Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 2 Exegetical Studies Library of New Testament Studies 392

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM A N D
CHRISTIANITY
Edited by
Craig A. Evans
Volume 15
Published under
LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
392
formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn,
Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole,
John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton,
Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams
EARLY C H R I S T I A N LITERATURE A N D
INTERTEXTUALITY
Volume 2: Exegetical Studies
EDITED BY
CRAIG A. EVANS
H. DANIEL ZACHARIAS
t&tclark
Copyright © Craig A. Evans, H. Daniel Zacharias, 2009
Published by T&T Clark

A Continuum imprint
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Ste 704, New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 0-567-34100-3
ISBN 13: 978-0-567-34100-6 (hardback)
Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset, UK.

Printed in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn
P R E F A C E
Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, published as two volumes,

represents the fourteenth and fifteenth volumes to appear in Studies in
Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Two of the previous volumes
are monographs. The other eleven volumes are collections of studies that
have more or less systematically worked through the Gospels, the letters
of Paul, other Judaeo-Christian bodies of literature from late antiquity, or
have investigated various questions pertaining to biblical understanding in
the period under review. Several other studies have focused on the
function of sacred Scripture in Rabbinic literature and other non-
Christian Jewish writings.
The present collection of studies focuses on the nature of sacred
Scripture and various aspects of its intertextuality. Volume 1 is comprised
of thematic studies. Early understandings of canon and Scripture, the use
of Scripture in later writings, and the interpretation and application of
various themes and narratives, allegories, and metaphors are treated in
these several studies. Volume 2 is comprised of exegetical studies, where
specific pericopes are treated. Most of these studies concern the function
of Scripture in New Testament writings. New proposals are made and
different approaches in method are considered.
As in the previous volumes, the present volume is enriched with
contributions by established scholars, as well as contributions by younger
scholars, whose work is making itself felt in the discipline. The editors
express their deepest thanks. The editors also wish to thank Sharon
Leighton for her assistance in editing and formatting several of the papers
and Adam Wright for assisting with the preparation of the indexes.
Craig A. Evans
H. Daniel Zacharias
Acadia Divinity College
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xxvi
INTRODUCTION 1
Craig A . Evans and H . Daniel Zacharias
1. A NEW VIEW ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SEPTUAGINT AND

MASORETIC TEXT IN THE STORY OF DAVID AND GOLIATH 5
Jan-Wim Wesselius
2. A CASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DUALISM: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

AND THE INSTRUCTION ON THE TWO SPIRITS 27
Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer
3. JESUS' JEWISH HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN THE NAZARETH

SYNAGOGUE 46
R. Steven Notley
4. THE MAGNIFICAT AMONG THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE-SET PSALMS 60

Scot Becker
5. A N ECHO OF MERCY: A REREADING OF THE PARABLE OF THE

GOOD SAMARITAN 74
Nathan Lane
6. PSALM 2 AND THE SON OF GOD IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 85

Steven B. Nash
7. JOEL 2.28-32A IN ACTS 2.17-21: THE DISCOURSE AND

TEXT-CRITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATION FROM THE LXX 103
Steven E. Runge
viii Contents
8. GENESIS 1-3 AND CONCEPTIONS OF HUMANKIND IN

4QINSTRUCTION, PHILO AND PAUL 114
Matthew Goff
9. WHY CAN'T THE ONE WHO DOES THESE THINGS LIVE BY THEM'?
THE USE OF LEVITICUS 18.5 IN GALATIANS 3 . 1 2 126
Preston M. Sprinkle
10. SURROGATE, SLAVE AND DEVIANT? THE FIGURE OF HAGAR IN

JEWISH TRADITION AND PAUL (GALATIANS 4 . 2 1 - 3 1 ) 138
Troy A . Miller
11. SUBVERTING SARAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: GALATIANS 4

AND 1 PETER 3 155
Jeremy Punt
12. T WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS':

PSALM 2.8-9 IN REVELATION 2.26-27 175
Tze-Ming Quek
13. EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 11.2 IN APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE 188

Bogdan G. Bucur
BIBLIOGRAPHY 200
INDEX OF REFERENCES 225
INDEX OF AUTHORS 233
ABBREVIATIONS
AAeg Analecta aegyptaica

AAS Acta apostolicae sedis
AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AAT Agypten und Altes Testament
AB Anchor Bible
ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6
vols; New York: Doubleday, 1992)
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AbrN Abr-Nahrain
ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
AcOr Acta orientalia
ACW Ancient Christian Writers
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
Aeg Aegyptus
AfO Archiv fur Orientforschung
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und
Urchristentums
AHW W. von Soden, Akkadische Handworterbuch (3 vols;
Wiesbaden, 1965-82)
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJAS American Journal of Arabic Studies
AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
AJP American Journal of Philology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
AJSRev Association for Jewish Studies Review
AJT American Journal of Theology
AKG Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte
ALBO Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia
X Abbreviations
ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen

Judentums
ALUOS Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANEP J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures
(Princeton, 1954)
ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts
(Princeton, 1969)
ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers
AnGreg Analecta Gregoriana
AnOr Analecta orientalia
ANQ Andover Newton Quarterly
ANRW W. Haase and E. Temporini (eds), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1979-)
ANTF Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung
ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AOS American Oriental Series
AOSTS American Oriental Society Translation Series
APAMS American Philosophical Association Monograph Series
APOT R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913)
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ASB Austin Seminary Bulletin
AsiaJTh Asia Journal of Theology
ASNU Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis
ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
ATAbh Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
ATAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
ATDan Acta theologica danica
ATJ Ashland Theological Journal
ATLA American Theological Library Association
ATR Anglican Theological Review
AusBR Australian Biblical Review
AUSDDS Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation
Series
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAC Biblioteca de autores cristianos
Abbreviations XI
BAG W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-

English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1957)
BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W.
Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Chicago, 1979)
BAR Biblical Archaeologist Review
BARead Biblical Archaeology Reader
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BASORSup Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
Supplements
BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage
BBET Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs (eds), A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1907).
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago, 1961)
BDR F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Griechisch
BEATAJ Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des
antiken Judentums
BeO Bibbia e oriente
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society
BEvT Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie
BFT Biblical Foundations in Theology
BFCT Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie
BG Berlin Gnostic Codex
BGBE Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese
BHEAT Bulletin dnistoire et d'exegese de VAncien Testament
BHH B. Reicke and L. Rost (eds), Biblisch-Historisches
Handworterbuch (4 vols; Gottingen, 1962-66)
BHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia
BHT Beitrage zur historischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
BibB Biblische Beitrage
Biblnt Biblical Interpretation
BibK Bibel und Kirche
BibLeb Bibel und Leben
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BibRev Bible Review
BibS(F) Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-)
xii Abbreviations
BibS(N) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951—)

BibSem The Biblical Seminar
BibT Biblical Theology
BibTh Bibliotheque Theologique
BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society ( = Yedioi)
Bij Bijdragen
BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies
BIS Biblical Interpretation Series
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BK Bibel und Kirche
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
BLE Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique
BLG Biblical Languages: Greek
BMI The Bible and its Modern Interpreters
BMus Bibliotheque du Museon
BN Biblische Notizen
BNTC Black's New Testament Commentary
BO Bibliotheca orientalis
BR Biblical Research
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BSt Biblische Studien
BT The Bible Translator
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BThSt Biblisch Theologische Studien
BToday Bible Today
BTS Bible et terre sainte
BTZ Berliner theologische Zeitschrift
BU Biblische Untersuchungen
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament
BWAT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
C Catholica
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series latina
Abbreviations xiii
CG Coptic Gnostic Codex

CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries
CH Calwer Hefte
CH Church History
ChicStud Chicago Studies
CHR Catholic Historical Review
ChrCent Christian Century
ChrCris Christianity and Crisis: A Christian Journal of Opinion
CIJ J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (2 vols;
Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana,
1936-52)
CJT Canadian Journal of Theology
CNT Commentaire du Nouveau Testament
CollTheol Collectanea Theologica
Com Via Communio Viatorum
ConB Coniectanea biblica
ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament
ConcorJ Concordia Journal
CPJ V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds), Corpus Papyrorum
Judaicarum (2 vols; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1957^60)
CQR Church Quarterly Review
CR Critical Review of Books in Religion
CRBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
CRHPR Cahiers de la Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
Crit Criterion
CritQ Critical Quarterly
CSBSB Canadian Society of Biblical Studies Bulletin
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
CSCT Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecelesiasticorum Latinorum
CSR Christian Scholars Review
CT Christianity Today
CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alpha-
betiques
CTM Concordia Theological Monthly
CTMis Currents in Theology and Mission
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
CTR Criswell Theological Review
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement
Dial Dialog
DiKi Dialog der Kirchen
xiv Abbreviations
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DJDJ Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan
DJG J. B. Green, S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall (eds),
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (1992)
DLZ Deutsche Literaturzeitung
DrewG Drew Gateway
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
DT Dalp-Taschenbiicher
DTT Dansk teologisk tidsskrift
Ebib Etudes bibliques
EDNT H. R. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Exegetical Dictionary
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-
93)
EFN Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria
EgliseTh Eglise et Theologie
EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
EHS Europaische Hochschulschriften
EI Encyclopaedia of Islam
EJ C. Roth and G. Wigoder (eds), Encyclopaedia Judaica
(1971)
EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament
Encount Encounter
EpworthRev Epworth Review
ER R. H. Eisenman and J. M. Robinson, A Fascimile Edition
of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Washington: Biblical
Archaeology Society, 1991)
ErFor Ertrage der Forschung
EstBib Estudios biblicos
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
ETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses
EUS European University Studies
EvErz Der Evangelischer Erzieher
EvFo Evangelisches Forum
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
EvT Evangelische Theologie
EWNT H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Exegetisches Worterbuch
zum Neuen Testament
Exp Tim Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FB Forschung zur Bibel
FBBS Facet Books, Biblical Series
FC Fontes Christiani
FF Forschungen und Fortschritte
Abbreviations xv
FFRS Facets and Foundations - Reference Series

FIOTL Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament
Literature
FoiVie Foi et Vie
Forum Forum: Foundations and Facets
FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
FSOT Forschungen zur systematischen und okumenischen
Theologie
FT La foi et le temps
FZPT Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophic und Theologie
GA Gesammelte Aufsatze
GCS Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
GGA Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen
GKC Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, (ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A.
E. Cowley; Oxford, 1910)
GNS Good News Studies
Greg Gregorianum
GTA Gottinger theologische Arbeiter
GTB Giitersloher Taschenbiicher
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
HAL AT W. Baumgartner et al. (eds), Hebrdisches und ara-
mdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HBD P. J. Achtemeier et al. (eds), Harper's Bible Dictionary
(San Francisco, 1985)
HBS Herders biblischen Studien
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HervTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HibJ Hibbert Journal
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HNTC Harper's New Testament Commentaries
HOS Handbook of Oriental Studies
HR History of Religions
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament
xvi Abbreviations
HTKNTSup Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen

Testament, Supplements
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
IB Interpreter's Bible
IBR Institute for Biblical Research
IBS Irish Biblical Studies
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB G. A Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible (Nashville, 1962)
IDBSup The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IJPR International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
IJT Indian Journal of Theology
IKZ Internationale katholische Zeitschrift
IMWT Internationale Monatsschrift fur Wissenschaft und
Technik
INJ Israel Numismatics Journal
Int Interpretation
IOS Israel Oriental Society
IRT Issues in Religion and Theology
2
ISBE G. W. Bromiley et al. (eds), International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, 1979-88)
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAC Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum
JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
JBS Jerusalem Biblical Studies
JBT Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie
JBT Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie (monograph series)
JC Judaica et Christiana
JE Judische Enzyklopddie
JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHC Journal of Higher Criticism
JHS Journal of Historical Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JL Judisches Lexihon (1927-30)
Abbreviations xvii
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPh Journal of Philology
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JQRMS Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series
JR Journal of Religion
JRE Journal of Religious Ethics
JRH Journal of Religious History
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSHRZ Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian,
Hellenistic and Roman Period
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian,
Hellenistic and Roman Period, Supplements
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement
Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTManuals Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Manuals
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement
Series
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement
Series
JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTC Journal for Theology and the Church
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Jud Judaica: Beitrage zum Verstdndnis des judischen Schiksals
in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart
KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische
Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1966-69)
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti libros
KD Kerygma und Dogma
KEKNT Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue
Testament
KiZ Kirchen in der Zeit
KIT Kleine Texte
KTU M. Dietrich et al. (eds), The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts
from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places
(Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas, 8;
Minister: Ugarit-Verlag, 2nd edn, 1995)
XV111 Abbreviations
LAI Library of Ancient Israel

LCL Loeb Classical Library
LD Lectio divina
LQ Lutheran Quarterly
LR Lutherische Rundschau
LRB Lutheran Rundblick
LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones, Greek-English Lexicon
LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies
LTK Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche
LUA Lund universitats Arschriften
Lum Vie Lumiere et vie
LXX Septuagint
McCQ McCormick Quarterly
McMNTS MacMaster New Testament Series
MHUC Monographs of the Hebrew Union College
MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (eds), The Vocabulary of
the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1930; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)
MNTC Moffat New Testament Commentary
ModCh The Modern Churchman
ModTh Modern Theology
MPI Monographs of the Peshitta Institute
MPTh Monatsschrift fur Pastoraltheologie
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
MT Masoretic Text
MTS Marburg theologische Studien
MTZ Munchener theologische Zeitschrift
Mus Museon
MVEOL Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het vooraziatisch-
egyptisch Genootschap 'Ex Oriente Lux'
27
NA E. Nestle and K. Aland (eds), Novum Testamentum
Graece
NAWG Nachrichten von der kon. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft
zu Gottingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse
NBlack New Blackfriars
NCB New Century Bible
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NCE M. R. P. McGuire et al. (eds), New Catholic Encyclopedia
(New York, 1967)
Neot Neotestamentica
NET Neutestamentliche Entwiirfe zur Theologie
NETS A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, A New English
Translation of the Septuagint (New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007)
Abbreviations xix
NewDocs G. H. R. Horsley (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early

Christianity (New South Wales: Macquarie University,
1976-89)
NGS New Gospel Studies
NHL Nag Hammadi Library
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NIC New International Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDNTT C. Brown (ed.), New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (1975-78)
NIDOTTE W. van Gemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of
Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1997)
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NITC New International Theological Commentary
NIV New International Version
NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NPNF P. Schaff (ed.), A Selection of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers: First Series (14 vols; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1886; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954-71)
NRSV R. E. Murphy, New Revised Standard Version
NRT La nouvelle revue theologique
NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
NTC The New Testament in Context
NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch
NTL New Testamnt Library
NTM New Testament Message
NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus
NTS New Testament Studies
NTTij Nederlands theologisch Tijdschrift
NTTSD New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents
Numen Numen: International Review for the History of Religions
NumSup Numen: International Review for the History of Religions,
Supplements
NZST Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie und
Religionsphilosophie
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
OCT Orientalia Christiana Periodica
XX Abbreviations
OG Old Greek
OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae I -
II (Leipzig, 1903-1905)
Or Orientalia
OrChr Oriens christianus
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (New York, 1983-85)
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien (journal)
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien (monograph series)
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research
PAM Palestine Archaeological Museum (in reference to the
accession numbers of the photographs of the Dead Sea
Scrolls)
PCB Peake's Commentary on the Bible
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graeca
PGM K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae
PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
PL J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia latina
Presby Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review
PrincSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin
PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies
PS Patrologia syriaca
PSBSup Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplement
PSTJ Perkins School of Theology Journal
PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series
PW A. F. Pauly, Paulys Realencylopddie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft (49 vols; Munich 1980)
QC The Qumran Chronicle
QD Quaestiones disputatae
RAC Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum
RB Revue biblique
RCB Revista de cultura biblica
REB Revised English Bible
Ref Reformatio
REJ Revue des etudes juives
RelEd Religious Education
RelS Religious Studies
RelSRev Religious Studies Review
RestQ Restoration Quarterly
Rev. SC. Re. Revue de Science Religieuse
RevExp Review and Expositor
Abbreviations xxi
RevQ Revue de Qumran

RevThom Revue thomiste
RGG K. Galling (ed.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart:
Handworterbuch fur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft
(Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1957)
RHPR Revue dnistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RHR Revue de Vhistoire des religions
RivBSup Rivista biblica, Supplements
RL Religion in Life
RM Rowohlts Monographien
RNT Regensburger Neues Testament
RR Review of Religion
RSB Religious Studies Bulletin
RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RSRev Religious Studies Review
RSV Revised Standard Version
RT Religion & Theologie/Religie & Teologie
RT Religious Traditions
RTL Revue theologique de Louvain
RTP Revue de theologie et de philosophie
RTR The Reformed Theological Review
RVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten
SAC Studies in Antiquity & Christianity
SAJ Studies in Ancient Judaism
Sal Salmanticensis
SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
SB F. Preisigke et al. (eds), Sammelbuch Griechischer
Urkunde aus Agypten
SB Sources bibliques
SBAB Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande
SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage
SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity
SBET Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology
SBG Studies in Biblical Greek
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical
Studies
SBLBMI SBL The Bible and its Modern Interpreters
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its
Literature
SBLMasS Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
xxii Abbreviations
SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical

Study
SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study
SC Sources chretiennes
ScEccl Sciences ecclesiastiques
SCHNT Studia ad corpus hellenisticum novi testamenti
SCL Sather Classical Lectures
Scr Scripture
SD Studies and Documents
SE Studia Evangelica
SEA Svensk exegetisk drsbok
SecCent Second Century
SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum
SESJ Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja ( =
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society)
SFEG Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft
SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism
SHR Studies in the History of Religions (supplement to
Numen)
SHT Studies in Historical Theology
SUB Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin
SJ Studia Judaica
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SKKNT Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar: Neues Testament
SL Studia liturgica
SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament
SNTS Society for New Testament Studies
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (jour
nal)
SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt
(monograph series)
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and its World
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series
SP Sacra pagina
Abbreviations xxiii
SPB Studia postbiblica

SR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses
SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity
SSL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
SSN Studia semitica neerlandica
sss Semitic Study Series
ST Studia theologica
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
STK Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift
StOr Studia orientalia
StoneCamJ Stone Campbell Journal
Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (5 vols; Munich:
Beck, 1922-61)
St.Patr. Studia Patristica
StudBib Studia biblica
StudLit Studia liturgica
StuttBA Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande
StZ Stimmen der Zeit
SUNT Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
SVTP Studia in veteris testamenti pseudepigrapha
SVTQ Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly
SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology
TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association
TBei Theologische Beitrage
TBI Theologische Blatter
TBR Theological and Biblical Resources
TBu Theologische Biicherei
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids 1964-74)
TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974—)
TEv Theologia evangelica
TF Theologische Forschung (journal)
TF Theologische Forschung (monograph series)
TGI Theologie und Glaube
Th Theodotion
Th Theology
THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds), Theologisches
Handbuch zum Alten Testament
ThEx Theologische Existenz heute
ThG Theologie der Gegenwart
THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
ThW Theologische Wissenschaft
xxiv Abbreviations
TJT Toronto Journal of Theology

TLB Theologisches Literaturblatt
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
TQ Theologische Quartalschrift
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopddie
TRev Theologische Revue
TrinJ Trinity Journal
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TS Theological Studies
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TSF Theological Students Fellowship
TSJTSA Theological Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary
of America
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TTij Theologisch Tijdschrift
TTK Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke
TToday Theology Today
TTS Trierer theologische Studien
TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TUMSR Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion
TWAT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theologisches
Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1970-)
TWNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologisches
Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1932-79)
TWOT R. L. Harris (ed.), Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (Chicago, 1980)
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UBS United Bible Society
UBSGNT United Bible Societies Greek New Testament
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UJT Understanding Jesus Today
UnSanc Una Sancta
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review
UTB Urban-Taschenbucher
UUA Uppsala universitetsarsskrift
VC Vigiliae christianae
VF Verkundigung und Forschung
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
VWGT Veroffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft
fur Theologie
Abbreviations xxv
WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WBKEL Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur kirklich-evangelischer
Lehre
WF Wege der Forschung
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WPC Westminster Pelican Commentaries
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament
YJS Yale Judaica Series
YOS Yale Oriental Series
ZAS Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
ZKT Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
ZTK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
ZWT Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie
ZZ Zeichen der Zeit
CONTRIBUTORS
Scot Becker, University of Aberdeen

Bogdan Bucur, Duquesne University
Matthew Goff, Florida State University
Nathan Lane, Palm Beach Atlantic University
Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, University of Aberdeen
Troy A. Miller, Crichton College
Steven Nash, Faculdade Teologica Batista de Sao Paulo
R. Steven Notley, Nyack College
Jeremy Punt, Stellenbosch University
Tze-Ming Quek, University of Cambridge
Steven Runge, Logos Bible Software; Research Associate, Department of
Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch
Preston Sprinkle, Cedarville University
Jan-Wim Wesselius, Protestant Theological University, Kampen
I N T R O D U C I N G E A R L Y C H R I S T I A N L I T E R A T U R E A N D
I N T E R T E X T U A L I T Y
V O L U M E 2: E X E G E T I C A L S T U D I E S
Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias
Scholarly interest and research in Jewish and Christian scriptural

intertextuality show no sign of abating any time soon. There are many
reasons for this, not least the discovery and publication of new materials,
ongoing archaeological excavations and discoveries, which enrich our
understanding of the cultural context in which early Jewish and Christian
literature emerged, and new developments in method and procedure.
Given these realities it was not surprising that in collecting papers for
publication it became necessary to expand the planned single volume into
two. Fortunately, the papers divided evenly into thematic studies and
1
exegetical studies.
Volume Two commences with a very interesting study by Jan-Wim
Wesselius, entitled 'A New View on the Relation between Septuagint and
Masoretic Text in the Story of David and Goliath'. Wesselius discusses
the relationship between the Masoretic Text and LXX versions of 1 Samuel
16-17, concluding that the peculiar literary strategy of bipolar narration
was employed and is retained in the earlier Masoretic Text version. The
L X X editor, rather than rewrite the respective portions, chose masterfully
to omit certain peculiarities to create a striking new version.
In 'A Case of Psychological Dualism: Philo of Alexandria and the
Instruction on the two Spirits', Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer examines the
psychological dualism in Philo's QEx I 23, as well as the dualism in the
Instruction on the Two Spirits (1QS 3.13-4.26). She concludes that various
layers of dualistic thought - psychological, ethical, mythical, cosmic and
eschatological - are present in 1QS. CD is also replete with dualism, which
1 For the convenience of our readers we have assembled a Selected Bibliography on

Intertextuality in Early Christian Literature. It will be found at the end of the Introduction to
Volume 1. See also n. 1 to Volume 1, Introduction.
2 Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2
in Qumran thought served the purpose of theodicy. Leonhardt-Balzer

suggests that Philo was familiar with the tradition found at Qumran,
drawing out the parallel lines of thought, and even suggesting a possible
historical connection with Philo and the Qumran community or another
Essene community.
In 'Jesus' Jewish Hermeneutical Method in the Nazareth Synagogue',
R. Steven Notley investigates Luke's version of Jesus' preaching in
Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-30) and argues that it is the oldest account of the
Jewish custom to follow the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue
with a reading from the Prophets (the Haftara). Apart from Luke's report
(see Acts 13.15-41), the earliest Jewish reference to this practice is the
third-century-CE compilation of oral traditions in the Mishnah. Jesus'
ingenious fusion of Isa. 61.1-2 and 58.6 also gives the clearest evidence
that Jesus read from the Hebrew Scriptures and that Luke's source for the
citation was not the Septuagint in this instance.
Scot Becker's 'The Magnificat among the Biblical Narrative-Set
Psalms', considers the Magnificat in the Gospel of Luke, highlighting its
linguistic conventions, which serve to mimic biblical Hebrew poetry,
which in turn makes it and the other canticles unique among the New
Testament literature. Becker compares the Magnificat with narrative-set
psalms from the Hebrew Bible, concluding that it is presented to the
reader as an opportunity to appropriate the significance of the surround
ing narrative and also provides an opportunity for them to welcome the
annunciation of the angel and the rest of the good news in the Gospel.
In 'An Echo of Mercy: A Rereading of the Parable of the Good
Samaritan', Nathan Lane offers a rereading of the context of the parable
of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 10.30-37), suggesting
that the lawyer is actually a dynamic character who comes to properly
understand the parable of Jesus. Lane applies Richard Hays's seven rules
for identifying a scriptural echo and determines that Lk. 10.37 is an
allusion to Exod. 34.6-7. Lane examines the view of mercy in the Exodus
passage, noting that 'mercy' in Luke seems to echo the understanding of
'mercy' as portrayed in Exod. 34.6-7. The echo emphasizes the major
theme of the passage - intersections of the love of God and the love of
others. By the end of the parable the lawyer understands that eternal life
requires that humans interact with others as God has interacted with
humans.
In 'Psalm 2 and the Son of God in the Fourth Gospel', Steven Nash
discusses the importance of the Psalter for the understanding of Jewish
messianism. In particular, he argues for reading the Psalter as being
canonically shaped with editorial activity that provided a more cohesive
theology than historical-critical scholars sometimes see. The Psalter's
multi-faceted portrait of the Messiah as son, king and viceregent of
Yahweh himself was critical for the author of the fourth Gospel, because
EVANS and ZACHARIAS Introduction 3
it is this portrait, focused on Psalm 2, that provides the introduction for

the Davidic lament psalms. It is this Old Testament background that
forms the basis of the idea that the Messiah must suffer.
In 'Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21: The Discourse and Text-Critical
Implications of Variation from the LXX', Steven Runge uses insights from
discourse grammar to analyse the differences between the quotation of
Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 and the LXX. He finds that a number of the
differences in Acts were changes made to clarify and preserve the original
Hebrew meaning that was otherwise ambiguous in the L X X version.
Matthew Goff, 'Genesis 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in
4QInstruction, Philo and Paul', investigates the influence of the Jewish
wisdom tradition found in 4QInstruction on Philo's De opificio mundi and
1 Corinthians. These two passages were shaped by an understanding of
Genesis 1-3 that is similar to that found in 4QInstruction. Philo and Paul,
undoubtedly coloured by their interaction with the wider Hellenistic
world, used Genesis 1-3 to explain the nature of humankind in similar
ways to 4QInstruction. Paul and the author of 4QInstruction both offer a
dualistic understanding of humankind, in which is expressed the idea that
some humans have the potential for life after the death of the body and
others do not. The presentation of fleshly and spiritual types of
humankind in 4QInstruction is also similar to Philo's argument that
Genesis 1-3 recounts a mortal Adam and an immortal Adam.
In 'Why Can't "The One Who Does These Things Live by Them"? The
Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', Preston Sprinkle discusses
various scholarly views on Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12,
highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. Sprinkle concludes
that Paul takes great pains to make the distinction between matters of
religion fashioned by mere human effort, and the gospel of Christ that is
shaped by divine saving action.
In 'Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish
Tradition and Paul (Galatians 4.21-31)', Troy Miller examines the
appearances and function of Hagar in Jewish writings prior to and
concurrent with the time of Paul and compares it with Paul's creative use
of Hagar in Galatians. Hagar is portrayed as a positive yet tragic
character in the Genesis account. Josephus and other early Jewish texts
characterize Hagar negatively. In contrast to the portrait in Genesis,
Sarah receives little negative characterization by later authors as well. It is
clear that Paul stands somewhere within this reading of the figure of
Hagar. But Paul goes beyond this traditional reading by subverting the
figures of Hagar and Sarah through a reversal of ethnic identities for the
Galatian context.
In 'Subverting Sarah in the New Testament', Jeremy Punt provides a
portrait of Sarah from Genesis, and goes on to then look at how Galatians
and 1 Peter appropriate the story of Sarah in a way that subverts the
original story. Beginning in the role of mother of the Jewish race, Sarah is
changed into a model of faith for the Christian readers of Galatians and 1
Peter.
4
Tze-Ming Quek's "I will give Authority over the Nations": Psalm 2.8-
9 in Revelation 2.26-27' shows how Psalm 2, read messianically in certain
contexts, has come to be used as a promise to the community of believers
by John the Seer, not unlike what we find in 4Q174. It is argued that the
likely explanation for this movement between singular and plural is the
Davidic covenant seen as a basis for corporate protection.
And finally, in 'Exegesis of Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage',
Bogdan Bucur examines Aphrahat's exegesis of Isa. 11.2, as Aphrahat
provides valuable insight into early Christian doctrine and exegetical
practices. Aphrahat prefers the LXX version of Isa. 11.2-3 with its
enumeration of seven spirits. Bucur then compares Aphrahat's reading of
Isa. 11.2-3 with Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. He finds that
Aphrahat uses Isa. 11.2 to support his doctrine of partial versus
incomplete pneumatology, while Justin asserts the argument that the
prophets only received a portion from the Spirit. Clement also connects
the angels of the Face in Isa. 11.2 with intercessory activity of the Spirit,
something Aphrahat does not do with this verse.
Chapter 1
A New View on the Relation between Septuagint and Masoretic

Text in the Story of David and Goliath
Jan-Wim Wesselius
It is generally recognized that the main subject of 1 Samuel 16 and 17 is

the first acquaintance of the young David, son of Jesse, with his future
predecessor Saul, the first real king of Israel. Likewise, it has often been
noted that in the Masoretic Text in either of these two chapters we are
really given a potentially independent story about this first meeting of
David and Saul, and that the relationship of the two stories is not at once
evident. We can read them as subsequent, being informed in chapter 16
that the prophet Samuel arrives in David's ancestral town of Bethlehem
under some pretext in order to anoint one of the sons of Jesse as the future
king of Israel, who is to replace King Saul, who had been rejected by God
himself in the preceding chapters. Clearly as a sequel of this story we are
told that Saul's officers look for a capable musician who is to soothe him
when he has one of the attacks by the evil spirit which plagues him since
he was rejected. David then becomes Saul's musician and also, somewhat
surprisingly, his arms-bearer. In the next chapter, 1 Samuel 17, we are told
that David comes to the camp of the Israelites who were locked in a stand
off against the Philistines and their hero, the giant Goliath of Gath. David
has apparently not been drafted into the army himself, but visits the camp
in order to see his brothers who were serving there. As a consequence of
his youthful boasting David takes it on himself to fight with the giant and
indeed kills him, which leads to his receiving a high position in Saul's
army. At first sight it seems that we can indeed read the two episodes as
subsequent, with the events of chapter 17 taking place after those of 16,
and most orthodox paraphrases and commentaries take such a reading as
their starting point.
But this holistic reading requires some elaborate intellectual gymnastics,
This article originated as a paper 'A Reconsideration of the Septuagint Version of 1

Samuel 17', read in the meeting of the IOSCS in Philadelphia on 21 November 2005. Biblical
quotations according to the RSV, with some changes in order to bring them closer to the
Masoretic Text.
for the Masoretic Text of these chapters is highly problematic. The

situation is well known and has often been discussed. The two stories
indeed seem to stand beside each other without any clear connection.
Even more surprisingly, there appear to be frictions and contradictions
between the two accounts. Especially remarkable is that King Saul at the
end of chapter 17 has to ask his general Abner what is the name of the
young man who defeated Goliath - whereas we have been told that David
made music for king Saul day after day and was even appointed as his
arms-bearer at the end of 1 Samuel 16, and that Saul was involved in the
preparations for David's fight with Goliath in 17.31-39!
In the Septuagint version of these stories, especially in chapter 17, which
deals with the episode of David and Goliath, there is no trace of these
problems. In comparison with the standard Hebrew text we miss a large
number of verses in this chapter, namely 17.12-31, 41, 50, 55-58. By
contrast, differences between the two in other verses are minimal. In the
comparative table at the end of this article the text of the Revised
Standard Version, which closely follows the Masoretic Text ( M T ) , is in the
left-hand column, and the new English translation of the Septuagint
1
(NETS) in the middle; there is no need for Hebrew or Greek for this
purpose.
It is clear that there is a close relationship between the two texts, each of
which can be read independently and fits in the place where it is in 1
Samuel. Of course people have wondered which of the two texts would
likely be the more original one, and there is a veritable stream of
2
publications about precisely this issue. On the one hand it is pointed out
that the Septuagint version corresponds closely with most of the Hebrew
text in those verses where it has any text, but is absent for the verses which
I just mentioned, which appears to suggest that these are secondary
excisions; the reverse process, of suppletion of verses in various places, is
much more difficult to imagine, especially since it is not easy to discern a
reason for such an activity. On the other hand the Septuagint reads much
more naturally than the Masoretic Text, which is unusually long and
contains a number of ambiguities and contradictions, which are seemingly
impossible to explain within one unitary literary text. There is much more
to the relation between the two versions, but this is the basic dichotomy in
1 Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the
Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); the translation of 1 Reigns ( = 1
Samuel in the Hebrew Bible) by Bernard A. Taylor. An electronic text is on http://ccat.sas.
upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
2 See, for example, D. Barthelemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and
Literary Criticism Papers of a Joint Research Venture (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires,
1986) and Arie van der Kooij, 'The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its
Text', ETL 68 (1992): 118-31.
WESSELIUS David and Goliath 1
the discussion, which has not led to anything even remotely like a
consensus.
The one thing, in my opinion, which is clear after many years of
discussions about this aspect of the story of David and Goliath, is that it
turns out to be impossible to prove the priority of either of the two
versions based on literary merit or text-critical considerations only.
Emanuel Tov carefully summarized and weighed the various arguments
and cautiously proposed that the Septuagint version is to be regarded as
the more original one, and that the present Masoretic Text is the result of
a conflation with a second account, but his thesis clearly does not amount
to a decisive proof of his position, at least not one which is able to
3
convince the other scholars who dealt with this issue. As the discussion,
in spite of scholars' exertions, has not resulted in a clear conclusion, it
seems rather likely that the approaches which have been employed up to
now cannot lead to such a conclusion. We shall therefore start our
discussion from a completely different vantage point, namely the literary
position of 1 Samuel 16-17 within the global literary framework of the
Primary History, the historical work extending from Genesis 1 to the end
of 2 Kings, and some important intratextual links which can be observed.
An aspect which is very much present in Tov's article (as well as in the
publications of many other scholars) is the traditional presupposition that
contradictions, frictions and reduplications in texts are features which are
in a sense irregular, and need an explanation from outside the text itself.
Elsewhere I described a highly remarkable and hitherto unnoticed
literary feature of these historical books at the beginning of the Bible,
which partly applies also to some other narrative texts in the Hebrew
Bible. The situation is well known: though the individual episodes look
like fine literary works, often with a clear formal structure, the connection
between them or between their constituent parts seems more or less
haphazard, as if a number of well-formed stories, poems and lists have
been glued together by a more or less incapable editor, who did not care
about frictions, contradictions and duplications in the text. It can be
observed, however, that certain highly regular patterns in the distribution
of these strange features can be discerned and that one of the ordering
principles of the Primary History is the presence of counter-intuitive
features which may serve, firstly, to unify the text as a whole, secondly, to
emphasize certain important events in the text, and thirdly, to express the
3 Emanuel Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in Light of the Septuagint', in The
Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 333-62;
for a recent survey of research, see A. Graeme Auld, 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test
Case for Synchrony plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit:
Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit; Beitrage zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches
(Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28; the
volume also contains many other valuable contributions to this discussion.
presence of two distinct narrative voices in one text. Thus the irregular
features are shown to be, not anomalies to be explained in some way,
whether from the history of the text or from its literary nature, but
instruments which structure the overall course of the narrative both on the
formal level and for its substance. The authors of the Primary History and
of several other narrative books in the Hebrew Bible indulged in various
types of language play, such as deliberate balancing of continuity,
discontinuity and super-continuity (the use of elements which are drawn
together in spite of being really independent), interruption, emulation of
and allusion to other works in the Hebrew Bible and outside of it, and the
4
use of separate narrative voices to describe the same episode.
These regularities having apparently been forgotten between the writing
of the biblical texts and the beginning of the Common Era, when we
would certainly expect some kind of reflex of them if they had still been
remembered, we can safely presume that these writings originated in a
literary culture (priestly circles in Jerusalem?) which died out sometime in
the Hellenistic era, and which was characterized by a highly developed
sense for literature of various origins, besides the original Israelite also
5
Greek, Mesopotamian and general West-Semitic, and a pronounced taste
for the use of various refined literary instruments, including techniques
such as emulation and allusion, and deliberate use of ambiguity,
6
contradiction and discontinuity.
As in all cases of two closely related texts, the relation of which is to be
determined, the existence of unrecognized features in such texts constitutes
an Archimedean point from which in many cases the priority of one of the
texts can be proven. This peculiar nature of some, mainly narrative, texts in
the Hebrew Bible enables us to obtain a new view on the history of their
texts, especially as far as our oldest witnesses, mainly the Septuagint and the
Dead Sea manuscripts, are concerned. This is not to say that the principles
4 Jan-Wim Wesselius, 'Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew

Bible', SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77; idem, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories
as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible (JSOTSup, 345; London: Sheffield Academic
Press and Continuum, 2002); idem, 'Alternation of Divine Names as a Literary Device in
Genesis and Exodus', in Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin (eds),
Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004 (Frankfurt a.
M.: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 35-43; idem, 'From Stumbling Blocks to Cornerstones: The
Function of Problematic Episodes in the Primary History and in Ezra-Nehemiah', in Riemer
Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornells Houtman
(Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 37-63; and at some length in my God's Election and Rejection:
The Literary Strategy of the Historical Books at the Beginning of the Bible (forthcoming).
5 See the brief survey in Marieke den Braber and Jan-Wim Wesselius, 'The Unity of
Joshua 1-8, its Relation to the Story of King Keret, and the Literary Background to the
Exodus and Conquest Stories', SJOT 22 (2008), pp. 253-74.
6 Wesselius, God's Election and Rejection, 'Introduction'.
set forth in this article have universal significance, as the history of these
texts is hardly comparable for different books. They should, however,
make us very cautious in dealing with translation issues for biblical books
for which we do not see the rationale behind their present form.
One of the features discussed above is of especial importance for our
purpose. The introductions of the eight persons whose combined
biographies form a large part of this great historical work which starts
at creation and runs on to the taking and destruction of Jerusalem by the
Babylonians in 587 BCE, follow a highly similar literary pattern. A cursory
reading of the separate texts will not reveal this at once, but once it has
been pointed out it stands out very clearly. In each of these eight cases, at
the beginning of each person's biography, two separate scenarios are
presented to the reader, which can be read as subsequent episodes or as
alternatives of some sort and thus provide the narrative with a basic
ambiguity, which is reinforced by the fact that many later episodes in
these biographies continue either of the two alternative accounts of their
introduction. This is, in fact, not something which is hidden from the
reader, and most scholars will know it for most or all of the persons
involved: Humankind (or rather the first man), Abram, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, Samuel, Saul and David. Most will also know that in each case the
difference between the two versions can be formulated as a question which
thus is basically left unanswered, or at least engenders tremendous
discussion among scholars and ordinary readers alike: Was Abram called
from Ur and/or from Haran? Was Joseph sold by his brothers and/or by
the passing Midianites? Was Saul appointed as king of Israel in a private
meeting with Samuel and/or in a kind of royal lottery? These questions are
most prominent at the beginning of each biography, but in most cases the
reader is reminded of them throughout each biography because of
allusions to either of the two versions. This is particularly striking when of
two so-called duplicate stories (e.g., Saul tries to kill David, David is able
to kill Saul, but refuses to do so, etc.) each refers to one of the two
versions. Interestingly, not rarely at the end of a biography one of the two
is denied or strongly affirmed. A full survey of these striking common
7
literary features of the biographies is in Table l.
One of the characteristic features of this double introduction is the
presence of a number of words and expressions, which the two alternative
versions have in common, and which are sufficiently striking that we can
say that they connect the two. We shall make a brief survey of such
elements in the episodes which are under scrutiny here. In 1 Samuel 16 and
17 we encounter a considerable number of such common words and
expressions: they are in the third column of the comparative table. Thus
we see that in both the three eldest of Jesse's eight sons are mentioned by
7 A complete discussion of this figure is in my God's Election and Rejection.

Table 1 Table of the introduction of the subjects of the eight biographies in

Genesis-Samuel and the two voices in the narrative.
Humankind Abraham Jacob Joseph
Movement to The world Canaan Haran Egypt

Question When created? Where from? Why did he go? How was he sold?
Version 1 Gen. 1.1-2.3 Gen. 11.27-32 Gen. 27.1-46 Gen. 37.21-22
Version 2 Gen. 2.4-7 Gen. 12.1-5 Gen. 27.46-28.9 Gen. 37.26-27
Apparent point Gen. 2.4 Starting point of Rebekah's plan Sequence of

of contact 12.1 is Haran events
Point of friction Man made before Abram is to go No reaction on Reuben is

or after other out of both his deception looking for
creatures, woman country of birth Joseph (Gen.
made from man and his father's 37.29-30)
(Gen. 2.21-22) house; Terah dies
a long time after
Abram leaves
Haran
Ambiguous 'In the day that 'The LORD said/ 'that Isaac had 'They drew
statement the LORD God had said' (Gen. blessed Jacob' Joseph up...'
made the earth 12.1) (Gen. 28.6); (Gen. 37.28)
and the heavens' 'Listened to his
(Gen. 2.4); 'the father and his
LORD God made/ mother' (Gen.
had made to 28.7)
grow' (Gen. 2.9);
the LORD God
formed/had
formed' (Gen.
2.19)
Direct sequel of Gen. 3 Gen. 12.6 Gen. 28.10 Gen. 38
version 2
Indirect sequel of Gen. 4-11 etc. Jacob marries 'you sold' (Gen.
version 2 Laban's 45.4)
daughters
Indirect sequel of Gen. 5.1-2; 'I am the LORD Jacob is a 'He is not' (Gen.
version 1 Flood, who brought you fugitive; 'a few 42.13, 32, 36);
Abimelech, from Ur of the days' (Gen. 'stolen' (Gen.
Hagar, etc. Chaldeans' (Gen. 29.20; 27.44) 40.15); Reuben's
15.7) reproach (Gen.
42.22)
Moses Samuel Saul David

Pharaoh's court Ramah to Shiloh Jabesh in Gilead Saul's court
Circumstances of his Was he educated in How did he become How did he come to
birth? Shiloh? king? court?
Exod. 1.15-21 1 Sam. 2.1-10; 2.19- 1 Sam. 9.1-10.16 1 Sam. 16
21; 3.2-18
Exod. 1.22 1 Sam. 2.12-17; 2.22- 1 Sam. 10.17-27 1 Sam. 17
25; 2.27-36
Failure of Pharaoh's Transitional sentences 'That Ephrathite' (1
plan with the 1 Sam. 2.11, 18, 21, Sam. 17.12)
midwives; omission of 26; 3.1, 19
nationality of the
boys in 1.22
Sudden shift from Duplication of Numbers of Israelites, Saul does not know
private to public prediction about Eli enemies Philistines/ David (1 Sam. 17.31-
sphere and his house (1 Sam. other nations 39 and 55-58)
2.27-36 and 3.11-14)
'A man from the '.. .all that I have 'the rest of the people David going to and
house of Levi ... the spoken...' (1 Sam. he sent home' (1 Sam. from Saul (1 Sam.
daughter of Levi' 3.12) 13.2) 17.15)
(Exod. 2.1)
Exod. 2.1 1 Sam. 4 1 Sam. 11 1 Sam. 18
The Israelites are Samuel lives in Sin in Gilgal: letting Various exploits;
exceedingly numerous Ramah (passim), no Agag and cattle live (1 sword of Goliath (1
(passim) mention of Samuel in Sam. 15) Sam. 21.9)
episode of war with
Philistines in 1 Sam. 4
The Israelites are Sin in Gilgal: David as musician
related through close sacrificing too early (1 (passim)
family ties (passim) Sam. 13)
Humankind Abraham Jacob Joseph

Resemblance of 'create'; 'earth 'he took' . . . Lot Rebekah's Congruence,
the two versions and heaven' and Sarai/Sarai 'Why?' (Gen. 'blood', 'hand'
(Gen. 2.4); and L o t . . . 'to go 27.45, 46), 'go... (Gen. 37.21-27)
duplications in to the Land of take!' (Gen. 27.9;
stories of Flood Canaan'.... 'they 28.2)
and Abraham came' (Gen.
11.31; 12.5)
Characterization Elohim vs. From Ur or from For fear or for Reuben or Judah;
of two voices YHWH Haran; Elohim marriage sold or stolen
vs. YHWH
Duplicate stories Genealogies Wife posing as Explanation of Speeches of
or episodes (Gen. 4.17-22; sister (Gen. 12 Mahanaim (both Reuben and
5.3-27) and 20; cf. 26) in Gen. 32) Judah (Gen. 42
Hagar leaves Change of name and 43)
Abraham (Gen. to Israel (Gen. 32
16 and 21) and 35) Bethel
Announcement (both in Gen. 35)
of Isaac's birth
(Gen. 17 and 18)
Wife found at
well (Gen. 24 and
29; cf. Exod. 2)
Disquieting Name not known Abram is from Jacob fears Esau Four sons of
information previously (Exod. Nahor's city on his return Reuben (Gen.
3.13-15; 6.2) (Gen. 24.4-5) (Gen. 32) 46.9)
Confirmation of For in six days... Abram is from Wives of Esau Genealogy of

version 1/ (Exod. 20.11) Haran (27.43) V. (Gen. 36.2-3); Judah (Gen.
rejection of V. Rachel still alive 46.12)
version 2 (or vice in Gen. 37 (37.10)
versa = V.V.)
Rejection? Flood (Gen. 6-9)
'Scribal errors' Genealogies Names of Esau's Midianites/
(Gen. 4.17-22; wives (Gen. Medanites
5.3-27) 26.34; 28.9; 36.2-
3)
Anonymity Eliezer and Isaac ('his father', Judah's wife
Nahor's city Gen. 37.35) (Gen. 38)
(Gen. 24)
name, and that the names are the same in both versions and are found in
the same order: Eliab, Abinadab and Shammah. The description of David
when he is first introduced in 16.12, 'Now he was ruddy, and also with
beautiful eyes, and good to look at' C»13101U'TV nST US ^ftlX K i m ) ,
and when we see him so to say through the eyes of Goliath in 17.42, '
[Goliath disdained him], for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and also with
a beautiful countenance' (TWIG nST US ^DTK i m *U) is highly 9
similar, though the appreciation is completely different: in ch. 16 David,

though still very young, has the beauty expected of a king, in 17 he is
despised by Goliath for his youthful looks. Jesse is described as one of the
Moses Samuel Saul David

The son to die, the No one like him, Eight brothers, names
daughter to live young man/chosen, of the first three and
(Exod. 1.16, 22) 'From his shoulders David youngest,
upward' (1 Sam. 9.2; herding the sheep;
10.23-24); family and description of David
tribe (9.21; 10.21)
Israelites very Numbers of Israelites, David as musician or

numerous or members enemies Philistines/ as warrior
of one family other nations
'Saul among the Saul tries to kill
prophets?' (1 Sam. David with spear (1
10.10-13 and 19.23- Sam. 18.10-11 and
24) 19.9-10, cf. 20.33)
David saves Saul (1
Sam. 24 and 26)
Moses is closely Merab, Michal (2

related to Levi himself Sam. 21.8)
(Exod. 6.16-19; Num.
26.58-59)
Grandsons of Moses Killing of Goliath by
and Aaron at the end Elhanan (2 Sam.
of Judges (Judg. 21.19)
18.30; 20.28)
Num. 16 1 Sam. 13 and 15

Manasseh/Moses 'One year old' (1 Sam. Michal/Merab (2
13.1) Sam. 21.8); Jaare
Oregim(2Sam. 21.19)
Moses' family (Exod. Saul's uncle

2; Judg. 18)
'old men' of Bethlehem in both (16.4-5; 17.12), and David is summoned

from between his small-cattle in both versions (16.11; 17.15,17). Note also
the ambiguous verse 17.15, 'But David went and returned from Saul to
feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem', which can be understood either as
saying that David regularly went back from his musical duties to his
father's sheep, or, alternatively, sometimes left them alone for some time
to visit his brothers in the army. Such ambiguous sentences are also part
and parcel of these introductions of main personages, as is apparent from
Table 1.
What is especially important for our argument is that most of the
intratextual links are in the verses in 1 Samuel 17 which are not to be

found in the Septuagint version. In particular the absence of the mention
of David's three eldest brothers and of Jesse being already an old man in
chapter 17 is striking, especially since we noted the importance of such
intratextual links between the two alternatives of each introduction in the
biographies. I think that in view of this observation the only way to
maintain the thesis of priority of the Septuagint version or of a
hypothetical Hebrew text underlying it would be to assume that an
extremely capable editor saw that the clear and unproblematic introduc
tion of David in 2 Samuel 16-17 was out of line with the remainder of the
introductions of the biographies in the Primary History, noted that there
were some additional striking features in ch. 16 which could be resumed in
additions to the story of David and Goliath, and composed his new text
on the basis of these considerations. This seems extremely unlikely, if not
downright impossible.
Our conclusion must necessarily be that the Masoretic Text of the story
of David and Goliath is the original one, and that the Septuagint version
was either based on a Hebrew text which had been edited, somewhat
along the lines of some of the Samuel texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, or
was edited during or shortly after the process of translation. In any case,
the editor who was involved noted the contradictions within the literary
complex of 1 Samuel 16 and 17 and, instead of rewriting it, he chose to
remove, like a kind of literary surgeon, a large number of verses from
various places in 1 Samuel 17. The result is a work, which surprisingly has
greater literary merits on the surface than the Masoretic Text with all its
ambiguities and contradictions. This same procedure I noted to have been
followed with comparable results also in the Septuagint to the Aramaic
court stories in Daniel 2-6. Firstly, there is an unusual strategy at the basis
of the biblical text, in that case in Aramaic: the nature of the accusation
against the Judaeans, as well as their rescue through an angel (in Daniel 3
and 6), and the solution of various riddles (in chs 2, 4 and 5), is postponed
as long as possible, and in the places where this caused great problems for
8
the translator or editor he felt free to make extensive changes to his text.
Secondly, the intertextual references in Daniel to other works, especially
the life of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 and the book of Ezra, like the
intratextual feature of the bipolar structure of the biographies in the
Primary History, are at the root of otherwise perplexing discontinuities
8 On the nature of the Old Greek of Daniel, see Alexander A. Di Leila, 'The Textual
History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel', in Peter W. Flint and John J. Collins
(eds), The Book of Daniel, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 586-607. On this aspect of the
translation, see J. W. Wesselius, 'The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the
Linguistic Character of its Aramaic', Aramaic Studies 3 (2005); 241-83 (259-60); idem, 'The
Origin of the Oldest Greek Version of Daniel' (forthcoming).
and contradictions. Thus the correct chronological order of the chapters

of Daniel in the Septuagint text on Papyrus 967 (7-8-5-6) can safely be
assumed to be secondary to that in the Masoretic Text, because this
counter-chronological order is the result of an emulation of the counter-
9
chronological order in Ezra 4-6.
We do not know whether or not this editor recognized the literary
principles underlying the original text, or just reorganized a text whose
underlying regularity he did not fathom, but we now perceive that the text
of the Septuagint is secondary to what we know as the Masoretic Text in
these cases, and it is also clear why, as long as one does not recognize the
encompassing literary strategy with regard to the structure of the
biographies in the Primary History, it turns out to be virtually impossible
to attain any firm conclusion about the priority of the Hebrew or the
Greek version of the story about David and Goliath: on the surface the
Septuagint is of superior literary quality, especially as far as consistency is
concerned, but the deeper literary structure of the Masoretic Text, in
which the unusual features find a perfectly natural place, shows it to have
been the original text which the makers of the Septuagint or the makers of
their Vorlage edited into a striking new version.
Having established the priority of the Masoretic Text and the probable
reasons why it was changed, we can proceed to the way in which it was
edited into the form which we now have in the Septuagint. Three
observations can be made. As noted above, the editing process largely
consists of judiciously omitting, rather than in changing existing text. The
boundaries of the omitted text nearly completely coincide with the verse
boundaries, w . 12-31, 41, 50, and 55-58 having been omitted entirely; only
in 48 the second half of the verse has been omitted with the first half
remaining. Finally, whereas omitting verses elsewhere in the Septuagint is
very rare, once the editor had started omitting the verses which contain
the frictions and contradictions of ch. 17 in comparison with 16, he
apparently felt free to leave out other verses as well, not only in ch. 17 but
also in the sequel in ch. 18, even when there are few reasons for this, apart
from stylistic and logical considerations which would evidently not have
led to changes in other chapters, such as the episode of Saul trying to kill
10
David in 18.10-11, which duplicates 19.10.
It is difficult to discern what view of the biblical text, its authenticity
9 Wesselius, 'Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel', p. 253, contra Olivier Munnich,
'Texte massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Danielin Adrian Schenker (ed.), The
Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the
Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 93-120.
10 As pointed out by Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18', pp. 349-50. Tov was
right, of course, in noting that this episode has a more natural place in 19.10 than in 18.10-11,
but we now see that one of the most important aspects of this episode is precisely its
duplication, so it is not likely that 18.10-11 is secondary, as he suspected.
and its authority underlies this remarkable translation strategy. Did the
translators (alternatively, the makers of their Vorlage or later editors of
the LXX text) take a critical or pre-critical view of the origin of the text,
with cases such as the contradictions between 1 Samuel 16 and 17
indicating that there were accretions to the text of a story or an episode
which could be deleted from it to restore it to its former shape? Or were
they aware to some degree of the peculiar literary strategy of bipolar
narration employed in the biographies of the Primary History, and did
they wish to choose one or the other of the two alternatives, and did they
view this as their legitimation for deleting part of the text? An argument
for the latter might be that the book of Chronicles apparently also
removed one of the two narrative voices in favour of the other in all these
11
cases. Against it, however, one can argue that in nearly all the other
introductions to the biographies the translators appear to have refrained
from such interventions, and that they apparently did not worry very
12
much about other contradictions issuing from this literary strategy. In
any case, a systematic survey of the relation between the literary form of
the main biographies in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is highly
desirable and could throw new light on at least some of the issues which
we addressed here with regard to the story of David and Goliath.
One conclusion, however, can already be formulated. This new view of
the literary nature of the Primary History allows us to have another peek
into the degree to which the translators of the Septuagint understood the
biblical texts which they worked on, and more importantly, it allows us to
determine their starting point and strategy for the translation of some
biblical books with more certainty than ever before.
11 See Wesselius, God's Election and Rejection.

12 Apart from the case of Moses, where his remarkably close family relation to Levi (he
is his grandson through his mother Jochebed) is translated away in Exod. 2.1, though it
remains in Exod. 6.20 and Num. 26.58-59.
Comparative table of 1 Samuel 17, with, from left to right, RSV, the New
English Translation of the LXX, and parallels from 1 Samuel 16 and some
notes. Italics = words or expressions common to 1 Samuel 16 and 17.
RSV NETS Parallels in 1 Sam. 16
and notes
1
Now the Philistines And the allophyles
gathered their armies for gathered their armies for
battle; and they were battle, and they were
gathered at Socoh, which gathered at Sokchoth of
belongs to Judah, and Judea, and they
encamped between Socoh encamped between
and Azekah, in Sokchoth and between
Ephesdammim. Azeka, in Ephermen.
2
And Saul and the men And Saul and the men of
of Israel were gathered, Israel were gathered and
and encamped in the encamped in the valley;
valley of Elah, and drew they formed ranks for
up in line of battle against battle opposite the
the Philistines. allophyles.
3
And the Philistines And the allophyles stood
stood on the mountain on on the mountain here,
the one side, and Israel and Israel stood on the
stood on the mountain on mountain there, and the
the other side, with a valley was between them.
valley between them.
4
And there came out And a mighty man came
from the camp of the out from the ranks of the
Philistines a champion allophyles; Goliath was
named Goliath, of Gath, his name, from Geth; his
whose height was six height was four cubits
cubits and a span. and a span.
5
He had a helmet of And he had a helmet on
bronze on his head, and his head, and he was
he was armed with a coat armed with a coat of
of mail, and the weight of chain mail; and the
the coat was five weight of his coat was five
thousand shekels of thousand shekels of
bronze. bronze and iron.
6
And he had greaves of And there were bronze
bronze upon his legs, and greaves of brass on his
a javelin of bronze slung legs, and a bronze shield
between his shoulders. between his shoulders.

and notes
7
And the shaft of his And the staff of his spear
spear was like a weaver's was like a beam of
beam, and his spear's weavers, and his spear
head weighed six hundred weighed six hundred
shekels of iron; and his shekels of iron; and the
shield-bearer went before one who carried his
him. armor would go before
him.
8
He stood and shouted to And he stood and
the ranks of Israel, 'Why shouted to the ranks of
have you come out to Israel, and said to them,
draw up for battle? Am I 'Why do you come out to
not a Philistine, and are draw up for battle array
you not servants of Saul? opposite us? Am not I an
Choose a man for allophyle, and are you
yourselves, and let him not Hebrews of Saoul?
come down to me. Choose a man for
yourselves, and let him
come down to me.
9
If he is able to fight with And if he is able to fight
me and kill me, then we against me, and if he
will be your servants; but strike me, then will we be
if I prevail against him to you for slaves: but if I
and kill him, then you am able and kill him, then
shall be our servants and you shall be to us for
serve us.' slaves and be subject to
us.'
1 0
And the Philistine said, And the allophyle said,
'I defy the ranks of Israel 'Behold, today on this
this day; give me a man, very day I have chided the
that we may fight ranks of Israel. Give me a
together.' man, and we both will
fight in single combat.'
11
When Saul and all And Saoul and all Israel
Israel heard these words heard these words of the
of the Philistine, they allophyle, and they were
were dismayed and dismayed and greatly
greatly afraid. terrified.

and notes
1 2
Now David was the 16.4 The old men (RSV:
son of an Ephrathite of elders) of the city came
Bethlehem in Judah, to meet him trembling
named Jesse, who had [Jesse apparently belongs
eight sons. In the days of to this group]. 16.10-
Saul the man was already
11 seven of his sons . . .
old and advanced in
years. 'Are all your sons
here?' . . . 'There
remains yet the
youngest'.
1 3
The three eldest sons of 16.6-9Eliab... Abinadab
Jesse had followed Saul to ... Shammah.
the battle; and the names
of his three sons who
went to the battle were
Eliab the first-born, and
next to him Abinadab,
and the third Shammah.
1 4
David was the 16.11 'There remains yet
youngest; the three eldest the youngest*
followed Saul,
1 5
but David went back Note: 17.15 is
and forth from Saul to ambiguous!
feed his father's sheep at
Bethlehem.
1 6
For forty days the
Philistine came forward
and took his stand,
morning and evening.
1 7
And Jesse said to
David his son, 'Take for
your brothers an ephah of
this parched grain, and
these ten loaves, and
carry them quickly to the
camp to your brothers;
1 8
also take these ten
cheeses to the commander
of their thousand. See
how your brothers fare,
and bring some token
from them.'
1 9
Now Saul, and they,
and all the men of Israel,
were in the valley of Elah,
fighting with the
Philistines.

and notes
And David rose early
in the morning, and left
the sheep with a keeper,
and took the provisions,
and went, as Jesse had
commanded him; and he
came to the encampment
as the host was going
forth to the battle line,
shouting the war cry.
2 1
And Israel and the
Philistines drew up for
battle, army against
army.
2 2
And David left the
things in charge of the
keeper of the baggage,
and ran to the ranks, and
went and greeted his
brothers.
2 3
As he talked with them,
behold, the champion, the
Philistine of Gath,
Goliath by name, came
up out of the ranks of the
Philistines, and spoke the
same words as before.
And David heard him.
2 4
All the men of Israel,
when they saw the man,
fled from him, and were
much afraid.
2 5
And the men of Israel
said, 'Have you seen this
man who has come up?
Surely he has come up to
defy Israel; and the man
who kills him, the king
will enrich with great
riches, and will give him
his daughter, and make
his father's house free in
Israel.'

and notes
2 6
And David said to the
men who stood by him.
'What shall be done for
the man who kills this
Philistine, and takes away
the reproach from Israel?
For who is this
uncircumcised Philistine,
that he should defy the
armies of the living God?'
2 7
And the people
answered him in the same
way, 'So shall it be done
to the man who kills him.'
2 8
Now Eliab his eldest
brother heard when he
spoke to the men; and
Eliab's anger was kindled
against David, and he
said, 'Why have you
come down? And with
whom have you left those
few sheep in the
wilderness? I know your
presumption, and the evil
of your heart; for you
have come down to see
the battle.'
2 9
And David said, 'What
have I done now? Was it
not but a word?'
3 0
And he turned away
from him toward another,
and spoke in the same
way; and the people
answered him again as
before.
3 1
When the words which
David spoke were heard,
they repeated them before
Saul; and he sent for him.
3 2
And David said to And Dauid said to Saoul,
Saul, 'Let no man's heart 'On no account let the
fail because of him; your heart of my lord collapse
servant will go and fight upon him; your slave will
with this Philistine.' go and will fight with this
allophyle.'

and notes
And Saul said to And Saoul said to Dauid,

David, 'You are not able 'you will definitely not be
to go against this able to go against the
Philistine to fight with allophyle to fight with
him; for you are but a him, for you are a boy,
youth, and he has been a and he has been a warrior
man of war from his from his youth.'
youth.'
3 4
But David said to Saul, And Dauid said to Saoul,
'Your servant used to 'Your slave was tending
keep sheep for his father; the flock for his father,
and when there came a and when the lion and the
lion, or a bear, and took a bear would come and
lamb from the flock, take a sheep from the
herd,
3 5
I went after him and And I would go after it,
smote him and delivered then I struck it and pulled
it out of his mouth; and if it from its mouth, and if it
he arose against me, I turned against me, then I
caught him by his beard, caught it by its throat and
and smote him and killed struck it down and put it
him. to death.
3 6
Your servant has killed And your slave would
both lions and bears; and smite both the bear and
this uncircumcised the lion, and the
Philistine shall be like one uncircumcised allophyle
of them, seeing he has shall be like one of them:
defied the armies of the shall I not go and smite
living God.' him, and take away today
a reproach from Israel?
For who is this
uncircumcised one, who
reproaches the ranks of
the living God?
3 7
And David said, 'The The Lord who delivered
L O R D who delivered me me from the paw of the
from the paw of the lion lion and from the paw of
and from the paw of the the bear, he himself will
bear, will deliver me from rescue me from the hand
the hand of this of this uncircumcised
Philistine.' And Saul said allophyle.' And Saoul
to David, 'Go, and the said to Dauid, 'Go, and
L O R D be with you!' the Lord will be with
you!'

and notes
3 8
Then Saul clothed And Saoul put a woolen
David with his armor; he cloak on Dauid, and a
put a helmet of bronze on bronze helmet around his
his head, and clothed him head.
with a coat of mail.
3 9
And David girded his And he girded Dauid with
sword over his armor, his sword over his woolen
and he tried in vain to go, cloak, and he grew tired
for he was not used to walking once and twice.
them. Then David said to And Dauid said to Saoul,
Saul, 'I cannot go with 'I shall definitely not be
these; for I am not used to able to go in these, for I
them.' And David put am not experienced.' And
them off. they removed them from
him.
4 0
Then he took his staff And he took his staff in
in his hand, and chose his hand, and chose for
five smooth stones from himself five smooth
the brook, and put them stones from the wadi and
in his shepherd's bag or put them in his shepherd's
wallet; his sling was in his bag, which he had with
hand, and he drew near to him for collecting, and his
the Philistine. sling in his hand; and he
advanced against the
man, the allophyle.
And the Philistine came
on and drew near to
David, with his shield-
bearer in front of him.
4 2
And when the And Goliad saw Dauid, 16.12 Now he was ruddy,
Philistine looked, and saw and he disdained him, for and had beautiful eyes,
David, he disdained him; he was a boy, and he was and was handsome.
for he was but a youth, ruddy with beauty of eyes.
ruddy and comely in
appearance.
And the Philistine said And the allophyle said to
to David, 'Am I a dog, Dauid, 'Am I like a dog,
that you come to me with that you come upon me
sticks?' And the Philistine with a rod and stones?'
cursed David by his gods. And Dauid said, 'No, but
worse than a dog.' And
the allophyle cursed
Dauid by his gods.

and notes
The Philistine said to And the allophyle said to
David, 'Come to me, and Dauid, 'Come to me, and
I will give your flesh to I will give your flesh to
the birds of the air and to the birds of the air, and to
the beasts of the field.' the animals of the earth.'
4 5
Then David said to the And Dauid said to the
Philistine, 'You come to allophyle, 'You come to
me with a sword and with me with sword and with
a spear and with a javelin; spear and with shield, and
but I come to you in the I am coming to you in the
name of the L O R D of name of the Lord
hosts, the God of the Sabaoth, the God of the
armies of Israel, whom ranks of Israel, which you
you have defied. have reproached today.
4 6
This day the L O R D will And today the Lord will
deliver you into my hand, shut you up into my
and I will strike you hand, and I will kill you,
down, and cut off your and remove your head
head; and I will give the from you, and I will give
dead bodies of the host of your hmbs and the limbs
the Philistines this day to of the camp of the
the birds of the air and to allophyles on this day to
the wild beasts of the the birds of the air, and to
earth; that all the earth the wild animals of the
may know that there is a earth; and all the earth
God in Israel, will know that there is a
God in Israel,
4 7
and that all this and all this assembly will
assembly may know that know that the Lord does
the L O R D saves not with not save by sword and
sword and spear; for the spear, for the battle is the
battle is the L O R D ' S and Lord's, and the Lord will
he will give you into our give you into our hands.'
hand.'
4 8
When the Philistine And the allophyle arose
arose and came and drew and came to meet Dauid,
near to meet David.
David ran quickly toward
the battle line to meet the
Philistine.

and notes
And David put his And Dauid stretched out
hand in his bag and took his hand into the bag and
out a stone, and slung it, took out from there one
and struck the Philistine stone, and slung it, and
on his forehead; the stone struck the allophyle on
sank into his forehead, his forehead, and the
and he fell on his face to stone penetrated through
the ground. the helmet into his
forehead, and he fell on
his face on the ground.
5 0
So David prevailed
over the Philistine with a
sling and with a stone,
and struck the Philistine,
and killed him; there was
no sword in the hand of
David.
5 1
Then David ran and And Dauid ran, and
stood over the Philistine, stood over him, and took
and took his sword and his sword put him to
drew it out of its sheath, death and cut off his
and killed him, and cut head: and the allophyles
off his head with it. When saw that their mighty one
the Philistines saw that was dead, and they fled.
their champion was dead,
they fled.
5 2
And the men of Israel And the men of Israel and
and Judah rose with a Joudas rose up and
shout and pursued the shouted and pursued
Philistines as far as Gath after them, as far as the
and the gates of Ekron, so entrance to Geth, and as
that the wounded far as the gate of Ascalon,
Philistines fell on the way and the wounded of the
from Shaaraim as far as allophyles fell on the way
Gath and Ekron. of the gates, even as far as
Geth, and as far as
Akkaron.
And the Israelites came And the men of Israel
back from chasing the came back from turning
Philistines, and they aside after the allophyles,
plundered their camp. and they trampled their
camps.
5 4
And David took the And Dauid took the head
head of the Philistine and of the allophyle, and
brought it to Jerusalem; brought it into
but he put his armor in Ierousalem; and he put
his tent. his armour in his covert.

and notes
When Saul saw David
go forth against the
Philistine, he said to
Abner, the commander of
the army, 'Abner, whose
son is this youth?' And
Abner said, 'As your soul
lives, O king, I cannot
tell.'
5 6
And the king said,
'Inquire whose son the
stripling is.'
5 7
And as David returned
from the slaughter of the
Philistine, Abner took
him, and brought him
before Saul with the head
of the Philistine in his
hand.
5 8
And Saul said to him,
'Wliose son are you,
young man?' And David
answered, T am the son
of your servant Jesse the
Bethlehemite.'
Chapter 2
A C A S E O F P S Y C H O L O G I C A L D U A L I S M
P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A A N D T H E I N S T R U C T I O N O N T H E T W O S P I R I T S
Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer
1. Introduction
Dualism is a concept that is hard to define. Originally a term developed to
describe Iranian thought, at times it has come to refer to any type of
opposites. Against this weak use of the term Ugo Bianchi proposed a
strict definition of dualism as the opposition of two irreducible
fundamental principles, either in the form of a 'radical' dualism with
two principles versus a 'moderate' one with only one principle, a
'dialectical' (eternal) versus an 'eschatological' (limited in time) dualism,
or a 'pro-cosmic' (the world is neutral or positive) versus an 'anti-cosmic'
1
dualism (the world is negative). In Judaism, however, these distinctions
do not apply: God's creation cannot be negative, any evil influence must
be limited in time and the idea of a radical dualism of two powers would
compromise the universal power of the creator. The conclusion is either
that there is no dualism in Judaism or that more precise criteria for the
definition of dualism in the Jewish context must be sought. Based on the
textual material the following categories have been found: a 'metaphys
ical' dualism, which finds two equal powers as the cause of the world, a
'cosmic' dualism which divides the world and mankind according to two
opposing but not necessarily co-eternal or causal forces, a 'spatial'
dualism, which divides the cosmos into heaven and earth, above and
below and so on, an 'eschatological' or 'temporal' dualism which divides
time and history into two separate eons, an 'ethical' dualism which divides
mankind into good and evil people, a 'soteriological' dualism which
divides mankind not on account of good and evil deeds but on their
having faith or not, a 'theological' or 'prophetical' dualism, which
opposes God to man, the creator to the creation, a 'physical' dualism
1 U . Bianchi, 'Dualism', in M . Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4 (New

York: Collier Macmillan, 1987), pp. 506-12 (esp. 505-9).
which divides matter and spirit, an 'anthropological' dualism which

separates the principles of body and soul and a 'psychological' dualism
2
which contrasts the internal good and evil intentions. These categories
are not mutually exclusive and they have been combined in the ancient
texts. Together they can help to understand the ways in which dualistic
thoughts have been used in different ways to mark the acceptable and
separate it from the unacceptable.
A well-known dualistic text is the Instruction on the Two Spirits from
the Community Rule in Qumran (1QS III,13-IV,26). This text - although
only preserved in the sectarian context of Qumran - has been shown to be
pre-sectarian on account of its language and concepts, which do not
3
correspond to key terms and fundamental tenets of the community, and
from early on the differences in the dualisms of the Instruction and of the
4
other texts from Qumran have been noted. The Instruction has a very
highly developed and multi-layered concept of dualism and has been
influential not only for the Yahad but also for Christian texts such as 1 Jn
4.1-6 or the teaching of the Two Ways in the Didache 2.2-6.1 and Epistle of
Barnabas 18-20. These are well-known and frequently studied trajectories.
There is one line of influence, however, which has not been given as
much attention so far. A passage in Philo refers to a similar tradition to
the Instruction on the Two Spirits: Questions on Exodus 12.23c. Philo
finds a dualism of two powers inside the human soul, one for salvation
and the other for perdition (QE 1.23). E. Kamlah attempted to trace this
5
idea to Iranian origins in 1964. In another attempt to find Iranian
influence on Philo, in 1986 M. Philonenko in a short study compared QE
2 J. Frey, 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library', in M.

Bernstein et al. (eds), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (in honour of J. M.
Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 1997) pp. 275-335 (esp. 282-5).
3 Cf. A. Lange, 'Kriterien essenischer Texte', in J. Frey and H. Stegemann (eds), Qumran
kontrovers: Beitrage zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (Einblicke, 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius,
2003), pp. 59-69 (esp. 63-5); D. E. Aune, 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea
Scrolls: A Reassessment of the Problem', in D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H. Ulrichsen (eds),
Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (NovTSup, 106; Leiden: Brill,
2003), pp. 281-303 (292); A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning:
Introduction, Translation and Commentary (London: SCM, 1966), p. 114; P. S. Alexander and
G. Vermes Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha Yahad (DJD, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1998), p. 10; J. Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD', in C. Rabin
and Y. Yadin (eds), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ScrHier, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
2nd edn, 1965, pp. 88-99 (89); O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte
(WUNT, 6; Tubingen: Brill, 1960), pp. 140-6.
4 Cf. M. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag,
1959), pp. 103-14; D. E. Aune, 'Dualism', pp. 293-4.
5 E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament, (WUNT, 7;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964).
LEONHARDT-BALZER Psychological Dualism 29
6
1.23 to the Instruction on the Two Spirits. With the growing knowledge
of Jewish wisdom literature the Iranian influence on the Instruction has
7
become increasingly questioned by scholars. Thus, if there is an influence
of the Instruction on Philo, the assumption of an Iranian influence on
Philo falls with that of the Instruction. If there is no relationship between
the two texts, the possibility of an Iranian influence on Philo's passage
could still stand. The question of a relationship between the two texts has
not been followed up any further. A more recent study of QE 1.23 does
not look into the parallels to the Instruction but studies it in terms of the
8
theory of the 'bad inclination' (yezer ha-rd) and that of original sin. Thus
it is time to take another look at the QE 1.23 and the Instruction in the
light of more recent scholarship on the Qumran writings.
In QE 1.23 Philo emphasizes the psychological contrast of two different
powers, whose conflict influences the moral behaviour of the individual.
The fact that this passage has not been studied more often is largely due to
it being against Philo's normal inclination to apply a different kind of
'dualism', more based on Hellenistic philosophical thought: the physical
division of matter and spirit (Opif. 16-36) or the philosophical division of
ideas versus material world (in Philo related to that of heaven and earth),
as well as the anthropological division of mind and body or sense-
9
perception (Leg. 1.1; Her. 63-85). However, in his allegorical commen
taries Philo also presents exegetical traditions more alien to his own
thought world. One such is QE 1.23 and the way in which Philo takes up
this tradition in comparison to the way in which it was used in the Yahad
6 M. Philonenko, 'Philon d'Alexandrie et rinstruction sur les deux esprits', in A. Caquot,

M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (eds), Hellenica et Judaica (Leuven and Paris: Editions Peeters,
1986), pp. 61-8.
7 Cf. J. I. Kampen, The Diverse Aspects of Wisdom in the Qumran Texts', in P. W. Flint
and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive
Assessment, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 211^13 (217-18).
8 G. H. Baudry, 'La theorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du peche original', BLE
95 (1994): 271-301.
9 On Philo's dualism, see A. M. Mazzanti, 'L'aggettivo ME0OPIOI e la doppia
creazione dell'uomo in Filone di Alessandria', in U. Bianchi (ed.), La 'doppia creazione'
dell'uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi (Rome: Edizioni dell' Anteneo &
Bizzarri, 1978), pp. 25-42; C. R. Holladay, "Theios oner' in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of
the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS, 40; Missoula: Scholars Press,
1977), esp. pp. 103-98; R. A. Horsley, 'Spiritual Marriage with Sophia', VC 33 (1979): 30-54;
(esp. 32-40); H. F. Weiss, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und
paldstinischen Judentums (TU, 97; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), esp. pp. 18-74, 248-82;
H. Braun, 'Das himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebraerbrief, in O. Bocher and K.
Haacker (eds), Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fur G. Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal:
Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 319-27; U. Bianchi, 'Dieu unique et
creation double: pour une phenomenologie du dualisme', in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin
emerito oblata (Acta Iranica, 23; 2nd series; Hommages et opera minora, 9; Leiden: Brill,
1984), pp. 49-60; E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit
shows how versatile this particular tradition is and the breadth of its
influence on Second Temple Judaism. This paper will study the
Instruction on the Two Spirits first in terms of the types of dualism it
uses. Then the way in which the Qumran community took up this
tradition will be contrasted. After that Philo's passage on the Two Spirits
will be examined. A final part will sum up the results of the comparison
and present a theory of the way in which the tradition of the Instruction
could have reached Philo.
2. The Dualisms of the Instruction on the Two Spirits (1QS 111,13-

IV,26)
The only complete version of the Instruction on the Two Spirits can be
found in a single manuscript of the Commmunity Rule (1QS), dated to
approx. 100-75 B C E . It was inserted there as an independent piece of
1 0
11
tradition. As mentioned above, it lacks community terminology and
ideology and it does not even have a specific concept of a community at
12
all, it does not even refer to the TIT. By contrast it mentions once the
'God of Israel' (111,24) thus identifying itself as a Jewish writing aimed at
the nation as a whole.
The Instructions on the Two Spirits can broadly be structured in six
parts:
1QS 111,13-15: Title and topic
1QS 111,15-18: 'Hymn of creation': God as lord of creation places it
under the dominion of mankind.
1QS III, 18-IV, 1: The two spirits
1QS IV,2-14: The effect of both spirits and the fate of both kinds of
people
2-8: Spirit of light
9-14: Spirit of deceit
1QS IV, 15-23: Struggle of the two spirits and final intervention of
God
13
1QS IV,23-26: Summary and conclusion.
(WMANT, 29; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Eraehungsvereins, 1968), esp. pp. 114-
235; A. G. Hamman, L'homme image de Dieu: Essai d'une anthropologie chretienne dans
l'Eglise des cinq premiers siecles (Relais-Etudes, 2: Paris: Ed. Desclee, 1987), esp. pp. 106-13.
10 J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls, vols. 1, 2 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994);
A. S. van der Woude, 'Fifty Years of Qumran Research', in Flint and VanderKam (eds), The
Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, p. 29; Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 116.
11 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 114; Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX,
p. 10.
12 Cf. Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 89.
13 Without the subdivision of IV,2-14 in Frey, 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought',
p. 290. Without the final subdivision of IV, 15-26 in Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei
The Instruction is addressed to the 'Maskil', the teacher, instructor, the

sage. He is to pass on the knowledge about the 'nature of all the sons of
1 4
man (Era r m ' T r a ) . This is specified as instruction 'on all the
kinds of their spirits in their signs, on their deeds in their generations and
on the visitation of their punishments and the times of their peace'.
t t
amnion a m r m t o m ? , m , 14-15
DDI'TO 1
dx? a m i r o ] m i p s ? ! a m - v m Dirrara ?1
Thus the heading does not create any explicit dualism, there is no specific
mention that there are exactly two spirits, and the only potentially
dualistic reference is that to rewards and punishments. The overall
worldview is one of unity, not division.
As in all Jewish writings, the emphasis in the Instruction on the Two
Spirits is placed on the overwhelming power of the creator God. Right at
the beginning it is emphasized that 'from the God of knowledge is all that
is and that will be' ( T T T m I T p n *7D m O T ! 1QS 111,15). God rules
over everything. The whole of creation is under his power (111,15-17).
This could be seen as the first sign of a dualistic contrast, and thus it has
been identified as a 'physisch-metaphysischen Dualismus', in the strict
15
distinction between creator and creation. But this is not the metaphys
ical dualism mentioned above, as there is no battle between the two, no
counter-force to the power of God. At the beginning there is only the
contrast between the supreme power of God and everything else which is
created. And even the next step does not involve any dualistic powers. It is
mankind that was created to rule the world (111,17-18). And only for the
sake of man the two spirits are given (111,18). Only now the number of the
spirits is introduced. It is not explicitly mentioned that they were created -
this would mean to admit that God created the evil spirit - but it can be
implied from the fact that God is the origin of all there is and that nothing
can act against his plan.
Welten, pp. 30-4. Licht divides the Instruction into 'A) Main statement, B) Elaboration, C)
Summary', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 93. A more detailed
structure can be found in A. Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung
und Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 140-3,
but it also follows this fundamental division.
14 On the translation 'nature', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits',
pp. 89, 95; F. Garcia Martinez and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition,
vol. 1, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 75. The translation is debated. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran,
p. 143, and Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination, pp. 137, 148-9 translate as 'history',
parallel to the priestly genealogies in Gen. 10.1 and 4Q418. But the latter links the term to the
rPrJD n, the 'secrets of being', a wisdom term which refers to the order of creation and not
necessarily to the course of history. Similarly the Instruction expects the end of the effects of
darkness, not that of humanity as a whole.
15 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 104-8, esp. 104, 108.
At this point it is open whether these spirits create a psychological

dualism or whether the conflict is cosmic. Thus Wernberg-Moller reads
the whole of the Instruction in terms of a psychological dualism and the
two 'spirits' are consequently regarded exclusively as 'moods' or 'inclin
16
ations'. This interpretation results from a one-sided emphasis on
Genesis 2-3: the spirits are identified with God's gift of the breath of
life to Adam at the creation. Considering the explicit reference in 1QS
IV,23 to the 'glory of Adam' which the elect will receive, this
psychological interpretation of the Instruction on the Two Spirits in
terms of Genesis 2 is plausible. The psychological interpretation is also
supported by IV,23: 'Until now the spirits of truth and deceit war in the
n 7
hearts of man' 0 3 2 33*?3 "TIITI HDK T i n 1 3 n H3H IS)} However,
the scope of the Instruction's dualism is broader than this exclusive focus
18
on the psychological aspect admits.
Linked to the psychological disposition is the actual behaviour of
people. Thus the very name of the two spirits opens an ethical dualism:
they are 'the spirits of truth and deceit' f71I?m nOKH D l i m , 111,18-19),
and in them mankind is 'to walk' (DinnTlb) until the end (111,18).
'To walk in the way of something is an expression for the way a life is led.
The instruction distinguishes those who 'walk on the ways of light'
CO^nrP TK* *ym9 III,20) and those who 'walk on the ways of
darkness' (DîUT ~[E7in ^ T H , 111,21). The behaviour of these two
groups is described in greater detail in IV,2-6 on the sons of light and in
IV,9-11 on the sons of darkness. The one is a catalogue of virtues
influenced by the 'spirit of the sons of truth', from an attitude of
benevolence towards others ('meekness, patience, compassion, goodness')
to virtues of the mind ('intelligence, understanding potent wisdom', based
on trust in God) and finally the proper behaviour informed by these ('a
spirit of knowledge in all the plans of action, of enthusiasm for the decrees
of justice, of holy plans with a firm purpose, of generous compassion with
all the sons of truth, of magnificent purity which detests all unclean idols,
of careful behaviour in wisdom concerning everything') and 'concealment
concerning the truth of the mysteries of knowledge', all under the heading
n
of the 'ways of the righteousness of truth' (pDK p l S 3 ~ H , IV,2). The
other list is a catalogue of vices influenced by the 'angel of darkness': vices
which affect human relationships: 'greed, sluggishness in the service of
justice, wickedness, falsehood, pride, haughtiness of heart, dishonesty,
16 P. Wernberg-Moller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an

Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957), ad. loc.
17 The English translation in this paper is based on but does not follow exclusively the
study edition of Garcia Martinez, and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition.
18 Cf. J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997),
p. 41.
trickery, cruelty, much insincerity, impatience, much foolishness,

impudent enthusiasm for appalling acts performed in a lustful passion,
filthy paths in the service of impurity, blasphemous tongue, blindness
of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiffness of neck, hardness of heart'
summarized as 'walking on the ways of darkness and evil cunning'
(pDnC -|E7in ''3TI bFOl rabb, IV,11). Those who walk in the ways of
light will be rewarded by well-being, many descendants, eternal life and
eschatological bliss (IV,6-8), while those who walk in darkness will be
punished in this life and have no future, they have no offspring and will
find themselves in the 'abysses who walk in darkness until their
19
destruction'. Thus the ethical dualism is limited to this life, although
its rewards and punishments go beyond. The final part of the text goes
back to the present. In this life there is an ongoing struggle between the
two groups of people, and adherence to each is based on whether a person
has more of a share in the light or in darkness (IV, 15-18). But there is an
end set to this struggle through God's judgement, in which he will purify
the sons of light and destroy all darkness (IV, 18-26).
Thus there is undoubtedly an ethical dualism in the Instruction, which
broadens the mere psychological dualism. However, this dualism is again
only part of the fabric of the overall dualism of the text. The spirits of
light and darkness not only extend to mankind, they are also spiritual
beings which influence mankind. This is once again apparent in the
terminology for these spirits: Apart from the ethical terms mentioned
(truth and deceit) they are called the 'prince of lights' (D'HIK IE?) and the
'angel of darkness' QETin "pi^D, 111,20-21). The one comes from a
'spring of light', the other from a 'well of darkness'. Together they
introduce a mythical dualism in which the fundamental conflict manifests
20
itself in opposing personalities. The one has power over the 'sons of
righteousness' (pHU ^33), the other over the 'sons of deceit' (bw
111,20-21). However, the angel of darkness also tries to influence the sons
of light and cause their guilt and unjust actions as well as all the evils that
befall them (111,21-23). This activity, however, does not go unchecked:
'The God of Israel and the angel of his truth' OHOft " p ^ l bHTW bW)
support the angel of light and reject the angel of darkness and his lot (HI,
24-IV,l). Thus the scenario is set for a cosmic battle and the above-
mentioned final cleansing and destruction of darkness is not restricted to
ethical aspects but also describes a cosmic dualism and a battle to end all
darkness. This cosmic dualism is also eschatological in the sense that it
21
finds its end in the final destruction of evil.
19 Translation: Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I,
p. 77.
20 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 110-11.
21 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, p. 111.
Looking at the Instruction as a whole the image of dualism is multi-

layered: According to Bianchi's categories it would have to be termed
22
moderate and eschatological. At the same time scholars have drawn up a
contrast between the 'macroscopic' dualism of a struggle of two opposing
powers and the 'microscopic' dualism of an 'ethically-psychological'
23
conflict. The present study has so far identified even more aspects of
dualism: psychological, ethical, mythical, cosmic and eschatological. The
tensions within the dualism of the Instruction on the Two Spirits have
been attempted to be defused by dividing the text into three layers of
tradition: III,13-IV,14; IV,15-23a; 23b-26, but, the differences between
the different aspects of dualism and the terminology associated with them
24
do not follow this division, as has been shown above. Furthermore, this
division does not explain how the tensions were explained in the overall
25
text. Here, the combination of the more psychological, ethical and the
26
mythical as well as cosmic elements is undeniable. Therefore it is
necessary to look into the text as a whole and the way in which it was
received by its readers. We are fortunate in that we know at least one
group, which definitely read the Instruction: the community in Qumran.
3 . The Instruction on the Two Spirits in the Qumran Community

Although the Instruction on the Two Spirits did not originate in Qumran,
it is the only 'systematic' presentation in the Qumran texts of what is now
27
called predestination, dualism and eschatology. It was not written by the
community, but it was valued by it: one indication of this is that it has a
prominent place in the Community Rule, immediately after the opening
28
section on the Covenant Liturgy and immediately before the actual rules.
22 Aune, 'Dualism', esp. p. 293.

23 Cf. Aune, 'Dualism', pp. 294^5.
24 On the division of traditions, see P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial:
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT,
6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); cf. J. Duhaime, 'Dualistic Reworking in the
Scrolls from Qumran', CBQ 49 (1987): 32-56 (esp. 36). On doubts as to the viability of the
separation based on the continuity of dualistic motifs throughout the text, see H.
Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in den Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT, 15;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), pp. 141-2.
25 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 39.
26 Cf. J. G. Gammie, 'Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic
Literature', JBL 93 (1974): 356-85.
27 Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', pp. 88-9.
C
28 This order is not particular to 1QS but can also be found in 4QS , cf. Collins,
Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 47-51.
Its dualism was eminently useful to explain a worldview, which separated

29
the community sharply from the outsiders.
The fact that it was valued can also be seen from the observation that it
was taken up in various texts from Qumran, particularly in the Damascus
30
Document and in 4Q181. There are quotations of the Instruction in
CD-A 11,3-20, not complete sentences but an accumulation of expressions,
which together support the conclusion that the passage in CD-A II refers
to the Instruction: Thus when in 11,3 it is said that 'God loves knowledge'
(7k nm niH) this reflects the 'God of knowledge' of 1QS 111,15. The
term 'no remnant or escape' in 1QS IV,14 occurs literally in CD-A 11,6-7
31
referring to those who do not repent. CD-A 11,6-7, the destruction of
those who depart from God's way and the emphasis that God did not
elect them from the beginning as he knew their deeds in advance mirrors
God's fixed plan of 1QS 111,15 as well as God's hatred of evil in 1QS IV, 1.
The thought of God's love of the one and hatred of the other spirit is
32
expanded into the concept of a predestinarian election. This predesti-
narian interpretation can also be seen in another, less literal parallel
between the texts in the catalogues of virtues and vices and the future of
the condemned in CD-A 11,3-8. The one group is saved because they show
contrition and the other is condemned because God did not elect them
(CD-A 11,7-8). Thus the thought of penitence in the elect and the two-fold
predestination is introduced into the ethical dualism of the Instruction.
The purpose of this insertion is the application of the dualism to the
community: Unlike the Instruction, which does not define the 'sons of
righteousness' beyond their visible actions and the fact that the God of
Israel helps them, the Damascus Document specifies the rejected as Israel,
from whom God withdraws his help until they are destroyed (11,8,10). By
contrast, the idea of a remnant in Israel, preserved by God defines the
elect: 'and he has instructed them through those who have been anointed
with his Holy Spirit' QVip i m [TTBD] 11TB3D T 3 D I T T H , (13) 11,11-
13). This is a reference to the purification of the Holy Spirit in the
Instruction (1QS IV,21). By contrast those God hates he causes to desert
(CD-A 11,13), which is another reference to 1QS IV, 1, God's hatred for
the one group and love for the other. The eschatological purification of
the 'sons of light' is transformed in Qumran into the election of a remnant
of Israel in the present. Israel is no longer the people of God, it is the
people rejected by God.
29 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 43-5.

30 Cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination, pp. 121-70.
31 Cf. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 154.
32 For a more comprehensive analysis of the references, see J. Leonhardt-Balzer, 'Evil,
Dualism and Community: Who/What did the Yahad not Want to Be?' in G. Xeravits (ed.),
Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
Still, like the Instruction, CD draws a dualistic contrast between groups

of human beings, and the ethical aspect is dominant. Thus in CD-A 11,14-
16 the readers are admonished not to be guided by a 'guilty inclination
and eyes of whoredom' (TVttT ^FlIT] HOBR HIT, 16). However, at this
point the dualism becomes cosmic, as the Watcher myth of the Enoch
literature is given as an example for this seduction. And the dualism
becomes more clearly defined than in the Instruction: it is not the elect
33
who are seduced by the Watchers, the fact that someone lets themselves
34
be drawn in by them shows that they are not one of the elect. This is
another clear redefinition of the dualism of the Instruction, which
assumed that the elect could be influenced by the 'spirit of deceit'. In CD
the elect cannot be influenced by the evil spirits. This clear separation of
the elect from the rejected is not contradicted by texts such as CD-A V,l 1
and VII,4, which admit that human beings can defile their holy spirit,
because in neither text is there any reference to the influence of an evil
spirit. And while in CD-A V,17-19 Belial is described as causing Jannes
and Jambres to rebel against Moses and Aaron, Jannes and Jambres
already belong to the forces of darkness who war against the forces of
35
light. They are not elect who have fallen. Thus the picture in CD is
consistent: the ethical dualism is framed by a cosmic dualism, which is not
modified by the possibility of the elect making mistakes. The dualism of
the Instruction is taken up but any ambivalence of the status of the elect
removed. There cannot be any psychological conflict within the elect.
The ambivalence of the 'angel of darkness' attacking the elect in the
Instruction is not only removed, any evil action is attributed to the forces
of evil and thus the responsibility taken from God - although he is still the
supreme power behind everything. Thus the 'angels of destruction' punish
those who depart from God's will in CD-A 11,6, which takes up the
thought of the punishment of the wicked in the Instruction (1QS IV, 12) as
well as that of the punishing angels of God in the Enoch tradition (7 En.
53.3; 56.1; 62.11; 63.1; 66.1). But while they are not evil in the two latter
traditions, in CD-A VIII,2 the 'angels of destruction' are related to Belial.
Again the reinterpretation of the ambivalence of the Instruction as to the
behaviour of the 'sons of light' towards a clear division between the sphere
of influence of good - the elect - and that of evil - the fallen - can be
observed.
Thus the dualism of the Yahad serves the purpose of theodicy: it is
33 Against P. Wernberg-Meller, The Manual of Discipline, p. 71. The other texts which
he mentions, T. Dan 5.6 and T Ben. 3.3 are not community made and they are not older than
the Instruction on the Two Spirits.
34 The addressees, who are called 'sons' in CD 11,13 are marked by the fact that they 'see
and understand the deeds of God' "'BUM 'pnnVl Wblb, 14-15), and that they do not
follow the 'guilty inclination and the spirit of whoredom'.
35 Cf. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 53.
meant to take away God's responsibility for evil. But the enemy
responsible for evil, Belial, has his power only for a limited time and over
a limited group. It is notable that the community does not speculate on
Belial's origin or his surrounding but only contemplates his effect on the
37
world. Mankind is divided into two groups, those who keep God's
covenant - the rules of the community - and those who reject it and thus
38
demonstrate their adherence to the forces of evil. Cosmic dualism is
clearly tied to the social situation of the community. The only text in the
Yahad on the origin of evil is the Instruction, and here the absence of the
name Belial is notable. Still by naming the force of evil Belial the Yahad
seems to intensify the mythical aspect of the Instruction. The ethical
dualism is also amplified in the Yahad through a more precise separation
of the two forces and their spheres of influence, which goes hand in hand
with the claim that the Yahad as well as everybody else lives in the time of
the 'dominion of Belial' (1QS 11,19) until the forces of evil will be finally
overthrown and destroyed (1QM). This constitutes the same eschatolo
gical dualism already present in the Instruction. Thus we find all aspects
of the dualism of the Instruction - ethical, mythical, cosmic and
39
eschatological - in the Yahad except one: the psychological dualism.
This aspect is deliberately pushed aside and all references to the
Instruction reinterpret the tradition to exclude any aspects of psycho
logical conflict.
This selective use is all the more reason to compare the use of the
Instruction in a different tradition. And in this context Philo of
Alexandria's reference to the two powers in QE 1.23 comes into its own.
4. Philo's Two Spirits in Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 1.23

The Quaestiones of Philo are instances of allegorical commentary on the
books of Genesis and Exodus. They follow a clear structure: each passage
provides the answer to a question on a particular verse. Philo always sets
out to give the literal meaning of a passage and then provides its
allegorical interpretation, sometimes using several exegetical traditions.
The Quaestiones have been preserved completely in Armenian only (with a
modern translation into Latin by Aucher) and in certain fragments in
Greek quotations of the Church Fathers. Unfortunately for the passage in
question there is no Greek fragment, only the reconstruction of individual
Greek terms, and this makes the comparison to the language of the
Instruction practically impossible. Therefore a comparison of concepts
36 Cf. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 95-8.

37 Ibid., p. 9%.
38 Ibid., pp. 99-103.
39 Ibid., pp. 98-115.
will have to suffice. If a sufficient number of similar ideas is presented in

the same order then it is likely that the two texts are related.
The passage in question interprets Exod. 12.23c on the angel of God
killing the firstborn sons of Egypt. Philo asks why God will not let 'the
destroyer enter your houses to strike', quoting the LXX text. Philo's literal
interpretation reads the passage as the emphasis that God cannot be
regarded as the cause of any evil. Evil and destruction are not effected by
God himself, called the 'first king' - probably 5ia TOU npaiTou (JaoiAEca in
the original - but by his servants. The idea that God cannot be responsible
for evil can be found in other passages in Philo, such as Conf. 161, 182.
The reference to the king sums up the Philonic concept of God's two-fold
powers, one royal - icupios - one divine - 0E6S. While God as 'God' only
does good, as 'the Lord' he also needs to be strict and inflict punishment
(cf. Somn. 1.163). The one power is creative and merciful, the other stern,
40
sovereign and judging (Deus 116; Plant. 46; Abr. 121). Prayers can only
be addressed to the merciful power (QG 1.13). But the creator God is also
41
the king of the universe. Thus normally for Philo the idea of God as king
is associated with punishment and necessary evils. But in QE 1.23 the king
himself is exonerated from any evil actions. This fits in with the Rabbinic
doctrine of the two middot, which also regards the royal power as
42
beneficent. Thus here is another indication that Philo uses a different
tradition from his usual point of view.
Concluding, it can be said that in spite of Philo's emphasis that this is
the literal interpretation of the biblical text, he already introduces a
duality into the text which distinguishes between God and his servants -
powers in Philo's words, or angels in the Jewish tradition - as well as
between God's two-fold properties of mercy and sovereignty.
After the 'literal' interpretation Philo turns to the deeper meaning: 'Into
every soul at its very birth (ccpcc xfj YEVEOEI) there enter two powers
40 Cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, vol. 2

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947), p. 136. For a detailed description see N.
Umemoto, 'Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon', in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer
(eds), Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und der
hellenistischer Welt (WUNT, 55; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 207-56.
41 On the various terms (above all riysucov and BaoiAeus) and Philo's description of
kingship as a definition of God's relationship with the world, see G. Mayer, 'Die
herrscherliche Titulatur Gottes bei Philo von Alexandrien', in D. A. Koch and H.
Lichtenberger (eds), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und
Mittelalter: Festschrift fur Heinz Schreckenberg (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993), pp. 293-302 (esp. 2 9 « 0 1 ) ; cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jewish Worship in Philo of
Alexandria (TSAJ, 84; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 105-8.
42 N. A. Dahl and A. F. Segal, 'Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God', JSJ 9
(1978): 1-28; A. Marmonstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 1: The Names and
Attributes of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1927); idem, 'Philo and the Names of
God', JQR (1931-32): 295-306.
(Svvaueis), the salutary and the destructive (r\ uev ocoTnpia, r\ &
<J)6opoTroi6s). If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite
43
one is too weak to see'. Marcus assumes that in the Greek the last word
44
was not opav - to see - but opuav - to attack.
Through these powers the world too was created. People call them by
other names: the salutary (power) they call powerful and beneficent, and
the opposite one (they call) unbounded and destructive.
Philo comments on how the planets were created by these two powers,
particularly through the salutary one.
But the nation is a mixture of both (these powers), from which the
heavens and the entire world have received this mixture. Now
sometimes the evil becomes greater in this mixture, and hence (all
creatures) five in torment, harm, ignominy, contention, battle and
bodily illness together with all the other things in human life, as in the
whole world, so in man. And this mixture is in both the wicked man and
the wise man but not in the same way. For the souls of the foolish men
have the unbounded and destructive rather than the powerful and
salutary (power), and it is full of misery when it dwells with earthly
creatures. But the prudent and noble (soul) rather receives the powerful
and salutary (power) and, on the contrary, possesses in itself good
fortune and happiness, being carried around with the heaven because of
kinship with it.
Philo then returns to the quotation of Exod. 12.23c and praises its use of
terms. He interprets the text as referring to the fact that the evil power
attempts to enter the soul but is driven away by the beneficent power of
God. Philo adds a philosophical interpretation of the mixed and negative
influences of this power on 'those from whom the favours and gifts of God
are separated'.
The first part on the two powers and their influences appears to describe
a certain tradition, the second after the return to Exod. 12.23c applies this
to the text. Comparing the tradition Philo presents here with the
Instruction there are a number of notable parallels: the Armenian
reference to the birth could, if the Greek was apex -rfj YEVEOEI, as seems
likely, be a play on the double meaning of birth and creation. But even if
Philo intended to write not about the creation of the world but the birth of
man, this reading is still parallel to the Instruction's introduction of the
two spirits after the reference that mankind was given dominion over
creation (111,17-18). It is furthermore notable that this reference occurs
43 Translation R. Marcus, Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes),

supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press), pp. 33-4.
44 Ibid., p. 33.
after Philo introduces the 'literal' meaning of God as the sovereign king of
creation. God's sovereign power is also a matter emphasized at the
beginning of the Instruction (111,15-17) before it turns towards the two
spirits. Philo's reference to the continuing struggle between the two
powers, particularly if Marcus' emendation is correct, also runs parallel to
Instruction IV, 15-18 and the continuing struggle between the divisions of
man. After this Philo seems to include a different tradition, introduced by
his reference to the different names for these powers. Philo's reference to
astronomy could also imply an apocalyptic insertion in the particular
version of the Instruction he had at his disposal. This is particularly
noteworthy in view of the fact that the reference to the Instruction in the
Damascus Document includes a reference to the Watcher myth and thus
to Enochic material and the prominent astronomic references in the
Enoch traditions.
Coming back to the Instruction material itself Philo moves away from
the discussion of the soul and turns towards the nation as consisting of
two kinds of people. Here Philo moves from a psychological towards an
ethical dualism, similar to the references to the 'sons of righteousness' and
the 'sons of deceit' in 111,20-21. Philo does not introduce the idea of a
remnant, he refers to the 'people' or 'nation'. This could reflect the
Instruction's reference to the God of Israel and its indication that the
Instruction is directed at the Jewish people. Philo proceeds to describe
the influence of the evil power. At this point his account parallels the
Instruction's references to the attacks of the 'angel of darkness' on
the 'sons of righteousness' causing them to fail in their behaviour and to
experience hardship (111,21-24). The different degrees of influence, of the
mixture of the two powers, also mirror the different shares human beings
have in the light and the darkness in 1QS IV,15f., 23-26.
Even after the passage has moved from the account of the tradition to
Philo's exegesis by referring back to God's protection of the soul from the
'destroyer', Philo's reference to God's beneficent power driving out the
harmful influence of the evil power can be seen to reflect the Instruction's
account of God's holy Spirit's cleansing the 'sons of righteousness' in
IV, 19-22, which in Philo is followed by a reference to those rejected by
God while the Instruction mentions the salvation of the elect, those
chosen by God for his covenant (IV,22).
A table can illustrate the parallels in concept between the two texts:
Instruction on the Two Philo QE 1.23 Comments

Spirits
Title: Teaching about the The title is either
nature of mankind, their unknown or ignored by
spirits and their fate Philo.
(111,13-15).
The God of knowledge Literal meaning of Exod. Both texts emphasize the
created all things and 12.23c: God the sovereign supreme power of God.
everything occurs king does not cause any
according to his will evil but his ministers.
(111,15-17).
God created mankind to Deeper meaning: At its Two powers/spirits
rule and gave them two creation two powers enter influence human beings.
spirits, that of truth and each soul, the salutary
deceit (111,17-19). and the destructive.
The prince of lights The two powers struggle Both powers are
governs the sons of for dominance. incompatible.
righteousness and the
angel of darkness governs
the sons of deceit (111,20-
21).
Through the two powers Possibly an insertion of
the world was created. Philo referring to other
They are called by traditions, as the emphasis
different names. They on the variety of names
caused the creation of thefor the powers seems to
planets. indicate.
The angel of darkness The nation (human race Philo's text is as open as
causes the sins and or Israel) is composed of the Instruction in terms of
mistakes of the sons of both. Sometimes evil defining the sons of
righteousness as well as gains power, this causes righteousness/light as
their afflictions (111,21- all evil, internal and either Israel (cf. 111,24 and
24). external (e.g. torment, Philo's reference to
battle, illness) in mankind.
'nation') or the good in
mankind. Both emphasize
the negative effect of the
evil spirit on the virtuous
although it causes
external misfortunes.
The 'God of Israel' and The mixture exists in the The two powers are not
the 'angel of his truth' wicked and the wise, but equally balanced. Here
assist the sons of light. not in the same way. Philo presents a thought
God loves the spirit of also expressed in 1QS
light and hates that of IV, 15-18 that the share in
darkness (III,2ÎV,1). good and bad influences is
not the same for each
individual.
Instruction on the Two Philo QE 1.23 Comments

Spirits
The actions and the fate The misfortunes and The order is inverted in
of the sons of light (IV,2- misery of the foolish. Philo: first the foolish,
8). then the wise, while in the
The actions and The good fortune and rest of his account after
misfortunes of the sons of happiness of the prudent. the reference to Exod.
deceit (IV,9-14). 12.23 he discusses first the
wise and then the foolish.
The two spirits influence Return to Exod. 12.23: Philo's text also resembles
mankind throughout God prevents the the references to God's
history. God has set an destroyer from entering and his angel's support
end to the struggle of the the soul of the wise. for the sons of
two spirits, he will purify righteousness in 1QS
the sons of righteousness III,24-IV,1
at the appointed time of
his judgement (IV, 15-23).
Until then the two spirits The soul of the foolish is The Instruction is not
continue to fight for not protected from the matched clearly after
influence, those with a evil influences and thus Philo's reference to the
greater share in the light the compound text in Exod. 12.23, Philo
following righteousness appearances of the sense appears to take up the
and those with a greater perceptions can enter. basic idea outlined before
share in deceit living in in order to interpret his
wickedness (IV,23-26). text.
It is clear that Philo presents a philosophical version of the tradition he

has. However, there are remarkable parallels in the development of
thought to that in the Instruction. The terminology may be a Greek
adaptation - for example, powers instead of spirits - and philosophical
details have been included, but the structure of the tradition is similar and
certain details are too close to be an accident: the two influences on
mankind, the psychological and the ethical aspects, the struggle, the
different degrees of influence of the one and the other, the preference of
God for one over the other and so on. All these indicate a level of
similarity, which supports the conclusion that Philo also drew on a
tradition similar to the Instruction on the Two Spirits. The textual
condition being as it is it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to the
precise shape of this tradition. It is possible that Philo's version did not
have much of 1QSIV, 15-26, as the textual parallels become fewer after the
catalogues of virtues and vices. Philo's tradition then would be based on
only the first of the above-mentioned sections of the different traditions
45
identified within the Instruction by von der Osten-Sacken. However
45 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial.

Philo's thought of the mixture seems to take up the idea of each human
being's being composed of unequal shares in light and darkness which is
particularly prominent in IV, 15-16. Thus Philo seems to systematize the
Instruction at a point where it repeats itself and where one of its emphases
is on eschatological judgement, a thought completely alien to Philo.
Whether Philo summarized his source or had a shorter tradition, what
seems clear is that the Instruction on the Two Spirits had acquired a
Greek version by Philo's time. And it is noteworthy that Philo's reception
emphasizes everything, which the Qumran reception does not: the
psychological dualism and the potential of 'wise' (Philo) or 'righteous'
people being influenced by the evil power.
5. Philo and the Instruction

The question remains now, how this tradition could have come to Philo.
One suggestion would be through a direct contact of his with the Qumran
Sectanarians. This suggestion is based on the frequently suggested
assumption that on his well-known pilgrimage Philo met Essenes first
hand and based his account in the Probus on first-hand experience. The
fact that his account of the Essenes is clearly based on a Hellenistic source,
similar but not quite identical to the one used by Josephus, as well as
Philo's apparent ignorance of Hebrew, speaks against this theory.
An even more intriguing possibility would be if the Therapeutae at the
lake Mareotis were a kind of Egyptian branch of the Essenes, suggested by
the similarities in Philo's account of the two groups. They could then have
produced the Greek version of the Instruction and Philo could have
derived it from them. However, apart from the fact that this is pure
speculation without any basis on evidence, the identification of the
Therapeutae and the Essenes based on their Hellenized description in the
sources used by Philo is unsound and with this identification this theory
crumbles as the one before.
Can we go beyond what is generally known that Philo drew on a
number of sources, many of which are lost to us now? Perhaps the sources
of the Instruction can help. The Instruction's origins have been traced
back to various sources. Without doubt it has an apocalyptic outlook, and
references to the myth of the Watchers have been identified, although
Collins points out that the explanation of evil does not use the same
46 47
myth. An Iranian influence has been postulated, but particularly the
contrasted terms light-darkness do not play any part in the Iranian myth,
46 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 38-41.

47 Cf. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 16-30. Collins,
Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 42-3.
just as the idea of the spirit of the lie, dominant in the Iranian myth, does
48
not occur in the Instruction on the Two Spirits.
By contrast, there are clear similarities between wisdom traditions and
the Instruction: the tendency to divide the world into good and evil (e.g.
Prov. 1-9 - even if this division here is mainly based on ethical grounds
and here only represents a duality and no dualism, as the opposition does
not permeate the whole world order). The revelation of the truth is more
49
the unmasking of God's plan for salvation and of his secrets. Wisdom
50
traditions have been found to move towards including apocalyptic ideas.
And J. J. Collins emphasizes that in the Instruction on the Two Spirits,
'The literary form . . . is not apocalypse or revelation but the classic
51
sapiential form of the instruction." The influence of apocalyptic wisdom
can particularly be found in the ambivalent concept of the elect and the
possibility of their being seduced by the evil power in other wisdom texts
52 53
of the time. Thus 4QMysteries frg. 3a ii-b 4-6 contrasts the deceit and
the evil doings of Belial to the wise, but due to the fragmentary state of the
text it is unclear whether Belial actually seduces the wise. In 4QInstruction
(4Q416f) the 'secrets of being' are related to the distinction between truth
and deceit (4Q417 frg. 2 col. 3,14; 4Q416 frg. 2 col. 1, 1-6). It is the task of
the wise to delve into the secrets of God's plan in everything there is. In
view of this plan the success of evil remains a mystery. The term 'secret'
has the same function in the Instruction. There the success of the spirit of
deceit is inexplicable, it remains one of the 'secrets of God' ''"H until
the end (111,23). Thus the Instruction takes up strands of apocalyptic
wisdom literature, which are avoided in the original community texts.
It is noteworthy that it is precisely these strands, which are prominent in
Philo's reception: the emphasis on psychological and ethical dualism.
Furthermore, Philo's reference to the stars might even indicate that his
source had apocalyptic references at this point. This is highly speculative
but it would fit with an apocalyptic wisdom text. And the book of Ben
Sira shows that Israelite wisdom was thought to be of interest in the
Alexandrian Jewish community. Philo's application of the Logos termin
ology to the interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5 also shows his close knowledge of
48 Wernberg-Moller, The Manual of Discipline, pp. 66, 70.

49 Cf. W. L. Lipscomb and J. A. Sanders, 'Wisdom at Qumran', in J. Gammie et al.
(eds), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrin (Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 277-85 (278); Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom',
pp. 216-17.
50 See e.g. 4QSap A. Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', p. 237.
51 J. J. Collins, 'Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint
and VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, pp. 403-30 (422).
52 Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', pp. 217-18.
53 The text is non-sectarian, see the pan-Israel perspective. Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse
Aspects of Wisdom', pp. 228-9.
wisdom speculation. Thus it is not inconceivable that Philo drew on an

apocalyptic wisdom tradition translated into Greek for the use of Jews in
Alexandria.
In any case it shows that the exchange of traditions between Palestine
and Alexandria extended not only to traditions easily converted into
Hellenistic philosophy but even to apocalyptic wisdom texts with a
strongly dualistic outlook. Conversely it shows the versatility of the
Instruction's dualism, which could be adapted to such different readers as
a secluded sect in the Judean desert and a scholar experienced in many
aspects of Graeco-Roman culture in one of the largest cities of the Roman
Empire.
54 Cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, 'Der Logos und die Schopfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif.
20-25) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1-18)', in J. Frey and U. Schnelle (eds), Kontexte des
Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelism in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher
Perspektive (WUNT, 1/175; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 295-319.
Chapter 3
J E S U S ' J E W I S H H E R M E N E U T I C A L M E T H O D I N T H E N A Z A R E T H
S Y N A G O G U E
R. Steven Notley
A great deal has been written about the importance of Jewish sources for
1
our understanding of Jesus and the early Church. Unfortunately, there
remains a lack of corresponding recognition regarding the contribution of
the New Testament to our knowledge of Jewish life and thought during
the closing days of the Second Commonwealth. The New Testament
serves as an invaluable historical witness, because it often is our earliest
written record.
A few examples will illustrate. For archaeologists and historical
geographers the New Testament provides seminal information, because
it possesses the earliest written references to certain Jewish cities and
villages founded in Galilee during the Hellenistic and Roman periods - for
2
example, Tiberias, Nazareth, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida. On the
other hand, Jewish and Christian students of the history of Jewish
tradition rarely recognize that the earliest evidence for the common Jewish
practice to name one's son at his circumcision on the eighth day is the
Lukan birth narratives about John the Baptist (Lk. 1.63) and Jesus (Lk.
3
2.21). Outside of the New Testament, the next mention in written Jewish
4
sources appears in the seventh-century-CE work, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer.
The parents of Moses saw that his appearance was like that of an angel
of God. They circumcised him on the eighth day and called him
Yekutiel (Chapter 48).
1 D. Flusser and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus' Genius (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 1-5.
2 See Y . Tsafrir, L. DiSegni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: IUDAEA-
PALESTINA: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994).
3 L. V. Snowman, 'Circumcision', EJ 5:571.
4 S. Safrai, 'Naming John the Baptist', Jerusalem Perspective 20 (May 1989): 1-2.
NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 47
For this study we want to investigate another primitive testimony

preserved in the Third Gospel. Luke's story of Jesus in Nazareth (Lk.
4.16-30) is the oldest account of the Jewish custom to follow the public
reading of the Torah in the synagogue with a reading from the Prophets
5
(the Haftard). Apart from Luke's report (see Acts 13.14-15), the earliest
Jewish reference to this practice is the third-century-CE compilation of
oral traditions in the Mishna.
]7]u n^nnis njpatf n a m n r o o n i s r a n o v a nicpn ato o v a
t r a n d^tbsdi o r r ^ r t v s ' p t a toa
On a Festival [the Law is read] by five [readers], on the Day of

Atonement by six, and on the Sabbath by seven. They may not take
from them but they may add to them, and they close with a reading from
the Prophets (m.Meg. 4.2).
6
The verbal presentation in Luke's account belies a haphazard report.
Already the seventeenth-century Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, recog
nized the parallels between Jesus' actions (Lk. 4.16) and the synagogue
caretaker in Tosefta Sukkah: m i m DMpb ltS\B PDlDn ]TITI : 'The
7
caretaker of the synagogue stood to read in the Torah' (t.Suk 2.11). In
recent years, Safrai has advanced the notion that the description that
Jesus stood to read meant that he read first from the Torah.
The two Greek words translated 'he stood up to read' strongly suggest
that Jesus had read a portion from the Torah before reading from the
scroll of Isaiah. One does not stand up in order to read from the
8
Prophets.
The Evangelist assumed that his readers would have first-hand knowledge
of Jewish customs. He thus felt no need to detail what was already
understood - that Jesus stood to read first from the Torah, and only then
to read from the prophet Isaiah. In addition, Safrai observed that Luke's
account - in which Jesus alone is reported to read publicly - accords with
other ancient witnesses (e.g. m.Sot. 7.7-8; m.Yoma 7.1; Josephus, Ant.
4.209; Philo, Prob. 81-82). These indicate that Jewish practice prior to 70
CE allowed for only one public reader of the Torah in the synagogue,
not seven readers as the Jewish community practised soon after the
5 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First
Century (CRINT, 2; Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 908-44 (928).
6 Contra H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1961), p. 30.
7 H. Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (9 vols; Groningen: W. Zuidema,
1826-34) 3: 225.
8 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue and Sabbath', Jerusalem Perspective 23 (Nov.-Dec. 1989): 8-10.
destruction of the Second Temple, and a custom that is continued until

9
this day.
For the most part, modern scholarship has assumed that the sources for
Luke's story about Jesus in Nazareth are thoroughly Greek. Yet, Sparks
observed what others have acknowledged; namely, that Luke's Gospel
over all is markedly Semitic.
After an author's preface of four verses, written in good idiomatic
Greek, [the reader] is presented with a narrative of twenty-four chapters,
of which the background, the ideas, and much of the phraseology, are
unquestionably Semitic . . . there are in addition a whole host of
peculiarly Lukan Semitisms, that is, constructions and phrases, some
times complete sentences, which, awkward in Greek, are normal and
10
idiomatic in Semitic.
What particularly challenged Sparks was that - unlike Mark and Matthew
whose Semitisms find equivalents in either Aramaic or Hebrew - Luke
11
preserves Hebraisms that have no parallel in Aramaic. In spite of the
preponderance of linguistic evidence to the contrary provided by the Dead
Sea Documents, as well as studies on Mishnaic Hebrew (particularly
12 13
Tannaitic Hebrew) by such scholars as M. H. Segal and E. Y. Kutcher,
New Testament scholarship still clings to the outdated notion first
14
proposed by Geiger that 'save for small pockets or areas where
Hebrew was still cultivated, Palestinian Jews used Aramaic as the common
15
Semitic language and did not readily comprehend Hebrew'. Working
with the presumption of an Aramaic-only environment, Hebraisms in
Luke's Greek are routinely dismissed as an artificial attempt by the
Evangelist to biblicize his Greek to imitate the style of the Septuagint.
While Luke's account was composed in Greek, there are indications
9 Safrai, 'Synagogue', pp. 929-30; cf. D. Bivin, 'One Torah Reader, Not Seven!'
Jerusalem Perspective 52 (Jul.-Sep. 1997): 16-17.
10 H. F. D. Sparks, 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943): 129-38 (129).
11 Sparks, 'Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', p. 132; cf. N. Turner, A Grammar of New
Testament Greek (4 vols; ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976), 4:46-50.
12 M. H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic',
JQR 20 (1908): 647-737; see also idem, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1927).
13 E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959): idem, 'Hebrew Language', EJ 16:1593-1607; idem, A
History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982); and idem, Hebrew and Aramaic
Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977 [Hebrew]).
14 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845); cf.
A. Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwold; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 162.
15 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; New York: Doubleday,
1981), p. 531.
MOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method 49
that the Evangelist has drawn from earlier reports (Lk. 1.1-4) that were
shaped by a Hebrew language environment. Recognition that the incident
in Nazareth occurred in a Semitic milieu opens up new possibilities for
Hebrew idioms and fresh cultural perspectives. Close attention to the
linguistic evidence can ultimately provide insight into the hermeneutical
methodology of Jesus and other first-century Jews in their use of
Scripture, and hopefully illuminate what Jesus intended to communicate
to his hearers by his combination of texts.
The first evidence for the linguistic environment of Luke's report is his
introductory phrase, 'and there was given to him the book of the prophet
Isaiah' (Lk. 4.17). Little attention is given to the designation of Isaiah's
work as a 'book'. Of course, in concrete terms the reader in a first-century
synagogue would have been given a parchment scroll, not a book or
codex. However, our interest here is not the physical shape of the
document but the idiom, 'the book' of Isaiah - whether expressed in Greek
(PipAos, [JiPAiov) or Hebrew O ? 0 ) . A quick search informs us that the
work of Isaiah is never referred to as a 'book' in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, it seems it is a post-biblical designation.
What is more surprising is to discover that the phrase, 'the book of
Isaiah', never occurs in Jewish literature of the Second Commonwealth
composed in Greek - for example, the Septuagint, Greek Pseudepigrapha,
Josephus or Philo. Not only is Luke the only writer in the New Testament
to preserve this idiom, his is the only occurrence in the entire Greek
corpus of Jewish literature. On the other hand, seven times in the Hebrew
portions of the Qumran library we hear citations from Isaiah with the
prefaced phrase, iTfiET ISDH m r O *W&: 'as it is written in the
book of Isaiah the prophet' (e.g. 4Q174 frag.l 2:15; 4Q176 frag.l 2:4;
4Q265 frag. 1,3) - the exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek phrase
recorded by Luke. In other words, the only time in first-century Jewish
literature that the work of Isaiah is called a 'book', it appears in Hebrew.
While this point may seem insignificant, the idiomatic usage signals to the
modern reader the need to approach the words and setting in Luke's
report from a Hebraic perspective. The implications of this shift will soon
become apparent.
Luke records that Jesus 'opened the book [i.e., scroll] and found the
place' (Lk. 4.17). Evidence from the Cairo Genizah indicates that already
in first-century Judaea designated weekly portions from the Torah were
read in the synagogue in consecutive order on a triennial cycle (i.e., the
16
Pentateuch was read through entirely in three years). By contrast,
selections from the Prophets were not fixed. They were often chosen at the
discretion of the reader to complement the Torah reading on the basis of
16 H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl;

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 263-4; Safrai, 'Synagogue', pp. 927-8; cf. b.Meg. 29b.
parallel themes, or even wording. Whereas the Torah portions were

required to be read consecutively, such was not the case with the Prophets.
Passages from different prophetic books could even be combined,
rnira D ^ j H O y\X\ ^ 3 3 3 D ' a ^ T D : 'One may skip among the
Prophets but one may not skip in the reading of the Torah' (m.Meg. 4.4).
Jesus read from Isa. 61.1-2, but even the casual observer can detect that
Luke's citation differs from the wording of Isaiah in the Hebrew
Scriptures. Typically scholarship has assumed that these differences are
17
explained by Luke's borrowing from the Septuagint. Yet, this explan
ation is difficult to prove. The Septuagint's translation of these particular
verses closely follows the Hebrew text. Thus, it is difficult to know with
certainty whether the similarities between the Septuagint and Luke's
citation are because the Evangelist is relying upon the Septuagint, or
because another source for Luke's citation likewise faithfully renders the
Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
Moreover, Fitzmyer notes that at times Luke's citation of Isaiah in our
passage adheres even more closely to the Hebrew text than the Septuagint
18
upon which Luke is presumed to depend. Coupled with other post-
biblical, non-Septuagintal Hebraisms witnessed in Luke's narrative, the
evidence seems to suggest that Luke has drawn his citation not from the
Septuagint but from another source that was marked with stark
Hebraisms. For example, see Lk. 4.21-22: 'fulfilled in your hearing' [lit.
ears] (cf. Deut. 5.1: OlTDTijG; LXX: EV TOTS COOIV upcov); Lk. 4.22: 'words
...proceeded out of his mouth' (cf. Num. 30.2: V B D *«f H ^ D S niTI;
LXX: TO pfjpcx auTou . . . E£EA0T] EK TOU OTopccTos CCUTOU). 1 9
Whatever one's opinion concerning the language of Luke's source(s),

there seems little question that Jesus is presented as reading from the
Hebrew text of Isaiah. Randall Buth has brought my attention to the lack
of any reference in our story to the reading of an Aramaic Targum in
Nazareth. This silence coincides with the near non-existence of Aramaic
20
Targums among the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the exception of the
Targum of Job (11Q10 and 4Q157) - notorious for its difficult Hebrew -
21
they do not exist in the Qumran library. Their absence from Qumran
and Nazareth challenge the almost universally accepted notion that first-
17 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 530-9; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary
on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), pp. 182^1.
18 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 533.
19 Marshall, Luke, pp. 185-6.
20 R. Buth, 'Aramaic Targumim: Qumran', in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter
(eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: I VP, 2000), pp. 91-3.
21 U. GleBmer, 'Targumim', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
pp. 915-18 (916).
century Jews did not know Hebrew and needed the Aramaic translation to
understand the Hebrew Scriptures.
Indeed, we have no evidence of the presence and use of Aramaic
Targums in synagogues of the Land of Israel prior to the Usha period
(140 C E ) , following the Bar Kochba Revolt. The appearance of Aramaic
Targums coincides with the immigration of Jews from Babylonia, who
most likely brought their Aramaic Bibles (i.e., Targums) with them, and
the decline of spoken Hebrew in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba Revolt
22
due to population shifts. Additionally, in certain contexts the Aramaic
Targums may have served not so much as literal translations, but as a type
of simultaneous commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures - a repository of
23
Jewish interpretation. So, we hear: 'He who translates a verse literally
falsifies it' (t.Meg. 4(3).41). In a later time, the Targums would be read in
the synagogues in languages other than Hebrew in order to distinguish
them from Holy Scripture. A parallel to this practice exists. In the
Babylonian Talmud block citations from the Mishna are recorded in their
original Mishnaic Hebrew, and thus distinguished from later deliberations
(i.e., the Gemara) upon the Mishna that are routinely preserved in
Aramaic. In any event, this is a practice that developed after our period of
interest.
The most obvious deviation from Isa. 61.1-2 in our passage is the final
phrase recorded in Lk. 4.18. Jesus interjects Isa. 58.6: 'to let the oppressed
go free', and then returns to Isa. 61.2 with the conclusion, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord'. As we will see, Jesus' ingenious fusion of Isa.
61.1-2 and 58.6 presents the clearest evidence that he read from the
Hebrew Scriptures and that Luke's source for the citation was not the
Septuagint.
Jesus' creative reading from Isaiah is neither haphazard, nor coinci
dental. It betrays an intimate familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures and
24
contemporary Jewish methods of interpreting them. Fitzmyer has
suggested that the combination of the two Isaianic verses is because of the
Greek catchword a<J>EOis that appears in the Septuagint's translation of
25
both verses (Isa. 58.6: DÊBri; Isa. 61.1: Ti*"n). His instincts are correct,
but his presumption of Luke's reliance on the Septuagint has caused him
to overlook the distinctive, unique verbal thread that enabled Jesus to
combine these two passages. The Greek term, a<J>EOis, appears frequently
22 A. F. Rainey and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
(Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2006), p. 398.
23 S. D. Fraade, 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the
Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries', in L. J. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late
Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 253-86.
24 See J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1954), pp. 52-118.
25 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX p. 533.
y
in the Septuagint, occurring 50 times. In our passages it translates two

entirely different Hebrew words. In fact, ac))60is translates eleven different
26
Hebrew words.
Nevertheless, we do have in Luke's Nazareth episode a good example of
the Jewish interpretative technique, identified with Hillel and known as
27
gezerah shavah (cf. t.Sanh. 7.11; Abot R. Nat. 37). According to this
method two otherwise unrelated verses may be combined because of the
appearance in Hebrew of similar words or clusters of words. The early
implementation of this technique seems to have been based upon exact
word forms.
Jesus is portrayed by the Evangelists as being familiar with the
hermeneutical method and he employs it elsewhere. In the well-known
pericope of the Great Commandment (Mt. 22.34-46; Mk 12.28-34; Lk.
10.25-40), Deut. 6.5 and Lev. 19.18 are threaded by a rare concurrence;
these are two of only three times in the Hebrew Scriptures in which a
command begins rQilfcjO. As an aside, rarely is it noted that the remaining
imperative to love, concerning the foreigner in Lev. 19.34 (\b rQnijO
^Ji03), may have given rise to the subsequent story in Luke's pericope
28
regarding the benevolent Samaritan (Lk. 10.29-37).
On another occasion, Jesus' antithetical parallelism in Lk. 19.46 (Mt.
21.13; Mk 11.17) is an elliptical citation of Isa. 56.7 and Jer. 7.11, which
may have depended upon a non-Masoretic reading of Jeremiah in which
29
TTO occurred. Elsewhere, I have suggested that Jesus' witness
concerning the Baptist in Mt. 11.10 is an ingenious fusion of Exod.
23.20 and Mai. 3.1 to allude to the two contemporary expectations
regarding the identity of the eschatological prophet (Deut. 18.15-18; Mai.
30
4.5-6 [ M T 3.23-24]; cf. 4Q175 1.5-8). Only in these two verses in the
31
Hebrew Scriptures do we find the collocation of ^DNÔ and PIÊJ (with
also ^|T7 and ^S*?), demonstrating another early example of the
necessary use of identical word forms in the Hebrew verses to allow the
speaker's combination of them.
As a final example, Flusser has drawn attention to the underlying verbal
26 E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (2 vols; Grand Rapids.

Baker, 1987), 1:182.
27 Strack and Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash, p. 21.
28 R. S. Notley, 'Jesus as a Teacher of the Law' (Public paper delivered at Wycliffe
College, University of Toronto, September 2000).
29 J. Frankovic, 'The Intertextual-Rhetorical Background to Luke 19.46' (Unpublished
study).
30 R. S. Notley, 'The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances', in Craig A. Evans (ed.),
The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and
Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), pp. 279-311(292-3).
31 Exod. 23.20 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Septuagint and the
Latin Vulgate.
structure in the exchange between Jesus and the high priest Caiaphas in
32
Lk. 22.69-70. The former's allusion to Ps. 110.1-3, and his adversary's
use of vocabulary drawn from Ps. 2.7, is based upon a consonantal
reading of the Hebrew text which is identical in both verses. Only in these
do we find ym^T (Ps. 110.3: your youth ^ 1 1 1 ^ ] ; Ps. 2.7: / have
begotten you FpFn*^])- What is important in all of these examples is the
recognition that the verbal links that allow the combination of otherwise
unrelated verses are based upon the exact word forms of the Hebrew text,
not the Aramaic Targums or Septuagint. While the rabbinical method
may find its impetus from the world of Greek rhetoric (ouvxpiois npos
'(oov),33 its application in rabbinical tradition is based on Hebrew verbal
34
analogy.
Are there Hebrew verbal links evident that allow Jesus to fuse Isa. 61.1-
2 and 58.6? To my knowledge no notice has been given to the fact that in
the entire Hebrew Scriptures only in our two blocks of Scripture (Isa.
58.1-9; 61.1-4) do we find the phrase HIPP b ]1in ('the Lord's favour').
Again, scholars have overlooked the verbal bridge between these two
verses, because they have presumed that the Septuagint is the source of
Luke's citation. Yet, the rendering of the Hebrew phrase is missing in the
Septuagint's truncated Greek translation of Isa. 58.5: KaAeoeTS vrjaTeiav
5SKTT)V. It thus eliminates the essential verbal tie to Isa. 61.2. The linkage is
35
likewise obscured in the Aramaic Targum of these verses.
In other words, Jesus' creative genius is possible only if he is drawing
upon the Hebrew Scriptures. Isa. 61.2a speaks of 'the Year of the Lord's
favour', whereas Isa. 58.5-6 designates the time of the hoped-for
redemption as 'the Day of the Lord's favour'. The difference between
these two passages, however, is more than a temporal distinction (i.e. iT3E?
and OV). The content of the redemptive expectations in these two
passages represents starkly divergent hopes in Jesus' day regarding both
the timing and the nature of God's future redemption of his people. It
certainly is no accident that Jesus breaks off his quotation of Isa. 61.2,
eliminating the final phrase: irrt^K^ Dj53 DVT: 'the day of the
32 See D. Flusser, 'At the Right Hand of Power', Judaism and the Origins of Christianity
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 301-5; Flusser and Notley, The Sage from Galilee, p. 115 n.
24.
33 S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine I Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York and
Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994), p. 62.
34 'Strictly speaking this {gezerah shavah] is only to be used if two given Torah statements
make use of identical (and possibly unique) expressions' (Strack and Stemberger, Talmud and
Mishnah, p. 21).
35 See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 3:117, 121; J. F.
Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 195, 205.
vengeance of our God' (Isa. 61.2b). Jesus did not want to identify the
37
day of the Lord's favour with a time of divine vengeance.
In order to grasp the full significance of Jesus' exegetical message, some
background on contemporary Jewish thought is needed. In his historical
biography on Jesus, Flusser explored the widely diverging redemptive
38
expectations that existed in the first century. The Qumran Congregation
and John the Baptist shared a hope that their present day would be
followed soon with the advent of a heavenly Redeemer, who would bring
vindication for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. The
immediacy of this time of judgement is reflected in John's proclamation:
'The axe is already at the root of the trees' (Mt. 3.10; Lk. 3.9).
On the other hand, Jesus and his Rabbinic contemporaries embraced a
39
tripartite view of redemptive history. In the opinion of Jesus and Israel's
sages, between the present era and the future End of Days - which would
include resurrection for the righteous and judgement upon the wicked -
they understood the need for an intermediate period. In the opinion of
Jesus, that intermediate era began with the ministry of John the Baptist:
40
'The law and the prophets were until John' (Lk. 16.16), 'From the days
of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven forcefully advances'
41
(Mt. 11.12).
It was John's and Jesus' differing opinions concerning the stages of
redemption that led to the Baptist's question: 'Are you the One who is to
Come, or shall we look for another?' (Mt. 11.3). John defined the hoped-
for Redeemer with notions belonging to eschatological judgement and
adopted terminology related to the Coming One from Malachi:
'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.
Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the
messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come* says the Lord
Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand
when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap
42
(Mai. 3.1-3).
36 J. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 210.
37 By contrast, note the role of the priestly redeemer (Melchizedek) in 11Q13 in which
Isaiah 61 is also heard. Following the citation, the author continues: 'Therefore Melchizedek
will thoroughly prosecute the veng[ea]nce required by Go[d's] statu[te]s' (HQ 13 2.13).
38 Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, pp. 76-96.
39 b.Sanh. 99a; Midr. Pss 90.15; cf. Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 92.
40 The redemptive content of Jesus' testimony is indicated by its Talmudic parallel
IT&rn HID'''? bbk 1*0303 \*b Outran to: 'All the prophets prophesied solely concerning
the days of the Messiah'. See b.Ber. 34b; b.Shab. 63a; b.Sanh. 99a.
41 Notley, 'The Kingdom Forcefully Advances', pp. 303-7.
42 See also Dan. 7.13: HIH HHtJ IZDtft "Q3 ; Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee,
pp. 107-16.
John's message from the prison of Herod Antipas questioned: 'If the
Redeemer has come bringing divine judgement, why are the righteous still
suffering at the hands of the wicked?' Jesus' response addresses John's
mistaken understanding of God's redemptive timetable. Not surprisingly,
Jesus uses a combination of Isaianic passages - Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18;
26.19 - that included Isa. 61.1 (the same verse read in the Nazareth
synagogue). Among the discoveries in the Qumran library, a work
designated 4Q521 - and which Puech has suggested was likely non-
sectarian - was composed around a similar compilation of biblical
43
passages describing the messianic age.
[... For the heajvens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah [and all
w]hich is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the
holy ones... For He will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His
eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free (Ps 146.7), opening the eyes of
the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down] (Ps 146.8)... and the
Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said.
For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He
shall send good news to the afflicted (Isa. 61.1). (4Q521 frag. 2 ii, 4.1-12)
In another work (11Q13) the Qumran Congregation described their
expectation of a priestly redeemer identified with the biblical
44
Melchizedek. The Qumran sectarians - like others of their contempor
aries (e.g. T. Levi 17.1-18.2) - expected the advent of that redeemer to
coincide with the Jubilee year. Since the Jubilee was inaugurated on the
Day of Atonement (Lev. 25.9), their hope was that God would atone
the sins of the nation and consequently redeem his people. One of
the important proof-texts for this redemptive Jubilee framework was the
passage read by Jesus in Nazareth - Isa. 61.1-2. Elsewhere, I have tried to
show that these ideas form the background for John's proclamation of 'a
baptism that would lead to a [Jubilee] remission of sins' ((3anTiOMCc
jjETCcvoias B\S a<J>eaiv aiiapTicov: Mk. 1.4; Lk. 3.3).
It seems that John (like his Qumran contemporaries) expected the
45
redeemer to appear in the Jubilee year. John hoped that repentance and
righteous initiative signified by the act of ritual immersion would bring
4
43 See E. Puech, Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)', RevQ 60 (Oct. 1992): 475^522;
Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 28.
44 D. Flusser, 'Melchizedek and the Son of Man', Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity, pp. 186-92; R. S. Notley, The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect
and the Order of Blessing in the Christian Eucharist', in R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B.
Becker (eds), Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill,
2006), pp. 128-35; A. Steudel, 'Melchizedek', in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1: 535-7; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa
(Washington, DC: CBAA, 1981), pp. 49-74.
45 See B. Z. Wacholder, 'Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and
the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles', HUCA 46 (1975): 201-18.
forward the day of God's redemption. His understanding of the

redemptive role of repentance is similar to that heard from a first-century
Rabbi, Yose Ha-Gelili: 'Repentance brings redemption near' (b.Yoma
86b). It should not be overlooked by the reader that in Jesus' first public
statement in the Synoptic Gospels after submitting to John's baptism, he
chose a passage of Scripture that complemented fully John's (Jubilee)
redemptive expectation. Jesus punctuated his reading of Isa. 61.1-2 with
the bold declaration - 'Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your
hearing' (Lk. 4.21).
We have taken time to look at Jesus' and John's diverging opinions,
because it also lies at the heart of the tension that day in Nazareth. The
Baptist - like the congregation in Nazareth - found Jesus' innovations
difficult. On that Sabbath, Jesus intentionally reshaped the redemptive
presentation in Isa. 61.1-2. He eliminated Isaiah's mention of divine
vengeance, because it was not the time for judgement. He put forth his
own understanding of the present redemptive period with the inclusion of
Isa. 58.5-7. The combination of his truncation of Isa. 61.2 and his
insertion of Isa. 58.6 was intended to send an unmistakable message to his
hearers concerning his innovative ideas regarding the hoped-for day of
redemption.
The role of the righteous would not be to exact divine vengeance upon
the wicked (cf. 1QS 9.21-24) but to live lives of righteousness (cf. Tob.
2.14; 4.7; Mt. 6.1, 33; Acts 10.35; 2 Cor. 9.9) in the midst of this present
wicked age. Acts of mercy and kindness would serve as a catalyst for
God's redemptive purposes. Or in the words of Isa. 58.5-8 to which Jesus
points his Nazareth hearers:
'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we
humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' [The Lord responds]...
'Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble
himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed and for lying on
sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the
Lord! Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of
injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and
break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to
provide the poor wanderer with shelter - when you see the naked, to
clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then
your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly
appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the
Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will
answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am V (Isa. 58.3, 5-9).
How did the audience react to Jesus' creative reading that day in
Nazareth? Most readers assume that the point of provocation was Jesus'
sharp comments in Lk. 4.23-27. However, there are clear indications that
the audience was already taken aback by the message of Jesus' conflated
reading from Isaiah and the message it signalled. Unfortunately, most
English translations gloss over these indicators. The translates that
N R S V
the crowd 'spoke well of him'. Yet, the Greek passage describes their
response: Ken iravxes euapTupouv auTcp, which should be rendered: 'They
all witnessed (against) him.' The objection of the crowd is indicated by the
unusual Greek construction of the dative pronoun with the verb
uccpTupeTv. The Greek phrase reflects an underlying Hebrew idiom (e.g.,
Deut. 31.19: 'wnftr ^ 3 3 IBb; cf. Jer. 32.44; Mt. 23.31)
Jeremias already recognized the immediate congregational discontent
over Jesus' interpretative reading.
Both verbs are ambiguous: martyrein with the dative can mean either
'give witness for' or 'give witness against,' and thaumazein can mean
either 'be enthusiastic about,' or 'be shocked at.' The continuation of
the pericope shows that the words must be interpreted in malam partam.
In that case, the interpretation of ['concerning the words of grace'] (v.
22) must be: the people of Nazareth are shocked that Jesus quotes the
words of grace from Isaiah 61 to preach about, and omits the mention
46
of vengeance, although it occurred in the t e x t .
Jeremias' careful reading of the Greek text is doubtless correct in the

initial negative reaction of the congregation in Nazareth towards Jesus'
reading. Nevertheless, Jeremias overlooked the fact that Jesus' 'gracious'
citation of Isa. 61.1-2 has been reinforced by his creative fusion of this
passage with its exegetical pair from Isa. 58.5-6.
We now understand more clearly the bafflement of the crowd: 'Is this
47
not Joseph's son?' In other words, 'Has he not lived and been taught
among us?' Jesus' provocative reading that Sabbath day in Nazareth
challenged their rigid narrowness regarding God's redemptive designs.
Jesus embraced the pioneering trends in first-century Jewish thought.
Those innovations took to task the older ideas of divine justice.
Contemporary recognition of universal human frailty brought into
question the community's ability to determine in simplistic categories
the identity of the just and the unjust. In an earlier study, Flusser noted
that according to the new sensitivity within Judaism of the Second
Commonwealth, it was recognized that, 'there are no perfect righteous
and no completely wicked men - for in every human heart the noble and
48
the base impulse are vying with each other'.
The effect of this new thinking bore consequences on the ethics of Jesus.
46 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. 206-7.
47 Mark's parallel clearly represents a 'Christian' hesitation to the Lukan patronymic. V.
Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1957), pp. 299-300.
48 D. Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message', Judaism and
the Origins of Christianity, pp. 469-89 (480).
In his estimation one was in danger judging from a position of assumed

self-righteousness. 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the
same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you
49
use, it will be measured to you' (Mt. 7.1-2). In the same spirit, Jesus'
creative reading of Isaiah tempered his hearers' eagerness for harsh and
precipitous judgement.
The biblical illustrations of the widow of Zarephath (Lk. 4.25-26; 1 Kgs
17.8-16) and Naaman (Lk. 4.27; 2 Kgs 5.1-27) were intended to
underscore his challenge to the Nazareth congregation's impatience for
divine vengeance upon the unrighteous. Can it be a coincidence that both
of these biblical figures were non-Israelites, and thus reckoned outside the
covenant God established with his people Israel? Yet, among the vast
array of human needs existing in their day, God focused his attention and
divine care on these - the unrighteous. Jesus demonstrated that even in the
biblical past the simplistic categories of righteous and sinner (or deserving
and undeserving) could not withstand the weight of God's mercy. So also
in the present era of God's redemptive economy: 'He makes his sun rise on
the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust'
50
(Mt. 5.45). Jesus exhorts his family and friends in Nazareth - just as we
hear more succinctly later - 'Be merciful even as your father is merciful'
(Lk. 6.36).
In this study, I have tried to illuminate not only what Jesus said, but
how he communicated his provocative ideas through a creative handling
of biblical texts. These two aspects of Jesus' teaching are inextricably
linked. Through the window of a single New Testament episode, we have
gained insight into how Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries employed
sacred texts with creative ingenuity to grapple with the complex issues of
their day. Yet, we should not be naive. Fresh ideas are rarely welcome.
Entrenched biases die hard. Flusser conjectured regarding the emerging
humanistic tendencies: '(these new trends) would have drawn much
51
contemporary criticism and even charges of heresy'. His estimation aptly
describes the response in Nazareth.
The conflict in Nazareth, therefore, was not a 'rejection of Jesus' per se.
His was only one voice. Instead, we witness within first-century Jewish
society the internal struggle with innovative, even revolutionary ideas
being advocated by Israel's sages and Jesus. It is the weakness of human
nature to want to hold on to the old, simple categories. Their dissolution
49 This is likewise the opinion of Hillel: 'Do not judge your neighbor until you come into
his place' (m.Abot 2.5; cf. b.Shab. 31a).
50 See a similar saying by R. Abbahu: 'Greater is the day of rainfall than the day of
resurrection. For the latter benefits only the pious, whereas the former benefits pious and
sinners alike' (b.Ta'an. 7a).
51 Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity', p. 482.
means that one must now examine more intently one's own desperate need
for God's mercy and forgiveness. The spiritual challenges of the first
century are both timeless and human - they remain with us. The message
from Nazareth is a caution to remain vigilant against ungodly prejudices
and the comfortable gravitation to easy categories. At the same time, it
extends the promise of heavenly blessing to the willing: 'Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy' (Mt. 5.7).
Chapter 4
T H E M A G N I F I C A T A M O N G T H E B I B L I C A L N A R R A T I V E - S E T P S A L M S
Scot Becker
Introduction
A conspicuous feature of the infancy narrative of Luke's Gospel is that it
contains several passages which follow linguistic conventions normally
associated with biblical Hebrew poetry. These Lukan passages have a
concentration of what Kugel calls linguistic 'heightening features'. In
particular they show a consistent pattern of two-part lines where the latter
1
part completes, or 'seconds' the former. The passages in question tend
toward the compactness of Hebrew poetry, and make use of its
characteristic syntactical patterns and conventional language. In addition,
all are direct speech, set off from the narrating line by the common lexical
and syntactic markers of embedded discourse.
Both annunciations fall into this category (Lk.l.13-17 and 1.30-33, 35),
as does the beginning of Elizabeth's greeting to Mary in 1.42 ('Blessed are
you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!') Such poetic
speech can also be found in four expressions of praise, the so-called
'canticles' of Luke's infancy narrative, found on the lips of Mary (1.46-
I would like to thank the participants of the 2007 gathering of the International
Postgraduate Theological Symposium (Prague) who gave feedback on an earlier draft of this
paper, which was then printed as a part of the conference proceedings in Parus Parusev,
Ovidiu Creanga and Brian Brock, Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European Reasoning:
Proceedings of the Third Annual Theological Symposium (Prague: IBTS Publishing, 2007),
pp. 131-40.
1 In KugeFs understanding it is 'seconding' which is constitutive of Hebrew biblical
poetic heightening, rather than parallelism itself: 'The parallelistic style in the Bible consists
not of stringing together clauses that bear some semantic, syntactic or phonetic resemblance,
nor yet of "saying the same thing twice," but of the sequence / / / i n which B is
both a continuation of A and yet broken from it by a pause, a typically emphatic,
"seconding" style in which parallelism plays an important part, but whose essence is not
parallelism, but the "seconding sequence."' (James L . Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry:
Parallelism and Its History [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], pp. 53-4.) For
the purposes of this essay, 'poetic' and 'poetry' are used for spans of discourse with a high
concentration of such two-part lines, terse syntax and frequent semantic parallelism.
BECKER The Magnificat 61
55), Zechariah (1.68-79), the angelic host (2.14), and Simeon (2.29-32). As
poetic expressions of praise within an otherwise prose narration, the
literary form of these canticles is virtually unique in New Testament
2
literature.
Genre and the Canticles

The lack of early Christian points of comparison makes it particularly
difficult to answer an important interpretative question, raised by the
canticles' uniqueness: what sort of generic expectations should we
understand these passages against? Are the conventions we associate
with the genre of 'Gospel' (however we identify those) sufficient, or do we
3
need to take other, additional generic features into account? Should we
treat 'canticle' as an inset genre, (as we might do with 'parable' or 'woe
pronouncement') with its own set of literary conventions which both the
Lukan author and his historical readers might have been expected to
know?
The lack of New Testament parallels to the canticles does not leave us
at a dead end, however. There are several similar passages within the
Jewish Scriptures, a collection in which Luke shows more than a passing
4
literary and theological interest. In fact, Luke's broad appropriation of a
2 The only significant analogue in the Gospels is the shout of the people at Jesus' entry
into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.9; Mk 11.9-10; Lk. 19.38; Jn 12.13), which has discernible poetic
sequencing in all four accounts. As an allusion to Ps. 118, the Lukan version does serve as an
expression of joy at the 'royal entry' of Jesus, and so is a kind of praise. See Joel B. Green,
The Gospel of Luke (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 686-7. Outside the
Gospels, the closest equivalents in the New Testament are the songs of Revelation (4.8b, 11;
5.9-10, 12, 13; etc.).
3 We are working with a concept of genre akin to Fowler's concept of the iocal
inclusion' of one genre within another. Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction
to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), pp. 179-81. A concept of
genre which operates on parts of a work is necessary for the Gospels, if for no other reason
than the prominence of direct speech, which by its very nature enables the possibility of the
'inclusion' of a genre within another.
4 The following is a partial list of the intertextual activities which can be seen in the
Lukan infancy narrative alone: (1) The narrative is explicitly set within the biblical account of
God's covenantal attention to Israel. (2) The Lukan narrative imitates biblical stories,
particularly the birth stories in the patriarchal narratives and those of Samson and Samuel
(see Green, Luke, pp. 52-8). (3) Typology: Jesus will be the Davidic king; John will be a new
Elijah. (4) Septuagintal linguistic features (parataxis, other 'Semitisms'), (H. F. D. Sparks,
'The Semitisms of Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 [1943]: 129-38; Bruce Chilton, God in Strength:
Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom [Freistadt, Austria: Plochl, 1979], esp. pp. 123-77. For
recent discussion on Luke's use of the Jewish Scriptures, see Dietrich Rusam, Das Alte
Testament bei Lukas [BZNW, 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003] and Kenneth Litwak, Echoes of
Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People Intertextually [JSNTSup, 282;
London: T & T Clark International, 2005]).
wide range of biblical linguistic and narrative features - to say nothing of

his allusion to specific texts - provides more than enough initial reason for
a careful comparison between Luke's parallelistic praise expressions and
5
those found in Jewish scriptural narrative.
This study starts from James Watts' proposal that these psalm-like
passages in the Jewish Scriptures do indeed constitute an identifiable
6
literary convention with visible narrative roles. In particular, I develop
his idea of a rhetorical function for this literary convention, namely that
these psalms in narrative contexts encourage a particular kind of
participation in readers. I develop the concept of this function with
respect to the so-called Song of the Sea (Exod. 15.1-18), before turning to
the Lukan infancy narrative, where I suggest the significance of this
convention for the reading of Mary's Magnificat. The concluding
discussion explores some of the hermeneutical issues raised by the
suggestion of the reader's participation in the narrative-set hymns.
My argument with respect to the Magnificat will be that the canticle
functions in the Lukan discourse in a manner that has important elements
in common with Jewish and Christian liturgy. By its inclusion, the author
of the Gospel of Luke is making use of a literary convention found in the
Jewish Scriptures to present the reader with an opportunity to appropriate
the significance of the surrounding narrative, and to actualize it in
performative words which are taken up alongside Mary as the reader's
own prayer.
5 The other meaningful points of comparison are of course those Second Temple Jewish
works which likewise take up the same convention. These must unfortunately remain outside
the scope of the present study: Add. Dan.; Jdt. 16.1-17; Tob. 3.11-15; 8.5-7, 15-17; 11.14-15;
13.1-17, and Pseudo-Philo's versions of the songs of Deborah and Hannah (cf. 1 Mace. 2.7-
13). For related conventions in Greek literature, see James W. Watts, Psalm and Story. Inset
Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 215. Recent
treatments of biblical poetry outside the Psalter include: Susan E. Gillingham, Poems and
Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994),
esp. pp. 137-69; Steven Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a
Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1997); Hans-Peter Mathys, Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus
spdtalttestamentischen Zeit (OBO, 132; Freiberg: Universitatsverlag, 1994).
6 James Watts, Psalm and Story; idem, ' "This Song": Conspicuous Poetry in Hebrew
Prose', in Johannes de Moot (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42;
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993), pp. 345-58 (esp. 353-5; idem, 'Biblical Psalms Outside
the Psalter', in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds), Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception
(VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 288-309. Watts uses the term 'narrative role' where I use
'rhetorical role', but at this point it is a difference in terminology only. In both cases we are
speaking of the text's relationship to the reader.
The Narrative-Set Hymn as a Literary Device

As we said above, the Magnificat has a number of significant formal
parallels in the Jewish Scriptures. In a 1992 study on psalms in narrative
contexts in the Hebrew Bible, Watts identified nine passages which he calls
7
'inset psalms'.
1 Exodus 15.1-18 (Song of the Sea)
2 Deuteronomy 32.1-43 (Song of Moses)
3 Judges 5 (Song of Deborah)
4 1 Samuel 2.1-10 (Song of Hannah)
5 2 Samuel 22 (David's Thanksgiving)
6 Isaiah 38. 9-20 (Hezekiah's Psalm)
7 Jonah 2.3-10 (Jonah's Psalm)
8 Daniel 2.20-23 (A brief poetic praise offered by Daniel)
9 1 Chronicles 16.8-36 (Song of Asaph)
8
Watts' list could be modified in various ways, but it is a good starting
point for comparison with the Magnificat, since its extent is established by
reasonably straightforward formal criteria: (1) each of the nine passages is
a poetic composition within an otherwise prose narration, (2) each is
direct speech, spoken by one of the story's dramatis personae and (3) each
9
contains an expression of praise. 1 take these psalms in narrative contexts
as both models for Luke's use of the canticles and the best heuristic
examples for understanding the canticles' narrative role.
The Rhetorical Function of Narrative-Set Psalms

Several of the psalms in biblical narrative contexts (Exod. 15; Deut. 32;
Jdg. 5; 1 Sam. 2; 2 Sam. 22; 1 Chron. 16) are found at or near the end of
10
the narrative blocks that contain them. The tensions of the plot are
resolved, frequently in a way that reveals God's particular attention
11
toward Israel or its representatives. Watts finds the use of psalms at or
7 I use 'psalm', 'hymn', 'song' broadly of these passages. My argument does not turn on
any precise definition of them. I do, however, prefer to call them 'narrative-set', since (to my
ear) it relaxes the association with the putative editorial act of 'insetting' external material.
The compositional history of these passages should be decided on an individual basis (as
Watts does).
8 See Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 14-16 for a longer discussion of his criteria for
inclusion.
9 'They contain either an imperative invocation to praise God, an indicative statement
of praise to God, both, or a promise of praise or worship to God' (Watts, Psalm and Story,
p. 15).
10 Watts, 'This Song', p. 353.
11 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 186-9.
just after climactic moments to be evidence of a particular literary

convention (later taken up, for example, in Jdt. 16 and Tob. 13) in which
the reader is invited to respond to the glad resolution of the story: 'poetry
in this position invites readers to join in the celebration, an effect which is
12
especially strong in the victory songs of Exod 15, Judg 5 and Jdt 16'. It is
this proposal that we will explore with respect to Exodus 15 and evaluate
for the Magnificat.
We will attempt this task from a hermeneutical perspective, which
assumes that texts, like other acts of human communication, have social
roles. Texts are transactional, and therefore textual discourses are
rhetorical, a term which I use to mean 'the means by which a text
establishes and manages its relationship to its audience in order to achieve
13
a particular effect'.
The Song of the Sea

As noted above, the Song of the Sea comes after the main tensions of the
plot have been resolved, in particular those raised by the description of
Israel's oppression in Exod. 1.8-14, and the report of God hearing the cry
of the Israelites in their slavery and 'remembering his covenant' in 2.23-25.
Together with Miriam's Song (Exod. 15.21), w . 1-18 conclude the
14
account of the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 14.1-15.21). These two songs
also conclude both the story of the departure from Egypt (12.37-15.21)
and the first major section of the book of Exodus, the account of Israel's
slavery in Egypt (1.1-15.21) before the entry into the wilderness (15.22).
The prose account of the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 14) moves from a
successful escape from Egypt to the realization of certain death at the
hands of Pharaoh's army. From there it tells of the crossing of the sea and
the destruction of the Egyptian army. It ends with these words:
Thus YHWH saved Israel that day from the Egyptians; and Israel saw
the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Israel saw the great work that
YHWH did against the Egyptians. So the people feared YHWH and
believed in YHWH and in his servant Moses. (14.30-31)
Thus, the reader who has until this point had to proceed through the
account by inference and deduction is now granted an authoritative (i.e.,
narrator-given) assessment of the Red Sea crossing: YHWH saved Israel.
12 Ibid., p. 187.
13 Dale Patrick and Alan Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: Almond
Press, 1990), p. 12. This is basically a pragmatic or functionalist theory of language, as
quintessentially expressed in J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson
and M. Sbisa; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975).
14 On the 'Red' vs. 'Reed' Sea in Exodus, see, convincingly, Bernard F. Batto, 'The Reed
Sea: Requiescat in Pace', JBL 102 (1983): 27-35.
Since this will be the content of the song (15.2), the reader is here given the
same insight as the singers have.
The first half of the song (15.1-12) retells the story of the watery demise
of Egypt's army. The beginning of this account (15.1-2) contains a general
(i.e., not situation-specific) expression of praise to YHWH: 'YHWH is my
strength and my song, and he has become my salvation. This is my God,
15
and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him' (v. 2). Verses
15.3-10 then narrate Pharaoh's fall, which resolves into a doxological
16
comparison in v. 11 ('Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?') The
effect is that the hymn fits plausibly within the narrative of the book of the
Exodus, but the general, even liturgical elements which begin and end this
first stanza suggest an affinity with Israel's tradition of cultic praise, and
thus presumably with the cultic practice of both the editor and reader of
Exodus.
Beginning in v. 13, the song begins to speak of the conquest of Canaan,
which, of course, in the scheme of pentateuchal chronology is still to
come. The song's speakers have yet to experience YHWH leading them
past the nations (Philistines, Edomites, Moabites and Canaanites, 15.14-
16) to 'the mountain of your possession, the place, YHWH, that you
made your dwelling, the sanctuary, YHWH, that your hands have
established' (15.17-18). According to Watts:
The psalm moves from the temporal perspective of the narrative, in
which the land's settlement lies in the future, to that of the readers, for
whom it is in the past. The effect of the move is to allow the readers to
17
join in the celebration of the sea from their own temporal perspective.
Thus the narrative summary in 14.30-31, the traditional liturgical quality
of some of the expressions of praise, and the temporal perspective of the
hymn all serve to give the hymn a certain proximity to the ideal (ancient
Israelite) reader's own frame of reference.
Characterization
Another clue to the rhetorical effect of Exodus 15 is what the hymn adds
to the characterization of its speakers within the narrative. At the
beginning of Exodus, the seventy (Gen. 46.27) who came down to live
with Joseph in Egypt have become the bene yisrael, the 'children of Israel'
(Exod. 1.7), a collective narrative figure with an initially sympathetic
narrative portrayal. They are heirs to the promises of Genesis and have an
implied claim on the royal protection given to Joseph. They prosper in
their adopted country, even under 'a new king . . . who did not know
15 Cf. Pss. 22.22; 35.18; 43.4; 69.30; 71.16; 109.30; 119.7; 146.2; Isa. 25.1.
16 Cf. Pss. 35.10; 71.19; 113.5.
17 Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 51.
Joseph' (Exod. 1.8). The Israelites' fear of God is represented in the

presence of Pharaoh by two midwives who defy the royal decree and
refuse to kill the male Hebrew infants. As a nation, they cry out to God in
their oppression (2.23), which from the perspective of the story is an
18
appropriate response to their plight.
However there is a shift in the book's portrayal of them. As Exodus
progresses, Israel is increasingly cast more negatively: as stubborn, afraid,
idolatrous, doubtful (14.9-12) and most recently, bitter ('Weren't there
enough graves in Egypt for us?!' 14.11). But their hymn shows that -
whatever else may be true of them - they are capable of spontaneous,
19
grateful praise.
The characterization of Israel in Exodus has a particular rhetorical
significance for the book. This is because the book of Exodus (as arguably
much of Jewish scriptural narrative) projects some concept of Israel as its
ideal reader. Certainly those who understand themselves in continuity
with the Israel of Exodus have been its readers in fact. The narrator of the
book of Exodus is both depicting the bene yisrael of the exodus as part of
the story and apparently composing a work to be heard by those who
understand themselves to be the heirs of that description. This makes it
possible for Exodus's actual readers to engage with the narrative as the
delivered ones. Indeed it would require a deliberate act of distancing for
them to do otherwise.
The case that identification with the Israelites of the exodus is part of
the rhetorical effect of the book of Exodus is strengthened by two
additional pieces of evidence, to which we now turn: (1) the significant
place that the exodus event occupies within the Jewish scriptural texts and
(2) the reception of the exodus in later Jewish practice.
The Exodus Tradition in the Hebrew Bible
The events of the exodus have a particular prominence in the worldview of

ancient Israel and therefore in its national rhetoric. If the Song of the Sea
(as is commonly supposed) is in fact among the earliest compositions of
the Hebrew Bible, then the narrative and liturgical memory of the delivery
from Egypt appears in a range of texts whose chronological span easily
18 The narrator's approval of their cry is indicated by the fact that God 'looked upon the
Israelites and took notice of them' (2:25). As with biblical narrators generally, the narrator of
Exodus adopts a perspective on events, that is indistinguishable from God's own. On
omniscient narrators, see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological
Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 84.
19 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 51-2.
rivals any other biblical event. The events from Moses' first audience
with Pharaoh to the crossing of the Red Sea - often seen as a single divine
act - are cited and celebrated in a variety of biblical literature as YHWH's
21
prototypical victory on Israel's behalf. The following review of a few of
those biblical citations of the event is made with the intent of showing how
readily the exodus event is used liturgically and rhetorically.
The book of Exodus itself places the memory of the deliverance from
Egypt in prominent narrative positions. A celebrative recounting of the
exodus is anticipated even before the actual escape itself. YHWH tells
Moses that he has hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and his officials 'in
order to set these my signs within him, and so that you may recount to the
ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of Egypt and the
signs which I set among them - so that you may know that I am YHWH'
(Exod. 10.1-2). Later, the institution of the Passover also includes a
retelling of the events. ('You shall tell your son on that day, "It is because
of what YHWH did for me when I came out of Egypt."' Exod. 13.8). In
this way, the Israelites (and so the implied Israelite readers) are given an
account of the significance of the exodus for generations yet to come.
This calls to mind the rhetorical stance of Deuteronomy, which
identifies the Israel of its own narrative with that of Sinai/Horeb: 'YHWH
our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did
YHWH make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive
today' (Deut. 5.2-3). Both Exodus's explicit attention to coming gener
ations and Deuteronomy's insistence on the contemporaneity of the
covenant are devices which serve to identify the pentateuchal narrators'
implied audience with the Israel of their narratives.
The Rhetoric of Exodus in the Psalter
Several psalms also recount the Red Sea events as raw material for praise.
Psalm 77, a psalm of individual distress, ends with the following account
of YHWH's deeds, in which he is given glory for the crossing of the Red
Sea:
15
With your strong arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. (Selah)
16
When the waters saw you, O God,
when the waters saw you, they were afraid;
the very deep trembled...
20 For the arguments for an early date, see Frank Cross, Jr., 'Song of the Sea and
Canaanite Myth', JTC 5 (1968): 1-25.
21 William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation and Commentary (AB; New
York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 803.
Your way was through the sea,

your path, through the mighty waters;
yet your footprints were unseen.
You led your people like a flock
by the hand of Moses and Aaron, (NRSV)
Psalm 136 also lists the exodus and Red Sea crossing in its list of
praises, giving thanks to YHWH:
1 3
Who divided the Red Sea in two,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
1 4
and made Israel pass through the midst of it,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
1 5
but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea,
22
for his steadfast love endures forever, (NRSV)
The compression of the Red Sea event and the entry into the promised
land as a single divine movement is expressed in Psalm 114:
1
When Israel went out from Egypt
The house of Jacob from a people of strange language...
3
The sea saw and fled;
The Jordan turned backward.
4
The mountains skipped like rams,
The hills like lambs.
5
Why is it, O sea, that you flee,
Jordan, that you turn back? (NRSV)
The celebration of the exodus continues in late biblical literature. In
Nehemiah, we find the following in Ezra's prayer of national confession:
'And you saw the distress of our ancestors in Egypt and heard their cry at
the Red Sea. You set signs and wonders upon Pharaoh and his officials
and upon all the people of his land . . . and made yourself a name' (Neh.
9.9-10).
The Postbiblical Reception of the Exodus Event

An example of this kind of direct self-identification with the Israelites of
the Torah - in this case exactly with the exodus and the crossing - can be
found in the Qumran document 4Q504, the so-called Words of the
Luminaries. It is a communal prayer, which identifies those praying with
(as?) the ones whom God delivered:
[..Rejmember, please, that all of us are your people. You have lifted us
wonderfully [upon the wings of] eagles and you have brought us to you.
And like the eagle which watches its nest, circles [over its chicks,]
stretches its wings, takes one and carries it upon [its pinions] [...]
22 Also see Pss. 66.6, 78.13, 135.8.

[...] we remain aloof and one does not count us among the nations. And
[...] Y o u are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud [...]
your [hol]y [...] walks in front of us, and your glory is in [our] midst [...]
2 3
the face of Moses, [your] serv[ant .. . ]
The passage alludes to YHWH's words to Israel in Exod. 19.3-6 ('You

have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle's
wings', cf. Deut. 32.11), as well as to the column of fire and cloud in Exod.
13.21-22, and to the 'face of Moses' (Exod. 34.34-35). Those for whom the
prayer was written pray as the Israel of the exodus, thanking YHWH for
his continued covenanted protection of them.
Even apart from its specific engagement with the exodus itself, this
Qumran text is witness to two processes that are relevant to our reading of
Exodus 15. First, it presents a Jewish community who identifies itself with
the Israelites of the Torah ('you have lifted us wonderfully on the wings of
eagles . . . You are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud').
Second, it uses the biblical events as the basis of its own thanksgiving. The
deliverance of the exodus is superimposed onto themselves. Like the
authors of Psalms 77, 114 and 136, those who prayed the Words of the
Luminaries see their own experience according to the pattern of the
exodus deliverance.
In addition to the liturgical afterlives in which the exodus features, the
Song of the Sea is also generally thought to have had a liturgical role prior
24
to its inclusion in its present narrative context, presumably originating
25
in the Israelite cult. For our purposes the hypothesis that the hymn had
an independent cultic existence fits nicely with the proposal that it 'works'
as liturgical prayer, even for those readers and hearers who are
generations or centuries away from the events it celebrates.
The rhetorical thrust of Exodus, the liturgical and doxological use made
of the exodus theme elsewhere in the. Scriptures, and the post-biblical
reception of the event all support the suggestion that the song in Exodus
15 could function as a site of special existential involvement for the reader.
23 As translated in Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), The

Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:1009. Aside from the content -
prayers and doxologies whose first-person references are consistently plural - the preserved
marginalia and headings reveal this as an apparently liturgical text. See Esther Chazon,
'4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?' RevQ 15 (1991): 447-55.
24 Propp, Exodus 1-18, pp. 562-3.
25 See B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), p. 246. The reference in 15.17 to the 'sanctuary
pTJjpD] established by your hands' located 'on the mountain of your possession' is frequently
taken as a reference to the Jerusalem temple (J. D. W. Watts, 'The Song of the Sea - Ex. X V
VT1 [1957]: 379-80; J. Muilenburg, 'A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh', in W. C. van
Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds), Studia Biblica et Semitica (Festschrift T. C. Wriezen;
Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1966), pp. 233-51 (249).
We will now see if there are indications of similar rhetorical dynamics in

the Lukan infancy narrative.
The Magnificat
The beginning of the Gospel of Luke unfolds not so much as a biography
26
of Jesus, but as a narrative of God's activity within Israel. Mary's hymn
is uttered in the midst of this unfolding divine activity, responding both
implicitly and explicitly to the divine message delivered in the three
preceding scenes: the annunciation to Zechariah, the annunciation to
Mary herself and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Each of these scenes adds to
the reader's growing sense of the significance of the events of Luke's story.
In the two opening scenes, Zechariah and Mary each receive an angelic
announcement regarding the birth of a child. According to the angel,
Zechariah's son John will be 'filled with the Holy Spirit from birth', and
will 'turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God'. He will 'go
before him' (cf. Mai. 3.1) and 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous' (cf. Mai. 3.24). The
angel's words proclaim that Israel's God will arrive, and that John will
precede that arrival with his own work, which the angel describes as
'making ready for the Lord a people prepared' (1.17). According to the
angel's announcement, Zechariah's son will be a prophet in the tradition
of those in the Jewish Scriptures.
The announcement to Mary is shorter, but its assertions about what is
now underway go even further. God will give her son 'the throne of his
ancestor David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of
his kingdom there will be no end' (1.32-33). Like the announcement to
John, this is an overwhelmingly eschatological announcement: Israel's
27
God is acting within history to deliver the nation.
When Elizabeth and Mary meet (1.39-56), Elizabeth's welcome serves
to express her wonder at the new activity of God: 'Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb... Blessed is she who
believed that there would be a fulfillment of that which was spoken to her
by the Lord' (1.42, 45). It is in response to this greeting that the
28
Magnificat is spoken. The context is the announcement of an
eschatological work of God, wherein a new prophet will precipitate a
26 Green, Luke, pp. 52, 292.

27 Green, Luke, pp. 59, 78.
28 Against the suggestion that Elizabeth should be understood as the speaker of the
Magnificat see S. Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and
Significance (JSNTSup, 9; Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 108-13, and U. Mittmann-
Richert, Magnifikat und Benediktus: Die dltesten Zeugnisse der judenchristlichen Tradition von
der Geburt des Messias (WUNT, 2/90; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 55, 95-6.
national repentance ('many in Israel will turn') and God will re-establish
his covenantal rule over Israel through a new Davidic king.
According to Mittmann-Richert, Mary's act of speaking this psalm
represents her recognition of salvation (Heilserkenntniss). In a Gospel
where the recognition of Jesus and the salvation which arrives through
2 9
him is an important motif, it would be odd indeed, she contends, if we
did not also find such recognition just here, where God's deliverance is
first revealed to be underway. 'Luke could not put the Magnificat at any
other place than exactly here, where the mother of the yet unborn
messianic child recognizes her son as her own and the world's redeemer
and steps into the new eon in conscious recognition of this redemptive
30
deed'.
In this way, the song functions much like the Song of the Sea, which
also serves as an expression of Heilserkenntniss. Both songs are essentially
responses to the saving activity of Israel's God. In fact, like the Song of
the Sea, the Magnificat celebrates YHWH as a warrior (Exod. 15.3). In
Exodus, Israel's God fights on behalf of those who 'groaned under their
slavery and cried out' (Exod. 2.23). In Luke, he defeats the powerful and
proud on behalf of the iowly' (1.52), the 'hungry' (1.53) and the nation
itself (1.54). In both cases, God 'overthrows' the powerful (mn.Exod.
15.7; Ka9ccip£co: Lk. 1.52) with the strength of his arm (Exod. 15.16, Lk.
1.51). This idea of God protecting Israel by defeating its enemies is taken
up even more explicitly in Zechariah's Benedictus (Lk. 1.68-79).
The Magnificat has a conspicuous structural similarity to many of the
canonical psalms. It begins with an opening declaration of praise and
follows that with the grounds for this praise: 'My soul magnifies the Lord
. . . for he has looked with favor' (1.46-47). This is the quintessential
formula of Israelite praise, found in nearly all of the hymns and
31
thanksgiving songs in the Psalter. It is not hard to see how Mary's hymn
would have a particularly liturgical resonance for those whose communal
prayers included these psalms.
Strictly speaking, its narrative context makes Mary's song hers alone.
She thanks God that he has looked with favour on his servant ( T %
SouArjs OCUTOU:1.48) and for what he has done for her (1.49). Wherever the
29 Mittmann-Richert argues that the recognition motif in Luke is considerably more

important than in Matthew or Mark, see Magnifikat und Benediktus, pp. 39-40, 233.
30 Mittman-Richert, Magnifikat und Benediktus, p. 233.
31 'While a hymn of praise can be elaborated in various ways, its basic structure is clear
and consistent. There is either a declaration of praise or a call to praise God (or both) and a
reason that is set forth to indicate why praise is appropriate and indeed compelling and
unavoidable' (Patrick D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986],
p. 69). On the basis of this similarity, the Magnificat has been classified form-critically as an
'eschatological hymn' (Gunkel, Mowinckel) and a 'declarative psalm of praise'
(Westermann). See discussion in Farris, Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives, pp. 67-85.
psalm may have come from (and the non-Lukan theories are nearly all
32
liturgical), it cannot be a completely open-ended liturgical prayer as it
now stands.
The Possibilities for Participation

It would not be quite right to stop there, however. Quite apart from the
Christian liturgical tradition of praying the Lukan canticles, Jewish and
Christian use of the Psalter is evidence that 'pinning' a psalm to a
particular historical voice in particular circumstances does not prohibit its
33
liturgical use. The historical superscriptions of the Psalter (which are
34
generally taken to be secondary to the psalms themselves), and even the
simple attributions ('of David', 'of Asaph') bear witness to this. In fact if
the superscriptions were added to psalms in a collection, which was
already in communal use, they may be evidence of the opposite tendency:
a desire (on the part of the Psalms' redactor) for the community to take up
prayers which are associated with the heroes of the faith.
The very existence of the collection of biblical psalms, along with what
we know about their use over some 3,000 years bears witness to the
flexibility of the voice of the psalms and the ability of that voice to be
appropriated. The same might be said of these canticles. Within the
context of Luke, 'he has done great things for me' is a specifically Marian
prayer. She (and not any Lukan reader) will become the mother of the
Davidic royal Messiah. Anyone who would subsequently pray those
words themselves has to take them up alongside Mary, but this is no more
challenging than a healthy person praying the biblical complaints of the
sick, or a Jew in exile asking blessing on the Davidic king, or a synagogue
community of the diaspora praying a psalm of the exile.
One consequence of the fact that the narrative-set hymns are invariably
direct speech is that their words are particularly easy to reuse in
communal or individual prayer. The canticles come pre-formed, so that as
far as morphology and syntax are concerned, they 'fit' in the mouth of
anyone who sees fit to revoice them. The same is true only in a much more
limited sense of narrative discourse itself. It can be reused without
syntactic changes only as narrative discourse, and therefore only in a
limited range of real-world settings. Direct speech, on the other hand, can
32 For a survey of the proposed options, see Mittmann-Richert, Magnifikat und

Benediktus, pp. 63-100.
33 Note that both the Song of the Sea and the Magnificat are included in the Book of
Odes, a collection of psalms from narrative contexts which began to be appended to the LXX
Psalter in the fifth century CE.
34 See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Milton C.
Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 22-3.
be repurposed in any context which the new speaker takes as corres

ponding to the old one, any context, in fact, where the words can be made
to 'fit'.
It is the communal role of the texts containing these narrative-set
hymns, which makes the concept of 'repurposing' relevant to our present
discussion. It is not unreasonable to suppose, in the case of the Pentateuch
- and for that matter of Luke within early Christianity - that these books
had a scriptural, or proto-canonical, status among the communities who
kept and read them.
In such contexts where the words of the text are respected, and within
communities which understand themselves to be in historical and
therefore covenantal continuity with the people in the story, it is not at
all odd that such communal readers might be inclined to let the words
spoken in their stories echo in their own circumstances, particularly when
they understand the relevant feature of their circumstances to be the same,
namely an ancestral covenant between themselves and Israel's God.
Within a tradition like that of the earliest Church to which Luke and his
readers belonged, a tradition which maintained contact with biblical
35
liturgical prayers, Mary's words too are prayable words. As we have
said, the Magnificat is Mary's prayer, but the tradition Luke has
appropriated ensures that the Magnificat can also be voiced as the prayer
of another, namely any reader who stands in the line of descent which
begins with Mary and Elizabeth, the first of many to believe the
announcement from heaven regarding the Davidic Messiah in Mary's
womb.
Conclusion
I have argued with respect to Exodus 15, that for readers who understand
themselves in continuity with the Israel of the story, the psalm works as a
way for them to liturgically appropriate the event of deliverance described
in the preceding narrative. To that I now add a similar conclusion for
Mary's song: whatever else the Magnificat does in the Gospel of Luke, it
has a specific function for readers who understand themselves in
continuity with those in Luke's birth story. For readers who follow
Mary in her reception of the angelic words about her son, her song
presents them with first-person words of prayer by which they too can
welcome the annunciation of the angel, and with it the rest of the good
news according to Luke.
35 Lk. 24.44; cf. Acts 16.25.

Chapter 5
A N ECHO OF MERCY
A REREADING OF THE PARABLE OF THE G O O D SAMARITAN
Nathan Lane
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10.25-37) stands among the most
often-remembered stories from Jesus' teaching. The message of exploding
social classes and religious associations for ancient and contemporary
times is far-reaching. This article will argue, however, that one of the main
characters of the story has been largely neglected. Readers have
traditionally understood the lawyer as simply either a foil for Jesus or
as a character that has been portrayed wholly negatively. This article will
argue that the lawyer is actually a dynamic character who eventually
understands the parable of Jesus. Luke marks the lawyer's understanding
by placing an Old Testament quotation in his mouth. This article will first
set up some parameters for determining an echo/quotation, and then use
those parameters to measure the lawyer's response to Jesus' parable.
Defining an Echo I Quotation

Finding a quotation or an echo of the OT in the NT are two radically
different things. Quotations can either be direct or indirect. Direct
quotations are marked by some type of introductory formula, such as Tt is
1
written' (e.g., Mt. 4.4; Lk. 19.46; Mk 14.27; Jn 6.45). These direct
quotations are the most easily found because of the volume of the
quotation and the quotation marker. Indirect quotations are not marked
1 For a fuller discussion of the markers of direct quotations see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The
Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), p. 3; and Christopher D.
Stanley, Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and
Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
pp. 65-6. See also Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's
Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), who analyses all of the explicit
quotations of Scripture by Jesus in Luke.
LANE An Echo of Mercy 75
by introductory formulae, but are still readily noticed by the volume of

the quotation (e.g., Gal. 3.6; 1 Cor. 15.32).
The most elusive type of quotation is the theological echo. These
quotations are the most difficult to define. When an echo is used, the NT
writers were not seeking to literally quote a text, but to capture the
theological ideas imagined in the original text. Richard B. Hays notes that
these echoes permeate the NT because the NT writers (and especially
2
Paul) were caught up in the symbolic field generated by the OT. Hays
rightly understands that the Scriptures of Israel dominated the early
Christian community. Not only did they find the meaning of who Jesus
was in these ancient texts, they also found a language suitable to sustain
the community. This was a community immersed in their texts. Thus all of
the texts generated by the community reflect, to differing degrees,
3
intertextuality with the OT.
Hays's Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul sets up some tentative
4
rules for finding allusions to the OT in the N T . The first rule that Hays
proposes is availability. Availability asks quite simply if the quoted
material was available to the writer. The second rule takes into account
volume. 'The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of
explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may
be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within
5
Scripture'. Third, recurrence takes into account how often a writer cites
or alludes to a text. If there are other places where a writer definitely
quotes a text then that strengthens the case that an echo is present in the
questionable passage. Thematic coherence is the fourth rule proposed by
Hays. This rule analyses how an allusion would fit in the context of a
2 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989), p. 15.
3 For a literary-theoretical analysis of the dialogic relationship between texts and
communities see Michael Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. Michael
Holquist; trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Slavic Series 1;
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Julia Kristeva, influenced by Bakhtin, has worked
upon the ideas of intertextuality and concludes that all texts are in dialogue with other texts.
She famously asserts that 'any text is the absorption and transformation of another' (Desire
in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [ed. L. S. Roudiez; trans. T. Gora, A.
Jardine and L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University, 1980], p. 66). Kristeva's ideas of
intertextuality differ from those of Hays. Hays seems to limit his idea of what constitutes a
'text' to written traditions, while Kristeva asserts that any number of cultural, social,
ideological, etc. ideas function as 'texts'.
4 Hays, Echoes, pp. 29-33. For entry into the scholarly dialogue surrounding Hays's
work see Kenneth D. Litwak, 'Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on
Paul's Use of the Old Testament', CRBS 6 (1998): 260-88 and Craig A. Evans and James A.
Sanders (eds), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993).
5 Hays, Echoes, p. 30.
passage. Simply, does it fit with the rest of what we know about the
author's theology? Fifth, the rule of historical plausibility guards against
those who want to read their agendas into the author of the text. For
example, Paul read as a first-century Jew, not a Lutheran or deconstruc-
tionist. Sixth, history of interpretation looks for others who have read the
passage as an echo. This rule is the least binding of the seven; the fact that
others have not heard the echo does not mean that it does not exist.
Lastly, satisfaction asks whether or not the proposed intertextual reading
6
makes sense to a community of competent readers.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

The second part of this paper will argue that Lk. 10.37 is an allusion to
Exod. 34.6-7. The argument will follow Hays's seven rules for identifying
an echo in Paul (availability, recurrence, volume, thematic coherence,
7
historical plausibility, history of interpretation, satisfaction) applying
them to an echo in the Gospel of Luke. The allusion has been missed by
interpreters. This study will show that hearing the echo will change the
meaning of the parable and the narrative surrounding it.
Availability
The criterion of availability holds that Luke must have had the text of
Exod. 34.6-7 available to him and that the audience of Luke must have
been familiar enough with the text to hear it. The fact that Luke uses
8
Scripture is widely held in scholarship. Some authors have even proposed
that Luke was writing to God-fearing gentiles. John Nolland bases his
9
commentary on the assumption that Luke's audience was God-fearers.
These God-fearers would have been familiar with the synagogue, liturgy
and traditions of the Jewish people. Joseph B. Tyson not only agrees with
Nolland that the implied reader is a God-fearer, but he gives seven further
10
characteristics of the implied reader. Two of these characteristics are
important for our study. First, 'The implied reader has a limited
6 It is important to note that these are not hard and fast rules; every echo does not have
to match each of these seven criteria. Instead they are given to help readers become attentive
to echoes and intertextual allusions.
7 The rule of history of interpretation will not be discussed because as stated earlier
interpreters of this passage have traditionally missed the echo.
8 Charles Kingsley Barret, 'Luke/Acts', in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson
(eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), pp. 205-19.
9 John Nolland, Luke 1-9.20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. xxxii.
10 Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press, 1992), pp. 35-9.
knowledge of both pagan and Jewish religions, an aversion to some pagan
11
practices, and an attraction to Jewish religious life'. Second, 'the implied
reader is familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek translation
and acknowledges their authoritative status but is not familiar with those
methods of interpretation that find their fulfillment of the scriptures in
12
Jesus'. Thus, the implied reader is familiar with the LXX and familiar
with Jewish religious practices.
One of the central texts of the OT is Exod. 34.6-7. Literarily, the text
comes in a very tumultuous time for the ancient Israelites. Shortly after
the giving of the covenant in Exodus 20, the people apostatize and
worship the golden calf (Exod. 32). Exodus 33-34 records an intense
dialogue between Moses and YHWH concerning the future of the
covenant people. YHWH eventually concedes to have mercy on the
people and renew the covenant. Moses requests to see YHWH's glory, but
is only granted a glimpse at God's back. The Lord hides Moses in a rock.
As YHWH passes by Moses, YHWH proclaims:
The Lord is God, compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and full of
mercy and truth. He keeps righteousness and gives mercy to the
thousandth generation, taking away iniquity, unrighteousness and sin.
But he does not make clean the guilty, bringing the sins of the fathers to
the children and the children's children even to the third and fourth
generation.
The significance of this passage comes as YHWH gives Moses divine
attributes related to God's dealings with his people. These attributes
become important for future OT writers in their discussion of YHWH's
13
covenant faithfulness. The passage is quoted so much that some have
14
called it the 'adjectival credo' of the ancient Israelites.
In addition to the importance of its content, the numerous repetitions of
the credo in the Old Testament also bear witness to its significant place in
ancient Israelite religion. Parallels of Exod. 34.6-7 are seen in each of the
three major sections of the OT. In the Torah, major parallels occur in
Exod. 20.4; Num. 14.18-19 and Deut. 5.9-10. In the Prophets, there are
parallels in Jer. 39.18; Jon. 4.2; Joel 2.13 and Nah. 1.2, 3. The Writings
11 Tyson, Images, p. 36.

12 Tyson, Images, p. 36.
13 Thomas Raitt has seen over twenty parallels to Exod. 34.6-7 in the OT: Thomas Raitt,
'Why Does God Forgive?' HBT 13 (1991): 38-45.
14 Walter Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), p. 215. See also G. E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical
Theology as Recital (London: SCM Press, 1952) who notes: 'The nearest the Bible comes to
an abstract presentation of the nature of God by means of his "attributes" is an old liturgical
confession embedded in Exod. 34.6-7... This confession is one of the very few in the Bible
which is not a recital of events' (p. 85).
15
contain parallels in Pss. 85.5, 15; 102.8; 144.8; and Neh. 9.17. This
abundance of parallels shows how important and central the imagery and
attributes of Exod. 34.6, 7 were to the faith of the ancient Israelites.
Anyone who had some familiarity with the Scriptures of this people would
have had a strong possibility of being familiar with this passage or its
parallels.
Theologically, the passage can be divided into two theologically
distinctive poles. The first pole revolves around attributes that stress
YHWH's compassion and covenant fidelity. YHWH is so full of
compassion for the people that he forgives their transgression. The
second pole stands in stark contrast as it holds that YHWH punishes the
wicked and their children down to the fourth generation.
The rehearsals of the passage normally emphasize the forgiveness pole
by repeating it first and rehearsing more of the compassionate attributes.
16
The writers of the OT would redact the parallel to fit their context.
Eventually, the 'compassion' of YHWH on the covenant people (in
Hebrew, lDfl; in Greek, TTOXUEXEOS or E'XEOS) came to be the signature
attribute of the pole emphasizing YHWH's forgiveness. In the LXX,
YHWH's eAeos is the only attribute emphasized more than once and it is
17
repeated three times. Eventually, E'XEOS came to signify the whole of the
forgiveness pole.
The rehearsals of the credo in Exod. 20.5, 6 and Deut. 5.9, 10 only have
'showing mercy to the thousandth generation'. The other attributes of the
forgiveness pole have been removed. It seems therefore, that for later OT
writers EXEOS or TTOXUEXEOS became a metonymy that represented the
fullness of YHWH's compassion/mercy as represented in the attributes of
the forgiveness pole. Jeremiah 32.18, also an echo of the credo, is also
marked by the use of the metonymy. In this passage, the prophet uses
Exod. 34.6-7 to express his thanks to God for promises of deliverance.
Psalm 85 begins with a partial reference to the forgiveness pole in 85.5 using
only eXeos, but in 85.15 a fuller rehearsal of the forgiveness pole is given.
Thus, after searching to answer the question of availability, the
following has been shown. First, Luke and his hearers were very familiar
with the OT and the customs of Judaism. Second, the attributes of God
given in Exod. 34.6-7 are one of the most quoted passages of the OT.
Third, the EXEOS of God becomes the catchword that signifies the whole of
the forgiveness pole of Exod. 34.6-7 and is normally invoked to signify
YHWH's covenant relationship with Israel.
15 Psalms are numbered according to the LXX.

16 For a thorough analysis of each parallel of the credo and its theological and literary
context, see Nathan Lane, 'Exodus 34.6-7: A Canonical Analysis' (PhD. diss.: Baylor
University, 2007).
17 The Heb. 10U 11 ('great mercy') becomes the compound word TTOAUEAEOS in the LXX.
Recurrence
This section of the paper will look for other places than the parable of the
Good Samaritan where Luke alludes to Exod. 34.6-7. The word EXEOS
occurs six times in Luke. Five of those times come in the first chapter
(1.50, 54, 58, 72, 78). The only other occurrence comes in 10.37 in the
lawyer's answer to Jesus' question after the parable. All six of the
occurrences are echoes of Exod. 34.6-7. They will be examined in the order
of their appearance.
Of the five first occurrences, Lk. 1.50 is the most obvious parallel to
Exod. 34.6-7. Mary's Magnificat (1.46-55) comes as she is realizing that
she is carrying the Messiah. In 1.50 she exclaims, 'His EXEOS is from
generation to generation to those fearing him'. All three elements of 1.50
can be found in Exod. 34.6-7. First, TO EXEOS OCUTOU ('his mercy') refers to
the "IDPl of YHWH that is central to the credo. The of YHWH is
also central to Mary's song. It is the core attribute of God that governs
her praise. Mary can glorify the Lord because of the mercy given to her
(1.46-49) and because of the mercy given to the previous generations
(1.50-55). Second, EIS YEVECCS KOU YEVECXS is given as a temporal limit of
YHWH's mercy. The credo reflects this temporal limit with the affirm
ation of the thousand generations that YHWH will forgive or punish the
third or fourth generation of the sinful. For this attribute, the ancient
Israelites held that God's mercy would be available to innumerable
generations ('thousands'), but wrath was limited, extending to only three
or four. Mary's praise is that God's mercy spills over from each
generation to the next. Third, TOIS (|>O{$OUU£VOIS OCUTOV ('to those fearing
him') is also part of the tradition of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. 'The ones
fearing him' appears with a version of the credo in Exod. 20.6, Deut. 5.10
and Ps. 102.17. This addition adds the human part of the divine-human
element. Significant trajectories in the tradition of the credo show that
YHWH's mercy is not given without reservation, but only to the faithful.
All three of the parts of this portion of Mary's praise can be found in a
parallel to the credo in Ps. 102.17. In fact, Joseph Fitzmyer holds that this
18
section of Mary's song comes from Ps. 102.17. Not as specific as
Fitzmyer, Stephen Farris notes that EXEOS is directly tied to YHWH's
IDPl, stating 'God's "mercy" is his covenant love for his people' and links
19
it to the tradition of Exod. 34.6-7. Darrell Bock also sees a connection
with the theological balance of the credo between unmerited mercy and
20
legalistic works.
18 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981), p. 368.
19 Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and
Significance (JSNTSup, 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p. 120.
20 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (ed. Grant R. Osborne; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994), p. 47.
The second echo of the credo comes in Lk. 1.54 which states: 'He has
helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy'. While IAEOS is the only
parallel phrase from the tradition of the credo, the themes of the verse
show it to be an echo. The verse recalls YHWH's nDPI to Israel. Fitzmyer
states: 'In the Lukan context [the uses of E'AEOS] are to be understood of
Yahweh's intervention in Jesus' conception on behalf of his people Israel.
The Davidic heir to be born is yet another instance of Yahweh coming to
21
the aid of his people.' This verse emphasizes the covenantal relationship
between YHWH and ancient Israel in which the credo played a significant
role.
The third echo (Lk. 1.58) comes in the narrative immediately following
the Magnificat and is a narration of the E'AEOS mentioned in 1.54. It is also
connected to 1.49-50 with a chiastic wordplay of Mary's original praise.
Previously, Mary praised God's magnificent deeds (MsydAa) and his
mercy (TO EAEOS CXUTOU), now the narrative states that 'the Lord has
magnified (eneydAuvEv) his mercy to her' (TO EAEOS OUTOU). 22
The last two occurrences of E'AEOS in Luke 1 come in the prophecy of

Zechariah after the naming of John the Baptist. Luke 1.72 is a clear
reference to Exod. 34.6-7. Zechariah proclaims: 'He has shown the mercy
promised to our ancestors and remembered his holy covenant'. Zechariah
roots the goodness of the Messiah's coming with YHWH's past
23
faithfulness and mercy displayed during the Exodus. Out of this exodus
context, his prophecy echoes the credo of the exodus tradition. Two
aspects of this verse connect it to the original. First, the allusion to the
'fathers' (iraTEpcov) occurs in the credo. In the original, however, the
'fathers' refer to those who have sinned. Farris sees a difficulty because he
wonders if Zechariah is limiting the mercy of YHWH only to the
24
fathers. Farris misunderstands the emphasis of Zechariah's prophecy.
Zechariah is thanking YHWH for showing mercy to those in the past.
Second, the connection of this mercy with YHWH's remembrance of his
25
holy covenant shows that it is a reference to God's covenantal HDll. A
second echo comes as Zechariah references YHWH's 'tender' (oTrAayxva)
mercy in forgiving the covenant people. The use of orrAdyxvcc with EAEOS
never occurs in the LXX, but occurs in the extant Qumran literature
26
twice. There it refers to the 'compassion' and 'mercy' of YHWH
f l D n i Dm), two of the components of the original credo.
Thus far it has been shown that each reference to EAEOS in Luke 1 is

22 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 107.
23 Green, Luke, pp. 116-17.
24 Farris, Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narrative, p. 137.
26 Ibid., p. 386. (1QS2.1; 4QS1 39 1.23).
directly or indirectly related to the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. Three out of the
five are very direct echoes. Luke 1.50 has three firm parallels with the
original. Luke 1.72 shows connections with 'the fathers' and a reference to
the covenant. Luke 1.78 shows continuities with Qumran literature that is
parallel with the credo. The other two references (Lk. 1.54, 5 8 ) are
indirectly related because they refer back to 1.50. Another important
discovery is that all of the uses of EXEOS in Luke 1 are acts of God's mercy
27
towards humanity. It is never used to describe one person's act of
kindness toward another.
Volume
Two factors govern the question of volume. First, a sheer word count is
emphasized. How much of a proposed text is assumed to be an echo? How
much of the original text is echoed? Second, the prominence of the text is
considered. Are the echoed words important words in the passage? The
first part is easily answered. The echo only contains one word and does
not provide a significant amount of this aspect of volume. The placement
of the echo, however, comes at a crucial point of the story and provides a
significant amount of 'volume'.
The parable (Lk. 10.25-37) begins with a lawyer coming to test Jesus by
asking: 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus asks: 'How do you
read the Law?' The lawyer answers correctly that a summary of the law is
'love God' and iove neighbour'. Jesus tells him that he has answered
correctly and commands: 'Do this and live.' The dialogue continues as the
lawyer again tries to trick Jesus by asking: 'Who is my neighbour?' Jesus
answers this question with the Good Samaritan parable. Jesus then asks:
'Which of these three was as neighbour to the man who fell into the hands
of robbers?' The lawyer answers, 'The one who had EXEOS on him.' Jesus
again answers: 'Go and do likewise.' The allusion comes at the climax of
28
the story. After Jesus' second question, the reader waits to hear what the
lawyer will answer. The echo of Exod. 34.6-7 constitutes the substance of
his answer.
Another factor that would have increased the 'volume' of this echo is
the placement of EXEOS in Luke's Gospel. As noted above, it appears five
times in the first chapter. The reader would have been bombarded with the
allusion very early in the narrative and would have been prepared for
further allusions. The word only appears once again in the Gospel. The
answer to Jesus' question with an echo would have reminded the readers
of the first chapter occurrences and of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7.
27 J. Reiling and J. C. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke

(London: UBS, 1971), p. 74.
28 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB; Garden City,
NY: 1985), p. 878.
Thematic coherence
The rule of thematic coherence asks: 'How does hearing an echo clarify
the meaning of the passage?' Traditionally, the lawyer has been read as a
static character in this passage. In this traditional view, the answers to
both of Jesus' questions show the lawyer to be unaware of who God is and
how God acts. The lawyer's response: 'The one who had EXEOS on him' is
normally seen as racist against the Samaritan. Bock holds that the lawyer
29
cannot bring himself to mention the Samaritan's race. He asserts that,
30
'he does not understand the call of God'. Likewise, Fitzmyer believes
that the answer to Jesus' questions unmasks the lawyer's attempt at self-
31
justification. These two represent the typical stance of scholars
concerning the lawyer's answer.
Perhaps hearing the echo supports a more favourable reading for the
lawyer. The lawyer answers both of Jesus' questions correctly. When
asked: 'How do you read the Law?' he answers correctly. Jesus' response
affirms the lawyer's answer. His answer to the second question: 'Who was
a neighbour?' may also be better than most people initially imagine. I
believe that the lawyer realized the message of Jesus' parable. His response
does not de-emphasize the ethnicity of the Samaritan, but emphasizes the
covenant mercy of YHWH.
Reading E'XEOS as an echo shows the lawyer to have fully understood the
implications of the parable. The radical implication of Jesus' teaching is
that those in the community are called to extend the same kind of love
toward one's neighbour as YHWH extended toward Israel. Jesus' second
question then is directly related to the lawyer's question. Who one's
neighbour is, is dramatically changed by how one views God's actions
toward humanity. YHWH's mercy was extended to those who least
deserved it. Continually the people sinned and deserved punishment.
Exodus 34.6-7 was often used as an invocation of YHWH's covenant
32
mercy.
Usually, those reading the parable leave out the vertical aspect of this
horizontal mercy. Both of the lawyer's responses tie the two together.
Bock has rightly seen that a major emphasis of the passage is the
33
connection of the love of God and the love of others. One cannot love
God without loving others. The lawyer's assertion shows that he
recognized the Samaritan's mercy as mirroring that of YHWH.
29 Bock, Luke, p. 196.
30 Ibid., p. 199.
31 Fitzmyer, Luke XXXIV, p. 884.
32 Thorir F. Thordarson has argued that the credo played a major role in a yearly
covenant renewal ceremony of the ancient Israelites. The people rehearsed the credo at a
climatic time when it was imagined that YHWH renewed the covenant with the people ('The
Form-Historical Problem of Ex. 34.6-7', PhD diss.: Chicago Divinity School, 1959).
33 Bock, Luke, p. 196.
The immediate following context also emphasizes the congruities

34
between love of God and love of neighbour. In Lk. 10.38-42, the
Evangelist tells the story of Jesus' visit to the home of Mary and Martha.
Martha resents the fact that Mary is not helping with the domestic affairs,
but is spending time with Jesus. Martha approaches Jesus concerning
Mary's lack of help. Jesus sides with Mary. The narrative force does not
emphasize a life of quiet worship and contemplation over an active
Christian life. Instead, the emphasis is on right relationships with God and
neighbours. Norval Geldenhuys states the balance nicely: 'What we do
learn here is that in our life's active service we must not be anxious and
agitated, sulky and dissatisfied with our fellow-Christians or with our
Master, or that we should not busy ourselves to such an extent with
35
outward things that we neglect the quiet worship of the Lord.' If this
assessment is the case, then the lawyer has a more positive characteriza
36
tion than Martha in this short pericope. Martha's only speech is
incorrect. All of the speech of the lawyer is correct.
Historical Plausibility
The rule of historical plausibility guards against the interpreter reading his
theological agenda or ideology back into the ancient texts. For the echo to
be present, the evangelist would need to have been familiar with Jewish
Scripture. This topic has been covered above.
Satisfaction
The rule of satisfaction asks whether the proposed reading makes sense.
This rule is the most intuitive and subjective. It weighs each of the other
six rules and decides accordingly. I believe that hearing an echo enhances
the meaning of the passage. All of the rules for hearing an echo are
present. The arguments for hearing an echo come in four main points.
First, Exod. 34.6-7 would have been a significant text for the early
Christians as they retained the Jewish Scriptures. Undoubtedly, Luke, as a
34 Charles Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 124, sees a chiastic structure in Luke's narration of
these two stories together. The two great commands given in 10.27 are to love God (A) and
to love neighbour (B). The Good Samaritan parable emphasizes love of neighbour (B') and
the story of Mary and Martha emphasizes love of God (A')- Perhaps, the lawyer serves as a
bridge between the two stories.
35 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1951), p. 316.
36 Interestingly, this is Martha's only appearance in Luke. She does not enjoy the
positive characterization that she receives in John. Lawyers in general are portrayed in a
negative light (cf. Lk. 7.30; 11.46, 52). This makes the lawyer of this passage all the more
remarkable.
reader of Scripture, would have been familiar with its imagery. Second, all
five of the other occurrences of eXeos are firmly connected to the imagery
of the credo. Also, all five refer to YHWH's mercy on humans. Third,
I'XEOS comes at the climax of the story, its first appearance since the
abundance of appearances in Luke 1. Fourth, hearing the echo
emphasizes the major theme of the passage - intersections of the love of
God and the love of others. By the end of the parable the lawyer
understands that eternal life requires that we interact with others as God
has interacted with us.
Chapter 6
P S A L M 2 A N D T H E S O N O F G O D I N T H E F O U R T H G O S P E L
Steven B. Nash
From the very first verse of the Fourth Gospel John alerts the reader that
his use of the Old Testament will include intentional allusions to the
Scriptures. Virtually all commentators admit an allusion to Gen. 1.1 in the
opening of the Fourth Gospel, the prepositional phrase 'in the beginning'
1
[ev apXT)] reflecting precisely the LXX rendering of the opening of the OT.
Few, however, have noted the importance of the fact that the Prologue,
though replete with striking allusions to the OT, has not a single verbatim
citation. It seems to me quite likely that in its final form, the Prologue not
only signals some important theological themes which will be developed in
the Gospel (light and darkness, revelation, the deity of Christ, new life,
testimony/witness, etc.) but also provides an interpretative clue to the
reader in terms of the use of the OT in the document. John smiles at his
biblically literate readers and alerts them to listen for further allusions to
the Scriptures as he presents his story of Jesus. In reading this Gospel the
reader must constantly ask: 'Why is John using this OT language? What
text is he evoking? Why does he want me to think about this connection?'
Indeed for John, allusions to the OT in which it appears he expects a
thoughtful reader to hear the language and to consider the context being
evoked are much more prevalent than specific citations. Early in the
Gospel the disciples recognize that Jesus is the One spoken of in the
OT Scriptures (1.45). When the writer explicitly states his purpose toward
the end of the main body of the narrative, he juxtaposes two key
OT messianic titles (20.31). What were the specific OT texts that found
their fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah? This paper will argue that John
made dual allusions to the second Psalm in the first major section of his
1 Kdstenberger, for example, observes: 'The phrase "in the beginning" echoes the
opening phrase of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1.1) and establishes a canonical link between the
first words of the OT Scriptures and the present Gospel' (Andreas J. Kdstenberger, John
(Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 25.
2
Gospel, and will offer a suggestion as to the purpose of these allusions. I
propose that John's use of Psalm 2 reflects an early Christian tradition
that saw the psalm as a bridge to the title 'Son of God', and as an
introduction to the Psalter, and so to the psalms of lament and the idea of
a rejected and suffering king. Before looking at these allusions in John, it
would be appropriate to say a word about the Psalms, in general, and
Psalm 2, in its canonical context. We will then take a sweeping glance at
the first major section of John's Gospel which includes our two allusions:
1.19-4.54. Finally we will see how these allusions function in their
contexts, evoking the OT in presenting the argument that Jesus is the
Messiah.
Psalm 2 in Canonical Context

Before we embark on our look at the use of Psalm 2 in the Fourth Gospel,
the proper subject of this study, we glance behind it for a moment at the
theology and message of the Psalter in its final canonical form, with
particular attention to the subject of kingship. I believe this approach is
necessary since John's extensive and often subtle use of the Old Testament
demonstrates his presupposition that his readers are immersed in the
language and theology of the Old Testament generally and the Psalms
3
particularly. However, John is also seeking to reorient his readers to an
aspect of the Old Testament message they had apparently lost, that is, that
the Scriptures predicted that the Messiah would suffer. Hence the
rejection and suffering of Jesus is interpreted not as the defeat of a
messianic pretender as the Jewish opposition would wish (Jn 19.21), but as
an evidence and vindication of Jesus' messianic identity. Ironically, as
critical studies in the last century changed the way scholarship looked at
the Psalms, the New Testament use of the Psalms seemed more enigmatic.
For example, historical-critical studies have tended to minimize the value
4
of the psalm headings and correspondingly to downplay the role of
David and the centrality of the Davidic king in the Psalter. From this
perspective, the New Testament assumption of Davidic authorship (e.g.,
2 This study is based on and partially excerpted from my doctoral dissertation, 'Kingship
and the Psalms in the Fourth GospeF (PhD diss.: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000).
It was presented in an abbreviated form at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, in Washington,
DC, 2006.
3 Hans-Joachim Kraus says it was because the language of the Old Testament was 'alive
and present' that the early church could find 'analogies' to the Old Testament texts as the
apostolic preaching took form (The Theology of the Psalms [trans. K. Crim, Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992], p. 190).
4 See Beckwith who argues for the antiquity of the psalm titles: 'The psalm-titles,
therefore, may well be as old as the fourth century BC, and very little (if any) younger than the
Books of Chronicles' (Roger T. Beckwith, 'The Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46
NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God 87
Acts 2.25-31, 4.25-28) and the hermeneutics of the New Testament

writers, viewing passages from the Psalms as prophetic texts finding their
fulfilment in the life and ministry of Jesus, appear at best unscientific and
at worst arbitrary. How is it, as Hengel noted, that 'The Psalter, that is,
the inspired collection of David's songs, became the most important book
5
of prophecy for early Christianity'? There have been some recent studies,
as we will show, that lend support to the assumption of the Church during
the 19 centuries before the rise of modern criticism. The king, as the
vicegerent and representative of the reign of Yahweh, is central in the
6
Psalms, and this 'royal interpretation' provides the impetus to an
interpretative trajectory that culminates in the messianic interpretation of
the Psalms in the New Testament. We will argue that it is this perspective
that allowed the church generally, and John specifically, to read the
Psalms messianically. As Mowinckel observed, 'the content of the
7
messianic figure was derived from the kingly ideal of ancient Israel'.
We will show that John's hermeneutic assumes the reign of Yahweh as
expressed in the Psalter and virtually identifies (economically, if not
ontologically) Yahweh with his anointed one, the often rejected human
king.
The Centrality of the Reign of Yahweh in the Psalms

The centrality of the theme of the reign of Yahweh in the theology of
Israel, and its eschatological implications, has long been observed.
Mowinckel wrote: 'the fundamental thought in the Jewish hope of future
restoration (even in its national and political form) is the idea of the kingly
rule of Yahweh, "the kingdom of God". All other conceptions are
8
grouped around this central one.' More recently, the centrality of this
[1995]: 1-28 [10]. Cf. B. S. Childs, 'Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis', JSS 16 (1971): 137-
50; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979),
p. 520; B. K. Waltke, 'Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both', JBL 110 (1991): 583-96.
5 M. Hengel, 'The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel', in C. A. Evans and W. R.
Stegner (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 380-95 (382).
6 See, e.g. Beckwith, 'Early History'; S. J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the
Psalms (JSOTSup, 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); John Durham, 'The King as Messiah in
the Psalms', RevExp 81 (1984): 425-36; John W. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1986); J. L. Mays,' "In a Vision": The Portrayal of the Messiah in the
Psalms', Ex Auditu 1 (1991): 1-8; B. K. Waltke, 'A Canonical Process Approach to the
Psalms', in John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, (eds), Tradition and Testament: Essays in
Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 3-18; J. H. Walton, 'The
Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant', JETS 34 (1991): 21-31; G. H. Wilson, 'The
Shape of the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 129-42.
7 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), p. 21.
8 Ibid., p. 169.
9
theme in the Psalms has been proposed. Mays sees 'Yahweh reigns' as a
central organizing theological motif of the Psalter. He writes:
The sentence itself occurs in a relatively few but crucial psalms. In those
contexts the verb malak means more an activity than an office. It is a
term for a dynamic sovereignty administered in two patterns of activity.
One is the pattern of ordering chaos to bring forth cosmos and world.
The other is a scenario of intervening in human disorder by judgment
and deliverance. The reign of God is God's activity as creator and
maintainer of the universe, and as judge and savior who shapes the
10
movement of history toward the purpose of God.
Though it might well be argued that the search for a single unifying theme
11
in a collection as complex as the Psalter is tenuous at best, Mays's
argument certainly shows 'Yahweh's reign' as a prominent theme in the
Psalms and a useful perspective from which the collection can be
considered. A critical aspect of the theology of the Psalms is certainly the
relationship between the reign of God, and his vicegerent, the human
12
king. Mays observes that 'Statements of YHWH's dominion are
scattered through the Psalms, attached to a variety of topics. The roles
of warrior, judge, benefactor, and shepherd, which belong to the human
13
kingship depicted in the Psalms, are also those of Y H W H . ' He says that
'in the Psalms as a collection the Messiah plays a crucial role in the reign
14
of Y H W H . ' He notes that 'as sovereign, YHWH has a special person.
The person is called his king, his anointed, his son, his chosen, David his
15
servant.' As Mowinckel has noted, 'The king stands in a closer relation
16
to Yahweh than anyone else. He is His "son" (Ps ii 7).' This connection
is introduced at the very beginning of the collection, in the second
9 James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook of the Psalms (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 13. See also H. J. Kraus, who sees in the titles used
of Yahweh in the Psalter a 'witness to an absolute right of lordship and majesty over the
entire world, in contrast to the claims of all gods and supernatural powers' {Theology, p. 25).
He treats in some detail the 'Kingship of Yahweh' as a significant theological motif in the
Psalter (Theology, pp. 25-30).
10 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 7.
11 Cf. Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1975). Hasel argues for a 'multiplex' approach to Old
Testament theology. The Psalms themselves might well be so diverse as to demand a similar
approach.
12 Mowinckel wrote: 'The Israelites' attitude to their king is most characteristically
expressed in the term used of his relation to Yahweh, Yahweh's Anointed (He That Cometh,
p. 63). Cf. Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 19.
14 Ibid., p. 17.
15 Ibid.,p.\9.
16 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 67.
Psalm. Notice in Ps. 2.2 that the 'plotting' is against Yahweh and his
anointed:
Kara TOU Kupiou Kon K a x d TOU xpioxou CCUTOU
In Ps. 2.3 it is their 'cords and bands' that are being cast aside:
Siapprj^coMEV xous 5EOMOUS OCUTCOV KCCI afroppivpcoMEV acf)' f i p c o v TOV

£ u y o v OCUTCOV
18
In 2.6, 7 the subject is God's king and God's son:
eyco 5E KCXTEOTa&riv PCXOIAEUS UTT' OCUTOU... uios Mou i\ aii
If the son but asks, the nations, indeed the ends of the earth, are offered as
an inheritance (v. 8):
n
p*r Da& -jninî y\bm
KCCI 6cooco o o i E0VT] TT|V KATIPOVOMICXV
a i T T j o a i Trap' s p o u aou KCCI TT|V
KCXTCXOXSOIV o o u TCX TTEPCXTCX TTJS Y%
Worshipping Yahweh (v. 11) is paralleled with doing homage to the son
(v. 12).
OOUAEUOCXTE TCO K u p i c p EV 4>6{kD KCCI ayaAAicxoGE OCUTCO EV Tpopcp

5pcc£aa6£ iraiSsias MÔTE opyioBrj K u p i o s 1 9
In fact the identification is so close, one might ask who is it that is the
place of refuge, the object of trust, in Ps. 2.12c, Yahweh, or the son?
MOCKOCpiOl TTOCVTES Ol TTETTOlBoTES ETT* CXUTCO
The identification between Yahweh and his anointed is so complete it is

difficult to decide. It would most naturally be the son in the Masoretic
17 We will argue below that Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the collection (see
for example Gerald T. Shepherd, Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 [1992]: 140-9
[149]). The Western variant at Acts 13.33 attributing a quotation from Ps. 2 to the 'first
psalm' may indicate that the two psalms were viewed by some at the time as a two-part
introduction to the collection.
18 The LXX diverges from the MT here. In the Greek, the anointed is the passive subject of
the verb: T have been made king by him.' In the Hebrew, Yahweh is still speaking: T have set
my king.'
19 Notice in the LXX the 'Lord' continues as the subject, in v. 12, whereas in the MT the
command is to 'kiss the son'.
Text, whereas in the Septuagint it appears to be the 'Lord'. The son,

God's anointed, the king, is his vicegerent and representative. Longman
similarly notes that 'The Israelite King is the human reflection of the
20
kingship of God. He rules because God established him as ruler.' Thus
21
the 'reign of Yahweh' cannot be separated from the reign of his Messiah.
The Canonical Shape of the Psalter

In his article evaluating current trends in Psalm studies, Kuntz noted that
'a growing new movement treats the Psalter as a coherent literary whole
22
containing explicit and tacit indication of deliberate editorial activity'.
Similarly McCann writes:
There is a growing interest among scholars in attempting to understand
the book of Psalms not only as a collection of liturgical materials from
ancient Israel and Judah but also as a literary whole... The purposeful
placement of psalms within the collection seems to have given the final
form of the whole Psalter a function and message greater than the sum
23
of its parts.
Though the genesis of this approach was probably the work of B. S.
24
Childs, it was Gerald Wilson who in his Yale dissertation especially
25
called attention to the canonical shape of the Psalter. Wilson drew
attention to the fact that the arrangement of the collection was intended to
be a clue as to how the Psalms should be read, at least from the
perspective of the final redactors. Said differently, it can be argued that in
the Psalter we have not only a collection of canonical psalms, but a
canonical collection of psalms. More recently Mays has developed the
argument further. He writes:
There is a growing recognition that the psalms in the book are not
simply the psalms of their origin in various settings in Israel's religious
life. They have been revised and reread in the process of reuse and
preservation. They are located in a new and final context of a book of
scripture with an understanding of their language and purpose that is
20 Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988),
p. 69.
21 Cf. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, pp. 155-72. See also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 107-
23.
22 J. Kenneth Kuntz, 'Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent Research',
CRBS 2 (1994): 77-106 (93).
23 J. Clinton McCann, 'Preface', in J. C. McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the
Psalter, (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 1-10 (7).
24 Childs, Introduction, pp. 505-25.
25 Gerald H. Wilson, Editing the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76, Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1985).
not identical with their meaning in Israel's cult. This final literary
context is a setting that calls for study in its own right, along with
26
historical and cultic settings.
1 argue that this structure lends support to a 'royal' interpretation of the
Psalms, and also suggest that this structure, at least in one obvious
feature, may have been noticed by the New Testament writers. Though
not embracing the canonical shape of the Psalter as an authoritative key
to its interpretation, Shepherd likewise concluded that 'the studies on the
shape of the Psalter make it more than just probable that the book of
Psalms has received a structure that calls attention to its messianic
27
elements'.
Psalms 1 and 2 as an Introduction

The first interpretative clue provided by the structure of the Psalter is the
'introduction' provided by Psalms 1 and 2. Mays notes that 'Psalms 1 and
2 form an introduction to the whole. They are held together by the
"Happy are/is..." form of the sayings that constitute brackets around the
28
two.' Miller similarly observed:
The introduction to the Psalter does not conclude with Psalm 1. It
carries over to the second Psalm, as is immediately evident by the
absence of a superscription at the beginning of Psalm 2 to mark it off
from Psalm 1, as well as by the presence of a concluding 'Blessed...'
clause at the end of Psalm 2, which echoes the 'Blessed...' clause at the
beginning of Psalm 1, and forms a poetic bracket or envelope around
both psalms in a way that shows them to be a two part introduction to
29
all that follows.
McCann likewise recently noted that 'at the beginning of Book 1, Psalms
1 and 2 provide a literary context for reading Psalms 3-41 as well as for
30
the Psalter as a whole'.
26 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 120. L. C. Allen also noted of the placement of Psalm 2,
that 'the Royal theme is obviously of prime importance in the redactional ordering of the
Psalter' (Psalms: Word Biblical Themes [Waco: Word, 1987], p. 114).
27 J. Shepherd, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 450. Another unrelated study has
argued that the LXX translation of the Psalter emphasized the messianic elements of the
collection (J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT, 76; Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1995], esp. pp. 72-126). These two factors may provide evidence of a developing
messianic expectation in the pre-Christian era.
29 P. D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 87. See
also Sheppard, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 149.
30 J. C. McCann, 'Books I—III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter', in
McCann (ed.), Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, pp. 93-107 (103).
How is it that this 'introduction' was intended to lead the reader into
the Psalter? The reader of the Psalms is first invited to identify himself
with the righteous man of Psalm 1 who delights in God's Torah. Clearly
the Psalter itself is being viewed as an expression of that Torah. Mays
notes that 'the fivefold division of the book continues the identification. It
gives the book a form that corresponds to the five books of the Mosaic
Torah. The Psalter is a 'Davidic Torah,' which corresponds to and
31
responds to the first one.' The reader is called upon to submit to God's
Word, and so to experience the abundant life of blessing that he offers.
The second part of the introduction, Psalm 2, introduces the reader to
the motif of the reign of Yahweh, as it relates to the human subject of the
Psalms, God's anointed, his 'son', the king. The absence of headings on
Psalms 1 and 2 set them off from the following series of laments. It is
possible that the Western reading of Acts 13.33 which alludes to Ps. 2.7 as
being written in the 'first psalm', may indicate that either (1) Psalms 1 and
2 were viewed as a unit introducing the Psalter or (2) The Psalter was still
in the process of being edited, and not all collections included Psalm 1 in
its current position. The reader is introduced to the king in Psalm 2, and
called upon to submit to his sovereignty. Mays states:
A topic is identified that is central and recurrent in the book as a whole:
The kingship of the Lord. The Lord appears as one who reigns. His reign
in the work [?] is represented by a place and a person. The place is Zion.
The person is his chosen king. Zion as city of God and the king as the
Lord's anointed will themselves be the subject of many particular psalms.
32
What happens to them and through them involves the reign of the Lord.
Psalm 2 also introduces conflict: resistance to the rule of God and his
anointed. This will help the reader of the Psalter understand the presence
of the 'enemies' in the Psalms, and to put the experiences of crisis in the
laments into perspective, with the assurance of God's ultimate and certain
victory. Yahweh laughs at the foolish rebellion of humans, his kingdom
will certainly be established. We should note that both Acts 4.25-28 and
Heb. 1.5 (cf. 5.5) give canonical evidence that Psalm 2 was understood and
interpreted quite early as messianic, and, in Acts, was seen as referring to
the blindness of the religious leaders and secular authorities to the identity
of Jesus. Is it coincidental that this psalm, which was arguably purposely
placed at the beginning of the Psalter, is evoked near the beginning of all
33
four Gospels, as it is at the beginning of Hebrews (1.5)?

32 Ibid.
33 There is little question that Ps. 2.7 is alluded to in the words of the Father at Jesus'
baptism (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22) providing the literary and theological basis for the
k
title Son of God' in the Synoptic Gospels. I will argue below that John invokes this psalm for
a similar purpose (Jn 1.41, 49; 3.35-36).
THE JOHANNINE CONTEXT

Following the Prologue, the remainder of the first chapter of the Fourth
Gospel continues the 'Introduction' to John's presentation of Jesus. John
1.19-51 is a pivotal section in that it shows that the 'revealer' spoken of in
the Prologue is none other than the promised Messiah of the Old
Testament. The identity of the incarnate Word is explicitly set forth: Jesus
is Messiah, king and Son of God. It also continues to alert the reader to
the depth and significance of the Old Testament background to the
document. Through both explicit citations and subtle allusions, the reader
is invited to think of Jesus in terms of what the writer views as the Old
Testament messianic expectation. In this manner, the section serves as a
34
transition between the Prologue and the body of the narrative. The
Prologue has already driven the biblically literate reader back to the Old
Testament, and this transitional section carries that further by alluding to
several Old Testament messianic motifs. It also is integrated into the
larger section 1.19-4.54. As with the Prologue, the section may be outlined
35 36
concentrically. Like the Prologue, this section anticipates the purpose
statement (Jn 20.31), moving from the christological aspect, which
brackets the section (asking 'who is the Christ?') to soteriological
implications at the centre (showing the need for 'new life'):
34 Its transitional nature is evident in that in outlining John, it could be included with the
Prologue as an introduction to the document, although the majority of commentators see it
as the beginning of the main body of the narrative.
35 Though I refer to this structure I will not take the time to argue for it since it is not
integral to the point of the study. Some recent works have, with some success, attempted to
argue for the extensive use of concentric parallelism or chiasm in John. See, e.g., M.
Rodriguez-Ruiz, 'Estructura del Evangelio de San Juan desde el punto de vista cristologico y
eclesiologjco', EstBib (1998): 75-96; G. Mlakuzhyil, The Concentric Literary Structure of the
Fourth Gospel (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1987); J. Staley, 'The Structure of
John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 241-
64; P. Ellis, The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984).
36 Several studies have agreed that the Johannine Prologue is structured concentrically,
differing only in their assessment as to whether the 'centre' of the Prologue is 1.12-13 (Staley,
'Structure of John's Prologue', 1.12 (K. D. Booser, 'The Literary Structure of John 1.1-18:
An Examination of its Theological Implications Concerning God's Saving Plan through
Jesus Christ', Evangelical Journal 61 [1998]: 13-29), or 1.12b (R. A. Culpepper, 'The Pivot of
John's Prologue', NTS 27 [1981]: 1-31). For a dissenting position, see M. Coloe, 'The
Structure of John's Prologue and Genesis 1', AusBR 45 (1997): 40-55. In the above articles,
Staley and Culpepper suggest that a chiastic structure in John 1.1 might fairly be seen as a
'clue' for the reader to be ready for such a structure in the Prologue. In view of the opening of
the Gospel and the structure of the Prologue, it seems to me we should not be surprised to
find examples of concentric or chiastic parallelism in the structuring of the narrative itself.
A.
1.19-34 John: T am not the Christ' John testifies regarding Jesus'
identity
B. 1.35-41 Jewish disciples confess Jesus: 'We have found the
Messiah.. .Christ'
C. 1.42-51 Jesus' first converts confess him: Psalm 2 allusion
D. 2.1-11 (1st sign) wedding, water into wine (six large jugs)
bridegroom
E. 2.13-25 The Temple cleansing at Passover, disciples
remember Ps. 69.9
F. 3.1-3 Nicodemus: 'We know you are a teacher sent from
God'
G. 3.4 Nicodemus questions, 'How can a man be
born...?'
H. 3.5 Born of water and spirit
I. 3.6-7 'You must be born again'
H' 3.8 Born of spirit
G' 3.9 Nicodemus questions, 'How can these things be?'
F' 3.10-12 Jesus: 'Are you the teacher of Israel and don't
understand'
E' 3.13-21 The 'lifting up' of the son predicted (reference to
Moses)
D' 3.22-30 John: much water, bride, bridegroom
C 3.31-3.36 John's testimony: Psalm 2 allusion
B' 4.1-25 Samaritan considers Messiah's identity: '... Messiah ...
Christ'
A' 4.26-54 Jesus: T who speak to you am he': Samaritan testifies to Jesus'
identity
The section begins with John the Baptist's statement: T am not [the
Christ], (eyco OUK Eipi: 1.20), rather he was to prepare the way for the
'coming one'. It ends with Jesus' statement, T am he', (eyco elpi), that is,
the Christ who was to come (4.26). The concern of the section (and the
document, cf. 20.30-31) is that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament
messianic expectation, and that in him we can have new life. The reader
has already been reminded that that expectation included rejection and
suffering. The subsection 2.1-4.54 is marked off by the references to the
first sign (2.11) and second sign (4.54) in Galilee. These hearken back to
the pivotal verse 1.18, which speaks of the revelatory character of Jesus,
and also ahead to 20.30-31 and John's statement regarding his editorial
purpose in incorporating specific 'sign stories' into his Gospel. Indeed,
Jesus did many other signs, but those recorded in the Gospel were written,
that the reader might believe Jesus is the promised Messiah, and so
experience new life in him.
An Allusion to Psalm 2.7: 'Son of God, Messiah, King' (John 1.49)

The confession of Nathanael in Jn 1.49 in the context of the initiation of
the public ministry of Jesus stands as an unexpected affirmation full of
christological implications:
ou el 6 u i o s TOU 0EOU, o u paotAeus el TOU 'laparjA,
You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel
By its presence near the beginning of the main body of the document this
statement is conspicuous, and the christological insight by a new disciple
at the onset of Jesus' public ministry is shocking. Bringing two such lofty
titles together in a parallel construction is unusual enough that it would
demand the close attention of the reader. Note that Jesus' response in 1.50
is basically positive, essentially acknowledging it as a statement of faith
based on a small amount of evidence (in contrast to what would
37
subsequently be revealed). It is in these alternating titles that we find a
subtle, but fairly certain allusion to Psalm 2, which will 'set the stage' for
John's first overt Psalm citation in Jn 2.17.
The striking repetition of messianic titles and Old Testament allusions
in John 1 would certainly catch the attention of the reader. 'Son of God' is
38
first found in John on the lips of John the Baptist (Jn 1.34) and echoed
again here in the confession of Nathanael (1.49). For a biblically literate
reader in the first century this title would be evocative of the Davidic
covenant (2 Sam. 7.14), where such a relationship between God and the
King is promised ('He will be my son'), and perhaps especially of Ps. 2.7,
where that promise becomes proclamation ('You are my son') as it is
39
here. As F. F. Bruce observed, Nathanael is clearly confessing Jesus as
37 S. E. Johnson took a somewhat more qualified position when he wrote, 'messiahship

is accepted even though it is only a stage toward the full revelation of Jesus' nature' ('The
Davidic Royal Motif in John', JBL 87 [1968]: 136-50 [139]).
38 There is some question regarding the text here. The overwhelming majority of
66 75
manuscripts, including B and notably p ' , read 6 utos TOU 0EOU, while Sinaiticus' first
hand, along with a few other witnesses, reads 6 IKAEKTOS. The few witnesses for this second
variant have fairly wide distribution, which makes it even more troubling. Since there is no
obvious basis for a scribal error, with respect to internal evidence the question becomes
'which change was a scribe more likely to make?' I can think of no easy explanation for such
a change being made if 'son' was indeed the original. On the other hand, 'son' could be an
accommodation to Nathanael's confession (1.49) or to the Synoptic account of Jesus'
baptism and the pronouncement of the Father (Mk 1.11, par.). Yet the external evidence is so
overwhelming, with serious reservations I follow the UBS text (of course 'chosen one' is an
important royal title in the Psalms as well [cf. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, p. 109]).
39 M. J. J. Menken concurs that, at least on the lips of Andrew and Nathanael, these
three titles indicate the Davidic Messiah, against the background of Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14
(Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form [Kampen, The
Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996], p. 44). Collins has shown that the title was in use in a 'royal
Davidic' sense in the first century (J. J. Collins, 'The Son of GodText from Qumran', in M. de
Messiah, and in so doing, he evokes the familiar language of the Old

Testament. He notes: Tn effect he acclaims him as Messiah, using two
40
messianic titles conjoined in the second psalm.' Moloney similarly
writes:
The terms Nathanael uses to address Jesus can be understood as the

expressions of first-century messianic hope. He joins the earlier disciples
in addressing Jesus as 'Rabbi' (cf. v.38). 'King of Israel' is associated
with Davidic messianic traditions, and the expression 'Son of God,' on
the basis of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, was part of a widespread Jewish
41
royal messianic expectation.
Michaels likewise concurs that 'The two titles, virtually synonymous in

this context, are alternate ways of saying that Jesus is the Messiah (cf. w .
41, 45). The designation of Israel's anointed king as God's son goes back
42
to Psalm 2:6-7.' Contrast the position of Johnson, who concludes:
John turns aside the issues of Davidic royalty and Jewish messianic
expectation as though, unlike the other evangelists, he does not have to
Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology [JSNTSup,
84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 65-82, see also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 111-19). It is
notable that the Synoptic tradition evokes Ps. 2.7 (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22) in the
Father's testimony at Jesus' baptism. As such it forms the basis for the 'Son of God' title in
the first three Gospels (See J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old
Testament in the Gospel of Mark [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992], pp. 48-79; E. E. Ellis,
'Background and Christology of John's Gospel: Selected Motifs', SWJT31 [1988]: 1-12 [12]).
John's knowledge and/or use of the Synoptic tradition is a difficult question (for bibliography
and an outline of some of the complexities to the question see J. G. Dvorak, 'The
Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETS 41 [1998]: 201-13), but I would
argue that this is an example of him assuming knowledge of that tradition (as he does with
Jesus' baptism [1.29-34], the question of the place of his birth [7.41-43] and the charge
brought against him at his crucifixion [18.33-34]) while employing the same text at the same
point in his Gospel, in a somewhat different manner. Certainly if the reader is familiar with
the Synoptics, and is expecting such an allusion, he is more likely to 'hear' an allusion to the
psalm in the convergence of these titles (and I will argue, in the apparently overlooked
allusion in Jn 3.35-36).
40 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), p. 61.
41 F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1998), p. 56.
42 J. R. Michaels, John (NIBC, 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), p. 41. Mateos and
Barreto agree that Nathanael is confessing Jesus in messianic terms based on the OT, but
conclude that his parallel of Son of God and King of Israel reveals a nationalistic messianic
hope: 'Para... Natanael, o Filho de Deus significaria o rei messianico, segundo as categorias
do AT ("aquele descrito por Moises na Lei, e pelos Profeta>"), ou seja, o sucessor prometido
a Davi (cf. SI 2,2.6-7; 2 Sm 7,14; SI 89,4s.27), que efetuaria uma salvacao sociologica. O
horizonte de Natanael e nacionalista, Jesus e para ele o rei esperado, o predileto de Deus, que
restaurant a grandeza do povo, implantando o regime justo prometido pelos profetas' (J.
Mateos and J. Barreto, O Evangelho de Sao Jodo: Andlise Linguistica e Comentdrio Exegetico
[Sao Paulo: Edicoes Paulinas, 1989], p. 117).
defend the church against the charge of sedition. The issues have been
settled, and Jesus' kingship is only the transcendent royalty of the Son
43
of God.
I would argue that John is correcting, or perhaps extending the popular
messianic understanding, rather than turning it aside. Lindars points out
that for John, this royal expectation was a correct, but limited
understanding of Jesus' identity: 'Though John certainly holds the
metaphysical implications of Son of God, as outlined in the prologue, he
correctly understands it as, from a scriptural point of view, a messianic
44
title derived from Ps 2.7Z Koester agreed that this idea of a 'royal
messiah' was the starting place, but not the end, of Johannine Christology.
He argued:
Nathanael understood the titles in terms of Jewish messianic expect
ations; he coupled 'Son of God' with 'King of Israel' indicating that
both should be taken as royal titles. His understanding was informed by
OT passages that use the term 'messiah' for the 'king of Israel' who was
designated as God's 'son' in Ps 2.7, 2 Sam 7.14, and Ps 89.26-27. Jesus
45
accepted these titles, but declared they were only a beginning.
John had followed the Baptist's initial use of this title with a repetition of
'Lamb of God' in v. 36. Both 'rabbi' (v. 38) and 'Messiah' (v. 41) are
simply transliterations from Aramaic (or Hebrew) which are then
translated for the reader into Greek, as 'teacher' and 'Christ' respectively.
Why does he give the Hebrew terms? Kostenberger suggests:
Since John's Diaspora readership is not necessarily expected to know
Aramaic, the predominant language of first-century Palestine (transla
tions are also provided in 1:38; 42), John translates the Semitic term into
the equivalent Greek expression (Xpioxos, Christos, the Anointed
46
One).
However, the question is not whether the readers needed a translation, but
rather why did he include the Semitic term at all? After all, the entire
conversation was probably in Aramaic! The effect would seem to be to
remind the reader that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Hebrew (that is, the
Old Testament) expectation. The testimony of John the Baptist sets the
stage for the statements of the 'soon to be' disciples. John spoke of the
coming one (1.27) who would be Lamb of God (1.29-30) and Son of God
(1.34). If the reader is not yet certain what John is saying, the testimony of
43 Johnson, 'Davidic Royal Motif, p. 140.

44 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 119.
45 C. R. Koester, 'Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (Jn 1:45-51)', JSNT 39
(1990): 23-34 (27).
46 Andreas J. Kostenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 76.
Andrew makes it plain: he is speaking of the 'Messiah, which is translated

Christ' (1.41). Philip then calls Nathanael, with the clear indication that
this one whom they have found is the one spoken of throughout the Old
47
Testament Scriptures (1.45). Finally, Nathanael's confession climacti-
cally brings together the titles 'Son of God' and 'King of Israel' in a
parallel construction and stands at something of a climax in the chapter.
Certainly the titles 'Son' and 'King' taken together with 'Messiah' (v. 41)
are striking enough in their context to cause the reader to ponder their
48
meaning and background. What do these terms mean? How do they
apply to Jesus? If the coming one, that is, the Christ, was spoken of in the
Old Testament, where is it that he is specifically called 'Son of God' and
'King'? These three titles, Messiah, Son and King, also occur in close
context in Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is a royal psalm that especially focuses on the
49
coronation of the king. As an allusion to Gen. 1.1 in the first verse of the
document serves to evoke the creation context, the Pentateuch, and
the Old Testament generally, an allusion to this prominent psalm, part of
the introduction to the Psalter, would be evocative of that collection. It
seems that the convergence of these titles, particularly as the parallel titles
'Son of God' and 'King' follow the transliterated Hebrew term jjeaaias,
50
which is then translated for the reader's benefit as xpioTos, would evoke
Psalm 2 in the mind of a biblically literate reader. Whereas in Ps. 2.7 God
pronounces 'you are my son': uios pou el ou, in John, Nathanael expresses
47 W. Kraus points to this statement as an example of John's interest in showing Jesus to

be the fulfilment of the OT Scriptures: 'Programmatisch fasst der Evangelist die
christologische Zielrichtung des AT durch den Mund Philippus als eines der ersten Junger
zusammen: Mose und die Propheten sprechen von Jesus' (W. Kraus, 'Johannes und das Alte
Testament', ZNWU [1997]: 3-14[3]).
48 Clearly Jesus' response, alluding to Genesis 28 and Jacob's vision, invites the reader to
be thinking of his identity in OT terms. Gomes writes: 'Bethel is for Jacob holy ground
because of the unexpected presence of the Lord there... Nathanael, after his question at verse
46 and before his confession at verse 49, stands in the unexpected presence of one who is
commended to him in the present by his knowledge of the past and his command of the
future' (Peter J. Gomes, 'John 1:45-51', Int 43 [1989]: 282-6 [285]). In his answer to
Nathanael, Jesus uses yet another title, 'Son of Man'. See the discussion of S. Mowinckel
who develops that background and possible connotations of the term, with special attention
to the Daniel 7 background (He That Cometh, pp. 346-450).
49 See Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC, 19 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 64.
50 Though Soards calls Jn 1.41 an 'allusion' to Ps. 2.2 (M. L. Soards, 'The Psalter in the
Text and Thought of the Fourth Gospel', in R. B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parson (eds),
Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel [Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1993], pp. 251-61 [259], standing alone it at best might be called an 'echo' of the
psalm text. However it appears John will bring in 'catch words', that is, key words from the
near context of a verse to which he alludes, in order to 'reinforce' an intentional allusion for
his reader. It seems the 'echo' of Ps. 2.2 in Jn 1.41 serves such a purpose with respect to the
allusion to Ps. 2.7 in 1.49. In the same way, the parallel title 'King' echoes Ps. 2.6, further
reinforcing the allusion.
fc
the same truth, from his perspective, you are the son of God': ou el 6 uios
TOU 9eou. Though this is not a verbatim citation, it is a rather close
allusion. Soards concurs that 'the phrase "Son of God," cast confession-
ally in John 1.49 in relation to the phrase "king of Israel," is reminiscent
of the reference to the "Son" of the Lord who is the King of Zion in Ps
51
2.7'. It serves to evoke a well-known text where the messianic titles
converge, in order to introduce a key theme of John's Gospel in a most
emphatic way. The king had come. The hope of Israel, the one promised
in the Scriptures, had arrived. This fulfilment theme was made explicit by
the statement of Philip in 1.45: 'We have found Him of whom Moses in
the Law, and also the prophets wrote.' John is concerned with making a
case for the messianic identity of Jesus (Jn 20.30-31), and his understand
ing of 'Messiah' is founded squarely on the Old Testament.
If John is intentionally evoking the second psalm, why does he do so at
this point in the narrative? As Psalm 2 stands (together with Psalm 1) as
52
an introduction to the Psalter, presenting the king who as Yahweh's
vicegerent stands against a world in rebellion against the rule of God (and
who would be the subject of the following laments), so the psalm may be
here alluded to, introducing the reader to the king, the Son of God, whose
life and passion would fulfil and reflect the suffering of the rejected king of
the lament psalms. Notably the Synoptic tradition makes a similar
allusion to this psalm near the beginning of the story of Jesus (Mk 1.11; cf.
53
Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22). As the psalm in its canonical context served to
introduce the reader of the Psalter to the king, who would be the subject
54
of the following series of laments, so in John's narrative the reader is
55
introduced to the king, who likewise would be a righteous sufferer. In
view of the fact that the writer has invited the reader to read his Gospel
through the grid of the Old Testament, and in view of the importance of
the Psalms and the prominence of Psalm 2, it seems highly probable that
the writer intends his thoughtful reader to perceive an intentional allusion
51 Soards, 'Psalter in the Text', p. 259.

52 See my discussion of this suggestion with supporting bibliography, 'Kingship and the
Psalms', pp. 53-6. So Mays notes that 'Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the whole'
Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 122.
53 This may hint that Psalm 2 was viewed in the early Church as a key passage linking
the titles 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' with the suffering king of the laments. See also Heb. 1.5
where it serves a similar purpose at the beginning of that document. It may also imply that
the NT writers were conscious of the structure of the Psalter as a 'clue' to how the Psalms
should be read.
54 The question of the role of the king as the petitioner in the psalms of lament is
debated. Personally I have found the arguments of John Eaton convincing in this respect
(Kingship and the Psalms).
55 Luke gives us strong early evidence of the Church applying this psalm to Jesus in both
the prayer of the disciples (Acts 4.25-28) and the first sermon of Paul (Acts 13.33). It appears
also to function as a scriptural basis for the 'son of God' title in Heb. 1.5.
to Psalm 2. Is it coincidental that John has evoked the beginning of the

Old Testament (1.1; cf. Gen. 1.1), the beginning of the second major
section of Isaiah (1.23; cf. Isa. 40.3), and now the beginning of the Psalter
(1.49; Ps. 2.7)? Following the unambiguous allusions to Genesis-Exodus
in the Prologue, and the citation from Isaiah on the lips of John the
Baptist, this allusion would serve to point to the third major section of the
Hebrew Scriptures as also anticipating the coming of the Messiah. In so
doing, John has provided a 'link' to the Psalter, which will help the reader
understand his messianic interpretation of the Psalms.
The first explicit Psalm citation in the Fourth Gospel, following this
allusion to Psalm 2 comes in Jn 2.17 and stands as an initial invitation to
the reader to begin thinking through the implications of Jesus' kingship
specifically in terms of lament motifs. Remember, John explicitly states
that an aspect of his presentation of the story of Jesus is to show his
identity as Messiah and Son of God (20.30-31).
Following Nathanael's confession of Jesus as the 'royal messiah' and
the initial revelation of his glory at Cana, the scene in the temple, with its
dual references to Passover (2.13, 23) and the citation of Ps. 69.9 (2.17),
serves to qualify and clarify what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah,
King, and Son of God. The echoes of Passover and allusions to and
citations of lament psalms will continue throughout the narrative of the
Fourth Gospel, showing that the Scriptures pictured a Messiah who
would suffer and be rejected. I would concur with Keitzer that 'hints of
56
the death of the messiah crop up throughout the Gospel account', but
go further in asserting that these hints are frequently grounded in
Scripture and presented as evidence of Jesus' identity. And so in the
Fourth Gospel, the rejection of Jesus by his own people becomes a
vindication of his messianic identity, and a fulfilment of the Scriptures. As
the first citation from the Psalter, Ps. 69.9 provides an initial, scriptural
basis for the inexplicable idea that the Messiah should be rejected, suffer
and die. The allusion to Psalm 2 has provided a bridge to the messianic
application of the psalm by the disciples (Ps. 69.9; Jn 2.17).
John 3.35-36: An Overlooked Allusion to Psalm 2?
The initial section, 1.19-4.54, asserts that the promised Messiah has come,
offering new life. I have argued that an allusion to Ps. 2.7 has served as an
exegetical bridge to the lament psalms which will be part of John's
scriptural argument that Jesus' fate was not a defeat, but a fulfilment of
56 Larry J. Kreitzer, 'The Temple Incident in John 2.13-25: A Preview of What is to

Come', in C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (eds), Understanding, Studying, and
Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton (JSNTSup, 153; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 91-101 (100).
Scripture and so a vindication of his messianic claim. It may be that John

also follows his first citation from a lament psalm with another intentional
allusion to Psalm 2, thus reinforcing the connection with the Psalter.
The second allusion to Psalm 2 occurs in Jn 3.35-36 and has been
57
almost completely overlooked. Certainly Son (of God) as it is repeated
in the third chapter (3.16-18, 35, 36) echoes and invites the reader to recall
the striking messianic confession of Nathanael in 1.49 (which we have
58
argued in its context alludes to Psalm 2). If chapter 1 indeed evokes
Psalm 2, and this passage is intended to recall chapter 1, would we be
59
surprised to see again a subtle allusion to the psalm?
First of all, there is a similarity with respect to the content and function
of the psalm and the Johannine context. Note that Psalm 2 introduces us
to the 'king', the 'son' who is the human subject of the Psalter. This
section of John (chs 1-4) likewise introduces us to the son, the 'king of
Israel', and here in ch. 3, like Psalm 2, speaks of the consequences of
accepting or rejecting him. Moreover, in addition to the 'Son of God' title,
there are several other verbal and conceptual parallels between the two
passages. While Jn 3.35, from the writer's perspective of inaugurated
eschatology, says the Father has given all things into the son's hand;
employing the same verb, Ps. 2.8 promises that if the son but asks, the
Father 'will give' him [all things]. Psalm 2.5 speaks of the 'wrath' of the
Lord (cf. 2.12, MT) as does Jn 3.36. Notice that both Psalm 2 and John 3
spell out the consequences of rejecting the 'son'. Indeed, Jn 3.35-36 would
serve as a very adequate summary of Psalm 2. Perhaps the most
compelling verbal parallel is in Jn 3.36 which says that rejection (aireiSeco,
'do not obey') will lead to God's 'wrath', while Ps. 2.12 says that 'trust'
60
(rreiSco) is the means of avoiding 'wrath' and finding blessing. Both texts
employ the verbs in the participial form. The verb rreiSco does not appear
in John and cciT£i9eco appears only here. In the Johannine context aTreiOlco
appears as an unexpected contrast to those who 'believe' [TTIOTEUCO] in the
Son. Why did John choose this word, which he uses nowhere else in the
Gospel? It seems he is inviting his readers, familiar with the language of
57 J. Ramsey Michaels did note that Jn 3.35-36 is a 'brief meditation on Jesus' baptism'
and 'echo(es) the synoptic tradition of a voice from heaven (Mark 1.11)' (John, p. 66). It
seems more likely to me that both passages are alluding to the same source, i.e., Psalm 2.
58 'Son of Man' (3.13, 14) would appear to function separately, harkening back to its
previous usage in the Gospel (1.51), there also on the lips of Jesus (See C. Ham, 'The Son of
Man in the Gospel of John', StoneCamJ 1 [1998]: 67-84). Note that in both of these passages
the allusion is to the Mosaic corpus.
59 Note my proposed concentric outline for the section (chs 1^1) above. If this is indeed
valid, it is interesting that the two allusions to Psalm 2 occur at parallel points in the outline
C and C . (See also, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel', p. 77.)
60 Though John does not use the same word as the Psalm, the terms are virtually
synonomous and the conceptual parallel is unmistakable.
the LXX, to 'hear' an allusion to Psalm 2. The thematic and verbal links
certainly echo Psalm 2 and are sufficient to show that an allusion probably
was intended.
Conclusion
With this allusion complementing the earlier allusion to Psalm 2, the two
together bracket the citation of Ps. 69.9 at Jn 2.17, forming an inclusio
which helps explain the first explicit quotation from the Psalter in the
document. They point to Psalm 2 as the scriptural basis for the 'Son of
God' title. It is as Messiah, King, and Son of God that Jesus must suffer.
John evokes the psalm, part of the introduction to the Psalter, inviting his
readers to read the collection messianically. Thus Psalm 2, which was
certainly viewed as messianic in the first-century Church (see Heb. 1.5;
Acts 4.25-31; 13.33; cf. Mt. 3.17; Mk 1.11; Lk. 3.22; Rev. 2.26, 27), forms
a kind of hermeneutical bridge to Psalm 69, and with it, to the other
Davidic psalms of lament. Psalm 2 itself envisioned resistance, however
futile, to the reign of Yahweh and his anointed one. The lament psalms
are evoked in John as specific expressions of that resistance. And so the
Psalms are used in this Gospel to explain the rejection of Jesus and as a
vindication of his messianic identity.
Chapter 7
JOEL 2.28-32A IN ACTS 2.17-21
THE DISCOURSE A N D TEXT-CRITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATION

FROM THE L X X
Steven E. Runge
Introduction
The text of Acts 2.17-21 is generally regarded as a quotation from the
Septuagint ( L X X ) . However, the number and nature of the departures
from the LXX reading that are attested in Acts 2 have led many to
1
conclude that more is going on here than simple quotation. Ruis-Camps
and Read-Heimerdinger state: 'More than simply citing the passage of
Joel 2:28-32a LXX word for word, Peter will interpret and adapt it to [sic]
2
so as apply it to the current situation.' In terms of textual criticism,
several significant variants are attested between the Western text and the
Alexandrian, with the former having a shorter reading rather than a
longer one. Efforts to resolve these problems have followed traditional
lines, arguing either for original adaptation by the writer, or for some kind
3
of correction by a later scribe.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical impact that these
1 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 73; R. C. H.

Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1961), pp. 73-5.
2 J. Ruis-Camps and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A
Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (LNTS; London: T & T Clark, 2004), p. 181. Cf.
H. Conzelmann et al, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
(translation of Die Apostelgeschichte; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 18; C. K.
Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark International, 1994), p. 136; J. B. Polhill, Acts (The New American
Commentary), 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p. 109; B. M. Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies,
1975), p. 295.
3 For a good overview of these approaches cf. S. E. Porter, 'Scripture Justifies Mission:
The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts', in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing the Old Testament
in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 104-22.
changes and variations have on the quotation's meaning in the textual

context of Acts 2. What practical difference do they make? What would
motivate changes that have no textual basis in the L X X ? My purpose is not
to resolve the text-critical issues, nor to argue for a preferred reading.
Rather, I will focus on explaining the meaningful differences that the
various attested readings would bring about from the standpoint of
discourse grammar. Research in the field of discourse grammar and text-
linguistics has demonstrated in recent years that many issues typically
described as 'stylistic variation' in fact reflect meaningful choices made on
the part of the writer-editor. My goal is to demonstrate the practical
benefits to be gained from attending to discourse considerations, using the
citation of LXX Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 as a test case. This paper does
not discuss every textual variant from this passage, but is limited to the
ones most influencing the overall exegesis. These issues are:
• the change from pera xauxa to e v TCUS e a x a T a i s fipepais in Acts
2.17a;
• the insertion of the prophetic formula Aeyei 6 0e6s in Acts 2.17a;
• the insertion of ye in Acts 2.18;
• the insertion of KCU irpo<}>TlTeuGouGiv in Acts 2.18;
• the insertion of avco, arjMâ and KCCTCO in Acts 2.20.
Each of these issues will be discussed in turn.
Change of the Temporal Frame of Reference from Generic to

Specific in Acts 2.17a.
The two critical LXX texts and Codex Vaticanus read a rather generic
temporal expression IGTCXI p e x a T a u T a , very much in keeping with that
4
observed in the Hebrew Bible ( M T ) Q T ^ t J K ""Ô!)- Barrett comments
that 'MSTCX TauTa simply looks forward and declares that the events in
question will happen at some time in the future. Ev xaTs e a x a T a i s
ilMepais points to the last act of history and claims that they are part of
5
God's final act of redemption'. Similarly, Conzelmann states that the
reference to the 'last days' 'has become a stereotyped expression (cf. 1 Tim
4:1; 2 Tim 3:1) and no longer expresses an expectation of an immediate
6
end'. The insertion of a more detailed temporal expression has the effect
of recasting the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit from some point in
time after the events of Joel 2, to an eschatological time, one which Peter is
4 Karl Elliger, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1997).

5 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:136.
6 Conzelmann et al., Acts of the Apostles, p. 19.
RUNGE Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 105
7
announcing the arrival of in Acts 2. Thus, most have analysed this
variation from the L X X as intentionally motivated to better contextualize
the following quotation to the events of Pentecost. From the standpoint of
27
the manuscript evidence, Metzger concludes that the reading of N A says
more about the adaptation of Joel to the context than it does about some
8
undocumented recension of Joel. The fact that Sinaiticus maintains
disparate readings in Joel and Acts would seem to offer tacit support for
this view.
Insertion of the Prophetic Formula in Acts 2.17a

The insertion of Xlyei 6 9s6s has been described by Barrett as something
of a semantic necessity in the context of Acts, to identify the intended
9
speaker of the quotation. However, it is important to consider whether
this formula is even necessary, and to consider its location within the
10 11 12
overall clause. To begin with, Xeyei 6 Beos is attested only four times
in Rahlfs' edition of the LXX, while the most likely Hebrew retroversion
is unattested in BHS. These factors may have influenced the
13
reading of KG for Qsos in Bezae. For the sake of discussion, I will look at
the discourse function of the more widely attested collocation rnrP'TJK]
in the MT in order to propose a discourse function for the presence of a
comparable prophetic formula in Acts 2.17.
7 Polhill states: 'Joel's prophecy was originally given after a locust plague had ravaged
the land, creating a severe famine. Joel called the people to repentance, promising the
restoration of their prosperity and going on to foresee the coming of the Day of the Lord, the
dawn of the messianic age, when the Spirit would be poured out on all of Israel. Peter could
not miss its applicability to Pentecost. Joel began his prophecy by saying "and afterward."
Peter's version refers more specifically to "in the last days," reflecting his conviction that the
messianic age had already dawned in the resurrection of Christ, that we are indeed already
living in the final days of God's saving history' (J. B. Polhill, Acts, p. 109).
8 Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 295.
9 'Asysi 6 8eos (kiysx K i i p i o s , D E latt Ir , GrNy) is an addition to the text of Joel (3.5
lat
has KOCSOTI EITTEV icupios). An ascription is no doubt desirable in Acts; in Joel, after 2.27 (Eyco
K u p i o s 6 0EoG uucov) it was not necessary' (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:136).
10 L X X (Cambridge) and BHS join the temporal clause with the main clause using KCCI,
whereas LXX (Gottingen) uses asyndeton. Whether the KCCI is original in the LXX or not, its
omission in any GNT manuscripts is most likely caused by the addition of this prophetic
formula.
11 Note that an inverted form of this frame (6 0E6S EITTEV) is found in Acts 7.7, also clause
medial in an OT quote. However there is a variant reading attested in D, E and the Majority
text, which transposes the elements, thus matching the reading found in Acts 2.17.
12 2 Sam. 23.3; Isa. 40.1; 41.14; 44.6.
13 For a thematic motivation for the reading in Bezae, cf. Ruis-Camps and Read-
Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p . 169: 'Whereas 0E6S is a reference to
God, Kiipios is potentially ambiguous since it can mean Yahweh, as in LXX, or Jesus. Verse
2.33 will make clear that Jesus is intended.'
Watson notes that expressions like HIIT'DiM and HliT H3, 'even
if [they are] later editorial insertions - can help show where major
structural segments are demarcated', stating on the following page that
14
these introductions can also be used to arouse the reader's interest.
Parunak, in attempting to provide a unified description of the discourse
function of miTTD&W, notes that its most basic function is to mark a
T "* 15
disjunction in the text. But he also claims that it is a focus marker,
signalling 'a highly local highlighting of a clause or phrase that merits the
16
recipient's attention'.
In the vast majority of occurrences of HI IT TDM in the Hebrew Bible,
the formula is found at the end of a clause, rather than in the middle as
here in Acts 2. Only 14 out of the 65 (i.e., 22%) occurrences in the Book of
the Twelve are clause-medial, and the proportion is even lower for the
entire Hebrew Bible, 39 out of 268 (i.e., 15%). Of the 14 clause-medial
occurrences of HI !T "DIM in the Twelve, nine of them separate a temporal
frame of reference (e.g., Tt will come about in those days...') from the
disclosure of what will happen at that time. In other words, placing the
formula clause-medially after the temporal frame has the effect of
delaying the disclosure of what exactly will come about in that day. This
delay creates a greater sense of expectation than would have occurred
using a clause-initial HIIT lib, or a clause-final HIiT'OK]
I propose that the clause-medial prophetic formula used in the context
of Acts 2.17 has the effect of highlighting the action that will come about
in the last days, in a manner that is completely consistent with the usage of
rnrP""DtM in Jeremiah and the Twelve. In other words, 'the pouring out of
the Spirit' receives special prominence due to the clause-medial placement
of the prophetic formula, the core point that Peter is making with the
crowd regarding their misinterpretation of what they have seen. The
writer could have just as easily (and perhaps more properly) used a clause-
14 W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T & T
Clark, 2001), p. 164.
15 H. V. D. Parunak, 'Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Formulas in Jeremiah', in
R. D. Bergen (ed.), Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 489-519 (514).
16 Ibid., p. 511. O'Connor attributes a similar function to oracle titles such as rnrrTMW
which he refers to as 'discourse level focus-markings' (M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), p. 356. Similarly, Revell notes that repeated speech
introductions can often be best explained as 'intended to draw attention to the following
speech' (E. J. Revell, 'The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical
Hebrew', VT 47 (1997): 91-110 (109). Thus, most explanations either claim that it is
structural or else accomplishing some sort of highlighting, but not both. I have argued
elsewhere that these issues are more accurately described in terms of an entailment hierarchy,
whereby one function is entailed within another; cf. S. E. Runge, 'A Discourse-Functional
Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative' (diss.: University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007), esp. ch. 6.
initial Ta5e Aeyei Kiipios, or perhaps no quotative formula at all, to

indicate to the Jewish crowd that the intended speaker in the quotation
was not the prophet himself. Alternatively, the formula could have been
placed at the end of the clause, as would normally be expected from its
usage elsewhere.
Regardless of the origins of the more specific temporal frame and the
prophetic formula, they both contribute much to contextualizing the
quotation from Joel 2 to the discourse context of Acts 2. The temporal
frame recasts the promise for a generic later time into a specifically
eschatological one. The location of the prophetic formula, whether
semantically required or not, and regardless of whether one reads 6 Seosor
KG has the effect of adding prominence to the very point that Peter was
attempting to make, viz. the outpouring of the Spirit.
Insertion of ye and its Impact on the Information Structure in Acts

2.18
In Acts 2.18, most NT manuscripts read Kai ye, whereas the Cambridge
and Gottingen editions of the LXX simply read Kai. BHS reads D31, which
is regularly rendered in the Old Greek of the Twelve using only the
connective Kai. Kcc\ is most commonly used as a co-ordinating conjunc
tion. Thus, it is most often construed as a conjunction unless some other
co-ordinating conjunction is present to disambiguate a non-conjunctive
usage, or unless it is used in a context where asyndeton is prevalent. Kcu
17
can also function adverbially, and is best understood as an 'additive'.
This function specifies that the clause element it modifies should be added
to some preceding, comparable element. This usage as an additive is
usually translated into English as 'also'. Adverbial Kai can also add
something to itself, usually translated into English as 'even'. This two-fold
18
adverbial function of Kai is comparable to 03 in biblical Hebrew. Thus,
when Kai occurs by itself, unless it is in a context of asyndetic clause
connections or another connective, it is most likely to be construed as a
connective rather than as an adverbial additive.
In considering the context of the usage in LXX Joel 2.29, it is unclear
whether the Kai functions adverbially or not. The principles described
above for differentiating the co-ordinating function of Kai from its
17 J. K. Heckert, Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Dallas: SIL

International), pp. 71-90.
18 In describing the semantics and pragmatics of D3, Van der Merwe et al. state:
'Speakers or writers give an explicit indication to their audience that a specific something or
someone must be added to something or someone referred to in the preceding context: also,
even, moreover, even more so' (C. H. J. Van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar (electronic ed; Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), p. 315.
adverbial use can give us insight into the significance of ye found in Acts
2.18. Joel 2.29a is the fifth consecutive clause to begin with KCCI, making it
difficult to construe it as an additive without making reference to the
Hebrew reading. However, the presence or absence of an additive in this
context has a significant effect on how the information structure of the
clause is processed.
Acts 2.17c and 2.17d begin with what has traditionally been called a
contrastive topic. This construction has the effect of establishing specific
19
topical frames of reference for the clause that follows. Each topic frame
is followed by the object of the verb, which I construe as positioned before
20
the verb for the sake of emphasis. Thus, two back-to-back clauses use a
fronted subject to create a new topical frame, followed immediately by an
emphasized element before the verb. This structure in v. 17 leads Lenski to
state, 'the three predicates form a unit, each predicate saying the same
21
thing with variation, as each subject is only a variation'. Comparing the
reading in Acts to Joel 2.29, the fronting of km TOUS SOUAOUS KCU km
L X X
TCXS SouAas could easily be construed as signalling another switch of

topic, specifying yet another entity that will experience some manifest
ation of the Spirit. Similarly, an argument could also be made for
construing it as fronted for emphasis, based on the previous context and
the ordering of the components that follow. To one extent or another, its
function is ambiguous as rendered in the L X X editions.
If we now consider what difference the presence or absence of ye would
make, I contend that it effectively disambiguates the intended function of
km TOUS SouAous uou KOL\ km TCCS SouAas UOU. i BHS, the presence of
22
n
• 3 indicates that rather than listing another contrastive topic, what

follows indicates the extreme extent to which the outpouring of the Spirit
will be experienced: even on the menservants and maidservants. The
repetition of ""[SB from Joel 3.1 adds support for the view that what is
being asserted in v. 2 is who else will receive the Spirit, rather than what
19 For a thorough introduction to the information structure observed in the Greek New
Testament, cf. S. H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook
on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: SIL International, 2nd edn,
2000).
20 Ibid., pp. 37-45.
21 Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75.
22 Most commentators understand the fronted prepositional phrases of Acts 2.18a as
emphatic, e.g., Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75; J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Acts of the Apostles (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 253; Barrett, Acts of the
Apostles, 1:137; B. M. Newman and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles
(UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1972),
p. 44; however none discuss the difference that the presence or absence of ys has on this
reading.
23
will happen to the menservants and maidservants. Thus, ye in Acts 2.18
has the effect of disambiguating the information structure of the clause,
clarifying that the fronted element is emphatic, not contrastive. Though
the reading in the LXX is ambiguous, NETS has translated the Kai
adverbially. Thus, while reading ye may represent an addition with respect
to the LXX, it plays a significant role in disambiguating the intended
meaning of the clause, preserving the clarity that is attested in the MT.
Codex Bezae departs from the other major manuscripts regarding the
2 4
reading of Acts 2.18, reading eyco for y s . As I stated, Acts 2.17c and
2.17d began with contrastive subjects that establish new topical frames of
reference for the following clause. This could create the expectation that
the fronting of ETH TOUS SouXous pou Ka\ im x a s SouXas \iov in v. 18 is
serving a similar function. However, the presence of the explicit subject
eycb in Bezae would be construed as yet another topic frame, establishing
a contrastive switch from the topic of v. 17d. Hence, even without ye, the
fronted prepositional phrase would still be analysed as emphatic in Bezae
since the question of whether it is a contrastive topic or not is settled by
the presence of the contrastive personal pronoun. Bezae also omits the
temporal phrase EV TaTs l u p o u s EKEivais, which further disambiguates
that the motivation for fronting im TOUS SOUXOUS pou Kai im TCCS SouXas
pou is for emphasis, not to establish a contrastive topic.
Insertion of KCX\ TrpcKJHlTeuaouoiv in Acts 2.18
The concluding clause of Acts 2.18 (KO\ irpo^riTEuaouoiv) is not attested in

the MT, LXX or Bezae. The content represents a repetition of the verbal
clause from v. 17b. This addition has received little attention. Conzelmann
simply notes that the Western text excludes it, without discussing the
25
implications or rationale for its omission. Barrett and Polhill both
26
attribute the reiteration to placing a high value on prophecy. While
Polhill notes the parallelism created between w . 17-18, he does not discuss
27
the impact of the Lxx/Bezae reading compared to the N A reading of
Acts 2.
Ruis-Camps and Heimerdinger assert that the parallelism of w . 17-18
23 For a very general introduction to information-structuring principles applied to

English, cf. S. E. Runge, 'Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Account of
the Parable of the Sower', Journal of the Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek 1
(2008): 1-16.
24 For an argument in favour of eyco being the superior reading, cf. Ruis-Camps and
Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p. 170.
25 Conzelmann et al., Acts of the Apostles, p. 20.
26 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:137; Polhill, Acts, p. 109.
forms a chiastic structure, according to the reading attested in Bezae,

which follows the text of the L X X : 2 7
[a] I will pour out my Spirit

[b] on all flesh
[c] they will prophesy.. .see in visions.. .have dreams
[b'] on my male servants and female servants
[a'] I will pour out my Spirit
Based on their analysis, the focus of the chiastic structure is placed on
prophesying and the other attesting signs associated with the outpouring
of the Spirit. This structure is not a possibility based upon the reading
27
attested in N A .
The addition of Kai TrpcxjmTSuaouaiv in v. 18 changes the poetic
formulation of these verses in some important ways. While there may be
several configurations possible, the simplest reformulation based on the
2 7
N A text is to construe the structure as direct parallelism rather than as
chiasm.
[a] In those days I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh
[b] and they will prophesy
[c] the young men will see visions and the old men will dream
dreams
[a'] and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will
pour out my Spirit
[b'] and they will prophesy
[c'] I will give wonders in the heavens a b o v e . . .
In this new configuration, the emphasis shifts from the idea of prophecy,
visions and dreams to a reiteration of key concepts. The outpouring of
God's Spirit is assigned to 'all flesh', and reiterated more specifically as
'my menservants and my maidservants', with the result that they shall
prophesy. This is followed by a description of the signs associated with
this outpouring: seeing visions and dreaming dreams among humanity,
and signs and wonders in the terrestrial and celestial domains. In this
configuration, the shift no longer focuses on 'the move from the universal
28
to the Jewish application of the prophecy'. Instead, it moves from the
human realm to the cosmic.
In as much as the addition of KOU irpcxjmTSUoouoiv seems to be rather
insignificant in terms of the content that it contributes to the context, its
impact on the overall structuring of the passage is much more significant.
While this addition contributes no new information, the resulting
27 Ruis-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p. 170.

28 Ibid., p. 183.
repetition constrains the reader to process the lines as directly parallel,

rather than as chiastic.
Insertion of a v c o , or)|JE?a and KCCTCO in Acts 2.20
In the LXX editions of the quoted text, the Gottingen and Cambridge
editions differ in their understanding regarding the intended parallelism of
Joel 2.30. Based on the placement of the atnach accent in BHS, the text is
to be read as a general statement about the giving of signs in the heavens
and on the earth. This is followed by what would technically be called a
right-dislocation, a syntactically independent appositional phrase that
provides epexegetical information about some referent in the main clause.
In this case, the signs (and possibly the wonders too) are given greater
specification: blood, fire and columns of smoke. This is the reading
adopted in the NETS version, exemplified in the use of a colon to separate
the main clause from the right-dislocation. The Gottingen edition uses a
comma to disambiguate how the text should be read, in agreement with
BHS and NETS.
There is an alternative reading reflected in the Cambridge edition,
wherein there is a comma following oupavco. While the Cambridge edition
is not considered the authoritative critical text, its reading points to the
fact that the LXX text has some degree of ambiguity in how to read the
verse, one which requires punctuation to disambiguate. This has a rather
significant effect on the verse structure, creating contrasting statements
about what will happen in the heavens and on the earth.
KOC\ Scooco TEpocTa EV Tea oupavcp, And I will give wonders in the
heavens,
K a i
ffi V % a \ | j a Ka\ m j p And on the earth, blood and fire
Ka\ ax|ji5a KOTTVOG, and columns of smoke.
Read in this way, the verse creates a chiasm with the prepositional
phrase in the second colon, which creates a new spatial frame of reference
to switch from 'in the heavens' to 'on the earth'. The verb in the second
colon would be construed as elided and thus dependent upon the first
colon. On this basis, it seems that the reading in the LXX editions evinces
an ambiguity in the Greek, one which each clarifies through the use of
punctuation.
On the other hand, the NT manuscripts nearly universally attest three
additions in Acts 2.19, unattested in the LXX or in the MT: KCCTCO, OTIMÔC
and avco. The presence of these words effectively counters the possibility
of the second reading found in Cambridge edition, essentially disambig-
uating the nature of the parallelism without the use of punctuation.
KCCI Scooco TBpccTa ev T c o oupavcp And I will give wonders in the

avco heavens above,
KCU anuEia ETTI TTJS yr\s KOCTCO, And signs on the earth below:
onucc KCCI mip Km ccTuiSa Katrvou* blood and fire and columns of
smoke.
Based on the additions attested in the NT texts, what is punctuated as

right-dislocated in BHS and the Gottingen edition is outside the scope of
the parallelism in the NT readings as well. Adding ornjeTa changes the
parallelism of the first two cola from potentially chiastic to directly
parallel, juxtaposing 'wonders' with 'signs', and 'above' with 'below'.
Since the final colon is not in parallel with either of the preceding lines, it
is understood as appositional to at least one of the preceding cola. Bezae
omits the dislocated segment, but retains the additions described above.
The net result is to maintain the same parallelism as the other NT
manuscripts, without providing the additional detail about the signs and
wonders. In other words, the primary difference between Bezae and the
other NT manuscripts is one of semantic detail, not syntactic relations.
Thus, I contend that the additions attested in the NT manuscripts have
the effect of disambiguating the nature of the parallelism intended by the
LXX, specifying the exact relationship of the lines to one another that does
not necessitate the use of punctuation. Though the NT manuscripts attest
several additions in Acts 2.19 compared to the LXX, I contend that the
effect is to disambiguate how the lines are to be related to one another in
the absence of punctuation.
Conclusions
We have surveyed how insights from discourse grammar can inform and
even correct text-critical judgements in new and helpful ways.
Understanding the discourse function of clause-medial prophetic formulas
added insight into why an unattested addition in either the L X X or M T
could reasonably be construed as original, helping to corroborate the
widespread manuscript support. Insights from information structure
combined with a functional description of KCU allowed us to see the
meaningful difference that various readings would make on the overall
structuring of the passage. Attention to the impact that the various
readings would have on the poetic structure of the passage provided
additional criteria for sifting through the text-critical evidence attested in
this passage. Only one of the five significant variations from the LXX
reading have been given much consideration within the literature, other
than evaluating the manuscript evidence for or against the reading.
The kinds of unattested variants found in Acts 2.17-20 often raise
questions about whether they represent some later L X X reading, or
alternatively an adaptation of the original into some new and different
message. Other than the change in temporal frame from generic to
specifically eschatological in Acts 2.17, I have demonstrated that each
variation plays a significant role in its context of preserving the original
Hebrew meaning, at least as it is attested in BHS, by clarifying ambiguity
observed in the LXX readings. I contend that these variations should not
be understood as evidence of later recensions, nor should they be rejected
based on their absence from the LXX reading. Rather, the variations evince
a consistent attempt to provide grammatical clarity to the message
communicated.
Chapter 8
G E N E S I S 1-3 A N D C O N C E P T I O N S O F H U M A N K I N D I N
4 Q I N S T R U C T I O N , P H I L O A N D P A U L
Matthew Goff
Introduction
4QInstruction (1Q26, 4Q415-18, 423) is the last lengthy text from Qumran
1
to be published. Its official edition appeared in 1999. The composition
includes a dualistic understanding of humankind, using 'flesh' and 'spirit'
terminology that is grounded in an interpretation of Genesis 1-3. There
are similar anthropological reflections and exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in Philo
and Paul. I will argue that these authors were influenced by Palestinian
Jewish traditions that are attested in 4QInstruction, which shaped how
they understood Genesis 1-3. Since 4QInstruction is a sapiential text, it is
possible to understand this as an example of the influence of the Jewish
wisdom tradition on both Philo and Paul. I will not be able to examine the
full range of their writings but will focus on De opificio mundi and 1
Corinthians.
4QInstruction
2
First, some background regarding 4QInstruction. Most commentators
A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature in San Diego, California on 18 November 2007.1 would also like to thank Eibert
Tigchelaar for sending me his paper, 'Flesh and Spirit: Reading 4QInstruction in the Light of
1 Corinthians', that he presented in Leuven in December 2007.
1 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2.
4QInstruction (Musar le Mebin): 4Q415ff. With a Re-edition of 1Q26 (DJD, 34; Oxford.
Clarendon, 1999). T. Elgvin is the editor of 4Q423.
2 Recent books on 4QInstruction include M. J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom
of 4QInstruction (STDJ, 50; Leiden: Brill, 2003); B. G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The
Qumran Wisdom Document 'Musar leMevin' and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions
(WUNT, 2/201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning
for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish
Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ, 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001). For other scholarship, consult
GOFF Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind 115
date the work to the second century B C E . The composition is aptly

3
classified as a wisdom text. It often uses the admonition form and

provides instruction on mundane, worldly topics including marriage,
bartering goods and the payment of debts. The document was written by a
teacher to a student who is usually referred to as mebin (p30), or
'understanding one'. The work is devoted to his education and is explicitly
pedagogical. 4QInstruction is in continuity with the practical wisdom of
the book of Proverbs.
But unlike this biblical book, 4QInstruction draws extensively from the
apocalyptic tradition. This is evident in the composition's frequent use of
the (TH] n . This expression signifies a form of supernatural revelation
4
and can be translated 'the mystery that is to be'. It is probably the most
important phrase in the composition. The raz nihyeh occurs over twenty
times in 4QInstruction and elsewhere only three times (1Q27 1 i 3-4 [2 x ];
1QS 11:3-4). The word raz is attested in Early Jewish literature, often to
denote heavenly revelation. It is used repeatedly in Daniel 2, for example,
in reference to God's disclosure to Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (w.
18-19, 27-30, 47 [2 x ]). Nihyeh is a niphal participle of the verb 'to be'. In
4QInstruction this participle denotes the entire range of history - past,
present and future. The raz nihyeh is connected to a tripartite division of
time in an unfortunately fragmentary passage: 'Everything that exists
(rrn3n) in it, from what has been to what will be in it... His period which
God revealed to the ear of the understanding ones through the mystery
that is to be' (4Q418 123 ii 3-4; cf. 4Q417 1 i 3-4; 1QS 3:15; CD 2:9-10).
The mystery that is to be signifies God's deterministic plan that shapes
history and creation, presented to the mebin as a revealed truth. The
addressee has elect status. He is in 'the lot of the angels' (4Q418 81 4-5).
One benefit of this status is access to supernatural revelation, in the form
of the raz nihyeh. Throughout the work the addressee is asked to meditate
and reflect upon this mystery (e.g., 4Q418 43 4). He acquires wisdom
primarily through the study of the raz nihyeh.
The Vision of Hagu, the Fleshly Spirit and the Spiritual People
The expression 'the vision of Hagu' f U n n ]1Tn) also signifies heavenly
revelation in 4QInstruction. The composition mentions this vision in a
D. J. Harrington, 'Recent Study of 4QInstruction', in F. Garcia Martinez, A. Steudel and E.

J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Melanges qumraniens en hommage d
Emile Puech (STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 105-23.
3 Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 228-32.
4 T. Elgvin, 'Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Early Second Century BCE - The
Evidence of 4Qinstruction', in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After
Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 226-47.
lesson regarding the 'spiritual people' and the 'fleshly spirit' in 4Q417 1 i
13-18. This much-discussed passage reads:
13. And you,
14. understanding one, inherit your reward by remembering the mi[ght
because] it is coming. Engraved is the statute, and ordained is all the
punishment,
15. because engraved is that which has been ordained by God against all
the iniquities of] the sons of Sheth. The book of remembrance is written
before him
16. for those who keep his word - that is, the vision of Hagu for the
book of remembrance. He bequeathed it to Adam (OTX) together with a
spiritual people, be[cau]se
17. he fashioned it (lit. 'him') according to the likeness of the holy ones.
But no more did he give Hagu to the fleshly spirit because it did not
distinguish between
5
18. [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit.
This article will not discuss all aspects of this complex passage. It is
addressed to the mebin and is presented as a teaching that he is to ponder
and study (11. 13-14). The vision of Hagu is associated with a heavenly
6
book and is thus reasonably considered a form of divine revelation. Lines
13-15 suggest that the revealed content of the vision includes knowledge
of the final judgement. He is to understand that this judgement is divinely
ordained (cf. 4Q416 1; 4Q418 69 ii).
The vision of Hagu passage lays out two different types of humankind -
m
the 'spiritual people' (Tin US) and the 'fleshly spirit' p (TH). The
former has access to the vision and the latter does not. The spiritual
people are connected to angels (OÊTHp) and revelation (Hagu). The
fleshly spirit is associated with a lack of revelation and of the knowledge
of good and evil. The 'spirit' of the spiritual people represents affinity with
the heavenly world, and the 'flesh' of the fleshly spirit signifies separation
from this realm. The expression 'spiritual people' is not attested elsewhere
in 4QInstruction but 'fleshly spirit' is. 4Q416 1 12 states that 'every fleshly
spirit will be laid bare', or destroyed, during the final judgement. The
5 Scholarship on this passage includes GofT, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 80-126;
Wold, Women, Men and Angels, pp. 124-49; J. J. Collins, Tn the Likeness of the Holy Ones:
The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran', in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich
(eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30; Leiden: Brill,
1999), pp. 609-19; A. Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination: Weisheitliche Urorahung und
Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 80-90. For
discussion of the transcription upon which this translation is based, see Goff, Worldly and
Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 84-8. Consult also Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV,
pp. 160-6; Tigchelaar'To Increase Learning, pp. 52-4.
6 The term 'the vision of Hagu' is similar to 'the book of Hagu' mentioned in the
Damascus Document and the Rule of the Congregation (CD 10:6; 14:6-8; lQSa 1:6-7).
author in 4Q418 811-2 tells the addressee that he has been separated from
the fleshly spirit in order to remove him 'from all that he (God) hates'. The
fleshly spirit is doomed to die and is distinguished from the intended
audience of the composition.
The phrase 'fleshly spirit' evokes the mortality of the body. In the
Hodayot the expression denotes bodily, creaturely existence that is
distinguished from a soul or spirit with a connection to the heavenly
realm. The speaker asserts: 'In the mysteries of your insight [you]
have apportioned all these things... [However, what is] the fleshly spirit
p E Q r m ) to understand all these matters?' (1QH 5:19-20). The poet
refers to his base humanity with the term 'fleshly spirit' and he
acknowledges its tension with his reception of revelation. In
4QInstruction the 'fleshly spirit' is denied revelation. The assertion in
4Q418 81 that the mebin is not among the fleshly spirit indicates that in
this work, unlike the Hodayot, the expression does not refer simply to
mere bodily existence. The phrase can be reasonably understood as
referring to the rest of humankind, aside from the elect to whom the
composition is addressed. 4Q418 81 asserts that God 'hates' the fleshly
spirit, but polemic about its evil nature is not a prominent feature of the
text (cf. 4Q416 1 16; 4Q417 1 ii 12). It never states that they are wicked.
People in this category would include the unjust but would not be limited
to such people. The core issue is not that the people of the fleshly spirit are
evil but that they do not have the knowledge necessary to obtain eternal
life. Those among the fleshly spirit are not in the lot of the angels, do not
possess the raz nihyeh, and thus do not have the knowledge necessary to
obtain eternal life. The situation is different with the spiritual people.
Elsewhere 4QInstruction asserts that the angels enjoy eternal life (4Q418
69 ii 13). Since they are associated with the angels, the spiritual people can
be linked to eternal life as well. They have the prospect of life after death,
whereas the fleshly spirit does not.
The spiritual people are not only associated with the angels. The vision
is also disclosed to (1.16). While the interpretation of this term is
debated, it is reasonable to consider a reference to Adam, as John
7
Collins has argued (cf. 1QS 3:18). The reference to the knowledge of
good and evil in the Hagu passage evokes Adam. The phrase 'according to
the likeness of the holy ones' (CTKJnp rP3D!7D) can be understood as
paraphrasing the expression 'in the image of God' (DTf*?K DÛD) from
7 Collins, *In the Likeness of the Holy Ones', pp. 613, 615. Strugnell and Harrington,
Qumran Cave 4. XXIV, p. 164, suggest that is either a reference to the patriarch Enosh
or to humanity in general. Both interpretations are possible but difficult to uphold. Enosh
never receives revelation in early Jewish literature. If refers to humankind in 4Q417 1 i
16, the line states that all of humanity receives the vision of Hagu. This is difficult to reconcile
with the assertion in line 17 that this vision is not given to the fleshly spirit.
Gen. 1.27, with DTlbfc interpreted as a reference to angels. The 'image of

God' language of Genesis 1 is reformulated to be part of the claim that the
8
spiritual people are 'fashioned' (HIT) in the likeness of the holy ones.
Since the spiritual people correspond to the Adam of Genesis 1, the fleshly
spirit can be reasonably connected to the creaturely, mortal depiction of
Adam in Gen. 2.7, although the Hagu passage admittedly never alludes to
9
this verse directly. The claim that God 'but no more' gave
Hagu to the fleshly spirit in 4Q417 1 i 17 may imply that at one point the
fleshly spirit possessed Hagu but that the vision was later taken away from
it. The line would then contain an indirect reference to Adam's removal
from the garden and thus the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of
10
good and evil. 4QInstruction does not attest a 'fall of man' or doctrine
11
of original sin. The explicit association between Adam and the spiritual
people demonstrates that the author had a positive conception of this
patriarch. This perspective is also evident in 4Q423, which likens the elect
addressee to Adam by asserting that the mebin has been given authority
over Eden. Given this posture towards Adam, it is not surprising that the
text does not directly mention his disobedience or expulsion from Eden.
If one grants that there are indirect allusions to Adam in the Hagu
passage's presentation of the fleshly spirit, 4QInstruction attests a
distinction between Adam in Genesis 1, who is connected to the spirit
and the angels, and the Adam of Genesis 2-3, who is associated with the
flesh and distinguished from the angels. Adam is in the background of
4QInstruction's presentation of both the spiritual people and the fleshly
spirit. In this sense the author can be said to attest two different
conceptions of Adam, each of which is associated with a type of
humankind. 4QInstruction traces two very different modes of human
existence (the finitude of the body, eternal life after death for the elect)
back to the portrait of Adam in Genesis 1-3.
The goal of the vision of Hagu passage is for the mebin to see himself as
8 The text can also be read as mentioning the inclination, or yetzer, of these spiritual
people.
9 The phrase "lED 1TH may reflect the expression i m ©S3 ('living being') of Gen. 2.7.
See Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 98-9.
10 I explore this interpretation at greater length in 'Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life:
Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in G. Xeravits (ed.), The Book of
Wisdom and Jewish Hellenistic Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Lange, Weisheit und
Prddestination, p. 53, translates: 'Doch die Erklarung wurde nicht dem Geist des Fleisches
gegeben.'
11 J. J. Collins, 'The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and
the Wisdom of Solomon', in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL, 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Peeters, 2003), pp. 287-305 (esp. 302); idem, 'Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of
Adam and Eve', in H. Najman and J. H. Newman (eds), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation:
Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup, 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 293-308.
similar to the spiritual people and different from the fleshly spirit. The
spiritual people possess the vision of Hagu, as the addressee has the
mystery that is to be. He is in the lot of the angels; the spiritual people are
in the likeness of the holy ones. Like the spiritual people, the mebin is
removed from the fleshly spirit (4Q418 81 1-2). The affinity with the angels
suggests that the spiritual people enjoy the prospect of life after death,
whereas the fleshly spirit does not. The elect addressees of 4QInstruction
were apparently taught that they were to join the angels after death, and
in that sense their elect status is only fully realized after the expiration of
12
the body. As the spiritual people are connected to Adam, 4QInstruction
portrays the addressee as having authority over Eden in 4Q423.
4Q417 1 i 13-18 provides a lesson to the mebin about his elect status.
The spiritual people signify the elect. As such, they represent an ideal that
the addressee is to emulate. This instructional aim, and the pedagogical
nature of the work in general, assumes that the mebin could follow the
wrong path. He can be like the spiritual people or fleshly spirit. It is God's
plan that he should be among the elect but he has to realize this destiny
through his own conduct, and he could fail.
Philo
One of Philo's numerous interpretations of Genesis 1-3, known as the
'double creation of man', is similar to the Hagu passage of 4QInstruction
13
in several respects. Philo argues that Genesis 1-3 has two different
accounts of Adam. These biblical chapters contain two separate creations
of man, one heavenly and one earthly. Writing before the emergence of
4QInstruction, in the 1980s Thomas Tobin suspected that Philo's 'double
creation of man' relies on older tradition because at times he often
'corrects' the dichotomy so that it refers not to two men but two minds
14
(e.g., Plant. 44-46; QG 1.8). As John Collins has suggested,
4QInstruction provides an impression of older Jewish interpretative
12 Collins, 'The Mysteries of God', pp. 294-8.

13 Among the numerous studies of Philo's exegesis of Genesis are P. Borgen, Philo of
Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup, 86; Brill, 1997); T. Tobin, The Creation of
Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS, 14; Washington, DC: The Catholic
Biblical Association, 1983); K. Martin Hogan, 'The Exegetical Background of the
"Ambiguity of Death" in the Wisdom of Solomon', JSJ 30 (1999): 1-24; R. G
Hamerton-Kelly, 'Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of
his Writings', Studia Philonica 1 (1972): 3-26; B. L. Mack, 'Exegetical Traditions in
Alexandria Judaism: A Program for the Analysis of the Philonic Corpus', Studia Philonica 3
(1974-75): 71-112.
14 Tobin, The Creation of Man, p. 137.
15
traditions that shape Philo's exegesis. One text of Philo in which this
appears to be the case is De opificio mundi 134. Here, after citing Gen. 2.7,
Philo writes:
By means of this text (Gen. 2.7) too he shows us in the clearest fashion
that there is a vast difference between the human being who has been
molded now and the one who previously came into being after the
image of God (Gen. 1.27). For the human being who has been molded
as sense-perceptible object already participates in quality, consists of
body and soul (EK OCOMOCTOS icon V|AJXHS), is either man or woman, and is
by nature mortal. The human being after the image is a kind of idea or
genus or seal, is perceived by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor
16
female, and is immortal by nature (cf. Leg. 1.31).
Philo's 'double creation of man', in the words of Tobin, makes a
1
distinction 'between a heavenly man and an earthly man'} The former is
associated with Gen. 1.27 and the latter with Gen. 2.7. This has
anthropological implications. Philo goes on to assert that man is a
composite of 'earthly substance' and 'divine breath'. According to this
conception of humankind, the flesh is created, into which the immortal
divine breath, which is not created, is placed (Opif. 135).
Philo interprets Genesis 1-3 in numerous ways, not all of which accord
smoothly with Opif. 134. In Det. 83, for example, he offers a 'single
creation' of man in Genesis 1-3, a view that harmonizes the term 'spirit' of
Gen. 2.7, interpreted as a reference to Reason and thus an impression of
the divine Logos, with the word 'image' of Gen. 1.27, which is also
18
considered a reflection of the Logos. Philo's interpretations of Genesis
19
1-3 do not in toto comprise one consistent whole. The core issue for the
present purpose is not Philo's exegesis in general but his double creation
of man interpretation.
Both Philo's double creation of man and 4QInstruction base a dualistic
understanding of humanity upon Genesis 1-3. The Qumran wisdom text
associates the spiritual people with Adam and angels through an
understanding of Gen. 1.27. Philo in Opif 134 turns to this same verse
15 Collins, 'In the Likeness of the Holy Ones', p. 617.

16 Translation from D. T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses
(Atlanta: SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 82.
17 Tobin, The Creation of Man, p. 24. Italics his.
18 This has been understood as a Stoic interpretation of Gen. 2.7, based on the word
Trvsuua, while he offers a Platonic understanding of Gen. 1.27, based on the word SIKCOV (cf.
Leg. 1.42; Opif. 24-25). See Hogan, 'The Exegetical Background of the "Ambiguity of
Death"', p. 6. The range of differing interpretations by Philo of material in Gen. 1-3 has
been recently examined in S. Hultgren, 'The Origin of Paul's Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1
Cor 15.45-49', JSNT 25 (2003): 343-70. Also consult Tobin, The Creation of Man, pp. 87-98;
J. Jervell, Imago Dei (FRLANT, 58; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).
19 Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, p. 10.
to describe a heavenly, spiritual Adam. However, there are significant

differences in their interpretations. Philo is more exegetical than
4QInstruction. In Opif 134 Philo presents his views regarding two
aspects of the human being as a way of explaining Gen. 1.27 and 2.7,
citing the latter. 4QInstruction, by contrast, has no direct citation of
Genesis. Philo, more explicitly than this Qumran wisdom text, considers
Genesis 1-3 to attest two separate creation of man stories. The
Alexandrian sage in Opif 134 understands there to be two Adams. This
can be understood as similar but far from equivalent to the view that
4QInstruction employs two different conceptions of Adam when describ
ing the spiritual people and the fleshly spirit. Philo in Opif. 134 emphasizes
that Genesis 1-3 contains two different Adams, but this leads not to a
claim that there are fleshly and spiritual kinds of humanity but a body-
soul dualism considered inherent to the human condition.
Philo's dichotomy of two Adams is cast in a Platonic division between
two realms, one corporeal and mortal, the other incorporeal and
immortal. This is similar to 4QInstruction's distinction between the
fleshly and spiritual kinds of humanity. Philo, however, grounds his
exegesis in philosophical language that is unknown to 4QInstruction.
Philo appears to reshape Palestinian exegetical traditions that are attested
20
in 4QInstruction in the light of Hellenistic philosophy.
Paul
An antithesis between flesh (oap£) and spirit (TTVEUMO) is a core element of

21
Pauline anthropology. Both terms have a range of meanings, but in Paul
'spirit' often signifies the Holy Spirit, which can affect and indwell in a
person (e.g., 1 Cor. 2.12), and the term can thus refer to that part of the
human composition that has an innate attraction to the divine realm.
'Flesh', by contrast, refers to the physical body or to an outlook on life
22
that is restricted to worldly, creaturely concerns. Romans 8 and
20 4QInstruction argues against the speculation of Hultgren, 'Origin of Paul's Doctrine',

p. 347, that in the older exegetical traditions that influence Philo 'the creation of man at Gen.
1.27 referred to the creation of empirical man'.
21 Standard studies include R. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their
Use in Conflict Settings (AGJU, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971); R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study
in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). For more recent scholarship,
see D. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); J. D. G.
Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
22 Dunn, Theology of Paul, pp. 72, 77; J. Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish
Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline
Usage', in C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (eds), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran
and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL, 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press and
Peeters, 2002), pp. 368-404 (esp. 368-74).
Galatians 5 , core texts for understanding Paul's conception of flesh,

construe it as a negative force opposed to God's rule that can lead people
astray. There has been an exhaustive search for the tradition-history
23
informing Paul's use of the word sarx. Frey has suggested that the flesh-
spirit dichotomy in Paul is profitably read against the background of the
24
Palestinian wisdom tradition, as attested by 4QInstruction. He has
stressed that both 4QInstruction and Paul have a negative understanding
25
of flesh.
Like 4QInstruction, Paul distinguishes between fleshly and spiritual
types of people. First Corinthians 3.1 reads: 'And so, brothers and sisters,
I could not speak to you as spiritual people [cos TTVEUUCCTIKOTS], but rather
as people of the flesh [cos oocpidvots], as infants in Christ.' Paul's 'people
of the flesh' are 'infants in Christ' who are not fully mature in terms of
their development as ethical followers of Christ. Paul presumes that one
who is among the fleshly people can become a member of the spiritual
people. Otherwise there would be no reason for him to continue his work
among the Corinthians. The missionary aspect of Paul is somewhat
different from 4QInstruction, which never addresses the fleshly spirit. The
composition strives to ensure that the mebin is more like the spiritual
people than the fleshly spirit, a goal, as argued above, which presumes
that the addressee is free to make his own moral decisions. In both Paul
and 4QInstruction an individual can act either fleshly or spiritually. The
similarity between this text and 1 Corinthians 3 regarding the distinction
both compositions make between spiritual and fleshly types of people can
be plausibly understood as a consequence of influence from the Jewish
26
sapiential tradition in this section of 1 Corinthians.
23 Refer to the summary of the relevant scholarship in Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', pp. 371—
4.
24 Aside from his 'Flesh and Spirit' article, consult J. Frey, 'The Notion of "Flesh" in
4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage', in D. Falk et al. (eds), Sapiential,
Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ, 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
pp. 197-226; idem, 'Die paulinische Antithese von "Fleisch" und "Geist" und die
palastinisch-judische Weisheitstradition', ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77.
25 Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', p. 403.
26 For the sapiential elements of 1 Cor. 1-4, see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 55-62; S. Grindheim, 'Wisdom for the
Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 2.6-16)', JBL 121 (2002): 689-709
(esp. 692-7). Note that the word oofyia occurs sixteen times in this unit, but only three times
elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 11.33; 1 Cor. 12.8; 2 Cor. 1.12). Paul in this section also employs the
term 'mystery' to signify supernatural revelation that is disclosed to the elect, similar to the
usage of raz in 4QInstruction (1 Cor. 2.7; 4.1).
Paul, like 4QInstruction, grounds his conception of humanity in an

27
understanding of Genesis 1-3. First Corinthians 15.45-49 reads:
Thus it is written, T h e first man, Adam, became a living being [eis
vpuxnv Ccooccv]'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit [TrveGpa
£COOTTOIOGV]. But it is not the spiritual [Tn/EupaTiKov] that is first, but the
physical [V|AJX»K6V], and then the spiritual. The first man was from the
earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man o f
dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so
are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man
of dust [TTJV e i K o v a TOU XOI'KOU], we will also bear the image of the man
of heaven [TTJV eixovcc TOU eiroupaviou] [cf. v. 22].
The core distinction in this passage is not simply between sarx and pneuma
(v. 50). The pericope is dominated by two interlocking oppositions. One is
between psyche (VJAJXT)) and spirit. The other is between Adam and Christ.
This latter dichotomy is expressed by three pairs of phrases - the first
Adam and last Adam (v. 45), the first man and the second man (v. 47),
and the man of dust and the man from heaven (v. 49). In the logic of the
passage, psyche is associated with the man of dust and pneuma with the
man from heaven.
While the two words have a range of meanings, in 1 Corinthians the
essential difference between them is that psyche signifies the vitality of
living people, restricted to their creaturely existence, whereas spirit
denotes the aspect of the human being that has affinity with the heavenly
realm (cf. 1 Cor. 2.13-15). The meaning of the term psyche in 1 Cor. 15.44-
49 is thus similar to that of the word sarx in 1 Cor. 3.1 and ruah basar
28
('fleshly spirit') in 4QInstruction. All three expressions in these passages
refer to forms of human existence that end with physical death. All three
understand this type of life as a category of humankind that comprises not
only the wicked, but all those who do not have the knowledge or potential
to attain a blessed afterlife after death. I have already argued this with
regard to the fleshly people of 1 Cor. 3.1 and the fleshly spirit of
4QInstruction. In 1 Cor. 15 the distinction between the two anthropo
logical categories conveyed by psyche and pneuma, respectively, is made at
the eschatological moment of the resurrection of the dead - some people
have their existence end at physical death and others will live on, not with
their 'psychical' bodies but rather their 'spiritual' bodies (v. 44; cf. v. 21).
4QInstruction and chs 3 and 15 of 1 Corinthians contrast those who are
merely fleshly or 'psychical' with those who are spiritual. Both documents
27 Recent studies of this famous passage include J. R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1
Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 2000); Hultgren, 'Origin of Paul's Doctrine', pp. 343-70.
28 I am not arguing for a general identification of the terms but rather that their
meanings are compatible in these specific texts.
associate spirit with eternal life after death, but one should not conclude
that they operate with the same conception of spirit or of the nature of the
eternal life that awaits the elect.
Paul and 4QInstruction utilize Genesis 1-3 in similar ways. In
4QInstruction the spiritual people are described with language that
recalls Adam in Genesis 1 and the work's portrait of the fleshly spirit
alludes, more indirectly than in the case of the spiritual people, to Adam
in Genesis 2-3. In 1 Corinthians 15, Adam, the man of dust, is described
with language that recalls Adam in Genesis 2-3, while the passage's
account of Jesus, the man from heaven, draws upon terminology used for
Adam in Genesis 1. Paul's claim in 1 Cor. 15.49 that 'we will also bear the
image (TT|V e'tKovcri of the man of heaven' alludes to Gen. 1.27. The word
EIKCOV translates D7H in LXX Gen. 1.27. In the schema of 1 Corinthians 15,
bearing this 'image' refers to the 'spiritual body' which the followers of
29
Christ will receive when the dead are resurrected. The 'image' language
in 1 Cor. 15.49 is also employed in relation to Adam, the first man, a move
which is unparalleled in 4QInstruction.
The language of Gen. 2.7 is also applied to both Adam and Christ. This
is obvious in the case of Adam, the 'man of dust'. The passage's frequent
use of'dust' (XOI'KOS) language (vv. 47,48,49) is a patent reference to Gen.
2.7, which is loosely cited in 1 Cor. 15.45. This verse states: 'Thus it is
1
written, "The first man, Adam became a living being [sis v^X ^ £>caoav]";
the last Adam became a life-giving spirit [in/sOua £ C O O T T O I O U V ] ' . LXX Gen.
30
2.7 reads: 'God formed man, dust from the earth [TOV dvBpcoirov x°uv
duo -rfjs yfjs], and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man
31
became a living being (eis V|AJXT|V Ccooav).' The expression eis ^ A J X ^ 1
£ G X K X V , which Paul applies to Adam, is found verbatim in this verse. The

phrase 'life-giving spirit' (trveuua £COOTTOIO\JV), which is associated with
Jesus, alludes to the assertion in Gen. 2.7 that God blew a 'breath of life'
(trvoriv Ccofjs) into Adam. The term v|Aixn of Gen. 2.7 is linked to Adam
and TTvorj to Christ, by Paul's use of the word TTVEU|ja. The psyche-pneuma
distinction is grounded in Gen. 2.7, a core text for the creation of
29 Martin, The Corinthian Body, p. 128.

30 B. A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in
the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS, 12;
Missoula: SBL, 1973), pp. 24-6, argues that Paul and his Corinthian opponents have rival
interpretations of Gen. 2.7, with the latter denying the resurrection because of their belief in
4
an a-somatic immortality' based on a reading of Gen. 2.7 that was current in Hellenistic
Judaism. He suggests that Paul's understanding of Gen. 2.7 depends on Jewish exegetical
traditions that are preserved in Qumran and rabbinic literature (e.g., 1QS 11.20-22).
4QInstruction, which was not available when Pearson put forward his thesis, supports the
idea that there are Palestinian antecedents to Paul's use of Gen. 1.27 and 2.7.
31 Note the similarity to 1 Cor. 15.47: b TTpcoTos avBpcoiTos EK yfjs x ° S - The O , K
translation of LXX Gen. 2.7 quoted above is from NETS.

humankind. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul does not operate with a simple

distinction between Gen. 1.27 and 2.7, but rather he connects each verse
to both the man of dust and the man of heaven, who are opposed to one
another.
Paul's exegesis of Gen. 1.27 and 2.7 in 1 Corinthians 15 is similar to, but
more complicated than, 4QInstruction's employment of language from
Genesis 1-3 when making its contrast between the spiritual people and the
fleshly spirit. The Hagu passage comprises an important earlier
Palestinian parallel to Paul's assertion that there are two Adams. This
suggests that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is to some extent appropriating and
expanding upon Palestinian exegetical traditions.
Conclusion
Philo and Paul, while undoubtedly coloured by their interaction with the
wider Hellenistic world, turned to Genesis 1-3 to explain the nature of
humankind in ways that are similar to 4QInstruction. Paul and the author
of 4QInstruction both offer a dualistic understanding of humankind.
They both assert in ways that draw upon Genesis 1-3 that some have the
potential for life after the death of the body and that others do not. The
presentation of fleshly and spiritual types of humankind in 4QInstruction
is similar to Philo's argument that Genesis 1-3 recounts a mortal and an
immortal Adam. 4QInstruction suggests that Philo and Paul appropriated
and reworked exegetical traditions regarding Genesis 1-3 attested in the
Jewish wisdom tradition in Palestine in the second century BCE. This thesis
deserves to be explored further in future scholarship, because it can make
a substantial contribution to the study of both Philo and Paul. This is
particularly the case with regard to Paul since scholars at times explain his
anthropology and use of Genesis by turning to Philo, as well as the
Wisdom of Solomon, and thus understand Paul as drawing primarily on
32
Hellenistic Jewish ideas. This article addresses but does not fully
investigate the possibility that the Hellenistic Jewish traditions that
shaped Paul's thought can themselves be traced back to Palestinian
sources to an extent that was not possible before the full publication of the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
32 G. E . Sterling and R . A. Horsley, for example, understand 1 Cor. 15 in part by

pointing out its affinities with Opif. 134-35. See G. E . Sterling, 'Wisdom among the Perfect:
Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity', NovT 37 (1995):
364-76; R . A. Horsley, 'Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos Distinctions of Spiritual Status among
the Corinthians', HTR 69 (1976): 269-88. Note also Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos
Terminology, p. 24; Hultgren, 'Origins of Paul's Doctrine', pp. 344-57.
Chapter 9
W H Y C A N ' T T H E O N E W H O D O E S T H E S E T H I N G S L I V E B Y T H E M ' ?
T H E U S E O F L E V I T I C U S 18.5 I N G A L A T I A N S 3.12
Preston M. Sprinkle
1. Introduction
Galatians 3.10-14 is often considered among the most difficult passages in
1
Paul, not because his assertions are ambiguous - they are in fact quite
clear. The difficulty lies, rather, in his choice of scriptural texts used to
support his assertions. With regard to Paul's use of Scripture here, most
commentators focus on the enigma of 3.10 leaving little space for 3.12.
But this latter passage, where Paul cites Lev. 18.5, plays a more
fundamental part in Paul's theology of law: not only is Lev. 18.5 the
'John 3.16 of early Judaism' ('the one who does these things will live by
them'), but it is also the antithesis of Paul's own 'John 3.16', namely, Hab.
2.4. But why? Why does Paul reject Moses' promise that if you obey the
law you will have life? Or, why can't 'the one who does these things live by
them'?
The following treatment will concentrate on Gal. 3.11-12, giving special
attention to Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12b. I will first mention four
main views on Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12.1 will then interact with
these views by examining the Leviticus citation in light of the letter as a
whole, noting certain features of the letter that may shed light on Paul's
opposition to Lev. 18.5.
This paper was presented at the annual SBL meeting in Washington D C in November
2006 and is reproduced here with little modification. For a more recent and thorough
discussion of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12, see my, Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early
Jewish and Christian Interpretation (WUNT 2.241; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), pp. 133—
64.
1 Richard Hays, The Letter to the Galatians, (The New Interpreter's Bible, 11; Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 257; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), p. 137.
SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 127
2. Approaches to Galatians 3.11-12
2
1 Law/Gospel (I). Doing the law in order to gain life is impossible
because no one (in Adam) can do the law perfectly. So, the 'one who
does these things can't live by them' because of his/her condition:
the problem is an anthropological one.
3
2 Law/Gospel (2). Doing the law is denounced in light of faith,
because the law itself is defective. Not only is the law unable to give
life, but the Leviticus construction itself underscores human agency
in attaining salvation. So, the 'one who does these things can't live
by them' because 'these things' lack the power to give life to the
human doer: the problem is a nomological one.
4
3 Non-Soteriological. Lev. 18.5 does not address soteriology: 'the one
who does these things will live in them'; that is, if you do the law you
will have to continue to live in accordance with it. So, 'living in these
things' is the wrong sphere of existence: the problem is a locational
one.
2 T. R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 60-1; Frank Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1992), p. 124; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the
Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 128-64; F. F. Bruce, The
Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982),
p. 159 (to some extent); R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988), p. 146; Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books,
1990), pp. 120-1; F. MuBner, Der Galaterbrief(HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 191,
229-31; U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984),
p. 129: 'Da dem sundigen Menschen die Befolgung aller Gebote aber nicht moglich ist, kann
er durch das gesetz nicht am Leben gelangen (vgl. V. 2If)'.
3 Hans Joachim Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
Galater 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), p. 136; see also G. Klein,
Tndividualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus', in G. Klein (ed.), Rekonstruktion und
Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze am Neuen Testament (BEvT, 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969),
pp. 180-224 (206), cited in Eckstein, Verheifiung, p. 149; cf. 144-5. Francis Watson is similar,
but frames the issue in terms of divine and human agency; Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith
(London: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 162, 200-1, 208, 276-7, 329, 428, 475.
4 See in particular James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 152-4, 374-5, and his recent collection of essays, idem, The New
Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), pp. 65-7; cf. 125-6, 446,
454; see also Robert A. Bryant, The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS, 185;
Atlanta: SBL, 2001), p. 177; Friedrich Avemarie, 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According
to the Scripture: Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor and
Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem:
Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 125-48 (141); Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The
Hermeneutical Significance of Paul's Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (SBLDS, 14;
Atlanta: SBL, 2004), p. 174; cf. 159, 167-77.
5
4 Salvation History. Faith (and Hab. 2.4) represents the time of
covenant fulfilment; the law (and Lev. 18.5) represents the old
covenant. So 'the one who does these things' no longer can 'live by
them': the problem is a chronological one.
3. Critical Analysis
a. Galatians 3.11-12 in the light of Galatians 3.19-25

Paul discusses the relationship between the law and life in Gal. 3.19-25; as
such, this passage may shed light on his opposition to Lev. 18.5 in 3.12. Of
particular importance is his statement in 3.21:
6 o u v vo\xos KCCTCX TCOV ETTCCYYEAICOV TOU 0EOG; \n\ YBVOITO. E'I y a p EOOBTI
vopos o 5uvd|jEvos CcporroiTioai, OVTCOS EK v o p o u av f\v r\ 5iKaioo\Jvrj
Is the law, therefore, against the promises of God? May it never be! For
if a law was given that was able to make alive, then righteousness would
really have been by the law.
Paul here reveals his disagreement with the common Jewish understand
ing that the law was given for the purpose of leading to life, an
understanding no doubt embraced by his opponents in Galatia.
Significant for our concerns is the question whether Paul denies the
validity of the life-giving power of the law in light of his anthropology or
in light of his nomology. That is, is Paul critiquing the law or humanity's
ability to perform it in 3.21? Bruce Longenecker argues for the latter:
'Paul evidently assumes a fundamental problem not with the law itself but
with the condition of humanity; the law sets out a path to life, but those
6
who seek to live by it inevitably fail to do so.' This emphasis on the
condition of humanity for reading Gal. 3.21 may find additional support
in 3.22 where Paul says that all humanity is under sin.
5 Joel Willitts, 'Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', TynBul
54 (2003): 105-22; Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument
and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), p. 59.
6 Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in
Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), p. 120; see J. L. Martyn (Galatians: A Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], pp. 359-60) and
Hays (Faith, pp. 112-16) for the opposing view. I do not deny that Paul's radically pessimistic
anthropology would prevent him from thinking that humanity is capable of adequately
performing the law, but I do not think that this is the main point here in 3.19-22.
Longenecker finds clear support for this in Romans 7 where Paul labours to defend the law
against the potential claim that it was responsible for bringing death rather than life (Rom.
7.7-13). There, Paul emphatically, and empirically, claims that the law is not to blame; rather,
the sin (or Sin), which took hold of the law and used it to effect death, is the culprit. But even
in Romans 7-8, while not blaming the law for sin (7.7-13), Paul does affirm the law's inability
to rescue humanity from their plight (8.3-4). And so it seems that both ideas are clearly in
view there, the condition of mankind and the powerlessness of the law.
But against this view, it is not clear that Paul is thinking primarily along
anthropological lines here. In Gal. 3.19-22, Paul's discussion concerns the
law, as his opening question makes clear (3.19), and the rest of this
passage is focused on the salvation-historical role of the law (3.19-25).
Even in 3.22, the one statement that refers explicitly to the condition of
7
mankind, is focused on the accomplishments of the law ( = 'Scripture'): it
has 'enclosed all things under sin'. And so Paul's primary attention in 3.21
is on the inability of the law to grant life, not on humanity's inability to
gain life. This does not lessen Paul's pessimistic anthropology nor does it
deny that the sinful condition of humanity prevents an adequate
performance of the law. But when it comes to the supposed life-giving
power of the law, Paul rejects this notion on fundamental grounds.
Therefore, Paul does not entertain the suggestion that 'the law may in
principle set out a means to life', but 'in practice something seems to have
8 9
gone wrong' - at least not in Gal. 3.19-25. Paul, rather, denies both the
10
ability and the intention of the law to be a life-giving agent.
We see, then, from 3.21 (cf. 2.21) that Paul's denial of the law's ability
to give life is based not explicitly on humanity's condition but on the law's
own condition and divine intention. While this distinction cannot be
pressed too far, it may shed light on Gal. 3.12. If Paul's reasoning in 3.21
underlies 3.12, then we can find support for the LawjGospel (2) view
represented by Eckstein and Watson. According to this view, Paul rejects
the law categorically because it was not intended to grant life; 'the one
who does these things' in order to 'gain life by them' is attempting to elicit
from the law something that it cannot, and was not intended to, give -
namely, life. And so if we were to ask Paul, 'Why can't "the one who does
these things live by them"?' We might expect him to say, 'Because "these
things" ( = the law) lack the ability to grant life to the doer and neither
was it their intention to do so.'
7 The view that 'the Scripture' refers to 'the law' here is taken by F. F. Bruce, Galatians,
p. 180; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1973), p. 119; B. Longenecker, Triumph, pp. 124-5; cf. Martyn,
Galatians, p. 360, for a similar view. For opposing views, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die
Galater (KEKNT, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1971), pp. 164-5; H.
D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galalia (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 175; and the discussion in R. Longenecker, Galatians,
p. 144.
8 Longenecker, Triumph, p. 120.
9 But see Rom. 7.7-13.
10 Rightly, E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1983), p. 27.
b. The Law in Salvation-History

11
Joel Willitts in a recent article argues that Paul views Hab. 2.4 and Lev.
18.5 through the lens of salvation history. Faith (Hab. 2.4) stands for the
time of 'realized covenant potential' and law (Lev. 18.5) represents the
time of 'unrealized covenant potential'. Viewing the faith-law antithesis as
representations of periods of time finds support in 3.19-25. Here, not only
is the temporal limitation of the law pronounced, but the term 'faith' has
become hypostasized:
TTpb TOU 5s EA8EIV TTJV TTJOTIV UTTO vopov E<j>pouTrpoupE0a auyKAEiopEvoi
sis TT]V [jEAAouoav TTJOTIV aTTOKaAucfrOfivai, GXJTE 6 vopos iraiSaycoybs
Tipcov ysyovev sis Xpioxov, *(va EK THOTECOS SIKCCICOGGOMEV sAOouoris 5E
TTJS TTJOTECOS OUKETI UTTO TTCCl5ayCOy6v EOJJEV.
Now before this faith came, we were confined by the law, being shut up
until the faith about to be revealed, so that the law has become our child
12
instructor to lead us until Christ, in order that we might be justified by
faith; but when this faith has come, we are no longer under a child
leader. (Gal. 3.23-25)
Here, 'faith' is personified and stands for an eschatological age or epoch
that has been inaugurated with Christ. The 'law', which acts as a
TTaiSaycoyos for a set period of time ('until Christ'), may also delineate
the old epoch (i.e., the time of the law's jurisdiction over humanity). This
passage, in as much as it can be correlated with 3.11-12, may lend support
for Willitts's conclusion that 'faith' and 'law' ( = Lev. 18.5) delineate two
distinct historical eras. The Leviticus formulation is opposed to faith in
light of its chronological inferiority.
But do Hab. 2.4 (faith) and Lev. 18.5 (law) mutually exclude each other
simply because of their respective salvation-historical functions? One
problem with this approach is that it downplays, or even eradicates, any
inherent deficiency in Lev. 18.5. In Willitts's view, it seems that the only
problem Paul has with adherence to Lev. 18.5 is that such adherence is
simply past its time: in principle there is nothing wrong with 'doing these
13
things' in order to 'live by them'. If Lev. 18.5 represents the time of
'unrealized covenant potential', then what has caused its unrealization? As
seen above, Paul sees the law's inability to grant life as at least part of the
problem, and Paul's pessimistic anthropology most certainly looms in the
background (cf. 3.10).
So while there is an eschatological orientation of 'faith' in 3.11-12 (and
11 'Context Matters'.
12 I understand eis here to be temporal not teleological (so Longenecker, Triumph,
p. 118; Betz, Galatians, p. 178).
13 I am drawing here on R. Barry Matlock who critiques James Dunn on the same
grounds (see his 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul',
JSNT12 [1998]: 67-90 [77]).
especially in 3.23-25), this does not exhaust its validity as the only basis on
which one receives righteousness and life.
c. Leviticus 18.5 and Human Endeavour

But what about the very formulation of Leviticus: 'the one who does these
things will live by them' (or 'have eschatological life as a result'). Did Paul
did see something theologically wrong with doing the law, not only, as we
have seen, in light of the law's incompetence and intention but because
Paul saw something inherently wrong with human endeavour? Francis
Watson answers it with a resounding 'yes'. For Watson's Paul, Lev. 18.5
embodies a theological construct in which blessing is contingent upon
human endeavour; Hab. 2.4, however, testifies to God's promise of a
14
future, unilateral saving act. The antithesis in 3.11-12 is one of divine
and human agency.
Watson's reading of Gal. 3.11-12 finds agreement with a thread of
similar statements in Galatians where the priority of divine action over
human action is highlighted. Paul sets up this divine-human antithesis in
the opening sentence: 'Paul, an apostle not from a human source nor
through agency but through the agency of Jesus Christ and God the
15
Father' ( l . l ) . This antithesis between the human realm and the divine
realm becomes essential to the entire letter, confirmed by the fact that this
phrase, departing from a standard greeting, begins the letter. The
antithesis is seen again in 1.11-12 where Paul says that his gospel 'is not
according to human terms, for I neither received it from a human nor was
I taught it, but (I received it) through the agency of a revelation of
16 17
Christ'. In denying a 'merely human' source of the gospel, Paul points
to its divine origin, setting up an antithesis that will underlie the following
narratio (1.12-2.14). Throughout his autobiographical account, Paul will
make clear that the gospel he preaches is the same gospel that invaded his
18
life through unilateral divine intervention (1.13-20). Paul's narrative of
14 Watson, Hermeneutics, pp. 162-3.

15 TTauAos CCTTOOTOAOS OUK air' avOpcoTrcov OU6E 5I avOpcoTrou dAAd 5ta 'Inaou XpioTou
KOI 0EOU TTCCTOOS.
16 OUK IOTIV KccTa avSpcoTTov ou5e yap eycb irapa dvOpcbirou TrapsAaPov CCUTO OUTE
sSiSdxGny, dAAd 8\ aTroKaAuv|/Ecos' Inpou Xpiorou.
17 The phrase is from Betz, Galatians, p. 63.
18 Here, I am following B. R. Gaventa ('Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as
Paradigm', NovT2S [1986]: 309-26) who argues that Paul's autobiographical account of his
conversion, along with his apostolic origin, is not primarily apologetic but paradigmatic.
Paul, here, is not primarily defending his apostleship but giving a paradigm of how the gospel
has laid claim to Paul's own life; cf. also John M. G. Barclay, 'Paul's Story: Theology as
Testimony', in Bruce Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 133-56 (141-2); Martyn, Galatians, pp. 152—
3, 159-61; B. Longenecker, Triumph, pp. 148-9.
his own experience with the gospel is punctuated by references to divine

activity, highlighted in particular by the frequent use of airoKaAuvpts
(1.12, 16; 2.2), a term that establishes 'God as the central actor in this
19
account'.
Perhaps the most pronounced distinction between the priority of divine
action versus human action comes in 4.9 where Paul corrects himself in
0
mid-sentence: 'but now, knowing God, or rather being known by God}
This mid-sentence shift demonstrates that Paul sees a distinction between
knowing God and being known by God, and that the latter is the proper
way to describe one's conversion, as his own autobiographical account
makes clear. God's initiative in 'knowing' the Galatians was prior to the
21
Galatians' own coming to know God.
So then, Paul frequently emphasizes in Galatians the priority of God's
activity against human activity in matters related to the gospel. But is this
what Paul has in mind in Gal. 3.11-12? Evidence to support Watson's
reading may be found in Gal. 3.1-5 with Paul's two-fold denial that the
22
Galatians received the Spirit 'by works of the law'. Two points are
largely agreed upon among interpreters. First, Paul's understanding of
'works of the law' at the very least correlates with his understanding of
19 Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2', p. 316; see too, Martyn, Galatians, pp. 152-3, 159-61.
20 vuv 5s y v o v T s s 0s6v, uaAAov 6S YVCOOSSVTES UTTO 0EOG.
21 Cf. the stimulating essay by John Barclay, 'By the Grace of God I am what I am', in
John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His
Intellectual Environment (Edinburgh: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006), pp. 140-57. Barclay,
while not discussing Gal. 4.9, refers to similar instances in 1 Cor. 15.10; Phil. 3.11-12; and
Gal. 2.19-21.
22 The interpretation of Ipycov vouou has been the subject of a long debate; for a good
summary of the issues with extensive bibliography, see Tom Schreiner,' "Works of Law" in
Paul', NovT 33 (1991): 214-44. More recently, the discussion is centred on whether the phrase
refers to prescriptions of the law or to the actual performance of those prescriptions. The
former view has been argued extensively by Michael Bachmann, 'Rechtfertigung und
Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus', TZ 49 (1993): 1-33; reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief:
Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus
(NTOA, 40; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1999), pp. 1-31; idem, '4QMMT und Galaterbrief,
m m "WO und EPrA NOMOY', ZNWS9 (1998): 91-113, reprinted in Antijudaismus im
Galaterbrief, pp. 33-56. Bachmann's view has been recently countered by Otfried Hofius,
who argues that the phrase refers to the actual performance of the law, see his,' "Werke des
Gesetzes": Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den spya v o p o u ' , in Dieter Sanger
and Ulrich Mell (eds), Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und
johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (WUNT, 198; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006),
pp. 271-310, esp. 273-85. With regard to these two options, James Dunn is probably correct
in critiquing Bachmann for driving 'a wedge between "precept/prescription" and "deed
(prescribed)", as though the former could be grasped without thought to the latter' ('Noch
einmal "Works of the Law": The Dialogue Continues', in The New Perspective on Paul
[WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], pp. 407-22 [414]).
Lev. 18.5 - to do 'these things' is t o do the 'works of the law'. As such,

Paul's resistance to the integration of justification by 'works of the law'
(Gal. 2.16; cf. Rom. 3.20, 28) reflects his problem with attaining fife by
'doing these things' (Gal. 3.12; cf. Rom. 10.5). A second point of
agreement among interpreters is that Paul's reference to 'works of the law'
24
in Gal. 3.2, 5 is described as 'being perfected by the flesh' (oapKi):
TOUTO u.ovov 0eXco paSeiv ap uuxov e£ spycov vopou TO TTVEUMOC EXCCPETE
f\ E£ dxofis TTIOTECOS; OUTCOS a v o r j T o i EOTE, Evap£dpEvoi TrvEupaTi vGv
oapKi ETTITEXEIOBE; TOOCCGTCC ETTCXOETE EIKFJ. 6 o&v E T n x o p T i y c o v \ipiv TO
TrvEupa K a i E V E p y c o v SuvapEis EV upTv, E£ E p y c o v vopou fj E£ a K o f j s
TTIOTECOS;
I only wish t o learn this from you; did you receive the Spirit by works o f
law o r by the faith-message? Thus are you s o foolish, having begun by
the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh? Have you suffered
such things in vain - if indeed it was in vain? Therefore, the one who
supplies you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, (does he d o
it) by works o f law o r by the faith-message? (Gal. 3.2-5)
What is significant is the correlation between 'works of law' and 'flesh'.

25
While the latter term, o d p £ , could refer to the act of circumcision, a
26
hostile force, or to human nature in general, John Barclay has argued
convincingly for a sense of 'that which is merely human' for odpc; when it
27
is opposed to TTVEUMOC as it is here in Gal. 3.3. For Paul, the Spirit-flesh
dualism designates activity that is merely human as opposed to divine
28
activity through the Spirit. Barclay's interpretation finds support in the
summary statement in v. 5 where the accent falls heavily on the action of
29
God in the Galatian community. God freely gives the divine Spirit, the
effective agent (TTVEUMCXTI) through which the community began their life
in Christ, and he does this through the faith-message (CXKOTJS TTIOTECOS) of
the crucified Christ not through the merely human endeavour of law-
30
obedience. The point here is that since the Galatians began their
23 This is confirmed by Gal. 3.10-12 where the most likely antecedent to 'these things*
(auTa) of 3.12 is 'everything written in the book of the law' (TTOCOIV TOTS ysYpauuEvots sv TOO
p(pXicp vouou) of 3.10, namely, the 'works of the law'.
24 Longenecker, Galatians, p. 103; B. Longenecker, Triumph, p. 75.
25 Martyn argues that the term in Gal. 3.3 refers to circumcision based on this meaning
in Gal. 6.12-13 and the association of 'flesh' with 'circumcision' throughout Genesis 17.
26 Paul also uses oap£ to refer to an evil inclination or desire (cf. Gal. 5.17, 24) but this
nuance cannot be intended here.
27 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1988), pp. 202-9.
28 Ibid., p. 206.
29 Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1-
4.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002), p. 170.
30 Cf. Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, p. 86.
Christian lives by receiving the Spirit through the faith-message, they

cannot maintain that same divine power through human means; God
alone is the source of their miraculous experiences (3.5).
In sum, 'works of law' are described as being that which is merely
human as opposed to divine activity effective through the faith-message
and the Spirit; the antithesis is one of divine-human action. In as much as
Paul sees Lev. 18.5 and 'works of law' as possessing the same theological
deficiency, then it is probable that Paul considers Lev. 18.5 to be a 'merely
human' way to appropriate life, the life which has been created through
divine intervention (2.20-21; 3.21). Paul, then, does not oppose the law
based on the wrong manner in which it is pursued (e.g., the LawjGospel
[1] approach); rather, he opposes the law fundamentally: doing the law so
as to gain life - no matter how well intentioned the pursuit may be - is a
31
theological construct that prioritizes human action over divine action.
d. Habakkuk 2.4 and Leviticus 18.5: Tension or Contradiction?

Virtually all commentators agree that the texts as they stand in Galatians
form an antithesis, but interpreters are divided concerning the derivation
of this antithesis. Has Paul driven a wedge between two scriptural
passages that are otherwise compatible, or has he simply exploited a
tension that was already present in the biblical text? The agitators would
have sided with the former view: faith in Christ is not at odds with 'doing
32
these things'; indeed, faithfulness to God's Messiah necessitates it.
Has Paul, then, read against the grain of Scripture by creating a tension
that did not previously exist? Most see the antithesis in Gal. 3.11-12 purely
as a Pauline creation: the antithesis between Habakkuk and Leviticus did
33
not exist prior to Damascus. Nevertheless, there is, we will argue, a
hermeneutical potential in Paul's antithesis that is often missed by
commentators who point out that Paul's 'faith-works' antithesis is foreign
to the Old Testament.
31 This is different from the LawI Gospel (1) approach; e.g., even if someone did 'these
things' perfectly and in a non-legalistic manner, this would still be a 'merely human' way of
achieving what can only be created through divine action.
32 Such was the view also of the Qumranites as seen in their commentary on Hab. 2.4
'[But the righteous man will live because of their faith(fulness) to him] Its interpretation
concerns everyone who does the law (pT\*\V\T\ "'Efll? 'TQ) in the house of Judah, whom God will
free from the house of judgement on account of their toil (phOV) and their faith(fulness)
(prtiDKI) in the Teacher of Righteousness' (lQpHab 7.14-8.3). Law-obedience (THinn "'CTl
U; cf. lQpHab 7.11; 12.4-5) is conflated with faith(fulness) to (the teaching of) the Teacher of
Righteousness, and both are necessary for God's restoration of the community.
33 An exception to this is Alan Gignac ('Citation de Levitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et
Galates 3,12: Deux lectures differentes des rapports Christ-Torah?', Eglise et theologie 25
[1994]: 367^403), who argues through an intertextual analysis that these two passages are not
antithetical in light of their original contexts.
Habakkuk as a whole highlights the priority and freedom of divine

action, and at the same time the prophet struggles with the effectiveness of
the deuteronomic law regime. Not only did God promise to 'raise up the
Chaldeans' to bring judgement to Israel (Hab. 1.5), but the nation itself
faced an internal crisis and the law, according to Habakkuk, seems to
offer no hope:
The law (THiri) is ineffective (312H) and justice (T15CD) never goes
34
forth. The wicked [Judaeans] surround the righteous; thus, justice
(HSOO) comes out perverted. (Hab. 1.4)
Habakkuk's complaint here is directed toward the ethical breakdown in
society and he criticizes the Torah for its inability to keep the wicked from
35
persecuting the righteous. This is the only occurrence of m m in
Habakkuk. It does not show up in the vision-oracle (2.2-5) or in the
salvation-poem (3.2-19); thus the only reference to Torah is confined to a
context where the prophet expresses qualms concerning its effectiveness.
The vision-oracle itself (2.2-5), from which Paul cites the prophet (Hab.
2.4 in Gal. 3.11a), focuses on the certainty of God's future act of
salvation, a salvation envisioned in the theophany of Habakkuk 3.
The theophany provides assurance for Habakkuk by promising a future
time when God will bring judgement upon his enemies and salvation to his
people. In short, the il31DK ('faithfulness, reliability') that mediates 'life'
34 The wicked are Judaeans; see Francis Anderson, Habakkuk: A New Translation and
Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 24; Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi
(WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), pp. 94-5, 99; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1992), p. 34; contra Marshall Johnson, 'The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1.4',
(FT 35, 1985): 257-66 (259).
35 Although the meaning of TISD is debated, the sense of 'ineffective' is clear from the
context and its use elsewhere. It is used in Gen. 45.26 to refer to Jacob becoming 'numb' or
'fainthearted'. In Ps. 77.3(2) it refers to 'a wearying paralysis'. In Ps. 38.9(8) it means
'broken', or 'numbed'; see further Johnson, 'Paralysis', pp. 259-60. But is Habakkuk's
complaint directed to the Torah itself or the failure among the Judaeans to obey it? Marshall
Johnson argues that Habakkuk's complaint is directed at a failure inherent in the Torah.
Habakkuk, according to Johnson, was a 'disillusioned deuteronomist' who could not
understand why the 'righteous' were not being blessed as the Torah promised (Johnson,
'Paralysis', p. 264). While Johnson's understanding would fit Paul's thought well, his
argument that the prophet was concerned with the failure of Torah to mediate the blessings
of Deuteronomy goes beyond the evidence in Habakkuk. It seems best to side with the
majority that Habakkuk's complaint is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society; see
Haak, Habakkuk, p. 34, G. Janzen, 'Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk',
CBQ 44 (1982): 394-414 (397-9); Smith, Micah-Malachi, p. 99. In any case, Habakkuk
critiques the efficacy of the Torah, whether by its own inherent ineffectiveness or because of
its inability to keep the wicked from persecuting the righteous.
to the righteous one is the reliability that God will intervene to perform a
36
future act of salvation. The reliability of the vision (and thus of God) is
meant to evoke a response of 'faith' from the prophet and all who are
'righteous', but all through the vision-oracle of 2.2-5 and the theophany of
ch. 3, the emphasis lies in divine action as the solution to the problem of
wickedness.
Leviticus 18.5, on the other hand, does not depict the same theological
outlook. It exhibits a conceptual world similar to the deuteronomists:
blessing will come to those who obey the Torah - the very conception that
had proved to be a failure in Habakkuk where the righteous were being
persecuted, not blessed. In Leviticus itself, the conditions of Lev. 18.5 are
not met as seen in the book as a whole, for the restoration of the nation
(26.40-45) comes after a time of wickedness, apostasy, and exile (26.14-
39). The same is true in Ezekiel, where the text is cited three times (Ezek.
20.11, 13, 21) to highlight Israel's failure to meet the conditional demands.
Israel's rebellion - its failure to 'do these things' (Lev. 18.5) - is written
into the script of salvation history.
It is not the case, therefore, that Paul has split apart two otherwise
compatible texts as most interpreters think. Habakkuk 2.4 'n'envisage pas
l'Alliance sous le meme angle que Lv 18,5' ('Does not envisage the
Covenant under the same angle as that of Lev. 18.5'). According to
Habakkuk, the accent is no longer on God's response to human action,
37
but on human response to God's initiative. Within the Old Testament,
there is at least the potential for Paul to read Lev. 18.5 as a cul-de-sac
preparing the way for divine intervention anticipated by Hab. 2.4.
4. Conclusion
In answer to our opening question - why can't 'the one who does these
things live by them'? - and in response to the four different ways scholars
have attempted to address that question, I suggest the following. First, the
Law/Gospel (1) view has rightly stressed Paul's pessimistic anthropology,
yet it does not seem that this is the driving force in Paul's criticism of the
Leviticus passage. It may 'loom in the background', as I stated, but there
is probably something else that shapes Paul's discourse here. Moreover,
describing Paul's pessimism in terms of lack of perfect obedience seems to
go beyond what Paul actually says. Second, the LawI Gospel (2) view has
36 It is probably this vision itself that is referred to, at least in the Hebrew, in the
much discussed pronoun of Hab. 2.4b: 'but the righteous will live by its faithfulness'
OmiDKn J7H1TI rTiT); so Janzen, 'Habakkuk 2.2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological
Advances', HTR 73 (1980): 53-78 (esp. 54-61); idem, 'Eschatological Symbol', pp. 395, 406;
Haak, Habakkuk, p. 59; Anderson, Habakkuk, p. 214.
37 Cf. Gignac, 'Citation', p. 386.
rightly highlighted Paul's pessimistic 'nomology', and this probably is the

driving force behind Paul's criticism of Lev. 18.5. Furthermore, Watson
has very helpfully framed the question in terms of divine and human
agency. Paul labours to make the distinction between matters of religion
fashioned by mere human effort, and the gospel of Christ that is shaped
by divine saving action. Within this, the two scriptural texts that sum up
each theological construction are Lev. 18.5 (human action) and Hab. 2.4
(divine action). Third, while lack of space has prevented us in this essay
for sufficient interaction with the Non-Soteriological view, I have argued
38
elsewhere against the validity of this interpretation. Indeed, if this view
were correct, then all the other views are wrong-headed. Fourth, the
Salvation Historical view has merit and rightly emphasizes the eschato
logical dimension of Paul's use of'faith' and 'law'. However, this view has
not taken into account the antithesis between divine and human action,
which seems to be fundamental in Galatians, nor has it rightly answered
the question concerning why the Leviticus construct has not seen its
realization. In short, the Law/Gospel (2) view, in underscoring the
antithesis between divine and human action, carries the most merit.
38 Sprinkle, Law and Life, pp. 138-42.

Chapter 1 0
S U R R O G A T E , S L A V E A N D D E V I A N T ?
T H E F I G U R E O F H A G A R I N J E W I S H T R A D I T I O N A N D P A U L
( G A L A T I A N S 4.21-31)
Troy A. Miller
Paul's use of Scripture is a subject that certainly has not suffered from a
lack of attention within scholarly circles. Quite the contrary, studies
1
assessing Paul's employment of Scripture have abounded. Included in
this scholarly attention is Gal. 4.21-31 - the Sarah and Hagar pericope. A
great deal of the scholarship on this passage has been focused specifically
on trying to identify which established method of scriptural interpretation
Paul is employing here, with the primary proposals being allegory,
2
typology, midrash and targum. While these studies of the various Jewish
conventions of Scripture interpretation have produced some valuable
insights, more detailed studies on the actual Sarah and Hagar stories in
Jewish literature are surprisingly not so common. With respect to Hagar,
markedly absent in Pauline scholarship or elsewhere is a study dedicated
to the interpretative traditions surrounding the figure in Second Temple
Jewish literature - the body of writings that would reflect the various
1 A selection of these works includes E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981); Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); J. W. Aageson, Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the
Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993); Francis Watson, Paul and the
Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004); and Christopher D . Stanley, Arguing
with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark,
2004).
2 For the various proposals, see for example, C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982), pp. 154-70; J. Louis Martyn, 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah', in John
T. Carroll et al. (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92; Patrick G. Barker, 'Allegory and Typology in Galatians
4.21-31', SVTQ 38 (1994): 193-209; Michael G. Steinhauser, 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of
Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21-3P, Bib 70 (1989): 234^0; and Mary C. Callaway, 'The
Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions Behind Galatians 4.21-31', Radical Religion 2
(1975): 94-101.
MILLER Surrogate, Slave and Deviant 139
nuances in Jewish interpretation on Hagar and that also would allow one
to assess how traditional or novel Paul's usage might be. While some
commentators and writers on Galatians have alluded to or drawn on one
or more of these Jewish texts on Hagar, such texts are strikingly absent in
many studies and only partially surveyed in others, with some appealing
largely or even exclusively to the Genesis narratives.
In an effort to redress some of this imbalance, an examination of these
Second Temple Jewish writings on Hagar is vital for 'connecting the dots'
in Paul's interpretative portrait. Therefore, in this essay, I will (1)
inventory and examine the appearances of'Hagar' in Jewish writings prior
to and contemporaneous with Paul in an effort to highlight the unique
interpretative dimensions that appear and (2) measure the significance of
these texts and traditions for Paul's use of the figure in Galatians. On the
latter element, I will seek to demonstrate that the portrayal of Hagar in
Gal. 4.21-31 is in continuity with the Jewish interpretative traditions
(outside Genesis) on the figure. However, I will also argue that Paul's
reversal of ethnic identities, in his application of the story to the social
setting in Galatia, represents a distinct innovation within Jewish tradition.
Hagar in Jewish Literature

Prior to surveying the Jewish writings on Hagar, a note on procedure is in
order. The argument of this essay is neither dependent on, nor is it seeking
to demonstrate, any linear development or literary dependence within the
Jewish texts and traditions surveyed. Though the findings of this study
may yield implications for such matters, the primary focus of the essay is
to inventory the various Jewish writings on Hagar independently. It is
only when I turn to Paul that I will seek to highlight similarities between
his usage of the figure and the other independent Jewish traditions.
3
Genesis Tradition on Hagar (Genesis 16.1-15 and 21.8-21 )
Hagar comes onto the scene in Genesis 16 as a seemingly unimportant
actor in the greater drama that the editor of Genesis is directing. She is
provided no origins or background, other than that she is Egyptian (16.1).
The Genesis storyline that introduces her revolves around the seemingly
ineffective covenant promise of God, which is evident in the present lack
3 Though redaction critics rightly note that these texts, like many in Genesis, may have
been shaped by the final redactor to fit the newly created narrative context, I will not attempt
a source-critical or redaction-critical excavation of the texts in an effort to determine what
underlies them. Such an analysis is highly speculative and therefore would be of little or no
value to this study. Instead, I will examine these Genesis texts in their current form, using it
to account for the Genesis tradition on the figure of Hagar.
of an heir for Sarai and Abram, and which results in Sarai's proposed
resolution to that problem via the surrogacy of Hagar. Here it is Sarai, not
Hagar (or Abram), who is the protagonist. It is Sarai who perceives the
current lack of an heir to be a problem; it is Sarai who volunteers Hagar as
a surrogate; and it is Sarai who gives the directive to Abram to 'go in to'
Hagar (16.1-2). Later in the passage, it is Sarai who upbraids Abram
regarding the results of Hagar's conception (16.5) and, finally, it is Sarai
who afflicts and mistreats Hagar leading to her flight (16.6b).
Sarai is not only the lead character, but also the one who bears the yoke
of culpability in the story. Her subsequent actions toward Hagar (16.4)
stem from her perception of a loss of status to Hagar, now that Hagar
bears in her womb the potential inheritor of the covenant blessings.
Though bbp {qll) can carry the sense of 'to curse' or 'to treat with
contempt', it does not regularly do so in the qal stem. Here, as a passive
verb (7pm), any demonstrable negative action by Hagar to Sarai is
largely ruled out. Furthermore, there is no contextual support for Hagar
having formally cursed Sarai. Not only would the qal stem make this an
odd construction (i.e., 'her mistress was cursed in her sight'), the lack of
any recognition by Abraham or the Lord of a proposed curse leaves such
a translation and interpretation untenable.
Rightly understood, ^pm communicates that Sarai, her mistress, was
'of little account' or 'lightly esteemed' in Hagar's sight due to the rising
4
social status of Hagar, now that she had conceived. As Phyllis Trible
notes, 'Structurally and substantively, new understanding encircles
Hagar's view of herself and her mistress. Hierarchical blinders drop.
The exalted mistress decreases; the lowly slave increases. Not hatred or
5
contempt but a reordering of the relationship emerges.' The actions of
Sarai that follow - that is, her blame of Abram (16.5) and her
mistreatment of Hagar that caused her to flee (16.6b) - stem from
Sarai's jealousy and/or lack of acceptance of the current standing of
Hagar, as well as her likely anticipation of Hagar's further ascension in
6
status if things persist.
Hagar's flight does not even attract negativity to her in the account.
4 Issues related to the renegotiation of social standing, and therefore of power and
authority, were not uncommon or without problem in this context, as is evidenced by the
ancient legal codes that were constructed to regulate such tensions in marriage. See for
example, Laws of Ur-Nammu 22-23 and Laws of Hammurabi 146; cf. Prov. 30.23.
5 Phyllis Trible, 'Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing', in Phyllis Trible and
Letty M. Russell (eds), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim
Perspectives (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), pp. 33-69(39).
6 Reinforcing this 'less-provoking' interpretation of Hagar is the often noted paralleling
of Sarah's actions in 16.3 with those of Eve in 3.6, which further accentuates and
characterizes Sarai's actions as initiatory and negative. Cf. W. Berg, 'Der Sundenfall
Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16.1-6', BN 19 (1982): 7-14.
Instead, the reader observes almost the opposite - an affirmation of

Hagar. This is visible in that the angel of the Lord (1) seeks Hagar out in
her flight, hears her and cares for her (16.7-13), (2) grants her (through
Ishmael) at least a part of the covenant blessing - multiplying of offspring
(16.10), (3) sees her as a righteous sufferer in calling her back to Sarai in
submission (16.9), (4) names her son Ishmael (16.11) and (5) allows Hagar
to name the Lord (16.13). Wenham notes that:
Though Sarai is portrayed as mistress throughout, not simply exploiting
her maid Hagar but also telling her husband what to do, it is apparent
that Hagar comes out best in the end. She becomes Abram's wife. She
receives divine promises. And eventually she bears a son not for Sarai as
was planned (v 2) but, as the narrative says three times ( w 15-16), for
7
Abram.
Clearly, Hagar is presented as the positive, yet tragic, character in the
8
account, which is in contrast to the negative portrayal of Sarai.
The second of the two Genesis traditions involving Hagar (Gen. 21.8-
21) seemingly reflects an effort of the final redactor to bring to resolution
this as-of-yet unresolved side-story regarding Hagar, Ishmael and the
inheritance of God's covenant blessings. Here, at the celebration of the
weaning of Isaac, Sarah (no longer Sarai) remains the protagonist, with
Hagar and Abraham retaining their supporting roles. Also, Sarah is again
the one who is characterized negatively in the account. She is the one who
jealousy takes notice of Ishmael being together with Isaac at the feast
(21.9). She is the one who calls Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael to
protect the covenantal inheritance for Isaac (21.10). And Sarah is the one
who sees her plans enacted with the assumption of divine approval (21.10,
12). By contrast, Hagar is a silent actor in the drama, save the words of
utter exasperation that are voiced in the wilderness over the looming death
of Ishmael (21.16). Her characterization is as the one who is oppressed -
the one driven out at the behest of Sarah (21.10), the one who is heard by
the Lord in her desperation (21.17), and the one who was sustained and
blessed by the Lord (21.18-21). Even Abraham's distress over the need to
cast out Hagar and Ishmael (21.11) reinforces this characterization of
Hagar.
In opposition to this characterization of the two women, some turn to
v. 9 and argue that pilH (shq), in its absolute form here, connotes the sense
of 'jesting' or 'making sport of. Some contend for an even stronger usage
of the term, either in the sense of 'mocking' (i.e., a distinctly negative
stance of Ishmael toward Isaac; cf. Gen. 39.14, 17; Job 30.1; Hab. 1.10) or
7 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), p. 4.

8 For the reader, a tension remains in the larger narrative. God's covenantal approval
will go through Sarah but her outright culpability is also vividly apparent.
even in the sense o f conjugal caress' (cf. Gen. 26.8). These readings of the
term here in 21.9 all infuse some level of negative behaviour into Ishmael's
stance and/or actions toward Isaac, thus removing some or all of the
responsibility from Sarah for her subsequent actions.
Though the term is used in these negative senses in other places in the
MT, such a reading is very difficult to sustain here for several reasons.
First, such an interpretation lacks any contextual support for Ishmael's or
Hagar's negative portrayal or culpability (in chs 16 or 21). Second, Sarah
is consistently portrayed negatively, as the 'guilty one', in these same texts.
Third, the MT provides no modifying terms or phrases as evidence for
determining the specific type of or intention behind the proposed negative
behaviour. However, fourth, the L X X contains a prepositional phrase,
peTOc IOCXCXK (meta Isaak), as a modifier of naiôvTa (paizonta), which
decidedly rules out these negative options. In the LXX, a neutral
interpretation (e.g., 'playing', 'laughing', and/or 'dancing') is the only
tenable option.
In the MT, then, it is preferable to understand the term neutrally,
possibly as a play on words with Isaac's name (which already is a
prominent theme in the Genesis story), but surely communicates the
playing and/or laughing of the two children (cf. Zech. 8.5; Job 40.20; Ps.
9
104.26). Skinner notes that, 'it is the spectacle of the two young children
playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah's
10
maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demands'. Sarah perceives this
shared laughter and play as being potentially 'dangerous' to Isaac's (as
well as her own) unique position within God's covenant promises, and she
moves to squelch it. In line with the previous narrative (Gen. 16), Sarah
9 Trible, 'Ominous Beginnings', p. 45 notes; 'For Sarah, Ishmael's laughing poses a

threat because, by word association, Ishmael is "Isaacing". The son of Hagar plays the role
of the son of Sarah.'
10 J. A. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), p. 322. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, rev. edn 1973), p. 232. Skinner stands in opposition to
those who argue for the common piel sense of the term (i.e., 'to mock') here. Yet, these others
are still unable to articulate with any precision the type of negative behaviour or stance
enacted by Ishmael. Furthermore, though Exod. 32.6 and Judg. 16.25 (the only other
instances in the M T of the term in its absolute form) are at times cited as evidence for a
negative interpretation being distinctive of the absolute form, the claim does not hold. The
term in Judges does not even have negative overtones - the Philistines wanted Samson to
'play' before them for their amusement. Additionally, while the Exodus text clearly is one of
negative sentiment and behaviour, it is not the term itself that communicates it. It is the
worship of idols by the Israelites in the immediate context that characterizes their 'play' as
negative. In the end, pHU requires contextual indicators to determine exactly how it is used,
especially if it is deemed to be negative in sense, and the MT does not have any here in
Genesis.
retains the promise of the covenant but Hagar, ironically, is the more
positively portrayed character.
Jubilees Tradition on Hagar (Jubilees 14.21-24 and 17.1-14)

The figure of Hagar also appears in Jubilees (c.150 B C E ) , a writing that
relates stories of Israel's history (through the eyes of Moses) from creation
11
to Moses' reception of the law on Mount Sinai. While Jubilees shares
many stories in common with Genesis, the Genesis tradition should not,
de facto, be considered normative when compared to Jubilees (or other
texts that include the same stories). This essay, though, will still proceed
via comparison and contrast between the different traditions on Hagar,
not to prioritize one over another, but to highlight the unique interpret
ative emphases of each of them.
Jubilees contains mention of both of the Hagar stories in the Genesis
tradition. The Jubilees tradition parallel to Genesis 16 {Jub. 14.21-24)
unfolds similarly, but also varies at several points. The Jubilees text relates
Hagar's identity as the Egyptian maid of Sarai (14.22), Sarai's plan for the
use of Hagar as a surrogate (14.22), and the resulting conception and birth
of Ishmael (14.24). However, the account is noticeably slimmer than the
Genesis tradition. It moves from the conception to the birth of Ishmael
without any intervening details, such as those in Gen. 16.4b-14. Not found
in the Jubilees tradition are Sarai's demand to Abram for 'justice', Sarai's
harsh treatment of Hagar that caused Hagar to flee, and the whole
encounter between God and Hagar in the wilderness. Jubilees also
contains no indication of Hagar being the recipient of divine favour and
covenant blessing. As a result, a different qualitative characterization of
the two female figures emerges from the Jubilees text. Hagar is portrayed
neutrally as a silent surrogate. In variation, Sarai is a positively
characterized figure. She acts in faithful obedience to God's covenant
promise, which is a distinct variation from the Genesis tradition.
This characterization of these two female figures stems not only from
the details communicated for each, but also from the immediate context.
In variation from the Genesis tradition, the Jubilees text does not begin
with Sarai recognizing the lack of an heir and the need for making plans to
11 Jubilees is sometimes grouped, as a type of writing, under the heading 'rewritten

Bible'. However, as many have observed, this heading is inadequate because it assumes the
historical priority of the Genesis traditions. Yet, no name for the genre that would include
Jubilees and other like writings has gained consensus. Descriptively, Jubilees characterizes
itself as a revelation to Moses by the angel of the Presence (1.29-2.1) and it shares many
stories in common with Genesis, though not without variation. On Jubilees, see James C .
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) and O. S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP 2: 35-142 (citations
from Jubilees are taken from Wintermute's translation).
aid God's covenant promise. Rather, it comes after God and Moses make
a covenant with Abram (as had been done with Noah in that same month
[14.20]). Abram then returns to Sarai rejoicing and believing that 'he
would have seed' but unfortunately, Sarai 'did not give birth' (14.22).
Abram is clearly positioned as the central figure in the Jubilees tradition
12
and, comparatively speaking, Sarai takes a lesser place. As a result of
this overarching context for the story, it is in covenant faithfulness (to
God and Moses) that Sarai introduces Hagar as a surrogate, which is
emphatically endorsed by Abram (14.23), so that they might receive an
heir to the promise. In the Jubilees tradition, Abram and Sarah are not
out of place in their introduction and use of Hagar.
In Jubilees 17, at the feast for the weaning of Isaac, the account runs
largely parallel to the Genesis tradition (Gen. 21), yet again not without
its own unique features and emphases. Abraham is rejoicing and blessing
God on this occasion because he 'had not died without sons', referring to
both Ishmael and Isaac (17.2). Sarah observes Ishmael 'playing and
dancing' (17.4), presumably with Isaac, and Abraham 'rejoicing very
13
greatly' over it (17.4). Her response to such a sight is spelled out
explicitly: 'she was jealous' (17.4), something that is only implied in the
Genesis tradition. Sarah demands Hagar and Ishmael be driven out (17.4),
Abraham is aggrieved over it (17.5), and God assures Abraham that
Sarah's words are to be obeyed for the promise of his seed will go through
Isaac (17.6-7). Unlike Jubilees 14, this story recounts Hagar and Ishmael's
banishment by Abraham, her plight in the wilderness and God's coming
to her (17.8-14). Notable in variation from the Genesis tradition, though,
as VanderKam observes, is that 'the angel of God who appears to Hagar
in Gen. 21.17 is in Jubilees "one of the holy ones" (17.11), that is, not an
14
angel of the presence, but a member of the other noble class of angels'.
This part of the Jubilees tradition (ch. 17) on Hagar, for the most part,
reinforces the characterization of the figures in the Genesis tradition.
Sarah is the jealous wife of Abraham, though still the one through whom
the covenant will be established. Likewise, Hagar is still the one who is
cast out. However, when taken together (chs 14 and 17), the Jubilees
12 One other indicator of Abram's protagonist status here in Jubilees 14 is apparent in

the naming of Ishmael (14.24). In the Genesis tradition, it is the angel of the Lord who names
Ishmael (Gen. 16.11), but here Abram himself performs that function.
13 The positive (or at least neutral) portrayal of Ishmael's stance and/or actions towards
Isaac (at the feast for his weaning) here in Jubilees might also lend credence to the same
understanding of pHK in Gen. 21.9. Additionally, 4Q365 preserves a small fragment of
Genesis 21 (only two lines) where it is directly parallel to the MT of Genesis. Sarah observes
Ishmael (noted as 'the son of Hagar the Egyptian') p!"[l£ with her son Isaac and then calls on
Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, leaving Abraham distressed (this is where the
fragment ends).
14 VanderKam, Jubilees, p. 52.
tradition presents a slightly different portrayal of Hagar and Sarah than is

seen in the Genesis tradition. Hagar is more explicitly cast as silent in
Jubilees and she is not as strongly stressed as a tragic character. Instead,
Hagar is more negatively characterized. Additionally, a number of details
in Jubilees stress Sarah as a positive, faithful character (the actions in ch.
17 notwithstanding). Jubilees, therefore, can be seen as a distinct
interpretative trajectory or tradition regarding the figure of Hagar.
Genesis Apocryphon Tradition on Hagar (IQapGen™ col XX)

The Genesis Apocryphon, which is usually dated in the first-century BCE or
C E (before the destruction of the settlement, c.68 C E ) , is extant only in a
small number of fragments. The only remaining note in the document on
the figure of Hagar is that she was a gift to Abram from Pharaoh (fine 32),
which intimates her Egyptian origin in line with the previous traditions
surveyed. Interestingly, she was gifted to Abram (along with other gifts)
because Abram prayed to remove the plagues that afflicted Pharaoh as a
result of his taking Sarah as a wife, for which Abram called down a curse
on him. It is noteworthy, however, that the text contains a number of
items that accentuate positively the figure of Sarah. The Genesis
Apocryphon tradition records that Sarah's chastity was preserved for
the two years she was away from Abram in Pharaoh's household (lines
15-18), her beauty is extolled at great lengths, with language seemingly
borrowed from the Song of Songs (lines 2-8), and she is the one who
causes Abram's life to be spared, at the hands of Pharaoh, when she
declares Abram to be her brother (lines 9-10). In these items, especially in
comparison to the Genesis tradition, the reader observes a very strong
positive characterization of the figure of Sarah - a characterization that
emphasizes her courage, beauty, and virtue. Though the extant portion of
the writing is largely silent on Hagar, this heightened approval of Sarah is
15
not unimportant for this study on tradition and characterization.
Pseudo-Philonic Tradition on Hagar (L. A. B. 8.1-3)

Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, which chronicles a recounting of the
history of Israel from Adam to David, yields only a few details on the
Hagar stories. Distinctive to this tradition are the following: Sarah is
noted as sterile, Abram is the one who takes Hagar (the text notes Hagar
as his maid), and Hagar bears Ishmael (8.1). Later, the writer notes that
15 The Genesis Apocryphon is not the only text from Qumran that notes the figure of
Hagar. 4Q365 (noted above) preserves only two lines, which are in continuity with Gen. 21.9-
11a, and 4Q254 (an even smaller fragment) may also preserve a reference to Hagar, but the
lack of a context makes it uncertain. All the other references to the figure are in the biblical
manuscripts.
Abraham knew his wife Sarah and she conceived and bore Isaac (8.3).
Absent are almost all of the intervening details regarding the figures of
Sarah and Hagar, save them giving birth to their children. The Pseudo-
Philonic tradition yields very little on Hagar; and what it does relate
hardly deviates from the other traditions surveyed already.
16
Josephus Tradition on Hagar (Ant. 1.186-193, 213-221)
Of the interpretative traditions on Hagar examined thus far, the Josephus
tradition stands out as most distinct, even though it shares some features
in common with the Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon traditions. Like
these traditions, the Josephus tradition conspicuously portrays Sarah and
Hagar as positive and negative, respectively. This writing includes the
following prominent details regarding the figure of Sarah: (1) It is Abram
(not Sarah) who is distressed over Sarah's sterility (1.186). (2) Sarah
brings Hagar to Abram's bed because of a command from God to do so;
in variation from the Genesis tradition, it was not here initiated by Sarah
(1.186). (3) When Ishmael was born, Sarah is said to have cherished him
with no less affection than if he were her own son, knowing that he would
one day be an heir (1.215). Also in the Josephus tradition, (4) at the
weaning of Isaac, Sarah does not seek to get rid of Ishmael (and Hagar)
due to jealousy over covenantal inheritance (as implied in the Genesis
tradition and explicitly stated in the Jubilees tradition). Rather, she holds
that the two should not grow up together because Ishmael may injure
Isaac after Abraham dies (1.215). Even more so than the Jubilees
tradition, the Josephus tradition presents a faithful, obedient, and caring
portrait of Sarah. As such, the Josephus tradition not only varies from the
Genesis tradition, but the characterization of the figure of Sarah in these
two sources seems to bear only a faint resemblance.
The Josephus tradition on Hagar complements the interpretative thrust
seen above on the figure of Sarah, specifically as her counterpoint. Sarah's
exceedingly positive picture is inversely matched by Hagar's decidedly
negative characterization. In this tradition: (1) Hagar acts in a crass and
haughty manner toward Sarah, exploiting her newfound identity as the
mistress of Abram after conceiving ('Becoming pregnant, this servant had
the insolence to abuse Sarra, assuming queenly airs as though the
dominion were to pass to her unborn son' [1.188]). (2) Hagar flees from
Sarah not because Sarah drives her out but because Hagar cannot endure
the rightful punishment that Sarah is inflicting on her for her insolence
(1.188). (3) In line with the Genesis tradition and the second part of the
16 Though Josephus' Jewish Antiquities are consistently dated later than Galatians, the
writing is instructive for this study because it includes a recounting of the Hagar stories, and
some of the traditions that Josephus recounts could well reflect Jewish interpretative
traditions from a period contemporaneous with or even prior to Paul.
Jubilees tradition (Jub. 17.1-14), God meets Hagar in her flight from
Sarah. However, in variation from these other traditions, the divine words
here in Josephus chastise Hagar for not exercising self-control in her
behaviour toward Sarah. Also, though her return to Sarah is mandated by
the Lord, it is predicted to be a happy return only if she expresses greater
self-control and alters her behaviour, otherwise she will perish (1.189).
Finally, the Josephus tradition notes that (4) Ishmael was named by God,
but only after Hagar returned and received forgiveness from Sarah
(1.190). No mention is made of Hagar naming Ishmael, as is seen in the
Genesis tradition. In the end, the qualitative characterization of these two
figures is starkly apparent and polarizing. Contra the Genesis tradition,
but in line with nearly all of the other traditions surveyed in this essay, the
figure of Hagar bears the brunt of the blame and negativity in the
Josephus tradition. Inversely, almost nothing negative clings to the figure
of Sarah here in Josephus. The Josephus tradition reflects not only a
sharing in, but also a heightening of, the qualitative characterization of
the figures of Hagar and Sarah seen previously.
Philonic Tradition on Hagar

Taking a step chronologically backward from Josephus, to a true
contemporary of Paul, we see the figure of Hagar again in the writings
of Philo of Alexandria. Though Philo was not entirely unacquainted with
referring to Hagar in a literal sense, his primary mode of expression
regarding the figure was - as in so much of his writing - a figurative one.
The allegorical interpretation of 'Hagar' begins, not surprisingly, with
17
Philo. For Philo, the figure of Hagar frequently serves as a trope, most
often representing lower learning or even ignorance and lack of discipline.
At the other end of the spectrum, 'Sarah' functions as a counterpart to
'Hagar', embodying higher learning or perfect virtue. An example of this
type of usage by Philo can be seen in the following passage:
But nevertheless, she [Sarah] is thought worthy of such an honourable
reception from the prince, that her womb is opened by him, so as to
receive the seed of divine generation, in order to cause the production of
honourable pursuits and actions. Learn therefore, O soul, that Sarah,
that is virtue, will bring forth to thee a son; and that Hagar, or
intermediate instruction, is not the only one who will do so; for her
offspring is one which has its knowledge from teaching, but the
18
offspring of the other is entirely self-taught. (Mut. 255-256)
4
17 Cf. Yehoshua Amir, The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in
Philo', in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel
(ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, et al.; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25.
18 The translation is taken from LCL. Cf. Cher. 3, 6, 8; Post. 130; Congr. 11, 20, 23-24,
4
71, 88, 121-122; Somn. 1.240; and Peder Borgen, Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in
Philo's usage of the two figures is dominated by allegory and with them
functioning as two types; types that are correlated with personal or mental
qualities related directly to the Greek system of education and learning.
In light of the other Jewish writings surveyed, Philo's qualitative
distinction between the two figures stands in broad continuity with much
of the tradition outside the Genesis tradition. Hagar represents the lower
entity and Sarah embodies the higher qualities. Though the things that the
Philonic Hagar represents are not despised (i.e., they are still of some
value in attaining higher learning), it is still clear that one figure (Sarah)
consistently stands above the other (Hagar) when allegorizing them. In the
end, though the form in which the Philonic tradition on Hagar is found is
a novum in Jewish tradition, the use or functions of the figures (as higher
and lower) reflect the same basic interpretative thrust noted in the non-
Genesis traditions above.
This inventorying of Jewish traditions on the figure of Hagar reveals
several salient observations. First, the Genesis tradition appears to be the
only tradition that presents the figure of Hagar in a positive (or even
neutral) light. Likewise, it is the tradition that most clearly and thoroughly
characterizes Sarah negatively. All of the other traditions characterize the
two, explicitly and/or implicitly, in exactly the opposite manner. It is clear,
then, that the predominance of Jewish tradition reflects Hagar to be the
antagonist, or even the villain, in the stories. Second, though all of these
writings cannot be dated with precision, it is apparent that later in the
Second Temple period (especially with Josephus) the negative character
ization of the figure of Hagar is quite thorough. Finally, outside of Philo's
allegorical form, all of these Hagar stories and traditions are found within
works that purport to provide some span of Israelite or Jewish history;
yet, none is without an interest in the contemporary circumstances in
19
which they were written.
Philo's and Paul's Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael', in Peder Borgen and Soren Giversen
(eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 151-64
(153).
19 While it is not the aim of this study to demonstrate a clear line of development or to
chronologically prioritize the Hagar traditions in Jewish literature, it seems likely from this
essay that the Genesis tradition precedes the others. I would contend that it is less likely that
the Genesis tradition is later than the others (i.e., it effectively 'redeemed' Hagar from earlier
negative portrayals of the figure). More likely, I would argue, is that Hagar is deviantized in
the traditions outside of Genesis (later in the Second Temple period) as a distinct alteration
to the positive (or at least neutral) portrayal in the Genesis tradition. Though the focus and
parameters of this essay preclude going into the level of detail needed to fully substantiate
such a claim, it is worth noting that Hagar is also negatively characterized in the Targums
and early Midrashim (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 16.1, 5; Tg. Neof. Gen. 16.5; Gen. Rab. 45.4; Pirqe
R. El. 30) and is consistently caricatured as 'the other' throughout the rabbinic literature,
which lends credence to my supposition. Cf. Carol Bakhos, 'The Double Identity of Hagar
and Keturah' (forthcoming).
Paul (Galatians 4.21-31) and Jewish Tradition on Hagar

Fundamental to the study of Paul's use of Scripture are the following:
Paul was a Jew; Paul held Israel's Scriptures to be normative for
interpreting his own contemporary experience; Paul shared in this
enterprise with many of his 'own people' (i.e., fellow Jews); and, as a
result, an ongoing conversation on the interpretation and significance of
20
Israel's Scriptures ensued. As Francis Watson notes:
Whatever other factors help to shape them, scripture is the generative
matrix within which these texts come into being, and it is therefore
possible to see both the Pauline and non-Pauline texts as operating
within the single intertextual field constituted by the communal
acknowledgement of the earlier texts as 'scripture', and by the
expectation that, as they are interpreted, these texts will themselves
interpret and shape the world of present experience. Difference and
21
disagreement . . . take place only on that common ground.
Therefore, any effort to assess Paul's use of Scripture must take a full
account of the features and emphases of the scriptural or para-scriptural
traditions in these Jewish writings, since they are implicit dialogue
partners of his. Now I turn to Paul's use of Hagar in light of the Jewish
writings and traditions surveyed above.
Unquestionably, Jewish tradition underlies and informs Paul's use of
the Hagar stories (Gal. 4.21-31). Yet which specific traditions? And in
which specific places? The most visible connection is evident in the form of
the passage. Paul's designation of the passage as an allegory (4.24) puts it,
at least in its form, in line with the Philonic allegorical tradition on
22
Hagar. While the focus of Philo and Paul's allegories differ, with Philo
zeroed in on Greek education or ideals and Paul preoccupied with the
current social context in Galatia, they both employ the same form and
they both have contemporary contexts to which each is applied.
Paul's allegory identifies the figures as two 'covenants' (4.24). Hagar is
signified as: 'the slave woman' (4.22); the one whose child was born
'according to the flesh' (4.23); the one 'bearing children for slavery' (4.24);
'the present Jerusalem' (4.25); the one who will not share in the
inheritance (4.30); and the one who is to be driven out (4.30). In
20 See Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, pp. 1-13 and Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 35.
21 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, p. 3.
22 Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the
Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 324-5, finds Philo's allegorical use of Hagar
(and Sarah) to be quite instructive and informative for reading Paul in Gal. 4, especially in
the contemporizing function that they exhibit. This is in contrast to Barrett, Essays on Paul,
pp. 154-70, who holds that Philo's allegory contributes very little in form or substance to
Paul.
opposition, Paul allegorizes the figure of Sarah as: 'the free woman' (4.22);
the one whose child was born 'according to the promise' (4.23); the
Jerusalem above (4.26); as 'our mother' (4.26); and the one who will be the
rightful inheritor of the promise (4.30). As Elizabeth Castelli rightly notes,
'allegory as a rhetorical trope possesses a capacity to persuade its reader
23
or hearer to reimagine the meanings of a text or tradition'. The
allegorical associations of Hagar and Sarah here in Paul are thorough and
striking, offering a stereotyped, reimagined meaning of the two figures to
characterize certain actors in the current Galatian drama. While the form
of the passage clearly links Paul and Philo's use of Hagar to the same
tradition, the significant variation in what the figures are allegorically
linked to indicates that the Philonic tradition is not the only Jewish
interpretative tradition that is evident in Paul's use of Hagar.
Conspicuously absent in the cadre of Jewish traditions on the figure of
Hagar is any normative set of details. Each writing records its own unique
set, some fuller and some slimmer, based on variations within or alterations
to the traditions. Paul's relating of the Hagar story in Gal. 4.21-31 is no
exception. He offers a very brief and highly stylized account. The few
details that he relates are as follows: (1) Abraham had two sons (4.22); (2)
Ishmael (though not referred to by name) 'persecuted' Isaac (4.29); and (3)
the slave woman, Hagar, and her child are to be driven out (4.30).
Beyond its allegorical form, two additional aspects of Paul's account
reflect a clear continuity with one or more of the Jewish interpretative
traditions on Hagar. First, in line with the Jewish traditions outside of
Genesis, especially Jubilees and Josephus, compellingly absent in
Galatians are any of the particulars in the Genesis tradition (particularly
Gen. 16) that negatively characterize the figure of Sarah. Paul does not
contend for a positive characterization of Sarah in Galatians, rather he
assumes it. Similarly absent in Paul are any of the details seen in the
Genesis tradition that portray Hagar in a positive light. The figure of
Hagar clearly is the negative trope. The most likely (or perhaps only)
logical reason for how Paul can so matter-of-factly (i.e., without
argumentation) present this highly charged, dualistic characterization of
these two figures, is that his hearers and/or readers share with him a
24
common knowledge of the Jewish traditions on these figures. On this,
23 Elizabeth A. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4.21-31 with

Postmodern Eyes', in Edgar V. McKnight and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (eds), The New
Literary Criticism and the New Testament (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994), pp. 228-50 (230).
24 Many (myself included) see the situation of Paul and the other teachers in Galatia as
one of 'competing exegesis' - i.e., both are seeking to normatively interpret the story of
Abraham (including that of Sarah and Hagar) for the Galatians. Seemingly, these other
teachers have introduced their own interpretative account of these stories to the Galatians,
and now Paul is providing an interpretative response (e.g., 3.7, 16). The Galatians' previous
Castelli notes that, 'like other forms of rhetorical persuasion, allegorical

interpretation depends upon what is familiar to the reader. In the course
of interpretation, the familiar is refigured, and what is familiar is
25
translated into something new, different and often remarkable.' I would
contend that Paul's qualitative portrayal of the figures of Hagar and
Sarah is not only traditionally Jewish, as seen in the preponderance of the
traditions surveyed in this essay, but also that this traditional aspect of the
Hagar stories has become common knowledge to the Galatians.
A second key aspect of the Galatians account that is in continuity with
Jewish tradition is the negative characterization of the actions of Ishmael
at the weaning of Isaac. In variation from the more neutral, or even
positive, term pTCJ (Gen. 21.9; LXX : irai^co) used in the Genesis tradition,
Paul employs SICOKCO (Gal. 4.29) to negatively characterize Ishmael's
actions and/or stance as 'persecuting' Isaac. Though some see Paul's
interpretative choice here as a simple exegesis of a negatively laden term or
idea in Genesis, such a reading is not convincing. More persuasive is that
Paul's negative portrayal reflects Jewish tradition. In the writings of the
Rabbis, Ishmael is seen as idolatrous (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Onq. Tg. Neof.
9 y
on Gen. 21.9), wicked (e.g., Gen. Rab. 53.4; Exod. Rab. 3.2), and,
specifically in his treatment of Isaac, as persecuting him by shooting
'deadly arrows' at him while hunting (e.g., Pesiq. R. 48.3; Pirqe R. El. 30).
The profoundly negative characterization of Ishmael in the rabbinic
literature not only paints a vivid picture of this scene, but it also reveals
the traditional character of Paul's interpretation. Again, while this nuance
of Jewish interpretative tradition in the Rabbis is not found in other pre-
Pauline Jewish texts, and though these rabbinic traditions cannot be dated
prior to Paul with certainty, it is clear that Paul is in continuity with
Jewish tradition in this characterization of Ishmael.
A final traditional aspect of the Galatians account is evident in Gal.
4.30, where Sarah has been removed as the source of the command (as it is
in the Genesis tradition) and 'Scripture' is inserted in her place. For Paul,
'Scripture' says, 'drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave
will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman' ( N R S V ) . 2 6
This critical command that Paul wishes the Galatians to hear and enact
now does not come simply from Sarah, or even Paul, but from (and
assuming the authority of) Scripture. This is an effort by Paul to further
exposure to the Sarah-Hagar story seems sure due to what Paul assumes, as well as to the
movement of the passage (e.g., 4.21, 24, 30). However, we do not and cannot know what
shape or form it came to them in. The teachers themselves may well be the (or at least a)
source for the Galatians' knowledge of these stories and traditions. See, for example, J. Louis
Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A; New
York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 18-19, 117-26, 302-7.
25 Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 230.
26 See Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 116.
legitimate his interpretation (over others) in the eyes of the gentile

Galatian believers and, ultimately, to more effectively persuade them to
enact the driving out. Though 'Scripture' is not the specific voice used in
the Jewish traditions on Hagar to further legitimize aspects of their
interpretations, 'God' is used in this manner. As noted briefly above in
Jewish Antiquities, Josephus overshadows any culpability on the part of
Sarah for failing to wait on God's covenant promise, and for selecting
Hagar as a surrogate, by indicating that it was God who commanded
Sarah to do so (1.10.4). Because it was not of her own accord, she is
exonerated of any wrongdoing or lack of faith. This legitimatory
manoeuvre shades how specific behaviour and actions are to be
understood and thus recasts how characters as a whole are to be
perceived. Paul stands alongside Josephus in this act, keeping his text
broadly in line with Jewish tradition.
In summary, it is clear that the Galatians account of the Hagar story is
quite traditional, as it shares a number of interpretative features with the
Jewish traditions surveyed above. Paul constructs the passage within a
27
distinctly Jewish framework and set of traditions. Yet, one aspect of it
stands out as novel. Paul's clear indication that the story of Sarah and
Hagar is playing out again, now through different actors in the Galatian
drama, lacks a precise precedent in Jewish tradition. While it is true that
Philo contemporizes the Sarah-Hagar story to address issues of his own
day, nowhere does he (or any other Jewish writing) make application of it
to other persons and social situations. Philo's contemporizing is limited to
Greek educational ideals and learning, whereas for Paul, the current social
context of strife in Galatia is that to which the story is applied. The
Galatian social context appears to be the enzyme that once again sets it
into motion.
Witherington notes that 'it is of the essence of an allegory that the
interpretation offered is not literally true about the subjects within the
story, but rather it is true of persons outside the story, either members of
28
the audience or those the audience knows about'. This is true for the
Galatian audience. In the current casting of the Hagar-Sarah story in
Galatia, the figure of Sarah is the gentile Galatian believers. They are the
ones who are free and are the inheritors according to the promise. In
opposition, the figure of Hagar is now the band of teachers who seek to
27 J. C. O'Neill,' "For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians 4.25)', in Steve
Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North
(JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210-19 (218), argues that Gal.
4.25 and much of the pericope is traditionally Jewish, but deems it to be of Essene origin.
O'Neill, however, presents little compelling evidence to support such a specific claim.
28 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 323. Cf. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 232 and
Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia.
(Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 241-2.
influence the gentile Galatian believers. They are the ones (in Paul's eyes)
who are in slavery and bondage, and they are not the inheritors of the
covenant promise. In the climax of the passage, and some would say of the
entire letter, Hagar (i.e., the teachers) is to be driven out by Sarah (i.e., the
29
gentile Galatian believers).
Paul's interpretative innovation here with the recasting of the figures of
Hagar and Sarah comes with its own twist - a reversal of the ethnic
identities typical to the figures in Jewish tradition. The traditional 'Sarah',
consistently reflecting covenantal Judaism as over against the nations, is
30
now embodied in the Galatians 'Hagar'. Hagar, in Galatians, is the
group of teachers who continue to demand Torah observance even for
new gentile converts. They are the Sinai covenant. Likewise, the
traditional 'Hagar', consistently reflecting the nations, is now found in
the Galatians 'Sarah'. In this context, the figure of Sarah now represents
the gentile Galatian believers. They are the Abrahamic covenant. For
Paul, they are the inheritors of the promise through faith.
In the end, it is not that one ethnicity (i.e., Jewish), along with the
practice of its piety (e.g., Torah-observance), is being monolithically
supplanted by another (i.e., gentile or Graeco-Roman). Paul is not
rejecting, in their entirety, Judaism, the Jewish people, the law or even
circumcision. Rather, here in Galatians, he inserts this innovation within
Jewish tradition specifically to contend against the demand of Torah-
observance, as a type of oppression, by these teachers (i.e., the Galatians
Hagar) for the gentile Galatian converts to Christ (i.e., the Galatians
31
Sarah). This radical final manoeuvre by Paul does not deny the
traditional Jewish character of the Sarah-Hagar story evident in Gal.
4.21-31. Quite the contrary, Paul asserts it as an (or in Paul's mind the)
authoritative interpretation within the ongoing Jewish conversation and
tradition on Scripture.
Implications of this Study
Space limitations will not allow an extensive consideration of the

implications of this study, therefore I will only briefly highlight them
below.
First, the free telling and retelling (i.e., traditions) of Israel's history,
particularly as seen in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, Pseudo-Philo's
Biblical Antiquities, and Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, should be identified
29 Cf. J. Bligh, Galatians (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969), p. 235.

30 Cf. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 241 and Barrett, Essays on Paul, p. 168.
31 Paul opposes any teachers (Jewish-Christians, non-Christian-Jews or others) who
would demand Torah-observance of gentile converts to Christ. This practice, and not an
ethnicity or religion, is the basis for Paul's oppositional stance.
as a distinct stream of Jewish tradition that informs Paul's use of Scripture

in Gal. 4.21-31. At the very least, it should be inserted alongside the other
Jewish methods of scriptural interpretation that have been offered to
characterize Paul's act of interpretation here in Galatians. Additionally,
studies that appeal only to Genesis, and that ignore the other Jewish texts
and traditions, render themselves inadequate for interpreting the passage
in Paul.
Second, given the distinct continuity of the Galatians account with the
Jewish traditions (on the interpretation of Hagar), it is important to ask,
'whose voice do we hear' in Paul's text? If it is the case, as I have argued,
that Paul subverts the traditional identity assignments of the figures of
Hagar and Sarah in Jewish tradition through a reversal of ethnic identities
in the Galatian context, then the traditionally negative interpretation of
Hagar does not, and logically cannot, represent Paul's voice. Paul is not
subverting his own interpretation. Instead, he is subverting the traditional
Jewish interpretation of Hagar as a negative figure (which most likely is
being proffered by these other teachers) as he vies for the ears and the
allegiance of the Galatian believers. Therefore, I would argue that, outside
of Paul's innovation in the tradition, we largely hear in Gal. 4.21-31 'the
voice' of these other teachers via Paul's recitation. To be convincingly
made, though, this argument requires a great deal more space than can be
afforded here. Therefore, it will need to be taken up in a forthcoming
essay.
Finally, in light of this essay and in corollary to the preceding
implication, the effectual reading of Hagar in Galatians needs to be
revisited. Although the figure of Hagar is the one to be driven out in the
Galatians account, as she is in most all the Jewish writings, Paul's
subversive alteration of ethnic identities also calls into question any
contemporary readings that take Paul's portrayal of Hagar as an abuse of
the oppressed or 'the other'. While the Galatians pericope has been
understood as a 'text of terror' in some post-colonial and feminist
readings, if my supposition is correct concerning Paul's application of it to
the Galatian drama, then just the opposite is true. Paul is calling for those
who abuse and agitate (i.e., the teachers who demand Torah-observance)
the gentile Galatian believers to be cast out specifically because of their
domineering stance and behaviour toward these 'others'. Paul calls for
oppression and oppressive behaviour to be that which is cast out along
with these teachers. Hagar is not re-abused or re-oppressed but freed and
32
empowered.
32 This is another subject to which I will give further attention in a future essay.
Chapter 1 1
S U B V E R T I N G S A R A H I N T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T
G A L A T I A N S 4 A N D 1 P E T E R 3
Jeremy Punt
Introduction
The presence of a person as important as Sarah in the narratives of the
Hebrew Bible comes as no particular surprise, since she was after all the
one to whom Jewish people would trace their matrilineal descent: Sarah,
1
mother of nations. Our modern perception and frame of reference should
nevertheless not deceive us in taking the female presence outside of, and to
some extent detached from, her home - and the public acknowledgement
of a married woman - for granted in a patriarchal world. Nevertheless,
apart from her role as consort or wife of Abraham, Sarah occupies an
2
important position in the biblical narratives.
Sarah's portrayal in the New Testament sees her deployed in important
roles, but neither the particular ways in which she was appropriated, nor
these portrayals as such, are without some ambivalence. At first glance, it
could be noted that her presence is somewhat unexpected in the New
Testament epistolary material, especially her generally positive depiction,
given the Epistles' propensity for specificity and, of course, the patriarchal
context of the time. On the other hand, reference to Sarah is not that
surprising considering that she was the wife of the patriarch, the father of
faith and therefore carried the responsibility of bearing him a child, a
responsibility which was accentuated because of the particular role in
which Abraham himself was portrayed. But again, while Sarah's ultimate
responsibility to provide a lineage is reflected in the New Testament
documents as they at times recount the compromising situation Sarah
This is an edited version of a paper read at the Annual SBL Meeting in Washington DC,
USA, November 2006 - an earlier version appeared in Scriptura 96 (2007): 453-68, and it is
published here with the kind permission of its editor.
1 T. J. Schneider, Sarah: Mother of Nations (New York and London: Continuum, 2004).
2 Cf., however, also the patterned literary presentations of women in the Hebrew Bible as
described by A. Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the
"Birth of the Hero" Paradigm', FT 363 (1986): 257-73.
found herself in because of her sterility, there is more to how Sarah is

presented in the New Testament.
In the end, Sarah is mentioned only on a few occasions in the New
Testament, but in interestingly different ways. While the distinct
portrayals of Sarah are obviously related to the particular purpose of
each document, these references can also - if only partly - be explained
with reference to the variance found among the New Testament
documents' appeals to Scripture. Comparing Sarah's portrayal in
Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 shows that the explanation of differences
3
needs to include but go beyond distinct epistolary exigencies. While their
use of Scripture adheres broadly to prevailing norms and practice,
Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 differ in the rationale for referencing Scripture,
their interpretative interests and the ideological settings of the documents
- these concerns will be addressed after briefly reviewing Sarah's portrayal
in Genesis, Galatians and 1 Peter. Moreover, the subtle (and less subtle)
subversion of Sarah's portrayal in Genesis, and her consequent subversive
appropriation in the New Testament, will be traced in this contribution.
4
Sarah, Wife of Abraham, in the Hebrew Bible
In the patriarchal world of the Bible, bolstered by endogamous marriage
practices and patrilineal descent, it is difficult to reflect upon Sarah
5
without considering her in relation to Abraham. The New Testament
documents show more than a fleeting acquaintance with the Abraham
3 Space does not allow discussion of the introductory questions concerning Galatians
and 1 Peter. Suffice it to claim that Galatians is seen as one of Paul's authentic letters,
addressed to the early Christian churches founded by Paul in central Asia Minor or central
Anatolia (so Betz). It was most probably written in the early fifties (50 or 51 CE), although its
provenance remains a puzzle: Ephesus, Macedonia, Corinth and even Rome have been
suggested. Galatians is a short and confrontational letter, probably representing the early
phase of a dispute with adversaries relating to the relationship between theological issues and
socio-political matters such as the identity of the community, within the context of first-
generation followers of Jesus. 1 Peter was most probably written in the period between 73
and 92 CE, pseudonymously and from Rome by a group of Jesus followers formed around the
name and legacy of the apostle Peter. 1 Peter is directed to members of this group dispersed
through Asia Minor.
4 Cf. an earlier discussion in J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of
the Father of Faith in Galatians 4.21-5.1', Neot 40(1) (2006): 101-18.
5 Indeed, Sarah's role is circumscribed in her role as legitimate wife and mother of the
male successor rather than being presented as an individual in her own right, cf. G. A. Yee,
'Sarah (person)', ABD 5.981-2. 'The chief aspiration which informs these women's being . . .
is biological motherhood and its benefits' (Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 264).
Schneider presents a different perspective, and concludes: 'Thus, Sarah becomes not just the
wife of the patriarch; instead, the Deity chooses Sarah as surely as Abraham, especially in
terms of continuation of the promise' (Schneider, Sarah, p. 129).
PUNT Subverting Sarah 157
narratives of the Hebrew Bible, generally according him the mantle of

father of faith in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 4; Heb. 11; Jas 2).
However, the interests of the New Testament representations of Abraham
are soon exposed, showing their reliance on a committed traditional
appropriation of the biblical texts of Genesis rather than a studious
concern with the full extent and implications of the narratives of the
Hebrew Bible on Abraham's character: a male figure that stood to lose
nothing, having already left his native land and the empty house of his
6
father: 'God's call is hardly inopportune'.
At times Abraham appears as a 'silent, acquiescent, and minor figure in
7
a drama between two women', and whose response to God's promise
8
entailed minimal risks for considerable benefits. Leaving aside (the then
still) Abram's motives for responding positively to God's call - faith,
trust, ambition, sense of responsibility and so on - there is no evidence of
including his family and especially his wife in the sharing of the blessing,
although Sarai would evidently be vital to actualize the blessing. In fact, it
is only when Sarai became Sarah ('princess') that she was explicitly
included in the divine promise, to which Abraham responded with
incredulous laughter. Nothing shocked Abraham more in his acceptance
9
of God's promise than Sarah's inclusion in it.
The irony amidst Sarah's marginalization is how it affected her
behaviour towards others, in particular the few over which she exercised
10
authority. In the same way that Abram traded Sarai for security and
11
wealth in Egypt, Sarai herself later traded the sexuality and maternity of
6 D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's
First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), p. 40.
7 P. Trible, Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT, 13;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press), p. 11.
8 As W. Brueggemann {Genesis [Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], p. 119)
somewhat anachronistically puts it, 'an index of what we crave: well-being, security,
prosperity, prominence'.
9 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 40-1, 47; cf. P. R. Davies, Whose Bible is it Anyway?
(JSOTSup, 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 105-8.
10 The Hebrew Bible's narratives on the matriarchs develop according to a relatively
fixed literary paradigm where the legitimate wife is paired with another, rival co-wife with
characteristics not present in the former (Yes, 'Sarah', p. 981; cf. Brenner, 'Female Social
Behaviour'). However, later interpreters found Hagar's maltreatment difficult to explain, and
so, e.g., Philo in his generally positive portrayal of Sarah, carefully avoided Sarah's
mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael in his literal interpretation, dealing with it only
allegorically, cf. M. R. Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic
Midrash', HTR 91/4 (2004): 413-^4 (429).
11 In a less than positive portrayal of Abram in their return to Egypt when famine struck
(Gen. 12), he showed fewer morals than Pharaoh in putting Sarai up for grabs, ostensibly
because of the danger her beauty could cause him, and so incurring the favours and riches of
the Pharaoh. While safety and certainly economic gain seem to be prime considerations for
his actions, Abram showed little concern for Sarai as a partner to the divine blessing, much
the slave, Hagar, for her own security (Gen. 16), and so the victimized
became the victimizer. 'For Sarai, Hagar is an instrument, not a person.
12
The maid enhances the mistress.' When Sarai's plan to ensure a lineage
through her slave led to unexpected complications, an indifferent Abram
withdrew from Sarai's harsh and revengeful treatment of Hagar, which is
so effective that Hagar flees into the desert. 'The struggle between the
women is a regular power struggle, unaffected by love inasmuch as it is
13
centered round motherhood and its attendant benefits.' Still, apart from
this incident, Sarah's life in Genesis marks her as worthy of becoming the
mother of the nation, and although her secondary place to Abraham was
inscribed by patriarchy, her behaviour often subverted both her and
Abraham's roles and aspects of such twists and turns in the Hebrew Bible
narratives surfaces in the New Testament as well.
14
Sarah in the New Testament
Women's stories of motherhood in Genesis are primarily about the

nation of Israel over against other nations in a promise-focused
less an integral part in realizing it. In fact, through his 'sense of exclusivity' and distrust of
God's protection, Abram has interfered with God's plan. Underlining his failure to
appreciate Sarai's value, the earlier fearful Abram rallied at great personal risk to the defence
of Lot in Gen. 14, and the participant of Egyptian riches later declined the king of Sodom's
offer of wealth. A similar pattern is again present in Gen. 18-20 where Abraham deemed Lot
more worthy of risk and trouble than his own wife (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 42-5).
12 Trible, Texts of Terror, p. 11.
13 Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 272. Hagar returned to Abram and Sarai at
God's instruction, but not before she also received a promise, even if an ambivalent one and
secondary in all respects to the promise made to Abram, except that she too will have a
mighty lineage. Ishmael will also be blessed, but it is through Isaac that God will renew the
covenant (Gen. 17.19-21; Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 45, 48).
14 Cf. also J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline allegory in Gal 4.21-5.1', Neot
40(1) (2006): 87-100; idem, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2'. Four direct references to Sarah are
found in the NT: Rom. 4.19, on the contrast between Abraham's faith and Sarah's womb;
Rom. 9.9, on the promise situated in Sarah's son; Heb. 11.11, on Sarah's conception and
faith; and 1 Pet. 3.6, on Sarah's obedience; Gal. 4.21-5.1 is clearly about Sarah, referred to as
the 'free [woman]'). The conspicuous absence of Sarah in Stephen's account of the history of
Israel (Acts 7.2-53) is difficult to explain. Abraham is explicitly mentioned 73 times in the
NT: Mt. (7); Mk (1); Lk. (15); Jn (i 1, all in ch. 8); Acts (7); Paul's letters (19; Rom. (9); 2 Cor.
(1); Gal. (9); Heb. (10); Jas (2); 1 Pet. (1). Van Rensburg holds that references to Abraham's
children would include Sarah of necessity (cf Rom. 9.7; Jn 8.39), and refers also to Isa. 51.2
who juxtaposes Abraham as father and Sarah as the one who gave birth (F. J. J. Van
Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-Historical Interpretation of the
Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3.5-6 to take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness',
Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60/1, 2 (2004): 249-60 (257).
quest. The promise, which according to the Hebrew Bible came from
God, concerns Israel becoming a great nation. The importance of the
promise potentially sidelines interest in these women, and the significance
of what they do or what happens to them and their children, to matters of
secondary nature. On the other hand, and not without some irony, women
16
as mothers are first and foremost caretakers of the promise, granting
matriarchs a vital role in the patriarchal narratives. It follows that their
babies, their children, are more than offspring but are those who will
17
move, claim or lose the promise.
Many of the tensions generated by powerful women in a patriarchal
context reverberate through the New Testament, which picks up on the
18
traditions regarding Sarah, albeit with varying emphases. 'The New
Testament supplies several proof texts that the Christian community has
19
used to shape its understanding of Sarah and her character.' While
Rom. 4.19 focuses on her barrenness in contrast to Abraham's faith in
20
God's promises, and 1 Pet. 3.6 sees in Sarah's behaviour a legitimation
15 The gender politics is determined by the male God who takes the initiative and
enables/empowers the female of the patriarch to ensure his (God's and the patriarch's)
promises and lineage. However, the male God challenged the quick-fix solution of the male
patriarch in conceiving a child with his concubine. In their discussions, Fewell and Gunn
(Gender) implicate the male God as much as the male patriarch.
16 Initially God addressed women (Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah) directly but no more after
Rebekah and especially the birth of Jacob or Israel. Following the lead of Rebekah who
ensured Jacob's inheritance of the choice land and prosperity to the detriment of Esau,
Israel's mothers will from now on attend to the promise (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 89-
90).
17 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 89-90; C. Osiek, 'Galatians', in C. A. Newsom and S.
H. Ringe (eds), Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville: WJK, exp. edn, 1998), pp. 232-7
(236). Abraham later married again and had other children too (Gen. 25.1-4), but the
promise underwrote the contrast between Sarah and Hagar, and their sons. Cf. J. D. G.
Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 245.
18 An interesting intertext is Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, in the book of Tobit. She
was to become the wife of Tobias after all seven of her husbands were killed by the demon
Asmodeus on their wedding night. In her patriarchal setting she also maltreated her servants,
because they blamed her for being unable to keep a husband (Tob. 2.9-9) - creating an
interesting parallel with the biblical Sarah's harsh treatment of Hagar. Cf. Yee, 'Sarah',
p. 982.
19 Schneider, Sarah, p. 131. Schneider, Gender, pp. 124-33 argues that the NT is
prominently responsible for a prejudiced reading of Sarah, in contrast to her portrayal in
Genesis; on the other hand she admits both to not being a 'specialist in the New Testament',
and coming to 'preliminary' conclusions after taking the NT 'at face value'.
20 R. Hoppin, 'The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla's Letter', in A. Levine and M. M.
Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland:
Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 147-70 (154-5) explains how Sarah's prominent and assertive role in
steadying the lacklustre and at times weak conduct of Abraham has been translated away
through androcentric concerns, and how this was done to retain the patriarchal image of
Abraham.
of patriarchy and women's submission to their husbands, Heb. 11.11

emphasizes Sarah's own faith, making a positive connection between her
faith and her ability to conceive in her old age. In other texts Sarah is
instrumental for describing the relationship between Jewish and gentile
followers of Christ, and also Jews as such. Romans 9.6-9 insists that not
all descendants of Abraham are eligible to be called his children, and in
Galatians 4.21-5.1 this tension reaches break point and harbours anti-
Judaic tendencies when Sarah is claimed as mother of the Christian
community rather than of the Jews, who are portrayed as children of the
slave woman Hagar.
In this discussion the focus is on Sarah's portrayal in Galatians 4 and 1
Peter 3, which respectively emphasized her leading socio-historical role in
determining the identity of believers, and her role in grounding a
distinctive but exemplary socio-cultural profile. In both instances, Sarah's
specific portrayal not only grounded a particular claim and stance, but in
the process also subverted other, traditional positions.
Sarah in Galatians
Galatians 4 provided an alternative, allegorical reading intent on a
contemporary if dissident understanding of the Genesis narrative,
challenging the notion that Jews belonged to the lineage of Abraham
through their physical descent from Abraham and Sarah. Such a radical
hermeneutical shift made Paul dependent on a disposition of trust towards
the interpreter, that the Galatian churches would accept him as faithful
21
interpreter of Scripture. In essence, Paul's retelling of the origin of
22
Abraham's children rests on a comparison of his two wives, Sarah and
23
Hagar. Paul's sublime appeal is through his hermeneutical procedure in
which the example of Abraham is treated as typical and normative,
concentrating on scriptural texts, which emphasized that Israel's special
24
place with God, is relativized.
21 Cf. S. E. Fowl, 'Who can read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in
Galatians', JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95; C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture. The Rhetoric of
Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 130-5.
22 Cf. Cyprian's Testimonia (1.20) for other instances of comparing wives: in the case of
Jacob's two wives, Leah represents the synagogue and Rachel (mother of Joseph) the church;
with Elkana's two wives the church is deemed to be symbolized by Hannah, mother of
Samuel (another messianic figure).
23 In Gen. 25.1 another wife is mentioned, Ketura, and the names of six sons Abraham
had with her. Scholars differ about the nature of the claim (biographical or literary, and the
latter probably in order to associate certain peoples with Abraham), the chronology involved
regarding its placement in the fife of Abraham (e.g., before or after sending Hagar away in
Gen. 21), and so on (cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994).
24 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville:
WJK, 1990), p. 203.
The importance of employing the traditions about Abraham and his

house is evident in Galatians, regardless of the debate about whether the
25
'opponents' also used this tradition in their arguments, compelling Paul
to refute it. The centrality of promise (eTrayyeAia) in Galatians (cf. 3.6-
29), and indeed in the whole Pauline corpus where Jesus is connected to
26
the line of Abraham, obliges Paul to use this tradition. The significance
of the promise emerges also in the initial contrast between the two modes
27
of birth: K O T O odpica (according to the flesh) is initially set against 5id
Trjs EirayyeAtas (through the promise) and only in 4.29 is the expected
contrast, KOCTCX irveupa (according to the spirit), found. In the promise, the
supernatural nature of Isaac's birth is recorded, and more importantly,
the birth is portrayed as being preceded by and associated with the
28
promise. Galatians 4 shifts the emphasis from Abraham to his two wives
(and the distinction between them), made into types of freedom and
29
slavery: Sarah rather than Abraham now assumes the role of progenitor
30
of the nation of believers!
In Paul's allegorical reading, only Hagar, mother of Ishmael, and Isaac
son of Sarah are named. Sarah is not mentioned by name, but referred to
as the eXeu9epa, the free woman or wife; Hagar is mentioned by name in
the New Testament in Galatians 4 only. This discrete identification points
25 K. H. Jobes, 'Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians

4.21-31', WTJ 55/2 (1993): 299-320 (300, 318) claims 'the story of Abraham was evidently a
persuasive part of the Judaizers' argument'. Cf. e.g., the assumptions of J. Buckel, Free to
Love. Paul's Defence of Christian Liberty in Galatians (Louvain Theological and Pastoral
Monographs, 15; Louvain: Peeters [Eerdmans], 1993), p. 184; and E. Tamez, 'Hagar and
Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom', Word & World 20/3 (2000): 265-271 (267)
based on the argument of C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (London: SCM, 1982), pp. 154-70;
cf. Dunn, Galatians, p. 243. Such readings might not evade the accusation of mirror reading.
26 The contrast with the Johannine appropriation of the Abraham narrative is apparent,
where Jesus is portrayed as not being on par with but actually preceding Abraham (e.g. Jn
8.39; 8.53; 8.58).
27 'Flesh' in Paul often signifies the negative in human existence, but could be more
polyvalent in this context. In the Abraham narrative the weakness of human sexual appetite,
the longing for an heir, and the attempt to bring about the fulfilment of God's promise could
be in view. In the Galatian context, flesh would further emphasize Paul's adversaries' focus
on circumcision, as well as reliance on physical descent as indicative of inclusion in the
promise (Dunn, Galatians, pp. 246-7). Cf. J. L. Martyn, 'The Covenants of Hagar and
Sarah', in J. T. Carroll, C. H. Cosgrove and E. E. Johnson (eds), Faith and History: Essays in
Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92 (180-4).
28 G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians (trans. D. Green;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 234.
29 Freedom is of course an important concept in Pauline thought, functioning as a
metaphor for the new age inaugurated through the Christ-events; conversely, the old age
prior to Christ is characterized by bondage and decay. Cf. A. Verhey, The Great Reversal.
Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 107-8.
30 Cf Martyn, Covenants, p. 175.
towards the emphasized features in Galatians 4. The first is that the

threat comes from a slave woman, who regardless of bearing a child to the
patriarch remained, with her offspring, caught up in slavery. And
secondly, the promise is in the form of the child born through the promise,
enacting the covenant of faith and a life of freedom. The claim to
inheritance can only be made by those who are descendants of the
patriarch: Ishmael was technically the firstborn, but because Isaac was the
one born 'through the promise', he stood to gain it all.
The picture is filled out with the emphasis on Sarah being GTeipcc
(sterile) in Gal. 4.27 (cf. Heb. 11.11), which would have been considered a
decided and considerable disadvantage by women of biblical times given a
socio-cultural context where fertility was emphasized and considered of
ultimate importance. Matters such as lineage, posterity, future of clans
and now also in Sarah's case at a theological level in Genesis, the blessing
32
of God was affected by the fertility or otherwise of women.
33
Sarah in 1 Peter
Sarah makes a surprise appearance within the household code of 1 Peter,
concluding - and justifying - the call upon Christian wives to submit to their
husbands (3.1), while her conduct, even more surprisingly, is portrayed as
impacting also on men - and potentially destabilizing gendered societal
34
norms. The broader socio-cultural setting is highlighted in 1 Pet. 3.7
31 Rather than being an indication o f the audience's familiarity with the narrative (so M.
C. De Boer, 'Paul's quotation o f Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27', NTS 50 (2004): 370-89 (375
n. 18).
32 Reappearing in a later and most radical format in the deutero-Pauline tradition, 1
Tim. 2.15: oco8rjaETai 6e 5ia TT\S T E i c v o y o v i a s ('[a woman] will be saved through
childbearing'). On 'barrenness' in Gal. 4, cf. Jobes, 'Jerusalem', pp. 306-8.
33 Cf. also the discussion in J. Punt, 'The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household
Code of 1 Peter 3.7', South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46-56.
34 The imbalance in instructions issued to men and women should not primarily be
related to the social make-up of the community (e.g., T. Hanks, The Subversive Gospel. A
New Testament Commentary of Liberation ([trans. J. P. Doner; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press,
2000], p. 212, 'immigrants, poor slaves, and women constituted the basic nucleus') but rather
to the socio-cultural conventions regarding honour and shame (cf. J. H. Elliott, 'Disgraced
Yet Graced. The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honour and Shame', BTB 24/4
[1995]: 166-78). Richard sees 1 Peter's description (2.11) of the community members as
irapoiKoi 'or political aliens' as entailing 'corresponding honor to officials and . . . their share
of political and social duties' and as Traps TTI&EUOI or 'religious exiles' as owing 'their non-
believing neighbors the honor owed God's creatures or servants' (E. J. Richard, 'Honorable
Conduct Among the Gentiles - A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter', Word& World 24/
4 [2004]: 412-20 [417, 420]). Elliott's comment that the reference to Abraham and Sarah
might have been included as an example of the oikos amidst a paroikia situation (J. H. Elliott,
A Home for the Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 250 n. 92) disregards the point that the reference is
primarily about Sarah and not Abraham!
which contains elements which may suggest pagan criticism of Christian

women, as the author instructs Christian husbands to show consideration
and respect to their (Christian) wives since they are 'joint heirs of the grace
35
of life'. The author nevertheless accepted the contemporary cultural,
36
patriarchal notion that women were assumed to be weaker than men in a
general sense, referring to intelligence, physical strength, moral fibre and so
on; conversely, men lived 'according to knowledge' or wisely, considerately.
Women were considered to be 'of a lower order of humanity than men'
37
according to popular Graeco-Roman sentiment. Such conventional
wisdom was inscribed in a formulaic way in the household code as found
also in 1 Peter and which required - among others - submission from wives
38
to their husbands, as was typical in Christian and Jewish marriages of the
35 D. L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS, 26;
Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 114 n. 92.
36 An important point of departure within Graeco-Roman ethics was the postulated
inferiority of women, which was considered an important consideration in regulating
relationships between men and women, and as of course between husbands and wives. It is
already with Aristotle that it is considered important to rule over wives and children in the
household (Politics 1.5.1), because men are their superiors (Laws 11.917a); these relationships
should be arranged already in the household (Politics 1.2.1, 1253b). WTnle UTTOTCXOOCO ('to
bring under control') is primarily about the 'maintenance of the divinely willed order' and
not about inferiority and superiority (J. R. Slaughter, 'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in
the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153 [1996]: 63-74 [70]) it is this very order which was believed to
presuppose a gendered superiority and inferiority. For the household being a microcosm of
the city-state, cf. W. A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christian (Library of Early
Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 19-39. Such ideas also influenced Jewish
society, with Josephus claiming the importance of a wife's submission as situated not in her
humiliation but so that she can be 'directed' since God gave authority to men (C. Ap. 2.200-
201).
37 K. E. Corley, '1 Peter', in E. Schussler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2:
A Feminist Commentary (London: SCM, 1994), pp. 349-60 (353).
38 It is not legitimate to claim that in the Christian Church of 1 Peter 'women had their
equality and human dignity restored and were treated as persons in their own right' (Van
Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness', p. 255) - such claims should be carefully qualified since
while women in the early Christian Church did seem to have had relatively more freedom, the
patriarchal net tightens around them at about the turn of the first century; and they were
probably never legally treated as 'persons in their own right' but had their identity
consistently determined by either a father or a husband. And the idea that 'partnership'
increasingly replaces patriarchy (R. L. Richardson, 'From "Subjection to Authority" to
"Mutual Submission": The Ethic of Subordination in 1 Peter', Faith and Mission 4 [1987]:
70-80 [74]) should be qualified in the same way; contrary to Richardson's suggestion, it is
unlikely that the call towards mutual humility in 1 Pet. 5.5 should be read to include any
others but the elders of the community! Slaughter's ('Submission', esp. pp. 68-9) notion of
mutual submission and A. B. Spencer's ('Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10/
1 [2000]: 107-19 [110]) claim that 'submission is respectful cooperation with others', are
suspect for similar reasons. A certain degree of subversion of the social order seems to be on
the cards, but socio-political equality in gender and status does not characterize 1 Peter.
39 40 41
time. As part of the apologetic use of the household code in 1 Peter,
Sarah is presented along chauvinistic lines as the ideal or perfect
4 2
Hellenistic wife
The appeal to husbands to treat their wives with consideration follows
upon the section of the household code where wives ([cci] y u v a i K e s ) were
exhorted to submit to their husbands (TOTS tSiots av5paoiv: 1 Pet. 3.1-
43
6). The exhortation to be submissive is propped up with a missionary
motif (ivcc.. .KEpSnOrjoovTai 'in order that [they] be won over'; 1 Pet. 3.1),
where the - silent - behaviour of the wives will lead to their unbelieving
44
husbands' conversion. Wives are exhorted to concentrate on the inward
aspects of their lives rather than outward appearances, and in support of
the call to submissiveness the obedience of Sarah to Abraham is cited,
45
Kupiov auTov KCcAouoa ('calling him Lord': 1 Pet. 3.6a).
46
The reference in 1 Pet. 3.6a is probably to Gen. 18.12, which is more
39 Balch, Wives, pp. 23-31, 33-59.

40 Carter takes the accommodationist reading of 1 Peter to its logical extreme and argues
that 1 Peter actually advocated participation in the emperor cult (W. Carter, 'Going All the
Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13-3.6', in Levine
and Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, pp. 14-33).
Other scholars argue for the opposite, that the household code is used in 1 Peter to warn
against accommodation within or conformity to the society surrounding the community of
faith and invokes resistance against the mores of the day (cf. P. J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 210-16; Elliott, 'Disgraced'; Hanks,
Subversive Gospel, pp. 212-13).
41 Balch, Wives.
42 D. I. Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus', JBL 110/1 (1991): 126-9
(129). Why this rather obvious portrayal of Sarah would 'necessitate an exceptionally low
view of Scripture' (J. R. Slaughter, 'Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3.5-6)',
BSac 153 [1996]: 357-65 [360]) is not evident.
43 Sarah's uiraKouco or obeying is treated here as an example of UTTOTaooouEVoi, being
submissive (cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 215 n. 38).
44 Cf. Slaughter, 'Submission', pp. 199-211.
45 'One could read her statement [in Gen. 18.12] as questioning Abraham's virility, and
yet the New Testament sanitizes the reference and turns it into a sign of submission by Sarah'
(Schneider, Gender, p. 132). In 1 Pet. 3.15, however, the appeal is to revere Jesus Christ as
Lord, creating some tension with the earlier text where Sarah used the same title for her
husband and wives addressed by 1 Peter are encouraged to obey their husbands with similar
deference (cf. J. K. Brown, 'Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical
Considerations in 1 Peter 3.1-6 and Its Context', Word& World24/4 (2004): 395-403 (397); J.
R. Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC, 49; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), pp. 187-9.
46 The only text in Genesis where Sarah refers to Abraham as 'lord' (M. Misset van de
Weg, 'The Sarah Imagery in I Peter', in L. V. Rutgers et al. [eds], The Use of Sacred Books in
the Ancient World [CBET, 22; Leuven: Peeters, 1998], pp. 111-26 [115]) - it is a question
whether Sarah's use of 'lord' is tantamount to obedience and Balch {Wives, pp. 103-5) has
argued that it, when read together with 18.12b, was rather insulting towards Abraham.
Others have argued that Gen. 12 and 20 may be the more appropriate intertexts, although
Sarah did not address Abraham in these texts with the title, 'Lord'; of course, even in Gen.
18.12 Sarah only refers to and did not address Abraham as 'Lord'; 18.12 also does not
regularly remembered for Sarah's laughing disbelief that she can still
conceive at an old age, than for her all-but-fleeting reference to Abraham,
as 'my Lord is (or has become) old' (|pT ^TKIT; LXX: 6 5e Kiipios pou
irp£o(3uTspos). In Gen. 18 the emphasis seems to be on Abraham's age,
rather than Sarah's reference to him as 'my Lord', a conventional term of
submission, respect and honour at the time, as is clear throughout the Old
Testament. Conversely, it is clearly important for the author of 1 Peter to
stress both Abraham's lordship over Sarah, and her acknowledgement
thereof. 'The author's hermeneutics of Scripture seems to be predomin
antly determined by social, political and ideological concerns and
objectives, which mutatis mutandis, mediated the actualization of the
47
Abraham-Sarah cycle and resulted in his image of Sarah.' In short,
women's submissiveness needed to be grounded in sacred tradition.
The Sarah image is invoked to validate and add support to the appeal
to wives to act with the necessary submissiveness towards their husbands,
48
and the proper relationship is found illustrated in the title used by Sarah:
Abraham is her lord or master. The issue is not about when or how
49
women became believers, but how Christian wives are to act in
50
potentially hostile situations of marriage to unbelieving husbands.
Matters are even more ambiguous. As argued above, the figure of Sarah in
51
the Old Testament is hardly one of being constantly submissive,
although her initial childlessness, or failed sexuality according to the
sentiment of the time, did complicate matters. In the end, Sarah is more of
a good example of a woman whose husband denied their marriage, calling
present a situation where Sarah experienced unfair treatment (cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 360).
Gen. 12 and 20 are probable intertexts because they share similar motifs of being faithful in a
foreign country amidst unfair treatment of Sarah/wives and with accompanying motifs of
prayer and beauty - cf. M. Kiley, 'Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3.6', JBL
106/4 (1987): 689-92), and for Gen. 12 in particular cf. Spencer ('Pedagogical method',
pp. 112-16). Claiming that a general pattern rather than one incident is in view here because
a present participle is used (Spencer, 'Pedagogical Method', p. 113), is not convincing. While
Achtemeier is critical of 'other Jewish texts' than Gen. 18.12 serving as the source for the
Lord title (7 Peter, p. 215 n. 141), Troy Martin proposed T. Abr. as the most probable
intertext for 1 Pet. 3.6 (T. W. Martin, 'The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6', ZNW
90/1-2 [1999]: 139^6): Sarah frequently calls Abraham 'Lord' and is portrayed as the
mother of the elect, and the document connects good deeds and fearlessness.
47 Misset van de Weg, 'Sarah Imagery', p. 125.
48 Moreover, Sarah is the mother of women proselytes, appropriate to the context here
of winning converts as the main purpose of women's submission (Balch, Wives, p. 105).
49 Achtemeier insists that neither is Sarah made the type for Christian wives, nor do the
latter become the fulfilment of the former (1 Peter, p. 216 n. 145).
50 Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, p. 216.
51 'First Peter depicts Sarah as a pious, submissive wife (3.5-6), but in Genesis she is
strong, not always submissive, and is the first person in the scriptures accused of
"oppression"' (Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 196).
her his sister for self-protection (Gen. 12, 20), and in a certain sense an
inappropriate example of being treated considerately and with respect as
called for in 1 Pet. 3.7. Furthermore, with slaves being sexually available
to their masters, and wives having to submit to the sexual inclination of
their husbands in the first-century Mediterranean world, 1 Peter 3 seems
to suggest that slaves and wives should be willing to submit to sexual
53
abuse - as Sarah did! 'It is not implausible to see unjust treatment,
probably at the hands of a husband, as a dynamic of the exhortation to
54
wives as well.' To put it bluntly, Sarah's constructive role as presented in
Genesis seems to come to naught in 1 Peter, and degenerates into little less
than providing legitimacy for the abuse of wives in the interest of avoiding
accusations against the broader community of faith, of being counter-
conventional!
Comparing Sarah in Galatians and 1 Peter

Attention to the two documents and the particular ways in which the
figure of Sarah was appropriated in each, reveals interesting similarities
and differences and mutes the claim that the New Testament makes
55
'categorical' statements about Sarah, certainly not in any consistent
way. What the New Testament documents consistently do is to present
Sarah as a positive example to be emulated, and she even retains her
Hebrew Bible role as mother of the nation (cf. Isa. 54.1-3; Josephus War
56
5.379). As a matter of fact, 'the classic Christian expression of Sarah as
57
mother of Christian believers comes from Paul', and 1 Peter tacitly
accepted this portrayal of Sarah. Ironically such positive portrayal is
generally detrimental to the affirmative role of Sarah in Genesis, while
52 Cf. Hepner on Sarah as Abraham's half-sister (G. Hepner, 'Abraham's Incestuous

Marriage with Sarah. A Violation of the Holiness Code', VT 53/2 [2003]: 143-55).
53 Corley, '1 Peter', pp. 352-3. The palpable tension in the text has convinced some
scholars that 1 Peter is an attempt to balance 'being radically different from the surrounding
culture because of their Christian identity' while 'affirming the best values of that culture for
the sake of acceptance and witness' (S. Dowd, '1 Peter', in Newsom and Ringe [eds], The
Women's Bible Commentary pp. 462-4 [463]).
54 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 691.
55 Schneider, Gender, p. 132.
56 Tn later rabbinic literature Sarah is viewed as the (nursing) mother of all Gentile
proselytes' (G. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3.6b', BBR 15/1 [2005]: 105-9
[107]). However, the more common designation is Abraham as father of the nation, and
covenant status expressed as being children of Abraham is found, e.g., in Ps. 105.6 and Lk.
13.16, complete with covenantal security as expressed in many later Jewish writings (b. 'Erub.
19a; b.Sabb. 33b; Gen. Rab. 48.8; Exod. Rab. 19.4) and Christian documents (Mt. 1.73; 3.8-9;
Justin, Dial. 140) - cf. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', p. 107.
57 Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', p. 107. For the strong traditions about Zion or Jerusalem
being 'the mother of the children' of faith, cf. Gal. 4.26; Ps. 87; Isa. 49.20-23; 54.1-13.
being co-opted in subverting at least the socio-historical position of first-

century Jews and contemporary socio-cultural norms - to some extent!
Use of Scripture and Rationale

Both Paul and the author of 1 Peter used Scripture according to
conventional first-century hermeneutical practices which in short entailed
that Scripture is holy and therefore should be interpreted; is the living
word of God and therefore remains actual for the lives of other
generations as well; and that Scripture can be interpreted by inspired,
spirit-filled interpreters - roles which the authors of Galatians and 1 Peter
certainly claim for themselves. In both our texts the presence of the
Hebrew Bible, even if somewhat rewritten is palpable, contributing to the
experienced reality of the authors of Galatians and 1 Peter, and focused in
rhetorically determined, selected textual references to Sarah.
Paul's use of Scripture in Galatians 4 demonstrates his intentional,
calculated use of allegory, obviously conscious of its interpretative as well
58
as theological prospects. He and his contemporaries oscillated without
restriction between different interpretative approaches, and Paul applied
the well-established procedures of allegorical interpretation consistently,
with symbolic identification used as a hermeneutical key to unlock the rest
59
of the text. Typically, understanding allegory as code entails an
unconventional reading even if it implies a conventional understanding
and mediating approach; on the other hand, taking allegory as counter-
60
conventional reading, means that its broader significance can be
61
appreciated. Paul is confident that his tailor-made, allegorical interpret
62
ation can persuade his audience that the narrative on the wives of
58 Although Paul refers in Gal. 4.24 to his rereading of the story of Abraham's two wives
and sons as allegory, his use of Scripture was in line with the prevailing hermeneutical
approaches of the day. It is unlikely to argue that Scripture functions simply as justification
for an argument and that Paul only cited Scripture when disagreeing with opponents (A. Von
Harnack, 'The Old Testament in the Pauline Letters and in the Pauline Churches', in B. S.
Rosner [ed.], Understanding Paul's Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 27-^9 [33, 45, 48-9] ).
59 S.-K. Wan, 'Allegorical Interpretation East and West: A Methodological Enquiry
into Comparative Hermeneutics', in D. Smith Christopher (ed.), Text and Experience.
Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (The Biblical Seminar, 35; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), pp. 154-79 (164).
60 D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); cf. Fowl, 'Abraham's Story'.
61 The traditional understanding of allegory makes the reading strategies of Philo,
Valentinus and Clement appear simplistic and naive, and does not account for contemporary
literary critical interest in allegory (Fowl, 'Abraham's Story', p. 81; cf. Dawson, Allegorical
Readers).
62 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, pp. 130-5.
Abraham in Genesis requires a counter-conventional reading, to say the

63 64
least, which deconstructs and reconstructs Israel's history.
Although no claims to allegorical readings are found in 1 Peter, roughly
three different ways of referring to Scripture (LXX) can be identified in this
65
document. Direct quotes; including words from Scripture without an
66
introductory formula; and, as in 1 Pet. 3.6, referring to biblical history
67
both generally and specifically. Scripture is consistently interpreted from
a Christian or even Christological point of view, and 'clearly the Jewish
scriptures are a major source for the author of 1 Peter, and an authority to
68
which he appeals at decisive points'. In 1 Peter 3.6 the author engages in
a midrashic interpretation of one word in the text (Kupios, in Gen. 18.12
LXX), unlike his more general appeal in 1 Pet. 3.5 and his broad focus on
69
the quoted text (1 Pet. 2.21-25).
1 Peter was ostensibly addressed to Jews (1.1; 2.1-10, building upon
Exod. 19.6 and Isa. 43.21) but the references to their lives prior to
conversion (1.14, 18, 21; 4.3-5) has led to wide agreement that the
70
recipients were in fact gentile Christians. The recipients of 1 Peter are
best understood as socially marginalized rather than being sectarian,
harbouring longings for the otherworldly and focusing on heaven as their
ultimate and true home. 'The addressees are people on the edges of
society, harassed by their neighbours and former associates, without
political rights and subject to sporadic abuse, and tempted to abandon
71
their faith.' The presence of Sarah in a foreign land or hostile
63 Paul's interpretation cannot be dismissed as evidence of a Hellenistic attitude and

approach to the Scriptures of Israel (pace M. L .Soards, 'The Life and Writings of Paul', in
M. A. Powell [ed.], The New Testament Today [Louisville: WJK, 1999), pp. 86-99 [96]).
64 Cf. J. G. Janzen, 'Hagar in Paul's Eyes and the Eyes of Yahweh (Genesis 16): A Study
in Horizons', Horizons 13/1 (1991): 1-22 (17). 'Paul's sublime appeal is through his
hermeneutical procedure in which the example of Abraham is treated as typical and
normative, concentrating on scriptural texts which emphasise that Israel's special place with
God is relativised' (Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, p. 203).
65 E.g., 1.16 (Lev. 19.2, introduced by o n 5I6TI yEypaTrrat, 'for it is written that'); 1.24-
25 (Isa. 40.6-8, introduced by SIOTI, 'for'; 2.6 (Isa. 28.16, introduced by 5I6TI TTEpisxEi ev
ypa4>4 'for it says in writing') and 3.10-12 (Ps. 33[34]. 13-17, introduced by yap, 'for').
66 E.g., 2.3 (cf. Ps. 33[34].9), 2.7-8 (cf. Ps. 117[118].22; Isa. 8.14); 2.22-25 (cf. Isa. 53.4-
12); 3.14-15 (cf. Isa. 8.12-13); 4.18 (cf. Prov. 11.31); 5.5b (cf. Prov. 3.34).
67 In general as in 1.10-12; 4.6 or to specific events which are presumed as background,
such as in 1.22 (cf. Jer. 6.15); 2.9 (cf. Exod. 19.6; Isa. 43.20-21); 2.10 (cf. Hos. 1.9-2.1; 2.13);
3.6 (Sarah and Abraham, cf. Gen. 18.12), 3.20 (the Noah story); 3.22 (cf. Ps. 8.7; 110.1); 4.8
(cf. Prov. 10.12); 4.14 (cf. Isa. 11.2); 5.8 (cf. Ps. 21[22].14).
68 Michaels, 1 Peter, p. xl.
69 Ibid., pp. xl-xli.
70 In this context, it is interesting that the central scriptural image invoked in 1 Peter is
the exile and not the exodus (Michaels, I Peter).
71 M. E. Boring, 'First Peter in Recent Study', Word & World 24/4 (2004): 358-67 (365-
6).
environment may have presented the author of 1 Peter with an exemplary

analogy for the required behaviour of Christian wives in the community
4
he addressed - initiating for women over many centuries a tale of
72
terror'. For the author of 1 Peter, the reference to a designation used
rather offhandedly by Sarah for Abraham became the grounding reason
for insisting upon good behaviour from wives, while not challenging their
husbands - and as far as religion is concerned, not challenging them
verbally - and thereby conforming to the late first-century image of the
ideal wife.
Interpretative interests
Paul is not hesitant to name the two wives - rather than the two sons - of
Abraham as the allegorized versions of life under the law and life
according to the Spirit, a fleshly versus a spiritual existence, a life of
bondage or slavery as opposed to a life of freedom. Paul's allegorical
reinterpretation of the Genesis material focuses attention on the 'inter
pretative interests' of his reading, and the interpretative power which is
73
evoked in the process. The socio-political setting of Paul's interpret
ations is important for understanding how Paul put the Hagar-Sarah
74
narrative to use, allegorically. The end result is, though, that Paul
75
transposes traditional interpretation, although in later Pauline inter
pretation his original internal Jewish polemics became part of the
76
Christian empire, and its anti-Judaism. Paul's hermeneutical efforts
jeopardized Jewish identity when he reduced the ethnic as well as spiritual
link Jews treasured with Sarah, wife of Abraham, to spiritual lineage
77
only. Not only was Sarah subverted, the link between her and the
(largest part of the) Jewish nation severed, but Sarah, at least moment-
72 Kiley, 'Like Sara', pp. 690-2; cf Dowd, '1 Peter', p. 463.

73 Fowl, 'Abraham's Story', pp. 77-95.
74 Space does not allow for discussion of interesting further developments resulting from
the influence of particular social locations in the history of Pauline interpretation - such as
slavery during colonial times - on the understanding of Sarah and her actions (cf. Schneider.
Gender, p. 133).
75 The Scriptures of Israel are testimony of Israel becoming like Hagar: she is 'enslaved
in a foreign nation, cries out in pain, and escapes to the wilderness' (K. M. O'Connor,
'Abraham's Unholy Family: Mirror, Witness, Summons', Journal for Preachers 21/1 [1997]:
26-34 [31]).
76 'Successful formation of a religious discourse was one of early Christianity's greatest
strengths. This is precisely what both Paul and Augustus recognized' (A. Cameron,
Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse [Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1991], p. 42).
77 Cf. Osiek, 'Galatians', p. 426; D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of
Identity (Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1; Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1994).
arily, subverted Abraham in becoming the primary reference point for the
faithful!
While Sarah is never presented in the Genesis narratives as obeying
(UTTCXKOUEIV) Abraham, he on the other hand is presented on three
occasions as obeying Sarah: Gen. 16.2, 6; 21.12. 'One may speculate that it
is the author's culturally conditioned concern not to remind the
addressees of a weakness of the "father of faith" that makes 1 Peter
refrain from more explicitly referring to Abraham as one of the sources of
78
Sara's problem.' Such details would have been problematic for an
argument offered in support of sustaining the conventional husband-wife
79
relationship of the patriarchal marriage in the first century.
Arguing from adaptations made by Philo and Josephus to the Sarah
80
narratives of Genesis as well as allegorical interpretations of these
narratives, it has been suggested that the author of 1 Peter would have
experienced the same pressures that the Sarah narratives put on
patriarchal culture and its prescribed roles for wives and husbands. So
while in 1 Peter 'wives are paradigmatic for the whole of the Christian
81
community', their silence as commanded in 1 Pet. 3.6 is however not
exemplary since it will then override the exhortation to provide a ready,
82
verbal defence of their faith. In 1 Peter, therefore, the submission of
83
wives is directly linked to 'non-verbal witness'. The author of 1 Peter
therefore constructed a polemical argument going beyond the details of
78 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 691; cf. Schneider, Gender, p. 133 n. 1; Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 127.
79 Philo and Josephus as contemporaries of the author of 1 Peter made it clear that it
incurred shame when husbands did as they were told by their wives, violating the common
principles of hierarchy and patriarchy. Employing allegory, denial of Sarah's womanhood
and altering details in the Genesis narratives are employed by Philo in order to sustain the
socio-cultural and socio-political conventions of the day (cf. Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', pp. 127-9).
Whereas Josephus' interpretation diminishes Sarah's constructive role, and Philo's played
itself out within patriarchal structures and notions complete with gender and sexual
stereotypes, even to the extent of presenting Sarah with masculine traits, Philo did not
downplay the significance of Sarah and her specific virtues (Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden',
pp. 413-44).
80 E.g., Philo allegorized Abraham as mind, and obeying virtue or wisdom as the
allegorical meaning of Sarah (cf. Sly, '1 Pet. 3.6b', p. 127).
81 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 396; cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, pp. 559, 566-70. The repetition of
characteristics highlighted in the ideal woman (1 Pet. 3.1-6) in the general admonitions of 1
Pet. 3.14-15 (cf. Richardson, 'Ethic of subordination', p. 75) suggests the woman as model.
82 See in Brown, the comparison between the language used in 1 Pet. 3.1-6 and 3.14-16,
showing how the language used to describe wives is also used to describe the community's
faithfulness amidst suffering, and so establishes 'a point of ethical tension' between the texts
(Brown, 'Silent Wives', pp. 396-7). It is rather slaves (1 Pet. 2.18-25) who are to become
examples for the whole community (e.g., Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', pp. 72-3).
83 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 398; contra Michaels, / Peter, p. 158 who contentiously
argues that wives' verbal witness is possible but not obligatory.
the Genesis narrative and effectively moulding Sarah into an ideal

84
Hellenistic wife.
An important aspect in citing Sarah in 1 Peter is the author's concern to
stress that Christian wives should not challenge the authority of their
husbands but submit to them as was expected in the first century. And
while the letter insists upon the community promoting both Christian
identity and cultural affirmation, the author did not uncritically adopt the
socio-cultural system as seen in the encouragement to slaves and women
85
to hold onto their faith. But 1 Peter also works some subtle subversion
with regard to Sarah. Firstly, while Sarah is not portrayed in the Genesis
narratives as ever questioning Abraham, not even when she stands to lose
her only child (Gen. 22.1-19), there is no indication that she worshipped a
different God to Abraham. In 1 Peter the context is different, with
Christian wives called upon to submit to non-believing husbands in such a
4
way as to win them over' which probably entailed a brittle, subversive
element within the traditional household code - along with 1 Pet. 3.7's
86
non-traditional appeal to husbands also. Secondly, Sarah is not only a
model of obedience for late first-century Christian wives but also an
example of fearlessness, a portrayal not quite aligned with Gen. 18.15
87
where Sarah's fear is highlighted. Thirdly and ironically, whereas Sarah
was cited in 1 Pet. 3.6 to sanction the contemporary submission of wives,
it is her compliance in this regard which is enlisted to issue the call upon
88 89
husbands to bestow honour (TIIJTI) on their wives (1 Pet. 3.7). And
84 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 129. The strong condemnation in 1 Pet. 3 of outdoor adornment
is remarkable in light of the tradition which held that Sarah was, apart from being
exceedingly modest, also exceptionally beautiful: was the prohibition on external beautifying
to encourage women to aspire towards the natural beauty of Sarah, or simply to establish a
contrast between modesty and adorned beauty?
85 Dowd, '1 Peter', p. 463.
86 E.g., Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 400.
87 Martin, 'TestAbr', p. 139.
88 In elaboration upon 1 Pet. 2.17 irdvTas TiurjoaTE ('honour all') (cf. Richard,
'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles', pp. 417-20) but contrary to the honour and
shame culture of the first-century Mediterranean stratified society, where honour should
properly be bestowed by the inferior upon the superior (cf. Elliott, 'Disgraced', pp. 166-7).
Richard's ('Honorable Conduct', p. 419) notion that, 'all are owed honour according to their
relationships in the social order' tends to transform honour into a rather twenty-first-century
concept. Brown ('Silent Wives', p. 401) refers to Philo who cited a creation order argument in
favour of a woman's lower honour compared to men (Philo, QG 1.27).
89 The instruction directed to men or husbands (oi ofv6pes) in 3.7 is also introduced (as
in 3.1) by 'likewise' (ouoicos) and therefore connects at least indirectly with Sarah (the
reference to her being part of the previous section, 3.1-6). Whether the compliance by men
with such a counter-cultural instruction would necessarily have lessened the potential for the
Christian community of being accused of subversion (so Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 401), is
debatable.
Sarah thus becomes once more, albeit in a different time, context and
90
capacity, a model of subversive submission.
Ideological Settings of the Documents

Sarah's role throughout the New Testament and also in Galatians and 1
Peter is, understandably so especially in the first-century patriarchal
world, described in terms of her relationship to Abraham. But in both
Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 Sarah manages to have a life of her own for a
brief moment, framed by and within the ideological concerns of each
letter.
The social location of the Galatian recipients and even of Paul as
author needing to reassert his authority, did not permit a conciliatory
stance, least of all to promote an accommodating stance within the social
context within which the recipients of the letter found themselves. To the
contrary, amidst the slander and vilifying of his opponents (e.g., Gal. 3.1;
5.15) in what appear as harsh or even rude terms at times (e.g., cf. Gal.
5.12), the ideological setting of Galatians was characterized by Paul's
rhetorical pitch. In short, it was not about a negotiated settlement but
about an argument that had to be won. The battle lines were drawn
around the interpretation of the narratives of origin, the genealogical
wherewithal of the faithful of God.
It is Sarah's insistence that Hagar and Ishmael leave Abraham's
household (Gen. 21.10) that forms the ultimate appeal in Galatians 4.21-
5.1, and whether this command of exclusion is seen to be directed at the
Judaizing or circumcising missionaries, or the Galatians seeking circum
91
cision contrary to Paul's instructions, the ideological setting is clear. In
Gal. 4.30 Paul completed the logic of his argument regarding the two
wives of Abraham, and in particular his consistent emphasis on being
aligned with Sarah as the free woman and her legacy. It is Sarah's words
that reverberate through the Galatian church, to justify the exclusion of
those who differed from Paul and his perception of the truth of the gospel.
The appeals in 1 Peter were responding to a two-fold situation in that
the author both addressed group cohesion as an intra-community matter,
and felt obliged to respond to external forces in order to allay the fears
that the Christian community was a corruptible influence. In what was
clearly a conflict-ridden context, Sarah represented the fear of unjust
treatment as articulated in 1 Pet. 3.6, of which the latter part may have
been informed by Prov. 3.25. Sarah is redrafted from being the mother of
faith or model of obedience into becoming an example of how to act in
90 Cf. Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 213.

91 Cf. S. G. Eastman, ' "Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son": The Dynamics of
Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30', JSNT 28/3 (2006): 309-36.
marriage, 'a model [for] those wives who obey their spouses in an unjust
92
and frightening situation in a foreign land/hostile environment'.
The appeal to the contemporary wives to become 'daughters of Sarah'
93
was tantamount to calling upon them to emulate Sarah. The participles
in the concluding part of 1 Pet. 3.6 ( l a p p a . . . r\s iyevr|ftr]TE
TEKvd dya6o7ToioGoai KCX\ tyo$o6\i£va\ unSepiav irronaiv) have in
the past often been translated - if not also interpreted - as conditional: '
[Sarah] of whom . . . you are . . . her children if you do right and let nothing
94
terrify you'. They should more properly be read as consequential or
resultative and further probably having imperative force: 'a command to
95
action in light of new covenant status as Sarah's children'. Whereas the
96
apologetic role of the household code already suggests some socio-
97
cultural conformity, Sly contended that 'some details in the Genesis
account of Sarah and Abraham's marriage were embarrassing to men in
the Hellenistic age and that consequently the writer of 1 Peter may have
98
been more deliberate in reinterpreting the story'.
In the end, it is not too surprising that Sarah appears in both New
Testament letters which are often cited for their, albeit a contained and
implicit, challenge to the socio-cultural structures of the time. Reference is
often made to Gal. 3.28 and 1 Pet. 3.7" as instances of a significant
contestation of the patriarchal system, or even a breakthrough in how
gender relationships were conceived in the first century church. Sarah's
portrayal in the Genesis narratives and to some extent also in these texts
correlate with the different but nevertheless grounding roles she is
accorded in Galatians and 1 Peter.
92 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 692, emphasis in original; cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 216.
93 Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361 refers to the similar use of 'sons of...' as, e.g., in Mt. 5.44-
45 ('in order that you be sons of your Father') to express likeness in character.
94 Cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361.
95 Cf. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', pp. 105-9.
96 Balch, Wives.
97 The rest of the letter also suggests that the believing community it addressed,
experienced some social ostracism and abuse, probably because of the believers' rejection of
pagan temple activities (4.3-4) which would have been viewed as antisocial behaviour and not
only withdrawing from religious activities. This provides the context for 1 Peter's call to
comply with the social customs of the day, as also spelt out in the household code, but with
the provision that their allegiance to Christ should not be compromised (2.12-13) (cf. Brown,
'Silent Wives', p. 401).
98 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 126.
99 Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', p. 79 n. 14, quoting also Stendahl.
Conclusion
In the New Testament, Sarah's role as mother of the Jewish race (Gen.
100
51.2) is subverted, and she is reappropriated as the model of faith in the
Christian tradition - the characteristics she was traditionally renowned
for, beauty and wisdom, still intact albeit in subtle ways! Sarah finds
herself in positions she did not occupy in the Genesis narratives, especially
since New Testament interpretations in an ironic way became the lenses
through which Sarah's presence and behaviour in Genesis were and are
101
read and evaluated. In Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 Sarah is presented as
an important figure regardless of the prominence bestowed on Abraham;
and although she is presented and her life interpreted in different ways,
she is mostly deemed exemplary by the New Testament documents - even
if for different reasons as required by these authors' rhetorical goals and
strategies.
102
My contention is that closer investigation shows that New Testament
authors could appropriate Scripture in ways that at times subtly and at
times less subtly subverted traditional positions, whether at socio-political
(Galatians) or socio-cultural (1 Peter) level. In the two texts examined it
can hardly be claimed that Scripture was simply appropriated to provide
103
sanction for traditionalist positions, while the representations of Sarah
entailed both her subversion and enlisting her as mode and model of
subversion, even if in subtle ways!
100 Cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 216 n. 143.

101 Schneider, Gender, pp. 131-3.
102 The focus here was not on the different ways in which Scripture was quoted by the
first-century New Testament authors, or the reasons for the variety: showing affinity for and
continuation with a certain tradition(s); bolstering (weak) arguments; living in Scripture
(LXX) to such an extent that of necessity its texts, themes and figures becomes part of the
contemporary author's repertoire, to name a few concerns investigated by other scholars.
103 In fact, comparing Galatians and 1 Peter is instructive, showing how Galatians'
counter-position has already become the norm in 1 Peter. 'First Peter speaks serenely to the
Gentiles as heirs of all the privileges of Israel without any suggestion of having taken such
privileges from the Jews' (Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 214).
Chapter 12
'I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS'
PSALM 2.8-9 IN REVELATION 2.26-27
Tze-Ming Quek
Introduction
The second psalm has been described as the favourite psalm of John the
1
Seer. This is justified, as no other NT writing appeals to it more
frequently. Allusions to Psalm 2 are found in Revelation 2.26-27; 11.15,
2
18; 12.5, 10; 19.15. This essay is concerned with the first of these, which
occurs in the fourth of the letters to the seven churches near the beginning
of Revelation.
Psalm 2 in Revelation 2.26-27: Messianic?

At the end of each one of these letters, after the exalted Christ has
reviewed the particular situation of the church and set out what he
requires, a promise to the 'one who conquers' is put before the church. In
the case of the letter to the church in Thyatira (2.18-29), this
Uberwinderspruch (overcomer saying) is shaped by a clear appeal to Ps.
2.8-9. The 'Son of God', which is the self-presentation found at the
1 R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T

& T Clark, 1993), p. 314; and note the title of S. Witetschek, 'Der Lieblingspsalm des Sehers:
die Verwendung von Ps 2 in der Johannesapokalypse', in M. A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint
and Messianism (BETL, 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), pp. 407-502. On the
use of the Psalms in Revelation, see S. Moyise, 'The Psalms in the Book of Revelation', in S.
Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds), The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T & T Clark,
2004), pp. 231-46.
2 Following Witetschek, 'Lieblingspsalm', pp. 490-1. Bauckham's list of allusions is
almost the same, though he includes the dubious Rev. 14.1 ('Mount Zion') and leaves out
12.10, from which the (authority o f ) 'his Christ' should be adjudged a probable allusion to
27
Ps. 2.1-2 in the light of the proximity to 12.5. See Bauckham, Climax, p. 371. The NA adds
17.18 and 19.19 probably on the basis of the 'kings of the earth', which is a possible allusion
but hardly certain.
beginning of the letter, promises to 'the one who conquers and does my
works to the end' that 'I will give him authority over the nations'. The
words Scooco and E0VT) give the cue for Psalm 2, and this leads to a
grammatically adjusted allusion to Ps. 2.9.
Rev. 2.26b-27 LXX Ps. 2.8-9
cxiTTjoai trap Epou,

Ask of me
2 6 b
Scooco CXUTCO Ken Scooco ooi
I will give to him and I will give to you
££ouoicxv ETH TCOV EOVCOV E6VTI TTIV KAripovopiav oou
authority over the nations nations as your inheritance
K0(\ TT|V KOTCXOXEOIV OOU
and as your possessions
TCX TTEpCXTCX TT|S YT]S
the ends of the earth
2 7
Kcxi TTOIMCXVET CCUTOUS 9
TTOIMCXVETS auTous
and he will rule them You will rule them
EV pccpSco oi5r|pa EV pa^Sco otSTipa
with an iron sceptre with an iron sceptre
COS TO OKEUT] TCX KEpCXMlKCX COS OKEUOS KEpCXMECOS
as clay pots as a vessel of the potter
ouvTpipEi OUVTplVpEIS auTous.
is [sic] shattered You will shatter them.
2 8
c o s Kcxyco E'(AT](|>a
- just as I have also received
TTCXpCX TOU TTOCTpOS |JOU,
from my Father,
KOU SCOOCO CXUTCO
And I will also give t o him
TOV CCGTEpa TOV TTpcOtVOV.
the morning star.
The allusion in v. 27 is a parenthetical insertion, for the sentence

containing the promise in v. 26 flows naturally into v. 28: Scooco OCUTCO
sôuoiav . . . cos Kaycb eTAr|cJ>a i r a p a TOU i r a T p o s Mou (I will give to him
3
authority . . . just as I have received from my father). This suggests that
the allusion to Ps. 2.9 in v. 27 is an epexegetic expansion on the kind and
3 D. E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols; WBC 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98), 1:212.
QUEK Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27 177
extent of the 'authority' which is to be conferred on the 'one who

conquers'.
Most commentators have understood this as a promise that the exalted
Christ will grant the one who conquers a share or participation in the
4
messianic kingdom, the extent of which, according to the idealized
language of Ps. 2.8, apparently includes worldwide dominion over the
nations. At this point, the commentators often make the observation that
the idea of the followers of the Messiah sharing in his final rule is a
5
characteristic feature of Jewish eschatological thinking.
This idea of a reign together with the exalted Christ is not uncommon in
Revelation (3.21; 20.4, 6). However, as Witetschek has noted, in these
6
places the preposition UETOC is used explicitly. In Rev. 2.27 however, we
encounter a different strategy. The text of the psalm has been grammat
ically modified. The promise originally given by the Lord to the Davidic
king in the second person is now rendered in the third person, so as to
agree with the b VIKCOV at the start of the saying. Thus, Witetschek argues
that the thought here is not a sharing of Christ's messianic kingdom.
Rather, independent of an express Throngemeinschaft ('Throne commu
nity') with Christ, the believer is put in a prospective ruler-like position as
7
a hopeful perspective. The application of Ps. 2.8-9 to the corporate body
of believers is possible because, as he further argues, in the first century
Heilsworte ('salvation promises') could be received individually as well as
8
collectively. Consequently, no direct messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 is
9
found here.
So here we have two opposite approaches. The first, held by the
majority, thinks the allusion to Ps. 2.8-9 evokes the motif of the conqueror
sharing in Christ's messianic kingdom. The Psalm 2 reference applies to
4 J. Roloff, The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. E. Alsup;

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 56; Aune, Revelation, 1:210; G. K. Beale, The Book of
Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
p. 266; G. R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), pp. 166-
7; S. S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
(London: SPCK, 2005), pp. 77-8.
5 E.g., R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev.
edn, 1998), p. 90; Smalley, Revelation, p. 77.
6 Witetschek, 'Lieblingspsalm', p. 498.
7 'Somit wird in Offb 2,26-28, unabhangig von einer ausdriicklichen Throngemeinschaft
mit Christus, den Glaubigen als hoffnungsvolle Perspektive einer herrscherliche Stellung in
Aussicht gestellt (ahnlich 5,10; 20,4.6; 22.5)' (Ibid.).
8 Citing M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT, 151;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 328-9.
9 Definitions of 'messianism' abound. I take it to refer to the expectation of a divinely
appointed royal Davidic person who will fulfil Scripture and inaugurate a new age.
both Christ and the one who conquers. It is understood messianically.

The second, as argued by Witetschek, thinks the allusion applies only to
the one who conquers, and hence no direct messianic understanding of Ps.
2.9 is present. Which approach is correct? The observation that Rev. 2.26-
27 is different from other places where the preposition METCC is used is
surely correct. Here, Scripture that originally referred to a Davidic king,
and was understood as messianic at the very latest by the time of Ps. Sol.
17.23-24, is now applied as a promise to Christians corporately. As
Prigent notes, 'the messianic interpretation of Ps 2 was a traditional and
very widespread one . . . what is less traditional and widespread is the
11
making of this text into a promise addressed to Christians'. However, I
think Witetschek goes too far in his assessment that no messianic
understanding is found here. Indeed, this paper will argue that it is the
messianic understanding of the psalm that allows it to be applied to the
corporate body of believers.
In order to show this, a comparison with an exegetical text from
Qumran is helpful.
12
Psalm 2 in 4Q174 (= 4Q Florilegium)
Theme, Description
4Q174 is concerned with identifying and characterizing the community
over against its enemies in the era of the 'latter days', enemies whose
ultimate defeat is certain because of Yahweh's intervention and rule, thus
resulting in the community's security and vindication after the time of
13
testing.
Annette Steudel's material reconstruction has thrown more light on the
flow of the text in the twenty-six fragments that comprise 4Q174. Because
of this I have also used her new column numbering. As a rough guide,
columns 1 and 2 in DJD and Garcia Martinez are now columns 3 and 4
respectively. As reconstructed by Steudel, 4Q174 contains at least three
10 E.g., G. K. Beale, 'Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old
Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22', in C. A. Evans and J. A.
Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and
Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 421-46, (440).
11 P. Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. W. Pradels; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p. 189.
12 For an introduction, analysis and thorough reconstruction of the text of 4Q174, see A.
b
Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschaf' ) :
Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung
des durch 4Q174 ('Florilegium') und 4Q177 ('Catena A') reprasentierten Werkes aus den
Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
13 G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 143-4; 59.
distinct sections, each centred around the citation and eschatological

interpretation of one main biblical text. And so the first section cites and
comments on Deuteronomy 33, where Moses pronounces blessings over
the tribes. The second section has an abbreviated citation and
14
eschatological exegesis of Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7 . The third
section contains citations and eschatological interpretations of portions of
Psalms 1; 2 and probably 5; after which the text breaks off.
'His Anointed* and 'the Chosen Ones of Israel*

Our interest is because a citation of Ps. 2.1-2 occurs in lines 18-19 of
Fragment 1, with the interpretation following on to the next column. It is
the only place in the Qumran non-biblical corpus, which evidences
undisputed citation and interpretation of a portion of Psalm 2. The
citation, which has no formula introduction, is found in the last two
surviving lines of the third column (III, 18-19):
p « - a t e ] •nir'BT p n i ] r r wtm^ wn nab] Line 18
bin mrr bv TIT HDID o^nm
... -IMS irrOD] Line 19
The term 'pesher' introduces the interpretation of Ps. 2.1-2 which

understands the rebellion against Yahweh and 'his anointed' in the
following manner: '[The interpretation of the matter [is that the na]tions
[shall set themselves] and con[spire vainly against] the Chosen ones of
15
Israel in the latter days.' The text is lacunose, but Steudel's reconstruc
tion, which corresponds closely to the wording of the psalm, has good
claim to be the best one among several which are basically variations on
the same idea. However, it raises the question of the apparent identifi
cation of the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel' with the singular 'anointed' of
Ps. 2.2. At least two attempts have been made to resolve this tension.
The first came very early in the history of 4Q174 scholarship. Yigael
Yadin, against the majority and against the MT, opted to restore the plural
16
VITBO 'his anointed ones' at the beginning of line 19. Yadin also
restored the pesher in the rest of line 19 to read: 'The hidden
14 No trace of the last line of column II survives, but some kind of citation of 2 Sam.
7.10-11 certainly has to begin there, since parts of w . 10c-1 la are found in what is clearly the
first line of column III. Interestingly, what survives in III, 1 does not correspond exactly to
the MT, since it contains a word not found in the MT: [ ~~ ]iHft (enemy). This is probably a
result of influence from the near parallel from Ps. 89.23. See the discussion in Brooke,
Exegesis, pp. 97-9; and Steudel, Midrasch, pp. 41-2.
15 See the reconstruction of Une 19 in Steudel, Midrasch, p. 25.
,
16 Y. Yadin, A Midrash on 2 Sam. vii and Ps. i-ii (4Q Florilegium) , IEJ 9 (1959): 95-8
(98).
interpretation of this refers to the Sons of Zadok the priests and they are
the elect of Israel in the End of Days.'
The second attempt comes from Brooke. Instead of restoring a plural in
the lemma against the MT tradition, he looked to other characters in
unquoted parts of Psalm 2 to relate the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. He settled
on 'those who take refuge in him' from Ps. 2.12, and so his reconstruction
reads: 'The real interpretation of the matter [is that "the nations" are the
Kittjim and "those who take [refuge in Him" are] the chosen ones of Israel
17
in the latter days.' In this way he breaks the identification between the
'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in the pesher.
Both the restorations of Yadin and Brooke have been shown to be
inadequate by Steudel. I only highlight these two attempts to show the
lengths to which scholars have gone to avoid the consequence of the
likeliest restoration, which is the correspondence between the singular 'his
18
anointed' and the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel'. It is better to take the
tension as it stands and admit to some kind of correlation between the
two. This should not be understood as a return to 'corporate personality',
as popularized by H. Wheeler Robinson from the early part of the last
19
century. Previously, scholars like Gartner attempted to account for the
correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in
20
4Q174 by appealing to this concept.
The problem is that subsequent scholarship has so seriously under
mined Robinson's hypothesis that few resort uncritically to 'corporate
personality' today; at least, not in the form he first envisaged and with the
21
explanation he provided. Nevertheless, it remains the case that signifi-
17 See Brooke, Exegesis, pp. 93, 120-23.

18 Brooke is explicit about the 'uneasiness' of 'that identification' (ibid., p. 121).
19 H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Biblical Series 11;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), p. 25. This concept has been described as 'that important
Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual
and the group - family, tribe, or nation - to which he belongs, so that the king or some other
representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up
the host of individuals' J. Reumann, 'Introduction' to Robinson, Corporate Personality, v.
For a time, scholars used this idea to account for a host of interpretive issues. In NT studies,
corporate personality has usually been deployed as one of the 'exegetical presuppositions' in
early Christian interpretation of the OT, and/or to explain the 'Corporate Christ', the
inclusion or incorporation of believers in Christ.
20 B. Gartner, The Temple and Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTSMS,
1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 36.
21 See the brief survey of the history of scholarship in J. S. Kaminsky, Corporate
Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
pp. 1-22. In particular, Robinson's explanation of an alleged ancient Hebrew mentality has
been shown to rest on untenable anthropological assumptions, evidence, and method. The
force of these critiques have also registered somewhat in NT studies, but the concept of
corporate personality continues to be invoked, albeit with some qualifiers and terminological
changes, to account for the 'Corporate Christ'. E.g., J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the
cant parts of the OT (and the NT) imply a peculiarly strong sense of
solidarity between an individual figure or speaker and the group, even if
this is not to be accounted for by the incorporation of the group in an
22
individual.
Gartner's reliance on 'corporate personality' meant that the relation
ship between the two terms amounted to simple identity - 'his anointed'
actually means the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. The most obvious objection to
this is that nowhere else in the Qumran corpus is the community called
23
'anointed'. A better way to understand the relationship is solidarity
between an outstanding individual of a group and the group itself, so that
whatever happens to that individual is seen to be happening to the group
and vice versa. Some interrelated strands of evidence give clues on how
this can be accounted for, and these clues lead us to a reading of the
Davidic covenant. The first clue is found in the context of the biblical
lemma Ps. 2.1-2, and the second is found in the context of 4Q174 as a
whole, and the third comes from another Qumran document, 4Q252.
Context of Psalm 2.1-2

First, the rest of Psalm 2 reveals that this figure, 'his anointed', is
undoubtedly a royal. If not David himself, he was very likely a Davidic
king. Whether this Davidic figure, depicted in idealized terms, ever
referred to a historical king of Judah is not important here - the point is
that the Qumran community would have understood him to be standing
under the Davidic covenant, and heir to all that it promised. Moreover,
Ps. 2.6 is probably a reception of the dynastic promise contained in the
24
Nathan oracle of 2 Samuel 7. This tradition has justifiable claim to be
Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 314; but see A. Perriman, 'The Corporate
Christ: Re-assessing the Jewish Background', TynBul 50/2 (1999): 241-63 (245-6) for his
critique on the validity of this.
22 See J. W. Rogerson, 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in Ronald E. Clements
(ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives
(Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37 (25). In effect, Rogerson's target of criticism is
not so much Robinson's data, but his explanation of the alleged primitive Hebrew mentality.
Indeed, Kaminsky has demonstrated that corporate ideas (by which he means mainly
corporate responsibility) in the OT are 'common, central and persistent'. See Kaminsky,
Corporate, pp. 30-54.
23 Gartner wants to see the community at the centre of interpretation throughout 4Q174.
In line with this, he proposes, by analogy with CD I, 4-11, that the 'Branch of David' in
4Q174 III, 11-13 is a symbol for the community, which appears under the leadership of the
Interpreter of the Law. His explanation is forced, and flies against the evidence of other
documents such as 4Q252 V, 3; where the 'Branch' is the 'Righteous Anointed/Messiah', and
the context clearly demands an individual royal figure.
24 On the reception history of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 see W. M. Schniedewind, Society and the
Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7.1-17 (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999), esp. pp. 69-70.
considered the fons et origo of Davidic ideology. It has not always been
obvious, but Davidic ideology is corporate because its ultimate purpose is
25
the typically deuteronomic motif of 'rest' for the nation. That the
Davidic covenant is inextricably linked with the security of the nation can
be clearly seen in the lines leading up to the dynastic promise of 2 Sam.
7.14:
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so
that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and
evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I
appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all
your enemies. (2 Sam. 7.10-1 la)
As Avraham Gileadi has argued, in Davidic covenant theology, the fate

and welfare of the nation and/or Jerusalem/Zion hinged on the king's
26
loyalty to Yahweh.
Context of4Q174
Second, the context of 4Q174 reveals that in the section immediately
preceding the citation of Psalm 2 (namely, 4Q174 III, 1-13), we have an
eschatological commentary on 2 Sam. 7.10-14. The section begins with a
citation and commentary of 2 Sam. 7.10-1 la. This is precisely the text
from which the close connection between Davidic ideology and the
fulfilment of God's promises of security for the nation can be seen.
Moreover, in that commentary, the author of 4Q174 appropriates the 'I
27
will give you [singular] rest' of 2 Sam. 7.11a and interprets it as '
[Yahweh] will give them [plural] rest from all the children of Belial' (III, 7-
8). The promise to David is thus appropriated - without further
explanation - by what must be the community. This exegetical move is
very similar to the correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones
of Israel' when the author comments on Ps. 2.1-2 later. In the commentary
25 Kaminsky, Corporate, pp. 47-8. See Deut. 12.9-10; Josh. 1.13; 21.42; 22.4; 23.1; 1 Kgs
5.18; 8.56.
26 A. Gileadi, 'The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection', in
A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 157-63 (159). See 1 Kgs 9.4, 6-7; 2 Kgs 20.6; Isa. 37.35.
Gileadi notes this as one of the resemblances between the Davidic covenant and Hittite and
Neo-Assyrian suzerain-vassal relationships.
27 Following some older interpreters (Ewald, Wellhausen, Driver) who felt v. 1 la should
contain a promise of 'rest' to Israel from its enemies rather than to David from his enemies,
McCarter emends the text to: 'Then I shall give him (i.e., Israel) rest from all its enemies' P.
K. McCarter Jr., / / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary
(AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 193. There is no textual support for this
reading, and the reading in 4Q174 clearly has the second-person suffixes.
to 2 Sam. 7.10-11, the promise of rest given to David is appropriated by

the community (as true or faithful Israel). In the commentary to Ps. 2.1-2,
the threat of rebellion against Yahweh and 'his anointed' is perceived as a
time of persecution against the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. In both cases, it
seems to me that the best explanation for this 'oscillation between the
individual and the group' is a solidarity that understands the Davidic
covenant as a basis for corporate protection.
4Q252 (= 4Q CommGen A) - Importance of the Davidic Covenant

Indeed, the importance of the concept of the Davidic covenant in Qumran
discussion of the Davidic Messiah can be seen in the following abstract
from 4Q252, the only other text in the published Qumran corpus that
speaks of the Branch of David ( T ^ nOH), Messiah/Anointed (TPDD),
and seed (IHT) in the same document:
A ruler shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah when Israel has
dominion. [And] the one who sits on the throne of David [shall never] be
cut off, because the 'ruler's staff is the covenant of the kingdom, [and
the thousands of Israel are 'the standards', until the Righteous
Messiah, the Branch of David, has come (Genesis 49.10). For to him
and to his seed the covenant of the kingdom of His people has been
given for the eternal generations. (4Q252 V, 1-4)
We note especially the idea that the 'ruler's staff is the covenant of his
kingdom, which is further described as the 'covenant of the kingdom of
His people'.
Therefore, to sum up what is going on in 4Q174: Because of the Davidic
covenant, the Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community,
who understand themselves as eschatological Israel. The promise of rest to
him applies to the community in their struggle against Belial. This is their
interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.10-11. In the same way, the rebellion by the
nations/children of Belial against Yahweh and his Anointed/Messiah is
also a threat against the Chosen ones of Israel. This is their interpretation
of Ps. 2.1-2.
Thus, scholars who conclude that the 'corporate' understanding of 'his
anointed' precludes a 'messianic understanding of Ps 2.1, 2' in 4Q174 are
being unnecessarily fussy. Instead, it is only with the presupposition of a
future Davidic Messiah in Ps. 2.1-2 who, under the Davidic covenant,
stands in such solidarity with eschatological Israel, that the interpretation
in 4Q174 III, 19 works.
Comparing 4Q174 and Revelation 2.26-27: The Davidic Covenant

As a preliminary observation, one notes several ideas that are paralleled in
4Q174 and Rev. 2.18-29:
4Q174 Rev. 2.18-29

Messianic figure ('Branch of David') is Self-description of the Exalted Christ is
the one spoken of as God's son in 'Son of God', (v. 18)
Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. 7.14.
(Ill, 11-12)
God has initiated the building of 'I know your works (oou xoc Ipya) -
an interim Sanctuary of Humans your love, faith, service, and patient
(D*7K CTTpft), wherein sacrifices are to endurance. I know that your last works
be offered to him. Whether these are (xcc Ipya oou xa laxaxa) are greater
works of Torah or works of than the first.' (v. 19)
thanksgiving (III, 6-7) is disrupted. In 'To everyone who conquers and
any case, they are 'works'. continues to do my works (xoc Ipya pou)
The remnant shall perform all the Torah to the end', (v. 26)
( n m n n "TO n a w i n ) , (iv, 2)
The enemies of the community are Those in the Thyatiran church who have
described as sons of Belial, who not committed adultery with Jezebel are
come to the plan of Belial described as 'the rest of you in Thyatira,
]rO£TCD 1K3) and devise who do not hold this teaching, who have
wicked schemes to cause the sons of not learned what some call "the deep
light to stumble. (Ill, 7-9) things of Satan" (xa PaSia xou
oaxava)'. (v. 24)
From CD IV, 12-18, we learn more Jezebel is said to be teaching and
details on how this is to be deceiving 'my servants to practice
accomplished: through the three nets of fornication and to eat food sacrificed to
Belial, fornication, riches, and defiling idols', (v. 20)
the sanctuary.
This is not to say that there is any direct dependence between the two
texts. But it does seem to be that this cluster of eschatological ideas,
found in common in 4Q174 and the Thyatiran letter, was there in the
ether in the first century. It is interesting then that there is one more
significant thing in common: the application to the messianic community
of a biblical text that is understood elsewhere to refer to a Davidic
Messiah. In the case of 4Q174, we see this for both 2 Sam. 7.10-11 and Ps.
2.1-2. In Rev. 2.26-27, we see this for Ps. 2.8-9. I have argued that this
exegesis works in 4Q174 because of a conception of the Davidic covenant
as a basis for corporate protection. Under the Davidic covenant, this
Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community who understand
themselves as eschatological Israel, because the promise of rest to him is
linked to the nation's security as well. And so the promise of rest to David
and his seed can be appropriated by the community in their struggle
against Belial. In the same way, the rebellion by the nations/children of

Belial against Yahweh and his Anointed/Messiah (Ps. 2.1-2) is also a
threat against the Chosen ones of Israel, the community (4Q174 III, 18-
19). This is not far from the picture painted in Rev. 2.26-27, where the
promise of victory and rule to the Davidic Messiah in Ps. 2.8-9 is applied
to the followers of the Messiah.
A couple of observations suggest strongly that Davidic ideology and
the idea of the covenant occurs just under the surface of the Thyatiran
letter. The purposefully chosen self-reference of the exalted Christ is 'Son
of God'. This has often been speculated to be a local reference, a
polemic against Apollo Tyrimnaeus, patron of the trade guild in
Thyatira and/or against the cult of the divine emperor, both sons of the
28
god Zeus. That may be so, but surely indications from within the
world of the text itself point strongly to an evocation of Ps. 2.7: T will
tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son; today I
have begotten you.'" This decree of the Davidic covenant is precisely
that which the exalted Christ gives to the one who overcomes, the
decree, which he has received from the Father. Bookending the allusion
to Ps. 2.8-9 is the statement: 'To the one who conquers, I will give
authority . . . just as I have received from my Father.' As both Osborne
29
and Smalley point out, this statement is reminiscent of Ps. 2.7. A
further indication of Davidic or royal ideology occurs in the gift of the
morning star in v. 28. Several suggestions have been offered to what this
means. The most plausible is that the star and the sceptre mentioned
earlier are emblems of messianic authority, evoking Balaam's prophecy
in Num. 24.17, where the future ruler of Israel is described as a 'rising
30
star' and 'sceptre'.
We can find a similar thing happening from the wider context of
Revelation. In the vision of the new heaven and the new earth, the one
who is seated on the throne promises the conqueror in the words of 2
Sam. 7.14: T will be his God and he will be my son' (Rev. 21.7; cf. LXX 2
Sam. 7.14). What is noteworthy is that once again the text that is
28 W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan
of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904), pp. 312-22; C. J. Hemer, The
Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT,
1986), pp. 111-17, 127.
29 Osborne, Revelation, p. 167; Smalley, Revelation, p. 79.
30 Cf. Rev. 22.16, where Jesus speaks of himself and connects the messianic text Isa. 11.1
with the star: T am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star'. Num.
24.17 was interpreted messianically in Jewish writings, e.g., 4Q175 9-13. Some have noted
that the use of Balaam's prophecy is apt here because Balaam is a symbol in Rev. 2.14 for the
same false teaching described in Thyatira. See Beale, Revelation, p. 268.
applied to a corporate body is the text of Davidic ideology par

excellence.
There are also possible parallels from outside the biblical material.
The collection of early Christian hymns (c.100 CE) known as the Odes
of Solomon contains this: 'For I believed in the Lord's Messiah, and
considered that he is the Lord. And he declared to me his sign, and he
led me by his light. And he gave me the scepter of his power, that I
might subdue the thoughts of the gentiles, and humble the strength of
the mighty' {Odes. 29.6-8). Although the primary background to this
Ode seems to be Psalm 110 rather than Psalm 2, it is interesting that
the figure in the Ode who applies the terms of the messianic psalm to
himself is not the Messiah but one who believes in him. The Midr.
Pss. 2.10, when commenting on Ps. 2.8, clearly assumes the recipient
of the biblical word is the Messiah; and yet, Midr. Pss. 2.9 interprets
the son of Ps. 2.7 and the son of man in Dan 7.13 as Israel, and
equates the figures of the two texts with the nation as God's firstborn
31
of Exod. 4.22. In both the Odes and the Midr. Pss., the wider
context speaks of the eschatological war against the gentiles, a motif
we noted earlier in the cluster of ideas found in both 4Q174 and Rev.
2.26-27.
Conclusion
Psalm 2.8-9 was interpreted messianically in the first century (Ps. Sol.
17.24-25; Rev. 12.5; 19.15), and Ps. 2.7 was widely construed as a
messianic text in early Christianity (Mt. 3.16-17 par.; Acts 13.33-35;
Heb. 1.5; 5.5) and perhaps Qumran (lQSa 2.11-12); that is, they referred
to an individual eschatological Davidide. Here in Rev. 2.26c-27, Ps. 2.8-9
is given a corporate application to the followers of the Messiah.
Something very similar happens in 4Q174 III, 18-21, where a pesher to
Ps. 2.1-2 interprets the singular 'anointed' of Ps. 2.2 as the plural
'Chosen ones of Israel'. From readings of: (a) royal ideology as
expressed in Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7.10-14; (b) the context of 4Q174; and
(c) 4Q252; the best explanation for this oscillation between the singular
and the plural for 4Q174 is not 'corporate personality' but an
understanding of the Davidic covenant as a basis for corporate
protection and security. I have argued that the same Davidic covenant
and ideology underpins the interpretation in Rev. 2.26-27. Against the
majority I do not think it sufficient to merely invoke the general motif of
31 See W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1959), pp. 40-2.
the followers sharing the Messiah's final rule. But against Witetschek I
think the allusion to Ps. 2.9 applies to both the Messiah and his followers,
for it is only with a messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 and the corporate
implications of Davidic covenant theology that the Seer's highly allusive
and sophisticated use of Scripture works.
Chapter 1 3
EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 1 1 . 2 IN APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE
Bogdan G. Bucur
The writings of Aphrahat are noted for their 'traditionalism', even

'archaism', and represent, in the words of Arthur Voobus, a unique
1
treasure trove of older exegetical and doctrinal traditions. This is why,
even though he flourished in the fourth century, the so-called Persian Sage
provides invaluable insight into earlier Christian doctrines and practices.
Isaiah 11.2 In Aphrahat
The following passage occurs in Aphrahat's first Demonstration:
And concerning this Stone he stated and showed: on this stone, behold, I
open seven eyes [Zech. 3.9]. And what are the seven eyes opened on the
stone other than the Spirit of God that dwelt upon Christ with seven
operations? As Isaiah the Prophet said, There will rest and dwell upon
him God's Spirit of wisdom and of understanding and of counsel and of
courage, and of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord [Isa. 11.2-3]. These
are the seven eyes that were opened upon the stone [Zech. 3.9], and these
2
are the seven eyes of the Lord which look upon all the earth [Zech. 4.10].
1 Marie-Joseph Pierre, 'Introduction', in Aphraate Le Sage Person: Les Exposes (trans.

M. J. Pierre ; SC, 349; Paris: Cerf, 1988), p. 66; A. Voobus, 'Methodologisches zum Studium
der Anweisungen Aphrahats', OrChr 46 (1962): 25-32 (32). Similarly, Friedrich Loofs,
Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei
Irenaeus (TU, 46; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), p. 260; Peter Bruns (trans.), Aphrahat:
Unterweisungen (FC, 5/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), pp. 208-9; Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die
Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', OCP 31 (1933): 1-140 (5, 22); Robert Murray, 'Some
Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature', in R. H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur
Voobus (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), pp. 109-31 (110);
William L. Petersen, 'The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the
17th Demonstration', VC 46 (1992): 241-56 (241, 251).
2 Aphrahat, Dem. 1.9 (1/20). The numbers between parentheses indicate volume and
page in Jean Parisot (ed.), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (PS I; Paris: Firmin-
Didot, 1894).
BUCUR Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage 189
Isaiah 11.2 is quoted in a distinctly Syriac form, with an additional verb

3
(sra) complementing the single 'to rest' in the Hebrew and Greek.
Aphrahat combines Isaiah's 'seven operations' of the Spirit with
Zechariah's seven eyes on the stone (Zech. 3.9) and the seven eyes [i.e.,
angelic servants] of the LORD, which look upon all the earth' (Zech. 4.10).
Nothing extraordinary here; except that, on closer examination,
Aphrahat's 'seven operations' of the Spirit are only six: wisdom,
4
understanding, counsel, courage, knowledge and fear of the Lord!
Neither the Hebrew of Isa. 11.2-3 (whether MT or the Great Isaiah Scroll
at Qumran), nor the Peshitta, nor the Syriac quoted by Aphrahat, nor
5
Targum Jonathan, mention a seventh 'spirit' at Isa. 11.3. Moreover,
while the messianic interpretation of Isa. 11.1 -2 is known - but marginal -
6
in rabbinic Judaism, the use of this verse to support the notion of the
seven-fold spirit resting on the Messiah is generally absent both in the
7
apocalyptic writings of the Second Temple era, and in rabbinic literature.
It is only the Septuagint that enumerates seven spirits at Isa. 11.2-3. The
idea of seven spirits in Isaiah 11, its messianic connotation and very often
the connection with the Zechariah passage, are widely disseminated
3 For details in this respect, see Sebastian Brock, 'The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1.35 and
the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation', in W. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the
Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 117-31; Columba Stewart, 'Working the Earth of the Heart':
The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1991), p. 212.
4 Karl Schlutz (Isaias 11.2 [Die sieben Gaben des Heiligen Geistes] in den ersten vier
christlichen Jahrhunderten [Munster: Aschendorff, 1932], p. 35) thinks that Aphrahat might
have counted 'the Spirit of God' as one of the seven gifts. I find this very unlikely. First,
Aphrahat clearly distinguishes between the two terms, 'the Spirit' and 'the seven operations
of the Spirit'. Second, there is an obvious parallelism between 'the Spirit of God that abode
on Christ with seven operations', and the immediately following proof text from Isa. 11.2-3:
'The Spirit of God shall rest and dwell upon him', followed by the 'seven' (in reality six)
operations. Finally, patristic writers who echo this tradition count, without exception, seven
gifts of the Spirit as distinct from 'the Spirit of God'.
5 Schlutz {Isaias 11.2, pp. 2-11) provides a detailed treatment of the versions and their
relationship.
6 Isa. 11.2 is used in a speculation about the six spirits on the Messiah in Gen. Rab. 97.
The numerous patristic references to Isaiah 11 and the Holy Spirit adduced by Schlutz have
no counterpart in the rabbinic literature surveyed by Peter Schafer in his Die Vorstellung vom
Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kosel, 1972).
7 Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, p. 8. In / En. 61.11 the seven-fold angelic praise is said to rise up 'in
the spirit of faith, in the spirit of wisdom and patience, in the spirit of mercy, in the spirit of
justice and peace, and in the spirit of generosity'. Yet, as Schlutz (Isaias 11.2, p. 20) notes,
this is in no way connected to Isa. 11.2-3. In / En. 49.3 the Spirit resting over the coming
Messiah is five-fold.
among Christian writers. It is this very strong Christian tradition about

the seven spirits resting on the Messiah that functions as Aphrahat's
hermeneutical presupposition, allowing him to speak about the seven
operations of the Spirit even though his biblical text only mentions six.
The Holy Spirit and the Move From Unity to Multiplicity

The difference between the Spirit resting on the Messiah and the Spirit
9
present in the prophets is one of degree. More precisely, the Sage seems
particularly fond of 'part-to-whole' comparisons: while the Messiah bears
the seven-fold Spirit, the prophets only 'received [a portion] from the
Spirit of Christ, each one of them as he was able to bear' {Dem. 6.12 [1/
288]); John the Baptist, the greatest among prophets, still received the
Spirit 'according to measure' {ba-kyalta). In the new dispensation, at
baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit 'from a little portion of the
10
godhead'; at Pentecost, '[a portion] from the Spirit of Christ {w-men
ruheh tub dileh da-msiha) is again poured forth today upon all flesh [Joel
11
3.1]'; Christ overshadows all believers - each of them severally {menta
2
menta)} In his footnotes to the German translation of the
Demonstrations, Bruns points to the 'exceedingly materialistic' imagery
13
of these expressions. This is why I think it is justified to insert 'portion'
in my English rendering of the phrases indicating the presence of the Spirit
in the prophets.
Aside from the seven-fold Spirit of Isa. 11.2, Aphrahat also finds
another proof-text for the Messiah's full endowment with the Spirit: Jn
14
3.34, 'it was not by measure that his Father gave the Spirit unto him'.
On the other hand, the partial presence of the Spirit in the prophets is
illustrated by recourse to Num. 11.17 (God taking 'from the Spirit' of
15
Moses to endow the seventy elders), as well as by a statement ascribed to
8 For the patristic exegesis of the passage, see Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, passim. Folker Siegert
(Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'liber Jona', 'liber Jona' < Fragment> und
'liber Simson' [WUNT, 61; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992], 2:275) views the homily's use of
Isa. 11.2 as a Jewish precursor of the Christian tradition.
9 So also Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', p. 127; Bruns,
Christusbild, p. 140.
10 Dem. 6.12 (1/288); 10.8 (1/464); 1.19 (1/44); 6.13 (1/288); 6.12 (1/288); 6.10 (1/281); 6.14
(1/293).
11 Dem. 6.12 (1/288).
12 Dem. 6.10 (1/281).
13 Bruns, Unterweisungen, pp. 200 n. 22, 205 n. 26. The passages are Dem. 6.10 (1/281)
and Dem. 6.14 (1/293).
14 Dem. 6.12 (1/285).
15 On the 'massive presence' of this verse in rabbinic literature, see Pierre, Exposes,
p. 395 n. 73.
the apostle Paul: 'God distributed from the Spirit of Christ and sent it into
16
the prophets' (d-palleg alaha men ruhd da-msiheh w-saddar ba-nbiye).
Even though scholarship is not unanimous on this point, I find it
indisputable that Aphrahat is quoting 'the blessed apostle' according to 3
Cor., an apocryphal text that Aphrahat and Ephrem seem to have
17
regarded as canonical. The relevant verse (3 Cor. 2.10) reads as follows:
'For he [God] desired to save the house of Israel. Therefore, distributing
from the Spirit of Christ, he sent it into the prophets (Mepioas ouv arro
18
TOU TTV£UpaTOS TOU XplOTOU ETTE|Jv|#V ElS TOUS TTpO<J>TlTas).
Isaiah 11.2 and Matthew 18.10

Once it is an established conviction that Isa. 11.2 speaks of the seven-fold
Spirit resting on the Messiah, Aphrahat's connection with the seven eyes
on the stone in Zech. 3.9 is a natural exegetical development. And given
that the language of 'seven-fold' Spirit expresses the 'fullness' of the Spirit,
it is, again, not surprising that Aphrahat should refer to the Spirit-
endowment of Old Testament prophets and New Testament believers by
using the language of 'parts' and 'portions' of Spirit.
But Aphrahat's exegesis makes yet another, this time more surprising,
move. Speaking about the Spirit of the prophets, he says:
This Spirit, which the prophets have received, and which we, too, have
received, is not at all times found with those that receive it; rather it
sometimes goes to him that sent it, and sometimes it goes to him that
received it. Hearken to that which our Lord said, Do not despise any one
of these little ones that believe in me, for their angels in heaven always
gaze on the face of my Father. [Mt. 18.10] Indeed, this Spirit is at all
times on the move, and stands before God and beholds his face; and it
will accuse before God whomsoever injures the temple in which it
19
dwells.
This passage is part of the Demonstration 'On the Sons of the Covenant'.
Aphrahat argues here one of the axioms of his ascetic theory, namely that
16 Dem. 6.12 (1/285).

17 On 3 Cor., see Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian
Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000); Loofs, Theophilus, pp. 148-53. Pierre
(Tntroduction', p. 139 n. 73) does not think that Aphrahat's Creed used 3 Cor. On the
contrary, Bruns (Christusbild, p. 187 n. 13) states that Aphrahat is 'very obviously' quoting 3
Cor. 3.10. In Dem. 23 (11/64) also, where Aphrahat again mentions 'the Apostle who bears
witness: Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit by Mary of the house of David', Pierre
believes this to be an echo of Rom. 1.3-4. Yet, 3 Cor. 2.5 offers a closer match: 'Christ Jesus
[some mss: Jesus Christ] was bora of Mary of the seed of David by the Holy Spirit.'
18 Greek text in Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians, p. 149.
19 Aphrahat, Dem. 6.14-15 (1/293, 296, 297).
the Holy Spirit departs from a sinful person and goes to accuse that
person before the throne of God. The above-quoted fragment is preceded
by the following remarks:
Anyone who has preserved the Spirit of Christ in purity: when it [the
Spirit] goes to him [Christ], it [the Spirit] speaks to him thus: the body to
which I went and which put me on in the waters of baptism, has preserved
me in holiness. And the Holy Spirit entreats Christ for the resurrection
of the body that preserved it in a pure manner... And anyone who
receives the Spirit from the waters [of baptism] and wearies it: it [the
Spirit] departs from that person . . . and goes to its nature, [namely] unto
Christ, and accuses that man of having grieved it.
According to the Sage, Christians receive the Spirit at baptism. If one
keeps the Spirit in purity, the latter will advocate for that person before
the throne of God; if, on the contrary, one indulges in sinful behaviour,
the Spirit leaves the house of the soul - which allows the adversary to
break in and occupy it (Dem. 6.17) - and goes to accuse the person before
God. For Aphrahat, the notion that the Spirit can be present in the
believer, and subsequently leave, must have been part of a traditional
ascetic theory. Indication that this is an inherited tradition can be found in
20
the striking similarities with the Shepherd of Hermas. There are,
however, no Syriac manuscripts of the Shepherd, and no references to this
21
work among Syriac writers. Nadia Ibrahim-Fredrikson raises the
hypothesis of a common source behind both Aphrahat and the
Shepherd, a source whose views of spiritual dualism and divine indwelling
22
would have been similar to that of the Community Rule at Qumran.
What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that Aphrahat describes
the work of the Holy Spirit by using unmistakably angelic imagery: the
20 According to the Shepherd of Hermas, the Trvsuucc inhabits the believer (Herm. Mand.
10.2.5) and, under normal circumstances, intercedes on behalf of that person. Yet, the
Shepherd warns that the Holy Spirit is easily grieved and driven away by sadness (Herm.
Mand. 10.1.3; 10.2.1), in which case he will depart and intercede with God against the person
{Herm. Mand. 10.41.5).
21 Martin Leutzsch, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums, 3;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), pp. 120-1; Anton Baumstark,
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensischen Texte
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1922), pp. 75-7; Sebastian Brock, 'The Syriac Background to the World
of Theodore of Tarsus', in From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1999),
p. 37.
22 N. I. Fredrikson, 'L'Esprit Saint et les esprits mauvais dans le pasteur d'Hermas:
Sources et prolongements', VC 55 (2001): 262-80 (273, 277, 278). For similarities between
Aphrahat's ascetic theology and that of the Qumran documents see A. Golitzin, 'Recovering
the "Glory of Adam": "Divine Light" Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian
Ascetical Literature of Fourth-Century Syro-Mesopotamia', in J. R. Davila (ed.), The Dead
Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003),
pp. 275-308.
Spirit 'is always on the move', he stands before the divine throne, beholds the
face of God, entreats Christ on behalf of the worthy ascetics, accuses the
unworthy and so on. It is significant that the action of carrying prayers from
earth to the throne of God is sometimes (Dem. 4.13) ascribed to the
archangel Gabriel. This is again similar to the Shepherd(Herm. Sim. 8.2.5),
where the archangel Michael states that, in addition to the inspection of the
believers' good deeds by one of his angelic subordinates, he will personally
test every soul again, at the heavenly altar (syco OCUTOUS em TO 0uoiaoTripiov
Soiaudaco). Both Aphrahat and the Shepherd deploy the traditional imagery
23
of angels carrying up the prayer of humans to the heavenly altar.
In the case of Aphrahat, the angelomorphic element is even more
pronounced, given that the Spirit's toing and froing between earth and
heaven, and his intercession before the divine throne, are 'documented'
with an unlikely proof-text, namely Mt. 18.10 ('their angels in heaven
always behold the face of my Father'). In his commentary on the
Diatessaron, Ephrem interprets 'the angels of the little ones' as a
metaphor for the prayers of the believers, which reach up to the highest
heavens. Later Syriac authors (Jacob of Edessa, Isodad of Merv,
Dionysius Bar Salibi) use Mt. 18.10 as a proof-text for the existence of
24
guardian angels. For Aphrahat, however, the angels of Mt. 18.10
illustrate the intercessory activity of the Holy Spirit.
The 'Fragmentary' Gift of the Spirit and Angelomorphic

Pneumatology
It may seem that this sort of angelomorphic pneumatology is not
necessarily related to the 'fragmentary presence' of the Spirit discussed
earlier. Such is not the case, however. In Dem. 6.10 (1/277-280), Christians
are asked not to despise 'the pledge' - that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit -
received at baptism:
Our Lord ... left us a pledge of his own when he ascended ... it
behooves us also to honor that which is his, which we have received ...
let us honor that which is his, according to his own nature. If we honor
it, we shall go to him.... But if we despise it, he will take away from us
that which he has given us; and if we abuse his pledge, he will there take
away that which is his, and will deprive us of that which he has
25
promised us.
23 For a long list of relevant texts and detailed discussion, see Loren Stuckenbruck,
Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 70; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 173-80;
Cornelis Haas, 'Die Pneumatologie des "Hirten des Hennas'", ANRWllj 21A (1993): 552-
86 (560, 567 n. 49).
24 Winfrid Cramer, 'Mt 18.10 in fruhsyrischer Deutung', OrChr 59 (1975): 130-46.
25 Dem. 6.10(1/279-280).
It is quite evident that 'the pledge' (rahbuna, appcc(3cov) refers to the Spirit.
There is, first, the allusion to 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5 and Eph. 1.14. There are,
then, a number of obvious parallels with statements made elsewhere in the
same Demonstration, where the same is said in reference to the Holy
26
Spirit. The notion of 'despising' the Spirit is significant here. Aphrahat
returns to it later in the same Demonstration, also supplying a fitting
scriptural proof: 'the Spirit that the prophets received, and which we, too,
have received' is indicated by something 'that our Lord said, Do not
despise any of these little ones that believe in Me, for their angels in heaven
27
always gaze on the face of my Father'.
Aphrahat's notion of 'fragmentary' Spirit-endowment and his angelo
morphic pneumatology should be considered jointly. The connection
between Zech. 3.9, Isa. 11.1-3 and Mt. 18.10 illustrates very well what
Pierre calls a 'network of scriptural traditions', which Aphrahat inherited
28
from earlier Christian tradition. That this is, indeed, the case, is made
clear by the occurrence of the same cluster of biblical verses and echoes of
angelomorphic pneumatology in Clement of Alexandria.
Aphrahat and Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria identifies the 'angels ever contemplating the Face
of God' in Mt. 18.10 with the 'thrones' (Col. 1.16) and 'the seven eyes of
the Lord' (Zech. 3.9; 4.10; Rev. 5.6), and understands all these passages as
descriptions of the seven 'first-born princes of the angels' (npcoToyovoi
ayyEXcov apxovTSs), elsewhere called the seven irpcoTOKTiQTOi. These
seven protoctists, however, also carry a definite pneumatological content,
since Clement identifies them not only with various types of angels, but
26 In the text just quoted, Christ leaves his pledge upon his ascension, just as in another
passage: 'when he went to his Father, he sent to us his Spirit' (Dem. 6.10 [1/282]); the
exhortation to 'honor the pledge' finds a counterpart in an earlier exhortation, to 'honor the
Spirit of Christ, that we may receive grace from Him' (Dem. 6.1 p/241]); the characterization
of the pledge as 'that which is of his [Christ's] own nature' is very similar to the statement
about the Spirit going 'to its nature, [namely] unto Christ' (Dem. 6.14 [1/296]); 'two-way'
discourse on the required attitude towards the pledge, corresponds perfectly to the ascetic
theory of the same Demonstration, which opposes those who 'preserve the Spirit of Christ in
purity' and those who defile the Spirit (Dem. 6.14-15).
27 Dem. 6.14-15 (1/292, 297).
28 Some of these traditions were embodied in a 'series of testimonia that might have
circulated orally and been transmitted independently from the known biblical text'. As a
matter of fact, Aphrahat is 'one of the richest witnesses' to the use of testimonia, with Dem.
16 furnishing 'the largest collection ever realized by a Father'. See Pierre, 'Introduction', pp.
115, 138, 68. See also Murray, 'Rhetorical Patterns', p. 110; idem, Symbols of Church and
Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (London and New York: T & T Clark
International, 2nd edn, 2004), pp. 289-90; Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4, 40, 58.
also with the 'seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of
29
Jesse' (Isa. 11.1-3 LXX): this, for him, is 'the heptad of the Spirit'.
The exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and that of Aphrahat offer a
surprising convergence. Both writers use the same cluster of biblical
verses: 'the seven eyes of the Lord' (Zech. 3.9; 4.10), 'the seven gifts of the
Spirit' (Isa. 11.2-3), and 'the angels of the little ones' (Mt. 18.10); both
echo the tradition about the highest angelic company; finally, both use
30
angelic imagery to express a definite pneumatological content.
Aphrahat and Justin Martyr
As for Aphrahat's notion of a fragmentary endowment of the prophets

with the gifts of the Spirit, and the comparison of this partial charismatic
endowment with the complete possession of the Spirit by the Messiah, a
comparable view occurs in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Justin
must respond to an interesting challenge from his Jewish opponent:
The Scripture asserts by Isaiah:... and the Spirit of God shall rest upon
him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and piety: and the spirit of the fear of the
Lord shall fill him (Isa. 11.1-2). I grant you (he said) that these words
are spoken of Christ. But you also maintain that he was pre-existent as
God . . . Now, how can He be demonstrated to have been pre-existent,
since he is filled with the powers of the Holy Spirit, which the Scripture
by Isaiah enumerates, as if He were in lack of them?
Trypho suggests that Isa. 11.1-3 deals with the reception of the seven
'powers of the Holy Spirit', and therefore excludes Justin's idea of a pre-
existent 'Lord', distinct from the Father, and endowed with the 'powers'.
Justin responds by interpreting the Isaiah passage as a reference to the
Jordan event: the seven powers of the Spirit rested on Jesus Christ when
the Spirit 'fluttered down on' him (ITTITTTT^VQI, Dial. 88.3) at the Jordan
31
baptism. In reaction, most likely, to contrary subordinationist views,
Justin insists that Jesus' baptism was a theophany, which did not create
Christ's identity but revealed it to the world (cf. Jn 1.31:1 va 4>avEpco8fl
29 Strom. 5.6.35; Eel. 57.1; Exc. 10; Strom. 5.6.35; Paed. 3.12.87.
30 For a detailed treatment of this topic in Clement, see Christian Oeyen, Eine
fruhchristliche Engelpneumatologie bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Erweiterer Separatdruck aus
der Internationalen Kirchlichen Zeitschrift: Bern, 1966); Bogdan G. Bucur, 'Revisiting
Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', VC
61 (2007): 381^13.
31 The connection between the seven-fold Spirit of Isa. 11.1-3 and the descent of the
Spirit at the Jordan baptism also occurs in Irenaeus (Epid. 9), who regards it as an element of
Church tradition.
32
Top 'lopar|X). In support of his view, he states that a fire was kindled (rrup
33
avrj<|>0Ti) in the Jordan at the moment of the baptism. For Justin, Jesus
Christ pre-existed as bearer of the seven 'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as
he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the powers'.
This theory of the 'powers' proves serviceable for an account of Old
Testament prophecy and New Testament charismatic endowment.
According to Justin, each of the prophets received 'some one or two
powers from God': KCU OTI oi irap'uMiv irpo^fjTai, e K a o x o s VIOLV TIVCX fi
KOU SeuTspav Siivapiv i r a p a TOU 0eou Aaii(3avovTes. Thus Solomon had
the spirit of wisdom; Daniel, that of understanding and counsel; Moses,
that of strength and piety; Elijah, that of fear; Isaiah, that of knowledge.
The seven powers of the Spirit enumerated by Isaiah were later
reassembled in Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of the powers' (Dial. 87.4).
Specifically, the Spirit 'ceased' (eirauoccTo) from being poured out
fragmentarily upon the prophets when it is said to have 'rested'
( a v e i r a u o a T o ) upon him (Dial. 87.3) at the Jordan baptism. After his
ascension, Christ turns the prophetic powers of the Spirit into various
SOMCCTCC or xapiopocTa to the Church, thus fulfilling the prophecies of Joel
3.1 (/ shall pour out my Spirit over all flesh) and Ps. 67.19, LXX (He
4
ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the sons of men)?
Justin is quite likely to be using a collection of testimonia here. He quotes
Ps. 67.19 in a form closer to Eph. 4.8 than the LXX; his quotation from
Joel 3.1 begins as in the LXX (KOL\ IOTOCI METCX TOUTO) rather than Acts 2.17
32 In fact, it is similar concerns over subordinationist interpretations of the Jordan event

that explain why, after being an essential article of faith, the baptism of Jesus was eliminated
from fourth-century creeds. See Gabriele Winkler, 'A Remarkable Shift in Fourth-Century
Creeds: An Analysis of the Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Evidence', St.Patr. 17/3 (1982):
1396-1401. Similarly, Killian McDonnell, 'Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan', TS 56 (1995): 209-
36, (213, 212); Robert L. Wilken, 'The Interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus in the Later
Fathers', St.Patr. 11 (1972): 268-77.
33 The tradition about fire and light at the Jordan baptism is widespread in early
Christianity (e.g., Gospel of the Ebionites; Proclus of Constantinople; Gregory of Nazianzus;
Ephraim Syrus; Jacob of Serugh; Philoxenus of Mabbug). See McDonnell, 'Jesus' Baptism in
the Jordan', pp. 231-2. On the other hand, Justin's association of the Jordan event with Isa.
11.1-3 naturally leads to the idea that the Spirit 'rested' over Christ at his baptism. This also
is similar to a tradition preserved in Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron: according to
what must have been an original Syriac version of Jn 1.32, the Spirit 'descended and rested'
upon Jesus - rather than 'descended and dwelt', as all Greek and Syriac witnesses have. It is
however not the Syriac version of the Commentary that preserves this reading (most probably
because later scribes adapted the New Testament quotations to the Peshitta, which here
follows the Greek text), but the Armenian translation of the Commentary, where the
quotation was 'frozen' in its original form. For a detailed and extensive argumentation, see
Gabriele Winkler, 'Ein bedeutsamer Zusammenhang zwischen der Erkenntnis und Ruhe in
Mt 11, 27-29 und dem Ruhen des Geistes auf Jesus am Jordan: Eine Analyse zur Geist-
Christologie in Syrischen und Armenischen Quellen', Mus 96 (1983): 267-326.
34 AOUQTCX: Dial. 39.2, 4, 5; 87.5-6; xapiaucn-a: Dial. 82.1; 88.1.
(Kai eoTcci ev TO\S eoxiTous fiMepais), but then speaks of'my servants', as
in Acts 2.18, rather than 'servants', as in Joel 3.2. Some of the gifts listed
in Dial. 39.2, namely 'healing', foreknowledge', and 'teaching', echo 1
Corinthians 12, which also explains the shift from 5 o p a T a to
35
XapiopccTa. It is noteworthy that the gifts of the Spirit received by the
Church are also distributed fragmentarily: 'from the grace of the power of
his Spirit to those who believe in him, to each one inasmuch as he deems
36
him worthy'.
Trypho finds nothing objectionable in Justin's pneumatology. This is
not because 'Trypho' would be nothing more than a literary construct of
Justin's - a position that Timothy J. Horner has challenged quite
37
convincingly. It seems rather, as Michel Rene Barnes argues, that Justin
3
and Trypho share a Pneumatology. * As a case in point, Justin's
interpretation of Isaiah 11 finds its counterpart in the Pseudo-Philonic
39
synagogal homily 'On Samson'. This text is at pains to explain how it
was possible that Samson committed sins even though he was possessed
by the Spirit. The argument is that the prophets only received one or the
other of the 'spirits' mentioned in Isa. 11.2. Moving away from the
wording of the verse, the homilist gives some examples: Abraham received
the spirit of righteousness, Joseph the spirit of self-restraint, Simeon and
35 Graham Stanton, 'The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr', in G. N. Stanton, B.

W. Longenecker and S. C. Barton (eds), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in
Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 321-34 (332) has no
doubt that the three Pauline terms are 'woven into the list'. Pierre Prigent (Justin et VAncien
Testament: L'argumentation scripturaire du traite de Justin contre toutes les heresies comme
source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la premiere Apologie [Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre, 1964], pp. 112-13) and Jose Pablo Martin (El Espiritu Santo en los origenes del
Cristianismo: Estudio sobre I Clemente, Ignacio, II Clemente y Justino Martir [Zurich: PAS
Verlag, 1971], p. 204) are more reserved, although both agree that the loose treatment of Isa.
11.2 allows Justin to incorporate certain 'reminiscences paulines' into the list of spiritual gifts.
Prigent (Justin et VAncien Testament, p. 114) shows that Justin's quotation from Ps. 67.19 is
very close to Eph. 4.8, but he denies any influence from Acts 2.
36 Dial. 87.5. Compare airo rife x « P ° S "rife 5uvau£cos TOU TTVEUMCCTOS EKEIVOU . . . cos
L T
a£iov EKCXOTOV ETriaTcxTat with the statement about the 'powers of the Spirit' received by the
prophets: EKaoTos uiav i v a rj Kai SEimpav ouvapiv irapa TOO 6EOU AauPavovTEs.
T
37 T. Horner, Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered (Leuven and

Paris: Peeters, 2001). Horner argues that the current Dialogue, composed around 155-160
CE, is an expansion of an older document, dated around 135 CE, which is very likely to have
documented a real encounter between Justin and a well-educated non-rabbinic Jew from Asia
Minor.
38 Barnes, 'Early Christian Binitarianism: The Father and the Holy Spirit' (paper
presented at the North American Patristics Society, May 2001; online at <www.mu.edu/
maqom/baraes >).
39 This homily was most likely composed in Alexandria, in the first century C E . It
survives in a very literal Armenian translation, dated to the early sixth century, alongside the
genuine works of Philo. See Folker Siegert et al. (eds and trans.), Pseudo-Philon: Predications
synagogales (SC, 345; Paris: Cerf, 1999), pp. 19-20, 38-9, 41.
Levi the spirit of zeal, and Judah the spirit of discernment. As for Samson,
he only received 'the spirit of strength' - which explains his utter lack of
40
wisdom! Despite the fact that 'On Samson' enumerates only six spirits in
Isa. 11.2, the resemblance with Justin is obvious. 41
I now return to the challenge posed by Trypho: how can Justin's claim
about a pre-existent Messiah be consistent with the idea that he received
the seven powers of the Spirit? I noted earlier that Justin rejects any
subordinationist views, and affirms that the Jordan event is, essentially, a
revelation of who Jesus Christ is: the pre-existent bearer of the seven
'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the
powers'.
This language of Suvapeis, Suvaneis TOU TTVEUMCXTOS, and loipios TCOV
SuvdpEcov, and the connection between the seven gifts of the Spirit (Isa.
11.2-3) and the 'powers' are not accidental. As has already been
documented in scholarship, Justin understands the Old Testament phrase
Kupios TCOV 5uvd|JEcov such that the 'Lord' is Jesus Christ and the 'powers'
are, at the same time, certain angelic beings (Dial. 85) and the seven
'powers of the Spirit' referred to in Isaiah 11 (Dial. 8 7 ) . 42
Conclusions
Both Aphrahat and Justin combine Isa. 11.2-3 (the seven gifts of the
Spirit) with Joel 3.1 (T shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh') and Ps. 67
(68). 19 ('He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the
sons of men'). Unlike Justin Martyr, who uses Isa. 11.1-3 to contrast the
43
'partial' outpouring of the Spirit over the prophets and Christ's 'full' and
sovereign possession of the Spirit, Aphrahat uses the Isaiah verse only for
the Messiah, and never to affirm the partial endowment of prophets and
baptized Christians. In other words, Isa. 11.2 serves, in Dem. 1, the same
role as Jn 3.34 ('it was not by measure that his Father gave the Spirit unto
him') in Dem. 6. Like Justin, Aphrahat states that the prophets received
only '[a portion] from the Spirit of Christ, each one of them as he was able
to bear' - but he prefers to use 3 Cor. 2.10 rather than Isa. 11.2 in support
of this statement.
B o t h Aphrahat and Clement use the same cluster of biblical verses (Isa.
40 Ps.-Philo, 'On Samson', p. 24.

41 It should be noted that there are no literary connections between the homily and early
Christian literature prior to the Armenian translation (Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische
Predigten, p. 48; Siegert et al. (eds), Pseudo-Philon, pp. 38-9).
42 Oeyen, 'Die Lehre von den gottlichen Kraften bei Justin', StPatr 11 (1972): 214—21; B.
G. Bucur, 'The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher', JR
88 (2008): 190-208.
43 Justin, Dial. 87.6.
11.2-3; Zech. 3.9; Mt. 18.10) to express a definite pneumatological

content. Nevertheless, since Aphrahat uses Mt 18.10 to illustrate the
dynamism of divine indwelling and the intercessory activity of the Spirit,
he never connects the angels of the Face with Isa. 11.2, an exegetical move
44
that occurs in Clement of Alexandria.
It is true that this particular arrangement of the proof-texts is
determined by the necessities of the discourse, and that, in other contexts,
Aphrahat would most likely have furnished a different 'constellation'
using the same passages. As the texts stand, however, the scriptural
support for Aphrahat's doctrine of 'partial versus complete' possession of
the Spirit differs slightly from that of Justin and Clement. By way of
consequence, the link between the notion of 'fragmentary Spirit' and
angelomorphic pneumatology is also less clear than it is in these authors.
Even though no literary connection exists between these two Greek-
speaking writers and the Persian Sage, the exegesis of Isa. 11.2 and the
'midrashic' connections with other biblical passages are strikingly similar.
There are, in fact, several other convergences between Aphrahat and
earlier writers in the West, which, as I have stated earlier, cannot be
4 5
explained by direct literary connection Gilles Quispel was convinced
that behind both Clement and Aphrahat lies a tradition that goes back to
Jewish Christian missionaries 'who brought the new religion to
Mesopotamia', and were also 'the founding fathers of the church in
46
Alexandria' Be that as it may, the comparison between Aphrahat,
Justin and Clement suggests the existence of a primitive Christian
tradition that used Isa. 11.2 to compare the Spirit-endowment of prophets
with that of the Messiah.
44 In Aphrahat, Mt. 18.10 is instead linked to other texts such as 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; Eph.
1.14; 3 Cor. 2.10; Num. 11.17; 2 Sam. 16.14-23 (the evil spirit sent to Saul).
45 I have already mentioned the resemblance with the Shepherd of Hermas. Another case
refers to the striking resemblance between the exegesis of Judg. 7.4-8 by Aphrahat (Dem.
7.19-21) and Origen (Horn. Judic. 9.2). R. H. Connolly ('Aphraates and Monasticism', JTS6
[1905]: 538-9) hypothesized that the sage might have read Origen. In response, Loofs
(Theophilus, pp. 258-9) stated that a common source is a far more likely explanation.
46 Quispel, 'Genius and Spirit', 160, 164. See also Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4. A fresh
and compelling view has been proposed recently by April DeConick, Recovering the Original
Gospel of Thomas: A History of The Gospel And Its Growth (LNTS, 286; Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 2005), pp. 236-41.
Bibliography
Aageson, J. W., Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical
Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993).
Achtemeier, P. J., 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).
Alexander, P. S., and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yahad:
(DJD, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Allen, L. C , Psalms: Word Biblical Themes (Waco: Word, 1987).
Amir, Y., 'The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in
Philo', in Frederick E. Greenspahn et al. (eds), Nourished with Peace:
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico:
Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25.
Anderson, F., Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 25;
New York: Doubleday, 2001).
Asher, J. R., Polarity and Change in 1 Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics,
Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2000).
Auld, A. G., 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test Case for Synchrony
plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit:
Diachronie und Synchronic im Wettstreit. Beitrage zur Auslegung des
ersten Samuelbuches (Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28.
Aune, D. E., 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls. A
Reassessment of the Problem', in D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H.
Ulrichsen (eds), Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of
Peder Borgen (NovTSup, 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 281-303.
Revelation (3 vols; WBC, 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98).
Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson and M.
Sbisa; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975).
Avemarie, F., 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture:
Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor
and Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A
Collection of Articles (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005),
pp. 125-48.
V
Bachmann, M., '4QMMT und Galaterbrief, m i m EH7D und EPTA
NOMOY,' ZNW 89 (1998): 91-113.
Bibliography 201
'Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus', TZ 49 (1993): 1-33;

reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu
einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus
(NTOA, 40; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1999), pp. 1-31.
Bakhos, C., 'The Double Identity of Hagar and Keturah' (forthcoming).
Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. M. Holquist;
trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; University of Texas Slavic
Series, 1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).
Balch, D. L., Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter
(SBLMS, 26; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981).
Barclay, J. M. G., 'By the Grace of God I am what I am', in J. M. G.
Barclay and S. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul
and His Intellectual Environment (Edinburgh: T & T Clark/
Continuum, 2006). pp. 140-57.
Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1988).
'Paul's Story: Theology as Testimony', in B. Longenecker (ed.),
Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 133-56.
Barker, P. G., 'Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4.21-31', SVTQ 38
(1994): 193-209.
Barnes, M. R., 'Early Christian Binitarianism: The Father and the Holy
Spirit' (paper presented at the North American Patristics Society,
May 2001; online at <www.mu.edu/maqom/barnes>).
Barrett, C. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 1994).
Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 1982).
'Luke/Acts', in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), It is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), pp. 231-^4.
Barthelemy, D. et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and
Literary Criticism (Papers of a Joint Research Venture; Fribourg:
Editions Universitaires, 1986).
Batto, B. F., 'The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace\ JBL 102 (1983): 27-35.
Bauckham, R., The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation
(London: T & T Clark, 1993).
Baudry, G. H., 'La theorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du peche
original', BLE 95 (1994): 271-301.
Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der
christlich-paldstinensischen Texte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1922).
Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
'Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old
Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22', in C.
202 Bibliography
A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the

Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 421-46.
Beckwith, R. T., T h e Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46 (1995): 1-
28.
Berg, W., 'Der Sundenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16: 1-6', BN 19
(1982): 7-14.
Betz, H. D., Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in
Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
Betz, O., Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT,
6; Tubingen: Brill, 1960), pp. 140-6.
Bianchi, U., 'Dieu unique et creation double: pour une phenomenologie
du dualisme', Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblate (Acta
Iranica 23; 2nd series Himmages et opera minora, 9; Leiden: Brill,
1984), pp. 49^60.
'Dualism', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4
(New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 506-12.
Bivin, D., 'One Torah Reader, Not Seven!' Jerusalem Perspective 52 ( J u l -
Sep. 1997): 16-17.
Bligh, J., Galatians (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969).
Bock, Darrell L., Luke (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994).
Booser, K. D., 'The Literary Structure of John 1.1-18: An Examination of
its Theological Implications Concerning God's Saving Plan through
Jesus Christ', Evangelical Journal 61 (1998): 13-29.
Borgen, P., Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup, 86;
Leiden: Brill, 1997).
'Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo's and Paul's
Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael', in Peder Borgen and Soren
Giversen (eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 151-64.
Boring, M. E., First Peter in Recent Study. Word & World 24 (2004): 358-
67.
Borse, U., Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet,
1984).
Boyarin, D., A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Critical
Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1; Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994).
Brandenburger, E., Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit
(WMANT, 29; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs
vereins, 1968).
Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1959).
Braun, H., 'Das himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebraerbrief, in
O. Bocher and K. Haacker (eds), Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fur G.
Bibliography 203
Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Rolf

Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 319-27.
Brenner, A., 'Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within
the "Birth of the Hero" Paradigm', VT 36 (1986): 257-73.
Brock, S. 'The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1.35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms
for the Incarnation', in W. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the
Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 117-31.
'The Syriac Background to the World of Theodore of Tarsus', in
From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1999).
Brooke, G. J., Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context
(JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
Brown, J. K., 'Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical
Considerations in 1 Peter 3.1-6 and Its Context', Word & World 24/4
(2004): 395-403.
Bruce, F. F., The Book of Acts: New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
Brueggemann, W., Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982).
Old Testament Theology: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).
Bruns, P. (trans.), Aphrahat: Unterweisungen (FC, 5/1; Freiburg: Herder,
1991).
Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen (Bonn: Boren
gasser, 1990).
Bryant, R. A., The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS, 185;
Atlanta: SBL, 2001).
Buckel, J., Free to Love. Pauls Defence of Christian Liberty in Galatians
(Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs, 15; Louvain: Peeters
[Eerdmans], 1993).
Bucur, B. G., 'Revisiting Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on
Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', VC 61 (2007): 381-413.
'The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and
Philosopher', JR 88 (2008): 190-208.
Buth, R., 'Aramaic Targumim: Qumran', in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter,
(eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 2000), pp. 91-3.
Callaway, M. C , 'The Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions
Behind Galatians 4.21-31', Radical Religion 2 (1975): 94-101.
Cameron, A., Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of
Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
Carter, W., 'Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing
204 Bibliography
Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13-3.6', in A. Levine and M. M.

Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and
Hebrews (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 14^33.
Castelli, E. A., 'Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4.21-31 with
Postmodern Eyes', in Edgar V. McKnight and Elizabeth Struthers
Malbon (eds), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament
(Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994), pp. 228-50.
Chazon, Esther G., '4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?', RevQ 15 (1991):
447-55.
Childs, B. S., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary
(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974).
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1979).
'Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis', JSS 16 (1971): 137-50.
Chilton, B., God in Strength: Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom {SNTU,
B/l; Freistadt, Austria: Plochl, 1979).
Collins, J. J., 'Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea
Scrolls', in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea
Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 2 (Leiden:
Brill, 1999), pp. 403-30.
Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997).
'Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve', in
H. Najman and J. H. Newman (eds), The Idea of Biblical
Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup, 83.
Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 293-308.
'In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a
Wisdom Text from Qumran', in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds), The
Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30;
Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 609-19.
'The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction
and the Wisdom of Solomon', in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), Wisdom
and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical
Tradition (BETL, 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters,
2003), pp. 287-305.
'The Son of God Text from Qumran', in M. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus
to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology (JSNTSup,
84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 65-82.
Coloe, M., 'The Structure of John's Prologue and Genesis 1', AusBR 45
(1997): 40-55.
Connolly, R. H., 'Aphraates and Monasticism', JTS 6 (1905): 538-9.
Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1961).
Conzelmann, H. et al, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of
the Apostles (translation of Die Apostelgeschichte; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987).
Bibliography 205
Corley, K. E., '1 Peter', Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist

Commentary (Fiorenza, ed.; London: SCM, 1994), pp. 349-60.
Cosgrove, C. H., The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and
Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988).
Craigie, P. C., Psalms 1-50 (WBC, 19; Waco: Word Books, 1983).
Cramer, W., 'Mt 18, 10 in fruhsyrischer Deutung', OrChr 59 (1975): 130-
46.
Croft, S. J. L., The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOTSup, 44;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
Cross, F. M., 'Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', JTC 5 (1968): 1-25.
Culpepper, R. A., 'The Pivot of John's Prologue', NTS 27 (1981): 1-31.
Dahl, N. A., and A. F. Segal, 'Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of
God', JSJ 9 (1978): 1-28.
Davies, P. R., Whose Bible is it Anyway? (JSOTSup, 204; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient
Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
De Boer, M. C , 'Paul's Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27', NTS
50 (2004): 370-89.
De Conick, A., Recovering The Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of
The Gospel And Its Growth (LNTS, 286; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2005).
Den Braber, M., and J. W. Wesselius, 'The Unity of Joshua 1-8, its
Relation to the Story of King Keret, and the Literary Background to
the Exodus and Conquest Stories', SJOT 22 (2008), pp. 253-74.
SJOT (forthcoming).
Di Leila, A. A., 'The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and
Theodotion-Daniel', in P. W. Flint and J. J. Collins (eds), The
Book of Daniel, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 586-607.
Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts
(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954).
Dowd, S., '1 Peter', in C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (eds), The Women's
Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, exp. edn,
1998), pp. 462-4.
Duhaime, J., 'Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran', CBQ 49
(1987): 32-56.
Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians
(Louisville: WJK, 1990).
Dunn, James, 'Noch einmal "Works of the Law": The Dialogue
Continues', in The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 407-22.
The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2005).
206 Bibliography
The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

Durham, J., 'The King as Messiah in the Psalms', RevExp 81 (1984): 425-
36.
Dvorak, J. G., 'The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic
Gospels', JETSAX (1998): 201-13.
Eastman, S. G., '"Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son": The
Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30', JSNT 28
(2006): 309-36.
Eaton, J. W., Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn,
1986).
Ebeling, G., The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians (trans. D.
Green; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
Eckstein, J., Verheifiung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
Galater 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996).
Elgvin, T., 'Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Early Second Century BCE
- The Evidence of 4QInstruction', in L. H. Schiffman et al. (eds), The
Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of
the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000),
pp. 226-47.
Elliott, J. H., 'Disgraced Yet Graced. The Gospel According to 1 Peter in
the Key of Honour and Shame', BTB 24 (1995): 166-78.
A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its
Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.)
1 Peter (New York: Doubleday, 2000).
Ellis, E. E., 'Background and Christology of John's Gospel: Selected
Motifs', SWJT 31 (1988): 1-12.
Pauls Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981).
Ellis, P., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the
Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984).
Evans, C. A., and J. A. Sanders (eds), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel
(JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
Farris, Stephen. The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin,
Meaning and Significance (JSNTSup, 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).
Fewell, D. N., and D. M. Gunn., Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject
of the Bible's First Story. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).
Fitzmyer, J. A., The Acts of the Apostles: The Anchor Bible (New York:
Doubleday Publishing House, 1998).
Flusser, D., 'At the Right Hand of Power', in Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 301-5.
'Melchizedek and the Son of Man', in Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 186-92.
'A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message', Judaism
Bibliography 207
and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988),

pp. 469-89.
The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981).
The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1985).
Flusser, D., and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus'
Genius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
Forbes, G., 'Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3.6b', BBR 15 (2005):
105-9.
Fowl, S. E., 'Who can read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive
Power in Galatians', JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95.
Fowler, Alastair, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of
Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982).
Fraade, S. D., 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and
Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries',
in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 253-86.
Frankovic, J. 'The Intertextual-Rhetorical Background to Luke 19.46'
(unpublished study).
Fredrikson, N. I., 'L'Esprit Saint et les esprits mauvais dans le pasteur
d'Hermas: Sources et pr longements', VC 55 (2001): 262-80.
Frey, J., 'Die paulinische Antithese von "Fleisch" und "Geist" und die
palastinisch-judische Weisheitstradition', ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77.
'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library:
Reflections on Their Background and History', in M. Bernstein et al.
(eds), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second
Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies,
Cambridge 1995 (in honour of J. M. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill,
1997), pp. 275-335.
'Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in
the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline
Usage', in C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (eds), The
Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential
Thought (BETL, 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters,
2002), pp. 368-404.
'The Notion of "Flesh" in 4QInstruction and the Background of
Pauline Usage', in D. Falk et al. (eds), Sapiential, Liturgical and
Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ 35;
Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 197-226.
Fung, R. Y. K., The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988).
208 Bibliography
Gammie, J. G., 'Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and

Apocalyptic Literature', JBL 93 (1974): 356-85.
Garcia Martinez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997).
Garcia Martinez, F. and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study
Edition, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Gartner, B., The Temple and Community in Qumran and the New
Testament (SNTSMS, 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965).
Gaventa, B. R., 'Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NovT
28 (1986): 309-26.
Geiger, A., Lehr- und Lesebuch Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart,
1845).
Geldenhuys, N., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951).
Gignac, A., 'Citation de Levitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12:
Deux lectures differentes des rapports Christ-Torah?', Eglise et
theologie 25 (1994): 367-403.
Gileadi, A., 'The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate
Protection', in A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration:
Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988),
pp. 157-63.
Gillingham, S. E., Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Bible
Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
GleBmer, U., 'Targumim', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000), pp. 915-18.
Goff, Matthew J., 'Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in
4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in G. Xeravits (ed.), The
Book of Wisdom and Jewish Hellenistic Philosophy (Leiden: Brill,
forthcoming).
The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ, 50;
Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Golitzin, A., 'Recovering the "Glory of Adam": "Divine Light"
Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Ascetical
Literature of Fourth-Century Syro-Mesopotamia', in J. R. Davila
(ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and
Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 275-308.
Gomes, P. J., 'John 1.45-51', Int 43 (1989): 282-6.
Green, J. B., The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1997).
Grindheim, S., 'Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the
Corinthian Church (1 Cor 2.6-16)', JBL 121 (2002): 689-709.
Bibliography 209
Grotius, H., Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (9 vols; Groningen W.

Zuidema:, 1826-34).
Haak, R. D., Habakkuk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992).
Haas, C , 'Die Pneumatologie des "Hirten des Hermas"', ANRWII. 27.1
(1993): 552-86.
Ham, C , 'The Son of Man in the Gospel of John', StoneCamJ 1 (1998):
67-84.
Hamerton-Kelly, R. G., 'Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus:
Prolegomena to an Analysis of his Writings', Studia philonica 1
(1972): 3-26.
Hamman, A. G., L'homme image de Dieu: Essai dune anthropologie
chretienne dans l'Eglise des cinq premiers siecles (Relais-Etudes, 2;
Paris: Ed. Desclee, 1987).
Hanks, T., The Subversive Gospel: A New Testament Commentary of
Liberation (trans. J. P. Doner; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000).
Harrington, D. J., 'Recent Study of 4QInstruction', in F. Garcia
Martinez, A. Steudel and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), From 4QMMT
to Resurrection: Melanges qumraniens en hommage a Emile Puech
(STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 105-23.
Hasel, G., Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1975).
Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (2 vols;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).
Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of
Galatians 3.1-4.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002).
The Letter to the Galatians (The New Interpreter's Bible, 11;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000).
Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale
Heckert, J. K., Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles
(Dallas: SIL International, 1996).
Hemer, C. J., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local
Setting (JSNTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986).
Hengel, M., 'The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel', in C. A. Evans
and W. R. Stegner, (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel
(JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994),
pp. 380-95.
Hepner, G., 'Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah. A Violation of
the Holiness Code', VT 53 (2003): 143-55.
Hogan, K. M., 'The Exegetical Background of the "Ambiguity of Death"
in the Wisdom of Solomon', JSJ 30 (1999): 1-24.
Hofius, Otfried, '"Werke des Gesetzes": Untersuchungen zu der
paulinischen Rede von den epya vouou', in Dieter Sanger and
Ulrich Mell (eds), Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur
210 Bibliography
paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (WUNT, 198;

f
Holladay, C. R., 'Theios aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use
of this Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS, 40;
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).
Hoppin, R., 'The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla's Letter', in A. Levine
and M. M. Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic
Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 147-70.
Horner, T., Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered
(Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 2001).
Horsley, R. A., 'Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos Distinctions of Spiritual
Status among the Corinthians', HTR 69 (1976): 269-88.
'Spiritual Marriage with Sophia', VC 33 (1979): 30-54.
Hovhanessian, V., Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian
Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000).
Hultgren, S., 'The Origin of Paul's Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Cor
15.45^*9', JSNT 25 (2003): 343-70.
Huppenbauer, H. W., Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten. Der Dualismus
der Texte von Qumran (Hohle I) und der Damaskusfragmente. Ein
Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangeliums (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag,
1959).
Janzen, G., 'Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk', CBQ 44
(1982): 394-414.
'Habakkuk 2.2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances', HTR
73 (1980): 53-78.
Janzen, J. G., 'Hagar in Paul's Eyes and the Eyes of Yahweh (Genesis 16):
A Study in Horizons', Horizons 13 (1991): 1-22.
Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1987).
Jervell, J., Imago Dei (FRLANT, 58; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1960).
Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict
Settings (AGJU, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971).
Jobes, K. H., 'Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in
Galatians 4.21-31', WTJ 55 (1993): 299-320.
Johnson, M., 'The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1.4', VT35 (1985):
257-66.
Johnson, S. E., 'The Davidic Royal Motif in John', JBL 87 (1968): 136-50.
Kaiser, W. C , Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1985).
Kaminsky, J. S., Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup,
196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Kamlah, E., Die Form der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament
(WUNT, 7; Tubingen: Brill, 1964).
Kampen, J. I., 'The Diverse Aspects of Wisdom in the Qumran Texts', in
Bibliography 211
P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after

Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (Leiden: Brill, 1998),
pp. 211-43.
Karrer, M., Der Gesalbte: die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT,
151; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
Kiley, M., 'Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3.6', JBL 106
(1987): 689-92.
Kim, S., Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of
Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
Kimball, C. A., Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel
(JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
Klein, G., 'Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus', in G.
Klein (ed.), Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze
am Neuen Testament (BevT, 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), pp. 180-224.
Kobelski, P. J., Melchizedek and Melchiresa (Washington, DC: Catholic
Biblical Association, 1981).
Koester, C. R., 'Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (Jn 1.45-
51)', JSNT 39 (1990): 23-34.
Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1990).
Kortner, U. H. J. and M. Leutzsch (eds and trans.), Papiasfragmente: Hirt
des Hermas (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998).
Kdstenberger, A. J., John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).
Kraus, H.-J., Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Hilton C.
Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Theology of the Psalms (trans. Keith Crim; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992).
Kraus, W., 'Johannes und das Alte Testament', ZNW 88 (1997): 3-14.
Kristeva, J., Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and
Art (ed. L. S. Roudiez; trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. S. Roudiez;
New York: Columbia University, 1980).
Kugel, J. L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998).
Kuntz, J. K., 'Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent
Research', CRBS 2 (1994): 77-106.
Kutscher, E. Y., Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1977 [Hebrew]).
'Hebrew Language', EJ 16:1593-1607.
A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982).
The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959).
Lane, Nathan, 'Exodus 34.6-7: A Canonical Analysis' (PhD diss.: Baylor
University, 2007).
212 Bibliography
Lange, A., 'Kriterien essenischer Texte', in J. Frey and H. Stegemann

(eds), Qumran Kontrovers: Beitrage zu den Textfunden vom Toten
Meer (Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), pp. 59-69.
Weisheit und Pradestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und
Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden:
Brill, 1995).
Leaney, A. R. C , The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning. Introduction,
Translation and Commentary (London: SCM, 1966).
Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles
(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961).
Leonhardt-Balzer, J., 'Evil, Dualism and Community: Who/What did the
Yahad not Want to Be?', in G. Xeravits (ed.), Dualism in the Dead
Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ, 84; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2001).
Leutzsch, Martin, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des
Urchristentums, 3; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1998).
'Der Logos und die Schopfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif. 2025)
und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1-18)', in J. Frey, and U. Schnelle,
(eds), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in
religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (WUNT, 1/175;
Levinsohn, S. H., Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A
Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek
(Dallas: SIL International, 2nd edn, 2000).
Licht, J., 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD', in C.
Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schertler,
4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2nd edn, 1965), pp. 88-99.
Lichtenberger, H., Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumran
gemeinde (SUNT, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980).
Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine!Hellenism in Jewish Palestine
(New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994).
Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
Lipscomb, W. L., and J. A. Sanders, 'Wisdom at Qumran', in J. Gammie
et al. (eds), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in
Honor of Samuel Terrien (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 277-
85.
Litwak, K. D., 'Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works
on Paul's Use of the Old Testament', CRBS 6 (1998): 260-88.
Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People
Intertextually (JSNTSup, 282; London: T & T Clark International,
2005).
Bibliography 213
Longenecker, B., The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of

Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998).
Longenecker, R., Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990).
Longman III, T., How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1988).
Loofs, F., Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen
theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (TU, 46; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930).
Mack, B. L., 'Exegetical Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism: A Program
for the Analysis of the Philonic Corpus', Studia philonica 3 (1974-75):
71-112.
Marcus, J., The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old
Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992).
Marcus, R., Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes),
supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus (LCL; Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1937).
Marmorstein, A., The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 1: The Names
and Attributes of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1927).
'Philo and the Names of God', JQR 22 (1931-32): 295-306.
Marshall, I. H., Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1978).
Martin, D., The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1995).
Martin, J. P., El Espiritu Santo en los origenes del Cristianismo: Estudio
sobre I Clemente, Ignacio, II Clemente y Justino Martir (Zurich: PAS
Verlag, 1971).
Martin, T. W., 'The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6', ZNW 90
(1990): 139-46.
Martyn, J. L., 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah' in John T. Carroll, et
al. (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92.
Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997).
Mateos, J. and Barreto, J., O Evangelho de Sao Jodo: Andlise Linguistica e
Comentdrio Exegetico (Sao Paulo: Edi9des Paulinas, 1989).
Matera, F., Galatians (SP, 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992).
Mathys, H.-P., Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spdtalttestamentlicher
Zeit (OBO, 132; Freiberg: Universitatsverlag, 1994).
Matlock, R. B., 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New
Theology of Paul', JSNT 72 (1998): 67-90.
Mayer, G., 'Die herrscherliche Titulatur Gottes bei Philo von
Alexandrien', in D. A. Koch and H. Lichtenberger, (eds), Begeg-
nungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter:
214 Bibliography
Festschrift fur Heinz Schreckenberg (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 293-302.
Mays, J. L . , ' "In a Vision": The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms'.
Ex Auditu 1 (1991): 1-8.
The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook of the Psalms (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
Mazzanti, A. M., 'L'aggettivo MEQORIOS e la doppia creazione
dell'uomo in Filone di Alessandria', in U. Bianchi, (ed.) La 'doppia
creazione' dell'uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi
(Rome: Edizioni dell' Anteneo & Bizzarri, 1978), pp. 25-42.
McCann, J. C , 'Preface', in J. C. McCann, (ed.), The Shape and Shaping
of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993), pp. 1-10.
'Books I—III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter', in J.
C. McCann, (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter
(JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 93-
107.
McCarter, P. K., Jr., / / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction,
Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984).
McDonnell, K., 'Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan', TS 56 (1995): 209-36.
Meeks, W. A., The Moral World of the First Christians (Library of Early
Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
Menken, M. J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies
in Textual Form (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996).
Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(New York: United Bible Societies, 1975).
Michaels, J. R., John (NIBC 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989).
1 Peter (WBC, 49; Dallas: Word Books, 1988).
Miller, P. D., Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).
Misset van de Weg, M., 'The Sarah Imagery in I Peter', in L.V. Rutgers et
al (eds), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (CBET, 22;
Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 111-26.
Mittmann-Richert, U., Magnifikat und Benediktus: Die dltesten Zeugnisse
der judenchristlichen Tradition von der Geburt des Messias (WUNT, 2/
90; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
Mlakuzhyil, G., The Concentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel
(Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1987).
Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John (SP, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1998).
Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1998).
Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959).
Moyise, S., 'The Psalms in the Book of Revelation', in S. Moyise and M.
Bibliography 215
J. J. Menken (eds), The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T & T

Clark, 2004), pp. 231^46.
Muilenburg, J., 'A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh', in W. C. van
Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds), Studia Biblica et Semitica
(Festschrift T. C. Wriezen, Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1966),
pp. 223-51.
Munnich, O., Texte massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel\ in
Adrian Schenker, (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The
Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the
Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 9 3 -
120.
Murray, R., 'Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature', in R.
H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus (Chicago: The Lutheran
School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), pp. 109-31.
Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition
(London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2nd edn, 2004).
MuBner, F., Der Galaterbrief(HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974).
Nash, S. B., 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel', (PhD diss.:
Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000).
Newman, B. M., and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles
(UBS Handbook Series: Helps for Translators; New York: United
Bible Societies, 1972).
Niehoff, M. R., 'Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in
Philonic Midrash', HTR 97 (2004): 4 1 3 ^ 4 .
Nolland, J., Luke 1-9.20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989).
Notley, R. S., 'The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect and the
Order of Blessing in the Christian Eucharist', in R. S. Notley, M.
Turnage and B. Becker (eds), Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in
the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 128-35.
'Jesus as a Teacher of the Law' (public paper delivered at Wycliffe
College, University of Toronto, September 2000).
'The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances', in Craig A. Evans
(ed.), Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity
(Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), pp. 279-311.
O'Connor, K. M., 'Abraham's Unholy Family: Mirror, Witness,
Summons', Journal for Preachers 21/1 (1997): 26-34.
O'Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1997).
O'Neill, J. C , ' "For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians
4.25)', in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New
Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup, 189;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210-19.
Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1973).
216 Bibliography
Oeyen, C , Eine fruhchristliche Engelpneumatologie bei Klemens von

Alexandrien (Erweiterter Separatdruck aus der Internationalen
Kirchlichen Zeitschrift: Bern, 1966).
'Die Lehre von den gottlichen Kraften bei Justin', St.Patr. 11 (1972):
214-21.
Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', OCP 31 (1933): 1-
140.
Osborne, G. R., Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002).
Osiek, C , 'Galatians', in C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (eds), Women's
Bible Commentary (Louisville: WJKP, exp. edn. 1998), pp. 423-7.
Osten-Sacken, P. von der, Gott und Belial (Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran;
SUNT 6; Gottingen 1969).
Parisot, J. (ed), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrations (PS I; Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1894).
Parunak, H. V. D., 'Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Formulas in
Jeremiah', in R. D. Bergen (ed.), Discourse Linguistics and Biblical
Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 489-519.
Parusev, Parus, Ovidiu Creanga and Brian Brock, Ethical Thinking at the
Crossroads of European Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third Annual
Theological Symposium (Prague: IBTS publishing, 2007).
Patrick, D., and A. Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield:
Almond Press, 1990).
Pearson, B. A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians:
A Study in the Theology of the Corinthians Opponents of Paul and its
Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: SBL, 1973).
Perriman, A., 'The Corporate Christ: Re-assessing the Jewish
Background', TynBul 50/2 (1999): 241^63.
Petersen, W. L,. 'The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An
Excursus on the 17th Demonstration', VC 46 (1992): 241-56.
Philonenko, M., 'Philon d'Alexandrie et l'instruction sur les deux esprits',
in A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (eds), Hellenica et
Judaica: homage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky (Leuven and Paris:
Editions Peeters, 1986), pp. 61-8.
Pierre, M.-J., 'Introduction', Aphraate Le Sage Person (trans. Pierre, M.-
J.; Les Exposes; vol. 1; SC, 349; Paris: Cerf, 1988).
Polhill, J. B., Acts (The New American Commentary, 26; Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).
Porter, S. E., 'Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in
Luke-Acts', in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing the Old Testament in the
New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 104-26.
Prigent, P., Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. W. Pradels;
Bibliography 217
Justin et VAncien Testament: L'argumentation scripturaire du traite de

Justin contre toutes les heresies comme source principale du Dialogue
avec Tryphon et de la premiere Apologie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre,
1964).
Propp, W. H., Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1999).
Puech, E., 'Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)', RevQ 60 (1992): 475-
522.
Punt, J., 'The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household Code of 1 Peter
3.7', South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46-56.
'Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Gal 4.21-5.1', Neot
40 (2006): 87-100.
'Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of
Faith in Galatians 4.21-5.1', Neot 40 (2006): 101-18.
Quispel, G., 'Genius and Spirit', in M. Krause (ed.), Essays on the Nag
Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Lahib (Leiden: Brill, 1975),
pp. 155-69.
Rainey, A. F. and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Cartas Atlas of the
Biblical World. (Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2006).
Raitt, T., 'Why Does God Forgive?' HBT 13 (1991): 38-45.
Ramsay, W. M., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place
in the Plan of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904).
Reiling, J. and J. C. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel
of Luke (London: UBS, 1971).
Revell, E. J., 'The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of
Biblical Hebrew', VT Al (1997): 91-110.
Richard, E. J., 'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles - a Study of the
Social Thought of 1 Peter', Word & World 24/4(2004): 412-20.
Richardson, R. L., 'From "Subjection to Authority" to "Mutual
Submission": The Ethic of Subordination in 1 Peter', Faith and
Mission 4(1987): 70-80.
Robinson, H. W., Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Biblical Series,
11; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).
Rodriguez-Ruiz, M., 'Estructura del Evangelio de San Juan desde el
punto de vista cristologico y eclesiologico', EstBib (1998): 75-96.
Rogerson, J. W., 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in Ronald E.
Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological,
Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37.
Roloff, J., The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. E.
Alsup; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Ruis-Camps, J., and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex
Bezae: A Comparison With the Alexandrian Tradition (LNTS;
London: T & T Clark, 2004).
218 Bibliography
Runge, S. E., A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant

Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative' (PhD diss.: University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007).
'Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Account of
the Parable of the Sower' (paper presented in the 'New Testament
Greek and Linguistics' Section of the SBL Annual Meeting,
Philadelphia, PA, 19-22 November 2005).
Runia, D. T., On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Atlanta:
SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Rusam, Dietrich, Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (BZNW, 112; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2003).
Saenz-Badillos, A., A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwold;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Safrai, S., 'Naming John the Baptist', Jerusalem Perspective 20 (May
1989): 1-2.
'Synagogue', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the
First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum,
1976), pp. 908^14.
'Synagogue and Sabbath', Jerusalem Perspective 23 (Nov.-Dec.
1989): 8-10.
Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1983).
Schafer, P., Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen
Literatur (Munich: Kosel, 1972).
Schaper, J., Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 76; Tubingen: J. C.
B. Mohr, 1995).
Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (KEKNT, 7; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1971).
Schlutz, K., Isaias 11.2 (Die sieben Gaben des Heiligen Geistes) in den
ersten vier christlichen Jahrhunderten (Minister: Aschendorff, 1932).
Schneider, T. J., Sarah. Mother of Nations (New York and London:
Continuum, 2004).
Schniedewind, W. M., Society and the Promise to David; The Reception
History of 2 Samuel 7.1-17 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1999).
Schreiner, T. R., The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
' "Works of Law" in Paul', NovT 33 (1991): 214-44.
Scroggs, R., The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966).
Segal, M. H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1927).
'Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to
Aramaic', JQR 20 (1908): 647-737.
Bibliography 219
Shepherd, G. T., 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 140-9.
Siegert, F., Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'Uber Jona,'
'UberJona' <Fragment> und 'liber Simson (WUNT, 61; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1992).
et al. (eds and trans.), Pseudo-Philon: Predications synagogales (SC,
345; Paris: Cerf, 1999).
Skinner, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930).
Slaughter, J. R., 'Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3.5-6)', BS
153 (1996): 357-65.
'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153
(1996): 63-74.
Sly, D. I., '1 Peter 3.6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus', JBL 110
(1991): 126-9.
Smalley, S. S., The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text
of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005).
Smith, Ralph, Micah-Malachi (WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984).
Snowman, L. V., 'Circumcision', EJ 5.571.
Soards, M. L., 'The Life and Writings of Paul', in M. A. Powell (ed.), The
New Testament Today (Louisville: WJK, 1999), pp. 86-99.
'The Psalter in the Text and Thought of the Fourth Gospel', in R. B.
Sloan and M. C. Parson (eds), Perspectives on John: Method and
Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1993), pp. 251-61.
Sparks, H. F. D., 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943):
129-38.
Spencer, A. B., 'Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10
(2000): 107-19.
Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962).
Sprinkle, P., Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early Jewish and
Christian Interpretation (WUNT; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008).
Staley, J., 'The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the
Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 241-64.
Stanley, C. D., Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the
Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004).
Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Stanton, G., 'The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr', in G. N.
Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, and S. C. Barton, (eds), The Holy Spirit
and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 321-34.
Steinhauser, M. G., 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal
4,21-31', Bib 70 (1989): 234-40.
220 Bibliography
Stenning, J. F., The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953).

Sterling, G. E., 'Wisdom among the Perfect: Creation Traditions in
Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity', NovT 37 (1995):
364-76.
Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and
the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).
Steudel, A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde
ab
(4QMidrEschat ) : Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung
und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174
('Florilegium') und 4Q177 ('Catena A') reprasentierten Werkes aus
den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
'Melchizedek', in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Oxford: Oxford
Stewart, C , Working the Earth of the Heart': The Messalian Controversy
in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1991).
Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash (trans. M.
Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Strugnell, J., and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential
Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Musar le Mebin): 4Q415ff; With a Re-
edition oflQ26 (DJD, 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999).
Stuckenbruck, L., Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 70;
Swanson, R. J., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings
Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus (Sheffield
Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1998).
Swete, H. B., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol.
3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912).
Talbert, C , Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the
Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982).
Tamez, E., 'Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom',
Word& World 20/3 (2000): 265-71.
Taylor, V., The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co.,
1957).
Thordarson, T. F., 'The Form-Historical Problem of Ex. 34.6-7' (PhD
diss.: Chicago Divinity School, 1959).
Tigchelaar, E. J. C , To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones:
Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential
Text 4QInstruction (STDJ, 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Tobin, T., The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation
(CBQMS, 14; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association,
1983).
Tov, E., 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in Light of the Septuagint',
Bibliography 221
in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint

(Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 333-62.
Trible, P., 'Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing', in Phyllis
Trible and Letty M. Russell (eds), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children:
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives (Louisville: WJKP, 2006),
pp. 33-69.
Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives
(OBT, 13; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Tsafrir, Y. and L. DiSegni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani:
IUDAEA-PALESTINA: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and
Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1994).
Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; ed. J. H.
Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976).
Tyson, J. B., Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina Press, 1992).
Umemoto, N., 'Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon', in M. Hengel
and A. M. Schwermer (eds), Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer
Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und der hellenistischen Welt
(WUNT, 55; Tubingen Mohr Siebeck 1991), pp. 207-6.
VanderKam, J. C , The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
Van der Kooij, A., 'The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of
its Text', ETL 68 (1992): 118-31.
Van der Merwe, C. H. J., et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
(electronic edn; Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Van Rensburg, F. J. J., 'Sarah's Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-
Historical Interpretation of the Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3.5-6
to take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness', Hervormde Teologiese
Studies 60 (2004): 249-60.
Verhey, A., The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).
Von der Osten-Sacken, P., Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in der Texten aus Qumran (SUNT,
6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969).
Von Rad, G., Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: WJKP, rev. edn,
1973).
Voobus, A., 'Methodologisches zum Studium der Anweisungen
Aphrahats', OrChr 46 (1962): 25-32.
Wacholder, B. Z., 'Chronomessiansim: The Timing of Messianic
Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles', HJJCA 46
(1975): 201-18.
Wakefield, A. H., Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul's
222 Bibliography
Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (SBLDS, 14; Atlanta:

SBL, 2004).
Waltke, B. K., 'A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms', in John S.
Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (eds), Tradition and Testament:
Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press,
1981), pp. 3-18.
'Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both', JBL 110 (1991): 583-96.
Walton, J. H., 'The Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant',
JETS 34 (1991): 21-31.
Wan, S.-K., 'Allegorical Interpretation East and West: A Methodological
Enquiry into Comparative Hermeneutics', in D. Smith-Christopher,
(ed.), Text and Experience. Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible
(The Biblical Seminar 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
pp. 154-79.
Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark,
2004).
Watson, W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques
(London: T & T Clark, 2001).
Watts, J. W., 'Biblical Psalms Outside the Psalter', in Peter W. Flint et al.
(eds), Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99;
Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 288-309.
Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
' "This Song": Conspicuous Poetry in Hebrew Prose,' in Johannes de
Moot (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42;
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1993), pp. 345-58.
Weiss, H. F., Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und
paldstinischen Judentums (TU, 97; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966).
Weitzman, S., Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a
Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Indiana Studies in Biblical
Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).
Wenham, G. J.; Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994).
Wernberg-Moller, P., The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated
with an Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957).
Wesselius, J. W., 'Alternation of Divine Names as a Literary Device in
Genesis and Exodus', in H. M. Niemann and M. Augustin (eds),
Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth
Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old
Testament, Leiden 2004 (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 35-
43.
'Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible',
SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77.
'From Stumbling Blocks to Cornerstones: The Function of
Problematic Episodes in the Primary History and in Ezra-
Bibliography 223
Nehemiah', in Riemer Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of

Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornells Houtman (Riemer Roukema a.
o., eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 37-63.
God's Election and Rejection: The Literary Strategy of the Historical
Books at the Beginning of the Bible (forthcoming).
'The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the Linguistic
Character of its Aramaic', Aramaic Studies 3 (2005): 241-83, 259-60.
The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint
for the First Books of the Bible (JSOTSup, 345; London: Sheffield
Academic Press and Continuum, 2002).
'The Origin of the Oldest Greek Version of Daniel' (forthcoming).
Wilken, R. L., 'The Interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus in the Later
Fathers', St.Patr. 11 (1972): 268-277.
Willitts, J., 'Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians
3.12', in TynBul 54 (2003): 105-22.
Wilson, G. H., 'The Shape of the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 129-42.
Winkler, G., 'A Remarkable Shift in Fourth-Century Creeds: An Analysis
of the Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Evidence', St.Patr. 17 (1982):
1396-1401.
'Ein bedeutsamer Zusammenhang zwischen der Erkenntnis und
Ruhe in Mt 11, 27-29 und dem Ruhen des Geistes auf Jesus am
Jordan: Eine Analyse zur Geist-Christologie in Syrischen und
Armenischen Quellen', Mus 96 (1983): 267-326.
Wintermute, O. S., 'Jubilees', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.) The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985),
pp. 5-142.
Witetschek, S., 'Der Lieblingspsalm des Sehers: die Verwendung von Ps 2
in der Johannesapokalypse', in M. A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint
and Messianism (BETL, 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006),
pp. 487-502.
Witherington III, B., Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to
the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
Wold, B. G., Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document
'Musar leMevin' and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions
(WUNT, 2/201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
Wolfson, H. A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam (2 vols; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1947).
Woude, A. S. van der, 'Fifty Years of Qumran Research', in P. W. Flint
and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A
Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 1-45.
Wright, G. E., God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM
Press, 1952).
224 Bibliography
Wright, N. T., The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1991).
Yadin, Y., 'A Midrash on 2 Sam. vii and Ps. i-ii (4Q Florilegium)', IEJ 9
(1959): 95-8.
Yee, G. A., 'Sarah (person)', ABD 5: 981-2.
Ziegler, J., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate
Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 13 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT 16.7-13 141 29.20 10

16.11 144 32 10, 11
Genesis 16.2 170 35 11
1 7 16.3 140 36 10
1-3 114 16.4 140 36.2-3 11
1.1 85, 98, 100 16.5 140 37.21-22 10
1.1-5 44 16.6 140 37.26-27 10
1.1-2.3 10 17 11,133 37.29-30 10
1.27 118, 120, 121, 124 17.2 144 37-50 15
(LXX), 125 17.6-7 144 37.10 11
2 32 17.8-14 144 37.21 11
2-3 32, 118 18 11 37.28 10
2.4 10,11 18.12 164, 165, 168 37.35 11
2.4-7 10 18.15 171 38 10, 11
2.7 118, 120, 124, 125 20 11 39.14 141
2.9 10 21 11 40.15 10
2.19 10 21.8-21 141 42 11
2.21-22 10 21.9 144, 151 42.13 10
3 10 21.9-11 145 42.22 10
3.6 140 21.10 172 43 11
4.17-22 11 21.12 170, 142 45.4 10
5.1-2 10 22.1-19 171 46.9 11
5.3-27 11 24 11 46.12 11
10.1 31 24.4-5 11 46.27 65
11.27-32 10 25.1 160 49.10 183
11.31 11 25.1-4 159 Exodus
12.1-5 10 26 11 1.7 65
12 11 26.8 141 1.8 66
12.1 10 26.34 11 1.8-14 64
12.5 11 27.1-46 10 1.15-21 13
12.6 10 27.46- 10 1.16 13
14 158 27.9 11 1.22 13
14.20 143 27.43 11 1.52 71
14.22 143 27.44 10 1.53 71
14.23 144 27.45 11 1.54 71
14.24 144 28.2 11 2 11,14
15.7 10 28.6 10 2.1 13, 16
16 11, 150 28.7 10 2.23 66, 71
16.1 139 28.9 11 2.23-25 64
16.1-2 140 28.10 10 3.13-15 11
16.4b-14 143 29 11
4.22 186 24.17 177, 185 10.21 13

6.2 11 26.58-59 14, 16 10.23 13
6.16-19 14 30.2 50 11 13
6.20 16 13 13
10.1-2 67 Deuteronomy 13.1 14
12.23 38,39,41,42 5.1 50 13.2 13
13.8 67 5.2-3 67 15 13
13.21-22 69 5.9 78 16-17 7
14 64 5.9-10 77 16 5,
14.9-12 66 5.10 79 16.4 19
14.11 66 6.5 52 16.4-5 12
14.30-31 64, 65 12.9-10 182 16.6-9 19
15 63, 64, 69, 73 18.15-18 52 16.10 19
15.1-2 65 31.19 57 16.11 12, 19
15.1-12 65 32 63 16.12 12, 23
15.1-18 62, 63 32.1-43 63 17 5
15.3 71 32.11 69 17.12 12, 13
15.3-10 65 33 179 17.15 12, 13, 19
15.7 71 Joshua 17.12-31 6
15.14-16 65 1.13 182 17.31-39 6, 13
15.16 71 21.42 182 17.41 6
15.17 69 22.4 182 17.50 6
15.17-18 65 23.1 182 17.55-58 6, 13
15.21 64 18 13
15.22 64 Judges 18.10-11 16
19.3-6 69 5 63 19.10 16
19.6 168 16.25 142 19.23-24 14
20 77 18 14 21.9 13
20.4 77 18.30 14 2 Samuel
20.5 78 20.28 14 7 179
20.6 79 1 Samuel 7.1-17 182
20.11 11 2 63 7.10-11 182-185
23.20 52 2.1-10 13, 63 7.10-14 182, 186
32 77 2.11 13 7.14 95-97, 182, 186
32.6 142 2.12-17 13 16.14-23 199
33-34 77 2.18 13 21.8 14
34.6 78,81 2.19-21 13 21.19 14
34.6-7 76-79, 81-83 2.21 13 22 63
34.34-35 69 2.22-25 13 23.3 105
Leviticus 2.26 13 1 Kings
18.5 126, 128, 130. 131, 2.27-36 13 5.18 182
133, 134, 136, 137 3.1 13 8.56 182
19.2 168 3.2-18 13 9.4 182
19.18 52 3.11-14 13 17.8-16 58
19.34 52 3.12 13
25.9 55 2 Kings
3.19 13 5.1-27 58
26.14-39 136 4 13
26.40-45 136 20.6 182
9.1-10.16 13
Numbers 9.2 13
11.17 190,199 1 Chronicles
9.21 13 16 63
14.18-19 77 10.10-13 14
16 14 16.8-36 63
10.17-27 13
Index of References 227
Ezra 109.30 65 58.1-9 53

4-6 15 110.1 168 58.3 56
110.1-3 53 58.5 53
Nehemiah 110.3 53 58.5-6 53, 57
9.9-10 68 113.5 65 58.5-7 56
9.17 77 114 69 58.5-8 56
Job 117 168 58.5-9 56
30.1 141 119.7 65 58.6 51, 53, 56
40.20 142 135.8 68 61.1 51, 55
136 69 61.1-2 50, 51, 53, 55-57
Psalms 144.8 77 61.1-4 53
1 91, 179 146.2 65 61.2 53, 54, 56
2 86, 89, 91, 179 146.7 55
2.1-2 175, 179, 182- 146.8 55 Jeremiah
186 6.15 168
2.6-7 96 Proverbs 7.11 52
2.8-9 176, 178, 185, 1-9 44 32.18 78
186 3.25 173 32.44 57
2.12 89, 101, 180 3.34 168 39.18 77
2.2 89, 98, 180 10.12 168
2.3 89 11.31 168 Ezekiel
2.5 101 30.23 140 20.11 136
2.6 89,98 20.13 136
2.6 182 Isaiah 20.21 136
2.7 53, 92, 95-100, 185, 8.12-13 168
186 8.14 168 Daniel
2.8 101, 177 11.1 177, 185 2-6 14
2.9 176, 177, 187 11.1-3 194-196 2.20-23 63
5 179 11.2 168,190,191,197, 7.13 186
8.7 168 198
21 168 11.2-3 188, 189, 198, Hosea
22.22 65 199 1.9-2 168
33 168 25.1 65 2.13 168
35.10 65 26.19 55 3.20 168
35.18 65 28.16 168 3.22 168
38.9 135 29.1 55
43.4 65 35.5 55 Joel
66.6 68 37.35 182 2.13 77
67 198 38.9-20 63 2.27 105
67.19 196, 197 40.1 105 2.29 107, 108
69.9 94, 100, 102 40.3 100 2.28-32 103
69.30 65 40.6-8 168 2.30 111
71.16 65 41.14 105 3.1 108, 196-198
71.19 65 42.7 55 3.2 197
77 67,69 42.18 55
78.13 68 43.20-21 168 Jonah
85.5 77,78 43.21 168 2.3-10 63
85.15 78 44.6 105 4.2 77
87 167 49.20-23 167
89.23 179 51.2 158 Nahum
89.26-27 97 53.4-12 168 1.2 77
102.8 77 54.1-3 166
102.17 79 54.1-13 167 Habakkuk
104.26 142 56.7 52 1.4 135
1.5 135 1.30-33 60 John

1.10 141 1.32-33 70 1.1-18 93
2.4 128, 130, 131, 134- 1.39-56 70 1.12-13 93
137 1.42 60,70 1.19-34 94
2.2-5 135, 136 1.45 70 1.19-51 93
3.2-19 135 1.46 60 1.19-4.54 86
1.46-47 71 1.19-4.54 93
Zechariah 1.46-49 79 1.20 94
3.9 188, 189, 191, 194, 1.46-55 79 1.27 97
195, 199 1.48 71 1.29-30 97
4.10 188, 189, 194, 195 1.49 71 1.29-34 96
8.5 142 1.49-50 80 1.31 195
1.50 79,81 1.32 196
Malachi 1.51 71 1.34 95,97
3.1 52, 70 1.52 71 1.35-41 94
3.1-3 54 1.54 79-81 1.38 97
3.24 70 1.58 79-81 1.41 92, 98
4.5-6 52 1.63 46 1.42-51 94
1.68-79 61, 71 1.45 85, 98, 99
1.72 79-81 1.49 92, 95, 98, 99, 101
NEW TESTAMENT 1.78 79,81 2.1-11 94
2.14 61 2.11 94
Matthew 2.21 46 2.13 100
3.10 54 2.29-32 61 2.13-25 94
3.16-17 186 3.3 55 2.13-25 100
3.17 92, 96, 99, 102 3.9 54 2.17 95, 100, 102
4.4 74 3.22 92, 96, 99, 102 3.1-3 94
5.7 59 4.16 47 3.6-7 94
5.45 58 4.16-30 47 3.10-12 94
6.1 56 4.17 49 3.13-21 94
6.33 56 4.18 51 3.16-18 101
7.1-2 58 4.21 56 3.22-30 94
11.3 54 4.21-22 50 3.31-3.36 94
11.10 52 4.22 50 3.34 198
11.12 54 4.23-27 56 3.35 101
18.10 191-5, 199 4.25-26 58 3.35-36 92, 100, 101
21.9 61 4.27 58 3.36 101
21.13 52 6.36 58 3.4 94
22.34-46 52 7.30 83 3.5 94
23.31 57 10.25-37 74, 81 3.8 94
10.25-40 52 3.9 94
Mark 10.27 83 4.1-25 94
1.11 92, 96, 99, 101, 10.29-37 52 4.26 94
102 10.37 76 4.26-54 94
1.4 55 10.38-42 83 4.54 94
11.17 52 11.46 83 6.45 74
11.9-10 61 11.52 83 7.41-43 96
12.28-34 52 16.16 54 8.39 158
14.27 74 19.38 61 12.13 61
19.46 52, 74 18.33-34 96
Luke 22.69-70 53 19.21 86
1.1-4 49 24.44 73 20.30-31 94, 99, 100
1.13-17 60 20.31 85, 93
1.17 70
Galatians 1 Timothy
2.17 104-8, 109, 113, 1.11-12 131 4.1 104
197 1.12 132
2.17-20 112 1.13-2 131 2 Timothy
2.17-21 103 2.2 132 3.1 104
2.18 104, 107, 108, 109, 2.16 133
197 2.19-21 132 Hebrews
2.19 111,112 2.20-21 134 1.5 92, 99, 102, 186
2.20 104, 111 2.21 129 5.5 92, 186
2.25-31 87 3.1 172 11 157
4.25-28 87, 92, 99 3.1-5 132 11.11 158, 160, 162
4.25-31 102 3.2-5 133
7.2-53 158 3.5 134 James
10.35 56 3.6 75 2 157
13.14-15 47 3.6-29 161
13.33 89, 99, 102 3.7 150 1 Peter
13.33-35 186 3.10-12 133 1.1 168
16.25 73 3.10-14 126 1.10-12 168
3.11 135 1.14 168
Romans 3.11-12 126 1.18 168
1.3^ 191 3.11-12 131, 132, 134 1.21 168
3.20 133 3.12 126, 129, 133 1.22 168
4 157 3.19-22 128, 129 2.1 168
4.19 158 3.19-25 128, 129 2.12-13 173
7.7-13 128 3.21 128, 134 2.17 171
8 121 3.22 128 2.18-25 170
8.3-4 128 3.23-25 130 2.21-25 168
9.7 158 3.28 173 2.22-25 168
10.5 133 4 156 2.3 168
11.33 122 4.3 151, 172 2.7-8 168
4.9 132 2.9 168
1 Corinthians 4.21-31 138, 139, 149, 3 156
2.7 122 150, 153, 154 3.10-12 168
2.12 121 4.21-5.1 158, 160 3.1-6 164, 170
2.13-15 123 4.24 167 3.14-15 168
3.1 123 4.26 167 3.14-16 170
4.1 122 4.27 162 3.15 164
12 197 4.29 151, 161 3.5 168
12.8 122 5 121 3.6 158, 168, 170, 171,
15 123 5.12 172 172, 173
15.1 132 5.15 172 3.7 162, 166, 171. 173
15.32 75 5.17 133 4.14 168
15.44-49 123 6.12-13 133 4.18 168
15.45 124 4.3-4 173
15.45-49 123 Ephesians 4.3-5 168
15.47 124 1.14 194, 199 4.6 168
15.49 124 4.8 196, 197 4.8 168
5.5 168
2 Corinthians Philippians 5.8 168
1.12 122 3.11-12 132
1.22 194, 199 1 John
5.5 194, 199 Colossians 4.1-6 28
9.9 56 1.16 194
Revelation 17.1-14 146 111,15-17 31, 40, 41

2.14 177, 186
2.18-29 176, 184 Odes of Solomon 111,15-18 30
2.26 102 29.6-8 186 111,17-18 31
2.26-27 178, 185-7 111,17-19 41
2.27 177 Psalms of Solomon
3.21 177 17.23-24 178 111,18-19 32
4.8 61 17.24-25 186 111,18 IV, 1 30
5.6 194 111,20 32
Testament of Levi
12.1 175
17.1-18.2 55 111,20-21 33, 40, 41
12.5 175, 186
14.1 175 111,21 32,41
19.15 186 TARGUMS 111,21-23 33
20.4 177
21.7 186 111,21-24 40
Neofiti
22.16 177, 185 Gen 16.5 148 111,23 44
111,24 30,41
APOCRYPHA Pseudo-Jonathan III, 24-IV, 1 33, 41, 42
Gen 16.1 148 IV, 1 35
Judith
IV, 11 33
16 64
IV, 12 36
16.1-17 62 D E A D SEA
IV,14 35
SCROLLS IV, 15 40
1 Maccabees
2.7-13 62 1Q27 IV, 15-16 43
l i 3 - 4 115 IV, 15-18 33, 40, 41
Tobit 4Q157 50 IV, 15-23 30, 34, 42
2.14 56 IV, 15-26 42
3.11-15 62 lQapGen: Genesis IV, 18-26 33
4.7 56 Apocryphon IV, 19-22 40
8.5-7 62 col. XX 145 IV,2 32,42
8.15-17 62 IV,2-6 32
11.14-15 62 1QH: Hodayot IV,2-8 30
13 64 5.19-20 117 IV,2-14 30
13.1-17 62 IV,21 35
lQpHab: Pesher to IV,22 40
Habakkuk IV,23 32
OLD TESTAMENT 7.11 134 IV,23-26 30,34,40,42
PSEUDEPI 7.14-8.3 134 IV,9-11 32
GRAPHA 12.4-5 134 IV,9-14 30, 42
a
lQS : Rule of the
Biblical Antiquities 1QS: Community Rule Congregation
8.1-3 145 3.15 115 1.6-7 116
3.18 117 2.11-12 186
1 Enoch 9.21-24 56 4Q174: Florilegium
53.3 36 11.3-4 115 4Q174 178-80, 183,
56.1 36 11,19 37 184, 186
62.11 36 III, 1-13 182
63.1 36 111,13-15 30,41
III,13-IV,14 34 III, 7 - 8 183
Jubilees 111,13-1 V,26 30 111,11-13 181
1.29-2.1 143 111,18-19 185
14.21-24 143 111,13 IV,26 28
III, 14-45 31 111,18-21 186
111,15 31, 35 111,19 184
4Q175: Testimonia
9-13
1.5-8 17752
4Q176: Tanhumim 14.6-8 116 Quis rerum divinarum

frag.l 2.4 49 1,4-11 181 heres sit 63-85 29
11,11-13 35
4Q181 35 11,13 35, 36 Legum allegoriae I
11,14-16 36 1.1 29
4Q252 182, 186 11,3 35 1.31 120
V,l-4 183 11,3-8 35
V,3 181 11,3-20 35 De mutatione nominum
11,6 36 255-256 147
4Q254 145 11,6-7 35
11,8 35 De opificio mundi
4Q265 IV,12-18 184 16-36 29
frag. 1,3 49 V,ll 36 134 120, 121
V,17-19 36 135 120
4Q365 144-5 VII,4 36
De plantatione
4Q416 46 38
1 116 JOSEPHUS AND
116 117 PHILO De posteritate Caini
130 147
Frg 2 col 1,1-6 44 Josephus
Antiquities Quod omnis probus liber
4Q417 1.10.4 152 5/7 81-82 47
1,1,13—18 116 1.186-193 146
1,1,13-18 119 4.209 47 Quaestiones et solutiones
1.1.16 117 in Exodum
1.1.17 118 War 1.23 28, 29, 37, 38, 41,
l,ii,12 117 42
frg 2 col 3, 14 44 5.379 166 12.23 28
4Q418
434 115 Philo De somniis
69 ii 116 De Abrahamo 1.24 147
69,ii,13 117 121 38 1.163 38
81 117 De cherubim
81,1-2 119 3 147
81,4-5 115 6 147 EARLY
8 147 CHRISTIAN
4Q423 118, 119 LITERATURE
De confusione linguarum
4Q504 68 161 38 3 Corinthians
182 38 2.1 191, 198, 199
4Q521 2.5 191
frag. 2 ii, 4.1-12 55 De congressu eruditionis 3.1 191
gratia
4QMysteries 11 147 Epistle to Barnabas
frg. 3a ii 44 20 147 18-20 28
71 147
11Q10 50 88 147 Didache
121-122 147 2.2-6.1 28
11Q13 55 23-24 147
2.13 54 Shepherd of Hermas,
Quod Deus sit immut- Mandate
Damascus Document abilis 10.1.3 192
10.6 116 116 38 10 7 1 107
10.2.5 192 Ta'anit 6.13 190

10.41.5 192 7 58 6.14 190
6.14-15 191, 194
Shepherd of Hermas, Yoma 6.17 192
Similitude 86 56 10.8 190
8.2.5 193 23 191
Avot of Rabbi Nathan
37 52 Clement of Alexandria
RABBINIC Excerpts from Theodotus
LITERATURE Exodus Rabbah 10 195
3.2 151
Mishna Paedagogus
Abot Genesis Rabbah 3.12.87 195
2.5 58 45.4 148
53.4 151 Stromata
Megillah 5.6.35 195
4.2 47 Midrash on the Psalms
4.4 50 2.1 186 Justin Martyr
2.9 186 Dialogue with Trypho
Sotah 39.2 196
7.7-8 47 Pesiqta Rabbati 82.1 196
48.3 151 85 198
Babylonian Talmud 87 198
Berakhot Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 87.3 196
34 54 30 148 87.4 196
30 151 87.5 197
Megillah 87.5-6 196
4.41 51 88.1 196
OTHER ANCIENT
Sanhedrin 88.3 195
WRITINGS
7.11 52 Laws of Hammurabi
99 54 Aphrahat 146 140
Demonstrations
Shabbat 1.9 188 Laws of Ur-Nammu
31 58 1.19 190 22-23 140
63 54 4.13 193
6 198 Papyrus 967 15
Sukkah 6.1 190, 193, 194
2.11 47 6.12 190
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aageson, J. W. 138 Bocher, O. 29

Achtemeier, P. J. 164^5, 173-4 Bock, D. L. 79, 82
Alexander, P. S. 28, 30 Bockmuehl, M. 49
Allen, L. C. 91 Booser, K. D. 93
Alsup, J. E. 177 Borgen, P. 119-20, 147
Amir, Y. 147 Boring, M. E. 169
Anderson, F. 135-6 Borse, U. 127
Asher, J. R. 123 Boyarin, D. 170
Augustin, M. 8 Brandenburger, E. 29
Auld, A. G. 7 Braude, W. G. 186
Aune, D. E. 28, 34, 177 Braun, H. 29
Austin, J. L. 64 Brenner, A. 155-8
Avemarie, F. 127 Brock, B. 60
Brock, S. 189, 192
Bachmann, M. 132 Brooke, G. J. 179-80
Bakhos, C. 148 Brown, J. K. 164, 170-3
Bakhtin, M. 75 Bruce, F. F. 95-6, 127, 129
Balch, D. L. 163-5, 173 Brueggemann, W. 77, 157
Barclay, J. M. G. 131-3 Bruns, P. 188, 190
Barker, P. G. 138 Bryant, R. A. 127
Barnes, M. R. 197 Buckel, J. 161
Barreto, J. 96 Bucur, B. G. 4, 195, 198
Barrett, C K. 76, 103-4, 108-9, 138, Buth, R. 50
149, 153, 161
Barthelemy, D. 6 Callaway, M. C. 138
Barton, S. C. 197 Cameron, A. 169
Batto, B. F. 64 Caquot A. 29
Bauckham, R. 175 Carroll, J. T. 138, 161
Baumstark, A. 192 Carson, D. A. 75
Beale, G. K. 175, 177-8, 186 Carter, W. 164
Becker, B. 55 Castelli, E. A. 150-3
Becker, S. 2 Charlesworth, J. H. 30
Beckwith, R. T. 86-7 Chazon, E. 69
Berg, W. 140 Childs, B. S. 69, 87, 90
Bergen, R. D. 106 Chilton, B. 61
Bernstein, M. 28 Collins, J. J. 15, 32, 34-5, 43-4, 95,
Betz, H. D. 129-31, 152 116-20
Betz, O. 28 Coloe, M. 93
Bianchi, U. 27, 29 Connolly, R. H. 199
Bivin, D. 48 Conzelmann, H. 47, 1 0 3 ^ , 109
Bligh, J. 153 Corley, K. E. 163, 166
Cosgrove, C. H. 128, 161 Forbes, G. 166-7, 173

Craigie, P. C. 98 Fowl, S. E. 160, 167-9
Cramer, W. 193 Fowler, A. 61
Creanga, O. 60 Fraade, S. D. 51
Crim, K. 86 Frankovic, J. 52
Croft, S. J. L. 87 Fredrikson, N. I. 192
Cross, F. M., Jr. 67 Frey, J. 28, 30, 45, 121-2
Culpepper, R. A. 93 Fung, R. Y. K. 127
Dahl, N. A. 38 Gammie, J. G. 34, 44

Davies, P. R. 157 Garcia Martinez F., 31-3, 69, 115,
Davila, J. R. 192 118, 179
Dawson, D. 167-8 Gartner, B. 181
de Boer, M. 95-6, 162 Gathercole, S. 132
DeConick, A. D. 199 Gaventa, B. R. 131-2
de Moot, J. 62 Geiger, A. 48
den Braber, M. 8 Geldenhuys, N. 83
de Urbana, O. 188, 190 Gignac, A. 134, 136
Dietrich, W. 7 Gileadi, A. 182
Di Leila, A. A. 15 Gillingham, S. E. 62
DiSegni, L. 46 Giversen, S. 147
Doeve, J. W. 51 GleBmer, U. 50
Doner, J. P. 162 Goff, M. J. 3, 114-16, 118
Dowd, S. 166, 169, 171 Golitzin, A. 192
Duhaime, J. 34 Gomes, P. J. 98
Dunn, J. D. G. 121, 127, 130, 132, Gora, T. 75
159, 161, 168, 181 Green, J. 46
Durham, J. 87 Green, J. B. 54, 61, 70, 80
Dvorak, J. G. 96 Greenspahn, F. E. 147
Grindheim, S. 122
Eastman, S. G. 172 Grotius, H. 47
Eaton, J. W. 87, 99 Gunkel, H. 71
Ebeling, G. 161 Gunn, D. M. 157, 159
Eckstein, H. J. 127, 133
Elgvin, T. 114-15 Haacker, K. 29
Eliade, M. 27 Haak, R. D. 135
Elliger, K. 104 Haas, C. 193
Elliott, J. H. 162-4, 170-1 Ham, C. 101
Ellis, E. E. 96, 138 Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 119
Ellis, P. 93 Hamman, A. G. 30
Elwold, J. 48 Hanks, T. 162, 164-5, 172, 174
Emerson, C. 75 Harnack, A. 167
Evans, C. A. 50, 52, 75, 87, 175, 178 Harrington, D . J . 114-17
Hasel, G. 88
Falk, D. K. 122 Hatch, E. 52
Farris, S. 70-1, 79-80 Hays, R. B. 2, 75, 126, 128, 133, 138,
Feinberg, J. S. 87 149, 151
Feinberg, P. D. 87 Heckert, J. K. 107
Fewell, D. N. 157, 159 Hemer, C. J. 185
Fischer, R. H. 188 Hempel, C. 121
Fitzmyer, J. A. 48, 50-1, 79-82, 108 Hengel, M. 38, 87
Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 100 Hepner, G. 166
Flint, P. W. 15, 29-30, 44, 62 Hofius, O. 132
Flusser, D. 46, 52-5, 57-8 Hogan, K. M. 119-20
Index of Authors 235
Holladay, C. R. 29 Lieberman, S. 53
Holquist, M. 75 Lindars, B. 97
Hoppin, R. 159 Lipscomb, W. L. 44
Homer, T. J. 197 Litwak, K. D. 61, 75
Horsley, R. A. 29, 125 Longenecker, B. W. 128-31, 133,197
Hovhanessian, V. 191 Longenecker, R. N. 127, 129, 133
Hultgren, S. 120-1, 123, 125 Longman, T., Ill 90
Huppenbauer, M. W. 28, 30-1, 33, Loofs, F. 188, 191
37, 43
Mack, B. L. 119
Janzen, G. 135-6, 168 Madas-Lebel, M. 29
Jardine, A. 75 Malbon, E. S. 150
Jeremias, J. 57 Marcus, J. 96
Jervel, J. 120 Marcus, R. 39
Jewett, R. 121 Marmonstein, A. 38
Jobes, K. H. 161-2 Marshall, I. H. 50, 103
Johnson, E. E. 161 Martin, D. 121, 124
Johnson, M. D. 135 Martin, J. P. 197
Johnson, S. E. 95, 97 Martin, T. W. 165, 171
Martyn, J. L. 128-9, 131-3, 151, 161
Kaiser, W. C , Jr. 74 Mateos, J. 96
Kaminsky, J. S. 181-2 Matera, F. 127
Kamlah, E. 28 Mathys, H.-P. 62
Kampen, J. I. 29, 44 Matlock, R. B. 130
Karrer, M. 178 Mayer, G. 38
Kiley, M. 165-6, 169-70, 173 Mays, J. L. 87-8, 91-2, 99
Kim, S. 127 Mazzanti, A. M. 29
Kimball, C A. 74 McCann, J. C. 90-1
Klein, G. 127 McCarter, P. K , Jr. 183
Knibb, M. A. 175 McDonnell, K. 196
Kobelski, P. J. 55 McKnight, E. V. 150
Koch, D. A. 38 Meeks, W. A. 163
Koester, C. R. 97 Mell, U. 132
Koester, H. 122 Menken, M. J. J. 95, 175
Kostenberger, A. J. 85, 97 Metzger, B. M. 103, 105
Kraus, H.-J. 72, 86, 88, 90, 95-6 Michaels, J. R. 96, 101, 164, 168,171
Kraus, W. 98 Miller, P. D. 71, 91
Kreitzer, L. J. 100 Miller, T. 3
Kristeva, J. 75 Mittmann-Richert, U. 70-2
Kugel, J. L. 60 Moloney, F. J. 96
Kuntz, J. K. 90 Moulton, J. H. 48
Kutscher, E. Y. 48 Mounce, R. H. 177
Mowinckel, S. 71, 87-8, 90, 98
Lane, N. 2, 78 Moyise, S. 152, 175
Lange, A. 28, 31, 35, 116, 118, 121 Muilenburg, J. 69
Leaney, A. R. C. 28, 30-1, 35-6 Munnich, O. 15
Lenski, R. C H. 103, 108 Murray, R. 188, 194
Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 1, 35, 38, 45 MuBner, F. 127
Leutzsch, M. 192
Levine, A. J. 159, 164 Najman, H. 118
Levine, L. J. 51 Nash, S. 2, 86, 99, 101
Levinsohn, S. H. 108 Newman, B. M. 108
Licht, J. 28, 30-1, 34 Newman, J. H. 118
Lichtenberger, H. 34, 38, 121 Newsom, C. A. 159, 166
Nida, E. A. 108 Robbins, M. M. 159, 164

Niehoff, M. R. 157, 170 Robinson, H. W. 180-1
Niemann, H. M. 8 Rodriguez-Ruiz, M. 93
Nolland, J. 76 Rogerson, J. W. 181
Notley, R. S. 2, 46, 51-5 Roloff, J. 177
Roudiez, L. S. 75
O'Connor, K. M. 169 Roukema, R. 8
O'Connor, M. 106 Ruis-Camps, J. 103, 105, 109
Oepke, A. 129 Runge, S. 3, 106, 108
Oeyen, C. 195, 198 Runia, D. T. 120
O'Neill, J. C. 152 Rusam, D. 61
Osborne, G. R. 79, 177, 185 Russell, L. M. 140
Osiek, C. 159, 170 Rutgers, L. V. 164
Oswald, M. C. 72
Saenz-Badillos, A. 48
Parisot, J. 188 Safrai, S. 46-9
Parry, D. W. 116 Sanders, E. P. 129
Parson, M. C. 98 Sanders, J. A. 44, 75, 175, 178
Parunak, H. V. D. 106 Sanger, D. 132
Parushev, P. 60 Sbisa, M. 64
Pastor, J. 127 Schafer, P. 189
Patrick, D. 64 Schaper, J. 91
Pearson, B. A. 124-5 Schenker, A. 15
Perriman, A. 181 Schiffman, L. H. 50, 55, 115
Petersen, W. L. 188-9 Schliitz, K. 189, 194, 199
Philonenko, M. 29 Schneider, T. J. 155-6, 159, 164, 166,
Piene, M. J. 188 170, 174
Pierre, M.-J. 188, 190-1, 194 Schnelle, U. 45
Pietersma, A. 6 Schniedewind, W. M. 182
Polhill, J. B 103, 105 Schreiner, T. R. 127, 132
Porter, S. E. 50, 103 Schussler Fiorenza, E. 163
Powell, M. A. 168 Schwemer, A. M. 38
Pradels, W. 178 Scroggs, R. 121
Prigent, P. 178, 197 Scult, A. 64
Propp, W. H. C. 67, 69 Segal, A. F. 38
Puech, E. 55 Segal, M. H. 48
Punt, J. 3, 156, 158, 162 Seland, T. 28
Shepherd, G. T. 89
Quek, T.-M. 4 Shepherd, J. 91
Quispel, G. 199 Siegert, F. 190, 197-8
Skinner, J. A. 142
Rabin, C 28 Slaughter, J. R. 163-5, 173
Rainey, A. F. 51 Sloan, R. B. 98
Raitt, T. 77 Sly, D. I. 164, 170-1, 173
Ramsay, W. M. 185 Smalley, S. S. 177, 185
Read-Heimerdinger, J. 103, 105, 109 Smith, R. 135
Redpath, H. A. 52 Smith Christopher, D. 167
Reiling, J. 81 Snowman, L. V. 46
Reumann, J. 180 Soards, M. L. 98-9, 168
Revell, E. J. 106 Sparks, H. F. D. 48, 61
Riauel, J. 29 Spencer, A. B. 163
Richard, E. J. 162, 171 Sperber, A. 53
Richardson, R. L. 163, 170, 173 Sprinkle, P. 3, 126, 137
Ringe, S. H. 159, 166 Staley, J. 93
Index of Authors 237
Stanley, C. D. 74, 138, 160, 168 van de Weg, M. M. 164-5

Stanton, G. N. 197 van Rensburg, F. J. J. 158-9
Stegner, W. R. 87 van Unnik, W. C. 69
Steinhauser, M. G. 138 Verhey, A. 161
Stemberger, G. 49, 52-3 Vermes, G. 28, 30
Stendahl, K. 173 von der Osten-Sacken, P. 34, 42
Stenning, J. F. 53 von Rad, G. 142
Sterling, G. E. 125 Voobus, A. 188
Stern, M. 47
Sternberg, M. 66 Wacholder, B. Z. 55
Steudel, A. 55, 115, 178-80 Wakefield, A. H. 127
Stewart, C. 189 Waltke, B. K. 87
Strack, H. L. 49, 52-3 Walton, J. H. 87
Strugnell, J. 114, 116-17 Wan, S.-K. 167
Stuckenbruck, L. 193 Watson, F. 127, 131, 137-8, 149
Swellengrebel, J. C. 81 Watson, W. G. E. 106
Watts, J. W. 62-3, 65-6, 69
Talbert, C. H. 83 Weiss, H. F. 29
Tamez, E. 161 Weitzman, S. 62
Taylor, B. A. 6 Wenham, G. J. 141, 160
Taylor, V. 57 Wernberg-Moller, P. 32, 36, 44
Thordarson, T. F. 82 Wesselius, J.-W. 1, 5, 8-9, 15-16
Tigchelaar, E. 31-3, 69, 114-16 Westermann, C. 71
Tobin, T. 119-20 Wilken, R. L. 196
Tov, E. 7, 16 Williamson, H. G. M. 76
Trible, P. 140, 142, 157-8 Willitts, J. 128, 130
Tsafrir, Y. 46 Wilson, G. H. 87, 90
Turnage, M. 55 Winkler, G. 196
Turner, N. 48 Wintermute, O. S. 143
Tyson, J. B. 76-7 Witetschek, S. 175, 177-8, 187
Witherington, Ben, III 149, 152
Ulrich, E. 116 Wold, B. G. 114,116
Ulrichsen, J. H. 28 Wolfson, H. A. 38
Umemoto, N. 38 Wright, B. G. 6
Urmson, J. O. 64 Wright, G. E. 77
Wright, N. T. 126
VanderKam, J. C. 29-30, 44, 50, 55,
143-4 Xeravits, G. 35, 118
van der Kooij, A. 6
Van der Merwe, C. H. J. 107 Yadin, Y. 28, 180
van der Woude, A. S. 30, 69 Yee, G A. 156, 159

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 2 Exegetical Studies Library of New Testament Studies 392

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 2 Exegetical Studies Library of New Testament Studies 392

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM A N D

Volume 2: Exegetical Studies

Published by T&T Clark

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

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset, UK.

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, published as two volumes,

1. A NEW VIEW ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SEPTUAGINT AND

2. A CASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DUALISM: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

3. JESUS' JEWISH HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN THE NAZARETH

4. THE MAGNIFICAT AMONG THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE-SET PSALMS 60

5. A N ECHO OF MERCY: A REREADING OF THE PARABLE OF THE

6. PSALM 2 AND THE SON OF GOD IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 85

7. JOEL 2.28-32A IN ACTS 2.17-21: THE DISCOURSE AND

8. GENESIS 1-3 AND CONCEPTIONS OF HUMANKIND IN

10. SURROGATE, SLAVE AND DEVIANT? THE FIGURE OF HAGAR IN

11. SUBVERTING SARAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: GALATIANS 4

12. T WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS':

13. EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 11.2 IN APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE 188

AAeg Analecta aegyptaica

ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen

BAG W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-

BibS(N) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951—)

CG Coptic Gnostic Codex

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

FFRS Facets and Foundations - Reference Series

HTKNTSup Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

LAI Library of Ancient Israel

NewDocs G. H. R. Horsley (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early

RevQ Revue de Qumran

SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical

SPB Studia postbiblica

TJT Toronto Journal of Theology

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

Scot Becker, University of Aberdeen

Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias

Scholarly interest and research in Jewish and Christian scriptural

1 For the convenience of our readers we have assembled a Selected Bibliography on

in Qumran thought served the purpose of theodicy. Leonhardt-Balzer

it is this portrait, focused on Psalm 2, that provides the introduction for

A New View on the Relation between Septuagint and Masoretic

It is generally recognized that the main subject of 1 Samuel 16 and 17 is

This article originated as a paper 'A Reconsideration of the Septuagint Version of 1

for the Masoretic Text of these chapters is highly problematic. The

4 Jan-Wim Wesselius, 'Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew

7 A complete discussion of this figure is in my God's Election and Rejection.

Table 1 Table of the introduction of the subjects of the eight biographies in

Movement to The world Canaan Haran Egypt

Version 1 Gen. 1.1-2.3 Gen. 11.27-32 Gen. 27.1-46 Gen. 37.21-22

Version 2 Gen. 2.4-7 Gen. 12.1-5 Gen. 27.46-28.9 Gen. 37.26-27

Apparent point Gen. 2.4 Starting point of Rebekah's plan Sequence of

Point of friction Man made before Abram is to go No reaction on Reuben is

Moses Samuel Saul David

Exod. 2.1 1 Sam. 4 1 Sam. 11 1 Sam. 18

Humankind Abraham Jacob Joseph

Confirmation of For in six days... Abram is from Wives of Esau Genealogy of

similar, though the appreciation is completely different: in ch. 16 David,

Moses Samuel Saul David

Israelites very Numbers of Israelites, David as musician or

Moses is closely Merab, Michal (2

Num. 16 1 Sam. 13 and 15

Moses' family (Exod. Saul's uncle

'old men' of Bethlehem in both (16.4-5; 17.12), and David is summoned