Private Synagogues: What They Were Used For?

1 The Copper Scroll and the Treasures of the First Temple* Hannan Eshel and Zeev Safrai 1. The Copper Scroll and Tractate Kelim The Copper Scroll is one of the strangest documents found in the Qumran caves. This scroll was incised with a chisel on three copper sheets, attached to one another with nails, to produce a scroll approximately 2.40 m long and 30 cm high.1 Ever since the scroll was This article was co-authored with Ze’ev Safrai and originally publishedin Cathedra 103 (2002): 7–20 (Hebrew). 1 The scroll was found in 1952. Since the copper rolls were buried in dirt and exposed to dust for thousands of years, they lost their pliability and any attempt to unroll the scroll would have caused it to crumble. The Jordanians decided not to attempt to open the scroll right away, but rather to investigate how to go about opening it. In 1956 the scroll was sent to Manchester, England, where it was cut into 23 strips. The curved shape of the copper strips made it impossible to properly photograph them since some part of each strip was always out of focus. The first two editions of the scroll saw publication in 1960. John Allegro, who had been in Manchester when the scroll was opened, published the first. See John M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll (NY: Doubleday, 1960). The second edition was published the same year by Józef T. Milik, the scholar who had been assigned the publication of the Copper Scroll for the official Dead Sea Scrolls publication series. See Józef T. Milik, “The Copper Document from Cave III of Qumran,” ADAJ 4-5 (1960): 137–55. Two years later he published the official edition; see Józef T. Milik, “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15),” in Maurice Baillet, et al. (eds.),Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 201–302. Shortly thereafter Ben-Zion Luria published a Hebrew edition: Ben-Zion Luria, The Copper Scroll from the Judean Desert (Publications of the Israel Bible Research Society 14; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963). In 1996, Al Wolters published a new * 2 opened in 1956 scholars have disputed these most basic questions: Is the scroll a factual record of genuine artifacts? If not, why was it written? If it does reflect reality, then when were the treasures hidden? Why? And by whom? The Copper Scroll was found in the course of an authorized organized archaeological excavation. During an archaeological survey of the limestone caves west of Khirbet Qumran, conducted by Roland de Vaux and William Reed, many sherds of Galilean type storage jars were found in a collapsed cave around 2 km north of Khirbet Qumran. Henri de Contenson and J. T. Milik supervised the excavation of the collapsed edition for a conference honoring the 40th anniversary of the opening of the scroll: Albert M. Wolters, The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Translation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). In 1993 the French Electric Company (EDF) volunteered to assume responsibility for preserving the metal strips on display in the museum in Amman, which had not received any conservation treatment since originally opened. As part of the conservation process the EDF developed a computer program to integrate multiple photographs of the Copper Scroll and produce a clear composite image, which enabled the EDF staff to reconstruct the text of the scroll. Émile Puech examined the scroll using various microscopes while it was in Paris, in addition to relying on high-resolution photographs., As a result of this work, Puech suggested a significant number of improvements upon previous readings. See Émile Puech, “Quelques résultats d'un nouvel examen du Rouleau de Cuivre (3Q15),” RevQ 18 (1997): 163–90. In this article, we follow the text of the most recent edition: Judah K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll (3Q15): A Reevaluation (STDJ 25; Leiden: Brill, 2000), though we have standardized the placement of medial and final letters, hence, e.g., ‫ פנת>פןת‬in col.11, line 2, and ‫ האכסדרן> האכסדרנ‬in col. 11, line 3. [English translations have been added to this article, based again on Lefkovits, though with minor changes occasionally. – eds.] 3 cave. Prior to this discovery Bedouin had uncovered scrolls in two caves to its south, so this was designated as Cave Number 3. The copper scroll was found on 20 March 1952 in a loculus near the opening of the collapsed cave. Lying just a bit deeper in the same loculus were some fragments written on leather and papyrus. Among these it was possible to identify a fragment of Ezekiel, a fragment of Psalms, two fragments of Lamentations, a fragment of a pesher to the book of Isaiah, and three fragments of the book of Jubilees. About fifty additional scroll fragments were discovered in this loculus which scholars have as yet been unable to identify.2 The Copper Scroll was originally placed in the opening of the loculus with two of the copper sheets rolled together, and the third sheet rolled separately. The scroll is dated by paleography to the midfirst century CE.3 With the opening of the scroll, a difference of opinions arose among Qumran scholars as to whether the treasures described in the scroll were genuine treasures or fictional inventions. Those who argued that the composition was fictional pointed to the vast quantities of gold and silver recorded in the scroll.4 The scroll records the hiding places of See Maurice Baillet, “Textes des Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q 7Q a 10Q,” in DJD 3:94–104. On the fragments of Jubilees from Cave 3, see Alexander Rofé, “Further Manuscript Fragments of the Jubilees in the Third Cave of Qumran” Tarbiẓ 34 (1965): 333–36; Maurice Baillet, “Remarques sur le manuscrit du livre des Jubilés de la grotte 3 de Qumran,” RevQ 5 (1965): 423–33. 3 See Frank Moore Cross, “Excursus on Paleography” (excursus to Milik, “Le roulaeu de cuivre”), DJD 3:217–21. 4 Most prominent among the scholars who maintained that the treasures listed in the scroll were fictional were J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux, 2 4 approximately 4500 talents of silver and gold, and such items as 165 gold buillion. A talent weighs approximately 21.3 kg; and thus the scroll purports to record the hiding places of almost 100 tons of silver and gold!5 On the other hand, those scholars who view the treasures as genuine pointed to the fact that the scroll was written on copper, a rather expensive material, in order to ensure that it would be preserved for a long time. They also maintained that the very detailed descriptions of the hiding places suggest authenticity. Scholars who maintain that the treasures are real can be divided into two groups: those who contend the treasures belonged to the Qumran Community, and those who believe the treasures originated in the Jerusalem Temple.6 L.G. Harding, and F.M. Cross. See the discussion and bibliography in Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 455. 5 See the details in Appendix A in Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 471–88. Lefkovits suggested that the scroll could be read as indicating lesser amounts of gold and silver if we take the abbreviation ‫ ככ‬to stand for ‫כסף‬ ‫‘כרש‬silver karsh’ (1 karsh = 10 sheqels) rather than ‫‘ ככרות כסף‬talents of silver’, as it is generally understood. Even by his accounting, the treasures listed in the Copper Scroll would still come to nearly 60,000 kg of silver and gold. Recently, Robert Feather attempted to compare the treasures of the Copper Scroll to various artifacts that have been found in Egypt, especially those from Tutankhamun’s tomb. See Robert Feather, The Copper Scroll Decoded (London: Thorsons, 1999). 6 Among the notable scholars who accepted the authenticity of the treasures, and understood them to be the property of the Qumran Community, were K.G. Kuhn, J. M. Allegro, A. Dupont–Sommer, and B. Pinsker. In support of the view that the Qumran sect was a wealthy group, see David Flusser, “Qumran and the Famine during the Reign of Herod,” The Israel Museum Journal 6 (1987): 7–16. Later, Kuhn and Allegro changed their minds to consider that the treasures originated in 5 A text bearing some resemblance to the Copper Scroll is Tractate Kelim. This “tractate” (not to be confused with Tractate Kelim of the Mishnah and Tosefta—Eds.) is a short midrashic work in fourteen sections (“mishnayot”) that describes the concealment of silver and gold treasures together with the vessels of the First Temple. This midrash was printed in an anthology of midrashim gathered by R. Abraham, the son of , Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, known as the Vilna Gaon, in his book Rav Peʿalim at the end of Midrash Aggadat Bereshit (Genesis), and in a number of other collections.7 This midrash describes the vessels of the First Temple and all of the Temple treasures, which, it states, were hidden by the Levites. It states that most of the vessels were hidden in Baghdad and in the city-wall of Babylon, and a small portion of the treasures were hidden in the land of Israel. According to the author of the Jerusalem Temple. Other proponents of this view included C. Roth, G.R. Driver, H. Gevaryahu, N. Golb, P. K. McCarter, and H. Stegemann. See the bibliography in Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 455–59. 7The citations below are from Aggadat Bereshit (Warsaw, 1876), 50– 51.There are important textual variations among the different versions. See Adolf Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrash (6 vols.; Vienna 1853), 2:19–88; Abraham son of Eliyahu, Rav Peʿalim (Warsaw, 1894), 16–18; Judah David Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim: An Anthology of Midrashim (no date or place of publication), 260–62. Tractate Kelim is included in Ben-Zion Luria’s edition of the Copper Scroll, 47-49. Oddly, there are some scholars who maintain that the discovery of Tractate Kelim offers proof of the authenticity of the Copper Scroll. However, if Tractate Kelim were an authentic document recording the concealment of genuine treasures, it would not have been copied as part of a collection of midrashim, but rather preserved as a secret work. Rather, the similarity to Tractate Kelim indicates that the Copper Scroll is a creative fictional composition of some other literary genre. O.K – Z.S 6 this work, the vessels will be uncovered one day in the far future, and the funds will be used in the future Temple. The midrash in its extant form was composed after the Arab Conquest, when Baghdad became the capital of Iraq, and probably later than the 8th century C.E., when the center of Jewry moved to Baghdad. As we will show below, the midrash reflects Iraqi local-patriotic views. The author believed that the remains of the actual Temple were located in Babylonia.8 This view reflects a tendency found in the writings of the Babyloniam amoraim to represent their location as the region in which the Divine Presence (Shekhina) dwelled in their day.9 There are a number of points of similarity between Tractate Kelim and the Copper Scroll, which are indicators of a common literary genre: (1) Tractate Kelim states the list was written by “Shimur the Levite and his colleagues on a copper plate.” (2) According to Tractate Kelim the vessels of the Temple made This belief was based on Ezek 43:7: “He said to me: Mortal, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever.” In order to affirm this view, there were Jews in Babylonia who claimed that some of the stones of the Temple had been incorporated into Babylonian synagogues. See Isaiah M. Gafni, “ Synagogues in Babylonia in the Talmudic Period,” in Ancient Synagogues; Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (vol. 1; ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 221–31. 9 See Gafni, “Synagogues”; idem, Land, Center and Diaspora (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1977); Ze’ev Safrai, “The Babylonian Talmud as a Conceptual Foundation for Aliyah to the Land of Israel,” in The Ingathering of Exiles—Aliyah to the Land of Israel: Myth and Reality (ed. Devora Hacohen; Jerusalem The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History,1998), 73–83 (Hebrew). 8 7 by King Solomon were hidden away, as were gold and silver hoards. The Copper Scroll contains a detailed description of hidden gold and silver treasure hoards. (3) Section 10 of Tractate Kelim states that some treasures were hidden in Kakhal Spring; in the Copper Scroll ,“Koḥlit”appears in a description of the hiding-places for five of the treasures. (4) Tractate Kelim notes that in addition to the treasures listed in the composition itself there exist additional treasures, and another scroll, which “nobody knows where it was concealed.” In the concluding section of the Copper Scroll we read that “an additional copy of the list,” with greater detail than the Copper Scroll itself, was hidden in a water cistern in Yanaoḥ. 2. The Unrealistic Character of the Copper Scroll If the Copper Scroll were a list of genuine treasures – or even of imaginary treasures, and believed by its author[s] to contain some authentic details – it would have been a secret document, preserved with extreme discretion, for the use of a very few trustworthy individuals. In antiquity one who concealed possessions in hiding-places did not then publicize the list of places in which he had hidden his wealth. If such a list would have been written at all, it would have been produced like all other documents of that period—on leather or papyrus. The incision of the composition on copper sheets has the character of ritual, intended to make the point that the list was written in order to withstand the vicissitudes of time, and that it would survive 8 for many years.10 It thus seems that the scroll was intended to be used for religious purposes with an ideological significance, and it ought not be seen as a technical document of financial importance.11 Further proof of the fictional nature of the Copper Scroll is the note found at the end of the scroll, asserting that there is another, more detailed, copy of the scroll, hidden in Yanaoḥ, north of Koḥlit. This item (Item 60) is described in col. 12 as follows:12 ‫בשיתשבינחבצפוןכחלתפתחאצפון‬.10 ‫ וקבריןעלפיהמשנאהכתבהזא‬.11 ‫ ופרושהומשחותיהםופרוטכל‬.12 ]‫ אחדואח[ד‬.13 This may be compared to Jer 32:14: “Take these documents (‫…)ספרים‬put them in an earthenware jar, in order that they may last for a long time. 11 In light of this assessment, it might have seemed worthwhile to consider the possibility that the Copper Scroll was written by the members of the Qumran Community as part of their preparations for assuming responsibility in the Temple in the near future, as they hoped would be the case. According to this hypothesis, their preparations would have been so rigorous that the Qumran sectarians would have produced a detailed list of the places where they would hide the Temple treasures when they would attain control of the Temple. This proposal is not tenable, however, in light of our discussion below, in which we seek to demonstrate that some of the locations in which the treasures are said to have been hidden are described in insufficient detail and that some of the hiding-places could not possibly have accommodated the treasures attributed to them. Moreover, whoever would take control of the Temple would have no need to hide its treasures, as he would simply place them in the appropriate Temple storerooms. 12 See Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 425–42. 10 9 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:13 In the deep-pit which is in Yanoaḥ, in the north of Koḥlit, its entrance is hidden, and graves (are) upon its opening, (there is) a copy of this document with its explantion, with their measurements and specification for each and ev[ery] (item). That is to say: in Yanaoḥ, north of Koḥlit, there is a pit whose opening is hidden, with graves next to it. In it is an additional description of this treasure list, which designates the dimensions and contents of every single hoard. 13 This description is more suitable for a literary composition (not to say a detective novel), than to a secret list of authentic treasure, the precise location of which would need to be kept in complete secrecy. It is possible that yet a third copy of the Copper Scroll is mentioned, in column 6 (Item 25):14 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 ‫ ]במ[ערת העמוד של שני‬.1 ‫ ]ה[פתחין צופא מזרח‬.2 ‫ ]ב[פתח הצפוני חפור‬.3 ‫ ]א[מות שלוש שם קלל‬.4 ‫ בו ספרא חד תחתו‬.5 42‫ ככ‬.6 [In the c]ave of the pillar of [the] two entrances facing east, [at the] northern entrance there is buried three [c]ubits (deep) a qəlal (vessel), See Paul Mandel, “On the ‘Duplicate Copy’ of the Copper Scroll (3Q15),” RevQ 16 (1993): 69–76. 14 See Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 204–208. 13 10 6:5 6:6 in it (is) one document, below it 42 k(arsh of) s(ilver). From this description, it emerges that there is a “Cave of the Pillar” with two openings facing eastward. In its northern opening, at a depth of 3 cubits (about 1.5 m), there lies a qəlal –a vessel of clay or stone in the form of a large chalice,15 a scroll, and forty-two talents of silver. According to this description, a scroll that is described as “one book underneath it”was placed into the qəlal. It is not stated explicitly that this document contains a list of the treasures; however on the basis of the description in col. 12 it may be concluded that the reference is to a third copy of the Copper Scroll. The description of Item 33 of the scroll also refers to ‫‘ ספרין‬documents’ and placed in ‫‘כלי דמע‬dedicated vessels’. The primary criterion for evaluating the Copper Scroll is the degree to which the descriptions of the locations of the treasures are realistic. On the surface they seem plausible and precise. Upon close examination of the list of treasures, however, it becomes clear that in some of the instances, the descriptions are impossible; other descriptions are laconic and do not contain enough information to enable the site to be located. Thus, for example, col. 1 of the Copper Scroll contains a description of Item 2:16 1:5 ‫ בנפש בנדבך השלישי עשתות‬.5 100 ‫ זהב‬.6 In the tomb, in the third grave-stone, On the form of the qəlal, see Yehoshua Brand, Ceramics in Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953), 496–98. 16 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 50–63. 15 11 1:6 100 masses of unused gold. The expression ‫‘עשתות זהב‬masses of unused gold’ (per Lefkowitz) seems to connote gold bars.17 That is, this description states that a hundred gold bars were hidden in the walls of the nefeš, a memorial structure that is built above a tomb. It might have been possible to conceal a small number of coins between the walls of the structure, but not dozen\ tens of gold bars. Another description in col. 11 (Item 51), states:18 ‫ מתחתפנתהאסטאןהדרומית‬.2 ‫ בקברצדוקתחתעמודהאכסדרן‬.3 ‫ כלידמעסותדמעסנהותכןאצלם‬.4 11:2 11:3 11:4 Below the southern corner of the ossuary in the Grave of Zadok, under the pillar of the exedra are dedicated garments, dedicated pot vessles, and their lists are next to them. According to this description, ‫כלידמע‬, i.e., vessels that were donated as teruma offerings (permissible for use only by priests), garments of teruma, and apparently even a cooking pot that had been donated as teruma, were placed underneath the southern corner of the See, e.g., Ezek 27:19; Song of Songs 5:14; y. Horayot 3:5 (15a), and the discussion in Luria, The Copper Scroll, 59, and Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 60–63. 18 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 363–68. 17 12 portico in the tomb of Zadok, below the pillar that is in the exedra.19 Subsequently, the difficult expression ‫ ותכןאצלם‬appears, the meaning of which is not yet fully understood.20 Regarding the core of the description it must be noted that it is hardly believable that clothing and a cooking pot could be hidden under a supporting pillar of Zadok's tomb. A number of descriptions in the scroll do not seem sufficiently well-defined, so that they would not have made it possible to find the treasure. Thus, for example, Item 9 was hidden‫‘בבור שנגד השער המזרחי‬in the cistern which is opposite the eastern gate’ (col. 2, line 7).21 While this definition is enough to spark a reader’s interest it would not enable anyone to actually locate the treasure—it does not state which gate, nor of which city. Item 17 is hidden‫‘ ביןשניהבתיןשבעמקעכוןבאמצען‬between the two buildings which are in the Valley of Achon, at their center’ (col. 4, lines 6-7). It is difficult to suppose that there were only two edifices in the valley of Achor.22 There is thus no escaping the conclusion that the On the expression ‫כלידמע‬, see Manfred R. Lehmann, “Identification of the Copper Scroll Based on its Technical Terms,” RevQ 5 (1964): 97– 105, and Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 505–45. 20 The expression ‫ בתכן אצלם‬appears five times in the Copper Scroll. For various suggested interpretations for this expression see Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 546–53, and the bibliography cited there. 21 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 126–29. 22 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 162–68. On the identification of the Valley of Achor (= the Valley of Achon) with the Valley of Hyrcania, see Hanan Eshel, “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62 and the Identification of the ‘City of Salt’,” IEJ 45 (1995): 37–38, n. 5. 19 13 scroll is a literary composition, and not a list that was compiled by the hiders of the treasures. 3. The Copper Scroll and Traditions About the Hiding of the First Temple Vessels The Copper Scroll does not mention when its treasures were hidden. If we wish to proceed with the understanding that the scroll describes Temple treasures, then we must investigate whether the scroll describes the hiding of the treasures of the First Temple or of the Second Temple. If the Temple treasures are in fact the subject of the scroll, then it would be most plausible to suppose that they were smuggled out from the Temple on the eve of its destruction. If they are Second Temple treasures, then it follows that the scroll would have been written after the year 70 CE. In Cave 3, as in the other caves in the vicinity of Khirbet Qumran in which scrolls were discovered, no artifacts were found that would show that people returned to these caves after 68 CE.23 It is thus necessary to examine the supposition that the list of In Khirbet Qumran itself, on the tower, a number of Bar Kokhba revolt coins were found inside a clay lamp. It is thus generally accepted that some Roman soldiers stayed at the ruins of Qumran during the Bar Kokhba revolt. It must be emphasized, however, that not one cave has produced artifacts that would indicate that anybody visited these caves after 68 CE, when the Roman soldiers destroyed Qumran. See Jodi Magness, “The Chronology of Qumran, Ein Feshkha and Ein El Ghuweir,” in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Aleksy Klawek (ed. Zdzislaw Jan Kapera; Kraków: Enigma Press, 1998), 55–76; Jerzy Ciecielag, “Coins from the So-called Essene Settlement on the Dead Sea Shore,” in Kapera (ed.), Mogilany 1995, 105–114. 23 14 the treasures recorded in the Copper Scroll describes the treasures of the Tabernacle and of the First Temple.24Tractate Kelim also describes the hiding of treasures that were gathered from the First Temple. The difference is that Tractate Kelim also describes the hiding of the vessels themselves: the ark, the menorah, the breastplate etc., whereas these are not mentioned at all in the Copper Scroll. Nevertheless, it appears that the Copper Scroll does refer to the Temple vessels. In describing two of the treasures it states that ‫‘ כלין‬vessels’ were hidden, with no further detail (Items 8 and 9). In ten of the descriptions of treasures, there is mention of ‫דמע‬, with reference to dedicated objects, e.g.,‫‘ כל<י>כסףוכליזהבשלדמע‬dedicated silver vessels and gold vessels’ (Item 58, similar wording in Item 12 [see below]; see also items 4, 3, 22, 33, 50, 51, 54, 55). Two hoards designate treasures that are ḥerem (Items 43 and 52), and according to the Mishna, unspecified ḥerem objects are for the repair of the Temple )‫( (לבדק הבית‬m. ‘Arakhin8:6). One of the hoards (Item 1), lists ‫‘ שידת כסף וכליה‬a silver carrying-chair [typically rendered ‘chest’] with its components’ (see m. Shabbat 16:5); and in Even if we accept the proposition that the treasures in the Copper Scroll are the treasures of the First Temple, there is no doubt that the scroll was written during the Second Temple era. The names of the places, the terminology, and the language of the scroll all date the composition of the work to the Second Temple period. See Al Wolters, “The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew,” RevQ 14 (1990): 483–95; Bargil Pixner, “Unravelling the Copper Scroll Code: A Study on the Topography of 3Q15,” RevQ 11 (1983): 323–61; Al Wolters, “The Copper Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 302– 13. 24 15 hoard 57 another‫‘ שדא‬carrying-chair’ (or ‘chest’)is mentioned. In hoard 12 there is a record of the hiding-place of ‫כלי כסף וזהב שלדמע מזרקות כוסות‬ ‫‘ מנקיאות קסאות‬dedicated silver and gold vessels, sprinkling-basins, cups, supports, and tubes’, that is vessels that were placed on the table of the show-bread (see Exod 25:29; 37:16; Num 4:7; Jer 52:19). Hoard 17’s list refers to ‫‘ שני דודין‬two pots’, vessels that were used in the First Temple (see 2 Chr 35:13). The expression ‫‘כלין כופרין‬bowl vessels’25 that appears in Hoard 47 recalls the description of the vessels that were given by Cyrus to the Temple in Jerusalem (see Ezra 1:10). In order to reinforce our claim that the Copper Scroll describes First Temple treasures, we will survey the traditions from the Second Temple period, and from the Mishnah and Talmud, that pertain to the concealment of the vessels of the First Temple. According to a number of traditions found in rabbinic literature, the main vessels of the Temple (the Ark, the Menorah, and the Table, which were constructed in the Wilderness and used throughout the First Temple period) were concealed on the eve of the destruction of the first Temple. According to some traditions, it was Jeremiah who concealed them, and according to others, it was God.26 This legend is part of the complex worldview that was widespread during the Second Temple period according to which the Second Maybe a better translation is `simple vessels`, see m. Trumot 2:5 ‫כופרי‬ means from the `rural settlement` contrary to Polis (city). 25 26 See the traditions discussed below. 16 Temple was perceived as imperfect, and the miraculous construction of a new, perfect, Temple was anticipated in the future. According to this view, the Second Temple was not an ideal Temple. The perfect Temple was expected to descend fully built from the heavens, and blameless priests who had not sinned would serve there in holiness.27 This perspective is tied to the belief attested in a number of sources regarding the parallel Temple in heaven, and of the parallel heavenly Jerusalem both presently existing in the heavens, as a Temple of fire and a city of fire.28This belief was intended not only to cast criticism against the flawed city as it was, and the Temple that was not being managed in an ideal fashion, but also to enhance the image of the holiness of the future eschatological city and Temple. The members of the Qumran Community took this idea in a further direction. They believed that the existing city and Temple were also invalid because they were not built according to halakhic See David Flusser, “Jerusalem in Second Temple Literature,” in idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 2:44–75. 28 Victor (Avigdor) Aptowitzer, “The Celestial Temple as Viewed in the Aggadah,” Binah 2 (1989) 1-29 (=“The Celestial Temple as Viewed in the Aggadah,” [Hebrew],Tarbiz 2 [1931]: 137–53, 257–87); Ephraim E. Urbach, "Heavenly and Earthly Jerusalem" (Hebrew), in Jerusalem through the Ages: The 25th Archaeological Convention, October 1967 (ed. Joseph Aviram; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1968), 156–71; Shmuel Safrai, “Jerusalem as a Jewish Center at the end of the Second Temple period,” in And for Jerusalem: Words of Literature and Philosophy in Honor of Liberated Jerusalem (ed. Gedaliah Elkoshi et al.; Jerusalem: Hebrew Writers Association in Israel, 1968), 325–36. 27 17 requirements.29 For this reason, and because the Temple was being run according to an erroneous calendar, and because of the corruption of the priests, the members of the Qumran Community did not take part in the Temple worship. It seems, then, that the emphasis on the fact that the vessels of the First Temple were hidden, and were not in use in the Temple of their own day, was part of an approach that emphasized the imperfection of the contemporary Temple.30 In the future Temple, the This perspective was expressed especially in two compositions found at Qumran: the Temple Scroll and the description of the “New Jerusalem.” On the ideal structure of the Temple in the Temple Scroll, see Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1: 177–207.It must be noted that the Temple of the Temple Scroll was also not the ideal Temple, since it was to be constructed by human hands, rather than descending miraculously from heaven. This is why God promises Moses, “I will settle my glory upon it, until the day of blessing on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times” (11QTa 29:8– 10), i.e., for now, God will dwell in the Temple described in the scroll, but in the future, the Temple will be built by God. Six copies of the “New Jerusalem” were found in five different caves at Qumran. On this scroll, see the bibliography in Magen Broshi, “Visionary architecture and town planning in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls (ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman;Leiden: Brill, 1995), 9–22 (= “Architecture and town planning in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” [Hebrew] EI 23 [1992], 286–92. [See now, Florentino García Martínez et al., “11QNew Jerusalem ar,” in idem, Qumran Cave 11.II: [11Q2–18, 11Q20–31][DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 305–55. –Eds.] 30 Criticism of the Second Temple is found in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174). On this criticism, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “The Three Temples of 4QFlorilegium,” RevQ 10 (1979–1981): 83–91; Devorah Dimant, 29 18 Temple vessels of old would be revealed and restored, in the rubric of “renew our days as of old.” The tradition of concealment of the Temple vessels occurs in many sources.31 It is reasonable to suppose that this tradition was accepted by different groups during the Second Temple period, but apparently, there was disagreement about where the vessels were stored, and this controversy seems to have had a polemical aspect. In a letter that was attached to the beginning of 2Maccabees, it is stated that Jeremiah concealed the Temple vessels, at Mt. Nebo in Transjordan, in the place of “the mountain where Moses had gone up to see the inheritance of God.”32Another tradition states that the Temple vessels were swallowed up in the earth, without specific geographic designation.33A rabbinic source states that the ark was concealed “in its “4QForilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” Hellenica et Judaica (Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky) (ed. André Caquot, Raphaël Hasas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 165–89. The list of sources is very long, which indicates just how important the hidden Temple vessels were for the Sages. See, inter alia, m.Yoma 5:2; t. Sota 13:1, and the long discussion of Saul Lieberman, Tosefta kiFshutah: Sota (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1963), 733. See also Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1947), 3:50, 158 (and 6:65, n.332); 4:154–57; Seder ʿOlam Rabba (ed. Dov Baer Ratner; Vilna, 1894), 113. 32 2 Macc 2:4–6. 33Vision of Baruch 1:6, 7–10 31 19 place”, i.e., in the Holy of Holies.34 Rabban Gamliel and R. Hananiah, the Deputy High Priest, received an oral tradition from their fathers that the ark was concealed in the women’s courtyard of the Temple.35 There were some who told of a miraculous revelation of the ark’s location in the Chamber of the Wood, an office adjacent to the Women's Courtyard.36 There were those who said that the Temple vessels were carried off to Babylonia. In the Tosefta, this view is attributed to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon. This position was quoted by Babylonian amoraim and became a source of local pride, since it has Babylonia serving as a substitute location. As noted above, this view was originally held by Tannaim in the Land of Israel, but it was later promoted by Babylonian sages.37 As noted above, Tractate Kelim states that the vessels were concealed by the Levite Shimur and his comrades near Baghdad in Babylonia. The Samaritans claimed that the vessels of the Tabernacle were concealed by Uzi (the brother of Eli the high priest) who was the last high priest to serve in the Tabernacle at Mt. Gerizim before it was moved to Shiloh. According to Samaritan tradition, the vessels sank into the ground in a cave at the top of Mt. Gerizim.38 The Jewish response to this claim was to say that there were remnants of vessels of idolatry t.Sheq 2:18 and parallels. See Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah: Sheqalim, 697. In MS Vienna, the tradition is transmitted in the name of 34 R. Judah b. Laqish. 35m.Sheq 6:1. 36m.Sheq 6:2. 37 See b. Yoma 53b. However, in Tanḥuma (Buber), Behaʿalotkha 14 and Tanḥuma Behaʿalotkha 9, all of the Temple vessels were exiled to Babylon. 38 See Ant. 18:85–88; John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (New Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1964), 17–18. 20 concealed at the top of Mt. Gerizim, and not the vessels that were made in the wilderness.39 Regardless of where the vessels of the First Temple may have been, they certainly were not used in the Second Temple. The Mishna states that the Holy of Holies was empty, other than the foundationstone.40 Josephus also emphasizes that this room was absolutely empty.41 It is thus clear that in the Second Temple, there was no kapporet; in the Mishna, references to the kapporet denote ‫בית הכפורת‬, and not the ark itself. According to the account in the book of Nehemiah it appears that the ʾurim we-tumim were already no longer in use, since the priests who could not prove their genealogical purity, were barred from the Temple service, and it was forbidden for them to eat of the sacrificial meat “until the priest of the ʾurim we-tumimshould arise” (Neh 7:65). The ʾurim we-tumimwere thus perceived as one of the signs of the future, and were not present in the period of the Return to Zion. According to a tradition found in rabbinic sources, the ʾurim we-tumim were concealed in the days of the early prophets of the First Temple 39 LAB 25:10; Joseph Heinemann, Aggadah and Its Development (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), 93–96; Ze’ev Safrai, “Samaria in the Onomasticon of Eusebius,” in Samaria and Benjamin (ed. Zev Erlich; Ariel: Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, 1993), 32–33. An additional anti-Samaritan reaction is the reference to Mt. Gerizim in the Copper Scroll (Item 75); the author of the scroll thought that Mt. Gerizim was located near Jericho, rather than above Shechem (see n. 59 below). 40m.Yoma 5:2 41War5:219 21 period.42Elsewhere it is stated that “since the First Temple was destroyed, the kingship of the House of David was ended, and the ʾurim we-tumim were no more .”43 Either way, it is clear that the ʾurim we-tumim were not in use during the Second Temple. Although the two traditions about the loss of the ʾurim we-tumim disagree about the time when this occurred (whether during the days of the early prophets or after the Destruction, both attest to the fact that they were not in use during the Second Temple period.44 Some traditions seem to have supposed that the breastplate and ephod remained, but that it was impossible to use them in order to get divine answers. Josephus states that two hundred years before he wrote his Jewish Antiquities, “Now this breastplate, and this sardonyx, left off shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his laws.”45 If we take his point at face value, then we can date the loss of the ʾurim we-tumim to 110 BCE, towards the end of the days of John Hyrcanus. It is noteworthy that this was the period in which Scripture seems to have become consolidated in Judea. Counter to this, the author of the Letter of Aristeas indicates that the High Priest performed his See m.Sota 9:12; y.Sota 24b; b.Sota 48b; y. Ta‘an. 2:1 (65a), and parallels; Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah: Sota, 735. 43t.Sota 13:2; b.Sota 48b 44 In descriptions of the purification of the Temple in the days of Judah Maccabee, there is no mention of the breastplate and the ephod, or of any other priestly garments. 45Ant. 3: 218 42 22 duties in full high priestly regalia, including the breastplate and ephod.46 Philo seems to indicate the same.47 The mishna as well describes the priest as garbed in all of his requisite garments.48 It seems that these sources do not offer evidence of an actual dispute, since examination of the descriptions of the Temple by Second Temple authors (such as Philo, the author of the Letter of Aristeas, and Josephus) shows that the descriptions are comprised of two layers. The first layer is a realistic layer, which reflects what the authors witnessed firsthand. In the second layer, the authors took the liberty of a return to the biblical text in order to describe the ideal Temple on the basis of Scripture. This phenomenon would have reflected the view held by people in the Second Temple period that the Temple in their days was only a pale echo of the genuine Temple. It must be acknowledged that the fact that the Copper Scroll does not list the major vessels of the Temple (the ark, the golden incense altar, or ʾurim we-tumimto) shows that the scroll reflects the reality of the Second Temple period, during which these vessels were not used, or were not so holy. This does not, however, prove that the author intended to describe the vessels of the Second Temple period, for even though the original vessels of the Tabernacle were not used in the Although it is clear that the Letter of Aristeas is not a realistic depiction of the Temple in the third century BCE, we can use it to learn about the “literary reality” of the second century BCE, without trying to determine the extent to which any of the actual details were known to its author. 47On the Commandments 1:85–94; Life of Moses 2: 109–135 48 See, e.g., m.Yoma 7:1, 4. 46 23 Second Temple, the Second Temple was not empty. It contained a golden altar, a table, lamps, and other vessels. Titus’s arch depicts the looting of the Menorah and the golden table, as plunder for Rome. At least two Lamps were in use in the Second Temple, as emerges from the writings of Josephus.49 The Mishna describes the immersion of the Menorah after the pilgrimage festivals, and they would have used an alternate Menorah instead.50 It appears that the lack of explicit reference to the Temple vessels in the Copper Scroll cannot offer conclusive evidence as to whether the treasures described in the scroll are those of the First or Second Temple. 4. Geographical Background of the List of Treasures in the Copper Scroll If we adopt the idea that we have presented above, that the list of treasures recorded in the Copper Scroll is a literary invention and not realistic, then the Copper Scroll can be understood as belonging to a conventional literary genre of descriptions of the concealment of the treasures of the First Temple. These descriptions had an important role in disseminating the belief that the Second Temple was not the ideal Temple. It was thus necessary, even while the Temple was standing, to look forward to the perfect Temple of the future, which would either be built or would descend complete from heaven. If the treasures listed in the Copper Scroll are the hidden hoards of the First Temple, then certainly the list is a literary list with no basis in reality. Before Ant. 10:145; War 6:387–91. 50m. Hag 3:8, “All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and 49 third sets, so that if the first became unclean they might bring the second instead of them.” 24 assessing the ideological-sociological significance of this list inscribed on copper, we must clarify the geographical background underlying the scroll. The list of the hiding-places named in the Copper Scroll points to a concentration of treasure in the Judean desert. The scroll mentions four hoards that were hidden near Secacah (Items 20-22, and 24).51 Secacah was the ancient name of Khirbet Qumran.52 The first hoard described in the scroll was hidden in the Valley of Achor, and Item 17 was hidden in the Valley of Achon.53 The Valley of Achor is to be identified with the valley of Hyrcania west of Qumran.54Item 35 was hidden ‫ביגר של פי צוק‬ ‫‘ הקדרון‬in the heap which is at the edge of the peak of the Qidron’.55 The Qidron is a wadi that empties into the Dead Sea south of Qumran. Item 31 was hidden in Doq.56 Doq was the name of a fortress built in the Hasmonean period above Jericho in Ras Karantal.57 Item 32 was hidden ‫(על פי יציאת המים של הכוזבא‬reading with Luria and Wolters) ‘above the mouth of the water spring of Kozba’. Kozba is to be identified with the lower portion of Wadi Qelt; the monastery that was built in this Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 181–92, 199–204. See Eshel, “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62,” 38. 53 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 29–49, 162–68. On theinterchange of Achor/Achon , see Josh 7:24–25. 54 Eshel, , “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62.” 55 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 259–62. 56 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 232–35. 57 Ze’ev Meshel, “The Fortresses Commanding Jericho and their Identification,” in Jericho (ed. Ehud Netzer, Ze’ev Meshel, and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1978), 48–52 (Hebrew). 51 52 25 wadi in the Byzantine era was called Dir-Kozba.58 Item 57 was hidden‫‘בהר גריזין תחת המעלהא של השית העליונה‬on Mount Gerizim, below the steps of the upper deep pit’.59The Mt. Gerizim that is mentioned here is to be identified with one of the mounds near Jericho, as they were identified in rabbinic literature, the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and the Madaba map.60 It may be supposed that the author of the Copper Scroll thought that these two mounds were Nuseb el-Auyašira O.K and Tell elʿAqaba, the two fortresses that were built on the two sides of Wadi Qelt.61 The Copper Scroll lists five treasures as having been hidden near Koḥlit (Item 4 ‫‘בתל שלכחלת‬in the mound of Koḥlit’;Item 11 ‫בברכא שבמזרח‬ ‫‘כחלת‬in the pond which is in the east of Koḥlit’; Item 15 ‫בבור הג]דול‬ ‫‘ שבכ[חלת‬in the la[rge] cistern [which is in Ko]ḥlit’; Item 19 ‫בשית המזרחית‬ ‫‘ שבצפון כחלת‬in the eastern deep-pit which is at the north of Koḥlit’; and Item 60‫‘ בשית שבינח בצפון כחלת‬in the deep-pit which is in Yanoaḥ, in the Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 236–44. 59 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 409–12. 60 On the location of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal near Jericho, see y. Sota 7:3 (21c); b. Sota 33b; Eusebius,Onomasticon, para. 307. See Steven, R. Notely and Ze`ev Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon, Leiden 2005, pp. 63-64. Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal appear twice on the Madaba map: near Jericho, they appear as Ebal and Gerizim and near Shechem as Tur Ebal and Tur Gerizim. See Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Madaba Map: Translation and Commentary,” Eretz Israel 2 (1953): 143–44. 61 On the location of the Mt. Gerizim of the Copper Scroll near Jericho, see Allegro , The Treasure of the Copper Scroll, 75–76; Luria, The Copper Scroll, 123–24; Hanan Eshel, “The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Origins of Samaritanism” (Ph.D. Diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984), 193–95. 58 26 north of Koḥlit’.62 Tannaitic sources mentions a type of hyssop from Koḥlit called Koḥlit hyssop that is similar to desert hyssop.63 This could support an identification of Koḥlit as a place near the desert.64 The Babylonian Talmud contains an account of a military campaign of Alexander Jannaeus in which he went to “Koḥlit in the desert” and achieved great victories and returned and made a party for the Sages of Israel.65 During this party, a dispute broke out between the king and the Sages. In Josephus’ account the dispute takes place between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees.66 Without delving into the complicated transmission history of this story in antiquity, and the rabbinic transfer of the identity of the royal protagonist from John Hyrcanus to Alexander Jannaeus, we may observe that the Talmudic story points to the location of Koḥlit in Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 73–89, 135–37, 154–56, 179–80, 425– 42. 63 Mekh. R. Ishmael Bo, Masekhta de-Pisḥa11 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 37); Sifra Mezora 1:16. 64Though see m.Par. 11:7, in which the specific type‫ אזוב כחלת‬is not juxtaposed with‫אזוב המדברי‬,rather the two are separated by a third subtype‫אזוב רומי‬. 65b.Qidd. 66a. 66 Josephus’s account of the feast in Ant. 14: 288–98 places the event in the days of John Hyrcanus. It is interesting that in the Babylonian Talmud tradition Koḥlit is associated with a dispute between the Hasmoneans and the Pharisees. On the account of this feast, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 44-56, and the literature cited there; Menahem Stern, 62 Hasmonean Judea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1995), 195–99. 27 the desert.67 If the tradition of drying out the Koḥlit region is related to John Hyrcanus, then the location should be sought in the desert of Samaria or the southern hills of Hebron, which John Hyrcanus conquered. Additional evidence that a significant portion of the hiding places in the Copper Scroll were in the Judean desert lies in the fact that In J.T. Milik’s French translation of Tractate Kelim he followed a version indicating that Koḥlitis in the Carmel. See Jόzef T. Milik, “Notes d'épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 66 (1959): 567–75. The important sentence for the identification of the Kaḥal Spring in Mt. Carmel is incorporated into the prologue to the midrash: 67 .‫שנת שלשה אלפים ושלוש מאות ושלושים ואחד ליצירה‬.‫יגנזו אתם בהר הכרמל כי קדשהם‬ ‫עין כחל בקעה גדולה ועמוקה מאד ובה מעין מים טובים ועל שם נקראת עין כחל כי שם מזרח‬ .‫ ואומרים כי שם נגנזו כלי המקדש‬.‫והר גבוה ורם ומשופע מאד ובראשו חצוב שער סתום‬ “They shall conceal them on Mt. Carmel, for they are holy. The year three thousand and three hundred and thirty-one from creation. Kaḥal Spring (ʿEn-Kaḥal) is a large and deep valley, in which there is a spring with good water, and the Kaḥal Spring is named for it. For east of it there is a high and lofty mountain, very steep,and at its peak is carved a hidden gate. And they say that the vessels of the Temple are concealed there.” According to this passage, Tractate Kelim was written in the year 3331 from creation. Following the system of dating that is accepted today, based upon the tannaitic work Seder ʿOlam Rabba (which dates to approximately the second century CE), anno mundi 3331 would be 373 BCE. This prologue seems to be a late addition to Tractate Kelim, which is not found in other textual witnesses of the text (Aggadat Bereshit, Bet ha-Midrash, Rav Peʿalim and others). Thus, despite this tradition, it is preferable to seek to identify Koḥlit in the desert of Samaria or in the southern hills of Hebron, and not near the Carmel. On the identification of the site, see Boaz Zissu, “The identification of the Copper Scroll’s Kahelet at Ein Samiya in the Samarian desert,” PEQ 133 (2001): 145–58. 28 a considerable number of the treasures are described as having been placed near water aqueducts and dams (the term ‫ יגר‬in the Copper Scroll seems to refer to dams that re-directed flood waters to aqueducts) that can be identified with water installations that were constructed in the Judean desert.68 Conclusion In this article we sought to demonstrate that the Copper Scroll did not purport to record Second Temple treasures, but rather treasures that were connected to the biblical period. The context for the composition of this scroll was the debate concerning religious legitimacy that raged among Jewish groups in the Second Temple period. One way in which this competition for authority was manifest was in disputes over where the First Temple vessels had been concealed. There were groups who maintained that the vessels were hidden away in the Temple in Jerusalem. Others claimed that they had been deposited in Mt. Nebo. The Samaritans claimed that the true vessels had been stored at the top of Mt. Gerizim. Among Babylonian Jews there was a widespread tradition that the vessels had been deposited in Mesopotamia. An Ethiopian tradition maintained that the ark had been brought to Ethiopia.69 This is the context in which the Copper Scroll must be understood. The list is most plausibly interpreted as a sectarian composition (not On the aqueducts and dams mentioned in the Copper Scroll, see Hanan Eshel, “Aqueducts in The Copper Scroll,” in George J. Brooke (ed.), Copper Scroll Studies, Sheffield, repr. in this volume, 000–000. 69 See Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (London, 1968), 82–87. 68 29 necessarily the work of the Community of Qumran). Its purpose was to make the claim that the authentic vessels, which will be revealed in the future and be put to use in the ideal Temple, are hidden in the desert, and are being stored under the supervision of groups that had separated from the establishment in Jerusalem and were active in the Judean desert.70 By publicizing this claim, the anti-establishment groups sought to enhance their legitimacy. The primary advantage of our proposed explanation of the nature and purpose of the Copper Scroll does not lie in any individual detail, but rather in seeking to understand the scroll in light of the other compositions found at Qumran, and in light of other known traditions concerning the concealment of the First Temple vessels.71 Our proposed explanation accommodates the In the Second Temple period, a number of different groups removed themselves from Jerusalem. The Qumran Community seems to have been one group within a broader movement. Those who were affiliated with this movement were called “Essenes” in Greek and Latin sources. The hypothesis associating the Qumran Community with the Essenes is based upon the similarity between the scrolls and the descriptions of the Essenes in the writings of Josephus and Philo, and in Pliny the Elder’s account of the Essenes who lived on the shore of the Dead Sea. The vocabulary of the Copper Scroll and its use of Greek letters and words of Greek origin set the scroll apart from the other manuscripts found at Qumran, suggesting that the Copper Scroll was not written by one of the scribes of the Qumran Community, but was brought to Qumran from outside . It is our contention that it was composed by one of the other groups that separated from the Jerusalem establishment and dwelled in the Judean desert. 71 See Stephan Goranson, “Sectarianism, Geography, and the Copper Scroll,” JJS 43 (1992): 282–87. Although Goranson did not see the Copper Scroll as referring to the treasures of the First Temple, he did 70 30 widespread hypothesis that the Qumran site was associated with one of the groups within the Essene movement, and, that it is the site that was described by Pliny the Elder and Dio Chrysostom as the location of the Essenes.72 claim that the Copper Scroll must be understood in the context of the other scrolls found at Qumran, and that the Copper Scroll was not a fictional composition that had no connection to actual treasures, but rather reflected a reality. 72 See David Graf, “The Pagan Witness to the Essenes,” BA 40 (1977): 125–29; Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 

‫ַאשׁ ְֵריְך זִ ְקנָתִ י‬ ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age) Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday edited by Joshua N. Tilton This page is intentionally blank. ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday edited by Joshua N. Tilton © 2024 ‫אשריך זקנתי שתכפרי‬...‫אומרין‬...‫חסידים ואנשי מעשה היו‬ .‫ אילו בעלי תשובה‬,‫אל ילדותי‬ The ḥasidim and men of deeds would...say... “Blessed are you, my old age, for you atone for my youth”—these were the practitioners of repentance. (t. Suk. 4:2) Foreword Joshua N. Tilton I first met David Bivin in the summer of 2005 shortly after arriving in Jerusalem as a grad student at the Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. David had been forewarned of my coming, together with a few other Gordon College alums, by my undergrad Biblical Studies professor, Dr. Marvin Wilson. David sought us out, inviting us into his home for a memorable evening of hospitality and getting to know one another. It was a warm welcome that marked the beginning of an enduring friendship. Another time David sought me out was in 2006, while I was still a student in Jerusalem, when he invited me to attend the JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE conference at which a number of speakers, including several whose contributions appear in this volume, delivered lectures on the intersection of Second Temple Judaism and the Synoptic Gospels. On that occasion David was most particular not only that I should attend, but that I should do so as his guest, free of charge. Once again, David demonstrated his generosity and his determination to include outsiders in his lifelong endeavor to better understand the life and teachings of Jesus. The third time David sought me out was some years later when he invited me to help him produce The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction for JERUSALEM 5 PERSPECTIVE. David’s invitation came at just the right moment, when I was at a crossroads in life, uncertain which way to turn. It proved to be a lifeline from a completely unexpected direction that allowed me to continue studying the Gospels and to use Greek and Hebrew, even though by then I was living far from Jerusalem and had left my career as a university student far behind. Since accepting his invitation I have labored with David on all aspects of JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE and have continued to benefit from the initial kindness and hospitality he showed me and my fellow students all those years ago. But as a recipient of David’s generosity and confidence I am in no An evening at the Bivins’ home in 2005 with Gordon alumni studying at the Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. way unique. Throughout his life David has extended the hand of friendship to anyone open to his insight that knowledge of the Hebrew language and familiarity with ancient Jewish sources must be combined with the more usual tools of Synoptic studies—facility with Koine Greek and awareness of the evangelists’ editorial habits—in order to better understand the words and deeds of Jesus. The contributors to this volume, which honors the many achievements David has made in his first eighty-five years, represent only a few of the multitude of people from all walks of life whom David has encouraged in their pursuit for deeper understanding of the text of the Gospels and the unique individual who stands behind them, Jesus of Nazareth. Through his open spirit and determined hospitality David has proven himself to be 6 a man of deeds who, like the ḥasidim of old, is able to bless his advancing age in the knowledge that he has helped to open up a “Jerusalem perspective” on the Gospels, a vantage point from which generations of students and scholars will continue to view Jesus in a clearer light. 7 This page is intentionally blank. Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................5 1. Serge Ruzer, “Jesus’ Words, Evangelist’s Contribution and Implicit Biblical Reference: The Case of Matthew 21:43-44” ...........................................................................................13 Matthean Contributions to the Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants..........................13 Matthew’s Editorial Intent.................................................................................................16 A Non-Ethnic Ethnos?.......................................................................................................19 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................22 2. Guido Baltes, “(Why) Did Jews Hate Tax Collectors–Or Did They? The Evolution of a Modern Stereotype in Biblical Studies”..............................................23 1. Stereotypes, old and new ...............................................................................................27 2. The surprising silence of the New Testament ...............................................................32 3. The focus of the early church: Salvation of sinners ......................................................34 4. Luther, Calvin and the emerging topos of “Jewish hatred”...........................................37 5. “Back to the sources”: The quest for Greco-Roman and Jewish voices .......................45 6. The path into the present ...............................................................................................62 7. Conclusion: Stereotypes, ancient and modern...............................................................67 8. A “Jerusalem Perspective” on the Bible: The value of engaging Jewish sources ........72 3. Marc Turnage, “The Expectation of Sabbatical Redemption within Ancient Judaism and Luke-Acts” ............................................................................75 Daniel 9..............................................................................................................................78 11Q13 ................................................................................................................................95 Luke and Sabbatical Redemption ....................................................................................103 The Chronological Markers in Luke .........................................................................104 εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν ..................................................................................................109 “And forgive us our sins, for we forgive everyone indebted to us” ..........................123 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................128 4. Lois Tverberg, “He Could No Longer Openly Enter a Town: A Synoptic Study in Light of an Early Luke”...................................................................129 Entering or Leaving Jericho?...........................................................................................134 What if Luke’s Account is First (or Independent)? .........................................................137 He Could No Longer Openly Enter a Town....................................................................138 Catching Jesus as He Enters Town..................................................................................141 Miracles as Jesus Approaches a Town ............................................................................143 Jesus’ Commands to “Tell No One”................................................................................144 Spreading News in Defiance of Jesus..............................................................................145 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................147 5. Joshua N. Tilton, “‘Look at…all the trees’: Trees in the New Testament Gospels”.....151 Tree Anatomy and Nomenclature....................................................................................151 Tree Varieties Mentioned in the Gospels ........................................................................159 Tree Varieties Alluded to in the Gospels.........................................................................174 6. Ze’ev Safrai, “Halakha in the Gospels”.............................................................................183 Outline .............................................................................................................................184 Introduction .....................................................................................................................186 Early Halakha and Current Halakha ..........................................................................188 Section 1: The Big Picture...............................................................................................190 Initial Results.............................................................................................................192 Section 2: Literary Contexts ............................................................................................193 Incidental Background...............................................................................................196 Halakha in Debates ....................................................................................................205 Section 3: The Literary Structure of the Halakhic Dialogues .........................................241 Section 4: The Non-legal Character of the Early Halakha ..............................................245 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................248 Appendix 1: Halakha in the Gospels and Acts ................................................................252 Appendix 2: Doubtful Attestations of Halakha in the Gospels .......................................264 Tzitzit .........................................................................................................................264 Impurity of the Centurion’s Dwelling .......................................................................267 Jesus’ Criminal Trial .................................................................................................269 7. Jeffrey P. García, “From the Galilee to Jerusalem: Luke as a Source for the Routes of Jewish Pilgrimage” ..................................................271 In the Land of Antipas — The Route Through Perea......................................................273 The Way to Emmaus—The Coastal Route......................................................................286 The Way of the Patriarchs—The Route through Samaria ...............................................289 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................294 8. R. Steven Notley, “The Sin Against the Spirit: Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10”.....................................................................297 Markan Redaction and Minor Agreements .....................................................................298 Sin Against the Spirit in Light of Ancient Jewish Sources .............................................306 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................314 Subject Index........................................................................................................................317 Index of Greek Words.........................................................................................................321 Index of Hebrew Words ......................................................................................................323 This page is intentionally blank. Jesus’ Words, Evangelist’s Contribution and Implicit Biblical Reference: The Case of Matthew 21:43-44 Serge Ruzer It is my pleasure to participate in the volume honoring David Bivin, whose decades-long research has contributed greatly to our understanding of the developments underlying the Synoptic tradition. David’s analysis is always an example of attentiveness to the text and penchant for exactness of the solutions offered. Below, I will try to follow the former, though as for the latter, my short essay clearly does not meet the bar. However, if in the final account the definite answer eludes us, even the tentative suggestions may have some merit. Matthean Contributions to the Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants The parable of the vineyard and the tenants in Matt. 21:33-46, usually seen as referring to Isa. 5:1-7, where the vineyard of the Lord imagery is explained as representing Israel,[1] has Synoptic parallels in Mark 12:1-12 and Luke 20:9-19.[2] 1 See discussion in J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York et al.: Doubleday, 2000), 206-208. 2 Dependence on Mark is usually suggested here, see W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; Edinburgh: 13 All three versions place the parable in the context of Jesus’ cleansing the Temple and thus his conflict with the Temple establishment.[3] The evil tenants of the parable are thus obviously intended to signify the priestly leaders. It is only Matthew who cares to include Pharisees among the addressees of Jesus’ invective (Matt. 22:45): “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.”[4] This may be ascribed to the wellknown Matthean tendency to highlight the motif of Jesus’ conflicts with Pharisees, a tendency interpreted as a sign of Matthew’s closeness to Pharisaic circles,[5] or, alternatively, a fait accompli of estrangement.[6] This inclusion of the Pharisees in itself indicates the secondary character of Matthew’s additions to the parable of the vineyard and the tenants, but it does not end here: Matthew is the only evangelist who makes Jesus to proclaim: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) will be taken away from you and given to a nation (ἔθνει) producing the fruits of it” (Matt. 21:43). One notes that the motif of the kingdom in the context of this parable is peculiar to Matthew, who appeals to it also in the preceding passage, with Jesus telling to the chief priests: “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom T&T Clark, 1988-1997), 3:175. 3 See, for example, M. Konradt (M. E. Boring, translator) The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2020), 321. 4 Cf. Luke 20:19: “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him….” 5 B. Repschinski, “Taking on the Elite: The Matthean Controversy Stories,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (Atlanta: SBL Press,) 1999, 1-23; A. J. Saldarini, Matthew’s JewishChristian Community (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). 6 See A. J. Overman, Matthewʼs Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); U. Luz, Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005). 14 of God before you” (Matt. 21:31). The meanings ascribed to the notion of the Kingdom in the Gospels in light of their background in broader Jewish tradition have been extensively discussed in research.[7] Inter alia, in Jesus’ sayings – similarly to later rabbinic attestations – a fluctuation was discerned between the inner stance of a person, “individual entry” into the kingdom here and now,[8] and the great eschatological kingdom.[9] Following the precedent of Daniel 7, the latter includes the kingdom of Israel or, alternatively, of its holy remnant.[10] In this context, one notes that while Matt. 21:31 may be reasonably applied to the individual kingdom of here and now, the mention of ethnos in Matt. 21:43 appears to point to a future collective (eschatological?) event.[11] Since, as noted, none of this appears in the Synoptic parallels, there is an understandable inclination to ascribe these additions to the aforementioned controversial stance of Matthew, sometimes with the claim that in the case of Matthew 21 it transforms the anti-priestly polemic into the one directed against Israel as a whole.[12] A similar tendency, though somewhat alleviated because the “nation” is not mentioned there, may be discerned in Matt. 8:12: “while the sons of 7 See, for example, D. Flusser, “The Kingdom of Heaven,” in idem (with R. S. Notley), The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans, 2007), 76-96. 8 E.g., Luke 17:21 (“the kingdom is within you/in your midst”), cf. m. Ber. 3.5. See previous note. 9 E.g. Matt. 13:36-46, where the kingdom is described with reference to Daniel 12 picture of general resurrection. 10 Dan. 7:18. Cf. Acts 1:3-6, where this intrinsic link is spelled out. 11 See, for example, W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 232. 12 U. Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 119-120. 15 the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” In this vein, the portrayal of the Jewish crowd in Matt. 27:25 (“And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’”) was also interpreted.[13] So, Matt. 21:43 should be viewed as Matthew’s hostile contribution, case closed. Matthew’s Editorial Intent Yet, the question of the editorial additions’ intended meaning and their possible backdrop lingers. Matt. 21:46 indicates that Jesus’ words could have been perceived as prophecy. However, it is difficult to think of a precedent: though biblical prophecies abound in harsh attacks on Israel’s unfaithfulness, they do not seem to provide a backing for the ultimate switch of God’s election to another people.[14] While some, as noted, are ready to argue that we are facing here an unprecedented twist in the prophetic pattern, what kind of “nation” Matthew had in mind is not easy to fathom. Writing late in the first century C.E., Matthew was obviously aware of the destruction of the Jewish polity in the Land of Israel by the Romans, but it is unthinkable that he would perceive the Romans, active in persecution of Jesus’ followers, as the nation that inherited the Kingdom of God.[15] 13 D. Flusser, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Jewish Sages and Their Literature (translated by A. Yadin, Foreword by D. Bivin, Grand Rapids, Mich. and Jerusalem: Eerdmans and Magnes, 2009), 351-353. 14 See, for example, Isaiah 1. Cf. Dan 7.17, where the kingdom is promised to taken from the chain of evil empires and given to “the people of the saints of the Most High,” meaning to Israel (or its holy remnant). 15 An analysis in JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE discerns in Matthew (similarly to Josephus) telling proRoman sentiments (see JP Staff Writer, “Evidence of Pro-Roman Leanings in the Gospel of Matthew” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28170/]), but in my view it is still a far cry from presenting the ethnos of the Empire as a new covenant people. 16 It was alternatively suggested that the intention here is a new quasi-national entity of Jesus believers composed of both Jews and Gentiles.[16] One notes, however, that the idea of Christianity as a new ethnos, distinguished from both Jews and Greeks, had rather rare attestations in early sources and all of them belong to a period later than that of Matthew.[17] The greatest difficulty, which arises from the above suggestions, is Matthew’s claim that the Jerusalem crowd sided with the prediction that the covenantal relations with God will be abrogated (Matt. 21:46): “But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes (ὄχλους), because they held him to be a prophet.”[18] To solve the problem, it was insinuated that though what is meant here is indeed the “rejection of the Jews,” the crowd (stirred by its negative attitude toward the priests), at first did not grasp it: “Adding to the irony, the Gospel has the Jews celebrate this inversion of identities in their rendering of the point of the parable, the consequences of which they do not grasp until after they have been caught in a verbal trap.”[19] For the “do not grasp” argument there is no indication 16 This is the solution embraced, inter alia, in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 190 (with a caveat that there is nothing in the passage about the final dismissal of the Jews). See also A. M. Gale, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in A.-J. Levine and M.Z. Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 39. 17 1 Pet. 2.9; 1 Clem. 29.3; Justin, Dial. 24.2; 63.2; 123.1. To quote O. Scarsaune (“Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity,” in J. C. Paget and J. Lieu (eds.), Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017], 251), “In early Christian literature, ethnos in the singular is used most often about the Jewish people, on rare occasions about the Christians as a people.” Even in the first half of the fourth century, Aphrahat (Dem. 17.10) characteristically described the Christians as coming from the nations (plural: ‫)ܥܡܡܐ‬ as distinguished from the Israeli nation (sing.). ܸ 18 “Prophet” being a Matthean designation for Jesus, so far as the crowds are concerned, see J. C. R. Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 208. 19 H. Basser and M. B. Cohen, The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A relevance-based Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 555. 17 whatsoever in Matthew, and it does not sound convincing to me, let alone that the rejection of the Jews as an ethnos may be too early for the late first century.[20] While the mention of “multitudes” (ὄχλοι) viewing Jesus as a prophet here is usually seen as Matthew’s editorial creation,[21] the question remains open whether the “multitudes” refers to those present during the polemical exchange with the priests, or to the high regard in which Jesus was held by the Jewish populace at large.[22] In the latter case, the support of the “multitudes” for the rejectionist idea is even less convincing.[23] One notes a telling variation of the position that discerns here the rejection of Israel: in spite of the anti-priestly rhetoric being indeed the passage’s initial setting, in the grand scheme of Matthew—as spelled out later (“his blood is on us and our children”)—it becomes one more expression of the above rejection.[24] Even in this case, however, the agreement of the crowd has, it seems, to be explained away with the dubious suggestion that “they did not grasp” the implications of Jesus’ statement, and we again arrive at a dead end. Should we suppose that Matthew simply got sloppy and inserted the rejectionist outburst in collation with the inherited motif (Mark 12:12) of the enthusiastic response by 20 Cf. the strategy of Acts insisting on the great success of the Jesus-centered message among the land of Israel Jews. 21 Cousland, Crowds in Matthew, 33. 22 Ibid., 35. 23 Joshua Tilton suggested (personal communication) that Matthew could mean here a general backdrop of popular support for Jesus’ prophetic status, without claiming that the crowd in question witnessed the polemical exchange with the priests. They are thus not said to side with the proverbial statement that Israel will be replaced—no problem in need of solution. It is definitely an interesting interpretation regarding a possible historical setting of the episode. Focusing on the Gospel narrative strategies, however, I find it not convincing enough, since when Matthew speaks about “multitudes,” these are usually highly involved crowds, which are actually present at the specific points of the story, see Matt. 4:25, 7:28, 8:1, 9:8,33, 12:23, 13:2, 14:13, 19:2, 21:9-11, 22:33. 24 See Luz, Matthew, 119-120. 18 those present (obviously representing the ethnos of Israel)? If, however, we are inclined to suppose that from Matthew’s point of view the whole edited unit of the narrative was meant to make sense, we should consider alternatives. Primarily those that will uphold the initial anti-priestly crux of the story—granted that the anti-priestly sentiments were widespread, the solidarity of the crowd would then look plausible.[25] An obvious avenue could be to rely on the possibility of understanding ethnos, not as “nation,” but rather according to alternative meanings that are well attested, such as “crowd,” “group,” or “clique.”[26] This lexical solution, however, does not on its own provide a sufficient argument, but must be justified contextually. I will suggest two tentative considerations. A Non-Ethnic Ethnos? The first consideration addresses the possibility of an implicit biblical reference here. I read Matt. 21:43 as presupposing that the priestly establishment is somehow currently entrusted with God’s kingdom,[27] but has failed its calling and will 25 Cf. the suggestion in Konradt, Matthew, 325, that those were non-residents of Jerusalem who could have built-in animosity to the priestly establishment. 26 Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989), 226. Cf. the LXX usage of ethnos in, e.g. Gen. 20:4; Deut. 1:28, 2:9. In the two latter cases, the Hebrew text has ‫‘( עַם‬am) with the meaning “large group,” in the former the Hebrew has ‫( גּוֹי‬gōy) relating to an individual. 27 Pace, e.g., Allen, Matthew, 232, who believes that the issue here is the eschatological kingdom: “he (Matthew) has throughout the Gospel employed this term for the eschatological kingdom which Christ announced, and which was to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven, it would have been unsuitable here. For that kingdom had never been the possession of the Jewish rulers, and could not be taken from them.” 19 therefore be deprived of the leading role in upholding the kingdom in the future.[28] If so, the pivotal biblical verse that collates the motifs of God’s kingdom as the kingdom of priests and that of holy people is, of course, Exod. 19:6: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (LXX: ἔθνος ἅγιον).” Could Matthew’s phrase here refer to this famous Torah proclamation? Could it polemically point to the priestly elite’s inclination to apply Exod. 19:6 to themselves as the leaders of Israel? With the paucity of our information on the first-century outlook of the Jerusalem priests, we do not have hard evidence to support the existence of such an outlook. The Gospel passage, however, may provide an indirect indication for that. Does the application of the Exodus declaration to Jesus’ followers appear probable? Luckily, 1 Peter, seemingly from the late 1st-early 2nd centuries,[29] bears witness to the existence of the perception that the members of the new messianic Jesus movement now fulfilled the promise from Exod. 19:6 (1 Pet. 2:9): “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον), God’s own people.” Though the configuration of the epistle’s target community is not clear,[30] the ethnic aspect is definitely not at the front in 1 Peter—ethnos here stands for a group—and no actual priesthood within the movement is presupposed.[31] This may provide an indication that Matthew indeed could refer to Jesus’ follower— whatever their ethnic background—as the group effecting eschatological 28 Cf., e.g., Konradt, Matthew, 321. N. Perrin and D. C. Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (San Diego et al.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), 377. 30 See discussion in B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press, 2000), 397-401. 31 The same goes for Rev 1:6. 29 20 realization of the holy priesthood.[32] The second consideration derives from the crowd’s sympathetic response in Matthew 21 as apparently pointing to a broader solidarity with the idea of priestly supersession, meaning also outside the Jesus’ circle. What could provide a backdrop for such a picture? One notes that the Dead Sea Scrolls not only attest to a harsh criticism of and distancing from the Jerusalem priesthood,[33] but also to the self-perception as the true (new) Israel, governed by the legitimate sons of Aaron. After the opening lines of the Rule of the Community have unequivocally established the sectarian estrangement from the rest of the people,[34] we read: They shall act in this way year after year, all the days of Belial’s dominion. The priests shall enter 20 in order foremost, one behind the other, according to their spirits. And the Levites shall enter after them. 21 In third place all the people shall enter in order, one after another, in thousands, hundreds, 22 fifties and tens, so that each Israelite may know his standing in God’s Community 23 in conformity with an eternal plan. (1QS 2.19-23) In spite of their ethnos-like connotations, “all the people” (‫ )כל העם‬and “each Israelite” (‫ )כל איש ישראל‬clearly stand here for the members of the community only – as distinguished from the Jewish polity gathered around the corrupt priests in the Temple. Far from suggesting a direct link between the Rule and Matthew’s editorial enterprise, I propose that the Qumranic evidence can provide informative backdrop evidence of an aspiration for a new priesthood and its community, 32 See Konradt, Matthew, 324. E.g., Damascus Documents 6; 4QFlorilegium 1; 4QMMT. 34 1QS 1.7-10: “to welcome all those who freely volunteer to carry out God’s decrees 8 into the covenant of kindness; in order to be united in the counsel of God and walk in perfection in his sight, complying with all 9 revealed things concerning the regulated times of their stipulations; in order to love all the sons of light, each one 10 according to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt 11 in God’s vindication.” 33 21 expressed in terms of another ethnos drastically distinguished from traditional borderlines of Israel. Conclusion The backdrop Qumranic evidence combined with the likely biblical allusion, discerned in the addition to the Wicked Tenants parable (and supported by the evidence from 1 Peter), give more weight to a non-ethnic interpretation of Matthew’s editorial intent. Additional Note: One notes that the Qumranic evidence is conspicuously lacking the kingdom motif. Would it be still reasonable to suggest that the priests at Qumran applied Exod. 19:6 to themselves and their community? While this application might be expected, I have not managed to locate in the Scrolls any explicit reference to such a perception. 22 (Why) Did Jews Hate Tax Collectors–Or Did They? The Evolution of a Modern Stereotype in Biblical Studies Guido Baltes The image of the despised tax or toll collector,[1] ostracized and hated by the Jewish community, is a common motif in Christian bible exposition and New Testament exegesis. The relevant texts for the development of this motif are the stories of the calling of Levi or Matthew (Mark 2:13-17 parr) and Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Additional references to criticism of Jesus’ association and table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners“ (Matt. 11:19 ∥ Luke 7:34; Luke 15:1-3) or to sins committed by tax collectors (Matt. 5:46; 1 The Greek terms τελώνης (telōnēs), used 21xx in the NT (Synoptic Gospels only), as well as the term ἀρχιτελώνης (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2 only), etymologically refers to toll collectors (telos = border). However, the NT usage of the terms is much more unspecific and can refer to different kinds of customs and tax officials. For the purpose of this article, there is no need to detail the different taxation systems (Roman publicani vs. local tax farmers), the complex variety of levies and taxes (tributum soli, tributum capitis, stipendium, vectigal, decuma, portorium etc.) or the variety of offices involved (Lat. publicanus, portitor, etc., Gk. telones, praktor, etc.). Sources about the taxation system in the land of Israel are sparse altogether. Most probably, the New Testament telonai were not Roman publicani (or their subordinates, the portitori), but wealthy local Jewish tax farmers, or their subordinate agents. In any case, taxes and tolls in the Galilee were not collected for “the Romans,” but for the Jewish ruler Herod Antipas. Zacchaeus, in contrast, might have been part of the publicani hierarchy, since Jericho belonged to Romangoverned Judea. For details, see now Aliya El-Mansy, Τελῶναι im Neuen Testament, NTOA 129 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2024), with a comprehensive survey of other relevant literature. 23 21:31-32; Luke 3:12-13; 18:10-13; 19:8b), as well as the depiction of toll collectors as apparent “outsiders” (Matt. 18:17) add to the picture. In the popular TV series “The Chosen,” a fictional dramatization of the life of Jesus,[2] one of the opening scenes shows Matthew crossing a crowded marketplace while people from all sides shout insults at him. In order to reach his tax booth safely, he has to hide on the cart of a local dung collector whom he pays for discrete transport. But even this man refuses to be seen with Matthew in public, fearing reprisals against himself and his family. Matthew’s booth has to be opened by a Roman soldier, suggesting direct subordination of the tax collector to the local Roman administration. Later on in the series, we learn that Matthew had been disinherited and declared dead by his father years ago. His whole family severed all contact because, as a collaborator with the enemy, he betrays his own nation. While some aspects of this portrayal of Matthew might be deliberately exaggerated due to the necessities of commercialization, most elements of this depiction can regularly be found not only in sermons and popular religious literature, but also in standard exegetical reference works and biblical commentaries. As an example, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia sums up Jewish attitudes towards tax collectors as follows: Tax collectors were especially despised by the Jewish population of Palestine for several reasons: (1) they collected money for the foreign power that occupied the land of Israel, thus indirectly giving support to this outrage; (2) they were notoriously unscrupulous, growing wealthy at the expense of others of their own people; and (3) their work 2 https://thechosen.tv/. According to Wikipedia, a survey commissioned by the producers claimed that that as of November 2022, around 108 million viewers worldwide had watched at least part of one episode, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_(TV_series). 24 involved them in regular contact with Gentiles, rendering them ritually unclean. Contempt for tax collectors is found both in the [Greco-Roman sources] and the rabbinic literature (see SB [scil. Strack-Billerbeck]). According to the latter, hatred was to be extended even to the family of the tax collector, and since tax collectors were universally regarded as no better than robbers or thieves it was not thought wrong to attempt to defraud them.[3] In the older, but still influential article on the topic in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (“Kittel”), Otto Michel summarizes that “throughout antiquity tax farmers were feared […] and disliked.” Judaism regarded “tax-collectors, taxfarmers and thieves as in a special way unclean,” “publicans and tax-collectors were regarded as thieves or even robbers“ and as people “who in following their profession not only disregarded the Rabb[inic] exposition of the Law but gen[erally] transgressed the commandment of God.”[4] The Anchor Yale Dictionary summarizes:[5] “In Roman and Hellenistic literature they are lumped together with beggars, thieves, and robbers.[6] […] The rabbinic writings […] link both tax and toll collectors […] with robbers, murderers, and sinners[7] and appear [sic!] in lists of ‘despised trades’ which no observant Jew should follow.”[8] For additional claims that tax and toll collectors were met with 3 Donald Hagner, “Tax Collector,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, 742-43, 742. 4 Otto Michel, “Τελώνης,” in ThWNT 8, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 101. 5 John R. Donahue, “Tax Collector,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 6:338. 6 Sources given are Cicero, De offic. 15–51; Diogenes Cynicus, Ep. 36.2; Lucan, Pseudolog. 30; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 14.14 as well as a reference to Michel, “Τελώνης,” 99. 7 m. Ṭoh. 7:6; m. Baba Kamma 10:2; m. Ned. 3.4 are given as sources. The passages will be cited in full length and discussed in section five “Back to the sources.” 8 With a reference to b. Sanh. 25b (The passage is cited and discussed section five “Back to the sources”) and Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: eine kulturgeschichtliche 25 suspicion “because of their tendency to enrich themselves through dishonesty” or that they were “especially scorned as ‘Quislings’ because they collected taxes from their fellow Jews on behalf of the hated gentiles,” the dictionary does not refer to any ancient sources, but to two modern interpreters, Joachim Jeremias and Norman Perrin respectively.[9] Numerous Bible commentaries paint similar images of Jewish attitudes towards tax and toll collectors. They are described as being despised,[10] hated[11] and excluded from the Jewish community[12] because they Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 302-312. 9 Jeremias, Jerusalem, 310; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, New Testament library (London: SCM Press, 1967), 93-94. 10 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 237; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 101; Ulrich Luz, Matthew. Vol. 2: Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 33; Richard Thomas France, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC.NT 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 351; idem, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985), 167; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 193: “deep disdain”; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament commentaries 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 131: “heartily disliked.” 11 François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 189; Morris, Luke, 106. 12 John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 246: “social stigma”; France, Gospel According to Matthew, 129: “ostracized minority”; Robert A. Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 2 (Nottingham: InterVarsity-Press, 2008), 69: “outcast from Jewish society as the leper of i:4 had been.” 26 were seen as sinful,[13] as ritually impure,[14] as dishonest and greedy,[15] and as traitors and collaborators with the Roman enemy.[16] 1. Stereotypes, old and new The most recent extensive study on the subject by Aliya El-Mansy[17] identifies four predominant images of tax collectors in modern biblical scholarship: (1) The tax collector was rejected for religious reasons, because he was regarded as sinful 13 John R. Donahue, The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina 2 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 104; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 287; Peter Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium, ThHK 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 329; Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, KEK Sdbd. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 148; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 162; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 1:330; Peter Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium, vol. Band 2 of ThKNT 2 (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2007), 97; Nolland, Luke 1, 246; Luz, Matthew, 13; Bovon, Luke, 189; France, Gospel of Matthew, 227; idem, Gospel According to Matthew, 167. 14 Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 238; Guelich, Mark 1-8, 101; Nolland, Luke 1, 246; Luz, Matthew, 33; France, Gospel of Matthew, 353; idem, Gospel According to Matthew 167; Cole, Mark, 70. 15 William David Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume I: Commentary on Matthew I-VII (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 558; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 237; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 162; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium. Erster Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13,58, 2nd ed., HThK I.1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 330; Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium. Teil 1: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1 – 9,50, HThK 3,1 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 288; Dschulnigg, Markusevangelium, 97; Warren Carter, Mark, Wisdom commentary 42 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2019), 49; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 1. Teilband: Lk 1,1-9,50, EKK III/1 (Zürich/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1989), 257; Nolland, Luke 1, 150; France, Gospel of Matthew, 351; idem, Gospel According to Matthew, 167; Cole, Mark, 69; Morris, Luke, 106 and 131. 16 Robert L. Brawley, Luke: A Social Identity Commentary, T & T Clark social identity commentaries on the New Testament (London et al.: T&T Clark, 2020), 57, 76, 164, 170; Carter, Mark, 49; Ulrich Luck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Zürcher Bibelkommentare NT.1 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993), 125; Collins, Mark, 195; Cole, Mark, 69; Bovon, Luke, 189; France, Gospel of Matthew, 351; Morris, Luke, 131. 17 El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 18-25. 27 and impure according to Jewish law.[18] (2) The tax collector was rejected for political reasons because he was viewed as a treacherous collaborator with enemy Rome.[19] (3a) The tax collector was socially marginalized because, in most cases, he was poor and had to work as a minor subordinate for wealthy tax-farmers.[20] (3b) the tax collector was socially marginalized even if he was a wealthy taxfarmer himself, because he was rejected by the higher-status society as an illegitimate parvenu.[21] While this classification is helpful in many ways to understand the diverse (and sometimes contradicting) images of tax and toll collectors in modern scholarship, it describes modern views about tax and toll collectors in antiquity rather than 18 This view has become influential through the work of Joachim Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” ZNW 30.3 (1931): 293-300, who suggested moral aspects such as overtaxation and fraud, but not ritual impurity. Jeremias based his assumptions mainly on rabbinic lists of “dubious trades” (e.g. m. Kid. 4:14 par. y. Kid. 4:11,66b and b. Kid. 82a, b. Sanh. 25b, for full texts see below). The aspect of ritual impurity was later introduced by Jeremias’ student Norman Perrin (Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 134), but also by Michel, “Τελώνης.” Both based their assumption mainly on m. Toh. 7:6 and parallels (see section five “Back to the sources”), which ascribe ritual impurity to a house entered by a toll collector. For a discussion of these rabbinic passages see section five “Back to the sources.” 19 Main proponents have been Herbert C. Youtie, “Publicans and Sinners,” Michigan Alumnus 34 (1937): 1-7 (repr. in ZPE 1 [1967]:1-20) and John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33.1 (1971): 60. While Youtie claims the “collaborator” motive already for the Galilean ministry of Jesus, Donahue attributes it to the later Gospel writers. 20 Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus von Nazareth – Hoffnung der Armen, UTB 639 (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1978), 16-23. In contrast to Youtie, Schottroff/Stegemann claim that the Greek term τελώνης (telōnēs) in the New Testament in most cases does refer neither to the privileged Roman class of publicani, nor to wealthy Jewish tax-farmers but rather to their lower-class subordinates who were entrusted with the job of collecting the money for their superiors. 21 Fritz Herrenbrück, Jesus und die Zöllner: historische und neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchungen, WUNT 2/41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 226–27 and 289–93. El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 22, speaks of categories 3a and 3b since both approaches assume a rejection of tax/toll collectors by the elites on the basis of social stratification. 28 ancient Jewish views prevalent in New Testament times: El-Mansy rightly proposes to read New Testament references to the τελῶναι (telōnai) as an ancient form of social stereotyping:[22] The term “stereotyping,” developed in modern sociological research, denotes a process whereby a group of people is constructed and identified as a homogenous group of people with common characteristic traits, in this case predominantly negative, by their surrounding society. While such stereotypes may or may not reflect the reality of any individual within this group, they are often applied collectively to the whole group. The New Testament builds on such existing stereotypes and uses them as a tool to illustrate certain aspects of Jesus’ message to ancient readers: Thus, Jesus’ association with “the tax collectors” is seen as a very striking example of his behaviour towards sinners in general. “The tax collectors” are accused of fraud by John the Baptist (Luke 3:12-13) and depicted as people with a low moral profile by Jesus (Matt. 5:46; 18:17). However, while it is important to understand the dynamics of stereotyping behind the New Testament references to tax and toll collectors, it is also important to discern between ancient and modern stereotypes. Not all images presented by modern Bible scholarship actually existed in biblical times. Some indeed have developed much later and are a product of modern Christian, rather than ancient Jewish, stereotyping. In addition, we have to discern between “stereotypes about tax and toll collectors” on one side, and “stereotypes about ancient Judaism” on the other, since much of the wording quoted above is related to Jewish attitudes about tax collectors, rather than to the tax collectors themselves. In certain respects, the 22 El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 14-18 and 358-363. 29 images suggested by modern Bible interpreters therefore could be termed as “modern anti-Jewish stereotypes” rather than “ancient anti-tax collector stereotypes.” The purpose of this article is to paint a more nuanced picture of the origins and evolution of our common and familiar images—be they about tax collectors or about Jews. For reasons of clarity, I suggest the following nuanced terminology when talking about the different motives and images used in biblical scholarship as well as sermons and churches: (a) The “sinner” motive (without further specification of the nature of their sin) (b) The “fraud” motive (they misappropriate tax/toll money) (c) The “overtaxation” motive (they make profit from taking more than needed) (d) The “oppression” motive (they burden people with high taxes – even if legitimate) (e) The “collaborator” motive (they collaborate with “enemy Rome”) (f) The “impurity” motive (they are ritually impure and transmit impurity to others) (g) The “halakhic restrictions” motive (specific halakhic restrictions apply to them) (h) The “pious criticism” motive (they were looked down upon by the more religious) (i) The “social marginalization” motive (they were looked down upon by the elite) (j) The “community exclusion” motive (they are shunned by, or excluded from, society) (k) The “family exclusion” motive (they are shunned by, or excluded from, their families) 30 (l) The “Jewish hatred” motive (Jews hate them for any of the reasons above) Some of these motives seem to be quite similar, however it is important to note the differences: E.g., while “overtaxation” denotes the accusation that the tax collector fraudulently charges more taxes than he is ordained and keeps the excess as a personal profit (such as in Luke 3:12), the accusation of “oppression” makes the tax collector complicit in an oppressive taxation system even if he himself does his job faithfully and honestly. The “collaborator” charge, in turn, carries with it the nationalistic charge of betraying one’s own people: It is not the amount of money collected, but the system it is done for. Likewise, tax and toll collectors might be looked down upon by others, be it for religious inadequacies or for their lower social status. However, the charge of “exclusion” from social contact, or even the claim that tax collectors had no personal friends, were attacked or insulted in the streets or even shunned from their own families is a far more serious charge. Finally, “hate” is a term that carries an emotional note and describes a general attitude rather than a specific behaviour. When investigating the origins of such motives or stereotypes, it is therefore necessary to distinguish between the different motives. Note also that motives (a) to (d) are predominantly characterizations of (or stereotypes about) tax and toll collectors themselves, while motives (h) to (l) are predominantly characterizations of (or stereotypes about) Jews and their behaviour towards tax and toll collectors. Motives (e) to (g) are somewhere in between: Depending on political and religious convictions, some would see them as rightful characterizations, others as unjustified discrimination based on religious or political bias. 31 With this terminology in view, we may now turn to the sources and try to get a more nuanced picture of the evolving image of the “despised tax and toll collector”: What exactly were their “sins” and why were they “hated and excluded” by their Jewish contemporaries – if indeed they were? 2. The surprising silence of the New Testament Looking at the colorful characterizations of tax and toll collectors offered by modern Bible interpreters, it might come as a surprise how little detail we find in the New Testament texts themselves. Yes, we frequently find the “sinner” motive, where tax and toll collectors are grouped together, although not necessarily equated, with sinners (Mark 2:15-16 parr.; Matt. 11:19 par.; Luke 15:1), with nonJews (Matt. 5:46; 18,17) and with prostitutes (Matt. 21:31-32):[23] However, in none of these instances does the text explain what the sin of the tax/toll collectors is. Likewise, the parable about the tax/toll collector and the Pharisee characterizes the former as a sinner (Luke 18:13), but it neither gives any details about the nature of the sin, nor specifies whether it has any connection with his profession. In two cases, more information about specific sins is given: John the Baptist exhorts a group of tax and toll collectors to “Collect no more than the amount prescribed” (Luke 3:13), which implies the “overtaxation” charge. A similar assumption is suggested when Zacchaeus pledges: “if I have defrauded anyone of 23 Grammatically, the formula “tax collectors and sinners“ can either be read as a list of two separate groups (“tax collectors as opposed to sinners“) or as an explanatory clause (“people who are tax collectors and therefore sinners“). In the specifically Matthean pairings of “tax collectors and prostitutes” and “tax collectors and non-Jews,” it is clearer that two separate groups are in view. 32 anything, I will pay back four times as much” (Luke 18:8). Apart from these two instances, we find no other allegations or complaints about tax and toll collectors in the whole New Testament. The three motives of sin, fraud and overtaxation are the only specific negative stereotypes employed by New Testament writers. There is no general opposition against “oppressive” taxation or tolls as such,[24] and neither is the profession of a tax or toll collector in itself put into question. While Josephus, in spite of his generally pro-Roman attitude,[25] addresses the pressing load of taxation at least during the reign of Herod Agrippa (41-44 C.E.),[26] this is not an issue in the New Testament. Tax collectors are criticized for sins which they commit while in office, but not for the office itself. The motives of “oppression” and “collaboration,” so prevalent among modern Bible interpreters, are absent from the New Testament as is the motive of “impurity.” In any case, the charge of “collaboration with Rome” would be a surprise, since Galilee at Jesus’ time was ruled by Herod Antipas, a Jewish ruler, and taxes were not collected for the Romans, but for Herod, whose 43 year-reign as tetrarch brought a phase of relative quiet and stability to the Jewish population of the Galilee.[27] 24 Matt. 17:24-27 could be seen as a hidden critique of Temple tax and/or governmental tax. The admonition of John the Baptist in Luke 3:12-13, however, assumes the legitimacy of taxation. 25 On Josephus’ friendly attitude toward the Roman Empire and how it compares to the proRoman stance in the Gospel of Matthew, see JP Staff Writer, “Evidence of Pro-Roman Leanings in the Gospel of Matthew,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2024) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/28170/]—JP. 26 Jos. Ant. 17:28. 27 Morten Hørning Jensen summarizes: “It counts to his credit that he [i.e., Herod Antipas—GB] was able to keep his tetrarchy for 43 years in a relatively stable and calm condition with no known major upheavals apart from a couple of ‘low-threat’ incidents […] Josephus treats Antipas as one of the minor persons within the Herodian house, and though it would have 33 As concerns stereotypes about Jews or Jewish society, it should be noted that none of the texts quoted above speaks of “hatred” against tax or toll collectors. Also, none of the tax and toll collectors is excluded from their family or from society at large. Yes, there are people who take issue with the fact that Jesus eats with them (Mark 2:16; Matt. 9:11; Luke 5:29; 15:2; 19:7). This article will try to explore what the reasons are. For now, the observation should suffice that “hate” is never mentioned as a reason. As we will see later, “pious criticism” and “hatred” should not too easily be confused. For now, we rest with the observation that the New Testament portrays tax and toll collectors collectively as sinners (or at least groups them with sinners) without specifying the nature of their sinfulness, apart from two cases where they the motives of fraud and overtaxation are named. As we will see later, these are the typical stereotypes of the ancient Mediterranean world, GrecoRoman and Jewish alike. 3. The focus of the early church: Salvation of sinners The fathers of the early church to a large extent contented themselves with the same portrayal of tax and toll collectors. In their interpretation of the scriptural texts, they concentrate on the topic of the repentant sinner. Thus, according to Jerome (died 420 C.E.), the story of the calling of Matthew illustrates “that no one must despair of salvation if he has changed for the better, for he was suddenly substantiated his line of thought, he is not able to attribute any real examples of despotic cruelty to Antipas. Instead Josephus actually labels him ‘a lover of quietness’ (Ant. 18.245).” M. H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee WUNT 2/215 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 254, 257-258. 34 changed from a publican to an apostle.”[28] Peter Chrysologus (died 451 C.E.) writes about Jesus: “veiled in a human body he was able to communicate with humans. He who wanted to assist the guilty hides the fact that he was a judge.”[29] Gregory of Nazianzus (died 390 C.E.) asks: “In taking as his disciple a tax collector, one might ask: What could [Jesus] possibly gain by doing so? Only the salvation of sinners!”[30] None of the three attempt to elucidate the nature of Matthew’s guilt or what was the sin from which he needed to be saved. Some ancient authors, however, go beyond the New Testament texts and add details or generalizations not found in the texts themselves. Thus, Tertullian (died 220 C.E.) explains that by using the formula “tax collectors and sinners,” the New Testament makes a distinction “between those who are sinners by office – that is, publicans, and those who are sinners by nature – that is, not publicans.”[31] Here, it is no longer the sin of greed or fraud, but the office as such that is deemed sinful. The same is true for Chrysostom (died 407 C.E.), who states that Jesus called Matthew away from his profession to underscore “that he was being actively drawn away from the midst of the very evils in which he was presently engaged and that he had not already abandoned his wicked business as a tax gatherer.”[32] Tertullian also suggests that Matthew might have been a non-Jew, although he adds that some publicans also were Jews.[33] Chrysostom assumes that “certainly the dishes Matthew set before him at that time had come from unrighteousness and 28 Jerome, On Matthew 1.9.9 (CCL 77:55). Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 29.4 (CCL 24:171). 30 Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 45 On Easter 26 (PG 36:659). 31 Tertullian, On Modesty 9. 32 Chrysostom, Homily in Matthew 30.1 (PG 57:361-362; NPNF 1 10:198-199). 33 Tertullian, ibid. 29 35 covetousness.”[34] Eusebius of Caesarea (died 339 C.E.) writes that in Mark 2:13, Levi “did not leave a holy occupation, but came from those consumed with taxgathering and overreaching one another.”[35] For Ambrose of Milan (died 397), Levi “once greedily embezzled from fishermen the profits they earned from hard labor and dangers,” and his office was “to rob others of their money.”[36] Beda Venerabilis (died 735 C.E.) describes Levi as a “stubborn intellect avid for temporal gain,”[37] and Cyril of Alexandria (died 444 C.E) uses Levi as a blueprint for the general stereotype that dominates the interpretations of the early church fathers: A publican, a man greedy for dirty money, filled with an uncontrolled desire to possess, careless of justice in his eagerness to have what did not belong to him. Such was the character of the publicans.[38] In sum, the early Christian interpreters focus on the theme of the repentant sinner. In doing so, they confine themselves strictly to the motives found in the New Testament: Sin, fraud and overtaxation. However, they expand and enhance the image by adding vivid details not found in the original texts. These details are not drawn from any historical or extrabiblical sources, but from the imagination of the interpreter. Some interpreters go beyond the biblical text by characterizing the 34 Chrysostom, Homily in Matthew 30.2 (PG 57:363-364; NPNF 1 10:199-200). Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel 3.5 (TLG 2018.005, 3.5.81.1-3; POG 1:137). 36 Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 5:16. 37 Beda Venerabilis, Homilies on the Gospels 1.21. 38 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 12 (CGSL 113); cf. also Cyril’s comment on Luke 18:13, where the tax collector “had been careless in keeping his laws and had led an unchaste and uncontrolled life“ (Commentary on Luke, Homily 120), and on Luke 19:2-4, where Zacchaeus was “a man entirely abandoned to greed, whose only goal was the increase of his gains,” and Cyril adds: “This was the practice of the tax collectors” (Commentary on Luke, Homily 127). 35 36 office of a tax or toll collector as sinful in itself. Other common modern stereotypes, such as the collaboration, oppression or impurity motive, are alien to the early interpreters of Scripture. Likewise, the terminology of “hate,” the image of the “despised tax collector,” as well as examples of exclusion from family or community, are absent in the commentaries of this era. Only rarely do authors reflect on possible motives or explanations for the “grudge” of Jesus’ opponents. These answers are in fact much more nuanced than the modern stereotype of “Jewish hatred”: Jerome, for example, suggests that Jesus’ opponents felt challenged by his table fellowship with sinners, because they “considered themselves righteous and avoided (declinabant) both sinners and tax collectors.”[39] Cyril of Alexandria is one of the first to refer to issues of purity. However, in contrast with many modern interpreters, he does not assume the impurity of the tax collector, but a possible mixture of “pure and impure things” during the meals.[40] He does not elaborate whether he thinks of impure food or vessels. 4. Luther, Calvin and the emerging topos of “Jewish hatred” As we move on from the early church to the Reformation, we find continuity as well as innovation in Martin Luther’s approach to the “tax and toll collector” theme. One of the innovations is the inclusion of short historical sketches of the Roman taxation system as background information to biblical texts. In a sermon on Luke 15:1-10 delivered in the year 1525, Luther remarks in passing that tax 39 Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 1.9.13. Notice the difference between social distance and hatred. 40 Cyrill of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 21-22. 37 collectors had to collect taxes for their masters, but frequently filled their own purse with the money they collected.[41] In two other sermons from 1532, the historical excursus is slightly expanded: Luther uses the contemporary taxation systems of Venice, Padova, Verona and Istanbul as a reference to explain the mechanism of tax-farming: The tax collectors has to deliver a defined sum to the Roman emperor, and could keep the excess: “From whatever he can extract, he has to deliver a certain sum, and keep the rest. Whenever such a sum was imposed on a whole country or city, then he had to toil and scrape immensely. This is why tax collectors were infamous throughout the lands as flayers.”[42] We have here an early instance of the “oppression” motive: Luther describes the taxation system as such as oppressive and unjust, a notion that we do not yet find in the New Testament or among the church fathers. While these short digressions into the realm of ancient taxation system are only a minor innovation,[43] Luther uses them for a more essential shift of emphasis. While most of the early church interpreters focussed on the sins of the tax and toll 41 Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 2nd, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Erwin Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, Vol. 3: Markus- und Lukasevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1953), 225. 42 “Was er erschinden kann, davon muß er eine bestimmte Summe abgeben, das übrige gehört ihm. Wenn solche Summe auf ein ganzes Land oder eine Stadt geschlagen war, dann mußt er gehörig schinden und schaben. Darum heißen sie Zöllner und waren berüchtigt im ganzen Land als Schinder.” Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on Aug 8th, 1532, WA 36,272,3-9 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 226). A very similar passage is found in his sermon on Aug 12th, 1532, WA 46, 490, 19-22. Since both versions are based on audience transcriptions, Luther probably used the same words in both cases. 43 Further research is needed to identify the earlier sources and contemporary influences that led to the inclusion of such historical digressions in Luther’s sermons (and, as we will see, also Calvin’s commentaries). The motives, however, remain the same at least into the 13th century, where they are repeated in the Catena Aurea and in Thomas Aquinas’ Lectura supra Mattheum (Paris, 1269-1270), cf. Renard, Jean Paul, “La Lectura super Matthaeum V,20-48,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 50 (1983): 145-190. 38 collectors, and remained rather silent on the possible motives and reasons for the criticism of Jesus’ opponents, Luther reverses the focus: He shifts the focus away from the sinful tax collector and concentrates on the sinful (and hateful) Jew. Though the sins of the tax collectors are named, and in one case even overdramatized (“they pillage and burn the whole world, … and it is an abominable sin”),[44] Luther makes it a point of his sermons that such sins are only petty offenses, compared with the self-righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees: “These are small sins, painted alongside the great sins. Here we find that the greatest saints are the worst among the sinners, while the least among the sinners are great saints.”[45] This is the common theme running through all of Luther’s sermons on tax and toll collectors:[46] For him, it is not the repentance of the sinner, but the lack of repentance of the Jewish opponents that comes into focus. The tax collector appears as an image of those “who have nothing, apart from the fact that they delight in listening to Jesus, that he offers his friendship to them, and that he eats and drinks with them.”[47] Instead of elaborating on their sins, Luther concentrates on the attitudes of Jesus’ opponents, the scribes and Pharisees, and attributes their reaction to three main reasons: works-righteousness, pride and hatred. The first of these is the main theme: The Pharisees oppose Jesus because they have 44 Sermon on Luke 15:1-10 (see n. 38 above), Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 226. “Da sind kleine Sünden neben die großen gemalt, da sind die großen Heiligen die größten Sünder und die kleinen Sünder große Heilige.” Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 2nd, 1525 (see n. 41). 46 Cf., in addition to the sermons quoted before, also Martin Luther, Annotationes in aliquot capita Matthaei (1538), WA 38:479,30-484,16 (Erwin Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luthers EvangelienAuslegung, Vol. 2: Matthäusevangelium, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 320. 47 „…die nichts haben als daß sie Christus gerne hören, der ihnen die Freundschaft erweist, daß er mit ihnen ißt und trinkt.“ Sermon Jul 12th, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 224). 45 39 no awareness of their own sinfulness.[48] They are sick without knowing it. From this ignorance, pride arises as a second motive: “They would have preferred to have the honour of eating and drinking with him reserved for themselves.”[49] As a third motive, Luther introduces the language of hate: “But this is, as I have said before, a great offense to the Pharisees; because they hate sins and sinners according to the law and are convinced that such things are against the law. […] Summa summarum, the gospel is an offense to the Jews, which means to the works-righteous and the legalists.”[50] In contrast to the modern stereotype, this is not (yet) the idea of an alleged “Jewish hate” against tax and toll collectors in particular. Rather, it is the idea of “Jewish hate” against sinners in general: Jews hate sinners, while Jesus loves sinners. Here, Martin Luther puts into words a classic anti-Jewish stereotype which can still frequently be heard in the present. This stereotype is dramatized by an imaginary pictorial narration of the Levi story that enhances the image of the “hateful Jew” by employing language of dehumanization (“…baring their teeth”): This story can hardly be visualized vividly enough: Christ sits happily among the tax collectors as a companion of sinners and as if he approved of their lives. Meanwhile, the Pharisees stand around, frowning, baring their teeth, unwilling, judging and condemning, in short: they look at nothing but the law against him who is not under the 48 Martin Luther, Sermon Sept. 21, 1516, WA 1:85-87 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 318-320). “Sie hätten lieber selber die Ehre gehabt, dass er mit ihnen gegessen hätte“, ibid. 50 “Aber dies ist, wie oben gesagt, den Pharisäern ein groß Ärgernis; denn sie hassen Sünden und Sünder nach dem Gesetz und meinen, solches alles geschehe gegen das Gesetz. […] Summa summarum, das Evangelium ist den Juden, d. h. den Werkheiligen und Gesetzesmenschen ein Ärgernis“, ibid. (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 321). In two other sermons, Luther uses the term “despise” (verachten) instead of “hate” for the attitude of the opponents: Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 6th, 1522, WA 10:III, 217,7-218,16; (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 231); Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on June 17th, 1526, WA 20:444,11-14; 445,21-33 (ibid.). 49 40 law nor can be under it, indeed who redeems all from the law.[51] The shift of focus from the sinful tax and toll collector to the self-righteous and hateful Jew[52] culminates in a virtual reversal of roles, in which the former is exculpated while the latter is condemned. Luther summarizes: “There is already a pure heart, which is only hidden under an evil, shameful cover, because of which they are called tax collectors by the saints. With the Pharisees there is a stinking heart under a beautiful cover, their works have the most beautiful appearance; with the tax collectors there is a pure heart under the cover of the worst works.”[53] For Luther, the tax and toll collector sins against the ten commandments, while the Pharisee sins against the gospel, which is by far more severe.[54] When we move on to the commentaries of John Calvin, we find a number of new motives introduced which will from here on become influential: The motives of a general “Jewish hatred” against tax and toll collectors, the motive of exclusion 51 “Diese Geschichte kann man sich nicht deutlich genug vor Augen malen: Da sitzt Christus fröhlich unter den Zöllnern als ein Geselle der Sünder und als ob er ihr Leben gut hieße. Derweil aber stehen die Pharisäer drum herum, runzeln die Stirn, blecken die Zähne, sind unwillig, richten und verdammen, kurzum: sie sehen auf nichts als aufs Gesetz gegen den, der nicht unter dem Gesetz ist noch unter ihm sein kann, ja der alle vom Gesetz erlöst”, (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 321). 52 It is obvious from Luther’s sermons that he aims to use the stereotype of the “Jew” mainly as a metaphor for contemporary “works-righteousness” among Christians, which he saw exemplified in the Roman Catholic church. Elsewhere, in his commentary on Galatians, he explains: “The papist are our Jews.” However, even though he only speaks about the “metaphoric Jew” it is obvious that such language inevitable contributes to a consolidation and multiplication of negative attitudes and enmity towards “real Jews.” 53 “Da ist schon ein reines Herz, das nur noch verdeckt liegt unter einem bösen schändlichen Deckel, dessetwegen sie Zöllner genannt werden von den Heiligen. Bei den Pharisäern liegt ein stinkend Herz unter einem schönen Deckel, ihre Werke haben den schönsten Schein; bei den Zöllnern ist ein rein Herz unter dem Deckel der schlechtesten Werke.” Sermon July 12th, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 225). 54 Sermon on Luke 18:9-14, delivered on August 23, 1528, WA 27,312,14-313,6 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 315). 41 from society, and the motives of oppression and collaboration with the enemy. In general, Calvin follows in the footsteps of the early church by engaging the stereotypes of sin, fraud and overtaxation: “The publicans, viewed as a class (genus hominum), were covetous, rapacious, and cruel, and often oppressed the people by unjust exactions.”[55] However, he repeatedly introduces three new topoi. One is the image of the “despised and hated tax collector.” While in Luther’s sermons, “Jewish hatred” was directed against sinners in general, Calvin creates the idea of specific Jewish hatred against tax and toll collectors. Thus, in a surprising reversal of roles, the perpetrator becomes the victim, while his victims become the perpetrators. In interpreting Matt. 9:9, Calvin describes the office of the tax/toll collector as “little esteemed (minus probatum),” and “most infamous” (vero maxime infamis).” While Calvin clarifies that the office of a tax and toll collector as such was legitimate, he proposes that it was the humiliating experience of exclusion (“se rejici viderent”) and public hatred (“publico odio et repulsa”) which drove those who held the office inevitably into the arms of sinners: The reason was that the tax collectors, being themselves generally hated and despised (vulgo exosi et probrosi), did not disdain to associate with persons of that description. For, as moderate correction produces shame and humiliation in transgressors, so excessive severity drives some people to despair, makes them leave off all shame, and abandon themselves to wickedness. In levying custom or taxes there was nothing wrong; but when the publicans saw themselves cast off as ungodly and detestable persons (se rejici viderent publicani quasi profanes et detestabiles), they sought consolation in the society of those who did not despise them (eos non spernebant) on account of the bad and disgraceful reputation which they shared along with them. Meanwhile, 55 William Pringle, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, by John Calvin (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 1:195 (on Luke 3:12); in very similar words, also 1:307 (on Matt. 5:46) and 1:399 (on Matt. 9:9-13). 42 they mixed with adulterers, drunkards, and such characters; whose crimes they would have detested (improbassent), and whom they would not have resembled, had not the public hatred and detestation (publico odio et repulsa) driven them to that necessity.[56] Unlike in Luther and the early fathers, the focus of Calvins commentary is not on the repentance of the sinner (be it the tax collector or Pharisee), but on the acceptance of the rejected and despised into the fellowship with Jesus: In his encounter with Jesus, Matthew experiences not only the calling as an apostle but also the reception into the community of Christ (in contubernium Christi recipitur).[57] A similar imagery is found in Calvin’s treatment of the Zacchaeus story: “Men of that class were exceedingly despised and hated by the Jews (apud Judeaos ordo ille ideo infamia at odio flagrabat).”[58] “We know how hateful (odiosum), nay, how detestable the name of publican at the time was.” It is noteworthy that Calvin then adds: “… and we shall find this is shortly afterwards mentioned by Luke.”[59] The reference here is probably to Luke 19:7, where, however, the reason for the grudge of the people is explicitly named: It was not the fact that Zacchaeus was a tax collector, but that he was a sinful man. From these two motives of Jewish hatred and social exclusion, Calvin develops a homiletic focus that differs from the church fathers as well as from Luther: His focus is now on the “remarkable instance of favour, […] astonishing kindness in the Son of God to approach a man, from whom the body of men recoil (ad eum 56 Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:400-401. Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:400. 58 Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 2:434. 59 Ibid. 57 43 accedere a quo vulgus hominum abhorret).”[60] The variety of terms employed by Calvin to denote communal hatred and exclusion (minus probatum, vero maxime infamis, rejicere, profanes, detestabilis, spernere, odium publicum, repulsa, odiosus, infamia, odio flagrare, abhorrere) suggests that this is for him a central aspect of the New Testament stories dealing with tax and toll collectors. Apart from the two motives of hatred and exclusion, there is another innovative aspect in Calvin’s approach: In addition to the traditional charges of greed, overtaxation and fraud, Calvin introduces a new motive for the alleged hatred against toll and tax collectors: It is the motive of oppression. While the church fathers (and the New Testament texts) focus on issues of fraud and overtaxation (for personal profit), Calvin introduces a new nuance by describing Roman taxation as such as oppressive. It is therefore no longer the fraudulence of the tax and toll collectors, but the unjust character of Roman taxation that leads to Jewish hatred: Tax and toll collectors were “exceedingly despised and hated by the Jews because they reckoned it the highest degree unjust that they should pay tribute.”[61] It is however, for Calvin, not only the injustice of the taxation that produces hatred. It is also the fact that Jewish tax and toll collectors, in working for the government, act “among the Jews as agents of a wicked tyranny.”[62] Here, we find a very early example of the “collaborator” motif which will eventually become prominent and ubiquitous in modern Bible interpretation. All in all, four new aspects in interpreting the New Testament “tax and toll 60 Ibid. Emphasis mine. 62 Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:307. 61 44 collector” texts appear in Calvin’s commentaries: Jewish hatred, exclusion from society, an oppressive tax system and collaboration with a tyranny. Whether we can ascribe all these motives to Calvin’s innovative exegesis or to earlier unknown interpreters that influenced him, remains a matter to be studied. 5. “Back to the sources”: The quest for Greco-Roman and Jewish voices Neither Luther nor Calvin, like most of their contemporary Bible interpreters, refer to any ancient sources or extrabiblical material in order to substantiate their sketches of ancient Jewish society and their attitude towards tax and toll collectors. The use of historical source material for critical New Testament scholarship, though propagated by the renaissance motto “back to the sources,” became a prominent feature of New Testament exegesis only about a century later, from the 17th and 18th centuries onwards. In the year 1640, French classicist Claudius Salmasius (Claude Saumaise, 1588-1653) published the first extensive study of the Roman tax system which became the basis for all further critical scholarship on the matter.[63] However, New Testament texts feature only in a short side note: According to Salmasius, Jewish 63 Claudius Salmasius, Dissertatio de Foenore trapezitico, in tres libros divisa (Leiden: Maire, 1640). Salmasius’ hypothesis that the tax and toll collectors mentioned in the New Testament were not in fact publicans (as the traditional Latin Vulgate translation suggests), but portitores, i.e. minor administrative subordinates extracting taxes for the Roman publicans, became influential and was later advocated, among others, by Theodor Mommsen. Further research, however has made it more plausible that the system of Roman publicani was never implemented in the Galilee of the first century C.E. Rather, taxes were gathered by individual regional taxfarmers within the framework of the older, Persian-Hellenistic system of tax farming. Cf. the recent survey of the discussion in El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 18-25. 45 tax and toll collectors were “exceedingly hated by their kinsmen” (summo odio habebant apud tribules suos), because they extracted more than necessary. Their frequent association with sinners and with non-Jews in the Gospels is due to the fact that they were “no less hated” (non minus exosi erant) than these.[64] The motives of collective Jewish hatred and oppressive taxation appear also in other subsequent works of the era, such as Pieter Burmann’s “On the taxes of the Roman people” (1734)[65] and Johann Struckmanns “On the Tax collectors or Publicani in the New Testament” (1750).[66] A work that became much more influential was the groundbreaking collection of rabbinic sources pertaining to New Testament writings, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae compiled in the years 1658-1678 by the English clergyman and Hebraist John B. Lightfoot (1602-1675). While Lightfoot must be credited for making these sources accessible for biblical scholarship on a broad scale for the first time, it must also be noted that his presentation, interpretation and comments of these sources frequently distorts their content or adds nuances not found in the sources he provides. This is also the case when it comes to the issue of tax and toll collectors. As an example, Lightfoot introduces his comments on Matt. 5:46 with 64 Salmasius, Dissertatio, 386. “The telonai, frequently mentioned in the New Testament, were probably not publicani themselves, but worked for them and were hated by the Jews […] because they suffered from the yoke imposed on them as well as from taxation, and were afflicted by these rapacious harpies,” Petrus Burmannus, Vectigalia Populi Romani (Leiden: Wishoff, 1734), 125. The short passage on the New Testament was not yet part of the original 1694 edition. 66 “The Jews hated the telonai, not because they were Romans [which they were not], but simply for the office that they exerted, which is despised and abhorred by all humanity,” Johannes Struckmann, De Portoribus seu Publicanis in Novum Testamentum obviis (Lemgo: Meyer, 1750), 52-53. 65 46 the words: How odious the publicans were to the Jewish nation, especially those that were sprung of that nation, and how they reckoned them the very worst of all mankind, appears many ways in the evangelists; and the very same is their character in their own writers.[67] With his wording, Lightfoot goes far beyond the claims of Calvin or Salmasius. However, he fails to name New Testament passages in which tax or toll collectors are described as “odious to the Jewish nation,” or in which they are labelled “the very worst of all mankind.” Likewise, it is hard to find these motives in the rabbinic sources that Lightfoot cites. The most important one is a passage from b. Sanh. 24b-25b.[68] The rabbis here discuss a passage from the Mishna (m. Sanh. 3:3) in which specific groups of people were excluded from participation in court as witnesses or judges: “He who plays dice; he who loans money on interest; those who race pigeons; and those who do business in the produce of the Seventh Year” (m. Sanh. 3:3 [trans. Neusner]). In the Talmudic discussion, additional groups are suggested for which these restrictions should also apply: A Tanna taught: [To those enumerated in the Mishna] were added robbers and those who compel a sale. […] A Tanna taught: They further added to the list, herdsmen, tax collectors (‫ ַגּ ָבּאִין‬, gabā’in) and publicans (‫מוֹ ְכסִין‬, mōchsin). As to the herdsmen: Originally, they assumed that they let their sheep graze on other people’s land by pure negligence. However, when they observed that it was done on purpose, they made 67 John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, Hebrew and Talmudical exercitations. Vol. II: Gospel of St. Matthew; Gospel of St. Mark. A new Edition by the Revd. Robert Gandell (Oxford: University Press, 1859), 134. 68 Lightfoot also cites Maimonides (1138-1204) and other medieval sources. However, these hardly reflect Jewish views of the New Testament era, while some passages of Mishna and Talmud (200-650 C.E.), though from a much later period, might contain or reflect older traditions from the Second Temple period. 47 the decree against them. As to the tax and toll collectors: Originally, they assumed that they collected no more than the imposed tax. However, when they observed that they intentionally overcharged, they made the decree against them. (b. Sanh. 25b ([trans. Epstein, slightly updated])[69] The issue here is fraudulent overtaxation: Tax and toll collectors are mistrusted in court because they have a reputation to take more taxes than necessary. However, Lightfoot fails to cite an important part of the passage. As usual, this Talmudic debate compiles different opinions of different teachers. And as often elsewhere, these opinions are left standing side by side without a final decision on the issue. In the case of b. Sanh. 25b, the debate concludes with an important dictum of R. Judah (3rd cent. C.E.), who suggests that the restrictions mentioned should only be imposed on those tax and toll collectors who had indeed been found guilty of fraud (“when they observed…”), while it did not apply to ordinary tax and toll collectors in general: Rab Judah said: An ordinary herdsman is ineligible in general, while an ordinary tax collector is eligible in general. (b. Sanh. 25b) In another Mishnaic passage cited by Lightfoot, the Rabbis discuss situations in which it is permissible to make false claims about one’s property and take a respective (false) vow: They take [such vows] to murderers, robbers, or tax collectors: that [produce] is heave offering, even though it is not heave offering. That [property] belongs to the state, even though it does not belong to the state. The House of Shammai say, “In any form of words they vow except in the form of an oath.” And the House of Hillel say, “Even in 69 A parallel is found in m. Rosh Hash. 1:8. 48 the form of an oath.” (m. Ned. 3:4 ([trans. Neusner]) The issue here is again overtaxation: While murderers and robbers take away produce or property by the use of force, the tax and toll collector is suspected to take more than his orders require. It is therefore deemed legitimate to use “white lies” about one’s property, claiming it either belongs to the Temple (heave offering) or to the state, but not to one’s personal property. While both passages therefore confirm the charges of overtaxation and fraud (also found in the New Testament), neither one substantiates Lightfoot’s claims that tax and toll collectors were viewed as “the worst of mankind” or that they were “hated by the Jewish nation.” On the contrary: The only specific example of a Jewish tax and toll collector that Lightfoot adduces does not conform to the stereotype at all: He was remembered by his community as someone who precisely used his office to protect his village and family from unjust overtaxation by warning them ahead of time about upcoming visits of his superiors. At the end of his life, he even returned some of the taxes he had (probably rightfully) collected: R. Zera’s father acted as tax collector for thirteen years. When the Resh Nahara [i.e. the district superior] used to come to a town, if he [R. Zera’s father] saw the scholars [of the city] he would advise them: Come my people, enter thou into thy chambers. And when he saw the other inhabitants of the town he would say to them: The Resh Nahara is coming to the city, and now he will slaughter the father in the presence of the son, and the son in the presence of the father; whereupon they all hid themselves. When the officer arrived [and rebuked him for failing in his duty,] he would say: Of whom shall I make the demand? Before he died, he said: Take the thirteen ma’ahs [silver coins] that are tied in my sheets and return them to so and so, for I took them from him [by way of tax] and have had no need for them. (b. Sanh. 25b [trans. Epstein]) 49 From the few rabbinic sources compiled by Lightfoot, it is therefore difficult to derive the motive of collective Jewish hatred suggested in his introduction, as well as the motives of oppression and collaboration which he adds in his conclusion: They were marked with such reproach, and that not without good reason; partly by reason of their rapine, partly, that to the burden laid upon the nation they themselves added another burden. […] By how much the more grievous the heathen yoke was to the Jewish people, boasting themselves a free nation, so much the more hateful to them was this kind of men; who, though sprung of Jewish blood, yet rendered their yoke much more heavy by these rapines.[70] However, the image that Lightfoot created was quickly picked up in the newly emerging literary genre of biblical and general encyclopaedias: Short summaries condensed the emerging stereotype into catchy lines: Tax and toll collectors “were generally cruel oppressors and extortioners, […] hated by all Men, as appears in Holy Writ.”[71] “The name appears to have been odious to the Jews, apparently because of the exactions of this sort of people.”[72] Tax collectors were “exceedingly hated by the Jews.”[73] However, it was probably not the scholarly literature, but rather popular preaching that contributed most to the dissemination of the stereotype. In his very influential Exposition on the New Testament, published in the years 1746-1748, John Gill, a Baptist preacher and Calvinist biblical scholar, summed up the current state of the development in voluminous 70 Lightfoot, Horae, 135. Jeremy Collier, The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary (Vol 2) (London: Rhodes, 1701), entry on “Publicans” (volume contains no page numbers). 72 Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopædia: or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. Vol 2 (London: Knapton, 1728), 907. 73 Adam Erdmann Mirus, Biblisches Antiquitaeten Lexicon (Leipzig: Braun, 1714), 1289: „doch waren sie bey den Juden sehr heftig verhasst.“ 71 50 wording. We have here not only the traditional motive of the “sinner,” but also those of fraud, oppression, collaboration, social exclusion and “Jewish hatred,” all combined to a coherent picture: …men of the worst characters, and who were most hateful to the Jews, upon many accounts; partly because of their business, which was to collect the Roman tax, […]. Now the Roman yoke was very grievous to the Jews, who boasted of their being a free people; nor did they willingly pay their tribute money; and some of them would refuse to do it, under a pretence of religion; wherefore those publicans, or tax gatherers, which were oftentimes men of their own nation, as appears from the instances of Levi and Zacchaeus, were very odious to them; because they looked upon them as joining with the Romans, in oppressing them, and abridging them in their liberty: and partly because of their character and conduct, being men of great improbity, rapine, and covetousness: hence, as in the New Testament, they are frequently joined with “sinners”, as being notorious ones themselves; so in the Talmudic writings, with thieves, and are reckoned as thieves, with murderers, and robbers; they were not allowed as witnesses in any of their courts of judicature; nor were they to be kept company with in private houses. Now our Lord instances in these men who were the most profligate part of the nation, and had in greatest contempt by the rest.[74] Shortly after the publication of Gill’s exposition, the repertoire of ancient sources available to biblical scholars was once again greatly enlarged through the work of German scholar Johann Jacob Wettstein (1693-1754), who in the year 1751 published a critical edition of the New Testament with extensive annotations.[75] An 74 John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament. Reprint in Three Volumes. Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Woodward, 1911), 53 (on Matt. 5:46). 75 Johann Jacob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus et commentario (Amsterdam: Dommer, 1751). The Greco-Roman sources cited further below are now conveniently made available in the updated successor of the Wettstein New Testasmnent: Udo Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein – Texte zum Markusevangelium: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus (Berlin, New York 2008), 535-542 (although only in German 51 outstanding feature of this edition was the studious compilation of ancient sources, Greco-Roman and Jewish, pertaining to New Testament passages. In his commentary on Luke 3:13, Wettstein inserts an extensive excursus on toll and tax collectors, compiling references to a number of classical and rabbinic sources which until today form the basis for most contemporary discussions of the ancient source material. Apart from papyri and inscriptions, little new material has entered the discussion since the publication of Wettsteins New Testament. In contrast to Lightfoot, Wettstein does not comment on his sources, but confines himself to a simple enumeration and selected quotations. To the three rabbinic passages cited by Lightfoot, Wettstein adds a number of others: With regard to the restriction on court participation (cf. above), he explicitly cites the concluding dictum that had been left out by Lightfoot: “R. Judah said: Ordinary tax collectors are generally eligible.” In another passage from the Mishna (m. Baba Kamma 10:1), the question is discussed whether money from dubious sources should be accepted in money-changing or collections for charity: They do not change money from the chest of the excise collectors (‫מוֹ ְכסִין‬, mōchsin) or from the fund of the tax farmer (‫ ַגּ ָבּאִין‬, gabā’in). And they do not take from them contributions to charity. But one may take [from them contributions for charity] when the funds are] from [the collector’s] own home or from the marketplace. (m. Baba Kamma 10:1 [trans. Neusner]) Obviously, the issue here again is fraud or overtaxation: Money earned by illicit means should not be accepted, neither for money changing nor for charity. However, it must be noted that money from the private purse of tax and toll translation). 52 collectors poses no halakhic problem. This passage shows pointedly that it is not the person who is rejected but only their money (if it comes from a dubious source). A talmudic passage from b. Bekh. 31a discusses the question under what circumstances tax or toll collectors can be members of pharisaic associations, the so-called ḥavūrōt: Our Rabbis taught: At first [the Sages] said: If a ḥāvēr [i.e. a member of a pharisaic association] became a tax-collector he is expelled from the order. If he withdrew [i.e. resigned from his office], he is not received [as a ḥāvēr]. They subsequently declared: If he withdrew, he is regarded like any other person. (b. Bekh. 31a [trans. Epstein])[76] This passage later became the main witness for the motives of “social exclusion” and “family exclusion.” However, the matter discussed is much more specific and deals with halakhic questions. A close parallel from an older source, the Tosefta, describes the problem more specifically: As long as he is a tax-collector, he is not reliable. [If] he withdrew from the office of tax-collector, behold, this one is [again] reliable. (t. Demai 3:4 [trans. Neusner]) The core of the problem was apparently the persons “reliability.” The term used here is a technical term distinguishing the members of pharisaic ḥavūrōt from ordinary Jewish people. The purpose of the ḥavūrōt was to implement a stricter system of purity and tithing than that practiced by the “normal” Jewish populace. Ḥavērim, i.e. members of the pharisaic associations, pledged to each other a strict adherence to these rules, so that, e.g., one member of the ḥavūra who wanted to purchase produce from another member, could “rely” on his adherence to these 76 Close parallels exist in the Tosefta (t. Demai 3:4) and the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Dem. 2:3, 23a). 53 rules. A contemporary analogy might be the “fair trade labels” attached to products in super markets: They have to be relied upon (and they have to be “reliable”) if people resolve to buy on the basis of “fair trade” practices according to the standards of that particular label. In the case of the tax and toll collector, apparently the duties of the office did not allow adherence to the higher purity and tithing standards of the ḥavūrōt. So a person could not be member of a ḥavūra and work as a tax or toll collector at the same time. From our sources, we can only speculate about the reasons. It probably had to do with the fact that tax and toll collectors frequently had to enter houses in which purity regulations were not kept properly, or that they had to inspect the contents of cupboards, bags and luggage of people they did not know (Jewish and non-Jewish), which made it difficult to maintain the higher-than normal purity status required of a ḥāvēr. For the time he was operating in his job, such a person was therefore excluded from membership. However, after he resigned from his office, membership could be resumed (according to the concluding dictum which revises the earlier). The passage therefore reflects the motive of “halakhic restrictions,” comparable to the exclusion from court in specific cases. It does not, however, substantiate claims of “social exclusion” or “family exclusion.” Nothing in our sources suggests that nonmembers of Pharisaic ḥavūrōt had fewer friends or lower status in their respective communities than members. Another Talmudic dictum cited by Wettstein discusses cases in which a family can be held liable for the transgressions of one family member: The whole world trembled at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, said at Sinai: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (Exod. 20:7). And with reference to all transgressions in the Torah it is said, holding guiltless; but here it is said: Will not hold him 54 guiltless. And for all the transgressions in the Torah he [the sinner] alone is punished, but here he and his family; for it is said: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt (Eccl. 5:5) […] And it was taught: R. Simeon said: If he sinned, what sin did his family commit? But this shows you that there is not a family containing a tax-collector, in which they are not all tax-collectors; or containing a robber, in which they are not all robbers; because they protect him! (b. Shevu’ot 29a [trans. Epstein]).[77] The issue here is the sinfulness of the tax and toll collector, without further specification. It is compared to the sin of perjury and to the sin of robbery. In all three cases, R. Simeon argues, the family can be held accountable for the sins of one family member, since they are assumed to be complicit in his sins. We have here an instance of the “sinner” motive as well as the “halakhic restriction” motive. Halakhic restrictions or sanctions against a tax or toll collector apparently could be extended to their families as well. However, claims that this passage speaks about social exclusion of, or collective hatred against, whole families[78] are not substantiated by the passage.[79] One last Talmudic passage cited by Wettstein concerns the question of restitution of stolen goods. The Mishna regulates how stolen or misappropriated goods, which can not be returned to their original owners (in case a robber or thief repents from his sins), must be recompensed in money value. In the Talmudic discussion on that issue, the case of tax and toll collectors is addressed: 77 A Parallel exists in Sifra, Kedoshim 4:13 (on Lev. 20:5). Cf. e.g. Paul Billerbeck and Hermann Leberecht Strack, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch – Unveränderter Nachdruck der 1. Auflage 1926, 5. Auflage. (München: C. H.Beck, 1969), 1:379. 79 Note that the wording of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia cited at the beginning of this article makes it sound as if a legal obligation existed to extend hatred to whole families. 78 55 Come and hear: “For shepherds, tax collectors and revenue farmers it is difficult to make repentance, yet they must make restitution [of the articles in question] to all those whom they know [they have robbed].” — It may, however, be said that though they have to make restitution, it would not be accepted from them. If so, why have they to make restitution? — [To make it quite evident that out of their free will] they are prepared to fulfill their duty before Heaven. (b. Baba Kamma 94b [trans. Epstein])[80] The prohibition to accept money from tax and toll collectors (in case it originates from fraudulent income), was already discussed above. So how would it be possible to make restitution, if the money could not be accepted? The repenting tax collector should at least make a symbolic offer to return the money. But since it will be rejected, R. Hisda suggests in the subsequent discussion that he could invest the money in public welfare, such as public facilities or wells. The rabbinic texts compiled by Lightfoot and Wettstein are more or less all relevant Jewish sources that will determine all subsequent discussions of Jewish hatred and exclusion of tax collectors in the subsequent centuries.[81] Only one novel set of texts has entered the discussion in the 20th century, and these are texts that bring up issues of purity.[82] They will be added here to complete the survey of 80 Parallels exist in t. Baba Metzia 8:26 and t. Baba Kamma 10:14. The latter, however, does not mention tax or toll collectors but simply refers to “those who rob the public.” 81 Billerbeck and Strack, Kommentar IV.2, 422-23, add further passages where tax and toll collectors are halakhically compared to robbers and money changers (m. Baba Kamma 1:2; DEZ 2) as well as a number of additional passages that allow “white lies” in order to avoid unjust taxation, following Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1890), 399-400. Michel, “Τελώνης,” adds a parallel from t. Baba Metzia 8:25. Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” cites two more “lists of dubious trades” which are suspected of fraud (m. Kid. 4:14 and b. Kid. 82b), even though these do not include tax and toll collectors. 82 The issue of purity was brought into the discussion by Norman Perrin and Otto Michel, cf. above n. 18. 56 rabbinic texts: If tax collectors entered the house, the house is deemed impure. If there was a Gentile with them, and he says: “We did not enter,” he is believed. But when they say: “We entered, but we did not touch [anything],” they are not believed. If thieves entered the house, only the place [trodden by] the feet of the thieves is deemed impure. And what do they render impure? The foods, and the liquids, and clay utensils which are open. But the couches and the seats and clay utensils which are sealed with a tight seal are pure. (t. Toh. 8:5)[83] The passage is not easy to interpret. The general idea, however, is obvious: Thieves and tax collectors who enter a house, render it impure (in part or fully). Why is that? Because both touch utensils and open containers, bags and cupboards throughout the house in search for goods and therefore transmit impurity from one utensil to the other. The passage therefore does not, on a closer look, claim a general ritual impurity for thieves or tax/toll collectors as a person or group, but it defines halakhically how their conduct when entering a house results in impurity of that house or parts thereof. A similar logic is found in the following Mishnaic ruling which talks about the staff of the tax collector, which was probably used as an instrument to poke into produce or utensils when searching for hidden property: The hanger on the handle of a tax collector’s staff is impure, because it is used in his work. This is the general rule: If it is used during his work, it is impure. If it simply hangs on the wall, it is pure.” (m. Kelim 15:4) Both passages treat very specific halakhic restrictions in the area of purity. However, they neither confirm the idea that tax/toll collectors are generally viewed as impure nor that their company should be avoided, let alone the more general 83 A parallel in the Mishna (m. Toh. 7:6) probably reflects a less nuanced version of the dictum. 57 motives of Jewish hatred or social exclusion. In addition to the rabbinic sources, Wettstein’s collection for the first time compiles a vast amount of Greco-Roman source material about tax collectors and the Roman taxation system in general. Among these, we find a number of sources in which common attitudes towards tax and toll collectors are expressed. In stark contrast to the rabbinic sources, these Greco-Roman texts much more clearly convey the stereotypes of collective hatred and open animosity that are usually projected onto Jews: Julius Pollux, a Greek scholar and rhetorician of the 2nd century C.E., compiled a voluminous dictionary of Greek terms. In his entry for telōnēs, he suggests 35 ways with which to insult a tax/toll collector, while he only offers 10 to praise them: If you want to insult a tax collector, you could name him as annoying, impertinent, a strangler, a rapacious thief and looter, wilder than the oceans, harsher than the frost, a drowner of the drowning, a non-human, despised, gluttonous, excessive, a shameful soul, violent, an executioner, an oppressor, a profiteer, audacious, rude, shameless, grumpy, rough, savage, inhospitable, animal-like, a treacherous cliff, a rocky reef, shipwreck, a genuine beast and whatever other insults you have at hand. If you want to praise him, however, you could call him law-abiding, friendly, just, milder than the law, more precious than my life, skilled in modesty, a restful oasis after a rough Sea voyage, a safe harbour and mooring place. (Iulius Pollux, Onomasticon 9:32) Pollux’ list reads like an anthology of hateful attitudes towards tax collectors, which we so frequently assume to be typical for “the Jews.” However, they were conspicuously absent from Jewish sources, while they feature prominently in nonJewish sources. That Pollux is not a singular phenomenon, is obvious from many other examples cited by Wettstein: In the sources, we find the motive of “fraud” (familiar also from the New Testament and rabbinic sources), but also complaints 58 about “oppressive” amounts of taxes, as well as an explicit terminology of “hate” and insult (both absent from the New Testament as well as from the rabbinic sources): According to the sources, “All Asia [was] afflicted past bearing by Roman money lenders and tax gatherers [who were] harpies, snatching the people’s food.”[84] The “rapacity of the Proconsuls and the sales of the tax-gatherers […] possessed the people with hatred of the Romans.”[85] In Italy, “much bitterness is caused by the publicani, [not so much because of] the dues themselves, as of certain extortionate conduct on the part of the collectors.”[86] The people of Rome complained to Nero about “the excessive greed of the revenue collectors (publicani),” and the Senate indeed admitted that: ...certainly some restraint [should be] put on the cupidity of the revenue collectors, that they might not by new oppressions bring into hatred (odium) what for so many years had been endured without a complaint. (Tacitus, Ann. 13:50 [trans. Church/Brodribb, 1942]) However, according to Tacitus, instead of lowering the taxes, the collectors simply invented new names for them “to cover their illegal exactions.”[87] Artemidoros calls the office of a tax collector a “shameful business.”[88] Frequently, the office appears in lists of “dubious trades,” analogous to the rabbinic lists. However in contrast to the rabbinic lists, who focus on halakhic restrictions, the Greco-Roman authors comment on the lists with broader derogatory terminology: Artemidoros lists “peddlers and tax-collectors” as “people who make their living from 84 Plutarch, Lucullus 7:6-7 (trans. Perrin, 1914). Justin, Epitome 18:7 (trans. Watson, 1886). 86 Cicero, Letter to his brother Quintus 1:11 (trans. Shuckburgh, 1899). 87 Tacitus, Ann. 13:51 (trans. Church/Brodribb, 1942). 88 Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 4:42. 85 59 shamelessness”[89] and “tax collectors, innkeepers, highwaymen and forgers of weights and swindlers” among those who “violently acquire property against the will of its owner.”[90] Lucian labels “adulterers, brothel owners, tax collectors, freeloaders, imposters” as “villains who turn the order of the world upside down.”[91] Dio Chrysostom names “traders, tax-gatherers and keepers of brothels” as examples for people of a “foul and loathsome spirit” who bring “every possible insult and shame on their friends and comrades.”[92] And Pollux groups “brothelkeepers, inn-keepers, traders of fruit and field produce, different kinds of taxcollectors, heralds, seamen, ferrymen, matchmakers, domestic servants, certain kinds of tanners and traders of sausage” among the trades “for which one would be insulted.”[93] Dio Chrysostom discusses the question whether it is in any case permissible to do “things which, while they are not expressly forbidden by the laws, yet they are regarded as base and unseemly by mankind”:[94] I mean, for example, collecting taxes, or keeping a brothel, or doing other such things? O no, indeed. I should say that it is not permissible for the free to do such things either. And indeed, for such acts the penalty fixed is to be hated or abominated by men. (Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 14:14 [trans. Cohoon, 1939]) Collective hatred of tax-collectors is also attested by Cicero to all people, with the notable exception of the Greek colonists in Sicilia: They are so fond of our nation that they are the only people where 89 Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 1:23. Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 4:57. 91 Lucian, Necyomantia 11. 92 Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 4:98 (trans. Cohoon, 1932). 93 Pollux, Onomasticon 6:128. 94 Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 14:14 (trans. Cohoon, 1939). 90 60 neither a publican nor a money-changer is hated by them (odio sit). (Cicero, In Verrem 2:2, 7 [trans. based on De Yonge, 1903]) A comparison of the Greco-Roman authors with the rabbinic sources compiled by Wettstein shows a surprising role reversal: While the Jewish sources undeniably reflect a negative attitude towards tax and toll collectors, the rabbinic discussions are strikingly moderate in their use of polemic language. Yes, tax and toll collectors are grouped with robbers, thieves and even murderers when it comes to halakhic restrictions and sanctions. And yes, they are removed from membership in pharisaic associations for the duration of their office. They are mistrusted as potential fraudsters. “White lies” are allowed to avoid taxation, which suggests the charge of unlawful overtaxation. In execution of their office, they were suspected of transmitting impurity to houses or utensils. However, all these regulations are discussed in a very fact-based manner, the Rabbis stay confined to specific halakhic questions and abstain from generalizing rants against any group of people. What is absent from the Jewish sources is the language of hatred or insult that we now find here in the Greco-Roman sources: Here, a “general hatred” against tax collectors is frequently admitted and even propagated as justified. It would therefore be more accurate to speak of a “Roman hatred against tax-collectors,” which is surprisingly absent from Jewish sources. Based on the sources he collected, Wettstein’s edition of the New Testament could have contributed to a necessary correction or even deconstruction of the popular stereotype at the time of its publication, had it been received more attentively. However, it did not. As so often, the power of stereotype (in this case: anti-Jewish stereotype) proved to be stronger than the power of facts (in this case: historical 61 sources). 6. The path into the present In spite of the sparse historical evidence, the popular image of the “despised tax and toll collector” and of “Jewish hatred and exclusion” is perpetuated in prominent encyclopedias and dictionaries of the 18th and 19th century. Also, in the context of rising nationalisms of that era, the motive of “collaboration” became more prominent: “The whole guild was exceedingly hated among the Jews, […] because the taxation system originated with the Romans.”[95] “They were very much hated by the Jews, because being Jews themselves, they agreed to be used by the idol worshippers as instruments to afflict harm to their own nation.”[96] “Being lower-class, greedy and heartless people, they were exceedingly hated everywhere, especially [!] among the Jews who resented Roman sovereignty.”[97] The motive of social exclusion, based on the sources about membership in pharisaic associations, is now even further expanded do denote not only social ostracism, but the (very Christian) idea of “excommunication”, i.e. formal 95 Wilhelm Abraham Teller, Wörterbuch des Neuen Testaments zur Erklärung der christlichen Lehre: 1.1772-6.1805, Bibliothek der Neologie 9, ed. Lukas Wünsch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022), 431: „die ganze Zunft aber war bey den Juden sehr verhaßt, nicht nur weil der größere Teil derselben aus Römern bestand, sondern die ganze Einrichtung des Zollwesens von den Römern als den damaligen Oberherrn der Juden herrührte.“ 96 Johann Georg Friedrich Leun, Biblische Encyklopädie oder exegetisches Realwörterbuch über die sämmtlichen Hülfswissenschaften des Auslegers. Vol 4 (Gotha: Ettinger, 1798), 691: „sie waren den Juden verhaßt, weil sie sich als Juden von Götzendienern gebrauchen ließen, um ihrer eigenen Nation wehe zu tun.“ 97 Georg Benedict Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch. Vol 2., 1st ed. (Lepizig: Reclam, 1820), 762: „Sie waren nämlich als niedrige, habsüchtige, hartherzige Menschen überall, insbesondere auch bei den Juden, welche die römische Oberherrschaft nur ungern duldeten, äußerst verhasst.“ 62 exclusion from the community of believers and even from eternal salvation: “They were considered as excluded from the community of the church [sic!] by their fellow believers.”[98] Johann Jacob Herzog’s Realencyclopaedie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (1854-1868), which was later translated by Philipp Schaff to become influential in the English-speaking world as the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, also employs this idea, and so does the prominent biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889): The Jews, bearing the yoke of Rome with more aversion than any other nation, and abhorring any physical contact with other nations, declared any Israelite offering himself for such a such a source of income, as excommunicated.[99] The fact that he [the tax-collector] was the symbol of Israel’s subjection to foreign domination, galling though it was, had probably not so much to do with the bitter hatred of the Rabbinists towards the class of taxfarmers (Moches) and tax-collectors (Gabbai), both of whom were placed wholly outside the pale of Jewish society, as that they were so utterly shameless and regardless in their unconscientious dealings. […] The Rabbis in distant Palestine might be excused for their intense dislike of “the publicans,” even although it went to the excess of declaring them incapable of bearing testimony in a Jewish court of law, of forbidding to receive their charitable gifts, or even to change money out of their treasury (m. Baba Kamma 10:1), of ranking them not only with harlots and heathens, but with highwaymen and murderers (m. 98 In the second, expanded edition of Winer’s Realwörterbuch, the entry is revised and expanded: „…wurden von ihren Glaubensgenossen […] als ausgeschieden aus der Kirchengemeinschaft betrachtet. Dieser tiefe Hass rührt ….“, cf. Georg Benedict Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch. Vol 2., 2nd ed. (Lepizig: Reclam, 1838), 855. 99 Johann Jakob Herzog, “Zöllner,” Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 18:653.: „Die Juden, mehr noch als ein anderes Volk das römische Joch mit Widerwillen tragend, und jede Berührung mit anderen Völkern verabscheuend, erklärten jeden Israeliten, der sich für eine solche Einnahmequelle hergebe, […] für excommunicirt.“ 63 Ned. 3:4), and of even declaring them excommunicate.[100] However, more nuanced and unemotional descriptions are finally introduced by three groundbreaking standard works on Jewish history and literature that influenced scholarship in the 20th century. These three will be mentioned here in conclusion. But even here, the core motive of “Jewish hatred” remains a leitmotif, at least for two of them: Emil Schürer (1844-1910), in his monumental work Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, presents the following short summary: The amount of customs to be levied was indeed laid down by the authorities, but […] there was plenty of scope for the arbitrariness and rapacity of the tax-collectors. The exploitation of such opportunities and the not infrequent overcharges made by these officials caused them to become a hated class of people among the populace.[101] In the New Testament, ‘publicans and sinners’ appear almost as synonyms, and also in Rabbinical writings, toll collectors appear in a less favourable light.[102] Hermann Leberecht Strack (1848-1922) and Paul Billerbeck (1853-1932), in their famous Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Midrash (1922-1928), quote Schürer’s summary verbatim in the opening paragraph of their treatment of the topic.[103] The next paragraph then explains different types of taxes and tolls, and is followed by a paragraph titled “Contempt for the Toll-collectors” 100 Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (New York: Pott, 1881), 51 and 57. 101 Schürer, Geschichte, 399. The English edition, Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: (175 B.C. – A.D. 135) / Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 376, translated: “…caused them, as a class, to be loathed by the people.” 102 Ibid. The English edition translates: “In the New Testament, ‘publicans and sinners’ appear almost as synonyms, and similar opinions are expressed in non-Jewish literature. Rabbinical writings, too, display a marked aversion for customs officials.” 103 Billerbeck and Strack, Kommentar IV.2, 377-380. 64 (Verachtung der Zöllner), which basically lists the rabbinic sources quoted above (refusal of their money, disputed status in court, analogies of tax-collectors and robbers, and the extension of the alleged “contempt” on the families of tax collectors). In conclusion, a final paragraph lists passages about the legitimacy of “white lies” to avoid taxation. Just like many of their predecessors, Strack and Billerbeck used their introductory comments and titles to impose meanings on their sources that the sources themselves do not contain, in this case the familiar motive of “Jewish hatred” (or contempt). The influential article on toll and tax collectors in Gerhard Kittel’s Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament was written by Otto Michel (1903-1993).[104] Notably, Michel avoids the language of hatred and contempt. However, he also stretches his sources beyond their capacity: A new feature in his article is the discussion of purity issues: In a subtitle, Michel claims that rabbinic sources “treat tax collectors as particularly unclean.” However, in the subsequent discussion he only refers to the impure stick of a tax collector and to the debate about impurity of houses, while nothing in the sources suggests that the tax collector (or thief) is impure as such.[105] In another subtitle, he claims that tax collectors were “viewed as thieves or even robbers.” In the subsequent passages, however, his wording is more nuanced: indeed, tax collectors are nowhere labeled as thieves or robbers by rabbinic sources,[106] but they are, as Michel formulates, “compared with robbers” and they are “treated on a par” with them “in legal respects.” However, with his claim that tax collectors were regarded as “people who in execution of their duties 104 105 106 Michel, “Τελώνης,” 101-103. For the source texts, cf. above section five “Back to the sources.” For the source texts, cf. above section five “Back to the sources.” 65 not only trespassed against rabbinical interpretations of the law, but generally transgressed against God’s commandments,” Michel goes far beyond what can be substantiated by his sources. In sum, the works of Schürer, Strack-Billerbeck and Michel differ significantly from previous tendencies of scholarship in that they neither perpetuate the motive of “social exclusion” (let alone “family exclusion” or “excommunication”) nor the motive of “collaboration.” However, their commendable restraint in this respect could not prevent these motives from becoming ubiquitous anyways, and to be included in commentaries, Bible dictionaries and other resources of biblical studies well into the 21st century, as the short survey at the beginning of this article has shown. On a critical note, both Schürer and Strack-Billerbeck have, however, perpetuated the “Jewish hatred” motive, although none of their Jewish sources contains language of hatred or contempt. Michel, on the other hand, contributed to the popularization of the “impurity” motive, even though he himself remained vague in his wording, and claims about a general ritual impurity of tax collectors can hardly be substantiated by the two passages he cites. And even if they could, such (temporary) impurity would not result in social exclusion, as is often claimed, since ancient Judaism provided a very complex system of purity regulations to allow for social interaction of pure and impure people. 7. Conclusion: Stereotypes, ancient and modern This article has dealt with the reality of stereotypes. We have seen how tax and toll collectors in antiquity were indeed subject to extensive stereotyping: The motives 66 of fraud and overtaxation are found frequently and explicitly in Greco-Roman sources. They are also present in the legal regulations of the rabbinic literature, however much more nuanced and implicit. And they also surface in the New Testament in at least two places.[107] On top of these, tax and toll collectors in the New Testament are grouped with sinners (and, sometimes, with prostitutes and non-Jews), exactly because they were representatives of this well-known stereotype: tax collectors provided the ideal exemplum for a repentant sinner. In the history of Christian Bible exegesis, however, these ancient stereotypes, and the original New Testament focus on the salvation of sinners, has been largely replaced by another group of stereotypes: Stereotypes that do not pertain to tax and toll collectors, but to “the Jews”: Interpreters have developed an image of ancient Judaism that excludes, ostracizes, excommunicates and ultimately hates tax and toll collectors. On a closer view, this stereotype is a specific variant of a much older anti-jewish stereotype: The charge of Jewish misanthropy, “hatred against humanity,” which Peter Schäfer calls the most ancient form of anti-Judaism.[108] This prototype finds its expression already in the words of Roman historian Tacitus: Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies (sed adversus omnis alios hostile odium). (Tacitus, History 5:5 [trans. Church/Brodribb, 1873]) It is this ancient stereotype of Jewish hatred for the Other that reappears in the 107 Luke 3:12 and Luke 19:10. Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 206-209. 108 67 modern motif of Jewish hatred against tax collectors. In the course of this survey, we have observed how this new, emerging motive was initially employed by the Reformers. It is probable that earlier, less prominent, precursors had already used it, but that remains to be researched. While Luther spoke of a general hatred of Jews against sinners, Calvin enhanced the motive and spoke of a specific Jewish hatred against tax and toll collectors. In the following centuries, ancient sources were compiled to validate the new stereotype. However, upon closer examination we can observe how in many cases the stereotype was not extracted from the source material, but rather superimposed on the sources by way of commentary and paraphrase. New aspects of the stereotype developed over the course of time: It was no longer the cruelty and injustice of the tax collector that generated hatred, but the nationalistic charge of collaboration and treason. In a strange reversal of roles, the original “sinner” of the New Testament sources, the tax and toll collector, now became the victim, while others became the sinners: the Jews. “Jewish hatred for tax collectors” became proverbial, even though the only sources that speak about hate for tax-collectors are non-Jewish sources. In addition, images of social exclusion, even family exclusion and “excommunication,” became prevalent in Christian Bible interpretation. This is all the more ironic, not only because none of the sources we have looked at speaks of such exclusion, but also because the few Jewish sources that we do have about specific tax collectors convey the exact opposite: They show persons fully integrated into their communities, respected and honoured by their contemporaries. This is the case, for example, for the father of Rabbi Zeira (see above), who was 68 remembered as a hero who used his office to protect his community from overtaxation.[109] Another prominent case is Alexander, the brother of Philo of Alexandria, who held the position of alabarch, i.e. the head of the Jewish community in Alexandria (Jos. Ant. 18:259).[110] One of his prime responsibilities was the collection of taxes and tolls from his community for the Roman government. The family of Philo and Alexander had been part of the Alexandrian elite for generations, and apparently had accumulated immense wealth. According to Josephus: This Alexander was a principal person among his contemporaries, both for his family and for his wealth. He was also more eminent for his piety than his son, [also called] Alexander…. (Josephus, Ant. 20:100)[111] According to Josephus, Alexander donated the golden and silver plates decorating the gates of the Temple in Jerusalem (J.W. 5:205). Alexander also came to the rescue of Herod Agrippa I who, prior to becoming king of Judea (cf. Acts. 12:18-24) was in a deep financial crisis, by lending him a large sum of money, which eventually enabled him to travel to Rome where he was then appointed king (Jos. Ant. 18:159). While his elder son, also named Alexander, made a dubious career in the Roman military and political echelons and was therefore accused of having “abandoned the religion of his forefathers,”[112] Alexander’s younger son, 109 For the source text, see above section five “Back to the sources.” Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18:159; 19:276; 20:100; J.W. 5:205. 111 On his son’s lack of piety, see the following note. 112 Ibid. Alexander’s older son, also called Tiberius Iulius Alexander, made a career in the Roman army and was later appointed Procurator of Judea 46-48 C.E. and Prefect of Egypt in 66 C.E. In the eyes of Josephus, though he lacked the piety of his father and “did not continue in the religion of his forefathers” (Ant. 20:100), as a Procurator of Judea, he nevertheless “kept the 110 69 Marcus, married Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whom Alexander had supported financially before. Thus while Alexander, like his brother Philo, belonged to a more “liberal,” hellenized form of diaspora Judaism, we have no reason to believe (and no sources indicating) that he did not enjoy the support of the larger Jewish community of Alexandria and Egypt or to suppose that he was resented as a “collaborator with Rome.” In any case, it would be inappropriate to call him, who was so well connected within the world of Jewish elite and aristocracy, “excluded” or shunned by his community, or to label him as “hated by the Jews” for being a top-level tax and toll collector. Josephus also tells the story of another Jewish tax collector who was so well respected by his community that he was elected to head a delegation to the Roman Governor Septimus Florus in order to settle a dispute between the Jewish synagogue and their non-Jewish neighbour. This neighbour had started illegal construction work which threatened to impede access to the synagogue: The warmer part of the Jewish youth went hastily to the workmen, and forbade them to build there; but as Florus would not permit them to use force, the great men of the Jews, with John the publican, being in the utmost distress what to do, persuaded Florus, with the offer of eight talents, to hinder the work. […] John, and twelve of the principal men with him, went to Florus, to Sebaste, and made a lamentable complaint of their case, and besought him to help them. (Josephus, J.W. 2:287 and 2:292) Another text, preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud, relates the story of a pious Jew nation in tranquility, making no alterations to the ancient laws” (J.W. 2:220). As a Prefect of Egypt, however, he violently quenched the Jewish upheaval in Alexandria 66 C.E. resulting in the death of more than 50,000 of his fellow Jews. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. he came second in command to Titus and participated in the council summoned by Titus to decide on the fate of the Temple, where he voted against its destruction (J.W. 6:236-237). 70 and a tax collector who both lived in Ashkelon: Two pious men were in Ashkelon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, but nobody attended his funeral. Then, the son of Ma‘yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said: Woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? (y. Hag. 2:2 [trans. based on Guggenheimer 1999-2015])[113] The point of the story is obvious, however in view of this survey, it is profound: The pious Jew, who studied Torah all his live, did not have many friends in this town, except for the one that he studied with. The tax collector however, about whom we later learn that he did only one good deed in his entire life,[114] was nevertheless well respected in the whole town. What does this story teach? We have to distinguish between “pious criticism” and “social exclusion”: Even if tax collectors did, in some cases, conform to the negative stereotype imposed on them, even if they acted in greedy or fraudulent manners, or were rapacious, it does not necessarily mean that they did not have friends or could not be well-respected members of their community. Maybe a helpful contemporary analogy would be the “Wolf of Wall Street,” or any other corrupt or fraudulent manager or politician. These groups of people normally are anything but excluded from society. They usually have many friends, and their dinner parties are well attended. Perhaps we ought to imagine the New Testament “tax collectors” along these lines: They are sinners, but not necessarily excluded or ostracized by their community. Rather the 113 A parallel is found in y. Sanh. 6:9. The Talmud states that he never performed any good deeds in his life, apart from one. According to some, he once invited the town councillors for a breakfast and, when they did not appear to eat it, he ordered that the food should be given to the poor. Others said that on one occasion, he accidentally dropped a loaf of bread on the marketplace, and when a poor person picked it up, he did not prevent him from doing so. 114 71 opposite. Even pious men envy them when a prominent religious teacher accepts their invitation, instead of spending his precious time with those who deserve it, the pious. However, it could also be that the New Testament tax collectors were only the underprivileged and poor subordinates of such wealthy characters. But even in that case, that would not imply that they would have more (or less) friends or social contact in their respective social strata than their superiors in theirs. All of this would be mere speculation. In both cases, the main point remains: They are sinners, called to repentance by Jesus. Not outsiders, to be saved from Jewish hatred or exclusion. 8. A “Jerusalem Perspective” on the Bible: The value of engaging Jewish sources David Bivin, co-founder and decades-long untiring editor of JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, whose 85th birthday we honour with this special edition of the magazine, has spent his life advocating fervently a better, deeper and more nuanced knowledge of ancient Judaism and its literary sources as an important tool to enhance both our understanding of the New Testament and our relations with contemporary Judaism. I personally remember with gratitude the many sessions of the Jerusalem School for Synoptic Research in his home, on his terrace or in other places around Jerusalem, which I had the privilege to attend over the years. Here, in the companionship of other Christian and Jewish scholars, David taught us to read the New Testament with an open heart for Jewish faith, life, history and literature. As we now re-read the New Testament texts and Jewish sources about tax and toll collectors, this approach advocated and practiced by David might help us to 72 overcome some of the stereotypes about Judaism that have been carried into these texts. What, then, do we learn from the ancient sources? Tax and toll collectors had a reputation to be greedy, cruel and fraudulent. They were accused of extracting unnecessary amounts of money for the purpose of filling their own pockets. Obviously, all this is a stereotype, since there must have existed a good number, if not a majority, of tax and toll collectors who were honest, trustworthy and compassionate. However, Jewish sources, including the New Testament, employ this stereotype in different ways: The New Testament uses it in order to illustrate the repentance and salvation of sinners. It also uses it to illustrate the opposition of some Jews to Jesus‘ fellowship with tax collectors, albeit without naming the reasons or motives behind this opposition. The rabbinical sources, on the other hand, focus on restrictions against tax and toll collectors that derive from their negative reputation. Did Jews hate tax and toll collectors? Neither the New Testament nor the rabbinical sources testify to the existence of such hatred. As a matter of fact, the Greco-Roman sources are much more polemical and hate-filled than the Jewish sources. Yes, there are legal restrictions for tax and toll collectors. However, we also read that Rabbis intervened in order to ease these restrictions for those tax and toll collectors who did not conform to the stereotype, but did their job justly and reliably. The few stories that we actually find in Jewish literature about tax collectors, on the other hand, paint a very positive picture of persons well integrated into their community. The stereotype of an alleged Jewish hatred against this group of people did not, 73 therefore, emerge from the sources that we have. It originates in a much older stereotype: the charge of Jewish hatred against the whole world. The New Testament, read from a “JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE,” with an open eye and an open heart for Jewish faith, life, history and literature, can help us overcome this stereotype and ask afresh what we can learn from these tax and toll collectors who gave up everything to follow their new teacher. 74 The Expectation of Sabbatical Redemption within Ancient Judaism and Luke-Acts Marc Turnage In contrast to the other Synoptic Evangelists, Luke preserved Jesus’ unique attachment to Jerusalem and its Temple (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:28; 23:27-31). His second volume, Acts, continued the connection between Jesus’ movement to Jerusalem and the Temple, including Paul. In Luke, Jesus predicted the coming destruction of Jerusalem and lamented it (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:20-36; 23:27-31), yet only in Luke does Jesus promise the restoration and redemption of Jerusalem and the Jewish people (Luke 21:20-36; Acts 1:6-8).[1] Luke alone of the Gospel writers tied Jesus and his movement to the Jewish national redemptive hopes by retaining the language of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις [apolūtrōsis, “release”] and λύτρωσις [lūtrōsis, “redemption”];[2] Luke 1:68; 2:38; 1 See M. Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’: Jesus and the Politics of His Day,” [forthcoming]. 2 The Greek substantives, ἀπολύτρωσις and λύτρωσις, are equivalent to the Hebrew, ‫גְּאוּלָה‬ (ge’ūlāh, “redemption”). The language of redemption, ‫( גָּאַל‬gā’al, “redeem”) and ‫גְּאוּלָה‬, as well as their Greek equivalents, ἀπολυτρόω (apolūtroō, “to release”), λυτρόω (lūtroō, “to redeem”), ἁπολύτρωσις, and λύτρωσις, do not appear within works belonging to apocalyptic historiography. This does not mean the idea of redemption does not appear within the apocalyptic worldview. Merely the language of redemption does not belong to the expectations of apocalyptic historiography. Considering this, Luke’s presentation of Jesus in his Gospel and his movement in Acts should give pause in identifying either as “apocalyptic.” 75 21:28; 24:21; see also Luke 2:25).[3] The other Gospel writers severed Jesus’ connection with Jerusalem, its Temple, and the Jewish people.[4] The strong ties of Jesus and his movement to Jerusalem, its Temple, and Jewish national redemptive hopes in Luke-Acts suggests Luke wrote his work prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., when these sentiments were at their highest and not only among the Jewish rebels (see J.W. 4:314-325; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod. 20:21-23).[5] The absence of the language of redemption within the other Gospels, as well as the separation of Jesus and his movement from Jerusalem and the hopes of its redemption, reflect a postdestruction reality, which highlights Luke’s uniqueness, and strengthens our suggestion of the pre-destruction composition of his works. The evangelists, however, could not sanitize their biographies entirely from Jewish hopes of redemption due to the prevalence of the phrase “kingdom of Heaven/God” within their sources,[6] which, within its earliest formulations, connected the redemption of 3 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’”; Flusser, “A Prophecy Concerning Jerusalem in the New Testament,” in Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifrat Poalim, 1979), 253-274 [Hebrew] [An English version of this article is now available on JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE: https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/11517/—JP.] On Luke’s more historical treatment of Jerusalem’s future versus Mark’s apocalyptic treatment, see L. Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (SupNT 23; Leiden: Brill 1970), 244-487. 4 Flusser, Jesus (3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2001), 244. Matthew 23:37-39 preserves one of Jesus’ laments for Jerusalem, yet Matthew placed it after his critique of the Pharisees and immediately preceding his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, which implicates the Pharisees as those “who kill the prophets” (but see Matt. 23:29-31). In Matthew, it becomes part of his invective against the Pharisees. Moreover, his placement of this lament of Jesus, after he arrived in Jerusalem, indicates Jerusalem will not see Jesus again (Matt. 23:39), until it says in the eschatological future, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” 5 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’”; Flusser, “A Prophecy Concerning Jerusalem,” 253-274. 6 John, however, almost succeeded in removing the Kingdom of God from the lips of Jesus. It only appears twice in his Gospel (John 3:3, 5). 76 Israel with the reign of Israel’s God.[7] Luke’s unique preservation of the connection between the earliest traditions of Jesus and his movement to the redemption of Israel enables us to see another exceptional feature of Luke-Acts pertaining to speculation of the timing of redemption within ancient Judaism. Some anticipated God’s redemption would occur within the sabbatical year.[8] The widespread distribution of this expectation across Jewish literature indicates its prominence within Jewish speculation concerning the eschatological end. Jews searched the Scriptures to ascertain the exact date of the coming redemption. Daniel 9:24-27 provided the central scriptural passage for sabbatical redemption; in fact, this idea likely originated with the author of Daniel 9.[9] The idea of sabbatical redemption penetrated into LukeActs in two primary ways: 1) Dates Luke assigned to the birth of Jesus and the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptizer, and 2) the language of sabbatical/ Jubilee redemption which frames the mission of John (Luke 3:3; see also Mark 1:4), Jesus’ mission (Luke 4:18), Luke’s version of Jesus’ commission to his disciples (24:47), and the mission of his movement in Acts, especially in the first half of the book (2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; and 26:18). The absence of the idea of sabbatical redemption within the other Gospels (apart from Mark 1:4) and the remainder of the New Testament[10] suggests the appearance of sabbatical redemption in Luke originated within a Jewish community, in the land of Israel— the sabbatical and Jubilee years are only observed in the land of Israel (Lev. 25:2); 7 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” B. Z. Wacholder, “Chronomessianism, The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles,” HUCA 46 (1975): 201-218. 9 Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 201-202. 10 Although see Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22; 10:18. 8 77 in other words, at the earliest stage of the traditions of Jesus and his movement. This study will analyze the idea of sabbatical redemption first found in Dan. 9:24-27 and its appearance within other Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, in which we will outline the primary expectations of sabbatical redemption. We will then analyze the appearance of sabbatical redemption within Luke-Acts in light of ancient Jewish expectations. Daniel 9 Daniel 9 belongs to the four revelations which make up Daniel 7-12 in the MT, which, apart from Daniel 7, are composed in Hebrew and related in the first person. This differs from Daniel 1-6, which used third-person narrative, and chapters 2-6 were written in Aramaic (like Daniel 7) and consist of court tales. Daniel 9 stands out among the revelations in Daniel 7-12, for while the other revelations in Daniel 7, 8, and 10-12 are mediated through visions, the medium of revelation in Daniel 9 is a sacred text.[11] Daniel calculated from Jeremiah the number of years for the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:2); his revelation began with the text of Jeremiah: “In the first year of his (Darius the Mede) reign, I, Daniel, understood in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, seventy years.” Daniel ultimately, however, required the angel Gabriel to reveal the hidden meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Gabriel’s vision bridged the gap between Jeremiah’s prophecy, which the Chronicler (2 Chr. 36:19-21) and 11 See C. A. Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 286-291. 78 Zechariah (Zech. 1:12) viewed as fulfilled in the return to Zion, and the contemporary reality of the author of Daniel 9. Daniel 9:1 placed Daniel’s revelation in the first year of Darius the Mede, who was a nonhistorical figure,[12] yet within the chronology of the book of Daniel, Darius the Mede conquered Babylon (Dan. 5:31), the role historically filled by Cyrus. Cyrus gave the edict that allowed the Judeans to return to Judah and Jerusalem, which Ezra identified as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Ezra 1:1; see 2 Chr. 36:22-23; Zech. 1:12-13; 7:5). Daniel 9, then, placed Daniel at the historical moment when Babylon had been defeated (see Jer. 25:9-12; 29:10) and the biblical tradition identified Cyrus’ edict as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s oracles,[13] yet, from the standpoint of the author of Daniel 9, the return and restoration had not materialized in the manner hoped for. The intervening period between the return from the exile and the second century B.C.E., when the author of Daniel 9 wrote, had been marred with sin and transgression. Daniel, then, thinking he understood Jeremiah’s prophecy, sought an answer within the books, only to find out that he did not understand; he needed Gabriel’s revelation to understand the hidden meaning of Jeremiah’s seventy-years prophecy. The book of Jeremiah contains two oracles concerning the seventy-years of exile (Jer. 25:10-14; 29:10-14). The first oracle (Jer. 25:10-14) predicted the destruction of Babylon at the conclusion of the seventy-years. God would visit (‫[ ָפּקַד‬pāqad]) punishment upon Babylon for its iniquity. The second oracle (Jer. 29:10-14) reinterpreted the earlier prophecy as a message of hope for the Judeans exiled in 12 Newsom, Daniel, 178-179, 289. 13 Newsom, Daniel, 289. 79 Babylon. God’s visitation (‫ )פקד‬referred to the restoration and return (‫ְל ָהשִׁיב‬ [lehāshiv]) of the exiles to Jerusalem and Judah. Zechariah (Zech. 1:12-13; 7:5) linked Jeremiah’s seventy-years to the wrath and restoration of the exiles to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Second Temple.[14] The Chronicler introduced the concept of the land’s sabbaths into Jeremiah’s prophecies: He took into exile in Babylon the remnant who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia, so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and declared in a written edict. (2 Chr. 36:20-22) The Chronicler incorporated the promises of both of Jeremiah’s oracles—the destruction of Babylon and the restoration and return of the Judean exiles. But the seventy-years did not refer to the land of Babylon, but the land of Israel. This passage combined the views of the punishment for the land outlined in Lev. 26:34-35, 43 with Jeremiah’s seventy-years oracles.[15] The people’s disobedience which led them into exile violated the covenant and its promise of exile and restoration (Lev. 26:34-35, 41-45). Jeremiah’s seventy-years became a period of recompense for the land in 2 Chr. 36:21; moreover, Jeremiah’s seventy-years became connected with the idea of the land’s sabbaths. The phrase, “until the land 14 Michael Fishbane suggests the seventy-year oracle from the second Judean exile (587/586 B.C.E.) could have fueled the national energies towards the restoration of the temple in 516/515 B.C.E., as recounted in Zechariah (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], 479-489). 15 S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 1075-1076; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 479-489. 80 had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath” (‫שׁנָה‬ ָ ‫שׁ ְבעִים‬ ִ ‫שׁבָתָ ה ְלמַֹּלאות‬ ָ ‫שּׁמָּה‬ ַ ‫שׁבְּתוֹתֶ י ָה כָּל־יְמֵי ָה‬ ַ ‫ָאָרץ אֶת־‬ ֶ ‫ַד־רצְתָ ה ה‬ ָ ‫)ע‬, is not entirely clear. Did this mean that every year of the seventy-year desolation was treated as a sabbatical year? If so, then the period of seventy-years would be seven times seventy.[16] Williamson has suggested the seventy-year period of sabbaths for the land may have intended to cover the 490 years of the monarchy.[17] By understanding Jeremiah’s seventy-years as tied to the sabbatical cycles which passed in the land during the exile, the Chronicler introduced the heptadic calendar, which divides the seventy-years into ten sabbatical cycles (70/7=10) and combined a tenfold division with a sevenfold division.[18] This provided the background for Daniel’s study of the books concerning Jeremiah’s seventy-years, what follows in Daniel’s prayer (Dan. 9:4-19), and Gabriel’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s chronology (Dan. 9:24-27). Daniel, however, understood Jeremiah’s prophecy as directed against the ruin of Jerusalem and not Babylon or the devastation of Judah, “to fulfill for the destruction of Jerusalem, seventy years” (‫שׁנָה‬ ָ ‫שׁ ְבעִים‬ ִ ‫ ; ְלמַֹּלאות ְלח ְָרבוֹת י ְרוּשָׁלִ ַם‬Dan. 9:2). Daniel’s prayer fits the covenantal pattern of repentance and confession (Lev. 26:40-45) with the expectation of restoration, but Gabriel relates that at the beginning of Daniel’s prayer he came to give Daniel wisdom and understanding (Dan. 9:22-23), implying the prayer did not bear upon Gabriel’s coming to give Daniel understanding. He, 16 J. VanderKam, “Sabbatical Chronologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. T. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 162. 17 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 417-418. 18 Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011), 66. 81 then, demonstrates that Daniel had not understood Jeremiah’s oracles correctly, for the seventy years, in fact, referred to seventy sabbatical cycles (7 [years per sabbatical cycle] x 70 [sabbatical cycles] = 490 years). Seventy sabbatical cycles (‫שׁ ְבעִים‬ ִ ‫שׁ ֻבעִים‬ ָ )[19] are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophecy, and to anoint a holy of holies. Know and understand: from the time the word went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there will be seven sabbatical cycles; and for sixty-two sabbatical cycles it shall be built again with a plaza and a fosse, but in a troubled time. After the sixtytwo sabbatical cycles, an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing, and the army of a prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come in a cataclysm, and until the end of the decreed war there will be desolations. He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, and for half a week he will make sacrifice and offering cease. In their place will be a desolating abomination until the determined end is poured out upon the desolator. (Dan. 9:24-27) Although the entire passage plays an important role within the establishment of sabbatical redemption, Dan. 9:24, “Seventy sabbatical periods are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to seal up sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal vision and prophecy, and to anoint a holy of holies,” provides the full chronology and the anticipated character of the eschatological turn to occur at the end of seventy sabbatical cycles. The author of Daniel followed the tradition established by the Chronicler of reading Jeremiah’s seventy-years as tied to the sabbatical chronology. Jeremiah’s 19 Modern interpreters understand this phrase as “seventy weeks,” but ancient interpreters understood, ‫שבעים שבעים‬, as “seventy sabbatical cycles,” a ‫( שָׁבוּ ַע‬shāvūa‘) refers to the heptad of the sabbatical cycle; see Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 202-203. 82 oracles of seventy years presented the possibility for later interpreters to read the consonantal form, ‫שבעים‬, in the double form of both “seventy” and “sabbatical cycles/weeks.”[20] As we previously noted, 2 Chr. 36:21 could be understood as every year of the seventy-year desolation was treated as a sabbatical year, in which case, the period of seventy-years would be seven times seventy.[21] Daniel’s prayer (Dan. 9:4-14), like 2 Chr. 36:20-22, bears the influence of Leviticus 26.[22] According to Lev. 26:18 (see also v. 28), God promised to punish the people “sevenfold” for their disobedience.[23] Thus, although the author of Daniel 9 placed the hidden revelation of Jeremiah’s oracles in the mouth of Gabriel, an intertextual pesher-like interpretation produced the transformation of Jeremiah’s seventy-years into seventy sabbatical periods (490 years, ten Jubilees). Not only did Daniel 9 interpret Jeremiah’s seventy-years as seventy sabbatical cycles, but it also shifted the period of peace and return for the Judeans envisioned by Jeremiah to the eschatological future.[24] This meant the eschatological era inaugurated at the conclusion of seventy sabbatical cycles was not neutral or isolated but provided a transition from one era into the next. Daniel 9:24 conveyed this through the use of six infinitives with nominal objects: three depict the current evil situation which is coming to an end; ‫( ְל ַכלֵּא ַה ֶפּשַׁע‬lechalē’ hapesha‘, “to finish 20 J. Licht, The Festivals of Israel (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1988), 55-73; Newsom, Daniel, 299. VanderKam, “Sabbatical Chronologies,” 162. 22 L. E. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1978), 250; J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 352-353. 23 Collins, Daniel, 352; Newsom, Daniel, 299. 24 D. Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in Light of New Findings, ed. S. van der Woude (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 59. 21 83 transgression”), ‫( ַלחְתּ ֹם ַחטָּאות‬laḥtom ḥaṭā’t, “to bring an end to sin”), and ‫ְל ַכפֵּר עָוֹן‬ (lechapēr ’āvōn, “to atone for iniquity”), and three describe the coming age; ‫ְל ָהבִיא‬ ‫( צֶדֶ ק ע ֹ ָלמִים‬lehāvi’ tzedeq ‘olāmim, “to bring eternal righteousness/justice”), ‫ַלחְתּ ֹם‬ ‫( חָזוֹן ְונָבִיא‬laḥtom ḥāzōn venāvi’, “to seal up vision and prophecy”), and ‫ִלמְשׁ ֹ ַח ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬ ‫( קָדָ שִׁים‬limshoaḥ qodesh qodāshim, “to anoint a holy of holies”). A parallelism exists between these two triads.[25] The first set, ‫ ְל ַכלֵּא ַה ֶפּשַׁע‬and ‫ ְל ָהבִיא צֶדֶ ק ע ֹ ָלמִים‬, rectify injustice and dispense justice. The second pair, ‫ ַלחְתּ ֹם ַחטָּאות‬and ‫ַלחְתּ ֹם חָזוֹן‬ ‫ ְונָבִיא‬, relate to the role and object of prophecy, even using the same verb for both (‫) ַלחְתּ ֹם‬. The third pair, ‫ ְל ַכפֵּר עָוֹן‬and ‫ ִלמְשׁ ֹ ַח ק ֹדֶ שׁ קָדָ שִׁים‬, reflect the role of the priesthood in expiating iniquity.[26] These pairs represent the connection of eschatological turn with justice (kingship), prophecy, and priesthood. Dimant notes that the second and third pairs involve human agents—prophets and priests; therefore, she suggests the first pair (justice) relates to the human agent of a king or judge. The end of the seventieth sabbatical cycle in Dan. 9:24 brought the eschatological turn, transitioning from an era of sin and wickedness to a time of justice, atonement, and righteousness. Seventy sabbatical cycles, or 490 years, equates to ten Jubilee periods.[27] Because the Jubilee began on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) (Lev. 25:9), the author of Daniel expected the eschatological transition to commence with the atonement of iniquity. The Jubilee occurred on the fiftieth year, after the end of the forty-ninth year (or seven sabbatical cycles; Lev. 25 Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27),” 60. Ibid. 27 The division of history into ten periods was something Judaism likely inherited from Persian religion. 26 84 25:8-10). Yom Kippur inaugurated the Jubilee with the expiation of iniquity (Lev. 25:9-10), and “liberty” (‫[ דְ ּרוֹר‬derōr]) was proclaimed throughout the land. The connection of the expiation of sin to inaugurate the Jubilee and the proclamation of liberty, together with the language of redemption which appears throughout Leviticus 25,[28] led the author of Daniel 9 to shift Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy (which was already interpreted within a sabbatical chronology) to the eschatological period of redemption, bringing liberty and atonement for iniquity. Other Jewish traditions in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, following Daniel 9, expected God’s redemption to dawn in the tenth Jubilee. The sabbatical cycle served as the basis for calculating the Jubilee. The Jubilee occurred after seven sabbatical cycles, so every fifty years. The question of the calculation of the Jubilee, however, has puzzled interpreters since antiquity. Did the Jubilee occur on the forty-ninth year, in which the Jubilee and the seventh sabbatical year fall on the same year, or did the Jubilee occur on the fiftieth year, in which case it occurs on a separate and consecutive year to the seventh sabbatical cycle. Many modern scholars suggest the Jubilee year coincided with the fortyninth year.[29] Two observations, however, serve as a caution: 1) Lev. 25:8-10 indicates the Jubilee happened sequentially to the sabbatical year, and did not coincide with the forty-ninth year. 2) Ancient interpreters viewed the Jubilee as separate, consecutive years (see Josephus, Ant. 3:281-282). The forty-ninth year, 28 Leviticus 25 has more occurrences of the verb “to redeem” and the noun “redemption” than any other chapter in the Hebrew Scriptures. While the language of redemption in Leviticus 25 did not originally refer to political redemption, Jews read it in this manner by the first century. See further, Turnage “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” 29 See sources cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 2250; and J. S. Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (VTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 88. 85 then, concluded the seven sabbatical cycles, on Yom Kippur, which began the Jubilee year. Thus, the end of the seventh sabbatical cycle gave way to the Jubilee, on Yom Kippur. Ancient interpreters, however, debated how to count the subsequent sabbatical/ Jubilee period. Did the next sabbatical period begin in the year after the Jubilee (year 51), or did the Jubilee year also begin the next sabbatical cycle?[30] A baraita preserved a debate between Rabbi Judah and the Sages in which the Sages held that the year after the Jubilee began the next sabbatical cycle, but Rabbi Judah contended that the Jubilee year should be counted as the first year of the next sabbatical cycle (b. Ned. 61a; b. Rosh. Hash. 9a). The opinion of the Sages broke the continuity of the sabbatical cycle, for it made the next sabbatical year fall eight years after the previous one. The opinion of Rabbi Judah, however, preserved the continuity of the sabbatical cycle as falling seven years after the one that preceded it (years 49-56).[31] Year 49 completed the seven heptadic cycles; the 50th year served as the Jubilee and the first year of the next sabbatical cycle, which spanned until year 56. A fragmentary manuscript discovered in Cave 11 at Qumran (11Q13 2:7; see below) preserves the antiquity of counting attributed to Rabbi Judah, in which the Jubilee concludes the previous seven sabbatical cycles and begins the next sabbatical/Jubilee counting, “At the beginning of the first Jubilee after te[n] Jubilees, and Y[om Kipp]ur i[s] the e[nd of] the tenth [Ju]bilee” (‫֯ב ֯ר ֯או֯ ֯ש היובל‬ ‫ה]וא[ה ֯ס]וף[ ֯ה]יו[בל העשירי‬ ֗ ‫אח ֯ר ֯ע ֯ש]רת ה[י֯ ובלים וי֗ ]ום הכפ[ו֯ רים‬ ֗ ‫אשון‬ ֯ ‫)ה ֗ר‬. ֗ According to Lev. 25:9, Yom Kippur inaugurated the Jubilee at the beginning of the fiftieth year, which both began the next sabbatical/Jubilee cycle and concluded the previous 30 31 Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2250. Ibid. 86 Jubilee. The Levitical command required the Israelites to sanctify the fiftieth year (‫שׁנָה‬ ָ ‫שׁנַת ַה ֲח ִמשִּׁים‬ ְ ‫ ; ְוקִדַּ שְׁתֶּ ם אֵת‬Lev. 25:10); therefore, it required the year to begin with the expiation brought about by Yom Kippur.[32] The sabbatical cycle described in Exod. 23:10-13 and Lev. 25:1-7 pertain to rest for the land, which begins at the beginning of the seventh year. Deuteronomy 15:1-18 outlines the “year of release,” (‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ [shemiṭāh]), which occurred every seven years and provided the release of debts between Israelites and the release of Hebrew slaves. This ensured there were no poor in the land (Deut. 15:4). The ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ began at the end of the seventh year: “From the end of seven years, you will make a release” (Deut. 15:1). The rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 15:1 demonstrates the attention paid to the time of the inauguration of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ : “From the end of seven years” (Deut. 15:1). I might think, from the beginning of the year; we, therefore, reason: It is written here “kētz” (‫“ ;קֵץ‬end”), and, elsewhere, (Deut. 31:10) “kētz.” Just as “kētz” there is at the end and not in the beginning, so, “kētz” here. (Sifre on Deut. 15:1, §111) Although the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ followed a similar heptadic cycle as the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:1-7), the inauguration of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ at the end of every seven years tied it more closely to the Jubilee, the precise period when the transition occurred, after seven sabbatical cycles, to the Jubilee. The Jubilee—the release of the land—and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ —the release from debt—share an inherent similarity, which may go back to their Near Eastern origins.[33] The Hebrew Scriptures already connected the two. 32 Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2164. Milgrom notes the Jubilee (and possibly the sabbatical year) is based on an agricultural year, that is a fall calendar (see m. Rosh. Hash. 1:1; Josephus, Ant. 1:80-81). 33 See Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2166-2169; 2173-2176; 2245-2248; and 2251-2257. 87 The inauguration of the Jubilee required the proclamation of liberty to those dwelling in the land: ‫שׁבֶי ָה‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ְלכָל־י‬ ֶ ‫( וּק ְָראתֶ ם דְּ רוֹר בּ‬Lev. 25:10). Outside of Leviticus 25 and 27 (also Num. 36:4), the Hebrew Scriptures do not refer to the fiftieth year as the Jubilee. Ezekiel referred to it as ‫שׁנַת הַדְּ רוֹר‬ ְ (shenat haderōr, “year of release/ liberty;” Ezek. 46:17). Jeremiah attached the proclamation of liberty (‫; ִלקְר ֹא דְ ּרוֹר‬ Jer. 34:8, 15, and 17) to the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ (‫שׁנִים‬ ָ ‫שׁבַע‬ ֶ ‫“ ; ִמקֵּץ‬From the end of seven years;” Jer. 34:1). Perhaps, the combination of the Jubilee proclamation of liberty with the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ developed, not only due to the release given in both periods, but due to the similarity of the language, ‫ּאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫( וּק ְָראתֶ ם דְ ּרוֹר ָב‬Lev. 25:10), and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה לַיהוה‬ ְ ‫כִּי־ק ָָרא‬ (“for a release for the LORD has been proclaimed;” Deut. 15:2).[34] The proclamation of liberty and proclaiming the year of the LORD also appears in Isa. 61:1-2 (‫ַת־רצוֹן לַיהוה ∥ ִלקְר ֹא ִלשְׁבוּי ִם דְּ רוֹר‬ ָ ‫שׁנ‬ ְ ‫“ ִלקְר ֹא‬to proclaim liberty to the captives…to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD”), which connects the Isaianic oracle to the redemption of the Jubilee year (see also Isa. 58:1-12). The connectedness between the chronology and the language of release, proclaiming the year of the LORD and liberty, between the Jubilee (‫[ יוֹבֵל‬yōvēl]) and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ led Jewish interpreters in the Second Temple period to intertwine the ideas of the Jubilee, ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫דְ ּרוֹר‬. The Septuagint[35] translated the three Hebrew words ‫יוֹבֵל‬, ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫ דְ ּרוֹר‬with the singular Greek ἄφεσις (afesis, “release”).[36] 34 Milgrom notes that the use of ‫( ק ָָרא‬qārā’, “proclaim”) is not Deuteronomic language, but derives from priestly material (Leviticus 23-27, 2245). 35 See E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 182; Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Qumran, and Ephesus,” Revue de Qumran 13/49 (1988): 635-646; F. Garcia Martinez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2-18, 11Q20-30) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 230. 36 The Aramaic Targums translate ‫ שבת‬in Lev. 25:2-7 with ‫שמט‬: ‫שׁבָּת לַיהוה‬ ַ ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁבְתָ ה ה‬ ָ ‫( ְו‬Lev. 25:2) is translated ‫שׁמִיטְתָ א קְדָ ם יוי‬ ְ ‫ ;לְארעא דַ ְאנָא יָהֵיב לְכוֹן וְתַ שׁמֵיט ארעא‬and ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁבָּתוֹן י ִ ְהי ֶה ל‬ ַ ‫שׁבַּת‬ ַ ‫שּׁבִיעִת‬ ְ ‫שּׁנָה ַה‬ ָ ‫וּ ַב‬ 88 Josephus described the Jubilee as a time when the debtors debts were remitted, indicating that he, too, understood a connection between the Jubilee and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ : ἐν ᾧ οἵ τε χρεῶσται τῶν δανείων ἀπολύονται καὶ οἱ δουλεύοντες ἐλεύθεροι ἀφίενται (“at that season debtors are absolved from their debts and slaves are set at liberty;” Ant. 3:282; see 3:280-286; see also Sifra Behar 3:4). He also defined the word “Jubilee” as meaning “liberty”: ἐνστάντος τοῦ ἰωβήλου ἐλευθερίαν δὲ σηµαίνει τοὔνοµα (“When the Jubilee comes round—the name denotes ‘liberty’;” Ant. 3:283). Philo preserved a similar tradition combining the ideas of the Jubilee, ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫דְּ רוֹר‬: For this propitiation also is established in the tenth day of the month (Yom Kippur), when the soul addresses its supplications to the tenth portion, namely to God…This is remission (ἄφεσις) and deliverance (ἐλευθερία = ‫)דְ ּרוֹר‬, this is complete freedom of the soul, shaking off (ἀποσειοµένης = ‫ )שמט‬the wanderings in which it wandered. (De congr. 107-108; see also Quod deferior 63; De congr. 89) Philo and Josephus did not depend upon the Septuagint’s translation of ‫ יוֹבֵל‬,‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫ דְ ּרוֹר‬with ἄφεσις. Their traditions attest to a wider phenomenon within ancient Judaism which connected the Jubilee and its proclamation of ‫( דְ ּרוֹר‬ἐλευθερῖα [elevtheria]) with the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ and the release from debts. A manuscript discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran, 1Q22 (1QWords of Moses or 1QDM),[37] presents itself as the instruction God gave Moses for the children of Israel, prior to entering the promised land. God instructed Moses and Eleazar the son of Aaron to ascend Mount Nebo (1Q22 1:1-3). He then commanded Moses to ‫שׁבָּת לַיהוה‬ ַ (Lev. 25:4) is translated ‫שׁמִיטְתָ א יְהֵי לארעא דְ תַ שׁמֵיט קְדָ ם יוי‬ ְ ‫שׁבִיעֵיתָ א נִי ָח‬ ְ ‫וּבשַׁתָ א‬. The Targum clearly connected the sabbatical year in Leviticus 25 with the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ in Deuteronomy 15. 37 D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 91-97 [henceforth DJD 1]. 89 interpret for the heads of the families, Levites, priests, and command the sons of Israel concerning the words of the Torah he gave him on Sinai (1Q22 1:3-4). He proceeded to inform Moses concerning the future apostasy of the people, including their violating the festivals which God commanded Moses in this address: ‫ויע]ברו‬ ‫“( כול מקרא קו[דש ושבת הברית ]ומועדים[ את אשר אנו]כי[ מצוך היום ]לע[שות אותם‬And [they] will tran[gress all the ho]ly [assemblies] and the sabbath of the covenant [and the festivals] which I command you today [to ke]ep;” 1Q22 1:8-9). Significantly, the festival singled out for Moses to highlight for the people was the sabbatical year (column 3). Moses begins to address the sons of Israel in column 2 (5-12). His address continues into column 3 in which he conflated the sabbatical year of Lev. 25:1-7 and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ in Deut. 15:1-11, identifying the sabbatical year as both a rest for the land and the forgiveness of debts between Israelites (1Q22 3:1-12). The author of the scroll, moreover, placed Moses’ address to the people concerning the sabbatical year/‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ just prior to their entry into the promised land since the sabbatical year was only observed within the land of Israel: ‫כִּי תָ ב ֹאוּ‬ ‫שׁבָּת לַיהוה‬ ַ ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁבְתָ ה ה‬ ָ ‫ָאָרץ ֲאשֶׁר ֲאנִי נ ֹתֵ ן ָלכֶם ְו‬ ֶ ‫“( אֶל־ה‬When you enter the land that I am giving you, the land shall observe a sabbath to the LORD”; Lev. 252). 1 [From the end of the seventh y]ear, [the] sabbath of [the land you shall keep. And the sabbath of the] la[nd shall be for you] food for [you and for the domestic animals and for the beasts of ] the fi[eld] 2 [ and whatever is le]ft over is for [the poor of ] your [brothers] who are in [the land. No one] shall s[ow his field or] prune [his vineyard. No] ma[n] 3 [shall harvest the aftergrowth of his harvest, nor shall he] gather for [himself anything. You shall keep] al[l th]es[e words of the] covenant, 4 [to do them. And] it shall be, when [you hearken] to do [this 90 commandment], and remit [the debt in] thi[s y]ear, [ ] 5 [every lender w]ho [has lent something to] a man and[ who has something of his brother’s] shall re[lease it to ]his [fell]ow, for 6 [you will proclaim a release] for [G]o[d, you]r [God]. [One may demand restitution] from the fore[igner, but from his brother, he may] n[o]t [seek restitution] for in [this] yea[r] 7 [Go]d [will bless you to atone for your] iniqui[ties ] th[is 8 [ ] in the year [ ] of the month 9 [ ] [ ] on this day[ for] they, your[ fathe]rs [we]re wandering 10 [in the wilderness] until the [ten]th day of the month [ ] [on the te]nth [day] of the month 11 [You will] refrain [from all work] and on the te[nth] day [of] the month atonement will be made[ ] of the month 12 [ and] they, [the priests, will ta]ke [two goats His conflation of the laws of the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:1-7) and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ (Deut. ׄ 15) appears at the beginning of column 3, [‫שבת ]הארץ תעשה‬ ‫]מקץ שבע ש[נ֯ יׄם את‬ (“[From the end of the seventh y]ear, [the] sabbath of [the land you shall keep”). This combined the chronology of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ in Deut. 15:1 with the sabbatical year for the land in Leviticus 25. The author identified the sabbatical year as the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ . He also solved the chronological difference between Lev. 25:1-7 and Deut. 15:1 by how he conflated the two. He seems to have continued to discuss the Jubilee in the fragmentary lines 7-12, and if so, he also followed a similar chronological counting concerning the fiftieth year, the Jubilee, after the seventh sabbatical cycle as the first year of the following heptad as well as the Jubilee. From line 7 to the end of the column, the manuscript becomes more fragmentary, 91 yet it seems the author transitioned from the sabbatical/‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ to the Jubilee, beginning at the end of line 6. The fragmentary end of line 6 and beginning of line 7 have been reconstructed, ‫כי בשנ]ה[ ]הזאת יברככם אלו[הי֯ ֯ם ]לכפר לכם[ את עווׄנ֯ ]ותיכם‬ (“for in [this] yea[r] [Go]d [will bless you to atone for your] iniqui[ties ]”). The mention of the atonement of iniquities, as well as the reference to ‫יום עשר לחודש‬ (see Lev. 25:9) in lines 10 and 11, indicate the author referred to Yom Kippur, which inaugurated the Jubilee (Lev. 25:9; see Philo, De congr. 107-108). The author likely followed the pattern of Leviticus 25, which began by addressing the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:1-7), then the Jubilee year, inaugurated on Yom Kippur (Lev. 25:8ff).[38] In 1Q22 3:1-4, he rehearsed the instruction for the sabbatical year for the land. In keeping with his conflation of the sabbatical year and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , he then transitioned to outline the instruction concerning the debt release given to Israelites in the seventh year (1Q22 3:4-6). He concluded that if the people will adhere to these commandments God will bless them and atone their iniquities, ‫כי בשנ]ה[ ]הזאת‬ ‫“( יברככם אלו[הי֯ ֯ם ]לכפר לכם[ את עווׄנ֯ ]ותיכם‬for in [this] yea[r] [Go]d [will bless you to atone for your] iniqui[ties ]”). This reflects the spiritualization of the sabbatical/ Jubilee year within Judaism during the Second Temple period.[39] It also connected their adherence to the instructions concerning the sabbatical year and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ to their forgiveness, and in this way, tied the atonement of their iniquities on Yom Kippur to their prior treatment of their fellow Israelites.[40] 38 See also Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 256-257. See M. Weinfield, “The Day of Atonement and Freedom (Deror): The Redemption of the Soul,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (Library of Second Temple Studies 54; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 227-231. 40 On the development of the connection between human compassion and forgiveness to one another with divine forgiveness in ancient Judaism, see Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 469-492. 39 92 The book of Jubilees preserved a similar connection between atonement on Yom Kippur and human behavior towards their fellow Israelites.[41] In fact, Jubilees explained the annual fast (mourning) of Yom Kippur as attributed to the grief caused to Jacob by his sons in their treatment of their brother Joseph: Therefore it is decreed for the children of Israel that they mourn on the tenth (day) of the seventh month—on the day when that which caused him to weep for Joseph came to Jacob, his father—so that they might atone for them(selves) with a young kid on the tenth (day) of the seventh month, once a year, on account of their sin because they caused the affection of their father to grieve for Joseph, his son. And this day is decreed so that they might mourn on it on account of their sins and on account of all their transgressions and on account of all their errors in order to purify themselves on this day, once a year. (Jub. 34:18-19) The language of 1Q22 conveyed a similar sentiment, if the people adhered to the laws of the sabbatical year and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , which the author viewed as combined into the same event, then God would bless them and atone for their iniquities. The author of 1Q22, thus, incorporated the forgiveness of iniquities on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:29-3), which inaugurates the Jubilee, with the sabbatical year/‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ making it a time for the forgiveness of iniquities (1Q22 3:6-7), if the people adhered to the laws of the sabbatical year and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ . Returning then to Dan. 9:24, the commencement of the Jubilee on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) meant the Jubilee year began with an expiation, an atonement. The description of the Jubilee in Leviticus 25 emphasizes the physical return of property and proclamation of liberty (‫)דְ ּרוֹר‬, yet the connection of the Jubilee and the proclamation of liberty with Yom Kippur implied a spiritual and 41 See DJD 1, 95. 93 atoning quality to the Jubilee. The year of liberty began with expiation. For this reason, as we have seen, later Jewish traditions viewed the Jubilee as not only offering physical freedom, but spiritual freedom, atonement from sin, as well (Dan. 9:24; 1Q22 3:1-12; 11Q13 2:4-8). This influenced the expectations in Dan. 9:24. The author of Daniel 9, however, used a sabbatical chronology to articulate his eschatological expectations. Unlike other traditions (Josephus, Philo, the Septuagint, and 1Q22), he anticipated the eschatological turn at the conclusion of seventy sabbatical cycles (ten Jubilees) to bring an end to sin and transgression by the expiation of Yom Kippur, which inaugurated the Jubilee, and it commenced the period of justice and righteousness by the cleansing of Yom Kippur. For this reason, the author of Dan. 9:24 described the conclusion of seventy sabbatical cycles as a period of the eschatological atonement of iniquity, the cessation of sin and transgression, and the bringing of eternal righteousness. The author of Daniel 9 used a sabbatical chronology, which conveyed his eschatological chronology as well as his expectations of the eschatological turn. In this, he influenced subsequent Jewish speculation concerning the timing and expectations of the eschatological end. Two works from Qumran, 4QapcorJer C and 4Q390, used the 490-year sabbatical calendar of Daniel 9 as a historical framework for Israel’s history past, present, and future.[42] The author of 4Q390 42 See C. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature,” DSD 13 (2006): 229-255; Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 245-246; J. Strugnell and D. Dimant, “4Q Second Ezekiel (4Q380),” RevQ 13 (1988): 45-58; idem, “The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4),” RevQ 14 (1990): 331-348; Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27),” 57-76, especially 69, 72-76; idem, “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390,” 2:405-448; for a short survey of the history of the publication of these fragments, see Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 1-3. 94 knew the angelic revelation in Dan. 9:24-27 had not come true; and therefore, the author sought to update Daniel’s timeline to incorporate and critique the period under the Hasmonean priests.[43] But, for our study, the most important work to derive its chronology and expectations from Dan. 9:24, and which also updated and recalibrated Daniel’s chronological schema, was 11Q13. 11Q13 11Q13, a fragmentary manuscript discovered in Cave 11 at Qumran, belongs to the Qumran pesharim.[44] Column 2 of the composition provides the most complete, 43 Jewish interpreters often updated and recalibrated Daniel’s chronological schema; see Flusser, “Salvation Present and Future,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 229-244 229-244; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 67; and H. Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Bocccaccini (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), 102-110. 44 Scholarship on 11Q13 has suffered in two principal ways: 1) Scholars have focused on the eschatological figure of Melchizedek, assuming he is the center of the preserved manuscript. They have even given his name to the nomenclature of the manuscript, 11QMelchizedek. Melchizedek, however, is not the central theme of the manuscript nor of the interpretations of the biblical lemmata cited. Rather, the pesher describes the various aspects of the Yom Kippur at the conclusion of the tenth Jubilee, not the character of Melchizedek. 2) Although acknowledging 11Q13 belongs to the Qumran pesharim, 11Q13 has not been read in accordance with the character of the genre of pesher at Qumran. This manifests itself in two separate yet related ways. First, most scholars identify Melchizedek in 11Q13 as the archangel Michael. As such, they elevate this text into the realm of apocalyptic, cosmic supra-history. The problem, however, lies in the fact that the pesharim are not apocalypses. They do not concern themselves with suprahistorical realities of apocalypses. Angels, demons, and otherworldly beings do not appear in the Qumran pesharim. The Qumran pesharim provide an eschatological-historical interpretation to the biblical lemmata they include, but they altogether lack an apocalyptic reality. Although they refer to human figures with sobriquets, they do not include angelic, otherworldly beings or suprahistoric realities. Second, although Psalm 82:1-2 and Psalm 7:8b-9a convey a mythic reality, for example, God among the heavenly court, this does not mean the pesherist imparted the same mythic meaning in his interpretation. Such interpretations are absent in the Qumran pesharim. The pesharim interpreted the biblical lemmata as pertaining to the history of the Community—its past, present, and near future, and identified this history within 95 preserved text, in which the author of the pesher described the Yom Kippur which concludes the tenth Jubilee as a period of return and atonement, justice and judgement, peace and salvation, comfort and deliverance. The pesherist wove together a mosaic of scriptural passages (Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15; Isa. 52:7; 61:1-3; Ps. 7:8-9; 81:1-2; and Dan. 9:24[?]), from which he extrapolated his expectations concerning the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee. He relied upon Dan. 9:24 to provide the eschatological historiography—the chronology and expectations—for his characterization of the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee. He, moreover, relied upon certain intertextualities between the scriptural passages he cited and interpreted.[45] The scriptural text served both as the subject the pesherist studied to discover meaning as well as the object which supported his interpretation. Column 2[46] ‫[א ֗ה ֗כאשר ֯א ֯מ]ר‬ ֗ ]○‫ ] [○מר ל‬1‫‏‬ ‫ ] [ו֗ ֗א ֗ש ֗ר אמר בשנת היובל ]הזואת תשובו איש אל אחוזתו ועליו אמר וז[ה‬2‫‏‬ ‫יש ֗ה] ברעהו לוא יגוש את רעהו ואת‬ ֗ ‫הש[מ ֯ט ֯ה ֗ש ֗מוט ֗כו֗ ל בעל משה יד אשר‬ ֯ ‫ ]דבר‬3‫‏‬ ‫אחיו כיא קרא [שמטה‬ ‫לאחרית הימים על השבויים אשר] ישבו לבליעל מיהודה‬ ֗ ‫ פשר ֗ה ֗ד ֗ב ֗ר‬4‫‏‬ the period of ‫אחרית הימים‬. Yet, this in no way requires a mythic, suprahistorical interpretation be given for the pesharim, including 11Q13. The author of 11Q13 derived his eschatological chronology and expectations from the biblical texts he cited. Given the nature of the Qumran pesharim, the author of 11Q13 likely viewed himself as already within the tenth Jubilee and anticipated its conclusion and the eschatological turn soon. See further, Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty’: Atonement, Justice, and the Proclamation of Good News at the End of the Tenth Jubilee: An Analysis of 11Q13.” PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2024. 45 See Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” 46 Text readings and reconstructions according to Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” 96 ‫אשר‬ ‫[כ ֗‬ ‫בעוונותהמה ֯‬ ‫ומנחלת מלכי צדק כי֯ ]א‬ ‫֗‬ ‫רה‬ ‫מד ֗ר ֗כי ֗ה ֯תו֗ ֯‬ ‫הדי֗ חמה ֗‬ ‫‏‪֗ 5‬‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫צ[דק‬ ‫המ ֯ה נ֗ ֯ח ֯ל]ת מלכי ֗‬ ‫[מ ֯ת ֗‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ו]נעש[ה‬ ‫֗‬ ‫[כו֗ ל עוונותיהמה‬ ‫אלי֗ ֗ה ֗מה וקרא להמה דרור לעזוב ֗ל ֗ה ֯מ ֯ה] את ֯‬ ‫‏‪ 6‬ישיבמה ֗‬ ‫֯הדבר הזה‬ ‫ה]וא[ה‬ ‫֗‬ ‫אח ֯ר ֯ע ֯ש]רת ה[י֯ ובלים וי֗ ]ום הכפ[ו֯ רים‬ ‫אשון ֗‬ ‫‏‪֯ 7‬ב ֯ר ֯או֯ ֯ש היובל ֗ה ֗ר ֯‬ ‫[ה]יו[בל העשירי‬ ‫֯ס]וף ֯‬ ‫עלי֯ ]המ[ה הת] [ ֗ל◦]י‬ ‫ורל ֗מ ֗ל]כי [צדק] [ו֗ ם ֗‬ ‫ו[אנש]י [ג֯ ֗‬ ‫‏‪ 8‬לכפר בו על כול בני ]אור ֯‬ ‫עוונ[ותמה כיא‬ ‫לממ ֗ש ֗לת משפט כאשר‬ ‫ע[ם קדושי אל ֗‬ ‫צד ֗ק ו֗ ֗ל ֗צ ֗בא]יו ֯‬ ‫מלכי ֯‬ ‫הק ֗ץ ֯לשנת הרצון ֗ל ֗‬ ‫‏‪ 9‬הואה ֗‬ ‫כתוב‬ ‫ועליו‬ ‫[בקורב אלוהים ישפוט ֗‬ ‫בע]דת אל ֗‬ ‫]נ[צב ֗‬ ‫אלוהים ֗‬ ‫֗‬ ‫אשר אמר‬ ‫‏‪ 10‬עליו בשירי֗ ֗דו֗ יד ֗‬ ‫ו[עלי]ה[‬ ‫֗א ֗מ]ר ֗‬ ‫]י[ם‬ ‫רשע ֗‬ ‫֗‬ ‫ת[שפוטו עוול ופני‬ ‫‏‪ 11‬למרום שובה אל ידין ֗עמים ואשר ֗א]מר עד מתי ֗‬ ‫֗ת ֗ש]או ס[לה‬ ‫]רמ[ה ֗מ ֯חוקי אל‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אש]ר ישאו פני שבו[י֯ י֯ ם בסו֗‬ ‫ועל ֗רו֗ ֯חי֗ גורלו ֯‬ ‫בליעל ֗‬ ‫֗‬ ‫‏‪ 12‬פשרו על‬ ‫ל]הרשיע[‬ ‫כול‬ ‫[בליעל ומיד ֯‬ ‫יצי[ל]מה מיד ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫נק ֯ם ֗מ ֗ש ֯פ ֯טי ֗א]ל וביום ההואה‬ ‫צד ֗ק יקו֗ ֗ם ֯‬ ‫‏‪ 13‬ומלכי ֗‬ ‫֯ר]וחי גורלו[‬ ‫ל[כו֯ ל בני ֯א]ל[‬ ‫‏‪ 14‬ובעזרו כול אלי ]הצדק וה[ו֯ ֯אה א]שר אמר באו ימי הפקודה ֯‬ ‫והפ]קודה [‬ ‫֗‬ ‫אמ[ר מה‬ ‫אמ ֯ר] אל עליו ביד ישע[י֗ ֗ה הנביא אשר ֯‬ ‫א[שר ֗‬ ‫‏‪ 15‬הזואת היאה יום ֗ה]שלום ֯‬ ‫נ[אוו‬ ‫֗‬ ‫ישוע[ה ]א[ו֯ מר ֗לציון‬ ‫֯‬ ‫מ[שמיע ֗שלום מב]שר טוב משמיע‬ ‫בש]ר ֗‬ ‫רגל]י[ ֗מ ֗‬ ‫‏‪ 16‬על הרים ֗‬ ‫היך‬ ‫[א ֗לו֗ ֯‬ ‫]מלך ֯‬ ‫[ת ֗מ]ה[ לכול ◦◦] [‏‬ ‫[המה א] ֯‬ ‫ההרי֯ ֗ם] המה[ ֯הנ֯ ביאי֗ ]ם ֗‬ ‫‏‪֯ 17‬פ ֯ש ֗רו ֗‬ ‫כ[אשר אמר דנ֯ ]יאל עליו ולכפר עון ולהביא צדק‬ ‫[משיח הרו֗ ]ח ֯‬ ‫‏‪ 18‬והמבשר הו֗ ]אה ֯‬ ‫‪97‬‬ [‫עלמים ומבשר‬ ‫הכ[תו]ב עליו ֗אשר ]אמר לקרוא שנת רצון ליהוה ויום‬ ֯ ‫ טו֗ ֯ב ֗מ ֗שמי֗ ]ע ישועה [הואה‬19‫‏‬ [‫נקם לאלוהינו‬ [ ‫[ל]ה[ש ֗כ ֗יל ֗מה בכול קצי ֗ה ֗צ]רות‬ ֯ ‫ ֗לנח]ם[ ֗ה]אבלים פשרו‬20‫‏‬ ‫[מ ֯ה ֯א] [‏‬ ֯ ]‫ ֯באמת ֯ל ֯מ‬21‫‏‬ ‫ותש]וב [נ֗ ֗ק] [‏‬ ֯ ‫מבליעל‬ ֗ ‫א[ש ֗ר הו֯ סרה‬ ֯ ]◦◦ 22‫‏‬ [‫אלוהיך ]צי[ון ה]יאה‬ ֗ ‫כתו֗ ֗ב עליו] אומר לצי[ון ֗מ ֗לך‬ ֗ ‫כאשר‬ ֗ ‫[במשפט]י[ ֯אל‬ ֗ ] 23‫‏‬ ‫]ו[הי֗ ֯ך‬ ֗ ‫וא ֗ל‬ ֗ ‫]בד[ר ֯ך העם‬ ֯ ‫מלכת‬ ֗ ‫ ]עדת כול בני הצדק המה [מקי֗ ֯מ]י[ הברי֗ ֯ת הסרים‬24‫‏‬ ‫֗הו֗ אה‬ ‫ב[כו֗ ֯ל‬ ֗ ‫ואשר אמר והעברתמה שו]פר‬ ֗ ‫מי[ד בליעל‬ ֗ ‫יצי[ל]מה‬ ֗ ‫ ] מלכי צדק אשר‬25‫‏‬ ‫]א[ר ֯ץ‬ ֗ Column 2[47] 1 [ ] [ ] as it sa[ys ] 2 [ ]and as it says, “In [this] year of the Jubilee [each one will return to his property.” And concerning it, it says, “And th]is is 3 the matter of the release:] each creditor will remit the claim that he holds [against his neighbor, not exacting it from his neighbor and his kin because it has been proclaimed] a remission. 4 The interpretation of it is for the end of days concerning the captives who[ were captured by Belial from Judah through their iniquities] because 5 he led them from the ways of the Torah and the inheritance of Melchizedek fo[r ] they are the inherit[ance of Melchize]dek who 6 will return them unto them, and proclaim to them liberty, to release 47 Translation is the author’s. 98 them [of] all their iniquities. And this matter [will happe]n 7 at the beginning of the first Jubilee after t[en ]Jubilees. And the D[ay of Aton]ement i[s] the e[nd ] of the tenth [Ju]bilee 8 to atone for all the sons of [light and] the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek [ ] about [the]m [ ] [ ] their [iniquiti]es for 9 it is the period of the year of the favor of Melchizedek and [his] hos[ts, the peo]ple of the holy ones of God of the dominion of justice as is written 10 about it in the songs of David which says, “The judge [st]ands in the conger[gation of God] in the midst of judges he will judge.” And concerning it, it sa[ys, “And] above [it] 11 to the heights, return: God will judge the people.” And as it s[ays, “How long will you] judge unjustly, and be part[ial] to the wic[k]ed. [Se]lah.” 12 Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot wh[o were partial to the captive]s when [th]ey tur[ned] away from the statutes of God to [do evil]. 13 And Melchizedek will execute the vengeance of Go[d’s] judgments [and on that day he will deliv]er [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of his lot.] 14 And with the help of all the “oaks of [righteousness,” and th]is is wh[at it says, “The days of punishment have come” for] all the sons of God. And this pu[nishment] 15 is the day of [peace a]s [God] says [concerning it by the hand of Isai]ah the prophet who said, [“How] beautiful 16 on the mountains are the feet [of] the messeng[er an]nouncing peace, the mes[senger of good announcing salvati]on [sa]ying to Zion, ‘Your God [reigns.’”] 17 Its interpretation: the mountains [are] the prophet[s] they [ ] for all 99 [] 18 The messenger i[s] the anointed of the spir[it] as Dan[iel] said [about him, “To atone for iniquity, and to bring everlasting righteousness.” And “a messenger] 19 of good announc[ing salvation”] this is what is written about him which [says “to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD and the day of vengeance of our God,] 20 to comfo[rt] those [who mourn.” Its interpretation:] to [in]struct them in all the periods of di[tress ] 21 in truth [ ] [ 22 ◦◦[ w]ho turned away from Belial and will retu[rn ] [ ] 23 [ ] in the judgment[s of] God as it is written concerning it, [“saying to Zi]on, ‘Your God reigns.’” [“Zi]on” i[s] 24 [the congregation of all the children of justice. They] establis[h] the covenant of those who turn away from walking [in the w]ay of the people. And “your God” is 25 [ Melchizedek who will sa]ve [them from the ha]nd of Belial. And as it says, “And you will sound a trum[pet in] all the [la]nd The Yom Kippur at the conclusion of the tenth Jubilee provides the focus of this pesher (11Q13 2:6-7); this was the time of redemption.[48] He interpreted Lev. 25:13 (also perhaps Lev. 25:10) and Deut. 15:2 as pertaining to the return of a schismatic group, the captives, who strayed from the ways of the Torah (i.e., the ways of the Community; 11Q13 2:4-6). This group will be returned by Melchizedek, the biblical priest-king (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110), who will proclaim 48 The author indicated this by the frequent use of markers of time, which he interpreted throughout column 2. 100 liberty to the Community, which includes the schismatic group and those who never strayed, in ‫“( אחרית הימים‬the end of days”). The liberty proclaimed refers to the release of the Sons of Light (the Community and the schismatic group that returned) from their iniquities, which will be expiated on the Yom Kippur that concludes the tenth Jubilee (11Q13 2:6-9). The pesherist identified this period as “the year of the favor of Melchizedek and [his] hos[ts” (‫הוא הקץ לשנת הרצון למלכי‬ ‫) צדק ולצב]איו‬.[49] The author then cited Psalm 82:1-2 and Psalm 7:8b-9a to describe this period (‫ )הקץ‬as a time of judgment for Belial and his lot, with Melchizedek carrying out the judgements of God with the aid of the Community (11Q13 2:10-14). This period functions as a time of judgement and justice for the wicked and peace for the Sons of Light, a time of God’s visitation.[50] The pesher, then, interpreted “the day of peace” by citing Isa. 52:7. In the interpretation, the author identified the ‫( ְמ ַבשֵּׂר‬mevasēr, “messenger”) in Isa. 52:7 as the ‫( ְמשִׁי ַח הָרוּ ַח‬meshiaḥ hārūaḥ, “the anointed with the Spirit”) in Isa. 61:1-3 (11Q13 2:18). His role parallels that of Melchizedek in line 6, indicating that Melchizedek and the ‫משיח‬ (‫ הרוח )המבשר‬are the same figure. The column concludes presumably with Melchizedek blowing the trumpet in the land (Lev. 25:9) announcing deliverance (‫ )דְ ּרוֹר‬to the Community. Although the author of 11Q13 utilized a number of scriptural passages in his pesher, Dan. 9:24 provided the eschatological historiography for the Yom Kippur at the conclusion of the tenth Jubilee. His work belongs to the trend within ancient Judaism to update the prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27.[51] He also relied upon the 49 Melchizedek’s hosts refer to the Community of the Sons of Light. The author plays on the double meaning of the word ‫( פְּקוּדָ ה‬11Q13 2:10-20). 51 See Flusser, “Salvation Present and Future,” 229-244; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 67; and Eshel, 50 101 description of the eschatological turn in Dan. 9:24 to establish his expectations for the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee. The three triads in Dan. 9:24 convey a parallelism, in which the first set, (‫ לכלא הפשע‬and ‫)להביא צדק עלמים‬, rectify injustice and dispense justice (see 11Q13 2:9-14), the second pair, (‫ להתם חטאות‬and ‫)לחתם חזון ונביא‬, relate to the role and object of prophecy (see 11Q13 2:15-25), and the third pair, (‫ לכפר עון‬and ‫)למשח קדש קדשים‬, reflect the role of the priesthood in expiating iniquity (see 11Q13 2:4-9).[52] The author of 11Q13 recognized the anticipation of eschatological turn as a time of justice (kingship), prophecy, and priesthood, which he telescoped into the role he envisioned for the scriptural figure of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20; Psalm 110).[53] The author of 11Q13 followed the tradition preserved in 1Q22, the Septuagint, “4Q390, The 490-Year Prophecy,” 102-110. 52 The manner of the pesherist’s interpretation of the biblical text upon the organization of his pesher appears in 2:9-14. Identifying the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee as “the period of the year of the favor of Melchizedek and [his] hosts” (‫הואה הקץ לשנת הרצון למלכי צדק‬ ‫ ;ולצב]איו‬11Q13 2:9 ), the author played upon the dual aspect of the favorable year of the LORD in Isa. 61:2 as a day of vengeance. The anointed herald in Isa. 61:2 proclaims, ‫שנַת ָרצוֹן לַיהוה וְיוֹם נָקָם‬ ְׁ ‫ ;לֵאֹלהֵינוּ‬thus, the year of the Yahweh’s favor is also the day of judgement. The author of 11Q13, however, understood, ‫’( אֱֹלהֵינוּ‬elohēnū), not as parallel to Yahweh, but rather, Melchizedek and his hosts, who will execute the judgements of God against Belial and his lot, with the aid of the Sons of Light (11Q13 2:12-14). The pesherist identified their judicial role from Psalm 82:1, ‫אֱֹלהִים נִצָּב ַבּעֲדַ ת אֵל ְבּק ֶֶרב אֱֹלהִים יִשְׁפּ ֹט‬. The author of 11Q13 did not identify Melchizedek and his hosts as angelic figures (as many scholars assume, see note 44). Rather, he understood the term ‫’( אֱֹלהִים‬elohim) to mean “judge” and “judges”; the citations of Psalm 82:1-2 and Psalm 7:8b-9a described the judicial character of the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee, not Melchizedek and his hosts. From Isa. 61:2, the pesherist concluded the end of the tenth Jubilee would be a period of favor (atonement for the Sons of Light, 2:8), but a time of judgment for the wicked (2:12-14); thus, 11Q13 2:9 provides a transition from describing the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee as a “year of favor” to the “domain of justice” (‫)מששלת משפט‬. Both aspects appear in Isa. 61:2, but they also appear in Dan. 9:24 where the eschatological turn at the conclusion of the seventieth sabbatical cycle will be a period of atonement and justice. See further Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberity.’” 53 Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” 102 Josephus, and Philo to combine the Jubilee, the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and the proclamation of liberty (‫)דְ ּרוֹר‬. The inauguration of the Jubilee on Yom Kippur encouraged the spiritualization of the Jubilee, the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫ דְ ּרוֹר‬within Judaism of the Second ְ likewise tied the Temple period.[54] The combination of the Jubilee and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ seventh year to the Jubilee atonement of Yom Kippur (Lev. 25:9-10). The author of 1Q22 apparently understood this as part of the remission that took place every sabbatical/Jubilee cycle, while 11Q13 attached the forgiveness of iniquities to the final Jubilee of the last days, the eschatological forgiveness, following Dan. 9:24 (‫)לכפר עון‬. 11Q13, like Dan. 9:24, linked the eschatological redemption with the sabbatical-Jubilee chronology. Because of the connection of redemption to the sabbatical-Jubilee chronology, the expectation of the expiation of iniquities at the conclusion of the eschatological Jubilee naturally evolved. Luke and Sabbatical Redemption Luke expressed the idea of sabbatical redemption in three ways: 1) chronological markers in his Gospel; 2) his use of the phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν (eis afesin amartiōn, “for the release of sins”); and 3) the appearance of the benediction, “And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us” (καὶ ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίοµεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡµῖν; Luke 11:4). 54 See Weinfield, “The Day of Atonement and Freedom (Deror),” 227-231. 103 The Chronological Markers in Luke Dates mattered to the ancients. Not strictly as chronological markers either. Dates provided ancient authors the ability to make a point beyond merely a chronological point in time.[55] Dates often reflected the ancients’ ideas of the divine organization of the universe. As the Stoic Lucius Seneca intoned, “On even the slightest motion of these [the heavenly bodies] hang the fortunes of nations, and the greatest and smallest events are shaped to accord with the progress of a kindly or unkindly star” (De Consolatione ad Macriam 18.3). Even Jewish writers saw divine intention within the coalescing of dates. For example, Josephus placed the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E. on the same day the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. (J.W. 6:250, 267-268). It is unclear whether the two Temple destructions occurred on precisely the same date, but Josephus sought to make a bigger point. So too, he placed the fall of Masada on Passover. Previously in his narrative, he related how the Jewish rebels on Masada slaughtered the Jewish community of En Gedi on Passover a couple of years prior. They slaughtered Jews on Passover; they died on Passover as well (J.W. 4:401-405; 7:401). Luke set the chronology of Jesus’ birth, within the time of the census taken by Quirinius, the Roman governor of Syria.[56] Publius Sulpicius Quirinius served as procurator of Syria in 6 C.E. The census of Quirinius ties into the tenure of Archelaus (see Josephus, Ant. 18:1-2). Archelaus, having been a poor administrator 55 See for example, P. J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 2018). 56 H. M. Cotton, “The Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judean Desert and the Egyptian κατ᾽οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή,” in Roman Rule and Jewish Life: Collected Papers, ed. O. Pogorelsky (Studia Judaica 89; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2022), 363-378. 104 of his territory, was removed as ethnarch by Augustus, at the request of a Jewish delegation sent to Rome. Augustus removed Archelaus and annexed his lands— Judea proper, Idumea, and Samaria—to the Roman Empire and the province of Syria, placing them under direct Roman rule in the form of a Roman prefect (Ant. 18:2).[57] This coincided with the first provincial census conducted in the province of Syria: “This census (ἀπογραφή [apografē]) took place for the first time (πρώτη [prōtē]) when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”[58] Quirinius, by virtue of being the Roman governor of Syria, administered the census of the province of Syria, under the order of Augustus, and the liquidation of Archelaus’ territory, which coincided with the census (see Protoevangelium of James 17:1; Ant. 18:2). The census of Quirinius meant more than a date for the Jews in the land of Israel in the first century. It signaled Rome’s takeover of part of the land, including Jerusalem, which the God of Israel promised to his chosen people, the Jews. Josephus described a revolt led by Judas from Gamla in response to the census of Quirinius. Rome’s annexation of Archelaus’ territory imposed a foreign ruler over the land of Israel and the Jewish people, particularly Jerusalem and its Temple. Judas viewed the census as “amounting to downright slavery, no less, and appealed 57 Many make the mistaken assumption that Rome’s entry into Judaea in 63 B.C.E., with the army of Pompey the Great, annexed the land to the Roman Empire. They did not. Rome took a more “hands on” policy in Judean politics, first establishing the client kings of the Hasmoneans and then Herod the Great, but it did not annex the land. Rome pulled the strings and exerted its will, but the local rulers still wielded power. The land of Israel remained an independent, yet client kingdom of Rome. This changed with the removal of Archelaus and Rome’s annexation in 6 C.E. The annexation of Archelaus’ territory and placing it under a Roman governor did not extend the hegemony of the governor to all the land of Israel. Philo of Alexandria how the sons of Herod led a delegation to the emperor Tiberius against Pilate (Embassy to Gaius, 299-305). The interaction between Pilate and Herod Antipas concerning Jesus (Luke 23:6-12; Acts 4:25-28) likewise displays the regional limits of the Roman governor of Judea. 58 See Cotton, “The Roman Census,” 364-365. 105 to the nation to make a bid for independence” (Ant. 18:4-5). According to Josephus, Judas “upbraided his countrymen as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their lord” (J.W. 2:117-118; Ant. 18:23-25). Judas viewed Jewish submission to Rome as a sin, for God alone was the sovereign for the Jewish people. When faced with such a reality, those who adhered to Judas’ philosophy believed their response should be the taking up of the sword and shedding of blood for the sake of Jewish independence. Josephus said concerning Judas and his followers that they felt, “they would win honor and renown for their lofty aim; and that Heaven would be their zealous helper to no lesser end than the furthering of their enterprise until it succeeded—all the more if with high devotion in their hearts they stood firm and did not shrink from the bloodshed that might be necessary” (Ant. 18:6-10). Judas and his movement looked to the precedent of the zealous Hasmoneans, who fought the Greek Seleucids, driving them out of the land of Israel by force. Judas believed God would likewise aid his efforts to drive out the Romans. Josephus ascribed to Judas the founding of the “Fourth Philosophy.” The other three Jewish philosophies being the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Josephus noted an agreement in many areas between the Fourth Philosophy and the Pharisees, “except that they [the members of the Fourth Philosophy] have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master. They think little of submitting to death in unusual forms and permitting vengeance to fall on kinsmen and friends if only they may avoid calling any man master” (Ant. 18:23). Josephus made clear that Judas’ descendants continued his movement and 106 violently opposed Roman rule throughout the first century. The ideology of Judas and his movement, which others embraced as well, eventually led to the militant activism on the Jewish side which spawned the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 C.E.). A splinter group, Josephus referred to as the Sicarii, emerged from Judas’ movement during the Procuratorships of Felix (52-60 C.E.) and Festus (60-62 C.E.). This group effectively used terror and assassination of Romans and Jewish sympathizers in the years leading up to the revolt (Paul was accused of being part of this group; Acts 21:38). Luke knew of Judas’ movement and the role the census of Quirinius played in its formation as we see in Acts 5:37-38. Luke, in fact, provides our only source for Judas’ death during his revolt in response to the Roman census. The census of Quirinius not only represented direct Roman rule of Judaea and the loss of Jewish liberty and subjugation to an idolatrous empire, but it also represented the rise of a Jewish redemptive movement which sought redemption through taking up the sword and shedding blood. Josephus demonstrated the cultural connection between Judas’ revolt and the census of Quirinius in that, every time he mentioned Judas’ descendants, he mentioned the census (Ant. 20:102; J.W. 2:433; 7:253). Whenever Jews thought about the census, they thought about Judas’ rebellion and his movement, and whenever they thought about Judas and his movement, they thought about the census (see also Acts 5:37-38). Luke’s placement of Jesus’ birth during the census of Quirinius drew upon these larger themes represented by this event, the loss of Jewish independence, direct Roman rule, the rise of a redemptive movement. At the same time, based upon the sabbatical years identified within ancient Jewish sources, 6 C.E., the year of the 107 census, was a sabbatical year.[59] The connection between the census of Quirinius and the sabbatical year may have encouraged Judas in his revolt, believing his action would inaugurate God’s redemption. Luke knew of the connection between the revolt of Judas and the census (Acts 5:37); therefore, his placement of the birth of Jesus in 6 C.E., the year of the census under Quirinius, a sabbatical year, served to connect the birth of Jesus to Jewish redemptive hopes, which was in part conveyed through the sabbatical date of his birth. If Luke only provided a single chronological instance in which he tied his narrative to the sabbatical year and redemptive hopes, we might assume this represents a narrative anomaly or the result of some other consideration. Yet, Luke also provided a chronological date for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1).[60] Regardless of which ancient dating system this was based on—the Julian calendar, the Jewish calendar, the Syrian calendar, or the Egyptian calendar—the fifteenth year of Tiberius was a sabbatical year, 28 C.E.[61] Luke not only identified the fifteenth year of Tiberius as the beginning of John’s activity, but the proclamation of the Baptist ties his movement and message to the expectation of Sabbatical redemption: “And he went into all the region of the Jordan proclaiming (κηρύσσων [kēroussōn]) a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν [eis afesin amartiōn])” (Luke 3:3; see also Mark 1:4). Once again, the date and the context, as attested by John’s proclamation, connect Luke’s chronology to sabbatical redemption. 59 Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 215. Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 213-214. 61 Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 213-214; J. A. Fiztmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1970), 455-456. 60 108 Because Luke presents our sole source tying the birth of Jesus and the beginning of the ministry of the Baptist to the sabbatical year, we cannot determine whether the ascription of these events to the sabbatical year came from Luke or his sources. If they came from Luke, then we must assume he understood the relevance of sabbatical redemption within ancient Judaism. If they came from Luke’s sources, then the connection of the movements of Jesus and the Baptist to sabbatical redemption must originate in the most primitive layers of this tradition. The Markan parallel to Luke 3:3 (Mark 1:4; see also Matt. 26:28) suggests that Luke did not originate the connection of John’s movement to sabbatical redemption (see also Luke 1:77); in which case, Luke bears witness to the primitive connection between the movements of John and Jesus with Jewish hopes of sabbatical redemption. At the same time, the frequency with which the language of sabbatical redemption appears within Luke-Acts makes it unlikely that Luke relied upon Mark 1:4 as the foundation for this idea. In other words, the inclusion of the language and idea of sabbatical redemption in Luke-Acts is non-Markan and represents Luke’s preservation of his primitive, non-Markan sources. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν As previoulsy noted, the Septuagint translated the three Hebrew words, ‫יוֹבֵל‬, ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫ דְ ּרוֹר‬with the singular Greek ἄφεσις.[62] It never translates the Hebrew noun, ‫( ְסלִיחָה‬seliḥāh). The inauguration of the Jubilee on Yom Kippur connected it to the 62 See Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Volume 1, 182; and Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist,” 635-646. See Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:10-12, 28, 30-31, 33, 40, 50, 52, 54; 27:17-18, 21, 23-24; Num. 36:4; Deut. 15:1-3, 9-10; Isa. 61:1; Jer. 34:8, 15, 17; and Ezek. 46:17. 109 expiation of iniquities, and the spiritualization of the Jubilee and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ within the Second Temple period tied this heptadic chronology to the remission of sins. So too, ‫ דְ ּרוֹר‬came to refer to spiritual liberty as much as it did the physical liberty. Daniel 9:24 and 11Q13 (see also 1Q22 3:1-12) anticipated the eschatological redemption to happen on the Jubilee and begin with the expiation of sins. Each of the Synoptic Gospels preserve the phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν (Matt. 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; and 24:47), which indicates its widespread appearance in Luke-Acts did not originate from Luke’s pen (Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; and 26:18). The concentration of this phrase within the first part of Acts, prior to the introduction of the so-called “We-sections” (Acts 16:11), seems to further corroborate Luke’s preservation of the language of sabbatical redemption from his sources. Significantly, the occurrences of this phrase within Acts appear either as part of proclamations to Jewish audiences (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 13:38; and 26:18) and/or within the land of Israel (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; and 26:18), both of which underscore the primitive origin of the attachment of Jesus’ movement to the idea of sabbatical redemption. Luke’s language concerning John’s proclamation, “And he went into all the region of the Jordan proclaiming (κηρύσσων) a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν),” hearkens to the phrase “to proclaim liberty” (‫ִלקְר ֹא‬ ‫ )דְ ּרוֹר‬attached to the Jubilee and ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ (Lev. 25:10; Isa. 61:1; Jer. 34:8, 15, and 17).[63] John’s message heralded the anticipated eschatological, sabbatical redemption. This sabbatical redemption expected the eschatological forgiveness of 63 The Septuagint used different verbs than κηρύσσω in Lev. 25:10 (διαβοάω) and Jer. 34 (LXX 41; καλέω), but Isa. 61:1 translated ‫ ִלקְר ֹא ִלשְׁבוּי ִם דְּ רוֹר‬with κηρύξαι αἰχµαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. 110 sins to precede the period of redemption. In this, John, like Melchizedek in 11Q13, proclaimed liberty (ἄφεσις/‫)דְ ּרוֹר‬, which relates to the forgiveness of sins: ‫וקרא להמה‬ ‫[כו֗ ל עוונותיהמה‬ ֯ ‫“( דרור לעזוב ֗ל ֗ה ֯מ ֯ה ] את‬And he [Melchizedek] proclaims liberty to them, to release them [ of ] all their iniquities”; 11Q13 2:6) and God’s redemption of Israel. The call for repentance represents a stream of Jewish piety that embraced a redemptive activism in which acts of repentance and piety served as a catalyst to bring about God’s redemption.[64] This idea originated within the Deuteronomic theology in which sin and disobedience explained Israel’s subjugation to foreign rule, while repentance and obedience to the Torah brought deliverance from foreign rule. Later Jewish interpreters found within the Deuteronomic theology a prescription for how Israel should seek liberation from foreign rule and bring about its redemption: “Rabbi Aha…said, ‘If Israel would repent (but) one day the son of David (i.e., the Messiah) would come forth’” (y. Ta’anit 1:1 [64a]). Repentance brings redemption. John’s call to repentance with the expectation of redemption reflects the redemptive activism found within certain Jewish streams of piety: “Great is repentance, for it brings redemption near, as it is said, ‘And a redeemer will come to Zion,’ because of ‘them that turn from transgression in Jacob’” (b. Yoma 86b). His identification of charity as the mechanism of repentance codified by the act of immersion meant that he anticipated the response of the people to his call to bring about God’s redemption of Israel (see Luke 3:10-14; Ant. 18:116-119; see also Sifre to Deut. 32:29). The ability of human repentance to hasten God’s redemption appears in the words of Rabbi Yohanan. 64 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” 111 Rabbi Yohanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, told Israel: “Though I have set a definite term for the end which will come at the appointed time whether Israel returns to Me in penitence or not, still if they repent even for one day, I will bring it before its appointed time.” Hence, “Today if you would hear His voice (Psalm 95:7).” (Exodus Rabbah 25:12; see also b. Sanhedrin 98b) John sought to prepare the way of redemption by preparing the people through their repentance (Luke 1:76-80). Thus, his call to repentance was not passive. He expected the repentance of the people to affect the redemption they sought in the sabbatical year. Although the Septuagint translated three Hebrew words—‫יוֹבֵל‬, ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and ‫—דְ ּרוֹר‬ with ἄφεσις, the language, κηρύσσων…µετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν, seems to hearken specifically to the phrase ‫( ִלקְר ֹא דְ ּרוֹר‬Lev. 25:10; Isa. 61:1; Jer. 34:8, 15, and 17), which not only recalls the Jubilee, but the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ (Jer. 34:8, 15, and 17). This explains John’s response to the question of the crowds, “What then shall we do?” (Luke 3:10), which was precipitated by John’s injunction for them to “Bear fruits that befit repentance” (ποιήσατε οὗν καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς µετανοίας; Luke 3:8). Luke alone preserves John’s response to the crowd: “He who has two coats, let him share with the one who has none;[65] and he who has food, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11; see Isa. 58:6-12). John’s command follows logically from his proclamation of liberty (‫ )דְ ּרוֹר‬as tied to the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , for the law of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ recounts: Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts (‫שׁנִים‬ ָ ‫שׁבַע־‬ ֶ ‫ִמקֵּץ‬ ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ ‫)תַּ ֲעשֶׂה‬. And this is the manner of the remission: every creditor 65 Luke’s Greek, τῷ µὴ ἔχοντι (tō mē echonti, “to the one not having”), preserves the Hebraism, ‫שאֵין לוֹ‬ ׁ ֶ ‫( הוּא‬hū’ she’ēn lō, “he that has not”). 112 shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because the LORD’s remission has been proclaimed (‫שׁ ִמטָּה לַיהוה‬ ְ ‫)כִּי־ק ָָרא‬. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but you must remit your claim on whatever any member of your community owes you. There will, however, be no one in need among you (‫) ִכּי ֹלא י ִ ְהי ֶה־ ְבָּך ֶאבְיוֹן‬, because the LORD is sure to bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession to occupy (‫ָאָרץ ֲאשֶׁר יהוה אֱֹלהֶיָך נ ֹתֵ ן לְָך נַ ֲחלָה ל ְִרשְׁתָּ הּ‬ ֶ ‫)בּ‬, if only you will obey the LORD your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today (see Exod. 19:5-6).[66] When the LORD your God has blessed you, as he promised you, you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you (‫שׁלְתָּ בְּגוֹי ִם ַרבִּים וּבְָך ֹלא יִמְשׁ ֹלוּ‬ ַ ‫)וּ ָמ‬. If there is among you anyone in need (‫) ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה בְָך ֶאבְיוֹן‬, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be (see Did. 4:5-8). Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need in the land, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.” (Deut. 15:1-11; emphasis added) The ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ not only prescribed for the release from debt, but the care for the poor (‫’[ ֶאבְיוֹן‬evyōn]) within the land of Israel. The rabbinic commentary Sifre on Deut. 15:4 explained the two seemingly incongruous statements, “There will, however, be no one in need among you” (Deut. 15:4) and “Since there will never cease to be some in need in the land” (Deut. 15:11), by stating, “So long as you do God’s will 66 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” 113 [i.e., care for the poor], the needy will be found only among others; when you fail to do God’s will, the needy will be among you” (Sifre Deut. to Deut. 15:4). The rabbinic commentary identified caring for the poor in the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ as doing the will of God, which will remove the poor from the land. The command of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , moreover, carried the promise, if Israel obeyed this commandment (the command of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ ), then nations would not rule over Israel, but Israel would rule over them. For those who viewed the proclamation of liberty and the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ through the prism of eschatological sabbatical redemption, such a command offered a redemptive path through the pious action of charity for the poor. Repentance demonstrated through acts of charity (the fruits of repentance) brought redemption. Luke’s version of John’s ministry, then, presents a coherent picture in light of ancient Jewish ideas of sabbatical redemption: John’s proclamation of “a baptism of repentance for the sabbatical liberty of sins” (Luke 3:3), John’s rebuke of the crowds calling them to “bear fruits that befit repentance” due to the approaching judgment (Luke 3:7-9), the response of the crowds asking John what they should do (i.e., how do they “bear fruits that befit repentance”; Luke 3:10), John commanded them to show charity to the poor and to not defraud (Luke 3:11-14), and the people wondered whether John might be the Messiah (Luke 3:15). In other words, John’s preaching, including the identification of charity as the sign of repentance to bring about the sabbatical redemption, elicited messianic/redemptive expectations within the crowds. Luke alone preserved these details, which tied into John’s proclamation of sabbatical redemption. This, however, does not appear to have been a Lukan creation, for Josephus, in his testimony about John (Ant. 18:116-119) attested to these features within John and his movement, but in a different manner, which shows he did not depend upon 114 Luke.[67] Concerning John, Josephus wrote: But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod’s [Antipas’] army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior. When others too joined the 67 Among the Evangelists, Luke provides the most detailed account of John, his family and birth, his teaching, and imprisonment. If we remove Luke’s story of the annunciation to Mary and Mary’s visit with Elizabeth (1:26-56), as well his account of the birth of Jesus (chapter 2), Luke preserves a bios (biography) of John: his family (Luke 1:5-25), his birth (Luke 1:57-66), the redemptive hopes of his movement (Luke 1:67-79), a brief mention of his childhood (Luke 1:80), his ministry and message (Luke 3:1-18), and his imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20). It seems probable that the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) was originally spoken by Elizabeth, the mother of John. Some Latin manuscripts identify her as the speaker, and while the preponderance of the Greek manuscripts identify Mary as the speaker, the language of Luke 1:56, “And Mary remained with her,” (emphasis added) implies Elizabeth as the speaker of the Magnificat. While Luke may have originally identified Mary as the speaker of the Magnificat, the hymn likely originated within the circles of the Baptist and was originally ascribed to Elizabeth. See Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus and the War Scroll,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 126-149; Schwartz, Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (WUNT 300; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 66-70. Luke incorporated this biography of John into his Gospel. Luke’s use of a biography of John also explains the structure of his narrative in which he related the ministry and message of John (Luke 3:1-18), and then John’s imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20), placing the story of Jesus’ baptism after John was imprisoned. In this, Luke displays a literary independence from Matthew and Mark, who both placed John’s imprisonment after John’s baptism of Jesus. While Matthew and Mark represent the historical chronology, Luke’s relating of John’s biography prior to his recounting of Jesus’ baptism betrays his use of a narrative source on the life of John, whose narrative he incorporated into his Gospel, and then related his account of Jesus’ baptism. Luke did not break the narrative continuity of his source by inserting the baptism of Jesus into it. Rather, after he told of John’s imprisonment, he related Jesus’ baptism. Josephus’ testimony concerning John, likewise, seems to affirm the existence of such a bios of John. 115 crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake. Though John, because of Herod’s suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus, the stronghold that we have previously mentioned, and there put to death, yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod’s army was a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod. (Ant. 18:116-119) For our purposes, Josephus’ testimony concerning John preserves two important parallels to Luke’s presentation of John’s message of sabbatical redemption, lacking in the other Gospels. First, Josephus identified John’s exhortation of the people as “to lead righteous lives, to practice justice (or “righteousness,” δικαιοσύνη [dikaiosūnē]) towards their fellows and piety (εὐσεβείᾳ [evsebeia]) towards God.” John’s message, as related by Josephus, reflects the double love command: love God (Deut. 6:5) and love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). These two verses came to be seen within some Jewish groups as a summary of—the essence of—the Torah (Jub. 36:4-11; Sir. 7:29-36; J.W. 2:139; Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28). This reflects the new sensitivity which emerged within Judaism beginning in the third and second centuries B.C.E., which produced a more humane spirit.[68] The book of Jubilees preserves one of the earliest instances connecting Deut. 6:5 and 13 with Lev. 19:18. Isaac instructs his sons Jacob and Esau: 68 Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” 469-489. 116 And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself (Lev. 19:18), with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him, and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves…And now I will make you swear by the great oath— because there is not an oath which is greater than it, by the glorious and honored and great and splendid and amazing and mighty name which created heaven and earth and everything together—that you will fear him and worship him (Deut. 6:13). And (that) each one will love his brother with compassion and righteousness, and no one will desire evil for his brother from now and forever all the days of your lives so that you will prosper in all your deeds and not be destroyed. And if either of you seeks evil against his brother, know that hereafter each one who seeks evil against his brother will fall into his hands and be uprooted from the land of the living and his seed will be destroyed from under heaven. And on the day of turmoil and execration and indignation and wrath, (then) with devouring burning fire just as he burned Sodom so too, he will burn up his land and his city and everything which will be his. And he will be wiped out from the book of the discipline of mankind, and he will not be written (on high) in The Book of Life for (he is written) in the one which will be destroyed and pass on to eternal execration so that their judgment will always be renewed with eternal reproach and execration and wrath and torment and indignation and plagues and sickness. I have been speaking and exhorting you, my sons, according to the judgment which will come upon the man who desires to harm his brother. (Jub. 36:4-11; emphasis added) Isaac’s testament to his sons tied together Lev. 19:18— “be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself”—with Deut. 6:13— “that you will fear Him and worship (serve) Him,” which follows again with the command to love one’s brother “with compassion and righteousness.” John’s exhortation to the crowds, according to Josephus, parallels this sentiment. Jubilees also tied future punishment to the one who does not love his brother; for the one who seeks evil for his brother will “be uprooted from the land of the living and his seed will be destroyed from under heaven.” Thus, the author of Jubilees tied reward and punishment to how one treats 117 another like him or herself. Isaac called upon his sons “to swear by the great oath,” an oath which rested on the name of God, that “they will fear Him and worship (serve) Him.” This injunction relies upon Deut. 6:13: “The LORD your God you shall fear; Him alone you will serve, and by His name you will swear” (emphasis added). The conclusion of Lev. 19:18, “I am the LORD,” was viewed by some Jewish interpreters as God sealing this command with a great oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said, “The word ‘Love your neighbor who is like yourself’ has been proclaimed with a ‘great oath’: I—the LORD, have created him (your neighbor). If you love him—I can be relied upon to reward you, but if you do not love him—I can be relied upon to visit my judgement on you” (Avot de Rabbi Nathan A, 16). Divine reward and punishment resulted from one’s actions towards another like him or herself (see Matt. 5:7; 6:12, 14-15; 7:1-2; 25:34-46; Luke 6:37-38; m. Avot 2:5). Rabbi Hanina (first century C.E.) said, “…a mighty oath from Mount Sinai. If you hate your neighbor whose deeds are wicked like your own, I, the LORD will punish you as your Judge; but if you love your neighbor whose deeds are good like your own, I, the LORD, will be faithful to you and have mercy on you” (Avot de Rabbi Nathan B, 26; see also Matt. 5:7, 43-48; 6:14-15; 25:34-46; Luke 6:37-38). John’s exhortation to the people, according to Josephus, “to lead righteous lives, to practice justice (“righteousness,” δικαιοσύνη) towards their fellows and piety (εὐσεβείᾳ) towards God,” parallels Josephus’ description of the initiation of a member into the community of the Essenes. Regarding the new initiate he says, “Before he may touch the common food, he is made to swear tremendous oaths (see Jub. 36:4-11): first that he will practice piety (εὐσεβήσειν [evsebēsein]) 118 toward the deity, next that he will observe justice (δίκαια [dikaia]) towards men: that he will wrong none whether of his own mind or under another’s orders; that he will forever hate the unjust and fight the battle of the just” (J.W. 2:139). Josephus’ language concerning the oaths of the Essene initiates parallels John’s message to the people and the oaths enjoined by Isaac to Jacob and Esau in Jubilees (Jub. 36:4-11). These three passages not only reflect the emerging humane spirit within ancient Judaism, but they specifically call upon people to do “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) to fulfill the command to love one’s neighbor who is like oneself (Lev. 19:18). The emergence of the humane spirit within Judaism manifested itself in the concrete action of almsgiving. In the Hebrew of the first century, the act of almsgiving (charity to the poor) was euphemistically identified by the word “righteousness” (‫[ צְדָ קָה‬tzedāqāh]).[69] The Septuagint usually translated the Hebrew noun ‫צְדָ קָה‬, by the Greek δικαιοσύνη. As the nuance of the Hebrew word evolved to mean “charity/ almsgiving,” Jewish writings in Greek from the Greco-Roman eras, at times, used the word δικαιοσύνη in a manner reflective of the Hebrew idiom (Ps. Sol. 9:5; Tobit 4:6-11). On other occasions, the Greek provides an equivalent translation, “almsgiving” (ἐλεηµοσύνης [eleēmosūnēs]), which can be particularly seen in Greek works originally written in Hebrew where the Hebrew manuscript reads ‫צְדָ קָה‬, the Greek translation has ἐλεηµοσύνης (see Dan. 4:27; Tobit 4:6-11; 12:7-9; Sir. 3:30; 29:11-13). These Jewish works written in Greek reflect the 69 Within the Hebrew Scriptures, words like ‫( צֶדֶ ק‬tzedeq, “righteousness”), ‫( צַדִ ּיק‬tzadiq, “righeous”), ‫( צְדָ קָה‬tzedāqāh, “righteousness”), and ‫( ְל ַהצְדִ ּיק‬lehatzdiq, “make righteous”) were relationally defined terms, either between God and humanity, or person to person. Scripture defined the breaking of these relational aspects as sin. The relational quality of these terms played a significant role in the development of the euphemism of ‫ צְדָ קָה‬as charity. 119 Hebrew evolution of the term “righteousness” (‫ )צְדָ קָה‬to mean charity/almsgiving. Josephus, then, in his version of John’s message, provides a “Jewish shorthand” of John’s call for the people to practice charity, which is more detailed in Luke (Luke 3:10-14) by John’s response to the people—clothing those in need and feeding the hungry (see Isa. 58:6-12; Matt. 25:35-46). The second parallel between Josephus’ testimony about John and Luke’s account of his ministry concerns the subversive fervor that swirled around John’s message: “When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did” (Ant.18:118). Josephus did not detail the subversive content of John’s message, but this fits his tendency to downplay Jewish redemptive ideas among pious figures who did not belong to militant movements. Luke, however, conveys the redemptive nature of John’s message and movement: “As the people were in expectation, and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he was the Messiah” (Luke 3:15). Josephus pointed to John’s popularity with the people as part of the cause for Antipas’ action against him, a sentiment echoed by Matthew (Matt. 14:5). Josephus likely neutered the subversiveness of John’s message. Nevertheless, he clearly viewed John’s message as carrying the potential for sedition. Yet, could John’s message tied to the double love commandments be seen as messianic and seditious? It seems, in fact, it could. The redemptive activism to which John belonged viewed acts of repentance and piety as catalysts to bring God’s redemption to His people: “‘If they were wise, they would understand this’: if Israel would but look closely at what their father Jacob said to them, no nation or 120 kingdom could dominate them. What did he say to them? Accept upon yourselves the Kingdom of Heaven, vie with each other in the fear of Heaven, and act toward each other with lovingkindness” (Sifre Deut. to Deut. 32:29). Fearing (loving) God (Deut. 6:5, 13) and loving one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18) had the ability to bring about Israel’s redemption, freedom from a foreign power.[70] This particularly seems the case if one tied the actualization of Lev. 19:18 to the commandment of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ to care for the poor (‫) ֶאבְיוֹן‬. Josephus’ testimony concerning John lacks the language of sabbatical redemption as found in Luke (and Mark 1:4). Yet, Josephus’ testimony parallels John’s call to repentance as evidence as practicing “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) towards others found in Luke, which ties into the proclamation of sabbatical liberty (‫ )דְ ּרוֹר‬through charity to the poor. Josephus also attests to the seditious (redemptive?) character of John’s message, which, although he did not specify, seems echoed in Luke’s ascription of messianic/sabbatical redemptive ideas to John’s movement. The “proclamation of liberty” appears again in Luke 4:18 in which Jesus cited Isa. 61:1-2a. The author of 11Q13 used Isa. 61:1-3 to formulate his expectations of the Yom Kippur at the conclusion of the tenth Jubilee. In this, he drew upon the inherent intertextual relationship between Isa. 61:1-3 and Lev. 25:8-13: “the favorable year of the LORD” (‫ַת־רצוֹן לַיהוה‬ ָ ‫שׁנ‬ ְ ) when liberty is proclaimed to the captives (‫ ) ִלקְר ֹא ִלשְׁבוּי ִם דְּ רוֹר‬is the Jubilee.[71] The author of 11Q13 identified Melchizedek, the one who proclaimed liberty to the Sons of Light, as the anointed with the Spirit (ַ‫ ; ְמשִׁי ַח הָרוּח‬11Q13 2:6, 18) from Isa. 61:1. So too, Jesus viewed a 70 71 See Turnage, “‘The things that Make for Peace.’” Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” 121 similar role for himself in his creative reading of the Isaianic passage in the synagogue of Nazareth, in which he likewise tied the hopes of redemption to clothing the naked and feeding the hungry (see Isa. 58:6-12).[72] Jesus did not generally use the language of sabbatical redemption, most likely due to his identification of the chronological period of his mission as the “Kingdom of Heaven.”[73] Yet, his citation of Isa. 61:1-2a and Isa. 58:6 connected his anointed mission to sabbatical redemption. The proclamation of liberty from sins in Luke-Acts connected the movements of Jesus and John the Baptist to the ancient Jewish idea of sabbatical redemption. The dependence of the Jubilee/‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ upon the land of Israel suggests the hopes of sabbatical redemption were strongest within the land of Israel and particular to the Jewish community. They do not belong to the expansion of Jesus’ movement among the Gentiles, which explains the absence of this language in much of the New Testament, including the other Gospels. Luke’s preservation of the hope of sabbatical redemption indicates his preservation of primitive, non-Markan (and non-Matthean) source material, which also may indicate the composition of his works, Luke-Acts, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. 72 See R. S. Notley and J. P. Garcia, “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Volume Two, ed. R. Buth and R. S. Notley (Jewish and Christian Perspective Series 26; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 349-374. 73 Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace,’” and Flusser, Jesus, 258-275. 122 “And forgive us our sins, for we forgive everyone indebted to us” The Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4; see also Did. 8:2-3) expresses the redemptive hopes common within ancient Jewish prayers and the liturgy, particularly the beginning of the prayer (Matt. 6:9-10; Luke 11:2).[74] Scholars have noted the parallels between the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer—“May your name be sanctified; may your rule be established; may your will be done on earth as in heave”—and the redemptive hopes expressed within Judaism in prayers like the Kaddish, the Kedushah de-Sidra, and the ‘Aleinu. What has not been as readily recognized is the relationship of the rest of the prayer to Jewish redemptive hopes.[75] Luke’s version of the prayer (Luke 11:2-4) preserves Luke’s editorial hand; in part, scholars have identified Luke’s phrase, καὶ ἄφες ἡµιν τὸν ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίοµεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡµῖν (kai afes hēmin ton hamartias hēmōn kai gar avtoi afiomen panti ofeilonti hēmin, “and forgive us our sins, for we forgive everyone indebted to us”), as evidence of his editorial activity.[76] They assume Luke provided the dynamic meaning, ἁµαρτίας (amartias, “sins”), of 74 Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord: Aspirations for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 68-89; idem, “The Heavenly Praise in Unison,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism, 45-52; Flusser, “Sanktus und Gloria,” in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 129-152 [an English version of this article now appears on JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE: https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/27983/—JP]; D. De Sola Pool, The Kaddish (Leipzig, 1909). 75 I hope to address this in a future study. 76 Flusser, “Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. H. W. Attridge and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 80-109. Fitzmyer, however, argues that Luke preserves the more original form the prayer (The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV [AB 28a; New York: Doubleday, 1985], 896-907), yet he ascribes Luke’s use of ἁµαρτίας (Luke 11:4) instead of Matthew’s ὀφειλήµατα (Matt. 6:12) to Luke’s editorial hand. See also I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 454-462. 123 Matthew’s more literal ὀφειλήµατα (ofeilēmata, “debts”; Matt. 6:12). Within the Second Temple period, “debt” (‫[ חוֹב‬ḥōv]) became a metaphor for sin and the forgiveness of debt as the remission of sin.[77] This related to a corollary idea, a counter notion, in which one’s good deeds created a credit which one “laid up treasure in heaven” (see Tob. 4:6-11; 12:7-9; Sir. 29:11-13; Ps. Sol. 9:5; t. Peah 4:18; Matt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:33-34).[78] Sins added to the debt side of the ledger while righteous actions banked capital on the credit side of the ledger. God held the ledger. The parable of the “Unforgiving Servant” (Matt. 18:23-35) describes a king forgiving an astronomical debt owed him by his servant, yet the servant did not likewise forgive a fellow servant who owed him a marginal debt. The servant’s lack of forgiving the debt of his fellow brought the judgment of the king upon the unforgiving servant. This parable parallels the Matthean invocation in the Lord’s Prayer, “forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors” (καὶ ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰ ὀφειλήµατα ἡµῶν ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡµῶν; Matt. 6:12). This would seem to strengthen the argument of those who see Luke’s editorial hand in his form of this invocation. Two considerations, however, give pause to drawing this conclusion. First, as already noted, the Lord’s Prayer conveys themes of redemption commonly found articulated in Jewish prayers and the liturgy. Luke set Jesus’ teaching his disciples the Lord’s Prayer in the context of their request for him to teach them to pray “as John taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1). Luke attested the connection of John’s movement with the hopes of sabbatical redemption (Luke 3:1-17). So too, he 77 78 G. A. Anderson, Sin, a History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). Anderson, Sin, 135-151. 124 described John’s disciples as fasting often and offering prayers (Luke 5:33).[79] Steve Notley has shown how the frequency of fasting by John’s movement referenced in Luke 5:33 reflects their austere position concerning the Jerusalem Temple, prior to its destruction.[80] Luke alone of the Evangelists identified John’s disciples as fasting often and offering prayers. In this, their actions parallel those of Anna, who remained daily in the Temple fasting and praying, and whose actions were tied to her redemptive hopes of Jerusalem (Luke 2:37-38). Flusser has noted that Simeon and Anna belonged to circles represented in an “Apostrophe to Zion” preserved in the Psalms Scroll (11Q5 22:1-15) from Qumran: “How they have hoped for your victory! How your blameless have mourned you…All around your enemies are cut off, O Zion, all who hate you are scattered. How sweet is the waft of your praise, O Zion, over all the earth! Again, and again shall I remember you for blessing; I will bless you with all my heart” (11Q5 22:8-12).[81] The reference to those who mourn for Zion (fast) and bless Zion (prayer) within this apostrophe indicates that Luke did not originate the fasting and prayers attached to Anna or John’s disciples, both of whom sought the redemption of Israel. So too, the prominence of redemptive themes within Jewish prayers in the Second Temple period (see Tobit 13:2-18; 14:5-7; Sir. 36:1-22; Luke 1:47-55, 68-75; 1QM 14:4-15), as well as the prayers within the Jewish liturgy whose origins predate the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., indicates the role of prayer within Jewish piety which yearned for the redemption of Israel. Thus, Luke’s setting for his version of 79 See Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 902. Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in The Gospels in First-Century Judaea. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Nyack College’s Graduate Program in Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, August 29, 2013, ed. R. S. Notley and J. P. Garcia (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 107-121. 81 Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus and the War Scroll,” 126-149. 80 125 the Lord’s Prayer, given the theme of the prayer and the connection with John and his movement to hopes of redemption, need not have originated from Luke’s pen.[82] Second, as we previously saw, two trends emerged within ancient Judaism: 1) the incorporation of the Jubilee with the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ and the proclamation of liberty (‫;דְ ּרוֹר‬ see 1Q22 3:1-7; Josephus, Ant. 3:281-283; and Philo, De congr. 107-108; see also Quod deferior 63; De congr. 89), and 2) an emphasis upon the spiritual “liberty” (atonement) to occur on the Jubilee-‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ : ‫( לכלא הפשע ולחתם חטאות ולכפר עון‬Dan. 9:24); ‫[כו֗ ל עוונותיהמה‬ ֯ ‫( וקרא להמה דרור לעזוב ֗ל ֗ה ֯מ ֯ה] את‬11Q13 2:6). Sabbatical redemption began with the atonement of sins. We previously mentioned 1Q22, a manuscript which presents itself as the words God gave Moses for the children of Israel prior to entering the promised land. This work combined the sabbatical year, the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ , and the Jubilee. 4 [to do them. And] it shall be, when [you hearken] to do [this commandment], and remit [the debt in] thi[s y]ear, [ ] 5 [every lender w]ho [has lent something to] a man and[ who has something of his brother’s] shall re[lease it to ]his [fell]ow, for 6 [you will proclaim a release] for [G]o[d, you]r [God]. [One may demand restitution] from the fore[igner, but from his brother, he may] n[o]t [seek restitution] for in [this] yea[r] 7 [Go]d [will bless you to atone for your] iniqui[ties ] th[is 8 [ ] in the year [ ] of the month 9 [ ] [ ] on this day[ for] they, your[ fathe]rs [we]re wandering 82 See also Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 456. 126 10 [in the wilderness] until the [ten]th day of the month [ ] [on the te]nth [day] of the month 11 [You will] refrain [from all work] and on the te[nth] day [of] the month atonement will be made[ ] of the month 12 [ and] they, [the priests, will ta]ke [two goats The work described the remission of debt in the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ (1Q22 3:4-6). The author transitioned from discussing the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ to the Jubilee, which began on Yom Kippur, in lines 7-12. The incorporation of the commandment of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ began with conditional language (see Deut. 15:5): “And] it shall be, when [you hearken] to do [this commandment], and remit [the debt in] thi[s y]ear” (3:4). The conditional nature of this command, if the people will remit the debts of their fellows, receives its promise in the transition to the discussion of the Jubilee (1Q22 3:6-7): “for in [this] yea[r] [Go]d [will bless you to atone for your] iniqui[ties ].” Their forgiveness of their fellows’ debts brings about God’s forgiveness of their iniquities, or “forgive us our sins for we forgive everyone indebted to us” (Luke 11:4). 1Q22 represents the trend within ancient Judaism of combining the Jubilee, liberty, and the year of release. Nothing within the preserved manuscript suggests the author viewed this within the eschatological framework of sabbatical redemption. Nevertheless, his understanding of the commandments of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ and the Jubilee indicate he viewed the debt forgiveness of the ‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ as preceding God’s forgiveness of iniquities on the Yom Kippur which inaugurated the Jubilee (see Jub. 34:18-19). One would not have to stretch, however, to apply a similar manner of thinking to the eschatological expectation of sabbatical redemption. God’s forgiveness of sins tied to the expiation of Yom Kippur at the beginning of the Jubilee is never described as the forgiveness of debts within ancient Jewish 127 sources;[83] it is always described as the forgiveness of sins or iniquities. The language, then, preserved in Luke 11:4 tied this petition to the hope of sabbatical redemption, which underscores the redemptive theme of the prayer. Conclusion Luke-Acts attests to the connection of the movements of John the Baptist and Jesus to the ancient Jewish hopes of sabbatical redemption. The observance of the sabbatical year/‫שׁ ִמטָּה‬ ְ and Jubilee only in the land of Israel suggests Luke preserved traditions which went back to the origins of these movements within the land of Israel. It further reflects Luke’s preservation of the connection of Jesus and his movement to the hopes of national redemption. The virtual absence of the idea of sabbatical redemption within the other Gospels does not indicate Luke as its originator, for, as we have seen, it appears widespread within ancient Judaism. Rather, it attests to the manner of Luke’s fidelity to his sources, and in this case, his non-Markan sources. The primitive connection of Jesus and John’s movements to the idea of sabbatical redemption allows us to see them as part of the rich tapestry of ancient Judaism. It enables us to place them within the landscape of ancient Judaism and understand their redemptive expectations better. 83 See Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” 128 He Could No Longer Openly Enter a Town: A Synoptic Study in Light of an Early Luke Lois Tverberg I am greatly honored to be asked to contribute to this volume honoring David Bivin, a beloved mentor and source of wisdom to me for over twenty-five years now. David is a meticulous researcher who has devoted his scholarship to understanding Jesus in light of his original first-century Jewish context. He taught me about the rabbi/disciple relationship, and indeed he showed me what it looks like by pouring his life into the task of discerning his Master’s words accurately so that he could live them out. About twenty years ago I began working with David on editing a selection of his JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE articles for a book that my ministry named New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus.[1] I had the delightful task of choosing which of David’s articles to include that would have wide appeal to Christians interested in Jesus’ Jewish context. I have to admit—I avoided including his research on synoptic relationships, even though David had spent an enormous amount of time on this topic. I knew that it would be too challenging for conservative Christians. I myself 1 David N. Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context (Holland, MI: En-Gedi Resource Center, 2005). 129 had not read much source-critical study on the Gospels because my Ph.D. is in molecular biology, not New Testament studies. Now, however, after twenty years of writing on the popular level about the Jewishness of Jesus, I have spent much more time reading academic commentaries on biblical literature, and I see how important David’s study of the Synoptic Problem is for understanding Jesus. I now see how the default assumption that Mark is the “primitive original” that the other synoptic writers edited is often a problem for understanding the Jewish context of Jesus. To most New Testament scholars today, Mark’s Gospel is the final authority on Jesus’ life, even though it is the least Jewish of all the Gospels. Luke is assumed to be a late, unfaithful redactor of Mark whenever they disagree. Even conservative commentators who assume that Matthew was the first Gospel read Luke as the last and least helpful redactor. This trend continues despite the evidence that suggests that Luke’s Gospel was written quite early. Luke alone notes very early geopolitical realities that ended before 40 C.E., like the fact that Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, which ended in 39 C.E., and that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, which ended in 36 C.E. (Luke 3:1).[2] Luke’s Gospel also does not use place names like “Gethsemane” (Matt. 26:36, Mark 14:32) and “Golgotha” (Matt. 27:33, Mark 15:22, John 19:17), that are otherwise unattested in contemporary sources, so likely came from the 2 Several scholars accused Luke of being in error about the existence of a Lysanias who was tetrarch in the first century until two inscriptions with his name were found at the site of Abila, the capital of the tetrarchy of Abilene. See Raphaël Savignac, “The Complete Text of the Abila Inscription Concerning Lysianias” at WholeStones.org. 130 early church.[3] Luke also does not refer to the Decapolis (Matt. 4:25, Mark 5:20; 7:31), the federation of Greco-Roman city-states that was established during the Jewish revolt of 70 C.E. and not mentioned by historians before then.[4] Of course Matthew is known for the Jewishness of his narrative, but Luke has been vastly underappreciated as a resource. Luke carefully records much rich detail about Jesus’ pious Jewish upbringing and lifestyle, and is a critical witness to the antiquity of Jewish customs. The fact that Jesus was named on the eighth day when he was circumcised (Luke 1:59, 2:21) is the first recorded observance of this tradition,[5] as well as his reading from the Haftarah (the prophetic portion that follows the Torah reading) before preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-27).[6] Both of these important Jewish practices persist until this day, but are not mentioned until centuries later in Jewish sources. It’s hard not to wonder if the universal overemphasis on Mark and the constant disparagement of Luke as a historical source is part of why many Christians have 3 All these pieces of evidence were discussed in Steve Notley’s presentation, “Luke in Historical Geography” at the Society for Biblical Literature Conference on November 21, 2021. Notley additionally noted another difference between Luke and the rest of the Gospels, which is that instead of referring to ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας (hē thalassa tēs Galilaias, “the Sea of Galilee”) he instead uses the term λίµνη Γεννησαρὲτ (limnē Gennēsaret, “lake of Gennesaret”), which is the name used by Josephus, Strabo and other early historians. “Sea of Galilee” was not otherwise attested until the Byzantine period, so was also likely adopted by early Christians. See R. Steven Notley, “The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym” Journal of Biblical Literature 28.1 (2009): 183-188. 4 See Anson Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 362. 5 See Shmuel Safrai, “Naming John the Baptist” (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 20 (May 1989): 1-2 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2342/]. 6 Shmuel Safrai, “Synagogue and Sabbath,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 23 (Nov 1989): 8-10 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/2424/]; R. Steven Notley, “First-century Jewish Use of Scripture: Evidence from the Life of Jesus” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (Jan 1, 2004) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/4309/]. 131 so little appreciation of Jesus’ Jewish context. Now I see the importance of David’s work on the synoptic relationships and his efforts to reconstruct a tentative “Life of Yeshua” text that contains early, Hebraic stories and teachings translated very literally into Greek. For those unfamiliar with David Bivin’s work, let me briefly explain the theory he uses.[7] Since the 1960’s, David has been studying the Synoptic Gospels with a group of Christian and Jewish scholars who employ two tools unavailable to most New Testament scholars: an internal fluency in Hebrew and Aramaic and a deep familiarity with early Jewish literature. With these tools they can sense when the Greek text of a Gospel account is reflecting the wording of a Semitic, Jewishsounding original or has undergone editing into a smoother Greek.[8] 7 A much more detailed explanation is available in David N. Bivin, “Introduction to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction” (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2013) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/743/) under the subheading “A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels.” 8 Many erroneously assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic only. After discovering that the Dead Sea Scrolls included an overwhelming number of Hebrew texts (550) along with some in Aramaic (120) and a few in Greek (28), scholars now believe that Hebrew was a living language in the first century and Jesus spoke both, and likely did his teaching in Hebrew. The Semitic Greek that Bivin and his group encountered in the Synoptics contained largely Hebraisms, not Aramaisms, as others theorized. It is also not the product of an artificial “Septuagintalizing” style employed by Luke. For an extensive discussion of the trilingual language environment of the Gospels, see The Language Environment of First Century Judea (Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, eds.; Leiden, Brill: 2014). 132 The group actually began their work using the assumptions of Markan Priority, the idea that Mark was written first and used as a source by Matthew and Luke (along with other sources). However, they soon discarded much of this theory when they found numerous places where Mark had reedited texts for which a more Hebraic, Jewish sounding original was better preserved in Luke or Matthew. They agreed that Matthew had used Mark as a source, but Luke had not. David and his mentor, Robert Lindsey, believed that it was more likely that Mark had used Luke as a source rather than the reverse. Others of the group Lindsey-Bivin Synoptic Hypothesis. (Graphic created by Pieter Lechner.) believe that Luke was simply written independently of Mark, and similar texts come from a shared Hebraic-Greek source that Luke followed carefully, but that Mark modified freely. Matthew also accessed this text, but he preferred to use Mark as his source when it was available. Sometimes, however, he and Luke would agree against Mark to preserve a much more Hebraic-sounding original.[9] Although I cannot access original languages well enough to do synoptic study at the level that David does, I would like to share an observation I made using his 9 Robert Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the Minor Agreements” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (Feb. 20, 2015) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13766/]. 133 assumptions about synoptic relationships that makes much more sense to me than what I have found in New Testament scholarship otherwise. I hope this study spurs others to ask similar questions. Entering or Leaving Jericho? The conventional method of studying the Synoptic Gospels is to read each parallel text assuming that Matthew and Luke modified Mark. Then every commentary is full of conundrums about what could have motivated Luke to modify Mark’s story, and a generalized distrust in Luke as a source. An interesting example occurs in the pericope of Jesus healing a blind beggar near Jericho, which is in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43. Mark presents the scene as occurring as Jesus leaves the city: And they came to Jericho. And as he was going out from Jericho and his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting beside the road. (Mark 10:46, ESV) Matthew’s version agrees with Mark about the location (exiting Jericho), but includes two blind men: And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, there were two blind men sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” (Matt. 20:29-30) In Luke’s version, however, the scene occurs as Jesus is approaching, rather than when he is exiting, Jericho: As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging…. And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to 134 him. And when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” (Luke 18:35, 41) Though the difference is minor, whether Jesus is entering Jericho or leaving the city, it is surprising that the difference is not a word or two, but what seems to be a complete redaction of Mark’s phrasing. This contradiction between the Lukan and Markan accounts has been the source of a number of debates about why Luke would rewrite this detail of Mark’s story and disagree with the other two Gospels about the location of the miracle. Traditional interpreters harmonized the texts by saying that in fact Jesus healed two blind men, one on his way into Jericho and one on his way out of the city (Augustine).[10] Or, that a blind man tried to catch Jesus’ attention as he entered Jericho, but Jesus did not heal him until he was on his way out (Calvin).[11] More recent apologists have postulated that two Jerichos existed, the ancient city of Joshua and the later city inhabited by wealthy priests in the Second Temple Era. If Jesus went through both locations, he could have healed the blind man as he was exiting the ancient Jericho, which would have been on his approach to the New Testament era city.[12] Evidence for this hypothesis is weak, however, because no remains of a first-century settlement have been found near the ruins of ancient Jericho. 10 Augustine, Quaest. Evang. 2:48. John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 2 (trans. T. H. L. Parker. ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; Edinburgh: St Andrew; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 278. 12 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (6 vols.; Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1930), 1:163. 11 135 Textual scholars take a different approach. Stanley Porter harmonizes the Gospels by arguing that Luke was using the word ἐγγίζειν (engizein) not to mean “approach” but to mean “in the vicinity of,” so that Jesus could have been either entering or leaving Jericho when he did this miracle. This is despite Luke’s usage of ἐγγίζειν to mean “approach” or “draw near” in dozens of other places, and the fact that Luke next describes Jesus entering into Jericho and encountering Zacchaeus.[13] Craig Blomberg instead assumes that Luke abbreviated Mark and rearranged the events surrounding Jericho for a theological purpose, which was to order them so that they would increasingly upend and rebuke Jewish expectations. First Jesus heals the blind, who Bloomberg assumes were seen as sinful (Luke 18:35-43); then Jesus dines with Zacchaeus the tax collector, who was [supposedly] hated as a sellout to Rome (Luke 19:1-10); then he tells a parable about a nobleman despised by his servants (Luke 19:11-27), whom he sees as representing the corrupt Jewish leaders of Israel.[14] Porter’s and Blomberg’s interpretations of Luke 18:35-43 are just two of dozens of strained harmonizations or readings that assume that Luke was a very creative editor of Mark’s text for preaching purposes. Other scholars simply start off with the assumption that Luke is a very loose and inexact theological paraphrase of 13 Stanley E. Porter, “In the Vicinity of Jericho: Luke 18:35 in the Light of its Synoptic Parallels” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2.1 (1992): 91-104. 14 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester: IVP, 1987), 128-130. Blomberg’s description of the Jewish dislike of tax collectors is colored by an unfortunate later stereotype of Jews as hateful of all outgroups. This seems to be an example of what Guido Baltes describes in this volume, “(Why) Did Jews Hate Tax Collectors–Or Did They? The Evolution of a Modern Stereotype in Biblical Studies,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2024) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/28688/]. 136 Mark.[15] What if Luke’s Account is First (or Independent)? But what would happen if we rejected the Mark-first model of synoptic relationships and if we instead assume, along with David Bivin, that Luke’s version of the healing of the blind man was not influenced by Mark’s Gospel, but original to Luke’s sources? Then we could consider evidence that Mark was the author who changed the location of the blind beggar. Look again at the wording of Mark 10:46: Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ. Καὶ ἐκπορευοµένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ…. And they came to Jericho. And as they were leaving Jericho…. Mark begins with a brief comment about the disciples entering Jericho, then awkwardly breaks off. Starting again, Mark describes Jesus leaving Jericho with his disciples and a large crowd, and after that Jesus encounters the blind beggar. Why does Mark start off with entering Jericho, and then stop? The phrasing suggests that Mark could be omitting material from his source, either Luke’s Gospel itself, or a source that Mark and Luke shared. It appears that Matthew felt this awkwardness and smoothed it out by writing, “As they were leaving Jericho…” (Matt. 20:29). He did not see the need for Mark’s first sentence at all. Could it be that Mark had a source text with the blind beggar scene on the 15 Timothy A. Brookins, “Luke’s Use of Mark as παρατρασις: Its Effects on Characterization in the ‘Healing of Blind Bartimaus’ Pericope (Mark 10.46-52/Luke 18:35-43)” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34.1 (2011): 70-89. 137 approach to Jericho, but he interrupted himself, mid-thought, and started again, relocating the scene to the road out of town? Is there any reason why Mark would make this change? He Could No Longer Openly Enter a Town I hypothesize that Mark was recalling a statement he made back at the very beginning of his Gospel, in Mark 1:45, after Jesus healed a man suffering from leprosy:[16] And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him, he stretched out his hand and touched him. And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter. (Mark 1:40-45 ESV, emphasis added) According to Mark, after one of Jesus’ very first miracles, Jesus would no longer openly approach a town in public, but instead avoided the crowds who continually sought him out.[17] 16 The term in Hebrew that is usually translated as leprosy is ‫( צ ַָרעַת‬tzāra‘at).This could refer to other skin diseases than the contagious, disfiguring skin condition called Hanson’s Disease in modern medicine. For simplicity and consistency with the ESV quotation, I will use the traditional term “leprosy.” 17 Of course, one public entrance into a city that even Mark includes is the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-10). But this entrance takes place after Jesus has foretold his death three times and set his face toward Jerusalem. For this entrance, Jesus even borrows a colt to make a 138 Could this be the reason for the shift in the blind beggar scene between Luke and Mark? That in order to be consistent with his earlier comment, Mark moved the healing of the blind man to have it take place as he was leaving Jericho, after crowds were already following Jesus? In the following study of Mark and Luke’s Gospels, a pattern will emerge. Mark does not include any pericope where Jesus publicly enters a town or interacts with someone at the entrance of a city, with the exception of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This is in clear contrast with Luke, where Jesus often publicly approaches towns and is sought out by people as he enters in. In just this Jericho account we see this happen twice. In Luke, both the healing of the blind man (Luke 18:35-43) and Jesus’ conversation with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) occur quite publicly, as Jesus, surrounded by crowds, approaches and enters Jericho. Mark includes neither event in his Gospel, delaying the healing of the blind beggar until Jesus is on his way out of town. All three Synoptic Gospels include the healing of the man with leprosy early in Jesus’ ministry, but neither Matthew nor Luke concur with Mark that afterward, Jesus’ healing ministry was constrained to operating in desolate places. Luke’s version of the leprosy healing does make note of the increased publicity in spite of Jesus’ command not to share his healing with others, but Jesus takes it in stride and withdraws to desolate places to pray: While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you very public statement about his Messiahship. Obviously, Jesus was not worrying about publicity this time. 139 will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray. (Luke 5:12-16) Luke additionally notes that the man with leprosy approached Jesus inside of a city, where lepers were strictly forbidden.[18] Then Jesus may have been urging the man to hasten to himself to be declared clean, and not to linger in a place where he never should have entered. Now, let’s compare Matthew’s version of this pericope: When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” (Matt. 8:1-4) Matthew simply ends with Jesus’ command to tell no one but show the priests, without including Mark’s further comment about the man speaking freely and causing trouble for Jesus. Matthew is not at all concerned about the need to secretly enter towns. In fact, in the very next line, Matthew continues with Jesus being met by a centurion at the entrance of Capernaum (Matt. 8:5). 18 Leviticus 13:46 specifies that lepers were required to live alone, outside of the camp. But the Mishnah (m. Kelim 1:7) says that this restriction only applied to walled cities, so possibly smaller towns were exempt from this prohibition in that time. 140 This is very different than the next line in Mark: “And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home” (Mark 2:1). Instead of being met by the centurion at the entrance, Mark describes Jesus finding his way into Capernaum at night or by a back way, so that for a few days no one even realizes Jesus is there. Luke’s parallel text (Luke 7:1-10) agrees against Mark with Matthew’s public interaction at the entrance of Capernaum, only he explains that it was not the centurion, but the synagogue leaders who met Jesus to appeal on the centurion’s behalf. Mark’s Gospel simply doesn’t include the story of the healing of the centurion’s slave. Could Mark’s concern for Jesus’ privacy be shaping his choice of pericopae to include in his Gospel? Catching Jesus as He Enters Town Both Luke and Matthew assume that the town entrance is the place where many people will wait to find Jesus to make requests. This makes intuitive sense. Because Jesus traveled widely to preach, people likely waited on the edge of town where he would certainly pass by, where they could see travelers at a distance as they turned up the road. The entrance of town or village was also where beggars and lepers typically congregated.[19] It was a good place to plead for alms because people entering the town could not avoid meeting their gaze. Since the local market also usually gathered at the edge of a village, this was where people came with money to spend 19 Cf. Amos 5:12; Prov. 22:22. 141 and hopefully to share with those in need. Whether a person is entering or leaving a town makes a difference to a beggar. It is much easier to be overlooked or deliberately ignored by people who are leaving town. They are facing the other way, with their bags freshly packed and their coins tucked deep inside. No one wants to pause just as they are hurrying to set off towards their next destination. In fact, even Jesus avoided people who tried to catch him before he left town. Mark and Luke both share this scene early in Jesus’ ministry. Luke writes: And when it was day, he departed and went into a desolate place. And the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them, but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:42-44) Mark’s version says: And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed. And Simon and those who were with him searched for him, and they found him and said to him, “Everyone is looking for you.” And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” (Mark 1:35-38) In Luke’s account, Jesus is not hiding from people who are searching him out. He is trying not to be delayed in leaving for the next town where he will be preaching. Mark, however, emphasizes that Jesus was hiding from people who are trying to find him, which is the beginning of Mark’s motif of secrecy that will expand a few verses later into Jesus’ decision to not publicly enter a town (Mark 1:45). 142 Miracles as Jesus Approaches a Town Matthew and Luke both include the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10), which both begin with a public encounter at the entrance of Capernaum. In contrast, the Markan Jesus slides into town unnoticed (Mark 2:1). This contrast between Mark’s furtive, avoidant Jesus, and the confident, open Jesus who is more consistent with the overall character throughout the New Testament becomes yet more apparent as we further explore the third Gospel. Luke records two more public miracles that take place as Jesus approaches towns that neither Mark or Matthew include. In Luke 7:11-17 he writes: Soon afterward he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” And this report about him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country. Here, Jesus encounters a funeral procession just as it emerges from the village, on its way to a burial site outside Nain. Because of corpse impurity, burial was required to take place outside the city limits, so the most likely spot for Jesus to have encountered this procession was just outside the town, not in a desolate place or on the road a long way from any town. The healing brings him much publicity, which is very concerning for Mark. Is this why Mark does not include this story in 143 his Gospel?[20] Another account that is only found in Luke is the healing of the ten men with leprosy in Samaria, which also takes place on the outskirts of town: On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” (Luke 17:12-13) Once again, this scene takes place as Jesus is just entering a village. Victims of leprosy are required to exclude themselves from towns,[21] so the natural place for an encounter with them is as at the edge of town. But neither Mark or Matthew include this story. Clearly, Luke has no problem with Jesus publicly entering towns and he regularly reports Jesus performing miraculous healings there. But these encounters are missing from Mark and only sometimes shared by Matthew (Matt. 8:5-13). “Not publicly entering towns” seems to be a part of Mark’s “secrecy motif” which colors his whole Gospel and influences Matthew’s Gospel too. Jesus’ Commands to “Tell No One” It is true that Jesus made efforts to control the public narrative that surrounded him. All of the Synoptics record that he commanded demons to be silent, even though 20 Bivin and Tilton have analyzed the Nain pericope and have concluded that it seems to be from an early, Hebraic source and is not a later Lukan creation. See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Widow’s Son in Nain,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2014) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13167/]. 21 See footnote 18. 144 they were saying that he is the Son of God (Luke 4:41). Considering the fact that Jesus was accused of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebul, he may have wanted to suppress the demons’ gnarling shrieks and hostile, yet laudatory, statements (Luke 4:34) that could confuse observers and lead them to think that he was in league with powerful demons himself. Also, after healing Jairus’ daughter Jesus commands the family to tell no one (Mark 5:43, Luke 8:56). In all of the Gospels Jesus declares the girl was not dead, but just sleeping, and sends off the crowd already gathering to mourn and wail for her loss. It sounds here like Jesus understood her true condition, and dispersed this unnecessary commotion. His motivation for instructing silence may have been to give some privacy to the weary and distraught family, rather than to keep his healing ministry a secret. Interestingly, Matthew’s version of this story doesn’t include any command to “tell no one” (Matt. 9:18-26). Secrecy was just not needed here, as Matthew saw it. Luke 10:4 relates a saying that could be seen as about secrecy, when Jesus sends out seventy-two disciples but tells them to “greet no one on the road.” Jesus’ motivation here does not appear to be secrecy but haste. In a Middle Eastern reality, every friendly greeting can lead to a conversation that goes on for hours. Jesus was not telling his disciples to hide their knowledge of him, but to avoid getting distracted with side conversations. Spreading News in Defiance of Jesus In Mark’s version of the leprosy healing (Mark 1:40-45), he also includes another unique motif, that the man defied Jesus’ orders and “went out and began to talk 145 freely about it, and to spread the news” which ends up creating trouble for him, in Mark’s thinking. We find this motif again later in Mark 7:31-36, when Jesus heals a man who is deaf and mute and charges him to tell no one, but he zealously proclaims it far and wide. No parallel to this occurs the other Gospels. There is, however, one interesting place where Matthew includes this motif, which appears to parallel Mark’s account of the blind man who is healed near Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26 ∥ Matt. 9:27-31). In Mark’s version, he gives no command to secrecy, but he tells the man not to enter Bethsaida, presumably to not let word get out about this miracle. (Note that once again, much later in Mark’s Gospel, he still assumes that Jesus is healing in desolate places, and now forbidding those he healed from entering towns.) Matthew’s parallel is quite fascinating, because it includes details from the Bethsaida healing as well as in the healing of the blind man that will later occur near Jericho: As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: “See that no one knows about this!” But they went out and spread the news about Him throughout all that land. (Matt. 9:27-31) This account sounds very similar to the Jericho healing that will take place later, in Matthew 20:29-34. Again it includes two blind men, and they call out to Jesus, “Son of David.” But now Matthew has included Jesus’ stern warning not to tell anyone, which he omitted in both the leprosy healing (Matt. 8:1-4) and the healing 146 of Jairus’ daughter (Matt. 9:18-26). The leprosy healing was where Mark declared that unwanted publicity has forced Jesus to decide that he cannot enter towns publicly. Why does Matthew associate these stories in his mind? Nowhere in Luke do we find people defying Jesus’ command not to mention his miracles to others. This motif seems to be a specific creation of Mark that appears throughout his Gospel. Matthew often removes these texts from his parallels but then adds them back in other places. Conclusion The purpose in this brief study is not to determine the exact location of where the blind beggar was healed outside of Jericho, but to examine the hypothesis that Mark modified Luke’s account (or Luke’s source) because Mark had precommitted himself to the idea that Jesus “could no longer openly enter any town” (Mark 1:45). Luke has absolutely no knowledge of this need, and describes several public miracles and meetings near town entry points. Matthew generally follows Mark narrative, but he deleted Mark’s comment in 1:45 and in his very next line, reported another public meeting as he entered Capernaum (Matt. 8:5). It appears that Mark removed this scene. From these observations it is possible to offer an explanation for why Matthew includes two blind men in his version of Jesus’ healing in Jericho (Matt. 20:29-34). It may be because Matthew was aware of the difference between Mark’s text and the source text that Luke used, and he did not want to omit either healing from his account. He appears to have repeated the healing of two blind men in Matt. 9:27-31 too. 147 Mark appears to have had plenty of motivation to move the healing of the blind man at Jericho from the city’s entrance to after Jesus’ departure. Indeed, Jesus never publicly enters towns in Mark’s Gospel, even though Matthew and Luke report him having many prominent approaches and public encounters in the entry points of villages and cities where he visits.[22] The purpose of this article is to explore a question from a point of view that is not based on the widely held assumption that Mark is the most original, “primitive” account of Jesus’ life story that both other synoptic writers built on. This “assured result of modern criticism” is not nearly as airtight as readers assume. Narratives typically expand as they are revised, because brief, rough accounts will gain details and explanations to clarify them for the reader. With this in mind it is often said that Mark is likely the earliest account because it is the shortest. In fact, his versions of stories are often somewhat lengthier than Lukan and Matthean parallels.[23] The real reason that Mark’s Gospel is the shortest is because it contains very few of Jesus’ teachings, no miraculous birth narrative and barely any report of Jesus’ resurrection. Markan Priority was first proposed in the 18th century by German Protestants and widely embraced during the “First Quest” for the historical Jesus in the early 20th century.[24] Scholars in this period were strongly committed to demythologizing the 22 For a discussion of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ elusiveness and secrecy, see “Mark’s Editorial Style” from Bivin and Tilton, The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/12312/]. 23 Compare Jesus’ healing of the man with epilepsy in Matt. 17:14-21, Mark 9:14-29, and Luke 9:37-43, for instance. Mark’s account of the healing of Jairus’ daughter is significantly longer than its parallels too (Matt. 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56). 24 Gottlob Christian Storr (1712-1773) was the first to propose that Mark was the first Gospel to 148 Gospels because they wanted to separate the “historical Jesus” from the myths that they believed surrounded him. They were convinced that any story that included miracles was a later fabrication. The fact that Mark’s Gospel does not include a miraculous birth or death would have been very satisfying to their skeptical presuppositions. These same scholars were also quite hostile toward Jesus’ Jewish context, and saw Jesus as opposing Judaism, which they saw as nothing but hollow legalism, empty ritual and hypocrisy. Mark’s general disinterest in Jesus’ Jewish context, including flippant comments about how he “declared all food clean” (Mark 7:19) despite the extended discussion that continued later in the New Testament were just what the Germans ordered. For three hundred years, Christian scholarship has given Mark far more attention than is due. Certainly we can re-examine our assumptions every three centuries, can’t we? Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts are much more authentically Hebraic and tell of his thoroughly Jewish lifestyle and ministry. They should be the first to be studied, rather than Mark. I’ll be happy to use David Bivin’s scholarship as a guide. be written. Christian Gottlob Wilke (1786-1854), Christian Hermann Weisse (1801-1866), and Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1804-1877) worked to refine the theory of Markan Priority. All of these scholars were German Protestants. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority. 149 ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday This page is intentionally blank. 150 ‘Look at…all the trees’: Trees in the New Testament Gospels Joshua N. Tilton Trees play a modest but nonetheless important role in the Gospels, both in the events of Jesus’ life and as illustrations in Jesus’ teachings. While it is all too easy to look past the individual trees in the Gospels in order to take in the theological “forest,” the author of Luke seems to indicate that each tree has intrinsic worth. That is why, uniquely in Luke, we hear Jesus recommend that his listeners look at all the trees (Luke 21:29). In this essay we will attempt to follow this advice literally by taking note of every species of tree mentioned or alluded to in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Tree Anatomy and Nomenclature Before we begin identifying the varieties of trees mentioned in the Gospels, however, we will pause to survey the vocabulary associated with trees that occurs in the Gospels. 151 Tree δένδρον (dendron) ‫’( אִילָן‬ilān) The usual term in the Gospels for “tree” is δένδρον (dendron). Elsewhere in the New Testament we also encounter the term ξύλον (xūlon), which ordinarily means “wood,” but can also mean “tree.”[1] These two Greek terms for “tree” resemble the Hebrew terminology that might lie behind the Gospels and, in any case, was probably spoken by Jesus. In the Hebrew spoken in Jesus’ day the main term for “tree” was ‫’( אִילָן‬ilān), whereas the older Biblical Hebrew term for tree, ‫‘( עֵץ‬ētz), was primarily used in the sense of “wood.”[2] Wood ξύλον (xūlon) ‫‘( עֵץ‬ētz) Wood, of course, is a product of trees. Its usefulness as a construction material in the land of Israel, however, was limited because of the relative scarcity of trees in comparison with the relative abundance of other building materials. Stone and brick were more often used in the construction of private homes. Still, wooden beams would have supported the roof, and, indeed, we find that Jesus quoted a proverb about first removing a beam (δοκός [dokos]; Heb.: ‫קוֹרה‬ ָ [qōrāh]) from one’s own eye before removing a wood chip (κάρφος [karfos]; Heb.: ‫[ קִיסָּם‬qisām]) 1 See Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1191-1192. 2 See Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 140 §243. The translators of the Septuagint usually rendered ‫ עֵץ‬as ξύλον (see Elmar Camillo Dos Santos, An Expanded Hebrew Index for the HatchRedpath Concordance to the Septuagint [Jerusalem: Dugith, 1976], 159), which may reflect this development in the Hebrew language. 152 from someone else’s eye (Matt. 7:4-5 ∥ Luke 6:41-42; cf. b. Arachin 16b). While the use of lumber in construction was somewhat limited, wood was used in the production of furniture (tables, chairs, benches, etc.), household items (e.g., writing tablets, plates, trays), and agricultural tools (e.g., handles for axes, sickles, etc., and in the construction of yokes and plows). Indeed, an early Christian tradition reported by Justin Martyr (Dial. §88), who hailed from Palestine, explained that the manufacture of plows and yokes for oxen was the carpentry trade in which Jesus and Joseph were employed (cf. Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). While impossible to verify, this early tradition is entirely credible and, if true, could add a new aspect to our understanding of Jesus’ saying that his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Matt. 11:29-30). While certainly true in a metaphorical sense, it may also have been true that the yokes made in Jesus’ family were especially well crafted and unlikely to cause injury to beasts of burden. Wood was also an important source of fuel. Burning wood produced heat for warmth and cooking, although other fuels such as weeds, thorn, and stubble were also burned for these purposes (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28). Heating and cooking with charcoal, which is mentioned in the Gospels (John 18:18; 21:9), was popular because it was both efficient and smokeless.[3] Rabbinic sources mention certain families whose prerogative it was to bring wood to the Temple to fuel the fire on the altar (m. Ta‘an. 4:5).[4] One of these families 3 See F. Nigel Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 42. 4 On the wood needed for the altar, see Shmuel Safrai, “Temple,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (2 vols.; CRINT I.1-2; ed. Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2:865-907, esp. 882-883. 153 claimed descent from King David.[5] Rabbinic sources also note that a branch of the priestly Qayapha family—the high priest Joseph Caiaphas belonged to a different branch of the family—lived in a village named Bet Meqoshesh. Its name—“Meqoshesh” refers to the collection of materials such as wood and straw—suggests that the inhabitants of Bet Meqoshesh made their living by collecting and selling wood, perhaps for the needs of the Temple.[6] On his way to be crucified Jesus quoted a proverb saying, “If they do this with the green wood, what will they do with the dry?” (Luke 23:31). Green wood is more difficult to kindle, it smokes more, and produces less heat than dry wood. Jesus’ point was that if the Romans were so ruthless as to execute him, a man of peace, they would do even worse things when (and if) the Jewish people rose up in rebellion against the Empire. Mention of the Romans and Jewish resistance to imperial rule brings us to another use of wood: providing the material for the weapons borne by those who arrested Jesus and for the construction of the cross on which Jesus was crucified. According to the Synoptic Gospels, the high priest’s slaves who came to arrest Jesus were armed with “staves” or “clubs.” The Greek word for these weapons is simply ξύλον (“wood”).[7] “Staves” may be a better translation of ξύλα in this connection, since rabbinic sources mention the high priests’ sending out thugs armed with 5 See David Flusser, “‘The House of David’ on an Ossuary,” in his Jesus (3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 180-186, esp. 185. 6 See Ben-Zion Rosenfeld, ‫ מחקרים‬,‫תולדות התיישבותן של שתי משפחות מהכהונה גדולה בימי הבית השני‬ ‫( בגיאורגרפיה ההיסטורית יישובית של ארץ ישראל‬2 vols.; ed. Yose Katz, Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, and Y. Kaniel; Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhaq ben Zvi, 1991), 2:206-218. An English translation of this article can be found on WholeStones.org. See Rosenfeld, “The History of the Resettlement of Two High Priestly Families in the Second Temple Period,” under the subheading “Bet Meqoshesh.” 7 See Matt. 26:47, 55; Mark 14:43, 48; Luke 22:52. Cf. Jos., J.W. 2:176, 326. 154 staves with which to beat people into submission.[8] Jesus, it will be remembered, forbade his apostles to carry a staff (ῥάβδος [hrabdos]) when he sent them on their mission (Matt. 10:10; Luke 9:3),[9] probably because staves were used as weapons, whereas the message Jesus sent his apostles to proclaim was one of peace. The term ξύλον is also used in various places outside the Gospels to refer to the “tree” on which Jesus was hung.[10] Perhaps ξύλον (“wood,” “timber,” “beam”) was chosen to describe the cross in order to distinguish it from a living tree. But it may also be that the use of ξύλον to refer to Jesus’ cross alludes to the Septuagint’s translation of the following verse: ὅτι κεκατηραµένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ πᾶς κρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου …because cursed by God is everyone hung on a tree…. (Deut. 21:23) Root ῥίζα (hriza) ‫( שׁ ֶֹרשׁ‬shoresh); ‫‘( ִעקָּר‬iqār) The Gospels also mention various parts of trees. The term for the roots of trees in the Gospels is ῥίζα (hriza). In Biblical Hebrew the term for tree root is ‫שׁ ֶֹרשׁ‬ (shoresh), while in Mishnaic Hebrew in addition to ‫ שׁ ֶֹרשׁ‬we also find ‫‘( ִעקָּר‬iqār). Tree roots are mentioned, among other places, in the strange account of the 8 See t. Men. 13:21; b. Pes. 57a. Cf. Jos., Ant. 20:181, 207. See also m. Mid. 1:2. According to Mark 6:8, however, the apostles were permitted to carry a staff. The contradiction is puzzling. It may be that the author of Mark wanted to portray the apostles as though they were about to enact a second exodus. According to Exodus, the Hebrew slaves were to eat the first Passover with their loins girded and their staff in hand. It is possible that the author of Mark wished to present the apostles wearing a Passover “uniform.” See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2016) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/14786/], Comment to L66. 10 See Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24. 9 155 accursed fig tree. Mark’s version of this story informs us that the disciples saw the unfortunate tree dried up “from the roots” (Mark 11:20). Roots are also mentioned in a saying of John the Baptist, who warns that the ἀξίνη (axinē, “chopping implement”) already lies at the root of the trees (Matt. 3:10 ∥ Luke 3:9). The noun ἀξίνη in John’s saying is usually translated as “axe,” but, at least to my mind, this term conjures the image of a chopping implement with a blade parallel to the handle, such as the axe I use to split firewood. But while this type of axe can be used to fell trees, it leaves behind a stump well above the tree roots. Probably what the Baptist had in mind was a chopping implement with a blade perpendicular to the handle, something like a mattock or an adze axe, which could be used to chop a tree out of the ground without leaving a stump. It is clear from John’s saying that a stump would have been undesirable, since the purpose of cutting down the tree was to clear precious space in an orchard: “every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt. 3:10 ∥ Luke 3:9).[11] The intense labor involved in uprooting a tree would only have been worthwhile if it was to make space for planting new fruit-bearing trees (cf. Luke 13:7).[12] 11 See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2020) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/19843/], Comment to L17. 12 Cf. Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 41. 156 Branch κλάδος (klados) ‫‘( ָענָף‬ānāf) The usual term for “tree branch” or “bough” in the Gospels is κλάδος (klados). Hebrew has several terms for “branch,” but ‫‘( ָענָף‬ānāf, “branch”) is a likely equivalent. According to Matthew, when Jesus entered Jerusalem people cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road before him (Matt. 21:8). Mark, however, uses a different term, στιβάς (stibas, “leafy branch”; Mark 11:8). In another place Jesus mentioned birds roosting in branches (Matt. 13:32; Mark 4:32; Luke 13:19), and he referred elsewhere to branches becoming tender in spring (Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28). In the Johannine saying “I am the vine and you are the branches” (John 15:5) a different term for branch, κλῆµα (klēma), is used. This term is specific to the twigs that grow from vines. Leaf φύλλον (fūllon) ‫‘( ָעלֶה‬āleh) The term for “leaf” in the Gospels is φύλλον (fūllon). The Hebrew equivalent is ‫‘( ָעלֶה‬āleh, “leaf”). Mark and Matthew mention Jesus’ disappointment when he searched for fruit from a fig tree but found only leaves (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:13). Mark and Matthew also describe fig trees putting forth leaves in spring (Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28). While trees sprouting leaves in the spring may sound perfectly normal to people living in cooler climes than Israel, fig trees are one of the few trees in the Holy Land that drop their leaves in the fall and sprout new ones in the 157 spring.[13] Fruit καρπός (karpos) ‫( פּ ְִרי‬peri) The eatable fruit of various trees is frequently mentioned in the Gospels. The generic Greek term for fruit is καρπός (karpos). Its Hebrew equivalent is ‫( פּ ְִרי‬peri). We have already mentioned John the Baptist’s saying about trees that do not produce good fruit being cut down and thrown into the fire. For the Baptist, fruit was a metaphor of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8) and the good works that it yields. Jesus, too, used fruit as a metaphor for a person’s deeds, stating that the quality of a tree can be recognized by its fruit (Matt. 7:16-20; 12:33-35; Luke 6:43-45). Fruit was an excellent metaphor for value and quality because it was primarily for fruit that trees were cultivated in Israel. Great care was taken of fruit trees because of the valuable harvest they produced. An example of such care is described in the parable of the unfruitful fig tree, in which the caretaker digs around its roots and fertilizes it with manure in order to encourage fruit production (Luke 13:6-9). Theophrasus, an ancient horticulturist and Greek philosopher (ca. 371- ca. 287 B.C.E.), discussed these two actions— manuring and spading—as measures for improving fruit production: …some of the stronger manures are used with trees, chiefly to obtain softer stones in the fruit and change the taste…. (De Causis Plantarum 3:9 §3; Loeb)[14] 13 See Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 58. Translation according to Benedict Einarson and George K. K. Link, ed. and trans., Theophrastus: De Causis Plantarum (3 vols.; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: 158 14 Spading also (when joined to the other kinds of care) makes the fruit juicier, larger and better tasting because not only is there more food but also better concoction. (De Causis Plantarum 3:10 §2; Loeb)[15] Tree Varieties Mentioned in the Gospels Often the Gospels mention trees without specifying the species. For instance, the author of Mark tells the strange story of how Jesus attempted to heal a blind man, but the man complained that all he could see were people walking about like trees (Mark 8:24). Presumably this man had not been born blind, but had lost his sight due to injury, disease, or the growth of cataracts, for otherwise he would not have known what trees looked like. That he did not specify which type of tree the people looked like is hardly surprising, since the species of tree is not germane to the story. But there are many cases in the Gospels where the specific variety of tree is important. Fig Trees συκῆ (sūkē) ‫( תְּ ֵאנָה‬te’ēnāh) Ficus carica[16] We have had occasion to mention the fig tree several times already. The Greek term for fig tree is συκῆ (sūkē); its Hebrew equivalent is ‫( תְּ ֵאנָה‬te’ēnāh). The fig tree is the first species of tree to be mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Adam and Eve Harvard University Press, 1976-1990), 2:73-74. 15 Translation according to Einarson and Link, Theophrastus: De Causis Plantarum, 2:81. 16 See Jehuda Feliks, “Fig,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (2d ed.; 22 vols.; ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik; Detroit: Macmillan, 2007), 7:18; Lytton John Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 55-57; Yoav Waisel and Azaria Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel (Tel Aviv: Yad Hahamisha, 1980), 40-41; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 58-59. 159 made coverings for themselves from fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). The leaves of the fig tree are broad and leathery, so their use as makeshift clothing is not unrealistic. On one occasion Jesus was disappointed to discover a fig tree that only had leaves but lacked fruit (Mark 11:13). In the Gospel of John Jesus famously told Nathaniel that he had seen him taking shade under a fig tree (John 1:48-50). The fruit of the fig tree—σῦκον (sūkon) in Greek and ‫( תְּ ֵאנָה‬te’ēnāh) in Hebrew (just like the tree)—is sweet and nutritious. It can be dried and pressed into cakes and stored long after the season for figs has passed. Its fruit made fig trees valuable, and figs were cultivated all over the land of Israel. An indication of its importance is the inclusion of figs among the seven species (wheat, barley, grapevines, fig trees, pomegranate trees, olive trees, and date trees) with which God blessed the land (Deut. 8:8). It is not surprising, therefore, that figs are one of the types of “good fruit” Jesus described in his saying about knowing a tree by its fruit (Matt. 7:16; Luke 6:44). Figs were such an important staple of the diet that the rabbinic sages ruled that married men were obliged to provide figs for their wives (m. Ket. 5:8). Figs are a summer fruit.[17] Jesus pointed out the well-known fact that when the fig tree puts out fruit buds a person knows that the summer (θέρος [theros]) is near (Luke 21:30). The Hebrew equivalent of θέρος is ‫( ַקי ִץ‬qayitz, “summer”), but ‫ַקי ִץ‬ can also mean “summer harvest” and “summer fruit.” Figs, in other words, were a type of ‫ ַקי ִץ‬. The noun ‫ ַקי ִץ‬sounds like the Hebrew word ‫( קֵץ‬qētz), which in Biblical Hebrew meant “end,” but which in Mishnaic Hebrew meant “time.” The term ‫קֵץ‬ (“time”) could especially refer to the “time of redemption.” A vision of the prophet 17 See Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 56; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 40. 160 Amos plays on the similarity between ‫ קֵץ‬and ‫( ַקי ִץ‬Amos 8:2). Amos was shown a basket of summer fruit (‫) ַקי ִץ‬, probably figs, and was told this image symbolized that the end (‫ )קֵץ‬was near for the kingdom of Israel (i.e., the northern tribes). Jesus may have made a similar wordplay when he suggested that just as when a person sees tiny fruits beginning to appear on a fig tree he knows that the summer harvest is near (‫) ַקי ִץ‬, so when the disciples see the things Jesus prophesied about the destruction and redemption of Jerusalem taking place they will know that the time of redemption (‫ )קֵץ‬is near.[18] Although figs do not ripen until July, the unripened fruits were also sometimes consumed for food. In Hebrew the name for the unripe figs is ‫( ַפּגָּה‬pagāh). Goor thought it likely that the Latin term ficus, from which the English word “fig” derives, was borrowed from the Hebrew term ‫ ַפּגָּה‬.[19] This term is probably preserved in the name of the village Bethphage (Βηθφαγῆ [Bēthfagē]), which was situated on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29). The wood of the fig tree is soft and for that reason unsuitable as a building material.[20] We might hazard a guess, therefore, that the tree John the Baptist had in mind when he warned that an unfruitful tree would be dug up from the roots and thrown into the fire was a fig tree (cf. the Unfruitful Fig Tree parable, where the vineyard owner instructs the vinedresser to cut down the fig tree that bore no fruit 18 See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Fig Tree Parable,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2022) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/24966/]. Cf. R. Steven Notley, “The Season of Redemption,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2002) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/2003/]; idem, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 1 (ed. R. Steven Notley, Marc Turnage, and Brian Becker; JCP 11; Leiden, Brill, 2006), 107-120. 19 See Asaph Goor, “The History of the Fig Tree in the Holy Land from Ancient Times to the Present Day,” Economic Bontany 19.2 (1965): 124-135, esp. 124. 20 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 110. 161 [Luke 13:6-9]).[21] Otherwise, burning a tree that could have been sawn into lumber (like the sycamore) or carved into tools and household implements (like the olive) seems extraordinarily wasteful.[22] Olive Trees ἐλαία (elaia) ‫( זַי ִת‬zayit) Olea europaea[23] The olive tree—ἐλαία (elaia) in Greek and ‫( זַי ִת‬zayit) in Hebrew—is not mentioned directly in the Gospels, but olive trees did give their name to the Mount of Olives (Gk.: τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν [to oros tōn elaiōn]; Heb.: ‫[ הַר ַהזֵּיתִ ים‬har hazētim]), which lies to the east of Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley. Olive trees are also hinted at in the name Gethsemane (Γεθσηµανί [Gethsēmani]; Matt. 26:36; Mark 14:32), which derives from the Hebrew ‫שׁ ָמנִים‬ ְ ‫( גַּת‬gat shemānim, “oil press”)[24] or Aramaic ‫שׁ ָמנֵי‬ ְ ‫( גַּת‬gat shemānē, “oil press”),[25] referring to the olive oil the groves on the Mount of Olives produced. Olive oil is mentioned several times in the Gospels. Jesus defended a woman with a tainted reputation by pointing out to his host that she had extravagantly perfumed 21 Goor (“The History of the Fig Tree in the Holy Land from Ancient Times to the Present Day,” 132) noted that the wood of fig trees was preferred for the fire on the altar since it produced abundant embers. See m. Tam. 2:3. 22 Olive wood was not usually burned (see Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 106), and was prohibited as fuel for the fire on the altar (m. Tam. 2:3). 23 See Jehuda Feliks, “Olive,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 15:406-407; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 106-110; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 68-69; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 56-57. 24 See Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1935), 321. 25 See Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 191. 162 his feet, whereas the host had not even anointed his head with oil (Luke 7:46). Olive oil was not only used in personal grooming but was also used to heal wounds, as we see in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who poured oil onto the wounds of the man who had been beaten by thieves (Luke 10:34). Olive oil was especially important as fuel for lamps.[26] The menorah in the Temple was lit with pure olive oil, but oil lamps were also used in everyday life (Matt. 5:15 ∥ Mark 4:21 ∥ Luke 8:16; Luke 12:35; 15:8). Olive oil plays a crucial role in the parable of the Waiting Maidens, in which only those maidens wise enough to bring with them a supply of olive oil for their torches were permitted to enter the wedding feast (Matt. 25:1-12). Although this use is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospels, it is well known that olive oil was also an important food product.[27] One of the main centers of olive oil production in the Second Temple period was in Gush Halav—‫( גּוּשׁ ָחלָב‬gūsh ḥālāv, “fat ground”)—in upper Galilee (t. Men. 9:5; cf. Jos., J.W. 4:84).[28] John of Gischala (the Hellenized form of Gush Halav), an important figure in the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire, became rich by exporting olive oil from his hometown (Jos., Life §74-76). In rabbinic literature the approximate size of an olive’s bulk (‫[ ַכּזַּי ִת‬kazayit]) is a 26 See Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century (2 vols.; CRINT I.1-2; ed. Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2:728-792, esp. 743. 27 On olive oil as a foodstuff, see Y. Feliks, “Nutrition in Biblical Israel,” Pediatric and Adolescent Endocrinology 7 (1979): 2-9, esp. 4; Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period—Introductory Notes,” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56, esp. 44-45. 28 See Asaph Goor, “The Place of the Olive in the Holy Land and its History Through the Ages,” Economic Botany 20.3 (1966): 223-243, esp. 225-226. 163 halakhicly significant unit of measure. For instance, the rabbinic sages ruled that a person must consume an olive’s bulk of roast lamb in order to have fulfilled the commandment to eat the Passover sacrifice (m. Pes. 8:3, 6). While more valuable for its fruit,[29] olive wood is also of good quality and beautiful appearance. However, the hollow trunks and the twisted grain of olive trees mean that olive wood is better suited for carving into small objects than for use as lumber for building construction.[30]On account of its worth the olive was not ordinarily used as firewood,[31] but the olive cake left over from the oil press was used as a fuel for burning (t. Shev. 6:16).[32] Sycamore Trees συκοµορέα (sūkomorea); συκάµινος (sūkaminos) ‫שׁ ְקמָה‬ ִ (shiqmāh) Ficus sycomorus[33] The sycamore (Ficus sycomorus) is related to the fig (Ficus carica) and bears fruit that is similar in appearance but inferior in both texture and flavor. Unlike the fruits of the fig tree, which grow on the ends of the branches, the fruits of sycamore trees grow directly from the trunk and larger branches. Also unlike fig trees, the leaves of sycamores do not drop in the winter except in unusually cold winters.[34] And whereas the wood of fig trees is soft and unsuitable for 29 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 106-107. See Feliks, “Olive,” 406; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 110. 31 See Goor, “The Place of the Olive in the Holy Land and its History Through the Ages,” 226. 32 See Goor, “The Place of the Olive in the Holy Land and its History Through the Ages,” 229. 33 Jehuda Feliks, “Sycamore,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 19:347-348; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 130-131; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 44-45; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 68-69. 34 See Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 68. 30 164 construction, the wood of sycamores is a strong and durable building material.[35] The Mishnah (m. Shev. 4:5; m. Bab. Metz. 9:9) refers to cutting sycamores to make beams, so perhaps it was the sycamore Jesus had in mind when he spoke of removing a beam from a brother’s eye. Sycamores enjoyed a wide distribution over the land of Israel, and could be found in Jerusalem, in the Jordan Valley, and on the coastal plain, but were especially characteristic of the shephelah, the low rolling hills between the coastal plain and the Judean hill country (t. Shev. 7:11). Their dislike for higher elevations is witnessed in the fact that the presence of sycamores in lower Galilee versus the absence of sycamores in upper Galilee was regarded as one of the characteristics that distinguished the two regions (m. Shev. 9:2). In the Gospels the sycamore—συκοµορέα (sūkomorea) in Greek and ‫שׁ ְקמָה‬ ִ (shiqmāh) in Hebrew—is famous for being the tree Zacchaeus climbed in order to view Jesus as he passed by (Luke 19:4). The low branches of the sycamore would have made this tree well suited for the short man’s purpose.[36] Another Gospel passage almost certainly refers to the sycamore, but by the name συκάµινος (sūkaminos), which properly belongs to the mulberry tree.[37] In that passage Jesus states that if someone has faith amounting to a mustard seed, that person could say to a συκάµινος, “Be uprooted and transplanted in the sea!” and it would obey (Luke 17:6). While Jesus may have intended to refer to the mulberry 35 See Feliks, “Sycamore,” 347; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 68. See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 112; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 131. 37 See Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1670. 36 165 (Morus nigra)[38]—‫( תּוּת‬tūt) in Mishnaic Hebrew—,[39] a medium-sized tree that somewhat resembles the sycamore,[40] the case in favor of the sycamore is stronger.[41] The sycamore was known for having roots that spread wide (m. Bab. Bat. 2:7) and that reached deep into the earth (y. Ta‘an. 1:3 [4b]),[42] which makes the image of commanding such a tree to uproot itself all the more vivid. Moreover, in the Septuagint συκάµινος always occurs as the translation of ‫ש ְקמָה‬ ִׁ (“sycamore”),[43] so it would not have been unusual for someone to be referring to a sycamore when speaking of a συκάµινος. Date Palm Trees φοῖνιξ (foinix) ‫( תָּ מָר‬tāmār); ‫( דֶּ קֶל‬deqel) Phoenix dactylifera[44] The date palm is probably the last of the seven species mentioned in Deut. 8:8 by the name ‫( דְ ּבַשׁ‬devash, “honey”; LXX: µέλι [meli, “honey”]), although the same word can refer to bees’ honey. The identification of the date palm as one of the seven species is based on the facts that 1) “honey” would otherwise be the only non-botanical member of the seven species, and 2) in Hebrew the sweet syrup 38 See Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 71. See Jehuda Feliks, “Mulberry,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:609. 40 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 120. 41 Cf. Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 130. 42 See Feliks, “Sycamore,” 348. 43 See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897; repr., 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2:1301. 44 See Jehuda Feliks, “Palm,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 15:602-603; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 48-50; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 74-75; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 60-61. 39 166 made from dates (cf. Jos., J.W. 4:468) also goes by the name “honey.” Some scholars have supposed that the “wild honey” which made up part of John the Baptist’s diet (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6) was not bees’ honey but the sweet syrup made from dates. Date palms flourish in the hot climate of the Rift Valley, where they have been cultivated for millennia. Jericho, which is located near the Dead Sea, was also known as the City of Date Palms (cf. Deut. 34:3; Judg. 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chr. 28:15). While date palms can grow in cooler climates, they will not produce fruit there, a fact that is reflected in the insult “You are a mountain palm” (‫ ;דקל הרים אתה‬Sifra Lev., Tazria‘ pereq 13 [ed. Weiss, 68a]). Rabbinic literature knows that date palms are the tree most characteristic of valleys (t. Shev. 7:11). The dates from Jericho and the surrounding region were an important export from Judea and were famous throughout the Roman Empire,[45] being praised by writers such as Strabo (Geog. 16:41), Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 1:13:9, 45), and Varro (de re Rustica 2:1, 27). Undoubtedly, it was on account of this fame that the Roman victory over the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. was publicized on coins stamped with the image of a weeping Jewess seated beneath a palm tree. The soft unopened fronds of the date palm formed the central component of the lulav, which was waved in procession around the altar during the Feast of Sukkot. The waving of palm branches is also mentioned in John 12:13 in the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with shouts of “Hosanna.” Shouts of “Hosanna” and the shaking of palm fronds were so closely associated with one another in ancient 45 See Asaph Goor, “The History of the Date through the Ages in the Holy Land,” Economic Botany 21.4 (1967): 320-340, esp. 333-334, and see p. 324-325 for earlier references to Greek authors. 167 Jewish culture that the Hebrew verb ‫שׁ ֲענֵּן‬ ַ ‫( ְל‬lesha‘anēn, “to wave a branch”) developed from the exclamation ‫( הוֹשַׁע נָא‬hōsha‘ nā’, “Please deliver us!”) that accompanied palm waving.[46] Like the olive, the approximate size of a date’s bulk (‫[ ַכּכּוֹתֶ בֶת‬kakōtevet]) was a halakhicly significant unit of measure. For instance, to have violated the fast on the Day of Atonement a person must have eaten more than a date’s bulk of food (m. Yom. 8:2). Thorn Trees τρίβολος (tribolos) / ἄκανθα (akantha) Ziziphus spina-christi[47] ‫’( אָטָד‬āṭād) According to Jesus, a tree is known by its fruit. To illustrate his point he noted that figs (σῦκα [sūka] = ‫[ תְּ ֵאנִים‬te’ēnim]) are not gathered from thorns and neither are clusters of grapes (σταφυλαί [stafūlai] = ‫‘[ ֲענָבִים‬anāvim]) gathered from prickles (Matt. 7:16; Luke 6:44). Jesus’ illustration assumes that each of the plants he mentioned are a species of “tree,” but the inclusion of grapes among these fruits 46 See Menahem Kister, “Words and Formulae in the Gospels in the Light of Hebrew and Aramaic Sources,” in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting (ed. Serge Ruzer and Hans-Jürgen Becker; Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 60; Paris, 2005), 117-147, esp. 121. On the exclamation ‫הוֹשַׁע נָא‬, see Menahem Kister, “Lexicographical Problems Early and Late,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 37 (1998): 244-263, esp. 259-261; idem, “Words and Formulae in the Gospels in the Light of Hebrew and Aramaic Sources,” 120-122; Randall Buth, “The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: The Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαµα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειµα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34),” in The Language Environment of Firstcentury Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 2 (ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley; JCP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 395-421, esp. 407-408. 47 Jehuda Feliks, “Jujube,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 11:573; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 136; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 124-125; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 154-155. 168 shows that Jesus used a different definition of “tree” than is common nowadays. Jesus seems to have concurred with the rabbinic view that any plant with a woody stem could be classified as a “tree.”[48] Thus both Jesus and rabbinic sources classify the grapevine as a “tree.” Identifying the thorn “trees” Jesus referred to in this saying is a vexed issue, not least because the evangelists do not agree on the terms to describe them. In Matthew the plant from which figs are not gathered is the τρίβολος (tribolos, “thorny plant”), while in Luke it is the ἄκανθα (akantha, “thorny plant”). Both are generic terms. However, a likely candidate is the tree that is made king in Yotam’s parable recorded in the book of Judges (Judg. 9:8-15). In that parable the olive tree, the fig tree, and the grapevine decline this title, since they are already honored by both gods and mortals. The fig tree even refers to its “good fruit” (‫תְּ נוּבָתִ י הַטּוֹבָה‬ [tenūvāti haṭōvāh]) as an excuse. But a thorn tree (‫’[ אָטָד‬āṭād]) accepts the kingship on rather ruthless terms. The thorn tree of the parable in Judges has been identified as the Syrian Christ Thorn (Ziziphus spina-christi), a spiny tree that bears an eatable fruit, the jujube.[49] Since the thorn tree resembles the fig tree in form (the Syrian Christ Thorn is not a thorny vine), this could be the tree from which a thoughtless person might hope to gather figs. Tradition has it that Jesus’ crown of thorns was twisted from the Syrian Christ Thorn (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2).[50] 48 See Gloria E. M. Suess, “Beating the (Thorny) Bushes,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 48 (1995): 16-21 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/1528/], esp. 19. 49 See Feliks, “Jujube,” 11:573; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 136; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 154-155. 50 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 39; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 124-125. 169 As for the prickly plant from which grapes cannot be gathered—Matthew refers to it as the ἄκανθα (akantha, “thorny plant”), whereas Luke calls it the βάτος (batos, “bramble”)—we might seek a plant that more closely resembles a vine than a tree. One such plant is the bramble or wild blackberry (Rubus sanguineus).[51] This thorny bush grows in tangled thickets and produces an eatable berry of small size with many seeds. Rabbinic tradition identifies the wild blackberry as the burning bush (‫[ ְסנֶה‬sneh]; LXX: βάτος) in which God appeared to Moses (Exod. 3:2).[52] The berries of the blackberry bramble, which turn from red to black as they ripen, somewhat resemble a tiny cluster of grapes. In Hebrew the fruits of the blackberry bramble are, in fact, called by the same name as the fruit of the grapevine—‫ֲענָבִים‬ (‘anāvim). A rabbinic source even pairs the fruit of the bramble with grapes in a negative contrast: Let a man always sell all he has and marry the daughter of the disciples of the sages or to marry his daughter to the disciples of the sages. It may be compared to the grapes of the vine [‫⟨ ְל ִענְּבֵי ַה ֶגּפֶן‬le‘invē hagefen⟩] among other grapes of the vine [‫⟨ ְבּ ִענְּבֵי ַה ֶגּפֶן‬le‘invē hagefen⟩]: a beautiful and appropriate thing. But let him not marry the daughter of an ‘am hā’āretz. It may be compared to grapes of the vine [‫⟨ ְל ִענְּבֵי ַה ֶגּפֶן‬le‘invē hagefen⟩] among berries of the bramble [‫⟨ ְבּ ִענְּבֵי ַה ְסּנֶה‬le‘invē haseneh⟩]: an ugly and inappropriate thing. (b. Pes. 49a-b) Grapevine ἄµπελος (ampelos) Vitus vinifera[53] ‫( ֶגּפֶן‬gefen) 51 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 38; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 157. See Jehuda Feliks, “Burning Bush,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 4:297-298. 53 See Jehuda Feliks, “Vine,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 20:536-537; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 65-70; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 74-75; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 60-61. 52 170 As we have just seen, Jesus, in his saying about judging a tree by its fruit, classified the grapevine—ἄµπελος (ampelos) in Greek and ‫( ֶגּפֶן‬gefen) in Hebrew— as a tree, as did Yotam before him and the rabbinic sages after him (cf., e.g., Lev. Rab. 36:2). Indeed, in a rabbinic discussion regarding the identity of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil the grapevine is one of the contenders (Gen. Rab. 15:7). In addition to his saying about good fruit, Jesus also mentioned the grapevine several times during his final stay in Jerusalem before his crucifixion. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus compared himself to the life-giving vine and his disciples to the fruit-bearing tendrils (John 15:1-6). At the last supper Jesus prophesied that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until the Kingdom of God comes (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). In this prophecy Jesus apparently alluded to the Hebrew blessing recited over wine: ‫בָּרוְּך אַתָּ ה יי אֱֹלהֵינוּ ֶמלְֶך‬ ‫בּוֹרא פּ ְִרי ַה ָגּפֶן‬ ֵ ‫( הָעוֹלָם‬bārūch ’atāh adonai ’elohēnū melech hā‘ōlām bōrē’ peri hagāfen, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, king of the universe, creator of the fruit of the vine”). The Gospels may be the earliest attestation to this blessing. Wine—Gk.: οἶνος (oinos); Heb.: ‫( יַי ִן‬yayin)—was the most important product of the grapevine, and many sayings of Jesus refer to this alcoholic refreshment. Jesus referred to the fermentation of wine in his saying about putting new wine into old wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38), and in Luke’s version of the saying Jesus noted that everyone prefers fermented wine (Luke 5:39).[54] That Jesus included himself among those who enjoyed wine is hinted at in the false accusation that Jesus was a drunkard (Matt. 11:19 ∥ Luke 7:34), and is more positively expressed in John’s Gospel, where turning water into wine is accounted as Jesus’ first miraculous sign (John 2:1-11). The many banquets Jesus attended, whether 54 David Flusser, “Do You Prefer New Wine?” Immanuel 9 (1997): 26-31. 171 among toll collectors and “sinners” or in the homes of Pharisees, undoubtedly included wine. Another grape product mentioned in the Gospels is vinegar (Gk.: ὄξος [oxos]; Heb.: ‫[ חוֹמֶץ‬ḥōmetz]), which the soldiers offered Jesus as he hung on the cross (Luke 23:36; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:29). The drink to which these verses refer is posca, diluted wine vinegar, which was a popular drink among Roman soldiers.[55] The inferiority of this drink to wine is reflected in the insult ‫( חוֹמֶץ בֶּן יַי ִן‬ḥōmetz ben yayin, “Vinegar, son of wine!” i.e., “You are the unworthy son of an honorable father!”) found in rabbinic sources.[56] Its association with Roman soldiers may also be reflected in the fact that this insult was directed against Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Shimon for collaborating with the Roman Empire (b. Bab. Metz. 83b). Many of Jesus’ parables allude to grapevines by referring explicitly to vineyards. Among these are the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19), the Two Sons parable (Matt. 21:28-31), and the Unfruitful Fig Tree parable (Luke 13:6-9), which we have already mentioned. It may seem strange that in the Unfruitful Fig Tree parable the fig tree is growing in a vineyard, but sometimes grapevines were trained over the branches of other trees. This practice was not regarded as a violation of the prohibition against mixed kinds (m. Kil. 6:4).[57] 55 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 102. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2d ed.; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2005), 435. 57 See Jehuda Feliks, “Mixed Species,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:385-387, esp. 386, under the subheading “Mixing in the Vineyard.” See also Asaph Goor, “The History of the Grape-vine in 56 172 Mustard σίναπι (sinapi) ‫( ח ְַרדָּ ל‬ḥardāl) Brassica nigra[58] Another plant reckoned as a tree in the Gospels, but not by our modern standards, is mustard. Mustard is an herb that grows wild in Israel, but was also sometimes cultivated for the seeds, which can be used as a condiment. Because it has a woody stem it can be classified according to rabbinic definitions a “tree,” which is how the plant is described in the Mustard Seed parable: “…it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches” (Luke 13:19). Luke’s version of the parable does not appear to be exaggerated, since mustard plants can grow to six feet or more in height, but the claim in Mark and Matthew that mustard seeds are the smallest of all seeds on the earth (Matt. 13:32; Mark 4:31) is overstated. Mustard seeds are, however, tiny in comparison to the size of the plants that grow from them, which is the point of the parable. Rabbinic sources, too, could exaggerate with regard to mustard plants. One story tells about how a rabbi was able to climb a mustard stalk like a tree (y. Peah 7:3 [33a]), another report tells how when the branch of a mustard plant broke from the stalk it was used to cover a potter’s shed (Sifre Deut. §317 [ed. Finkelstein, 360]; y. Peah 7:3 [33a]). The Gospels of Matthew and Luke refer to the great things that can be accomplished by faith ὡς κόκκος σινάπεως (hōs kokkos sinapeōs, “like a mustard seed”; Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:5-6). In rabbinic sources the approximate size of a the Holy Land,” Economic Botany 20.1 (1966): 46-64, esp. 55; idem, “The History of the Fig Tree in the Holy Land from Ancient Times to the Present Day,” 125. 58 See Jehuda Feliks, “Mustard,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:704; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 94-96; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 93. 173 mustard seed—‫( ְ ּכעֵין ַהח ְַרדָ ּל‬ke‘ēn haḥardāl)—is the minimum quantity of certain substances that can impart impurity. Tree Varieties Alluded to in the Gospels Above we have taken note of the trees—and a few other plants the Gospels classified as such—that are explicitly mentioned in the Gospels. But trees are also in the background of certain Gospel passages, either by reference to the products made from trees or by alluding to trees without mentioning them by name. Below we will take note of a few of these, although doubtless more could be added. Myrrh σµύρνα (smūrna) ‫( מוֹר‬mōr) Commiphra schimperi abyssinica[59] The tree that produces myrrh grows in the Arabian peninsula and on the African continent.[60] The myrrh tree’s fragrant resin is of a reddish hue, and unlike frankincense it was not burnt for incense but used as an ointment for perfumes and medicine.[61] Because the myrrh tree is not native to the land of Israel it is never mentioned in the Gospels. The fragrant resin of the myrrh tree, however, is connected in the Gospels with the birth and death of Jesus. Myrrh is one of the gifts the magi brought to the infant King of the Jews according to Matt. 2:11, and according to John 19:39 myrrh was one of the ointments Nicodemus brought for 59 See Jehuda Feliks, “Myrrh,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:709-710; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 96-98; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 200. 60 See Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 200. 61 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 138. 174 Jesus’ burial. Mark’s Gospel also mentions that on his way to be crucified Jesus was offered myrrh-infused wine to drink (Mark 15:23). Some ancient writers, such as Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 14:92-93, 107), mention wine mixed with myrrh,[62] so Mark’s report is credible. However, according to the Babylonian Talmud, wine with a grain of frankincense was offered to condemned persons at their execution to lessen their physical sufferings (b. Sanh. 43a).[63] So it is possible that the author of Mark confused the two expensive aromatic resins.[64] The effectiveness of frankincense-infused wine as a palliative is illustrated by an account in 3 Maccabees of elephants that became intoxicated on wine mingled with frankincense (3 Macc. 5:45). Frankincense λίβανος (libanos) ‫( לְבוֹנָה‬levōnāh) Boswellia sacra Flückiger[65] Like the myrrh tree, the frankincense tree is not found in the land of Israel, being indigenous to the Arabian peninsula and the African continent.[66] The Song of 62 See Joseph Klausner, “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” in The World History of the Jewish People: The Herodian Period (ed. Michael Avi-Yonah; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1975), 179-205, esp. 183. 63 Tractate Semaḥot 2:7 (ed. Zlotnick, 3 [232]; ed. Higger, 105), on the other hand, refers to offering wine to the condemned (‫שׁקִין אוֹתוֹ יַי ִן כְּדֵ י שֶֹּׁלא י ִ ְצ ָטעֵר‬ ְ ‫)וּ ַמ‬, but makes no reference to frankincense. Strangely enough, in Zlotnick’s translation of Semaḥot 2:7 we read: “He should be given wine and frankincense to drink to dull his suffering.” 64 See Flusser, Jesus, 229-230. 65 See Jehuda Feliks, “Frankincense,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 17:212-213; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 59-61; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 197. 66 See Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 59; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 197. 175 Songs mentions trees of frankincense—‫‘( ֲעצֵי לְבוֹנָה‬atzē levōnāh)—(Song 4:14), and refers frequently to the aromatic resin these trees produce. Since frankincense was a main ingredient of the incense offered in the Temple (Exod. 30:34), it is obliquely alluded to in the story of the announcement of John the Baptist’s birth to his father Zechariah, who was selected to enter the Temple to make an offering on the golden altar of incense (Luke 1:5-23).[67] The only explicit reference to frankincense in the Gospels is as one of the gifts of the magi (Matt. 2:11). We have already mentioned the possibility that Mark 15:23 mistakenly refers to myrrh instead of frankincense. Carob Trees κερατωνία (keratōnia) ‫( חָרוּב‬ḥārūv) Ceratonia siliqua[68] Most scholars are agreed that the type of pod (κεράτιον [keration]) given as fodder to the pigs in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:16) refers to the fruit of the carob tree. The gummy, fleshy pods that encase the carob seeds are sweet and nutritious.[69] In ancient times, however, carob pods were mostly eaten by people who were extremely poor or known for their asceticism. Among them were Hanina ben Dosa (first century C.E.) and Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai (second century C.E.). With regard to Hanina ben Dosa it was said: Each and every day a bat kol [i.e., a heavenly voice—JNT] goes out 67 See Shmuel Safrai, “Zechariah’s Prestigious Task,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 18 (1989):1, 4 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2326/]. 68 See Jehuda Feliks, “Carob,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 4:492; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 33-36; Waisel and Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel, 26-27; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 63. 69 Feliks, “Carob,” 4:492. 176 from Mount Horeb and says, “The whole world is fed because of Hanina, my son. But it is enough for Hanina, my son, to get by on a kav of carobs from the eve of one Sabbath to the next.” (b. Ber. 17b; b. Taan. 24b) In this saying the enormous needs of the entire world are contrasted with the minimal needs of the ḥasid Hanina ben Dosa.[70] Even though Hanina, who was especially intimate with God, was content to get by from week to week on a small amount of carob pods, the rest of the world expected to live by a much higher standard. With regard to Shimon ben Yohai we learn that he subsisted on carob pods during a years-long period he spent hiding in a cave from the Roman government (y. Shev. 9:1 [25b]; b. Shab. 33b). The fact that carob pods were eaten mainly by the poor and ascetics has given rise to the suggestion that carob pods are what was really meant by the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6), and for this reason the carob is sometimes referred to as the “locust tree”[71] and its pods as “Saint John’s Bread.” But although there is a slight similarity between Hebrew and Aramaic words for “locust” (Heb.: ‫[ ָחגָב‬ḥāgāv]; Aram.: ‫[ ָחגָבָא‬ḥāgāvā’]), and the Hebrew and Aramaic words for “carob” (Heb.: ‫[ חָרוּב‬ḥārūv]; Aram.: ‫[ חֲרוּבָא‬ḥarūvā’]) are vaguely similar,[72] there is little to recommend the notion that the ἀκρίς (akris, “locust”) of 70 On Hanina ben Dosa and other early ḥasidim, see Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 42/43/44 (1994): 3-22 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2685/]. 71 Cf., e.g., H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898 [orig. pub. 1867]), 360-362. 72 See Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 63. 177 the Gospels is really the pod of a carob.[73] Cedar/Oak Trees Cedar: Oak: κέδρος (kedros) δρῦς (drūs) ‫’( א ֶֶרז‬erez) ‫’( אַלּוֹן‬alōn); ‫אֵלוֹן‬ (’ēlōn) Cedrus libani[74] Quercus[75] In a saying about John the Baptist Jesus contrasts the prophet of repentance with a reed that is shaken by the wind (Matt. 11:7 ∥ Luke 7:24). In these words scholars have detected an allusion to the fable of the reed and the mighty tree known from Aesop.[76] The tree was rugged but unbending, so when a great wind came against it the tree was uprooted and died. But the yielding reed, which bent with the wind, survived the tempest. In the same way John the Baptist, who was rigid in his denouncement of Herod Antipas’ unlawful marriage, was put to death, whereas others who were more willing to bend to the tetrarch’s will escaped the Baptist’s fate. In Aesop’s Fables the mighty tree is identified as an oak (δρῦς [drūs]).[77] However, in Jewish sources a version of the fable appears in which the mighty tree 73 See Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 54-55. See Jehuda Feliks, “Cedar,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 4:535; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 36-38; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 104-105. 75 See Jehuda Feliks, “Oak,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 15:357-358; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 108-109; Musselman, A Dictionary of Bible Plants, 104-106. 76 See Flusser, Jesus, 51; Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1989), 238; idem, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 20; Peter J. Tomson, ‘If this be from Heaven…’ Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 142; R. Steven Notley and Ze’ev Safrai, Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011), 305. 77 Aesopic Fables of Babrius in Iambic Verse §36. For the text and translation of the fable, see Ben Edwin Perry, ed. and trans., Babrius and Phaedrus (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 50-51. 74 178 is identified as a cedar of Lebanon (‫’[ א ֶֶרז‬erez]).[78] It is impossible to say which—if either—of these two types of tree might have been in Jesus’ mind when speaking of John the Baptist, since both oak trees (of several varieties) and cedars would have been familiar in the land of Israel. Tree of Life ξύλον ζωῆς (xūlon zōēs) ‫‘( עֵץ ַחיּ ִים‬ētz ḥayyim) In a saying preserved in slightly different versions in Luke and Matthew Jesus urged his followers to enter the narrow gate that leads to life (Matt. 7:13-14 ∥ Luke 13:24).[79] Behind this saying there likely lies the ancient Jewish Two Ways tradition, according to which there are two paths between which human beings must choose: the Way of Life or the Way of Death. The Way of Life leads back to Eden and the Tree of Life. Thus Jesus probably alluded, however obliquely, to the Tree of Life in his saying about entering the narrow gate. Likewise, behind Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross that “Today you will be with me in Paradise (Gk.: παράδεισος [paradeisos] = Heb.: ‫[ פּ ְַרדֵּ ס‬pardēs])” (Luke 23:43) there likely stands the Tree of Life, which grows in the Garden of Eden. 78 See Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, §41 (ed. Schechter, 131); cf. b. Taan. 20a. On familiarity with Aesop’s fables in ancient Jewish society, see Haim Schwarzbaum, “Talmudic-Midrashic Affinities in Some Aesopic Fables,” IV International Congress for Folk-Narrative Research in Athens (1.9-6.9 1964): Lectures and Reports (Athens, 1965): 466-483; idem, “‫משלי איסופוס ומשלי‬ ‫ל‬″‫“[ ”חז‬The Fables of Aesop and the Parables of the Sages”], Maḥanayim 112 (1967): 112-117 (an English translation of which appears at WholeStones.org [https://wholestones.org/blog/ translations/aesops-fables-and-the-parables-of-the-sages/]). 79 For a detailed discussion of this saying, see Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Narrow Gate,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, 2024) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/28352/]. 179 The Tree of Life is a symbol both of human origins and human destiny that is achieved through divine redemption. It is a testament to the importance of trees in the New Testament Gospels that a tree should symbolize our greatest human aspirations. This article is written in honor of David Bivin’s 85th birthday. In addition to promoting the study of the ancient languages Jesus spoke, the ancient Judaism Jesus practiced, and the ancient texts that bear witness to Jesus’ cultural surroundings in order to better understand the words and deeds of Jesus, David has also emphasized the need to become familiar with the physical environment Jesus inhabited. In his periodical, JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, David Bivin devoted a surprising amount of space to articles dealing with the ecology of the Gospels,[1] while in his article “A Farewell to the Emmaus Road”[2] David proved himself to be a passionate conservationist. 1 Such articles include: Gary Asperschlager, “Holy Land Postcard: Hula Valley Nature Reserve,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2016) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/16254/]; Mendel Nun, “Fish and the Sea of Galilee,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 22 (1989): 8-9 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/4311/]; Gloria E. M. Suess, “Lilies of the Field,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 46/47 (1994): 18-23 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/1584/]; idem, “Beating the (Thorny) Bushes,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 48 (1995): 16-21 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/1528/]; idem, “Enemies of the Harvest,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 53 (1997): 18-23 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/1496/]; Beth Uval, “Reading the Landscape: Neot Kedumim, the Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 49 (1995): 18-21 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2742/]; and my own “Chickens and the Cultural Context of the Gospels,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2014) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/12933/]. Also of note are the beautiful illustrations by Liz McLeod that adorned the following JP articles: David N. Bivin, “A Body, Vultures and the Son of Man (Luke 17:37),” Jerusalem Perspective 37 (1992): 2, 18-19 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/3962/]; Randall Buth, “That Small-fry Herod Antipas, or When a Fox Is Not a Fox,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 40 (1993): 7-9, 14 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/2667/]. 2 David N. Bivin, “A Farewell to the Emmaus Road,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2017) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/16208/]. 180 I can therefore think of no better way to celebrate and honor the occasion of David’s 85th than to plant a tree in the land of Israel, which can be done through the Arbor Day Foundation by following this link: https://shop.arborday.org/trees-for-israel With a donation of $18 a tree can be planted in the forests of Israel in honor of David Bivin as an enduring and living monument to his lifetime of achievement. E-certificates can be sent to David at this e-mail address: david@jerusalemperspective.com. 181 ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday This page is intentionally blank. 182 Halakha in the Gospels* Ze’ev Safrai I met David Bivin as a child when he was a senior student in the bet midrash of my teacher, Prof. David Flusser and my father Shmuel Safrai, may they rest in peace. I grew up into this bet midrash, which was conducted in the university, at home, while we traveled, and when we lay down and rose up. David Bivin stood out both as a researcher and in his welcome activity in the bet midrash of JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE. When I imagine what the study method of Bet Shammai or Bet Hillel would have been like, had they been active in modern times, I imagine this bet midrash in present-day Jerusalem. The coordinators—the late Prof. Flusser and David Bivin—focused on studying the Jewish background of the New Testament, and the question of halakha in the New Testament was central to their discussion and their work as public intellectuals. That is why I decided to explore this subject for the book honoring David Bivin. * I am very grateful to my friend, Prof. Peter Thomson, who read the manuscript very carefully and corrected many errors. His judgment was of importance in the writing of the article. I am also grateful to my editor, Joshua N. Tilton, for his great help in editing and improving the article. 183 Outline This article has two goals, the first of which is to discern the relations between the Synoptic Gospels and the Pharisaic halakha, known to us from rabbinical literature. The second goal is to find out what can be learned from the implied halakha in the Gospels about the ancient rabbinic halakha. The starting point of the discussion is the table found in Appendix 1 of this article. The table lists more than 140 halakhot mentioned or alluded to in the Gospels and Acts, the vast majority of which are from the Synoptic Gospels. In the introduction, the principles according to which the table was prepared are presented, and cases of doubt are raised. Doubtful cases were not entered into the table, so that the proposed findings should be considered a minimum number of halakhot in the New Testament. However, it is worth noting that in the research, doubts have already been cast on some of the evidence. In the first section, the general picture is presented, emerging from Appendix 1. Research until now has mainly dealt with individual cases of halakhot, which can be interpreted in different ways. But the general picture points to a great closeness between the halakha in the New Testament and the literature of the sages. The large number of halakhot in the Gospels proves, beyond the doubts that exist today in the research, that Jesus is described as the leader of a group that observed the Pharisaic halakha. The picture emerging from the Gospels points to writers (and readers) who were familiar with the halakhic lifestyle, and for whom halakha was central. In the second section, a division of the halakhot according to their literary context 184 is presented: 1. Laws that are mentioned by way of a story or description; 2. Laws in which Jesus debated with the “others” (the Pharisees and/or the scribes). Almost all of the laws in the first group are according to the ancient Pharisaic halakha (or are represented within the diversity of the Pharisaic halakha of the Second Temple). After that, the fifteen cases in which there is an open debate between the “others” and Jesus are discussed. In almost all of them, Jesus’ words correspond to the law of the sages or are represented within the diversity that existed in rabbinic literature. Sometimes the evidence for the early halakha comes from later sources (even from the Middle Ages) that preserved the ancient halakha. The article focuses on the laws themselves, and not on the arguments presented in the Gospels. These arguments require a separate investigation, some of them contradict the thought of the sages. In the third section, the literary structure of the dialogues is examined, and it will be noted that such dialogues are also found in the literature of the Sages. In the fourth section we will examine the legal nature of the halakhic thought attributed to Jesus. As has already been shown in the research, the halakha attributed to Jesus does not reflect a legal character, in contrast to the halakha of the Sages. However, it turns out that the ancient halakha of the Sages was neither legal nor coherent in nature. This argument was raised in a previous study without any connection to the study of the halakha in the Gospels. We will conclude that Jesus’ halakha is an integral part of early halakha from the first century in all its aspects. Thus implausible that Jesus lodged a principled polemic against central tenets of halakha. 185 Introduction A great deal of research literature discusses the halakha in the New Testament in general and the Gospels in particular. Many discussions begin with a methodological survey or state their methodological viewpoint.[1] There are two main viewpoints regarding the primary background of early Christianity, either the Hellenist-Oriental world or average Jewish society. This study adopts the second viewpoint. Justifying the viewpoint adopted here is the fact that almost all the descriptions of halakha in the Gospels and Acts conform with what is indicated in rabbinic literature. The behavior of the leading practitioners of ancient Christianity thus accorded with what is known in the rabbinic halakha, even though rabbinic literature was edited later, starting in the third century C.E. The fact that rabbinic literature is late was raised by many scholars and served as an argument against the use of this literature for studying the late Second Temple period (the period of the New Testament). But the great similarity between the theological material, the sayings, and the proverbs of the NT to those in rabbinic literature, was long ago 1 For literature that sums up the various opinions, see: P. J. Tomson, “Halakha in the New Testament: A Research Overview,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt and P. J. Tomson (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-206. This volume includes a survey of the literature and directions of the research on the main topics: Shabbat, purity, divorce, and more. See also Thomas Kazen, Impurity and Purification in Early Judaism and the Jesus Tradition (Stockholm: SBL Press, 2021); N. A. van Uchelen, “Halakha in het Nieuwe Testament?” Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 49 (1995): 177-189; W. R. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, Law and Love (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002). The topic also touches on the nonscientific. John P. Meier, agreeing with Kähler and Bultmann on this point, stresses that “the Jesus of history is not, and cannot be, the object of Christian faith.” See Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 197. Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998). 186 discovered by scholars such as P. Sigal,[2] D. Flusser, S. Safrai, M. Kister, P. Tomson, and many others, which proves beyond any doubt that rabbinic literature preserved a great deal of material that is relevant to the study of the first century. In my opinion, chronological study has been a mistake and a misleading tool. All parallels should be examined and we cannot assume that third-century redactors did not preserve or were not familiar with ancient sayings. Indeed, there is room to suspect that third-century Judaism was different from that of the first century, and no doubt many changes took place in Jewish society during the first centuries. However, it seems that Jews of the third and fourth centuries were familiar with the halakhic foundations set in the earlier period. A good example is the Passover seder. In this case, the argument that because the sources differ in chronology there is no connection between them has turned out to be erroneous.[3] The counterargument that the tannaitic sources were familiar with the Gospels has been raised in the scholarly literature, but there is no reason to suspect that the tannaim were not familiar with the edited Gospels.[4] The Christianity of the period had yet to become consolidated into a social force that could have influenced Judaism. The halakha in the New Testament has been approached mainly from two directions. One group of scholars has explored the subject as part of a systematic explanation of the New Testament with an open eye for its Jewish background. 2 Phillip Sigal, The Halakha of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (Atlanta, 2007) 66-69. 3 See S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), x-xii; and under the subheading “Order of Blessings” below. 4 The case of b. Shab. 116b is exceptional and reflects fourth century Babylonia. See note 29 below. 187 Another group has been interested in the history of halakha and of specific halakhot, using any evidence deriving from the New Testament, which is then analyzed either at length or briefly. The author of this article belongs to the latter group. For example, in our joint commentary Mishnat Eretz Israel, my father and I examined many attestations of halakhic practice mentioned in the New Testament and considered it as evidence of ancient halakha.[5] Early Halakha and Current Halakha Ancient halakha is a field of study unto itself, a section of knowledge distinct from the halakha practiced today. Many important scholars with a halakhic background are familiar with the current halakha but do not always sufficiently consider the differences and diversity that existed in the ancient halakha. If we want to understand Jesus and his early followers, we have to appreciate the halakhic diversity of early Judaism. As an example of this phenomenon we will use marriage laws. In this area, several innovations are attributed to Jesus with important distinctions between the Gospels (Matt. 19:3-12 ∥ 5:32 ∥ Mark 10:11 ∥ Luke 16:18). 1 2 Prohibition of, or objection to, divorce. Prohibition of, or objection to, second marriages (of a widow, and even more so of a divorced woman, and perhaps also a prohibition of a divorced man with children to remarry). 5 S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel (Jerusalem and Alon Shvut: Lifshitz and Tvunot, 2008-2023); E. E. Urbach, Halakha: Its Sources and Development (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988); as well as many Talmudic and historical studies. Nearly every paper in these fields deals incidentally with the halakhic evidence in the New Testament. 188 3 Prohibition of polygamy. 1. As is known and as appears in many research studies, in the ancient halakha the prohibition of divorce was known to be controversial, and the opinion attributed to Jesus is the opinion of Bet Shammai (at least according to Matt. 5:32).[6] This stringent opinion was rejected by the later halakha, but the Bet Shamai position was dominant in the first century. 2. Second marriages were allowed and routine in practice. There is even preaching in favor of second marriages (b. Pes. 112a; Bereshit Raba 61:3 and parallels). However, there are indications of reservations regarding the second marriage of a widow. For instance, it is said about Judith that she remained a widow out of excessive righteousness (Judith 16:21. Likewise, the Babylonian Talmud preserves a proverb (judgment) attributed the “people of Jerusalem”: “You shall not ‘cook’ in your friend’s cauldron” (b. Pes. 112a). The formal reasoning does not belong to the domain of overly righteous behavior, but of course we do not know what motivated their assertion. Thus Jesus was not alone in his pietistic reservations against second marriages. 3. Polygamy is permitted in rabbinic halakha. Schremer collected many sources that prove this, and also how the halakha was actually practiced.[7] But Shermer is also aware that throughout the generations there has been a trend of a minority 6 See P. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, Brill Van Gorcum, 1990), 92-99. Mark and Luke do not mention the possibility to divorce from adulteress, but it is possible that they thought the expulsion of an adulteress was a commandment, and therefore unnecessary to mention. 7 A. Scremer, Male and Female He Created Them (Jerusalem, 2003), 183-218 (Hebrew). 189 against polygamy.[8] In his opinion, the objection to polygamy does not appear to be universal rather it is an objection that polygamy is not appropriate for a sage or a “devotee.” A similar conclusion was reached by Safrai and Safrai.[9] They emphasize that within the circles of the sages polygamy was extremely rare. In general, marriage and the birth of children was considered a great mitzvah and desirable behavior, yet there were sages who avoided marriage (such as Shimon Ben Azzai). There was also a minority trend that advocated seclusion and celibacy from married life. The Aramaic expression for this is avid tamir beme‘arta (“lived in a cave”), but this is not the place to elaborate further on this issue. To sum up, in the three marriage-related issues when Jesus demands from his hearers not to be satisfied with the usual halakha, but to behave with excessive righteousness (piety), the attitudes attributed to Jesus are within the realm of the ancient rabbinic halakha. Section 1: The Big Picture Appendix 1 to this article contains a table that includes all the statements in the Gospels and in Acts reflecting the ancient halakha that was observed by Jesus or to which he had no objection. The purpose of this article is to examine the entire corpus from a bird’s-eye view, since, in my opinion, prior research, has “missed the forest for the trees.” Previous studies have examined every halakhic detail and each Gospel separately, with philological and in-depth textual discussions. This 8 9 Ibid., 210-218. Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Kidushin (Alon Shvut, 2022), 42-46. 190 article will attempt to see what can be learned from the corpus as a whole. Of course, every stone and every part of the wall should be examined, but there is also considerable research value to seeing the structure as a whole. One example of the “big picture” is the use of the Jewish calendar in ancient Christian literature. For instance, the calendar of the Gospels based on the Jewish holidays, such as the first day of the Shabbat (week: Luke 24:1 ∥ Matt. 28 :1; Acts 20:7), Sukkot (John 6:37), Hanukkah (John 10:22), Passover (Matt. 26:17; Luke 22:1, 7; John 2:12; 13:1; 20:6; Acts 12:3; 20:6), Shavuot (Pentecost (Acts 2:1) etc. The table in Appendix 1 is not just a collection, it also includes a decision of sorts regarding the quality of the statement in question. The same statement could be read as a factual description, while to a halakhic expert it seems a “clear” reference to a halakhic act. For example, after the crucifixion of Jesus, there is a description of mourning and eulogy, as is the case after the death of other figures. A halakhic expert will sense that the description is of mourning in the halakhic sense, as required in the Jewish sources, but the verse can also be read as a simple description. In the Judaism of the period, mourning involved precise rules, but it was possible to mourn even without a Jewish halakhic background. Doubtful statements were not included in the table, but several such cases are discussed in detail in Appendix 2. The narrative of touching Jesus’ tzitzit will be discussed in Appendix 2. There we will see that the narrative could be understand as adherence to the details of purity rules according to rabbinic halakha. But it could also be understood as merely reflecting honor to Jesus. Therefore this case is not included in the table in Appendix 1. Jesus meal with the tax collector, which we will discuss below, is also 191 missing from the table in Appendix 1 because it is possible to explain the background of the narrative without reference to halakhic concepts. Initial Results The table presents 144 halakhic subjects mentioned in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Matthew includes 80 halakhot, Mark 59, Luke 75, John 28 and Acts 34. In the Gospel of John the halakhot are emphasized in a unique manner and seem to be an addition made during a later stage of redaction, but the number of halakhot mentioned in John is definitely smaller than in the other Gospels. This fact accords with what is accepted by some scholars.[10] In general, this concentration of halakhot in Matthew, Mark and Luke justifies the reference in this article to all the halakhot in the Synoptic Gospels as a single unit, even though in the research it is common to deal with each evangelist (or community whom the evangelist addresses) separately from the other Gospels. Needless to say, the small differences in emphasis among the Gospels are highly important, and have been studied in depth in every case. This article, which discusses the overall picture, will include only brief discussion of these specific differences. The references to halakhot in the Gospels concern minute detail: not only purity in general, but ritual handwashing, not only blessings in general, but blessings over bread and wine, and the absence of blessings over fish (no. 4), the order of the 10 Raymond. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Paulist Press 1979); J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters (Eugene Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004). 192 blessings (nos. 2-6) and so on. The precise number of halakhot is less significant, since the halakhot can be counted in various ways, but the overall impression is significant: in the Gospels the details of the halakha are a central and important subject. These data support the basic assumption that in cases of doubt, even when it is difficult to prove the halakhic background, the halakhic background should be confirmed, since it is a dominant factor in the activity attributed to Jesus. Section 2: Literary Contexts Jewish halakha appears in the NT in three literary contexts: 1 Incidental background: An example, already mentioned above, is the calendar of the Gospels, which is based on the Jewish holidays. Another example is the report in John 2:6, which says in upper store of the house in Cana “there were three stone vessels, the kind used by Jews for purification, each containing two or three measures (µετρητάς [metrētas]).” The amount contained in each vessel is a detail mentioned incidentally, as is the statement that the vessels were made of stone, but the inclusion of these details indicates what the writer saw them as a custom (law). The Greek term for “purification” is καθαρισµóς (katharismos), and the Syriac translation is ‫סימן לתדכיתא‬, meaning “sign to the law (of purification).” Clearly, this is referring to behavior based on Jewish law. We will return to this example again below. 2 A direct debate (polemics) between Jesus and his disciples on the 193 one hand, and the scribes and/or Pharisees on the other.[11] For example, the Pharisaic scribes attack Jesus’s disciples for not washing their hands before eating (Matt. 15:2 ∥ Mark 7:3; cf. Luke 11:38). The discussion indicates that Jesus himself is not accused of this sin, but Jesus defends his disciples’ behavior. Jesus considers ritual handwashing superfluous, or at least of secondary importance (the three Gospels do not present an identical stance on this matter). This group contains arguments attributed to Jesus (by a Gospel tradition or the redactor) against the other groups for certain halakhic behaviors, such as building the graves of the righteous (Matt. 23:29 ∥ Luke 11:47), or purifying the outside of a cup and a pot (Matt. 23:24 ∥ Luke 11:39; cf. Mark 7:4). 3 Lessons from Jesus (or Paul) to his disciples, and on his initiative (in other words, instructions as to how to behave). For example, Paul’s opposition to magic (Acts 19:19) Is the literary context in which halakhot appear important? If we accept that the Gospels contain a tradition that describes the real memory of life of Jesus’ group, we could learn from every detail concerning the thinking of Jesus’ opponents about what was common in Jewish society, and so on. However, Furstenberg has demonstrated that the presentation of inter-factional or internal polemic, in the form of a debate or a dialogue, is a literary form that is repeated in various texts.[12] Furstenberg refers to sections in the Mishna and the Tosefta containing a type of record of a debate in the bet midrash, for example, m. Yadayim 4:6-7 includes an intersectarian debate, in a style somewhat similar to the debate between Jesus and 11 “Scribes and Pharisees” is a typically Matthaean polemical phrase, esp. in Matt. 23. Y. Furstenberg, “Jesus against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second Temple Inter-Sectarian Discourse,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020): 767-786. 12 194 the scribes and the Pharisees. Furstenberg also refers to the sectarian text Miktzat Maaseh Torah (MMT). As Kister demonstrated, even the phrasing “Woe unto you” (Matt. 23:24-26)[13] is repeated in a Talmudic section describing an interfaith dialogue (between Jews and non-Jews). There are similar literary dialogues in later Christian and Jewish literature, such as the writings of Justin Martyr (the Dialogue with Tryphon), the composition Jacob of Cyrene, and additional Christian writings. In rabbinic literature, there are the dialogues of R. Yehoshua b. Hanania with a “Matrona”[14] and the emperor Antoninus and Rabbi, Yehuda ha-Nasi and many more. Scholars have usually viewed all these controversies not as historical memories of real debates that actually took place, but rather as a literary form with a one-sided presentation of the writer’s opinions. In fact, these debates do have a more or less uniform literary structure, which includes the presentation of the writer’s opinions, while minimizing those of the opponent, a one-sided victory, and the presentation of the rival’s words in brief, and frequently also the silencing of the rival or his surrender. (In later examples we see a conversion of the opponent to the other’s religion.) This does not mean that there was never such a public or ritual dialogue, there probably were such occasions, but presenting a dispute as a dialogue does not necessarily indicate the existence of an actual historical dialogue.[15] 13 So, in Matthew; in Luke 11:39 it is “Now you Pharisees.” See M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 145-154. 14 T. Ilan, “Matrona and Rabbi Jose: An Alternative Interpretation,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 25 (1994): 18-51; R. Gershenzon and E. Slomovic, “A Second Century Jewish-Gnostic Debate: Rabbi Jose ben Halafta and the Matrona” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 16 (1985): 1-41. 15 Averil Cameron, Niels Gaul, eds., Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late 195 Incidental Background Above we mentioned two examples of incidental halakhot (the dating of events according to the Jewish calendar and the stone purification vessels in the story of the wedding at Cana). Other examples of incidental descriptions of halakhot are the Jews’ legal authority over themselves and their authority to whip criminals, but their lack of authority over the death penalty (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9; Luke 12:11; 21:12); blessings over wine and bread and in this order (Appendix 1, nos. 3, 4, 9); the custom that engagement entails a prohibition of sexual relations, with the fiancée or with anyone else (no. 53); refraining from consuming blood, as written in the Torah (no. 7); the form of burial and the handling of the deceased (nos. 9-12); and many more (nos. 18, 22, 24, 28). Even the custom of visiting the grave after three days is a Jewish custom that is mentioned in the sources and explained in the Talmudic literature in various ways (Semaḥot 4:7; y. Moed Katan 3:5, 82b). A more detailed examination of these incidental halakhot indicates that some of the halakhot in the Gospels are basic Jewish Law, such as circumcision and holidays.[16] But a large percentage are customs that are not full halakha, or whose halakhic status is problematic. Below are some examples of this statement. Byzantium (London: Routledge, 2017). 16 There is no legal difference between halakhot from the Written Torah and those in the Oral Law. In general, the distinction between the two appears of course in the rabbinic literature, but it did not affect the social status of the mitzvot. For example, the details of the laws of ritual slaughter are not from the Torah, but they were central to everyday life, like mitzvot from the Torah. The laws of purity for those who are not priests not clear in the Torah. Central rules of purity are certainly not from the Torah, such as mikveh, the rules of immersion, the impurity of drinks, and the impurity of food (which will be mentioned below). 196 Naming a Child In Luke we read of the naming of John the Baptist during his circumcision with same name as his father (Luke 1:59). Of these two details, the second is certainly not a law, but the first (naming at circumcision) is presented, incidentally, as an ordinary custom. We are not familiar with such a custom from the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods. In the Tosefta and the two Talmuds there is a version of the circumcision blessing, including a prayer for the child’s welfare, but it does not mention naming the infant (t. Ber. 6:13). A piyyut (liturgical poem) by R. Simon Megas (sixth century) provides the first hint that the circumcision ceremony involved giving a name to the child.[17] In the ninth to tenth centuries the custom appears specifically in another piyyut, and in the twelfth century it is mentioned in a midrash, as part of an ancient prayer for the welfare of the child.[18] As is usual in the halakhic literature, the custom does not appear as an explicit halakha, but is included in the ritual prayer after the circumcision. This prayer is recited to this 17 The piyyut adds to the circumcision ceremony that appears in the Tosefta the verse: “…And his name will be called….” See J. Yahalom, Liturgical Poems of Simon Bar Megas (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1984), 211. “And his name will be called” is the precise wording of the prayer following the circumcision, which is said to this day: “And the name [of the circumcised child] will be called peloni ben peloni [so-and-so son of so-and-so].” 18 The next evidence comes from a ninth- or tenth-century piyyut (my thanks to Shulamit Elitzur for pointing it out to me). “And on the eighth day…he will be called by the name….” S. Elitzur, Piyute R. Elʻazar Birabi Kilar (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 321. The determination that the name is given during the circumcision appears as a halakha in a midrash composed in Italy (Sekhel Tov on Bereshit 17:14) . The formulation is repeated by sages from Ashkenaz (Germany and France) at the end of that century. The next evidence is in a manuscript from the beginning of the eleventh century (Corpus Christi College Lib. 133). This prayer appears again in the Ashkenazic literature from the twelfth century (Sefer Klalei Hamila by R. Yaakov Hagozer [2:52] in idem, Zichron Brit Rishonim, [Krakov: Fisher Press, 1892]; the book of commentaries on the Siddur of Rokeach, Blessings of the Circumcision [Jerusalem: Machon Harav Hershler, 1992] [Par. 143]; the Siddur of R. Shlomo of Worms [Jerusalem: Machon Harav Hershler, 1972], 287). 197 day during a circumcision ceremony in all Jewish communities. The midrash is evidence that the custom was already accepted and known in the twelfth century, but it was not mentioned in the earlier siddurim (prayer books) from the geonic period (the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, and the Siddur of Rav Saadia Gaon). If we only had before us only the traditional halakhic Jewish evidence, it could be concluded that naming a child became part of the ceremony only during the medieval period, when the circumcision ceremony became a communal event in the synagogue. But the New Testament evidence demonstrates that naming a child at his circumcision is, in fact, a very ancient custom that was already practiced in the Second Temple period. In my opinion, in terms of methodology, if we have before us ancient evidence (i.e., from the first century) for a Jewish practice, and then a gap in the literary evidence for that same custom stretching some 500 or 1,000 years, we can conclude that the practice existed continuously during the entire period. It is logical that the practice is simply not mentioned in the ancient texts from the intervening period. This possibility is far preferable to the claim that an ancient practice was forgotten and subsequently renewed “by chance” and without any connection, hundreds of years later. There is additional evidence of such halakhot that appear in the medieval period but that actually began in the first century, with no mention during the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods. Four examples will suffice: 1) Rashi and his grandson Rabbenu Tam (eleventh to twelfth centuries C.E.) disputed some detail in the customs or halakhot of writing tefillin; the two customs are also represented in the tefillin found at Qumran. The Qumran evidence means that the two customs 198 already existed during the Second Temple period (perhaps not as a dispute but as two possible options). 2) The same is true for the Shabbat Hagadol (“Great Sabbath”), which appears in John 19:31, and which only and reappears in the literature of the sages from the eleventh century on.[19] 3) In addition, the custom of washing cups before the meal is documented both in the New Testament (Mark 7:4 and maybe also Matt. 23:25) and in manuscripts of the Haggadah from the twelfth century on.[20] 4) Another such halakha is not to drink the water of the Samaritans (John 4:8). This halakha appears only in the late rabbinic haggadic literature, as opposed to the Jewish halakha according to which the water of a Samaritan and of a non-Jew are permitted to a Jew.[21] There are additional examples of early halakhot for which we have only late attestation.[22] Three of these “halakhot” from the Gospels (name-giving at a circumcision ceremony, naming a child after the father, and drinking the water of the Samaritans) are not regular laws but are rather folk customs.[23] 19 Safrai and Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages, 77-79. See below under the subtitle “Purifying the outside of a cup or bowl.” 21 For a summary of the author’s opinion, see Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Berakhot (Jerusalem, 2001), 393. 22 See below, note 30. 23 It is difficult to define the difference between halakha and custom. Just as it is difficult to define the difference between an “obligating custom” and a “folk” (popular) custom. Every society has laws and customs and there are some kind of social norms that are less valid, and their observance is voluntary. In the formal theoretical conception of halacha from the Middle Ages, halakha was determined by the sages and popular custom was determined by the public (Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:2). But this is a formal theoretical diagnosis since we do not know how every halakha was determined. See Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Pes. (Jerusalem: Liphshitz publishing House, 2009), 150-151 and literature cited there in note 1. In practice, those who belong to the elite circles of society know how to intuitively distinguish between the two. From a formal point of view, a mitzvah must be blessed, and a folk custom is not blessed. But this distinction is only partial. An additional difference is that custom is not 20 199 Stone Vessels Another example of a “halakha” that is not obligating halakha, but just “extra purity” is the use of a stone vessel for keeping food (wine) ritually pure (John 2:6). It is clear that stone vessels have a halakhic advantage because they are not susceptible to ritual impurity (at least not according to rabbinic halakha. It is also clear from the archaeological evidence that the use of stone vessels was common in the first century. Up to this point, the data are accepted in the research, and this is not the place to explain the rules and the halakhic restrictions. We do not know what the Sadducees thought of stone vessels, but such vessels were found in Qumran, which leads to the assumption that this halakha was also accepted by the members of the Qumran sects. However, two important facts have not been mentioned in the considerable research on this subject. The first is that although stone vessels were found in the Galilee, and even a factory for producing them was located there, the number of stone vessels (and of mikvaot) in the Galilee is far smaller than in Judea. In addition, according to Pharisaic law, there is no obligation to use stone vessels. Although food retains a state of purity in stone vessels better than in pottery, foodstuffs can also be kept in pottery. Moreover, according to Pharisaic-rabbinic law, only priests are obligated to maintain ritual purity. An ordinary Jew must be pure only when he comes to the Temple or when touching a heave-offering. But in mandatory, its observance is voluntary. Moreover, it is not integrated in the halakhic system, and sometimes even contradicts it. It is not legally justified. Halakha has a coherent legal structure, and custom does not fit into this structure. However, in the end it is difficult to define, legally, what a folk custom is, just as it is difficult to define what a folk culture is, but everyone who lives in this system knows and feels the difference. 200 everyday life, observing purity is desirable (good behavior), not obligatory. Those who maintained perpetual purity are an elite class called ḥavērim as opposed to the masses (‘amē hā’āretz). The use of stone vessels among a nonpriestly public is a sign of “extra purity,” a fear of impurity beyond what is required in the halakha. In other chapters of John as well, Jesus is described as a haver who maintains purity at a level beyond that required of non-priests (see below). John’s sources or perhaps John’s community, therefore, describes the family in Cana where Jesus and his mother attended the wedding feast as observing God’s commandments strictly, far beyond the level of the average Jew. 201 Left: Map of stone vessels in the Land of Israel (as of 2002). Right: Map of mikvaot in the Land of Israel (as of 2002). From Z. Safrai and E. Regev, The Land of Israel during the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Jerusalem: 2011) (Heb.). With thanks to Prof. Yonatan Adler. The map clearly shows that the quantity of findings in the Galilee is smaller than that in Judea, which attests to the degree of observance of ritual purity in the two regions. Charging Interest A small percentage of the halakhot in the Gospels contradicts rabbinic halakha. Prominent among them are two halakhot that allow, incidentally, taking interest (Matt. 18:25; Luke 19:23). In contrast, according to Luke 6:35, the believer is specifically required to lend without monetary profit. Taking interest from a Jew is forbidden in the Torah, but the Torah permits taking interest from a non-Jew (Deut. 202 20:20-21). It would be a stretch to assume that these statements attributed to Jesus, which appear in parables, referred only to taking interest from non-Jews, since few non-Jews lived in the Jewish Galilee of the first century. In this case, the explanation is apparently simple. In another article,[24] which deals with parables in rabbinic literature, I collected several parables that contradict the halakhic rules. This phenomenon is related to the phenomenon of parallel parables whose didactic purpose is different. In addition, sometimes the same parables appear in different narrative contexts, with slight stylistic differences. Some of the rabbinic parables are versions of Roman or Greek parables.[25] In order to better understand this phenomenon, I referred to theories known from the study of folktales. The stories of the parables were not created separately in each society, but were international. Preachers and those who told the parables did not necessarily create them, rather, they made use of familiar folk literature. A good teller of parables excelled in shaping the parable to his purpose and especially in the parable’s clever integration into his sermon, using a familiar story in order to arrive at a moral or theological message. Jesus was such a teller of parables (or at least this talent was attributed to him). The parables themselves did not originate in the bet midrash but in the mixed (Jewish and non-Jewish) marketplace, which reflected what the masses thought about the elite classes, about the king or the wealthy. The folk parables represent 24 Z. Safrai, “Rabbinic Parables as an Historical Source,” in G. Herman, et al., eds., Between Babylonia and the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2016), 287-318. 25 M. Hadas, “Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptorum Historiae Augustae,” in H. A. Fischel, ed., Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1977), 43-47. 203 the viewpoint of the uneducated masses, not necessarily of the Jewish masses, but of the mixed populations in the cities. Moreover, charging interest on a loan is one of the commandments the Jewish masses did not observe strictly. Despite the explicit halakha in Scripture, it was financially too difficult to observe. Thus Jesus’ parables do not reflect the Jewish lifestyle but the norms of the public square. Order of Blessings Another case of an incidental halakha is the portrayal of the of the blessing for wine being recited before the blessing for bread during the Passover meal (Luke 22:17). But according to Matthew and Mark (Matt. 26:26-29 ∥ Mark 14:22) the bread come before the wine. In the Greco-Roman world the blessing over wine is recited twice before the bread. In Jewish halakha on Shabbat and festivals the blessing of the wine comes first (m. Pes 1:2; m. Ber 8:1), but on a weekday, the blessing over bread, which comes first, exempts one from the need to recite every blessing separately (m. Ber. 6:5; b. Ber 41b).[26] Apparently the original halakha in this case was preserved in Luke, Matthew and Mark followed a different, less precise tradition.[27] All the other halakhot in the Gospels appear in rabbinic literature, and most have been discussed in the research literature. This article emphasizes that the Gospels incidentally describe a halakhic society and a clear consensus that Jesus’ group 26 Apparently the halakha that one begins with the blessing over bread is post-Tannaitic. D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magness, 1988), 202-206. Also Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Van Gorcum: Fortress, 2002), 304-309. 27 204 operated in a halakha-observant society, and that the public expected this group, and certainly the leader of the group, to observe halakhot. All this appears in casual descriptions that are not part of the direct message of the Gospels. Whether the Gospels should be read as a historical description, or as a didactic (moraltheological) or as an eschatological message is a matter for debate. In any case, the editors of the Gospels described to themselves, in dozens of instances and details, a halakha-observant society. Halakha in Debates The following section mentions both cases where the (Pharisaic) opponents reproach Jesus or his disciples for doing forbidden things and cases where Jesus reproaches his opponents for doing so. On the one hand, Jesus declared, “I have not come to violate but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17 ∥ Luke 16:17),[28] and “not one letter, nor one stroke of a letter shall pass from the law” (Matt. 5:18).[29] On the other hand, the Gospels include attacks against 28 See also Acts 10:15. This sentence is quoted by the Babylonian Talmud (b. Shab. 116b) in an Aramaic version (perhaps from the lost Aramaic Gospel) “I proceeded at the end of the Gospel, and it is written in it: not to cancel from the Torah of Moses I have come, nor add to the Torah of Moses I have come.” See Y. Paz, “The Torah of the Gospel: A Rabbinic Polemic against The Syro-Roman Lawbook,” The Harvard Theological Review 112 (2019): 517-540. 29 When it comes to statements attributed to Jesus the concept applies that every stroke of a letter in the Torah is a basis for multiple halakhot. This concept appears mainly in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Eruv. 21b; b. Men. 29b) but it is also implied in the Land of Israel midrashim (Vayikra Rabbah 19:2, p. 419; Shir Hashirim Rabbah 5:1, 11; Midrash Shmuel 5:3, p. 19). The derāshā in Vayikra Rabbah continues by saying that all the nations in the world cannot change the halakha in the “Torah.” In that case, the later midrash follows the metaphor and the order of Matthew (not Luke). In this case, too, the parallel to the New Testament is a relatively late Jewish text (five to six hundred years after Jesus). It is doubtful that Vayikra Rabbah was influenced by Matthew (there is no proof that the sages were familiar with the contents of the Gospels). It is more likely that Matthew’s community (or perhaps Jesus himself) used a 205 observance of the commandments. This contradiction has been discussed extensively in the research and we will return to it below. Likewise, Jesus declared, “Whatever is forbidden on earth will be forbidden in heaven…” (Matt. 15:19). This sentence offers an opening to additional stringencies (severity), beyond the Written Torah, and beyond the existing stringencies of the Oral Law, a kind of authority for possible changes. Such general statements are somewhat suspect. The sages make similar statements, such as. Rabbi Eliezer, about whom it was said, “He said nothing, that he had not heard in all his days” (t. Yevamot 3:1). And yet he certainly created and innovated from his mind despite his espousal of absolute traditionalism. It is, therefore, more important to check the details with which Jesus expressed his opinion. The Gospels include a number of debates in which Jesus attacks the halakha of the Pharisees or the scribes: 1. Healing on Shabbat In his debate over Shabbat, Jesus criticizes several commandments, the most frequent of which involves healing on this holy day.[30] Stories of Jesus’ miracles formulation that was created in the bet midrash already in the first century and was preserved in the midrash. An example of a similar process is found in the series of plant species exempt from tithing (see above, under the subheading “The scribes and Pharisees tithe herbs”). It should be stressed that the halakhic literature contains no halakhot and almost no derāshōt learned from the strokes (thorns of vowels) of the Torah, and the entire derāshā is a myth in terms of real-world praxis. 30 D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Shabbat in the Four Gospels,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical Historical and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 57-97; P. J. Tomson, “Halakha in the New Testament: A Research Overview,” in The 206 are about healing the sick, and it is only natural that at least some of these incidents took place on Shabbat. This motif appears often (as in Luke 13:14; John 7:23). In some cases, modern scholars have proposed a literary analysis based on the claim that the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees was not about desecrating Shabbat, but about the healing itself, about its use as a religious tool, about a suspicion of magic and so on. However, the large number of instances indicates that Jesus believed that healing on Shabbat was permitted, at least in the cases under discussion. At the same time, there is also an indication that the Pharisees and the scribes, and probably the public at large, believed that healing on Shabbat was forbidden. The Synoptic Gospels include one story with three clear parallels, as well as literary echoes, traces of a sort, found mainly in Luke. John has entirely different traditions. In terms of this article, it is important to clarify the nature of the halakhic debate and the arguments of all the parties. According to the story in Matthew, the patient’s hand was paralyzed (literally, his hand was “dried up”); those present asked Jesus whether it was permitted to heal him on Shabbat. They were trying to trip up Jesus. Jesus claimed, “Is there any among you with one sheep that fell into a pit on Shabbat who would not hold him and pull him out? And how much more precious is a person than the sheep?” (Matt. 12:11). His listeners are rendered silent. Nevertheless, the halakhic aspect of Jesus’ argument is far from not simple. The halakha forbids pulling out the animal, and there are New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefey and P. J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-206; L. Doering, “Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefey and P. J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 207-253; and a great deal of additional literature. 207 some who permit helping the animal to get out with a bit of deviousness;[31] certainly, it is permitted to pull it out on a festival in order to slaughter it. According to R. Yehoshua, in this context of the laws of festivals it is permitted to skirt the law, in other words, to pull up the animal for slaughter, and then change one’s mind and refrain from slaughtering it (t. Betzah 3:2). We learn that there were halakhic trends toward leniency in at least two ways, and apparently among the public it was common to help the animal get out and to circumvent the halakha. Jesus bases himself on doubtful self-permitted leniency prevalent in the public.[32] In the sectarian Damascus Covenant it is explicitly forbidden to assist at the birth of an animal (CD 11:13), or to pull out one that falls in the pit (CD 11:16-17). From this latter ban, we can conclude that these sectarians also opposed healing on Shabbat. Lifting out an animal is also forbidden in the book of Jubilees (Jub. 50:12). Jesus, then, had an argument with members of the sect, but the claim that it is customary to pull out an animal from the pit (and it is therefore also permitted to heal) is not directed at members of the sect but at Pharisaic-rabbinic halakha. As for healing on Shabbat, the rabbis permitted desecrating Shabbat in a case of danger to life, but the situation is different for a patient whose condition is stable and there is no fear for his life, such as someone who has been ill for a long time. Ostensibly there is room for stringency here, and perhaps this is the reason for the anger at Jesus. However, as we will see in our interpretation, the commandment on saving a life underwent a change, and in effect, healing was permitted even in 31 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat (2009), 458-459; see m. Shab. 18:2; t. Shab. 14(15):3. 32 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Betzah (2011); m. Bez. 3:5, according to Rambam’s commentary. 208 cases where there was no real danger to life. We can thus assume that the later tannaitic “halakha” would also permit healing in this case.[33] Jesus here represents the more popular behavior. Therefore, all the parts of the story in Matthew sound completely reliable and realistic, although we have no complete parallel for permission to pull out an animal from the pit by hand. This is not to say that the story took place, but that it is a plausible narrative based on the situation in towns in Israel, populated by Jews who were observant, although not always learned. In Mark, the story is less complicated and more stereotypical. The debate is about healing on Shabbat, without any halakhic explanation. However, it is implied there that it is a case of genuinely saving a life. “Is it permitted on Shabbat to improve or worsen, to save a life or to kill?” (Mark 3:2). Implied here is the claim that the healing is considered saving a life, but it is not clear why this case is considered as such. In this case, the halakhic background of the narrative in Mark has already been blurred. The story in Luke is identical to that in Mark (Luke 6:9-11), but in Luke there are another two parallels of the same narrative. One story tells of a sick woman whom Jesus healed by his touch. The head of the synagogue is angry at him and explains that healing is work, and Shabbat is not a day of work (Luke 13:10-17). This interesting reason for the ban against healing on Shabbat does not appear in the sources (below). Jesus claims on the other hand that it is permitted to heal, just as it is permitted to release an ox in order to feed it. The halakha accords with this (m. 33 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Yoma (2010), 298-302; m. Yom. 8:5-7. 209 Shab 24:2-3), as does perhaps the halakha of the Essene sects (CD 11 above). This version of the story in Luke, in this case, is even better than the version in Matthew. In another parallel a different healing is described (Luke 14:1-7), but the same justification for healing is given as in Matthew. Luke’s unique version of the story (feeding an animal) is the simplest, but the version in Matthew and Luke 14:1-7 is also possible and logical. In John there is a different sequence of stories. One story hints at healing on Shabbat, and this time the argument was that healing is permitted on Shabbat because it is akin to performing a circumcision (John 7:22-23). It is true that circumcision is permitted on Shabbat, and is even obligatory, but the comparison between circumcision and healing is problematic. The sages derived permission for circumcision (the obligation) directly from the verse (Gen. 17:12), not as interpretation but as the literal meaning of the verse. The explanation that healing is similar to circumcision is at most popular and intuitive, with no legal halakhic basis. It us hard to imagine a halakhically observant person using this explanation.[34] The second story is about a patient waiting to be healed at the Pool of Bethesda; Jesus heals him and orders him to carry his mat (John 5:2-9). Later the “Jews” attack Jesus “because he did these things on Shabbat.” Ostensibly the criticism is about healing on Shabbat. But a careful perusal indicates that the criticism was probably about Jesus’s order to carry the mat on Shabbat. Although it is unclear whether the patient who was cured carried the mat outside the pool building or 34 But see Peter J. Tomson, “An Alienated Jewish Tradition in John 7:22-23 Proposal for an ‘Epichronic’ Reading,” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 297-314. 210 only inside it, it is about the halakhic issue of carrying, and what in the halakhic literature is called ‫( מוּ ְקצֶה‬mūqtzeh, items that cannot be used or carried even if the work itself is permitted, because the use of the tool on Shabbat was not planned). Apparently, the debate surrounds the question of carrying objects forbidden on Shabbat, without any immediate connection to the problem of healing. The adapters of the story, who were familiar with the narrative of healing on Shabbat, attached the act to the group of stories dealing with healing on Shabbat, but in doing so they diverted the story from its original purpose. We know that the sages were divided on the subject of mūqtzeh and the halakha underwent a series of changes (t. Shab. 14:1). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the transfer tools or furniture on Shabbat. Jesus’ lenient opinion is therefore part of the world of halakha, and like that of Rabban Shimon, and perhaps that of other sages as well. A third story in John is about someone with an eye infection (John 9:1-11). Jesus spat on the ground, prepared mud to heal him, and sent the patient to bathe in the Siloam Pool, a pool that was considered a place of healing. Later the Pharisees criticized the healing. The text says that the incident took place on Shabbat, but Shabbat is secondary and is only mentioned incidentally (John 9:14). The debate there surrounds the healing power of the Galilean leader and the question of Shabbat is marginal, and perhaps was even added to the story later. According to rabbinic halakha it is of course permitted to heal on Shabbat in a case of saving a life. Jesus therefore represents the Pharisaic-rabbinic halakha in the debate with its opponents. However, even in Pharisaic circles some righteous individuals were stringent about healing on Shabbat even in a case of saving a 211 life.[35] A separate question is whether it is permitted to heal a chronic condition, which is not a matter of saving a life, and where there is no urgency to heal it on Shabbat of all times. Jesus’ acts of healing are of this type. This has all been acknowledged and studied in the research. Most scholars stress that rabbinic literature includes no clear ban on healing on Shabbat, and that it is not one of the thirty-nine categories of work forbidden on Shabbat (m. Shab 7:2). According to the Babylonian Talmud the list of thirty-nine categories of forbidden types of work is closed and there are no other types of work forbidden on Shabbat. Types of work that are not on the list were explained specifically in each case. The Jerusalem Talmud does cite some opinions that the list is neither closed nor complete (like all the lists in the Mishna). This opinion has been accepted by scholars and the list is considered a literary list that organized the types of work into groups, but without halakhic significance.[36] The Babylonian Talmud explains the ban against taking medicine (m. Shab. 14:3) as a gezera (decree) because of the fear of the “slippery slope” of “crushing of herbs” (b. Shab 53b).[37] In other words, the act is not forbidden in itself but as an expansion of the Rabbis. This is customary for the Babylonian Talmud, which systematically explains bans as a gezera. In such cases the Jerusalem Talmud usually gives a different explanation that is derived from the prohibition itself, or because it is a “weekday” type of work. For example, the Bavli says that the shofar is not blown on Rosh Hashana as an expansion because it might be carried, and the 35 S. Safrai, “The Pharisees and the Hasidim,” Sidic–Service international de documentations judeo-chretienne X.2 (1977): 12-16. 36 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat I (1999), 267. 37 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat II (1999), 386. 212 Yerushalmi understands that the reason there because it is a type of “work” (‫ְמלָאכָה‬ [melāchāh]) in itself.[38] Thus, while there is no explicit ban against healing on Shabbat in the Tannaitic sources, certain medical procedures are not permitted: a bandage should not be tied because that constitutes tying, which is a forbidden type of work; a bandage should not be spread as this action is related to smoothing, which is also forbidden; blood should not be drawn because it causes injury; a pile of stones should not be moved to free a person trapped underneath because that constitutes the work of building, and so on. The Talmuds explain these halakhot in this way. But between the lines the rabbinic halakha implies that healing is forbidden in itself. For example, eating is permitted on Shabbat, but eating food whose main function is medicinal is forbidden (m. Shab. 14:3). In that case, the work itself is permitted, and is forbidden only when it is done for medicinal purposes. The Yerushalmi explains the reason for the halakha as that it is “weekday work” (‫)עובדן דחול‬. Whatever the case, healing is forbidden—if not as healing per se, then as weekday behavior. The practice of healing attributed to Jesus is unclear. Some of the sources describe a touch of the hand and some describe simple speech, such as “Go!” The touch of a hand may be the ‫( ְסמִיכָה‬semichāh, “ritual laying on of hands”). The sages were divided as to whether one places one’s hand on a sacrifice on Shabbat (m. Hag 2:2).[39] It is doubtful whether placing one’s hand on a person’s head was forbidden 38 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Rosh Hashana (2001), 388-389. Some scholars found it hard to accept that, this unimportant detail could serve as a dispute for generations. Therefore, these scholars have suggested several explanations for the term semichāh, such as that the dispute was about the support (semichāh) of the halakha in the written texts or about the ordination of the sages, and so on. However, the baraitot in the Tosefta and the Talmuds, and the halakhot and the deeds that were cited, attest that semichāh is meant literally: 39 213 on Shabbat; speech that constitutes a magical cure was not forbidden on Shabbat. “You may whisper over a well, and a snake, and a scorpion. But you may not whisper about demons. R. Yose says, even on weekdays you may not whisper about demons” (t. Shab. 7:23). The use of witchcraft was, of course, forbidden, but certainly Jesus’ group did not define his deeds as witchcraft. The sages tried to distinguish between healing and what they described as “the ways of the Amoraites,” or witchcraft, namely, magic (see, e.g., t. Shab. 7:4, m. San. 10:1). The discussion of the issue is lengthy and comprises many sources. In any case, the whispering discussed by the sages means the use of the divine name (as indicated in b. Shevu. 15b). For the sages a simple statement is not forbidden on Shabbat, unless it contains clear “medical” formulas such as the sacred name or the healing name (t. Shab. 7:4). It is interesting that later, the disciples of Jesus heal by using Jesus’s name (y. Shab. 14:4, 14d; Avodah Zarah 2:12, 40d). Visiting the sick and praying for the sick on Shabbat was the subject of a controversy between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel (t. Shabbat 16:22). The difference between prayer and healing through speech is undefined. We may conclude that healing through speech was controversial and Jesus’ opinion is consistent with one of the opinions in the halakhic world of his time. The laying on of hands may have been considered work, but this, too, was controversial. the placing of hands on the sacrifice on the festival. The act of placing hands on the head of the sacrifice, which seemed to the sages to be of secondary importance (in the words of the Mishna “semichāh—is outside the commandment” [‫)]סמיכה—שירי מצוה‬, in other words, a sacrifice may be sacrificed and atone even if hands were not placed on it (m. Men. 9:8). It is also impossible to sever this Mishna from the following Mishna, which specifically discusses the question of whether it is permitted to bring a shelāmim sacrifice on a festival and to place one’s hand on it. In any case, on Shabbat it is forbidden to perform semichāh, since it concerns an animal and semichāh is considered work when it comes to an animal. 214 Therefore, in terms of the rabbinic halakha, in the cases described in the Gospels, in their various versions, Jesus did not do anything forbidden. Jesus, can be viewed as staying within the limits of the Pharisaic halakha, while his opponents represent a more stringent halakha or popular custom. 2. Frequent fast days (Matt. 9:14 ∥ Mark 2:18 ∥ Luke 5:33) Jesus’ disciples are accused of not fasting often. The accusation assumes that observing multiple fast days is a worthy or even compulsory practice. The halakha reduced the fast days to several specific events. Beyond that, some pious or holy people fasted often. Here, too, Jesus’ disciples were therefore expected to behave with greater stringency than the public.[40] Jesus does not object to fasting itself but explains that the time for fasting is only in the absence of the bridegroom (= himself?).[41] The complaints were addressed to the disciples not concerning the leader himself. 3. Plucking or rubbing heads of grain on Shabbat (Matt. 12:1 ∥ Mark 2:23 ∥ Luke 6:1). Jesus’ disciples are accused of plucking gain on Shabbat, and the teacher explains 40 Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Ta‘anit Megilla (Jerusalem, 2010), 18-20. But see R. Steven Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in The Gospels in First Century Judaea. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Nyack College’s Graduate Program in Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, August 29, 2013 ed. R. S. Notley and J. P. García (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 107-121. 41 215 this practice with a series of contradictory arguments: a. The disciples were hungry. b. The disciples behave as if they are in the Temple and in the Temple work is done on Shabbat, too (Matt. 12:5). It is possible that Jesus is claiming that study is like working in the Temple. This idea is known from rabbinic sources (after the destruction of the Temple), but none of the rabbis claims that someone who studies is permitted to desecrate the Shabbat. c. Man is the master of Shabbat. The second explanation (b) appears only in Matthew and the other two arguments appear in all three Gospels. Plucking grain on Shabbat is conduct that contradicts the accepted rabbinic halakha. The Gospels also admit that this is a certain sin. In terms of halakha, separating the plant from the ground is a serious offense, and plucking itself is forbidden, but according to one opinion (attributed to R. Eliezer): “One may remove grain from husks” (t. Shab. 14:16). In that case, someone who began to pluck before Shabbat, is permitted to continue on Shabbat. But this is not the case described in the Gospels. In Luke, according to some manuscripts, the event took place on the “second Shabbat of the Omer.” This is often presumed to be an addition that does not help us understand the incident. It is an incidental mention of time stemming from the fact that the Gospel reflects a community that followed and used the Jewish calendar. However, it is possible that the addition of the word “second Shabbat of the Omer” enables us to interpret the story differently. As we know, “Shabbat” in Hebrew also means “week,” in which case it is possible that the act originally took place on a weekday, after the start of counting the Omer when it is already permissible to eat 216 wheat from the new harvest. Therefore it is possible that initially the tradition described Jesus’ disciples plucking heads of grain in someone else’s field. And in fact, the style of the story in the Gospels hints at a verse in Deuteronomy. The scriptural text demands: “When you enter a fellow [Israelite]’s field of standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain” (Deut. 23:26). According to the text, passersby have the right to eat heads of grain in a field of grain. However, the sages restricted this right to workers only (b. Bava Mez. 87b; Sifrei Deut. § 266; y. Maas. 2:4, 50a). Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy added to the tradition that these are “the words of Akavia ben (son of) Mahalel” (Midrash Tannaim on Deut. 23:26). Akavia ben Mahalel was a Second Temple sage; we can thus assume that this halakha was not established in Babylon but is earlier from the land of Israel. Another tradition in the Bavli adds: “As Rav says: I found a concealed scroll in Rabbi Ḥiyya’s house, and it was written in it: Isi ben Yehuda says: ‘When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard’ (Deut. 23:25), the verse is speaking of the entry of any person who passes alongside a vineyard” (b. Bava Mez 92a). In that case, Jesus’ disciples were behaving both according to scriptural halakha, and according to an opinion attributed to Isi ben Yehuda, when they plucked as many heads of grain as they wanted in a field on their way. Their critics, who were familiar with rabbinic halakha, criticized the disciples’ behavior. We can thus understand why, in Luke’s version, the critics are not “the Pharisees” in general but only one group of the Pharisees. Had it been a question of plucking on Shabbat the criticism of Jesus’ disciples would have been everyone’s opinion. But here only some of the Pharisees criticized the deed because it was allowed by a well-known 217 halakhic opinion. It is clear, however, that the rest of the narrative (in all three Gospels) does not understand that this was the original background of the tradition (the Jewish village in the land of Israel), but understood the tradition as related to the halakhot of Shabbat. Thus, there are two possible explanations of the story. The “traditional” explanation, that Jesus’ disciples did in fact violate the law, has a clear advantage, which stems from its simplicity and especially from the words of explanation attributed to Jesus. The second explanation, which I have set forth here, requires the assumption that already at an early stage of the shared tradition of the three Gospels (one of the Gospels on which the others depended, or already in Q), the disciples’ deed was misunderstood, and was interpreted in the spirit of the Pauline redaction of the acts of Jesus. According to this second explanation, even the editor of Luke (or the Lukan community), who may have preserved a detail from the original story, misunderstood the entire story although he usually knew how to write correctly about halakhic issues. The advantage of the second interpretation is that it allows Jesus and his disciples to conform to known halakha. I prefer the second interpretation (that the act took place midweek), because this explanation accords better with the other stories as presented in the article. 218 4. Handwashing (Matt. 15:3 ∥ Mark 7:7; cf. Luke 11:38[42]). In Luke the criticism is directed against Jesus himself, while in Matthew and Mark there is only criticism of the disciples. The halakhic status of the obligation of handwashing is ambiguous.[43] The sages fought to include it in the halakha, but some opposed it (b. Ber. 19a; y. Moed Kat. 3:1, 81d; m. Zav 5:1; m. Yad. 3:1).[44] The commandment is considered an addition by the sages not derived from the Torah, and it is an exception on the halakhic landscape, because in the halakhot of purity the entire body is considered a single unit (m. Zav. 5:1-11). Anyone who criticized their failure to wash hands assumed that the disciples observed purity, and were not part of the ‘am hā’āretz, but expected that they meticulously observed this halakha, which was recently introduced. The sin was therefore a minor one. Jesus’ harsh reaction, which implies opposition to any commandment 42 Luke 11:38 uses the noun βαπτισµός (baptismos, “immersion”) without explicit mention of handwashing. Immersion before eating the evening meal was the regular halakha among those who ate in purity (mainly priests [m. Ber. 1:1]). This was also the law in the Qumran sect (J.W. 2:129-132). However, I prefer to explain Luke 11:38 in agreement with the parallels in Matthew and Mark. 43 It is possible that handwashing was greatly influenced by Hellenistic table manners, and it appears in Roman writers such as Athenaeus as a nomos (“law”). 44 Z. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Yadaim (digital edition, 2020), 5-46. In terms of halakha, m. Hagigah 2:5 requires handwashing for ordinary food, but according to Mishna Halla (m. Hall. 1:9; m. Bik. 2:1) handwashing is only for the heave offering and for hallah. According to this opinion, handwashing is required only for priests, and not for Jesus’ group. The unique status of handwashing is prominent in the many sayings that stress the prohibition against taking handwashing lightly. Elazar ben Haned (Hanoch) was ostracized because he had doubts about handwashing (y. Moed Kat. 3:1, 81d; b. Ber. 19a). “He who takes handwashing lightly is uprooted from the world” (b. Sota 4b). Another expression regarding doubts about handwashing appears in Tana Debei Eliyahu: “From here they said, anyone who takes handwashing lightly has a bad sign, about whom it is said: ‘And it happened when he heard these things,’ etc. ‘God will not want to forgive him,’ etc. (Deut. 29:18, 19), so we have learned that anyone who rejects handwashing has a bad sign” (Tana Debei Eliyahu 16, p. 72). There is debate regarding the date of this source. 219 of purity, and its replacement by spiritual purity, is therefore disproportionate. This reaction is missing in Luke. I suggest that this argument is a literary development peculiar to the redactors of Matthew and Mark. In their eyes, too, it was a bit of rhetorical exaggeration. We will return to this below. While we are discussing handwashing, we should mention the question of the Gospels’ attitude toward the purity commandments. Opinions in the research literature differ greatly, beginning with those who see Jesus as a person who strictly observes the laws of purity, to those who claim that Jesus was indifferent to these commandments.[45] In my opinion, the affair of the tax collector that was discussed above can be explained without any relation to purity. But the discussion of handwashing indicates that Jesus was not suspected of failing to observe purity, on the contrary, it is evidence that the debate was over a secondary detail in the corpus of purity commandments: a controversial detail that had only been legislated during the first century. If the debate was over this detail, this is proof that the body of the purity commandments was considered binding by the opponents cited in the early Gospel tradition. This argument is reinforced by the story in John about the stone vessels (John 2:6) that was discussed above.[46] There, too, the community in which Jesus and his mother attended the wedding was considered to have been meticulously observant of purity at a level beyond the 45 The literature on this subject is endless: see T. Holmén, “Jesus and the Purity Paradigm,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. T. Holmén (Leiden: Brill, 2011): 2709-2744; C. Wassen, “The Jewishness of Jesus and Ritual Purity,” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 27 (2016): 11-36. T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakha; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality; B. Chilton et al., Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity and Restoration (Brill: Leiden, 1997); R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, JSNTS 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986). 46 See above, beneath the subheading “Stone Vessels.” 220 norm required by halakha, and beyond what was customary in the Galilee in general. This last detail has not received attention in the research and has been proven above. In the context of handwashing, the basic argument is that “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person” (Matt. 15:11; 15:20 ∥ Mark 7:15). In Kister’s opinion, this argument is also an internal halakhic one,[47] since non-kosher food really does not cause impurity beyond the impurity of that person who ate the nonkosher food (Sifra, Aḥarei Mot 12:3). In my opinion, on this point Kister’s argument is incomplete. Although non-kosher food does not cause impurity, impure food defiles a person with the impurity of food (m. Tahar. 2:2; m. Zav. 5:9; 5:12). “The impurity of food” (‫[ טוּמְאַת אוֹ ָכלִין‬ṭūm’at ’ōchalin]) is a central halakhic concept. Although the term is not specifically stated in the Torah, the whole chapter in tractate Toharot is devoted to this concept. Another halachic rule is that food swallowed (in the human body) does not defile (‫)הבלוע אינו מטמא‬, that is, it does not cause impurity beyond the person or animal that swallowed the food (m. Oha. 3:2; t. Oha. 12:3). There are some exemptions to this rule (m. Oha. 11:7). So, it is possible that there was halachic internal debate in the early halacha on this issue as well. However, the Gospels are talking about a ritually pure person who did not wash his hands and touched food that was previously pure. According to the halakha the food that the person (who did not wash his hands) touched at most has a second 47 M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 145-154. See also, Y. Furstenberg, “Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination in Mark 7.15,” NTS 54 (2008): 176-200. 221 degree of impurity (m. Yad. 3:1-2)[48] and food that is of secondary impurity does not defile the person and he does not contract third-degree impurity (m. Toh. 2:2). This subject is also disputed, and some believe that one who eats food that is of secondary impurity does contract secondary impurity. But even so, a person who is impure with secondary impurity does not contaminate, so that one who eats without washing his hands cannot contaminate ordinary food; at most, he defiles the heave offering, which has special laws. Therefore Jesus’ “ethical” formulation can also be interpreted on the halakhic-technical level. However, it is clear that later on the intention of the Gospel writers was to ascribe the greatest weight to the ethical dimension, which we will also discuss below. 5. An oath to prevent one’s father from benefiting (Matt. 15:4–6 ∥ Mark 7:11).[49] In the opinion of the sages, honoring one’s father is a commandment and someone who vows to violate the commandment must carry out his vow (m. Ned. 2:2; m. Shevu. 6:3). On this matter, too, there are differing opinions in the rabbinic literature,[50] and some believed as in the halakha attributed to Jesus, that he must 48 According to Mishna Toharot, food that has second-degree impurity defiles the hands, “If they were then separated [the body no longer touches impurity] they are still regarded as having second-degree impurity. If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all have third-degree impurity” (m. Toh. 1:7). This is a more lenient position, where someone who touches impure food becomes impure himself but does not defile food or utensils he then touches. 49 Samuel A. Olarewaju, Oath-taking in the New Testament (Deerfield Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995); Scott Hahn, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: some current research (1994-2004),” Currents in Biblical Research 3(2) (2005): 263-292. 50 Sifre to Numbers, Paragraph 153. The verse speaks of vows. See Z. Safrai and Ch Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim (Alon Shvut: Tvunot Press, 2019), 105. In the sectarian CD 222 violate this vow, while others maintained that one must carry out one’s vow. In that case, the Gospels are discussing an internal Pharisaic debate, as to whether the vow overrides a commandment. Jesus adopts the former opinion. Matthew (Matt. 15:5) and Mark (7:11) mention the term “korban”[51] as a formula for a vow. Mark explained it for the non-Hebrew readers as κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστι δῶρον (korban ho esti dōron, “korban, which is a gift”). In doing so, the Gospels expressed the concept that in order for the vow to take effect, a certain “code word” must be said. This is also the principle found in the Mishnah (m. Ned. 1:1). Matthew also mentions some other “code words” (Matt. 23:18-19). The terms “Temple” and “altar” are not valid, while “sacrifice” and “the Temple’s gold” are valid. This means that both Mark and Matthew share the view of the Mishna that there were binding “code words” without which the vow is void. The continuation of the formula in the Gospels is “… be profited by me” (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11), which is a good translation of another popular formula in the Mishna: ‫“( קונם! אתה נהנה לי‬Vow! You won’t benefit from me”; m. Ned 8:7).[52] However, Matthew also admits that it was necessary to declare the vow by means of a code word. According to the Mishna (m. Ned 1:3) a vow with the formula “Temple” is a valid vow, but a vow by “the gold of the Temple” is not mentioned in rabbinic sources. But according to the general rules of the Mishna this formula should be valid like column 16 the halakha is like the opponents of Jesus. 51 The term “korban” in Matt. 15:5 is missing in some of the manuscripts. 52 See also. m. Bab. Kam 9:10 and parallels. “Konam” is one of the “code words” for a vow, see m. Ned 1:1. Another translation is “whatever benefit you might derive from me.” In the Syrian translation the same words as in the Hebrew text of the Mishna: ‫קורבני מדם דתההנה מני‬. 223 the “Temple itself” (m.Ned 1:3).[53] There were scholars who believed that this was an allusion to the story narrated in the Tosefta (t. Men. 13:18).[54] A vow at the altar is valid as Jesus demands (Jesus’ position accords with that of the sages). In the Mishna (m. Ned 1:3) a vow using the code word ‫( ק ְָר ָבּן‬qorbān, “sacrifice”) is valid, according to most sources, although Rabbi Yehuda disputes this.[55] Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is an exception in the world of sources, both in the non-rabbinic and the rabbinic testimonies. Four inscriptions were also discovered on which the word “sacrifice” was inscribed. The function of the word was to state that the use of the sarcophagus upon which the inscription appeared is forbidden as a vow, which means that the formula “korban” was acceptable as a vow. However, these inscriptions also allow for another interpretation, and this is not the place to expand on that. Returning to the vow against the father, such a case is explicitly discussed in another Mishna (m. Ned. 5:6). The Mishna states that the son sought a way to circumvent the vow. It means that from the legal point of view the vow was still valid, or at least there was a (slightly mystical) fear of circumventing it. Honoring a father is clearly preferable to the vow (m. Ned. 9:1) and it is a perfect reason to avoid the vow. But the vow is not automatically canceled—a legal-halakhic procedure was required, a public ritual ceremony, known in Hebrew as ‫בִּיטּוּל ַהנֶּדֶ ר‬ (biṭūl haneder, “nullifying the vow”) before a court. The procedure is, to some extent, a symbolic and ritual procedure that emphasizes the role of the sages. Such 53 The example of the Mishna is the tools of the altar. Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim, 78. 55 Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim, 87. 54 224 a procedure is not mentioned in Scripture, and is even ruled out (or opposed);[56] it is a legal innovation. However, it already appears in sources from the end of the Second Temple period and the Yavneh generation.[57] Four conclusions may be drawn from these texts on vows and oath taking: 1 The two Gospels (Matthew and Mark) deal with the topics and terms that were also subjects discussed in the tannaitic bet midrash. It is no coincidence and indicates literary connections between the corpus of rabbinic literature and the corpus of the Christian tradition. 2 There are few differences between the laws of the two corpora and rabbinic literature. Sometimes Matthew and Mark took one side of the halakhic dispute, and there is one detail (a vow by the gold of the Temple) that is not mentioned in the rabbinic corpus. 3 The discussion in the Gospels is not legal in nature, it is about the honoring one’s father versus the power of the vow, while in the Mishnah it is a legal context about the power of the vow versus other commandments. Jesus (or the Gospel editors) was pleased to deal with this extreme case that demonstrates the ethical injustices in the legal concept. We will deal with this aspect in the fourth section of this article. However, we have also seen that the rabbis also discussed this extreme case, of a clash between two commandments: honoring one’s father versus a vow. 4 In the end, the sages chose a path of compromise that allows the annulment of the vow after a legal-ritual process. 56 57 Jud. 11:31, but see also 1 Kgs. 14:45. Philo, Hypothetica 7:3; Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 40:4. 225 6. Prayer (Matt. 6:6; 23:5-7;[58] Luke 20:47) Jesus criticizes those who expand in prayer and boast in the commandments to others (Matt. 23:5-7; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:47). The sages also advised against lengthening prayers[59] and they likely also opposed boasting in the commandments to others. This is a critique of boasting in pious deeds, and maybe also of the practices of piety themselves, but not a halakhic polemic. 7. No obligation to pay the half shekel (Matt. 17:24-27). This is not a general leniency, but rather a demand for special treatment. The priests also demanded such treatment. The Pharisees opposed it (m. Shek 1:4).[60] It seems this was a Sadducee-Pharisee dispute that became an internal rabbinic debate after the destruction. According to Matthew, Jesus quietly sought the priestly privilege but did not insist on it in public. 58 Matt. 23:5 speaks about phylacteries (tefillin in Hebrew) and not about prayer (tefilla in Hebrew). 59 As for opposition to straying from the sanctified formula of the prayer (not lengthening it and, of course, not shortening it) see m. Ber. 1:4; m. Ber. 33b; m. Meg. 25a. I have demonstrated elsewhere that in the Second Temple period and the era of the ancient tannaim, the sages were not especially keen on public prayer, but believed it was a commandment individuals should fulfill at home or at work without ceremony or external emphasis. See M. Aviam and Z. Safrai, “Private Synagogues: What They Were Used For?” JAAJ 5 (2023): 97-126. 60 This is how the Mishna should be understood. See Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shekalim (2009), 60-62. 226 8. Prohibition of divorce (Matt. 19:3–10 ∥ Mark 10: 2-12; cf. Luke 16:18). We summarized our opinion above. As scholars have recognized, Jesus took the stance of Bet Shammai on this issue.[61] However, the statement that one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 19:9 ∥ Mark 10:12 ∥ Luke 16:18), goes too far (halakhically speaking), and the Gospels diverge from rabbinic halakha on this point. But we should see Jesus’ opinion as no more than an extreme expression of the prohibition. Technically, if divorce is forbidden, marrying a divorcée would be adultery. There is no such conclusion in rabbinic literature, and it is contrary to the gist of the discussion in other disputes (t. Yev 1:13), but it makes sense, in principle. 9. An oath by the Temple is binding (Matt. 23:16-22). This halakhic dispute has already been discussed above in connection with the vow to prevent one’s father from benefiting (no. 5). The opinion attributed to Jesus also appears in the Mishna as a rabbinic position (m. Ned 3:1). 61 As on all of these topics, scholarship abounds on the issue of divorce, and articles summarizing the history of scholarship have also been published. See P. J. Tomson, “Divorce Halakha in Paul and in the Jesus Tradition,” in R. Bieringer et al., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 289-332; L. Döring, “Marriage and Creation in Mark 10 and CD 4-5,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García M. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 133-163. 227 10. Purifying the outside of a cup or bowl (Matt. 23:25 ∥ Luke 11:39; cf. Mark 7:4).[62] This polemic appears in the context of Jesus’ woes against the Pharisees. This seems to be a harsh attack on all purity laws, in complete contrast to the Gospels’ general stance according to which the members of the group maintain purity laws to a higher standard than the public (see above).[63] In this article we will not deal with Jesus’ answer but with his claim. I think this halakha (or implied claim) has not been properly understood by the transmitters of the tradition. A regular bowl or cup was of pottery. According to halakha pottery vessels cannot be purified (Lev. 15:12), so that if they are defiled, they cannot be purified. Thus, the accepted interpretation that the verse speaks of ordinary purity is unfounded, despite Matthew’s use of the verb καθαρίζειν (katharizein, “to purify”) and its translation into Syriac as ‫מדכי‬, which means “to be purified.”[64] Mark 7:4 uses the verb βαπτίζειν (baptizein, “immerse”) and the noun βαπτισµός (baptismos, “immersion”) which clearly refers to washing. The Syriac translation used the verb ‫עמד‬, which also means to purify.[65] I suggest that the oral traditions of Jesus’ stories were first transmitted in Hebrew, and in that period Hebrew had no special verb for “immersion.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls (as in the Hebrew Scriptures) the terms for immersion were ‫( ָרחַץ‬rāḥatz, “wash”) or ‫ָטבַל‬ 62 For the textual problems see below. Mark 7:4 refers to the washing of vessels, but it is an explanatory comment of the author of Mark, not a polemic in the mouth of Jesus. 63 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality. For the opposite opinion, see, for example, Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakha. 64 But in modern literature there are other explanations for this verb. 65 See for example the Syriac translation to Luke 11:38. Mark adds that the vessels are copper vessels. So it is possible that Mark the understood the halakhic problem of the tradition, and “adapted” it to the halakha he knew. 228 (ṭāval, “immerse”), and there was no distinction between the two (for instance, 4Q274). We cannot surmise from this lack of distinction that the Qumran sectarians did not know of immersion in a mikveh. On the contrary, mikvaot have been found at Qumran, but at the time the terminology for halakhic immersion had not yet been fixed. The Septuagint also does not have precise terminology to distinguish between regular washing and ritual immersion.[66] The translators used three verbs—λούειν (louein, “to bathe,” “to wash”), νίπτειν (niptein, “to cleanse,” “to wash”), πλύνειν (plūnein, “to cleanse,” “to wash”), and compounds thereof—to translate ‫רחַץ‬,ָ and it seems they made no distinction between immersion and washing. It follows that the Greek translation reflects a culture where there was no defined structure in which a purification ceremony took place. For the Septuagint[67] washing and immersion were one and the same. This is also the situation in the Hebrew Scripture itself, where the term ‫ ָרחַץ‬appears far more frequently than ‫ ָטבַל‬. It was the rabbis who distinguished between ‫רחַץ‬,ָ which is just washing, and ‫ ָטבַל‬, which is proper immersion in a mikveh. At the same time the verb ‫ ָרחַץ‬was used both for ritual immersion for the purpose purification and also for regular washing or rinsing without immersion. If so, καθαρίζειν, in the Gospel text, or in the original context, refers to washing the pottery vessels, but this is not normal purification but another custom. It seems that there was a Jewish custom of symbolic purification by washing ceramic vessels in regular water before eating. Evidence for this practice comes 66 Zeev Safrai, “The Rise and Fall of ‘Purity Culture’ in the Land of Israel: A Historic Perspective” Atiqot 113 (2023): 150-152. 67 See also Luke 11:38. 229 only from a much later period, from the eleventh century and onward. The custom was preserved in the halakhic literature and in manuscripts of siddurim (prayer books) for the introduction to the Passover seder. In these manuscripts the Haggadah starts with the announcement ‫אתינן מפירקא ושטפינן כוסא‬, that is, “We came from prayer and are washing the cup.” In this case the late attestation allows us to understand statements in the Talmuds that require that a wine cup for a blessing be washed (b. Ber. 51a; y. Ber 7:5 11a; Pesikta Rabati 9). In this case, too, we have later evidence that preserves an earlier custom that was not mentioned in the tannaitic literature, a phenomenon we discussed above.[68] Thus by criticizing the washing of the outside of cups and bowls Jesus was thus not attacking purity laws in general, but a custom that ceramic vessels could be purified by regular washing, which has no halakhic basis, and that is even contrary to halakha. 11. Building tombs for prophets (Matt. 23:29 ∥ Luke 11:47). Rabbinic literature contains two approaches to the practice of venerating burial sites. Most sources distance themselves from the culture of revering holy places (apart from the Temple) such as the tombs of the righteous. There is no command to make pilgrimage to holy graves, and there are no special laws for such sites.[69] On the other hand, Jesus’ accusation, which is directed against active popular holy 68 See above, under the subheading “Early Halakha and Current Halakha.” The only law in relation to such holy sites is a special blessing for one who sees a place where miracles have been done (m. Ber. 9:1). However, these are not holy places but part of a list that includes all kinds of special places and unusual natural phenomenon The list in the Mishna does not show any relation to the list of holy places (Rachel’s tomb, the tombs of the patriarchs, etc.) that were active at that time. Z. Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 305-410, for m. Ber. see 407-410. 69 230 sites, such as the graves of the ancestors in Hebron, Mamre, Beit El, Rachel’s tomb, etc., reflects the reality.[70] At the popular level of Jewish society such holy places were a common phenomenon. Some of the Jewish sources reflects this. As I have demonstrated elsewhere,[71] the custom of rituals at holy places appears only in aggadic literature and especially its folkloric layers. The custom was widespread in Jewish society, despite the misgivings of halakhists. Jesus joins the purist “halakhic” position and opposes the popular practice. 12. The Pharisees “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). From the second part of the sentence, it is clear that “strain out a gnat” is a metaphorical expression for dealing with minutiae at the expense of essential issues. The statement does not oppose straining wine for gnats but determines that it is a trivial topic. While the example is sarcastic it has a halakhic background. It seems that there was such a custom to strain wine of small gnats that got into it. The sages opposed the practice and regarded it as tantamount to idol worship. “If one consumes a gnat within wine or vinegar, behold, this is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says, those who filter wine or vinegar,[72] and those who make a blessing over the sun, behold, these are foreign practices” (t. Ter. 7:11). “Foreign practices” refers to heresy, and the argument is against over stringency. Jesus’ statement is aimed against the “Pharisees,” but the argument accords with rabbinic halakha. Here, too, as in the previous halakha, the “Pharisees” described in the Gospels 70 Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land, 373-409. Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land, 305-410. 72 So, it should be corrected, as Lieberman does in his interpretation of the Tosefta. 71 231 reflect a popular practice that the sages opposed. 13. The scribes and Pharisees tithe herbs (Matt. 23:23 ∥ Luke 11:42). There are slight variants in the names of the plants. Matthew lists three herbs, and Luke has a different list: Matt. 23:23 Identification Greek menta ἡδύοσµον (“mint”) anethum Luke 11:42 Syriac Identification Greek ‫ נגעה‬menta ἡδύοσµον Syriac ‫נגעא‬ (“mint”) ἄνηθον ‫ שבתא‬ruta (“rue”) πήγανον ‫פגנא‬ κύµινον ‫( כמונא‬h)olus λάχανον ‫ירקא‬ (“dill”) cyminum (“cumin”) (“other vegetables”) The two traditions have the first herb in common (and it seems the second herb was similar too), as well as a list of three herbs. The two lists therefore derive from a common source, (according to “Q” hypothesis), or one of the Gospels could have been the source for the second. Luke’s noun λάχανον (lachanon) is a general term for all the vegetables. After the various herbs are named, there is no point for a general term for all the vegetables, if all herbs are included why list specific ones? And if the Pharisees tithed all vegetables, what is so special about the individual 232 herbs listed and why were less valuable herbs named? To most scholars it seems that Luke did not understand the halakhic detail,[73] or that it was not important to his audience. However, as we will see below, Luke’s testimony appears to be more reliable on this point than Matthew’s. The Syriac translation translates the third species in Luke’s list as “vegetables” in general; and as will be explained below it refers to “wild” vegetables. The accepted modern translations are “cabbage,” or the general name “spice,” but these are mistakes of modern translators, since spices and cabbage must be tithed according to the halacha.[74] Fruits are required to be tithed. As we know, the ‘amē hā’āretz were accused not only of neglecting purity but also of refraining from tithes. Jesus’ critique is not meant to support the ‘amē hā’āretz. On the contrary, Jesus does not condemn tithing in general, but only tithing kitchen herbs. These plants were not cultivated as food, so according to rabbinic halakha they were exempt from tithing. “Rue (‫[ פֵּיגָם‬pēgām]) and goosefoot (‫[ י ְַרבּוּזִין‬yarbūzin]) are exempt from tithes. And they may be purchased from anyone during the sabbatical year” (t. Sheb. 14:1).[75] Dill (‫שׁבֶת‬ ֶ [shevet]) is tithed, but not all parts of the plant. The Babylonian Talmud determines that there are two kinds of dill: one is an agricultural product sold at the market, and the other is not sold and cannot be purchased with second tithe funds (b. Nid. 51a). Dill thus has in-between status, similar to rue, since according to the 73 See D. Correns, “Die Verzehntung der Raute: Luk xi 42 und M Schebi ix 1” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963) 110-112. 74 t. Dem. 4:31; m. Shev. 9: t. Ter. 4:5. 75 That is, the commandment of the sabbatical year does not apply to them. See m. Maas. 4:5; t. Shev. 2:7. 233 halakha there is no need to tithe it, or at least not all of its parts. In contrast, cumin (κύµινον [kūminon]), which is mentioned only in Matthew, is undoubtedly required to be tithed (m. Dem. 2:1; m. Ter 10:4; y. Dem. 2:1 22a) and was apparently expensive and important. Some cumin on the market was exported (m. Dem. 2:1; Ter. 10:4); thus, cumin does not belong to this list and it is an exception. In this case, Matthew’s version is unreliable in terms of halakhic content. According to this interpretation, Jesus opposed tithes from wild vegetables growing in the field. All this is in accordance with rabbinical law, and in contrast to the strict popular custom. A similar aggravation is attributed to Esau, Jacob’s brother, who, according to the midrash, asked whether he had to give a tenth of salt (and water) in order to deceive his father Isaac.[76] It seems that the key to understanding this passage is to be found in another source. Mishna Uktzin states, “The roots of the mint (‫)מינתא‬,[77] rue (‫)פיגמא‬, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere…all these things contract and convey impurity and are included” (m. Uktz. 1:2). A similar list appears in the Tosefta related to another matter: “Bundles of hyssop, savory, or thyme that one collects as wood, one may not eat on Shabbat…and mint and rue, as well as the rest of the herbs” (t. Shabbat 14:11). The list in the Tosefta is similar 76 Addition 1 to Pesikta de rav Kahana (ed. B. Mandelbaum; New York, 1962), 447; Tanchuma Toldot 8. 77 Several good textual witnesses (such as MS Löv) and the print edition have ‫מיתנא‬. This is a phonetic variant and it is the original formulation (the phonetic variant) ‫ ניניא—נענה‬in the Bavli below. The variants thus preserve a different pronunciation tradition and are not just copyist errors. This phenomenon recurs in several of the versions we view today as copyist variants, and should be examined in itself. This topic is important to understanding the phenomenon of variants. Certainly, the variants were due to copyists, but sometimes the versions are not a mistake but express local “original” variants. The topic requires a broad investigation, and this is not the place for it. 234 to that in Mishna Uktzin and the list in Luke in that it mentions mint, rue, and garden herbs in general. The Bavli (b. Shab. 128a), which quotes this baraita, adds Aramaic translations to the list: Name in the Mishnah Name in Aramaic Modern English translation translation amita ma’ana (ninyah) mint seah zitrrei savory ezov avratah hyssop dornit kornitat or chashei thyme It is important to note that the Babylonian Talmud had an edited list that included savory, hyssop, and thyme together with amita (mint). It may be that the source listed kitchen herbs. In this case, the Babylonian sages knew the translated list and discussed it, perhaps not in accordance with the Mishna itself. Another possibility is that the list is related to the Tosefta, where all these herbs are listed. If so, this is a singular instance of a translation to Aramaic of a list of words from the Tosefta. The literary connection between the list in Luke and the list in the Mishna and Talmud is clear. From the Bavli we learn that the original list included other kitchen herbs (savory, hyssop, etc.) that are not in Mishna Uktzin. That is, it was a list of kitchen herbs composed and redacted independently and the Mishna cites part of it. Tosefta Shabbat cites another part of it, regarding another matter touching on Sabbath laws, and the Bavli quotes and interprets a larger section of it. Jesus cites a part of the list similar to the Mishna, but in a third context. Luke’s list 235 is identical to the combination in the Mishna, but Luke just has “herbs” instead of “field herbs.” “Field herbs” are wild herbs that are not sown and cultivated. Ordinary herbs must be tithed but field herbs are exempt because they do not belong to anyone, and usually have no real monetary value, and in halakhic terms are not “looked after” (m. Ma’as. 1:1). Luke’s editor (later or earlier) thus knew a list similar to the list known by the editor of the Mishnah, but without knowing the halakhic background he shortened the long term (i.e., “wild herbs” became “herbs”).[78] Others who used the list also changed its details according to the purpose for which they quoted the list. Matthew’s editor had difficulty summarizing the list. He understood that the general term “vegetables” could not be components of the list, and so he emended it to “cumin.” While cumin is a spice, the emendation does not suit the halakha since cumin must be tithed entirely. The emendation lessened the sting of Jesus’ remark.[79] We see that the two lists in the different Gospels derive from an ancient and exact list, and both slightly and independently changed it. Luke’s redactor still expresses the ancient halakha, but Matthew’s redactor no longer understood the full halakhic background. This polemical detail in Jesus’ remark uses a literary list of kitchen herbs that was known as a literary unit by rabbinic literature for several halakhot and was preserved until the redaction of the Mishna three hundred years later. The list was 78 For a full explanation see Z. Safrai and M. Vanderhorst, “Tithes in the New Testament,” in The Paths of Daniel: Studies in Judaism and Jewish Culture in Honor of Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber, ed. A. S. Ferzinger and D. Sperber (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2017), 213-226 (Heb.). 79 We explain the development according to the halakha known from rabbinic sources, since the rest of the details suit the halakha and create an internally consistent argument. However, one could still claim regarding this component of the argument that Matthew did not know the halakha and did not intend to refer to it. 236 utilized several times by the redactor(s) of the Mishna, for different purposes. Considering the literary similarity in this literary-agricultural detail, we hardly see a disconnect between the Gospels and rabbinic literature, nor do we feel the gap of time between the sources. In its original form the list was taken from the world of the bet midrash, since it reflects kitchen herbs that are exempt from tithes or shevi‘it by rabbinic halakha. Jesus argues for the rabbinic position and polemicizes against the “Pharisees” who are stringent in their practice but who reject rabbinic halakha. 14. Violating the prohibition on eating with a tax collector (Matt. 9:11 ∥ Mark 2:16 ∥ Luke 5:30; 15:2). According to Matthew the tax collector is named Matthew (Matt. 9:9), while according to Luke his name is Levi (Luke 5:27), and Mark notes his full name: Levi ben Halfi (Mark 2:14). The story does not specify whether the problem was that the tax collector was impure, or that he was not eating in a state of purity, or that he failed to tithe. A halakhic expert would automatically explain that the motive for refraining from eating with the tax collector is that the ‫( ַגּבָּיי‬gabāy, a type of tax collector) cannot be a ḥāvēr or be considered trustworthy in tithing (m. Demai 2:3; t. Demai 3:4). But the incident can also be understood as a moral rejection of the tax collector as someone who cooperates with the government, or because he is probably close to Hellenistic culture, or is robbing the populace.[80] 80 H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chap. 13. 237 Regarding the halakhic aspect: on the one hand the ḥāvēr (one who is meticulous about purity and tithing) is specifically ordered not to share his meal with an ‘am hā’āretz (m. Demai 2:2-3).[81] However, already in tractate Demai the prohibition is controversial, and R. Yehuda differs, claiming that there were many people who observed ritual purity and tithing but who were not strict about refraining from eating with an ‘am hā’āretz suspected of not observing these commandments: “Householders did not refraining eating at each other’s houses” (t. Demai 2:2; see also the examples in m. Demai 4:2; 7:1; and many other sources). In that case, according to the stories in the Gospels, the onlookers[82] expected Jesus and the members of his group to behave like ḥavērim, members of the religious elite, and Jesus and his group did in fact behave like many ḥavērim who were not meticulous about this issue. It should be noted that despite the words of the sages who condemn the tax collector as an ‘am hā’āretz and as a criminal, and although the New Testament also assumes that in society the tax collector is treated as inferior, in fact, the tax collector was a respected figure in the real Jewish society, a leader of the local community. Examples are Yohanan the tax collector, who is mentioned by Josephus as one of the respected leaders of the community of Caesarea (J.W. 2:287), or Bar Ma‘ayan, a tax collector mentioned in rabbinic literature (y. San. 81 The literature on this is rich and abundant, and contains many disputes, but this point is universally agreed upon, at least when it comes to the Second Temple period. For the latest book on the topic see Y. Furstenberg, Purity and Community in Antiquity: Traditions of the Law from Second Temple Judaism to the Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2016) (Heb.). (The English revision is under contract with Indiana University Press [Olamot series].) See also A. Oppenheimer, The ‘Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden: Brill, 1977). 82 Matt 9:9 identifies the onlookers as “the Pharisees”; Mark 2:15 identifies them as “the scribes of the Pharisees”; in Luke 5:30 they are identified as “the Pharisees and their scribes.” 238 6:6, 21c; y. Hag. 2:2). The sages describe this tax collector as an undignified criminal, but among the public he was a respected figure. In the real Jewish society, he was a leader of the local community. In this case, the “real” social order represented by the religious literature retreats in the face of social reality. Therefore, we can assume that regarding tax collectors at least the redactor of the Gospel account reflects the sages’ world view on Jewish society, and not the real social world of first-century Galilee. Rabbinic literature reflects that despite halakhot involving social distance and separation, there was indeed social contact and daily interaction between the ‘amē hā’āretz (who were the majority of the population)[83] and the ḥavērim, who were a kind of religious elite. This story in the New Testament shows how Jesus and his disciples were expected to behave as regular elites, but the group, with Jesus’ leadership, broke social stigmas. We should note that visiting the ‘amē hā’āretz causes slight impurity (usually not more than secondary impurity, and there were even solutions to eating untithed produce at the home of an ‘am hā’āretz; m.Dem.4:2). The Yerushalmi moderates this permission, but it is doubtful if this reflects the practice of the tannaim and the Second Temple period. In rabbinic literature, there is very little reflection on this issue (m. Kelim 5:8). But there is little doubt that in the Jewish community of the period, the concept of the impurity of the ‘am hā’āretz was familiar, as was identifying the tax collector with the typical ‘am hā’āretz (m. Toharot 7:6 t. Demai 3:4). It is therefore natural to explain that the Jewish community (aside from Jesus’ group) believed that it was improper 83 The evidence for this assertion is that ordinary fruit found in the market is consider untithed, hence the ‘amē hā’āretz were considered the majority of the population. The majority of the population cannot be condemned and excluded, as this is an impossible social situation. 239 to dine with tax collectors for the halakhic reason that an ‘am hā’āretz was impure, and the public expected the members of Jesus’ group to observe the laws of ritual purity not only as simple ḥavērim, but as ḥavērim who were meticulous about the laws of purity. 15. Opposition to commerce at the Temple (Matt. 21:12-13 ∥ Mark 11:15-17 ∥ Luke 19: 45-46 ∥ John 2:14-16). The sages also forbade commerce on the Temple Mount and even forbade bringing in coins and the possibility of commerce (t. Ber. 6:19). How did this prohibition impact the existence of markets on the Temple Mount? This is a question in itself. We know that markets were built on the Temple Mount, and it could be that the sages (and Jesus) distinguished between different parts of the Temple Mount.[84] In any case, this is not a polemic against rabbinic halakha but in favor of it. The prohibition is somewhat utopian; there were charity collections at the Temple (according to rabbinic sources, and Judas Iscariot even contributed to one such collection). In any case, this is a proclivity known from rabbinic literature. 84 The physical area of the Temple Mount today is approximately 800×300 meters, but the Mishna claims it is a square with dimensions of 500×500 cubits (approximately 300×300 meters; m. Mid. 2:1). These dimensions were influenced by the utopian description of the Temple by the prophet Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezek. 42:17). There is a difference between the religious domain known as the Temple Mount, and the actual area of the “Temple Mount.” It is possible that this distinction is also an historical distinction in terms of different stages of the development of the Temple Mount and its activity. Trading was prohibited on the “religious” Temple Mount, but commercial buildings are allowed on its outskirts, outside the religious area. Indeed, we know that commercial buildings were built along the perimeter of the Temple Mount. 240 16. Pick up your mat (John 5:8). As noted above, it is not permitted to carry a mat on the Sabbath, but the debate in John is not really about carrying but about healing on the Sabbath. Out of the sixteen topics discussed above, seven or eight are found in all three Synoptic Gospels (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15). Some of the topics are largely secondary details of another dispute, such as the plucking grain (no. 3), which is a detail regarding the halakhot of healing on Shabbat. The purification of a cup and bowl (no. 10) is part of the discussion of handwashing. In Mark it is only an incidental detail mentioned by the narrator. In Matthew and Luke, the washing of vessels belongs to the Woes Against the Pharisees (Matt. 23 ∥ Luke 11). Matthew has a total of fifteen halakhic debates (all but no. 16), one of which Matthew shares with Mark but not Luke (nos. 5), three of which Matthew shares with Luke but not Mark (nos. 10, 11, 13), and three of which are unique to Matthew (nos. 7, 9, 12). Luke has a total of nine or ten debates (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15), three of which Luke shares with Matthew but not Mark (nos. 10, 11, 13). Mark has a total of nine debates (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15). There are three halakhic debates in John’s Gospel (nos. 1, 15, 16), only one of which is unique to John (no. 16). Section 3: The Literary Structure of the Halakhic Dialogues Fifteen of these sixteen halakhic dialogues (nos. 1-15) have a common literary structure, although not all the components of the structure were preserved in each 241 instance. As we know, some topics are grouped in one long dialogue (Matt. 15 and its parallels, Matt. 23 and its parallels), but each halakhic topic has its own literary kernel. Kister noted that after the halakhic description the dialogue moves to an ethical component.[85] However, it seems that the common denominator is even broader. The dialogue’s structure includes 1) a deed done by Jesus or his disciples, 2) an attack by the “others” (scribes, Pharisees, or Sadducees) who regard the deed as a transgression of a specific halakhic detail, and 3) Jesus’ response, which is composed of a comparison to other cases. This debate technique appears in halakhic debates, where the analogy is worded legally. For instance, this technique occurs in the famous discussion in tractate Yadayim on whether the law on a certain matter applies to the regions of Ammon and Moab as it does in Egypt or in Babylonia (m. Yad. 4:4). Another example is the case of a grain storehouse that was exempt (from tithes) and was then prohibited: what is the status of activities it was used for in the past (m. Ter. 8:1)? The two opinions in the dialogue focused on the same style of argument based on analogy. Is the situation similar to that of a priest who found out, in the course of his work at the Temple, that he is the son of a divorcée, whose work is acceptable? Or is it more like a priest who found out he has a deformity and whose work is unacceptable (t. Mik. 1:18)? Jesus’ comparisons are more simplistic than these (and subject to legal refutation) and less complex in terms of content. They are not formal or legal comparisons, in contrast to the comparisons used by the sages. But it is a similar mode of thinking. The question is which comparison is more convincing? Of course, there is no one answer to this question. Following the comparison comes 4) the ethical step, which is much broader, and essentially includes a message opposed to the 85 Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus.” 242 commandments (or at least to the importance of the commandments).[86] The dialogue ends, naturally, with 5) a “victory,” that is, the silence of the losing side. The winning side is of course the one that also preserved the debate. The literary form of the dialogue does not require a full representation of the “losing” side. The commemorator is the winner. All of this emerges from the literary and historical analysis of many interreligious dialogues throughout the ages.[87] This literary structure is a comprehensive literary composition, and thus it is hard 86 As I hinted above, it is a matter of great controversy in scholarship whether: 1) the ethical message must necessarily negate the observance of the commandments, or 2) whether the intention is to emphasize the ethical component as more significant than the physical fulfillment of the commandment, or 3) whether the ethical aspect is not less important than the physical fulfillment. The first option is difficult from a halakhic standpoint, since almost all of the debates are over extreme cases, in which the halakha itself was debated, or in which the rabbinic halakha of the second and third centuries opposed. Even the proofs Jesus used (comparison to other halakhot) are proofs the sages used, as has been noted by many scholars. Others have suggested that the ethical component is a later literary addition secondarily imposed upon the debate, which expresses a different orientation from the specific halakhic debate. But this approach is also problematic, since the debates were presented in the literary form of a dialogue with a fixed style. I therefore conclude that the ethical components of the debates should be understood as related only to the specific, extreme case discussed in the debate. The first part of this article proves that the historical background reflected in the social description of Jesus’ group points to writers (and readers) who knew the halakhic lifestyle, and for whom halakha was central. The editors, or the audience, of all four Gospels (and less so also of Acts) presuppose an original audience that lived in a halakhic world that they accepted. They kept the Sabbath and knew that one generally should not heal on the Sabbath, they circumcised their sons (and at the same time named them), they buried their dead according to the essential and less essential details of Jewish custom. They kept purity laws as the custom of the religious elite (the ḥavērim), even beyond the formal demands of halakha that we know from rabbinic literature. Thus, it is not plausible that at the same time they lodged a principled polemic against central tenets of halakha. The possibility of such an internal contradiction regarding the demands of halakha is not logical. The notion that the Gospel communities already knew Christianity’s subsequent bitter polemic against rabbinic halakha, then, becomes untenable. 87 See Averil Cameron, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity, Hellenic Studies Series 65 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2014); Alberto Rigolio, Christians in Conversation: A Guide to Late Antique Dialogues in Greek and Syriac (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). 243 to believe that it developed at the stage of redaction. At the level of redaction, details were added or omitted, arguments were misunderstood, and parts of the literary structure fell out, but the structure itself survived. It is hard to accept that the uniform literary structure is the product of editing over generations. The fact that it repeats in several Gospels attests that it derived from the earliest stratum of tradition, whether in one of the extant Gospels that was used by the others as a source, or whether from an early lost Gospel (according to the Q hypothesis). At times the dialogue stops in the middle and is not developed, as, for instance, in no. 15: the money changers operate, Jesus polemicizes and attacks them, and the story ends at ends at that. We do not hear how the controversy developed, even though such a development is called for. But in general, a reason is given for the “right” opinion (which the editor places in the mouth of Jesus). At times the dialogue does not open with a deed of the disciples that draws a response, but begins with an unprovoked attack by Jesus on a specific Pharisaic practice. In such a case the first part of the dialogue is missing, and another opening replaces it (“Woe unto you…”). This opening has a linguistic parallel in rabbinic literature,[88] and thus we could argue that it is the original form of the opening.[89] Nearly all the specific halakhot Jesus attacked are small technical details. Jesus demands the rabbinic halakha in these details, or at least, the topic is 88 See M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus”; Y. Furstenberg, “Jesus against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second Temple InterSectarian Discourse,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020): 767-786. 89 Dialogue no. 15 (commerce on the Temple Mount) is an exception. It starts with Jesus and receives no answer from anyone. 244 under internal dispute.[90] The question of whether a specific dialogue took place in reality is tied to the question of whether Jesus is a historical figure. This article does not contribute to this debate, nor does it aim to do so. Supposing Jesus was a historical figure, his story was described in the ancient historical form of the acts of holy men (a literary genre also written in to this very day). In general, scholars have viewed the dialogues as a genre that is not tied to a historical event. Indeed, some of the dialogues in Jewish and in the Christian literature could not have happened in reality. Some dialogues probably were historical, but their literary form did not conform to a historical event but was a narrative shaped in view of the belief of the person who preserved it. Section 4: The Non-legal Character of the Early Halakha As Sven-Olav Back has shown,[91] Jesus’ halakha and his arguments were not legal but intuitive. He also did not use halakhic terms such as ‫( פִּיקוּ ַח נֶפֶשׁ‬piqūaḥ nefesh, “saving a life”), ‫צוֹרְך נֶפֶשׁ‬ ֶ (tzōrech nefesh, “sustenance”), and ‫( ְמלָאכָה‬melā’chāh, “work [on the Sabbath]”), with the result that his argumentation lacks a legal structure. Back concluded this was an essential difference between the halakha of 90 Plucking grains on the Sabbath is an exception because it entails an undisputed halakhic prohibition. But according to the interpretation I offered above (that the plucking occurred during the week) this incident also deals with an internal halakhic dispute. In light of this general analysis, I believe my suggestion regarding this incident is preferable. The discussion on the topic of divorce is also an important issue and not a technical detail, and the addition that one who marries a divorcée commits adultery does not accord with rabbinic halakha. 91 Sven-Olav Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (Åbo Akademi University Press, 1995). 245 the first-century sages and Jesus’ halakha. In my view, Jesus’ mode of “free” thinking is characteristic of Second Temple halakha. The introduction to the commentary series Mishnat Eretz Israel dealt with the development of rabbinic thought. After examining dozens of halakhot that show the development of halakha, the authors suggested (with no connection to the New Testament) that only starting in the Yavneh generation, or at earliest, the last generation of the Second Temple, a process started in the bet midrash that we might call “juridification.” Until that point, halakhot were determined on a case-by-case basis (casuistically) mostly by the community that kept the commandments, and not in a juridical bet midrash. Each halakha was determined on its own terms, by its similarity to other halakhot, and from a religious inclination, not an organized and coherent system. In the last generation of the Second Temple period and continuing thereafter, the bet midrash was founded, and legal study methods were refined. A process of juridification began. In this process, the precedential cases were incorporated into a whole system. The halakha of the Qumran sectarians and that reflected in the writings of Philo and Josephus exemplify the ancient intuitive method. We reached this conclusion after studying the remains of ancient evidence embedded in rabbinic literature. One of the central reasons for this conclusion was the lack of internal cohesion and the internal contradiction within Jewish halakha, a lack of cohesion that the rabbis tried to explain in ingenious but artificial forms. We suggested that statement ascribed to Rabbi Yehoshua, one of the main members of the transitional generation between intuitive halakha to systematic halakha and one of the leaders of the juridification process, refers to this process: 246 ‫ יהושע דבר חדוש חדשו סופרים ואין לי מה אשיב‬′‫ועל כולן אמר ר‬ And concerning all these Rabbi Yehoshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer (or: I have nothing more to add)”[92] (m. Kel. 13:7; m. Tevul Yom 4:6; t. Kel. Bab. Mez. 3:14) The two ways of understanding R. Yehoshua’s statement depend on the meaning of the verb ‫( ֵהשִׁיב‬hēshiv). In tannaitic Hebrew it can be translated as “answer,” but it is also the special term for a Talmudic discussion. So, it is not clear whether R. Yehoshua is criticizing the new method or admiring and praising it. In either case, R. Yehoshua testified that something had changed in the method of learning halakha, something unusual which is connected to the study of details regarding the halakha of purification. The development of halakha continued throughout the generations, and became the basis for the interpretation of the Mishna. Jesus’ halakha in its non-legalistic style is therefore part of the early halakha. Jesus’ disputes are mostly a defense of first-century Pharisaic-rabbinic halakha. The Pharisees Jesus attacked are those who held other positions within the group of Pharisaic sages and sometimes stringent positions within the rabbinic world, including stringencies that were perhaps popular customs or express excessive piety (too many fasts, a prohibition of healing on Shabbat, too many oaths and vows, a culture of holy places, and even a little magic). 92 It is not clear exactly what these words refer to, but they relate to details of purity laws. 247 Conclusions 1. Rabbinic literature is the main source for learning about Jewish law reflected in the Gospels. While Jewish legal literature was redacted later (the third century onward) some of it reflects early halakha and some constitutes its further development. But even from the later material we can derive and understand the earlier foundations. In any case, there is no alternative source at such a level of intensity and scope. Moreover, sometimes the background and the parallels of opinions and positions in the New Testament were preserved only in the later literature, from the Talmudic or even post-Talmudic periods. 2. The halakhic discussions in the Gospels divide into those that appear incidentally and as the background to an idea or story, and those formulated in a literary form of a dialogue or polemic. The first type is the basis for the conclusion number 3. Almost all those belonging to the latter group (dialogue or polemics) recur in all three Synoptic Gospels with only slight changes that were not discussed in this general survey article. 3. Jesus and his followers are incidentally described as keeping halakha to a relatively high extent; they were a group to whom the law was important. Thus, they were expected to set an example and a model for keeping the commandments. At the same time, Jesus emphasized the moral demands of the law. A continuation of the exhortations of the prophets is present in rabbinic halakhic literature, but not to the same extent or with the same emphasis as in the teachings of Jesus. Such emphasis is more clearly expressed in midrashic literature, which was composed and redacted among the same circle of halakhists. I discussed several cases where Jesus’ ascribed position does not accord with halakha and the article offered 248 interpretations that point to their being part of the world of rabbinic halakha. 4. Jesus defends the halakha as formulated by the sages and reflects the situation of halakhic development in the first century. In this period the process of juridification had only just begun, and most of the halakha was still casuistic. Halakhic rules and terms had yet to be developed and the legal structure was much looser than that in the stage revealed in the Mishna and its parallels. 5. Jesus’ “halakha” included popular practices, some that Jesus accepted and some he opposed because he saw them as over-stringent and over-pious (e.g., washing ceramic vessels, building tombs for the prophets, tithing herbs, and straining gnats). In rabbinic literature these customs no longer have a place in “halakha” and are pushed out to the margins of the legal literature. But it may be that these margins were larger in Jewish society than in the rabbinic beit midrash. 6. Among other things, Jesus taught halakha to his disciples in the form of dialogue as this was common in the literature of the era. Jesus’ uniqueness was that he emphasized the ideological-spiritual dimension. And, of course, he did acts of healing, as did the ancient holy men. The editors of the Gospels ascribed great importance to this component, perhaps greater than was done among Jesus’ original followers. 7. This article has not dealt with the Synoptic Problem, the question of which Gospel is earliest and the existence a common source (Q). From the table in Appendix 1, it becomes clear that Matthew has the largest number of references to halakha, with somewhat fewer in Luke. In Mark there are fewer still, and even fewer in John. Mark emphasized the debates between Jesus and the “others.” In 249 some cases, Luke better reflects Jewish halakha. Matthew is less precise, and Mark reflects Jewish halakha in a way far removed from a Jewish context. Is this evidence for the precedence or originality of Luke? Or was the editor of Luke’s Gospel and his community familiar with Jewish life (or were Jewish themselves) and added their own details? This is a different, broader question that requires a discussion of the Jewish background of each of the Gospels. Robert Lindsey argued that Luke was the original Gospel, or at least an original Gospel parallel to Q.[93] David Flusser, my late teacher, David Bivin and the “Jerusalem School” have championed Lindsey’s approach, and David Bivin has devoted his research and public agenda to this view. 8. Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, challenges the rabbinic leadership (‘Pharisees and scribes’) but this ambition itself proves that Jewish society was led by these very sages and that is why Jesus opposed them. Thus, the New Testament joins other evidence for the leadership of the sages as an elite at the second half of the of first century C.E. (the period when the Gospels were redacted), and perhaps even earlier (the period when the historical Jesus was active).[94] 93 Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith, 1973); idem, “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” Novum Testamentum 4 (1963): 239-263; D. Flusser, “Die literarischen Beziehungen zwischen den synoptischen Evangelien,” in his Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament (2 vols.; Neukirchener, 1987-1999), 1:40-67; idem, “Die synoptische Frage und die Gleichnisse Jesu,” in his Die Rabbinischen Gleichnisse und die Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 193-213; Richard W. Stegner, “The Priority of Luke: An Exposition of Robert Lindsey’s Solution to the Synoptic Problem” Biblical Research 27 (1982): 26-38. 94 We summarized our view regarding the external and semi-external evidence (Targumim, the Merkabah literature, piyyut [liturgical poetry], Roman literature, Christian literature, and archaeological finds) in our article, Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, “Were the Rabbis a Ruling Elite?” in Path of Peace: Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom, ed. D. Gera and M. BenZe’ev (Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University, 2005), 373-440 (Heb.). See also, Z. Safrai and Ch. 250 9. The article posits an identification between the Pharisees and the rabbis who succeeded them (with changes of course). I have not dealt with the question of whether the Pharisees and scribes were perhaps a different group, an issue that is beyond the scope of our discussion.[95] Safrai, “To What Extent Did the Rabbis Determine Public Norms? The Internal Evidence” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 172-194. We do not claim that the public norms (the halakha) were always determined by the rabbis. To the contrary, we maintain that in many instances, and perhaps throughout antiquity, the “halakha” was based on the instinctive behavior of the religious-observant public. The rabbis, however, were the ones who formulated the laws, provided them with a legal structure, and channeled them. These are the tasks of the elite. 95 J. Sievers and A. J. Levine, eds., The Pharisees (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021). 251 Appendix 1: Halakha in the Gospels and Acts * = Contra all the rabbinic sources. Subject No. Matthew Mark Authority 1 18:18 Blessing (bread) 2 14:19; 26:30 6:41; 8:6 24:30 Blessing (over 3 wine) 26:26 14:22 Blessing (over 4 fish)* Blessing after meal John 6:11 8 Burial (cave) 9 27:35 ‫ברכה‬ ‫אחרונה‬ 22:20 14:22 ‫ברכה על יין‬ 22:17* 15:29; 21:25 27:60 15:46 Burial (coffin) 10 ‫ברכות‬ ‫בסעודה‬ ‫ברכה )על‬ (‫דגים‬ 8:6 26:26 Subject in Heb. ‫ברכה על יין‬ 22:17 Blood (eating) 7 Burial Acts ‫סמכות‬ 5 Blessing (wine 6 before bread) Luke 24:2 ‫דם‬ 11:38 ‫קבורה‬ 11:38 ‫קבורה‬ 7:14 ‫קבורה‬ ‫קבורה‬ Burial (importance) 11 8:21; 27:58 15:43 9:59; 23:52 Burial (Perfume) 12 26:12 14:8; 16:1 24:1 Burial (quarried) 13 27:60 15:46 8:27; 23:53 252 12:7; 19:39 ‫קבורה‬ ‫הקבר‬ Burial (shrouds) 14 27:59 Burials (public) 15 27:7 Burial (visiting 16 after 3 days) 28:1 15:46 23:53; 24:12 ‫קבורה‬ 11:44; 19:40; 20:6 ‫קבר ציבורי‬ 16:3 22.2 20:1 1:59; 2:14 6:22 ‫קבורה‬ 17 Charity 18 6:1 Charity (not in 19 Public) 6:1 Cursing 20 12:31 3:29; 14:64 Cursing (tearing clothes) 21 26:15 14:63 Debt collection* 22 18:25 Divorce 23 5:32; 19:4 10:9 16:18 ‫גרושין‬ 19:19* 10:11 16:18 ‫לוקח גרושה‬ 12:42 21:2 ‫ארון‬ 2:16 5:31 ‫הסבה‬ 24 Divorce (marriage with divorcée) Donation 25 Eating (with impure persons) 26 9:12 12:33 15:5; 21:21 ‫מילה‬ Circumcision ‫צדקה‬ ‫צדקה‬ 12:10 ‫גידוף‬ ‫גידוף‬ ‫גביית חוב‬ 253 27 Expulsion [excommunica tion]* (someone who claims to be a messiah) ‫נידוי‬ 9:22 27:10, 40 ‫צום‬ Fasting 28 6:17; 9:14 2:18 2:36; 5:33 Fasting (frequency) 29 9:14 2:18 5:33 ‫ריבוי צומות‬ Fasting (against) 30 9:14 2:18 5:33 ‫צום‬ Fasting (anointing) 31 6:17 Fasting (days of) 32 Fasting (until ninth hours) 33 Fasting (washing) 34 6:18 Forgiveness 35 9:2 Forgiveness (asking for) 36 5:24 Genealogy (after the mother) 37 16:3 ‫ייחוס‬ Gentile (eating 38 with) 11:3 ‫נכרי‬ ‫)סעודה‬ (‫עימו‬ ‫צום‬ ‫צום‬ 18:12 10:30 ‫צום‬ ‫צום‬ 2:5 ‫סליחה‬ 5:20 ‫כפרה‬ 254 Gentile 39 (staying with) Half Shekel 40 Hanukah 41 Inheritance (division of) 42 Holy graves 43 10:28 ‫מחצית שקל‬ 17:26 ‫חנוכה‬ 10:22 23:29 12:13 ‫ירושה‬ 11:47 ‫קברי קדש‬ Holy place 44 (Jacob’s well) ‫מקום קדוש‬ 4:6 Interest on loans 45 25:27* Jerusalem (border) 46 21:1 Kosher food 47 ‫נכרי )שהות‬ (‫עימו‬ ‫ריבית‬ 6:35; 19:23* 11:1 19:29; 24:50 ‫בית פגי‬ 12:1 10:14 ‫מאכלות‬ ‫אסורים‬ Lashing (in synagogue) 48 Lepers 49 10:17; 23:34 13:9 12:11; 21:12 26:11 ‫מלקות‬ 17:12 ‫מצורע‬ ‫מצורע‬ ‫)נראה‬ (‫לכהןו‬ (exile) Lepers (seeing 50 by priest) 8:4 1:44 5:14; 17:14 Lepers (impurity) 51 8:4 1:44 5:14 ‫מצורע‬ (‫)טומאה‬ Lepers (sacrifice) 52 8:4 1:44 5:14 ‫מצורע‬ (‫)קרבן‬ 255 Marriage 53 1:18 Marriage (to relatives) 54 14:5 Marriage (women with torches) 55 25:3 6:18 1:27 ‫אירוסין‬ 3:19 ‫אשת אח‬ ‫חתונה‬ Name (giving) 56 1:59-60; 2:21 ‫שם‬ Name (writing) 57 1:63 ‫שם‬ Nazirate 58 1:15 Nazirite (sponsoring) Nazirite (purity) 21:23 ‫נזיר‬ 59 21:24 (‫נזיר )מימון‬ 60 21:26 ‫נזיר‬ (‫)טהרה‬ Oath (by name 61 of God) 26:63 ‫שבועה‬ Oath (terms of) 62 23:16 ‫שבועה‬ Oath (terms of) 63 23:18 ‫שבועה‬ Oath (terms of) 64 23:16 ‫שבועה‬ Oath (prohibition of) 65 5:33 ‫שבועה‬ Omer 66 6:1 256 ‫ספירת‬ ‫העמר‬ ‫שבת הגדול‬ Passover (“Great” Shabbat) 67 19:21 Passover (Hallel) 68 26:30 14:26 Passover (meal) 69 26:17 14:12 22:8 Passover (pilgrimage) 70 26:1 11:1 2:41; 9:54; 13:1 2:13; 4:20; 11:55 ‫פסח )עליה‬ (‫לרגל‬ Passover (slaughter) 71 14:2 22:7 19:14 (‫פסח )קרבן‬ Passover (unleavened bread) 72 26:17 14:1, 2 22:1, 7 73 Passover* (exiting city’s wall) 23:30 14:26 22:40 Phylacteries 74 23:5 Pidyon haben 75 Polygamy 76 Prayer (Mincha 6-9 hours) 77 Prayer (not in public) 78 Prostitution 79 19:19 (‫פסח )הלל‬ ‫פסח‬ (‫)סעודה‬ 12:4; 20:6 (‫פסח )מצה‬ ‫יציאה‬ ‫מהעיר‬ 8:1 ‫תפילין‬ 10:11 2:22-23 ‫פדיון הבן‬ 15:18 ‫פוליגמיה‬ 1:10 6:5 257 3:9; 10:30 ‫תפילה‬ 10:30 ‫תפילה‬ ‫ביחיד‬ 15:29; 21:25 ‫זנות‬ Purity 80 ‫טהרה‬ 7:4 Purity (before 81 Passover) Purity (food) 82 15:15 ‫טומאת‬ ‫אוכלים‬ 7:15 Purity (Gentile 83 houses -see 39) 18:28 Purity (Gentiles) 18:20 84 Purity (metal ? 85 ceramic? vessels, clothes) Purity (unknown graves) 86 Purity (stone vessels) 87 ‫טהרה‬ 11:55; 18:28 23:25 23:25 7:4 7:4 ‫טומאה‬ (‫)נכרי‬ 11:2 ‫טומאת‬ ‫נכרים‬ 11:39 ‫טהרה‬ 11:44 ‫טומאת‬ ‫תהום‬ 11:39 Purity 88 (washing feet) Purity (washing hands) 89 15:3 7:3 11:38 Purity (ritual immersion of John) 90 3:6 1:5 3:21 Rebuke 91 7:4; 18:15 6:42; 17:3 258 2:6 ‫טהרה )כלי‬ (‫אבן‬ 13:10 ‫נטילת ידים‬ ‫נטילת ידים‬ 1:26; 4:2 ‫טהרה‬ (‫)טבילה‬ ‫הוכח תוכיח‬ Resurrection (marriage at) 92 Sacrifice (of Gentiles) 93 22:25 12:20 15:29; 21:25 Sacrifice (after 94 giving birth) Samaritans* (water of) 95 Sacred food for dogs 96 ‫אלילים‬ ‫קרבן יולדת‬ 2:22-23 ‫שומרונים‬ 4:8 ‫קודש‬ 7:6 Self-Judgment 97 5:22 13:9 98 Shabat* (plucking ears of grain) 12:2 2:23 Shabbat ‫תחיית‬ .‫המתים‬ 20:27-31 99 ‫שיפוט‬ 6:6 ‫מלילות‬ 4:20 ‫שבת‬ ‫)החזרת‬ (‫ספר‬ 13:5; 14:5 ‫שבת‬ (Bringing back Torah) Shabbat (animal treatment) 100 12:11 Shabbat (derasha) 101 4:18 Shabbat (mourning forbidden) 102 23:56 (‫שבת )בכי‬ Shabbat (forbidden to perfume) 103 23:56; 24:1 ‫שבת‬ (‫)סיכה‬ 16:1 259 13:15 ‫שבת‬ (‫)דרשה‬ ‫שבת‬ (‫)טלטול‬ Shabbat (moving) 104 5:10 Shabbat (Haftarah) 105 4:17 13:15, 27 Shabbat (Torah) 106 4:16 13:15 Shabbat (scrolling Τorah) 107 4:20 Shabbat (studying) 108 4:23; 9:35; 13:53 1:21, 39; 4:15, 31, 6:59 6:2 44; 6:6; 13:10 Shabbat (healing) 109 12:10 1:30; 3:1 4:39; 13:10; 14:2 Shabbat (working in the Temple) 110 12:5 Shabbat (working) 111 12:8 Shavuot 112 2:1; 20:16 ‫שבועות‬ Shavuot (pilgrimage) 113 20:16 ‫שבועות‬ ‫)עליה‬ (‫לרגל‬ Shewbread* 114 Slaughter 115 12:4 ‫שבת‬ (‫)הפטרה‬ ‫שבת קריאת‬ (‫התורה‬ ‫שבת‬ ‫)גלילת‬ (‫התורה‬ 13:15, 45; 17:2 ‫שבת‬ (‫)לימוד‬ ‫רפואה‬ 5:10; 5:16; 7:23; 9:16 ‫מקדש‬ ‫בשבת‬ 2:28 2:26 ‫שבת‬ (‫)עבודה‬ 6:5 ‫לחם פנים‬ 6:3 15:29; 21:25 260 ‫שחיטה‬ Synagogue (outside the city) 116 Tabernacles (Last day) 117 Talit (cloak) 118 Temple 119 (commerce in) 16:13 ‫סוכות )חג‬ (‫אחרון‬ 7:37 21:12 Temple (going 120 through) ‫בית כנסת‬ 12:38 21:46 ‫טלית‬ 11:15 19:45 ‫מקדש‬ (‫)מסחר בו‬ ‫מקדש‬ (‫)מעבר‬ 11:16 Temple (defilement) 121 24:6 Temple (Gentiles in) 122 21:28 ‫מקדש‬ ‫הכנסת נכרי‬ ‫למקדש‬ Testimony (by 123 two wittnes) 8:17 ‫עדות )על‬ (‫ידי שנים‬ Testimony (self) 124 8:13 ‫עדות עצמית‬ Testimony 125 Tithes 126 Tithes (from herbs) 127 23:23 Tzitzit (wearing) 128 14:36; 9:20 Tzitzit (size) 129 23:5 ‫עדות‬ (‫)התאמה‬ 14:56 5:27 18:12 ‫מעשר‬ 11:42 ‫מעשר‬ 8:44 ‫ציצית‬ (‫)לבישה‬ ‫ציצית‬ (‫)גודל‬ 261 Unchanging of 130 Law 5:18 Vow 131 Vow (for sacrifice) 132 27:6 133 Vow (prohibition of benefit) 15:5 ‫קביעות‬ ‫במצוות‬ 16:17 23:12, 21 ‫נדר‬ ‫סתם חרם‬ ‫לקרבן‬ 7:11 ‫נדר )איסור‬ (‫הנאה‬ Vow (code wordsformulas) 134 15:5; 7:11 23:16-22 ‫נדר‬ (‫)נוסחאות‬ Vow (the formula Korban [“sacrifice”]) 135 15:5 7:11 ‫נדר במילה‬ ‘‫‘קורבן‬ Vow (versus honoring father) 136 15:5-6 7:11-12 ‫נדר מול‬ ‫קרבן‬ Vow (shaving 137 outside Israel) 18:18 ‫נדר‬ (‫)נזירות‬ Vow (shaving) 138 18:18 (‫נזיר )גילוח‬ Washing hands 139 (not from the Torah) 15:22 7:3 ‫נטילת ידים‬ Washing hands 140 (until wrist) 15:1 7:3 ‫נטילת ידים‬ Washing (cups) 141 23:25 7:4 Witchcraft 142 ‫שטיפת‬ ‫כוסות‬ 11:39 19:19 262 ‫שפים‬ Witchcraft (books) 143 19:19 Yibbum (Levirite marriage) 144 22:25 12:20 20:27-31 Total: 144 80 59 75 263 ‫כשפים‬ ‫יבום‬ 28 34 Appendix 2: Doubtful Attestations of Halakha in the Gospels As mentioned above, it is often difficult to assess whether or not a particular halakha is attested in a given New Testament account. Several such instances are discussed below. Tzitzit One of the more complex cases is the hemorrhaging woman who touches the fringes (tzitzit) of Jesus’ garment.[96] Sick people are frequently described as touching Jesus’ fringes (Matt. 14:36 ∥ Mark 6:56, no. 129 below). This is proof, incidentally, that Jesus wore tzitzit. But in the case of the hemorrhaging woman who touched Jesus and asked to be healed, there may be a halakhic background. The hemorrhaging woman herself was impure, and whatever she touched was “first degree impure.” If the woman had touched the body of a ritually pure man, he would have contracted first degree impurity (remaining impure for seven days). If she touched his garment, the garment would have contracted first degree impurity and would be impure for seven days, and the man wearing the clothing would be impure at a lower level (the second degree of impurity) which only lasted for that same day. But tzitzit are not part of the garment, they are only attached to it. In rabbinic law, a special term, ‫( חִיבּוּר‬ḥibūr, “connection”) which refers to something that is firmly attached an object, such as a garment or vessel, but not 96 In Matt. 9:20 and Luke 4:44 the term is κρασπέδον (kraspedon, “hem,” “fringe”), but Mark 5:27 does not use the specific term. 264 part of the object itself. For example: ‫וכרעים של שלחן ויד של סכין בזמן שהן קבועין חיבור לטומאה ולהזאה ניטלין ונתנין‬ ‫אינן חבור‬ The legs of a table, and the handle of a knife, while they are fixed, are a “connection” (ḥibūr) for impurity and sprinkling. (But if) they are given and taken (mobile) are not a “connection” (ḥibūr)… (t. Kelim Baba Batra 8:4) When they are mobile table legs are not a ḥibūr, but if they are attached with a nail, they become an integral part of the object. If an object is ḥibūr it takes on the same level of impurity as the object to which it is attached. Another example: “A stopper of a pitcher is not ḥibūr” (m. Kelim 3:6). Since the stopper can easily be removed from the pitcher it can have a different degree of purity than the pitcher. For instance, if something impure in the first degree is inside the vessel, the stopper only becomes impure in the second degree, and if something impure in the second degree is inside the vessel, the stopper remains pure.[97] From the halakhic point of view, a real ḥibūr requires two conditions: 1 A strong and permanent physical attachment. 2 The part is required for the ordinary use of the vessel. In Mishna Kelim and in its associated Tosefta there are dozens of examples. Occasionally the reason for the halakhic decision is not certain, but these are the general rules. 97 There are special laws for teruma, but this is not the place to discuss it. 265 We are not certain about the halakhic status of tzitzit—whether they are an integral part of the garment (a ḥibūr) or an addition. The closest example is found in Mishna Kelim 29:1: ‫נומי הסדין והסודרין והטרטין והפליון של ראש שש אצבעות של אפקרסין עשר נימי‬ ‫ אצבעות נימי כפה של זקנה והגומדין של ערביין‬′‫סגוס והרדיד והחלוק והטלית ג‬ ‫והקולקין והפונדא והמעפורת והפרגוד נימיהן כל שהן‬ The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] (ḥibūr) up to a length of six fingerbreadths; Those of an undergarment up to ten [finger breadths]. The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three finger breadths. The fringes of an old woman’s head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat’s-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.[98] The strings are the threads of the garment itself and they are not ḥibūr, and only a short string is ḥibūr. So we may conclude that the threads of tzitzit, which are not part of the garment but merely tied to its corners, are not a ḥibūr to the (himation or another garment). A hemorrhaging woman is a “source” of impurity; if she touched the fringes of a garment, the fringes become impure in the first degree, the garment itself becomes impure in the second degree, but the man who is wearing the garment remains pure. However, if she touched the garment itself the garment would be impure in the first degree, and the man would be impure in the second degree. According to the above explanation, we can understand why the hemorrhaging woman was careful not to touch the master’s body or his garment, but only his 98 Mishna translation from Sefaria.org. 266 tzitzit. According to Matthew and Luke (Matt. 9:20 ∥ Luke 8:44) the hemorrhaging woman touched only Jesus’ tzitzit and was careful not to make him impure. However Mark’s parallel does not specify the tzitzit (Mark 5:27). According to this explanation, the sources behind Matthew and Luke understood the real halakhic background of the story, but in Mark’s community this background was unimportant or was even unknown. This explanation can also clarify all the other cases of sick people touching only the tzitzit of Jesus’ garment (Matt. 14:36 ∥ Mark 6:56). The problem is that other explanations are also possible—such as that the touching is of a holy item; or that touching tzitzit is an expression of awe of the man wearing them, a gesture of respect; there are also ideological or eschatological explanations. The advantage of the explanation I have suggested is that these other suggestions have no parallel, and are not known from any other culture or period, whereas my halakhic explanation is based on actual halakhic data, even though they are not spelled out in the sources. This case of the hemorrhaging woman does not appear in the table (Appendix 1) because it is not recognized in the research (to my knowledge). There may be additional statements in the Gospels that are of this kind, which were not included in the table. Impurity of the Centurion’s Dwelling Another example of a doubtful halakha is the centurion’s statement to Jesus that he regarded himself as unfit (ἱκανός [hikanos]) to have Jesus enter his home (Matt. 267 8:8 ∥ Luke 7:6).[99] It seems plausible that the centurion was referring to his ritual status: as a Gentile his dwelling place was ritually defiling (John 18:28; cf. Acts 10:28; m. Ohol. 18:7; t. Ohol. 18:11; Semaḥot 4:13 [ed. Zlotnick, 9]). However, it is also possible to explain the centurion’s statement as an expression of humility, and his social status as a heathen (despite his socially superior status). This expression is supposed to show his faith in Jesus and his teachings, and therefore Jesus believes that he is worthy of help and salvation. In this case, the Syriac translation may be an aid to the second interpretation. The Syriac translation translates the centurion’s statement as ‫( לית אנא שוי‬lit ani showi, “I am not equal”), which indicates not a different halakhic status but a self image of social inferiority. There is slight difference between the two parallels and the Syriac translation does not express this change. This can be a proof that the translator had an oral tradition that influenced his translation. This conclusion is related to my general assessment that the Syriac translation had a strong oral tradition of the text of the Gospels (I have not checked the other books in the New Testament). In any case Jesus did not hesitate to visit in the house of the petitioner, although he may have been a Gentile and impure.[100] From a halachic point of view, this is appropriate behavior, since someone who is not a priest, may, and even must, defile himself in order to heal a sick person. The general rule is that someone who 99 A more distant parallel in John 4:46-54. According to Luke version the petitioner was clearly a Gentile, according to John he could be a Jew. According to Matthew he was an officer in the Roman army, probably a Gentile, but there is no legitimate reason why a Roman army unit would be stationed in a vassal kingdom. So, it is reasonable that he was an officer in the army of Herod Antipas. In this case he could be a Jew or a Gentile. For the possible explanations, see JP Staff Writer, “Two Neglected Aspects of the Centurion’s Slave Pericope,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2024) [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/28673/]. 100 268 is not a priest, is allowed to defile himself, and then he must purify himself. Jesus’ Criminal Trial We have not dealt in this article with the procedure of Jesus’ trial. In general, the procedural practices in this trial do not conform to Pharisaic-rabbinic halakha.[101] I have discussed the Jewish legal system elsewhere, and there it is shown that the sages indeed aspired to control the legal system and saw themselves as having the monopoly on judgment. However, even during the Talmudic period they were not formally recognized. Judicial rights belonged to the local community and the sages could only position themselves as arbitrators at the will of both parties. The many stories about sages presiding over courts seems realistic from the historical point of view. But they also express the sages’ ambition to take over the autonomous Jewish judicial system. In practice only a few of the cases were referred to them. The community courts, which enjoyed authority anchored in the regime in the Roman village, were led by Jews, but did not follow the procedure required by the halakha. Therefore, there is absolutely no expectation of compatibility between the autonomous national legal system, which was conducted in the Temple (headed by the high priest), and the system of the voluntary local courts of sages. The sages were forced to accept the rulings of the municipal courts, but they tried to ignore them and the municipal courts they are underrepresented in rabbinic literature. 101 There is a great deal of scholarly literature on Jesus’ trial. See, for example, Avram R. Shannon, “Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament,” in Blumell, ed., New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament (Provo Utah: Brigham Young University, 2019), 122-38; David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 269 ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday This page is intentionally blank. 270 From the Galilee to Jerusalem: Luke as a Source for the Routes of Jewish Pilgrimage* Jeffrey P. García Of the four Gospels, Luke uniquely portrays pilgrimage as an integral part of Jesus’ life and ministry. This is not surprising, as pilgrimage to Jerusalem was an important part of the Jewish life for communities in the land and the diaspora. Exodus commands that on the feasts of unleavened bread (‫[ ַהמַּצּוֹת חַג‬ḥag hamatzōt]; i.e. Passover), weeks (‫שּׁבֻעוֹת‬ ָ ‫[ חַג ַה‬ḥag hashāvu‘ōt], Shavuot/Pentecost), and booths (‫[ חַג ַהסֻּכּוֹת‬ḥag hasukōt], Sukkot) one must not appear before the Lord “empty handed” (‫[ ֵריקָם‬rēqām], Exod. 23:14-17; 34:23-34). By the first century C.E., being in Jerusalem for the three holy days was not obligatory, but the pilgrimage was observed by many. Josephus, rewriting parts of the Book of Exodus, describes pilgrimage in the following way: Let those that live as remote as the bounds of the land which the Hebrews shall possess, come to that city where the temple shall be, and this three times in a year, that they may give thanks to God for his former benefits, and may entreat him for those they shall want * For David, whose scholarship and friendship, from afar, has left an indelible mark on my journey. 271 hereafter. (Ant. 4:203) Tobit’s story which is set in Nineveh—approximately 500 miles east of Jerusalem—mentions his regular journeys to Jerusalem, “But I alone went often (πλεονάκις [pleonakis]) to Jerusalem for the feasts, as it is ordained for all Israel by an everlasting decree” (Tob. 1:6). Philo, the Alexandrian philosopher, waxed poetic about the importance of pilgrimage to Jewish communities in the diaspora: For innumerable companies of people from a countless variety of cities, some by land and some by sea, from east and from west, from the north and from the south, came to the temple at every festival, as if to some common refuge and safe asylum from the troubles of this most busy and painful life, seeking to find tranquility, and to procure a remission of and respite from those cares by which from their earliest infancy they had been hampered and weighed down, and so, by getting breath as it were, to pass a brief time in cheerful festivities, being filled with good hopes and enjoying the leisure of that most important and necessary vacation which consists in forming a friendship with those hitherto unknown, but now initiated by boldness and a desire to honor God, and forming a combination of actions and a union of dispositions so as to join in sacrifices and libations to the most complete confirmation of mutual good will. (Spec. Laws 69-70) Historians and archaeologists alike note that pilgrimage meant an economic boom for Jerusalem[1] and was essential to Jewish spirituality in the Second Temple 1 Martin Goodman, “The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period,” in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Lee Levine (New York: Continuum, 1999), 69-76; also idem, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill 2007). See also, Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple,” 808-904, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions, Volume Two, eds. Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern, CRINT (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976); Gideon Hartman, Guy Bar-Oz, Ram Bouchnick, and Ronny Reich, “The Pilgrimage Economy of Early Roman Jerusalem (1st Century BCE – 70 CE) Reconstructed Remains from the d15N and d13C Values of Goat and Sheep Remains,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013): 4369-4376. 272 period. As with other pilgrimages in the Greco-Roman world, the routes that were taken to the holy city carried spiritual and economic weight. Yet, apart from a handful of accounts that either imply or describe them, information about the routes used for pilgrimage are few. Luke’s depiction of Jesus making his way to Jerusalem, however, preserves a valuable vestige of them. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the third Gospel as a source for how Jewish communities traveled to Jerusalem from the Galilee.[2] Consequently, there are three major routes, and contingent arteries, explored here: 1) In the Land of Antipas—The Route Through Perea; 2) The Way to Emmaus—The Coastal Route; 3) The Way of the Patriarchs—The Route through Samaria.[3] In the Land of Antipas — The Route Through Perea (See map 1, 2, and 3 below) Luke states that Mary and Joseph travelled with Jesus to Jerusalem’s Temple during the Passover “every year…according to custom” (κατ᾿ ἔτος…κατὰ τὸ ἔθος [kat’ etos…kata to ethos]; Luke 2:41). As a child, Jesus would have had an exemption from performing pilgrimage, yet still would have traveled with his family for the holy day. While Fitzmyer states that at thirteen pilgrimage was required, there is little to no evidence for a specific age.[4] The Mishnah discusses 2 There were also diaspora routes to the land of Israel; see Shmuel Safrai, Pilgrimage in the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer Publishers, 1965), 114-118 [Heb.], for a discussion on the many ways that were taken by pilgrims to reach Jerusalem. 3 Safrai describes middle, eastern, and western routes: 1) middle: the land of the Cutim (Samaria), En-gannim, Shechem; 2) eastern: Beth Shean to Jericho; 3) western: Kephar Otnay, Antipatris, “from there one of the pilgrimage roads to Jerusalem,” Safrai, Pilgrimage, 116. 4 Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, AB 28 (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 440. 273 the exemption for a “minor” (‫[ ָקטָן‬qāṭān]; m. Hag. 1:1). Both the houses of Shammai and Hillel define the exemption differently, but a specific age is not given. A child is simply defined by the aforementioned rabbinic schools as one that needs to ride his father’s shoulders (‫[ ל ְִרכּוֹב עַל כְּתֵ יפוֹ‬lirkōv ‘al ketēfō]) or hold his hand (‫[ ֶלאֱחוֹז ְבּי ָדוֹ‬le’eḥōz beyādō]) as they ascend to the Temple, respectively. Luke’s account of Mary and Joseph’s willingness to perform the rites of “redeeming the first born” (‫[ פִּידְ יוֹן ַה ֵבּן‬pidyōn habēn]) and Mary’s offering the sacrifices of purification after Jesus’ birth at the Temple—the latter of which could have been completed closer to Nazareth (t. Halah 2:7-9) and, the former, postponed—suggests a close spiritual and cultural connection to the Temple.[5] Readers, unfortunately, are not afforded the routes taken on either occasion. The pilgrimage that perhaps offers the most relevant information on routes from the Galilee is also Jesus’ most famous and final journey to Jerusalem. Often clouded by the events of Jesus’ last week, his travel was also to celebrate and eat the Passover lamb with his disciples (ἐπιθυµίᾳ ἐπεθύµησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν µεθ᾿ ὑµῶν πρὸ τοῦ µε παθεῖν, Luke 22:15). The extended narrative in the third Gospel begins in Luke 17:11: “On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee” (Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴµ καὶ αὐτὸς διήρχετο διὰ µέσον Σαµαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας).[6] This detail is missing in the other Gospels. It is unknown where Jesus began his journey, but there is some indication in Mark that it began at Capernaum, which is situated on the 5 R. Steven Notley, “Redeeming Jesus,” 6 (unpublished article). See Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, AB 28A (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1149; François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:27, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013), 502. 6 274 northwestern shore of the lake of Galilee (Mark 9:33). “Between Samaria and Galilee” is not a distinct route and is difficult to track. If Jesus departed from Capernaum, he likely moved south along the shore of the lake and perhaps headed west into the Arbel pass (Wadi Arbel), avoiding Tiberias, which was constructed on top of numerous tombs by Herod Antipas in 19 C.E. Rabbinic literature later credits Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (2nd cent. CE) with purifying the city’s burial places (Qoh. Rab. 10.8.1; y. Shev. 9:1). The road making its way through the Arbel pass, or the valley of Arbel, is known in antiquity.[7] As a local path, that seems to not be incorporated into the later Roman road system,[8] it was perhaps utilized primarily by residents of the area. Still, the presence of early Roman remains at Khirbet Wadi Hamam of a village and synagogue immediately north of wadi Arbel indicate the presence of such a path. The upward inclining road through the Arbel pass would have given travelers access to both the Beth Netofa valley, as well as Sepphoris (later known as Diocaesarea), the administrative center and capital of the Galilee during Jesus’ youth. Josephus’ account of Herod the Great’s attempt to wrest control of the area from Jewish rebels suggests that Sepphoris and Arbel were directly connected. After gaining control of the Galilean city, Herod sent troops to the caves of Arbela where his opponents hid in the cave systems of mounts Arbel and Nittai (J.W. 1:304-306). It is unknown whether Herod and his troops availed themselves of 7 See y. Ber. 1:1. Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of Eastern Galilee, TSAJ 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 198. It is missing in several maps, including Michael Avi Yonah, “The Development of the Roman Road System in Roman Palestine,” IEJ 1 (1950-51): 57. 8 275 local arteries that led from Sepphoris to the caves of Arbela. However, remains of a siege wall indicating control of the high ground by Herod’s forces suggests that they did. In fact, the road may have followed an earlier one from the Iron Age.[9] From the Arbel pass Jesus would likely have continued south along main roads, or smaller ones, that eventually made their way to Beth Shean (Scythopolis). In fact, Luke’s depiction of Jesus at Nain (Luke 7:11) indicates that a shorter, more local route to Beth Shean was possible. After leaving the Arbel pass, Jesus (and pilgrims) could have headed south from Arbel into the Yavne’el valley and used a local road that emptied in the Harod valley; a more ancient route is attested there.[10] It met with biblical Endor (Josh. 17:11; 1 Sam. 28:7) after it passed Mount Tabor (Judg. 5:6) and continued mostly south on the eastern side of the Hill of Moreh, not far from Nain (see Luke 7:11) and the biblical city of Shunem. In the Harod Valley, the eastern-most extension of the Jezreel, there was a more significant road that reached Beth Shean. Whether Jesus traveled from Sepphoris or by the shorter route described above, the east-west portion of the route that led from Sepphoris to Beth Shean is attested by a later Roman road of which upwards of fourteen milestones have been discovered. Yet another possibility is that Jesus took a more lengthy journey that made its way from Sepphoris to the southernmost road of the Jezreel that abuts Mount Carmel. 9 David A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, The ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology (Baltimore/London: John Hopkins UP, 1991), 156. Evidence of a Roman road is lacking; see Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni, Judith Green, Tabula Imperii Romani – Iudaea · Palaestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods: Maps and Gazetteer, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1998), see map “Iudaea Palaestina: North.” 10 Dorsey, The Roads, 156. 276 Near Legio/Kefar Otnay, the rabbis describe it is that marking the border between the Galilee and Samaria (m. Git. 7:7). After Jesus begins his journey in Luke 17:11, he enters a village with ten lepers, one of which was a Samaritan (v. 16). The mixed population may be an indication that the route taken by Jesus was closer to the region of Samaria. The Tosefta notes that Samaritans participated in the agricultural life of villages like Kefar Otnay, (t. Demai 5:23). Josephus also notes that pilgrims would find themselves along this route in Ginae (Γιναῆς [Ginaēs]; near modern day Jenin), which is described by the historian as the limits of Samaria (ἐν µεθορίῳ κειµένης Σαµαρείας, Ant. 20:118, more on this below). Guérin, identifies Ginae as En-gannim (‫‘[ עֵין ַגּנִּים‬ēn ganim]; or Beth haggan [‫בֵּית ַהגָּן‬ [bēt hagān]; 2 Kgs. 9:27]),[11] mentioned in Joshua 19:17, and states that it was, in fact, the city that Jesus entered.[12] Of course, there is no evidence that Jesus visited Ginae (Tell Jenin), but evidence of continued settlement there, and in the surrounding area, “from [the] Neolithic period” has been uncovered. A Byzantine tradition also claims to be the location where Jesus cleansed the ten lepers and appears to have been built on an undated Roman cistern.[13] It is unlikely, however, that Ginae was Jesus’ stop on this occasion. Traveling to Ginae would have required moving south, past the road that led to the Harod valley and Beth Shean. From Ginae, getting back to the Beth Shean road would have required an unnecessary north by northeast detour around the western end side of Mount 11 Albert E. Block, “Jenin,” ABD, 6:378. Victor Guérin, Description Géographique, Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine, vol. 1, pt. 2 (Paris: L’Imprimerie Imp., 1868), 334. 13 Albert E. Block, “Jenin,” ABD, 6:378. Several kilometers to the west of Jenin there is the traditional Burqin church of the Ten Lepers that is said to have been built over a Roman cistern, Mohamad Torokman, “Pilgrims Flock to Ancient Holy Land Church as Palestinian Congregation Shrinks,” [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pilgrims-flock-ancient-holy-land-churchpalestinian-congregation-shrinks-2023-04-13/]. 12 277 Gilboa. More importantly is that travelling along the Jezreel Valley could be properly described as Luke does, “between Samaria and the Galilee.” There is no problem that Samaria is mentioned first, as Bovon has suggested;[14] it may simply indicate that the route taken was closer to Samaria. From the Jezreel to the Harod Valley, as noted, Jesus would have reached the most important city in the region, Beth Shean (Scythopolis), from which a road heading southeast traversed the Jordan. The road from Beth Shean, according to KohnTavor, “left from the city’s northeastern gate, descended to Nahal Hubari and crossed the Jordan River north of Kefar Ruppin whence it continued to Pella and up to the Gilead highlands near Gerasa.”[15] Milestones from a later adjacent Roman road, which was repaired by Trajan in the 2nd cent. C.E.[16] and that paralleled the more ancient way, have been discovered.[17] Jesus’ stops in Jericho (Matt. 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 10:30; 18:35; 19:1)[18] betray that he would have crossed into the Transjordan from Beth Shean. Travel through the Transjordan took the most amount of time—approximately 5-7 days from the Galilee to Jerusalem. The Jordan valley was inhospitable, walking the Transjordan required ascending into the highlands.[19] It also avoided Samaria, where violence had 14 Bovon, Luke, 502. Achia Kohn-Tavor, “Kefar Ruppin,” The Archaeological Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority, [https://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx#Roads]. 16 Michael Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. – A.D. 640) (Jerusalem: Carta, 2002), 182. For the Trajan milestone found at mile 6 of the Scythopolis-Jericho Road, see Israel Roll, “The Roman Road System in Judaea,” Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 136-161. 17 Kohn-Tavor, “Kefar Ruppin.” 18 Anson Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2005), 363. 19 These are approximates based on walking twenty miles per day, starting, for each route examined here, at Capernaum and ending in Jerusalem. 15 278 occasionally flared while Galileans were on pilgrimage, despite the indication that Jesus and other pilgrims continued to go through the region during pilgrimage (cf. Ant. 20.118; see also John 4 below). The road from Beth-Shean led into the toparchy of Perea, which was administrated by the tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas (Ant. 17:188). In Perea, pilgrims may have stopped at Pella, an important city that is, after the time portrayed in the Gospels, adjoined to a loose confederacy of ten cities known as the Decapolis. The road leading out of Pella ascended the Transjordanian hills and continued on to Gerasa (also known as Jerash)—mistakenly identified as the location of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26, 37)[20]—a large Roman city that was central to the governance of the Transjordan. A later Roman road led south from Gerasa to Philadelphia, continuing to Esbus (perhaps biblical Heshbon) and See Mark 5:1, Gadara: Γαδαρηνων A C K ƒ13 ℓ 2211 𝔐 syp.h; Gergasa: Γεργυστηνων W, Γεργεσηνων ℵ2 L Δ Θ ƒ1 28. 33. 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424. 2542 sys.hmg. Luke 8:26, Gadara: Γαδαρηνων A K W Γ Δ Ψ ƒ13 565, 700c, 892, 1424, 2542 𝔐, 𝔓75 B D latt syhmg; Gergasa: Γεργεσηνων ℵ L Θ Ξ ƒ1 33, 579, 700, 1241; Luke 8:37, Gadara: Γαδαρηνων ℵ2a A K W Γ Δ Ψ 565, 700c, 892, 1424, 2542 𝔐 sy, 𝔓75 B C* D 0279, 579 latt syhmg (sa); Gergasa: Γεργεσηνων ℵ*.2b (C2) L P Θ ƒ1.13 33, 700*, 1241 (bo). Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 360. 20 279 Livias[21] (Tell er Ramah).[22] The already well attested Jewish presence[23] in these cities and smaller villages in the Transjordan, suggests that these communities would have not only participated in the pilgrimages as Josephus describes: But on the approach of Pentecost, which is a festival of ours, so called from the days of our forefathers, a great many ten thousands of men got together; nor did they come only to celebrate the festival…A great number there were Galileans, and Idumeans, and many men from Jericho, and others who had passed over the river Jordan, and inhabited those parts (Ant. 17:254, emphasis added) but a pilgrimage industry that provided for the needs of these travelers would have also developed. While it was found in Jerusalem, the first-century Theodotus synagogue inscription’s reference to guest rooms and baths for diaspora Jews likely resembles what was also occurring in other villages and cities. The building 21 See Tsafrir, Di Segni, Green, Tabula Imperii Romani, map “Iudaea Palaestina: North.” See S. Douglas Waterhouse and Robert Ibaci, Jr., “The Topographical Survey” Andrews University Seminary Studies 13.2 (1975): 217-233 [https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=4124&context=auss]. Later Christians came west from Livias, crossed the Jordan and continued to Jericho, Yoram Tsafrir, “The Maps Used by Theodosius: On the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E.,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 40 (1986): 129-145, esp. 132. 22 An alternate, difficult route down the eastern side of the Jordan river near Tell Deir Alla (perhap biblical Sukkot, Exod. 12:37, or Pethor, Num. 22:5) could have been used by pilgrims, as well. Although a lack of Hellenistic and Roman remains suggests that if anything was there in those periods it may have been small and insignificant. A later Roman road with several milestones passed Deir Alla and immediately moves southeast to Philadelphia, See Tsafrir, Di Segni, Green, Tabula Imperii Romani, map “Iudaea Palaestina: North.” 23 See, for example, the ritual immersion pools (miqva’ot) that have been discovered not far from the southernmost section of this road at Khirbet al-Mukhayyat and Tall al-Umayri (Annlee E. Dolan and Debra Foran, “Immersion is the New Ritual: The Mikveh at Khirbat al-Mukhayyat (Jordan) and Hasmonean Agroeconomic Policies in the Late Hellenistic Period,” Levant 48 [2016]: 286-289). Jewish presence in the Transjordan seems to continue up through the medieval period. See for instance the discovery an etched menorah discovered in Tell Abila, Philippe Bohstrom, “Archaeologists Find First Sign of Jews in Ancient Abila, Jordan,” Haaretz, [https:/ /www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2016-09-21/ty-article/archaeologists-find-first-sign-of-jews-inancient-abila/0000017f-e6d8-da9b-a1ff-eeffc0220000]. 280 and expansion of open air pools in Jerusalem during the Herodian period have also been interpreted as being done for the increased number of pilgrims, as have the newly discovered monumental features of the holy city like the so-called Pilgrimage Road.[24] It is reasonable to suggest that smaller scale efforts would have been done to handle the influx of pilgrims making their way to Jerusalem. A road from Esbus or Livias continued east to Jericho. The biblical city is situated west of a ford in the Jordan river. The eastern bank of the river, near the ford, Al Maghtas (“the place of immersion”) has been identified since the Byzantine period as the location where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Additionally, near Al Magthas some claim that “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28) should be identified with a site located at the outlet of Wadi al-Kharrar, where the EsbusJericho road passed. However, there is little to no evidence that Jesus was baptized there. In fact, it has been argued that the Gospels point to a location up north for that event.[25] The early Roman remains discovered at Wadi al-Kharrar, which appear to have been disturbed by the creation of a well, likely indicate that it was known to Jewish pilgrims.[26] The western bank of the Jordan river near the ford is known as Qasr al-Yahud (the castle of the Jews) and associated as the location 24 David Guverich, “The Water Pools and the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period,” PEQ 149 (2017): 103-134; Bryant G. Wood, “Extraordinary Excavations: The Pilgrimage Road and the Pool of Siloam,” Associates for Biblical Research, [https:/ /biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/life-and-ministry-of-jesus-and-apostles/ 5107-extraordinary-excavations-the-pilgrimage-road-and-the-pool-of-siloam]. 25 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 350-351; Jeffrey P. García, “‘A Voice Cries Out’: Reassessing John the Baptist’s Wilderness Relationship to Qumran,” JJMJS 9 (2022): 8-18. 26 Waheeb, “The Discovery of Bethany,” Disrasat, Human and Social Sciences 35 (2008): 123; also idem, Abdelaziz Mahmod, and Eyad al-Masri, “A Unique Byzantine Complex Near the Jordan River in the Southern Levant and a Tentative Interpretation,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 13.2 (2013): 128-134; Rami G. Khouri, “Where John Baptized,” BAR 31.1 (Jan.-Feb. 2005): 39; García, “A Voice Cries,” 14-15. 281 where Joshua and the Israelites crossed into the land of Canaan and where Elijah was taken up into heaven. The movement of thousands of Jewish and Christian pilgrims over hundreds of years resulted in the association of biblical events with the Jordan’s crossing point. From Luke 18:35-19:17 Jesus’ pilgrimage through Jericho is narrated: 1) as Jesus draws near to Jericho, he encounters the blind beggar (Εγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχὼ, Luke 18:35); 2) entering Jericho, Zacchaeus, the tax collector, seeks Jesus (Luke 19:1); 3) exiting the city Jesus teaches the Parable of Pounds (Luke 19:11-27). Schultz argues that the parable, which alludes to Archelaus, Herod the Great’s exiled son, fits best as Jesus is exiting Jericho where the Herodian palace remains were in view.[27] Walking from Jericho to Jerusalem required ascending Wadi Qilt. From the Jordan valley and the ancient city, the journey via well-worn foot trails above the wadi required passing through the biblical Ascent of Adumim (cf. Josh. 15:7). This route was strategically so valuable that Pompey in 63 B.C.E. sought to quell the dangers faced by travelers, “He gave orders to raze all the walls, and he destroyed, as far as was in his power, the haunts of the robbers and the treasure-holds of the tyrants” (Strabo, Geog. 16.2.40).[28] Its frequent use and the Roman failure to maintain security in the road was, in part, the inspiration for the Story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Safrai, however, states that later in the Second Temple 27 Brian Schultz, “Jesus Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27),” NT 49 (2007): 117. 28 The Geography of Strabo, trans. H.C. Hamilton and W. Falconer, 3 vols. (London: George Bell & Sons, 1903). 282 period these dangers no longer existed.[29] Wadi Qilt ends near the desert-facing side of the Mount of Olives. Luke 19:29 describes Jesus reaching both Bethpage and Bethany; both are traditionally located towards the eastern side of the mount.[30] After reaching the Mount of Olives, Jesus immediately began preparing for the Passover (Luke 19:29; Mark 11:1; Matt. 21:1). 29 30 Safrai, Pilgrimage, 115. Ibid. 283 Map 1: From Capernaum to Beth Shean — Luke 17:11-19-29. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 284 Map 2: From Beth Shean through the Transjordan — Luke 17:11-19-29 . Adapted from “Trans-Jordan, 1:250:000: Amman,” Survey of Palestine, 1937. Credit: Eran Laor Cartographic Collection, National Library of Israel, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 285 Map 3: From the Transjordan to Jerusalem — Luke 17:11-19-29. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. The Way to Emmaus—The Coastal Route (See Map 4 below) A route near Emmaus may be inferred from Luke 24:13-35, “Jesus Appears to Two on the Way to Emmaus”: Καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἦσαν πορευόµενοι εἰς κώµην ἀπέχουσαν σταδίους ἑξήκοντα ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήµ, ᾗ ὄνοµα Ἐµµαοῦς, καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡµίλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ πάντων τῶν συµβεβηκότων τούτων. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὁµιλεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ συζητεῖν καὶ αὐτὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐγγίσας συνεπορεύετο αὐτοῖς…Καὶ ἤγγισαν εἰς τὴν κώµην οὗ ἐπορεύοντο, καὶ αὐτὸς προσεποιήσατο πορρώτερον πορεύεσθαι. That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing 286 together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them… So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further… (Luke 24:13-15, 28) Leaving the city after the events of the crucifixion and resurrection—perhaps, towards the end of the feast—two men, one named Cleopas, are headed to Emmaus which is situated “sixty stadia” (v. 13) west of Jerusalem. Four locations have been identified as Luke’s Emmaus. Bivin suggests that it should be located at ColoniaMotza.[31] Motza (‫[ מוֹצָא‬mōtzā’]) is mentioned as a location where pilgrims gathered willow branches for the observance of Sukkot (m. Sukk. 4:5). Another well-known site for Emmaus was the large Roman city Emmaus-Nicopolis which was a junction point on the Jerusalem-Jaffa road. In the 4th century C.E., Eusebius, the church historian, identified it as Luke’s Emmaus (Onom. 90:15).[32] EmmausNicopolis, however, is almost three times farther away from Jerusalem than the Emmaus identified by the Evangelist.[33] Therefore, the evidence for ColoniaMotza, which is closest to Jerusalem, seems to best identify Luke’s Emmaus. It is unclear whether Emmaus was the final stop for Cleopas and his friend. Jesus is described, however, as desiring to go farther (αὐτὸς προσεποιήσατο πορρώτερον πορεύεσθαι; v. 28). The setting of Emmaus, in Luke, as a place where pilgrims travel to from Jerusalem and, in the Mishnah, where pilgrims go to gather willow branches for Sukkot, points to the village being situated along a known pilgrimage 31 David N. Bivin, “A Farewell to the Emmaus Road,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE, Jan 13, 2017, rev. Mar 26, 2019, [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/16208/]; Tsafrir, Di Segni, Green, Tabula Imperii, 105, 119-120. 32 See R. Steven Notley and Ze’ev Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary, JCP 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 88. 33 See Notley’s text-critical discussion in The Sacred Bridge, 368. 287 route. While Lucan narratives that follow return Jesus to Jerusalem, later Roman roads and other texts provide the direction of this Emmaus route. From Emmaus (Colonia-Motza), pilgrims could travel west to reach a junction point at EmmausNicopolis. From there a road, perhaps attested by a later Roman one, directed travelers north to Lod/Lydda.[34] Lydda would have received pilgrims from another important artery, one that guarded the Beth Horon ascent (1 Macc. 3:24; Ant. 13:15).[35] From Lydda, travel north allowed pilgrims to reach Joppa (Jaffa), on the Mediterranean coast, and Antipatris—named after Herod the Great’s father (Ant. 16:143). Several routes making their way northeast through Samaria would have allowed pilgrims to access the passes through Mount Carmel and continue north to the Galilee. The most critical point here is that Luke seems to preserve a stop for pilgrims that is not often discussed in terms of pilgrimage routes.[36] Along with evidence for taking the westernmost route through the Transjordan, Jesus and other Jews likely availed themselves of the relatively less elevated coastal route, as would have communities from Joppa (Jaffa), Ceaserea etc. It appears that Byzantine Christians also utilized a similar route through Emmaus-Nicopolis, and presumably Emmaus (Colonia-Motza).[37] 34 See Tsafrir, Di Segni, Green, Tabula Imperii Romani, map “Iudaea Palaestina: North.” Safrai notes that both the Emmaus (Colonia-Motza) and the Beth Horon roads were utilized by pilgrims in the Second Temple period, Safrai, Pilgrimage, 116. 36 Safrai appears to be the only one who mentions it, Pilgrimage, 116. 37 Tsafrir, “The Maps Used by Theodosius,” 132. 35 288 Map 4: From Jerusalem through Emmaus (Colonia-Motza) — Luke 24. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. The Way of the Patriarchs—The Route through Samaria (See maps 5, 6, and 7 below) The most direct, and the shortest route (approx. 3-5 days; cf. Jos., Life 269) from the Galilee would be through the highlands of Samaria and Judaea. The route is commonly known as the “Way of the Patriarchs”—the Ridge Route—which follows the watershed line through the central hill country. Josephus suggests that 289 utilizing this route was a custom for Galileans. Γίνεται δὲ καὶ Σαµαρείταις πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἔχθρα δι᾿ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην· ἔθος ἦν τοῖς Γαλιλαίοις ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν παραγινοµένοις ὁδεύειν διὰ τῆς Σαµαρέων χώρας. καὶ τότε καθ᾿ ὁδὸν αὐτοῖς κώµης Γιναῆς λεγοµένης τῆς ἐν µεθορίῳ κειµένης Σαµαρείας τε καὶ τοῦ µεγάλου πεδίου…. Now there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following: It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took, a village that was called Ginae which is situated in the limits of Samaria and the great plain…. (Ant. 20:118) Pilgrimage through Samaria is attested in the Gospel of John. At the opening of John 4, Jesus departs Judea back to the Galilee. He specifically states that it was necessary for him pass through Samaria (Ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαµαρείας, John 4:4). While the necessity may carry missional weight, as suggested by some,[38] it is not indicative of hurrying through the region (John 4:43). It may have been practical to go through Samaria from Jerusalem since Capernaum would be the last stop (John 4:46). While the details of the route are missing, it could be suggested that as Jesus and other pilgrims left Jerusalem after the feast they travelled north to a junction at Neapolis (modern day Nablus; biblical Schechem), which is situated between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. There Jesus encounters a woman at a well, near Mount Gerizim that preserved the remains of the Samaritan Temple atop (cf. John 4:20). After two days in Samaria, Jesus and his disciples departed, headed to the Galilee (John 4:46). From Neapolis, 38 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 590. 290 a road led west to Sebaste (Samaria), one of the cities built by Herod the Great and named after Augustus Caesar (J.W. 1:403)—“sebastos” being the Greek form of Augustus. The territory of Sebaste included Ginae (Jenin),[39] precisely where Josephus states that pilgrims started their Samaritan journeys to Jerusalem (see above). From Ginae, multiple roads would have served Jesus’ and his disciples’ return to Capernaum. The shortest route through the Jezreel would have included, older northeastern arteries—if still in use—that straddled the eastern side of the Hill of Moreh and Mount Tabor,[40] eventually reaching the Arbel pass that led to the western shore of the lake, just north of Magdala, from which the fishing village could be reached. It is only after they all reach Capernaum that John specifically notes that both Jesus and other Galileans had returned from one of the pilgrimage feasts (ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐν Ἱεροσολύµοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, John 4:45). 39 40 Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, 127. Dorsey, Roads, 103-116. 291 Map 5: From Jerusalem to Nablus/Shechem — John 4:1-45. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 292 Map 6: From Sebaste to Mt. Tabor — John 4:1-45. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 293 Map 7: From Mt. Tabor to Capernaum — John 4:1-45. Adapted from “Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 Maps,” Survey Department of Palestine, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to examine routes of pilgrimage, whether implied or attested, that are recorded mostly in the Gospel of Luke, but also the Gospel of John. Many of these routes are only referenced in contemporary sources, primarily Josephus, as major byways for communities and armies with little attention given to the three Jewish pilgrimages that were observed yearly.[41] Luke is geographically distinct when describing Jesus’ pilgrimages to Jerusalem. 41 John alone states that Jesus also went to Jerusalem to celebrate the holy day of “the dedication” (τὰ ἐγκαίνια, commonly known as “Chanukah,” John 10:22). 294 The Evangelist’s “between Samaria and the Galilee”—a detail missing in the other Gospels—and, quite literally, entering, staying, and exiting Jericho, demonstrates that Jesus utilized the longest, most eastern route through the Transjordan. The Evangelist also intimates Emmaus (Colonia-Motza) as part of a route taken between Jerusalem and Emmaus-Nicopolis. In fact, Safrai states that there were two parallel arteries from Jerusalem during the Second Temple period: 1) Jerusalem → Emmaus (Colonia-Motza) → Emmaus-Nicopolos, and 2) Jerusalem → Beth-Horon Ascent → Lod/Lydda.[42] If so, the third Gospel may be the only source to preserve this valuable detail. Furthermore, it discloses Luke’s unique geographic understanding of the land of Israel, an understanding which is regarded as independent from his counterparts.[43] Furthermore, a portion of the “middle” route, as Safrai describes it, is depicted in John’s Gospel. While space does not allow here, it seems that Jesus’ conversation with the women at the well, near the ruins of the Samaritan temple, especially the receiving of God’s instruction as “living water” parallels contemporaneous imagery of the Torah as well, “living” water[44] (see, CD 3:13-17, 6:3-11, 19:33-34; m. Avot 6:1). As such, the feast alluded to in John may be Shavuot, the feast of weeks/Pentecost, when Jewish tradition holds that the dual Torah was given. That notwithstanding, Luke’s Gospel (and John’s) preserve valuable evidence of pilgrimage routes that would have been utilized by Jesus and other Jewish pilgrims in the Second Temple period. 42 Safrai, Pilgrimage, 116. See for example, R. Steven Notley, “The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym,” JBL 128 (2009): 183-188; idem, “Literary and Geographical Contours of ‘The Great Omission’,” The Sacred Bridge, 360-362. 44 For well water as living water, see Jub. 24:36. 43 295 ’Ashrēch Ziqnāti (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85th Birthday This page is intentionally blank. 296 The Sin Against the Spirit: Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10 R. Steven Notley I have chosen this study to honor my dear friend David Bivin, who has championed the work of the Jerusalem School for over fifty years. We are all the beneficiaries of his tireless efforts on our behalf. In this instance, I hope to demonstrate that to grasp the import of this saying, one must engage the three pillars of the Jerusalem School: Hebrew as the spoken language of Jesus; his place within the world of emerging Jewish thought in the Second Temple period; and the imperative to reconsider the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels as historical sources.[1] Jesus’ statement regarding the sin against the Holy Spirit is embedded within complex layers of developing tradition. While the logion occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels, it appears in different forms and contexts. Both issues of form and context are important to understand what Jesus intended. Most scholars recognize that we possess two independent traditions for Jesus’ statement: one 1 R. S. Notley, “Preface,” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels–Vol. One, R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2006): 1-13. 297 represented by Mark 3:28-29 and the second by Luke 12:10. Matthew 12:31-32 combines the two.[2] Verse 12:31 more closely resembles the form in Mark, and in 12:32 the saying approximates the Lukan variant, but it has independent elements that make it even preferable to Luke 12:10. Not only do the forms vary. So, also do the settings. Mark and Matthew place the logion immediately following “The Beelzebul Controversy” (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22-27; cf. Luke 11:14-23), where it serves as a rebuke to those who questioned the legitimacy of Jesus’ ministry. On the other hand, Luke posits the saying in the context of the “Exhortation to Fearless Confession” (Luke 12:2-12). Markan Redaction and Minor Agreements Before we give further thought to its setting, we should first consider the significant differences in the form of the saying. Mark opens with an unqualified declaration of forgiveness: “All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they blaspheme” (Mark 3:28). Matthew preserves a similar idea, though he alleviates the difficulties posed by the Markan saying. Mark’s pleonasm αἱ βλασφηµίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφηµήσωσιν (hai blasfēmiai hosa ean blasfēmēsōsin, literally, “whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme…”) is tempered by Matthew to read βλασφηµία ἀφεθήσεται (blasfēmia afethēsetai, “blasphemy will be forgiven”). In addition, Mark’s τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων (tois huiois tōn anthrōpōn, “to the sons of humans”) is simplified by Matthew’s 2 D. Flusser, “Die Sünde gegen den heiligen Geist,” Wie Gut Sind Deine Zelte, Jaakow…: Festschrift zum 60 Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer (Gerlingen, 1986), 139. See also C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2 vols; London: Macmillan, 1927), 1:92. 298 interpretative phrase, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (tois anthrōpois, “to humans”). Nevertheless, the opening declarations of unqualified forgiveness found in both Mark and Matthew (but missing from Luke) stand in seeming contradiction to the remainder of the saying. After hearing that all blasphemy will be forgiven, we hear that just the opposite is the case. Mark’s rare designation, “sons of men” (τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), a phrase which only occurs here and in Ephesians 3:5, has been suggested by some scholars to be evidence of an original Aramaic saying.[3] Boring proposed that the original Markan opening read, ‫ישתבקון כל חובין לבר נשא‬.[4] Accordingly, the divergence between the Markan and Q sayings regarding the “sons of men” and the “Son of Man” is understood to result from different translations of an Aramaic logion, “…bar-naša is well singular as collective and can be behind υἷος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as well as behind υἱοῖ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.”[5] This line of reasoning rests upon the a priori assumption that the semitic Vorlage for the logion must have been Aramaic. Yet, these outdated assumptions regarding the language of Jesus and the language environment of first-century Judaea have been challenged by not a few scholars, particularly since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[6] If the saying was originally spoken in Hebrew, then the explanation 3 M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 1967), 189. M. E. Boring, “The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mark III.28-29/Matt.XII.31-32/Luke XII.10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” Novum Testamentum 18 (1976): 276. 5 R. Schippers, “The Son of Man in Matt. 12:32= L 12:10, Compared with Mk. 3:28,” Studia Evangelia 102 (1968): 232. 6 See R. Buth and R. S. Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 2014); S. Fassberg, “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?” CBQ 74/2 (2012): 263-280; Sh. Safrai “Spoken Languages in the Time of Jesus,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 30 (1991): 3-8, 13 4 299 for Mark’s plurality based on Aramaic linguistic ambiguity is beside the point. No such ambiguity exists between ‫( בֶּן אָדָ ם‬ben ’ādām, “son of man/Adam”) and ‫ְבּנֵי אָדָ ם‬ (benē ’ādām, “son of man/Adam”) in the Hebrew language. Instead, Mark appears to have been confronted with an unpalatable statement regarding forgiveness for blasphemy against the Son of Man, a title usually identified by the early church with Jesus. What we witness in the Second Gospel is a ‘Christian’ hesitation to allow or expiate the reviling of the Son of Man. Easton has remarked that in contrast to Mark the authenticity of Luke’s saying, “should never have been questioned; no Christian would have framed such a saying.”[7] The entirety of Mark 3:28 exhibits signs of Mark’s reworking of an earlier (more difficult!) saying. The product of Mark’s editing 3:28 is what Taylor called, “a rough Greek.”[8] The addition of ἀµήν (amēn, “Amen!”) by Mark is an attempt to semiticize the saying and to give it an authentic feel.[9] Yet, it is obviously secondary. In addition, [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2551/]; idem, “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 31 (1991): 3-8 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2563/]; J. Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple,” JBL 79 (1960), 32-47. The clearest evidence that Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew rather than Aramaic are his story parables. Jewish parables, which outside of the Gospels, are only found in rabbinic literature are all told in Hebrew, and none are in Aramaic. R. S. Notley and Z. Safrai, Parables of the Sages (Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2011), 6. 7 B. S. Easton, The Gospel According to St. Luke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1926), 199. The same may be said for its parallel in Matt. 12:32. 8 V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 242-243. 9 We see the same attempt in Mark 8:12 (ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σηµεῖον), where Matt. 16:4 and Luke 11:29 agree not to include ἀµήν. Flusser contends that the logion about the sign of the Son of Man is best preserved in Luke’s Gospel. His observation also has something to say about whether Jesus would have identified himself with the title Son of Man. “The Sign of the Son of Man,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1988), 526-534. “One of the principal results of our investigation is 300 Mark’s peculiar inclusion of πάντα … τὰ ἁµαρτήµατα (panta…ta hamartēmata, “all…the sins”) betrays his familiarity with πᾶν ἁµάρτηµα (pan hamartēma, “every sin”) in 1 Corinthians 6:18, where it also occurs in proximity with τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον (to pnevma to hagion, “the holy spirit”) and the idea to sin against the Holy Spirit. Our study is not primarily concerned with Markan literary method, but it is important to recognize the Evangelist’s editorial hand in order to identify the development of the tradition. In the end, Mark’s opening statement proved too difficult for Matthew to accept unchanged, and so he revised it. Yet, when we compare Matthew’s opening verse with the remainder of his saying, we find that he has conflated two independent traditions, the first an edited version of Mark and the second closer to what we read in Luke’s Gospel. In his study of our logion, Boring attacked the view which he considered the only alternative to Mark’s position of historical priority. The theory of Matthean priority espoused by Griesbach, and more recently advocated by Farmer, Sanders, and others, understands Mark here to be the final stratum of the synoptic tradition, combining together the earlier Matthean and Lukan formulæ.[10] In our pericope, however, such an understanding is incapable of explaining what we witness in the pericope.[11] that Jesus’ saying in Luke 11:29-32 is his ipsissima verba, because it is practically impossible to imagine that such a profound saying with hidden hints to Enochic motifs could have been invented later by others. And if the gospel preserved this original saying of Jesus, it has a further, far-reaching consequences for the self-awareness of Jesus. One cannot escape the conclusion that in our saying Jesus identified himself with the eschatological Son of Man” (“Sign,” 534). While Flusser is correct about the sense of Jesus’ use of the Son of Man in Luke 11:29, in our current saying the title holds a different import. 10 E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (London: CUP, 1969), 270. 11 Boring, “Unforgivable,” 262. 301 Mark must then be represented as using the common material Matt.12:24-26/Luke 11:15-18 in Mark 3:22-26, but inexplicably abandoning the continuation of this common material in Matt. 12:27-28/Luke 11:19-20. In Mark 3:27, he then chooses a saying from Matthew, 12:29, although the Lukan counterpart (11:21-22) is not verbally parallel, and then omits verbatim parallel material in Matt. 12:30/Luke 11:23. When he comes to the two sayings in Matthew concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he chooses the first and expands it, while ignoring the Lukan version in another context. He cannot be represented as combining the Matthean and Lukan versions. Boring’s argument about the weakness of Matthean priority, which assumes Mark’s dependence on Matthew, is correct. Mark can hardly be shown to have combined Matthew and Luke. Nor is it reasonable to assume that Mark, if indeed composing the final stratum of tradition, would have desired to produce a work which uncannily demonstrates traits of a mediating position between Matthew and Luke in the manner which Boring describes. The literary facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Matthew conflates two independent traditions, one represented by Mark and the other approximating what we find in Luke. The most reasonable explanation is some form of two-source theory, yet perhaps not necessarily that which Boring suggests.[12] If the version of the logion found in Matt. 12:32 is an earlier form than that found in Mark 3:28-29, this cannot be argued on the basis that Matthew is here the source for Mark, and the two-source hypothesis continues to be the most satisfactory framework for dealing with the phenomena of the text. Although Boring correctly asserts the need for two independent, non-Matthean sources to explain the form(s) of our saying, it does not follow that the originality 12 Boring, “Unforgivable,” 264. 302 of Matthew 12:32 is impeded by Mark’s non-use of Matthew. All of Boring’s objections are silenced, if one understands that Mark in our passage relies upon Luke (or a saying that is akin to Luke). Mark then edited the tradition he received, at points making changes.[13] Matthew represents the final stage in the Synoptic Tradition. He has conflated (and at times corrected) the Markan saying he received with an older form of the saying. Matthew was familiar with an earlier, non-Markan statement that, though akin to Luke, lacked many of the Lukan “improvements.” The form of the variant found in Matt. 12:32 is to be preferred to that which is found in Luke 12:10. Those familiar with Hebrew will recognize the preference for Matthew’s εἴπῃ λόγον (eipē logon, 13 The most significant alteration is Mark’s concluding statement where he alone adds, “For they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (Mark 3:30). In this he echoes his change to the “Beelzebul Controversy” (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22-27; Luke 11:14-23). There the accusation against Jesus attested by Matt. 12:24 and Luke 11:15 is that “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.” Instead, according to Mark 3:22 the scribes charge, “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” Minor agreements between Matthew and Luke have always proven troublesome for those who hold to Markan priority, and Matthew and Luke’s independent use of Mark for their common material. Streeter attempted to reason that our pericope was one of the rare occasions where Mark knew and used Q. “St. Mark’s Knowledge and Use of Q,” in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, W. Sanday, ed. (Oxford: OUP, 1911), 169-172. On the contrary, what we witness in our saying is Mark’s penchant to borrow related phrasing from other passages to change his text. The charge of being possessed by a demon was not, in fact, made against Jesus, but against John the Baptist. “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:34-35). Characteristically, Mark has omitted the saying with these charges against John and Jesus. Instead, in our pericope he has transferred the charge against John to Jesus. We should quickly add that our reading of the synoptic relationship is not simply Luke→Mark→Matthew. The Evangelists do not work as mere copyists. One must examine the literary data in each account to identify individual editorial changes. Typically, “Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke’s Gospel.” Flusser, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press Hebrew University, 1997), 22. So regarding our saying Flusser has observed, “und in Mt. 12:32 ist die zweite Variante in einem bessern Zustand als die, die in Lk. 12:10 erhalten ist,” “Die Sünde,” 92. 303 “might say a word”) to Mark’s βλασφηµήσῃ (blasfēmēsē, “might blaspheme”) or Luke’s βλασφηµήσαντι (blasfēmēsanti, “blaspheming”). In the Hebrew Bible, the object for the verb ‫( גִּדֵּ ף‬gidēf, “revile”), which is the Hebrew equivalent for βλασφηµεῖν (blasfēmein, “to blaspheme”), is typically reserved for God or his name. So, we hear in Numbers: ‫ְו ַהנֶּפֶשׁ ֲאשֶׁר־תַּ ֲעשֶׂה ְבּי ָד ָרמָה מִן־ ָה ֶאז ְָרח וּמִן־ ַהגֵּר אֶת־י ְהוָה הוּא ְמגַדֵּ ף‬ But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles [‫ ] ְמגַדֵ ּף‬the LORD…. (Num. 15:30 [cf. 2 Kings 19:22; Isa 37:23]) The second half of Matthew’s saying, which lacks traces of Markan influence, expresses a similar, but less refined, idea of reviling. The verb βλασφηµεῖν in Mark and Luke 12:10b and those parts of Matthew that have been influenced by Mark is a literary improvement on the more primitive form of the saying preserved in Matthew 12:32 and its “minor agreement” in Luke 12:10a.[14] This earlier form of the saying refers to one who “speaks against” the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit.[15] The Hebraic expression is heard both in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead 14 I. H. Marshall has rightly identified the use of βλασφηµεῖν “as a more elegant Greek rendering.” The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 517. Hence, Luke refined the Hebraism attested in Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10a with his use of βλασφηµεῖν (cf. Acts 6:11). We find the same improvement by Luke on another occasion which creates a pleonasm: καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ βλασφηµοῦντες ἔλεγον εἰς αὐτόν (“And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him”; Luke 22:65). Indeed, the use of βλασφηµεῖν in Luke 12:10a may be intended to anticipate that those who held Jesus before they handed him over to the Romans were “reviling (βλασφηµοῦντες) him” (see also Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29). 15 The difference between Luke’s εἰς (eis, “into”) and Matthew’s κατά (kata, “against”) may represent variant translations of what was certainly the Hebrew idiom -ּ‫( לְדַ ֵבּר ְב‬ledabēr be-, “to speak against”). Luke represents a more literal rendering, but the verb ‫ לְדַ ֵבּר‬with the same idea of reviling occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures with the LXX translating -ּ‫ ְב‬with κατά: ‫וּמַדּוּ ַע ֹלא י ְֵראתֶ ם‬ ‫( לְדַ בֵּר ְבּ ַעבְדִּ י בְמשֶׁה‬Num. 12:8) ∥ καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἐφοβήθητε καταλαλῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός µου Μωυσῆ; (Num. 28:12 LXX; cf. Jer. 31:20). 304 Sea Scrolls: ‫ַויּ ָב ֹא ָהעָם אֶל־משֶׁה וַיּ ֹאמְרוּ ָחטָאנוּ כִּי־דִ בּ ְַרנוּ בַיהוָה ָובְָך‬ And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you…” (Num. 21:7) ‫הם מדברים בם‬ They speak (abhorrent things) against them. (CD 5:13) In a minor agreement against Mark, Matthew and Luke use the title “Son of Man,” and there seems to be little doubt that Jesus in our saying used the equivalent of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ho huios tou anthrōpou, “the son of the human”). Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10 both refer to the one who speaks against the Son of Man. As we noted, some scholars have suggested that Mark’s original τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων with the collective sense of “men” has been altered by Matthew and Luke to read τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, introducing an eschatological sense into the logion. While the logion did originally read τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in this context it is not necessary to read the title eschatologically or, as has been proposed, to Jesus “in his hidden humble form of the Messiah.”[16] Instead, E. P. Sanders rightly observed, “sayings concerning forgiveness, as might be expected, have little eschatological thrust.”[17] 16 17 G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963), 213 n. 1. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 111. 305 Sin Against the Spirit in Light of Ancient Jewish Sources At the outset we raised a question about the literary placement of the logion in the Gospels and its importance for discerning its meaning. Unfortunately, the original historical setting cannot be known with any certainty.[18] Nevertheless, a knowledge of contemporary religious thought can assist us to better understand the saying’s original intent. It seems that Jesus’ caution belongs to ongoing discussions in Jewish circles regarding the interrelationship between one’s standing with God and one’s neighbor. The same theme can be heard in the teachings of Jesus on other occasions. “So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23-24). These verses speak of the conditions for the acceptance of personal sin offerings and are likely related to the conditions presented on the Day of Atonement, during which the offering is contingent upon prior reconciliation with one’s neighbor. While the subject of divine forgiveness is not expressly mentioned, the act of “offering your gift at the altar” in the context of reconciliation can have communicated little else to the hearers. 18 While questions remain concerning the historical context for the logion, its position in Matthew’s Gospel seems to have influenced the Evangelist to alter the wording of the statement by Jesus in the preceding verse (Matt. 12:28): εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύµατι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιµόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑµᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. The Lukan saying with ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ (Luke 11:20) certainly represents the form of the original logion. See R. S. Notley, “By the Finger of God,” JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE 2/9 (July-August 1989): 6-7 [https:/ /www.jerusalemperspective.com/514/]; E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London: Oliphants, 1974), 167; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1981), 916-923. 306 A similar idea of the importance of human relationships and their effect on one’s standing before God is more clearly enunciated by Ben Sira: ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπῳ συντηρεῖ ὀργήν, καὶ παρὰ κυρίου ζητεῖ ἴασιν; ἐπ᾿ ἄνθρωπον ὅµοιον αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔχει ἔλεος, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν αὐτοῦ δεῖται; αὐτὸς σὰρξ ὢν διατηρεῖ µῆνιν, τίς ἐξιλάσεται τὰς ἁµαρτίας αὐτοῦ; Does a man harbor anger against another, and yet seek for healing from the Lord? Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own sins? If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation for his sins? (Sir. 28:3-5) The message of Ben Sira reminds us of Jesus’ words when he instructed his disciples to pray, “Forgive us our sins in the same way that we have forgiven those who have sinned against us” (Luke 11:4a; Matt. 6:12). Along the same lines, we hear that the lack of reconciliation is an impediment to atonement, according to a first-century sage, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: ‫שׁבֵּין אָדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא ְל ָעזָר בֶּן ֲעז ְַרי ָה ִמכָּל חַטּאוֹתֵ יכֶם ִל ְפנֵי י ָיי תִּ ְטהָרוּ ֲעבֵירוֹת‬′‫אֶת זוֹ דָ ַרשׁ ר‬ ‫שׁיּ ְַרצֵּה אֶת‬ ֶ ‫ִיפּוּרים ְמ ַכפֵּר עַד‬ ִ ‫שׁבֵּינוֹ ְלבֵין ֲחבֵירוֹ אֵין יוֹם ַהכּ‬ ֶ ‫ִיפּוּרים ְמ ַכפֵּר ְו‬ ִ ‫ַלמָּקוֹם יוֹם ַהכּ‬ ‫ֲחבֵירוֹ‬ This did R. Eleazar b. Azariah expound: From all your sins shall ye be clean before the LORD (Lev. 16:30)—for transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement; but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow. (m. Yom. 8:9) Coupled with this, Jesus’ warning about speaking against the Holy Spirit should be 307 understood against the background of the Jewish injunction against speaking against or reviling God. The interdiction against blasphemy occurs in expanded lists of cardinal sins (idolatry, adultery and the spilling of blood). To these three, which we hear in Acts 15:28-29[19] were added “robbery and blasphemy” in the Jewish midrash Sifra on Leviticus 18:4 and in the earlier Jewish portion of the Didache:[20] τέκνον µου, µὴ γίνου γόγγυσος, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασφηµίαν· µηδὲ αὐθάδης µηδὲ πονηρόφρων, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφηµίαι γεννῶνται. My child, be not a grumbler, for this leads to blasphemy, nor stubborn, nor a thinker of evil, for from all these are blasphemies engendered. (Did. 3:3-6) The severity of profaning the name of God is heard in the midrash Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus 20:7:[21] ‫מי שמחלל שם שמים ועשה תשובה אין כח בתשובה לתלות ולא ביום הכפורים לכפר‬ .‫ולא בייסורין למרק אלא התשובה ויום הכפורים תולין ויום המיתה ממרק עם הייסורין‬ However, if one has profaned the name of God and repents, his repentance cannot make the case pending, neither can the Day of Atonement bring him forgiveness, nor can sufferings cleanse him of his 19 The message of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:28-29 is best preserved in Codex Bezae. See D. Flusser and S. Safrai, “Das Aposteldekret und die Noachitischen Gebote,” in Wer Tora mehrt, mehrt Leben: Festgabe fur Heinz Kremers (ed. E. Brocke and H.-J. Borkenings; NeukirchenVluyn, 1986), 173-192; idem, “The Apostolic Decree and the Noahide Commandments” trans. H. Ronning, JERUSALEM PERSPECTIVE (2012) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4403/]. 20 See J. B. Lightfoot, and J. R Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Short Introductions and English Translations (London: Macmillan, 1898), 218-230; H. van de Sandt and D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002), 171-172. 21 See E. Urbach, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1979), 356-359. 308 guilt. But repentance and the Day of Atonement both can merely make the matter pend. And the day of death with the suffering completes the atonement. The rabbinic idea of suffering at death as a means for atonement from transgression may relate to a notion that we will consider below. Although many similar sayings from rabbinic literature could be presented, a closer parallel to the saying of Jesus appears in a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic work. In the list of holy angels found in the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch, we hear about Sariel, “one of the holy angels who is in charge of the spirits of those who sin against the spirit [οἵτινες … τῷ πνεύµατι ἁµαρτάνουσιν]” (1 Enoch 20:6).[22] The possibility that the phrase “those who sin against the spirit” relates to blasphemy is indicated by the subsequent interpretation of Enoch’s cosmic journey: Καὶ εἶπον Διὰ τί ἡ γῆ αὕτη ἡ εὐλογηµένη καὶ πᾶσα πλήρης δένδρων, αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ φάραγξ κεκατηραµένη ἐστίν; γῆ κατάρατος τοῖς κεκατηραµένοις ἐστὶν µέχρι αἰῶνος. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται πάντες οἱ κεκατηραµένοι οἵτινες ἐροῦσιν τῷ στόµατι αὐτῶν κατὰ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἀπρεπῆ, καὶ περὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σκληρὰ λαλήσουσιν. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται, καὶ ὧδε ἔσται τὸ οἰκητήριον. Then I said, ‘What is the purpose of this blessed land which is completely full of trees and of this accursed valley in the middle of them? Then Raphael, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me and said to me, This accursed valley is for those who are The reading here is based on the Greek texts Gka1 a2 which have been corrupted in the Ethiopic translations. M. Black and A-M Denis, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 32. Black suggests that both the Greek and the Ethiopic texts are corrupt. See Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 153. However, as we shall see the Greek text may accord with our Gospel saying and other non-canonical witnesses. M. A. Knibb, “I Enoch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament, H. F. D. Sparks, ed. (Oxford: OUP, 1984), 208; E. Isaac, “I Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, J. H. Charlesworth, ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 24. 22 309 cursed forever; here will be gathered together all who speak with their mouths against the Lord words that are not fitting and say hard things about his glory. Here they will gather them together, and here will be their place of judgment. (1 Enoch 27:1-2) Enoch’s question concerning the “accursed valley”[23] is explained by Raphael to be the place of perdition for those who have spoken against the Lord and his glory (1 Enoch 27:2). Matthew Black rightly interpreted the transgression to denote “blasphemy.”[24] Moreover, the lines are structured in Hebraic parallelism with “his glory” in the second phrase serving as a circumlocution for “the Lord” in the first.[25] Mention of “the accursed valley” (i.e., Gehenna) as the destiny of the wicked is well known both in Jewish and Christian literature.[26] Another description of the place of punishment appears in the depiction of Enoch’s visit to the mountain of the dead: 23 The phrase ἡ φάραγξ κεκατηραµένη (hē faranx kekatēramenē, “the accursed valley”) = ‫גֵּיהִינָּם‬ (gēhinām, “Gehenna”); Black, The Book of Enoch, 175; C. Milikowsky “‫גיהנום ופשעי ישראל על פי‬ ‫׳סדר עולם׳‬,” Tarbiẓ 55 (Jan-Mar, 1986): 315-316. 24 Black, The Book of Enoch, 174. 25 A similar metonymy occurs with τῆς δυνάµεως τοῦ θεοῦ (tēs dūnameōs tou theou, “of the power of God”) in Luke 22:69. “This term is used as a hypostatic description of God Himself both in Judaism and in the New Testament…” D. Flusser, “At the Right Hand of Power,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1989), 303. See G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim (2 vols.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 2:335 n. 8. 26 In his study Milikowsky reviews the biblical and early non-canonical occurrences of the term Gehenna and the two distinctive ideas of a destination for wicked souls as a place of punishment after their death and the eschatological idea of punishment for the sins of the wicked which is meted out in the great and final judgement. He also has shown that both ideas are to be found in the New Testament. Milikowsky, “‫גיהנום‬,” 313ff.; J. Jeremias, “γέεννα,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel, ed. G. W. Bromiley, trans. (9 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:657ff.; “ἄβυσσος,” ibid. 1:9ff.; “ᾅδης,” ibid. 1:146-149. 310 Then I asked regarding it, and regarding all the hollow places: ‘Why is one separated from the other?’ And he answered me and said unto me: ‘These three (places) have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. (1) And such a division has been made (for) the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. (2) And such has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed on them in their lifetime. (3) Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgement and punishment and torment of those who curse forever and retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them forever. (1 Enoch 22:8-10) What we witness in the Book of Watchers is a notion that continues through the New Testament period into early rabbinic literature—the gradation of sin and its punishment. Of particular interest for us in 1 Enoch 22:8-10 and 27:2 is the description that the punishment for those “who speak against the Lord” or “curse forever” is unending punishment. These receive no forgiveness. Or to paraphrase from the earlier rabbinic statement, “their suffering at death brings no atonement.” They are punished forever. Milikowsky examined the notion of Gehenna presented in a second century midrashic chronograph, Seder Olam.[27] The midrash concerns the chronology of the early generations of the biblical period. However, in the latter portions of chapter 3 the writer digresses to consider the subject of Gehenna. He ponders the length of time the wicked must suffer in Gehenna and cites the opinion of an anonymous rabbi and that of R. Yohanan ben Nuri. Finally, the writer concludes: ‫לאחר שנים עשר חדש פושעי ישראל שעברי על המצות נפשן כלה וגופן בלה ונישרף‬ ‫וגהינם פולטתן והרוח זורה אותן ומפזרתן ונעשין אפר תחת כפות רגלי צדיקים‬ After twelve months, the sinners of Israel who have transgressed the 27 Milikowsky, “‫גיהנום‬,” 311-343. 311 commandments, their souls cease to exist, their bodies waste away and are burnt, Gehenna spits them out, the wind scatters them and disperses them, and they become ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous.[28] In other words, there is temporary punishment for the sinners of Israel who have transgressed the commandments. Their punishment is distinguished from that of those who have separated themselves from the ways of the community. ‫אבל מי שפרשו מדרכי ציבור כגון המינים והמשומדין והמוסורות והחניפין והאפקרסין‬ ‫שכפרו בתחית המיתים ושאמרו אין תורה מן השמים גהינם נינעלת בפניהם ונידונין‬ ‫בתוכה לעולם ולעולמי עולמים‬ But those who have separated themselves from the ways of the community, like the sectarians, the apostates, the informers, the infidels, and the heretics who have denied the resurrection of the dead or have said that the Torah is not from Heaven, they are locked in Gehenna and they are punished within it forever and ever. Whereas the midrash speaks of an end for the punishment of the former group, the retribution upon the latter is without end—forever and ever. Milikowsky has demonstrated that the writer has combined two lists of transgressions, which appear elsewhere independently,[29] to define how exactly these have abandoned the ways of the community.[30] The common trait of transgression is given in the final lines: ‫ומי גרם להם מפני שפשטו ידיהם בזבול שנ׳ מזבול לו ואין זבול אלא בית המקדש שנ׳‬ 28 The Hebrew texts and translation are taken from C. Milikowsky, Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronograph (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1981), 229-230 (H); 458 (E). 29 “‫המינים והמשומדין והמוסורות‬,” t. Bab Metzia 2:33 (= b. Abodah Zarah 2); Aboth de Rabbi Nathan Ver. A, Chap. 17 (Schechter, 64). “‫ושאמרו אין תורה מן השמים והאפקרסין שכפרו בתחית המיתים‬,” m. Sanh. 10:1. 30 Milikowsky, “‫גיהנום‬,” 311-343. 312 ′‫בנה בית וגו‬ What brought this upon them? Because they raised their hands against zevul, as it is says “from zevul to him” (Ps. 49:15), and zevul is nothing other than the temple, as it says, “I have built for you an exalted house” (I Kings 8:13). The midrash is a play on the Hebrew word ‫( זְבֻל‬zevul) which means literally, “exalted.” It is used to describe the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:13-2; 2 Chron. 6:2: ‫בָּנ ֹה ָבנִיתִ י‬ ‫שׁבְתְּ ָך עוֹ ָלמִים‬ ִ ‫ )בֵּית זְבֻל לְָך מָכוֹן ְל‬and for the heavenly abode of God: “Look down from heaven and see, from thy holy and glorious habitation” (Isa. 63:15: ‫וּראֵה‬ ְ ‫שּׁ ַמי ִם‬ ָ ‫ַהבֵּט ִמ‬ ‫ְאַרתֶּ ָך‬ ְ ‫) ִמזְּבֻל קָדְ שְָׁך וְתִ פ‬. Elsewhere, we hear language similar to Seder Olam in the Tosefta: ‫ וצורם לבלות שאול ומי גרם להם‬′‫ ננעלת בפניהן… שאול כלה והם אינם כלין שנ‬′‫גיהנ‬ ‫שפשטו ידיהם בזבול שנאמר מזבול לו ואין זבול אלא בית המקדש שנאמר בנה בניתי‬ ‫בית זבול לך‬ Gehenna is locked behind them…Sheol will waste away, but they will not waste away. For it is written, “and their form shall cause Sheol to waste away” (Psalm 49:14). What made this happen to them? Because they stretched out their hand against the “lofty habitation,” as it is said, “Because of his lofty habitation,” and lofty habitation refers only to the Temple, as it is said, “I have surely built you a lofty habitation, a place for you to dwell in forever” (1 Kings 8:13). (t. Sahn. 13:5) The idea in the midrash and the Tosefta concerning those who have abandoned the ways of the community is that they have exalted themselves, raising their hands in rebellion against God. The same language appears in 1 Enoch 46:7 to describe those who have rebelled and are being punished, “They raise their hands against the Most High.” Indeed, the language to raise or extend one’s hands against God may allude to a verse we considered earlier: “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, blasphemes the LORD” (Num. 313 15:30). It is important to note that the Temple in the rabbinic midrash serves the same literary purpose as “the glory of the Lord,” in 1 Enoch. They are metonymical expressions for the LORD. They signify his presence and work in the world. The destiny for the blasphemers is the same as those “who speak hard words against the Lord” described in 1 Enoch and “those who speak a word against the Holy Spirit” in the saying of Jesus. They have no hope of forgiveness. In other words, there will be no cessation of their punishment in eternity. Conclusion How does this emerging complex of ideas help us to understand the sense of Jesus’ saying: “He who speaks against the son of man will be forgiven; but he who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”? On several occasion in the Gospels, we hear that Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet. “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country” (Mark 6:4). “Go and tell that fox… I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem” (Luke 13:32-33). There were even those among his followers who understood him to be a prophet, “Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke 24:19). When Jesus warns about those who speak against the Holy Spirit, he cautions those who would reject the prophetic word of the LORD. Such umbrage is essentially rebellion against God. Fitzmyer recognized the same metonymy when he 314 commented, “the ‘holy spirit’ is being used somewhat like the ‘finger of God’ in Luke 11:20, as a way of expressing God’s salvific intervention in human activity; if this is rejected or abused, so is God himself.”[31] The Hebraic structure of our saying speaks of the son of man and the holy spirit in an interwoven, paralleled fashion.[32] On one level Jesus speaks comparatively about the relative severity of speaking against one’s fellow human in contrast to speaking against the word of the Lord, which is delivered by his servant on whom his Holy Spirit rests. He is the prophetic voice through whom God calls those who would listen to repentance. The hearers may disapprove of the person of the messenger, but it is a far more serious matter to reject the message he carries by virtue of the Holy Spirit which rests upon him. In this case, their sin is the same as we heard earlier in Num. 21:7: ‫“( דִ ַב ְּרנוּ בַיהוָה ָובְָך‬We have sinned against the LORD and against you”). If our understanding is correct, then we discover that the Hebrew saying of Jesus belongs to developing Jewish ideas regarding the gradation of sin and punishment. It also reflects his high self-awareness as the prophetic voice on whom the Holy Spirit rests. 31 Fitzmyer, op cit., 966. R. L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1973), 37. 32 315 This page is intentionally blank. 316 Subject Index Decapolis 131, 279 demons 95, 144-145, 214 dill 232-233 divorce 186, 188-189, 227, 245 A ‘am hā’āretz 170, 201, 219, 233, 238-240 Aaron 21, 89 adultery 227, 245 Aesop 178-179 Agrippa 33, 69-70 Aramaic 78, 88, 94, 132, 162, 168, 177, 190, 205, 235 Archelaus 104-105, 282 E Elizabeth 115 Emmaus 273, 286-288, 295 Esau 116, 119, 234 Essenes 106, 118-119, 210 ethnos 15-22 B baptism 108, 110, 114-115 Bar Ma‘ayan 71, 238 Beelzebul 145, 298, 303 Bet Hillel 214, 274 Bethpage 161, 283 bet midrash 183, 194, 203, 205, 225, 237, 246 Bet Shammai 189, 214, 227, 274 Bivin, David N. 5, 13, 72-73, 129, 137, 149, 180-181, 183, 250, 297 F fig 156-161, 164, 169, 172 Fourth Philosophy 106 frankincense 174-176 G Galilee 15, 23, 33, 45, 130-131, 144, 163, 165, 200, 203, 221, 239, 273-275, 277-279, 288-290, 295 Garden of Eden 179 Gehenna 310-313 Gentile 17, 25-26, 57, 122, 189, 254-255, 258-259, 261, 268 Gethsemane 130, 162 grapes 168, 170 C Caesarea 36, 238 Caiaphas 154 Calvin, John 38, 41-45, 47, 50, 68, 135 Cana 193, 196, 201 Capernaum 140-141, 143, 147, 274-275, 290-291 carob 176-178 Ceaserea 288 centurion 140-141, 267-268 courts 51, 269 cumin 232, 234, 236 H half shekel 226 handwashing 192, 194, 219-221, 241 ḥasid 4, 7, 177 ḥavūrah 53-54 ḥāvēr 53-54, 201, 237-240, 243 Hebrew 5-6, 19, 47, 75-76, 78, 85, 87-88, 109, 112, 119-120, 122, 132, 138, 152, 155, 157-162, 165-166, 168, 171, 177, 189, 216, 223-224, 226, 228-229, 247 Herod Antipas 23, 33, 105, 115-116, 130, 178, 268, 275, 279 D David 99, 111, 154 Day of Atonement 84, 92-93, 103, 168, 306-309. See also Yom Kippur Dead Sea Scrolls 21, 81, 132, 228, 299, 304 317 246, 271, 275, 277, 280, 289, 291, 294 Jubilee 77, 84-89, 91-96, 98-103, 109-110, 112, 121-122, 126-128 Judas Iscariot 240 Justin Martyr 153, 195 Herod the Great 105, 282, 288, 291 ḥibūr 264-266 Holy Spirit 297, 301-302, 304, 307, 314-315 honey 166-167 I immersion 111, 196, 219, 228-229, 258 impurity 28, 30, 33, 37, 57, 61, 65-66, 143, 174, 196, 200-201, 221-222, 234, 239, 255, 264-266 Isaac 116-119, 234 Israel 13, 15-16, 18-22, 23-24, 71, 77, 80, 83, 89-90, 93, 105-106, 110-114, 120, 122, 125-126, 128, 136, 152, 157-162, 164-166, 168-170, 173-176, 179, 181, 188, 190, 197, 199, 203, 205, 208-209, 212-213, 215, 217-219, 222, 224, 226, 229, 246, 250, 262, 272-273, 276, 278, 285, 295, 311-312 K Kingdom of God 14, 16, 76, 123, 142, 171 kingship 84, 102, 169 L leper 26, 138, 140-141, 144, 277 leprosy 138-140, 144-147 Levi 23, 36, 40, 51, 237 locusts 177 Luther, Martin 37-43, 45, 68 M magic 194, 207, 214, 247 Mary 115, 274 Melchizedek 88, 95, 98-102, 111, 121 mikveh 196, 229 minor agreements 303, 305 mint 232, 234-235 Moses 89-90, 126, 138, 140, 170, 205 mustard 165, 173-174 myrrh 174-176 J Jacob 93 Jericho 23, 134-139, 146-148, 167, 278, 280-282, 295 Jesus 5-7, 14-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 43, 64, 72-73, 75-78, 104-105, 107-110, 115, 121-124, 128, 129-132, 134-149, 151-155, 157-162, 165, 167-169, 171-172, 174-175, 178-180, 184-191, 193-195, 201, 203-228, 230-231, 233-240, 242-250, 264, 267-269, 271, 273-279, 281-283, 286-288, 290-291, 294-295, 297-300, 305-307, 309, 314-315 John the Baptist 29, 32-33, 77, 88, 108-110, 112, 114-115, 117, 119, 122, 128, 156, 161, 177-179, 197, 281 Joseph 93 Josephus 16, 33, 69-71, 85, 87, 89, 94, 103-107, 114-121, 126, 131, 238, N nation 14-17, 19-20, 24, 47, 49-51, 60, 62-63, 70, 106, 120 Nazareth 6, 28, 122, 131, 187, 245, 274, 314 O oaths 48-49, 117-119, 222, 225, 227, 247 P parable 13-14, 17, 22, 32, 54, 124, 136, 158, 161, 163, 169, 172-173, 176, 203-204 Passover 104, 155, 164, 187, 191, 204, 230, 257-258, 271, 273-274, 283 318 Paul 38, 55, 64, 75, 107, 189, 194, 227 Pharisees 14, 32, 39-41, 43, 76, 106, 172, 185, 194-195, 205-207, 211-212, 217, 226, 228, 231-232, 237-238, 241-242, 244, 247, 250-251 Philo 69-70, 89, 92, 94, 103, 105-106, 122, 126, 225, 246, 272 phylacteries 226, 257 Pilate 105 piyyut 197, 250 plucking 215-217, 241, 245, 259 polygamy 189-190 prayer 81, 83, 123-126, 128, 197-198, 214, 226, 230, 257 priesthood 20-21, 84, 102 priests 14, 17-18, 20-22, 84, 90-91, 95, 100, 127, 135, 138, 140, 154, 196, 200-201, 219, 226, 242, 255, 268-269 prophecy 16, 78-79, 81-82, 84-85, 101-102, 171, 240 purification 93, 193-194, 196, 228-229, 241, 247, 269 purity 37, 53-54, 56-57, 65-66, 186, 191-192, 196, 200-201, 219-220, 228-230, 233, 237-238, 240, 243, 247, 256, 258, 265 Samaritans 163, 199, 259, 277 semichāh 213 Septuagint 88, 94, 102, 109-110, 112, 119, 152, 166, 229 Shabbat 186, 191, 199, 204, 206-218, 234-235, 241, 247, 257, 259-260. See also Sabbath Sicarii 107 Son of Man 19, 299-300, 304-305 Sukkot 167, 191, 271, 280, 287 synagogue 70, 122, 131, 141-142, 198, 209, 255, 327 Syriac 193, 228, 232-233, 243, 268 T tax collectors 14, 23-25, 27-32, 35-44, 47-49, 52, 56-61, 65-74, 136, 191, 220, 237-240, 282 Temple 5, 14, 16, 21, 33, 47, 49, 69-70, 75-76, 80, 88, 92, 94-95, 103-105, 110, 123-125, 135, 153-154, 163, 167, 175-176, 185-186, 194, 198-200, 215-217, 220, 223-227, 230, 238-240, 242, 244, 246, 260-261, 269, 271-274, 281-282, 288, 290, 295, 297, 299, 313-314 tenants 13-14, 22, 172 Torah 20, 54-55, 71, 90, 98, 100, 111, 116, 131, 195-196, 202, 205-206, 219, 221, 259-260, 262, 295 Tree of Life 179-180 tzitzit 191, 264, 266-267 Q Quirinius 88, 104-105, 107-109 Qumran 21-22, 83, 85-86, 88-89, 92, 94-95, 125, 198, 200, 219, 227, 229, 246 V vinegar 172, 231 vineyard 13-14, 90, 161, 172, 217 vows 48, 222-225, 227, 247 R repentance 4, 39, 43, 56, 72-73, 81, 108, 110-112, 114, 120-121, 158, 178 W S War Scroll 115, 125 wine 171-172, 175, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230-231, 252 Sabbath 177, 199, 206, 235, 241, 243, 245. See also Shabbat Sadducees 106, 200, 226, 242 Samaria 105, 144, 273-275, 277-278, 288-291, 295 319 Y Yavneh 225, 246 Yom Kippur 84-87, 89, 92-96, 100-103, 109, 121, 127 Z Zacchaeus 23, 32, 36, 43, 51, 136, 139, 165, 282 320 Index of Greek Words Ἡ Α ἅγιος 20 ἄκανθα 168-170 ἀκρίς 177 ἀµήν 300 ἀξίνη 156 ἁµαρτία 103, 123 ἄµπελος 170-171 ἄνηθον 232 ἀπολυτροῦν 75 ἀπολύτρωσις 75 ἀρχιτελώνης 23 ἄφεσις 88-89, 103, 108-112 ἡδύοσµον 232 Θ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας 131 θέρος 160 Ι Ἰεριχώ 137, 282 ἱκανός 267 Κ καθαρίζειν 228-229 καθαρισµóς 193 καλέω 110 καρπός 158 κάρφος 152 κατά 304 κέδρος 178 κεράτιον 176 κερατωνία 176 κηρύσσειν 108, 110, 112 κλάδος 157 κλῆµα 157 κορβᾶν 223 κρασπέδον 264 Β βασιλεία 14 βάτος 170 Βηθφαγῆ 161 βλασφηµεῖν 304 Γ Γεθσηµανί 162 Γιναῆς 277 Δ δένδρον 152 δίκαιος 119 δικαιοσύνη 116, 118-119, 121 δοκός 152 δρῦς 178 δῶρον 223 Λ λάχανον 232 λίβανος 175 λίµνη Γεννησαρὲτ 131 λυτροῦν 75 λύτρωσις 75 Ε ἐγγίζειν 136 ἔθνος 14, 20 εἰς 304 ἐλαία 162 ἐλευθερῖα 89 εὐσέβεια 116, 118 εὐσεβήσειν 118 Μ µέλι 166 µετάνοια 112 µετρητής 193 Ξ ξύλον 152, 154-155, 179 321 ξύλον ζωῆς 179 Ο οἶνος 171 ὄξος 172 ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν 162 ὀφείληµα 123-124 ὄχλος 17-18 Π παράδεισος 179 πλεονάκις 272 πρῶτος 105 Ρ ῥάβδος 155 ῥίζα 155 Σ σίναπι 173 σµύρνα 174 σταφυλαί 168 στιβάς 157 σῦκα 168 συκάµινος 164-166 συκῆ 159 συκοµορέα 164-165 σῦκον 160 Τ τελώνης 23, 25, 27-29, 45, 56, 65 τρίβολος 168-169 Υ υἷος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 299, 305 Φ φοῖνιξ 166 φύλλον 157 Ω ὡς κόκκος σινάπεως 173 322 ‫‪Index of Hebrew Words‬‬ ‫חַג ַהסֻּכּוֹת ‪271‬‬ ‫שּׁבֻעוֹת ‪271‬‬ ‫חַג ַה ָ‬ ‫ח ְַרדָּ ל ‪173‬‬ ‫ָחגָב ‪177‬‬ ‫חָרוּב ‪176-177‬‬ ‫חוֹמֶץ ‪172‬‬ ‫א‬ ‫אֱֹלהִים ‪102‬‬ ‫אִילָן ‪152‬‬ ‫אֵלוֹן ‪178‬‬ ‫ֶאבְיוֹן ‪121 ,113‬‬ ‫א ֶֶרז ‪178-179‬‬ ‫אַלּוֹן ‪178‬‬ ‫אָטָד ‪168-169‬‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ָטבַל ‪228-229‬‬ ‫טוּמְאַת אוֹ ָכלִין ‪221‬‬ ‫ב‬ ‫בִּיטּוּל ַהנֶּדֶ ר ‪224‬‬ ‫בֵּית ַהגָּן ‪277‬‬ ‫בֶּן אָדָ ם ‪300‬‬ ‫י‬ ‫יִשׂ ְָראֱל ‪154 ,21‬‬ ‫יַי ִן ‪175 ,171-172‬‬ ‫י ְַרבּוּזִין ‪233‬‬ ‫יוֹבֵל ‪112 ,109 ,88-89‬‬ ‫ג‬ ‫גְּאוּלָה ‪75‬‬ ‫גִּדֵּ ף ‪304‬‬ ‫ֶגּפֶן ‪170-171‬‬ ‫ַגּבָּיי ‪237 ,52 ,47‬‬ ‫שׁ ָמנִים ‪162‬‬ ‫גַּת ְ‬ ‫גָּאַל ‪75‬‬ ‫גּוֹי ‪19‬‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ְ ּכעֵין ַהח ְַרדָ ּל ‪174‬‬ ‫ַכּזַּי ִת ‪163‬‬ ‫ַכּכּוֹתֶ בֶת ‪168‬‬ ‫כָּל ‪266 ,21‬‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬ ‫לְבוֹנָה ‪175-176‬‬ ‫לְדַ בֵּר ְבּ ‪304‬‬‫ְל ָהבִיא צֶדֶ ק ע ֹ ָלמִים ‪102‬‬ ‫ְל ַכלֵּא ַה ֶפּשַׁע ‪102 ,83-84‬‬ ‫ְל ַכפֵּר עָוֹן ‪102-103 ,84‬‬ ‫שׁ ֲענֵּן ‪168‬‬ ‫ְל ַ‬ ‫ִלמְשׁ ֹ ַח ק ֹדֶ שׁ קָדָ שִׁים ‪102 ,84‬‬ ‫ֶלאֱחוֹז ְ ּבי ָדוֹ ‪274‬‬ ‫ַלחְתּ ֹם ַחטָּאות ‪102 ,84‬‬ ‫ַלחְתּ ֹם חָזוֹן ְונָבִיא ‪102 ,84‬‬ ‫דְ ּבַשׁ ‪166‬‬ ‫דְ ּרוֹר ‪,121 ,109-112 ,103 ,101 ,93 ,88-89 ,85‬‬ ‫‪126‬‬ ‫דֶּ קֶל ‪166‬‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ִהצְדִּ יק ‪119‬‬ ‫ֵהשִׁיב ‪247 ,80‬‬ ‫ַהמַּצּוֹת חַג ‪271‬‬ ‫הַר ַהזֵּיתִ ים ‪162‬‬ ‫הוֹשַׁע נָא ‪168‬‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ְמ ַבשֵּׂר ‪101‬‬ ‫ְמלָאכָה ‪245 ,213‬‬ ‫ְמשִׁי ַח הָרוּ ַח ‪121 ,101‬‬ ‫מוֹכֵס ‪52 ,47‬‬ ‫מוֹצָא ‪287‬‬ ‫ז‬ ‫זַי ִת ‪162‬‬ ‫ח‬ ‫חִיבּוּר ‪264‬‬ ‫‪323‬‬ ‫ק ָָרא ‪111-113‬‬ ‫קוֹנָם ‪223‬‬ ‫קוֹרה ‪152‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫מוֹר ‪174‬‬ ‫מוּ ְקצֶה ‪211‬‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ְסלִיחָה ‪109‬‬ ‫ְסמִיכָה ‪213‬‬ ‫ְסנֶה ‪170‬‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ֵריקָם ‪271‬‬ ‫ָרחַץ ‪228-229‬‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ע‬ ‫שׁ ִמטָּה ‪,112-114 ,109-110 ,103 ,87-93‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪126-128 ,121-122‬‬ ‫שׁנַת הַדְּ רוֹר ‪88‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫שׁ ְקמָה ‪164-165‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫שׁבֶת ‪233‬‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫שׁ ְבעִים ‪82‬‬ ‫שׁ ֻבעִים ִ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫שׁ ֶֹרשׁ ‪155‬‬ ‫ֲענָבִים ‪170 ,168‬‬ ‫ִעקָּר ‪155‬‬ ‫עֵין ַגּנִּים ‪277‬‬ ‫עֵץ ‪179 ,152‬‬ ‫עֵץ ַחיּ ִים ‪179‬‬ ‫עַם ‪21 ,19‬‬ ‫ָעלֶה ‪157‬‬ ‫ָענָף ‪157‬‬ ‫ת‬ ‫תְּ ֵאנָה ‪159-160‬‬ ‫תָּ מָר ‪166‬‬ ‫תּוּת ‪166‬‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פְּקוּדָ ה ‪101‬‬ ‫פּ ְִרי ‪171 ,158‬‬ ‫פִּידְ יוֹן ַה ֵבּן ‪274‬‬ ‫פִּיקוּ ַח נֶפֶשׁ ‪245‬‬ ‫פֵּיגָם ‪233‬‬ ‫ַפּגָּה ‪161‬‬ ‫פּ ְַרדֵּ ס ‪179‬‬ ‫ָפּקַד ‪79-80‬‬ ‫צ‬ ‫צְדָ קָה ‪119-120‬‬ ‫צֶדֶ ק ‪119 ,84‬‬ ‫צַדִ ּיק ‪119‬‬ ‫צ ַָרעַת ‪138‬‬ ‫צוֹרְך נֶפֶשׁ ‪245‬‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫קִיסָּם ‪152‬‬ ‫קֵץ ‪160-161 ,101 ,87‬‬ ‫ַקי ִץ ‪160-161‬‬ ‫ָקטָן ‪274‬‬ ‫ק ְָר ָבּן ‪224‬‬ ‫‪324‬‬ Special thanks to Pieter Lechner for his assistance in creating the pdf of this e-book. 325 Cover Image: A limestone table from the first-century C.E. synagogue in Magdala. Photographed by Joshua N. Tilton.