul.” Pages 233-44 in The
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David
Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeolo
gical Museum, Andrews University, 1997.
Ziadé, Raphaëlle. Les martyrs Maccabées: de l’histoire juive au culte chrétien—Les homé-
lies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome. VCSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Zimmer, Tilman. Zwischen Tod und Lebensglück. BZAW 286. Berlin and New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Zimmerli, Walther. Das Menschenbild des Alten Testaments. TEH 14. München: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1949.
Subject Index

Abaddon 99 charity 44, 43, 57, 206

Abel 142-143, 146, 154, 273 choicest of clay 271, 278
abode of the dead 126, 164, 176, 273 of material 75, 108
Adam 10, 19, 20, 27, 35, 46, 47, 49, 55, 58, 69, clay 4, 11, 27, 28, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 59, 60,
75, 85, 87, 103, 108, 121, 151, 217, 238, 242, 61, 66-68, 72, 73, 76-78, 80-83, 88, 89,
257, 259, 269, 270, 271 91-97, 99, 100-104, 108-110, 158, 159, 178,
Adam-cycle 10 180, 196, 220, 250, 251, 271, 278
Adamic 10 vessel of 47, 178, 180, 251
afterlife 33-35, 46, 62-65, 112, 113, 126, 131, collective humanity 10, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 40,
134, 137, 138, 140, 142, 147, 154, 163, 210, 41, 50, 68, 69, 72, 77, 86, 92, 96, 104, 111,
271-273 117, 119, 121, 122, 131, 145, 152, 153, 157, 158,
all men 43, 45, 47, 49, 116, 118 166, 168, 174, 175, 178, 189, 206, 208, 209,
allegory 68, 79 218, 221, 223, 225, 229, 230, 233, 247,
almsgiving 44, 115 262, 267, 270-275, 279-281
animal life 1, 82, 119, 121 communal-specific 1, 204, 276, 279
animating breath 35, 65, 97, 103 compatibilism 56, 203, 213, 216, 230, 299
anthropological 12-18, 20, 43, 111, 150, 151, constituent parts 1, 22, 25, 35, 111, 112, 137,
155, 169, 235, 236, 253, 255, 258, 262, 282 142, 154, 277
anthropologizing 11, 99, 100 corporeal 35, 127, 165, 166, 168, 251, 254
anthropology 2-4, 8, 15, 17, 21, 28, 29, 27, 71, corpse 114, 159, 250, 253
74, 75, 122, 147, 150, 151, 159, 169, 234, corruptible 64, 76, 77, 86, 104, 109, 132, 133,
237, 242-243, 254, 258, 265, 282 136, 271, 278
Antiochus IV Epiphanes 105, 106, 110 cosmic 9, 11, 12, 17, 25, 52, 83, 100, 103, 106,
apotropaic prayer(s) 25, 152, 156, 167, 110, 144, 165, 237, 239, 243, 244, 269,
181-183, 184-187, 189, 190-192, 194, 195, 272
226, 273, 274, 277 cosmology 52, 75, 137
ash(es) 41, 43, 61, 63, 89, 94, 97, 98, 118, 132 creation topoi 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30,
32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48,
Beelzebub 207, 214 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
Belial 6, 83, 137, 164, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82,
191-194, 196, 215, 216, 219, 222, 233 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102,
Beliar 82-84 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 151, 270, 271
blasphemy 57, 240 topos 23, 68, 73
body-soul 15, 62, 111, 112, 130, 133, 137, 148, creational 98, 132, 280
151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162-164, 166, creations 23, 61, 73, 83, 96, 129, 257, 288,
168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 293, 303
186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193 creature of clay 4, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97,
burial 62, 67 99, 101, 102, 109, 110, 158, 159, 220, 271,
278
Cain 142, 145, 146, 173 of dust 24, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 102, 104,
Capability (human) 38, 40, 45, 46, 65, 66, 109, 158, 220
108, 202, 213 creatureliness 43, 95, 100, 271
celestial 61, 92, 199 creator 22, 42, 43, 46, 61, 67, 75, 84, 87, 104,
celibacy 14 106, 110
316 Subject Index

death 9, 23, 30-34, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, from (out of) the 10, 21, 23, 24, 33, 37, 38,
62-65, 86, 98, 105-107, 110-112, 114-118, 42, 46, 72, 73, 76, 88, 186, 187, 271, 276,
125, 126, 132-139, 140-149, 152, 154, 155, 278, 280
163, 164, 176, 187, 200, 201, 206, 215, 253, -born 70, 79
271-274, 276, 277 earthly origin(s) 4, 35, 60, 61, 65, 82, 93,
deathless 136, 137, 140, 154 100, 271
debased 254, 270, 274 elect 6, 247, 257, 258, 262, 266, 267, 278, 279
debasement 271, 273, 278 elect group 232, 257, 264, 269
deceased 62-64 elect mevin 260, 267
demon(s) 185-187, 190-194, 200 embodies 97, 103, 104, 245, 268
demonic control 187-189, 195 embodiment 12, 17, 25, 103, 144, 244, 271
disturbance 193, 195 en-souling 100
entities 156, 274, 277 Essenes 7, 8, 14, 56, 64, 121, 133, 134, 136, 137,
influence 187, 189, 191 138-140, 143, 154, 203, 204, 210, 211, 215,
spirits 181 216, 269, 273, 275
determinism 22, 29, 33, 50, 51, 55, 56, 66, eternal life 34, 105, 107, 108, 229, 242, 245,
203, 213, 222, 230, 264, 299, 306, 308 262
deterministic 54, 67, 204, 216, 256 eternality 6, 56-59, 66, 163
dichotomization 57, 132, 194, 168 ether 136, 137, 154, 210
disembodied 10, 112, 125, 126, 137, 158, 308 ethereal 118, 138, 146, 176, 237
divine breath 67, 73, 73, 76, 78 everlasting covenant 40, 46
image 27, 46, 60, 61, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, destruction 190
77, 78, 82, 84, 87, 103, 109, 110, 266, 271, life 239, 242
278, 281 peace 160, 162, 163
judgment 11, 108 terror 240
revelation 269, 278 evil inclination(s) 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 43,
sovereignty 56, 197, 203, 274, 276 184, 200, 217, 218, 219, 222, 224-229, 230,
divinely-wrought 180, 181 231, 275
double duality 25, 232, 243, 244, 268, 275 exorcism 228, 230
double-heart/ed/ness 18, 171, 172 external force(s) 18, 165, 203, 225, 230, 270,
dualism 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24, 25, 52-55, 83, 112, 280
113, 133, 147, 148, 151, 152, 156, 158, 160, influence 156
162-164, 166-168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178,
180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, fate 8, 31, 54, 113, 132, 163, 196, 197, 203, 210,
222, 226, 233, 234, 237, 241, 243, 259, 211-216, 224, 230, 269, 275, 281
273, 274, 279 fated 213, 275
dust 3, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31-36, 38, 40, 41, 42, flesh 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 26, 39, 41, 43,
44, 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 51, 77, 91, 96-100, 103, 111, 114-122, 136,
63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81, 147, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 167,
82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90-110, 118, 158, 159, 173-175, 177, 178, 180, 185, 186, 188, 191,
178-180, 191, 220, 237, 250, 251, 263, 271, 192, 232, 237, 241, 242, 247-249, 251-255,
274, 276, 278 257-259, 263, 265, 268, 274, 279, 280
dust-like 251 foreordination 203, 240
free choice 41, 202, 210
earth 14, 23, 24, 31, 33, 38, 43, 55, 57, 59, 77, free will 7-9, 14, 22, 25, 51, 55, 179, 196-199,
81, 85, 109, 117, 124, 131, 133, 137, 141, 144, 202-204, 206, 209, 210, 211-216, 229, 230,
146, 147, 148, 149, 178, 186, 187, 204, 236, 231, 235, 274-276, 280
252, 270, 278 futility 31, 32, 34, 59, 68, 250, 275
Subject Index 317

Gentile(s) 28, 39, 84, 138, 224, 225, 308 imago dei 6, 28, 40, 45, 61, 74, 75, 79, 87, 88,
general humanity 42, 65, 86, 117, 165, 167, 108, 110, 271, 272, 281, 282
263 imitatio dei 44
God-given 1, 12, 21, 106, 154, 175, 247, 260, immortal 41, 57, 58, 60, 64, 69, 72-74, 100,
264, 265, 267, 274, 277, 279 108, 118, 133-137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 147,
good inclination 43, 217 152, 154, 163, 188
ground, from the 28, 31, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, immortality 14, 15, 23, 24, 43, 57-59, 62, 66,
65, 66, 78, 88, 92, 102, 271, 276 105, 115, 118, 125, 131-135, 138-140, 144,
guilty 97, 109, 190, 207, 210, 219 147, 154, 163, 271, 273
impure spirit(s) 227, 277
Hagu, Vision of 19, 172, 255, 256, 259, 262, inclination(s) 4, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 44, 54,
266 93, 99, 159, 189, 200, 201, 202, 208, 217,
heavenly person 76-79, 108 218-220, 224, 230, 270, 277, 279, 280
man 77 to sin 201, 210, 279
retinue 70, 118, 237 incorruption 56-59, 61, 66
human characteristic 45, 157, 204, 221, 224, inherent value 281
271 innate condition 1, 22, 25, 249, 251, 274
condition 15, 25, 102, 175, 196, 197, 198, spirit 174, 181, 194, 209, 264, 265, 267, 274
200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 212, inner life 158, 167, 174
214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, person 64, 155, 158, 166-168, 172, 174, 176,
224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 232, 233, 238, 183, 185, 194, 218, 274, 277
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, strife 273
257, 267, 268, 269, 274-276 turmoil 25, 256
deed(s) 203, 205, 234, 240, 242, 243 internal conflict 174, 176, 273
impermanence 55, 67 disturbance 274
inclination 18, 21, 22, 213, 220, 221, 231 experience 158, 175
existence 10, 22, 24, 34, 38, 46, 61, 65, 67, life 18, 217, 219
68, 74, 75, 112, 115, 122, 125, 132, 134, 145, Israel-specific 42, 66, 198
151, 152, 155, 176, 178, 180, 194, 203, 240,
270, 271, 272, 275, 277, 278 judgment 11, 30, 50, 57, 86, 88, 94, 97, 99,
life 32, 115, 125, 147, 174, 176, 254 100, 101, 108, 109, 121, 134, 142, 143, 145,
nature 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13-18, 20-24, 26, 27, 146, 164, 165, 177, 187, 206, 212, 214, 215,
29, 68, 69, 71, 109-111, 131, 141, 147, 153, 229, 238, 248, 256, 257, 265, 266, 268,
156, 162, 167, 181, 183, 192-194, 197, 208, 273
210, 217, 218, 225, 228-230, 233, 235, 241, justice 44, 66, 79, 109, 131, 278, 312
243-245, 247, 256, 268-272, 275-283
holy spirit 6, 95, 160, 175, 182, 183, 209, 228, kneaded 92, 96, 178, 179, 250, 251, 263
230, 231, 242, 263, 279 knowledge 11, 12, 14, 39, 57, 67, 70, 71, 81, 82,
84, 91, 94, 97, 103, 104, 108-110, 114, 148,
idolatry 59, 66, 81, 241 168, 182, 184, 189, 191, 192, 205, 227-229,
idol maker 23, 60, 271 235, 240, 242, 247-249, 255, 259, 260,
idols 59, 61, 66, 169, 170, 173, 188, 239 263, 264, 265, 267-269, 272, 278, 279,
image of God 3, 7, 10, 15-17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, spirit(s) of 6, 175, 239, 262 (spirit of
32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43-46, 57, 64, 65-67, faith and knowledge) 184
68-78, 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 103, 107, knowledge-endowing spirit 181
108-110, 266, 270-272, 276-278, knowledge-giving (spirit) 158, 209, 220,
280-282 263
318 Subject Index

later-given (spirit) 180, 264, 266, 279 obedience 1, 8, 15, 26, 41, 46, 54, 67, 82, 107,
law 41, 42, 44, 56, 66, 87, 106, 116, 120, 127, 108, 110, 160, 161, 164, 197, 202, 203, 209,
136, 143, 170, 206, 210, 228, 241, 280 210, 228-230, 238, 244, 263, 264, 267,
of Beliar 82, 83 270, 273, 274, 275, 276-280, 281
of God 84 obedient 84, 143, 144, 160, 197, 207, 209, 220,
lawgiving 42, 74 228, 229, 231, 238, 263, 268
lecherous eyes 208 to God 9, 14, 118
light, sons of 122, 170, 232, 233, 236-238, 241, omniscience 67, 205
257, 291 ontological 20, 21, 232, 257-261, 266, 268,
living creature(s) 1, 51, 121-124, 158 269
lot 31, 33, 76, 121, 122, 132, 141, 162, 170-174,
194, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247, 251, pacification 228, 231
254, 262, 266, 267, 275, 279 peace 44, 134, 135, 160, 162, 163, 170, 239, 241
lowliness 4, 5, 8, 11, 23, 24, 68, 89, 99, 102, personified (entity) 19, 225, 227
249, 273, 277, 279 pessimism 4, 5, 23, 31, 32, 89, 232, 268, 269,
276
malevolent spirits 18, 25, 156, 188 Pharisee(s) 136, 139, 140, 143, 144, 154, 204,
mankind 26, 27, 37, 49, 55, 58, 85, 104, 110, 210, 213, 216, 230, 273, 275, 277, 278
117, 183, 237, 268 physical 15, 17, 25, 38, 39, 67, 71, 73, 76, 78,
marriage 119 81-83, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112-116, 119, 122,
meaningless 31, 35 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, 141, 146, 152,
meaninglessness 31, 65 153, 155, 156, 160, 162, 165, 167, 168, 174,
meditation, vision of 19, 20, 167, 232, 255, 176, 180, 183, 185, 186-189, 191, 192, 194,
257-259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267-269, 251, 252-254, 270-274, 277, 279
276 physicality 107, 153
merciful 41, 50, 101, 109, 119, 120 153, 164 Platonic 58, 60, 71, 75, 113, 132, 133, 135, 137
metaphysical 22, 24, 25, 64, 77, 82, 107, 108, potter 50, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 80-83, 88,
111, 112, 115, 122, 125, 127, 128, 133, 137, 145, 93, 109
146, 150, 152, 162, 165, 183, 189, 194, 205, predestination 1, 8, 22, 25, 51, 91, 230, 280
270, 272, 273, 274, 277 predestined 25, 209, 235, 241, 243, 244, 245,
metempsychosis 132, 140 248, 267, 268, 275, 277, 278
molded 70, 75-77, 106 predetermined 25, 55, 179, 241, 244, 275
morality 114, 279 preexistence 58, 132, 137
mortal(s) 39, 43, 62, 63, 71, 72, 73, 114, 116, providence 128, 213, 214
118, 121, 133, 137, 143, 153, 173, 175, 208, psychosomatic 119, 124-126, 130, 131, 135,
220, 252, 271, 276 142, 152, 153, 155, 166, 193, 271, 272, 273,
mortality 14, 42, 43, 45, 46-48, 58, 66, 67, 276
71, 72, 103, 114-119, 135, 137, 153, 247, 251, purification 129, 160, 178, 183, 184, 231, 238,
276, 279 244, 277

nature, human 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13-18, 20-24, 26, Qumran community 10, 12, 14, 26, 54, 122,
27, 29, 68, 69, 71, 109-111, 131, 141, 147, 166, 181, 189, 230, 233, 238, 245, 276, 277,
153, 156, 162, 167, 181, 183, 192-194, 197, 280, 303
208, 210, 217, 218, 225, 228-230, 233, 235, Qumran-specific 275
241, 243-245, 247, 256, 268-272, 275-283
negative characteristic 124, 231, 240, 268 redeemed 13, 121, 135, 267
Niedrigkeitsdoxologien 8, 9, 89, 99 reification 18, 225, 227
non-sectarian 26, 156, 181, 195 reified 220, 224
nothingness 11, 232, 250, 251 repentance 202, 252
Subject Index 319

responsibility 43, 44, 50, 51, 71, 85-87, 109, soul(s) 1, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 33, 34, 58, 60-64,
110, 115, 197, 202, 203, 205, 213, 214, 216, 67, 70-73, 75, 76, 81-84, 106-108, 111-113,
231, 235, 238, 280 122-125, 129-144, 146-156, 158-170, 172,
resurrection 67, 104, 106, 107, 110-112, 135, 174, 176, 178, 180-182, 184-195, 202, 210,
138-141, 147, 149, 154, 155, 163, 255, 272 215, 248, 251, 253, 267, 271-274, 277
revelation 14, 15, 20, 85, 100, 203, 209, 256, sovereign knowledge 81, 103, 109, 112, 120
258, 261, 264, 265, 267, 269, 278 sovereign 8, 25, 55, 70, 71, 81, 103, 109, 110,
righteous, the 23, 25, 57, 58, 86, 109, 133, 134, 232, 235
135, 143-147, 149, 152, 154, 155, 160-163, spirit 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 24-26,
171, 181, 187, 188, 191, 205, 206, 232, 235, 31-35, 61-65, 67, 71, 78, 80-83, 91, 94-97,
237, 244, 252, 268, 272, 273, 275, 278 101, 104, 106, 107, 109-112, 118, 123, 132,
righteousness 8, 44, 45, 57-59, 62-64, 66, 83, 145-148, 150-156, 158-160, 162-164,
89, 90, 97-99, 102, 134, 148, 171, 175, 191, 166-169, 174-185, 188-191, 193-194, 195,
205, 206, 237, 238, 239, 245, 248, 249, 197, 202, 208-210, 220-223,
251, 268, 273, 275 225-228, 230-233, 239-243, 247, 251,
253-255, 257-260, 262-269, 272-274,
steadfast inclination 221, 230 277, 279
source of impurity 96, 97, 180 of death 118
Sadducees 8, 136, 141, 142, 154, 210, 211, 214, of error 179, 180
215, 273, 275, 277, 278 of holiness 168
salvation 91, 97, 107, 160, 162, 163, 183, 202, of knowledge 5, 175, 239
235, 248, 253 of flesh 96, 255, 258, 263
sectarian-specific 160, 169, 181 of man 6, 31, 177, 179
self 6, 11, 20, 102, 123, 126-130, 131, 133, 158, of staggering 179
165-167, 172, 177, 180, 219, 251, 252, 255, of understanding 175, 181, 190, 191, 195
268, 276 spirit-breath 177
self-abasement 96 spirit-force 71
self-aware 156
self-awareness 194, 246 temporal 43, 61, 63, 64, 67, 114, 118, 131, 133,
self-betraying 215 271
self-consciousness 99 temporality 65, 137
self-debasement 247 temptation 123, 277
self-denigration 157 terrestrial nature 65
self-immolation 154 theological anthropology/ies 2, 14, 17, 18,
self-loathing 97, 101, 179 28, 243
self-mastery 79, 109 topoi, creation 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30,
self-understanding 12 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48,
separable component(s) 145, 194 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
shame 4, 96, 123, 130, 178, 179, 240, 251, 271, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82,
278 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100,
shameful 96, 97, 271 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 151, 270,
sinful flesh 11, 12, 100, 232, 247, 251, 268, 274 271
sinfulness 8, 89, 192, 220, 224, 232, 242, 245, topos, creation 23, 68, 73
247, 251, 253, 254, 279 transgress 107, 110, 136, 230, 238, 268
sinner(s) 51, 85, 86, 107, 113, 133, 145-147, 154, transgression(s) 1, 101, 110, 185, 194, 198, 242,
204, 223, 243, 252, 269 244-247, 251-254, 280
sons of darkness 232 trichotomy (human composition) 111, 112,
sons of light 122, 170, 232, 233, 236-238, 241, 150, 151, 155, 169
247 two ways 51, 54, 66, 218, 240
320 Subject Index

unclean 97, 160, 184, 191, 226, 239, 240, 254 well-known 237
uncleanness 160, 191, 254 well-tempered 271
unjust flesh 253, 254 wicked 25, 30, 57, 58, 95, 99, 112-114, 119, 132,
unknowing (condition) 26, (spirit) 256, 267 134, 140, 143, 154, 160-164, 166, 171, 186,
unrepentant 192 187, 225, 232, 235, 238, 244, 247, 251, 253,
unrighteous 87, 182 256, 262, 263, 268, 269, 271, 273, 275,
276, 278
vessel(s) 47, 50, 51, 60, 80, 83, 109, 178, 180, wickedness 99, 190, 191, 220, 240, 247
218, 221, 251, 265 wise 78, 136, 136, 152, 207, 208, 214
of clay 47, 178, 180, 251 woman 27, 28, 38, 42, 71, 72, 83, 96, 98, 118,
of dust 47 121, 123, 127, 179, 250, 251, 264, 278
of flesh 265 women 45, 46, 80, 115, 116, 119, 185, 257, 259,
virtues 79, 240 262-264
vulnerabilities (human) 25, (sexual) 116, womb(s) 104, 117, 160, 161, 163, 185
(physical) 156, 183, 186, 189 workmanship 87, 88
worms 126, 253
Watchers 84, 118, 144, 146, 186-188, 207, 208, wrath 83, 160-163, 202, 240, 251
252
weakness (human) 13, (fleshly) 153, 253 yetzer 43, 200
wealth 54, 128, 153
well-examined 53 zeal 98, 239, 240, 263
Ancient Source Index

Early Jewish Texts 3:29 170

3:30 44
Apocrypha 4:11-14 118
1 Maccabees 4:15-18 118
1:34 199 4:17 123
2:15-28 107 4:18-19 117
2:29-38 107 4:2 123
2:49-68 107 4:3 170
2:62 199 4:6 123
9:37 224 4:7-10 44
5:2 123
2 Maccabees 6:17 123
14 107 6:2 123
15:8 151 6:4 123
2:46 136 6:9 123
6:30 132 6:23-30 130
7 104, 110, 136 6:26 123
7:6 117 6:32 122
7:9 105 6:37 170
7:11 136 7 113
7:14 136 7:10 203
7:20 106 7:11 123
7:20-23 104 7:13 203
7:23 136 7:17 123
7:29 136 7:24 131, 152, 253
7:36 108 7:25 116
7:37 107, 132 7:29 122
8:19 170
3 Maccabees 9:2 123,127
1:18 63 10:23 199
1:25 151 10:28-29 123
2:4 84 12:1 124
4:6 63 12:11 123
12:13-30 124
1 Esdras 12:14 199
2:9 151 12:16 170
9:41 151 12:2d-3c 124
12:6b-8 125
Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus) 13:6 120
0:1 42 14:2 123
0:14 120 14:4 123
0:15-25 36 14:7 126
1:28 170 14:8 123
1:30 123 14:8-9 124
2:1 123 14:15 203, 215
3:26 170 14:15 215
322 Ancient Source Index

Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus) (cont.) 17:5-14 45

14:17 117 17:5-14 66
14:18 43 17:5-6 39
14:21 170 17:5-8 38
15:11 43, 198, 199 17:6 170
15:11-20 197 17:6 201
15:11-18:14 82 17:10-12 48
15:11-18:14 40 17:11-14 40, 44
15:11-18:14 66 17:14 44
15:11-18:14 198 17:15-20 44
15:12 198 17:16b 126
15:13 199 17:17-18 40
15:14 7, 41, 20 17:18-20 203
15:14-17 199 17:2 117
15:14-17 200 17:22 41
15:17 206 17:22-23 44
15:19 41, 44 17:25-32 118
15:19 44 17:26 118
15:4 39, 118, 205 17:27 126
15:4a 205 17:29-32 43
15:4b 205 17:30-32 41, 43, 118, 137
15:4-5 205 17:18 229
15:5c 206 18:1 118
15:7 199 18:3 123
15:7-13 59 18:12 120
15:9-18:14 39 18:13 120
16:4 44 18:30 124
16:7 84 18:8a 41
16:17 123 19:22 123
16.17-22 43 19:3 123
16:17-23 44 19:4 123
16:20 170 20:22 123
16:24 170 21:2 123
16:24- 17:25 40 21:26 170
16:24-18:14 15, 43, 45 21:27-28 123
16:29-30 124 21:32 123
16:30 42, 63, 123 22:16 114, 123, 170
17:1 31, 38, 42, 47, 48, 63 23:16-17 252
17:3 38 23:16-17 253
17:3 39 23:17 131
17:3 202 22:17-18 170
17:1-4 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 23:2 170
65, 66 23:6 123
17:1-14 40 23:18 123
17:3b 40 24 40
17:4 38 24:1 123
17:4 120 25:13-26 119
17:4 32 25:2 123
17:5 39 26:14-15 123
Ancient Source Index 323

27 229 37:26 123

27:6 170, 201 37:27 123
27:16 123 37:27-28 123
27:30 199 37:28 123
28:2 119 38:16 114, 131
28:5 119 39:1 123
28:9 199 39:19 120
29:12 44 40:2 170
29:15 123 40:6 170
30:14-16 131 40:8 120
30:14-17 253 40:17 44
30:19 34 40:24 44
30:21 123 40:29 123
30:23 123 41:1 253
31:6 123 41:11 113, 114, 131
31:19-20 123 41:11 114
31:20 123 42:15-43:33 51
31:28-29 123 42:24-25 55
32:23 123 43:18 170
33 54, 56, 203 44:14 114, 131, 253
33:1-2 56 45:23 123
33:2 66 45:26 170
33:10 47, 48 47:19 131, 253
33:11 48, 50 48:13 131, 253
33:13 49, 50, 54, 60, 82 49:15 114
33:13-15 55 50:25 123
33:14 54 51 51, 124, 128
33:14-15 55 51:1 125
33:15 54 51:2 131, 253
33:31 123 51:2 253
33:7 47, 48, 60 51: 20 123
33:7-1 54 51:19-20 128, 129
33:7-12 55 51:20 170
33:7-15 46, 60, 66, 229 51:21 123
33:7-9 49 51:23-30 130
33:8-9 47 51:24 123, 128
34:5 170 51:26 123, 128, 129
34:15 34, 123 51:29 123, 128
34:15 123
34:6 123 (Ben Sira, Hebrew MSS)
36:19-20 170 A 1v:15 123
37 128 A 2v:2 122
37:6 128 A 2v:19 123
37:8 123 A 2v:20 126
37:9 123 A 2v:26-27 113, 115, 153
37:12 123, 128 A 2v:28 122, 123
37:19 123 A 3r:28 127
37:22 114 A 3v:4 127
37:25 113 A 5r:9 123
324 Ancient Source Index

(Ben Sira, Hebrew MSS) (cont.) 3:6 63

A 6r:8 117 13:2 33, 63, 126
A 6v:16-17 44
A 6r:22 43 Wisdom of Solomon
A 6r:22-24 198 1:1 131
A 6r:24-28 199, 200 1:1-11 57
A 6r:25 43 1:1-15 131
B 11r:3 113, 114 1:1-2:24 57
B 13v:17 114 1:1-2:24 163
B 15v:1 123 1:4 131, 132
B 19r:5 114 1:4-11 57
B 20r:11 125 1:9 131
B 20v:1 125 1:11 135
B 21v:10 130 1:12 57
B 21v:4 130 1:13-15 57
B 21v:5 130 1:15-16a 57
B 21v:6-7 129, 130 13:10-15:17 59
B 2r:11 43 13:10-19 59
B 2r:11- 5 198 14:17 153
B 7r:13 123 15 81
B 7v:5 123 15:2 81
B 7v:15 114 15:6 50
B 8v:4-5 114 15:7 60
B 9r:5 120 15:11 121
C 3v:3 123 15:13 58
C 3v:9-10 115 16:14 155
D 1r:10 123, 128 15:14-19 59
D 1v:11-12 114 15:15 60
D 2r:6-7 115 15:7-13 59, 66
E 1r:17 47 15:8 60, 63, 132
E 1r:18 46 2:1-20 58
E 1r:19 48 2:3 132
F 1r:6 123 2:11 61
B 20v:1 125 2:11-12 61
2:12 61
(Ben Sira, Taylor-Schechter Collection) 22:13 155
TS 16.315 130 2:22 135
2:22-23 61
Judith 2:23 58, 66, 77
8:14 151 2:23-24 56, 58, 133
3:1 149, 154
Tobit 3:2-4 134
1:16-2:8 64 3:4 58
3:6 63, 132, 149 3:10 134
4:19 170 3:11 237
4:8-9 206 4:1 58
8:6 85 4:2 168
9:2 127 4:12 151, 154
Ancient Source Index 325

5:15 134, 154 4Q468

6:13 33 i3 225
6:18 58 14 237
6:19 58
6:23 58 4Q477 2 ii 8 116
7:1 153
7:1-6 117 4Q487 (4QpapSap B?)
8:13 58 1 ii 3 170
8:17 58 37 234
8:19 58, 132
8:19-20 132, 154 4Q502 16 234
8:20 58, 132
8:23 59 4Q525 10 5 121
9:1-3 57
9:15 58, 151, 154 4Q538 10 5 121

Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q560

1Q29 4Q560 1 i 3 185
1Q29 13-17 234
1Q29 15-16 235 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood
1Q29 16 235 4Q370 1 i 3 218
1Q29 16b-17 235
4QBlessings
1Q11 a 7 ii 6 237
1Q11 6:3 237 b 6:5 237

1QFestival Prayers 4QCantenaa (4Q477)

3 ii 7 95, 242 4QCantenaa 12 13 i 11 237
3 ii 23 243 4Q177 5 6:6 220

1QPsa 19:8 158 4Q375 1 i 3 160

4Q225 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393)

1:2 160 4Q393 1 ii 2 222
3 ii 2 253 1 ii 2 8 223
2 223
4Q230 12 3 190 2 ii 7 223
3 223
4Q386 1 ii 4 116 33 170
35 170
4Q387 A2 116
4QEnoch (4QEnear | 4Q206)
4Q390 1:12 170 1 22 1 144, 145
1 22 3-4 146
4Q444 1 22 4-5 145
14i+5 192 1 22 5 145
14i+5 195 1 22 7b 146
326 Ancient Source Index

4QExorcismar 1 ii 12 19, 225

1 192 1 ii 14 267
1:3-4 192 2 i 15-16 246

4QFlorilegium 4QMusar le-Mevind (4Q418)

12i1 237 4QMusar 253
1 2 ii 8 237 le-Mevind a + b 6
69 ii 8 237
4QReworked Pentateuchc 127 3 253
4Q365 36 1 116 4Q418 1 i 6-7 256
81 121
4QTestimonia (4Q175) 10 ab 7 116
1:3 170 43 255, 256
43 45 i 3 260
4QPesher Isaiahe (4Q165) 43 45 i 4 256
4Q165 6 5 220 43 45 i 12 255
43 45 i 13 261
4QPesher Nahum (4Q169) 77 3 246
3 4 2 4-6 114 81 + 81a 1-20 260
34 ii 4 253 81 + 81a 2 255
34 ii 6 253 81+ 81a 3-12 260

4QPesher Psalms 4QInstruction-like Composition A (4Q419)

37 8 4Q419 8 ii 7 121

4QMusar le-Mevinb 4QMysteriesa 8 6 218

(4QInstructionb | 4Q416)
4QMysteriesb
4QMusar le-Mevinb 4Q301 4 2 190
1 10 237
1 16 98 4QShirShabbc 4:1-15 177
2 ii 18 253
4Q416 1 4-6 246 11QMelchizedek (11Q13)
2 3:2-4 114 11Q Melch 2:8 237
ii 17-18 264 12:22 237
2 iv 5 116
11QPsalms (11Q Psa | 11Q5)
4QMusar le-Mevinc (4Q417) 11QPsa 19:5 121
4Q417 1 i 260 19:1-18 121
1 i 1-13a 255 19:10-18 121
1 i 10 256 19:15 184
1 i 13-18 255, 256,
268 4QSongs of the Sagea (4Q510)
1 i 16 258 4Q Songs of the
1 i 15 258 Sagea 1 7 237
1 i 16-17 258 4Q510 1 190
1 i 16-18 265, 261 1 4-8 190
1 i 17 258, 269 1 58 2 190
1 ii 2-16 226 1 73 1 190
Ancient Source Index 327

4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) 11QTargum of Job (11Q10)

4QSongs of the Sageb 11Q10 4:3 167
18 237
28 29 3 251 11QFragment Related to Serekh ha-Yahad
4Q511 10 4 237 11Q29 1:2 170
26 1 254
35 1 121 11QJubilees
35:6-8 191 11Q12 2:1 262
48 49 51 1 4 195
48 49 + 51 1-4 191 11QPsalmsa (11Q5)
48 49 + 51 3 191 11Q5 19 181, 184
19:13-16 184, 194
4QSongs of the Sagec (4Q402) 19:13-16 194
4Q402 3 ii 13 220 19:15-16 225

4QWar Scroll (4Qa | 4Q491) 11QPsalmsb (11Q6)

4Qa 1 1 ii 9 237 11Q6 4 5 14-16 184
1 ii 15 237
8 10 i 14 237 Community Rule (Serekh ha-Yaḥad, 1QS )
QS 1:2 160
4QWar Scroll (4Qe | 4Q496) 1:6 170
4Qe 2 2 237 1:9 237
1:10 237
4QWar Scroll (4Qf | 4Q495) 2:4-6 254
4Qf 3 7 237 2:14 170
2:16 237
4QWords of the Luminariesa 2:26 170
(DibHama | 4504) 3:3 170
1 2 recto ii 13 160 3:9 237
8 recto 4 103 3:11-14 134
8 recto 5 103 5:15 171
8 recto 6 103 5:4 44
8 recto 9 103 5:4 170
5:4 171
4QBarkhi Nafshic. (4Q436) 5:5 218, 221
4Q436 1 ii 1-4 227 5:5-6 221
1a+bi1 226, 227 5:8 221
1 a + b i 10 226 5:9 160, 170
1 i a + b 1 9-11 227 7:19 170
1 i a + b 10 225 7:24 170
8:1 221
4QBarkhi Nafshid (4Q437) 8:3 221
4Q437 2 i 13 167 8:5 221
2i8 167 9:10 170
9:14 237
4QReworked Pentateucha (4Q158) 9:26-10:4 95
4Q158 6:5 170
328 Ancient Source Index

Community Rule — 10:8-16b 245

“Treatise of the Two Spirits” 10:9-11:22 26, 232, 245
(1QS 3:13 – 4:26) 10:16c-19b 245
1QS 3:13-17 235 10:19c-11:5b 245
3:13-4:26 26, 50, 216, 232, 233 10:23-24 246
237 11:1 190
3:13 237 11:3 246
3:13-14 234 11:5c-6 246
3:13-14 233 11:6-7 246
3:13-15a 233 11:6b-7a 246
3:15 54 11:7b-9a 246
3:15-16 50 11:9b-10a 246
3:15-17 177 11:10a 250
3:20 237 11:10b-20a 246, 248
3:21 237 11:11c-13 249
3:16 237 11:15-18 250
3:17b-18a 236 11:15b-20a 249
3:18-19 236 11:17 249
3:18-25 244 11:20b 251
3:18b-25 236 11:20b-22 246, 249
3:22 238 11:21 251
3:23 238
3:23-24 241 Community Rule — (4QSb | 4Q256)
3:24 237 4Q256 23:1 249
3:24 238 9:4 170
3:25b 240 9:7 160
3:25b-4:23 239
4:1 240 Community Rule — (4QSc | 4Q257)
4:2-14 240 4QSc 5:2 237
4:2 170 5:4 237
4:5 221
4:5-6 237 Community Rule — (4QSd | 4Q258)
4:20 178 4Q258 1:4 170
4:21 263 1:6 160
4:15-16 238
4:15-23 241 Community Rule — (4QSe | 4Q259)
4:18-22 242 4Q259 2:7 170
4:18b-22 238
4:20 242 Damascus Document (CD)
4:22 242 CD 1:1-4:12 121, 207
4:23 243 1:2 121
4:23c-26 243 1:3 121
4:23c-26 243 1:4-5 209
4:24 244 1:10 171
4:24-26 244 2:2-14a 209
4:25 244 2:13 209
2:14 208
Community Rule — “Hymn of Praise” 2:15 209
(1QS 10:9-11:22) 2:16 208, 219, 226
1QS 10:5c-22 245 2:17 208
Ancient Source Index 329

2:19 114 Damascus Document (4QDb | 4Q268)

3:1 208 4QDb 1:2-8 207
3:2 208
3:2-6 207 Damascus Document (4QDc | 4Q268)
3:2-12a 197, 207 4QDc 1:1-8 207
3:3 208, 209 1 10 121
3:5 170
3:13-14 209 Damascus Document (4QDd | 4Q269)
3:2-12a 207 4QDd 4 ii 4 116
3:20 229 6 2a 116
4:20 242 6:2 252
5:8-11 116, 153
5:8-11 153 Damascus Document (4QDe | 4Q270)
7:1 252 1i1 219
7:11 116 6 ii 6 160
7:19-24 170 7 i 20 237
8:19 170 7i8 170
8:6 116, 252
8:8 170 Damascus Document (4QDf | 4Q271)
9:10 170 4Q271 4 i 12 160
11:7 246
11:16 220 Damascus Document (6QD 6Q15)
15:12 160 6Q15 4 4 116
17:19 252
19:19 116 Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen | 1Q20)
19:20 170 1Q20 0:15 261
19:33 170 2:11 170
20:14 246
Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns | 1QHa)
Damascus Document (4QDa | 4Q266) 3:25 157
1 1:7 237 3:26 157
1a b 1 237 4 192
1 a b 1 5a 207 4:7 242
1 a b 5b 25 207 4:8 157
1 c f? 207 4:14 157
2 2 19 114 4:16-19 157
2 i 1 6a 207 4:22 192
2i7 121 4:27 242
2 ii 15 219 4:29 157, 175, 264
3 iv 4 116 4:29-40 10
4 iv 4 252 4:34 157
4:37 263
4Q266 2 ii 15-19 208 4:38 95, 157, 223
2 ii 17 170 4:40 263
2 ii 18 208 5:5 157
2 ii 21 2 207 5:14-15 157
2 ii 22 208 5:15-16 263
3 iv 6 170 5:25 103
5 ii 11 170 5:26 103
8i3 160 5:30 157
330 Ancient Source Index

Hodayot (cont.) 8:24- 25 157

5:30-31 157 8:25 95, 157, 171 223
5:30-33 96 8:25-30 263
5:31 251 8:28-29 162
5:31-33 179 8:28-30 159, 160
5:32 96, 157, 179, 180, 251 8:29 95, 175, 264
5:33-34 157 8:30 95
5:36 95, 175, 184, 263, 8:32 175
264 8:35 157, 171
5:36-37 157 8:37 159
6:11-12 264 8:41 157
6:14 157 8:42 159
6:19 157 9:11-14 157
6:22 157 9:12-13 177
6:22-23 179 9:17 157, 177
6:23-26 263 9:17-18 177
6:24 95, 157 9:23 179
6:26 157 9:24 96, 157 179
6:28 157 9:29-31 176
6:36 157 9:29-31 176
6:41 157 9:29-32 179
7 161 9:30 179
7:21-8:37 159 9:34 157, 177
7:23 157, 160 9:39 157
7:23-31 159 10 166
7:25 162 10:8 157
7:25-27 221 10:9 157
7:26 157 10:11 157, 170
7:27-26 161 10:13 166
7:27c-30a 161 10:14-21 166
7:28 162 10:17 157
7:29 279 10:22-31 164
7:30 162, 163 10:22-23 157, 159
7:30b-32b 161 10:22-32 164
7:32 162 10:24-26 165
7:34 162 10:25-26 157
7:35 157 10:26-27 165, 166
7:25-34 164 10:27, 31 165
7:29 157 10:31 165
7:31 157 10:35 157
7:35 223 10:37-38 157
8:23 160 11 100
8:24 160 11:7 157
8:16 157, 179 11:19 157
8:18 157, 179 11:20 157
8:20 95 11:20 267
8:20-21 157 11:21 262
8:24 190 11:22 179
Ancient Source Index 331

11:22 178 14:17 157

11:22- 23 157 14:21 237
11:22-24 267 14:24 157, 173
11:23 262 14:25 173
11:23-24 262 14:26 157
11:30 157 14:32 237
12 173 15:14 157
12:1-11 99 15:6 174
12:6-13:6 168, 169 15:6-7 219
12:13-17 169 15:8 157
12:13-26 169 15:8-9 157, 174, 179
12:14 169, 220 15:26 157
12:14-16 157 15:32 157
12:15 170 15:35-36 251
12:16 170 15:38-39 180
12:17-18 172 15:40 254
12:18 169 16:1 157, 179
12:18-19 157 16:1-2 180
12:19 169, 172 16:2 157
12:21-22 172 16:5-17:36 159, 166
12:22 157, 169, 172 16:13 157
12:25 157, 169 16:16 157
12:26 172 16:19 157
12:30 91 16:27 157
12:31-32 173 16:27-30 157
12:32 157 16:27-41 167
12:32-33 179 16:29-30 166, 176
12:33-34 175 16:30 157
12:36 157 16:30 157
12:37 157, 166 16:30 157
12:38 175 16:32 157
12:39 157 16:33 157, 167
12:41 169 16:33 167
13:7 220 16:34-35 167
13:7-21 159, 164, 170 16:37 157
13:8 220, 223 16:39 157
13:10 237 16:39 166
13:14-17 157 16:41 157
13:18 166 17:6-9 166
13:22-15:8 100, 168, 173 17:7-8 157
13:28 157, 173 17:12 157, 166
13:30 157 17:16 157
13:33 157, 173, 219 17:27-29 166
13:35 173 17:28-29 157
13:36 157 17:32 157, 223, 263
13:38 157, 221 17:33 157
14:5 157 17:35 237
14:10 157, 173 17:36 166
332 Ancient Source Index

Hodayot (cont.) 21:17 91, 93, 94

18:3 157, 220 21:2-11 98
18:10 157 21:21-24 99
18:14 101 21:24 94
18:24 157 21:25 47, 93, 94, 99, 98
18:25 98, 157 21:25-30 219
18:31 157 21:26 94, 157
18:32-33 157 21:27-38 100
18:33 157 21:28 219
18:34 157 21:29 93, 94
18:35 157 21:29-30 219
18:38 157 21:31 94
19:5 157 21:34 93, 94, 157, 175, 364
19:10 157 21:35 94
19:15 179 21:37 94
19:15-16 157 21:38 93, 94
19:18-20:6 102 22 95
19:22- 24 220 22:12 93
19:30-31 157 22:12 95
19:33 157 22:13 95
19:34 157 22:19 95
20 94, 95, 263 22:22-38 101
20:4 157 22:25 95
20:7-14 95, 109, 249 22:27-30 95
20:7-22:42 24, 93 22:32 157
20:14-15 157 22:6-42 101
20:14-16 263 23:12-14 251
20:15 175, 264 23:14 221
20:20-29 93, 95 23:16 157
20:27-30 95, 96 23:28-29 251
20:27-30 97 23:29 157
20:29 47, 93, 97 23:33 157, 263
20:30-38 97 23:36 251
20:35 93, 251 24:6 98
20:36-38 97 24:11 157
20:37 157 24:26-27 157
21 94, 98 24:29 157
21:2 98 25:6 157
21: 4-6 98 25:8 157
21:6 157 25:12 220
21:7 98 25:13 157
21:8 54, 98 25:23 157
21:10 98, 157 25:26 157
21:11 94 25:34-27:3 102
21:11-12 93 26 98, 99
21:11-19 99 26:32 237
21:11-42 99 26:33- 36 98
21:12-13 157 26:36 99
Ancient Source Index 333

Hodayot Hodayot
(Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHa | 4Q427) (Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHd)
11:4 157 1 220
21 157 1:1 157
2:1 157 1:3 157
2:5 157 1:6-7 157
7 i 6-23 99
7 ii 4 237 Jubilees (Masada MS)
7 ii 8 157 1h 3:13 113, 114
8 ii 17-18 157 1h 7:21 114
8 ii 9 157
10 2-3 157 Jubileesb (1Q)
1Q18 1 2 1 224
4Q427 7 ii 14-18 98
7 ii 9 99 Jubilees (4Q)
4QpapJubh 2 iv 13 160
Hodayot 4Q423-424 2 ii 22 121
(Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHb | 4Q428)
16:1 157 Jubilees (11Q)
10 180 11Q12 2 1 262
10:5-6 157
10:7 157 Pesher Habbakuk (1QpHab)
10:8 157 9:1-2 114, 253
10:8 181 9:11 166
14 1-3 251
14:5 157 Prayer of Levi (4QLevbar | 4Q213a)
15:3 157 5 (Greek) 183
17:1 157 5-10 (Gr) 182
18:2 157 8 (Gr) 183
19:2 157 10 (Gr) 183
3:3-4 157 10 (Gr) 183
9:3 157 12-15 (Gr) 183
4Q428 10 4 254 10-17 (Aramaic) 182
12 (Ar) 182
Hodayot 13 (Ar) 183
(Thanksgiving Hymns | 4QHc) 13-14 (Ar) 183
1i3 237 15 (Ar) 183
1 ii 4-5 157 16 (Ar) 182
2:12 157 17 (Ar) 182, 183
2:7 157
3:3-4 157 Temple Scroll (11Q19)
3:7 157 11Q12 2:1 262
3:9 157
4 i 10 157 Tobit (4Q)
4i5 237 4QpapTobitaar 17 ii 1 160
4 ii 2 157
4 ii 3 157 War Scroll (1QM)
1QM 1:1 237
334 Ancient Source Index

War Scroll (1QM) (cont.) 4 Ezra

1:7 237 4:8 33
1:10 237 6:35-9:25 85
1:16 237 6:38-7:44 85
3:6 237 6:53-54 85
3:9 237 6:55-59 87
4:2-3 247 6:56 85
4:3 121, 254 7:45-74 85
7:3-5 254 7:77 85
9:10 237 8:1-3 85
13:16 237 8:14 86
14:17 237 8:34 86
15:13 121 8:36 86
16:1 246 8:5-10 86
16:11 237 8:4-62 85
17:8 121, 237 8:42-45 86, 109
17:2-9 247 8:55 87
8:42-45 87
Pseudepigrapha
2 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch) 4 Maccabees
48:14 86, 87 1:15 151, 168
1:35 168
4 Baruch 2:16 168
10:5 134 2:18 151, 168
2:22 168
1 Enoch 2:26 151
1-5 11 3:17 151, 168
1-36 144 3:35 151
4:10-14 133 5-18 105
9:1-11 146 5:1 168
9:3 146 5:11 151
9:10 146 13-14 106
15:4b 118 14:11 168
20-36 144 16:3 168
22:1-13 147
22:1-14 144 Jubilees
22:1-24 144 2:1-16 237
22:12 146 2:14 39
22:9 146 2:17-18 120
23:1-14 154 2:17-33 237
24-26 144 2:18 237
81:5 171 2:30 237
91-105 17 4:13 262
91:4 171 6:1-7 181
92:1-5 171 10:1-3 187
102:4-5 147 10:1-7 186, 194
102:5 118 10:3 187
10:3-6 186
Ancient Source Index 335

10:4 187 A 15:7 149

10:5 187 A 9:8 149
10:6 187 A 9:6 149
11:6 168 B 1:1-3 148
12:19-20 181, 186, 188, 195 B 4:9 149
15:27 120 B 7:18 149
20:5 84 B 8:2 149
35:9 223 B 13:7 118

Letter of Aristeas Testament of Job

276 168 36:6 168

Pseudo Phocylides Testament of Solomon

48 152 1:1-2 193
97-115 62 1:1-4 193
97-98 64 4:5 193
99-101 64 4:8-9 193
99-101a 64 12:1-2 185
103 64
105-108 62, 64 Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
106 132 T. Reu. 2:7 168
106-108 64 3:8 168
106/108 64 4:6 168
107-108 33 4:9 202
107/108 64 T. Jud. 11:1 202
108 63 13:2 202
115 64 13:8 202
14:1 168
Psalms of Solomon 14:8 168
9 43, 197, 204, 206 18:3 202
9:1-2 204 19:2-4 253
9:18 205 20:2 168
9:3 204 T. Issa. 4:4 168
9:4 229 4:5 202
9:5 206 6:2 201, 225
9:5-6 205 T. Dan. 4:2 202
9:6-8 206 4:4 168
9:9a 206 4:7 202
T. Naph. 1:1-2:5 80
Pseudo-Orpheus 1:5 82
1:12 152, 168 1:1-5 79
1:39 168 1:2-3 109
1:5 82
History of the Rechabites 2:2 132
Rech. 14:4 134 2:6 168
3:1-5 84
Testament of Abraham A & B T. Gad 5:7 202
A 1:7 148 6:2 168
336 Ancient Source Index

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (cont.) Josephus

7:2 118 Jewish War (J.W.)
7:3 202 2 154, 213, 216
T. Ash. 1:3 54 2:151-153 136
1:8 201 2:153 138, 139
1:8 225 2:154 133, 137
1:15-17 202 2:154-155 136
1:16-17 202 2:154-158 134
5:1 54 2:154-163 210
5:1-3 55 2:155-156 138
5:3-5 55 2:156 138
5:4 54 2:158 134
T. Jos. 2:6 202 2:162-163 210, 216
T. Benj. 8:3 168 2:162-165 210
6:4 201 2:163b 140
2:164 214
Theodotus, On the Jews 2:164-165 210
Theod. 3:13 152, 168 2:165 214
7:0 169 2:165c 141
3 154
Sibylline Oracles 3:362 142
1:35 152 3:372 143
1:99 152 3:372 143
1:134 152 3:372-376 143
1:304 152 3:373 143
2:120 152 3:375 144
3:9-11 84 7:358-370 142
3:165 152
3:196 152 Antiquities (Ant.)
3:300 152 1:34 81
3:421 152 8:5 193
3:574 152 10:278 214
3:771 152 13 212, 213, 215,
3:821 152 216
5:265 152 13:171 269
5:286 152 13:171-173 19, 2126
5:364 152 13:172 211
5:79 152 13:172-173 211
7:45-8:3 85 13:173 211, 212, 214
7:144 152 18 142, 154, 212, 215,
8:284 152 216
8:359 152 18:11 139
8:366 152 18:11-18 210, 212
8:437 152 18:11-18 212
8:464 152 18:13 211
23:39 152 18:14-15 140
23:4 152 18:16-17 214
23:40 152 18:18 139, 211
Ancient Source Index 337

Against Apion (Ag. Ap.) On Planting

2:218 144 Plant. 18-20 75, 108
19 75
Philo 20 76
That the Worse Attacks the Better
Worse 84-90 70 Classical Greek Literature
86 71 Cicero, Tusc. I 93 61
87 71, 108
Euripides
Allegorical Interpretation Hecuba 496 61
Alleg. Int. 1:31 76 Hiketides 532-6 61
1:32 78
1:35-40 78 Plato
1:39-40 150 Phaedo 64e 60
1:42 78 Phaedo 66b-d 133
1:55 79 Tim 42e 61
1:63-78 79, 109
3:96 74 Phocylides 48 169

On the Creation of the World Seneca

Creation 134 73 Seneca, Dial. XI
134-135 71 (ad Polybium) X 4-5 61
137 75, 76
139 73 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
140-141 75, 108
69 69, 71, 108 Genesis
69-71 70 1 23, 32, 48, 38, 53,
134 72 65, 237, 258, 266,
270
On Flight and Finding 1-11 38
Flight 68 71 1-2 23, 28, 48
68-69 71 1:14 48
135 72 1:18 48
1:26 6, 27, 64, 71, 73
Who is the Heir? 1:26-27 10, 32, 69
Heir 54 78 1:27 27, 28, 73
57-58 77, 108 1:28 32, 39
58 78 1:3 240
57-64 78 1:4 35, 240, 48
63 78 1:6 48
63-64 78 1:7 48
7 39 2 23, 32, 38, 39, 42,
231 76 48, 50, 65, 75, 68,
232 74, 108 81, 84, 88, 103, 104,
106, 109, 237, 258,
On the Life of Moses 260 266, 270,
Moses 2:65 71, 75 2:1 39, 106
338 Ancient Source Index

Genesis (cont.) 6:5 45

3 47 11:1 45
4b-25 27 18:16 260
2:7 10, 28, 39, 31, 34, 35, 29:19 170
38, 43, 47, 61, 64, 30:15-16 202
65, 71, 72, 76, 78,
88, 92, 93, 102, 121, Leviticus
150, 151, 157, 177, 217 18:6 252
2:7b 103 18:13 116
2:9 266 19:18 44
2:10 61 19:18 45
2:14 35, 38 19:34 45
2:17 266 25:49 252
2:23 119 27:6-7 45
2:26-27 177 28:2 45
2:35 177
3 32, 279 Numbers
3:19 31, 34, 35, 42, 63, 6:24-26 182
65, 92, 95, 96 23:19 41
3:20 35 24:17 256, 258
4-5 258 24:30 158
5:1 27
6:5 200, 202, 217, 219, Joshua
225 14:7 151
6:6 35
6:19 51 Job
6:20 51 4:19 92
7:2 51 7:17 86, 151
7:3 51 7:20 151
7:9 51 8:19 92
7:15 51 10:9 31, 34, 47, 48, 92
8:21 200, 217, 219, 224 14:1 98
9:10 35 15:4 86
9:16 27 15:14-16 15
12:5 35 17:16 34
15:2 77 21:26 34
17:5 260 24:20 259, 261
17:26 27 27:16 92
17:38 202 30:19 92
49:21 80 33:16 151
33:6 47, 97
Exodus 34:15 31
4:21 261 36:19 151
7:23 151
20:1-8 47 Psalms
7:5 33, 34
Deuteronomy 8:3-8 39
6:4-9 160 8:4 39
6:5 160 8:4 86
Ancient Source Index 339

8:4-5 15 3:17-19 33
8:4-8 39 3:19 30
8:6 32 3:19 33
9:23-24 178 3:19-22 30, 31
9:33-34 178 3:20 34, 65
9:34 178 3:20a 35
12:1 41 3:21 32, 34
12:3 171 4:2-3 31
22:29 34 9:10c 35
30:9 34 11:7 34
33 103 12 34
31:7 166 12:1-7 30, 34
44:25 33, 34 12:1-8 34
51 231 12:5 34
51:11 95 12:5c 35
51:13b 231 12:7 31, 34, 92
73:26 115 12:8 65, 125
81:12 170, 219
90:3 31 Isaiah
94:21 158 25:12 47
103:14 33,34, 92 26:19 34
104:14 33 26:3 93
104:29 31, 92, 177 26:5 47
115:4-8 59 29 59
119:133b 184 29:15-16 50
135:15-18 59 29:16 50, 93
140:11 [MT 12] 198 29:16 93
140:4 [MT 5] 198 29:4 47
143:11 166 38:19 121
144:3 86 41:25 50
144:3-4 15 44:9-20 59
45 59
Proverbs 45:13 50
1:23 180 45:9-13 50
16:9 248 47:8 260
5:11 115
5:32 180 Jeremiah
26:29 198 2 93
29:7 151 3:17 170
31:3 151 7:24 170
9:14 170
Qohelet 10 59
1:1 29 10:23 248
1:13 35 11:8 170
2:20 35, 92 11:8 219
3 32, 34 12:3 163
3:21 34 13:10 170
3:10-15 32 16:12 170
3:16-22 30 17:8-10 173
340 Ancient Source Index

Jeremiah (cont.) 10:21 206

18 50, 55, 59 12:22-2 185
18:1-6 50 12:31 45
18:4 50 Mk 17:17-23 201
18:6 50
18:12 170 Luke
23:4 260 1:67 95
23:17 170 2:25 95
25:31 121 4:18-19 87
4:33-37 185
Lamentations 8:26-39 185
Lam 2:19 158 10:25-37 87, 282
10:27 45
1 Chronicles 18:22 206
1 Chron 17:9 261
1 Chron 28:9 217 John
1 Chron 29:18 217, 219 1:2-3 235
1:4-5 235
2 Chronicles
2 Chron 21:8, 10 198 Acts
2:4 279
Micah 9:1 280
Mic 1:4 99
Romans
Zechariah 9 50
Zech 12:1 178 9:20-21 50, 60
9:20-23 50
Daniel
12:2 34 1 Corinthians
12:2 112 15 140
12:2 125 15:50 117
15:53 58
New Testament
2 Corinthians
Matthew 5:8 133
1:23-28 185 6:14-16 83
11:10 87
12:33-37 201 Galatians
15:10-20 201 1:16 117, 118
16:17 117, 118 5:14 45
19:21 206
7:16 201 Ephesians
8:28-34 185 1:13 279
9:32-34 185 6:12 118
22:39 45
Hebrews
Mark Heb 2:4 117
5:1-20 185 Heb 2:14 118
Ancient Source Index 341

James Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai

2:8 45 14:15 117
14:19 117
2 Peter 14:22 117
2 Pet 2:4 84 15:1 117
15:10 117
Jude 15:2 117
6 84 15:25 117
16:4 117
Early Christian Literature
Pesikta Rabbati
Hippolytus 43 105
Refutatio Omniun
Haeresium 9:27 139 Sifra
9:28 140 Shem. 2:8 117
9:29 139 Qed. 8.4 45

Rabbinic Literature Sifrei Bamidbar

84:5 117
Mishna 86:1 117
Avot 1:3 142 87:1 117
3:14 68 103:1 117
3:15 203, 283 104:1 117
105:1 117
Tosefta 117:2 117
Bab. Qam. 7:4 117 119:1 117
Ber. 6:18 117 134:4 117
Peah 4:18 206
Sanh. 8:9 117 Shemot Rabbah
7:11 87 10:6 261
Sot. 11:3 117
Suk. 2:6 117 Jerusalem Talmud
Ned. 9 45
Midrashim Ned. 41c 45
Genesis Rabbah Sheq. 6b 261
14:4 43
Babylonian Talmud
Lamentations Rabbah Ber. 33b 283
1:16 105 61a 43, 217
61a-b 83
Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Gitt. 57b 105
Amalek 2:22 117 Hul. 7b 2 83
Besḥ 6:8 117 Nidd. 16b 283
Shir 1:104 117 Yoma 23b 261
2:127 117 Zev. 55a 261
8:60 117
8:4 261