(Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 107) Garrick V. Allen, John Anthony Dunne - Ancient Readers and Their Scriptures - Engaging The Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity (2019, Brill) PDF

Ancient Readers and their Scriptures
Ancient Judaism and Early

Christianity
arbeiten zur geschichte des antiken judentums und des
urchristentums
Founding Editor
Martin Hengel † (Tübingen)
Executive Editors
Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin)

Martin Goodman (Oxford)
Editorial Board
Lutz Doering (Münster) – Tal Ilan (Berlin) – Judith Lieu (Cambridge)

Tessa Rajak (Reading/Oxford) – Daniel R. Schwartz ( Jerusalem)
Seth Schwartz (New York) – Christiane Zimmerman (Kiel)
volume 107
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ajec

Ancient Readers and
their Scriptures
Engaging the Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism
and Christianity
Edited by
Garrick V. Allen
John Anthony Dunne
LEIDEN | BOSTON
The indices for this book received financial support from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Book
Publication Scheme at Dublin City University.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Garrick, Allen V., editor.

Title: Ancient readers and their scriptures : engaging the Hebrew Bible in
early Judaism and Christianity / edited by Garrick V. Allen and John Anthony Dunne.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2019. | Series: Ancient Judaism and
early Christianity, ISSN 1871-6636 ; volume 107 | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018039484 (print) | LCCN 2018043897 (ebook) |
ISBN 9789004383371 (Ebook) | ISBN 9789004383364 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation,
etc—History—Early church, ca. 30-600.
Classification: LCC BS1171.3 (ebook) | LCC BS1171.3 .A53 2018 (print) |
DDC 221.609/01—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018039484
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1871-6636
isbn 978-90-04-38336-4 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-38337-1 (e-book)
Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Contributors vii
Preface ix
Garrick V. Allen and John Anthony Dunne
1 Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity x

William A. Tooman
Part 1
Reading Scripture in the Second Temple Period
2 What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like? 3

Lindsey Arielle Askin
3 Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings and Curses in

4QBerakhot 27
Mika S. Pajunen
4 The Qumran Library and the Shadow it Casts on the Wall of the
Cave 40
Jonathan D.H. Norton
Part 2
The New Testament and Practices of Reading and Reusing Jewish
Scripture
5 Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and “Rewritten Bible”: A

Comparative Analysis 77
Susan E. Docherty
6 Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition and Early Christianity:

Textual History and Theology 98
Martin Karrer
vi Contents
7 The Return of the Shepherd: Zechariah 13:7–14:6 as an Interpretive

Framework for Mark 13 128
Paul Sloan
8 The Hybrid Isaiah Quotation in Luke 4:18–19 159

Joseph M. Lear
part 3
Reading Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism
9 A Single, Huge, Aramaic Spoken Heretic: Sequences of Adam’s Creation

in Early Rabbinic Literature 175
Willem Smelik
10 The Variant Reading ‫ ולו‬/ ‫ ולא‬of Psalm 139:16 in Rabbinic Literature 209

Dagmar Börner-Klein
11 Jewish and Christian Exegetical Controversy in Late Antiquity: The Case

of Psalm 22 and the Esther Narrative 222
Abraham Jacob Berkovitz
part 4
Reading Retrospective
12 What does ‘Reading’ have to do with it? Ancient Engagement with

Jewish Scripture 243
Bibliography 253
Index of Ancient Sources 291
Index of Subjects 305
Index of Modern Authors 311
Contributors
Garrick V. Allen
is Lecturer in New Testament at Dublin City Univerisity and Research Associate
of the School of Ancient and Modern Languages and Cultures, University of
Pretoria.
Lindsey A. Askin
is Lecturer in Jewish Studies at the University of Bristol.

is Assistant Professor of Liturgy, Worship, and Ritual at Hebrew Union
College—Jewish Institute of Religion, USA.
is Professor for Jewish Studies at the Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf.
Susan E. Docherty
is Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism and Head of Theology at
Newman University Birmingham.
John Anthony Dunne

is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN).
Martin Karrer
is Professor für Neues Testament und seine Umwelt at the Kirchliche
Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel.
Joseph M. Lear
is lead pastor of Iowa City First Assembly of God in Iowa City, IA, a university
chaplain at the University of Iowa, and a leader of a multilinugal theology co-
hort for immigrant communities.
Jonathan Norton
is Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Heythrop College, University of London.
Mika Pajunen
is currently working as a University Lecturer in Old Testament Studies at the
University of Helsinki.
viii Contributors
Paul Sloan
is Assistant Professor of Theology in the School of Christian Thought at
Houston Baptist University.
Willem Smelik
is Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic Literature at University College London.
William A. Tooman
is Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and Director of Research at
St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, (Scotland).
Preface
This volume is the result of the 2014 Symposium for Biblical and Early Chris-
tian Studies, organised by the editors, which took place at the University of
St Andrews (2–3 June). The theme of the gathering was “Ancient Readers and
Their Scriptures: The Texts, Reading Strategies, and Versions of the Hebrew
Bible in Second Temple and Early Judaism,” a theme designed to examine
the influence of Jewish scriptural texts on literary production in early Juda-
ism and Christianity. A unifying feature of the various ancient corpora that
are subsumed under this heading is their often intense exegetical interest in
the wording and thematic substance of the works that came to make up the
Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. Organising the symposium in this manner al-
lowed us to bring into conversation scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, the Dead
Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, Rabbinic Literature, and early Christianity, and
offer experts an opportunity to peek over the fence and see how discourse on
this topic operates in cognate fields. A major outcome of the gathering, which
is on display in this volume, is that scholars of the New Testament are now tak-
ing more seriously the textual culture of the late Second Temple period, the pe-
riod in which the majority of the New Testament was composed. This volume
provides a snapshot into how the differing disciplines approach the reuse and
interpretation of scripture in ways that are mutually illuminating.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the University of St Andrews’
Development Office, St Mary’s College, and the St Mary’s College Society for
generously funding the conference and to the many postgraduate students
who assisted in its execution. Thanks also go to delegates and presenters who
contributed to an exhilarating gathering.

Chapter 1
Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian

Antiquity
William A. Tooman
In the last thirty years, Biblical and Second Temple studies have doubled and
redoubled the resources invested in the study of ancient Jewish textual culture.
Ancient Jewish literacy, text production, textualization, scribal culture, exege-
sis, and scribal practice are all burgeoning sub-disciplines, disciplines that were
sparsely populated only a generation ago. Today, the more established disci-
plines of textual-criticism, historical-criticism, Israelite and Jewish history, and
biblical interpretation must take into account this investment, which has pro-
duced a wide and deep body of research and profoundly altered the academic
landscape. Many traditional sub-disciplines in biblical studies, for example,
are fading from view. In historical criticism, the influence of form criticism
and tradition history has been profoundly attenuated, surrendering more and
more territory to redaction criticism. In textual criticism, the quest for original
readings and Urtexte has been almost entirely abandoned (except in the case
of select witnesses). Instead, textual critics profile witnesses and manuscripts,
highlighting their unique scribal features, techniques, and Tendenzen. The cru-
cial character trait of this trend is a realignment of scholarly values. The old
and the original, the recovery of which was once the principle object of his-
torical inquiry, has been forced to give way. Transmitting, rewriting, updating,
interpreting, and translating are viewed as equally if not more valuable, activi-
ties of erudite, sophisticated, and (most importantly) interesting writers. As a
result of this landscape redesign, the boundaries between (so-called) higher-
criticism and lower-criticism, between biblical and postbiblical literature, be-
tween Israelite and Jewish culture have been all but erased. What remains is a
religious culture that is textual through and through, and the production and
consumption of religious literature has become the defining characteristic not
only of ancient Judaism but of the many disciplines dedicated to its study. This
characterization is an exaggeration, to be sure, but it is very difficult to over-
state the current academic stress on writing and writtenness.
For all the energy expended on this theme in recent decades, many ques-
tions remain unanswered and many more are debated. This collection of
Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity xi
essays represents yet another investment of effort to better understand an-

cient Jewish textual culture. In 2014, the St Andrews Symposium for Biblical and
Early Christian Studies invited a diverse group of internationally recognized
scholars and new researchers to explore the topic “Ancient Readers and Their
Scriptures: The Texts, Reading Strategies, and Versions of the Hebrew Bible
in Early Judaism and Christianity.” The collaborators addressed a number of
those unanswered and debated questions, including (but not limited to): the
materiality of scribal production, contextualization of scribal products, the
notion of ancient ‘libraries,’ the compositional and exegetical habits shared
by Second Temple Jewish and Christian composers, the text-forms utilized by
early Christian and Rabbinic writers, the priorities of early Christian interpret-
ers, the selection and adaptation of written material in new compositions, and
early textual manifestations of Jewish and Christian tensions. The essays on
these themes are unified by their mutual quest to correct or refine current un-
derstanding of a particular scribal practice, product, or culture, adding new
contours and definition to the academic landscape.
The three chapters that make up Part 1, Reading Scripture in the Second
Temple Period are corrective. In the first chapter, “What did Ben Sira’s Bible
and Desk Look Like?”, Lindsey Askin confronts issues of memory and copying
when she asks “what are the roles of memory and text-reliance in Ben Sira’s
composition?” (p. 3). Askin contends that scholars of ancient Jewish litera-
ture, including Ben-Sira scholars, make unacknowledged assumptions about
authors’ work habits and settings based upon textual reuse, reuse like the allu-
sions to the Hebrew Bible in the Praise of the Fathers (Ben Sira 45). It is com-
monly assumed that scribes “like Ben Sira ‘had their scrolls out’ while writing”
(p. 4). To confirm or deny this assumption, Askin addresses Ben Sira’s access to
“books” and the “physicality” question: namely, the settings and circumstances
in which a writer would have read and written. Thus, she rehearses some of the
evidence for libraries (i.e., public or private collections of literature) and their
use by ancient writers, as well as surveying types of library furniture, writing
tools, and body positions used while writing, all of which place physical con-
straints on writers’ work habits. The evidence for literary collections is exten-
sive, especially in the Hellenstic Near East, and it must be acknowledged that
ancient writers do appear to have worked in and with such ‘libraries’ when
possible. This observation, though important and at times underemphasized,
is not entirely new. It is in her examination of physical constraints that Askin
breaks new ground. She concludes that “[m]any writers read inspiring texts
before writing and often took notes beside them. But they physically could not
do both at the same time, not with the limits of furniture,” so “[t]he evidence
xii Tooman
therefore leans towards some, though not total, memory-reliance while in the
act of writing.” Askin further observes that some editorial process, up to and
including rewriting whole texts, typically followed writing, even before the
fourth century CE and the institution of tables as work-surfaces (which al-
lowed for the use of multiple scrolls side-by-side as it were). The dichotomy
between literary-reuse by memory and by copying has been significantly un-
dermined in recent decades (especially in the works of Raymond Person and
David Carr). Askin calls scholars to also consider evidence from a new direc-
tion, the constraints of the physicality of writing. In so doing, she has further
complicated the relationship between memory, copying, and rewriting in the
age of ben Sira. The implications of Askin’s conclusions go far beyond ben Sira,
of course.
Mika Pajunen undertakes an examination of 4QBerakhot (4Q286–87), a
fragmentary text that has been linked with the liturgy of the proposed covenant
renewal ceremony of the yaḥad (1QS 1–2). Pajunen contends that this still-the-
oretical social setting has unduly influenced academic analyses of 4QBerakhot.
He undertakes a fresh analysis of the blessings and curses in 4QBerakhot with-
out assuming a connection to 1QS. What he discovers is an unexpected empha-
sis on the creation motif in the curses and blessings. He analyzes the creation
traditions of Gen 1:1–2:3 and later traditions receiving them, and scrutinizes
how they were reused by the writers of 4QBerakhot. Pajunen’s analysis leads
him to the conclusion that 4QBerakhot is not related to the covenant renewal
ritual mentioned in 1QS at all. Rather, it appears to represent a part of a liturgy
for a covenant in which God’s elect group blesses his name together with the
angels. This conclusion situates 4QBerakhot with a group of other Dead Sea
texts that describe communal praise of God together with the angels, works
like Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hodayot. In 4QBerakhot it is only the
members of the yaḥad who are able to undertake human-celestial praise,
“[t]hus, 4QBerakhot fits in perfectly with other supposed ritual texts of the
yaḥad in its particularistic worldview where their new covenant with God has
surpassed the national covenant that is still part of the 1QS description of the
ritual.” Pajunen also observes that the emphasis placed on the act of blessing
the name of God in 4QBerakhot agrees with a widespread tradition in the late
Second Temple period that humanity was, from the moment of creation, obli-
gated to praise God (e.g., Festival Prayers). Pajunen has thus, recontextualized
the thought of 4QBerakhot, both within the yaḥad—in a different liturgical
setting—and within the wider thought-world of the Second Temple period.
Jonathan Norton revisits the Qumran-Essene hypothesis that not only asso-
ciates the site with the Essene sect but likewise associates the Dead Sea Scrolls
with their “library” (“The Qumran Library and the Shadow it Casts on the Wall
of the Cave”). He argues that an essential component of the Qumran-Essene
Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity xiii
hypothesis is that the scrolls are intimately related to the life of the community
that lived at the site. Norton observes that the Qumran-Essene hypothesis in-
verts normal analytic procedure. Norton then considers current scholarly evi-
dence for and against designating the Qumran finds a “library,” the calligraphic
profile of the scrolls and the so-called “Qumran scribal practice,” the connec-
tion between the cave finds and the Khirbet Qumran site, and the distribution
of texts in the caves. His nuanced conclusion is that although the scrolls do
reflect a coherent Jewish movement “none of these material-scribal features
that connect the various Qumran scroll caches entails either a common life-
setting for all the scrolls or that the scrolls’ discovery context is coterminous
with their functional life-setting.” The implication of this conclusion is that the
material connections alone do not fully justify the conclusion that the scrolls
are directly tied to the outlook of the people who lived at Qumran. The fact
that we cannot know why or how the scrolls came to Qumran, however, should
not be considered a problem. Rather, agnosticism on this point as it relates to
the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, positions scholars to know more about an-
cient Jewish engagments with literary traditions. Norton’s conclusions, thus,
coincide with the growing compromise-view that the connection between the
caves and site is not so certain as once assumed, and the identification of the
site’s occupants with the Essenes is not iron-clad either. Rather than speaking
to ancient practices of reading and writing, per se, Norton attempts to show
that a more agnostic view on the life-setting of the scrolls has greater poten-
tial to yield new evidence about reading and writing, evidence that is not con-
strained by predetermined conclusions.
All three essays in Part 1 represent correctives of one sort or another. Though
in broad terms they fundamentally agree with commonly held scholarly posi-
tions, they serve as cautions and correctives. All three warn against unexam-
ined associations of one sort or another: associating the ancient physicalities
of writing with our own; associating 4QBerakhot with the covenant-renewal
liturgy mentioned in 1QS; or associating the Dead Sea Scrolls’ physical setting
and their functional life-setting. Just considering these three associations, our
writers show how they have led to unproven (if not doubtful) conclusions, and
they caution against scholarly hubris. Not only do we not know as much as we
suppose about ancient practices of reading and writing, but we do not know
as much as we suppose about the ways that we make associations and reach
conclusions.
Part 2 turns to the theme The New Testament and Practices of Reading and
Reusing Jewish Scripture. The first essay, by Susan Docherty, addresses the
topic “Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and ‘Rewritten Bible’:
xiv Tooman
A Comparative Analysis.”1 Since no systematic investigation of this kind has

been undertaken to date, Docherty’s essay represents a “map” of “potential
avenues for further exploration.” For this initial exploration, she focuses on
Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (designated L.A.B.). Docherty notes, almost
immediately, that scholarship has focused on exegetical traditions common to
the New Testament writings and rewritten bible texts, traditions like the belief
that the Mosaic law was given through angels, the atoning value of the aborted
sacrifice of Isaac and that of Jesus of Nazareth, conception and birth stories of
central figures like Moses and Samson as compared with Jesus, and so forth.
Comparison of the exegetical methods employed in the two corpora, however,
remains at a very early stage. Among the few scholars to attempt something
in this direction are Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans, Eckart Reinmuth, Marko
Jauhiainen, and Beate Kowalksi. This, Docherty argues, is where significant ad-
vances can be made. She identifies seven ‘exegetical methods’ shared by the
NT and L.A.B.: “citations containing direct speech [from HB],” “direct citations
in speeches,” “scriptural allusions in speeches and prayers,” “repeated cita-
tions,” “textual proximity as a relevant factor for interpretation,” “‘fulfillment’
of scripture,” and “prominence of reference to Genesis.” Not all of these are
of a kind, of course, as Docherty points out. Nor are these ‘techniques’ unique
to rewritten bible. They are evident within other genres of early Jewish inter-
pretation, such as the pesharim, targumim, and midrashim. Nonetheless, less
attention has been paid to exegetical similarities between rewritten bible and
the NT, and Docherty calls for more detailed analysis of the precise interpreta-
tive techniques employed in rewritten bible, and comparison with the writings
of the New Testament.
Martin Karrer turns his attention to quotations of the Jewish Scriptures
in the words of Jesus. His essay “Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition
and Early Christianity: Textual History and Theology” winds its way through
an array of related topics and issues: quotations in the NT, “peculiarities” of
the major manuscripts, the history of the Jesus tradition, and recensions and
stylistic phenomena in the transmission of the Septuagint. These four inter-
twined pathways—after close scrutiny of particular examples and evidence—
lead Karrer to four interlaced conclusions. First, not only did Jesus and his fol-
lowers know the Jewish scriptures well, they also had access to manuscripts of
1 “Rewritten Bible,” “Rewritten scripture,” or just “rewriting” is a contested category. Which

texts can be so classified and whether or not they share enough literary conventions to con-
stitute a genre is debated. Docherty includes (at least) Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), Jubilees,
the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities in the category.
Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity xv
the books that later became the Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible. Second, in de-
fiance of one popular consensus in NT scholarship, Karrer shows that some of
these quotations were based on Aramaic or Hebrew texts, the most celebrated
example of which is Jesus’ cry on the cross. (He quickly qualifies that the great
majority of quotations in the Jesus tradition most-closely represent the Greek
scriptural witnesses.) Thus, while the Greek versions were the most widely
utilized sources for the NT authors, one cannot entirely ignore Hebrew and
Aramaic. Third, the first Christian writers made use of all the extant Greek ver-
sions of their day: OG, manuscripts influenced by kaige, Antiochene-Lucianic
forms, and prototypes of ‘The Three’ (Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila). Chart-
ing the history of early Christian textual reuse can provide essential informa-
tion about the textual history of the Greek traditions. Fourth,  Karrer concludes
that there was no reverse-influence between the NT and the Greek versions.
That is, quotations in the NT normally did not influence the Septuagint. This
conclusion increases the relevance of the data provided by NT quotations re-
garding the textual history of the Greek versions. These four conclusions, Kar-
rer contends, call for further examination of the precise form(s) of all early
Christian quotations of the Jewish scriptures. The evidence of which is essen-
tial to understanding early Christianity’s Jewish Hellenistic context, the theol-
ogy of Greek scriptures and NT alike, and the history of the Greek versions in
the first centuries of the Common Era.
Paul Sloan discusses Zech 13:7–14:5 as an “interpretive framework” for
Mark 13 in his essay “The Return of the Shepherd.” Sloan’s attention is drawn,
in particular, to Mark 13:26: “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in
clouds’ with great power and glory.” Sloan sides with the traditional interpreta-
tion of the verse as a reference to Jesus’ future parousia, against Caird, Wright,
McKnight, France and others who dispute the traditional reading. Overlooked
in this debate, according to Sloan, is the conflated allusion to Dan 7:13 and
Zech 14:5 in the verse. The allusion to Dan 7:13 is widely recognized. The allu-
sion to Zech 14:5 is less so. Sloan contends that the Gospel author read Zech
13:7–14:5 as an oracle about the eschaton. Moreover, due to additional lexical
and thematic correspondences between the two (including the observation
that Mark 13 and Zech 13:7–14:5 manifest a shared sequence of elements that
is too similar to be coincidental), he concludes that it is Zechariah that is the
operative text for Mark 13, not Dan 7:13. The “coming” in Mark 13:26, then, refers
not to Daniel—which might be a reference to an enthronement or ascension,
in any case—but to Zechariah’s “divine advent.”
In the final chapter of Part 2, “The Hybrid Isaiah Quotation in Luke 4:18–19,”
Joseph Lear examines the story of Jesus’ synagogue reading in Nazareth, in
which he announces the fulfillment of Isa 4:18–19. After itemizing differences
between Jesus’ quotation and the Greek versions (including plusses, minuses
xvi Tooman
and substitutions), Lear observes that the quote is actually a hybrid of Isa 61:1–
2 and 58:6. This insight is not new, but Lear shows that Lukan scholars cannot
agree why Luke has omitted “to heal those broken in heart” from Isa 61:1 and
“the day of vengeance, to comfort all those who mourn” from Isa 61:2, why he
included the line “to send those who are oppressed into liberty” from Isa 58:6,
nor why the final verb of the quotation was changed from κηρύσσω (Isa 61:2) to
καλέω. Lear proposes that the change is aesthetic: to create verbal parallelisms
between the final four phrases in the quotation. Rather than disrupting Isa
61:1–2, these changes were careful to preserve “the meaning of the original.” In
the context of Luke’s gospel, the quotation is connected to the theme of son-
ship, the broader theme of this and the surrounding pericopae. Lear has devi-
ated from Lukan scholarship (broadly understood) by arguing that Luke was
not willing to sacrifice the sense of his source text to serve his own literary and
theological purposes. Textual change, he argues, is not necessarily indicative of
semantic change. More than this, Lear argues that Luke goes out of his way to
replicate Hebrew poetic aesthetics, preserving the character of his source, not
just its meaning.
Each chapter in this section has a fine-grained focus, considering a single
quotation or a few quotations of the Hebrew scriptures. Nonetheless, each has
implications that nuance our understanding early Christian scriptural reuse
more broadly. Karrer reminds us of and adds to the slowly emerging, highly
complex picture of the precise text form(s) of quotations employed by specific
authors or works—a topic not infequently dismissed by breezy assertions that
NT authors quoted whimsically or faultily, and that they only quoted from the
Greek version(s), however understood. Sloan and Lear each marshal an apolo-
getic for the NT writers. Sloan asserts that the writer of Mark 13 had a high
respect for the structure and sense of Zech 13:7–14:5 and even adopted its orga-
nizational and thematic shape. Lear contends, similarly, that Luke’s writer(s)
maintained the aesthetic and semantic integrity of Isa 61:1–2 and 58:6, even
while altering their graphic representation. All four essays eschew popular
generalizations about the NT’s reuse of the Hebrew scriptures and increase
the volume of current calls for more complex, more flexible portraits of early
Christian reading practices.
Part 3, Reading Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism, begins with Willem Smelik’s

“United in Adam We Stand: A Single, Huge, Aramaic Spoken Heretic. Sequences
of Adam’s Creation in Early Rabbinic Literature.” God, we are told in Genesis 1,
created humans after his own likeness. From this, Jewish exegetes implied that
the first human was “an androgyne as huge as its own Maker” (p. 175). Adam’s
vast size was surrendered when he sinned, and the myth of his original size and
its loss is perceptible in certain rabbinic texts, three of which are examined by
Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity xvii
Smelik: m. San. 4:5, t. San. 8, and b. San. 38b. “The way these latter [two] texts
select and sequence, and thereby resignify and embed these Adamic tradi-
tions, is the subject of the present essay” (p. 175). In particular, Smelik identi-
fies and explores two phenomena that effected the reception of the First Adam
tradition: the selective use of circulating traditions, which were transmitted in
blocks, and their reuse and adaptation in subsequent rabbinic texts. Mishna
Sanhedrin 4:5 includes two interpretations of Gen 4:10 and four reasons for
Adam’s unique creation. The interpretations of Gen 4:10 are brought to bear
on halakic concerns regarding evidence offered in capital cases. In the two in-
terpretations, we see how elements of the First Adam myth were “marshalled
for good effect as raw material, realigned to serve new purposes, divested of
their original impetus” (p. 206). In Bavli Sanhedrin 38b, traditions about the
First Adam (attributed to Rav Yehuda) have been neatly and intricately woven
together. In their new garb, these traditions correspond to the four reasons that
the mishna gave for creating Adam as a solitary being. The new text is no longer
a speculation about the creation of the First Adam or a halakic supplement but
a homily on m. San. 4:5, Gen 1:26–27 and Psalm 139, providing the Adam myth
with another new function. From all this, Smelik draws important conclusions
about the evolution of several intertwined texts and ideas, including God’s de-
sire to create humans and sustenance of them, the likeness of God in humans,
and the singularity of God.
“The Variant reading ‫ ולו‬/ ‫ ולא‬of Psalm 139:16 in Rabbinic Literature” by
Dagmar Börner-Klein begins with the observation that despite persistent as-
sertions that the rabbis made exclusive use of the MT (or nearly exclusive) vari-
ant readings are well known the Rabbinic literature (per Abulafia, ibn Labrat,
Seeligmann, Aptowitzer, Levy, Teeter, etc.). She then turns to the variant ‫ ולו‬/
‫ ולא‬in Psalm 139:16: “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; and in your book
were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as
yet there was none of them [‫]ולא‬/ when he (or ‘it’) was one of them [‫]ולו‬.” Not
just an oral variant, the reading ‫ ולו‬is already attested in 11QPsa and appears as
a marginal reading in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices. Whether this reading
was known to the rabbis or invented by them independently, it resolves the
difficultly in understanding the last line of v. 16. The reading ‫ ולו‬is employed
in Midrash Tanḥuma, Yalkut Shimoni, and S. Eli. Rab. 1–2. The reading is also
discussed by the medievals David Kimḥi and Jehuda he-Ḥassid. Her analysis
underlines and supports the conclusion that, for the rabbis, a variant was not
correct-or-error, original-or-secondary, as a modern text-critic might conclude.
A variant is, in the plain sense of the phrase, a variant reading. Börner-Klein
cites Seeligmann in conclusion “Midrashim which are built on readings of the
Bible text apparently deviating from MT are of particular interest and of no
small importance for the history of the Biblical text.”
xviii Tooman
The third and final essay in Part 3 is Abraham Berkovitz’ “Jewish and Chris-
tian Exegetical Controversy in Late Antiquity: The Case of Psalm 22 and the
Esther Narrative.” Berkovitz discusses the Jewish anti-Christian polemical
identification of Psalm 22 with Esther and the Purim narrative. Studies to date
focus on Midrash Tehillim (Menn, Tkacz, Dorival), and Berkovitz expands
upon these studies by including earlier rabbinic materials that link Esther and
Purim to Psalm 22. Christian exegetes saw in Psalm 22 a prefiguration of the
Passion story. Beginning in the late second century, Jews were already link-
ing Psalm 22 with Esther as a counter-reading. In one interpretive stream, the
voice of the psalm was identified with Esther who “acquired the role of a true
Jewish Christ, vitiating Jesus’ claim to that title” (p. 237). Other Late Antique
sources went further, equating Haman with Jesus and the enemies of Esther
with their Christian neighbors. In this way, Esther and Psalm 22 provided tem-
plates for Jews define their relationship with Christianity. As Berkowitz con-
cludes, this belongs “to a larger trend beginning in the third century—earlier
than scholars have previously recognized—and culminating in the eleventh-
century Midrash Tehillim” (p. 223).
The three essays that make up Part 3 explore rabbinic reading strategies
and exegetical techniques. Smelik describes the exegetical redeployment of
the First Adam tradition and the role it plays in different social contexts and
in the development of several related theological debates. Börner-Klein sec-
onds proposals that emphasize the importance of variant readings in rabbinic
exegetical activity and Berkovitz establishes the antiquity of Jewish polemi-
cal readings of Psalm 22. All three highlight the sophistication and nuance of
rabbinic techniques and strategies, and all three challenge particular trends in
current scholarship. Smelik challenges ideas that rabbinic exegetical writings
can be characterized by incoherence of ideas or composition. Even seemingly
aggregated texts can be the product of careful rewriting and revision. Börner-
Klein challenges assumptions about a fixed-form for the rabbinic scriptures
and the nature of variants for rabbinic writings, and Berkovitz challenges those
who see Christian-Jewish polemical exegesis as a (more-or-less) medieval
phenomenon.
The essays collected here cover a variety of times, places, and religious com-
munities, as well as many different facets of the encounter with the Hebrew
Scriptures in antiquity. Despite this breadth, they possess an unexpected unity.
All the essays challenge scholarly assumptions or “popular” academic wisdom
in one way or another. They refine our understanding of the culture of writ-
ing and writtenness that characterizes Second Temple communities, and they
correct a number assumptions and methodological infelicities, guiding future
researchers toward firm and fruitful ground.
Part 1
Reading Scripture in the Second Temple Period
⸪
Chapter 2
What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like?1

Lindsey Arielle Askin
Regarding the scribe, Sir 39:2 reads: “he will preserve the tales of famous men,
and he will be engaged with parables in turning.”2 The late-third/early-second
century bce Jewish scribe and wisdom teacher Yeshua Ben Sira uses a number
of scribal techniques in his text, among these are the use of “literary” language
rather than colloquial expression, quotations and allusions, and the colophon.3
He promotes the scribal lifestyle, Temple worship, the priesthood, and wis-
dom. He quotes from Hebrew books at a rapid-fire pace.4 Defining Ben Sira as
a “scribe,” and his text as a “scribal” text that makes use of other texts, provokes
a question: what are the roles of memory and text-reliance in Ben Sira’s com-
position? It is challenging to speak of memory in scribal culture without first
1 I am grateful to Jonathan D.H. Norton, Philip S. Alexander, Matthew M. Collins, John Anthony
Dunne, Alma Brodersen, and all others who expressed such enthusiasm about this paper at
the conference and offered many thoughts and reflections on the potential applications of
these ideas. Thanks are due to Alma Brodersen for clarifying the order of 4QPsd in compari-
son to 11QPsa. All translations are the author’s own unless stated otherwise. Manuscripts and
editions of Ben Sira consulted: Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח‬,‫ המקור‬:‫ספר בן סירא‬
‫( אוצר המלים‬Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1973); Solomon Schechter, ed., Fac-
similes of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1901); Gary A. Rendsberg and Jacob Binstein, “The Book of Ben Sira,”
bensira.org; Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Solo-
mon Schechter and Charles Taylor, eds., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesi-
asticus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899). Reconstruction for verses cited, un-
less otherwise stated, follows Moshe Zvi Segal, ‫( ספר בן סירא השלם‬2d ed.; Jerusalem: Byalik
Institute, 1958).
2 διήγησιν ἀνδρῶν ὀνομαστῶν συντηρήσει καὶ ἐν στροφαῖς παραβολῶν συνεισελεύσεται
(Rahlfs-Hanhart).
3 Examples of ancient literary language would be Biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, Middle Egyptian,
or Classical Literary Greek. Literary language is also known as “archaizing,” but might be bet-
ter described as “literary” since it was confined to written works of literature and different
from everyday speech.
4 “Books” here is used interchangeably with scrolls, or volumes of an author’s work, but not co-
dices, since codices can contain more than one book of an opus. Likewise, the use of “Bible”
and “desk” in the title of this study are purposefully anachronistic in order to provoke reflec-
tion upon the way in which we often mentally picture ancient scribes and even Hellenistic
and Roman writers to have read and written.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004383371_002

4 Askin
clarifying how we imagine the physicality of writing in the ancient world.5 The
physicality and materiality of writing and reading has applications for the criti-
cal study of Ben Sira, and similarly for other areas of biblical and post-biblical
research in text-criticism, studies of textual transmission or copying, redaction
criticism, and translation studies.6
Why we innocently imagine a Jewish scribe like Ben Sira “had their scrolls
out” while writing is due to the strong reuse of texts frequently at work in
Ben Sira and other Second Temple texts.7 Many scholars have discussed Ben
Sira’s explicit direct and indirect quotations, explicit and implicit allusions,
and echoes of textual sources.8 Building upon this, the present study dis-
cusses avenues of possibility for the physicality of texts and furniture during
the time of Ben Sira, exploring the tools and settings that would have shaped
how he made use of and interacted with textual sources. How does materiality
5 David Carr has identified what he calls “memory variants” in David M. Carr, Writing on the
Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
See also David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011).
6 Lindsey A. Askin, Scribal Culture in Ben Sira ( JSJSup 184; Leiden: Brill 2018).
7 Small discusses this question in a Greek and Roman context, and finds no evidence of desk
use for reading or writing even as late as the Roman period and late antiquity. The one excep-
tion is a scroll stand, for a performer to read from a single scroll, and she finds no evidence for
simultaneous multiple-scroll use in Greece and Rome. See Jocelyn Penny Small, Wax Tablets
of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London: Rout-
ledge, 1997), 150–159.
8 Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van
parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26” (PhD Thesis, 1981);
idem, “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern,” Biblica 63:4 (1982):
506–523; idem, “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (SIR. 14,20): Collected Essays on
the Book of Ben Sira (Leuven: Peeters, 2006); Jeremy Corley, “Biblical Quotations and Allu-
sions in Second Temple Jewish Literature,” Irish Theological Quarterly 79.3 (2014): 290–292;
Johannes Marböck, “Sir 38,24–39,11: Der Schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zur Gestalt und
Lehre Ben Siras,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Nouvelle Edition Mise à Jour (BETL 51; ed.
M. Gilbert; Louvain, 1990), 293–316; 421–423; idem, “Das Buch Jesus Sirach,” in Einleitung in
das alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger, G. Braulik, and H. Niehr; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 285–
292; John G. Snaith, “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus,” JTS 18.1 (1967): 1–12;
Benjamin G. Wright, “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s ‘Praise of
the Ancestors,’” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference
on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (JSJSup 127;
ed. J. Zsengellér and G.G. Xeravits; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 183–207; idem, “Biblical Interpreta-
tion in the Book of Ben Sira,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed.
M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 363–388. Further discussion on the reuse of texts
in Ben Sira can be found in Askin, Scribal Culture in Ben Sira. In particular, refer to Chapter
One for a discussion of the physicality and materiality of scribal culture and relevant applica-
tions for Ben Sira.
What Did Ben Sira ’ s Bible and Desk Look Like ? 5
affect reconstructions of text transmission? The aim of this study is to chal-

lenge the hypothesis that the simultaneous use of multiple texts—implying di-
rect visual transmission, for example with scrolls spread out on a table, would
have been the norm for Ben Sira.
One example of Ben Sira’s reuse of texts is Sir 45:23–24, in the Praise of the
Fathers (Sir 44–50):
Table: Sir 45:23: Phineas (MS B)
]‫בגבורה [נחל שלישי‬ ‫ וגם פינחס [ב]ן אלעזר‬4 5:23a/b

‫ויעמד בפרץ עמו‬ ‫בקנאו לאלוהי כל‬ c/d
‫ויכפר על בני ישראל‬ ‫אשר נדבו לבו‬ e/f
‫ברית שלום לכלכל מקדש‬ ‫ לכן גם לו הקים חק‬45:24a/b
‫כהונה גדולה עד עולם‬ ‫אשר תהיה לו ולזרעו‬ c/d
45:23 And also Phineas [so]n of Eleazar | On account of his might he

[inherited thirdly]
When he was zealous for the God of All | He arose in the breach
(against) his people
Whose heart incited him | He made atonement for the sons of Israel
45:24 Thus also for him (God) established a statute | A covenant of
peace to maintain the Temple
That will be given to him and his descendants | A High Priesthood
forever.
Num 25:11–13
Ps 106:23, 30
This passage on Phineas contains interspersed echoes and quotations from

two main sources: Psalm 106 and Numbers 25. “He arose in the breach” echoes
Ps 106:23.9 Then the description of Phineas as zealous, making atonement,
making a covenant of peace with him and his descendants, and the eternal High
Priesthood, all are vocabulary and phrases closely drawn from Num 25:11–13.
The physical mechanics of ancient reading and writing habits affect how we
imagine this reuse of textual sources to have occurred in practice. This study is
divided into two sections: first, a discussion of Ben Sira’s access to books, and
second, how he would have physically read and written. Methodologically, a
socio-historical study of material aspects of literacy during the time of Ben
9 Also note that Ps 106:30–31 mentions Phineas explicitly.

6 Askin
Sira must integrate relevant comparative evidence where necessary. Since we

do not have the direct evidence of Ben Sira’s working strategies, useful cross-
analysis can be used with caution.10 This study makes frequent reference across
time and place from ancient Judea, Mesopotamia and Egypt to the Hellenistic
and Roman periods of the Mediterranean, with reference to Jewish examples
wherever possible. This study therefore ventures into comparisons where it is
felt that the technology, tools, and material culture is sufficiently the same, and
where cultural analogy is reasonable, that is: cultural analogies are justified
where there is both cultural continuity and geographic proximity. For exam-
ple, a comparison with eighteenth century British educational practices would
not be justified, whereas Greek or Roman authors in antiquity who used the
same technology (furniture) and writing media (papyrus, wood, parchment)
as Judea would be a useful comparison.
1 Ben Sira’s Scrolls
The “editions” of Ben Sira’s scrolls can be sometimes detected through pat-
terns in his reuse of texts.11 In Sir 43:11–19, a section on weather in the Hymn
of Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33), Ben Sira draws from many prophetic sources,
but he draws upon two sources in a major way: Job 37–41, and Psalms 104,
147, and 148. The choice of these psalms, all lists of nature, coincides with the
second half of the Psalter, Psalms 90–150. As Peter Flint has shown, the sec-
ond half of the Psalter during the late Second Temple period was still rather
10 Davies utilizes comparative evidence in his study of whether there were schools in an-
cient Israel. G.I. Davies, “Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?” in Wisdom in Ancient
Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton (ed. J. Day, R.P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 199–211.
11 By the word “text,” any literary or documentary sources of writing are meant regardless of
medium. This study hesitates to refer to “scriptures” in favour of specific biblical texts. It
is vital to remember that there is some likelihood that Ben Sira referred to non-scriptural
texts such as Homer, and possibly Theognis, although the latter is more debatable. There-
fore we might refrain from labelling Ben Sira’s written sources as scripture on the grounds
of inclusivity. “Text” at least does not limit the form of genre (such as inscription, letter,
receipt, or book) or the medium: texts can be found on objects, stone, scrolls, codices,
notebooks, ostraca, or tablets. Despite its insufficiency to convey all senses we would like,
in the absence of a better term in scholarship that is not cumbersome or anachronistic,
the hackneyed word “text” must do for our purposes as being, at least, a technical category
and catch-all classification.
fluid, as witnessed by the variant orders of Psalms represented by the Qumran

Psalms manuscripts.12
The Great Psalms Scroll 11Q5 order is: 118, 104, 147, 105, 146, 148, while 4QPse
also has 104 after 118.13 In 4QPsd, the order is: 106, 147, 104.14 Psalm 105 is inter-
esting because it is a list of patriarchs, and also reveals a precedence for Ben
Sira’s order of poetic units: the Hymn of Creation, Sir 42–43, followed by the
Praise of the Fathers, Sir 44:1–50:21. The result is that Ben Sira’s Psalms probably
looked like Qumran’s Psalms Scrolls rather than the received tradition of the
Masoretic Text. The shape of Ben Sira’s Psalms has implications for the Psalms
Scroll Debate in Qumran scholarship, which I have explored elsewhere.15 In-
deed, considering the extensive work on Ben Sira’s use of quotation over the
past few decades, there remain many possibilities for revealing the shape of
Ben Sira’s own textual editions of biblical sources in light of the Qumran bibli-
cal manuscripts and studies on textual variants.
2 What Book Access would Ben Sira Have Had?
Ben Sira’s book access is contingent on first asking what and where he might
have taught (if he did), which will help estimate where most of his resources
would have been located. Given space limitations, which specific books of
the Hebrew Bible Ben Sira used will not be discussed in full, but this question
is easily determined by detecting which books Ben Sira “reuses” in a notice-
able way.
Regardless of whether Ben Sira was himself a teacher or a more bureau-
cratic scribe, he inhabited elite literary circles that were embedded within a
“bookish” environment of scribal learning. Hence, the evidence of education
tells us about book use and book access for someone like Ben Sira. Material
evidence of scribal education in the Levant comes from places such as Mare-
sha, Idumea (fourth-century bce), where Aramaic school exercises on ostraca
12 Peter Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
13 Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4: XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD 16; Oxford: Clar-
endon, 2000), 81; J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1965); Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Bible (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 551–556. Psalm 146 also lists God’s works in nature.
14 Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4, 65–71; Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea, 551.
15 Lindsey A. Askin, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira: Considering the Evi-
dence of Textual Reuse in Sir 43:11–19,” DSD 23.1 (2016): 27–50. For further textual analysis
on Sir 43:11–19 see Askin, Scribal Culture in Ben Sira.
8 Askin
were found with non-biblical wisdom sayings.16 Other evidence comes from
Qumran, where we find three Qumran cave fragments that might be either pen
tests or scribal exercises, as well as ostraca found at the site of Khirbet Qumran:
KhQ161, Kh2207, and possibly KhQ1196/2.17 There are also countless examples
of indirect evidence of schools: letters, tomb inscriptions, trade economy, and
public works.18
For Ben Sira, Hellenistic-period education is the most contemporary. For
the most part, Egypt and Seleucid Persia to Arsacid Parthia form good contex-
tual reference points for Second Temple Jewish education. Education became
much more standardized throughout the Hellenistic period (332–330 bce)
compared to earlier periods.19 This period also benefits from large amounts of
material evidence including school exercises and literary anecdotal evidence
of education and reading. The backdrop of Hellenistic education, particularly
its material evidence, may shed some light on the wider literary context in
which Ben Sira lived.
When Ben Sira was writing at least some parts of his text, such as Sir 50:1–21,
Judea already had a century of Ptolemaic rule and was part of the Seleucid
16 Esther Eshel, Amos Kloner, and Emile Puech, “Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the Hellenistic
Period from Maresha: Bowls A and B,” BASOR 345 (2007): 39–62.
17 4Q234 (4Q Exercitium Calami A), 4Q360 (4Q Exercitium Calami B), and 4Q341 (4Q Ex-
ercitium Calami C). Stephen Pfann et al., eds., Qumran 4. XXVI. Cryptic Texts (DJD 36;
Oxford: Clarendon, 2000). KhQ1996/2 is a list of names, so it is uncertain whether it is
a scribal exercise. Joan Taylor discusses 4Q341 as well as other relevant scribal exercises
from Qumran and nearby, cogently arguing for the purpose of 4Q341 as ink management,
or “warming up” for a more practised scribe, rather than simply for learning. See Joan
Taylor, “4Q341: A Writing Exercise Remembered,” in Is there a Text in this Cave?: Studies in
the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke (JSJSup 119; ed. A. Feld-
man, M. Cioată, and C. Hempel; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 133–151. For the ostraca, see Frank
Moore Cross and Esther Eshel, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumran,” IEJ 47 (1997): 17–28. Fur-
ther, Morgan writes that if the handwriting is poor in Greek and Roman school texts, it
indicates a school exercise rather than a pen test. See Teresa Morgan, Literate Education
in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 41.
18 For inscriptions see CIJ, JIGRE, and CII/P, and for documentary sources see CPJ.
David W. Jamieson-Drake infers that settlement, luxury items, jar stamps, and public
works indicate scribal activity in Ancient Judah. See Scribes & Schools in Monarchic Judah:
A Socio-Archaeological Approach (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011). The same inference
may be drawn for Ben Sira’s time in Jerusalem, since public works (Sir 50:1–4), urban ex-
pansion, and economic prosperity (Rhodian jar stamps) were present in Jerusalem during
the second half of the third century bce. See Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and
Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume II: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE)
(London: T&T Clark, 2004), 45–49.
19 Morgan, Literate. William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1989).
empire (c. 200–175 bce). Seleucid administration relied upon local gover-
nance and exclusive elite circles, hence slower cultural changes took place
at a ground level. Some parts of Ben Sira could even pre-date Seleucid rule.20
Jerusalem was off the two major trade routes from Egypt to Syria down the
Phoenician coast and the Transjordan Valley. Thus Jerusalem “Hellenized”
rather slowly, a process that took until the second century bce. Regardless of
Hellenization, though, Judea certainly benefited from Seleucid rule and civic
patronage.21 Ben Sira himself seems to have been associated most closely with
the priestly circles of his time, and was close to the High Priest, Simon, who
might be identified with Simon II (Sir 34:11–12; 38:24, 31–34; 39:1–11; 50:1–21;
51:13–14).22 It is also worth noting that the majority of Hellenistic Greek lit-
erature that survives is associated in some way with royal court culture: the
most successful Greek writers were aided by the political centres of power.23 It
would not be remiss to suggest a local court culture location for Ben Sira as a
successful local author.
Ben Sira’s relationship with the High Priest deserves further examination.
The friendship as it stands presumably could have been similar to Josephus
relationship with the Flavians, since Ben Sira makes Simon the subject of one of
his poems (Sir 50:1–21, perhaps all of 44:1–50:21). The relationship is also special
20 A post-200 date may not be ascertained since the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars did not affect
Jerusalem directly. See John D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 44–50. Ben
Sira is often dated to 190–175 bce due to the active years of Simon II. However, presum-
ably a poem dedicated to Simon II would come after many years of friendship. 190 bce
was also the year of Antiochus III’s major defeat against Rome. The positive tones of Ben
Sira, speaking of wealth, opportunities, and travel, may be better suited to the pre-190
years of Antiochus III, during which he expanded the Seleucid empire.
21 Elias J. Bickerman, “The Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian
History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees (vol. 1; ed. A.D. Trop-
per; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 315–356.
22 For more on Simon, Saul M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80.3
(1987): 261–286; Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of
the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s
Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 2003). While it is pure conjecture,
perhaps Simon and Ben Sira were also pupils of the same teachers as children. In Dynastic
Egypt, royal princes were educated alongside the children of the pharaoh’s court, which
meant a pharaoh and his court had all gone to school together and thus knew each other
well. See the wisdom text The Instruction of Merikare (from the First Intermediate period,
c. 2100 bce), which warns the king’s son (the audience) not to kill a man with whom he
has recited the writings. See M. Rosalind and Jac J. Janssen, Growing Up and Getting Old In
Ancient Egypt (Norfolk: Golden House Publications, 2007), 59.
23 Rolf Strootman, “Literature and the Kings,” in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (ed.
J.J. Clauss and M. Cuypers; London: Wiley, 2010), 30–45.
10 Askin
because, Simon seems to have had pro-Hellenistic proclivities.24 Judean elites

in Ben Sira’s time seem not to have isolated themselves from the Hellenistic
world, nor felt any self-conflict in associating with Hellenistic Greeks or styling
their homes in the Greek fashion. One example of cosmopolitan Judean elites
is found in the Zenon archive, albeit for the Tobiad family.25 In the Zenon Papy-
ri, a wealthy Transjordan Tobiad named Joseph ben Tobias kept good relations
with the Ptolemies in Alexandria.26 The third-century bce villa of the Trans-
jordan Tobiads at Qasr al-Abd had Corinthian columns.27 The situation would
have been similar to Uruk (Babylonia). In Uruk, Hellenization came slowly in
the beginning trickling from the top down, starting with currency and admin-
istration.28 This does not mean Ben Sira had a Hellenistic education, though he
may have spoken informal Greek.29
24 See also James K. Aitken, “Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in his
Seleucid Setting,” JJS 41 (2000): 191–208.
25 Although Simon was an Oniad, it is worth comparing the evidence from other prominent
Jewish families.
26 For contact with the Ptolemies, see: P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59075 and P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59076. Con-
tact with Zenon, officer of Apollonios of Ptolemaic administration: P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59003;
P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59005; P. Lond. 7, 1930; P. Cairo Zen. 5, 59802; P. Lond. 7, 2152. Xavier Du-
rand, Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier syrien des archives de
Zénon de Caunos (261–252) (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38; Paris: Gabalda, 1997), 45–55;
72–73; 73–89; 89–94; 179–188; 266–267.
27 Rami Arav, Hellenistic Palestine: Settlement Patterns and City Planning, 337–31 BCE (BAR
International Series 485; Oxford: BAR, 1989), 106–110; Nancy L. Lapp and Robin Brown,
eds., The Excavations at Araq el-Emir (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983); Grabbe, Histo-
ry, 41–42. Ben Sira lived during the late Ptolemaic and early Seleucid period of Judea,
through a century of wars between those two empires. Phoenicia and Judea were part of
Coele-Syria. Phoenicia is a good contrast for comparing Hellenistic influence during the
third century bce. Coastal Phoenicia was the major trade route to Syria and thus where
many new Hellenistic colony cities started to appear in the fourth and third centuries
bce. Down the Transjordan valley—the home of the Tobiad family—was another major
route, and this area Hellenized quickly as well. Jerusalem, by contrast, was left out and
thus slower to Hellenize. The situation was similar to Uruk/Babylonia in the fourth and
third centuries bce: local Babylonian leaders learned Greek if they wanted to advance
anywhere outside of Babylon, the city had Greek coins, most natives still spoke the local
language, but the overall shift to becoming a Hellenized city was slow, especially in urban-
planning. The early Ptolemaic period’s administration, even in Egypt, still operated in
native languages. There is evidence that popular ideas concurrent in Hellenistic culture,
transmittable by conversation and trade, but not pervasive formal study of Greek litera-
ture, affected Ben Sira. Compare Jewish writers in Greek such as Aristobulus and Eupol-
emus in Alexandria, where Greek was the administrative language.
28 Susan Sherwin-White, “Seleucid Babylonia: A Case Study for the Installation and Devel-
opment of Greek Rule,” in Hellenism in the East (ed. A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White; Lon-
don: Duckworth, 1987), 1–31.
29 Josephus in the first century ce spoke only “conversational” Greek before learning liter-
ary Greek (grammar and literature) for writing his books, which he admits at the end of
During Ben Sira’s time in the Hellenistic period and long before, where
teachers worked depended on personal ties and teaching level.30 Elementary
teachers taught outside on streets or under colonnades with portable resources
like teacher’s models for copying out letters and sayings, and pupils sat on the
floor.31 By contrast, advanced level teachers taught from complete books and
large chunks of text, rather than models, requiring constant access to books for
students to copy and recite.32
The versatility of school locations in the Hellenistic and early Roman
Mediterranean world is dazzling: advanced-level teachers taught in temples,
gymnasiums, and libraries—places which had small scroll collections, but also
bathhouses, homes, palaces, or villas. Scrolls could be carried scrolls in capsa,
which allowed mobility for these teachers. Earlier than this, the library and
school at Ebla contained traces of baskets which could hold clay tablets when
they were not stored on their shelves. Although a later example, the fourth
century ce Roman teacher Libanius taught wherever he could in Nicomedia,
including the local bathhouse—keeping in mind that bathhouses since Nero
had libraries—but, while in Antioch, he taught in his own home. He was appar-
ently unhappy with this location since teachers working in the Muses’ temple
made more money (Libanius, Or. 1.55).33 Perhaps this was because the space
was larger and could fit more, or attracted more, fee-paying pupils. Perhaps it
had more foot-traffic and thus publicity, to enhance one’s reputation. We can
propose a similar situation of flexible and adaptable locations for learning in
Second Temple Judea. Considering the absence of school buildings in a soci-
ety with the traces of education: a strong standard of scribal technique and
a large body of literature, it would be reasonable to suggest that in Ben Sira’s
Judea, schools were also located wherever the teacher could find a suitable
place to teach.
Both elementary and advanced teachers were expected to own at least some
scrolls. Plutarch’s Alcibiades mocks an elementary teacher who does not own
Antiquities (Ant. 20.259–265). For a recent discussion of Ben Sira and Greek language, see
the essay by Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.”
30 Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 26, 59.
31 Advanced teachers sat in chairs. See Cribiore, Gymnastics, 19, 28, 31–34. It was the role of
a servant to carry stools and scrolls in capsa.
32 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 132, notes Plato (Prt. 325d) as saying that teachers gave advanced
pupils books to memorize once they had learned how to read, Homer being the most
common.
33 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 34. Libanius (314–94 ce) transported his fifteen pupils from
Nicomedia to Antioch with him. Suetonius’ teacher, Marcus Verrius Flaccus, moved his
school into the palace of Augustus (Suetonius, On Teachers, 27). See Antony Kamm, The
Romans (London: Routledge, 1995), 117.
12 Askin
a single scroll of Homer.34 The idea that teachers should own their own books
does not appear to have been a new Hellenistic development. Rather it appears
to have been an expectation that stretches back as early as ancient Egypt. For
example, Djedi, the old magician in Three Tales of Wonder, requests an extra
ship to bring his pupils and books to Pharaoh’s court.35
What and where Ben Sira taught may be deduced from what we know about
ancient scribal education. In Sir 51:28, he writes of his own education, “Hear
me who was taught in my youth | And silver and gold you will acquire through
me.”36 He also mentioned seeking wisdom in the Temple during his youth
(Sir 51:14). Likewise, 4QInstruction reads, “If you are poor, do not say, ‘I am poor
and therefore I cannot seek knowledge.’”37 Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic edu-
cation was privately funded.38 Ben Sira was clearly highly educated, well-placed
in his profession, had fee-paying pupils, and had strong ties to the Temple and
the High Priest. These factors imply he was not from a poor background, but
perhaps a wealthy priestly family. He praises the Temple and Jerusalem as the
seat of wisdom throughout his book (Sir 24:1–34, especially verses 10–11).
As far as what Ben Sira taught, when appealing to readers (Sir 51:23–30), he
says they will learn wisdom from him, and says nothing about the drudgery of
copying texts or keeping accounts and inventories.39 Finally, as a scribal ad-
ministrator, he would have worked in administration in the Temple as per the
administrative policy of the Ptolemies, who preferred working with the local
priests rather than local nobility.40 This all suggests he was an advanced-level
34 Plutarch, Alc. 7:1. See Cribiore, Gymnastics, 131. See also Casson, Libraries, 28, for the
growth of the book-trade in the fourth century bce.
35 Text dates from the Middle Kingdom (2040–1786 bce) while the papyrus, Papyrus Westcar
(P. Berlin 3033) is from the Second Intermediate (1786–1560 bce). See Miriam Lichtheim,
“Three Tales of Wonders,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle
Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 215–222.
36 ms B XXIv. (T-S 16.315, CUL).
37 4QInstb (4Q416) frag. 2 col. III, 12–13; cf. 4QInstd (4Q418) frag. 9, line 13.
38 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 3, 20.
39 He also fixates on wisdom among professions: the wisdom of the ruler and scribes (Sir
10:1–5) and the physician (Sir 38:3), and scribes gaining wisdom and leadership roles, as
opposed to craftsmen (Sir 38:24–39:11).
40 Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Fergus Millar, “The Phoenician Cities: A
Case-Study of Hellenisation,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 29 (1983):
55–71; Sherwin-White, “Seleucid Babylonia,” 1–31; R.J. van der Spek, “The Babylonian City,”
in Hellenism in the East (ed. A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White; London: Duckworth, 1987),
57–74.
teacher with a wisdom focus, based in the Temple.41 Ben Sira’s idealized scribe,
who is more sage than accountant, can be compared somewhat with the
circle(s) of “the scribes” mentioned alongside the Pharisees eleven times in
Matthew.42 In Ben Sira, scribes have the opportunity of serving great men,
pondering proverbs and parables, honour, travel, and “if he lives long,” i.e. ob-
tains seniority, he will leave a lasting name (Sir 39:1–11).
The literary evidence for a Temple library in Jerusalem comes from 2 Macc
2:13–15. Although scholars have questioned the believability of a Temple library,
in fact it would be more plausible if a Jerusalem-based library was associated
with the Temple in this period.43 A Temple library would be highly appropriate
given the traditional locations of ancient public libraries within temple set-
tings. From Ebla through to second century ce Rome, all large libraries (those
collections not in private hands) were built within temple complexes, as far
back as the temple library at Ebla in Syria (2500–2250 bce), which showed
evidence of a school setup.44 Much later, the library at Pergamum was part of a
temple to Athena, and the Library of Alexandria was part of the Muses’ temple
complex, the Museion.45
If ancient teachers taught in a library, they might have written there, too.
Existing as they did in a pre-modern economy of scarcity, the evidence is that
teachers used their resources wherever they could, and so did writers.46 Cicero
41 Ben Sira describes the opportunities of the scribe (administrator, judge, sage, ambassador,
advisor) as much more numerous and interesting than copying texts or keeping house-
hold accounts. Perhaps this suggests there were multiple levels of scribes, or that “scribe”
in Ben Sira’s view designates one who is educated within the scribal system, rather than
strictly meaning a scribal copyist. Moreover, Ben Sira probably sees becoming a scribe as
an entrance into these other roles which required a high level of literacy and paid more,
along the lines of Sir 51:28. This is the case in Egyptian scribal exercises; see Joseph Kaster,
“The ‘Schoolboy’ Texts,” in The Wisdom of Ancient Egypt: Writings from the Time of the
Pharaohs (London: Michael O’Mara, 1995), 188–199.
42 Matthew’s formula “scribes and Pharisees” is found in Matt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13,14, 15,
23, 25, 27, 29.
43 There may have been a small library of scrolls copied at Qumran due to community sepa-
ration from Hasmonean Jerusalem, but the arguments of Joan Taylor that at least the Cave
2 scrolls were part of a scroll cemetery (as at Nag Hammadi and Deir al-Medinah) are con-
vincing, considering the jars, bitumen, and linen shrouds. See Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes,
The Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 277, 283–285, 292.
44 The Library at Ebla also used baskets and used wooden as well as clay tablets. Not until
Trajan (98 ce) did “civic” Roman libraries, unattached to temples, begin to be built by
wealthy citizens for the public. See Casson, Libraries, 3, 89–93. For more information
about the physical setup of libraries, see Small, Wax Tablets, 160.
45 Casson, Libraries, 81. Both were third century bce and rivals with one another.
46 As Schwartz recognizes, the Mediterranean bowl fostered “honour” cultures that excelled
in patronage, philanthropy, and reciprocity owing in many ways to the limited natural
14 Askin
was a common visitor of his friends’ private villa libraries, and he frequently
asked for books to be sent to him from his patron Atticus.47 The Roman poet
Catullus prefaced his poem 68a with the apology that he is currently in Verona
and has no books with him, so this poem may not be as good as his other ones.
3 How Physically would Ben Sira have Read and Written?
3.1 Library Furniture

Greek and Hellenistic libraries were secured storerooms from which scrolls
were removed for viewing under colonnades in courtyards on benches or
stools.48 Ancient Mediterranean and Egyptian furniture was built for porta-
bility, and Greeks and Romans carried stools to libraries themselves or with
a servant.49 The same would be necessary for bringing to libraries if one did
not wish to sit under a colonnade on a bench. Tables were likewise small and
portable, but limited as individual dining platters carried in and out of rooms
by servants.50
There is no archaeological or visual evidence for tables in ancient libraries.51
In the library of Herculaneum’s Villa dei Papiri, a collection which began in the
first century bce, there were two scroll storerooms: one for classics, and one for
Epicurean philosophy.52 Both rooms were dark and dominated by hundreds of
scrolls, which were to be read in the adjoining courtyard close to natural light.
resources of the local geography. Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society?
Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
47 Cicero, Att. 4.10.1; 4.14.1; 8.11.7; 8.12.6; 9.9.2; 13.31.2. See Casson, Libraries, 73, 157.
48 In Plutarch, Luc. 42.1. See Casson, Libraries, 50–53, 69, 75.
49 In Egypt, the most plentiful piece of furniture is the stool, or backless chair. Aikaterini
Koltsida, Social Aspects of Ancient Egyptian Domestic Architecture (BAR 1608; Oxford:
Hadrian Books, 2007), 78. Alexandra Croom, Roman Furniture (Stroud, Gloucestershire:
Tempus, 2007). G.M.A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans
(London: Phaidon, 1966), 38–47, 102–104.
50 Richter, Furniture, 63–72.
51 Small (Wax Tablets, 150) says there were no tables, and no space for chairs inside the li-
brary rooms, let alone tables. This brings up the important fact that even if there were ta-
bles in the rooms, there was certainly no evidence of chairs. It has been argued previously
by some that the Library of Trajan in the Trajan Forum contained tables, but this theory
too has not been supported by the archaeological evidence. See Small, Wax Tablets, 143.
The image is reproduced in Casson, Libraries, 86.
52 Sider, Villa, 64.
3.2 Library Collections and the Choice of Papyrus or Parchment

The unusually large private library in the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum had
between 1000 and 1800 scrolls. The Villa’s owner was Lucius Calpurnius Piso,
the Roman consul who was father-in-law to Julius Caesar.53 The size of Piso’s
library is titanic compared with the average private library. Archaeological evi-
dence shows that most private libraries in Hellenistic and Roman times had
between ten and forty scrolls at most.54 Since papyrus was relatively inexpen-
sive, and since teachers had scrolls of their own, Ben Sira probably had his own
modest collection of scrolls around this average size. Yet it is equally possible
that he simply used what was on hand at the Temple library for both teaching
and writing.55
Ben Sira’s scroll collection might have been of either parchment or papy-
rus, and would have been affordable for a scribe or teacher of a slightly higher
than average income—certainly over time. George Brooke has discussed the
complex reasons behind the use of either parchment or papyrus at Qumran,
arguing that local availability and cultural markers, rather than price, explains
the use of one or the other among scrolls.56 Brooke notes that early draft cop-
ies of S were written on papyrus.57 With the proximity of Egypt, Judea had a
choice of papyrus, but animal skins for parchment could also be readily avail-
able. Older scholarly arguments for the high cost of papyrus were based on in-
terpreting χάρτης as single sheet rather than a whole roll. T.C. Skeat argues that
53 Estimates vary. Calpurnius Piso lived 100–43 bce and was the father of Calpurnia, wife of
Julius Caesar.
54 George W. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the
Roman Empire,” in Ancient Literacies (ed. W.A. Johnson and H.N. Parker; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 248–249 (233–267); William A. Johnson, “The Ancient Book,” in
The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R.S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009), 256–281.
55 This was perhaps the situation for Zenodotus, the first chief librarian of the Library of
Alexandria, who wrote a critical edition of the Iliad. See Casson, Libraries, 43; Maren R.
Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), 10.
56 George J. Brooke, “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin: Cultural Complexity and
Multiple Identities in the Qumran Library,” in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient
Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (JSJSup 178; ed. M. Popović, M. Schoonover, and
M. Vandenberghe; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 119–135. See also George J. Brooke, “Between Scroll
and Codex?: Reconsidering the Qumran Opisthographs,” in On Stone and Scroll: Studies in
Honour of Graham I. Davies (ed. J.K. Aitken, K.J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin; Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011), 123–138.
57 Brooke, “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin,” 133.
16 Askin
papyrus was in fact affordable for the learned person.58 He cites that ostraca
and papyri were used alike for ephemeral tax receipts. Skeat also deconstructs
the argument from the use of recycled media, palimpsests. In fact, ink does
not erase completely and so palimpsests were uneconomical. For examples of
prices, Skeat cites that 340 cm rolls (a standard size) sold for four drachma
(Appanius estate, mid-third century CE). A list of papyrus prices found at
Tebtunis (45–49 CE) sold much longer rolls of papyrus at an average of four
drachma (for much larger rolls), which, considering inflation of about 100%
between the first and third centuries, was about a day’s wages for a labourer.
However, these prices are the cost for an entire roll, which would not be
the demands of an ordinary person unless they wanted a copy of a long book.
Considering that a tax receipt or letter would be a fraction of a single sheet of a
roll, we can certainly suggest that small pieces of papyrus for important docu-
ments and letters would be affordable even for a day labourer. The use of pa-
pyrus for draft copies of ephemeral letters and texts speaks to its quite reason-
able price. Likewise, the evidence of draft or personal copies of literary texts at
Qumran speaks to the necessity of drafting and editing in Jewish circles.59
If he had his own private collection, however, Ben Sira could have writ-
ten and worked at home. Houses from Second Temple Judea follow a typical
Mediterranean model common from the fifth century bce onwards: a large
number of single-function rooms focused around a central enclosed courtyard,
often with workshops within the home.60 Reading and writing would take
place much as it did in libraries: using this open-air courtyard.61 Many writers
did write and read at home if they had the resources or were inclined, accord-
ing to the ancient literary evidence. Both are reasonable options—home and
Temple, but the answer is dependent upon available (or preferred) resources
and perhaps Ben Sira’s own work habits.
3.3 Bodily Positions while Reading and Writing: The Question of Chairs
and Tables
Would a scribe like Ben Sira sit in a chair like Greeks and Greco-Roman
Egyptians, or on the floor like Pharonic Egypt and the Near East? And if he had
a scribe taking dictation, would that scribe be on the floor or in a chair?62
58 T. C. Skeat, “Was papyrus regarded as ‘cheap’ or ‘expensive’ in the ancient world?” Aegyptus
25 (1995): 75–93. Contra, for example, Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient
Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 57.
59 Brooke, “Between Scroll and Codex?”.
60 Rami Arav, Hellenistic Palestine (Oxford: BAR, 1989), 166–167.
61 Lisa C. Nevett, Domestic Space in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010), 18, 52–54.
62 Small, Wax Tablets, 153.
Visual evidence from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia depict the “tradi-
tional view”: scribes standing or sitting on the floor cross-legged, writing or
reading on their laps. In some cases, Egyptian scribes apparently used low
stools, such as in a relief in the 19th Dynasty (1225 bce) grave of scribal of-
ficial Teji, called “To,” which shows Foreign Office scribes sitting on stools
with something rectangular across their laps, which have been cited as desks
by a few scholars.63 However, these scribes actually have rolls of papyrus, not
“desks,” or even cut-down flat sheets of papyrus, and at most these are wooden
boards, which Egyptians used to support papyrus on their laps. Scribes wrote
on the floor (or nearly on the floor) despite using tables for dining, akin to the
individual tables of Greek symposiums.64 Up to the early twentieth century
Moroccan and Yemenite Jewish scribes wrote on the floor with wooden boards.
This is also the way Early Islamic scribes are depicted, so the position of these
North African and south Arabian Jewish scribes may be due to these communi-
ties’ locations.65 In the Hellenistic period, however, many Egyptian scribes and
teachers used chairs.66
Mesopotamians, Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans did not read or write on
tables.67 Greek teachers and writers are often visually depicted sitting in chairs
writing on their laps, never using tables.68 Not until Late Antiquity and ulti-
mately the medieval period do tables start to become used for reading and
writing. From the time of Augustus, a high portable reading stand was invented,
not for convenience of reading habits, but to protect the edges of papyri which
frayed easily.69 A late fourth-century Christian relief from Ostia depicts scribes
63 See a tracing of the relief (1225 bce) at: Norman and Nina De Garis Davies, “Grave of
scribe of Merenptah Tejy/Teji or ‘To’, in TT23, Thebes. 1225 BCE,” http://www.griffith
.ox.ac.uk/gri/4TT23.html. Cited as desks in: Leila Avrin, Scribes, Script and Books (Chicago:
ALA, 1991), 96; and in Ernst Posner, Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2013), 87 (fig. 20).
64 From the same grave, TT23, a banquet scene with guests on chairs with individual tables
which only fit a plate of food. See M. Abdul-Qader Muhammed, The Development of the
Funerary Beliefs and Practices Displayed in the Private Tombs of the New Kingdom at Thebes
(Cairo: General Organisation for Govt. Print. Offices, 1966), Plate 33.
65 Library of Congress, “Yemenite scribe Shlomo Washadi, 1935,” http://www.israeldailypic
ture.com/2011/12/yemenite-jews-american-colony.html.
66 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 4–6 draws most of her evidence from Hellenistic Egypt.
67 Small, Wax Tablets, 153–159. Also in G.M. Parássoglou, “A roll upon his knees,” in Papyrology
(ed. N. Lewis; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 273–275.
68 For example, the teacher writing in his lap seated at a chair in: “Attic drinking cup,
c. 480 BCE” (Berlin, Antikensammlung, inv. F 2285). Another example is a woman (prob-
ably Sappho) reading a scroll using two hands and in a chair with no table or desk present:
“Athenian hydria jar, mid-fifth century BCE” (Athens, National Archaeological museum,
inv. 1260).
69 This was not universally used. See Small, Wax Tablets, 156.
18 Askin
copying a speech into codices using tables, perhaps the earliest evidence of
writing at tables.70 The first very large table was invented in Hellenistic times,
for physical labour with marble supports, placed out of doors, and often with
wooden benches instead of chairs. The Romans popularized this type of table,
but never seem to have written on them either. First century ce Roman murals
from the House of the Vettii in Pompeii depict craft-making on these marble-
supported tables.71 Large tables are not uncommon in ancient visual depic-
tions of craftsmen and bankers, but they are not found in any depictions of
reading and writing. A good estimate of why this would be the case is that per-
haps the Romans and Greeks associated the large “marble desk” popularized
by Hollywood with workmen and craftsmen of a lower social status—the large
worktable was not a suitable piece of furniture for more refined activities such
as writing poetry. The only large tables during Ben Sira’s time in the Hellenistic
age, then, were not used for reading or writing.
Furniture in Qumran literature and archaeology of Khirbet Qumran has
been beset with controversies surrounding the refectory (loci 86–89) and the
scriptorium. There has been some disagreement concerning the setup for din-
ing in loci 86–89. In a recent study, Stefan Pfann examines locus 89 as a dining
room, offering two anachronistic reconstructions using the remains of a pil-
lar unusually embedded in the wall as supports of either a long rectangular
or circular table for dining, reconstructing a large communal dining table.72
His theory stands in contrast to the size of dining tables in other areas of the
Mediterranean during this period, which are only the size of end tables. Jean-
Baptiste Humbert argues that Pfann’s table reconstructions do not fit the time
period, since ancient Jews, in common with the rest of the Mediterranean and
Near East, ate in a reclining position on the floor against the wall, with small
tables to hold communal dishes for three to four people. Humbert also identi-
fies the charred wooden remains in locus 86 as a wooden partition wall.73
70 “Orator relief,” late fourth century ce, Tempio di Ercole (I, XV, 5) Museo Ostiense, Inv. 130.
Image at Ostia Antica, “Orator relief: link E49915,” http://www.ostia-antica.org/vmuseum/
marble_6.htm.
71 Richter, Furniture, Greek version, 72; Roman popularity, 113. Images: fig. 378, 379, 573, 578.
72 Stephen Pfann, “A Table in the Wilderness: Two Pantries and Tables, Pure Food and
Sacred Space at Qumran,” in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological
Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University,
November 17–19, 2002 (STDJ 57; ed. K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill,
2006), 159–178. For dining at Qumran, see also Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran
and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 60–61.
73 Jean-Baptiste Humbert, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran,” in Qumran,
the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings
The question of libraries and scribal activity at Qumran is a vast topic.74 At

locus 30, the so-called “scriptorium,” Roland de Vaux found two inkwells. A
further third inkwell was found in Locus 31, and a fourth by Steckoll from an
undisclosed location at Qumran.75 A fifth inkwell, mentioned by Goranson, is
reported from the Shøyen collection.76 In Locus 30, there are two large slabs of
plaster. The difficulty with plaster is that is not useful for furniture without in-
ternal supports, because it crumbles and collapses under weight. In homes, for
example, it might be useful to have plastered benches against a wall, but not
in a freestanding table. The presence of large plaster tables would also be un-
known in the ancient Near East or Mediterranean. It is more likely that Qumran
scribes wrote and copied texts on the floor as other scribes in the ancient Near
East would have done. Considering the near total absence of luxury goods at
Qumran, large wooden furniture would have been a monumental expense.77
Readers and writers alike used their laps in chairs in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods. A mosaic of Plato’s Academy, also from Pompeii, shows read-
ers without tables and outdoors, dating between the first century bce and first
century ce.78 In other walks of life, Greek and Roman bankers used tables,
but only for counting coins. Bankers’ tables were higher than seated height,
and depictions show bankers standing around them.79 Roman bankers did not
of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002 (STDJ 57; ed. K. Galor,
J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–39.
74 For a recent enterprise, see: Cecilia Wassen and Sidnie White Crawford, eds., The Dead Sea
Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (STDJ 116; Leiden: Brill, 2015).
75 S.H. Steckoll, “Marginal Notes on the Qumran Excavations,” RevQ 7 (1969): 33–40. Roland
de Vaux, “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumran: Rapport préliminaire sur la dernière campagne,”
RB 61 (1954): 212 (206–233).
76 Stephen Goranson, “Qumran: The evidence of the inkwells,” Biblical Archaeology Review
19.6 (1993): 67.
77 Large decorative wooden tables of fine wood, for display, went for enormous prices, the
bigger the more expensive. Cicero owned one large decorative table of citrus wood for
one million sesterces, and the largest table in the world was owned by Ptolemæus, king
of Mauretania. Pliny Nat. Hist. 13.92. Extravagantly large and costly tables are satirized
by Roman writers (e.g. Martial ii 43, 9; ix 60, 9; Juv. i 37). For the absence of luxury goods
at Qumran see 1. Dennis Mizzi, “The Glass from Khirbet Qumran: What Does it Tell us
about the Qumran Community?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (STDJ 90; ed.
C. Hempel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 99–198.
78 Mosaic dates between first century bce and first century ce. Branislav Slantchev, “Photo:
Plato’s Academy, Mosaic from Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus, Pompeii” [cited May 2014].
Online: http://www.electrummagazine.com/2011/11/platos-circle-in-the-mosaic-of-pompeii/.
Mentioned in Small, Wax Tablets, 77, 164.
79 Croom, Roman Furniture.
20 Askin
use tables for writing; instead they used vast quantities of wax tablets.80 This
is the situation as late as the eighth or ninth centuries ce across Europe, such
as in the depiction of Ezra the Scribe in an eighth-century English manuscript,
which shows Ezra writing in a codex on his lap in a chair, in front of a large and
protective cabinet of books.81 Overall, the use of tables for reading and writing
appears to have been centuries too early for Ben Sira.82 The use of chairs is ap-
propriate for Ben Sira’s time.
4 Scrolls, Notebooks, and Writing Tools
There are few writing tool differences between civilizations in the ancient
Mediterranean and Near East, and most of these concern the local material:
clay, papyrus, wax, pottery, and parchment.83 Judea used papyrus as early as
1100 bce.84 Erasable, portable writing surfaces were also common and varied
based on local material: clay tablets, wax tablets, papyrus notebooks, parch-
ment notebooks (membranae),85 and wax notebooks up to ten or fifteen leaves
(individual tablets), used for composition and administration.86 Styli for wax
tablets were bone, metal, or ivory.87 Wax tablets were used by readers, writers,
80 The banks of Pompeii contain the remains of hundreds of such tablets. Jean-Paul
Descœudres, “History and historical sources,” in The World of Pompeii (ed. J.J. Dobbins
and P.W. Foss; London: Routledge, 2007), 12 (9–27). Small (Wax Tablets, 150–151) notes that
Roman bankers did have small tables, but these were only used for counting and dividing
coins.
81 He also has a table next to him, but his inkwell is kept on the floor, and the table has a
lamp. Small (Wax Tablets, 168) mentions Ezra the Scribe in portrait of Cassiodorus, in
Codex Amiatinus (MS Amiantino 1, f.5), Monkwearmouth/Jarrow (pre-716 ce), Biblioteca
Medicea-Laurenziana, Florence. In antiquity: Sider, Villa, 62; Casson, Libraries, 82–83.
Into the Middle Ages: Small, Wax Tablets, 168.
82 Some use of portable reading-stands to keep scrolls from fraying is recorded in Martial
and in first-century ce reliefs from Greece and Rome. See Small, Wax Tablets, 156–157.
83 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 157.
84 Casson, Libraries, 25. Also at Wadi Murabba’āt, an eighth century bce palimpsest. See P.
Benoît et al., eds., Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât (DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 1:93–100; 2:
Planche XXVIII.
85 Adam Bülow-Jacobson, “Writing Materials in the Ancient World,” in The Oxford Handbook
of Papyrology (ed. R.S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 23 (3–29).
86 The use of wax tablets began in the first millennia bce. See Casson, Libraries, 242. Their
use lasted into the medieval period. Wax tablets were not without their problems, as the
wax could be difficult to work with and tablets expensive being made of wood, but they
were widely used by Hellenistic pupils. See Cribiore, Gymnastics, 151–159.
87 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 158.
and school pupils.88 Clay tablets in particular are usually handheld-size and
erasable until baked. There are also Egyptian examples of palm-sized papyrus
notebooks for ultra-portability.89 Scrolls and tablets had wooden or papyrus
tags to identify them, since they were kept horizontally on bookshelves, just as
codices were laid flat on shelves in the medieval period.90 A lost relief of the
Library of Alexandria from a fourth-century Roman tomb in Germany shows
how papyrus scrolls were stacked horizontally on bookshelves with tags.91
As for writing tools, Egyptian scribes used brushes on solid ink blocks, while
Greeks and Romans used inkwells. Several inkwells were found at Qumran, and
texts from the Judean Desert show the use of reed pens rather than brushes.92
Second Temple Jewish scribes such as Ben Sira appear to be closer along the
spectrum to Classical Greece, the Hellenistic world, and Rome, and further
away from the ostraca and clay tablets of Archaic Greece and the Near East.93
The height of ancient scrolls was limited due to handling requirements,
the best size being around a foot-long, about the length of a thigh.94 It is not
yet the stage where Torah scrolls must include all five books in one single roll,
though often two books of the Torah are found together on the same scroll
at Qumran.95 T.C. Skeat argues that when handling an ancient scroll in two
hands, the mechanics of reading and shuffling through it become automatic
quickly.96 Moreover, anecdotes describe ancient readers reading anywhere
88 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 156. Cribiore notes Plautus, Bacch. 4403, in which the students
break their tablets over the heads of their teachers. Ostraca was used by both poor and
rich school pupils alike at all levels. (Cribiore, Gymnastics, 151).
89 Cribiore, Gymnastics, 148–150. Ink on papyrus is mostly erasable with a sponge.
90 See image of wooden scroll label with string (O.Claud. Inv. 4271) in Bülow-Jacobson,
“Writing,” 12. Ebla library tablets had wooden tags and were stored on shelves or gathered
into “clay banks in bundles fastened by strings with tags attached indicating the contents,”
though baskets with labels could also be used. Casson, Libraries, 252.
91 Image reproduced in Casson, Libraries, 39, is from Wilhelm von Massow, Die Grabmäler
von Neumagen (ed. E. Krüger; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1932; repr. 2012), fig. 141, 243.
92 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
93 Casson, Libraries, 17 notes that Greeks at Troy used clay from 1600–1200 bce.
94 More below. Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 13.78, notes that the best (i.e. biggest) length for
papyrus is thirteen inches, and that the length can vary between nine and thirteen inches.
95 Two Torah books appear to be the maximum. 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 4QGen-Exoda,
4QExod-Levf, 4QLev-Numa, 4QXII, while musch smaller books like Daniel, Proverbs, and
the Megillot are on individual scrolls (perhaps the choice for the Megillot was not for
size convenience but for public reading at festivals). Compare with Johnson, “Ancient
Book,” 264.
96 T.C. Skeat, “Two Notes on Papyrus,” in Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi (ed.
E. Bresciani et al.; Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice, 1981), 373–378.
22 Askin
they could find a moment to themselves, from bathhouses to travelling.97 In

general, the expectation of readers in Ben Sira’s time seems to have been a
concern for portability.
5 Physicality of Composition and Editing Habits
Where and how ancient writers wrote has been examined, but not how they
treated research, which is a vital question to consider since ancient authors
such as Thucydides, Josephus, Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, and Pliny the Elder
express research as the essential preparation for writing.98 The key issue is
whether it was possible or habitual of ancient writers to “go back and forth”
while writing, or to write while reading, or to stop all research once writing has
begun.99
Hellenistic and Roman-era writers of all genres did their research before-
hand, then composed by memory before writing and editing, i.e., only writing
while in the act of writing, and only reading while reading. Contradictions,
misquotations, and conflation of sources occurred in ancient writing because
reading stopped after writing, once the writers had the “gist” of their sources or
a number of notes in their private notebooks, which were considered a mem-
ory aide.100 The ability to “ingest” literature and information, to internalize
and interpret it, not merely to regurgitate it, seems to have been prized. This
impulse can be compared with the importance of internalizing wisdom and
Torah, a theme found throughout Ben Sira.
Neither did the first act of writing, after the initial “mental composition,”
constitute the final copy. Speeches were always reworked for publication, and
Virgil composed the Georgics by parts in his head each morning and drafted
97 Marcus Cato read in the Senate house before sessions began. See Cicero, On Ends, 3.2.7.
Noted in Small, Wax Tablets, 158.
98 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist., Preface, 17, 21–23.
99 Vroom theorizes scribes glanced visually from one text to another as a way of accounting
for textual variants, although Johnson has shown that scribes copied texts by oral recita-
tion. Jonathan Vroom, “A Cognitive Account of Copying and a Critique of David Carr’s
Approach to Oral-Written Transmission,” JSOT 40.3 (2016): 259–279. William A. Johnson,
Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), esp.
39–84.
100 An expected amount of reading for preparation and revision of writing were deemed es-
sential to ancient compositions. See Small, Wax Tablets, 158, 185, 209. Catullus reports that
he does not have enough books to write a good poem in Verona: “nam, quod scriptorium
non magna est copia apud me” (Catullus, 68a.33). See also Horace, Ars Poetica.
them in writing as the day continued.101 This fits with the natural harmoniza-
tion of sources and “gist” of textual reuse in Ben Sira.
However, this picture does not account for the use of florilegia, gnomai (or
gnomologies), and wax notebooks, with which it may have been possible to
write with the act of “going back and forth” or with a servant as reader or sec-
retary, with the aim of keeping quotes and facts for composition later. Gnomic
literature survives in large quantities from the Hellenistic period, copied as lit-
erature and for school exercises, not merely private notes.102 Florilegia were
also kept for private use, normally in order to write later literary compositions.103
Servants read to Pliny the Elder while he was dining. While laying out in the
sun, he “made extracts of everything he read,” and wherever he went he brought
along a secretary servant carrying his “book and notebook.”104
The difference between Pliny the Elder and Ben Sira is that, out of known
extant textual sources, Ben Sira refers primarily to the texts which became
the Hebrew Bible (with the exception of a line from Homer, Il. 6.148–149 in
Sir 14:18), a familiarity that requires a thorough education and more than a
working acquaintance, but not necessarily countless wax notebooks full of
facts.105 On the other hand, the Book of Ben Sira could have sbegun life as flori-
legia or mental research: his text has numerous smaller sections which all have
distinct themes and concentrations of sources, such as the Hymn of Creation
above, or the use of Proverbs, Qoheleth and Job in Sir 41:1–14. The concentra-
tions of textual reuse demonstrate perhaps a quick “rereading” for inspiration.
The Praise of the Fathers is a much longer poem, but it contains key passages
from Hebrew texts for each of the patriarchs, largely from the Torah. Perhaps
in the case of the Praise, Ben Sira used florilegia to structure the poem and/
or relied upon his memory of key verses from teaching. In either case, there
is no clear way we can argue conclusively over what is Ben Sira’s memory and
what is from a potential notebook, but ancient authors so frequently boast of
their prior research that to imagine Ben Sira not planning anything at all is to
imagine him a sloppy scribe, or an uncareful and derivative copycat. For Ben
101 Small, Wax Tablets, 206–212. Cf. Suetonius, On Poets—Life of Vergil 22–25.
102 Gnomic saying collections (gnomai or gnomologies) first came about in the Hellenistic
period. Teresa Morgan, Literate, 121 (120–151).
104 Pliny the Younger, Letters, 3.5.7. Translation from Healy, Pliny.
105 On Homer and other potential classical Greek authors cited in Ben Sira, see Martin
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1974), 1.148–52;
Benjamin G. Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek,” in Tracing Sapiential
Traditions in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 174; ed. H. Najman, J.-S. Rey, and E.J.C. Tigchelaar;
Leiden: Brill, 2016), 71–88. Interestingly, Wright suggests possible access to Homer for Ben
Sira through an anthology of Homer, or even in Hebrew or Aramaic translation.
24 Askin
Sira, originality is important, but this includes giving a healthy sense of the
“recognizability” of his sources to his readers. As Ben Sira writes, scribes are the
ones who are “recounting wisdom and law” (Sir 38:34).106
Ancient writers used notebooks for drafting composition as well as research
before a composition. Quintilian wrote that wax tablets are ideal for both writ-
ing and editing since papyrus work requires constant ink-dipping, which dis-
rupts the flow, and that wax is easier to correct.107 Others wrote by memory
first, such as Virgil, and then wrote and re-wrote on tablets individually or by
dictation, determined by financial circumstances and context. For instance,
Quintilian complained that dictation removed all privacy, particularly for per-
sonal letters.108 We can only guess whether Ben Sira was more of a Virgil or a
Quintilian in terms of dictation.109 Those trained in rhetoric may have been
more likely to compose by memory alone, which Quintilian called “reflection”
or cogitato.110 Whether a composition began through mental memory or writ-
ten notes, the text—regardless of literary genre—was never finished until it
had been drafted.111
6 Multiple Simultaneous Scroll Use
Finally, if Ben Sira wanted for whatever reason to look at Psalms and Numbers
at the same time, does multiple scroll use have any ancient precedence?
Ancient depictions never show multiple scroll use. Writers are only ever writ-
ing, and readers are always depicted using both hands to read a single scroll on
their laps. Scrolls were sized for reading on the lap, as their maximum height
was limited to the length of a thigh. However, Cicero writes of Marcus Cato
106 οῦδὲ μὴ ἐκφάνωσιν παιδείαν καὶ κρίμα (Sir 34:34a Gr).

107 Quintilian, Inst. Or. 10.3, 31.27. Small (Wax Tablets, 165) mentions that this must have
meant the inkwell was somewhere inconvenient such as on the ground. Notice he says
nothing about papyrus being expensive as a downside.
108 Small, Wax Tablets, 175. Cf. Quint. 10.3.20–21.
109 Since Ben Sira was not writing a personal letter, it may have been by dictation as with
Jeremiah and Baruch, the former of which must have been well-off financially to keep
a secretary. Pliny the Elder as mentioned also had a secretary; he was from an equestri-
an-class family. See John F. Healy, Pliny the Elder: Natural History: A Selection (London:
Penguin, 1991), ix.
110 Thomas, Literacy, 124. Cf. Quint. 10.6.1. Rosalind Thomas writes that traditional oral poets
worldwide compose mentally in solitude. See Thomas, Literacy, 31; solitude: 38.
111 By contrast, Carr (Writing, 40) suggests that Mesopotamian scribes never deliberately
edited but misremembered, resulting in unintentional differing “editions.” However, clay
tablets are erasable until baked and wax tablets use similar styluses and erasable media.
(the Younger) that he once found him in a private library, “surrounded by

books on stoicism.”112 There are several factors here: first, since tables were not
used to read or write, they would be surrounding him on the floor, also keeping
in mind inkwells needed to be on the floor, too; second, Cato the Younger was
unfamiliar with stoicism which is why he was consulting so many; third, scrolls
require two hands to open, meaning although hoarding a number of scrolls, he
could only read one at a time.113 In another letter, Cicero writes of himself hav-
ing one scroll out while many others were piled around his feet.114
Since Ben Sira so frequently jumps about from scroll to scroll, from Kings to
Chronicles, Samuel to Isaiah, or Numbers to Psalms, the idea of multiple scrolls
is a balancing act that simply cannot be supported.
7 Conclusions
Evidence from antiquity contextualizes and reconstructs the picture we

can reasonably apply to Ben Sira. The evidence also prohibits anachronistic
imaginings of “how it happened” such as the implausibility of multiple scroll-
use. The best evidence is when a certain innovation can be dated and traced
through a particular culture, such as wide evidence of mental composition
with the aid of erasable materials for editing, and the very limited function of
tables in the ancient world.
The question of textual-reliance cannot be answered by identifying quota-
tions in the text, because it is not the end of the story. When encountering
such texts within texts, future studies must take into account actual physical
mechanics of ancient reading and writing habits before presuming certain
pictures of either exclusive memory reliance or excessive visual leaps from
scroll to scroll. Many writers read inspiring texts before writing and often took
notes beside them. But they physically did not deem it essential to do both
at the same time, not with the limits of furniture, the physical handling of
scrolls, nor the total absence of a cultural use of tables for writing or reading
before the fourth century ce at earliest. The evidence therefore leans towards
some, though not total, memory-reliance while in the immediate act of writ-
ing. The normal practice, regardless of genre, seems to have been to turn to
reading first before composing by mental exercise once the “gist” has been di-
gested, followed at last by one or more stages of drafting. It cannot, however,
112 Cicero, Att. 13.32.2. Translation from Casson, Libraries, 73.

114 Cicero, Att. 2.2. Noted in Small, Wax Tablets, 165.
26 Askin
be conclusively decided whether Ben Sira conducted additional prior research

within his familiar sources, the texts that became the Hebrew Bible, or whether
this occurred all at once or in stages. There are many such units and gatherings
of themes within Ben Sira, enough to suggest the possibility of composition in
stages for each theme or topic. Equally though, as more material on any theme
could potentially be added to and improved over time, perhaps we can men-
tally hypothesize separate notebooks filled with material on friendship, death,
honour, and other topics to be drafted at a later stage.
As drafts were prepared before the final “first copy,” further “misquotations”
may have happened during Ben Sira’s editing process as a result of editing. The
practice of drafting in this sense indicates that “errors” and “variants” might
be more intentional than accidental, as quotations and allusions move further
from, or even closer to, their originals. Unfortunately, given these circumstanc-
es, we are not likely to discover a different version of Ben Sira’s source texts or
“textual editions” unless these variants are corroborated by external evidence,
such as with the order of the Psalms. With regard to the reuse of texts in Ben
Sira, the physicality of handling scrolls suggests that textual reuse was digested
and automatic, rather than visually direct with multiple simultaneous scroll
use. Even given the use of notebooks, the acts of reading and writing were sepa-
rated, or at least partially disjointed, both physically by available materials, and
practically by cultural habit. The firmest conclusion is that the evidence does
not support the use of multiple scrolls at once. However, we can instead read-
ily envision a vivid material and physical environment of books, libraries, ap-
propriate furniture, and formulated sets of reading practices around Ben Sira:
notebooks, drafting, and perhaps a personal scroll collection, if not also the
use of a library. These are the most reasonable answers to which we can bring
ourselves for the question of what Ben Sira’s “Bible” and “desk” looked like.
Chapter 3
Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings

and Curses in 4QBerakhot
Mika S. Pajunen
The Qumran Community Rule has at its beginning a description of an an-

nual covenant renewal ceremony apparently used by the yaḥad movement
(1QS 1–2).1 This ritual has frequently been connected by scholars with a com-
munal ritual text, 4QBerakhot, that is extant in at least two different manu-
scripts, 4Q286–287 and plausibly also in 4Q289.2 The largest extant parts of
this ritual consist of blessings directed to God (4Q286 1 ii–7 i and 4Q287 1–5),
curses against Belial and his followers (4Q286 7 ii and 287 6–7), and several
1 All manuscript representatives of the 4QBerakhot are in a Herodian hand (c. 1–50 ce); see
Bilhah Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” in Qumran Cave 4. VI Poetical and Liturgical Texts
(DJD 11; ed. C. Newsom and E. Schuller; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 1:10, 50, 62, 68, 73. The ritual
in 4QBerakhot is clearly connected with the yaḥad movement by explicit mentions, see, e.g.,
4Q286 7ii b–d 1, 20a–b 4, as well as thematic parallels especially with 1QS. How widely or nar-
rowly this yaḥad movement mentioned in 4QBerakhot should be understood in terms of its
organizational structure and theological outlook is not dealt with in this article apart from
what is clearly deducible from the contents of the blessings and curses sections of the ritual.
2 Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 1–75, identifies five manuscripts containing parts of the
same covenant renewal ritual. Of these five manuscripts, 4Q286 and 4Q287 contain numer-
ous parallels with each other and both are clearly liturgical, preserving a significant quan-
itity of blessings and curses with extant liturgical rubrics. In addition, at least 4Q286 also
has legal material, but such is possibly also found in two small fragments of 4Q287 (frgs. 8
and 9). Thus, these manuscripts seem to be significant representatives of the same overall
composition. Manuscript 4Q288 in turn has only legal material with parallels between frag-
ment 1 and 4Q286 20a–b. It could be a representative of the 4QBerakhot liturgy but because
there is nothing in the extant parts of 4Q288 that would suggest a liturgical context and it
does not contain any blessing or curse material, it is better to exercise caution. Just as the
curses in 4Q286 and 4Q287 have partial parallels in the War Scroll (1QM 13:4–5) and 4Q280,
4Q288 might be a legal document that has some material parallel with another section of the
4QBerakhot. The manuscript 4Q289 on the other hand might more plausibly be part of the
4QBerakhot ritual. It mentions both blessings and curses and has signs pointing to a ritual
use of the text. But because there are no parallels with 4Q286 or 4Q287, it cannot be conclu-
sively shown that they stem from the same overall ritual. Finally, manuscript 4Q290 only has
one fragment with five extant words and with no extant parallels to the other manuscripts,
which means there is no way to show that it should be connected with the ritual in 4Q286
and 4Q287.

28 Pajunen
cases of community legislation (4Q286 20ab, 13–15, 17, possibly 4Q287 8–9).3
Bilhah Nitzan, the editor of the 4QBerakhot manuscripts, suggests that the
4QBerakhot are to be identified as another version of the annual covenant re-
newal ceremony of the yaḥad even though she admits that the main traditions
for this ritual, to be found in 1QS and 4QBerakhot, are quite different.4 Indeed,
3 Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 2; eadem, “The Textual, Literary and Religious Character
of 4QBerakhot (4Q286–290),” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich;
Leiden: Brill, 1999), 636–637, suggests that the ritual would have been made up of six parts:
1) a communal confession, 2) blessings of God, 3) curses on Belial and his lot, 4) a series of
laws, 5) a liturgy for the expulsion of a willful sinner from the community, and 6) the con-
clusion of the ceremony. A somewhat similar overall structure of the ritual with the legal
material at the beginning and end, and the blessings and curses in the middle is envisaged
by James Davila, Liturgical Works (ECDSS 6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 46. It is certain
in 4Q286 that the curses follow the blessings because both are extant in successive columns
of frag. 7. However, there is no indication as to where the legal material should be situated.
Nitzan claims that the two extant endings of lines in 4Q286 1 i, which precede column ii
containing blessings of God’s throne, would demonstrate that the blessings did not begin the
ritual. She connects these words (the ending ‫[ינו‬, which could also be read as ‫[וני‬, and ‫)[אמן‬
with a communal confession, but there is no compelling reason to assume this.
For connections between the legislation extant in the 4QBerakhot and other legal mate-
rial from Qumran, see, e.g., Bilhah Nitzan, “The Laws of Reproof in 4QBerakhot (4Q286–290)
in Light of their Parallels in the Damascus Covenant and Other Texts from Qumran,” in Legal
Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for
Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (STDJ 23; ed.
M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 149–165.
4 The connection between the two texts was originally suggested in passing by Józef T. Milik,
“Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša̔ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 130–134,
but has since been argued in a comprehensive manner by Nitzan. See particularly, Bilhah
Nitzan, “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–90): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,”
RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506; eadem, “The Benedictions from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal
Ceremony,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem
Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J.C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 2000), 263–271. Nitzan’s thesis about 4QBerakhot preserving an annual
covenant renewal ceremony has been accepted, for instance, by Esther Chazon, “Liturgical
Communion with the Angels at Qumran,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from
Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies
Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (STDJ 35; ed. D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez,
and E. Schuller; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 102; Sarianna Metso, “Shifts in Covenantal Discourse in
Second Temple Judaism,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and
Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJSup 126; ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta; Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 497, 507; James R. Davila, “Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J.J. Collins and T.H. Lim; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010), 436.
Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings and Curses 29
large discrepancies between these traditions have been noted by other schol-
ars, such as Esther Chazon.5
One such obvious difference is to be found in the content of what the priests
and Levites are supposed to recite in the ritual.6 It was recognized very early
on, by, for instance, Artur Weiser, that the passage in 1QS describing the con-
tents of the ritual is possibly connected with the twin Psalms 105 and 106.7
Psalm 105 relates God’s merciful deeds towards Israel from Abraham to the
conquest of the land and Psalm 106 in turn describes the transgressions of
the people of Israel from the exodus to the exile. Thus, the two Psalms form
a whole where the first emphasizes God’s merciful deeds and the second con-
trasts these with the wicked transgressions of Israel. The passage in 1QS 1:21–24
in turn reads: “The priests are to rehearse God’s gracious acts made manifest
by mighty deeds, heralding His loving mercies on Israel’s behalf. The Levites
in turn shall rehearse the wicked acts of the children of Israel, all their guilty
transgressions and sins committed during the dominion of Belial.”8 Regardless
of whether there is a direct connection between the passage in 1QS and Psalms
105–106, which is quite possible, this demonstrates the kind of context the 1QS
description of the ritual stems from. It is narrating a ritual where the past of
the people of Israel is retold with an emphasis on the sinfulness of the people
and the graciousness of God. Such an emphasis places the description in 1QS
5 Esther Chazon, “Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty
Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:153–
154, 261; Russell Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community
(STDJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 67, 162; Daniel Falk, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls
to the Study of Ancient Jewish Liturgy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
J.J. Collins and T.H. Lim; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 624; Jeremy Penner, “Mapping
Fixed Prayers from the Dead Sea Scrolls onto Second Temple Period Judaism,” DSD 21 (2014):
39–63.
6 Unlike the 4QBerakhot, the blessings in 1QS 2:2b–4a are, according to Martin G. Abegg, “The
Covenant in the Qumran Literature,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple
Period (JSJSup 71; ed. S.E. Porter and J.C.R. de Roo; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 81–98, a transparent ex-
pansion of the Priestly or Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24–26). Cf. Nitzan, “The Textual, Literary
and Religious Character,” 637.
7 Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. H. Hartwell; OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 73–83.
Similarly, A.A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972), 2:725–748.
8 The translation of 1QS 1–2 has been adopted from Michael Wise et al., “Serekh ha-Yaḥad,”
in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law (ed. D.W. Parry
and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3–7. The Hebrew text and translation of 4QBerakhot follow
Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 1–75, unless otherwise noted.
30 Pajunen
very close to the content of Psalms 105–106 as well as the communal ceremony
contained in Nehemiah 9.9
Such notions ideologically grounded in the centrality of the covenant be-
tween God and Israel, as well as the Law, naturally connected with it, in the
enactment of the covenant renewal ritual are still clearly present in the 1QS
description of the ritual and are evident in the background of this ritual, found
particularly in Deuteronomy 27–30 and Leviticus 26. However, the themes of
the blessings and curses in 4QBerakhot are quite different in content from such
texts, and Nitzan, for instance, has pointed out the strong emphasis on God the
celestial King in the blessings of 4QBerakhot.10 This is certainly true in part, but
Nitzan also claims that these blessings reflect the Law, covenant, and the Sinai
theophany,11 which would place the ritual in a direct continuum with descrip-
tions of the election of Israel. Due to the emphasis she places on these themes,
Nitzan also suggests that the curses and blessings in 4QBerakhot are directed
at God and Belial because they are the theological sources of contradictory
laws.12 Yet, none of the fragments of 4QBerakhot contain a single mention of
the Law, the covenant, Israel, the nation, or any figures connectable with it,
such as Abraham or Moses.13 Indeed there is a surprising absence of the na-
tion’s past and any notion of its election in 4QBerakhot. Instead there are only
mentions of humanity in general and the elect community enacting the ritual
in particular. This does not necessarily mean that 4QBerakhot could not be a
version of the annual covenant renewal ritual of the yaḥad movement, and
indeed blessings and curses are typically used in election contexts after the
model of Deuteronomy, but if it is such a ritual, it is probably a later develop-
ment of that ritual into a more particularistic one than that described in 1QS.
9 As Jutta Jokiranta, “What is ‘Serekh ha-Yahad (S)’? Thinking about Ancient Manuscripts
as Information Processing,” forthcoming, has suggested, out of the Qumran rule texts
5Q13, which narrates parts of the nation’s past and also contains community legal mate-
rial related to the annual covenant renewal, might come closest to what is described in
1QS 1:21–22.
10 Nitzan connects this theme in 4QBerakhot most of all with psalmic glorifications of God’s
divine kingship such as that found in Ps 103:19–22, which she considers the possible an-
tecedent of the liturgical pattern of the blessings in 4QBerakhot. See, Nitzan, “286–290.
4QBerakhota–e,” 3; eadem, “The Textual, Literary and Religious Character,” 640.
11 For instance, Nitzan, “The Textual, Literary and Religious Character,” 637–639, 644–646,
sees covenant as a major theme in 4QBerakhot and claims that the blessings of 4QBerakhot
would contain allusions to the events at Sinai. Cf. Davila, Liturgical Works, 46.
12 Nitzan, “The Benedictions,” 263.
13 The only possible exception is found on a tiny fragment (4Q287 9 13) with only two words,
‫ה]בעדייות צדקכ‬, preserved that Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 60, reads as “Your just
commandments[”.
Thus, it seems that the supposed connection of the 4QBerakhot with 1QS
and common notions of what a covenant renewal ceremony should contain
may have unduly influenced how 4QBerakhot has been analyzed and under-
stood. Therefore, in the following the blessings and curses in 4QBerakhot will
be studied on their own without any a priori connection to 1QS. In previous
studies of 4QBerakhot it has not been recognized how central a motif cre-
ation is for understanding the ritual. Therefore, it will be analyzed how the
creation traditions of Genesis, and later interpretive traditions, were used and
construed by the authors of 4QBerakhot. It will be shown that creation is the
central focus of the main liturgical parts of 4QBerakhot, the blessings and, in a
certain sense, the curses as well. This analysis is significant not only for further-
ing the understanding of how the traditions in Genesis were used in later texts,
but also in respect to how these later interpretations were valued in relation
to the earlier traditions. The investigation will proceed by first presenting how
Genesis and other creation traditions are present in the fragmentary remains
of 4QBerakhot, and then drawing some conclusions on the broader implica-
tions of this study.14
1 Creation in the Blessings of 4QBerakhot
The order of the fragments of 4QBerakhot manuscripts has not been deter-
mined by a material reconstruction,15 so while the following presentation
follows the order of creation in Genesis 1 it does not mean that the blessings
in 4QBerakhot necessarily did. Nevertheless, it is still a distinct possibility, as
many writings of the late Second Temple period, like Jubilees, 4QNon-Canonical
Psalms B (4Q381) and the Song of the Three Young Men,16 did follow the general
order in Genesis 1.
14 The fragmentary remains of the 4QBerakhot manuscripts make it impossible to deter-
mine whether the two main representatives of the ritual, 4Q286 and 4Q287, were more or
less identical in content or had significant discrepancies. Thus, it has to be remembered
that while such a survey may be able to illuminate the central themes present in the rit-
ual, it cannot be used to construct an archetype of the whole ritual that would have been
present in all the different representatives of that liturgy.
15 For the method of material reconstruction, see particularly Hartmut Stegemann,
“Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” in Archaeology
and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael
Yadin (JSPSup 8; ed. L.H. Schiffman; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 189–220.
16 All of these compositions probably date from the second century bce and predate the
Qumran movement, which means their structure could have influenced the author(s) of
4QBerakhot.
32 Pajunen
The first day of creation in Genesis 1 includes the making of heaven and
earth, as well as day and night (Gen 1:1–5). Some texts, like 4Q381, still follow
this rather general presentation of events (4Q381 I 3),17 but Jubilees elaborates
on what this in practice means by adding the creation of all the angels and
spirits,18 a notion found in several other texts, such as the Song of the Three
Young Men (Sg Three 1:36–38).19 These descriptions may have been influ-
enced by Psalm 104 in addition to Genesis 1 because Psalm 104 refers explicitly
in its beginning to God making his heavenly abode and his messengers first,
followed by the earth (Ps 104:2–9). All these texts are interpreting Genesis 1.
Particularly the developing angelology made the absence of angels in the two
creation accounts of Genesis quite noticeable and hence later interpreters had
to augment the account, perhaps prompted by the mention of heaven and the
spirit of God in the description of the first day in Gen 1:1–2.
In 4QBerakhot there are three fragments possibly describing the events of
the first day. Fragment 4Q286 1 ii first describes the details of God’s heavenly
throne (ii lines 1–2), and after that its foundations, which are referred to as
abodes of fire,20 and fountains of different admirable qualities connected with
the divine, such as truth, justice, splendor, and the mysteries of time (ii lines
3–13).21 Similar descriptions of fire surrounding God’s abode and being under
his throne are found, for instance, in 1 En. 14:8–19 and 4Q405 20 10–11, and a
similar idea of God’s throne being upheld by specific admirable qualities is
17 For the numbering of the columns in 4Q381 and the contents of the manuscript in gen-
eral, see Mika S. Pajunen, The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the
Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381 (JAJSup 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
18 See, e.g., Raija Sollamo, “The Creation of Angels and Natural Phenomena Intertwined
in the Book of Jubilees (4QJuba): Angels and Natural Phenomena as Characteristics of
the Creation Stories and Hymns in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in Biblical Traditions
in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (JSJSup 111; ed. C. Hempel and J.M.
Lieu; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 273–277.
19 For the dating of the Song of the Three Young Men to the second century bce, see Sollamo,
“The Creation of Angels,” 278.
20 Cf. Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 14; eadem, “The Benedictions,” 267.
21 Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 15; eadem, “The Benedictions,” 268, connects these epi-
thets directly with God and the following lines of the fragment with the deeds of God.
However, the epithets and mysteries follow directly after the description of the other
foundations of God’s throne, are listed in the same grammatical form, and described as
storehouses, fountains, etc. Furthermore, after the description of the throne itself there
are no second person singular references extant on the fragment and references to God
are systematically in this form in the blessings of 4QBerakhot. Thus, while the epithets,
deeds, and mysteries listed in 4Q286 1 ii are naturally connectable with God, they are
given as the foundations of his throne, i.e., his rule, rather than as qualities God is directly
blessed for.
present at least in the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa 26:10–11) where the descrip-
tion is linked with events belonging to the first day of creation, viz., the divi-
sion of light from darkness and the ensuing angelic praise.
Fragment 4Q286 3a–d in turn relates the creation of different classes of
angels and particularly those related to natural phenomena. The angels are
listed in a similar way as in other texts referring to their creation or to their
place as part of creation (see, for example, Jub. 2:2; Ps 148:8; 4Q381 I 13; Sg
Three 1:41–50),22 and although the word is surrounded by lacunae, the lists
of angels are followed by a probable reference to the time of their creation
(4Q286 3a–d 6). Finally, fragment 4Q287 2a, b (// 4Q286 12) contains a descrip-
tion of the marvelous heavenly abodes (cf. 4Q405 15, 17, 19, 23),23 as well as
angelic praise of the divine name, which is connected in Jubilees (2:3) with
the end of the first day of creation (cf. Job 38:7, and the Hymn to the Creator
[11QPsa 26:12]). Thus, the blessings of 4QBerakhot contain detailed lists that
can be most plausibly connected with the events of the first day of creation in
Genesis 1, especially the creation of heaven and its inhabitants. It is based on
and further elaborates the slightly earlier traditions found in Jubilees and, for
instance, the Song of the Three Young Men.
The second day of creation in Genesis 1 consists of the making of the fir-
mament (Gen 1:6–8) and this account stayed largely the same in subsequent
traditions where it is present (e.g., Jub. 2:4). The text of 4QBerakhot has no clear
mentions of the firmament in its extant parts, although 4Q287 2 6 does refer to
“firmaments of holy” something (‫)ורקיעי קודש‬. The firmament could of course
have been referred to in the lost parts of 4QBerakhot, but in light of other po-
etic presentations dealing with the creation, it is also entirely possible that it
was not mentioned at all (cf. Psalms 104, 148; 4Q381 I; Sg Three).
The third day of creation consists of the making of the seas, rivers, dry land,
and vegetation (Gen 1:9–13). This general order is followed by later accounts
as well with differences in the listed items, but not in the overall image (e.g.,
Jub. 2:5–7; Ps 104:6–18; 4Q381 I 6). In 4QBerakhot fragment 4Q286 5a–c lists dif-
ferent areas of the dry land, such as mountains and hills, and trees and the pro-
duce of all of these (ii lines 1–7), and these references are followed, after a litur-
gical break introduced with “amen, amen,” by another list containing the seas,
the rivers, and their foundations (ii lines 9–12). Thus, while the order of the
individual items is different from Genesis 1, 4QBerakhot does list all the things
created on the third day according to Genesis 1 directly one after another, and
22 Cf. Sollamo, “The Creation of Angels,” 273–290.

23 Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 53; eadem, “The Benedictions,” 270, connects these
with the halls and temples of the heavenly sanctuary.
34 Pajunen
while most accounts stay true to the order of Genesis 1, Sg Three 1:51–55 exhib-
its the same order found in 4QBerakhot, demonstrating that 4QBerakhot is not
alone in deviating from the order of the items listed in Genesis 1.
The fourth day of creation in Genesis 1 centers on the heavenly lumina
ries, the sun, the moon, and the stars (Gen 1:14–19). In Genesis the lights are
designated as signs and further traditions, like Jub. 2:9, explicitly mention
that they are signs for the Sabbaths, feasts, and other events tied to the calen-
dar.24 In 4QBerakhot, fragment 4Q287 1 mentions the heavenly luminaries and
constellations of stars (ii lines 1–2) and connects them with calendrical times
(i line 3), which is followed by a liturgical break introduced by an amen, amen
rubric. Thus, this fragment, albeit very small and fragmentary, appears to con-
tain a reference to the events of the fourth day.
On the fifth day of creation, the sea monsters, fish, and birds are created (Gen
1:20–23). There are no extant separate mentions of these species in 4QBerakhot
except a short reference to sea creatures in 4Q286 5a–c 9. However, they are
referred to in 4Q287 3 2–3 together with the land creatures as praising God
for their creation. Whether this means that the creatures created on the fifth
and sixth day according to Genesis were combined in the same section of the
ritual or that 4Q287 3 exhibits a section forming a conclusion to lists mention-
ing the different species separately cannot be established with the preserved
evidence. Noteworthy in this respect is that there is some attested variation in
the order the creatures that are mentioned in accounts written after Genesis 1.
While Jub. 2:11–13 and Sg Three 1:56–58 follow the order of Genesis, in Ps 148:10
land creatures and birds are grouped together and Ps 104:20–27 speaks of land
creatures first and then turns to the sea.
The sixth day of creation is reserved for the land creatures and humans,
who are given the mandate to rule over all the other creatures (Gen 1:24–31).
The later interpretations of Genesis mostly leave out the command of God to
humans to be fruitful and multiply. Instead they tend to emphasize the bounty
of food provided by God (cf. 4Q370 1 i 1–2; 11QPsa 26:13; 4Q381 I 8–9) and an
obligation laid on humanity to bless the name of God (cf. 4Q370 I 1–2; 1Q34
3 i 6–7; Sir 17:9–10; Jub. 2:21; 1QH 11:22–23). In 4QBerakhot the already men-
tioned fragment 4Q287 3 speaks of all creatures, also listing at least some of the
24 For the reception of Gen 1:14b in several texts from the late Second Temple period, see
Eibert Tigchelaar, “‘Lights Serving as Signs for Festivals’ (Genesis 1:14B) in Enūma Eliš and
Early Judaism,” in The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the
Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics (TBN 8; ed. G.H.
van Kooten; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 31–47.
species separately, blessing God who created them.25 Fragment 4Q287 4 2 in

turn speaks of humankind as the ruler that God established, using the verb
‫ משל‬that most creation accounts after Genesis use of the dominion granted to
humans at creation.26
Finally, 4Q287 5 first describes all the people of the earth, as well as clans,
possibly blessing God their Creator together (ii lines 8–11), followed after a
liturgical break of amen, amen, by references probably denoting an elect group
of people chosen from among all the others (ii lines 12–13), which in the case of
4QBerakhot is probably the yaḥad movement.27 It is quite plausible that these
passages about different groups of humans are connected to the creation of
humanity because there are several instances of texts in the literature of the
late Second Temple period exhibiting similar vocabulary as in 4Q287 5 where
a description of the election of humanity turns into a discussion concerning
the current chosen of God, which is still typically Israel in these texts (see, e.g.,
Sirach 17; Sg Three 1:59–65; 4Q381 II 9, 18–20; and Ps 148:11–14). Regardless of
how the contents of this last fragment are evaluated, it is clear that the ritual
in 4QBerakhot also contains links with traditions connected with the sixth day
of creation. However, once more it not only picks up where Genesis leaves off,
but also takes into account the later traditions, sharing at least some of their
particular points of emphasis.
According to Gen 2:1–3 the seventh day is blessed and sanctified by God. It is
only natural that later traditions connected this even more explicitly with the
cultic events of the Sabbath day than Gen 2:1–3 does. At least from the second
century bce onwards there is a common tradition in these accounts that God
created humanity at least partly in order for them to bless his name. The influ-
ence of this tradition is perceivable, for instance, in the Festival Prayers (1Q34 3
i 6–7), the Admonition on the Flood (4Q370 I 1–2), and Ben Sira (Sir 17:9–10). Jub.
2:21 adds to this concept the idea that this blessing and praising of God is done
together with the angels, which seems to have been an idea quite influential in
still later traditions, like Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and 4QBerakhot.
25 The obvious dependence of this passage on Gen 1:24–26 has been noted by Florentino
García Martínez, “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Creation of Heaven and Earth:
Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity,
and Modern Physics (TBN 8; ed. G.H. van Kooten; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 55.
26 See Esther Chazon, “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book
of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (TEG 5; ed.
J. Frishman and L. van Rompay; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 13–24.
27 Cf. Nitzan, “The Textual, Literary and Religious Character,” 654.
36 Pajunen
There are several cases in 4QBerakhot that explicitly refer to angelic praise,
at least in one instance done in conjunction with humans.28 In 4Q286 2a–c
at least angelic blessing of the divine name is present, but the fragmentary
context does not reveal whether humans also took part in this praise. If only
angelic praise was present in this part of the composition, then it should prob-
ably be connected with the praise offered by the angels alone after the works
of the first day of creation were complete ( Jub. 2:3). Fragment 4Q286 7 i by
contrast has clear references to both angels and elect humans offering praise
to God by blessing his name.29 This section ends in an amen, amen rubric,
followed apparently only by a short additional section of blessings because
directly after it, in the second column of the same fragment, begins the curse
section of the ritual. Thus, this part of the blessings is very close to the end of
the blessings section of the ritual and if the order of the blessings was in any
way related to the order in Gen 1:1–2:3 then a connection with the Sabbath day
would be quite expected.30
In addition to the already mentioned fragments, there are several further
fragments in 4QBerakhot that explicitly mention creation (4Q286 6; 4Q289 2)
but are too fragmentary to firmly connect with the events of any given day.
What is particularly important when considering this evidence provided by
the blessings section of 4QBerakhot is that all of the fragments related to bless-
ing and praising in the 4QBerakhot manuscripts can be connected with the
creation account of Genesis 1 or its later interpretive trajectories. In contrast
there is nothing in them about the Law, the exodus, the patriarchs, the exile,
or any other later event in the biblical timeline. Thus, the extant blessings in
4QBerakhot can all be understood as blessings of God the Creator by the entire
28 Cf. Bilhah Nitzan, “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetic and Liturgical Writings
from Qumran,” JQR 85 (1994): 171–176; eadem, “The Idea of Holiness in Qumran Poetry
and Liturgy,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the
Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, Published
in Memory of Maurice Baillet (STDJ 35; ed. D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. Schuller;
Leiden: Brill, 2000), 140–143, claims that the angels and elect humans praise God in unison
whereas Esther Chazon, “Liturgical Communion,” 103; eadem, “Human & Angelic Prayer
in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000 (STDJ
48; ed. E.G. Chazon; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 40–41, while agreeing with Nitzan’s basic assess-
ment about joint praise being meant in 4QBerakhot, is more cautious in her formulation
because of the lack of an explicit reference to joint praise in 4QBerakhot.
29 See further, Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 26–27.
30 If 4Q289 is to be regarded as another representative of the same ritual, then 4Q289 1 is
another instance where the elect seem to voice praises to God together with angels.
creation, possibly in the overall sequence familiar from Gen 1:1–2:3 and later
accounts following it. The blessings may have been structured according to
the different works of creation with the help of amen, amen rubrics. However,
without a material reconstruction of the manuscripts this is only a possibility,
but regardless of the sequence, it is quite obvious that creation was at the very
center of the blessings in 4QBerakhot. A further point in this respect is the list-
like style of the blessings. This is another direct influence that the account in
Gen 1:1–2:3 had on later texts, and even poetic texts, like 4Q381 I, Song of the
Three Young Men, and seemingly also 4QBerakhot tend to use rather long lists
after the example of Gen 1:1–2:3.31
2 Creation and the Curses of 4QBerakhot
While the blessings are extant in a great number of fragments, the curses in
4QBerakhot are mostly preserved in 4Q286 7 ii and 4Q287 6. The curses are
directed against Belial and all the spirits and humans who do his bidding.32 At
first glance there does not seem to be a connection with the creation tradi-
tions in the curses, but such is provided by the rather remarkable fact that
the reason for all of the extant curses are the plots and schemes of Belial and
the implementation of these plans rather than deeds of humans breaking a
covenant with God. These plots and schemes of Belial are directed against the
order God has established in the creation, turning the harmony established
in creation back towards chaos. The wonderful purposes and counsels of God
listed in 4Q286 1 ii as foundations of God’s throne are in the curses contrasted
with the wicked schemes of Belial that are meant to undermine them. Thus,
what the blessings and curses in 4QBerakhot are in essence all about is the
wonderful world order established by God in creation worthy of blessings and
praise, and elements disrupting that order, which are the work of Belial and his
lot and hence cursed.
31 Contrary to Nitzan, “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e,” 5, who connects this repetitive style with
the liturgical function of the composition.
32 For a shift in the use of curses in covenantal discourse from pronouncing them as warn-
ings to the covenanters to cursing Belial and the wicked of his lot, see Metso, “Shifts in
Covenantal Discourse,” 497–512. This results in a ceremony more tuned to constructing
the identity of the inside group and their separation from the cursed outsiders (cf. Hanne
von Weissenberg and Christian Seppänen, “Constructing the Boundary between Two
Worlds: The Concept of Sacred in the Qumran Texts,” in Crossing Imaginary Boundaries:
The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism [Publications of the Finnish
Exegetical Society 108; ed. M. Pajunen and H. Tervanotko; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical
Society, 2015]).
38 Pajunen
3 Conclusions
Therefore, it can be concluded that 4QBerakhot is a ritual that contains bless-

ings and curses that revolve around the natural order established by God in
creation and forces led by Belial trying to undermine this divine plan by their
wicked schemes. But as already mentioned, 4QBerakhot also contains some
cases of community legislation, which together with the very use of blessing
and curse formulas (cf. Deuteronomy 27–30 and Leviticus 26) may indicate
that the ritual should be identified with the kind of covenant renewal ritual
mentioned in 1QS. But if this is so, then it is definitely not a liturgy relating a
covenant between God and Israel because the latter is completely absent from
the remaining parts of the ritual, but a more particularistic covenant where the
chosen group of God blesses his name together with the angels.33 The notion
that the yaḥad are the chosen of God is found in many Qumran texts and the
communal praise of God with angels is also present in other works, such as the
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and some of the Hodayot. It is important to note
that while the idea about the chosen and angels blessing God together is also
explicitly present in Jubilees, it is there connected with all the people of Israel
whereas in 4QBerakhot it is only the members of the yaḥad who are able to do
this. Thus, 4QBerakhot fits in perfectly with other supposed ritual texts of the
yaḥad in its particularistic worldview where their new covenant with God has
surpassed the national covenant that is still part of the 1QS description of the
ritual.
The creation traditions in Gen 1:1–2:3 form the basis for the blessings in
4QBerakhot, but Genesis is not used alone as a self-sufficient source. The ad-
vances and modifications made to this tradition, especially second century
bce texts like Jubilees, the Song of the Three Young Men, and 4QNon-Canonical
Psalms B, complement the perspective that 4QBerakhot also adopts and ex-
pands even further. This kind of use of earlier traditions is quite common in
the late Second Temple period. In the event that traditions relating to certain
events or laws were complimentary, rather than contradictory to the overall tra-
dition, they typically proceeded along quite smoothly without radical chang-
es. But in cases where available earlier traditions disagreed with each other
over the correct interpretation of events, later authors using them as sources
needed to choose a side or to create a completely new approach. In the case
of creation, the later accounts do not usually contradict Gen 1:1–2:3 but rather
supplement it with additional details and the overall tradition moves forward
in a more straightforward fashion than in some other cases like, for example,
33 Cf. Nitzan, “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–90): A Covenantal Ceremony,” 492.

the traditions in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles that often directly contradict

one another. The later traditions certainly add to the Genesis tradition. They
modify it and even omit some of its details, but they do not offer a completely
different account. For example, they do not argue that God actually created
the world in twelve days instead of seven. What presented later authors with
many more problems than the rather logical Gen 1:1–2:3 creation account was
the contradicting evidence present in Genesis itself; that is, the two different
accounts of creation, which Jubilees consequently tries to harmonize.
Finally, 4QBerakhot is also part of the interpretation of Genesis in the way
it places a great amount of emphasis on the act of blessing the name of God.
There seems to be a relatively widespread tradition in the late Second Temple
period that humanity was at the moment of their creation presented with an
obligation to bless the name of God. Indeed, the Festival Prayers go even as far
as declaring that humanity was created in order to do this. Although this tradi-
tion is not explicitly present in the creation accounts of Genesis, it probably
derives its basis from the establishing of the Sabbath day described in Gen
2:1–3, or so it is apparently understood at least in Jubilees (2:21). This probably
has much more to do with the predominance of praise in the Second Temple
liturgies than Genesis itself. In other words, the practice itself of praising God
and his name in Second Temple liturgies necessitated the roots of that practice
to be formed, much like the growing belief in angels resulted in the need to add
their origins into the overall creation tradition. Thus, it can be concluded that
4QBerakhot is an important piece among the traditions using creation tradi-
tions and imagery in Genesis and needs to be included in future discussions
of this topic.34
34 In previous surveys of creation imagery in the Qumran psalms and prayers, 4QBerakhot
has largely been absent, see, for example, Matthew E. Gordley, “Creation Imagery in
Qumran Hymns and Prayers,” JJS 59 (2008): 252–272.
Chapter 4
The Qumran Library and the Shadow it Casts on the

Wall of the Cave
Jonathan D.H. Norton
The most widely-held view of the Dead Sea Scrolls involves a deeply-rooted
supposition: the scrolls disclose life at Qumran. According to this view, the
scrolls’ literary contents combine with their artefactual features and discov-
ery context to form a coherent picture of the scrolls’ past owners and life they
led. The manuscripts’ artefactual features (e.g., leather, papyrus, stitching, ink)
testify to the scribal industry pursued by the inhabitants of the Qumran settle-
ment, that is, maintenance and curation of scrolls alongside production and
inscription of new manuscripts. Meanwhile, as well as revealing the owners’
outlook and practices, the scrolls’ literary contents witness the owners’ scho-
lastic-religious ethos; that is, intensive communal study of Israel’s Mosaic and
prophetic literature, exegetical practices, transmission and editing of tradi-
tional texts, and their authorship of new compositions. According to the com-
mon picture, life at Qumran was substantially devoted to this literary industry;
and this literary industry served the pursuit of that life. The scrolls are gener-
ally deemed so organically and dynamically integral to life at Qumran that no
viable account of the scrolls or their owners can omit an account of life there;
and life at Qumran can only be understood by consulting the scrolls in all their
material and literary eloquence. The concept of the “Qumran library” sustains
this picture. Within the parameters of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis—and
the term is hardly used otherwise—“Qumran library” means “the annals of the
Essenes at Qumran.”
Whether the scrolls really do disclose life at Qumran has long been debated.
Since the 1980s debate has been overshadowed by mainstream engagement
with a position famously associated with Karl H. Rengstorf and Norman Golb,1
1 Karl H. Rengstorf, Ḫirbet Qumrân und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1960); idem, Ḫirbet Qumrân and the Problem of the Dead Sea Caves (Leiden: Brill, 1963);
Norman Golb, “The Problem of the Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
Proceedings of American Philological Society 124 (1980): 1–24; idem, “Who Hid the Dead
Sea Scrolls?” The Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985): 68–82; idem, “Khirbet Qumran and the
Manuscripts of the Judaean Wilderness: Observations on the Logic of Their Investigation,”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990): 103–114; idem, “Khirbet Qumran and the Manuscript

The Qumran Library and the Shadow it Casts 41
whose central claim is that the scrolls are a miscellaneous sample of texts
reflecting unrelated Judaean groups of the early Roman period. Mainstream
scholarship has strenuously sought to refute this claim. For if it were right,
the scrolls could not serve the Qumran-Essene hypothesis as its proponents
require, which is: to reflect the singular life of a particular group living at
Qumran between 100–50 BCE and c.70 CE. As a result, debate has in large
part been framed in terms of whether or not the scrolls really reflect a single
Jewish group.
The central claim of the Rengstorf-Golb position was dispelled to general sat-
isfaction by the 1990s when Devorah Dimant demonstrated the scrolls’ literary
and ideological coherence.2 Evidently not the chance literary jetsam (membra
disjecta3) of various Jewish groups, the scrolls represent a more or less coherent
religious literature, apparently the heritage of a distinctive Jewish movement
or religious “current,”4 which flourished during the Seleucid and Early Roman
periods. This movement, often called “Enochic Judaism,” is usually identified
as the “Essene” movement from which the yaḥad separated, the splinter group
responsible for the sectarian core of the Qumran literature. Like their religious
cousins in the wider Enochic-Essene movement, the yaḥad separatists were
evidently deeply involved with the study, transmission, and prophetic signifi-
cance of religious literature, both the common Jewish literature of the age and
special sectarian compositions. Thus the people reflected in the scrolls have
aptly been called a “textual community,”5 a term that suitably characterises
Finds of the Judaean Wilderness,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. M.O. Wise et al.; Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 51–72; idem, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The
search for the secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995); Yizhar Hirschfeld, Qumran in
Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004).
2 Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare
a Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute of Advanced
Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman;
Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58; eadem, “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character,” in
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress,
July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, J.C. VanderKam, and G. Marquis; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 2000), 170–176.
3 Florentino García Martínez, “The Groningen Hypothesis Revisited,” in Dead Sea Scrolls
and Contemporary Culture (ed. A.D. Roitman, L.H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; Leiden: Brill,
2011), 29; cf. idem, “Origins and Early History,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and
Apoclaypticism (ed. F. García Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 36–47.
4 Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
(ed. J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 163–180.
5 Mladen Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative Perspective
on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections,” JSJ 43 (2012): 551–594 (591–592).
42 Norton
the entire historical movement in its diachronic and regional variety, and the
yaḥad in particular.
All this meets the usual standards of historical inference about what texts
reveal about people of the past. However, preoccupation with the Rengstorf-
Golb position has allowed an unfortunate non-sequitur to become embedded
in mainstream discourse. Commentators habitually speak as though finding
that “the scrolls reflect only one religious group” amounts to finding that “the
scrolls were a library housed at Qumran.” Of course, this does not follow at
all. In part, the problem seems to arise in the language used to frame the dis-
cussion. It is routinely stated that, if not the accidental sample of disparate
texts proposed by Rengstorf and Golb, then the scrolls are an “intentional”6 or
“deliberate”7 “collection,” which means a “library.” Mainstream commentators
use the interchangeable terms “library” and “collection”8 not only to indicate
that a literature is in view (that is, a distinct religious canon), but specifically
that the manuscripts were once organised and curated in purpose-built library
facilities at Qumran.9 What shows Geza Vermes that the scrolls are not mis-
cellaneous is “the composition of the manuscript collection itself, definitely
pointing towards a sectarian library.”10 Literary and ideological consisten-
cies convince Jodi Magness that “this as an intentional collection of selected
works. In other words, the scrolls represent a religious library.”11 Likewise, it
is because the texts “are not a disparate collection of loose elements without
6 E.g., Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002), 34.
7 E.g., Sidnie White Crawford, “The Qumran Collection as a Scribal Library,” in The Dead
Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen;
Leiden: Brill, 2016), 120–121.
8 E.g., Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Complete Edition (rev. ed.;
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 2004), 20–21; García Martínez, “Hypothesis Revisited,”
29; Devorah Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Collected Studies (FAT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 24–37; White Crawford,
“Collection,” 117–122.
9 For example: García Martínez, “Hypothesis Revisited,” 29; cf. idem, “Origins and Early
History,” 36–47; Florentino García Martínez and Adam van der Woude, “A ‘Groningen
Hypothesis’ of Qumran Origins and Early History,” in Qumranica Minora I (ed. F. García
Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 31–32; Dimant, “Content and Character,”
171; eadem, History, 34–38, 245; Carol A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from
Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W.H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D.N.
Freedman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167–187; Magness, Archaeology, 34.
10 Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 20–21.
11 Magness, Archaeology, 34.
any connection” but rather “form a unity” that Florentino García Martínez and
Adam van der Woude “can describe them [the scrolls] as a religious library.”12
Yet, in these and numerous comparable statements, every instance of “a
library” or “a collection” could be replaced with “a literature” (or “a canon”)
without changing the immediate point, which is to refute the Rengstorf-Golb
position by showing that the scrolls reflect only one movement. To slide be-
yond this point to conclude that the all scrolls once stocked a locally-housed
library facility does not follow. By setting the concepts “accidental” and “in-
tentional” in opposition, commentators have accidentally obscured how this
non-sequitur has lodged in mainstream discourse. For, if we are to think that
the scrolls disclose the life of a single group inhabiting Qumran, two distinct
conditions must be met.
– First, the entire hoard of nine-hundred-odd scrolls reflects a single religious
movement.
– Second, the sectarian scrolls are so integral to life at Qumran that they can
be taken to disclose the sectarian character of the community pictured liv-
ing there.
If right, the Rengstorf-Golb position necessarily negates both the first condition
(the scrolls reflect one group) and the second condition (the scrolls disclose
that group’s life at Qumran). This is because the second condition can only be
true if the first is also true. Yet commentators generally imply that the inverse
is also the case: that, by establishing the first condition (against Rengstorf and
Golb), they also establish the second. This is not so because the first condi-
tion can be true regardless of the second. The “group” reflected by the scrolls
literature may have been a movement who lived and practiced anywhere and,
indeed, in many places (as commentators now increasingly propose). Thus,
one who agrees that the literature reflects only one group must still establish
that this literature was curated as a collection at Qumran and that it discloses
fifteen decades of life there.
Of course, proponents of the consensus do not perceive themselves to prop-
agate a non-sequitur because they consider on other grounds that the scrolls
once stocked a library at Qumran. These grounds are a well-known series of
material and literary associations dawn between the manuscripts, the place
of their discovery and other ancient sources that strike commentators as per-
tinent. First of all, similarities in yaḥad legislation set out in Serekh ha-Yaḥad
(S) and Essene legislation described in Josephus’ Jewish War Book II prompt
commentators (1) to equate the yaḥad and the Essenes. This equation, which
12 García Martínez and van der Woude, “A Groningen Hypothesis,” 521–522. This claim is
repeated in García Martínez, “Hypothesis Revisited,” 23.
44 Norton
constitutes the heart of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis,13 then prompts com-

mentators (2) to interpret Pliny’s mention of an “Essene city” in the Judaean
Desert as reference to Qumran. Identifying “Essenes” both with the ruined
Qumran settlement and with Serekh ha-Yaḥad then prompts commentators (3)
to consider the scrolls to have been discovered “at home” in the ruins of their
erstwhile functional life-setting. That is, commentators conflate the scrolls’
functional and discovery contexts. Since the Qumran building and local caves
comprise a single extended habitation, commentators (4) treat the scrolls as
“organically” integral to life at Qumran and thereby indispensable to anyone
seeking to know about that life. This series of inferences creates a powerful
13 For example, Dimant, History, 3 says, “the affinity between the Essenes and the scrolls
community was recognized on the basis of literary accounts long before the [archaeolo-
gists’] discovery of cave 1. Therefore, this identification was initially established with no
connection to the Qumran site. This means that no archaeological data or interpreta-
tion of the site can alter or dissolve this connection, but other considerations need to
be taken into account.” E.P. Sanders, “The Dead Sea Sect and other Jews: Commonalties,
Overlaps, and Differences,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (ed. T.H. Lim
et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2000), 35 calls “1QS” the “chief among” the Qumran rules. Eric
M. Meyers, “Khirbet Qumran and its Environs,” in The Oxford Handbook on the Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 22–23 places
texts which pre-date the Qumran settlement (Jubilees, Instruction or Sapential Work A)
in a “pre-Qumran sectarian setting” because they exhibit “numerous themes” in common
with S. Again, Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Essenes of Qumran: Between Submission to the
Law and Apocalyptic Flight,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Writings, Beliefs
and Practices (ed. F. García-Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 49–76
observes that “[t]he information provided directly by the Community Rule agrees signifi-
cantly with the data supplied by Josephus and Philo about the way of life, organisation
and doctrines of the Essenes. The agreement between this and other information provides
the most substantial proof so far for identifying the group from Qumran” (62–63; my ital-
ics). Descriptions of the group are typically founded on 1QS and supplemented through
reference to other Qumran texts; e.g., Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–90; Sanders, “The
Dead Sea Sect,” 16–35; Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of
the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 59–67;
Trebolle Barrera, “Essenes,” 51–76. Philip Alexander states that “Serekh [ha Yaḥad] is
the sectarian text par excellence and the assumption that the copies of it that we pos-
sessed were copied at Qumran does not seem overbold” (“Literacy among Jews in Second
Temple Palestine: Reflections on the Evidence from Qumran,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic
and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth
Birthday [ed. M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen; Leuven: Peeters, 2003], 6). Charlotte
Hempel, “The Long Text of the Serekh as Crisis Literature,” RevQ 27 (2015): 7–8, provides
further examples.
The comment on Isa 40:3 expressed in 1QS 8.14–16 (cf. 4QD[265] frag. 7 ii) is wide-
ly understood as a statement of the yaḥad’s actual retreat into the Judaean Desert. Cf.
Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, 27; 46; 69; James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today
(2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 133.
incentive (5) to suppose that Serekh ha-Yaḥad legislates for life at Qumran rath-
er than at some unknown place(s). Consequently, because yaḥad texts were
so evenly distributed throughout the various scroll caches, the entire hoard of
scrolls is taken (6) to reveal that life in all its religious, communal, industrial,
and scribal aspects.
It is the yaḥad-Essene equation at the heart of the hypothesis that gener-
ates the need to find an “organic connection” between the scrolls and their
discovery context. Roland de Vaux’s term “organic connection”14 indicated that
the scrolls were not merely connected to the Qumran site. He knew that if
the scrolls were only connected with the site by virtue of their disposal under
circumstances discontinuous with their ordinary context of use,15 then the
scrolls could not be conscripted to elucidate fifteen decades of life at Qumran.16
Whilst the cooperation of the Qumran inhabitants is likely, the scrolls could
have been stowed in the caves for a number of reasons and at various times.
“Organic” denotes a harmonious relationship between the elements of a whole.
The adjective expresses de Vaux’s conviction that the scrolls were function-
ally, systemically, dynamically, and indispensably integral to life at the settle-
ment. If the scrolls belonged organically to Qumran life, then the settlement
can—indeed can only—be explained in terms of the sum of the manuscripts’
literary and material features. This last condition is crucial because the logi-
cal starting point of the hypothesis is that Serekh ha-Yaḥad legislates for life
at Qumran; and since copies of Serekh and related yaḥad compositions are
quite thoroughly distributed among the scroll caches (certainly 1Q, 4Q, 5Q, 6Q;
14 E.g., Roland de Vaux, L’archéologie et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte: The Schweich Lectures
of the British Academy, 1959 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 44; idem, Archaeology
and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 54, 80 (cf. p. 69 of the
English edition for an “organic connection” between Qumran and ‘Ain Feshkha).
15 For Eleazar Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1955), 29, the scrolls were the genizah of the Essenes in the area. For Henri del Medico,
“L’état des manuscrits de Qumran I,” VT 7 (1957): 127–138; idem, L’énigme des manuscrits de
la Mer Morte (Paris: Plon, 1957), 23–31; and G.R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem
and a Solution (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), 386–391; idem, “Myths of Qumran,”
Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966–68): 23–48, the scrolls were genizoth
connected neither with Essenes nor Qumran.
16 The scrolls “whether they had been copied on the spot or had come from elsewhere, were
in the possession of the community and read by its members. They constituted its library
and hence they can be used to determine the special interests of the group. The fact that
they were dispersed throughout the caves can be accounted for in various ways” (de Vaux,
Archaeology, 104–105). “If [the genizah] hypothesis were true, the documents in the caves
would be texts rejected by the community, and could not be used to determine its ways of
thinking and living” (ibid., 103).
46 Norton
perhaps 11Q), the other scrolls must be integrated into the evidential role that
S centrally serves.
The concept of “Qumran library” serves precisely this need. It allows the
totality of the scrolls’ literary and artefactual features to be combined such that
“library” not only signifies “place of book collection, storage and reference,”
but marks the Qumran settlement as an amalgam of ascetic domus, scholastic
centre, and scribal factory. This is precisely the amalgam most articulations of
the Qumran Essene hypothesis propose. This is a radical concept of “library”
that unites all the data into an “organically” integrated whole. The manuscripts
are hereby treated as inalienably integral to the life of the ancient Qumran in-
habitants. Hence, interpretation of the settlement is required to accommodate
the full range of human activity (industrial, scribal, literary, religious) entailed
by all artefactual and literary features of manuscripts. This is a comprehensive
synthesis, according to which the scrolls become a kind of black box flight re-
cording of one and a half centuries of secluded sectarian habitation.
This particular concept of library has since the 1950s been familiar fare in
Qumran studies. Yet, as far I can tell, no other depiction of an ancient library
is so highly invested nor placed under such comprehensive strain. Upon this
concept of “library” is imposed a far greater demand to disclose every aspect
of the life, practice, character, outlook, and history of a single group of users
than is otherwise made of ancient libraries. On the basis of the scrolls’ literary
contents, commentators envisage a social context in which special purity codes
are observed, community rules enforced and priest-led exegetical study pur-
sued at Qumran. Serekh ha-Yaḥad provides the shape of this picture and also
serves as the standard by and extent to which aspects of other literature are
integrated into that picture. Thus, the legislative, halakhic, exegetical, pseude-
pigraphal, and other sorts of literature from the Qumran caves can be taken to
reflect a coherent social group whose members transmitted ancestral Mosaic
and prophetic writings, generated pseudepigraphal renovations of them, and
pursued their own tradition of literary composition and exegesis. Meanwhile,
the manuscripts’ artefactual features lead commentators to view this not only
as a religious community, but as a scribal outfit whose members cohabited and
worked within purpose-built scribal facilities. The transmission, editing and
authoring of the religious literature by which they lived involved them in the
full gambit of scroll manufacture—the rearing and butchery of animals; the
tanning, measuring, stitching, ruling and inscribing of leather; the preparation
of inks and manufacture of writing implements; the provision of training and
subsistence for scribes.17 According to the picture, all of this scribal-literary
17 Items interpreted as scribal paraphernalia are: the scrolls themselves; a plaster structure
from the site (de Vaux, L’archéologie 23–26; 81–82); up to eight inkwells from Qumran
work was conducted within or in the service of a vast library whose holdings
were produced or else acquired and assembled onsite and serviced in a scribal
workshop.18
What is striking is just how neatly and completely our depiction of the life
led by people conforms with every stage in the life-cycle of scrolls. This total
correspondence encompasses not only a manuscript’s material lifespan, from
manufacture to obsoletion, but also the ways in which religious literature can
serve and shape communal, devotional, and scholastic practices. The social
reality we attribute to the scrolls’ owners serves the widely-felt need to explain
the settlement in terms of the scrolls’ manufacture/acquisition, maintenance,
use, and disposal. That most of the scrolls are acknowledged to have been
copied elsewhere19 is beside the point. The common view depicts a group of
people who led a life fundamentally devoted to and shaped by the full gambit
of bibliotechnical pursuit. It is the radical concept of “Qumran library” that
makes this picture possible by constructing a social context that conforms
plus one from ‘Ain Feshkha (see Jan Gunneweg and Marta Balla, “Neutron Activation
Analysis Scroll Jars and Common Ware,” in Khirbet Qumran et ‘Ain Feshkha II: Études
d’anthropologie, de physique et de chemie [ed. J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg:
Fribourg University Press, 2003], 3–53, here 32; cf. 36–37); “scroll-reinforcing tabs” from
Cave 8. Cf. John Carswell, “Fastenings on the Qumran Manuscripts,” in Qumrân Grotte 4,
II (DJD 6; ed. R. de Vaux; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 23–28; Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices
and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
40–41; White Crawford, “Collection,” 126. See further, for example: William H. Brownlee,
“A Comparison of the Covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Pre-Christian Jewish
Sects,” The Biblical Archaeologist 8 (1950): 49–72; idem, “Biblical Interpretation Among the
Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Biblical Archaeologist 14 (1951): 54–76; idem, “The
Background of Biblical Interpretation at Qumran,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis:
Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1987), 183–193; idem, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964), 158; Bruce M. Metzger, “The Furniture in the Scriptorium
at Qumran,” RevQ 1 (1958–9): 509–515; F.F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(London: Paternoster, 1961), 47–48; Ronny Reich, “A Note on the Function of Room 30 (the
‘Scriptorium’) at Khirbet Qumran,” JJS 46 (1995): 157–160; Dimant, “Qumran Manuscripts,”
35–36; Hartmut Stegemann, Die Essener, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg: Herder,
1993), 77–82; Magness, Archaeology, 128; Meyers, “Khirbet Qumran,” 22–23, 29; Gunneweg
and Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis,” 29–32. Particularly full portraits of the scribal
life at Qumran are presented by Stegemann, Die Essener; Dwight C. Peck, “The Qumran
Library and its Patrons,” Journal of Library History 12 (1977): 5–16; Katherine Greenleaf
Pedley, “The Library at Qumran,” RevQ 5 (1959): 21–41.
18 Thus, for Alexander, “Literacy,” 5–6 the scrolls show that there must have been a scribal
workshop at Qumran, so, if locus 30 was not a scriptorium, the Qumran scriptorium sim-
ply has not been found.
19 E.g., Tov, Scribal.
48 Norton
comprehensively with the total range of human activities implied by the ex-
istence of books. Life at Qumran was completely and perfectly book shaped.20
As I see it, then, the question is not merely whether Qumran was a library or
housed a library, but whether the available data support this radical concept of
the Qumran library. Is the common depiction of a life devoted to a completely
self-contained literary industry the most reasonable synthesis of the available
data? Whilst it is conceivable that the shape of Qumran life was so comprehen-
sively determined by the life-cycle of manuscripts, there are grounds for doubt.
First, this picture of the Qumran library is a habitual remnant from decades
when the isolationist ethos of yaḥad texts was allowed to guide interpretation
of the archaeological materials. The still-common picture of the Qumran li-
brary has, in large part, not caught up with current recognition that Qumran
was well integrated into the regional economy.21 The idea that a comprehen-
sive scribal industry was confined to a rural sectarian site is intuitively unlikely.
Scribal schools and workshops are typically urban phenomena, not only be-
cause the demand and patronage for the training and employment of scribes
are urban circumstances, but also because the diverse resources and servic-
es needed to sustain scribal industry are most likely to co-exist in an urban
economy.
Second, many studies exhibit a sense that the Qumran library stands out
as remarkable, if not unique. Since the “Qumran library” is mostly discussed
20 This very widespread perception is given strikingly explicit expression by Peck, “Qumran
Library,” 13 who says that “this was less a community with a library than a library with a
community,” whose contents “give evidence of a closed and uniform communal life, for
which an ample range of library materials provided the impetus and control.”
21 Jürgen Zangenberg, “Wildnis unter Palmen? Khirbet Qumran im regionalen Kontext
des Toten Meeres,” in Jericho und Qumran (ed. B. Mayer; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet,
2000, 129–164); idem “Opening up our View: Khirbet Qumran in a Regional Perspective,”
in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions and New Approaches (ed. D.R.
Edwards; New York: Routledge, 2004), 170–188; Rachel Bar-Nathan, “Qumran and the
Hasmonaean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery
Finds on the Interpretation of the Settlement at Qumran,” in Qumran, the Site of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Archaeological Interpretations and Debates (ed. K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and
J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 264–277; Joseph Yellin and Magen Broshi, “Pottery of
Qumran and Ein Ghuweir: The First Chemical Exploration of Provenance,” BASOR 321
(2001): 65–78, esp. 75–76; Hanan Eshel, “4Q348, 4Q343 and 4Q345: Three Economic
Documents from Qumran Cave 4?” JJS 52 (2001): 132–135; Yizhak Magen and Yuvel Peleg,
“Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and Research, 1993–2004,” in The Site of the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates (ed. K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert,
and J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 55–113.
without explicit reference to the broader study of ancient libraries, the sense
that the Qumran library was remarkable remains largely uncontroversial with-
in Qumran studies.22 However, when Qumran is viewed alongside ancient bib-
liotechnical comparanda, Qumran does not look much like a library.
Third, drawing the Qumran materials into the comparative study of ancient
libraries is an important avenue of enquiry. Indeed, a number of commen-
tators have over the years acknowledged potential in relating the “Qumran
library” to the wider study of ancient libraries.23 However, relatively few have
produced dedicated studies,24 although the recent collection of essays devoted
to the topic, edited by Sidnie White Crawford and Cecilia Wassen, represents
important development in the discussion.25 The parallels that commentators
draw between Qumran and ancient libraries are ambiguous and, most impor-
tantly, do not obviously support the radical concept of the Qumran library.
Those commentators who defend the concept of “Qumran library” by
means of comparison with ancient libraries diverge in the comparanda
they select. Some, notably White Crawford, compare the “Qumran library”
to temple archives of the ancient Near East.26 Those who study Qumran in
22 For example, throughout their monographs Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran
and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Doubleday, repr. 1961), and Stegemann The Library
of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1998) use
“library” without reference to comparative evidence from ancient library studies.
23 See: de Vaux, Archaeology, 32–33; Peck, “Qumran Library,” 13–14; Yaacov Shavit, “The
‘Qumran Library’ in the Light of the Attitude Towards Books and Libraries in the Second
Temple Period,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran
Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, and D.G.
Pardee; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 299–317; Alexander, “Literacy,”
3–24 (here 23–24); Tov, Scribal, 46.
24 Pedley’s study (“The Library at Qumran,” RevQ 5 [1959]: 21–41) is thought excessively
speculative and indiscriminate in its appeal to diverse sets of comparanda. See de Vaux
Archaeology, 32; Ian Werrett, “Is Qumran a Library?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran
and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen; Leiden: Brill, 2016),
95; Peck, “Qumran Library,” 10. Peck’s 1977 study (“Qumran Library”) only summarised
depictions by Cross, de Vaux and Greenleaf Pedley. Yaacov Shavit’s judicious 1994 study
(“Qumran Library”) raised important methodological questions without seeking to
present any synthetic interpretation of the data. See also Viktor Burr, “Marginalien zur
Bibliothek von Qumran,” Libri 15 (1965): 340–352; Amin Lange, “The Qumran Dead Sea
Scrolls—Library or Manuscript Corpus?” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qum-
raniens en hommage à Émile Puech (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Steudel, E.J.C. Tigchelaar;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 177–193.
25 S. White Crawford and C. Wassen, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of
a Library (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
26 White Crawford compares the “Qumran library” to the texts found at Ebla, Nineveh, el
Armana, Edfu. (“The Qumran Collection as a Scribal Library,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at
50 Norton
light of Greco-Roman libraries diverge as to whether Qumran is comparable

to the great libraries of Greco-Roman city-states27 or to private Greco-Roman
manuscript collections.28 What these commentators have in common, how-
ever, is that they take the “organic connection” as the ground for accepting
the “Qumran library” concept.29 Indeed, the features presented as evidence in
defence of the “Qumran library” concept are the same features presented as
evidence for the organic connection. These are:
1. Literary and ideological coherence.
2. The distribution of sectarian writings among multiple cave caches.
3. The discovery of scrolls within an extended habitation comprising
Qumran settlement and surrounding caves.
4. The recurrence of particular scribal hands in multiple manuscripts and
across multiple scroll caches.
5. The distribution of Tov’s special scribal practice among the cave caches.
6. Multiple copies of particular literary works.
Qumran and the Concept of a Library [ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen; Leiden: Brill,
2016], 109–131).
27 E.g., Pedley, “Library,” 21–41 compares Qumran architecture to ancient libraries at Nippur,
Pergamum, Lagash, and Ephesus. Tov, Scribal, 46 considers the most valid parallels for
Qumran to be “the collections stored at Alexandria, Pergamum, and Ephesus from the
Hellenistic period [sic.], Roman libraries from the later periods, and Christian libraries
from the fourth century CE.” Werrett compares the life of the scholars at the Alexandrian
museon with that of the Essenes at Qumran (“Was Qumran a Library?” 90–91; drawing on
Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.2–10; Philo, Good Person 85–86; Pliny, Nat. 5.18.73).
28 For Philip Alexander, the best comparanda are discoveries of manuscript collections from
the Hellenistic and Roman eras, including the papyri from Herculaneum; parts of the
Oxyrhynchus and Antinopolis caches; the Vindolanda papyri from Hadrian’s Wall; and the
Nag Hammadi papyri from near Chenoboskion (“Literacy,” 23–24). De Vaux (Archaeology,
32–33) and Werrett (“Was Qumran a Library?” 96–100) compare Qumran to Herculaneum.
Although Tov thinks great libraries of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Christian eras the best
comparanda (Scribal, 46), he indicates papyrus collections as potentially valid parallels
(such as the “philosophical corpus … from Herculaneum, a segment of the Oxyrhynchus
corpus if the literary texts from that site came from a specific part of the city, and some
60% of the Antinoopolis corpus”).
29 White Crawford (“Collection,” 120–125); de Vaux (Archaeology, 102–106). Werrett accepts
de Vaux’s synthesis of classical Greek authors, “archaeological material from Qumran and
the witness of the scrolls themselves” (“Was Qumran a Library?” 89, 92). Pedley (“Library,”
21) accepts without argument that the scrolls were a collection housed at Qumran. All re-
fute claims that the scrolls are unrelated to Qumran: de Vaux, Archaeology, 105–106 (pace
Rengstorf); White Crawford, “Collection,” 120 (pace Golb); Pedley, “Library,” 38 (pace Del
Medico); Werrett (“Was Qumran a Library?” 88–89) more generally against “a handful of
arguments to the contrary.”
Not all commentators present all six features, but many present most of them.
Although the way I have ordered them is arbitrary, a distinction among them
is worth noting. The first feature comprises literary characteristics of the
texts. The other five are material qualities of manuscripts and their discov-
ery context.30
The literary and ideological coherence among the texts is the primary feature
of evidence presented in defence of the “Qumran library” concept.31 As argued
above, this coherence indicates that the scrolls present a particular religious
literature, the literary canon (used in its colloquial sense) of a distinctive Jewish
movement reaching back into the Seleucid era. However, this observation does
not in itself reveal the context in which the manuscripts (upon which we find
this literature inscribed) were made or used.
The second feature frequently presented as evidence is the distribution of
sectarian literary works among multiple cave caches.32 Since physical copies
of certain sectarian texts were found in more than one cave (see Figure 3.1),33
commentators often unite this feature with the first (literary coherence) in
efforts to defend the “Qumran library” concept. But again, while this distri-
bution indicates the literature of a coherent religious movement (against the
Rengstorf-Golb argument), it does not entail the “organic connection” which
the radical “Qumran library” concept embodies.
Thus, a more pressing concern has always been to demonstrate the organ-
ic connection between the scrolls and the inhabitants of Qumran. Here the
third feature comes into play: the archaeological data show the settlement and
the caves to be a single extended habitation. It is likely that whoever hid the
scrolls in the caves did so with at least with the consent of the Qumran inhabit-
ants. But none of this entails that the scrolls were a library so integral to life at
Qumran that its material and literary contents reveal the nature of life there.
The lack of manuscript remains in the building has long troubled those who
envisage the extensive manuscript industry involved in the “Qumran library”
30 It is easy to see how copies (rolled leather manuscripts) are material features. However,
both scribal hands and scribal conventions are also formally material features, as they
manifest as ink marks on leather or papyrus.
31 E.g., White Crawford, “Collection,” 121–122; Dimant, History, 27–40; García Martínez, Dead
Sea Scrolls Translated, xlix; García Martínez, “Hypothesis Revisited,” 23; García Martínez
and van der Woude, “A Groningen Hypothesis,” 521–522; Magness, Archaeology, 34.
32 E.g., Dimant, History, 28; White Crawford, “Collection,” 123; García Martínez, Dead Sea
Scrolls Translated, xlix; Geza Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, 20.
33 Yaḥad texts are preserved in 1Q, 4Q, 5Q, 6Q, with ideologically compatible texts in
1–6Q, 11Q.
52 Norton
Yaḥad texts Copies In n caves Q Mas

1. Serek ha-Yaḥad 12 3 1 . . 4 5 . . .
2. Damascus Document 10 2 . . . 4 . 6 .
3. Hodayot 8 2 1 . . 4 . . . .
4. Serek ha-‘Edah 6 2 1 . . 4 . . .
5. Serekh ha-Milḥamah 7 (8?) 2 1 . . 4 . . . .
6. Instruction 8 2 1 . . 4 . . .
7. Mysteries 4 2 1 . . 4 . . . .
8. Dibre Moshe 2 (+?) 2 1 . . 4 . . .
9. Aramaic Levi 7 2 1 . . 4 . . . .
10. Liturgical Prayers 2? 2 1 . . 4 . . .
11. Moses Apocryphon? 4? 3? 1 2 . 4 . . . .
12. Jubilees 15 (+?) 5 1 2 3 4 . . 11
13. Enoch-Giants 10 4 1 2 . 4 . 6 . .
14. New Jerusalem 8 (9?) 5 1 2 . 4 5 . 11
15. Sefer ha-Milḥamah 2 2 . . . 4 . . 11 .
16. Serekh Shirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat 9 (+1) 2 . . . 4 . . 11 Masada
17. Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah 6 1 . . . 4 . . . .
figure 3.1 A sample of compositions and the distribution of copies in caves
1. 1QS; 4QSa–j (4Q255–264); 5QS (5Q11). Also a Serekh-like text (11Q29)?

2. 4QDa–h (4Q266–273); 5QD (5Q512); 6QD (6Q15).
3. 1QHa–b; 4QHa–f (1Q35; 4Q427–432).
4. 1QSa; 4Qpap cryptA Serekh ha-‘Edaha–e (4Q249a–e crypt A).
5. 1QM (1Q33); 4QMa–f, g? (4Q491–496). Also 4QWar Scroll-like Text A, B (4Q497; 4Q471).
6. 1QInstruction (1Q26); 4QInstructiona–g (4Q415–418a, 423).
7. 1QMysteries (1Q27); 4QMysteriesa–b; 4QMysteriesc? (4Q299–301?).
8. 1Q22, 1Q29?; 4Q375?, 376?
9. 1QAramaic Levi (1Q21); 4QAramaic Levia–f (4Q213–214, 540–541).
10. 1QLiturgy of the Three Tongues of Fire (1Q29), 4QLiturgy of the Three Tongues of Fire
(4Q376).
11. 4QapocrMoses A (4Q374), 4QapocrMoses B (4Q375), 4QapocrMoses C (4Q377),
4QapocrMosesa (4Q375), 4QapocrMosesb (4Q376); García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study
Edition, 1327.
12. 1QJuba–b (1Q17–18); 2QJuba–b (2Q19–20); 3Qjub (3Q5); 4QJuba, c, d, e, f, g, i?, 4QpapJubb, h (4Q176a,
216–24, 482–483); 11QJub (11Q12). 4Q225–227, 482–483 may contain Jubilees-like works. 4Q228
may cite Jubilees.
13. 1QEnGiantsa–b ar (1Q23–24); 2QEnGiants ar (2Q26); 4QEnGiantsa–e, e? ar (4Q203; 530–533,
556); 6QpapEnGiants ar (6Q8).
34 Emanuel Tov, ed., The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and An Introduction to the
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002); Florentino
García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition
(Leiden: Brill, 2000).
14. 1QNJ ar (1Q32); 2QNJ ar (2Q24); 4QNJ? (4Q232); 4QNJ Heb (365a); 4QNJa–c ar (4Q554, 554a,
555); 5QNJ ar (5Q15); 11QJN ar (11Q18).
15. 4QSM (4Q285); 11QSM (11Q14).
16. 4QShirShabba–h (4Q400, 4Q401, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q404, 4Q405, 4Q406, 4Q407); 11QShirShabb
(11Q17); Mas1k (MasShirShabb).
17. 4QMMTa–f (4Q394–399).
The compositions numbered 1–15 are a sample that García Martínez presented in Lugano,
February 2014, to show how a sectarian or related composition can appear in more than one
cave. I have added the texts numbered 16–17. I have also added (in column 2) the tally of identi-
fied copies.34 While the sample could be expanded, it suffices to show that copies of composi-
tions often considered both sectarian and central to the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, and others
whose relation to the yaḥad is suspected, occur in significantly more than three copies.
concept. The notion that fire would destroy all traces of leather is less convin
cing than usually proposed.35 More to the point, the real possibility that some
of the scrolls belonged to the Qumran people and signs that writing took place
at Qumran still does not entail that a library of a thousand scrolls was intrinsi-
cally integral to Qumran life. Nor is the scrolls’ situation in caves easily recon-
ciled with the common concept of the “Qumran library.” The natural limestone
caves (certainly 1Q, 11Q; perhaps also 2Q, 3Q, 6Q and the artificial marl Cave 7)
seem to be terminal resting places where scrolls were embalmed, stitched into
linen wrappings and permanently stowed in jars.36 In 4Q at least five-hundred
35 E.g., Magness, Archaeology, 43–44; Meyers, “Khirbet Qumran,” 22, who attribute this ab-
sence of parchment in the ruins to fires in 9/8 BCE and 68 CE. But note that the hundreds
of Herculaneum papyri, although carbonised, were not destroyed by the volcanic purge
vented by Vesuvius. Describing the discovery of room filled with papyri burnt in a fire
in the late second century CE, Hélène Cuvigny, “The Finds of Papyri: The Archaeology
of Papyrology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R.S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 30–58 (here 47) describes charred rolls which “cannot be typically
unrolled,” reporting that “in most cases, the very thin charred layers of papyrus are stuck
and more or less pasted together” by the “brownish paste” to which most rolls were re-
duced; see also Pier Luigi Tucci, “Flavian Libraries in the City of Rome,” in Ancient Libraries
(ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Wolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2013), 300; Jaakko Frösen, “Conservation of Ancient Papyrus Materials,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R.S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 79–100
(here 92). Of course, the particular conditions of a fire and the extent to which burn-
ing material is well ventilated or trapped against a floor without oxygen determines how
completely materials are consumed. A closed book does not burn at all well and closed
books often survive charred in the ashes of even large and fierce fires of wooden logs. A
tightly rolled scroll of velum lying on a floor might easily not be fully consumed in a fire
but may carbonise, as is the case with Cuvigny’s papyri.
36 Joan Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory
Revisited,” in Go out and Study the Land ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and
Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. A.M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L.H. Schiffman;
Leiden: Brill, 2012), 275–285; eadem, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012), 272–303. See also: Stephen J. Pfann, “The Ancient ‘Library’
54 Norton
scrolls were heaped on the floor.37 Signs of wall fixings or niches are ambigu-
ous grounds for thinking that Caves 4–5 ever served, as some have proposed,
as a permanent library facility.38 Set on the southern tip of the adjacent marl
promontory to the west of the site, Caves 4–5 were apparently accessed by nar-
row paths and perhaps rope ladders.39
These considerations have prompted most commentators to invoke a com-
bination of ordinary and extraordinary circumstances to account for the pres-
ence of the scroll-caches in caves dotted over three kilometres. That is, the
scrolls were normally housed in the building40 but were transferred to caves
during a terminal crisis in 68 CE—some scrolls to caves near the site (artificial
marl caves 4Q, 5Q, 7Q, 8Q; limestone Cave 6), some to remoter natural lime-
stone caves between one kilometre (1Q, 2Q) and two kilometres (3Q, 11Q) to the
north.41 Yet alternative ways of relating the scrolls to the settlement respond to
the very same ambiguities. The most prominent comprises variations of the
genizah hypothesis first proposed by Sukenik.42 Interpreting the scroll caves as
or ‘Libraries’ of Qumran: The Specter of Cave 1Q,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and
the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 210–
212; Grace M. Crowfoot, “The Linen Textiles,” in Qumran Cave I (ed. D. Barthélemy and
J.T. Milik; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 18–38 (here 18–20) first proposed that
the caves served as scroll-burial sites. See also Mireille Bélis, “Des Testiles: Catalogues et
Commentaires,” in Khirbet Qumran et ‘Ain Feshkha II: Études d’an0thropologie, de physique
et de chemie (ed. J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg: University Press, 2003), 207–
240; Joan E. Taylor et al., “Qumran Textiles in the Palestine Exploration Fund, London:
Radiocarbon Dating Results,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137 (2005): 159–167.
37 Popović doubts destruction of manuscripts by Roman soldiers, cf. Mladen Popović,
“Roman Book Destruction in Qumran Cave 4 and the Roman Destruction of Khirbet
Qumran Revisited,” in Qumran und die Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte (WUNT 278; ed. J.
Frey, C. Claußen, and N. Kessler; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 239–291, esp. 241–249.
38 For the view that Cave 4 housed a working library, see, e.g. de Vaux, L’archéologie, 25, 81–
82; Dimant, “Qumran Manuscripts,” 36; eadem, History, 234, cf. 39–40; Stegemann, Library
of Qumran, 74–75; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York:
Doubleday, 1994), 54–56; Jean Baptiste Humbert, “L’espace sacré á Qumran: Propositions
pour l’archéologie,” Revue biblique 101 (1994): 161–214 (here 194). Some have viewed the
remoter, limestone caves as library facilities (e.g., Cross, Ancient Library, 25, 64, 67, 82) or
outlying book-stacks (White Crawford, “Collection,” 123; cf. Pfann, “The Ancient ‘Library,’”
173, 210–212).
39 Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts,” 279.
40 E.g., Peck, “Qumran Library,” 6, 8–10; Pedly, “The Library at Qumran,” 14, 18–19, 21, 27, 31; de
Vaux, L’archéologie, 25; Stegemann, Library, e.g., 38–39, 56, 79, 82, 99; Tov, Scribal, 5.
41 This picture is essentially that set out in de Vaux, Archaeology, 59, 105; Roland de Vaux,
Maurice Baillet, and Józef T. Milik, eds., Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumran: Vol. 1: Textes (DJD
3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 34. See also, for example, Cross, Ancient Library, 18.
42 Sukenik, Dead Sea Scrolls, 29 thought the scrolls were the genizah of the Essenes in the
area. For del Medico, “L’état des manuscrits,” 127–138 and Driver, Judaean Scrolls, 386–391
Jewish genizoth for the terminal disposal of obsolete scrolls, Joan Taylor43 and
Stephen Pfann44 both accommodate indications that the various caves served
distinct purposes and that scroll deposits were made in different periods.45
Since we can never be sure how, when, and why these scrolls came to be
lying in caves near Qumran, it seems unwise to commit to a particular scenario
in order to build further hypotheses. Indeed, literary analysis of key sectar-
ian texts, like Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the Damascus Document, make it difficult
to think that the scrolls ever functioned as the library of a single cohabiting
group. First, it has long been recognised that the camps of marrying sectarians
depicted in the Damascus Document could hardly have co-habited with the
celibate male groups depicted in Serekh ha-Yaḥad. Moreover, Serekh ha-Yaḥad
itself legislates for various yaḥad cells living under various conditions in diverse
locations. A number of commentators, therefore, argue that yaḥad cells and
Damascus Covenanter camps operated in numerous places.46 If Qumran was
one of these places,47 it would explain why the modest manuscript collections
the scrolls were genizoth unconnected with the Essenes or with Qumran. For more recent
variations see George J. Brooke, Qumran and the Jewish Jesus: Reading the New Testament
in the Light of the Scrolls (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2005), 9, 68; David Stacey, “Seasonal
Industries at Qumran,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 26 (2008): 7–30
(here 24).
43 For Taylor, Caves 4–5 were a genizah where scrolls awaited preparation for permanent
disposal elsewhere, whilst scrolls (having been embalmed, stitched into linen and sealed
in jars) were permanently buried in the remoter limestone caves (“Buried Manuscripts,”
269–315).
44 Stephen J. Pfann, “Reassessing the Judaean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizahs
and Hiding Places,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007): 147–170.
For Pfann, Caves 4–5 were a genizah for obsolete scrolls of mixed ideology; Caves 1, 5, and
6 contained deposits of private yaḥad-Essene collections; and Caves 3, 11, and perhaps 2
contain literature from a priestly Jerusalem group unconnected with Qumran.
45 See also: D. Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves: A Statistical Reevaluation of
a Qumran Consensus,” Dead Sea Discoveries 14/3 (2007): 313–333; D. Stökl Ben Ezra,
“Further Reflections on Caves 1 and 11: A Response to Florentino García Martínez,” in The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. C. Hempel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 211–223.
46 John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); idem, “Sectarian Communities in The Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 151–172 (here 152); Sarianna Metso, “Problems in
Reconstructing the Organizational Chart of the Essenes,” DSD 16 (2009): 388–415; Alison
Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development of the
Community Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Yonder M. Gillihan, Civic Ideology, Organisation and
Law in the Rule Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 10, 14–18, 19–20.
47 Gillihan, Civic Ideology, 20 suggests that Qumran was the rural estate of an aristocratic
“household associated with the sect that devoted the proceeds of the settlement’s indus-
try to the sect’s maintenance.”
56 Norton
of multiple sectarian cells were brought there and stowed in caves. We may
speculate whether obsolete scrolls were being laid to rest; whether refugees
came seeking safety with their scrolls during one or various crises; or whether
the inhabitant of Cave 3 borrowed books from the Qumran library.48 But it is
too precarious to make our hypotheses depend on committing to a single pos-
sible account of why the scrolls were lying in caves. As Werrett rightly notes,
“the final resting place of an artifact says more about the end of its life than it
does about where it was made, how the artifact was used, and where it spent
the vast majority of its existence.”49
Comparative material provides perspective. Galen and a certain gramma-
tikos called Philides rented warehouses on the Via Sacra in Rome to keep their
books and writing equipment.50 Let us imagine that, like Philides, nothing of
Galen or his writings were known. Let us also imagine that Galen’s books and
writing equipment had not perished in fire in 192 CE, but had survived to be
discovered in modern times in the ruins of the warehouse. In light of refer-
ences to libraries in this area by Marcus Aurelius, Dio and others, we might well
have identified the space as a library, especially if remnants of storage niches
for shelves were discernible in the stone walls.51 But we would be wrong. Galen
only stored his books in the warehouse to keep them protected by the military
guard stationed at the adjacent imperial archives and to have the books close
at hand when he worked in the libraries on the Palantine. Exceptionally, in
fact, he had brought many books, ordinarily kept at his villa, to the warehouse
for safekeeping during his pending trip to his Campanian villa in 192. Thus
many more books burned that day in 192 than would normally have done (Peri
Aplupias 10). So inferring Galen’s ordinary library use from the remains of the
warehouse would give quite the wrong impression.
Tigchelaar hits the mark when he says that, although the scrolls are “the
product of a specific Early Jewish current,”
48 As Cross, Ancient Library, 18 proposed.

49 Werret, “Was Qumran a Library?” 92.
50 See Matthew Nicholls, “Galen and Libraries in the Peri Alupias,” JRS 101 (2011): 124–125.
Philides is otherwise unknown.
51 Galen and Dio use apothéké to refer both to libraries and to warehouses for book stor-
age separate from libraries (see Nicholls, “Galen and Libraries,” 125–126). Libraries proper
generally had wooden shelves housed in niches. Indeed Galen refers to apothéké in the
library at Alexandria and to apothéké in the Alexandrian warehouses where books were
stored before they were bought to the library (Hippocratis Epidemiarum III et Galeni in
illum Commentarius 2.4). The warehouses on the Via Sacra in Rome were made of stone,
not wood (Galen, Peri Alupias 8) and so may have had wall niches or fixtures for storage
shelves.
there is no evidence that all the manuscripts of the corpus were ever, at
any time, together in one collection. Nor can one know, for that matter,
whether all those manuscripts that were together at a certain time at the
same place, were actively read and studied, or merely deposited. Even the
status of Cave 4, as a library, repository, temporary place of concealment,
or perhaps even a genizah, is unclear. We may not know the precise his-
torical events which eventually resulted in the deposit of manuscripts in
different caves at and near Qumran.52
The fourth feature—recurrence of certain scribal hands—is often taken to in-

dicate the unity of the “collection.”53 Certain scribal hands recur in copies from
at least Caves 1, 4, 11, perhaps also 2 and 6.54 A few of these scribes appear to
have collaborated closely, intervening in and mutually correcting each other’s
copies.55 Commentators widely cite this as evidence to support the argument
52 Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 179–180.

53 E.g., White Crawford, “Collection,” 123–124; García Martínez and van der Woude
“A Groningen Hypothesis,” 525; Dimant, History, 34–35; Magness, Archaeology, 34.
54 See Tov, Scribal, 20–24, especially “Table 2”; George J. Brooke, “E Pluribus Unum: Textual
Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in
Their Historical Context (ed. T.H. Lim, et al.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 107–122. In
addition, one hand copied 1QpHab and 11Q20, Florentino García Martínez, et al., eds.,
Qumran Cave 11. II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–30 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 364. One hand
copied 1QS, 4QSamc and 4Q175. One hand copied 1QPsb (1Q11), 4QIsac (4Q57) and
11QSefer ha-Milḥamah (11Q14). Ada Yardeni, “A Note on a Qumran Scribe,” in New Seals
and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform (ed. M. Lubetski; Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix, 2007), 287–298 identifies a scribe who copied 53 manuscripts from 1Q, 2Q, 3Q,
4Q, 6Q, 11Q. Sidnie White Crawford, “Collection,” 124 reports that Émile Puech concurs.
Dimant, History, 34–35 also considers Yardeni’s claim to affirm the connection between
the caves, although she shows some caution.
55 In 1QHa Scribe A copied until column XIX, 22, scribe B copied lines 23–26, and Scribe
C copied the rest of the column (lines 27–35) and those following. 1QH column num-
bers here follow the reconstruction of Émile Puech, “Quelques aspects de la restauration
du rouleau des hymnes (1QH),” JJS 39 (1988): 38–55; cf. Tov, Scribal, 21–22. According to
Malachi Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Louvain: Orientaliste, 1958),
63, Scribe C corrected the work of scribe A, while scribe B corrected that of both scribes
A and C, which suggests that at least Scribes B and C worked concurrently. This may be
the only certain case of two scribes working concurrently. Ira Rabin and collaborators
have identified the ink used in 1QHa to derive from the Dead Sea region (Ira Rabin
et al., “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayota),” DSD 16 [2009]:
97–106). Nine Hebrew scrolls are identifiably written by more than one scribe; cf. Tov,
Scribal, 21–22. Martin catalogues all scribal interventions in 1QIsaa (Scribal, 495–585) and
other examples of scribal collaboration (pp. 65, 495–659, 687). The scribes of 1QS, 1QH,
1QM, 1QIsaa, 1QpHab intervened in each others’ copies (Martin, Scribal, 81–96). 1QS Scribe
A (= Martin’s 1QIsaa Scribe C; cf. Martin, Scribal, 72–73) penned 4Q175 and several other
58 Norton
already made on literary/ideological grounds, that the scrolls are a united

local manuscript collection belonging to a community of co-habiting owners,
that is, a library housed at Qumran. Yet, these scribal features do not support
this scenario more powerfully than they support others. The skills involved in
producing a copy of a Hebrew literary composition are very considerable and
therefore confined to highly, and expensively,56 trained experts whose num-
bers at any given time will have been relatively meagre. We might posit up to
one thousand professionally trained scribes, capable of producing copies of
literary Hebrew compositions, active in Judaea at any given time in the late
Hellenistic and early Roman periods.57 Tov reckons the nine-hundred and
4Q manuscripts, and this scribe made a number of interventions into 1QIsaa; cf. John
M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 174–187
(here 182); Frank M. Cross, Introduction to Scrolls from Qumran Cave 1: The Great Isaiah
Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk (ed. J.C. Trever et al.; Jerusalem:
The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, 1972), 1–5; Eugene Ulrich, “4QSamc:
A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 14–15 from the Scribe of Serek Hayyahad (1QS),”
BASOR 235 (1979): 1–25 (here 2).
56 Note Galen’s lament that many of his economic class do not consider worthwhile the
very great expense of training scribes to maintain one’s own library. Galen considers the
expense worthwhile (Galen, De an. aff. dign.et cur. 5.48). Galen spent considerable sums of
money on the training of slaves who could read and write (De cognoscendis curandisque
animi morbis 9; see: Tucci, “Flavian Libraries,” 277–311 (here 295). William A. Johnson,
“Libraries and Reading Culture in the High Empire,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K.
Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 347–363
(here 359) points to Seneca, who reckons the cost of a skilled copyist at 100,000 sesterces
(Ep. 22.6–7), and to Atticus and Crassus, who kept in-house copyists (Plutarch, Crass.
2). Cornelius Nepos (Att. 13.3) says the same of Atticus. See Fabio Tutrone, “Libraries
and Intellectual Debate in the Late Republic: The Case of the Aristotelian Corpus,” in
Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2013), 152–166.
57 Adolf Harnack, Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1902), 6–13 reckoned there to have been 700,000 Jews in Judaea by the time
of Nero in the 60s CE. Magen Broshi reckons the population of Judaea to have reached
1,000,000 by the mid-first century CE, whereby about half were Jews, see Broshi, “The
Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” BASOR 236 (1979): 1–10.
Broshi is followed by, for example, Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the
Jews (18 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 1.167–179; Gildas H. Hamel,
Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries CE (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1990), 137–140; Seth Schwartz, “Political, Social and Economic life in the
Land of Israel, 66-c. 235,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-
Rabbinic Period (ed. W.D. Davies et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984),
23–53. However, Brian McGing notes the great difficulties in ancient population estimates
(“Population and Prozelytism: How Many Jews Were There in the Ancient World?” in Jews
in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities [ed. J.R. Bartlett; London: Routledge, 2002], 88–106).
William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989) estimates
thirty scrolls from Qumran to have been produced by several hundred scribes
over a quite a long period (although with concentrations in the Hasmonaean
and the Herodian periods). Assuming that each scribe produced many manu-
scripts during a working life, the Dead Sea Scrolls must represent only a tiny
percentage of the total Hebrew and Aramaic scribal output of the period.58
Nonetheless, among a sample of nearly one thousand scrolls one would expect
to find recurring samples from distinct practitioners simply because a relatively
small guild was producing all the regional scribal output. By analogy, according
to Eric G. Turner, only a limited number of scribes was involved in inscribing
the circa five thousand Greek manuscripts found in the ancient city dump at
Oxyrhynchus.59 Coming from a dump, these manuscripts did not represent the
literature or outlook of one ideological movement. Since the manuscripts were
presumably largely produced in the region, the hands of the limited number
of trained scribes working in that region inevitably recur. Yet such recurrence
cannot in itself indicate any scribe’s ideological allegiance to what he copies.
Commitment to an ideology may prompt a scribe’s work.60 But scribes also
up to 10% literacy in urban Mediterranean populations and 5% in rural populations in

this period. Taking Harnack’s higher figure of 700,000 Palestinian Jews in the first century,
and assuming 7% literacy across the Judaean population, only 49,000 Judaeans would
have been able to read. The number of trained, professional writers must have been far
lower. Even if as many as 2% of the 49,000 literate Judaeans trained to a professional writ-
ing standard, there would only be circa one thousand trained writing professionals active
at a given time. This is one-and-a-half tenths of one per cent of the total population. I
think this estimate is high. A lower count would only strengthen the point.
58 “It appears that many, if not most, of the literary texts found in the Judean Desert had been
copied elsewhere in Israel” (Tov, Scribal, 5). “[A]mong the Qumran manuscripts very few
individual scribes can be identified as having copied more than one manuscript” (ibid.,
22). “If indeed the Qumran scrolls were written by a large number of different scribes
[working throughout Judaea], it is apparent that only a very small proportion of their
[i.e., the full number of Judaean scribes active at a given time] work is known to us, since
many of the scribes were professionals who must have produced many scrolls” (ibid., 24).
Presumably, the Jerusalem temple employed a particularly large number of scribes pro-
ducing literary Hebrew texts in this period. Pseudo Aristeas (first century BCE?), who is
prone to wild exaggeration, is content to imagine seventy-two such experts available in
the time of Ptolemy. Josephus, a first century Jerusalem priest, accepts the figure.
59 Eric G. Turner, “Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus,” in Akten des VIII. Internationalen
Kongresses für Papyrologie Wien 1955 (Wien: Rohrer, 1956), 141–146; cf. Kathleen McNamee,
“Greek Literary Papyri Revised by Two or More Hands,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth
International Congress of Papyrology (ed. R.S. Bagnall; Chico: Scholars, 1981), 79–91; Tov,
Scribal, 24.
60 Gamble asks whether some early Christian scribes copied for devotional reasons (Harry
Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts [New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1995], 277). Edgar Ebojo suggests that “whilst remuneration
is an essential professional publishing protocol at the time, it is not implausible that there
60 Norton
copy what they are commissioned to copy.61 The ideological alignment of what
they inscribe will largely be determined by the patron who commissions the
work. Of course, the relationship between the scribe and those who provide
his subsistence may be particular in the case of a religious priest-led voluntary
association, especially if it was communist in the manner depicted in Serekh
ha-Yaḥad. But the fact remains that no recurrence of particular hands among
one thousand ancient Judaean scrolls should be surprising, regardless of
whether they had diverse or common provenance. If, as some commentators
think, the hoard comprises a number of discrete collections or parts thereof
gathered at Qumran for reasons discontinuous with various contexts of use in
other places, one would still expect to find scribal hands recurring throughout
a hoard of this size.
was something more to it than just compensation, especially in the Christian context”
(“A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal Habits of Papyrus 46
(p. Chester Beatty II—P. Mich. Inv. 6238)” [PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2014],
25–26).
61 For example, the “Philodemus collection” is a private Epicurean collection housed at the
villa of a member of the Roman economic elite. Comprising circa one-thousand manu-
scripts, dating from the third century BCE through to the first century CE, it “included a
mix of items commissioned, copied in house, and purchased from dealers, either new
or used” (George W. Houston, “The Non-Philodemus Book Collection in the Villa of the
Papyri,” in Ancient Libraries [ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013], 183–208 [here 196]). Marginal stichometric counts
show that the collection contained commercially-produced copies from every period
(see Houston, “The Non-Philodemus,” 190–191; also Gregor Damschen, “Stichometry,”
in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World [20 vols.; trans. and ed. by C.F.
Salazar and F.G. Gentry; Leiden: Brill, 2008], 13.834–835; Domenico Bassi, “La sticome-
tria nei papiri ercolanesi,” Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 37 [1909]: 321–363).
The person who owned the collection by the early first century apparently commissioned
at least thirteen Greek manuscripts copied by at least twelve different scribes (Houston,
“The Non-Philodemus,” 194; Guglielmo Cavallo, Libri, scritture, scribe a Ercolano: intro-
duzione allo studio dei materieli Greci [Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli, 1983]). Scribes who
produced early Christian manuscripts, too, copied what they were commissioned to copy.
Turner notes: “If [the stichometrical totals] are present in a text, we may be sure that
the copy was professionally made and paid for” (Greek Papyri: An Introduction [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1968], 95). Of the Chester Beatty codex of the Pauline Epistles,
for example (P.Beatty II), Skeat observes: “The stichometrical totals appended to some of
the Epistles (in a cursive hand, but apparently little, if at all, later than the text) indicate
that it was a commercially produced copy and it is therefore legitimate to use the figures
for the cost of writing in the contemporary” (T.C. Skeat, “The Length of the Standard
Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex,” ZPE 45 [1982]: 169–176, here 173); cf.
idem, “Was Papyrus Regarded as ‘Cheap’ or ‘Expensive’ in the Ancient World?” Aegyptus
75 (1995): 75–93; idem, “The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine,” JTS
50 (1999): 583–625.
The Philodemus collection from Herculaneum, which comprised between

700 and 1,800 scrolls, was built up over several generations.62 A core of books
written by Philodemus was supplemented with smaller collections and in-
dividual scroll acquisitions by subsequent owners, right up to the few years
prior the collection’s carbonisation during Vesuvius’ eruption. The final form of
the collection exhibits recurrent scribal hands in every period. Some of these
will have been the hands of in-house copyists, particularly in the early phase
when Philodemus was composing his works. Whether or not Philodemus ever
owned the whole collection, other hands will be those of copyists who were
locally active in subsequent phases of the collection, including its last phase in
Herculaneum. The collection also exhibits numerous different scribal hands in
all phases, especially when acquisitions were made during a spate of commis-
sions in a limited period not long before the destruction.63 Neither the recur-
rence of scribal hands nor the proliferation of distinct hands can speak for or
against the hoard being a collection.
The fifth scribal feature invoked in support of the common concept of
“Qumran library” is the special scribal practice identified by Tov.64 The scribal
practice exhibits distinctive orthography and morphology which tend to be
accompanied by a range of special scribal features, such as marginal signs in
cryptic or paleo-Hebrew characters and cancelation dots.65 From the viable
sample of circa five hundred Hebrew manuscripts, one hundred and thirty
display one or more features. “The combined evidence shows that the great
62 The Philodemus collection from Herculaneum comprises manuscripts from the third
century BCE to the mid-first century CE. See Houston, “The Non-Philodemus,” 188–190;
193–197; Cavallo, Libri, 29–60. Sections of collections, identified among the Oxyrhynchus
papyri, were between one and five hundred years old at the time they were discarded
(George W. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the
Roman Empire,” in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome [ed. W.A.
Johnson and H.N. Parker; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 247–251). Gellius (NA
16.8.2) reports finding in the library of the Temple of Peace an autograph manuscript of
Aelius Stilo, which must have been 250 years old; see Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,”
251. Galen (Peri Alupias, 13) refers to manuscripts in the library of the Palatium which
came from the collections of Callinos, Atticus, Pedoukos, Aristarchus of Samothrace (c.
22–143 BCE) and Panaetius of Rhodes (c. 180–110 BCE). See Tucci, “Flavian Libraries,” 295;
Nicholls, “Galen and Libraries,” 132. Galen also speaks of “collections” (bibliotéké) being
inherited, transported, and amalgamated into bigger ones when the owners died (Tucci,
“Flavian Libraries,” 295).
63 Houston, “The Non-Philodemus,” 190–196 (esp. 194).
64 E.g., Dimant, History, 34–35 referring to Tov, Scribal, 277–288.
65 Tov, Scribal, 261–262, 263–275.
62 Norton
majority of the distinctive scribal features is more or less limited to texts that
also display the Qumran orthography and morphology.”66
The special scribal practice largely coincides with the copying of yaḥad
compositions.67 Most of these one hundred and thirty manuscripts contain
yaḥad compositions or ideologically cognate compositions.68 Virtually all of
the “commonly agreed upon sectarian writings” in the Qumran corpus are
written in this special practice.69 Although the manuscripts written in the
scribal practice “could have been penned anywhere in Palestine,” Tov judges
that “they were probably written mainly at Qumran.”70 This latter deduction
is not, however, made on the basis of manuscript or scribal evidence. Tov
supposes this because he already assumes that the yaḥad community living
at Qumran owned the scrolls “collection”71 and that their own compositions
66 Ibid., 262–263.

67 From his sample, Tov counts 160 manuscripts (including 25 biblical manuscripts and 8
tefillin) exhibiting features of the practice (Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel
Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice,’” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and
Production of Texts [ed. S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller; Leiden: Brill, 2010], 173–207,
here 175), a figure revised from an earlier estimate of 167 manuscripts (Tov, Scribal, 262–
263). Of the 160 manuscripts, 130 are “good candidates, while the remainder are probable.”
Two manuscripts from Masada are included (MasShirShabb [Mas 1k]; MasQumran-Type
Fragment [Mas 1n] (Tov, Scribal, 261). Note, however, these special features are always
mingled with other scribal features not indicative of the special scribal practice. A manu-
script may exhibit only one or two of Tov’s special features to be included.
68 Tov, Scribal, 262–263.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 The Qumran-Essene “hypothesis is relevant,” says Tov, only for “the analysis of scribal
practices in ch. 8a,” i.e., his chapter devoted to the “Qumran scribal practice” (Scribal,
4). Tov would welcome evidence for the writing of documents in the Qumran building,
“however, the reliability of the evidence pointing to the existence of such a scriptorium
is questionable. Beyond the archaeological relevance of locus 30, most scholars now be-
lieve, on the basis of the content of the scrolls, that some, many, or all of the documents
found at Qumran were copied locally (ch. 8a2)” (p. 15). The manuscript deposits in the
Qumran caves “were primarily meant as secret repositories for the scrolls of the Qumran
community” (p. 4). Titles were written on scrolls by “persons administering a scroll col-
lection … either in a community building at Qumran or in their earlier locations before
being brought to Qumran” (p. 120). “The texts found at Qumran can thus be subdivided
into texts presumably copied by a sectarian group of scribes [at Qumran], and other texts
which were presumably taken there from elsewhere” (p. 261). “The texts written in the
Qumran scribal practice could have been penned anywhere in Palestine, but they were
probably written mainly at Qumran” (p. 262). The non-biblical texts found at Masada
were likely “taken to Masada by fugitives from the Qumran community” (p. 317). Tov uses
“Qumran collection” numerous times, e.g., pp. 4, 118, 318, 320.
have been correctly identified.72 And while the literary, material, and scribal
features of the hoard are compatible with this view, it does not follow that the
scrolls functioned as a united manuscript collection at Qumran. The identifi-
able cases of changes of hands in one manuscript illustrate this ambiguity.73 In
the case of 1QHa it appears that Scribes B and C worked concurrently. But im-
mediate collaboration cannot be demonstrated in most cases and at times the
opposite seems to be the case. The 1QHa Scribes A and C exhibit distinct cal-
ligraphic, orthographic, and morphological practices.74 1QIsaa Scribes A and B
have distinct orthographic and morphological practices and seem not to have
worked concurrently.75
Tigchelaar has noted that Tov frames his interpretation of the data in binary
opposites. Thus, Tov assumes a binary opposition between the special full or-
thography of “Qumran practice” and the defective orthography of the Masoretic
tradition. Several commentators have questioned Tov’s assumption that the
defective Masoretic orthography was normative in this period.76 The same
binary schema determines Tov’s opposition between sectarian and non-sec-
72 The texts exhibiting features of the Qumran scribal practice are “closely connected with
the Qumran community since it includes virtually all commonly agreed upon sectarian
writings” (Tov, Scribal, 261). Among the special scribal features, Tov includes “Sectarian
Nature” among those “data on the presumed authorship by the Qumran community”
(p. 279–285). According to Tigchelaar, Tov’s position assumes “that the scrolls belonged
to a sectarian community residing at or related to Qumran, and that we can confidently
isolate some compositions that are specifically sectarian” (Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 176).
73 Tov, Scribal, 21–22.
74 Cf. Ibid. 1QHa Scribe C adopted a fuller orthography, preferred ‫כיא‬, used waw as mater
lexionis and plene forms, like ‫מלככה‬. Scribe A wrote exclusively without waw, preferred
‫כי‬, wrote 2.m.s. suffix almost exclusively ‫ך‬- (except for his last two columns).
75 Cf. Tov, Scribal, 21. 1QIsaa Scribe B used a fuller orthography (‫היאה‬, ‫הואה‬, ‫כוה‬, ‫)כיא‬,
preferring the 2.m.s. suffix ‫כה‬- and qetaltemah verb forms. Scribe A wrote defective-
ly (‫היא‬, ‫הוא‬, ‫)כה‬, writing ‫ כיא‬only in 20% of instances; preferring 2.m.s. suffix ‫ך‬- and
qetaltem forms. Further, “[i]t is unlikely that the two scribes worked concurrently, since
a calculation of the number of columns and sheets needed for the first scribe’s assign-
ment could not be easily made” (p. 21). That is, Scribe A left three lines empty at the end
of the last sheet he wrote (col. XXVII). Scribe B began writing the next sheet (col. XXVIII;
Isa 34:1–36:2).
76 John Lübbe, “Certain Implications of the Scribal Process of 4QSamc,” RevQ 14 (1989):
255–265 (257–258); Frank M. Cross “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in
The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991, volume 1 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner;
Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1–14 (here 3–6); David N. Freedman, “The Evolution of Hebrew
Orthography,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (ed. D.N. Freedman,
A.D. Forbes, and F.I. Andersen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–15 (here 14); Willem T.
van Peursen, “The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira” (PhD diss., Leiden, 1999),
28; Jonathan G. Campbell, “Hebrew and Its Study at Qumran,” in Hebrew Study from Ezra
64 Norton
tarian manuscripts. It is true that most copies of compositions widely accept-

ed as yaḥad exhibit the special orthography and morphology of Tov’s scribal
practice—texts such as 1QS, 1QHa, 1QpHab, 1QM, most of the pesharim, and a
range of other texts broadly cognate with yaḥad ideology. However, Tov “goes
one step further”77 in that he takes the special orthography and morphology
to characterise sectarian writings penned at Qumran, whilst he takes the lack
of those features to characterise scrolls brought from elsewhere.78 The cen-
tral place given to this binary opposition of sectarian and non-sectarian besets
Tov’s model with two serious weaknesses. First, eight copies of sectarian or as-
sociated compositions do not exhibit the special scribal practice. Five of these
are archetypal yaḥad texts: two pesharim, 4QpIsab (4Q162), 4QpNah (4Q169);
two Serekh manuscripts, 4QSd (4Q258), 4QSj (4Q264); and 4QBarkhi Nafshia
(4Q434).79 Regardless how small this group of exceptions, we cannot know
how many others once existed.80 Thus, the diminutive size of this group is not
proportionate to the gravity of its implications for Tov’s proposals. Second, a
number of scribes and manuscripts are inconsistent, mixing the scribal styles
of MT-like texts and Tov’s special practice.81 So it is not clear that the scribal
tradition embodied in Tov’s scribal practice also embodies an aspect of sectari-
anism as such, or whether this scribal practice is simply one of several writing
traditions available to scribes of the period, one which the scribes who tended
to copy the sectarian literature known to us from Qumran happened to prefer.
Third, of the viable sample of circa five hundred Qumran manuscripts, there is
a very large group of texts that due to damage cannot be categorised one way
or the other. These factors in combination introduce serious uncertainty to
the binary model Tov adopts for interpreting his data. Some, therefore, prefer
to place the variations in scribal practices on a spectrum, rather than framing
them as binary opposites.82 Indeed, Tigchelaar advocates introducing “differ-
to Ben-Yehuda (ed. W. Horbury; London: T&T Clark, 1999), 38–52 (here 41); Tigchelaar,
“Assessing,” 176–177.
77 Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 200–202.
78 Stated explicitly in Tov, Scribal, 261.
79 See Ibid., 262–263, where Tov also lists: 4QCommGen A (4Q252); 4QMMTb (4Q395). Tov
lists an eighth, 4QCal Doc/Mish A (4Q320), for which there is insufficient data.
80 So Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 202.
81 See, for example ibid., 189–196; Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, volume 1 (ed. P.W.
Flint and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 325–358 (here 328); Devorah Dimant,
Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2001), 7–88.
82 “Tov’s ‘Qumran scribal practice’ is such a cluster, but it covers a very large part of the
spectrum, in fact, more or less all manuscripts that prefer full spellings above defective
ent parameters apart from the sectarian versus non-sectarian one.”83 For ex-
ample, some scribes seem intentionally to adjust their orthography and style
to suit the character and putative authority of certain compositions. Some of
the “pseudo-prophetic” compositions, edited by Dimant,84 imitate not only
the language of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, but also the defective proto-Masoretic
orthography suitable to these texts. Some scribes copying them tend inadver-
tently to slip out of the defective MT-like Hebrew in which these texts are com-
posed and into the full orthography to which the scribes are used.85
Dissolving Tov’s binary categorisation of scribal features undermines his
distinction between sectarian/non-sectarian manuscripts, which in turn un-
dermines the distinction between manuscripts penned at Qumran and those
brought from elsewhere. “Tov’s proposal of a relationship between this cluster
[of scribal features] to the yaḥad community and the site of Qumran needs
much more reflection.”86 Similarly, assessing the implications of his 1958 study
of scribal features in the 1Q materials, Malachi Martin wrote:
if a scribal school existed at Qumran, then all these [scribal] traits are
perfectly reconcilable with such an institution. On the other hand, if no
scribal school ever existed there, we can explain most of these facts as
arising from the habits of the scribes who transcribed the documents in
different localities, but who by a natural process shared a technique that
had points of resemblance and points of difference.87
Although he did not have access to all the Qumran materials published
from 1990 onwards, the implications of Martin’s assessment are like those of
Tigchelaar, Abegg, and others with respect to our question of a curated library
housed at Qumran.88
spellings” (Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 203). Abegg, “Hebrew,” 328, too, places Qumran manu
scripts texts “somewhere on the spectrum between plene and defective” orthography.
83 Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 205.
84 Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, 7–88.
85 Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 204–205.
86 Tigchelaar: “regardless of the recent work of Ira Rabin and her Berlin colleagues who
demonstrated that at least one “Qumran scribal practice” scroll, 1QHa, was penned in the
Dead Sea region” (Tigchelaar, “Assessing,” 203). See now Taylor, The Essenes, 281–303 (esp.
285), who argues that the scrolls were treated with local salts as part of the preservation
prior process prior to burial in caves, which accounts for the high ratio of bromides in the
ink samples. In this case, the bromides would not show that the ink was made and the
1QHa scroll inscribed at Qumran.
87 Martin, Scribal, 392–393.
88 Reiterated in Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls.”
66 Norton
Also noteworthy is that despite claims that the Pesharim are autographs
composed and written at Qumran,89 none seems to be autographic.90 These
manuscripts exhibit copying errors.91 Moreover, 1QpHab appears to contain
additions made during transmission of the text.92 Indeed, there is a general
failure to identify Vorlagen and derivative copies among the manuscripts.93
The sixth feature often invoked in support of the concept of “Qumran li-
brary” is the very high count of copies containing sectarian and cognate com-
positions.94 There are, for example, some twelve copies of Serekh ha-Yaḥad,
six of Serek ha-‘Edah, eight of Serekh ha-Milḥamah and eight of the Hodayot.
Other ideologically cognate texts, which belong to the religious heritage of the
yaḥad, also appear in multiple copies. Identifiable are some fifteen copies of
89 E.g., Józef T. Milik, Dix ans de découvertes dans le desert de Juda (Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1957), 37; Frank M. Cross, “Qumrân Cave I,” JBL 75 (1956): 121–125; James C. VanderKam,
The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (London: SPCK, 1994), 96.
90 See, for example, Tov, Scribal, 28; Michael O. Wise, “Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal
View of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran,” in Thunder in Gemini and
Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994), 103–157 (here 121); idem, “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s
Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 92–122 (here 96–97); cf. Golb, Who Wrote, 56–57,
97–98, 151–152.
91 See Erling Hammershaimb, “On the Method, Applied in the Copying of Manuscripts in
Qumran,” VT 9 (1959): 415–418.
92 For instance, Hab 2:2 is cited in 1QpHab 6:12–16 and interpreted (restore [‫ )]פשרו‬in 6:17–
7:2; an extract from the already cited Hab 2:2 passage appears again at 7:3 (‫(ואשר אמר‬
an additional interpretation in 1QpHab 7:3–5 refers to Hab 2:2 plus the comment on it in
6:17–7:2. Another example is found in the more fragmentary column 2. Hab 1:6 is cited in
1QpHab 2:15–16 and interpreted (‫ )פשרו‬in 2:16–17; an extract from the already-cited Hab
1:6 appears again (‫(כיא הוא אשר אמר‬, suggesting that the interpretation in 3:1 is younger
than that in 2:16–17.
93 Only one manuscript has been identified from which another text may have been copied
(Tov, Scribal, 29–30). That is, 4QDanb was “possibly copied from 4QDana” (Tov, Scribal,
29; Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 148–162). A few further suggestions have been made.
Esther Eshel suggests that 4QLevd was a source for the Temple Scroll (11QTa) and 4QMMT
(“4QLevd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah,” DSD 2
[1995]: 1–13). Tov notes that “[t]he limited context [of 4QShirShabba (4Q400) 2 1–2] is
identical to 4QShirShabbb (4Q401) 14 i 7–8” (Scribal, 29). Julie A. Duncan, “4QDeuth,” in
Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy to Kings (DJD 14; ed. E. Ulrich et al.; Oxford: Clarendon,
1995), 68–70 suggests that the quotation from Deut 33:8–11 in 4QTest (4Q175) 14–20 is
based on 4QDeuth; cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the
Understanding of the Septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the
Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 285–300 (here 297).
94 For example, Dimant, “Content and Character”, 171; eadem, History, 113; White Crawford,
“Collection,” 123.
Jubilees, eight of New Jerusalem, ten of Enoch-Giants, eight of Instruction, four

of Mysteries, seven of Aramaic Levi and six of Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah.
Such numbers of replicate copies seem atypical for known manuscript
collections from the Roman period. The library housed at the Villa of Papyri
in Herculaneum was a specialist philosophical collection. Around half of
the works were by Philodemus; the rest by selected Epicurean authors.95
The collection has been estimated to have comprised 700,96 1,100,97 or even
1,800 books,98 whose acquisition and maintenance required vast financial
resources.99 Nevertheless, the collection holds in general only a single copy
of each work; a few works appear in duplicate and exceptionally in triplicate
copies.100 A comparable picture emerges from known inventories of library
holdings from the Republican period. Papyri listing the holdings of book col-
lections in third century Egypt101 indicate few duplicate and fewer triplicate
copies.102 To find more than three copies of a work in a collection was unusual,
but “libraries could and sometimes did have duplicate copies.”103
95 In particular: Carneiscus, Colotes, Demetrius Laco, Epicurus, Metrodorus of Lampsacus,
Polystratus, Zeno of Sidon. See also Houston, “The Non-Philodemus,” 185; Francesca
Schironi, TO MEGA BIBLION: Book-ends, End-titles, and Coronides in Papyri with
Hexametric Poetry (Durham: American Society of Papyrologists, 2010), 65–69; Marcello
Gigante, Catalogo dei papyri ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), 45–48.
96 Daniel Delatte, La Villa des Papyrus et les Rouleaux d’Herculanum. La bibliothèque de
Philodème (Liège: Centre de recherche de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres et Les
Editions de l’Université de Liège, 2006), 22.
97 Richard Janko, Philodemus on Poems. Book 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 4.
98 Daniel Hogg, “Libraries in a Greek Working Life: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, A Case Study
in Rome,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013), 137–151 (here 141).
99 This was a “specialised professional collection, not a general collection of Greek and
Latin literature.” A “special interest” in Epicurean literature was the “motive … for making
the collection large, and [there were] clearly the funds to do so” (Houston, “The Non-
Philodemus,” 185).
100 The Philodemus collection included Epicurus’ 37-volume On Nature. Duplicate copies of
books 2 and 11, and three copies of book 25 show that these were particular favourites.
Gigante, Catalogo dei papyri, 59 provides a full list of works present at the villa known in
two or more copies.
101 Rosa Otranto, Antiche liste di libri su papiro (Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 2000);
cf. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,” 233–267.
102 In PSILuar. inv. 19662v (= Otranto, no. 16) Alcibiades occurs three times, whilst Protagoras
and Philebus each occur twice, cf. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,” 235–236. In P. Oxy.
2660 (= Otranto, no. 3), which seems to be an inventory for a large library, there are dupli-
cate entries for the plays of Epicharmus, the Harpagai, Dionysoi and Epinicius (ibid., 241);
cf. Hogg, “Libraries in a Greek Working Life,” 142–144.
103 Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,” 241 (my italics).
68 Norton
Remarks by Cicero,104 Galen,105 and Marcus Aurelius indicate that a library

would tend to house one copy of each work. Marcus Aurelius writes that, if
Fonto wants to get hold of the copy of Cato’s speeches he hopes to read, then
Fonto will have to sweet-talk the librarian at the Tiberian library, because
Marcus Aurelius has borrowed the copy Fonto expects to find in the library
at the Temple of Apollo, which is the only other copy in Rome.106 Galen re-
counts how a fire swept the Palantine in 192 CE, destroying his books housed in
a rented warehouse on the Via Sacra along with the libraries on the Palantine.107
Galen prized the library of the Palatium (the library of the Temple of Apollo)
because it housed very accurate originals, which derived from important and
ancient collections.
It is no longer possible to find what is rare and cannot be found any-

where else, among those things which are absolutely ordinary but are
demanded because of the exactness of their writing: the manuscripts of
the collection of Callinos, of Atticus, of Pedoukos and most certainly of
Aristarchus [of Samothrace], that corresponded to two copies of Homer,
and the manuscript of Plato owned by Panaetius [of Rhodes], and many
others of this kind, because these famous writings were kept there—
writings that those men who gave their names to their books either had
well copied each of them by their hand or had had them well copied by
others. And indeed there were the original books of several ancient gram-
marians, orators, doctors and philosophers (Peri Alupias 13).
Peri Alupias 13–15 makes evident that Galen found in the Palantine library both
excellent copies of standard works (even ancient autographs) and unique but
104 See, for example, David R. Shackelton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus (7 vols.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965–1970); T. Keith Dix, “‘Beware of Promising Your
Library to Anyone.’ Assembling a Library at Rome,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K.
Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 209–234.
105 See, for example, Pier L. Tucci, “Galen’s Storeroom, Rome’s Libraries, and the Fire of
AD 192,” JRA 21 (2008): 133–149; Christopher P. Jones, “Books and Libraries in a Newly-
Discovered Treatise of Galen,” JRA 22 (2009): 390–397; Matthew C. Nicholls, “Galen and
Libraries,” 123–142; Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson, “Galen: Περὶ ἀλυπησίας
(‘On the Avoidance of Grief’),” EC 2 (2011): 110–129; Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W.
Thompson, “Galen’s On the Avoidance of Grief: The Question of a Library at Antium,”
Classical Philology 107 (2012): 131–145; Michael W. Handis, “Myth and History: Galen and
the Alexandrian Library,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G.
Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 364–376.
106 See Johnson, “Libraries,” 350–351.
107 Peri Alupias 12.
error-ridden copies of works known nowhere else.108 Both sorts of manuscript

hint at a collection expected to contain mainly single copies of a work. The fact
that large collections were often composites of smaller ones109 means that a
large collection might have some duplicates of the standards. But Roman writ-
ers express both an aspiration for a single excellent exemplar and a suspicion
that copies available through the book trade were often poor. The fact that
Galen alludes to particular exemplars in the Palantine library by naming the
collection to which they belong (“the ‘Callinian’ (collection), the ‘Atticiana’, the
‘Peducinia’ and even the ‘Aristarcheia’, including the two Homers”…) does not
suggest multiple replicate copies. His note that there were “two Homers” in the
“Aristarcheia” is suggestive.
Authors went to considerable efforts to get copies of their works distributed
and housed in reputable libraries. When he finished a work, Galen was wont
to commission one copy for deposit in each library where he hoped it might be
received and a further copy for each of several amici who had requested one
(or on whom he hoped to foist one).110 But in his own archive stored near the
Temple of Peace he had only one copy of each work, which is why those lost
there in the fire of 192 CE were never replaced.111 On another occasion Galen
boasts that he was in a position to check every copy of a work in Rome, which
required him to visit a separate library to see each copy.112 Writers like Galen,
Cicero, Lucullus, Aulus Gellius, Marcus Aurelius, and Fonto prize their ability
to seek out variant readings.113 They express their pride in order to display, not
how learned they are, but how socially well connected they are. The copies
108 The Palantine library contained many excellent, autograph copies of ancient scholars, in-
cluding books by Theophrastus, Aristotle, Eudemus, Cleitus, Phainias, Chrysippus and all
the ancient doctors. See Nicholls “Galen,” 133–134; Tucci, “Galen’s Storeroom,” 149. Nicholls
suggests that the “two copies of Homer” from the collection of Aristarchus, which Galen
finds in the Palantine library are the original Alexandrian editions of Homer produced by
Aristarchus himself.
109 See Cavallo, Libri, 58–60 Houston, “The Non-Philodemus,” 188–189; Marcello Gigante,
Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1995), 18–19; Tiziano Dorandi, “La ‘Villa dei Papiri.’ A Erocolano e sua biblioteca,”
Classical Philology 90 (1995): 168–182.
110 Peri Alupias 21; see also Tucci, “Flavian Libraries,” 304.
111 Vivian Nutton, “Galen’s Library,” in Galen and the World of Knowledge (ed. C. Gill,
T. Whitmarsh, and J. Wilkens; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 19; Nicholls,
“Galen,” 133–134, 139.
112 Tucci, “Flavian Libraries,” 301.
113 Johnson, “Libraries,” 350–363; see also Fabio Tutrone, “Libraries and Intellectual Debate
in the Late Republic,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 157–159.
70 Norton
they access are housed in collections scattered throughout Rome and it re-
quires enviable connections within elite circles to gain access to them.114
When they acquired copies, these men tended to correct or have their
scribes correct copies they considered flawed. Strabo complains that books
copied for commercial reasons and acquired by means of the book trade were
often of poor textual quality, a view supported by Cicero and Catullus.115 Galen
speaks of “the books I had corrected, the writings of the Ancients I had copied
with my own hand.”116 According to Cornelius Nepos (Att. 13.3), Cicero’s friend
Atticus kept copyists in his house on the Quirinial hill for the purpose of hav-
ing them correct flawed commercial copies.117 There is no sign that plurifor-
mity was desirable; it was to be expunged so that the copy of a work in one’s
library was correct. This situation probably pertained also for libraries of the
early Roman period.118
The great library of Alexandria, with which Qumran is sometimes com-
pared, is a different matter. The evidence for this library is scanty, late, and
anecdotal.119 According to ancient sources, Ptolemies I and II sought to
114 This sign of supreme literary acumen was a way for them to advertise how well connected
they were with patrons and amici of the highest social circles. On the mentalité of elite
statesmen and their appeals to literacy in their displays of social status, see Johnson,
“Libraries,” 350–363.
115 Strabo 13.1.45.609; Cicero Q Fr. 3.4.5; 5.6; Catullus 14.
116 Peri Alupias 5. See Handis, “Myth and History,” 367, who notes that “Galen spent his time
analysing work in libraries and correcting his own copy of medical works in an attempt
to establish the authentic passages, and even having works he discovered duplicated.” See
also Nutton, “Galen’s Library,” 22; Tucci, “Galen’s Storeroom,” 141.
117 See Tutrone, “Libraries,” 161–163.
118 Lorne D. Bruce, “A Reappraisal of Roman Libraries in the ‘Scriptores Historiae Auguste,’”
The Journal of Library History 16 (1981): 551–573; idem, “Palace and Villa Libraries from
Augustus to Hadrian,” The Journal of Library History 21 (1986): 510–552; T. Keith Dix, “‘Public
libraries’ in Rome: ideology and reality,” Libraries and Culture 29 (1994): 282–296; T. Keith
Dix and George W. Houston, “Public Libraries in the City of Rome from the Augustan Age
to the Time of Diocletian,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Antiquité 118 (2006):
671–717; Michael Affleck, “Priests, Patrons, and Playwrights: Libraries in Rome before 168
BCE,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013), 124–136; Hogg, “Libraries in a Greek Working Life”;
Matthew C. Nicholls, “Roman Libraries as Public Buildings in the Cities of the Empire,” in
Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2013), 261–276; Alexei V. Zadorojnyi, “Libraries and Paideia in the Second
Sophistic: Plutarch and Galen,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and
G. Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 377–400.
119 See, for example, Monica Berti, “Greek and Roman Libraries in the Hellenistic Age,” in
The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford and
C. Wassen; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 33–54.
assemble a vast collection of Greek literature comprising every worthwhile

book in the world, including important works translated from other languages.
This effort is attributed to the Ptolemies’ desire to establish their cultural and
political Hellenistic presence in the Mediterranean. Ancient reports imply that
there were multiple copies among the extensive holdings of the royal library,120
which is precisely what would make possible the text-critical work of the
scholars, like Callimachus of Cyrene, working in the Mouseion attached to the
library. The Alexandrian textual critics apparently aspired to derive one correct
text in a library, not divergent texts in various more or less corrupt copies.121
This, presumably, is why Ptolemy is said to have kept originals and sent back
copies to the lenders at vast expense.
The Letter of Aristeas exemplifies this in an inverse manner. The legend
seems to depict the production of seventy-two Greek copies of the Pentateuch
only in order to show, in contrast with the messy transmission of Homer, how
perfectly the text of Jewish scriptures is preserved under the divinely-guided
care of the Jerusalem priesthood. Regardless how many copies are made, claims
the author, the text remains perfect. The scribal experts belonging to Eleazar’s
Jerusalem circle are depicted producing seventy-two identical copies. But this is
120 The rolls—taken from ships entering the port of Alexandria—that were piled up in ware-
houses were labelled with leather tags (“from the ships”) to distinguish among multiple
copies of a work (Galen, Commentarii in Hippocratem Epidem. 3.4–11; 17a; Lionel Casson,
Libraries of the Ancient World [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], 35). According to
Casson, Libraries, 36 the Alexandrian library contained multiple copies of Homer, which
exhibited multiple textual variants. By means of leather tags, copies of Homer were
distinguished by provenance. The library had copies “from Chios,” “from Argos,” “from
Sinope.”
121 “The Ptolemies used their vast resources to buy up texts of authors, transferring them to
the library where scholars in the Mouseion could sift through and analyse the different
texts to identify the authentic passages and then bring them together in an official canon
of works” (Handis, “Myth and History,” 369; see also Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria
[3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972], 1.326). See also Jenö Platthy, Sources on
the Earliest Greek Libraries with Testimonia (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968); Jon Thiem, “The
Great Library of Alexandria Burnt: Towards a History of a Symbol,” Journal of the History
of Ideas 40 (1979): 507–526; Paula Y. Lee, “The Musaeum of Alexandria and the Formation
of the Muséum in Eighteenth-Century France,” The Art Bulletin 79 (1997): 385–412; Nina
L. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2000); Roger S.
Bagnall, “Alexandria: Library of Dreams,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
146 (2002): 348–362; Daniel, Heller-Roazen “Tradition’s Destruction: On the Library of
Alexandria,” Obsolescence 100 (2002): 133–153; Judith S. McKenzie, Sheila Gibson, and
Andres T. Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological
Evidence,” JRS 94 (2004): 73–121; Corrado Martone, “The Qumran ‘Library’ and Other
Ancient Libraries: Elements for a Comparison,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the
Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford and C. Wassen; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 55–77.
72 Norton
only so that the single copy derived can be approved by the people and stowed
in the library with the king’s blessing. No textual criticism is needed, claims
Pseudo-Aristeas, because the Jerusalem elders have preserved the text so well.
If Qumran is to be regarded a library, then no such aspiration to one cor-
rect text is evident. There are no signs of systematic text-critical work. The
corrections and marginal notes in 1QIsaa do not seem part of a text-critical
project. Serekh ha-Yaḥad is witnessed in highly divergent editions. Whilst the
manuscripts present conservatively copied texts of the Damascus Covenant
and Serekh ha-Milḥamah, this consistency appears to indicate conservatism
in transmission rather than any particular text-critical project to unite a diver-
gent transmission. Far from indicating a library, the numbers of multiple co
pies are problematic for the idea of a library at Qumran. Indeed it is precisely
this oddly high count that obliges White Crawford to designate the scrolls a
“scribal library with archival component.”122 White Crawford evidently sees
that the numerous replicate copies require special explanation, if one is mean-
ingfully to call the scrolls a library at all.
A related factor is the size of the ancient collections for which information
survives. Studies of ancient manuscript discoveries suggest that private col-
lections in the period usually numbered between fewer than ten and several
dozen scrolls.123 Indeed, 4 Macc 18:10–19 implies that eight is the number of
scrolls which a pious Jewish family might own.124 Most of the Qumran caches
comprise between several scrolls and several dozen. Moreover, Judaeans tend-
ed to hide precious scrolls in desert caves during times of crisis throughout the
Hellenistic and Roman periods.125 These factors together may indicate that at
least some of the scroll caches were distinct collections (perhaps Caves 1, 2, 3,
6, 7, 11?), which had been stowed for safe-keeping in the desert on different oc-
casions. The caches in Caves 1, 2, 3, 6, and 11 reflect the size-range of private col-
lections known from elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean. That very little
multiplication of copies of a given literary work occurs within these caches
122 White Crawford, “Collection.”

123 Otranto, Antiche liste; Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,” 241, 247–250; cf. idem, “The
Non-Philodemus,” 185–186; Hogg, “Libraries in a Greek Working Life,” 142–144.
124 Noted by Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1986), 101. It may be, however, that the author of 4 Maccabees could only think of
eight traditional passages that speak of martyrdom. On the other hand, the latter observa-
tion need not undermine Koch’s claim. The pious mother and martyr of the Maccabean
literature describes the Jewish education her late husband gave her seven sons. Applying
to herself motifs from Genesis 2–3, she recalls that her husband “read” to his sons epi-
sodes pertaining to martyrdom and zeal for the law in Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy,
Daniel, Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ezekiel.
125 Popović, “Storehouse.”
Cave Manuscript count†

8Q 5
3Q 15
5Q 25
11Q 31
2Q 33
6Q 33
1Q 80
4Q 683
† After Tov, Scribal, 321
figure 3.2
may also mark each of these caches as a single collection. Even the relatively
large cache from Cave 1 contains few duplicates. There are two copies each of
Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jubilees, Enoch-Giants, the Hodayot, and Daniel. There
are three of the Psalms.126 It is possible, then, that the scrolls-hoard is neither a
library found in situ nor a single collection stowed at one time and for a single
reason.
By contrast, among the remains of over five-hundred scrolls from Cave 4,
some compositions appear in between six and ten copies. Jubilees and Serekh
ha-Yaḥad are each identified in some ten Cave 4 copies; the Damascus
Document and Serekh Shirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat in eight; Instruction and Serekh
ha-Milḥamah in seven; the Hodayot, Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah, Aramaic Levi,
Enoch-Giants each in six. Since duplication is unusual and triplication rare,
these high numbers of copies may indicate that the Cave 4 cache comprises
a number of collections, which were gathered for reasons discontinuous from
their usual functional life-setting as books.127 The hundreds of separate scribal
hands may point in the same direction.
The claim that Qumran is a library is really a claim that the scrolls disclose life
at Qumran. The common concept of “Qumran library” is, then, a radical con-
cept of library whereby one-and-a-half centuries of life at a single settlement
can only be understood in terms of the combined literary and material features
of the thousand scrolls found there. The need for this concept has historical
126 Cf. Tov, Texts, 29–37.

127 The idea that some Judaean manuscript caches were private collections recurs. See, e.g.,
Cross, Ancient, 18; Popović, “Storehouse.”
74 Norton
roots in the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, which in most articulations requires

the scrolls to be “organically” integral to life at the Qumran site.
“Qumran library” is a far more radical concept of library than we otherwise
see in the study of ancient libraries. This does not make it wrong, but it does
give pause for thought. The question is not merely whether Qumran was a li-
brary, but whether the available data support the radical concept of Qumran
library, which I have sketched. The “organic connection,” and the radical con-
cept of Qumran library it produces, leads us to treat ancient comparanda as we
do not normally treat them in ancient library studies. It is important to look
for parallels between the Qumran scrolls and the evidence for ancient books
and their users. But parallels are not enough. It is also important reflect on how
the comparative materials are used. I have shown that the evidence usually
presented does not actually support the commonly-held concept of “Qumran
library” at all.
None of the foregoing observations rules out equating the yaḥad with
Essenes. Neither does the foregoing rule out thinking that a yaḥad group lived
for a time at Qumran and handled manuscripts. But I suggest that the com-
mon concept of Qumran library is neither necessary nor helpful. Although
the “Qumran library” concept has seemed an indispensible element of the
Qumran-Essene hypothesis since de Vaux, it is not. Viable forms of the hypoth-
esis do not require the radical concept of “Qumran library”.128 The literary con-
tents of key texts, like Serekh ha-Yaḥad and the Damascus Document, point
toward many related sectarian groups living and using their own collections
of texts in various places. Likewise, the material data, usually presented as evi-
dence for a single library at Qumran, point more readily toward multiple and
widespread sectarian groups. We may speculate about the function of Qumran
and why so many scrolls ended up there. But our understanding of the scrolls
should not be bound to a decision about a site or circumstances which could
have been exceptional. Bizarre things happen and Ockham’s Razor cannot
alert us when they have. I suggest that holding onto the special concept of
Qumran library has great potential to diminish the scrolls’ capacity to inform
us about the past. If we nurture a healthy agnosticism about how the scrolls
came to the caves, we reduce the risk of missing what they disclose about their
past context.
128 For example, Gilliham, Taylor, Pfann.

Part 2
The New Testament and Practices of Reading
and Reusing Jewish Scripture
⸪
Chapter 5
Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and

“Rewritten Bible”: A Comparative Analysis
Susan E. Docherty
1 New Testament Interpretation of Scripture in its Early Jewish

Context
The importance of situating the writings produced by the first followers of

Jesus within the wider framework of early Jewish literature and scriptural in-
terpretation is generally accepted in modern scholarship. Over recent decades,
this approach has yielded fresh and valuable insights into both the books
which make up the New Testament and the extant literature of Second Temple
Judaism.1 This chapter contributes further to this ongoing and mutually fruit-
ful dialogue through a comparison of the exegetical methods applied to the
scriptures in the New Testament with those in operation in a group of early
Jewish texts generally termed “rewritten bible.” No systematic investigation of
this kind has been undertaken to date, so here I shall map out some potential
avenues for further exploration, and present my initial conclusions.
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the middle of the last century,
extensive research has been undertaken into the hermeneutical practices at-
tested at Qumran, and into their possible correspondence with the interpreta-
tion of the Old Testament in the New.2 Concurrently, serious attempts have
also been made to compare early Christian use of scripture with midrashic
exegesis.3 Given this renewed interest in the early Jewish context of the New
Testament, then, it is perhaps surprising that relatively little attention has so
1 This statement is not intended to minimise the importance of also examining the New
Testament writings within the larger context of Graeco-Roman literary and interpretative
practices, within which Second Temple Jewish exegesis belongs.
2 See e.g. J.A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature
and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1960–61): 297–333; T.H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran
Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997); G.J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).
3 This is a subject on which there is considerable divergence of scholarly opinion. For a nega-
tive evaluation of midrash in itself, and in terms of its potential significance for under-
standing the use of scripture in the New Testament, see e.g. E.E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old
Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957). I have reached far more positive conclusions

78 Docherty
far been paid to the works of rewritten bible.4 Some of these texts, such as
Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and probably the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-
Philo, date from the late first century CE, so are broadly contemporary with
the New Testament.5 Significantly, the fact that they were composed as nar-
ratives rather than formal commentaries, like much of the New Testament
but in contrast to the Qumran pesharim and the rabbinic midrashim, poses
new questions about the possible impact of literary form on exegetical meth-
ods. Furthermore, the device of retelling the scriptures is actually present in
miniature within the New Testament itself, in the review of Israel’s history in
Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, for example, or in the exposition of the exemplars
of faith in Hebrews 11. This chapter begins to bridge this gap in research, then,
and, through a comparative analysis, seeks to clarify and illuminate aspects of
the reuse of scripture in both the New Testament and selected examples of the
rewritten bible genre.
2 The Genre of Rewritten Bible
The credit for coining the designation “rewritten bible” is usually ascribed to
Geza Vermes,6 and its defining characteristics were subsequently drawn out
and described more fully by Philip Alexander.7 The nature and boundaries of
the genre continue to be debated, particularly in the light of the Qumran dis-
coveries, which have brought to light additional texts which may belong to it.8
Indeed, the phrase “rewritten bible” has itself been challenged, because it can
give the misleading impression that there was already in existence during the
in S.E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews (WUNT 2.260; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009).
4 There are some exceptions, of course. Jonathan Norton, for instance, discusses the value of
Josephus’ writings as well as the Qumran texts for an understanding of Paul’s exegesis in his
Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad (LNTS
430; London: T&T Clark, 2010).
5 I shall return in more detail below to the question of the dating of the Biblical Antiquities.
6 G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95.
7 P.S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture:
Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–118.
8 It is argued by some commentators that, for example, the Temple Scroll (11QT) and the
Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–367) are also forms of rewritten bible; see e.g.
M.M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked
Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011); M.J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’:
A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–196.
Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and “ Rewritten Bible ” 79
Second Temple period a fixed, authoritative “bible” to “rewrite.” The scholarly

emphasis is now generally placed, therefore, less on rewritten scripture as a
literary genre and more on the centuries-long process of scriptural reworking.
This encompasses a whole spectrum of activity, from manuscript copies con-
taining minor revisions, through translations which follow the original more
or less closely and retellings of scriptural narratives to wholly new composi
tions based only loosely on the Hebrew Bible.9 At a particular point along this
continuum fall the four texts which are most frequently classified as exam-
ples of rewritten bible: the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), Jubilees, the Biblical
Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities. In all of these
works, substantial parts of the scriptural narrative are retold, using a mixture
of expansion, abbreviation, omission, and the interweaving of biblical allu-
sions and citations with the author’s own words. This investigation focuses pri-
marily on the exegetical methods employed within one of these writings, the
Biblical Antiquities (hereafter L.A.B.).10 Occasional reference will also be made
to Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon, but the Jewish Antiquities will not be
considered here in view of space constraints, given the length and the distinct
nature of Josephus’ oeuvre.11
L.A.B. serves as a particularly useful comparator for the New Testament
because it is widely regarded as stemming from a first century Palestinian
context.12 In an interesting challenge to the prevailing scholarly consensus
9 The work of George Brooke in particular has established this point; see e.g. his “Between
Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the
Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran:
Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center and the Hebrew University (STDJ 58;
ed. E.G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104; see also S.W.
Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008).
10 In other words, my concern is to uncover and describe the specific techniques applied
by an author in order to draw out meaning from scriptural texts. These methods will be
specified in what follows, but include, for example, attributing a scriptural speech to a
new speaker, or drawing an interpretative connection between one passage and another.
11 Significant treatments of Josephus’ biblical interpretation have been undertaken by,
among others, Harry Attridge and Louis Feldman, although scope remains for further re-
search into his exegetical techniques; see e.g. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical
History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars, 1976); L.H.
Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1998); idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Atlanta: SBL, 2005); cf. T.W. Franxman,
Genesis and the ‘Jewish Antiquities’ of Flavius Josephus (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979).
12 See e.g. the discussion of its date and provenance in H. Jacobson, A Commentary on
Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (AGAJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1.195–212.
Commentators are also largely agreed that it was composed in a Semitic language, ei-
ther Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated into Greek, and from Greek into Latin; see e.g.
D.J. Harington, “The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,”
80 Docherty
on its dating and original language, however, Tal Ilan argues that it was pro-
duced by a Latin-speaking Jewish community in Rome in the third or fourth
century CE.13 She points especially to parallels between the interpretative tradi-
tions it reflects and the rabbinic midrashim, and to some similarities between
the language of the text and the kind of mixed or “vulgar Latin” spoken by
Roman Jews in the early centuries CE. Ilan makes an important contribution to
the debate in reminding us that the evidence on which judgements about the
provenance and date of L.A.B. are based is more limited than is often acknowl-
edged, and is capable of alternative explanation. Her own theory is equally
difficult to prove, though, since so little is known about the Jews of Rome in
this period. Furthermore, the conclusions of commentators such as Leopold
Cohn and Daniel Harrington about the underlying Hebrew syntax of L.A.B.,
and the number of scriptural quotations which follow the Septuagint, remain
persuasive.14 The possibility that L.A.B. is later than the New Testament and
may even have been influenced by it cannot be discounted, but this would not
invalidate its usefulness as a source of comparison for it. First, it may enshrine
older exegetical traditions and techniques, as is the case with midrash; and
second, our focus here is on the interpretative methods in operation within
the early Jewish interpretative genre of rewritten scripture, a form of exege-
sis which we know was available in the New Testament period, and to which
L.A.B. is an extant witness.
3 Scriptural Interpretation in Rewritten Bible: The State of

Scholarship
Any inquiry into the use of scripture in rewritten bible faces significant ob-
stacles, not the least of which is the fact that two of the writings usually in-
cluded in this category, Jubilees and L.A.B., are available in full only in second-
ary translation. This makes it particularly problematic to distinguish between
definite citations of the Hebrew bible and allusions to it, especially given the
diversity of textual forms in circulation during the late Second Temple era.
These difficulties notwithstanding, some progress has been made in the first
HTR 63 (1970): 503–514; F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (Oxford: Oxford
13 T. Ilan, “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome,” JSQ 16 (2009): 363–395; see esp. 373–381.
14 L. Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” JQR 10 (1898): 277–332;
Harrington, “Original Language,” 503–514.
task facing scholars: identifying the nature of the scriptural sources underlying
these texts, in particular L.A.B.15
Second, commentators have explored the exegetical traditions captured
in the works of rewritten bible, recognising commonalities with the New
Testament. Examples of such shared ideas include the belief that the Mosaic
law was given through angels ( Jub. 1:27–29; cf. Ant. 15.5.3; cf. Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19;
Heb 2:2), and possible connections between the atoning value attributed to
the aborted sacrifice of Isaac in L.A.B. (Gen 22:1–14; L.A.B. 18:5; 32:2–4; 40:2)
and early Christian understandings of the significance of Jesus’ death. Daniel
Harrington has also highlighted motifs which occur in both the infancy nar-
ratives in the Gospels and in Pseudo-Philo’s expansive retelling of the con-
ception and birth of central scriptural figures like Moses (L.A.B. 9:9–16) and
Samson (L.A.B. 42:1–7), such as the themes of doubt, silence, and communi-
cation through dreams, and the inclusion of genealogies and prayers.16 These
examples do not necessarily indicate any direct influence from the rewritten
bible literature on the early Christian authors, nor do they imply a particular
position on the relative dating of the texts, but they do illustrate the rootedness
of New Testament scriptural interpretation within an early Jewish context.
Some research has also been undertaken into the exegetical techniques em-
ployed in this genre, but considerable scope still remains for developing our
understanding of this third area. Thus, within the last three decades, several
useful studies have been published which either survey a particular author’s
overall approach to the scriptural texts, or offer more detailed analyses of
the interpretation within rewritten bible of one narrative or theme.17 These
15 See e.g. D.J. Harrington, “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum,” CBQ 33 (1971): 1–17.
16 Idem, “Birth Narratives in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and the Gospels,” in To Touch
the Text (ed. M.P. Horgan and P. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1988), 316–324.
17 For overall treatments, see e.g. J.C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America Press, 1987); H. Jacobson,
“Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in A Companion
to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012),
180–199. For discussion of individual narratives or themes, see e.g. B. Halpern-Amaru, The
Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999); J.T.A.G.M.
van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of
Jubilees (JSJSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 2000); idem, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 161;
Leiden: Brill, 2012); S. Inowlocki, “Josephus’ Rewriting of the Babel Narrative (Gen 11:1–
9),” JSJ 37 (2006): 169–191; P.M. Sherman, Babel’s Tower Translated: Genesis 11 and Ancient
Jewish Interpretation (BI 117; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Other studies concerned with the histori-
cal development of exegetical traditions and motifs within early Judaism have also paid
close attention to the works of rewritten bible; see e.g. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition;
J.L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (2nd ed.; London:
Harvard University Press, 1994).
82 Docherty
contributions have succeeded in highlighting key features of the treatment of

scripture in the works of rewritten bible which need not, therefore, be further
explicated here. It is, for example, generally recognised that these exegetes
sought to resolve apparent contradictions within scripture, fill perceived gaps
in its narrative, strengthen the applicability of its message for a later genera-
tion, and provide a particular explanation of certain episodes within it.
Turning specifically to the Biblical Antiquities, scholarly attention has tended
to be directed towards its most characteristic feature, the use of “flashbacks,”
and, to a lesser extent, “flash-forwards,” whereby certain episodes are present-
ed out of scriptural sequence or chronological order. The offering of Isaac, for
example, is recalled in a speech of Balaam (L.A.B. 18:5), and again alluded to in
the account of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (L.A.B. 40:2). This exegetical
method has been most fully explored by Bruce Fisk, who examines the rhetori-
cal and theological effects of this interweaving of secondary texts into a pri-
mary narrative.18 The particular significance of this technique lies in the fact
that it reflects an underlying authorial aim of forging connections between
passages from different parts of scripture, which then become mutually inter-
pretative when juxtaposed in a new context. There are, for instance, echoes
of the Akedah in the scriptural narrative of Jephthah’s daughter, but these are
deliberately drawn out and strengthened in L.A.B., resulting in subtle altera-
tions in the way both characters are presented which support the author’s par-
ticular theological emphases. Thus the declaration by the Isaac of L.A.B. that
he is willing to face a sacrificial death (L.A.B. 32:3) mirrors the response of the
young woman who accepts without question the consequences of her father’s
vow (Judg 11:36), and in re-telling her story, Pseudo-Philo is able to remind
his audience again of the paradigmatic obedience of Abraham (L.A.B. 40:2).19
Similarly, Korah’s rebellion is illuminated and explained in L.A.B. by being
explicitly linked to both Cain’s slaughter of Abel and to the drowning of the
Egyptians in the Red Sea (L.A.B. 16:2–3).
While the inclusion of flashbacks is a technique particular to L.A.B., other
examples of rewritten bible also demonstrate the same kind of enhanced
sensitivity to connections between scriptural passages, so that the influence
of one episode on the retelling of another is sometimes clearly visible. The
account in the Genesis Apocryphon of Abram’s attempt to pass off his wife
18 B. Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of
Pseudo-Philo (JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); see also Murphy,
Pseudo-Philo, 12–19.
19 See further B. Fisk, “Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as
Intertext,” CBQ 62 (2000): 481–507.
Sarai as his sister on his arrival in Egypt (Gen 12:10–20; Gen. Apoc. 20 16–23),
for example, reflects both the similar Genesis narrative concerning Abimelech
(Gen 20:1–18) and other interchanges between Israelites and a Pharaoh re-
ported in the Pentateuch (Gen 41:8; Exod 7:11; 9:11).20 We can infer from this
evidence, then, that these authors shared important hermeneutical assump-
tions about the unity and coherence of the texts which would come to form
the Hebrew Bible, axioms which underpin Jeswish interpretation more widely,
as is clear from, for example, rabbinic literature.
This chapter builds on this existing body of research by undertaking a more
systematic analysis of the exegetical techniques used to interpret scripture
in both the New Testament and rewritten bible in order to foreground addi-
tional aspects of the hermeneutical method and principles employed by these
authors. The need for such further detailed study of this aspect of L.A.B. is
widely acknowledged by leading commentators on it like Fisk: “Is Scripture
deployed in the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum in accord with a hermeneuti-
cal strategy? Concerted attempts to address this sort of question have been
isolated at best.”21 Serious comparison of the scriptural interpretation of the
New Testament with rewritten bible, corpora which share numerous literary
features including speeches, dialogues and prayers, is also at a very early stage.
Previous commentators, such as Richard Bauckham and Craig Evans, have fruit-
fully explored the formal and methodological relationships between this genre
and the New Testament writings, focusing on the Gospels in particular.22 More
recently, Eckart Reinmuth has produced a detailed study of the significance
of L.A.B. for understanding Luke-Acts, highlighting some shared themes and
a similar tendency to employ biblical citations to advance the narrative plot.23
Interesting and detailed investigations of the reuse of scriptural texts in the
20 This passage is discussed in detail in M. Bernstein, “The Genesis Apocryphon:

Compositional and Interpretive Perspectives,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in
Early Judaism (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 157–179 (esp. 173–175).
21 B. Fisk, “Offering Isaac,” 482; cf. idem, “Scripture Shaping Scripture: The Interpretive Role
of Biblical Citations in Pseudo-Philo’s Episode of the Golden Calf,” JSP 17 (1998): 3–23
(esp. 4).
22 See e.g. R. Bauckham, “The Liber Antiquitatum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as
‘Midrash’,” in Gospel Perspectives III. Studies in Midrash and Historiography (ed. R.T. France
and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 33–76; C.A. Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible:
Aspects of Lukan Hagiography,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation
(JSPSup 13; ed. J.H. Charlesworth and C.A. Evans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993), 170–201.
23 E. Reinmuth, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und
seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerks (WUNT 74; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1994).
84 Docherty
Fourth Gospel and Revelation in the light of the rewritten bible literature have
also been published by Beate Kowalksi and Marko Jauhiainen respectively.24
This study will focus primarily on two representative New Testament texts:
Hebrews, an epistle in which scriptural citations are especially prominent, and
Acts, a narrative writing which has already attracted attention as a potential
source of parallels for rewritten bible.
4 Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and L.A.B.: A Case-Study
4.1 Citations Containing Direct Speech

One striking aspect of the use of scripture throughout the New Testament is
the frequent selection for quotation of passages which, in their original con-
text, take the form of first person direct speech. Of the thirty-plus citations
which occur in Hebrews,25 for instance, only three do not include direct
speech (Gen 2:2 at Heb 4:4; Gen 5:24 at Heb 11:5; Gen 47:31 at Heb 11:21).26 From
all seven citations in the first chapter right through to the very last one (Heb
13:6), then, the author’s preference for speech texts is marked, and this propen-
sity is not confined to Hebrews within the New Testament, as is evident from
even the briefest survey of the scriptural passages reproduced in the Gospels
(e.g. Matt 2:6, 15; 3:3, 17; 11:10; 12:18–21; 13:14–15; 21:5, 42; 22:44; 26:31; 27:46 and
synoptic parallels). In Acts, too, the key scriptural citations at the heart of the
major speeches attributed to Paul and the other disciples are comprised of first
person direct speech (see e.g. Acts 2:17–21, 25–28, 34–35; 13:33, 34, 35, 41, 47;
15:16–18; 28:26–27; cf. the shorter text cited by Paul in support of his argument
at 23:5).
24 B. Kowalksi, “Rewritten Psalms in the Gospel of John,” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered:
Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland August 24–26 2006 (Studies in Rewritten
Bible 1; ed. A. Laato and J. van Ruiten; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 151–175; and, in
the same volume, M. Jauhiainen, “Revelation and Rewritten Prophecies,” 177–197.
25 This figure is reached if repeated quotations (e.g. Ps 95:7–11; Jer 31:31–34) are counted
more than once. While the main citations can be easily identified, there is debate about
whether some other uses of scripture are best classified as allusions or citations, so the
number given by commentators generally ranges from 32–41. For an overview of this
discussion, see G.L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Cambridge: Eerdmans,
2012), 42–43.
26 I consider Heb 7:1–2 and 12:29 to be allusions rather than direct citations to Gen 14:17–20
and Deut 4:24 respectively, but they are listed as quotations in some sources: see G.L.
Archer and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago:
Moody, 1983), xxii. Neither of these are presented in Hebrews as first person utterances,
although Deut 4:24 does form part of a speech of Moses in its original scriptural setting.
The use of so much direct speech intensifies the immediacy of the divine
address to the communities of the New Testament authors (e.g. Isa 49:6 at
Acts 13:47; Prov 3:11–12 at Heb 12:5–6), or of the divine challenge to their con-
temporary opponents (Isa 6:9–10 at Acts 28:26–27; Ps 95[94]:7–11 at Heb 3:14–
4:10). These spoken words are presented, therefore, as directly applicable to the
circumstances faced by later generations. Since the ongoing relevance of the
scriptures is a fundamental presupposition of much early Jewish interpreta-
tion, exploration of the use of speech citations in other forms of exegesis may
help to illuminate this feature of the New Testament, which is often noticed,
but has perhaps not been fully explained. Alexander Samely, for instance, has
investigated in considerable detail the treatment of scriptural texts containing
first person speech in rabbinic literature and the targumim.27 He demonstrates
the range of techniques which could be applied to these passages to relate
them to different contexts. These include the allocation to them of a complete-
ly new speaker or addressee, or the decision to specify more precisely than in
the scriptures—or even to change—the particular time or place at which the
words were spoken. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan adds a legal connotation to the
question of the daughters of Zelophehad about their inheritance rights (cf.
Num 27:1–4), for example, by expressly stating that it was to the bet din that
they came to ask for a ruling.28 Although these exegetical operations regularly
involve shifting the original meaning of the text, Samely concludes that the
actual words spoken are usually quoted by the rabbis and targumists with-
out significant alteration, which implies a concern on their part to reproduce
scripture’s words accurately. In fact, the new interpretation given to the speech
often results directly from a very close attention to its wording, as any potential
ambiguity, inference, or analogy to another verse within it is exploited.29 In
this example from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, for instance, the Hebrew term
‫( בנים‬Num 27:3), which can mean either “sons” or “children/descendants” more
generally, the narrower interpretation is made explicit in the Aramaic by the
addition of the adjective “male”:
27 See A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method
and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); idem,
Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002).
28 For a fuller discussion of this passage, see Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 22–23.
29 This point is emphasised by a number of leading contemporary commentators, includ-
ing Samely and Fisk; see also D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).
86 Docherty
MT “… and he had no sons.”

PJ “… and male children he did not have.”
This translation does follow the sense of the Hebrew original, but resolves a
possible ambiguity within the verse, since, as Samely explains, “the daughters
of Zelophehad could hardly say he had no children.”30 It also further enhances
the interpretation that a formal question of inheritance law is being settled in
this passage.
This method of recontextualising direct speech citations is employed also
within the New Testament, where a speech which has a general reference in
its original scriptural context can be related to a concrete contemporary situ-
ation. Verses which include a pronoun like “you” or “him,” for example, can be
applied to a definite individual by placing them within a new textual frame, or
surrounding them with additional co-text. So in Hebrews, scriptural speeches
are frequently said to have been uttered by or to Christ at particular times, as in
the claim that the words of Ps 110(109):4—“You are a priest for ever, according
to the order of Melchizedek’”31—were spoken by God to Christ on his appoint-
ment as high priest (Heb 5:5–6; cf. 7:17–22). In another example, the author
states that it was Jesus on his coming into the world who said: “Sacrifices and
offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me” (Heb
10:5–7; cf. Ps 40:6–8[39:7–9]; cf. Heb 1:6).32 In a similar exegetical move, John
the Baptist is widely identified in early Christian interpretation with the prepa-
ratory “voice in the wilderness” and the “messenger” referred to in the oracles
of the prophets (Matt 3:1–3; 11:10; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:1–6; John 1:19–23; 3:28; cf.
Isa 40:3; Mal 3:1), and the “him” whose habitation must become desolate ac-
cording to Ps 69:25[68:26] is specified as Judas in Acts 1:16–20.
There has been no attempt to date to establish the prevalence of this tech-
nique in the works of rewritten bible, but I suggest that it is an important ele-
ment of the exegetical method in operation in these texts, too. In the narrative
of L.A.B., for instance, scriptural words are frequently assigned to a character
other than their original speaker, or to a particular new situation. Sometimes
this involves providing a specific referent for verses with a general or potential-
ly ambiguous meaning. Thus it is Hannah who is said to have been taunted by
her rival wife Peninnah with the question “Where is your God?” (L.A.B. 50:5; cf.
30 Samely, Interpretation of Scripture, 23.

31 All citations from the Bible are taken from the RSV.
32 This technique is treated in more detail in Docherty, Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews,
143–200.
Ps 42:3).33 Likewise, it is Joshua who tells the Israelites of his time that he will
“restore you to your fathers and your fathers to you” (L.A.B. 23:13; cf. Mal 4:6),
and the sinners identified by Kenaz are equated with the “root bearing poison
and bitterness” against which Moses warned (L.A.B. 25:5; cf. Deut 29:18; for fur-
ther illustrations of this technique in operation, see e.g. L.A.B. 12:4 [Isa 40:15];
19:9 [1 Kgs 8:46]; 22:3 [Dan 2:22]; 30:4 [Jer 2:8]; 40:4 [Ps 116:15]; 53:10 [Deut 22:6];
possibly 50:1 [Isa 56:3; Ps 128:3]).
In other cases, words spoken by or addressed to one person in the scrip-
tural narrative can be assigned to a different figure in the account in L.A.B. God
promises nourishment to Phinehas in the same terms in which Elijah is ad-
dressed in 1 Kings (L.A.B. 48:1; cf. 1 Kgs 17:4), for instance, and Gideon echoes
Abraham when asking for a divine sign (L.A.B. 35:6; cf. Gen 18:30). Similarly,
Deborah’s speeches include sentences which are ascribed in scripture to Moses
(L.A.B. 38:2; cf. Deut 5:32; Josh 1:7) and Job (L.A.B. 31:1; cf. Job 38:3; 40:7; further
examples can be found at L.A.B. 23:2 [Num 22:19]; 24:1 [Deut 4:26]; 35:1 [Judg
19:17]). Identifying the use of this exegetical method by Pseudo-Philo reveals
some important aspects of his underlying view of scripture. He undoubtedly
believed that the words he was reproducing were actually spoken by Abraham
or Moses or other named individuals at the time and in the way described in
scripture. However, he appears to have assumed also that the significance of
these speeches was not confined to this single situation. The fact that they are
scriptural words—and so ultimately divine communication—makes them
suitable for continuous re-application to other appropriate speakers and con-
texts. This hermeneutical axiom often develops the connections between pas-
sages, strengthening the sense of the inner coherence and unity of the scrip-
tures. Speeches can be transferred to analogous situations, for example, or
inserted into the account of another episode which shares lexical or narrative
features with the original context of the dialogue. A good example of this tech-
nique is seen when Pseudo-Philo presents the young Saul on being told that
he is to become king as giving voice to Jeremiah’s protest: “I do not understand
what you are saying, because I am young” (L.A.B. 56:6; cf. Jer 1:6).
4.2 Direct Citations in Speeches

The selection and recontextualisation of scriptural passages containing direct
speech is, therefore, a potentially significant aspect of Pseudo-Philo’s exegetical
method which is under-explored in contemporary scholarship. Furthermore,
33 All citations of L.A.B. are taken from Daniel Harrington’s translation: “Pseudo-Philo,” in
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2 (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday,
1985), 297–377.
88 Docherty
there is scope for a comparative analysis of the way in which citations of di-
rect speech actually function in the narratives of the New Testament and the
works of rewritten bible. A promising starting point for such an investigation is
their use in speeches reviewing Israel’s history, a form of writing found in both
L.A.B. and Acts 7. In Stephen’s address in Acts, Israel’s story is retold in sum-
mary form, with particular emphases and omissions. This narrative account is
regularly interspersed, however, by citations of first person direct speech (see
Acts 7:3, 7, 26–28, 32–34, 35, 37, 40). It would appear, then, that these texts are
included deliberately, even though their substance could have been commu-
nicated adequately by means of a paraphrase. The same pattern is replicated
in Paul’s “word of exhortation” in the synagogue at Antioch (Acts 13:16–47),
where the brief opening historical summary (Acts 13:17–22) includes a citation
of direct speech (Acts 13:22). Interestingly, when a link is subsequently made to
the preaching of John the Baptist (Acts 13:25), his words also are quoted in full
in the first person, not reported. Several of these speech citations support key
themes of Acts, such as the argument that the people of Israel had an enduring
tendency to reject God’s messengers (Acts 7:26–28; cf. 7:51–53). This use of di-
rect discourse within the New Testament narratives serves to imbue them with
a certain vividness and immediacy, encouraging the audience to hear these
words as addressed personally to them. This exegetical technique highlights,
first, therefore, the commitment of the early Christian authors to the ongoing
relevance of the scriptures for them and their communities. It also indicates,
however, a previously overlooked hermeneutical presupposition, namely that
direct speech should be treated differently from other forms of writing in the
retelling of scripture, and retained wherever possible.
In Hebrews also, citations of scriptural first person direct speech are fre-
quently inserted into summary narratives. A clear example of this occurs in
the reference to the establishment of the Mosaic covenant at Heb 12:18–24.
Here, the author draws a contrast between the inapproachability of God under
the old covenant system and the access to God’s blessings which he claims has
now been made available through Jesus (Heb 12:18–24). Two direct speech cita-
tions are essential to this argument, and are used to emphasise both the inac-
cessibility of Mount Sinai and Moses’ terror at encountering the presence of
God there: “For they could not endure the order that was given, ‘If even a beast
touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.’ Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that
Moses said, ‘I tremble with fear’” (Heb 12:20–21; cf. Exod 19:12–13; Deut 9:19). In
fact, according to the scriptural accounts, Moses does not express any fear at
the Sinai theophany, but rather on the occasion of the making of the golden
calf. The quoted words “I tremble with fear” have been re-contextualised in
Hebrews.34 Direct speech citations are similarly introduced into the passages
in Hebrews discussing the sealing of the covenant (Heb 9:20; Exod 24:8) and
the building of the tabernacle Heb 8:5; Exod 25:40). Key words from these texts
are particularly stressed in the author’s interpretation of these events, namely
“pattern” and “blood.”35 Likewise, the review of faithful figures in Israel’s his-
tory in Hebrews 11 also contains a speech citation, recalling God’s promise to
Abraham of many descendants (Heb 11:18; Gen 21:12).
Striking correlations can be observed between this approach to reproduc-
ing scriptural direct speech in the New Testament and the practice of Pseudo-
Philo. In the retelling of the flood narrative, for instance, there are seven sepa-
rate citations of God’s words to Noah (L.A.B. 3:2, 3, 4, 8, 9–10, 11, 12), some of
which follow the underlying Genesis account closely, and others which are
authorial expansions or additions. A similar interchange of direct speech and
narrative is particularly characteristic of the speeches created by Pseudo-Philo,
as is clearly demonstrated in Amram’s address to his fellow-elders before the
birth of Moses, presented here with the two scriptural direct speech citations
and a further one additional speech passage highlighted in bold:
3And Amram answered and said, “It will sooner happen that this age will
be ended forever or the world will sink into the immeasurable deep or
the heart of the abyss will touch the stars than that the race of the sons
of Israel will be ended. And there will be fulfilled the covenant that God
established with Abraham when he said, ‘Indeed your sons will dwell
in a land not their own and will be brought into bondage and afflict-
ed 400 years.’ And behold from the time when the word of God that he
spoke to Abraham was spoken, there are 350 years; from the time when
we became slaves in Egypt, there are 130 years. 4Now therefore I will not
abide by what you decree, but I will go in and take my wife and produce
sons, so that we may be made many on the earth. For God will not abide
in his anger, nor will he forget his people forever, nor will he cast forth
the race of Israel in vain upon the earth; nor did he establish a covenant
34 A useful discussion of the scriptural sources underlying Heb 12:18–24 can be found in
P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 669–683.
35 This exegetical technique of “heavy stress” is explained in detail by Samely in Rabbinic
Interpretation, 278–302; examples of its use in Hebrews are drawn out in Docherty, The
Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, 144–200; and eadem, “Genesis in Hebrews,” in Genesis
in the New Testament (LNTS 466; ed. M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise; London: T&T Clark,
2012), 130–146.
90 Docherty
with our fathers in vain; and even when we did not yet exist, God spoke
about these matters. 5Now therefore I will go and take my wife, and I will
not consent to the command of the king; and if it is right in your eyes,
let all of us act in this way. For when our wives conceive, they will not
be recognized as pregnant until three months have passed, as also our
mother Tamar did. For her intent was not fornication, but being unwill-
ing to separate from the sons of Israel she reflected and said, ‘It is better
for me to die for having intercourse with my father-in-law than to have
intercourse with gentiles.’ And she hid the fruit of her womb until the
third month. For then she was recognized. And on her way to be put to
death, she made a declaration saying, ‘He who owns this staff and this
signet ring and the sheepskin, from him I have conceived.’ And her in-
tent saved her from all danger. 6Now therefore let us also do the same.
And when the time of giving birth has been completed, we will not cast
forth the fruit of our womb (if we are able). And who knows if God will
be provoked on account of this so as to free us from our humiliation?”
(L.A.B. 9:3–6; see also Joshua’s covenant renewal speech, L.A.B. 23:1–14).
This technique of reproducing direct speech verbatim within summary nar-

rative is employed in other examples of the rewritten bible genre, such as
columns 21–22 of the Genesis Apocryphon (cf. Gen 13:1–15:4). Such treatment
of scriptural texts containing first person speech quite possibly derives from
imitation of the form of the Hebrew Bible itself, in which, as noted by so many
literary critics from Robert Alter onwards, dialogue is unusually pervasive.36
The works of Josephus do stand out as something of an exception to this ten-
dency, however, given his extensive use of reported speech and paraphrase in
the Jewish Antiquities. Direct speech and dialogue is by no means completely
removed in his retelling, however, and his writings generally showcase his abil-
ity to create lengthy speeches for his characters.37
4.3 Scriptural Allusions in Speeches and Prayers

The next area of potentially fruitful comparison is the employment of scriptur-
al quotations and allusions within speeches and prayers, literary forms com-
mon to both corpora. In Acts, for example, the author’s citations and echoes
36 R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
37 For further discussion of this aspect of Josephus’ method, see e.g., P. Vallalba i Varneda,
The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 89–117; and G.E.
Sterling, “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’s Retelling of Ruth,” in Understanding Josephus:
Seven Perspectives (JSPSup 32; ed. S. Mason; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988),
104–171; see esp. 112–115.
are particularly concentrated in the speeches attributed to the leading charac-

ters like Peter and Paul (e.g. Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 13:16–41; cf. Stephen’s
speech in Acts 7:2–53).
The prayer of the disciples following the release of Peter and John after their
questioning by the sanhedrin recorded in Acts (4:24–30) also centres around
a citation (Ps 2:1–2; Acts 4:25–26), which is interpreted within the prayer itself
as directly applicable to the early Christian community in the present: it is
explained as foretelling the opposition which would be faced by Jesus, the
Lord’s anointed one (Acts 4:27). This prayer is also reminiscent of scriptural
and early post-biblical prayers more widely in, for instance, its opening ap-
peal to God as sovereign creator (Acts 4:24; cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 19:15; Neh 9:6; Ps 146:6;
Isa 37:16; Judg 9:12).38
The prayers and speeches within L.A.B. are characterised by a similar densi-
ty of scriptural references. So, for example, Pseudo-Philo’s version of Hannah’s
prayer in response to the birth of her son, Samuel, contains at least twelve defi-
nite echoes of a wide range of scriptural texts (L.A.B. 51:3–6), and both formal
citations and strong allusions occur within all the prayers created for important
characters like Joshua and Deborah (e.g. L.A.B. 21:2–6; 32:1–17). Judith Newman
argues that one of the main purposes of post-exilic Jewish prayers is to draw
on the scriptures to reinforce a shared historical memory, as exemplified in
Neh 9:5–37.39 It is not surprising, then, to find that many of the hymns and
speeches in L.A.B. include reviews of key events in Israel’s history. Deborah’s
song after her victory over Sisera clearly illustrates this kind of re-use of scrip-
tural texts (L.A.B. 32:1–17; see also Joshua’s covenant renewal speech, L.A.B.
23:4–13; and the speeches of Moses at 15:5–6; 19:2–5). Here, the unexpected de-
feat of Sisera by a woman becomes an opportunity to remind the audience of
other occasions when God has acted to protect the Israelites in faithfulness to
the covenant promises. The choice of Abraham, the deliverance of Isaac from
potential slaughter, the blessing of Jacob, and the Sinai theophany are all sum-
marised to evoke the desired response: “So we will not cease singing praise, nor
will our mouth be silent in telling his wonders, because he has remembered
both his recent and ancient promises and shown his saving power to us” (L.A.B.
32:12). The parallels with the selective and purposeful re-telling of scripture
in one of the major speeches in Acts, that of Stephen, are striking: in Acts 7,
Israel’s history is recalled in order to demonstrate that the people of Israel have
always persecuted God’s messengers and resisted the holy spirit (Acts 7:51–53).
38 For a full treatment of early Jewish prayers, see e.g. J.H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The
Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999).
39 Newman, Praying by the Book, 55–116.
92 Docherty
A related feature common to several New Testament writings and L.A.B. is

the way that such speeches, prayers, or other summaries rich in scriptural allu-
sions function as narrative links. Pseudo-Philo frequently marks a transition to
a new leader with a farewell speech (e.g. L.A.B. 19:1–5; 20:1–5; 48:1). He also uses
speeches to help the storyline to flow more smoothly, by explaining the actions
of a character more fully, or by removing a potential disjuncture in the underly-
ing scriptural account. Moses’ father Amram, for instance, refers to the Judah
and Tamar episode as part of his appeal to his fellow-Hebrews to continue to
bear children despite the Egyptian threat to murder all Hebrew boys at birth
(L.A.B. 9:5). This smooths over the rather awkward scriptural move straight
from the announcement of this barbaric policy (Exod 1:22) to the story about
the conception of Moses (Exod 2:1–2):40 “And her [Tamar’s] intent saved her
from all danger. Now therefore let us also do the same” (L.A.B. 9:6). The identi-
fication of this technique in L.A.B. may well be relevant for an understanding
of some New Testament passages, particularly Hebrews, where new sections of
the argument are often introduced by transitional paragraphs containing clear
scriptural allusions. The letter’s opening lines (Heb 1:1–4), for example, echo
a number of texts, including Psalm 110[109], which is evoked throughout, and
there are similar introductory links at Heb 3:1–6 and 8:1. The allusions in these
verses prepare the audience for the ensuing discussion and help to shape the
interpretation of the major citations that follow.
4.4 Repeated Citations

A further exegetical method shared by L.A.B. and the New Testament books
of Acts and Hebrews is the repeated quotation of key scriptural passages. This
technique is particularly prominent in Hebrews, where several texts are cited
or clearly alluded to more than once in order to support the claims made about
Jesus’ unique sonship and superior priesthood (e.g. Ps 2:7 at Heb 1:5 and 5:5;
Ps 95[94]:7–11 throughout Hebrews 3–4; Ps 110[109]:4 at Heb 5:6 and 7:17, 21;
Jer 31[38]:31–34 at Heb 8:8–12 and 10:16–17). It is also employed in Acts (e.g.
Exod 2:14 at Acts 7:27, 35; Deut 18:15–16 at Acts 3:22 and 7:37: Ps 16[15]:10 at Acts
2:27 and 13:35) and in the New Testament more widely (e.g. Gen 15:6 at Rom
4:3, 9, 22; Isa 28:16 at Rom 9:33 and 10:11; Lev 19:18 at Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; and
Hos 6:6 at Matt 9:13 and 12:7). Likewise, in L.A.B., texts which are of particular
significance to the author’s theological emphases are used repeatedly. A par-
ticularly clear example of this is the frequent appeal to God’s solemn promise
of the land to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:7). This verse is cited in
40 Bauckham also reads the passage in this way in “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and the
Gospels,” 54.
three different contexts in L.A.B. (10:2; 12:4; 23:5) in order to reinforce the mes-
sage that God has remained continually faithful to the covenant people. Other
scriptural assurances are also reiterated, including the pledge of numerous
descendants for Abraham (Gen 22:17 at L.A.B. 14:2; 18:5; cf. 8:3; 49:6); Jacob’s
guarantee that a ruler will never be lacking in Judah (Gen 49:10 at L.A.B. 21:5;
49:7); and the description of the sun and the moon standing still so as to help
the Israelites defeat their enemies in battle (Josh 10:12–13 at L.A.B. 30:5; 32:10).
Repeated citation enables both Pseudo-Philo and some of the New
Testament authors to underline their main themes, but there are some evident
differences between them in the way this technique is used, variations which
appear to be linked at least partly to literary form. So, for example, in the New
Testament, especially in the letters, a scriptural text is often cited several times
in close succession (e.g. Romans 4; Heb 3:7–4:11; 4:14–7:28; 8:8–10:18) because it
is subject to close exegesis as part of a sustained argument. The rewritten bible
genre, on the other hand, does not allow for such detailed interpretation on
the text-surface, as the authors are more constrained to follow the structure
and narrative flow of the original. In L.A.B., therefore, key passages are not
usually cited close together, but are deliberately employed in different contexts.
This emphasises the connections between different parts of the scriptures, an
interpretative principle discussed above. For example, repeated citations help
to create links between Isaac and Jephthah’s daughter (L.A.B. 32:2–3; 40:2), and
are used to contrast the behaviour of Joseph and Samson towards non-Israelite
women (L.A.B. 8:9–10; 43:5).
4.5 Textual Proximity as a Relevant Factor for Interpretation

In several forms of early Jewish exegesis, including the targumim and rabbinic
midrashim, neighbouring scriptural texts are used to explain one another, even
if they do not appear to be related in their original context.41 Clause and para-
graph boundaries can thus be dissolved in later interpretation. This technique
occurs also in L.A.B., where the clearest example is the causative link made
between the pronouncement of the law about tasselled garments and Korah’s
rebellion (L.A.B. 16:1; cf. Num 15:37–16:3).42 Similarly, as discussed above,
Amram directly relates the conception of his son Moses to the threat of death
41 See e.g. Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 32–42; idem, Rabbinic Interpretation, 41–48.
Verses from the end of one chapter and the beginning of the next are particularly fre-
quently linked in rabbinic interpretation; e.g. on the interpretation of Isa 10:34 and 11:1 in
the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Ber ii, 5a), see Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 35.
42 The same connection is made in some rabbinic sources; see e.g. Numbers Rabbah 16:3;
b. Sanh 110a; cf. Tg. Yer. 1 on Num 16:2.
94 Docherty
against all Hebrew baby boys which immediately precedes it in the narrative
of Exodus (Exod 1:22–2:2; L.A.B. 9:1–6).
The author of Hebrews may also have shared this hermeneutical assump-
tion that adjacent verses of scripture can be interpreted as connected on the
basis of their textual proximity. This may explain his tendency to treat neigh-
bouring scriptural verses as if they were two separate citations which could
be related to the same subject. On its second occurrence in the epistle, for
example, the new covenant passage from Jeremiah (Jer 31[38]:33–34) is pre-
sented in two parts: “for after saying, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with
them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and
write them on their minds,’ then he adds, ‘I will remember their sins and their
misdeeds no more’” (Heb 10:15–17; italics mine). Similarly, the interpretation
of Ps 40:6–8[39:7–9] at Heb 10:5–10 also focuses on the citation in two halves:
“when he came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not
desired, but a body you have prepared for me …’ Then I said, ‘See, God, I have
come to do your will” (Heb 10:5–7; italics mine). There are also two further
instances of adjacent biblical texts being reproduced in succession, but sepa-
rated by the phrase καὶ πάλιν, as if they were two different citations: Isa 8:17
and 8:18 at Heb 2:13–14, and Deut 32:35 and 32:36 at Heb 10:30. While this tech-
nique is particularly prominent in Hebrews, it is in evidence elsewhere in the
New Testament, too: at Acts 3:22–23, for instance, a quotation of Deut 18:15–16
is quickly followed by another conflated citation which includes Deut 18:19
(plus Lev 23:29). Although some of the methods discussed in this study rely
on the early Jewish interpreters reading the scriptures as a series of isolated or
atomistic verses, this feature illustrates that they were equally ready and well-
equipped to pay close attention to the original narrative frameworks of their
citations in order to bring contextual information to bear on their exegesis.
4.6 ‘Fulfilment’ of Scripture

The claim is made in several of the New Testament writings that a scriptural
passage is “fulfilled” in Jesus or in some episode involving his early followers.
The explicit term ἵνα πληρωθῇ is found especially in Matthew and John (see also
e.g. Jas 2:23), but this way of reading the scriptures is in evidence more widely,
even where this phrase is not used. In Acts, for example, particular events are
justified as having been foretold in the scriptures (e.g. the death of Judas and
the consequent vacancy amongst the twelve, Acts 1:15–26), as also are larger
theological themes, such as the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus (Acts
2:30–36; 3:18–26; 8:30–35; 13:32–41; 17:2–3; 26:22–23; cf. Luke 24:44–48; Rom 1:2–
4) and the gentile mission (Acts 13:46–47; 15:12–20; 26:22–23; 28:25–29; cf. Rom
9:6–33; 15:7–12). Likewise, in Hebrews, numerous citations are applied directly
either to Jesus (see esp. Heb 1:5–13; 2:5–13; 5:5–10; 7:17–22; 10:5–10; cf. 1 Pet 2:4–8)
or to his contemporary followers (e.g. Heb 4:1–10; 10:26–39; 12:5–11; 13:5–6; cf.
Rom 8:31–39; 2 Cor 6:2, 16–18; Eph 4:7–12; 1 Pet 1:15–16, 23–25; 3:8–12).
The Qumran pesharim provide illuminating parallels to this form of exege-
sis, as scriptural texts are regularly interpreted in them as explicit references to
the community’s founder or to some aspect of its history or practice. A similar
method is employed in some rabbinic texts which interpret passages from the
prophetic books as foretelling the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.43 It would
appear then, that many early Jewish exegetes operated with an assumption
that scripture consists of a vast series of prophecies, which have to be explained
and made relevant to later generations. The prevalence of this axiom is further
confirmed by L.A.B., where both individual verses and wider themes are fre-
quently presented as part of a prediction-fulfilment pattern.44 Saul’s defeat of
the Amalekites, for instance, is introduced as the direct fulfilment of a promise
of their destruction made by Moses (L.A.B. 58:1; cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 25:19; 1 Sam
15:3), and the fear expressed by God at the start of the Tower of Babel episode
that human behaviour would only get worse is taken as a definite prediction
which came true in the making of the golden calf (L.A.B. 12:3; cf. Gen 11:6; other
examples can be seen at L.A.B. 9:3; 15:5; 21:1; 56:1). Similarly, great emphasis is
placed throughout the text on the realisation of all God’s covenant promises
(e.g. L.A.B. 10:2–5; 14:2; 21:9; 23:11). Recognition of the significance of this her-
meneutical principle helps to contextualise New Testament use of scripture.
Thus, although the early Christians may have held distinctive views about the
way in which the scripture was fulfilled in the person of Jesus, they shared with
a wide range of other early Jewish interpreters an expectation that its words
would be confirmed in concrete contemporary events.
This confidence in the future fulfilment of scripture may be related to the
frequent appeal to scripture as “testimony” or “witness” which is a notable
feature of both Acts and Hebrews (e.g. Acts 10:42–43; cf. 5:32; 26:22; Heb 2:6;
7:8, 17; 10:15; 11:5; cf. 12:1). This theme is present in L.A.B. too, with Israel’s early
leaders like Moses in particular presented as God’s “witnesses.” In a speech to
Joshua, for example, God reminds him that “I will abandon them [the people
of Israel] as I testified in my speech to Moses. But you bear witness to them
before you die” (L.A.B. 21:1; cf. 22:6; 24:1; 29:4; 32:17; cf. Jub. 1:12, which refers to
43 Specific examples of this technique in operation in rabbinic literature are given in e.g.
Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation, 125–130; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 34–35; cf. Kugel,
Potiphar’s House, 261–266.
44 This feature of L.A.B. is discussed by Bauckham, “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and
the Gospels,” 59–60. Reinmuth’s Pseudo-Philo und Lukas also highlights the fulfilment of
scripture as one of the themes common to Luke-Acts and L.A.B.
96 Docherty
the prophets as “witnesses” sent by God). The significance of this language for
an understanding of the attitude to scripture in both the New Testament and
the rewritten bible texts merits further investigation. It suggests that the scrip-
tures were widely understood within early Judaism as the written testimony
to the promises and intentions spoken by God, and the enduring record of the
deeds worked by God. It is this character which confers on them their ongoing
relevance and guarantee of truth.
4.7 Prominence of Reference to Genesis

Finally, it is worth highlighting the frequency of appeal to the book of Genesis
by the authors of both the works of rewritten bible and the New Testament.
One survey, for example, identifies 98 biblical citations and allusions in
L.A.B., of which 38 (almost 40%) are taken from Genesis.45 The significance
of Genesis in the writings of the New Testament has also been underlined in
recent studies.46 Luke-Acts, for example, mentions Abraham no fewer than
22 times and includes numerous other allusions to Genesis. Texts from Genesis
are also central to the development of some of the most innovative theological
themes in Hebrews, such as Jesus’ Melchizedekian priesthood and the concept
of heavenly “rest.” This is hardly surprising, given that the Pentateuchal narra-
tives were so foundational to early Judaism, and it is only to be expected in the
case of L.A.B., which is actually retelling sections of Genesis. Nevertheless, the
way in which even the period of the Judges, to which Pseudo-Philo devotes a
striking amount of space and attention,47 is retold according to the pattern of
the Pentateuch should not be overlooked. Examples of this reshaping include
the use by Gideon of words originally attributed to Abraham (L.A.B. 35:6),
and the influence of the Akedah narrative on the retelling of the episode in-
volving Jephthah’s daughter (L.A.B. 40:2–3).
45 A. Lange and M. Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish
Literature (JAJSup 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). This is only one tool for
identifying the scriptural references in the literature of Second Temple Judaism, and it
may not be completely reliable; Harrington, for instance, notes far more allusions in the
apparatus to his translation in “Pseudo-Philo,” 304–377. Nonetheless, these figures do pro-
vide a clear indication of the pervasive reference to Genesis in L.A.B.
46 See e.g. M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise, eds., Genesis in the New Testament (LNTS 466;
London: T&T Clark, 2012).
47 The disproportionate concentration on the Judges in L.A.B. is widely discussed by
commentators; see e.g. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins, eds., Ideal Figures in Ancient
Judaism (SCS 12; Ann Arbor: Scholars, 1980); Bauckham, “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
and the Gospels,” 33, 40.
5 Conclusions
This study has attempted to identify precisely some of the exegetical techniques
employed in one example of the rewritten bible genre, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical
Antiquities, and to set these alongside the methods of interpreting scripture
in operation in the New Testament books of Acts and Hebrews. Literary forms
common to these three writings, such as speeches, prayers, and summary re-
views of Israel’s history, present profitable avenues for such a comparative in-
vestigation. Both intriguing parallels and noteworthy areas of difference have
emerged from this analysis. In particular the distinctive treatment of citations
containing direct speech has been highlighted, together with the significance
of using scriptural allusions in narrative transitions and the shared technique
of repeating key texts. Attention has also been drawn to the underlying herme-
neutical axioms of these authors, such as the assumption that textual proxim-
ity has interpretative significance, and that scripture as the enduring and true
testimony to divine words and actions is applicable to an infinite range of new
issues and contexts.
Many of the exegetical techniques and principles discussed here are evi-
denced also within other forms of early Jewish exegesis, such as the pesharim,
targumim and midrashim. This study has, therefore, sought to situate the
genre of rewritten bible more firmly in this wider context, and to highlight
both the need and the scope for more detailed analysis of the precise interpre-
tative techniques employed within these texts. It has also hopefully succeeded
in its second aim of establishing the potential benefits of further comparison
between them and the writings of the New Testament.
Chapter 6
Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition and

Early Christianity: Textual History and Theology
Martin Karrer
Every of the more than 400 quotations in the New Testament1 has its own his-
tory and its own theological impact. Gratifyingly, much work has been done
in the analysis of these quotations and more contributions are available in
the present volume. Therefore, our interest must not be a full presentation of
all aspects of quotation. For this article, we will concentrate on questions of
textual criticism, textual history, and theology, exploring selected test cases
from the Jesus tradition. We start with the passion narrative, move on the
Logienquelle (Q), and finish with the Markan tradition.2 Subsequently, we will
widen the horizon and interact with trends of recent research. Specifically, we
will note the phenomenon of the diplé in the great codices, the pluriformity
of the Septuagint text in the early Christian quotations, and comment upon
some challenges for constructing an edition of the Septuagint and the New
Testament. The discussion commences with an analysis of the word spoken by
Jesus on the cross.
1 Jesus’ Word on the Cross
table 5.1 The quotation of Ps 22:2 in Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46
Mark 15:34 ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός
μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
main ‫ א‬ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐκατέλιπές (corr.: ἐγκατέλιπές) με;
manuscript A ὁ θεός ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί με ἐνκατέλειπες;
witnesses B ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
Matt 27:46 ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν· Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με
ἐγκατέλιπες;
1 The Wuppertal database (https://projekte.isbtf.de/lxx-nt/index.php) lists 449 quotations of

357 different verses from the LXX in 389 New Testament verses.
2 An overview on the research is given in S. Moyise, Jesus and Scripture (London: SPCK, 2010).

Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition 99
table 5.1 The quotation of Ps 22:2 in Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46 (cont.)
main ‫ א‬Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί [written in “lectio continua”] με ἐγκατέλιπες;
manuscript A Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί [written in “lectio continua”] με ἐνκατέλειπες;
witnesses B Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί [written in “lectio continua”] με ἐγκατέλιπες;
PsMT 22:2 ‫אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬
cf. 4Q381 frag. 79 6 ‫אלהי אל תעזבני‬
PsLXX 21:2 ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
main ‫ א‬ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι. ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
manuscript A ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλειπές με;
witnessesa B ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
a The text of the main manuscripts is presented in the Wuppertal database easyview (https://
projekte.isbtf.de/easyview_v11/).
1.1 The Text in Mark and Matthew

According to Mark 15:34, Jesus spoke a psalm on the cross when he cried ελωι
ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι (Ps 22:2a) using an Aramaic dialect. Some early readers
doubted a detail of his account asking: did Jesus in fact use a dialect from
this particular linguistic milieu? Matt 27:46 corrects the spelling in favour
of a more official Semitic style (either Hebrew or Aramaic): ηλι ηλι. This ar-
rangement corresponds more closely to the following misunderstanding
Ἠλίαν φωνεῖ (“he is calling for Elijah”, not for “Eli” = God: Mark 15:35 // Matt
27:47). Scholars therefore are unsure which transliteration better reflects the
linguistic reality of the first century.3
In any case, early Christian tradition was convinced that Jesus used a Semitic
language or dialect in the last minutes of his life. His words had to be translated
(ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον) for the Greek speaking communities to which the
Gospels were intended (see table 5.1).
The (pre-)Markan tradition translated Jesus’ words as ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου,
εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με. The Greek nominative here is used as the vocative (a com-
mon feature of Koine Greek), and εἰς τί is introduced as equivalent for ‫למה‬
(e.g. LXX Judg 5:16–17). However, this equivalent was less common than the
translation ἵνα τί which is found very often in the Septuagint (e.g. Gen 4:6).
3 See R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 495; W.D. Davies
and D.C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew (ICC; vol. 3; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 624; U. Luz, Matthew 21–28 (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 542–544; W.C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (ICC; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 294–295;
J. Marcus, Mark 8–16 (AB 27a; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 1054–1055; R.T. France,
The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 1077–1078.
100 Karrer
Hence, Matthew corrects not only the Semitic transcription but also both pe-
culiarities of the Greek version. He inserts the vocative θεέ and replaces εἰς τί
with ἵνα τί / ἱνατί.
Unfortunately, the teams of modern scholars that edited the Septuagint and
the New Testament critical editions did not enter into an agreement concern-
ing stylistic matters. And the great codices Sinaiticus (‫)א‬, Vaticanus (B) and
Alexandrinus (A) that include the Septuagint and New Testament, are written
in lectio continua. In our case the majuscules read in Matthew INATI, which
can be transcribed as ἵνα τί (two words) or ἱνατί (one word). The phrase is writ-
ten today as one word in the critical edition of the New Testament (ἱνατί), as
two words in the editions of the Septuagint (ἵνα τί). An uninformed reader,
using only modern critical editions, will intuit a discrepancy, despite the agree-
ment of the letters in the manuscripts. The difference present in the critical
editions is artificial.
Remarkably, the equivalence of ἵνα τί / ἱνατί is the only match to the
Septuagint in Matthew’s corrections to Markan traditions. Matthew intro-
duces the vocative and changes the word order of με ἐγκατέλιπες against the
Septuagint, and the Septuagint addition πρόσχες μοι (“attend to me”) is omitted
in Matthew as in Mark. As a result, neither Mark nor Matthew precisely follow
the text of the Septuagint.
The great codices (A B ‫ )א‬allow us to extend this observation. None of these
codices secondarily assimilates the quoted text of Ps 21:2LXX to one of the quot-
ing texts Mark 15:34 or Matt 27:46 or vice versa. Quite the opposite, each of
the codices has an orthographic plus or other small difference: ‫(*א‬first hand)
in Mark ἐκατέλιπες versus ἐγκατέλιπες in the Psalm; A witnesses the different
spelling ἐνκατέλειπες in Mark and Matthew versus ἐγκατέλειπες in the psalm
(and, in Mark, the inversion με ἐνκατέλειπες); B preserves a shorter Markan text
(haplography ὁ θεός μου).
This example demonstrates three important aspects concerning the
Christian history of quotation:
1. According to the early Christian memory, Jesus spoke this phrase in
Hebrew or Aramaic, most probably an Aramaic dialect.
2. His followers translated the quotation into the Greek in their own right
and in different ways. They did not rely on the Greek text of Psalm 22.
3. The great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries did not secondarily
adjust the New Testament or the Septuagint text.
1.2 The Text in the Psalterium Gallicanum and Septuagint Manuscripts

If we go on into the textual history of the psalter, we find an obelos in the
Psalterium Gallicanum marking πρόσχες μοι (“attend to me”) in Ps 21:2LXX ,
which differs from the Hebrew psalm and the New Testament quotations
which are initiated by the Hebrew/Aramaic text.4 That obelus does not refer
to the New Testament parallel, but to the Hebrew text since, from the time of
Origen (who introduced the obelus in his Hexapla), the Greek (and Latin) psal-
ter was compared to the Hebrew text. Somewhat surprisingly, the Hebrew text
has more influence on the editorial history of the Septuagint than the famous
New Testament quotation.
In addition, one may ask if the Septuagint influences the transmission of the
New Testament at least in a small way: a corrector of ‫ א‬introduces ἐγκατέλιπες
into Mark 15:34 and the resulting text ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με
is nearer to the Septuagint than all the other textual forms. However, ‫ א‬reads
in the psalm πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί against the New Testament corrector; the differ-
ence remains superior to the slight rapprochement. Therefore, the corrector
must have used another manuscript of the Septuagint, or he was influenced by
the Matthean parallel or simply used a better Markan Vorlage. The latter pos-
sibilities are somewhat more probable. This suggests that the transmissions of
the Septuagint and the New Testament text proceeded to a large extent inde-
pendently from one another even into the Byzantine era.
1.3 Textual History and Interpretation

The history of the text indirectly impacts the understanding of the quotation
in Mark 15:34. As we have seen, the unknown translator of the Aramaic text did
not follow a conventional Greek reading but tried to record the sense of Jesus’
words for the Christian community in his time. Therefore, his choice of εἰς τί
for ‫ למה‬is significant. ‫ למה‬had a broad semantic range as it was employed to
describe causal and purpose grammatical relationships. The Greek translation
equivalents mirror the different aspects: the causal sense could be represented
by πῶς, διὰ τί and τί; the purpose was represented by the clause εἰς τί. For ex-
ample, in Judg 15:10B Judah asks εἰς τί ἀνέβητε (“to what end have you come
up?”) and gets the answer δῆσαι (we have come up “in order to bind”).
The translator of the pre-Markan tradition translated Jesus’ question with
full awareness of this differentiation. His choice of εἰς τί suggests that Jesus
provokes an answer pertaining to a purpose clause. In the Markan tradition,
Jesus dies godforsaken and yet asks God for a purpose of which God is aware.
In other words, it is not enough to ask “why?” in a modern translation; we must
translate εἰς τί by the phrase “why and to what end have you forsaken me?” The
Markan cry on the cross builds a bridge between the agony of Jesus and the
Easter and post-Easter understanding of his death.
4 A. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis (SVTG 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 109.
102 Karrer
Matthew chose ἱνατί instead of the Markan εἰς τί. This particle too encom-
passes the moment as one in which Jesus seeks a purpose (ἵνα). Yet, the mat-
ter is different since ἱνατί had become the standard equivalent for all aspects
of ‫ למה‬in the Septuagint. Hence the particular feature “for the sake of” fades.
The NETS translation accounts for that ἱνατί by rendering it as “why” in Judg
15:10A (ἵνα τί ἀνέβητε, “why have you come up”)5 as well as in Ps 21:2LXX (ἵνα τί
ἐγκατέλιπές, “why did you forsake me?”).6 If we follow that model, we would
have to differentiate between the translation of Mark (“why and to what end”
or only “to what end”) and Matthew (preferably “why”).7 The observation of
the textual history brings forth consequences for interpretation and modern
translation of the perhaps most famous quotation of the New Testament.
2 Quotations in Q
The Aramaic textual tradition disappears when we move to the so-called

“Sayings Source” (Q). This source is sometimes controversial but currently
acknowledged by most scholars. Its text, which is reconstructed by the inter-
national Q project,8 does not include any quotations of Hebrew or Aramaic
sources. On the contrary, Q takes all its quotations from the Septuagint and
related Greek traditions, as scholars have shown.9 This fact is surprising in a
source concentrated on words of Jesus; and yet, the analysis of central example
texts in what follows provides us with a clear picture.
5 N ETS, 226.
6 N ETS, 556.
7 Most of the commentators reject that differentiation (Pesch, Markusevangelium, 495–496) or
do not comment on this feature. However, the attention to this issues has increased in recent
years. The latest German commentary on Mark translates in Mark 15:34 explicitly “wozu”
(“to what end”; V. Stolle, Das Markusevangelium. Übersetzung und Kommentierung (unter be-
sonderer Berücksichtigung der Erzähltechnik) (OUH.E 17, Göttingen: Edition Ruprecht 2015),
371–373. The recent revision of the Luther Bible takes the differentiation into consideration
(the German “warum” includes an aspect of “wozu”). It writes in Matt 27:46 “warum”, but in
Mark “warum” accompanied by the hint “Andere Übersetzung; >wozu<” (other translation:
“to what end”).
8 J.M. Robinson, P. Hoffman, and J.S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis
Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and
French Translations of Q and Thomas (Leuven: Peeters, 2000).
9 See C.M. Tuckett, “Scripture and Q,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 131; ed. C.M. Tuckett;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 3–26 and H.T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and
Commentary (BITS 1; Leuven: Peeters 2005), 97–100.
2.1 The Quotation Marker γέγραπται

Q uses the quotation marker γέγραπται (or alternatively εἴρηται)10 at two pla
ces: in the story of the temptation and in Jesus’ witness about John the Baptist.
This fact implies that the transmitters of the source are sensitive to scriptural
references. Moreover, they demonstrate their reuse of antecedent traditions by
employing a Greek introductory formula; the scribes recording the pericopes,
and probably the Q community as a whole, are aware of a quoting tradition
which originated in Hellenistic Judaism:
The history of γέγραπται started in the Septuagint. The oldest examples are
preserved in the Greek translations of the Historical Books, in 4 Kgd 14:6 and
2 Chr 25:4 (introducing a quotation from Deut 24:16). At these places, γέγραπται
corresponds to the Hebrew ‫ ;כתוב‬the Greek translators understood the Hebrew
qal passive participle in the sense of a Greek perfect passive.
Thus, the Jesus of Q follows a Greek rendering of the Hebrew tradition. He is
quoting from the scriptures following practices of Hellenistic Judaism, speak-
ing a kind of Hellenistic Jewish and Septuagint Greek. One must concede, at
the same time, that the pericope of the temptation is extended in Q against
Mark (any quotation is lacking in Mark 1:12–13) and that the psalm quotation
in Mark 15:34 appears without an introductory formula. Even if the one or the
other example of γέγραπται in Mark is old (e.g. Mark 7:6), the preference for
γέγραπται in Q seems to be a post-Easter development. A direct line to the
historical Jesus, at least as it regards his language of quotation, is impossible to
establish so far. However, let us look for more details.
2.2 The Word about the Baptist

Jesus’ word about the Baptist in Q 7:26–27 includes the use of γέγραπται in
v. 27. Consequently, most scholars assume that the quotation was added
secondarily.11 The praise of John the Baptist in v. 26 (that John is more than a
prophet) is the old core of the text and v. 27 a post-Easter amplification.
In Q 7:27, Jesus shows his approval of John by quoting Exod 23:20,12 partly
combined with Mal 3:1 (see table 5.2). One peculiarity of the Greek text is easily
discernible: Jesus says τὸν ἄγγελόν μου adding the pronoun from Exod 23:20LXX
10 Γέγραπται is found also in the Pauline letters (Rom 3:4, 10 etc.). But, in contrast to Paul,
nearly all references of Q occur in the mouth of Jesus: Q uses γέγραπται spoken by Jesus in
4:4, 8 and 7:27, εἴρηται in Q 4:12 Lukan text (and Matt 4:7 reads γέγραπται in the parallel to
4:12); only in Q 4:10, is γέγραπται not spoken by Jesus.
11 See, e.g., F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (EKK 3.1; Zürich: Benziger, 1989), 371.
12 Critical editions are Rahlfs (Ra and revised RaHa) and Septuaginta Gottingensis (Go.). See
A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart:
Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935); A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: id est
104 Karrer
table 5.2 The Quotation in Q 7:27 (Luke 7:27 // Matt 11:10): γέγραπται
Q 7:27 ἰδοὺ (ἐγὼ) ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει
τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου (ἐγώ only in Matt 11:10)a
Exod 23:20 ‫הנה אנכי שלח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך‬
LXX ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε
ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (ἐγώ is parallel to ‫אנכי‬, μου has no parallel in the Hebrew)
Exod 23:20 Abr. 174 ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ἵνα φυλάξῃ
in Philo σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (ἐγώ is missing, μου with Old Greek)
Agr. 51 ἰδοὺ ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποστέλλω ἄγγελόν μου εἰς πρόσωπόν σου τοῦ
φυλάξαι σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (‫ אנכי‬is translated by ἐγώ εἰμι, μου goes with Old
Greek)
cf. Mal 3:1 ‫הנני שלח מלאכי ופנה־דרך לפני‬
LXX ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ
προσώπου μου
Mal 3:1 LXX B und ‫ *א‬omit ἐγώ (cf. the Hebrew text where a pronoun is
important missing)
variants Aquila (Syh) reads ἀποσκευάσει instead of ἐπιβλέψεται (an alternative
translation for ‫ פנה‬pi.)
a Robinson, et al., Critical Edition, 134–135.
against the Hebrew ‫מלאך‬. Evidently, the group handing down Q was convinced
(as I mentioned above) that Jesus would have referred to the Greek text of
Israel’s scriptures.
A comparison to the contemporary quotations in the works of Philo high-
lights the textual history of Exod 23:20. Of special interest is the rendering of
‫אנכי‬. The Masoretic text vocalizes ‫ אנכי‬plus participle ‫שלח‬, “I was sending.” The
Septuagint translator altered the construction. He chose the finite verb form
instead of the participle and wrote ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω. The ἐγώ intensifies the fi-
nite verb form. Following to the critical editions, this version is the Old Greek
(the oldest reconstructable text of the Septuagint). Sequentially, however, a
part of the textual transmission understood the ἐγώ as a doubling to the finite
verb and omitted it. Therefore, we have one textual form with and another
without the ἐγώ in the first century CE.
In Abr. 174, Philo uses the shorter text without ἐγώ, and Luke 7:27 does the
same. Hence, Philo and Luke account for a lateral and somewhat younger
Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,

2006); J.W. Wevers, ed., Exodus (SVTG 2.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
branch of the Septuagint transmission. The parallel in Matt 11:10, conversely,

follows the Old Greek and includes the pronoun. The quotation in Q shows
that both the Old Greek and a slightly corrected Greek text were available to
the followers of Jesus and esp. the Q-community in the first century CE.
2.3 An Excursus on kaige

Additionally, Philo preserves a third redactional stream: the so-called kaige
recension, which was developing from the first century BCE onwards. This re-
cension was more interested in the Hebrew Vorlage and looked for a render-
ing of every Hebrew element. As a result, the spelling ‫ אנכי‬became even more
important than in the Old Greek, since the recension differentiated between
Hebrew ‫( אני‬ἐγώ) and ‫( אנכי‬ἐγώ εἰμι).13 Philo used that textual form in his Agr.
51 and wrote there ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποστέλλω, “I am, I send.”14 In contrast, Q either did
not have any knowledge of this textual form of Exodus or avoided it.
This does not, however, mean that kaige is irrelevant for the New Testament.
The author of Luke-Acts often refers to a text influenced by the kaige tendency.
For example, he reads the eponymic element kaige in Acts 2:18 quoting Joel
3:2 (i.e. καί γε for Hebrew ‫ וגם‬against καί of the Old Greek).15 Moreover, this
development is mirrored there by the great pandect codices. All of them have
καί γε in the New Testament quotation, but they differ in the older LXX text;
Vaticanus (B) and first hand of Sinaiticus (S*) preserve καί in Joel 3:2LXX , while
the important corrector ca of the Codex Sinaiticus and the scriptorium of
Alexandrinus chose καίγε / καί γε. The transformations of the text in the LXX
transmission support the textual form used by the New Testament quotation.
Nevertheless, the transmitters of our text in Q do not follow kaige. They are less
conservative than that tendency. (End of the Excursus)
13 D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des frag-
ments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les
traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisés au premier siècle de notre ère sous
l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 69–78.
14 However, the text was not corrected in a thoroughgoing way; for example, the added
Greek μου was not deleted. We therefore must understand kaige as a recensional ten-
dency, not as a recension in the strong sense of a work coherently executed by redactors.
15 G.J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta
Apostolorum (CBET 12; Kampen: Kok, 1995), 72–98; M. Karrer, “Die Entstehungsgeschichte
der Septuaginta und das Problem ihrer maßgeblichen Textgestalt,” in Die Septuaginta—
Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (WUNT 219; ed. M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 40–62 (esp. 44–45); and R.I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 76–80; C.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles
(ICC; vol. 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 137.
106 Karrer
The second reference text in Q 7:27 underlines the plurality of textual forms
existing in Early Christian times: Mal 3:1 is recognizable in the second half of
the quotation (ὃς κατασκευάσει κτλ.), and yet, the verb κατασκευάσει does not
agree to the Septuagint (ἐπιβλέψεται). Rather it marks the transition to the so-
called younger translations of the Hebrew text; Aquila retains the similar verb
ἀποσκευάσει in the second century CE.
The different verbs in Old Greek, Q, and Aquila correspond to the same
Hebrew source, ‫ פנה‬piel. Therefore, a development in the translation of ‫פנה‬
becomes apparent: the Old Greek preferred the middle voice of ἐπιβλέπω, Q
chooses the active of κατασκευάζω, and Aquila records ἀποσκευάζω. In this
case, Q sounds discreetly modern in its time. In this way, textual history pro-
vides important insight into translation history.
Interestingly, Q combines that young textual form of Mal 3:1 with the Old
Greek (Matthew) or a lateral strand of the Old Greek (Luke) of Exodus. All in
all, our quotation in Q presents a textual form younger than the Old Greek of
Exodus but older than the so-called younger translations of Mal 3:1.
Let me add another point. The grouping of words from the Torah and a
prophet is not incidental. Such combinations between Torah and other Jewish
scriptures (Nebiim or Ketubim) developed from eschatological interests before
early Christianity.16 The followers of Jesus adopted these combinations since
they enhanced the weight of argumentation, functioning as two witnesses (as
in the Jewish legal system).17 Our scene fits well in a Greek speaking commu-
nity of Jewish eschatological followers of Jesus.
3 The Scene of the Temptation
The pericope of the temptation in Q 4:1–1318 is formulated again from a post-

Easter perspective. And Q again uses the Greek scriptures of Israel. This is
proven by certain renderings of the Hebrew text; ῥήματι is read in Q 4:4 and
16 Cf., e.g. 4QFlorilegium = 4QMidrEschata.

17 Matthew recalls such combinations in different ways (Mic 5:1.3 and 2 Sam 5:2//1 Chr 11:2
in Matt 2:6 etc.).
18 The pericope is discussed in research from different views: cf. Michael Labahn, Der
Gekommene als Wiederkommender—die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (ABG 32;
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 251–267; T. Söding, “Der Gehorsam des
Gottessohnes. Zur Christologie der matthäischen Versuchungserzählung (4,1–11),” in Jesus
Christus als Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (BZNW 86; ed.
C. Landmesser et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter 1997), 711–775; Tuckett, “Scripture and Q,” 8–13.
Deut 8:3LXX against Hebrew ‫מוצא‬, the singular ἐκπειράσεις in Q 4:12 and Deut
6:16LXX against the Hebrew plural ‫ תנסו‬etc.
3.1 Q 4:10–11 and Ps 90:11–12LXX
table 5.3 The Text of Ps 90:11–12LXX a in Q 4:10–11
Luke 4:10–11 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι

τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε
καὶ ὅτι
ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου
(identical in ‫ א‬A B; D omits ὅτι)
Matt 4:6 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι
τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ
καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου
(identical in ‫ א‬B; the text in A is lost)
Ps 90:11LXX ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ / τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις
ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου (identical in S and A; B omits πάσαις)
Ps 90:12LXX ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου
(S* adds καί in the beginning of the verse; Rahlfs proposes: ex Matth.
46. Sca omits the καί, not noted in Rahlfs)
a See Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 240.
In Q 4:10–11, the tempter (Matt 4:3) or Diabolos (Luke 4:3 etc.) entices Jesus
by quoting Ps 90:11–12LXX . He uses the aforementioned quotation formula
γέγραπται, perhaps in the expanded form γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι. Luke 4:10 and Matt
4:6 both show that expanded opening with ὅτι. However, the quoted text be-
gins in the Septuagint with ὅτι too (found in Ps 90:11LXX for Hebrew ‫)כי‬. Hence
ὅτι is part of the quotation as well as of the introduction formula.19 The scriptio
continua of the Greek text preserves the double connection.
Modern editors, though, are forced to decide between the possibilities. They
cannot reproduce the lectio continua and are committed to the Nestle-Aland
rule of writing quotations in italics. As a consequence, the critical edition
(NA28) delineates between the frame and the quotation proper and allocates
ὅτι in Q 4:10a (and Luke 4:11a) to the introduction. This editorial decision is
19 Alternatively, this word belongs only to the introduction formula in Gal 3:10 (γέγραπται
γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος).
108 Karrer
questionable.20 In every case, the edition is poorer than the old text of the
manuscripts, since the double reference of ὅτι in Q 4:10 is lost. Knowledge of
the manuscripts makes us aware of some of the deficiencies of our modern
editions.
The Q quotation itself presents not all of the lines in full. Matt 4:6 skips
the whole second stichos of Ps 90:11LXX , and Luke 4:10 presents only the first
words of that stichos (τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε). Such a difference is more typical for
an oral than a written tradition; narrators can shorten a quotation or add mo-
tifs learned by heart. That means that the research on quotations must take as-
pects of orality into account. Yet, texts learned by heart correspond to the texts
delivered in written form. Therefore, it would be unwise to separate strictly
between the written and oral transmission of quotations. All that remains of
oral tradition is preserved in the manuscripts. Therefore, the relation between
these artefacts can and must be analysed.
The comparison shows in our case that the quoted lines of the Psalm run
nearly identical in QLuke/Matt and the Septuagint. We find only one small ver-
bal difference as Matt 4:6 starts Ps 90:12LXX with καί (καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε)
against the majority of the Psalm manuscripts (ὅτι is missing against QLuke).
And yet, one important witness of the Septuagint corresponds to Matthew re-
markably, the first hand of Sinaiticus (S*).
Previous research was convinced that, in such cases, the New Testament in-
fluenced the transmission of the Septuagint. Rahlfs noted in the apparatus of
his Psalms edition that SLXX takes the καί from Matt 4:6 (see Table 5.3). But the
interpretation of the data has since changed. The New Testament influence
on the Septuagint transmission was minor in general than many scholars in
Rahlfs’ generation anticipated.21
The correction process of Codex Sinaiticus (which was not taken into
consideration by Rahlfs) proves this point. The most important corrector of
the codex, today called corrector ca, had the whole text of the scriptures—
Septuagint and New Testament parts of the codex—at his disposal. He could
detect the parallel between Psalms and Matthew, and yet, he corrected the
20 See M. Karrer and J. de Vries, “Die Schriftzitate im ersten Christentum und die
Textgeschichte der Septuaginta: ein Wuppertaler Forschungsprojekt,” in Text-Critical and
Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (VTSup 157; ed. J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp; Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 311–357 (esp. 330–332).
21 See J. de Vries and M. Karrer, “Early Christian Quotations and the Textual History of
the Septuagint: A Summary of the Wuppertal Research Project and Introduction to
the Volume,” in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—
Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60; ed. J. de Vries and
M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 3–19.
Psalm text of Sinaiticus toward the main Septuagint text, deleting the καί
against Matt 4:6. That implies that our corrector controlled the Psalm text
with other Septuagint manuscripts and preferred the Septuagint transmission
against the textual form of the Psalm in the New Testament.
Surely, we must differentiate between the first hand and the corrector.
Hence, we cannot exclude the possibility eo ipso, that the first hand was influ-
enced by the New Testament quotation. The long run of textual history, how-
ever, makes it more probable that S* and QMatt both refer to a lost form of the
Psalm which did not prevail in the majority of the manuscripts.22
3.2 Q 4:4,8,12 and Deuteronomy
table 5.4 The Text of DeuteronomyLXX in Q 4:4, 8, 12 (Luke 4:4,8, 12 par. Matt 4:4,10,7)a
Q 4:4 οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος (A adds in Luke 4:4 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ
ῥήματι θεοῦ, and ‫ א‬B add in Matt 4:4 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι [no article]
ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ [Matt 4:4 is missing in A])
Deut 8:3 οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι τῷ (article
in S B, no article in A) ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ (MT has ‫מוצא‬
instead of ῥήματι and the Tetragramm ‫)פי־יהוה‬
Q 4:8 κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις (so critical
text, ‫ א‬and B; but A Luke 4:8 has προσκυνήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ
αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις)
Deut 6:13a LXX Go and RaHa (Old Greek) κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ
λατρεύσεις, majuscule A: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ
λατρεύσεις
Deut 10:20a LXX Go and RaHa (Old Greek) κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ
λατρεύσεις
A: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις
Q 4:12 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου
Deut 6:16 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου (MT has the plural ‫ לא תנסו‬and
‫)אלהיכם‬
a The text of Deuteronomy is quoted according to the Göttingen edition by J.W. Wevers, ed.,
Deuteronomium (SVTG 3.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) and RaHa.
22 Another late relic of this lateral strand may be found in the New Testament codex D,
which deletes ὅτι at the beginning of v. 11 in favour of the quotation διαφυλάξαι σε καὶ (!)
ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε. (In this witness καί is part of the Psalm.).
110 Karrer
Jesus answers the Diabolos by citing words from the Deuteronomy (details
in Table 5.4). Thus, Q’s Jesus is portrayed as obeying the law, and the law takes
priority over the Psalms.
More precisely Jesus is obeying to the Greek law, the Nomos. For the com-
mandment of Deut 6:16 is set into the singular of the Greek translation (against
the plural in MT). Q again aligns the Jesus of the temptation to a Jewish-
Hellenistic environment. And, theologically, the text of the LXX allows the ac-
tualization as an individual demand (οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις).
In addition, traces of oral tradition are once again detectable. Luke 4:4 and
Matt 4:4, for example, proffer a longer and a shorter representation of Deut
8:3. At one place, the quotation shows a lateral strand of LXX transmission;
προσκυνήσεις and μόνῳ in Q 4:8 match Deut 6:13a and 10:20a in A.
Finally, the quoted and quoting texts are not secondarily unified in the man-
uscripts. Quite the contrary, the use of the articles differs in the manuscripts
for Q 4:4 / Deut 8:3, and the word order of Luke 4:8 in A contradicts the word
order of Deut 6:13a; 10:20a in A. The transmission of the Septuagint and of the
New Testament quotation occured independently from one another, a point
that much of our analysis has supported thus far.
3.3 Summary
We can summarize three main observations at this point. First, early Christians
used the Greek text of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets according to the
oral tradition and the manuscripts available to them. They did so even in words
of Jesus and ignored that Jesus preferred an Aramaic dialect in critical historical
situations (as presented in the Gospels). Second, the so-called Old Greek is pre-
eminent in this period, but younger textual forms of the Septuagint, texts with
kaige tendencies and antecedents of the so-called younger recensions, were
read in parts of Christianity as well. Christian communities differed somewhat
in textual preferences. For instance, we find less kaige in Q than elsewhere.
Third, scriptoria up to the fifth and sixth centuries CE did not secondarily ad-
just the New Testament and the Septuagint text in the great codices. Hence,
Rahlfs’ thesis of inner-Greek corruption requires revision. He overestimated
the New Testament’s influence on the transmission of the Septuagint.
Theologically, the use of scriptures in Q evokes an important question. Was
it legitimate to portray Jesus as a Greek speaker who knew the current forms
of the Greek scriptures of Israel? To answer this question, it is important to re-
member that all the quotations are introduced from a post-Easter perspective.
That means that the Jesus of Q is not the historical Jesus. Q unfolds the idea
that Jesus speaks in the present time to Greek hearers. The present relevance of
his words demands priority against Hebrew and Aramaic traditions. And yet,
would the shift from Hebrew-Aramaic tradition to Greek have been so for Q if
there were no very old impulses that suggested that Jesus quoted scripture in
Greek? We move on to Mark bearing this question in mind.
4 Quotations in the Markan Tradition
In the Markan narrative tradition, Jesus’ words on the cross are transmit-
ted in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic to Greek, as we have examined.
However, that is an exception. All the other quotations in Mark refer to Greek
textual forms, even in words of the pre-Easter Jesus (Hebrew motifs such as
“hosanna” in 11:9 are integrated into a Greek context).23 We focus our attention
on two instances of first person speech.
4.1 The First Commandment
table 5.5 Quotations in Mark 12:29–31
Mark 12:29 ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
Deut 6:4 ‫שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד‬
LXX RaHa and Go (OG) ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
Mark 12:30 καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς
ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου
B: καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης (anarthrous) καρδίας σου καὶ
ἐξ ὅλης (anarthrous) ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης (anarthrous) διανοίας σου καὶ
ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου
Deut 6:5 ‫ואהבת את יהוה עלהיך בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך‬
RaHa: καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας (according to
A) σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου
LXX Go.: καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας (according
to B) σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου
Mark 12:31 ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν
Lev 19:18 ‫ואהבת לרעך כמוך‬
LXX: ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν
23 Cf. H. Hübner: Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung (BTNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1995), 68–74; S. Moyise, “Deuteronomy in Mark’s Gospel,” in Deuteronomy in
the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (LNTS 358; ed. S. Moyise
and M.J.J. Menken; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 27–41; and K.S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture
in the Markan Passion Narrative (LNTS 384; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 36–40.
112 Karrer
4.1.1 Aspects of Textual History

The most famous Markan pericope that cites scripture relates to the first com-
mandment (Mark 12:28–34; see table 5.5). Jesus quotes two main texts of the
Pentateuch, Deut 6:4–5 and Lev 19:18 (Mark 12:29–31), and he does so according
to the Greek text. The Tetragrammaton is translated as κύριος (Deut 6:4–5); the
copula is added to the Hebrew text of Deut 6:4, and the perfect consecutive of
Lev 19:18 is represented by the Greek future tense. Each of these distinguishing
features agrees with the text of the Septuagint.
At the same time, a known phenomenon occurs again; namely, the Greek
transmission of the quoted text is somewhat fluid. Mark 12:30 includes an addi-
tion to the RaHa text of Deut 6:5, διάνοια, and prefers ἰσχύς instead of δύναμις for
the Hebrew ‫מאד‬. This fluidity is not an innovation in the New Testament, how-
ever. It is well represented in the transmission of the Septuagint. For the read-
ing διάνοια is used in Deut 6:5 by B as an equivalent of ‫ לבב‬instead of καρδία,
and is supported so strongly by other manuscripts (Mmg 963 etc.) that Wevers
considers it to be the Old Greek reading; the Septuaginta Gottingensis edition
disagrees with RaHa in this detail, corresponding to the reading in Mark. The
second alteration (ἰσχύς) is new, but it fits into the development of translations
in the first century BCE and CE, since it attempts to achieve the fullest sense
of Hebrew ‫מאד‬. Therefore, this alteration may also be judged as pre-Markan.
The tendency of the variants falls into line with the known development of
the textual history of Septuagint. Readers and scriptoria endeavour to closely
align the Greek text with the meaning of the Hebrew text and correct details
of the text for that reason. Above, we observed how an older Greek word was
replaced by an alternative in a Q quotation. Now we see a replacement (ἰσχύς
for δύναμις) and a combination of translation equivalents for a Hebrew motif
in the (pre-)Markan tradition. The combination of καρδία, ψυχή, and διάνοια
denotes the meaning of two Hebrew words ‫ לבב‬and ‫נפש‬.24
The development of the text occurs in other phenomena, too. The word
order becomes fluid (διάνοια and ψυχή can change place), and the article may
or may not be used. These small differences recur in various manuscripts.
Therefore, they allow for an additional acquainted observation: the scriptoria
24 More details in M. Karrer, “Der Septuaginta-Text im frühen Christentum,” in Einleitung

in die Septuaginta (Handbuch zur Septuaginta 1; ed. S. Kreuzer; Gütersloh: Mohn, 2015),
663–677. Most likely, all the alterations belong to the pre-Markan development of the
text. But it cannot be totally excluded that one of the alterations, the insertion of ἰσχύς,
is due to Markan redaction (ἰσχύς is missing in relevant Septuagint manuscripts). In this
way, then, Mark participates in the development of the text. He shares the same interest
as the other players in the process: the Greek text must give the sense of the Hebrew text
as fully as possible.
of the great codices do not adapt the quoted and quoting texts (Septuagint and
New Testament). The Codex Vaticanus (B) reads in Deuteronomy ἀγαπήσεις
κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας etc., but in Mark ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σου καὶ
ἐξ ὅλης ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης διανοίας σου. The New Testament quotation com-
bines καρδία and διάνοια (B as well as other manuscripts) and, furthermore,
omits three articles against the text of Deuteronomy (B differs here from A
and ‫)א‬. Many of the aspects in the Markan tradition resemble aspects in the
Q tradition.
4.1.2 The Greek Commandment in Jesus Tradition

The scene in Mark 12:28–34 occurs in Jerusalem. Hence, in Mark, the pre-
Easter Jesus speaks Greek in Jerusalem and references the Greek tradition of
the Torah (according to a lateral strand of the Septuagint). It would go too far
to conclude that Mark reflects a historical moment and Jesus spoke the double
commandment originally in Greek. Nevertheless, we know from the excava-
tions in the last century that Jerusalem was a Hellenistic city and Greek was in
use in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic.25 Therefore we must remain open to
the possibility that the translation process started very early in Jesus’ surround-
ings. Comparing Q und Mark, we can say for sure that the process goes back
at least to the first decades after Easter, since the Greek traditions of Q and
other basic narratives were composed at that time.26 Considering the contexts
of Hellenization, one might even suggest that the first steps of the process hap-
pened before Easter.
One accompanying phenomenon is of great relevance for our theme: the
translation of the Jesus tradition into Greek was very successful. Not a single
Jesus pericope has survived in an original Aramaic form. The translation of the
Hebrew-Aramaic Psalm 22 in Jesus’ word on the cross remains the great ex-
ception in the early Christian scriptures. Normally the quotations of the Jesus
tradition are not translated anew, but they are rendered in the Greek according
to an existing Greek textual form. Stated differently, the existence of the Greek
scriptures helped in performing the translation process and the Greek dissemi-
nation of Jesus-logia. The transmission usually takes hold of the existing Greek
versions of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.
25 Cf. the documentation of the excavations in Max Küchler, Jerusalem (2nd ed.; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).
26 Going back into the pre-Easter time, we must take the observations concerning Jesus’
words on the cross into account. That evidence points for a preference of Aramaic (and
Hebrew) in the words of Jesus. Otherwise, the Hellenistic environment existed in that
time no less than after Easter. Therefore, one may speculate that the Greek language was
in use in circles around Jesus even in the pre-Easter period.
114 Karrer
It remains an open question where the use of the Greek language in

Jesus tradition started. Maybe Jesus sometimes translated words by him-
self for Greek hearers; maybe some of his disciples did so (seldom before
Easter, more often after Easter); or maybe the transmission from the disci-
ples up to the persons who established the written forms of Q and Mark was
decisive. But in every case, the interpretation of the Jesus tradition must keep
in mind the Greek tradition of scriptures more intensely than one might nor-
mally expect.
For example, our pericope of the first commandment slightly changes the
context of the utterance when passing from an Aramaic to a Greek horizon. In
Aramaic and Hebrew tradition, the phrases “love God” and “love your neigh-
bour” are applied within a Semitic speaking milieu, deliminating neighbours
in a strict sense. The Greek translation widens the frame of reference to the
Hellenistic world. Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles can hear, read, and estab-
lish their identity by the Greek form.
The Septuagint was preparatory for this point. In Deut 6:14 (MT and LXX)
it is forbidden for Israel to follow other Gods (οὐ πορεύσεσθε ὀπίσω θεῶν ἑτέρων
ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν περικύκλῳ ὑμῶν). The Greek text of Isa 45:14 goes
one step further, announcing that people from other nations will come and
declare that there is no God besides the God of Israel (καὶ ἐροῦσιν οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς
πλὴν σοῦ). The Hebrew source text (‫ )ואין עוד אפס אלהים‬is somewhat altered by
the OG for this very purpose. Moreover, the alteration is subsequently correct-
ed in the Lucianic text and Theodotion. Both omit ἐροῦσιν (“they will declare”)
in Isa 45:14 since an equivalent is missing in the MT, and Theodotion variegates
the phrase a little into καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι (θεὸς) πλὴν αὐτοῦ.
Mark 12:3227 mirrors a similar style of textual development. It combines the
Nomos (εἷς ἐστιν, Deut 6:4) and an allusion to Isa 45:14LXX saying “and there is
no other (God) besides him” (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ; cf. the Lucianic
and, even more, the Theodontic text).28 If we read the pericope embedded in
the Greek horizon, Mark accepts the dynamics of the quotations and demands
that his non-Jewish readers agree explicitly to the exclusivity of the one God.
Thus, the employment of Greek quotations in our pericope highlights the so-
cial encounters between Jews and Gentiles in the first century and reflects the
27 Cf. the discussion in Marcus, Mark 8–16, 843–844 and E.P. Gould, The Gospel according to
St. Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), 233.
28 In more detail, the omission of ἐροῦσιν matches to the Lucianic text of Isaiah and Isaiah
codex S; ἄλλος is used anew, but one may compare ἄλλος in the Isaianic text after θεός
according to manuscript 538 and others.
intended audience of the written Gospel tradition. The development in the

Jesus tradition carries significant theological weight.
4.2 The Reception of Isa 29:13 in Early Christianity
table 5.6 The Reception of Isa 29:13
Isa 29:13MT ‫נגש העם הזה בפיו ובשפתיו כבדוני ולבו רחק ממני‬
Isa 29:13LXX ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ]‫ בפיו ו‬is omitted], τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με,
(Ziegler)a ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (MT ‫)וְ ִל ּ֖בֹו ִר ַ ֣חק‬
Isa 29:13LXX B: ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος [in the manuscript spelling error οντος] ἐν
witnesses τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσίν αὐτῶν τιμῶσι με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν
πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
hexaplaric tradition (QSyh): after ὁ λαὸς οὗτος addition of ἐν τῷ στόματι
αὐτοῦ
Mark 7:6 οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽
ἐμοῦ (attested by ‫א‬, A etc.; B differs only in the word order ὁ λαὸς οὗτος)
Matt 15:8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽
ἐμοῦ (attested by B etc.)
Matt 15:8 in ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ
W and C καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (W and C are prototypes of the
Byzantine text)
1 Clem 15:2 A (and critical edition): οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία
αὐτῶν πόρρω ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
manuscript H shows adaptions to the LXX main text: ὁ λαὸς οὗτος,
στόματι, ἀπέχει
a Critical edition: J. Ziegler, ed., Isaias (SVTG 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939),
224.
Our last example is taken from the speech on ritual purity and impurity in
Mark 7. There, Jesus quotes Isa 29:13 (Mark 7:6–7).29 The first half of the quota-
tion is present also in 1 Clement, an early post-Biblical instance in the quota-
tion’s history. Nevertheless, important features of the quotation are very simi-
lar to our preceding examples. A short summary will suffice.
Mark quotes the Septuagint with only one small alteration: the begin-
ning of the verse (ἐγγίζει μοι) is omitted and the word order in the opening of
29 See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 372–373; Marcus, Mark, 449–451; J.C. Poirier, “The Interior-
ity of True Religion in Mark 7,6–8 with a Note on Pap.Egerton 2,” ZNW 91 (2000): 180–191.
116 Karrer
the quotation is adapted to the omission (οὗτος ὁ λαός against ὁ λαὸς οὗτος).
In the Matthean version the quotation is corrected in light of Septuagint and
the word order revised (Matt 15:8 has ὁ λαὸς οὗτος as the Old Greek). Codex
B, finally, adapts Mark 7:6 to the Matthean parallel. The scribe of that codex
writes ὁ λαὸς οὗτος in Mark and Matthew.
Therefore, we can speak of a secondary influence of the Septuagint, and yet,
a detail warns against overestimating that secondary influence. In Isaiah B, we
find a longer text (plus ἐν) and a scribal error (οντος instead of οὗτος).30 This
does not influence the New Testament text (or vice versa, no corrector inter-
vened in the LXX adapting the verse in Isaiah to the New Testament).
Going on to 1 Clement, we can broaden the observation:
1. 1 Clem 15:2 quotes a textual form similar to Mark, but writes ἄπεστιν in-
stead of ἀπέχει. Therefore, a significant reading in Mark (ἀπέχει) and
1 Clement (ἄπεστιν) differ even in the same codex (A). The scriptorium
of Codex Alexandrinus, which is the main witness for 1 Clement, does
not coordinate the LXX quotations within the early Christian codex. This
suggests that the scriptoria used separate Vorlagen or exemplars for each
book of the Septuagint and each of the early Christian books and did not
necessarily unify those Vorlagen, at least in terms of scriptural citation.
2. ἄπεστιν (“to be away”) in 1 Clement corresponds to Hebrew ‫ רחק‬qal (“to
be distant”), not to the piel ‫“( ִר ַחק‬to put away”) of the Masoretic text, and
even the reading in LXX/Old Greek and Mark (ἀπέχει) is nearer to the qal.
Evidently, ‫ רחק‬was read differently in the pre-Masoretic times (namely as
qal) than it was in the vocalised Masoretic tradition.
3. The alteration between ἀπέχει and ἄπεστιν fits to the known tendencies
in Septuagint transmission. The Greek text was compared against the
Hebrew tradition from the first century BCE onwards and altered if an-
other Greek word seemed more adequate. So two textual forms were gen-
erated, and both existed for a time. In our case ἄπεστιν is the lateral strand
preserved in 1 Clement but not spread within Septuagint manuscripts.
4. The influence of the Hebrew text on the Greek transmission did not only
touch the verb ἀπέχει / ἄπεστιν. An even greater alteration happened
in the first half of the verse: the Old Greek either translated a shorter
Hebrew text or omitted the Hebrew phrase ‫ בפיו ו‬in Isa 29:13. But the
longer text became predominant immediately after the composition of
the New Testament. All of the younger translations add a rendering of
the phrase ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, and the Hexapla strengthens the relation
30 Not recorded in Ziegler’s apparatus but indexed in the Wuppertal database (http://www
.sigismund.org/easyview_v10/).
to the Hebrew text by way of the editorial signs of Origen. Vaticanus, a

witness for the post-Hexaplaric text of Isaiah, inserts the addition in the
Septuagint text (ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν); and yet, B is not fully revised,
retaining the shorter text in Mark and Matthew (against B Isaiah). Shortly
after, however, the addition is also encoded in New Testament manu-
scripts, again in a fluid process and not in all places. Codex W (probably
fifth century) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, fifth century)31 present the
fuller text with τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν in Matt 15:8, not in Mark 7:6, and they do
not have ἐν and do not repeat αὐτῶν after χείλεσιν. They follow a Vorlage
that is slightly different from the Vorlage used by B.
All in all, the early Christian quotations (Mark, Matthew, and 1 Clement) wit-
ness variants of an old textual form of Isa 29:13. The fluidity of textual transmis-
sion, seen here, remains after the time of the composition of the Gospels and
1 Clement. The Septuagint text changes up to the fifth century CE and is not yet
standardized even then. At the same time, the early Christian text shows some
developments. However, the early Christian textual forms do not influence the
Septuagint transmission secondarily. The interrelation between Septuagint
and New Testament operates predominantly from the Septuagint to the New
Testament. We can prove secondary influences of the Septuagint on the New
Testament textual transmission, but these influences are limited in nature.
4.3 A Second Result

The preceding examples allow a tentative sketch for the history of the quota-
tions in the Jesus tradition:
a. Jesus himself preferred the Hebrew or more likely an Aramaic text of
Israel’s scriptures. But the use of Greek textual forms was also widespread
in his time. The Greek communication of his words started very early, and
his quotations were aligned to existing Greek translations of the quoted
scriptures.
b. From then on, the citations embedded in the Jesus tradition are part of
the common development of Greek quotations in early Christianity and
early Judaism. They use the Old Greek and younger Greek forms, pre-
sented in the Gospels as Greek texts of scripture, and can be altered to
a certain point if an early Christian author uses another strand of the
Septuagint text.
31 C once included the Septuagint (similar to ‫ א‬A B). It is a pity that most of the folios with
parts of the Septuagint are lost. Therefore, we cannot compare Isa 29:13 in C to the LXX
and NT.
118 Karrer
c. The awareness of quoted texts continues in the textual transmission of

the following centuries. Later developments of the Septuagint transmis-
sion influence New Testament manuscripts in select cases. But these
cases are rare, and the secondary Septuagint influence does not affect the
whole corpus of New Testament manuscripts. Therefore, the secondarily
transformed text can be separated easily from the older New Testament
text.
d. A reverse influence of the New Testament tradition on the Septuagint
cannot be observed. The Septuagint transmission is not significantly af-
fected by the New Testament transmission.
5 Broadening the Context: Early Christian Quotations and Textual

History
The observations made by quotations in the Jesus tradition can be integrated

into a broader context. Some results of the projects undertaken in Wuppertal
on the text of the Septuagint and on the Early Christian quotations between
2007 and 2015 are especially interesting at this juncture.32 The relevant out-
comes of these projects include information about the use of the diplé in man-
uscripts and the pluriformity of Jewish scripture in the first century CE. Some
of the consequences of these studies should affect the way in which critical
editions are constructed.
5.1 The Diplé and Quotatison Markers in the Great Codices

The Wuppertal quotation project examined the habits of the scriptoria that
produced the great codices (‫ א‬A B). The most important discovery was the
practice of quotation markers. The scriptoria of the fourth and fifth centu-
ries adapted the old Alexandrian philological sign of the diplé (>) for marking
32 The project on the quotations from the Septuagint in early Christianity (directed by
M. Karrer) worked from 2007–2012. A bibliography can be found in the summarizing
volume J. de Vries and M. Karrer, eds., Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in
Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS
60; Atlanta: SBL, 2013); cf. Karrer, “Der Septuaginta-Text,” 663–677. The project on the
Antiochene text of the Septuagint (directed by S. Kreuzer) ran until 2015 and will be
continued from 2018–2021. Bibliographies are integrated in S. Kreuzer and M. Sigismund,
eds., Der Antiochenische Text in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); S. Kreuzer, Geschichte, Sprache und Text. Studien zum
Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BZAW 479; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015); Kreuzer, The
Bible in Greek. Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint (SCS 63; Atlanta:
SBL 2015).
references. This sign was introduced into the Christian usage at an early pe-
riod33 and was not eo ipso bound to Biblical quotations. But in the margins
of the great Bible codices it became a reference sign, especially hinting at the
presence of a quotation (normally in the New Testament) taken from sacred
texts (normally Septuagint).34
This innovation was implemented successively. Hence, diplai are employed
in the codices to varying extents.35 It is attention-grabbing however, that we
find these markers only in the margins of the quoting texts: that is to say, in
the New Testament. There are no corresponding markers at the margins of the
quoted texts of the Septuagint text in the pandect codices. In other words, the
scriptoria use the citations as a clue for early Christian readers who, they think,
ought to be attentive for the scriptures of Israel.36
Perhaps the scriptoria are acting according to the antique rule presbytera
kreitta—the old has precedence. In applying this rule to the scriptures, the old
texts must not be marked and can be read independently from the younger
reception. But the younger texts become marked. Consequently, the text
of the Septuagint (the old text) is slightly more highly valued than the New
Testament text. If there is an influence between the quoted text and the quota-
tion, the influence typically moves from the Septuagint to the New Testament.
The influence is small even in this direction, as we have seen
The margins of the codices corroborate that phenomenon: the scriptoria
sometimes add shortcuts indicating the sources of the quotations—and they
are often mistaken in these shortcuts. For example, in the margin of Sinaiticus
at Matt 2:6, ησαιου (“from Isaiah”) is written, but the famous quotation stems
from Mic 5:1–3, and we read εν αριθμοις (“in Numbers”) at Matt 2:15, whereas
33 See K. McNamee, “Marginalia and Commentaries in Greek Literary Papyri” (Ph.D.,
University of Michigan, 1977). The first Christian example is P.Oxy. 3.405 (Camb. MS Add.
4413) containing Irenaeus’ comments (haer. III 9.3) on Matt 3:15–16.
34 The diplé also remained a general reference sign. Therefore, B used the diplé also to mark
an inner NT reference in one case: 2 Pet 1:17 (cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5).
35 See the contributions by M. Sigismund and U. Schmid in Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen
Testament—Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen (ANTF 43; ed. M. Karrer, S. Kreuzer, and
M. Sigismund; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 75–152 and A. Stokowski, “Diplé-Auszeichnungen
im Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (B): Liste nebst einigen Beobachtungen,” in Textual
History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und
Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60; ed. J. de Vries and M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL,
2013), 93–113.
36 In later times there are some differentiating developments; see J. de Vries,
“Texthervorhebungen und Marginalnotizen in den Codices Washingtonianus (W1) und
Coislianus (M). Überlegungen zur Textgeschichte,” in Worte der Weissagung. Studien
zu Septuaginta und Johannesoffenbarung (ABG 47; ed. J. Elschenbroich and J. de Vries;
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), 76–96.
120 Karrer
‫ א‬Matt 2:6 ‫ א‬Matt 2:15
Figure 5.1 Marginalia at Matt 2:6 and 2:15

© British Library Board, Add. MS 43725, fol. 200v, used with
permission
Hos 11:1 is more relevant.37 This fact confirms the observation that the scripto-
ria did not normally cross-check the manuscripts of the quoted books with the
text of the quotation itself.
5.2 The Variety of Textual Forms in New Testament Times

5.2.1 Overview
We have observed that NT authors quoted different Greek textual traditions.
These include the Old Greek, which was still widespread in the first century
CE, a textual form comparable to that used by Philo,38 a predecessor of Aquila
(see Table 5.2) and the kaige stream (e.g. Joel 3:2 in Act 2:18).
Some quotations, which are called in a NT convention pre- or proto-
Theodontic,39 are in the present research of the Septuagint aligned with Kaige
tendencies.40 Readings attested later by Symmachus (see Deut 32:35/Odes
2:35 in Rom 12:19 and Heb 10:30) also exist. Recent studies have, furthermore,
37 The Codex Sinaiticus is readily available at http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/de/manu-

script.aspx (accessed 6 March 2014).
38 See also Gen 2:2 in Heb 4:4 and Philo, Post. 64; Exod 25:40 in Heb 8:5 and Leg. 3.102; Prov
3:11 in Heb 12:5 and Philo, Congr. 177; the combination of quotations in Heb 13:5 and Philo,
Conf. 166.
39 See e.g. κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος in Isa 25:8Theo and 1 Cor 15:54. Cf. J. Schröter, “Das Alte
Testament im Urchristentum,” in Das Alte Testament in der Theologie (MJT 25; ed. E. Gräb-
Schmidt; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013), 49–81, esp. 64–65.
40 The long citation from Isa 42:1–4 in Matt 12:18–21 belongs to this tradition. See A. van der
Kooij, “The Septuagint, the Recension of Theodotion, and Beyond—Comments on the
Quotation from Isaiah 42 in Matthew 12,” in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture
in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60;
ed. J. de Vries and M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 201–218 (esp. 204). The evangelist may be
acquainted with the Hebrew language, but draws his quotations primarily from Jewish
Greek traditions.
identified a textual form of the Pentateuch represented by codex F (preserved

in the quotation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5).41 In the end one must assume that all
current strands of Jewish Greek traditions around the Septuagint were opera-
tive and influential in early Christianity.
5.2.2 The Antiochene or Lucianic Text

The so-called Antiochene or Lucianic text has also been emphasised in re-
cent research.42 Throughout the twentieth century, this textual form was usu-
ally considered to be younger than the NT. Only the historical books of the
Septuagint seemed to be an exception. But, in addition to a reference to the
Antiochene text of 3 Kgd 19:18 in Rom 11:4 (οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ),43 there
are also some reminiscences of the prophetic books in the NT. We noted this
phenomenon in the quotation of Isa 45:21 in Mark 12:32 (see §4.1), and the
quotation of Isa 40:8 in 1 Pet 1:25 could be added to the list (τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα κυρίου
[instead of τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν] μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα).44 Admittedly, the references
are rare. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that a textual prototype of the
Antiochene text must be older than the New Testament.
More observations in this direction can be identified concerning the Psalms.
Hebrews, especially, preserves Psalm variants that are part of the so-called
Lucianic tradition (e.g. πυρὸς φλόγα in Heb 1:7/Ps 103:4LXX ).45 Moreover, the
41 See J. de Vries, “Codex Ambrosianus and the New Testament,” in Textual History and the
Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen
Christentum (SCS 60; ed. J. de Vries and M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 63–78.
42 See S. Kreuzer, “Der antiochenische Text: seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das
Neue Testament,” in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—
Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60; ed. J. de Vries and
M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 169–188.
43 More references for the historical books are located in V. Spottorno, “The Status of
the Antiochene text in the First Century A.D.: Josephus and New Testament,” in Der
Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; ed.
S. Kreuzer and M. Sigismund; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 74–83.
44 S. Kreuzer, “Ursprüngliche Septuaginta (Old Greek) und hebraisierende Bearbeitung.
Die Entwicklung der Septuaginta in ihrer Bedeutung für die Zitate und Anspielungen
im Neuen Testament, untersucht anhand der Zitate im Dodekapropheton,” in Worte der
Weissagung. Studien zu Septuaginta und Johannesoffenbarung (ABG 47; ed. J. Elschenbroich
and J. de Vries; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), 17–55 has examined in addition
the quotations from the Dodekapropheton.
45 See S.E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish
Bible Interpretation (WUNT 2.260; Tübingen: Mohr, 2009) 134–135; cf. G.J. Steyn, A Quest for
the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT 235; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 72–81 (he notes the relevance of a lateral strand of the
Septuagint near to the Lucianic text and liturgical tradition) and M. Karrer, “Die Schriften
Israels im Hebräerbrief,” ThLZ 138 (2013): 1181–1196. Another example is examined in
122 Karrer
Lucianic/Antiochene text is—together with Alexandrinus—the main witness

for the short text of Psalm 13LXX (Psalm 14MT; cf. Rom 3:10–18). It is inevitable
that fresh research into the Antiochene text of the Psalms and their reception
in antiquity will be undertaken.46
5.2.3 A Special Case: The Book of Revelation

The book of Revelation attracted special attention in research as it extensively
uses Israel’s scriptures while not explicitly quoting. The author seems to be
acquainted with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek scriptural traditions. The discus-
sion on textual form remains open, but the tendency of recent research is to
emphasise the prevalence of the Greek tradition.47 This tendency corresponds
to the available evidence, although research sometimes identifies Hebrew
Vorlagen too.48
The complexity of the Greek tradition preserved in Rev is shown by the fol-
lowing examples: Ps 2:9 is used in Rev 2:27 according to the Septuagint; both
Rev 2:27 and Ps 2:9LXX read the unvocalised Hebrew ‫ תרעם‬as derivative from
the verb ‫“( רעה‬to shepherd,” ποιμαίνειν) and not from ‫“( רעע‬to break”) as it is
vocalised in the MT. Rev 2:23b reads ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας, a phrase that
is very similar to Jer 11:20Symm (only the spelling ἐρευνῶν differs). Rev 1:7 and
1:13 refer to DanΘ and DanLXX 7:13, and Rev 1:7 additionally to Zech 12:10–14 in
M. Karrer, “Die Väter in der Wüste: Text und Rezeption von LXX Ps 94 in Hebr 3,” in Text—
Textgeschichte—Textwirkung. Festschrift für Siegfried Kreuzer (AOAT 419; ed. T. Wagner,
J.M. Robker, and F. Ueberschaer; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014) 427–458; M.-L. Hermann,
Die hermeneutische Stunde des Hebräerbriefs: Schriftauslegung in Spannungsfeldern (HBS
72; Freiburg: Herder, 2013) is less interested in textual history than hermeneutics.
46 This topic was one subject of the DFG-sponsored research project on the Antiochene
Text in Wuppertal, directed by Siegfried Kreuzer. Cf. also M. Karrer, U. Schmid, and
M. Sigismund, “Textgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den Zusätzen in den Septuaginta-
Psalmen,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (WUNT 252; ed. W. Kraus,
M. Karrer, and M. Meiser; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010), 140–161.
47 A part of the Wuppertal project was devoted to this matter. See M. Labahn,
“Die Schriftrezeption in den großen Kodizes der Johannesoffenbarung,” in Die
Johannesoffenbarung—Ihr Text und ihre Auslegung (ABG 38; ed. M. Karrer and M. Labahn;
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 99–130; M. Labahn, “Die Septuaginta und
die Johannesapokalypse—Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Verhältnisbestimmung im
Spiegel von kreativer Intertextualität und Textentwicklungen,” in Die Johannesapokalypse:
Kontexte—Konzepte—Rezeption (WUNT 287; ed. J. Frey, J.A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 149–190 and other contributions. Garrick V. Allen has par-
ticipated also in this research: cf. The Book of Revelation and Early Jewish Textual Culture
(SNTSMS 168; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 105–167. Cf. also M. Karrer,
Johannesoffenbarung I Offb 1,1–5,14 (EKK 24/1, Ostfildern: Patmos 2017), 91–95.
48 See Garrick V. Allen, “Textual Pluriformity and Allusion in the Book of Revelation. The
Text of Zechariah 4 in the Apocalypse,” ZNW 106 (2015): 136–145.
a textual form similar to Aquila. Thus even Revelation, linguistically the most
Semitic book of the New Testament, refers to Greek versions of Israel’s scrip-
tures at least to a remarkable extent.49
table 5.7 Jer 10:7 and Rev 15:3–4
Jer 10:7MT ‫מי לא יראך מלך הגוים‬

Jer 10:7LXX verse missing
Jer 10:7Theo a τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ (σε) βασιλεῦ τῶν ἐθνῶν (σε in 86 marg., not in Q)
Rev 15:3–4 (NA28) ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ
Rev 15:3–4 p47 ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων τίς σε οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ
manuscripts ‫*א‬ βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων τίς σε οὐ φοβηθῇ
‫א‬ca βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν (and reinsertion of αἰώνων)b τίς σε οὐ
φοβηθῇ
A ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ (=NA28)
a See J. Ziegler, ed., Ieremias (SVTG 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 200.
b A.F.C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum (vol. 2; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 131*.
What is more, Juan Hernández has made the proposal that a Greek version
of Jer 10:7 is attested in Rev 15:3–4 (see Table 5.7).50 The matter is somewhat
complicated since the ‫ א‬and A text of Revelation differ. Nevertheless, the
reference is recognizable. The A text which is preferred by critical editions,
corresponds to JeremiahTheo to a large extend whereas the verse is missing in
JeremiahLXX . Therefore, Revelation A attests a quotation that is similar to the
text preserved in the Theodotianic stream of Jeremiah. If Revelation A is older
than JeremiahTheo, then Revelation is the first witness for the Greek translation
and a very early witness for the existence of this Jeremianic text in Hebrew
and Greek tradition (especially since the Vorlage of MT may be younger than
49 See for another example J. de Vries, “PsMT 86/PsLXX 85 in Offb 15,4bβ,” in Von der Septuaginta
zum Neuen Testament—Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen (ANTF 43; ed. M. Karrer, S. Kreuzer,
and M. Sigismund; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 417–423. Matters of intertextuality are dis-
cussed in M. Karrer, “Reception and Rewriting—Beobachtungen zu Schriftreferenzen
und Textgeschichte der Apk,” in Rewriting and Reception in and of the Bible. FS Mogens
Müller (WUNT 396; ed. J.T. Nielsen, J. Høgenhaven, and H. Omerzu; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2018), 207–234.
50 J. Hernández, “Recensional Activity and the Transmission of the Septuagint in John’s
Apocalypse,” in Die Johannesoffenbarung: ihr Text und ihre Auslegung (ABG 38; ed.
M. Karrer and M. Labahn; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 83–98 (esp. 96–98).
124 Karrer
the Vorlage of LXX). The S-text of Revelation weakens the reference.51 Hence,
the enquiry must continue. The textual history of that verse in Revelation is
relevant either way.
5.3 Consequences for Critical Editions

The relationship between quoted and quoting texts is complicated, as we
have seen. Therefore, it is desirable to avoid unnecessary impediments, when
it comes to the creation of critical editions of the Septuagint and the New
Testament. We have already noted two aspects where the editorial reflection
should be directed. First, the spelling of particles is not standardized through-
out (a consequence of the Greek lectio continua), and the placement of quota-
tion markers (esp. ὅτι) should be examined in the offset text of NT quotations
(see above).
table 5.8 Stylistic Differences in the Editions
Ps 15:8LXX LXX main Acts 2:25 (NA28) NT main manuscripts

προωρώμην τὸν manuscripts προορώμην τὸν προορωμην ‫ א‬A B*
κύριον προορωμην S A B* κύριον προωρωμην B2
προωρωμην L´ Bc
Isa 53:7LXX LXX main Acts 8:32 (NA28) NT main manuscripts
ἐναντίον τοῦ manuscripts ἐναντίον τοῦ κείραντος A S
κείροντος αὐτόν κείραντος A Sca κείραντος αὐτόν κείροντος B
(participle present κείροντος B S* (participle aorist
tense) tense)
Secondly, we need to add two stylistic phenomena in the morphology of the

verb. Manuscripts and editions variegate verbal forms according to classical
Greek or Koiné (where, e.g., the temporal augments of composite verbs are
sometimes lost). Table 5.8 offers, as an example, the spelling of Ps 15:8 in the
Septuagint and in Acts 2:25. The main manuscripts are remarkably uniform
here: Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (first hand) concordantly choose
the Koiné form προορώμην to represent the text of Ps 15:8 and its quotation
in Acts 2:25. However, the stylistic preferences of the editors differ in the
51 The so called S-text (p47 ‫ )א‬has τῶν αἰώνων against ‫ הגוים‬in Jeremiah. Therefore, the refe
rence to Jeremiah is blurred, if the S text preserves the archetype of Revelation. But then
JeremiahTheo could have secondarily influenced the A-text and ‫א‬ca; esp. τῶν ἐθνῶν then
would be derived from the younger history of the Greek Jeremiah.
Septuagint and NA28. NA28 follows the main manuscripts and prints the Koiné
form. Rahlfs, on the contrary, favours the classical form προωρώμην, against
the great uncials, supposing that the classical form is older. An uniformed
reader will perceive a difference in the quoted text whereas a difference does
not necessarily exist.
Moreover, the visible textual history shows a development from the Koiné-
to the classical form in our case. The classical spelling conventions are intro-
duced into the NT transmission not earlier than by a corrector of B and some
select minuscules (18c 424 1739). The same phenomenon is especially obvious
in a correction of B at Ps 15:8LXX (B2 / Bc). Therefore, the Atticistic form is young
in the manuscripts. However, stylistic preferences change through the centu-
ries, indicating that the Atticistic form may have been used earlier even if is not
attested immediately. A way out of the dilemma is found if one considers the
Lucianic text of the LXX Psalms to be old (προωρωμην L´) and not a recension
of late antiquity as Rahlfs supposed.52 The present research on the Antiochene
text proves to be important again, and yet, in the moment it cannot be deter-
mined that the OG used the Atticistic form. Consequently, it would be helpful
to note the problem of diachronic spelling conventions in the editions and to
use the same verb forms in the quotation and the quoted text.
The other example in Table 5.9 contrasts the present participle and aor-
ist participle of a verb. The quotation of Isa 53:7 in Acts 8:32 illustrates the
problem:53 Older editions of the New Testament (and Holtz’ special study)54
preferred κείροντος following B (and 33 and many other manuscripts). Modern
critical editions of the New Testament, however, favour κείραντος following A
and S (NA28). At the same time, reconstructions of the Septuagint continue
to follow B. The uninformed reader supposes a difference in the manuscripts
whereas the case is very similar in the LXX and the New Testament (Isa 53:7
B κείροντος, Sc and A κείραντος). Ziegler noted this parallel in the apparatus
of his 1983 edition. The informed reader using the apparatus becomes aware
of the artificial problem. Yet, one must look for a way in the future that ena
bles modern readers to detect the correspondence between quoted and quo
ting text in the manuscripts without looking into the apparatus of the critical
editions.
52 Rahlfs, Psalmi, 60.

53 Cf. M. Karrer, U. Schmid, and M. Sigismund, “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Zeuge für
den LXX-Text des Jesaja-Buches,” in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and
Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL 224; ed. H. Ausloos, B.
Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne; Leuven: Peeters 2008), 253–274 (esp. 258–260).
54 T. Holtz, Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TUGAL 104; Berlin:
Akademie, 1968), 31–32.
126 Karrer
I add another and even more relevant update in research that I mentioned
above. The older editorial work in the Septuagint was convinced that the New
Testament influenced the Septuagint transmission. That was in fact an error
as far as we can see today. There are some influences from the Septuagint and
adjacent textual forms (up to the so-called younger translations) on the New
Testament text, but no significant influences from the New Testament on the
transmission of the Septuagint. Therefore, all the places must be proven again
where the edition of the Septuagint notes “ex Novo Testamento” (or similar),
about 27 quotations.55
Surely, it would be overhasty to criticize the present reconstructions of
the Old Greek. Alterations in the reconstructed Old Greek will be needed
only rarely. For the moment, the most relevant correction must be made in
Ps 39:7LXX where Rahlfs chose ὠτία against all Greek manuscripts being con-
vinced that the thoroughly attested word σῶμα was prompted by Heb 10:5.56
Pap. Bodmer 24, which was not known to Rahlfs, supports σῶμα. The new man-
uscript changes the perception of the data decisively in favour of σῶμα as the
Old Greek reading.57
In most cases, it will suffice to adjust the reconstruction of the textual histo-
ry and the hints to the New Testament in the apparatus of the Septuagint edi-
tions. And yet, it would make sense to present the younger textual strands in a
future electronic edition of the Septuagint in a way usable by New Testament
scholars and New Testament readers. If this is accomplished, the deep relation
between Septuagint and New Testament would become more readily visible
than it currently is in critical editions.
6 Conclusion
Our path has been winding. We have moved from the analysis of single
quotations to peculiarities in the main manuscripts, and from the textual
(pre-)history of the Jesus tradition to lateral strands, including recensions and
55 See the list in M. Millard, K. Heider, C. Klein, and C. Veldboer, “Verweise in der Handausgabe
von Rahlfs/Hanhart und der Göttinger Ausgabe der Septuaginta auf das Neue Testament,”
in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und
Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60; ed. J. de Vries and M. Karrer; Atlanta: SBL,
2013) 153–168.
56 Rahlfs, Psalmi, 143.
57 Cf. M. Karrer, “LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7,” in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in
Reception (LHBOTS 527; ed. D.J. Human and G.J. Steyn; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 126–146.
stylistic phenomena in the transmission of the Septuagint. In the end, we can

summarize some clear results:
1. Jesus and his followers lived with the scriptures of Israel. They did not
only know words of the scriptures by heart, but often had also access to
manuscripts of the books that later became the Septuagint or the Hebrew
Bible. They quoted extensively from these scriptures.
2. Singular quotations refer back to an Aramaic or Hebrew text. The most
famous example is Jesus’ cry on the cross using Ps 22:2. However, that quo-
tation was translated at an early stage. The other quotations in the Jesus
tradition cohere throughout with the wordings of Jewish Greek scriptural
tradition. The Septuagint, and adjacent Greek textual forms, therefore,
are the more relevant sources for the NT authors than the Hebrew text.
3. The first Christians used all the extant textual forms of their time: Old
Greek, slightly altered Greek texts, manuscripts influenced by kaige,
Antiochene-Lucianic forms, and prototypes of the so-called younger
translations (Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila). Hence, early Christian
quotations provide insight into the textual history of the Greek tradition
from the Old Greek to the late antiquity.
4. The quotations of the New Testament normally did not influence the
Septuagint text, and if there were influences from the Septuagint to man-
uscripts of the New Testament, they did not dominate the main strand
of the textual history. Therefore, the textual value of the quotations must
be upgraded. The early Christian quotations can be used as textual wit-
nesses for the Septuagint and adjacent Jewish Greek traditions.
5. The intensive use of the Greek scriptures of Israel demands high atten-
tion for the Jewish Greek contexts of the New Testament, and the inter-
pretation of the New Testament must devote theological considerations
to the Greek scriptures of Israel. The shape of the Septuagint and the
other Greek textual forms used by the first Christians must become fur-
ther highlighted in future research.
Chapter 7
The Return of the Shepherd: Zechariah 13:7–14:6 as

an Interpretive Framework for Mark 13
Paul Sloan
This study offers a paradigm by which to understand afresh a passage well-

worn with debate. Discussions of Mark 13 range from its literary integrity and
unity with the rest of Mark, to the historicity of the discourse as a teaching
of Jesus. Naturally space and the nature of this volume do not allow pursuit
of each of these topics. Instead, this essay explores the arrangement of the
discourse, some of its allusions to Zechariah, and the consequent interpreta-
tion of Mark 13:26, ultimately arguing that it refers to Jesus’ second coming.
Though the majority of scholars indeed take this verse to refer to Jesus’ fu-
ture parousia,1 a growing number have challenged this traditional position and
proposed alternatives, and their position invites further dialogue.2 Moreover,
1 For the classic history of interpretation on Mark 13, including a defence of the traditional
“second coming” interpretation, see George Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The
Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993). See also Larry Hurtado,
Mark (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 211–227; Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 336–350; Robert Stein, Mark
(BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 584; idem, Jesus, the Temple, and the Coming Son of Man:
A Commentary on Mark 13 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2014).
2 Among the challengers of the traditional view are G.B. Caird and L.D. Hurst, New Testament
Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 365–367; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God:
Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 339–368 (hereaf-
ter JVG); Thomas Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27: The Parousia, or Destruction of the
Temple?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43–66; Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel:
The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); R.T. France, The
Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
532–542; Michael Bird, “Tearing the Heavens and Shaking the Heavenlies: Mark’s Cosmology
in its Apocalyptic Context,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology (ed. J. Pennington and
S. McDonough; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 56. I should clarify that by defending that Mark 13
depicts Jesus’ “second coming,” I do not also defend a rapture and/or an “end of the space-
time universe.” On the unnecessary conjoining of such interpretations, see Dale Allison’s cri-
tique of N.T. Wright’s reading of “apocalyptic,” and Wright’s response: Dale Allison, “Jesus and
the Victory of Apocalyptic,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel (ed. C. Newman; Downers
Grove: IVP, 1999), 126–141, and Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response,” in the same vol-
ume, 261–268. One can, and I do, believe that Mark 13 describes the fall of Jerusalem and the
temple, the second coming of Jesus, and the restoration of the people of God, all without

The Return of the Shepherd 129
the history of interpretation of the discourse demonstrates a consistent crux

interpretum, namely the question as to why Mark’s Jesus would answer a ques-
tion about the destruction of the temple (13:4) with reference to his second
coming (13:24–27). These events—the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple
and the return of Jesus—are seemingly unrelated, and thus their collocation
within the single discourse demonstrates, so the argument goes, both the com-
posite nature of the discourse and the weakness of the author’s editorial savvy.
Solutions to this purported dilemma include claiming that Mark conjoined the
events because each was of eschatological import,3 or, alternatively, claiming
that “the coming of the Son of Man” does not refer to Jesus’ second coming
but to the temple’s destruction.4 The former solution is not necessarily wrong,
though it certainly lacks precision and a satisfactory explanation. The latter
solution and its expositors are ingenious, but the proposal contains many in-
terpretative flaws that preclude an unqualified acceptance. In light of these
persistent dilemmas, and in keeping with the present volume’s theme of read-
ing strategies and the reuse of scripture, I propose that Mark 13 be interpreted
in the light of Zech 13:7–14:6.
More specifically, I suggest that Mark 13 exhibits an eschatological scenario
influenced by the events and sequences of Zech 13:7–14:6, evident by numer-
ous allusions to the latter text throughout the discourse.5 Zechariah 13–14 pres-
ents a scenario in which God’s “shepherd” is stricken (13:7), the sheep of that
shepherd scatter (13:7), the land of Israel experiences tribulation (13:8), God’s
covenantal people are refined (13:9), Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles (14:1–2),
houses are ransacked, women are defiled, and half of the city-dwellers are ex-
iled (14:2), the route of safety for God’s people is flight through the mountains
(14:5), and finally, the Lord comes with his angels in the midst of failing light
(14:5–6). These events are paralleled in Mark 13–14, evident by lexical and fig-
ural parity, in the form of Jesus as the stricken shepherd (14:27), the disciples
as the scattered sheep (14:27), and the tribulation that follows Jesus’ execution
(Mark 13). In Mark 13, the tribulation follows the sequence of Zech 13–14 above,
namely: the land experiences tribulation (Mark 13:7–8), the people of God are
refined (13:9–13), Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles, with explicit reference to
disunity, and all without resorting to a rapture and/or material collapse of the space-time
universe.
3 See e.g. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 292;
Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 336–42; Stein, Mark, 599 n.8.
4 See note 2.
5 The discourse alludes to many other texts, including Daniel, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. This
essay does not suggest that Zechariah is the sole influence of Mark 13, but rather a very sig-
nificant one among many.
130 Sloan
houses, women, and a warning not to re-enter the city (13:14–19), a command
to flee through the mountains for safety (13:14), and finally the advent of the
Son of Man with his angels in the midst of failing luminaries (13:24–27). In light
of this proposed influence, Mark’s arrangement of the discourse is not random
or sloppy, but is instead indebted to Jewish scriptural prophecy which Mark
presents as theoretically fulfilled by the teaching and future advent of the Son
of Man, Jesus. If the argument is successful it would theoretically answer two
crux interpreta: the arrangement of the discourse as problematized above, and
the reference of the “coming of the Son of Man” in 13:26. Space does not permit
examining each of the proposed parallels above;6 instead, I hope the detailed
interpretation of four passages will illustrate the plausibility of the whole case.
I will argue (1) that in Mark 14:27, Jesus is warning his disciples that their tribu-
lations will begin after his execution; (2) that Mark 13 opens with an allusion to
Zechariah 14, potentially alerting a scripturally-literate audience to its context,
while also linking Jesus’ warnings in Mark 13 with his warning in Mark 14:27;
(3) that Mark 13:14–17 alludes to Zech 14:1–2; and (4) that Mark 8:38 and 13:26
refer to the same event—the future advent of the Son of Man—and that those
verses allude to the angel-accompanied theophany of the Lord in Zech 14:5.
However, before turning to these arguments, I begin by summarizing and cri-
tiquing the proposal that Mark 13 refers only to the destruction of the temple,
as that view constitutes a challenge to the present interpretation.
1 Mark 13:26 and the Destruction of the Temple
This summary will interact primarily with N.T. Wright’s view of Mark 13 as it is
one of the single lengthiest expositions of the discourse, and because it serves
well as a representative example of the notion that Mark 13:26 refers exclu-
sively to the destruction of the temple.7 In Wright’s interpretation, Jesus uses
“apocalyptic language,” that is, highly charged language, often metaphorical,
that invests real events in space and time with their theological significance in
order to describe the vindication of Israel.8 Israel’s vindication will come in the
ironic form of the destruction of her temple, serving to uphold Jesus’ prophecy
6 For comprehensive argumentation for each suggested allusion and the consequent inter-
pretation of Mark 13, see Paul Sloan, “Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd: The Narrative
Logic of Zechariah in Mark,” (PhD diss., University of St Andrews, 2016).
7 For his full treatment, see Wright, New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992), 291–297 (hereafter NTPG); JVG, 339–368. For additional helpful reading, see
the chapters by Allison and Wright from Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in note 3.
8 See Wright, NTPG, 280–338, esp. 283–285.
and thereby demonstrating that Jesus and his followers constitute the true
people of God.9 The “falling stars” and “darkening sun,” in Wright’s view, are
neither literal nor hyperbolic descriptions of concomitant cosmic disturbanc-
es; rather, they are taken from classic judgment texts in Israel’s scriptures, such
as Isaiah 13 and 34, and serve as metaphors for God’s judgment upon a particu-
lar people. The sting in Jesus’ use of these images lies in their application not
to Babylon, Edom, or Egypt, but to Jerusalem and her temple.10
As Mark 13:26 alludes to Dan 7:13’s “son of man,” critical to Wright’s read-
ing of Mark 13 is his interpretation of Daniel 7. He understands the “one like
a son of man” in Daniel to refer not to some heavenly individual, but to the
collective people of Israel. Such an interpretation is based on what he takes to
be a clearly metaphorical vision wherein each beast that arises out of the sea
represents (in the literary sense) an oppressive kingdom. In similar fashion,
the human-like figure functions as a literary representation of a people, in this
case, the people of God, whom Wright takes to be the referent of both “the
holy ones” and “the people of the holy ones.”11 Furthermore, insists Wright, the
movement of the human-like figure is not from heaven to earth, but from earth
to heaven, or more specifically, to God’s throne.12
Understanding each element of Daniel 7 as such yields the following pic-
ture: the pagan nations oppressing Israel will be defeated, and Israel (signified
by the “one like a son of man”) will be vindicated as the true people of God;
they will be exalted and given an everlasting dominion. The application of the
above reading of Daniel 7 to Mark 13, then, simply gives names to the charac-
ters, producing something like the following: the true people of God will be
vindicated and Israel’s oppressors will be judged; the implied oppressors, how-
ever, are neither Babylon of old nor the Romans, but Jerusalem and her corrupt
temple regime. Jesus and his followers constitute the people of God, literarily
represented by the “son of man” of Dan 7:13, and their vindication will come by
way of the destruction of the temple. Wright summarizes concisely:
The ‘coming of the son of man’ is thus good first-century metaphorical

language for two things: the defeat of the enemies of the true people of
god, and the vindication of the true people themselves. Thus, the form
9 Wright, JVG, 364–365.

10 Ibid., 348–358. See also Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27” and France, Mark, 533.
Each of these is naturally influenced by G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the
Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), particularly 113–117, and Caird and Hurst, New
Testament Theology, 365–367.
11 Wright, NTPG, 295.
12 Ibid.; JVG, 361.
132 Sloan
that this vindication will take, as envisaged within Mark 13 and its paral-
lels, will be precisely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.13
Thus the temple’s destruction will vindicate Jesus’ prophecy and thereby vin-
dicate Jesus’ disciples as the newly constituted people of God, and it will serve
as a sign that Jesus’ “angels,” that is, his “messengers,”14 should embark to “sum-
mon people from the north, south, east and west to come and sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of YHWH.”15
Vital for Wright’s interpretation is that the “son of man” in Daniel 7 is a liter-
ary symbol for the collective people of God, and that the “holy ones” or “saints”
in Dan 7:18 refers to the “the people of God” rather than angels. Wright’s view
must resist the notion that “the holy ones” refers to an angelic host because
he views the vision as a metaphor for the vindication of the earthly people of
Israel, and thus to concede that the “holy ones” are angels might lead to under-
standing the “son of man” as their sociological representative or leader. Crucial
to his view, then, is the referential equation in Daniel 7 of “the holy ones of
the Most High” with “the people of the holy ones,” both of which must then be
intended by their literary representation, “the one like a son of man.”16 Close
inspection of Daniel 7 in its own right, however, does not easily yield such an
interpretation.
In his commentary on Daniel, John Collins provides numerous references
in which the substantive use of “the holy ones,” as it appears in Daniel 7, refers
exclusively and certainly to the angelic host.17 Collins describes the symbolic
universe in which Daniel’s vision operates as one containing earthly parts with
their corresponding heavenly parts.18 This means that the Jewish people on
earth have their heavenly counterparts in “the holy ones of the Most High.”
So, for example, a heavenly war in which the angelic host were fighting would
have as its observable referent the persecution, or battles, of Israel. In the case
13 Wright, JVG, 362.

14 Ibid., 363.
15 Ibid.
16 This summary is explained well by Collins, though his view differs from Wright’s. See John
J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993), 309.
17 Prov 9:10; 30:3; Hos 12:1; Ps 89:6, 8; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5; Deut 33:2 and Exod 15:11 if OG
reading is accepted; 1QM 1:16; 10:11–12; 12:1, 4, 7; 15:14; 1QS 11:7–8; 1QH 3:21–22; 4:24–25;
10:35; 1QDM 4:1; 1QSb 1:5; 1QapGen 2:1; 11QMelch 1:9; 4Q181 1:3–6; numerous instances in
4QShirShabb; 1 En. 1:9; 9:3; 12:2; 93:6; 103:2; 106:19; 108:3; see esp. 14:23, 25 (in a context simi-
lar to Daniel 7); Sir 42:17; 45:2; Jub. 17:11; 31:14; 33:12; Tob 8:15 and Pss. Sol. 17:43; Wis 5:5 and
10:10. All references from Collins, Daniel, 312–317.
18 Ibid., 318.
of Daniel 7’s vision, then, the “war against the saints of the Most High” has
as its parallel the persecution of the Jewish people, likely by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes.19 Thus, whatever benefits the “saints of the Most High,” the angelic
host, likewise benefits the people, Israel. But they are not referential equals.
Thus the “holy ones” plausibly refers to the angelic host,20 and “the people of
the holy ones”21 refers to Israel.
The interpretation of “the one like a son of man” remains. Wright under-
stands the figure as a literary symbol for the collective people of God.22 Despite
claims that the “collective” reading was widespread and immediately recogniz-
able in the first century,23 it is actually not attested among Christians until the
fourth century24 and not among Jewish circles until the Middle Ages.25 In fact,
the earliest identifiable reuses of the “son of man” appear to be in 1 Enoch and
4 Ezra, and in these cases he functions as a heavenly, individual figure who is
often given a messianic role/identity.26
To be sure, the “one like a son of man” appears alongside four beasts which
function as allegories for kings and their kingdoms. This picture has led in-
terpreters to suggest that the “son of man” likewise functions as an allegory
for a people group. However, while the beasts do indeed function as allego-
ries and are designated an interpretation,27 the “son of man” functions as a
“mythic-realistic”28 figure who receives no such interpretation, is distinct from
the beasts, the Ancient of days, the holy ones, and the people of the holy ones,
and who is likely to be identified with Michael, the leader of the angelic host.29
This datum, in conjunction with the above-noted reuse of the “son of man”
by 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra as an individual, and the identification of “the son of
man” in Mark with the individual, Jesus, leans heavily against the “collective”
interpretation.
19 Dan 7:25.

20 Dan 7:26.
21 Dan 7:27.
22 Wright, of course, is not alone in this. See also Caird, Hatina, and France in the works
previously cited.
23 Wright, NTPG, 292–293.
24 So Collins, Daniel, 307–308, citing a commentary by Ephrem Syrus.
25 Ibid.
26 See e.g. Edward Adams, “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” Tyndale
Bulletin 56.2 (2005): 39–61, esp. 44–47; Collins, Daniel, 306–371, for their interpretations of
1 Enoch 46, 48, 52 and 4 Ezra 13.
27 Dan 7:17, 25.
28 Collins’ term and explanation (Daniel, 317–318).
29 See Collins, Daniel, 317–318. So also Grant Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated
Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 172.
134 Sloan
In conclusion, the reading that interprets the “coming of the son of man” in
Mark as the vindication of Israel does so by (1) interpreting the “son of man”
in Daniel as a literary representation for the people of God, and (2) referen-
tially equating “the holy ones of the most High” with “the people of the holy
ones,” and equating the two groups with their supposed literary symbol, “the
one like a son of man.” Neither claim, however, is supported by an examination
of Daniel on its own right, or by attested reuses of the same material.30 Such
arguments work against the view that when the Markan Jesus speaks of “the
son of man coming on the clouds,” he means the vindication of Israel via the
destruction of the temple. I turn now to my case for Zechariah’s influence in
Mark 13–14.
2 Zechariah in Mark 13–14
In Mark 14:27–28, Jesus tells his disciples: “You will all fall away (πάντες
σκανδαλισθήσεσθε), because it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and
the sheep shall be scattered.’ But after I have been raised, I will go before you
to Galilee.” Here Jesus self-identifies as the shepherd who will be struck, and
he identifies his disciples as the sheep who will scatter because of (and there-
fore after) the striking of the shepherd. The consensus interpretation of this
saying is that Jesus is the stricken shepherd, and that the disciples will flee
at his arrest.31 Consequently, per the consensus, Jesus’ being “stricken” refers
30 I must clarify an important point here. I affirm that Mark 13 has much to do with the
destruction of the temple, and that it contains an implicit statement of judgment against
Jerusalem and her rulers. I also affirm that Mark 13 describes a vindication of Jesus and his
people as “the people of God.” I simply see the explicit answer to the disciples’ question(s)
regarding the timing of the destruction of the temple contained in Mark 13:14–19. Those
verses describe a period of increased tribulation which includes the “abomination of
desolation,” which I take to refer to the temple’s profanation and the sign of its imminent
destruction, at which point the disciples should flee. Mark 13:24 then describes a distinct
event, after that tribulation, which is the concomitant cosmic upheaval (literal or hyper-
bolic) at Jesus’ return.
31 William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: the English Text with Introduction, Exposition
and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 511; Douglas Moo, The Old Testament
in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 216–217; Hurtado, Mark, 244;
Morna Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark (BNTC; London: A&C
Black, 1991), 345; Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old
Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: WJK, 1992), 154–159; Susan Garrett, The
Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 144–145; Adela
Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 670–671;
Stein, Mark, 654; Mark C. Black, “The Messianic Use of Zechariah 9–14 in Matthew, Mark,
to his arrest, and the prediction of “falling away” and “scattering” refer to the
same event, namely, the disciples’ “fleeing” after the arrest. If this interpreta-
tion were accurate, it would preclude, or at least diminish the plausibility of,
my suggestion, which is that Jesus’ “striking” refers to his death, and that the
disciples’ “falling away” and “scattering” refers to their endurance of the es-
chatological tribulations (=Mark 13) that ensue upon Jesus’ death.32 That the
“striking” Jesus predicts in Mark 14:27 on the basis of Zech 13:7 refers not to
his arrest, per the consensus, but to his death is most likely, for if he were only
referring to his arrest, it would be strange for him immediately to reassure his
disciples that he would be raised from the dead (Mark 14:28). In light of his res-
urrection prediction after warning of his imminent “striking,” the most plau-
sible referent of his “striking” is his execution.33 Thus, the disciples’ scattering
that follows the “striking” likely does not refer to their flight from the garden,
as Jesus teaches that their scattering occurs on the basis of, and therefore after,
his execution. Accordingly, I propose that the disciples’ “scattering” and “fall-
ing away” refers to the tribulations they endure after the execution of Jesus,
and the most plausible candidate for the content of such tribulations are those
Jesus predicts in Mark 13.
In support of my argument that their “falling away” does not refer to their
flight is the fact that whenever Jesus makes a prediction in Mark, the narration
of its fulfilment repeats several distinct words of his prediction.34 However, in
and the Pre-Markan Tradition,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and
Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (NTSup 129; ed. P. Gray and G. O’Day; Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 102–103; Charlene McAfee Moss, Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel
of Matthew (BZNW 156; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 165–166. With the exception of Lane,
most of these works are consciously following Moo’s interpretation, approvingly citing
his work throughout their own. For interpretations against this consensus, and more in
line with the present proposal, cf. Max Wilcox, “The Denial-Sequence in Mark 14:26–31,
66–72,” NTS 17.4 (1971): 426–436; Cilliers Breytenbach, “The Minor Prophets in Mark’s
Gospel,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (LNTS 377; ed. M.J.J. Menken and S.
Moyise; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 27–37; David S. du Toit, Der abwesende Herr. Strategien
im Markusevangelium zur Bewältigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstandenen (WMANT 111;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006), 136–139.
32 In my proposal, their flight from the garden might be part of these tribulations, but it does
not exhaust Jesus’ meaning that they would “fall away” and “scatter.”
33 So also du Toit, Der abwesende Herr, 136.
34 Several examples could be adduced, but space only permits elaborating one. In Mark
14:13–15, Jesus tells two of his disciples to go “into the city” (εἰς τὴν πόλιν), and he gives
them directions about following a man with a pitcher of water: wherever that man enters,
they should follow, and there they will find a large, furnished room. Jesus concludes, “And
prepare for us there” (καὶ ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν). The narration of this event in 14:16 partially
reads, “And they went into the city (εἰς τὴν πόλιν), and they found it just as he told them
(εὗρον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς), and they prepared the Passover” (καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα). Thus
136 Sloan
Mark 14:27–28, Jesus predicts that they will all “fall away” (σκανδαλισθήσεσθε)
because it is written that the sheep will “scatter” (διασκορπισθήσονται), and in
the purported fulfilment of this prediction vis-à-vis the disciples’ flight, Mark
14:50 says, “They fled” (ἔφυγον). In other words, no extensive lexical overlap
obtains between Jesus’ prediction that they would “fall away” and “scatter” and
the narration of their flight from the garden. In fact, the only repeated word
between the prediction of “falling away”/“scattering” and the narration of their
flight is “all” (πάντες); however, the referents are different in each context. In
the prediction that “all” would fall away, the audience is the eleven remaining
disciples (Judas having already left to betray him). In Mark 14:50, the “all” who
flee refers to those with Jesus, namely Peter, James, and John.35 Accordingly, in
light of Mark’s propensity to repeat the words of Jesus’ predictions in the nar-
ration of their fulfilment, their flight from the garden is likely not the fulfilment
of Jesus’ prediction that they would “fall away” or “scatter,” leaving open the
question of what Jesus’ prediction actually refers to. As mentioned, I propose
that it refers to the eschatological tribulations Jesus had already predicted in
Mark 13. At least six pieces of data support this conclusion:
1. The context of the utilized quotation of Zech 13:7 indicates that God’s
covenantal people will be “refined by fire” after the striking of the shep-
herd. In Zech 13:7–9, the shepherd is struck (13:7), the land of Israel is
afflicted (13:8), presumably by war (13:8), and God’s covenantal people
are refined by fire (13:9).36 If this larger context of Zech 13:7–9 is meant to
the disciples do just as Jesus tells them, the narrator declares that it all happened as Jesus
said, and the narration repeats words of Jesus’ directions. For additional examples, see
(1) Mark 11:2–5, in which Jesus tells the disciples to retrieve a colt. He tells them what
to do, what they would see, and what bystanders might say. The narration of this task
repeats words from Jesus’ statements, and the bystanders ask precisely what Jesus said
they would; (2) Mark 8:31 and 10:33, in which Jesus predicts rejection, being handed over,
and death, and the narration of these events in Mark 14:10, 43, 64, and 15:1. In each case,
the narration of the fulfilment repeats the wording of the prediction with respect to the
agents of rejection and condemnation, the action taken, and the sequence of the actions;
(3) Mark 14:18, in which Jesus predicts betrayal, and its narration in 14:42; (4) Mark 10:34, in
which Jesus predicts his particular afflictions, including being “mocked,” “spit upon,” and
“killed,” and the narration of these events in 14:1, 65, and 15:17–20, in which he is “mocked,”
“spat upon,” and “killed”; (5) 14:30, in which Jesus predicts Peter’s denial before the rooster
crows, and its fulfilment in 14:72, in which the narrator restates Jesus’ prophecy verbatim.
35 So du Toit, Der abwesende Herr, 139.
36 Zechariah 13:9 reads: “And I [God] will bring the third part [of God’s people] through
the fire, refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on
my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The
LORD is my God’” (NASB). This adequately renders Septuagintal versions as well. Mark’s
quotation of Zech 13:7 plausibly translates proto-MT Zech 13:7 (see quotation of Zech 13:7
inform Mark’s usage of Zech 13:7, then it is reasonable to conclude that

Mark’s Jesus is saying that the people of God will undergo their refining
after the striking of the shepherd (=Jesus’ death). Such refining seems to
be the type of affliction Jesus is describing in Mark 13.37 Evidence that
Mark does intend this context of Zechariah is provided in point (2) below.
2. In Mark 9:42–49, Jesus calls his disciples “little ones” (the plural substan-
tive of ὁ μικρός), gives them warnings regarding Gehenna, and tells them
that all will be salted with fire (9:49). The latter verse reads in full: Πᾶς γὰρ
πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται. Given the positive references to “saltiness” applied to
the disciples in 9:50, most scholars take 9:49 to apply to Jesus’ disciples as
well. Thus, Jesus’ disciples will be salted with fire. The consensus interpre-
tation of the “fire” in 9:49 is that it refers to the life of purifying affliction
and suffering that Jesus’ disciples will undergo.38 The use of “little ones”
and Jesus’ declaration that they will all endure “fire” is a likely allusion to
Zech 13:7–9.39 Two elements of the Markan text support this proposal.
First, Zech 13:7 and Mark 9:42–49 each refer to “the people of God” as “the
little ones.” Use of this Greek nomenclature in Israel’s scriptures in refer-
ence to God’s people is unique to LXX Zech 13:7. Zechariah 13:7 declares
that God will strike the shepherd, and then turn his hand upon “the little
ones” (‫הצערים‬/τοὺς μικρούς).40 ‫ צער‬occurs thirteen times in MT. Ten of
in Damascus Document, ms. B, 19:5–7) thus it is uncertain whether Mark’s Vorlage, or the
Vorlage of his tradition, is Hebrew or Greek. For a comparison of the linguistic data, see
Moo, Old Testament, 183–184, and M.J.J. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd: Early Christian
Versions and Interpretations of Zechariah 13,7,” Biblica 92.1 (2011): 39–59 (esp. 45). The
present consensus is that Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27 could be based on proto-MT or LXX.
37 See Mark 13:13.
38 See e.g. Lane, Mark, 349; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 73; France, Mark, 384; Stein, Mark, 450;
Karl Matthias Schmidt, Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des
Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 92. Schmidt refers the
saying to the future martyrdom of the apostles.
39 Many scholars rightly recognize an allusion to Lev 2:13 in the words of Mark 9:49. See
Weston Fields’ summary of interpretation in “Everyone Will Be Salted With Fire (Mark
9:49),” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985): 299–304. See also Lane, Mark, 349; Evans,
Mark 8:27–16:20, 73; France, Mark, 384; Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AYB 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 692.
Provided the sacrificial context of Lev 2:13, the purifying effects of fire, and the Markan
context that exhorts fidelity and warns of judgment, Mark 9:49 arguably refers to the ne-
cessity of purification. The disciples’ being “salted” suggests their lives are offered as sacri-
fices to God, and in this case, the seasoning is “fire,” which probably refers to the purifying
and transforming effects of discipleship and persecution.
40 The reading “upon the little ones” (ἐπὶ τοὺς μικρούς) in Zech 13:7c is present in LXX B–S
(original reading), Syro-hexaplaric (corrected textual reading), and Symmachus. LXX W
contains “upon the shepherds” (ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας). The latter is present in the main text
138 Sloan
those occurrences refer to the location, Zoar,41 two occurrences are as the
adjective “insignificant,”42 and the remaining instance is Zech 13:7. It is
the only instance of the use of the plural substantive “little ones” in refer-
ence to God’s people.43 In Septuagintal texts outside of Zech 13:9 there
are over 160 uses of the adjective μικρός in various forms. None but Zech
13:7 refers to the people of God as an entity. In light of the uniqueness of
this appellation to Zech 13:7 in Hebrew and Greek versions, it is plausible
that Mark’s use of it is influenced by Zechariah. Second, in Zech 13:9, God
will take these “little ones” “through the fire” (‫ ;באש‬διὰ πυρός), referring
to their purification. Similarly, in Mark 9:49 it is “these little ones” who
will be salted “with fire” (πυρί). The combination of these features (“little
ones” and “fire”) is unique to Zech 13:7–9, and their combined presence
in Mark 9:42–49 again suggests the influence of Zechariah. Accordingly,
Jesus calling his disciples “little ones” and telling them that they will en-
dure a purifying “fire” supports the notion that Zech 13:7–9 influences this
teaching.44 I suggest that this purifying fire consists of the afflictions de-
scribed in Mark 13, particularly vs. 9–13.45
of Rahlfs’ edition, which may explain why recognizing an allusion to Zech 13:7–9 in Mark
9:49 is not typical.
41 Gen 13:10; 14:2, 8; 19:22, 23, 30 (x2); 34:3; Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34.
42 Job 14:21; Jer 30:19.
43 MT Jer 50:45 uses ‫“ צעירי‬little ones” in reference to Babylonians. LXX Jer (27:45) translates
its Vorlage τὰ ἀρνία.
44 Interestingly, CDB 19:9 identifies the “little ones” of Zech 13:7 with the “afflicted ones” of
Zech 11:7 due to the shared sheep imagery. The community applies those labels (“little
ones” and “afflicted ones”) to itself with reference to its endurance of eschatological tribula-
tion. Thus the use of the substantive “little ones” in Mark 9:42 to refer to God’s (suffering)
people both corresponds to the similar, unique phrasing in Zech 13:7, and resembles a
near contemporary interpretation of Zech 13:7 attested at Qumran.
45 Five ancient texts attest comparable interpretations of Zech 13:9. The first pre-dates
Mark, while the rest do not. At least three of these examples (Didache, Didymus the
Blind, and Cyril of Alexandria) are aware of Gospel traditions, if not a written version of
Mark itself. (1) 4QTanḥumim (4Q176) is comprised of four or five columns, and it contains
some fragments from the Psalms, some non-biblical material, a list of seven consecutive
quotations of material from Isaiah 40–55 without textual comment, and a quotation of
Zech 13:9 without comment. The ostensible criteria for the selection of texts from Isaiah
seems to have been passages that contain first-person speech of God directed to Israel
promising consolations in the midst of Israel’s afflictions. Accordingly, the inclusion of
Zech 13:9 after this string of quotations is telling. It satisfies all the conditions present in
the Isaiah texts, being a first-person speech from God promising his people that though
they will go through the fire, he will bring them out of it, and consequently, their cov-
enant status will be renewed or proven. Thus, the compiler of 4Q176 seems to have un-
derstood the “fire” of Zech 13:9 as necessary, refining affliction or tribulation for God’s
3. In Mark 14:27, on the basis of Zech 13:7, Jesus predicts that all the disciples
will “fall away” (σκανδαλισθήσεσθε). When Jesus uses this term elsewhere
people. (Interestingly, there are two distinct scribal hands apparent in 4Q176, and the
hand that produced the quotations from Isaiah also produced that of Zech 13:9). For the
original argument that 4Q176 contains five columns, see John Strugnell, “Notes en marge
du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’” RevQ 7.2 (1970): 163–276.
For the description of the criteria for selecting the Isaiah quotations, see Christopher D.
Stanley, “The Importance of 4QTanḥûmîm (4Q176),” RevQ 15.4 (1992): 569–82. For the
argument regarding the different scribal hands, see Jesper Høgenhaven, “The Literary
Character of 4QTanhumim,” DSD 14.1 (2007): 99–123, esp. 101–102. The secondary litera-
ture on 4Q176 is indeed sparse, and the claim that Zech 13:9 fits neatly (literarily/theo-
logically) with the quotations from Isaiah has apparently not been noted. (2) Didache 16,
the so-called eschatological chapter, reuses material from the Olivet Discourse. Did. 16:5
warns that before the parousia of the Lord, all humankind will enter “into the fiery test”
(εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμαςίας), and many will “fall away” (καὶ σκανδαλισθήσονται πολλοί).
Didache’s language of “fiery test” reflects the warning in Zech 13:9 that God will take his
people “through the fire” (διὰ πυρός) and “test them” (καὶ δοκιμῶ αὐτούς). The combina-
tion of such terminology (“fire” and “testing”) is relatively rare in Israel’s scriptures; ad-
ditionally, Did. 16:7 quotes Zech 14:5 (in reference to Jesus’ return), thereby indicating the
author’s knowledge and use of related material from Zechariah, which makes plausible
the suggestion that nearby material in Didache is also using Zechariah. Scholars recog-
nize the potential of an allusion to Zech 13:9 in Didache; see e.g. Aaron Milavec, “The
Saving Efficacy in the Burning Process in Didache 16:5,” in The Didache in Context: Essays
on its Text, History, and Transmission (NTSup 77; ed. C. Jefford; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 131–155,
esp. 146; Marcello del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-
Jewish Work (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 232–233. (3) Targum Zechariah 13:9 expands
the pertinent material, reading in part: “And I will bring the third into affliction, into a
furnace of fire …” The latter expansion clearly interprets the fire as “affliction” for God’s
people. Naturally, the dating of this tradition is difficult to ascertain. I do not claim a
direct literary influence. I highlight only the comparable interpretation of “the fire.”
Targum translation from Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor
Prophets: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1989). (4) Didymus the Blind, an acquaintance of Jerome, wrote a commentary on
LXX Zechariah in ca. 386. He explicitly relates the “fire” of Zech 13:9 to Mark 9:49. He de-
clares Jesus’ teaching in Mark 9:49 as “what the savior says about this fire” [of Zech 13:9].
Translation of Didymus’ commentary by Robert C. Hill, Didymus the Blind: Commentary
on Zechariah (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 315. (5)
Cyril of Alexandria wrote a commentary on LXX Zechariah, plausibly composed in the
early 5th century. This example is intriguing, as he clearly knows the Olivet Discourse,
and he interprets Zechariah 13–14 through the lens of that Gospel material. Interestingly,
he espouses an interpretation nearly identical to the present proposal. He interprets Zech
13:7 with reference to Jesus as the “stricken shepherd;” he interprets Zech 13:8 with refer-
ence to the destruction of Jerusalem by fire, presumably in the conflict of 66–70 CE; and
pertinent for our present purposes, he interprets Zech 13:9 as the afflictions of the Jewish
disciples of Jesus. He writes, “They [the disciples] were called, in fact, to experience many
tribulations and persecutions, and, as it were, fired, tested by trials.” Finally, he proceeds
directly to Zechariah 14, and he interprets Zech 14:1–6 as the basis for Jesus’ prophecy
140 Sloan
in Mark, the context indicates that Jesus is exhorting perseverance in the

midst of affliction or tribulation. For example, in Mark 4:16–17 in his ex-
planation of the parable of the seed sower, he says, “And in a similar way
these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who,
when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy, and they have
no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction
or persecution (θλίψεως ἢ διωγμου) arises because of the word, immedi-
ately they fall away (σκανδαλίζονται).” Here “falling away” is a potential
response to tribulation and affliction. Similarly, in Mark 14:29, Peter’s
response to Jesus’ prediction of “falling away” indicates that he believes
persecution is imminent. He responds that not only would he not leave
Jesus, but that he would die with him.46 I suggest that such persecutions
and afflictions are constituted by the afflictions depicted in Mark 13, and
according to Jesus’ words before his arrest, he is warning his disciples that
they will begin imminently.
4. Mark 13 and Mark 14:27–31 both predict events that will occur to the disci-
ples after, and on the basis of, Jesus’ death.47 Just as Mark 13 declares that
they will endure tribulations for Jesus’ sake and be hated on account of
his name after his death, so Mark 14 predicts that they will all “fall away”
as a result of Jesus’ being “stricken,” or executed.
5. The warnings in Mark 13 and 14:27 share the setting of the Mount of
Olives. In Mark 13, Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives teaching the im-
minence of the tribulations depicted in Zechariah 13–14.48 In Mark 14:27,
on the Mount of Olives, he teaches that those tribulations are about to
begin, claiming his death as their onset.49
on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13//Matthew 24//Luke 21), claiming that the afflictions in
Zechariah 14 were endured in the Jewish/Roman war of 66–70, and interpreting Zech 14:5
as a reference to the parousia of the Son of Man with the angels. This example at least illus-
trates that an ancient reader studying the same data made connections similar to those of
the present argument. Translation of Cyril’s commentary by Robert C. Hill, “Commentary
on the Prophet Zechariah,” in St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets
(Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 93–279.
46 Max Wilcox, “Denial Sequence,” 436, makes this point as well. Wilcox views Jesus’ predic-
tion in Mark 14:27 as a warning that the eschatological tribulations—the ones he elab-
orated in Mark 13—were about to begin. He views Mark 14:27–31 as Peter’s individual
experience of the tribulations that the rest of the disciples would soon endure.
47 In Mark 13, Jesus’ absence is presumed, evident both by false messiahs coming in his
name to deceive Jesus’ disciples, and by the warning that Jesus’ disciples will suffer like
he did.
48 I defend and elaborate this point below.
49 So also Stephen Cook, “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of
Zechariah 11:17 + 13:7–9,” CBQ 55.3 (1993): 453–466 [465]; Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation,
6. Finally, the “scattering” predicted in Mark 14:27 (διασκορπισθήσονται) finds

a tidy resolution in Mark 13:27 when the Son of Man “gathers” (ἐπισυνάξει)
the elect from the four winds. The terms “scattered” and “gathered” in
various forms are often juxtaposed in the Torah and prophetic literature,50
typically referring to the Babylonian exile and the return to the land. In
such contexts, being “scattered” is an impending risk whose solution is
being “gathered.” Even when the two terms are not juxtaposed, the term
“gathered” may be used, implying a prior state of “scattered.”51 Thus as
“scattering” is characteristically resolved by “gathering,” the use of “gath-
ered” in Mark 13:27 implies a “scattered” condition, which explicitly ob-
tains via Jesus’ death vis-à-vis Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27.52
In light of this data I conclude that Jesus’ “striking” refers to his execution, the
disciples’ “falling away” is probably not their flight from the garden, but their
endurance of affliction after Jesus’ execution, and that the latter affliction is
that which Jesus predicts generally in Mark 9:49, and in more detail in Mark
13. It seems that the Zechariah traditions employed in Mark tell an unfolding
and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 456–460. I examine the significance of the Mount of Olives below.
50 See Deut 30:3; Isa 11:12; 56:8; LXX Jer 30:21 (=MT/ET 49:5); LXX 39:27 (=MT/ET 32:37); Ezek
11:17; 28:25; 29:13; Joel 4:2 (=ET 3:2); Tob 13:5. In Greek versions, the words for “gather” in
these references are from συνάγω and ἐπισυνάγω; the words for “scatter” are from (δια)
σκορπίζω and (δια)σπείρω. In the Hebrew versions, the word for “gather” is from ‫קבץ‬, and
the words for “scatter” are from ‫ פוץ‬and ‫נדח‬. Jer 30:21 does not pertain to exile and return,
but to the punishment of the Ammonites (i.e. they will be “scattered” with no one to
“gather” them). Mark 13:27 and 14:27 use forms of ἐπισυνάγω and διασκορπίζω respectively.
51 E.g. LXX Zech 2:10 (=ET 2:6), which declares without explicit reference to their prior scat-
tering that God will “gather” his people from Babylon.
52 Further evidence that the disciples’ “scattering” entails the tribulations of Mark 13 is pro-
vided by Mark 13:19’s allusion to Dan 12:1. Mark 13:19 uses the language of proto-Theodotion
Dan 12:1 to say that the tribulation described in Mark 13:14–22 will be the worst in history.
Notably, proto-Theodotion Dan 12:7 calls that tribulation of Dan 12:1 the “the scattering
(διασκορπισμόν) of the power of sanctified people.” The textual affinity between Dan 12
and Zech 13 via the notion of “scattering” and “refining” depicts the connection proposed
in Mark 13–14, namely that the scattering Jesus predicts in Mark 14 entails the refining
tribulations predicted in Mark 13. The notion that Mark uses a version of Daniel compa-
rable to Theodotion Daniel is widely acknowledged. See e.g. C.H. Dodd, According to the
Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952,) 69; T.F.
Glasson, “Mark xiii and the Greek Old Testament,” ET 69.7 (1958): 213–215; Pierre Grelot,
“Les versions grecques de Daniel,” Biblica 47.3 (1966): 381–402; Collins, Daniel, 11; Keith
Dyer, The Prophecy on the Mount: Mark 13 and the Gathering of the New Community (Bern:
Peter Lang, 1998), 101–122; R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament
Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 127–129. Dyer (Prophecy, 101–122) argues that
Mark uses traditions containing several text types, including proto-Theodotion, LXX, MT,
and Targum.
142 Sloan
drama. In this case, Mark casts Jesus as the stricken shepherd, and the disciples
as the people of God who undergo refinement before the advent of the Lord.
In other words, the tribulations predicted in Mark 13’s discourse constitute the
tribulations of Zech 13:8–9, which are inaugurated by the death of the shep-
herd in Zech 13:7. I turn now to the argument that Mark 13:3 alludes to Zech 14.
In Mark 13:1–2, the disciples exit the temple, one of them comments on the
beautiful structures, and Jesus responds that the temple will be destroyed. The
discourse then conspicuously relocates to the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3),
where four of his disciples—Andrew, Peter, James, and John—ask him pri-
vately about the timing of this event and the sign indicating its imminence. I
propose that the setting on the Mount of Olives in Mark 13 alludes to the same
setting of the prophecy in Zechariah 14, thereby alerting a scripturally-literate
reader to Zechariah 14 and consequently illuminating the corresponding mate-
rial in Mark 13. Importantly, the setting in Mark is never an arbitrary location;
rather, it is often supplied on a scriptural basis, and recognizing the Markan
affinity with the Jewish scripture typically affects the interpretation of the
Markan text.53 Examples of this phenomenon include John’s appearance in the
wilderness;54 John’s baptisms in the Jordan;55 Jesus’ testing in the wilderness;56
the transfiguration atop “a high mountain;”57 his entry into Jerusalem on a
donkey;58 the meal at Passover.59 None of these geographical or calendrical
settings is a mere physical or temporal backdrop devoid of meaning. Rather,
each of these passages in Mark contains scriptural allusions, often marked by
the setting in Mark, where the respective contexts of the antecedent texts have
an instructive function in the Markan passage at hand. Considering such pre
cedents, Mark 13’s setting on the Mount of Olives is not an insignificant physical
53 For comparable comments regarding the positive interpretative value of “temporal” and
“spatial” settings for the meaning of Mark’s narrative, see Elizabeth Malbon, “Narrative
Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?” in In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s
Gospel of Jesus (Louisville: WJK, 2000) 1–40, especially 1–15.
54 Mark 1:4, in conjunction with 1:3’s quotation of Isa 40:3.
55 Mark 1:5, perhaps reflecting Josh 1:5, et al.
56 Mark 1:12–13; see the testing of Israel by God in the wilderness in Deut 8:2; Num 14:34.
Hooker (Mark, 49–51) sees reflections of Adam from Genesis 2–3. Joel Marcus identifies
numerous influential backgrounds: 1 Kgs 19:5–8, Apoc. Mos. 17:4; L.A.E. 6, 12–15; Isa 11:1–9.
See Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New
York: Doubleday, 2000), 169–170.
57 Mark 9:2–9, reflecting several elements of Exodus 24; see Exod 24:1, 9, 15–18. Marcus, Mark
8–16, 1114–1115, provides a detailed table of the many correspondences between Mark 9
and Exodus 24.
58 Mark 11:1–10; see Zech 9:9.
59 Mark 14:12–26. See possibly Exod 12:11–14; 24:8; Isa 53:12; Zech 9:11.
backdrop, but likely alludes to the prophecy in Zechariah 14, consequently

serving to alert the reader to Zechariah’s context for insight into the rest of
Mark’s discourse. Six reasons suggest that Mark 13:3 alludes to Zech 14:4. Before
elaborating these points, I provide the texts for comparison.
Mark 13:3: As Jesus was sitting εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ…
Greek Zech 14:4: his [YHWH’s] feet will stand ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν τὸ
κατέναντι Ἰερουσαλήμ…
Hebrew Zech 14:4: ‫ועמדו רגליו ביום־ההוא על־הר הזתים אשר על־פני ירושלם‬
First, Mark 13:3 replicates several lexemes from Zech 14:4. The phrase “on the
Mount of Olives opposite the temple/Jerusalem” is unique to Zech 14:4. The
Jewish scriptures only explicitly mention the “Mount of Olives” twice,60 and
both times are in Zech 14:4.61 Consequently, Mark’s reference to “the Mount
of Olives” could conceivably alert a scripturally literate reader to Zechariah 14.
Second, around 70 CE, Zechariah 14 seems to have been a popular text
freighted with political and temple-related expectation.62 Around the time of
the composition of Mark, Zechariah 14 arguably fomented, or at least justified,
revolutionary actions of the Zealots.63 Josephus suggests that the group oc-
cupying the temple expected on scriptural grounds a divine intervention that
would justify their enterprise and result in the defeat of the Romans.64 Though
Josephus unfortunately does not name the texts, Hengel argues convincing-
ly that the most plausible candidates are Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14.65 That
Zechariah 14 could elicit such expectation during the revolt is understand-
able given that it declares YHWH will appear just opposite the temple and
Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, and defeat the nations that do battle against
Jerusalem.
60 The “ascent of Olives” is mentioned in 2 Sam 15:30. Only Zechariah 14 refers to “the
mount.”
61 Pitre (Tribulation, 458 n.211) and Marcus (Mark 8–16, 869) each note this allusion and
claim that the contexts of Mark 13 and Zechariah 14 closely correspond.
62 This study presumes the current, relative consensus that Mark was composed around the
time of the Jewish/Roman conflict of 66–70 CE.
63 So Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the
Period from Herod I until 70 AD (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 242.
64 Josephus, War 5.7.3; 5.11.2; 6.2.1.
65 Hengel, Zealots, 242.
144 Sloan
Third, Josephus’ description of the actions of “an Egyptian false prophet”

around the time of the revolt indicates the importance of the Mount of Olives
and attests to the above claim that Zechariah 14 arguably justified temple
and Jerusalem-related undertakings. Josephus describes “an Egyptian false
prophet” who led his followers to the desert and then to the Mount of Olives
in attempts to retake Jerusalem and disperse the Romans.66 Others led crowds
into the desert “under the belief that God would there give them tokens of
deliverance.”67 Josephus describes such leaders as “deceivers and impostors,
under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes.”68 The
locations the leaders chose were not arbitrary, but were in line with the “divine
inspiration,” and were arguably based on interpretations of scriptures. These
leaders may have believed that their specific actions would result in the di-
vinely appointed victory attested in those passages.69 The Egyptian’s choice of
the Mount of Olives suggests the influence of Zechariah 14, particularly given
the latter’s promise of divinely-assisted victory in Jerusalem against Israel’s
enemies.
Fourth, coins minted in the first years of the revolt of 66–70 CE also sug-
gest the importance of Zechariah 14 for the Zealots.70 On one side is written
‫ ירושלם קדש‬or ‫ירושלם הקדש‬, meaning “Jerusalem is Holy” or “Jerusalem the
Holy” respectively. The obverse pictures a cultic vessel. Such propaganda argu-
ably reflects Zech 14:20–21 and its declaration that in “that day” [of YHWH’s
advent with angels], every cooking pot in the temple and in Jerusalem and
Judah will be holy (‫)קדש‬.71 These coins plausibly attest to the significance of
Zechariah 14 in fueling the Zealots’ expectations surrounding both the temple
and Jerusalem. Presumably the Zealots were attempting to protect, or obtain,
the holiness of Jerusalem by excluding the defiling presence of Gentiles.72
Admittedly the coins only demonstrate the importance of Zechariah 14 to the
Zealots, but the example of the “Egyptian false prophet” suggests that he and
the Zealots were drawing upon a larger interpretative tradition, which may
have been known by Mark. Accordingly, Zechariah 14 apparently engendered
66 Josephus, War 2.13.4–5; Ant. 20.8.6. C.A. Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope,”
in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. B. Chilton and C.A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
373–388, alerted me to this account in Josephus.
67 Josephus, War 2.13.4.
68 Ibid.
69 So Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope,” 377.
70 This point is made originally by Joel Marcus, “No More Zealots in the House of the Lord:
A Note on the History of Interpretation of Zechariah 14:21,” NT 55.1 (2103): 22–30.
71 Ibid., 26.
72 So too, ibid.
specific expectations related to the Mount of Olives, the temple, and the per-
secution of the city. The latter expectations are self-evidently germane to Mark
13. Mark’s placement of this discourse on the Mount of Olives probably in-
dicates both his awareness of Zechariah 14, and the fact that Zechariah 14 is
significant for matters pertaining to Jerusalem and the temple.
Fifth, the context of this passage closely relates to the contents of Mark 13
as a whole. At the most fundamental level, each pertains to a successful at-
tack of Jerusalem by Gentiles. In each case, the hardship predicted is that upon
women and houses,73 and the only action done by those attacked is “flight to
the mountains.”74 In both cases, the affliction is ended only by an angel-ac-
companied theophany.75 Additionally, Zechariah 14, like Mark, pertains to the
future kingdom of God.76 Thus in setting forth Jesus’ prophecy regarding the
fate of Jerusalem and the temple, this passage would present itself as a help-
ful source for articulating the material. Finally, sixth, Mark’s consistent use
of Zechariah 9–14 throughout Mark makes it plausible that Mark 13:3 alludes
to Zech 14:4.77
The cumulative weight of these arguments suggests that Mark alludes to
Zech 14:4 in his description of the setting of the discourse. In light of Mark’s
practice of using settings on scriptural bases, and in light of such scriptures
informing the interpretation of the Markan passage at hand, Mark 13:3’s allu-
sion to Zech 14:4 plausibly permits interpreting features of Mark 13 in light of
Zechariah 14. I now turn to my final two arguments that Mark 13:14–17 alludes
73 Zech 14:2; Mark 13:15–17.

74 Zech 14:5; Mark 13:14.
75 Zech 14:5; Mark 13:26–27.
76 The kingdom may be in view in Mark 13:26–27 by comparison to 8:38–9:1, where the king-
dom of God is associated with the coming of the Son of Man.
77 Numerous scholars agree upon the deep impact of Zechariah 9–14 upon at least Mark
11–16. See e.g. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 57–74; Barnabas Lindars, New Testament
Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM,
1961), 75–77; F.F. Bruce, This is That: The New Testament Development of Some Old
Testament Themes (Exeter: Paternoster, 1968), 100–114; Howard Clark Kee, “The Function
of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift
für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. E. Ellis and E. Gräßer; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 165–188, esp. 167–171; Mark C. Black, “The Rejected and
Slain Messiah Who is Coming With His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14
in the Passion Narratives” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1990), 158–232; Marcus, The Way
of the Lord, 156–159; C.A. Evans, “Zechariah in the Markan Passion Narrative,” in Biblical
Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, The Gospel of Mark (LNTS 304; ed. T. Hatina;
London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 64–80; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the
Gospels (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 27, 35–36, 51–52, 82, 87; Sloan, “Mark 13 and
the Return of the Shepherd,” 48–102.
146 Sloan
to Zech 14:1–2, and that aspects of Mark 13:26–27 evoke Zech 14:5–6. These ar-
guments contribute to the overall case that Mark 13 constitutes the tribulations
that the disciples endure as a result of the shepherd being stricken (cf. Zech
13:7–9). Such tribulations partially entail, and are partially expressed by, the
prophetic language of Zechariah 14. Thus these final two arguments that Mark
13 contains allusions to elements of Zechariah 14 contribute to the overall case
that Zech 13:7–14:6 provides a sort of template that Mark modifies and employs
in his expression of the suffering of Jesus, his disciples, and the eschatological
dénouement.
Space does not permit a detailed, defended interpretation of all of Mark 13.
Suffice it to say that I understand Mark 13 to elaborate two events: the sign
that precedes the destruction of the temple, which evidently entails potential
affliction for those in Judea, and the future, heaven-to-earth advent of the Son
of Man, Jesus, with his angels to gather the scattered people of God. Jesus pre-
dicts prosaically the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2, and the disciples’
question in 13:4 pertains to the timing of this event. They particularly seek
some sort of visible sign that would indicate the nearness of the temple’s de-
struction.78 Thus, as the disciples ask only about the sign and the timing of the
event, I assume Jesus’ answer does not need to repeat his prediction in poetic
or metaphorical terms.79 In other words, the disciples’ question does not ne-
cessitate that Jesus describe the destruction of the temple in symbolic terms;
it only requires that Jesus answer their question regarding the sign. Once he
78 Contrary to Timothy Geddert, I do not think Mark’s Jesus repudiates “sign-seeking” per se.
See Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1989), 31–35. Geddert mistakenly, in my view, imbues Mark 8:11–12 with a “once for
all” demonstration that Jesus rejects all requests for “signs.” Geddert then transfers that at-
titude of Jesus to 13:4 and assumes that Jesus repudiates their request for a sign. However,
the situation of 8:11–12 differs greatly from that of 13:1–4 in tone, the characters present,
the ostensible intent of the characters, and Jesus’ response to them. When Jesus denies
the request for the sign in the former passage, the characters are the Pharisees, their goal
is to “test” Jesus, they insinuate that they do not trust him, but instead require a sign from
heaven to justify trusting him, and Jesus “sighs deeply” in response. In Mark 13, the char-
acters requesting a sign are his disciples, it is because they trust Jesus that they ask for a
sign, and Jesus answers them.
79 Against R.T. France and Timothy Gray, who both argue that Jesus’ answer must include
a description of the destruction of the temple, as that is the subject of the discourse. See
France, Mark, 530, and Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative Role
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 141. But my point is that the disciples do not ask
for a description of the temple’s demise, but for the sign that precedes it. Accordingly,
Jesus’ answer need not include an additional description of the temple’s destruction, as
France and Gray claim. They interpret 13:24–27 as a symbolic description of the temple’s
destruction.
has done that, he is free in principle to discuss distinct, but related matters. In
this case, I take the distinct but related matter to be the theophany of 13:26–27.
I take 13:5–13 to refer to events that will occur before the destruction of the
temple, but do not function as the requested sign. I take 13:14’s “abomination
of desolation,” whatever the precise referent of that phrase, to be the sign the
disciples request.80 That is, the abomination of desolation will precede the de-
struction of the temple, and it is the visible sign that indicates to the disciples
that they should flee. Mark 13:14–22 describes afflictions concomitant with the
abomination of desolation. I then take 13:23’s “I have foretold you everything,”
as a declaration that he has answered their question in full. He then turns to
the distinct, but related subject of the Son of Man’s advent in 13:24–27 (evident
by the adversative conjunction “but,” the temporal preposition “after,” and the
change in subject). Following the description of the theophany, Jesus tells two
parables with explanations in 13:28–31 and 13:32–37, respectively. The first par-
able and explanation has to do with the nearness of the advent of the abomi-
nation of desolation and the concomitant, though unstated, destruction of the
temple. The second parable pertains to the unknowability of the time of Lord’s
advent. This summary, which lamentably amounts to assertion, is all too brief,
but it must suffice for the present purposes of this essay.81 I turn now to the
final arguments regarding Mark’s allusions to Zechariah.
In Mark 13:14–17, Jesus declares that at the presence of the abomination of
desolation, those in Judea should flee to the mountains; those on the housetops
should not enter their houses to gather materials; those in the fields should not
turn back (into the city or their respective houses) to get their cloaks; and that
there will be troubles for pregnant and nursing women as the only recourse
to safety from an approaching attack is flight to mountainous territory. These
threats recall those of Zech 14:1–5, in which Jerusalem is attacked, and the
route to safety is through the mountains.
The subtext of Mark 13:14–23 seems to be a military attack upon Jerusalem
and its attendant afflictions.82 Four points support this view. First, Jesus’ in-
junctions suggest the approach of an external danger that threatens physical
safety. A flight from Judea/Jerusalem indicates the danger is localized there.
Second, the wording of Jesus’ prophecy in 13:2, specifically that the stone walls
80 See also Hooker, Mark, 313–314; Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: Cosmic
Catastrophe in the New Testament and its World (LNTS 347; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 144;
Stein, Mark, 593–604.
81 For a detailed defence of this interpretation, see Sloan, “Mark 13 and the Return of the
Shepherd,” 103–186.
82 This point is widely accepted among Mark scholars. See e.g. Collins, Mark, 11–14; Marcus,
Mark 8–16, 864–866, 882–892.
148 Sloan
would be “destroyed” (καταλυθῇ) suggests a violent attack.83 Third, the context

of the utilized Daniel texts suggests militaristic conflict, as the “abomination”
in Daniel unambiguously leads to war.84 Fourth and finally, Mark 13’s topic of
the temple’s destruction suggests that Jerusalem specifically is in danger, as it
houses the temple.
Mark 13:14–23’s subtext of militaristic conflict corresponds to the context
of Zechariah 14, which declares that “all the nations” will be gathered against
Jerusalem for battle (‫ ;למלחמה‬εἰς πόλεμον).85 Thus both contexts depict a suc-
cessful attack of Jerusalem by Gentiles. Each passage additionally insists that
this attack is a part of the divine plan. Mark 13 indicates that it is one of the
things that “must happen” (δεῖ γενέσθαι), while Zechariah 14 declares that the
one who gathers the nations to battle Jerusalem is God himself.86 Moreover,
each passage indicates that though the suffering will be tremendous, “the
Lord” is ultimately in control. While Zech 14:3 says that “the Lord” (‫ ;יהוה‬κύριος)
will fight for Jerusalem, Mark 13:20 teaches that “the Lord” (κύριος) will shorten
“those days” of tribulation in order to save some. Furthermore, “the days” (τὰς
ἡμέρας) of tribulation that the Lord will shorten in Mark 13 may correspond to
the declaration in Zech 14:1 that the approaching “days” (ἡμέραι) of tribulation
are “of the Lord” (‫ ;ליהוה‬κυρίου), similarly indicating the Lord’s direction of the
events.87 Though the term κύριος is too common to suggest Mark’s dependence
upon Zechariah 14 for it, it is noteworthy that both passages mention the sav-
ing action of “the Lord” in conjunction with an attack on Jerusalem. Finally,
at this point it is important to remember that the discourse’s setting upon the
Mount of Olives alludes to Zech 14:4, demonstrating Mark’s employment of the
passage when establishing this scene. The latter suggests that the additional
correspondences may not be coincidental.
The correspondence extends beyond comparable contexts, however, and
includes Jesus’ specific warnings and commands. I begin with the flight to
the mountains. In Mark 13:14, Jesus declares that at the sight of the abomi-
nation, those in Judea should “flee to the mountains” (τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ
φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη). Scholars invariably suggest one or all the following texts
83 The same verb is used in Ezra 5:12 in reference to the Babylonians’ destruction of the
temple.
84 Mark 13:14’s “abomination of desolation” unambiguously uses the language of Daniel. See
Dan 9:27; 11:31. The contexts of Daniel, and the reuse of that phrase in 1 Macc 1:54 and
Josephus, Ant. 12.5.4, indicates its relation to militaristic attack.
85 Zech 14:2.
86 See Mark 13:7 and Zech 14:2.
87 Mark 13:20 and Zech 14:1.
as a potential source for such a warning: Gen 19:17;88 Jer 6:1–12;89 Ezek 7:16;90
1 Macc 2:28.91 The former options have some merit, though in view of some of
their overlooked weaknesses, and in view of the strengths of Zech 14:5 as an
option, I proposed it be placed in the preeminent position of this list.
Gen 19:17, like Mark 13:14, commands a flight to the hills in view of a coming
catastrophe. Mark’s verb choice and the actual final command of the angel in
Genesis 19, however, work against this case. Gen 19:17 uses the verb σῴζου, while
Mark employs the verb φευγέτωσαν. Though the semantic overlap is compa-
rable, the Hebrew verb that σῴζου translates is ‫מלט‬. The latter is used some
96 times in MT, and it is never translated in LXX with φεύγω.92 Morever, Lot
objects to the angel’s command to flee to the hills and requests instead to be
allowed to flee to a small town, which the angel permits.93
Ezekiel 7 predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and contains a reference to
safety in the mountains. Ezek 7:16 states that those who escape “will be on
the mountains.” The Hebrew verb for “escape,” which LXX translates with
ἀνασωθήσονται, is ‫פלט‬. The latter verb is used some twenty-nine times in MT
and is never translated in LXX with φεύγω. Furthermore, MT Ezek 7:16 declares
that the survivors will be mourning their own iniquities in the mountains,
while LXX Ezek 7:16 declares that God will kill those who make it to the moun-
tains. This passage contains no command to flee to the mountains, very little
verbal correspondence, and an outcome (death in the mountains) that makes
dubious the case that this passage influences Mark 13.
Jer 6:1–12 contains no command to flee to the mountains. Its correspon-
dence is the contextual similarity of an attack on Jerusalem, but there is little
lexical correspondence. Finally, 1 Macc 2:28 relates the flight of Mattathias and
his sons in response to Antiochus’ decree that they sacrifice and burn incense
in rejection of God’s laws. It declares, “They fled to the mountains.” Mattathias
and his sons retreat so they can fight. Jesus tells them to flee rather than fight.
88 Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and
of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 Par. (trans. N. Tomkinson; Lund: Gleerup, 1966),
154; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 895.
89 Gray, The Temple, 133–34. He suggests each of the references listed above.
90 Lane, Mark, 470; France, Mark, 524.
91 Dyer, Prophecy on the Mount, 108.
92 ‫ מלט‬is typically translated with (δια)σῴζω or ῥύομαι, but never with φεύγω. When forms
of (δια)σῴζω or ῥύομαι are used as semantic parallels of φεύγω, as in Jer 46:6, the lat-
ter is probably translating ‫נוס‬, which is the verb used in Zech 14:5 for the “flight” from
Jerusalem.
93 Gen 19:18–22.
150 Sloan
Unless Mark is using this text ironically (presuming he even knows it), it would
appear to be an odd choice as the basis for Jesus’ command to flee and ab-
stain from fighting. However, the primary deficiency of this proposal is one of
comparison; that is, while it provides a possible link, Zechariah 14 provides a
better one.
Like each of the options above, Zech 14:5 too refers to a flight from the city
in view of its imminent destruction. However, unlike each of the characteris-
tically suggested alternatives, Zech 14:5 contains more lexical and contextual
parallels with Mark 13:14. Zech 14:1–5 predicts that when “all the nations” sur-
round Jerusalem to do battle, the means of safety will be a flight through the
mountains. Zech 14:5 in part reads, “You will flee by the valley of my moun-
tains” (‫)ונסתם גיא־הרי‬. The verb for “flee” is a form of ‫נוס‬. Outside of its use in
Zechariah 14, it is used some 158 times in MT, and in 140 of those instances LXX
translates it with a form of φεύγω. Thus both Zech 14:5 and Mark 13:14 claim
that “flight to/through the mountains” is the means of safety in response to
the impending attack on Jerusalem. Accordingly, in light of such thematic and
lexical correspondence, Zech 14:5 plausibly influences Mark 13:14.94 I turn now
to Jesus’ subsequent imperatives and statements about “houses” and “women.”
In Mark 13:14–17 Jesus teaches that when the siege begins, Judeans should
neither enter their houses (οἰκίας) nor return from the field to the city, and
presumably due to their vulnerability in a time of war, he grieves for women
who will be pregnant and nursing at the time. Zech 14:2 contains each of
these features, and Jesus’ injunctions in Mark may be linked with the precise
afflictions predicted there. As rehearsed, Zechariah 14 declares that Gentiles
will capture the city. The result of this attack will be plundered houses (‫ונשסו‬
‫ ;הבתים‬διαρπαγήσονται αἱ οἰκίαι), ravaged women (‫ ;והנשים תשגלנה‬αἱ γυναῖκες
μολυνθήσονται), and half of the city being exiled.
Four points support the case for Zech 14:2’s influence on Mark 13. First, the
contexts of Mark 13:14–17 and Zech 14:1–5 are similar. Each passage conveys
the consequences of a successful capture of Jerusalem. Second, the content of
the attendant afflictions in Zech 14:2 and Mark 13:14–17 are similar. Each pas-
sage assumes the threat to houses and women. Jesus mentions precisely these
two things in his comment about the flight from Judea, and they are the pre-
cise afflictions mentioned in Zech 14:2. Third, each passage contains the same
sequence of events. Each progresses from (1) the capture of the city, to (2) the
mention of houses, to (3) the mention of women. Fourth, importantly, Mark 13
94 Even if Zech 14:5 is not recognized as the sole influence, it deserves to be considered at
least as probable, if not more so, as the other scriptural candidates, provided its lexical
and contextual correspondence.
maintains the logic of Zech 14:1–5, as both texts describe “fleeing” as the means
of physical safety during the attack. The logic of Zechariah 14 is as follows: an
attack is coming and houses, women, and those in the city will be in danger,
but those who flee to the mountains will be safe. The logic of Mark 13:14–17 is
similar: an attack is coming, so those in Judea should flee to the mountains
because houses, women, and those in the city will be imperiled.95
Certainly, plundered houses and ravaged women are common features of
sieges depicted in Jewish scriptures.96 But when a single passage contains
all of those elements in a certain sequence with a distinct imperative within
a matter of four verses, and those same threats, in the same order, with the
same distinct imperative appear in Mark 13 within the same number of verses,
and when the setting of Mark 13 opens with an allusion to the passage under
discussion, the conclusion that the author intended the proposed allusions is
highly plausible. These correspondences suggest that Mark 13:14–17 alludes to
Zech 14:2–5.97 I turn finally to Mark 13:24–27.
As intimated before, space does not permit the detailed interpretation of all
conceivable features of this passage. It must suffice to say that I consider the
language of cosmic catastrophe in 13:24–25 to be poetic hyperbole, describ-
ing in colorful language the creation’s reaction to the approaching presence
of the Son of Man.98 It does not depict the “woodenly literalistic” collapse of
the universe against which authors such as Caird, Wright, and France argue.99
95 Zech 14:2’s statement that those in the city will be exiled is consistent with Mark’s impera-
tive that those in the fields should not re-enter (the city) in light of its capture (if indeed
the imperative not to re-enter refers to not re-entering the city rather than houses).
96 See Deut 32:25; 2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16; 2 Chr 21:14–17; 29:9; Isa 13:16; Jer 6:11–12; 18:21; 44:7 (MT; 51:7
LXX); Lam 2:11; 4:4; Hos 13:16 (14:1 in MT/LXX); Amos 1:13.
97 Interestingly, Mark’s allusion to Zechariah 14 may be somewhat ironic, particularly if
Zechariah 14 did in fact stimulate revolutionary actions by the Zealots and other move-
ments pre-revolt. Rather than using the text to encourage military action in Jerusalem
and the temple, Mark’s Jesus uses the prophecy to describe the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple. As Zech 14:5 declares, the Lord will indeed come, but his coming will
vindicate neither the violence of the Zealots nor that of the Romans; he comes rather to
vindicate the suffering of his elect.
98 This notion of “the creation’s reaction” is indebted to Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last
Days, 425.
99 Caird characterizes the “cosmic collapse” interpreters as mistakenly reading such lan-
guage as “flat and literal prose”; Wright describes it as “crass literalism”; France, as “pitiful
prosiness.” For these comments, see George B. Caird and Lincoln D. Hurst, New Testament
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 366; Wright, JVG, 361; France, Mark, 533
n.11. France is quoting Daniel Lamont, Christ and the World of Thought (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1934), 266. The interpretation that these authors critique may indeed be a mis-
guided one, but very few scholars seriously suggest it. On the contrary, a host of scholars
readily admit that the language is poetic or hyperbolic, neither predicting literal falling
152 Sloan
Rather, it conveys the gravitas of the subsequently narrated event: the coming
of the Son of Man with his heavenly army of angels to judge and to gather his
scattered people.100 The language of 13:26–27’s angel-accompanied theophany
itself, I argue, evokes the scene of Zech 14:5.
A solid consensus regarding Mark 13:26 is that it alludes to Dan 7:13, evident
by Mark’s replication of Daniel’s distinct phrasing of a “son of man coming on
clouds.” The overt allusion to Dan 7:13, however, as important as it is, and the
consequent debate regarding the meaning of the son of man’s “coming,” as im-
portant as that is, has perhaps overshadowed other scriptural influences that
affect the interpretation of Mark 13:24–27. Proportionate space has not been
devoted to the fact that the Son of Man comes with angels, and that he comes
to gather the elect. The latter features evoke two theophanic scenes from Zech
14:5 and 2:10, respectively. Importantly, Mark 13:26–27 does not only relate the
coming of the Son of Man; rather, the text evinces the combination of figures
and events from Daniel and Zechariah, such that Mark 13:26–27 displays Dan
7:13’s “son of man” undertaking Zech 14:5’s “coming with angels” to accomplish
Zech 2:10’s “gathering of God’s people.” I turn first to the case for Zech 14:5.
Jesus’ first declaration about the son of man coming on clouds occurs not in
Mark 13:26 but in Mark 8:38. Those who interpret Mark 13:26 without reference
to 8:38 will miss the influence of Zech 14:5. In Mark 8:31–33, Jesus teaches that
as the Messiah, the son of man, he must suffer many things; Peter rebukes him
for this teaching, and Jesus in turn rebukes Peter. Then in 8:34–35, Jesus teaches
that any who want to follow him must deny himself or herself, and shoulder
the cross, and that those who lose their life on account of Jesus and the gospel,
will save it. He then asserts that allegiance to him will be the metric of judg-
ment when the son of man comes. Jesus says in 8:38: “For whoever is ashamed
of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man
will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his father with the
holy angels” (ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων).
The latter phrase alludes to Zech 14:5, which states in part that “the Lord my
stars, nor collapsing into metaphor for a geo-political event. See e.g. Hooker, Mark, 317;
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days, 425; Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 347–348;
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 328–329; Elizabeth Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel
of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22–30 (BZNW 189; Berlin: De Gruyter,
2012), 203–211; Stein, Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man, 112.
100 For a detailed defence of this position, see Sloan, “Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd,”
108–119, 169–177.
God will come, and all the holy ones with him” (ἥξει κύριος ὁ θεός μου καὶ πάντες
οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ).101 Five features of the text support this case.
First, Mark’s phrase μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων resembles the language of
Zech 14:5’s οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. The substantive, ἅγιοι, in Zech 14:5 refers to the
angelic host. Thus each passage depicts a theophany accompanied by angels,
and each passage uses the adjective ἅγιος to refer to, or modify, the angelic
host. The use of “holy” to describe “angels,” as in Mark 8:38, is uncharacteristic
among early Christian literature, and its occurrence in Mark probably stems
from Zech 14:5’s use of the substantive “holy ones” (‫קדשים‬/οἱ ἅγιοι), which
itself refers to the angelic host. Mark’s Gospel mentions “angels” six times,
and only 8:38 describes them as “holy.”102 Similarly, for example, in the non-
Markan literature of the New Testament, the word “angel” is used 168 times,103
and in only three of those occurrences are the angels described as “holy.”104
101 The ἅγιοι in Zechariah’s context translates ‫קדשים‬, and plausibly refers to the angelic
host. See e.g. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 430. The following
scholars mount a similar case for Mark 8:38’s allusion to Zech 14:5: Adams, “The Coming
of the Son of Man,” 39–61; idem, “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition,” in Biblical Traditions in
Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (JSJSup 111; ed. C. Hempel and J. Lieu;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1–19; Joshua Leim, “In the Glory of His Father: Intertextuality and the
Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of Mark,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7.2
(2013): 213–232.
102 Mark uses a form of ἄγγελος in 1:2, 13; 8:38; 12:25; 13:27, 32. The first use identifies the
“angel/messenger” as John the Baptist. Some scholars infer from this that ἄγγελος in Mark
may just mean “messenger,” and consequently infer that 13:27 refers to Jesus sending out
his disciples as “messengers,” probably in some evangelistic sense. See e.g. Wright, JVG,
363; Thomas Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative
(JSNTSup 232; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 370; France, Mark, 536 (he sug-
gests the interpretation, but does not follow it). However, in 1:2 Mark probably uses that
term because it is in the biblical source that he is quoting (Mal 3:1), thus it is not the best
metric for determining Mark’s usage. The other five uses of ἄγγελος refer to the angelic
host. Four of those instances (1:13; 8:38; 12:25; 13:32) are unambiguous. Given the lexical
and thematic parity between the events of 8:38 and 13:27, the “angels” of 13:27 should
unhesitatingly be identified with the “angels” (=angelic host) of 8:38. Consequently, the
angels who accompany the Son of Man’s theophany in 13:27 are a heavenly entourage, not
his disciples fulfilling a “great commission.”
103 This sum counts only the uses of forms of ἄγγελος. Of the 174 total uses in the NT: 6 in
Mark; 20 in Matthew; 25 in Luke; 3 in John; 21 in Acts; 66 in Revelation, and the rest are
scattered throughout the epistles. This number does not account for 1 Thess 3:13, where
Paul uses the substantive τῶν ἁγίων to refer to the angelic host which accompanies “the
Lord” at his coming (ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ). Significantly, 1 Thess 3:13 unambiguously alludes to
Zech 14:5 to describe Jesus’ parousia “with holy ones.”
104 The three occurrences are: (1) Luke 9:26, which is the parallel statement to Mark 8:38; (2)
Acts 10:22, where Cornelius sends for Peter under the directive of “a holy angel”; and (3)
154 Sloan
Thus Mark 8:38 presents an anomaly. He describes the angels as “holy” against
both the typical Markan practice and against the wider practice of much of the
early Christian literature, why? Conceivably, Mark, or his tradition, refers to
the angels as ἄγγελοι rather than ἅγιοι because of the common practice among
early Christians to refer to “believers” as ἅγιοι, and he describes the angels as
“holy” in order to maintain the lexical correspondence with Zech 14:5. Thus,
by modifying the angelic accompaniment with τῶν ἁγίων, Mark maintains
lexically the allusion to Zech 14:5 while simultaneously clarifying the referent
as “angels.”
Second, Zech 14:5 is unique among Israel’s scriptures in its description of
a theophany with “holy ones.”105 No other scriptural text depicts a theopha-
ny with “holy” angels; accordingly, Mark’s depiction of the Son of Man com-
ing “with holy angels” may depend on Zech 14:5. Third, Zechariah 14 and the
Markan pericope each discuss “the kingdom of God.” In Mark 9:1, Jesus associ-
ates the “kingdom of God” and the Son of Man’s coming with angels. Zechariah
14 contains the same association in that Zechariah envisages that the kingdom
of God will be present and recognized when God comes with his angels.106
Rev 14:10, where at the hour of judgment, the beast-worshipers will be tormented before
the “holy angels” and the lamb.
105 One could mention Deut 33:2 as well, as it possibly describes a theophany with angels,
but three reasons suggest it is not a prominent presence in Mark 8:38. First, MT Deut
33:2 does not describe God coming “with myriads,” but coming “from the midst of myri-
ads.” This reading is consistent with 4QPaleoDeutr (4Q45), frags. 42–43. The manuscript
is fragmentary, but the only word maintained from Deut 33:2 is ‫=( מרבבת‬MT Deut 33:2).
This reading is also consistent with Aquila, which does not contain σὺν μυριάσιν, but ἀπὸ
μυριάδων ἁγιασμοῦ. The latter translation corresponds to the meaning of MT Deut 33:2
in that it does not describe a theophany “with angels” but “from the midst of angels.”
LXX Deut 33:2 translates ‫ מרבבת‬with σὺν μυριάσιν, but it translates the following word,
‫קדש‬, with Καδης; thus it does not refer to the “myriads” as “holy.” The last words of LXX
Deut 33:2 are ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, which presumably clarify the referent of “myriads.” Thus
LXX Deut 33:2 recalls a past theophany, and says that God “hastened” (κατέσπευσεν) from
Mount Paran to Kadesh “with angels.” Given that the descriptor “holy” applied to “an-
gels” is exceptional among early Christian literature, the lack of the descriptor “holy” in
Deuteronomy 33 speaks against its influence on Mark 8. Additionally, when an allusion to
Deut 33:2 obtains, as in 1 En. 1:9, one of the key markers of the influence of Deuteronomy
33 is the term “myriads,” which is contained in all versions of Deut 33:2 and is used in
1 En. 1:9 (which alludes to Deut 33:2), and in Jude’s quotation of 1 En. 1:9. Accordingly,
if Deuteronomy 33 were the prominent influence in Mark, one might expect the term
“myriads” to surface, but it does not. Thus Mark’s use of “holy” angels coincides better
with Zech 14:5’s “holy ones.”
106 Zech 14:9. This datum does not privilege Zechariah 14 over against Daniel 7. On the con-
trary, their shared stress on “kingdom” may have served to connect the passages to an
ancient reader/author such as Mark.
Fourth, the direction of the “coming” betrays the influence of Zechariah 14.107
In Mark 8:38, the Son of Man’s coming “with the holy angels” suggests a heav-
enly origin and thus an earthly descent, which resembles the direction of
Zechariah’s theophany. If Daniel 7 were the sole influence, one might won-
der why Mark evidently changed the direction from that which is depicted
in Daniel 7 itself, where the Son of Man seemingly goes into the presence of
the Ancient of Days, rather than comes from heaven to earth. Certainly Mark
would not be required to replicate the scene in Daniel, but recognizing the
influence of Zechariah 14 provides a satisfactory explanation for the direction
of the advent as presented in Mark 8:38.
Fifth, using Zech 14:5 to portray Jesus’ “second coming” with angels is evi-
dently traditional among early Christian literature. Jesus’ arrival with angels
is consistently depicted with reference to Zech 14:5, as in 1 Thess 3:13, Matt
25:31 and Did. 16:7. Additionally, the multiple Markan allusions to Zechariah
throughout the Gospel strengthen the case for the present allusion.
In light of such data, I conclude that Mark alludes to Zech 14:5 in his depic-
tion of the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 8:38. The several correspondenc-
es between Zechariah 14 and Daniel 7, namely the “coming” of a figure,108 refer-
ence to angels as ἅγιοι,109 and reference to “the kingdom [of God],”110 likely en-
able the exegetical combination. Thus the Gospel of Mark combines Daniel 7’s
“coming of the Son of Man” with Zechariah’s “coming of the Lord with his holy
ones” to create the Markan image of the “coming of the Son of Man with the
holy angels.”111 As already mentioned, the lexical parity between Mark 8:38 and
13:27 via the phrases “coming,” “son of man,” “angels,” and “glory,” indicate that
8:38 and 13:26–27 refer to the same event: the angel-accompanied theophany
of the Son of Man.112 Accordingly, though 13:26–27 itself does not contain the
degree of lexical parity with Zech 14:5 that it does with Dan 7:13, I suggest that
Zech 14:5 influences Mark 13:26–27’s depiction as well.
In addition to the parity with 8:38, Mark 13:26–27 itself corresponds to ma-
terial from Zechariah via the description of what the Son of Man comes to
do, namely, to gather the scattered people of God. Mark 13:27 reads: “And then
he will send forth the angels, and will he gather together his elect from the
107 So Adams, “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition,” 9.

108 Dan 7:13; Zech 14:5.
109 Dan 7:18; Zech 14:5.
110 Dan 7:14; Zech 14:9. In Zechariah, the kingship explicitly belongs to God. In Daniel, the
“kingdom” implicitly belongs to God, though the force of the vision in Daniel 7 is the giv-
ing of the kingdom to Israel.
111 So also Adams, “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition,” 9.
112 So also Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 189.
156 Sloan
four winds, from the farthest end of the earth, to the farthest end of heaven.”
I suggest that the latter phrase alludes to LXX Zech 2:10, in which God himself
comes to gather his people from the four winds. The use of Zech 2 in Mark 13:27
corroborates the proposed use of Zechariah 14, as the Zechariah passages con-
tain numerous lexical and thematic correspondences that justify their com-
bined use in Mark.
Mark 13:27:
ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου
οὐρανου
Zech 2:10:
διότι ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ συνάξω ὑμᾶς λέγει κύριος
To highlight the parity, the lexical correspondence is in bold. Mark 13:27’s

ἐπισυνάξει…ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων…ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανου recalls Zech 2:10’s ἐκ
τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ συνάξω. Five features distinct to Zechariah
2 suggest its prominence in Mark 13:27. First, Zech 2:10 and Mark 13:27 each
use a future form (ἐπι)συνάγω and the phrase “from the four winds of heaven.”
Second, the first clause of Zech 2:10 (not above) contains the command to
“Flee!” (φεύγετε) before the assertion that God will gather his people. The latter
element corresponds to Mark 13:14’s warning to “flee” (φευγέτωσαν) before por-
traying the “gathering” in 13:27. Third, Zech 2:14 claims that this “gathering from
the four winds” will happen when God “comes.” Zech 2:14b reads: διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ
ἔρχομαι καὶ κατασκηνώσω ἐν μέσῳ σου λέγει κύριος. The people will be gathered
from the four winds because God is coming to do so. Fourth, Zech 2:15 indicates
that when God comes, “many nations” will join the Lord. This theme is conso-
nant with the total picture in Mark 13 that depicts “all the nations” being evan-
gelized. Moreover, Mark 13:10’s reference to “all the nations” being evangelized
corresponds to Zechariah 14’s four uses of the phrase “all the nations,”113 in
which the latter group eventually flocks to Jerusalem to worship YHWH. Fifth,
Zech 2:15 declares that all of the above—the theophany, the gathering, and the
conversion of the nations—occurs on “that day” (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ). Zechariah
14 also uses the phrase “that day,” employing the phrase eight times in twenty-
one verses.114 Each instance refers to the day the Lord comes with his angels.
The latter phrase, “that day” (τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης), is the term Mark 13:32 applies
to the day the Son of Man comes with the angels and gathers the elect from the
113 Zech 14:2, 16, 18, 19. This count excludes the times Zech 14 refers to “all the peoples” or “all
the tribes” in 14:12, 17.
114 Zech 14:4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21.
four winds. Moreover, finally, 13:32’s insistence that no one except “the Father”
knows “that day” of his coming corresponds to Zech 14:7’s claim that “that day
[of the Lord’s arrival] is known to the Lord” (ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη γνωστὴ τῷ κυρίῳ).115
Mark 13’s combination of these many correspondences from Zechariah 2 and
14 strongly suggest that Zechariah informs the content and arrangement of the
Olivet Discourse, and in particular, Mark 13:24–27. As mentioned, the fact that
Zechariah 2 and 14 each relate a theophany probably enabled their combina-
tion in Mark.116
The following table illustrates the sequential parallels between Zechariah
13–14 and Mark 13 argued for in this essay. In the middle column I paraphrase
the shared event, and in the side columns I provide the respective scriptural
references.
Zechariah Event Mark
14:4 Setting of Discourse 13:3

Zech 13:7–9 + Θ Dan 12 Scattering = Tribulation 14:27, 13:19
13:9 Refinement 9:49, 13:9–13
2:11 (2:15 LXX); 14:16 Universal Evangelism 13:10
14:1–5 Attack on Jerusalem 13:14–22
14:5 Flight to the Hills 13:14
14:2 Consequent Afflictions 13:14–17
14:5 Coming of the Son of Man with Angels 8:38, 13:26–27
2:10–15 Gathering the Elect 13:27
14:6, 7, 8, 9 “That Day” 13:32
14:7 Jesus’ ignorance about “that day” 13:32
115 For an elaborate defence of each of these correspondences, see Sloan, “Mark 13 and the
Return of the Shepherd,” 149–179.
116 For use of Zechariah in the synoptic gospels, particularly within the passion narratives,
see Dale Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion
and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 33–36; Wright, JVG, 599–600;
Craig Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope,” in Authenticating the Activities of
Jesus (ed. B. Chilton and C. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 373–388; Pitre, Jesus, 455–466;
Kelly Liebengood, The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah
9–14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 64, who cites Dodd, According to
the Scriptures and M.C. Black, “The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who is Coming With
His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives” (Ph.D.
diss., Emory University, 1990), 158–232. For a systematic examination of Zechariah in the
Matthew tradition, see Moss, Zechariah Tradition.
158 Sloan
3 Concluding Remarks
In short summary, this essay argues that when Mark’s Jesus quotes Zech 13:7
before his arrest, he is teaching that he is about to be executed, and that the
eschatological tribulation will begin thereafter, entailing both tribulation for
Jerusalem and the disciples, before culminating in Jesus’ return with angels.
The latter scenario is present in some form in Zechariah 13–14, and aspects
of it are utilized throughout Mark 13, evident by allusions to various portions
of Zechariah. Additionally, as supporting evidence, other early Christian texts
(Didache, and the commentaries on LXX Zechariah by Didymus and Cyril)
evince comparable interpretations of the same material.
If the argument convinces, it offers at least three meaningful insights. First,
it alters the consensus interpretation of Jesus’ quotation of Zech 13:7. Rather
than referring to his arrest and the disciples’ flight, it predicts Jesus’ death and
the consequent tribulations for the disciples. Second, it contributes to the de-
bate regarding the meaning of Mark 13:26–27. Rather than referring symboli-
cally to the destruction of the temple, it depicts the heaven-to-earth advent
of the Son of Man with angels. Third, most significantly, recognizing the allu-
sions to Zechariah provides a plausible solution to a longstanding crux inter-
pretum. Scholarship has grappled for years with the seeming disparity between
the disciples’ question about the temple and Jesus’ response including refer-
ence to his parousia. The present proposal, however, indicates that Mark’s ar-
rangement, which joins discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple,
and Jesus’ theophany, is not strange in light of the comparable sequence in
Zechariah. Rather than a badly arranged discourse, Mark 13 may be seen as a
prophetic speech that draws on Israel’s prophetic literature, including not least
Isaiah, Daniel, and significantly, Zechariah, in order to describe the striking,
but eventual return, of God’s shepherd.
Chapter 8
The Hybrid Isaiah Quotation in Luke 4:18–19

Joseph M. Lear
In the fourth chapter of his Gospel, Luke narrates Jesus’ arrival in Nazareth
after his wilderness temptation. There, as Luke says was his custom, Jesus visits
a synagogue (v. 16). He is handed the book of Isaiah and he opens to the place
where it is written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach

good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim release to the prisoners
and sight to the blind, to send those who are oppressed into liberty, to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (vs. 18–19).
Luke says Jesus turned to the place in the singular (τὸν τόπον, v. 17), by which
he means Isa 61:1–2. But a closer look indicates that Luke has inserted a phrase
from another passage in Isaiah.
In fact, there are several differences between the Greek versions of Isaiah
and Luke’s version.1 First, he does not quote the second half of Isa 61:2, dis-
rupting the poetical structure of the verse. Isa 61:2 reads, “to proclaim the ac-
ceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance, to comfort all those who
mourn.” Luke does not quote “and the day of vengeance, to comfort all those
who mourn” (v. 19). Second, he has inserted a phrase from Isa 58:6, “to send
those who are oppressed into liberty.” Third, Luke changes the final verb of his
1 I make all my remarks from the Greek versions of the OT because it appears that Luke is
working foremost with a Greek version. The text and critical apparatus of the Göttingen
LXX demonstrates no significant differences with Rahlfs’ LXX (only 534 changes the infini-
tive καλέσαι to κηρύξαι, which is likely a result of the influence of Luke’s text, as the critical
apparatus of the Göttingen text suggests), see Isaias (VTG 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967). It is because of the method by which Luke includes Isa 58:6 in Isa 61:1–2 that
it is most likely that he was using a Greek version. One of the reasons it appears he included
Isa 58:6 is that it, like Isa 61:1, uses the noun ἄφεσις. The noun ἄφεσις that connects the two
passages, however, is two different terms in the Hebrew (‫‏ ְּד ֔רֹור‬in Isa 61:1 and ‫‏ ָח ְפ ִׁשי‬in Isa 58:6).
Since the noun ἄφεσις appears to be key in connecting Isa 58:6 and Isa 61:1, and since this
connection is possible only in the Greek, it appears that Luke was primarily using a Greek
version of Isaiah.

160 Lear
quotation. Where Luke uses the verb κηρύσσω in the phrase “to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,” Isa 61:2 has καλέω. Finally, he omits the phrase,
“to heal those broken in heart” from Isa 61:1. My claim in this paper is that Luke
made each one of these changes in order to give his quotation of Isaiah an
aesthetic quality by creating verbal parallelisms between the final four phras-
es in the quotation. Moreover, in giving the quotation an aesthetic quality, it
appears he attempted to preserve the meaning of the original Isa 61:1–2 as he
perceived it.
table 7.1
Luke 4:18–19 Isaiah 61:1–2 Isaiah 58:6
πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με
εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς
ἀπέσταλκέν με ἀπέσταλκέν με
ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους

τῇ καρδίᾳ
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν

καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους

ἀφέσει ἐν ἀφέσει
(19) κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου (2) καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου

δεκτόν. δεκτὸν
καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως,

παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς
πενθοῦντας
The Hybrid Isaiah Quotation in Luke 4:18–19 161
Scholars have observed the changes that Luke made to his quotation.2 They
have, however, considered only some of those changes to be significant and
worthy of comment. They have thought, for example, that the omission of the
final phrase “the day of vengeance” is meaningful for Luke. Fitzmyer suggests
that Luke’s omission of the phrase is “a deliberate suppression of a negative
aspect of the Deutero-Isaian message.” Luke does not want the “day of venge-
ance” to be identified with the “today” (σήμερον) that Jesus speaks of two verses
later when he says “today this writing is fulfilled in your ears” (v. 21).3 Fitzmyer
sees this omission as part of an eschatological shift that Luke made from earlier
Christian outlooks represented by the Gospel of Mark and Paul. Luke, accord-
ing to Fitzmyer, has shifted the emphasis from the eschaton to the sēmeron: he
has “dulled the eschatological edge of some of the sayings of Jesus.”4
2 For another study that demonstrates Luke’s sophisticated use of Isaiah, see Michael Lyons,
“Paul and the Servant(s): Isa 49,6 in Acts 13,47,” ETL 89.4 (2013): 345–359. For other studies on
Luke’s use of Scripture, see e.g. David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 130;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in
Luke-Acts (London: T&T Clark, 2008); Robert L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices
of Scripture in Luke-Acts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995); Kenneth Duncan
Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually
(JSNTSup 282; London: T&T Clark, 2005); Susan J. Wendel, Scriptural Interpretation and
Community Self-Definition in Luke-Acts and the Writings of Justin Martyr (Leiden: Brill, 2011);
Richard Bauckham, “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts” in Restoration: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72; ed. J.M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 435–488;
Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural
Pattern of Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Michael E.
Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of Nations in Early Jewish
Literature and Luke-Acts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006); and David P. Moessner, Lord of the
Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1989); T. Holtz, Untersuchungen über die alttestamntlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104;
Berlin: Akedemie, 1968); M. Rese, Alttestamenliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (SNT
1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969); D.L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old
Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987); D. Rusam, Das Alte Testament bei
Lukas (BZNW 112; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003).
3 Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981–
1985), 1.532.
4 This dulling, he says, is a result of Luke coping with the delay of the parousia, “which puzzled
early Christians” (Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:234). John Nolland, as well, sees Luke’s omission of “the
day of vengeance” as part of Luke’s characteristic two-stage eschatology: salvation now, judg-
ment later, in Luke (WBC; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1989–1993), 1.198. François Bovon and Michael
Goulder both note that the omission is significant but say very little about it: Bovon says “the
day of vengeance would have been inappropriate,” Luke 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
2002), 153; Goulder says Luke wants “to keep the atmosphere positive,” Luke: A New Paradigm
162 Lear
Evans and Sanders also consider the omission significant, but for a different
reason. They argue that Luke’s audience held to a hermeneutical axiom that
can also be seen in the writings of Qumran, namely that the end-time fulfill-
ment of the scriptures meant blessings for the in-group on the one hand, and
woe for their enemies on the other.5 The omission of the “day of vengeance” is
Jesus’ effort to proclaim blessings on all, not only an in-group. Jesus’ omission
according to Evans and Sanders constitutes a challenge “to Israel’s covenantal
self-understanding in any generation.”6
Scholars have also consistently noted the addition of Isa 58:6 and that
it appears to be a deliberate insertion since the word ἄφεσις (ἀποστεῖλαι
τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει) forms a “catchword bond”7 or a “bridge-word”8 with
the preceding phrase in Isa 61:1, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν.9
By comparison, the other two changes Luke made to his Isaiah quotation
have received little attention. Nolland considers the possibility that Luke
changed the verb from καλέω to κηρύσσω to make it consistent with the Hebrew
text, which has the same verb (‫ ) ָק ָרא‬where the Greek versions have two,10 but
he rejects the possibility, suggesting instead that the word is “more suited for
expressing the preaching of the gospel” and “is ready to hand earlier in the
quotation.”11 The omission of the phrase “to heal the broken hearted” is gen-
erally dismissed either as “of little consequence”12 or is quickly explained as a
phrase that is “too spiritual” for Luke’s taste.13
(JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 302. Cf. Charles A. Kimball,
Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel (JSNTSup 94; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994), 110; Joel B. Green says it has probably been omitted “to suppress
what would have been taken as a negative aspect of the Isaianic message,” The Gospel of
Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 210.
5 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition
in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 57–65.
6 Evans and Sanders, Luke and Scripture, 64. They say that Jesus’ hermeneutic is the reason
for the peoples’ negative reaction to his pronouncement in Nazareth.
7 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.533.
8 B.J. Koet, Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts (SNTA 14; Leuven: Leuven
9 Evans and Sanders, Luke and Scripture, 62; Goulder, Luke, 302; Nolland, Luke, 1.193; Kimball,
Exposition, 106–107; Green, Luke, 210.
10 The Greek versions translate ‫ ָק ָרא‬as κηρύσσω in its first instance in Isa 61:1, which is pre-
served in Luke’s quotation.
11 Nolland, Luke, 1.193; Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, who simply remarks that the change has been
made without offering any potential reasons, 1.532. Bovon, on the other hand, misses the
fact that Luke has made this change, Luke, 153.
12 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.532.
13 Nolland, Luke, 1.197; Goulder, while he does not say this about the omission of the phrase,
says the same logic is behind the inclusion of Isa 58:6 (Luke, 302). Alternatively, Evans
There are several problems with previous analyses of Luke’s quotation of

Isaiah. First, the fact that scholars do not agree why Luke has not included the
rest of Isa 61:2 makes one wonder if its lack can really signify a theological
commitment on Luke’s part and/or a hermeneutical one on the audience’s
part.14 Every argument that suggests that it can signify one of these things is,
after all, an argument from what Luke does not say, rather than what he does.
Second, despite considering the inclusion of Isa 58:6 to be deliberate because
of the “catch word” bond (ἄφεσις), scholars say nothing about the logic behind
its inclusion. It appears to be deliberate, but why insert a phrase from a foreign
context in the first place?15 Some have suggested that perhaps Luke wanted
to emphasize the word. But if Luke wanted to do this, why manipulate a quo-
tation of Isaiah to do so? Why not simply use the word in the surrounding
narrative?16 Finally, and most importantly, the shortcoming of all analyses of
Luke’s Isaian text is that they fail to explain every change Luke has made in an
integrated fashion. I claim to be able to demonstrate that every change Luke
made to his quotation of Isa 61:1–2 is made for the same reason: he desired to
give the quotation an aesthetic quality.
My argument in sum is that Luke wants to emphasize the word δεκτός, “ac-
ceptable,” so he ends the Isaiah quotation on that word (κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου
and Sanders suggest that the phrase is omitted simply because something needed to be
removed to make room for the inclusion of Isa 58:6, Luke and Scripture, 62. Green says the
reason for its omission is “unclear,” Luke, 210.
14 Fitzmyer’s position that Luke wishes not to identify “today” with the day of judgment has
had much more currency among scholars than that of Evans and Sanders. This is due in
large part to Hans Conzelmann’s very influential work, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G.
Buswell; London: Faber and Faber, 1961). For more on Luke’s eschatological outlook, see
e.g. John T. Carroll, Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts
(SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); and François Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five
Years of Research (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 1–89.
15 It was common practice among early Christian writers to modify their quotations of
scripture by inserting a phrase from a foreign context. It appears Luke himself does this
again at the beginning of Acts, inserting the phrase ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (probably
taken from Isa 2:2) into a quotation of Joel 3:1–5 (Acts 2:12–21). The author of Mark does
this as well. Mark says he is quoting from the prophet Isaiah in Mark 1:2–3, but inserts a
phrase from Mal 3:1 before quoting Isa 40:3. Hybrid quotations were also common in the
second temple period. See e.g. Michael Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of
Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra (ed. M.J. Mulder; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 339–377; and
Matthias Henze, ed. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
The fact that it was common practice to make hybrid quotations does not however pre-
vent us from asking both why an author inserted a phrase from a foreign context in the
first place and why an author makes a hybrid quotation out of the particular two or more
passages that he has.
16 Oddly, commentators do not note the other “catch word,” ἀποστέλλω.
164 Lear
δεκτόν, v. 19).17 He ends on that word so he can reuse it in the immediate nar-
rative to indict the people of Nazareth for rejecting Jesus (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι
οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ, v. 24).18 But, as I already said,
by ending on this word, Luke disrupts the literary structure of Isa 61:1–2. He
makes every other change to the text in order to repair the literary structure
that he broke. Moreover, Luke demonstrates a careful hermeneutic in making
the changes he does, particularly in his addition of the phrase from Isa 58:6, “to
send those who are oppressed into liberty.”
If indeed it is true that Luke made changes to his quotation of Isaiah because
he wanted to give it an aesthetic quality, then we must first establish that it
is plausible to claim that Luke is concerned with aesthetics, especially when
he is quoting scripture.19 Luke’s quotation of Joel 3:1–5 LXX (2:28–32 Eng.) in
17 I am not saying that as a rule the final word of a quotation is always emphasized. The
word δεκτός in this instance is emphasized by its ordering in both the Greek version of
Isaiah and in Luke. Luke keeps the genitive κυρίου in between the two accusatives ἐνιαυτὸν
and δεκτὸν when κυρίου could easily have been put at the end of the clause. But the word
order of the clause is not sufficient reason in itself to justify claiming that Luke wanted to
emphasize the word δεκτός. Rather, it is also for all the reasons that I argue below that it
appears that Luke wishes to emphasize this word by ending on it.
18 Scholars have noted the reuse of the word δεκτός in the narrative that follows the quo-
tation (Luke 4:24), but fail to consider this as the reason why Luke ends his quotation
of Isaiah on that word. See Bovon, Luke, 153; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.528; Kimball, Exposition,
110–111.
19 Scholars have recognized at least since Robert Tannehill’s study on the narrative unity
of Luke-Acts that Luke has a deliberate literary structure to his two-volume work. Luke’s
concern for aesthetics is evident in the numerous correspondences in form and con-
tent between Luke and Acts. See Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary
Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990). For other studies that pay at-
tention to the literary aspects of Luke’s works, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of
Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991); Richard I. Pervo, Profit With Delight: The Literary
Genre of Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); and Daniel Marguerat, The First
Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002). Roland Meynet has also suggested that every pericope of Luke’s
Gospel falls within variously sized literary sequences. These sequences are in some in-
stances triplets of stories (e.g. Luke 15:1–32), and in others chiasms (e.g. Luke 18:35–19:48).
Meynet may at times force elements of Luke’s narrative into too rigid a literary pattern,
but many of his observations are compelling. See Roland Meynet, L’Evangile de Luc
(Paris: Lethielleux, 2005); cf. idem, Rhetorical Analysis (JSOTSup 256; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998).
Acts 2:17–21 offers an example. The Greek versions of Joel 3:3 read “and I will
give wonders in the heavens and on the earth” (καὶ δώσω τέρατα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). Luke’s version, however, reads “I will give wonders in the heav-
ens above and signs on the earth below” (καὶ δώσω τέρατα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω
καὶ σημεῖα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω, Acts 2:19). Luke makes three adjustments to this
phrase: he adds the noun σημεῖα and he adds two prepositions ἄνω and κάτω.20
It appears that Luke made these changes himself since he will use the words
σημεῖον and τέρας together several times in the narrative that follows.21 In his
quotation of Joel, Luke not only adds the noun σημεῖα parallel to the noun
τέρατα, which could have easily been done with out making any other adjust-
ments, but he also adds the two prepositions at the end of each clause. The
addition of the two prepositions, if nothing else, makes the parallelism more
obvious. Further study is needed to explore Luke’s reuse of Joel 3:1–5, but it ap-
pears at the very least that Luke is attentive to the aesthetics of this scriptural
quotation.
In order to see why Luke ends his quotation on the word δεκτός, it is important
to see the quotation’s function in the larger narrative. Luke not only ends on
the word δεκτός in order to link it to the narrative that proceeds; he also begins
the quotation with the phrase “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” in order to
link it with what has come before in his narrative. Both the opening and clos-
ing phrases of the quotation, in other words, function as links that connect the
entire quotation with the broader narrative.
The Isaiah quotation comes in a series of pericopae that are all concerned
with the claim that Jesus is the son of God.22 The sequence of stories begins
20 The Göttingen LXX notes that there are textual variants that bring the text into confor-
mity with Acts 2:17–21, but attributes these changes to later recensions. The sources that
contain the variants that bring the text into conformity with Acts 2:17–21 are as follows:
for the addition of ἄνω, S 22 36 III 49 407 198 203 Co Syp Aeth Arm Cyr; for the addition of
σημεῖα, S V 22 36 III 49 26 239 Co Syp Arab Arm Cyr; for the addition of κάτω, W 22 36 III
49 233 239 Co Syp Aeth Arm Cyr.
21 See Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 15:12.
22 Green also notices the theme of sonship, but does not think that the Nazareth scene is
part of this theme. Rather, he suggests that the theme of sonship ends with the Devil’s
temptations in 4:13. He does later note the play between “son of God” and “son of Joseph”
in 4:22, but fails to see that this is the scene the previous pericopae have been building to,
Luke, 184–185, 215.
166 Lear
with Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3:21).23 In his baptism, the Spirit descends upon him
and God’s voice says, “you are my beloved Son, in you I am pleased” (v. 22).
Immediately after the baptism scene, Luke gives a detailed genealogy of Jesus’
ancestors stretching the length of biblical history (vs. 23–38). He ends his gene-
alogy with “Adam the son of God” (v. 37). The implicit suggestion seems to be
that, if Jesus is ultimately Adam’s son by human ancestry, and Adam is God’s
son, then Jesus is God’s son even by human ancestry.
At the beginning of chapter 4 Luke says that Jesus, “full of the Holy Spirit
went from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit (ἐν τῷ πνεύματι) into the wil-
derness” (v. 1). There, Jesus is tempted by the Devil, and twice the Devil asks
Jesus if he is the son of God (vs. 3, 9). After his temptation, Luke says that Jesus
is led again in the power of the Holy Spirit (ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει
τοῦ πνεύματος), who leads him to Galilee (v. 14). After Jesus reads Isaiah in the
Nazareth synagogue, Luke says that the people ask among themselves “is this
not Joseph’s son?” (οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; 4:22).24
The temptation scene and the scene in Nazareth are also knit together rhe-
torically. When the Devil challenges Jesus’ sonship, he tells him to make bread
out of stones. In response, Jesus quotes Deut 8:3b: “man shall not live on bread
alone” (οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, 4:4). Immediately before the
people of Nazareth ask “is this not Joseph’s son?” Luke reuses Deut 8:3c say-
ing, “they were marveling at the words which were coming out of his mouth”
(ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦv,
4:22). Luke separates two clauses in Deut 8:3 to bring the two scenes together,
both of which are concerned with Jesus’ sonship.25
23 A new stage in the narrative is signified by the verb ἐγένετο (ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι
ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ).
24 Scholars disagree about whether the peoples’ question should be taken as a positive re-
sponse or a negative one. Nolland thinks that since such a remark is purely negative in
Mark 6:3, then it must be here as well (Luke, 1.199); Green, on the other hand, suggests
that the locals’ response is positive, though the reader knows the assumption behind their
question is incorrect, Luke, 215. Green is correct to suggest that the reader knows more
than the locals do, but that does not mean their question is a positive one. It seems best
to me to see their question as the necessary assumption that they must make in order
to reject Jesus. Therefore, while it appears to be an innocent question to ask, something
insidious is at work. The question begins the slippery slope, ending in an attempt to push
Jesus off a cliff (Luke 4:29).
25 Bruce W. Longenecker also thinks that these two scenes are connected rhetorically, but
does not notice the way Luke has separated these two clauses from Deut 8:3. He suggests
that Jesus’ miraculous passing through the crowd in Nazareth that wishes to throw him
off of a cliff (4:28–30) is a partial fulfillment of Satan’s third temptation, “throw yourself
down from here (the top of the temple),” after which Satan quotes Ps 90:11 LXX, “because
Deut 8:3
Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the
mouth of God.
ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι τῷ
ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος
Luke 4:4
οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος
Luke 4:22
καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ
στόματος αὐτοῦ
Luke thus raises the issue of Jesus’ sonship from the moment of his baptism
through to the inauguration of his public ministry.
The opening words the Isaiah quotation fit with the theme of divine son-
ship. If the first time Jesus is publicly declared to be God’s son is when the Spirit
descends upon him, then for Jesus to say “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” is
itself a way for Luke subtly to say that Jesus is God’s son. The repeated refer-
ences to the Spirit throughout the sequence of stories about his divine sonship
makes this even clearer (4:1, 14). Moreover, placing this quotation immediately
after the temptation scene has rhetorical force. Jesus is driven by the Spirit into
the desert where his divine sonship is questioned by the Devil. Now, Jesus de-
clares himself to be anointed with the Spirit in Nazareth where the people, like
the Devil, question Jesus’ divine sonship. The misdirected assumption of the
people of Nazareth foreshadows the peoples’ rejection of Jesus moments later.
Just as Luke begins his quotation with a phrase that connects it with the sur-
rounding narrative, so also does he end his quotation where he does for a rhe-
torical reason. Jesus’ final words in the Isaiah quotation announce the δεκτός
(“acceptable”) year of the Lord. After the people of Nazareth question Jesus’
sonship, Jesus responds by saying that no prophet is δεκτός (“acceptable”) in his
hometown (v. 24). Luke therefore suggests that if Jesus is not δεκτός in his home
town, and if he is the son of God upon whom the Spirit rests, then the people
of Nazareth might be missing the δεκτός year of the Lord by questioning Jesus’
he will command his angels on your behalf, to guard you.” See Hearing the Silence: Jesus
on the Edge and God in the Gap: Luke 4 in Narrative Perspective (Eugene: Cascade, 2012).
168 Lear
divine sonship. The acceptance and/or rejection of Jesus, the one sent from
God, continues to be a major theme in Luke’s Gospel.26
Luke has carefully crafted both the beginning and ending of his quotation,
selecting and rearranging portions of his source text in a way that supports his
larger narrative. The phrase “Spirit of the Lord” connects the quotation with
the theme of divine sonship, and the ending phrase “acceptable year of the
Lord” connects it with Jesus’ rejection by the people of Nazareth. And these
two matters are related, for their rejection is first symbolized in their question,
“is this not Joseph’s son?”
Luke’s desire to end his quotation where he does creates a problem that I already
mentioned: he disrupts the literary structure of Greek Isaiah (see Table 7.2).
There is a clear literary structure in Isa 61:1–2. The third verb ἀπέσταλκέν, “he
sent (me),” is followed by four infinitives: “to heal,” “to proclaim,” “to declare,”
“to comfort.” The central two infinitives are parallel: both have compound
clauses, “to proclaim liberty to prisoners and sight to the blind,” and “to declare
the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of recompense.” The central two
infinitives are also parallel semantically: “to proclaim” (κηρύξαι) has approxi-
mately the same meaning as “to declare” (καλέσαι). The first and fourth infin-
itival clauses are also parallel. Grammatically, both infinitives are followed by
substantive participles. Semantically, “to heal those broken in heart,” is similar
to “to comfort all those who mourn.”27 But, again, Luke disrupts the literary
26 This is particularly clear at the culmination of Jesus’ instructions to the sending of the
Seventy(-two) in 10:16, “the one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you
rejects me; and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent (τὸν ἀποστείλαντά) me.”
This is evidence that, like the words ἄφεσις and δεκτός, Luke wants to emphasize the verb
ἀποστέλλω, and is one of the reasons he chose to insert Isa 58:6 into the quotation.
27 Isa 61:3 begins with a fifth infinitive (δοθῆναι), which is also subordinate to the main verb
ἀπέσταλκέν. But there is a clear break with this fifth infinitive from the poetic structure
of vs. 1–2, signaled by the reuse of the substantive participle τοῖς πενθοῦσιν. This fifth in-
finitival clause is expounding on the last phrase of Isa 61:2. It reads, “to give to those who
mourn in Zion glory instead of ashes—oil of joy to those who mourn—a cloak of glory
instead of a spirit of grief; and they will be called a generation of righteousness, a planting
of the Lord in glory” (δοθῆναι τοῖς πενθοῦσιν Σιων δόξαν ἀντὶ σποδοῦ, ἄλειμμα εὐφροσύνης τοῖς
πενθοῦσιν, καταστολὴν δόξης ἀντὶ πνεύματος ἀκηδίας). The fifth and final infinitive (δοθῆναι)
is therefore an expansion and explanation of the final phrase of Isa 61:2 (“to comfort all
those who mourn”), answering the question “how will they be comforted?” (Notice that
the verb πενθέω is again used in the second phrase of 61:3). It thus makes sense that Luke
desired to repair the literary structure only of Isa 61:1–2.
structure of his text by ending his quotation on the word δεκτός. If he had
left Isaiah as it was according to his Greek version while ending on the word
“acceptable,” only three infinitives would have remained. He would no longer
have a fourth infinitive paralleling the first grammatically and semantically.
And with the absence of the fourth infinitive, the second and third’s relation-
ship, while not necessarily lost semantically, would be unsure since they have
the different lexemes, κηρύσσω, “to proclaim,” and καλέω, “to declare.”
Isa 61:1–2
πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ,
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με
εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς
ἀπέσταλκέν με
ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν
καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν
καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως
παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας
It appears that Luke wished to fix the literary structure that he disrupted be-
cause Luke’s quotation of Isaiah itself has a literary structure. Luke’s quotation
has three main verbs, with the second two governing subsequent infinitives
just as the original LXX Isa 61:1–2 does. The first verb is the implied state of
being verb “is” in the clause “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” The second verb
“anointed” controls the infinitive “to proclaim good news” in the clause “he has
anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.” The third verb is ἀποστέλλω
(“sent”) controls the final three infinitives “to proclaim,” “to send,” and “to pro-
claim.” It is with the third verb that Luke made changes to Isa 61:1–2, and re-
structured it so that it retains a literary aesthetic. The first and third infinitives
parallel one another lexically and syntactically. Both are the infinitive κηρύξαι
subordinate to the main verb ἀπέσταλκέν. Though its syntactical function is
different, the third infinitive ἀποστεῖλαι, located between the two κηρύξαι, pa
rallels the controlling verb ἀπέσταλκέν. Moreover, the second and third infini-
tival phrases parallel each other with the use of the noun ἄφεσις (“forgiveness
or liberty”). Luke constructs a literary structure with two alternating lexemes
in the final clause of the quotation: the verbs in order are ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω,
ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω. And the central two clauses are brought into relationship
via the common noun ἄφεσις. Yet, Luke does not make the final κηρύξαι clause
compound like the first. But it is possible that this is intentional: not having a
170 Lear
second clause with the final κηρύξαι makes it incongruous with the first κηρύξαι
clause and thereby again makes word δεκτός more noticeable.
Luke 4:18–19
πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με
εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς
ἀπέσταλκέν με
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν
Having noticed Luke’s restructuring of Isaiah, it is possible to make sense of the

changes Luke has made to the text. First, it appears Luke has replaced infini-
tive καλέσαι in the clause “to declare the acceptable year of the Lord” with the
infinitive κηρύξαι to make the third infinitive parallel the first infinitive, which
is also κηρύξαι.28
Second, it is possible to make sense of the exclusion of the phrase “to heal
those broken in heart” and the inclusion of the phrase “to send those who are
oppressed into liberty” from Isa 58:6. If he had left in the phrase “to heal those
broken in heart” he would not have been able to create the parallelism that
he did: there would have been no correlate verb paralleling “to heal.” The in-
cluded phrase “to send those who are oppressed into liberty” from Isa 58:6, on
the other hand, fits neatly into the quotation. Again, the infinitive ἀποστεῖλαι,
“to send,” parallels ἀπέσταλκέν, “he sent,” in the alternating verb structure,
ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω, ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω.
But this solution does not completely solve the matter. Why does Luke ex-
clude the first phrase “to heal those broken in heart” and include Isa 58:6 when
it seems he could have instead imported another phrase from somewhere
else in Isaiah that had the verb “to heal” in it. The parallelism could have been
28 As a side note, while the change is easy enough to make because κηρύσσω is close seman-
tically to καλέω, it is interesting that where the Septuagint has two different verbs, the MT
has one. In the MT both κηρύσσω and καλέω are the verb ‫“ קרא‬to call or proclaim.” This
could indicate that Luke had a Hebrew text in addition to a Greek Text. If he did, he may
have felt more comfortable changing the word for his literary structure since it would
consistent with the Hebrew. As I mentioned in n.1, there is one MSS from the eleventh
century (534) according to the Göttingen LXX that changes καλέω in 61:2 to κηρύσσω. But
this change in this manuscript is more likely a result of Luke’s influence, as the critical
apparatus of the Göttingen LXX itself suggests.
“heal, proclaim, heal, proclaim” instead of “send, proclaim, send, proclaim.” It

appears that Luke thought the latter was the better choice for two reasons.
First, it is likely Luke thought Isa 58:6 was an appropriate inclusion is be-
cause of his controlling hermeneutic. It appears that Luke chose to include
this clause because of common lexemes and tropes between Isa 58:6 and its
context and Isa 61:1–2. The first lexeme, as I have already mentioned, is the verb
ἀποστέλλω, which allows Luke to create his literary structure of alternating lex-
emes (ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω, ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω). Also related to the literary
structure is the noun ἄφεσις, which creates parallelism between the two central
clauses of Luke’s quotation. Significantly, the noun ἄφεσις appears in the Isaian
corpus only in Isa 61:1 and 58:6. Isa 58:6 moreover comes immediately after the
Lord says through the prophet Isaiah “will you call this an acceptable fast?”
(Isa 58:5). The word “acceptable” is δεκτός, the very lexeme on which Luke ends
his quotation of Isa 61:2. It therefore appears that Luke thought Isa 58:6 was an
appropriate inclusion because of three common lexemes (ἀποστέλλω, ἄφεσις,
and δεκτός) in the Isa 58:6 and its context and Isa 61:1–2.
It appears that Luke also noticed common themes between the two pas-
sages. Isa 58:6 comes in the context of speaking of proper fasts. Isaiah says,
“will you call this an acceptable fast?” (Isa 58:5). In Luke’s narrative, Jesus had
just fasted for forty days before reading Isa 61:1–2 in the Nazareth synagogue
(4:1–13). Moreover, the appropriate fast that the Lord looks for according to Isa
58:7 is to “share bread with the hungry and to bring the poor into your house”
(διάθρυπτε πεινῶντι τὸν ἄρτον σου καὶ πτωχοὺς ἀστέγους εἴσαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου).
The injunction to share bread with the poor (πτωχοὺς) coheres thematically
with Jesus proclaiming good news to the poor (πτωχοῖς) in Nazareth. It there-
fore appears that Luke chose a phrase that allows him to have a literary struc-
ture and one that fits seamlessly into a foreign context via common lexemes
and tropes.29
Second, in addition to common lexemes and tropes, Luke may have thought
that Isa 58:6 (“to send those who are oppressed into liberty”) was an appropri-
ate replacement clause for the excluded phrase from Isa 61:1 (“to heal those
broken in heart”) because the phrases are parallel both grammatically and se-
mantically (see Table 7.2). Grammatically, both phrases contain infinitives fol-
lowed by a substantive participle and a dative noun. Semantically, it is possible
that Luke thought the meanings of both phrases were approximately the same.
29 Again, it is because of Luke’s hermeneutic that it is most likely that he was using the
Septuagint in making the hermeneutical connections that led him to include Isa 58:6 (cf.
n.1). While the same noun ‫“ רצון‬acceptable” is in Isa 58:5 and 61:2 and the verb ‫“ שׁלח‬to
send,” also appears in Isa 58:6 and 61:1, and while the same themes of helping the poor
appear in both passages, the noun ἄφεσις that further connects the two passages is two
different terms in the Hebrew (‫ דרור‬in Isa 61:1 and ‫ חפשי‬in Isa 58:6).
172 Lear
Table 7.2
Excluded Phrase from Isa 61:1

ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ (“to heal those broken in heart”)
Included Phrase from Isa 58:6

ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει (“to send those who are oppressed into
liberty”)
Both substantive participles speak of that which is “broken” or “oppressed.”

Moreover, Luke may have thought that in order “to heal those broken in heart”
one had “to send them into liberty.”
My analysis of Luke’s reuse of Isaiah makes it clear that Luke uses Isaiah for his
own purpose. But in using it for his own purpose, he demonstrates a certain
pattern of textual reuse and reworking. He uses it for his own purpose by con-
necting it with the theme of sonship he elaborates in this series of pericopae.
He has Jesus declare himself to be anointed with the Holy Spirit through the
words of the prophet Isaiah to identify himself as God’s son. Moreover, he ends
the quotation of Isaiah 61 early so as to emphasize the word δεκτός. Ending on
this word gives rhetorical force to Jesus saying “a prophet is never δεκτός in his
home town.”
But, as I have said, he disrupts the literary structure of the passage in using
it for his own purposes. It is in fixing the disruption that Luke’s pattern of reuse
and reworking become clear. If I have been correct in suggesting that Luke
saw the phrase from Isa 58:6 “to send those who are oppressed into liberty” as
parallel in meaning and sentence structure to phrase he excludes from his quo-
tation, then this shows that Luke is not willing to sacrifice the original meaning
of the passage for his own literary and theological purposes. On the contrary,
he not only selects a semantically approximate phrase, he also selects it from a
passage that has several lexical and thematic connections with Isa 61:1–2.
But perhaps what is most significant about Luke’s use of Isaiah is that he in-
cludes a phrase from Isa 58:6, excludes phrase from Isa 61:1, and changes a verb
to one of its synonyms all for the sake of having a literary structure. Retaining
original meaning is not enough. The original text was beautiful, so his text
should be beautiful as well.
part 3
Reading Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism
∵
Chapter 9
A Single, Huge, Aramaic Spoken Heretic: Sequences

of Adam’s Creation in Early Rabbinic Literature*
Willem Smelik
Since God created humans after his own likeness, male and female, it was
only natural for Jewish exegetes to imply that the first human, or “First Adam,”
once was an androgyne as huge as its own Maker.1 The concept of a macro-
cosmic God, widespread in the ancient world,2 implied a similar gigantic size
and shape of the First Adam. Due to the original sin, Adam’s stature was not
to last, but the myth of its original immensity and subsequent reduction to
size received ample attention in rabbinic literature—and underlies the refer-
ences to Adam in the three texts of the Mishna, the Tosefta and the Babylonian
Talmud studied here: m. Sanh. 4:5, its toseftan parallel in t. Sanh. 8:2–9 and
the reception in b. Sanh. 38b.3 The way these latter texts select and sequence,
and thereby resignify and embed these Adamic traditions, is the subject of
the present essay. This is an argument about form—about the malleability of
* Earlier versions of this article were delivered at the Winter Meeting of the SOTS, Birmingham,
4–6 January 2006; the Annual SBL meeting, Midrash session, Washington, D.C., 18–21
November 2006; and at The St Andrews Symposium for Biblical and Early Christian Studies,
2–3 June 2014. In the following, “Mishna” denotes the document with that name, whereas
“mishna” stands for a numbered unit in the former.
1 For the myth of the gigantic androgyne, see S. Niditch, “Cosmic Man as Mediator in Rabbinic
Literature,” JJS 34 (1983): 137–146; A. Altmann, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic
Adam Legends,” JQR 35 (1944–1945): 371–391; B. Barc, “La taille cosmique d’Adam dans la lit-
térature juive rabbinique des trois premiers siècles après J.-C.,” Revue des Science Religieuse
49 (1975): 173–185; E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magness
Press, 1975), 225–232; D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Literature (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1993), 31–46; D. Aaron, “Imagery of the Divine and the Human:
On the Mythology of Genesis Rabba 8 §1,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 5
(1995): 1–62. Cf. H. Baumann, Das doppelte Geschlecht: Ethnologische Studien zur Bisexualität
in Ritus und Mythos (Berlin: Reimer, 1955). For the Indo-european roots of the androgyne
myth, see Shai Secunda, “The Construction, Composition and Idealization of the Female
Body in Rabbinic Literature and Parallel Iranian Texts: Three Excursuses,” NASHIM: A Journal
of Jewish Women’s Studies and Gender Issues 23 (2012): 60–86.
2 A. Damsma, The Targumic Toseftot to Ezekiel (SAIS 13; Leiden: Brill, 2012), appendix E, “The
Concept of the Macrocosmic Body in the Ancient Near East,” 197–209.
3 The Yerushalmi also discusses the Mishna but its contribution is not relevant for the present
discussion, nor are other passages that refer to the primordial Adam.

176 Smelik
textual traditions which were transmitted en bloc—and about the way changed
form shapes new meaning—about the expression of new content in the pro-
cess of reshaping pre-extant text blocks.
The following topics will structure the present chapter:
1. The Mishna in Sanh. 4:5 offers two interpretations of a scriptural verse
(Gen 4:10), but only the first seems relevant to the halakhic topic under
discussion. Apparently the second interpretation slipped into the text
as an alternative, but peripheral take on the same biblical verse without
further relevance for the discussion. Yet the question may be raised why
it was included if indeed it interrupts the flow of the unit, or how both
interpretations function together within the mishna-unit?
2. They are followed by a series of four teachings based on the singular cre-
ation of the first ever human being, known as “Adam the First.” The mo-
tifs of this section have many parallels in rabbinic literature and beyond,
but the series in the Mishna appear to be “their own text,” that is, making
a point independent of the former meaning these traditions may have
had. The mishnaic version can be fruitfully contrasted with the parallel in
the Tosefta (t. Sanh. 8:3–6) which likewise offers a series of statements on
Adam’s singular creation, but despite obvious similarities, the text differs
in wording, sequence, and framing.
3. The Talmud includes four statements attributed to Rav Yehuda in the
name of Rav (b. Sanh. 38b) concerning “Adam the First” in its discussion
of this mishna. These statements are introduced by a mnemonic marker,
but what these four traditions do at this point in the tractate is unclear,
and how they relate to the Mishna opaque. Accordingly, these four tradi-
tions may be conceived as just another series of statements concerning
the first human, which stole their place into the text by mere associative
force.
4. The four statements in the name of Rav make new points about Adam’s
singular creation. Adam, we read in quick succession, was a project which
the angels were not very keen to see through, his initial dimensions were
gigantic, he spoke Aramaic and he was a heretic. Exactly how do these
points relate to one another or to the traditions about Adam’s singular
creation?
Scholars have not been slow to seize upon the many parallels to the rabbinic cre-
ation narratives of the first human within and without rabbinic literature.4 The
origins of the various motifs in pagan and gnostic mythology have long been
identified, with due attention to either rabbinic resistance to, or adaptation
4 See the previous footnotes.

Single, Huge, Aramaic Spoken Heretic 177
and resignifying of such borrowings.5 At many places in rabbinic literature,

quotations of and references to the mythological matrix of the first human
being have been made in a piecemeal fashion. Many of these motifs appear to
have floated around in the oral and written culture of late antiquity and Sages
sometimes selected those parts from this vast array of traditions which proved
useful for their arguments.6 Conversely, other selections seem to have no bear-
ing on the halakhic topic under discussion, but found their way into the text by
associative force or because the traditions were memorised in block fashion, so
that the quotation of a relevant part of a given block resulted in the inclusion
of the whole block. Both these phenomena require further examination.
My focus in this essay is not on the myth per se, but on the two related phe-
nomena of the literary reassignment of motifs and the peripheral accumula-
tion of associated traditions. Whatever the origin of certain traditions—and in
the underlying case, speculation about anti-Gnostic or anti-dualistic tenden-
cies has been rife—they may well have been used as ready-made blocks which
were realigned to serve new purposes, divested of their original impetus. More
precisely, in what follows I will focus on the selection and arrangement of mo-
tifs in block transmission to address particular legal situations as well as the
apparent tangential presence of similar motifs, which seem to digress from the
topic and to have been included by sheer associative force alone. But to assume
that the rabbinic fabric of literature is always one of loose association, in which
one tradition evokes another, is to underestimate the literary finesse of those
who shaped the texts as we know them.
1 Recontextualizing Genesis 4:10, Twice
Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5 highlights the importance of precise and considered

evidence in capital cases. It details how to caution would-be witnesses, out-
lines what counts as reliable evidence and what does not, such as conjecture
and hearsay. To underline the gravity of evidence in capital cases, these wit-
nesses are to be told in no uncertain terms what depends on their evidence. If
the accused is sentenced to death based on inaccurate or false evidence, the
consequences are irreversible and fatal. Besides, not only could the life of the
5 David Aaron argued for a mythological matrix that surfaces in Bereshit Rabbah §8 and that
demonstrates rabbinic awareness of and familiarity with non-rabbinic myth in their full-
fledged form (“Imagery of the Divine,” 1–62).
6 Cf. I. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2.
178 Smelik
accused be lost by unwarranted evidence, but also that of her or his potential
progeny. Support for this halakhic position is adduced in the form of scriptural
interpretation of Gen 4:10 in the Cain and Abel episode:
For so we find in the case of Cain who slew his brother, as it is said, ‘The
bloods of your brother cry’ (Gen 4:10).
It does not say, ‘the blood of your brother’ [in the singular] but ‘the
bloods of your brother’ [in the plural]—his [own] blood and the blood of
all those who were destined to be born from him.
Another point: ‘The bloods of your brother’—[it is written in the plu-
ral] because his blood was spattered on trees and stones.7
In the Hebrew verse the plural construct ending of the word “blood” signals the
spilled status of Abel’s blood, just as other plural forms of disintegrated sub-
stances denote their decomposition.8 The anonymous voice of this mishna on
the other hand relates the plural form to plural instances of bloodshed, namely
the blood of both Abel and his children had he lived to produce them. In addi-
tion to Abel’s death, the Mishna lays Abel’s virtual but now foiled offspring to
Cain’s door.9 In doing so it makes a point that resonates in a court of law. The
blood of the innocent victim and his progeny cries out, be it the murder victim
in Genesis or the victim of false evidence in court. Scripture, it is argued, issues
a warning which mirrors and justifies the halakhic point that the bloodline of
one who is killed without justification (be it the victim or a falsely convicted
suspect) are held against the witnesses, because the verse does not employ the
singular for the noun “blood” (‫)דם‬.
7 The translation is loosely based on J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1988). Wherever MS Kaufman deviates from the Albeck edition, I have
followed the former. For the latter, see C. Albeck, ‫( ששה סדרי משנה‬6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik
Institute, 1959).
8 B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 119–120 (§7.4.1). Note, however, that the use of the plural for the sin-
gular has long been considered a feature of Late Biblical Hebrew, see the literature men-
tioned in D.-H. Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability:
A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 16, 32.
9 The same exegesis is found in Targum Onqelos, Neofiti, the Cairo Geniza Targum and the
Fragmentary Targum to this verse, but not in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which appears to
highlight the quantity of blood. See further see A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in
the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 170, 290–291.
By contrast, in the second interpretation the plural of “blood” points to the

many places splashed with blood.10 This reading underlines the severity of the
killing, but not the plurality of lost souls and for that reason it has no part to play
in imparting the grave consequences of any inaccurate testimony on would-be
witnesses. It appears to have no thematic link to the topic of the questioning
of witnesses and to have little, if any, merit for the halakhic argument.11 On this
assumption, the second interpretation was probably included in the Mishna as
the almost random result of the way these interpretative traditions were trans-
mitted and applied to halakhic topics. These two interpretations may have
constituted a unit of interpretation of the scriptural verse (Gen 4:10) which
was inserted at this point into the halakhic discussion because the first part
was pertinent to the mishna’s topic, regardless of the irrelevance of the second
tradition that followed.
All this begs the question why the second interpretation was not deleted, or
conversely, whether the selection and inclusion of this seemingly inapplicable
scriptural interpretation might after all have some function in its present co-
text. The tendency to preserve traditions for later generations, in an almost
antiquarian sense, might be one reason. Learning both interpretative takes on
the verse together serves the memory well. But on this occasion we have rea-
son to assume that the second interpretation actually counteracts the halakhic
conclusions that were achieved on the basis of the first interpretation.12
Elsewhere in the Mishna the reticence to reach a guilty verdict in capital
cases is forcefully expressed. According to m. Mak. 1:10,13 a sanhedrin is called
murderous when it imposes the death penalty “once in seven years,” or even
10 The gemara of b. Sanh. 37b suggests a similar reason for the plural number: the infliction
of several bleeding wounds.
11 So P. Kehati’s commentary in ‫( משניות מבוארות‬Jerusalem: Mishnayyot Kehati, 2001), vol.
27, p. ‫ ;מח‬A. Samely’s online database of Midrashic Units in the Mishna, http://mishnah.
llc.manchester.ac.uk/detail.aspx?id=448 (retrieved 28 May 2014).
12 The Tosefta (t. Sanh. 8:2–3) does not include this scriptural proof text, but offers a famous
case-study which is an equally forceful teaching about circumstantial evidence. Even if
a witness saw the accused follow the victim in a shop, and the witness later found the
victim dead with the accused holding the murder weapon, a knife, in his hand, he should
not jump to conclusions: he did not actually see it happening, so his testimony is not valid.
Thus the Tosefta highlights the need to rely on actual observations, not on reasoned argu-
ments. A similar tradition found its way into the Babylonian Talmud.
13 For the academic reception of this passage, see B.A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention:
Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006).
180 Smelik
“once in seventy years.”14 Capital punishment requires hermetic proof; these

rabbis clearly feel any case will fall short of that demand. R. Tarfon and R. Aqiva
even go so far as to claim that they would never reach the guilty verdict in
capital cases: “If we were on a sanhedrin, no one would ever be put to death.”
One can hardly carry this argument any further. But the same mishna contin-
ues with the opposite opinion of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who counters,
“So they would multiply the number of murderers in Israel.” The downside of
a de facto abolishment of the death penalty, he argues, is the lack of a deter-
rent—the punishment meted out to murderers keeps a check on would-be
killers.
A similar counter-argument occurs in the final part of this mishna. When it
returns to the admonishment of witnesses, it no longer addresses the issue of
false or unreliable evidence in capital cases, but the need to come forward and
assume responsibility:
Now perhaps you [witnesses] would like now to say, What business have
we got with this trouble?
But it already has been written, ‘He being a witness, whether he has
seen or known, if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity’
(Lev 5:1).
And perhaps you might want to claim, What business is it of ours to
convict this human of a capital crime?
But has it not already been said, ‘When the wicked perish there is re-
joicing’ (Prov 11:10)?
The Mishna highlights the fact that withheld evidence is tantamount to sin
and deprives the world from rejoicing over the destruction of the wicked. The
reticence to provide uncertain evidence, or even to sentence someone to death
at all, expressed so forcefully in both mishnayyot (m. Mak. 1:10; Sanh. 4:5), is bal-
anced by the acknowledgment that it is a good thing to establish guilt when-
ever possible and to hold the wicked to account. On this interpretation, the
mishna does not argue against the death sentence unequivocally but imbues
witnesses with the gravity of any such verdict. It first deals with the case of a
wrongful conviction based on flawed testimonies, then with that of a failed
conviction when witnesses do not assume their responsibility and murderers
go unpunished.
14 Obviously, these discussions were of academic value only; see C. Hezser, The Social Struc-
ture of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 462.
The two scriptural interpretations represent the pivot of the discussion, as

they come exactly in between the two sides of the issue. This position within
the unit is not by chance. In brief, the mishna makes the following points in
succession:
How to caution witnesses in capital cases

Conjecture and hearsay on the part of witnesses are unacceptable
On false evidence, in capital cases innocent blood is held against you
Proof text: Gen 4:10; “the bloods of your brother”
Another interpretation: spattered blood all around
Therefore Adam was created alone (4 reasons)
Relevant testimony may not be withheld
It is a joy when the wicked perish on the basis of given evidence
This sequence places the second interpretation of Gen 4:10 at the heart of the
unit. This position may well suggest that it not merely slipped in by associa-
tive force, but was selected, intentionally, as it anticipates the final point made
in the mishna, namely, that evidence to hold the wicked to account must not
be withheld. Those who do, bear their own iniquity.15 Even though their testi-
mony may lead to another death, this fate of the rightfully convicted leads to
joy (citing Prov 11:10). In this second use of the proof text, Abel’s blood cries out
for justice: a crime so vicious and unmistakable, with visible signs all over the
place, calls for a conviction when reliable evidence is available. At this point
the victim of the crime is at the center of our attention, rather than the ac-
cused who might be wrongly convicted. No witnesses should shirk away from
their responsibility if they can contribute to justice. On this reading, the sec-
ond interpretation is not an immaterial interpretation that happened to follow
in this mishna in the slipstream of the first, stranded in the text for no other
reason than that it dealt with the same proof text. Rather, both interpretations
are evoked to employ their potential for admonishment.
This conclusion is supported by the block of reasons for Adam’s solitary
creation in this mishna. Homiletically, the mishna restates its concern for the
caution required from witnesses in capital cases, by drawing four inferences
from Adam’s solitary creation. The first of these restates the two sides of the
coin discussed so far:
15 Lev 5:1 in the part that is not cited.

182 Smelik
Therefore Adam was created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a
single soul16 is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world.
And whoever saves a single soul17 is deemed by Scripture as if he had
saved a whole world.
This first and main inference reflects the preciousness of life which works
two ways. To provide unreliable evidence that results in a capital punishment
would be to destroy a world, namely that person and any potential offspring,
and by the same token evidence that may lead to an acquittal could save an
accused person from capital punishment. The context is still that of would-be
witnesses in capital cases. Yet the destruction of a world simultaneously ap-
plies to the culprit, who destroyed not just a single soul, but an entire world:
the gravity of unlawful killing is such that no one should withhold pivotal evi-
dence that might lead to the accused’s sentence. The inclusion and position of
the second interpretation of Gen 4:10 reflects the polar aims of the instruction
to witnesses, with the admonition to come forward providing a counterpart to
the admonition not to give unreliable testimony. Intrinsic to the mishnaic text
is the inclusion of interpretative alternatives to draw on.
2 The One and Only, Twice
Behind the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve’s creation lurks a world of sug-
gestion and danger. As narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis, the
story has an unmistakable, purposeful ambivalence. In the plural, God cre-
ates Adam as a singular (1:26). However well explained, on first acquaintance
the plural for God in noun, verb and personal pronoun comes as a surprise
(‫)נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו‬, but so does his single creation. Humankind may
be a single item, but they are one as male and female (1:27, ‫)ברא אתו זכר ונקבה‬.
God created “him” first in “our” image, then in “his” image (1:27, ‫)בצלמו‬, “male
and female he created them” (1:27, ‫)ברא אתם‬. This alternation of plurals and
singulars, with singulars denoting human plurals (male and female) and plu-
rals denoting divine singulars (God), cannot have failed to provoke a reaction
from the audience. Even on the assumption that those familiar with its recita-
tion would have had all such details inculcated in their minds, so that they
knew what was to come, their knowledge hardly lessens the textual effect.
16 Albeck, ‫ ששה סדרי משנה‬adds ‫ מישראל‬at this point, absent in MSS Parma 3173, Kaufman
A50 and Munich 95, but supported by Florence II.I.8–9 and Yad HaRav Herzog 1.
17 Here again the plus ‫ מישראל‬is found in the same witnesses as before.
Why resort to this bolting series of alternative numbers and contrasting

subjects, taking unexpecting readers unawares? To state that God is neither
singular nor plural whereas humankind is God’s single creation, not the handi-
work of multiple gods. The biblical author is not so much staging a silent pre-
emptive attack on polytheism, although it leaves no room for that, but sets the
philosophical stage for the unique insistence on a single deity in a pluriform
world. His is a statement about the unique character of God as the single origin
of pluriformity.
In several sources the rabbis took the hint and expanded on the relation be-
tween unicity and pluriformity, and above all the creation of Adam as a single
being elicited moral reflections on humankind. The proof text and the block
on the creation of Adam as a solitary being in m. Sanh. 4:5 is one of the first pre-
served traditions of this kind, although it may well reflect a relatively late stage
in the Mishna’s redaction.18 For the relationship between the talmudic recep-
tion and this mishna, the issue of its relative lateness is irrelevant, since the
Talmud presupposes the extant mishna on this occasion. If both components
of the present mishna reflect secondary growth, the issue of how the Mishna
deploys its traditions would apply to this later stage of editorial activity. That
we are dealing with a late stage seems to be born out by a closer comparison of
the block of four reasons for Adam’s solitary creation with the Toseftan paral-
lel. The Mishna reads as follows:
Therefore Adam was created alone,

1. to teach that whoever destroys a single soul19 is considered as if he
had destroyed a full world. And whoever saves a single soul20 is con-
sidered as if he had saved a full world;
2. in view of peace among creatures, so that someone should not say
to his fellow, My father is greater than your father;
18 The last mishnayyot of chapters, and the very last chapter in tractates in particular, are
known to have been subject to later (aggadic) supplementation. For this phenomenon
in Mishna and Talmud, see J.N. Epstein, ‫( מבוא לנוסח המשנה‬Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
2001), 974–979; Ch. Albeck, Untersuchungen über die Redaktion der Mischnah (Berlin: C.A.
Schwetschke, 1923), 134–135; idem, Einführung in die Mischna (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971),
182–188; A. Weiss, ‫( על היצירה של הסבוראים‬Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1953), 8–11, 16; D.
Noy, “The Aggadic Endings in the Tractates of the Mishnah,” Mahanayyim 57 (1961): 44–
59; A. Cohen, Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law and the Poetics of Sugyot (Atlanta: Scholars,
1998), 164; Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation, 19–20.
19 See n.15 above for the plus ‫ מישראל‬in some witnesses.
20 See n.15 above for the plus ‫ מישראל‬in some witnesses.
184 Smelik
3. so that the heretics21 should not say, There are many domains in
Heaven;
4. to declare the grandeur of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One,
blessed be He. For a person mints a hundred coins with a single seal,
and they are all alike one another. But the supreme King of kings,
the Holy One, blessed be He, minted all human beings with the seal
of the first person, yet not one of them is like anyone else. Therefore
each and everyone must say, For my sake the world was created.
These four points draw out different implications from the biblical verses
against a textual and exegetical background that is not elaborated. To follow
the point, the reader must already know that Adam was created singly; the
point itself is not justified by a reference to Gen 1:26–27 on which the tradition
is based.
That the text presupposes more than a modicum of familiarity with cer-
tain creation narratives also follows from the fact that the first two reasons
draw on the notion of Adam the First as a world-spanner, whose size is equal
to that of the world, a motif far more elaborately employed in other rabbinic
parallels, notably Ber. R. §8. Whatever the origins of this motif, the Mishna here
employs it in a novel way, oblivious of any connection with any matrix. There
is no doubt that these teachings are borrowed from elsewhere. But the mishna
makes good use of the motif, and regardless of any polemic or pagan origin of
the detail, the force of this passage is an ethical teaching about the value of
human life. Like God is unique and one, so every human being is unique. The
final sentence of the fourth reason returns and responds to the first: all indi-
viduals have to maintain that the world was created on their account. Thus the
equation Adam = world is an ethical imperative, which encapsulates the whole
block of four reasons.
Still, the third and fourth reason remind of another concern. While the first
two reasons draw inferences for humanity from Adam’s single creation, the
last two draw conclusions for our understanding of God as the single, unique
Creator. The heretical belief in multiple powers in heaven is rejected on the
ground of God’s likeness to Adam, who was unique. Gen 1:26–27 again lurks
prominently in the background of these traditions.
At this juncture the parallels in the Tosefta are instructive. The proposition
about the heretical claim that God was not alone in creation occurs there as
well, but in another position, based on the observation that Adam was created
21 This word has been erased from MS Kaufman A50, but is still discernible in the resultant
space, with support of the other witnesses.
at the very end of creation (8:7) to forestall any assumption that Adam might
have been involved in the creation. Like the Mishna, the Tosefta lists four rea-
sons captured under the heading that Adam was created singly, but without
the Mishna’s emphasis on the value of a human life (t. Sanh. 8:4–5):22
Adam was created singly in the world. Why was he created singly in the
world?
1. So that the righteous should not say, We are the children of the righ-
teous one, and so that the evil ones should not say, We are the chil-
dren of the evil one.
2. Another interpretation. Why was he created singly? So that fami-
lies should not quarrel with one another. For if now, that Adam was
created singly, they quarrel with one another, how much more had
there been two created at the outset.
3. Another interpretation. Why was he created singly? Because of the
thieves and robbers. If now, that Adam was created singly, people
steal and rob, had there been two, how much the more so.
4. Another interpretation. Why was he created singly? To show the
grandeur of the King of the king of kings, blessed be He. For with
a single seal He created the entire world, and from a single seal all
those many seals have come forth, as it is said, ‘It is changed as clay
under the seal, and all these things stand forth as in a garment’
(Job 38:14).
Unlike the Mishna, the first notion in the Tosefta is not that any individual is
tantamount to an entire world: Adam was created singly to prevent that people
would claim having either a righteous or an evil ancestor. This denial of two an-
cestors representing good and evil addresses the heretical claim that two pow-
ers reside in heaven and that people’s inclinations are all predestined. Indeed,
the Talmud cites a baraita23 that is very similar to the Tosefta, except that it
starts with the argument of the heresy of the two powers in heaven—which
the Tosefta does not cite—followed by the argument of a righteous or evil an-
cestor.24 This argument develops the notion of the single power in heavens to
the absence of predestination in good and evil.
22 This tradition is supported by MSS “Erfurt” Or. fol. 1220 (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek
Preussischer Kulturbesitz), Berlin Or. fol. 1220, and Vienna Heb. 20 (National Library, for
up to half of 8:4, after which there is one folio missing).
23 That is, a non-mishnaic tradition attributed to the Tannaim.
24 The Talmud’s baraita enlists all four arguments of the Tosefta, yet preceded by the
Mishna’s third argument about the two powers in heaven.
186 Smelik
The closest parallel is in both texts’ fourth reason, where the differences are
as revealing as the similarity. In the mishna, the final statement makes an ex-
plicit link with the first reason by way of inclusion—that humanity is unique,
and each individual a world unto its own. By contrast, the Tosefta does not
hark back to the first reason, but offers a proof text instead (Job 38:14) with
which it continues (Job 38:15; t. Sanh. 8:6) in following additions not found
in the Mishna (t. Sanh. 8:6–9). This proof text takes Adam as an entire world:
“For with a single seal He created the entire world,” sparking a multitude of
distinct seals.25
The question is, then, how these versions relate to one another. In recent
years the relationship between Mishna and Tosefta has attracted renewed at-
tention and the idea that the Tosefta preserves or reflects an older version of
the Mishna has gained ground, especially where the Tosefta offers a literary
parallel to what is found in the Mishnah.26 To appreciate the interrelationship
between them, whilst leaving the question of their interrelationship open, it is
necessary to evaluate whether the Tosefta responds to an earlier version of the
mishna and if so, how this earlier version might relate to our present mishna.
It comes as no surprise that the level of editing is strikingly different be-
tween Mishna and Tosefta. In the Mishna, the block is well embedded by a
topical link to the whole mishna in the first and fourth reason. Conversely, in
the Tosefta the Adam-block appears out of the blue and there is little rein-
forcement of the links between the units in the chapter. Its relationship to the
previous toseftas, including topics as the composition of the Sanhedrin, the
admonishment of witnesses, and the case of the suspected pursuer, is disjunc-
tive. There is no logical connection between these toseftas and Adam’s solitary
creation; without recourse to another text, to which the Tosefta responds, the
text is incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility.
To create sense from the Tosefta’s change of subject between 8:3 (the pur-
sued person suspected of committing murder) and 8:4 (Adam’s solitary cre-
ation), we must assume a missing link in the Tosefta’s silent proto-text, with
which it might well be in dialogue, but which it failed to include. Accordingly,
25 The proof text of Job 38:14–15 is connected to Adam HaRishon in other midrashic texts (cf.
Ber. R. 12:6; 11:2; Vilna edition).
26 S. Friedman, ‫ ליחס מקבילות המשנה והתוספתא [א]—כל כתבי הקדש‬:‫תוספתא עתיקתא‬
)‫ א‬,‫ (שבת טז‬Tarbiz 62 (1992/1993): 313–338; A. Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic
Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996);
J. Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005); E.S. Alexander, Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral
Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); R. Brody, Mishnah and Tosefta
Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2014), 111–154.
this proto-text must have included a bridge between the unlawful killing of a
person and Adam’s singularity. The reconstruction of this link is not impos-
sible. Since the Tosefta argues that many lives follow from a single seal (Adam;
8:4), it stands to reason that this link consisted in the following notion: like
Adam, either Abel or the suspect sentenced to death because of unreliable evi-
dence would have brought forth many “seals” had he not been killed. It seems
plausible that the Tosefta responds to either the proof text of Abel, who was
murdered, or the inference that a wrongfully convicted murder suspect equals
a world, as he would have produced many unique seals had he not been sen-
tenced to death.
To evaluate both options, the Tosefta’s match with either option is illuminat-
ing. The Tosefta carries the argument that many seals come forth from a single
unique seal as the final point of its four reasons, but it has no obvious link to
the notion that a murdered person or one sentenced to death would also have
produced many children. The link would, moreover, only occur in the final po-
sition of the block, after three unconnected traditions about Adam’s singular
status, which does not strengthen its topical link. Conspicuously enough, the
Tosefta’s first explanation would seamlessly follow the Cain and Abel proof
text: “So that the righteous should not say, We are the children of the righteous
one, and so that the evil ones should not say, We are the children of the evil
one” (read Abel and Cain for the righteous and evil one). Despite the lack of
framing in the Tosefta, there is a red thread linking its four explanations of
Adam’s creation. The common ancestor of Cain and Abel, which unites rather
than divides their progeny, also tempers the level of enmity between people
and crime (reasons 2 and 3). The fourth reason links both their diversity and
their common origin to God.
If the proof text came first, the Tosefta would seem to have supplemented
this text with a homily on the common ancestry of Cain and Abel, culminat-
ing in the notion that a single life is tantamount to an entire world. But what
about the Mishna? Discarding the option of polygenesis for the four reasons
that Adam was created singly, it seems far more likely that the Mishna adopted
and reworked the Toseftan block than vice versa. The Mishna recognized the
potential of the Tosefta’s last reason; its partial reduplication of the notion that
a single being represents a whole world seems best explained by the assump-
tion that the editor(s) moved the final notion to the prominent first position,
adding a final note as an inclusio. This rearrangement emphasized the impor-
tance of earnest and reliable evidence, although the direct connection in the
Tosefta between Cain and Abel as arguments for two different Creators was
replaced by a dissociated reference to the heretical claim of multiple powers
in heaven.
188 Smelik
To recapitulate, the Mishna used ready-made blocks that are similar to how
the Tosefta’s text reads, but the editors retouched the unit, and the retouched
format tells a new story: it is explicit about the two applied interpretations
of Gen 4:10 and it rearranges the sequence of teachings about Adam’s single
creation.
3 A Mnemonic in the Talmudic Commentary
The reception history of the Adam-block in the Mishna and Tosefta contin-
ues in the Babylonian Talmud, which has a cluster of traditions which takes
it up and supplies additional teachings. The talmudic commentary selects a
number of elements of m. Sanh. 4:5, in their given order but with the usual
digressions. These elements do not necessarily follow the main structure of the
Mishna and can, roughly, be divided into five uneven parts:27
– what is conjecture (in relation to partial but crucially incomplete witnessing);
– the implication of Cain’s narrative—his subsequent wandering;
– the four reasons that Adam was created alone;
– the fourth reason (to show God’s greatness);
– the joy (or not) about the downfall of the wicked (esp. Ahab and Ovadya).
These topics trigger sometimes lengthy digressions about the exile and her-
etics (including dialogues between Roman emperor[s] and rabbis), while
in other ways the Amoraim cited here do not take issue with elements that
Mishna included.
The opening of the mishna juxtaposes conjecture with hearsay in the sense
of a rumour or as a report from another witness, no matter how reliable that
witness might appear to be. The Talmud does not dwell on hearsay, but does,
and vividly so, illustrate the problem of conjecture with a narrative about a
defendant who was seen holding a blood-stained knife in his hand near a mur-
dered person.28 It relates this famous story to the mishnaic distinction between
capital and monetary cases. Likewise, the gemara (the Amoraic commentary
of the Mishna in the Talmud) silently passes over the Mishna’s first interpreta-
tion of Gen 4:10, about Abel and his foreclosed offspring, so pivotal to the ar-
gument of true testimony, whereas it comments on the second interpretation
that highlights the splashing about of Abel’s blood until he dies.
27 Roughly: following the topics and keywords, as well as brief quotations of the Mishna (by-
passing the question whether or not these are original). The parts are uneven in length.
28 A Tannaitic tradition also attested in t. Sanh. 8:3; see further y. Sanh. 4:12(5), 22b.
In the wake of Cain’s punishment, the Talmud introduces the motif of exile
on the ground of his fugitive and wandering status (Gen 4:14), which triggers
reflections on the potential of exile for atonement. This potential is illustrated
by Cain’s life (based on Gen 4:16), and the gemara continues with further top-
ics related to the exile, including the date of the destruction of the Second
Temple.
Following the theme of exile, the gemara dwells on the Mishna’s four rea-
sons for Adam’s single creation. Its structure is interesting: it essentially repro-
duces the four points the Tosefta makes, in the same order of appearance, but
precedes these by the third reason of the Mishna (“that the minim [heretics]29
might not say, there are many domains in heaven”)—which is duplicitous un-
less the Talmud’s Mishna did not originally feature this reason, or the Tosefta,
or a similar, transitory tradition once did.
Thus having commented on all four reasons, the gemara gets to grip more
determinedly with the last of these, attentive to the aspects of God’s unici-
ty, Adam’s creation, and assorted heretics. After a series of associations with
Adam’s creation as the leitmotiv, and followed by a lengthy series of statements
on heretics, emperors and more heretics, as well as the question whether the
downfall of the wicked leads to undiluted joy, a mnemonic of four Adam-
traditions is cited. Ascribed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, this block is
the focus of the remainder of this essay. Whether these and other statements
ascribed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav were really ever uttered by either
of them, or in this form, will not detain us here; below I will use the shorthand
“Rav” for “Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.”
3.1 The Mnemonic of Rav

While this block of four traditions ascribed to Rav (b. Sanh. 38b) corresponds
to the four reasons in the Mishna for creating Adam as a solitary being, they
simultaneously relate to Psalm 139, deemed to have been spoken by Adam, and
Gen 1:26–27, the creation of the androgyne Adam. A mnemonic note before
these traditions marks only the first three of them (‫)שעה בסוף ארמי סימן‬. Given
the shared attribution to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, the fourth and final
tradition was probably dropped in this marker, either because of homoiote-
leuton (‫)מין סימן‬, or because the fourth tradition constitutes the first in a chain
of many traditions about heresy and heretics and may accordingly have been
considered as part of that cluster of traditions.30 Moreover, the manuscript
29 So MSS Yad HaRrav Herzog 1; Munich 95; Florence II.I.8–9. The Vilna edition reads
“Sadducees” instead.
30 The current position of the fourth tradition is probably not original; see below.
190 Smelik
evidence would seem to confirm that all four constitute a cluster. Whilst the
mnemonic note for the first three is not preserved in all manuscripts (such
as the Munich Codex or Codex Florence), in MS 1 of the Yad HaRav Herzog
Institute all four traditions are marked (‫)סימן שעה בסוף ארמי מין‬. Since the
simanim were wont to disappear at the hands of the scribes who no longer
needed such oral techniques for conservation, as Eliezer Segal demonstrated
for tractate Megilla, this latter reading is probably original.31 If the Talmud
links these four traditions by catchword, it indicates that they belong together;
but what does that mean? By common consent, not much, if anything at all.
Segal considers these markers as a type of Masora to the Talmud, which are
“not important for the understanding of the contents of the sugya.”32
With or without the marker, the inner coherence of series is problematic.33
Strings of traditions which share the attribution to a particular sage occur fre-
quently in the Talmud. Halakhically, and for good reasons, such series are often
conceived as associative digressions; they are not considered for their connec-
tions, often not even at a literary level.
A transparent case is to be found in b. Meg. 3b/4a, where we find eight state-
ments attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi. In some manuscripts, these have been
introduced by the marker siman, but not so in the standard edition.34 All eight
traditions have some bearing on the reading of the megilla, the scroll of Esther,
during Purim, but only the first one relates to the main halakhic topic, that of a
status of an inhabited place and the date on which reading the megilla is due.
This tradition concerns the status of a village nearby a walled city. Cities walled
since the days of Joshua ben Nun read Esther on the fifteenth of Adar, whereas
villages read the scroll on the fourteenth. The tradition in question determines
what status a village that is very near such a walled city has in respect to the
day the megilla should be read. Among the following seven traditions the first
four still concern the status of cities, namely cities whose walls were erected
31 E. Segal, ‫“( מסורות הנוסח של בבלי מגילה‬The Textual Traditions of Tractate Megillah in
the Babylonian Talmud”) (Ph.D. diss., Jerusalem, 1981), 103–107. He concludes that there
are about 40 such markers in all textual witnesses in the tractate, 29 of which have been
preserved by a Yemenite ms, followed by 12 in the Sefardi Göttingen 13, and 10 in Munich
95 and Montefiore 88.
32 See Segal, ‫מסורות הנוסח‬, 103 n.1. See also: J. Kaplan, The Redaction of the Babylonian
Talmud (New York: Bloch, 1933), 230–233; P. Cohen, ‫( ספר הסימנים השלם‬London, 1953).
33 L. Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 46: “The linking of diverse topics solely because they have a common author-
ship is a frequent literary device in the Babylonian Talmud, and the attempts by commen-
tators to find a linking theme in such instances is misguided.”
34 Moreover, according to two genizah fragments the last four of these statements are at-
tributed to Rabbi via R. Joshua ben Levi.
after habitation started and not prior to inhabitation; cities without ten unoc-
cupied men; cities whose walls were laid waste; and finally the status of three
specific places (Lod, Ono and ‫)גיא החרשים‬. The last three traditions continue
the topic of reading the megilla.35 In spite of these seemingly blatant con-
nections, Rashi maintains that the second tradition relates to the issue of the
Jubilee year and not to the status of a walled city in connection with reading
the Scroll of Esther. His argument is based on the proof text for this statement,
Lev 25:29, which is indeed related to the Jubilee, yet this is rather obviously not
the focus of the statement. Whilst the Ritva, Rashba and Tosafot do not follow
suit, Rashi’s reading highlights the fact that even within a context which so
strongly relates all eight traditions to reading the Scroll of Esther, while seven
of them are invariably taken as such, one of them might be conceived of as an
isolated discussion of an unrelated topic. One might even add, that the disso-
ciated tradition shares keywords with the preceding and following discussion
(settled cities, walled cities).36
Rashi’s opinion is possible on the assumption that some traditions repre-
sent non-topical, but linked additional information that is thrown in for the
sake of preservation. There is a logistical reason for this assumption: traditions
of important rabbis were collected and memorized in his name in order that
they would be preserved for future generations. Sometimes such collections
are inserted en bloc for the very reason that they may have been memorized
integrally. But in many cases, such clusters are incomplete: other traditions
that could have been included are in fact left out. In this particular instance,
such an assumption begs the question why these four traditions were selected
instead of others with the same attribution. There are close to 400 memroth
attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,37 among which there are others
dealing with the creation and with Adam the First.38 This points to a consid-
ered selection from among available traditions rather than a random process
35 Women must read the megilla, studying the subject when Purim coincides with the
Shabbath, so that the actual reading will be advanced—the duty to read the megilla both
in the evening and in the day.
36 Previously, I discussed some simanim in b. Meg. 25b and 2b–3a. (See W.F. Smelik, Rabbis,
Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2013), 207–210, 477.
37 The number is derived from M. Margoliouth, ‫אנציקלופדיה לחכמי התלמוד והגאונים‬
(2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 2000), 2.163. A search in the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project CD-ROM
gave a number in the 360s. There are of course variant readings; for example, at the bot-
tom of b. Sanh. 37b the tradition attributed to Rav Yehuda about the atonement of exile is
attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav in MSS Munich 95, TS F2(1) 2 and Rav Herzog
1, whereas Florence II.I.8–9 supports the Vilna edition.
38 Among others, b. Hag. 12a; b. Sanh. 59b and b. B. Bat. 75a.
192 Smelik
of inserting an entire block for just one relevant tradition that piggybacks oth-
ers. If selection took place, what was the selective criterion or the organizing
principle? Perhaps form follows function, in that the mnemonic marker is not
without import for the meaning of a sugya after all. I do not argue that the
merely associative, mnemonic reasons will not be upheld in many cases; I sim-
ply like to point out that we cannot always take such reasons for granted.
Here, I will argue that the four traditions attributed to Rav Yehuda in the
name of Rav do not represent digressions, but instead relate one by one to the
four reasons the Mishna gave for creating Adam as a solitary being. Not only do
they, therefore, squarely address issues in the Mishna, but they also redeploy
traditions about the First Adam in ways similar to the use of recycling in the
Mishna itself. As such, the mnemonic in Sanh. 38b assumes more relevance
than has been assumed previously.
3.2 A Destructive Creation

The Mishna’s first reason for Adam’s solitary creation is to teach that the de-
struction of a single soul is tantamount to the destruction of a full world, and
vice versa saving one soul is saving an entire world. Likewise, the core elements
of Rav’s first statement involve destroying and saving, yet in a different way, as
Rav questions the rationale of human existence:
Rav Yehuda said, Rav said, When the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to
create Adam, He created a contingent of ministering angels. He said to
them, Is it your will that we make Adam in our image?
They answered before Him, O Master of the World, what will be his
deeds?
He said to them, Such and such will be his deeds.
They said before Him, O Master of the World, ‘What is humankind that
You mind it, Adam’s offspring that You care for it?’ (Ps 8:5)
He stretched out His little finger among them and burned them.
And so a second contingent.
A third one said before Him, O Master of the World, the first [angels]
who spoke to You, what did they accomplish? The entire world, it is all
yours, do whatever you wish to do in your world.
By the time of the humans of the flood generation and the humans of
the generation of the division [of the Tower of Babel] whose deeds were
corrupt, they said before Him, O Master of the World, did not the first
[angels] speak well before You?
He said to them, ‘Even to [your] old age I am He, and even to [your]
gray hair will I uphold [you]’ (Isa 46:4).
The opening reveals what is at stake in Adam’s initial creation: God consulted
some angels, specifically created for this purpose, whether to create Adam “in
our image” or not. The midrash evidently takes its cue from Gen 1:26, “And God
said, ‘Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness,’” a text that raised two
questions: how do we conceive of, and explain, the creation of humanity in
God’s likeness, and to whom does “us” refer in “let us make?” Both questions
are addressed here. The first answer is, that “we” applies to God and the angels
He consulted. But this provisional answer only scratches the surface of this
unit, for the real issues come to light in the dialogues, above all in the scriptural
quotations, typically in those words from the proof texts which are left unsaid.
He creates three bands of angels not just to eventually stick to his original plan,
but also to demonstrate that there is no real pluralism in heaven, as Gen 1:26
might have suggested.
God’s question must have captured its intended audience with a remarkable
twist to the original wording of the creation narratives, as the Almighty here is
a challenged and possibly wavering ruler, who needs to know what his angels
would prefer that He did.39 When the angels learn how humankind will behave
once created, they question his intended decision: “Master of the World, ‘What
is humankind that You mind it, Adam’s offspring that You care for it?’” (Ps 8:5).
Even though the midrash does not actually state that Adam is going to sin,
the audience is keenly aware that he will and fills in the gaps. But then God’s
attitude changes. As a true despotic ruler, who would push aside any of his
subservients who reply unfavourably, He destroys these angels with their nega-
tive message: “He stretched out His little finger among them and burned them.”
Using repetition to raise the tension, much like the three dispatches which
King Ahazyah sent to Elijah in 2 Kings 1, God destroys two bands of angels until
the third band wisely decides to bite their angelic tongues. They live to see
Noah’s ark and the Tower of Babel and only then remind God of the first angels’
advice without repeating it.
So is God doubtful of his decision in this narrative? In fact, whereas He
would seem to regret his decision in Gen 6:6, not so here. The angels quote
Ps 8:5 to denounce humanity even before its coming into existence and sug-
gest its subsequent and inevitable failure. But this psalm in fact demonstrates
God’s intentions with humanity. Perpendicular to the meaning which the an-
gels imply, humanity is God’s majestic representative on earth; the angels do
39 In Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies
(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996), 88–90, David Stern compared the por-
trayal of God in Bereshit Rabbah 8:3 (a close parallel to this unit) to the contemporary,
imperial ruler who fears his own counselors and subordinates.
194 Smelik
not quote the next verse, “that You have made him little less than divine, and
adorned him with glory and majesty” (Ps 8:6). The critical impact of the angels’
response is negated by their own proof text, a psalm praising the creation in
terms that betray nothing of mankind’s frailty, suffering, and sin. The answer
which is not given is as important as the one that is. And when humanity even-
tually goes astray, God retorts with the words of his own prophet (Isa 46:4) to
wit that He endures human beings with all their imperfections as a loving and
caring parent. Again, the relevant part of the quotation is omitted:40 “I have
made, and I will bear; and I will uphold and rescue.” God suffers man’s fail-
ures but remains supportive, patient, and forgiving. This dialogue enables the
midrashist to express God’s unwavering support for the creation of humanity.
Why was humanity created singly? The question triggers the complex issue
of singularity and plurality in creation, since Gen 1:26 famously raised the issue
of multiple powers in heaven. Adam’s singleness demonstrates that God him-
self is single and unique.41 When Tg. Onq. Gen 3:22 translates Adam’s having
become “like one of us,” Adam is defined by the word ‫יחידי‬, “single.” His singu-
larity is related to the image of God.
There are further resonances present in this short unit. On a literal un-
derstanding of Ps 8:6, Adam was little less in size than God himself; as Kugel
puts it, a “huge celestial humanoid.”42 The gigantic Adam is what making the
human in God’s image implied, and what connects mishna and memra. The
proof text, however, has a different twist in this context. We should not allow
the background, use, and connotations of these traditions elsewhere to colour
their present redeployment. In this connection it is important to distinguish
between an elliptic, or adumbrated quotation and the reuse of a motif which
may not carry its original charge. In their sarcastic quotation of Psalm 8, the
angels suggest that the creation would be better off without humankind. For
God, humankind and world belong together. Rejecting the creation of Adam
is denying the world something that ties it to God. God will forgive, he will
not destroy the world for the sake of humanity. Rather than portraying a des-
potic ruler, this midrash highlights the real and almost divine value of human
40 In addition to the unquoted words from Psalm 8 above, the allusion to Gen 1:26 in the very
beginning of this unit likewise omits the crucial part, namely “in our likeness.”
41 See also L. Teugels, “The Creation of the Human in Rabbinic Interpretation,” in The
Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and
Christian Traditions (ed. G.P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 107–127.
42 J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common
Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 84; cf. A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven:
Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 110–115.
existence and the never-ending length of God’s compassion.43 The midrashist

thus plays with the mishnaic point that Adam was created singly “to teach you
that whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had
destroyed a whole world,” and vice versa. It is not the human blueprint that is
shredded, but any angelic company that suggests abandoning the plan is con-
sumed by God’s fire.
The building blocks may not have been Rav’s own composition, but he or-
chestrated motifs and extant interpretations to comment upon the mishna,
and to emphasize the value of human existence. Something of the old use is
transferred to the new context: God did not have a helper, God takes counsel
as contemporary rulers do. But the emphasis is on God’s unwavering support
for the creation of humanity.
3.3 Big in Eden

According to the Mishna, Adam was created singly for the sake of harmony,
since his parenthood applies to all human beings,44 hence “someone should
not say to his fellow, my father is greater than your father”: all are united in
Adam. In the Talmud, a different direction is taken. Rav’s statement links this
part of the mishna to the well-known motif of Adam as a world-spanner, which
the Mishna indubitably implies but never made explicit. In truth, Adam was
bigger than anyone could have ever imagined:
Rav Yehuda said, Rav said, Adam the First extended from one end of
the world to the other, as it is written, ‘Since the day that God created
Adam upon the earth, even from the one end of Heaven unto the other
[has anything as grand as this ever happened, or has its like ever been
known?]’ (Deut 4:32).45
Once he turned sour,46 the Holy One, blessed be He, laid His hand
upon him and diminished him,47 as it is written, ‘You have hemmed me
in behind and before, and laid your hands upon me’ (Ps 139:5).
43 This first unit does not quote or refer to Psalm 139, unlike the ones that follow, although
this psalm would fit well as it is very suggestive of God’s continuing compassion with
Adam; more on this psalm below.
44 See also t. Sanh. 8:4; y. San. 4:12(5), 22b; b. San. 38a.
45 Contrary to the common assumption that partial quotations start with the beginning
of the verse and omit, even when relevant, the remainder, as in the verses cited in the
previous unit, here (and elsewhere) the quotation does not start with the beginning of
the verse. It does in the parallel passage of b. Hag. 12a, because the beginning contains a
catchword (‫ )שאל‬relevant for Hag. 12a, which does not apply here.
46 Lit. “once he stank,” that is “became offensive,” i.e. “sinned.”
47 In the parallel passage of b. Hag. 12a, T-S F 2(1).1 (Cambridge) reads ‫והעמידו על מאה אמה‬
instead of ‫ומיעטו‬, while Harl. 5508 of the British Library conflates both readings: ‫ומיעטו‬
196 Smelik
Taking God’s creation of “anything as grand as this” in literal fashion—

and note that once again the crucial part of the scriptural text has not been
quoted48—Rav read Adam’s dimensions into this grandest thing whose initial
size spanned the world from one end to another.49 Boasting that my father is
bigger than yours is futile—which is the first purpose of the midrash-unit, but
only half the message, and above all the link to what follows. The other half is
a probing question into humanity’s likeness to God in the face of its humble
real-life appearances. If Adam was created in God’s likeness, how can this crea-
ture be that small and insignificant? In what follows, Rav answers this ques-
tion: when Adam sinned, God reduced his original dimensions to size. From
the little finger that destroyed the angels, Rav now moves to the palm of God’s
hand shrinking Adam.
Beneath the already serious aspect of the likeness with God that Rav consid-
ers in the first interpretation lurks another major issue which he nor the anon-
ymous voice touch upon. Following the rejection of any esoteric interest in the
cosmos, the creation, and the end of days in m. Hag. 2:1, the Talmud (b. Hag.
12a) quotes the very same words of Rav discussed here for Sanh. 38b, but in
view of a different topic, namely celestial speculations. In that co-text, Rav
cites Deut 4:32 to drive home the restrictions imposed on human speculation:
any attention to what is contained in this world, from one end to the other, is
allowed, but beyond its border-lines lays forbidden territory. Probing into what
preceded this world or what will follow it, what is above or below it, is strictly
off limits.50 Still in b. Hag. 12a, it is immediately followed by a second tradition
cited in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,51 about the ten things cre-
ated on the first day of the creation week, which suits the discussion in b. Hag.
12a, but not that of b. Sanh. 38b, and so this tradition has not been selected in b.
Sanh. 38b, whereas the three additional sayings in Sanh. 38b are not selected in
b. Hag. 12a. Further down at the same folio a third tradition about the creation
of the world is cited in the name of Rav Yehuda and Rav, again not mentioning
Adam the First. It follows that the sequence of statements in the name of the
‫והעמידו על מאה אמה‬. Most of the textual witnesses for Hag. 12a support the reading that
is attested in b. San. 38b.
48 Namely, the fact that Adam’s original size has never occurred again.
49 For the idea that the ends of heaven and of earth were coterminous, see J. Tigay,
Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society,
1996), 55. For the use of the same proof text in Ber. R. §8, see Aaron, “Imagery of the
Divine,” 12.
50 See Ber. R. 1:10; b. Hag. 11b; y. Hag. 2:1, 77c. See further G.E. Loewenstamm, Comparative
Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1980), 122–136.
51 In MS Oxford Opp. Add. 23, R. Yirmeya takes the places of Rav Yehuda.
same rabbis are selected and deliberate rather than the result of a snowball ef-
fect, the arbitrary consequences of an associative transmission process.
In Sanh. 38b, a different interpretation of Deut 4:32 in an otherwise similar
tradition follows that of Rav:
R. Eleazar said, Adam the First reached from earth to heaven, as it is writ-
ten, ‘Since the day that God created Adam upon the earth, and from one
end of the Heaven [to the other]’ (Deut 4:32).
Once he turned sour, the Holy One, blessed be He, laid His hand upon
him and diminished him, for it is written, ‘You have hemmed me in be-
hind and before’ etc. (Ps 139:5).
But these verses contradict each other!
Both this and that [distance] have the same measurement.52
This is a typical talmudic sequence offering another take on the same two
scriptural verses as Rav interpreted above, while commenting upon possible
contradictions between these two juxtaposed interpretations. This second
take, however, interrupts the mnemonic, as happens frequently with talmu-
dic mnemonics, indicating that the mnemonic itself consolidated prior to the
final text.
Tellingly, the tradition attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and that
attributed to R. Eleazar—which occurs in both tractates—occur in reversed
order in b. Hag. 12a, because its context in that tractate requires a primary focus
on R. Eleazar’s interpretation. Thus in b. Sanh. 38b the unit concludes with
R. Eleazar’s memra, in b. Hag. 12a with Rav Yehuda’s memra.
The answers considered in m. Hag. 2:1 and its gemara but not supplied in
b. Sanh. 38b, whether deselected, unbeknownst or overlooked, are as interest-
ing and contextually relevant as those readings which have been selected. In
Sanhedrin, the focus is literalist: Adam was this world all on his own. That suits
the co-text of m. Sanh. 4:5: killing a human being is destroying a world. But
the literalist mode, while serious in its pondering of creation and likeness, is
simultaneously a catharsis for the pressures of esoteric mysticism. The linking
motif between b. Sanh. 38b and b. Hag. 12a is Adam’s size, stretching from one
end of the world to the other end. In Hag. 12a the two memroth of Rav Yehuda
in the name of Rav relate to the preceding and following discussion on the
leitmotiv of heaven and earth. Only the first applies to Adam HaRishon, whilst
all the others are relevant to Hag. 12a’s own theme. This co-textual fit illustrates
52 Namely, the distance between earth and heaven is identical to that between the ends of
heaven.
198 Smelik
the transmission of such traditions, which often share either a common at-
tribution to a named Sage or the same proof text, before these traditions were
selectively applied to their new focus, their new co-text.
Did Rav or Rav Yehuda know any of the conglomerations of the statements
that are attributed to them? We cannot answer this question with any degree
of certainty, nor do we know whether they authored or uttered any of these
memroth themselves, in their present or in another form, on separate occa-
sions or joined together as a unit, with or without additional memroth known
from elsewhere and attributed to them. What we can say is that two observa-
tions made above, on the focus and selection of these attributed traditions,
argue against their unmediated authorial import. The application of collective
statements to their new co-textual focus and the selective use of memroth from
among available traditions53 suggests that somewhere down the line of textual
transmission later tradents or editors were responsible for the collective use
of these memroth.54 If the juxtaposition and concatenation of memroth is the
result of editing at the formative stage of the units, while neither Rav, nor his
pupil Rav Yehuda, penned the fourfold midrash as a unit, the responsibility for
the selection shifts to a tradent or editor who may, or may not, have known
both textual concatenations (in b. Sanh. 38b and b. Hag. 12a).55
Another case of bringing traditional exegesis into play with new co-texts is
Psalm 139 as cited in Adam’s creation narratives. Psalm 139 came to be viewed
as Adam’s narrative about his own creation, an autobiography of sorts,56 in
which view vs. 5 and 16 are clearly pivotal. With ready-made traditions about
his gigantic size at hand, it proved irresistible to read Psalm 139 in related ways.
This psalm may not always be placed in Adam’s mouth,57 but the motif of the
53 That is, those attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.
54 Wherever block traditions have been realigned and filtered for topical relevance, this is
likely to have originated at the formative stage of the sugya, especially if the result de-
monstrably deviates from previous alignments.
55 My analysis remains at the level of its literary redaction, identifying the choices made and
those not made, to chart similarities and dissimilarities, and to pencil a characterization
of the apparent purport of the sugya (in its margins with erasers at hand).
56 It is not certain that this take on Psalm 139 dates from the late Second Temple period,
since most of our sources belong to rabbinic literature. In b. B. Bat. 14b–15a the contribu-
tion of Adam to the Book of Psalms was not believed to require any further specification,
but that does not push the date post quem back into the Second Temple period. See also
Shir R. 4:5; Qoh. R. 1:17. On the other hand, in the T. Adam 13:2 angels worship Adam on the
basis of his likeness to God. The talmudic passage is discussed in L. Jacobs, Structure and
Form, 31–41.
57 For example, vs. 21 and 22 have been attributed to David in b. Shab. 116a; v. 11 to David in
b. Pes. 2b. V. 13 might well have induced assumptions about another author than Adam,
since it refers to “my mother’s womb.”
erstwhile gigantic, formless Adam towers over every other interpretation. In

v. 16 the psalmist exclaims “Your eyes saw my golem (‫ ;)גלמי‬they were all re-
corded in Your book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of
them.” The golem is understood to refer to Adam’s “unformed limbs,” but in
reality it is a poorly understood hapax legomenon, perhaps even nothing more
than a one-off scribal error for ‫גמלי‬, “my actions.”58 Whether or not an error, the
word golem went on to receive a distinguished reception history, for the unin-
telligible word (if that is what it was) soon assumed the specific meaning of
“unformed blob” or “embryo,” and would in the present context be interpreted
as a reference to Adam’s creation as a huge humanoid.59
Ps 139:16 does not figure in this unit,60 apparently because the topical focus
is not Adam’s unformed golem, presupposed as it is, but its reduction to size,
which was based on Ps 139:5.61 This latter verse was soon applied to Adam:
“You hedge me before and behind (‫ ;)אחור וקדם‬You lay Your hand upon me.” It
is remarkable how versatile these words proved to be in their connection with
the androgynous Adam-myth, for the words ‫ אחור וקדם‬were read in three dif-
ferent ways: as physical, geographical or temporal terms. In a physical sense,
Sages take ‫ אחור וקדם‬to refer to Adam’s initial androgynous status with both
a male and female side (b. Ber. 61a; b. Eruv. 18a; Lev. R. 14:1); this motif is con-
nected with the creation of humanity as male and female all at once (Gen 1:27).
In a geographical sense, the verse relates Adam’s original gigantic dimensions,
58 For the suggestion to read ‫“ ּגְ ֻמ ַלי‬my doings,” see HALAT 1.186. There is uncertainty about
the root; with the exception of Syriac ‫ܓܠܡܝ‬, “rocky, uncultivated soil,” and Arabic ugalama,
“to cut off,” there is little indication that this might be a Hebrew root; cf. M. Sokoloff, A
Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), 268; Barc, “La taille cosmique d’Adam,” 176.
59 See b. Sanh. 38a. For the meaning “embryo,” see Lev. R. 14:8.
60 Barc alerts us to some basic distinctions between the various motifs, without importing to
them a common origin in a non-rabbinic myth (for the latter, see now Aaron, “Imagery of
the Divine”); Barc, “La taille cosmique d’Adam,” 175. However, his contradiction between
the gathering of Adam’s raw materials and his world-spanning size (p. 177) is falsified in
R. Meir’s memra of b. Sanh. 38a (bottom), where God’s beholding the golem (Ps 139:16)
is tantamount to God’s eyes “roaming over the whole world” (Zech 4:10)—the “whole
world” being synonymous with golem. Also in our fourfold Adam-tradition in Sanh. 38b,
the golem-motif is a necessary presupposition.
61 Perhaps, as Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 83, suggests, this verse contains a key for the
tradition that Adam is the first person in this psalm. The Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus
and Peshitta, all take ‫ אחור וקדם‬as the last words of v. 4, not the first of v. 5. These words
therefore are not spatial, but temporal, “You know it all, the last things and the first.” The
temporal sense would allow the next few words, “you formed me,” to be read as the very
first act of creation. Note that there are also explicit statements about Adam being the last
act of creation.
200 Smelik
in which ‫ אחור וקדם‬stand for the full dimension of the world, that is the West
and East (while Deut 4:32 could be taken to supply the third dimension). In
this interpretation, ‫ צרתני‬is related to the verb ‫יצר‬, “to shape, give form.”62 The
temporal reading is represented by Rav’s interpretation in b. San. 38b, in which
the verb ‫ צרתני‬is related to ‫ צור‬and reflects the hemming of Adam’s original pro-
portions, hence his reduction to size.63 This reduction obviously presupposes
his enormous initial dimensions. In this approach, ‫ אחור‬points to “before” and
“after” Adam’s heresy in a temporal sense.64 Alternatively, the different periods
refer to this World and the World to Come;65 or to Adam being the first act
of creation, as a formless mass, and all the same the last act, as a completed
human soul.66
Some of these interpretations may deliberately steer the reader away from
the mythological roots of these motifs. That possibility prompts the question
of which came first, the motif of Adam as an oversized embryo or the corre-
sponding interpretation of the Psalm? While it stands to reason that an exist-
ing motif was transferred to Psalm 139,67 there is no need to choose. Given
the availability of the motif of a macrocosmic God in the surrounding pagan
culture,68 in combination with scriptural verses that required explanation
(Gen 1:26–27; 5:1–2) and which lent themselves easily as readings in support of
the motif, the question of priority is largely unimportant. Far more interesting
is the variation of takes on the proof text, which shows how both proof texts
and motifs could be resignified.
3.4 Adam the Heretic

If the four Adam-traditions in this sugya indeed correspond to the four rea-
sons of m. Sanh. 4:5, they must have been rearranged slightly: the final memra
62 Ber. R. 8:1; 21:3; 24:2; Lev. R. 18:2; Midr. Tan. B. ‫ בראשית‬18. In some of these texts, East/West
is supplemented with North/South on the basis of Deut 4:32.
63 Gen. R. §8:1; b. Sanh. 38b; b. Hag. 12a.
64 The Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Peshitta all take the words ‫ אחור וקדם‬as the final
part of v. 4, which creates another type of temporal sense, ‫הן יהוה ידעת כלה אחור וקדם‬
“O Lord, You know it all, the last things and the first.”
65 Midr. Tan. B. ‫ תזריע‬2; Lev. R. 14:1.
66 Ruth R. 7. As a gigantic humanoid, Gen R. §8:1.
67 Aaron, “Imagery of the Divine.” Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 83–84, cautions that the
motif of a gigantic Adam may have been triggered by a textual analysis of Gen 1:26 which
resembles Adam to God; if so, the androgynous first human being would be a polygen-
etic motif in Jewish and non-Jewish sources. However, given the temporal priority of the
non-Jewish sources as well as the Greek loanwords in the Jewish versions, Kugel’s purely
biblical origin of the myth is unlikely.
68 See above, n.2.
concerning Adam’s heresy corresponds to the third reason in the Mishna

(about the minim), whereas the third memra in b. Sanh. 38b corresponds to
the fourth reason in the Mishna. The order of the last two traditions may have
been inverted, since the Talmud continues with a long series about heresy and
heretics, hence an editor could have changed the order of Adam-traditions ac-
cordingly. On the other hand, lateral links are frequent in talmudic sequences
and rearrangements the order of the day in productive textual transmission
of this kind, as the parallels attest between Mishna, Tosefta, Palestinian and
Babylonian Talmud of the four reasons. Without taking a stand on this, I follow
the mishnaic order for the sake of convenience.
The fourth tradition in this siman identifies Adam the First as a heretic,
which relates to the third reason in the Mishna, “(Therefore Adam was cre-
ated singly), so that the heretics should not say, There are many domains in
Heaven”:
Rav Yehuda also said in Rav’s name, Adam was a heretic, for it is writ-
ten, ‘And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, “Where are
you?”’ (Gen 3:9) i.e., Where did your heart turn?’
On a superficial reading of God’s question (“Where are you?”) God appears

not to have known Adam’s whereabouts.69 To avoid this impression, Targum
Neofiti interspersed God’s question with a pre-emptive explanation, “Now
listen, the whole world which I created is manifest before me, darkness and
light are manifest before me, and you think that the place where you are is
not manifest before me?”70 Hence God’s omniscience impels the targumist
to bring another understanding to God’s question, to wit, “Where is the com-
mandment [not to eat from that tree] that I commanded you?” God already
knows the sin Adam committed; He only requires Adam to own up to it and to
come out of hiding.71
Neofiti’s reasoning reveals the sensitivity which undoubtedly underlies
Rav’s interpretation as well. God had no desire to learn where Adam was hold-
ing up physically. In truth, He questioned Adam’s loyalty when he asked for his
69 This cannot be the full meaning, since (a) Adam immediately answers, despite hiding
and (b) the interrogative noun ‫ איה‬implies knowledge mingled with a certain reproach
(if one really does not know where someone is, ‫ איפה‬is used). See B. Jacob, Das erste Buch
der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934), 109.
70 My translation after the facsimile edition: The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch: Codex
Vatican (Neofiti 1) (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 6 (cf. the marginal variant reading).
71 See also M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant
Sources (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980), 46, 127.
202 Smelik
whereabouts: Whose side are you on? But Rav’s take differs from Neofiti, if ever
so slightly, by identifying Adam’s sin as heresy rather than the transgression of
a specific commandment. The exact form his heresy took is left open—per-
haps because it consisted of the very sin he committed, which required no fur-
ther specification72—but it does not seem to matter. Sure enough, the Talmud
interpolates two explanations suggesting either epispasmos or polytheism, but
these traditions are not an integral part of the mnemonic’s series.73
Likewise, Rav differs from early Christian motifs that portray Adam as an
earthly sinner, in which capacity the first human (ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ)
is contrasted with Jesus.74 Rav’s point is different, because he (or the editor
responsible for the selection of traditions) focuses on heresy for a good reason.
Following the mishna, Adam was created singly to prevent heresy and teach
that there are no other powers in heaven but the One God of Israel. When the
talmudic layer came to be added to the mishnaic tradition, it is more than irony
to put the First Adam down as the first heretic. Taking the heresy to Adam, the
midrash avoids any attribution of heresy to any other higher authorities, lesser
divine beings or divine rivals. It follows that the editor underscores the single
domain of authority: there is no other god which authored evil and heresy, just
as there is no other god to which Adam could have turned. Whose side are you
on, Adam, becomes a taunting question when there is no other power to turn
to. It is rhetorical not just in the sense that God obviously knows where Adam
72 In b. Sanh. 56b, Rav Yehuda returns to the first sin and identifies it as idolatry (followed by
another statement attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav). Cf. Tertullian, Marc. 2:2:
“For can anyone hesitate to describe as heresy, or choosing, that transgression of Adam
which he committed by choosing his own judgement in preference to God’s?” (translation
quoted after E. Evans, Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972], 91).
73 Both interpolations are attributed to second generation Babylonian Amoraim, thus con-
temporaries of Rav Yehuda. The first is a comment by R. Isaac in the form of Hos 6:7: “R.
Isaac said: He practised epispasmos: For here it is written, But like man, [Adam] they
have transgressed the covenant (Hos 6:7); whilst elsewhere it is said, He has broken my
covenant” (Gen 17:14). Once more, the proof text is lacunose: the full text of Gen 17:14
will illuminate the reference to reversing the signs of circumcision: “And if any male who
is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut
off from his kin; he has broken my covenant.” Alternatively, Adam was a polytheist: “R.
Nahman said: He denied God. Here it is written, They have transgressed the covenant;
whilst elsewhere it is stated, [He has broken my covenant, (Gen 17:14) and again,] Because
they forsook the covenant of the Lord their God [and they bowed down to other gods and
served them] (Jer 22:9).”
74 1 Cor 15:45–47; Rom 5:14. Cf. Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in
the Ancient World (TSAJ 120; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 303–304.
is, but rhetorical too, in the sense that he cannot turn to any other power.75 As
the upshot of all this, of course, Adam is heretical and yet created in the image
of God.
3.5 Bilingual Adam

From the fact that Psalm 139 deals with the creation of humankind, and uses
one or two perceived Aramaisms in what was taken to represent Adam’s direct
speech, Rav Yehuda and Resh Laqish deduce that Adam spoke Aramaic:
Rav Yehuda also said in Rav’s name, The first Adam spoke in the Aramaic
language, for it is written, ‘How difficult are your thoughts to me, O God’
(Ps 139:17).76
At face value, this memra has no intrinsic connection with the preceding and
prevalent motifs of the world-spanner or the golem, in fact no parallel with any
known tradition anywhere else at all. Except that Adam is a dichotomy like he
was in each of the previous instances: not just male and female, huge and in-
significant, God-like and heretical, he is also bilingual, as he’s clearly speaking
Hebrew and Aramaic. There is an immediate link with the fourth reason in the
Mishna, for God’s grandeur is to mint all people with a single seal, yet no one is
alike anyone else: His singularity produces plurality.
This unit starts with the notion that Ps 139:17 contains Aramaic, without
identifying which word(s) represent the Aramaic or Aramaism(s). The focus
is on the two words ‫“ יקרו‬they are heavy, precious”77 and ‫רעיך‬‎ “your thoughts,
friends”, both of which have long been deemed Aramaic loanwords.78 The rab-
bis were aware of such loans; for example, in b. Meg. 9a the Aramaic loanword
‫“ יקר‬honour” and ‫“ פתגם‬decree” in Esth 1:20 within an otherwise completely
Hebrew verse are identified as “targum” (=Aramaic) “written in Scripture.”
75 There is no connection with Psalm 139, unless one was lost in the process of editing. The
Psalm repudiates idol worship. Dahood argues that this psalm may have been composed
by a leader who was charged with idolatry; M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150 (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1970), 284. The Targum takes v. 24 as a reference to the speaker’s idolatrous
ways.
76 This adapted English translation reflects the talmudic interpretation.
77 This could be read in the light of Ps 116:15, “Heavy [or, precious, ‫ ]יקר‬in the sight of the
LORD is the death of His faithful ones.” So in the Yelamdenu Midrash; see L. Grünhut,
‫( ספר הליקוטים‬6 vols.; Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 1898–1903), vol. 4, f. 54a.
78 For ‫ יקר‬and )‫רע(י‬, compare ThWAT 9, 361–364; further, HALOT Online. See further the
translation of Hebrew ‫ רעה‬in LXX Isa 44:28. For ‫ רע‬as “friend” in Aramaic (a Hebrew
loan!), see B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986), C1.1, 161.
204 Smelik
Whether Rav pointed out both words as Aramaic (as assumed in my transla-
tion above) remains inconclusive. Without further explanation, the point of
Rav’s quotation of Psalm 139 remains opaque apart from the inference that
Adam spoke Aramaic. Because most of the verse, let alone the psalm, is written
in Hebrew, bilingualism is implied.
The anonymous voice then equates Rav’s interpretation with an observation
by Resh Laqish which sheds a fuller, but slightly different light on the verse:
And is this not what Resh Laqish said, What [does it mean] when it is
written, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam’ (Gen 5:1)? This con-
veys that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him [that is, Adam] every
generation and its expositors, every generation and its sages. By the time
of the generation of R. Aqiva, [Adam] rejoiced at his Tora [learning] but
mourned over his death. He said, ‘How precious are your friends to me,
O God.’
Before dwelling on the hermeneutics of this passage, it is worth pointing out

that the rabbis identified here belong to different generations and areas. Resh
Laqish was a second generation Palestinian Amora, whereas Rav was a first
generation Babylonian Amora (and Rav Yehuda the latter’s second generation
disciple). It is indeed not Rav or Rav Yehuda but the anonymous voice which
connected the two statements. Furthermore, the attribution to Resh Laqish
is not consistent, since the application of Ps 139:17 to Adam’s vision of future
leaders occurs elsewhere with different attributions to Palestinian sages,79
who do not belong to one and the same period either. The element common
to all these instances extends to the motif of Adam’s vision alone, but not to
its subsequent application. In fact, the reference to R. Aqiva occurs only in the
instances attributed to Resh Laqish. It would therefore be entirely plausible
that the motif of Adam being shown all his future generations on the basis of
Ps 139:17 belonged to a common tradition, the application of which could be
specific and tailored to the topic at hand.
Resh Laqish probes the meaning of the “book” in Gen 5:1, in the phrase ‫זה‬
‫“ ספר תולדת אדם‬This is the book of the line of Adam.” This book, he continues,
proves that God showed Adam all the future generations of the world, which
79 R. Joshua b. Qarha, R. Yehuda bar Simon, and Shimeon ben Laqish (Resh Laqish) in the
name of R. Eleazar ben Azarya: Gen R. 24:2; Pes. R. 23:2; b. A. Zar. 5a; SOR 30; ARN A 31.
Moreover, the same notion of beholding Israel’s future leaders occurs in connection with
Moses on the authority of R. Yehoshua of Saknin in the name of R. Levi in Lev. R. 26:7. The
variant “R. Yehoshua of Saknin in the name of Resh Laqish” in Midr. Tan. ‫ אמור‬2 would
seem to be a misreading of the abbreviation ‫ 'ר 'ל‬as ‫ ;ר"ל‬cf. the Buber version, and Lev. R.
26:7; Yalq. S. ‫§ אמור‬626; Yalq. S. 1 Sam. §139.
are his “line,” Adam’s offspring. Among those generations that Adam sees, he
identifies R. Aqiva as one of God’s “friends” in Ps 139:17 whose fateful death is
heavy to bear while his faithful life is precious to behold—a double interpreta-
tion of the verb ‫ יקר‬as “precious” and “heavy.”80
The choice of Gen 5:1 has further implications. As Rashi points out, Ps 139:17
is preceded by a reference to a book in v. 16: “Your eyes saw my golem, and in
your book (‫ )ספרך‬all are written down.” So why dwell on Gen 5:1? Pointedly, the
full quotation of Gen 5:1 links Adam’s generations to the creation in the like-
ness of God (“This is the record of Adam’s line; [when God created Adam, He
made it in the likeness of God]”), including its verbal play on singularity and
plurality. The likeness of the One God is reflected in Adam’s multiple offspring.
It is probably no coincidence that the notion of plurality also chimes with Ps
139:18 (“I count them—they exceed the grains of sand”). In his dual interpreta-
tion of Gen 5:1 and Ps 139:17, Resh Laqish epitomizes the Mishna’s dual focus on
Adam’s solitary creation in the likeness of God and the plurality of his progeny.
There are possible differences between Resh Laqish and Rav. Whereas Resh
Laqish based his on the predominantly Hebrew meaning of ‫ רע‬as “friend,”
Rav’s interpretation of this word is not secured, as observed above, and could
be either “friend” or the Aramaism “thought.” Nor is it clear whether Rav played
on the double meaning of ‫ יקר‬as Resh Laqish did. It is true that the anonymous
voice introduces Resh Laqish as if in agreement with Rav (“And is this not what
Resh Laqish said”), but the agreement could simply consist of the view that
Psalm 139 reflects Adam’s very own words, without relating to Rav’s interpre-
tation of (at least one of) these two words as Aramaisms. Ultimately, the ele-
ment of Aramaic is unnecessary for Resh Laqish’s inference, whereas it gives
the memra of Rav its direction, namely that the first Adam spoke something
else besides the holy tongue.
Rav’s claim is significant in light of the Mishna’s series on Adam, more
specifically, the third reason for creating Adam singly, that God used a single
mint which yielded multiple individual coins. Whilst God mints Adam in the
Hebrew language—God is universally understood to have spoken the holy
tongue at creation, as did the primordial human beings after him—Adam turns
out to speak both Hebrew and Aramaic. Here we have a plurality of “nations,
peoples and tongues,” encapsulated by the siblings Hebrew and Aramaic, over
against the singular origin of both language and humankind.81 Early rabbinic
thought postulated the existence of a family of languages with Hebrew as its
80 See n. 78.

81 Syriac Christians, however, held Aramaic for both the primordial language and the Holy
Tongue: M. Rubin, “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of
Cultural Polemics in Antiquity,” JJS 49 (1998): 306–333.
206 Smelik
single ancestor, with the 70 languages of the nations being consonant with the
One.82 More pertinently, the existence of multilingualism is not related to mul-
tiple Gods, but to the single seal of the One God, just as heresy could not be
related to multiple gods. Aramaic was the necessary linguistic attribute to this
universalistic notion.
Once again, Rav’s Adam tradition reflects on the mishna and the notion of
creation in the likeness of God. Human pluriformity, typified as bilingualism,
somehow corresponds to and evolves from God’s singularity and Holy Tongue.
4 Adam Serialized
Throughout the series discussed here, in Mishna, Tosefta and the Babylonian
Talmud, traditions about Adam the First emerge, which circulated in some
form or another as blocks of uncertain length, but were reworked by the au-
thor/editors at various points in the history of their transmission. Altogether,
these texts illustrate how familiar the author/editors were with circulating tra-
ditions and their freedom of topical selection and adaptation in the formation
of new texts. Although the traditions, motifs, themes may have been used as
old bricks that were readily available to build something new, the bricklayers
did not necessarily follow a loose pattern of composition. Their actual deploy-
ment in our texts were subject to the usual processes of authorial selection and
rearrangement.
I have assumed throughout this study that any supposedly original, histori-
cal context for each of these traditions has been suspended. The giant andro-
gyne of myth has been reapplied to new topics and reshaped for new purpos-
es to such an extent that only its contours are still discernible. The authorial
voice aptly reused the myth of the androgyne, gigantic first human being—
which, as Aaron has shown, was familiar in rabbinic circles in all its intricate
details83—to emphasize a halakhic as well as moral point about the creation
of the human. Whatever the origin of the traditions—in the underlying case,
speculation about anti-Gnostic or anti-dualistic tendencies has been rife—
they were marshalled for good effect as raw material, realigned to serve new
purposes, divested of their original impetus. Oral transmission involved cre-
ativity in the instantiation of each text that was to be passed on in a new con-
text, with new textual connections and interpretative slants.
82 Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation, 9–41.

83 Aaron, “Imagery of the Divine.”
The selective, authorial use of certain traditions begs the question what
place associative digressions have in the new textual instantiations. The first
two parts of the present study focused on m. Sanh. 4:5 in order two clarify its
structure amidst two issues: the reason for the inclusion of the second, seem-
ingly superfluous scriptural interpretation of Gen 4:10 and the arrangement
of the four reasons for Adam’s singular creation. In each instance, the Mishna
includes pre-extant material that has been tailored to its new purposes. In the
process, a scriptural interpretation that once seemed a skippable digression
within that new mishnaic co-text emerged as an integral, even pivotal part of
the mishna’s argument. Both interpretations of Gen 4:10 appear to have been
deployed to express opposite interests in the halakhic topic of witnesses’
testimony.
Similarly, in the comparison with the Toseftan parallel it transpired that the
Mishna’s four reasons involve a reworked text, firmly embedded into its new
halakhic co-text concerning the admonishment of witnesses. The Tosefta’s
list of four reasons presupposes an awareness of some text bearing close re-
semblance to the Mishna, if only because its very point of inclusion is unclear
without access to the Mishna, but it differs in its arrangement and message: the
Tosefta’s text is a homily on the common ancestry of Cain and Abel to argue
against the claim of two different creators.
A similar selection principle is discernible in the four traditions about First
Adam attributed to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. This series of interpreta-
tions is not an index, solely governed by the arbitrary process of association.
These four traditions, collectively introduced by a mnemonic marker (siman)
in b. Sanh. 38b, constitute a unity rather than a loose, accumulative collec-
tion of tidbits created by sheer associative force. Here we have a midrash in
four parts with intricate motifs, neatly woven together, which correspond to
the four reasons which the Mishna gave for creating Adam as a solitary being.
These four Talmudic statements turn motifs known from speculation about
the creation of the First Adam into a homily on m. Sanh. 4:5, Gen 1:26–27 and
Psalm 139. In reading them together, Rav, Rav Yehuda or the editor established
a new relevance for Adam’s solitary creation. Thus some of the traditions
marked with a mnemonic siman display more coherence than they may have
been credited with in the past.84
The Mishna emphasized the ethical dimension of Adam’s size and singu-
larity, using well-known motifs as its building blocks for an entirely different
argument. The first two reasons emphasize the consequences for humanity
of humanity’s single creation, the last two focus on its implications for our
84 See nn. 30, 31, 32 and 35 above.

208 Smelik
understanding of God as the single, unique Creator. At first sight, the talmudic
unit discussed here may not seem to add much more than a few associations
with Adam, although taken together, the four talmudic traditions progres-
sively describe the creation of humankind: from God’s deliberations with his
angels—shall we or shall we not—to the sheer physical mass of Adam’s golem,
which may or may not have been spirited, to the mature Adam, who is a heretic
endowed with speech.
Matching the mishnaic structure, the siman’s Adam-traditions display an
unmistakable return to some of the pertinent questions surrounding Adam
and God, questions prompted by the creation narratives of Psalm 139 as well
as Gen 1:26–27, 3:22 and 5:1. Selecting from the available exegetical options, the
four traditions address the likeness of God and humanity following Gen 1:26–
27. This short series would represent a discourse on Adam’s creation in God’s
likeness, adding some of the connotations which were left out in the Mishna,
without, however, reintroducing any overtly gnostic or anti-gnostic overtones.
The editor underscores the single domain of authority: there is no other god
who authored a world full of heresy.
Chapter 10
The Variant Reading ‫ ולו‬/ ‫ ולא‬of Psalm 139:16 in

Rabbinic Literature
In his thirteen principles of faith,1 Maimonides (b. 1135) postulates that the
divine origin of the Torah implies the immutability of the text.2 But even in
his time Meir Abulafia (1170–1244) lamented that Bible scrolls contained dis-
agreements.3 Consequently, Abulafia collected Bible manuscripts for estab-
lishing the one true text of the Hebrew Scripture by following the principle of
majority.4 This principle he knew from rabbinic literature. Sifre Deut. §356 states
that already in the time of the Second Temple variant readings of the Hebrew
Scripture were emended by following the majority testimony.5 Nevertheless,
1 See the thirteen principles of faith in Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna: http://www
.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rambam13.asp (retrieved 11 August 2014).
2 See Yonatan Kolatch, Traditional Jewish Bible Commentary from the First to the Thirteenth
Century (vol. 1; Jerusalem: Ktav, 2006), 27. For Josephus, C. Ap. 1.29 see Arie van der Kooij,
“Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew
Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From
the Rabbis to the Masoretes (ed. E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Marciá; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2014), 63–78 esp. 66–67.
3 Quoted from B. Barry Levy, Fixing God’s Torah. The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish
Law (Oxford: University Press, 2001), 18.
4 Ibid., 28.
5 Sifre. A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (trans. R. Hammer; New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1986), 378: “Three Scrolls (of Torah) were found in the Temple Court:
one read ‫( מעון‬instead of ‫)מענה‬, another spelled (the feminine singular pronoun) ‫( היא‬in-
stead of the more common ‫ הוא‬for both genders), and a third used the word ‫( זעטוטים‬for the
commom ‫נערים‬, “young men”). The Sages rejected the first reading here and upheld the other
two Scrolls, which read ‫מענה‬. They found that the Scroll spelled ‫ היא‬in eleven places, and re-
jected the former and upheld the latter. They found one Scroll using ‫ זעטוטי‬in And he sent the
young men of Israel (Exod 24:5) and in And upon the nobles of the children of Israel (Exod 24:11),
while the other two used ‫נערי‬, and rejected the former and upheld the latter.” See Levy, Fixing
God’s Tora, 7 citing Sop. 6:4. See also ’Abot R. Nat. (ed. S. Schechter; London: Knöpfelmacher,
1887), 129. For y. Ta‘an 4.2 see Emanuel Tov, “History and Significance of a Standard Text of the
Hebrew Bible,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation (ed. M. Sæbø; 2
vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 1:65. Nahum M. Sarna, Studies in Biblical
Interpretation (Philadelphia: JPS, 2000), 243, 247–248 on codices “intended as a model for
scribes.” Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem,” in The

210 Börner-Klein
there is still evidence of numerous variants to the Masoretic Text (MT), in-
cluding variants which are preserved in rabbinic literature. Victor Aptowitzer
collected variants of the biblical books of Samuel, Joshua and Judges from the
Midrashim and Talmudim.6 D. Andrew Teeter’s study Scribal Laws7 lays a solid
foundation for further studies on rabbinic variants of Hebrew Scripture.8 In
the apparatus criticus of the Hebrew University Bible Edition (HUBP) all trace-
able biblical variants will finally be accessible.9
Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader (ed. S.Z. Leiman; New York:
Ktav, 1974), 416–454; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were found in
the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962): 14–27; Solomon Zeitlin, “Were there three Torah-Scrolls
in the Azarah?” in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, 469–472; Emanuel Tov, “The
Myth of Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible, 37–45;
John Van Seters, “Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?” in
The Text of the Hebrew Bible, 47–61 esp. 55: “There was, in fact, a widespread practice in the
Roman world in which scribes could go to a city library in order to use an elegant exemplar of
a classical work from which to produce an expensive, high quality text for a rich patron. This
practice may well have existed in various prominet synagogues and it is probable that the
Rabbis are merely projecting this practice back into the time of the Temple, as they did with
so many other practices. This says nothing about a specially edited and standardized text to
be viewed as a ‘canonical’ text, and all the evidence of other ‘elegeant’ or ‘very accurate’ texts
derived from the Temple collection, such as the Severus Scroll, a ‘royal’ text, speaks against
any such interpretation of the Temple court scroll. The Rabbis who were certainly not scribes
developed this notion of the Temple scroll as a way of asserting, probably against Christian
apologists, that all of their biblical texts derived from, and were collated against, an accurate
ancient Temple scroll.”
6 Victor Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur (4 vols.; Leipzig: Hölder, 1906–
1915; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970).
7 David Andrew Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical
Law in the Late Second Temple Period (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
8 Teeter refers in particular to Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzung der Bibel in ihrer
Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857).
9 See http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/english/units.php?cat=4981&incat=4980 (retrieved 28 Feb-
ruary 2015): “The Hebrew Bible text has been handed down in manuscript form with the
greatest of care by many generations of copyists. However, the further back one traces its
transmission in history, the more variants are found in the witnesses to the text. This ‘plu-
riformity’ is exhibited most dramatically in the fragments of biblical scrolls dating from the
late centuries BCE and the early Common Era, found in the Judean Desert (Qumran, Masada,
etc.). The Bible Project edition includes all the evidence bearing on the text, listing every dif-
ference in the ancient translations: the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Aramaic Tar-
gums and the Syriac Peshitta. It also lists the variant readings attested in the Dead Sea scrolls,
quotations of biblical verses in Rabbinic literature, and in medieval Hebrew manuscripts and
commentaries.” The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah (ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein;
Jerusalem: Magness, 1995); The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah (eds. C. Rabin,
S. Talmon, E. Tov; Jerusalem: Magness, 1997); The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel
(eds. M. Goshen-Gottstein, S. Talmon, G. Marquis; Jerusalem: Magness, 2004).
The Variant reading ‫ ולו‬/ ‫ ולא‬of Psalm 139:16 211
Isac L. Seeligmann pointed to “earlier stages, marked by a free and unbiased

attitude towards the Bible text”10 and B. Barry Levy pointed out that biblical
variants in the rabbinic literature often were “older, better known, or more
highly respected than the fairly obscure Masoretic literature.”11 An early exam-
ple to support this argument comes from Dunash ibn Labrat (920–990), a for-
mer student of Saadja Gaon (882–942) in Baghdad, who criticized Menachem
ben Saruk’s (910–970) dictionary Machberet “for ignoring the traditional oral
readings and interpreting the Bible purely as written.”12 Labrat noted that, ac-
cording to Lev 25:30, property in a city that has no wall [‫“ ]אשר לא חומה‬does
not revert to its original owner in the Jubilee year … yet the verse is read as
meaning that property ‫ אשר לו חומה‬in walled cities does not revert. Menachem
translates the verse according to the ketiv [‫ ;]לא‬Jewish law follows the qere ]‫]לו‬.”13
10 Isac Leo Seeligmann, “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaption in the Massoretic
Text and the Septuagint,” in Gesammelte Schriften zur Hebräischen Bibel (ed. E. Blum;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 449–467, esp. 451: “As late as the second century and
even in the third, the transmitters of the text could alter a reading and adapt it to the
demands of the context, subject-matter, and logic.” Jonathan D.H. Norton, Contours
in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writing of Paul, Josephus and the Yaḥad (LNTS 430;
London: T&T Clark, 2011); Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the
Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); idem, “Clearer Insight into the Development
of the Bible—A Gift of the Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Srolls and Contemporary Culture:
Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem ( July 6–8,
2008) (STDJ 93; ed. A.D. Roitman, L.H. Schiffman, S. Tzoref; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 119–137;
H.H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Martilla, eds., Changes in Scripture: Rewriting
and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419; Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2011); Yeshayahu Maori, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings
in the Light of the Qumran Evidence,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research (ed.
D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 283–298.
11 Levy, Fixing God’s Tora, 40: “Many earlier rabbis, especially those who lived in the ‘pre-
emendation era,’ acknowledged the existence of textual variations or ‘disagreements’ and,
notwithstanding their dislike for them and what they suggested about textual transmis-
sion, saw their inherent challenge as a part of the halakhic debates that had evolved for
centuries. Thus, despite the avoidance of the general critical posture, some discussions of
spelling variants were entertained in the religious literature of the last several centuries.”
12 Kolatch, Masters, 1.336.
13 Ibid. Dunash ben Labraṭ, Teshuvot Dunash ben Labraṭ (ed. H. Filipowski, London: Meorere
Yeshenim, 1855), 8; Elvira Martín-Contreras, “The Phenomenon qere we la’ketib in the
Main Biblical Codices: New Data,” VT 62 (2012): 77–87; Emanuel Tov, “The Ketiv-Qere
Variations in Light of the Manuscript Finds in the Judean Desert,” in Text, Theology and
Translation: Essays in Honour of Jan de Waard (ed. S. Crisp and M. Jinbachian; Swindon:
UBS, 2004), 199–207; Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New
Approach,” in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader (ed.
S.Z. Leiman, New York: Ktav, 1974), 410: “It is our hypothesis that the Masoretes first se-
lected the three best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible available to them. Where the three
manuscripts had no variant readings, no difficulty was experienced in vocalizing the text.
212 Börner-Klein
Likewise, John Van Seters considers the ketiv/qere annotations as referring “pri-
marily [to] an oral spoken text.”14
It continues to be unknown how many scriptural variants to the MT are pre-
served within rabbinic literature, whether these variants are based on a spe-
cific scribal tradition or whether they are caused by an exegetical rewriting.15
James A. Sanders emphasized that “the understanding of a biblical text, or of
a passage within it, is affected by the hermeneutics brought to it.”16 If that is
the case, biblical variants within rabbinic literature are probably not easily af-
fected by standardizations referring to the MT which were implied by scribes.17
But where manuscripts differed, the Masoretes accepted the reading of the majority and
volcalized it; that reading became the Qere. The reading of the minority was left unvocal-
ized, and became the Kethib.”
14 Van Seters, Sopherim, 53–54 refering to James Barr, “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere,” OST 21
(1981): 19–27.
15 Aron Dotan, The Awakening of Word Lore: From the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew
Lexicography (Hebr.; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005); Angel
Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: University
Press, 1997); Stefan Schorch, “The Preeminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging
Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in Studies in the Book of Ben
Sira (JSJSup 127; ed. G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–54. For studies
on variants of Scripture in rabbinic literature see Elvira Martín-Contreras, “Rabbinic Ways
of Preservation and Transmission of the Biblical Text in the Light of Masoretic Sources,” in
The Text of the Hebrew Bible, 79–90 on the project “The Role of Rabbinic Literature in the
Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bibel”; Victor Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rab-
binischen Literatur (4 vols; Wien: Alfred Holder, 1908; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970); James A.
Sanders, “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method,” JBL 98 (1979): 5–29; Yeshayahu Maori,
“Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible: History and
Practice,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah (ed. S. Carmy; Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1996), 101–129 esp. 102; Daniel Sperber, “Some tannaitic biblical variants,” ZAW
79 (1967): 79–80.
16 James A. Sanders, “Hermeneutics of Text Criticism,” Textus 18 (1995): 126.
17 See Malachi Beit-Arié, “Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious
and Critical Interferences,” in Artefacts and Texts: The Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in
Medieval Hebrew (ed. P.S. Alexander and A. Samely; Manchester: John Rylands Library,
1994), 33–52; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “The ‘Open’ Book in Medieval Hebrew Literature: The
Problem of Authorized Editions,” in Artefacts and Texts: The Re-Creation of Jewish Literature
in Medieval Hebrew (ed. P.S. Alexander and A. Samely; Manchester: John Rylands Library,
1994), 17–42; Armin Lange, “‘Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to make
changes’ (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.42): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in
the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early
Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (JSJSup 122; ed. A. Hilhorst, E. Puech,
and E. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105–126; Emanuel Tov, The Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); Moshe Henry Goshen-Gottstein, “The
Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: Theories and Practice of Textual Criticism,”
VT 42 (1992): 204–213. On the other hand, variable spellings within the Hebrew Bible can
My contribution to the topic of this volume is focused on reading strate-

gies with reference to Ps 139:16 in rabbinic literature. The selected verse in its
rabbinical contexts occurs in two variants, one of these versions is also trans-
mitted in 11QPsa (Ps 139:16) and in a Masoretic marginal gloss. As the variant
already occurs in the Qumran biblical material, the Rabbis could have used
an old reading, but they also could have rewritten the verse due to exegeti-
cal reasons. The early translations18 of the verse do not reflect on this variant.
A formal description of the variant (the exchange of the letter aleph into the
letter waw or vice versa) does not help to classify it as an exegetical or scribal
variant. But within the rabbinical contexts, the change of letters solves an in-
terpretative difficulty.19 To illustrate the reading strategies of the rabbinic Sages
concerning the ‫ולא‬/ ‫ ולו‬variant of Ps 139:16,20 I selected three parallel midrashic
texts where Ps 139:16 is the focus of a theological argument.
In the MT Ps 139:16 reads: ‫ס ְפ ְרָך ֻּכ ָּלם יִ ָּכ ֵתבּו ִיָמים יֻ ָּצרּו ולא ֶא ָחד‬-‫ל‬
ִ ‫ּגָ ְל ִמי ָראּו ֵעינֶ יָך וְ ַע‬
‫ ָּב ֶהם‬. The ESV translates the verse as “Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
and in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed
for me, when as yet there was none of them.” The oldest version of Ps 139:16 is
preserved in 11QPsa where the last part of the verse reads: ‫“ ולו באח[ד] בהמה‬and
him is [a claim] in one of them.”21 The reading ‫ ולו אחד בהם‬is preserved in the
Aleppo Codex in a marginal gloss.22 The Aleppo Codex was written in 910 CE
at the latest.23 Leningrad Codex B 19A, the oldest complete manuscript of the
lead to standardizations which are not according to the MT. See James Barr, The Variable
Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: The British Academy, 1989); Francis I. Andersen and
A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); Jaakov
Levi, Die Inkongruenz im biblischen Hebräisch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987).
18 Moshe Simon-Shoshan, “The Task of the Translator: The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and the
Cultural Politics of Translation,” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 1–39.
19 See Teeters, Scribal Law, 52, 74. Diether Kellermann, “Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart? Ein
Beitrag zum Verständnis der K “l’” / Q “lw” Fälle,” BZ 24 (1980): 57–75.
20 According to the Bar Ilan Responsa database, see http://www.biu.ac.il/jh/Responsa/ (re-
trieved 20 August 2014), there exist thirteen ‫לא‬/‫ לו‬variants in the Hebrew Bible (Exod
21:8; Lev 11:21; 25:30; 2 Sam 16:18; 19:7; 2 Kgs 8:10; Isa 9:2; 49:5; 63:9; Prov 19:7; 26:2; Job 6:21;
41:4), two variant readings with ‫ לא‬/ ‫ לו‬variants (1 Sam 2:16; 20:2) and five ‫ולו‬/‫ ולא‬variants
(1 Sam 2:3; Ps 100:3; 139:16; Ezra 4:2; 1 Chr 11:20).
21 For ‫ מהמה‬see Jer 10:2 and Qoh 12:12. The last letter of ]‫ באח[ד‬was omitted because of the
end of the line. See also Eugene C. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and
Textual Variants (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 718.
22 Goshen-Gottstein, “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text,” 79–122, esp. 86: “But this [the
Aleppo codex] was the first codex of the complete Bible with full Masoretic annotation,
exhibiting what was to be regarded as the prototype of the Tiberian Bible text.” For the
defective and plene writings of ‫ לא‬in the Bible see Barr, The Variable Spellings, 154–158.
23 Izhak Ben-Zvi, “The Codex of Ben Asher,” Textus 1 (1960): 1–16 esp. 5: “That the Aleppo
Codex was written at the end of the ninth century, at any rate not later than the year 910.”
214 Börner-Klein
entire Bible, which was written and provided with Masoretic notes in the early
eleventh century, offers the same Masoretic note.24
The early Greek and Latin translations are literal to the MT and do not alter
the last part of the verse: :‫ולא ֶא ָחד ָּב ֶהם‬.25
LXX/Theodotion καὶ οὐθεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς and no one among thema

Aquilab καὶ οὐ μία ἐν αὐταῖς and not is one among them
Symmachus οὐκ ἐνδεούσης οὐδεμιᾶς [When I was unformed, your
eyes foresaw me with all who
will be inscribed in your book]
who will be formed one day,
whereat] no single [day] will be
missing.
Psalterium Romanun et nemo in eis and no one is among them
Breviarium et nullus in ipsis and none is among them
Ambrosianum
Jacob Leon Teicher, “The Ben Asher Bible Manuscripts,” JJS 2 (1950): 17–25 esp. 22: “Little
weight can be attached to the statement in the colophon of the Aleppo codex that it was
written by Solomon Buya’a and pointed by Aaron b. Asher.” Paul Kahle, “The Masoretic
Text of the Bible,” in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, 493–513 esp. 494: “We
know with certainty that Moshe b. Asher and his son belonged to the community of the
Karaites.” Goshen-Gottstein, “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text,” 79–122 esp. 80: “The
Aleppo Codex is the codex of Maimonides, and as such became the halakhically bind-
ing model for later generations.” He continues (p. 119): “The most that can be said is that
through his [Maimonides’] reliance on the Aleppo Code as a model codex for those hal-
akhic purposes, he indirectly strengthened the prestige of the receptus codices—which
were the vast majority anyhow—that were held to represent the Ben Asher tradition.”
See also Aaron Dotan, “Was the Aleppo Codex Actually Vocalized by Aharon ben Asher?”
Tarbiz 34 (1965): 136–155.
24 Harry M. Orlinsky, “Prolegomenon to the KTAV Reissue of C.D. Ginzburg’s Introduction to
the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Introduction to the Massoretico-
Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (ed. C.D. Ginzburg; New York: Ktav, 1966), I–XLV esp.
XIII. See also Goshen-Gottstein, “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text,” 101: “The Leningrad
Codex is no rival to the Aleppo Codex … In the best case we might take its colophon at its
face value and make the codex a copy harmonized with the Ben Asher text according to
some copies which bore Ben Asher’s name. It was secondarily brought into harmony with
a Ben Asher Vorlage by endless erasures and changes.”
25 According to F. Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum
Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1875),
2.294.
(cont.)
Vulgate et non est una in eis and not is one among them
Targum Jonathan ‫ולית כחד חד ביניהון‬ and there is not a single one like
that [day] among them
a N ETS, 615: “Perhaps: when none of them as yet existed.”

b Timothy Edwards, “Aquila in the Psalter: A Prolegomenon,” in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis
(ed. T.M. Law and A. Salvesen; Leuven: Peters, 2012), 87–105; Alison Salvesen, “Did Aquila and
Symmachus Shelter under the Rabbinic Umbrella?” in the same volume, 107–216.
In midrashic literature both variants of Ps 139:16 (‫ לו‬and ‫ )לא‬occur together

in Midrash Tanḥuma according to MS Oxford Neubauer 154. Both the Yalkut
Shimoni26 on Ps 139:16 as well as Seder Eliahu Rabba27 (chapters 1 and 2) trans-
mit an interpretation which relies on the Tanḥuma commentary, but they omit
the interpretation referring to the Masoretic reading of Ps 139:16 (‫)ולא אחד בהם‬.
The oldest parts of Midrash Tanḥuma, a running commentary on the whole
Torah, are dated “around 400 at the latest,”28 whereas, according to Leopold
Zunz, the whole Midrash comes from the first half of the ninth century.29 There
are two different versions of the Midrash which have been printed,30 but only
the Buber edition based on MS Oxford Neubauer 154 passes down the follow-
ing commentary on Gen 5:1:
This is the book of the history of .‫זה ספר תולדות אדם‬

Adam. (Gen 5:1) ‫זהו שאמר הכתוב‬
That is what scripture says: Your ‫גלמי ראו עיניך‬
eyes saw my unformed substance
(Ps 139:16).
As long as Adam was lying as an ‫עד שאדם היה מוטל גולם הראהו הקב"ה דור‬
unformed substance, the Holy One, ,‫ דור דור ורשעיו‬,‫דור ודורשיו דור דור וצדיקיו‬
praised be He, showed him ‫עד שיחיו המתים‬
generation of generation and [gave]
his explanations: [This is] generation
26 Yalkut Shimoni. Osef midrashe hazal le—esrim we-arba’ah sifre Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim
(Jerusalem: Monzon, 1960, repr. Warsaw, 1878).
27 Seder Eliahu Rabba and Seder Eliahu Zuta (ed. M. Friedmann; Jerusalem: Wahrmann
Books, 1969), 1–13. See W.G. Braude and I.J. Kapstein, trans., Tanna Debe Eliyyahu: The Lore
of the School of Elijah (Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press, 1981), 1–27.
28 Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 332.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid., 330–331.
216 Börner-Klein
of generation and his righteous,

[this is] generation of generation
and his evildoers, until the revival of
the dead.
He said to him: Everything your ‫א"ל כל מה שראו עיניך‬
eyes have seen. They all were .‫ועל ספרך כלם יכתבו‬
written in your book (Ps 139:16).
And what is [the meaning of]: And ‫ומהו‬
there was none among them (Ps ?‫לא אחד בהם‬
139:16)?
R. Elieser and R. Jehoshua [explain ‫ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע‬
the verse]. [R. Elieser says:] Days ]‫[ר' אליעזר אומר‬
were built and none was among .‫ימים יוצרו ולא אחד בהם‬
them.
The Holy One, praised be He, said: ‫אמר הקב"ה היום הזה אני גואל את בני ממצרים‬
This day I release my children out of ‫וביום הזה אני קורע את הים ומפיל שונאיהם‬
Egypt, and on this day I split the sea ‫ביום הזה אני נותן את התורה‬
and make their haters fall. On this ‫ולא נשתנה יום אחד ולא נתחלף‬
day I give the Torah. And no day [of )‫הוי (אומר‬
these days] will be changed or .‫ולא אחד בהם‬
exchanged. This [means]: And there
was none among them (Ps 139:16).
R. Jehoshua says: One among them ‫ר' יהושע אומר‬
is his [day] (Ps 139:16). ‫ולו אחד בהם‬
From the days which the Holy One, ‫מימים שברא הקב"ה בחר לו אחד מהם‬
praised be He, created, he chose ?‫ואיזה הוא‬
one. And which one is it?
The Day of Atonement as it is said: ‫זה יום הכפורים שנאמר‬
Is not this the fast that I choose for .‫הלא זה צום אבחרהו‬
him (Isa 58:6)?
Another explanation: One among ‫ד"א‬
them is his [day] (Ps 139:16). ‫ולו אחד בהם‬
That is the day of Sabbath, as it is ‫זה יום השבת שנאמר‬
said: Therefore the Lord blessed the .‫על כן ברך ה' את יום השבת ויקדשהו‬
Sabbath day and made it holy (Exod
20:11).
According to Tanḥuma bereshit §28 on Gen 5:1 the verse “Your eyes saw my
unformed substance” refers to Adam who addresses God as his creator. Thus,
Adam’s history began, when he was still unformed but already imagined by
God as a human being. This proves that God is omnipotent because he can see
everything including the unformed human and his whole life from the begin-
ning to its end. Furthermore, Tanḥuma insists that God expounded to Adam in
his earliest mode of being, as an unformed substance, the problem of good and
evil that would cause him the loss of paradise. Third, the commentary points
out that God made a protocol of this first meeting with the still unformed
Adam that was written in his book. In the second part of the commentary of
Tanḥuma bereshit §28, Elieser and Jehoshua discuss the problematic last part
of Ps 139:16: “And there was none among them” ]‫]ולא אחד בהם‬. The first sage’s
name is not reported, but as the second sage is Jehoshua, we can infer that
Elieser is the first to speak. Elieser explains that the phrase ‫ ולא אחד בהם‬re-
lates to the days that “were built and none [special day that belongs to God]
was among them.” Elieser then specifies three days that God will select in the
future as his special days. He argues, these days will be special to God because
on these days he will act on behalf of Israel: On one day he will release Israel
out of Egypt, on one day he will split the sea for them, and on one day he will
give his Torah to Israel. All these days belong to God, and he sees these days
as present, before he created Adam. Therefore, God promises to the still un-
formed Adam, that there will be no day among these three days [‫]ולא אחד בהם‬
on which will happen any change. This interpretation of Ps 139:16 explains the
Masoretic reading.
In contrast, Jehoshua quotes the variant reading: “And his is one among
them” [‫ ]ולו אחד בהם‬and explains that God created every day of the year, but
he chose the Day of Atonement as his special day. A third anonymous explana-
tion identifies God’s chosen day as the Sabbath.
In the Yalkut Shimoni, which is a running commentary to the whole Hebrew
Scripture consisting of thousands of interpretations from the Talmudim and
Midrashim, the commentary on Ps 139:16 only displays the variant reading:
“And his is one among them” ]‫]ולו אחד בהם‬. Quoting a closely related version of
Tanḥuma bereshit §28, the Yalkut Shimoni teaches:
The days that were formed, and him .‫ימים יוצרו ולו אחד בהם‬
is one of them (Ps 139:16).
Rabbi Elieser says: ‫רבי אליעזר אומר‬
[This is] the day of Sisera, the day ‫ יומו של‬,‫ יומו של סנחריב‬,‫יומו של סיסרא‬
of Sanherib, the day of Gog and .‫גוג ומגוג‬
Magog.
218 Börner-Klein
R. Jehoshua says: They are 365 ‫ר' יהושע אומר‬

days, and for the Only One of the .‫שס"ה ימים הם וליחידו של עולם אחד מהם‬
world is one of them.
R. Levi said: This is the day of ‫ר' לוי אמר‬
Atonement. Is such the fast that I ‫זה יום הכפורים‬
choose, a day for a person to .‫הכזה יהיה צום יום ענות אדם נפשו‬
humble himself (Isa 58:5)?
R. Isaak said: This is the day of ‫ר' יצחק אמר‬
Sabbath. .‫זה יום השבת‬
The Yalkut Shimoni on Ps 139:16 only mentions the variant ‫ ולו אחד בהם‬and that
there is one special day for God. There is merely a dispute between four of the
sages on how to identify these days, whether this one day is a future apocalyp-
tic day, the Day of Atonement or the day of Shabbat. R. Joshua refers to “one
special day of the year,” but he does not suggest which day he has in mind.
Also in S. Eli. Rab. 1, Psalm 139:16 is only cited with the reading ‫ולו אחד בהם‬.
S. Eli. Rab. 1 begins with the expulsion of Adam from paradise (Gen 3:24).
Nevertheless, the text praises God for knowing everything from the beginning
until the end and for seeing the good and avoiding seeing the evil. S. Eli. Rab. 1
then refers to Ps 139:16, emphasizing that God saw Adam before he was created
and that he wrote down every good and evil act of each future human being
in his book. Therefore, in the future, God will judge each and every person ac-
cording to the account of his book. In the end, he will sit in his study hall with
the righteous seated in his presence and recount the merits of each person and
every generation.
The phrase “the days that were formed, and him is one of them” is then
again interpreted as the Sabbath day. On this day a person (‫ )אדם‬rests
and forgets all previous vexation. On this day, he studies Torah and enjoys
himself. A second commentary repeats the identification of “the one day”
with the Day of Atonement, and a third one with the apocalyptic day of Gog.
S. Eli. Rab. 2 continues with the interpretation that Ps 139:16 refers to the day
of Sabbath:
Another explanation: The days that ‫דבר אחר‬

were formed (Ps 139:16). This is the ]'‫ימים יוצרו [וגו‬
seventh day for the world. ‫זה יום שביעי לעולם‬
Because this world exists for 6000 ‫לפי שהעולם הזה הווה ששת אלפים שנה‬
years: 2000 [years of] desolation, ‫שני אלפים תוהו שני אלפים תורה‬
2000 [years with] Tora and 2000 .‫שני אלפים משיח‬
[years of the] Messiah.
Because of our many sins ‫בעונינו שרבו נכנס עלינו שעבוד בתוך שני‬
enslavement has come upon us .‫אלפים של ימות המשיח‬
during the 2000 years of the days of ‫ויצא מהן יותר משבע מאות שנה שנאמר‬
the Messiah. More than 700 years .‫עשה ה' אשר זמם‬
of those have [already] passed, as it
says: YHWH would have done what
he devised (Lam 2:17).
But, just as we carry out [the ‫וכשם שאנחנו עושים שנה אחת שמיטה‬
stipulation] that one year in seven ‫לשבע שנים כך עתיד הקב"ה לעשות‬
be a year of release [‫]שמיטה‬, so the
Holy One will provide a release for
the world [for] one day lasting a ‫שמיטה לעולם יום אחד שהוא אלף שנים‬
thousand years, as it says: For, a ‫שנאמר‬
thousand years in Your sight are but .‫כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול‬
as yesterday (Ps 90:4).
And it says: The one day which shall ‫ואומר‬
be known as YHWH’s is neither day .‫והיה יום אחד הוא יודע לה' לא יום ולא לילה‬
nor night (Zech 14:7). This is the .‫זה יום שביעי לעולם‬
world’s seventh day.
And there shall be light at eventide .‫והיה לעת ערב יהיה אור‬
(Zech 14:7). This is the world-to- ‫זה העולם הבא שנאמר‬
come, as it says: From one New .‫והיה מדי חדש בחדשו‬
Moon to the other [and from one
Sabbath to another shall all flesh
come to worship before Me] (Is
66:23).
And it says: A Psalm, a song for the ‫ואומר‬
Sabbath day (Ps 92:1). For a world/a .‫מזמור שיר ליום השבת‬
time [‫ ]לעולם‬that is wholly/eternally .‫לעולם שכולו שבת‬
Sabbath.
According to S. Eli. Rab. 2 there is one day that belongs to God but it is neither
the Day of Atonement nor the day of Sabbath or an apocalyptic day. According
to this text God’s day is not part of the time line we are living in. God’s day will
occur in the future, when the messianic era has begun. Then, in God’s pres-
ence, there will no longer exist day or night, there will be no time at all, and
there will be eternity. Eternity has a beginning but no end. Therefore, when
God opens the book of life to judge all human beings, the last but everlasting
day will begin. This day will be God’s day. On this day, according to the remarks
in S. Eli. Rab. 2, there will be no death, sin or transgression. On this day, there
220 Börner-Klein
will be only the rejoicing in God’s wisdom. Thus, the interpretation of Ps 136:16
read as ‫ ולו אחד בהם‬draws the image of an eternal God who is not engaged in
time and therefore, also his “day” will be beyond time.
There is no evidence whether the midrashic authors who interpreted Ps
139:16 referred to an older biblical variant31 or whether they invented anew the
change of the ‫ ולא‬into a ‫ולו‬.32 Yet in deciding for the reading with ‫ולו‬, they opted
for the variant which supports the theological statement that God is omnipo-
tent and beyond time. This description of God is suitable even in an interfaith
dialogue.
However, the knowledge of both readings of Ps 139:16 perpetuates in medi-
eval Jewish commentaries. David Kimchi (1160–1235) presents both readings in
his explanation on Ps 139:16:
The days which were built— ,‫הימים שיוצרו בהם לאל יתברך הם אחד‬
according to them [we explain]: .‫כי כולם ידעם ברגע אחד‬
They are [all] one for the praised
God. He knows all of them in one
moment.
And it is [also] written ‫ולא‬, with ,‫והכתוב ולא באל"ף‬
Aleph. And the explanation of “and ‫ופירושו ולא אחד בהם‬
none is among them” is: They do .‫שלא ידעו טרם היותו‬
not know [about the day] before it
comes into being.
31 Ernst Würthwein, “Erwägungen zu Psalm 134,” VT 7 (1957): 165–182 esp. 179 n.1: “‫אחד בהם‬
‫ ולא‬ist wiederum Glosse, sei es erklärend in der Form des Ketib, sei es unter Hinzufügung
eines ganz neuen Gedanken in der Form des Qere: “und ihm (‫ )לו‬gehört einer von ihnen,”
d.h. den Tagen, ein Hinweis auf den Sabbath, der hier gewiss nicht am Platz ist.” Matthias
Köckert, “Ausgespäht und überwacht, erschreckend wunderbar geschaffen: Gott und
Mensch in Psalem 139,” ZThK 107 (2010): 415–447 esp. 446: “Die Berührung von Psalm 139
mit Qumran, vor allem in den Versen 16.19–22, sind so auffällig, dass man die Heimat
des Psalms in einem verwandten Milieu im Vorfeld der Abspaltungen jener Gruppe
vom Jerusalemer Priestertum vermuten darf.” See Johan Maier, “Die Feinde Gottes.
Auslegungsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Ps 139,21f,” in Hairesis. Festschrift für Karl
Hoheisel (ed. M. Hutter, W.W. Klein and U. Vollmer; Münster: Aschendorff, 2002), 33–47.
32 Thijs Booij, “Psalm CXXXIX: Text, Syntax, Meaning,” VT 55 (2005): 1–19 (here 11–18): “In
about half of the cases the Qere ‫ לו‬is clearly the correct reading; see Ex. 21: 8; Lev. 11:21;
25:30; 2 Sam. 16:18; Ps. 100:3; Ezra 4:2. In our text two Masoretic manuscripts and 11QPsa
read welŏ (‫)ולו‬.” There are also attemtps to justify the reading of the Masoretic Text. See
Joe O. Lewis, “An Asseverative ‫ לא‬in Psalm 100:3?” JBL 86 (1967): 216: “The asserverative
[Ugaritic] ‘l’ seems to have been either misunderstood or forgotten by those who pointed
the text [Ps 100:3], being written as the negative ‫לא‬. If this particle can be considered as an
asseverative in Ps 100:3, it can give meaning to the sentence without except in accentua-
tion.” John Goldingay, Psalms 90–150 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 3.623.
The Sefer Chassidim33 presents the following explanation:34
We have stated in Genesis Rabbah: “And ‫היינו דאמרינן בבראשית רבה‬

it was evening and it was morning, day ‫ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד‬
one.” (Gen 1:5). This is the Day of ‫זה יום הכפורים‬
Atonement, and therefore it is written ‫ולכך כתיב ולא אחד בהם באלף‬
with in Aleph: “And not one [day] is
among them.”
And we read “and him” is one [among ‫וקרינן בוא"ו ולו אחד‬
those days] with a Waw [in] “‫ ”ולו‬in ‫כלומר שלו הוא יום הכפורים‬
order to say that the Day of Atonement ‫ואין השטן יכול לקטרג‬
belongs to Him and no [other] accuser
can bring charges.
A similar interpretation has the Sefer Rokeach, written by Eleasar ben Judah
ben Kalonymus of Worms (1176–1238), who only refers to the Masoretic
reading:35 “The final letters in ‫ ולא אחד בהם‬form the word adam. And there is
no day of judgment among them. Therefore, we pray: Remember us, King, for
life and have delight in living, and write us down in your book of life.”
The interpretation of Ps 139:16 in rabbinic literature illustrates that the
Sages felt free to establish a scriptural reading variant by interpreting the af-
fected biblical passage. Nevertheless, they preserved the knowledge of dissent-
ing opinions in order to revert to them when necessary. Seeligmann stated:36
“Midrashim which are built on readings of the Bible text apparently deviating
from MT … are of particular interest and of no small importance for the his-
tory of the Biblical text.” The insight into the exegetical history of Ps 139:16 in
rabbinic literature can only hint at this lively tradition.
33 The Sefer Chassidim is dated between the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.
34 R. Margaliot, ed., Sefer Chassidim (Israel: Netiva, 1984), 167.
35 Elieser of Worms, Sefer Rokeach (Warschau, 1880): Rosh ha-Shana §200.
36 Seeligmann, “Indications of Editorial Alteration,” 466.
Chapter 11
Jewish and Christian Exegetical Controversy

in Late Antiquity: The Case of Psalm 22 and the
Esther Narrative
As many scholars have noted, Psalm 221 developed into a locus of exegetical
controversy between Jews and Christians during Late Antiquity.2 This paper
will discuss the Jewish anti-Christian polemical identification of Psalm 22 with
Esther and the Purim narrative.
Earlier scholarship exploring this connection suffers from at least one criti-
cal limitation. The insightful studies by Betinna,3 Dorival,4 Menn,5 and Tkacz,6
are focused on Midrash Tehillim, a midrashic compilation redacted by the
eleventh-century.7 Although it is partly true, as some of these studies mention,
1 Psalm 22 in the Masoretic text is equivalent to Psalm 21 in the LXX. I will refer to this Psalm
using the MT chapter and verse number.
2 Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian
Anti-Jewish Polemic,” JECS 6 (1998): 37–58; Rivka Ulmer, “Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati:
The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus,” in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection,
Reclamation (ed. Z. Garber; West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2011), 115–122; Peter
Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2012), 236–271. Bettina Wellmann, Von David, Königin Ester und
Christus: Psalm 22 im Midrasch, Tehillim und bei Augustinus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder,
2007): this Psalm was also used in internal Christian debate, which we will not discuss in this
paper. See Gilles Dorival, “L’interpretation cncienne du Psaume 21 (TM 22),” in David, Jésus et
la reine Esther: recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM) (ed. G. Dorival; Paris: Peeters, 2002).
3 Wellmann, Von David, Königin Ester und Christus.
4 Gilles Dorival, “Les Sages ont-ils retouché certains titres des Psaumes?” VT 61 (2011): 374–387.
5 Esther M. Menn, “No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in
Psalm 22,” HTR 93 (2000): 301–341.
6 Catherine Brown Tkacz, “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22,” CBQ 70 (2008): 709–728.
7 On the late nature and date of Midrash Tehillim see the opinions of Zunz and Albeck in
Leopold Zunz, Homilies in Israel and their Historical Development (trans. H. Albeck; Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute, 1947), 131–132. While Midrash Tehillim mostly quotes Palestinian Amoraim we
must be cautious with statements by named sages that do not have clear precedent in earlier
rabbinic literature. Late midrash tends to be more pseudepigraphic than early midrash. See
Myron Lerner, “The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim,” in The Literature of
the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions,
Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature (CRINT 3b; ed. S. Safrai; Assen: Van
Gorcum, 2006), 152. For the most recent discussion, which examines the range of opinions,

Jewish and Christian Exegetical Controversy in Late Antiquity 223
that “the Midrash on Psalms, like ‘all other Midrashim,’ is believed to contain
mainly material that ‘goes back to the Talmudic period,’”8 scholars cannot with
any degree of methodological rigor identify, contextualize, and sort out the tra-
ditions that actually date to the Talmudic period from those produced or heav-
ily reworked by a later redactor. Thus far, Midrash Tehillim lacks the detailed
text, source, form and redaction critical analyses performed on other compi-
lations of rabbinic literature. An anonymous statement or a named tradition
unparalleled in actual late antique rabbinic literature cannot be taken as early.
Midrash Tehillim’s popularity results from two factors: an English translation,9
and its lemmatic sequence that comments on nearly every verse of a psalm.
Scholars who privilege this late text fail to examine in detail earlier material
found in rabbinic literature that links Esther and Purim to Psalm 22.
This chapter will part from previous scholarship by discussing every early
rabbinic source that connects Psalm 22 with Esther and the Purim narrative.
These texts attest to the rise of a Jewish Passion counter-narrative featuring
Esther simultaneously as a type and countertype of Christ. While earlier studies
have discussed the existence of this polemic, none have examined its earliest
instantiations and development. This chapter will demonstrate that the rab-
binic construction of the Purim story into an anti-Christian counter narrative
began in the third century, earlier than scholars have previously recognized,10
and grew throughout Late Antiquity. This chapter will also situate this counter-
narrative in its late antique setting, reading it alongside other Jewish and non-
Jewish sources that depict the celebration of Purim and the use of the book of
Esther as Jewish anti-Christian polemic.
1 Psalm 22 in the New Testament and Early Christianity
In order to understand the content and context of Jewish counter-narratives

involving Psalm 22, we must explore the psalm’s importance to early Christian
see Miriam Benedikt, “The Poetics of The Midrash on Psalms: Elements of Dialogical and
Polemical Interactivity in Refracted Hermeneutics” (PhD diss., Monash University, 2015),
35–38.
8 Tkacz, “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22,” 721 citing William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), xi, 1. See also Menn, “No Ordinary Lament,”
317, who understands Midrash Tehillim as a reliable source for understanding Amoraic
material.
9 Braude, The Midrash on Psalms.
10 See, for example, Hanneke Reuling, “Rabbinic Responses to Christian Appropriation
of the Hebrew Bible: The Case of Psalm 22:1 (MT),” in Studia Patristica. Volume XLIV:
Archaeologica, Arts, Iconographica, Tools, Historica, Biblica, Theologica, Philosophica,
Ethica (ed. J. Baun, A. Cameron, and M. Edwards; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 181.
224 Berkovitz
communities.11 As is well known, the Passion narrative of the Gospel of Mark is

structured according to Psalm 22.12 The Gospels of Luke and Matthew, which
are based upon Mark, also frequently quote and allude to passages from Psalm
22 in their Passion accounts. Even the Gospel of John, which draws upon a
separate tradition, contains a significant reference to Psalm 22.
According to Mark’s account, as well as that in Matthew, the Roman soldiers
dress Jesus in royal vestments and press on his head a crown of thorns to mock
the claim that he is King of the Jews (Matt 27:29; Mark 15:17). This torment
may allude to the Psalmist’s lament, “I am a worm a worm, less than human;
scorned by men despised by people. All who see me mock me; they curl their
lips, they shake their head (Ps 22:7–8).13 An allusion to v. 8 certainly appears
in Mark 15:29 and Matt 27:39 when passersby who witness Jesus on the cross
insult him and shake their heads.
Each account notes that after the soldiers crucify Jesus they divide his cloth-
ing by casting lots (Mark 15:24; Matt 27:35; Luke 23:24; John 19:24). The evange-
lists likely interpreted this action as the fulfillment of what they read as pro
phecy in Ps 22:19: “They divide my clothes among themselves, casting lots for
my garments.”
Matthew adds that the crowd continues to mock Jesus by saying: “He trusts
in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son’”
(Matt 27:43), a taunt that adopts and modifies the words of the Psalmist’s op-
pressors: “Let him commit himself to the Lord; let Him rescue him, let Him
save him, for He is pleased with him” (Ps 22:9). Matthew has altered the verse
11 Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition,” 53; Oskar Skarsaune, The
Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance,
Theological Profile (NTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 110; Judith M. Lieu, “Justin Martyr and
the Transformation of Psalm 22,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour
of Michael A. Knibb (JSJSup 111; ed. C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 199;
Ulmer, “Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati,” 111–114; Tkacz, “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22,” 715–717;
Menn, “No Ordinary Lament,” 329–337; Dorival, “L’interpretation ancienne du Psaume 21
(TM 22),” 286–97; Christian-Bernard Amphoux, “Le Psaume 21 (22 TM) dans le Nouveau
Testament,” in David, Jésus et la reine Esther: recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM) (ed. G.
Dorival; Paris: Peeters, 2002), 145–163; John H. Reumann, “Psalm 22 at the Cross Lament
and Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ,” Interpretation 28 (1974): 39–58; Ville Auvinen, “Psalm
22 in Early Christian Literature,” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Confe
rence in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26 2006 (ed. A. Laato and J. van Ruiten; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2008), 199–214.
12 For a fairly comprehensive chart of the use of biblical allusions in Mark and use of Psalm
22 in the New Testament overall see Reumann, “Psalm 22 at the Cross,” 40–41. See also
Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus, 266.
13 All Hebrew Bible quotations are from NJPS and all New Testament quotations are
from NRSV.
to include Jesus’ claim that he is God’s son, interpreting what pleases God in
Psalm 22 as Jesus’ filial relationship with Him. According to Matt 27:46 and
Mark 15:34, Jesus’ final words on the cross directly quote the opening line of
Psalm 22: “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?”
The pervasiveness of psalm quotation and allusion leaves no doubt that the
Gospel authors constructed their Passion narratives with Psalm 22 in mind.
Thus, Jewish and, later, Gentile followers of the early Jesus movement saw
Psalm 22 as a traditional prophecy of Jesus’ execution.
Justin Martyr, less than a century later, further identifies Psalm 22 with
Jesus. Numerous scholars have explored Justin’s reception of Psalm 22, which
includes the earliest Christian line-by-line commentary on the psalm.14 In his
Dialogue with Trypho, Justin interprets each word and each line as relevant to
the Passion.15 For example, the bulls of v. 12 are the Pharisees, and the lion of v.
13 represents Herod.16 The declaration of abandonment—“My God, My God,
why have you abandoned me?”17—as well as the Psalmist’s praise18 are attrib-
uted to Jesus. For Justin, David’s inspired words prophesy Jesus’ passion.
Naomi Koltun-Fromm has further called attention to Justin’s interpretation
of Ps 22:17–18, verses otherwise not accorded a particularly prominent place in
the Passion traditions of the Gospels. In his First Apology, Justin claims:
And again in other words He says through another prophet: “They pierced
my hands and my feet, and cast lots for my clothing” (22.17c, 19b.) And in-
deed David, the king and prophet, who said this, suffered none of these
things; but Jesus Christ had His hands stretched out … The expression,
“They pierced my hands and my feet” was an announcement of the nails
that were fastened in His hands and feet on the Cross. And after He was
crucified they cast lots for His clothing, and they that crucified Him di-
vided it among themselves.19
14 Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition,” 46–48; Lieu, “Justin
Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22,” 199; Auvinen, “Psalm 22 in Early Christian
Literature,” 206–214.
15 Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretation,” 46.
16 Justin Martyr, Dial. 130.1–6. For a brief discussion, see Auvinen, “Psalm 22 in Early Christian
Literature,” 210. See also Lieu, “Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22,” 209–210.
17 Justin Martyr, Dial. 99.1. See also Lieu, “Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22,”
206.
18 Justin Martyr, Dial. 106.
19 Justin Martyr, First Apology, 35. Translation according to Justin Martyr, The First and
Second Apologies (trans. L. W. Barnard; New York: Paulist, 1997), 47.
226 Berkovitz
According to Justin, the act of piercing described in Ps 22:17 and the division
of clothing depicted in 22:19b did not occur to David. David’s words, therefore,
must prophesy the true victim: Jesus. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin con-
tinues to emphasize these two verses as central to the Passion.20
Koltun-Fromm further highlights the influence of Justin’s exegetical focus
on Tertullian21 and Aphrahat,22 both of whom ascribe an important role to
Ps 22:17–18 in discussing Jesus’ Passion.23 After noting that these exegetical
comments appear in Adversus Judaeos literature, she suggests that that they
represent a polemic against Jews who would read Ps 22:17c’s ὤρυξαν as “dig/
gouge” instead of “pierce,” and interpret this psalm as referring to David24
and not Jesus.25 Exegetical remarks in Adversus literature, however, are not
necessarily indicative of an external debate. They are often ideological con-
structs meant for internal consumption.26 Additionally, Greek-speaking Jews
relying on the Septuagint would see little difference between “dig/gouge”
and “pierce,” especially in a context in which dogs and enemies surround
the Psalmist and do something to his hands and feet, after which he counts
his bones.
Nonetheless, these comments indicate a lively and continuous discussion
involving Psalm 22 and the Passion in early Christianity. Other Church Fathers
also confirm the presence of this discourse. Origen, in his Princ. 8.1, writes:
“And in the twenty-second Psalm, regarding Christ—for it is certain, as the
20 Justin Martyr, Dial. 97.

21 Tertullian, Marc. 3.19.5.
22 Aphrahat, Demonstrations 17.10.
23 For the argument that Tertullian and Aphrahat are influenced by Justin see Koltun-
Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition,” 51–52.
24 Early Jewish writers readily identified the entirety of Psalms with David. See, for example,
4QMMTd frags. 14–21.10: “to you we have written that you must understand the book of
Moses, the books of the prophets and David.” It is clear that David refers to the entire book
of Psalms.
25 Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition,” 44.
26 Even early Christians may have readily interpreted the psalm as referring to David. This
seems to be default position since Second Temple times. On the creation of heretical dis-
course see, for example, Karen L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 2003), 22–54.
Gospel bears witness, that this Psalm is spoken of Him.”27 Augustine,28 like-
wise, preached this psalm as Jesus’ Passion on Good Friday ca. 392 ce.29
The liturgical use of Psalm 22 on Good Friday is also confirmed by the Old
Armenian Lectionary, the best witness to the Jerusalem liturgy of the 4th cen-
tury and the earliest fully attested rite. In fact, it is likely this very psalm that
Egeria, the Spanish pilgrim to Jerusalem, heard when she attended worship on
Good Friday. The connection between Egeria’s Diary and the Old Jerusalem
liturgy has been well noted.30 In describing what she heard read on the after-
noon of Good Friday, Egeria writes, “First the Psalms on the subject and then
the Apostles, and then the passages from the Gospel.” The psalms prophecies
what is fulfilled in the Gospels. The association of Psalm 22 with Jesus’ Passion
did not only exist as intellectual discourse shared by the Church Fathers, but
as a basic fact of late antique Christian life. It would constantly be reified and
reaffirmed through homilies and liturgy.
A related, but distinct, situation characterizes the reception of Psalm 22 by
the Christians who lived in the Persian empire and were the most proximate
neighbors to the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud. Some late antique exegetes,
like Aphrahat, read Psalm 22 as a Davidic prophecy about Jesus’ Passion (Dem.
17.10). Others, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, reject its classification as
Christological prophecy. Even Theodore, however, acknowledges the presence
of Psalm 22 in the Passion narrative; it is, after all, directly cited. Ultimately,
Christians of both the Roman and Persian empires would read Psalm 22 in
light of Jesus’ passion. Thus, we find evidence for a Jewish counter-narrative
that frames Psalm 22 as in light of the Purim story in both late antique Jewish
Babylonian and Palestinian sources.
Of all early Christians, however, it is Jerome who provides the earliest
Christian evidence that links Psalm 22 to the Purim story. In his Commentary
27 Origen, Princ. 2.8.1 in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix;
Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (trans. F. Crombie; ed. P. Schaff; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1994), 287. For more on Origen and Esther anti-Jewish polemic see
Michihiko Kuyama, “Origen and Esther—a Reflection on the ‘Anti-Jewish’ Argument in
Early Christian Literature,” Studia Patristica 34 (2001): 424–435. This study surveys each
place Esther is mentioned in Origen’s writings and concludes that Origen did not use
Esther in anti-Jewish polemic.
28 For an in-depth discussion of Augustine’s interpretation of this psalm see Martine Dulaey,
“L’interpretation du Psaume 21 (TM 22) chez Saint Augustin,” in David, Jésus, et la reine
Esther: Recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM) (ed. G. Dorival; Louvain: Peeters; 2002), 315–340.
29 Augustine, St. Augustine on the Psalms (trans. S. Hebgin and F. Corrigan; 2 vols.; New York:
Paulist, 1960), 1.210. See also Menn, “No Ordinary Lament,” 329.
30 John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (3rd ed; Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1999), 50–51.
228 Berkovitz
on Matthew, Jerome reads Psalm 22 as referring Jesus’ Passion, and rebukes

those who think otherwise (March 398 CE):
“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Impious are those
who think the psalm was voiced in the persona of David or Esther or
Mordecai, for by the very testimony of the evangelist, passages from it are
understood to be about the savior: “They divided my garments among
them, and for my clothing they cast lots,” “They have pierced my hands
and feet.”31
Jerome likely inveighs against the Jews, as no early Christian exegete links Psalm
22 with the Esther narrative. In fact, the book of Esther was not a common
object of early Christian exegetical activity.32 As we will see below, however,
Jewish tradition begins to identify this psalm with Esther and the Purim nar-
rative during the late second century. By the time Jerome reaches Bethlehem,
at least some rabbinic Jews33 understood the subject of Psalm 22 to be Esther
and her narrative.
2 Psalm 22, Esther and Purim in Rabbinic Literature
The earliest recorded rabbinic connection between Psalm 22 and the Purim
narrative appears in the Palestinian Talmud Tractate Berakhot 1:1 (2c).34 Here
the rabbis explore to which body of light the “morning hind” (ayelet hashaḥar)
of Psalm 22:1 refers. In interpreting this verse, the rabbis relay an anecdote:
Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta were walking in
the valley of Arbela during daybreak and saw the hind of morning giving
off light. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great said to Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: “As
such [i.e., the progression of light by the morning hind] the redemption
31 Jerome, Comm. Matt. 4.27.46. For translation see Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
Thomas P. Scheck, trans., The Fathers of the Church 117 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press, 2008), 319.
32 According to a biblindex.mom.fr search, the book of Esther is quoted or alluded to only
132 times from years 1–500 CE. Compare this with Lamentations, quoted 747 times; or,
even Nehemiah, quoted 251 times. The Esther narrative does not appear in Christian art
until a relatively late date. See Index of Christian Art database. For the minute quotations
of Esther in Origen see Kuyama, “Origen and Esther.”
33 I specify rabbinic because this really is the only early evidence we have. On Jerome’s con-
tact with rabbinic Jews, see Michael Graves, Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on
His Commentary on Jeremiah (VCSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2007).
34 Earlier scholarship appears to have completely missed the importance of this passage.
of Israel will grow. In the beginning it will be a little by a little, but as it

goes on it will be greater and greater. What is the reason? ‘When I shall
dwell in darkness, the Lord is my light (Mic 7:8).’ And so too in the begin-
ning, ‘Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate (Esth 2:21).’ And afterwards,
‘Haman took the garment and horse (Esth 6:11).’ And after that, ‘Mordecai
returned to the king’s gate’ (Esth 6:12). After that, ‘Mordecai left the king’s
presence in royal garb (Esth 8:15).’ After that, ‘the Jews had light and joy
(Esth 8:16).’”35
The phrase “morning hind” appears only once in the Bible. Discussing it,
therefore, means exploring its appearance in Psalm 22. The conversation at-
tributed to Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great (ca. 200 ce) and Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta
(ca. 200 ce) leaves no doubt that at least some rabbinic tradents read Psalm
22 in light of the Esther narrative.36 The redemption of Israel will begin slow-
ly and progress quickly, like the rise of morning light. This imagery parallels
Mordecai’s role in the Esther narrative. It starts sluggishly, hastens, and ends
with the Jews having light and joy. The exegete underscores this sense of pro-
gression by carefully quoting verses:
(A) Mordecai sits at the gate (2:21)

(B) Haman takes garments (6:11)
(A’) Mordecai returns to gate (6:12)
(B’) Mordecai leaves with royal garments (8:15)
(C) Jews have light and joy (8:16)
The shortening distance between each group of verses cited may also empha-
size this sense of movement. Ultimately, the rabbis read the light at the end of
the Esther narrative, the “morning hind,” and redemption together.
While I cannot discern any anti-Christian counter-narrative in this exegesis,
it firmly establishes that some rabbis were reading parts of Psalm 22 in light
of the Esther narrative as early as the late second century. Additionally, this
pericope preserves the only early Jewish evidence to directly link Psalm 22 to
Mordecai. Its inclusion in the Palestinian Talmud, redacted sometime in the
35 See y. Yoma 3:2 (40b) for early parallel.

36 It is possible that the Esther exegesis represents the work of a redactor and is not part of
the original story. This would push the exegetical tradition to an early fifth-century date.
Because the continuation is in Hebrew and not Aramaic—like the section introducing
this story (not quoted here)—it is more likely to have been transmitted as part of the story
than not.
230 Berkovitz
late fourth or early fifth century,37 indicates continued recital and reception of
this tradition. This, in turn, may explain Jerome’s ire at those who presume that
the psalm “was voiced in the persona of David or Esther or Mordecai,”38 and
not just David or Esther.
Further rabbinic evidence linking Psalm 22 to Purim appears in the
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Megillah 4a, which cites an opinion attributed to
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (ca. 225 ce Palestine) in attempt to establish the proper
times for the liturgical recitation of the scroll of Esther:
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says: “A person is required to read the scroll of
Esther (megillah) at night and repeat it during the day. As Scripture says:
‘My God, I cry by day—You answer not; by night, and have no respite
(Ps 22:3).’”39
R. Joshua’s scriptural justification of requirement to recite to scroll of Esther

twice on Purim rests on the verse’s mention of crying during the day and fin
ding no respite at night. The choice of this verse, however, is peculiar on two
accounts. First, the mandated reading initially occurs at night, while the cry
in the psalm originates during the day. Second, why derive the requirement
to read an ultimately joyous narrative from a verse of torment and divine
rejection?
Dissatisfaction with this exegetical derivation may have prompted early rab-
binic tradents to couple the exegetical remark attributed to Rabbi Joshua ben
Levi with one attributed to Rabbi Ḥelbo (c. 275 ce Palestine):40 “A person is
required to read the scroll of Esther at night and repeat it during the day. As
Scripture says: ‘That my whole being might sing hymns to You endlessly; O Lord
my God, I will praise you forever (Ps 30:13).’” The statement attributed to Rabbi
Ḥelbo contains the same wording as that attributed to R. Joshua, but supplies
a different proof-text. In each half of the verse, one perhaps representing night
and the other day, the Psalmist sings praise to God. The primary goal of this ex-
egesis, however, was to replace a verse of despondency with that of exultation.
37 For basic information on the redaction of the Palestinian Talmud see, H.L. Strack and
Günther Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 170–175.
38 Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 319.
39 See the parallel b. Meg. 20a, which only mentions Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion with-
out the proof-text. The Aramaic following the statement indicates that it was reworked
by the Babylonian Talmud’s anonymous editor and that our version in b. Meg. 4a is the
original location of the statement.
40 The intervening lines are all part of the discourse of the anonymous editor. It is possible
that these verses or traditions circulated together prior to its current redactional location.
The similarity in phrasing would suggest such is that case.
The exegete replaces the troubled lack of silence (dumiyah) of Ps 22:3 with the
lack of silence (lo yiddom) due to ceaseless praising of Ps 30:13. Ps 30:13, a verse
that employs the root dmm for the purposes of joy, was intentionally used to
counteract Ps 22:3, a verse that employs dmm to highlight torment.
What prompts Rabbi Joshua’s choice of verse? If viewed within the context
of Christian exegesis of Psalm 22, Rabbi Joshua’s selection may strike a polemi-
cal note. God rejected Jesus’ cry, truly abandoning him; however, he listened to
those of the Jews during the time of Esther, ultimately saving them from their
enemies. For a Jewish audience, the deliverance of the Jews in the Esther nar-
rative highlights Jesus’ lack of salvation on the cross. Furthermore, as we will
explore below, late antique Jews were apt to read the enemies in the Esther
narrative as their contemporaneous Christian neighbors.
The exegesis attributed to Rabbi Joshua may also signal the beginnings
of the construction of a Jewish Passion counter-narrative. The exegete high-
lights the pain and suffering in the scroll of Esther to arrogate the Passion’s cen-
tral motif for Jewish use. Jewish suffering—now the central theme that autho-
rizes the liturgical recitation of the scroll of Esther—renders Jesus’ Passion as
redundant and pointless. These Jewish reactions highlight at least two possible
avenues of coping with Christian exegesis of Psalm 22: dismiss it with mockery
or subvert it via adaptation.
The Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma 29a contains another exegetical com-
ment linking Psalm 22 to Esther: “Rabbi Assi said: ‘Why is Esther compared to
the morning (shaḥar)? To tell you that just as the morning41 is the end of the
night, so too Esther is the end of all miracles.’”42 This remark, attributed to
Rabbi Assi (third to fourth century ce Palestine), best makes sense under the
assumption that Psalm 22 already refers to Esther. The exegete now wishes to
tease out and explore the connection. This comment also contains traces of
polemic. While morning concludes night, why should one deduce that that
Esther is the end of all miracles?43 Furthermore, why associate miracles with
night and the conclusion of miracles with day?
If read against the background of Christian exegesis of Psalm 22 and Jewish
Purim anti-Christian polemic, this comment may simultaneously construct
a Passion counter-narrative and engage in polemic against Christian Passion
41 Perhaps shaḥar here is best translated as morning star, perhaps a play on the derivation
of Esther/Ishtar. For this argument see Eliezer Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash:
A Critical Commentary (3 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 3.3.
42 An earlier comment on this folio also connects Esther to Psalm 22, but because I believe
it does not have polemical overtones it will not be discussed here.
43 The anonymous layer following Rabbi Assi’s comment calls this very point into question
by asking about the miracle of Hannukah, which certainly followed the story of Esther.
232 Berkovitz
accounts.44 Esther, who suffered for her people and triumphed, invalidates
Jesus’ miracles and authoritative claims. The exegete associates miracles with
nighttime and Esther with the liminal space between night and day in order
to borrow and undermine a motif found in most New Testament Passion nar-
ratives.45 The Synoptic Gospels note that during the Passion, “from noon on,
darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon” (Matt 27:45;
cf. Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44). At the moment of Jesus’ death at about three
in the afternoon (Matt 27:45; cf. Mark 15:34; Luke 23:45 [“while the sun’s light
failed”])—at the liminal moment between darkness and light—“the curtain
of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Matt 27:51 cf. Mark 15:38
and Luke 23:45). Matthew, the most popular Gospel during Late Antiquity,46
contains additional miracles: “The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The
tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep
were raised” (Matt 27:51–52). These accounts end with the centurion witness-
ing the miracles and confirming the divinity (Matt 27:54; Mark 15:39) or inno-
cence (Luke 23:47) of Jesus. For the Jewish exegete, Esther—not Jesus—stands
at the liminal moment between darkness and light, between authority provid-
ing miracles and the end of miracles. For Jews, Esther stands in place of Jesus as
the Jewish Christ; she invalidates other Christ-type figures that arise after her.
The final rabbinic comment that links Psalm 22 to Esther appears in
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Megillah 15b. This exegetical narrative, part of the
larger Babylonian Esther Midrash,47 contains multiple quotations of Psalm 22:
Says Rabbi Levi (ca. 300 ce Palestine): When she [Esther] came to the
house of idols [beit tzelamim], the divine presence [Shekinah] departed
from her. She said: “My Lord, my Lord, why have you abandoned me? (Ps
22:2) Perhaps you judge the unintentional [shogeg] like an intentional
[mezid] and what was done under compulsion [ʾones] like that done will-
ingly [ratzon]? Or, perhaps, it was because I called him a dog, as it says:
‘Save my life from the sword, my precious life from the clutches of a dog’
44 The anti-Christian intent of this passage was noticed, but mentioned in passing and with-
out analysis, by Ziony Zevit, “Jesus Stories, Jewish Liturgy, and Some Evolving Theologies
until circa 200 CE: Stimuli and Reactions,” in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection,
Reclamation (ed. Z. Garber; West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2011), 85.
45 It is clear that rabbis had some access to either the text of the New Testament or the sto-
ries contained therein. See Holger M. Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian
Literature (TSAJ 139; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 137–166. For rabbinic knowledge
of the Passion narrative in particular see Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007), 63–74.
46 David W. Jorgenson, “Treasure Hidden in a Field: Early Christian Exegesis of the Gospel of
Matthew” (Ph.D. Diss., Princeton University, 2014).
47 For an in-depth commentary on this pericope see Segal, Babylonian Esther Midrash, 3:1–7.
(Ps 22:21)? So instead she called him a lion, as it says: ‘Deliver me from
the lion’s mouth; from the horns of the wild oxen rescue me’ (Ps 22:22).”
The exegetical underpinning of this midrash stems from Esth 5:1: “On the third
day, Esther put on royal apparel and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace,
facing the king’s palace, while the king was sitting on his royal throne in the
throne room facing the entrance of the palace.”48 Why does Esther stand in
the inner court and not proceed directly to the king? Earlier Jewish exegetes
noted this discrepancy and used it as an opportunity to pen a prayer and in-
sert it in Esther’s mouth.49 This liminal moment represents the climax of the
Esther narrative. After fasting and anticipating almost certain death, ready to
represent her entire nation, how could Esther not ask for divine assistance?
In the Talmud’s tale, Esther, feeling the divine presence abandon her, cries
out “my Lord, my Lord, why have you abandoned me?” This event occurs at the
narrative apex. God casts Esther aside precisely when she needs Him the most.
This situation mirrors the climax of Jesus’ Passion as represented in Mark and
Matthew. Witnessing the unnatural and divine darkness begin to lift from the
sky, and feeling the crushing weight of divine abandonment, Jesus too cries out
“my Lord, my Lord, why have you abandoned me” (Matt 27:46 cf. Mark 15:34).
The similarity between these narratives leaves no doubt—especially in light of
the above evidence—that our exegete is parodying the New Testament Passion
narrative by creating his own Passion counter-narrative.
The exegete strengthens the connection between Psalm 22 and the Esther
narrative beyond his use of Psalm 22:2. Esther invokes Psalm 22 to explain the
removal of the divine presence: God abandoned her for deriding the king by
equating him with a dog. Esther attempts to reclaim God’s good will by refer-
ring to the king as a lion. This section clearly demonstrates that Esther was
reciting Psalm 22 as a prayer during the moment of her distress, and reading
it in light of her situation. The exegete may highlight these particular verses
in order to undermine the claims made about them by early Christians. Early
Christian exegetes emphasize that Jesus is the “precious one”50 of Ps 22:21 and
48 Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash, 3:1–3.

49 See, for example, the LXX, which adds a prayer of Esther in this place. For a good trans-
lation and analysis of this prayer see Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary (OTL;
Louisville: WJK, 1997), 84–86. This trend continues even during the early Byzantine period.
See examples of Jewish poems reflecting Esther’s prayer in Joseph Yahalom and Michael
Sokoloff, Songs of the Children of the West: Aramaic Songs of Palestinian Jews during the
Byzantine Period (Jerusalem: The National Israeli Academy of Science, 1999), 174–181.
50 E.g. Justin Martyr, Dial. 105. For a range of opinions see Dorival, “L’interpretation ancienne
du Psaume 21 (TM 22),” 277–278. See also Ulmer, “Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati,” 110, who
highlights the Jewish interpretation of this word in light of the Binding of Isaac.
234 Berkovitz
that the “horns of the wild oxen”51 in Ps 22:22 represent Jesus’ humiliation on
the cross. For the Jewish exegete, the “precious one” is none other than Esther,
and the “horns of the wild oxen” refers to the king’s wrath. Further, the word
beit tzelamim (house of idols), which only appears this one time in rabbinic
literature, may be a veiled allusion to a church. Fully aware of Christian claims,
the Jewish exegete arrogated Psalm 22’s connection to the Passion and adapt-
ed it. He subverted the Christian narrative while reorienting the elements he
found compelling to be fully palatable to a Jewish audience.
3 Esther and Purim in Other Late Antique Sources
These rabbinic comments may be profitably read in tandem with—or perhaps

even as background to—other expressions of Jewish anti-Christian polemic
related to Purim during Late Antiquity. The book of Esther readily lends itself
to readings that highlight resistance, subversion and mockery. It was especially
useful for anti-Christian polemic. It ends in the celebration of Jewish triumph
and describes how the king punished Haman by “hanging him on a tree” (Esth
7:10). Adele Berlin rightly points out that in its original context to “hang on a
tree” means to be impaled on a stake. This gruesome display was a way to dis-
grace a person’s body after his death. It was not used as a means of execution.52
In a Greco-Roman context, however, this type of hanging became identified
with crucifixion. Both Josephus (Ant. 11.246, 261, 266, 280) and the Septuagint
(Esth LXX 7:9) use the term σταυρόω, “to crucify,” to describe Haman’s hang-
ing.53 In a Jewish typological reading, a crucified Haman readily lends itself
to interpretation as a crucified Christ.54 The Purim story, therefore, becomes
51 E.g. Tertullian, Marc. 3.19.5. For a range of opinions see Dorival, “L’interpretation ancienne
du Psaume 21 (TM 22),” 278.
52 Adele Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther (Philadelphia: JPS, 2001), 32.
53 See Sarit Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified: The Book of Esther and Toledot
Yeshu,” in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited (ed. P. Schäfer, M. Meerson,
and Y. Deutsch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 170. For more on crucifixion in Esther
see Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and
Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011), 224–227.
54 See Timothy C.G. Thornton, “The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross,”
JTS 37.2 (1986): 419–426. He argues that the identification of hanging with crucifixion was
prevalent in Greek speaking Jewish tradition but not in a Hebrew speaking one. Jewish
sources contemporaneous to this period and later, however, do read hanging as crucifix-
ion. In addition to the sources we will discuss later, note that the Targum often renders
a narrative of Jewish triumph over Haman (=Jesus) and the Persian Empire
(=Christians seeking to destroy the Jews).55 Unlike the rabbinic traditions
examined above, the following sources, as a whole, depict another path Jews
took in relating to Christian narratives and Jesus: overt mockery and derision
without arrogation and adaptation.56
On 29 May, 408 ce, Christians, fearing the ready equation of Haman and
Jesus, legislated against a particular Jewish Purim practice:
Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augusti to Anthemius, Pretorian

Prefect: The governors of the provinces shall prohibit the Jews from set-
ting fire to (H)aman in memory of his past punishment during a certain
ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent a
form cast in the shape of a holy cross in contempt of the Christian faith,
lest they mingle the sign of our faith with their jests. They shall also re-
strain their rituals from ridiculing Christian law because if they do not
abstain from matters that are forbidden they will promptly lose what had
been thus far permitted to them.57
This source indicates that certain Christians felt deeply uncomfortable with
the possible comparison of Jesus and Haman.58 While the source gives us no
direct insight into Jewish perspectives, there is little doubt that some Jews truly
did equate the burning Haman effigy with Jesus.
A similar Christian unease appears in Evargrius’ fifth-century work Altercatio
Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani. In this dialogue-guised polemic, Simon,
“to hang” (tly) as “to crucify” (tzlb). In a Greco-Roman context to “hang” someone is to
“crucify” them.
55 Tkacz argues that this identification is what may have stalled the Church Fathers from
viewing Esther as a type of Christ. See Tkacz, “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22,” 713. See also
idem, “Esther as a Type of Christ and the Jewish Celebration of Purim,” in Studia Patristica:
Vol. XLIV:, Archaeologica, Arts, Iconographica, Tools, Historica, Biblica, Theologica,
Philosophica, Ethica (ed. J. Baun et al.; Louvain: Peeters, 2010), 183–187. For a detailed dis-
cussion of the Esther narrative within an imperial context see Hagith Sivan, Palestine in
Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 143–157.
56 If I have interpreted all the evidence correctly, this may be the basis for a larger cultural
shift from a less to more aggressive and open rejection of Christianity—at least with re-
gards to Esther and Purim.
57 Translating with Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity, 144. For further discussion see Kattan
Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 171; Thornton, “The Crucifixion of Haman,” 432; Tkacz,
“Esther as a Type of Christ,” 187.
58 Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 171.
236 Berkovitz
the Jewish character, defends the practice of celebrating Haman’s crucifixion

while denying any relationship between Jesus and Haman:
We know plainly that Haman, cursed by our ancestors, was crucified

through his own offense. He had driven our race into ruin, and on the
occasion of his death every year we rejoice and hold festivals of prayer,
which we have received by ancestral tradition … However, if Christ en-
dured the yoke of this death and hung from the cross, why have we not
heard this very fact from our ancestors or found any passage in our scrip-
ture so that we would rejoice as if he were an enemy to our race?59
Simon identifies only Haman as the Jewish enemy whose crucifixion Jews cel-
ebrate, not Jesus. He attempts to distance himself and his nation from anti-
Jesus accusations by claiming that Jewish ancestral tradition lacked knowledge
of Jesus’ crucifixion! Regardless of the veracity of Simon’s argument60 these
sources clearly depict a deep Christian discomfort with Jews associating
Haman with their savior.
An early Byzantine Jewish Aramaic poem confirms Christian suspicions:
Jews did equate Haman with Jesus.61 This poem particularly stands out in its
mockery of the Passion narrative and its parody of early Christian emphasis
on Ps 22:17c. In this poem, Haman discourses with numerous biblical villains.
After each character recalls his downfall and torment, Haman responds by
59 William Varner, Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and
Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: Introductions, Texts, and Translations (Lampeter: Edwin
Mellen, 2004), 113. For further discussion see Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,”
172–173.
60 Cf. Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 173, who argues that this text may reflect an
accurate Jewish response. Simon’s claim—especially in light of the sources explored—
appears quite outlandish.
61 The poem appears in Yahalom and Sokoloff, Songs of the Children of the West, 204–219.
For further discussion about date, setting, and style see footnotes there and Ophir Münz-
Manor, “Carnivalesque Ambivalence and the Christian Other in Aramaic Poems from
Byzantine Palestine,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures
(ed. G.G. Stroumsa et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 831–845; Menahem Kister, “Jewish Aramaic
Poems from Byzantine Palestine and Their Setting,” Tarbiz 76 (2006): 161–162 n.302; Sivan,
Palestine in Late Antiquity, 152–155; Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 159–160;
Joseph Yahalom, “Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use of Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity,” JJS 47 (1996): 41–44.
asserting that his ruination far exceeds theirs. In between Haman’s dialogue
with Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, Jesus speaks:62
You think of yourself / that you were crucified alone / but I shared your
fate.
Nailed to the pole / my image in the Mercury [house]63 / is painted on
wood.
He nailed me to a pole / my flesh gashed wide / and I [am] the son of a
carpenter.
Scourged with a whip / of woman born / and they called me Christ
(kristus).64
Nails with spikes / driven into my limbs / the barley eater65 is better
than me.
The end of piercing / is to be given to dishonor / in town and country.66
In this Jewish re-telling of the Passion narrative, Jesus identifies himself with
Haman. He acknowledges Haman’s pain—via crucifixion—but asserts that
his torment and ignominy were worse. Unlike Haman’s response to other
characters, he neither justifies Jesus’ punishment nor calls him wicked. This
62 The addition of Jesus here is odd. It first breaks order of biblical characters, and Jesus is
not biblical from a Jewish perspective. Additionally, the section lacks introductory for-
mula, later added by a scribe. For further discussion, see Münz-Manor, “Carnivalesque
Ambivalence,” 832–835, who maintains it is original to the poem. Yahalom, “Angels Do
Not Understand Aramaic,” 44 argues unconvincingly that the poet is attempting a slight
of hand to avoid drawing too much attention to this sensitive subject.
63 Yahalom and Sokoloff, Songs of the Children of the West, 216, claim this to be a church.
Münz-Manor, “Carnivalesque Ambivalence,” 834, argues that this is a general place of
worship. Yahalom, “Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic,” 43 translates this as ecclesia and
argues that this line underscores a comparison of Christian icons to idolatry.
64 This is the only Jewish text to directly refer to Jesus, even in a mocking manner, as kristus.
Contemporary poetry in Hebrew refrains almost completely from using Greek vocabulary.
See Münz-Manor, “Carnivalesque Ambivalence,” 843; Shulamit Elizur, “The Incorporation
of Aramaic Elements in Ancient Palestinian Piyyutim,” Leshonenu 70 (2008): 337–339.
65 This may refer to a Jewish extra-legal punishment. In this slow and painful death, one is
starved of food and drink and then subsequently given massive amounts of barley and
water to drink. The person’s stomach explodes. See b. Sanh. 81b.
66 The translation of this text is somewhat problematic. For our purposes, I am translating
like Münz-Manor, “Carnivalesque Ambivalence,” 832–833.
238 Berkovitz
poem—likely performed or recited during the Purim festival67—mocks Jesus’

torments and equates him with Haman.
This poem’s sarcastic retelling of Jesus’ Passion more closely resembles the
Passion narrative as told by the early Church Fathers than the New Testament.68
Like the early Church Fathers—but unlike the New Testament—this poem
maintains a central place for nails and piercing. Explicit mention of nails,
spikes, and piercing appears in almost every stanza of Jesus’ speech.69 As seen
earlier, Justin—and numerous Church Fathers following him—highlights
piercing as the most important action of the Passion. By adopting nails and
piercing as the central motif in his retelling of the Passion, the poem’s author
creates not just a parody of Jesus, but of early Christian exegesis.
Another early Byzantine poem demonstrates Jewish glee at equating
Haman with Jesus. In this poem, various trees discuss why they are unfitting
for Haman to be hanged upon. In the opening stanza of this poem, Haman is
equated to Ben Pandera, a well-known cypher for Jesus.70
The above evidence clearly demonstrates the Jewish use of the book of
Esther in constructing anti-Christian polemics and counter-narratives.71 This
trend proliferates with the rise of Toledot Yeshu literature, which has its origins
in the late antique period and flourishes thereafter. Here too, the Esther narra-
tive plays an important role in rejecting and parodying Christian claims.72
67 For the liturgical suggestion see Yahalom and Sokoloff, Songs of the Childern of the West,
204.
68 Cf. Münz-Manor “Carnivalesque Ambivalence,” 833, who claims this is based on the New
Testament.
69 The first stanza uses the root-word garam twice. While this word is a standard Aramaic re-
flexive for oneself, cognate to Hebrew ʿetzem, it also shares a root with “bone.” The author
could have potentially used nafsha for the same reflexive purpose.
70 For poem see Yahalom and Sokoloff, Songs of the Children of the West, 182–187. For further
discussion, see Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity, 149–150. The equation of Jesus with Ben
Pandera in early Jewish memory is confirmed as early as Origen, Cels. 4.38. See Origen,
Contra Celsum (trans. H. Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 214.
71 For additional Jewish counter-narratives in Late Antiquity, see Peter Schäfer, Jesus in
the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); See Sivan, Palestine in Late
Antiquity, 143–186 for a discussion of other poems and their relationship to an Esther
counter-narrative.
72 For a discussion of Esther in Toledot Yeshu see Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,”
159–180. Kattan-Gribetz tentatively argues that this text was recited in a liturgical manner
(see pages 176–179). On the early Aramaic version of this literature and setting its date in
the Late Antique period see Michael Sokoloff, “The Date and Provenance of the Aramaic
Toledot Yeshu on the Basis of Aramaic Dialectology,” in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of
Jesus”) Revisited (ed. P. Schäfer, M. Meerson, and Y. Deutsch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011), 13–26.
4 Conclusion
Psalm 22 provided a colorful palate with which ancient Jews and early Chris-
tians painted. Christian exegetical brush-strokes revealed a portrait of Jesus
suffering on the cross. Psalm 22 spoke of a tormented, but ultimately trium-
phant, Jesus. The detailed image of a pierced Jesus, lamenting with Psalm 22,
became widespread in Christian thought and exegesis.
A thorough examination of rabbinic comments preserved in sources earlier
than Midrash Tehillim reveals an active Jewish struggle with Christian inter-
pretation. Jews became aware of Christian claims based on Psalm 22 by the
late second century. To combat the interpretation of Psalm 22 as Jesus, they
arrogated and subverted aspects of the reading. They arrogated and subverted
them by centering this psalm on the Esther narrative. Esther acquired the role
of a true Jewish Christ, vitiating Jesus’ claim to that title. These rabbinic com-
ments represent one path some Jews took in undermining Christian claims.
Other late antique sources depict another direction some Jews took in com-
bating Christianity. Reading the Esther narrative with contemporary lenses,
they made the ready equation of Haman with Jesus and the enemies of Esther
with their Christian neighbors. Soaked in sarcasm and dripping with derision,
these sources depict a Jewish community engaged in an almost-too-overt (and
noticed!) polemic against their Christian oppressors.
Ultimately, the book of Esther and Psalm 22 provided ready templates
for Jews to engage with in constructing and defining their relationship with
Christians and Christianity. These processes of identity and community con-
struction can now be more firmly dated and further situated among the other
discourses that surround the Esther narrative and the book of Psalms in Late
Antiquity.
part 4
Reading Retrospective
∵
Chapter 12
What does ‘Reading’ have to do with it? Ancient

Engagement with Jewish Scripture
As we mentioned in our very short preface, this book and the conference
that preceded it were designed to engender cross-disciplinary dialogue be-
tween those specializing in the diverse corpora that make up early Jewish and
Christian literature. The topic of discussion was foundational to this overriding
critical aim, as both the concepts “reading” and “the Hebrew Bible” (and its an-
cient versions) are central to the production, transmission, and interpretation
of early Jewish and Christian works as well as modern academic praxis. These
concepts draw connections between many traditional sub-disciplines. Three
connections in particular are worth expanding upon.
First, it was obvious to us that the Hebrew Bible represented a shared foun-
dation to which almost every text in our corpora had some concrete connec-
tion, be it conceptual, linguistic, thematic, referential, or otherwise. Even the
internal history of the Hebrew Bible and its literary development, as reflected
in the ongoing discourse surrounding inner-biblical exegesis and “scribal”
reuse, is marked by reflection on antecedent parts of the collection.1 The self-
reflective nature of the Hebrew Bible, using itself as an impetus for further
literary production, and its authoritative status in early Jewish and Christian
communities made the collection amenable and indeed ideal for literary en-
gagement in corpora like the New Testament, sectarian material, or other early
Jewish and Christian writings. The Hebrew Bible was basic to literary produc-
tion in these contexts.
Second, this collection of essays emphasises the import of serious engage-
ment with the realia of the tradition, both for the Hebrew Bible (and its ver-
sions) and the traditions that reuse it. Variant readings, marginal comments,
paratexts, translations, and first person experience with manuscripts are
1 E.g. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985)
and the windfall of studies that have appeared since, including the very recent contribu-
tion by Sheree Lear, Scribal Composition: Malachi as a Test Case (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2018), whose works stands very much in the tradition of Fishbane and his aca-
demic progeny.

244 Allen and Dunne
essential aspects of understanding ancient engagement with the Hebrew

Bible. Critical editions—where they exist for the traditions analysed in this
volume—are useful machines that represent editorial thought, but they are no
stand in for a developed sense of manuscript literacy. Manuscripts are a pri-
mary source of reception, revealing the ways that ancient people engaged with
antecedent literature through their wording, formats, materials, scripts, punc-
tuation patterns, and other paratexts, all of which provide invaluable evidence
for the social spaces and theoretical worlds that these aretefacts inhabited.
Returning not only to the original languages of traditions preserved in critical
editions, the field now demands a return to the manuscripts themselves, a crit-
ical move that provides a wealth of material for supporting (or undermining)
existing research in this area. Critical editions are valuable in their ability to ag-
gregate large bodies of information in a digestable manner, but they inevitably
obscure essential parts of the tradition they seek to represent. They are a tool
for understanding manuscripts and their interrelationships, and they are tools
that are currently experiencing their own radical shifts.2
The third concept that we thought united this broad swathe of literature is
the idea of “reading.” In order to engage Jewish scripture in exegetically sophis-
ticated ways, reading is a fundamental preliminary operation that occurs in the
background of instances of reuse. Often, the verb “to read” is used as a synonym
for “to interpret”; for example, “Ben Sira’s reading of Genesis is similar to inter-
pretations of Genesis located in the sapiential texts from Qumran.” Although
we created this sentence at random, its equation of “reading” with “interpreta-
tions” is not uncommon. But reading as an act is something much more diverse
and foundational. It is as basic to the production and transmission of Jewish
and Christian literature (and to the modern study of these phenomena) as the
Hebrew Bible itself.3 According to Wolfgang Iser, “one thing that is clear is that
reading is the essential precondition for all processes of literary interpreta-
tion,” as well as, we would argue, a number of other modes of textual engage-
ment that are both cognitive and physical. The conceptual basis of reading as
a diverse and omnipresent operation in Jewish and Christian antiquity is in
need of more robust theoretical underpinnings, especially since reading prac-
tices in the academy are currently in a state of flux due to the pressures of the
2 Cf. Hugh A.G. Houghton and Catherine J. Smith, “Digital Editing and the Greek New
Testament,” in Ancient Worlds in Digital Culture (DBS 1; ed. C. Clivaz, P. Dilley, and D.
Hamidović; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 110–127.
3 Not to mention the fact that reading research is a lively field of its own in literary studies
and social sciences. Cf. e.g. P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research (London:
Longman, 1984) and subsequent editions.
What does ‘ Reading ’ have to do with it ? 245
turn to digital media and other social and economic concerns.4 Scholarship
has become increasingly aware that ancient readers noticed and responded to
different aspects of texts than those privileged in modern historical-critical ex-
egesis, but the differences are more pronounced as reading practices continute
to change, and as activities like distant and machine reading become more
prevalent in academic discourse. The contributions in this volume are impor-
tant because they remind us that ancient interpreters and ancient composers
of literary texts read differently, and that a legitimate and important goal of
textual research is to try to reconstruct the reading habits that stand behind
the wealth of interpretive literature that we have from this period.5
Attempting to understand how the act of reading influenced processes of
interpretation, copying, text collecting, and production offers evidence for
how ancient tradents engaged with the Hebrew Bible. A primary aim of this
book, then, is to reverse engineer the ways in which ancient readers built
consistency—the norms that underlie the apparently arbitrary and subjec-
tive decisions that they made (if such norms existed in any strong and defin-
able way)—and negotiated the physicalities of manuscript culture. Thinking
about how ancient tradents read their material, and how reading motivated
their various literary actions, tells us both about the text that they read and the
context in which they read it, especially when we read manuscripts that were
similar to the form of their own exemplars. Reading “sets in motion a whole
chain of activities that depend both on the text and on the exercise of certain
basic human faculties” because literary works impinge “upon the world, upon
prevailing social structures, and upon existing literature.”6 This type of analysis
when it comes to ancient readers does not definitively explain perceptions of
the Hebrew Bible in antiquity, but reveals “the conditions that bring about its
various possible effects.”7 The variety of conditions and effects—the polymor-
phic and polysemous possibilities of text and textual culture—are observable
in myriad ways in the literature of early Judaism and Christianity and in the
analyses of the texts in this volume. In this book we were not after identifying
4 Cf. N. Katherine Hayles, How we Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012).
5 This is a major emphasis in Garrick V. Allen, The Book of Revelation and Early Jewish Textual
Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
6 Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (London: Routledge,
1978), ix.
7 Ibid., 18.
246 Allen and Dunne
hypothetical “ideal readers”8 or “informed readers”9 (which often end up look-

ing very much like modern academic practitioners), but specific (constella-
tions of) ancient readers in all their creativity and limitations in responding to
the surface and deep structures of their most valued literary traditions.
The contributors to this volume explored the multifaceted idea of reading
from a number of perspectives, perspectives that illuminate value of the in-
vestment (as William Tooman describes it in his essay) in textuality, scribal
culture, translation, and composition in the academy. Lindsey Askin’s contri-
bution, for example, examines not only the textual mechanics of Ben Sira’s
engagement with Jewish scripture, but also the physical mechanics of reading
and writing, suggesting a delicate material interplay that challenges common
assumptions about scriptural reuse. Her suggestion that reliance on textual en-
counters and the memory of those encounters played constitutive roles in the
production of Ben Sira as a scribal text problematizes a significant swathe of
scholarship. It is not the cognitive aspects of reading that suggest this work was
composed in a certain way, but the pragmatic limitations of physical text han-
dling that shines a light on this particular issue. The physicality of reading and
writing are rarely considered legitimate avenues of research when it comes to
understanding literary production in this period, even for those who regularly
advise the cultivation of manuscript literacy, but Askin has demonstrated the
value of such a tact.
A series of other articles also offer correctives for scholarly trends on more
focused issues, like the social location of 4QBerakhot (Pajunen), extrapolat-
ed from the text’s structural relatedness to the creation story, and the signifi-
cance of reading as impetus for examining the “library” of Qumran (Norton).
Pajunen’s analysis of the role of the book of Genesis in the ritual described
in 4QBerakhot demonstrates further how thinking about residues of reading
assist in historical reconstruction and potentially also in the material recon-
struction of fragmentary remnants. In his case, material reconstruction and
engagement is non-negotiable. Pajunen challenges an entrenched connection
between the covenant renewal ritual in 1QS and 4QBerakhot by suggesting that
4QBerakhot represents a later instantiation of such a ritual due to its numer-
ous points of connection to the creation accounts in Genesis and elsewhere.
Understanding the way that the author of 4QBerakhot read creation traditions
casts doubt on its consensus place in the ritual and ideology of the yaḥad,
and his analysis drives home the point that modes or traditions of reading
8 Cf. Ibid., 28–31.

9 Cf. Stanley Fish, “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics,” New Literary History 2 (1970):
123–162.
particular scriptural texts were often codified in informal ways. Reading is a

communal and interactive endeavour defined by the reader’s context and per-
ception of textual meaning and structure.
Norton makes the case that reading is an essential influencer of higher order
literary engagement, referring in this case to the communal practices of text
collecting witnessed in the Qumran caves. Arguing for an agnostic approach
to the question of the yaḥad’s identity and the level of purposefulness in their
collection’s in situ location, Norton points to the radical diversity of the Scrolls
in terms of their palaeographic, chronological, linguistic, and geographic pro-
files. Each of these features of the scrolls are in some foundational way un-
dergirded by the practice of reading and influenced by particular traditions
of reading, especially when we begin to consider cognate collections of texts
in the ancient world. Regardless of the intentionality inherent in the Scrolls
as a collection—whether or not it can be called a library or whether or not
modern scholarship is analytically helpful in its library-talk—the presence of
such a diverse collection of literature (centred on the engagement with Jewish
scripture and literature of the sect) presupposes a reading community of some
sort. Norton points out that evidence for reading is not just located in particu-
lar examples of scriptural reuse, but also in the material culture and literary
nature of the collection as a whole. Interestingly, this sounds very much like an
argument that a librarian would make. He points us to the higher order conse-
quences of communal practices of reading.10
The articles in Part 2 that engage with the New Testament are more co-
herent in their examinations of practices of reading the Hebrew Bible in
early Christianity, focusing on exegetical techniques, allusive practices, and
10 The two essays by Pajunen and Norton address some important aspects of communal
settings for ancient readers—not to mention how these settings should factor into the
academy’s reading of these texts. However, for more direct attention on communal read-
ing events, see Brian J. Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into
Early Christian Reading Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). Wright demonstrates that
communal reading was widespread geographically in the first-century, as evidenced in
Greco-Roman sources, Jewish sources, and in the New Testament. In addition to under-
standing better the practices that pertain to corporate reading, there are some important
implications that this has for our conception of illiteracy in the ancient world. The con-
sensus view of literacy in antiquity is that the vast majority of people were illiterate. Yet,
as Hurtado has recently noted and Wright’s work confirms, this fact needs to be held in
check by evidence of communal reading: the “corporate reading of texts in early churches,
and in synagogues, also makes less crucial the widely agreed view that in the Roman era
only a minority, perhaps a small minority, of people were sufficiently literate to be able
to read such extended literary texts.” See Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the gods: Early
Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 116
(emphasis original).
248 Allen and Dunne
quotation. Each of these contributions focuses on reading as a process essen-

tial to textual production, particularly textual production that is heavily in-
debted to scriptural interpretation. While reading is not always synonymous
with interpretation, it is an inevitable part of the interpretive process. Susan
Docherty points out the ways in which both rewritten scriptural texts (as con-
strued in the classical generic sense)11 and New Testament works rework texts
from the Hebrew Bible. She argues that the deployment of linguistic material
from the Hebrew Bible in both types of texts is often cast in similar contexts in
the target traditions. Quotations often appear in speeches, prayers, and sum-
mative selections of Israel’s history. She also demonstrates that both the New
Testament and rewritten scriptural texts link various discrete segments from
the Hebrew Bible together based on shared strategies of reading that rely upon
the identification of catchwords, thematic coherences, and awareness of ante-
cedent interpretive traditions. Docherty plumbs the ways in which reading, lit-
erary composition, and interpretation are constitutive aspects of both Jewish
and Christian textual cultures in this period. Complex literary judgments are
reflected in examples of reuse.
This same point is made in two specifically corrective essays by Paul Sloan
and Joseph Lear. Sloan argues that logical structure of Mark 13 is based on the
narrative movement of Zechariah 14, a deep, but implicit connection that em-
phasises the varieties of reading practices operative in the New Testament. This
connection is not governed so much by close reading of particular lexemes
(although Sloan marshalls evidence that these too exist), but by larger plot
developments within an admittedly gapped narrative. Similarly, Lear argues
that the reworking of Isaianic texts in Luke 4 reflects not only exegetical sen-
sibilities, but aesthetic concerns for parallelism. A sophisticated set of reading
procedures stands behind this artistic re-presentation of borrowed material,
although it remains unarticulated.
Part 2 also contains an innovative contribution from Martin Karrer, who ex-
plores a complex of questions pertaining to textual form, linguistic milieus,
translation and transliteration, and material culture. Working to reconstruct
the historical linguistic situation of Jesus’ cry from the cross (and other quoting
texts) and the reception of this event in early Christianity, Karrer appeals not
only to historical Jesus research, but also to the anamolous pandect codices of
the fourth and fifth centuries. He highlights the fact that scribal annotations
11 Cf. Philip Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture (ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988), 99–121; Susan Docherty, “Joseph and Aseneth: Rewritten Bible or Narrative
Expansion?” JSJ 35 (2004): 27–48.
(marginal comments) and non-textual glyphs (diplai) illuminate the reception

of these texts in antiquity. Material culture matters. This leads him to reflect on
the relationship between critical editions and he highlights the incongruities
between current editions of the Septuagint and New Testament when it comes
to their shared locutions; their different editorial principles obscure relation-
ships that are obvious in the manuscripts, reminding us that editions are tools
for reading manuscripts.
In Part 3, the volume explores some reading practices and habits from within
Rabbinic literature, especially in relation to reading, aggregating, and editing
traditions about the Hebrew Bible (Smelik), textual variation and material cul-
ture (Börner-Klein), and the polemical setting of some biblical reading strate-
gies (Berkovitz). Smelik’s opening essay sheds light on how Rabbis read and
adapted the ongoing exegetical traditions that developed on the Hebrew Bible
in their continual engagement with text and tradition.12 In particular, Smelik
focuses a particular kind of tradition, block material, and in this instance block
material pertaining to the singular creation of Adam, as seen in the Mishnah
(m. Sanh. 4:5), the Tosefta (t. Sanh. 8:2–9), and the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh.
38b). The sections under discussion are m. Sanh. 4:5, which addresses capi-
tal cases and utilizes Gen 4:10 prescriptively, t. Sanh. 8:2–9 as a parallel text
(though intriguingly different), and then b. Sanh. 38b as a later example of the
tradition’s reception, which incorporates Gen 1:26–27 and Psalm 139. The New
Testament is not the only corpus with a “synoptic problem.” Smelik explores
the distinctions and similarities between the block materials, the possible pro-
to-text(s) that may have given rise to the three traditions, the different settings
in which that block material occurs, and the unique implications derived from
it for ethical and political purposes. This procedure provides insights into un-
derstanding Rabbinic reading of scripture as well as Rabbinic reading of their
own traditions.
Börner-Klein’s essay follows nicely from Smelik’s, given her focus on Psalm
139, which features prominently in Smelik’s analysis of b. Sanh. 38b. For ancient
readers, the presence of variants in the textual tradition of scripture creates
dissonance for some and presents opportunities for others. As Börner-Klein
notes, the variation in the textual tradition standing behind the MT is com-
pounded further by citations of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Literature itself.
12 Neusner has referred to this practice as a “reading with Scripture,” a reading practice that
utilizes juxtaposition; “Through the juxtaposition of two or more disparate examples they
would make a point or establish a proposition not contained within any one of them.” See
Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic
Midrash (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 15–29 (15).
250 Allen and Dunne
Börner-Klein therefore explores how the Sages utilized variants in their read-
ing practices. As a way into discerning how ancient readers negotiated textual
variation, Börner-Klein looks at reading strategies on Ps 139:16, showing how
the same text is read in different contexts. The variation appears to be strategi-
cally employed due to the theological resonance the selected variant makes.
Börner-Klein’s essay provides some intriguing insights into the effect of the
phenomenon of textual pluriformity on some ancient readers. Pluriformity
was not always viewed in a negative light, but as a repository of interpretive
potential.
In the final essay of Part 3, and of the volume as a whole, Berkovitz investi-
gates how the same text can be read in different ways by different faith com-
munities. In this case, Berkovitz focuses on Psalm 22, which was a favourite
text in Early Christianity, being interpreted as a prophetic anticipation of the
Passion. This reading was then utilized apologetically by figures like Justin
Martyr in his First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho to legitimize Christianity
to Jewish sceptics from their common scriptures. Berkovtiz notes that a fork in
the road presented itself to Jewish readers of Late Antiquity: “[there were] two
possible avenues of coping with Christian exegesis of Psalm 22: dismiss it with
mockery or subvert it via adaptation.” It is the latter that Berkovitz explores. As
he notes, Jewish readers began to read Psalm 22 in the light of Esther to coun-
ter christological readings seen as prophetic proof-texts. As Berkovitz explains
it, the way that Psalm 22 was read in the light of Esther and Purim provides
a “Jewish Passion counter-narrative.” His chief contribution is exploring the
earliest instances of this tradition, showing that this Jewish reading strategy
for Psalm 22 goes back even earlier than scholars have realized, beginning in
the third century CE. Berkovitz’s essay provides a window into reading strate-
gies employed for polemical and apologetic purposes—reading employed to
sustain the raison d’être of Jewish faith vis-à-vis the claims of Christianity. His
contribution shows that reading was never a disspasionate engagement with
graphemes and their formal arrangement on a given writing surface, but that
the it is integrally connected to the social and historical realities of real people
and communities.
As a whole, the essays in this volume span multiple spectrums. Of course,
they are held together by their common focus on how the Hebrew Bible was
read in antiquity and they explore its textual, material, linguistic, and formal
planes. Yet the breadth of the volume can be seen in two primary ways. First,
it can be seen initially through its interdisciplinary nature, the scope of the
scholars’ focus, and the diverse literary corpora being analyzed. Second, the
breadth of the volume goes further still since it spans the spectrum of ancient
reading: the distinct habits, practices, mechanics, and purposes for reading
the Hebrew Bible in antiquity. A few important emphases can be enumerat-

ed: the setting of a text’s ritual use (Pajunen) and collection of texts (Norton)
for the affective network on reading and interpretation; the way that a reader’s
setting impacts reading, especially for polemical purposes (Berkovitz); how
textual variants were read and engaged within a particular textual tradition
(Börner-Klein), and how textual variation at a broader level of pluriformity
was engaged due to multiple translations (Karrer); how composite and con-
flated citations were created and/or utilized by ancient readers, both within
the same textual source (Lear) and across multiple sources (Sloan); how read-
ing practices across literary corpora can be compared (Docherty); how reading
and reinterpretation of exegetical traditions develops (Smelik); how the me-
chanics and physicalities of copying, and the degree to which memorization
factored into scribal habits (Askin). What is underlined by all of this is further
confirmation that Jews and Christians were considerably “bookish”13 to use a
well-worn anachronism. This volume buttresses this affirmation, and explores
the linguistic, material, cultural, and intellectual complexity that defined this
particular “bookish” cultural milieu.
13 In Hurtado’s recent study on the distinctive nature of Christianity in the ancient Greco-
Roman world he devotes a chapter to reading, writing, and scribal culture (Destroyer of
the gods, 105–141). Though, of course, this aspect of early Christian culture derived and
developed from its Jewish roots. As Hurtado’s caveat suggests, that “except for ancient
Jewish circles” early Christianity was characteristically “bookish” in the ancient world,
Jews and Christians were similar in this regard (Destroyer of the gods, 105; cf. 109). The
development for early Christians that makes its own “bookish” culture distinctive was
reading new literature as scripture in addition to the Hebrew Scriptures, beginning with
the public reading of Paul’s letters (cf. Destroyer of the gods, 111).
Bibliography
Aaron, David H. “Imagery of the Divine and the Human: On the Mythology of Genesis
Rabba 8 §1.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 5 (1995): 1–62.
Abdul-Qader, Muhammed M. The Development of the Funerary Beliefs and Practices
Displayed in the Private Tombs of the New Kingdom at Thebes. Cairo: General
Organisation for Govt. Print. Offices, 1966.
Abegg, Martin G. “The Covenant in the Qumran Literature.” Pages 81–98 in The Concept
of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 71. Edited by S.E. Porter and J.C.R.
de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Abegg, Martin G. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 325–358 in The Dead Sea
Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, volume 1. Edited by P.W. Flint
and J.C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Abegg, Martin G., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1999.
Adams, Edward. “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition.” Pages 1–19 in Biblical Traditions in
Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. JSJSup 111. Edited by C. Hempel
and J. Lieu. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Adams, Edward. “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel.” Tyndale Bulletin
56.2 (2005): 39–61.
Adams, Edward. The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New
Testament and its World. LNTS 347. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Affleck, Michael. “Priests, Patrons, and Playwrights: Libraries in Rome before 168 BCE.”
Pages 124–136 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou and
G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Aitken, James K. “Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in his Seleucid
Setting.” JJS 41 (2000): 191–208.
Albeck, C. ‫ששה סדרי משנה‬. 6 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1959.
Albeck, C. Einführung in die Mischna. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971.
Albeck, C. Untersuchungen über die Redaktion der Mischnah. Berlin: C.A. Schwetschke,
1923.
Alexander, E.S. Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral Tradition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Alexander, P.S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–118 in It Is Written: Scripture
Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and
H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Alexander, P.S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It is Written: Scripture
Citing Scripture. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
254 Bibliography
Alexander, P.S. “Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the
Evidence from Qumran.” Pages 3–25 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies
Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited
by M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th van Peursen. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.
Allegro, John M. “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” JBL 75 (1956):
174–187.
Allen, Garrick V. “Textual Pluriformity and Allusion in the Book of Revelation: The Text
of Zechariah 4 in the Apocalypse.” ZNW 106 (2015): 136–145.
Allen, Garrick V. The Book of Revelation and Early Jewish Textual Culture. SNTSMS 168.
Allen, W.C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew.
ICC. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912.
Allison, Dale. “Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic.” Pages 126–141 in Jesus and the
Restoration of Israel. Edited by C. Newman. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.
Allison, Dale. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and
Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Altmann, A. “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends.” JQR 35 (1944–
1945): 371–391.
Amphoux, Christian-Bernard. “Le Psaume 21 (22 TM) dans le Nouveau Testament.”
Pages 145–163 in David, Jésus et La Reine Esther: Recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM).
Edited by G. Dorival. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
Andersen, Francis I. and A. Dean Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1986.
Anderson, A.A. The Book of Psalms. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972.
Aptowitzer, Victor. Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur. 4 vols. Leipzig: Hölder,
1906–1915. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970.
Arav, Rami. Hellenistic Palestine: Settlement Patterns and City Planning, 337–31 BCE. BAR
International Series 485. Oxford: BAR, 1989.
Archer, G.L. and G. Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.
Chicago: Moody, 1983.
Arnold, Russell. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community.
STDJ 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Askin, Lindsey A. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira: Considering the
Evidence of Textual Reuse in Sir 43:11–19.” DSD 23.1 (2016): 27–50.
Askin, Lindsey A. Scribal Culture in Ben Sira. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Attridge, H.W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of
Flavius Josephus. Missoula: Scholars, 1976.
Augustine. St. Augustine on the Psalms. Translated by S. Hebgin and F. Corrigan. 2 vols.
New York: Paulist, 1960.
Bibliography 255
Auvinen, Ville. “Psalm 22 in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 199–214 in Rewritten Bible
Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26 2006.
Edited by A. Laato and J. van Ruiten. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Avrin, Leila. Scribes, Script and Books. Chicago: ALA, 1991.
Bagnall, Roger S. “Alexandria: Library of Dreams.” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 146 (2002): 348–362.
Barc, B. “La taille cosmique d’Adam dans la littérature juive rabbinique des trois pre-
miers siècles après J.C.” Revue des Science Religieuse 49 (1975): 173–185.
Bar-Nathan, Rachel. “Qumran and the Hasmonaean and Herodian Winter Palaces
of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery Finds on the Interpretation of the
Settlement at Qumran.” Pages 264–277 in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Edited by K. Galor, J.B. Humbert, and
J. Zangenberg. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 18 vols. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1952.
Barr, James. “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere.” OST 21 (1981): 19–27.
Barr, James. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: The British Academy,
1989.
Barrera, Julio Trebolle. “The Essenes of Qumran: Between Submission to the Law
and Apocalyptic Flight.” Pages 49–76 in in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their
Writings, Beliefs and Practices. Edited by F. García-Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera.
Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Barrett, C.K. The Acts of the Apostles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Barthélemy, D. Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des frag-
ments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur
les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisés au premier siècle de notre ère
sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Bassi, Domenico. “La sticometria nei papiri ercolanesi.” Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione
Classica 37 (1909): 321–363.
Bauckham, R. “The Liber Antiquitatum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as ‘Midrash.’ ”
Pages 33–76 in Gospel Perspectives III. Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Edited
by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts.” Pages 435–488 in
Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. JSJSup 72. Edited by
J.M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Baumann, H. Das doppelte Geschlecht: Ethnologische Studien zur Bisexualität in Ritus
und Mythos. Berlin: Reimer, 1955.
Beasley-Murray, George. Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet
Discourse. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
256 Bibliography
Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (SIR. 14,20): Collected
Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.”
Biblica 63:4 (1982): 506–523.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classifica-
tie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26.”
Ph.D. diss., 1981.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Beit-Arié, Malachi. “Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and
Critical Interferences.” Pages 33–52 in Artefacts and Texts: The Re-Creation of Jewish
Literature in Medieval Hebrew. Edited by P.S. Alexander and A. Samely. Manchester:
John Rylands Library, 1994.
Bélis, Mireille. “Des Testiles: Catalogues et Commentaires.” Pages 207–240 in Khirbet
Qumran et ‘Ain Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chemie. Edited
by J.B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 2003.
Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬,‫ המקור‬:‫ספר בן סירא‬. Jerusalem:
Academy of Hebrew Language, 1973.
ben Labraṭ, Dunash. Teshuvot Dunash ben Labraṭ. Edited by H. Filipowski. London:
Meorere Yeshenim, 1855.
Benoît, P., J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, eds. Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât. DJD 2. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1961.
Berkowitz, B.A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and
Christian Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Berlin, Adele. The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther. Philadelphia: JPS, 2001.
Bernstein, M.J. “ ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its
Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–196.
Bernstein, M.J. “The Genesis Apocryphon: Compositional and Interpretive Perspectives.”
Pages 157–179 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by
M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Berti, Monica. “Greek and Roman Libraries in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 33–54 in
The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library. Edited by S. White
Crawford and C. Wassen. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Bickerman, Elias J. “The Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem.” Pages 315–356 in Studies in
Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the
Maccabees. Vol. 1. Edited by A.D. Tropper. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bird, Michael. “Tearing the Heavens and Shaking the Heavenlies: Mark’s Cosmology in
its Apocalyptic Context.” Pages 45–59 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology.
Edited by J. Pennington and S. McDonough. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Black, Mark C. “The Messianic Use of Zechariah 9–14 in Matthew, Mark, and the Pre-
Markan Tradition.” Pages 97–114 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism
Bibliography 257
and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. NTSup 129. Edited by P. Gray and
G. O’Day. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Black, Mark C. “The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who is Coming With His Angels: The
Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives.” Ph.D. diss., Emory
University, 1990.
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of the Ways Between
Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Bock, D.L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology.
JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987.
Booij, Thijs. “Psalm CXXIX: Text, Syntax, Meaning.” VT 55 (2005): 1–19.
Bovon, François and Michael Goulder. Luke 1. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.
Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. EKK 3.1. Zürich: Benziger, 1989.
Bovon, François. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research. Waco: Baylor
Boyarin, D. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Literature. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993.
Boyarin, D. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1990.
Braude, William G. and I.J. Kapstein. Eliyyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah. Translated
by T. Debe. Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press, 1981.
Braude, William G. The Midrash on Psalms. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
Brawley, Robert L. Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.
Breytenbach, Cilliers. “The Minor Prophets in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 27–37 in The Minor
Prophets in the New Testament. LNTS 377. Edited by M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise.
London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Brody, R. Mishnah and Tosefta Studies. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes
Press, 2014.
Brooke, G.J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Brooke, George J. “Between Scroll and Codex? Reconsidering the Qumran
Opisthographs.” Pages 123–138 in On Stone and Scroll: Studies in Honour of Graham
I. Davies. Edited by J.K. Aitken, K.J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Brooke, George J. “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin: Cultural Complexity and
Multiple Identities in the Qumran Library.” Pages 119–135 in Jewish Cultural
Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. JSJSup 178. Edited
by M. Popović, M. Schoonover, and M. Vandenberghe. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Brooke, George J. “E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation
in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 107–122 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical
Context. Edited by T.H. Lim et al. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
258 Bibliography
Brooke, George J. Qumran and the Jewish Jesus: Reading the New Testament in the Light
of the Scrolls. Cambridge: Grove Books, 2005.
Brooke, George. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the
Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the
Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium
by the Orion Center and the Hebrew University. STDJ 58. Edited by E.G. Chazon,
D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Broshi, Magen. “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period.”
BASOR 236 (1979): 1–10.
Brownlee, H. “A Comparison of the Covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Pre-
Christian Jewish Sects.” The Biblical Archaeologist 8 (1950): 49–72.
Brownlee, H. “Biblical Interpretation Among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The
Biblical Archaeologist 14 (1951): 54–76.
Brownlee, H. “The Background of Biblical Interpretation at Qumran.” Pages 183–193 in
Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee.
Edited by C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987.
Brownlee, H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. New York: Oxford
Bruce, F.F. Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Paternoster, 1961.
Bruce, F.F. This is That: The New Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes.
Exeter: Paternoster, 1968.
Bruce, Lorne D. “Palace and Villa Libraries from Augustus to Hadrian.” The Journal of
Library History 21 (1986): 510–552.
Bruce, Lorne D. “A Reappraisal of Roman Libraries in the ‘Scriptores Historiae Auguste.’ ”
The Journal of Library History 16 (1981): 551–573.
Bülow-Jacobson, Adam. “Writing Materials in the Ancient World.” Pages 3–29 in The
Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by R.S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Burr, Viktor. “Marginalien zur Bibliothek von Qumran.” Libri 15 (1965): 340–352.
Caird, George B. and Lincoln D. Hurst. New Testament Theology. Oxford: Oxford
Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1980.
Campbell, Jonathan G. “Hebrew and Its Study at Qumran.” Pages 38–52 in Hebrew
Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Edited by W. Horbury. London: T&T Clark, 1999.
Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Bibliography 259
Carroll, John T. Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts.
SBLDS 92. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
Carswell, John. “Fastenings on the Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 23–28 in Qumrân
Grotte 4, II. DJD 6. Edited by R. de Vaux. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
Casson, Lionel. Libraries of the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Cathcart, Kevin J. and Robert P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated,
with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.
Cavallo, Guglielmo. Libri, scritture, scribe a Ercolano: introduzione allo studio dei mate-
rieli Greci. Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli, 1983.
Chazon, Esther. “Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 253–261 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. Flint and
J.C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Chazon, Esther. “Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran.” Pages 95–105
in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third
Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, Published
in Memory of Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and
E. Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Chazon, Esther. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 13–24
in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of
Essays. TEG 5. Edited by J. Frishman and L. van Rompay. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Cockerill, G.L. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012.
Cohen, A. Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law and the Poetics of Sugyot. Atlanta: Scholars,
1998.
Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North
Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Cohen, P. ‫ספר הסימנים השלם‬. London, 1953.
Cohn, L. “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria.” JQR 10 (1898): 277–332.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Collins, John J. “Sectarian Communities in The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 151–172 in The
Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Collins, John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993.
Collins, Nina L. The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by G. Buswell. London: Faber
and Faber, 1961.
Cook, Stephen. “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah
11:17 + 13:7–9.” CBQ 55.3 (1993): 453–466.
260 Bibliography
Corley, Jeremy. “Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature.”
Irish Theological Quarterly 79.3 (2014): 290–292.
Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Croom, Alexandra. Roman Furniture. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2007.
Cross, Frank M. “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies.” Pages 1–14 in The
Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991, volume 1. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas
Montaner. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Cross, Frank M. “Qumrân Cave I.” JBL 75 (1956): 121–125.
Cross, Frank M. and Esther Eshel. “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumran.” IEJ 47 (1997): 17–28.
Cross, Frank M. Introduction to Scrolls from Qumran Cave 1: The Great Isaiah Scroll,
the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk. Edited by J.C. Trever et al.
Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, 1972.
Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. New York:
Doubleday, 1961.
Crowfoot, Grace M. “The Linen Textiles.” Pages 18–38 in Qumran Cave I. Edited by
D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Cuvigny, Hélène. “The Finds of Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology.” Pages 30–58
in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by R.S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford
Dahood, M. Psalms III: 101–150. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970.
Damschen, Gregor. “Stichometry.” Pages 834–835 in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of
the Ancient World. 20 vols. Translated and edited by C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry.
Damsma, A. The Targumic Toseftot to Ezekiel. SAIS 13. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Davies, G.I. “Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?” Pages 199–211 in Wisdom in Ancient
Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton. Edited by J. Day, R.P. Gordon, and H.G.M.
Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Davies, W.D. and D.C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel ac-
cording to Saint Matthew. ICC. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.
Davila, James R. “Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages
433–454 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.J. Collins and
T.H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. ECDSS 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
de Vaux, Roland, Maurice Baillet and Józef T. Milik, eds. Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumran:
Vol. 1: Textes. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.
de Vaux, Roland. “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumran: Rapport préliminaire sur la dernière
campagne.” RB 61 (1954): 206–233.
Bibliography 261
de Vaux, Roland. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1973.
de Vaux, Roland. L’archéologie et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte: The Schweich Lectures
of the British Academy, 1959. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
de Vries, J. “Codex Ambrosianus and the New Testament.” Pages 63–78 in Textual
Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum. SCS 60. Edited by J. de Vries and M. Karrer.
Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
de Vries, J. “PsMT 86/PsLXX 85 in Off15,4bβ.” Pages 417–423 in Von der Septuaginta zum
Neuen Testament—Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen. ANTF 43. Edited by M. Karrer,
S. Kreuzer, and M. Sigismund. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
de Vries, J. “Texthervorhebungen und Marginalnotizen in den Codices Washingtonianus
W1 und Coislianus (M). Überlegungen zur Textgeschichte.” Pages 76–96 in Worte der
Weissagung. Studien zu Septuaginta und Johannesoffenbarung. ABG 47. Edited by
J. Elschenbroich and J. de Vries. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014.
de Vries, J. and M. Karrer, eds. Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early
Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum. SCS 60.
Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
de Vries, J. and M. Karrer. “Early Christian Quotations and the Textual History of the
Septuagint: A Summary of the Wuppertal Research Project and Introduction to
the Volume.” Pages 3–19 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early
Edited by J. de Vries and M. Karrer. Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
del Medico, Henri. L’énigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Plon, 1957.
del Medico, Henri. “L’état des manuscrits de Qumran I.” VT 7 (1957): 127–138.
del Verme, Marcello. Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish
Work. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
Delatte, Daniel. La Villa des Papyrus et les Rouleaux d’Herculanum. La bibliothèque de
Philodème. Liège: Centre de recherche de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres et Les
Editions de l’Université de Liège, 2006.
Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the
Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 141. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997.
Descœudres, Jean-Paul. “History and historical sources.” Pages 9–27 in The World of
Pompeii. Edited by J.J. Dobbins and P.W. Foss. London: Routledge, 2007.
Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–58
in Time to Prepare a Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows
of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990.
Edited by D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
262 Bibliography
Dimant, Devorah. “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character.” Pages 170–176
in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem
Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, J.C. VanderKam, and
G. Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.
Dimant, Devorah. History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Dimant, Devorah. Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts.
DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.
Dix, Keith T. “ ‘Public libraries’ in Rome: Ideology and Reality.” Libraries and Culture 29
(1994): 282–296.
Dix, Keith T. “ ‘Beware of Promising Your Library to Anyone.’ Assembling a Library at
Rome.” Pages 209–234 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou
and G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Dix, Keith T. and George W. Houston. “Public Libraries in the City of Rome from the
Augustan Age to the Time of Diocletian.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome,
Antiquité 118 (2006): 671–717.
Docherty, S.E. “Genesis in Hebrews.” Pages 130–146 in Genesis in the New Testament.
LNTS 466. Edited by M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Docherty, S.E. “Joseph and Aseneth: Rewritten Bible or Narrative Expansion?” JSJ 35
(2004): 27–48.
Docherty, S.E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. WUNT 2.260. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009.
Dodd, C.H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology.
London: Nisbet, 1952.
Dorandi, Tiziano. “La ‘Villa dei Papiri.’ A Erocolano e sua biblioteca.” Classical Philology
90 (1995): 168–182.
Dorival, Gilles. “L’interpretation ancienne du Psaume 21 (TM 22).” Pages 225–314
in David, Jésus et la Reine Esther: Recherches sur Le Psaume 21 (22 TM). Edited by
G. Dorival. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
Dorival, Gilles. “Les Sages ont-ils retouché certains titres des Psaumes?” VT 61.3 (2011):
374–387.
Dotan, Aaron. “Was the Aleppo Codex Actually Vocalized by Aharon ben Asher?”
Tarbiz 34 (1965): 136–155.
Dotan, Aron. The Awakening of Word Lore: From the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew
Lexicography. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005.
Driver, G.R. “Myths of Qumran.” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966–68):
23–48.
Driver, G.R. The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution. New York: Schocken
Books, 1965.
Bibliography 263
du Toit, David S. Der abwesende Herr. Strategien im Markusevangelium zur Bewältigung

der Abwesenheit des Auferstandenen. WMANT 111. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
2006.
Dulaey, Maritne. “L’interpretation du Psaume 21 (TM 22) chez Saint Augustin.” Pages
315–340 in David, Jésus, et la reine Esther: Recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM). Edited
by G. Dorival. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
Duncan, Julie A. “4QDeuth.” Pages 68–70 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy to Kings.
DJD 14. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Durand, Xavier. Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier syrien
ds archives de Zénon de Caunos 261–252. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38. Paris:
Gabalda, 1997.
Dyer, Keith. The Prophecy on the Mount: Mark 13 and the Gathering of the New
Community. Bern: Peter Lang, 1998.
Ebojo, Edgar. “A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal Habits
of Papyrus 46 p. Chester Beatty II—P. Mich. Inv. 6238.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Birmingham, 2014.
Elizur, Shulamit. “The Incorporation of Aramaic Elements in Ancient Palestinian
Piyyutim.” Leshonenu 70 (2008): 337–339.
Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGCT.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Ellis, E.E., Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957.
Endres, J.C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Washington, D.C.: Catholic
Biblical Association of America Press, 1987.
Epstein, J.N. ‫מבוא לנוסח המשנה‬. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001.
Eshel, Esther, Amos Kloner and Emile Puech. “Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the
Hellenistic Period from Maresha: Bowls A and B.” BASOR 345 (2007): 39–62.
Eshel, Esther. “4QLevd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and Miqsat Ma’ase ha-
Torah.” DSD 2 (1995): 1–13.
Eshel, Hanan. “4Q348, 4Q343 and 4Q345: Three Economic Documents from Qumran
Cave 4?” JJS 52 (2001): 132–135.
Evans, Craig A. “Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography.” Pages
170–201 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. JSPSup 13. Edited by
J.H. Charlesworth and C.A. Evans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Evans, Craig A. “Zechariah in the Markan Passion Narrative.” Pages 64–80 in Biblical
Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, The Gospel of Mark. LNTS 304. Edited by
T. Hatina. London: T&T Clark International, 2006.
Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope.” Pages 373–388 in Authenticating
the Activities of Jesus. Edited by B. Chilton and C. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
264 Bibliography
Evans, Craig A. and James A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred
Tradition in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Evans, E. Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Falk, Daniel. “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Jewish
Liturgy.” Pages 617–651 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by
J.J.Collins and T.H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Feldman, L.H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1998.
Feldman, L.H. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Atlanta: SBL, 2005.
Field, F., ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum
in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875.
Fields, Weston. “Everyone Will Be Salted With Fire Mark 9:49.” Grace Theological
Journal 6.2 (1985): 299–304.
Fish, Stanley. “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics.” New Literary History 2
(1970): 123–162.
Fishbane, Michael. “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” Pages
339–377 in Mikra. Edited by M.J. Mulder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Fisk, B. “Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext.”
CBQ 62 (2000): 481–507.
Fisk, B. “Scripture Shaping Scripture: The Interpretive Role of Biblical Citations in
Pseudo-Philo’s Episode of the Golden Calf.” JSP 17 (1998): 3–23.
Fisk, B. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of
Pseudo-Philo. JSPSup 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Fitzmyer, J.A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and
in the New Testament.” NTS 7 (1960–61): 297–333.
Fitzmyer, J.A. The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday,
1981– 1985.
Fleddermann, H.T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. BITS 1. Leuven: Peeters 2005.
Flint, Peter. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the Book of Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
France, R.T. and Timothy Gray. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative
Role. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGCT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002.
France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007.
Franxman, T.W. Genesis and the ‘Jewish Antiquities’ of Flavius Josephus. Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1979.
Fraser, Peter M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Bibliography 265
Freedman, David N. “The Evolution of Hebrew Orthography.” Pages 3–15 in Studies

in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography. Edited by D.N. Freedman, A.D. Forbes, and
F.I. Andersen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Friedman, S. “The Ancient Tosefta: On the Parallel Development of the Mishnah and
the Tosefta (a): All the Sanctified Writings (Sabbath 16:1)” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 62
(1992/1993): 313–338.
Frösen, Jaakko. “Conservation of Ancient Papyrus Materials.” Pages 79–100 in The
Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by R.S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Fuller, Michael E. The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of Nations
in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian
Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
García Martínez. F. “Creation in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49–70 in The Creation of
Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient
Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics. TBN 8. Edited by G.H. van Kooten.
García Martínez, F. “The Groningen Hypothesis Revisited.” Pages 310–316 in Dead Sea
Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Edited by A.D. Roitman, L.H. Schiffman, and
S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
García Martínez, F. “Origins and Early History.” Pages 36–47 in Qumranica Minora
I: Qumran Origins and Apoclaypticism. Edited by F. García Martínez, and E.J.C.
Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
García Martínez, F. and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition.
García Martínez, F., E.J.C. Tigchelaar, and A.S. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave 11. II:
11Q2–18, 11Q20–30. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
García Martínez, F. and Adam van der Woude. “A ‘Groningen Hypothesis’ of Qumran
Origins and Early History.” Pages 521–541 in Qumranica Minora I. Edited by F. García
Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, 1990.
Garrett, Susan. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.
Geddert, Timothy. Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989.
Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzung der Bibel in ihrer Abhangigkeit von der in-
neren Entwicklung des Judentums. Breslau: Heinauer, 1857.
Gigante, Marcello. Catalogo dei papyri ercolanesi. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979.
Gigante, Marcello. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1995.
266 Bibliography
Gillihan, Yonder M. Civic Ideology, Organisation and Law in the Rule Scrolls. Leiden:
Brill, 2012.
Glasson, T.F. “Mark xiii and the Greek Old Testament.” ET 69.7 (1958): 213–215.
Golb, Norman. “Khirbet Qumran and the Manuscript Finds of the Judaean Wilderness.”
Pages 51–72 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet
Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by M.O. Wise et al.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Golb, Norman. “Khirbet Qumran and the Manuscripts of the Judaean Wilderness:
Observations on the Logic of Their Investigation.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies
49 (1990): 103–114.
Golb, Norman. “The Problem of the Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
Proceedings of American Philological Society 124 (1980): 1–24.
Golb, Norman. “Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?” The Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985):
68–82.
Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran.
New York: Scribner, 1995.
Goldingay, John. Psalm 90–150. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Goranson, Stephen. “Qumran: The Evidence of the Inkwells.” Biblical Archaeology
Review 19.6 (1993): 67.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. “The Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: Theories
and Practice of Textual Criticism.” VT 42 (1992): 204–213.
Gould, E.P. The Gospel according to St. Mark. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896.
Goulder, E.P. Luke: A New Paradigm. JSNTSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1989.
Grabbe, Lester L. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume
II: The Early Hellenistic Period 335–175 BCE. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Grainger, John D. The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Graves, Michael. Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on His Commentary on
Jeremiah. VCSup 90. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Grelot, Pierre. “Les versions grecques de Daniel.” Biblica 47.3 (1966): 381–402.
Gribetz, Sarit Kattan. “Hanged and Crucified: The Book of Esther and Toledot Yeshu.”
Pages 159–180 in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited. Edited by
P. Schäfer, M. Meerson, and Y. Deutsch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Grünhut, L. ‫ספר הליקוטים‬. 6 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 1898–1903.
Gunneweg, Jan and Marta Balla. “Neutron Activation Analysis Scroll Jars and Common
Ware.” Pages 3–53 in Khirbet Qumran et ‘Ain Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de
physique et de chemie. Edited by J.B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg. Fribourg: Fribourg
Bibliography 267
Halpern-Amaru, B. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 60.

Hamel, Gildas H. Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries CE.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Hammershaim, Erling. “On the Method, Applied in the Copying of Manuscripts in
Qumran.” VT 9 (1959): 415–418.
Handis, Michael W. “Myth and History: Galen and the Alexandrian Library.” Pages
364–376 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf.
Harington, D.J. “The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum.” HTR 63 (1970): 503–514.
Harnack, Adolf. Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Leipzig:
Hinrichs’sche, 1902.
Harrington, D.J. “Birth Narratives in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and the Gospels.”
Pages 316–324 in To Touch the Text. Edited by M.P. Horgan and P. Kobelski. New York:
Crossroad, 1988.
Harrington, D.J. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 297–377 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
Vol. 2. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Harrington, D.J. “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.”
CBQ 33 (1971): 1–17.
Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Hartman, Lars. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts
and of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 Par. Translated by N. Tomkinson. Lund:
Gleerup, 1966.
Hatina, Thomas. “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27: The Parousia, or Destruction of the
Temple?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43–66.
Hatina, Thomas. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative.
JSNTSup 232. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Hauptman, J. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Hayles, Katherine N. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Healy, John F. Pliny the Elder: Natural History: A Selection. London: Penguin, 1991.
Heller-Roazen, Daniel. “Tradition’s Destruction: On the Library of Alexandria.”
Obsolescence 100 (2002): 133–153.
Hempel, Charlotte. “The Long Text of the Serekh as Crisis Literature.” RevQ 27 (2015):
3–24.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM,
1974.
268 Bibliography
Henze, Matthias, ed. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hermann, M.L. Die hermeneutische Stunde des Hebräerbriefs: Schriftauslegung in
Spannungsfeldern. HBS 72. Freiburg: Herder, 2013.
Hernández, J. “Recensional Activity and the Transmission of the Septuagint in John’s
Apocalypse.” Pages 83–98 in Die Johannesoffenbarung: Ihr Text und ihre Auslegung.
ABG 38. Edited by M. Karrer and M. Labahn. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2012.
Hezser, C. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Hill, Robert C. “Commentary on the Prophet Zechariah.” Pages 93–279 in St. Cyril of
Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Washington D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2006.
Hill, Robert C. Didymus the Blind: Commentary on Zechariah. Washington D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 2006.
Hirschfeld, Yizhar. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
Høgenhaven, Jesper. “The Literary Character of 4QTanhumim.” DSD 14.1 (2007): 99–123.
Hogg, Daniel. “Libraries in a Greek Working Life: Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
A Case Study in Rome.” Pages 137–151 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König,
K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Holtz, T. Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. TUGAL 104.
Berlin: Akademie, 1968.
Hooker, Morna. A Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark. BNTC. London: A&C
Black, 1991.
Houghton, Hugh A.G. and Catherine J. Smith. “Digital Editing and the Greek New
Testament.” Pages 110–127 in Ancient Worlds in Digital Culture. DBS 1. Edited by
C. Clivaz, P. Dilley, and D. Hamidović. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Houston, George W. “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the
Roman Empire.” Pages 248–267 in Ancient Literacies. Edited by W.A. Johnson and
H.N. Parker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Houston, George W. “The Non-Philodemus Book Collection in the Villa of the Papyri.”
Pages 183–208 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and
Houtman, A. Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot
and Shebiit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Hübner, H. Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. BTNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht, 1995.
Humbert, Jean Baptiste. “L’espace sacré á Qumran: Propositions pour l’archéologie.”
Revue biblique 101 (1994): 161–214.
Bibliography 269
Humbert, Jean-Baptiste. “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran.” Pages 19–39

in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and
Debates. STDJ 57. Edited by K. Galor, J.B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
Hurtado, Larry W. Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman
World. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Hurtado, Larry. Mark. NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989.
Ilan, T. “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome.” JSQ 16 (2009): 363–395.
Inowlocki, S. “Josephus’ Rewriting of the Babel Narrative Gen 11:1–9.” JSJ 37 (2006):
169–191.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. London: Routledge,
1978.
Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken, 1934.
Jacobs, I. The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism.
Jacobs, L. Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud. Cambridge: Cambridge
Jacobson, H. “Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.”
Pages 180–199 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by
M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Jacobson, H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. AGAJU 31.
Jamieson-Drake, David W. Scribes & Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological
Approach. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011.
Janko, Richard. Philodemus on Poems. Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Jerome, Commentary on Matthew. Translated by T.P. Scheck. Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 2008.
Johnson, William A. “Libraries and Reading Culture in the High Empire.” Pages 347–
363 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf.
Johnson, William A. “The Ancient Book.” Pages 256–281 in The Oxford Handbook of
Papyrology. Edited by R.S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Johnson, William A. Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2004.
Jokiranta, Jutta. “What is ‘Serekh ha-Yahad (S)’? Thinking about Ancient Manuscripts
as Information Processing.” (forthcoming).
Jones, Christopher P. “Books and Libraries in a Newly-Discovered Treatise of Galen.”
JRA 22 (2009): 390–397.
Jorgenson, David W. “Treasure Hidden in a Field: Early Christian Exegesis of the Gospel
of Matthew.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2014.
270 Bibliography
Kahle, Paul. “The Masoretic Text of the Bible.” Pages 493–513 in The Canon and Masorah
of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. Edited by S.Z. Leiman. New York: Ktav,
1974.
Kamm, Antony. The Romans. London: Routledge, 1995.
Kaplan, J. The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. New York: Bloch, 1933.
Karrer, M. “Der Septuaginta-Text im frühen Christentum.” Pages 663–678 in Einleitung
in die Septuaginta. Handbuch zur Septuaginta 1. Edited by S. Kreuzer. Gütersloh:
Mohn, 2015.
Karrer, M. “Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Septuaginta und das Problem ihrer maßge-
blichen Textgestalt.” Pages 40–62 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten.
WUNT 219. Edited by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008.
Karrer, M. “Die Schriften Israels im Hebräerbrief.” ThLZ 138 (2013): 1181–1196.
Karrer, M. “Die Väter in der Wüste: Text und Rezeption von LXX Ps 94 in Hebr 3.” Pages
427–458 in Text—Textgeschichte—Textwirkung. Festschrift für Siegfried Kreuzer.
AOAT 419. Edited by T. Wagner, J.M. Robker, and F. Ueberschaer. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2014.
Karrer, M. “LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7.” Pages 126–146 in Psalms and Hebrews:
Studies in Reception. LHBOTS 527. Edited by D.J. Human and G.J. Steyn. London: T&T
Clark, 2010.
Karrer, M. “Reception and Rewriting—Beobachtungen zu Schriftreferenzen und
Textgeschichte der Apk.” In Rewriting and Reception in and of the Bible. FS Mogens
Müller. WUNT. Edited by J.T. Nielsen, J. Høgenhaven, and H. Omerzu. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Karrer, M. and J. de Vries. “Die Schriftzitate im ersten Christentum und die
Textgeschichte der Septuaginta: ein Wuppertaler Forschungsprojekt.” Pages 311–357
in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. VTSup 157. Edited by
J. Cook and H.J. Stipp. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Karrer, M. Johannesoffenbarung I Offb 1,1–5,14. EKK 24/1. Ostfildern: Patmos, 2017.
Karrer, M., U. Schmid and M. Sigismund. “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Zeuge für
den LXX-Text des Jesaja-Buches.” Pages 253–274 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in
Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. BETL 224.
Edited by H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Karrer, M., U. Schmid and M. Sigismund. “Textgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den
Zusätzen in den Septuaginta-Psalmen.” Pages 140–161 in Die Septuaginta—Texte,
Theologien, Einflüsse. WUNT 252. Edited by W. Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Kaster, Joseph. The Wisdom of Ancient Egypt: Writings from the Time of the Pharaohs.
London: Michael O’Mara, 1995.
Bibliography 271
Kee, Howard Clark. “The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–
16.” Pages 165–188 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70.
Geburtstag. Edited by E. Ellis and E. Gräßer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1975.
Kehatis, P. ‫מבוארות משנית‬. Jerusalem: Mishnayyot Kehati, 2001.
Kellermann, Diether. “Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart? Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis
der K ‘l’ / Q ‘lw Fälle.” BZ 24 (1980): 57–75.
Kim, D.H. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A
Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Kimball, Charles A. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. JSNTSup 94.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 2003.
Kister, Menahem. “Jewish Aramaic Poems from Byzantine Palestine and Their Setting.”
Tarbiz 76 (2006): 105–184.
Klein, M.L. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources.
Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980.
Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1986.
Koet, B.J. Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts. SNTA 14. Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1989.
Kolatch, Yonatan. Traditional Jewish Bible Commentary from the First to the Thirteenth
Century. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Ktav, 2006.
Koltsida, Aikaterini. Social Aspects of Ancient Egyptian Domestic Architecture. BAR
1608. Oxford: Hadrian Books, 2007.
Koltun-Fromm, Naomi. “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of
Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic.” JECS 6 (1998): 37–58.
Kowalski, Beate. “Rewritten Psalms in the Gospel of John.” Pages 151–175 in Rewritten
Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland August 24–26
2006. Studies in Rewritten Bible 1. Edited by A. Laato and J. van Ruiten. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Kreuzer, S. “Der antiochenische Text: seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das
Neue Testament.” Pages 169–188 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in
Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum. SCS
60. Edited by J. de Vries and M. Karrer. Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
Kreuzer, S. “Ursprüngliche Septuaginta (Old Greek) und hebraisierende Bearbeitung.
Die Entwicklung der Septuaginta in ihrer Bedeutung für die Zitate und Anspielungen
im Neuen Testament, untersucht anhand der Zitate im Dodekapropheton.” Pages
17–55 in Worte der Weissagung. Studien zu Septuaginta und Johannesoffenbarung.
272 Bibliography
ABG 47. Edited by J. Elschenbroich and J. de Vries. Leipzig: Evangelische

Verlagsanstalt, 2014.
Kreuzer, S. and M. Sigismund, eds. Der Antiochenische Text in seiner Bezeugung und
seiner Bedeutung. DSI 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Kreuzer, S. Geschichte, Sprache und Text. Studien zum Alten Testament und seiner
Umwelt. BZAW 479. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Kreuzer, S. The Bible in Greek. Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint.
SCS 63. Atlanta: SBL, 2015.
Küchler, Max. Jerusalem. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
Kugel, J.L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. 2nd ed. London:
Harvard University Press, 1994.
Kugel, J.L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common
Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Kuyama, Michihiko. “Origen and Esther—a Reflection on the ‘Anti-Jewish’ Argument
in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 424–435 in Studia Patristica 34. Edited by M.F.
Wiles and E.J. Yarnold. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.
Köckert, Matthias. “Ausgespüht und überwacht, erschreckend wunderbar geschaffen:
Gott und Mensch in Psalem 139.” ZThK 107 (2010): 415–447.
Labahn, Michael. “Die Schriftrezeption in den großen Kodizes der Johannesoffenbarung.”
Pages 99–130 in Die Johannesoffenbarung—Ihr Text und ihre Auslegung. ABG 38.
Edited by M. Karrer and M. Labahn. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012.
Labahn, Michael. “Die Septuaginta und die Johannesapokalypse—Möglichkeiten und
Grenzen einer Verhältnisbestimmung im Spiegel von kreativer Intertextualität
und Textentwicklungen.” Pages 149–190 in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte—
Konzepte—Rezeption. WUNT 287. Edited by J. Frey, J.A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth.
Labahn, Michael. Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender—die Logienquelle als erzählte
Geschichte. ABG 32. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010.
Lamont, Daniel. Christ and the World of Thought. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1934.
Lane, William. The Gospel According to Mark: the English Text with Introduction,
Exposition and Notes. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lange, A. and M. Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish
Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Lange, Armin. “The Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls—Library or Manuscript Corpus?” Pages
177–193 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile
Puech. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Steudel, E.J.C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lange, Armin. “ ‘Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to make changes’
Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.42: The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Light
of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 105–126 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and
Bibliography 273
Other Early Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez. JSJSup 122. Edited by
A. Hilhorst, E. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Lapp, Nancy L. and Robin Brown, eds. The Excavations at Araq el-Emir. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Lauterbach, Jacob Z. “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem.” Pages 416–
454 in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. Edited
by S.Z. Leiman. New York: Ktav, 1974.
Lear, Sheree. Scribal Composition: Malachi as a Test Case. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2018.
Lee, Paula Y. “The Musaeum of Alexandria and the Formation of the Muséum in
Eighteenth-Century France.” The Art Bulletin 79 (1997): 385–412.
Leim, Joshua. “In the Glory of His Father: Intertextuality and the Apocalyptic Son of
Man in the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7.2 (2013): 213–232.
Levenson, Jon D. Esther: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: WJK, 1997.
Levi, Jaakov. Die Inkongruenz im biblischen Hebrisch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.
Levy, Barry B. Fixing God’s Torah. The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law.
Oxford: University Press, 2001.
Lewis, Joe O. “An Asseverative ‫ לא‬in Psalm 100:3?” JBL 86 (1967): 216.
Lichtheim, Miriam. “Three Tales of Wonders.” Pages 215–222 in Ancient Egyptian
Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1973.
Liebengood, Kelly. The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah
9–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Lieu, Judith M. “Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22.” Pages 195–211 in
Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. JSJSup 111.
Edited by C. Hempel and J.M. Lieu. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lim, T.H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old
Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961.
Litwak, Kenneth Duncan. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s
People Intertextually. JSNTSup 282. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Loewenstamm, G.E. Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980.
Longenecker, Bruce W. See Hearing the Silence: Jesus on the Edge and God in the Gap:
Luke 4 in Narrative Perspective. Eugene: Cascade, 2012.
Lübbe, John. “Certain Implications of the Scribal Process of 4QSamc.” RevQ 14 (1989):
255–265.
Luz, U. Matthew 21–28. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Lyons, Michael. “Paul and the Servants: Isa 49,6 in Acts 13,47.” ETL 89.4 (2013): 345–359.
274 Bibliography
Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism

and Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Magen, Yizhak and Yuvel Peleg. “Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and
Research, 1993–2004.” Pages 55–113 in The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological
Interpretations and Debates. Edited by K. Galor, J.B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg.
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002.
Maier, Johan. “Die Feinde Gottes. Auslegungsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Ps
139,21f.” Pages 33–47 in Hairesis. Festschrift für Karl Hoheisel. Edited by M. Hutter,
W.W. Klein, and U. Vollmer. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002.
Malbon, Elizabeth. In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel of Jesus.
Louisville: WJK, 2000.
Mallen, Peter. The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. London: T&T
Clark, 2008.
Maori, Yeshayahu. “Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew
Bible: History and Practice.” Pages 101–129 in Modern Scholarship in the Study of
Torah. Edited by S. Carmy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.
Maori, Yeshayahu. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Light
of the Qumran Evidence.” Pages 283–298 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of
Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Marböck, Johannes. “Das Buch Jesus Sirach.” Pages 285–292 in Einleitung in das alte
Testament. Edited by E. Zenger, G. Braulik, and H. Niehr. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1995.
Marböck, Johannes. “Sir 38,24–39,11: Der Schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zur Gestalt
und Lehre Ben Siras.” Pages 293–316 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Nouvelle
Edition Mise à Jour. BETL 51. Edited by M. Gilbert. Louvain, 1990.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB
27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the
Gospel of Mark. Louisville: WJK, 1992.
Marguerat, Daniel. The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’.
SNTSMS 121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Louvain: Orientaliste,
1958.
Martone, Corrado. “The Qumran ‘Library’ and Other Ancient Libraries: Elements for a
Comparison.” Pages 55–77 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a
Library. Edited by S. White Crawford and C. Wassen. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission of the
Biblical Text in the Light of Masoretic Sources.” Pages 79–90 in The Text of the
Bibliography 275
Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by E. Martín-Contreras and
L. Miralles-Marci. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2014.
Martín-Contreras, Elvira. “The Phenomenon qere we la’ketib in the Main Biblical
Codices: New Data.” VT 62 (2012): 77–87.
McAfee Moss, Charlene. The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew. BZNW 156.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
McGing, Brian. “Population and Prozelytism: How Many Jews Were There in the
Ancient World?” Pages 88–106 in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. Edited by
J.R. Bartlett. London: Routledge, 2002.
McKenzie, Judith S., Sheila Gibson and Andres T. Reyes. “Reconstructing the Serapeum
in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence.” JRS 94 (2004): 73–121.
McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
McLay, Timothy R. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.
McNamee, K. “Marginalia and Commentaries in Greek Literary Papyri.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of Michigan, 1977.
McNamee, Kathleen. “Greek Literary Papyri Revised by Two or More Hands.” Pages
79–91 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology. Edited by
R.S. Bagnall. Chico: Scholars, 1981.
Menken, M.J.J. and S. Moyise, eds. Genesis in the New Testament. LNTS 466. London:
T&T Clark, 2012.
Menken, M.J.J. “Striking the Shepherd: Early Christian Versions and Interpretations of
Zechariah 13,7.” Biblica 92.1 (2011): 39–59.
Menn, Esther M. “No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in
Psalm 22.” HTR 93 (2000): 301–341.
Metso, Sarianna. “Shifts in Covenantal Discourse in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages
501-518 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea
Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. JSJSup 126. Edited by A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta.
Metso, Sarianna. “Problems in Reconstructing the Organizational Chart of the Essenes.”
DSD 16 (2009): 388–415.
Metzger, Bruce M. “The Furniture in the Scriptorium at Qumran.” RevQ 1 (1958–9):
509–515.
Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. AB 25C. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Meyers, Eric M. “Khirbet Qumran and its Environs.” Pages 21–45 in The Oxford
Handbook on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford
276 Bibliography
Meynet, Roland. Rhetorical Analysis. JSOTSup 256. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998.
Meynet, Roland. L’Evangile de Luc. Paris: Lethielleux, 2005.
Milavec, Aaron. “The Saving Efficacy in the Burning Process in Didache 16:5.” Pages 131–
155 in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission. NTSup
77. Edited by C. Jefford. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Milik, Józef T. “Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša̔ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS
23 (1972): 95–144.
Milik, Józef T. Dix ans de découvertes dans le desert de Juda. Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1957.
Millar, Fergus. “The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation.” Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society 29 (1983): 55–71.
Millard, M., K. Heider, C. Klein and C. Veldboer. “Verweise in der Handausgabe
von Rahlfs/Hanhart und der Göttinger Ausgabe der Septuaginta auf das Neue
Testament.” Pages 153–168 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early
Edited by J. de Vries, and M. Karrer. Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
Mizzi, Dennis. “The Glass from Khirbet Qumran: What Does it Tell us about the
Qumran Community?” Pages 99–198 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context.
STDJ 90. Edited by C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Moessner, David P. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the
Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Moo, Douglas. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond,
1983.
Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge:
Moyise, S. “Deuteronomy in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 27–41 in Deuteronomy in the New
Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. LNTS 358. Edited by
S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance
of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of
the History of Israel. JSJSup 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Münz-Manor, Ophir. “Carnivalesque Ambivalence and the Christian Other in Aramaic
Poems from Byzantine Palestine.” Pages 831–845 in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of
Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by G.G. Stroumsa et al. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2012.
Murphy, F.J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic
Midrash. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
Bibliography 277
Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1988.
Nevett, Lisa C. Domestic Space in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
Newman, J.H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple
Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999.
Newsom, Carol A. “ ‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–187 in
The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by W.H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D.N.
Freedman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Nicholls, Matthew C. “Roman Libraries as Public Buildings in the Cities of the Empire.”
Pages 261–276 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and
Nicholls, Matthew C. “Galen and Libraries in the Peri Alupias.” JRS 101 (2011): 123–142.
Nickelsburg, G.W.E. and J.J. Collins, eds. Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. SCS 12. Ann
Arbor: Scholars, 1980.
Niditch, S. “Cosmic Man as Mediator in Rabbinic Literature.” JJS 34 (1983): 137–146.
Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge:
Nitzan, Bilhah. “286–290. 4QBerakhota–e.” Pages 1–74 in Qumran Cave 4. VI Poetical and
Liturgical Texts. DJD 11. Edited by C. Newsom and E. Schuller. Oxford: Clarendon,
1998.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–90): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of
Related Texts.” RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetic and Liturgical
Writings from Qumran.” JQR 85 (1994): 163–183.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “Human and Angelic Prayer in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages
35–47 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000. STDJ 48. Edited
by E.G. Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Benedictions from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal Ceremony.”
Pages 263–271 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of
the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J.C.
VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Idea of Holiness in Qumran Poetry and Liturgy.” Pages 127–145
in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third
Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, Published
in Memory of Maurice Baillet. STDJ 35. Edited by D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and
E. Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
278 Bibliography
Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Laws of Reproof in 4QBerakhot 4Q286–290 in Light of their

Parallels in the Damascus Covenant and Other Texts from Qumran.” Pages 149–165
in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International
Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M.
Baumgarten. STDJ 23. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Textual, Literary and Religious Character of 4QBerakhot 4Q286–
290.” Pages 639–656 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D.W. Parry
and E. Ulrich. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Nolland, John. Luke. WBC. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993.
Norton, Jonathan D.H. Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writing of Paul,
Josephus and the Yaḥad. LNTS 430. London: T&T Clark, 2011.
Noy, D. “The Aggadic Endings in the Tractates of the Mishnah.” Mahanayyim 57 (1961):
44–59.
Nutton, Vivian. “Galen’s Library.” Pages 19–34 in Galen and the World of Knowledge.
Edited by C. Gill, T. Whitmarsh and J. Wilkens. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009.
O’Brien, K.S. The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative. LNTS 384. London:
T&T Clark, 2010.
Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80.3 (1987): 261–286.
Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated by H. Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1980.
Origen, Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian;
Origen, Parts First and Second. Translated by F. Crombie. Edited by P. Schaff.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Orlinsky, Harry M. “Prolegomenon to the KTAV Reissue of C.D. Ginzburg’s Introduction
to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages I–XLV in Introduction
to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by C.D. Ginzburg. New
York: Ktav, 1966.
Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach.” Pages
184–192 in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader.
Edited by S.Z. Leiman. New York: Ktav, 1974.
Otranto, Rosa. Antiche liste di libri su papiro. Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura,
2000.
Pajunen, Mika S. The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the Dead
Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381. JAJSup 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000.
Bibliography 279
Parássoglou, G.M. “A roll upon his knees.” Pages 273–275 in Papyrology. Edited by
N. Lewis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Pearson, David P. ed. Handbook of Reading Research. London: Longman, 1984.
Peck, Dwight C. “The Qumran Library and its Patrons.” Journal of Library History 12
(1977): 5–16.
Pedley, Katherine Greenleaf. “The Library at Qumran.” RevQ 5 (1959): 21–41.
Penner, Jeremy. “Mapping Fixed Prayers from the Dead Sea Scrolls onto Second Temple
Period Judaism.” DSD 21 (2014): 39–63.
Pervo, R.I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.
Pervo, Richard I. Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of Acts of the Apostles.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. HTKNT 2.2. Freiburg: Herder, 1980.
Pfann, Stephen. “A Table in the Wilderness: Two Pantries and Tables, Pure Food and
Sacred Space at Qumran.” Pages 159–178 in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at
Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. STDJ 57. Edited by K. Galor, J.B. Humbert,
and J. Zangenberg. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Pfann, Stephen J. “Reassessing the Judaean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizahs
and Hiding Places.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007):
147–170.
Pfann, Stephen J. “The Ancient ‘Library’ or ‘Libraries’ of Qumran: The Specter of Cave
1Q.” Pages 168–213 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library.
Edited by S. White Crawford and C. Wassen. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Pfann, Stephen J., P. Alexander, J. VanderKam and M. Brady. Qumran 4. XXVI. Cryptic
Texts. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.
Pitre, Brant. Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and
the Origin of the Atonement. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Platthy, Jenö. Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries with Testimonia. Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1968.
Poirier, J.C. “The Interiority of True Religion in Mark 7,6–8 with a Note on Pap.Egerton
2.” ZNW 91 (2000): 180–191.
Popović, Mladen. “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative
Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections.” JSJ 43 (2012): 551–594.
Popović, Mladen. “Roman Book Destruction in Qumran Cave 4 and the Roman
Destruction of Khirbet Qumran Revisited.” Pages 239–291 in Qumran und die
Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte. WUNT 278. Edited by J. Frey, C. Claußen, and
N. Kessler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Porten, B. and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986.
280 Bibliography
Posner, Ernst. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Puech, Émile. “Quelques aspects de la restauration du rouleau des hymnes 1QH.” JJS
39 (1988): 38–55.
Rabin, Ira, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic and Gisela Weinberg. “On the Origin
of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll 1QHodayota.” DSD 16 (2009): 97–106.
Rahlfs, A. and R. Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX
interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Rahlfs, A., ed. Psalmi cum Odis. SVTG 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes.
Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
Reich, Ronny. “A Note on the Function of Room 30 the ‘Scriptorium’ at Khirbet
Qumran.” JJS 46 (1995): 157–160.
Reinmuth, E. Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerks. WUNT 74.
Rendsberg, Gary A. and Jacob Binstein. “The Book of Ben Sira.” bensira.org.
Rengstorf, Karl H. Ḫirbet Qumrân and the Problem of the Dead Sea Caves. Leiden: Brill,
1963.
Rengstorf, Karl H. Ḫirbet Qumrân und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1960.
Rese, M. Alttestamenliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. SNT 1. Gütersloh: Mohn,
1969.
Reuling, Hanneke. “Rabbinic Responses to Christian Appropriation of the Hebrew
Bible: The Case of Psalm 22:1 MT.” Pages 177–182 in Studia Patristica. Volume XLIV:
Archaeologica, Arts, Iconographica, Tools, Historica, Biblica, Theologica, Philosophica,
Ethica. Edited by J. Baun, A. Cameron, and M. Edwards. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Reumann, John H. “Psalm 22 at the Cross Lament and Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ.”
Int 28 (1974): 39–58.
Richter, G.M.A. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. London: Phaidon,
1966.
Robinson, J.M., P. Hoffman and J.S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: A
Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English,
German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
Rosalind, M. and Jac J. Janssen. Growing Up and Getting Old In Ancient Egypt. Norfolk:
Golden House Publications, 2007.
Rothschild, Clare K. and Trevor W. Thompson. “Galen: Περὶ ἀλυπησίας (‘On the
Avoidance of Grief’).” EC 2 (2011): 110–129.
Rothschild, Clare K. and Trevor W. Thompson. “Galen’s On the Avoidance of Grief: The
Question of a Library at Antium.” Classical Philology 107 (2012): 131–145.
Bibliography 281
Rubin, M. “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural

Polemics in Antiquity.” JJS 49 (1998): 306–333.
Rusam, D. Das Alte Testament bei Lukas. BZNW 112. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003.
Samely, A. Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Samely, A. The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method
and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. TSAJ 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and
Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011.
Sanders, E.P. “The Dead Sea Sect and other Jews: Commonalties, Overlaps, and
Differences.” Pages 85–124 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context. Edited
by T.H. Lim et al. London: T&T Clark, 2000.
Sanders, James A. “Hermeneutics of Text Criticism.” Textus 18 (1995): 1–26.
Sanders, James A. “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method.” JBL 98 (1979): 5–29.
Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 11QPsa. DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon,
1965.
Sarna, Nahum M. Studies in Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: JPS, 2000.
Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Schäfer, Peter. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.
Schechter, Solomon and Charles Taylor, eds. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the
Book Ecclesiasticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899.
Schechter, Solomon, ed. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of
Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Schironi, Francesca. To Mega Biblion: Book-ends, End-titles, and Coronides in Papyri with
Hexametric Poetry. Durham: American Society of Papyrologists, 2010.
Schmidt, Karl Matthias. Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des
Markusevangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development
of the Community Rule. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Schorch, Stefan. “The Preeminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept
of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 43–54 in Studies in the
Book of Ben Sira. JSJSup 127. Edited by G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill,
2008.
Schröter, J. “Das Alte Testament im Urchristentum.” Pages 49–81 in Das Alte Testament
in der Theologie. MJT 25. Edited by E. Gräb-Schmidt. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2013.
282 Bibliography
Schwartz, Seth. “Political, Social and Economic life in the Land of Israel, 66-c. 235.”
Pages 23–53 in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic
Period. Edited by W.D. Davies et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in
Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Secunda, Shai. “The Construction, Composition and Idealization of the Female Body
in Rabbinic Literature and Parallel Iranian Texts: Three Excursuses.” NASHIM:
A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies and Gender Issues 23 (2012): 60–86.
Seeligmann, Isac Leo. “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaption in the
Massoretic Text and the Septuagint.” Pages 449–467 in Gesammelte Schriften zur
Hebrischen Bibel. Edited by E. Blum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Segal, A.F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity. Leiden:
Brill, 1977.
Segal, Eliezer. The Babylonian Esther Midrash: A Critical Commentary. 3 vols. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1994.
Segal, Eliezer. “The Textual Traditions of Tractate Megillah in the Babylonian Talmud”
[Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss., Jerusalem, 1981.
Segal, Moshe Zvi. ‫ספר בן סירא השלם‬. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Byalik Institute, 1958.
Shackelton, Bailey, David R. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1965–1970.
Shavit, Yaacov. “The ‘Qumran Library’ in the Light of the Attitude Towards Books and
Libraries in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 299–317 in Methods of Investigation
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future
Prospects. Edited by M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, and D.G. Pardee. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Sherman, P.M. Babel’s Tower Translated: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish Interpretation.
BI 117. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Sherwin-White, Susan. “Seleucid Babylonia: A Case Study for the Installation and
Development of Greek Rule.” Pages 1–31 in Hellenism in the East. Edited by A. Kuhrt
and S. Sherwin-White. London: Duckworth, 1987.
Shively, Elizabeth. Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and
Theological Role of Mark 3:22–30. BZNW 189. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.
Sigismund, M. and U. Schmid. “Die Diplé: Einführung.” Pages 75–152 in Von der
Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament—Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen. ANTF 43.
Edited by M. Karrer, S. Kreuzer, and M. Sigismund. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Simon-Shoshan, Moshe. “The Task of the Translator: The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and
the Cultural Politics of Translation.” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 1–39.
Sivan, Hagith. Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Skarsaune, Oskar. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text
Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. NTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Bibliography 283
Skeat, T.C. “The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine.” JTS 50 (1999):
583–625.
Skeat, T.C. “The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the
Codex.” ZPE 45 (1982): 169–176.
Skeat, T.C. “Two Notes on Papyrus.” Pages 373–378 in Scritti in onore di Orsolina
Montevecchi. Edited by Bresciani, E. et al. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria
Editrice, 1981.
Skeat, T.C. “Was Papyrus Regarded as ‘Cheap’ or ‘Expensive’ in the Ancient World?”
Aegyptus 75 (1995): 75–93.
Sloan, Paul. “Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd: The Narrative Logic of Zechariah
in Mark.” Ph.D. diss., University of St Andrews, 2016.
Small, Jocelyn Penny. Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy
in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1997.
Smelik, W.F. Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge
Snaith, John G. “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus.” JTS 18.1 (1967):
1–12.
Söding, T. “Der Gehorsam des Gottessohnes. Zur Christologie der matthäischen
Versuchungserzählung 4,1–11.” Pages 711–775 in Jesus Christus als Mitte der Schrift.
Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. BZNW 86. Edited by C. Landmesser et al.
Sokoloff, Michael. “The Date and Provenance of the Aramaic Toledot Yeshu on the
Basis of Aramaic Dialectology.” Pages 13–26 in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of
Jesus”) Revisited. Edited by P. Schäfer, M. Meerson, and Y. Deutsch. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and
Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003.
Sollamo, Raija. “The Creation of Angels and Natural Phenomena Intertwined in the
Book of Jubilees (4QJuba): Angels and Natural Phenomena as Characteristics of
the Creation Stories and Hymns in Late Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 273–290 in
Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. JSJSup 111.
Edited by C. Hempel and J.M. Lieu. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Sperber, Daniel. “Some Tannaitic Biblical Variants.” ZAW 79 (1967): 79–80.
Spottorno, V. “The Status of the Antiochene text in the First Century A.D.: Josephus and
New Testament.” Pages 74–83 in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner
Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung. DSI 4. Edited by S. Kreuzer and M. Sigismund.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Stacey, David. “Seasonal Industries at Qumran.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society 26 (2008): 7–30.
284 Bibliography
Stanley, Christopher D. “The Importance of 4QTanḥûmîm 4Q176.” RevQ 15.4 (1992):

569–82.
Steckoll, S.H. “Marginal Notes on the Qumran Excavations.” RevQ 7 (1969): 33–40.
Stegemann, Hartmut. “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered
Fragments.” Pages 189–220 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The
New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. JSPSup 8. Edited by L.H.
Schiffman. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Stegemann, Hartmut. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist,
and Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Stein, Robert. Jesus, the Temple, and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13.
Downers Grove: IVP, 2014.
Stein, Robert. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1991.
Sterling, G.E. “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’s Retelling of Ruth.” Pages 104–171 in
Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. JSPSup 32. Edited by S. Mason. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary
Studies. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996.
Steyn, G.J. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews.
FRLANT 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Steyn, G.J. Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of
the Acta Apostolorum. CBET 12. Kampen: Kok, 1995.
Stokowski, A. “Diplé-Auszeichnungen im Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 B: Liste
nebst einigen Beobachtungen.” Pages 93–113 in Textual History and the Reception
of Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen
Christentum. SCS 60. Edited by J. de Vries and M. Karrer. Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
Stolle, V. Das Markusevangelium. Übersetzung und Kommentierung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Erzähltechnik. OUH.E 17. Göttingen: Edition Ruprecht, 2015.
Strack, H.L. and Günther Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
Translated by M. Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Strootman, Rolf. “Literature and the Kings.” Pages 30–45 in A Companion to Hellenistic
Literature. Edited by J.J. Clauss and M. Cuypers. London: Wiley, 2010.
Strugnell, John. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of
Jordan.’ ” RevQ 7.2 (1970): 163–276.
Sukenik, Eleazar. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1955.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. Elwolde.
Cambridge: University Press, 1997.
Bibliography 285
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were found in the Temple
Court.” Textus 2 (1962): 14–27.
Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990.
Ta-Shma, Israel M. “The ‘Open’ Book in Medieval Hebrew Literature: The Problem of
Authorized Editions.” Pages 17–42 in Artefacts and Texts: The Re-Creation of Jewish
Literature in Medieval Hebrew. Edited by P.S. Alexander and A. Samely. Manchester:
John Rylands Library, 1994.
Taylor, Joan E. “4Q341: A Writing Exercise Remembered.” Pages 133–151 in Is there a Text
in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J.
Brooke. JSJSup 119. Edited by A. Feldman, M. Cioată, and C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill,
2017.
Taylor, Joan E. “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory
Revisited.” Pages 275–285 in Go out and Study the Land ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological,
Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by A.M. Maeir, J.
Magness, and L.H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Taylor, Joan E., Kaare L. Rasmussen, Gregory Doudna, Johannes van der Plicht and
Helge Egsgaard. “Qumran Textiles in the Palestine Exploration Fund, London:
Radiocarbon Dating Results.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137 (2005): 159–167.
Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012.
Teeter, David Andrew. Scribal Laws. Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of
Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Teicher, Jacob Leon. “The Ben Asher Bible Manuscripts.” JJS 2 (1950): 17–25.
Teppler, Y.Y. Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World. TSAJ
120. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Teugels, L. “The Creation of the Human in Rabbinic Interpretation.” Pages 107–127 in
The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish
and Christian Traditions. Edited by G.P. Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah. Edited by M. Goshen-Gottstein.
Jerusalem: Magness, 1995.
The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah. Edited by C. Rabin, S. Talmon, E. Tov.
Jerusalem: Magness, 1997.
The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel. Edited by M. Goshen-Gottstein, S.
Talmon, G. Marquis. Jerusalem: Magness, 2004.
Thiem, Jon. “The Great Library of Alexandria Burnt: Towards a History of a Symbol.”
Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1979): 507–526.
Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge
286 Bibliography
Thornton, Timothy C.G. “The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross.” JTS
37.2 (1986): 419–426.
Tigay, J. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1996.
Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice.’ ” Pages
173–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts.
Edited by S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 163–180 in The Eerdmans Dictionary
of Early Judaism. Edited by J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010.
Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “ ‘Lights Serving as Signs for Festivals’ (Genesis 1:14B) in Enūma
Eliš and Early Judaism.” Pages 31–47 in The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-
interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity,
and Modern Physics. TBN 8. Edited by G.H. van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Timothy Johnson, Luke. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Esther as a Type of Christ and the Jewish Celebration
of Purim.” Pages 183–187 in Studia Patristica: Vol. XLIV: Archaeologica, Arts,
Iconographica, Tools, Historica, Biblica, Theologica, Philosophica, Ethica. Edited by
J. Baun et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22.” CBQ 70 (2008): 709–728.
Tov, Emanuel, ed. The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and An Introduction to the
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.
Tov, Emanuel. “History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages
49–66 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Edited by
M. Sæbø. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996.
Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Ketiv-Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscript Finds in the
Judean Desert.” Pages 199–207 in Text, Theology and Translation: Essays in Honour of
Jan de Waard. Edited by S. Crisp and M. Jinbachian. Swindon: UBS, 2004.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Myth of Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture.” Pages 37–45
in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by E. Martin-
Contreras and L. Miralles-Marcia. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2014.
Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the
Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Tov, Emanuel. The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2001.
Tucci, Pier L. “Galen’s Storeroom, Rome’s Libraries, and the Fire of AD 192.” JRA 21
(2008): 133–149.
Bibliography 287
Tucci, Pier Luigi. “Flavian Libraries in the City of Rome.” Pages 277–311 in Ancient
Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Wolf. Cambridge:
Tuckett, C.M. “Scripture and Q.” Pages 3–26 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. BETL 131.
Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
Turner, Eric G. “Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus.” Pages 141–146 in Akten des VIII.
Internationalen Kongresses für Papyrologie Wien 1955. Wien: Rohrer, 1956.
Turner, Eric G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford: University Press, 1968.
Tutrone, Fabio. “Libraries and Intellectual Debate in the Late Republic: The Case of
the Aristotelian Corpus.” Pages 152–166 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K.
Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Ulmer, Rivka. “Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and
Jesus.” Pages 115–122 in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation. Edited
by Z. Garber. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2011.
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants.
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Ulrich, Eugene et al. Qumran Cave 4: XI: Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon,
2000.
Ulrich, Eugene. “4QSamc: A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 14–15 from the Scribe
of Serek Hayyahad 1QS.” BASOR 235 (1979): 1–25.
Ulrich, Eugene. “Clearer Insight into the Development of the Bible—A Gift of the
Scrolls.” Pages 119–137 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings
of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem July 6–8, 2008.
STDJ 93. Edited by A.D. Roitman, L.H. Schiffman, S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Urbach, E.E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1975.
Vallalba, P. i Varneda. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. ALGHJ 19. Leiden: Brill,
1986.
van der Kooij, Arie. “Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual
History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature.” Pages
63–78 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by
E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Marci. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
2014.
van der Kooij, Arie. “The Septuagint, the Recension of Theodotion, and Beyond—
Comments on the Quotation from Isaiah 42 in Matthew 12.” Pages 201–218 in Textual
Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum. SCS 60. Edited by J. de Vries and M. Karrer.
Atlanta: SBL, 2013.
288 Bibliography
van der Spek, R.J. “The Babylonian City.” Pages 57–74 in Hellenism in the East. Edited by
A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White. London: Duckworth, 1987.
van Peursen, Willem T. “The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira.” Ph.D. diss.,
Leiden, 1999.
van Ruiten, Jacques T.A.G.M. Abraham in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 161. Leiden: Brill,
2012.
van Ruiten, Jacques T.A.G.M. Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis
1–11 in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Van Seters, John. “Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew
Scriptures?” Pages 47–61 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the
Masoretes. Edited by E. Martin-Contreras and L. Miralles-Marcia. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2014.
VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. London: SPCK, 1994.
VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010.
Varner, William. Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus,
Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: Introductions, Texts, and Translations.
Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 2004.
Vermes Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Complete Edition. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books, 2004.
Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. SPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961.
von Massow, Wilhelm. Die Grabmäler von Neumagen. Edited by E. Krüger. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1932. Repr. 2012.
von Weissenberg, Hanne, J. Pakkala and M. Martilla, eds. Changes in Scripture: Rewriting
and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. BZAW 419.
Von Weissenberg, Hanne and Christian Seppänen. “Constructing the Boundary be-
tween Two Worlds: The Concept of Sacred in the Qumran Texts.” Pages 71–97 in
Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple
Judaism. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 108. Edited by M. Pajunen
and H. Tervanotko. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015.
Vroom, Jonathan. “A Cognitive Account of Copying and a Critique of David Carr’s
Approach to Oral-Written Transmission.” JSOT 40.3 (2016): 259–279.
Waltke B.K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by H. Hartwell. OTL. London:
SCM, 1962.
Weiss, A. ‫על היצירה של היצירה הסבוראים‬. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1953.
Wendel, Susan J. Scriptural Interpretation and Community Self-Definition in Luke-Acts
and the Writings of Justin Martyr. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Bibliography 289
Werrett, Ian. “Is Qumran a Library?” Pages 78–105 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran
and the Concept of a Library. Edited by S. White Crawford and C. Wassen. Leiden:
Brill, 2016.
Wevers, J.W., ed. Exodus. SVTG 2.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
White Crawford, S.W. “The Qumran Collection as a Scribal Library.” Pages 109–131 in
The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library. Edited by S. White
Crawford and C. Wassen. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
White Crawford, S.W. and C. Wassen, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the
Concept of a Library. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
White Crawford, S.W. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2008.
Wilcox, Max. “The Denial-Sequence in Mark 14:26–31, 66–72.” NTS 17.4 (1971): 426–436.
Wise, Michael O. “Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of Linguistic Dating of
the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 103–157 in Thunder in Gemini and Other
Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994.
Wise, Michael O. “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement.” Pages 92–122
in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Wise, Michael O. “Serekh ha-Yaḥad.” Pages 3–7 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1:
Texts Concerned with Religious Law. Edited by D.W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill,
2004.
Witherington, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Wright, Benjamin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 363–388 in
A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by M. Henze. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.” Pages 71–88 in
Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 174. Edited by H. Najman,
J.S. Rey, and E.J.C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Wright, Benjamin G. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s
‘Praise of the Ancestors.’ ” Pages 183–207 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of
the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre,
Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. JSJSup 127. Edited by J. Zsengellér and G.G. Xeravits.
Wright, Brian J. Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian
Reading Practices. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.
Wright, N.T. “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response.” Pages 261–268 in Jesus and the
Restoration of Israel. Edited by C. Newman. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.
290 Bibliography
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Wright, N.T. New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Würthwein, Ernst. “Erwägungen zu Psalm 134.” VT 7 (1957): 165–182.
Yahalom, Joseph and Michael Sokoloff. Shirat Bene Ma‘arava: Shirim Aramiyim Shel
Yehude Erets-Yiśra’el Ba-Teḳufah Ha-Bizanṭit. Jerusalem: ha-Aḳademyah ha-le’umit
ha-Yiśre’elit le-mada‘im, 1999.
Yahalom, Joseph. “Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use of Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity.” JJS 47 (1996): 33–44.
Yalkut Shimoni. Osef midrashe hazal le—esrim we-arba’ah sifre Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim.
Jerusalem: Monzon, 1960.
Yardeni, Ada. “A Note on a Qumran Scribe.” Pages 287–298 in New Seals and Inscriptions,
Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform. Edited by M. Lubetski. Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix, 2007.
Yellin, Joseph and Magen Broshi. “Pottery of Qumran and Ein Ghuweir: The First
Chemical Exploration of Provenance.” BASOR 321 (2001): 65–78.
Zadorojnyi, Alexei V. “Libraries and Paideia in the Second Sophistic: Plutarch and
Galen.” Pages 377–400 in Ancient Libraries. Edited by J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou,
and G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Zahn, M.M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked
Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Zangenberg, Jurgen. “Opening up Our View: Khirbet Qumran in a Regional Perspective.”
Pages 170–188 in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions and New
Approaches. Edited by D.R. Edwards. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Zangenberg, Jürgen. “Wildnis unter Palmen? Khirbet Qumran im regionalen Kontext
des Toten Meeres.” Pages 129–164 in Jericho und Qumran. Edited by B. Mayer.
Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2000.
Zeitlin, Solomon. “Were there three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” Pages 469–472 in
The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. Edited by S.Z.
Leiman. New York: Ktav, 1974.
Ziegler, J. ed. Isaias. VTG 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
Index of Ancient Sources
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 19:30 138n41

20:1–18 83
Genesis 21:12 89
1:1–2:3 xii, 36, 37, 38, 39 22:1–14 81
1 xvi, 31, 32, 33 22:17 93
1:1–5 32 34:3 138n41
1:6–8 33 41:8 83
1:9–13 33 47:31 84
1:14–19 34 49:10 93
1:14b 34n24
1:20–23 34 Exodus
1:24–26 35n25 1:22 92
1:24–31 34 1:22–2:2 94
1:26–27 xvii, 182, 184, 189, 200, 2:1–2 92
207, 208, 249 2:14 92
1:26 193, 200n67 7:11 83
1:27 199 9:11 83
2:1–3 35 15:11 132n17
2–3 72n123 17:14 95
2:2 84, 120n38 19:12–13 88
3:9 201 21:8 213n20
3:24 218 23:20 103, 104
4:6 99 24 142n57
4:10 xvii, 176, 178, 181, 182, 24:1 142n57
188, 207, 249 24:5 210
4:14 189 24:8 89
4:16 189 24:9 142n57
5:1 204, 205, 208, 215 24:15–18 142n57
5:1–2 200 25:40 89, 120n38
5:24 84
6:6 193 Leviticus
11:6 95 5:1 180
12:7 92 11:21 213n20
12:10–20 83 18:5 121
13:1–15:4 90 19:18 111, 92, 112
13:10 138n41 23:29 94
14:2 138n41 26 38
14:8 138n41 25:29 191
14:17–20 84n26 25:30 211, 213n20
15:6 92
17:14 202n73 Numbers
18:30 87 14:34 142n56
19:17 149 15:37–16:3 93
19:22 138n41 22:19 87
19:23 138n41 25 5
292 Index of Ancient Sources
Numbers (cont.) 1 Samuel

25:11–13 5 2:3 213n20
27:1–4 85 2:16 13n20
27:3 85 15:3 95
20:22 13n20
Deuteronomy
4:24 84n26 2 Samuel
4:26 87 15:30 143n60
4:32 195, 196, 197, 200 16:18 213n20
5:32 87 19:7 213n20
6:4–5 112
6:4 111, 112, 114 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms)
6:5 111, 112 8:46 87
6:13a 109, 110 17:4 87
6:14 114 19:5–8 142n56
6:16 109, 110 19:18 121
6:16 107
8:2 142n56 2 Kings (4 Kingdoms)
8:3 107, 109, 110, 166, 167 1 193
8:3b 166 8:10 213n20
8:3c 166 8:12 151n96
9:19 88 14:6 103
10:20a 109, 110 15:16 151n96
18:15–16 92, 94 19:15 91
18:19 94
22:6 87 1 Chronicles
24:16 103 11:20 213n20
25:19 95
27–30 30, 38 2 Chronicles
29:18 87 21:14–17 151n96
30:3 141n50 25:4 103
32:35 94 29:9 151n96
32:36 94
33:2 132n17, 154n105 Ezra
32:25 151n96 4:2 213n20
32:35 120 5:12 148n83
33:8–11 66n92
Nehemiah
Joshua 9 30
1:7 87 9:5–37 91
10:12–13 93 9:6 91
Judges Esther
5:16–17 99 1:20 203
9:12 91 2:21 228
11:36 82 5:1 231
15:10b 101 6:11 228
19:17 87 6:12 228
7:9 233 90:4 219

7:10 233 90:11–12 107
8:15 229 90:11 107, 108
8:16 229 90:12 107
92:1 219
Job 95:7–11 84n25, 85, 92
5:1 132n17 100:3 213n20
6:21 213n20 103:4 121
14:21 138n42 103:19–22 30n10
15:15 132n17 104 32, 33
37–41 6 104:2–9 32
38:3 87 104:6–18 33
38:7 33 104:20–27 34
38:14 185, 186 105–106 30
38:15 186 105 5, 7, 29
40:7 87 106 29
41:4 213n20 106:23 5
106:30–31 5
Psalms 106:30 5
2:1–2 91 110[109] 92
2:7 92 110(109):4 86, 92
2:9 122 116:15 87
8:5 192, 193, 194 128:3 87
13 122 139 xvii, 189, 195n43, 198,
15:8 124, 125 200, 203, 204, 205, 208,
16[15]:10 92 209–221, 249
21:2 100, 102 139:5 195, 199
21 222n1 139:16 xvii, 199, 213, 213n20,
22 xviii, 222–239 215, 216 217, 218, 220,
22:1 227 221, 250
22:2 98, 99 139:17 203, 204, 205
22:3 230, 231 139:18 205
22:7–8 225 146:6 91
22:9 224 148 33
22:17–18 226 148:11–14 35
22:17c 226, 236 148:8 33
22:19 224 148:10 34
22:22 233
30:13 230 Proverbs
39:7–9 86, 94 3:11–12 85
39:7 126 3:11 120n38
40:6–8 86, 94 11:10 180, 181
42:3 87
69:25 86 Isaiah
89:6 132n17 2:2 163n15
89:8 132n17 4:18 –19 xv
90–150 6 6:9–10 85
Isaiah (cont.) 18:21 151n96

8:17 94 22:9 202n73
8:18 94 27:45 138n43
9:2 213n20 30:19 138n42
9:10 132n17 30:21 141n50
10:34 93:41 31:31–34 84n25, 92, 94
11:1–9 142n56 44:7 151n96
11:1 93n41 48:34 138n41
13:16 151n96 50:45 138n42
15:5 138n41 51:7 151n96
19:7 132n17
25:8 120n39 Lamentations
26:2 213n20 2:17 219
28:16 92 2:11 151n96
29:13 115, 116, 117 4:4 151n96
30:3 132n17
34:1–36:2 63n74 Ezekiel
37:16 91 7 149
40–55 138n45 7:16 149
40:3 44n13, 86, 163n15 11:17 141n50
40:8 121 28:25 141n50
40:15 87 29:13 141n50
45:14 114
45:21 121 Daniel
46:4 192, 194 2:22 87
49:5 213n20 7 131, 132, 132n17, 133,
49:6 85 143, 155
53:7 124, 125 7:13 xv, 122, 131, 152
56:3 87 7:18 132
58:6 xvi, 159, 162, 163, 164, 9:27 148n84
170, 171, 172, 216, 218 11:31 148n84
61:1–2 xvi, 159, 160, 163, 168, 12:1 141n52
169, 171
61:1 xvi, 159, 162, 171, 172 Joel
61:2 xvi, 159, 160, 163, 164, 3:1–5 163n15, 164, 165
168n27 3:2 105, 120
61:3 168n27 3:3 165
63:9 213n20
66:23 219 Hosea
6:6 92
Jeremiah 6:7 202n73
1:6 87 11:1 120
2:8 87 12:1 132n17
6:1–12 149 13:16 151n96
6:11–12 151n96
10:7 123 Amos
11:20 122 1:13 151n96
Micah 3:1–3 86
5:1–3 119 3:3 84
5:1 106n17 3:15–16 119n33
7:8 228 3:17 84, 119n34
4:3 107
Habakkuk 4:4 109, 110
1:6 66n91 4:6 107, 108, 109
2:2 66n91 4:7 103n10
4:10 109
Zechariah 5:20 13n42
2:10 141n51, 156, 157 5:43 92
9–14 145 9:13 92
12:10–14 122 11:10 84, 86, 104, 105
13–14 129, 139n45, 140 12:7 92
13:7 135, 136, 136n36, 137, 12:18–21 84
138, 138n44, 139, 141, 12:38 13n42
142, 158 13:14–15 84
13:7–9 136, 137, 138 15:1 13n42
13:7–14:5 xv, xvi 15:8 115, 116, 117
13:7–14:6 128–158, 146 17:5 119n34
13:8–9 142 19:19 92
13:9 136n36, 138, 138n45 21:5 84
14 139n45, 142, 143, 144, 21:42 84
248 22:39 92
14:1 147 22:44 84
14:1–2 146 23:2 13n42
14:1–5 147, 151 23:13 13n42
14:1–6 139n45 23:14 13n42
14:2 150 23:15 13n42
14:2–5 151 26:31 84
14:3 147 27:46 84, 98, 99, 100
14:4 143, 145, 147 27:29 224
14:5 xv, 130, 132n17, 140n45, 27:35 224
149–150, 152, 153, 154, 27:39 224
155 27:43 224
14:5–6 146 24:45 231
14:7 219 27:46 225, 233
27:47 99
Malachi 27:51 232
3:1 86, 103, 104, 106, 163n15 27:51–52 232
4:6 87 27:54 232
Mark
New Testament 1:2–4 86
1:2–3 163n15
Matthew 1:12–13 103
2:6 84, 119, 120 4:16–17 140
2:15 84, 119, 120 7 115
Mark (cont.) 15:1 135n34

7:6 103, 115, 116, 117 15:17 224
8:31 135n34 15:24 224
8:38 130, 152–155 15:29 224
9:1 154 15:33 231
9:2–9 142n57 15:34 98–100, 101, 103, 225,
9:42–49 137 231, 233
9:49 137n39, 139n45, 141 15:35 99
10:33 135n34 15:38 232
10:34 135n34 15:39 232
11:2–5 135n34
12:28–34 112, 113 Luke
12:29–31 111, 112 3:1–6 86
12:29 111 3:21 166
12:30 111, 112 4 246
12:31 111 4:3 107
12:32 114, 121 4:4 109, 167
13 xv, xvi, 128–129, 130, 4:8 109, 110
131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 4:10–11 107, 108
140, 145, 146, 248 4:12 109
13–14 129, 134–158 4:18–19 xv, 159–172
13:1–2 142 4:22 167
13:2 146 4:24 164n18
13:3 143, 145 7:27 104
13:4 129, 146 9:26 153n104
13:7–8 129–130 23:24 224
13:14 147, 150 23:44 231
13:14–17 145, 147, 150, 151 24:44–48 94
13:14–19 134n30 23:45 232
13:14–22 141n52, 147
13:14–23 148 John
13:19 141n52 1:19–23 86
13:20 147 3:28 86
13:24 134n30 19:24 224
13:24–27 129, 152, 157
13:26 xv, 128, 130, 130–134 Acts
13:26–27 145, 146, 147, 152, 1:15–26 94
155–158 1:16–20 86
13:27 141, 156 2:12–21 163n15
14:10 43, 64, 135n34 2:14–36 91
14:13–15 135n34 2:17–21 84, 165
14:18 135n34 2:18 105, 120, 165
14:27 135, 139, 141 2:22 84
14:27–28 134, 136 2:25 124
14:27–31 140, 141 2:25–28 84
14:28 135 2:27 92
14:29 140 2:30–36 94
14:50 136 2:34–35 84
2:43 84 26:22 95
3:12–26 91 26:22–23 94
3:18–26 94 28:25–29 94
3:22 92 28:26–27 84, 85
3:22–23 94
3:35 92 Romans
4:8–12 91 1:2–4 94
4:24 91 3:4 103n10
4:24–30 91 3:10 103n10
4:25–26 91 4 93
4:27 91 4:3 92
4:30 95 4:9 92
5:12 95 4:22 92
5:32 95 5:14 202n74
6:7 165n21 8:31–39 95
6:8 165n21 9:6–33 94
7 78, 88, 91 9:33 92
7:2–53 91 10:5 121
7:3 88 10:11 92
7:7 88 11:4 121
7:26–28 88 12:19 120
7:27 88 15:7–12 94
7:32–34 88
7:35 88, 92 1 Corinthians
7:37 88, 92 15:45–47 202n74
7:40 88 15:54 120n39
7:51–53 88, 91
7:53 81 2 Corinthians
8:30–35 94 6:2 95
8:32 124, 125 6:16–18 95
10:42–43 95
13:16–41 91 Galatians
13:16–47 88 3:10 107
13:17–22 88 3:19 81
13:22 88
13:25 88 Ephesians
13:32–41 94 4:7–12 95
13:33 84
13:34 84 1 Thessalonians
13:35 84 3:13 153n103, 155
13:41 84
13:46–47 94 Hebrews
13:47 84, 85 1:1–4 92
15:12–20 94 1:5–13 95
15:16–18 84 1:5 92
17:2–3 94 1:6 86
23:5 84 1:7 121
Hebrews (cont.) James

2:2 81 2:23 94
2:5–13 95
2:6 95 1 Peter
2:13–14 94 1:15–16 95
3–4 92 1:23–25 95
3:1–6 92 1:25 121
3:7–4:11 93 2:4–8 95
3:14–4:10 85 3:8–12 95
4:1–10 95
4:4 84, 120n38 2 Peter
4:14–7:28 93 1:17 119n34
5:5 92
5:5–6 86 Revelation
5:5–10 95 1:7 122
5:6 92 1:13 122
7:1–2 84n26 2:23b 122
7:8 95 2:27 122
7:17 95 15:3–4 123
7:17–22 86, 95
7:21 92
8:1 92 Dead Sea Scrolls
8:5 89, 120n38 1QM 1:16 132n17
8:8–12 92 1QM 10:11–12 132n17
8:8–10:18 93 1QM 12:1 132n17
9:20 89 1QM 12:4 132n17
10:5 126 1QM 12:7 132n17
10:5–7 86, 94 1QM 13:4–5 27n2
10:5–10 94, 95 1QM 15:14 132n17
10:15 95 1QSa 52–53
10:15–17 94 1QSb 1:5 132n17
10:16–17 92 1QS 1–2 xii, 27, 29n7
10:26–39 95 1QS 1:21–24 29
10:30 94, 120 1QS 1:21–22 30n9
11 78 1QS 2:2b–4a 29n6
11:5 84, 95 1QS 8.14–1 44n13
11:18 89 1QS 11:7–8 132n17
11:21 84 1QIsaa 57n54, 72
12:1 95 1QpHab 2:15–16 66n91
12:5 120n38 1QpHab 2:16–17 66n91
12:5–6 85 1QpHab 3:1 66n91
12:5–11 95 1QpHab 6:12–16 66n91
12:18–24 88 1QpHab 6:17–7:2 66n91
12:20–21 88 1QpHab 7:3–5 66n91
12:29 84n26 1Q17–18 52–53
13:5 120n38 1QapGen (1Q20) xivn1, 79
13:5–6 95 1QapGen 16–23 83
13:6 84 1QapGen 2:1 132n17
1Q21 52, 53 4Q286 27n1, 27n2, 31n14

1Q22 52, 53 4Q286–90 28n3
1Q23–24 52, 53 4Q286 1 i 28n3
1Q26 52, 53 4Q286 1 ii 32, 37
1Q27 52, 53 4Q286 1 ii–7 i 27
1Q29 52, 53 4Q286 2a–c 36
1Q33 52, 53 4Q286 5a–c 33
1Q34 3i 6–7 34, 35 4Q286 3a–d 33
1QH 3:21–22 132n17 4Q286 3a–d 6, 33
1QH 4:24–25 132n17 4Q286 5a–c 9 34
1QH 10:35 132n17 4Q286 6 36
1QH 11:22–23 34 4Q286 7 i 36
1Q35 52, 53 4Q286 7 ii 37
1Q45 51n33 4Q286 12 33
2Qa–b 52, 53 4Q286 20a–b 27n2, 28n3
2QEnGiants ar 52, 53 4Q287 27n2
2Q19–20 52, 53 4Q287 1–5 27, 31n14
2Q26 52, 53 4Q287 1 34
3Q5 52, 53 4Q287 2a, b 33
4Q15 33 4Q287 2 6 33
4Q17 33 4Q287 3 34
4Q19 33 4Q287 3 2–3 34
4Q20 32 4Q287 4 2 35
4Q23 33 4Q287 5 35
4Q35 66n92 4Q287 5 ii 35
4Q86 3n1 4Q287 6–7 27
4Q87 7 4Q287 6 37
4Q112 66n92 4Q287 8–11 35
4Q113 66n92 4Q287 8–9 28
4Q158 78n8 4Q287 9 13 30n13
4Q162 64 4Q288 27n2
4Q169 64 4Q289 27, 36n30
4Q175 57n54, 66n92 4Q289 2 36
4Q176a 52, 53 4Q290 27n2
4Q181 1:3–6 132n17 4Q299–301 52, 53
4Q203 52, 53 4Q299 52, 53
4Q213–214 52, 53 4Q320 64n78
4Q216–24 52, 53 4Q364–367 78n8
4Q225–227 52, 53 4Q370 1 i 1–2 34
4Q228 52, 53 4Q370 I 1–2 34
4Q252 64n78 4Q370 I 1–2 35
4Q258 64 4Q374 52, 53
4Q264 64 4Q375 52, 53
4Q265 7ii 44n13 4Q376 52, 53
4Q266–273 52, 53 4Q377 52, 53
4Q280 27n2 4Q381 31, 32, 32n17
4Q285 52, 53 4Q381 I 33, 37
4Q286–87 xii, 27 4Q381 I 3 32
Hebrews (cont.) 11Q13 1:9 132n17

4Q381 I 6 33 11Q14 52, 53
4Q381 I 8–9 34 11Q17 52, 53
4Q381 I 13 33 11Q18 52, 53
4Q381 II 9 35 11Q19 66n92, 78n8
4Q381 II 9 18–20 35 11Q29 52, 53
4Q381 99 KhQ161 8
4Q394–399 52, 53 Kh2207 8
4Q394 66n92, 52, 53 KhQ1196/2.17 8
4Q395–397 52, 53
4Q395 64n78
4Q400–407 52, 53 Early Christian and Greco-Roman
4Q400 52, 53, 66n92, Literature
132n17
4Q401 52, 53, 66n92 1 Clement
4Q402 52, 53 15:2 115–116
4Q403 52, 53
4Q404 52, 53 Augustine
4Q405 32, 33 Haer. III 9.3 119n33
4Q405 32
4Q406 52, 53 Aphrahat
4Q407 52, 53 Demonstrations 17.10. 226n22
4Q416 12n37
4Q418 12, 12n37 Cicero
4Q427–432 52, 53 Att. 4.10.1 14n47
4Q255–264 52, 53 Att. 4.14.1 14n47
4Q434 64 Att. 8.11.7 14n47
4Q440 52, 53 Att. 8.12.6 14n47
4Q471 52, 53 Att. 9.9.2 14n47
4Q482–483 52, 53 Att. 13.3 70
4Q491–496 52, 53 Att. 13.31.2 14n47
4Q497 52, 53 Att. 13.31.23 14n47
4Q530–533 52, 53 Att. 13.31.25 14n47
4Q533 52, 53 Att. 13.31.27 14n47
4Q540–541 52, 53 Att. 13.31.29 14n47
4Q556 52, 53 On Ends. 3.2.7 22n97
5Q11 52, 53
5Q512 52, 53 Didache
5Q13 30n9 16 139n45
5Q15 52, 53 16:5 139n45
6Q8 52, 53 16:7 139n45, 155
6Q15 52, 53
11Q5 xvii, 3n1, 7, 213 Galen
11Q5 26:13 34 Commentarii in
11Q5 26:10–11 33 Hippocratem Epidem. 3.4–11 71n119
11Q5 26:12 33 Commentarii in
11Q12 52, 53 Hippocratem Epidem. 3.17a 71n119
De an aff. dignet cur. 5.48 58n55 Suetonius

De cognoscendis curandisque On Poets—Life of
animi morbis 9 58n55 Vergil 22–25 101n101
Peri Alupias 5 70n115 On Teachers 27 11n33
Peri Alupias 13–15 68
Peri Alupias, 13 61n61, Tertullian
68 Marc. 3.19.5 226n21, 234n51
Homer
Il. 6.148–149 23 Early Jewish Literature
Jerome 1 Enoch
Comm. Matt. 4.27.46 228n31 1:9 132n17
9:3 132n17
Justin 12:2 132n17
1 Apol. 35 225n19 14:8–19 32
Dial. 97 225n20 14:23 132n17
Dial. 99.1 225n17 14:25 132n17
Dial. 105 233n49 46 133n26
Dial. 106 225n18 48 133n26
Dial. 130.1–6 225n16 52 133n26
93:6 132n17
Libanius 103:2 132n17
Or. 1.55 11 106:19 132n17
108:3 132n17
Origen
Princ. 2.8.1 227n27 1 Maccabees
1:5 148n84
Plato 2:28 149
Prt. 325d 11n32
4 Ezra
Pliny the Elder 13 133n26
Nat. Hist. 13.78 21n94
Nat. Hist. 13.92 19n77 4 Maccabees
Nat. Hist., Preface, 17, 21–23 22n98 18:10–19 72
Pliny the Younger Apocalypse of Moses

Letters 3.5.7 23n104 17:4 142.m.56
Plutarch Josephus
Alc. 7:1. 12 Ant. 12.5.4 148n84
Luc. 42.1 14n48 Ant. 11.246 234
Ant. 11.261 234
Quintilian Ant. 11.266 234
Inst. Or. 10.3 24n107 Ant. 11.280 234
Inst. Or . 31.27 24n107 Ant 15.5.3 81
Josephus (cont.) 9:1–6 94

Ant. 20.259–265 10n29 9:3–6 89, 90
War 5.7.3 143n64 9:3 95
War 5.11.2 143n64 9:5 92
War 6.2.1 143n64 9:6 92
9:9–16 81
Jubilees 10:2–5 95
1:12 95 10:2 93
1:27–29 81 12:3 95
2:2 33 12:4 93
2:3 33, 36 12:4 87
2:4 33 14:2 93, 95
2:5–7 33 15:5–6 91
2:9 34 15:5 95
2:11–13 34 16:1 93
2:21 34, 35, 39 16:2–3 82
17:11 132n17 18:5 81, 82, 93
31:14 132n17 19:1–5 91
33:12 132n17 19:2–5 91
19:9 87
Life of Adam and Eve 20:1–5 91
6, 12–15 142n56 21:1 93, 95
21:2–6 91
Odes of Solomon 21:5 93
2:35 120 21:9 95
22:3 87
Philo 22:6 95
Abr. 174 104 23:1–14 90
Agr.51 105 23:4–13 91
Conf. 166 120n38 23:2 87
Congr. 177 120n38 23:5 93
Leg. 3.102 120n38 23:11 95
Post. 64 120n38 23:13 87
24:1 87, 95
Psalms of Solomon 25:5 87
17:43 132n17 29:4 95
30:4 87
Pseudo-Philo 30:5 93
3:2 89 31:1 87
3:3 89 32:1–17 91
3:4 89 32:17 95
3:8 89 32:2–4 81
3:9–10 89 32:2–3 93
3:11 89 32:3 82
3:12 89 32:10 93
8:3 93 35:1 87
8:9–10 93 35:6 87, 96
38:2 87 51:23–30 12
40:2–3 96 51:28 12, 13n41
40:2 81 82, 93
40:4 87 Song of the Three Young Men
42:1–7 81 1:36–38 32
43:5 93 1:41–50 33
48:1 87, 91 1:51–55 34
49:6 93 1:56–58 34
49:7 93 1:59–65 35
50:1 87
50:5 86 Testament of Adam
51:3–6 91 13:2 198n56
53:10 87
56:1 95 Tobit
56:6 87 8:15 132n17
58:1 95 13:5 141n50
Sirach/Ben Sira Wisdom of Solomon

10:1–5 12n39 5:5 132n17
14:18 23 10:10 132n17
17 35
17:9–10 34, 35
24:1–34 12 Rabbinic Literature
31–34 9
34:11–12 9 Babylonian Talmud
38:1–15 4n6 Baba Batra 14b–15a 198n56
38:3 12n39 Berakot 61a 199
38:24–39:11 4n8, 12n39 ‘Erubin 18a 199
38:24 9 Hagigah 12a 195n45, 47, 196,
38:34 24 197, 198
39:1–11 9, 13 Megillah 3b/4a 190
39:2 3 Megillah 9a 203
41:1–15 4n6 Megillah 15b 223n8, 231
41:1–14 23 Megillah 20a 229n38
42–43 7 Sanhedrin 37b 179n10
42:15–43:33 6 Sanhedrin 38b xvii, 175, 176, 189,
42:17 132n17 192, 196, 198, 200,
43:11–19 4n6, 6, 7n15 201, 207, 249
44–50 4n6, 5 Sanhedrin 110a 93n43
44:1–50:21 7 Yoma 29a 231
45:2 132n17
45:6–26 4n8 Mishnah
45:23–24 5 Hagigah 2:1 196
50:1–21 8, 9 Makkot 1:10 179, 180
50:1–4 8n18 Sanhedrin 4:5 xvii, 175, 176, 177,
51:13–14 9 179, 180, 183, 188,
51:14 12 197, 200, 207, 249
Tosefta Genesis Rabbah 21:3 200n62

Berakot 1.1(2c) 228 Genesis Rabbah 24:2 200n62
Megillah 4a 230 Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 199
Sanhedrin 8 xvii Leviticus Rabbah 18:2 200n62
Sanhedrin 8.2–9 175, 247 Numbers Rabbah 16:3 93n43
Sanhedrin. 8:2–3 179n12 Ruth Rabbah 7 200n66
Sanhedrin 8.3–6 176 Qoheleth Rabbah 1:17 198n56
Sanhedrin 8:6–9 186 Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 1 218
Sanhedrin 8:6 186 Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 2 218, 219
Sifre Deut. §356 209
Midrashim Tanḥuma §28 200n62, 216,
Genesis Rabbah 8:1 200n62–63 217
Genesis Rabbah 12:6 186n25
Index of Subjects
Abraham 29–30, 82–83, 87–89, 91–93, 96, Baptism 86, 88, 103–105, 142, 166, 167
132 Belial 27, 28n3, 29, 30, 37–38
Adam xvi–xvii, 166, 175–208, 215–218, 221, Ben Kalonymus of Worms 221
249 Ben Pandera 238
Admonition on the Flood 35 Ben Sira xi–xii, 3–26, 35, 244
Adversus Judaeos 226 Bilingual 203–206
Agnosticism xiii, 74, 247 Blessing xii, 27–39, 72, 88, 91, 162, 184–185,
Akedah 82, 96 192, 195, 197, 204, 216
Alexandria, library of 10, 13 21, 50n27, Body position (writing) 16–20
56n50, 68n104, 69n107, 70, 71, 118 Book access 7–14
Allusions, Biblical xi, xiv–xv, 3, 26, 30, Breviarium Ambrosianum 214
79–81, 90–92, 96–97, 114, 129–130, 137, Burning of books 53n35, 56
138n40, 139n45, 141n52, 142, 145, 147,
151–158, 194n40, 224–225 Caine and Abel 82, 178, 187–189, 207
Amram 89, 92–93 Calendar 34
Ancestry 46, 166, 187, 207, 236–237 Callimachus of Cyrene 71
Ancient Near East 19, 49 Canon 42, 43, 51, 71n120
Andrew, the Apostle 142 Catchwords 162–163, 190, 195n45, 248
Angels xii, xiv, 32–39, 81, 129–133, 144–146, Cato the Younger 25, 68
149, 152–156, 158, 176, 192–196, 208 Catullus 14, 22, 22n100
Annotation 212, 213n22, 248–249 Celestial xii, 30, 194, 196
Antioch xv, 11n33, 88, 121–122, 125, 127 Celestial King 30, 30n9, 32
Antiochus III 9n20 Church Fathers 101, 115–117, 226–227,
Antiochus IV 133, 149 235n55, 238
Aphrahat 226 Cicero 13–14, 19n77, 22, 24–25, 68–70
Apocalypse 46, 130, 218–220 Codex 20, 108
Apology/apologetic xvi, 14, 210, 225, 250 Codex Aleppo xvii, 213–214
Aquila 106, 106, 120, 123, 127, 154n105, Codex Alexandrinus (A) 100, 105, 116, 122,
199n61, 200n64, 214–215 124
Aramaic Levi Document 52, 67, 73 Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 117
Aramaic xv, 7, 23n105, 59, 79n12, 85, 99, Codex Florence (Munich Codex) 121, 190
100–102, 110–114, 117, 122, 127, 175–208, Codex Leningrad xvii, 213–214
210n9, 229n36, 230n39, 238n72 Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬100, 105, 108, 109, 119,
Archaeology 14–15, 18, 48, 51, 62n70 120n37, 124
Aristocracy 55n46 Codex Vaticanus (B) 100, 105, 113, 116, 117,
Attic period 17n67, 125 124
Atticus 14, 58n55, 68, 70 Commandments 30n13, 110–114, 201–202
Aulus Gellius 69–70 Communal xii, 18, 27, 30, 38, 40, 45, 47, 247
Community Rule 27, 46
Babel, Tower of 95, 192–193 Composition and editing 22–24
Babylonian 10n27, 138n43, 148n83, 204, 231 Copying errors xvii, 26, 66, 69, 115–116, 126,
Babylonian exile 141 199
Babylonian Talmud 175, 188, 190n31, 33, 201, Cornelius Nepos 70
206, 229, 249 Counter narrative xviii, 223–224, 228–232,
Balaam 82 237, 250
306 Index of Subjects
Covenant xii, 5, 27–31, 37, 88–95, 129, Exodus 2, 9, 36, 94, 105–106

136–137, 162, 202n73, 246 Extant xv, 23, 27–28, 32–37, 76, 80, 127, 176,
Crassus 58n55 183, 195, 207
Creation xii, xvi–xvii, 6–7, 27–39, 91, 124, Ezekiel 65, 149
151, 177–208, 246–249
Critical edition 15n55, 100, 104, 107, 115, 118, Festival xii, 35, 39, 190, 222–238
123–126, 244, 249 Firmament 33
Cross, of Jesus xv, 98–102, 111, 113, 127, 152, First Christians xv, 127
225, 226, 231, 234–236, 239, 248 First Jewish Revolt 140n45
Crucifixion 225, 226, 234–237 Flavians 9, 10n27
Curses xii, 27–39, 236 Florilegia 23
Fulfilment xiv, 94–96, 135–136
Damascus Covenant 72
Damascus Document 52, 55, 73–74 Galen 56, 68–69
David, King 226–227 Gehenna 137
Day of Atonement 216–219, 221 Gemara 179n10, 188–189, 197
Descendants 5, 85, 89, 92–93 Genealogies 81, 166
Destruction of the Temple 129–134 Genre xiv, 6, 22, 24, 25, 78–83, 90, 93, 97
Devil 165n22, 166–167, 166n25 Gentile 90, 95, 114, 129, 144–145, 148, 150,
Dialogue with Trypho 225–226, 250 225
Dictation 16, 24 Georgics 22
Didache 138n45, 158 Gideon 87, 96
Didymus the Blind 139n45 Glyph 247
Direct speech xiv, 84–90, 97, 203 Gnostic 176–177, 206, 208
Disciples 84, 91, 114, 129, 130–147, 153n102, Golem 199, 203, 205, 208
158, 204 Good Friday 226
Doctrine 44n13 Gospels xv, xvi, 81, 83, 84, 99, 110, 115, 117,
Dreams 81 139n45, 152–153, 155, 157n116, 160–163,
Dunash ibn Labrat 211 180, 224, 225–227, 232
Duplicate 67, 69, 72–73, 187 Göttingen edition 109, 112, 159n1, 165n20,
Dynastic Egypt 9n22 170n28
Grammar 10n29, 32n21, 68, 101, 168, 169, 171
Early Christian Quotations 118–126 Grammatikos 56
Easter 101, 103, 106–107, 110–114 Greco-Roman 16, 50, 234, 235n54, 247n10,
Eden 195–200 251n13
Eleasar ben Judah 221 Greek Isaiah 168
Elect group xii, 30, 35–36, 141, 151n97, 152, Greek versions xv–xvi, 100, 113, 123, 138,
155–157 141n50, 159, 162, 164n17, 165, 169
Elijah 87, 99, 193
Enoch 41, 52, 67, 73, 133 Halakic xvii, 46, 176–179, 190, 206–207,
Epicurean 67 211n11, 214
Eschatological xv, 106, 129, 135–136, Haman xviii, 229, 234–239
138n44–45, 140n46, 146, 158, 161 Hannah 86, 91
Essene xiii, 40–74 Heaven 32–34, 96, 131–133, 146, 152, 153n102,
ESV translation 213 155–157, 158, 165, 184–186, 189, 193–198,
Evangelist 120n40, 153n102, 156, 224, 228 201–202
Evargrius 234 Hebrew University Bible Edition
Exile 29, 36, 91, 129, 141, 150, 188–189 (HUBP) 210
Hellenistic xv, 3–26, 50n27, 28, 58, 71–72, Judas 86, 94, 136

103, 110, 113–114 Judgement 80, 131, 134n30, 137n39, 152,
Herculaneum 14, 15, 50n28, 53n35, 60–61, 154n104, 163n14, 202n72, 218, 219, 221,
67 232
Heresy xvi, 175–208, 226n26 Justice 32, 181
Hermeneutic 77, 83, 87–88, 94–97, 122n45, Justin Martyr 225–226, 238, 250
162–164, 171, 180, 204, 212
Herod 59, 225 Kaige xv, 105–106, 110, 120, 127
Historical Books 103, 121 King of Jews 224
Historical Jesus 103, 110, 248 Kingdom of God 132, 145, 154–155
Hodayot xii, 38, 52, 66, 73
Holy Spirit 91–92, 166, 172 Late Antique Period xviii, 4n7, 17, 125, 127,
Homer 6n11, 11n32, 12, 23n105, 68–71, 71n119 177, 222–239
Homily xvii, 187, 207 Latin 67n98, 79n12, 80, 101, 210n9, 214
Homoioteleuton 189 Laws 24, 28n3, 38, 86, 93–94, 110, 149, 178,
Hybrid Quotation xv, 159–172 182, 187, 211, 235
Hymn of Creation 6, 7, 14, 23 Law, The 30, 36, 110
Hymn to the Creator 33 Lectio continua 99, 100, 107, 124
Letter of Aristeas 71
Ideology 30, 41–42, 50–51, 55n44, 57, 59, 60, Levites 29–30, 38
62, 64, 66, 245 Lexeme 143, 169, 171, 248
Infinitive 159n1, 168–172 Libanius 11, 11n33
Inkwells 19, 22, 25, 46, 46n17, 57n54 Library, Qumran 13, 13n43, 14–15, 19, 40–74,
Isaac xiv, 82, 91, 93 245
Israel x, 5, 29, 30, 35, 38, 40, 78, 83, 87, 88, Library collections 15–16
89, 90–93, 97, 104, 106–107, 110, 114, 117, Library furniture xi–xii, 3n1, 4n7, 14–15
119, 122–123, 127, 129–142, 144, 154, 158, Likeness to God xvi–xvii, 175, 184, 193, 196,
162, 180, 195, 202, 217, 229, 248 197, 205–206, 208
Literary structure 164, 169–172
Jacob 91, 93, 132 Liturgy xii–xiii, 27–39, 52, 230–231
James, the Apostle 136, 142 Loanword 200n67, 203–204
Jehuda he-Hassid xii, xvii Lord’s anointed one 91
Jeremiah 65, 94, 123 Lucianic 114, 122, 125, 127
Jerome 139n 45, 227, 230 Lucullus 69–70
Jerusalem 8n18, 12, 13, 71, 95, 129, 145 Luke-Acts 83, 96, 105, 164n19
Jerusalem Talmud 93n41
Jesus and his followers xiv, 77, 94, 95, 100, Maimonides 209, 214n23
105, 106, 127, 131, 225–226 Marcus Aurelius 56, 68–70
Jesus’ execution/death 81, 141 Marcus Cato 22n97, 24–25
Jesus tradition 98–127 Markan tradition 98–102, 111–113, 134, 137,
Jewish scribe(s) x, 3–26 142, 145, 153–155
John, the Baptist 86, 88, 91, 103, 136, 142, Martyr 72n123, 137n38
153n102 Masada 62n66, 62n70
Joseph 165n22, 166–168 Masora 190
Josephus xiv, 9, 10n29, 22, 43, 44n13, 59n57, Masoretic Text (MT) xvii, 63–65, 86, 99,
78, 79, 90, 143–144, 234 104, 109–110, 114–116, 122–123, 136n36,
Joshua 87, 90, 91, 95–96 137–138, 149–151, 154n105, 170n28, 210,
Judah 58, 86, 92–94, 102, 144 212–214, 221, 222n1, 249
Medieval xviii, 17 Parallels (between books) 74, 80, 84, 101,

Megilla 190–191, 229 103n10, 104, 105, 108, 116, 125, 129, 130,
Meir Abulafia 209 132, 133, 150, 153n104, 157, 168–172,
Memory xi–xii, 3, 11n33, 22–25, 91, 100, 177, 175–177, 183–186, 201, 203, 207, 213,
179, 191, 234, 244, 246 229, 247
Menachem ben Saruk 211 Parallels (literary technique) xvi, 27n1,
Mesopotamia 6, 17, 24n111 27n2, 91, 160, 165, 168–172, 246
Messiah 133, 140n47, 152, 218–220 Parousia xv, 128, 139n45, 153n103, 158, 161n4
Middle Ages 133 Passion xviii, 98, 157n116, 224–233, 235–236,
Midrash xiv, xvii, 77n3, 78, 80, 93, 97, 179n11, 248
186n25, 193–198, 202, 207, 210–221, Patriarchs 7, 23, 36
222–225, 232–233, 239 Pentateuch 71, 78n8, 83, 96, 112, 121
Miracle 231–232 Pesharim xiv, 64, 66, 78, 95, 97
Mishna xvii, 175–208, 249 Pharisees 13, 146n78, 225
Mnemonic 176, 188–192, 197, 202, 207 Philides 56
Mordecai 228–230 Philo 44n13, 104, 105, 120
Morphology 61, 63–64, 124 Philodemus collection 60–61, 67
Mosaic Law xiv, 81 Philosophy 14, 50n28, 67–68, 183
Moses xiv, 30, 52, 81–95 Phineas 5
Mount of Olives 140–148 Piety 72, 228
Mysteries 32, 52, 67 Plato 11n32, 19, 68
Pliny the Elder 21n94, 22, 22n98, 23, 24n109,
Nag Hammadi 13n43, 50n28 44
Nazareth xiv–xv, 159, 164, 165n22, 166–168, Pluriformity 70, 98, 118, 183, 206, 210n9,
171 248–249
Neofiti, Targum 201–202 Plutarch 11
Nero 11, 58n56 Poetry xvi, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 33, 37, 146, 151,
Nestle-Aland 107 160–172, 235n59, 236n61, 33, 37, 146, 151,
NETS 215 159, 168n27, 233n49, 236–238
New Jerusalem 52, 67 Polemic xviii, 184, 222–223, 226, 230–231,
NJPS 224n13 234–235, 238–239, 250–251
Noah 89, 193 Population 58n56
Nomos 110, 114 Praise of the Fathers xi, 5, 7, 23
NRSV 224n13 Prayers xii, xiv, 35, 39, 52, 81, 83, 90–92, 97,
221, 232–236, 248
Old Greek 104, 105, 106, 109–110, 112, 116–117, Priest 3, 5, 9, 12, 29, 29n6, 46, 55n44, 59n57,
120, 126–127 60, 71, 86, 92, 96
Oracles xv, 86 Private (collection, property, goods) xi,
Original sin 175 12–16, 22–25, 50, 60n60, 72, 73
Orthography 61–65, 100 Prophetic 6, 40–41, 46, 65, 86, 95–96, 103,
106, 110, 113, 121, 130, 132, 136n34, 139n45,
Pagan 131, 144, 176, 184, 200 141–158, 163n15, 167, 171–172, 194,
Palantine 56, 68–69 225–227, 250
Paleo-Hebrew 61 Proto-text/prototype xv, 65, 115, 120–121, 127,
Palestine 58n56, 62, 79, 201, 204, 230–232 137n36, 141n52, 186–187, 249
Palestinian Talmud 229 Psalterium Gallicanum 100–102
Papyri 10, 16, 17, 50n28, 53n35, 61n61, 67 Psalterium Romanun 214
Parables 3, 13, 140, 147 Pseudo Aristeas 59n57
Pseudo-Philo xiv, xiv n1, 78, 81–82, 87 Scrolls, burned/charred 53n35

Ptolemy 10 10n27, 12, 59n57, 70–71, 71n119 Sectarian 43, 44n13, 50–51, 55, 62n71, 63,
Purim xviii, 190, 191n35, 222–238, 250 243
Purity 46, 115, 137–138 Seder Eliahu Rabba 215
Sefer Rokeach 221
Quintilian 24 Seleucid 8–10, 41, 51
Qumran-Essene hypothesis 52, 62n70 Semantic xvi, 101, 149, 168–169, 170n28,
Quotations in Q 102–111 171–172
Quotations in Markan tradition 111–118 Seneca 58n55
Septuagint xiv–xv, 80, 98–99, 100–127,
Rabbi Elieser 216–218 136n36, 138, 149, 151–153, 156–158, 159n1,
Rabbi Ḥelbo 230 165n20, 169, 170n28, 171n29, 200n64,
Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great 228–229 210n9, 214, 226, 232–234, 249
Rabbi Jehoshua 216–218 Septuagint Manuscripts 100–102
Rabbi Joshua 190, 218, 230–231 Septuaginta Gottingensis 112
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi 190, 218, 230 Serekh ha-Milḥamah 52, 66, 72–73
Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta 228–229 Serekh ha-Yaḥad 43, 45–46
Reflection/cogitatio 24 Suetonius 23n101
Refugees 55 Silence 81, 231
Rengstorf-Golb position 40–45, 51 Simon II 9–10, 235–236
Repetition (style) 37n31, 193 Sinai 30n11, 88, 91
Republican Period 67 Singing xii, 31–33, 35, 37–38, 91, 219
Resh Laqish 203–205 Son of man xv, 129–134, 140n45, 141, 145n76,
Resurrection 94, 135 146, 147, 151–158
Rhetoric 24, 82, 166, 167, 172, 202–203 Song of the Three Young Men 31–33, 37, 38
Roman mural 18 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice xii, 35, 38
Roman Period 4n7, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17–18, 19, 22, Sonship xvi, 92, 165n22, 166–168, 172
41, 50, 58, 67, 69, 72, 131, 143, 188, 210, Spirit 32, 37, 91, 159, 165–169
224, 227 St. Paul 84, 88, 91, 153n103
Rome 4, 9n20, 13, 20n82, 21, 56, 68–70, 80 St. Peter 91, 136, 140, 142, 152, 153n104
Rubric 27n2, 34, 36, 37 Stars, constellations 34, 89, 131
Stephen (of Acts) 78, 88, 91–92
Sabbath xii, 34–39, 216–220 Stoicism 25
Sacrifice xiv, xvi, 38, 81–82, 86, 94, 137n39, Sugya 190–192, 198n54–55, 200
149, 172 Symbolic 132, 133–134, 146, 158, 168
Sadducees 189n29 Symmachus xv, 120, 127, 138n40, 199n61,
Samson xiv, 81, 93 200n64, 214–215
Samuel 91 Symposium x–xi, 17, 175n1
Sanhedrin xvii, 91, 177, 179, 180, 186, 197 Synagogue xv, 88, 159–160, 166, 171, 210n5,
Saul 87, 95 247n10
Sayings Source (Q) 102–106 Synoptic problem 249
Scribal education 7–12, 23 Syntax 80, 169
Schools 7–13, 21, 23, 48, 65
scriptio continua 107 Tabernacle 89
Scriptoria 19, 47n18, 119 Talmud 175–208, 210, 217, 223, 227–233, 249
Scriptural Interpretation 80–84 Targum xiv, 85, 85, 93, 97, 139n45, 141n52,
Scroll of Esther 190–191, 231 178n9, 201–203, 215
Scroll use 24–25 Teachers 3, 7, 9n22, 11–13, 15, 17, 21
Temptation 103, 106–110, 159, 165n22, 204, 211, 213–214, 223, 233n49, 235n57,
166–168 237n63, 237n66, 243–244, 246, 248, 251
Tertullian 226 Transliteration 99, 248
Tetragrammaton 109, 112 Transmission 4–5, 40–41, 46, 66, 71–72, 101,
Textual reuse xi, xv, 7n15, 23, 26, 172 103–118, 125–127, 176–179, 197–198, 201,
The Instruction of Merikare 9n22 206, 211n10–11, 213–215, 243–244
Theodotion 123, 127, 214
Theognis 6n11 Virgil 22, 24
Theology xiv–xvii, 27n1, 30, 82, 92, 94–96, Vorlage 66, 101, 105, 116–117, 122–124
98–127, 130, 139n45, 163–164, 213, 220, Vulgate 201n9, 215
250
Throne xv, 28n3, 32–33, 37, 131, 233 Warehouses, ancient 56, 68
Thucydides 22 Wisdom xviii, 3, 8, 12–13, 22, 24, 220
Tischendorf, 123
Tobiad 10 yaḥad xii, 35, 27, 38, 41, 43, 246–247
Torah 21–23, 106, 113, 141, 209–218 Yalkut Shimoni xvii, 215, 217–218
Tosefta 175–179, 183–186, 180–189, 201,
206–207, 249 Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim 3n1
Trajan 13n44, 14n51 Zealot 5, 143, 144, 151n97
Translation x, 4, 29, 71, 79, 80, 86, 96n45, Zelophehad 85–86
99–100–127, 136n36, 138n43, 139n45, Zenodotus 15n55
149–150, 154n105, 162n10, 194, 203n78, Zion 168n27
Index of Modern Authors
Abegg, Martin G. 65 Kimchi, David xvii, 220

Alexander, Philip 78 Kloner, Amos, 8
Allen, Garrick V. 243–251 Koltun-Fromm, Naomi 225–226
Alter, Robert 90 Kowalksi, Beate xiv, 84
Aptowitzer, Victor xvii, 210
Askin, Lindsey Arielle xi, 3–26, 246, 251 Lear, Joseph M. xv–xvi, 159–172, 248, 251
Levy, B. Barry xvii, 211
Bauckham, Richard xiv, 83
Berkovitz, Abraham Jacob xviii, 222–239, Magness, Jodi 42
249–250, 251 Malachi, Martin 65
Berlin, Adele 234 Martinez, Florentino Garcia xv, 43, 52
Börner-Klein, Dagmar xviii, 209–221, McKnight, Scot xv
249–250, 251 Menn, Esther M. xviii, 222
Caird, G.B. xv, 151 Newman, Judith 91

Chazon, Esther 29 Nitzan, Bilhah 30
Cohn, Leopold 80 Nolland, John 162
Collins, John 132–133 Norton, Jonathan D.H. xii, 40–74, 245–247,
251
de Vaux, Roland 19, 45
Dimant, Divorah 41, 65 Pajunen, Mika S. xii, 24–39, 251
Docherty, Susan E. xii–iv, 77–97, 248, 251 Pfann, Stefan 18, 55
Dorival, Gille 222 Puech, Emile 8
Dunne, John Anthony 243–251
Rahlf, A. 107–108, 125, 126
Edwards, Timothy 215 Reinmuth, Eckart xiv, 83
Eschel, Esther 8 Robinson, J.M. 104
Evans, Craig xiv, 83, 162
Salvesen, Alison 215
Fisk, Bruce 82–83 Samely, Alexander 85–86
Fitzmyer, Joseph 161 Sanders, James A. 162, 212
Flint, Peter 6 Seeligmann, Isac L. xvii, 211
France, R.T. xv, 151 Segal, Eliezer 190
Skeat, T.C. 21
Harrington, Daniel 80–81 Sloan, Paul xv, 128–158, 248, 251
Hernandez, Juan 123 Smelik, Willem 175–208, 249, 251
Humbert, Jean-Baptiste 18 Sukenik, Eleazar 54
Ilan, Tal 80 Tarfon, R. 180

Iser, Wolfgang 242 Taylor, Joan 55
Teeter, Andrew xvii, 210
Jauhiainen, Marko xiv, 84 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 56, 63–64, 65, 123
Tooman, William A. x–xviii, 244
Kacz 222 Tov, Emanuel 50, 58, 61, 62, 63–65, 73
Karrer, Martin xiv–xv, 98–127, 248 Turner, Eric G. 59
312 Index of Modern Authors
van der Woude, Adam 43 Wellmann, Betinna 222

Van Seters, John 212 Wevers, J.W. 56, 109, 112
Vermes, Geza 42, 78 White Crawford, Sidnie 48, 72
Wright xv, 130–132, 151
Wassen, Celia 48
Weiser, Artur 29 Ziegler, J. 115, 123, 125

(Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 107) Garrick V. Allen, John Anthony Dunne - Ancient Readers and Their Scriptures - Engaging The Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity (2019, Brill) PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

(Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 107) Garrick V. Allen, John Anthony Dunne - Ancient Readers and Their Scriptures - Engaging The Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity (2019, Brill) PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ancient Readers and their Scriptures

Ancient Judaism and Early

Martin Hengel † (Tübingen)

Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin)

Lutz Doering (Münster) – Tal Ilan (Berlin) – Judith Lieu (Cambridge)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ajec

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Garrick, Allen V., editor.

Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian Antiquity x

2 What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like? 3

3 Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings and Curses in

5 Exegetical Methods in the New Testament and “Rewritten Bible”: A

6 Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition and Early Christianity:

7 The Return of the Shepherd: Zechariah 13:7–14:6 as an Interpretive

8 The Hybrid Isaiah Quotation in Luke 4:18–19 159

9 A Single, Huge, Aramaic Spoken Heretic: Sequences of Adam’s Creation

10 The Variant Reading ‫ ולו‬/ ‫ ולא‬of Psalm 139:16 in Rabbinic Literature 209

11 Jewish and Christian Exegetical Controversy in Late Antiquity: The Case

12 What does ‘Reading’ have to do with it? Ancient Engagement with

Abraham Jacob Berkovitz

John Anthony Dunne

Garrick V. Allen and John Anthony Dunne

Reading the Hebrew Bible in Jewish and Christian

essays represents yet another investment of effort to better understand an-

A Comparative Analysis.”1 Since no systematic investigation of this kind has

1 “Rewritten Bible,” “Rewritten scripture,” or just “rewriting” is a contested category. Which

Part 3, Reading Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism, begins with Willem Smelik’s

What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like?1

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004383371_002

affect reconstructions of text transmission? The aim of this study is to chal-

Table: Sir 45:23: Phineas (MS B)

]‫בגבורה [נחל שלישי‬ ‫ וגם פינחס [ב]ן אלעזר‬4 5:23a/b

45:23 And also Phineas [so]n of Eleazar | On account of his might he

This passage on Phineas contains interspersed echoes and quotations from

9 Also note that Ps 106:30–31 mentions Phineas explicitly.

Sira must integrate relevant comparative evidence where necessary. Since we

1 Ben Sira’s Scrolls

fluid, as witnessed by the variant orders of Psalms represented by the Qumran

2 What Book Access would Ben Sira Have Had?

because, Simon seems to have had pro-Hellenistic proclivities.24 Judean elites

3 How Physically would Ben Sira have Read and Written?

3.1 Library Furniture

3.2 Library Collections and the Choice of Papyrus or Parchment

The question of libraries and scribal activity at Qumran is a vast topic.74 At

4 Scrolls, Notebooks, and Writing Tools

they could find a moment to themselves, from bathhouses to travelling.97 In

5 Physicality of Composition and Editing Habits

6 Multiple Simultaneous Scroll Use

106 οῦδὲ μὴ ἐκφάνωσιν παιδείαν καὶ κρίμα (Sir 34:34a Gr).

(the Younger) that he once found him in a private library, “surrounded by

Evidence from antiquity contextualizes and reconstructs the picture we

112 Cicero, Att. 13.32.2. Translation from Casson, Libraries, 73.

be conclusively decided whether Ben Sira conducted additional prior research

Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings

The Qumran Community Rule has at its beginning a description of an an-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004383371_003

1 Creation in the Blessings of 4QBerakhot

22 Cf. Sollamo, “The Creation of Angels,” 273–290.

species separately, blessing God who created them.25 Fragment 4Q287 4 2 in

2 Creation and the Curses of 4QBerakhot

Therefore, it can be concluded that 4QBerakhot is a ritual that contains bless-

9 Also note that Ps 106:30–31 mentions Phineas explicitly.

106 οῦδὲ μὴ ἐκφάνωσιν παιδείαν καὶ κρίμα (Sir 34:34a Gr).

112 Cicero, Att. 13.32.2. Translation from Casson, Libraries, 73.

22 Cf. Sollamo, “The Creation of Angels,” 273–290.

33 Cf. Nitzan, “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–90): A Covenantal Ceremony,” 492.

48 As Cross, Ancient Library, 18 proposed.

52 Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 179–180.

66 Ibid., 262–263.

122 White Crawford, “Collection.”

126 Cf. Tov, Texts, 29–37.

128 For example, Gilliham, Taylor, Pfann.

20 This passage is discussed in detail in M. Bernstein, “The Genesis Apocryphon:

30 Samely, Interpretation of Scripture, 23.

1 The Wuppertal database (https://projekte.isbtf.de/lxx-nt/index.php) lists 449 quotations of

a Robinson, et al., Critical Edition, 134–135.

16 Cf., e.g. 4QFlorilegium = 4QMidrEschata.

a See Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 240.