182 See Golb 1985; 1989; and the full critique of his views in Garcia-Martinez and van der Woude 1990, 526–36.
183 Quod Omn. 75; Ant. 18.20. It is not clear which period Josephus is referring to. What is clear is that the monastery at Qumran could never have accommodated more than a small fraction of that number.
184 See the attractive solution of Garcia-Martinez and van der Woude, that the references to a ‘wicked priest’ are generic, capable of being reapplied to successive Hasmonean high priests.
185 See Davies 1977.
186 So Charlesworth 1980, 223f., following Milik and Murphy-O’Connor.
187 Except, that is, for the writings of Josephus, who treats them as if they were still in existence at the time of his writing of the Antiquities (18.18–22).
188 For a convenient summary, cf. Sanders 1992, 360f.
189 As noted by Jos.Ant. 18.18–19.
190 e.g. 1QS 8.5–11; 1QH 6.25–9; cf. Sanders 1992, 352–63. Among older literature see particularly Gärtner 1965; Klinzing 1971.
191 cf. e.g. CD 5.6–7; and cp. Evans 1989a, 1989b.
192 Ant. 13.172; 18.18.
193 ‘John the Essene’: War 2.567; 3.11, 19.
194 See Ant. 15.371–9. On the ‘Essene quarter’ in Jerusalem see War 5.145, and Pixner 1976; Capper 1985, 149–202.
195 War 2.128; cf. Sanders 1992, 245f., following Smith in suggesting that some actual sun-worship may have been practised.
196 I have no special theory as to the identity of the Teacher, about whom debate continues to rage. See the interesting suggestion of Davies 1985, 54: the Damascus Document (6.11) predicted the coming of such a Teacher, and the Qumran group, under the leadership of one who claimed to be the Teacher, announced itself as the fulfilment of recent, as well as ancient, prophecy.
197 As argued repeatedly by Sanders: see now 1992, chs. 16–17, esp. 375f.
198 So Sanders 1992, 357–77, esp. 359, 362, 376f.
199 So rightly Sanders 1992, 8f.
200 Sanders 1992, 368 (my italics); cp. 456f., and ch. 10 below.
201 On Messiahship at Qumran see particularly VanderKam 1988; Talmon 1987; and other literature cited by both.
202 See Beckwith 1980, 1981.
203 For the priests: Apion 2.108. This is clearly very much a round figure: he says that there were four priestly clans, each with ‘more than five thousand’ members. On the Pharisees’ and Essenes’ numbers, see above.
204 See particularly Sanders 1992, ch. 10.
205 Sanders 1992, ch. 10.
206 See particularly Goodman 1987. This is presumably what Josephus means in his descriptions of them as being boorish and rude (War 2.166; cf. Ant. 20.199).
207 Sanders 1992, chs. 15, 21.
208 On Aristobulus III, the young Hasmonean who was high priest for a while until murdered on Herod’s orders (Ant. 15.23–41, 50–6), see Schürer 1.297.
209 See Goodman 1987, passim.
210 See Sanders 1992, 332–40; Saldarini 1988, chs. 5–6, 8–10 and esp. 13.
211 See War 2.164f.; Ant. 13.173.
212 See Sanders 1990a, ch. 2, esp. 125–30.
213 War 2.165; Ant. 18.16.
214 So Attridge 1984, 177; Schürer 3.532.
215 On belief in resurrection see ch. 10 below.
216 Goodman 1987; Sanders 1992, chs. 15, 21; McLaren 1991.
217 Ant. 18.17; cf. 13.298.
218 See above, on the Pharisees in Josephus.
219 See Sanders 1992, 386: ‘The chief priests and “the powerful” obviously realized that a revolutionary government needed the co-operation of the leader of a more broadly based party than their own’ (my italics); 388: ‘they could always raise a fair following’. On 398, Sanders, in saying (surely rightly) that we must doubt whether the Pharisees ran all the synagogues, clearly allows for the possibility that they ran some, perhaps quite a lot. See esp. 402–4.
220 e.g. Sanders 1992.
221 Freyne 1988, 200, revising his earlier opinion in which he had followed Oppenheimer 1977.
Chapter Eight:Symbol, Praxis: Elements of Israel’s Worldview
1 See Millar 1990, 379f.
2 See Koch 1969; Fishbane 1985, esp. 281–440.
3 This puzzle is stated at its starkest in Ps. 89.
4 cp. the enthusiasm for these two in Zech. 3–4, which seems to have waned in Zech. 9–14.
5 Ps. 105:1–6, 44f.
6 Ps. 106:47. The final verse (48) of the canonical psalm rounds off the story, and the fourth ‘book’ of the Psalter, in a way that, though justified by the strength of the hope, must not be allowed to obscure the puzzle and the longing of the rest of the psalm.
7 See Frost 1987; Lane 1991, 2.316f.
8 Sir. 50:23f. may be an exception, but it looks more like a traditional and generalized prayer rather than an organic part of the writer’s thought.
10 Compare the summary ‘histories of Israel’ in e.g. Dt. 6:20–4; 28:5–9; Josh. 24:2–13; Pss. 78, 105, 106, 135, 136; Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:4–44; Jud. 5:5–21; 1 Macc. 2:32–60; 3 Macc. 2:2–20; Wisd. 10:1–12:27; Jos.Ant. 3.86f.; 4.43–5; War 5.379–419; CD 2.14–6.11; 4 Ezra 3:4–36; 4:29–31. Cf. too Mk. 12:1–12; Ac. 7:2–53; 13:16–41; Rom. 9–11; Heb. 11:2–12:2 (on whose parallels with Sir. see Frost 1987, and ch. 13 below); Jas. 5:10–11. I owe some of these references to (an earlier version of) Hill 1992, 100, as also the further ref. to Holz 1968, 100f.; and some others to Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 499f.
11 Jub. 36.6 (tr. Charles, rev. Rabin, in Sparks 1984).
12 The book may be found in Charlesworth 1985, 297–377 (tr. D. J. Harrington).
13 See Nickelsburg 1984, 108f.
14 Ps-Philo 51:6. In the light of this passage, and of the way in which the book leads up to the death of Saul (i.e. the prelude to David’s becoming king), I find it difficult to agree with Harrington (in Charlesworth 1985, 301) that the book is uninterested in the future Messiah.
15 Charlesworth 1985, 177–247 (tr. C. Burchard).
16 cf. Gen. 41:45; he is called Pentephres in Jos. & As. 1:3, etc.
17 See Schürer 1.99–114; 2.339–55 (on expansion of biblical teaching in general); and now esp. Strack and Stemberger 1991 [1982].
18 An extreme example is the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 21:21, mentioning the names of Muhammad’s wife and daughter.
19 See ch. 10 below. As Nickelsburg 1984, 38 points out, this pattern, of the persecution and vindication of the wise or righteous one, is a regular theme in works as diverse as Gen. 34, Esther, Ahikar and Wisd. 2–5, and has also informed the passion narratives in the gospels, and the story of Stephen’s martyrdom in Ac. 6–7. We might add 2 Macc. 7 and other passages.
21 Nickelsburg 1984, 38.
22 See ch. 10 below.
23 For details, see ch. 7 above.
24 e.g. 4 Ezra 6:55.
25 See esp. Safrai 1976b; Barker 1991; Sanders 1992, chs. 5–8. Among older works cf. e.g. McKelvey 1969, chs. 1–4. On the role of the Temple in Jewish economic life cf. e.g. Broshi 1987.
26 Safrai 1976b, 904f. This means that synagogues, like the Temple itself, were as much local socio-political meeting-places as purely ‘religious’ ones: cf. e.g. Jos.Life 276–9.
27 Safrai, ibid. Although some of the evidence for these beliefs is Talmudic, enough is found in Josephus and Philo to make the summary of great value for our purposes. See too Neusner 1979, 22 on the Temple as the vital nexus between God and Israel.
28 On Temple-worship and its significance see now particularly Sanders 1992, chs. 5–8.
29 This is illustrated in e.g. Pss. 46, 48. Readers from outside England can, I hope, translate the symbols I have used into their own equivalents: for the USA, the White House, Capitol Hill, the National Cathedral and Wall Street are the obvious start.
30 Josephus mentions the ‘gate of the Essenes’ in War 5.145.
31 See ch. 7 below. On evidence for, and attitudes to, corruption in the Temple in this period see particularly Evans 1989a, 1989b.
32 On Herod’s rebuilding of the Temple, see Jos.Ant. 15.380–425, and Schürer 1.292, 308f.; 2.57–8.
33 See Juel 1977; Runnals 1983. The Chronicler so emphasizes David’s responsibility for the building of the original Temple, and Solomon’s actual building of it, as to point forward into the future from his own perspective with the hope that another son of David might arise to rebuild and restore it once more.
34 Notable exceptions are Davies 1974; Freyne 1980, 1988. See too Brueggemann 1977.
35 Sanders 1992, ch. 9 argues that this fact is often exaggerated; but, even if he is right, the ordinary Jewish family still had to bear a fairly substantial burden of taxation.
36 cf. Ezek. 40–8.
37 See Freyne 1988, ch. 6.
38 Mt. 17:24–7; cf. Horbury 1984. We may compare Jos.Life 104–11, in which Josephus, having come from Jerusalem, attempts to dissuade Galilean rebels from their sedition.
39 See Sanders 1992, 146–57.
40 1 Macc. 3:8; Ant. 12.286 (both referring to the activity of Judas Maccabaeus).
41 Between 63 BC and AD 66 there were Roman troops stationed at Caesarea Maritima, and small garrisons in Jerusalem and a few other towns, e.g. Jericho: see, with the evidence, Schürer 1.362–7. The centurion at Capernaum (Mt. 8:5 and pars.) was presumably stationed there because it was near the border between Galilee and Philip’s territory of Gaulanitis. Customs were levied there since at least the break-up of Herod’s kingdom (Schürer 1.374).
42 On the relation between Temple and Torah see Freyne 1988, 190f.
43 Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:24–8; Dt. 9:4–5; 18:12, etc.
44 See Sanders 1990a, chs. 2–3: without travelling to the Temple, Jews would be technically unclean most of the time.
45 mAb. 3.2.
46 See ch. 7 above on Pharisees and Essenes, and esp. Sanders 1990a, ch. 3; 1992, 352–60, 376, 438–40.
47 See again chs. 6 and 7 above. The synagogue itself, as the focus of the teaching of Torah, also came to function as a major Jewish symbol. See Gutmann 1981; Levine 1987; Sanders 1990a, 67–81; 1992, 198–202. On the question of the antiquity of the building and use of synagogues cf. Shanks 1979; Kee 1990; and Sanders 1990a, 341–3, notes 28, 29.
48 e.g. Pss. 40:6–8; 50:7–15; 51:16f.; 69:30f.; 141:2. See Millgram 1971, 81–3, 254, 361. For the details: on prayer, bTaan. 2a, bBer. 32b (R. Eleazar); on acts of mercy, Aboth de Rab. Nathan 4; on study of Torah (making one equivalent to a high priest), Midr. Pss. 1:26, 2:300; on fasting, bBer. 17a. These later texts embody, to be sure, a post-destruction rationalization; but they pretty certainly also reflect the reality of pre-destruction Diaspora life.
49 cf. Sir. 24:1–23, where Wisdom is identified with the clouded Presence (24:4; cf. Ex. 14:19f.), with Shekinah (24:8–12) and then with Torah (24:23); Jos.Apion 2.277 (‘our Law at least remains immortal’); Bar. 4:1f. (‘She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever. All who hold her fast will live, and those who forsake her will die. Turn, O Jacob, and take her; walk towards the shining of her light’); 4 Ezra 9:26–37; mSanh. 10.1.
50 For the command: Lev. 23:42; cf. Neh. 8:17f. For the discussion of valid booths, mSukk. 1.1–11. For the desire to ‘get everything just right’, cf. Sanders 1992, 494.
51 Dt. 25:7–9; cf. Ruth 4:1–12; mYeb. 12.1–6.
52 For this view of oral Torah see e.g. Rivkin 1978.
53 Sanders 1990a, ch. 2.
54 1 Chron. 1–9; Ezra 2, 8, 10; Neh. 7, 12.
55 cf. Ezra 2:59–63.
56 Ezra 9–10.
57 Ezra 9:2; cf. Isa. 6:13; Mal. 2:15. The latter verse is difficult (cf. Smith 1984, 318–25; Fuller 1991, 52–4), but I suggest that it should be read: ‘Did not he [i.e. God] make one [i.e. man and woman in marriage]? And the remnant-of-spirit [i.e. the true family, returned from Babylon] is his [i.e. God’s plan for renewing Israel is in hand]. And why [did he make you] “one”? Because he intends to produce “seed-of-God” [not just “godly children”, but the true “seed”, through whom the promises will find fulfilment].’ The problem seems to be that Jews who had earlier married Jewish wives had then divorced and married pagans. This, the prophet says, is not only covenant-breaking, but is putting in jeopardy the long-term purposes of Israel’s god.
59 Ant. 11.153, reading monimon, ‘fixed’, with the Loeb, rather than the variant nomimon, ‘statutory’. The difference is immaterial for our purposes.
60 On the Samaritans see Schürer 2.16–20.
61 T. Dan 6.10 (tr. M. de Jonge in Sparks 1984, 566). The last clause is missing from one MS, and is not even noted by H. C. Kee in Charlesworth 1983, 810.
63 Jos.Apion 2.210 (cf. Ant. 13.245, where the key word is amixia, ‘separateness’). Thackeray’s note ad loc., suggesting a reference to Passover, as in Ex. 12:43, is hardly relevant to daily life (so, rightly, Sanders 1990b, 183). Cp. too the prohibitions of intermarriage in Jub. 30.7, 14–17; Ps-Philo 9.5, etc.
64 Ep. Arist. 139 (in its context), etc.
65 See War 5.193f.; 6.125f.; and Schürer 1.175f., 378; 2.80, 222, 284f.
67 See W. D. Davies 1987, 19–21; on the obligation even for children to recite certain prayers see mBer. 3.3. For the praying life of Jews as part of the whole culture see e.g. Sanders 1990a, 331; 1992, 195–208. See further below, on the use of the Bible.
68 Schürer 2.447–9, 454–63; Sanders 1992, loc. cit.
69 On the celebration of festivals outside Palestine see Schürer 3.144.
70 Schürer 2.76.
71 See Millgram 1971, chs. 8 (199–223), 9 (224–60), 10 (261–88). On the high holy days see ch. 9 below.
72 Described in mBikk. 3.2–4.
73 Not mentioned in this connection in the OT, but clearly a pre-rabbinic tradition, with echoes in the NT. See Jub. 1.5; 6.11, 17; 15.1–24; bPes. 68b; and Ac. 2:1–11; Eph. 4:7–10, etc. (see Caird 1964; Lincoln 1990, 243f., citing also evidence from the later synagogue lectionary). The addition of Simchat Torah to Tabernacles is a later innovation.
74 Millgram 1971, 214.
75 On Hanukkah see Schürer 1.162–3; on Purim, 2.450.
76 So Millgram 1971, 265.
77 Millgram 1971, 275ff.; Safrai 1976a, 814–6; Schürer 2.483f. Zech. 7:3f. mentions the fasts of the fifth and seventh months as being kept during the time of the exile. There were of course extra fast-days added in case of particular calamities; see Schürer 2.483f.; Safrai loc. cit.; and e.g. Jos.Life 290.
78 See ch. 10 below.
79 Pss. 19:7–10; 119:97, 159f.
80 Sir. 38:34b–39:8.
81 mAb. 4.10.
82 mKer. 6.9; cp. mBMez. 2.11.
84 Circumcision was prohibited under Antiochus Epiphanes, and then again under Hadrian: see 1 Macc. 1:14f.; Jub. 15.33f.; and Schürer 1.155, 537–40. Some Jews attempted at various times to remove the marks of circumcision (ch. 6 above). Though the necessity of circumcision was sometimes debated, it was basically regarded as vital for full conversion to Judaism (see the debate over the conversion of Izates in the mid-first century: Jos.Ant. 20.38–48; and the discussion of circumcision of refugees in Life 112f.).
85 See Sanders 1990a, 6–23; 1992, 208–11.
86 Sanders 1990a, chs. 3–4, modified somewhat by 1992, 214–22.
87 Sabbath: mShabb., mErub., passim, and frequently elsewhere. Purity: Tohoroth (the 6th division of the Mishnah), passim.
88 cf. Apion 2.277.
89 See ch. 10 below. This is, more or less, what Sanders means by his phrase ‘Covenantal Nomism’ (see now 1992, 262–78), and I think he is here substantially correct. On ‘works of Torah’ in Paul see Dunn 1990, 216–25; Westerholm 1988, 109–21, etc.
90 Sir. 50:25f. (the position of this statement, in the middle of the book’s peroration, is strikingly emphatic); Jn. 4:8, etc. In mBer. 7.1, however, it is presupposed that one might eat with a Samaritan.
91 So, rightly, Sanders 1990b, 179.
92 mAb. Zar. 1.1–3, 5.
93 Sanders 1990b, esp. 185f.
94 See Jos.Life 14: some priests on their way to Rome only ate figs and nuts. This introduces a moderating note into Sanders’ criticism of Bruce (1990b, 188 n.20).
95 Sanders 1990b, 181 f. The charge was made in antiquity: Tac. Hist. 5.5; Diod. Sic. 34/5. 1.1–5, speaking of the Jewish laws as ta misoxena nomima, ‘the hating-foreigners statutes’; Juv. Sat. 14.103f. See Schürer 3.153.
96 Sanders 1990b, 172f.
97 Ant. 13.245–7, esp. 247: ‘[the Jews] … did not come into contact with other people because of their separateness (amixia)’. See the note of Marcus in the Loeb, ad loc.; and cp. Apion 2.210.
98 See the full discussion in Hengel 1989 [1961], 200–6, including a discussion of non-mixing with Gentiles in the Hasmonean period.
99 See Hengel 1989 [1961], 203.
100 I think Sanders (1990b, 173f.) is thus a little unfair to Alon 1977, 146–89. Alon is not simply tracing later codes back to hypothetical early roots. The question of how long a Gentile is unclean after becoming a proselyte (mPes. 8.8 [not 8.1 as in Sanders 1990a, 284; 1990b, 174]) is not to the point; upon conversion the person becomes a Jew, and enters a new world with new regulations.
101 See ch. 7 section 2 above. We need only cite 2 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. Schiffman 1983 has shown that the regulations on relations with Gentiles in CD 12.6–11 are closely parallel to the later Tannaitic material.
102 1990a, 284; 1990b, 174ff.
103 mOhol. 18.7, with Danby’s note; cf. mNidd. 3.7. The latter passage includes a saying by Rabbi Ishmael (a contemporary of Akiba); the former is not ascribed. On this, see Alon 1977, 186, demonstrating his awareness of the way in which traditions and explanations changed meaning over time.
104 See Alon 1977, 187, 189, recognizing that though the idea of Gentile uncleanness goes back at least before the time of Herod, there was always a wide variety of actual practice.
106 Schürer 2.419, etc.
107 This would have been particularly true of the Hallel psalms (113–18, and the ‘great Hallel’, 136), and the psalms of ascent (120–34).
108 Barton 1986, chs. 6–7.
110 The ‘proof-text’ method, at least in its modern forms, stems (I think) from the typical eighteenth-century Deist ‘proof’ of, e.g., Jesus’ Messiahship—and the equally typical eighteenth-century ‘refutation’ of such a proof. Neither has much to do with the historical actuality of the first century.
111 See Brooke 1985; Mulder 1987, ch. 10 (M. Fishbane); Schürer 2.348, 354, 580, 586; 3.392, 420–1. In terms of ‘original’ meanings, Moule is right to stress the ‘sheer arbitrariness’ of the method (1982 [1962], 77–84). But I hold to my suggestion that, as far as the sect was concerned, the story of Israel had taken a turn which somehow justified this reading.
Chapter Nine:The Beliefs of Israel
1 See chs. 3, 5 above.
2 e.g. Neusner et al. 1987.
3 Schechter 1961 [1909], 46. See too Ginzberg 1928, 92: ‘The most characteristic feature of the rabbinical system of theology is its lack of system.’
4 See ch. 7 above, on diversity and unity in historical description. This is a case where a proper concern for differentiated description can obliterate the equally proper task of overall synthesis—an endemic problem in work such as Neusner’s.
5 For the family resemblance, and the underlying view, see e.g. Schechter 1961 [1909]; Moore 1927–30, etc., and Kadushin 1938, e.g. 6ff.; Millgram 1971, ch. 15 (391–436), and e.g. 260: at the end of the Yom Kippur rite, the worshippers recite three sentences from the Bible ‘whereby they rededicate themselves to the essential theological doctrines of Judaism’, which of course focus on Jewish-style monotheism. Cf. the debate between McEleney 1973 and Aune 1976, with the latter concluding that Judaism does indeed have a belief-system, but that (10) this belief system was ‘subordinate … to Jewish traditions of ritual practice and ethical behaviour’. This is not far from my distinction between worldview (ch. 8 above) and belief-systems (the present chapter). See now Sanders 1992, ch. 13 (241–78) and 413–9, esp. 416f. on discovering the presuppositions of Pharisaic attitudes.
6 e.g. Millgram 1971, 416: ‘the concept of a creed as the essence of a religious community is, as far as Judaism is concerned, as unreal as a disembodied spirit’—sounding almost as if he were quoting Jas. 2:26. Cf. Shechter 1961 [1909], 12: ‘the old Rabbis seem to have thought that the true health of a religion is to have a theology without being aware of it’. One might ask: will any theology do? Supposing it is the wrong theology?
7 There are of course several examples of Judaism picking up the language of ‘faith’ from Christians. The Jerusalem Post, on Independence Day 1989, ran a leading article called ‘Keeping the Faith’.
8 As Sanders has demonstrated quite thoroughly (1977, 420f.), the covenant is rarely mentioned explicitly, but remains absolutely fundamental to all the regular explicit statements of what makes Judaism Judaism: see below, pp. 260ff.
9 cf. the works of H. Maccoby.
10 For a similar brief account, see Riches 1990, ch. 2.
11 Evidence for Jewish pantheism may, no doubt, be found here and there. But generally the statement holds true.
12 Josephus says that Israel’s god had transferred his affections to the Romans (War 5.411 ff.), and claims Daniel as his authority for saying that god intended Rome to take Jerusalem (Ant. 10.276–80). But (a) this is most likely a clear currying of favour with his new masters, and (b) he must have been aware of the boundary-breaking significance of such a move.
13 We should perhaps add that the word ‘covenant’ here is used strictly in the first-century Jewish sense, which is not that of sixteenth-century Calvinism, nor exactly that of the 1950s ‘Biblical Theology’ movement. See below.
15 On Philo see Schürer 3.809–89; Borgen 1984. Philo is the exception that proves the rule, because of his deep dependence on Plato, as a result of which he dehistoricized and hence deeschatologized the whole Jewish worldview; though his innate Jewish sensibilities prevented him from going the whole way.
16 It is quite remarkable that the only entry to ‘monotheism’ in the index of the revised Schürer is to the discussion of the Shema (2.454f.), where there is no discussion of the belief itself. The most recent discussions of the subject (Sanders 1992, 242–7; Dunn 1991, 19–21) are helpful as far as they go, particularly in showing that some Jews were prepared to try and accommodate some features of paganism within their monotheism; but they do not seem to me to go nearly far enough in analysing precisely what monotheism meant in this period.
17 Dt. 6:4. On older forms of monotheism and its predecessors, see e.g. Rowley 1946, ch. 5; Eichrodt 1961, 220–7; von Rad 1962, 210–12; Lang (ed.) 1981.
18 Ps. 96:4–5, 10. Examples could be multiplied dozens of times, especially from the Psalms and from Isa. 40–55.
19 See Lang (ed.) 1981, etc.
20 See e.g. Epict. Disc. 1.14. 10; Frags. 3–4 (perhaps quoting Musonius Rufus); Cic. De Natura Deorum 2.38f.
21 See below. A good example is Epict. Ench. 27: nothing that is by nature evil can arise in the cosmos.
22 e.g. 4.1. 75; 4. 4.33; 4.10, passim.
23 Epict. Disc. 1.25. 18; 2.15. 6; 3.13. 14 and frequently; Socrates, though of course not himself a Stoic, and not strictly a voluntary suicide, was often held up as the great example (1.29.29).
24 See Epict. Disc. 1.12. 1.
25 On the nature and rise of Gnosticism see ch. 6 above, and ch. 14 below. On ‘Jewish Gnosticism’ see Pearson 1980, 1984.
26 Lane Fox 1986, chs. 3–5.
27 e.g. War 6.288–300.
28 This belief (that of the Epicureans) was often flagged by the phrase to theion, ‘the divinity’, in an abstract sense. Some pagans could look at Jewish monotheism and assume that this was what it was talking about (e.g. Hecataeus Frag. 13); some Jews wanted to agree with them (e.g. Ep. Arist. 16).
29 e.g. Charlesworth 1983, xxxi. For the argument against: Urbach 1987 [1975, 1979], 133f.
30 See below, p. 258f., and now also the helpful discussion in Chester 1991, 47–65. The tendency may also have sometimes been the product simply of fertile imagination. From the pagan point of view, see the discussion of different theological possibilities in Epict. Disc. 1.12.1–3.
31 e.g. Bultmann 1958 [1934], ch. 4, esp. 150ff.
32 Sanders, in following Josephus closely, has in my view allowed himself to loosen the connection between monotheism and election: 1992, ch. 13, and esp. 1991, ch. 5.
33 Thus e.g. Sir. 25:24; 4 Ezra 7:46–56; 2 Bar. 17:3; 19:8; 23:4, etc., emphasizing the Gen. 3 tradition (2 Bar. 54:15, 19 suggests, however, that ‘each of us has become our own Adam’). Following the Gen. 6 tradition are 1 En. 6–19; 64; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1–7; CD 2.17–21 and other passages. For helpful discussions of the latter theme see Alexander 1972; Bauckham 1983, 50ff.
34 Genesis Rabbah 14:6. Further discussion of this is in Wright 1991a, 21–6, and below.
36 e.g., recently, Hayman 1991; Sanders 1992, 249f.
37 An example almost at random: Conzelmann 1969, 24; cf. Sanders 1992, 249. Sometimes quoted in this connection is 4 Ezra 7:50: ‘the Most High has made not one world but two’. See below, category (9).
38 The fullest brief account I know in relation to our literature is that of Charlesworth 1969, 389 n.1, distinguishing ten types which correspond quite closely with those below, which I worked out independently before coming across his article. Sanders (1992, 523 n.21) says that he has discussed the relation of monotheism and dualism in his forthcoming Anchor Bible Dictionary article on ‘Sin/Sinners (NT)’. In his present work he uses ‘dualism’ in a variety of senses in the same passage.
39 See again Hayman 1991.
40 e.g. Schürer 3.881, referring to Philo.
41 See von Rad 1965, 301ff. This feature is referred to as ‘dualism’ in e.g. E. Isaac’s introduction to 1 En. (in Charlesworth 1983), 9f.
42 cf. Perrin 1983 [1974], 128; Charlesworth 1985, 48 (on Jubilees). It is sometimes said that the Scrolls exemplify this sort of ‘dualism’: e.g. Schürer 2.589; Urbach 1987, 162f. For a sensitive discussion of this see Charlesworth 1969.
43 For the (standard) use of ‘dualism’ here; cf. e.g. Urbach 1987, 26, 75, etc.; and cp. Nickelsburg 1984, 216 on 1 En. 42.
44 The first of these is the classic Gnostic account of anthropology.
45 e.g. C. Burchard in Charlesworth 1985, 190f.
46 Charlesworth 1969, 389. This may apply in particular to the ‘two spirits’ doctrine in 1QS (discussed, but rejected, in ibid., 395f.); it certainly applies to the ‘two inclinations’ doctrine of the rabbis (cf. Schechter 1961 [1909] chs. 15, 16; Urbach 1987 [1975, 1979], 471–83).
47 e.g. the ‘two ways’ scheme in 1QS.
48 See the discussion in Rowland 1982, 92, with Mart. Isa. 2:4; 4:2 as examples of passages which perhaps go beyond this limit.
49 e.g. de Migr. 89–93, discussed in this context by Borgen 1984, 260f.
50 A good example of this belief in the immediate presence of the god-dimension of reality is 2 Kgs. 6:17.
52 See Segal 1986, 178: ‘the issue of monotheism was parallel to the issue of community composition.’
53 cf. Chester 1991, 47–65.
54 e.g. 1QS 11.9f., 21f., with antecedents such as Ps. 119:25.
55 See Sanders 1992, 368; and chs. 7, 10 of the present work.
56 On the problems of Gnostic tendencies in some early rabbinic thought see Segal 1977; Rowland 1982, ch. 12.; Pearson 1980; 1984.
57 On asceticism among the Essenes and Therapeutae see e.g. Schürer 2.593f.
58 cf. 1QS 3.18–4.26. Initially this passage seems to be suggesting that the elect are those who have the spirit of truth, and the wicked those who have the spirit of falsehood; but in 4.15ff. it is clear that each person partakes of both, and must choose to follow the one or the other. For the two inclinations see above, n. 44.
59 See Gruenwald 1980; Rowland 1982, Part Four.
60 Segal 1977. Cf. too Lapide, in Lapide and Moltmann 1981, 34ff.
61 deuteros theos (de Som. 1.229). See the accounts in Schürer 3.881–5; Borgen 1984, 273f.
62 1 En. 48.2f.; cf. 61.8; 69.29.
63 Sanders 1977, 420f.: ‘It has frequently been urged as evidence against the primacy of the covenantal conception in “late Judaism” that the word “covenant” does not often appear … Word studies are not always deceptive, but they can be, and this one is … I would venture to say that it is the fundamental nature of the covenant conception which largely accounts for the relative scarcity of appearances of the term “covenant” in Rabbinic literature’ (emphasis original). He reiterates the point in 1990a, 330; 1992, 263–7. See also Segal 1986, 4; Vermes 1977, 169–88 on the covenantal theme which, despite its verbal infrequency, was central to the outlook of the community at Qumran. Cf. also the brief summary in Dunn 1991, 21–3. On recent developments in the study of earlier Jewish covenant theology see Miller 1985, 222f.; cf. too Longenecker 1991.
65 A similar Deuteronomic summary of the curse of exile and the promise of restoration occurs in Dt. 4:25–40, which was read in the liturgy on one of the main fast-days already observed in the first century: Millgram 1971, 279f.
66 I am indebted to Prof. James M. Scott of Trinity Western University, British Columbia, for letting me see his forthcoming article on ‘Paul’s Use of Deuteronomy’, in which he discusses this ‘Deuteronomic View of Israel’s History’, and its first-century appropriation, in some detail.
67 Cf. 1 Macc. 1:15; 2:20, 49–68 (esp. 50f.); 4:8–11; 2 Macc. 1:2–6; 7:36; 8:14–18.
68 e.g. CD 6.19; see ch. 7 above.
69 e.g. Jub. 14.19f.; 15.1–34, esp. 30–2, 34; 22.15–19, 23.
70 e.g. Wisd. 18:22, symptomatic of the whole book, which stresses the work of divine wisdom precisely in the history of Israel; Sir. 17:17; 24:8–23; 28:7; and the great hymnic recounting of Israel’s history, from its beginnings to the writer’s day, in 44–50.
71 e.g. 4 Ezra 5:21–30 and frequently; T. Mos. 4.5, etc.
72 Sanders 1977, 84–107.
73 Gen. 12:3. The translation of this clause is a matter of dispute; but it is beyond question that the passage speaks of a blessing upon Abraham which involves the nations in some way or other.
74 The list could be continued: e.g. the promises to Isaac and Jacob in 26:3f.; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11f.; 47:27; 48:3f. On this see also Wright 1991a, 21–6.
77 We may observe also the ‘subjugation’ of the land (e.g. Num. 32:22), recalling in some respects at least the subjugation of the world to Adam in Gen. 1:28.
78 Isa. 2:2–5; 42:6; 49:6; 51:4; Mic. 4:1–5, etc.
81 Zech. 14:8–19. Similar imagery is used in Sir. 24:23–34 of Wisdom/Torah/Shekinah (see the equation of these in 24:8–10, 23).
82 Isa. 11:1ff.; 45:8; Jer. 3:16; 23:3; Ezek. 36:11; Zech. 10:8, etc.
83 Proverbs, and some other ‘wisdom’ writings, are of course based upon non-Jewish (e.g. Egyptian) traditions: see Crenshaw 1985, 369–71. My concern here is with how these books would be read by Jews in our period.
84 For the identification of Wisdom and Torah in e.g. Ben-Sirach see the discussions of Nickelsburg 1981, 59–62; Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 336f.; Hayward 1991. The roots of this identification, of course, go back a long way in Jewish tradition.
85 cf. Hayward 1991, 27f., citing (for the last point) Numbers Rabbah 4.8.
86 1QS 4.22f.; CD 3.19f.; IQH 17.14f.; 4QpPs37 3.1f. Translations from Vermes 1987 [1962] ad loc.
87 1QLitPr 2.3–6 (Vermes 1987 [1962], 231)
88 e.g. 1QSa 2.3–10. This may be a result of the community’s regarding itself as the true priesthood. A priest has to be without blemish, and the Essenes, like the Pharisees, were effecting a democratization of the whole priestly system. See further ch. 7 above.
89 See e.g. Jos.Ant. 10.266–8; Vermes 1991; and ch. 10 below.
91 e.g. 2 Macc. 7:9–11. See the full survey in Schürer 2.494–5, 539–47. On Wisd. 3 see ch. 10 below.
93 Isa. 49:6. See too Isa. 2:2–4; 11:9–10; 42:1, 6; Mic. 4:1–4.
94 Ruth passim; 1 Kgs. 10.
95 See above, p. 219f. Cf. also e.g. Tob. 13:11; 14:6; Sib. Or. 3.710–95.
97 Ps. Sol. 17:21–4. Compare Sib. Or. 3.663–97 (though it should be noted that this is closely joined with passages predicting blessing for the Gentiles). A survey of similar material can be found in Schürer 2.526–9. In 1QM 2.10–14 the war is explicitly designed as the conquest of the whole world.
98 See Sanders 1977, 206–12; 1992, 265–70.
99 I stress this point not least because it is, I discover, controversial and sometimes overlooked. My view is that this need not be the case. The literature is so full of it that there should be no argument. From the Bible to the Mishnah and Targumim; from apocalyptic to Wisdom; from Philo to Josephus—the line of thought I have sketched is everywhere both presupposed and repeatedly stated in one form or another.
100 4 Ezra 4:23ff., etc.
101 Isa. 52:8. This is closely bound up with the coming of the reign of Israel’s god (52:7), and with his bringing of salvation (52:10).
102 Ezek. 43:1–2, 4–5, 7. Cp. the ending of the book (48:35): ‘the name of the city from that time on shall be, YHWH is there’.
104 CD 1.3–11 (tr. from Vermes 1987 [1962], 83).
105 Tob. 14:5–7. Fragments of Tobit have been found at Qumran; clearly the hope expressed would be congenial to the sectarians. Cf. Schürer 3.222–32.
106 Bar. 3:6–8. This forms the conclusion of the first, and perhaps the older, section of the book; see Schürer 3.733–8.
108 See further Knibb 1976, referring to Dan. 9; 1 En. 85–90, esp. 90; and other writings; Knibb 1987, 21, on CD 1.7–10, and comparing 1 En. 93:9–10; Goldstein 1987, 70, 74. On the Scrolls cf. Talmon 1987, 116f.: the writers of the Scrolls ‘intended to obliterate it [i.e. the return from exile as normally conceived] entirely from their conception of Israel’s history, and to claim for themselves the distinction of being the first returnees after the destruction’. Other discussions of the same point, for which I am indebted to Prof. James M. Scott, include Scott 1992b; Steck 1967, 1968, 1980; Gowan 1977; Davies 1985; Goldingay 1989, 251; Collins 1990; Knibb 1983. Other primary sources, also quoted by Scott, include mYad. 4.7; Tg. Isa. 6:9–13.
109 cf. e.g. Ezra 9:6–15; Neh. 9:6–38, esp. vv. 8, 17, 26f., 32f.; Dan. 9:3–19, esp. vv. 4, 7, 11, 16, 18; Tob. 3:2; and the whole thrust of Isa. 40–55, not least 54, and the (largely derivative) Bar. 3:9–5:9.
110 As in Dan. 9:16; Neh. 9:8; Joel 2:15–32; Ps. Sol. 9; Bar. 5:9; T. Jud. 22.2; 1 En. 63.3; Jub. 31.20, 25; T. Mos. 4.5; T. Job 4.11; Sib. Or. 3.704.
111 e.g. Isa. 40–55; Dan. 7; Tob. 13–14, etc.
112 Dan. 9:7, 8, 9 (LXX), 14 (the entire passage is significant). Cf. too Lam. 1:18; Ezr. 9:15; Neh. 9:33; and Dt. 27–32, passim; 2 Macc. 7:38; 12:6; Wisd. 5:18 (the whole passage is relevant); 12:9ff.; Sir. 16:22; 18:2; 45:26; Ps. Sol. 2:10–15; 8:7f., 23ff.; 9:2–4; Bar. 1:15; 2:9; 5:2, 4, 9; Song of Three (27) (= 4); Jub. 1.6; 5.11–16; 21.4; T. Job. 37:5; 43:13; cf. Jos.War 3.351–4, and many other passages explaining the catastrophe of AD 70 as the result of Jewish sin.
113 cf. e.g. 2 Macc. 6:12ff.; Wisd. 12:9ff.; 15 passim; Sir. 5:4; T. Mos. 10:7; 2 Bar. 21:19ff., 48:29ff.; 4 Ezra 7:17–25; 9:11; 14:32; T. Abr. 10. Cp. also CD 2.4f. The whole discussion in bSanh. 97 is very relevant; see Strobel 1961, 19–78; Bauckham 1980; 1983, 310–14.
114 For this whole scheme of thought see particularly 2 Bar. (e.g. 44:4; 78:5, and the ‘letter’ of 78–86) and 4 Ezra (e.g. 7:17–25; 8:36; 10:16; 14:32), on which cf. Thompson 1977, 320; Stone 1990, ad loc.; Longenecker 1991.
115 Attempts to prise these two apart in the interests of a particular way of reading Paul (e.g. Käsemann 1969 [1965], 168–82; Stuhlmacher 1966; arguing for a non-covenantal technical sense of the phrase ‘God’s righteousness’ on the basis of passages like 1QS 10.25f., 11.12–15, CD 20.20, and T. Dan 6:10, apparently without realizing that both are emphatically covenantal) have now proved unsuccessful, as we shall see in volume 3. In addition, the more recent editions of the Testaments show that T. Dan 6:10 reads ‘the righteousness of the Law of God’, and is thus not a proper part of the discussion. Käsemann and his followers are clearly correct to associate the divine righteousness with the intention to restore justice to the whole world, but crucially wrong in missing out the covenantal stage and theme.
116 The phrase is that of Sanders 1985, 77ff.; the reality is ubiquitous.
118 Jer. 31:31, 34, 38, 40.
120 See Vermes 1973b [1961]; Daly 1977; Davies and Chilton 1978, Chilton 1980; Segal 1984. The main relevant texts are Jub. 17.15–18.19; Jos.Ant. 1.222–36; Ps-Philo 32.1–4; 40.2–3, etc.; 4 Macc. 13:12, etc. On the rabbinic and targumic passages see Davies and Chilton 533–45.
121 On the sacrifices see Schürer 3.292–308; Safrai 1976b; and particularly Sanders 1992, 103–18, 251–7.
122 See Sanders 1992, 252–6.
123 In Schürer 2.292–308, the only mention of the significance attached to the whole cultus comes in the remark: ‘the Israelites regarded the accurate performance of this liturgy as an essential means of assuring divine mercy for themselves’. Similarly Safrai 1976b, 906.
124 Sanders 1992, 252f. Sanders says that the idea of atonement through the shedding of blood was ‘widespread’ and ‘common’. That is no doubt true, but it still does not explain what connection anyone in the ancient world saw between the one and the other. The old idea of sin being transferred to the sacrificial animal seems not to work either: sacrificial animals had to be pure, and the one time that sins are clearly placed on an animal’s head the animal in question (the second goat on the Day of Atonement) is not sacrificed, but driven off into the wilderness.
125 For current reflections on this topic at various levels, see Gunton 1988, ch. 5; Sykes (ed.) 1991, esp. the essay by Hayward (22–34), arguing that for Ben-Sirach at least the sacrificial cult is ‘to some extent an earthly reflection of that divine order which permeates the universe and on which the creation stands’ (29f.).
126 cf. e.g. Num. 15:30f.; cp. mKer. 1:2; 2:6; 3:2; mShab. 7:1; 11:6; mSanh. 7:8; mHor. 2:1–6.
127 e.g. Sanders 1977, 5ff., etc.; 1990a, 42f.; 1992, 251–78.
128 This is obviously to sharpen up the categories ‘getting in’ and ‘staying in’ made popular by Sanders 1977. In this I follow Harper 1988, who proposes ‘getting back in’ and ‘staying in after nearly being thrown out’ as sharper categories.
129 Isa. 53:10. On the interpretation of Isa. 53 in subsequent Jewish thought, see Schürer 2.547–9.
130 2 Macc. 7:32–3, 37–8; cf. 6:12–16, etc. Some have seen the story of Taxo in T. Mos. 9 as referring to the same incident (see Charlesworth 1983, 920; Schürer 3.282). Whether this is so or not, its present position, immediately followed by the poem in ch. 10 celebrating the vindication of Israel over the nations, shows the same overall collocation of ideas. The idea of an individual calming the wrath of god is associated with Phinehas and Elijah in Sir. 45:23; 48:10.
131 6:27–9: the last phrase reads katharsion auton poieson to emon haima kai antipsychon auton labe ten emen psychen.
132 17:20–2; cf. too 1:11. The ‘ransom’ phrase reads: hosper antipsychon gegonotas tes tou ethnous hamartias, which, with 6:29, gives the only LXX occurrence of antipsychon. The Greek for ‘their death as an atoning sacrifice’ is kai tou hilasteriou tou thanatou auton. 4 Macc. is of considerable interest not so much for attitudes taken in the second century BC, but for beliefs held at the time of its composition, i.e. quite possibly in the mid-first century of the Christian era: see Farmer 1956, passim; Schürer 3.591. (Some would argue for an earlier dating, but the point is that the book was known and popular in the first century.) For the appearance of similar ideas in the Qumran literature, see e.g. 1QpHab 8.1–3, etc.
133 See ch. 8 above, on festivals.
134 In Schürer 2.514. Cf. too Schweitzer 1925 [1901], 265ff.; Allison 1985, esp. 115f.; and the discussion in Rowland 1982, 28, 43, 156–60, esp. 159.
135 Hos. 13:13; cf. also e.g. Isa. 42:13–16.
136 1QM 1.9–12. See also, from Qumran, the fourth of the Hodayoth (1QH 3.6–18), esp. lines 8–10: ‘For the children have come to the throes of Death, and she labours in her pains who bears a Man. For amid the throes of Death she shall bring forth a man-child, and amid the pains of Hell there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvellous Mighty Counsellor; and a man shall be delivered from out of the throes’ (tr. Vermes 1987 [1962], 173f.). Cp. also 1QpHab and 1QM, passim.
137 Jub. 23.22–4.
139 2 Bar. 25:2–4. Cf., in the same vein, 2 Bar. 27:2–13; 48:31–41; 70:2–10; 72; 73; 1 En. 90:13–19; 91:12.
140 In the OT this is also reflected in e.g. Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 4:3; Zeph. 1:3; Dan. 12:1, and arguably some of the ‘servant’ passages in Isa. 40–55. In the NT, cf. e.g. Mk. 13 and parallels; Rom. 8:17–27; 1 Cor. 7:26; Rev. 16:8, etc.; in the rabbinic literature, mSot. 9.15. The idea of portents appearing immediately before the final moment is reflected in e.g. Sib. Or. 3.795–807; Jos.War 6.289, 299. See other texts listed in Schürer and Rowland, locc. cit. I am not sure that the passage in War 6.364 fits with the ‘messianic woes’ theme, as Goodman 1987, 217 suggests.
141 Rajak 1983, 97; the whole discussion is significant.
Chapter Ten:The Hope of Israel
1 I here follow (more or less) Collins 1979, 1987. The latter, together with Rowland 1982, forms a good recent introduction to the whole subject.
2 See Hellholm 1983; Aune 1987, ch. 7.
3 cf. the full definition given by Collins 1987, 4: ‘a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, in so far as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial in so far as it involves another, supernatural world’.
4 Apoc. Abr. 12.3–10.
5 2 Bar. 36:1–37:1.
6 cf. ch. 3 above.
7 Fountain: Zech. 13:1; cf. Jer. 2:13. Vine, cedar: Ps. 80:8–19; Isa. 5:1–7; Ezek. 17:1–24.
8 See Part II, chs. 3, 5 above. I here follow Caird 1980, ch. 14.
9 e.g. Isa. 51:9–11.
10 T. Mos. 10.5: see below. Jeremiah used ‘cosmic’ language about the unmaking of creation to refer to the events of the exile: Jer. 4:23–8 (see below).
11 cf. Apoc. Abr. 19, 20, describing similar visions (as do many such texts) to the chariot-vision in Ezek. 1. On this whole theme see Gruenwald 1980.
12 See now particularly Stone 1990.
13 James Callaghan, on taking office in March 1976.
14 See Caird 1980, ch. 14; Rowland 1982; Koch 1972; Hellholm 1983; Collins 1987; Stone 1984; etc.
15 See Schweitzer 1954 [1910], 1968b [1931].
16 Caird, loc. cit.; see Glasson 1977; Borg 1987. Cf. too Cranfield 1982.
17 I am grateful to Prof. R. D. Williams for pointing this out to me.
18 On all this, see vol. 3 in the present series.
19 ‘Apokalyptic ist bci mir stets als Naherwartung verstanden’ (‘for me, apocalyptic always means imminent-expectation’), in a letter from Ernst Käsemann to the present author, dated 18 January 1983. See Käsemann 1969, chs. 4–5.
20 On the idea of resurrection, and its place within this structure of thought, see section 5 below. A good example of a firmly this-worldly eschatology, though still invested with glorious overtones, can be found in Sib. Or. 3.500–800.
21 John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress. The first quotation is the opening sentence of the book, the second is taken from ‘The author’s apology for his book’ which forms a preface.
22 Amos 7:7–9; Jer. 1:13; Ezek. 17:1–24. The question of whether some of these are ‘natural’, and some ‘supernatural’, visions is beside the point here.
23 This is particularly clear in the case of T. 12 Patr.: see Nickelsburg 1981, 231–41; Schürer 3.767–81; Collins 1984, 342f.
24 Jos.Ant. 10.208, interpreting Dan. 2:36–8. In 4QpNah. 1.6–9 the ‘lion’ clearly stands for an individual, normally taken to be Alexander Jannaeus.
26 1 Sam. 17.
27 ‘… So YHWH opened the eyes of the servant, and he saw; the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.’
29 It is impossible to enter into detailed debate about this complex passage. For recent discussions, with extensive bibliography, see Goldingay 1989, 137–93; Casey 1991.
30 So Hooker 1967, 71ff.
32 The point at which Josephus omits to mention Dan. 7 (Ant. 10.267f.) in his otherwise near-complete account of the book is also the point at which (cf. Moule 1977, 14, 16) he stresses how highly his Jewish contemporaries regarded Daniel as a prophet for their time. The reuse of ideas from Dan. 7 in e.g. 1 En. 37–71; 4 Ezra 11–13; 2 Bar. 39 (on all of which, see below), shows that he was correct in this. This point, amplified in much of the argument to come, tells heavily against the insistence of Casey 1991 on subjecting all question of a reference to Dan. 7 to primarily linguistic tests; what counts even more than linguistic usage is the way the entire chapter, which forms the vital context of the crucial v.13, was read and understood at the time.
33 See Goldingay 1989, 157f.: ch. 7 rounds off a chiasm that began with ch. 2. Professor Moule suggests to me in a letter a cautionary note: it is possible that ‘the Aramaic bits in both books [i.e. Daniel and Ezra] are fortuitous, and probably due to the copyist’s having a defective exemplar, and, faute de mieux, filling in the lacunae from an Aramaic Targum’.
34 See ch. 8 above.
35 Nor is there any necessary idea here of this vindication including the end of the space-time order. The doctrine of resurrection, developing as it was at the same time and under the same pressures, indicates that the present world would continue, with the righteous people of the covenant god now in control under his sole sovereignty, and the righteous dead returning to share in the triumph. See below.
36 See Cohen 1987, 197.
37 See the detailed account of research in Goldingay 1989, 169–72.
38 Collins 1987, 81–3. Cf. Goldingay 1989, 171f.
40 Following e.g. Moule 1977, 13. That this reference at least must include human beings is acknowledged by Collins 1987, 83.
42 Jer. 4:23–8, speaking of the coming destruction of Judah and her Temple, and investing that space-time reality with a theological interpretation: this is like the unmaking of creation itself.
43 This has then been transferred to some readings of early Christian literature: see Mack 1988 for a sustained polemic against the supposed radical dualism of Mark’s gospel.
44 On the different ways in which this hope might be expressed by different groups of Jews, see below, and also ch. 7 above. On the Jewish hope see now Sanders 1992, ch.14, and his summaries on e.g. 298.
45 ha-‘olam hazeh and ha-‘olam haba’. On the two ages see e.g. Schürer 2.495.
46 e.g. in Schürer 2, 488–554, where ‘Messianism’ really means ‘the future hope (which sometimes contains messianic expectation)’.
49 cf. 1 Macc. 14:12, with its echoes of 1 Kgs. 4:25; Mic. 4:4, etc. On ‘salvation’ in Judaism cf. esp. Loewe 1981. At this point many recent interpreters have not, I think, gone far enough in rethinking the Jewish material; even Sanders continues to refer to ‘salvation’ as though it were an easy and univocal term (e.g. 1992, 350, 441).
50 See Sanders 1992, 278: ‘national survival looms much larger than does individual life after death’; cp. also 298.
52 See ch. 9 above.
53 Isa. 54:4–8; cf. Hos., passim.
54 Jer. 31:31ff.; Ezek. 11:19f.; 36:22–32; cf. 39:29; Joel 2:28, and also Isa. 32:15; Zech. 12:10. In the Scrolls, cf. 1QS 1.16–2.25; 1QH 5.11f.; 7.6f.; 9.32; 12.12; 14.13; 16.7, 12; 17.26; 1Q34bis 2.5–7; 4QDibHam 5. Cf. Cross 1958, 164 n.40.
55 Dt. 10:16; 29:6; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 31:33; 32:39, 40; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26–7; 44:7. The charge of ‘spiritual uncircumcision’ makes the same point negatively: cf. Lev. 26:41; Jer. 9:23ff.; Ezek. 44:7; Ex. 6:12, 30 (lips); Jer. 6:10 (ear). This theme, too, reappears in the Scrolls: 1QS 5.5; 1QpHab 11.13 (for the negative side see Leaney 1966, 167) and in early Christian literature (Ac. 7:51; Rom. 2:26–9; Barn. 9, passim; 10.12). See SB 3.126; TDNT 6.76ff. (R. Meyer).
56 Jos.Ant. 18.23, pointing out that the only difference between the ‘Zealots’ and the Pharisees is the degree of passion with which their desire for liberty is held. That the view was held over a long period of time is affirmed in War 7.323. See the discussions in Goodman 1987, 93f.; Hengel 1989 [1961], 71–3, 86f., and esp. 90–110; Sanders 1992, 282f.
57 Jos.Ant. 18.3–5; submitting to the census, they argued, ‘carried with it a status amounting to downright slavery’.
58 Ant. 17.149–63.
59 Ant. 18.24; War 7.323ff.
60 See Sanders 1992, 282; and see again Ant. 18.23: ‘they think little of submitting to death … if only they may avoid calling any man master’. Cf. War 2.433, 443: Menahem, said by Josephus to be the descendant of Judas the Galilean, and to share his doctrine of ‘no King but God’, is himself killed by a group that takes this so literally as not to want Menahem himself as a ruler.
61 See Jos.War 4.151–61 on the Zealot’s appointment of a new high priest; Ant. 13.288–92 on Pharisaic opposition to Hyrcanus’ holding of the high priesthood. On the attitude of the Essenes see e.g. Schürer 2.582 (for texts see e.g. 1QM 2, which lays plans for the installation of a true high priesthood while the holy war is in progress). See now Rofé 1988 for suggestions that this polemic considerably antedates the second century.
63 Goodman 1987, 108.
64 As Goodman 1987 argues in the case of the puppet Jewish aristocracy.
65 There is clear evidence of the religious devotion of the revolutionaries on e.g. Masada: see chs. 6–7 above.
66 Ps. 145:10–13; cf. Pss. 93, 96, 97, etc.
68 Isa. 52:7. The whole passage is instructive, seeing the end of exile, the return of YHWH to Zion, as the answer to the oppression of Israel and the inauguration of the universal reign of Israel’s god. The setting of this passage immediately before the fourth servant song (52:13–53:12) provides further food for thought. Cp. Zeph. 3:14–20, with the kingship motif in v.15.
70 Loeb edn., 6.275; cf. Sanders 1992, 289, who says, in dramatic if imprecise confirmation of our present point, that ‘even the present-day reader of Daniel can see that the stone that breaks all other kingdoms is the Kingdom of God, Israel’ (my italics).
71 For Josephus’ view of Daniel as a prophet of great significance see above, p. 266, and esp. Ant. 10.266–8; for his application of Dan. 8:21 to Alexander the Great, Ant. 11.337; of 11.31 and 7.25 to the Maccabaean period, 12.322; of Dan. 11–12 to the rise of Rome and the fall of Jerusalem, 10.276–7. Instead of exploring these last any further, Josephus turns aside instead to a general comment about the folly of the Epicureans in denying the doctrine of providence.
72 Tac. Hist. 5.13; Suet. Vesp. 4. Josephus claims that he himself prophesied to Vespasian that he would become emperor: War 3.399–408. See further below, pp. 312f.
73 T. Mos. 10.1–10, in the translation by J. Priest, in Charlesworth 1983, 931f. On the date and provenance of the book see ibid., 920–2.
74 ‘Then will be filled the hands’ in the second stanza of the poem uses a technical term from priestly ordination: see Priest ad loc.
75 1QM 6.4–6 (tr. Vermes 1987 [1962], 111).
76 cf. too 1QM 12.7 in its context.
78 As is suggested by e.g. Beasley-Murray 1986.
79 On messianic expectations see particularly Neusner ed. 1987; Horsley and Hanson 1985, ch. 3; Sanders 1992, 295–8; Schürer 2.488–554, not least the bibliography on 488–92.
80 On Messianism in the later period see Landman 1979. Despite its title, this book contains valuable older scholarship on the early period as well.
81 Harvey 1982, 77, referring also to Scholem 1971.
82 See Horsley and Hanson 1985, 120ff. on Simon bar Giora.
83 It is going too far to say (Horsley and Hanson 1985, 114) that Josephus ‘studiously avoids such terms as “branch” or “son of David” and “messiah” ’. It is true that he passes rapidly over two key biblical passages, Dan. 2:44f. and Dan. 7 (Ant. 10.210, and probably War 6.312f.: see above). But none of these technical terms occurs in either of the biblical passages in question.
84 Ant. 15.380–7, esp. 385.
85 See chs. 6–7 above. Another saying attributed to Akiba, interpreting Daniel 7:9 to refer to two thrones, one for the Ancient of Days and one for David, i.e. the Messiah, may be significant here; see Horbury 1985, 36–8, 45f., discussing bHag. 14a; bSanh. 38b.
87 So Sanders 1992, 526 n.17.
88 e.g. 2 Sam. 7:4–29; cf. 1 Kgs. 3:6; 8:23–6, etc.
89 e.g. Pss. 2, 89, etc.
90 4Q174 (= 4QFlor) 1.10–13, 18f. (tr. Vermes 1987 [1962], 294). The biblical quotations are from 2 Sam. 7:11, 12, 13 and 14; Amos 9:11; Ps. 2:1. For the date see Vermes 1987 [1962], 293. On this text see above all Brooke 1985.
91 1QSa 2.11–21, etc. On the ‘two Messiahs’ in Qumran see Vermes 1977, 184ff., and esp. Talmon 1987; the idea presumably goes back to such passages as Zech. 6:11; Jer. 33:14–18.
92 1QSb 5.23–9 (tr. Vermes 1987 [1962], 237). Horsley and Hanson (1985, 130) make an extraordinary claim about this passage: because the future king will destroy the nations with ‘the word of his mouth’, the passage has an ‘unreal, transcendent’ tone, and we should think of the warfare as taking place on an idealized, ethereal level rather than in serious military engagement. The rest of the passage gives the lie to this theory, whose real origin is in the authors’ embarrassment at the existence of messianic expectations among classes other than their heroes, the peasants. I do not find ‘the might of his hand’, the ‘hooves of iron and bronze’, and the image of a young bull tossing and trampling, to be either unreal, transcendent or ethereal, and in any case ‘the word of his mouth’ and ‘the breath of his lips’ are of course quotations from Isa. 11:4, the main source of imagery for the entire passage. Horsley and Hanson’s summary of Qumran’s Messiahs as ‘genteel, spiritual figures’ is (not least in view of the realism of 1QM 1.9ff. and similar passages) a remarkable triumph of ideology over historiography.
93 Ps. Sol. 17:21–32 (tr. R.B. Wright in Charlesworth 1985, 667). The rest of the psalm continues to describe the coming warrior king, as does Ps. Sol. 18:5–9. Once again, Horsley and Hanson attempt (1985, 105f., 119, 130f.) to suggest that this passage concerns not a military leader but a ‘teacher-king’ (106), and that this Messianism therefore has nothing to do with serious peasant-based expectations. Their frequent reference to ‘the word of his mouth’ needs to be set in the context of the smashed potter’s jar and the iron rod.
94 See Schürer 3.194f.; Nickelsburg 1981, 203; and the note of caution sounded by Charlesworth 1985, 642.
95 War 6.312–15. Thackeray, citing the similar remarks in Tac. Hist. 5.13 and Suet. Vesp. 4, says it is unlikely that Tacitus had read Josephus, and postulates a common source. I doubt if Josephus needed to get this information from a source: he of all people might be expected to know what ‘the wise’ were saying in Jerusalem in the mid-60s. And I think it quite likely that Tacitus had read Josephus, not least because of such passages as War 6.299f. and Tac. Hist. 5.13; so Rajak 1983, 193.
96 Gk. kata ton kairon ekeinon, which has a quite specific and not merely general force.
97 See the very full discussion in Beckwith 1981. Beckwith argues (532) against the rival candidate, Num. 24:17–19 (supported e.g. by the important discussion in Hengel 1989 [1961], 237–40) on the reasonable grounds that Numbers does not offer a chronological scheme, which is what Josephus specifically says Daniel does (Ant. 10.267). It should be noted that my present argument is not in favour of Dan. 7 itself as the primary reference, which is what Hengel rightly rejects, but of Dan. 9 and 2, with ch. 7 implied by association: see below. Rajak 1983, 192 says it is fruitless to speculate about which passage Josephus had in mind. This would be so only if there were no obvious candidates.
98 Gk. tis arxei tes oikoumenes.
99 It should be noted that, according to 2:40–3, the feet of the statue, made of a mixture of iron and clay, does not denote a fifth kingdom but a division within the fourth one. Certainly this was how Josephus understood it (Ant. 10.206–9).
100 Dan. 2:34f., 44.
101 Gk. tis arxei tou kosmou, closely echoing the War passage.
102 e.g. Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22f.; and the citations in Mt. 21:42f. and pars.; Ac. 4:11; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6.
103 Ant. 10.186–281 covers most of the book, with the omission of ch. 7 occurring after 10.263. 10.276, suggesting that Daniel also prophesied the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, is an addition to the other MSS, based on a reading in Chrysostom.
104 On the whole area see Charlesworth 1979.
105 The exception being 7:28f.: ‘for my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath …’, after which will come the resurrection and the judgment. On the Messianism of 4 Ezra see Stone 1987; 1990, 207–13, and other literature there.
107 4 Ezra 12:10–35 (tr. B. M. Metzger in Charlesworth 1983, 549f.). On the ‘end’ of the messianic kingdom (12:34) see 7:29; 1 Cor. 15:24–8.
108 On the strength of Gen. 49:9, picked up in Rev. 5:5, etc. See Stone 1990, 209, citing also 1QSb 5.29 (see above) and other passages.
109 Stone 1987, 211f., notes that the idea of legal judgment is imported, not from Daniel, into the sequence of thought. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Danielic scene, too, is forensic at least in outline; and that Stone goes too far in suggesting (1987, 219f.) that the messianic rule in 4 Ezra is ‘judgmental rather than military’ (my italics).
110 Stone 1987, 212.
111 A recent example: Hare 1990, 9–21; as the index shows, Hare concentrates on 4 Ezra 13, with only a couple of passing mentions of ch. 12, never pointing out its strongly and explicitly Danielic content.
112 This is confusing, since in Daniel, and in 4 Ezra 11, the sea is the origin of the evil beasts. An explanation is offered in 13:51f.; just as no one knows what is in the sea, so no one can see the Son except when he is revealed.
113 4 Ezra 13:8–13 (Metzger 551f.).
114 4 Ezra 13:32–7 (Metzger 552).
115 2 Bar. 40.3 (tr. A. F. J. Klijn in Charlesworth 1983, 633). The interpretation of the forest-vision in terms of the Danielic four kingdoms is in 39.2–8.
116 On the vexed question of the date of the Similitudes, see the discussion in Schürer 3.256–9, and the summary by Isaac in Charlesworth 1983, 7. The majority of scholars now favour a non-Christian origin and a date some time in the first century AD.
118 This is the point made by Moule (1977, 14–17, and elsewhere), suggesting that the anarthrous form ‘a son of man’ in Dan. 7 has become ‘that son of man’ in 1 En.: i.e. ‘the “son of man” of whom you know from Daniel’. I think the dependence of 1 En. on Dan. here is clear from the wider context; the philological point may give it further support (though cf. Casey 1991, 40f.).
119 So Nickelsburg 1981, 219.
120 Substantially the same picture is presented in summary form in 69.27–9. As is well known, the conclusion of the Similitudes offers an unexpected twist: Enoch himself is the son of man (71.14). (The translation of Isaac in Charlesworth 1983, here as elsewhere, needs checking in the light of Sparks 1984, here at 256.)
121 For this reason I find the argument of Nickelsburg 1981, 222 unconvincing (just as he oversystematizes when he suggests a crucial difference between Daniel, where the judgment comes before the exaltation of the son of man, and 1 En. and the gospels, where it comes afterwards). This is a very flat and unliterary way to read a text like Daniel 7.
122 A totally different genre, that of tragedy, also bears witness to a similar pattern of thought: see Horbury 1985, 42f., discussing Ezekiel the Tragedian 68–89 (now to be found in Charlesworth 1985, 811f.).
123 This picture is drawn on in many passages not so far mentioned, e.g. Apoc. Abr. 31.1–8.
124 Horbury 1985, 52f.
126 See the discussion and bibliography in Schürer 2.547–9.
127 See the discussion in Vermes 1987 [1962], 55f.
128 Schürer 2.539.
129 Out of the vast bibliography on the subject, we may note particularly Nickelsburg 1972; Perkins 1984; and the survey in Schürer 2.539–47.
130 Dan. 12:1b–3 (italics of course added); see Nickelsburg 1972, 11–31.
131 Nickelsburg 1972, 24f. argues that this verse contains several signs of derivation from Isaiah 52–3.
132 See, rightly, Nickelsburg 1972, 23; taking the opposite view, C. H. Cave in Schürer 2.546f.
133 2 Macc. 7:9, 14, 21–3, 29, 33, 36–8. See also 12:43–5; 14:45f.: a certain Razis, escaping torture by falling on his sword, then ran through the crowd, and ‘with his blood now completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them in both hands and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again’. On ch. 7 see Nickelsburg 1972, 93–111, and esp. Kellerman 1979.
134 cp. 13:16f.; 15:2f.; 16:18f. (arguing that since God is the creator, one ought to be prepared to suffer for him, unlike 2 Macc. 7:23, 28, which assert that because God is the creator he will give new life the other side of death); 16:23; 17:5, 18. See Nickelsburg 1972, 110; Schürer 2.542 n.99.
135 A similar process is evident in Tacitus’ account of Jewish belief in Hist. 5.5. See Hengel 1989 [1961], 270, showing also that Tacitus connects this Jewish belief with the idea of martyrdom. At the same time, one should note the phrase ‘live to God’ in 4 Macc. 7:19, which hints at the resurrection of the patriarchs; cp. Lk. 20:38; Rom. 6:10; 14:8f.; Gal. 2:19, where resurrection (in some sense) seems to be in view. I owe this point to S. A. Cummins.
136 War 3.374.
137 Apion 2.218.
138 War 2.163, 165. It is misleading, in the light of the passage from War 3 noted above, to describe this Pharisaic view as ‘the reincarnation of the soul’ (Thackeray in the Loeb edn., ad loc.). See Feldman’s critique of Thackeray’s view in the Loeb vol. 9 (Ant. 18–20), 13.
139 See the discussion in Schürer 2.543 n.103 and the previous note above.
140 Ant. 18.14, 16. Feldman points out in his note, ad loc., that the word he translates ‘to a new life’ is anabioun, cognate with anabiosis in 2 Macc. 7:9, where bodily resurrection is clearly meant.
141 War 2.154–8, at 155; there is a summary statement of the same position in Ant. 18.18. This Essene doctrine seems clearly stated in Jub. 23.31.
142 Some have held that e.g. 1QH 6.34 refers to resurrection; most, however, read the passage as metaphorical. See Vermes 1987 [1962], 55f. I am inclined to agree with Vermes that at least some Essenes embraced the doctrine of resurrection, not least when members of the sect died without their hope having been fulfilled.
143 War 7.343–8.
144 Soph. Trach. 235, alluded to in the last sentence; see Thackeray’s note in the Loeb ed. of Josephus, ad loc.
145 War 7.349f. Cp. Lane Fox 1986, 149–67, including a passage from the fourth-century philosopher and alchemist Synesius (PG 66.1317, quoted by Lane Fox, 149f.) which is very close to Eleazar’s speech at this point. Clearly the idea was widespread in both time and space.
146 War 1.650, repeated substantially by the culprits themselves in 1.653.
147 Ant. 17.152f.
148 Ps. Sol. 3:11f. (14f.) (tr. S. P. Brock in Sparks 1984, 659). On resurrection in Ps. Sol. see Nickelsburg 1972, 131–4.
149 R. B. Wright, in Charlesworth 1985, 655. See also Sanders 1977, 388.
150 Mt. 22:23, 34 and pars.; Ac. 23:6–9, cf. 4:1f.; mAb. 4.22; mSanh. 10.1 (on which see Urbach 1987 [1975, 1979], 652, and the notes (991f.) on mBer. 5.2; mSot. 9.15). The second of the Eighteen Benedictions praises the creator for making the dead alive.
154 Sanders 1985, 237; more cautiously, 1992, 303.
155 These two groups would, of course, be likely to overlap quite heavily; i.e. political and philosophical assimilation would go together, both causing the assimilators to tone down the mainline Jewish expectation.
156 Sometimes misleadingly called the Apocalypse of Moses: see Schürer 3.757.
157 Adam and Eve 41.3; 43.2f.; 51.2.
158 1 En. 51.1–5; cf. 90.33; 91.10. On the personal eschatology of 1 En. see Schürer 2.541f.
159 4 Ezra 7:32; cf. 7:97; 2 Bar. 30:1; 50:1–4. 4 Ezra also speaks of the period of waiting between death and resurrection, which is clear evidence of a hope other than simply the immortality of the soul: 4:35; 7:95, 101; cp. 2 Bar. 30:2.
160 T. Jud. 25.1–5 (the quote is from 4–5). Cp. T. Benj. 10.2–9.
161 See Nickelsburg 1972, passim.
162 Wisd. 3:1–4; cf. 4:7; 5:15f.; 6:17–20. In the last passage there is a sequence: desire for instruction leads to love of wisdom, thence to keeping of her laws, and thence to ‘assurance of immortality’, which in turn ‘brings one near to God’: ‘so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom’. Cf. too Tob. 3:6, 10.
163 Wisd. 3:6–8; 4:16f.; 4:20–5:2; 5:15f.
164 Wisd. 5:1 used the verb stesetai, cognate with anastasis, ‘resurrection’; cf. too the LXX of 2 Sam. 7:12, kai anasteso to sperma sou meta se, ‘and I will raise up your seed after you …’
166 Philo, Heir 276.
167 Philo, Migr. 16.
168 T. Abr. [recension A] 20.14 (tr. E. P. Sanders in Charlesworth 1983, 895). Sanders points out, in his note ad loc., the illogicality of Isaac and Jacob preceding Abraham into Paradise, and of Abraham’s bosom somehow being there in advance as well. On Paradise as originally a temporary staging-post in a longer journey, which gradually became identified in later Jewish works with the goal of the journey itself, see Schürer 2.541f.
170 Sanders 1992, 303, sets the Jewish belief in an afterlife side by side with the belief in a new world order, but makes no attempt to trace the connection between them. C. H. Cave, in Schürer 2.546f., provides a classic example of holding apart things that should be kept together.
171 We may compare again the graphic scene in Wisd. 3–5.
172 Sanders 1992, 298, 303; cp. 456f.
173 The closest he comes, I think, is at 1992, 368, where he says that the dramatic change in the future, to which the Qumran sect looked forward, should not be called ‘the eschaton’, ‘the last [event]’, as modern scholars often do call it, ‘since like other Jews the Essenes did not think that the world would end’.
174 Sanders 1985 uses phrases like ‘the present world order’ in a somewhat different sense, keeping the option open of a less spatio-temporal future hope. He seems now (1992) to have come down more firmly on the line that I have taken.
175 It is only fair to say that I think Collins would still disagree with several of the details of this Part of the present book.
176 See Sanders 1977, 1983, and now 1992, 262–78. I shall discuss the criticisms elsewhere.
177 mSanh. 10.1. The fact that Akiba is then quoted as making an addition to the list (to include a ban on those who read the heretical books, or who attempt magical cures) indicates that the basic saying is earlier, at the latest in the second half of the first century AD.
178 cf. Harper 1988.
179 2 Macc. 7, etc.
180 1QpHab 8.1–3, interpreting a text (Hab. 2:4) well known to readers of the NT (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11).
181 War 1.648–50.
182 cf. War 2.433–48.
183 mSanh. 10.1.
184 1QS 11.2–3, 5, 11–12.
186 On election in the Scrolls see e.g. Vermes 1987 [1962], 41–6.
Chapter Eleven:The Quest for the Kerygmatic Church
1 On the problems of writing the history of early Christianity see e.g. Hengel 1979, ch. 1. Eusebius incorporates some writing from earlier sources, notably Hegesippus (middle to late second century; cf. Quasten 1950, 284–7).
2 The pioneer of this line was F. C. Baur in the mid-nineteenth century. See Baur 1878–9 [1860], and the discussions in Kümmel 1972, ch. 4; Neill and Wright 1988, 20–31.
4 Good examples are Käsemann 1969 [1965], chs. 4–5; Conzelmann 1973, 15, 18, etc.
5 cf. ch. 14 below.
6 See below, pp. 435ff. This thesis, which reflects the position of Bultmann (e.g. 1956), is advanced today by e.g. Koester 1982b, 1990; Mack 1988; Crossan 1991. The hermeneutic design of this stance is clear from the rare moments when Koester lets slip his normally impassive mask: his real heroes, it seems, are Valentinus, Marcion and, in some ways, Ignatius (1982b, 233, 328–34, 279–87).
7 Baur 1878–9 [1860]; Harnack 1957 [1900]; Schweitzer 1925 [1901], 1968a; Bultmann 1956; Käsemann 1964, 1969; Conzelmann 1973; Koester 1982b (the last work, significantly, is dedicated to the memory of Bultmann).
8 For the latter point, see e.g. Rom. 6:17, which Bultmann (1967, 283) deleted as a later gloss, having his eye on simplicity rather than doing justice to the data.
9 Another writer who stood out against the Baur scheme was J. Munck, notably in his book on Paul (1959 [1954]).
11 See Schlatter 1955 [1926]; Davies 1980 [1948], 1964; Jeremias 1971; Hengel 1976, 1979, 1983; Rowland 1985; Meyer 1986.
12 See recently Dunn 1991.
13 Meeks 1983; Theissen 1978, 1982, 1991; Malherbe 1983 [1977]; Hengel 1979, 1983; Meyer 1986; Hill 1992.
14 For the former, see Robinson 1976, and cp. Wenham 1991; for the latter, Koester 1982b; Crossan 1991, esp. 427–34.
15 See ch. 4 above; and cp. Meyer 1986, 23–35.
16 See e.g. Dunn 1977, chs. 11–14.
18 Farrer 1964, 37 (quoted in Robinson 1976, 343).
19 cf. e.g. Bruce 1969, 188.
20 Mart. Pol. 9.1–3.
21 Schoedel 1989, 467, following Lightfoot and others. Koester 1982b, 281, 306 prefers a date after 161 on the grounds that Eusebius places the event in 167, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–80). On Polycarp see now Tugwell 1989, ch. 7.
22 See ch. 6 above. Justin discusses this charge in detail in 1 Apol. 5f. Cf. too Tertullian Apol. 10–17; Lucian Alexander 25 (a reference I owe to Moule 1982 [1962], 45).
23 The word is tyche, which most likely stands for the Latin fortuna, i.e. ‘good luck’, as a personified deity. Christian refusal at this point is defended by Tertullian ad Nationes 1.17.
24 Mart. Pol. 12.2; 13.1.
FN.348.25 Mart. Pol. 8.2.
FN.348.26 See Pliny Letters 6.16.
27 The following quotations are from Pliny Letters 10.96 (tr. Radice).
28 Pliny Letters 10.97. Trajan affirms the practice Pliny has adopted, but warns against allowing anonymous pamphlets to be used in evidence against people. These, he says, ‘are quite out of keeping with the spirit of our age’. It is interesting to observe this ‘enlightened’ attitude of Trajan, probably contrasting his reign with that of the gloomy and ill-liked Domitian; the new ‘spirit of the age’ still permitted capital punishment for Christians, but not the socially degrading practice of informing against them. The irony of this is fully exploited by Tertullian Apol. 2.6–9.
30 The word is rare: hetaeria.
31 Pliny, loc. cit.; Jos.Ant. 18.23.
32 The letters may be found in the LCL edn. of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Lake (1965), and in the Penguin Classics edn., ed. Louth (1968). See the recent discussions in Bammel 1982; Koester 1982b, 279–87; Tugwell 1989, ch. 6; Hall 1991, 33f.
33 Ign. Rom. 2. See the discussion in Tugwell 1989, 121, 128.
34 Ign. Philad. 6.1; Mag. 10.3; Smym. 1–4; Trall. 9–10.
35 See the discussion on Ignatius’ advocacy of the silence of bishops (e.g. Ign. Eph. 6.1) in Tugwell 1989, 118f., and other refs. there.
36 Euseb.HE 3.19–20. See the full discussion, with reference to other relevant texts, in Bauckham 1990, 94–106.
37 The Greek for ‘at the end of the age’ is epi sunteleia tou aionos, clearly reflecting Mt. 28:20. On the distinction between the kingdom looked for by Christians and ordinary worldly kingdoms, see e.g. Jn. 18:36; Justin 1 Apol. 11. The distinction does not seem to me to imply that the kingdom of Christ is itself to be non-physical, only that it is not a direct competitor, on all fours with the present worldly kingdoms.
38 cf. Bauckham 1990, 99–106.
39 The date of Barn. cannot be established more precisely than that it must be after 70 (because it refers to the fall of Jerusalem) and considerably before 200 AD (because Clement of Alexandria, writing then, regarded it as the authentic work of the Barnabas who was Paul’s companion). For the flight to Pella, cf. Euseb.HE 3.5.3. The specific mention of a place shows that this cannot be simply a ‘deduction’ from (e.g.) Mk. 13:14–20; and in any case fleeing from Jerusalem across the Jordan is hardly ‘fleeing to the mountains’. This non-derivation from Mark does not, of course, prove the historicity of the account, but it demonstrates at least a later Christian awareness that the events of 66–70 left their mark on the Christian, and not just the Jewish, community of Judaea. See further Moule 1982 [1962], 172–6.
40 Tac. Ann. 15.44. This seems to be the basis for Suetonius’ remark in his Nero 16.2.
41 cf. Moule 1982 [1962], 153f.
42 Ant. 20.200–3. On this cf. Schürer 1.430–2.
43 Euseb.HE 2.23.1–25 (cf. HE 3.5.2, and Origen Contra Celsum 1.47; Comm. Matt. 10:17); the Hegesippus passage is in HE 2.23.4–18, and includes the well-known description of James’ deep piety, with his knees growing hard like a camel’s because of his constant praying for his people. Hegesippus, followed by Eusebius, makes this incident the reason, under divine providence, for the start of hostilities by Vespasian against Jerusalem; Eusebius quotes a passage from Josephus, not now extant in any of Josephus’ works, to similar effect.
44 Ant. 18.63–4. I suspect that more of the latter passage is original to Josephus than is sometimes allowed. In particular the crucial sentence, houtos en ho Christos, normally rendered ‘he was the Christ’, and therefore regarded as clear evidence of Christian interpolation, should be translated the other way round. The definite article (ho) indicates the subject, not the complement: ‘ “The Christ” [of whom Josephus’ readers will, he presumes, have heard] was this man.’ See further Schürer 1.428–41. (Professor Moule raises a query with me at this point: does the rule about subject and complement still hold if the noun in question is a title or proper name? I suspect it does; cf. Jn. 20:31, with Carson 1987.)
45 See Barrett 1987 [1956], 51f.; for a dissenting voice, cf. Slingerland 1991. This dating of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome agrees with the fifth-century historian Orosius (Hist. 7.6.15f.) against Dio Cass. 60.6.6f. (the incidents may be different: Dio states explicitly that Claudius did not expel the Jews, he merely banned public meetings; for Dio, it was Tiberius who expelled the Jews, cf. 57.18.5a). Cf. Hengel 1983, 49, 167; Hemer 1989, 167f.
46 Ac. 18:12–17. On Paul in Ephesus, facing a riot (which Luke is unlikely to have invented) for undermining local paganism, cf. Ac. 19:23–40.
47 cf. Hengel 1983, 49 (‘at this point we are still treading on firm ground’). For various positions on Pauline chronology see e.g. Jewett 1979; Lüdemann 1980; Hemer 1989, chs. 6–7.
48 The close similarity allows Justin (1 Apol. 4) to make a pun between ‘Christian’ and ‘Chrestian’ (= ‘excellent’).
49 It is quite possibly alluded to, or at least presupposed, in Rom. as well: see several articles in Donfried 1991 [1977], and Wright 1992a.
50 Euseb.HE 3.17–18.
51 Dio’s description (67.13f.) of the execution of the ex-consuls Glabrio and Flavius Clemens, and the banishment of Flavia Domitilla, is seen by Eusebius ‘as testimony to Christ’ (HE 3.18), presumably on the grounds that Dio gives the charge as ‘atheism’, which could mean either Jewish or Christian practices or beliefs. The account in Suetonius (Domitian 15) does not mention such a charge, and Graves ad loc. (in the Penguin Classics translation) suggests that they were converts not to Christianity, but to Judaism. In any case, Domitian, like other emperors, executed and banished people for all sorts of reasons, no doubt sometimes on vague and trumped-up charges. Even if all three (Glabrio, Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla) were Christians, this does not suggest a major persecution, but rather the opposite: they are mentioned as special cases. On the whole subject see, with further bibliography, Robinson 1976, 231–3.
52 See above. On the symbolic significance of Jerusalem for the earliest church, see Meyer 1986, ch. 4.
53 Koester 1982b, 207–33.
54 A danger not entirely escaped by Brown and Meier 1983; cf. Balch 1991. Cp. Malherbe 1983 [1977], 13: it is possible ‘that some documents were rescued from obscurity, not because they represented the viewpoints of communities, but precisely because they challenged them’. On the wider social context of early Christianity see now the helpful short work of Stambaugh and Balch 1986.
55 A particularly striking example of this is Koester’s support (1982b, 297–308) for the idea that the pastoral epistles were written by Polycarp in the middle of the second century. The fact that we happen to know about Polycarp does not mean that he was the best-known leader of the church at that time, nor that he was therefore the likely author of these letters; nor do the letters presuppose a long period of peace; nor does the fact that we know very little about the church in 120–60 mean that it enjoyed such peace (all against Koester 305). Putting Pliny and Polycarp together suggests that a policy of repression and persecution began to set in early in the century and continued at least sporadically.